News   Jul 16, 2024
The Urban Jungle
 54     0 
News   Jul 15, 2024
Sculptural Pre-Cast Panels Now Adorning ANX near Dupont Station
 820     3 
News   Jul 15, 2024
Resubmitted Agincourt Condo Proposal Bumps Height, Reduces Parking
 956     1 

2018 Provincial Election Transit Promises

^As per "ridership on DRL North"...any figures that Metrolinx offered in the past are completely suspect, if not purposefully misleading. They were to satisfy Del Duca's political aspirations.

Metrolinx will have radically different ones at some point soon. And the vehicles, let alone the mode of the line itself, has yet to be determined.

The one option I don't see it being is subway. Far too expensive and limited yield per investment. Look for it to be a general category such as a "Metro". (In all fairness, a subway can be a "metro" and vice versa) but to move folks from the 'northern regions' to the core and back? Not subways, unless you want to crawl and pay a fortune to do it.
 
steveintoronto said:
^As per "ridership on DRL North"...any figures that Metrolinx offered in the past are completely suspect, if not purposefully misleading. They were to satisfy Del Duca's political aspirations.

Metrolinx will have radically different ones at some point soon. And the vehicles, let alone the mode of the line itself, has yet to be determined.

The one option I don't see it being is subway. Far too expensive and limited yield per investment. Look for it to be a general category such as a "Metro". (In all fairness, a subway can be a "metro" and vice versa) but to move folks from the 'northern regions' to the core and back? Not subways, unless you want to crawl and pay a fortune to do it.
Click to expand...

I can see all those currently vast parking lots along "DRL North" being replaced by high-density buildings, which would increase the ridership. Just put an end to the "free parking" they currently have.
 
W. K. Lis said:
I can see all those currently vast parking lots along "DRL North" being replaced by high-density buildings, which would increase the ridership. Just put an end to the "free parking" they currently have.
Click to expand...

It needs to be built as a subway and it needs to be built within 20 years, there is no denying that. We just cannot rely on existing ridership levels to be adequate enough to justify a subway now. Density will come and there needs to be redundancy in the system, but it will take time to develop.
 
W. K. Lis said:
I can see all those currently vast parking lots along "DRL North" being replaced by high-density buildings, which would increase the ridership. Just put an end to the "free parking" they currently have.
Click to expand...
This is what Vaughan is doing for the TYSSE:
[...]
The usual pattern is for cities to grow from their cores, adding density to the downtown while the suburbs expand outward. But Vaughan is doing it in the opposite direction. It's a suburb now building its heart; reversing the pattern of growing out to growing up.


These towers, the first of five in a complex called Expo City and the tallest buildings in York Region, are the first manifestations of a plan to build a downtown from scratch. A KPMG building that will soon house 400 employees is the second.

The vision is closely tied to the $2.6-billion, 8.6-kilometre York-Spadina subway extension slowly tunnelling its way north from Downsview Station. It's the first time Toronto's subway has reached past the city limits and will service Vaughan with about a 45-minute ride to Union Station.


But Vaughan officials say their downtown – dubbed the Vaughan Metropolitan Centre (VMC), rising out of 179 hectares bounded in part by highways 407 and 400 – will be much more than a subway stop. The vision is for a true live-work-and-play city featuring green space, office and condo towers, pedestrian links, hotels, entertainment venues and 36,000 workers and residents.

It's boosted by upgrades to York's bus-transit system VIVA on Highway 7, a new set of heightened design criteria for buildings, landscapes and streets and a suite of incentives for developers willing to jump on-board. The VMC also includes a large green space running along the Black Creek corridor.
[...]
Click to expand...
https://www.theglobeandmail.com/new...ning-a-downtown-from-scratch/article27929449/

Hopefully the ride down the DRL from north of the TO border will be a lot faster than the TYSSE.
 
innsertnamehere said:
UPx is a pretty glaring example.
Click to expand...

It certainly is, but I meant in terms of being able to accommodate ridership. It's poorly designed/connected, but the station itself seems to be able to handle the ridership without any crowding issues, etc.

Streety McCarface said:
The 510, the 504 KSP, the Bloor-Yonge Expansion, The Union Station Platform widths, St George Station in general, and most certainly the Yonge North Subway extension if it's built, subway platform lengths (all), Kitchener GO line platform lengths, second exits all around the system, the UPX, Union Station "Improvements", and I'm even going to throw in the Eglinton Crosstown (More on that later). Going back to the original point, we've never had these problems before because we always built with the future in mind. All these issues have occurred recently. The Yonge subway initially ran 2-4 car Gloucester trains, which are about 30% shorter than T1 and TR cars.View attachment 137992 View attachment 137993
a 2 car train can hold only ~250 passengers, less than a light rail line. Imagine if trains like these were used currently on the yonge line or if they went with light rail instead? We'd be nowhere better than totally f***ed. Imagine the bloor line like this, or if the DRL were built to these specifications. My point is that the city doesn't do enough when planning for the future. Growth can occur very quickly; Line's 1 and 2 have seen growth of about 45K PPD each over a 5 year period, and that's despite all the system's shortcomings in that same time period.
Click to expand...


