Neptis is kind of a hack job, that you should take with a grain of salt. Basically the entire report is just a shill for bringing back skytrain to Toronto. You should read
Steve Munro's review of the Neptis review.
Valid points. And I kinda agree that Neptis is a bit iffy. What they propose as a solution for Yonge North is bs IMO. Removing all stops except for Steeles and RHC? As much as I question the viability and high costs of all-underground subway extensions, I think recommending a 2km spacing from Finch-Steeles, and 4km through Thornhill to be pretty bonkers. It’s not like there’s a chasm or ocean between Steeles and RHC. If it’s not viable to put stations over such a large and populated distance, then maybe it’s not viable to extend the subway at all. And how a proposal like that can be supported, but not the DRL...seems a bit weird.
And yes, as Munro pointed out the report perhaps has an inherent bias in that it’s written by someone who worked on Skytrain, and who ended up promoting said system in his report.
1. While I support GO RER, I think that should be the province's priority, not the city's. The city shouldn't be paying billions for an express line from Missisauga to Markham.
2. The scaffolding at Union literally came down last week. They haven't even started adding the York concourses. Union capacity will eventually be an issue, but after the billion spent on Union the more urgent issue is Yonge/Bloor.
3. Assuming those projections are correct, how could the Yonge line handle all those extra passengers? It is already at capacity.
I'd also like to point out that, of the Network 2011 proposals, the DRL is the only one whose riderships projections haven't been significantly revised down. In fact, it had its ridership projection revised upwards, because it is based on a demand that existed 30 years ago and still exists now, and is not speculative.
4. As council stated when they approved the Yonge North extension, capacity issues have to be addressed before the extension is started. The DRL is a prerequisite to the Yonge North extension.
Re: 1. I agree. SmartTrack or RER is ultimately a Prov issue. If TO is to be studying the Stouffville and Kitchener corridor as a rapid transit solution in light of the high costs of underground, then perhaps other regions or municipalities should be doing the same. Not that I fully agree with that sentiment, but it’s a rational assumption.
2. True. But if SmartTrack is to be our new “surface subwayâ€, and use Union; seemingly Metrolinx’s Lakeshore GO Tunnel idea would be more of an objective than the Pape-Bathurst DRT line.
3. This is why I acknowledged that Metrolinx wants a near term solution for “relief†(which I think we’re already seeing with SmartTrack to some extent). And good point about how ridership hasn’t been “revised down†for a DRL as it has for other corridors. I’ve already babbled long enough in the Yonge North thread about why I think highest-end projections aren’t a guarantee. And I’m sure we’ve all read the Gary Webster report. 1986: Eglinton (17,600 peak), Sheppard (15,400 peak). 2012: Eglinton Crosstown (5,200 peak), Sheppard (4,500 peak).
http://stevemunro.ca/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/201103TransitTechnologyTable.pdf
Conversely I believe this may happen with the Network 2011 or DRTES DRL. The longer we wait for the line, the less chance for large-scale development in the shoulder and outer areas. Whether it’s because lower density development has occurred already, gentrification, or for reasons similar to suburban corridors (e.g nimbyism, lack of employment/CBD growth, etc). Transit City probably followed that line of thinking with its Jane and Don Mills LRTs. And I’m pretty sure SmartTrack/RER would also put a considerable dent in the DRTES projections.
4. Like point 3. Many want Yonge North started as fast as possible. So if that means a quickfix Relief Line, then I believe a quickfix Relief Line it will end up being. This from regionalrelief.ca seems to back up that idea:
Q: What is Metrolinx studying?
A: Metrolinx will consider broader solutions from a network perspective, such as which GO Transit assets and rail corridors can be leveraged to find a solution. Metrolinx’s Yonge Relief Network Study is evaluating a range of transit network and policy alternatives to relieve the Yonge Subway. There may be other infrastructure and policy alternatives that could serve as medium and shorter-term or complementary solutions to a relief rapid transit line.
***
Back to my original post from a couple days ago and the station interchange. I still think it’s a well-situated property and potential asset. And as much as I love log rides (particularly the one at Ontario Place), I believe a potential RH RER station can easily be connected to Broadview. Pickering GO has a 250m pedestrian overpass. This would be of a similar distance, but with 2/3 being underground. So somewhat of a hybrid between Pickering GO and Spadina’s 150m moving walkway tunnel. I'm sure some consider this to be akin to a theme park ride, but it seems fairly straightforward. And I think it makes a lot more sense than the DMLRT proposal from TC Phase II and its 12-storey escalator between Bayview and Castle Frank.
On the topic of acquiring TDSB properties, yesterday Tory released a memo proclaiming the importance of City involvement in TDSB real estate. Granted, there was no mention of “intermodal integration†or TOD, but the point is that some properties have potential to be something more than shuttered buildings or nondescript townhomes. Whether for a community centre, stadium (as discussed in another thread), or a transit hub...some sites/locations can be an asset. And it would be a shame if the City (or Metrolinx for that matter) were shut out from joining in a discussion concerning a site’s future.
Mayor John Tory wants the city to be “meaningfully consulted†before any decisions are made about the sale of surplus schools by the Toronto District School Board.
...
While the city has no formal say in the future of Toronto schools, Mr. Tory argues it should be involved in discussions because what happens to the properties will have a significant effect on the city, its services and its residents.
...
A subsidiary of the Toronto board, Toronto Lands Corp. is responsible for dealing with “surplus†properties. Under provincial regulations, Toronto Lands follows a two-step process to lease or sell a property, first offering it to other public-sector organizations, which have 90 days to submit a bid, and then selling it on the open market if there are no takers
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news...-say-in-sale-of-tdsb-schools/article22755216/
I’m sure this idea has been posted many times over the years. But with CALC potentially being for sale, it seems more doable than before.
