[TJ O'Pootertoot]

What's the difference between extending the subway to Highway 7 and the Richmond Hill extension? On the subway extension the proposed Langstaff/Longbridge station is on Yonge just south of the 407, while the proposed Richmond Hill terminus is on just north of Highway 7 near Langstaff GO station.

Honestly, I don't understand this Q....is it one of semantics? to be clear, the proposal now on paper is for the existing GO to become RER and for the subway to terminate in the same place. Langsaff/Longbridge would have all the parking facilities and serve the east end of Langstaff while the subway/Go terminal would be the main transit hub.

It’s very easy to skew data to get the results needed to justify a particular project. It’s nothing new, and it’s been going on for quite some time. That’s why we have such a threadbare system, with continual extensions to barren fields built in place of lines needed decades ago.

That's the least of the reasons. We have a threadbare system because no one wants to pay for it and because some people (ahem) would rather have short-sighted, 'me-first', 'my-municipality-only' projects than taking a step back, actually looking at where people are going, where the best places to intensify are and building accordingly. to a degree, this is reminding me of a debate I've been having with a friend of mine wherein he implies that climate change isn't really happening, the data is skewed etc. At the end of the day, we all see what we want to see, I suppose.

I wouldn't have guessed there are people out there who think it makes more sense to appropriate a golf course than to build high-order transit along Yonge Street (ew, in the SUBURBS?!) but I've been wrong before and I'll be wrong again.

I’m not arguing that it’s a natural transit hub, nor am I arguing against development or intensification. It very much is a hub, it should be developed, and railed transit should be built. I’m simply arguing that an underground heavy rail mass transit system (i.e – a subway) is not commuter rail. And that a ‘light’ RT system, supplemented with greater investment in RER, can theoretically provide much better use of dollars spent than a multi-billion dollar piecemeal extension of a subway – particularly in a suburban realm.

No, I am arguing it's a natural transit hub! You're damned right the subway isn't merely commuter rail. The RER can help people from York Region get to Union Station but it's useless for everything else. The SUBWAY will allow the 10s of 1000s of other people to make local travel along Yonge Street and, if they like, commute to jobs that are everywhere except around Union. Who knows, some people might even go the other way!

You go on and on and on about how much subways cost, like the anti-Rob Ford. You get what you pay for is the deal. Give them an LRT if you want; they'll just get less density than with a subway. You seem to dismiss the correlation saying, "Well, an LRT will give them all the density they really need."

Where an arbitrarily-named “growth centre” differs from the Greenbelt is that the Greenbelt is legislated that it can’t be built on. A growth node is merely a place zoned as higher than normal density. And even without zoning “centre” lands for very high-density growth instead of realistic mid-high growth, there are many locations and arterials around York Region that can develop and allow its population targets to be met. The municipal boundaries wouldn’t have to move one inch north. And besides, YR still has ample unbuilt designated expansion lands before they reach the Greenbelt. Simply put, growth can and will occur outside of vaguely identified “centres” without having to sprawl. Toronto is a good example.

We are either talking past one another or have fundamentally different understandings. You are wrong about how much land YR has to build on without "going one inch north" and even the development industry says as much. You either understand the overall effort to constrain growth and intensify development along transit lines or you don't. In short, your math is wrong and even if it wasn't York Region has ALREADY opened land to the north in Markham and Vaughan. Fact is, the allocations have already taken place and the official plans approved by the province and they direct growth to those centres.

I'm not sure why you think Toronto is a good example, especially since (with varied degrees of success) it's been following a centres-and-avenues strategies since the 80s and it's the heart of what Jennifer Keesmaat is doing there now. Toronto is also effectively built out, which is why there's so much intensification now.

And I’m not opposed to integration. Transferring between modes or vehicles is a common practice and by no means systems aren’t “integrated”. As for claiming that a light RT on Yonge north of Finch somehow clashes with highly ambiguous terms like “transit-oriented culture/development”... I don’t really get that. I look at many suburban highrise developments in and around the inner GTA (even if next to a subway station), and I can’t see a transit-oriented culture, nor do I see TOD. Ample parking always abounds.

