Metronauts
Exploring a sustainable urban future
Election 2008: How have the Tories fared?
Posted on September 8, 2008 at 9:09 am by Laurence Lui
source: Conservative Party of Canada
As everyone all probably knows already, Canada is again in full election mode with our trip to the ballot box scheduled for October 14th. Over the next four weeks, we will see the four main parties duke it out for our votes. Considering the dependency of infrastructure investment on upper levels of government, what we choose next month will have an impact on the shape of our future transportation. Therefore, I will focus my articles over the next while on how each party will deal with the transportation challenges in not only the GTA, but cities all across Canada.
Today, I will review what the Conservative government has done (or not done) for transit in the GTA since being elected in 2006.
So what have the Tories done for Transit?
1. Tax Credit for Public Transit Passes
This initiative was put into effect shortly after the Conservatives took power in 2006 and provided Canadians who purchased monthly transit passes (or four consecutive weekly passes) a non-refundable tax credit of 15%. In Toronto, assuming a $100/month MDP Metropass rate, it would amount to a $180 credit. This undoubtedly may have made monthly passes more attractive to the average transit user and likely increased sales. However, it is difficult to quantify the exact increase, as the tax break coincided with other factors, such as high gas prices and the introduction of transferability for the TTC pass.
The tax break was a good start to encourage riders onto the system. However, there were a few faults in the plan that have never been addressed. First of all, an incentive for increased ridership was provided with no corresponding subsidy for transit agencies to cope with more riders. Furthermore, the subsidy per rider increases when they shift from a cash fare to a pass. These two factors has left many agencies, such as the TTC, in a bind. Riders faced overcrowding vehicles and operators left without the money to put more on the road. And sadly, overcrowding, which continues to this day, may end up driving riders away.
The greatest detriment in the tax credit plan, at least in my opinion, was that it offered no benefits to the casual rider and worse yet, low-income Canadians, given the price of monthly passes in the GTA. If you cannot even afford the monthly pass (or four weekly passes) to begin with, you have no access to the tax rebate program.
2. FLOW
Announcement of FLOW Program in March 2007 (source: Prime Minister's Office)
Another early initiative under the Conservative government was the FLOW program, announced in March 2007. This $962-million program was the federal share for several significant projects, including:
- Toronto-York Spadina Subway Extension (Downsview-Vaughan Corporate Centre)
- Brampton AcceleRide
- Mississauga Transitway
- York VIVA Phase 2 Stage 1
- Durham Region Rapid Transit
The slow transfer of funds has been a source of criticism by the mayors, after it was revealed in September 2007 that none of the funds have been received. It should be noted that it was not until this past Friday (two days before the writ was dropped, coincidentally) that funds for the Spadina Subway extension began “flow”ing.
3. Public Transit Capital Trust 2008
Announced as part of the 2008 Federal Budget in March 2008, the Public Transit Capital Trust provided $195-million into a trust fund to fund several public transit initiatives in partnership with the Government of Ontario. The key targets of this investment include:
- Joint study for the feasibility of a Peterborough Commuter Rail Line (which incidentally has been studied before in 1997)
- Expedite the extension of the GO Lakeshore East line to Bowmanville
- Launch GO Bus service to Peterborough
The focus of these investments has come under some scrutiny, as they fall below the key priorities of the province and the municipalities for transit investment.
OVERALL
It is hard to say that transit has improved significantly over the past two years under Tory rule. It seems like there have been a lot of photo opportunities and promises, but true action is slow. Also, it seems most gains have actually come from the provincial and municipal levels, and not from the Federal government. This is despite the fact the cities make up for a lot of the country’s wealth. However, I concede the Tories have at least given it a try, but they will have to try much harder if they are to convince us they truly believe in investing in sustainable transit options.
Before the parties begin to release their election platforms, what do you want to see them propose for our transit systems?
Photos source: Conservative Party of Canada and Prime Minister’s Office
-
Recent Conversations
And as for Blue Avenue electric scooters, they’re the best out there when it comes to ebikes and service.
Joey on "Riding electric in Toronto the Good"- HIghly recommend this company??? Ya right…this company called Silent Rider went bankrupt.
