[ehlow]

it's because the entire TTC subway system essentially funnels people onto the lines with buses and other forms of surface transit. I was being facetious when I commented about Eglinton, but It's still a valid point that there are huge swaths of Eglinton Crosstown that aren't likely to use Transit due to the demographics. That doesn't mean the entire line shouldn't be built or that it shouldn't go underground. I was just pointing it out. The majority of TTC's ridership uses a Bus daily to access the subway so this idea that a subway station must be within walking distance to generate all it's ridership is false.

Not sure what demographics you're referring to, but demographics are pretty diverse along the line (ex. Leaside and Thorncliffe Park, Forest Hill and Eglinton west of Allen), and currently many use transit with many frequent bus lines that are well used covering the whole line.

 

[Midtown Urbanist]

Japan actually has a history of building subways to nowhere, but they rectified it by having private companies build and operate the subway lines, and having those same companies develop the land surrounding the subway route into dense office, condo and commercial complexes. The more people and jobs these companies located along the subway line, the more income they made in fares in the lines they operated. Today, they are the only privatized transit lines in the world that turn a profit.

An anecdote that won't apply to Vaughan's case. That being said, I wonder if there is room for development in Vaughan being similarly led by a single developer, like Remington in Downtown Markham?

 

[TJ O'Pootertoot]

An anecdote that won't apply to Vaughan's case. That being said, I wonder if there is room for development in Vaughan being similarly led by a single developer, like Remington in Downtown Markham?

There's very few landowners in VMC...3 or 4, I think? SmartCentres owns the entire northwest corner, from Jane to 400 and another most of the land in the south (where AMC, Dave & Busters etc is). Then there's a couple of smaller owners. I'll see if I can find a map as I know I've seen one. I think Smart Centres, who get the bus terminal and subway station on their land, are all in. As for others, I dunno...

Anyway, it's not that different a situation from Markham Centre in that regard. Yes, Remington owns all those central lands but Tridel and Times Group, at minimum, also have projects there.

I think what he was referring to was that Vaughan wouldn't set up it's hosiptal, or new City Hall here. There's an element out there that feels that the lack of willingness by the city to develop here represents a lack of investment or commitment to the plan. Especially considering the ancillary business that would pop up around a hospital or city hall.

I tend to be on that side

I concur, then. They're trying to do two things at once (or, if you're cynical, pretending to do one thing while really doing the other). Still, the market will drive things at the end of the day and prime land around a subway is a sweet deal.

 

[narduch]

I think what he was referring to was that Vaughan wouldn't set up it's hosiptal, or new City Hall here. There's an element out there that feels that the lack of willingness by the city to develop here represents a lack of investment or commitment to the plan. Especially considering the ancillary business that would pop up around a hospital or city hall.

I tend to be on that side

Does the City own any of the land near VMC station?

I"m not sure how the timelines match up, but the planning for the new City Hall probably started before the subway extension funding was approved.

As for the Hospital, they are building it on donated lands. That's a big factor in the chosen location. I doubt companies like Smart Centres would be donating parcels of land that large near VMC station.

 

[TJ O'Pootertoot]

Does the City own any of the land near VMC station?

I"m not sure how the timelines match up, but the planning for the new City Hall probably started before the subway extension funding was approved.

As for the Hospital, they are building it on donated lands. That's a big factor in the chosen location. I doubt companies like Smart Centres would be donating parcels of land that large near VMC station.

Good points. The hospital was never an option for VMC and I wouldn't have put it there - but it's NOT donated land. It was purchased from Canada's Wonderland and everyone in Vaughan gets the purchase as a separate line on their tax bill. (Seriously - did someone suggest a HOSPITAL would be a primo tenant for Vaughan's new downtown?).

City Hall I think should have gone there. It's true that the subway FUNDING wasn't nailed down but the general plan for VMC was and the subway plan was. They knew exactly what they wanted to do there and putting City Hall there would have been very forward thinking. That said, you're right: they don't own any of the land. They would have had to buy some and it would have been expensive. They obviously own the current City Hall site and even if they sold it, it would definitely cost more at VMC. Timingwise, City Hall is now open, of course. If they did it at VMC, it would either be beside WalMart or Dave & Busters. That's not exactly a prime civic landmark in the near term.

