News   Aug 27, 2024
News Roundup for August 27, 2024
 232     0 
News   Aug 27, 2024
Evolving Cityscape
 444     0 
News   Aug 26, 2024
WZMH Architects Preserves John C. Parkin Design in Reworked 522 University Avenue Proposal
 1.9K     6 

Ontario limits Transit EAs to six months!

scarberiankhatru said:
Absolutely none of Transfer City is based on such crazy things as planning principles or ridership stats, and absolutely all of Transfer City is based on politics, even more so than the SRT or the Sheppard/Eglinton lines. I weep for this city's future.
Click to expand...

I wont pretend for a second that I have anywhere near the knowledge base that many of the individuals have on this forum. But if this really is the case, Im flabbergasted. Blame it on being naive, but I had just assumed that the required analysis and due diligence was done on Transit City.

I wonder if this MacIsaac character, will have enough balls to come out and say that Transit City is flawed, and needs to be revamped. Good on him if he does!

I am assuming you have stated somewhere how the $8 or 9 billion would be best spend elsewhere, could you link it for me?
 
If Eglinton (Pearson-Guildwood or UTSC) were built as a multi-year phase plan of cut-and-covered subways, and Sheppard/BD to STC- Toronto would be pretty set subway wise.
Click to expand...
No it wouldn't. Nowhere is subway expansion needed more than downtown.
 
Indeed. Also, downtown expansion (via a DRL or some other east-west south-of-Bloor line) allows for further expansion elsewhere as it relieves the part of our system that can't handle much more use.
 
MisterF said:
No it wouldn't. Nowhere is subway expansion needed more than downtown.
Click to expand...

Just throwing this out there:

I think we need to ask ourselves if we want to deal with the current crowding on the system by building downtown or if we want to attract new riders by building in the suburbs.

There needs to be a balance of both, me thinks.
 
Building downtown will also attract new suburban riders. Subways to the burbs only affect one end of people's commutes - downtown subways affect the other end. A DRL could improve both ends.
 
MisterF said:
No it wouldn't. Nowhere is subway expansion needed more than downtown.
Click to expand...

Well I was referring specifically to Transit City sanctioned lines. I've always held the belief that the glaring absence of TC projects in the downtown core will leave the door open for future subways there. As for the DRL, I consider the Lakeshore West line from Union to Roncesvalles DRL Lite ;)!
 
RedRocket191 said:
Just throwing this out there:

I think we need to ask ourselves if we want to deal with the current crowding on the system by building downtown or if we want to attract new riders by building in the suburbs.

There needs to be a balance of both, me thinks.
Click to expand...
That's the problem, there's no balance of both right now. Downtown has been completely ignored for decades. Besides, demand in most suburban areas can be met more effectively and cheaply with regional rail. And it'd be just as good at attracting new riders as subway.

DENTROBATE54 said:
Well I was referring specifically to Transit City sanctioned lines. I've always held the belief that the glaring absence of TC projects in the downtown core will leave the door open for future subways there. As for the DRL, I consider the Lakeshore West line from Union to Roncesvalles DRL Lite ;)!
Click to expand...
Ah. Well in that case I agree with you.
 
Downtown definitely needs more subway lines. And Sheppard needs to be finished.

Eglinton NEEDS to be built for the future, i.e. so that it can be easily upgraded to subway in the future. If Steve Moron'o's idea of making sure that it CAN'T be upgraded in the future is implemented, just to save a few dollars, then I swear I'll shoot that man myself, figuratively of course, since he'll have figuratively screwed over everyone living along Eglinton for 100 years to come.
 
Gosh, you make Steve Munro sound like the Anti-Christ :D.

I totally agree about Eglinton though. Why whenever I praise it's relevance I get shot in the foot I don't know, because it's just as relevant to all sections of the 416 as a DRL would. It shouldn't even be a comparison, because of all the overlap (airport, Mt Dennis, YUS, Don Mills). It just a belief that you can route subways in a rail corridor that some people won't let go of.

I'd love in see a full subway line along Dixon-Eglinton-Don Mills someday in the not too distant future, that'd make commuting to Toronto more of a joy.
 
DENTROBATE54 said:
It just a belief that you can route subways in a rail corridor that some people won't let go of.
Click to expand...
Well you can route subways in a rail corridor. Parts of Toronto's subway are in rail corridors already. I don't think anyone's shooting you in the foot when you praise the Eglinton line's relevance, some people just think a downtown relief line, in whatever form it might take, would be more beneficial.
 
The new six month EA process ("Transit Projects Regulation") has just completed the final approvals from the province and is now in place for transit projects.

Projects covered by the regulation include: dedicated bus lanes; light/heavy rail lines; subways; new stations; storage facilities; and ancillary services/facilities such as sidewalks, bike lanes and landscaping associated with transit projects.

GO Transit has announced that the first two projects to move forward under the new rules will be the expansion of all-day GO train service to Milton and the extension of GO train service from Oshawa to Bowmanville.

Historically, the EA process for transit projects has taken between two and three years to complete. Now the time line is set out specifically with 120 days for consultation on positive or negative environmental impacts and preparation of an environmental project report, a 30-day public and agency comment period and 35 days for the environment minister to respond to public requests for review of a project.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top