Toronto Spadina Subway Extension Emergency Exits | ?m | 1s | TTC | IBI Group

[TJ O'Pootertoot]

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.

Good point. The EA process tends to seem like it's doing more than it is, particularly when it comes to selecting preferred routes. Actually, Metrolinx's Case Benefit Analyses tend to do this broader, relatively neutral analysis (they're not done in house but by consultants). the problem is that they have no teeth and the politicians can still do what they want with them.

Scarborough shows how little Toronto cares for even that kind of objective data. Again, I'm all for taking politicians out of the process but within the context of the existing process, the TYSSE isn't the worst project to go forward in this region; not even the worst in the past few years. Evaluating it based on 2015 (which is what 44North is doing) is insanity. The entire point of the line is be the spine of a suburban downtown built from scratch, and if the experiment fails, more power to you. But it's a bit early for the sort of self-righteous certainy some people are demonstrating. Crikey, there's already more density under construction at VMC than most of the Bloor-Danforth stations, to say nothing of other TYSSE stations, like Downsview.

Vaughan is doing more to connect intensification to rapid transit than Toronto has with Scarborough and this a place, where they've already opened more whitebelt lands to developers; if not for the subway and greenbelt, it'd be much worse.

 

[diminutive]

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.

I don't think it would be possible to have a single set of criteria which perfectly captured and weighted all of the relevant costs and benefits, simply because it would be impossible to form a consensus as to what is a cost and a benefit.

Common standards, even if imperfect, would still yield benefits though by allowing more direct comparison between (superficially) dissimilar projects (e.g. a BRT in Durham vs. a bullet train to Waterloo). Airlines, for instance, are quite brutal in comparing routes and service models against each other. It would be more appropriate for a public authority to also include externalities like CO2 emissions and overall travel time reductions, but those are fairly easy to calculate and include as well.

People may well criticize that standard for under or overweighting factors. But then there can be a public debate over that, as opposed to whether one project out of thousands delivers adequate results.

We only think this is difficult to do since the standard for mass transit has for so long been inherently tied to non-transit objectives, like the Sorbara subway and VMC, Transit City and "Avenues," the Yonge-YR subway extension and development there. Most transit proponents usually have implicit or explicit preferences about non-transport related benefits that we don't want to be forced to justify. Subway proponents *like* subways. LRT proponents *like* LRT.

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.

Yea, a formal, common process for assessing investment ROI amongst projects.

 

[TJ O'Pootertoot]

We only think this is difficult to do since the standard for mass transit has for so long been inherently tied to non-transit objectives, like the Sorbara subway and VMC, Transit City and "Avenues," the Yonge-YR subway extension and development there. Most transit proponents usually have implicit or explicit preferences about non-transport related benefits that we don't want to be forced to justify. Subway proponents *like* subways. LRT proponents *like* LRT.

Mmm, this depends on your POV. I think evaluating transit based entirely on headways and capacity etc. without looking at social/equity/planning objectives isn't a proper evaluation at all. Transit City had a "social agenda," unquestionably but to suggest the aims of the Avenues or TYSSE (ie urban intensification) shouldn't be part of the transit assessment process strikes me as incorrect. How to quantify and weigh them might be tricky but you can't look at transit projects in an individual context based solely on "hard data" like ridership. The overall thrust of The Big Move (an interconnected transit network using various modes in various places) is good one; the trick is executing it and taking the really subjective stuff (e.g. what a given population thinks it "deserves") out of the equation.

Not having a strong operating subsidy might seem like more of a "transit objective" than turning a greenfield into a bunch of condos but it's not. (And anyone who is a proponent of LRTs or subways, as a blanket philosophy, doesn't know enough about transit planning to have a valuable perspective at all.)

 

[salsa]

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?

Recall the little debate we had with Northy on his Don line idea. Here's how he defends the development potential of his industrial park station in Thorncliffe Park:

The traditional DRL puts the line where density already is (to some extent...some of those sites aren’t all that “high-density”, nor will they ever be). Whereas my Don Line puts stations where intensification is going to be, and could logically be. The Coca Cola site alone could theoretically be a mammoth development.

