Transit City Plan

[AlvinofDiaspar]

Second in pie:

AoD, you don't think that cathedral builders had to negotiate politics? There certainly were problems like having good food, and the people collectively build the cathedral; it's not as though they were at an imperative.
And there's modern cathedrals that go through the same buildings as the Sagrada Familia in Barcelona, or even the still incomplete Cathedral of the Transfiguration. Modern examples of people perservering for what to many is much more trivial than in integral transit backbone for a quickly growing region of 8 million. And then there's actual transit systems and subway networks that have been built up over the decades...

Ugh, you obviously have forgotten something called the church's ability to levy "taxes", sometimes substantial taxes in the name of piety (plus a whole batch of monarchic egotism behind it all). And no, I haven't forgotten Sagrada Familia - please remind me a) how it is funded and b) how long it took. If you are willing to build transit out of donations for a century, I am all game. And please, if you can't even build a gasp, streetcar network now, please inform me how the political/institutional system will miraculously conform to the needs of building subways under a multi-decadal plan.

Yes... from streetcars. But remember how we got rid of all of those for busses? Back then, streetcars served basically the same purpose as busses do now. So that's not saying much.

So for some reason, areas with even lower density than the areas served by streetcars in those days now requires subways. Interesting.

So do you not think that transit building is important to a functioning city? Face the facts: Transit City is not good as a solution to the future of the city. If we let transit continue to stagnate relative to the region's growth, it'll be a disaster.

Actually, I think building transit is more important than talking about building the perfect form of transit - face THE facts, we have been talking about doing something perfect for what, 30 years now?

So perhaps, subways over LRT is like building amazing cathedrals over regular churches. God likes cathedrals better, but churches "still do the trick." However, people still built these massive, towering cathedrals which took generations to build.

That's why they don't really build cathedrals anymore. Now don't take THAT metaphor too seriously - I know I certainly don't.

AoD

 

[Second_in_pie]

So for some reason, areas with even lower density than the areas served by streetcars in those days now requires subways. Interesting.

Are you implying that the way a network that ran 40-50 years ago should have a bigger impact on the actual modern needs of the corridor?
And my point was that there's nothing about streetcars running on routes 50+ years ago. That's just how the system worked. Most of the routes came from a time when city building was slow and gradual, and that streetcars were much more efficient than any other means. They didn't originally run busses, then upgrade them to streetcars. They just built streetcars.

Actually, I think building transit is more important than talking about building the perfect form of transit - face THE facts, we have been talking about doing something perfect for what, 30 years now?

Again, you're acting as though subways wouldn't get built. TC came at a time when the province was dishing out money. The province literally said, "here's the money, go play with it." Whether subway's built or not, it doesn't matter. We could have been pushing for LRT for those 30 years and would've gotten the same result.

That's why they don't really build cathedrals anymore. Now don't take THAT metaphor too seriously.

1. If you're talking about actual cathedrals, they still are.

2. If you're metaphoring for subway systems, just look at about every major city in the world.
Not only do most have actual complete systems, but they're expanding both subway and LRT.

 

[EnviroTO]

So do you not think that transit building is important to a functioning city? Face the facts: Transit City is not good as a solution to the future of the city. If we let transit continue to stagnate relative to the region's growth, it'll be a disaster.

Transit city makes sure that the whole city does not stagnate by covering it all. Transit City starts construction now. Any subway plan starts construction five years from now on a much smaller route. Transit City is an excellent solution to having something this decade which people can ride on. We shouldn't shut down the economic growth of the city waiting for some ideal subway network which will take a half century to arrive.

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

Modern "needs" of the various corridor didn't requires subways necessarily. Some are more suited to TC style LRT, some are more suited to subways. To argue by blanket statement that TC will ruin the city is to me the same as saying subways will save it. It's transit fanboyism.

Again, you're acting as though subways wouldn't get built. TC came at a time when the province was dishing out money. The province literally said, "here's the money, go play with it." Whether subway's built or not, it doesn't matter. We could have been pushing for LRT for those 30 years and would've gotten the same result.

Well, we can keep on flipping back on forth on studies that justify one mode and another - by the time the studies come due, an election cycle will be over.

1. If you're talking about actual cathedrals, they still are.

Like how many of them, vis-a-vis the middle ages?

2. If you're metaphoring for subway systems, just look at about every major city in the world.
Not only do most have actual complete systems, but they're expanding both subway and LRT.

Perhaps you would do well to also look at how those major cities in the world fund their projects, ranging from institutional and financing arrangements to urban form and density. The problem is above all else, political.

AoD

 

[EnviroTO]

Again, you're acting as though subways wouldn't get built. TC came at a time when the province was dishing out money.

The last time the province was dishing out money they asked for the Sheppard East subway and Eglinton West subway. How are you liking it? I think the Spadina streetcar which started construction in 1992 works far better than the Eglinton West subway which started construction in 1994.

 

[Second_in_pie]

The last time the province was dishing out money they asked for the Sheppard East subway and Eglinton West subway. How are you liking it? I think the Spadina streetcar which started construction in 1992 works far better than the Eglinton West subway which started construction in 1994.

Actually, I'd say the Sheppard subway has been way more successful and beneficial than the Spadina streetcar.

 

[Justin10000]

Actually, I'd say the Sheppard subway has been way more successful and beneficial than the Spadina streetcar.

