[44 North]

I am sorry. You are not making any sense.

There is no alternative for a 1:1 comparison between transit alternatives on YNSE because the ridership of YNSE will exceed any alternative options on DAY 1!!!

If we built an LRT, we would have to build a grade-separated LRT that would be at peak capacity from day 1.

That is the reason why I differentiated from YNSE as a whole and the section north of Steeles. The section north of Steeles can merit LRT/RT alternatives alone (and I would accept that argument were you making it), but there are other consideration here such as buy-in (we want York Region to subsidize part of the construction cost, and motivate Queens Park to fund part of it and the necessary Relief Line), the unnecessary traveling cost of a transfer, York Region's provincially mandated growth plans, and that a grade-separated LRT won't be cheap anyway.

There is no comparison to be made at all with the Scarborough Subway. None.

What we are observing here, is a subway plan that has planning merit (If not for downstream capacity constraints on Yonge). A rarity in this region, I know.

Again, irrespective of corridor. Could be north of Steeles, or east of Don Mills, NW of Downsview, NE of Kennedy - we'd generally see the same talking points. As we have. But of all those the only time we actually got a comparable alternative to a subway extension was at Kennedy, and that had 20k capacity between termini. York Region's growth plans wouldn't need that much.

And those numbers you're showing certainly weren't used when the Yonge extn was promised ten years ago, nor are they Day 1. They were first low for 2031, then rose, then rose to the unusually high ones you're showing, but logically are now lower again. How low is anyone's guess since we've yet to see an update. RL and SSE got taken to the cleaners with projection lowering, as have other projects, then there's cases where a line will be well over capacity and no one bats an eye (waterfront). So for a mode discussion I think it'd be fair to actually see where this one lies now.

But honestly I don't think it's fair to say there's not a single comparison with SSE, but precede that by arguing in favour of YN by mentioning the costs of a transfer and prov-mandated growth plans. SSE removes a transfer, and SC is most certainly a very large growth centre.

 

[micheal_can]

I am sorry. You are not making any sense.

There is no alternative for a 1:1 comparison between transit alternatives on YNSE because the ridership of YNSE will exceed any alternative options on DAY 1!!!

If we built an LRT, we would have to build a grade-separated LRT that would be at peak capacity from day 1.

That is the reason why I differentiated from YNSE as a whole and the section north of Steeles. The section north of Steeles can merit LRT/RT alternatives alone (and I would accept that argument were you making it), but there are other consideration here such as buy-in (we want York Region to subsidize part of the construction cost, and motivate Queens Park to fund part of it and the necessary Relief Line), the unnecessary traveling cost of a transfer, York Region's provincially mandated growth plans, and that a grade-separated LRT won't be cheap anyway.

There is no comparison to be made at all with the Scarborough Subway. None.

What we are observing here, is a subway plan that has planning merit (If not for downstream capacity constraints on Yonge). A rarity in this region, I know.

It makes no sense to stop the YNSE at Steeles. You will end up with something like the SRT. The extension should be to at least Richmond Hill. That Go Station is already an intermodal station for Go/VIVA/YRT. Adding a Subway line only makes more sense.

 

[Adjei]

Where is this magical money? Toronto is broke. Ontario is broke. The country is Broke.

Do you know what broke means?

 

[micheal_can]

Do you know what broke means?

Spending more than they have to the point that they start selling things off to make payments. (Hydro One)

 

[Midtown Urbanist]

Again, irrespective of corridor. Could be north of Steeles, or east of Don Mills, NW of Downsview, NE of Kennedy - we'd generally see the same talking points. As we have. But of all those the only time we actually got a comparable alternative to a subway extension was at Kennedy, and that had 20k capacity between termini. York Region's growth plans wouldn't need that much.

And those numbers you're showing certainly weren't used when the Yonge extn was promised ten years ago, nor are they Day 1. They were first low for 2031, then rose, then rose to the unusually high ones you're showing, but logically are now lower again. How low is anyone's guess since we've yet to see an update. RL and SSE got taken to the cleaners with projection lowering, as have other projects, then there's cases where a line will be well over capacity and no one bats an eye (waterfront). So for a mode discussion I think it'd be fair to actually see where this one lies now.

But honestly I don't think it's fair to say there's not a single comparison with SSE, but precede that by arguing in favour of YN by mentioning the costs of a transfer and prov-mandated growth plans. SSE removes a transfer, and SC is most certainly a very large growth centre.

2031 may as well be Day 1, given how much we've pushed back both YNSE and the Relief Line. (and, I suppose, SSE)

Again, I don't know what you are talking about when it comes to ridership numbers. These are not (a potentially biased?) York Region's numbers, they are Metrolinx. Let us forget absolutely about the Yonge North Subway studies and just look at surface route ridership:

• TTC - Steeles East - 28,300
• TTC - Steeles West - 26,700
• TTC - Yonge North - 4,500
• TTC - Cummer - 8,700
• TTC - Drewry - 3,500
• VIVA - Yonge Blue - 18,955
• VIVA - HWY-7 Purple - 9,060

That totals to 91,015 daily riders in 2015 ridership numbers.

