Toronto Ontario Line 3 | ?m | ?s | Metrolinx

innsertnamehere said:
Doesn't really need to go north of Bloor on the west end, at least any time soon. If you ask me it needs to go from Dundas West to Finch and Don Mills.. that is a massive project in itself, no need to push it further.
Click to expand...
I disagree. In the west end, from Mt Dennis to Dundas West or Keele fills in a huge gap on the line and creates another way downtown without using line one, and vice versa to the airport.
TheTigerMaster said:
GO transit has benefited from significant financial investment, while the provincial government has been neglecting the TTC network for over 40 years. If we had provincial governance that treated Toronto commuters with half the respect they deserve, TTC ridership would be much higher.
Click to expand...
The TTC should be run by the province, not the city.
 
steveintoronto said:
Far more world leading transit systems are run by regional or state governments than by the cities themselves.
Click to expand...

Where? TFL is run by the city of London, Translink the Greater Vancouver Area, Sound Transit is just Seattle, BART is San Francisco, I can't think of one example in North America that actually works with the exception of NJT (Which kind of screws over the big cities). And last I checked, Metrolinx has been prioritizing the suburbs for obvious reasons.
 
Streety McCarface said:
Where? TFL is run by the city of London, Translink the Greater Vancouver Area, Sound Transit is just Seattle, BART is San Francisco, I can't think of one example in North America that actually works with the exception of NJT (Which kind of screws over the big cities). And last I checked, Metrolinx has been prioritizing the suburbs for obvious reasons.
Click to expand...
TfL is Greater London, a region, the Greater Vancouver Area is...guess, Sound Transit, see below, BART see below:

Greater London:
Greater London, or London, is a region of England which forms the administrative boundaries of London, as well as a county for the purposes of the lieutenancies. It is organised into 33 local government districts: the 32 London boroughs(which make up the county of Greater London) and the City of London (which is a separate county, but still part of the region). The Greater London Authority, based in Southwark, is responsible for strategic local government across the region and consists of the Mayor of London and the London Assembly. The City of London Corporation is responsible for the local government of only the City of London.

The county of Greater London was created on 1 April 1965 through the London Government Act 1963.[3][4][5]Administratively, Greater London was first established as a sui generis council area under the Greater London Councilbetween 1963 and 1986. The area was re-established as a region in 1994, and the Greater London Authority formed in 2000.

The region covers 1,572 km2 (607 sq mi) and had a population of 8,174,000 at the 2011 census.[6][7] The Greater London county covers the same territory as the London region, save for the City of London which is a separate county. In 2012, it had the highest GVA per capita in the United Kingdom at £37,232.[8][9] The Greater London Built-up Area—used in some national statistics—is a measure of the continuous urban area of London, and therefore includes areas outside the administrative region.[...]
Click to expand...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greater_London

TfL:
TfL was created in 2000 as part of the Greater London Authority by the Greater London Authority Act 1999.[4] It gained most of its functions from its predecessor London Regional Transport in 2000.
Click to expand...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transport_for_London

Sound Transit: (Sound Transit (ST), officially the Central Puget Sound Regional Transit Authority,)
Sound Transit was created in 1993 by King, Pierce and Snohomish counties to build a regional rapid transit system. After an unsuccessful proposal in 1995, the agency's plan for regional light rail, commuter rail and express bus service, named "Sound Move", was approved in November 1996. ST began operating its express bus service, taking over existing routes from local transit agencies, in September 1999;[2] the first commuter rail line, between Tacoma and Seattle, started in December of the same year; and the first light rail line, Tacoma Link, began service in August 2003. Light rail service in Seattle began in 2009, and is the largest part of the Sound Transit system in terms of ridership. Union Station in Seattle has served as the agency's headquarters since its renovation in 1999.[3]

Sound Transit is independent of local transit agencies and is governed by a 18-member Board of Directors made up of elected officials from member jurisdictions and the Secretary of Transportation. It is funded by local sales taxes, property taxes, and motor vehicle excise taxes, levied within its taxing district in portions of King, Pierce and Snohomish counties. The agency has passed three major ballot measures to fund system expansion, including Sound Move (1996), Sound Transit 2 (2008) and Sound Transit 3 (2016). Planning and construction of new light rail lines is anticipated to continue until 2041 under the Sound Transit 3 plan. [...]
Click to expand...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sound_Transit

