Toronto Ontario Line 3 | ?m | ?s

diminutive said:
A lot of them are actually the same riders. Look at the studies. DRL riders are mostly BD riders.
Click to expand...
A lot are, but not enough to eliminate the need for a DRL. If the DRL and the GO lines were on the same corridor then yes, one would eliminate the need for the other. But they're not. Upgraded GO would do little to nothing for the shoulder areas, downtown streetcars, Thorncliffe Park, Pape Village, etc. Plus it would divert fewer riders from Danforth because of an inferior transfer station. A DRL would have more than enough ridership no matter what happens with GO. There's no easy solution - a multi-pronged strategy is needed for downtown transit that involves local and regional needs.
 
Metrolinx has made it clear that an DRL is needed regardless what is done on the RH line or any of its lines. There will be more stations added to the RH line.

As for time line, it can be 0-50 years and that will not be known until 2015. Funding of the line will not happen for 7-10 years due to all the hoops it will have to jump though as well design before it makes it way to the construction stage, but money is needs to be on the table to start the the whole thing with more near the construction stage. The rest can come from the next 10 year or more funding plan wave.

The amount of riders coming from the 905 and using the Yonge line today is less than 1% of the current ridership if that. Even the DRL will see even less riders than Yonge.

The line needs to go to Steeles and be set up with more than 2 tracks and be able to interline with GO lines. It need to stay away from Union Station and this is also the thinking of Metrolinx as well.

Come 2050, a 2nd Yonge line will have to be look at and should be setup as an express line and a different alignment south of St Clair.

The current Yonge Line is not mostly BD riders, but a good percentage of them, since this is the only option for the eastern riders at this time.

The one thing I was asked back as far as 2007 by Metrolinx was did I see more station for GO lines and the answer was yes. It still yes today, but need different type of service that is now been talked about as well rolling stock.

Transit is multi pronged mix of different type of service, equipment and routes that Toronto hasn't look at as well how it plays a network within a larger network to more than the triple of the current ridership to deal with the current gridlock. It means reducing parking spaces and options for cars going to/from the city core after there is a better transit system in place or being put in place.
 
Last edited:
rbt said:
We almost have that. The Toronto urban zone holds nearly half the seats in Ontario and is still growing rapidly.
Click to expand...

Perhaps a bit off-topic, but I see Toronto's relationship to the province being similar to London's relationship to England; a city-state, capital, and primary city within a less densely-population region of Southern Ontario. I beleive that Toronto could benefit from the creation of a Greater Toronto authority encompassing Toronto, Peel, York, Durham, and Halton excepting Burlington (which is part of the Hamilton CMA).

The internal municipalities would then be broken down into boroughs of greater toronto and sit on the Greater Toronto Council. If the appetite is there, Etobicoke, Scarborough, and North York could elect to revert to boroughs and have their own local council and mayor instead of being part of the Toronto Borough.

Greater Toronto could then assume responsibility over similar services to Greater London such as Planning, Transit, Highways, Police and Fire services, ect. and enjoy greater autonomy from the province over local matters.
 
dunkalunk:

That's the quintessential complaint about the megacity - too large to be nimble at local issues and service delivery, too small to be effective at regional planning. Anne Golden suggested a similar model to what you've mentioned, but Harris had other ideas. It was never about good governance - it was about making sure there is no Toronto-wide entity that could challenge the authority of the province (plus the mergers of the core with inner suburbs skewed the power balance towards more conservative leanings).

Anyways, I don't see electrification negating the need for a downtown subway line. What it does is buy time to ask the question of where that line should be and what role that line should serve.

AoD
 
AlvinofDiaspar said:
dunkalunk:

That's the quintessential complaint about the megacity - too large to be nimble at local issues and service delivery, too small to be effective at regional planning. Anne Golden suggested a similar model to what you've mentioned, but Harris had other ideas. It was never about good governance - it was about making sure there is no Toronto-wide entity that could challenge the authority of the province (plus the mergers of the core with inner suburbs skewed the power balance towards more conservative leanings).
Click to expand...

Still going off-topic here, please feel free to move this discussion to another thread if you see fit.

Since I was only 7 years old when the GTA Task force and Anne Golden were a thing, I did some reading up. I was confused about what you were getting at for a moment; Golden/Rae was trying to expand metro, while Harris essentially forced the amalgamation of the existing Metro Toronto essentially castrating any power the future metro would've had.

