....

here's the presentation from the june 17/18 public consultations.

http://vivayork.com/downloads/yonge_subway_presentation.pdf

Thanks for the link. Certainly makes more sense thant extending it to Vaughan, but I worry 'bout the political ramifications of extending it out of the city proper.

It still baffles me how York Region is getting two subway extensions when Peel Region has more people and higher transit ridership and is getting 0.

It still baffles me how York Region is getting two subway extensions when Peel Region has more people and higher transit ridership and is getting 0.

Blame Hurricane Hazel.

and Tropical Storm Sorbara

It still baffles me how York Region is getting two subway extensions when Peel Region has more people and higher transit ridership and is getting 0.

Yonge makes sense, even if Thornhill isn't exactly booming with population density throughout. The sick irony in all this, is that Sorbara was able to convince the feds to extend the YUS line out to Vaughan Corp. Ctr. under the provision that there'd be no Yonge extension into the 905 within the forseeable future. Now that Yonge's a go, they should revert the Vaughan extension back to just Steeles West. Futile subways need not be built.

The Peel extension would definitely be more sensible, but I'd try my luck with BRTs first.

How about no suburban subway extensions. There are places in the city that need a subway several times more than any surrounding region.

Exactly, the city needs to address the needs of taxpaying 416ers first before sending subways to the 905. If the 905 wants a subway, they will pay the ENTIRE construction cost and subsidize the TTC for the lost revenue in sending the subway to nowhere.

As if the 416 pays for the subways themselves. Hahaha. Very funny. Remind me, which city is in debt, Toronto, or Mississauga?

As if the 416 pays for the subways themselves. Hahaha. Very funny. Remind me, which city is in debt, Toronto, or Mississauga?

Give another two years and the answer will be both.

As if the 416 pays for the subways themselves. Hahaha. Very funny. Remind me, which city is in debt, Toronto, or Mississauga?

Funny thing.. Hurricane Hazel has set Mississauga for massive debts starting? Oh I don't know? Very soon...

A city the size of Toronto cannot function without subsidize... I'd love to get the stats of English state involvement in London's budget.. That city would be piss poor if the British State did not bail it out.. Unlike Toronto which gets shafted.

Many major cities are subsidized. The economic, and social benefits of large cities more than pays for the subsidies.

To Scrapethesky: How is Mississauga paying for their busway? As it stands, Toronto is getting shafted with the Spadina Extension. York Region does not even have to pay for the operating expenses for the subway to Wal-Mart.
Everyone knows the Extension is a pork project from Flaherty, and Sorbara.

Any subway extension to the 905 would place a burden on property tax payers in Toronto. Even if as a matter of the entire TTC recovers 80% of its operational expenses, the remainder will be payed for by Toronto tax payers. I somehow doubt that the Spadina extension will make back its operating cost, Yonge may or may not so unless people in York region wish to pay into the TTC with their property tax then I suggest that moving the subway into that area would be a mistake.

It's a myth that Mississauga operates without debt. On the municipal level it holds no debt with banks.... but it only achieved that by making new development pay for many of the costs that property tax would not. For example if every home in a subdivision payed as part of the purchase of their homes for the capitol cost of the roads and civic structures that would have not covered the major repair on them that are usually needed in 30 to 50 years. Those expenses are usually more than what those areas can generate in property tax.

Now that Mississauga is almost 100% developed with no more room for new housings subdivisions there will be no more of this happening. This is why Mississauga is poised to become debt riddled.

Municipal debt is a bit of a myth in itself as municipalities tend to have better and more restrained spending habits.

The way our government splits up tax revenues between Fed/Provincial and municipal levels is a bit of a joke only no one should be laughing. This gaffe is making it harder for our urban centers to be competitive.

In case anyone forgot, Mississauga council just approved the biggest property tax hike in the GTA. I think it was around 5-6%? amongst other taxes.

Public open house for the Yonge Subway extension is being held on the evening of the 25th at 9019 Leslie St. in Richmond Hill.

Again if the ttc hadn't done the suburban subway expansions and left the original lines as is (Say from Union to Eglinton, possibly yorkdale on the university side. And from Keele to Warden). Had re purposed some of the streetcar fleet to operate in an expanding web outwards from the terminal stations. Then invested what would have been left over in subway construction downtown. I think we'd be (as transit riders in toronto) in much better shape than the situation that exists right now.

Let the riders near the borders of 416 and 905 use the GO train.

Again if the ttc hadn't done the suburban subway expansions and left the original lines as is (Say from Union to Eglinton, possibly yorkdale on the university side. And from Keele to Warden).

Huh? The ridership from Eglinton-Finch is much greater than anything on the Spadina line.

And I wouldn't call Keele, Warden, and Eglinton anywhere "near the borders of 416".

^I do agree with Monkeyronin on Ggaleazz's statement.

It wasn't so much the suburban expansion in its entirety that was the mistake. The Spadina line from a point I'm not going to debate was a mistake as well as the Sheppard line.

Yonge from terminus to Union has been a good investment.....

Yonge from terminus to Union has been a good investment.....If anything, it's an under-investment. More stops would have been a good idea.

The reality is that this extension can't go through until GO Richmond hill gets competitive service. Yonge subway will choke to death otherwise.

^It is highly debatable whether there should be an extension north of Steeles to begin with.

One idea is to extend it to Steeles and then run and LRT as the line north of it. The platform would look like this making it an extremely efficient transfer:

http://lrt.daxack.ca/images/ProposedSteeles.gif

If you think about it, many trains will not go north of Steeles and will be in a sort turn arrangement..... so integrating the LRT like this could be the best way to do this. Also the terminal for the subway bound buses from all over can be switched to Steeles and have it designed for extremely easy connection to the HRT/LRT shared platform.

Just a thought.

http://lrt.daxack.ca/YorkRegion.html

If anything, it's an under-investment. More stops would have been a good idea.

I was more referring to the statement that suburban expansion of subway lines has been a mistake.

Yonge has been very successful and its entire length is pretty well used.

I would have supported a greater investment in it from day one as the line currently is so near capacity even though it opened some 30 or so years before I was born.

Yeah, and that map basically proves that there is considerable density outside of the core - take a good look: http://img146.imageshack.us/img146/3585/torontodensity3dw1wz5.gif

And if that doesn't prove anything, then I'll let the daily boarding stats speak for themselves...

Finch: 92,610 (5th busiest/69)
NY Centre: 26,070 (30th)
Yonge-Shepperd: 114,950 (3rd)
York Mills: 26,590 (28th)
Lawrence: 21,660 (39th)

That's therefore 282,000 rides (out of 1,246,000 total subway rides) that you'd be jeopardizing by getting rid of this 8km stretch of subway (nearly twice the ridership/km as the entire system).

Are you serious? The map is almost entirely orange/red within those boundaries. Outside it's pretty much blue except for a few pockets here and there.

As for your station list. Finch is a terminal station and any terminal station is going to have high ridership #'s, means nothing. Sheppard-Yonge is a Subway interchange and the former 'downtown' of one of the cities that were amalgamated into the City of Toronto. As is NY Centre wrt to being downtown North York. I know that doesn't change the fact of the ridership #'s but a Yonge north streetcar running out of Eglinton could have served those nodes just as well as a Subway, and the Finch riders should be taking GO anyway. Eventually you'd have to extend the Yonge subway though.

But just imagine if, instead of the 10 km or so of expansion to the B-D line. A new downtown line were built under say, Queen. We'd have, gasp, TRZ's DRL!

^It is highly debatable whether there should be an extension north of Steeles to begin with.

One idea is to extend it to Steeles and then run and LRT as the line north of it. The platform would look like this making it an extremely efficient transfer:

If you think about it, many trains will not go north of Steeles and will be in a sort turn arrangement..... so integrating the LRT like this could be the best way to do this. Also the terminal for the subway bound buses from all over can be switched to Steeles and have it designed for extremely easy connection to the HRT/LRT shared platform.

Just a thought.

http://lrt.daxack.ca/YorkRegion.html

Personally, I would love that to happen. The LRT could go all the way to Newmarket without a transfer in the whole region. But I don't think it will happen. The York Region voter base wouldn't understand or take kindly to the cancellation of a subway at this point.

^True.

Sadly the money saved on this would make other lines possible as well as increasing the length of this line........

The reality is that this extension can't go through until GO Richmond hill gets competitive service. Yonge subway will choke to death otherwise.

Well, you know where I stand. This line shouldn't be extended until we have a DRL.

Huh? The ridership from Eglinton-Finch is much greater than anything on the Spadina line.

And I wouldn't call Keele, Warden, and Eglinton anywhere "near the borders of 416".


Suburbs doesn't necissarily mean 905. Toronto's density is generally south of Eglinton, East of Keele, and West of Warden. Dentrobates density map from his Eg subway proposal proves that. If the subway were left there and streetcars (or LRT) were run out of those stations into the medium and lower density areas of the city, there would be better transit service overall.

Subways are meant to serve density not as long haul routes.

I guess you'd have a hard time not extending the Yonge line but I think that the east-west Bloor line in particular would have benefited more from a parrallel DRL type line, rather than futhur expansion into the suburbs with somewhat diminishing returns.

I guess it all depends on GO providing a competitive service not just for 905'ers but also for residents in toronto who live on the fringe of the city proper.

Suburbs doesn't necissarily mean 905. Toronto's density is generally south of Eglinton, East of Keele, and West of Warden. Dentrobates density map from his Eg subway proposal proves that. If the subway were left there and streetcars (or LRT) were run out of those stations into the medium and lower density areas of the city, there would be better transit service overall.

Yeah, and that map basically proves that there is considerable density outside of the core - take a good look: http://img146.imageshack.us/img146/3585/torontodensity3dw1wz5.gif

And if that doesn't prove anything, then I'll let the daily boarding stats speak for themselves...

Finch: 92,610 (5th busiest/69)
NY Centre: 26,070 (30th)
Yonge-Shepperd: 114,950 (3rd)
York Mills: 26,590 (28th)
Lawrence: 21,660 (39th)

That's therefore 282,000 rides (out of 1,246,000 total subway rides) that you'd be jeopardizing by getting rid of this 8km stretch of subway (nearly twice the ridership/km as the entire system).

8km/5 stations... that's a station spacing of every 1.6km... and NYC wasn't added until later... meaning avg. spacing of every 2km. Yikes.

My proposed spacing north of Eglinton:

-Phase 1-

St.Clements
Glencairn
Lawrence
Fairlawn
Donwoods
York Mills

-Phase 2-

Sheppard
North York Centre
Churchill
Finch
Drewry
Goulding
Steeles

600m spacing is a bit excessive given the density/attraction and ridership levels of the area. New stations would be best placed at Sherwood, Teddington Park, Cummer, and Steeles, in my opinion.

^It is highly debatable whether there should be an extension north of Steeles to begin with.

One idea is to extend it to Steeles and then run and LRT as the line north of it. The platform would look like this making it an extremely efficient transfer:

http://lrt.daxack.ca/images/ProposedSteeles.gif

If you think about it, many trains will not go north of Steeles and will be in a sort turn arrangement..... so integrating the LRT like this could be the best way to do this. Also the terminal for the subway bound buses from all over can be switched to Steeles and have it designed for extremely easy connection to the HRT/LRT shared platform.

Just a thought.

http://lrt.daxack.ca/YorkRegion.html



I was more referring to the statement that suburban expansion of subway lines has been a mistake.

Yonge has been very successful and its entire length is pretty well used.

I would have supported a greater investment in it from day one as the line currently is so near capacity even though it opened some 30 or so years before I was born.

I went to that link... And it was really intersting to read.

I live at Yonge and Major Mac here in Richmond Hill, and as much as I would love a LRT train running up Yonge, I couldn't see that happening. The old downtown area on Yonge is already congested as hell, being reduced to one lane in each direction because of people parking on the street. The street there was also built for another time, and there is no room for expansion. They recommend tunneling, which would be great, but expensive.

I think a few rapid bus lanes will do the trick.

Beautiful plans, but not realistic in my opinion.

In Richmond Hill, there is 0.75 km that could require tunnelling. Everywhere else, surface is preferable.

600m spacing is a bit excessive given the density/attraction and ridership levels of the area. New stations would be best placed at Sherwood, Teddington Park, Cummer, and Steeles, in my opinion.
Sherwood and St.Clements are the same thing, as is Teddington Park and Donwoods, as is Cummer and Drewry... are you trying to confusing me? :tongue4: :jk:

I don't think 600m spacing is excessive at all, I think it would have provided far better service coverage in the network north of Eglinton. More stations can spur more local feeder routes into the neighbourhoods, which enhances transit accessibility and fosters a transit culture. This is something the city has lost due to the suburban planning boom.

Sherwood and St.Clements are the same thing, as is Teddington Park and Donwoods, as is Cummer and Drewry... are you trying to confusing me? :tongue4: :jk:

Teddington and Donwoods are a good 400m apart, but also serve entirely different communities - Donwoods would essentially be a southern station for the low-density, isolated Hogg's Hollow neighbourhood, while Teddington is more central to upper North Toronto.

And Cummer/Dewry, yes, however, what I used to name it is largely irrelevant (I chose Cummer because it seems a bit more well know). What matters is that that is the only station that should exist between Finch and Steeles. Basically the same situation with Sherwood/St. Clements.

Teddington and Donwoods are a good 400m apart, but also serve entirely different communities - Donwoods would essentially be a southern station for the low-density, isolated Hogg's Hollow neighbourhood, while Teddington is more central to upper North Toronto.

And Cummer/Dewry, yes, however, what I used to name it is largely irrelevant (I chose Cummer because it seems a bit more well know). What matters is that that is the only station that should exist between Finch and Steeles. Basically the same situation with Sherwood/St. Clements.

Why is anyone talking about more inner 416 station stops for the Yonge Line? :sly: With rankings like this: York Mills (28th) and Lawrence (39th), I think it's safe to bet stops at the midblocks (Blythwood, Glen Echo and Lord Seaton, I believe) would be major underachievers. Cummer-Drewry is only marginally acceptable if one considers that the condo bloc is gradually ascending north into York Region (I'd imagine the strip mall on the southeast corner of Yonge/Cummer will one day be demolished for condos).

I think Homer's idea is actually a good one, only instead of stopping at Steeles, why not continue it into the 416? Yes folks, I'm referring to a Yonge Relief Line. One that would bypass all stops except at the major interchanges: Sheppard, Eglinton, Bloor and Queen. South of Queen it could run as a local route, taking a loop of the waterfront condo community before returning to the Yonge alignment heading back north. How much do you guys estimate creating an adjacent ROW for the Yonge Line north of Eglinton would cost? South of Eglinton there's a perfect third-track option through the Davisville Yard, the option of tunneling directly underneath Yonge Street south to past Wellesley, and utilizing Bay Street for the rest of the way.

Stops I'd recommend within York Region:


CLARK
CENTRE-JOHN (despite what some "experts" claim, anywhere between 5000-7,500 walk-ins per day would use this stop. Add in feeders from 14th Ave, Denison and of course Centre/Hwy 7 west and we're talking tens of thousands now.) :yes:
ROYAL ORCHARD
(i.e. TTC and YRT have considered placing a stop @Bunker Rd across from the Holy Cross Cemetary. :doh: That has got to be the dumbest decision they've ever made, given that Royal Orchard Stn could extend north to Bay Thorn or even be centered there (Route 3 can detour) making the planned community near the 407 well within walking distance.)
LANGSTAFF (I chose to name it after the major cross-intersection and GO Stn that bares this name)
BANTRY
CARVILLE-16TH
WELDRICK
MAJOR MACKENZIE (possibly a tram tube could connect this stop to the GO Stn)
CROSBY
ELGIN MILLS
BERNARD
GAMBLE-19TH (I picked here for the terminii over Bernard as it's the official end of the built-up area).

Why is anyone talking about more inner 416 station stops for the Yonge Line? :sly: With rankings like this: York Mills (28th) and Lawrence (39th), I think it's safe to bet stops at the midblocks (Blythwood, Glen Echo and Lord Seaton, I believe) would be major underachievers.

They wouldn't be a Dundas West or Pape, sure, but they'd still be a Greenwood or Runnymede. "Underachievers" isn't exactly the problem, as "Overachievers" like Finch, Kennedy, and Eglinton are potentially dangerous due to their crowding problems, especially with all these being island platforms. The added stops wouldn't really take away from the current stations rankings, since those are primarily from perpendicular feeders, the added stops would actually add system ridership since it creates a more densely covered feeder network which provides more convenient service to more areas to get more regular riders, hence the transit culture that I refered to. The quality of the service is what gets people on transit, and transit that doesn't stop close to people is poor service, so the Yonge Line having 2km station spacing, excluding NYC, is actually poor service despite its high ridership at Finch and Sheppard stations. The Yonge Line neglects the very corridor it runs under north of Eglinton, focusing mostly on just picking up the bus routes that connect to its stations, and that's an unfortunate consequence of the suburban growth at the time.

What we need is easy access to the system, the at-your-door boarding point that the North Yonge really doesn't offer at all. Local service is what makes a line successful, combined with its reliability. As long as the service is reliable and can have one's watch set to it, the speed doesn't matter. Besides, there's two GO Train lines to add stops to for people that want an express into the core, Yonge need not serve as a high-speed route. The purpose of subways is a solution for capacity, not speed.

I think the best spacing north of eglinton would be ...

- one stop between eglinton and lawerence
- keep the lawerence to york mills spacing the same
- add a churchill stop between nycc and finch just because of how many people already use finch and there are already a lot condos being built south of finch near churchill
- cummer (there is already a cummer bus route from finch stn)
- steeles

We should not bash MidBlock stations.... some may see some large growth as the subway's role changes in the system depending on the changes that occurs with GO.


I think Homer's idea is actually a good one



I would like to take credit for it but its not my own idea, just what I read somewhere.

About everything that could get in my way for attending the Yonge extension public consultation did get in my way, except GO service, which was fine. I started my trip from downtown, so hop on at Union Station, at which I learned of a service disruption at Eglinton. No problem, surely it will be fixed by the time I'm on the way home.

So, I'm on the train, and yep, Viva is on strike as of this morning. Perfect timing, is there anything Bob Kinnear can't fuck up?! So, I walk along Hwy7 from the Langstaff GO to Leslie, where the action is taking place. I hate suburbia.

So, after a very interesting event, it is time to go home. I call in to find out when the next bus is along Leslie. "No service today" it tells me, and it's only 9:30pm... W...T...F!?!?!?!? So I have to dick around with the hwy7 bus and then the 99, and then, it gets better, that disruption at Eglinton, yep, it's still unresolved, so I had to take a bus along Yonge south from Lawrence, oh joy.

That said, I'm overall pleasantly surprised by how the project is being handled. There seems to be a good scheme in place for creating an attractive, good "sub-downtown" hub in Richmond Hill. The entire extension only has one parking lot in the whole project. Steeles also promises to be an interesting station. Think Lawrence on a much busier/larger scale.

^Did you snap any photos?

Did they lay out how different lines would interface with the new stations?

Where is Steeles station suppose to go exactly?

Maybe the gas station North of Steeles?
Or the turnaround South of Steeles East of Yonge?

^Did you snap any photos?

Did they lay out how different lines would interface with the new stations?

http://www.vivayork.com/ should have the presentation online. It is under the system phases menu, where it lists subways, and then it should be self-evident from there.

The interface is being provided at Drewry, Steeles, and Richmond Hill Centre, but not so much for Clark, Royal Orchard, and Longbridge. Drewry will have a simple loop, nothing extravagent since bus traffic is expected to remain relatively low. Steeles is the opposite, it will be the most "urban" station on the line likely including a very large bus terminal underground, although the shape is not yet decided. I did talk to one of the engineers there, and discussed the idea of having one of the tracks angle off through some parking lot lands, creating an enormous island and allow the bus terminal to be constructed at platform level, an idea he found interesting (although challenging).

Clark is going to have a surface stop only for bus connections, no terminal. Currently, the station is situated north of Clark, but I have suggested to them that the station should be on the south side of Clark to protect the ability in future of adding an exit to the rail corridor should there ever be GO Service added there in future.

Royal Orchard is in a historic conservation area, I'm not even sure what bus routes are in this area, but there's no terminal here either, only surface stops.

Longbridge is the "park'n'ride" station of the extension. This is expected to take a chunk of the traffic off of Yonge between 7 and Finch, as studies suggest that most users of the Finch lot are coming from the 7 or 407. There's a large development in what is called "The Langstaff Lands" that is going to be going up, and this is supposed to provide a population of 30,000 within walking distance to the Longbridge subway station or Langstaff GO station. To my knowledge, no bus connections here, it is based on walk-in and limited parking off the 407 for its ridership.

Richmond Hill Centre has a couple of alignments propsed. One goes straight up Yonge, this one is widely expected to be tossed as it has too many short-comings and headaches attached to it (conservation areas abutt Yonge north of 7). Another one swerves in towards the terminal and GO station but tries to swerve back onto Yonge immediately in a provision for future extension. This one has a situated platform location that I would consider awkward in relation to the project goals and context. Then the last one starts off similar with its swerve in towards the GO line, but doesn't try to get back onto Yonge. This one is closest to the existing terminal and GO station with its provision for extention to continue beneath the GO corridor until 16th/Carrville, around which it will get back onto Yonge in a future extension. This one is positioned to have a high integration level with both the existing transit services and new developments of the site. A very large bus terminal would be both on the east/south-east end of the platform and the west side.

One last note of particular interest is that they are talking about creating pedestrian environments beneath the 407 and Hwy 7 between the Longbridge and Richmond Hill Centre stations, which are very close together compared to other parts of the station and are designed to function as a pair to best serve the area, as planners concluded that the area would be served poorly with only one station trying to meet all needs. This is an expensive approach and I'm very impressed and pleased that this decision was ultimately made, a wise move.

Where is Steeles station suppose to go exactly?

Maybe the gas station North of Steeles?
Or the turnaround South of Steeles East of Yonge?

The bus terminal will be on the west side of Yonge whatever happens, they've committed to protecting the residential areas on the east side, but the west side is predominantly parking lots and they are talking about redeveloping it with buildings similar to York Mills' terminal or perhaps Don Mills, but they want better through-operation capabilities. The subway station platform itself will be directly below Yonge, unless they run with my suggestion and angle the southbound track through the parking lot lands for an at-platform bus terminal.

So possibly center point mall's parking lot ???

So possibly center point mall's parking lot ???

Yes and no. Yes buses will be using the space beneath these lands, but remember that this will not be a surface bus terminal, the terminal will be underground, and Center Point most likely redeveloped, but the lands will probably include a portal for buses to get underground.

Do you have any more information regarding this:

"The Langstaff"

i.e. how far along is it ... is it happening for sure ... just more details in general.

Wow though ... the town of Markham is way beyond anything in the GTA with this and possibly "downtown Markham" other areas really need to pick up the slack.

Seems like we have 4 high density nodes developing in the suburbs now:
1) Missi (Although not so much in the urban context ... maybe that'll change)
2) Vaughn (this is the one I feal the most iffy about ... i don't think it'll be great at all)
3) Downtown Markham
4) This Langstaff

The funny thing about Langstaff is that this is actually where downtown Richmond Hill is. I think GO Transit may come under pressure to rename their stations along the line. The Langstaff developments haven't started yet, they're planned.

Downtown richmondhill is way further north! what do you mean?

There's absolutely nothing there right now other then a few industries

Downtown richmondhill is way further north! what do you mean?

There's absolutely nothing there right now other then a few industries

The current bus terminal and the proposed name of the subway station is currently Richmond Hill Centre. I've been to the current Richmond Hill GO, and it doesn't look nor feel anything even remotely "downtown." The Langstaff station should be renamed Richmond Hill to avoid confusion within the network, but of course that means the current Richmond Hill GO will need to be renamed as well, I'm not sure to what, but Major Mac is one potential candidate. Unlike Markham, Richmond Hill hasn't named its different parts of town, it seems.