An LRT does not clash with TOD. But it means less of it, obviously I think. And, as I said, going from Finch (or, worse, Steeles) to 7 on an LRT and then transferring to Viva, having already come off the subway, is not seamless, QED. Anyway, it's all academic because the IS no plan for an LRT and there IS a plan for the subway.

On a per km basis, this Yonge extension would be one of the most expensive transit projects in the world, track-for-track. Just as Eglinton is, and the DRL will be (if built).

I don't buy that. First, the subway is pegged at $3B for roughly 6km which, yes, is about $500M/km which, obviously, is a lot more than LRT would be but given that it's Yonge Street, not by that much. But Eglinton and the DRL and Yonge are all tunneling under a mature city and that's why the costs are relatively high. It sure ain't more per km than the 2nd Avenue subway in New York. Stop going on about costs and look at what bang you get for your buck. What's the current ridership? What's the projected ridership? What's the development potential along the alignment? Do these things align to justify a subway?
Again, you get what you pay for. Build for the future or build for the past...

And it’s a bit fallacious to claim that if a subway isn’t built to RHC then we’ll have more suburban sprawl elsewhere. Even with RHC having a subway, YR will still sprawl on unprotected lands and land currently ID’d for expansion. But the legislated Greenbelt lands should remain protected - hopefully. And alternately, if the subway isn’t built this future will still very much remain; albeit with RHC lands zoned as slightly lower density than they would’ve been with a very costly and overbuilt subway on Yonge. Long and short, YR’s population targets will be met.

It's simplistic but not fallacious. The province has handed down the growth allocations and, based on past trends, they are underestimating how many people are coming. The question is where are those people going to live and work and how are they going to travel. If they're not going to be living in a central location like Yonge/7, expect more cars and more "suburban" living. You said above YR can accommodate growth without opening new lands and here you acknowledge that in fact that's not the case. The less transit you build, the more people will have cars seems like an obvious equation to me. Based on your math, the DRL is the only subway that could possibly make sense in the GTA.

You're trying to have your cake and eat it too, I think.

 

[nfitz]

Honestly, I don't understand this Q....is it one of semantics? to be clear, the proposal now on paper is for the existing GO to become RER and for the subway to terminate in the same place. Langsaff/Longbridge would have all the parking facilities and serve the east end of Langstaff while the subway/Go terminal would be the main transit hub.

Edward stated that they should both build the subway extension to Highway 7 AND the Richmond Hill extension.

I don't understand what the difference between the subway extension to Highway 7 and the Richmond Hill extension are. Perhaps I'm misssing something ...

 

[TJ O'Pootertoot]

Edward stated that they should both build the subway extension to Highway 7 AND the Richmond Hill extension.

I don't understand what the difference between the subway extension to Highway 7 and the Richmond Hill extension are. Perhaps I'm misssing something ...

Hmm. Re-reading what he wrote, I think he was just using the 2 different names for the same thing. I think he said:
1) the subway to 7 is needed
2) both the drl and the subway should be built at the same time

the wording is mildly confusing but I believe that's all he's saying. (And, obviously, I agree )

 

[nfitz]

Hmm. Re-reading what he wrote, I think he was just using the 2 different names for the same thing. I think he said:
1) the subway to 7 is needed
2) both the drl and the subway should be built at the same time

the wording is mildly confusing but I believe that's all he's saying. (And, obviously, I agree )

Ah ... that would make sense. I thought he might be talking about extending the GO Train ...

