Toronto Union Pearson Express | ?m | ?s | Metrolinx | MMM Group Limited

[BurlOak]

So spreading out passenger loads through higher frequencies, and adding stations at both sides of the core would not increase Union station's capacity at all? Interesting.

Technically, does the second option not decrease the demand at Union (not increase the capacity) and increase the capacity of the line.

Personally, I prefer the option of directing Georgetown underneath Queen to create a second Central station in the vicinity of Toronto City Hall. But I suppose that's a whole other topic.

Could the Wellington alginment for a tunnel be used. A shorter tunneling distance and still a walking connection to Union.

 

[nfitz]

Well, they have the right to stall this in the courts for as long as it takes.

And Metrolinx has the right to force them to pay Metrolinx's costs, if they are not successful.

Hopefully the individuals behind this are bankrupted.

 

[rbt]

So spreading out passenger loads through higher frequencies, and adding stations at both sides of the core would not increase Union station's capacity at all?

Spreading out passengers won't do much. LakeShore peak frequencies are already in the 5 minute range and problematic. Additional stairwells are the solution for this.

With narrow platforms you don't want to bring a second train into the station before the platforms have cleared from the first without platform doors at least.


Also, adding stations around Union most certainly does not increase the capacity at Union which is where 90% of the passengers will go unless you force them to get off elsewhere by not taking the train to union at all.

If you work in the Core or South Core, you're not getting off at Bathurst station if the train continues to Union.

 

[Jaye101]

That makes sense.

Now from what I understand you all are saying that we need a secondary "Central" station. And I agree to that fact. I think what's most important is the way this line behaves in relation to the rest of the system.

I think it would be practical to limit the options to Wellington, Richmond, or Adelaide, as these streets do not support significant retail activity. They could use Cut and Cover through the entire length of downtown Toronto on these streets as this would save significant capital, as well.

The electrified Georgetown and the Eastern Leg of the DRL could use the very same technology to provide one continuous line throughout the core.

That seems like the most practical solution to me. Although there is one issue, how to provide express and local service at the same time along different parts of the lines. Not a fatal obstacle, but an obstacle nonetheless.

These lines could form a line that combines service from the 905 and 416, slowly expanding local service beyond Eglinton as service levels rise.

Just an idea.

 

[doady]

It's reasoning like this, why our transit systems are so flawed, and our rail corridors are so underused. Instead of having a single vision for the region, each municipality has their own vision for what transit should be. If Metrolinx is to provide regional service, not local service, why did they assume control of the Eglinton Crosstown line??

Because the City of Toronto elected a mayor that is against funding transit expansion, and the province ended up paying 100% of the cost of the line and giving Toronto preferential treatment. But still, neither GO/Metrolinx or the province proposed, planned or designed the line. It is not their purpose. It is not up to them to decide what the local transit service within the City of Toronto should be. That is the responsibility of Toronto and the TTC only.

 

[k10ery]

And Metrolinx has the right to force them to pay Metrolinx's costs, if they are not successful.

Hopefully the individuals behind this are bankrupted.

They thought of that. The CTC has been incorporated. No doubt the corporation has zero assets, and it would be very difficult to recover costs from the directors. They can carry on this charade as long as they want.

 

[nfitz]

They thought of that. The CTC has been incorporated. No doubt the corporation has zero assets, and it would be very difficult to recover costs from the directors. They can carry on this charade as long as they want.

That might protect individuals from being liable for CTC's debts ... but I'm not sure if that stops the directors being personally named by Metrolinx in a cost recovery hearing after the court makes it's decision.

 

[Jaye101]

Because the City of Toronto elected a mayor that is against funding transit expansion, and the province ended up paying 100% of the cost of the line and giving Toronto preferential treatment. But still, neither GO/Metrolinx or the province proposed, planned or designed the line. It is not their purpose. It is not up to them to decide what the local transit service within the City of Toronto should be. That is the responsibility of Toronto and the TTC only.

In the future I think the lines will blur. I think at one point in time Metrolinx is going to approve transit models that are opposed at local levels, or just simply prioritize regional transit over local transit. It's already happening, I just see it getting worse. When Ontario sees another Conservative government, Metrolinx may turn into a monster.

