[TJ O'Pootertoot]

A couple of people (including me) mentioned it above but the people who bash VCC still don't seem to get it: It is earmarked in Places to Grow as a major regional node. It HAS to get high-density development and it will - and soon.

You can decide in advance whether you want that to be transit-oriented or not but you can't build a transit-oriented development without, um, transit. The subway and the provincial growth plan go hand in hand.

You have to take a deep breath, see the big picture and wrap your head around the apparent insanity of extending "The Sorbara Subway" up to some scrub field in that messed-up hell of a city.

The alternative is more old school subdivisions and more people ranting about how suburbanites love their cars.

It might not make as much sense as the projects you hold near and dear (or those I do) but it does make sense.

 

[Northern Light]

Metrolinx is listening

Well, hmmmm, back on topic here.

I waited to respond to the Draft RTP first so I could think everything through myself, but also because I wanted to see the reactions of others. To get a feel if my instinctual reaction was a fair one.

My instinctual reaction is that the plan was too nice to the car, to sprawl, and lacked some very important pieces on the transit front.

But, I didn't want to get into a silly game where one looks the gift horse in the mouth, and detail what I perceive the shortcomings of the Draft RTP to be, when clearly, it is a step forward for transit.

Also one can't be unkind to our own fine Metrolinxer!

*****

However, since those bastions of transit support....The Toronto Sun and The National Post have come out with articles like "The Car is still King"....

Since even the Star; prone to liking all things Liberal and mushy middle has implied that too many compromises were made, and more ambition would be useful.

I'm thinking my comments will fall well within accepted public discourse, and might even by moderate!

*****

So first, to be fair, what's Right with RTP?

Many things!

1) The Yonge subway extension.
2) The Subway to York U
3) The Hurontario LRT
4) The Hamilton LRT
5) GO - RER/REX Services
6) The push for active transportation

etc.

****

What's wrong - Starting point what's there but shouldn't be?

Any material highway extensions. Almost all of the newly proposed highways will suck literally billions of dollars out of the public purse. Money that might be better utilized supporting transit.

Relatedly, its worth noting almost all the new highways will be in what are currently greenfield areas with little or no development, some entirely within the provincial greenbelt. These will not only serve to disrupt tranquil rural spaces and natural areas, but to promote sprawl and are inconsistent with good planning.

Some, if not all of these highways should be completely scrapped as even conceptual plans; but at the very minimum they should be pushed beyond the 25-year plan timeframe. There is no need for a 427 extension or a 404 extension, or for that matter the 407 east extension based on existing travel patterns and development. Any un-served communties at this point can easily and more cheaply be served by strategic peak-GO Services.
Further good planning should ensure that little or no new demand emerges from outer ex-urbia.

*****

Now before getting into what needs to be in the plan that isn't. A brief word on goals.

The RTP proposes a modal split in 2033 that would see only 26% on transit, compared to 12% walking and biking, and over 60% by car.

That's astonishingly low.

Particularly when one accounts for a projected doubling of GTAH population by 2033, you realize this plan would accommodate MORE cars on the road than there are today!

I won't nitpick for any particular number, we could debate this all day, but something more ambitious is clearly in order. At the minimum driving down the modal split for cars to 50%. Ergo, assuming 12% is very ambitious for biking/walking trips, that means at least a high 30's modal split for transit.

*****

Now, how to achieve the above goal. Again, there is much room for debate and I won't get caught up ordering pet projects. So below is a list of projects I think would be 'consensus' add-ons, in whatever priority.

-Complete the Sheppard subway, at least to Downsview and Vic. Park, probably more so to STC. Note, this can be in the later part of the plan.

-Scrap the damned SRT, its orphan technology in Toronto, and has a poor performance record. Its also busting at the seems with demand, and likely has latent demand off-the-charts for that reason. It needs to be replaced by a B-D Subway extension to STC

-Implement a Peak-period GO Service across the 407 corridor (CN York subdivision), this is vaguely hinted at in the RTP. It should be bold, clear and upfront.

