Intolerant? And regurgitation? That's rather rich.A bizarre response from someone who's intolerant of other opinions...opinions that you didn't even bother to read in full before regurgitating a lame rant (no doubt copied and pasted from some other post). Nevermind the fact that Fresh Start mentioned using Transit City resources like funding and initiative towards subways instead, like the DRL, that would benefit the city more than projects like, to put words into his mouth, 3 light rail lines to Malvern.
The only parts of Toronto that are dense enough to support subway are the old City of Toronto, York, and East York. They are the only parts of the city that have comparable density to the vaunted asian cities that people often bring up as being profitable operations.Personally I think LRT is more of a technology for when you're in a small city that isn't dense enough to support subway (e.g. Hamilton), or when you're in a big city and already have tons of subway and just need to upgrade current routes which don't warrant subway but warrant higher order transit (London, Paris).
We may not agree on where the DRL should go but on this I wholeheartedly agree with you. I think Transfer City squanders the opportunity of a lifetime.Good riddance! We need someone in office who'll think long-term about the systemâ€™s attractiveness and capacity in response to growing travel demand. Transfer City on most counts fails to adequately fulfill this criterion and its funding could instead be used towards 50 kms of new subways that'd benefit a larger segment of the population.
I don't know how y'all feel about Jane Pitfield, but at least she was talking about building a DRL/Queen subway and a Eglinton subway stretching to Jane St right about the same time as TC was being conceived.
Then what we'd get is a downtown relief line, and a Yonge subway.Perhaps the big city should focus on upgrading routes that warrant a subway instead upgrading low-priority routes that do not.
Density doesn't matter...riders do. With all that density in central places like the old city of Toronto, how do you explain Museum or Old Mill or Chester or Summerhill compared to Warden or Wilson? Is North York Centre or Yorkdale not dense enough? This forum should have a feature where the words "dense" and "density" are automatically replaced by "kittens" or "boobies" due to rampant misuse.The only parts of Toronto that are dense enough to support subway are the old City of Toronto, York, and East York. They are the only parts of the city that have comparable density to the vaunted asian cities that people often bring up as being profitable operations.
If budgets were unlimited why wouldn't someone propose 5000 km of subways instead of an obviously reasonable ballpark figure like 50km that would obviously get built over a large number of years and not instantaneously? Oh, that's right, nothing's obvious when you launch into rants without even reading what you're responding to.In any case, I'm pointing out that there are severe funding constraints on transit and that the provincial handout so far has been extremely generous, but that it's not realistic to expect even more considering the record deficits. I think that -- yes -- many posters here are working in the unlimited budget mode and that that doesn't make any sense.
50 km of subways is impossible in the economic climate we find ourselves in. Canceling the TC and using that money (by the way, that may not be doable) won't fund you anywhere close to that. Doing so would increase ridership in one sector of the city; yet the whole point of TC is that it improves transit for a wide swath of the city that currently has subpar (to say the least) service.
The DRL debate is irrelevant. Nobody (certainly not the TTC) is saying that TC and DRL are mutually exclusive projects, or that TC means no DRL. DRL is in the books, TC or no TC. Last I checked, TC is not causing the cancellation of the YUS extension, either.