Election Results- Moving Forward

[EnviroTO]

I don't hate subways. If they were exactly the same price to build as surface LRTs or infrastructure money was unlimited then Transit City as planned wouldn't exist. There would be subways all over the place... it would likely be overkill in terms of capacity but if it costed the same as surface LRT to construct then why not. I just don't want to trade city wide LRT for a few kilometres of subway.

I think the DRL/Don Mills line needs to be subway. The route which is most maxed out is the Yonge subway line so with a north-south subway already existing and being extended west of Yonge, the missing piece is obviously a north-south subway east of Yonge to take pressure off of Yonge. The second maxed out route is the SRT.

On Sheppard there is no subway scale capacity problem. The big problem on Sheppard is traffic which makes delivering the required capacity expensive since buses and their drivers take much longer to run the route.

 

[LAz]

Who here hates subways? I love them. They should build more of them ... on Yonge and through Downtown. Along with the subways we are currently building to York, and under Eglinton.

The Transit City plan wholeheartedly shuns the expansion of Toronto's Metro. That is a problem. They can find some 20 billion for new things, but none of that was planned to be Metro. That is a problem in my opinion, and a hatred towards subways.

What is also mind boggling to me is how there is this rejection of subways. Extending sheppard by one or two stops is a no brainer. Really, a no brainer. But instead of doing that, the TC camp wants to built a tram that descends down. It's as if they are bent to pick the option that is against the expansion of the metro system on purpose, just for the heck of it. That is not okay.

If they were exactly the same price to build as surface LRTs or infrastructure money was unlimited then Transit City as planned wouldn't exist.

They never were the same price, and just mentioning this is almost like an insult.
Subways are not meant to be built as extensively as trams are. The two should not be compared, as subways are far superior.

Subways are not cheap anywhere. Yet we expanded ours significantly in the first couple decades. And many other cities around the world expanded theirs and continue to expand them.
Are they stupid? Were we stupid? Why is there this wholehearted rejection of subway expansion in favor of tram expansion? It's cheaper duh - and that's why there is some logic to build trams where there never were nor will there be plans to make subway lines, like along finch. But take for example sheppard... that is a serious corridor. It has been started. It could be a lot better. But people don't want this. They want to castrate the line. I don't understand why this hatred.

On Sheppard there is no subway scale capacity problem.

This is not a reason as to why the metro line there should not be expanded.

 

[Dan416]

Who here hates subways? I love them. They should build more of them ... on Yonge and through Downtown. Along with the subways we are currently building to York, and under Eglinton.

In light of recent news about the Eglinton LRT tunnel not being compatible with subway, it would be disingenuous to refer to it as such.

 

[nfitz]

The Transit City plan wholeheartedly shuns the expansion of Toronto's Metro.

But how can anyone take seriously the opinion of someone who keeps referring to the subway as "Toronto's Metro" when that is not what anyone calls it.

If one is so utterly unfamiliar with the city that one doesn't use the local terminology, then one shouldn't be trying to say that the current plan is all wrong.

 

[nfitz]

In light of recent news about the Eglinton LRT tunnel not being compatible with subway, it would be disingenuous to refer to it as such.

Whether it's compatible with the current lines or not is irrelevant.

The deep tubes in London aren't compatible with the Circle, Metropolitan, District, or Hammersmith and City lines. And none are compatible with the Waterloo and City line. In New York City, the IND lines are incompatible with the IRT lines, having very different width trains. In Vancouver the Canada Line is incompatible with the Expo and Millennium Lines; yet they are all called Skytrain.

Compatibility has nothing to do with anything.

 

[EnviroTO]

They never were the same price, and just mentioning this is almost like an insult.
Subways are not meant to be built as extensively as trams are. The two should not be compared, as subways are far superior.

Subways are not cheap anywhere. Yet we expanded ours significantly in the first couple decades. And many other cities around the world expanded theirs and continue to expand them.
Are they stupid? Were we stupid?

Those subways went to the city core where there is a huge employment and entertainment base walking distance from the stations. That is smart. GO trains also work going into downtown work for the same reasons. A couple of peak hour trains a day across the top of Toronto would do poorly in comparison to a couple of peak trains into the city core.

This is not a reason as to why the metro line there should not be expanded.

Capacity requirements aren't a good reason not to spend money on a subway?

Here is a good reason: "Subways are not meant to be built as extensively as trams are." The suburbs don't have any trams so until they do any building of subways would be building it more extensively than trams are.

 

[Woodbridge_Heights]

But how can anyone take seriously the opinion of someone who keeps referring to the subway as "Toronto's Metro" when that is not what anyone calls it.

If one is so utterly unfamiliar with the city that one doesn't use the local terminology, then one shouldn't be trying to say that the current plan is all wrong.

tyre

 

[LAz]

Those subways went to the city core where there is a huge employment and entertainment base walking distance from the stations. That is smart. GO trains also work going into downtown work for the same reasons. A couple of peak hour trains a day across the top of Toronto would do poorly in comparison to a couple of peak trains into the city core.

