News   Apr 24, 2024
Latest Iteration of 50 Eglinton West Proposes 46- and 58-Storey Towers
 434     1 
News   Apr 24, 2024
Sustainability Month: Mass Timber Construction Showing Long-Term Economic Benefits
 598     0 
News   Apr 24, 2024
Aspen Ridge Freehold Townhomes at Crosstown in Master-Planned Community
 500     0 

25-Year Masterplanning (TTC 1950s/60s, Network 2011, GO 2020, Metrolinx 2031, Metrolinx 2041)

These masterplans do get tweaked. 2031 was tweaked to 2041.

There will probably be Metrolinx 2051 public consultations during 2026-2027 to tweak 2041.
 
Last edited:
MisterF said:
The Jane LRT always struck me as a bit problematic. It just dumps riders at Bloor when most of them will be going much farther. Riders will have two transfers to get downtown. And there's no interface with the Kitchener RER line, which could otherwise become the primary way downtown for people in that area.

Maybe extend the Jane line southeast and have it run under College/Carlton. Maybe that's a long shot but I never liked the way the line just ends where it does.
Click to expand...
BurlOak said:
Jane LRT is the symmetric equivalent of the Don Mills LRT - which was to dump off passengers at Pape Station.
With even the smallest bit of analysis, they will realize that Jane is a bad idea.
Not only does this have to be continuous to the downtown, but looking at the population density map, it appears that it should take Parkside, Keele, Weston, Black Creek Jane. Either that, or abandon it altogether and run the DRL West up Dufferin.
Click to expand...
This is simple. Terminate it at Mt Dennis via Weston Road.
 
Woodbridge_Heights said:
Without these plans how will we be able to think "what could have been"?
Click to expand...
Fair comment, ha.
micheal_can said:
What is the point of even doing any of these master plans? Most of those plans will never be realized.
Click to expand...
Master plans play an important role in city planning, and has been the foundation of many elements of cities, whether be roads, plumbing networks, phone networks, sewer networks, buildings, transit, and everything else.

Look closer. Even if 25% of a master plan is built, that is better than 0%. A more recently masterplanning cycle (the 2031) appears to be more successful grade, "relatively" percentage-wise (compared to previous masterplans), as double-digit percentages are vastly better than single-digits.

We can pull our head at the dismalness, but we're getting C and D grades now instead of F. We still need to strive to get to "B-" and see many construction/completions of popular routes (Crosstown-league).

If nobody did masterplanning, we'd be worse off.

That said, it can be a double edged sword; an overly masterplanned system can be sterile and missing lots (like many masterplanned suburbs). But nearly everyone demands impeoved transit, and that needs good masterplanning.

The 2041 RTP is big enough that Ford can cherrypick priorities rather than doing things from scratch. Notice how almost all government proposals (e.g. SmartTrack) are just spins/enhancements/modifications of routes on existing master plans.
 
Last edited:
If we stopped master planning for transit and simply took all that has been planned and simply built those out, it would better than the wasted time and money on a new plan. What is so wrong or flawed with the other plans
 
Masterplans helps all politicians, especially as they speed up the shovel-readiness of many routes.
A master plan with 10 fully EA'd/studied routes, means a politician can make promises that happens sooner than others.

The problem is that almost every route in a Canadian master plan (unlike China) takes a decade from planning to build. Which means it has to go through the mercy of multiple administrations.

But here's the dismal choice. Doe a politician want to promise something that doesn't even have a study started (takes 15 years) or something that is already studied/EA and only awaiting funding? (takes 5-10 years). We could do it China-style, skip the EA, shove money at it, and just build plan-to-running in the same political term! China does it to spectacular success. But that is not the Canadian Way.

Even the Eglinton Crosstown is simply a resurrection of a masterplanned Eglinton Subway that actually started construction and then filled back in. Horribly inefficient handling by multiple governments.

But now, with an arm's length agency Metrolinx, it is more resistant to this malarkey. Now monies are simply more wasted in time or other planning-waste shenanigans (whether rearranging "infill station" deck chairs or nitpicking service frequency) and the success ratio of plan-to-actual is starting to go up again. It's not good enough but the momentum is still towards a rapidly-improving batting average. This administration may be a setback to the momentum but the momentum is still forward unlike the 1990s.
 
mdrejhon said:
Masterplans helps all politicians, especially as they speed up the shovel-readiness of many routes.
A master plan with 10 fully EA'd/studied routes, means a politician can make promises that happens sooner than others.

The problem is that almost every route in a Canadian master plan (unlike China) takes a decade from planning to build. Which means it has to go through the mercy of multiple administrations.

But here's the dismal choice. Doe a politician want to promise something that doesn't even have a study started (takes 15 years) or something that is already studied/EA and only awaiting funding? (takes 5-10 years). We could do it China-style, skip the EA, shove money at it, and just build plan-to-running in the same political term! China does it to spectacular success. But that is not the Canadian Way.

Even the Eglinton Crosstown is simply a resurrection of a masterplanned Eglinton Subway that actually started construction and then filled back in. Horribly inefficient handling by multiple governments.

But now, with an arm's length agency Metrolinx, it is more resistant to this malarkey. Now monies are simply more wasted in time or other planning-waste shenanigans (whether rearranging "infill station" deck chairs or nitpicking service frequency) and the success ratio of plan-to-actual is starting to go up again. It's not good enough but the momentum is still towards a rapidly-improving batting average. This administration may be a setback to the momentum but the momentum is still forward unlike the 1990s.
Click to expand...

You know, a solution would be to make a plan that most citizens and politicians can agree to.
 
mdrejhon said:
But here's the dismal choice. Doe a politician want to promise something that doesn't even have a study started (takes 15 years) or something that is already studied/EA and only awaiting funding? (takes 5-10 years). We could do it China-style, skip the EA, shove money at it, and just build plan-to-running in the same political term! China does it to spectacular success. But that is not the Canadian Way.
Click to expand...
The Chinese way not only removes the EA, but also removes all public consultation as well.
 
What, and ignore the little guy? Someone's gotta be out there sticking up for the little guy, while also building everything sans red tape. Oops, a paradox.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top