- More transit system consolidation needs to be mentioned in the plan, without it, it will very difficult to obtain more seemless service.

- The DRT is incorrectly positioned too far back in the plans, it does not need to be the first priority, but if construction were even to begin by 2015, it needs to go to detailed EA and design by 2012.

There's my thoughts Metrolinx.....enjoy!

 

[W. K. Lis]

A couple of people (including me) mentioned it above but the people who bash VCC still don't seem to get it: It is earmarked in Places to Grow as a major regional node. It HAS to get high-density development and it will - and soon.

Vaughan, and other municipalities, will have to make sure that there is no longer free parking as a default, when the plans actually finish. If there is free parking, a lot of people are so used to driving they will continue to use their cars, even if the cost of a car is higher than transit.

 

[Anth]

As for the argument that global cities are highly centralized with only one core, I don't buy it. It's definitely not the case in most large cities in Europe and Asia where they have small dense centres distributed throughout the urban region. And we are already seeing this phenomenon in Toronto: MCC, SCC, etc.

I didn't mean to imply that global cites are highly centralized. On the contrary, I'm trying to say that within global cities there'll always be significant travel between local centres regardless of their number and density. In fact, I'd argue that an efficient regional network becomes even more important as such a city decentralizes. For example, to maximize the available pool of potential employees, especially when looking to fill very specific niches across the region of which there are many in a city like ours.

 

[kEiThZ]

I didn't mean to imply that global cites are highly centralized. On the contrary, I'm trying to say that within global cities there'll always be significant travel between local centres regardless of their number and density. In fact, I'd argue that an efficient regional network becomes even more important as such a city decentralizes. For example, to maximize the available pool of potential employees, especially when looking to fill very specific niches across the region of which there are many in a city like ours.

Agreed. But if that's your argument, shouldn't the outer extensions have priority over lines like the DRL which does not really connect any centres together. I suspect this is exactly why the DRL got shunted back to the 25 year plan....it was more important to improve the regional network first. And I can't say I disagree with that premise....

 

[kEiThZ]

Northern Light. Excellent points. I strongly concur with everything you said. I am dismayed about the modal split. 50 billion and 25 years of effort to boost the split from 16% to 26%. Talk about ambition. Perhaps they should have considered issuing guidance on development with the RTP so that 905 communities are dissuaded from building more subdivisions. That would be one way of encouraging people to take more transit....simply locate dense developments near transit.

On the plus side...I am happy that a good chunk of all this is in the 15 year plan. That's huge. Before most of us young guys hit middle age, we will see a transformed GTA that is much more bike and transit friendly. I am just relieved to see some political commitment and movement towards building a regional transit network. For that...hats off to Metrolinx. But you'll only get beer once the jobs are done!

 

[Disparishun]

I'd like to see where you got this 40K figure ... From the stats you see in link I provided (which are a lot more recent mind you) there is no way that is possible ... not even close.

I added together the average daily boardings for Viva Blue, Viva Pink, 2 Milliken, 300 Business Express, 301 Markham Express, 302 Unionville Express, 303 Cornell Express, 91 Bayview South, 340 Bayview Express, 99 Yonge South, 77 Highway 7/Centre, 5 Clark, 88 Bathurst, 23 Thornhill Woods.

This time I used the exact numbers and plugged into a spreadsheet rather than eyeballing ... comes to 37,278. But you're right, those data there are much more recent and apparently reflect the April 2008 boarding period.

That suggests to me that ridership is not much growing, and won't until the double fare boundary is looked at. The acres of parking at Finch are one thing, but the volume of illegal all-day parking at the shopping malls and plazas at the Steeles boundary is an interesting index, too. What I mean is, bus ridership is a particularly poor index in a region whether there is a price incentive to avoid it and widespread car ownership providing the means to do so.

Although....