 

[k10ery]

That's unlikely. The Court of Appeal has recently decided that directors of a charity are not liable for cost awards except in special cases.

 

[BurlOak]

And Metrolinx has the right to force them to pay Metrolinx's costs, if they are not successful.

Hopefully the individuals behind this are bankrupted.

Metrolinx has the right to force them to pay ??? Maybe they can ask the courts to force them to pay.

What you are essentially saying is that if someone does not have enough money to hire a good legal team, and enough reserves to cover the other sides legal fees, then they should have no rights to a healthy environment. Maybe we can stick toxic waste dumps in all the poor areas as well.

 

[rbt]

What you are essentially saying is that if someone does not have enough money to hire a good legal team, and enough reserves to cover the other sides legal fees, then they should have no rights to a healthy environment.

In a democracy you only get the rights that the majority won't argue against (most of the time the majority is indifferent and simply does not fight it).

In this specific case the demand is essentially for additional government funding which runs head-on into taxation and deficit budget issues which a rather large number of people have very strong feelings about.


I think CTC would be better using their lawsuit money to instead start a campaign (in early 2013) in favour of a 0.5% transit sales tax along with examples of what it could buy (all-day frequent electrified GO service). They could have partnered with the Toronto Board of Trade for this.

When Metrolinx releases their funding study, if public opinion is not strongly in favour of a transit tax then they may find they still have infrequent diesel transit in 15 years.

If public opinion is on-side with the transit tax then they might get Metrolinx to commit to electrification of those routes in 2017/2018.

 

[nfitz]

Metrolinx has the right to force them to pay ??? Maybe they can ask the courts to force them to pay.

Yes, obviously ...

What you are essentially saying is that if someone does not have enough money to hire a good legal team, and enough reserves to cover the other sides legal fees, then they should have no rights to a healthy environment. Maybe we can stick toxic waste dumps in all the poor areas as well.

I'm saying nothing of the kind. I'm saying that a legal challenge has to be based in law - not simply used as a delaying tactic by people who are opposed to the project. I see no legal basis to this challenge. But if I'm missing something, please enlighten me. Perhaps I can use it to stop diesel trucks being used inside Toronto.

 

[gweed123]

I'm saying nothing of the kind. I'm saying that a legal challenge has to be based in law - not simply used as a delaying tactic by people who are opposed to the project. I see no legal basis to this challenge. But if I'm missing something, please enlighten me. Perhaps I can use it to stop diesel trucks being used inside Toronto.

Exactly. There's a big difference between having a legitimate complaint against a project (ex: Spadina Expressway, where it would have literally ripped a neighbourhood in half, and significantly deteriorated quality of life), and complaining because of an increase in use of a pre-existing rail corridor.

There's a difference (in reality, although not in law), between a legal challenge and a legal respite. Spadina was the former, this is very much the latter.

 

[Rainforest]

The electrified Georgetown and the Eastern Leg of the DRL could use the very same technology to provide one continuous line throughout the core.

That seems like the most practical solution to me. Although there is one issue, how to provide express and local service at the same time along different parts of the lines. Not a fatal obstacle, but an obstacle nonetheless.

On DRL East, it is OK to provide just local service (stop spacing in the 700 m to 1 km range south of Danforth, and a bit wider between Danforth and Eglinton). The express service in the same direction can be provided by the improved GO on Uxbridge sub, or a new Union - Don Branch - CPR mainline - Agincourt - Malvern GO line.

I assume that DRL East will not share one of those corridors, but will have its own tunnel and go through Pape /Danforth and Overlea before reaching the Eglinton / Don Mills hub.

The western leg is more of an issue, as the local and express will have to share the same Weston corridor.

 

[k10ery]

Metrolinx has the right to force them to pay ??? Maybe they can ask the courts to force them to pay.

What you are essentially saying is that if someone does not have enough money to hire a good legal team, and enough reserves to cover the other sides legal fees, then they should have no rights to a healthy environment. Maybe we can stick toxic waste dumps in all the poor areas as well.

Yes, the court could force CTC to pay if (when!) they lose.

Usually in Ontario costs are NOT awarded in the case of public interest litigation. Because as you say everybody should have the same rights when it comes to arguing the public interest.

But for such a frivolous suit as this, I do not think the public interest exception is necessarily going to fly.