[denfromoakvillemilton]

This may not necessarily be the case. The structure of the Planning Act and OMB does not allow for enough time for planners to fully review development applications (try reviewing a full subdivision and all of its components in 180 days, on top of your other workload), which then opens up the option for the developer to appeal to the OMB. To put it in layman's terms, a lot of communities have been planned at the OMB due to their application not being approved within 180 days of its submission. As a result, the lawyers for the municipality and the lawyers for the developer essentially hash out details and make compromises regarding the development. The city planners don't actually get to plan much, as much of the work gets done at the OMB.
I really doubt Hudak will address OMB and Planning Act reform, as it would be seen as additional "red tape" to business.

Absolutly, but they should have found a away to recuperate some of the money or find a way for the city to monetarily benefit from development.

 

[Rainforest]

Some concerns about the transit section of Hudak's plan.

First of all, it is vague on LRT lines outside Toronto, and the impression is that the currently unfunded lines will be dropped. That's quite unfair to Mississauga or Hamilton. One can argue for the deferral of Sheppard and Finch lines in order to fund DRL; but why should residents of other towns lose their projects for the sake of a Toronto subway line.

Then, this paragraph:

We support a full, effective subway system for Scarborough – including the Bloor-Danforth extension, burying the Eglinton Crosstown as much as possible and extending the Sheppard subway stump to Scarborough City Centre. We don’t believe in first-rate transit for some and second-rate transit for others. People in Scarborough are citizens of Toronto, and much of our future job growth and business potential will come from there. They deserve service that is as good as what others are already getting.

Sure, people in Scarborough are citizens of Toronto, and must be treated as such. Therefore, one subway running deep into Scarborough is reasonable. However, does STC need two subway lines, while may other parts of Toronto still have none? And even within Scarborough, a subway line that ends at STC does not provide much help to people living further east. Many of them will still face a 25 - 30 min mixed-traffic bus ride to STC before they can get onto a subway.

Regarding Eglinton, good news is that Hudak isn't inclined to cancel it. Bad news is that "burying as much as possible" is a rather lame transit strategy. Technically, it is possible to bury the whole eastern leg with the exception of the East Don crossing. However, that would be a complete waste of money, given that the Danforth extension remains on the book and hence the Eglinton - SRT interlining is out of question.

Some smart-tuning of Eglinton is possible and desirable: south-of-the-road alignment around Leslie; and perhaps ducking under the Vic Park intersection discussed in one of the threads. But burying the whole eastern section is unreasonably expensive.

Notably absent is any mention of the Eglinton western extension to Pearson.

 

[TheTigerMaster]

We may be getting off-thread but, yeah, I think it went under the radar for some people that Hudak, between the lines, suggested ditching regional planning almost entirely. saying that local municipalities should get to direct growth while also suggesting that the province should upload the TTC strike me as counter-productive. What's the philosophy behind this? If you're trying to create a more REGIONAL plan for transit, why would you erode the REGIONAL growth plan?.

Part of me thinks that he sits in his office plotting how to wreck havoc on Ontario's municipalities

 

[TheTigerMaster]

Some concerns about the transit section of Hudak's plan.

First of all, it is vague on LRT lines outside Toronto, and the impression is that the currently unfunded lines will be dropped. That's quite unfair to Mississauga or Hamilton. One can argue for the deferral of Sheppard and Finch lines in order to fund DRL; but why should residents of other towns lose their projects for the sake of a Toronto subway line.

Then, this paragraph:



Sure, people in Scarborough are citizens of Toronto, and must be treated as such. Therefore, one subway running deep into Scarborough is reasonable. However, does STC need two subway lines, while may other parts of Toronto still have none? And even within Scarborough, a subway line that ends at STC does not provide much help to people living further east. Many of them will still face a 25 - 30 min mixed-traffic bus ride to STC before they can get onto a subway.

I still want to know how Hudak or anyone else who supports extending the Sheppard Subway plans to pay for its operation. The thing will cost about $100 Million to maintain, which is 20% of what the TTC spends to operate the subway every year. This is totally unacceptable for a line that will have no more riders than shorter streetcar routes.

 

[denfromoakvillemilton]

Some concerns about the transit section of Hudak's plan.

First of all, it is vague on LRT lines outside Toronto, and the impression is that the currently unfunded lines will be dropped. That's quite unfair to Mississauga or Hamilton. One can argue for the deferral of Sheppard and Finch lines in order to fund DRL; but why should residents of other towns lose their projects for the sake of a Toronto subway line.