I still think the idea is worth re-investigating given that the former Metro has outgrown its boundaries. There's currently a mess that inter-city transit is with 7 different agencies running overlapping and staggered service in the GTA (8 including Burlington) and competing and sometimes conflicting transit and growth management strategies across the region. Services have the potential to be run less expensively

The Greater Toronto (or New Metro Toronto) would work well under the Regional Municipality model with local issues governed at the borough/city level, but overarching goals and direction managed at the regional level. Waterloo Region functions quite well under this model ensuring local matters like by-law and recreation are are handled by the cities while regional priorities such as transportation and long-term planning and oversight are handled by the region.

I can envision many Scarberians and Etobicokites who would be far more pleased to have a local mayor from their "city" they complain to as opposed to coming into city/metro hall and trying to be heard by the larger council.
 
dunkalunk said:
Still going off-topic here, please feel free to move this discussion to another thread if you see fit.

Since I was only 7 years old when the GTA Task force and Anne Golden were a thing, I did some reading up. I was confused about what you were getting at for a moment; Golden/Rae was trying to expand metro, while Harris essentially forced the amalgamation of the existing Metro Toronto essentially castrating any power the future metro would've had.

I still think the idea is worth re-investigating given that the former Metro has outgrown its boundaries. There's currently a mess that inter-city transit is with 7 different agencies running overlapping and staggered service in the GTA (8 including Burlington) and competing and sometimes conflicting transit and growth management strategies across the region. Services have the potential to be run less expensively

The Greater Toronto (or New Metro Toronto) would work well under the Regional Municipality model with local issues governed at the borough/city level, but overarching goals and direction managed at the regional level. Waterloo Region functions quite well under this model ensuring local matters like by-law and recreation are are handled by the cities while regional priorities such as transportation and long-term planning and oversight are handled by the region.

I can envision many Scarberians and Etobicokites who would be far more pleased to have a local mayor from their "city" they complain to as opposed to coming into city/metro hall and trying to be heard by the larger council.
Click to expand...

I agree with this 100%, and I believe I posted something similar several years ago (there's a thread about it somewhere if the mods want to move this discussion there instead). Greater autonomy for lower level governments + greater regional planning powers for the region is the way to go. The system that we have now, especially in Toronto, isn't really good at either. You have councillors from Etobicoke saying where a bike lane in downtown Toronto should go, and council directing the Province on where to build regional transit projects.

The Metro model worked well, it had just simply outgrown it's boundaries. The Metro model could also potentially save Metrolinx from any future Provincial interference (i.e. a Hudakian-like dismemberment), because Metrolinx would become the regional transit authority for Metro.
 
Metro worked horridly. it was a complete mess, there is a reason it's basic operating structure seemed to change every 4 years.

regional government has its place, but not under the Metro model.
 
gweed123 said:
The Metro model worked well, it had just simply outgrown it's boundaries. The Metro model could also potentially save Metrolinx from any future Provincial interference (i.e. a Hudakian-like dismemberment), because Metrolinx would become the regional transit authority for Metro.
Click to expand...

Metrolinx serves a larger area than the GTHA and ultimately needs to remain at the provincial level. However, this doesn't mean that the governence model shouldn't change. Previously, metrolinx had politicians from the local municipalities on its board. While I still think this is a bad idea, I wouldn't mind if Metrolinx added some appointed members from the regions it serves on its board in order to foster better communication between Metrolinx and and those regions. The province will always play a hand since that's where the money comes from.
 
Last edited:
GenerationW said:
Great question. With $15B devoted to the GTA and at least half of that going to electrification, my spidey-sense says it's dead/delayed indefinitely.
Click to expand...

I think Eglinton spelled the end of the DRL.

If Scarborough could have had a continuous ride from STC (and Malvern) to Don Mills / Eglinton, there would have been a great need for a DRL.
If Leaside could reverse commute east-ward to Don Mills / Eglinton at the same frequency as they can go to Yonge / Eglinton, there would have been more need for a DRL.

The other thing is that the government does not need support from areas where the DRL goes through. Those areas will never vote Conservative anyway. So the chosen transit solution will involve GO, to help the suburban areas where the voting intentions tend to switch.
 
^If anything Eglinton only strengthens the case for a DRL as it will dump more riders onto Yonge. The DRL serves different, more local travel needs than GO. It will always be needed regardless of how much GO is upgraded.
 
And to have a DRL connect with new stations downtown to not have everyone get off at Union, especially if somewhere else downtown is closer to their destination anyway.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top