Urban Toronto - Powered by vBulletin
UrbanToronto News - the latest headlines
Demolition Begins to Clear Way at MOD's Massey Tower Site
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 514 of 578 FirstFirst ... 14414464504512513514515516524564 ... LastLast
Results 7,696 to 7,710 of 8657

Thread: Transit City Plan

  1. Default

    Quote Originally Posted by johnwood View Post
    I was against subways before because they were too expensive but now that know that they are cheaper in the long run, subways are the best bet. If the tax payers want subways, and if they are willing to pay for them, and if they are cheaper in the long run, then the answer is simple...subways it should be.
    Since when are they cheaper in the long run? Ford & Co. keep saying that, but it just isn't true. Matt Elliot points out that the capital costs alone are 3.9M/km/year now that the lines aren't new.


  2. #7697

    Default

    Well Ford think there should be a subway on sheppard and finch which are so close to each other that it doe snot make sense and Mammoliti is perpetuating this myth that finch will ever get a subway

  3. #7698

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Coruscanti Cognoscente View Post
    What's stopping us from deciding we'd rather build the DRL first?
    In a word, amalgamation.

    A multi-billion dollar line that is perceived to only serve downtown just isn't politically feasible, not without doing something for the suburbs first.

  4. #7699

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BMO View Post
    All t

    B Wow it's going to improve the urban form, create a more human scaled development along the corridors, and it will promote local trips...Alright, how many people here would like to move to Birchmount and Eglinton, and not rather go to Downtown Toronto for entertainment? Yup, thought so.

    Eglinton is NOT a destination, it is a corridor. People aren't travelling along Eglinton to go one or two blocks down, they're using it to get ACROSS Eglinton. What I'm saying is that LRT's benefits are only useful for gentrifying and developping an area, if that stops are closely/ reasonably spaced. Having Subway-like stop spacing will NOT foster the so called avenue style development. Why would anybody build between stations, if they're going to have car access cut off by an LRT line in the middle of the road, that will not stop there. You'll see development at the major intersections/stops.

    s.
    Well perhaps Eglinton at Birchmount can become more developed and i don;t mean just condos but develope businesses closer to the street, shops, restaurants, other retail. I would think having the LRT at grade level will make Eglinton out there not seem so wide. When you have cars zooming on a road (not sure what speed is out there) but if its above 50km its too fast to develope the kind avenue that people like.

    You cannot say that Egltinon is not a destination - perhaps not yet on some parts of Eglinton. I mean the businesses along Eglinton between Keele until Bathurst are not the greatest but from there to Yonge it picks up. And as far as I have read, the spacing along eglinton will not be spaced far. If anyhting there are businesses along the central portion that will be underground that wopuld rather it be at street level only because you can see the shops as you go by and they feel that brings more business. And what is wrong with transit being for local travel? Why must it always be to bring someone from point A to a long distant away to point B?

  5. #7700

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Palma View Post
    He was not elected because of subways but because he promised to cut the waste and it was a backlash from miller.
    Toronto deserves something better than a short term, quick-fix that will only add to congestion.

    The GTA provides the province with the lion's share of it's income so it is only right to make the apropriate investent in the GTA's future. MMcGuinty doesnt care about T.O. - only about getting elected. Why are you people not pulling the the best solution for this city?

  6. #7701
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Former City of York, Ontario, Canada
    Posts
    3,856

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Big Daddy View Post
    Toronto deserves something better than a short term, quick-fix that will only add to congestion.

    The GTA provides the province with the lion's share of it's income so it is only right to make the apropriate investent in the GTA's future. MMcGuinty doesnt care about T.O. - only about getting elected. Why are you people not pulling the the best solution for this city?
    So then pay more taxes.

  7. #7702
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Former City of York, Ontario, Canada
    Posts
    3,856

    Default

    http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/...rticle2354636/


    Vehicle registration tax on Ford’s list of levies that could pay for subway
    Last edited by denfromoakvillemilton; 2012-Mar-01 at 00:10.

  8. #7703

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Big Daddy View Post
    Toronto deserves something better than a short term, quick-fix that will only add to congestion.

    The GTA provides the province with the lion's share of it's income so it is only right to make the apropriate investent in the GTA's future. MMcGuinty doesnt care about T.O. - only about getting elected. Why are you people not pulling the the best solution for this city?
    How will it add to congestion? Going across Sheppard east to Yonge is always a breeze. I never see buses running along there or even people waiting at bus stops. Yet it needs a subway? Perhaps I m missing something

  9. #7704

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BMO View Post
    It is expected that Eglinton will have a peak ridership of 12K if it was built underground. To put that in perspective, the Spadina line currently has a peak ridership of 13K. Not only this, but it would relieve the Bloor-Danforth line, and create a much needed redundancy in the system.

