Toronto Ontario Line 3 | ?m | ?s

micheal_can said:
With the challenge of economic space for yards being an issue, it might be a cheaper option, and better as the taxes that could be collected from land used as yard instead of commercial, industrial or residential is not and instead costing the city.
Click to expand...
Or they could build Obico and use Greenwood as originally envisioned.
 
Hopkins123 said:
Not too surprised some people are out of touch with the plans when not too long ago the Left's preferred Mayor wanted the DRL built as the Don Mills LRT on the surface.

Thank goodness cooler heads prevailed.
Click to expand...

Preliminary plans had a line from Don Mills to Pape. The DRL south would've been a subway line running from Pape south.

I wasn't a fan of that particular line, but I understood the need for higher capacity service - and it certainly wasn't set in stone at that point.

Personally I prefered the Mayor who was actually implementing sensible policies and getting things done. Miller is the Toronto mayor of the 2000s that best fits that description.
 
syn said:
Preliminary plans had a line from Don Mills to Pape. The DRL south would've been a subway line running from Pape south.
Click to expand...
Preliminary - like the preliminary plan to place Eglinton LRT on-street through Leslie.
supporters assured us that would change in detail design.
Also, the DRL was only planned for after the Transit City was completed. DRL was shelved and all efforts were put into Transit City.
syn said:
I wasn't a fan of that particular line, but I understood the need for higher capacity service . . . .
Click to expand...
I would have thought that David Miller and the Planners he was directing would have known that as well. (see also above).
syn said:
. . . . .and it certainly wasn't set in stone at that point.
Click to expand...
See first point about not set in stone (i.e. preliminary).
syn said:
Personally I preferred the Mayor who was actually implementing sensible policies and getting things done. Miller is the Toronto mayor of the 2000s that best fits that description.
Click to expand...
The entire Transit City was a social plan, and not a transportation plan. It focused on priority neighbourhoods, and not on moving people. The biggest need for Toronto was more transit lines to the city core, and reducing congestion at the transfer stations.
Transit City added ZERO capacity to the city centre. From Dufferin to DVP, from Bloor to Lakeshore - nothing.
Also, it simply added (or maintained) the transfers and didn't reduce them at all. Look at Scarborough - same number of people - actually they were expecting more - and they would be expected to transfer at Kennedy and at Y-B. It didn't solve anything.
At a time when the recession hit, One (or 2) projects that the city could get behind and concentrate on would have been ideal. You had a federal government forking out money, and a provincial one promising it as well. Instead, they pushed these half dozen plans, losing the focus of the design team and of the decision makers. Many were also controversial, leading to endless debate - instead of just focusing on 1 or 2 major projects that could have had consensus. The priorities were all wrong as well. Sheppard East LRT was prioritized just to kill the idea of a subway, not for any transit reason. By the time they arrived at a decision on what they wanted, the public was no longer on board and the senior governments had lost the motivation to fund anything.
It was just a terrible idea that killed transit for a decade.
 
BurlOak said:
Preliminary - like the preliminary plan to place Eglinton LRT on-street through Leslie.
supporters assured us that would change in detail design.
Also, the DRL was only planned for after the Transit City was completed. DRL was shelved and all efforts were put into Transit City.

I would have thought that David Miller and the Planners he was directing would have known that as well. (see also above).

See first point about not set in stone (i.e. preliminary).
The entire Transit City was a social plan, and not a transportation plan. It focused on priority neighbourhoods, and not on moving people. The biggest need for Toronto was more transit lines to the city core, and reducing congestion at the transfer stations.
Transit City added ZERO capacity to the city centre. From Dufferin to DVP, from Bloor to Lakeshore - nothing.
Also, it simply added (or maintained) the transfers and didn't reduce them at all. Look at Scarborough - same number of people - actually they were expecting more - and they would be expected to transfer at Kennedy and at Y-B. It didn't solve anything.
At a time when the recession hit, One (or 2) projects that the city could get behind and concentrate on would have been ideal. You had a federal government forking out money, and a provincial one promising it as well. Instead, they pushed these half dozen plans, losing the focus of the design team and of the decision makers. Many were also controversial, leading to endless debate - instead of just focusing on 1 or 2 major projects that could have had consensus. The priorities were all wrong as well. Sheppard East LRT was prioritized just to kill the idea of a subway, not for any transit reason. By the time they arrived at a decision on what they wanted, the public was no longer on board and the senior governments had lost the motivation to fund anything.
It was just a terrible idea that killed transit for a decade.
Click to expand...
Transit city wasn't a bad idea. The problem was building a subway to Vaughan and not Scarborough. That's Sobara's and McGuinty's fault. If Ottawa and Finch tread water, we're not getting anymore LRT lines, which is sad.
 
denfromoakvillemilton said:
Transit city wasn't a bad idea. The problem was building a subway to Vaughan and not Scarborough. That's Sobara's and McGuinty's fault. If Ottawa and Finch tread water, we're not getting anymore LRT lines, which is sad.
Click to expand...

