TTC: Other Items (catch all)

[Northern Light]

So, on Thursday, when I was out for my walk, taking pics around downtown..........I happened to pass by the Cumberland St. Exit of Bay Station.

At a quick glance, I immediate saw something different inside.

When the entrance was first rebuilt, about 12 years ago now, at the behest of the BIA, to pretty it up and make it feel more 'Yorkville' ........

This is what it looked like inside:

Photo Credit to Station Fixation: https://photos.google.com/share/AF1...?key=NGlodmowWEZva2E0VnZMc1FIVTlBdDhyZHpuQ1ln

Note the light fixture.....I never did like that it dangled by a loose cord, rather than a fixed poll, but it was imeant to appear attractive at any rate.

But when I passed by the other day.............this is what I saw:

Rather more generic lighting affixed to the ceiling. Not particularly Yorkville in my opinion.

I wonder if the BIA knows....................

Really, thy could have done an elegant semi-flush fixture, with solid attachment, that would be less precarious and more vandalism resistant, but maintained a measure of elegance.............

Gah!

 

[Jonny5]

Photo Credit to Station Fixation: https://photos.google.com/share/AF1...?key=NGlodmowWEZva2E0VnZMc1FIVTlBdDhyZHpuQ1ln

Note the light fixture.....I never did like that it dangled by a loose cord, rather than a fixed poll, but it was imeant to appear attractive at any rate.

But when I passed by the other day.............this is what I saw:

View attachment 298575

I am impressed by the "no vaping" sticker they invented to put on the door.

 

[allengeorge]

Ottawa announces $3-billion-a-year transit transfer to cities, $5.9-billion for stimulus projects

Federal government said it will announce $14.9-billion in public transit projects over the next eight years, but details were not immediately provided

www.theglobeandmail.com

This is huge, but I’m incredibly disappointed by the 2026 implementation date.

Also 14.9B in transit projects to be funded over the next 8 years, which is...way less than the proposed federal portion of Ontario’s 5 signature projects.

 

[DSC]

Ottawa announces $3-billion-a-year transit transfer to cities, $5.9-billion for stimulus projects

Federal government said it will announce $14.9-billion in public transit projects over the next eight years, but details were not immediately provided

www.theglobeandmail.com

This is huge, but I’m incredibly disappointed by the 2026 implementation date.

Also 14.9B in transit projects to be funded over the next 8 years, which is...way less than the proposed federal portion of Ontario’s 5 signature projects.

I think you (or I?) read the announcement wrongly. This is a CONTINUATION of an existing program. Globe says:

Cities have been calling for such a move because the federal government’s main infrastructure transfer plan, worth $188-billion over 12 years, is currently only budgeted through to the 2027-28 fiscal year. Wednesday’s announcement means the transit portion of that program will continue indefinitely.

 

[allengeorge]

@DSC Ah - that makes sense. Thanks for clarifying that for me, and I apologize for the confusion.

 

[rbt]

Also 14.9B in transit projects to be funded over the next 8 years, which is...way less than the proposed federal portion of Ontario’s 5 signature projects.

It makes it much easier for Ontario because (at very least) it adds new money availability after 2028. The previous package funding ended prior to the expected completion of nearly every current Ontario proposal.

It's a gift to Ford who has been slow submitting paperwork, and the next REM phase.

Combined with the Hamilton LRT news, I expect we'll see which projects Ontario submitted for their slice of the federal transit packages by late Spring.

 

[W. K. Lis]

From link.

 

[allengeorge]

Let’s hope those 4 projects actually start being built.

Oh, and GO expansion/electrification.

 

[JSF-1]

From link.

View attachment 300108

If anything it proves at least 2 things to me. First is the benefits of using Cut-and-Cover and the second is using outdoor alignments when the opportunity presents it self. Just look at how quickly Line 1 and 2 were constructed in comparisson to today's projects. Something (ok many things) is fundamentally broken in the way we do things.

 

[W. K. Lis]

If anything it proves at least 2 things to me. First is the benefits of using Cut-and-Cover and the second is using outdoor alignments when the opportunity presents it self. Just look at how quickly Line 1 and 2 were constructed in comparisson to today's projects. Something (ok many things) is fundamentally broken in the way we do things.

The original Lines 1 and 2 were shallow, they didn't have to dig down deep for the stations. Also, design time would be included in the construction time. For the Eglinton West SUBWAY, they were spending time designing and had only started digging down for the Allen/Eglinton West Station when it was cancelled.

 

[DSC]

If anything it proves at least 2 things to me. First is the benefits of using Cut-and-Cover and the second is using outdoor alignments when the opportunity presents it self. Just look at how quickly Line 1 and 2 were constructed in comparisson to today's projects. Something (ok many things) is fundamentally broken in the way we do things.

