Moved my reply over to the SmartTrack thread to keep this thread on topic.
Toronto Spadina Subway Extension Emergency Exits | ?m | 1s | TTC | IBI Group
- Thread starter 299 bloor call control.
- Start date
Moved my reply over to the SmartTrack thread to keep this thread on topic.
Forgotten
Active Member
TJ O'Pootertoot would like to have a word about York regional planning with you. Spoiler alert for the abbreviated version: We're all wrong.
TJ O'Pootertoot
Senior Member
Hey, now. Just because North44 is so wrong about so many things doesn't mean everyone's wrong!
It's not breaking news this is how transit gets built around this region; it sucks. The irony (well, one of them) is that even if TYSSE wasn't a priority for Miller, the much-vaunted DRL wasn't either. Miller's priorities weren't that much more valid than Sorbara's and certainly the last few years have shown that there are few people who know less about proper transit planning than the collective mind that is Toronto City Council.
Fine, let's say Sorbara was "corrupt" or "selfish." I'll still that 20X a day over the "common sense" of the finance minister and premier that came before him. He built a subway - how horrible. It wasn't the best subway? It wasn't Toronto's priority? Fair enough - but it's still major transit infrastructure that connects Toronto to one of the fastest growing city's in the country; it goes a whole 4km into it.
Anyway, I personally think Vaughan could have been more ambitious with its plans for VMC but making illogical or unproveable statements like Northy (ie that it will be the epitome of bad planning in a hypothetical future), or hoping they'll stop the line at Steeles is counter-productive. The damn thing is built and, like every other half-assed project that gets approved in this region we should at least do our best with it. There's already some tower construction starting up there and certainly it's a long-term project but you could do worse.
44 North
Senior Member
Deluded apologist nonsense? No surprises there. Keep up the great work, Pooter!
TheTigerMaster
Superstar
Yes, it is that horrible. This underused subway, which will move only 7,000 pphpd at peak point, is an egregious misappropriation of taxpayers money. It will require millions of dollars in operational subsidies from the City of Toronto. This is money that could have gone a long way towards achieving actual priorities, such as implementing 100% accessibility across our rapid transit system
That doesn't mean that this is a bad investment per say. But it's an investment that came at the wrong time. The billions that were spent on TYSSE, and the tens of millions of dollars that will be spent on TYSSE operations should have been invested in more critical priorities, before investing it in TYSSE, which is very low on our list of priorities.
Last edited:
TJ O'Pootertoot
Senior Member
Here's the thing: I agree with you in principle. If this was the singular instance of someone usurping Toronto's well-informed, organized and consistent "critical priorities." But it's a little hard to be sympathetic in light of what's happened the past 5 years.
What are TTC's "critical priorities" that are being undermined? Transit City? The DRL? A subway in Scarborough? By most objective measures, the Spadina extension will be a better investment than Scarborough which, despite THREE council reversals, is still being kicked around for a possible fourth round. Toronto has proven itself utterly incapable of formulating priorities and standing by them and, hey, they're not alone there. That's been happening in this region for decades.
If I thought the DRL (or even the Yonge north extension, which 44North knows I'm a fan of) was delayed or undermined by TYSSE, that would be one thing. But they weren't. Nothing was. Indeed, as everyone probably knows and as I've said over on the other thread, DRL (a line that probably should have been built 30 years ago) only became a TTC/Toronto priority because of the Yonge extension.For a couple of years, despite Rob Ford, it was the critical priority. And now it's SmartTrack. And on and on it goes. (I'm certainly with you on accessibility and one could toss ATO in the mix too. I'd say Presto too, but TTC hasn't exactly lead the way there either when it comes to properly prioritizing.)
So, I'd like to see all this stuff (i.e. capital funding and project prioritization) taken away from the municipalities and put in the hands of Metrolinx. Maybe if that was the case 5 years ago, TYSSE doesn't get built and something else does and I would have been fine with that. But they weren't and it didn't and so I'm not. Should Jim Flaherty (or any federal finance minister) be funding subways based on handshake, quid pro deals instead of providing ongoing, fairly distributed funding to Canada's municipalities? Of course not. It's ridiculous.