Joey on "Riding electric in Toronto the Good" 
i play Need For Speed all night long, this game is really cool and very addictive.,”*
Archie Hill on "Pulse of the community – Rethinking the need for speed"
Thanks for the recognition! I am still obsessed with public transit as a public art space, most recent is my fasination of those old...
Cheyenne on "Public art and public transit"
Need For Speed is the best game that i have ever played.:’-
Blake Butler on "Pulse of the community – Rethinking the need for speed"
Gas prices these days are just getting higher, i think the government should focus more on alternative energy.”":
Tyler Young on "Boom, Bust, Echo and gas price sensitivity"
-
Featured Post
Read PostPulse of the community: Discuss with examples
Andrae Griffith March 6, 2009
Sponsored by
Tags
401 905 announcement Bicycles Bike Bus cars community commute Commuters consultation cycling DRL experience fares featured Flickr Picks funding GO GO Transit Hamilton highway infrastructure investment strategy london LRT metrolinx metronauts parking Photojunkie plan Politics RTP Streetcar subway Technology Toronto Transit TTC Vaughan Viva Yonge York Region YRT zone faresMeta
The Archive
- December 2009 (1)
- May 2009 (1)
- April 2009 (2)
- March 2009 (4)
- February 2009 (2)
- January 2009 (1)
- December 2008 (6)
- November 2008 (18)
- October 2008 (19)
- September 2008 (35)
- August 2008 (25)
The launch of the Metrolinx draft plan at the end of this month is fortuitous timing. It will provide an excellent opportunity for each of the federal parties to enunciate their position on funding transportation in the GTHA. I am hoping transportation advocates will use the plan as a premise for questions at all candidates meetings and candidate’s questionnaires developed for publication.
Oh what I would do for stable, long-term funding for transit systems across Canada so that systems like the TTC could really begin long-range, fruitful planning and expansion.
In truth I’m not a big fan of direct federal involvement in public transit. That may sound strange coming from someone who certainly considers himself a transit advocate.
However, my first thought is that too many cooks spoil the broth. In more practical terms, the Federal government’s involvement in public transit mandates FEDERAL EA’s which are a royal pain. It also gives them cause and opportunity to meddle in transit planning (as if the Province doing this isn’t enough!). We all saw the Peterborough announcement as a sop to various tory ridings, but in fairness, the Spadina Subway extension will travel through former Lib. Finance Minister Sorbara’s riding; and dare we point out the Eglinton West Subway was in Bob Rae’s old riding????
The less involvement from multiple governments the better.
***
Now what about the money you say??? Well, I would look back to the days of the largest investments in TTC expansion and GO Creation, during the Davis premiership in Ontario, and point out that little or no federal money was involved.
The province can, or should be able to afford to make local infrastructure investments.
Why can’t it?
The first key issue is the lack of full and fair Federal Transfers to Ontario for Health, E.I, Training etc.
This is an issue which pre-dates the current Conservative Government, but which the latter has done nothing to fix either.
While the above funds don’t directly relate to transit, they do relate to the financial health of Queen’s Park, which in turn relates to how much can be freed up for transit, and cities in general.
It can’t be overlooked either that debt was piled up by the province from the 1970’s through the end of the 20th century and debt-servicing soaks up much needed money; while tax rates (provincially) are now below those of the early 90’s.
However, no provincial government has seen fit to reclaim that money.
By contract, the Quebec government up its PST (or more accurately the provincial share of the HST) to 9% offsetting the recent GST cut, and effectively giving the province a pile of new money.
****
Finally, Cities need to take their own share of responsibility, which brings us back to a question of road tolls and other revenue raising tools to pay for transportation by the order of government actually in charge of running it.
****
So I’m not really looking for oodles of transit cash from any federal party. I am looking for a better deal for Ontario so than any Provincial premier of any party will have no excuses for not funding areas in their realm of responsibility.
However, Feds of all stripes could impress me with a serious commitment to high speed rail and the re-expansion of VIA
It’s great to see that Rob MacIsaac reads our messages here! I don’t ever recall seeing him post at *the other place*
If he reads this, I certainly hope Metrolinx doesn’t compromise their plan for an Eglinton ART/subway just to appease David Miller and Adam Giambrone. That line should eventually be extended into Mississauga and light rail would simply be too slow.
