[steveintoronto]

That's an interesting rewrite of history. Streetcar service began on Spadina in the 1800s, and by the 1890s, ran from King Street to Bloor.

Well I'm glad you agree that there's not only a Spadina streetcar now running, but it's also been heavily reinvested in doing so. It could be extended to Summerhill to join the Bathurst streetcar line utilizing the unused space on the Midtown Corridor to Summerhill when/if the Midtown Line becomes reality. By doing so, it would relieve crush looading of incoming trains on the Yonge and Spadina subway lines.

Not true, it's looking at ways of funding the Second Avenue Phase 2. In fact last week, the MTA voted to award an early contract for Phase 2 outreach work.

Meanwhile the New York Port Authority was recently thinking again of extending Line 7 to New Jersey.

It's been looking to do so for years. That doesn't preclude more subway, or also streetcar, which is also being proposed for New York City. See https://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/02/...or-streetcar-in-brooklyn-and-queens.html?_r=0

One wonders on what your source is, for heavy rail being the only consideration.

All excellent. The chances of any of them at this point getting federal funding is very low. The heavy rail tunnels, however, are necessity, not option. Hurricane Sandy left many with a twenty year lifespan, if that. I've never stated that Toronto doesn't need new streetcar lines, that was Aquateam. I have never stated that Downtown Relief isn't a very pressing issue. That's also Aquateam and others twisting what I'm stating. What I state is that a four car subway link is going to prove inadequate very rapidly, and since the cost of tunnelling is roughly the same no matter the bore cross-section, it should be overbuilt in that respect at this time for future upgrading.

I'm not entirely sure what your motives are - but a transparent discussion doesn't seem to be one of them.

You can state what you wish, how is that being "untransparent"?

And as per New York and run-through RER:

WELCOME
The Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) and NJ TRANSIT are jointly preparing an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) to evaluate the Hudson Tunnel Project. The Project is intended to preserve the current functionality of the Northeast Corridor’s (NEC) Hudson River rail crossing between New Jersey and New York and strengthen the resiliency of the NEC. The EIS is being prepared pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA). As appropriate, FRA and NJ TRANSIT will coordinate with Amtrak and the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey (PANYNJ) on the EIS.

The FRA and NJ TRANSIT invite you to learn about the proposed Project and the environmental review process. We have also added a document to our Library for your review. See the box below for this addition.

Alternatives Development Report (24 MB)

Preferred Alternative


View high-resolution PDF

LATEST NEWS
The FRA and NJ TRANSIT have identified a Preferred Alternative for examination in the EIS. The Preferred Alternative would include two new tracks extending from the NEC in Secaucus, NJ, continuing in a tunnel beneath the Palisades (North Bergen and Union City) and the Hoboken waterfront area, and beneath the Hudson River to connect to the existing approach tracks that lead into Penn Station New York, as well as rehabilitation of the existing tunnel once the new tunnel is complete. For more information, see the Preferred Alternatives Summary (also available on the Library page.)

The Hudson Tunnel Project has completed an Alternatives Development Report (also available on the Library page) describing how the Preferred Alternative was developed.

copyright 2016

http://www.hudsontunnelproject.com/

Huge amounts on-line. East Side Access nearing completion (Heavy passenger rail tunnel into Grand Central Terminal from Long Island)

Inside New York City's East Side Access, the biggest transportation project in America
http://www.theverge.com/2015/11/5/9677300/manhattan-train-tunnel-project-grand-central-lirr-access

And the Penn Station study on run-through well underway.
https://nec.amtrak.com/content/gateway-program

These are the projects that Trump states he will support. Congress will back him for these. Trump is also on record of backing a further expansion of the Second Ave Subway. Congress will not support that.

How's the funding looking for the Relief Line?

 

[nfitz]

It could be extended to Summerhill to join the Bathurst streetcar line utilizing the unused space on the Midtown Corridor to Summerhill when/if the Midtown Line becomes reality. By doing so, it would relieve crush looading of incoming trains on the Yonge and Spadina subway lines.

I doubt the demand would be there. Though I'd extend to Dupont, not Summerhill - but again I doubt the demand would be there. Though an easy transfer from Line 1 to the Spadina car would be appreciated by some I expect.

LOL, perhaps they can run it up that pedestrian tunnel between the two Spadina platforms (I know, not high enough, or wide enough ...)

 

[Johnny Au]

Trump is more pro-transit than I would ever thought (albeit of the late Rob Ford-style Subways, Subways, Subways type).

Trudeau's income tax credit cancellation should provide more funds for various subway extensions, but I would rather have income tax credits over subway expansion.

 

[steveintoronto]

Trump is more pro-transit than I would ever thought (albeit of the late Rob Ford-style Subways, Subways, Subways type).

What Trump says and what Trump does aren't related what-so-ever.

Latest news:

Transit agencies dread Trump’s ‘skinny budget’
By Brianna Gurciullo

03/15/17 10:00 AM EDT

With help from Anthony Adragna

TRANSIT AGENCIES DREAD TRUMP’S ‘SKINNY BUDGET’: Transit officials are holding their breath as the Trump administration puts the finishing touches on its “skinny budget,” reports our Tanya Snyder, who spoke with officials from Phoenix, Los Angeles, Seattle and Dallas. President Donald Trump wants cuts to non-defense discretionary spending, and transit funding is a likely target at DOT.


