Metrolinx $55 Billion Plan

[Rainforest]

It's pretty hard to sell billions in subway funding for what is seen as just a benefit to Toronto like the DRL...I don't even think the rest of the GTA would support us. That's probably why the DRL is in the 25 year plan not the 15 year plan. Why would Mississauga for example support the DRL when they have more local pressing transit needs?

Perhaps Mississauga does not have a good reason to support DRL. Mississauga is a major employment centre on its own, and even for those Mississaugans who do work in downtown Toronto, GO is a better way than a trip on bus to Kipling plus Bloor subway + DRL.

However, many commuters coming from outer 416 or from the York region of 905, will benefit from DRL due to the de-crowding of Yonge subway.

I suspect that even if we count just people living in those areas (ignoring the Toronot's core population), the number of those benefiting from DRL will be greater than the number of people benefiting from the Yonge North or VCC extensions.

 

[waterloowarrior]

the sun on transit and cycling in the Metrolinx plan...

$500M road to nowhere
Transit plan just glorified bike paths
By JOE WARMINGTON
Last Updated: 24th September 2008, 9:19am

What do you think we will see first -- new subway lines or new bike paths?

Since most of the already announced projects mentioned with this MetroLinx Big Move transportation plan yesterday never seem to get done. I am betting on bike paths.

Sure there's lots more talk about subway extensions to York University, a new rapid transit line along Eglinton, from Port Credit to Brampton, new transit for Yonge St., expanding the expressways and a lot of other things.

But in their news release on key projects, the only initiative that had a pricetag attached to it was the "investing up to $500-million over 25 years in new walking and cycling infrastructure creating more than 7,500 kms of new dedicated on and off-road facilities."

Just what this city needs. More bike paths. It's preposterous. Is that really how we should spend $500 million?

All you need to know about the motivation here is the order in how they place the "Eight Big Moves" -- or what they say "propose transformational changes to the way we get around."

The first "Big Move" on their list is "a fast, frequent and expanded regional, rapid transit network." Second is "a complete walking and cycling network with bike sharing programs."

A walking and cycling network is this city's second priority while "transit connections to Pearson Airport" is sixth.

Somebody has to tell Mayor David Miller and his green friends that biking is a hobby and that most people don't want to risk their lives to ride to work in an urban setting so he can get his face on the cover of another environmental magazine.

Flip over to page 29 and you can see what these cars-are-bad, bikes-are-good visionaries are really up to: "Plan and implement a complete, integrated walking and cycling network for the GTA, including Toronto's PATH system, that addresses key barriers to walking, such as bridges over 400 series highways and that brings every urban resident to within a maximum of one kilometre of a dedicated bicycling facility."

Are people supposed to walk in from Barrie, Hamilton and Oshawa and cross over the highways on one of these new bridges? Or are they supposed to ride their bikes over them? Will there be a toll?

"This will be supported by a provincial funding commitment increased over time to at least $20 million per year for municipalities to complete the network."

Does that $20-million budget in the plowing and salting in the winter? Ever ride a bike on black ice? I know a guy who has a steel rod in his leg who can tell you how treacherous it can be.

This crazy report has a whole "active transportation" section which includes "walking, cycling, roller-blading" and even spends a lot of space on creating a "pilot bike-sharing program."

These people have absolutely no concept of who is in the city, who lives here and who works here. I can guarantee nobody asked Iris Maraaganise what her transit concerns are.

I rode the bus with her yesterday east along Eglinton where she was heading to her nursing job.

She has been in Canada for five years from Zimbabwe and says "overcrowding" during rush hour on the bus is what makes her most uncomfortable.

Truth is, throw on a couple of extra buses and maybe you don't even need a "rapid line" along there. Hey, I just saved the taxpayer's millions. This whole problem is so simple to solve. Sometimes we just need more trains on and integrating the cost between the GO service and the TTC could be completed in 15 minutes. No need for more study and no need for any talk of more taxation after 2013 either.

Yesterday's Band-Aid approaches are just that -- political solutions and not practical ones.

Taking away driving lanes on Eglinton Ave. to put on so called "rapid transit" lines -- really nothing more than glorified street cars -- is craziness. If you want people out of their cars, don't build bike lanes, build proper subway lines.

We don't need phony "rapid transit networks" and "mobility hubs." We need a big-time transit system. It can't be that hard. "If we build it they will come," former transportation minister Frank Klees, now a Conservative critic, said. "But you have to build it."

