I don't think SPEEDING UP is accurate; Vaughan's 2015 outward growth isn't like 2005 or 1995. But, as I think I said upthread, I do agree they haven't slammed the brakes on it as hard as I'd like. They opened up new whitebelt lands whereas I think they could have been more aggressive with the VMC targets and more reluctant to open new land until we've seen how that goes. There is infill along arterials just outside the centre, at Weston/7 but, as pointed out above, Jane Street is largely industrial park that won't go anywhere and the 407 is a barrier to the south. That said, there's still a lot of land - both still greenfield and ready for replacement - within the UGC.
(And as with my point above, one benefit of LRT over subway is the streetscape it can create. That would have had no effect on Jane between Steeles and 7.)
Their opening up of the white belt is one of the things I take issue with. It’s hard to brush it off as some bygone era called “the pastâ€, when it was only a couple years ago. It’s kinda bs IMO that despite all the warning bells, a city can just plow the landscape with sprawl for decades – then continue doing so despite preventative legislation, or claims of being forward-thinking. They’re speaking out of both sides of their mouth, and building the polar opposites of urban form: outward sprawl + high-density downtown. Why not proactive measures, or the entire spectrum of options in between?
P2G didn’t come out of the blue. Anti-sprawl measures were a long time coming, and the ball got rolling in the 90s. The legislation’s inevitable existence should’ve been taken into consideration a generation ago as a future reality. It wasn’t. And in spite of all this, they were given a subway extension that really did come out of left field.
Like where? Again, the prime sites are right by the station box. I admit I'm a bit surprised the land on the south side of 7 (north of Interchange) hasn't startedup yet, but I'm certainly not concerned that it will. Again, consider the timelines: The UGC was designated in 2006 but that was a meaningless dot on a map until the zoning was put in place and that was less than 5 years ago. (Plus there was a whole deal with Toromont and their desire to move that pushed back the schedule on their lands. I can't remember when they're supposed to finally head north.)
Hmm. I’m not sure. I may’ve been wrong on that. For a green/brownfield, I thought some of the WDL blocks finished within 5yrs of secondary plan. Not sure tho. For a major infill, Regent Park seemed like things moved quickly: Secondary plan I believe in 07, and by ‘12 one block was completed with a second underway. Obviously there are considerable differences, and I can’t think of any examples where major developments/communities really did move “fasterâ€, so I may’ve jumped the gun there.
Re: zoning and secondary plans for VMC...yes, 5yrs isn’t much. But I am actually surprised more blocks haven’t been filling in. And there’s no rule saying it’s gotta be the “prime sites†next to the station. My point is that the subway’s opening was 2015 for all intents and purposes, they’re next door to the biggest/densest city in the country, it’s the 21stC, and that rather than promptly moving towards making zoning changes there or elsewhere - Vaughan continued with sprawl.
I agree with the general principle and I think we've both said before the overall system of project prioritization and funding is messed-up. The mode, at least in this case, is really a red herring as the subway to York U was being discussed for a long time. Sorbara just got it to come further north. The node's location also strikes me as irrelevant. Yes, it's (partly) a "vacant lot" but it's not some random spot in Caledon. It is just barely north of Toronto in one of the country's fastest growing municipalities -- a municipality that needed incentive to intensify -- and it is one of 3 growth centres aligned along a major east-west corridor. (obviously, this all applies as well to Langstaff/RHC).
Yeah, but it’s the nonchalant and innocuous “
Sorbara just got it to come further north†line that I have a problem with, and is basically what reignited this page. Vaughan’s “incentive to intensify†should’ve been the fact that the city is an uncoordinated sprawling mess – which continued sprawling until they ran out of land. That it required 2.4km of the highest order of transportation in existence (equating to almost a $1 Billion backroom pork barrel, plus op losses in perpetuity) as “incentive†to smarten up I see as ridiculous.
An extension to York U is a different story (seeing that it’s a major university, with an existing transit-using population in the vicinity, and was ID’d for quite some time). However I’d still have preferred if more affordable railed alternates were at least looked at closely. Or if this
sixth extension of Line 1 was more weighed against other unrealized priorities.
