[Midtown Urbanist]

I'm not sure if people in Richmond hill would be happy if they lost their GO line. Although a second subway drl would offer higher frequency, access to more areas and cheaper transit fares it would not be luxurious. Some markets simply would prefer to pay more for comfort and Richmond hill of all areas would fit this description.

Richmond Hill riders will be getting seats on the subway - they shouldn't complain. Even with this plan, I doubt the DRL would be reaching Yonge-level capacity issues.

In any case, RH-GO ridership is 10,000 a day. This is very very small.

So if 77% of YNSE's riders are headed downtown, and at RHC there's an alternative providing a significantly faster trip on an integrated service (30min vs 50min), GO's 15% mode share allocation will rise substantially. Or rather, YNSE's ridership will drop substantially. By how much? It's hard to tell, and the 2013 BCA which presented different scenarios failed to do a side-by-side comparison of any GO improvements alongside a Line 1 extension to RHC. Sure a subway to RHC is a nice-to-have, but it doesn't seem necessary. And just like we're scrutinizing the DRL and SSE to look for affordable alternatives and find ways to lower ridership, I think the public deserves to see the same for YNSE.

So in the context of the RH-DRL proposal, we should be looking at the 77% of YNSE riders heading downtown number, rather than the 16% heading to Union station number.

You encouraged me to look up the 2013 BCA. It says that travel times for the YNSE is expected to be ~35km/h and 12 minutes in travel time.

So in summary:

Yonge Line (RH to Queen): 42 minutes of travel time
DRL (RH to Queen): 36 minutes of travel time
RH-GO (Langstaff GO to Union Station): 42 minutes of travel time (according to Google) *

* - RH-GO operates at 30 minute frequencies, 11 trips total a day.

 

[Cobra]

Richmond Hill riders will be getting seats on the subway - they shouldn't complain. Even with this plan, I doubt the DRL would be reaching Yonge-level capacity issues.

In any case, RH-GO ridership is 10,000 a day. This is very very small.


So in the context of the RH-DRL proposal, we should be looking at the 77% of YNSE riders heading downtown number, rather than the 16% heading to Union station number.

You encouraged me to look up the 2013 BCA. It says that travel times for the YNSE is expected to be ~35km/h and 12 minutes in travel time.

So in summary:

Yonge Line (RH to Queen): 42 minutes of travel time
DRL (RH to Queen): 36 minutes of travel time
RH-GO (Langstaff GO to Union Station): 42 minutes of travel time (according to Google) *

* - RH-GO operates at 30 minute frequencies, 11 trips total a day.

Excellent analysis, and I'm sure with the stations being further apart than Yonge, the trains could be operated even faster which could potentially decrease the travel time further.

 

[Midtown Urbanist]

Excellent analysis, and I'm sure with the stations being further apart than Yonge, the trains could be operated even faster which could potentially decrease the travel time further.

Yes, I just assumed that 45km/h that Metrolinx thinks the DRL could operate one would continue north of Sheppard.

But the stop-spacing between Sheppard and RH-GO on the DRL is even wider than Sheppard-Queen. It could be possible that a subway could reach even higher operating speeds.

 

[W. K. Lis]

According to this link,

YRT/Viva's Ride to GO program offers you convenient and affordable travel to and from GO Train stations in York Region. For just 75 cents, avoid the hassles of driving and parking at a GO Train station and rely on transit.

Ride to GO is available on any YRT/Viva and contracted TTC routes in York Region travelling to/from a GO Train station. You must have a PRESTO Card or valid prepaid GO fare media to use this fare integration.

How to GO:

PRESTO

Ride to GO with your PRESTO card and the appropriate fares will be automatically calculated and deducted.

• When connecting from YRT/Viva to GO Transit, a full YRT/Viva fare will be deducted from your PRESTO card. When you tap on/off GO Transit, your GO fare will be reduced accordingly.
• When connecting from GO Transit to YRT/Viva, a full GO fare plus YRT/Viva Ride to GO fare will be deducted from your PRESTO card.
• When connecting to/from a GO Train station using a contracted TTC route operating in York Region, show your PRESTO card to the driver and deposit your Ride to GO cash fare (75 cents exact change).
• When transferring from GO Transit to YRT/Viva to a contracted TTC route operating in York Region, use your PRESTO card on GO and YRT/Viva. Upon boarding YRT/Viva, request a special transfer from the driver to be used when boarding the TTC bus.

