[TJ O'Pootertoot]

this is an important project, but is contingent on a DRL. thats something I think everyone can agree on. Remember, right now were experiencing crazy amounts of people at Y&B and st. george, and the vaughan extension hasn't even opened yet...

You say that as if the Vaughan extension will make things WORSE. Shouldn't it make things BETTER as people who now have to go over to Yonge come down the University line instead, moving some of that Yonge/St.George traffic over to Spadina...?

 

[RedRocket191]

You say that as if the Vaughan extension will make things WORSE. Shouldn't it make things BETTER as people who now have to go over to Yonge come down the University line instead, moving some of that Yonge/St.George traffic over to Spadina...?

Yes, it will make things better initially. However the freed-up room will eventually be eaten up by people coming from elsewhere.

 

[drum118]

By that logic, Torontonians shouldn't be allowed on GO and there shouldn't be GO stations outside downtown, any more than there should be a subway crossing Steeles. Are you offering this trade?

OR would you prefer to recognize the need for a hierarchy of transit services to deal with commuting population that is increasingly hetereogenous, destination-wise?

Interestingly, given the discussion of ridership at terminal stations, the Yonge extension should have very high ridership at its two final stations, likely not right at opening but within 10-15 years. I'll bet that Richmond Hill Centre station people pulls in more than Downsview does, to the extent that's relevant.

Even if, on opening day, the Yonge extension didn't have a single rider more than it does today, it would STILL be worth it. You have thousands of buses and thousands of cars travelling from Hwy 7 (and north) down to Finch every day. The benefits to the environment, the road itself, and to traffic might not be worth $3-billion to Joe Taxpayer but they're certainly worth a lot, IMHO.

Instead of cramming in everyone at Finch and having everyone drive down there you're spreading out existing ridership across several stations and moving the congregration point north (presumably to a new lot at Langstaff). All those people worried they won't get a subway seat at Finch should at least have a much easier time getting a parking spot there

Once again, you want to move one thing from one location to another without dealing with the issue in the first place.

You want to throw Billions of dollars down the drain by not dealing with the issue and create more a mess for RHC.

There is no 1,000's of buses traveling Yonge St today north of Steeles.

South of Steeles, you are close to a 1,000 buses a day and one reason the line needs to be extended to Steeles 10 years ago, let alone today.

Yes there are 1,000's of cars using Yonge St today and more to come, even having a subway to RHC.

All you are doing with any rapid line is freeing up road space to meet the future traffic drivers that will becoming of age to drive as well relocate to the area.

RHC see less riders than Downsview, other than transferring from route to another. Just look at YRT ridership number for the route. Blue carries 1,000 riders per hour at peak time, with Pink carrying less than 100 in one direction.

 

[scarberiankhatru]

Yonge needs to terminate somwhere. If it just went to Steeles right now, that would still be a huge improvement for tens of thousands of people and depending on what got built north of there, like a bulkier Viva bus lane, there's little stopping the subway from going farther north some day. But 'some day' is today due to the efforts of York Region and the province to situate Hwy 7 as a growth node and as the place where modes will change.

Thornhill is also closer to, more accessible, and more integrated with the central core of Toronto than much of the 416...a Yonge extension would grab some very low-hanging fruit in terms of creating a transit culture and a more urban region.

As for overcrowding the YUS section downstream, everyone exaggerates. In the short-term, the bulk of the people that would use the Yonge extension are already using it. There won't suddenly be 100,000 extra riders on opening day. It'll take a few years for riders to switch routes, for people to move around, for people to get used to taking a new line. It'll be 20-30 years before places like Langstaff are fully built out. Some riders going right to King & Bay may move over to GO. But a lot of the people using the Yonge extension won't be going downtown...they'll be going from Clark to Sheppard or from Steeles to York Mills. These people won't be clogging up Yonge & Bloor station. The extension is for this group of riders, not for the tiny, tiny fraction that will be going from Langstaff to Union and 'taking seats from Torontonians' or whatever. By the time that extra 100,000 riders are there, we'll hopefully have some other transit options in this city to lessen the impact.

A Sheppard Subway to STC would connect with (not all at one location but within a fair radius) Agincourt Go Station, Scarborough SRT (whatever that line becomes in the future), VIVA BRT at Don Mills station (could be moved to STC), YRT (rte 90), and highway 401. Sheppard is also a designated growth corridor with intensification planned for Sheppard/Yonge, Sheppard/Allen, and STC. So it's not like they are not comparable.

Oh, they're very similar. Both Yonge and Sheppard are potentially being planned as clusterfraks of lines and modes...transit spaghetti. Pretty much every inch of both corridors is slated for redevelopment - and this development is well underway. The city is planning for almost 9,000 people just at Warden & Sheppard, for instance.

 

[TJ O'Pootertoot]

It's like Scarberian stole my brain!
These things keep getting said over and over in this thread but apparently doesn't hurt to say them more:

-Major growth node and rapid transit planned for Hwy 7 in near future

-Not every rider is going from RHC to downtown or vice versa. GO will still be best for going end-to-end

-Yes, DRL and other downstream improvements are needed but system won't explode the day the extension opens

-Even if Yonge was magically approved and funded today, it wouldn't open until, what 2018 or so? The longer you wait, the more you are compromising the ability of the growth node and corridor to develop to its potential.

