Bojaxs
Senior Member
Isn't it basically the 407 transitway?
|
|
|
GO 2.0 Expansion Plan
- Thread starter crs1026
- Start date
Coolibop
Active Member
I will also remind everyone that many of these lines were on the 15 year plan back in 2008 (page 92)... We're at year 17 and some of those aren't remotely even close to getting started...low expectations I guess is what I'm saying when you see these documents lol.
KhalilHeron
Active Member
good to see they've shifted the idea for a 407 transitway to rail. even if it doesnt happen for a generation
Adjei
Senior Member
This is what we need. Make it happen !
afransen
Senior Member
The true "cross-town" 407 line seems much worthier of an investment than the 401 tunnel, to be sure.
Cambry Ardship
Active Member
I mapped this out as best I could on Google Earth following the map, and I got an approximately 125 km route connecting Burlington to Oshawa. I terminated one end at the Aldershot GO and the other at the north end of the Simcoe BRT, following the 407 where not otherwise specified.
Connections/Crossovers (east to west):
- Simcoe BRT
- Stouffville Line
- Highway 7 East BRT (multiple connections?)
- Richmond Hill Line
- Yonge North Subway Extension
- Highway 7 West BRT (multiple connections)
- Barrie Line
- Yonge Line (Vaughan Metropolitan Centre)
- Finch West LRT
- Up Express
- Kitchener Line
- Eglinton Crosstown West Extension
- Mississauga Transitway (running parallel until Winston Churchill)
- Hurontario LRT
- Lakeshore West Line
The route overlaps substantially with the Finch West LRT extension to Pearson. It also seems to go straight through the middle of Terminal 1 at Pearson. It's obviously not a super detailed path.
Using REM costs ($125 m/km), you get a very rough estimate of $16 billion. That's probably an optimistic lower bound.
Transit
New Member
Is 8A using the Don Branch AND the abandoned Leaside Spur up to Bond Park? The City owns the spur now, and turned it into the Don Mills Trail a long time ago. If so, it is difficult to see how 8A could ever happen. But maybe I am reading the map incorrectly... ?
afransen
Senior Member
I don't think this provincial government is too concerned about city ownership rights.
Divas S.
Active Member
Im a little confused on the metrics for the midtown line, did they seriously only measure ridership from st. Clair and jane to Summerhill station? Thats would be a tiny portion of any proposed midtown line
nfitz
Superstar
They also reported on Summerhill to Havelock and Seaton to the east. And they were each about half the western portion.
For midtown, the (AM) peak points are going to be eastbound and westbound at Union. So you wouldn't see higher numbers measuring somewhere else.
Now I assume that's the peak point per hour measurement, and not the entire rush-hour period anywhere on the line. In which case the numbers are even more pathetic ... which seems unlikely.
I lack of text to understand this table makes it difficult. Though not one is even close to meeting the criteria other than the east-west rail - so really they are so dead in the water, that there's probably no need to ever mention them again.
duffo
Active Member
Personally, with a lack of destinations/jobs in Midtown relative to Downtown, and ample capacity at Union coming online, I never understood the Midtown GO proposal.
The main benefit would really be a quick diagonal connection through Scarborough, and it's not clear if this was modelled or not in the options heading east from Summerhill - where are the stations?
Imo, the northern orbital route would do much more to address travel demand, as long as proper last-mile services are in place.
The main benefit would really be a quick diagonal connection through Scarborough, and it's not clear if this was modelled or not in the options heading east from Summerhill - where are the stations?
Imo, the northern orbital route would do much more to address travel demand, as long as proper last-mile services are in place.
crs1026
Superstar
(Bucket of cold water deployed)
It’s important to remember that these planning documents describe options worth studying and not things we have committed to build.
Their utility lies in the comparison on some presumed standard metric that tries to articulate potential value versus cost and feasibility.
No one should look on this map as a vision of a fully developed, fully integrated network that will be around in 2051. The original Big Move kind of hinted at being that, but we have only gotten so far. And so many of the underlying assumptions and priorities have shifted, such that it’s not valid to try to fulfil it all.
So let the new debate begin. It will he interesting to see which items generate a consensus. Just remember that none of this discussion indicates approval or funding - yet.
- Paul
It’s important to remember that these planning documents describe options worth studying and not things we have committed to build.
Their utility lies in the comparison on some presumed standard metric that tries to articulate potential value versus cost and feasibility.
No one should look on this map as a vision of a fully developed, fully integrated network that will be around in 2051. The original Big Move kind of hinted at being that, but we have only gotten so far. And so many of the underlying assumptions and priorities have shifted, such that it’s not valid to try to fulfil it all.
So let the new debate begin. It will he interesting to see which items generate a consensus. Just remember that none of this discussion indicates approval or funding - yet.
- Paul
T3G
Senior Member
Am I seeing correctly that an expansion of service hours over the current Milton line is not even in the cards, here? I'm going by the fact that they explicitly call out the RH line as being expanded, but the only Milton reference is in the extension to Cambridge...