Richmond Hill's "downtown" is going to be at its south end within 10 years from now, the obvious ideal location is 7 and Yonge, and GO needs to reflect that.

The current bus terminal and the proposed name of the subway station is currently Richmond Hill Centre. I've been to the current Richmond Hill GO, and it doesn't look nor feel anything even remotely "downtown." The Langstaff station should be renamed Richmond Hill to avoid confusion within the network, but of course that means the current Richmond Hill GO will need to be renamed as well, I'm not sure to what, but Major Mac is one potential candidate. Unlike Markham, Richmond Hill hasn't named its different parts of town, it seems.

Richmond Hill's "downtown" is going to be at its south end within 10 years from now, the obvious ideal location is 7 and Yonge, and GO needs to reflect that.

No it's not. Considering the current mayor wants to put City Hall back to Major Mack and Yonge. There's also the addition of the Performing Arts Centre and all those Churches in downtown attract loads of people. Sam's Clubs and Best Buys don't make a downtown....

The current bus terminal and the proposed name of the subway station is currently Richmond Hill Centre. I've been to the current Richmond Hill GO, and it doesn't look nor feel anything even remotely "downtown." The Langstaff station should be renamed Richmond Hill to avoid confusion within the network, but of course that means the current Richmond Hill GO will need to be renamed as well, I'm not sure to what, but Major Mac is one potential candidate. Unlike Markham, Richmond Hill hasn't named its different parts of town, it seems.

Richmond Hill's "downtown" is going to be at its south end within 10 years from now, the obvious ideal location is 7 and Yonge, and GO needs to reflect that.

Cho's right. Yonge and Major Mack is the "real" downtown of Richmond Hill. Why does a new generation feel the need to come along circumvent that fact? Instead of renaming long-standing traditional names, perhaps the reverse should happen and have all of RHC renamed to "Langstaff Gateway" or even "Hwy 7 Terminal". Less status-sounding granted, but I don't see how big-box stores qualify this location for anything but a sea of parking lots. :ohno:

--
Anyway this is what I had in mind for the Richmond Hill "subway" line. I put that in parenthesis because the technology will be LRT or ICTS grade but built underground.

http://i349.photobucket.com/albums/q378/DENTROBATE54/richmondhill.jpg

Note the YRT reroutes to make Centre-John a major transfer point. Also Royal Orchard Stn becomes Bay Thorn Stn to be physically closer to the proposed site of Bunker-Longbridge Stn, hence nullifying its purpose. Langstaff Stn also would straddle both sides of the 407 allotting direct GO Train/Bus services, alternate access to the 407 Lands planned community and still relative proximity to the RHC terminal.

http://i349.photobucket.com/albums/q378/DENTROBATE54/Thornhill-1.jpg

:cheers:

No it's not. Considering the current mayor wants to put City Hall back to Major Mack and Yonge. There's also the addition of the Performing Arts Centre and all those Churches in downtown attract loads of people. Sam's Clubs and Best Buys don't make a downtown....

They don't make a downtown, but there's a lot of redevelopment scheduled for the area. It's identified as a (future) urban centre, and will be the new downtown. This is where the planning is going, the new downtown is going to be 7 and Yonge, and Major Mac is not going to be able to compete.

Okay. Whoever thinks there should be an arbitrary transfer at Steeles, and that undergrond LRT/ICTS is cheaper than subway, should be forced to stand in front of the nearest wall and take a bullet.

So, after a very interesting event, it is time to go home. I call in to find out when the next bus is along Leslie. "No service today" it tells me, and it's only 9:30pm... W...T...F!?!?!?!? So I have to dick around with the hwy7 bus and then the 99, and then, it gets better, that disruption at Eglinton, yep, it's still unresolved, so I had to take a bus along Yonge south from Lawrence, oh joy.

Hey, TRZ, I would have been on the same bus you were on! I got on the Hwy. 7 bus WB at about 9:30. I was talking to an older man with a beard who attended as well...

I was amazed at how packed the Yonge buses were (even with the VIVA strike), going north of 7. Not to mention my surprise that I had to transfer there instead having the bus turn south on Yonge like it used to.

Okay. Whoever thinks there should be an arbitrary transfer at Steeles, and that undergrond LRT/ICTS is cheaper than subway, should be forced to stand in front of the nearest wall and take a bullet.

Um, death threats now? :sly: :wtf:

I give you a practical solution of how to give York Region a sustainable rapid transit service into downtown Toronto without causing the YUS to become overcapacipated and without standing room by Lawrence Stn and that's the reaction? :ohno:

Btw- the Yonge Express Line is named so because it does not end at Steeles Ave, hence no arbitrary transfer. It continues on into Toronto, running even further south than YUS does providing rapid transit along the central waterfront condo communities, much the way a DRL utilizing the rail corridor would've. :yes:

It alleviates YUS because York Regioners would use it instead and the longer we extend and meander the YUS line the less practical it becomes to the actual downtown 416 area. :ohno: The buck must stop somewhere. I advocate LRT because obviously RH has a lesser population density than Yonge south of Steeles. Why would you want HRT-grade for a LRT suited area? :weird:

But then again, when you side with stupid ideas like Bunker subway station in the middle of nowhere, you honestly deserve exactly what you get! :yes: Constructive criticism from now on, please! :|

Why would you want HRT-grade for a LRT suited area? :weird: Why do you want a subway along Eglinton in Etobicoke? :weird:

But then again, when you side with stupid ideas like Bunker subway station in the middle of nowhere,
I was originally skeptical about what that was all about, this station is actually the only Park'n'Ride along the corridor, and politically speaking, they really do have to include some form of Park'n'Ride along the corridor, or it is going to be a hard sell in the 905. On top of that, the station is actually tied to a big redevelopment project in the Langstaff Lands (east side of Yonge), which is supposed to be a big TOD design project as part of intensification of the new downtown hub of Richmond Hill. Longbridge (aka Bunker) works with RHC as a pair serving the two sides of the 407 instead of going down what could be a disastrous path of dropping a station right under the highway, and I must say I was impressed by the attitude and thought/methodology in this two-station plan to serve the areas around the 407. Bunker is the middle of nowhere right now, but it is going to have 30,000 people right next door.

About everything that could get in my way for attending the Yonge extension public consultation did get in my way, except GO service, which was fine. I started my trip from downtown, so hop on at Union Station, at which I learned of a service disruption at Eglinton. No problem, surely it will be fixed by the time I'm on the way home.

So, I'm on the train, and yep, Viva is on strike as of this morning. Perfect timing, is there anything Bob Kinnear can't fuck up?! So, I walk along Hwy7 from the Langstaff GO to Leslie, where the action is taking place. I hate suburbia.

So, after a very interesting event, it is time to go home. I call in to find out when the next bus is along Leslie. "No service today" it tells me, and it's only 9:30pm... W...T...F!?!?!?!? So I have to dick around with the hwy7 bus and then the 99, and then, it gets better, that disruption at Eglinton, yep, it's still unresolved, so I had to take a bus along Yonge south from Lawrence, oh joy.

That said, I'm overall pleasantly surprised by how the project is being handled. There seems to be a good scheme in place for creating an attractive, good "sub-downtown" hub in Richmond Hill. The entire extension only has one parking lot in the whole project. Steeles also promises to be an interesting station. Think Lawrence on a much busier/larger scale.

Hey you're back, okairinasai!

Was there any talk of how expensive all of this would be, and how expensive the various options would be?

Hey you're back, okairinasai!

Was there any talk of how expensive all of this would be, and how expensive the various options would be?

Tadaima! :)

$2.1 billion, but they haven't reached detailed design yet, so expect this figure to be revised later. A new yard is supposed to be included, but I'll find out more about that later. They'll be coming to NYCC in mid-October, and I'm gonna talk to one the lead techies up there about the yard and the Steeles terminal (I'm gonna try to prepare some archtectural drawings to describe what I'm talking about, since I only got the idea when I saw the presentation).

They don't make a downtown, but there's a lot of redevelopment scheduled for the area. It's identified as a (future) urban centre, and will be the new downtown. This is where the planning is going, the new downtown is going to be 7 and Yonge, and Major Mac is not going to be able to compete.

What are these projects? Show me them.

TTC's most recent report on this project can be found here (http://www.ttc.ca/postings/gso-comrpt/documents/report/f3746/Yonge_Subway_Northerly_Extension.pdf).

Why do you want a subway along Eglinton in Etobicoke? :weird:

Because every subway line on earth has to pass through some areas of lower density to get to regions of high density commercial/residential/industrial/corporate land use. READ: Bessarion or Ellesmere or Greenwood or Old Mill or Glencairn. :yes: Pearson Int'l and the Airport Corporate Centre and the Skyway Business/Industrial Park area are worth the investment; and will generate Islingtonesque busloads of Peel riders coming in.

I was originally skeptical about what that was all about, this station is actually the only Park'n'Ride along the corridor, and politically speaking, they really do have to include some form of Park'n'Ride along the corridor, or it is going to be a hard sell in the 905. On top of that, the station is actually tied to a big redevelopment project in the Langstaff Lands (east side of Yonge), which is supposed to be a big TOD design project as part of intensification of the new downtown hub of Richmond Hill. Longbridge (aka Bunker) works with RHC as a pair serving the two sides of the 407 instead of going down what could be a disastrous path of dropping a station right under the highway, and I must say I was impressed by the attitude and thought/methodology in this two-station plan to serve the areas around the 407. Bunker is the middle of nowhere right now, but it is going to have 30,000 people right next door.

This station further nullifies the need for the VCC extension. All 407 BRT buses could feed Steeles West Stn, a mre 0.5 kms to the southwest. Bunker would be the major 407 terminal instead and VIVA Orange could remain N of Steeles just with increased frequencies. It'll be decades before VCC is even deserving of such an endeavour, IMO.

And with the money saved from not building that line, the RHC extension most likely can incorporate a 7th station at Centre-John, hence not resulting in out-of-the-way detours to Clark Stn for 2, 3 and 77 riders trying to access the subway ASAP. :cheer:

Because every subway line on earth has to pass through some areas of lower density to get to regions of high density commercial/residential/industrial/corporate land use.False, this is what commuter rail is for. READ: Bessarion or Ellesmere or Greenwood or Old Mill or Glencairn. :yes: Pearson Int'l and the Airport Corporate Centre and the Skyway Business/Industrial Park area are worth the investment; and will generate Islingtonesque busloads of Peel riders coming in.Bessarion, Ellesmere, Glencairn, and Old Mill are failures not to be repeated. Greenwood is average actually, not a failure like the others, but not stellar either. Pearson however is not high enough in demand to warrant subway service, like I keep telling you. I have, however, been hearing promising facts and arguments for the commuter rail connection to Pearson, if it is done right. Currently, they aren't going about it right, but there's enough wiggle room to probably fix it. The Finch and Eglinton LRTs will provide more than enough capacity to get them to midtown and North York. Those that want to reach the downtown will use the GO connection, which is far better suited than subway (and far better suited than Blue22 as well, I'll add).



This station further nullifies the need for the VCC extension.Well, it's irrelevant actually. I talked to the chief planner of the Vaughan line to clarify some confusion about the parking layouts, and most of the parking is at Steeles West, not the 407 Transitway station as was previously believed. VCC itself has no parking, so the Park'n'Ride at Longbridge has little to no impact on the 905 portion of the TYSSE.
All 407 BRT buses could feed Steeles West Stn, a mre 0.5 kms to the southwest.I agree, this would make a lot more sense. What's more mystifying is that the 407 BRT isn't scheduled in the RTP Draft to open until the 25-year phase instead of the 15-year phase... yet the subway is supposed to open first. I asked about leaving it as a provisionary station like North York Centre but this doesn't seem to be on the table. Bunker would be the major 407 terminal instead and VIVA Orange could remain N of Steeles just with increased frequencies.Viva would terminate at RHC, not Longbridge. Longbridge would see no bus service at all.

And with the money saved from not building that line, the RHC extension most likely can incorporate a 7th station at Centre-John, hence not resulting in out-of-the-way detours to Clark Stn for 2, 3 and 77 riders trying to access the subway ASAP. :cheer:
No, it isn't funding, it is a matter of this area of Yonge being a heritage area that is preventing a station from being placed here. The bridge across the river in this area also complicates track geometry. It is not viable to put a station at John, it isn't a money issue. It's an engineering thing, which you wouldn't understand.

It appears that the TTC now acknowledges that the Yonge Line does not have enough capacity to support the extension.

Unfortunately they are proposing another platform be added at Yonge/Bloor Station. It does not take a genius to see that this (if possible) is not only going to be very costly but will also require major station expansion at other downtown stations or else they too will become overwhelmed.

Wait, what?

^^^^

I will explore the question of subway capacity in a separate thread, but the analysis for the Yonge Subway extension to Richmond Hill is deeply troubling. This extension triggers higher riding on the existing subway which the TTC has finally admitted cannot be handled by the existing infrastructure. It’s not just a question of buying more trains, putting in new signals to run them closer together, and fine-tuning terminal operations. Now we know that there are capacity problems from Bloor south with the stations themselves.

The TTC has resurrected a scheme for a third platform at Bloor, and it’s fairly easy to see that this is not the only location where more platform and circulation capacity are needed. Moreover, if the Yonge line delivers more transfer passengers per hour to the Bloor line in the PM peak, this will trigger capacity and service issues on that line too.

http://stevemunro.ca/?p=1350

I suggest if you are wanting more info that you read the whole blog entry.

The platforms for Bloor station aren't in the centre, though. How exactly would this work?

^The Yonge platform is at the center.

But how any expansion would be achieved is a good bloody question. TRZ may have some rabbit in his hat but I have no damned idea how they would be able to; a) keep the station functional while working on it, b) not disturb the surrounding buildings, c) expand the other downtown stations, and d) pay for this. Those are the first things that I can think of and there are many more that elude me........

At this point it is clear that the cost of doing such an expansion would so high that building the downtown portion of the DRL would be a more viable solution (even though it will still cost more).

The whole idea just makes me go cross eyed. :nuts:

^The Yonge platform is at the center.

But how any expansion would be achieved is a good bloody question. TRZ may have some rabbit in his hat but I have no damned idea how they would be able to; a) keep the station functional while working on it, b) not disturb the surrounding buildings, c) expand the other downtown stations, and d) pay for this. Those are the first things that I can think of and there are many more that elude me........

At this point it is clear that the cost of doing such an expansion would so high that building the downtown portion of the DRL would be a more viable solution (even though it will still cost more).

The whole idea just makes me go cross eyed. :nuts:

I am vehemently opposed to this for the very reason that there is no rabbit to pull out of my hat for this one. You'd have to close the station in at least one direction for months at a time to get this done. Either the southbound or northbound trains would have to skip the station, then repeat for the other side, or do both at once with both directions skipping Bloor (even worse!!!).

I'll also add that in Bloor's case, it isn't "surrounding buildings" that is the problem, that station is WITHIN a large building complex, tied in with its foundations in an angular and undoubtedly complex arrangement.

Steve Munro has also mentioned unfavourable groundwater conditions that would make expansion construction messy/risky. TTC Engineers haven't even been able to confirm if this is actually feasable.

As for other stations, let's remind everyone that these stations are directly beneath Yonge St., and that station width and street width are about the same already. It is unrealistic to talk about adding or expanding platform areas at stations like King or Dundas.

DRL is the way to go here.

A more plausible solution besides the DRL would be to electrify the rail line east of Yonge in the valley to provide RER styled service to Union, the Eglinton CTL and so on. It could potentially be connected with the old Summerhill station provided both lines have the appropriate interchange.

http://i129.photobucket.com/albums/p209/twentyseventhirtyone/REX-1.jpg

http://www.nationalpost.com/news/canada/toronto/story.html?id=914214

Vaughan city council affirms subway support
Extension would run from Finch station to Richmond Hill

Natalie Alcoba, National Post Published: Tuesday, October 28, 2008

Vaughan city council affirmed its support of the Yonge Street subway extension yesterday, the second underground foray into York Region with six proposed stops north of Finch Avenue that culminate in Richmond Hill.

Councillor Alan Shefman, who sits on the Yonge Street Subway Advisory Task Force, said the extension has progressed at a remarkable pace, given how many years it has taken plans for its older, sister extension, along Spadina Avenue, to become a reality.

As late as two years ago, there was no thought whatsoever that we would have the funds to do a subway extension [on Yonge]. We were looking at surface rapid transit with buses and so forth, so this has moved incredibly fast, Mr. Shefman said yesterday, after a meeting in which council endorsed the preliminary plans, without any discussion.

The proposed 6.5-kilo-metre underground extension would run from Finch station to a proposed station at Richmond Hill Centre, near Highway 7, with stops at Cummer and Drewry avenues, Steeles Avenue, Clark Avenue, Royal Orchard Boulevard and Longbridge and Langstaff roads.

There would also be major intermodal bus terminals at the Steeles and Richmond Hill stations. There are also plans to include a 1,900-car parking lot and passenger pickup and drop-off point north of Longbridge Road.

Vaughan Mayor Linda Jackson said the Yonge project has benefited from enthusiastic public input, and those consultations are set to conclude next month.

You always want plans to move faster, but they are coming along, Ms. Jackson said yesterday. There certainly is a lot of interest in the community with respect with getting the subway moved forward.

The Spadina extension is a go for next year, and there are plans to start digging in more than one spot to speed that up even further, she said.

Last month the regional transportation planning body called Metrolinx unveiled a $50-billion plan to alleviate gridlock and improve public transit in greater Toronto with new subways, light-rail lines, bus ways, highway lanes and cycling paths.

The vision called for transit links to congested Pearson International Airport from four directions, extending the Yonge-Spadina subway line north into York Region, adding express GO Transit service along the busy Lakeshore corridor and the creation of rapid transit lines along Sheppard, Finch and Eglinton avenues, all within 15 years.

So far, the province has pledged $11.5-billion to make it happen, and another $6-billion is expected to come from Ottawa.

The Yonge subway extension fits into the provincial government's Move Ontario strategy as a priority project, said Councillor Shefman, and he said he would be very surprised if the provincial funding does not come through. Construction is likely to start in early 2010, he said.

Obviously the economic situation is going to have some impact, Mr. Shefman said, but he hopes the government will see investing in a major infrastructure project such as a new subway as a catalyst for re-energizing the economy.

=======================


In other news, now that Peter Kent is the highest profile new Conservative elected last election in the GTA, and his riding (Thornhill) is where this extension will go through, there's a chance that the Conservatives might find the federal money to pay for this. If that happens, it would take a LOT of political opposition to go against this, a fight that the TTC might not want to put up with if it means they sour relations with the feds even more.

Pearson however is not high enough in demand to warrant subway service, like I keep telling you. I have, however, been hearing promising facts and arguments for the commuter rail connection to Pearson, if it is done right. Currently, they aren't going about it right, but there's enough wiggle room to probably fix it. The Finch and Eglinton LRTs will provide more than enough capacity to get them to midtown and North York. Those that want to reach the downtown will use the GO connection, which is far better suited than subway (and far better suited than Blue22 as well, I'll add).

So you believe building two LRT lines from scratch as well an expensive S-Bahn/U-Bahn of the Georgetown GO Line, is a more practical solution for getting rapid transit to the airport, then one simple subway extension? :sly:

Benefits of Eglinton HRT vs. "That" plan:


Cheaper to build~ the section through Etobicoke would be largely at- or above-grade with km apart spacing gaps en route.
Caters to more markets than just Pearson~ satisfies local accessibility along Eglinton West and Dixon incl. the ACC, Toronto Congress Centre, Skyway Commerce&Trade Ctr and notable hotel cluster surrrounding Carlingview/Dixon.
Cheaper to operate~ HRT vehicles carry larger capacity than LRT vehicles. Hence more passengers would be carried per trip and at a greater frequency (Transit City's website states that the LRTs will run at a minimum of every 5 minutes; the subway network runs on average every 2-3 minutes)
More convenient for riders~ whereas LRTs will be a crammed space; HRTs will have enough room to accomodate one's luggage, thus making subway superior to even GO or taxi as one's commute to the downtown isn't at a jacked-up premium fare rate.
More enviro-friendly~ no smoggy, diesel GO trains polluting the airport grounds.


Viva would terminate at RHC, not Longbridge. Longbridge would see no bus service at all.

The "N of Steeles" I was referring to was Steeles West. Technically Bunker Stn (somehow, I like this name better) could have a bus service courtesy of 87 Langstaff-Maple. All that need happen is to extend Hunter's Point Drive to the southside of the 407, where it'd converge with Longbridge. The bus could then route east via Longbridge and Yonge to RHC, passingby the Bunker stop en route.

No, it isn't funding, it is a matter of this area of Yonge being a heritage area that is preventing a station from being placed here. The bridge across the river in this area also complicates track geometry. It is not viable to put a station at John, it isn't a money issue. It's an engineering thing, which you wouldn't understand.

The river is totally to the north of Centre Street. As for being a heritage area... rubbish. Look at these images of Yonge/Lawrence (http://www.boldts.net/TorYl.shtml) then explain to me if no one's demanding the destruction of its heritage homes for all these decades, why would Centre-John be threatened by mass redevelopments? There is no certainty it would change just as land use along most of Bloor-Danforth is just as it was decades ago to this day. It's an organic patterns-of-growth thing, which you wouldn't understand. :poke:

It appears that the TTC now acknowledges that the Yonge Line does not have enough capacity to support the extension.

Unfortunately they are proposing another platform be added at Yonge/Bloor Station. It does not take a genius to see that this (if possible) is not only going to be very costly but will also require major station expansion at other downtown stations or else they too will become overwhelmed.

I've said it before, I'll say it again... Yonge Express Line. :yes: No need to shut down the existing station if we build a new station in its vicinity. And this could be routed down Bay Street, hence not affecting service on the existing line.

Yonge/Lawrence[/B] (http://www.boldts.net/TorYl.shtml) then explain to me if no one's demanding the destruction of its heritage homes for all these decades, why would Centre-John be threatened by mass redevelopments? There is no certainty it would change just as land use along most of Bloor-Danforth is just as it was decades ago to this day. It's an organic patterns-of-growth thing, which you wouldn't understand. :poke:

Sorry but I'm going to have to call you on all this. You're from Brampton so I will assume you really don't know better. But I grew up in Thornhill. The area in question is within walking distance to my house, and I go past it a few times a week.

The area in question is definitely a heritage site. Furthermore, there has been a LOT of opposition to changing the composition of that area in the past. For instance, Yonge St is only 2 lanes each way for all of Thornhill precisely because of opposition to expanding it many years ago. Thus, I believe there will be opposition to anything which threatens to put more pressure on more development in that area.

Furthermore, while the river is north of Centre, there is a GIANT valley right after that, that slopes down about 15 metres lower quite quickly just a few metres north of Centre. Since subway track cannot possible bend that fast (one can imagine the train not being able to handle such immediate inclines), this means that the centre/john station would have to be built extremely underground, much further underground than any station in Toronto.

This would only add to the costs of such a station. As well, since this super deep station would be very unfriendly to get to, it would also lower the attractiveness of such a station. This is especially true since that area cannot support a large bus terminal (the amount of people taking the John or Centre bus here is insignificant), is opposed to much further intensification (aside for a few 5-8 story buildings on Yonge perhaps), and is such very reliant on walk-in traffic to support it.

Because of the unfriendlyness of such a station, it would become one of the deadest stations in the entire system, and as such a huge waste of money to build.

....