So build it. Where appropriate, build new subway lines, new highways, new tunnels, bridges and whatever else you need to get commuters in and out of the city in the most efficient way.

We have the money. We have the know-how. We have the need. The main job is getting people to work and then safely back home, where they can ride their bikes on the weekend.

LOL

 

[Rainforest]

Nothern Light: I agree with many of your points, but not with the opposition to highway extensions. Note that they are not just for passenger cars, but for freight traffic as well. Freight won't travel on GO train.

Strictly from the perspective of increasing the public transit modal share, any highway extension is bad; but there are needs other than moving passengers.

 

[Northern Light]

Moving Freight

Nothern Light: I agree with many of your points, but not with the opposition to highway extensions. Note that they are not just for passenger cars, but for freight traffic as well. Freight won't travel on GO train.

Strictly from the perspective of increasing the public transit modal share, any highway extension is bad; but there are needs other than moving passengers.

I agree there is a need to move freight; and further that some of it, a meaningful portion will move by highway.

However, my opposition was not to existing highways (that's a different discussion and not at issue here).

Nor was it to increasing capacity and/or freeing up room on existing highways.

Though it should be said the former is near impossible where its most needed, and the latter is about moving passenger traffic off of highways to make room for freight.

****

My clear opposition though is to Greenfield highway extensions. There is no delivery of goods to stores that don't yet exist, nor is there pick from factories not yet built.

What I want to see is a clear emphasis on serving EXISTING needs and corridors and not the creation of new ones, which will inevitably lead to further sprawl, more demand, and merely continue a negative cycle.

There are arguable benefits to by-pass corridors, but that doesn't really apply to the 404 or 427 extensions as proposed. Perhaps that could be debated with regards to en eastern 407 extension, however, that has to be balanced with the enormous damage to Rouge Park, and the Agricultural Reserve further to the east. As well as the encouragement of sprawl.

Its also a very expensive solution for that area when compared with more frequent GO Service or even and Highway 2 LRT. (the 407 price tag is into the billion plus range, and then some); the later 2 could be funded for less than 1/3 of that, with room to spare.

***

One should also consider the alternative of moving more freight by rail. While this does not materially reduce short-haul freight (ie. local deliveries), it can cut long-haul trips significantly, and free-up highway space for local truck traffic.

The Swiss have invested heavily in high-speed freight rail (its not the TGV, but is much faster than normal freight service).

CN and CP are both nearing their east-west capacity limits in the GTA and consideration should be given to freeing up room for them. This can be easily done while investing in passenger service, by setting passenger service up on additional tracks (removing conflicts) and even allowing overnight freight use of the passenger tracks.

 

[kEiThZ]

However, many commuters coming from outer 416 or from the York region of 905, will benefit from DRL due to the de-crowding of Yonge subway.

I suspect that even if we count just people living in those areas (ignoring Toronto's core population), the number of those benefiting from DRL will be greater than the number of people benefiting from the Yonge North or VCC extensions.

It's not that I disagree with funding the DRL. It's of course one of timing in relation to the multitude of other projects that Metrolinx has on the go.

Everyone seems to forget that the Yonge line is getting capacity improvements under the quick wins. That's coming early. I am betting the TTC and Metrolinx consider that to be sufficient till we hit phase 2 of the Big Move. I am no transit planner, but I have faith that they've worked out the math on this.....

Meanwhile, the outer edges of the 416 and the 905 are seeing an absolute failure of transit 'service'.... If we want to create a transit culture, there is more to be had by investing in those areas than downtown where the folks will ride the subway anyway.

 

[taal]

It should be clear what side I'm on by now but regarding the above comment;

It's sad but it's true ... people downtown will continue to take transit / walk / bike / something other then driving a car. For most people who live there that's in their nature so they'll avoid driving a car at any cost.

So to repay them for there seemingly wise environmental choices we will not increase service because they won't mind being packed in more and more on streetcars / buses / subways.

 

[kEiThZ]

It should be clear what side I'm on by now but regarding the above comment;

It's sad but it's true ... people downtown will continue to take transit / walk / bike / something other then driving a car. For most people who live there that's in their nature so they'll avoid driving a car at any cost.

So to repay them for there seemingly wise environmental choices we will not increase service because they won't mind being packed in more and more on streetcars / buses / subways.

