[TJ O'Pootertoot]

They made the pledge that by 2031 there'd be 25k residents and 11.5k jobs all within walking distance of the terminus. This wasn't an off the cuff remark made in the 2000s; Vaughan is still making that promise. So over the next fifteen years if they don't add on average 3,000 residents and the equivalent of a KPMG office bldg worth of jobs every two years - or don't come close to that number - then it's as if they're reneging on their promise.

Sometimes I think you really miss the nuances of how planning, policy and reality actually manifest themselves. A policy is not a "promise," first of all. I also don't know how you can penalize municipalities for not achieving policy goals. The "megacity" has made it moot but would you otherwise have somehow "charged" North York" residents for failing to achieve the job projections for NYCC? Can I penalize Toronto if its Official Plan speaks to sustainability and then they leave the Gardiner standing? Do taxpayers get their money back if it turns out the Scarborough subway doesn't hit the "promised" ridership targets? If Vaughan is supposed to have 25K residents there and they only hit 20k, does that constitute reneging? And how much of the penalty you want can they recoup based on Toronto messing up the subway construction, hampering Vaughan's ability to intensify? And so on.

Here's how it actually works:
-The province establishes planning policy. In this case, it mandated urban intensification with specific density targets for some urban centres, a few of which are (literally or effectively) suburban greenfield sites with no existing residents.
-Every municipality is required to "promise" to achieve those aims - by law - by updating their OPs and their zoning. Vaughan has done this. It further created a secondary plan for VMC which meets and exceeds the provincial requirements. In the meantime, the province extended the deadlines for achieving conformity so Vaughan's new OP wasn't approved by the province until 2010 (indeed, I think some parts of it are still before the OMB).
-In support of the previously mentioned plan, the province also provided infrastructure (i.e a subway!) that will support this goal. The subway is not yet open, obviously. They also funded York Region's BRT, which is also not yet open.

In terms of timelines, it's true that VMC (or VCC) preceded Places to Grow but if anything that's a point in Vaughan's favour. Yes yes, they're opening more lands for development and that sucks but in terms of VMC itself they are doing everything right and while it's early days, there is no reason to suspect the already-seen intensification won't continue. Will they get there by 2031? Probably not. Probably no one in the GTA will. But there are far too many moving parts to look at VMC and accuse Vaughan council of "reneging on a promise." And I'm a guy who is happy to bash Vaughan when they deserve it.

I find it funny that with 407 Station, we do not have shovels in the ground for any segments of the 407 Transitways. Not that we really need them yet.

It's the great Mystery Project of the entire Big Move. They've actually done a fair bit of planning for it (the York segment EA is done), it's allegedly supposed to open in 2023-ish, it's a significant east-west connection and you never HEAR anything about it. There's definitely a disconnect somewhere at MTO/Metrolinx between those who think it's crucial and those who just don't care. I'm curious what the deal there is.

 

[44 North]

Did they promise to build it or did they promise to put the zoning and planning regime in place to encourage the market to build it?

I'd say a bit of both, but part and parcel with other things (e.g not amending their OP to facilitate accelerated expansion of their urban boundary for thousands of new single family homes, and perhaps adding ingredients found in virtually every other downtown centre like those spoken about on the previous pages). But keep in mind that even though they have a steep hill to climb, their p2g density target of 200 jobs/ppl per ha is only half of that for similar mobility hub UGCs.

 

[BMO]

...It's the great Mystery Project of the entire Big Move. They've actually done a fair bit of planning for it (the York segment EA is done), it's allegedly supposed to open in 2023-ish, it's a significant east-west connection and you never HEAR anything about it. There's definitely a disconnect somewhere at MTO/Metrolinx between those who think it's crucial and those who just don't care. I'm curious what the deal there is.

You never HEAR anything about it because basically the entire corridor is being built on Provincially owned land adjacent to the 407 and a hydro corridor. Considering the public impacts will be very small in terms of land acquisition and construction I don't think they need to really "win" the public over with a bunch of PICs and other outward facing information. When the project comes closer to actually getting shovels in the ground we'll start hearing more as it will affect how local routes connect with it.

 

[DonValleyRainbow]

P.S. the 407 Transitway thread is here.