    . . . . .

    So before you start arguing that we should "Stop the waste and build Transit City" take a look and see what the real issues are.
    The funny thing is that the poll on this site indicates a strong preference for Transit City. But if you look at the individual aspects of Transit City, ussually the majority do not support it. Looking at Eglinton and several UT polls:

    1) Brentcliffe to Don Mills. TC=median, Poll=South Side
    2) Through running to SRT. TC=no, Poll=yes.
    3) Location between Don Mills and Kennedy. TC=median, Poll=median (but with through running capacity is not adequate in median).
    4) Station stops. TC=400m, Poll=800m.

    Why do so many people support Transit City when they do not actually support any of the details of Transit City? Why not support a real compromise solution instead of chosing between TC and Ford?

    I think that the satisfaction of seeing Ford lose is more important that having efficient transit.
    Last edited by BurlOak; 2012-Feb-29 at 22:21.

  10. #7705

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BurlOak View Post
    The funny thing is that the poll on this site indicates a strong preference for Transit City. But if you look at the individual aspects of Transit City, ussually the majority do not support it. Looking at Eglinton and several UT polls:

    1) Brentcliffe to Don Mills. TC=median, Poll=South Side
    2) Through running to SRT. TC=no, Poll=yes.
    3) Location between Don Mills and Kennedy. TC=median, Poll=median (but with through running capacity is not adequate in median).
    4) Station stops. TC=400m, Poll=800m.

    Why do so many people support Transit City when they do not actually support any of the details of Transit City? Why not support a real compromise solution instead of chosing between TC and Ford?

    I think that the satisfaction of seeing Ford lose is more important that having efficient transit.
    exactly. I find it funny how everyone bashed transit city before when it was the only plan, a compromise solution should be the goal.

  11. #7706

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BurlOak View Post
    Why do so many people support Transit City when they do not actually support any of the details of Transit City? Why not support a real compromise solution instead of chosing between TC and Ford?

    I think that the satisfaction of seeing Ford lose is more important that having efficient transit.
    The problem lies in the fact that (1) Ford has no idea how to pay for his subway without incurring significant costs that taxpayers will need to pay, (2) An half-empty subway will be a massive drain on taxpayers' pockets, and (3) people want to see him fail badly. The merits of Transit City can be debated endlessly, but these three points have unfortunately bubbled to the surface.

  12. #7707

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Palma View Post
    How will it add to congestion? Going across Sheppard east to Yonge is always a breeze. I never see buses running along there or even people waiting at bus stops. Yet it needs a subway? Perhaps I m missing something
    Eglinton needs a subway long before Sheppard. Sheppard can wait.

  13. #7708

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BMO View Post
    All that is a waste, if you took the same vein of thought, you could just spend the $8 on decreasing headways on ALL bus routes in the city, which would amount to greater overall time savings across the city. That's the quick short term fix to the solution. Heck you could probably even put BRT on every single arterial for that money (something LRTistas seems to believe is the answer to capacity concerns; just build more LRT on parallel streets)

    Building Eglinton alone underground would have a 66K capacity (not including sheppard subway in the mix) building the current transit city lines would have a max capacity of 60K.

    It is expected that Eglinton will have a peak ridership of 12K if it was built underground. To put that in perspective, the Spadina line currently has a peak ridership of 13K. Not only this, but it would relieve the Bloor-Danforth line, and create a much needed redundancy in the system.

    Everyone says Subway is not appropriate for the corridor, yet they toss out figures like 12K peak ridership which is well into subway area (starting peak ridership for considering subway is 10K, and max capacity for LRT is 15K).

    Ok, fine don't believe me, let's look at the so called benefits of LRT. Wow it's going to improve the urban form, create a more human scaled development along the corridors, and it will promote local trips...Alright, how many people here would like to move to Birchmount and Eglinton, and not rather go to Downtown Toronto for entertainment? Yup, thought so.

    Eglinton is NOT a destination, it is a corridor. People aren't travelling along Eglinton to go one or two blocks down, they're using it to get ACROSS Eglinton. What I'm saying is that LRT's benefits are only useful for gentrifying and developping an area, if that stops are closely/ reasonably spaced. Having Subway-like stop spacing will NOT foster the so called avenue style development. Why would anybody build between stations, if they're going to have car access cut off by an LRT line in the middle of the road, that will not stop there. You'll see development at the major intersections/stops.

