|
|
|
The relief line was not part of Transit City, and Transit City was not some all encompassing exclusive plan, the DRL was proceeding separately and did until Doug stopped it for the Ontario Line.
The biggest issue is that when it's actually cold outside the doors open so frequently that it never warns up. Today was zero degrees. Imagine riding it when it's -15 with a -25 windchill?
Are you saying that someone can get injured by opening the door before the LRT comes to a stop if they press the button?
Incoming pro-LRT comments. Even if Ford(s) were/are doofuses, it doesn't mean their conclusions against surface trams were wrong, even if the reasons behind said conclusion were wrong as you pointed out. Even a broken clock is right twice a day. And to the system justification pro-LRT crowd, I ask, do you know about the significant differences in urban morphology and settlement patterns between Western Europe and North America? There are a multitude of factors why trams are cost effective and well-suited to European streets as opposed to North American stroads. Some of those factors cannot be replicated within a lifetime in Canada, much less in the 10-15 year horizon for the next transit project. Reshaping our urban fabric would be a multi-generational endeavour that far outlasts the construction of Toronto’s next 30 skyscrapers built by 2030. That is assuming you get past the NIMBYs and NIMBY politicians on all levels.
schoolofcities.github.io
Yes this is what happened. Prior to Transit City's cancellation the DMLRT only made it far enough along that we had a potential stop list and the alignments on Don Mills Ave and Overlea Blvd had solidified. However the issue of how the route would connect to Line 2 had not been solved as the roads in East York are to narrow to support a median ROW. This was exacerbated after the plan was changed from an expansion of the streetcar network to separate larger LRT's since now the route would be fully incompatible with the streetcar network and thus eliminated both a possible Broadview Station alignment as well as a possible extension south into downtown. If it's not going to go downtown then it can't act as a relief line nor did it have the capacity to be one even if it did so the debate on Don Mills shifted back to the DRL since it could both serve the Don Mills corridor as well as run into downtown to be a real relief line. This holds true to this day with the OL, only this time we are building it all the way to Eglinton which was supposed to be part of a Phase 2 project for the DRL. I think we can all agree that of all of the Transit City lines the Don Mills LRT was the most flawed and is better served by the DRL/OL. You can make cases for and against the other lines but when examining all the facts the DMLRT is the hardest to justify considering the alternative already on the table and the overall needs of the city. I say that even as someone who is pro-LRT but the DRL/OL is the better project in this case when you look at it from a macro level. Subways and LRT's have their place and just like I think an LRT on Finch West is fine, an LRT on the Don Mills/DRL corridor is not and its better suited for a subway/light-metro.
I haven't studied many western European transit systems, and I won't pretend to be an expert on them, nor will I claim that there aren't cities in western Europe which we cannot emulate. But what exactly makes the outer boroughs (NOT downtown) of a city like Prague, different than Toronto's suburbs?Incoming pro-LRT comments. Even if Ford(s) were/are doofuses, it doesn't mean their conclusions against surface trams were wrong, even if the reasons behind said conclusion were wrong as you pointed out. Even a broken clock is right twice a day. And to the system justification pro-LRT crowd, I ask, do you know about the significant differences in urban morphology and settlement patterns between Western Europe and North America? There are a multitude of factors why trams are cost effective and well-suited to European streets as opposed to North American stroads. Some of those factors cannot be replicated within a lifetime in Canada, much less in the 10-15 year horizon for the next transit project. Reshaping our urban fabric would be a multi-generational endeavour that far outlasts the construction of Toronto’s next 30 skyscrapers built by 2030. That is assuming you get past the NIMBYs and NIMBY politicians on all levels.
Meaningfully altering Toronto’s settlement patterns for a lot more middle density may not ever happen due to the exorbitant short term costs and lack of existing transit. See comparison tool below to better understand how different European tram cities are compared to Toronto.
