Toronto Ontario Line 3 | ?m | ?s

Cobra said:
You're right, assuming you dedicate extra staff, which it seems they don't want/can't do, extra cost. So the current staff would have to stop whatever they are doing to look at Carlaw, hence the delay.
Click to expand...
Based off my impression from discussion with City Planners at a Relief Line public meeting, there are not enough staff members in City Planning to do this and study the Carlaw alignment simultaneously. They are greatly understaffed as it is. (Hence why things like the Waterfront Transit Reset is taking longer to divert staff resources too)
 
Adjei said:
Neither should politicians
Click to expand...

Then who should be then? If you don't a personal stake in what is being built then why is your opinion any more relevant than those of local stakeholders - like those at serious risk of mass expropriation if Pape alignment south of Gerrard is chosen over Carlaw.
 
Hopkins123 said:
Then who should be then? If you don't a personal stake in what is being built then why is your opinion any more relevant than those of local stakeholders - like those at serious risk of mass expropriation if Pape alignment south of Gerrard is chosen over Carlaw.
Click to expand...

What gets built should be based on evidence. I would rather Metrolinx, , TTC, and the private sector dictate and build transit instead of these loud mouth politicians who have been setting back transit in this city for too long. Look at the new transit proposal in Montreal, since there is hardly an involvement from the politicians, look at the timeline for the project.
 
salsa said:
Keesmaat also said that studying a Carlaw alignment could delay the DRL by six months.
Click to expand...

Worth the delay to avoid an asinine stop location. Seriously where is more suited to a subway stop:



or


?

Where can't be so anxious to get a DRL under construction that we throw common sense out the window in the process.
 
salsa said:
Councillor McMahon moves to kill the examination of the Carlaw route for the downtown relief line. "Residents should not be dictating transit."
Click to expand...
Did she follow it up with a question about how many homes would be affected by each route and what what cost difference would be (capital and annual). Maybe a cursor analysis would show it is not worth studying farther..
 
Hopkins123 said:
Then who should be then? If you don't a personal stake in what is being built then why is your opinion any more relevant than those of local stakeholders - like those at serious risk of mass expropriation if Pape alignment south of Gerrard is chosen over Carlaw.
Click to expand...

Opinion shouldn't enter into it at all. Transit should be built based on facts, taken from studies done by experts. Instead the studies are ignored and politicians build where and what is politically favorable for them.
 
WislaHD said:
Based off my impression from discussion with City Planners at a Relief Line public meeting, there are not enough staff members in City Planning to do this and study the Carlaw alignment simultaneously. They are greatly understaffed as it is. (Hence why things like the Waterfront Transit Reset is taking longer to divert staff resources too)
Click to expand...

In the meantime, council just voted to "study" Sheppard, NYRL and Sherway again.

AoD
 
Hopkins123 said:
Worth the delay to avoid an asinine stop location. Seriously where is more suited to a subway stop:



or


?

Where can't be so anxious to get a DRL under construction that we throw common sense out the window in the process.
Click to expand...

Thank you. The fact that the fuss is being raised by local residents has overshadowed the fact that a Queen-Carlaw stop is more suited to new development in the immediate vicinity. This is not NIMBY, this is BODA (Better Overground Development Area).
 
A stop at Pape and Queen or Carlaw and Queen won't make any real difference. We're talking two short blocks. Montreal built its Metro on a minor street away from St-Denis, a major commercial throughfare for ease of construction. It's fine. Ease of construction is why Pape, not Carlaw, was recommended.

But with Council luminaries like Pasternak, Di Ciano, and Karygiannis getting studies on their pet subway lines so that Tory could get their votes, I guess Fletcher saw an opening and said "me too!"
 
ShonTron said:
A stop at Pape and Queen or Carlaw and Queen won't make any real difference. We're talking two short blocks. Montreal built its Metro on a minor street away from St-Denis, a major commercial throughfare for ease of construction, which is why Pape, not Carlaw, was recommended.

But with Council luminaries like Pasternak, Di Ciano, and Karygiannis getting studies on their pet subway lines so that Tory could get their votes, I guess Fletcher saw an opening and said "me too!"
Click to expand...

No kidding - not to mention both Yonge and BD is built at least partway off the main throughfare - and built far more intrusively at that. But apparently 21st century Toronto need to treat these houses with the reverence they so justly deserves while using a route that will negatively impact a far greater number of individuals (vis-a-vis new housing) is the "right" thing to do.

AoD
 
Last edited:
ShonTron said:
A stop at Pape and Queen or Carlaw and Queen won't make any real difference. We're talking two short blocks. Montreal built its Metro on a minor street away from St-Denis, a major commercial throughfare for ease of construction. It's fine. Ease of construction is why Pape, not Carlaw, was recommended.
Click to expand...

It's 200 metres between Pape and Carlaw. Factoring in the street structure and that the station boxes are aligned north of Queen, a Carlaw alignment would provide ~380m distance reduction (200+180m station box) for some new workers and residents on Carlaw (accessing north end of Carlaw station box vs south end of Pape station box). That's about 5 minutes. It doesn't seem like much but it is.
 
DonValleyRainbow said:
It's 200 metres between Pape and Carlaw. Factoring in the street structure and that the station boxes are aligned north of Queen, a Carlaw alignment would provide ~380m distance reduction (200+180m station box) for some new workers and residents on Carlaw (accessing north end of Carlaw station box vs south end of Pape station box). That's about 5 minutes. It doesn't seem like much but it is.
Click to expand...

5 minutes is well within the catchment area by any reasonable definition. Is it really about trying to shave 2 minutes off, or is it about something else.

AoD
 
AlvinofDiaspar said:
5 minutes is well within the catchment area by any reasonable definition. Is it really about trying to shave 2 minutes off, or is it about something else.

AoD
Click to expand...

I'm arguing that moving the station box a 2 minute walk away can actually result in 5 minutes in savings for some people in the catchment area. I'm arguing about where this catchment area exactly is. It's not a simple as drawing a circle around each entrance when you look at the walkable street/path structure. And it sure as hell will be easier to modify that structure in the Carlaw corridor than Pape.

EDIT: Okay, I drew a map. All lines =400m walking. Orange = Carlaw station, Green = Pape.

A Carlaw alignment puts more areas that can be developable into medium to high mixed use, and puts in within shorter walking distance and therefore increases value. The Pape alignment puts it along a lot of back alleyways behind single use homes.

Ry5M4S5.png
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top