News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 02, 2020
 8.4K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
 39K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
 4.7K     0 

In what way? It's twice the length for 30% more cost and again, I've been over this ad nauseum. The only benefit to the RL is that it had theoretical 20% larger capacity on a project that needs only 1/2 of the projected capacity the OL is planning for, and the OL still provides more capacity than the existing subway system.

Unless you like deep stations and overpriced infrastructure, the OL is a much better design.

There was some preliminary geotechnical work and utility infrastructure identification work which could be re-used from the RL for the OL, but a lot of it needed to be redone as well. the OL was basically "from scratch".

The OL's cost benefits will also multiply even further as it gets extended up Don Mills, as it can be elevated at a fraction of the cost of the RL would have been tunneled. The OL can probably be built from Exhibition to Sheppard, 22km, for the same cost it would have been to build the RL from Osgoode to Eglinton, 12km.

Please stop. You are omitting all sorts of elements from the discussion to serve your purposes here, aside from which its frankly off-topic to the thread.

We don't need to re litigate the O/L here.
 
LOL.

I agree. Bringing up the Relief Line is tantamount to spamming now.

Frankly I'm glad that stub of a line is relegated to the dustbin of history. We don't need any more stub lines. We have one on Sheppard.

There was no spamming; the context of the remark was about the speed with which the current government is getting transit done, it was a fair point that they stopped a project that was shovel-ready and delayed achieving a result by several years.

Also, the Relief Line would have have a northern leg ultimately, just as the Ontario Line does, it was simply being treated as a distinct project, and slightly later phase.

***

Now can we please stick to the topic at hand.
 
Could I ask what we know about the East-West-Cross-Regional Connection beyond what it states in the presentation...and the hints that this would be some form of higher order transit. Personally, for people living in the westward sections of the GTA, I think this has been missing for a long time. We are very orientated to transit paralleling the lake or following corridors such as HWY 10. I think this connection (through the airport area) would be well used.
 
The only other real information is in the 407 Transitway EA. Which is fairly complete, and LRT compatible, but not necessarily all that similar to what a light metro version would look like.

I also do agree that at least the Pearson/Renforth to Unionville portion really ought to be a much higher priority than its been, and will be well used from day 1. Although I’m less convinced either way on the merits of BRT vs light metro…. It’s very much a corridor where you can make good cases for the merits of both, but at the end of the day my suspicion is that as long as the PCs are in power they will make a very real attempt to model any actual project on REM.
 
Last edited:
An interesting observation I also noticed, that yellow blob surrounding the city and various municipalities is actually a "frequent local transit zone", where local transit within that region will be something like every 10 minutes.

unknown.png

Now its hard to say what it actually means in this regard, does it mean just general arterial routes or literally every bus route within that zone (that's ridiculous). Just something to note.
Is it that ridiculous though? It is basically nearly achieved in Toronto.

I'd completely gut and rethink bus transit routes in places like Hamilton before even conceiving of 10-minute minimum headways, but I don't see why it is not theoretically achievable. I expect many areas with low ridership and long headways have a chicken-or-the-egg dilemma.

Fact is, suburban Toronto achieves high bus ridership with high frequency.
 
Is it that ridiculous though? It is basically nearly achieved in Toronto.

I'd completely gut and rethink bus transit routes in places like Hamilton before even conceiving of 10-minute minimum headways, but I don't see why it is not theoretically achievable. I expect many areas with low ridership and long headways have a chicken-or-the-egg dilemma.

Fact is, suburban Toronto achieves high bus ridership with high frequency.
The reason I call it ridiculous is first: Getting YRT to 10 minute frequencies, let alone 15? That's a laugh.
Second and most importantly, a lot of the areas covered in this bubble are extremely suburban even by suburban Toronto standards, running in the middle of greenfields.

Now with the rate that Canada is growing it is likely that these areas could grow in population quite well in the next 30 years that they could easily run such frequent busses. My 'ridiculous' comment wasn't referring to the idea that doing this would be stupid, in fact I'm all for it, just that its very impressive, especially for some of the areas it covers like Orangeville and Peterborough.
 
I'd completely gut and rethink bus transit routes in places like Hamilton before even conceiving of 10-minute minimum headways, but I don't see why it is not theoretically achievable. I expect many areas with low ridership and long headways have a chicken-or-the-egg dilemma.
https://www.hamilton.ca/hsr-bus-schedules-fares/riding-hsr/help-us-reenvision-hsr

"We’re engaging all Hamilton residents, including current and potential customers. We want to find out how you feel about our current service and what you need from us in the future. With your voice, we’ll reconfigure our routes, evolve our schedules and improve our service. Our goal is to meet your needs today and exceed your expectations tomorrow."

(emphasis my own)
 

How subsidizing trucks to use the 407 could cost Ontario less than building Highway 413


From link.

Calls are growing for Premier Doug Ford's government to reduce traffic congestion by encouraging more drivers to use the 407 ETR toll highway, rather than spending billions of dollars to build the proposed Highway 413.

