The Great Canadian Transit Thread

[Doady]

Originally Posted by J.OT13

Why is Canada Line worse? Both names came to be in a similar fashion (Governments wanting to brand a subway Line to take credit). I'd argue Canada Line makes more sense as it was built as an Olympic project, though Olympic Line would have been more consistent with the Skytrain naming convention.

Personally, as a non Torontonian, it's a little insulting, as was the previous government's GTHA focused Move Ontario 2020.

"Canada Line" is even less specific than "Ontario Line", especially for what is a local transit line, not even regional like a GO Train.

GTAH is half of Ontario's population, and if you talk about higher order transit, BRT, LRT, heavy rail, commuter rail, or even just transit in general of course it should be GTAH focused. Even TTC by itself is already like 70% of the transit ridership in Ontario, so why wouldn't Ontario's transit initiatives be GTAH focused? Simply, any focus on transit will benefit Toronto more, and any ignoring of transit will benefit the Rest of Ontario more.

Even pro-transit initiatives like 2 cents Gas Tax funding formula for transit (based 70% on ridership, 30% on population) or the past Ontario Transit Vehicle or Bus Replacement Programs (33% or ~25% funding, for buses only) probably is fair to the TTC, and I say this as a non-Toronto resident.

The Mike Harris PCs' killing of transit funding in the 90s hurt Toronto more than any other municipality in Ontario. De-emphasizing transit in GTAH in favour of transit outside of the GTAH makes no sense me either.

Ridership in 2019

TTC: 525 million
GO: 68 million
MiWay: 41.2 million
Brampton Transit: 31.9 million
YRT: 22.7 million
HSR: 21.7 million

vs.

OC Transpo: 97.1 million (2014)
LTC: 24.6 million
GRT: 22 million

This is a good example why the Toronto area needs to be a separate province. Province focuses too much on Toronto? Fine then, kick us out. Do it, please.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by JHikka

Shoppers Drug Mart - Rogers - Scotiabank Line

Honestly? I'm fine with that. Better than waiting another decade to see it built.

[MalcolmTucker]

Originally Posted by TorontoDrew

Clearly you don't know the area. It's already dense with old homes and row houses. It already has high rise high density and will be getting more. Even if they tear down homes the land will be solely owned by CN and Metrolinks and they won't build anything on it.

Dense old homes. And yea, used to bike through there. I just don't think a cute neighbourhood should protect it from change.



Doesn't mean it can't be more dense, or it should be frozen in time forever, protected from any change.



Why would Metrolinx not redevelop?

[MalcolmTucker]

Originally Posted by TorontoDrew

When I think of the Canada Line I always think of it being named for the Olympics so it makes sense. The Ontario Line is terrible as all of Ontario like most of Canada hate Toronto. Why not The Downtown Line? That's where most of it is.

Nah. Not for the Olympics. It was a stupid politics thing. Very early before the government really starting pouring money into infrastructure projects. It thought it needed really visible credit for providing the money.


We are very good as people at back remembering better reasons for stupid things

[ssiguy]

I think the Ontario Line got it's name because it goes from the Ontario Science Centre thru downtown to Ontario Place on Lake Ontario.

Anyway, I think that any transit expansion should require and employ reasonable accommodations towards local residents/property owners............the key word being reasonable. Such things as noise walls, tree replacements where possible, community access, public art etc are reasonable. Expecting an agency not to widen a rail route by a few meters because it's going to tear down an incredibly small slice of land is not reasonable.

The thing that really gets me about these people is that they probably would be the very first group to bitch when their taxes have to go up to pay for a vastly more expensive tunnel. Also, I have no empathy for people that CHOOSE to live along a rail corridor and then bitch because of rail traffic.

[swimmer_spe]

We have 7 cities with RT of some sort. Most use a non road label for the lines. As someone who has ridden on enough of them, the name does not matter.

[J.OT13]

Originally Posted by ssiguy

I think the Ontario Line got it's name because it goes from the Ontario Science Centre thru downtown to Ontario Place on Lake Ontario.

Anyway, I think that any transit expansion should require and employ reasonable accommodations towards local residents/property owners............the key word being reasonable. Such things as noise walls, tree replacements where possible, community access, public art etc are reasonable. Expecting an agency not to widen a rail route by a few meters because it's going to tear down an incredibly small slice of land is not reasonable.