About Yonge line capacity north of Steeles:

When/if the Spadina extension goes through, wouldn't that help take some pressure off the Yonge line as commuters from Jane/Finch and Rexdale would be getting on at the west end of the line, thus making room for extra capacities in York Region? Transit City LRT would also help to take riders off the YUS subway.

Also, would the subway attract THAT many more riders from other modes of transportation, especially since the corridor is already serviced by semi-rapid transit? I think there is enough demand for a subway along Yonge, but I don't know if it is enough to break the camel's back. You'd be surprised at how decentralized our employment locations are, and how many people work outside the core (especially when further away from downtown)

I'm questioning this so called "demand" North of steeles but I won't get into that ... although I guess if Sheppard was "fine" this isn't much worse ... I won't touch VCC line though.

Anyway regarding the employment centers ... other then downtown ours in the GTA are like you said very very spread apart:
Hi-7 Leslie - Warden (Quite a lot here but spread out relativity), NYCC, Eglinton, 401-Vic Park (A lot here but spread out as well), St. Clair, SCC, MCC (a bit), MCC (airport area) Vaughn (pretty spread around though), Brampton (again, spread around) .... anyway it goes on like that ... and i'm excluding a lot of more industrial locations.

Anyway the point is I don't see ridership increasing too much ... you need to ask the question appropriately ... how many more transit riders will be generated by the subway extension. My answer ... not much ... people who took transit before will take it still using the subway extension. In terms of new riders I'm sure we'll get some but it'll take a lot of time and won't be anything that significant. So now you ask the question of the current line using the current # of trains and spacing ... we can support exactly that in the North end as they were already using the subway ...

Further proof ... ask the following question ... people who take the subway, where is there destination:
1) Downtown area / NYCC / Eglinton .. so forth ... will this extention change that at all ... absolutely not.
People that used to drive down who live around the area of the subway aren't likely to change their mind considering the express Viva service and stubborn attitude of people.
2) You may ask me, what extension will possibly generate new *fresh* users. Well what new stretch of area are we serving ... Yonge / Steeles ... Hi-Way 7 / Steeles. Now those area's contain pretty much 0 employment (relatively speaking of course) so someone who used to live near the subway but work around the areas of new extension might take it but the # of such people is very small because of the pretty much 0 employment and the fact that employment is so spread apart. Moreover! This area was already well served by Viva in a rather express fashion ...

Demand North of Steeles is pretty low.

This is a solution that I beleive in:
http://lrt.daxack.ca/images/ProposedSteeles.gif

Have at Steeles stn. a LRT platform as shown in the diagram.

By making this Yonge extention a below grade LRT alot of money will be saved plus the LRT would be able to deal with the grades mentioned above in a better manner.

Read this page:
http://lrt.daxack.ca/YorkRegion.html

You're not alone!! Not at all ....

My point is that Hi-way will make a good terminus point for many many YRT routes instead of coming down to finch directly or steeles and the other half along with TTC routes will be well served by finch.

An at grade LRT would be perfect on Yonge ... and I never never see the demand increasing to a point where it would be ... they can use multiple trains if they want. In the far far future it could possibly be upgraded to a subway. This money is needed elsewhere!

But you do realize that due to Vaughn's little present (which is actually way worse off then this one Markham / Richmond Hill need their own.

^In every sense I disagree with the extention of the Spadina Line if that is what you are asking.

What I support is for the Yonge line to be extended north just a bit so that it can be interlined with an LRT and have a new terminal for buses and other transit connections. I also think that the subway on the Spadina section should NOT be extended at all. An LRT can be used as the Spadina extention for cheaper which keeps costs down.

Money saved on this could be used for other projects. I think that one of the best things we could do if subways were to be built would be to start the DRL instead of the Subway to nowhere.

The Yonge subway a.b.s.o.l.u.t.e.l.y. must be extended to Richmond Hill. To end it at Steeles purely because of the municipal boundary makes absolutely no sense whatsoever, and the fact that bus ridership north of Steeles is largely because the TTC stops there.

We need to ignore municipal boundaries entirely when planning for transportation.

^^ Care to ignore fare tariffs or worse fare hikes too? :sly: Why should my one-way fare to get around downtown Toronto be $5, the exact same as someone coming in from Richmond Hill? The longer we meander on these preexisting subway lines, the worse off the entire network becomes, IMO. :yes:

So you believe building two LRT lines from scratch as well an expensive S-Bahn/U-Bahn of the Georgetown GO Line, is a more practical solution for getting rapid transit to the airport, then one simple subway extension? :sly:Since subway extensions are never simple, yes, it is absolutely more practical to not do a subway extension.

Benefits of Eglinton HRT vs. "That" plan:


Cheaper to build~ the section through Etobicoke would be largely at- or above-grade with km apart spacing gaps en route.This would not be cheaper than just LRT on Eglinton, HRT requires far more expensive station structures, in addition to complete segregation from all perpendicular road crossings.
Caters to more markets than just Pearson~ satisfies local accessibility along Eglinton West and Dixon incl. the ACC, Toronto Congress Centre, Skyway Commerce&Trade Ctr and notable hotel cluster surrrounding Carlingview/Dixon.The Eglinton subway caters to far fewer markets than the combined Finch and Eglinton LRTs and GO Train spur.
Cheaper to operate~ HRT vehicles carry larger capacity than LRT vehicles. Hence more passengers would be carried per trip and at a greater frequency (Transit City's website states that the LRTs will run at a minimum of every 5 minutes; the subway network runs on average every 2-3 minutes)5 minutes is a minimum, not a maximum. The subway minimum is 5-6 minutes generally, just like the LRTs. HRT is also far more expensive to operate than LRT, and therefore requires a higher demand to recover its cost. If demand goes beyond a certain threshold, then yeah, HRT becomes more cost-effective, but not if that threshold isn't met, and Eglinton would not meet that threshold. With the Finch and Eglinton LRTs, we get a far wider service area to catch riders from and provide broader coverage for better service quality from a network perspective rather than just a corridor perspective. In rush hours, LRTs can be every 3 minutes and change, not much different from the subway.
More convenient for riders~ whereas LRTs will be a crammed space; HRTs will have enough room to accomodate one's luggage, thus making subway superior to even GO or taxi as one's commute to the downtown isn't at a jacked-up premium fare rate.False, stations are often cumbersome for luggage since you have to mess with vertical transportation. LRT becomes far more convenient since they can be boarded from the street itself when not underground. LRTs stop more frequently when at the surface making stations easier to access to a greater number of riders by the fact that stations are closer to more people, which increases convenience. LRTs will also have ample space if the demand doesn't exceed a certain threshold, which Eglinton is not projected to even come close to.
As for the fare, don't forget that the TTC would jack its fare pretty high to make ends meet after building a loss-incurring Eglinton subway.
More enviro-friendly~ no smoggy, diesel GO trains polluting the airport grounds.
It isn't yet known whether the line will be electrified or not (it's a viable candidate for consideration at the very least). But hey, the bus is a worse offender, why don't you give MT's transitway and BT's Accelaride a harder time, they leave a bigger carbon footprint per person than any GO Train.

^^ Care to ignore fare tariffs or worse fare hikes too? :sly:
By all projections the Yonge street extension will more than pay for itself.

Why should my one-way fare to get around downtown Toronto be $5, the exact same as someone coming in from Richmond Hill?
By then we'll likely have moved away from our flat fare system. Or so I hope.

The longer we meander on these preexisting subway lines, the worse off the entire network becomes, IMO. :yes:
And this is coming from someone who's deadly insisting on a subway extension into Mississauga?:lol:

By all projections the Yonge street extension will more than pay for itself.

We'll see, especially through the north of Clark Avenue section.

By then we'll likely have moved away from our flat fare system. Or so I hope.

I could go into a long speech about how the state of current affairs has ushered in a new dark era where rising living costs outpace one's income growth potential :tongue4:... but yeah, fare zone and tariffs are the wave of the future, if the TTC continues to A. refuse the transfers of neighbouring cities' transit operators and B. not create sustainable mass transit 416 wide such that suburban commutes aren't a hemorrhoid on downtown/uptown quality and cost of service. :yes:

And this is coming from someone who's deadly insisting on a subway extension into Mississauga?:lol:

Which has a higher population than Vaughan and Richmond Hill put together. What's your point? :sly: Transit expansion should occur where people actually reside. This is why subway lines like Queen-Lakeshore and Eglinton-Kingston would be instant day one successes meanwhile the York Region extensions and Transit City on a whole could (likely will) be underutilized to the point of the TTC running deficits in vain attempts at cost recovery. :ohno:

We'll see, especially through the north of Clark Avenue section.

I'll tell you the secret on why ridership in York Region is low. It's because the TTC arbitrarily stops at Steeles and everyone who wants to go further must pay $3 and put up with poorer service. Nothing more, nothing less.

Which has a higher population than Vaughan and Richmond Hill put together.
No one gives a flying poo about arbitrary boundaries. Get it?

What's your point? :sly: Transit expansion should occur where people actually reside.
Exactly. The Yonge Street corridor is much denser than the miles of warehouses and strip malls of Mississauga.

This is why subway lines like Queen-Lakeshore and Eglinton-Kingston would be instant day one successes
We're well overdue for a subway through the downtown core. So tell me why a subway that passes through miles of warehouses and big box stores will be an instant success.

Eglinton may deserve a subway, but certainly no further east than Markham.

meanwhile the York Region extensions and Transit City on a whole could (likely will) be underutilized to the point of the TTC running deficits in vain attempts at cost recovery. :ohno:
The Spadina Line north of Steeles is very suspect, and should have been cut. But the Yonge extension will be very well used (so much so that the TTC fears of increased overcrowding if capacity isn't increased) and provided they do LRT right, the LRT routes will see decent usage.

I'll tell you the secret on why ridership in York Region is low. It's because the TTC arbitrarily stops at Steeles and everyone who wants to go further must pay $3 and put up with poorer service. Nothing more, nothing less.

Really? You don't think it has to do with it's suburban fabric?

Really? You don't think it has to do with it's suburban fabric?

I think it has to do with a variety fo things.
-Built form
-Fare boundaries
-Higher fares than the TTC for poorer service
-Low numbers of vehicles in the fleets (limits ability to provide service)
-Poor (at times idiotic) scheduling practices
-No ROW corridors excluding GO (this is changing)
-Comparatively large presence of 400-series highways in 905

^^ Plenty of suburban fabric south of Steeles as well.

Hell, east of Markham Rd are stretches of Steeles which see dense townhouse developments to the north, and parking lot box stores to the south. As urbanfan89 said, when developing urban transit infrastructure we need to look at the urban area as a whole, not political boundaries.

I'll let you in on a little secret too: Virtually all development in the Toronto Area since the 50s has been car oriented, including the 416. It's just that the developments in the 50s-70s (which took place mostly within the boundaries of Metropolitan Toronto) were generally less extreme than those that have taken place in the 80s-00s (which have taken place outside Metro Toronto/Toronto's boundaries, mostly because there was no room left within the boundaries).

I think it has to do with a variety of things.
-Built form
-Fare boundaries
-Higher fares than the TTC for poorer service
-Low numbers of vehicles in the fleets (limits ability to provide service)
-Poor (at times idiotic) scheduling practices
-No ROW corridors excluding GO (this is changing)
-Comparatively large presence of 400-series highways in 905

I think fare boundaries is probably the most valid reason. Besides that, all the rest of the factors are results of poor planning. Sure, the low number of vehicles is a barrier to provide better service, but it's also a result of low ridership. If overcrowding was a problem in York Region, there would be incentive to satisfy the desire for transit. Instead we try to satisfy the theoretical desire for transit with state of the art networks like Viva. Which, by the way carries less people than some bus routes in Toronto. Eh, I'm not against transit in the 'burbs, but poor service isn't the primary reason why people in York Region use transit less than people in Toronto's outer boroughs. I am also not implying that a genuine desire for transit doesn't exist anywhere outside the city's boundaries, although this is generally true.

^^ Plenty of suburban fabric south of Steeles as well.

Hell, east of Markham Rd are stretches of Steeles which see dense townhouse developments to the north, and parking lot box stores to the south. As urbanfan89 said, when developing urban transit infrastructure we need to look at the urban area as a whole, not political boundaries.

I'll let you in on a little secret too: Virtually all development in the Toronto Area since the 50s has been car oriented, including the 416. It's just that the developments in the 50s-70s (which took place mostly within the boundaries of Metropolitan Toronto) were generally less extreme than those that have taken place in the 80s-00s (which have taken place outside Metro Toronto/Toronto's boundaries, mostly because there was no room left within the boundaries).

It's not really a secret. But you've kinda pointed out the difference between the outer boroughs and the 'burbs already.

You also cannot deny that the planning practices of the 416 and 905 did differ, and they still do differ today. The diversity of zoning within Metro offered an alternative to the car in itself. Sure it isn't anything like the Old City of Toronto, but it's vastly different than York Region. It wasn't too long ago that York Region wanted to expand Steeles to 4 lanes in each direction to accommodate a bus right of way, and Toronto simply said 'no.'

Yeah, we should look at urban areas as a whole--not political boundaries. But when these boundaries are in place so long they represent more than just a line on a map. I'm not saying that every place in the 416 is more "urban" than the 905, because that's simply not true. What I'm saying is that, in general the planning policies of the 416, even though at times suburban in nature, are generally more sustainable than that of the surrounding regions.

Implying that any portion of the 905 is more transit oriented than Scarborough is just simply false.

Even Mississauga is not transit oriented as the people of Scarborough are. The place might be much maligned but it does manage to be laid back and suburban while being a place where people can use transit in a reasonable way.

The simple truth is that the old Toronto burbs are denser and more walkable than the 905 areas tend to be.

I am also not implying that a genuine desire for transit doesn't exist anywhere outside the city's boundaries, although this is generally true.


It certainly has been traditionally speaking, but over the last 5 years, one might say that a dramatic shift is on the horizon in some parts of 905, like Markham.

By saying 'it certainly has been' seems to challenge the fact that I acknowledged it was a current situation. Then you used the words 'on the horizon' which acknowledges unrealized changes in planning practices which reconfirms the fact that it is, in fact, a current situation, no?

There is a massive incentive to reconfigure the suburbs. However, I feel that significant progress (a universal paradigm shift) can only occur when resources become limited.

As much as we are all breathing a sigh of relief because of the drop in gas over the last few weeks I will have to admit that there is a small part of me that is disappointed. While the price was high and rising rapidly I had "high" hopes that it was going to be the push we needed to have people take more efficient lifestyles more seriously.

I think fare boundaries is probably the most valid reason. Besides that, all the rest of the factors are results of poor planning. Sure, the low number of vehicles is a barrier to provide better service, but it's also a result of low ridership. If overcrowding was a problem in York Region, there would be incentive to satisfy the desire for transit. Instead we try to satisfy the theoretical desire for transit with state of the art networks like Viva. Which, by the way carries less people than some bus routes in Toronto. Eh, I'm not against transit in the 'burbs, but poor service isn't the primary reason why people in York Region use transit less than people in Toronto's outer boroughs. I am also not implying that a genuine desire for transit doesn't exist anywhere outside the city's boundaries, although this is generally true.

York Region is a unique system. It is a very heavily subisdized system with a the highest fare. That is not good. People are not willing to make compromises in their lifestyles. People use transit less in York Region, because it's not worth it to wait 30 minutes for a 35 minute bus ride. Just drive it.





You also cannot deny that the planning practices of the 416 and 905 did differ, and they still do differ today. The diversity of zoning within Metro offered an alternative to the car in itself. Sure it isn't anything like the Old City of Toronto, but it's vastly different than York Region. It wasn't too long ago that York Region wanted to expand Steeles to 4 lanes in each direction to accommodate a bus right of way, and Toronto simply said 'no.'


Toronto made a huge mistake on that one. A Bus lane on Steeles would go a long way.

Sure but not if the main idea was to increase the # of cars.

Regarding Scarborough you really need to keep one thing in mind regarding traffic. What areas have the highest transit usage ... not just in Toronto but all around the world ... typically areas that have a large population of people who are not well off. I think in a lot of parts in Scarborough that is exactly what you have. Hence producing very heavy transit ridership ... way more then you see in Missi ...

This is not to say you can't have high transit without poor people but it definitely leads to it.

Steve Munro has been posting in his blog an analysis of the subway in 1988. If you go to part 1 (http://stevemunro.ca/?p=1373), part 2 (http://stevemunro.ca/?p=1382), part 3 (http://stevemunro.ca/?p=1390), part 4 (http://stevemunro.ca/?p=1394), part 5 (http://stevemunro.ca/?p=1412), part 6 (http://stevemunro.ca/?p=1424), part 7 (http://stevemunro.ca/?p=1427), and part 8 (http://stevemunro.ca/?p=1443) you can read what he has to say. It is largely relevant to the issues of Yonge line capacity so I would suggest you guys give it a read.

I would have embedded it in this thread but it is quite long with some hyper-linked pictures.

York Region is a unique system. It is a very heavily subisdized system with a the highest fare. That is not good. People are not willing to make compromises in their lifestyles. People use transit less in York Region, because it's not worth it to wait 30 minutes for a 35 minute bus ride. Just drive it.


All those things are results of bad planning.


Toronto made a huge mistake on that one. A Bus lane on Steeles would go a long way.

The point was that York Region wanted to maintain 3 lanes of traffic on Steeles in addition to bus lanes, while Toronto agreed only if they removed one lane of traffic in each direction for the bus lanes.



Regarding Scarborough you really need to keep one thing in mind regarding traffic. What areas have the highest transit usage ... not just in Toronto but all around the world ... typically areas that have a large population of people who are not well off. I think in a lot of parts in Scarborough that is exactly what you have. Hence producing very heavy transit ridership ... way more then you see in Missi ...


There are traffic problems all across Scarborough, and there are many places across the world that are very wealthy with extremely high transit ridership.

Even Mississauga is not transit oriented as the people of Scarborough are. The place might be much maligned but it does manage to be laid back and suburban while being a place where people can use transit in a reasonable way.

The simple truth is that the old Toronto burbs are denser and more walkable than the 905 areas tend to be.

That's because Scarborough doesn't have a fare boundary to deal with.

That implies that most people that live in Mississauga work in Toronto, however we know that's not true.

Check this out;
http://stevemunro.ca/wp-content/uploads/2008/11/exhibit333c.jpg

From the old TTC report I mentioned earlier.

That's because Scarborough doesn't have a fare boundary to deal with.

Jaye101 has already sort of pointed out the most prominent answer for why the fare boundary is not an issue with Scarborough's superior ridership.

On another similar note I had a thought that the TTC could potentially take on services in line with something TRZ has said for a while. He had said that too some degree it makes sense for the area south of hwy 7 to be serviced by the TTC. I would go further and say the area south of the 401 and east of Hurontario could be serviced by an amalgamation between MT and the TTC. Just a silly thought.

On another similar note I had a thought that the TTC could potentially take on services in line with something TRZ has said for a while. He had said that too some degree it makes sense for the area south of hwy 7 to be serviced by the TTC. I would go further and say the area south of the 401 and east of Hurontario could be serviced by an amalgamation between MT and the TTC. Just a silly thought.

That makes zero sense from a Mississauga perspective. Give TTC the busiest Mississauga routes in Eastern Mississauga, while leaving MT with the less busy Western Mississauga routes. If the TTC wanted to take over all MT service, that's fine. But you can't take away MT's most profitable routes and then leave MT to fend for itself in the west. It would surely die without the busier eastern routes.

On another similar note I had a thought that the TTC could potentially take on services in line with something TRZ has said for a while. He had said that too some degree it makes sense for the area south of hwy 7 to be serviced by the TTC. I would go further and say the area south of the 401 and east of Hurontario could be serviced by an amalgamation between MT and the TTC. Just a silly thought.

This wouldn't make much sense for the TTC as there are many suburban routes within Toronto that already put a strain on the system.

This wouldn't make much sense for the TTC as there are many suburban routes within Toronto that already put a strain on the system.There is a probable expectation that there will be a change in this pattern with the subway extensions.

Does anyone have a link to these proposed bus lanes for Steeles Ave? I have a big post in mind, but I want to get all the facts before I make an ass out of myself.

I tried to find it for you, it was in the Star earlier this year. The gist was that York Region wanted to put bus lanes on Steeles, but they wanted to maintain the 6 lanes of traffic. Toronto, though not fond of bus lanes, said they could proceed, but only if they reduced the traffic capacity to 4 lanes. Both to avoid an extremely hostile corridor, and to encourage the use of public transportation. :)

There is a probable expectation that there will be a change in this pattern with the subway extensions.

These suburban subway extensions will put a heavier strain on the system than the suburban bus routes, no?

These suburban subway extensions will put a heavier strain on the system than the suburban bus routes, no?

On the VCC side, no. On the RHC side, yes. The silver lining though, is that the heaviest strain in terms of bus traffic is happening on Yonge south of Steeles, and that will be alleviated significantly by the subway extension, and a new LAAARGE terminal at Steeles is supposed to make things a lot smoother for traffic coming in through the Steeles corridor.

To clarify, are you saying that the Spadina extension to VCC will be more sustainable that the Yonge extension to RHC? In addition, are you also saying that you support a subway to RHC, or one that terminates at Steeles?

^I don't think he ment more sustainable.

I think he was more suffering too the stress on the Yonge line itself.

^^ Exactly.

There's a funny dichotomy between the RH and VCC subways. One is not sustainable from a system stress perspective, the other is not sustainable from cost-recovery perspective.

I'm reluctantly warming up to the VCC station itself from a purely network connectivity standpoint, but am still vehemently against that stupid 407 Transitway station.

^Bingo.

I couldn't agree more. The only area that I cringe at is what I label the "Sheppard Syndrome". The money VCC will cost both capitol and upkeep would potentially be more beneficial to the networks of all the other transit agencies. If it were not for that I would agree that the symmetry of the network would be nice.

Not to sound like a pusher but an addition to the LRT along Yonge from Steeles North station idea that I favour, we could have a loop that travels from Steeles North Station then up and around and back down to the terminus of the Spadina line (the exact alignment I would leave to others). This solution would be both better suited to the potential ridership and still solves some of the short turn issues on the Yonge line.

Oh I see where the misunderstanding was. Initially when I referred to "strain" I was referring to economic sustainability, not passenger load.

I tried to find it for you, it was in the Star earlier this year. The gist was that York Region wanted to put bus lanes on Steeles, but they wanted to maintain the 6 lanes of traffic. Toronto, though not fond of bus lanes, said they could proceed, but only if they reduced the traffic capacity to 4 lanes. Both to avoid an extremely hostile corridor, and to encourage the use of public transportation. :)

How ironic. I live along the Steeles corridor, and I ended up purchasing my first car this year. I guess Toronto's plan to "encourage public transit" by doing nothing really worked. :hahano:

This is actually quite disappointing, because Toronto's north-central corridor is already heavily congested, and transit is not a realistic option. Having an exclusive bus lane would so introduce a realistic crosstown transit option for those outside the inner-core. An extra lane on Steeles could make crosstown driving a little easier, but if run properly the bus would still be faster if it had its own lane. With its own lane, the bus could speed by gridlock and drivers could ask themselves if it is really worth it to drive when there is a bus speeding by at a frequent rate.

What is really disgusting is that Toronto chose to car owner drivers extra. And what is the city choosing to do with this income? Tear down highways and ignore opportunities to improve transportation. I'm not saying that none of this money should be used for transit, but it should be used for transportation. Widening Steeles Ave and including a bus lane would have been a good investment. Doing nothing because it may make driving easier was not. By taxing drivers and using that money to hurt drivers imo is nothing short of theft, and will do nothing but chase people to move out of the city and further increase sprawl.