Sheppard does fine, with its only five er so stops. Why not get more out of that?

Are you aware of how limited a system is if all its lines go to the downtown? That is a problem. There should be other alternatives for rapid transit. Not everyone wants to go downtown. Toronto's system should not be only for the downtown. Downtown centric planning only is exactly what the car lobby wants. The car lobby actually supported building the San Francisco area's BART. BART is downtown centric. It's a social failure, as one sociologist called it.

Hence we need to look beyond downtown centric only, as that is bad and is not a solution to long term reduction in car usage. We need a good alternative to the car, not another option to go to work.

Capacity requirements aren't a good reason not to spend money on a subway?

They are not the only thing that should be looked at. As has been noted, whereever a metro line is built, ridership comes. I have mentioned the stockholm example - what about that do you not understand? Or do you simply prefer to ignore that?

Here is a good reason: "Subways are not meant to be built as extensively as trams are." The suburbs don't have any trams so until they do any building of subways would be building it more extensively than trams are.

Sheppard is not in the suburb. Sheppard is within the boundaries of Toronto. And it's much cheaper to extend sheppard than to build the DRL.

But how can anyone take seriously the opinion of someone who keeps referring to the subway as "Toronto's Metro" when that is not what anyone calls it.

If one is so utterly unfamiliar with the city that one doesn't use the local terminology, then one shouldn't be trying to say that the current plan is all wrong.

I call it Metro on purpose. And I always will. Most of the world calls it metro rather than subway. Metro implies high capacity. It's the term that I prefer. You can put a cable car underground for 1 km. That would technically be a subway. Hence why I do not like using the word subway. Is that a problem? Are you going to argue about what to call this - poop or shit? Hey, maybe it's poop. Maybe it's shit. Or no, howabout crap?! At the end I prefer not to go picking through that the way that you are now doing, perhaps on purpose to discredit what I am writing.



edit:
Extending sheppard a couple km is not that big a deal really. The cost to do that is not very high if we compare it to the entire cost of Tramsit City. Hence I refuse to buy that argument that "oh it costs so much" - and if cost was the concern, then BRT would be the decision rather than trams.
Go on, continue to ignore most of what I write.

 

[nfitz]

tyre

There's a difference between spelling flames and using words that don't even fit in the local context. You may tyre of hearing this, however.

 

[nfitz]

se. And I always will. Most of the world calls it metro rather than subway.

Most of the world certainly doesn't. The two biggest English speaking cities in the world are New York and London. Neither uses "metro". Chicago doesn't call them metros. Vancouver doesn't call them Metros. Heck, it's hard to find an English-language city that uses Metro other than Washington D.C. It's not relevant what other languages call a subway ...

Do you call the 401 a Motorway? Do you call the QEW an Autoroute?

In Toronto, Metro is a grocery store. Insisting on using that terminology for a subway only demonstrates that you have no background to be discussing transit in Toronto.

 

[adma]

In Toronto, Metro is a grocery store.

Not to mention a former-yet-still-indelible level of consolidated government. (Though it'd be interesting if the name "Metro" leaves younger people thinking of the grocery store, much as "Dominion Day" once made their parents/grandparents think of Metro's predecessor.)

Anyway, if we're to speak in terms of a "Metro", we might as well adopt new traffic signage while we're at it...

 

[W. K. Lis]

Most people, me included, would prefer subways along every arterial road in Toronto. However, the cost would be prohibitive, unless they find gold or diamonds while digging.

Light rail is the next best course of action we have available since it would be more economical and can be built expeditiously.

 

[The Mad Navigator]

Most people, me included, would prefer subways along every arterial road in Toronto. However, the cost would be prohibitive, unless they find gold or diamonds while digging.

Light rail is the next best course of action we have available since it would be more economical and can be built expeditiously.

You, unlike the rest of the folks here, live in transit/economic reality, and I thank you for that.

 

[Mapleson]

The Transit City plan wholeheartedly shuns the expansion of Toronto's Metro. That is a problem. They can find some 20 billion for new things, but none of that was planned to be Metro. That is a problem in my opinion, and a hatred towards subways.

What is also mind boggling to me is how there is this rejection of subways. Extending sheppard by one or two stops is a no brainer. Really, a no brainer. But instead of doing that, the TC camp wants to built a tram that descends down. It's as if they are bent to pick the option that is against the expansion of the metro system on purpose, just for the heck of it. That is not okay.

A no-brainer? So it was a no-brain decision when they decided a quarter billion dollar bridge to get over the 404 and Don River isn't worth going 1-2 more kilometres by subway and then still switch to bus. Stop the line at the busy hub of Sheppard and Vic Park? It's among the most developmentally neglected intersection of major roads in the City. If not, 'one or two stops' is a huge project.