In the meantime, the subway is happening. Like the amputated Sheppard line, it might not be ideal but it's something and, IMHO and as I already said, I think it's a far less-stupid decision than Scarborough was. At least Toronto taxpayers won't be on the hook for operating subsidies and 30 years of tax increases for capital funding. In the meantime, that ship has sailed and complaining about it, or imagining they might retroactively stop it at Steeles is unconstructive fantasy. It's better to hope the plans for VMC are realized, and that the Transitway is built, than to gripe pointlessly about deal two finance ministers made a decade ago, whatever it's legit flaws.
Last edited:
44 North
Senior Member
The development at Vaughan SmartCentres, er, Metropolitan Centre is fairly minimal – which doesn’t help the existing weak economic case for the Vaughan portion. One would think that with a UGC designation, anti-sprawl legislation, proximity to TO, not to mention the public’s shelling out of almost a Billion Dollars for heavy rail subway infrastructure (that’s supposed to have opened by now) – development in Vaughan would be farther along. Or that we’d at least see something resembling an urban environment. All things considered, I’d say it’s a bad investment.
I was up there a couple days ago to buy a new roller for a sliding door (because that’s what people do in a thronging high-density metropolitan centre) - and I wasn’t surprised at the lack of activity, or pedestrians, or anything resembling an area necessitating the costliest of all transportation infrastructure. It’s pretty quiet. And YRT/Viva ridership is obviously underwhelming and much lower than what was hoped for – as is evidenced by the empty stops and empty sidewalks. It’s quite apparent that if the Vaughan portion of TYSSE was its own line, it would forever replace Sheppard – and every other line/extension henceforth - as the scapegoat whipping boy of bad planning.
Right, hope. That about says it all. Ignore the past, present, ample evidence...just rely on "hope" and a seemingly perpetual state of disconnection.
Attachments
WislaHD
Superstar
What exactly are you critical of here 44North?
Do you think the plans won't materialize at all? This development is along a transit route, if planned well like Markham, why shouldn't it?
Do you think that Toronto/GTHA will not be growing in population as we expect it to be, and the demand for development will not be there?
Do you think that the VMC will fail to produce transit-oriented development with a high transit share? Do you think it will be automobile-dependent or have a higher automobile use than anticipated?
Do you think the plans won't materialize at all? This development is along a transit route, if planned well like Markham, why shouldn't it?
Do you think that Toronto/GTHA will not be growing in population as we expect it to be, and the demand for development will not be there?
Do you think that the VMC will fail to produce transit-oriented development with a high transit share? Do you think it will be automobile-dependent or have a higher automobile use than anticipated?
TJ O'Pootertoot
Senior Member
Gawd you really are the biggest boob on these boards.
As much as your GoogleMaps research is appreciated EVERYONE KNOWS there is hardly any development there right now. There was also hardly any development at Yonge and Finch in 1970 and fairly low level development (compared to what's there now) at Yonge and Empress in 1980.
Did they teach you about time in kindergarten?
Some of the SmartCentres land can't be developed until the subway (and bus terminal) is done though there are already 2 condo towers and one office tower going up (as pictured). I've seen the detailed Smart Centres plan (which isn't as impressive as Langstaff but I know you hate renderings so I won't bother) and it's not bad; with a finder street grid, a mix of uses and heights and all the other things you'd generally want to see. the vast majority of this is not there now, because it is the present, not the future. Aren't you the one who looks at Langstaff and tells me how plans change etc. etc.? Well a decade ago there weren't any plans at all for this area.
If you think KPMG is building an office tower, and the biggest big box developer in the country is doing a mixed-use neighborhood because it's a weak economic case, well I have a case of phone pagers I want to sell you; they beep if someone wants to call you and you're not by a landline. Wave of the future, Northy!
To reiterate: No one disputes Vaughan is building a "downtown from scratch." Your picture supports the existing reality of which we are all aware, so bully for you. (Also, Smart Centres is only about 1/2 the land and the Toromont site isn't even that advanced. They haven't moved out yet; also not a newsflash.)
You continue to demonstrate the most amazingly inept understanding of planning, it blows my mind. The UGC was designated in 2006. The new OP and secondary plan were approved....I forget, 2010-11? The subway wasn't funded until 2008 and won't open until 2017. do you think this is rural China, where cities just spring up overnight? Did you look at the Canadian Tire lands on Sheppard in 2000 and talk about what a bad investment development there would be? Are you actually a bot?
