[44 North]

That's not a change. It was always needed and the rail yard had to go somewhere. It was an addition but not a real change to the project itself. When they alter the TPAP for the subway, remove a station, change the mode... That's different.




By that logic, we've already paid for an extension to Cummer, since the tail tracks go there.



So, one might say nothing has changed?
Change in timing is not changing the subway. A delay is not a change, despite your philosophical musings in whether something that didn't exist still not existing is a change. Neither is a rail yard.



Models are predictions not fantasies. They evolve but until we reach that future it's ut best we have.



It's immaterial. Every revision has worse numbers then the last. We all know the Yonge extension will have higher ridership so let's leave it at that.

(but thanks for demonstrating that difference between a project that's changed many times and one that's been stable for a decade)



Coulda woulda shoulda didn't-a.



Well, we agree on a few things.



I know, really. I just don't think it matters, is my point. The fact that I am pro subway doesn't matter either. That's also my point.

I don't think they could have built an LRT in the interim. And killing the BRT made sense at the time but is more frustrating the longer this goes. The situation has just been what it's been, unfortunately.

I don't really agree with any of this. As for the point about how "we all know the Yonge extension will have higher ridership" than SSE (mere hours after claiming it's a "fact" it will have triple the ridership, then a downgraded "guarantee" it will have double)...I don't think that's a known. I guess an inevitable pissing contest has formed between the two extensions, but I find it doubtful that YNSE will trump SSE's ridership. At least for the section north of Steeles.

One of the most unbiased modeling I think we've seen to date is from a Mlinx Backgrounder from way back in 08. Very much dated, very ambitious parameters used, and includes numerous goodies promised by a gov't that let their mouths write a cheque they couldn't cash. But I think it's a fair baseline to fall back on since it uses similar wide-eyed parameters and P2G UGC assumptions as later models. Projections put YNSE ridership at 19.5M/yr and ScarbRT at 31.2M/yr. Keep in mind this is pre-SSE, so the number shown is not a Line 2 ext but rather a grade-separated light rail line. Simple maths converts this annual ridership to approx 62,500 avg wkday for YNSE vs 100,000 for the SRT in 2031. From this I guess the onus is on amateur planning and transit enthusiasts to sort out the projections in light of post-2008 revelations.

• For YNSE one would assumedly add updated ultra-high mode shares projected for RHC/LG, add Stouffville RER, add Barrie RER. But delay AD2W and any express service from the RH line, possibly lower rosy VIVA projections, and probably remove LRT on Don Mills, the 407 Transitway, and whatever RT was projected for Steeles (unless these end up being built).

• For SRT I guess one would add RER and super RER (aka SmartTrack east) in place AD2W for Stouffville, but remove a few nearby local RT projects. Either way I think most agree the SSE # was higher than the SRT/SLRT (at least prior to being shortened and having two stations dropped).

What's the result? I'm not sure, nor do I think many are. But I don't think it's a safe bet to say YNSE will beat out SSE's ridership significantly (or at all). It seems more logical that at the end of the day it would have similar or lower ridership (with this day being sometime in the early 2030s). One thing worth keeping in mind is that transit usage in Scarb is high today, so we don't need an ambitious projection to tell us this.

As discussed other places on this board, the planning for the growth centre (not the ridership projections - which are separate) assume the existence and ridership capacity of both RER and the subway. Probably neither of us wants to dig into that nest of snakes, but it's fact that they were reverse engineered from the assumption of both modes in operation at the hub.

I'd say it's a bit of a yes and no, for reasons that Cobra mentioned. The only rapid transit option shortlisted was subway, and development is contingent on rapid transit. But that doesn't mean development is contingent on the subway. Also development staging put the only rapid transit option presented (subway) in operation in the early 2020s, with GO improvements progressing out to 2031ish. But since this rapid transit may not be in operation until 2031ish, the whole staging thing is out the window regardless.

 

[TJ O'Pootertoot]

I don't really agree with any of this. As for the point about how "we all know the Yonge extension will have higher ridership" than SSE (mere hours after claiming it's a "fact" it will have triple the ridership, then a downgraded "guarantee" it will have double)...I don't think that's a known. I guess an inevitable pissing contest has formed between the two extensions, but I find it doubtful that YNSE will trump SSE's ridership. At least for the section north of Steeles.
....What's the result? I'm not sure, nor do I think many are. But I don't think it's a safe bet to say YNSE will beat out SSE's ridership significantly (or at all). It seems more logical that at the end of the day it would have similar or lower ridership (with this day being sometime in the early 2030s). One thing worth keeping in mind is that transit usage in Scarb is high today, so we don't need an ambitious projection to tell us this.

I haven't guaranteed any FACTS because you can't do that about the future. The ridership PROJECTIONS (which, yes, need to be updated) make it clear, however.
You honestly think the 1-stop SSE will have higher ridership than the 6-stop YNSE?