 

[nfitz]

It's the great Mystery Project of the entire Big Move. They've actually done a fair bit of planning for it (the York segment EA is done), it's allegedly supposed to open in 2023-ish, it's a significant east-west connection and you never HEAR anything about it. There's definitely a disconnect somewhere at MTO/Metrolinx between those who think it's crucial and those who just don't care. I'm curious what the deal there is.

Where did you get 2023 from?

Phase 1 is's in the 25-year section of the 2013 Big Move (Project 54 - 407 Transiway from 427 to Unionville. So sometime between 2028 and 2038 at the earliest. There's certainly nothing planned in the next decade as far as I know.

Hmm, I wonder sometime after 2023 came from it being in the 25-year plan of the 2008 Big Move, which would have been after 2023.

As far as Mystery Projects in the Big Move, I think several are more mysterious! Such as the Steeles LRT (or sometimes BRT, depending which document you look at ). Or the Express Rail link from Cooksville GO to Mississauga City Centre.

 

[TJ O'Pootertoot]

I'd say a bit of both, but part and parcel with other things (e.g not amending their OP to facilitate accelerated expansion of their urban boundary for thousands of new single family homes, and perhaps adding ingredients found in virtually every other downtown centre like those spoken about on the previous pages). But keep in mind that even though they have a steep hill to climb, their p2g density target of 200 jobs/ppl per ha is only half of that for similar mobility hub UGCs.

What's that graphic from?
You're not entirely wrong, but you're mixing and matching 2 different numbers, in terms of the population and density:
From the VMC Secondary Plan:
To achieve the critical mass of a downtown and meet the density target of 200 people and jobs per
hectare established in the Province’s Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe, a population
of approximately 17,000 residents and 6,500 jobs by 2031 are planned for the Urban Growth
Centre within the VMC, as identified in Schedule A. The population target for the larger VMC
area, including the Urban Growth Centre, is 25,000 residents and 11,500 jobs by 2031.

It's a little confusing, I grant.
And while my immediate reaction is that it should be 400 for the target, not 200, bear in mind there are NO residents there today. You can't give them the same goal as downtown Toronto, even with a subway. Indeed, as you can plainly see in the graphic, all the 400-target neighbourhoods are existing urban centres within the City of Toronto. So they are not, as you said, "similiar mobility hub UGCs" in any manner, shape or form. (Indeed, 2 of the 400's were already at their targets when P2G was passed! Also trivia: Langstaff/RHC is above 400. I think its plan is to hit 450, more than doubling the target.)

Where did you get 2023 from?

Phase 1 is's in the 25-year section of the 2013 Big Move (Project 54 - 407 Transiway from 427 to Unionville. So sometime between 2028 and 2038 at the earliest. There's certainly nothing planned in the next decade as far as I know.

I've seen it in a few articles - this is one:
http://www.yorkregion.com/news-story/1456115-gridlock-until-2023-/

I know they totally finished the first leg of the EA but they might have finished the second by now. It's proceeding in the shadows
And I can't explain why the word HEAR was all-caps above. But, yeah, the fact it's taking place in a highway ROW is one reason things are quiet. But given how far advanced it is, you still never hear much. It's not like when the province announced RER they said, "and it will dovetail well with our planned transitway" or anything. I've seen 2023 reported but it's still a very vague timeline.

EDIT: To add in the VMC Map so no one has to look it up. 17K residents is within the solid line and 25K within the dotted line.

 

[nfitz]

I've seen it in a few articles - this is one:
http://www.yorkregion.com/news-story/1456115-gridlock-until-2023-/

At least 2023 ... back in 2010. I'd be surprised if we see it before 2030, and I don't really expect it until the 2040s. The 407 itself is still quite effective. I'd expect we'll see the Yonge subway extension to Langstaff GO first.

 

[44 North]

You can't give them the same goal as downtown Toronto, even with a subway. Indeed, as you can plainly see in the graphic, all the 400-target neighbourhoods are existing urban centres within the City of Toronto. So they are not, as you said, "similiar mobility hub UGCs" in any manner, shape or form. (Indeed, 2 of the 400's were already at their targets when P2G was passed! Also trivia: Langstaff/RHC is above 400. I think its plan is to hit 450, more than doubling the target.)