So, I can see both sides there.

 

[crs1026]

I'm trying to remember......what years did the decisionmaking for TYSSE happen? I seem to recall an initial approval but then a long lull with the Minister of the day saying funds weren't available, but reasserting that when they were, TYSSE would remain priority one....

My point being - that happened relatively long ago and before most people knew what LRT was. Transit City came later. It was a totally new idea, and a huge learning curve, for a great many. Many people still haven't caught on that transit doesnt have to go underground.

So, no point grieving over spilt milk. TYSSE has sailed. The media and many politicians do now question why one would tunnel if surface or even LRT will do the job for less - that really only started midway thru the Fords' tenure, but it's progress.

- Paul

 

[44 North]

I'm trying to remember......what years did the decisionmaking for TYSSE happen? I seem to recall an initial approval but then a long lull with the Minister of the day saying funds weren't available, but reasserting that when they were, TYSSE would remain priority one....

My point being - that happened relatively long ago and before most people knew what LRT was. Transit City came later. It was a totally new idea, and a huge learning curve, for a great many. Many people still haven't caught on that transit doesnt have to go underground.

So, no point grieving over spilt milk. TYSSE has sailed. The media and many politicians do now question why one would tunnel if surface or even LRT will do the job for less - that really only started midway thru the Fords' tenure, but it's progress.

- Paul

Something I've noticed though is that the media and public seldom brings up any part of TYSSE. 99% of the time it seems it's Sheppard and the "Scarborough Subway" as the scapegoats and epitomes of poor subway building. I guess part of this is allegiance to political lines - with Sheppard and SSE being seen as Harris and Ford projects, but TYSSE as Miller and McGuinty.

But yeah, you're def right that the ship has sailed. However what appeared to restart the discussion were posts re: current development in Vaughan, and perhaps its worthiness of a $500M/km subway connection. This is very much a present/future issue. If development falls far short of 2031 goals (which is plausible), and the City seems not fully committed to developing their Centre (which one can surmise for themselves using examples like not placing major trip generators such as a city hall or hospital, developing northern whitebelt lands, or trying to open up protected greenbelt lands) - then the investment/project is pertinent to the discussion of other ongoing issues like P2G and the Big Move.

And for future suburban subway projects like Yonge North, you might see a bit more pushback. Some of the public might ask: if VMC can't develop as promised, then why should Vaughan get a second subway along with Markham and Richmond Hill? IOW if $500M/km can't result in P2G goals being met and fields being developed, then perhaps $700M/km can't do the same elsewhere. Or alternately with the DRL you might see people saying: 'well, if we can build deep bore heavy rail 2km from any human habitation - why is Metrolinx proposing an unworkable surface subway or LRT in place of a DRL? And then there's other TYSSE costs we haven't reached yet - like ongoing operations. Miller made an informal comment about shuttering Sheppard to save a few mil. Will other politicians do the same for parts of TYSSE?

If questions like these arise, it might show that although the ship has sailed, we're still very much in its wake. Re: the history though, Transit Toronto has a good article. And they have this poster, which I think is somewhat amusing: http://transit.toronto.on.ca/images/subway-5114-02.gif

 

[Forgotten]

Because office complexes have never been built on top of subway stations.

 

[TJ O'Pootertoot]

Something I've noticed though is that the media and public seldom brings up any part of TYSSE. 99% of the time it seems it's Sheppard and the "Scarborough Subway" as the scapegoats and epitomes of poor subway building. I guess part of this is allegiance to political lines - with Sheppard and SSE being seen as Harris and Ford projects, but TYSSE as Miller and McGuinty.