IIRC our discussion about this Thornclife Stn – and comparing it to other TTC stations like Kipling – is that properties around it can be rezoned, upzoned, and developed; and that the station can still be very much used.

His station that's located next to a hydro ROW and CP switching yard, and that's also well out of the way from the actual residential area, will somehow "still be very much used" because it will attract redevelopment in that godawful location. But when it comes to suburban city centres located on the most key transportation corridors in the GTA, he sings a completely different tune:

Meh. Overly ambitious top-down planning which more than likely won’t come anywhere close to the expected employment, population, transit mode share numbers. Similar to other “centres”

The majority of those commuters will probably end up driving. NYCC, ECC, STC, VMC, RHC. Lots of centres, lots of flawed studies, lots of scarce capital spent, lots of real priorities ignored.

The projections for YN's YR section is significantly based off development which doesn’t exist, and potentially won’t exist as promised.

I could find dozens more similar comments, but I have better things to do. And I'm sure you also recall Northy's preference that the Yonge subway extension should be an LRT instead.

And I still stand by my opinion that a grade-separate LRT / light metro would be more optimal for the Yonge corridor instead of the actual plan. Existing ridership along the Yonge corridor north of Steeles is actually relatively low compared to the 40+ corridors/surface routes in TO with higher ridership.

Or that even his Don Line DRL could be an LRT instead of subway, depending on what he decides is best.

I don’t know yet what vehicles I’d like to use. I’ve always been partial to LRT. Heck, I wouldn’t care all that much if it were recycled CLRVs coupled together.

But if it's an LRT that he disagrees with:

Some may prefer a rinkydink TC Don Mills LRT, but I think this plan is better. Does anyone recall TC Phase II – Don Mills LRT? I think my Don Line makes a lot more sense than having a trolley trundling along Overlea and Pape;

So to clarify, here's what an LRT on Yonge would look like in his ideal world where it's somehow a viable alternative to the subway:

But if Northy doesn't agree with the route, then this exact same technology is just a rinkydink trolley trundling along Whatever St.

 

[TheTigerMaster]

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.

That's because there's no cheaper solution on the Eglinton corridor. If Eglinton were wide enough for LRT or at-grade rail, I'd support it in a heartbeat.

 

[diminutive]

Mmm, this depends on your POV. I think evaluating transit based entirely on headways and capacity etc. without looking at social/equity/planning objectives isn't a proper evaluation at all. Transit City had a "social agenda," unquestionably but to suggest the aims of the Avenues or TYSSE (ie urban intensification) shouldn't be part of the transit assessment process strikes me as incorrect. How to quantify and weigh them might be tricky but you can't look at transit projects in an individual context based solely on "hard data" like ridership. The overall thrust of The Big Move (an interconnected transit network using various modes in various places) is good one; the trick is executing it and taking the really subjective stuff (e.g. what a given population thinks it "deserves") out of the equation.

A public ROI formula should naturally be broader than a private one, and include numerous externalities, but most of that should be able to fit into common standard. If a project causes a new neighbourhood to sprout up from the ground that would be reflected in induced ridership.

When you start getting into transit projects for the purpose of 'inducing' (i.e., relocating) development to one area you're kinda abandoning the entire pretext of objectivity. If a given politician decides, 'hey, this project is still worth it,' we should do our best to tease out the actual transit benefits vs. benefits to developers and hold politicians to account for, effectively, funnelling hundreds of millions of dollars to small interest groups.

Not having a strong operating subsidy might seem like more of a "transit objective" than turning a greenfield into a bunch of condos but it's not. (And anyone who is a proponent of LRTs or subways, as a blanket philosophy, doesn't know enough about transit planning to have a valuable perspective at all.)

We all do have blanket preferences and unsupported assumptions, regardless of how well intentioned and knowledgeable we are. Even if it's not a specific preference for technology, it's a belief that XYZ region ought to get more, or that a certain type of urban form ought to be championed or god knows what else. Like, all of these projects we look at as outsiders as being wastes of time or money were planned and executed by well meaning and qualified people.

