TTC: Sheppard Subway Expansion (Speculative)

[44 North]

There's gravy on the streets, a bloody war on the car....fare by distance is the only logical step the TTC can make towards making itself (at least relatively) sustainable. The freed-up funds could be used to provide better service for all.

Even the operating losses and interest on capital debt for the gold plated subway lines that the suburbs are demanding may actually become manageable (but probably not).

 

[wopchop]

You can easily find rent in Toronto that costs the same (or less, sometimes), than rent in the suburbs. There are thousands upon thousands of single homes and attached homes, which are rented out by their owners, and many of them do not charge excessive rent. The primary difference is space, which I would concede is definitely less, but is generally not an order of magnitude smaller than a suburban rental. I don't understand how people can assert that rent is completely and utterly unaffordable in Toronto, when the reality of the situation shows otherwise.

Even if the Toronto rentals are, on average, more expensive, the savings in commuting costs (fuel, vehicle depreciation, and maintenance) would more than make up for that difference. Vehicle ownership is one of the worst financial moves that we make in our lives, and we often forget about all the hidden costs (beyond fuel) that we suffer as the price of owning one.

 

[Justin10000]

It is about fairness. When those tolls starts a coming - then its either tolls or distance based fares. Plus I am sure soon cars will be banned in parts of the city. It will start slowly - perhaps 1 street and eventually it will spread. Then those people wont have much choice.

Again, put fairness aside, and consider that suburban transit riders do not care about "fairness". You're not going to win anyone over with that argument, and you're going to entice people to drive. This is exactly the sort of suburb vs. downtown argument I would avoid.

 

[sixrings]

Again, put fairness aside, and consider that suburban transit riders do not care about "fairness". You're not going to win anyone over with that argument, and you're going to entice people to drive. This is exactly the sort of suburb vs. downtown argument I would avoid.

the problem is that no suburb justifies subways yet vaughn and richmond hill which arent even part of toronto are going to get subway service before the sheppard line is extended yet alone complete. when scarborough suburbs compare whats fair they compare to the vaughn extension but also the richmomd hill extension. a downsview to stc lrt line should have been a comprimise.

 

[kkgg7]

Again, put fairness aside, and consider that suburban transit riders do not care about "fairness". You're not going to win anyone over with that argument, and you're going to entice people to drive. This is exactly the sort of suburb vs. downtown argument I would avoid.

it is totally fine that they don't care. The city can just make it expensive for them to drive to downtown by imposing higher congestion fees and parking.
You wanna stick to your driving life, fine as long as you stay in your suburb. If you ever want to come downtown, be prepare to pay the price of your life choice.

 

[kkgg7]

like everyone is single and can afford $750,000 shoebox condos

I am so sick of these $750,000 shoebox BS. Even in the downtown core, $750,000 can purchase a 1000-1200 sf condo, which is big enough for a 4 member family, not to mention in many periphery areas close to downtown/midtown. We are not in Manhattan, and $750,000 still can goes a long way, unless you expect some sort of 5 bedroom house with a gigantic yard.

People here don't seem to like living with what is actually necessary. For example, A family AND a livingroom is ridiculous. Why do you need both? A guest room that's vacant for 350 days of the year is absolutely redundant. Even a separate formal dining-room is too much. Do you really have formal dinners that often?

The truth is, 90% families can live in condos and apartments. A 3 person family can live comfortably in a 800 sf condo, while a 4 person one can do well with 1000sf. Look at Japan and how they make the best use of their space. Many of you guys just don't want to and choose to live 40 km away from the city and then whine about traffic.

 

[sixrings]

my wife and I almost killed each other the 2 years we lived in a 800 sq ft condo. We moved to a 1200 sq ft house and all is quiet on the western front.

 

[kkgg7]

my wife and I almost killed each other the 2 years we lived in a 800 sq ft condo. We moved to a 1200 sq ft house and all is quiet on the western front.

if you prefer bigger space, that's really fine as everyone has the freedom to choose his own life style.
However, what is annoying is people move far away from the city and its amenities and whine about traffic and lack of rapid transit. They should know that it is exactly their choice that led to horrific traffic.