You can bet on it: If Trump does request a reduction in federal dollars for transit, lawmakers and others are sure to argue that there’s a contradiction between doing that and pushing for a $1 trillion infrastructure package. Proposing cuts to “critical funding for transit and housing raises serious questions about the president’s commitment to invest in our nation's infrastructure and rebuild our cities,” said Ohio Sen. Sherrod Brown, the top Democrat on the Senate Banking Committee.[...]

http://www.politico.com/tipsheets/m...it-agencies-dread-trumps-skinny-budget-219239

Fortunately for heavy-rail trans Hudson/East River, Congress will support spending, it's in the national interest. As for subways? Congress is majority pro-car at this time.

Trump Cuts Leave Bridge and Rail Projects Hanging
By HIROKO TABUCHIAPRIL 5, 2017 New York Times

When President Trump pledged during the campaign to spend $1 trillion to restore America’s crumbling bridges and roads, supporters across the country cheered.

A leaked list of the Trump administration’s priority projects seemed to speak to the scope of the president’s ambitions: a high-speed rail line linking Houston and Dallas; a desalination plant in Orange County, Calif.; and improvements to the Lake Pontchartrain Causeway in Louisiana, the longest continuous bridge over water in the world.

Then came Mr. Trump’s budget proposal, which would slash the Department of Transportation’s spending by 13 percent, end subsidies for Amtrak’s long-distance trains and eliminate the Obama administration’s “Tiger” grant program, which has helped fund mass transit systems across the country.

Among the potential victims of the president’s proposed cutbacks: Maryland’s long-awaited Purple Line, a planned 16-mile light rail system through the capital’s suburbs.

Maryland had been just four days away from clinching some $900 million in federal aid in August when a federal judge ruled to temporarily invalidate environmental approvals for the project. But under President Trump’s plan, projects that don’t yet have complete federal funding agreements would be financed “by the localities that use and benefit from these localized projects.”

Supporters of the project are devastated.
[...]

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/05/business/dealbook/bridge-rail-infrastructure-trump.html

 

[goreckm]

Trudeau's income tax credit cancellation should provide more funds for various subway extensions, but I would rather have income tax credits over subway expansion.

Has it been mentioned anywhere that this money will go towards transit?

 

[rbt]

Has it been mentioned anywhere that this money will go towards transit?

It'll be mentioned in a document to be released on April 27th.

Of course, spending it before the provincial election will be impossible; so that decision will be reversible.

 

[TheTigerMaster]

Yonge North Subway extension is not funded in the 2017 budget.

 

[micheal_can]

Yonge North Subway extension is not funded in the 2017 budget.

It probably wont till the DRL is under construction.

 

[amnesiajune]

Yonge North Subway extension is not funded in the 2017 budget.

Not really a surprise, since the project doesn't even have a price tag. Also gives them an opportunity to advance it in the 2018 budget that they'd be passing just before the election.

 

[nfitz]

The planning/design is funded and mentioned in the budget. I wouldn't expect anything more.

 

[Transportfan]

What Trump says and what Trump does aren't related what-so-ever.

Latest news:

And your latest news link isn't related to a Canadian subway project either.

 

[Tuck]

I'd bet money on it showing up with a full commitment right before the election.

 

[TJ O'Pootertoot]

I drove by Yonge on the 407 for the first time in a while and was surprised. They've already cleared many acres close to Yonge for pre development (wish I could have take a picture but illegal and dangerous) .

As I've mentioned before, the phasing plan allows something like 5k units in that UGC right now, but they were required to do some work first (new pipes, rehab the creek there etc.) if there is an approved development I don't see it so presumably something is in process.

They'd "normally" be marketing the great access to subway etc but it'll be interesting to see how they market it now. You can walk up GO, I guess but otherwise the finest phase will be pretty bleak.

 

[amnesiajune]

I drove by Yonge on the 407 for the first time in a while and was surprised. They've already cleared many acres close to Yonge for pre development

They haven't "cleared" that land. It's never been developed. Back in the 1970s the provincial government protected the land as a Greenbelt of some sort to build a hydro corridor, the 407 and a bus-only road.

 

[TJ O'Pootertoot]

Uh, no. that's not correct at all.

I'm talking about Langstaff Road East, which runs from Yonge to Bayview.
There used to be many industrial buildings there; the biggest property was Beaver Valley Stone. It's a normal public road anyone can drive on though it's mostly auto shops (and the south Langstaff parking lot).

This is what it looked like before they cleared it.

And now (though you can see it much better from up on the 407):

And another pair:

I don't know what "bus only road" you're thinking about. The closest thing would be the 407 Transitway ROW, which doesn't exist yet. Langstaff is definitely not within the West Don Parkway Plan, which is the one from the 70s that preserved the 407 ROW. I think the clearing is everything up to Ruggles which seems to be about 16 acres; not inconsiderable. (I could see it had been cleared from Yonge but didn't appreciate the extent until up on the 407)

And, as I said, ConDrain is now putting in pipes.

Even more on topic, a new City Council report has a revised cost estimate of $5.6B. I hope it doesn't u pset the flat earth crowd here there's not a word about cost-savings by going just to Steeles or looking at other modes or anything of the sort. Just the same ongoing capacity concerns.