I think its safe to say that they know that and will deal with it accordingly.
Hot off the presses:
Just got back from the Metrolinx board meeting:
The board decided that the white paper, as written, will NOT, I repeat NOT be released to the public.
It is currently being sent back to staff, and the following modifications will be made:
Test Concept C - Web will be revised to include the TTC's semi-released rapid transit plan, which I am calling "Transit City 2". I do not know what Transit City 2 is, but do know that it is buried somewhere in the official plan. It seems to address the downtown core, an issue that I know many people have with Transit City (which was always just phase 1 in a larger plan). The new concept C will also have little to no road improvements (aka widenings).
Test Concept D, a new model, will be added. It will be based on Test Concept B, but will include major road improvements.
Also, the issue about map legibility was raised. While people want to be able to visualize where these lines are going, we're not at that stage in the RTP to confirm any of this yet. While there is no way to stop people from commenting on the lines they see on the map, please realize that nothing is final. One of the most frequent comments I'm hearing on this and other forums is "the DRL should go to Union and not to Queen." Just because the line is drawn on Queen doesn't mean it will end up on Queen. You should focus on the concept. Don't interpret it as a "DRL on Queen." Interpret it as a "DRL."
The new version of the white papers will be considered for release in two weeks.
Every time I looked around to say Hi to you, you were not there.
I stand to be correct, but didn't Miller wanted a test showing no new roads built or expand as well removing lanes? If so, Front St extension is dead.
My take there were concerns that not all lines that could be there will not be on the first RTP plan and I agree with this.
The issue about map legibility is correct as the map is too small to read in the first place to give a real understand what is been looked at. If it wasn't for the presentation, my map was hard to see as to what is been looked at at this stage.
Need to think beyond the 25 year plans as it will be effected by future development and pattern changes.
Parking fee will have a big impact how riders will used transit. I am on record for the round table with MOE in Dec 2006 calling for 50% reduction of "all" transit parking lots with 5 years and paying a fee of $6-$20 a day to park.
Any fee charge for source of revenue is only good if everyone decide to continue driving. As fees and fuel cost go up, it will force people to take transit causing a lost of revenue since it will be higher than what transit will generate in the first place.
As Miller said, Toronto is the heart of the GTAH and lines should be built out of it connecting with the 905.
Not everyone wants to go to Toronto to get to other parts of the 905 in the first place. Riders are force to do this now and Miller needs to understand this. It his way of trying to get the lion share of capital project that are on the books under Move2020 as well City policy's under the city official plan. Toronto has to update their official plan to add TC and other lines to the plan if there is not to be an EA battle like St Clair. Until there is an official plan in place, MOE will have to deal with all EA concerns that exist today regardless if it only 6 months time frame for new EA's.
The white paper will be delay by 2 weeks with no change to final date of the RTP. All Metrolinx stakeholders meeting will be delay by a week or so. Public meetings are to remain the same.
The draft RTP and the report how to fund Metrolinx will go before the board in July.
Reading the hard copy of the White Paper's on the way home does cause me some concerns and will write on it on Metrolinx site.
The problem I have with the DLR going to Union, where are you going to put riders as well trains when there is no room within 10 years? 100,000 riders is all Union can handle. Then where do you put these riders on the streets when sidewalks can't handle the numbers now?
Again, you are forcing riders to go some place other than they wanted to in the first place. A lot of the DLR issues can be resolved by having local GO service within 416 every 10-15 minutes with more stations along "all" rail corridors.
Changing GO thinking is the big issue as well fare structure to get local service in 416 let alone 905.
If China/India or who every built a $2,500-$5,000 car that has a 100km/litres ratio, is green, guess where transit would be. More roads will be call for than transit.
