Northern Light
Superstar
The GTAA and the government continue to envision Pearson being and hosting a large transit hub.
|
|
|
The Future of subway and rapid transit in the GTA
- Thread starter Smiffy
- Start date
The GTAA and the government continue to envision Pearson being and hosting a large transit hub.
RadicalJohnnyRobbo
New Member
I feel like a ferry service could be set up a lot faster than the Park Lawn GO Station. Surely in the interim (and into the future) a ferry transit line could connect Humber Bay to the Jack Layton terminal, and potentially the Portlands. NYC runs ferries as transit, as do lots of cold-weather cities like Stockholm and Helsinki
Bojaxs
Senior Member
You don't even have to look outside of Canada. Vancouver & Halifax.
Milaisacat
Active Member
The coasts aren't real.
TRONto
Active Member
Does this fit anywhere in Toronto?
duty free
Active Member
Only place I've ever heard it suggested before was a potential line from Broadview Station to the Brick Works.
Maybe one day there will be a cable car connecting Broadview Station to an Evergreen Brick Works Midtown GO Line Station. Would be pretty cool actually.
JasonParis
Moderator
It's also been suggested to cross the eastern gap.
TRONto
Active Member
Same, that's the only one I remember.
I'm sure there would be some use other use cases on a lower ridership route but can't think of a good example.
I'm sure there would be some use other use cases on a lower ridership route but can't think of a good example.
Bojaxs
Senior Member
I'll refrain from posting in the Line 5 and Line 6 threads. How is it that Stockholm, a European city of less than 1 million people, can have a metro network more expansive than Toronto's?
At some point we're going to have to convert Line 5 to a Metro. Preferably to Ontario Line standards. That way the rolling stock can be interoperable between Line 5 & 3.
A lot of the pro-LRT folks would probably argue that the stations for the Stockholm Metro are overbuilt for the amount of passengers they carry. I'm getting a lot of Sheppard line vibes from the first video I posted, and I love it. Large, expansive platforms and quiet.
At some point we're going to have to convert Line 5 to a Metro. Preferably to Ontario Line standards. That way the rolling stock can be interoperable between Line 5 & 3.
A lot of the pro-LRT folks would probably argue that the stations for the Stockholm Metro are overbuilt for the amount of passengers they carry. I'm getting a lot of Sheppard line vibes from the first video I posted, and I love it. Large, expansive platforms and quiet.
Last edited:
Abdullah77
New Member
The Swedes had a generation of social democratic governments post-War willing to spend on big ticket items. We had the PC version of that for a bit with Bill Davis, followed by a succession of provincial governments not willing or able to spend. In the 2000s we had that unwillingness at the province and federal levels along with small-town attitude at City Hall.
The stars have sort of aligned with Ford (big spender + big vision), but unfortunately we lost all our state capacity and expertise and are paying eye-watering sums for a Queen Street subway we should have built 50 years ago.
As for Line 5, I don't know if making it light metro is feasible. The stations are dug, the platforms and escalators and elevators are set in stone. Lowering the tunnel floor or raising the platform height may be far too expensive and troublesome to ever be worth it. We will be stuck with the Frankenstein metro-tram.
MisterF
Senior Member
Transit advocates in Toronto have an odd desire to "convert" existing mass transit lines to something higher capacity. This would be extremely disruptive and expensive, potentially costing more than just building new lines. Not to mention completely unnecessary in a city that still has relatively limited rapid transit coverage even after Lines 3 and 5 open. Meanwhile in other cities when a line nears capacity they don't shut it down for years to convert it to something else. They do the sensible thing and build more lines.
a2z
New Member
Adding to what @Abdullah77 has said - Stockholm realized there was a need for housing after the war, committed to a growth plan and stuck with it almost fully! Below is the city's 1952 General Plan which is almost 1:1 to the current metro network today.
