Which would you choose: Sheppard Subway or Eglinton LRT?

[gweed123]

The Sheppard extention to the east of Don Mills favours North York and Scarborough. One reason why Ford was elected is that the people outside the dt core are saying it's about time some resources are allocated to the area that's neglected such as the Scarborough RT. By extending the subway line right across, it'll make more sense for higher end investments from the private and public sector surrounding it, a lot more people will end up riding it since it'll be more convenient.

Well, with all due respect to the people living in North York and Scarborough who are saying that, they're wrong. The last subway built in the Old City of Toronto was in the 1970s. Since then, every subway expansion has occured in 'suburban' Toronto. I'd say the suburbs has seen a disproportionately high percentage of transit dollars in the past 30 years or so.

 

[Northern Magus]

No reason we can't build Eglinton at the same time though.

Um, yes there is: it's called a very limited budget.

just an opinion here, i think if we build eglinton, there will be no choice but to build a DRL after it.

That will likely depend on (a) precisely what decade they finish Eglinton in, (b) the state of government revenue coffers, and (c) transit-friendly governments in Queens Park and Parliament Hill.

So I don't know how much one will impact the other.....unless you think the only way to get politicians to commit to the DRL is perpetual overcrowding at Yonge-Bloor

While overcrowding may play a role, the ultimate factors will be (a) available funding to spend and (b) transit-friendly provincial and federal governments.

Change the land use, and those results change big time. A subway can succeed anywhere.

Um, no. In a civilized democracy we don't take such a heavy-handed approach to planning: political careers suddenly end when things are done that way. But they'd sure love your reasoning in Beijing.

Personally I choose both. I see no reason a wealthy city like Toronto can't finish a subway that was already started, and build one new LRT line.

Um, no. For the same reason that this "wealthy" city has annual budget shortfalls and is wholly unable on its current tax and fare base to build any large-scale rapid transit lines at all. There is only a limited amount of money available to be spent within the next 5 years. Extending the Sheppard Subway makes this an either-or proposition.

If the buck stops here on no more subways then it's almost like saying this city is only good enough to build only LRTs but other cities can somehow support grander subway infrastructures at one time or another.

And no. Taking the "I won't accept anything less than a cadillac" approach is always counterproductive myopic reasoning. All the arguments in favour of Sheppard essentially boil down to "let's spend bad money after good to try and make it less of a white elephant" reasoning. The fact remains that there are other choices that, for the same cost, do a far greater amount of good for a far greater number of people.

To me, the LRT plan was pragmatically conceived, taking as its touchstone the fact that subways are the most expensive form of rapid transit to build, and that there is only a limited amount of money available to address the city's many, many needs. The central question then becomes: is it worth spending 3x as much on a given line to put it underground? The answer is then reasonably considered in terms of realistic ridership figures. Unfortunately, subways are not experiments in social engineering.

Using pie-in-the-sky speculation to justify fantasy lines is something that should be left to fantasy forums or SimCity. Instead, build intelligently, build responsibly, and build pragmatically.

Build Eglinton, and build the LRTs.

 

[scarberiankhatru]

Um, no. In a civilized democracy we don't take such a heavy-handed approach to planning: political careers suddenly end when things are done that way. But they'd sure love your reasoning in Beijing.

You know that the official plan would need to be rewritten to accommodate LRT on streets like Sheppard, Jane, Don Mills, etc., right? I guess you didn't if you think rezoning on the whim of politicians is such a foreign concept. Their ridership estimates and Avenues urban resdeign schemes are based largely on areas that are currently seeing zero development suddenly becoming home to many thousands of new residents.

Um, no. For the same reason that this "wealthy" city has annual budget shortfalls and is wholly unable on its current tax and fare base to build any large-scale rapid transit lines at all. There is only a limited amount of money available to be spent within the next 5 years. Extending the Sheppard Subway makes this an either-or proposition.

So plan beyond a 5 year timeframe. It's not like Eglinton will be done in 5 years, anyway.

And no. Taking the "I won't accept anything less than a cadillac" approach is always counterproductive myopic reasoning. All the arguments in favour of Sheppard essentially boil down to "let's spend bad money after good to try and make it less of a white elephant" reasoning. The fact remains that there are other choices that, for the same cost, do a far greater amount of good for a far greater number of people.

Remember that Eglinton was approved with projections of it moving about the same peak crowds that Sheppard does now. Eglinton will be the most expensive thing ever built in Toronto and it soaked up pretty much the entire originally stated cost of Transit City. With all the talk of helping the most people, you'd think the city's busiest routes, routes like King or Finch East, would see dollars funneled their way, or that the city would be pushing general bus improvements, or GO expansion within the city, or a downtown subway line, or ...

