I had an idea, and this might be farfetched, but say we do extend the Yonge Line through the CN Rail Corridor, What's the chance that we can then further extend the Yonge Line service north and create a sort of GO RER like service on the Richmond Hill corridor except running on TRs?
 
Northern Light said:
This report called for a 'smaller' Steeles terminal than originally envisioned..............at 16 bus bays.


My instinct is that that remains overkill.

But its all I have to go on, in terms of the land area implications of a terminal at grade.

In respect of comparisons to other stations, York Mills is 2 different terminals as I recollect, and the surface environment despite being covered by buildings is atrocious.

Sheppard is not directly on Yonge; and is due to be built over, the hold-up there has been the City's desire for commercial space over top rather than residential.

Finch is 2 different terminals and occupies an obscene amount of land, but was built in behind existing retail on Yonge.

Not sure I see any of these as ideal role models.
Click to expand...
Considering how busy Finch is, I don't think it's overkilled. One would say PV is overkilled but it does give each route a proper loading place. Down the road they would end up like Kipling and Kennedy where there wasn't as much riders for the first 10 years but 30 years later, they are struggling for space.

53 EB
953 EB
60 WB
960 WB
97
98
1 Wheel Trans bay
2 unloading bay
Maybe extend 7 and 11 to Steeles Station?

That'll like 5 bays free for renting out to GO or YRT or future expansion.
 
Steve X said:
Considering how busy Finch is, I don't think it's overkilled. One would say PV is overkilled but it does give each route a proper loading place. Down the road they would end up like Kipling and Kennedy where there wasn't as much riders for the first 10 years but 30 years later, they are struggling for space.

53 EB
953 EB
60 WB
960 WB
97
98
1 Wheel Trans bay
2 unloading bay
Maybe extend 7 and 11 to Steeles Station?

That'll like 5 bays free for renting out to GO or YRT or future expansion.
Click to expand...

And considering that YRT uses 11 Bus Bays at Finch, this clearly won't be enough to accommodate YRT alone.

The 11 bus bays include:

2 EB
5 WB
23 NB
77 WB
88 NB
91/91A NB
99/98E NB
A bunch of express routes to GO stations
A seasonal express service to Canada's Wonderland
And 2 platforms for Viva Blue and Viva Pink respectively.

Assuming Viva Pink can be dropped since its existence will likely be dropped after the extension to RHC, and not including the 2 YRT Dropoff Only Bays or GO Bays, you're still missing a ton of YRT Routes.
 
ARG1 said:
And considering that YRT uses 11 Bus Bays at Finch, this clearly won't be enough to accommodate YRT alone.
Click to expand...
I don't see Viva Blue ending at Steeles. Viva Blue is going to end at Richmond Hill Centre, and York will want to keep its buses out of the mixed traffic lanes south of Langstaff.
I also don't see why Route 5 (Clark) wouldn't just stop outside Clark Station, and I have a feeling that 760 (Vaughan Mills/Wonderland Express) would either move to RHC or be merged into Viva.
77 is Highway 7, so it wouldn't make sense to detour that route away from Highway 7 when the subway will reach that far.
The subway extension will also be serving the role of 98E south of Highway 7, so that route will likely be scaled back to RHC as well.

That would leave 2 EB (Milliken), 23 NB (Thornhill Woods), 88 NB (Bathurst), 91/91A (Bayview), 99 (Yonge South), and the GO express routes using the Steeles terminal.

YRT's system map shows only 10 bus bays at Finch Terminal (plus one for unloading only, and two for layovers). If you remove the bus bays exclusively for routes that can connect with TTC further north than Steeles (5, 77, and the Viva buses), that brings the number down to 6... which is still more than 5... I wouldn't be surprised if YRT and/or GO buses are kept above ground or something.
 
ARG1 said:
And considering that YRT uses 11 Bus Bays at Finch, this clearly won't be enough to accommodate YRT alone.

The 11 bus bays include:

2 EB
5 WB
23 NB
77 WB
88 NB
91/91A NB
99/98E NB
A bunch of express routes to GO stations
A seasonal express service to Canada's Wonderland
And 2 platforms for Viva Blue and Viva Pink respectively.

Assuming Viva Pink can be dropped since its existence will likely be dropped after the extension to RHC, and not including the 2 YRT Dropoff Only Bays or GO Bays, you're still missing a ton of YRT Routes.
Click to expand...

The 5 and 77 would be moving to a bus loop at Clark.
This leaves the 2, 23, 88, 91/91A and 99 at Steeles.
VIVA is definitely being shorted to RHC. This is no plan for any VIVA rapidway south of RHC and no point of running express buses beside a subway.
GO would stay at Finch.
I don't even know if they would keep the 99 parallel to the subway considering how infrequent it is already. YRT would only need 2-3 bus bays at Steeles for their service level and some spots for idling.
 
Steve X said:
I don't even know if they would keep the 99 parallel to the subway considering how infrequent it is already.
Click to expand...
Local service. There are quite a few significant streets and developments on this stretch of Yonge that won't get stations (World on Yonge, Elgin/Arnold, Centre, Royal Orchard, Uplands), just like how Yonge Street south of Finch has buses running along it.
 
north-of-anything said:
Local service. There are quite a few significant streets and developments on this stretch of Yonge that won't get stations (World on Yonge, Elgin/Arnold, Centre, Royal Orchard, Uplands), just like how Yonge Street south of Finch has buses running along it.
Click to expand...
Barely anyone rides the TTC 97F (one of the worst route in the system). I feel like it will be worst for YRT. I'm afraid the penny pitchers financing YRT would just put it on the chopping board.
 