What is also interesting about this plan was how the planners of Stockholm took risks in their visions for the city - e.g. the ABC city - with jobs, shopping, and housing all combined into one suburb e.g. Vallingby. Therefore, unlike us, when planning the creation of these suburbs that would be connected to the T-bana, planners rejected the notion of singularly creating them for single-family housing..... ; nor did they completely antagonize the automobile (one thing, in hindsight, I appreciated about running in suburban Stockholm/Sollentuna was seldom coming into contact with major roads - as there would almost always be a pedestrian tunnel or overpass - now, I have to stop 45s at every other major intersection on Sheppard...)
Stockholm's metro network is essentially the same as it was in 1975, when the Blue Line was inaugurated which primarily enabled the development of the "Million Programme" suburbs (i.e. one of the big ticket items initiated by S mentioned, where they funded the creation of well, 1 million, new homes. and uh, Build Canada Homes looks miniscule in comparison, especially adjusted for population). Since then, essentially no new additions to the network, which makes sense as right after, the economic downturns of the 70s and 80s hit. (so I guess that explains the fiscal reluctance of the provincial governments in the following years; imagine how different things would be had even Network 2011 been fully realized...)
Actually a mistake with the Blue Line was that the developments were fully finished a couple years before the metro reached these new neighbourhoods. It is interesting to note that many of the neighbourhoods near the terminuses of each metro line are classified by the Police as a "vulnerable area" (defined as: low socioeconomic status + criminal impact on local community) - especially the northern suburbs of the Blue Line - e.g. Rinkeby, Husby, Tensta are big drivers of the "negative international reputation" Sweden has gotten when it comes to crime; already, by the 80s these new housing developments already became undesired areas for those who weren't new immigrants. But they continue to do their job in providing housing. (on that note I will hope that the Sheppard Extension does include a station in the Downsview Airport redevelopment, as many people have mentioned in many threads)
The big transit developments in the city since would be the Tvarbanan, the LRT that transverses across the outskirts of the core and intersects with all of the T-bana & Pendeltag lines at different points, and tunneling the Pendeltag underground to relieve congestion at Stockholm Central. Only now are they beginning to expand the metro network further, again to help facilitate new housing creation in the suburbs. Although, probably the single biggest housing opportunity for the city is the eventual redevelopment of Bromma Airport (which has a Tvarbanan stop; wait, you're telling me that there can be use cases for both subways & LRTs in a city to meet the needs of different corridors, and there doesn't have to be a binary "subway vs LRT: your city can only have one" civil war? Wow, how revolutionary!) For whatever reason, the Tido government is blocking this redevelopment from starting its first innings, despite nearly all commercial flights leaving the airport at the end of 2024, but it is likely this coalition will be voted out in the next election in 9 months...
So some of the lessons are: i) well, it's easier to get things done when you don't have to fight the suburbs (because there were no suburbs in the first place!); ii) but also commit to a (big) plan, stick with it all the way, and allow the experts to do their job without having their plans altered & diluted by the pandering to a select set of voters (something we have failed time and time again)
(P.S. if you ever ride the Blue Line, you will almost immediately notice how deep the stations are... getting out from Radhuset is a bit of a maze!)
Last edited:
Bojaxs
Senior Member
Well, maybe if we had built the proper transit in the first place?
There is definitely a yearning by some transit advocates to correct this mistake.
MisterF
Senior Member
Light rail is proper transit when it's done right and it can be just as fast as a subway line. Your continued insistence on subways subways subways is tiresome and unhelpful.
Whatever or not you think that the way the line was designed was a mistake, shutting it down for years and spending billions to convert it to a slightly different type of line would be an even bigger mistake.
Westey
New Member
Well we didn't build the proper transit so we need to figure out where to go from here. I say maybe in about 50 years this line will need major rehabilitation and we can rebuild it properly then.
In the meantime, I think Getting the Bolton GO line running is one thing to do.
On the other end, extending the terminal to Woodbine GO can be done.
In the middle, consider extending Ontario Line all the way from Don Mills & Finch to Don Mills and Albion Rd. (or thereabouts).
These would all just mean that people would have to spend less time on the FWLRT. And these work with a fixed LRT.