The 2031 Relief Line for comparison, is set to have 177,100 daily riders, and that is an entirely new line.
The 2031 Scarborough Subway, is set to have 31,000 daily riders.

As an aside, I find it dubious that for this expansion and this expansion alone, numbers were inflated and not deflated, when the one thing preventing YNSE from being built is its high ridership.

 

[Leo_Chan]

2031 may as well be Day 1, given how much we've pushed back both YNSE and the Relief Line. (and, I suppose, SSE)

Again, I don't know what you are talking about when it comes to ridership numbers. These are not (a potentially biased?) York Region's numbers, they are Metrolinx. Let us forget absolutely about the Yonge North Subway studies and just look at surface route ridership:

• TTC - Steeles East - 28,300
• TTC - Steeles West - 26,700
• TTC - Yonge North - 4,500
• TTC - Cummer - 8,700
• TTC - Drewry - 3,500
• VIVA - Yonge Blue - 18,955
• VIVA - HWY-7 Purple - 9,060

That totals to 91,015 daily riders in 2015 ridership numbers.

The 2031 Relief Line for comparison, is set to have 177,100 daily riders, and that is an entirely new line.
The 2031 Scarborough Subway, is set to have 31,000 daily riders.

As an aside, I find it dubious that for this expansion and this expansion alone, numbers were inflated and not deflated, when the one thing preventing YNSE from being built is its high ridership.

We have to remember that YRT/Viva induces demand by funneling all routes to Yonge, and therefore Viva Blue and Finch Station. This also has to do with how the TTC also has induced demand with Line 1 being the only North-South subway (rapid transit) line. Also, these ridership numbers do not take into account RER or region-wide Fare Integration, so the increase of riders on Barrie and Stouffville lines are not taken into account.

I'm not against the YNSE, nor am I trying to say that it's not justified, but I just want to point out that our transit system is too focused on Yonge being the "main" N-S "rapid" transit connection and RER will be a big part of changing that, as well as proper rapid transit on Jane and Don Mills/Leslie.

 

[44 North]

As an aside, I find it dubious that for this expansion and this expansion alone, numbers were inflated and not deflated, when the one thing preventing YNSE from being built is its high ridership.

At the time the subway was projected to have a lot more capacity so it wasn't as big an issue. This has since been downgraded, and even then the supposed ~36k seems too ambitious considering passenger flow south of Eglinton. But either way in the reports it was acknowledged that the YN numbers would drop with more of the Big Move in place, and since that time parallel routes have been upgraded.

We have to remember that YRT/Viva induces demand by funneling all routes to Yonge, and therefore Viva Blue and Finch Station. This also has to do with how the TTC also has induced demand with Line 1 being the only North-South subway (rapid transit) line. Also, these ridership numbers do not take into account RER or region-wide Fare Integration, so the increase of riders on Barrie and Stouffville lines are not taken into account.

This is what I'd take out of it too. Adding all of Steeles E+W without considering the shift to present plans for Barrie and Stouffville doesn't seem apt. Or it could be, but if one is doing that they should do something similar with SSE (and I guess SLRT by default) bringing their numbers back to original estimates.

I'm not against the YNSE, nor am I trying to say that it's not justified, but I just want to point out that our transit system is too focused on Yonge being the "main" N-S "rapid" transit connection and RER will be a big part of changing that, as well as proper rapid transit on Jane and Don Mills/Leslie.

I'm against it going forward without a full relief line in place, and other projects too. But I still think there'd be merit having a proper rt alternative like we had with SSE, probably for north of Steeles. At the very least for optics. If the only difference is a transfer, it would probably score quite well by most metrics.

 

[Leo_Chan]

At the time the subway was projected to have a lot more capacity so it wasn't as big an issue. This has since been downgraded, and even then the supposed ~36k seems too ambitious considering passenger flow south of Eglinton. But either way in the reports it was acknowledged that the YN numbers would drop with more of the Big Move in place, and since that time parallel routes have been upgraded.



This is what I'd take out of it too. Adding all of Steeles E+W without considering the shift to present plans for Barrie and Stouffville doesn't seem apt. Or it could be, but if one is doing that they should do something similar with SSE (and I guess SLRT by default) bringing their numbers back to original estimates.



I'm against it going forward without a full relief line in place, and other projects too. But I still think there'd be merit having a proper rt alternative like we had with SSE, probably for north of Steeles. At the very least for optics. If the only difference is a transfer, it would probably score quite well by most metrics.

I agree that the YNSE can’t happen without the Relief Line to at least Pape in place first (Sheppard would be much better), or the implementation at least closely following it. It’s just too bad that RER/All-day on RH GO is not an option in the short or medium term.

