Transit City Plan

[gweed123]

I witnessed quite a few parked cars on that section of Dufferin, during the peak hours

I did not have a chance to look at no-parking signs, and am not sure if such restrictions are in place for that section. But I would think that even such restrictions are in place for out-of-area cars, they do not apply if you have a street parking permit and place your car in front of your house. Otherwise, what are you supposed to do on a weekday when you are sick, on vacation, working a non-standard shift etc.

They can always park on side streets. And I believe the restrictions are on most major streets, no parking between 7-9 AM and 4-6 PM, although I may be a bit off on the hours. But I believe for rush hours the City wants all 4 lanes as traffic lanes, so they restrict parking.

I don't recall that at all. Do you have a URL for that so I can refresh my memory?

The only thing I remember is when Metrolinx first came into being, they had wanted Eglinton to be Mark II ICTS. It was only after discussions with the TTC that they settled on LRT.

RE: Bloor-Danforth Extension

I believe the McGuinty-Ford compromise was a fully grade-separated Eglinton connected with the SRT extension as a thru-line, enhanced bus service on Finch West, and a Sheppard Subway extension to be funded by the City. McGuinty never offered any funding for Sheppard beyond what was already committed for the SELRT.

And I think one of the reasons why any subway alignment that is shown for Scarborough has it along the existing SRT is because for most people without a sufficient knowledge of the geometry, that seems like the most obvious route. OneCity did have it along a Danforth-McCowan alignment, whereas Ford City had it along the existing SRT alignment.

The SRT/SLRT has been proposed with almost everything. Metrolinx wanted Mark II ICTS because they wanted Eglinton to be Mark II ICTS as well, but they flipped both of them to LRT when the City said they preferred that (hence why the original SRT report was done for conversion to Mark II). The McGuinty-Ford compromise had it as a fully integrated LRT thru-line. And OneCity had it as a subway extension.

 

[nfitz]

The only thing I remember is when Metrolinx first came into being, they had wanted Eglinton to be Mark II ICTS. It was only after discussions with the TTC that they settled on LRT.

There was certainly talk of that. Not sure it ever made it in writing .... I don't recall any talk of subways though, especially on Sheppard East.

Though I guess most of Eglinton is being built in subway ...

 

[gweed123]

There was certainly talk of that. Not sure it ever made it in writing .... I don't recall any talk of subways though, especially on Sheppard East.

Though I guess most of Eglinton is being built in subway ...

The only talk of subways on Sheppard East was in the briefly-lived Stintz compromise in which she proposed a small extension to Victoria Park. Beyond the Ford plans, that's the only recent reference to a provincially-funded subway on Sheppard East. Like I said earlier, the McGuinty-Ford compromise had one, but funded by the City (thrown in as very much a bone to Ford, because the Province knew the City couldn't pay for it without new revenue tools).

 

[CDL.TO]

The only thing I remember is when Metrolinx first came into being, they had wanted Eglinton to be Mark II ICTS. It was only after discussions with the TTC that they settled on LRT.

Do you have a source for this other than Steve Munro conjecture?

Metrolinx wanted Mark II ICTS because they wanted Eglinton to be Mark II ICTS as well

It was a city of Toronto study which was started in 2005, before the creation of Metrolinx, that called for the SRT to be converted to MkII ICTS.

 

[Johnny Au]

It does not make sense since as you pointed out Bathurst is too close to Yonge St and there is already a subway stop along St. Clair on Spadina which is really a few min walk from Bathurst and St. Clair (and should have been located right at the intersection for people getting off the Bathiurst buses). Dufferin is more heavily congested then Bathurst.
The problem with Keele St is that Keele St is cut up - it runs south of Eglinton to Rogers, then you need to go west to Weston Road and then travel south again till you get to St Clair and then it becomes Keele St again. I don;t think also that Keel St is that congested. I use it from south of Lawrence to Rogers and rarely have an issue other then that jigsaw on Keele St and Gore. I think building the Crosstown along Eglinton was a good opportunity to connect Keele north to Keele south by expropriating those few houses at Gore and Keele St. For sure developers will come calling and will more than likely buy those 5 houses. The province should have done that.

Uhhh... Do you meant Yore, not Gore? Gore is in Portugal Village, while Yore is very close to Keele and Eglinton (and Yore is used as a linking street).

 

[neubilder]

Interesting article on the exorbitant cost of infrastructure construction in N.A.:

http://www.economist.com/blogs/gull...sts?fsrc=nlw|newe|9-10-2012|3416994|36340770|

 

[Rainforest]

I don't recall that at all. Do you have a URL for that so I can refresh my memory?

I performed a search. It appears that all links to the old GTAA site are dead now, as are some older links to Metrolinx.

However, I found a description of one of the first Metrolinx proposals here, as well as PDF files here; attachments 3 and 4 show maps with "metro" technology on Sheppard and Eglinton.

 

[nfitz]

Interesting. I'd totally forgotten about the White Papers.

 

[Dan416]

I think there was speculation at the time that "metro" could mean ALRT on Eglinton and subway on Sheppard, so they were using it as kind of a catchall term.