    Having said this, you need a reliable and completely segregated line on Eglinton. Like I said, it is NOT a local route, it is a means of getting to the core. I truly believe Scarborough doesn't really care whether it's subway or LRT, all they care about is if it will get them to the core quickly. A fact that at-grade LRT cannot deny, is that it is undoubtedly slower than subway, or any completely spearated line for that matter.

    It's easy to say we want LRT in the suburbs if your own ward will get a subway regardless of which plan is chosen. Ppl on St. Clair still do not like the lack of car access on the street (talking about actual movement of vehicles) and that is further downtown than Eglinton, so why would you expect people in the suburbs to like it? I understand they will be expanding the road so that the LRT doesn't take away road capacity, but it will still create a number of issues for left-turns, etc. No one can deny that make turns on any street is a pain.

    So before you start arguing that we should "Stop the waste and build Transit City" take a look and see what the real issues are. People in the suburbs just want to get to and from work as quick as they can. subway allows this. I understand that Finch West may have to wait longer for their transit, but look at how much less time they will have to spend to get on the subway once the Spadina extension is built. Building a proper backbone of subway (or completely grade separated transit) is what is NEEDED in this city.

    Council is trying to take the easy option out of this whole debacle. Why should they look for alternative financing options, when it's political hot sauce? No, Josh Matlow and Karen Stintz just went for what's easy. Maybe saying, gee let's see what revenue tools we need for financing subways or any other transit are because we will never get this kind of money in the future for transit expansion, and then come up with a plan, and see what council thinks about it. Karen Stintz is always the first person to note that Ford cannot pay for his subways, but she doesn't say how anything else in the city will ever get built after this one time $8B grant.

    If there's one thing you have to give credit to a lot of the subway supporters (not all ofcourse) is that many subway supporters are actually for AFP options and looking for other ways of financing a consistent and incremental expansion over a long-term plan.

    You all bicker and argue about Ford and Stintz, but the real douchebags in this whole situation are McGuinty and his idiot Metrolinx agency, that came up with a $50B plan, without any way of financing it, just so that it wouldn't be an election issue. That's just as bad as saying we'll have subways on Finch (like what Ford is saying) and not having any numbers to back it up. So you get this whole situation where the city knows it only gets one chance to do something, and then, what ends up happening, is that NOTHING happens.

    Ppl all-over the city want to be able to move quickly. I think something better than LRT is needed, not just on Eglinton, but also on Sheppard, DRL, and Yonge. Instead of saying, let's just invest in LRT so that it has short term benefits for everyone, we should really look at what Toronto SHOULD have, and what plan we can create to achieve that. A line that hits 4 growth nodes including the Airport, one highway terminus, two town centres, is NOT where LRT should be built, it's the perfect candidate to be a backbone subway for across the city.

    One last thing to note is that transit planning isn't always about ridership or density, or making a profit off of your investment. Transit is much more complicated than that. Transit is affected basically by everything. It is an integrated system that relies on various things. Ignoring highway traffic patterns (especially the most heavily used highway in NA) and just looking at existing bus routes and density is NOT a comprehensive model for transit ridership projections, the 401 is a very sophisticated transit system that has a multitude of start and end locations, but there is not doubt that it is the primary east-west route across the city in the north, in fact many areas in the suburbs with the lowest densities are in employment districts. There is no existing option that comes anywhere close to the 401 in terms of transit. Think of building a subway across eglinton as a transit highway. the buses are the arterials, and the pedestrians and cyclists are the collectors.

    LRT is more like highway 7 or kingston road; it's fast, but still stops for lights.
    Great post, but I do think you are underestimating the potential of what surface rail can accomplish, when implemented properly. LA's Blue Line has almost 80,000 boardings per weekday.

  14. #7709

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Electrify View Post
    Great post, but I do think you are underestimating the potential of what surface rail can accomplish, when implemented properly. LA's Blue Line has almost 80,000 boardings per weekday.
    correct me if I'm mistaken, but doesn't LA's blue line have actual crossing arms that block intersections while the vehicles cross? Similar to Edmonton/Calgary? I would definitely consider that to be rapid transit. But all the information I've seen point towards the transit city lines not having this level of grade separation.

  15. #7710

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BMO View Post
    correct me if I'm mistaken, but doesn't LA's blue line have actual crossing arms that block intersections while the vehicles cross? Similar to Edmonton/Calgary? I would definitely consider that to be rapid transit. But all the information I've seen point towards the transit city lines not having this level of grade separation.
    Crossing Arms will impact the look of the streetscape negatively. There is no reason to have crossing arms on an arterial street.

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
  •