It IS great to have Rob MacIsaac participating in this conversation. Metrolinx has been supportive of this project since the beginning.
What I haven’t seen is a response from the community here to the serendipity of the RTP launch and the federal election. What is the opportunity this presents?
Can you imagine a forum with all the federal candidates from all parties from across the entire region with a region-wide 20 year vision in hand?
I welcome Mr. McaIsaac to the forum.
I like the Conservative’s tax credit for transit passes. This funds the rider and not the bureaucracies directly. I don’t think the upper levels should fund operating costs directly at all. The funding via the tax credit encourages the transit agency to actually attract riders – instead of getting block funding.
If I remember correctly, the federal government had announced the funding for the Spadina extension. The Transit City announcement came after that. (Within a week or so, the locals here were castigating the governments for not funding it. So much for showing gratidute – shame on us.)
The funding of the Spadina extension is the first time the federal government will be helping pay for subway construction in Toronto. Again, did Miller and co say thanks?
I’ve heard that funding was held up in part because the TTC wouldn’t put the engineering work out for bid.
I also think the upper levels should continue to scrutinise the proposed projects in terms of costs and benefits. It’s their job!
N Clawson – I like the transit pass tax credit as well, I’m not questioning the benefit of it. I would have liked it more if it came with some form of support, in terms of operational funding, to the ‘bureaucracy’ that runs the systems.
To your points, the issue is not that the Federal/Provincial governments are not coming around on helping out our systems for capital expenses and expansion. The issue is that they have left municipalities no tools, or if they do, politically unpopular ones (i.e. tolls and new taxes) that they (the higher powers) are afraid to use themselves out of fear of being ousted from power (downloading of a new kind). Yes, it’s great we’re getting a new subway line and shiny new trains, but are they going to help with the fact that there’s no money to run them?
I alluded to this in my article, but to be clear: every new rider that these capital projects attracts costs the system more than the new money the rider brings in. The more they throw to building new, the more they are bankrupting the operating budget, as each and every rider is being subsidized on a transit system.
I’m in agreement with James on this one. The Federal Government should stay out of local transit, it is not its jusidiction.
In an ideal situation, taxes would not all be collected at the upper levels of government, but at least half of taxes should be collected at the municipal level so that tax dollars stay in the municipality in which residents pay those taxes, where they belong. If at least half of the tax revenue collected isn’t left in municipal hands, responsible investment in sustainability of our cities is ultimately left to crossing your fingers and hoping for the best.
That said, we’re so far into upper levels of government funding our systems that we can’t turn back the clock and discard investment from upper levels of government, however ideal it might be to have the municipal level in full control of transit funding. On that note, I agree with Rob MacIsaac in that candidates’ reactions to questions on the RTP will be of great interest, but I would add that I think it is also important that transit questions should be strictly restricted to those related to the RTP.
Typo correction: it is also important that transit questions should NOT be strictly restricted to those related to the RTP.
Laurence – there is a huge implicit subsidy to Toronto and the TTC for the cumulative capital costs incurred by the Province (for now) for transit projects. I’d estimate this is worth about $200 million a year to Toronto.
In my opinion, at a minumimum, the municipal layer should be responsible for direct operating costs. This gives the local politicians an incentive to:
1. Choose project wisely
2. Run operations well
3. Keep costs under control
Unfortunately, none of these seem to apply to the TTC of the last number of years. What is happening at the TTC is that both TTC unions and management are gorging themselves our largesse.
Our feds should support transit, just as the American federal gov’t is helping pay for the $17 billion 2nd Avenue subway in NYC.
It’s not the TTC gorging itself; it’s the city councillors. Moscoe has made a number of moves that were not in the TTC’s best interests when he was TTC chair, and that includes supporting the VCC subway. TTC senior staff, who know better, have said, in much harsher language than what I’ll put here, that it’s “not a good idea.”
Yeah Karl, and I’ll bet you and all the other naysayers will be riding it on opening day. It takes almost two hours to get downtown from Hwy 7 and Jane, and this line will cut the trip down to 45 mins.