Like, look at Steve Munro. He's clearly super knowledgeable and well intentioned and worth taking seriously, but he's clearly nowhere near objective. He'll talk about the DRL to Don Mills like it's obvious even though it would be a heavily underused segment while pillorying the Scarborough subway endlessly. Is it just a coincidence he's lived in East York?

 

[TheTigerMaster]

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.

In 2031, the DRL from Dundas West to Pape is projected to move a reasonable 17,000 pphpd. In 2010, it was projected to move only about 10,000 pphpd, iirc. I can't begin to imagine how few people would have used the line in the 1980s.

In the 1980s, the DRL corridor didn't have the usage to justify the expenditure, nor was the Yonge Subway anywhere at the point of needing relief. This would have been a poor investment.

Through the 90s and early 2000s, TTC usage declined significantly. Usage of the DRL would have been even lower than it would have been in the 1980s.

Through the 00s, the Yonge Subway is approaching capacity. The TTC moves forward with the procurement of our Toronto Rocket transits and automatic train operation, significantly increasing capacity on the Yonge Subway. The expectation was that there wouldn't be any capacity issues.

In 2007 the Yonge North extension was proposed. This extension, which will move 25,000 people at peak point/hour (that's more than Line 2), will saturate the capacity of the Yonge Subway and Bloor-Yonge station, even with ATO upgrades. This was the appropriate time to move forward with the DRL.

It should also be noted that in the 1990s, the provincial subsidy to the TTC was cut. Given how few people would have used the DRL, it would have likely required a subsidy of several millions of dollars per year to operate. It would be rather detrimental to service, if the TTC had to use its finite financial resources to subsidize operations of an unnecessary and underused subway line.

The same could be said of the Eglinton West Subway and the Sheppard Subway.

 

[TJ O'Pootertoot]

Recall the little debate we had with Northy on his Don line idea. Here's how he defends the development potential of his industrial park station in Thorncliffe Park:

His station that's located next to a hydro ROW and CP switching yard, and that's also well out of the way from the actual residential area, will somehow "still be very much used" because it will attract redevelopment in that godawful location. But when it comes to suburban city centres located on the most key transportation corridors in the GTA, he sings a completely different tune:

He's going to accuse you of being disingenuous and taking his remarks out of context and possibly making things up.

In reference to the previous page - someone asked if we couldn't engage in discussion without ad hominem attacks etc. Of course we can and most of us do but 44North is a special case who keeps making ridiculous, contradictory, ill-informed statements. He's too well-meaning, in his bizarre way, to be called a troll but he ultimately has the same effect.

What we have in this region is a comprehensive regional growth plan - an award-winning one at that - supplemented by a Greenbelt and a transit plan that would be pretty impressive if it were actually built and funded properly. But to him it's all "top-down planning," and "bad investment" and nothing in The Big Move is 1/2 as clever as his fantasy map. There's no developed-over-years-by-experts plan as thoughtful as his ad hoc ramblings.
Heaven forbid Markham or Vaughan or Richmond Hill look at vacant or under-used sites along the region's most substantial transit corridors and (unlike, say, Scarborough) say, "Give us high-order transit and we will make a sincere effort to build a LEED-certified, sustainable transit-oriented community."

So, it's frustrating.

It's not news that the Spadina line isn't perfect; ain't nothing perfect in this region. But the overall principle of trying to develop an urban centre for a sprawling suburb along high-order transit is a laudable one. I don't get the point of bashing Sorbara five years into construction and I really don't get the point of criticizing the line because there's a WalMart there - especially when even his "look how horrible it is!" picture shows there is substantial office and residential construction going 2 years before the subway is even set to open. (OK, it was supposed to open this year, but still...) When SmartCentres, the epitome of a sprawl-driven business, is on-board, it might be worth considering they know something he doesn't about the prospects for success in VMC.

When you start getting into transit projects for the purpose of 'inducing' (i.e., relocating) development to one area you're kinda abandoning the entire pretext of objectivity. If a given politician decides, 'hey, this project is still worth it,' we should do our best to tease out the actual transit benefits vs. benefits to developers and hold politicians to account for, effectively, funnelling hundreds of millions of dollars to small interest groups.