To me, the LRT plan was pragmatically conceived, taking as its touchstone the fact that subways are the most expensive form of rapid transit to build, and that there is only a limited amount of money available to address the city's many, many needs. The central question then becomes: is it worth spending 3x as much on a given line to put it underground? The answer is then reasonably considered in terms of realistic ridership figures. Unfortunately, subways are not experiments in social engineering.

No, Transit City is the experiment in social engineering. It ignores the city's needs and diverts resources towards a handful of corridors, leaving the vast majority of people in the city completely unaffected by a record jolt of infrastructure spending.

Using pie-in-the-sky speculation to justify fantasy lines is something that should be left to fantasy forums or SimCity. Instead, build intelligently, build responsibly, and build pragmatically.

Build Eglinton, and build the LRTs

But pie-in-the-sky speculation is what gave us Transit City...don't be so hard on it. Absurd ridership estimates, inappropriate corridor selection, visions of European boulevards lined with cafes and galleries that will lift everyone in the city out of poverty.

We can't afford Transit City.

 

[LAz]

Um, no. In a civilized democracy we don't take such a heavy-handed approach to planning: political careers suddenly end when things are done that way. But they'd sure love your reasoning in Beijing.

Bullfuckingshit is all that I have to say about this statement.

Toronto's system became what it is thanks to exactly those brutal authoritarian restrictive policies that were implemented! We integrated land use and transit. That's right, we gave a big F"U" to developers who wanted to just build anywhere.

Your post reaks of neoliberalism. You know, that free market scum who feel that the market will be the solution to everything, and under that rhetoric the state should be removed from government alltogether. You know, privatize everything, and so fort kind of insanity. No regulations, etc etc.
That libertarian thinking has resulted in the death of cities. It's a well known failure. So please do not dirty this forum with it. Planning and libertarianism do not mix! There can be no planning under libertarianism because the state's role has been castrated so that it can not do anything that impedes the private sector.



To take a quote out of my own writing...

...the system’s first expansion period, between 1954 and 1956, 50% of highrises and 90% of offices were constructed within a five minute walk from the metro (Cervero, 1998: 83). Since 1965, for 20 years, subway ridership and the system’s expansion paralleled one another...

This is a big slap in the face to the libertarians and neoconservatives. A big one. Toronto became the best city in North America thanks to government involvement and integration of land use and planning. Toronto has left that planning behind and is no longer the best city on the continent. We're a second class world city, but nonetheless, this forward thinking of our planners have cemented Toronto as a first class north american city.
All thinking away from this is only contributing to the demise of our city. It must be opposed. Oppose the empire. And do that for our children and our children's children.

Even the most generous modern planners haven't projected ridership numbers even meeting the minimum cost-justifiable threshold for the Sheppard Subway, including land use changes.

They're all appendages of the monsters who devised this tram plan.
Anything can be built by anyone anywhere. It all depends if it has support. You can get professionals supporting and opposing anything. We do not live in an era where planers were two notches above ours. They did not have problems when they first build sheppard. But naturally the new administration likes to flush things down the toilet and devise their own new things.

 

[Northern Magus]

Oh dear: the bigger the kook, the more he disagrees with me.

Remember that Eglinton was approved with projections of it moving about the same peak crowds that Sheppard does now. Eglinton will be the most expensive thing ever built in Toronto and it soaked up pretty much the entire originally stated cost of Transit City. With all the talk of helping the most people, you'd think the city's busiest routes, routes like King or Finch East, would see dollars funneled their way, or that the city would be pushing general bus improvements, or GO expansion within the city, or a downtown subway line, or ...

Yawn. In your sputtering rant you seem unwilling or unable to recognize that this poll and thread are predicated on a binary choice: Eglinton or Sheppard. Either or. And you should have noticed that, right?

It's unclear whether you're referring to the Eglinton LRT or the old Eglinton Subway. Regardless, it's the off-peak crowds that really show the difference between the proposed lines. But you'd know that, right?

And such a knowledgeable person like you surely must remember that there was a Transit City bus plan which beefed up the kinds of routes that you speak of, right?

And by the way, such a bright guy like you would also know that the alternative proposition committed to by Ford -- extending the Sheppard Stubway both east and west -- would "soak up" far more than you claim the Eglinton line would, meaning that a far greater amount of money than you complain of would be spent on a far, far smaller number of beneficiaries.

Your points are therefore largely irrelevant and your position is nonsense.