Ideally every level of government would have an appropriate amount of tax room to fund the services it delivers. That is good public policy as it promotes accountability. However, we could wait a lonely lifetime for reforms to Canadian federalism and in the meantime our transportation system is wholly inadequate. We need to catch up for a lost generation of investment in infrastructure and keep up with a rapidly growing region. The Feds have to play a role as the challenge is so large. It would also have the effect of making them relevant to urban dwellers which would be novel from my perspective.
As long as we have a CPC government that gets no urban seats outside of Alberta, I don’t see any incentive for the Federal Government to give money to urban transit, since none of the ruling party MPs have anything to gain by supporting it. It is also concievable that minority governments could have some difficulty funding projects depending on the make-up of the opposition.
The political reality, sad as it is, is that the Federal Government is not reliable when it comes to funding municipal interests, and there isn’t really any way to force them to. It’s under the province’s jurisdiction anyway.
Our efforts would be much better focused on devising a formula where the Federal Government is obsolete in funding transit, much like it was under the Davis government. While Davis made several bad transit decisions himself, at least the Provincial Government has to invest in the region to realistically get re-elected as a majority. The Provincial Government is accountable because so many provincial votes are in the GGH, but federally, not many federal votes are in the GGH, so the Federal Government is not accountable, due to the effects of scale.
@Mimmo: The Vaughan subway will be a failure, it should stop at Steeles West, because the suburban systems should continue to service the York U area anyway as it is a destination, not just a transfer point, making it a truly valid hub. 407 Transitway can’t become a real hub because a highway isn’t a destination. With the exception of the Gardiner (which is actually worse), highways are built to be isolated areas, and transit hubs cannot succeed in isolated areas as isolated areas are not destinations people want to go to.
The subway is not a commuter railway, it is mass urban transit, so we must not expand the subway like it is a commuter railway and instead treat it like the mass urban transit that it actually is, and the Vaughan subway doesn’t do that. We have a commuter rail system, we call them GO Trains, and we should not be wasting our funds and efforts in throwing the TTC into some unfounded competition with GO Transit. It simply doesn’t benefit either network.
Part of sustainable transit is building what is affordable for the service area. In order to be financially sustainable in our transit network, let the Jane LRT continue north of Steeles West, on YRT/VIVA’s tab, and forget about taking the subway north of Steeles West. By the same token, it is far more practical, responsible, and sustainable to build Eglinton as LRT for now, and upgrade it later, but make the necessary provisions for such upgrades now, because in 30-40 years we will want to upgrade it.
I believe that there should be some federal funding for transit services, if for no other reason than to support “Canadian Content” standards. That said, I would not hold my breath expecting it to be forthcoming, which is essentially what is being done when plans are announced expecting one third of the funding to come from Ottawa.
I should also add, that transit funding should come virtually without strings – the only string should be that it be used for transit infrastructure or operations. EAs and other details should be left to provincial standards.
As for the transit pass credit: it is a good idea, but it should be a REFUNDABLE credit. As a non-refundable credit, you only get the credit if you have an income high enough to have some tax owing that it can be subtracted from. Low income persons as well as many post-secondary students receive no benefit from this (unless they get someone else to make the claim on their income tax return and give them the 15%, like anyone would actually do that). I should also point out that YRT, like many other transit operators, wanted the feds to give them cash directly. When the feds gave their riders $13.17 a month as a credit (in 2007, the monthly pass was $85 and the tax rate was 15.5%), they decided to grab some of that and raised the price of a pass to $90 in January while none of their other fares were raised.
On another “like this will ever happen” note, the only way the GTA has a hope in getting any significant federal financial attention (in any way, not just for transit) is to actually look like a bunch of swing ridings. Ridings that are faithful to the party in power don’t get the cash – just look at Calgary during this last parliament, and look at the GTA over the previous decade. It’s the ridings that always look like you can’t call them and that flip back and forth that receive all the monetary attention.
I said in error about YRT, “they decided to grab some of that and raised the price of a pass to $90 in January”
Sorry, it was raised to $95. They basically grabbed an extra $10 per month from each pass user. The devil is in the details, as anyone not able to claim the credit paid an extra $10. Those who can claim the credit, paid an additional $8.92 (in 2007, 15.5% of $85 was $71.85, inn 2008, 15% of $95 is $80.75).