I don't think you're totally off-base but this is effectively the entire premise of Places to Grow and The Big Move: create a series of transit-oriented nodes, connected by a network, across the GTA. Every node is either a historical urban centre or a designated greenfield site. Some have transit, some don't. By definition, the ones that don't need it. Maybe I'm naive, but I believe in that vision and that's why I see the shovels in the ground at Jane/7 and am hopeful.

Like, look at Steve Munro. He's clearly super knowledgeable and well intentioned and worth taking seriously, but he's clearly nowhere near objective. He'll talk about the DRL to Don Mills like it's obvious even though it would be a heavily underused segment while pillorying the Scarborough subway endlessly. Is it just a coincidence he's lived in East York?

I totally agree! Munro is clever as all get out but he has his bugaboos like anyone else. He also has a real tendency, IMHO, to look at transit-qua-transit. He can tell you about headways and capacity until you're blue in the face but has very little sense of transit-oriented planning as a concept.

In 2031, the DRL from Dundas West to Pape is projected to move a reasonable 17,000 pphpd. In 2010, it was projected to move only about 10,000 pphpd, iirc. I can't begin to imagine how few people would have used the line in the 1980s.

In the 1980s, the DRL corridor didn't have the usage to justify the expenditure, nor was the Yonge Subway anywhere at the point of needing relief. This would have been a poor investment.

Through the 90s and early 2000s, TTC usage declined significantly. Usage of the DRL would have been even lower than it would have been in the 1980s.

Through the 00s, the Yonge Subway is approaching capacity. The TTC moves forward with the procurement of our Toronto Rocket transits and automatic train operation, significantly increasing capacity on the Yonge Subway. The expectation was that there wouldn't be any capacity issues.

In 2007 the Yonge North extension was proposed. This extension, which will move 25,000 people at peak point/hour (that's more than Line 2), will saturate the capacity of the Yonge Subway and Bloor-Yonge station, even with ATO upgrades. This was the appropriate time to move forward with the DRL.

It's a helpful history and some good points in there. I still think it's pretty clear the subway network is under-developed. The TTC ridership drop in the 1990s came out of the recession and then the Harris cuts, which you rightly note. Would a DRL have been a drain? Maybe....It's hard to engage in that hypothetical at this point but clearly Toronto has grown to the point where it's now needed.

but it's also been 8 years since the need for the DRL was recognized; it took all that time just to get to an EA and once it's done, it may be shelved in favour of SmartTrack. And now we're at the point where the DRL and yonge subway can't be seen as "local" lines. They serve regional populations and purposes so Toronto's inconsistent priorities (accentuated by a lack of capital funding that is beyond their control) is having a ripple effect. That's my concern at this point.

EDIT: Just to add that I saw Bryan Tuckey the head of BILD, has an article in today's Star; it doesn't seem to be online yet but the headline is "New Transit Needs New Housing." In relation to my point about Places to Grow above: we shouldn't be building transit to serve private developers or trying to force people to live where they don't want to BUT we should be encouraged by the increasing market for condo development along transit lines in the suburbs and not miss that opportunity. That's why this subway is important.

 

[44 North]

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.

A couple weeks ago you were drawing direct parallels between 1960 Downtown Toronto and a parking lot in Richmond Hill. Now it’s 1980 North York Centre and a Wal Mart in Vaughan? There are considerable and obvious differences, which makes your continued attempts at apples-to-apples comparisons null and void.

Recall the little debate we had with Northy on his Don line idea. Here's how he defends the development potential of his industrial park station in Thorncliffe Park:

His station that's located next to a hydro ROW and CP switching yard, and that's also well out of the way from the actual residential area, will somehow "still be very much used" because it will attract redevelopment in that godawful location. But when it comes to suburban city centres located on the most key transportation corridors in the GTA, he sings a completely different tune:

Haha! I’m glad you spent the last few hours going through our months old debates on varying threads - all of which you sorely lost by the way. Recall that, Salsa? Recall being proven wrong on so many things? Recall not replying when this became obvious? Recall not acknowledging when you were wrong, or - heaven forbid - apologizing for insulting me? Recall showing photographs of the wrong side of the viaduct, denying facts, drawing squares over anything that was green, or convincing me Gerrard Square would become like City Place? I could selectively pick a few of your comments, but then again I’m an adult.