No, Transit City is the experiment in social engineering. It ignores the city's needs and diverts resources towards a handful of corridors, leaving the vast majority of people in the city completely unaffected by a record jolt of infrastructure spending.

Um, as opposed to the alternate proposition of this thread, extending the Shepherd Stubway?!?

Ok, Einstein.

But pie-in-the-sky speculation is what gave us Transit City...don't be so hard on it. Absurd ridership estimates, inappropriate corridor selection, visions of European boulevards lined with cafes and galleries that will lift everyone in the city out of poverty.

So ... you've chosen to defend pie-in-the-sky speculation. Okay then. The case for the alternative proposition demands "absurd ridership estimates" et al. on a far greater scale that you are criticizing.

But you'd know that, right?

We can't afford Transit City.

Um, no. Transit City Phase I has already been funded and tendered -- by the regional transportation body that is simultaneously funding transit expansions in 905, 519, and 613.

And if we can't "afford" Transit City, then we sure can't afford any subways either.

Bullfuckingshit is all that I have to say about this statement.

Toronto's system became what it is thanks to exactly those brutal authoritarian restrictive policies that were implemented! We integrated land use and transit. That's right, we gave a big F"U" to developers who wanted to just build anywhere.

Your post reaks of neoliberalism. You know, that free market scum who feel that the market will be the solution to everything, and under that rhetoric the state should be removed from government alltogether. You know, privatize everything, and so fort kind of insanity. No regulations, etc etc.

That libertarian thinking has resulted in the death of cities. It's a well known failure. So please do not dirty this forum with it. Planning and libertarianism do not mix! There can be no planning under libertarianism because the state's role has been castrated so that it can not do anything that impedes the private sector.

This is a big slap in the face to the libertarians and neoconservatives. A big one. Toronto became the best city in North America thanks to government involvement and integration of land use and planning. Toronto has left that planning behind and is no longer the best city on the continent. We're a second class world city, but nonetheless, this forward thinking of our planners have cemented Toronto as a first class north american city.
All thinking away from this is only contributing to the demise of our city. It must be opposed. Oppose the empire. And do that for our children and our children's children.

They're all appendages of the monsters who devised this tram plan.

We do not live in an era where planers were two notches above ours. They did not have problems when they first build sheppard. But naturally the new administration likes to flush things down the toilet and devise their own new things.

Uh-huh.

"Do you see over yonder, friend Sancho, thirty or forty hulking giants? I intend to do battle with them and slay them. With their spoils we shall begin to be rich for this is a righteous war and the removal of so foul a brood from off the face of the earth is a service God will bless."​

Maybe next time, LAzy.

 

[LAz]

Uh-huh.

"Do you see over yonder, friend Sancho, thirty or forty hulking giants? I intend to do battle with them and slay them. With their spoils we shall begin to be rich for this is a righteous war and the removal of so foul a brood from off the face of the earth is a service God will bless."​

Maybe next time, LAzy.

Whoah there a second skipper.
Is that Lazy or Lazie?? Big difference. ^^

 

[EnviroTO]

Um, no. For the same reason that this "wealthy" city has annual budget shortfalls and is wholly unable on its current tax and fare base to build any large-scale rapid transit lines at all. There is only a limited amount of money available to be spent within the next 5 years. Extending the Sheppard Subway makes this an either-or proposition.

Not only that but putting a subway where there are fewer passengers to pay for it means budgets to keep everything in a state of good repair will be even more strained. LRT stops are a concrete slab in the street and require almost no maintenance at all. Subway stations require far more maintenance from cleaning, to escalators, to elevators, to lighting, to security, to station operators. There are numerous subway stations in the system that are run down and falling apart and creating more stations in places where there isn't a significant enough demand means the system will end up worse off.

You know that the official plan would need to be rewritten to accommodate LRT on streets like Sheppard, Jane, Don Mills, etc., right? I guess you didn't if you think rezoning on the whim of politicians is such a foreign concept.

Like he said, political careers end that way. The official plan purposely avoided increased density in established neighbourhoods like just west of Eglinton or on the north side of Sheppard because councillors that don't behave like NIMBYs get canned. Suburban councillors are largely against change in their own backyards because the electorate hates new buildings blocking views, casting shadows, creating more traffic, bringing undesirables into the area, etc, etc. This is the catch 22 of suburban subways... high support for subways to reduce traffic so their drive can go smoother and for the odd time they might actually use it, and high opposition to anything that would increase traffic or impact their property in a negative way.

 

[Northern Magus]

I haven't seen this posted yet and think it adds to the discussion: it's Leger's transit poll results.