What a coincidence. All of your examples (that have actually been built) are in dense, urban environments with heavy transit usage.

St. George station is a rather weird example though. It's been open for 55 years lol.

The issues facing the TTC right now stem almost entirely from not expanding where the real demand has always been - downtown. Now the entire system is suffering. Ignoring downtown transit needs for nearly 60 years has been disastrous.

This is why pouring billions into suburban extensions that will be underused for generations is foolish.

Whoever wins this election, I hope that transit is not put on the backburner. I hope at the very least they move ahead with a few priority projects.
 
syn said:
What a coincidence. All of your examples (that have actually been built) are in dense, urban environments with heavy transit usage.

St. George station is a rather weird example though. It's been open for 55 years lol.

The issues facing the TTC right now stem almost entirely from not expanding where the real demand has always been - downtown. Now the entire system is suffering. Ignoring downtown transit needs for nearly 60 years has been disastrous.

This is why pouring billions into suburban extensions that will be underused for generations is foolish.

Whoever wins this election, I hope that transit is not put on the backburner. I hope at the very least they move ahead with a few priority projects.
Click to expand...

Pretty much every go line, the UPX, Subway platform lengths all over the system (especially at busy stations like Sheppard West, Sheppard Yonge, Finch, Kipling, Islington, Dundas West, Queens Park, College, Queen, King, St Andrew, Broadview, Main, Victoria Park, Warden, Kennedy, Scarborough Centre (I forgot to mention that the SRT was ill thought out and that's in the suburbs as well), Eglinton, St Clair and St Clair West, etc), second exits, the Eglinton Crosstown, and many others are not "downtown". Historically, downtown transit has been built to serve for the future, with the University/Spadina line acting as Toronto's first "relief line", the keeping of the streetcar system, etc. It's only been a recent concept where downtown relief has been deferred and proposed to run as an LRT (Transit City) or RER (Smarttrack).

I am in no way that downtown has been transit-starved for years, I agree that the priorities of the city beyond the Eglinton crosstown & FWLRT should be as follows:
Cirra 2031
1. Relief Line South
2. RER
3. Streetcar Enhancements (New lines on Parliament, extensions of the st clair line, subway-surface streetcar lines for king and queen when they run with the DRL potentially, and
4. Scarborough Subway Extension #1 (Whether it's on Sheppard or McCowan) OR Viable Scarborough LRT replacement
5. Eglinton West LRT
6. Eglinton East LRT
ROWs for all lines)
Cirra 2041
7. Relief Line Long (Don Mills subway to Don Mills-Sheppard station)
8. Jane LRT (to connect Finch, Eglinton, Waterfront, and future lines on either Steeles, Lawrence, and York Mills/Wilson for redundancies)
9. Sheppard West Subway extension
Cirra 2051
10. Relief Line U (Queen/Dufferin Subway)
11. Lawrence, Steeles and York Mills/Wilson LRT lines
12. Etobicoke/Mississauga Subway Extension (To help alleviate the Milton line)

I believe in enhancing services that need relief now first, but I also believe that the system is designed without redundancies and will lead to its eventual failure again in the future. You can't just dismiss the rest of Toronto as not deserving of higher order transit when it is the rest of Toronto that makes downtown the busy and lively centre it is now. You cannot dismiss the rest of the GTA either because many workers come from those locations as well. You should especially not deny them access to transit, especially quick and efficient transit because it's what keeps cars out of downtown. The issue here is lack of redundancy and whoever is elected should promise at the very least to reduce possibilities for system failure.
 
I fail to see how holding off of the DRL long plan all the way until 2041 is a good idea since the TTC's own models show that Line 1 will be over capacity again by 2030 even with the use of ATC. When you consider all the capacity issues on Line 1 are around Eglinton, Sheppard and Finch not having the DRL long is a disaster. The DRL short is absolutely needed but it only fixes 1 of 4 bottle necks on Line 1 and considering Bloor-Yonge is not the sole source of the capacity problems on the line (that happens further north) the DRL long plan really can't be delayed.
 
JSF-1 said:
I fail to see how holding off of the DRL long plan all the way until 2041 is a good idea since the TTC's own models show that Line 1 will be over capacity again by 2030 even with the use of ATC. When you consider all the capacity issues on Line 1 are around Eglinton, Sheppard and Finch not having the DRL long is a disaster. The DRL short is absolutely needed but it only fixes 1 of 4 bottle necks on Line 1 and considering Bloor-Yonge is not the sole source of the capacity problems on the line (that happens further north) the DRL long plan really can't be delayed.
Click to expand...

I wholeheartedly agree, however, there are only so many subway lines the city can build at once. If DRL and the SSE are the next ones up, we'll have to wait until one of the other is complete before we can move TBMs and workers to DRL long.
 
