Urban Toronto - Powered by vBulletin
UrbanToronto News - the latest headlines
Photo of the Day: Pink Umbrellas
ALSO

View Poll Results: Which transit plan do you prefer?

Voters
81. You may not vote on this poll
  • Transit City

    63 77.78%
  • Ford City

    18 22.22%
Page 473 of 578 FirstFirst ... 373423463471472473474475483523573 ... LastLast
Results 7,081 to 7,095 of 8657

Thread: Transit City Plan

  1. Default

    I find that that trying to mantain two different forms of transportation simultaneously will cost a hell of a lot in the long run and will be extremly hard to pay for unless taxes are raised and there be some budget cuts in other sectors, which I find will not likely happen.


  2. #7082

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by blacktrojan3921 View Post
    I find that that trying to mantain two different forms of transportation simultaneously will cost a hell of a lot in the long run and will be extremly hard to pay for unless taxes are raised and there be some budget cuts in other sectors, which I find will not likely happen.
    Rob Ford's plan uses the same type of vehicles as Transit City.

    And it's really not going to make much difference. It's not like we are building a small line with 30 vehicles. They are already planning 2 yards for Eglinton. Economy of scale is a big issue if you've only got a few of each type, but it's not that significant for such large fleets.

  3. #7083

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by blacktrojan3921 View Post
    I find that that trying to mantain two different forms of transportation simultaneously will cost a hell of a lot in the long run
    Yes, because operating both the subway and Spadina LRT has broken the budget. Oh yeah, and the Harbourfront LRT... And wait, there are buses as well, so that's three different forms of transportation! And streetcars! OMG!

  4. Default

    I think we can all agree that the real debate is not subways vs. LRT. It is about grade-separated transit vs. mixed traffic to save on cost. We all want a better transit system, but we have to live within our means.

    The problem I have with surface transit is they get stuck at traffic lights. That can be resolved with transit priority signals, but let's face it, have we implemented it in any other corridor? I noticed in Jersey City, their LRT uses railway crossing to cross some roadways.

    There's also a perception that surface transit does not work in snow, and when they do, they vehicles bunch up. Well that is true for the open sections of the subway as well. Vehicles bunching up, especially along Spadina when I used to take it was probably related to signal timing and again transit priority. The fact that future LRTs will operate with the driver operating the vehicle more like a train (not collecting fare, doesn't have to interact with passengers who hold up the vehicle by running for it, etc.) may alleviate scheduling problems.

    I would really like to see LRTs succeed, but past experience in this city makes it not the ideal environment. I find that a lot of projects are not fully completed and you do not end up with the expected performance or results. Those types of failures do not convince people to switch from the convenience of their cars. Perhaps what we need to do is have a marketing campaign to highlight the benefits of a completed LRT project and actually complete the project, with signal priority and all.

    On the topic of cost, how do other cities accumulate the debt to build subways? Does the city or transit authority have the ability to issues bonds like the MTA? New York is finally building their Second Avenue subway line right in Manhattan.

    I think we need to use some reasoning with the models we use to determine where we place transit in this city. I come from an engineering background as well, and one of the first things I learned from was of knowledge separated from experience vs. knowledge embedded in experience. The person designing a transit system has a different view than the person using the transit system. Our models cannot account for every aspect of a system, from psychological to socio-economic. It would be a very difficult problem to solve!

    Perhaps fantasy subway maps have some basis in the psychological aspect of the system. Whereas our numbers from a purely usage based standpoint dictate build an LRT along a particular corridor. However, if you think like a transit user, wouldn't it make sense to connect Sheppard to Downsview, allowing east GTA users to get to York University or other employment districts?

    When the Sheppard subway opened, the experts believed that people would take an express bus along Finch to Don Mills. The route did so poorly, they boosted express bus service along Finch to Finch Station instead via the 199.

    We have limited funding and we need to make sure we are looking at the total picture in the long-term even though one method may seem to be the cheaper alternative to fix the problem quicker.

  5. Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kkgg7 View Post
    2km is not a lot to walk once in a while when you are in the walking mood. yet if one has to walk that much to get to subway everyday, it is still a bit far.
    A 2km walk would cause most people to drive. How many people walk 2km to get to their local GO station?

