Kind of dumb logic in play:
- If a location can be filled with highrises, then it is a good place for TOD, and a subway station will be funded.
- If a location is already filled with the same or greater number of highrises, then there is no more fish to fry, the location isn't designated for TOD, and a subway station will not be funded.
The existing residents do not deserve a subway, it is all their fault that they moved into high density before the subway planning started.
It's not really that illogical because you're not differentiating between TOD, which is happening naturally, and TOC, which is a specific contract between IO and the developer. So they're not saying there is too much development for a subway, creating some weird paradox. They're saying it's too late because all the good development sites are gone and there is no
direct funding to leverage at Cummer. I'm not saying that's fair, or that Royal Orchard is a better station than Cummer (I could take or leave either) but they established early on that they were building the 3 main stations + 1 more (Clark) and then maybe more, if TOC funds could be leveraged. There is plenty of TOD that will happen, and is happening, along the corridor that won't directly interface with the subway or contribute to its funding but building the station requires an agreement with ajdacent development (s).
So, it may well be unfair to Toronto but there is a logic to it, given the funding structure.
Yes.
Yonge is a 6 lane stroad between "old" Richmond Hill and Newmarket. And old Richmond hill is so small and the lots around it so low density and large, you can just go around it if you thought 10 shops and a church were invaluable pieces of our heritage.
Take out the center lanes, do protected lefts/u-turns at major intersections and you can run an elevated train in the median all the way from Davis Drive to Hwy 7.
My fault for casting the net so wide
But I don't think it would have worked through Thornhill and if someone wants to argue that it certainly could have, then I would counter it would have worked equally well (or poorly) on the Willowdale (Finch-Steeles) section. If someone is going to argue it should be aboveground north of Steeles, I'd still like to see the logic as to why the same thing wouldn't be true south of Steeles (where, among things, there isn't a Heritage Conservation District).
Vancouver begs to differ. Urbanism and elevated rail work together. Besides its vast sfh and the row is wide enough. It was doable. You can't do a proper business case without actually reviewing the options. See the cost benefits. Right now its not even a 1 with a 60 year look out. There is a real problem with that the roi (return on investment) should be at a minimum a 1. The extension is needed but the cost are to significant to make it worth while. So let's lower the cost and look at other options.
I hear you. In fairness, they
did lower costs by coming above ground for the final 2 stations. I really don't think it would have worked on Yonge Street but I appreciate that, on principle, there's an argument that maybe it could have.
Like with the Bloor Dundas line, an elevated alignment does not need to be right on Yonge. excavating 40m deep stations in SFH suburbia is madness.
Well, it is a bit mad but it's also
one station that - again - even without the realingment is coming uphill from a river valley. I wouldn't have put the station there, partly for that reason, and I liked the prior plan that took the subway over the valley on a bridge, FWIW, but looking at the other stations, 2 are above grade and the other 2 appear to be normal depths so I wouldn't define the whole line by that one station. the only elevated rail I could see that maybe could have worked would have been if it came out on that bridge and then stayed above-grade north of Royal Orchard, into the Growth Centres. But I'm not sure how you cut over to the rail corridor, through established neighbourhoods, if you do that. A lot of changes flowed from that decision.