 

[gweed123]

I performed a search. It appears that all links to the old GTAA site are dead now, as are some older links to Metrolinx.

However, I found a description of one of the first Metrolinx proposals here, as well as PDF files here; attachments 3 and 4 show maps with "metro" technology on Sheppard and Eglinton.

Good digging, thanks! I agree with CC, it looks based on the descriptions that they didn't make much distinction between subway and ICTS.

Metro (ie. subway)
• New metro line along Queen Street in Toronto linking with the Bloor Danforth
subway both in the east and west areas of the city, and an Eglinton metro line
from Kennedy station to Pearson Airport.
• Extension of the Sheppard subway to Downsview in the west and to Scarborough
Town Centre in the east.
• An extension of the Scarborough Rapid Transit (SRT) to Malvern Town Centre.

From what I gather from this, new lines would have been ICTS, and existing line extensions would have been whatever they were already. But that's just my interpretation of it.

 

[CDL.TO]

The White Papers declare themselves to be concepts for discussion. It says right in the document "Although it has been clearly identified that these concepts are only one tool used in the evaluation, they are provided to check the sensitivity of the model being used". Like any EA, they are presented as potential alternatives.

There isn't any basis for the claim that Metrolinx "had wanted Eglinton to be Mark II ICTS". You're free to have your theories, but the important thing is that there is no factual basis for that claim.

 

[ssiguy2]

I think there was speculation at the time that "metro" could mean ALRT on Eglinton and subway on Sheppard, so they were using it as kind of a catchall term.

That is very common.

If you go to any website about Metros around the world the only common denominator is that they have complete and total grade separation. This is why Manilla's LRT is considered Metro but Edmonton is not eventhough Edmonton's LRT is totally underground downtown. Similarily Vancouver's SkyTrain and all monorail systems like Tokyos, Osakas, Chonquing are all considered metros. It has nothing to do with capacity but rather grade separation.

The easiest way to separate Metro and non-Metro systems is that, hypothetically, all Metro systems can be automated.

 

[44 North]

I made a minor update to include the WWLRT, the Queensway LRT, and the Dufferin extension of the Yonge Subway. I just had to figure out how to show the Phase 2 lines without making it too confusing or too cluttered.

http://www2.andrew.thejohnsonclan.ca/MoveToronto_v5.jpg

I must say, I'm very impressed with this. It looks good. Damn good.

 

[ssiguy2]

That map has some interesting ideas.

I like the idea of extensive BRT as long as it is truly rapid a la Ottawa's Transitway or L.A.'s Oange Line. The idea of Making the Yonge line go west and become a western DRL is a good one and vice versa on a Spadina/Queen line. None of these new proposed lines will ever get built but a lot of thought went into the plan.

 

[gweed123]

The White Papers declare themselves to be concepts for discussion. It says right in the document "Although it has been clearly identified that these concepts are only one tool used in the evaluation, they are provided to check the sensitivity of the model being used". Like any EA, they are presented as potential alternatives.

There isn't any basis for the claim that Metrolinx "had wanted Eglinton to be Mark II ICTS". You're free to have your theories, but the important thing is that there is no factual basis for that claim.

Sorry for the delayed reply, I was away for a couple of days. I have to admit that that idea was based on the fact that it has been repeated on UT numerous times, and I was assuming that the White Papers that those comments were referencing were "official positions". Sorry for the mistake.

I must say, I'm very impressed with this. It looks good. Damn good.

Thank you! Haha. It's been a gradual evolution, playing with different ideas to see what works with what. The thing with transit planning is so much of the design is about the network, and how the lines work with each other. Without the West Yonge Extension, the alignment of the WWLRT as I've shown it makes no sense at all. But when you look at it in terms of the network, it does. Likewise with a lot of the network layout in Scarborough.

That map has some interesting ideas.

I like the idea of extensive BRT as long as it is truly rapid a la Ottawa's Transitway or L.A.'s Oange Line. The idea of Making the Yonge line go west and become a western DRL is a good one and vice versa on a Spadina/Queen line. None of these new proposed lines will ever get built but a lot of thought went into the plan.

The BRT wouldn't be quite to the same level as Ottawa or the Orange line, but then again it doesn't really need to be, because the ridership isn't going to reach the point where that kind of a setup is really necessary for quite a long time. And if it does, LRT is probably the better upgrade option than doing more BRT upgrades along that corridor. The idea is simply to create effective dedicated bus lanes that bypass traffic congestion, and allow for frequent and efficient feeder services to the primary rapid transit network. It doesn't need to be fancy, it just has to get people to where they want to go in a decent amount of time.

As for the Yonge and DRL stuff, Steve Munro has stated many times that the needs of the DRL West and the DRL East are very different, and they shouldn't be thought of as a single thru-line. And I admit that the West Yonge Extension is a long shot, but the reconfiguration of the downtown subway lines to incorporate the DRL should and hopefully will be done. It can be done with virtually no reconfigurations to existing stations, and be built with only shutting down 1 segment of track (between Union and King). No major disruptions to any streets that carry busy surface routes (Front mainly), and no astronomically expensive station construction in the heart of the CBD.