scarberiankhatru
Senior Member
Epi: Two additional stations on a subway extension is a waste, there's nothing up there, etc., etc. Yet, the alternative you propose is hundreds of millions of dollars of LRT on Jane that will serve the same nothing?
- Thread starter 299 bloor call control.
- Start date
kettal
Banned
The order of things is: when the buses are full, and the lrt is over capacity THEN it is time for a subway.
The buses to Vaughan corporate centre is EMPTY.
Spot what is wrong here.
The buses to Vaughan corporate centre is EMPTY.
Spot what is wrong here.
unimaginative2
Senior Member
Hahaha. The "Order of Things?" By Heavenly Decree, "Thou Shalt Have Light Rail."
Anyway, I think the VCC extension sets a wonderful precedent for a much more European style of planning. Instead of building a neighbourhood around the car and then squeezing in rapid transit at enormous cost years later when the neighbourhood has already established auto-centric travel patterns, this plan will develop a new neighbourhood around rapid transit. That's the approach used throughout Europe when developing new neighbourhoods and is long overdue for emulation here. I'd love to see the same thing for Queensville and that possible Bond Head development.
There is a problem, of course. One of the main benefits of building rapid transit at the same time as the surrounding neighbourhood is that it obviates the need for expensive tunnelling. There is absolutely no rational reason why the VCC extension isn't being built as an elevated or at least cut-and-cover route. But that's a matter of engineering and design, not planning.
Anyway, I think the VCC extension sets a wonderful precedent for a much more European style of planning. Instead of building a neighbourhood around the car and then squeezing in rapid transit at enormous cost years later when the neighbourhood has already established auto-centric travel patterns, this plan will develop a new neighbourhood around rapid transit. That's the approach used throughout Europe when developing new neighbourhoods and is long overdue for emulation here. I'd love to see the same thing for Queensville and that possible Bond Head development.
There is a problem, of course. One of the main benefits of building rapid transit at the same time as the surrounding neighbourhood is that it obviates the need for expensive tunnelling. There is absolutely no rational reason why the VCC extension isn't being built as an elevated or at least cut-and-cover route. But that's a matter of engineering and design, not planning.
hkric88
Active Member
ok, i have to put my foot down on this 'european' bit. ASIAN cities are the masters of the style of urban development you are talking about, HANDS DOWN. That's who we should be looking to, adjusted for relative population growth (so no im not talking hong kong style, 20x55 storey tower clusters) but the concept, asian cities such as Tokyo, Seoul, and Hong Kong have been leading the world with large-scale TOD for a long long time, forget europe. Besides, Tokyo's urban structure, for example, is much closer to Toronto than it is to any european city. But that is an argument for a different thread...
Epi
Active Member
LRT is there if they really MUST have something. Personally I'd keep it all a bus route until it were justified. This subway line isn't even replacing any previous travel patterns aside for car traffic as the buses that run down Jane in no way justify a subway.
The building a subway to get development at least could be partially justified on Sheppard because one of the busiest bus routes in the city would be replaced.
Epi
Active Member
The congestion is horrible partly because of all the trucks, partly because of stupidly spaced stop lights which alternate red and green and thus stall traffic, and partly because of highway users. Highway users come from a lot of places, and I wonder how many would use this subway instead.
Having a surface bus route or LRT would cost a LOT less.
Solid plans would be something like Downtown Markham, which in itself will take 20 years to complete, and it's already well under construction (and took 15 years of planning before that to get up and running). What we have in VCC is something like Waterfront Toronto. If we believed their plans, it would have been developed years ago, but obviously not.
That's fine and all, but will there be actual demand for that? There's a lot of people who work at the various factories in the area, but those factories by their very nature are very, very hard to transit to as they are so spread out. The subway doesn't get people to them any significantly faster than a BRT or LRT or diamond-bus lanes would either since they already have to board a bus anyway to get north of Jane.
As far as office development, I wonder how successful that will be in attracting transit vs all the other office clusters that already have transit (i.e. NYCC, Y&E) and are much closer to the city. Most suburban office clusters work because you can drive to them. So... I'll believe it when I see it.
scarberiankhatru
Senior Member
If the buses currently moved enough people to satisfy your arbitrary demand requirements for a subway extension (it's not a line!) to be worthwhile, then why would we need to extend the subway? The buses would be able to handle it if that were the case and we would be making a subjective choice to replace them. The main reason we choose to replace them is because we don't want overcrowded transit. Transit infrastructure is built with future demand in mind.
Epi
Active Member
The point is, if there isn't even enough riders to justify a full blown bus service, why should my tax dollars be paying for a subway? Future demand is just that... in the future. We cannot truly say in the future that the ridership will materialize to ever justify this investment. So the more prudent thing to do is to ramp up as needed and build it when it really becomes necessary rather than just guessing. You could build a badly needed new hospital in York Region with the money for these 2km.
nfitz
Superstar
On certain trips (large grocery shops for example). But since having a wife and kids my car ownership and car usage has dropped, not increased. Taking the baby on the streetcar and subway is far easier (and less stressful) than trying to drive around the city with a screaming baby that doesn't want to sit in the car by themselves. I've been using transit to commute to work more, as with a baby, my hours have become more regular, and I'm travelling more in rush-hour, so the advantage of getting their with the car faster has vanished somewhat, and the drive is never as relaxing at rush-hour as it was when I used to come and go to the office (around 10 am and 8 pm). And I've noticed that using transit more, I'm getting more exercise, losing weight, and having rare opportunities to read in peace.
As a result, we actually got rid of one car - because it was just sitting around not being used.
I'm not sure I'd actually manage without a car at all; too many business trips, visits to in-laws out-of-town, etc. But having a wife/baby doesn't necessarily mean the requirement for a car increases; in my case it was the opposite.
scarberiankhatru
Senior Member
Ramping up by building superfluous transit infrastructure in the meantime wastes far more of 'your' money (and unless you're a billionaire, you as an individual are contributing effectively nothing to it). Remove the section going into York Region and the province would never have funded the section to York U at all. Ridership is very, very malleable and manufactured, anyway...buses can be rerouted, fares can be adjusted, parking lots can be built, trip-generating destinations can be consciously located there, etc.
Epi
Active Member
That's just faulty logic. If we take your logic, we should just build subways EVERYWHERE because any individual line isn't going to cost the average person THAT much money even if it's useless, and ridership can always be manipulated.
kettal
Banned
scarberiankhatru
Senior Member
The faulty logic here is intentionally misinterpreting someone and then claiming they have erred.
Again, remember that you support spending a small fortune bringing an LRT line, what you feel is more transit infrastructure than necessary, to a place you feel does not warrant anything at all...just so it can receive a share of the taxdollar pie. You're hypocritically willing to have your money wasted on LRT but not subways.
urbandreamer
recession proof
8 May 2009 photo update
I don't really follow this thread but here's a photo I took yesterday that shows some activity being done near York U and Keele St:
Which is beside
I don't really follow this thread but here's a photo I took yesterday that shows some activity being done near York U and Keele St:
Which is beside
Last edited:
W. K. Lis
Superstar
You're using the "chicken or egg" question. Put in a rapid transit and development will follow, or put in development and rapid transit will follow?
We have seen with development that rapid transit does not necessarily follow. With rapid transit transit, development does follow. If allowed to, a mixed use development is built up around stations. The key word is "allowed". Zoning and neighbourhood input may or may not allow the area around stations to be built up to justify the expense. If developers know that rapid transit will be there, they will build.