TJ O'Pootertoot
Senior Member
IIRC, York Region will be paying the operating costs for their segment (about 1/3 of the total line). Of course TTC will be running the whole shebang and collecting the fares.
Toronto Spadina Subway Extension Emergency Exits | ?m | 1s | TTC | IBI Group
- Thread starter 299 bloor call control.
- Start date
IIRC, York Region will be paying the operating costs for their segment (about 1/3 of the total line). Of course TTC will be running the whole shebang and collecting the fares.
scarberiankhatru
Senior Member
For a city obsessed with subways, we're sure not building or planning much of them. Neither are New York or London - of course, they already have them. No one is proposing subways to Uxbridge or Milton, just small extensions of existing lines, or new lines in the inner suburbs. Every transit route in this city bleeds money except for subways in the old city of Toronto. Does every route need to be a subway? No, and everyone knows that.
If the Spadina extension should be a C-Train, the outer portions of the C-Train routes in Calgary should be buses, and the outer portions of bus routes everywhere should be slashed back until there's no service. Anything not using up that capacity is a waste!
If the Spadina extension should be a C-Train, the outer portions of the C-Train routes in Calgary should be buses, and the outer portions of bus routes everywhere should be slashed back until there's no service. Anything not using up that capacity is a waste!
299 bloor call control.
Senior Member
When I say the city, I mean the residents. Staff at the TTC and the City are more logical than that generally. Then there's the politicians....
299 bloor call control.
Senior Member
And clearly, we have a complete divergence of thought. We'll have to agree to disagree because I'm tired of throwing out facts and figures for no reason whatsoever.
Phase one of the 2nd Avenue line is under construction. Eastside Access (allowing the LIRR to access Grand Central) is under construction and plans for the extension of the 7 line to the west side of Manhattan are far advanced. New York's system is indeed expanding.
unimaginative2
Senior Member
Fact? Nonsense. Every single study and report the TTC has ever published has listed 34,000 pph as the absolute theoretical maximum that a subway line can serve, and that's at level of service F, which is considered completely unacceptable.
Where are you getting the idea that the time saved would be the same as a subway? Nobody, even the most fanatic streetcar fan, would suggest that they're as fast as a subway. We've seen St. Clair, the model for the Transit City routes, where the TTC is promising time savings of less than 10% (and that's their best hope) over a mixed traffic surface operation.
Of course, transit "advocates" seem to believe that a subway line is unsuccessful unless it's at an unacceptable level of overcrowding right from the very first station. That's simply absurd. Anyone who's ridden to the end of the line of a European subway will tell you that there are few people in the car. That doesn't make their systems underused and a "failure". The only people who have ever claimed that the Spadina subway is a failure are streetcar zealots who try to malign every subway project unless it follows this completely artificial "logical" progression. How is it logical to spend hundreds of millions on a system that you fully expect will be overcrowded and in need of replacement in a few decades? There's absolutely no logic in that.
theman23
Active Member
Why would a line to Square one or Vaughan City Centre be higher priority than a downtown line? With the TTC's budget problems, wouldn't a potentially profitable new line be better? It seems to me that the reason Mississauga has opted for LRT over a stubway is that the stub will likely lose them millions of dollars every year for at least half a century. I mean, isn't Hazel the embodiment of sound urban planning and city management? How dare some of you question her decision.
299 bloor call control.
Senior Member
didn't want to wade into this again but -- I stated LRT, not STREETCAR. That's another thing that happens in this town, people confuse the two and as a result, we completely ignore a very sound solution. Have you been to Edmonton or Calgary and ridden their LRT systems? The trains in some sections reach 80km/h, which is the same maximum speed as the subwayhere in Toronto. Average speed for the LRT in both cities is around 60km/h, which is comparable to Toronto's subway. Not to mention the benefits of its flexibility in the ease of coupling/uncoupling cars to adjust for ridership levels (Edmonton ranges from running 1-car trains in the late evening to 4-car trains in the rush hour) and ability to run in many different scenarios (street running, right-of-way, etc.), it is a major contender. Again, this is why LRT is so popular these days.