I don't think it has anything to do with ideology.
First, VMC isn't open yet. Maybe there will be more bashing when it is.
Second, Sheppard was a compromised line and would be different if what was planned was built. (Or are you talking about the LRT now going forward, finally, probably on Sheppard? Either way, it's a mess).
Third, Scarborough had a very public and tumultuous (and embarrassing) "planning" process, championed by Rob Ford.
Fourth, you could even add SmartTrack to the list and wonder why TYSSE didn't get the same scrutiny.

One ironic way of looking at it: TYSSE has the least controversy because it's the one Toronto council had the least to do with.

Makes you think

Either way, Wilson was never a natural terminus and neither was Downsview. They could/should have gone to York years ago. The shifting market and provincial policy and political reality made going the few extra KM north a necessity. It's really that simple. The Scarborough line can't be explained with narrative even half as succinct or comprehensible.

the City seems not fully committed to developing their Centre (which one can surmise for themselves using examples like not placing major trip generators such as a city hall or hospital, developing northern whitebelt lands, or trying to open up protected greenbelt lands) - then the investment/project is pertinent to the discussion of other ongoing issues like P2G and the Big Move.

Well, I wrote above that I have mixed feelings about what the hospital and/or city hall would have brought to VMC; is CITY HALL a major trip generator? Mmmm, I doubt it. It's symbolic; though symbolism of not putting it in VMC is fair game.

But it's not just a matter of policy, it's ultimately the market. If people want condos near the subway, VMC will do fine, no matter how stupid Vaughan acts.

And for future suburban subway projects like Yonge North, you might see a bit more pushback. Some of the public might ask: if VMC can't develop as promised, then why should Vaughan get a second subway along with Markham and Richmond Hill?

No point going over this old track (so to speak) again,but I think it barely even qualifies as a "suburban subway project." Yonge north of Steeles is no more suburban than Yonge and York Mills or, heck, Yonge and Rosedale. It's only in the past few years that Yonge-Sheppard has really come into its own. If I was a betting man, I'd bet on Yonge/7 development ahead of Jane/7 or Warden/7 development, and both of those are coming along, albeit at their own paces.

Again, the market: If you're a developer and I tell you I can get 20 acres at Yonge/7, Jane/7, Warden/7 or Pine Valley and Major Mack, which do you take?

I see what you're saying, at a general level, I just think you overthink it. I could argue (and many have) that the (lack of) intensification along most of the Danforth shows that subways can't do it on their own. Of course they can't. you need jobs - and Vaughan (and indeed, much of Highway 7) has that. And you need the right policies and the right market. I think all those things, generally, are more transit-oriented in York Region now than they were in Toronto when the B-D line was built.

you can't create the future, but you can do your best to put the right pieces in place to make it happen.

(And it's rather early to be mulling shuttering lines to fund the TYSSE. As it is, they're going to be turning trains around so why don't we give it a chance instead of, as with Sheppard, strangling it in the crib.) I may be naive in my optimism, but it's better than hammering away at things you can't change.

 

[44 North]

I don't think it has anything to do with ideology.
First, VMC isn't open yet. Maybe there will be more bashing when it is.
Second, Sheppard was a compromised line and would be different if what was planned was built. (Or are you talking about the LRT now going forward, finally, probably on Sheppard? Either way, it's a mess).
Third, Scarborough had a very public and tumultuous (and embarrassing) "planning" process, championed by Rob Ford.
Fourth, you could even add SmartTrack to the list and wonder why TYSSE didn't get the same scrutiny.

One ironic way of looking at it: TYSSE has the least controversy because it's the one Toronto council had the least to do with.

Makes you think

Either way, Wilson was never a natural terminus and neither was Downsview. They could/should have gone to York years ago. The shifting market and provincial policy and political reality made going the few extra KM north a necessity. It's really that simple. The Scarborough line can't be explained with narrative even half as succinct or comprehensible.



Well, I wrote above that I have mixed feelings about what the hospital and/or city hall would have brought to VMC; is CITY HALL a major trip generator? Mmmm, I doubt it. It's symbolic; though symbolism of not putting it in VMC is fair game.

But it's not just a matter of policy, it's ultimately the market. If people want condos near the subway, VMC will do fine, no matter how stupid Vaughan acts.



