Urban Toronto - Powered by vBulletin
UrbanToronto News - the latest headlines
Hard Hat Tour of Ryerson University's Student Learning Centre
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 26 of 578 FirstFirst ... 1624252627283676126526 ... LastLast
Results 376 to 390 of 8657

Thread: Transit City Plan

  1. #376

    Default Rainforest

    The notion that surface LRT lines are better in supporting medium-density development, is a theory at this point. I'm not sure if it is backed by actual urban statistics.

    I support LRT over subway, both for Sheppard and Eglinton (but subway / heavy rail for DRL). However, funding limitations is the reason for that, rather than the above theory.

    Although the cost of Sheppard subway extention (to STC) won't pay for "hundreds" of LRT kilometres, it would pay for both Sheppard E LRT and Finch E LRT going all the way to the eastern limits. This is a much greater service area than the one of the subway extention just to STC.


  2. Default

    They really should look at making longer trains run at longer headways so that the LRT can have complete priority at every intersection..... that's my opinion at least.
    http://299bloorcallcontrol.com
    (random ramblings on the urban landscape)

  3. Default

    btw, the Sheppard EA boards are up:

    http://www.toronto.ca/involved/proje...-17_boards.pdf
    http://299bloorcallcontrol.com
    (random ramblings on the urban landscape)

  4. #379

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by SeanTrans View Post
    First of all, I don't know how you came up with a $4 Billion figure for the Sheppard Subway as built. Secondly, if a subway was built along Sheppard East, stops at Vic Park, Warden and Kennedy would almost instantly be in the middle of the pack for platform boardings because of the high density that's all ready there and the buses feeding in, especially from the north.

    I guess you haven't seen the DRL threads. There's a whole lot of us trying to get that line back on the agenda, and already, we've made some movement there.
    When tallying I factored in the cost on the whole system occured by operating and maintaining Sheppard, the only subway line running at a deficit i.e. underused. I'm sure the extension to Scarborough Centre would cost at least $4 billion ($3 billion for tunneling/track; $1 billion for station platforms, mezzanines and bus bays).

    The DRL line sounds good but why must it be a subway line- it's runs primarily along the surface rail corridors so shouldn't LRT be prioritized?

    Haha. You serious? You actually believe that a streetcar in a reserved lane, stopping at traffic lights, would "exceed" subway service?
    It all depends on where a commuter wants to travel. Someone at Markham and Eglinton could get to Caledonia and Eglinton a lot faster via Eglinton Crosstown LRT than wait for bus to Kennedy, subway to Lansdowne or Eglinton West then another surface connection. My point is we should be aiming to accomodate the broadest spectrum of commuter types when designing futre expansion not blindly make assumptions of where a vast majority SHOULD be heading because there's no other alternative.

    Your numbers are wrong...we cannot build hundreds of kilometres of LRT for the cost of a Sheppard extension. We could introduce more express/Rocket bus routes, though, for very little money (like on Morningside). Extending Sheppard is in the best interest of the city, particularly in terms of city-building - Sheppard is rapidly intensifying.
    I'm well aware of what can and can't be accomplished. Are you? Are you aware that more people ride the limited service Birchmount bus on a daily basis than the 190? I think a mixture of new subways, BRT and LRT should be examined and even someday down the road a Sheppard subway can be implemented just not now. If continued to Victoria Park as subway, there's nothing to say that both LRT and subway couldn't overlap for 2 kms before branching out to their respective terminals, STC and Meadowvale (Zoo?). It 's called interlining and works all over the globe.

    What are your thoughts on a subway to Pearson Airport BTW? I think a balls to the walls subway expansion there has better long-term potential and benefits to the GTA.

  5. #380

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Payback View Post

    The DRL line sounds good but why must it be a subway line- it's runs primarily along the surface rail corridors so shouldn't LRT be prioritized?

    Because it's very, very unlikely that an LRT--any LRT--could handle the huge demand for transit on that corridor. I have no a priori problem with LRT...but if there's anywhere that passenger densities require heavy rail, it's south of Bloor.

  6. Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Payback View Post
    I'm sure the extension to Scarborough Centre would cost at least $4 billion ($3 billion for tunneling/track; $1 billion for station platforms, mezzanines and bus bays).

    The DRL line sounds good but why must it be a subway line- it's runs primarily along the surface rail corridors so shouldn't LRT be prioritized?