Cash (exact change)

• You can pay by cash if boarding a contracted TTC in York Region vehicle travelling to/from your GO Train station. Just drop the exact change (75 cents) into the fare box when you board and show your PRESTO card or valid prepaid GO fare media to the driver.

Here are a few more things to keep in mind:

• GO Transit group passes and employee passes cannot be used with Ride to GO
• YRT and contracted TTC vehicles at GO Train stations will only accept your GO Transit single-ride or day pass if you are leaving the GO Train station. The ticket must show the current date/time cancellation from your connecting GO Train or Bus.

No discounts between YRT and TTC. It's full fare for both.

 

[TJ O'Pootertoot]

The other point about how without a subway York Region can't attain the projected development, or the usual argument about how a subway is the only way to carry the projected demand... that's not really true.

I'm just hoping at at his point, since I've repeatedly and explicitly shown how development capacity was reverse-engineered from subway capacity that everyone understands 44North is wrong every time he says this, no matter how many times he says it. It was unique in how it was done, it still is, it always will be - unless you throw in another mode and force them to redo all the work. I think he knows it too at this point, but he enjoys saying the opposite because it rolls off the tongue so nicely.

Sure a subway to RHC is a nice-to-have, but it doesn't seem necessary. And just like we're scrutinizing the DRL and SSE to look for affordable alternatives and find ways to lower ridership, I think the public deserves to see the same for YNSE.

I'll be happy the day the extension opens but the first thing I will do is offer you, my friend, a toast.
It doesn't seem necessary to you but it does to York Region and the province Metrolinx and Markham and Vaughan and Richmond Hill and the developers who own land in the area and even, in their reluctant way, the City of Toronto and TTC.

No, no, no...Why are you hating on reports??? They all say that Yonge can't take it.
No, no, no...Why are you hating on reports??? They all say that Yonge can't take it.

I admire your passion for protecting the integrity of Yonge Street.
Let's get some pals together and ask the city to tear down the Minto Towers at Yonge/Eg and 1 Bloor. Even those cool green towers at Yonge/Sheppard - boom!

Let's just ask the city councils in Toronto and York Region to halt development in the corridor while they manage the important business of reversing the planning for the Scarborough line 5 times.
All that development in North York Centre? Undesirable.
The condo towers going up too the north? someone should tell them Yonge can't take it!

It's not a zero sum game. People will keep coming whether you build the infrastructure or not. Either way, you'll be facing consequences.

Are you telling me that suburban York residents are that lazy??? If they must go to a destination on Yonge street...The Sheppard Subway, The Crosstown and The Bloor-Danforth line transfer is not good enough for them? Stop talking for all of them. A DRL line goes to Richmond Hill and they will all use it and transfer regardless of what you say. It gets them downtown faster as the trains can operate faster

Lemme get this straight...someone who lives near, say, Bathurst and 16th, should - instead of going straight down Yonge Street, take GO or a mythical DRL extension to some place you've imagined out east on Sheppard or the Crosstown or Line 2 and then come back to Yonge?

Given your definition of "lazy" I'm going out on a limb and guessing you don't work for Google Maps. Those nutty people tend to favour direct routes but I guess when you're designing transit that's um, lazy. We should totally build what's cheap and looks good and photoshop and make people work with that, instead of building direct routes connecting employment and residential corridors and nodes.

I hope we're all clear on this - this DRL plan to Steeles exists nowhere but here. It's not on Metrolinx's radar, nor TTC's, nor a single politician in any affected municipality. So...it's an interesting "What if," but it's not the same as a line actually seeing engineering work, with a complete TPAP etc.

So in summary:
Yonge Line (RH to Queen): 42 minutes of travel time
DRL (RH to Queen): 36 minutes of travel time
RH-GO (Langstaff GO to Union Station): 42 minutes of travel time (according to Google) *
* - RH-GO operates at 30 minute frequencies, 11 trips total a day.

This is pretty interesting but it's still built on a lot of shaky ground. That DRL time estimate has been pulled out of thin air based on track length with no accounting for topography or, really, any engineering issues etc.

It's an interesting hypothetical - I still don't see it as a practical option.

 

[Midtown Urbanist]

It's not a zero sum game. People will keep coming whether you build the infrastructure or not. Either way, you'll be facing consequences.