Then, this paragraph:



Sure, people in Scarborough are citizens of Toronto, and must be treated as such. Therefore, one subway running deep into Scarborough is reasonable. However, does STC need two subway lines, while may other parts of Toronto still have none? And even within Scarborough, a subway line that ends at STC does not provide much help to people living further east. Many of them will still face a 25 - 30 min mixed-traffic bus ride to STC before they can get onto a subway.

Regarding Eglinton, good news is that Hudak isn't inclined to cancel it. Bad news is that "burying as much as possible" is a rather lame transit strategy. Technically, it is possible to bury the whole eastern leg with the exception of the East Don crossing. However, that would be a complete waste of money, given that the Danforth extension remains on the book and hence the Eglinton - SRT interlining is out of question.

Some smart-tuning of Eglinton is possible and desirable: south-of-the-road alignment around Leslie; and perhaps ducking under the Vic Park intersection discussed in one of the threads. But burying the whole eastern section is unreasonably expensive.

Notably absent is any mention of the Eglinton western extension to Pearson.

http://www.transit.toronto.on.ca/archives/maps/miguelsyyap/index.html#sect18


I think the idea is to run BRT from STC to those areas to cut the commute in half. Plus STC is a major route hub and those other areas are not. As for east of STC, there are two ways to solve that: Run the BD up to Malven via Centennial, and then bring sheppard down on to ellesmere and extend it to UTM. Or you can bring the hub to Sheppard McCowan, and extend BD to Finch and bring sheppard to Malvern, and extend the crosstown (above ground) to STC/Morningside.
I agree 100 percent about pearson, I think Hudak wants that underground.

 

[sno man]

my understanding of his plan:

Black: all day GO
Thin coloured: surface LRT
Thick coloured: Seperated LRT or subway
Blue: BRT


Hudak:

Wynne:

I'm with you, honest. But have a nit.... The Davis Dr. (Newmarket) BRT is way too far along to be off Hudack's table, however much he wants it to be. Either way, it is a make work boondoggle not too far removed from the locks on the river through town and up to Lake Simcoe that were built in the 30's and never used. Until the density is a lot more than anyone is comfy with currently, this busway will be underused. A LOT.
The balance of the infrastructure upgrades required almost make up for it, and definitely open up the possibility to the density required... so I guess this egg may beget a chicken (in 20 or 30 years)...

 

[andrewpmk]

I still want to know how Hudak or anyone else who supports extending the Sheppard Subway plans to pay for its operation. The thing will cost about $100 Million to maintain, which is 20% of what the TTC spends to operate the subway every year. This is totally unacceptable for a line that will have no more riders than shorter streetcar routes.

Inevitably the operation of this subway extension, like every other one, will have to be paid by subsidies.

I think that all the comparisons like "the Sheppard subway has the same ridership as X streetcar line" are misleading. If you build a really short subway anywhere it will have low ridership because it is not useful for very many people due to its short length. Other short subway lines like Paris 3bis and 7bis, Berlin U55, the London Waterloo & City line, etc. don't have terribly high ridership either despite going through very high density areas. Also streetcar lines like Spadina are ridiculously overcrowded. When you look at the high traffic volumes on the section of the 401 running parallel to the Sheppard subway, which are 321500-368700 vehicles per day (6-7x the Sheppard subway), and the severe traffic congestion on that stretch of the 401 and the part of Sheppard Ave that runs parallel, and the very high levels of condo development on that stretch, you get a much better indication. If the Sheppard subway gets extended east to Scarborough Centre or even west to Pearson Airport then ridership will go up, if more condos get built ridership will go up. If more office buildings get built along Sheppard (e.g. because downtown runs out of land near Union Station to build on, or if Toronto cuts commercial taxes further), ridership will go up. All the ridership projections under the Miller administration probably assumed very little or no new residential/commercial growth along Sheppard to justify the claim that the Sheppard subway doesn't need to be extended.

 

[TJ O'Pootertoot]

This may not necessarily be the case. The structure of the Planning Act and OMB does not allow for enough time for planners to fully review development applications (try reviewing a full subdivision and all of its components in 180 days, on top of your other workload), which then opens up the option for the developer to appeal to the OMB. To put it in layman's terms, a lot of communities have been planned at the OMB due to their application not being approved within 180 days of its submission. As a result, the lawyers for the municipality and the lawyers for the developer essentially hash out details and make compromises regarding the development. The city planners don't actually get to plan much, as much of the work gets done at the OMB.
I really doubt Hudak will address OMB and Planning Act reform, as it would be seen as additional "red tape" to business.

