Danforth Line 2 Scarborough Subway Extension

[steveintoronto]

My fear is - this is exactly what will be proposed. If the Province waives development charges and Section 37 benefits - which would be an override to municipal revenue, by the way - then they are only pretending that the private sector is supporting the cost of the stations. While in fact the taxpayer would be picking up the slack. Let's not do something this disingenuous, it would simply be a charade.

And this is exactly how P3 goes wrong. And gets a terrible reputation in some quarters. It works remarkably well in others. What makes P3 work or not is not so much what happens at the Investor/Developer end, their modus operandi is predictable in almost all cases. The problem comes more often than not from slack ass politicos that can't even run a label business, let alone a government. And Ford's not alone, albeit he epitomizes the deficit. It's the *inability to effectively govern* that's the problem in almost all cases save that of fraud, in which case the governing body has recourse in the courts.

What Ford is trying to sell as P3 is as close to the real thing as bubblegum is to Ford's fulcrum. The gum has far more fortitude.

 

[TheTigerMaster]

Is there any precedent in Toronto for such a large development in such a low density area (Lawrence/McCowan) and away from any major commercial centres and thoroughfares?

Arguably the Unilever site, but that's a lot closer to other major development and a long way from completion in it's own right. I don't think it's completely unimaginable, but it's definitely a long way from something I'd be expecting for Scarborough.

CityPlace and Unilever were my initial thoughts as well, but obviously they are just minutes away from what is among the largest public transportation and commercial areas in the continent. Obviously a totally different beast.

The development that happened along Sheppard East in the aftermath of the Sheppard Subway is the only analogous development I can think of. But keep in mind that Sheppard had long been established as a relatively dense and busy commercial strip, and that one of the busiest bus routes in the country ran along that route. Lawrence/McCowan has none of that. There aren't any commercial services at all within walking distance. Any development happening here would essentially be an isolated island, unless people are driving everywhere or taking the subway to SCC.

Absent the subway plan, if this land were unlocked for development, the most we'd see here would be some townhouses, perhaps of similar nature to what we see on the Richview Corridor/Eglinton West. I don't see a subway station fundamentally changing the nature of the site, to the point where it would support one of the largest developments in the country. Lawrence East isn't going to be some transport hub like Unilever. Are people and businesses going to be signing up in droves to locate in an isolated, car-dependant development with zero commercial services or amenities nearby? I don't think so.

 

[lead82]

The SSE is going to get built no matter what. Too much political will has been placed there by all levels of government. However, I see many hurldes to.overcome before this like opens. The private option for additional stations may work at Sheppard and McCowan. I dont think it can happen for Lawrence. However, everyone is forgetting that we could add a stop at Brimley and Eglinton. I actually think that this extension needs more stops but the price for stops at 500M each is ridiculous. SCC costs that much because of the massive bus terminal. Lawrence doesn't need any bus terminal at all and could be built as a small downtown style station. Same goes for Brimley. If we add Sheppard, then perhaps we can downscale the bus terminal at SCC and reduce the cost there. Perhaps some developers can help build these stations but it definitely won't be enough to cover all costs.

Plus, everyone is forgetting that EELRT is likely dead and won't be built. Its funding is unsecured and with the provincial upload, that provincial money will be put to SSE. The city will have to spend $1B in building it. I don't see that happening any time soon. It's not a priority.

The other big question is the need to fund the new signals, yard and extra trains for SSE. Those are pre-requisites. All of that will drive up the price and timeline. I don't see how it can be built and open by 2026. Just like EC won't open on 2021 (2022 more likely) and DRL.wont be built until mid 2030s.

 

[asher__jo]

And this is exactly how P3 goes wrong. And gets a terrible reputation in some quarters. It works remarkably well in others. What makes P3 work or not is not so much what happens at the Investor/Developer end, their modus operandi is predictable in almost all cases. The problem comes more often than not from slack ass politicos that can't even run a label business, let alone a government. And Ford's not alone, albeit he epitomizes the deficit. It's the *inability to effectively govern* that's the problem in almost all cases save that of fraud, in which case the governing body has recourse in the courts.

