Waterfront Transit Reset Phase 1 Study

[crs1026]

Interesting that the document date is July 2016, but this document was not referenced or shared during the public consultation held last fall on transportation issues in the Park Lawn area. Area residents would have challenged many of the statements in this document had they seen it. I wonder what legal recourse there might be for that.

- Paul

 

[Filip]

Interesting that the document date is July 2016, but this document was not referenced or shared during the public consultation held last fall on transportation issues in the Park Lawn area. Area residents would have challenged many of the statements in this document had they seen it. I wonder what legal recourse there might be for that.

- Paul

This is borderline fraud. Metrolinx is run by fools if this is the type of 'planning' and business cases they come up with.

 

[TheTigerMaster]

One hears too many left-hand/right-hand stories about ML. Transit people tell me you know it's a ML meeting because when they show up, they bring ten people. They study *everything*, even stuff that the municipal operators have well in hand. They demonstrate little or no transparency in anything, *especially* project management. Some significant promises have been missed. Everything they build seeems to fall behind schedule. Their track record on consultation is iffy and they use PR to evade, rather than answer, fair and honest questions.

I don't think they should be disbanded, it is the right governance model for planning and operating GTA transit.....but they need some more dances with the Auditor-General. Reminds me of Ontario Hydro in the 1980's.

- Paul

I believe this lack of transparence stems from the nature of provincial governance. Metrolinx is beholden to the wishes of a handful of ministers and Liberal party officials, so there can be enormous pressure on them to keep quite about certain issues, and for them to pursue certain political goals. Compare this to municipal governance, where individual power is diluted, and the agencies are accountable Council directly, so it's more challenging for individual councillors or the mayor to strong-arm a municipal agency.

 

[aquateam]

For those of you looking for a laugh:

http://www.metrolinx.com/en/regionalplanning/newstations/IBC_ParkLawn_Mimico_EN.pdf

Can you be more specific about what some of the shortcomings are of the study? I'm not that familiar with the area.

As far as I can tell, they don't recommend moving Mimico GO to Park lawn because:

• they already are spending money on fancy new elevators for Mimico GO which will go to waste if they move to Park Lawn
• Park lawn adds new riders but they're closer and they're more likely to take transit to downtown, so it removes fewer vehicle kilometers from the roads
• Park lawn is a cheaper fare class so they don't end up making additional revenue on the new riders

Interesting that the document date is July 2016, but this document was not referenced or shared during the public consultation held last fall on transportation issues in the Park Lawn area. Area residents would have challenged many of the statements in this document had they seen it. I wonder what legal recourse there might be for that.

- Paul

In their defense, it does say "Draft" on it, so maybe it wasn't yet ready for dissemination.

 

[drum118]

Let me count the number of times I have seen Draft reports that never seen the light of day to the public or come back to the group, only to be come final report. Far too many.

 

[Filip]

Can you be more specific about what some of the shortcomings are of the study? I'm not that familiar with the area.

As far as I can tell, they don't recommend moving Mimico GO to Park lawn because:

• they already are spending money on fancy new elevators for Mimico GO which will go to waste if they move to Park Lawn
• Park lawn adds new riders but they're closer and they're more likely to take transit to downtown, so it removes fewer vehicle kilometers from the roads
• Park lawn is a cheaper fare class so they don't end up making additional revenue on the new riders

In their defense, it does say "Draft" on it, so maybe it wasn't yet ready for dissemination.

I've written a short blurb on some of the flawed assumptions a few pages back - feel free to review.

This is akin to modelling a new subway line downtown using 1990s growth rates stretched to the future. This type of historic linear growth is not how you model population growth in areas that area growing exponentially.

TTC ridership in Humber Bay Shores is far lower than it should be, for simple reasons - transit sucks and takes too long to move you the 8km east to downtown. People drive (myself included) because there are no reasonable options. That's what happens when you have non-captive riders. Speed is the panacea here, not cost of transit.

Mimico does not have enough parking so people avoid the station - and the 30 min walk isn't pleasant.

 

[crs1026]

Part of their "rationale" is that Mimico is projected to see more ridership growth than Park Lawn. This is seriously flawed.

First of all, the ridership at Park Lawn is already there. Has anyone noticed there are condo's already built down there? It won't grow much more, simply because the area is almost out of buildable space (aside from Mr Christie's).

Second, the ridership projected at Mimico is based on the presumption that the City will rezone the area, which has large tracts of employment lands, to mixed use to allow condo's to be built there. That rezoning is highly controversial, in fact some of it is already being challenged (ironically, by Metrolinx).

- Paul

 

[Filip]

Part of their "rationale" is that Mimico is projected to see more ridership growth than Park Lawn. This is seriously flawed.

First of all, the ridership at Park Lawn is already there. Has anyone noticed there are condo's already built down there? It won't grow much more, simply because the area is almost out of buildable space (aside from Mr Christie's).

Second, the ridership projected at Mimico is based on the presumption that the City will rezone the area, which has large tracts of employment lands, to mixed use to allow condo's to be built there. That rezoning is highly controversial, in fact some of it is already being challenged (ironically, by Metrolinx).

- Paul

I didn't see that in the report! My understanding was that Park Lawn would see more ridership and growth than Mimico, but it's not enough for them to scuttle the existing station and investments.

 

[toaster29]

It's really is ludicrous that this much intensification and density hasn't convinced any level of government to intervene. Let's build a subway to Scarborough where we can only hope this kind of density comes alone. Oh wait, it already exists in South Etobicoke, but who cares. Doesn't help that politicians at all levels of government for this area seem to be back benchers who do nothing for the area. Mark Grimes, the local councillor, even supported Tory's tolls on the Gardiner, when almost all residents in his ward rely on driving on it because there are no transit alternatives.