It hardly takes a genius to realise that surface lines are cheaper and faster to build than cut and cover and that a tunnel is more costly and usually slower. However, in existing built- up areas (or areas where density is planned) most people do not want surface (or overhead) lines and one needs to tunnel sometimes as cut and cover only works if the line is fairly shallow. The problem here, and in other places, is that politicians want to move from bus transit to subways without the intermediate option of LRT, which can provide fast and frequent service that is going to be more than adequate for decades.

 

[ARG1]

It hardly takes a genius to realise that surface lines are cheaper and faster to build than cut and cover and that a tunnel is more costly and usually slower. However, in existing built- up areas (or areas where density is planned) most people do not want surface (or overhead) lines and one needs to tunnel sometimes as cut and cover only works if the line is fairly shallow. The problem here, and in other places, is that politicians want to move from bus transit to subways without the intermediate option of LRT, which can provide fast and frequent service that is going to be more than adequate for decades.

The issue then arises of the consequences of building LRT. LRT ain't that fast, or at least, isn't fast enough to provide adequate service to low density suburbs. It especially doesn't help that the way we're building LRT in this city is over indulging ourselves in the amount of stops we're placing down (cough cough Finch West), and aren't implementing stuff like TSP. This also doesn't get into the issue of having LRTs running slower than their maximum potential due to being placed in the median of the roadway requiring strict speed limits on the vehicles and to give way to a significant increase in service disruption due to the LRTs not being in an isolated system. These are the reasons why politicians who promote Subways, Subways, Subways do very well politically, LRTs don't work as rapid transit or as cheaper alternatives to subways. If we want cheaper alternatives to subways, we should be looking at Montreal and Vancouver where they're building elevated light metro which are not that much more expensive than LRTs per kilometer, but are better tenfold in terms of service.

 

[afransen]

The problem here, and in other places, is that politicians want to move from bus transit to subways without the intermediate option of LRT, which can provide fast and frequent service that is going to be more than adequate for decades.

The other way of looking at this is that LRT is a value trap. Properly executed BRT can, at low cost, get you to entry level throughput to support elevated light metro, which itself can be executed affordably. Tunneled subways will never be affordable enough, especially in Toronto, to adequately provide true rapid transit service to the suburbs.

ETA: we fell hard into the LRT value-trap with "Crosstown". It should have gotten the Ontario Line treatment: tunneled in the central section, elevated along the roadside where it makes sense and there is not much development yet. Leave plodding bus service in place for local service and have stations every 1-1.5km. I doubt it would have cost more than what we will have paid for Crosstown and Eg West.

 

[drum118]

The reason for subway lines being shallow is the fact of the bed rock is parts of the line where it was to go.

I stand to be corrected, Dynamite had to be used for the Yonge Line at X time of the day that has loud, cause damages to buildings and one reason the line follow the valley off Yonge St north of college. It was felt it was too time consuming and costly to stay on Yonge St to Eglinton since the did not have the equipment that is use today to deal with bed rock excavation then. Even with today equipment, excavation for foundations of tower take a longer time, but removes the need for shoring.

When line 2 was built, cut and fill was used to the north of Bloor/Danforth that a large number of homes and business were torn down for the line. It left a scare across the city where some areas still haven't recover from it.

If line 1 was built under Yonge at Bloor than where it is, it might have cause an issues for line 2 to turn down to University, but would help to fix today problem for the interchange station a lot easier.

Don't expect SSE be up and running before 2030.

Same goes for the Ontario Line that will cause a lot more problem moving to a Skytrain style system.

If Eglinton W had remain on the surface, it could had been in service by 2025, not the current timeframe if it happens.

Young North will not open before 2030.

The UPX was to be electrify by 2019 and looking like it will be 2025 now.

Electrifying the GO system will 7 plus years late than plan.

We most likely not see the first phase of QQE surface line before 2027 based on current loop location and the Union loop 2030. It only took 2.5 years to rebuilt QQW, but was delay due to Union 2nd platform. Building the new east portal and dealing with the current one should take no more than a year.

Eglinton E extension not be until 2030+

 

[coupdegrisou]

Does TTC and/or Metrolinx own the land they build their stations/station entrances on? If so, it seems odd to me that there's no attempt to capture the value of that land (and help fund the system) by allowing commercial/residential development on these sites.

Their newer stops (e.g. York University) are obviously suitable for this, but even the 'modernization' of the Dufferin station a few years ago seems like it could have included some additional development on site.

Even if it's the city or province that owned the land, seems like a shame that they aren't helping to fund transit through these means.
Any idea why this isn't more common here?