[Sunnyside]

It does get interesting. Looking at some recent deeper examples, the distance from the north entrance (north of Steeles) to the south entrance (Howard Moscoe Way) of Pioneer Village station is almost 350 metres! The south entrance of Vaughan Centre station (at the Viva station in the middle of 7) to the middle of the bus terminal is over 350 metres. Even a shallow station like Greenwood will have about 220 metres between the current Linsmore exit to the proposed Monarch Park exit. I've seen almost 500 metres in Seoul (you do want to stop and make sure you have the correct exit!)

I’m sure at a certain threshold you have to start considering movators… like what used to be at Spadina. I find VMC makes sense considering all the necessary connections are too far apart to have a single entrance or two. I suppose this begs the question if this would add to the cost at Cummer, or if something like it has already been accounted for.

 

[TJ O'Pootertoot]

One thing to bear in mind here, however, is that these distances are not necessarily the station and/or platform, per se.
In VMC, for example, York Region decided to build a tunnel to connecto that bus terminal but that tunnel was not part of the subway project or the station itself..

If they were to build Cummer, moving it north would generally make sense but ultimately, it's not a huge difference. This graphics from Metrolinx's study of the non-core stations is what made me particularly ambivalent about Cummer.

It already almost entirely overlaps with the walkable distances to Finch and Steeles. If you move it north, you move it out of Finch's green area, into Steeele's orange area. It's kind of the same and with stations going for $400M+, I understand why it's ended up as a "nice to have."

(I know High Tech and Bridge are even closer but they're also separated by highways and a hydro corridor with limited connection between them. This is a contiguous urban area, with a full street grid.)

 

[denfromoakvillemilton]

Well, yes and yes - but, in fairness, it's a very large cemetery (145 acres) owned by the Catholic church, which is not a "small graveyard." but I certainly otherwise take your general point.
Just because indvidual decisions are political doesn't mean the final product is not necesary or justifiable (see also: Ontario Line).

Of course, it does set a murky precedent however (The McCowan route on the Scarborough Subway)

Here I disagree. That's not the "real reason." The real reason - which many still find difficult to accept - is to enable massive suburban intensification in a key node, the plans for which go back concretely more than 15 years now and, really, another 10 or 15 years prior to that. I don't really care whether Toronto residents are frustrated because they don't understand the Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe. I'm not going to roll my eyes for the umpteenth time when I hear David Miller opining that RH residents really would be best served by the (not viable) GO improvements when he and I both know that he probaly hasn't been within 10km of Silver City Richmond in his life, much less reviewed the (pre-MZO) Langstaff Gateway Secondary Plan. Objectively, that position is simply wrong and (speaking to what I've heard him say, not you) is ignorant of intensification patterns and plans as well as how people in south York Region travel and use transit.

As for Vaughan "already getting a subway," it's 2.5 stops on the opposite side of the municpality and, again, Torontonians can be frustrated if they're ignorant of growth in the 905 but I'd suggest they should be far more concerned about their own declining inner suburban population, how they've messed up transit in Scarborough (which will become VERY clear before the end of the year), how they're wasting money on SmartTrack and the Gardiner, and a half dozen other transit/growth-related issues before dwelling unduly on how "their" infrastructure is allowing for less auto-centric development in their suburban neighbours. IMHO.


Agreed. This, no one can dispute.

Here's the rub, are they truly? It seems people will just drive to the subway here. YRT has made zero effort to improve non-Viva bus service, which should be a much larger sticking point. Routes like Bathurst, Weston, Woodbine, Rutherford, and 16th/Rutherford should have way more bus service than they currently do. The province should have demanded this.

 

[Sunnyside]

Of course, it does set a murky precedent however (The McCowan route on the Scarborough Subway)





Here's the rub, are they truly? It seems people will just drive to the subway here. YRT has made zero effort to improve non-Viva bus service, which should be a much larger sticking point. Routes like Bathurst, Weston, Woodbine, Rutherford, and 16th/Rutherford should have way more bus service than they currently do. The province should have demanded this.

Maybe so, but those VIVA services will feed directly into the subway extension, along with a handful of the most well-used GO buses.

And of course they are planning for development; the TOCs are massive to compensate for poor local density.