 

[drum118]

What the study is saying and its stupid, that even though Humber Bay Shores (HBS) area is most built out, the amount of new residential units to be built there is to be less than the Mimico station area. They fail to understand the amount of residents currently living in the HBS area out number and will continue to out number Mimico station area after the Mimico area is built up.

They still see the Christie site as employment land and that is dream land along with all the rest of vacant employment land for Mimico. There will be retail there, but when will it happen when you have empty units at South Beach and Westlake today. How long has South Beach sitting empty, other than the one place that exist since opening??

You need a faster way to/from the city core than exist today and one can be done having a GO station at Park Lawn and an LRT on the "FULL" Lake Shore Blvd from west of Park Lawn, over the Humber River bridge and follow the 1992? EA for the line on the Lake Shore around the EX.

As a note, an ROW is being look at for the Lake Shore west of Park Lawn to the Loop area, since this is a pinch point at this time.

Mark Grimes needs to be replace.

 

[Filip]

What the study is saying and its stupid, that even though Humber Bay Shores (HBS) area is most built out, the amount of new residential units to be built there is to be less than the Mimico station area. They fail to understand the amount of residents currently living in the HBS area out number and will continue to out number Mimico station area after the Mimico area is built up.

They still see the Christie site as employment land and that is dream land along with all the rest of vacant employment land for Mimico. There will be retail there, but when will it happen when you have empty units at South Beach and Westlake today. How long has South Beach sitting empty, other than the one place that exist since opening??

You need a faster way to/from the city core than exist today and one can be done having a GO station at Park Lawn and an LRT on the "FULL" Lake Shore Blvd from west of Park Lawn, over the Humber River bridge and follow the 1992? EA for the line on the Lake Shore around the EX.

As a note, an ROW is being look at for the Lake Shore west of Park Lawn to the Loop area, since this is a pinch point at this time.

Mark Grimes needs to be replace.

That's hilarious (and written so poorly that I couldn't deduce that was their conclusion).

This dream that Christie is employment lands is a joke. The developer has gone on record, plenty of times by now, that their intention is to build a retail heavy mixed use development, with condos, retail and office space. The numbers thrown out for office is on the order of 250k sqf. Anyone thinking this will be used for light manufacturing in perpetuity is not living in Toronto.

Also, the reason why so many of the retail spots were empty (not for long now they're all filling up) is because of the piss poor services. Nobody wants to pay the stratospheric leasing costs (and they're very high for Etobicoke standards) only to see their customers can't park on the street in front to make purchases. It was poorly planned. Westlake filled up fairly quickly because it was built with retail in mind from the get go.

The entire redevelopment area around Mimico station is smaller than the Christie site, so that's that. Then there's the Food Terminal which I see decamping in the next 5 years. That land itself is even larger than the Christie site.

Grimes is a moron, there's not much to add there. He has less passion for his ward than any councillor I have followed over the past 10 years. He is a reactionary. Likes to tell everyone here than he's been trying for TWO years now to get better transit (buddy, these condos have been planned far longer, and GO station/LRT plans date back to the late 1980s). I am blessed that our office in the Exchange Tower has 2 parking spots, one of which was given to me because the rest of my colleagues don't drive. I have free parking beneath my office so I can avoid the TTC. Not many here have that luxury.

Who is Metrolinx hiring for such poorly written reports and why is my question.

 

[BMO]

...Who is Metrolinx hiring for such poorly written reports and why is my question.

I mean...it clearly shows IBI Group throughout the document. I don't think you need to ask the question.

 

[Filip]

I mean...it clearly shows IBI Group throughout the document. I don't think you need to ask the question.

Rhetorical question.

 

[georgevicbell]

I'm starting to believe that the waterfront reset was a bad idea...basically we are putting off building stuff downtown while the opportunity is there in the mistaken belief that it is related to what is going to happen in Etobicoke or the Portlands...

We know we need to expand union, we know we need to build at least to Cherry on lakeshore....lets get on with that...and then start talking about next steps...

 

[drum118]

I'm starting to believe that the waterfront reset was a bad idea...basically we are putting off building stuff downtown while the opportunity is there in the mistaken belief that it is related to what is going to happen in Etobicoke or the Portlands...

We know we need to expand union, we know we need to build at least to Cherry on lakeshore....lets get on with that...and then start talking about next steps...

It boils down to money and since the SRT has suck-up money for transit, it has to be done on the cheap side.

Union is the white elephant for the plan at this time requiring about $400 million, with council wanting to find a way not to pay it. The main option is to scrap the loop and keep it 100% on the QQ. Plan from day one call for service to bypass Union from the east as well servicing it. The Union Loop has been an issue from 2008 in all EA, but the root of the problem keeps getting over look or rejected.

The same goes for Lake Shore Blvd west of Dufferin St. It best to keep the line on the Lake Shore and take it over the Humber River Bridge. Remove the ROW on the Lake Shore west of Humber is ok, except it will be needed in a few spots.

The QQE was to be in operation in 2014, yet here we are still taking about it and no idea when it will happen. Even if the QQE gets the ok next week, it can only be built to Parliament since no real design is in place for a grid extension to the New Cherry St. Cherry St can't be built until 2020 or later base on the Mouth of the Don and building the new Keating Bridge for it since there is no fund for it at this time.

We will see by 2020/21 the extension from the Ex to Dufferin St in operation.

The Bremner line needs to be scrap and only be a bus route.

I will leave the Park Lawn Station as a separate thread as its an animal on its own and no real impact on the current transit plans.