The thing that really gets me about these people is that they probably would be the very first group to bitch when their taxes have to go up to pay for a vastly more expensive tunnel. Also, I have no empathy for people that CHOOSE to live along a rail corridor and then bitch because of rail traffic.

[J.OT13]

I've never been a fan of Toronto's subway Line naming conventions. They're a mouthful and confusing to anyone not familiar with the city or system. I prefer the simple line colour and numbers. Names like in Vancouver (and Ottawa for now, but they will be phased out) are fine if the system doesn't have more than few Lines. In the case of the London Underground for example, it's a bit much.

[Innsertnamehere]

Toronto switched to numbered lines a while ago now. Most people still use the old names, but officially it’s “line 1”, “line 2”, etc.

Ontario Line is the marketing name for the project, just like “Crosstown”. Once it’s open and operational it’ll be designated “Line 3”, taking that number from the SRT which will have closed at that point.

[JHikka]

Originally Posted by J.OT13

I've never been a fan of Toronto's subway Line naming conventions. They're a mouthful and confusing to anyone not familiar with the city or system. I prefer the simple line colour and numbers. Names like in Vancouver (and Ottawa for now, but they will be phased out) are fine if the system doesn't have more than few Lines. In the case of the London Underground for example, it's a bit much.

They're usually just called Line 1, Line 2, etc., or the colours they're presented as on maps. Nobody's going around saying Bloor -- Danforth Line when they can say Line 2, Green, or simply Bloor Line.

Originally Posted by Innsertnamehere

Toronto switched to numbered lines a while ago now. Most people still use the old names, but officially it’s “line 1”, “line 2”, etc.

Ontario Line is the marketing name for the project, just like “Crosstown”. Once it’s open and operational it’ll be designated “Line 3”, taking that number from the SRT which will have closed at that point.

Indeed.

[J.OT13]

Originally Posted by Innsertnamehere

Toronto switched to numbered lines a while ago now. Most people still use the old names, but officially it’s “line 1”, “line 2”, etc.

Ontario Line is the marketing name for the project, just like “Crosstown”. Once it’s open and operational it’ll be designated “Line 3”, taking that number from the SRT which will have closed at that point.

I'm glad they started using numbers and simplified the names a few years ago. Though colours have been consistent since each Line opened, I don't think they are commonly used in conversation, I don't think.

[TorontoDrew]

Originally Posted by MalcolmTucker

Dense old homes. And yea, used to bike through there. I just don't think a cute neighbourhood should protect it from change.



Doesn't mean it can't be more dense, or it should be frozen in time forever, protected from any change.



Why would Metrolinx not redevelop?

What are you talking about? We are discussing side streets that can't just be converted to high density. These streets are very narrow, have protected homes and are in a Historical zone. We aren't talking about redeveloping low rise intersections here. It doesn't really sound like you know the area at all. And the area is very pro development when done right. It's one of the hottest condo markets just out of the core. Not to mention the massive parcel of land where they will build an above or below ground station at Gerrard and Carlaw can be redeveloped into a massive new high density development. It's attitudes like yours that destroy cities not make them better. I think you would be better off living in the 50's tear down anything and everything in the name of progress.

And again, nobody in this area is against the subway, they just want it the way it was planned 70 years ago, and the way it was still planned until 2 years ago to save some money so they can build it out into conservative riding's. this was always about getting and keeping votes for Doug Ford.

Maybe change your handle from Malcolm to Miley.




As for Why would Metrolinx not redevelop? Because they will only be taking enough land to build the tracks, not purchase it to develop on.

[TorontoDrew]

Originally Posted by ssiguy

The thing that really gets me about these people is that they probably would be the very first group to bitch when their taxes have to go up to pay for a vastly more expensive tunnel. Also, I have no empathy for people that CHOOSE to live along a rail corridor and then bitch because of rail traffic.

First of all like I've said a few times now, the area in question is full of transit supporting people who pay high taxes and also generally vote NDP and are in favour of paying higher taxes for better infrastructure. We are all aware of the aded time and cost, but it was always going to be a costly endeavour with construction headaches along the way. Everybody here is ok with that. The main sticking point is the destruction of 4 local parks when the planned line was always meant to go underground. As I type this from my desk I looking at the line where it crosses Dundas Avenue. Personally I don't care that 3 additional lines would create more noise in the area, after living here for 12 years now I don't even notice the GO trains or VIA trains anymore. We are talking about taking away green space from a densely populated area. An area with many condo's U/C, and a booming population.