 

[TJ O'Pootertoot]

Of course, it does set a murky precedent however (The McCowan route on the Scarborough Subway)

Yeah, there are pros and cons when you get into the nitty gritty. The Ontario Line routing is superior, in some ways, to the prior DRL plans. Is it ideal? Maybe not. Was it done "for the right reasons"? Doubtful.
But it's getting built and you kinda grit your teeth because that's better than when it wasn't getting built.
In this town/region, it's a real lesser of evils kind of thing.

Here's the rub, are they truly? It seems people will just drive to the subway here. YRT has made zero effort to improve non-Viva bus service, which should be a much larger sticking point. Routes like Bathurst, Weston, Woodbine, Rutherford, and 16th/Rutherford should have way more bus service than they currently do. The province should have demanded this.

Above I was talking about the past/present, now you're talking about the future. What the province can/should demand and what this will all look like 15 years from now is pretty abstract. Consider what the area between Rogers Centre and the ACC looked like 15 years ago, then look at Yonge and Highway 7 and and Yonge and Steeles and consider what we're talking about. Look at North York Centre in the early 1980s. Look at the Viva corridors back around 2000 and look what's there now.

Here is what I do know:
-There is no parking planned for Cummer (if it happens) or Steeles or Clark or Royal Orchard. I'm not clear what's going on at the final 2 stations but there are no TTC lots planned and I'd guess it ends up being kinda like VMC, with temproary, private lots.
-There will definitely be rerouting of buses to interface with the subway stations.
-There will be literally tens of thousands of new housing units in direct proximity to the subway stations and corridor. This isn't hypoethical - I'm talking about development currently approved and/or in the pipe today, before a shovel has gone in the ground for the subway.

Far be it from me to say there aren't issues today and historically with YRT's local service. But I'm not really worried today about what what the buses on 16h Avenue are going to be like in 2035. If it's still bad and if we're both here at that point, I will be happy to concede the point to you in these forums.

 

[denfromoakvillemilton]

Yeah, there are pros and cons when you get into the nitty gritty. The Ontario Line routing is superior, in some ways, to the prior DRL plans. Is it ideal? Maybe not. Was it done "for the right reasons"? Doubtful.
But it's getting built and you kinda grit your teeth because that's better than when it wasn't getting built.
In this town/region, it's a real lesser of evils kind of thing.


Above I was talking about the past/present, now you're talking about the future. What the province can/should demand and what this will all look like 15 years from now is pretty abstract. Consider what the area between Rogers Centre and the ACC looked like 15 years ago, then look at Yonge and Highway 7 and and Yonge and Steeles and consider what we're talking about. Look at North York Centre in the early 1980s. Look at the Viva corridors back around 2000 and look what's there now.

Here is what I do know:
-There is no parking planned for Cummer (if it happens) or Steeles or Clark or Royal Orchard. I'm not clear what's going on at the final 2 stations but there are no TTC lots planned and I'd guess it ends up being kinda like VMC, with temproary, private lots.
-There will definitely be rerouting of buses to interface with the subway stations.
-There will be literally tens of thousands of new housing units in direct proximity to the subway stations and corridor. This isn't hypoethical - I'm talking about development currently approved and/or in the pipe today, before a shovel has gone in the ground for the subway.

Far be it from me to say there aren't issues today and historically with YRT's local service. But I'm not really worried today about what what the buses on 16h Avenue are going to be like in 2035. If it's still bad and if we're both here at that point, I will be happy to concede the point to you in these forums.

I'll give you all that for sure. Let's see what happens. At least York Region is embracing transit. That's the good side. RHC will be a great example of transformation in the region. The subway only enhances that.

 

[T3G]

T

Oh, my apologies. I thought the Subway's purpose was to provide high order LOCAL transit in the City of Toronto. How can a station such as Cummer not meet this criteria?

That no longer seems to be the driving philosophy behind subway projects. The idea now seems to be that the subway should behave like a GO train, at the expense of screwing over the people in the actual city who may need to use it.

 

[afransen]

T

That no longer seems to be the driving philosophy behind subway projects. The idea now seems to be that the subway should behave like a GO train, at the expense of screwing over the people in the actual city who may need to use it.