    In the urban parts of many GO lines they seem to have stations about 2km apart. Do they publish numbers about how people get to their station and where they came from (distance travelled to get there?).

  6. #7086

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by rbt View Post
    A 2km walk would cause most people to drive. How many people walk 2km to get to their local GO station?
    I don't think anyone is arguing otherwise.

  7. Default

    Quote Originally Posted by rfid View Post
    On the topic of cost, how do other cities accumulate the debt to build subways? Does the city or transit authority have the ability to issues bonds like the MTA? New York is finally building their Second Avenue subway line right in Manhattan.
    In North America, they generally don't build subways without significant federal funding.

    Montreal has built very little over the last 40 years. Ditto for Toronto.

    New York has 2 new stations over 70 years and closed just as many.

    Chicago has difficulty maintaining their system to the point where bringing the Blue Line back up to speed was a very large $ expenditure.

    Washington received about 90% of its funding from the federal government. I believe it's 50/50 for extensions currently under way with the municipal portion being special taxes and a highway toll (IIRC, 16 cents per mile).

    Vancouver does okay and a large chunk of their funding comes from special taxes (about a 10 cent per litre gas tax). Perhaps they have transit dedicated property tax revenue as well?


    Toronto over the last decade is somewhat unique in the state paying for about 80km of new and improved transit our of general revenues; the vast majority of which is still under construction.

    We would do well with a transit capital stream of about $3.5B per annum which is what Metrolinx's and TTCs capital expenditures are currently. Spadina Line, Georgetown corridor, Union Station, Eglinton, rolling stock renewal/storage yards, and SOGR work like re-rounding the Yonge tunnel north of Eglinton and replacing 50 year old signal systems.

  8. #7088
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Toronto, ON, CAN, Terra, Sol, Milky Way
    Posts
    6,426

    Default

    The Finch West LRT was to have started construction by 2011. With the construction on the Spadina Subway extension ongoing, would they be able to alter the plans now to include the underground LRT terminal and subtract the surface bus bays to actually start on the Finch West LRT?
    W. K. Lis

  9. #7089

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by blacktrojan3921 View Post
    I find that that trying to mantain two different forms of transportation simultaneously will cost a hell of a lot in the long run and will be extremly hard to pay for unless taxes are raised and there be some budget cuts in other sectors, which I find will not likely happen.
    We are eliminating the technology on the SRT and adding the LRT - thus we are keeping the number of types of transit the same.

  10. #7090

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by rbt View Post
    In North America, they generally don't build subways without significant federal funding.

    Montreal has built very little over the last 40 years.
    Something very odd about the numbers in this post. 40 years ago Montreal had 25 Metro stations. Now it has 68. Most of the Montreal's metro was built in the last 40 years.

    Quote Originally Posted by rbt View Post
    Toronto over the last decade is somewhat unique in the state paying for about 80km of new and improved transit our of general revenues; the vast majority of which is still under construction.
    What 80 km of new/improved transit have we built out of general revenues since 2002? Only thing that comes to mind is the Spadina Extension, where over 80% of the money is coming from other governments.

  11. #7091
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Former City of York, Ontario, Canada
    Posts
    3,910

    Default

    http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/...rticle2332548/


    Owned again!!!

    Nanananana Nanananana hey hey hey... goodbye!

  12. Default

    Quote Originally Posted by rfid View Post
    Perhaps fantasy subway maps have some basis in the psychological aspect of the system. Whereas our numbers from a purely usage based standpoint dictate build an LRT along a particular corridor. However, if you think like a transit user, wouldn't it make sense to connect Sheppard to Downsview, allowing east GTA users to get to York University or other employment districts?
    I agree, but convenience is a perk, and the city never has the money for those items. Ironically, convenience is a factor when people decide to use transit or not.

    Quote Originally Posted by rfid View Post
    When the Sheppard subway opened, the experts believed that people would take an express bus along Finch to Don Mills. The route did so poorly, they boosted express bus service along Finch to Finch Station instead via the 199.
    For one, taking the Finch-Don Mills route adds another transfer. Second, people can more than likely get a seat if they get on the train at Finch, not so at Sheppard (esp. at rush hours). Then, there's not really time savings by taking Finch-Don Mills. If the terminus of the Sheppard subway is at Warden or Kennedy, couple with Yonge being extended past Finch, then the rerouting might be a success.

