Save Transit City Canvass!

[Ed Drass]

Thanks for the links, Ed, but please don't use shortened URLs. Many people like to know where a link goes before they click on it.

Sorry -- it was from my latest tweet and the full links are in other threads. However, v.gd shows an intermediate page with the link, probably for the very reason you state. Try it. Not sure, but this may be why it bills itself as "ethical" URL shortener... -Ed

 

[CDL.TO]

Sorry -- it was from my latest tweet and the full links are in other threads. However, v.gd shows an intermediate page with the link, probably for the very reason you state. Try it. Not sure, but this may be why it bills itself as "ethical" URL shortener... -Ed

The intermediate page is better than nothing, but I still have to click to tell whether or not I had seen it already.

You have more than 140 characters to work with on Urban Toronto, so go nuts!

 

[lafard]

From his logic, Hong Kong isn't dense enough for subways. Hong Kong would have to quadruple its population, in fact, to have the "required" density.

Hong Kong does in fact achieve the required density. THe stated cutoff is 25k/km2.

Kowloon's density is 43,000/km2. Hong Kong Island is "only" 15,000 but only a third of the island is built upon. HK Island is a bit smaller than the geographic size of "old" Toronto, over twice the population, and 2/3 the island is a nature reserve, or simply too steep to build upon.The urban areas exceed 40,000.

Even the New Territories, the traditional "Backyard" of HK, has a density similar to Toronto; clustered as a series of ~100-400,000 person "new towns" of very high density (Tung Chung on Lantau is planned for 27k/km2) with nature reserves and true rural areas between them. The East and West rail lines that serve them lie somewhere in that fuzzy boundary between metro and commuter rail; both lines run above ground except where tunnelled through mountains and where they terminate in Kowloon.

Even in HK there is no Sheppard-style suburban perimeter line. Everything's radial beyond the heaviest urban concentration.

 

[GraphicMatt]

Remember that grey's numbers are for a subway system that operates with zero subsidy. That's the density you theoretically need to have a profitable transit system. (It's said that Toronto's subways (minus Sheppard) operate at a profit, but that'd be because there are hundreds of surface routes that connect with them.)

It's interesting to look at but largely irrelevant as only far-right Libertarians would argue that 100% for-profit transit is a good idea.

And, yes, yes, one such far-right Libertarian is Ford's policy advisor.

 

[spaced]

It's about time we had a mayor with half a brain!

Do you mind explaining why you think David Miller has less than 'half a brain'? See, I see a self-made man with an exceptional education who is well spoken and seems to think before he speaks. I find it very ironic that people who don't like him, like yourself and mostly card carrying conservatives, elude to him being stupid. Surely you people need to pick up a dictionary and find some new insults. Something that is less... well stupid. Do you really think Ford is smarter than Miller? And if so please back your claims up with factual information and not just your opinion.

After all the annoying LRTistas spouting off in the SOS threads, I'm happy to inject some PRO-SUBWAY thoughts into this thread.

If you didn't comment on this thread it may have been buried quite soon--but thanks to you and your ridiculous remarks it was at the top and people like me read them.
And again, if we had Subways everywhere that you want them this city would go bankrupt. It's one of the reasons your city isn't building subways. As it is the TTC is going to need additional millions (more per year) for staffing, upkeep and maintenance for the subway stations opening along the uni line. Money (yes, that's taxpayers $$) that does not justify the traffic. Surface LRT does not have these funding requirement (and maintenance per station is realtively nil) as well as not needing a complimentary bus routes.
If you have an example of a city that runs subways in low density area like the system that you propose, I would like to see it and also see how much money it sucks out of the system. Please enlighten me.

 

[Canuck]

I was out canvassing today (the reason why this tread was started), and I had a great time.

We got lots of positive words and support from the neighbourhood, plus we had Newstalk 1010 follow us around for a bit as we went door to door.

 

[Justin10000]

^^It was great canvassing with you! I would say it was a success. We reached many constituents who did not even know Rob Ford's agenda. The majority of resident we talked to were in support of Transit City, and are shocked Ford would scrap a plan to build a subway in Scarborough.

 

[The Mad Navigator]

Indeed, canvassing was an excellent way to get the word out on a serious transit issue.

 

[Electrify]

I'm not sure if I should get on board or not. All this talk about killing Transit City or saving Transit City, why not fixing Transit City? As-is there are problems with both the projects which do need to be addressed. If they aren't then I can see an argument for canceling them. With that said, the way Ford is going about killing them and his reasonings behind them I do not support.

 

[CDL.TO]

Hong Kong does in fact achieve the required density. THe stated cutoff is 25k/km2.

Kowloon's density is 43,000/km2. Hong Kong Island is "only" 15,000 but only a third of the island is built upon. HK Island is a bit smaller than the geographic size of "old" Toronto, over twice the population, and 2/3 the island is a nature reserve, or simply too steep to build upon.The urban areas exceed 40,000.

Even the New Territories, the traditional "Backyard" of HK, has a density similar to Toronto; clustered as a series of ~100-400,000 person "new towns" of very high density (Tung Chung on Lantau is planned for 27k/km2) with nature reserves and true rural areas between them. The East and West rail lines that serve them lie somewhere in that fuzzy boundary between metro and commuter rail; both lines run above ground except where tunnelled through mountains and where they terminate in Kowloon.

Even in HK there is no Sheppard-style suburban perimeter line. Everything's radial beyond the heaviest urban concentration.

Yes, that's the point. "Hong Kong" doesn't have the density he says is required, but parts of Hong Kong very much do. By the same token, "Toronto" may not be dense enough, but parts of it may.

Simple things like looking at entire cities or even arbitrary districts and applying simple population density numbers is far from being definitive when it comes to transit planning.

 

[Woodbridge_Heights]

Graphic Matt is correct. The Staten Island is not a subway. It's a commuter rail line, similar to the LIRR. It was built by the B & O Railroad, and run by the B & O until 1971, when MTA took it over.

The railway is a full mainline railroad that uses R44's modified to FRA mainline standards.

Not a subway at all.

Not in the least.

Just to repeat, not a subway.

All good?

And we're back playing the symantic game... An LRT running in a tunnel is a subway but modified subway stock running at grade is not...

Oy Vey

 

[Dan416]

Funny that none of the Transit City supporters bothered to canvass on behalf of the DRL.

 

[lafard]

so the canvass today made it onto global news tonight, though they only said it was subway vs lrt, not the more basic "a little bit of subway or a lot of lrt" division.

Funny that none of the Transit City supporters bothered to canvass on behalf of the DRL.

That's an entirely different battle...

 

[Dan416]

so the canvass today made it onto global news tonight, though they only said it was subway vs lrt, not the more basic "a little bit of subway or a lot of lrt" division.



That's an entirely different battle...

Is it though? Especially when Transit City supporters say there's only a limited amount of money? If there's only a limited amount of money, and we're spending it on Transit City (or Sheppard or Eglinton for that matter), there won't be ANY money left over for the one project that people say is the most important transit project in the entire city!

 

[lafard]

I don't necessarily disagree.

However until the TTC publishes the downtown rapid transit study officially acknowledging its need then advocacy is of limited utility.

I have no doubt that the TTC will claim that it is an absolutely critical expansion to make, but until they do that it's dead in the water. If they really push along they might be able to sneak it in early enough to gain from provincial electioneering - particularly if they couple it to the Yonge extension.