Despite what Ford says The Streetcar in Toronto is here to stay.

[GTS]

Generation W, you stated that " I believe it's a done deal that Ford will convert LRT funding into some kind of a subway extension."

I used to work as an electrician until 6-7 years ago and had to go through a number of shoulder surgeries forcing me to change my career. The reason that I mention this is because after re-hab and some schooling I am now back to work- working part-time for a lawyer downtown for almost two years now (a lot less money but I am suprised at how much I enjoy it). The lawyer I work for drafts AND protects a lot of legally binding contracts, and I am learning that Ford just can't say that this money, which legally is not his, can just magically be used for subways instead of LRT. I am sure the feds and province had drafted their own contract before signing it off to the city so that these funds will be used for there intended purpose. These contracts, that I am learning about, are a very important part of business and Ford being first a business man must undrstand the importance of this needed expense of drafting contract for any venture. It will be quite costly, to go through arbitration (hopefully not to court) to legally change these contracts with the Feds and Province but it has to be done before Ford can shoot off at the mouth and speak like he has all power instead of working within something like a democracy! I pay, like everyone, municipal, provincial and federal taxes, and hope my tax dollars aren't squandered by half-thought out plans.

 

[Dan416]

Contracts are all well and good, but if all sides agree to something, they can just come up with new contracts. McGuinty is not going to stonewall Ford, despite what some people on this board seem to think. Not that I think he'll capitulate to all of Ford's ideas (all subways must be underground, no exception) but he'll moderate them and hopefully show that a line can run beside a street or above a street and not get in the way of cars.

 

[nfitz]

... and hopefully show that a line can run beside a street or above a street and not get in the way of cars.

Given that there is virtually no loss in car lanes from the Sheppard East LRT, then perhaps it can show that a line can run beside a street or above a street and not get in the way of cars. We could simply move it from the centre to the side of the street, ala Cherry or Queens Quay.

 

[gweed123]

Given that there is virtually no loss in car lanes from the Sheppard East LRT, then perhaps it can show that a line can run beside a street or above a street and not get in the way of cars. We could simply move it from the centre to the side of the street, ala Cherry or Queens Quay.

That may work in some cases, but in places where buildings front directly onto the avenue (and only the avenue, ie no rear or side access), putting the LRT along the side of the street may not go over well. I would imagine the number of cars that get blind-sided by an LRT vehicle while trying to cross the tracks to access the street would be pretty substantial. The only place where side LRT would work is a) if there is nothing along 1 side of the road (ex: Richview), or b) when the buildings back onto the road (ex: most suburban avenues where the houses back onto the avenues).

 

[Still Waters]

It is correct that side-of-the-road operation is not appropriate everywhere. It really doesn't improve traffic flow for cars, and existing unsignalized driveways and cross-streets would either have to be closed off completely or signalized. Signalizing everything could make for a very slow operation for everyone. At least in a median operation, unsignalized cross-street access can be retained as right-in/right-out. Side-of-the-road operation would also restrict right-turns by cars across the tracks since the transit vehicles would be going straight through on the grreen signal. In choosing side or centre alignments, the devil really is in the details and it's not always intuitive.

 

[drum118]

Given that there is virtually no loss in car lanes from the Sheppard East LRT, then perhaps it can show that a line can run beside a street or above a street and not get in the way of cars. We could simply move it from the centre to the side of the street, ala Cherry or Queens Quay.

You can only move the tracks from the centre of the street to the north side of the road between Markham Rd and Meadowvale as there are way too many drives ways for the rest of the route. The south side has too many drives ways for the whole route. TTC is to blame for not moving to the north side as they say the centre of the road is better. Better for who? Sure not for the riders.

I love the talk that road space will be lost for the centre LRT when there is no plans to widden Sheppard from 5 lanes to 7 lanes for traffic in the first place.

The only lane been lost to LRT is the turning lane in the centre of the road that will force driver to make a u-turn to get back to where they want to go in the first place.

Finch has a few section where the LRT can run on the north side in place of the centre.

 

[GraphicMatt]

Even in places where side-of-the-road operation is possible now, it kind of limits future development potential, doesn't it?

 

[nfitz]

Even in places where side-of-the-road operation is possible now, it kind of limits future development potential, doesn't it?

Of course it does ... I 'd have hoped that it was clear that my earlier response to Coruscanti Cognoscente was tongue-in-cheek.

 

[Dan416]

Of course it does ... I 'd have hoped that it was clear that my earlier response to Coruscanti Cognoscente was tongue-in-cheek.

I don't think at-grade really makes any sense for Sheppard at all. I was referring more to Eglinton.

 

[nfitz]

I don't think at-grade really makes any sense for Sheppard at all. I was referring more to Eglinton.

You want the line with the higher ridership on the busier street to be at-grade?

 

[EnviroTO]

^ That has been the argument all along. Capacity requirements are not a factor, where a previous government put a subway is what matters. If a previous administration had started a subway on Martin Grove the place you could not put an LRT is Martin Grove... it would have to be subway. Point to point trip analysis and capacity requirements be damned. The number of people who wake up each morning in Scarborough and would take a subway to North York in the morning is probably minuscule but it doesn't matter, because that is where a subway was started.

 

[nfitz]

If a previous administration had started a subway on Martin Grove the place you could not put an LRT is Martin Grove... it would have to be subway.

That doesn't make sense. Why build even more capacity where it isn't needed. On Sheppard, the subway already exists on the busiest part of the route. Perhaps there is a case for extending as far as Victoria Park - but no further. In many other cities subways stop with light-rail or other transit keeping going where subway isn't needed. Why should Toronto be any different?