 

[JGHali]

This is a whole other argument, and besides the point. Langstaff/RHC has been designated a node as far back as (at least) 1991. Obviously developers will profit from intensification. You have still utterly failed to address the point I made up above, using squiggly lines instead of words. This is a natural transit hub because it is where all the lines converge. It is ON Yonge Street, where the 407 and 7 meet, where the existing GO and YRT terminals are. If you're not going to intensify there, why not do away with the Greenbelt, places to grow and let the developers (about whom you are skeptical) just do whatever they want and sprawl forever?

And in 1991 there was nothing there, not even the movie theatre which opened in 1998. I'm sure the area could be redeveloped to make better use of SilverCity's massive parking lot (the VIVA bus station took away some of it), but as it stands it's not even remotely "walkable" let alone transit-oriented, the presence of a large bus terminal notwithstanding. There also seems to be the implicit notion that "development" requires a subway, something which is completely ridiculous and not at all supported by the fact that there has been considerable development to the east on Hwy 7 past Bayview, and southwest near Bathurst and Centre. For 7 & Yonge, it would simply suffice to replace parking lots with some semblance of a streetscape and residential development, even aside from the construction of a lot of steel and glass condo towers.

Wait...you'll have to explain this to me. Are you now arguing they never should have extended the subway to FINCH? Or are you merely arguing that adding North York Centre station was a waste of money? Have you been near Yonge and Finch lately? You'd be quite right to point out that jobs have not materialized there as hoped but to suggest that using the subway to spur intensification there hasn't worked is absurd. It's way too early to make a call on how Vaughan will turn out but it is nonetheless relevant that the planning legislation, and the context, are entirely different (in a good way) from when NYC was planned in the mid-80s.

The subway didn't really spur intensification. It took at least 20 years from the time Finch was built until condo construction really picked up in the area, and this only in the context of a citywide condo boom. No doubt the subway's presence had a considerable influence, but it's debatable whether high-density condos was the intrinsic "right" form of intensification, especially where the surrounding neighbourhoods continue to exemplify a uniform detached suburban house form.

I'm all for LRT in the right places (let's say, like Scarborough) and think the plan to convert Viva to LRT when warranted is also wise. I nonetheless think the subway going from Finch to 7 is a no-brainer for reasons already listed dozens of times in this thread.

Anything that's going to cost billions of (scarce) dollars is not a "no-brainer", particularly in the context of a subway line that is currently at or beyond capacity.

Maybe you knew you were going to get bashed for it but you said YR should come up with their own solution and I pointed out they already did, with Viva. But to make their system work, they need to interface with other systems and because most of their population is adjacent to the Toronto border, proper integration with TTC is absolutely key if you want to do anything to instill a transit-oriented culture and transit-oriented development. And if you can't do that right at Yonge and Steeles, you might as well give up on the whole project, IMHO.

Why is an LRT to Finch (or Steeles) not an "interface" with the TTC? Thousands of TTC users "interface" with the subway via bus or streetcar and, remarkably, that hasn't destroyed development in the city.

So, you agree the network should be "seamless" but also want YR residents to take the subway to Finch, an LRT to 7 and then the BRT north from there. I guess my point is, that's not seamless.

If they're going that far north from (one presumes) downtown, I'd suggest they familiarize themselves with the existence of the current GO trains.

Centerpoint just did some minor redevelopment on their south side but with Target going the way of the dodo, I'd think the owners of that site would be pushing for the subway as hard as anyone. The mall probably does OK for what it is but they keep losing one of their stable anchor tenants and need something else to stabilize or grow.

The mall is just primed for redevelopment and your reminder that a subway to Steeles made sense and had redevelopment on the table THIRTY years ago is a reminder of just how ready this area is for intensification (and, by extension - no pun really intended), how far north that readiness has moved since then.

What's really sad is that if we'd actually pushed the subway to Steeles, we'd probably be looking at that move as short-sighted by now. But we didn't build a damned thing, and there are still people who think it would be a worthwhile move in 2020. I don't get it at all.

