TheTigerMaster
Superstar
By “Toronto” did they mean City of Toronto or Geeater Toronto Area? I assumed the latter.
- Thread starter 299 bloor call control.
- Start date
By “Toronto” did they mean City of Toronto or Geeater Toronto Area? I assumed the latter.
micheal_can
Senior Member
Look at thee structures along the various routes. None of them are as dense as along any of the TTC rapid transit routes. Even the Streetcar routes have more density.
As the BRT is improved, and eventually turned to an LRT, there will be more demand to change the single house suburbs to more dense structures.
WislaHD
Superstar
I'm more stating the present conditions as a matter of fact than knocking future densification potential.
I am a big fan of the notion of sprawl repair. I hope York Region receives all the TLC it can get.
micheal_can
Senior Member
I think the true test will be what happens to the area around the current extension. That may set the scene for Youge to be extended north.
TJ O'Pootertoot
Senior Member
Nah, I don't think it's relevant. I mean, VMC is off to an OK start - a few condos, a nice office tower - but it has a ways to go.
But VMC is still an island, separated by a few KM from York U. Yonge Street is the region's main street and highrises have been marching north from the 401 since the mid-80s. but for our non-existing regional planning and infrastructure and funding challenges, it should have been done first. Then THAT extension could have served as a test for something like the VMC greenfield development. Highrise development on Yonge Street is a foregone conclusion, subway or not.
Alas, evidence doesn't factor into many of our decisions in this regard.
But VMC is still an island, separated by a few KM from York U. Yonge Street is the region's main street and highrises have been marching north from the 401 since the mid-80s. but for our non-existing regional planning and infrastructure and funding challenges, it should have been done first. Then THAT extension could have served as a test for something like the VMC greenfield development. Highrise development on Yonge Street is a foregone conclusion, subway or not.
Alas, evidence doesn't factor into many of our decisions in this regard.
micheal_can
Senior Member
I think that the main reason that the VMC was done is that leg of the line is not as busy as the Youge leg. Until the DRL is built and in revenue service, this extension likely wont happen, no matter how badly it is needed.
44 North
Senior Member
I agree with your second point, but with the first part it comes across as a bit petty. And overly biased considering the paragraphs preceding/following it. Hopefully no offense.
For starters Toronto's a big city so obviously we can have more than a single priority at a time. Not to mention we're still haunted by the ghosts of pre-amalgamatin planning so in a way we're a multitude of cities. And naturally one could reach and say that SSE is taking from RL considering the limited funding pool. But that's not fully true. Line 3 required big upgrading before it even opened over 3 decades ago, and it's always been a longstanding priority to deal with. The choice now is replace with Line 2 extn - viewed beneficially by some, not some much by others. *I support neither, but whatever that's another thread's issue.
Interestingly tho when you try to view everything with an attempt to be holistic, almost all the points spouted in favour of SSE are the same used in favour of YNSE. Think about it. We can't force a transfer, we must connect with the backbone or spine or whatever useless term, it's only xx km, we can't have an orphan, we have to build for the future, development is only spurred by an underground heavy rail subway that goes downtown, a centre must be seamlessly connected. Etc, etc.
So, really, if you support this extension then I feel by default you should be 100% behind SSE, arguably moreso. And after York Region flipflopped on wanting a subway then managed to get it placed as one of the first priorities of the Big Move, it did that with ridership about half that as SLRT and similar peak #s. Not to mention terminating at a lowly downtown that doesn't exist and is put to shame by Scarb Ctr many times over, which is saying a lot. IMO the debate between SSE and Line 3 upgrade was one of the most open, dynamic, and democratic that we've had. Extending Line 1 to however far it's going now, not so much. And when was the last time you saw any updated pricetag in a headline/byline?
All things considered the points in favour of SSE are eerily similar to those of YNSE, and in my eyes if someone really questions one (and its priority, or politics, or modeling parameters, or costs, or general merit vs other options) then by default they should question the other.
Not likely, but simply won't come online without RL. One of the best things our City Council has done is telling the Prov, Metrolinx, and York Region to take a seat. They kicked and screamed, but it's been made clear and officialized years ago.
WislaHD
Superstar
@44 North
When you compare YNSE to SSE, are you comparing merely the portion north of Steeles, or the extension as a whole?
I can agree (to an extent) that north of Steeles is a more questionable endeavour, but surely the extension to Steeles has more merit than SSE does, no? I am measuring in terms of ridership, connectivity to routes, intensification potential, and the inadequacy of alternative options. On all fronts, the Yonge extension to Steeles blows SSE out of the water.
When you compare YNSE to SSE, are you comparing merely the portion north of Steeles, or the extension as a whole?
I can agree (to an extent) that north of Steeles is a more questionable endeavour, but surely the extension to Steeles has more merit than SSE does, no? I am measuring in terms of ridership, connectivity to routes, intensification potential, and the inadequacy of alternative options. On all fronts, the Yonge extension to Steeles blows SSE out of the water.
44 North
Senior Member
Neither. Was more trying to put the decisions behind two extensions in perspective (in a general sense), not attempting to make 1:1 comparisons of their respective merit. But on the whole, for one project at least we got to weigh a highly competitive and similarly-priced alternative.
Cobra
Senior Member
Both needed. Still a shame that this city won't consider elevated subways in regards to Scarborough. I find this lack of vision and creativity disturbing to be honest
TJ O'Pootertoot
Senior Member
Even in a big city, you have to rank priorities.
