minilude
Active Member
Yes I've edited the "will never be" clause.
The bottom line is that we're no longer in 2009. Seems that subway planning as changed in this city due to the escalated costs of building the subway.
With the SSE expected to exceed $5B for a 6.2km, 1 stop subway, there's no way in hell that the YNSE (6 stations and over 7km) won't be in the $6B-$7B or more figure in tomorrow's dollars. There will be pressure to reduce the costs starting with stations having low ridership. Cummer, Clark, Royal Orchard & Langstaff will surely be on the chopping block. That leaves you with Steeles and RHC as potential stations,
- Finch to Steeles is around 2.1km
- Steeles to Richmond Hill Centre is 5km. You're basically looking at the 1 stop SSE 2.0 as the other stations would just drive up the cost while having low ridership
You use the "growth and future development" to justify subway. Explain to me why having these 2 lines with all those stops along the way would prevent that from happening?
If that's the case, we shouldn't be talking subway, should we?edit: maybe 100 years later the BRT will be updated to LRT but not in near future
The success of these various projects (Scarb, YR etc.) is not mutually exclusive except to the extent funding moves certain things ahead of others. Your microscopic, time-specific analysis , and limited view of shifting planning dynamics across a 25-year growth plan really fails to take that into account.
When the BRT needs to be upgraded to LRT, do you think an LRT today (which you are not opposing right?) will not be good enough for a subway at that time? Plus Yonge always has better potential than any other BRT corridors.If that's the case, we shouldn't be talking subway, should we?
. I've never seen anyone on this forum claim no quality transit should be built on Yonge, that there's been zero development, doubt that the GTHA is growing, or believe Yonge to be a 2-lane dirt road. You say people write these things, but I've never seen it. If people want to discuss transit or politics they should be able to without having their comments dissected then accused of being some anti-transit/anti-development rube.
Upgrading BRT to LRT is way less complex that you're letting on
Highway 7 gets its own sign of urbanity: a transit fight
https://www.thestar.com/news/gta/20...its_own_sign_of_urbanity_a_transit_fight.html
As you often said...I didn't know that geology drastically changed because of the magic border of Steeles Avenue.Yes, obviously the $3B-ish estimate for this line has gone up. But that has nothing to do with Scarborough's costs. That's a far deeper tunnel in an entirely different geographical context. It's apples and oranges. I would guess the Yonge estimates are in the $5-$6B range now, but that's just a guess.
Thanks for the correctionRoyal Orchard was axed long ago.
With the city getting the memo on paying for transit (finally), in theory, the city could extend to Steeles on their own if they truly wanted too and not being held hostage by a Sorbara V.2 scenario. Toronto would mist likely keep Cummer or just rough it in for the future.Cummer is highly unlikely to be axed simply because Toronto isn't going through all this for just one new station.
So now we're building subway stations to accommodate parking lots??? How many red flags do we need?And there is ZERO change that Langstaff will be axed. The planning regards it as a dual station with RHC; it's where all the commuter parking will be (there is not a single space planned at RHC, Steeles, Cummer or Clark. I forget how many are at Langstaff but well over 1,000.
Why should Toronto care about Markham Growth Centre? They will be service by GO RER so I don't get why the subway is relevant here.OH, and it's essential to developing the eastern half of the Markham Growth Centre.
You're very dodgy on this one. Deep down you get where I'm going with this but you won't admit it. What was that ex-mayor used to say? "Subways, subways, subways!"Again, this scenario you're laying out is somewhere between highly improbable and impossible. It's like me adding 5 mythical stations to the SSE so we can compare apples to apples. Makes it hard for me to sincerely answer your forthcoming question, but I will.
LRT would be faster with higher capacity. You're not answering my question1) today it serves the function of serving riders already traveling to Finch by inefficient modes (ie bus or driving)
There's no evidence in your answer demonstrating that LRT couldn't fulfill the same role2) connecting the subway the relatively short distance to Highway 7 (especially to Steeles) connects it to existing RT (GO and Viva) and planned RT expansion (RER, 407 Transitway and even Viva conversion to LRT, one day). This creates a unique density of transit, hence the Anchor Mobility Hub designation.