Im sorry but I use to live at finch and the idea of WIDENING Steels is plain madness. The road already opperates mostly like a mini highway. Widening it would essentially make it one. Theres highway 7 and the 407 just north of it so I cant see how widening steeles makes any sense. We dont need more highways we need better public transit. We need more centralized businesses so that people arent driving every single direction during rush hour. But the last thing we need is to encourage more driving. This is 2008 not 1968. We should realize by now if we continue to be drivers were going to continue to sprawl. Which is going to be a stress on our infrastructure, as well as our environment. It isnt sustainable and needs to be put to a rest. If someone wants to leave toronto and move to a smaller city, Ottawa, Edminton, Calgary, Victoria so they dont need to fight with traffic thats fine. But our city would be much better served with a higher priority on transit. Increasing lanes does not help that at all.

I totally agree with not expanding arterial roads. If we want to help traffic flow along Steeles we should use money to improve transit (not expand the road unless it was going to be for a dedicated bus only lane) and eliminate the nonsensical 407 tolls (those tolls keep the 407 the domain of the more well off).

We dont need more highways we need better public transit.

And by widening Steeles, it would have also gotten its own transit lane, thus improving transit.

We need more centralized businesses so that people arent driving every single direction during rush hour.

Agreed. But it is VERY unlikely we are going to bulldoze over the suburbs anytime soon, so the logical step would be to improve mobility throughout the region.

It isnt sustainable and needs to be put to a rest.

What isn't sustainable about it? Is it the fact that cars burn oil and pollute? If the human race simply didn't bother to improve when it saw a downfall in something, we would have never bothered with the wheel because it could roll too fast or something. There are problems with cars, but the main problem is that we have not tried hard enough to overcome these problems in the past 50 years.

If someone wants to leave toronto and move to a smaller city, Ottawa, Edminton, Calgary, Victoria so they dont need to fight with traffic thats fine.

Or more likely, they'll move to outer and rural regions of the GTA where their money will not be STOLEN from politicians for owning a car, and thus increase sprawl.

Want to increase the car registration tax by almost 100%, fine. But use that money to improve TRANSPORTATION (ie: for both drivers and transit users), otherwise find another source to tax!

How ironic. I live along the Steeles corridor, and I ended up purchasing my first car this year. I guess Toronto's plan to "encourage public transit" by doing nothing really worked. :hahano:

This is actually quite disappointing, because Toronto's north-central corridor is already heavily congested, and transit is not a realistic option. Having an exclusive bus lane would so introduce a realistic crosstown transit option for those outside the inner-core. An extra lane on Steeles could make crosstown driving a little easier, but if run properly the bus would still be faster if it had its own lane. With its own lane, the bus could speed by gridlock and drivers could ask themselves if it is really worth it to drive when there is a bus speeding by at a frequent rate.

What is really disgusting is that Toronto chose to car owner drivers extra. And what is the city choosing to do with this income? Tear down highways and ignore opportunities to improve transportation. I'm not saying that none of this money should be used for transit, but it should be used for transportation. Widening Steeles Ave and including a bus lane would have been a good investment. Doing nothing because it may make driving easier was not. By taxing drivers and using that money to hurt drivers imo is nothing short of theft, and will do nothing but chase people to move out of the city and further increase sprawl.

It wasn't Toronto's decision not to pursue the plan, as a TTC plan never existed for Steeles. It was York Region that abandoned theirs.

A suburban fabric and good transit cannot coexist, although if you try to reverse the car culture with no alternative it will backfire as you did note. It was interesting to watch the closure of the Gardiner this summer while I was hanging out in Parkdale.

Some guy rolled down his window and screamed at me, "why are there so many damn cars?"

"The gardiner's closed, dude"

"Aw, fuck!"

Im sorry but I use to live at finch and the idea of WIDENING Steels is plain madness. The road already opperates mostly like a mini highway. Widening it would essentially make it one. Theres highway 7 and the 407 just north of it so I cant see how widening steeles makes any sense. We dont need more highways we need better public transit. We need more centralized businesses so that people arent driving every single direction during rush hour. But the last thing we need is to encourage more driving. This is 2008 not 1968. We should realize by now if we continue to be drivers were going to continue to sprawl. Which is going to be a stress on our infrastructure, as well as our environment. It isnt sustainable and needs to be put to a rest. If someone wants to leave toronto and move to a smaller city, Ottawa, Edminton, Calgary, Victoria so they dont need to fight with traffic thats fine. But our city would be much better served with a higher priority on transit. Increasing lanes does not help that at all.

I strongly disagree. There are certain sections of Steeles that need to be expanded. All the sections that have 3 lanes in each direction are fine, but the parts with 2 lanes are major bottlenecks (not all of them, but some come to mind), and are usually the ones jammed. Also, the general condition of many sections of Steeles East is very bad, and borderline dangerous. In some of these sections it is impossible to drive in the right-hand lane without encountering large bumps and botholes.

Another road in dire need of expansion is Dufferin street between Steeles and Finch. You can spend 15-20 minutes driving southbound on that section, and then once you pass Finch traffic magically disappears. It is also very easy to expand that section, since there is a lot of slack. They are doing some sort of road construction right now just north of Finch, but I can't figure out whether they are expanding the whole section or just modifying a small segment for a new entrance. Anyone can confirm?

Like Electrify, I believe that infrastructure should be improved in all of its forms, and as was mentioned, the suburbs aren't going anywhere. I use the TTC extensively every single day, and would love to see it expand, but we cannot neglect the roads as well. I personally enjoy driving as a hobby, but I never do it during rush hour (unless I have to, which is rare).

As for the original topic of this thread, I really hope the Yonge extension goes through, even though it probably won't happen until a decade or two from now. All I want is a Steeles station, that would be awesome for me, and would save about 10-15 minutes per commute on that dreaded left turn that the 60 bus has to take from Yonge to Steeles (unless it still has to be made with the new alignment) :)

TheCat:
The construction going on on Dufferin just north of Finch is the extension of the HOV lane north of Finch to the hydro corridor. This is for the bus rapid way for the York U. 196 rocket. The TTC will build a bus way along the hydro corridor from Dufferin to Keele and into York U. It's a prelude of the subway to come and the lanes should be open by Sept. 2009.

As for widening Dufferin, I think with York region's widening project from Steeles to Highway 7, Dufferin from Steeles to Finch will be an even bigger bottleneck. Hopefully Toronto can be convinced to add an extra lane on Dufferin in each direction. There is certainly room to do so.

As for Steeles itself, I'm not sure why people keep saying it's the worst road? Most sections of Steeles are in fairly good shape. The worst section was between Bathurst and Hilda and that was fixed a couple years ago. Sure there are some bad patches here and there but overall it's in ok shape. Finch East is in much worse shape, especially between Yonge and Willowdale and just west of Leslie.

I don't disagree about widening arterial roads in Toronto, but the problem is not should we widen or not, the problem is that we need better arterial roads. Toronto actually has very few good arterial roads in the sense of mini highways. A good arterial road can function like a highway but slower speeds and can get you around fairly quickly within the city.

A good example of an arterial road that does this is Bayview. Dufferin is also another example. These are good arterial roads because of the relatively few traffic lights. In my opinion it is the traffic lights that are detrimental to our arterial roads. Toronto and the GTA have way too many traffic lights and very poor synchronization (even w/ computer technology).

I think Toronto should embark on a new project to remove traffic lights or to certainly shorten the duration for minor streets and increase the green time for the major arterial roads. The constant stopping and starting due to poor light sequences causes the arterial road to become a slow crawl and reduces the throughput of the road. With more developments come more traffic lights. It seems like planners don't think about how they can use existing lights to handle the extra demand. Instead they are allowed to build lights every 100 - 200 meters on major roads. Roads become very slow and painful to drive on if you have to stop at almost every major light.

One bad example of this is in Thornhill. Clark Avenue is THE worst road to drive on. It only goes from Dufferin to Yonge but there are over 15 traffic lights over that 5km stretch. And of course there is no synchronization so you may end up being stopped at 15 reds. Which of course causes what should be a 5-7min journey to be 15 minutes (almost double the time).

^^ Thanks for the info. I do realize that Steeles is far from being the worst, but some sections have very uneven pavement, as if the foundation has shifted. But yeah, it was definitely a welcome thing when they repaved the whole section between Bathurst and Yonge.

And I couldn't agree more with the traffic light timing issue. The truth is, almost none of the intersections in Toronto are timed. They are experimenting with this advanced timing system, but it only exists on a few select intersections, and on a stretch of Sheppard (West, I think). Otherwise, it often seems as if the lights are purposefully timed to waste your time :) It is especially evident at night, when there is no traffic, and yet every subsequent light you arrive at is red.

But I think we've let this thread stray too off course :).

haha, you are right. Back to talking about the Yonge subway extension...

I strongly disagree. There are certain sections of Steeles that need to be expanded. All the sections that have 3 lanes in each direction are fine, but the parts with 2 lanes are major bottlenecks (not all of them, but some come to mind), and are usually the ones jammed. Also, the general condition of many sections of Steeles East is very bad, and borderline dangerous. In some of these sections it is impossible to drive in the right-hand lane without encountering large bumps and botholes.

As a regular driver of Steeles between Yonge and Leslie I can attest to this... oh my poor car. What's worse was that they've been trying to fix that section recently, but after they clawed up the road, they decided to not finish the job. Over the course of the next week in the clawed up section (with random manhole covers sticking a few inches up) I saw numerous hubcaps all over the place. Good work city!

Another road in dire need of expansion is Dufferin street between Steeles and Finch. You can spend 15-20 minutes driving southbound on that section, and then once you pass Finch traffic magically disappears. It is also very easy to expand that section, since there is a lot of slack. They are doing some sort of road construction right now just north of Finch, but I can't figure out whether they are expanding the whole section or just modifying a small segment for a new entrance. Anyone can confirm?

That section definitely needs to be expanded. I hear it never was because of a dispute between York Region and Toronto about who would pay and who would benefit from this. It's hell to drive that section anywhere near rush hour, and it's stupid because any other part of Dufferin is super quick.

As for the original topic of this thread, I really hope the Yonge extension goes through, even though it probably won't happen until a decade or two from now. All I want is a Steeles station, that would be awesome for me, and would save about 10-15 minutes per commute on that dreaded left turn that the 60 bus has to take from Yonge to Steeles (unless it still has to be made with the new alignment) :)

I've said this before and I'll say it again. Come rush hour, you'll see an endless row of buses in the bus lane between Finch and Steeles on Yonge Street. The subway extension at least to Steeles makes so much sense that it's not even funny. I gather they'd save a ton of money from decreased congestion, decreased need to bus drivers probably 3 buses each route (steeles 60, 53, york region buses, VIVA, etc) and each direction get clogged in that section in rush hour, so that's a LOT less buses they would need to run saving driver salaries, buses, road congestion and fuel costs in the process.

It would also finally allow for some real intensification in that area as well, especially getting rid of those strip malls and all those car dealerships in a way that only a subway station can.

NEXT AND FINAL MEETINGS:

November 26th, 5pm - 7pm (Open House), 7pm - 9pm (Presentation)
9019 Leslie St., Richmond Hill

December 3rd, 5pm - 7pm (Open House), 7pm - 9pm (Presentation)
89 Church St., North York

The open houses will also include the Hwy7 rapidway east of Yonge to Kennedy.

Nov 17, 2008 04:30 AM
Comments on this story (7)
Christopher Hume

Welcome to the better Better Way.

In anticipation of the extension of the Spadina subway north from Downsview, the TTC has hired a gaggle of globe-trotting architects to design six new stations.

Among them are two leading U.K. practitioners, Will Alsop and Norman Foster, both of whom have worked in Toronto. Alsop, of course, is the author of the celebrated "flying tabletop" at the Ontario College of Art and Design. Foster's only local project is the University of Toronto's Leslie Dan Pharmacy Building.

"If you can cheer someone up for a few minutes," Alsop declares, "it's worth it."

Though in its early stages, Alsop says his design will focus on bringing natural light and fresh air down into the bowels of the stations, which cost $8 to $15 million each. Recognizing that transit travel can be brutal, especially during the cold and dark of winter, Alsop wants to improve the experience.

"Is it possible to be a bold and beautiful subway station?" asks Alsop. "I think it is."

Certainly, if any architect could pull it off, he'd be the one. Known as a visionary, if a slightly hallucinatory one, Alsop has the rare ability to build icons that don't forget their purposes. OCAD is a perfect example; what might appear to be just an outlandish building-on-stilts solved a number of practical issues of school closure, adequate classroom space and landscaping.

"It'll have a lot to do with light," he explains. "These stations occupy a large volume and we don't want to fill them up with unnecessary stuff. If we get it right, you'll be quite happy to sit on a bench and wait for a train."

Alsop has worked on the London Underground, as has Foster, whose firm designed the enormous stop at Canary Wharf. He also did the subway stations in Bilbao, Spain, and their shell-like entrances, known locally as "Fosterinos."

"Slowly, a transformation is happening at the TTC," says commission chair Adam Giambrone. "The RFP (request for proposals) was sent out in a way that would attract architects from around the globe. The decision was informed by a renewed sense of the importance of the civic realm. We have to live with these buildings in our neighbourhoods. Design matters. You need to provide more than a concrete box."

That may not sound like the TTC talking, but don't forget that Yorkdale Station was designed by Canada's most acclaimed architect, Arthur Erickson, and that a number of the country's best-known artists have contributed works.

In other words, there are precedents. Even the ill-fated Sheppard Line incorporates artworks into the very structure of the stations.

Best of all, Giambrone insists, the federal and provincial cheques for the extension, $698 million and $1.1 billion respectively, have cleared. Add to that $400 million from York Region and $600 million from Toronto.

"We actually have the money in the bank," Giambrone says. "The project has already begun."

But, he points out, "I've learned that you have to watch these things to make sure you don't get cut back at the last minute."

It remains questionable why these stations – all free-standing structures – won't be incorporated into larger buildings, office or residential towers, as are many here and abroad. Much has been said about urban intensification, getting people out of cars and into public transit. Thus the need for a seamless infrastructure that begins where the front door ends.

Because most stations include bus bays, they will have bigger footprints; yet even these could be fitted into or under larger developments. Sooner or later, this will happen. The train has already left the station.


http://www.thestar.com/GTA/Columnist/article/538111

It looks like we are in for stations that are more pleasing to the eye.

the links to several documents from the nov 26 consultation.

Presentation Slides (downloads/november_28/Presentation.pdf)

FAQ (downloads/november_28/FAQ.pdf)

Technical Handout (downloads/november_28/Technical_Handout.pdf)

final recommendations workbook (downloads/november_28/Workbook.pdf)

Subway Handout (downloads/november_28/Subway_handout.pdf)

Concept Plan (downloads/november_28/Concept_Plan.pdf)

Webcast Stream (53 min long) (http://www2.webcastcanada.ca/viva/)

none of the links work.

Anyone have any stats how the current Yonge line ridership compares to other subway lines around the world. I've found ridership for other subway system but not for a particular line.

none of the links work.

Try these URLs

http://www.vivayork.com/downloads/november_28/Presentation.pdf
http://www.vivayork.com/downloads/november_28/FAQ.pdf
http://www.vivayork.com/downloads/november_28/Technical_Handout.pdf
http://www.vivayork.com/downloads/november_28/Workbook.pdf
http://www.vivayork.com/downloads/november_28/Subway_handout.pdf
http://www.vivayork.com/downloads/november_28/Concept_Plan.pdf

Try these URLs

http://www.vivayork.com/downloads/november_28/Presentation.pdf
http://www.vivayork.com/downloads/november_28/FAQ.pdf
http://www.vivayork.com/downloads/november_28/Technical_Handout.pdf
http://www.vivayork.com/downloads/november_28/Workbook.pdf
http://www.vivayork.com/downloads/november_28/Subway_handout.pdf
http://www.vivayork.com/downloads/november_28/Concept_Plan.pdf

One thing I've always disliked about YRT's planning strategies (and by extension, presentations) is that they show some things (transit lines and stations) as if they are already there when there is little more than a quiet proposal.

For example, in the subway handout they show a concord terminal which appears to be a station for GO/VIVA/407 transitway. It seems like a great station. Yet I've never seen anything about this terminal until this presentation. To someone who really isn't aware they might assume that this is there or already planned for.

**Edit**

Does anyone think that the Langstaff/Longbridge station is necessary?

One thing I've always disliked about YRT's planning strategies (and by extension, presentations) is that they show some things (transit lines and stations) as if they are already there when there is little more than a quiet proposal.

For example, in the subway handout they show a concord terminal which appears to be a station for GO/VIVA/407 transitway. It seems like a great station. Yet I've never seen anything about this terminal until this presentation. To someone who really isn't aware they might assume that this is there or already planned for.

**Edit**

Does anyone think that the Langstaff/Longbridge station is necessary?

I do not. It saddens me that we're getting this near perfect proposal (stop wise anyway) and yet have to contend with such glaring flaws such as the Longbridge station. Six stops to Hwy 7 is perfect. Glad Cummer-Drewry was included. Estactic that the Steeles station will have an underground bus terminal (everyone whining that they could've annexed some land from Centrepoint for an at-grade terminal needs to pay a visit to that intersection and see for themselves how impossible that wouldv'e been). However that's about where my appraisal ends.

The Thornhill secton of this line is designed all wrong. For starters, the Steeles stop should bridge the intersection, not be focused mainly to the north. Should ever Centrepoint extend a subterreanean arm towards the subway, this would make for a better connection point.

Next Clark Stn should be focused south of its intersection with southernly exits onto Glen Cameron Road. What if in the future the rail corridor is utilized for commuter traffic. This would make for a seamless interchange point down the road. Of course these spacing blunders only accentuate the problem with the next gap. A near two kilometres before the next stop appears around Royal Orchard Blvd?

:wtf:

Tell me they could've come up with a more logical explanation as to why two concession roads were skipped over than to 'preserve' a heritage community. Again... What. The. Fuck! :hammer: They had to have realized this in no way will aid pedestrians through Thornhill and will deter any potential shoppers (passersby awaiting their connecting bus routes at the much lamented Centre-John subway station) from helping out local businesses and merchants. I'd like to know what kind of people were surveyed regarding this heritage farce. :|

And if Centre-John, despite it's significance to long-haul travellers from Concord, Promenade, German Mills, southern Markham et al., is too low-key to justify a station, I sincerely doubt two minor stops at Royal Orchard and Longbridge will fair any better. These aren't even through corridors. :no: Essentially if Royal Orchard Stn were moved up a couple blocks (say to around Helen), that single station would supplant the need to keep both. There's no way every new planned community resident or every 407 kiss'n' ride patron will be within 2 minutes walking distance of the Longbridge station (which btw is juxtaposed to a cemetery so all this redevelopment is limited to the west of Yonge only :yes:). Hence they easy well could walk it down five minutes to the Helen stop. Same difference.

Lastly RHC. Where's the seamless interchange between the GO Rail line and this subway? That's one hell of a walk especially during the dead of winter. Even the connection to the existing VIVA Terminal and adjacent big-box block is disjointed. It shouldn't occur so far north (High Tech Blvd? Really?) but rather bridge the gap between the GO and VIVA/YRT terminals.

Alas I guess this is all set in stone now. Like I said, glad its happening, but the station locations could use some serious reconfiguration.

I attended the Nov. 26th meeting in Richmond Hill and the plans look fairly firmly in place and far along so that they can request funding in the spring for this project.

The station spacings are okay for this line in my opinion. The only real station that could be removed would have been Longbridge, but is included mainly because of the development of the Langstaff lands on the east side of Yonge. The development plans look fairly dense so a station there will be handy. Plus, it will be used for those that park in the hydro field on the west side of Yonge.

For the Steeles station, I think they made a good decision making it an underground terminal. My only issue is that it looks like they will over-build the station as the TTC tends to do. I would rather see a compact underground terminal and have it designed to support LRT in the future. Based on the diagrams, there will be exits on both the north and south side of Steeles, and potentially an underground connection to Centre Point mall, so I think Steeles station is well planned.

Clark station could have been built south of Clark but I think the reason they choose north of Clark is due to the bridge/hill over the railroad. I think even if the CNR does ever decide to give up its rights to use that heavy corridor, that is at least 20 years off, if ever. Thus, the connection there could always be added later on, since it's not a huge distance from Clark, less than 300m.

As for the heritage district, the only reason they didn't build a station there is due to the old grannies that live in Thornhill centre and are trying to preserve the wasteland that it is. In my opinion, there is not much there to preserve, and instead proper mid-rise development could enhance that area. As of right now the retail strip is dead and there are few if any people that walk along that stretch. It's just a short area that people drive through. Compare that to heritage districts like Unionville or Richmond Hill Centre. Thornhill is a wasteland of McMansions just east/west of Yonge. Due to the insistence of these grannies, this area will not have a station and thus no development will be spurred because of the subway. They also pushed for a misguided idea for a bridge over the East Don. Again, IMHO it is a huge waste of money for a bridge that may cause flooding for the subway since it is only 1-2M above ground at the ends. All because Royal Orchard station would be deep if they tunneled. Big deal. There are things called elevators and escalators. In other parts of the world they support deep subways.

As for Richmond Hill station, I think this will be one sprawling station. The GO station will be somewhat a long walk from the subway, but consider this, how many people will actually be switching between GO and the subway? I don't think many at all. People will arrive at RHC by local bus of VIVA, and then transfer to either the subway or GO to head downtown. I just hope they redevelop that entire stretch of big box stores and cinemas into a dense office/retail/residential node. We'll have to wait and see.

Overall I'm amazed at how fast York/VIVA have put together the Yonge extension plans. Nothing existed 2 years ago. Compare this with Spadina which has been in the books for more than 10 years now. I'm excited to see the Yonge line extended north as I think the extension will be insanely popular and very well used.

My only concern is what kind of congestion this will cause at Bloor or the downtown stations once this opens. Hopefully the new trains and some station widening/improvements alleviate some of this.

The bridge option is far cheaper than the tunneling option. It SAVES money, it doesn't add cost. It is much more complicated to engineer a tunnel crossing. Furthermore, shallow subways are vastly superior to deep subways. Those that preach deep subways do not understand how these things work. It is critical to maintain a closer connection to the surface wherever feasable. York Mills is a mistake that should not be repeated, which was originally going to be a much cheaper bridge structure itself.

I loath taking 3 plus minutes to get from the surface to the platform.

It is a real pain if the station is crowded.

The bridge option is far cheaper than the tunneling option. It SAVES money, it doesn't add cost. It is much more complicated to engineer a tunnel crossing. Furthermore, shallow subways are vastly superior to deep subways. Those that preach deep subways do not understand how these things work. It is critical to maintain a closer connection to the surface wherever feasable. York Mills is a mistake that should not be repeated, which was originally going to be a much cheaper bridge structure itself.

Based on the diagrams I've seen the subway ROW will be encapsulated/enclosed beneath the new roadway. Why couldn't the subway run along it's own elevated guideway over the Don River? Wouldn't that be a more economical option? Why does the whole bridge have to be reconstructed?

To further educate myself on this region, I took the 77 bus from BCC to Finch Stn yesterday. And once I got to Centre/Yonge, man was I pissed. There was so much in the way of development there (in stark contrast to the Geogrian era, small town Ontario pioneer lifestyle this "Heritage Village" label conjures up) :ohno: High rise apartments lined the east side of Yonge Street. There were gas stations and strip malls. There was a condominium to the north. The was doctor/dental offices. All the old townies were well removed from the intersection (sans those lining Centre St itself). And the further south you went, the more developed it looked. By Clark, we're talking serious grand-scale malls and condos.