The 413 would run for 60 kilometres across the northwestern part of the Greater Toronto Area and through the Greenbelt. The proposal has become a lightning rod for environmental groups who say the highway will contribute to sprawl, and all three opposition parties say they would cancel the plan if Ford's PCs are defeated in the June election.

Opponents of Highway 413 see the 407 as an underused alternative, with great potential to lure traffic from the busiest highway in Canada, the 401.

The advocacy group Transport Action Ontario is floating the idea that the provincial government should in effect make it free for transport trucks to use the 407 by paying the cost of their tolls.
The group argues this would be a cheaper solution for the government than building and operating Highway 413 and would do more to solve the GTA's congestion problems right now.

"Right now, most truckers use the 401 because they find the tolls [on the 407] prohibitive," said Peter Miasek, president of Transport Action Ontario.

"It strikes us [that] the 407 is the perfect alternative because it's uncongested at this time."

Using data from provincial traffic studies and the company that owns 407 ETR, the group estimates such a move would get between 12,000 and 21,000 trucks using the toll highway each weekday.
It calculates that a full toll subsidy for that many trucks over a 30-year period would add up to the equivalent of $4 billion in today's dollars.

The Ford government is not saying how much Highway 413 will cost, but an estimate by the previous government several years ago put it at $6 billion. Independent analysts have pegged the current cost in the range of $8-to-$10 billion.

Negotiating such a deal with the company that owns 407 ER would "require a little creativity and some pressure" from the provincial government, says Toby Heaps, the chief executive of Corporate Knights, a business research and media firm based in Toronto.

"There's definitely room for a deal to be done, given that the 407 is relatively empty and there's a lot of big trucks who would love to get on there," said Heaps, one of the entrepreneurs who signed a new open letter to the Ford government calling for a halt to Highway 413.

Others in the corporate world insist that Highway 413 is needed to tackle the growth in traffic in the GTA and they see a toll subsidy on the 407 as an inadequate solution.

"It is not a realistic option," said Nadia Todorova, executive director of the Residential and Civil Construction Alliance of Ontario.

With the expected significant increases in population around the GTA, Todorova said capacity must be added to the existing highway network.
"The 407 alone is not enough to meet that projected demand surge," said Todorova in an interview.

"Even if we were to focus on the 407 in the immediate future, by 2031 we would be right back where we started and suffer from the same sort of congestion problems that we currently have."

While the Ford government is not ruling out measures to get more traffic onto the 407, it is not considering scrapping plans to build Highway 413.

"We can look at temporary measures to alleviate tragic traffic congestion, but we also have to think long term too," said Stan Cho, the associate minister of transportation.

"The 413 has to be built because of a growing population," Cho said in an interview at Queen's Park.

Liberal Leader Steven Del Duca, who was transportation minister when the previous government hit the pause button on the 413, thinks the government should explore a toll subsidy as an alternative to building the new highway.

"I believe every option should be on the table," said Del Duca, "Perhaps that could include looking at ways to encourage more truck traffic or goods traffic onto the 407 ETR."

Tolls on the privately-owned 407 ETR vary depending on the time of day and the particular stretch of highway. Between 6 a.m. and 7 p.m. the per-kilometre price for a typical transport truck ranges from 77 cents to $1.24.

In 2019, before the pandemic put a significant dent in its traffic, 407 ETR brought in $1.4 billion in toll revenues, according to its financial statements.
 
They are forgetting that if 407 receives more traffic, it will increase the tolls to keep the traffic volume manageable. In this plan, we are just giving free money to them without helping people.

And why did they calculate toll subsidy for 30 years? Are we going to have flying trucks by then? 413, if built, will remain there for a lot longer than 30 years.
 
They are forgetting that if 407 receives more traffic, it will increase the tolls to keep the traffic volume manageable. In this plan, we are just giving free money to them without helping people.
By that token we shouldn’t build the 413 either. We temporarily help people, and then through the magic of induced demand, all that gain gets eaten up - and fairly quickly too. Why throw money down that drain?

And why did they calculate toll subsidy for 30 years? Are we going to have flying trucks by then? 413, if built, will remain there for a lot longer than 30 years.
It’s the same timeline as the provincial population growth projections from the Ministry of Finance, the same timeline as the GGH Transportation plan, etc.
 
By that token we shouldn’t build the 413 either. We temporarily help people, and then through the magic of induced demand, all that gain gets eaten up - and fairly quickly too. Why throw money down that drain?


It’s the same timeline as the provincial population growth projections from the Ministry of Finance, the same timeline as the GGH Transportation plan, etc.
You are not lining pockets of private players by building 413. 413 can absorb more traffic by not charging very high tolls.

The highway will last longer than 30 years so in their subsidy calculation, they should consider the entire life of highway until the bridges need to be rehabilitated. You will quickly see that the subsidy is more expensive than building the highway.
 
I've been thinking a lot about the proposed Ontario Line expansion, which ive highlighted more in blue here, and I think that this should be a separate service/technology from the Ontario Line. I think it should be more like the REM in terms of it's design and implementation and part of the GO network.
1648566250414.png
 

Back
Top