News   Nov 19, 2019
 34     0 
News   Nov 19, 2019
 238     1 
News   Nov 19, 2019
 408     0 

Ontario Line (was Relief Line South, in Design)

sixrings

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Aug 19, 2009
Messages
4,215
Reaction score
1,312
Really I think the working folk all live in the suburbs because they are forced there. They should get priority transit and cheaper fares. Meanwhile the elites can bike and walk to work. If you live downtown and are too lazy to exercise than your fare should be higher because you can afford it but also in order that there is more room for the working class folk.
 

Steve X

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Jan 16, 2016
Messages
1,509
Reaction score
770
Really I think the working folk all live in the suburbs because they are forced there. They should get priority transit and cheaper fares. Meanwhile the elites can bike and walk to work. If you live downtown and are too lazy to exercise than your fare should be higher because you can afford it but also in order that there is more room for the working class folk.
Yes, if you have to drive or take the taxi downtown cause you're too lazy, there should be a higher tax. Plus all those taxis causing congestion driving in circles look for people to pick up.

People live in low income neighbourhoods cause they can't afford to move. So they end up in let's say Malvern. The city plan wants to get a LRT to them to help them out but the elites think they should go subways only to help themselves out while totally forgetting about them.
 

syn

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Apr 26, 2007
Messages
4,270
Reaction score
1,736
There's already a rapid transit line to Markham Centre: the Stouffville GO line, which will be upgraded to RER. A new subway to Markham Centre would do little more than duplicate existing infrastructure for no reason. Let's stick with building subways where they make sense.
This is the problem with the over politicization of subways. There's the expectation they should be everywhere.

One of the big advantages of the DRL is that it doesn't consume any GO bandwidth.
 

MisterF

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Apr 24, 2007
Messages
3,121
Reaction score
1,329
Really I think the working folk all live in the suburbs because they are forced there. They should get priority transit and cheaper fares. Meanwhile the elites can bike and walk to work. If you live downtown and are too lazy to exercise than your fare should be higher because you can afford it but also in order that there is more room for the working class folk.
Yes, if you have to drive or take the taxi downtown cause you're too lazy, there should be a higher tax. Plus all those taxis causing congestion driving in circles look for people to pick up.

People live in low income neighbourhoods cause they can't afford to move. So they end up in let's say Malvern. The city plan wants to get a LRT to them to help them out but the elites think they should go subways only to help themselves out while totally forgetting about them.
Okay so it's becoming clear that this isn't parody, some people actually seem to think this way. Some people actually think that transit planning is some sort of class struggle and that these mysterious "elites" are scheming against the downtrodden in their smoking rooms or ivory towers or whatever the stereotype is. We'll just put aside the fact that downtown, the supposed home of these elites, hasn't had any subway expansion in over 50 years despite being where most of the overcrowding is.

So this is a response to both of you. First of all, you don't solve poverty by building insanely expensive subway lines parallel to perfectly good rail lines going through low density industrial areas to distant suburbs. It's much cheaper and easier to merge the fare systems of the regional and local transit systems so that they're a single seamless system and upgrade the rail line that already exists. This is more efficient, saves billions of dollars, and leaves a lot more money that could be spent helping the poor in more effective ways. Like lower fares for people under a certain income level for example. Your ideas would make things worse for the poor, not better.

In any case, your entire premise is faulty. Markham has a median household income of $86,000 while in Toronto it's $66,000. Your proposal would give us two parallel rapid transit lines going to the same place, both serving the rich. So kudos, I guess?
 

CityStay

Active Member
Member Bio
Joined
Apr 1, 2019
Messages
118
Reaction score
140
I cant wait to ride the Ontario Line to Rail Deck Park!

From there, I'll be able to observe the ongoing renovations to Union Station.
 

W. K. Lis

Superstar
Member Bio
Joined
Dec 24, 2007
Messages
15,423
Reaction score
4,349
Location
Toronto, ON, CAN, Terra, Sol, Milky Way
Okay so it's becoming clear that this isn't parody, some people actually seem to think this way. Some people actually think that transit planning is some sort of class struggle and that these mysterious "elites" are scheming against the downtrodden in their smoking rooms or ivory towers or whatever the stereotype is. We'll just put aside the fact that downtown, the supposed home of these elites, hasn't had any subway expansion in over 50 years despite being where most of the overcrowding is.

So this is a response to both of you. First of all, you don't solve poverty by building insanely expensive subway lines parallel to perfectly good rail lines going through low density industrial areas to distant suburbs. It's much cheaper and easier to merge the fare systems of the regional and local transit systems so that they're a single seamless system and upgrade the rail line that already exists. This is more efficient, saves billions of dollars, and leaves a lot more money that could be spent helping the poor in more effective ways. Like lower fares for people under a certain income level for example. Your ideas would make things worse for the poor, not better.

In any case, your entire premise is faulty. Markham has a median household income of $86,000 while in Toronto it's $66,000. Your proposal would give us two parallel rapid transit lines going to the same place, both serving the rich. So kudos, I guess?
SmartTrack was originally supposed to use the railway lines as rapid transit routes. Things are getting quieter there.
 

MisterF

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Apr 24, 2007
Messages
3,121
Reaction score
1,329
SmartTrack was originally supposed to use the railway lines as rapid transit routes. Things are getting quieter there.
Even before Smarttrack was a drawing on John Tory's napkin RER was being planned. They're not really two distinct projects anymore AFAIK.
 

robmausser

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Dec 16, 2013
Messages
2,363
Reaction score
2,351
Even before Smarttrack was a drawing on John Tory's napkin RER was being planned. They're not really two distinct projects anymore AFAIK.
RER was being planned but not the stations that Smarttrack proposed. The 50 stations analysis by Metrolinx was done after Smarttrack. RER was previously GO Electrification and its change to RER happened shortly before Smarttrack but there was no planning for additional stations in Toronto except for St.Clair West on the Barrie Line (which isnt happening now, its now at Bloor) and the Spadina-Front station, which was named something like Bathurst Yards North. Oh and the stations like Mount Dennis but that was all part of Crosstown LRT and the Spadina extension etc.

The original RER intent was much more focused on electrifying the network and serving the 905

Lets pretend that spur along Eglinton for Smarttrack never happened though. That was a smear on the napkin. :p
 

W. K. Lis

Superstar
Member Bio
Joined
Dec 24, 2007
Messages
15,423
Reaction score
4,349
Location
Toronto, ON, CAN, Terra, Sol, Milky Way
Updated plan is excellent. It bugs me that people dump on the new OL because of partisan feelings. Can people stop being so political all the time just vote for good transit for a change?
People are now at the point where we want SOMETHING built already... yesterday!
 

Top