Rob has a good point – the restructuring of Canadian federalism to support competitive and resilient city-regions in a globalized economy is a hugely important but much longer-term project. The system we have today is imperfect – so how do we work with it to get what we need from it?
I would point those interested to the idea of “double devolution” of power and taxation authority (federal -> provincial -> municipal) recommended by the so-called Harcourt Report of June 15, 2006. This report has mysteriously and recently been removed from the Infrastructure Canada website.
The original site for the External Advisory Committee on Cities and Communities (which produced the report, entitled “From Restless Communities to Resilient Places:
Building A Stronger Future For All Canadians”) is cached on Google here as of September 1st. So it was removed very recently.
I will host the report on my personal blog site here for those of you interested in its contents. I’ll also look into why it was removed from the Infrastructure Canada site so close to an election call and write about it at my blog.
Call me curious.
@ M. Briganti
“It takes almost two hours to get downtown from Hwy 7 and Jane, and this line will cut the trip down to 45 mins.”
That’s strange… Just yesterday I met a guy who made this trip in under 30 minutes. He used an interesting invention called the GO Train.
Triceratops — there is no GO train stop in that area, and what if you have to make the trip at 10 am?
I challenge you to do that commute for three months (I did it for 6 years — before VIVA), and then you can come back here and tell us what your *new* position on the Spadina subway extension is.
It’s a bit unfortunate that there is no GO Train station at hwy 7 on the CN Newmarket Sub (it fits GO’s favourite criteria for station location: right at a 400-series highway… not that I encourage such, quite the contrary), but fact remains that we are about to extend the subway parallel to a nearby GO corridor where there is no local ridership to justify high-capacity local (not commuter) and urban (not suburban) transit, and that is pointless.
If GO were to lay a small “S” shaped track (partially tunneled) heading west off the Barrie Line around Langstaff Rd. and into that massive yard and stopping at Hwy7 along the exit from that yard, it would provide service on Hwy7 around 1km east of Jane, which could be another great, much more sustainable alternative to extending the Spadina Subway to this area.
Karl, GO service is not nearly as far along as you believe.
It doesn’t run very often at all, especially during off-peak hours, and not at all during certain times of the day. So you really have to time things to catch it, and if you miss it you’re screwed.
And it only really serves to get you to Union Station.
The subway suffers from neither of these disadvantages. It gets you on the grid, not just to Union — it’s not stuck in an outdated model of urban life. And it runs more or less continuous — you can just head to a station and catch it, and if you miss one, another comes.
If you’re truly concerned with what makes sense to commuters, then GO is not it anywhere near the subway grid, as long as it suffers from these weaknesses. Sure, if we revamp and electrify the whole GO system and add a bunch of interconnect points with other transit systems then GO will make a lot more sense. But that doesn’t appear to be on the table.
As for who will use the Spadina extension and particularly the 7/407-adjacent station … local is one thing, and obviously we will see significant development there. But I think you will be surprised by the extent to which it gets used by people in the surrounding areas (Woodbridge and Bramption) coming in by bus and car, not just to go to Union Station, but to intermediate hubs such as the universities.
That’s also why connecting the Sheppard line to the Spadina line, to further offload traffic from the Yonge line and allow interconnection for Scarborough and other eastern commuters, is so important. But that’s a whole other discussion…
I am well aware of how far along GO is, however GO is not standing still like you beleive, there are lots of improvements planned that pre-date Metrolinx.
GO’s Barrie Line will stop at Sheppard West, which is a subway connection, so it is planned to connect to other routes.
It has been stated that the GO Train will be running all-day service to Newmarket in the foreseeable future (afterall, track improvements, including double-tracking, has been taking place on this route).
GO can’t run trains every 2 minutes, but they can run them every 10-15 minutes, meaning that, you would not be screwed if you missed a train.
People have to drop this idea that “GO can’t be a solution,” because it is potentially the best thing we have in the network. Yes, we need a very high increase in the level of train activity in the network, but this can be accomodated for much cheaper than building subways and reach far more corners of the region.
“GO’s too expensive” is an argument I hear far too often, people are fooling only themselves if they think TTC fares are going to stay low if we build subways to nowhere.
GO Trains are the solution for 905. There is a lot of potential that isn’t being tapped, but it does take a well-planned strategy for it to reach that potential.