The problem is, Toronto needs subway lines in way to many places. LRT will not solve those issues.
 
Hopkins123 said:
Not too surprised some people are out of touch with the plans when not too long ago the Left's preferred Mayor wanted the DRL built as the Don Mills LRT on the surface.

Thank goodness cooler heads prevailed.
Click to expand...

Now these same people are screaming about capacity issues with the Ontario Line.
 
Hopkins123 said:
Not too surprised some people are out of touch with the plans when not too long ago the Left's preferred Mayor wanted the DRL built as the Don Mills LRT on the surface.
Click to expand...

2007 is farther back than you think. The LRT idea might have been suitable for when it was proposed in the mid-2000s, but it's 13 years ago now that Transit City was announced. A higher-order grid of transit is still needed to keep up with the increasing ridership. Convoys of express buses is still not the answer.

On another topic in the past few posts...
In terms of yard usage, Greenwood would have some capacity as it can't hold as many trains if they are fixed length six-car TR type. Many tracks can hold two six-car trains, but a portion of the yard is built for 10 cars, i.e. a six-car and a four-car train. At one time way back in the plans I thought the DRL was to use four-car subway trains, which would fit into the Greenwood Yard with the BD trains, in conjunction with a second full-size yard to supplement.
 
How did the Scarborough subway ever become a Conservative talking point? Replacing the SRT is the very definition of spending like a drunken sailor. The conservative solution is to fix the rapid transit line that already exists.

There were very few people on UT who thought the Don Mills LRT was ever a good idea, left or right. Miller was rightly criticized for it for exactly the same reason that the Ontario Line is being criticized. The revisionist history coming from some of you is laughable.
 
micheal_can said:
The problem is, Toronto needs subway lines in way to many places. LRT will not solve those issues.
Click to expand...
The rolling stock is an issue there. Using LRV everywhere constrains capacity. Eglinton probably should have been full subway. And the Onatrio Line should use TR rockets and and not sky train for the same reasons.
 
AlbertHWagstaff said:
2007 is farther back than you think. The LRT idea might have been suitable for when it was proposed in the mid-2000s, but it's 13 years ago now that Transit City was announced. A higher-order grid of transit is still needed to keep up with the increasing ridership. Convoys of express buses is still not the answer.

On another topic in the past few posts...
In terms of yard usage, Greenwood would have some capacity as it can't hold as many trains if they are fixed length six-car TR type. Many tracks can hold two six-car trains, but a portion of the yard is built for 10 cars, i.e. a six-car and a four-car train. At one time way back in the plans I thought the DRL was to use four-car subway trains, which would fit into the Greenwood Yard with the BD trains, in conjunction with a second full-size yard to supplement.
Click to expand...

Don't diss express buses - convoys of them would have provided actual service in the intervening years that was spent debating transit plans. We chose to do only the latter.

micheal_can said:
The problem is, Toronto needs subway lines in way to many places. LRT will not solve those issues.
Click to expand...

That's a surefire way to ensure nothing gets built - to upsize infrastructure to the highest cost option even when ridership does not justify it. Toronto need fast, easily accessible transit - not a specific mode everywhere.

Adjei said:
Now these same people are screaming about capacity issues with the Ontario Line.
Click to expand...

You want to compare OL (projected ridership, future extensions possibilities) to any other line proposed in the GTA?

AoD
 
Last edited:
BurlOak said:
Preliminary - like the preliminary plan to place Eglinton LRT on-street through Leslie.
supporters assured us that would change in detail design.
Click to expand...

Who?

The Eglinton LRT was never meant to be underground the entire way.

BurlOak said:
I would have thought that David Miller and the Planners he was directing would have known that as well. (see also above).
Click to expand...

I'm sure they did.

No one ever said Transit City was perfect - but it was certainly well thought out in a lot of areas.

BurlOak said:
The entire Transit City was a social plan, and not a transportation plan. It focused on priority neighbourhoods, and not on moving people. The biggest need for Toronto was more transit lines to the city core, and reducing congestion at the transfer stations.
Click to expand...

Transit City addressed glaring issues in the communities that needed it the most. It certainly wasn't meant to be the end all and be all of transit construction in the city. To say it didn't add capacity is kind of silly. The Jane LRT alone would've been a big boon to the west end.

Kind of funny you're complaining about Transit City not adding capacity and using an LRT for the Relief Line North when that's exactly what Ford is doing. The Ontario Line is already going to be inadequate from a capacity perspective by the time it's complete. Unlike Miller, Ford doesn't have the excuse that he's a Mayor with limited power in 2007. He's the Premier of the province in 2020, when it's more clear than ever how necessary it is to have this line completed properly.

I guess it's okay when Ford does it though, right?

BurlOak said:
It was just a terrible idea that killed transit for a decade.
Click to expand...

Electing Rob Ford was the terrible idea that's killed transit expansion for the past decade.

If not, Scarborough would have their RT replacement up and running, the Eglinton LRT would probably be done, Finch West would be further along and we'd probably have the DRL already under construction, with Sheppard and Yonge North extensions further along too.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top