Richmond Hill Yonge Line 1 North Subway Extension | ?m | ?s | Metrolinx

[muller877]

You are assuming that upon extending the line, there won't be further densification of the areas around the stations; nor will the ridership feeding into these stations increase simply due to the growth of the region itself. That's obviously a faulty assumption. Given the impact of said ridership to crowding on the existing Yonge line, I am not talking about YR contributing to the capital cost of extending it into Richmond Hill (which obviously should be the responsibility of YR) - I am talking about them contributing to building a relief line to ameliorate crowding - which is at least partially caused by ridership from YR. I wonder where the region stands on that.

AoD

Isn't densification a good thing by a subway line?

Even if Richmond Hill paid for part of the DRL we would just talking about a DRL that is a diversion (2 stops...Main and Union) it would be relatively cheap. The secondary purpose of a DRL is what costs the money...serving the inner city.

And how much does Torontonians really contribute to building a subway line? How much came from residential taxpayers for the Eglington LRT? This is creating an us vs them when in reality the residents of Toronto don't pay that much towards a subway line.

If Toronto wants to slow down densification in the outer suburbs we have lots of land around subways that are not effectively used. But for NIMBY-ism we have low density (may be a good thing but the cause and effect is high density nodes that need a subway north of Steeles)

Maybe no subway if Toronto expropriates around Rosedale station to build 20 condos and offices?

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

Isn't densification a good thing by a subway line?

You are giving me generalities to a specific problem, which is overcrowding on the Yonge line.

Even if Richmond Hill paid for part of the DRL we would just talking about a DRL that is a diversion (2 stops...Main and Union) it would be relatively cheap. The secondary purpose of a DRL is what costs the money...serving the inner city.

If you *really* think that merely linking Main and Union is sufficient to address the issue of overcrowding in the long run, given the development patterns, I think you'd be sorely mistaken. And the primary strength of underground subways (in the form we are talking about) is always serving the inner city, not long distance, point A to B commuter style traffic that is better handled by GO where possible.

And how much does Torontonians really contribute to building a subway line? How much came from residential taxpayers for the Eglington LRT? This is creating an us vs them when in reality the residents of Toronto don't pay that much towards a subway line.

Sure, and just how critical is Eglinton to the system, vis-a-vis the crisis facing Line 1? It's the province deciding that it is their priority to the extent that they are willing to pay for it 100% - no such luck with DRL (and yes, the line will probably make the issue even more acute). I just love how everyone wants to complain about having to pay for something (that includes Toronto) even when they benefit, and are quite eager to offload the costs to someone else instead.

And for the record, there are precedents to YR paying for enabling infrastructure beyond borders - i.e. water (see: http://archives.york.ca/councilcommitteearchives/pdf/rpt 6 cls 4-42.pdf). Would you have expected YR to be able to draw water from City of Toronto the municipal works without helping to pay for capacity increases, without which city residents would otherwise unduly suffer from? Why should transit capacity be any different?

If Toronto wants to slow down densification in the outer suburbs we have lots of land around subways that are not effectively used. But for NIMBY-ism we have low density (may be a good thing but the cause and effect is high density nodes that need a subway north of Steeles)

Maybe no subway if Toronto expropriates around Rosedale station to build 20 condos and offices?

Sure, the last time I checked though, that kind of densification is already happening along the Yonge line without the need for expropriation, and that trend will continue. What I am not so sure whether they'd be able to get on a train around those stations during rush. So why is supporting their densification less of a priority than building an extension?

AoD

 

[44 North]

The fallacy here is so stunningly obvious, it's perfect 44North would miss it.

I didn't "miss" anything. And odd that you complain about a fallacy, but in the same sentence attack with an ad hominem.

To me, the only thing that's "stunningly obvious" is that transit ridership in York Region is low, and much lower than anticipated. And that even when gifted a subway, town's like Vaughan still overwhelmingly support sprawling onto protected Greenbelt and hydrologically-significant ORM land. http://www.yorkregion.com/community...on-landowners-exemption-requests-granted-env/ All this while having an underdeveloped "centre", swaths of unzoned greenfield, and ample tracts of last resort whitebelt land. This is a key reason why many question more subsidies and the building of all-underground heavy rail infrastructure.

 

[TJ O'Pootertoot]

You are assuming that upon extending the line, there won't be further densification of the areas around the stations; nor will the ridership feeding into these stations increase simply due to the growth of the region itself.

