I'm just saying that compared to other municipalities in the GTHA that are asking for Provincial funding for their priority projects, York Region is asking for significantly more per person than anywhere else. If York Region were to ask for a 1/3rd funding split, which would bring the per person Provincial contribution in line with other areas, then I would have no problem with it at all.
I just want to see Provincial transit dollars distributed equitably. Most areas of the GTHA are in the neighbourhood of $1000-$1500 per person for their priority projects. If a municipality determines that it's needs fall beyond what that per person allotment, then I think the municipality should be responsible for paying for the difference themselves, or putting in a request for federal funding, like Toronto did with the Scarborough Subway.
Fair enough, but
equitably is very relative. York Region shouldn't be punished for going all in on transit. If Markham is willing to plan one of the densest, most ambitious suburban communities on the continent (you know, hypothetically), it's absurd to deny them that because it's not "fair" to some other municipality. See, that's how you get a bunch of city councillors saying, "Oh, downtown has SO MUCH transit; Scarborough DESERVES some too." No, it doesn't. That's fair.
Allocating on some abstract per person basis, irrespective of geography, official plans etc. strikes me as hugely UNfair, though it reminds me of Tim Hudak's idea to redistribute the gas tax so every municipality could have at least a little, that being more FAIR than Toronto et al hogging it for their selfish transit needs.
There's nothing wrong with the old 1/3 model. I'm sure if the feds and province each kicked in $1B (and a bit more, by now), York Region would happily pay its share. I don't know how many more projects Toronto can afford given how they did the Scarborough funding but it's the upper-level funding that's the obstacle now (and Toronto's capacity concerns).
Based on the fact that you're by far the #1 defender of Yonge North ext to Highway 7, and that you hate the idea of Yonge extended to Steeles but no further, I would've guessed that you lived and/or owned property at Yonge & Highway 7 or something.
Not that there's anything wrong with that, that's just what I would've guessed based on you being mainly focused on this one issue.
Actually, I've done a lot of writing and research about transit and regional governance and, yes, this project. I bitch about Metrolinx, Presto, Spadina and other regional issues when relevant.
That said, sure it would be nice to be near the subway but I've also lived for a long time near Steeles (on both sides) and seen first-hand how these cross-border issues manifest themselves. I've felt for a long time that the border was obsolete except as a line someone drew on a map. People in Willowdale have more in common (and shop in, and visit etc.) with Thornhill than with the Beaches, except for where their taxes go. By any objective measure, the extension makes sense, regardless of whether I can use it or not.
I agree that it is absurd. Like I said before, the DRL and Yonge are the only worthwhile subway projects in Toronto. They both deserve to be built in their entirety. But if there really is a a limited amount of money to allocate to Yonge, it's logical to terminate it at Steeles where it can at least help to alleviate bus congestion. Completely cancelling the Yonge extension just because it can't go to RHC doesn't strike me as being particularly useful.
Well, that's where we're at now and, yes, it stinks. I still don't see the point of Steeles as a half-measure. It's the same logic that gave us a castrated Sheppard line. When it comes to transit and planning "half-assed" is not necessarily better than nothing. I really don't see how it works because York Region would be rightfully furious...a BRT is pointless now and I don't see how you appease York Region by creating an LRT merely to go from Steeles to 7. If it's an interim measure, maybe it works politically but as I see it, yes, you can say "Given the limited $, it makes sense," but it still doesn't in terms of planning or transit or (perhaps most importantly) politics.
When there is funding, it will be interesting as all getout to watch things go down, that's for sure.