Streety McCarface said:
Pretty much every go line, the UPX, Subway platform lengths all over the system (especially at busy stations like Sheppard West, Sheppard Yonge, Finch, Kipling, Islington, Dundas West, Queens Park, College, Queen, King, St Andrew, Broadview, Main, Victoria Park, Warden, Kennedy, Scarborough Centre (I forgot to mention that the SRT was ill thought out and that's in the suburbs as well), Eglinton, St Clair and St Clair West, etc), second exits, the Eglinton Crosstown, and many others are not "downtown". Historically, downtown transit has been built to serve for the future, with the University/Spadina line acting as Toronto's first "relief line", the keeping of the streetcar system, etc. It's only been a recent concept where downtown relief has been deferred and proposed to run as an LRT (Transit City) or RER (Smarttrack).
Click to expand...

Here is the question I asked.

"Please provide examples of transit infrastructure built in Toronto that have become inadequate in a short time period."

Dundas West station opened in 1966. 52 years ago. Now, in 2018, I'd hardly say the platform length is inadequate.

Same goes for virtually every other station you mentioned. Victoria Park?! Since when has the station length at Victoria Park rendered it inadequate?

You're really stretching here.

Besides, if the DRL was invested in years ago, overcrowding on the Yonge Line stations like King, Queen, etc. would be far less of an issue. The station length isn't the issue, it's capacity. How do improve capacity? Lift the half century+ moratorium on subway development downtown and build subways where they're needed.

In any case, this thread is about 2018 Provincial Election Promises. So far the Liberals seem to be in the lead as far as the transit file is concerned.
 
syn said:
Here is the question I asked.

"Please provide examples of transit infrastructure built in Toronto that have become inadequate in a short time period."

Dundas West station opened in 1966. 52 years ago. Now, in 2018, I'd hardly say the platform length is inadequate.

Same goes for virtually every other station you mentioned. Victoria Park?! Since when has the station length at Victoria Park rendered it inadequate?

You're really stretching here.

Besides, if the DRL was invested in years ago, overcrowding on the Yonge Line stations like King, Queen, etc. would be far less of an issue. The station length isn't the issue, it's capacity. How do improve capacity? Lift the half century+ moratorium on subway development downtown and build subways where they're needed.

In any case, this thread is about 2018 Provincial Election Promises. So far the Liberals seem to be in the lead as far as the transit file is concerned.
Click to expand...

Am I really stretching it? Longer platforms mean more space for passengers and a shorter dwell time because people can board and disembark quicker. What do you define as "short term" for transit? Subways are built to last a century and stay there for even longer, and if we're having capacity issues 10, 20, or even 30 years after it is built, there's a problem. I mention busy stations for platform lengthening in a proposal for longer trains skipping regular stops, and for capacity issues across the entire line. The platform lengths at individual stations may not be the problem, but the fact that there is no way for a line to accommodate higher capacity, longer trains, is. If planners had the foresight to include small platform extensions in previous plans, we could simply lengthen trains and have a 25% boost in direct capacity. We didn't plan for that, and now that short-term solution is no longer an option.
 
Streety McCarface said:
Am I really stretching it? Longer platforms mean more space for passengers and a shorter dwell time because people can board and disembark quicker. What do you define as "short term" for transit? Subways are built to last a century and stay there for even longer, and if we're having capacity issues 10, 20, or even 30 years after it is built, there's a problem. I mention busy stations for platform lengthening in a proposal for longer trains skipping regular stops, and for capacity issues across the entire line. The platform lengths at individual stations may not be the problem, but the fact that there is no way for a line to accommodate higher capacity, longer trains, is. If planners had the foresight to include small platform extensions in previous plans, we could simply lengthen trains and have a 25% boost in direct capacity. We didn't plan for that, and now that short-term solution is no longer an option.
Click to expand...

Are you seriously arguing that Dundas West and Victoria Park are now inadequate to handle current capacity?

Are you seriously trying to suggest that dwell time at these stations is an issue? Unless there's a crew change or a train delay due to an emergency, etc. it takes a matter of seconds for passengers to disembark and board.

Your argument is ridiculous.
 
the problem isn't the station, its the trains. Way too small and too infrequent. And the stations have not been designed to easily adapt to larger trains.
 
Streety McCarface said:
The 510, the 504 KSP, the Bloor-Yonge Expansion, The Union Station Platform widths, St George Station in general, and most certainly the Yonge North Subway extension if it's built, subway platform lengths (all), Kitchener GO line platform lengths, second exits all around the system, the UPX, Union Station "Improvements", and I'm even going to throw in the Eglinton Crosstown (More on that later). Going back to the original point, we've never had these problems before because we always built with the future in mind. All these issues have occurred recently. The Yonge subway initially ran 2-4 car Gloucester trains, which are about 30% shorter than T1 and TR cars.View attachment 137992 View attachment 137993
a 2 car train can hold only ~250 passengers, less than a light rail line. Imagine if trains like these were used currently on the yonge line or if they went with light rail instead? We'd be nowhere better than totally f***ed. Imagine the bloor line like this, or if the DRL were built to these specifications. My point is that the city doesn't do enough when planning for the future. Growth can occur very quickly; Line's 1 and 2 have seen growth of about 45K PPD each over a 5 year period, and that's despite all the system's shortcomings in that same time period.
Click to expand...

It's not 1954 anymore. The Yonge Line cost around $60 Million to build, which would be roughly $560 Million today. We have to be a lot more conservative with our money today.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top