News   Mar 28, 2024
 86     0 
News   Mar 27, 2024
 1.4K     1 
News   Mar 27, 2024
 1.1K     2 

Transit City Plan

Which transit plan do you prefer?

  • Transit City

    Votes: 95 79.2%
  • Ford City

    Votes: 25 20.8%

  • Total voters
    120
The election wasn't a transit referendum. And if it was a referendum Ron Ford's Crosstown would loose (he got less then 50% of the vote). And polls on the National Post, Toronto Star and even on the Toronto Sun indicate that a strong majority of Torontonians support Transit City.
Though unofficial, the thread here: http://urbantoronto.ca/forum/showthread.php/18455-The-False-Dilemma-Transit-City-or-Ford-City still shows that a strong majority still favours Transit City.
 
I know that. A stub on Eglinton would have been better than no rapid transit, though I would agree with you that it would be ineffective in the grand scheme of things. Mike Harris knew that stubways outside of Sheppard are ineffective, though I still view him as the worst premier in Ontario's recent history.

Couldn't agree with you more. Harris is a huge part of the reason that I now have an inherent distrust of conservative politicians. They always seem to screw things up. And the actions of His Worship Mayor Rob Ford only reaffirms this belief that I have.
 
I hope that TC supporters not only show their support for TC but also bring forward the very legitimate concerns many, including myself, have with it.
First, it's not at all rapid, this is local service on a ROW. Finch and Sheppard should have one-third the number of stops they have.
Second, better align the routes. I think the idea of Sheppard not going to STC was sheer lunacy.
Third, do it on a budget. $1.2 billion for an tiny little 6 km SRT conversion is obscene. It shouldn't cost more than $200 million and should only require the line to be shut for 8 months to a year. Better yet just up grade the SRT with MK111 and save the over $1 billion by taking the line to the airport.
Fourth, make use of existing rail ROW and hydro corridors.

I have always stated that it was not LRT that was the problem but rather the way TC was being executed and the truly offensive cost estimates coming from the TTC and City.
 
I hope that TC supporters not only show their support for TC but also bring forward the very legitimate concerns many, including myself, have with it.
First, it's not at all rapid, this is local service on a ROW. Finch and Sheppard should have one-third the number of stops they have.
Second, better align the routes. I think the idea of Sheppard not going to STC was sheer lunacy.
Third, do it on a budget. $1.2 billion for an tiny little 6 km SRT conversion is obscene. It shouldn't cost more than $200 million and should only require the line to be shut for 8 months to a year. Better yet just up grade the SRT with MK111 and save the over $1 billion by taking the line to the airport.
Fourth, make use of existing rail ROW and hydro corridors.

I have always stated that it was not LRT that was the problem but rather the way TC was being executed and the truly offensive cost estimates coming from the TTC and City.

I agree with you and these issues have been addressed on this forum multiple times. But feel free to contact your local city councillor after Transit City has been passed on Wednesday to let your opinion known.
 
I voted in favour of Transit City, despite some shortfalls regarding speed and the weather. I prefer Transit City, because it provides the city with quality public transit service for as many people at the lowest cost.

Remember that it is not possible to have high speeds and low station spacing (unless you want safety issues); I chose Transit City as a compromise between speed and spacing.
 
I hope that TC supporters not only show their support for TC but also bring forward the very legitimate concerns many, including myself, have with it.
First, it's not at all rapid, this is local service on a ROW. Finch and Sheppard should have one-third the number of stops they have.
Second, better align the routes. I think the idea of Sheppard not going to STC was sheer lunacy.
Third, do it on a budget. $1.2 billion for an tiny little 6 km SRT conversion is obscene. It shouldn't cost more than $200 million and should only require the line to be shut for 8 months to a year. Better yet just up grade the SRT with MK111 and save the over $1 billion by taking the line to the airport.
Fourth, make use of existing rail ROW and hydro corridors.

I have always stated that it was not LRT that was the problem but rather the way TC was being executed and the truly offensive cost estimates coming from the TTC and City.

You need to get involved Sir. You have great ideas. Move out here. Your efforts are wasted in Vancouver.
 
Transit City was by no means intended to be the final word on transit in Toronto -- it was meant to be a relatively affordable, realistic, stageable plan to significantly increase transit accessibility and capacity for a large part of the city otherwise underserved by existing service. There was (and is) nothing in Transit City that precludes a DRL, BRTs, or extention of YUS and BD.
There is everything that precludes a DRL, whether under Transit City or Ford City, and that's the fact that none of the $8.4 billion (give or take) available for the next decade (give or take) will be used on a DRL. If, for example, York Region gets the Yonge extension approved in 2015 (which is entirely possible), Toronto would be in serious danger of being left high and dry.

I want subways, I also want 25°C weather in February. I also want a pony. I also want... You get the picture.

Transit City should be built, but with modifications like more grade separations. For example, Weston should be an underground station, and Leslie should be an overpass station. Other grade separations should also be considered.
I want a few subways (especially a DRL), I don't want 25 in February, and I don't want a pony.

Leslie should be an overpass station? Why??

The DRL would likely cost more than the entirety of Transit City, and take far longer to build. It makes far more sense to treat that as a separate, dedicated project. One feature of TC is that it was a collection of smaller, relatively easy-to-build projects, each of which would provide immediate improvements to the transit of their areas. The DRL is a project that will be big, complex, expensive, and take a long time in construction before it provides any benefits. It's a completely different animal than the TC projects.
According to the website drlnow.com, a DRL from Dundas West to Eglinton would be just under (wait for it) $8 billion, and phase one of that (from Cityplace to Eglinton) would cost $6 billion.