What Ford is trying to sell as P3 is as close to the real thing as bubblegum is to Ford's fulcrum. The gum has far more fortitude.

Thank you for being a voice of reason.

 

[BurlOak]

The other big question is the need to fund the new signals, yard and extra trains for SSE. Those are pre-requisites. All of that will drive up the price and timeline. I don't see how it can be built and open by 2026. Just like EC won't open on 2021 (2022 more likely) and DRL.wont be built until mid 2030s.

The answer to the "yard" is to use the CP Rail yard. I heard CP may not need it anymore - or at least maybe TTC can get a bit of space on the North edge. The last station would be at Finch and Markham.
It is a matter of balancing scope-creep with getting the best bang-for-your-buck.
After the tail tracks, this extension would require about 100m of tunnel, plus getting under the main CP tracks and the rest would be at-grade.
https://www.google.ca/maps/@43.8020951,-79.2664114,4522m/data=!3m1!1e3

 

[nfitz]

The answer to the "yard" is to use the CP Rail yard.

They've already purchased the land for, and are planning the Kipling yard. Which will be necessary to free up some space in Greenwood Yard for the Downtown Relief Line rolling stock.

 

[syn]

Gawd, Torontonians are crazy. No where else in the country where they're building rapid transit seems to come with this prerequisite that a zillion skyscrapers have to be built surrounding the stations or else it is not worth the effort to build. Not Greater Vancouver, Montreal, Calgary or Ottawa. Why are we doing this to ourselves? It's madness!

That's because they're smart enough not to build subways where they're not needed.

 

[Hopkins123]

Oh dear, the tag team of doom and gloom is on my case!

Were doing this because this is how this government plans to finance it. It's development or no station. But you already knew that.

The problem precedes this present government. The previous government has been kicking the can down the road since the mid-2000s.

That's because they're smart enough not to build subways where they're not needed.

Oh, the need is there, you and the "intelligentsia" just refuse to see it. 36 million annual projection ridership for the extension in its one-stop configuration alone is evidence of its need. In case you haven't noticed, those cities I cited have far less of a population than our's yet are fully capable of building fully grade-separated rapid transit systems without the decades long debates, theatrics and flat out deception to the voting public. We've have yet to see what the Ford government will do until the budget has passed. All this speculation that the project is dead on the water because of lack of private sector interest is still just that... speculative. Surplus development at SCC alone could be enough to cover the costs for stations at Danforth/Eglinton and at Lawrence East.

 

[steveintoronto]

Surplus development at SCC alone could be enough to cover the costs for stations at Danforth/Eglinton and at Lawrence East.

Excellent. Then let them. (...sound of Scarborough Crickets chirping...)

 

[TheTigerMaster]

Surplus development at SCC alone could be enough to cover the costs for stations at Danforth/Eglinton and at Lawrence East.

The government doesn’t own the land at SCC though. Can’t sell something you don’t own. This is unlike Lawrence East, where the government owns most of the land around the proposed station.

 

[sixrings]

The government doesn’t own the land at SCC though. Can’t sell something you don’t own. This is unlike Lawrence East, where the government owns most of the land around the proposed station.

Congrats on your staement of fact that has apparently caused the pro subway crowd to go into hiding. I wish I had your written jedi mind trick abilities.

 

[OneCity]

The government doesn’t own the land at SCC though. Can’t sell something you don’t own. This is unlike Lawrence East, where the government owns most of the land around the proposed station.

I dont believe @Hopkins123 referenced government land?

There is no doubt fees from the newly proposed developments surrounding the City Centre as well has the Progress and McCowan area would go a long way to paying off other stations.

Although im not against increased density on Lawrence and McCowan there is really no reason to over develope the immediate corner as it serves a completley different use as a heavy traffic central feeder connection for the 54 bus and an important access to the Central hospital stop. Both McCowan-Sheppard and McCowan Eglinton are solid candiates for increased density with a suwbay stop.

Excellent. Then let them. (...sound of Scarborough Crickets chirping...)

