BurlOak
Senior Member
It is really getting annoying that the last two elections, the public voted against Transit City, yet somehow we wind up with Transit City.
|
|
|
SmartTrack (Proposed)
- Thread starter aquateam
- Start date
sixrings
Senior Member
I dont think people voted against transit city. they voted against wasteful spending. But we dont know unless we do a poll which must include how much taxes would need to be raised to make subway vs lrt vs brt. For myself I cant get myself to BRT when other cities like kitchener, hamilton, mississauga, ottawa are all getting LRT. At the same time Subways seem to cost a fortune so unless its the DRL I have a hard time supporting it as well. So LRT wins in my mind by default with a DRL Subway.
mdrejhon
Senior Member
On a macro level, the greater Toronto area is so big an area it is so difficult to decide where to spend money on transit, and what kind of transit, and who spends it (TTC? Metrolinx? Etc). On a finer level, the 416 boundary is sometimes arbitrary given people living on both sides of the street and the "have-vs-havenot" complaints inevitably occur, if you service only one side. And to get across boundaries, different municipalities (+province, +federal) seem to struggle to agree.
No matter where you try, it all feels wasteful spending to different sets of people --
I think that's partially the reason why GTA transit has been a quagmire from Eglinton Subway to Transit City to Smart Track, you name it. Projects in other cities do get cancelled (e.g. the previous Ottawa LRT) but it seems like Toronto has a problem when we witness certain cities in the world build a multihundred-station NYC-sized subway system in the same time period we just add a few stations.
Metaphorically speaking; it almost feels like, many parts of Toronto just eyedropper drip improvements out, while we see supertankers worth of f transit improvements elsewhere, etc. And we can't afford to do the supertanker to try to make everyone happy.
Even big initiatives such as Transit City and GO RER/ feels only akin to a large gas tanker truck worth of of improvements relative to what has happened in some parts of the world. And yet, a lot still fight over those.
Sad, isn't it
Last edited:
drum118
Superstar
It wasn't a Smart plan from day one and not today.
If Tory had any understanding on Transit, he would have realizes some of his plan was DOA when first proposed. Other parts was getting Metrolinx to think outside the box by allowing for more infill stations on GO lines in Toronto, but the whole system. They only need to be walk-in stations with not parking and haft the size of full stations since short trains would service them in the first place.
To do what is needed today, we are looking at $200 Billion over 20 years. Build the DRL to Steeles is more important than a subway to STC that would be better service by the plan conversion of the LRT with branch lines to it, as well the Sheppard LRT
John Tory begins a slow retreat from SmartTrack
If Tory had any understanding on Transit, he would have realizes some of his plan was DOA when first proposed. Other parts was getting Metrolinx to think outside the box by allowing for more infill stations on GO lines in Toronto, but the whole system. They only need to be walk-in stations with not parking and haft the size of full stations since short trains would service them in the first place.
To do what is needed today, we are looking at $200 Billion over 20 years. Build the DRL to Steeles is more important than a subway to STC that would be better service by the plan conversion of the LRT with branch lines to it, as well the Sheppard LRT
John Tory begins a slow retreat from SmartTrack
ottbike
Active Member
At RyersonU we drafted a secondary plan for the south of eastern ave area. See my diagram below for fitting a SmartTrack or RER platform/station at the future Broadview underpass. If you made the underpass very wide on the west side, you could probably fit in a station area with stairs leading up to the platforms on each side of the rail corridor. They key feature of putting a station here would be a pedestrian and cycling overpass to/from corktown, leading directly into the station area. The high grades at Corktown and the future station would work well for a bridge. [Side note: the other two red squares were for a potential DRL station]
BurlOak
Senior Member
At least it seems pretty fair.
- Davenport gets an elevated GO line with station at St. Clair.
- Eglinton East gets elevated from Don Mills to Kennedy.
- Eglinton West gets elevated from Mount Dennis to Pearson.
- DRL gets underground through downtown to Millwood and elevated up to Seneca College.
