[micheal_can]

Conjecture on my part, but I don't see any other logical answer given how much "population growth" is a cash cow for everyone in this country: the feds will just bring more people than any amount of supply we can put on the market (at their developer/bankster pals' request).

We could debate at nauseam as to the merits or not of immigration. It was asked about what it would do for housing.

 

[Undead]

I'll respond in the zoning reform thread.

 

[Bureaucromancer]

So inspired by the RM Transit London video and Rennes generally I played around with what a London light metro might look like, and I think it's actually not bad... and might even be more of a natural fit as a network backbone than the light rail version that was really going to be very streetcar like. It also wouldn't invalidate much if any of the BRT work if the surface system moves to a feeder grid structure.



Off the top of my head the big issues that come to mind

• the Richmond Row tunnel might really have to go all the way downtown politically
• Western is going to scream and yell for the same asinine reasons they killed LRT and BRT direct to campus... they should be ignored
• there are still some elevated pieces through basically residential are that would probably wreck any economic case if they had to be tunneled
• the airport extension is probably a bridge too far, but the OMSF seems likely to end up out that way anyway, so I'm inclined not to actually map stages on this... BUT, terminating at Fanshawe and having an unbroken through quasi BRT on Oxford would work pretty well in general and be well more than the airport actually needs (on second thought, I'd terminate Oxford BRT at the eastern end of a truncated metro and serve the airport with a Dundas BRT that turns north to the Metro after Argyle Mall and hits the eastern metro terminal to get a direct Downtown - Airport service).
• I'm sorely tempted to delete the station in Gibbons Park, but the presence of a pedestrian bridge and the politics of running the line above grade through a park that had me put it there in the first place make it seem worth... at least seriously considering
• it IS a longer line than the OL, but is very much a small project in comparison to the likes of RER... and has a total system length very similar to Rennes, albeit in a single line

If you play around with the layers I don't show above on Google you'll also find that I've played around with the idea of tram-trains (or really train-trams) down to St Thomas but diverting onto Wellington. It's not a bad fit at all, but the inability to serve Amazon does makes me think that a bus is probably still more suitable for St Thomas until it has actual capacity or traffic issues... and at that point the tram portion starts to create more pain for St Thomas passengers. My actual inclination is real BRT (as opposed to lite on other corridors) on Wellington, with design that doesn't exclude adding light rail with minimal modification. It wouldn't be a terrible idea to reserve space for an elevated guideway on Wellington, but my gut feeling is that even if the core line could be justified it's anchoring both ends on the schools that makes it work, and that a south branch, let alone a western one, would be much weaker.

 

[micheal_can]

So inspired by the RM Transit London video and Rennes generally I played around with what a London light metro might look like, and I think it's actually not bad... and might actually be more of a natural fit as a network backbone than the light rail version that was really going to be very streetcar like. It also wouldn't invalidate much if any of the BRT work if the surface system moves to a feed grid structure.

View attachment 510244

Off the top of my head the big issues that come to mind

• the Richmond Row tunnel might really have to go all the way downtown politically
• Western is going to scream and yell for the same asinine reasons they killed LRT and BRT direct to campus... they should be ignored
• there are still some elevated pieces through basically residential are that would probably wreck any economic case if they had to be tunneled
• the airport extension is probably a bridge too far, but the OMSF seems likely to end up out that way anyway, so I'm inclined not to actually map stages on this... BUT, terminating at Fanshawe and having an unbroken through quasi BRT on Oxford would work pretty well in general and be well more than the airport actually needs (on second thought, I'd terminate Oxford BRT at the eastern end of a truncated metro and serve the airport with a Dundas BRT that turns north to the Metro after Argyle Mall and hits the eastern metro terminal to get a direct Downtown - Airport service).
• I'm sorely tempted to delete the station in Gibbons Park, but the presence of a pedestrian bridge and the politics of running the line above grade through a park that had me put it there in the first place make it seem worth... at least seriously considering
• it IS a longer line than the OL, but is very much a small project in comparison to the likes of RER... and has a total system length very similar to Rennes, albeit in a single line

If you play around with the layers I don't show above on Google you'll also find that I've played around with the idea of tram-trains (or really train-trams) down to St Thomas but diverting onto Wellington. It's not a bad fit at all, but the inability to serve Amazon does makes me think that a bus is probably still more suitable for St Thomas until it has actual capacity or traffic issues... and at that point the tram portion starts to create more pain for St Thomas passengers. My actual inclination is real BRT (as opposed to lite on other corridors) on Wellington, with design that doesn't exclude adding light rail with minimal modification. It wouldn't be a terrible idea to reserve space for an elevated guideway on Wellington, but my gut feeling is that even if the core line could be justified it's anchoring both ends on the schools that makes it work, and that a south branch, let alone a western one, would be much weaker.