LRT wouldn't prevent that. You know why you can't answer my question on "how the LRT would prevent RHC to reach it's growth targets"? Because no business case evaluating LRT was done nor included in the EA, so you really don't know yourself.-it ALSO facilitates current and future intensification along the corridor (see point 1) and is integral to the intensification of the Markham-RH growth centre.
Fair enough, so that's a cheaper tab. Basically, the only corridor in need of a higher rapid transit mode is Yonge according to you-there is already BRT connecting RHC to VMC aaaand the EA for the 407 Transitway is also done, making your LRT unnecessary, at least for several years. Probably 2-3 decades.
Useless transfer? Isn't the whole point of this subway is also to basically have RHC be it's own downtown? Every major urban centres usually have transfers (Downtown Toronto, Montreal, Vancouver, London, Paris...even NYCC and soon Yonge and Eglinton). If you're downplaying the importance of RHC being YR downtown, why does it warrant a subway? If the whole point of this is to move more efficiently all these people to the TTC subway, it can be done at a fraction of the price.-I think a subway to Steeles and then an LRT to Highway 7 is a lot of effort to create a useless transfer rather than a seamless journey, based entirely on where a line on a map happens to be. I also think (obviously ) an LRT requires reductions in the planned population/intensification along the corridor and very especially in the growth centre (though I won't bore 44 by re-explaining why).
Like I said, this isn't 2009 anymore. Love or hate Tory, he seems willing to show some "teeth" against the province in comparison to previous mayors. He's willing to pay for transit and find ways to do it. The political landscape is changing, the Sorbara deal that got Vaughan a subway will be unbelievably be harder to replicate now that Scarborough is making noise and the rest of the city on making transit the #1 priority. Is transit the #1 priority in YR? Do residents even wants that kind of densification going their way? Are they ready to pay more taxes for it? The jury is still out on that one.THAT SAID: if funding requirements meant an LRT now or a subway in 20 years - it would certainly be preferable to nothing by a longshot. I do not, to be clear, object wholesale to the very notion of LRT, the way they seem to be doing in Scarborough. But it remains a distant second choice and one which I believe is inadequate and inefficient for the corridor in question, particularly given the planning goals established in the provincial, regional and local plans.
LRT would be perfect for RHC, just like Mississauga is doing and I hope you conceded that they'd have a much stronger case for subway than Richmond Hill... right?When the BRT needs to be upgraded to LRT, do you think an LRT today (which you are not opposing right?) will not be good enough for a subway at that time? Plus Yonge always has better potential than any other BRT corridors.
As you often said...I didn't know that geology drastically changed because of the magic border of Steeles Avenue.
Also, 6 stations for at least $250M+ each, plus tunneling under highway 427. Come on man! Be realistic. It will be much higher than the SSE
So now we're building subway stations to accommodate parking lots??? How many red flags do we need?
Why should Toronto care about Markham Growth Centre? They will be service by GO RER so I don't get why the subway is relevant here.
LRT wouldn't prevent that. You know why you can't answer my question on "how the LRT would prevent RHC to reach it's growth targets"? Because no business case evaluating LRT was done nor included in the EA, so you really don't know yourself.
Fair enough, so that's a cheaper tab. Basically, the only corridor in need of a higher rapid transit mode is Yonge according to you
Useless transfer? Isn't the whole point of this subway is also to basically have RHC be it's own downtown?
Every major urban centres usually have transfers (Downtown Toronto, Montreal, Vancouver, London, Paris...even NYCC and soon Yonge and Eglinton)
. If you're downplaying the importance of RHC being YR downtown, why does it warrant a subway? If the whole point of this is to move more efficiently all these people to the TTC subway, it can be done at a fraction of the price.
Like I said, this isn't 2009 anymore. Love or hate Tory, he seems willing to show some "teeth" against the province in comparison to previous mayors.
Is transit the #1 priority in YR? Do residents even wants that kind of densification going their way? Are they ready to pay more taxes for it? The jury is still out on that one.
Politically-wise, by election time, GO RER (Recent feds investment), Finch & Eglinton LRT will be too far along to cancel.
Vaughan is already getting their subway and Markham will get GO RER, is 1 riding (Richmond Hill because Thornhill is already under PC Control) worth spending over $6B? The same PC looking to slash spending?
They could extend the Yonge Line to Upper Canada Mall that would phase out the BRT to Newmarket.