|
|
|
Extending subway system driving force behind Thomson mayoral campaign
- Thread starter jallan71
- Start date
Fresh Start
Banned
Adelaide is actually not a bad compromise, as it's midway between the two major corridors through the downtown. However, Wellington would probably have the highest walk-in customer potential without disrupting the economy of a major street for years on end. I mean, look at St Clair. Wellington's literally a side street but right in the midsts of all the action so I think most could live with that decision should it become the preferred route. We could even adopt some Paris-style subway interchanges going with John, Bay, Chruch Stns linking into the fare-paid zone of St Andrew, Union King Stns.
Fresh Start
Banned
Oh no, not you too. The rail corridor alignment needs to obliverated from memory like a bad mightmare. Who will ride it? Where this fabled walk-in traffic demand for it going to come from? People need to answer these questions before assuming that a corridor with perfectly functioning rapid mass public transit already running along it needs a DRL. Queen does need a fairly local service... east of Dufferin. Parkdale needs only 3 stops whereby no one in between stations would be more than five minutes away from the subway. You can also more easily extend the Queen subway ROW into a full interlined route in the future if you have the foundation to start from. You won't have that opportunity starting if from scratch. Steve Munro will be the first person to tell you that people in the Beaches aren't travelling all the way to Mimico, and vice versa, so why are we so afraid to touch the Queen service? I say if we intercept people from the far corners of the downtown earlier rather than later; you will make their commutes faster, lives easier.
And people travelling west along the 505 or 506 won't get off the tram, take 2 minutes to walk down to the platform level of a Brockton Stn to transfer onto to go 2 minutes up to Bloor Street. Don't impose such unwarranted transfer points on the customers; build lines where there is already a lot of demand for it. A DRL with Bloor-Danforthlike spacing will still be faster than staying on the Bloor Line for 10 stops then transfering at Bloor-Yonge and riding 5 stops down to King. 9 stops on a propoerly spaced DRL going up to 40kph vs. 15 on B-D+YUS going 28kph. Need I say more?
So the best forms of transit must only be reserved for the wealthy who could afford to buy into newly constructed seaside condo villages while the masses are subjecting to pointless transfers and backtracking? How bout a DRL alignment that serves the CBD via Wellington but on the outskirts transitions up to the older stable neighbourhoods of the downtown core which are no less important than the Waterfront? Btw, the subway that I'm talking about would serve every major new housing community: Riverside, West Don Lands, East Bayfront, Cityplace, King West Village, Liberty Village and the Art-Design Disrict. We can serve all those places plus Parkdale and Riverdale en route.
MisterF
Senior Member
The thing is, there should be a subway line every kilometre or so in downtown Toronto, just like there is in comparable cities all over the world. There should be a subway line going through Union and a line going along Queen. Hell, even a line along College might be feasible.
Jonny5
Senior Member
When you're polling low single digits, at best, have no name recognition in the public and are getting no media coverage, it doesn't take any guts, bravery or cajones to put out bold proposals. It's the only thing you can do. Unfortunately for Sarah, setting the toll bar so high at $5 has pretty much shut her out of the discussion. Until now, you were opposed to tolls, or you were evil. Now every candidate will have the cajones to do it as the public's mind has $5 as the base price for tolling. Now you can be in favour of "more moderate tolls" at $1 or $2 and still believably position yourself on the left as "setting toll prices working families can afford".
Last edited:
buschic
New Member
Why can we not have a 'Downtown Congestion Tax" like London England has? with minumum 75% of the revinue going to Transit. (TTC in this case)
On the DRL subject, I've always had the thought that we need to replace the strangled 501 Queen Car with a subway, running from say, Kingston Road to Islington, meeting a proposed Dufferin Subway (running from Wilson, connecting to the Spadina Subway somehow, running all the way to the lakeshore area, with the final stop being at the EX). meeting the Queen Subway line at Dufferin/Queen.. with local bus/streetcar service along Queen between Neville Park to Long branch. It would take a huge load off the streetcars, and also the buses on Dufferin, since it IS the busiest bus route in TTC.
Yeah, you might think I'm nuts, but I've always envisioned that..
On the DRL subject, I've always had the thought that we need to replace the strangled 501 Queen Car with a subway, running from say, Kingston Road to Islington, meeting a proposed Dufferin Subway (running from Wilson, connecting to the Spadina Subway somehow, running all the way to the lakeshore area, with the final stop being at the EX). meeting the Queen Subway line at Dufferin/Queen.. with local bus/streetcar service along Queen between Neville Park to Long branch. It would take a huge load off the streetcars, and also the buses on Dufferin, since it IS the busiest bus route in TTC.
Yeah, you might think I'm nuts, but I've always envisioned that..
rbt
Senior Member
Actually no, not even London has managed to do that. Your "minimum" is much too high to be doable. It is my (limited) understanding that about 40% of the revenue goes into building/maintaining the tolling system itself.
buschic
New Member
hmm, ok cool, thanks for correcting me, i was going by old TFL reports.
