Toronto Ontario Line 3 | ?m | ?s

We as citizens need to take a more active roll as well. We need to go beyond this board, Facebook, etc. I've asked this before, but is there a non-Facebook/non-Twitter website? We need to go beyond blogs and social networking sites to really get the word out. We can't be passive if we want to make this happen, and sadly, I find that many Torontonians are often passive.
 
It should be noted that the Yonge line in 1909 was going to cost $6.2m compare to the $28m when it open.

We are now looking at over $3B.

If the City was not hell bent on taking over the existing P3 systems by 1921, the DRL would have got built.

The residents in 1912 turn down a referendum on building a subway.

One can only think where the city would be today if these lines got built back in 1909.
 
OK people, who wants to start a DRL advocacy site?


Let me know!

C
 
drum118 said:
It should be noted that the Yonge line in 1909 was going to cost $6.2m compare to the $28m when it open.

We are now looking at over $3B.
Click to expand...

Let's not forget the time cost of money.....

drum118 said:
If the City was not hell bent on taking over the existing P3 systems by 1921, the DRL would have got built.

The residents in 1912 turn down a referendum on building a subway.

One can only think where the city would be today if these lines got built back in 1909.
Click to expand...

Ask around on this forum. See how many folks here support P3s for transit delivery.
 
Best quote from that 99 year old report!

"...we would not be understood to favour municipal operation, as we are convinced that such operation, even with the best will in the world, is usually incompetent and wasteful and unsatisfactory to the public."
 
The reporter should get his facts right

When I first linked that article to the facebook site first thing this morning, I should have pointed out that this reporter is getting his facts wrong. He is spreading what is quickly becoming an urban myth. The report presented to council in January never mentioned Union station. It clearly said the subway should run under Queen, and as such the vote they took (31-13) represented that. For him to say they voted on a subway line running south to Union is simply wrong.

This 99 year old report was commissioned prior to the Yonge line being planned. They never predicted that Union would be served by the Y/U/S line. For us to continue with pressing the cause for it go to south to Union is simply disrespectful to all the current development along Queen anywhere west of Bathurst to Broadview, and to the pontential for growth in that area. Union is already well served, and to the south of it is water and not much land for further development. The same goes for the Portlands.

Unlike some advocating for this line to run to Union, I live in this city, and I work downtown in the heart of the financial district. I havent left this city in months, neither for a long weekend or for a vacation. As such I spend my leasure time and my money in this city. I can tell you that city needs this line running under Queen. There is more to this city then the square block around Union station
 
kEiThZ said:
Ask around on this forum. See how many folks here support P3s for transit delivery.
Click to expand...

P3s do have issues, though. For starters, its not a very good term as there are many kinds of P3 projects with all kinds of different financing and contractual obligations. One thing I will point out, and I think this is both a benefit and a downside, is that P3s tend to be less receptive to external concerns. If we look at the recent Canada Line P3 in Vancouver, part of the reason (among others) it only costs 1.6b (for 19 bloody km!!!) is that it's underground segment was built using cut-and-cover. If you tried doing this along Richmond or Eglinton in Toronto, the entire project would be crucified.
 
Whoaccio said:
...was built using cut-and-cover. If you tried doing this along Richmond or Eglinton in Toronto, the entire project would be crucified.
Click to expand...

Thats not true. If NYC can cut and cover 2nd Avenue all through the posh area of Manhattan's Upper east side then we can do the same here.

Queen can easily be cut and cover. During construction, the Queen streetcar would be replaced by a new articluated bus route on other streets during the construction
 
drum118 said:
It should be noted that the Yonge line in 1909 was going to cost $6.2m compare to the $28m when it open.
Click to expand...

FYI, using the Inflation Calculator, 6.2 million in 1914 (historical extent) would be 115 million in 2008 dollars, still a far cry from 3B. And the 28 million would equal 225 million in 2008.

Note that these costs would only be similar if the exact construction methods and machinery were used when these lines were planned or built.
 
A better metric would be to compare these costs in terms of % of regional GDP. Of course, that would still overlook the fact that option #1 includes spinoff economic benefits over the period of a whole century whereas option #2 does not.
 
kEiThZ said:
There's already a facebook group that's doing quite well and several established advocates like Steve Munro.
Click to expand...

Why can't we have more than that? This might be something really different, but when UCC announced that they were getting rid of their boarding program, they not only had a Facebook page, but a non-FB website, complete with testimonials of why boarding shouldn't be eliminated. Guess what happened? They didn't end up getting rid of boarding.

