Toronto Ontario Line 3 | ?m | ?s

Rainforest said:
Agreed.

Moreover, Mr. MacIsaac's statement that "Express Rail along the Lakeshore and Georgetown GO lines" "will positively impact" the Yonge subway line, does not seem well-founded. The catchment areas of those GO lines are quite far from Yonge subway.

GO lines that could play a role in relieving Yonge, are Richmond Hill and Stouffville. But the former is slated to get Express Rail in 25 years, while the latter, not even then.
Click to expand...

Improvements along the Oshawa GO line will help by removing Danforth subway riders, but the impact will be minimal unless fares are integrated...having TTC buses serve GO stations like Guildwood and Eglinton better would also help. GO lines - all of them - will need to be radically revamped to start noticeably reducing subway loads, fares, frequencies, more stations, etc., and it'll take a long time. For example, Steeles East is quickly becoming one the busiest routes in the city and almost everyone that takes it is going straight to Finch station, but there isn't even a station where it crosses the Richmond Hill GO line. GO can't do everything.
 
Rainforest said:
Agreed.

Moreover, Mr. MacIsaac's statement that "Express Rail along the Lakeshore and Georgetown GO lines" "will positively impact" the Yonge subway line, does not seem well-founded. The catchment areas of those GO lines are quite far from Yonge subway.

GO lines that could play a role in relieving Yonge, are Richmond Hill and Stouffville. But the former is slated to get Express Rail in 25 years, while the latter, not even then.
Click to expand...

Express rail along lakeshore could draw people away from the Bloor-Danforth line and Bloor-Yonge - the main bottleneck in the system.

I started typing first :p
 
I am always amazed at the idiocy of suburburban politicians who do not understand that the vast majority of inner city subway stations, the future DRL stations included will be accessed by foot traffic as opposed to GO transits sea of parking lots. Why on earth would someone delude themselves with the assumption that better GO lines will ease demand on the current subway system?
 
catcher_of_cats said:
I am always amazed at the idiocy of suburburban politicians who do not understand that the vast majority of inner city subway stations, the future DRL stations included will be accessed by foot traffic as opposed to GO transits sea of parking lots. Why on earth would someone delude themselves with the assumption that better GO lines will ease demand on the current subway system?
Click to expand...

Because a majority, if not most, subway riders are from the suburbs and take buses to the subway. These suburban riders are the people you see getting on and off at Bloor or King. It's delusional to assume otherwise.

The DRL's stations would be mostly walk-ins, yes, but DRL riders aren't the ones clogging up the subway network, mainly because the line doesn't exist yet.
 
catcher_of_cats said:
I am always amazed at the idiocy of suburburban politicians who do not understand that the vast majority of inner city subway stations, the future DRL stations included will be accessed by foot traffic as opposed to GO transits sea of parking lots. Why on earth would someone delude themselves with the assumption that better GO lines will ease demand on the current subway system?
Click to expand...

Little incentive to develop GO Stations with infrequent, somewhat unreliable, peak-hour only service.... if there is 5-10 minute peak service, 20-30 minute off-peak (or something close to that) you will see a lot more development/"mobility hubs"
 
Last edited:
EnviroTO said:
The bold alternative plan is exactly the plan I want to see with the red lines being subway rather than something slow and at street level. It has the loop line hitting all the centres, the GO line into Mississauga Centre, subway extensions where practical. This Metrolinx group actually has the potential to get it right if properly funded.

143937_1_0.jpg
Click to expand...

I actually think that is a reasonable goal that you drew out, not to much, not too little.
 
PSC said:
Council is reaching.
Click to expand...

If you know something that we don't, do share. Otherwise, it seems like a fair condition. I certainly don't want to ride a Yonge subway that's crowded before it hits Eglinton.
 
scarberiankhatru said:
For example, Steeles East is quickly becoming one the busiest routes in the city and almost everyone that takes it is going straight to Finch station, but there isn't even a station where it crosses the Richmond Hill GO line.
Click to expand...

Well, if the RH line really was revamped and fare-integrated to so great a degree (a big if) then you could run buses across Steeles from either side of Leslie and send them down to Finch to Old Cummer -- just as those Steeles buses now run down Yonge to Finch. (Of course, that assumes that lots of the Steeles East busers connecting to Finch want to go all the way down to Union or thereabouts. I don't know whether that is so.)
 
kEiThZ said:
If you know something that we don't, do share. Otherwise, it seems like a fair condition. I certainly don't want to ride a Yonge subway that's crowded before it hits Eglinton.
Click to expand...

I'm not commenting on whether it's a fair condition; I'm saying that the time has passed for input into the Big Move, and it's not going to be reopened to accommodate moving the DRL up just because council suddenly rediscovered it.

Adam Giambrone has been part of the Metrolinx work, which has gone on for over 2 years now.

The Yonge extension has provincial, regional, and probably federal support which will likely translate into money sooner rather than later. This has been driven by YRT more than anything else, but TTC became a co-proponent specifically to avoid having a two-EA scenario like the one under which the Spadina extension work is having to be done.

The DRL has support of council and that's about it (I think you have to read the Metrolinx chair's comments keeping in mind that he feels his work on the Big Move is done, and he wishes it to remain done).