This is the last place on earth you'd want to take away one's local connectivity for an almost two kilometre gap. Think urban infill. Think rezoning. Should a dozen or so octogenerians really hold this much clout to take away future subway access from their grandkids and greatgrands? :gaah: Had planners seriously thought things through we'd still be getting new stations up the Yonge corridor BUT with more decent walking distance between stops (occuring about every kilometre):

Cummer-Drewry centered on @Connaught/Hedgewood instead (they could call the stop Newtonbrook); Steeles beginning @Atitibi; Glen Cameron-Clark; John-Centre, Bay Thorn-Helen; Langstaff E-Hwy 7. :doh: The last two supplants the need for Longbridge on all cyclinders.

Lets face it, this is nothing but a cash grab. Officials don't give a shit about heritage trusts, environmental impact or what choice station locations would best benefit the commuter/transit user the most. Afterthoughts to the real objective... $675 million in "other costs". :ohno::no:

I loath taking 3 plus minutes to get from the surface to the platform.

It is a real pain if the station is crowded.

Hopefully we'll recieve some surface/bus terminal-> mezzanine level-> platform level elevators in the vain of St George Stn. :cheers:

I personally have no problem with the heritage area of York. It's a reminder of what York used to be before the insane development that brought ugly power centres, and pre-fab houses. I think it's a good idea to leave it the way it it. Screw the development excuse. York Region has a lot of land to develop.

That being said, I have been to all the meetings, and I personally think the region did a decent job in designing this subway. The bridge simply makes sense. If you tunnel that deep at that angle, you're going to have to retrofit all the subway cars to handle steeper grades.

TRZ:Exactly. Deeper stations require more infrastructure, and therefore higher operating, and maintenance costs. Not to mention that any time savings associated with subways is pretty much negated due to spending 5+ minutes ascending to the surface. The bridge design is a good design.

The last two supplants the need for Longbridge on all cyclinders.
You're oblivious to the Langstaff Lands project, aren't you? The planners DID look at having just one station, directly beneath the 407/Hwy7 area, and they concluded it would be awful. The needs of the area are vastly more satisfied by having two separate subway stations. There is a relationship between the Langstaff GO station (which is planned to double as a pedestrian connecting corridor between RHC and the redevloped Langstaff Lands mega-project), Longbridge subway station, and the RHC Terminal that the planners have put a lot of energy into and given what we know from the failure of the Allen, the planners here are absolutely right!

Your proposal for a station directly beneath 7/407 is akin to putting a station right beneath the 401 instead of having two stations at Sheppard and York Mills.

This theory will be proven with the 407 Transitway station on the Spadina extension no doubt. I'll be first in line to say "Told ya so!"

TRZ I'm aware of the RHC plans but I'm not aware of the Langstaff plans. Where can I find this?

It strikes me as rather odd that suddenly York is pro density but only in 2 areas, and those areas happen to be getting questionable subway expansions in the future. To me it seems like they are trying to justify the subway expansion by coming up with these magically intensification plans out of the blue. Not to say that I'm against intensification there.

I think you will agree with me that improving GO train service to RHC is a better primary option.

** Edit **

I think a further example of York's selective density planning is from Dentrobates description of the Heritage lands. Much of Yonge is already built up, what exactly are we protecting by not allowing a subway station to be placed there?

For an example look at the downtown stations along the Yonge line. There might be massive density around the subway but if you go a few blocks to the east of Yonge you wouldn't even know you were in the CBD of a major city. Queen and King are able to retain their historic character as well,despite the subway.

Well, the Langstaff Lands and the RHC area both abutt the GO Station, since the GO Station spans to both sides of 7/407. As such, Langstaff Lands are part of the same growth centre as RHC. The graveyard is the real killer (pardon the pun) of the growth centre stretching further south. York Region, from what I gather, is trying to get density on both sides of the highway. There's a lot of talk about developing the underside of the 407 in this area, which coincides with the pedestrian corridor purpose the GO station is supposed to double as, but not only on the current platform's east side, but on the west side too (whether or not this is part of a second platform project is not yet being disclosed). This is why the triangle of stations comes into play (Longbridge-RHC-LangstaffGO).

The background of the heritage lands are available on this Markham website (http://www.markham.ca/Markham/Departments/Planning/Studies/Studies_ThornhillHeritage.htm), with good maps illustrating the heritage area boundaries on pages 11 and 12 of this PDF file (http://www.markham.ca/NR/rdonlyres/EE1FBD41-46DC-4502-A7BB-7A81B941F175/0/th_overview_07.pdf). :)

You're oblivious to the Langstaff Lands project, aren't you? The planners DID look at having just one station, directly beneath the 407/Hwy7 area, and they concluded it would be awful. The needs of the area are vastly more satisfied by having two separate subway stations. There is a relationship between the Langstaff GO station (which is planned to double as a pedestrian connecting corridor between RHC and the redevloped Langstaff Lands mega-project), Longbridge subway station, and the RHC Terminal that the planners have put a lot of energy into and given what we know from the failure of the Allen, the planners here are absolutely right!

Nope! :) The absurdity of skipping John-Centre plays right into absurdity of constructing Longbridge. Royal Orchard could be constructed further north as there's nothing on-site of that intersection worth the immediacy of a station. Look at a dang map. A station at Helen would extend up to Uplands (there's a preexisting commerical area there btw that's larger than what's at RO). This is a mere couple blocks away from Bunker-Longbridge. You're telling me people can't walk it down five minutes to a stop around Helen yet people will gladly walk it down, even during winter, 15 minutes from Centre St to get to Clark Stn? :sly:

And to say the Allen is a failure just because it's on a highway system is just wrong. It's a quote-on-quote "failure" because of the type developments that are around it. Surface route connections matter too. This is why Lawrence West and Yorkdale are higher preformers than Eg West, Glencairn and Wilson.

Your proposal for a station directly beneath 7/407 is akin to putting a station right beneath the 401 instead of having two stations at Sheppard and York Mills.

:wtf: Where did this comparison come from? :nuts: Lord Seaton would make for a nice mid-block infill some day though.

This theory will be proven with the 407 Transitway station on the Spadina extension no doubt. I'll be first in line to say "Told ya so!"

And I'll be the first to state I never was for that stop in the first place. Any of the Vaughan extension for that matter since subways need to be constructed where people actually live, preexisting, not planned. Given the Malthusian state of the economy I'll be surprised if people are even in any anxiety to purchase those coveted 407 Lands properties anytime soon. Bad investment. :ohno:

We're skipping over a functioning, living, breathing intersection(s) to rather put multiple subway stops in open fields and big-box tracts and two, three fledgling condo blocks. :bash: Screw the fact that these (Centre and John) are long-distance regional roads and the volume of feeder bus traffic alone could more than make up for a dismal walk-in base (if between 3000-5000 walk-ins a day is dismal). :no:

RHC will be successful no matter where it's located. The fact that the official plan has devolved from logic so much so as to have the station top out round High Tech whilst completely bypassing the GO station just speaks volumes as to how much intellectual thought actually went into planning this subway extension. Guess, it rhymes with DeNiro. :cool:

TRZ I'm aware of the RHC plans but I'm not aware of the Langstaff plans. Where can I find this?

It strikes me as rather odd that suddenly York is pro density but only in 2 areas, and those areas happen to be getting questionable subway expansions in the future. To me it seems like they are trying to justify the subway expansion by coming up with these magically intensification plans out of the blue. Not to say that I'm against intensification there.

I think you will agree with me that improving GO train service to RHC is a better primary option.

** Edit **

I think a further example of York's selective density planning is from Dentrobates description of the Heritage lands. Much of Yonge is already built up, what exactly are we protecting by not allowing a subway station to be placed there?

For an example look at the downtown stations along the Yonge line. There might be massive density around the subway but if you go a few blocks to the east of Yonge you wouldn't even know you were in the CBD of a major city. Queen and King are able to retain their historic character as well,despite the subway.

Yes, what exactly is at Centre and Yonge and John and Yonge that they are fighting so hard to preserve? Furthermore are we forgetting that Royal Orchard Blvd lies right in the heart of this heritage village as well? It's getting a station, so the question as to why John-Centre is not, still goes unanswered.

And along the existing subway network you're totally right. Several historic areas coexist alongside the subway. Look at High Park or Old Mill or Runnymede or Rosedale or Summerhill or St Clair West. That hasn't stopped some modern developments from occuring, neither has it left the 'indigeneous' population no choice but to sell their homes and vaccate. Why would Thornhill be any different? I'm glad TRZ gave us that weblink so I could see that by-law which the public's allowed to petition against. :yes: Nothing will probably come of it, but nice to know I can voice these concerns to actual law-makers/reformers.

^^OK, if you're so smart, why not waddle on down to tomorrow's meeting at 89 Church Ave. (just a few blocks south of Finch Stn., east of Yonge), between 5pm and 7pm, and tell the planners, consultants, architects and engineers there how all their work/proposals are absurd and that they should listen to you instead.

It's obvious that you haven't been to any of these public consultation meetings, which suggests that you aren't as interested in this stuff as your posts might lead one to believe, and shows that you haven't talked to anybody that's actually involved in the project, or this type of work in general... like, ever. These public consultations that York Region has been hosting have been setting a new standard and have been superbly presented when in 905-land (the 416 ones are, by comparison, very underwhelming, I'm disappointed in Toronto's hosting skills, Toronto should take notes from York Region, especially Markham, they know how to host transit presentations with style).

I'd like to see you have a "conversation with" (and I use the term loosely ("get owned by" would be more appropriate)) C.Wheeler from the TTC (he's the project manager for both Spadina and Yonge extensions, and was the project manager for Sheppard as well, plus plenty more). Instead of babbling on about stuff you know nothing about, why not go and see the source when there's a public invite out for anyone and everyone to attend? Maybe then you'd say something intelligent.

I happen to ride through this stretch of Yonge daily (Viva Pink is part of my commute since I ditched the unreliable 25D). Centre or John doesn't really have much around it. Walk-in ridership would be negligible... at best, since redevelopment can't happen here (12m height restriction in the heritage area). Royal Orchard actually does have existing apartment buildings around it, that's more than John or Centre. Did you look at a map before telling others to? No, you didn't.:ohno:

Feeders also will have smaller impacts since local service north of Steeles is going to be maintained as Clark, Royal Orchard and Longbridge stations won't have bus terminals. Most will terminate at Steeles and its mega-terminal.

Yes, what exactly is at Centre and Yonge and John and Yonge that they are fighting so hard to preserve? Furthermore are we forgetting that Royal Orchard Blvd lies right in the heart of this heritage village as well? It's getting a station, so the question as to why John-Centre is not, still goes unanswered.Centre/John are at the heart. Royal Orchard is towards the northern tip, with the immediately surrounding area on the north side actually outside the heritage area.

And along the existing subway network you're totally right. Several historic areas coexist alongside the subway. Look at High Park or Old Mill or Runnymede or Rosedale or Summerhill or St Clair West.You're not very smart to list these subway stations as a basis of your argument. Except for St.Clair West, all of those stations were build in a time where expropriation was commonplace, even rampant, and heritage protection didn't exist. Are you so out-of-touch to not realize that 2008 is vastly different from 1968 (when High Park, Runnymede, and Old Mill opened for service)?That hasn't stopped some modern developments from occuring, neither has it left the 'indigeneous' population no choice but to sell their homes and vaccate.Actually they did have to vacate... like I said, expropriation was common, even rampant before Yonge was extended north of Eglinton.
Why would Thornhill be any different? I'm glad TRZ gave us that weblink so I could see that by-law which the public's allowed to petition against. :yes: Nothing will probably come of it, but nice to know I can voice these concerns to actual law-makers/reformers.
:hahaha: Good luck with that. :lol:

Yes, what exactly is at Centre and Yonge and John and Yonge that they are fighting so hard to preserve? Furthermore are we forgetting that Royal Orchard Blvd lies right in the heart of this heritage village as well? It's getting a station, so the question as to why John-Centre is not, still goes unanswered.

I answered this back on Oct 28th on this thread, but I guess you ignored it. Here it is again:

Sorry but I'm going to have to call you on all this. You're from Brampton so I will assume you really don't know better. But I grew up in Thornhill. The area in question is within walking distance to my house, and I go past it a few times a week.

The area in question is definitely a heritage site. Furthermore, there has been a LOT of opposition to changing the composition of that area in the past. For instance, Yonge St is only 2 lanes each way for all of Thornhill precisely because of opposition to expanding it many years ago. Thus, I believe there will be opposition to anything which threatens to put more pressure on more development in that area.

Furthermore, while the river is north of Centre, there is a GIANT valley right after that, that slopes down about 15 metres lower quite quickly just a few metres north of Centre. Since subway track cannot possible bend that fast (one can imagine the train not being able to handle such immediate inclines), this means that the centre/john station would have to be built extremely underground, much further underground than any station in Toronto.

This would only add to the costs of such a station. As well, since this super deep station would be very unfriendly to get to, it would also lower the attractiveness of such a station. This is especially true since that area cannot support a large bus terminal (the amount of people taking the John or Centre bus here is insignificant), is opposed to much further intensification (aside for a few 5-8 story buildings on Yonge perhaps), and is such very reliant on walk-in traffic to support it.

Because of the unfriendlyness of such a station, it would become one of the deadest stations in the entire system, and as such a huge waste of money to build.

To add to that, I would like to point out yet again that John Street and Centre Street is NOT a major commuting corridor. They are with all due respect, local roads that some locals like to use and that's about it. The fact that some pretty low ridership bus routes go on these roads does not add to the fact that they are supposedly important.

Furthermore, there are many more apartment buildings at Royal Orchard than at Centre. As well, there is MUCH more space at Royal Orchard for redevelopment in huge strip malls that no one cares about. As I stated and will state again, the redevelopment potential for Yonge around John/Centre is minimal at best.

On the Vaughan side, about 20-45 metres off Yonge are many, many 100-year old houses. In fact some of these heritage houses are on Yonge itself and are now hosting some real estate and other offices.

On the Markham side, we have a bunch of co-op housing that houses a lot of people and isn't about to be demolished any time soon.

The only redevelopment potential is to bulldoze the few plazas that exist which are neither old or new, and have stuff inbetween them. Unfortunately these buildings are pretty shallow at best. You'd be hard pressed to fit a proper condo on these sites that was any taller than about 5-8 stories. The reason for this is not that such small condos do not exist, but more because these days no one builds just 1 super small building anymore, everything is in at least a 2 tower development or one super fat development. Either way, there will not be room for such large things.


Secondly, the CN corridor inbetween Clark and Steeles has no business being commuter rail. First of all, this rail line doesn't really go to any important destinations aside from a huge, huge, huge rail yard (and home to all of Vaughan's industrial) to the west, and going through Markham's business parks to the east. It will be literally decades before these things would be redeveloped, and planning so far ahead when you want ridership now is silly.


Thirdly, if the Clark station is north of Clark, then the walk from John/Centre would be only about 800-600m, which is well within the vast majority of subway stations in Toronto.


What does this mean? It means walk-in traffic is severely limited, and even then safely within walking distance. John/Centre is not a major corridor and should not be thought of as such. And finally, the potential for grand massive redevelopment in this area is nothing more than a pipe dream.

Everything points towards the Royal Orchard area as much more worthy of having a station, plus everything else I mentioned in my quoted post.

Secondly, the CN corridor inbetween Clark and Steeles has no business being commuter rail. First of all, this rail line doesn't really go to any important destinations aside from a huge, huge, huge rail yard (and home to all of Vaughan's industrial) to the west, and going through Markham's business parks to the east. It will be literally decades before these things would be redeveloped, and planning so far ahead when you want ridership now is silly.


If we are pushing for the Midtown corridor for passenger service then the current freight needs to go somewhere. It will most likely get pushed into this corridor as I don't see it getting routed through Union Station. Pushing the traffic onto trucks is simply not a viable option if this corridor too is used for passenger service. Ideally, the other two corridors would have all-day service, so it is essential this corridor be maintained for freight. The 407 corridor was supposed to be where a northern east-west regional transit route went.

I'd like to see you have a "conversation with" (and I use the term loosely ("get owned by" would be more appropriate)) C.Wheeler from the TTC (he's the project manager for both Spadina and Yonge extensions, and was the project manager for Sheppard as well, plus plenty more). Instead of babbling on about stuff you know nothing about, why not go and see the source when there's a public invite out for anyone and everyone to attend? Maybe then you'd say something intelligent.

:hilarious

The project manager of the mitigating disaster, sorry excuse for a subway line that is Sheppard is going to own me in a transit discussion? :uh: Oh, wow, I'm just quivering in my boots. :baeh3::ohno:

If you're any measure to go by, I think I'll stay far away from that event. I'm not a masochist. :yes: Besides I have a life to attend to.

I happen to ride through this stretch of Yonge daily (Viva Pink is part of my commute since I ditched the unreliable 25D). Centre or John doesn't really have much around it. Walk-in ridership would be negligible... at best, since redevelopment can't happen here (12m height restriction in the heritage area). Royal Orchard actually does have existing apartment buildings around it, that's more than John or Centre. Did you look at a map before telling others to? No, you didn't.:ohno:

I know they don't have much around them. I know redevelopment potential is limited. You're saying these things as if I wasn't in the area just this past Monday. :| Does Kennedy Stn have much around it? Does it still not function as a major terminal for long distance bus routes? You want to detour buses (2, 3, 77), I want said buses to reach the Yonge Line in the fastest manner possible. In your blind zeal to turn every inch of an area into a condo-tropolis or else build nothing in the way of new infrastructure there, you've forgotten who actually rides the transit lines you're forming. Not developers nor planners nor politicians. It's average joes like me and it's us who'll be inconvenienced by your... yes... ABSURD proposals.

Feeders also will have smaller impacts since local service north of Steeles is going to be maintained as Clark, Royal Orchard and Longbridge stations won't have bus terminals. Most will terminate at Steeles and its mega-terminal.

:lol: This would be funny if it wasn't so tragic. All these billions to build a subway no one even needs to ride.

Centre/John are at the heart. Royal Orchard is towards the northern tip, with the immediately surrounding area on the north side actually outside the heritage area.

Which is a moot point since Royal Orchard is still within the protected Heritage Area. Waited keystrokes. :ohno:

You're not very smart to list these subway stations as a basis of your argument. Except for St.Clair West, all of those stations were build in a time where expropriation was commonplace, even rampant, and heritage protection didn't exist. Are you so out-of-touch to not realize that 2008 is vastly different from 1968 (when High Park, Runnymede, and Old Mill opened for service)?

I'm very smart to highlight these stops as they're exemplar of the type of land use that could exist around Centre-John post-extension. :angel: Another great example and probably more akin to what would happen is Yonge-Lawrence. That intersection's like the last place you'd expect to find a subway station and yet the heritage homes co-exist right alongside low-rise commercial and residential developments. Why you believe similar low-rise redevelopments couldn't work in downtown Thornhill (yes folks, Centre-John is literally an urban centre) I have no idea.

The only people who are out-of-touch (sic) :ohno: are the octogenerians who championed this Heritage BS in the first place which will continue to screw up people's commutes long, long after they're dead and gone. Or perhaps you, since the folks back in 1968 at least had the good sense to plan, develop and actually construct socially progressive, forward-thinking, modernist infrastructure that to this day benefits all. Living mausoleums no ones knows or cares about garnering protection status, makes me think it's the 2008's mindsets that are stuck in a proverbial time warp. Given the resurgency of streetcar talk, I'm guessing that I'm right.

Actually they did have to vacate... like I said, expropriation was common, even rampant before Yonge was extended north of Eglinton.

Common and rampant, and yet the historic makeup of the city is still present to this day, all around the subway system. :| What a Catch 22 grave you've dug for yourself. You refuse to build subways where people actually live because it's seen as pervasive even if it's more beneficial to their commutes to rather instead build subways where no one lives, where there is zero organic urban growth prior to the subway that require long-distance feeder bus routes to access. :hammer:

Good luck with that.

Better I try that than to have hot air blown up my ass for two hours straight, extolling the greatness of worthlessness. You have a nice time though! :hi:

:ohno:I answered this back on Oct 28th on this thread, but I guess you ignored it. Here it is again:

I heard what you said about the grade/elevation drop. Don't think I didn't, I'm just stubborn. ;)

To add to that, I would like to point out yet again that John Street and Centre Street is NOT a major commuting corridor. They are with all due respect, local roads that some locals like to use and that's about it. The fact that some pretty low ridership bus routes go on these roads does not add to the fact that they are supposedly important.

If not for VCC Stn, the 77 bus (Brampton Acceleride) could always be looked upon as a reliable source of ridership. Don't count out Concord as a ridership base however. Realigning the 2 Miliken bus from off of Henderson Dr would bring in a couple thousand initially and expand as Unionville/Miliken/Box Grove's population continues to bloom. Like I said earlier, even if Centre-John sees only 5000 ppd during the first decade of operations, it's still a success as this is the average for most non-intensified BD stops.

Furthermore, there are many more apartment buildings at Royal Orchard than at Centre. As well, there is MUCH more space at Royal Orchard for redevelopment in huge strip malls that no one cares about. As I stated and will state again, the redevelopment potential for Yonge around John/Centre is minimal at best.

I'm not fighting against RO, potential wise. However there's still no logical reason why there has to be twin minor stations at both RO and Longbridge when Helen (which was a preselected stop location in the initial 2006 plans) is a 5 mins walk away in either direction of those intersections. That same strip mall you're talking about extends upto Bay Thorn. As does those high-rise apartments. Are you telling me these people are too lazy to walk it 5 mins to Helen yet the Centre-John folk (who surely must be mighty pissed at their neighbours right now) must walk it in excess of 15 mins to Clark?

On the Vaughan side, about 20-45 metres off Yonge are many, many 100-year old houses. In fact some of these heritage houses are on Yonge itself and are now hosting some real estate and other offices.

What you're describing sounds just like York Mills or Lawrence or Sheppard or High Park or Rosedale. These comparisons make the prior generation of planners seem a lot smarter than the vernacular of today's. Pity.

On the Markham side, we have a bunch of co-op housing that houses a lot of people and isn't about to be demolished any time soon.

Low-income households are primary sources of transit users. Why would I want to demolish the golden goose, more justification for a subway stop here?

The only redevelopment potential is to bulldoze the few plazas that exist which are neither old or new, and have stuff inbetween them. Unfortunately these buildings are pretty shallow at best. You'd be hard pressed to fit a proper condo on these sites that was any taller than about 5-8 stories. The reason for this is not that such small condos do not exist, but more because these days no one builds just 1 super small building anymore, everything is in at least a 2 tower development or one super fat development. Either way, there will not be room for such large things.

It's sad so many people can only focus on the redevelopment potential the new subway will bring; more so than the greater connectivity, accessibilty and reduced commute times. If people actaully remembered what the primary objective was here, I wouldn't be fighting so hard to convince you of what should be obvious to us all. :no:

Secondly, the CN corridor inbetween Clark and Steeles has no business being commuter rail. First of all, this rail line doesn't really go to any important destinations aside from a huge, huge, huge rail yard (and home to all of Vaughan's industrial) to the west, and going through Markham's business parks to the east. It will be literally decades before these things would be redeveloped, and planning so far ahead when you want ridership now is silly.

Planning ahead is never a bad thing. Had we done that, we still in 2008, almost 2009 now, wouldn't be wondering if the DRL will ever be on the horizon. :|

Thirdly, if the Clark station is north of Clark, then the walk from John/Centre would be only about 800-600m, which is well within the vast majority of subway stations in Toronto.

It'd still be the largest spacing gap of the whole extension. And since both Clark and RO stations are centered on their intersections, the gap is more likely 1.6 kilometres or roughly 25 minutes walking distance apart.

What does this mean? It means walk-in traffic is severely limited, and even then safely within walking distance. John/Centre is not a major corridor and should not be thought of as such. And finally, the potential for grand massive redevelopment in this area is nothing more than a pipe dream.