 

[Dan416]

That doesn't make sense. Why build even more capacity where it isn't needed. On Sheppard, the subway already exists on the busiest part of the route. Perhaps there is a case for extending as far as Victoria Park - but no further. In many other cities subways stop with light-rail or other transit keeping going where subway isn't needed. Why should Toronto be any different?

Yet people like you will then argue that Sheppard is a failure and a stubway. There's no winning with you.

Vic Park isn't a logical terminus. If Sheppard should end anywhere, it'd be at STC. And in the west, there's not much need to go beyond Downsview in my mind.

But you know nfitz, you're right. Why would we build an LRT on Eglinton if Sheppard has a subway? Eglinton is busier than Sheppard so surely it needs a subway.

It's a good thing we have a visionary mayor that demands that we have subways. It looks like he'll get us a subway on Eglinton and on Sheppard. Isn't that amazing. We truly are blessed to have such a visionary mayor to be so forward thinking. Thank you for opening my eyes nfitz. I always felt Eglinton was getting shafted by getting LRT. And now I'm certain.

 

[Platform 27]

That doesn't make sense. Why build even more capacity where it isn't needed. On Sheppard, the subway already exists on the busiest part of the route. Perhaps there is a case for extending as far as Victoria Park - but no further. In many other cities subways stop with light-rail or other transit keeping going where subway isn't needed. Why should Toronto be any different?

I don't think EnviroTO was trying to claim it made sense, only that it was the unfortunate political reality we appear to be stuck with

The thing is, as far as planning the GTA's transit system is concerned, you're always going to hit points where as you move out radially along a line your ridership levels drop off until a particular higher-order mode no longer becomes justifiable.

If it's strictly verboten to ask people to transfer to a lower-capacity, cheaper mode that will continue their route in a roughly parallel direction, this is a problem that's just going to keep coming up and dogging every single project in the region.

Sheppard subway at Don Mills? Transferring to LRT for the trip further east isn't good enough for some folks, ridership be damned. Must make the subway longer.

Bloor-Danforth subway at Kennedy? Transferring to a lower-order transit option (ICTS or LRT) for the trip onwards to STC isn't good enough for some folks, ridership be damned. Must make the subway longer.

Extended Bloor-Danforth subway at STC? Transferring to a lower-order transit option for the trip on to Centennial College and Malvern isn't good enough for some folks, ridership be damned. Must make the subway longer.

Bloor-Danforth subway at Kipling? Transferring to a BRT or LRT along Dundas into Mississauga isn't good enough for some folks, ridership be damned. Must make the subway longer.

Yonge subway at Finch? Transferring to a Viva BRT or LRT for the trip up Yonge to Langstaff isn't good enough for some folks, ridership be damned. Must make the subway longer.

Extended Yonge subway at Langstaff? Transferring to a Viva BRT or LRT for the trip up Yonge to Richmond Hill and Aurora isn't good enough for some folks, ridership be damned. Must make the subway longer. (I feel the need to stick in a blinking South-Park-Scientology/Mormonism-style "SOME YORK REGIONAL COUNCILLORS ACTUALLY BELIEVE THIS" banner here.)

University-Spadina subway at Vaughan Metropolitan Centre? Transferring to some kind of, hell, once-every-10 minutes conventional YRT bus along Jane to Canada's Wonderland isn't good enough for some folks, ridership be damned (cue banner: "DEFEATED VAUGHAN MAYORAL CANDIDATE MARIO RACCO ACTUALLY BELIEVES THIS")

And it's not just a problem for Toronto subways, although they're the ones where the price differences are the most shocking... it's also an issue on pretty much the end of every single GO train line: transfer from a train to a bus to Peterborough? Appalling. We deserve a direct train through the middle of nowhere, ridership be damned. Transfer in Milton to take a bus to Cambridge? Not on the Mayor of Cambridge's watch. A bus from Burlington to St Catharines? No, extend the trains. A train to St Catharines and then a bus to Niagara? Not good enough. Under the Welland Canal we must go. And on and on.

Any real transit network in the world has these parallel-direction transfer points. No matter how you configure Toronto's transit map, it's going to have them, too. Make peace with that.

Now, there are more natural spots for these than others... for instance, I'm actually personally kind of sympathetic to stopping the Yonge subway at Highway 7 (and no further) in the interests of a cleaner network topology, even though there isn't a straightforward ridership capacity case. No matter what Giambrone said, Don Mills subway station just plain wasn't ever going to be a natural fit as a transfer point, but is it worth spending $3 billion to move that same east-west transfer point to STC? I personally say no; others beg to differ. Kennedy, as a mobility hub with various other connections, makes some decent sense as a subway terminus where it already is. Same for Kipling and VMC.

The Toronto subway network already spreads roughly as far radially as the London Underground and Paris Metro. What we need to do is stop worrying about offending transferphobes near the ends of the existing arms and put a bit of infill on that frame.

 

[nfitz]

Yet people like you will then argue that Sheppard is a failure and a stubway. There's no winning with you.

I have never argued it is a failure. Why do you make stuff up? If your willing to make stuff up about others here, how can anything you say be taken seriously?

Vic Park isn't a logical terminus. If Sheppard should end anywhere, it'd be at STC. And in the west, there's not much need to go beyond Downsview in my mind.

The combination of the huge amount of money that is required to extend to Downsview and Scarborough Centre make it prohibitively expensive.

But you know nfitz, you're right.

This isn't consistent with what you already wrote.

Why would we build an LRT on Eglinton if Sheppard has a subway? Eglinton is busier than Sheppard so surely it needs a subway.

That makes no sense at all. Passenger demand on Eglinton can be dealt with LRT. Why would one propose subway?

It's a good thing we have a visionary mayor that demands that we have subways.

Ford visionary. I'm amazed that there is a single person left in this city who believes that Ford has any support for transit? Oh wait ... you don't actually live in Toronto do you ... I guess that explains it.