News   Apr 23, 2024
Avontuura's Wanderer Guides Designed For Architecture Buffs to Geek-out in Toronto, and Worldwide
 156     0 
News   Apr 23, 2024
Queen's Cross Food Hall Brings Global Flavours to Toronto Eaton Centre
 660     0 
News   Apr 23, 2024
News Roundup for April 23, 2024
 430     0 

Waterfront Transit Reset Phase 1 Study

How should Toronto connect the East and West arms of the planned waterfront transit with downtown?

  • Expand the existing Union loop

    Votes: 200 73.3%

  • Build a Western terminus

    Votes: 10 3.7%

  • Route service along Queen's Quay with pedestrian/cycle/bus connection to Union

    Votes: 28 10.3%

  • Connect using existing Queen's Quay/Union Loop and via King Street

    Votes: 19 7.0%

  • Other

    Votes: 16 5.9%
  • Total voters
    273
AlvinofDiaspar said:
Even assuming they can't add stations this close, it doesn't mean they can move stations - the current Mimico station is a dump anyways, and the intensification around the area is for practical reasons nil. It's a no-brainer. And to have TTC wanting Metrolinx to capture their riders and the latter not wanting it tells you just how serious GO is about servicing the city residents even at full price.

AoD
Click to expand...
But the convenience of crew changes at Mimico! Won't anyone think of the crews?!

Actually Byford mentioned a few of their infill stops in Sydney were closer than PL/Mimico and they managed it by running different levels of service. For example, Mimico would be a limited station stop, maybe every 2-3 trains would stop, while PL would be a full service stop with all local trains stopping... It's as simple as something that can be run on a spreadsheet, but nope, too difficult for the frail minds at Metrolinx.

EDIT: Just to add, you brought up the food terminal. Understood it's a critical piece of infrastructure, bla bla bla, but I see its days as very limited. By the early 2020s we should hear about them relocating to Milton (or somewhere else with space). That land redeveloped is worth a lot of money... Everyone said Mr. Christie's will never leave, and well they did, 5 years ago now.
 
Last edited:
I think it goes back to Metrolinx's incentives.

If they seriously were concerned with serving Toronto, they would be looking to find reasons to justify spending on a Park Lawn GO station. Instead, their incentive is to find reasons to not do it.

Perhaps if Metrolinx was subservant to the municipalities of this region, as opposed to Queen's Park, like TransLink in Vancouver is, the situation would be different.
 
AlvinofDiaspar said:
It's incredible how they couldn't see the potential of a stop there with all the existing condos and the upcoming Christie factory redevelopment (not to mention the eventuality of the food terminal) - if they have to rip up Mimico to do it, they should.
Click to expand...
Filip said:
That decision will likely be revisited in short order. I'm not going to divulge too much, but that initial business case is so flawed in its assumptions and modeling, that Metrolinx is basically putting themselves out there for a fight.
Click to expand...

Metrolinx has more important priorities. Like building greenfield stations in Aurora and now King City only because it happens to be in the transport minister's riding.
 
salsa said:
Metrolinx has more important priorities. Like building greenfield stations in Aurora and now King City only because it happens to be in the transport minister's riding.
Click to expand...
Metrolinx is one minor PR disaster away from getting creamed by the province. I wouldn't worry..
 
Filip said:
Metrolinx is one minor PR disaster away from getting creamed by the province. I wouldn't worry..
Click to expand...
Metrolinx has still been overall successful, especially once GO-RER is in place.

Their dissolution would mean that Queen's Park and the Ministry of Transportation will go back to being regional transit planners (more so than today). The horror.
 
WislaHD said:
Metrolinx has still been overall successful, especially once GO-RER is in place.

Their dissolution would mean that Queen's Park and the Ministry of Transportation will go back to being regional transit planners (more so than today). The horror.
Click to expand...
I'm not saying dissolving Metrolinx, but tightening the harness.. Or choke collar...
 
Filip said:
I'm not saying dissolving Metrolinx, but tightening the harness.. Or choke collar...
Click to expand...