Everything points towards the Royal Orchard area as much more worthy of having a station, plus everything else I mentioned in my quoted post.

Alas, you're right and there's nothing I can do to wake up from this living nightmare now. I just hope Brampton doesn't get fucked up too when our time comes to receive mass transit. :yes:

^^ppfftt..

Brampton is ALREADY fucked up. I was born and raised in that hole, and I am glad I left.

Acceleride is going to do nothing to improve transit in that city.

Yes, what exactly is at Centre and Yonge and John and Yonge that they are fighting so hard to preserve? Furthermore are we forgetting that Royal Orchard Blvd lies right in the heart of this heritage village as well?

You have to remember that Thornhill is in the 905. Former communities here are taken much more seriously than they are in the suburban 416. People recognize them a lot more than they do in the Toronto and it shows in the geographical nomenclature (Example: "...as Unionville/Miliken/Box Grove's population continues to bloom."). People still sort of think them as towns, hence subway stations don't belong there in the opinion of NIMBY's there. For example, Willowdale was also once a small villiage, but nobody sees it like that now. The "arbituary" border of Steeles Ave is more significant to the average person than you might think!

As for Royal Orchard being in the heritage area, I haven't a clue why it is as it's totally suburban.

:hilarious

The project manager of the mitigating disaster, sorry excuse for a subway line that is Sheppard is going to own me in a transit discussion? :uh: Oh, wow, I'm just quivering in my boots. :baeh3::ohno:

If you're any measure to go by, I think I'll stay far away from that event. I'm not a masochist. :yes: Besides I have a life to attend to. I knew you'd be too scared, what with your overblown pride and ego you could never muster up enough strength to go talk to such people.

You also aren't aware of what project managers do. Wheeler didn't have much to do with the Sheppard line getting its funding... that was mostly Lastman and Peterson's doing. The project manager's job is to see to it that it gets built, on time and on budget. Also included in the project manager's scope is land aquisition.

The point is that Wheeler knows everything about building subways. He's both been leading such projects before and is leading them again right now. This guy can call up facts about subways in Toronto faster than any machine. Sharp as nails.

You, on the other hand, don't know the first thing about building subways.

Yes, you'd get totally owned. Your tough talk is worth jack, your vain attempt to save face isn't working worth a damn and we all know it. Don't even try the "I have a life" crap, you obviously don't have enough of a life to prevent you from posting on this site (a lot more than I do, and I've been pretty busy myself). The reason you're not going to talk to these people is because you're scared. I know you're quivering in your boots. I think the fact is you don't want to know because you're so incapable of facing the reality that you're wrong.



I know they don't have much around them. I know redevelopment potential is limited. You're saying these things as if I wasn't in the area just this past Monday. :| Your going through there once doesn't match my going through there daily.

Does Kennedy Stn have much around it? Does it still not function as a major terminal for long distance bus routes?Kennedy's certainly an interesting animal, partly attributed to the SRT, partly to Eglinton Ave. between Birchmount and Kingston Rd., and partly to the large distance between Warden and Kennedy stations. Scarborough and Thornhill are very different though. Doesn't compare, sorry. This is apples to oranges.
You want to detour buses (2, 3, 77), I want said buses to reach the Yonge Line in the fastest manner possible. In your blind zeal to turn every inch of an area into a condo-tropolis or else build nothing in the way of new infrastructure there, you've forgotten who actually rides the transit lines you're forming. Not developers nor planners nor politicians. It's average joes like me and it's us who'll be inconvenienced by your... yes... ABSURD proposals.Except they're not my proposals. :|
Genius.



:lol: This would be funny if it wasn't so tragic. All these billions to build a subway no one even needs to ride.
There's more to the subway than feeder buses. The surface routes are being maintained, in part, because of the distance between stops through the heritage area, but more importantly is because it would cost even more to have excessive bus terminals at other stations. You can't have stations as cheap as $70M or less a pop with a bus terminal as part of the package.


Which is a moot point since Royal Orchard is still within the protected Heritage Area.You completely missed the point and it is clearly, if not painfully, evident that you don't understand how the heritage area impacts the decision on the subway and how it limits redevelopment.



I'm very smart to highlight these stops as they're exemplar of the type of land use that could exist around Centre-John post-extension. :angel:You're so modest, too. Another great example and probably more akin to what would happen is Yonge-Lawrence. That intersection's like the last place you'd expect to find a subway station and yet the heritage homes co-exist right alongside low-rise commercial and residential developments. Why you believe similar low-rise redevelopments couldn't work in downtown Thornhill (yes folks, Centre-John is literally an urban centre) I have no idea.Centre-John is not an urban centre :hahano:.

Or perhaps you, since the folks back in 1968 at least had the good sense to plan, develop and actually construct socially progressive, forward-thinking, modernist infrastructure that to this day benefits all. Living mausoleums no ones knows or cares about garnering protection status, makes me think it's the 2008's mindsets that are stuck in a proverbial time warp. Given the resurgency of streetcar talk, I'm guessing that I'm right.Actually, this was in the age of streetcar abandonement and where suburban sprawl and expressways everywhere was seen as progressive and all the rage. It is now recongized as one of the most misguided parts of our development history.



Common and rampant, and yet the historic makeup of the city is still present to this day, all around the subway system. :|I wouldn't say "all around". :lol:
What a Catch 22 grave you've dug for yourself. You refuse to build subways where people actually live because it's seen as pervasive even if it's more beneficial to their commutes to rather instead build subways where no one lives, where there is zero organic urban growth prior to the subway that require long-distance feeder bus routes to access. :hammer:I never stated anything along that line. Now you're making shit up and putting words in my mouth in a vain/desperate attempt to feel good about yourself.



Better I try that than to have hot air blown up my ass for two hours straight, extolling the greatness of worthlessness. You have a nice time though! :hi:

Ah yes, planners, engineers, and people that actually get the public involved and have the most detailed information about the area out of any of us, are, according to you, nothing but "hot air blown up people's asses."

You can drop the ego, we know you're just a troll.:wave:

Ah yes, planners, engineers, and people that actually get the public involved and have the most detailed information about the area out of any of us, are, according to you, nothing but "hot air blown up people's asses."


As far as I can tell the people that can make a positive impact, are making a positive impact. The people who cannot are sticking to bitching in a forum where no impact will be made.

For the sake of the city, keep Denotrabe here where whining really is like blowing bits into a strong wind -- nobody of significance notices.

^^ppfftt..

Brampton is ALREADY fucked up. I was born and raised in that hole, and I am glad I left.

Acceleride is going to do nothing to improve transit in that city.

I agree. Brampton's far more helped out by a Hurontario LRT line extending up to Heart Lake Terminal with a Queen East spur to Bramalea City Centre, as well BRT service along Steeles, Bovaird, Kennedy and Dixie. Sometimes I think it better that these things remain fantasies though because the official plans coming into fruition never seem to meet upto expectations. :(

As far as I can tell the people that can make a positive impact, are making a positive impact. The people who cannot are sticking to bitching in a forum where no impact will be made.

For the sake of the city, keep Denotrabe here where whining really is like blowing bits into a strong wind -- nobody of significance notices.

Excuse me? My right to freedom of speech means I can express these views to whomever and wherever I see fit. >( I'm not breaking any laws here. You however choose to be petty and vindictive when deep down YOU KNOW WHAT I'M VOCALIZING IS RIGHT! 50 years down the road we'll still be affected by the hasty decisions being made today. I couldn't in good conscious break bread and drink wine with the bastards who are taking away valuble and limited transit dollars away from more pressing, urgent demand areas across the GTA, then have the gaul to put two stations in a hydro corridor to appease realtors while completely overlooking a concession road.

I have morals and standards and I won't compromise those or debase myslef for anyone, not for you and certainly not for the railfan zealot. :bash: Glad you've referred to yourself as a "nobody of significance". Fitting. :|

If not for VCC Stn, the 77 bus (Brampton Acceleride) could always be looked upon as a reliable source of ridership. Don't count out Concord as a ridership base however. Realigning the 2 Miliken bus from off of Henderson Dr would bring in a couple thousand initially and expand as Unionville/Miliken/Box Grove's population continues to bloom. Like I said earlier, even if Centre-John sees only 5000 ppd during the first decade of operations, it's still a success as this is the average for most non-intensified BD stops.

The fact that you're talking about a BRAMPTON bus being a feeder for this station is absolutely ludicrous. Disregarding the fact that they will now probably get off on the Spadina line, if they were riding ALL THE WAY FROM BRAMPTON, I'm sure NO ONE will mind riding an extra 2 minutes to get to Clark Station.


I'm not fighting against RO, potential wise. However there's still no logical reason why there has to be twin minor stations at both RO and Longbridge when Helen (which was a preselected stop location in the initial 2006 plans) is a 5 mins walk away in either direction of those intersections. That same strip mall you're talking about extends upto Bay Thorn. As does those high-rise apartments. Are you telling me these people are too lazy to walk it 5 mins to Helen yet the Centre-John folk (who surely must be mighty pissed at their neighbours right now) must walk it in excess of 15 mins to Clark?

As I said, it's not 15 minutes to Clark. It's more like 5 minutes. I know, I've personally done this walk many a time.

If you would just look at a map you'll see so yourself that it's a lot closer than you think.

Also you're ignoring the fact that there's this large valley with absolutely nothing in it between Centre and Royal Orchard.


What you're describing sounds just like York Mills or Lawrence or Sheppard or High Park or Rosedale. These comparisons make the prior generation of planners seem a lot smarter than the vernacular of today's. Pity.

Amazingly, Lawrence is 2km from York Mills. Lawrence is also 2km from Eglinton.

Meanwhile Rosedale is one of the most underused stations in the entire system. And it was cheap to build because it is above ground.

Low-income households are primary sources of transit users. Why would I want to demolish the golden goose, more justification for a subway stop here?

Again if you actually knew the area, you'd know that those houses are SOUTH OF JOHN. Which means on average, they'll only be 400m from the northern end of the subway station (which itself is north of Clark). 400m is NOTHING.

It's sad so many people can only focus on the redevelopment potential the new subway will bring; more so than the greater connectivity, accessibilty and reduced commute times. If people actaully remembered what the primary objective was here, I wouldn't be fighting so hard to convince you of what should be obvious to us all. :no:

There are a few reasons to focus on re-development. First of all if there were stations at both Clark and John/Centre, the actual walk-in traffic to John/Centre would be completely negligible. There just aren't that many people who live within walking distance to a potential station here that would be not well served by a Clark station.

Secondly, the bus routes on John and Centre are extremely minor routes. Obviously almost no one local is going to take a bus 500km to the subway station, so really the only people who would be taking that bus to this station that you are proposing are coming from far away (i.e. as you stated all the way in Unionville or Concord or... Brampton :lol:). I hardly think a bus ride of an extra 600m (aka about 1 minute because of traffic light) is really going to make such a huge difference to these people's lives, especially considering the extra subway travel time to get to the next station anyway (another 30 secs - 1 minute to stop and start the subway) will eat up that time.

The Henderson bus would probably terminate at Steeles, as it actually picks up people living on... Henderson.

Thirdly, what's the point of building an entire bus terminal for what like 2 buses?

So as you can see, because walk-in traffic is negligable and because the bus routes that exist can very easily be rerouted with negligable impact, spending the tens of millions of dollars to build and then the money to maintain this station would be completely pointless. The only way the station would have more people using it, is via development.

Since we all agree no massive development will take place here... there's no point in having a station here.


It'd still be the largest spacing gap of the whole extension. And since both Clark and RO stations are centered on their intersections, the gap is more likely 1.6 kilometres or roughly 25 minutes walking distance apart.

Except... like 1/2 of that gap is the valley, which has NOTHING.

:ohno:

Thanks for your civility Transportfan. You I respect. :)

I knew you'd be too scared, what with your overblown pride and ego you could never muster up enough strength to go talk to such people.

It has nothing to do with cowardice. It has everything to do with leaving a highly lucrutive paying job in Brampton to commute over multiple hours and kms to go associate with individuals I utterly detest. They'll never convince that this plan is in the public's best interest. You as their conduit, have been trying to convince me for months and I still don't agree with you. So again, if you're the measure I'm basing my assessment of them upon-- I'd rather not attend.

You also aren't aware of what project managers do. Wheeler didn't have much to do with the Sheppard line getting its funding... that was mostly Lastman and Peterson's doing. The project manager's job is to see to it that it gets built, on time and on budget. Also included in the project manager's scope is land aquisition.

He manned the ship. :yes: Funny how you compared me to Harper, yet you didn't see that analogy coming. :ohno:

The point is that Wheeler knows everything about building subways. He's both been leading such projects before and is leading them again right now. This guy can call up facts about subways in Toronto faster than any machine. Sharp as nails.

Great, maybe he can explain then why areas of preexisting density are stuck with or slated to recieve more streetcars but open tracks of land in suburbia are getting the new subway lines. :ohno:

You, on the other hand, don't know the first thing about building subways.

Never said that I did. Oh snap, I think I was just being modest. :tongue4:

Yes, you'd get totally owned. Your tough talk is worth jack, your vain attempt to save face isn't working worth a damn and we all know it. Don't even try the "I have a life" crap, you obviously don't have enough of a life to prevent you from posting on this site (a lot more than I do, and I've been pretty busy myself). The reason you're not going to talk to these people is because you're scared. I know you're quivering in your boots. I think the fact is you don't want to know because you're so incapable of facing the reality that you're wrong.

:blahblah:

Your going through there once doesn't match my going through there daily.

And yet it only took the one visit to conclude the exact same thing it's taken you multiple trips through everyday to conclude. :pet:

Kennedy's certainly an interesting animal, partly attributed to the SRT, partly to Eglinton Ave. between Birchmount and Kingston Rd., and partly to the large distance between Warden and Kennedy stations. Scarborough and Thornhill are very different though. Doesn't compare, sorry. This is apples to oranges.

It compares for the simple reason of the land use types surrounding it. Apart from the 2466 Eglinton East complex, nothing it the immediate area is high-rise. There's bygone era strip malls flanking Kennedy on all sides. Where's the screams for mass-redevelopment coming from there? Why's every new transit project so closely knit into redevelopments that could potentially affect the public's access to these new services. Does a carowner soon-to-be resdiing along Longbridge really need a subway at his doorstep moreso than the low-income earner living in a tenement off John Street?

Except they're not my proposals. :|
Genius.

Guilt by association. :yes:

There's more to the subway than feeder buses. The surface routes are being maintained, in part, because of the distance between stops through the heritage area, but more importantly is because it would cost even more to have excessive bus terminals at other stations. You can't have stations as cheap as $70M or less a pop with a bus terminal as part of the package.

Wow, how much could a simple 4-bay bus terminal at John really sum up to? We're literally talking Donlands-esque basic here.

You completely missed the point and it is clearly, if not painfully, evident that you don't understand how the heritage area impacts the decision on the subway and how it limits redevelopment.

You're right. I don't understand how something no less than the Lourve or the Alamo could warrant these painstaking lengths to be preserved. Call it my mutual disrespect for all things ancient and valueness to our times and more poignantly our future.

You're so modest, too.Centre-John is not an urban centre :hahano:.

Historically it was the downtown of Thornhill. What a blow to not even get it's dot on the map. :ohno:

Actually, this was in the age of streetcar abandonement and where suburban sprawl and expressways everywhere was seen as progressive and all the rage. It is now recongized as one of the most misguided parts of our development history.

Man, if only the Queen Subway idea had anchored root in those times. Aw, fuck.

I wouldn't say "all around". :lol:

Whatever that's supposed to mean. :ohno:

I never stated anything along that line. Now you're making shit up and putting words in my mouth in a vain/desperate attempt to feel good about yourself.

I didn't have to, that's been the basis of your arguments for months now.

Ah yes, planners, engineers, and people that actually get the public involved and have the most detailed information about the area out of any of us, are, according to you, nothing but "hot air blown up people's asses."

Short of being paid to be there, I wouldn't leave my job to go sit down amongst sycophants listening to how our futures are slowly being taken out from underneath our noses by the unrelenting smorgasbord of corporate entities masquerading as transit prophets and messiahs.

You can drop the ego, we know you're just a troll.:wave:

And you're not? We all can be guilty of trollish behaviour when met with a wall of non-stop criticism and judgment. That's creates a lop-sided debate rather than a discussion, since one opponent is always on the offensive; the other, defensive. I may be egostistical and stubborn but I at least learn from my mistakes. You're however still attacking me after all these months. Pathetic. :|

I have morals and standards and I won't compromise those or debase myslef for anyone, not for you and certainly not for the railfan zealot. :bash: Glad you've referred to yourself as a "nobody of significance". Fitting. :|

In the world of transit planning, I am not significant. I have not altered funding strategies by any of the governments. I have not altered route choices, station choices, or technologies by any of the governments. So yes, I am not significant.

For the record, I am encouraging you to do your thing here. The more time you spend writing tripe on this forum or living your busy life, the less time you have to get in the way of the people who actually make decisions.

Decisions are not made on this forum. This forum will not carry forward in 30 years to present the voice of history.


On the topic of freedom of expression, you have the right to say whatever you want. You do not have the right to an audience, nor do I. Anybody who doesn't want to read your arguments can use the "ignore" function. Like wise, you can ignore me as I express my thoughts at this forum of irrelevance.


It's like debating moving the moon to improve the tides. Doesn't matter what arguments you present in favour or doubt, it will not change the outcome and the discussion itself will not be remembered.


I've put you on Ignore. I will not see what you post in response (unless someone else quotes it) but I do not doubt that you will reply. This amuses me.

Let's try to have progressive debates, if you're gonna revert to name calling and condescending comments might as well not post at all.

The fact that you're talking about a BRAMPTON bus being a feeder for this station is absolutely ludicrous. Disregarding the fact that they will now probably get off on the Spadina line, if they were riding ALL THE WAY FROM BRAMPTON, I'm sure NO ONE will mind riding an extra 2 minutes to get to Clark Station.

A significant chunk of the 77 riders are still going to be riding past VCC Station. I beleive that the 77 will retain it's routing. Is Clark Station even going to have a bus terminal? I have a feeling that all buses will be terminating at Steelese Station. It definitely is being designed to handle a large number of buses. I can see the 77 stopping at Clark Station, but definitely not terminating there.


As I said, it's not 15 minutes to Clark. It's more like 5 minutes. I know, I've personally done this walk many a time.

More like 2. It's not far at all.

A significant chunk of the 77 riders are still going to be riding past VCC Station. I beleive that the 77 will retain it's routing. Is Clark Station even going to have a bus terminal? I have a feeling that all buses will be terminating at Steelese Station. It definitely is being designed to handle a large number of buses. I can see the 77 stopping at Clark Station, but definitely not terminating there.

More like 2. It's not far at all.

Brampton transit will be replacing the 77 route with it's Accelleride route IIRC. Hopefully York and Brampton can agree to share a ROW along highway 7. It will serve VCC/Steeles West station, there's no reason for Brampton to go any further.

I still don't think that Longbridge station is necessary. It's going to take a massive amount of development to support 2 subway stations in that area.

A significant chunk of the 77 riders are still going to be riding past VCC Station. I beleive that the 77 will retain it's routing. Is Clark Station even going to have a bus terminal? I have a feeling that all buses will be terminating at Steelese Station. It definitely is being designed to handle a large number of buses. I can see the 77 stopping at Clark Station, but definitely not terminating there.

Yes, that's what I was referring to, the 77's usage east of Jane Street. Concord/Promenade could generate a significant number of riders as urban infill continues to take route. Is anyone thinking long-term when planning these transit projects? VIVA Purple is only of convenience to those whom reside closeby to a VIVAstation. A local bus feeder is still required to get one from the minor bus stops towards the subway.

That the expectation of these buses is to detour that far out of their route alignments to terminate is sad. I posted this image earlier:

http://i349.photobucket.com/albums/q378/DENTROBATE54/Thornhill-1.jpg

Now tell me what is wrong with this setup? The 3 and 5 buses wouldn't need actual terminal facilities at their subway stops (on-street transfer), while Centre-John could have a minimalist terminal since, as everyone keeps pointing out, these bus routes aren't high-preformers so no need to be over-indulgent. But the need to get commuters to the subway line in a fast, efficient manner however is important. Even a realignment of the 87 Langstaff-Maple bus could appease the new 407 Lands developments with ease, again nullifying the need for a Longbridge subway station.

But oh well, I guess the real visionaries aren't allowed to an audience and thus must be relegated to bitching on an online forum where real changes will never take root. :|

More like 2. It's not far at all.

It takes you two minutes to walk from Centre Street to Clark Avenue? :eek: Are you bionic? :jk:

Brampton transit will be replacing the 77 route with it's Accelleride route IIRC. Hopefully York and Brampton can agree to share a ROW along highway 7. It will serve VCC/Steeles West station, there's no reason for Brampton to go any further.

They should just extend VIVA Orange into Bramalea City Centre and be done with it. Limited stops is all eastern Brampton really needs anyway~ Hwy 27, The Gore Rd, McVean, Goreway/Humbercrest, Airport, Chrysler, Torbram, Bramalea/Knightbridge, BCC. My hope is from there on an LRT line (branched off the Hurontario Line) will connect BCC to downtown Brampton.

I hate to be the ignorant newb in the thread, but are they digging the tunnel yet? Or anything?

I am very curious as I have heard nothing about this for aaages!

That the expectation of these buses is to detour that far out of their route alignments to terminate is sad. I posted this image earlier:

http://i349.photobucket.com/albums/q378/DENTROBATE54/Thornhill-1.jpg

Now tell me what is wrong with this setup? The 3 and 5 buses wouldn't need [/quote]

Are you actually proposing this? Why is the Clark bus being detoured to a place that no one lives on (the empty part of Henderson, and industrial Doncaster)?


It takes you two minutes to walk from Centre Street to Clark Avenue? :eek: Are you bionic? :jk:

Your entire reasoning in building a John station is solely to build your bus terminal. Why bus lines that have no ridership and never will (because they run along small residential streets inside old and well developed residential areas) need a special subway station, and bus terminal at the cost of many millions when they could just go an extra TWO BLOCKS and go to Clark is beyond me.

I hate to be the ignorant newb in the thread, but are they digging the tunnel yet? Or anything?

I am very curious as I have heard nothing about this for aaages!

They've been very involved in the public consultation process for the environmental assessment lately. The final public consultation ended just two days ago. The environmental assessment will wrap up in March, including the final provincial approval I think.

After that, they can get funding and start detailed design, a 2-year process.

I hate to be the ignorant newb in the thread, but are they digging the tunnel yet? Or anything?

I am very curious as I have heard nothing about this for aaages!

Stay tuned, a couple of us that have done a lot of posting in this thread are keeping a close eye on this project.

So far there really is not much to report.

Thanks :)

I hope given the current economic situation they don't shelve it. As time moves on, this subway becomes more and more important, as does any public transit funding.

^Normally I would agree with you however I don't feel that Yonge north of Steeles will ever warrant a subway.

There line should consist of a VIVA LRT heading north of Steeles.

Actually, the Yonge extension from Finch to Highway 7 is more than warranted, it will be quite heavily used. Mainly this extension will greatly help to reduce traffic on Yonge Street, since it is almost always congested between Finch and Highway 7. Yonge & Steeles has an absurd amount of buses going through that intersection on a given day. Stopping the extension at Steeles would only relieve pressure on Yonge south of Steeles, but the other area would be the same.

Taking the subway to Highway 7 will improve connectivity since there will be a VIVA LRT heading north east and west as well as a GO line. Also, ending a subway at a highway allows for the increase of traffic that results after a subway opens. The area around Finch station is madness now during rush hour. The streets around it just can't handle that kind of volume. Hwy 7 & 407 definitely can.

The Spadina subway line extension however probably could have just been terminated at Steeles to save money as ridership north of Steeles will be very low.