^ I can’t see the logic in building this line with the intent of extending further. How long can one subway line be before operational issues take over ? Sooner or later there is a line in the sand where Line 1 has to stop, or be broken in two at Union and interleaved somehow. Maybe it’s time.

While the surface route is intellectually intriguing, the reality is that York will want its density along Yonge Street and not in the back streets... of course one wonders if there are one or more developers with an ear at QP. Why would Richmond Hill GO need to be a hub when its’s not a 2WAD line and has little prospect os rail-subway transfer ridership?

Sure strikes me that there may be winners and losers in Ford Nation. Buried in leafy Etobicoke but surface in York, on Canada’s longest street? It’s a nice idea to analyse and fantasise, but I can’t get excited about that routing as part of York Region’s future network.

- Paul
 
Most I can ever see Line 1 going is Major Mack. Just won't make sense past that. Even then, It'll be another generation away. York hasn't even completed their bus lanes yet north of 7.
 
Catching up on all the excitement! A few thoughts:

-It's good to consider alternatives given how long ago the TPAP was done.
-As with Ontario Line, it's amusing DoFo has come around to the idea that sometimes it makes sense to have subways go above ground.
-I don't understand why this report would be in a closed session, but there's Metrolinx for ya!
-Assuming Haydenpoon's map is relatively accurate... First, you're tunneling under/through a mature residential area. That makes things interesting!
-I like the idea of taking it away from Yonge there, as it would now directly serve the middle of Langstaff Gateway, which is a huge gain (I'm assuming the station is moved) BUT you do lose the parking lot at Yonge, or need to find a way to make a viable connection to it.
-I always agreed with those who said the size of the bus terminal at Steeles was overkill BUT I don't agree with the idea of having it aboveground. There are already massive development proposals at this intersection and the subway isn't even shovel ready. To take a chunk of land on such prime real estate and use it for that seems absurd to me. I'd compare it a bit to the now-deceased terminal at Yonge/Eg which was always a weird hole in the fabric. You might save some $ in the short run but I think it costs you in the long run.
-Finally, Markham has been pushing to restore the Royal Orchard station. The article doesn't say anything about that either way...

Other than that, I guess we need to see the details in the report.
 
TJ O'Pootertoot said:
Catching up on all the excitement! A few thoughts:

-It's good to consider alternatives given how long ago the TPAP was done.
-As with Ontario Line, it's amusing DoFo has come around to the idea that sometimes it makes sense to have subways go above ground.
-I don't understand why this report would be in a closed session, but there's Metrolinx for ya!
-Assuming Haydenpoon's map is relatively accurate... First, you're tunneling under/through a mature residential area. That makes things interesting!
-I like the idea of taking it away from Yonge there, as it would now directly serve the middle of Langstaff Gateway, which is a huge gain (I'm assuming the station is moved) BUT you do lose the parking lot at Yonge, or need to find a way to make a viable connection to it.
-I always agreed with those who said the size of the bus terminal at Steeles was overkill BUT I don't agree with the idea of having it aboveground. There are already massive development proposals at this intersection and the subway isn't even shovel ready. To take a chunk of land on such prime real estate and use it for that seems absurd to me. I'd compare it a bit to the now-deceased terminal at Yonge/Eg which was always a weird hole in the fabric. You might save some $ in the short run but I think it costs you in the long run.
-Finally, Markham has been pushing to restore the Royal Orchard station. The article doesn't say anything about that either way...

Other than that, I guess we need to see the details in the report.
Click to expand...

Unless the City of Toronto annexes (or with forced amalgamation) the Cities of Vaughan, Markham, and Richmond Hill, they won't need a split bus terminal at Steeles Station, like they have at Pioneer Village Station. The stations north of Steeles Avenue should allow for future annexation of bus routes into the TTC.
 
W. K. Lis said:
Unless the City of Toronto annexes (or with forced amalgamation) the Cities of Vaughan, Markham, and Richmond Hill, they won't need a split bus terminal at Steeles Station, like they have at Pioneer Village Station. The stations north of Steeles Avenue should allow for future annexation of bus routes into the TTC.
Click to expand...

Also a good point. It's just a dumb idea on several counts.
Plus, someone above pointed out it's just a parking lot there now. Yeah -a privately owned parking lot that the owners are almost certainly looking at building 50-storey towers on in the not-too-distant future. By all means, incorporate a terminal into a development (kinda like York Mills?) but to put it above grade to save a few bucks just does't make sense.
 
crs1026 said:
^ I can’t see the logic in building this line with the intent of extending further. How long can one subway line be before operational issues take over ? Sooner or later there is a line in the sand where Line 1 has to stop, or be broken in two at Union and interleaved somehow. Maybe it’s time.
Click to expand...

perhaps there would be renewed interest in closing the loop?

While the surface route is intellectually intriguing, the reality is that York will want its density along Yonge Street and not in the back streets... of course one wonders if there are one or more developers with an ear at QP. Why would Richmond Hill GO need to be a hub when its’s not a 2WAD line and has little prospect os rail-subway transfer ridership?
Click to expand...

the specific route of the line is not important for a traveler as much as the location of entrances and their accessibility imo
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top