Right - you know better than Mitch Goldhar. I'm going to DM you offline about those beepers.
I can't decide what's funnier: "thronging" or your idea that big cities don't have "sliding door" stores. But, really, if you don't understand the concept of time, I know a few really good Star Trek episodes. The film, Boyhood is also really good.
Again, everyone knows this. I was just up there last week and what I find FASCINATING is that you didn't mention the massive construction going on there. The second Expo tower is going up. The KPMG tower is going up. Obviously there is a huge amount of work on the subway and the Viva lanes and the bus terminal. There is also a good half dozen cranes on towers going up over towards Weston. But I guess 30-storey towers at Weston and Highway 7 is just same ol same ol to you. Maybe once they're built you can wrap your head around it because the whole "future development" concept seems to weird you out. Crikey, even your picture shows 4 cranes in this big nowheresville where the subway hasn't even opened yet. You think there will be LESS development after or that maybe the massive parking lot and empty fields around Wal-Mart will get more of the same?
Hey man, it's better than ignoring reality, which seems to be your area of expertise.
Last edited:
CDL.TO
Moderator
I'm sure we can discuss the economics of transit expansion without resorting to ad hominems and insults.
Rainforest
Senior Member
It is not that horrible. It is well known that all governments are lousy investors, and public tax dollars are, more often than not, used inefficiently.
Yes it was a wrong priority, but at least something tangible and useful for the riders is getting built. It could be much worse; we all remember recent occasions (not related to transit) when tax dollars were wasted without any observable benefit at all.
Plus, I would not over-emphasize the operational subsidies this extension will require. If you think of it, outer ends of the majority of bus routes are heavily subsidized (same pay rate for driver-hours, same wear and tear of vehicles, but fewer passengers). Almost all late evening transit trips, and weekend early morning trips, are heavily subsidized for the same reason. The nature of urban transit service is such that certain operations fare poorly on the cost to revenue basis, but are still needed for the system's integrity.
CapitalSeven
Senior Member
Sure, the private sector is much better. Why, look at the great success of Target!
Seriously, governments are made up of citizens and largely do what citizens want, whether we like to admit it or not. Often it seems to come down to pandering, moreso in Toronto than some other places, dare I say it.
diminutive
Active Member
And yet most people see no issue with spending significantly more on Eglinton for an underground train that will carry significantly less than than 7,000 pphpd at peak.
Maybe that's a bit snarky, but at least Sorbara's being honest as to why the subway exists. I prefer the honesty to the 'revelation' approach to transit planning whereby things like the ECLRT are just deemed 'common sense.' I'm increasingly pessimistic that it's even theoretically possible to have a system that promotes projects along an objective cost/benefit basis.
At some basic level, I don't think it makes sense to have the proponent agency (e.g. the TTC, Metrolinx) conduct the EA. Has there ever been an EA where the preferred option going into the EA wasn't validated? Ideally the proponent agency should have to apply to a separate body for approval based on universal, statutory, criteria.
Platform 27
Active Member
That's exactly how an EA works. The proponent has to demonstrate to neutral, objective staff at the Ministry of the Environment that:
- all the impacts of a transit project on the natural, built and cultural environment have been properly accounted for
- if necessary, viable mitigation measures have been incorporated or can be incorporated that will reduce those impacts
- any residual impacts are within various technical standards (ie noise thresholds, air pollution guidelines, archaeological policies etc.)
In Canada, anyway, EAs aren't ever meant to be a process that guides decision-makers to the highest performing transit project or the best value transit project or the most community-friendly transit project. You're asking for something completely different than an EA -- a kind of statutory process for corridor-level project design.
I think there's something to be said for making proponents lay out more of the evidence behind their decisions and be challenged by peer reviewers and so on before project scopes get set, but it's a bit naive to think "universal, statutory criteria" are possible that will tell you 100% of the time without a shred of doubt whether a certain corridor should be an LRT or a BRT, or whether a certain 1.5 km stretch of a transit line should have two stops or three.
Last edited:
CapitalSeven
Senior Member
On the other hand, the process for the Scarborough extension is looking at some very different ways of getting from point A to B, rather than just evaluating the original idea. But it is true that it's not really looking at whether the extension is the best idea. They already did that study, which said it was the worst idea. But people want subways, subways, subways.