Rail Transit and Population Density in 250 Cities
Maps, charts, and rankings that compare 250 cities around the world
If I'm reading the pixels from those maps correctly, then on average, the density of the neighbourhoods on the Finch West line is comparable (and perhaps even a touch higher at certain points e.g. Jane & Finch) to those of the non-tunneled areas served by the Stadtbahns of Frankfurt, Rhine-Ruhr, Stuttgart, etc.Incoming pro-LRT comments. Even if Ford(s) were/are doofuses, it doesn't mean their conclusions against surface trams were wrong, even if the reasons behind said conclusion were wrong as you pointed out. Even a broken clock is right twice a day. And to the system justification pro-LRT crowd, I ask, do you know about the significant differences in urban morphology and settlement patterns between Western Europe and North America? There are a multitude of factors why trams are cost effective and well-suited to European streets as opposed to North American stroads. Some of those factors cannot be replicated within a lifetime in Canada, much less in the 10-15 year horizon for the next transit project. Reshaping our urban fabric would be a multi-generational endeavour that far outlasts the construction of Toronto’s next 30 skyscrapers built by 2030. That is assuming you get past the NIMBYs and NIMBY politicians on all levels.
Meaningfully altering Toronto’s settlement patterns for a lot more middle density may not ever happen due to the exorbitant short term costs and lack of existing transit. See comparison tool below to better understand how different European tram cities are compared to Toronto.
Rail Transit and Population Density in 250 Cities
Maps, charts, and rankings that compare 250 cities around the world
You've overlooked the fact that these are NOT well outside the core in an apples to apples comparison with Toronto. Prague is a city of 1.4 million with a density of 2,800/sqkm over 496 sqkm. Compared to Toronto's 3.3+ million with a density of 5,200/sqkm over 630 sqkm. The Prague districts you named are literally within a few km of the geographic centre of the city and significantly denser than the city itself. This should've been your first hint that these were downtown districts by global standards. Braník you listed for example, is a tiny 4.40 sqkm, located 2-3 km from the heart of Prague.
"even if the reasons behind said conclusion were wrong".Incoming pro-LRT comments. Even if Ford(s) were/are doofuses, it doesn't mean their conclusions against surface trams were wrong, even if the reasons behind said conclusion were wrong as you pointed out. Even a broken clock is right twice a day. And to the system justification pro-LRT crowd, I ask, do you know about the significant differences in urban morphology and settlement patterns between Western Europe and North America? There are a multitude of factors why trams are cost effective and well-suited to European streets as opposed to North American stroads. Some of those factors cannot be replicated within a lifetime in Canada, much less in the 10-15 year horizon for the next transit project. Reshaping our urban fabric would be a multi-generational endeavour that far outlasts the construction of Toronto’s next 30 skyscrapers built by 2030. That is assuming you get past the NIMBYs and NIMBY politicians on all levels.
Meaningfully altering Toronto’s settlement patterns for a lot more middle density may not ever happen due to the exorbitant short term costs and lack of existing transit. See comparison tool below to better understand how different European tram cities are compared to Toronto.
Rail Transit and Population Density in 250 Cities
Maps, charts, and rankings that compare 250 cities around the world
The thousand "equity-based" NGOs we bankroll will come out with the greatest screech's you've ever heard should this be attempted, especially on Finch. Every stop that's there, will stay, unless the Province removes them, as the City never will.
There are too many pro-tram / pro-LRT idealists here that overlook the unfortunate realities of North American urbanism at hand. We can't just pretend car-centrism and its consequences accumulated for over half a century has no effect on transit usage patterns and transit mode suitability. I know it's not malice, but system justification ignorance. I would LOVE for Toronto to have walkable tram lined streets. The REALITY is that just isn't going to happen anytime soon. Maybe not even by 2100. Simply pigeon-holing a tram onto a stroad is not going to magically turn it into a utopian European paradise.
It's truly stunning how the same gaggle of people who argued against all evidence for years took the briefest of breaks from arguing their inane points in the week after Line 6's disastrous opening.... and then immediately continued on as if nothing had changed. It's clearly useless to try and engage with people who are both incapable of integrating new information into their mind, and who treat forms of rail vehicles as a sort of idol to be uplifted....instead of a form of transportation intended to move people.
When it comes to transit, it often feels like city councils across Ontario and the rest of Canada are full of well-intentioned, ill-informed, Europhiles.
