xtremesniper
Active Member
I take it you’re referring to my posts. So...where was I proven wrong? Or “babbling without reading up first� I believe any perceived issue seemed to lie in other posters’ inability to grasp the terminology I used. Through several posts I was extremely specific about what I meant when referring to GRADE-SEPARATE light RAPID transit. Although prior to Yonge North there were plans for BRT and potential LRT conversions – which I didn’t ever deny; there was no plan for a light rapid transit YR metro system. Buses or LRVs hitting traffic lights every few hundred metres is not a Metro, or grade-separate RT.
All I'm saying is as a bystander looking into this thread, your initial posts came across as very naive and ill informed. It took quite a number of TJ's posts to (at least IMO) get you up to speed with what everyone else's knowledge of the information in this thread is about.
My point was always clear: I’m in favour of rapid transit, and I support a mode that fits the niche between in-median buses/LRVs, and ungodly expensive $500M/km heavy rail systems/extensions. A light metro has all the benefits of subways (speed, high capacity, upzoning, development, etc); but way more flexibility and enormous opportunities for cost-savings. Trenched, in-median, elevated, bored, cut/cover. In other words, infrastructure variability that is no longer realistically achievable with extensions of Toronto’s subway system. Such a system is just as good as a subway, extensions are affordable and can be interlined with other local/regional LRT lines (e.g a 407 LRT Transitway), and it’s in no way lesser transit. Another bonus is that it could’ve been built without the current delays brought about by extending another municipality’s line w/ notorious capacity issues. IMO what I find to be actual ‘lesser transit’ is the unimodal tunnel vision and continued short piecemeal suburban subway extensions that break the bank, and come at the cost of other priorities elsewhere.
I agree that LRT is in no way a "lesser" transit. I don't think anyone here is claiming that to be the case. My primary concern with Yonge in particular is what I've already stated before, which is that it has a long and proven track record of growth and intensification, and is often the center of focus regarding long-term future growth in addition to current trends.
And I agree with your other point that this is Yonge Street, and it’s naturally deserving of something better than lowrate BRT (or BRT->LRT conversion). That’s why it’s a bit confounding that prior to 2007 there were no plans by YR to build rapid transit of their own (real, grade-separated RAPID transit). But somehow after a Prov election there was an immediate necessity for high-frequency 6-car heavy rail underground subways – with obscenely large estimates of ~20,000 peak hour ridership.
I was involved in those consultations with the public when they made the switch from BRT/future LRT to subway, and I recall it was for a number of reasons. Firstly, a very loud group of locals who insisted that if we're going to tear up historic stretches of Yonge, we may as well do it "the right way" and build something that will stand the test of time. There were major concerns over how to protect stretches of Yonge that have historical significance. In addition to that, there was a re-evaluation of the growth patterns in the area. I believe this is around the same time as when Markham, Vaughan and Richmond Hill all came forward with intensification plans that dramatically changed the previous traffic estimates.
Re: your point about transferring at Finch. That’s a valid PITA for anyone. But the Prov has come to the realization (as they have a few times over the decades) that improved commuter rail is the best option for medium/long-haul transit users who otherwise rely on local-service rapid transit. We’re doing it with SmartTrack, we’ll soon be doing it with Lakeshore E + W, and with or without Yonge North we’ll be doing it with the Richmond Hill line. An improved RH line with a shorter and faster route is very likely to be shortlisted in the Relief studies. Such a line would more or less solve the PITA transfer at Finch (not to mention slash the ridership projections of a subway on Yonge).
The thing is that TJ and others in this thread have been saying over and over again is that people keep making this false assumption that everyone who goes to Finch Station is trying to get to Union (or anywhere south of Bloor). This is simply not the case. This Union-centric view of rail systems people seem to have is not justified. I personally know of many, many people who take the subway instead of the GO simply because they want to get to places in "uptown" Toronto, like anywhere between North York Centre and Eglinton. An improved Richmond Hill line is not going to help as much as you'd think it will, and I think it's generally unpleasant to always come back to this topic to remind people that people outside of Toronto don't see the Steeles "border" as a border, and might live on one side of it and work on the other -- nowhere near downtown.