I am? I think my substantial contributions to this thread show quite the opposite and, indeed, that I think that's why the line should be extended.

I am talking about them contributing to building a relief line to ameliorate crowding - which is at least partially caused by ridership from YR. I wonder where the region stands on that.

Do you mean to the actual DRL or something similar? My personal stance is that all regional projects (including both of these) should be funded through Metrolinx + the municipalities. So, York Region taxpayers would fund the DRL through provincial funds. If you start breaking things down finer than that you start getting weird arguments like last week's "Toll the Gardiner; but only for non-Torontonians." But my larger point was that we need to start thinking of transit riders as riders and not Torontonians or Mississaugans or whatever. Everything is too connected to draw a simple cause-and-effect; how much crowding at Yonge-Bloor today is caused by York Region residents? I have no clue - I'll make up a number and say 7%. So, should York Region pay 7% of Yonge/Bloor renovations?

And for the record, there are precedents to YR paying for enabling infrastructure beyond borders - i.e. water (see: http://archives.york.ca/councilcommitteearchives/pdf/rpt 6 cls 4-42.pdf). Would you have expected YR to be able to draw water from City of Toronto the municipal works without helping to pay for capacity increases, without which city residents would otherwise unduly suffer from? Why should transit capacity be any different?

Because, in your water example, York Region's water is coming through Toronto's pipes. I don't think anyone is (or should ) argue YR doesn't pay for the services it consumes; but you're asking them to fund an ancillary effect of what they're consuming.

I didn't "miss" anything. And odd that you complain about a fallacy, but in the same sentence attack with an ad hominem.

You've got me there: a fallacy is a fallacy but it was just a gentle elbow of an ad hominem, friend.

To me, the only thing that's "stunningly obvious" is that transit ridership in York Region is low, and much lower than anticipated. And that even when gifted a subway, town's like Vaughan still overwhelmingly support sprawling onto protected Greenbelt and hydrologically-significant ORM land. http://www.yorkregion.com/community...on-landowners-exemption-requests-granted-env/ All this while having an underdeveloped "centre", swaths of unzoned greenfield, and ample tracts of last resort whitebelt land. This is a key reason why many question more subsidies and the building of all-underground heavy rail infrastructure.

Yes, yes. I addressed the sprawl thing in the sprawl thread but it boils down to:
a) What YR and Vaughan are doing viz the Greenbelt is appalling
b) Sprawl and intensification are not mutually exclusive, except in Toronto; because it's built out. Even Places to Grow allows up to 60% greenfield development so stop treating it like an either/or proposition. It never was and it never will be and no one is building subways up to Teston Road and Whitebelt Way; they're building them to Highway 7 which is the furthest-south east-west road in the region. The only way to get less development on the fringe - and to undermine the developer-driven attemps to undermine the Greenbelt - is to provide sufficient infrastructure to maximize intensification in the south.

There will never be enough development (or transit) to stop "sprawl" in its tracks, which seems to be what you think should be happening.

Transit ridership has grown a huge amount though, yes, not as much as some might have hoped but, "Everyone drives so there's no point building transit," is a very defeatist attitude, particularly when we're talking about the neighbourhoods contiguous with Toronto. Especially when you know these new Fringe-Dwellers will drive, you should plug in the rapid transit where you can to achieve some kind of overall balance.

 

[44 North]

a) What YR and Vaughan are doing viz the Greenbelt is appalling
b) Sprawl and intensification are not mutually exclusive, except in Toronto; because it's built out. Even Places to Grow allows up to 60% greenfield development so stop treating it like an either/or proposition. It never was and it never will be and no one is building subways up to Teston Road and Whitebelt Way; they're building them to Highway 7 which is the furthest-south east-west road in the region. The only way to get less development on the fringe - and to undermine the developer-driven attemps to undermine the Greenbelt - is to provide sufficient infrastructure to maximize intensification in the south.

There will never be enough development (or transit) to stop "sprawl" in its tracks, which seems to be what you think should be happening.

Transit ridership has grown a huge amount though, yes, not as much as some might have hoped but, "Everyone drives so there's no point building transit," is a very defeatist attitude, particularly when we're talking about the neighbourhoods contiguous with Toronto. Especially when you know these new Fringe-Dwellers will drive, you should plug in the rapid transit where you can to achieve some kind of overall balance.

I NEVER ONCE wrote that we shouldn't build transit in the suburbs! YOU KNOW THIS! You've continually insulted me each and everytime I've brought up the merits of light rail supplemented with RER. Recall claiming how those modes are "cheap"?

As well, I continually predicted that we wouldn't stop sprawl, and that York Region would plow forth regardless of a subway. You responded to this with lectures and puffery about how Vaughan/YR is commited to P2G and GGH Greenbelt because they're at the "leading edge", "in the game", "ahead of the curve", "paradigm shifts"

 

[muller877]

You are giving me generalities to a specific problem, which is overcrowding on the Yonge line.



If you *really* think that merely linking Main and Union is sufficient to address the issue of overcrowding in the long run, given the development patterns, I think you'd be sorely mistaken. And the primary strength of underground subways (in the form we are talking about) is always serving the inner city, not long distance, point A to B commuter style traffic that is better handled by GO where possible.



Sure, and just how critical is Eglinton to the system, vis-a-vis the crisis facing Line 1? It's the province deciding that it is their priority to the extent that they are willing to pay for it 100% - no such luck with DRL (and yes, the line will probably make the issue even more acute). I just love how everyone wants to complain about having to pay for something (that includes Toronto) even when they benefit, and are quite eager to offload the costs to someone else instead.

And for the record, there are precedents to YR paying for enabling infrastructure beyond borders - i.e. water (see: http://archives.york.ca/councilcommitteearchives/pdf/rpt 6 cls 4-42.pdf). Would you have expected YR to be able to draw water from City of Toronto the municipal works without helping to pay for capacity increases, without which city residents would otherwise unduly suffer from? Why should transit capacity be any different?



Sure, the last time I checked though, that kind of densification is already happening along the Yonge line without the need for expropriation, and that trend will continue. What I am not so sure whether they'd be able to get on a train around those stations during rush. So why is supporting their densification less of a priority than building an extension?

AoD

AoD, I was responding to your comments. In particular you stated that YR should be responsible for both the costs of extended the subway AND the DRL. I tried to state the misconception that (1) all the cost of the DRL is for diversion from the Yonge Line (most of the cost will be for station boxes between the 2 lines) and (2) that the residents of the City of Toronto would pay for the DRL costs (showing that we normally don't pay much compared to the provincial/federal/commercial/user fee component of who pays). It is a misconception that residents of Toronto will be left with the entire bill...which is not true.

I also tried to compare the growth/densification to another scenario. Which I specifically stated may not be a good thing in all circumstances.

Richmond Hill is growing at a fast pace. They need both subway (which will allow access outside of the financial core) and to the GO network (primarily for access to the financial district). It is not a one or the other scenario but to create a transit oriented community in the long term they need both.

 

[aquateam]

I think the "us vs them" 416 vs 905 TTC transfer fare issue ultimately boils down to the fact that Metrolinx hasn't yet figured out the unified fare structure (which is part of their mandate) for the Presto card. This will be a very contentious issue because it will impact how fares are distributed between transit systems, and because it will likely decrease fares for some classes of users but increase them for other users.

Currently, the fare transfer penalty (when transferring from MiWay to TTC, or any other combination) is a de-facto zone fare, just poorly established. The problem is that, other than when crossing artificial boundaries between municipalities, there is no relationship between the price of a fare of a transit user and the cost of the capacity that the user consumes. Someone hopping on a streetcar for several blocks on the weekend pays the same as someone taking up rush-hour space from Kennedy to Kipling. The lack of an effective pricing mechanism means that a) people take the subway and demand expensive subway extensions rather than take the GO system, even though the GO system may be faster/have extra capacity b) there is no way to make more effective use of existing capacity by time-of-use pricing (charging more at rush hour so that people will shift to non-peak hours, reducing peak hour demand).

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

AoD, I was responding to your comments. In particular you stated that YR should be responsible for both the costs of extended the subway AND the DRL. I tried to state the misconception that (1) all the cost of the DRL is for diversion from the Yonge Line (most of the cost will be for station boxes between the 2 lines) and (2) that the residents of the City of Toronto would pay for the DRL costs (showing that we normally don't pay much compared to the provincial/federal/commercial/user fee component of who pays). It is a misconception that residents of Toronto will be left with the entire bill...which is not true.

Using the water agreement as an example, any capital costs is divided between YR and City of Toronto, as it should be, as a term of the agreement. No one is suggesting (and I hope you didn't get the impression that I suggest) that YR pays for the DRL entirely precisely because of the reason you've mentioned - but at the same time, YR should not be left off the hook either because of the ramifications any extension of Line 1 will bring to existing users, which have a tendency to be brushed aside. The comment that most of the cost is station box is also inaccurate, considering the costs of tunnelling, signalling, vehicle stock. Whether there are contributions from the prov/fed/other sources is also irrelevant - I am talking specifically about the willingness of YR to contribute to this endeavour even though the DRL probably wouldn't run in its' jursidiction.

I also tried to compare the growth/densification to another scenario. Which I specifically stated may not be a good thing in all circumstances.

Your scenario has been discounted as inaccurate.

Richmond Hill is growing at a fast pace. They need both subway (which will allow access outside of the financial core) and to the GO network (primarily for access to the financial district). It is not a one or the other scenario but to create a transit oriented community in the long term they need both.

Richmond Hill isn't the only community growing at a fast pace - what's so special about it that it requires such special treatment to the point that nothing but GO linkages is insufficient?

AoD

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

Do you mean to the actual DRL or something similar? My personal stance is that all regional projects (including both of these) should be funded through Metrolinx + the municipalities. So, York Region taxpayers would fund the DRL through provincial funds. If you start breaking things down finer than that you start getting weird arguments like last week's "Toll the Gardiner; but only for non-Torontonians." But my larger point was that we need to start thinking of transit riders as riders and not Torontonians or Mississaugans or whatever. Everything is too connected to draw a simple cause-and-effect; how much crowding at Yonge-Bloor today is caused by York Region residents? I have no clue - I'll make up a number and say 7%. So, should York Region pay 7% of Yonge/Bloor renovations?

Sure, but if you are going to argue that, why would Toronto taxpayers have to fund DRL directly in order to compensate for the Line 1 extension? And for the record, there is nothing weird about tolling the Gardiner for non-Torontonians at all, the only question is whether the trouble of implementing such a toll structure is worth the benefits it accrue.

As to Yonge-Bloor analogue - there is no tipping point that requires that judgement to be made, unlike Line 1 extension. And there are elegant solutions to the latter, such as surchage through fares, especially if one moves towards to zone fare system if you want to view it through recovery through the fare box.

Because, in your water example, York Region's water is coming through Toronto's pipes. I don't think anyone is (or should ) argue YR doesn't pay for the services it consumes; but you're asking them to fund an ancillary effect of what they're consuming.

Err, no, read the report in more detail - it pays for the water (i.e. service) AND the capital works (and even accounts for replacement costs), which is needed in order to increase the supply. It's analogous to finite transit transit capacity that has to be expanded in order to provide additional services required by another region.

AoD

 

[BMO]

I don't understand how a transit system like the TTC who is paid for by the city of Toronto would be doing a disservice to its residents by building a subway line that isn't a money pit. If the numbers and the ridership support it I assume there's a relatively sensible talk that can be had between York Region and Toronto to pay for the ongoing maintenance and operation of the line without impacting the bottom line of the TTC. It's not like this subway is going to empty based on the projections and why everyone seems to go on about a need for the DRL being built first.

It's nothing more than people upset about the potential for this project to be prioritized ahead of the DRL and take money away from it. If the DRL wasn't even part of the picture I'm sure the circlejerk on here would not exist.

 

[TJ O'Pootertoot]

I NEVER ONCE wrote that we shouldn't build transit in the suburbs! YOU KNOW THIS! You've continually insulted me each and everytime I've brought up the merits of light rail supplemented with RER. Recall claiming how those modes are "cheap"?

As well, I continually predicted that we wouldn't stop sprawl, and that York Region would plow forth regardless of a subway. You responded to this with lectures and puffery about how Vaughan/YR is commited to P2G and GGH Greenbelt because they're at the "leading edge", "in the game", "ahead of the curve", "paradigm shifts"

I didn't even insult you today; you just need to relax.
That said, you don't win any awards for predicting the non-demise of sprawl. The point of P2G was never to STOP sprawl bur rather to curb it. Markham is ahead of the game; Vaughan rather less so.

You keep treating it as a zero sum game. These municipalities can build amazing, sustainable, transit-oriented centres and still "sprawl" at the fringes. Indeed, that's pretty much the plan.

Richmond Hill isn't the only community growing at a fast pace - what's so special about it that it requires such special treatment to the point that nothing but GO linkages is insufficient?

That its development is contiguous with Toronto and that its GO line (unlike, say, Lakeshore) dives into the Don Valley and therefore is only useful for trips to Union? These facts are all repeated ad nauseum here. If someone was suggesting aurora, on the other side of the moraine, that would be entirely different. So would Milton, which is also growing at a fast pace, but I think we all know why RH is in contention for a subway + GO and Milton is just GO, right? Plus, geeze, it only goes like 50m into Richmond Hill.

To answer your question in one word: Context.

Err, no, read the report in more detail - it pays for the water (i.e. service) AND the capital works (and even accounts for replacement costs), which is needed in order to increase the supply. It's analogous to finite transit transit capacity that has to be expanded in order to provide additional services required by another region.

No, it's not analgous but we could drive ourselves crazy trying to compare water to a choo-choo and fail in the process. (For one thing, water is not as finite as a subway train.)

Part of your semantic issue here is calling York Region "another region." It's not. People commute, by the 10s of 1000s, between York Region and Toronto every day and they use streets and transit belonging to both municipalities. All it is is another municipality, which really boils down to "another tax base." So all that's needed to resolve your conundrum is a regional tax base for funding capital and operating costs in the GTA which was the point of Revenue Tools, which was one of Metrolinx's mandates which, yes, has been shelved for now. But it's not like no one has thought of it, at a broad scale, as opposed to on a piecemeal, project-by-project basis.

The scenario, as you paint it, is basically a race to the bottom with individual municipalities quibbling about whose residents are taking up capacity on whose system. I regret mentioning the Gardiner toll example - but it is patently absurd on many levels. To cite just one, not only are only 3% of commuters using the East Gardiner, most of those are from the 416, not the 905. So how many pieces do you want to chop our water-like system into? If 43% of DVP commuters are from the 905 but they only go to Richmond do we pro-rate how much non-residents should pay based on their using 43% of 87% of the capacity, or whatever that comes to? You can't run a region that way and you can't build infrastructure that way. (The larger Gardiner issue is how selfish it is for one council to vote to build infrastructure but, knowing others use it too, vote for people other than their constituents to pay for it.)

If the larger point is that the TTC needs to be funded adequately, I agree. Should it receive outside-Toronto funding (either like it used to, or via Metrolinx)? Almost certainly. But I don't understand the questions you're raising in regards to this particular project and the capacity challenges it may or may not present.

 

[GenerationW]

Given the impact of said ridership to crowding on the existing Yonge line, I am not talking about YR contributing to the capital cost of extending it into Richmond Hill (which obviously should be the responsibility of YR) - I am talking about them contributing to building a relief line to ameliorate crowding - which is at least partially caused by ridership from YR. I wonder where the region stands on that.

YR probably has the same position as Toronto -- minimal interest in the DRL.

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

That its development is contiguous with Toronto and that its GO line (unlike, say, Lakeshore) dives into the Don Valley and therefore is only useful for trips to Union?

Sure, and what percentage of riders from YR using the Line 1 ultimately goes to Union and environ?

No, it's not analgous but we could drive ourselves crazy trying to compare water to a choo-choo and fail in the process. (For one thing, water is not as finite as a subway train.)

Something being more finite would be an even better reason to ration, no?

Part of your semantic issue here is calling York Region "another region." It's not. People commute, by the 10s of 1000s, between York Region and Toronto every day and they use streets and transit belonging to both municipalities. All it is is another municipality, which really boils down to "another tax base." So all that's needed to resolve your conundrum is a regional tax base for funding capital and operating costs in the GTA which was the point of Revenue Tools, which was one of Metrolinx's mandates which, yes, has been shelved for now. But it's not like no one has thought of it, at a broad scale, as opposed to on a piecemeal, project-by-project basis.

Yes, we do - call me cynical, but we all knew how popular 905-based pooling of anything was. So if you want to talk to me about regional thinking, all well and good, practice it? Show me the evidence that YR (or any other region) was willing to commit themselves to that system?

The scenario, as you paint it, is basically a race to the bottom with individual municipalities quibbling about whose residents are taking up capacity on whose system. I regret mentioning the Gardiner toll example - but it is patently absurd on many levels. To cite just one, not only are only 3% of commuters using the East Gardiner, most of those are from the 416, not the 905. So how many pieces do you want to chop our water-like system into? If 43% of DVP commuters are from the 905 but they only go to Richmond do we pro-rate how much non-residents should pay based on their using 43% of 87% of the capacity, or whatever that comes to? You can't run a region that way and you can't build infrastructure that way. (The larger Gardiner issue is how selfish it is for one council to vote to build infrastructure but, knowing others use it too, vote for people other than their constituents to pay for it.)

Of course you can run a region that way when it comes to DVP/Gardiner - tolls have been used everywhere and it's not exactly hard to implement it on limited access expressways - and it wouldnt' even be that difficult to issue a transponder to city residents that will allow free passage either. The question is whether it is worth it to make such a distinction based on cost. I suspect not. You are using a service - one that paid for by a municipality alone said municipality can technically charge it for whatever reason. There is nothing unfair about it. The expectations that just because it is a highway it is free on the other than is a problematic one.

If the larger point is that the TTC needs to be funded adequately, I agree. Should it receive outside-Toronto funding (either like it used to, or via Metrolinx)? Almost certainly. But I don't understand the questions you're raising in regards to this particular project and the capacity challenges it may or may not present.

The questions were presented clearly enough.

YR probably has the same position as Toronto -- minimal interest in the DRL.

I don't think it is on their radar (they have other fishes to try), as to the city - TTC wants it (to the point of saying it had to be done), JT wants to get away from it, pretend that the problem can be solved by his alternate scheme and tack that onto the province so that they pay for it, and the province isn't playing ball while showering money where there is better political return. It's grand - and you wonder why transit planning is messed up.

AoD

 

[TJ O'Pootertoot]

Sure, and what percentage of riders from YR using the Line 1 ultimately goes to Union and environ?

I confess I do not know - do you? But if I were to guess - totally off the top of my head - what % of YR residents who take the subway from Finch get off before Union....<70%? But even if I'm totally off (and who knows!) it still doesn't address what the pattern would be with both GO and a subway. GO is a great Union/south downtown express, effectively; it doesn't help you get to Yonge/St. Clair or really anywhere else in the region.

Something being more finite would be an even better reason to ration, no?

We're getting tangled in metaphors. Now we're trying "rationing" transit? We want to discourage use where capacity is greater? We're starting a "TTC is for Toronto Taxpayers!" protest movement?

If you're not going to connect a line to existing and planned other lines along a intensification corridor, where ridership is sure to grow....what do you even think public transit is for?

Yes, we do - call me cynical, but we all knew how popular 905-based pooling of anything was. So if you want to talk to me about regional thinking, all well and good, practice it? Show me the evidence that YR (or any other region) was willing to commit themselves to that system?

We're getting deeper into hypothetical here. First, YR has been as pro-active as any GTA municipality in supporting The Big Move (selfishly, if you like) and transit development over the past 15 years or so.

Moreover, any fare integration system (and the work IS ongoing, as we speak) would come down from the province and they'd likely have to sign on whether they liked it or not. If something like the Yonge subway was contingent on, they'd probably sign up before you could finish even saying "subway." So, I see no evidence they'd be hestitant. As with Presto, I imagine only TTC would be hesitant and I'd agree any system should be fair to them and recognize their primacy but the GOAL is to encourage transit ridership by eliminating various barriers, including poor transfer connections and double fares.

I guess my main response is: Show me evidence that YR won't commit.

The problem with pooling, like water, is totally separate. It was a poorly managed side effect of downloading. Like amalgamation, it probably could have been done sensibly if that was the PC government's goal but instead they dumped everything on the municipalities and then forced everyone else to help out the now-cash-strapped Toronto with no accounting for where their money went.

A fare-integration system, where everyone can see how money is collected and allocated would be entirely different.

The point with the Gardiner is that no one really seems to want it so if Toronto decides to build it, that's on them. If we're going to toll highways to pay for transit, I'm totally good with that. But the sort of piecemeal, half-assed stuff Toronto is doing now (Gardiner/Scarborough/SmartTrack) is having enough negative ripple effects. If TTC's willing to take on the guaranteed deficits that will come with the Scarborough line (and the capacity constraints, as new Scarborough riders transfer at Yonge/Bloor), they need more ammo to explain why they can't do the Yonge line.

 

[Transportfan]

What a tease. Four more pages of posts and still no real news.