There have been high rise apartments just on the west side of Centerpoint for decades - since at least when it was still known as Towne & Country, in fact. The idea that the area was ready for high-rise style intensification 30 years ago, though, is laughable. Perhaps now, but then Thornhill at the time still had vacant fields facing right onto Yonge (notably at Yonge and Clark). On the Vaughan side, those subdivisions didn't even appear until the early 80s, and getting to the subway was a simple matter of a quick bus down Yonge or driving and parking at Finch. The point here is that development in the area most certainly did happen, but it was almost exclusively in the form of single family detached housing, apart from the odd set of townhouses. The condos at Yonge and Clark and Hilda and Clark were all by themselves (and surrounded by detached housing), and it's only the last 5 or 6 years that more condos were built near the Promenade (a mall whose opening did Centerpoint no favours).

Simply put, Centerpoint is not really very far from Finch, and I highly doubt that a subway to Steeles is a requirement for redevelopment of the mall site. Lack of a subway did not prevent redevelopment at the nearby failing mall of Thornhill Square at John and Bayview with condos and townhouses. The same goes with new high rise condos near Bathurst and Steeles or the existing cluster of high rise apartments further south on Bathurst. The point is simply that there's a lot of local "intensification" that already exists in Thornhill and the surrounding area in North York, all of which came about with only proximity to Finch Station. Why not serve existing density nodes rather than make assumptions about creating new ones, especially when we often only see said intensification decades after the fact?

Now, we've set a bad precedent by indulging Vaughan's dreams of "transit-oriented development" with the Spadina extension. It might yet work out, but it's going to take a long time to show that. But subways by their nature are not necessary for development intensification; transportation links certainly are, but there are many options beyond planning for a subway whose planned terminus is currently a movie theatre parking lot.

(To take one further example, Liberty Village was built and occupied without anything more than the King car. We should be building transit solutions for existing underserved "nodes", not simply with an eye to possible future development.)

 

[wopchop]

Edward stated that they should both build the subway extension to Highway 7 AND the Richmond Hill extension.

I don't understand what the difference between the subway extension to Highway 7 and the Richmond Hill extension are. Perhaps I'm misssing something ...

I read them as being two names for the same thing. The last sentence with the reference to "DRL and Richmond Hill extension at the same time" pretty much confirms that for me, anyway.

 

[Forgotten]

I should do like xtremesniper and just stop watching the thread spin its own wheels, repeating things that have been said ad infinitum already.
No and no, is my response.

First, because the RH GO line goes through the Don Valley so unless there's major intensification planned for the Evergreen Brickworks there is nowhere to add more stations. It works as a Union Station express and nothing more, and that will always be the case.

Second, because (for, like, the 10-thousandth time) the growth centre at Hwy 7 is specifically designed with the capacity for RER aaaaand subway in mind. No subway, no intensification, more sprawl. Period.

All due respect, I'm curious why you think Steeles makes quite a bit of sense. No one's pulled it off yet, IMHO. "Because it helps the TTC's buses," doesn't count, btw.

People keep talking about bus frequencies and relieving the Yonge line; that is NOT the raison d'etre for the extension. Regional planning and suburban intensification is. Think a little bigger and it will all become clear.

Reason #0: Enables TJ O'Pootertoot to cash out.

 

[TJ O'Pootertoot]

And in 1991 there was nothing there, not even the movie theatre which opened in 1998. I'm sure the area could be redeveloped to make better use of SilverCity's massive parking lot (the VIVA bus station took away some of it), but as it stands it's not even remotely "walkable" let alone transit-oriented, the presence of a large bus terminal notwithstanding. There also seems to be the implicit notion that "development" requires a subway, something which is completely ridiculous and not at all supported by the fact that there has been considerable development to the east on Hwy 7 past Bayview, and southwest near Bathurst and Centre. For 7 & Yonge, it would simply suffice to replace parking lots with some semblance of a streetscape and residential development, even aside from the construction of a lot of steel and glass condo towers.