Just like how in the 60s there was tonnes of great music but only one song could actually be #1 each week.
Speaking of classic hits...
Yeah, there are overlapping issues here. I know you're talking to WislaHD but I also obviously simplify when I say that (for example) SSE has "taken away" from this line or that line. Even more than the money, it's about focus. Forget about how much more SSE is costing and you're still left with nearly a decade of wasted time from building Transit City, whatever its flaws.
Toronto now seems to have a rough sense that SSE and SmartTrack and DRL are the "top priorities" but you can't really point to a 5-year period where you can easily say what council's priorities are, in any sense of order. Sequencing, when building a network, is important. I don't accept that you can't just say, "Oh, it's a big city - you can't expect them to know which piece has to go first."
I did. You're entirely wrong because your attempt to be "holistic" ignores the reality of the geographical and economical and planning context.
Neither I nor anyone else (for the 50th time) said "development is ONLY spurred by an underground heavy rail subway' on Yonge. That's the SSE argument because almost nothing has happened there. With Yonge the argument is (obviously - open your eyes!) that development is happening on its own already and that the capacity a subway provides is needed to maximize it.
I could spend all day listing the other 50 or so things the 2 lines don't have in common but I'll just remind you (Because I'm pretty sure you know) that the YNSE would reinforce and spur intensification along an entire corridor, with multiple stations and intersections, whereas the one-stop SSE will only allow for intensification at the terminus. Yeah, I like talking about Langstaff and the RHC development potential but that's IN ADDITION to the Yonge corridor. SSE has no corridor, by design.
No - only if you've never seen a map, never been to Scarborough or North York or otherwise don't know the difference between the surface of Yonge Street and the surface of the proposed SSE route.
Oh, good we're back to you shifting from nonsense to outright wrongness.
There was no flip-flop. It's absurd to mention that in the context of the SSE, which had a good 5 outright flip-flops.
I always make sure to say AS YOU KNOW because we both know the points you make, when they're obviously wrong, aren't things you're actually unaware of but to be clear: YR planned for intensification along Yonge and 7 and received funding to build the BRT system. It was THE PROVINCE who announced the subway as part of Move2020, and they clearly caught YR off guard doing so.
That they put the BRT on hold to go with what the province said - and that they adjusted all their planning to maximize intensification along the corridor - is laudatory, not hypocritical, as you would disingenuously portray it.
By all logic, saying the same thing over and over should merely be EQUALLY wrong and yet somehow when you say it over and over it gets MORE wrong each time.
The only eerie thing is you seeing things that aren't there.
I can question both and still come to the opposite conclusions, because I have eyes and can see the difference between the non-corridor in Scarborough and the 200+-year history of development on Yonge Street. Totally different contexts, no matter what "similarities' you try to list about transfers and whatnot. To suggest they are similar projects honestly strikes me as absurd. Was it 50 pages ago we had Keesmaat quoted as saying that Scarborough centre was not yet primed for development. You gonna tell me the same applies to Yonge/Steeles? Absurd.
Maybe you're right that there are similarities "in a general sense." But in a specific one, there aren't.
Cobra
Senior Member
@TJ O'Pootertoot
Pretty sure YNSE isn't happening without Relief Long, but you're still fun to read
Pretty sure YNSE isn't happening without Relief Long, but you're still fun to read
TJ O'Pootertoot
Senior Member
At my best I do aim both to inform and to entertain
I agree about the lack of creativity - we can't keep trying to do these things this way.
Maaaaybe it makes sense, in terms of capacity to wait for RL long (which remains barely above a fantasy level, while Yonge still has an approved EA, albeit one surely in need of updating) but politically, I don't think there's a chance it will take that long. The growth in YR (and in Toronto, on Yonge) will force the issue and, ironically, maybe that will get the RL long going (just as the initial Yonge push got the DRL on the table).
In this region, I don't bet on anything
44 North
Senior Member
Meh the entire framework of your lengthy post is flawed seeing that it's premised on the assumption I wrote subway extension vs nothing. Or I guess subway extension vs BRT ultra-lite (which to be fair is akin to nothing). That's the official history so it may be hard to expand off it. But either way that was one of the cruxes of my reply to Wisla. Unlike with YNSE, with the SSE debate we had subway extension vs standalone subway - two highly competitive options. Then a fairly open discussion about configurations of each using shifting parameters, creeping costs, and merits (of which marching condos is just a part).
Not once did I say or even allude that the corridors are identical. However regarding those loose quotes and talking points in my reply further up, I have most definitely seen them many times, in varying media, by an array of people, spanning...decades.
TJ O'Pootertoot
Senior Member
Judge for yourself readers of Urban Toronto. I've given up.
But you're correct - never said "identical." Just that almost all the points are the same and that they're "eerily similar."
Still wrong and you're still having this "only a subway" fight with yourself. I hope one day you win.
If you're saying, somewhere in there, that every project should begin with a case benefits analysis that assesses various modes for the prospective corridor, I agree. And I've never said otherwise.With YNSE they kind of skipped that step and then did the CBA after (which I know you find flawed). With SSE, every CBA (including the one leaked in the Star today) says the project is an utter waste. Council voted against a CBA when presented with the option. And when you are making those assessments, the development and itennsification potential are significant factors; YNSE kicks SSE's but on that count, if we're arguing similarities.
So the similarities remain superficial except that they're both "suburban subways" with politicized planning processes.