TheTigerMaster said:
They're about equal way into the planning process.
Click to expand...

If only they were equal way into the funding process. Would be great to have a joint municipal/provincial/federal funding commitment for the DRL.
 
TheTigerMaster said:
I think you're reading too much into the language.
Click to expand...

Perhaps. But the conspiracy theorist in me feels like the TTC and Metrolinx know full well what is going to be built, and that they’ll eventually be working on a Relief project in tandem. And until they finally admit this to the public, everything presented is a series of vague ideas and distractions.

Plus, Metrolinx still hasn’t released their Relief findings. I know I’ve written this about a hundred times - but I do firmly believe the Richmond Hill line and the abandoned Don Branch may be part of the Relief Line in some significant way. And maybe even parts of the Leaside Spur. Compare their routing, alignment, and potential with the traditional DRL. Then factor in the current floodplain issues and lack of station opportunities along the south end of the existing RH route... I can’t imagine that some kind of RH diversion / DRL interline hybrid won’t at least be considered a logical goal.

TheTigerMaster said:
They're about equal way into the planning process.
Click to expand...

I guess. But are they really? The Scarb Subway is fully financed. And it has all its three stations identified (or at least 3/4). The Relief Line? Not even a penny has been dedicated, we know nothing about stations; and with SmartTrack taking priority - the project is now less of a priority than this time last year.
 
44 North said:
I guess. But are they really? The Scarb Subway is fully financed. And it has all its three stations identified (or at least 3/4). The Relief Line? Not even a penny has been dedicated, we know nothing about stations; and with SmartTrack taking priority - the project is now less of a priority than this time last year.
Click to expand...

The Province did commit to funding the Relief Line last year.
 
I guess you’re right that it was promised before the election. And “Relief Line†is mentioned in their budget. However, the Scarb Subway is in the First Wave. The Relief Line is included in the Next Wave of the Big Move (and there’s seemingly no order of priority for the ~10 projects in the Next Wave). And as it stands that are no dedicated funds or ‘new money’ for the $15bn worth of commitments in the GTHA.

And let’s not forget Metrolinx’s stance on a Relief line (from the Star):

... But relief doesn’t necessarily mean “just a subway,†Metrolinx board chair Robert Prichard told reporters.

“It involves the GO trains, it involves potentially subway, it involves buses, it involves a number of different considerations,†he said, adding that the provincial agency and TTC are jointly studying the alternatives.

Prichard cautioned against “getting ahead of ourselves†and “seizing on one solution.â€

Within the $1.5 billion and 10 years, he said, “We can make good plans to do the highest-priority, highest-return projects across the region.â€
Click to expand...
http://www.thestar.com/news/gta/tra...c_go_top_priorities_for_new_transit_fund.html
 
44 North said:
I guess you’re right that it was promised before the election. And “Relief Line” is mentioned in their budget. However, the Scarb Subway is in the First Wave. The Relief Line is included in the Next Wave of the Big Move (and there’s seemingly no order of priority for the ~10 projects in the Next Wave). And as it stands that are no dedicated funds or ‘new money’ for the $15bn worth of commitments in the GTHA.

And let’s not forget Metrolinx’s stance on a Relief line (from the Star):


http://www.thestar.com/news/gta/tra...c_go_top_priorities_for_new_transit_fund.html
Click to expand...

Mind that the reason the Scarborough Subway is in the first wave is because that money wan't originally intended for the subway - it was meat for the Scarborough LRT. The province didn't give a penny of new money to the Scarb Subway; they just moved around the money. In contrast, the Relief Line is getting "new", previously unallocated money.
 
Oh right. Good point. I guess it's not fair to compare the Scarb Subway with the DRL in that sense.

And I didn't see it posted here, but the City and TTC put out a video:

[video=youtube;awTUzZlx2Wc]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=awTUzZlx2Wc[/video]
 
I felt weird watching this video. I guess I got so used to proposals being justified with "hurr durr durr we deserve subways hurr durr durr", and similar rhetoric, that seeing a proposal being justified with facts is a little bit of a shock.
 
Last edited:
Apologies for bombarding the thread. New article with a focus on the Relief Line by the venerable (but not really in this case) Royson James. Long and short, apparently we don’t really need the DRL. Turns out that a short 5.5km tunnel from Pape to St Andrew can be delayed indefinitely (what’s another 100yrs, really?). But a multi-billion dollar grade-separated 10km RER branch above/under Eglinton West and into a low-density airport area of Mississauga...PRIORITY!

http://www.thestar.com/news/city_ha...ees-hope-for-john-torys-smarttrack-james.html

And another thing that I don’t really get is Royson’s (and others’) bashing of the decision for the Sheppard Subway. Prior to its construction, the studies showed in excess of 15,000 peak by 2011. Eglinton was to have 17,000. If that’s what the studies showed, then why wouldn’t a subway be a wise investment (rhetorically speaking)? How does that differ in any way from the current studies which show Yonge from Steeles to RHC having subway-level ridership by 2031? Shouldn’t we be questioning Yonge North, or the Scarb Subway, or the Crosstown, or the Vaughan extension just as much as we now question the decision for heavy rail subways along Sheppard?

Does it make any sense that a Relief Line doesn’t get built – or is built, but as 30% of its full length; all the while a project like Yonge North gets the green light? I don’t believe in the flippant notion that the RL can be built in consecutive ‘phases’. If we end up getting a Phase 1 built between Y/U-S and B/D – that’s all we’ll be getting for many, many years. Or ever. And frankly, it seems we’ll be lucky to get that.

The way I see it: If you support building the Relief Line in phases, or if you support other subway projects using finite capital that could otherwise be used for a ‘Phase 2’ DRL to Eglinton/Don Mills or King West or Dundas West Stn – then you’re not really a Relief Line supporter. This project is too important to be cut short. The majority of planners and politicians since the first leg of the Yonge subway was built expected that Old Toronto would stagnate and that better downtowns would sprout up in the burbs. They've been proven wrong many times over.
 
44 North said:
And another thing that I don’t really get is Royson’s (and others’) bashing of the decision for the Sheppard Subway. Prior to its construction, the studies showed in excess of 15,000 peak by 2011. Eglinton was to have 17,000. If that’s what the studies showed, then why wouldn’t a subway be a wise investment (rhetorically speaking)? How does that differ in any way from the current studies which show Yonge from Steeles to RHC having subway-level ridership by 2031? Shouldn’t we be questioning Yonge North, or the Scarb Subway, or the Crosstown, or the Vaughan extension just as much as we now question the decision for heavy rail subways along Sheppard?
Click to expand...

Those Sheppard numbers were a sham. This report and Steve Munro's comments explain why.
 
salsa said:
Those Sheppard numbers were a sham. This report and Steve Munro's comments explain why.
Click to expand...

I'm very much aware of that. When I write "rhetorically speaking", and quote the same numbers found in Webster's report, and make it readily apparent that Sheppard doesn't carry such high numbers - I think it should be obvious that I know the projections weren't right. This is the point I'm making: If Sheppard's projections were wrong, then couldn't Yonge North's or VMC's numbers be a "sham" also? Why are their ultra-high forecasts guaranteed, but Sheppard's weren't?
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top