"Traffic congestion is estimated to cost the GTA $1.6 Billion a year. Building subways to ensure no congestion would definately cost a lot more than this a year, at $250MM a km, not including the large operationial losses of running it day to day"
If we had been spending $1.6B (minus operational losses) annually on transit infrastructure in this city for the past 20 years instead of just building one stubway and a few other tiny projects, we'd probably have Paris' transit system today. Yes, if we try to catch up in a short period of time, it will be an outrageously expensive pill to swallow, but that pill is getting bigger faster than inflation so we should start nibbling on it asap.
And no one is saying we only need subways and every route must be a subway and that a Kipling extension would mean no improvements anywhere else, so y'all need to simmer down na.
"you use the most extreme examples"
Hardly extreme - the richest and the poorest people in the GTA live in the 416, while the 905 is mostly middle class with pockets of upper middle class.
"Like I said before, GO Transit is already going down that road."
Is GO seriously thinking about bringing rail access to MCC? They may be buying a few DMUs to run up and down the deserted Stouffville line midday, but at this point it is a leap to go from that to a train in a tunnel to MCC...it's a leap they should try, though, if it's at all feasible.
I wonder how much it would cost to bring a decent level of GO train service to MCC, presumably through a Hurontario-area tunnel and then alongside the 403...maybe only a few hundred million? This would certainly be a better way to get downtown than the subway, but that doesn't mean a Kipling subway extension automatically has no merit, especially if the dual fare were to disappear and the area in between underwent redevelopment.
When I say "we should extend the subway" I mean I'd add it to the list as a future end of the line, not give it priority and put shovels in the ground today, and this would only come after mega GO funding. In reality, on my list it'd only be maybe 6th in line, aka not going to happen in our lifetime unless we get some of what Madrid's been smoking. I've said many, many times that I'd like to see the DRL get going before any other transit project in this city...I probably raise the issue about once a week in non-transportation threads, even. The DRL is a project that could justify this city risking bankruptcy to build, not the Mississauga subway (especially since Hazel doesn't want it).
"I'm starting to get the feeling that a surprisingly large porportion of Torontonians are completely incapable of envisioning any mode of transportation other than what we already have (subway, bus, streetcar, 4-in 4-out or hourly lumbering monster GO trains)."
Don't forget that a surprisingly large number of Torontonians don't know the difference between all of the light rail or commuter train options you're probably thinking of.
I can't speak for anyone else, but I call anything in a tunnel a 'subway.' For example, there's no reason why a possible Eglinton line needs to use the exact same trains that the TTC runs along the YUS and B/D lines; they could use whatever light or commuter trains that Munich or Tokyo or wherever uses, but if it's underground for a significant portion (and any Eglinton line would have to be) I would call it the Eglinton subway line. The DRL would be at least partially underground so I call it a subway even though the actual trains it would use are almost irrelevent to me. If the RT ran underground, I'd call it a subway. If the GO trains ran underground, I'd call them subways. *senses railfans cringing*