No point going over this old track (so to speak) again,but I think it barely even qualifies as a "suburban subway project." Yonge north of Steeles is no more suburban than Yonge and York Mills or, heck, Yonge and Rosedale. It's only in the past few years that Yonge-Sheppard has really come into its own. If I was a betting man, I'd bet on Yonge/7 development ahead of Jane/7 or Warden/7 development, and both of those are coming along, albeit at their own paces.

Again, the market: If you're a developer and I tell you I can get 20 acres at Yonge/7, Jane/7, Warden/7 or Pine Valley and Major Mack, which do you take?

I see what you're saying, at a general level, I just think you overthink it. I could argue (and many have) that the (lack of) intensification along most of the Danforth shows that subways can't do it on their own. Of course they can't. you need jobs - and Vaughan (and indeed, much of Highway 7) has that. And you need the right policies and the right market. I think all those things, generally, are more transit-oriented in York Region now than they were in Toronto when the B-D line was built.

you can't create the future, but you can do your best to put the right pieces in place to make it happen.

(And it's rather early to be mulling shuttering lines to fund the TYSSE. As it is, they're going to be turning trains around so why don't we give it a chance instead of, as with Sheppard, strangling it in the crib.) I may be naive in my optimism, but it's better than hammering away at things you can't change.

I still stand by my opinion that it's unprecedented to build hands-down the costliest infrastructure in such an environment as south Vaughan - for TO, but worldwide as well. Comparing it to Rosedale, York Mills, or Danforth doesn't really work imo. The stretch through Rosedale was built in the 50s, it's an open trench, and it was our busiest surface route at the time. Danforth was built in the 60s, using cut/cover, was our first/second busiest surface route, and it was actually rather high-density at the time. York Mills/Wilson was also a busy surface route, and the TTC really tried to use a more affordable method involving a shallow tunnel and bridges. The decision to go with tunneling ultimately resulted in higher costs, higher maintenance, less stations, and was less optimal on all fronts.

Comparing these projects with the highways and fields around Jane north of Steeles, or Hwy 7 with no pre-existing residents for 2km...the diff is night and day and is not apples to apples. And anyone who says it would've been impossible to run trains at least partially outdoors in or near VMC obviously has never been south of Steeles and seen the development around elevated/exposed transport infrastructure. Southcore, WDL, SCC, Y/B or Y/Eg (both 250m from an open trench), etc.

And nobody is arguing that there aren't jobs in Vaughan. But I think it should be pretty obvious that a high-freq 7-car train in a tunnel costing $0.5bn/km may not be the best way to connect an industrial 'megacentre' or Dave & Busters. These costs aren't just a lot in retrospect, it was a big deal at the time. The TTC's RTES listed two priorities: extending Sheppard to VP or beyond, and connecting York U. Going north of Steeles wasn't really a "necessity", it came out of left field, and many do take issue with the history. My issue isn't connecting York U, but overall project costs and particularly the per km costs for the northernmost 2km (plus the precedent it set). And I'm not throwing support behind Shepps, but it was a longstanding priority going back decades, we had a funding window for it to become un-"compromised", and it can be argued that the limited moneys to un-compromise it instead went to a 905 riding in what the former minister admitted in his autobio was a porkbarrel of sorts. And while everyone is quick to accuse the cock Ford of being the only politician that changed priorities or supported iffy plans, few seem to do that with any other politician or past plans.

I'm not arguing for shuttering anything, or wanting to go into Yonge North. Just making (what I presume to be logical) hypotheses as to Qs we might see from the public in the future concerning tysse or other projects. And I honestly don't see the issue with a hospital or city hall being in a "Centre". This is a downtown they're trying to build, is it not? I also have trouble believing the claim that current York Region is more transit-oriented than 50s-60s Toronto.

 

[Midtown Urbanist]

The connection to York University was a priority.

For that project to go underway with funding from the provincial government, it necessitated going 2km north of Steeles to placate York Region and secure Liberal seats in Vaughan. If it didn't go 2km north of Steeles, we wouldn't be having this extension period.