When I was looking through the 2013 BCA report earlier, it proves this.

Regardless of what we do, a large number of York Riders are coming into the system. The question of whether that is at Steeles or Richmond Hill is inconsequential. The Yonge Subway will be near capacity by the time it reaches Sheppard. (ATC capacity gains are quickly cut away with the level of delays we experience daily on the Yonge line today)

The only thing we can do is encourage Yonge riders (be it with origins in York Region or in Toronto) to have an alternative route downtown. The DRL needs to be built to Sheppard in every scenario.

 

[TJ O'Pootertoot]

The only thing we can do is encourage Yonge riders (be it with origins in York Region or in Toronto) to have an alternative route downtown. The DRL needs to be built to Sheppard in every scenario.

Oh, I agree. my provisos would be:
a) waiting for it to get all the way to Sheppard is too long a timeframe to throw Yonge into a "holding pattern," acknowledging that both scenarios have various negative consequences.
b) while Sheppard make sense, I think the momentum here (and only here, as far as I know) to take the DRL all the way Highway 7 is interesting to think about, but harder to justify, at least in the near term
c) while it may be true for "the system," it's not "inconsequential" to riders whether they can get on the subway at 7 or Steeles (or somewhere in between)

 

[Cobra]

Oh, I agree. my provisos would be:
a) waiting for it to get all the way to Sheppard is too long a timeframe to throw Yonge into a "holding pattern," acknowledging that both scenarios have various negative consequences.
b) while Sheppard make sense, I think the momentum here (and only here, as far as I know) to take the DRL all the way Highway 7 is interesting to think about, but harder to justify, at least in the near term
c) while it may be true for "the system," it's not "inconsequential" to riders whether they can get on the subway at 7 or Steeles (or somewhere in between)

Regardless of what you say, York Region isn't getting a subway before 2041 (estimated date for DRL to Sheppard). By then, new studies will be necessary and the 2009 EA will be obsolete and a new one will be done down the road. If the projections are the same or get worse, DRL or RER will be on the table as alternatives for Richmond Hill and evaluated against extending the Yonge line past Steeles.

We can already guess which option will make the most sense

 

[salsa]

I'm just hoping at at his point, since I've repeatedly and explicitly shown how development capacity was reverse-engineered from subway capacity that everyone understands 44North is wrong every time he says this, no matter how many times he says it.

You mean like how planners reversed-engineered development plans in Scarborough and North York to justify the Sheppard subway?

 

[44 North]

I'm just hoping at at his point, since I've repeatedly and explicitly shown how development capacity was reverse-engineered from subway capacity that everyone understands 44North is wrong every time he says this, no matter how many times he says it. It was unique in how it was done, it still is, it always will be - unless you throw in another mode and force them to redo all the work. I think he knows it too at this point, but he enjoys saying the opposite because it rolls off the tongue so nicely.



I'll be happy the day the extension opens but the first thing I will do is offer you, my friend, a toast.
It doesn't seem necessary to you but it does to York Region and the province Metrolinx and Markham and Vaughan and Richmond Hill and the developers who own land in the area and even, in their reluctant way, the City of Toronto and TTC.




I admire your passion for protecting the integrity of Yonge Street.
Let's get some pals together and ask the city to tear down the Minto Towers at Yonge/Eg and 1 Bloor. Even those cool green towers at Yonge/Sheppard - boom!

Let's just ask the city councils in Toronto and York Region to halt development in the corridor while they manage the important business of reversing the planning for the Scarborough line 5 times.
All that development in North York Centre? Undesirable.
The condo towers going up too the north? someone should tell them Yonge can't take it!

It's not a zero sum game. People will keep coming whether you build the infrastructure or not. Either way, you'll be facing consequences.



Lemme get this straight...someone who lives near, say, Bathurst and 16th, should - instead of going straight down Yonge Street, take GO or a mythical DRL extension to some place you've imagined out east on Sheppard or the Crosstown or Line 2 and then come back to Yonge?

Given your definition of "lazy" I'm going out on a limb and guessing you don't work for Google Maps. Those nutty people tend to favour direct routes but I guess when you're designing transit that's um, lazy. We should totally build what's cheap and looks good and photoshop and make people work with that, instead of building direct routes connecting employment and residential corridors and nodes.