I'm not giving them the same goal as downtown Toronto. And by similar mobility hub UGCs I meant with regards to transit (i.e mobility hubs with new/improved surface transit and a subway). So while they share similarities with a small handful of other centres in that regard, they are the only one with a 200 ppl/jobs per ha target. The bar's been set fairly low all things considered, but it's the City of Vaughan that has continually made the promise that they will rise above it.

You can draw comparisons all you want with North York Centre or Scarborough Centre. But whether looking at the big picture or in macro, I see no comparisons. The subway hasn't even opened and numerous Big Move priorities remain on life support, yet even recently they tried to get the Prov to prioritize its extension 6km north to Canada's Wonderland, to ID new mobility hubs, and to plan an rt line on Major Mack. That's not comparable to post-Transit City Toronto, pre-Transit City Toronto, or Metro for that matter.

 

[TJ O'Pootertoot]

I'm not giving them the same goal as downtown Toronto. And by similar mobility hub UGCs I meant with regards to transit (i.e mobility hubs with new/improved surface transit and a subway). So while they share similarities with a small handful of other centres in that regard, they are the only one with a 200 ppl/jobs per ha target. The bar's been set fairly low all things considered, but it's the City of Vaughan that has continually made the promise that they will rise above it.

To be clear - the implication is that Vaughan's target should be 400 even though the only other places with that target are downtown, NYCC, Yonge-Eglinton, Scarborough and Etobicoke. So the "bar is set low" because, in 25 years, you think a Wal-Mart parking lot should have to meet the same density requirements as established urban centres that had 10s of 1000s of residents and jobs before Places to Grow even passed?

No - it makes TOTAL sense they are the same group as places like Markham Centre which also has new/improved transit, if only RER + BRT vs. a subway. Mississauga Centre is far further along in every respect but for the subway and they're not in the 400 group either. And that makes total sense too.

I do agree that Markham and RH have been far more aggressive and progressive in reaching beyond their targets and Vaughan has treated it as a bar they only have to just clear AND they should be aiming higher because of the subway, but to suggest they should be in the 400 group is unreasonable.

The subway hasn't even opened and numerous Big Move priorities remain on life support, yet even recently they tried to get the Prov to prioritize its extension 6km north to Canada's Wonderland, to ID new mobility hubs, and to plan an rt line on Major Mack. That's not comparable to post-Transit City Toronto, pre-Transit City Toronto, or Metro for that matter.

I'm not sure what your point is here. We're criticizing Vaughan for passing a toothless motion asking for more rapid transit? All those ideas may well be stupid (especially if they're opening whitebelt lands at the same time!) but who cares? No one thinks the Spadina line is going up to Wonderland before Yonge gets extended, RER gets rolled out etc. (if ever). It's a red herring.

(Besides which, Rapid Transit is up to the REGION, not the city. Bringing the subway up to Wonderland is not a regional priority. Yonge and Highway 7 are.)

 

[W. K. Lis]

They are building that station so I can visit my parents after they depart the planet permanently. Beechwood Cemetery just across the street.

In the future, instead of condos for the living, there will be high-rises for the dead. They already do in parts of the world. See link.

This one is in Brazil:

This one is in Israel:

 

[44 North]

To be clear - the implication is that Vaughan's target should be 400 even though the only other places with that target are downtown, NYCC, Yonge-Eglinton, Scarborough and Etobicoke. So the "bar is set low" because, in 25 years, you think a Wal-Mart parking lot should have to meet the same density requirements as established urban centres that had 10s of 1000s of residents and jobs before Places to Grow even passed?

No - it makes TOTAL sense they are the same group as places like Markham Centre which also has new/improved transit, if only RER + BRT vs. a subway. Mississauga Centre is far further along in every respect but for the subway and they're not in the 400 group either. And that makes total sense too.

I do agree that Markham and RH have been far more aggressive and progressive in reaching beyond their targets and Vaughan has treated it as a bar they only have to just clear AND they should be aiming higher because of the subway, but to suggest they should be in the 400 group is unreasonable.



I'm not sure what your point is here. We're criticizing Vaughan for passing a toothless motion asking for more rapid transit? All those ideas may well be stupid (especially if they're opening whitebelt lands at the same time!) but who cares? No one thinks the Spadina line is going up to Wonderland before Yonge gets extended, RER gets rolled out etc. (if ever). It's a red herring.