Pretty damn loud crickets these days with big proposals are coming down the pipeline in the wake of the subway decision.

http://urbantoronto.ca/news/2018/12/docs-hint-massive-scarborough-town-centre-redevelopment
http://urbantoronto.ca/news/2018/01/tower-community-proposed-near-scarborough-city-centre
https://urbantoronto.ca/forum/threa...ress-towers-156m-47s-atria-a-architects.7786/
https://urbantoronto.ca/forum/threa...-48s-fieldgate-homes-tact-architecture.24974/

Oh dear, the tag team of doom and gloom is on my case!

Standard around here

 

[crs1026]

Pretty damn loud crickets these days with big proposals are coming down the pipeline in the wake of the subway decision.

http://urbantoronto.ca/news/2018/12/docs-hint-massive-scarborough-town-centre-redevelopment
http://urbantoronto.ca/news/2018/01/tower-community-proposed-near-scarborough-city-centre
https://urbantoronto.ca/forum/threa...ress-towers-156m-47s-atria-a-architects.7786/
https://urbantoronto.ca/forum/threa...-48s-fieldgate-homes-tact-architecture.24974/
+1

Yep, nice high towers with lots of underground parking....

You can be sure that if they plunk down big money (ie enough to fund a subway station), those developers will expect every possible advantage in the zoning of those sites. And when the planners at City Hall ask for improvements, especially to create a more liveable streetscape.....you know what Ford will say: "Open For Business".

Be careful what you ask for, it's what you may well get.

- Paul

From those links:

City Planning staff have identified concerns with respect to: the proposed street and block plan; built form, height, density, building massing, transition in scale within the existing and planned context overall; site circulation around and through the site; parking and loading; range of housing options, including tenures and unit sizes; enhancement of employment opportunities; determination of the adequacy, location and configuration of the proposed public park; adequacy of site servicing, including sanitary sewer analysis, stormwater management, hydrogeological matters and solid waste collection; adequacy of community services and facilities to serve the proposed development; and impacts on the environment. These issues and all additional matters that arise through the development review process will need to be addressed prior to the submission of the Final Report to City Council. While staff will continue to work with the applicant to address the issues noted here, since it is an election year, it is recommended that City Council direct the City Solicitor and appropriate City Staff to attend and oppose the application in its current form should the application be appealed to the Local Planning Appeal Tribunal (LPAT) on the basis of City Council's failure to make a decision on the application within the statutory timeframe of the Planning Act.

he 2.7 hectare site currently contains 3 large one-storey industrial buildings and their respective parking lots. The proposal introduces 2,245 new residential units to the site, with 1,945 of these among the towers and mid-rises, and 263 townhomes. The 5 towers range in height from 23 to 48 storeys, with the two 14-storey mid-rise buildings along Consilium Place. Several 4-storey townhome blocks will surround the towers, spaced between pedestrian paths and outdoor amenity spaces. Retail areas are found along Progress Avenue and Consilium Place, totalling 995 m² between the 3 spaces. A large two-level underground garage contains 1,654 parking spaces for residents and visitors, with 1,703 bicycle storage spaces found both underground and near the site’s parks and amenity spaces.

 

[OneCity]

Yep, nice high towers with lots of underground parking....

You can be sure that if they plunk down big money (ie enough to fund a subway station), those developers will expect every possible advantage in the zoning of those sites. And when the planners at City Hall ask for improvements, especially to create a more liveable streetscape.....you know what Ford will say: "Open For Business".

Be careful what you ask for, it's what you may well get.

- Paul

From those links:

Of course finding a "win-win, and give and take is part of any negotiation . There really is nothing overly concerning here. More importantly the subway decision is already spurred far better development and revitalization plans for the Centre than the transfer RT/LRT did, could or would have.

City planning is always evolving and will further based on these negotiations for this rejuvenated development here. So long as the planners are City Hall are actual planners and not politicians with intentions to ruin projects from the inside then things will be just fine for building the Centre into a vibrant urban hub moving forward.

 

[crs1026]

Of course finding a "win-win, and give and take is part of any negotiation .

I am impressed that you can say 'Win-win' and 'give and take' in a discussion about what Doug Ford might be about to do next, especially around municipal matters.

- Paul