So to your "These People" comment, you are actually dead wrong and it's the opposite. "These people" Are ok with paying more taxes for the " vastly more expensive tunnel" that was always part of the plan for about 5 decades now. "These people" moved into the area or grew up in the area knowing that at some point they would get a subway, and that it would be built underground. Not a watered down plan along the rail corridor.

[milomilo]

"We're not NIMBYs, we support transit so long as it's a billion dollar tunnel not through my back yard. Also we coincidentally don't give a shit about the rest of the line"

[hipster duck]

Originally Posted by TorontoDrew

And again, nobody in this area is against the subway, they just want it the way it was planned 70 years ago, and the way it was still planned until 2 years ago to save some money so they can build it out into conservative riding's. this was always about getting and keeping votes for Doug Ford.

Which Conservative ridings? Don Valley East and Spadina-Fort York?

[TorontoDrew]

Originally Posted by milomilo

"We're not NIMBYs, we support transit so long as it's a billion dollar tunnel not through my back yard. Also we coincidentally don't give a shit about the rest of the line"

Another comment by somebody who doesn't get the history of the line or where it is running through. FYI the rest of the line will be underground except for the terminus at the EX grounds.

Please explain how we are NIMBY's in this situation, then I will give you the cole notes to show where you seemed to have looked over the facts of this subway proposal.

[TorontoDrew]

Originally Posted by hipster duck

Which Conservative ridings? Don Valley East and Spadina-Fort York?

No obviously not those, it's the northern boroughs. Doesn't Wynford Concord usually lean right?

[milomilo]

Originally Posted by TorontoDrew

Another comment by somebody who doesn't get the history of the line or where it is running through. FYI the rest of the line will be underground except for the terminus at the EX grounds.

Please explain how we are NIMBY's in this situation, then I will give you the cole notes to show where you seemed to have looked over the facts of this subway proposal.

None of this matters, you or the residents of the area do not own the city and just because something else was planned does not bind the democratically elected governments doing what is right for all who will benefit from the line. Not just the most vocal, politically enabled people who don't like it.

NIMBYs always have the same angry reaction you are having when their NIMBYism is pointed out, and it is always the wealthy areas of cities that have opposition, whereas the poorer areas allow transit through with little issue.

[TorontoDrew]

Originally Posted by milomilo

None of this matters, you or the residents of the area do not own the city and just because something else was planned does not bind the democratically elected governments doing what is right for all who will benefit from the line. Not just the most vocal, politically enabled people who don't like it.

NIMBYs always have the same angry reaction you are having when their NIMBYism is pointed out, and it is always the wealthy areas of cities that have opposition, whereas the poorer areas allow transit through with little issue.

Nice try, as tax payers, and voters we have every right to have a say in how the city is built, and especially in our ward. Why exactly do you think they hold public consultations mimlomilo? Also fighting for the original and long laid out plan is not NIMBY'sm. Fighting to protect an entire neighbourhood from a plan that was never in the books is not NIMBY'sm. Just sitting back and letting governments make all of the choices for us without any say from the population is called communism.

[niwell]

The opposite end of the spectrum is accusing anyone who dares question any large project as a "NIMBY". Being able to write an article about it at a time when the news cycle is largely dominated by something else is like catnip!

In reality there are a lot of unanswered questions about the Ontario Line and potentially valid criticisms of the project. The government has not exactly been forthcoming about many of these concerns and most of their material comes across as a corporate pitch as opposed to any real information. I've been involved in enough community consultations to know they can be a farce but these seem next level. I'm not personally opposed to the idea of the line running above ground in this area if it can be shown that it won't put undue pressure on the community or capacity of the existing rail infrastructure. Or that Metrolinx is willing to consider out of the box solutions to accommodate the line. This hasn't really happened yet.

I also think the cost argument is a bit of a fallacy - we're talking about a piece of infrastructure that should be in use for well over a century. It's not necessarily even worth pointing out the hypocrisy of the government pushing to put lines underground in areas that are far lower density with much more space to accommodate infrastructure.