And the debate on extending it to just York University would have continued on for more years, possibly have resulted in funding for the equally stupid Sheppard East subway extension, would have delayed further or eliminated altogether the Eglinton Crosstown and Finch West LRT, would compete for funding with Scarborough transit and GO-RER, and we would be arguing with stupid politicians about delaying the DRL into the next century because the Spadina Extension would 'provide relief'.

I for one, am really glad we avoided all that by extending the subway 2km north of Steeles.

 

[JasonParis]

We got the extension to York University primarily because the expansion become politically palatable with an extension to Vaughan. For this, I won't mind the fact we extended a subway to practically nowhere and will remain hopeful that Vaughan's strategy for TOD will come into being. Let's try to not look a gift horse in the mouth like we do so often with transit planning in this region.

As much as subway stations in Vaughan strike me as wrong, you can also make the argument that it's also one of the only GTA nodes that is not well-served by GO either. So the subway extension also fills a bit of a void there too.

 

[TOareaFan]

As much as subway stations in Vaughan strike me as wrong, you can also make the argument that it's also one of the only GTA nodes that is not well-served by GO either. So the subway extension also fills a bit of a void there too.

How so? I never know the exact borders of Vaughan but with GO stations at Rutherford and Major Mack just off of Keele...not sure how it is not well served by GO? Now there may be issue with the number of trains that run on that line....but not sure how that is different than every other non-Lakeshore line community in the GTA.

 

[TJ O'Pootertoot]

I think WislaHD summed it up: going the extra 2km is a lesser of evils and a pre-requisite for a line that was otherwise needed. It might not be an IDEAL decision but if we're ranking the LONG list of Stupid Toronto Transit Decisions, it might not even be Top 10. (I don't think Ford is the only pol to mess things up by a longshot, but he was probably the most brazen and deluded. And he's the most recent, obviously.)

QED: You say there aren't any existing residents but the almost-complete ExpoCity is bring 1,500 new residents (give or take) already. That's a good start.

Overall, I get the gist of your points 44North, but it doesn't much matter. I was comparing little-used Line 1 stations more to the Yonge extension than the Vaughan one but the larger point stands. I've seen here and elsewhere people taking pictures of Bessarion to show what a "disaster" Sheppard is but there are plenty of little-used stations on the lines that one could raise an eyebrow at. In the scheme of things, something like Yonge/7 or York U doesn't raise an eyebrow.

Yeah, maybe they could have done a trench (though the Allen is a travesty of planning and Yonge/Davisville isn't going under Black Creek, right?) but you also ignore that we're extending an existing subway which always makes a certain degree of sense. Overall, the whole planning process would work better, IMHO, if:
a) Decision power was given to a proper regional transit authority (Metrolinx does not yet qualify)
b) Funding was ongoing instead of piecemeal

Yes, downtowns typically have things like hospitals and city halls but, obviously, this is a different kind of downtown. It's a relatively small area as opposed to an organic, historic downtown. A hospital would probably take up a lot of space and not generate much on transit. A city hall would generate even less. There's an argument to be made they should have gone in VMC anyway but I still think those would be more symbolic additions than practical contributions to the idea of a compact, mixed-use, transit-oriented community.

As for GO, yes, it's in a bit of a deadzone between the 2 nearby lines. The planned Concord station would be pretty close to VMC, and easily linked by the planned 407 Transitway. At any rate, it's a different situation from Yonge/7 where you actually have a planned subway and GO terminal in the (nearly) exact same spot.

 

[JasonParis]

How so? I never know the exact borders of Vaughan but with GO stations at Rutherford and Major Mack just off of Keele...not sure how it is not well served by GO? Now there may be issue with the number of trains that run on that line....but not sure how that is different than every other non-Lakeshore line community in the GTA.

Frequency is an issue now, but will get better. The larger issue is that there are no stations currently between York U and Rutherford. If a Concord GO Station is built this would address this somewhat, but much of western Vaughan (notably Woodbridge) is still a fair distance away. The TTC at VCC addresses Woodbridge in particular (even if technically in Corcord).