This indicates a lack of understanding of what's going on here. OBVIOUSLY it's unwalkable now! Metrus owns all those lands and they are under long-term leases. They will not get re-developed until the subway is coming. There mere possibility of improved GO service won't get them to pull the trigger. That's cause and effect.

The lands north of there were developed under a separate process 20 years ago but the lands directly around the proposed terminal are effectively in stasis until the subway moves forward. In particular, the Silver City you correctly note wasn't even there in 1991, is located precisely where the final station box will be.

Indeed, I could flip what you say on its ear and point out that the mere fact there was nothing there in 1991 and now home to two major transit stations and a hugely busy retail centre proves my point that development is happening quickly and hindered by our inability to provide the necessary infrastructure. For those unfamiliar with the plan WHICH IS DEPENDENT ON THE SUBWAY:

If you need to get oriented it's basically looking north with Yonge running along the left side; the pond provides a reference point.

The subway didn't really spur intensification. It took at least 20 years from the time Finch was built until condo construction really picked up in the area, and this only in the context of a citywide condo boom. No doubt the subway's presence had a considerable influence, but it's debatable whether high-density condos was the intrinsic "right" form of intensification, especially where the surrounding neighbourhoods continue to exemplify a uniform detached suburban house form.

The planning context, both in terms of reality and in terms of provincial legislation has changed significantly since 1974, as have many other things. (A few week ago I'd have cited gas prices as one of them but it seems dicier this week )
Anyway, all someone has to do is look at Bloor/Danforth to see the subways don't automatically bring intensification but IMHO, all you have to do is look at the towers marching north on Yonge Street to see that obviously they will continue along an extension. There is literally no more natural corridor for intensification in the GTA because Yonge is Yonge.

Why is an LRT to Finch (or Steeles) not an "interface" with the TTC? Thousands of TTC users "interface" with the subway via bus or streetcar and, remarkably, that hasn't destroyed development in the city. ...
If they're going that far north from (one presumes) downtown, I'd suggest they familiarize themselves with the existence of the current GO trains.

Honestly, this thread is one big echo chamber.
I'm not assuming they're all going downtown, that's your assumption and one that helpfully undermines the subway, as if no one would EVER dream of going from Highway 7 to Eglinton. GO only serves Union, for the 20th time, the subway serves the street that happens to be the main street of the entire Greater Toronto Area. That's precisely why expanded GO service doesn't negate the need for a subway. So much downtown-centric thinking....

Obviously an LRT is an interface. So is the existing YRT/GO terminal at Finch Station. The question is what is the best and most seamless interface and (particularly for those who think a subway to Steeles makes sense), I have pointed out that having someone transfer, over the space of 5 or 6km, from subway to LRT to BRT is NOT seamless.

(e.g. In theory, once the transitway is open, I could commute from Pickering to Yonge/Sheppard by taking the 407 route to Yonge/7 and then the subway. It's less appealing if I take transitway and then an LRT and then transfer to the subway.)

The point here is that development in the area most certainly did happen, but it was almost exclusively in the form of single family detached housing, apart from the odd set of townhouses. The condos at Yonge and Clark and Hilda and Clark were all by themselves (and surrounded by detached housing), and it's only the last 5 or 6 years that more condos were built near the Promenade (a mall whose opening did Centerpoint no favours).

If you're arguing that suburban development without transit infrastructure tends to be auto-oriented, single-family housing, we agree. You wanna change that or perpetuate it?

Obviously there's more than one factor that leads to intensification and, at least to a degree, there's a chicken/egg argument when it comes to Places to Grow. Markham has been encouraging infill development since the 90s and Thornhill Square was a dead mall, so that development made perfect sense. I explained above why the big corridor is in a different context.

