News   Jul 12, 2024
199 Church Showcases Heritage Facade and Artwork at Street Level
 1.6K     0 
News   Jul 12, 2024
Six Points Plaza Redevelopment Advances With 36-Storey First Phase
 1.2K     1 
News   Jul 12, 2024
Trading Spaces: Can Real Estate Conversion Help Boost Housing Supply?
 445     0 

TTC: Bloor Danforth Line 2 West Extension(s)

Not that this means anything of consequence or is justification for an extension, but Mississauga had more people 30 years ago than Vaughan does today...yet our subway system is poised to breach the Vaughan border before the Mississauga border.
 
ya well that's what you get from the intelligent transit planning experts at the ttc.



just kidding. we all know its the provincial government that is pushing for the york u extension to go to vaughan, not the ttc.
 
address that original post which cited "52,186" as the 1970 number
Click to expand...

I got the table from a report, that from the footer, appears to be form the Mississauga Economic Development Office (from the city).

www.realestate-ontario.co...ga%201970'



The same report can be found on the city website

www.mississauga.ca/ecity/...id=2000063

Actually, I confirmed the population number in Missy was 172K in 1971. My guess, is that that they forgot to add the '1' infront of the 52K, when you add streetsville and port credit, you get similar to the 172K the next year.

Even though they had over 100K more pop than I initally stated (and I am backpedalling a little right now), the bottem line is that the city is still new. The same can be said for Vancouver, in relativeness to Toronto. The same can be said about comparing Toronto to cities like London, although, not to that great of an extent.
 
Not that this means anything of consequence or is justification for an extension, but Mississauga had more people 30 years ago than Vaughan does today...yet our subway system is poised to breach the Vaughan border before the Mississauga border.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I'm sure no one would put subway to VCC at the top of the prioirty list, even if it were to show up at all.
 
I think extending the subway to Steeles is a good idea, and VCC is only another 2km so the plan is not as stupid as everyone thinks, imo.
 
I agree. It doesn't cost the City of Toronto anything to build the VCC extension from Steeles, and it allows the subway to connect with a transitway along the 407 and a massive development at the sinkhole.
 
Why does the subway have to exit Toronto at all? Why should Mississauga (or Vaughn for that matter) get a subway before central the Downtown core, Eglinton Avenue, central Scarbourough, southeast Scarborough, Malvern, southwest Etobicoke, the airport, Rexdale or Don Mills? All these places should be higher on the list of priorities than Mississauga.

To placate the suburbs all Toronto needs to do is bring the subway out to the borders. This can be done easiest at Kipling and Finch stations.

I find it hard to believe that the Yonge Line is at capacity (the TTC's excuse for pushing the York U line instead of extending Yonge) when with the exception of Sheppard and Eglinton the stations are sparsely populated at best. 2 stops: Newtonbrook -slightly north of Cummer/Drewry and Centrepoint- between Steeles and Doncaster alleviate the dense traffic on Yonge as GO Finch Terminal would move as well. A massive TTC terminal could also be constructed where all bus routes between Bathurst and Bayview would terminate making commuter travel easier as someone form York Region wanting route 7 wouldn't have to go all the way to the Bloor Line to board it.

Kipling's even simplier as it's above ground and can follow existing ROWs (GO Milton Line and/or Hwy 427) to either Sherway (direct connection to Mississauga, hence no need for MT buses in Toronto) or better yet once at Sherway loops back up Hwy 427/Renforth to Pearson).

At Pearson a multi-level transit tower could be constructed whereby the top level is Kiss 'n' Ride passenger pick-up/drop-off and the Pearson People mover; 2nd level shopping centre and direct airport access; 3rd level massive bus terminal with minimum 15 routes from MT, Oakville, Brampton, YRT Viva, GO and TTC; Level 4 is the subway or at the very least a Scarborough RT-type equivilent; and level five Blue 22 or another commuter train running to Union Stn.
 
Why does the subway have to exit Toronto at all? Why should Mississauga (or Vaughn for that matter) get a subway before central the Downtown core, Eglinton Avenue, central Scarbourough, southeast Scarborough, Malvern, southwest Etobicoke, the airport
Click to expand...