^Um you are aware bud that chances are every other train will be short turning at Steeles right?

Actually, the Yonge extension from Finch to Highway 7 is more than warranted, it will be quite heavily used. Mainly this extension will greatly help to reduce traffic on Yonge Street, since it is almost always congested between Finch and Highway 7. Yonge & Steeles has an absurd amount of buses going through that intersection on a given day. Stopping the extension at Steeles would only relieve pressure on Yonge south of Steeles, but the other area would be the same.

Taking the subway to Highway 7 will improve connectivity since there will be a VIVA LRT heading north east and west as well as a GO line. Also, ending a subway at a highway allows for the increase of traffic that results after a subway opens. The area around Finch station is madness now during rush hour. The streets around it just can't handle that kind of volume. Hwy 7 & 407 definitely can.

The Spadina subway line extension however probably could have just been terminated at Steeles to save money as ridership north of Steeles will be very low.


With a GO station for those heading downtown and VIVA for all other options the subway station will do nothing but leech riders from the other 2 modes of transit, and cause more congestion further down the line. Meaning that in all likelihood getting on the subway from Eglinton south (hell even Sheppard south) will be a non starter during rush hour as there will simply not be enough room. Part of the subway expansion should have been that GO establish regular service to RHC station. With the hopes that riders would get accostomed to using GO rather than the subway.

Yes, I am aware that most likely every other train will turn back either at Finch or Steeles. Even so, the subway extension to Richmond Hill will be a godsend for many people. It will reduce the traffic on Yonge even at trains every 10 minutes it is still better than VIVA stuck in traffic.

As for causing problems down the line, that's what the new trains, the possibility of a 7th car and automated train configuration should help. The Spadina line will open first so it will relieve the Yonge line's passengers by something like 10%. Not that much but enough to be noticeable. Initially most of the riders on this extension will be existing drivers who now drive down to park at Finch or take VIVA to Finch.

I do agree that GO should also improve service to Richmond Hill. There should be hourly service from Union to RHC and vice-versa all day long.

^Of the two extensions into York I do agree that the Yonge Extension is the better of the two.

I also agree that no matter what is chosen, a fully separate ROW is needed on Yonge.

It has nothing to do with cowardice. It has everything to do with leaving a highly lucrutive paying job in Brampton to commute over multiple hours and kms to go associate with individuals I utterly detest. They'll never convince that this plan is in the public's best interest.:hahaha: Highly lucrative paying job, you?! If you made real money, you wouldn't live in Brampton (I know, I lived there for school and got out instantly after graduation), and you'd have a car. You wouldn't dare face the prospect of having your ideas and proposals gutted and destroyed by the people that actually build subways for a living. It has everything to do with cowardice when it comes to you, you never do any research to base your ideas on, because you are incapable of fathoming the prospect that your ideas won't work. Amazingly enough, every single one of your ideas don't work.You as their conduit, have been trying to convince me for months and I still don't agree with you. So again, if you're the measure I'm basing my assessment of them upon-- I'd rather not attend.That's a loaded argument and you know it. You can't run around here claiming you're out to have intellectually stimulated discussion and then turn around and saying you detest the best sources of information we have in the GTA. You're a hypocrite. You don't agree with me because I point out the problems in your ideas. You are only interested in people that don't question you or disagree with you. You're not interested in discussion at all. If you were actually interested in real discussion, or even interested in this topic, you'd have been to tons of the meetings held by various agencies and municipal governments over the past few months. But no, you've been hiding from these people to protect your little bubble of unfeasable and unsustainable transit schemes.



He manned the ship. :yes: Funny how you compared me to Harper, yet you didn't see that analogy coming. :ohno:Doesn't mean he doesn't know how subways are built. His responsibility is project delivery... not project approval. Different things entirely. Your failure to recognize that speaks volumes about how "discussion" with you is anything but intellectual.



Great, maybe he can explain then why areas of preexisting density are stuck with or slated to recieve more streetcars but open tracks of land in suburbia are getting the new subway lines. :ohno:That is a political thing, which you also refuse to recognize as a factor to consider in all this. That's where project approval comes in... something that Wheeler has no power over nor involvement in.



Never said that I did. Oh snap, I think I was just being modest. :tongue4:Yes, you do all the time, you act like everybody is stupid except you. You refuse to listen to anybody and everybody that knows something because all such people will disagree with your ideas and tear them to shreds; as they should be because they have such little (if any) thought and/or research put into them.



:blahblah:Yeah, the truth sucks, doesn't it?



And yet it only took the one visit to conclude the exact same thing it's taken you multiple trips through everyday to conclude. :pet:Now you're proving you're delusional, too. I never agreed with you... and still don't... there's nothing at John or Centre... I know because I pass it daily... twice (once in each direction).



It compares for the simple reason of the land use types surrounding it. Apart from the 2466 Eglinton East complex, nothing it the immediate area is high-rise. There's bygone era strip malls flanking Kennedy on all sides. Where's the screams for mass-redevelopment coming from there? Why's every new transit project so closely knit into redevelopments that could potentially affect the public's access to these new services. Does a carowner soon-to-be resdiing along Longbridge really need a subway at his doorstep moreso than the low-income earner living in a tenement off John Street?You totally don't know what you're talking about.



Guilt by association. :yes:This is why I compared you to Harper. :ohno:



Wow, how much could a simple 4-bay bus terminal at John really sum up to? We're literally talking Donlands-esque basic here.It's still 10s of millions of dollars, and complicates public relations, too.



Man, if only the Queen Subway idea had anchored root in those times. Aw, fuck.The proposal of the day we should be grateful didn't go through, as Queen St.'s charm wouldn't be what it is today if it had. It'd be rather bleak by comparison, I'd say.



Whatever that's supposed to mean. :ohno:It's called being busted on a blanket statement.



I didn't have to, that's been the basis of your arguments for months now.My arguments are based on a large array of factors, many of which you aren't even aware exist.



Short of being paid to be there, I wouldn't leave my job to go sit down amongst sycophants listening to how our futures are slowly being taken out from underneath our noses by the unrelenting smorgasbord of corporate entities masquerading as transit prophets and messiahs. Why don't you go learn how to build a subway before trying to tell others that have already learned such that they don't know how to do their job? :yes:



And you're not? We all can be guilty of trollish behaviour when met with a wall of non-stop criticism and judgment. That's creates a lop-sided debate rather than a discussion, since one opponent is always on the offensive; the other, defensive. I may be egostistical and stubborn but I at least learn from my mistakes. You're however still attacking me after all these months. Pathetic. :|
You don't learn from your mistakes... that's part of the whole point. At least you admit you're egotistical. If you actually learned anything, you wouldn't make the same mistakes over and over again as you endlessly do. I'm not a troll because I bring the facts to the table and base my arguments off those. You don't bring any facts and just conjure up whatever you think sounds cool. That's subjective though, and therefore not an argument. You're not here for discussion, because you're not interested in facts... and that's what makes you a troll. Now, what was that about being pathetic?

deleted

Taking the subway to Highway 7 will improve connectivity since there will be a VIVA LRT heading north east and west as well as a GO line.

Last I checked, Viva was only set to install BRT, not LRT. And the hwy 7 viva, at this time, is a joke in terms of ridership and destinations.

But this subway will be build now, we can't stop it. We should be concerned for the next 10 years, until it opens, the buses will need better conditions to handle the load.

Eventually, GO train in Richmond Hill will run at 20 minute headways, and GO will have to advertise their speed advantage to compete.

Highly lucrative paying job, you?!

:bash: Don't laugh, it's true. Dentrobate is a senior engineer for NASA :gossip: who writes detailed :banana: advanced engineering documents littered with :) emoticons.

:toilet::banned:

^^

:lol: Gee, for someone who's alledgedly here only to stir up trouble and be a troll, it'd appear that I'm the only one who respected the mod's plea to stop all the personal attacks. December 3rd was almost a week ago and obviously I've moved on. What was said of glass houses and stones again? :|

If me fighting with TRZ is the problem, he's on my Ignore List. I'm shocked to find out via Azz's post that he's still been stalking me on the threads. Oh and Azz, I haven't updated my "About Me" page since I joined on May 23rd. My employment situation has obviously changed since then and I have better things to do with my time than update my personal page every minute (or browse those of other forumers, btw) :nuts:. In a mere two and a half months, I've gone from entry-level grunt to pay raise, increased duties, supervisorial roles, bonuses, and parking in the executive VIP section with the prospect of a promotion mere weeks away.

My real life has little to do with the persona I've cultivated on here. It's my choice to ride public transit into Toronto. And furthermore there should be a variety of choices for all commuters to pick from. That's all I care about when posting on here, otherwise I would not subjectify myself to your constant eviscerations on a daily basis. For every Zealot posting on here, there's someone else who I can relate to and share/receive the right information from, to come up with the right solutions for the commuters of the GTA.

Now I'll allow all those who have fully-functional, productive lives to get back to them. :goodbye:

Steve Munro has published a report on line capacities here (http://stevemunro.ca/wp-content/uploads/2008/12/subwayfleetplanning.pdf).

It is a good read for people who are interested in subway operations.

^Normally I would agree with you however I don't feel that Yonge north of Steeles will ever warrant a subway.

There line should consist of a VIVA LRT heading north of Steeles.

I think the real problem is that we cannot determine what our subway's purpose is. Is it a commuter line, designed to funnel people from the suburbs into downtown? The wide station gaps and large number of suburban bus routes terminating at stations on the YUS would have you think that. Or is it designed for inner city travel, specifically along corridors that feature such high densities that they remain congested even with grade separated HRT running underneath them? The BD line would have you think this, especially since it remains the fastest means of traveling the corridor despite its frequent stops (believe me, I've driven it).

If it is the former, then we should look at removing underused stops and look into expanding outside the city limits and into the Greater Toronto Area. If it is the latter, Then we should be looking at adding more stops YUS line to discourage suburban commutes, build more lines through the inner city, and improve GO service to give suburban commuters an alternative to getting downtown.

If it is the latter, Then we should be looking at adding more stops YUS line to discourage suburban commutes, build more lines through the inner city, and improve GO service to give suburban commuters an alternative to getting downtown.
GO Service improvements are coming within 10 years or less, GO released a 2020 plan the other day. Steve Munro has a post about it on his blog, and includes links to the source document (a hefty 66MB pdf).

While I agree with the idea of adding stops to YUS, particularly between Sheppard and Eglinton on Yonge, the way these parts of the network were constructed, which is bored tunnel, it is not possible to add stations. Such provisions must be made in advance, and that was not done along Yonge, which is really unfortunate.

I think the real problem is that we cannot determine what our subway's purpose is. Is it a commuter line, designed to funnel people from the suburbs into downtown? The wide station gaps and large number of suburban bus routes terminating at stations on the YUS would have you think that. Or is it designed for inner city travel, specifically along corridors that feature such high densities that they remain congested even with grade separated HRT running underneath them? The BD line would have you think this, especially since it remains the fastest means of traveling the corridor despite its frequent stops (believe me, I've driven it).

If it is the former, then we should look at removing underused stops and look into expanding outside the city limits and into the Greater Toronto Area. If it is the latter, Then we should be looking at adding more stops YUS line to discourage suburban commutes, build more lines through the inner city, and improve GO service to give suburban commuters an alternative to getting downtown.

For YR to TO trips, an electrified and somewhat frequent GO line would be more appropriate than overloading the Yonge line further.

If the Yonge Line had been constructed using a tri or quad track and multiple platforms I would agree with you.

Also TRZ beat me to a point about adding additional stations along that section. It is not well known that the Yonge Line from Eglinton north to about Sheppard was a total bitch to build.


Seriously when I think about what I wish our system had, this is what my vision is. Unfortunately we have inherited the system we have and have to be practical about it.

Hell I really want the old Toronto North (Summerhill) station to be utilized as a hub too.

While I agree with the idea of adding stops to YUS, particularly between Sheppard and Eglinton on Yonge, the way these parts of the network were constructed, which is bored tunnel, it is not possible to add stations. Such provisions must be made in advance, and that was not done along Yonge, which is really unfortunate.

There must be some way to add a station? Can you explain in a little more detail what the physical restrictions that make it impossible?

There must be some way to add a station? Can you explain in a little more detail what the physical restrictions that make it impossible?

Cut-and-cover can allow for stations to be added at a later date, but requires the alignment be designed with that provision in mind (slopes and curves). North of Sheppard on the Yonge line, all the way to Finch, the TTC switches back to cut-and-cover construction. This allowed North York Centre station to be added later. You can tell by the square tunnel shape versus the circular shape that is the trademark sign of a bored tunnel. This includes some parts of the Bloor-Danforth line, and a significant portion of the University line, but those weren't bored, just "tunneled" old-school style without a TBM.

The circular shape of the bored tunnels, and the structural load transfer therein, doesn't lend itself to adding an opening into either side - the top part of the circle would cave. St.Patrick and Queen's Park has a circular shape to its platform areas, but not that this is a much enlarged circle compared to the tunnel proper, and is a separate structure.

Because the cut-and-cover tunnels have structural walls separate from the structural span of the tunnel ceiling, you can work openings into them.

More importantly though is the detailed alignment of the tracks itself.

As you know, you can't have stations on a curve. However, that isn't a problem on Yonge - it's mostly straight except for the veer off of Yonge at York Mills station (where you can see it reverts to cut-and-cover for the triple-track segment on the south side of York Mills station, all of which was off Yonge street proper to avoid traffic disruption while the line was built). The problem with the whole stretch between Eglinton and Finch is the Don River. The subway goes under the river, and is basically a big wave for the whole stretch. The alignment is on a slope for the entire length between Sheppard and York Mills, most of the length between York Mills and Lawrence, most of the length between North York Centre and Finch, and about half of the tunnel between Lawrence and Eglinton and North York Centre and Sheppard. These excessive slopes further rule out any chance of squeezing in stations along the way, because you cannot have stations on slopes and there isn't enough "slack" to "level out" a 150m segment of track and then have it catch up later. Particularly between York Mills and Sheppard (although you'd never add a station beneath the 401 anyway), that hill is quite steep, and while not quite as steep, it is similar between York Mills and Lawrence.

If the segment between Lawrence and Eglinton was cut-and-cover, I'd dare say that you could add a station there. However, the issue of what the distance between the two tunnels then comes into play. The distance between them isn't necessarily wide enough for an island platform, because the distance midway isn't necessarily the same as at the existing stations - we don't know because we don't have drawings to check, but if you're familiar with how Eglinton's layout is, with its triple track structure to the north of Eglinton station, one would be lead to believe that the distance between the two would be too narrow. The other option of flanking platforms is also ruled out because there wouldn't be enough space within the road ROW because bored tunnels have to have a certain distance between them to avoid conflicting with each other, unlike cut-and-cover paired tunnels, which are much closer together.

So yeah... we're screwed for Yonge between Sheppard and Eglinton.

TTC Staff Report on this can be found here (http://www.ttc.ca/postings/gso-comrpt/documents/report/f3829/Yonge_Subway_Extension_-_Final_Report_on_Transit_Project_Assessment_Process_and_Future_Actions.pdf).

Vice-Chair Mihevc is not too keen on the Yonge Extension over concerns about the downstream impacts. I think he favours a DRL...

The more reports and research I read, the more I realize how much higher the DRL should be on the agenda.

Here is the presentation as part of the report I posted yesterday.

http://www3.ttc.ca/PDF/About_the_TTC/yonge_subway_extension_recommended_concept_project_issues_de.pdf

Vice-Chair Mihevc is not too keen on the Yonge Extension over concerns about the downstream impacts. I think he favours a DRL...

As any person with sense would.

I, being as pushy as I am. Facebook'd Adam Giambrone to convince him to do the right thing concerning the DRL. It went as such:

Hey, I spent the time to read all six parts and there are a few things that I felt weren't really pointed out, or were lost somewhere in the shuffle. I understand that Steve Munro's analysis of the TTC's 1988 study was restricted to Yonge alone, but when you look at the bigger picture the fuzziness seems to become quite clear. There are several things that eliminate adding capacity to the Yonge line as the primary solution to the condition of Transit south of Bloor (even when Transit City is taken into account).

- Yonge is not the only line that requires relief. According to the "current demand" of the 1988 study, all heavy rail transit lines through the official boundaries of Downtown are overcapacity.

-The fact that when the downtown relief line was added to the study Munro claims it was not executed because the political environment favoured suburban transit extensions. This is what I was implying in my previous message to you.

Thank you for sending me to that study, as it has expanded my knowledge on the TTC's current situation of expanding to meet current and future demands. This is what I feel the main point is:

The downtown relief line would single handedly bring the Bloor-Danforth line between Broadview and Bathurst, and the YUS line between St. George and Bloor-Yonge well below the overcapacity threshold. Not only that, it would completely free up two of the busiest non-heavy rail lines and the most overcapacity light rail lines in the country--the 501 Queen and the 504 King. This would also (by my own estimates) cut dwell times at Bloor-Yonge permanently as ridership would be distributed more evenly along Yonge. Thus creating an environment where expanding the Yonge line's capacity does not require any physically extensive measures.

How does the DRL (DRT) benefit 905/York Region? :dunno: I get that it'd alleviate YUS-bound commuters coming in from an east/west travel direction, but it still wouldn't venture far enough north to seriously intercept southbound commuters from the 905.

As any person with sense would.

I, being as pushy as I am. Facebook'd Adam Giambrone to convince him to do the right thing concerning the DRL. It went as such:

Very concise and to the point..........

There is a Facebook campaign to support the DRL.

I would love to see it succeed.

Very concise and to the point..........

There is a Facebook campaign to support the DRL.

I would love to see it succeed.

Hey, I joined that group awhile back. :) The site doesn't get much traffic these days though. I guess it's difficult for transit advocates to be taken seriously when competing against money-grubbing planners/developers and their condo/big-box wet dreams. :no:

How does the DRL (DRT) benefit 905/York Region? :dunno: I get that it'd alleviate YUS-bound commuters coming in from an east/west travel direction, but it still wouldn't venture far enough north to seriously intercept southbound commuters from the 905.

The 905 does not make up a significant enough proportion of riders to intercept anything. The 905, especially York Region, doesn't need a subway. The entire VIVA bus network carries less people than many bus routes in Toronto.

It's so clear, if you want to come into Toronto from the burbs, use GO.

Read my post again.

^^^ A Yonge extension to Steeles alone will greatly benefit Toronto and, specifically, residents in the northwest and north east who have a long ways to go to access the subway (I live up here and can see the need). Likewise, an extension into York Region via Yonge Street is definately practical; the densities along most proposed stops are there or can easily be accommodated (ie the Urban Growth Centre @ Richmond Hill).

M.

Over the weekend I had time to re-read that TTC report that I posted last week.

What sunk in was that there is a large chance that in the next few years (with ATO and the new trains but without the new lines planned) that the Yonge line downtown stations may end up unable to get people off the platforms fast enough for the incoming passengers on trains.

Big surprise here:

Light-rail plan favoured over Yonge line extension
Dec 18, 2008 04:30 AM
Toronto Star

It's not that the TTC doesn't want to extend the Yonge subway line 6.8 kilometres into York Region. It's just that Toronto doesn't want it built at the expense of the city's other priorities.

After listening to a lengthy update yesterday on the $2.4 billion plans for the extension from Finch station to Richmond Hill Centre, north of Highway 7, councillors on the Toronto Transit Commission are still looking for projected ridership when the proposed extension opens – as soon as 2017.

There are various projections for ridership in 2031, but they're based on potential intensification around some of the proposed stations, and the existing cost estimates don't take into account multi-million-dollar items such as train yards and expanding platform capacity at Bloor station.

Dollar for dollar, the TTC's Transit City light-rail plan will serve more riders than a subway extension, said TTC chair Adam Giambrone.

Unlike the Spadina extension, funding is not yet attached to the Yonge extension.

The $2.4 billion estimated cost could climb as high as $4 billion, said Giambrone.

But the project is on the Metrolinx list of priorities anticipated to get part of the $11.5 billion the province has pledged to transit by 2020.

Yesterday's TTC report says only $5 million is expected for the Yonge extension in the province's spring budget.

Meanwhile, planning for the extension, to this point steered by York Region, is progressing quickly. It's possible shovels could go in the ground by 2012.

The first three of seven Transit City light-rail lines into the suburbs also have been designated as Metrolinx priorities, but some councillors fear the money won't suffice for everything on that list.

"It may be the perfect time to be (building) two or three Transit City lines at once, (a Scarborough rapid transit line), two subway lines, both the Spadina extension and the Yonge extension," Giambrone said.

"All we're saying is, fund your state of good repair, fund Transit City, and then, if we want to talk about other projects, we're happy to go ahead and do them.

"We have the capacity to do that, but we have to make sure the funding's in place. I can't run the system on a hope and prayer. I have to have committed capital dollars."

A public meeting on the Yonge extension is expected in January.

Althought I FAR prefer ext the Yonge line north of Steeles than the Spadina line, I think the TTC has a point.

Of the $2.4 billion the money would be better spent on:
-$500 mil on Yonge LRT
-$150 mil to extend the Jane LRT south to connect with the Waterfront LRT
-$1000 mil on converting the Sheppard Stubway over to LRT and the on the other side of Yonge an atgrade LRT Sheppard ext to Jane
-$900 mil to ext the DonMills line south to Queen, then west down Queen over the DVP where it could tunnel to Yonge. It would a begining of the ever elusive DRL.

Althought I FAR prefer ext the Yonge line north of Steeles than the Spadina line, I think the TTC has a point.

Of the $2.4 billion the money would be better spent on:

The TTC has little point, if any at all. The Yonge extension is the superior of the two 905 proposals. The VCC extension is also projected to cost around $2.4B (2008 dollars). I'd rather see that line reverted back to its original terminus point (Steeles West), than to affect the Richmond Hill extension. It's highly impractical given the limited potential of the Vaughan stations through an area that even dedicated BRT service (VIVA Orange) can't route at capacity.

-$500 mil on Yonge LRT

Highly impractical. The topography of Yonge north of Steeles wouldn't allot a viable at-grade tram service as the elevation of the roadway fluctuates several times. Going underground is the best option.

-$150 mil to extend the Jane LRT south to connect with the Waterfront LRT

Via South Kingsway? Um, no. Like Homer said, this is NIMBY city and the prospect of routing a streetcar through an affluent neighbourhood with little demand for it through said neighbourhood is a public relations nightmare in the making.

-$1000 mil on converting the Sheppard Stubway over to LRT and the on the other side of Yonge an atgrade LRT Sheppard ext to Jane

The 84 Sheppard West bus isn't a high-yielding route preformer. The demand along Shep West is extremely low, lower than what we might fetch from say a Beaches subway. It's much better to somehow link the Sheppard East and Finch West LRTs together somehow. From what I've heard it is not feasible to do so via expansion of the preexisting Yonge subway tunnel (to provide a bidirectional right-of-way underground). However there is the possibility of continuing the Finch Line east to the 404, then run the line south adjacent the highway into the proposed Consumers subway/LRT station just to the east on Sheppard.

-$900 mil to ext the DonMills line south to Queen, then west down Queen over the DVP where it could tunnel to Yonge. It would a begining of the ever elusive DRL.

I certainly hope things won't turn out like this. Queen should be an HRT subway line. Initially I wouldn't mind if it didn't connect to any other lines other than it's two YUS connections (Osgoode and Queen-Yonge). That way more funds are being allocated/invested in prioritizing the downtown stations and not the eventual suburban tranfser points. I mean what if the B-D line were built with the original intent to run from McCowan to Kipling? I'm sure half the stations we have today would not have been built due to limited funds being stretched out over dozens of kilometres. Keep it simple silly. :tongue4: A Parkside-Beech line would bolster the downtown core and yet still have the potential on both ends to significantly slash suburban commutes coming into the core.