Yes, it is clear that, with a massive increase in train frequency and significant increase in intermediate stations, GO will make more sense to commuters. It is said that 10-to-15 minute intervals will one day be implemented on some lines, and that will go a long way toward this goal on those lines. (Sheppard West, once it exists, could have been a good idea on the Barrie GO train line — although, given the Transfer City plan to prevent the extension of Sheppard to Sheppard West, it is very hard to understand why that would be a helpful transfer point or destination.)
That said, it is very unlikely that GO or anything else is “the” solution for 905. Subways, GO trains, buses, and other modes all have their role to play. Just as in the rest of the continuous urban agglomeration.
And it is even more unlikely that 905’s needs are homogeneous. Parts of 905 have needs that are identical to parts of 416: the inner 905 and outer 416 are, for instance, in many cases indistinguishable. Other parts of 905 are in another world entirely: Yonge/Clark and Kleinburg are both in 905 and indeed both in Vaughan, for instance, but density-wise have little to do with one another.
“there is no GO train stop in that area, and what if you have to make the trip at 10 am?”
There is a GO train stop at York University. Catch the viva bus to York U, and ta-da, you’re still down town in under 45 minutes.
Of course, at this time there is no 10 AM service, but all-day is set to begin on this line in less than 2 years.
Your 45-minute subway however wont be around for 10 years. The solution was right under your nose the whole time!!
Triceratops — and you expect all the transfer connections to be perfectly timed? By the way, the VIVA bus doesn’t stop at the York U station, and it’s a long walk from where it does stop to the station (which is actually off campus).
To the GO transit promoters … try riding it in the winter. All it takes is one snowflake.
There seems to be a growing commentary that GO Train service is the magic remedy for the faster service that (is becoming all too clear) Transit City will never provide.
Originally, Transit City was to have cost $6.1 billion – and promised ‘much faster service’ between parts of the city. Now it’s at $10+ billion (and likely to grow!) and it’s backers have retreated to the position that Transit City is for speed. Now we’re told it’s just to help remake a few streets from an architectural point of view.
Note – you can check my blog (http://hogtown.blogspot.com/search?q=transit+city) to see my all-too-correct forecasting of the cost – all the way back to March last year. [Meanwhile, a prominent TC proponent/lobbyist/apologist defended the $6.1 billion - now who are you going to believe?]
In my view, it isn’t Transit City – but ‘Transit Narcissism’. Saying to people in urban areas that they should rely on infrequent commuter rail – which only get’s you to one destination – is akin to Marie Antoinette’s ‘let them eat cake’ to the French peasants.
Doesn’t change the fact that downtown bound trips from more than 20 km are most certainly not subway material. The onus is on GO transit to improve service, not for TTC to cannibalize these riders. Subways are slower, and at least one of them is already at maximum capacity.
I really can’t understand what kind of thinking leads some of us to think it makes more sense to build a redundant, expensive subway. What makes that so easy to accomplish, but GO service can *never* improve under any circumstances, according to you guys?
What exactly is the problem with 15-minute GO service around the clock? Oh right, the Viva bus doesn’t stop close enough. Well subway it is then, because it makes so much more sense to build the subway than it does to add a bus stop near the train station, right?
I didn’t know there was a 20 km limit to practical subway travel — I guess we should tell that to the folks in the Bronx that take the #2 train into lower Manhattan.
Doesn’t change the fact that downtown bound trips from more than 20 km are most certainly not subway material.
One of the problems with this attitude is the assumption that the whole world lives at Point A, and is going to Point B. Origins and destinations are all along the subway grid (and well beyond it), and this will only increase as sprawl gives way to infill.
The future GO train system — real all-day two-way service, with connections to other systems that don’t require kilometres of walking — will eventually exist, we are told. That’s good news. When it does, it will be a piece of the solution for those travelling from the top of the city to the bottom. But there is a whole city in between. That’s where other modes of transit fit in.
It seems that many of those who advocate GO trains as the magic be-all and end-all of transit see the 416/905 boundary as a magical line on a map at which all urban development stops. It is very hard to believe that such advocates have squared their views with reality, and even harder to believe that they have squared their views with ongoing planning.
Commuter rail has its place – but it’s never going to be a core solution for urban transit. I don’t think people suggesting this understand the realities of the rail mode on the standard rail network.