-In short, going to Steeles might be a lot better than nothing but it would be very shortsighted if you're aim is to reduce traffic, create transit culture in the suburbs and curb urban sprawl. (i.e. If you stop the subway at Steeles instead of Langstaff you'll get 25,000 at RHC/Langstaff instead of 50,000 and those other 25,000 will move into detached homes, further out and buy cars and perpetuate the cycle ad nauseum.)

If you think traffic etc. will be just peachy on the south side of Steeles while they build World on Yonge x 3 or 4 or 5 without any supporting transit, good luck with that.

If your goal is to keep the TORONTO Transit Commission only in Toronto, for Torontonians, however, it will be a raging success.

 

[Woodbridge_Heights]

As for overcrowding the YUS section downstream, everyone exaggerates. In the short-term, the bulk of the people that would use the Yonge extension are already using it. There won't suddenly be 100,000 extra riders on opening day. It'll take a few years for riders to switch routes, for people to move around, for people to get used to taking a new line. It'll be 20-30 years before places like Langstaff are fully built out. Some riders going right to King & Bay may move over to GO. But a lot of the people using the Yonge extension won't be going downtown...they'll be going from Clark to Sheppard or from Steeles to York Mills. These people won't be clogging up Yonge & Bloor station. The extension is for this group of riders, not for the tiny, tiny fraction that will be going from Langstaff to Union and 'taking seats from Torontonians' or whatever. By the time that extra 100,000 riders are there, we'll hopefully have some other transit options in this city to lessen the impact.

So where are the riders going to come from to pay for the extension if the potential riders that will be boarding at RHC are already riding the Bus/Subway today. The ridership growth is decades away? What about a recent report revealed by Steve Munro that most, if not all growth plans are off by 60-80% over what actually is developed 20 - 30 yrs later? Should that not be a warning about what we are projecting to happen at RHC?

Also this is the same argument that I often find when discussing a DRL. DRL is not on many people's priority list because the riders of the DRL are already riding the TTC as it is assumed that riders will come from the Danforth, King, Queen, etc lines and therefore no 'ridership growth' to pay for the line.

 

[taal]

So where are the riders going to come from to pay for the extension if the potential riders that will be boarding at RHC are already riding the Bus/Subway today. The ridership growth is decades away? What about a recent report revealed by Steve Munro that most, if not all growth plans are off by 60-80% over what actually is developed 20 - 30 yrs later? Should that not be a warning about what we are projecting to happen at RHC?

Also this is the same argument that I often find when discussing a DRL. DRL is not on many people's priority list because the riders of the DRL are already riding the TTC as it is assumed that riders will come from the Danforth, King, Queen, etc lines and therefore no 'ridership growth' to pay for the line.

Maybe, maybe not. The forcaste residential growth in NYCC did take place, its the commerical growth that didn't. Why ? Tax and land costs, the 905 has a big advatnage in terms of taxes, but not land costs ... if anything land costs will parallel NYCC soon enough.

So the question is, will companies look to move into less suburban office park developments and more urban developments ... but urban developments still located in the 905. If there is a big push for this, then the like of downtown Markham and RHC may boom. If not who knows.

Rental costs in downtown Markham and RHC will surly be higher then other subruban campus properties, and they're kidding them selves if they don't think that will be the case. So the one hinderness that may occor is: Comapnies that want that Urban feeling and are willing to pay more, may simply want to locate downtown, the real downtown ...

So I think the answer to that will drive anything, so in short:

I think the mass exdosus from the 416 to the 905 is over ... I'm even referring to the outer 416, which while struggering, tends to maintain the high vacany rates i.e. tenants aren't flocking away from this area (but they're not coming) ... so stagnation for the rest of the 416.

But in terms of downtown, there really hasn't been a massive shift back, there's been a lot of internal based growth. I think the internal growth will continue, but I'm not sure we'll see much in the way of 905 -> 416. So these 905 companies may stay in the 905 and will eventually need to expand ... will they chose more suburban office park developments or want something more urban yet in the 905 ?

 

[scarberiankhatru]

So where are the riders going to come from to pay for the extension if the potential riders that will be boarding at RHC are already riding the Bus/Subway today. The ridership growth is decades away? What about a recent report revealed by Steve Munro that most, if not all growth plans are off by 60-80% over what actually is developed 20 - 30 yrs later? Should that not be a warning about what we are projecting to happen at RHC?

Also this is the same argument that I often find when discussing a DRL. DRL is not on many people's priority list because the riders of the DRL are already riding the TTC as it is assumed that riders will come from the Danforth, King, Queen, etc lines and therefore no 'ridership growth' to pay for the line.

Read what you just quoted and you'll have your answer. No, I clearly didn't say all the potential riders are already riding. No, I'm not making the argument you mentioned with the DRL.