Mapleson
Active Member
Westbound DRL trains would turn onto onto my 'Downtown Loop', which was the U-end of the YUS line, thus getting to Union without a more southerly alignment.
From the Union Station Master Plan:
Ontario Fire Code requires increasing stairwell and exit door capacity to allow for 'orderly exit' from the building within the fire-rating period. Without GO splitting their terminal destination up, there will be a continually growing demand at Union Subway Station. The second platform at Union is meant to relieve the current pressure and growth to 2025, not handle extra transfers from the DRL onto Yonge–University–Spadina line. Move the connection north a station or two and it provides greater network access/connectivity.
TfL 6th Annual Report (2008) stated gross revenue at £268m and net revenue at £137m. By law, the net revenues from the scheme must be spent on measures to further the Mayor’s Transport Strategy.
B-D transfers, and people tranferring from the College, Dundas, Queen, and King streetcars. As well as walk-on potential from both the existing neighbourhoods and the potential for TOD development that you DON'T get by following Queen.
The redevelopment of the industrial sites along the corridor, as well as the up-and-coming Liberty Village, and City Place (speaking only of the DRL West).
Because any increase in stop distances along the street will change the nature of the street. The best solution is not to replace any part of the Queen service, but to relieve it by taking thru-traffic off of it, and leaving it for local traffic. Putting a DRL under Queen doesn't do that, it just moves both the thru-traffic and local traffic underground. This, for people who want local stop spacing, would be a detriment to local service.
Where the hell did you get that from what I said? The closer to downtown you move the streetcar-subway transfer point, the more people you will intercept on the way to downtown. I never said anything about serving the Waterfront villas. The DRL has the unique opportunity to be the first subway in Toronto to intersect dozens of existing routes, but overlap none of them. It will do the same in the east. Keep the local services local, leave the subway to handle the long-haul commuters and the thru-traffic that were using the local routes. The moment you start trying to overlap portions of existing routes in order to relieve them, it will cause more damage than good. Intersect those dozens of routes at 1 single point (some cases 2, on opposite sides of the city), so people can transfer off them if they wish, or continue along it.
And a rail corridor alignment in the west wouldn't??? Review the communities you just named again, and tell me honestly that they wouldn't also benefit from a rail corridor alignment.
andrewpmk
Senior Member
A road toll on the Gardiner and DVP only would be much easier and cheaper to collect, because cameras are only required at on and off-ramps (similar to the 407). In contrast the London congestion charge requires hundreds of cameras at every entry and exit point in a large area; that explains why 50% of revenue is spent on administration costs. Another option is a parking tax (e.g. charge $X per year to the owner of every downtown parking space, which would be passed on in the form of higher prices for parking).
Mapleson
Active Member
If you prefer, 407 numbers from 2000, showed $139.6m over 9 months gross revenue. Income from operations before depreciation and amortization for the nine-month period was $95.4 million. So $186m in gross revenue for a year with $59m in costs.
Dan416
Senior Member
Fixed that for you. Missing Union means people getting on the DRL will have to transfer to get to Union. That's not good planning. I don't for a minute believe that Union Subway would be overrun if the DRL ran through there. There's probably dozens of busier stations in the world than Union. A DRL Union would have its own platforms and would force upgrades at Union to be sure, but there's no reason to make it sound impossible. The only comparable station would be St. George and it's not overrun. Busy yes, but not dangerously so. Indeed Union would be the most complicated DRL station to build, but it can be done and it can work and it would provide the most flexibility and most connections for passengers arriving at Union and vice versa.
Last edited:
Mapleson
Active Member
Cheers for that.
It was my dream world and there was a wye to Union station from Nathan Phillip Square, so no transfer to get to Union and no seperate DRL platform. I didn't mean to imply that a DRL Union Station was impossible, but ongoing construction and increasing demand as soon as construction is done make Union Station a place to avoid working in unless necessary. It could be done, but would you want to if you didn't have to?
It was my dream world and there was a wye to Union station from Nathan Phillip Square, so no transfer to get to Union and no seperate DRL platform. I didn't mean to imply that a DRL Union Station was impossible, but ongoing construction and increasing demand as soon as construction is done make Union Station a place to avoid working in unless necessary. It could be done, but would you want to if you didn't have to?
sixrings
Senior Member
Why do you think getting to Union is so Critical. Other then ACC and the streetcar link to the ex I cant see why Union would be a destination. In fact most people who go through union (Go users) transfer onto the subway and go north. I dont see why going through union is so important... However on the other hand I can clearly see how the queen streetcar is a mess. Instead of using the streetcar PEOPLE WALK up to 40 minutes to get downtown because the streetcar is too full. God help anyone whose clausterphobic on the queen car.