As for this latest kerfuffle, I expect the January Stintz compromise to win the day in the end.
 
I did not realize those minor streets were in there. Well I agree they should not be. If someone lives midway between Scarlet and Royal York, people located west of that midway point walk to Royal York and if located east of that midway point walk to Scarlett. I use to live near Yorkdale Mall and woudl walk to the subway there and would take 18-20min. Half way was walking outside to the mall and the other half inside (which was kinda nice). I did not realize how that walk every morning and evening kept me in shape

All well and good for the young and the fit, but people with accessibility problems (the people living with the giant retirement home halfway between Royal York and Scarlett for example) will probably have a lot of difficulty with a 500m walk to their local stop.
 
All well and good for the young and the fit, but people with accessibility problems (the people living with the giant retirement home halfway between Royal York and Scarlett for example) will probably have a lot of difficulty with a 500m walk to their local stop.

Wouldn't their local stop be a bus that stops every 300m? I certainly hope that we font plan to emulate the stop spacing on central Bloor.
 
All well and good for the young and the fit, but people with accessibility problems (the people living with the giant retirement home halfway between Royal York and Scarlett for example) will probably have a lot of difficulty with a 500m walk to their local stop.

Wouldn't their local stop be a bus that stops every 300m? I certainly hope that we don't plan to emulate the stop spacing on central Bloor.
 
Last edited:
Some info hiawatha-avg-speed-by-segment
6835644767_9a680464ae_b.jpg
 
There is everything that precludes a DRL, whether under Transit City or Ford City, and that's the fact that none of the $8.4 billion (give or take) available for the next decade (give or take) will be used on a DRL. [...] According to the website drlnow.com, a DRL from Dundas West to Eglinton would be just under (wait for it) $8 billion, and phase one of that (from Cityplace to Eglinton) would cost $6 billion.

Right, so we either get a single DRL line, or a network of LRTs that extend across the city and provide access to underserved areas. The DRL is vitally important, but so is better transit access to the less-served areas.

In any case, there seems to be no political interest or will in advocating for the DRL, which is sad, but also the reality. The pot of money available is available for Transit City or something like it -- there is no way to repurpose it to a DRL. At the end of the day, what's on the table is a researched, engineered, and funded system of LRTs. The DRL is none of these things, however much it should be.
 
I hope that TC supporters not only show their support for TC but also bring forward the very legitimate concerns many, including myself, have with it.
First, it's not at all rapid, this is local service on a ROW. Finch and Sheppard should have one-third the number of stops they have.

Your opinion, and certainly not one shared by both the experts paid to do the work nor by the people living along the lines. I also suppose you didn't hear that most of the people who attended the open houses wanted MORE stops, to make it easier for them to access the line....

Second, better align the routes. I think the idea of Sheppard not going to STC was sheer lunacy.

Why? Most ridership along the Sheppard corridor does not want to travel to the STC - like Finch, they want to travel to somewhere else along Sheppard. If they want to travel to STC, there will be a number of good transit connections for them, not the least of which will be the extended SRT.

Third, do it on a budget. $1.2 billion for an tiny little 6 km SRT conversion is obscene. It shouldn't cost more than $200 million and should only require the line to be shut for 8 months to a year.

Based on what, exactly? Every station will have to be rebuilt, not to mention the "tunnel" north of Ellesmere as well as a completely new Kennedy Station facility. How, pray tell, is that only going to take 8 months - or a year - to build when you are doing so above and around existing facilities that can not be shut down?

Do you have experience building or managing multi-million dollar contracts? Or bidding them out?

Better yet just up grade the SRT with MK111 and save the over $1 billion by taking the line to the airport.

Right, let's just revisit that mistake again. Oh, by the way, the line still has to be closed to rebuild it for the new cars. Just so you know.

Fourth, make use of existing rail ROW and hydro corridors.

I don't disagree with this, but it has to make sense in terms of where the travel corridors are located. Using a hydro corridor for the sake of it being there is almost as bad as building a subway line to nowhere. Oh, wait a minute....

Dan
Toronto, Ont.
 
i can understand how residents want more stops. however the eastern and western leg of the eglinton lime doesnt really have many residents. the eastern side is mainly businesses and the western side doesnt have any residential that faces eglinton, instesd there is green space (richview corridor). also there could be a handful of people who live somewhere and argue for a stop, does that justify a stop? also will the lrt stop at every stop or only when someone rings a bell? also if they connect the srt to the eglinton line to reduce transfers at kennedy wouldnt that mean that the line needs to be as fast as possible to keep the riders from transferring? i understand the situation with the retirement home and how the people there would have trouble walking 500 meters to a stop but the truth is they would have difficulty walking 200ms, and if you say this justifies a spot how do you say no to the next residential request? everyone wants a stop at their doorstop and then no stops until their destination. if we place the stops only at major intersections at least there is logic in who can request a stop in the future.
 
It is rather ironic that the community seems to want their cake and eat it too. They will have to choose - either speedy transit service or more frequents stops, not both. Just because it is going to be at grade and that frequents stops are possible (but undesirable) shouldn't mean the line should be implemented like an urban streetcar system.

AoD
 
Last edited:

Back
Top