Whereas now a Long Branch to Queen-Yonge commute is on average 65 minutes via the 501, the introduction of the Queen subway line to Parkside could deduct 20 minutes travel time. Expansion of the Kingston Rd LRT could also be tied into this project, feeding eastern Scarborough residents directly into a downtown-bound subway line, bypassing B-D altogether.

In my opinion the Downtown Relief Line already exists. It's called GO Transit. It's upto the City and the transit operators to come up with a feasible way to make it more practical for Torontonians to utilize it on a daily, 15 minute interval scale. Some suggestions: reduced fares, more intermodal hubs, improved transfer connections. :yes:

Merry Christmas, y'all! :goodbye:

Every 15 minutes in GO maybe reliable but certainly not rapid.

As for Sheppard, think you will see ridership improve greatly when the Spadina line connects to YorkU, and it would also be fast for people coming from the Jane LRT.

I've proposed once before that if the TTC wants just to let the stubway a slow death then they should take the Sheppard LRT to Don Milld LRT and head north {as it will already be built} and then take an extended Finch West line.

All of this said, something has to be done with Sheppard.........its a mess.

Every 15 minutes in GO maybe reliable but certainly not rapid.

As for Sheppard, think you will see ridership improve greatly when the Spadina line connects to YorkU, and it would also be fast for people coming from the Jane LRT.

I've proposed once before that if the TTC wants just to let the stubway a slow death then they should take the Sheppard LRT to Don Milld LRT and head north {as it will already be built} and then take an extended Finch West line.

All of this said, something has to be done with Sheppard.........its a mess.


Agreed. I attended a public meeting on the subway extension north to Richmond Hill held by Viva @ North York Civic Centre and when the topic of extending the Sheppard Line to "loop" the Yonge-University-Spadina Line came up, it was only considered "justifiable" by Adam Giambrone and the representative from Viva so as to provide easy access to the Wilson Yard for trains on the Yonge Line. Otherwise, apparently, it didn't register.

On that note, Adam was all up on the Subway extension. Perhaps for political reasons ... ?

^Yesterday Munro had alot to say on his blog about Yard issues and so on.

I would say he formed the most clear and concise opinion on the situation.

Imagine if you are at STC and needed to go to York using the system proposed..
STC to Sheppard then TRANSFER to Shep LRT west Shep subway and TRANSFER to the subway til Yonge and then TRANSFER north to Finch and then TRANSFER to the Finch LRT to Spadina subway and then TRANSFER there to head north to YorkU.
God help you if you have to take a bus to STC before hand.
Said it before and I'll say it again................give the stubway the funeral it so richly deserves, and transfer the line to LRT and extend it past Yonge atgrade to Jane LRT making it a true east/west rapid transit line

Over the weekend I had time to re-read that TTC report that I posted last week.

What sunk in was that there is a large chance that in the next few years (with ATO and the new trains but without the new lines planned) that the Yonge line downtown stations may end up unable to get people off the platforms fast enough for the incoming passengers on trains.

I've been taking a more detailed pass through that TTC report too, and it is covered with ink. There are several arguments that are full of holes and even includes mathematical errors in regards to capacity calculations. I am not convinced that this study is being prepared and presented with integrity. Something totally stinks.

This extension should be neutered at Steeles with LRT and improved GO service capable of looking after the rest.

These ideas came up several pages ago before some of these reports.

It's really irritating that Metrolinx and the TTC haven't got this stuff figured out by now.

Imagine if you are at STC and needed to go to York using the system proposed..
STC to Sheppard then TRANSFER to Shep LRT west Shep subway and TRANSFER to the subway til Yonge and then TRANSFER north to Finch and then TRANSFER to the Finch LRT to Spadina subway and then TRANSFER there to head north to YorkU.
God help you if you have to take a bus to STC before hand.
Said it before and I'll say it again................give the stubway the funeral it so richly deserves, and transfer the line to LRT and extend it past Yonge atgrade to Jane LRT making it a true east/west rapid transit line

Or extend the Sheppard subway west to Downsview... What too pie in the sky?

If I had my way that Sheppard West extension would interline with the Spadina York extension between Downsview and York/Steeles west.

Imagine if you are at STC and needed to go to York using the system proposed..
STC to Sheppard then TRANSFER to Shep LRT west Shep subway and TRANSFER to the subway til Yonge and then TRANSFER north to Finch and then TRANSFER to the Finch LRT to Spadina subway and then TRANSFER there to head north to YorkU.
God help you if you have to take a bus to STC before hand.
Said it before and I'll say it again................give the stubway the funeral it so richly deserves, and transfer the line to LRT and extend it past Yonge atgrade to Jane LRT making it a true east/west rapid transit line

Woah, dude common. How do you think people get from Scarborough to YorkU now?

All you have to do is take the 190 from STC to Don Mills Station, then the subway from Don Mills to Sheppard-Yonge, and there's a bus there to take you straight to YorkU.

This extension should be neutered at Steeles with LRT and improved GO service capable of looking after the rest.

Surface LRT through hill-and-gully Thornhill? :uh: Improved GO would be nice (if for no other reason to fill up some of those 28 bus bays @Steeles) but RHC is slated to become a major urban centre in the vain of NYCC. 25 years from now we'd regret not extending the line up there while we still could afford to. My only qualm was/is the horrid choice of stop locations, but whatever. :|

Or extend the Sheppard subway west to Downsview... What too pie in the sky?

If I had my way that Sheppard West extension would interline with the Spadina York extension between Downsview and York/Steeles west.

:lol: It's statements like these that make me wish the Queen subway was built afterall. The 'stubway's preexistence all but guarantees that somewhere down the road people will want to extend it outwards, whether or not there's enough sustainable density to justify it. Senlac/Faywood ppd numbers would make Bessarion/Ellesmere look good. The extension wouldn't come cheap either, with the massive West Don River bridge to cross and whatnot. And why would/should we siphon away riders from the already undercapacity Spadina Line? :dunno:

Woah, dude common. How do you think people get from Scarborough to YorkU now?

All you have to do is take the 190 from STC to Don Mills Station, then the subway from Don Mills to Sheppard-Yonge, and there's a bus there to take you straight to YorkU

196E from Sheppard-Yonge to Downsview is 15 minutes. The new Spadina extension will probably get riders from Downsview-York U Stn in 10 minutes. So apart from the inconvenience of having to continually transfer from vehicle to vehicle, Scarborough Centre to York U could accomplished in just over an hour. :yes:

It seems as if the TTC has been concerned with the throughput of passengers in some of the stations for a few years. Read the reports, they are interesting.

http://www.ttc.ca/postings/gso-comrpt/documents/report/f2037/_conv.htm
http://www.ttc.ca/postings/gso-comrpt/documents/report/f2516/_conv.htm

This would also help to address station fire code deficiency.

It seems as if the TTC has been concerned with the throughput of passengers in some of the stations for a few years. Read the reports, they are interesting.

http://www.ttc.ca/postings/gso-comrpt/documents/report/f2037/_conv.htm
http://www.ttc.ca/postings/gso-comrpt/documents/report/f2516/_conv.htm

This would also help to address station fire code deficiency.

Adding secondary exits to a lot of the existing stations is pointless given the low density surrounding some stops, and the fact that the existing exit is central to the whole station. Chester and Castle Frank are good examples of this. I mean c'mon, are we going to have exits out into the Don Valley? :nuts: The funds are better spent intercepting commuters from the outlying areas first rather than attempt to increase capacity along every last stop on the existing infrastructure. :yes:

I find the Dufferin modernizaion plans to add a second exit to the west highly pointless given the proximity of the Emerson exit to the Lansdowne Station a mere 550m to the west. The gap between Dufferin and Ossington stations is far wider and thus a Gladstone exit instead would better suffice.

Dundas West needs its secondary exit like yesterday, if ever intermodal transit in this city is to really mean something. TTC/GO connections through this stop would be even more seamless than what currently exists at Union. The urban infill thats presently occuring between Landsowne and D West is great justification for this and the area may one day be on par with the condo/loft redevelopments occuring on King West/Queen West. :cheers:

Woah, dude common. How do you think people get from Scarborough to YorkU now?

All you have to do is take the 190 from STC to Don Mills Station, then the subway from Don Mills to Sheppard-Yonge, and there's a bus there to take you straight to YorkU.

Isn't the whole point of TransitCity to make Toronto transit avaliable to all areas of the city is a zero-emmision fashion. If not then just put more buses all over the place.

Transfer the whole Sheppard line to LRT with an extention to Jane LRT. North of the 401 Toronto needs a true east-west line not a bunch of stub/lrtways.
Subway is far to expensive and the ridership isn't there. If the TTC refuses to transfer subway to LRT then , at a minimum, extend the Finch LRT west to DonMills, south on DM to Sheppard LRT. A combined Finch/Sheppard LRT with no transfers and would even make transfer onto the DM line seemless as well by using the same platforms.

^The issue with Sheppard west of Downsview is that it is one of the lower density areas of the city and I don't forsee there being alot of people interested in that route. Keep in mind that in theory there will be an LRT along Finch and to some degree through a hydro corridor that should link up with the subway down the road.

Finch is a better candidate for a transit line than Sheppard in the western part of the city.

I do think that on some level there is some appeal on taking the Finch LRT all the way to Seneca as the Sheppard line has not taken to many riders bound for the campus away from that Finch bus. This is pretty redundant and it would need further study.

Isn't the whole point of TransitCity to make Toronto transit avaliable to all areas of the city is a zero-emmision fashion. If not then just put more buses all over the place.

No. Transit city is a direct result of a report that indicated that a number of major routes were going to be at capacity for mixed traffic bus routes. That is, adding additional buses would not add capacity due to various choke points at stops, lights, traffic, etc.

A separation of transit and traffic is necessary. A single LRT train every 5 minutes is far cheaper to run, operationally, than equivalent capacity in buses due to much higher capacity.

TTC has no love for articulated buses particularly those with multiple bends, with good reason too. Joints wear out quickly, by manufacturers design, and they don't like slippery conditions as Ottawa rediscovers pretty much every year.

Transit city is all about providing a high capacity local service replacement to the local bus routes which are nearing design capacity.


If this trend continues, the B-list routes (at capacity in 2021 rather than 2011) will also see a major LRT rollout.

As pointed out too, a two lanes of traffic in opposite directions have a far lower capacity to transport people than an LRT ROW that has vehicles traveling in opposite directions.

agreed with ssiguys. I actually just wrot this in another thread then came here. Sheppard would make more sense if it connected west as well as east. Even if the LRT changed from younge west ward to downsview to more or a streetcar type route with more stops at least it would cut down on transfers and make one unified route.

Note that a subway extension of Sheppard, which is in the bag of tricks assembled to prop up capacity arguments for the Yonge extension but not included in the project estimate, would only stop at Bathurst on the way... because, as others mentioned, nobody lives there.

Note that a subway extension of Sheppard, which is in the bag of tricks assembled to prop up capacity arguments for the Yonge extension but not included in the project estimate, would only stop at Bathurst on the way... because, as others mentioned, nobody lives there.

I find it very hard to believe the that TTC would invest in building a 6km subway extension to only have one stop in the middle. :nuts: As low-achievers as Senlac and Faywood would be (the former moreso than the latter, given Faywood's proximity to Wilson Hts Blvd), they'd still be included. The Sheppard tail-tracks already extend out to Welbrick anyway, only 200m east of Senlac.

But yeah, Sheppard West is one of those rare cases where the bus is actually the highest form of transit suitable for a major artery.

URBAN AFFAIRS REPORTERS

Toronto City Council is expected to endorse a plan this month to extend the TTC's Yonge subway line by 6.8 kilometres, into York Region. The TTC and executive committee have agreed to build the Metrolinx-backed project subject to conditions, including a major makeover of the Bloor-Yonge station, that could double the $2.4 billion projected cost. Here are some questions and answers on the project.

Q: What has to happen before the extension is built?

TTC would submit an environmental project report to the province's Ministry of the Environment in early February, providing council approves it, said Charles Wheeler, who serves as TTC deputy chief project manager for the Spadina subway extension.

Public consultations have been held in York Region and Toronto, while more are being planned for this month.

Q: What conditions has the city set for participating?

* The project must not lead to additional capital or net operating costs for the city.
* The TTC must manage, deliver, operate, maintain and largely own the project.
* Funds must be provided for extra storage yards for TTC trains, and expanded capacity at Bloor-Yonge.

Q: Why is Toronto reluctant?

The big concern is exacerbating overcrowding on the Yonge line. This week Mayor David Miller said if key conditions are not met, TTC users trying to get on at Eglinton station, for example, will "never get a seat again, ever on the subway."

Miller adds that his Transit City initiative – a network of above-ground light rail – is Toronto's top priority. It will cost significantly less and can provide rapid transit for in two or three years.

Q: Who stands to gain?

The subway is York Region's top priority. Projections show that by 2031 there could be as many as 113,500 daily boardings at the proposed Richmond Hill Centre stop.

Q: Is the Yonge line over capacity?

The Yonge line hasn't reached its total operating capacity. It was built to accommodate about 32,000 riders an hour; so far only 27,000 to 28,000 cram the cars in the peak morning hour.

But according to Wheeler, "as you approach the theoretical capacity, recovering from even minor delays is much more difficult."

By 2031, according to projections, 36,000 to 39,000 riders will use the line at the peak hour.

Q: What is the TTC doing to alleviate the crowding?

Wheeler says a new computerized signal system called automatic train control could expand capacity by 35 per cent when fully installed in 2015.

It would allow trains to run 90 to 105 seconds apart, compared with 141 seconds now.

The Spadina extension, scheduled to be operating to Vaughan Corporate Centre by 2015, is to divert about 2,300 peak-hour riders away from the Yonge line.

The purchase of 234 subway cars, coming next year, will add 10 per cent capacity to each train by letting passengers move between cars and stand in the connecting space.

But none of this will work without a major makeover of Bloor-Yonge station, the system's biggest bottleneck. The proposed project would take three to four years altogether.

Q: Cost estimates range from $2.4 billion to nearly $5 billion. How does this break down, and where's the money?

The base cost for the subway extension is $2.4 billion. That includes $650 million for six new stations and improvements to Finch, and $600 million for tunnels and special structures.

Other, "speculative costs" could push the price tag to nearly $5 billion, including up to $450 million for Bloor-Yonge station improvements and as much as $400 million for a train yard. The province is expected to include $5 million in the spring budget for preliminary design work.

Unlike the Spadina subway extension, no provincial or federal funds have yet been promised to the Yonge line, though it is part of Ontario's MoveOntario 2020 plan and is expected to undergo a review to get some of the $11.5 billion Metrolinx benefits.

Very interesting.............

This is the TTC's way of backing out without actually saying it.

^I don't read it that way. They are just publicly acknowledging that there are serious deficiencies in just extending the line.

Munro has blogged about it today.

http://stevemunro.ca/?p=1647

Over lunch I have had time to go over the Karl Junkin report as found here (http://stevemunro.ca/wp-content/uploads/2009/01/karljunkinyongeanalysis.pdf).

The report at one point said that the extras required to overhaul the Yonge Line to make room for the Yonge extension would be more expensive than pursuing a single arm of the DRL.

The big question here is will Metrolinx, TTC and the government follow this recommendation?

Most likely not........ but we will wait to see.

there was a rendering of the subway/road in todays Liberal

^Can you post a link?

http://www.yorkregion.com/printarticle/86435

Despite some end-of-year dithering by the TTC, the Yonge subway extension is proceeding as planned.

While Toronto's executive committee approved plans for the new subway to York Region Monday, that decision came after Toronto's transit commissioners debated whether ridership numbers justified a subway at their December meeting.

The money could perhaps be better spent, some argued, replacing the subway with cheaper light rail and using the money to fund other projects across the city.

The commission was receiving a 23-page report on the subway work done to date.

TTC chairperson Adam Giambrone speculated the $2.4 billion subway budget could balloon to $4 billion.

He also wanted to make sure Toronto has enough money for replacing ailing vehicles before looking at expanding the subway.

"All we're saying is, fund your state of good repair, fund Transit City, and then, if we want to talk about other projects, we're happy to go ahead and do them," Mr. Giambrone said.

Transit City is the city's plan for a light rail-centric transit system and it has always been more of a priority for them than building more subways, Viva vice-president Mary Frances Turner said.

York Region has done the planning work on the 6.8 km line, which will take the subway from its Finch terminus up to Hwy. 7.

Hearing the TTC waffling on the issue confirmed the worst fears of Cosmo D'Aguanna, a Midway Diner employee who spearheaded a grass roots pro-subway push in York Region.

"A lot of people did a lot work on this campaign," he said.

What they don't want to see is inadequate light rail marring Yonge Street simply because it is cheaper and easier, he said.

Spending the money now, particularly with the ability of infrastructure to kickstart the economy, is the right thing to do, he said.

"It's the perfect time to do that and to create a lot of jobs," Mr. D'Aguanna said.

"We can't let this slide."

"I think the project is in good shape," assured Ms Turner, citing the executive committee's decision.

Among the city's concerns is that, even without new York Region riders, other upgrades are needed to deal with capacity constraints on the subway, she said.

The opening of the Spadina extension, two years beforehand, is expected to take some strain off the Yonge-University line. So too are longer trains and new automated systems which allow trains to run more often.

Nonetheless, the Bloor-Yonge station is already over capacity and in need of upgrades. Many have advocated for a downtown relief line to take further pressure off.

The addition of trains requires a new rail yard, either in Richmond Hill or by expanding another yard.

Both the yard and Bloor station issues will be the subject of TTC reports later this year.

If an environmental assessment is approved, the formal go-ahead for the subway could come soon along with funding in the province's spring budget. Shovels could go in the ground by 2012 with trains rolling downtown in 2017.

That leaves plenty of time to deal with capacity and other issues, Ms Turner said.

In the meantime, Viva officials are jockeying to make sure they are well-placed to secure more funding when Metrolinx evaluates top transit priorities in the spring.

Toronto staff were sent back to provide better information or ridership demands. They will report back at the TTC's Jan. 21 meeting, spokesperson Danny Nicholson said.

Toronto council must approve the committee decision later this month.



-With files from Torstar News Service


I don't know if this is the article the poster above was talking about, but this appeared in the Jan 8 edition of the Vaughan Libereal/Citizen. There's an interesting little back hand given to the city/TTC claiming that they are dithering on the extension and thus delaying the process.

There's an open house meeting soon. I don't have the details off hand but it is in the Toronto Star today.

another thing to consider which the TTC report ignored is - GO transit improvements in the Richmond Hill corridor.

another thing to consider which the TTC report ignored is - GO transit improvements in the Richmond Hill corridor.

Good thing too. TTC staff aren't paid for that kind of evaluation. Metrolinx and Go Transit staff certainly are though.

Yonge-Eglinton area venue for Yonge Subway Public Consultation January 20th, 5pm - 8:30pm (http://www3.ttc.ca/Public_Meetings/Yonge_subway_extension_public_consultation.jsp)

A supplimentary report for the Yonge Line by the TTC can be found here (http://www.ttc.ca/postings/gso-comrpt/documents/report/f3850/Yonge_Subway_Extension_-_Additional_Information_Costs___Ridership.pdf).

Apparently the DRL is mentioned so I shall post it in that thread as well.

After reading the report a few area's that I find interesting but not necessarily new to us:

1) Upgrading signals for reduced headways
2) New Subway cars
3) Addition of another platform at Yonge/Bloor station
4) Construction of an eastern portion of the DRL
5) Modified express bus service to downtown
6) Joining the northern terminuses of the Yonge/Spadina line to form a loop


I'm not going to bother spelling out why those area all good idea's and their individual benefits (those who post here have heard all of the arguments on these before).

The report did state the issues that were encountered in the early 1980's when the Yonge line was at it's previous peak of usage of which we have all discussed (ie. major crowding at all downtown stations, increased delay times and unreliability). It also in qualitative measures stated that we are reaching a similar point again.

On Page 7, they address the issue of fares and how it affects the behaviour of people when it comes to how they use the TTC or GO. I wont comment on this page other than to say at one point the phrase "premium fare" is used to describe the fare structure of GO (one that I agree with).

On page 9 there is one troubling but recurring issue that we have seen with Metrolinx reports as well..... the report states that they do not have an "opening day forcast" and that is not the way they have modeled the study.

I will comment on the rest later.

Subways are coveted in suburbs
TheStar.com
January 29, 2009
Royson James

Councillor Howard Moscoe yesterday described his colleagues, in full debate about the viability of a subway to Richmond Hill, as "a bunch of plumbers debating brain surgery."

In other words, leave the weighty matter of transit planning to council's chosen few – including Moscoe, of course.

Despite the put-down, the debate on the proposed extension of the Yonge subway to Highway 7 shows you can learn a lot by listening. Among the first lessons is there's still a lot to learn on this issue.

How best to carry an extra 12,000 commuters 32 kilometres to downtown? By GO transit or subway? Is the subway technology an exorbitantly expensive relic, and light rapid transit, like the line on St. Clair, the future because it involves one-tenth the cost, as Councillor Joe Mihevc claims?

"The subway's day is over; everybody is building light rail," he said.

"Absolutely not so," retorted Councillor Anthony Perruzza.

Is Councillor Adam Vaughan correct that it's "insane" to take a subway out to a low-density area like Richmond Hill in anticipation of future growth? Or is Peruzza on the mark to say such construction is best because it is done at a fraction of the cost and development is sure to follow?

"Any time anybody expands public transit, that is a good thing," several councillors maintained.

"It's foolishness," said Councillor Gord Perks, of a subway to a low-density area. "You don't use a chainsaw to cut butter and don't use a butter knife to cut down trees."

In general, downtown politicians are more inclined to object to subway expansion. For one, subways gobble up oodles of cash they want diverted to beefing up already enhanced but over-subscribed service in their wards.

Suburban councillors, perennially jealous of the ease and comfort of inner-city travel, see subways as an earned right. Their general view is: Why change the rules just as suburban densities are nearing a critical mass to support a subway?

In Toronto, the downtowners have won. The new Transit City plan envisions modern light rail lines along Sheppard East, Finch West, and all along Eglinton in the next 10 years or so.

But city council has another battle on its hands – with the outer suburbs, bolstered by provincial and federal governments.

Left to Toronto council, proposals to extend the Spadina line to Highway 7 and Weston Rd. would have stalled. Ditto for the Yonge line to Richmond Hill.

But the province supports both. So does Ottawa. They are paying 80 per cent of the cost, so their opinions count. And they see new subways across the 416-905 boundary as providing a political boost to their fortunes in a vote-rich region.

So, despite the personal politics, city council voted to support the subway to Richmond Hill – with many caveats. The conditions are instructive and could double the $2.4 billion cost:

The TTC must own and operate the line and commuter lots, but wants no part of the added construction or operating costs. Do the Spadina extension first, to help divert commuters from the congested Yonge line. Fix the congestion at Bloor-Yonge, a perennial problem. Get new trains that allow riders to move between cars. Implement computerized train operations. Provide all this and, in Perks' words, the city will hold its nose and support a subway link.

Subway supporters can take comfort that the projects are administered by Metrolinx, the cross-border transportation agency set up to fly above parochial interests.

Royson James usually appears Tuesday, Thursday and Saturday.

Yonge-Eglinton area venue for Yonge Subway Public Consultation January 20th, 5pm - 8:30pm (http://www3.ttc.ca/Public_Meetings/Yonge_subway_extension_public_consultation.jsp)

ohh please everyone go and push the DRL. i would but im in vancouver. bring up the HRT for cornfields and LRT for downtown observation, and the fact that the current ttc system can't handle more ceter to periphery commuters without the DRL.