    I'm well aware of what can and can't be accomplished. Are you? Are you aware that more people ride the limited service Birchmount bus on a daily basis than the 190? I think a mixture of new subways, BRT and LRT should be examined and even someday down the road a Sheppard subway can be implemented just not now. If continued to Victoria Park as subway, there's nothing to say that both LRT and subway couldn't overlap for 2 kms before branching out to their respective terminals, STC and Meadowvale (Zoo?). It 's called interlining and works all over the globe.

    What are your thoughts on a subway to Pearson Airport BTW? I think a balls to the walls subway expansion there has better long-term potential and benefits to the GTA.
    I'm not sure that you're aware of what can be done...you're basing your argument on the relative cost of transit projects but then you completely fudge the numbers. Why on earth would a Sheppard extension cost that much? The Spadina extension to Hwy 7 is slightly longer but is projected, after inflation and with vehicles, to cost $2.6 billion, and that includes a full half billion dollars of padding, not to mention tunnelling through largely empty land, elaborate stations, etc. The cost would be lowered even further if multiple subway projects were underway so that we didn't have to reinvent the wheel every time. Transit City, projected to cost over $8 billion, is hardly a cheap alternative.

    The DRL should be a subway line because it would be used by so many people. On the internet, LRT supporters seem to think it'd be OK to have overcrowded streetcars solely to prove that LRT is appropriate everywhere, but this is unacceptable in real life. The DRL would make good use of subway capacity, especially if it continued up Don Mills and/or to the NW.

    Birchmount is not a limited service route, but it is a longer route than the 190, and longer routes always have higher ridership. Birchmount's ridership only helps the case for a Sheppard extension since some of those riders will transfer to the subway. The 190's ridership has gone up every year since it was created in 2002...remember, it does not reflect the demand for a subway extension, it's just a supplement to the 85.

    A subway extension to Pearson isn't worth building, not when some kind of train can connect the airport with downtown along the Weston rail corridor in less than half the time it'd take by TTC. If I did build a subway to the airport, it would be a branch/extension of the Bloor line.

  7. Default

    i think the biggest problem we have in toronto right now is that there are those in charge of planning (or have the ear of the planners) who not only refuse to learn from mistakes in the past, ie: spadina, st. clair, etc., but are using the wrong models for emulation.

    why, in a midwest city like toronto with 5 million people, are we looking at a place like strasbourg or montpellier as inspiration for our transit modalities? we aren't a small, compact european city. toronto is a big, sprawling, occasionally dense place that has a lot of commuters going from point A to point X. Sheppard ave. will never be an 'Avenue' the the OP sense of the word. Any kind of developments that would occur like that are only going to be contrived and artificial. People move to areas like that for a reason and if they really wanted the walking city street-life of cafés and brasseries, deli-s, etc, thye would have moved to a denser part of town. if we establish transit in these suburban areas, it is for commuting patterns, not local galavanting!

    besides which, the planners are so blind that they can't recognize that there need to be various levels of transit order. why, and i pose this as a serious question that i hope someone can answer, is there such a myopia at the TTC whereby they cannot recognize that GO, subway and streetcars all serve specific purposes and one is not better than another, only different.

    transit city seems to be reifying our worst fears right now:

    -the continuation of idiotic implementation, à la Spadina,

    -the use of newer, slightly larger but not significantly "better" vehicles than what we have now (other than low-floors and lightly increased capacity, what advantages do these new cars have over the current ones?)

    -the co-optation of ALL future transit development in this city by placing definitively NON-RAPID TRANSIT routes all over the areas of the city that genuinely need a real form of fast transit. This will have the effect of essentially fucking over these areas in the future, and setting back real development in the future.

  8. Default

    Visions For The GTTA A blog about all things urban and regional.

    - "But what do I know, I'm just a transportation planner. No one listens to me."

  9. #384

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by poomar View Post
    ... transit city seems to be reifying our worst fears right now:

    -the continuation of idiotic implementation, à la Spadina,

    -the use of newer, slightly larger but not significantly "better" vehicles than what we have now (other than low-floors and lightly increased capacity, what advantages do these new cars have over the current ones?)

    -the co-optation of ALL future transit development in this city by placing definitively NON-RAPID TRANSIT routes all over the areas of the city that genuinely need a real form of fast transit. This will have the effect of essentially fucking over these areas in the future, and setting back real development in the future.
    Those are valid concerns; in particular, the published stop spacing for the Sheppard LRT looks a little too dense, and we do not know how the traffic signal priority will be handled.

    However, there are some mitigating factors.

    The traffic signal priority can be improved after the line is built, if the passengers scream about long waits at intersections.