I hope we're all clear on this - this DRL plan to Steeles exists nowhere but here. It's not on Metrolinx's radar, nor TTC's, nor a single politician in any affected municipality. So...it's an interesting "What if," but it's not the same as a line actually seeing engineering work, with a complete TPAP etc.



This is pretty interesting but it's still built on a lot of shaky ground. That DRL time estimate has been pulled out of thin air based on track length with no accounting for topography or, really, any engineering issues etc.

It's an interesting hypothetical - I still don't see it as a practical option.

No, he's not wrong. No matter how many times you write that I am. Still waiting on you disproving me, but that could take awhile...

 

[BMO]

Richmond Hill riders will be getting seats on the subway - they shouldn't complain. Even with this plan, I doubt the DRL would be reaching Yonge-level capacity issues.

In any case, RH-GO ridership is 10,000 a day. This is very very small.

Small compared to what? Subway capacity that has a train running every 3 minutes and can handle 30,000 pphpd? RH-GO only has a handful of trains that go one direction in the peak hours and it's primary market is just people going to Union with hardly any connections between terminals.

 

[GenerationW]

The recent provincial contributions to further study Yonge and the DRL may shine some light on the province's strategy. I think the eventual outcome will be to have one press conference announcing funding for both projects. Too many votes at risk on both sides of Steeles to do it any other way.

 

[TJ O'Pootertoot]

You mean like how planners reversed-engineered development plans in Scarborough and North York to justify the Sheppard subway?

Uh, no.
Contrary to above, I've produced the reports for 44 North. I sincerely believe he's not too dumb to understand them so I rack it up to willful ignorance.

Since I've produced city planning documents - which he has seen - that explicitly and repeatedly state how the subway and only the subway - is a pre-requisite for development, (we're talking about Markham's Langstaff development, specifically) and how there is a detailed phasing regime built around the subway (and other infrastructure, such as the 407 Transitway), it's hard to know what might constitute proof.

I'm not going to explain at length, again, how the planning was devised again or how and why it's different from how communities are typically - indeed, always - planned or, my spicy and saucy friend, how it's different from ridership and other projections being used to justify a line. It's actually the opposite: the line is being used to justify the development.

In one sentence, it's simply that they looked at transit capacity, assumed virtually no road capacity (which is what is usually used in planning) and built all the numbers from that. Ergo, QED, subway capacity is built into the fundamental planning assumptions of the entire Langstaff site; not the line itself.

#44knows.

For more, you can read up, or see if you can get Peter Calthorpe on the line to explain it to you, like I did. It's rather crucial to understanding the context and there's only a few people here who seem to have wrapped their heads around it. If you get him on the line, see if he'll talk to 44North too because being wrong is one thing but not knowing you're wrong is even worse.

EDIT: No - I couldn't resist. Yet one more time, just as regular as the swallows returning from Capistrano, excerpts attached from Markham's Secondary Plan report. Like I told 44North before, you can take the chocolate out of your cake and make it delicious, but it won't be chocolate cake anymore. So too, removing the subway fundamentally alters the plans for the UGC.

 

[andrewpmk]

High density development at Richmond Hill Centre will take at least 20-30 years to build after the subway opens. I think that this development is just a way to inflate ridership projections, much like the not very successful "Vaughan Centre' proposal.

At least Scarborough Centre actually exists, even if it isn't growing very fast.

 

[TJ O'Pootertoot]

High density development at Richmond Hill Centre will take at least 20-30 years to build after the subway opens. I think that this development is just a way to inflate ridership projections, much like the not very successful "Vaughan Centre' proposal.

For the 100th time - they are not using development to inflate ridership projections! It is the opposite!

They are using ridership CAPACITY to determine development capacity. I know this is unusual but surely someone here can UNDERSTAND it, right?

I mean, this is pretty 101 but here's an old Christopher Hume article:
"Because of the size of the grand plan, Langstaff will be developed in phases, each contingent upon the one before. Densities can be adjusted according to demand, and to fit with transit capacity, which lies at the heart of things."

You see? The TRANSIT CAPACITY is the primary determinant of the available density. Ridership is not dependent on density, from a planning perspective, it's the other way around. This never happens in normal developments.

Ergo, if you plan density based on subway capacity and then put in an LRT, you have fundamentally altered the very basis of the entire planning regime. Unusual - not hard to understand, I don't think.

Anyone who grasps this fundamental and relevant truth, gimme a like! Not so fast, 44north!