[CDL.TO]

I always find it odd when people complain that extending the Bloor line to Square One would make it too long. But no one says the same about Yonge or Spadina even though I'm the YUS is longer than BD and is undergoing extension now at one end and possibly the other in the future.

I'm one of the people who first started pushing for GO to Square One instead of a Bloor-Danforth extension, and I have always said the same thing about the Spadina extension to Vaughan.

You also ignore the fact that:
- Getting downtown by BD requires a transfer, which is not necessary on the YUS.
- BD has closer stop spacing than the YUS (outside downtown), making the trip even longer.
- The Milton line could potentially offer intermediate TWO points to transfer to the subway line, while a GO line to Vaughan would offer one, and to Richmond Hill would offer zero. This means that a Milton line would offer quicker trips for BOTH those headed to UofT/Yorkville AND those headed downtown.

It bugs me when I see that "improve the Milton line" seems to have become a proposal for people who don't want to see the 905 get subway extensions. "Improve the Milton line" should be a rallying call for people who think that a BD line ISN'T GOOD ENOUGH for Mississauga. Mississauga has three-quarters of a million people (over three times the size of Vaughan)! Most of them live west of Hurontario! It's a big place and a BD line will not do nearly enough!

Make your choice:
- Dedicated tracks on the Milton line, allowing trains to run every 5 minutes (if needed), serving Meadowvale and Streetsville and Erindale and Cooksville and Dundas East and Kipling, then running express to Downtown Toronto with only one or two intermediate stops? (Essentially the Metrolinx plan.) Approx travel time from Cooksville to downtown: 30 mins. Fares: Same as local transit due to fare integration. Capacity: sufficient.
- Extend the Bloor-Danforth line. Force transit users west of Hurontario to continue to take a bus to Square One. Squeeze on an overloaded Bloor-Danforth train when you make the required transfer at St. George on the trip home. (What Corescanti prefers for some reason) Approx travel time from Cooksville to downtown: 50 mins. Capacity: Insufficient.

Choose regional rail if you want Mississauga to grow and intensify because it's within transit commuting distance of from the whole western GTA. Choose a BD extension if you want the status quo, but just a little bit faster.

 

[unimaginative2]

Amen!

And with a diversion of the line to Square One, it could also serve the major trip generator and transit hub in Mississauga.

Regional rail offers much higher capacity and speed than a subway, so it would make a much better backbone for transit in Mississauga. A subway also could never practically be extended from Square One while regional rail would serve Erindale, Meadowvale, etc.

The main problem is that I don't think GO Transit is institutionally capable of operating a real regional rail service. It would be like putting Milton Transit in charge of running the Toronto subway. While they may be perfectly competent at what they do now, they're entirely unfamiliar with best practices in an entirely new way of operating. Pretty much the only similarity between GO Transit and real regional rail is that they both operate with steel wheels on steel rails. In fact, regional rail is basically like urban rapid transit rather than what we in North America call "commuter rail."

If we're going to introduce it in Toronto, maybe what we need is a complete rebranding. Something like Viva is to YRT. This isn't just about running GO trains a little more often.

Proper regional rail includes:

1. A real service standard. i.e. trains every 10 minutes, all day, every day. None of this B.S. about running trains only when they're uncomfortably full.
2. Full fare integration. People should be able to take the fastest route to their destination. Period. The regional rail should act as a backbone for local transit systems, much like the subway does in the City of Toronto.
3. Vehicles designed for frequent urban service to permit rapid loading and unloading.
4. Electrification for faster acceleration and deceleration at frequent urban stops
5. A dedicated pair of tracks. Routes can share a pair of tracks on central segments. If Munich can run 7 S-Bahn lines through a two-track tunnel, there's no reason why we can't run four.
6. Multiple stops in the central city to even out loads

 

[W. K. Lis]

Why stop at Richmond Hill? Continue it up to Lake Simcoe. Basically, make it a modern day replacement for the Toronto and York Radial line from before our time.

 

[cplchanb]

yea too bad all the rails were pulled up in favour of cars....
had the gta acted like london and kept virtually all of its transit infrastructure intact from the golden days we would be in a much better position now

 

[nfitz]

had the gta acted like london and kept virtually all of its transit infrastructure intact from the golden days we would be in a much better position now

Not sure what your talking about. London got rid of their streetcars too ... used to stretch all the way to Port Stanley!

Though I assume your not talking about London England either - as they ripped up their entire tram infrastructure as well.

 

[W. K. Lis]

Not sure what your talking about. London got rid of their streetcars too ... used to stretch all the way to Port Stanley!

Though I assume your not talking about London England either - as ripped up their entire tram infrastructure as well.

The Toronto & York Radial Railway ran on the side of the road or on right-of-ways away from the road.

Some of the right-of-way still exists but unused.