There's a review of all this going on right now, though it might not bear fruit before an election

I don't have it in front of me anymore but leaving the OMB in place was one of explicit points in Hudak's plan. I don't think you have to ditch it but I do think it needs reform...and that's a whole other thread. Overall, Hudak's plan is just not very holistic or internally consistent. If you're promising "subways," what does that mean to Oakville or Sudbury? Nothing. The point should be to develop a transit network but all he wants to do is scrap things. Scrap Metrolinx, scrap Places to Grow, scrap LRTs, maybe scrap the Greenbelt, upload some things his government downloaded but keep municipalities on a short leash by re-enforcing the OMB etc. etc. Also of note: no interest in extending to other munis some of the powers TO got in the City of Toronto Act, or expanding their powers, generally, even while conceding that they've been treated like legislative children.

You could read the odd individual clause (like uploading highways or the TTC) and go, "Hmmm, that sounds good," but the overall picture is totally incoherent and more about saving money and promoting private sector-led development than anything else, IMHO.

 

[Rainforest]

I think the idea is to run BRT from STC to those areas to cut the commute in half. Plus STC is a major route hub and those other areas are not. As for east of STC, there are two ways to solve that: Run the BD up to Malven via Centennial, and then bring sheppard down on to ellesmere and extend it to UTM. Or you can bring the hub to Sheppard McCowan, and extend BD to Finch and bring sheppard to Malvern, and extend the crosstown (above ground) to STC/Morningside.

If the BD subway is extended to Malvern, its eastern section will be a much bigger money loser than the existing Sheppard stubway (although that loss will be hidden in the combined BD stats).

A hub at Sheppard McCowan looks reasonable. Extension to Finch, maybe, but it depends on the overall network configuration (for example, if there is LRT on Finch East, it may be easier to bring that LRT down to Sheppard).

East of McCowan, I don't know what the ridership forecasts are. But based on the existing density (which is rather low), LRT, mini-metro, or BRT may be a better match for demand.

 

[W. K. Lis]

In 1990, the TTC sold off its Gray Coach subsidiary. That cash that they got did not last too long. Ditto when the PC's sold of the 407 for the quick cash. That didn't last long, did it?

In Asia, transit agencies OWN buildings that they rent or lease out to companies and/or residencies. Not so here. In Asia, transit agencies MAKE money because of the leases they get.

Here, the government (more likely under the PC's) would just sell them off for the short term gain. They should be thinking about the long term instead.

 

[denfromoakvillemilton]

If the BD subway is extended to Malvern, its eastern section will be a much bigger money loser than the existing Sheppard stubway (although that loss will be hidden in the combined BD stats).

A hub at Sheppard McCowan looks reasonable. Extension to Finch, maybe, but it depends on the overall network configuration (for example, if there is LRT on Finch East, it may be easier to bring that LRT down to Sheppard).

East of McCowan, I don't know what the ridership forecasts are. But based on the existing density (which is rather low), LRT, mini-metro, or BRT may be a better match for demand.

Of course the will be hidden in the overall stats. That's why I like the first option better, then lifting sheppard off and going to malvern, and having a 30km line in the red. I think an extension on Finch East, like you said before would serve different areas. And extension to Finch would help take pressure of the Yonge Line, as would the DRL to Finch, but I prefer the SRT alignment.
Honestly, I just would just prefer not to replicate and existing hub and end both the sheppard and Bloor Danforth at STC
http://www.transit.toronto.on.ca/archives/maps/miguelsyyap/index.html#sect18

If that happens, that is best.

 

[M II A II R II K]

If he manages to pull it off it would make up for a lot of Harrisment when it comes to subways.

 

[picard102]

How did the we fund the extension into Vaughn, Shepherd, or Eglington? Can't recall specific taxes related to those projects, just prioritized in the budget.

 

[denfromoakvillemilton]

How did the we fund the extension into Vaughn, Shepherd, or Eglington? Can't recall specific taxes related to those projects, just prioritized in the budget.

There was money when Vaughan and Sheppard where built. Eglinton was planned to be less and only increased in cost after some of it went underground. There was no new taxes.

 

[denfromoakvillemilton]

If he manages to pull it off it would make up for a lot of Harrisment when it comes to subways.

For sure, if he finds the money more power to him. I'll support the LRT until the end of time, but it is what it is.