Or loosening the political leash and give it some real power to get sh*t done without worrying its' back (with the proviso of having a leadership that is capable of such). You don't make an omelette without breaking a few eggs.

AoD
 
AlvinofDiaspar said:
Or loosening the political leash and give it some real power to get sh*t done without worrying its' back (with the proviso of having a leadership that is capable of such).

AoD
Click to expand...
I disagree. Metrolinx makes pretty questionable decisions as a matter of course. There needs to be oversight.
 
Filip said:
I disagree. Metrolinx makes pretty questionable decisions as a matter of course. There needs to be oversight.
Click to expand...

Sure - independent technical oversight - but oversight by politics/popularity? That's been one big disaster that didn't prevent these little ones.

AoD
 
Filip said:
I disagree. Metrolinx makes pretty questionable decisions as a matter of course. There needs to be oversight.
Click to expand...
What kind of powers would you take away from Metrolinx + transparancy/oversight would you be imposing?

Metrolinx is already severely limited in what it can do. It can't raise funds for transit, and it cannot come up with a comprehensive transportation plan as it has zero jurisdiction at looking over road infrastructure (which is reserved for the Ministry of Transportation).

I think we need a different governmental model. Earlier I mentioned that Metrolinx needs to be detached from Queen's Park and beholden to the municipalities in the region themselves.

This article addresses the point-of-view.

London and Vancouver are a couple of examples of regional transportation authorities from which we could take inspiration. We don’t have to copy them, but there is a lot to learn.
Click to expand...

Transport for London was established in 1999 to give the mayor of London oversight of all transportation within and to/from London. TfL doesn’t just oversee public transit (the “Tube,” buses, and river transit); it regulates the roads, licenses taxis, develops cycling infrastructure, and ensures pedestrian accessibility. One of the chief officers of TfL is a walking and cycling commissioner! All operators, public and private, fall under their purview. There are sub-regional panels with borough representatives that TfL consults with regularly.

The mayor is chair of TfL’s board. Only 40 per cent of TfL income comes from fares. The congestion charge is TfL revenue, so it funds nothing else. Twenty-five per cent of TfL income comes from various levels of government, mostly the central government—they have multi-year agreements for capital and operating funds.

To put it very simply, professionals are responsible for the operation of all mobility infrastructure, in coordination with each other, and all of this is accountable to a board and the City. The funding from the state reflects its responsibility to invest in public infrastructure, but it doesn’t turn that into interference on the specifics of projects. Because it can’t.
Click to expand...

TransLink is the transportation authority for Vancouver’s metropolitan region. Like TfL, it oversees multiple forms of transportation: public transit, roads, and cycling. The mayor is a member of the board of directors, and he chairs TransLink’s Mayor’s Council which has representatives from each municipality in the region. The Mayor’s Council has a role in the appointment of the board’s membership and approves TransLink’s transportation plans.
Click to expand...

What we have now (within Toronto city boundaries) is the TTC, the City Planning division, the city’s Transportation Services division, GO Transit, York Region’s VIVA, Mississauga Transit, Municipal Licensing and Standards, the Ministry of Transportation, and Metrolinx. Metrolinx was established in 2006 by the province (originally as “the Greater Toronto Transportation Authority”) to “improve the coordination and integration of all modes of transportation in the Greater Toronto and Hamilton Area.”

Unlike the authorities in either London or Vancouver, Metrolinx does not belong to the City but remains a provincial government agency. Affected municipalities have limited participation in its decisions, and it is not accountable to Toronto City Council. If anything, sometimes it feels like the other way round.
Click to expand...
 
One hears too many left-hand/right-hand stories about ML. Transit people tell me you know it's a ML meeting because when they show up, they bring ten people. They study *everything*, even stuff that the municipal operators have well in hand. They demonstrate little or no transparency in anything, *especially* project management. Some significant promises have been missed. Everything they build seeems to fall behind schedule. Their track record on consultation is iffy and they use PR to evade, rather than answer, fair and honest questions.

I don't think they should be disbanded, it is the right governance model for planning and operating GTA transit.....but they need some more dances with the Auditor-General. Reminds me of Ontario Hydro in the 1980's.

- Paul
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top