Interestingly it seems ridership is down in the first few months of 2008 for the YRT:
http://yrt.ca/whats-ahead/2008_May_R...mmary_Spec.pdf

... did you really mean to provide a link to Mobility Plus ridership to try and demonstrate this?

 

[Glen]

A couple of people (including me) mentioned it above but the people who bash VCC still don't seem to get it: It is earmarked in Places to Grow as a major regional node. It HAS to get high-density development and it will - and soon.

Yep. Considering Vaughan is actually growing, unlike Toronto, and that VCC is at the intersection of hwy s 400 and 407 it makes a logical place to put a subway stop.

Toronto has a history of lacking foresight. One of the only examples that comes to my mind, insofar as infrastructure is concerned, is the Bloor Viaduct. I laugh at the thought of what the Golden Gate Bridge would have been like if located in Toronto.

 

[Anth]

Agreed. But if that's your argument, shouldn't the outer extensions have priority over lines like the DRL which does not really connect any centres together. I suspect this is exactly why the DRL got shunted back to the 25 year plan....it was more important to improve the regional network first. And I can't say I disagree with that premise....

The thing is that pushing out the edges of the regional network without adding sufficient capacity in the core will increase pressure on arterial lines and their existing bottlenecks since our network load will never be evenly distributed (i.e. some nodes will always generate more traffic than others).

Let's not forget that the 'R' in DRL stands for relief!

 

[scarberiankhatru]

But, I didn't want to get into a silly game where one looks the gift horse in the mouth, and detail what I perceive the shortcomings of the Draft RTP to be, when clearly, it is a step forward for transit.

There is no need for a 427 extension or a 404 extension

Well, yeah, parts of the plan are great, but we shouldn't just sit back and allow *billions* of dollars to be outright wasted. With money and progress on the way, now is the time to weed out the silly parts of the plan, not to accept 1/3 wastage for the sake of political grease.

Projects like extending Spadina north of York U may not at the top of the wish list, but it's a better use of supposedly limited funds than the multi-billion dollar mess in Scarborough (Steeles, Sheppard, SRT, Morningside, etc.).

Extending the 404 wouldn't be the worst thing in the world...if it's not done, there'll be pressure to widen Leslie (not desirable) or widen Woodbine to a 6-lane megarterial. What makes no sense is permitting development and residential/employment growth and then denying these communities a decent transportation network.

 

[ShonTron]

We do have an ally in the mainstream press wrt the DRL - Peter Kuitenbrouwer of the Post of all places.

Time for a little transit courage

 

[Archivist]

I don't usually contribute much to transit threads, but this comment needs an answer:

Toronto has a history of lacking foresight. One of the only examples that comes to my mind, insofar as infrastructure is concerned, is the Bloor Viaduct.

I can think of two things that are forward thinking, and they are not small.
Not very many cities were building or extending subways in 1954. In North American, almost nothing was done in this era. Even in Europe, preoccupied with rebuilding after the war, they were not building subways. For the second largest city in Canada to do so, right at the beginning of a building boom, shows foresight.

Not getting rid of our streetcar network (entirely) also shows foresight.

In fact, I think it is more truthful to say that from WWII to the 1980's, Toronto was quite forward thinking with regards to transit, and only after that time did we lose it.

 

[samsonyuen]

I think you could have an argument that Toronto really bloomed in that period, and has been coasting since.

 

[W. K. Lis]

Yep. Considering Vaughan is actually growing, unlike Toronto,...

Toronto's downtown originally was farmland estates in the west suburbs outside of the town of York.

Vaughan was farmland until only recently.

That leaves only upward growth in Toronto and in what few vacant lands (Downsview?) there is for growth.

 

[jeicow]

Not getting rid of our streetcar network (entirely) also shows foresight.

Had the TTC and planners had their way, it would be long gone. It was only because (at least imo) of the grassroot transit activists that we kept what we had. Kind of ironic how 30/40 years later, the streetcar is the only way to go...