Of course subways, trams, and buses should be compared because they provide the same service in different ways. Just because subways make sense in London and LRT makes sense in Calgary doesn't mean either will be better for Toronto with Toronto's financial and transportation issues.

We built the majority of our subway system prior to stringent health and safety requirements (Check out the 'Building of the Brooklyn Bridge' and Bends for a great example). We weren't stupid for letting hundreds of workers die prematurely, but we can be smarter about it now. Russia and India aren't stupid either, but they can build more for less, because they care less for most. We would be smart to build subways now, but besides the inclusion of the DRL, we have a development plan that works for the next decade. It doesn't work well, but it works. We should look around 2014-2015, just before the PanAm Games and next provincial elections to plans for the next round of subways. Don't forget, Eglinton LRT will be underground where it counts.

From the 2001 RTES, Don Mills to Vic Park = $417m; Don Mills to Kennedy = $892m; Don Mills to CN/CP/ McCowan = $1,051m; and Don Mills to Scarborough CC = $1,535m. Since then, the Construction Price Index (inflation) has risen ~38%. There is a certain logic in leaving things "half finished" because extending the subway to VicPark or Kennedy would require a new bus depot that is a "throw-away cost". Two stations and 2.1km underground travel for $1.25b is a much harder sell to the public than seven stations and 8.0km tracks for $2.15b. Ironically, that same report has a "Spadina Radial to Vaughan CC" extension with "No" under "Potential for Success". The City wanted to stop at Steeles; the province wanted to "increase inter-regional transit". I guess that goes with ignoring capacity and development needs in favour of gut feelings and intuition.

If we had budget surpluses and votes to buy, you might be able to squeeze more funding out of the incoming PCs, but when the pro-transit Miller and McGinty can't agree on how much infrastructure we need and can afford to build, I don't see the pro-frugal Ford and Huduk increasing infrastructure spending.

I walk the Don Mills to Consumers Road section of Sheppard every weekday, except for rain and bitter cold I take the bus, so it'd be hugely in my favour if they'd "just" extended the subway a few more kilometers. However, for everyone else that goes farther, 2km of LRT is better than 1km of subway, and with an LRT line, you have an end anchor that can have substantial services built and the line 'upgraded' to subway when congestion on the line warrants the added capacity and economic benefits.

Nobody is talking about subways being bad or unwanted, only about being affordable and cost-effective. You get what you pay for and people don't like paying tax, even if it benefits them in the long run. There were subways in the transportation development plan, but other priorities and needs took precedence and a lot of it is just semantics.

I expect to see a subway Downtown to Mississauga/Airport before I see a North York to Scarborough subway.

This is not a reason as to why the metro line there should not be expanded.

What better reason is there than we don't need it and we can't afford it? We want it and it would be useful long-term, but a drowning man doesn't stop for a drink of water.

 

[EnviroTO]

Are you aware of how limited a system is if all its lines go to the downtown? That is a problem. There should be other alternatives for rapid transit. Not everyone wants to go downtown. Toronto's system should not be only for the downtown. Downtown centric planning only is exactly what the car lobby wants. The car lobby actually supported building the San Francisco area's BART. BART is downtown centric. It's a social failure, as one sociologist called it.

That isn't a problem. LRT can provide crosstown routes where there isn't the same capacity requirements. You do realize that almost all subways in New York City go to Manhattan, and most if not all the subway lines in London come inside the Circle line which goes around the central core don't you?

Hence we need to look beyond downtown centric only, as that is bad and is not a solution to long term reduction in car usage. We need a good alternative to the car, not another option to go to work.

You can't replace the car on trips from one suburb to another with a subway. The whole argument about requiring parking at suburban stations talks to the reason why. You take your car to suburban station A, you take the subway to suburban location B, and you don't have a car to get you the rest of the way to your destination. You have to accept that because it is the suburbs and subways will never be less than 500m walking distances from all the places you want to go in the suburbs, and because freeways and roads are much wider in the suburbs that the business case for subways in the suburbs isn't that great. How can a destination with a four lane road with turning lanes and no street parking, stoplights spaced out 500 to 700m apart, only 500m from a 16 lane freeway, and a low to medium density require the same capacity solution as a place with stoplights every 250m, a freeway with 6 lanes, a road with on street parking, virtually no turning lanes, and far greater density? One environment is built for drivers and the other is almost un-drivable. A subway can't compete like that.

They are not the only thing that should be looked at. As has been noted, whereever a metro line is built, ridership comes. I have mentioned the stockholm example - what about that do you not understand? Or do you simply prefer to ignore that?

In the Stockholm example LRT was build and converted to subway.

Sheppard is not in the suburb. Sheppard is within the boundaries of Toronto. And it's much cheaper to extend sheppard than to build the DRL.

Sheppard is not in the "Manhattan" zone of Toronto. Scarborough might be Queens and North York might be the Bronx and the only viable option is to build a subway from Queens through Manhattan to the Bronx.