  13. Default

    Now DF is arguing we should have a referendum. Geez, didn't he just said that it is the province that needs to make the final call?

    http://www.cp24.com/servlet/an/local.../?hub=CP24Home

    AoD

  14. #7094

    Default

    If they can save some money for Sheppard then I think completing the section from Yonge to Spadina is a good use of funds. The lines ridership will greatly increase when the Spadina extension is complete, even Sheppard's biggest critics acknowledge that. Extending 2 stations east will save very little time and still require an additional transfer onto a bus at Yonge. Extending it to Spadina gets rid of an unneccesary transfer. Atleast continuing it to Spadina makes it a more useable line and at 12 km will no longer be a stubway but a very useable northern rapid transit corridor. Atleast in this section I think subway is both a more functional and yes cost effective option. The section from DM to SRT can be LRT but the Spadina to Yonge section should be a subway priority.
    There are several things here that would make any true "fiscal conservative" toss his lunch.
    First, tunneling the line from Kennedy to DM {regardless of the technology} is an obscene waste of funds especially when elevating thru a commercial corridor is practical but for some unknown reason heresy in Toronto.
    Second, building the Finch East corridor with such ridiculous stop spacing and a lack of under/overpasses is also a waste as that one billion bucks will not result in a much faster commute. Let's face it, most people on the Finch line will be heading straight to Spadina........they want to get there as fast, comfortably, and affordably as possible.
    Third, Tearing up the SRT to simply replace in with another technology at the cost of $1.2 billion and closing it for 4 years is lunacy. They should upgrade the corridor, use the heating mechanisms available and transfer over to the new MK111 trains. Not only would this save huge amounts much less reno costs but elevating to DM would save a small fortune. It would actually be cheaper to build than the LRT as proposed but also would be a hell of a lot cheaper to run as it would be grade-separated and therefore automated. It would also have twice the capacity of the current LRT proposal as it can run every 90 second as opposed to any at grade system which basically as a per-direction capacity of about every 3 minutes. Also they could extend the SkyTrain at roughly the same cost as Vancouver's new Evergreen Line at about $150 million per km and that would be enough to take it to Pearson.
    Seeing Toronto is also saying they have only a certain amount of money to build rapid transit with why not employ a radical solution........cheap in a little money yourself. Despite all Toronto's bitching, no other city on the planet has a senior level of government paying 100% the cost of new rapid transit. I have always found it amazing how Toronto bitches and whines about always having to run to Queen's Park for permission to do something but at the same time always demanding Queen's Park pick up 100% of the cost of their transit infrastructure.

  15. Default

    Quote Originally Posted by nfitz View Post
    Something very odd about the numbers in this post. 40 years ago Montreal had 25 Metro stations. Now it has 68. Most of the Montreal's metro was built in the last 40 years.
    Typo, sorry. I meant to hit 3 not 4. 1981. Blue line has been built since then, of course. As has a small addition to the Orange line. I believe it all came from Quebec general revenues. So, one station every 2 years, and I count them as one of the most successful North American cities at building transit recently.


    What 80 km of new/improved transit have we built out of general revenues since 2002? Only thing that comes to mind is the Spadina Extension, where over 80% of the money is coming from other governments.
    Yes, funding from general revenues from other governments (the province specifically for most) building things in Toronto (greater area) under the direction of City or Regional government.


    The Spadina Line is well into construction, Eglinton which has TBM launch points built, Georgetown corridor is well into construction.

    I also include the Union Station corridor which has is getting track additions, signaling upgrades, and a massive overhaul to the station itself.

    The other few km I count partial points for various GO grade separations and track additions which do have a direct impact on service they can offer and can be fairly sizable invesments.


    I did not include the Barrie line extension, Kitchener/Waterloo service (really a trial thing), or Niagara Region service (kinda touristy), St. Clair (based on Globe and Mail article), VIVA, or the GO BRT within Mississauga, or Bramptons Zum.

    If you've ridden the Silver line in Boston you will know that some cities make a big deal out of BRT like VIVA, the GO Transitway, and Zum. Then again, some places make a big deal out of trains that run 4 times an hour for their metro.
    Last edited by rbt; 2012-Feb-09 at 14:53.

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •