No, you don't understand.
It's not a "subway only argument." Sigh. It's a density calculation based on subway capacity. If an LRT had been on the books when Calthorpe was hired he would have based his calculations on that, but post-2007, the subway was the plan. He's not from here - he was looking at The Big Move which showed that hub earmarked for subway, 407 Transitway, Viva (and YRT) and all-day, two-way GO, presumably by 2031. That was the assumption he had to work with and he proceeded accordingly.
If you ran the numbers with different modes, you'd get different density/population figures. IBI and Genivar were asked to ascertain whether you could actually fit that many people in that space with that few cars, based on the assumptions of those specific transit modes. They concluded that it was viable.
I know you can see with your own eyes how the phasing triggers are based around what modes are under construction/in operation and based on the mode splits achieved to date. So I don't know how you can say, with a straight face, what you're saying. It's not "Development is contingent on a subway," it's that THIS LEVEL of development (and, more importantly, mode split) is only achievable with a subway. Pull out any one piece and the development and mode split levels change, downwards. It should be self evident at this point. You don't have be an engineer to understand that if you have LRT and buses instead of subway and BRT, you can't have as many people living there.
I've tried to explain it, reasonably and sensibly so we could proceed to "argue" from facts. It clearly cannot be done.
You know I read the LG plans, and we've had very similar discussions in the past. I understand that in the YN BCA it says with no improvements to the GO line, Langstaff subway station was to have less than 5k peak boardings/alightings in 2031. Keep in mind that's with
no improvements to the RH line (which contradicts the very same report that says it
was to have improvements).
I also understand that Calthorpe proposed using PRT (i.e a human-sized hamster ball on a track) to bring people across the almost 2km elongated site to their district station located on the western edge. Whatever scheme used, it was apparently to be so popular that a whopping ~65% of commuters in Langstaff Gateway are to use transit. Odd as that is, I'm not disputing that.
I also understand that plans (secondary, official, transportation, napkin, etc) change all the time. So what was once planned as an ultra-high density Parisian mini metropolist wedged between a toll highway and cemetery could very well d/evolve into something a tad more realistic. If the City decides to keep some roadway allowances for future use, and it turns out that residents do in fact drive, roadway expansion and auto use may be higher than envisioned. And if the City decides to put streetscape improvements on the backburner to save a couple million (e.g like VMC and their wooden hydro towers), perhaps less people might walk than envisioned. And if YRT turns out to be less popular and offers poor service, people might ride less transit than envisioned.
Regardless, I'm not disputing the ultra-high projections for development or transit ridership. I'm pointing out that a subway isn't a requirement for the density proposed or its buildout, nor is buildout contingent on the subway. It's only claimed to be through the omission of nearby network improvements, and the skipping over of modes that could be built in place of a subway - modes that IMO could actually serve Langstaff Gtwy better than a peripheral subway station and pod conveyance system.
No offense but this line of thinking (excuse the pun) is exactly why our transportation network is in such a dire state. Assuming that modelling numbers are gospel without understanding the assumptions that went into these models is almost as much of a disservice as alleging that the Region concocted a BCA to justify the subway by artificially omitting GO Ridership numbers created 5 years prior where the assumptions were fairly different considering the political and funding realities of what had been projected in 2008 (remember that $2B/yr figure that the entire BIG MOVE was based on?).
Those numbers you mention for RH GO are based on 2008 assumptions of a built network of transit projects that included the now nonexistant Transit City Network and projected corridor growths that these projects would have created. The report is nearly a decade old which is almost ancient for Land-Use and Transportation modelling considering fundamental realities which have occurred in the urban fabric of the region. 2008 data was likely using the
2006 Transportation Tomorrow Survey and Census data as a base for O-D generation, whereas anything later than 2011 would likely have been using the 2011 TTS and Census data (although I can't find out where they pulled this data from admittedly), so to assume that the baselines are the same for those two reports you mention is false.
It's easy to cherry pick which data you prefer to support your case, but a realistic and fair explanation of what goes into these numbers is only fair if you're going to toss accusations about playing with numbers. It's why we don't build subways on Queen St based on data from 60 years ago, because they're just projections based on assumptions that were available at the time.
I don't take the 2008 modeling as gospel, and would call into question much of the numbers for the projects presented. Though I do understand the baselines and assumptions it used. These assumptions were very similar to the ones used in the Yonge North study and virtually every other transit project 'round that time. That is: with P2G in full effect, and the highest achievable residential/employment and transit mode shares for the UGCs and Big Move projects.
And I'm not tossing an accusation about "playing with numbers". I'm tossing an accusation about a glaring omission - one which invariably resulted in higher ridership #s for the subway. Again, the RH Express Rail option was most definitely on the table, and was very much presented in the 2013 Yonge North BCA - so clearly I'm not "cherry picking" data from different periods of time. In the 2013 Yonge North BCA these GO improvement were in fact presented as an option for RHC/LG, just as the subway was presented as an option for RHC/LG. The problem? The option of
both a subway and express rail weren't shown together - despite the fact that both were priorities to be in place by 2031.
Do you get it? This isn't cherry picking or playing w/ numbers, this is about one specific area and the exclusion of a number which could very well make or break a $4.6bn transit project (and if looking at previous modelling, my guess would be on break). With many other recent transit projects we're seemingly leaving no stone unturned in looking at every computation (see YRNS, Sheppard, Eglinton East/West, SRT, Waterfront, Scarb Subway, RER etc). In the instance of Yonge North it seems to be the complete opposite. One computation which had a glaring omission (that obviously works in subway supporters' favour), and people dust their hands and say done deal.