 

[kkgg7]

Speaking of downtown vs suburb, there happens to be a real estate article on this
http://www.thegridto.com/life/real-...does-375000-buy-you-in-toronto-versus-milton/

so for $375,000, half of the $750,000 "shoebox" price claimed, you can actually live in a 870sf townhouse at Carlton and Jarvis, walkable distance to the financial district and everything a city offers. I am sure if you throw in addition 150-200K and live a bit far away from Yonge st, you get a LOT more space, if you need more than two bedrooms.

But hey, many are still not happy and choose to live in that 2,363 sf house in Milton, 53km from Union Station and expect the city to build a subway so that they can get to Eaton Center rapidly.

 

[Justin10000]

it is totally fine that they don't care. The city can just make it expensive for them to drive to downtown by imposing higher congestion fees and parking.
You wanna stick to your driving life, fine as long as you stay in your suburb. If you ever want to come downtown, be prepare to pay the price of your life choice.

Yes! Exactly. Make it more expensive for people to drive. Many people who use transit in the 'burbs do not have many options anyways.
For the record, I do not drive, and I live midtown(near St. Clair West, be a little more exact) in a very transit-friendly neighbourhood. I tend not to think about myself, and that it's unfair that the poor sucker using the 36 Finch bus to travel to Yonge St is technically paying less than me, or that I am subsidizing him. You're exactly the sort of downtowner Rob Ford characterized in the election: Self-Entitled, snooty elitist prick who thinks the suburbs owes him something because he happens to live near everything.

 

[sixrings]

I live across from Eglinton West station and transit was a priority when we moved since we were so use to walking everywhere. We do occasionally drive, typically on the weekends...

 

[kkgg7]

Yes! Exactly. Make it more expensive for people to drive. Many people who use transit in the 'burbs do not have many options anyways.
For the record, I do not drive, and I live midtown(near St. Clair West, be a little more exact) in a very transit-friendly neighbourhood. I tend not to think about myself, and that it's unfair that the poor sucker using the 36 Finch bus to travel to Yonge St is technically paying less than me, or that I am subsidizing him. You're exactly the sort of downtowner Rob Ford characterized in the election: Self-Entitled, snooty elitist prick who thinks the suburbs owes him something because he happens to live near everything.

Isn't it true that downtowners are subsidizing the 36 bus riders? And why should they? Aren't we trying to curb sprawling and encourage less carbon footprint? Who is "entitled", me who walk to everything and consumes $30 worth of gas for heating in January, or those "poor" 36 Bus riders who feel it necessary to live in a 2000 sf house with a garden in the front and a yard in the back, wearing short-sleeved T-shirts indoors when it is -20 outside?

The truth is, most live that far, north of Eglington, or even sheppard, are not because they are too poor to be able to be able to afford housing closer to the city. It is because they refuse to live in more compact space and insist on using larger space and consuming more energy. As far as I know, those who live around Finch are not really poorer than folks near Regent Park, Liberty Village or Dupont/Lansdowne.

 

[Rainforest]

But hey, many are still not happy and choose to live in that 2,363 sf house in Milton, 53km from Union Station and expect the city to build a subway so that they can get to Eaton Center rapidly.

Nobody ever proposed a subway to Milton. It is served by GO, the agency that uses fare-by-distance pricing model and whose cost recovery ratio is even higher than that of TTC.

 

[sixrings]

you can blame the people but the government should get even more blame. they are theones who let these communities grow up in areas they knew they could never serve by transit.

 

[Rainforest]

Isn't it true that downtowners are subsidizing the 36 bus riders? And why should they?

With the flat-fare model, all short-range riders subsidize those travelling long distance. The Finch W 36 bus serves quite a few short-distance trips, and people doing those trips share your burden.

The truth is, most live that far, north of Eglington, or even sheppard, are not because they are too poor to be able to be able to afford housing closer to the city. It is because they refuse to live in more compact space and insist on using larger space and consuming more energy. As far as I know, those who live around Finch are not really poorer than folks near Regent Park, Liberty Village or Dupont/Lansdowne.

Do you think that the house / apartment footage is always directly proportional to its distance from the Union station?

There are pretty large houses in Forest Hill, and pretty small apartments in the new buildings along the northern sections of Yonge etc (even north of Steeles).