News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 02, 2020
A Message to Our Readers
 10K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
EarthCam Time-Lapse Documents Rafael Viñoly-Designed New Stanford Hospital Construction
 42K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
Resort Town
 6K     0 

Allandale25 said:
^ Totally agree. It would also allow students using the Kitchener Line a good connection to the Humber College North campus. I can't remember did the February 2020 Advancing Transit Priorities report provide a cost estimate?
Click to expand...

A better connection with the University of Guelph-Humber, you mean? See link.

Of course, since Doug Ford dropped out of Humber College after two months, he has no reason to do so now.
 
alexanderglista said:
I really think that this line should be extended to Woodbine GO ASAP. It would really help with regional connections. The transit hub project at Pearson seems to have slowed down, but getting it to Woodbine would be a good start, and I’m sure the casino/racetrack would be supportive.
Click to expand...
Totally agree. I wrote the Premier and Metrolinx regarding this extension. Extending Finch to Woodbine Centre and onto the Woodbine Casino/GO seems like a no-brainer from a ridership perspective. Add two more stops which could be the third and fourth most used stops on the line.
 
TheTigerMaster said:
A benefit of a single government handling things. Less politicians = less political drama = less drama and politicization in the media. Now they may be just as prone to make poor decisions, but at least a decision will be made (as opposed to the current gridlock).
Click to expand...
Isn't there less gridlock now? The Ontario government is going ahead with it's own plan (regardless of merits). I would no longer describe the situation as gridlocked.

If you are talking about the Pearson Hub... then ya... for sure
 
Just posted to reddit, an update on the MSF

(by user u/TorontoMon22)


4gqw8c0vm1561.jpg
 
^^^I find the reduced heights decision along Finch very troubling. What would be their rationale for making such a decision. IMO its bad planning and a decision that will be regretted many years down the road.

What ever happened to the benefits of increased density by major transit projects?
 
Last edited:
Edllguy said:
^^^I find the reduced heights decision along Finch very troubling. What would be their rationale for making such a decision. IMO its bad planning and a decision that will be regretted many years down the road.

What ever happened to the benefits of increased density by major transit projects?
Click to expand...
Gotta make sure the Finch West LRT doesn't need to be replaced by a subway or grade separated solution too soon ;)
 
There was no rationale given for the height restrictions. It’s notable that some ‘progressive’ councillors (Matlow, Carroll, Wong-Tam) supported Peruzza’s motion.

My gut tells me it’s because they’re going to want the same when density changes courtesy of PTMSAs along higher-order lines come to council and they need them watered down.

Oh - and although this nominally can be overridden by Steve Clark at the provincial level I doubt it will be. It’s much more convenient to snipe at Council as opposed to do something about it (and risk losing votes).
 
Edllguy said:
^^^I find the reduced heights decision along Finch very troubling. What would be their rationale for making such a decision. IMO its bad planning and a decision that will be regretted many years down the road.

What ever happened to the benefits of increased density by major transit projects?
Click to expand...

The general rule of thumb was that you build subways/LRTs, etc. in the areas that require them - areas of high residential and commercial density. Yonge only 'graduated' to a subway when the streetcar capacity was maxed out.

For the past half a century+ we've gone the opposite direction - building expensive transit infrastructure in areas that aren't suited to them. In most situations this is still the case. It should be clear by now that building subways and hoping for density to appear is a bad idea.

Generally speaking I don't have a problem extending suburban access, but it shouldn't come at the expense of building core capacity. The DRL/OL should've been built decades ago, and with whatever investment necessary to ensure maximum capacity.

Finch West is generally a good project. They definitely need more than a bus, but a subway isn't necessary. It's well suited to the area and should allow for growth well beyond our lifetimes.
 
Last edited:
Can't the heights just get appealed anyway? I thought these height limits are largely just a kabuki theatre for the city to extract other concessions in exchange for avoiding delays of appealing the height limits.
 
syn said:
The general rule of thumb was that you build subways/LRTs, etc. in the areas that require them - areas of high residential and commercial density. Yonge only 'graduated' to a subway when the streetcar capacity was maxed out.

For the past half a century+ we've gone the opposite direction - building expensive transit infrastructure in areas that aren't suited to them. In most situations this is still the case. It should be clear by now that building subways and hoping for density to appear is a bad idea.

Generally speaking I don't have a problem extending suburban access, but it shouldn't come at the expense of building core capacity. The DRL/OL should've been built decades ago, and with whatever investment necessary to ensure maximum capacity.

Finch West is generally a good project. They definitely need more than a bus, but a subway isn't necessary. It's well suited to the area and should allow for growth well beyond our lifetimes.
Click to expand...

The problem is the Finch West LRT won't be substantially faster than the existing bus, which seems like a weird thing to spend a ton of money on.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top