(Besides which, Rapid Transit is up to the REGION, not the city. Bringing the subway up to Wonderland is not a regional priority. Yonge and Highway 7 are.)

I think I've given fairly level-headed explanations re: my opinion on why deep bore heavy rail was the wrong type of transit due to cost, why I think it was unprecedented to build said infrastructure in such an environment (for TO, but globally as well), and why it seems Vaughan hasn't done all they can to make their promise of building a downtown into reality. Basically I think they're compromising VMC's growth, and somewhat taking the public's hefty investment for granted. You say otherwise, and that's fine. But why bring up red herrings? I'm not debating Markham Centre or Sauga, nor do I agree with your apples/apples comparison between a $500M/km subway and an LRT or GO line.

As for the point about Vaughan wanting to extend the Spadina Line 6km north to a theme park; I think my bringing it up is integral to the debate because it was only recently that Vaughan made it clear they want it prioritized in the Big Move. It's included in their OP (which YR endorsed), and it's my belief that Vaughan's desire to have it built for 2031 (i.e sooner rather than never) speaks volumes about their commitment to their downtown and the unprecedented subway extension we're building. And frankly it makes me wonder what the heck is going on up there if they actually believe a subway to Wonderland is a good idea.

 

[Dan416]

I can see why Scarborough people get pissy about some people trying to take away their planned subway when those same people talk about extending the Yonge line further and further north, yet Scarborough is too far for a subway to go. If that's not a double standard I don't know what is.

 

[TJ O'Pootertoot]

I can see why Scarborough people get pissy about some people trying to take away their planned subway when those same people talk about extending the Yonge line further and further north, yet Scarborough is too far for a subway to go. If that's not a double standard I don't know what is.

Um, first we're not talking about Yonge in this thread. But it's not an issue of "too far." My simple answer to that is that there is established contiguous density along Yonge Street, probably as far north as Major Mac (though I don't think the subway needs to go that far), aggressive transit-oriented planning in place, committed and consistent local government, and a willing market and a designated anchor mobility hub with major existing and planned transit at Yonge/7. And to the extent it is about "too far," the Yonge extension is shorter: 6.8km vs. 7.6 km; and, again, the 6.8km is along YONGE STREET.

How is Scarborough - in terms of its route, existing context and planning regime - in the same league? If there wasn't a border at Steeles, it would be a no-brainer. And, FWIW, I have no problem with rapid transit in Scarborough, I just think the LRT made more sense, increasingly so in the context of SmartTrack and RER but, hey, let them be pissy and have chips on their shoulders.

I'm not debating Markham Centre or Sauga, nor do I agree with your apples/apples comparison between a $500M/km subway and an LRT or GO line.

Possibly you missed my point there. You argued - correct me if I'm wrong - that VMC should have a 400 people+jobs/hectare target because of the significant investment in the subway. My point was that ou can't achieve that kind of density in that kind of timeline in a greenfield development, subway or no subway. There are only 5 UGCs asked to achieve that target by 2031 and they are all in Toronto, all with pre-existing populations and, indeed, 2 of them were above 400 even before Places to Grow. Ergo, it's beyond apples and oranges to lump VMC in with them. It does make sense to lump it in with Mississauga, Markham and other centres that are seeing transit investment as well (even if it's less $ and capacity) because they are also effectively starting from nothing.

We agree, in that I think Vaughan has not been aggressive enough but it should be obvious that even if council was fully committed - ignoring Vaughan Mills, opening no new land to development etc. - they'd never achieve 400 in that timeline. I expect you're sketpical of Markham hitting that in Langstaff and that's got the advantages of existing transit and a location near Yonge Street.

As for the point about Vaughan wanting to extend the Spadina Line 6km north to a theme park; I think my bringing it up is integral to the debate because it was only recently that Vaughan made it clear they want it prioritized in the Big Move. It's included in their OP (which YR endorsed), and it's my belief that Vaughan's desire to have it built for 2031 (i.e sooner rather than never) speaks volumes about their commitment to their downtown and the unprecedented subway extension we're building.

Well, again we agree that urbanity and progressive policy are not Vaughan's strength. But asking for more subway to a second centre does not, by itself, demonstrate a lack of commitment to the first centre. It would even be admirable if they were further along with VMC since having multiple intensification areas is what we want to see. And they won't get the line anyway, so who cares? I expect they did it to appease some landowners, knowing full well that everyone has the Yonge line WAY ahead of some dumb line up to Wonderland and even that's still in limbo.