The Spadina Streetcar was completed under budget, The Sheppard Subway went budget. The Spadina line is a profitable route, the Sheppard Subway is not. How is the Sheppard successful again?

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

I don't think it is fair to compare the merits of Spadina to Sheppard - apples and oranges.

AoD

 

[Tewder]

You also have to view transit infrastructure as an investment, in that what may not turn a profit now will once there is greater growth and development (which in turn is further encouraged by the availability of a subway for example). I understand the arguement that TC gets people moving sooner but if it gets them moving slowly and clumsily in a way that is simply not sustainable vis a vis growth what's the point? It will simply be wasted money and time. It is better to bight the bullet now and plan for/fund the basic needs that will sustain long term growth such as an Eglinton subway line, a DRL etc. From this perspective TC just seems like a 'political' bandaid, and a very expensive one at that.

 

[Justin10000]

You also have to view transit infrastructure as an investment, in that what may not turn a profit now will once there is greater growth and development (which in turn is further encouraged by the availability of a subway for example). I understand the arguement that TC gets people moving sooner but if it gets them moving slowly and clumsily in a way that is simply not sustainable vis a vis growth what's the point? It will simply be wasted money and time. It is better to bight the bullet now and plan for/fund the basic needs that will sustain long term growth such as an Eglinton subway line, a DRL etc. From this perspective TC just seems like a 'political' bandaid, and a very expensive one at that.

Your argument fails to take into account Transit City lines will be faster than the buses each line will replace. How is putting LRV's in their own ROW with signal priority "clumsy?" Are you willing to bite the bullet with higher property taxes to pay for the operations, and upkeep of subway structure that will not reach it's potential for over 30 years? That to me, is a waste of money. LRT has proven to be a strong catalyst for devlopment along a corridor, the key difference the growth occurs along the entire corridor, whereas subways tend to only attract growth at the stations.

 

[kEiThZ]

Your argument fails to take into account Transit City lines will be faster than the buses each line will replace. How is putting LRV's in their own ROW with signal priority "clumsy?" Are you willing to bite the bullet with higher property taxes to pay for the operations, and upkeep of subway structure that will not reach it's potential for over 30 years? That to me, is a waste of money.

It's a waste to you. But I'd pay for it. I want to get where I am going fast. Not have something a little faster than a bus yet forces me to transfer more often. I find it funny that transit advocates who lament the transit networks of European cities will then say that spending a bit more to go above and beyond the absolute bare minimum is "a waste of money."

LRT has proven to be a strong catalyst for devlopment along a corridor, the key difference the growth occurs along the entire corridor, whereas subways tend to only attract growth at the stations.

Wouldn't you know it. Just take a look at the phenomenal job the SRT has done for every one of its stops. If Midland and Ellesmere stations aren't proof of the magical effects of LRT I don't know what is.

 

[GraphicMatt]

I do get being cynical about LRT in Toronto - there's a real chance the TTC might badly manage the lines, resulting in bunching and infrequent service. But to not build any higher order surface transit because of management concerns totally lets the TTC off the hook. We have to hold them to a higher standard.

 

[The Mad Navigator]

It's a waste to you. But I'd pay for it. I want to get where I am going fast. Not have something a little faster than a bus yet forces me to transfer more often. I find it funny that transit advocates who lament the transit networks of European cities will then say that spending a bit more to go above and beyond the absolute bare minimum is "a waste of money."

You want to pay more for less? Because that's what is going to happen here if you want what you're asking for. Personally, I'd like to see a higher order transit network of some kind before I die.

Wouldn't you know it. Just take a look at the phenomenal job the SRT has done for every one of its stops. If Midland and Ellesmere stations aren't proof of the magical effects of LRT I don't know what is.

So you're playing the SRT card to demonstrate the follies of LRT? Come on....

A poorly planned line with the majority of stations serving commercial/industrial areas run on old and original experimental technology.

At least with the conversion and extension, more residents and centennial will be served, along with a key connection at Sheppard. Oh, and the bonus of having vehicles running after a heavy snowfall!

 

[Glen]

Transit city makes sure that the whole city does not stagnate by covering it all. Transit City starts construction now. Any subway plan starts construction five years from now on a much smaller route. Transit City is an excellent solution to having something this decade which people can ride on. We shouldn't shut down the economic growth of the city waiting for some ideal subway network which will take a half century to arrive.

The city is stagnating for lack of jobs and a loss of its lucrative non residential assessment base. Having Transit City as something to 'ride on' is a waste of money if they don't have a job to ride to.

 

[Justin10000]

It's a waste to you. But I'd pay for it. I want to get where I am going fast. Not have something a little faster than a bus yet forces me to transfer more often. I find it funny that transit advocates who lament the transit networks of European cities will then say that spending a bit more to go above and beyond the absolute bare minimum is "a waste of money."

A bit more?? Oh come on. Subways are going to cost a lot more. Especially when you are building subways that will not see full potential for decades.

Wouldn't you know it. Just take a look at the phenomenal job the SRT has done for every one of its stops. If Midland and Ellesmere stations aren't proof of the magical effects of LRT I don't know what is.

The SRT is not LRT. Do not fall for Bombardier's slick marketing campaigns. It's an automated mini-metro, and a terrible one at that. Good try though. You want to see the "magical" effects of LRT,check out Portland, Hudson-Bergen, Phoenix, Houston, Dallas, Nottingham, etc.