It's not like society and government is trying to penalize them. It's just that Metrolinx is trying to focus on areas that don't have adequate transit. Look at the 'current network' map. Then look at the 15 year map. Can you seriously tell me that all those lines outside the core are not justified. What's more they can be done quickly and cheaply now before traffic and population growths occur...thereby minimizing impacts on traffic, neighbourhoods, etc. The DRL by contrast would have been a significant logistical undertaking and an expensive task at that. It's more suited for the 15 year plan where there are far fewer projects.

 

[AKS]

I wouldn't mind if they expand the transit to 905 areas. I think it will encourage people to sprawl. Because transit is inconvenient, people tend to all crowd downtown and prices are really getting expensive. I for one wouldn't mind moving out to the 905 area if I could get to downtown within an hour or less.

 

[Glen]

I don't usually contribute much to transit threads, but this comment needs an answer:

Toronto has a history of lacking foresight. One of the only examples that comes to my mind, insofar as infrastructure is concerned, is the Bloor Viaduct.

I can think of two things that are forward thinking, and they are not small.
Not very many cities were building or extending subways in 1954. In North American, almost nothing was done in this era. Even in Europe, preoccupied with rebuilding after the war, they were not building subways. For the second largest city in Canada to do so, right at the beginning of a building boom, shows foresight.

Not getting rid of our streetcar network (entirely) also shows foresight.

In fact, I think it is more truthful to say that from WWII to the 1980's, Toronto was quite forward thinking with regards to transit, and only after that time did we lose it.

Horatio Hocken had foresight in 1911. Toronto had hindsight in 1954.

"Deceived." [Cartoon depicting R. J. Fleming of the Street Railway Co. reacting to a letter from
Mayor Coatsworth about his new "gentleman friend", Horatio Hocken,
who first proposed the building of a subway in Toronto], [ca. 1911]
Newton McConnell
Drawing
Reference Code: C 301
Archives of Ontario, I0006811

 

[waterloowarrior]

We won't need DRL for at least 15 years, we can just feed all the new lines into Yonge

 

[taal]

It's not like society and government is trying to penalize them. It's just that Metrolinx is trying to focus on areas that don't have adequate transit. Look at the 'current network' map. Then look at the 15 year map. Can you seriously tell me that all those lines outside the core are not justified. What's more they can be done quickly and cheaply now before traffic and population growths occur...thereby minimizing impacts on traffic, neighbourhoods, etc. The DRL by contrast would have been a significant logistical undertaking and an expensive task at that. It's more suited for the 15 year plan where there are far fewer projects.

I'm not getting the logic ...

We have an area where the traffic and transit are already congested but instead lets focus on areas where in the future it may get to what? half as bad ... and don't tell me in terms of public transit ... in terms of cars I can by though.

 

[taal]

I wouldn't mind if they expand the transit to 905 areas. I think it will encourage people to sprawl. Because transit is inconvenient, people tend to all crowd downtown and prices are really getting expensive. I for one wouldn't mind moving out to the 905 area if I could get to downtown within an hour or less.

That's nice but in terms of density there are more people that will and obviously do live in the downtown area compared to any sprawling area ... there's just way more high density construction.

This notion of the 905 is such a huge area ... people aren't sprawling to one location it's very spread apart ... yes there very few dense nodes ... I'm using the word dense lightly, maybe "future dense" is a better choice.

 

[taal]

We won't need DRL for at least 15 years, we can just feed all the new lines into Yonge

This is a little of topic but damn people are stupid ...

Not the people you see in that picture : - )

But people who were standing there 2 hours later. Are people aware of the many other North / South transit routes ... how about the other subway! My mom took the subway around to downsview and then across Sheppard ... although the 196B / 84 were packed beyond belief it took her an extra 20min overall! ... and this was at 6!!

If you want to be closer just take one of the many buses! ... bathurst comes to mind but there are a lot of others!

Ah people aren't stupid I take it back ... just not aware of all their options

 

[Disparishun]

My mom took the subway around to downsview and then across Sheppard ... although the 196B / 84 were packed beyond belief it took her an extra 20min overall! ... and this was at 6!!

Kind of says something about whether extending the Sheppard line west, to create a northern east-west link between Yonge and University lines, would reduce congestion on the Yonge line, huh?

 

[W. K. Lis]

Kind of says something about whether extending the Sheppard line west, to create a northern east-west link between Yonge and University lines, would reduce congestion on the Yonge line, huh?

I hope that I remember to include this suggestion in the next customer route suggestion meeting. When is the next route suggestion meeting anyways?