A few points:
1) It should extend to Masonville.That area has been expanding for the last2decadesandis one of the directions the city will grow from.
2) It should also get extended at least to the hospital,if not all the way to White Oaks.
3) The city could use a 4 points system that would cover enough of the city to allow it to densify as it grows.

 

[Islington Express Bus]

^ it does extend to masonville
also that's probably a bit ambitious as a phase 1 as is. It simply isn't realistic to also have an extension to White Oaks, that would probably require an entirely new line.

 

[Willybru21]

 

[Bureaucromancer]

^ it does extend to masonville
also that's probably a bit ambitious as a phase 1 as is. It simply isn't realistic to also have an extension to White Oaks, that would probably require an entirely new line.

Also note the rambling bit at the end. Something going south is obviously needed, and I'm not ENTIRELY opposed to it being Metro, but yes, it absolutely is its own line... and the idea of building effectively three lines at once with a total length on the order of 30 km would imo take it from the realm of something that might actually happen in, say, France to pure fantasy.

OTOH, I would say designing the guideway around the train station such that a south branch can be tied in would be a good idea. And I rather suspect that branching this with a common central section would be just fine in capacity terms.

Edit: quick sketches of what a south branch might look like, and what I'd be thinking in terms of if elevated downtown was off the table:

 

[micheal_can]

^ it does extend to masonville
also that's probably a bit ambitious as a phase 1 as is. It simply isn't realistic to also have an extension to White Oaks, that would probably require an entirely new line.

Phase one could be as simple as downtown to Western.

 

[Bureaucromancer]

Phase one could be as simple as downtown to Western.

I'd agree, but I really don't know where an OMSF could go on a north only line. The only spots that seem to make any sense at all are near the river crossing, but that doesn't sound great, or politically viable. Once you start heading east I suppose there might be suitable property along the railway corridor (there's a property on Rectory St that looks especially tempting), but I feel like once you have to build that far east anyway it should get to Fanshawe. Then once it's at Fanshawe putting the OMSF near the airport would seem to offer a better, cheaper site.

 

[micheal_can]

I'd agree, but I really don't know where an OMSF could go on a north only line. The only spots that seem to make any sense at all are near the river crossing, but that doesn't sound great, or politically viable. Once you start heading east I suppose there might be suitable property along the railway corridor (there's a property on Rectory St that looks especially tempting), but I feel like once you have to build that far east anyway it should get to Fanshawe. Then once it's at Fanshawe putting the OMSF near the airport would seem to offer a better, cheaper site.

Maybe it could be at the rail yards east of Downtown?

 

[Willybru21]

By far my biggest project yet:

 

[Bureaucromancer]

Maybe it could be at the rail yards east of Downtown?

Not ENTIRELY sure which yard you mean, but it's are farther than I suspect you're thinking:

Highlights are on the places I think might work, but really unless you use the highlight right downtown beside the VIA station (and I would oppose that on pure land use terms, as these things go it's really only marginally better than a parking lot imo) its all far enough that I come back to my thought that they mean enough guideway you might as well hit the asylum lands and get to Fanshawe. The actual CN yard is also not really on the route I was thinking, but not a huge divergence either if that WERE the place to put it.

 

[micheal_can]

Not ENTIRELY sure which yard you mean, but it's are farther than I suspect you're thinking:
View attachment 510375
Highlights are on the places I think might work, but really unless you use the highlight right downtown beside the VIA station (and I would oppose that on pure land use terms, as these things go it's really only marginally better than a parking lot imo) its all far enough that I come back to my thought that they mean enough guideway you might as well hit the asylum lands and get to Fanshawe. The actual CN yard is also not really on the route I was thinking, but not a huge divergence either if that WERE the place to put it.

The middle one near Rectory is the one I was thinking of. Or, see if CN will give up their offices at the end of Brydges. Or, expropriate the land south of Brydges.

 

[Islington Express Bus]

Build the MSF near Western. There's a huge parking lot and open field at Western Rd/Brescia Dr.

 

[micheal_can]

Build the MSF near Western. There's a huge parking lot and open field at Western Rd/Brescia Dr.

That would be a non starter. It would about the same as putting geared to income housing in the Bridle Path.