Downtown Rapid Transit Expansion Study

[sixrings]

assuming this drl actually goes up pape to eglinton and eventually sheppard and don mills i must say that the ttc map is increasingly looking more or more geared to the east end of the city. of course that wiuld change if the finch lrt was made or the eglinton line went to the airport. however with the lines i see being drawn on fantasy maps it looks like the east end will be coming out of this transit development favourably.

 

[car4041]

assuming this drl actually goes up pape to eglinton and eventually sheppard and don mills i must say that the ttc map is increasingly looking more or more geared to the east end of the city. of course that wiuld change if the finch lrt was made or the eglinton line went to the airport. however with the lines i see being drawn on fantasy maps it looks like the east end will be coming out of this transit development favourably.

That's true as far as current developments go, but of course, west of Yonge already has a second north-south subway (the University-Spadina line), whereas east of Yonge doesn't. Which is why DRL East as far as Eglinton is needed more critically than any of the DRL West (even though a U-shaped DRL from Dundas West to Pape looks so nice and symmetrical on a map....)

 

[sixrings]

I would consider the DRL to be the number 1 priority. I also would say that if a DRL should go from donmills and sheppard all the way to at least Union. In theory then it appears there are three lines. a West line (spadina) a central line (yonge) and a eastern line (DRL). However I would suggest its not that simple. First of all the east has SRT which curls to the north east. There is a good chance that the Eglinton line will be grade seperated in the east but if it does get to the airport it will run at grade. Even if Sheppard subway gets to downsview it will never go west of that. Im not saying that the west needs its DRL to make it to dundas west. However there will be a transit advantage on the east part of the city. BTW It is important to note that the east also has the DVP. Sure the west has the 427 but thats almost at the 905 border so its not really comparable. What would be comparable is a complete allen expressway (I AM NOT IN FAVOUR OF THAT). But I am saying that it appears that the east has multiple ways to get downtown then the west.

 

[k10ery]

The whole point of this Metrolinx study is that if the GO system is intended to become a more mature system that is a integrated part of transit for trips within the city of Toronto, then ridership at Union will multiply many times over. ...

TTC looks at options (including the DRL) for relieving the Yonge line.
Metrolinx looks at options (including a DRL) for relieving Union station.
They get together, compare reports, and hopefully develop a design they both agree on.
(The question is... does anyone look at options for relieving the downtown streetcar network?)

I see what you're saying. Coordination, not to mention Metrolinx funding, are essential to any DRL-type plans. But that document was written from a very different perspective. A DRL tunnel from Bathurst and Front to Osgoode makes no sense from Toronto's point of view. A tunnel under Queen St. from Dufferin to the Don that would carry 12-car bilevels from Milton obviously makes NO sense from Toronto's point of view. Putting these ideas on the table only makes a real DRL less likely to happen not more, don't you think?

I think Metrolinx's main objective is to protect the rail corridors for their own uses, which means commuter rail and the ARL. They don't want people looking at a DRL which involves using the Georgetown corridor in any way, or slashing the ARL fare to a level where it could be used by within-city commuters.

More than anything, that was just a publicity stunt designed to give Metrolinx / GO Transit some good PR for one news cycle, while putting the City of Toronto / the TTC on the defensive right when they are already (rightly) taking flack for service cuts. It doesn't matter if the media even, briefly, mentions the TTC's DRL study because a picture, or a map, is worth a thousand words, in this case, to Metrolinx / GO Transit. It's not more of "more talk, no action;" it's politics at the expense of cooperation, as usual on the transit file.

That sounds about right to me. Maybe they wanted to hustle this out before a real DRTES is on the table, where it would compete for attention from media and the politicians.

 

[CDL.TO]

That sounds about right to me. Maybe they wanted to hustle this out before a real DRTES is on the table, where it would compete for attention from media and the politicians.

I don't know why you're criticizing Metrolinx's planning when apparently they were able to plan a evil plot just to embarrass the TTC, involving a report which took over a year to do, to be released at a board meeting which was scheduled over a year in advance all timed as "just a publicity stunt designed to give Metrolinx / GO Transit some good PR for one news cycle, while putting the City of Toronto / the TTC on the defensive right when they are already (rightly) taking flack for service cuts". That's amazing planning right out of a Bond movie!

