I don't know, an LRT serving what is essentially a business park with very little residential areas nearby?
A BRT or even just an express bus with two destinations (Vaughan Mills and Canada's Wonderland) should be sufficient.
Yeah, that's pretty much what I said; I forget how far north the LRT was going to run. There are also some condos up around there now but I don't think that Jane Street is really primed for streetfront redevelopment or the kind of better environment an LRT can create. Vaughan Mills is a year-round hub but even so, a seasonal bus shuttle from the VMC terminal should be sufficient...and for the long term.
You’re right that Vaughan is sprawly. They’ve seemingly been speeding up outward growth - which is why I find it irksome that this subway hasn’t spurred more proposals for infill along arterials or a scattering of low/midrise projects in the periphery.
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.)
And the T (transit) is there. Sure it’s news that it’s been delayed, but by all accounts it was to open this year. We’ve all seen major developments – even entire communities - move along faster elsewhere.
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.)
What I do have a problem with is the Prov selectively ignoring light RT and RER when it suits them; pushing through certain transportation projects using the costliest mode (that, again, results in the ignoring / delaying / dropping of numerous other priorities and promises); ID’ing a "regional node" in what amounts to some vacant lots (seemingly because it conveniently works as part of an admitted political backroom deal); ignoring other nodes that have actually grown significantly and are clearly transit-starved; and their turning a blind eye to the continued sprawl by municipalities – despite the fact that P2G is in place.
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).
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.
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.
It’s all well and good to tout the benefits of UGCs, the Big Move, and "the future".
Indeed, one could say these things are fundamental to the point of having a planning profession in the first place!
But when much of these plans have been pushed aside, with numerous promises for changes by 2031 rendered void - all the while one site which only really exists on paper gets the highest echelon of transportation infrastructure – it’s a bit hard to see these benefits.
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.
[See - we were both so civilized!)