Fair enough. But why wouldn’t light RT substantially increase land value just as a subway would? YRT could simply brand the light RT line as a “subway” or “metro”, and YR could zone the same as they would if it were an extension of Y/US. Surely meaningless semantics would have little effect on land values and upzoning attempts?
Lordy, you're really making this up as you go along. First you say an LRT objectively makes way more sense than a subway and then you suggest that it's just SEMANTICS as far as development is concerned? As you can see, graphically, right above the zoning is ALREADY IN PLACE for a subway-level of development. Where do you get that a developer can't tell the difference between the density he can get with an LRT vs. a subway? Were you paying ZERO attention during the four years of Rob Ford because I don't know how else you could suggest that anyone would buy the difference between the two modes can be reduced to SEMANTICS. It's unfortunate that man poisoned the well on a form of RT that is most certainly needed various places in Toronto and the GTA but if nothing else he proved that no one buys (and certainly not developers and municipalities!!) there is no difference between the two.
I assure you, when they are zoning and planning, and when developers submit applications, they most certainly know the difference between the two no matter what "branding" is used. And the final word goes to the OMB and they look at the Growth Plan and they look at the zoning and they make a decision. The word "semantics" isn't even in their vocabulary. This equivocating may be the weakest link in your already weak chain.
And BMO gives a fine summary of why a 3-km LRT makes no sense but you just dismiss it. If Viva was an LRT, from Finch up to Newmarket, that would be different. But we are only talking about from Finch to 7 which means it's not a backbone; it's a band-aid. That's what he was saying.
And, as I already explained to you, multiple times, the direct correlation between subway capacity and density here. LRT makes sense in many places; not here. But here's the real problem:
Scroll up and look at the title of this thread. Let it sink in.
It's not "York Region Rapid Transit Possibilities." It is a SUBWAY. It is ALREADY PLANNED. People on this thread keep debating all these fine points and coming up with wonderful "What if" scenarios. I don't care if you think LRT is better or if you have a better plan than Eisenhower for invading Europe or if you've figured out the best way to get caramel inside a Caramilk bar. Either way, you're too late.
Everyone here has an idea about something that would be better as if there isn't an EA on file with a preferred alignment and station locations etc. etc.
IT HAS ALREADY HAPPENED. That part of it is done. The subway is in the province's plans, the region's plans and even the city's plans. It is PLANNED because when you are planning, that's what you do.
You like talking about factors explaining our "threadbare" transit system. I'll tell you that "coming up with a plan and then either changing or scrapping it before it's implemented" is in my Top 3.
Some riders would make that transfer at Finch Stn from an LRT to subway; others would transfer to RH RER (particularly one interlined with a DRL, which hasn’t been looked at). Others would transfer to a 407 Transitway. A switch between modes will happen regardless of whether the subway is extended. And a mode above BRT and below Subway is an inevitability for a growing suburban metropolis.
Now you're making up a transit system that doesn't exist to accommodate your theories. You're right no one has looked at an interlined DRL. You would also be right if you pointed out that the RH line one of the furthest down the list for electrification. So how is that a superior alternative to a project with a complete EA and updated zoning already in place?!
More reason for long-haul commuters to use improved and faster commuter rail, and not a local-service mass transit system. Are people aware of the similarities in services that would be offered by an improved/rerouted RH RER line? Once the next Relief Line study comes out, I think the findings will be just as transferable to the issue of serving RHC with higher order transit other than a subway ext.
You are apparently and obviously unaware but Metrolinx is doing a system/region-wide relief study that supersedes (but dovetails with) the DRL study. I'm done with posting links to relevant topics you don't know about, however. That study will address all these things whereas the DRL study is likely to have a narrow, Toronto-centric approach. Anyway, you keep missing the fundamental point which is that all this planning is aimed at REDUCING the number of long-haul commuters by creating situations (through better transit connections and more mixed-use development) that REDUCE how far people have to travel to work.
If all you can wrap your head around is how many ways we can come up with to keep sending people to the CBD, you're missing the raison d'etre of the entire planning regime, to say nothing of the planned transit network.
To have an initial trunk system in place offering the potential for connections to future LRT projects north of 7. Or along a potential 407 Transitway using LRT. Why continually extend a subway line just to delay YR’s inevitable building of a railed transit system of their own (one more practical, adaptable, affordable, and realistic to their municipalities’ environs)?
I don't know if I can think of anything LESS inevitable than YR devising its own railed transit system. Again, I am left wondering if you have seen YR's official plan, or Toronto's or Markham's or a little Metrolinx document called The Big Move. Because NONE OF THEM account for a YR rail system any more than they account for an interlined DRL any more than they account for Star Trek-style transporters. Why do you refuse to engage with the ACTUAL transit system and ACTUAL plans?
You're "confounded" about why LRT was dismissed because you refuse to understand the planning and political processes that have taken place prior to now. You refuse to understand what I've explained about how Langstaff Gateway was planned and you refuse to understand the history of the corridor. Again, I point you to the title of the thread. The SUBWAY is PLANNED; past tense.
Sincerely, you mystify me. Confound me, to use your word. I wish I could accede to your wishes to not reply - I really do. It's a compulsion at this point.
