Whose vision of transit in Toronto do you support?

[gweed123]

And there has been some joking around in the group about changing the abbrevation of Move Toronto from 'MT' to 'MoTo'. I think it has a better ring to it.

 

[kEiThZ]

Also: It's fascinating to me that the SaveOurSubways MoveToronto plan seemed to develop as a microcosm of city transit planning. It became very political very quickly, and in a lot of ways the initial plan seemed to try too hard to make all of your members happy. So for CC you had subways to Mississauga, for Fresh Start you had your BRT section, for KeithZ you had the emphasis on STC, etc. In the end, just like with TC, there were compromises, and parts of the plan not everyone agreed with, but were there to keep certain members from freaking out.

Not quite. I would have loved to have the BD extension and the SRT extension to Malvern. These are the things that mattered to me personally. I could care less for an STC-Agincourt link but I did want the Sheppard subway to not have its expansion choked off. I compromised on a lot of those issues. It's not so much that we each fought for what we wanted in our neck of the woods. We debated for what we thought would make the city better in the long run. I can concede that Malvern doesn't particularly need any of those LRTs per se. The BD extension and the Agincourt extension would improve connections dramatically. The SRT extension would be nice but I didn't want to screw the rest of Scarborough to get it like TC did.

If each councillor wasn't looking for something in his ward, our plans would actually be pretty decent.

As far as what each of us wanted.... I think it's more a matter that each of us knows a different part of town. I am not that familiar with the west end but I know Scarborough and North York a little. CC obviously gets the West end better. And so forth.

 

[kEiThZ]

The gren stretch you're referring to is the Richview Expressway corridor, which we do propose using. While dipping may be good at some spots, I think it would be better to spend the extra to trench it, that way it can be decked over and redeveloped, like they have done on sections of the Yonge line between Rosedale and Eglinton.

I don't get why they can't just deck it over with Eglinton itself. Is it that expensive to rebuild the road on the corridor itself and run it for a few years while they cut and cover for the LRT and then deck it back over with Eglinton? This way they would get their developable land back.

 

[gweed123]

I don't get why they can't just deck it over with Eglinton itself. Is it that expensive to rebuild the road on the corridor itself and run it for a few years while they cut and cover for the LRT and then deck it back over with Eglinton? This way they would get their developable land back.

Then you would need to relocate storm sewers, pipes, etc. And there are also a few buildings along the south side that would feel cut off if the street suddenly moved 30m to the north. The north side is also lined with more condos than the south side is, so densifying along the north side of Eglinton wouldn't be as much of a NIMBY issue as on the south side. Condo owners generally complain less about other condos going up around than single family home owners do.

 

[kEiThZ]

I dunno if I was clear here. I was suggesting relocating Eglinton to the North during construction and then once the LRT + road is done opening the north side to more condos. The isolated buildings on the south I am sure can be accomodated with some kind of ramp or driveways during construction. Or maybe we can build one of those elevated ROWs where they use the bottom spaces for shops and bars.

 

[kettal]

The gren stretch you're referring to is the Richview Expressway corridor, which we do propose using. While dipping may be good at some spots, I think it would be better to spend the extra to trench it, that way it can be decked over and redeveloped, like they have done on sections of the Yonge line between Rosedale and Eglinton.

Is it realistic to build anything of substance on top of a tunnel, which prevents a foundation to be poured?

 

[gweed123]

Is it realistic to build anything of substance on top of a tunnel, which prevents a foundation to be poured?

In some parts, you're right. However, I see most of the development occurring around stations. If they are designed properly, they can handle a condo or something being built above it. The sections in between will have the option to be decked over later and be returned to parkland, or modest development.

It's also a safety issue. At-grade trains, even in their own ROW, have the possibility of coming in contact with pedestrians, etc. As soon as you have a trench, you can easily put a fence around it, and those issues will be dramatically reduced. If someone was hit by a subway train on the open cut sections of the Yonge line, the first question you would be asking is "why were they there in the first place?". A trench will also reduce the amount of noise.