Lone Primate
Active Member
Clearly, you did not ride the same ones I rode. They were underfunded, most lines operated only during rush hours (gosh, why don't we try THAT with the subways and see how it affects ridership?), and broke down at least twice a month when I depended on them. That's why I stopped depending on them.
This is an argument for not having public transit, at all. The corollary position is the reason we build transit hubs, and Mississauga has several. The same ones that serve to gather people (who'd otherwise be driving) to buses and, yes, even GO trains would do just as nicely coalescing riders for subways. The same as they do in suburban areas of what was Metro, and have from the 50s on up.
They DO build them out to the suburbs; they HAVE built them out to the suburbs; in many cases, the stations that are now heavily urban were built in areas of low density decades ago. This served two purposes: it made the construction less expensive and disruptive than it would have been once the area was heavily built up, and the presence of decent public transit itself served as an impetus for people to move in higher numbers to those areas, creating the high density. If we don't believe that building transportation facilities will serve this purpose, why are we bothering? People are already spread out, and they already have cars. Arguments I'm seeing here suggest to me that's pretty much how it's going to stay. Of course, over the past twenty years, that's no surprise. I've seen them link the 403 and 410, extend the 404 and 427, and built the entirely new 407. Haven't seen them build a single subway station even to the border of Toronto yet. Colour me shocked that this attitude persists.
Well, we found the money for all those highways; we found the will to build them... I guess it's because we weren't counting on the goodwill, understanding, or compassion of people downtown.
Lone Primate
Active Member
Well, I gathered here lately this was something we were anxious to take up with the province. Or does that only make sense this on side of Etobicoke Creek, but not the other?
scarberiankhatru
Senior Member
I am well aware...I didn't say they're not building any. Recent subway projects in New York and London, however, are relatively small additions compared to the vast networks that already exist.
There's lots of people in Toronto - and some on this forum - who think that not only are future subway completely unnecessary and unaffordable, they'd remove existing lines if they could. The money to pay for streetcars and light rail grows on trees, though.
theman23
Active Member
I wouldn't support a subway to suburban communities in the 416 either. It simply does not make sense for a transit operator that can't even mantain curent service to build another subway extension that would lose more money for several decades.
We know that the downtown subway service is crowded, we know that several downtown streetcar lines are so packed that people can barely board and get off the car, so why not build a subway line there instead of the 905? It really puzzles me that so many people here are taking a Mississauga subway seriously when the need and demand for a subway is far greater in the downtown area.
scarberiankhatru
Senior Member
No one with any degree of influence seems to be even remotely interested in building a new subway line downtown.
However, some people did speculate that the massive 'downtown gap' in Transit City could be a placeholder for an as yet unannounced project...
However, some people did speculate that the massive 'downtown gap' in Transit City could be a placeholder for an as yet unannounced project...
junctionist
Senior Member
Subways are capital projects that can create new demand. An additional 120-200 kilometres of subway would radically change the way people get around. I'm thinking of all those who don't commute downtown at rush. A lot of people commute to somewhere in the 416 or just outside of Toronto. Their ride takes a half or even a third of the time by car compared to current transit options. The system is adequate for the hybrid planning of the city that tries to accommodate both, but if you want a true urban Toronto, it's not enough to make adjustments that reduce current travel times by 50%. That's not a recipe for growth but for sprawl. If you think that people are willing to endure long bus rides, then you better assume people are willing to spend time in traffic in their cars.
Dan416
Senior Member
An Eglinton line is definitely needed. So is a new line downtown, whether it be a DRL, or something to the new developments along the lake. I don't think it should be a question of whether we should build subways downtown OR to the suburbs, it should be both
If Toronto wants to be a "transit city" it has to think big. LRT is NOT thinking big. It's "setting our sights low" thinking. It's the kinda plan that would belong on the "Lowered Expectations" dating service from MAD TV, if Toronto were personified.
If Toronto wants to be a "transit city" it has to think big. LRT is NOT thinking big. It's "setting our sights low" thinking. It's the kinda plan that would belong on the "Lowered Expectations" dating service from MAD TV, if Toronto were personified.