[howl]

One of the problems I see with the whole transit discussion is the different time-scales and visions for the future that people have. Some people look at transit as solving our existing problems and don’t give any consideration to future growth. Other people assume that the City will continue to grow in a way that is relatively consistent with how it’s grown over the last fifty years. Still other people see the City becoming a major player on the world stage and growing in a much more aggressive way. Transit takes five to ten years to plan and build, and it will be another ten to twenty years after that before the impacts of the system on development and growth are fully realized. Therefore understanding what the vision for the City is is critical to the discussion. Before we decide on what the appropriate level of transit service is we need to get a clear picture of what Toronto and the GTA will be in twenty to fifty years.

 

[GraphicMatt]

The long-term approach has been derailed so many times that a short-term, ad-hoc process has a certain realist appeal.

 

[gweed123]

The long-term approach has been derailed so many times that a short-term, ad-hoc process has a certain realist appeal.

At this point, yes I agree. Come to a consensus on a few projects (ex: Eglinton, the SRT), and get those studied, approved, funded, and designed.

The problem is that "big plans" are so subject to criticism (why aren't you doing this instead of this for this corridor), that the whole plan gets bogged down in debating details, and in the end gets thrown out because the "overall vision" wasn't what was wanted by whoever is in power. By their very nature, smaller-scale projects and plans are better at flying under the radar. The Spadina extension is a great example. It was part of the RTES, but it was designed and funded on its own. As a result, it wasn't big enough to be a practical target for political grandstanding, and it managed to slip through.

I mean, Ottawa is in the process of extending the Southwest Transitway another ~2km, a project that involves building a new station, completely retrofitting 2 others, AND digging an underpass under a major roadway and through a major commercial development. Yet I can almost guarantee that 8/10 people in Ottawa aren't even really aware this project is going on, or if they are, it's too small for them to spout the usual "it's too expensive!" nonsense.

That's not to say that there isn't a place for long-term master planning, but as far as detailed design and funding goes, I think having the projects go on their own is the best scenario. With Transit City, most people don't think "4 projects priced at a range between $900 million and $4.6 billion", they think "it's an $8.15 billion plan". The 2nd raises many more alarm bells than the first. Call my a cynic, but I believe that the public almost has to be dooped into thinking that they really are separate projects, so that it doesn't raise the ire of the un-informed general public, but still enough transparency that those who are informed can make an education opinion on its merits.

 

[Woodbridge_Heights]

Streetcars always have been part of Toronto's charm. To remove them from service to serve some idiotic notion that Ford needs to do this to further his the "war on cars" is over argument would be like spitting on the heritage of the city. I am a suburbanite now (Scarborough). But I grew up a downtowner. Streetcars are part of MY history as well as Toronto's.

Rob Ford (trust me!!), we are going to find out is more about broken promises than reality thinking. We cannot afford the Rob Ford vision of transportation. He doesn't have the money and he won't anytime soon while trying to keep the promise not to raise taxes. While I was never a fan of the previous administration at City Hall, I think in the end, we will come to find out that while his political idealologies differ, his ability to initiate major costly changes stay the same as the previous group.

Streetcars will remain a part of Toronto.

So we shouldn't even think about upgrading the hoplessly crowded King and Queen St. corridors due some ridiculous notion that they are quaint?

 

[nfitz]

Of course not. With the St. Clair ROW being such a great success, we should do something similar on both King and Queen. Make them both one-way (the adjacent streets ... Wellington, Adelaide, Richmond ... are already one-way), leave a lane for traffic, and one for parking ... and put streetcars on the other half.

 

[leopetr]

So we shouldn't even think about upgrading the hoplessly crowded King and Queen St. corridors due some ridiculous notion that they are quaint?

At no point has an upgrade been under discussion. As of February 2011, Ford has not even mentioned a possibility of a Queen or King subway once. Buses are a downgrade.

Personally, I'd be perfectly happy with a Queen subway line and new streetcar lines on Coxwell, Ossington, or Dufferin.

Crowding-wise, the corridors are already being upgraded with the purchase of the new, much larger streetcars.

 

[ssiguy2]

That's what I have said before..............if Metrolinx ever decides to build a DRL they can have all the studies they want about the route by while Ford is in power it will go down Queen or a parrell street. He wants to get rid of the streetcars and a DRL to Union doesn't. I for one would prefer a Queen route anyway.

 

[Dan416]

Personally I think any DRL that doesn't run through Union isn't a DRL at all. If you want to build a subway line on Queen Street, the long-fabled Queen Streetcar Subway. Leave the DRL out of that.

 

[Automation Gallery]

Ford’s critical 100-year decisions

Is progressive city planning possible under Mayor Rob Ford and the current Toronto City Council?

I believe it’s not just an option, but an absolute necessity. The most immediate priority is to figure out how best to spend the $8 billion allocated by the province for transit development in Toronto, a decision that will shape our future for decades to come.

As Toronto’s chief city planner for eight years, and during my 31-year career in the city planning department, I worked with a wide range of mayors and councillors. The record shows progress was made regardless of the political leanings of those in charge.