 

[TJ O'Pootertoot]

Spending more than they have to the point that they start selling things off to make payments. (Hydro One)

No, that was a policy choice. Wynne had 2 reports outlining how revenue tools could raise funds for transit and she CHOSE to do the hydro sale. You're just proving the point about how this an austerity policy and not the result of actual fiscal challenges. Pretty much the exact same as Toronto ditching the vehicle registration tax. Don't be fooled, looking at their annual budget, that the city is not wealthy or that there is inadequate revenue available. They are choosing not to collect it.

If you have plenty of cash in the bank and decide to take out a line of credit to pay for your new TV, you may be a poor fiscal manager, but you're not destitute.

 

[steveintoronto]

You're just proving the point about how this an austerity policy and not the result of actual fiscal challenges.

A bit like selling the tractor to pay for the trailer.

 

[Sandpit]

It makes no sense to stop the YNSE at Steeles. You will end up with something like the SRT. The extension should be to at least Richmond Hill. That Go Station is already an intermodal station for Go/VIVA/YRT. Adding a Subway line only makes more sense.

It makes sense as a Phase 1. But York Region is opposed to this, knowing that phase 2 could be deferred indefinitely.

 

[amnesiajune]

It makes sense as a Phase 1. But York Region is opposed to this, knowing that phase 2 could be deferred indefinitely.

This has the same problem as a subway ending at York University. It's a project that wouldn't get any external funding. The city would have to pay for it entirely on its own, which it obviously doesn't want to do.

 

[amnesiajune]

We have to remember that YRT/Viva induces demand by funneling all routes to Yonge, and therefore Viva Blue and Finch Station.

Where else do you propose that YRT/Viva sends its bus routes? They're obviously going to go to whichever subway or train station is fastest go get to, which is Finch Station for most of York Region.

 

[Midtown Urbanist]

It’s just too bad that RER/All-day on RH GO is not an option in the short or medium term.

It won't be in the long term either.

The sheer cost of upgrading the RH-GO line to RER standards will likely never be worth the money.

Its not just an entirely new alignment south of Eglinton, it's the relocating of multiple stations, a sheer impossibility to ever connect with Line 2, and this is all for a GO Route with 2,500 pphd and 10,000 daily riders (by far the weakest GO corridor).

Given the exuberant cost of upgrading RH-GO to RER, the money would just be better spent building the Yonge North subway. Personally, I favour scrapping the RH-GO Line altogether and integrating it with a Relief Line that uses the RH-GO corridor for easy and cheap corridor to Richmond Hill. (Either as a surface subway, or as a commuter rail line as others have suggested in the past)

 

[TJ O'Pootertoot]

It makes sense as a Phase 1. But York Region is opposed to this, knowing that phase 2 could be deferred indefinitely.

No, it doesn't even make sense as a Phase 1 because an extension to Steeles doesn't serve any regional or municipal policy goals and though it may sound naive and absurd in this day and age, transit is supposed to do that.

Yes, the corridor intensification serves Toronto but an extension to Steeles has never been a municpal priority in the same way an extension to York U was. In York Region, on the other hand, it might be literally the single most important policy goal to have that extension; for the region and Markham and likely Vaughan and Richmond Hill, as well.

To put shovels in the ground and do all that work just to go from Finch to Steeles is fairly absurd; you need to go to Highway 7 just to get an economy of scale for the construction. In plain English: it doesn't make sense and it's also a waste of money.

And that's leaving aside the on-the ground reality which is that the majority of planned intensification along this corridor is on the north side of Steeles Avenue. So, stopping it at Steeles is a refutation of provincial and regional policy (i.e. The Big Move and Places to Grow) and fiscally inefficient. And it's also ignorant of planning realities and political realities and built form realities and transportation patterns that have long since left the Steeles "border" in their wake.

Why not run the King pilot from Blue Jays Way to Bay Street, if we're trying transportation projects that just ignore how people actually move about the city? Why not run the DRL from Pape to Church Street, you know, just as Phase 1?

(And if anyone is in a dreamland, thinking that a Steeles terminus will discourage YR riders, think again. They'll do what they do now, which is drive, bike, walk and avoid YRT if necessary, to get to the border and they'll STILL take up the seats for downstream riders. All you would do is spend several billion dollars to perpetuate a systemic inefficiency.)

There are but two reasons to stop it at Steeles, even temporarily:
1) Pretending a line on a map means something in reality, like the Berlin Wall, and
2) Giving a middle finger to York Region and its attempts to achieve provincial and regional policy goals. York Region's opposition to Toronto extending a subway they want and need right to their doorstop is well-earned and a foregone conclusion.

In it almost literally impossible to imagine a scenario in which this project gets funded but only to Steeles Avenue, even in a phased approach. Might as well suggest a phase that goes to Cummer first and never look at an electoral map.