DRL is a good idea, and possibly a cost effective alternative to the Bloor-Yonge Retrofit. I personally favour Steve Munro's thoughts on connecting as far north as Eglinton - you want north Scarborough to reach downtown without going to Yonge, if at all possible. But it will not delay the Yonge extension, and it won't be studied in time to be done before the Yonge extension.

It's my opinion that council is either grasping for extra money (they've already asserted that the $2.6b upgrades required are part of the Yonge extension, despite it being clear that the upgrades are primarily required as a part of natural ridership growth) or they're just grandstanding knowing that they won't get it. "Big Bad Province, dastardly 905ers and the devil in the sweater vest screwed us again."

As an aside, one of the great long term benefits of extending this line into York Region is that it will become obvious to all that when it comes to transit funding (both operations/maintenance and capital investment), it cannot be fairly carried on the back of property taxes. This is where Metrolinx fell down, IMO. They didn't open the discussion of funding in a meaningful way... But it's coming.
 
even though i'm quite excited about the talk of the DRL, my realist side agrees with you PSC. i really do think that they city/ttc was just a little too late and the ship has sailed.

however, i REALLY hope that both you and i are wrong and that this line is prioritized and starts getting built simultaneously with the yonge extension.
 
PSC said:
I'm not commenting on whether it's a fair condition; I'm saying that the time has passed for input into the Big Move, and it's not going to be reopened to accommodate moving the DRL up just because council suddenly rediscovered it.
Click to expand...

I sincerely hope you are right.

I have not hidden the fact that I am very dubious about the prospects of the Yonge (or Spadina) extensions actually getting built, ever. Obviously, I would be thrilled to be wrong, and the EA is certainly further than they have gotten before. But "holding up" the Yonge line "until" the DRL is built is exactly the kind of idea that makes me fear I may not be wrong. They need to plow full steam ahead with the extensions planned.

What? The Yonge line will be overwhelmed? Then, by all means, get cracking on doing something about it. Fare- and physically integrate TTC and GO already so that the 416 suburbs have a sensible straight shot to Union. Smash heads together to find the money to build the DRL -- I don't know, maybe Mr. Miller could "remember" the one-penny campaign he was touting until sweater-vest dropped GST by a penny and it came time to look to friend McGuinty to act in concert.

Or whatever. There are various avenues to move forward, for those who want to move forward. But without the ticking clock of something actually happening, it is very difficult to believe much ever will. I think that that ticking clock may just discipline folks enough to do what needs to be done. But, for God's sake, don't make those folks the single point of failure for anything happening at all!

(In fairness, Trans ... um, Transit City will apparently happen, and I really shouldn't be focussing exclusively on heavy rail. But, well, for now, I am.)
 
PSC said:
It's my opinion that council is either grasping for extra money (they've already asserted that the $2.6b upgrades required are part of the Yonge extension, despite it being clear that the upgrades are primarily required as a part of natural ridership growth) or they're just grandstanding knowing that they won't get it. "Big Bad Province, dastardly 905ers and the devil in the sweater vest screwed us again."
Click to expand...

I am inclined to agree. Just to add onto your points, Giambrone, Council and the TTC have been working on Transit City for at least a few years now without once mentioning a DRL of any sort, even prioritizing completely useless lines like Jane over it. Now, as you say, the big bad province comes along and builds subway to the 905 (who woulda thought asking for subway will get you subway?!) and the TTC/Council is just trying to get a piece of the action they didn't bother thinking of billions of transit dollars were flowing.
 
If as some of you say the plan is set in stone then why would council vote on this? Sure they may be trying to secure some concession (the ultimate being the DRL) but I think their reasoning is valid and is likely to be addressed. The simple fact of the matter is that the Yonge line will result in significantly degraded service for 416 residents unless the province commits significant funds towards accomodating the increase in ridership along that brought on by that extension. Sure, some of that would be required anyway by growing within the city but that does not negate the fact that the extension would make things markedly worse. In the end, I think Toronto will come ahead on this for the simple fact that the TTC is going to be the one running the show here. There's no extension if Toronto does not want to play ball. And the council vote has already made the extension conditional on maintaining service levels for the 416. How exactly would Metrolinx going to get out of that bind? The DRL was already on the books. I don't think it's that much of a stretch to juggle the schedule of the projects to move it up a tad.
 
kEiThZ said:
If as some of you say the plan is set in stone then why would council vote on this? Sure they may be trying to secure some concession (the ultimate being the DRL) but I think their reasoning is valid and is likely to be addressed.

The simple fact of the matter is that the Yonge line will result in significantly degraded service for 416 residents unless the province commits significant funds towards accomodating the increase in ridership along that brought on by that extension.

Sure, some of that would be required anyway by growing within the city but that does not negate the fact that the extension would make things markedly worse.
Click to expand...
Paragraphs are your friend. ;)

I think the reasoning is valid to a point, but trying to attach the full cost of necessary upgrades to a project that accounts, by TTC reasoning, for 20% of the increase in ridership is setting up the upgrades proposal for failure and may end up causing some heartache down the road when, say, Transit City ends up forcing some other sort of upgrade.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top