The same goes for how Metro previously encouraged intensification across the city; it was one of the fundamental things that has made Toronto less sprawly than most American cities. But you're still arguing a negative. LACK of a subway does not mean there will never be intensification and the mere existence of a subway does not provide instant condoficiation either. I didn't say either of those things. But we're talking, in this specific instance, about a community planned in the post-Growth Plan context specifically around the idea of transit (most prominently but not exclusively the subway) rather than cars. It's unique in the GTA and probably the country and many here seem to just shrug that off with far too much nonchalance. Accordingly, the fact that the current terminal is a movie theatre parking lot strikes me as a massive red herring. Where does Don Mills terminate? What about Yorkdale station? Or Wilson? Or Downsview? What was around Finch in 1974 that justified a subway going there? Certainly nothing as remarkable or ambitious as what Markham and Richmond Hill are trying to do. Dismissing their ambition seems counter-productive, at best.

Isn't it a GOOD thing that a suburban municipality is looking at a massive movie theatre parking lot and saying, "Hey, we should tie together all the transit that's right here and build a dense, walkable community?" We want to undercut that?

(To take one further example, Liberty Village was built and occupied without anything more than the King car. We should be building transit solutions for existing underserved "nodes", not simply with an eye to possible future development.)

Again, context is key. Liberty Village was developed because the city removed the zoning restrictions there. And, as I think you're acknowledging, the King car is now hugely overburdened. Why is that? Because it was planned without respect to the existing infrastructure and now the people who live there are paying the price. Do we want to repeat that? Do we want to cheap out on suburban transit and let more cars clog the roads or do we want to try, just for ONCE in this region, to get ahead of the curve and see if we can create infrastructure and development in tandem? (Reading Places to Grow and the Greenbelt Act and The Big Move, I think I know the provincial government's answer to those questions. Your mileage may vary, so to speak.)

 

[44 North]

That rendering doesn't look very good or impressive. Definitely underwhelming, development-wise. That's the reason it's so imperative to spend multiple $Billions on the costliest transit option out there? The majority of those commuters will probably end up driving. NYCC, ECC, STC, VMC, RHC. Lots of centres, lots of flawed studies, lots of scarce capital spent, lots of real priorities ignored.

Does anyone know why a light RT wasn't looked at in any study of the Yonge corridor in YR? Seems like it would offer a way bigger bang for our buck, while allowing for a longer line with broader service. Or with RH RER, perhaps higher order service addressing E/W travel. Seems a tad redundant to have two N/S commuter lines side by side. And contrary to what some think, light RT also allows for development, upzoning, rezoning, growth, etc. To claim that only subways bring about development is flawed, to say the least.

 

[TJ O'Pootertoot]

That rendering doesn't look very good or impressive. Definitely underwhelming, development-wise. That's the reason it's so imperative to spend multiple $Billions on the costliest transit option out there? The majority of those commuters will probably end up driving. NYCC, ECC, STC, VMC, RHC. Lots of centres, lots of flawed studies, lots of scarce capital spent, lots of real priorities ignored.

Does anyone know why a light RT wasn't looked at in any study of the Yonge corridor in YR? Seems like it would offer a way bigger bang for our buck, while allowing for a longer line with broader service. Or with RH RER, perhaps higher order service addressing E/W travel. Seems a tad redundant to have two N/S commuter lines side by side. And contrary to what some think, light RT also allows for development, upzoning, rezoning, growth, etc. To claim that only subways bring about development is flawed, to say the least.

First, I don't care if you think the work done in that rendering (by the well-respected Urban Strategies) is impressive. You're just too far behind for me to be of any help here. That rendering is just the Richmond Hill side - about 15K jobs and 15K residents. This -- and I swear it's the last time I'm posting it on this forum for someone who has an opinion on the subway but zero knowledge of the context in which it will exist - is the Markham side:

That's another 15K jobs and another 32K residents. I 'll let you do the math and put the two together. The zoning, now in place, for those orange towers is up to 50 stories. Oh, and the modal share at full buildout will be 65% of all trips, non-auto. I don't really know or care if that impresses you and maybe you think it's fantasyland anyway - but it definitely won't happen without a subway. Fact is, it was designed by arguably the world expert on transit-oriented development and it was the choice of Markham and the developer to go that route instead of lowballing things.

