News   Aug 28, 2024
Circuit Board
 28     0 
News   Aug 27, 2024
37-Storey Rental Redevelopment Proposed on Eglinton West near Oakwood
 893     2 
News   Aug 27, 2024
Another Crane Completes Work at Menkes' Festival Condominiums
 1.2K     0 

Smitherman's Transit plan

Second in pie:

Thanks for pointing out what I've already said - here it is (with emphasis on key points), again for your benefit:

Not to say LRT is the proper solution for all our transit ills (or that it is great as proposed in Toronto), but useless? Really?
Click to expand...

And now, with the understanding that I don't necessarily like TC, are you equating the urban context of DLR against TC lines, and the further assertion that LRTs are practically useless, which is the point of my rebuttal?

AoD
 
Last edited:
Sorry, I missed that little point. But I still think that the point about DLR is still apples to oranges. The Technology is made by how it's built, and very little to do with the vehicles actually used. Just because the DRL uses lighter cars does not make it equatable to the type of LRT that's being built in TC at all.
 
The problem with TC isn't using the medians per se, or that isn't underground for the entire route - it is how the stops are managed vis-a-vis intersections. Quite frankly, if they "ditch" the stations underground at key intersections, there is no reason why it can't be effective.

AoD
 
AlvinofDiaspar said:
The problem with TC isn't using the medians per se, or that isn't underground for the entire route - it is how the stops are managed vis-a-vis intersections. Quite frankly, if they "ditch" the stations underground at key intersections, there is no reason why it can't be effective.

AoD
Click to expand...

A fair point.
 
I almost see New York as chicken and egg. Did they get the density because of the subways or did the subways come because of the density?

That offers some interesting observations here. Despite costing 1 billion per mile, they are still building subway in New York. That should tell you something.

And given the fact that New York has one of the oldest subway systems in the world, most of their system was certainly not built when the population was at 10 million. So are New Yorkers just far-sighted?

Imagine if the naysayers in New York had fought against subway expension decades ago, saying the city didn't have the population base to fill up the subways. Where would New York be today?

Sure, an all-subway plan is foolish. But so is an all-LRT plan. (And don't give me that crap about the Spadina subway. If that wasn't there, it wouldn't end up as LRT anyway.)

I am looking for a politician who offers a balanced plan. I see some elements of that in Smitherman's plan.
 
js97 said:
'Assuming' those numbers are right,
Click to expand...

The New York figure is from Wikipedia, and the Toronto figure is from the city's website. Do you have any reason to think they are incorrect?

that's a terrible measure with very little forward thinking. And quite frankly, extremely myopic
A more appropraite measure should be the density at the time NYC decided to built the subways?
And also, you ahve to look at the corridor which the subway will be built, etc.
Click to expand...

All that is true, but I don't see the subway advocates raising those specific points -- instead the argument seems simply to be "but real cities have subways!". One indeed should look at current and forecasted density, and cost, and what particular technologies might be appropriate for a given specific situation.
 
AlvinofDiaspar said:
Except that he is a wuss by not putting DRL there. That should be the priority new line, period.

AoD
Click to expand...

Agreed.

Though I am hoping he's just being smart and playing politics here. Though he could have still put the DRL and the Yonge extension on the line and made both conditional on the province paying for both of them.
 
AlvinofDiaspar said:
The problem with TC isn't using the medians per se, or that isn't underground for the entire route - it is how the stops are managed vis-a-vis intersections. Quite frankly, if they "ditch" the stations underground at key intersections, there is no reason why it can't be effective.

AoD
Click to expand...

Exactly. TC is a complete failure not due to using LRT but the way it is being executed. Miller and the TTC turned it from being a potential rapid transit system to just a local streetcar. When they announced it I assumed it meant transferring the stubway to LRT and having short tunnels/flyovers with stops every 1 to 2 km to bring it to subway speeds but alas no such luck. You can't have rapid transit that also works as local service, they are incompatible. If you need local service that's why god created buses. Toronto already has great local service but greatly lacks in rapid/mass transit and all TC is is improved local service. Even Eglinton won't do much good with the number of stops and potential of total backup if there is even an accident anywhere along the route. Why they are building a LRT tunnel and not a subway tunnel is beyond me.
 
I love how people say the I shouldn't get a say about what gets built in Toronto because I don't live in Toronto. Please tell that to Statistics Canada.
 
The_Waffler said:
LRT's are sexy and so European... they're also practically useless.
Click to expand...
That has to be the most idiotic things that's been said here. Do you have any basis for these comments, or are you just pulling it out of your imagination?

Are you so fiscally irresponsible that you'd build subway where they aren't needed? Are you one of those real stupid candidates that want a subway for a demand of 700 people per hour?

Why all the lies? Are you just doing it for fun?
 
ssiguy2 said:
Exactly. TC is a complete failure not due to using LRT but the way it is being executed. Miller and the TTC turned it from being a potential rapid transit system to just a local streetcar. When they announced it I assumed it meant transferring the stubway to LRT and having short tunnels/flyovers with stops every 1 to 2 km to bring it to subway speeds but alas no such luck. You can't have rapid transit that also works as local service, they are incompatible. If you need local service that's why god created buses. Toronto already has great local service but greatly lacks in rapid/mass transit and all TC is is improved local service. Even Eglinton won't do much good with the number of stops and potential of total backup if there is even an accident anywhere along the route. Why they are building a LRT tunnel and not a subway tunnel is beyond me.
Click to expand...

The subway tunnel under Eglinton is being built to handle BOTH light rail and heavy rail vehicles.

The Eglinton stations have roughly the same spacing as the Bloor-Danforth stations. There were some local residents who would have preferred the stations to be closer together. As for accidents on the route, it would be handled the same as they do with heavy rail.
 
nfitz said:
That has to be the most idiotic things that's been said here. Do you have any basis for these comments, or are you just pulling it out of your imagination?

Are you so fiscally irresponsible that you'd build subway where they aren't needed? Are you one of those real stupid candidates that want a subway for a demand of 700 people per hour?

Why all the lies? Are you just doing it for fun?
Click to expand...

I put it down as ignorance in general. I cannot believe people still think just buses, and subways(or grade separated rail transit) is the key to solving congestion
 
Last edited:
"I cannot believe people still think subways is the key to solving congestion"

Yes, because pretty little Europeanized streetcars are going to solve that problem fine.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top