Ideally, transit and urban development would go hand in hand. Should we address areas that have the existing densities to support LRT or subways, first? Absolutely.
In your last post you said subways should always be built to nowhere. So which is it? These two viewpoints are mutually exclusive.
But does that mean, we should turn down opportunities to build dense neighbourhoods from scratch when the chance arises? I think not. Here we have a unique opportunity to ensure that new development meets density standards necessary to support a subway. By your rationale, we should not support it. Instead we should send regional rail out there, wait 30 years, then build a subway, and then re-develop the area to the density we will get with building the subway in the first place.
Two points. First, I never said I don't support the Yonge subway extension. What I don't support is constant suburban subway extensions at the expense of subway expansion in the central area. An adequate subway system was never built downtown and that needs to be addressed.
Second, a lot of people seem to have this idea that subways are necessary to build dense neighbourhoods in the suburbs, and that buildings subways will ensure that dense neighbourhoods will develop. Neither is the case. Even in Toronto there are numerous examples of sprawling communities with subway access, and dense, transit-supportive communities with no subway access. Heavy rail subways are completely unnecessary to develop dense walkable communities in the suburbs.
You infer that regional rail isn't enough to serve the needs of a dense suburban neighbourhood, and that a subway will have to be built eventually. This isn't the case. Metrolinx's own reports state that regional rail (or express rail, as it calls it) can have similar capacity to subways. Look at a city like New York, where the subways don't go far into the suburbs. There are vast areas outside the city that are more dense and urban than any GTA suburb, and they're not served by subways at all. Insted, they rely on regional rail networks. Stations are located in tightly knit urban communities instead of GO Transit-style parking lots. Australian cities get by without real subways at all - their entire urban rail systems are regional rail.
Regional rail is much more capable that people here seem to think. I think people are stuck on the idea that regional rail = GO trains.
Keith is being the voice of sanity here. York Region and the province have mandated that dense development is the new norm in the burbs and making those communities "transit-oriented" is the key to making them work and keeping cars off roads in the burbs and downtown. A dense development that doesn't have rapid transit from day one will fail. The desire to get "ahead of the curve" is a crucial concept of modern transit planning since failing to do so has created the car culture which is now collapsing.
Getting ahead of the curve and building rapid transit doesn't necessitate subways. See my points above. And your assertion that dense development without rapid transit will fail is not obviously true. Large areas south of Bloor have no rapid transit but they're thriving and very dense. MCC doesn't have rapid transit and it's not failing at all. People's criticisms of it are mostly design-related (more on that in my next paragraph).
People bitch about how everyone in the burbs drives and people shop in big box stores. Well, that's because they never had a subway (or rapid transit). It's not a chicken/egg argument anymore.
It's much more complicated than that. Rapid transit alone does nothing to make, say, downtown Vaughan an urban community. It might create more demand for development, but at best that would result in another MCC unless a long list of other issues is addressed. Rapid transit is just one piece of the puzzle, and rapid transit doesn't have to be subway.
People in the suburbs drive everywhere and shop in big box stores because the entire area is designed for cars - subdivison layouts, street design, land use, architecture, and density all contribute to that. A suburb can be designed from scatch to be urban and dense without subways. A proper regional rail network can accomplish just as much, for less money.
MisterF - if you think that Highway 7 is "nowhereseville" or an "outer suburb" you need to leave downtown more often. As myself and others have said, there is virtually nothing that changes as you cross Steeles aside from the government - especially on Yonge.
Newmarket may be an outer suburb but Thornhill hasn't met that definition since Mel Lastman was elected mayor. Of North York.
My post was a response to Keithz's general statement that subways should always be built to nowhere. I didn't say that Highway 7 is nowheresville. I didn't say that I'm opposed to the Yonge extension specifically. I didn't say that anything changes once you cross Steeles. And I'm rarely downtown. It doesn't make for very good debate when you put words in people's mouths and throw up red herrings.
As for serving downtown first, Transit City is Toronto's "answer" for that and it does not involve a DRL or any other subway so while this board seems just about unanimous in agreeing a DRL is needed, the mucky mucks disagree.
This is exactly the problem, on that we can agree. For the record, I'm not against the Yonge extension. But I do think that the DRL or downtown core line should be the TTC's highest priority, and that regional rail is the best rapid transit option for most, but not all, suburban areas.