 

[golodhendil]

Is it realistic to build anything of substance on top of a tunnel, which prevents a foundation to be poured?

The Prudential Center complex in Boston is built on top of a stretch of the Mass Turnpike:

and the plan is to eventually deck over much of the highway through the city:

Other current plans to deck over the Pike:
A couple of parcels close to the Pru

Fenway Center

 

[sjc]

Will any of these visions for Toronto transit include transit service of some type to the Billy Bishop Toronto City Airport? With passenger levels heading north of 1,000,000 per year, one would think that this would be deserving of transit service beyond a walk down a busy street to a streetcar stop.

 

[gweed123]

Will any of these visions for Toronto transit include transit service of some type to the Billy Bishop Toronto City Airport? With passenger levels heading north of 1,000,000 per year, one would think that this would be deserving of transit service beyond a walk down a busy street to a streetcar stop.

They just announced that they're building a pedestrian tunnel to the airport. That, coupled with both the Harbourfront streetcar, and Porter's Union express shuttle, they should be pretty well off I think.

 

[kettal]

They just announced that they're building a pedestrian tunnel to the airport. That, coupled with both the Harbourfront streetcar, and Porter's Union express shuttle, they should be pretty well off I think.

Wait, what? Wouldn't a bridge make more sense than a tunnel?

 

[MisterF]

Why bother dipping under intersections along Eglinton West? Handling at-grade street crossings the way the Calgary LRT does would be just as effective and much cheaper. Trains going as far as the airport would likely be less frequent than in the central portion.

 

[gweed123]

Wait, what? Wouldn't a bridge make more sense than a tunnel?

I believe the issue is that because it is a shipping channel (or at least is still classified as one), the bridge would need to be a certain height. I'm not saying I don't agree with you, I'm just speculating as to why they chose a tunnel instead of a bridge.

 

[Rainforest]

Several of you have just posted some compromises that would have "almost universal support", so I'll give you guys some insight on the updated map that I was working on for most of this afternoon. However the map is not finalized, so I can't really post that, we have to work out prioritizing, etc.

We still want to make a portion of the plan cost-neutral with TC, so what we have done is scrapped the 15 and 25 year division based on the Metrolinx RTP and have gone with 'Priority Projects' and 'Projects that Require Additional Funding'. Basically 'need to have' vs 'would be good to have'.

Some specific changes:
-Eglinton LRT from Kingston to Pearson, with the western section using the Richview corridor for cut-and-cover and/or trench.
-Sheppard subway extention to Agincourt, with optional extension to STC later.
-SELRT from Agincourt east to Meadowvale, with spur line north to Malvern Town Centre.
-Kipling BRT north from Kipling station using hydro corridor, connects with Eglinton LRT and Mississauga Transitway (becomes Mississauga Transitway after it turns west, provides direct link to Square One). Also BRT south from Kipling station to Long Branch via Kipling and Lakeshore, likely in the 'additional funding' category.
-Finch West and Don Mills LRTs in priority projects, connector segment between the two to come later (Finch East bus works fairly well as-is, building only part of the line would disrupt that continuous service).
-Jane LRT from Steeles West station to Weston and Eglinton, where it will meet western leg of the DRL and Eglinton LRT (mirror image of Science Centre interchange)
-Kingston BRT from Vic Park to Morningside, where it will turn north to Ellesmere, loop at UTSC, then Ellesmere west to STC. Optional extension along Kingston to Durham Region.

Sounds like a plan.

If LRT is recommended for Eglinton after all, then I would suggest to reserve station space for 4-car trains, in case the demand exceeds expectations. At least, do so along the western segment of the line that connects to the Airport and Mississauga BRT.

Once the line is in operation, it will be very hard to convert it to subway even if the demand warrants it and the tunnel is built to subway specs. Closing the line for conversion will really mess up that part of the transit network.

 

[Juan_Lennon416]

If Adam is forced to resign as TTC Chair and Vice Chair Mihevc takes over, I wonder if Mihevc would tweek TC to fit his personal vision of what the plan should be like?