Left-of-centre mayors David Crombie, John Sewell, Barbara Hall and David Miller were collectively responsible for the Central Area Plan, the St. Lawrence neighbourhood, City Home, the revitalization of King-Spadina and King-Parliament, waterfront renewal, transit, tower renewal and the priority neighbourhoods program.

Right-of-centre mayors Art Eggleton, June Rowlands and Mel Lastman were responsible for, among other things, embracing group homes in all residential neighbourhoods, the ascendancy of urban design and public art, the first State of the City report, Official Plan ’91, the office-to-residential conversion by-law, a new official plan for the amalgamated city and the plan for the central waterfront.

More.....http://www.thestar.com/opinion/editorialopinion/article/938834--ford-s-critical-100-year-decisions

 

[Asterix]

Personally I think any DRL that doesn't run through Union isn't a DRL at all. If you want to build a subway line on Queen Street, the long-fabled Queen Streetcar Subway. Leave the DRL out of that.

Union has no room to handle any more rail lines or the capacity to handle the additional influx of passengers who will by and large be heading for destinations north of the station.

 

[gweed123]

Union has no room to handle any more rail lines or the capacity to handle the additional influx of passengers who will by and large be heading for destinations north of the station.

No room? Is that why they're planning on electrifying GO and boosting service on practically every GO line? Because there's no room? Rubbish.

 

[Asterix]

No room? Is that why they're planning on electrifying GO and boosting service on practically every GO line? Because there's no room? Rubbish.

Ok, look at the number of tracks/platforms available at Union now. Look at the planned headways for GO trains and figure the allowable dwell time at the station. Look at the choke points of the rail lines on either side of Union, particularly to the west and determine how many trains can be cycled through those lines in a given time frame.

Then look at local infrastructure with respect to where exactly you would run this DRL line through Union. Where would it be merged into the station? Where would the flow of passengers go, especially given choke points?

Here's some supporting analysis:

http://stevemunro.ca/?p=2240&cpage=1#comment-38603

 

[CDL.TO]

Ok, look at the number of tracks/platforms available at Union now. Look at the planned headways for GO trains and figure the allowable dwell time at the station. Look at the choke points of the rail lines on either side of Union, particularly to the west and determine how many trains can be cycled through those lines in a given time frame.

Then look at local infrastructure with respect to where exactly you would run this DRL line through Union. Where would it be merged into the station? Where would the flow of passengers go, especially given choke points?

Here's some supporting analysis:

http://stevemunro.ca/?p=2240&cpage=1#comment-38603

If the DRL were to go through Union, it would most certainly be underground. All the above ground space is needed for GO.

Personally, I'm dissapointed in Steve Munro when he says in that link:

One of the earlier schemes for a DRL Union Station involved space between the existing subway structure and the railway station building. This space will now be occupied by both the second platform for the subway station and the new lowered moat section for the crossing from the subway mezzanine to the lower level Bay Street Concourse. There is likely also a conflict with the structure of the Harbourfront streetcar loop.

I would expect him to know that the 1980s DRL plans for Union Station included both the second subway platform AND the Harbourfront streetcar loop. I don't know why he brings up the lowered moat section. After all, the current subway platforms fit below that lowered elevation with no issues.

Besides, building directly south of the existing platforms is only one option. If you dig down, more options open up. I'm not sure if Union is the best corridor for a DRL, but I'm quite certain that it is doable.

Frankly, I'm sure lots of European and Asian subway engineers would have a good laugh at the fretting some people have over the challenges of building a second subway station at a major railway station.

 

[gweed123]

If the DRL were to go through Union, it would most certainly be underground. All the above ground space is needed for GO.

Exactly. Obviously the DRL would not be put into the Union trainshed along with GO. If anything, I would suspect they would do a St. George-style arrangement, with the new platform underneath the existing one. And for everyone saying that that sort of thing can't be done, just look at Bloor-Yonge. The B-D platform was added well after the Yonge line opened.

I would expect him to know that the 1980s DRL plans for Union Station included both the second subway platform AND the Harbourfront streetcar loop. I don't know why he brings up the lowered moat section. After all, the current subway platforms fit below that lowered elevation with no issues.

Besides, building directly south of the existing platforms is only one option. If you dig down, more options open up. I'm not sure if Union is the best corridor for a DRL, but I'm quite certain that it is doable.

Frankly, I'm sure lots of European and Asian subway engineers would have a good laugh at the fretting some people have over the challenges of building a second subway station at a major railway station.

I agree. I personally prefer a Wellington alignment. Close enough to Union that it can still act as part of Union station, yet far enough away that it doesn't require digging directly underneath the existing platform. This would also cut down on the 'influx of passengers heading north from the station', as you could put a direct PATH connection (or even fare-paid connection) to the Bay-King area.

 

[Asterix]

Frankly, I'm sure lots of European and Asian subway engineers would have a good laugh at the fretting some people have over the challenges of building a second subway station at a major railway station.

Don't forget the low water table. Not saying it isn't doable, just that it's not exactly a cake walk, nor the best location to run the line.