I'm going to say this for the absolute last time and either you will manage to absorb it or you won't because you can't.
They DID evaluate other modes and they were very close building BRT and they did a STUDY and DETERMINED the the subway was the optimum mode. got it? you can read Metrolinx's Case Benefits Analysis if you want or, for that matter, IBI Group's study of how the modal share can be achieved. Like the renderings I posted, of which you were apparently previously ignorant, it is on the Internet.

Now dig this, again: I did not say LRT does not allow for development. That's obviously patently absurd. What I DID say is that quantum of the development in THIS hub, particularly on the Markham side, is reverse-engineered based on all the transit capacity converging there, including the subway.

And, lordy, did you know ANYTHING about this before forming an opinion? There IS high-order E/W travel planned. This will be one of the key stations on the 407 Transitway BRT system. If you don't know what it is, read up and get back to me. It is yet another reason it makes sense to have a subway so people are making a seamless transfer from E/W to head south into Toronto and, also for the 200th time, not just to Union Station. I've been on the subway at Finch in the morning and I assure you, those people are not all getting off at Union. How does a GO train help me if I work at Spadina and Bloor, to use one of 500 intersection examples I could have picked?

It is NOT redundant to have "two N/S commuter lines side by side" because the subway is NOT MERELY A COMMUTER line. Further, as I've now explained multiple times the capacity of RER AND
THE
SUBWAY
are required to achieve the density and modal split envisioned for this site. Read up, if you must:
http://www.calthorpe.com/langstaff

Is this getting through? Honestly?
I'll take a break from the thread. Call me when 44North is caught up.

 

[JGHali]

I can't wait to be able to live in a 50-storey condo tower next to the 407, especially one in walking distance from a subway station (provided you don't mind the long walk underneath said 407).

It's worth pointing out that any expanded GO RER will have stations intersecting with routes well to the north of Union. Of course Oriole Station isn't *that* far from the Sheppard subway. Either way, you haven't really explained why LRT down Yonge (and presumably north up to Major Mac or farther) is not an acceptable choice. It would serve density similarly and - for my personal bias - would be a lot more pleasant than having to descend into the depths in a tunnel (and be less technically challenging in the ravine portion, which I see as a technical challenge for any kind of subway route).

Finally, while many attribute condo construction on Sheppard (especially at Bayview) to the subway, the predominant modality in that area remains the car, and the new condos simply added to existing high rise apartments and condos that have been in the area for a long time. And for those in the area who take the "better way", they still have to transfer at Sheppard. Why can't people from York Region make a transfer at Finch?

 

[WislaHD]

So are there any plans from the Vaughan side to develop near the stations in Thornhill? I'm gonna guess between the power lines, the established neighborhoods and the NIMBY-ism not really. The stretch between Clark and Centre seems promising though.

Anyway regarding the topic of modal share, given the proximity of the highway 7 and the 407 and the short distance to the 404, I am highly skeptical of the high transit mode share. This seems like it would recreate the situation on Sheppard where people are buying condos due to the proximity to the highway and are still primarily driving to work.

 

[JGHali]

It isn't really on the Vaughan side. Between Clark and Arnold there are some very established (and relatively new) townhouses and a school (disclosure: my elementary school). Between Arnold and John there are a few sites where redevelopment is occurring (the old Mr Lube at Arnold and Yonge having given way to a condo), but apart from one or two strip malls, there's a stretch of "heritage district" closer to Centre, after which comes some townhouses and, well, the ravine.

On the Markham side, there are some strip malls that could go, but at Arnold there are already older apartment buildings. At John there's a newish (well in the last 20 years...) townhouse development, a little strip mall on the north side, and a few other small storefronts right on Yonge. This may be a "heritage" area and I think any kind of high rises would pretty much wreck this only remaining "small town" part of Thornhill.