BART:
The district initially began with five members, all of which were projected to receive BART lines: Alameda County, Contra Costa County, the City and County of San Francisco, San Mateo County, and Marin County.
[...]
BART could be characterized as a "commuter subway," since it has many characteristics of a regional commuter rail service, somewhat similar to S-Bahn services in Germany, Denmark, Austria and Switzerland, such as lengthy lines that extend to the far reaches of suburbia, with significant distances between stations.[126][127] BART also possesses some of the qualities of a metro system[128] in the urban areas of San Francisco and Oakland; where multiple lines converge, it takes on the characteristics of an urban metro, including short headways and transfer opportunities to other lines. Urban stations are as close as one-half mile (800 m) apart, and have combined 2½- to 5-minute service intervals at peak times./[...]
Click to expand...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bay_Area_Rapid_Transit

Here's what I wrote:
steveintoronto said: ↑
Far more world leading transit systems are run by regional or state governments than by the cities themselves.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
regional transit agencies work the best because they enhance inter city connections. municipal agencies usually work well until the metro area sprawls and exhibits an array of incompatible city-level systems, even then it isn't that bad. but provinical/state/federal transit agencies are the absolute worst unless the metro area in question takes up the majority of the state/province. the only good example i can think of is njt, thats because much of new jersey's population and built up area is either in the nyc or philadelphia metro area. the mta is severely underfunded and that's because those who control it are voted in by the entire state, metrolinx seems like a good idea at first but then you realize it is a division of the provincial government. handing over absolute control of gta transit to metrolinx is just asking to be screwed over. I believe translink in vancouver serves only metro vancouver but is a division of the BC government (correct me if i'm wrong), and its board of directors consists of the mayors of all metro Vancouver cities if I remember correctly. That's the best model for the gta to mimic in my opinion. As much as I like county level/regional transit agencies like LACMTA and tfl, I don't want to see QP to spend years debating and amending the municipalities act to create a new regional gta municipality (something like greater london or metro toronto on a larger scale). I would prefer that we keep metrolinx a provincial agency, but give gta municipalities representation on the board of directors depending on their respective populations. At that point I wouldn't mind giving them more responsibility (maybe the rapid transit systems and allow cities to run local buses). As is common in any regional transit provider, the suburbs will have higher funding per customer at the expense of the city, but sometimes that's the price we have to pay to get suburban residents on transit.
 
adrianaliu said:
handing over absolute control of gta transit to metrolinx is just asking to be screwed over.
Click to expand...
Memories are short, or some are very young:
Shifting of responsibilities
In January 1997, the province announced it would hand over funding responsibility for GO Transit to the Greater Toronto Area municipalities (which consist of the City of Toronto, and the Regions of Halton, Peel, York, and Durham) and the neighbouring Region of Hamilton-Wentworth (which became the new City of Hamilton on 1 January 2001). In exchange, the province would assume certain other funding responsibilities from municipal governments.

A year later, on 1 January 1998, the GTA municipalities and Hamilton-Wentworth (now the city of Hamilton) began to fund GO Transit, cost-sharing all of GO's capital expenses and any operating costs that are not recovered through passenger fares and other revenue. On 1 January 1999, a new municipal agency created by the province came into being: the Greater Toronto Services Board (GTSB), composed of regional chairs, municipal mayors, and local councillors from the GTSB's service area. GO Transit transferred over to the municipal sector as an arm of the GTSB (Toronto Area Transit Operating Authority) on August 7, 1999, thus completing the process that had begun with the funding change of 1998.

In 2000, all day GO Train service was restored from Burlington to Whitby and finally brought to Oshawa (although weekend & holiday Lakeshore GO Train service was only provided between Pickering and Oakville).

On September 27, 2001, Premier Harris announced that the provincial government would take back responsibility for GO Transit, and put $3 billion into public transit in Ontario.