And you do realize that Leaside Station and Thorncliffe Park were ID’d as potentially having both commuter rail, and RT by both Metro and the Prov? And that this hasn’t been in any way ruled out, and may very well become part of Metrolinx’s Relief findings – despite your "godawful location" statement? Or are you continuing with your preposterous claim that the DRTES DRL is guaranteed, that we'll see 300m stop spacings, and that no other plan for RT through east Old TO and EY existed (despite the reality that it did)?

I could find dozens more similar comments, but I have better things to do

Considering you’re copying and pasting posts from different threads, concerning completely separate topics (as you’ve done on several occasions in the past), it’s readily apparent that you don’t have better things to do.

 

[nfitz]

In 2031, the DRL from Dundas West to Pape is projected to move a reasonable 17,000 pphpd. In 2010, it was projected to move only about 10,000 pphpd, iirc. I can't begin to imagine how few people would have used the line in the 1980s.

I'm not sure about that theory.

When was the 2010 ridership done? 1980? Do you have a URL?

Estimates vary. In December 2008, Metrolinx estimated the 2031 DRL peak hour as 17,500 - compared to only 16,400 on the Bloor-Danforth line and 25,400 on the Yonge-University line.

I'd expect if this line was built in the 1960s, then the 1980s ridership would also have been greater than Bloor-Danforth and less than Yonge.

 

[TJ O'Pootertoot]

A couple weeks ago you were drawing direct parallels between 1960 Downtown Toronto and a parking lot in Richmond Hill. Now it’s 1980 North York Centre and a Wal Mart in Vaughan? There are considerable and obvious differences, which makes your continued attempts at apples-to-apples comparisons null and void.

Sigh. Dude, we all enjoy bashing you but if you're going to try to take a few cuts yourself, at least try to do it in the context of the thread.

I don't know what "direct parallels" you're imagining. I wasn't alive to see downtown Toronto in 1960. Present day downtown Toronto and Langstaff Gateway have virtually nothing in common. What they potentially have in common is an intense concentration of traffic amenity. And it was Peter Calthorpe who said the planned transit at that node is equivalent to what's seen in midtown Manhattan. If you disagree, bully for you. You know more than everyone else here, so why not him too?

No two sites are the same; obviously there are differences. There are some things VMC has in common with NYCC and many more things it does not. There's little point detailing them. On-thread: you were taking a picture of 2015 VMC and expressing amazement at what a "Bad investment" it is given how little is there, despite the UGC designation. You didn't respond (because no coherent response is possible) to the absurdity of criticizing the (perceived) lack of development at a place that was designated less than a decade ago, and for which the planning is ongoing and for which the subway is as yet non-operational. You have no understanding of the timelines involved in planning a growth centre. So, in relation to NYCC I would point out that the plans for there (passed in 1986 IIRC) are still coming to fruition 30 years later. And, yes, what you just did on this thread is like if you took a picture of the typical 2-story retail on Yonge and low-density residential just behind in 1984, to spout about what a bad idea building a new subway station would be, and how unlikely substantial condo development there would be.

Calloway REIT recently bought SmartCentres which owns the VMC land on the north side. They're publicly traded so if you think it's a "bad investment," good for you. Others who know better beg to differ. Supporting the growth plan (and the VMC plan) strikes me as more constructive than fantastical griping but YMMV.

So, you're wrong about planning and transit, and also have very poor debating skills.

 

[44 North]

It's not news that the Spadina line isn't perfect; ain't nothing perfect in this region. But the overall principle of trying to develop an urban centre for a sprawling suburb along high-order transit is a laudable one. I don't get the point of bashing Sorbara five years into construction and I really don't get the point of criticizing the line because there's a WalMart there - especially when even his "look how horrible it is!" picture shows there is substantial office and residential construction going 2 years before the subway is even set to open.