It's academic for now, but if we're both around in 2035 and you're actually right, I owe you a Coke.

I'd say it's a bit of a yes and no, for reasons that Cobra mentioned. The only rapid transit option shortlisted was subway, and development is contingent on rapid transit. But that doesn't mean development is contingent on the subway. Also development staging put the only rapid transit option presented (subway) in operation in the early 2020s, with GO improvements progressing out to 2031ish. But since this rapid transit may not be in operation until 2031ish, the whole staging thing is out the window regardless.

You're playing one of our band's greatest hits!
You're only partly, barely right - yes they didn't study alternatives and yes, ACTUAL YEARS are out the window but I've posted the phasing chart before and it's not about the YEARS, it's about the STAGES. The categories are like before subway/construction starts/subway operational. And there's also phasing contingent on the transitway and RER. But it does NOT say "rapid transit" and it does NOT have actual years built into the Secondary Plan and therefore its underlying fabric remains totally unchanged.

I'm not going to dig it up again but you've seen it before and you know I'm speaking accurately.

OH - fine, I'll find it - just so everyone can see you're wrong and we can settle this one thing. It says SUBWAY and it does not have years. Literally, black and white. End of story. (There's a more detailed matrix somewhere; I dunno where it is offhand).

I don't know how much it can be clearer that the subway, and the capacity it delivers, is the underlying assumption.

View attachment 78001

 

[44 North]

Again, the only rapid transit option shortlisted was subway. Development is contingent on rapid transit being in place. That doesn't mean it's contingent on the subway (rather that the subway is the only rapid transit option shortlisted). We had this debate a couple times already. The stages (or date in which a stage is allocated) is also important. A delay in subway construction and its subsequent year of operation shifts these stages, bringing them closer to the operation date of other transit projects.

 

[TJ O'Pootertoot]

Again, the only rapid transit option shortlisted was subway. Development is contingent on rapid transit being in place. That doesn't mean it's contingent on the subway (rather that the subway is the only rapid transit option shortlisted). We had this debate a couple times already. The stages (or date in which a stage is allocated) is also important. A delay in subway construction and its subsequent year of operation shifts these stages, bringing them closer to the operation date of other transit projects.

I dunno. Maybe we're talking past each other. I don't understand the "debate." I don't want to dig up my old analogy about how they're baking a chocolate cake using the ingredients they have and if they use vanilla instead, it will still be a delicious cake but not chocolate any more. But I just did - change ingredients, change the cake.

We agree it's the only option "baked" in there, but we're just looking at it differently. But since the the details of the plan get into not just # of units but actual square footage, it should be obvious that they would change if a mode with lesser capacity were introduced, yes? (Hypothetically, if they were given a higher capacity, I suppose those numbers could go up but they are PREDICATED - note the prefix "pre" - on the subway right now. And have been since they were devised. And still will be next year.) I mean, every model and every plan is built upon assumptions and this one assumes a subway. Why does that vex you so?

The clock does not start running on any of the stages so the years and dates don't matter. If they announce it in 2030, it doesn't change the allocations detailed above. Why would it? It doesn't specify (for example) what happens if the subway and transitway open 1 year apart or 10 years apart - it DOES NOT MATTER. No develpment - even a single condo tower - sets targets based on dates. They don't decide to put the plumbing in in January regardless of whether the foundation is poured or not. This is obvious, isn't it?

 

[44 North]

Keep writing about cake, or songs, or the rolling stones, or whatever it is this hour. I've presented my case several times already.

 

[TheTigerMaster]

Keep writing about cake, or songs, or the rolling stones, or whatever it is this hour. I've presented my case several times already.

I'm a little hungry right now. What kind of cake should I buy?

 

[44 North]

I'm a little hungry right now. What kind of cake should I buy?

Mocha.
Coffee + chocolate...you can't go wrong.

 

[salsa]

I'm a little hungry right now. What kind of cake should I buy?

 

[TheTigerMaster]

How about mocha chocolate + coffee shaped like that cake? Bring it to the Crosstown opening.

 

[TJ O'Pootertoot]

How about mocha chocolate + coffee shaped like that cake? Bring it to the Crosstown opening.

It sounds delicious and, yes, you are going back and forth about these plans for a cake, but since the cake doesn't exist yet, we should all acknowledge here that it could end up being muffins or even a donut instead? Wouldn't that fill your appetite just the same? I hope totally changing the ingredients doesn't in any way affect your plans to have cake.

44North - Samsonite makes a lot of fine cases. You haven't made one yet.
Yes, I made that reference just for you. To keep you on your toes.

but seriously - let us all agree: Mocha is a fine flavour.

