nfitz
Superstar
The question was had they announced it.please, explain to me how the province plans to construct $34 billion in transport projects using a paltry $14 billion.
The question was had they announced it.please, explain to me how the province plans to construct $34 billion in transport projects using a paltry $14 billion.
They'll get pushed back 15 years and then it'll again be a TTC subway.
I'm very much aware of that. When I write "rhetorically speaking", and quote the same numbers found in Webster's report, and make it readily apparent that Sheppard doesn't carry such high numbers - I think it should be obvious that I know the projections weren't right. This is the point I'm making: If Sheppard's projections were wrong, then couldn't Yonge North's or VMC's numbers be a "sham" also? Why are their ultra-high forecasts guaranteed, but Sheppard's weren't?
Well, they're not of course.
Only time will tell but, personally, I'm highly skeptical of the projections for VMC. It's in the 905, sure, but the site doesn't offer the low costs associated with greenfield sites on the fringe or the agglomeration benefits of higher cost locations like downtown Toronto or, arguably, IT companies in Markham. There's a reason why MCC has seen no office development in decades. VMC will offer an interesting experiment... is a subway connection and lower property taxes than the 416 all it takes to meet office development goals?
I'm more supportive of Yonge North because I think it's far more justified by current circumstances and depends far less on hypothetical future development. Yonge is already a relatively busy corridor, as is Hwy 7 East.
In other words, RHC bolsters the case for Yonge North while the case for the Vaughan Extension is dependent upon plans for VMC being delivered upon as promised.
Well, they're not of course.
Only time will tell but, personally, I'm highly skeptical of the projections for VMC. It's in the 905, sure, but the site doesn't offer the low costs associated with greenfield sites on the fringe or the agglomeration benefits of higher cost locations like downtown Toronto or, arguably, IT companies in Markham. There's a reason why MCC has seen no office development in decades. VMC will offer an interesting experiment... is a subway connection and lower property taxes than the 416 all it takes to meet office development goals?
I'm more supportive of Yonge North because I think it's far more justified by current circumstances and depends far less on hypothetical future development. Yonge is already a relatively busy corridor, as is Hwy 7 East.
In other words, RHC bolsters the case for Yonge North while the case for the Vaughan Extension is dependent upon plans for VMC being delivered upon as promised.
Agreed completely. The history of transit in the GTA (in most places actually, but the GTA specifically in this case) has shown that rapid transit routes that are built as upgrades to existing lower capacity routes that are approaching capacity are much more successful than routes that don't follow pre-established ridership patterns, and are instead based on "build it and they will come".
I don't think anyone would argue that had the Spadina Subway been built up Dufferin, it would have higher ridership than it does today. The Yonge Subway extension to RHC is very much in keeping with the rationales behind the original Yonge and Bloor-Danforth Subways, while the Spadina extension to VMC seems to be an even further stretch of the rationale that lead to the original Spadina Subway.
I'm more supportive of Yonge North because I think it's far more justified by current circumstances and depends far less on hypothetical future development. Yonge is already a relatively busy corridor, as is Hwy 7 East.
In other words, RHC bolsters the case for Yonge North while the case for the Vaughan Extension is dependent upon plans for VMC being delivered upon as promised.
Agreed completely. The history of transit in the GTA (in most places actually, but the GTA specifically in this case) has shown that rapid transit routes that are built as upgrades to existing lower capacity routes that are approaching capacity are much more successful than routes that don't follow pre-established ridership patterns, and are instead based on "build it and they will come".
Other cities may not always do subway lines that follow existing surface routes, but they do follow general travel patterns. The RL will tap into a huge passenger flow that goes from the northeast into downtown and east-west through downtown. Some of the streetcars follow that route more or less, but they can't address that demand. So from a mass transit perspective they might as well not even be there.Ya, I guess that’s true. Though unlike TO, I see it as a common practice elsewhere to build routes that don’t follow pre-established surface patterns. But instead of it being a drawback, a major benefit of these lines is that they arc across and intersect several corridors, and carry riders along the hypotenuse/diagonal (don’t know the technical term). NYC, Washington, Boston, Chicago...these cities have many routes radiating in all directions from the CBD and old city. Whereas in TO - aside from Univ-Spad, and the tail ends of B/D - our subway system seems fairly unique for strictly following roads and former surface routes. This is one of the things I like so much about the DRL east branch: it somewhat mirrors University-Spadina’s arc, and allows for a curving line that can carry riders more directly than if done disjointedly along existing surface routes.
Other cities may not always do subway lines that follow existing surface routes, but they do follow general travel patterns. The RL will tap into a huge passenger flow that goes from the northeast into downtown and east-west through downtown. Some of the streetcars follow that route more or less, but they can't address that demand. So from a mass transit perspective they might as well not even be there.
Potential Inline Stations to Serve Key Activity Areas
Key Station Evaluation Findings:
West of the Don River
Stations along Sherbourne have more potential because of higher population and employment densities
A station at Regent Park addresses social equity and could support redevelopment
Front / Cherry serves areas of new development and can provide surface transit connections to the Portlands
King / Cherry is physically constrained with less redevelopment potential
Lakeshore / Cherry and River / Queen would be challenging to construct and would have flooding risks
East of the Don River
Pape / Gerrard has good redevelopment potential and offers opportunities for multiple connections to existing and future transit
Queen / Broadview has connections with multiple streetcar routes and supports redevelopment opportunities
Unilever site has good redevelopment potential and opportunities to connect to future transit; however, there are technical challenges (such as flood protection and soil contamination)
Queen / Degrassi and Queen / Jones are physically constrained
- See more at: http://reliefline.ca/current-work/psa-results#sthash.eh2BxgiJ.dpuf