GO and commuter rail are good (if imperfect) service for points at a distance to downtown. The engines and rolling stock are designed to pick up at a few stations and have everyone file out at Union. 90%+ of GO riders actually walk out of Union – rather than transfer to the TTC.
COnverting such a service into urban rapid transit would require:
1. Aquisition of land for new stations
2. New motive power and rolling stock more suitable for frequent stopping and starting and fast loading and unloading – electrification would probably be needed
3. Potential need to acquire the lines outright from the railways
All of which is very, very expensive.
Without these, GO would slow down for user who currently find it useful – and not really serve new users for urban trips than well.
Furthermore, displacing freight traffic currently borne on rails onto the road network would defeat the basic objective of trying to alleviate road congestion.
J Albert, I am told that those are the kinds of upgrades that were indeed in the leaked draft RTP. And yes, such upgrades will be more beneficial to more residents, (416 AND 905), than would the equivalent investment in further incremental subways.
Of course, we should also demand further integration with municipal transit. It’s still upsetting to see certain contributors here, who continue refuse to acknowledge the potential that exists from GO improvements.
Who refuses to acknowledge the potential that exists from GO improvements, Triceratops?
Well – turning a GO train line into a proper urban rapid transit service is not an “upgrade” – it’s a complete replacement. I haven’t heard anything about CN or CP lines being purchased for this purpose. If that’s a cheaper way to create a subway-equivalent service – then I don’t have an issue with it – but don’t pretend that just running a few more trains into Union is the answer.
I also don’t see how such service would integrate into the core of downtown. Most of the rail lines run around the periphery. Where are the stations going to go?
In Philly, the trunk rail lines go from 30th st (the main inter-city terminal) and tunnel into Suburban Station in the core (‘Center City’ is the term in Philly.)
Scroll up.
You dismissed the improvements by declaring that they’re “not on the table” (which table that might be, I’m not sure.) And Mimmo ignores them by declaring that any non-subway method of traveling from Vaughan to downtown will be 2 hours, even though 45 minutes is conceivable today.
I would like to see the RTP – I guess like everyone else!
What someone has ‘heard’ aout it doesn’t get us far.
(We heard that Transit City would be ‘much faster service’ between parts of the city – remember.)
Obviously, if GO train service can be replaced by sapid transit for a good price, that would be good. I don’t think anyone knows what the cost of buying the rail lines would be. Can the freight service on some lines be phased out?
Tricer – the only thig referenced in the reports I’ve seen is frequent express service between Union and the outer ‘burbs (Oakville, Brampton etc.) This is just an increase in the frequency. This means (as it is today) one will still be able to get to downtown Toronto faster from Oakville than from NW Etobicoke and most of Scarborough.
To run passenger service reliably on a 15 minutes schedule will been removing freight trains – or have them move only at night.
“Express” means fewer not more intermdiate stops.
I suspect more tracks will be laid in order to provide the new frequency, but we’ll have to wait and see.
Triceratops, many of us are dubious that the heralded changes will actually take place any time soon. Anyone who is a long-time transit user anywhere in the Toronto area will, I would hope, understand such cynicism.
But you were talking about something different. You said: continue to refuse to acknowledge the potential that exists from GO improvements.
Everyone sees huge potential from GO improvements, should they ever happen. There is not a soul who would not like to see them.
But many of us realize that GO improvements are not a magic bullet, and know that other transit modes matter in the 905, too. The problem thus far has been the idea that GO trains are all that 905 needs. That assertion seriously misunderstands the nature of the GTA and, indeed, the City of Toronto — and the ways in which subways, GO trains, buses, and other modes have their role to play in the 905 and the rest of the continuous urban agglomeration.
I agree with you there, certainly there are plenty of improvements by all modes.
My only contention was that we seem to be using one mode to cannibalize riders better suited for another mode. Mimmo brought this to a point, by saying the legitimization for a subway to Vaughan was “so one could get downtown from Vaughan in 45 minutes”, which is exactly the purpose of the GO train.
I think it is well known that a subway to Vaughan should be among the lowest priority as far as GTA transportation is concerned. It is a solution in search of a problem, at a time we have more problems in search of solutions.