 

[k10ery]

I don't know why you're criticizing Metrolinx's planning when apparently they were able to plan a evil plot just to embarrass the TTC, involving a report which took over a year to do, to be released at a board meeting which was scheduled over a year in advance all timed as "just a publicity stunt designed to give Metrolinx / GO Transit some good PR for one news cycle, while putting the City of Toronto / the TTC on the defensive right when they are already (rightly) taking flack for service cuts". That's amazing planning right out of a Bond movie!

And I don't know why you seem to be criticizing me by disagreeing with what someone else posted. But, details of timing aside, the question is whether Mlinx is "cooperating" with TTC by releasing this in advance of the much more detailed DRTES, esPecially since the ideas in it would preclude most existing proposals for a real DRL. I think not, so the next question is: What are they doing?

 

[k10ery]

The existing rail network in the GTA is focussed on Union station, like it or not. We have to work with what we have. North Toronto station exists, but offers limited opportunity for other trains to route there (and adds complications for making transfers between lines).

As an example they could have looked at routing commuter trains on the North Toronto line to a new GO station at Dupont and Spadina with a subway connection. I would think that would relieve Union, not add pressure to the Yonge subway, and it would add a new urban rail route to central Toronto. But they say a midtown line was not considered because it would not relieve Union.

 

[spasongs]

I am no expert...in anything! But I must say, A DRT going to the now bulging with development in south Etobicoke would be a very good idea. Most folks on my street all work downtown including my Wife who has to take a bus north to go east and then south on a crammed system.

Some neighbours use the GO, but that is costly. It would be an idea if GO could issue Zone tickets for commuters coming in from these areas I think. It would certainly be faster for my Wife to get to and from work. And there are so many new condos coming in the hood too!?

What really kills me, is that I read about the Madrid Miracle, and other cities getting their act together. They, like Madrid also did it a fraction... a fraction of the cost we take. There is a will to get these done. It should not take me an hour to get to the core from Royal York and Queensway but it does. I can do it in 7 minutes by car. Unless I am drinking, guess how I am going?

 

[nfitz]

What really kills me, is that I read about the Madrid Miracle...

Do you realise how much of the funding from that came from Europe, and how close Spain is to financial collapse, due to all the money they've spent?

 

[rbt]

Do you realise how much of the funding from that came from Europe, and how close Spain is to financial collapse, due to all the money they've spent?

It's actually pretty affordable for Canada.

A 2% GST hike would give us enough to allow for significant transit expansion (and bridge fixing, etc.) across Canada. Spread evenly by population it is about $700M/year for Toronto with another $1B/year to the 905 regions. Metrolinx might have ~$50B in 2011 dollars over 30 years.

This is without any matching provincial funds, increase in funding due to increased spending (sales tax revenue tends to increase faster than inflation), or change in share due to population growth.

Is it the best way to spend the funds (versus a tax-cut)? Don't know the answer to that though lots of evidence points to the no side when you are in a recession. We could have fairly rapid transit expansion Canada wide for a couple of decades without financial ruin.

 

[k10ery]

Do you realise how much of the funding from that came from Europe, and how close Spain is to financial collapse, due to all the money they've spent?

Oh nonsense. Spain's debt-to-GDP ratio is one of the lowest in Europe. Its problems are due to the collapse of the property market and the unemployment rate, not building subways.

 

[nfitz]

Oh nonsense. Spain's debt-to-GDP ratio is one of the lowest in Europe. Its problems are due to the collapse of the property market and the unemployment rate, not building subways.

Oh ... Germany and France paid for it all then. Well that makes it okay.

Well, it's nice they've got this great transit system to take to collect their pogey.

 

[k10ery]

Oh ... Germany and France paid for it all then. Well that makes it okay.

Well, it's nice they've got this great transit system to take to collect their pogey.

You spend time in England, don't you? Well, don't be swayed by that National Front rhetoric. The strucural and cohesion funds in the EU are tiny, less than 1% of GDP. Canada pays way more to Quebec than Europe pays to the PIGS. In fact, they're going to have to do a lot more of it if the Euro is to survive.

Let me be the one to say it: We're off topic. But nfitz started it

 

[nfitz]

You spend time in England, don't you? Well, don't be swayed by that National Front rhetoric. The strucural and cohesion funds in the EU are tiny, less than 1% of GDP.

I'm not opposed to such funds. But given how much of it went to infrastructure (our similar funding simply goes to the provincial government), I don't think discussing the "Madrid Miracle" is fair ... imagine how much better we'd be if we diverted the $billions from the F-18s, F-35s, and all these new warships to transit systems in our bigger cities.

 

[k10ery]

^Yup, the F-35 contract would pay for about 50-60 km of subway construction in Canadian cities.