    Sheppard LRT line will connect to Agincourt GO station. If the GO frequency is increased substantially and the fares are integrated, those living in the vicinity of Sheppard line will have a better access dowtown than many of those who go there by bus + subway. The GO schedule time from Agincourt to Union is just 23 min, this is faster than Yonge subway from Sheppard to Union.

    Eglinton LRT will have a pretty rapid central section in the tunnel. Finch LRT also might get a faster section, in case its cental part is placed in the Hydro corridor. Perhaps Yonge to Keele in the west, and then Yonge to Don Mills if / when it comes to extending the line to the east.

  10. #385

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by allabootmatt View Post
    Because it's very, very unlikely that an LRT--any LRT--could handle the huge demand for transit on that corridor. I have no a priori problem with LRT...but if there's anywhere that passenger densities require heavy rail, it's south of Bloor.
    You mean per trip? The LRT set in the rail corridors (Weston Galt SUB and Kingston SUB) could be three cars long each with the capacity to hold upto 200 commuters. If routed by a subway, every 90 seconds, it's likely LRTs could meet the demand. And of course LRTs can be routed undergrounf through the CBD area like other light rail systems do in Europe/US.

    I'm not sure that you're aware of what can be done...you're basing your argument on the relative cost of transit projects but then you completely fudge the numbers. Why on earth would a Sheppard extension cost that much? The Spadina extension to Hwy 7 is slightly longer but is projected, after inflation and with vehicles, to cost $2.6 billion, and that includes a full half billion dollars of padding, not to mention tunnelling through largely empty land, elaborate stations, etc. The cost would be lowered even further if multiple subway projects were underway so that we didn't have to reinvent the wheel every time. Transit City, projected to cost over $8 billion, is hardly a cheap alternative.
    You have a point. I thought extending Sheppard would cost more becuase it'd be more complicated to construct than the Richmond Hill extension. Remember though RHC would run in a straight line to the 407 and only comprise 4-6 stations max. Sheppard has the dubious task of crossing not one but two highway systems, rail junction and somehow be centric enough for the whole STC area (under the pretense of SRT closing down whereby McCowan station's obcelete). The way the TTC builds subways nowaways makes me skeptical that it'd be cost-effective to trod on.

    Transit City (at least parts of it) could be well worth the $8 billion. Even Sheppard/STC itself is appeased somewhat given that a LRT stop at McCowan is 5 mins away from STC. Malvernites would also avoid STC and take Sheppard straight across instead. That way the SRT to Morningside Hts plan can be shelved and instead have BD extended to STC serving more people.

    A subway extension to Pearson isn't worth building, not when some kind of train can connect the airport with downtown along the Weston rail corridor in less than half the time it'd take by TTC. If I did build a subway to the airport, it would be a branch/extension of the Bloor line.
    There's some potential benefit to replacing the 192 with a subway line. For one, maybe Mississaugans have been going about things all wrong. Maybe instead of linking BD to Square One via Dundas Street, perhaps the true path to MCC is via the Eglinton/403 corridor. Apart from a commercial strip (c'mon guys everywhere has shops, does it really take a subway to reach them?) there's nothing of significance in that part of the world demanding subways.

    Via the 427/Renforth mid-blocks could occur at Cloverdale Mall, Etobicoke Civic Centre (Vahalla Business Park, other office tower clusters), Burnhamthrope, Rathburn, Eringate and at Eglinton/Renforth/Matheson/Commerce (of course the Airport Corporate Centre). To Pearson Stn the BD line could run above ground until on airport property settling into Terminal 3 or 1. Commuter rail could work as well via a wye of the Georgetown GO line.

    Most world cities have or recognize the importance of connecting their airports to heavy rail mass transit. Even Montreal's Blue Line is slated to eventually reach Trudeau Int'l. That's why I'm so disappointed that no one is even considering this for Toronto. Isn't it like 60, 000 commuter trips through Pearson everyday? Subways should be tapping into that market.

  11. Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Payback View Post
    Transit City (at least parts of it) could be well worth the $8 billion. Even Sheppard/STC itself is appeased somewhat given that a LRT stop at McCowan is 5 mins away from STC. Malvernites would also avoid STC and take Sheppard straight across instead. That way the SRT to Morningside Hts plan can be shelved and instead have BD extended to STC serving more people.

    Most world cities have or recognize the importance of connecting their airports to heavy rail mass transit. Even Montreal's Blue Line is slated to eventually reach Trudeau Int'l. That's why I'm so disappointed that no one is even considering this for Toronto. Isn't it like 60, 000 commuter trips through Pearson everyday? Subways should be tapping into that market.
    If Malvernites are using the full length of Sheppard, they can transfer to the subway at Kennedy instead of Don Mills...either way, it'll be one transfer. During rush hour, it can take 15 minutes to get from Sheppard to STC along McCowan (or in the pm rush along Brimley).