(Also - I looked at the OP quickly. There is a single reference that they support a "possible further extension" along Jane. The language is weak and far more ambiguous than they're support for Yonge. That's not a crime and not proof they're not committed to VMC. It may be proof they're stupid and/or delusional, I grant.)


Which brings us to what's going on up there... Too much developer influence. Same as it ever was. I get the sense Markham is into "smart growth" for the right reasons, mostly, and Vaughan is willing to do it in VMC for more cynical, practical reasons. But they are still willing to do it and some of those developers (e.g. SmartCentres) have big investment in VMC and want to make it work, that's the good news.

 

[BMO]

I think I've given fairly level-headed explanations re: my opinion on why deep bore heavy rail was the wrong type of transit due to cost, why I think it was unprecedented to build said infrastructure in such an environment (for TO, but globally as well), and why it seems Vaughan hasn't done all they can to make their promise of building a downtown into reality. Basically I think they're compromising VMC's growth, and somewhat taking the public's hefty investment for granted. You say otherwise, and that's fine. But why bring up red herrings? I'm not debating Markham Centre or Sauga, nor do I agree with your apples/apples comparison between a $500M/km subway and an LRT or GO line.

As for the point about Vaughan wanting to extend the Spadina Line 6km north to a theme park; I think my bringing it up is integral to the debate because it was only recently that Vaughan made it clear they want it prioritized in the Big Move. It's included in their OP (which YR endorsed), and it's my belief that Vaughan's desire to have it built for 2031 (i.e sooner rather than never) speaks volumes about their commitment to their downtown and the unprecedented subway extension we're building. And frankly it makes me wonder what the heck is going on up there if they actually believe a subway to Wonderland is a good idea.

You miss the most important aspect of all of this...something is actually getting done. VIVA BRT, GO, Spadina Extension. York Region has taking these gifts and actually accepted them and built them. Maybe Vaughan should take a Toronto approach and argue about it ad nausea and have ZERO progress to show for Big Move investment after how many years? The biggest complaint I tend to hear is that infrastructure was needed yesterday this might not be the perfect solution or choice in your mind but it's something and I think that deserves some sort of recognition in my books considering the political landscape in the region these days (see Brampton cancelling its LRT).

 

[crs1026]

(Also - I looked at the OP quickly. There is a single reference that they support a "possible further extension" along Jane. The language is weak and far more ambiguous than they're support for Yonge. That's not a crime and not proof they're not committed to VMC. It may be proof they're stupid and/or delusional, I grant.)

You make good points. This one is a slippery slope. We know that politicians knowlingly advocate for dumb things sometimes, trusting that the system will keep things in balance. It makes them look good in the voters' eyes. Part of political dealmaking is agreeing on who gets to play "good cop" and who gets to play "bad cop" on each issue.

The problem with this is, it conflicts with fact-based, data-based decisionmaking. Sooner or later the data will come out, and it will show that a Wonderland subway is pure pixiedust. Will the same politicians be willing to admit it was dumb all along? Or will they suppress the data, or insist that it be fudged?

My personal viewpoint is the system works best when we call out dumb ideas early on and challenge the proponent to provide unmassaged facts. See John Tory vs City Staff on any number of issues.

Politicians need to perceive a downside to floating or jumping on ideas that haven't had good data collected.

You miss the most important aspect of all of this...something is actually getting done. VIVA BRT, GO, Spadina Extension. York Region has taking these gifts and actually accepted them and built them. Maybe Vaughan should take a Toronto approach and argue about it ad nausea and have ZERO progress to show for Big Move investment after how many years?

Another good point. I wonder whether there ought to be more focus on documenting what measurable "commitment" is being made, and what city council has to do to hold their end up. And mabye making provincial funding or clearances for other things conditional on those earlier commitments. If 400+ people is the break-even measure, then Vaughan Council needs to roll up its sleeves or face losing some further goodies.

Vaughan has been in the enviable position of being a swing riding in any number of elections. Cabinet positions seem to be available for people up there. So yes, it does seem they have become a bit entitled up there. Perhaps Scarboro ought to be pointing up there, rather than hating the downtown "elite".

- Paul