Pretty much reflects this thread's results and makes for an interesting read.

 

[scarberiankhatru]

diatribe

Look at the bright side: if Sheppard goes forward before Eglinton, again, you’ll be able to gripe about it for years.

Not only that but putting a subway where there are fewer passengers to pay for it means budgets to keep everything in a state of good repair will be even more strained. LRT stops are a concrete slab in the street and require almost no maintenance at all. Subway stations require far more maintenance from cleaning, to escalators, to elevators, to lighting, to security, to station operators. There are numerous subway stations in the system that are run down and falling apart and creating more stations in places where there isn't a significant enough demand means the system will end up worse off.

Lines don't need to be 100% underground. They don't need station operators. Eglinton is far from just a concrete slab in the street, by the way. There’s a range of alternatives between running vehicles in the middle of the street and running them in palatially overbuilt underground lines. Other cities do them, we’ve done them in the past, and we could do them now.

Like he said, political careers end that way. The official plan purposely avoided increased density in established neighbourhoods like just west of Eglinton or on the north side of Sheppard because councillors that don't behave like NIMBYs get canned. Suburban councillors are largely against change in their own backyards because the electorate hates new buildings blocking views, casting shadows, creating more traffic, bringing undesirables into the area, etc, etc. This is the catch 22 of suburban subways... high support for subways to reduce traffic so their drive can go smoother and for the odd time they might actually use it, and high opposition to anything that would increase traffic or impact their property in a negative way.

That's nice, but it doesn’t change the fact that Transit City's base assumption was a rewrite of the Official Plan, a move that surprised, well, everybody, since it would refocus the city's growth/Avenue targets. Politicians can talk like NIMBYs but facilitate development without impacting their career. It’s especially easy when the OMB approves things, anyway. You’re overestimating the municipal electorate.

If we’re comparing the prospects of redevelopment, sites near every potential Sheppard station from Downsview to STC are already seeing development: recent, current, and proposed. No Catch-22 and no careers are at stake. Sheppard is also an Avenue and is seeing Avenues development sprout. Put 8 storey buildings on Sheppard, put the towers behind them. It’s a bit silly, but it seems to make everybody happy. Eglinton? It’s seeing almost no development today, yet has been designated for Avenues growth and would, with an over $7 billion suburban and partially underground LRT line, be under the same kinds of development pressures – not to mention councillor tactics and travel behaviour – as a suburban subway. Minto Leaside? Minto Forest Hill? Minto Richview? We’ll see...

 

[W. K. Lis]

There's another option not looked at. That is to connect both the Scarborough RT and the Eglinton Crosstown as one light rail subway.

 

[nfitz]

There's another option not looked at. That is to connect both the Scarborough RT and the Eglinton Crosstown as one light rail subway.

How would this differ from the option we've already discussed of completely grade-separating the Eglinton Crosstown and connecting it to the SRT? Or is it because you will tunnel the entire SRT?

 

[gweed123]

How would this differ from the option we've already discussed of completely grade-separating the Eglinton Crosstown and connecting it to the SRT? Or is it because you will tunnel the entire SRT?

I thought the same thing as you when I read that.

 

[Dan416]

I do not understand the desire to connect the Eglinton LRT with the SRT. Doesn't make sense to me, regardless of whether its with Mark II or LRT.

 

[Eug]

I do not understand the desire to connect the Eglinton LRT with the SRT. Doesn't make sense to me, regardless of whether its with Mark II or LRT.

From a practical or financial point of view, I wouldn't know either way. However, I guess the point is people coming from Scarborough Town Centre... which is in the centre of Scarborough... and going to downtown just don't want to connect again at Kennedy just to go the exact same direction.

It seems to me as a potential customer (and not a bean counter), it makes more sense that Scarborough Town Centre is the main hub, with Kennedy being more of a feeder hub to the line that starts at Scarborough Town Centre, cuz Kennedy just isn't a destination for anything in itself.

To put it another way, if Transit City deems it important enough to extend the LRT to the airport, then the extension to Scarborough Town Centre should be important enough too, if not more.

EDIT:

To clarify though... However, I think most people would prefer an extension of the subway line to Scarborough Town Centre.

 

[nfitz]

I do not understand the desire to connect the Eglinton LRT with the SRT. Doesn't make sense to me, regardless of whether its with Mark II or LRT.

I don't really see the need either, but there were quite few fok here earlier talking about how having LRT from Kennedy to Scarborough Centre was going to create an unnecessary transfer and that there should be through operation at Kennedy to prevent Transit City becoming Transfer City.

Actually, I thought you were one of them ...