The real prospects are south of Clark (and Doncaster) and especially south of the rail cut, but it won't take very long to fill them in.

Thornhill along Yonge between the ravine and Clark is already pretty much build-up, and there will be constraints from "heritage" issues and, of course, the kind of NIMBYism that can occur in the wealthiest suburb in the 905.

 

[TJ O'Pootertoot]

So are there any plans from the Vaughan side to develop near the stations in Thornhill? I'm gonna guess between the power lines, the established neighborhoods and the NIMBY-ism not really. The stretch between Clark and Centre seems promising though.

Anyway regarding the topic of modal share, given the proximity of the highway 7 and the 407 and the short distance to the 404, I am highly skeptical of the high transit mode share. This seems like it would recreate the situation on Sheppard where people are buying condos due to the proximity to the highway and are still primarily driving to work.

OK, I can still respond to sane, reasonable questions

As JGHali said, there is effectively no developable land on the Vaughan side, near Highway 7. however, there is substantial potential between Steeles and the heritage district, at Centre. They've already passed new zoning regulations for that stretch:
https://www.vaughan.ca/projects/policy_planning_projects/Pages/Yonge-Street-Area-Study.aspx

For the curious, Markham's corresponding study (also complete, also in place) for rezoning along Yonge, outside of the growth centre, is here:
http://dtah.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/Y-S-Corridor-Study-Document.pdf

In addition to the 50K new residents earmarked for the growth centre, I think these two studies account for something like another 30K; I may be lowballing there as I don't know EVERYTHING about this project off by heart. Sounds like enough to justify a subway to me, but clearly I've already got my mind made up, eh?

JGHali gives a good summary but there are few strip malls along the Markham side, north of Clark, that are also prime redvelopment sites (one across from the new Minto + the plot where the farmer's market and Octagon are). As he says, there are a few other strip malls closer to the heritage centre that are less likely to see major development but the old post office there has long been on the development block; I'd expect it to be replaced by a 4-6 story mid-rise kind of thing.

On the Vaughan side, the real keystone will be when the Roy Foss auto mall goes. That's something like 10 acres fronting on to Yonge and I wish I owned a piece of it because they will do well when the time comes.

I understand the skepticism about the modal share but you have to look at the layout. There is no way from inside Langstaff to get on the 407 or Highway 7; you'd have to go out to Yonge and Bayview first. But the main point, which I made above, is that with a normal development you would evaluate the road capacities of those streets first; here they were treated as afterthoughts. Things can be changed and worked around, no doubt, but the way the phasing is designed right now, the second and third phases cannot go forward until modal targets are achieved. So, by design, it can't really replicate the problem you rightly describe at Sheppard. (I'm actually curious but I suspect the modal share from the condos around NYCC, at Empress, are better than those in that Avondale area, by the 401.)

 

[44 North]

@tj pootertoot
Meh. Overly ambitious top-down planning which more than likely won’t come anywhere close to the expected employment, population, transit mode share numbers. Similar to other “centres†in the GTA. Funds are finite, we have numerous transportation infrastructure priorities, and light rail has been embraced worldwide for its cost-effectiveness in the RT department. Why build big to (more than likely) get medium? Oh right, to “prevent sprawl†(which has already been prevented with Greenbelt legislation); as well, to thwart the crazy notion of transferring between modes at Finch Stn (which isn’t really crazy at all, and would be thwarted regardless with interlined DRL-RH RER in place).

No subway, no intensification, more sprawl. Period.

Although your statement is logically unsound, I’m not saying you’re wrong. Rather pointing out that John Q will be stuck with the very hefty bill for little other reason than to give a region some higher towers than they could’ve gotten with a realistic and affordable transit system in-line with their pre-existing auto-centric, low-density, suburban environment. And I guess to also have the region temporarily put off tackling realistic growth management strategies – strategies which tend to come about regardless.

This is the reason Toronto has a threadbare transit system.