 

[jaycola]

I think that the projections for Yonge North are exaggerated. I think that there is a need for this extension, but there is no way that the ridership will be this high. This will only happen if a huge amount of redevelopment occurs at Yonge/Highway 7 and I don't think that this will occur for several decades. Right now, there is a lot more development at Scarborough Centre. Projections need to be published assuming that there is no redevelopment around Yonge/Highway 7. I think that with current levels of development, the Yonge North extension will only be busy as far as Steeles and will be lightly used further north, and the Scarborough Subway will be busier.

There is huge demand for development in Richmond Hill and lots of applications in process. Here is a June 1st 2016 recap of active development applications in the Town. https://www.richmondhill.ca/documents/report_op_zoning.pdf

35 pages of rezoning applications representing thousands of units in dozens of building none at the Yonge/7 location. The additional transit option will only increase demand for housing community wide. In 2006 Richmond Hill's population was 173,950, today it is estimated at 216,000. 25% growth in 10 years. Developers are clambering for land to develop.

Richmond Hill is small at just 100 km2 (compared to Toronto at 630 km2) and is nearly built out with the restrictions of the Greenbelt. Density is at 1838 persons per km2. Not bad considering the Greenbelt takes up approximately 1/3 of the community. The province has proclaimed that 60% of new development will have to occur in already built up areas and this area is key to fulfilling this goal.

*edit: I had the wrong link to the zoning application page.

 

[BMO]

View attachment 78067

There is huge demand for development in Richmond Hill and lots of applications in process. Here is a June 1st 2016 recap of active development applications in the Town. http://www.richmondhill.ca/subpage.asp?pageid=rh_official_plan_research

35 pages of rezoning applications representing thousands of units in dozens of building none at the Yonge/7 location. The additional transit option will only increase demand for housing community wide. In 2006 Richmond Hill's population was 173,950, today it is estimated at 216,000. 25% growth in 10 years. Developers are clambering for land to develop.

Richmond Hill is small at just 100 km2 (compared to Toronto at 630 km2) and is nearly built out with the restrictions of the Greenbelt. Density is at 1838 persons per km2. Not bad considering the Greenbelt takes up approximately 1/3 of the community. The province has proclaimed that 60% of new development will have to occur in already built up areas and this area is key to fulfilling this goal.

Why would any developer build on land around RHC now with the subway extension in Limbo? They would be able to sell their units for nearly twice as much and in greater numbers once a subway is confirmed. The area isn't a stable neighbourhood, it's a mixture of industrial and commercial retail lands which can easily be changed. This is in contrast to Bloor-Subway Corridor and Sheppard where they were built along low-rise residential areas and haven't really seen a tremendous amount of density growth along the lines (although there certainly are pockets along both).

 

[darth_freeman]

Why would any developer build on land around RHC now with the subway extension in Limbo? They would be able to sell their units for nearly twice as much and in greater numbers once a subway is confirmed. The area isn't a stable neighbourhood, it's a mixture of industrial and commercial retail lands which can easily be changed. This is in contrast to Bloor-Subway Corridor and Sheppard where they were built along low-rise residential areas and haven't really seen a tremendous amount of density growth along the lines (although there certainly are pockets along both).

Who says the subway extension is in limbo? It's obviously going to happen.

 

[TJ O'Pootertoot]

Why would any developer build on land around RHC now with the subway extension in Limbo? They would be able to sell their units for nearly twice as much and in greater numbers once a subway is confirmed. The area isn't a stable neighbourhood, it's a mixture of industrial and commercial retail lands which can easily be changed.

It's creating an interesting dynamic. Metrus definitely won't even consider breaking a lease with Cineplex or Indigo or Home Depot until the subway is a sure thing, for the RHC lands. Langstaff can start going forward but there's little point as long as the timeline is hugely uncertain. I've noticed buildings near Yonge being torn down over the past few months so I'd guess they're prepping for prepping. In the meantime, they can sit on the lands and wait for the $ to roll in. As you say, both sides of the UGC are easily turned into blank slates when the timing is right - there's few structures as temporary as a big box store.

But in the meantime development is leapfrogging RHC and there's significant intensification from north of 7 up to Major Mac. These shots are a year old now but you get the idea...

This used to be a gas station:

This used to be a music store:

This used to be the original Harvey's (boo!):

And you can see there are more cranes. It doesn't prove anything concrete but it sure suggests that intensification and highrise development in the UGC won't be any concern unless the market changes drastically. So there's an irony in that the subway delay is keeping latent development demand AWAY from the mobility hub.

Might be a lesson there for people who think that the market isn't a big factor in creating suburban mobility hubs and that failing to intensify in the UGCs doesn't ultimately create more sprawl on the fringe for a finite, growing population.

 

[minilude]

The transformation is taking place right now at yonge/16th actually. The condo boom was the result of the pre-2012 condo frenzy but this wave has been settled quite a bit. I would like to see more office towers or commercial buildings at Yonge/hwy7 - just like how Markham has transformed the Enterprise/Warden/Kennedy parcel of lands.