If you're going to question the designation of VMC, you're basically questioning any UGC that's not an established centre (be it downtown Toronto, NYCC, downtown Oshawa, or wherever). Part of the point of P2G was to bring high order transit (LRT, in some cases!) to "vacant lots" in suburbs and build something sustainable there. You seem to have issues with the idea this could work out and, like I said, it's a legit opinion. I still think it's a smart move and Yonge/7 and Jane/7 have very strong potential to work.
Okay, but even prior to any Prov “UGC†designation, there’s still a major difference between an “established centreâ€, a pre-existing area with ‘centre’-like qualities, an area where people actually walk, and (in Vaughan’s case) a few parking lots and fields with empty or nonexistent sidewalks. VMC really does stand out amongst the majority of UGCs.
https://www.placestogrow.ca/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=372&Itemid=15#3
And my questioning the Centres plan isn’t some wild assumption. We’ve had “centres†before. What has happened? Less growth, less jobs, less transit mode share, less pedestrians than was promised. I know you like to use NYCC as a reminder of what can exist if we have hope. But NYCC was probably the most successful “centreâ€, so it as a comparison is a red herring. Further, it had a pre-existing grid system of streets, homes, pedestrians, businesses, civic buildings, busy routes, high transit usage etc. And IMO every other area in TO that went on to become a “centre†was also in no way comparable to VMC.
Fact is, VMC is undeveloped but it's not nowhere and if they were going to porkfully drive a subway up there, it remains laudable to they tied that into a larger transportation network and growth plan. While I once again think Vaughan could have been even more ambitious than they have been, they're also not taking the "highest-echelon" gift they've been given for granted and should be given credit for that.
I believe they
are ‘taking it for granted’. Case in point: continuing to sprawl on the whitebelt. They didn’t need to do that – regardless of whether they were gifted a subway or not. As for this “larger transportation network and growth planâ€. Yes, both of these are very connected and feed off one another. Unfortunately both are really screwed up at the moment. How much of the Big Move is on schedule, funded, or still existing as a plan? How many UGCs and municipalities’ growth plans are affected by the Prov screwing the pooch? And this isn’t just a recent revelation. There were always glaring issues with MO2020 and the Big Move – and by extension P2G and UGCs. I wouldn’t be at all surprised if more municipalities will be allowed to sprawl (e.g Markham since YN is delayed indefinitely)
You're tying together cause and effect too neatly. I totally agree plans get undermined and pushed aside and there are all sorts of ways in which opportunities are being missed. But THIS project didn't push anything back in any concrete way. It's easy to make that point with Scarborough because:
a) they very specifically passed up a fully-funded LRT for an unfunded subway
b) they did this at the same time they were talking about the DRL
If SmartTrack gets approved, it won't be much less of a "pork" move by Tory, except that he was piggbacking on a provincial RER plan.
I believe it has pushed things back for the reasons of high cost, use of resources, and lengthy construction time. IIRC Byford was quoted during TYSSE news that the TTC is bogged down with too many projects. I know you’re going to point fingers; or reply with a post about why this is reason we should cede the entire TTC and TO transportation planning/construction to the Prov/Metrolinx. But we didn’t (and hopefully never will). Another point is the ancillary issues re: precedence of constructing TO’s only subway project in ages to another city. A city where very few use transit, and for the last few decades has been the epitome of poorly planned auto-centric suburban sprawl.
Although I can’t see any parallels between TYSSE and Scarb Subway, it’s interesting you brought up Scarboro because I think one key reason the SRT issue came back for debate is due to this aforementioned precedence. A low density suburb outside the 416 gets the costliest transit infrastructure in existence. Whereas Scarborough (which is more than twice the size and decades older) gets a short extension, continued forced transfer, with similar trains as what exists now, using identical infrastructure. Although I support grade-separate light metros like the SLRT (and put them in the exact same class as Heavy Rail subways), it’s pretty obvious this perceived inequality would create strife. STC exists, has for quite some time, people in Scarb use transit and walk, and the existing transit line req’d upgrading anyway. I definitely can't say the same about VMC.
*Apologies if this was a bit long-winded and repetitive, but some of the points I consider as being more current than past.