The problem is that incredibly expensive deep mined stations that cost upwards of $500M each are not well suited to providing fine grain local service except in the densest of areas (eg downtown). We need to solve the cost problem if we want to change that. Perhaps cut and cover can be an option. I know some jurisdictions are also looking at large bore tunnels with the station largely/entirely in the the tunnel (relying more on elevators for access). The most likely option to me is elevated, which OL might become the prototype for in Toronto--hopefully it is something that expands the overton window of politically acceptable transit solutions.

 

[Mercenary]

The problem is that incredibly expensive deep mined stations that cost upwards of $500M each are not well suited to providing fine grain local service except in the densest of areas (eg downtown). We need to solve the cost problem if we want to change that. Perhaps cut and cover can be an option. I know some jurisdictions are also looking at large bore tunnels with the station largely/entirely in the the tunnel (relying more on elevators for access). The most likely option to me is elevated, which OL might become the prototype for in Toronto--hopefully it is something that expands the overton window of politically acceptable transit solutions.

Elevated subways are an eye sore and create lots of noise, shadows and pollution

 

[dullturtle06]

Elevated subways are an eye sore and create lots of noise, shadows and pollution

Electric subways create pollution? yes the 6 lane arterial roads are so much better for the environment. since when do cars and trucks create noise pollution, visual pollution, and air pollution, oh and kill people on bikes, walking, and other drivers. The issue is those damn electric subways behind noise walls that are the issue. You know i agree Huston is the pinacol of sustainable and efficient transportation and Toronto would learn a thing or two about city planning.

 

[cplchanb]

Elevated subways are an eye sore and create lots of noise, shadows and pollution

you forgot to add in the \S\ at the end.

 

[cplchanb]

The problem is that incredibly expensive deep mined stations that cost upwards of $500M each are not well suited to providing fine grain local service except in the densest of areas (eg downtown). We need to solve the cost problem if we want to change that. Perhaps cut and cover can be an option. I know some jurisdictions are also looking at large bore tunnels with the station largely/entirely in the the tunnel (relying more on elevators for access). The most likely option to me is elevated, which OL might become the prototype for in Toronto--hopefully it is something that expands the overton window of politically acceptable transit solutions.

I think many people are taking the not so great experience of the SRT as the measuring stick for elevated rail. we have seen countless examples even in canada where properly constructed elevated rail works.

 

[Rainforest]

That no longer seems to be the driving philosophy behind subway projects. The idea now seems to be that the subway should behave like a GO train, at the expense of screwing over the people in the actual city who may need to use it.

That's a common pattern in modern cities. If you look at other transit systems with subway backbones, very often you will see very close station spacing in the downtown area, and much wider spacing in the suburbs where feeder surface routes take people to the closest subway station.

And the reason is just the context during the design time. The original subway needs all riders it can get to justify its massive capacity, thus the stations are built closely to capture all possible riders along the route. By the time extensions are planned, subway has good usage numbers, maybe even gets crowded, thus getting all possible riders is no longer a concern. Spreading the subway benefits into suburbs as far as possible becomes the main driver, therefore the stop spacing becomes wider to save on stations and improve the travel times.

That said, skipping Cummer station and leaving a 1.8 km gap is taking that too far. The pattern of stopping every 400-500 m in downtown and every ~ 1 km outside downtown is fine for a subway. Pushing the spacing towards 2 km and beyond reduces the service quality for no good reason, especially when a dense / highrise area like Yonge / Cummer / Patricia is skipped.

 

[Mercenary]

Electric subways create pollution? yes the 6 lane arterial roads are so much better for the environment. since when do cars and trucks create noise pollution, visual pollution, and air pollution, oh and kill people on bikes, walking, and other drivers. The issue is those damn electric subways behind noise walls that are the issue. You know i agree Huston is the pinacol of sustainable and efficient transportation and Toronto would learn a thing or two about city planning.

I am talking about the areas around it. The areas under the elevated portions became un-used and polluted. Similar to the areas under the Gardiner Expressway.

 

[cplchanb]

I am talking about the areas around it. The areas under the elevated portions became un-used and polluted. Similar to the areas under the Gardiner Expressway.

Source? You don't see Tokyo as being a wasteland. They got more elevated lines just in Tokyo than all of metrolinx. They are 10x more cleaner than any toronto street.
How about Vancouver?

Honestly you're line is a typical pro subway political point and it's honestly just a lazy politicians excuse for not putting effort in making these spaces better. Buried metro lines aren't always the answer to the world's problems.