If current Steeles/YRT/etc. buses are currently pouring in 50,000 riders to Finch (just picking a rough number), that means that if the subway opened today, it'd move about 50,000 north of Finch. Do you honestly think that A), 100,000 or whatever additional riders would materialize the day the extension opened or B), it would take that many to "pay for the extension"? If Yonge opened in 10 years and the DRL opened in 20 years, that gives Yonge enough time to build up ridership to swamp the system and it gives the DRL enough time to get built. The whole point is that Yonge can be extended before a DRL because it will take a number of years for ridership and modal share to ramp up and for development-based growth to reach the point where the line is actually swamped downstream. Maybe we can get some signal improvements that accommodate 20,000 more riders. Maybe we can get 10,000 more people onto GO. Hopefully, we can get the DRL up and running by the time the Yonge extension actually does start pouring in thousands of riders above and beyond what can easily be dealt with.

If RHC doesn't meet its development targets in 20 years, who cares. Most people who use the extension will be getting on or off south of RHC, obviously, and most people who use RHC will not be going to/from whatever offices they might build there, so that warning is irrelevant. There's still the Langstaff land, Royal Orchard, Clark, Steeles, and Cummer, all the feeder routes, modal growth, etc. Instead of arguing that we shouldn't extend the line because development may not happen, recognize that the development is happening, so we need to extend the line.

Also, for something like the DRL, it might be "paid for" partially by replacing streetcar service, which is an utter black hole of operational dollars.

 

[car4041]

streetcar service, which is an utter black hole of operational dollars.

What is this supposed to mean? Several of the streetcar lines are among the TTC's most productive surface routes. Compared to buses, they require fewer drivers to move the same number of passengers and their operating cost isn't tied to the price of diesel fuel.

 

[Paleo]

If RHC doesn't meet its development targets in 20 years, who cares. Most people who use the extension will be getting on or off south of RHC, obviously, and most people who use RHC will not be going to/from whatever offices they might build there, so that warning is irrelevant. There's still the Langstaff land, Royal Orchard, Clark, Steeles, and Cummer, all the feeder routes, modal growth, etc. Instead of arguing that we shouldn't extend the line because development may not happen, recognize that the development is happening, so we need to extend the line.

So nebulous growth and development targets at RHC being the justification for extending the line, you shrug your shoulders and say "who cares" if it doesn't materialize. How very spendthrift.

By the way, this is how YRT views bus service. Go go all the feeder routes!

 

[EnviroTO]

What is this supposed to mean? Several of the streetcar lines are among the TTC's most productive surface routes. Compared to buses, they require fewer drivers to move the same number of passengers and their operating cost isn't tied to the price of diesel fuel.

On the routes that a DRL would run those streetcars are stuck in traffic. On their own ROW I would tend to agree with you when the new streetcars are compared to buses. The greater the passenger to employee ratio is for a route, and the more fuel efficient the vehicles are on that route, the better the cost recovery.

 

[Dandy Horse]

It really just gets my goat that these people who built a completely low density place want high order transit, while high density places are stuck with nothing. you cant have your cake and eat it too. or you can, but it will just bleed the system, making it worse for everyone. Also, how will extending to vaughan NOT cause more people at yonge+bloor and st. george? i would think that it would. explain...

 

[Dandy Horse]

also in terms of streetcars being a black hole, i heard the Spadina streetcar was the most profitable surface route, it actually makes money for the TTC.

 

[andrewpmk]

It really just gets my goat that these people who built a completely low density place want high order transit, while high density places are stuck with nothing. you cant have your cake and eat it too. or you can, but it will just bleed the system, making it worse for everyone. Also, how will extending to vaughan NOT cause more people at yonge+bloor and st. george? i would think that it would. explain...

Downtown employment growth makes the Yonge line more crowded downtown. Extending lines to the suburbs does not. To illustrate, suppose extending the subway to Yonge and Hwy 7 causes a person who works downtown to switch from car to transit. As a result the DVP becomes less congested and the Yonge line more congested. Then suppose someone else can't get on the trains in the morning and switches from TTC to driving. In the absence of downtown employment growth extending the subway should have no effect on peak overcrowding downtown. On the other hand the subway extension might attract off peak, counter peak riders or riders not going all the way downtown.

My hypothesis is that not building the DLR or expanding peak GO capacity will cause downtown employment to suffer. However due to all the traffic caused by suburb to suburb commuters I think downtown and suburb lines are equally needed.

 

[unimaginative2]

First of all, the number of people within 500 metres of a subway stop almost always make up a small fraction of the total ridership of a station. Feeder buses are far more important, and the excellent feeder bus network is one of the reasons Toronto's suburban transit is so successful. That's why the surrounding density of a subway line is actually quite far down the list in terms of important factors for determining where to site a new line. York Mills, for example, is one of the busier stations in the system despite the fact that it's surrounded largely by forests and single family homes. It has more than three times the ridership of Museum station, which is surrounded by a huge university campus, major tourist attractions, and office and condo towers.

All that said, I'm baffled by people who claim that this part of the region is somehow low density. Look at North York Centre? It's packed with more towers than almost any other part of the city. The planns for the area further north on Yonge are similar. The Richmond Hill Centre and Langstaff areas are planned to house tens of thousands of people at high densities.