Not everyone is on FB nor are all people interested in going to blogs or other message boards. The more the merrier, right?
 
Darren B said:
This 99 year old report was commissioned prior to the Yonge line being planned. They never predicted that Union would be served by the Y/U/S line. For us to continue with pressing the cause for it go to south to Union is simply disrespectful to all the current development along Queen anywhere west of Bathurst to Broadview, and to the pontential for growth in that area. Union is already well served, and to the south of it is water and not much land for further development. The same goes for the Portlands.

Unlike some advocating for this line to run to Union, I live in this city, and I work downtown in the heart of the financial district. I havent left this city in months, neither for a long weekend or for a vacation. As such I spend my leasure time and my money in this city. I can tell you that city needs this line running under Queen. There is more to this city then the square block around Union station
Click to expand...

Why so much anger about a Front Street alignment? Why the need for the ad-hominems attacking those who have a different opinion than you? I know that most of the people advocating a Front Street alignment live in this city as well. And what do vacations have to do with a subway alignment?

The Front Street alignment serves more than just Union Station, it serves everything along that corridor. You say that a Front alignment is "disrespectful" of development on Queen, but by that logic isn't a Queen alignment disrespectful of the much, much greater development built and planned along Front?

You claim that there is "not much land for development" south of the rail corridor and in the Portlands. That doesn't mesh with the Toronto I know, where the largest and most intensive development plans in the entire city and on the Harbourfront and in the Portlands.

I don't think that something as concrete as a subway line should be planned based upon emotions.
 
andomano said:
FYI, using the Inflation Calculator, 6.2 million in 1914 (historical extent) would be 115 million in 2008 dollars, still a far cry from 3B. And the 28 million would equal 225 million in 2008.

Note that these costs would only be similar if the exact construction methods and machinery were used when these lines were planned or built.
Click to expand...

The building standards of 1914 would not have escalators nor elevators nor computers nor the current fire controls nor current electrical standards (knob and tube were standard then) nor many of the living standards we take for granted and expect. All of which add to the price tag.
 
Whoaccio said:
P3s do have issues, though. For starters, its not a very good term as there are many kinds of P3 projects with all kinds of different financing and contractual obligations. One thing I will point out, and I think this is both a benefit and a downside, is that P3s tend to be less receptive to external concerns. If we look at the recent Canada Line P3 in Vancouver, part of the reason (among others) it only costs 1.6b (for 19 bloody km!!!) is that it's underground segment was built using cut-and-cover. If you tried doing this along Richmond or Eglinton in Toronto, the entire project would be crucified.
Click to expand...

I don't categorically believe that P3s are appropriate for everything. But they have their uses. Indeed much of the earlier London underground was built by private enterprise. And it's private enterprise that can effectively build and operate unsubsidized airport links (blue 22) and highways (407). In both those cases, private capital can be leveraged for the public good. And despite all the outcry about fares and user fees and such, P3s achieve something that governments alone can't: minimal exposure to the taxpayer and full adhere to the user-pay principle. If our government is unwilling to invest and build the network we need, I have no problem with allowing a private business attempting to leverage their capital to provide the service. I would not want it subsidized of course (that would defeat the goal of using a P3). But I don't want P3s ruled out on principle either.

andomano said:
FYI, using the Inflation Calculator, 6.2 million in 1914 (historical extent) would be 115 million in 2008 dollars, still a far cry from 3B. And the 28 million would equal 225 million in 2008.

Note that these costs would only be similar if the exact construction methods and machinery were used when these lines were planned or built.
Click to expand...

Good points. I would add that there's also the opportunity costs to consider. Had they built that subway in 1914, who knows what would have been given up. YUS perhaps? Would that subway have been too much capacity leading to cutbacks in the development of other transit initiatives (streetcar network)?

prosperegal said:
Why can't we have more than that? This might be something really different, but when UCC announced that they were getting rid of their boarding program, they not only had a Facebook page, but a non-FB website, complete with testimonials of why boarding shouldn't be eliminated. Guess what happened? They didn't end up getting rid of boarding.

Not everyone is on FB nor are all people interested in going to blogs or other message boards. The more the merrier, right?
Click to expand...

Sure enough. But when advocating for something mass is also better. I am willing to bet 10 000 petitioners on facebook is far more effective than a few dozen websites on the same topic....likely to be frequented by the same folks. That being said, the more ways there are to put out well reasoned strong arguments for a DRL, the better for the city and all of us, its citizens. Perhaps you can build a website and get more folks signing that FB petition.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top