That’s gold, Pootie. Really. Sorbara's comments are significant, and essentially prove something that you've been flat-out denying ad nauseum for eight years. But instead of acknowledging them, you write non-stop apologist claptrap and completely ignore them. The Sorbara-Vaughan Subway will be our only subway project in 15yrs, it's costing taxpayers a substantial amount, it’s costing considerable resources and time, it’s clearly a pork barrel (under the guise of a P2G Smart TOD UGC yadda yadda investment), it's delayed and leapfrogged real priorities... and yet you’re saying it’s "laudable".

And by what metric are you using to say the development around VMC is "substantial"? So far we have a condo and 14-storey office "tower"... for a Prov-mandated urban growth centre with a subway link? I wouldn’t say it’s substantial. And I stand by my comment that it’s a bad investment (Sorbara's comments kinda sealed that for me).

And, yes, what you just did on this thread is like if you took a picture of the typical 2-story retail on Yonge and low-density residential just behind in 1984, to spout about what a bad idea building a new subway station would be, and how unlikely substantial condo development there would be.

Yawn. No, not really. But keep trying, Pootie!

 

[TJ O'Pootertoot]

That’s gold, Pootie. Really. Sorbara's comments are significant, and essentially prove something that you've been flat-out denying ad nauseum for eight years. But instead of acknowledging them, you write non-stop apologist claptrap and completely ignore them.

Claptrap! Well, I never!

And by what metric are you using to say the development around VMC is "substantial"? So far we have a condo and 14-storey office "tower"... for a Prov-mandated urban growth centre with a subway link? I wouldn’t say it’s substantial. And I stand by my comment that it’s a bad investment

I'll explain one more time: Two 35-storey towers almost complete + another 4 or so under construction + 1 office tower in VAUGHAN - perhaps the most sprawly GTA municipality after Mississauga and Brampton - at that otherwise useless, ugly corner is a substantial accomplishment, especially since it's before the subway is even open, only about 3 years after the secondary plan was passed and, again, since the prime development sites are currently, you know, part of the subway construction.

Again: you have no concept of timelines. I don't know why you're going on about the UGC designation, as if putting a dot on a map in 2006/07 means an instant downtown. It took several years for Vaughan to even establish the planning regime for the site after that and they had to wait for the subway funding...I mean, is ANY of this reality registering with you or do you zip around in your Delorean, scoffing at we humans bound by the normal rules of space-time?

Sadly, neither of us can scoot ahead 30 years to see how it all turns out, but I do know that rendering a verdict on a TOD before the T is even there is beyond premature.

By all means, stand by your comment! You think the growth plan and its aims are a load of hooey. You think connecting regional nodes with new transit is a fool's errand - that's a legit opinion. You are far from alone in that regard. However, you just do a bad job backing it up. Obviously, I hold a contrary opinion. So does the government. So do the current school of planning experts and so do some of the biggest developers in the GTA, including a company whose entire raison d'etre is sprawling, horrible, auto-oriented retail. Who is actually right? Only time will tell (despite your photograph).

 

[Forgotten]

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?

Vaughan has already decided to put its city offices and other city services away from this site. It seems they know better. I suggest TJ Pooter and others read the documents and studies done by York and look at the numbers for 2031. It looks like a bloodbath.

 

[guste]

Some people here are making this an unpleasant place to spend time. Can we stop with all the passive aggressiveness (seriously, calling 44North 'Northy' or TJ 'Pootie'?) and ad hom attacks? This forum is a great place because of the knowledgeable people and yes, the debate, but this is going beyond that and into rehashing the same tired arguments from this and other threads, while piling up new insults.

Back on the topic of whether the Vaughn portion was a mistake or not, I agree with TJ when he says it's absolutely going to take time to answer that question. I don't think anyone doubts that. To 44North's point, the initial signs aren't terribly positive. It didn't make sense to build the line based on the available data, but it's here now, so let's see what Vaughn can do with their new toy.