Toronto Spadina Subway Extension Emergency Exits | ?m | 1s | TTC | IBI Group

DENTROBATE54 said:
Your suggestion, as is mine, is truly what should be considered a downtown relief line. Not for newbies on the waterfront, but rather for long-time residents and businesses and tourist spots that have paid their dues and deserve an upgrade in service.
Click to expand...

Yeah, the problem is that there just aren't that many of those long-time residents in low-density residential neighbourhoods the city's trying to preserve east and west of the core, and building an all-underground subway across the downtown core would cost double or triple a subway that takes advantage of the rail corridor. A route along Queen, for example, would also not serve Union Station, or the financial district centred on King and Bay and newly developing on the railway lands nearly as well as a Front Street route.
 
scarberiankhatru said:
Your thoughts weren't misunderstood...you were proposing meandering lines for the sake of meandering lines because London has no street grid.
Click to expand...

It's a bit insulting that you think that my argument has no base, and that I just want meandering lines so we can be more like London. I've used London as an example in past posts only because it's probably the most famous and successful underground system in the world, and an easy reference since I'm sure if people haven't at least used it, they've seen the map. it's also a system that both follows the laid out roads (even if they aren't perfectly straight), and has lines that cut through blocks, which is essentially what I'm proposing.

The fact is that downtown is well served by transit but because downtown isn't just one street people don't necessarily want to go from A to B to C. Yes, it's important that B exists, but B should exist as a form of LRT/Streetcar/bus so long as service is not over capacity. Subway allows us to create opportunities to eliminate the necessity to travel through B by putting stations in high use areas. If Spadina and Dundas is a high traffic area, does it mean that everyone that visits the area lives on or near those two streets? Now, you link Spadina and Dundas with another high traffic area, and continue. Obviously, we don't have the ability to see where people are traveling to and from on their journeys around the city (at least not until everyone is carrying smart cards) but I'm sure we will find that some patterns appear. You'd probably find that some surface lines would be able to provide better local service, because people would have an alternative. This, and the ability to get to places quicker will make the TTC more attractive. I mean, let's face it, the downtown is starting to develop without any focus on corridors, so maybe its time we stop thinking like that.

What drawbacks are there in doing this instead of sticking to the grid? Everyone seems to be up in arms over this idea (for such a progressive group, it actually kind of surprised me) but it seems to be over things that I haven't proposed (like having lines that go north, then south then make 45 degree turns then do a loop, etc). Doesn't this have any merit? or am I entirely out of touch?
 
People probably wouldn't be so frustrated if you stopped talking in abstract (If this place and if that place have a strong correlation and if the corridors they are located on don't also require high-order service than possibly you might feasibly consider a direct connection) and instead focussed on real places where where meandering lines would provide a quantifiable advantage over a grid-based system.

People are more interested in evaluating solutions to Toronto's transportation problems, not debating the existential nature of subway lines.
 
jn_12 said:
It's a bit insulting that you think that my argument has no base, and that I just want meandering lines so we can be more like London. I've used London as an example in past posts only because it's probably the most famous and successful underground system in the world, and an easy reference since I'm sure if people haven't at least used it, they've seen the map. it's also a system that both follows the laid out roads (even if they aren't perfectly straight), and has lines that cut through blocks, which is essentially what I'm proposing.
Click to expand...

You're not proposing anything! You're just saying we need more squiggly lines on our transit map because London has them. Why not propose a real line and we'll tell you if we think it's any good.
 
London Underground? Successful?

It's big, no doubt about that. Also very popular, although more due to lack of a choice than anything else. And by North American standards, seems great. But there are a number of continental Metro systems which are just light years ahead. Namely Madrid, Paris, and Berlin. The Tube is interesting, but it's far from a model.
 
allabootmatt said:
London Underground? Successful?
Click to expand...
Well, in the 1940's, when it was just about complete, I'd say it was successful. The virtual lack of expansion since then (with only the Victoria line in the 1960s, and the Jubilee line in the 1970s to 1990s), hasn't kept pace. But with Crossrail going ahead, and Thameslink as well, and the Overground expansion, then it might well be catching up.
 
unimaginative2 said:
Yeah, the problem is that there just aren't that many of those long-time residents in low-density residential neighbourhoods the city's trying to preserve east and west of the core, and building an all-underground subway across the downtown core would cost double or triple a subway that takes advantage of the rail corridor. A route along Queen, for example, would also not serve Union Station, or the financial district centred on King and Bay and newly developing on the railway lands nearly as well as a Front Street route.
Click to expand...