First, welcome. Its always good to discuss transit with more people who care about it.

Secondly, not to be like this, but, the airport is actually in Mississauga, but I'm sure you already knew that - and its more the point of having rapid transit to the airport.

I would tend to agree that the yonge line isn't at full capacity, maybe at most, at near capacity as ridership hasn't, even though it has rebounded, near the 80s level. I would be skeptical though to extend the yonge line without a viable alternative as it wouldn't take long (via further extensions) to make it become at full capacity, and by the time a new alternative is required, that usually takes atleast a decade away. Hence, I would rather either a loop of the YU spadina line or the DRL to be built to ensure the quality/capacity of the yonge line.
 
"I think extending the subway to Steeles is a good idea, and VCC is only another 2km so the plan is not as stupid as everyone thinks, imo."

It would be stupid to stop at Steeles and not continue to VCC...
 
2km of subway is 500-700MM more.
It is EXPENSIVE to extend it to VCC right now, vs. extending it later when we actually need to.
 
How will it be any less expensive to extend it in the future? The cost of subway is rising faster than inflation, making it far more expensive.

The advantage of extending it now is that the development will be built around the subway station. If we extend it twenty years from now after everything's built, the development will all be auto-oriented.
 
It depends, I personally don't think the priorty is even out to YorkU, regardless of VCC, but my preferred wait and see approach is to build it when there is more certainty of having the the ridership there to build it. If we build it and it follows the same success as the other extensions on the spadina line, then its a waste. I think its a gamble when you can get more money funding other projects that could help more people/get more people out of their autos.

If its the matter of getting the shovels in the ground with the 1.4 billion already committed by the province and the city, then build it now and worry about the rest of it later - and if it doesn't arrive, stop it at YorkU.

If its VCC or nothing, then I'd take VCC. But if this funding, especially the 1/3 from the Feds is going to hurt other transit projects in the future where we need their 1/3, I think the opportunity cost of taking the 1/3 for the VCC is too high.

If we extend it twenty years from now after everything's built, the development will all be auto-oriented.
Click to expand...

I hate to argue with what is going to happen in the future but if we were really concerned about battling the auto, you wouldn't allow more of these business/office concentrations like VCC to start to be developed. You can argue it either way, ie, link the nodes with transit, but really, sprawl will mushroom around VCC, if its success, and then you have to provide more transit to serve the mushroom. Vs. lowering taxes downtown for class a space, and encouraging offices to located downtown, while allowing the warehouses/etc to remain on the fringe.
 
If we extend it twenty years from now after everything's built, the development will all be auto-oriented.
Click to expand...
You don't need subways to build urban, mixed use communities. There are other types of rapid transit than subways and GO trains, especially in the suburbs. Subways should be built where the demand warrants them now, and that's mostly in the central city.
 
Thanks, but your missing my point. You say that people shouldn't be blamed for where they live, its a matter of the way the region has evolved over the past 50 years.

I say that people do have part blame in this as they are the ones demanding these subdivisions in the suburbs. I've also said that it is the fault of the politicians as well as they've let this 'evolution' go unabaited, and only recently talked about curbing sprawl, through not tough enough greenbelt policy. Is it ok for a household to buy into a new subdivision in Vaughn currently and say its not their fault, though they could buy a dwelling, with less space, in a more denselly populated area? Maybe, then as individuals are not to blame, but more the group of people they belong to that are creating the demand as a whole.

So basically, the way I read your point is that its not the fault of people living in sprawl (those who have the choice and don't work in nearby commercial activity that has to be located in the suburbs like warehouses/factories). And that things should be done to fix this $1.8 Billion congesion issue that has resulted in this.

What I am saying is it is there fault for locating out their, either directly (individually) as indirectly (as whole) for pushing up this demand - with the politicans at fault as well for not providing the propery policy/legisation. Thats why growth may follow such 'simulations' that you've provided as growth has been left unabaited. Which these studies are not providing examples of how people should not be at blame, when they are the primary drivers of the sprawl/congestion.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top