If this was laid out, it would fit within the budget and there would be no choice but to accept since all are treated equal.
ottbike
Active Member
The benefit with BRT systems (like Ottawa's current one) is that they are relatively cheap to build, deliver flexible service, and in most cases you can easily convert them to an LRT system once demand reaches a certain point (since the ROW and stations are already there). BRTs make sense from a "long term planning" point of view.
sixrings
Senior Member
So you're suggesting a city which for the last 5 years has screamed "subways, subways, subways" is going to be OK not with LRT but BRT? And are you suggesting that most Torontonians are OK with comparing themselves to Ottawa versus New York or Chicago? There is ta reason people wanted subways. It is because it is seen as the best which is in the best cities which Toronto likes to think it is part of. What BRT people are asking Torontonians to do when selecting a BRT is the equivalent to bringing someone into a Toyota/Lexus dealership showing them a IS350 and then saying but you know the Yaris will work for you until you have some real money.
LNahid2000
Senior Member
You do realize that New York already has BRT, and Chicago is planning some BRT lines right? Either way, it's not about comparing ourselves to other cities; it's about what mode of transportation is most efficient for the projected ridership on the route.
sixrings
Senior Member
I have been to both cities and I am familiar with them but that doesnt change the fact that most people look at NYC or Chicago and think of their subway and rail service.
BurlOak
Senior Member
I am sure Sheppard East would have chosen BRT over LRT. LRT is seen as a way of permanently killing higher order transit.
LNahid2000
Senior Member
So? New York has the population density to support subways and Chicago was able to build subways cheaply by building them above ground 100 years ago. Most streets in Toronto don't have the ridership for LRT or subways to be the most efficient mode.
innsertnamehere
Superstar
Well idk if Ottawa is the best example.. The BRT is being entirely ripped out for the LRT replacement. Essentially the only think that is being "kept" is the right of way, and even then there is a lot of tweaking to it.
In fact, the excuse for BRT that it can easily be converted has yet to really happen anywhere as far as I know. A big sell of the BRT program in York Region right now is that it can be converted to LRT easily, but it still ignores infrastructure that LRTs require that buses don't like storage tracks, space for catenary support structures, bi-directional space underneath freeways, etc.
How so? The LRT to Scarborough is getting a fancy subway replacement a mere 30 years after opening.. and that wasn't even an in street LRT system that is getting built in Toronto right now.
LRT doesn't preclude higher order transit upgrades in any way, but it provides a good stopgap to continue to build ridership once the existing bus networks begin to strain. The fact that Eglinton was allowed to see its bus ridership go so high with no upgrades was rather insane, the operations of the buses on that route barely worked, and even now its ridership is arguably still too low for a subway replacement. You need a middle ground between the two.
In fact, the excuse for BRT that it can easily be converted has yet to really happen anywhere as far as I know. A big sell of the BRT program in York Region right now is that it can be converted to LRT easily, but it still ignores infrastructure that LRTs require that buses don't like storage tracks, space for catenary support structures, bi-directional space underneath freeways, etc.
How so? The LRT to Scarborough is getting a fancy subway replacement a mere 30 years after opening.. and that wasn't even an in street LRT system that is getting built in Toronto right now.
LRT doesn't preclude higher order transit upgrades in any way, but it provides a good stopgap to continue to build ridership once the existing bus networks begin to strain. The fact that Eglinton was allowed to see its bus ridership go so high with no upgrades was rather insane, the operations of the buses on that route barely worked, and even now its ridership is arguably still too low for a subway replacement. You need a middle ground between the two.
ottbike
Active Member
Look at the east end, for example between Lees and Blair, or in the west from Tunney's to Bayview.
drum118
Superstar
True to a point.
What do you do for service once you shut down the ROW to be converted to LRT?? Are bridges and underpass built to support an LRT from day one??
At what point does operation cost out weight ridership to justify the conversion??
Are you running interlining service on this BRT and if so what happens to it??
There will be an need for BRT since some will never reach the conversion point to go LRT.
Some will say its better to go LRT from day one regardless of the ridership. There are some LRT lines in the US that only carry less than 5,000 riders a day and would benefit with higher bus service than the cost to build the LRT in the first place.