The GO Transit Act, 2001 was passed by the Ontario Legislature on December 5, 2001. Since January 1, 2002, GO Transit is no longer the responsibility of the municipalities of the Greater Toronto Area and Hamilton. GO has returned to provincial responsibility as a Crown Corporation, and the Greater Toronto Services Board no longer exists.
Click to expand...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_GO_Transit

handing over absolute control of gta transit to Metrolinx
Click to expand...
was never suggested, btw. It was the regional aspects that were, the transit lines that cross municipal borders. Those that don't would remain the domain of the municipality they operate in.
 
Last edited:
Tfl, TransLink etc also have their issues. But it makes sense to upload the regional aspects of transit, which seems to include the subway itself now that it's passing outside the borders of Toronto. It also increases the funding pool which makes projects like the DRL more likely to succeed. There will still be lots of political infighting, but it removes it a level from directly elected councillors and their grandstanding for local votes that may be against the regional good.
 
Streety McCarface said:
Where? TFL is run by the city of London, Translink the Greater Vancouver Area, Sound Transit is just Seattle, BART is San Francisco, I can't think of one example in North America that actually works with the exception of NJT (Which kind of screws over the big cities). And last I checked, Metrolinx has been prioritizing the suburbs for obvious reasons.
Click to expand...
The TTC has been prioritizing suburban areas for decades. Downtown has been getting screwed since the flat fare was instituted. Transit being controlled by a single regional body would be, at worst, more of the same.
 
MisterF said:
Transit being controlled by a single regional body would be, at worst, more of the same.
Click to expand...
I certainly wouldn't want *all* transit controlled by a "single regional body", and perhaps some are arguing for that, but that's not the most prevalent case being made.
I think local transit being delivered at the local level by the municipality is an excellent idea. Some municipalities would fund and administer far more intensely than others. It would be down to the local government, but when it comes to 'highways' that connect those municipal transit systems by crossing their borders, then administering those cross border routes is more effectively done regionally. A classic analog is the Don Valley Parkway. It should be funded regionally or provincially since Toronto is paying to subsidize drivers from outer regions to use it.
 
Kyle Campbell said:
Tfl, TransLink etc also have their issues. But it makes sense to upload the regional aspects of transit, which seems to include the subway itself now that it's passing outside the borders of Toronto. It also increases the funding pool which makes projects like the DRL more likely to succeed. There will still be lots of political infighting, but it removes it a level from directly elected councillors and their grandstanding for local votes that may be against the regional good.
Click to expand...

Not necessarily - you just turned it into a quasi-regional/provincial arrangement.

TheTigerMaster said:
GO transit has benefited from significant financial investment, while the provincial government has been neglecting the TTC network for over 40 years. If we had provincial governance that treated Toronto
commuters with half the respect they deserve, TTC ridership would be much higher.
Click to expand...

It's also misleading- - you can add up GO and all the municipal transit in the region and still doesn't come close to the level of TTC ridership.

AoD
 
Last edited:
MisterF said:
The TTC has been prioritizing suburban areas for decades. Downtown has been getting screwed since the flat fare was instituted. Transit being controlled by a single regional body would be, at worst, more of the same.
Click to expand...
I initially read this the wrong way. Missed the implication of your "at worst" modifier. I agree, albeit this illustrates the need of a 'fare by distance' model, no matter who administers the route.

As that applies to a Relief Line, it's very doubtful that it would be flat fare, no matter who administers it if and when built. The costs are so astronomical as presently being touted that to borrow or have a 'private partner' finance this would dictate a fair rate of return for the investment, whether from the farebox or some other form of recovery.

I'm leaning towards 'private partner' for building this. The City has no money, QP disallows tolling the Parkway, and even ML's CEO is now talking "private partners" as the way forward.

Unless someone subsidizes this at a steep rate, I don't see it being flat fare. In fact, for the timeline for completion now being touted, I don't see flat fare (save for localized zones incrementally used to calculate fare) still existing. So a lot of the debate becomes moot on "regional v local". If a "private partner" (or more likely, partners) do fund and build this, it won't be stopping at Danforth, or Sheppard. It will continue north to tap the vast demand north of the city.
 
denfromoakvillemilton said:
much easier to push for funding when the transit is the direct responsibility of the regional authority.
Click to expand...

Regional, sure. Provincial? No. The priorities of cities like Niagra Falls and Orillia will be prioritized because of political reasons. The TTC works extremely well with what it has, be careful what you wish for.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top