    Even if Pearson generates 60,000 trips per day, only a small fraction of those trips would be made on a subway line to the airport.

  12. Default

    Quote Originally Posted by scarberiankhatru View Post
    Even if Pearson generates 60,000 trips per day, only a small fraction of those trips would be made on a subway line to the airport.
    Based on breaking news, they will have three options running subway styled trains at subway styled frequency. One heading downtown, one heading to midtown and one heading uptown. It appears that the fractions have just changed.
    Visions For The GTTA A blog about all things urban and regional.

    - "But what do I know, I'm just a transportation planner. No one listens to me."

  13. #388

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Payback View Post
    There's some potential benefit to replacing the 192 with a subway line. For one, maybe Mississaugans have been going about things all wrong. Maybe instead of linking BD to Square One via Dundas Street, perhaps the true path to MCC is via the Eglinton/403 corridor. Apart from a commercial strip (c'mon guys everywhere has shops, does it really take a subway to reach them?) there's nothing of significance in that part of the world demanding subways.
    Dundas is a major transit corridor and much busier than Eglinton. And the city recognizes that Dundas can be redeveloped, much like Toronto does for the "Avenues."

    Regional rail would be much more suitable for the Eglinton/403 corridor.

  14. #389

    Default

    The traffic signal priority can be improved after the line is built, if the passengers scream about long waits at intersections.
    Well, has that happened on Spadina after a decade? Toronto transit riders are disorganized and apathetic. They just assume that there's no better way.

    You mean per trip? The LRT set in the rail corridors (Weston Galt SUB and Kingston SUB) could be three cars long each with the capacity to hold upto 200 commuters. If routed by a subway, every 90 seconds, it's likely LRTs could meet the demand. And of course LRTs can be routed undergrounf through the CBD area like other light rail systems do in Europe/US.
    Yes, but what's the point of building a system with lower capacity for virtually the same cost, other than an ideological love of streetcars?

    Maybe instead of linking BD to Square One via Dundas Street, perhaps the true path to MCC is via the Eglinton/403 corridor.
    That's always been the plan. There has never been a serious proposal for a BD extension to Square One. The plan has always been to connect the Eglinton BRT/LRT/Subway to the Mississauga Transitway.

  15. #390

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by unimaginative2 View Post
    Yes, but what's the point of building a system with lower capacity for virtually the same cost, other than an ideological love of streetcars?
    Well I naturally assumed streetcars would cost far less as all they'd require are open-air, simplistic platforms. A lot of proximate station sites (Gerrard Square, Riverdale, Parkdale, Brockton) already have access stairwells needing minimal upgrades. Only Union Station truly has to be underground (via a portal beween Simcoe and Yonge Streets).

    That's why using subway technology sounds wasteful and sets a bad precedent that Torontonians can't evolve beyond subways as a viable method of rapid transit that even a 95% surface route gets the subway treatment.

    That's always been the plan. There has never been a serious proposal for a BD extension to Square One. The plan has always been to connect the Eglinton BRT/LRT/Subway to the Mississauga Transitway.
    Then how come so many posters here are acting llike a subway along Dundas Street is canon? Sherway Gardens is the only major thing I see in the path to MCC from the southeast. Dixie GO needing its own subway stop is irrelevant since the line already stops at Kipling. All we'd be doing is giving business-owners in that vinicity the highest retail rental bills in the developed world, lol!

    Routing the subway north to Pearson eliminates far more transit woes (Cloverdale, ECC, ACC, Pearson). With virtually little in the way of intermediate residential/commercial along the MT Transitway, from Renforth access to MCC could be accomplished in 15 mins or less. This is not to mention that the 1 Dundas, 3 Bloor, 26 Burnhamthrope and 20 Rathburn buses would intercept subway stops in their own corridors long before ever needing Kipling or Islington Stns.

    Even if Pearson generates 60,000 trips per day, only a small fraction of those trips would be made on a subway line to the airport.
    As cost-of-living continues to spike dailyy, you'd be surprised at the number of people who aren't ashamed to use public transit, suitcases and all, to save on pricey taxi or coach bus fare. Instead of building a new rail line from scratch (Blue 22-esque) IMO it's a lot easier to just add on 7 more stations to the existing BD subway and finally get the airport on the mass transit grid.

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
  •