 

[cplchanb]

i stand corrected on the London UK trams...however
they still had the entire tube system that they fell back on and they did in fact maintain a viable network of LRTs to this day.. .
we on the other hand dumped the system and did not ensure that a viable alternative be maintained or even plan for its resurgence and now we are paying the price, as to redo what was undone is going to cost us exponentially more

 

[nfitz]

they still had the entire tube system that they fell back on and they did in fact maintain a viable network of LRTs to this day..

I guess it's true that London never abandoned most of it's subway system ... though neither did Toronto. Not sure of any major city that has.

But what LRT system did London maintain? The trams were all gone by the end of the 1950s. There's Tramlink, but that didn't open until the 2000s. And there is the DLR - which is perhaps most similar to the SRT in appearance and function - but that didn't open until after the SRT.

 

[cplchanb]

i guess the endstory is that London and other major cities in Europe had a system that worked and despite financial shortcomings due to WWII and beyond, still managed to maintain a rapid transit network that served not only the core but to the suburbs efficiently. we on the other hand instead of growing around it, dismantled most of it and let the car take its place

 

[nfitz]

i guess the endstory is that London and other major cities in Europe had a system that worked and despite financial shortcomings due to WWII and beyond, still managed to maintain a rapid transit network that served not only the core but to the suburbs efficiently.

Where are you getting this? London gutted it's tram network, let it's roads get overcrowded to the point that the bus system was completely ineffective, and let the tube and rail network fall into a terrible state of disrepair. London has spent billions of pounds since Labour came to power in the late 1990s rebuilding the tube network, trying to deal with road congestion, rebuilding and expanding the bus network.

London abandoned more of it's transit infrastructure than Toronto did. Though like us, failed to properly maintain what they didn't abandon.

 

[unimaginative2]

As for the Yonge extension, it's a massively useful project but it will really make the need for the DRL extremely apparent. What it desperately needs is some value engineering. The plans included a 20+ bus bay underground terminal at Steeles. Why?? It's not even a terminal station! Six bus bays would seem more than sufficient, with two for each of the Steeles routes and another swing pair for any other minor routes.

I even asked one of the planners at the public meetings the reason for the underground bus cathedral. She replied, "That's a very good question."

 

[jaycola]

If the Subway was extended to Hwy 7 and at a junction point with the Go Train, could they not offer a reduced rate for Go trips to Union compared to Subway rates? If they offered a 30% discount for trips to the core, wouldn't that divert much of the traffic onto the go line? ave a buck and get a quicker trip. shoulld be an easy sell.

 

[M II A II R II K]

It could connect with a new GO line in that northern rail corridor, and have GO Service from Oakville directly to Georgetown over the city.

 

[Rainforest]

As for the Yonge extension, it's a massively useful project but it will really make the need for the DRL extremely apparent. What it desperately needs is some value engineering. The plans included a 20+ bus bay underground terminal at Steeles. Why?? It's not even a terminal station! Six bus bays would seem more than sufficient, with two for each of the Steeles routes and another swing pair for any other minor routes.

I even asked one of the planners at the public meetings the reason for the underground bus cathedral. She replied, "That's a very good question."

That part of the plan puzzled me as well. The only reason I can think of is that they are not sure that the funding will not be cut midway through the project, ending the extension at Steeles. In that case, the overbuild terminal suddenly becomes essential, anchoring a host of VIVA and YRT routes in addition to TTC's 53 and 60.

But then, given that an underused Centerpoint Mall's parking lot sits next to the Yonge / Steeles intersection, and the area closest to the intersection is the least used ... one has to wonder whether an underground bus terminal is needed at all.

 

[unimaginative2]

That part of the plan puzzled me as well. The only reason I can think of is that they are not sure that the funding will not be cut midway through the project, ending the extension at Steeles. In that case, the overbuild terminal suddenly becomes essential, anchoring a host of VIVA and YRT routes in addition to TTC's 53 and 60.

But then, given that an underused Centerpoint Mall's parking lot sits next to the Yonge / Steeles intersection, and the area closest to the intersection is the least used ... one has to wonder whether an underground bus terminal is needed at all.

Exactly, on your latter point. And it's not just the Centerpoint lots: there are all kinds of Taco Bells and little strip malls in the area that could easily be bought for peanuts for a bus terminal. If the TTC were looking ahead, they could even partner with a developer to build a terminal and condo in one project. Or, if Centerpoint won't lose the parking, they could build a deck for them above for a few million. That underground bus hangar would cost well into the nine figures at TTC prices.

As for the possibility of a mid-way funding cut, it hardly makes sense to add a hundred million or more to the cost of a project "just in case" if you're worried about funding. Not to mention the fact that it's an entirely York Region-driven project and there's no way that it would be built without the section north of Steeles.