There aren't that many residents left because they're fed up and moving out. Why wait around for the system to reform, when they can be apart of the new 905 developments from the get-go?

The financial district, not served by Queen a mere two blocks north? That's all nit-picking though. What I am suggesting is a line not limited to a straight path, the core or the waterfront- but both. A flying-V would serve more downtown nodes then any straight path line ever could. In addition to hitting these nodes, important cross-intersections would be served such that the 510 and 505 are served at the same stop; 506 and 511,etc. If you think about it, it's the best of both worlds, a part of the line runs through the new waterfront community, the rest through the old downtown.
 
Regarding the subway...

Initial plan was to have major work underway by October 2007, the feds have slowed things down and the TTC has also apparently been slow (this is from a provincial perspective).

The province is looking at having two companies/divisions do the work:
1. For the tunnels
2. For the stations with an opportunity for private sector involvement

There are approximately about 6 months of federal EAs still to go with major construction planned to start by mid-to-late 2008.

The province has started discussions with the feds on the extension of the Yonge subway, no timelines have been set yet.
 
Cash stuck in transit
Cities still waiting for fed funding
By BRETT CLARKSON, SUN MEDIA

It's the big question surrounding the Spadina subway expansion to York University and the 905 -- where's the money?

A day after Mississauga Mayor Hazel McCallion ripped Ottawa for apparently taking too long to fund her city's new rapid bus line, TTC chairman Adam Giambrone joined in the growing chorus of GTA politicians tired of waiting for the feds to pry open their purse strings.

"You heard Hazel McCallion's frustration that it took a year for the federal government to actually fund the money -- we're having the same problems with the subway," Giambrone said. "We still don't have the money they said they'd give us for the Spadina extension. We don't have it. So we understand exactly where Mississauga's coming from."

It's been almost a year since last March 6, when Prime Minister Stephen Harper and Finance Minister Jim Flaherty stood alongside Premier Dalton McGuinty and then-Ontario finance minister Greg Sorbara at Downsview Park to announce $4.5 billion for transit and roads.

Included in the announcement was a $697-million pledge from the feds to help fund the expansion of the Spadina subway line by 8.6 km to York University and to the Vaughan Corporate Centre.

The province has already put up their $670 million for the extension. That money now sits in a trust fund for the subway extension.

Giambrone said yesterday that McCallion was right to rant against the feds.

"They take forever," he said.

Ottawa has announced how much they'll commit -- but that money remains inaccessible because of an ongoing impasse with Queen's Park over infrastructure funding.

A war of words appeared to be brewing over the issue yesterday.

Catherine Loubier, spokesman for federal Transport Minister Lawrence Cannon, blamed a "partisan" McGuinty government for not yet signing on to the Building Canada Framework Agreement, which ties in most of the subway funding with $8 billion for other infrastructure projects for Ontario.

Without an agreement, the subway funds aren't accessible, Loubier explained.

"Right now, the Ontario Government is the one keeping the people of Ontario from this needed funding and putting partisan interests ahead of Ontario's needs," he said.
 
Oh, the irony of the whole situation. Mike Harris pulled a fast one when it came to the funding of transit projects in this province. Before he came along, funding projects was the responsibility of the province, but Harris convinced Ontarians that the Feds should "pay their fair share" and came out with the 1/3rd-1/3rd-1/3rd funding system.

Now Harris's finance minister, Jim Flaherty, is the federal finance minister and seems to have completely forgotten the need for the Feds to "pay their share". How convienient.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top