denfromoakvillemilton said:
I'm going to the meeting on Saturday, who will be there?
Click to expand...

I'm planning on going, but since it says the presentation isn't on until 10, I'll probably try to get there at 10.

Then again if forum members saw or talked to each other at the meeting they wouldn't know it right?
 
I'll be there on Saturday. Not sure how long I'll stay, these preliminary consultations are usually quick with a bunch of boards placed around a room.
 
nfitz said:
I don't think they'd build the relief line far enough south to intersect Lower Spadina Avenue. It would surely stay north of the Gardiner.

And even then, should a relief line be that convenient for BMO Field? It won't be designed for occasional events. I doubt the station would be south of King. King and Dufferin? King and the Kitchener/Barrie line? It's still going to be a bit of a hike. BMO Field already has a GO station, which currently has service to Union every 30 minutes off-peak.

There's lots of reasons to build Phase 1 west of Spadina. The biggest being that King is already a disaster zone between Spadina and Bathurst in rush hour ... and will only get worse if everyone has to board streetcars at King/Spadina. I'd think Bathurst would be a logocal end point for Phase 1. It's only 600 metres further west than Spadina, and doesn't sterilize future options.
Click to expand...

Yes. Bathurst, or perhaps even Dufferin if there is enough funding.
 
denfromoakvillemilton said:
The info session was very good. I'll post more later.
Click to expand...

I personally found the TTC part a bit boring since it was basically a public consultation about how they should do public consultations, and the long detailed speech about the long process they have to go through.

My one question for them was that is the study area limited to east of University or is it possible that phase 1 could end west of University at say Spadina. I did get my question answered, the answer is yes, it is possible that it could end at Spadina or west in phase 1.

With regards to the Metrolinx part, I thought it was good that they're looking at the short and medium term ideas since the DRL will take so long to finish (they said 8-10 years construction after a few more years of study, I think). Increasing GO service and routing more buses downtown instead of to the subway lines were good ideas.

Overall, not much detailed info, it was very preliminary very early stuff.
 
ehlow said:
I personally found the TTC part a bit boring since it was basically a public consultation about how they should do public consultations, and the long detailed speech about the long process they have to go through.

My one question for them was that is the study area limited to east of University or is it possible that phase 1 could end west of University at say Spadina. I did get my question answered, the answer is yes, it is possible that it could end at Spadina or west in phase 1.

With regards to the Metrolinx part, I thought it was good that they're looking at the short and medium term ideas since the DRL will take so long to finish (they said 8-10 years construction after a few more years of study, I think). Increasing GO service and routing more buses downtown instead of to the subway lines were good ideas.

Overall, not much detailed info, it was very preliminary very early stuff.
Click to expand...

I think the conclusion of all of this may just be that the DRL is not needed now and that GO service will increase.

The entire Transit City LRT (Local Rail Transit) plan was developed with no though or allowance for a DRL. Its purpose was to transform disadvantaged neighborhoods more so than transporting people. At the same time, Metrolinx was slowly planning increased GO service - again with little thought for the DRL. 3 or 4 years ago the City tried to reverse this direction by changing the LRT acronym to mean Light Rapid Transit. The first part would have involved making Eglinton a Regional transit line that stretches right across the entire City. Unfortunately, the plan was not fully developed and City Council thought it was more important to defeat Ford, rather than improve on the Rapid Transit plan. Council then voted to go back to Transit City. The switch from SRT/LRT to B-D Extension did not really change anything - it was just a $1.5B to $2.0B solution to remove the transfer, yet it did not reduce the amount of in-street LRT by one metre.

So here we are with essentially the original Transit City plan. A plan that did not include a DRL. Councillors and Mayoralty hopefuls continually talk about how important the DRL is, yet they continue to support other transit initiatives that preclude a DRL.

We shall see, but I would not be surprised if the study yields no DRL - and everyone who claimed they supported transit will be responsible for the decision.
 
Yeah the TTC portion was a bit of a disaster. Too much "how do you want to be asked" and not enough "what do you want to be fixed"

Metrolinx, even if they completely burned and shredded the papers afterwards, made me feel much more listened to.
 
^thats the entire reason I didn't go, it was such an early meeting that I feel many were hoping for input on routing, technology, etc. While the stage they are at right now is simply "how do you want us to decide that".
 
BurlOak said:
I think the conclusion of all of this may just be that the DRL is not needed now and that GO service will increase.

The entire Transit City LRT (Local Rail Transit) plan was developed with no though or allowance for a DRL. Its purpose was to transform disadvantaged neighborhoods more so than transporting people. At the same time, Metrolinx was slowly planning increased GO service - again with little thought for the DRL. 3 or 4 years ago the City tried to reverse this direction by changing the LRT acronym to mean Light Rapid Transit. The first part would have involved making Eglinton a Regional transit line that stretches right across the entire City. Unfortunately, the plan was not fully developed and City Council thought it was more important to defeat Ford, rather than improve on the Rapid Transit plan. Council then voted to go back to Transit City. The switch from SRT/LRT to B-D Extension did not really change anything - it was just a $1.5B to $2.0B solution to remove the transfer, yet it did not reduce the amount of in-street LRT by one metre.

So here we are with essentially the original Transit City plan. A plan that did not include a DRL. Councillors and Mayoralty hopefuls continually talk about how important the DRL is, yet they continue to support other transit initiatives that preclude a DRL.

We shall see, but I would not be surprised if the study yields no DRL - and everyone who claimed they supported transit will be responsible for the decision.
Click to expand...

That's not the impression I got during the public meeting. The things like bus relief and increased GO service was more things we can do until the relief line is built. It was more like: since it's going to take so many years to build, we can do things in the meantime to make things better in the shorter term, in addition to the line, not instead of it.
 
innsertnamehere said:
^thats the entire reason I didn't go, it was such an early meeting that I feel many were hoping for input on routing, technology, etc. While the stage they are at right now is simply "how do you want us to decide that".
Click to expand...

Good call, I mean, I was still hoping to be able to talk about the new transit line in a general sense, at least I got to ask my one question. Instead, the TTC part was "how can we make the public consultation process better", so it wasn't really about the transit line at all, it was about the public consultation process.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top