Transit City Plan

[leopetr]

STC take ICTS further north and east to Malvern

Not ICTS. SRT will be converted from proprietary ICTS to standard LRT before the extension.

 

[CDL.TO]

Since this is a re-hash, I'm folding this thread (Why should Transit City be built?) into the general Transit City Debate thread.

 

[Mapleson]

The biggest issue with Transit City, imho, is that it plans on loading up the Yonge line while making absolutely zero attempts at relieving the existing congestion on that route. Just imagine what Yonge and Bloor is going to be like in a few years with a Finch West LRT and Eglinton LRT and a Sheppard East LRT (indirectly) feeding into the Yonge line.

Actually, in a perverse way I'm looking forward to it. If it gets crowded enough people are going to vote in people that promise a Yonge Relief Line. Give people something to complain about and the squeeky wheel gets the grease.

 

[hbl33]

Should Yonge Line experiences increased ridership, it should increase its headway to a minute before considering a new subway line. And if a reliever line is considered, it should be along Bathurst Corridor (Bathurst is slowly becoming crowded, and is ripe for intensification north of Dupont).

If LRT is only option for long term, why not add streetcars on EVERY ARTERIALS in T.O.?!!?

 

[nfitz]

The biggest issue with Transit City, imho, is that it plans on loading up the Yonge line while making absolutely zero attempts at relieving the existing congestion on that route. Just imagine what Yonge and Bloor is going to be like in a few years with a Finch West LRT and Eglinton LRT and a Sheppard East LRT (indirectly) feeding into the Yonge line.

I agree. There are two parts to this. One is that these lines will feed into Yonge (perhaps not Finch any more!). The second is that if they do succeed at increasing transit use ... then Yonge/Bloor becomes even more busier. The new trains, longer trains, and ATC will help this somewhat ... but they have limits. DRL needs to come.

 

[W. K. Lis]

Meanwhile...

China Expands Its Investment in Rapid Transit, Paving Way for Future Urban Growth

From Transport Politic:

After $1 trillion in spending, 1,900 miles of rapid transit planned for world’s most populated country by 2015.

Most of China’s growth is concentrated in its large urban centers, which will house fifty percent of the country’s population by 2020 and 75% by 2050. For these increasingly huge megacities, the central government has no choice but to develop adequate measures to transport the population. Following the American model of car dependence is simply not possible because of high densities and inadequate space. With its high-speed rail network, now the longest in the world, the Chinese are providing efficient intercity links into downtowns.

But it’s in urban rail networks that the country has made the biggest strides towards increasing mobility within cities. Shanghai’s huge Metro, the longest on earth, is just one among eleven currently operating in China. Dozens of other cities have rapid transit systems either under construction or in planning.

Now the central government has made a commitment to spend up to one trillion U.S. dollars by 2015 on such grade-separated urban public transportation corridors. After roughly $150 billion in spending on rapid transit this year alone, China will offer a total of 870 miles of metro systems, up from around 600 today, on the way to 1,900 miles in five years. Far more is planned by 2020, especially in the east coast powerhouses of Beijing, Shanghai, and the Guangzhou-Shenzhen-Hong Kong megaplex.

Urban infrastructure investment has consumed an average of 2.6% of China’s GDP since 1994. With a national growth rate predicted to hold at between seven and ten percent a year, the country will be able to guarantee its huge level of investment.

Total infrastructure investment across all levels of government accounts for roughly 1% of American GDP. The U.S. commits about $100 billion a year to all forms of transportation spending.

Whether China’s spending will be enough to prevent the rapid rise in car use there is unknown. Chinese’s per capita automobile ownership has increased from 24 cars per 1,000 people to 40 per 1,000, though that’s far less than the 765 cars per 1,000 people in the United States. The country’s decision to implement tolls on virtually all new highways and the use of vehicle restrictions in the central zones of cities like Shanghai and Beijing will spur more use of public transit.

China better be preparing for the future, though, when it will need to spend more rebuilding its infrastructure than constructing it anew. One hopes the Chinese have developed more stable long-term operations and maintenance funds than have those of us in North America.

While Toronto can't get four billion from Ontario/Canada, China is going above and beyond. China is expanding its investment in rapid transit, $1 trillion (not a typo) to get 1,900 miles (3,000 km) of rapid transit.

Now China (population 1,338,612,968) does have a bigger population than Canada (population 34,101,000), which means that Canada is only about 3% the population size of China. But still, 3% of $1,000,000,000,000 is about $25,000,000,000, and we can’t get a fraction of that?

 

[The Mad Navigator]

Meanwhile...

China Expands Its Investment in Rapid Transit, Paving Way for Future Urban Growth

From Transport Politic:

After $1 trillion in spending, 1,900 miles of rapid transit planned for world’s most populated country by 2015.



While Toronto can't get four billion from Ontario/Canada, China is going above and beyond. China is expanding its investment in rapid transit, $1 trillion (not a typo) to get 1,900 miles (3,000 km) of rapid transit.

Now China (population 1,338,612,968) does have a bigger population than Canada (population 34,101,000), which means that Canada is only about 3% the population size of China. But still, 3% of $1,000,000,000,000 is about $25,000,000,000, and we can’t get a fraction of that?

This is what happens when we elect regressive thinking governments who lack the vision and will to implement great urban transportation networks across this country and our cities. But have no fear, I believe something will have to be done to address our current transportation problems on a large scale basis.

 

[Justin10000]

It's not vision. It's unfair trade agreements that deprive us of need manufacturing revenue. And please, I do not want to hear any crap about how free trade is good for North America. Well, and a huge pool of cheap labour too.

 

[Rainforest]

How about this?

1) Finch West LRT (Yonge to Humber) and Sheppard East LRT (as planned).

2) Eglinton subway (Jane to Don Mills).

3) Consider extending Danforth subway to STC and beyond, with a terminus at Sheppard / McCowan. That would make SELRT more useful, and indirectly serve Malvern Centre (with the Mclevin - Nugget bus, or a future LRT branch off Sheppard up Neilson).

 

[The Mad Navigator]

It's not vision. It's unfair trade agreements that deprive us of need manufacturing revenue. And please, I do not want to hear any crap about how free trade is good for North America. Well, and a huge pool of cheap labour too.

Well, we are the only G8 nation without a National Transit Strategy.

I mean, how pathetic is that?

 

[junctionist]

This is what happens when we elect regressive thinking governments who lack the vision and will to implement great urban transportation networks across this country and our cities. But have no fear, I believe something will have to be done to address our current transportation problems on a large scale basis.

It's not certain that higher levels of government in Canada will ever concern themselves with transit. If they don't build the infrastructure, then it may be a matter of revolt. I suppose in that light, governments will have to do something substantial towards building transit networks beyond isolated projects, but who knows? Looking at our recent past, neither Liberals nor Conservatives have had a particularly outstanding record on building transit.

 

[The Mad Navigator]

It's not certain that higher levels of government in Canada will ever concern themselves with transit. If they don't build the infrastructure, then it may be a matter of revolt. I suppose in that light, governments will have to do something substantial towards building transit networks beyond isolated projects, but who knows? Looking at our recent past, neither Liberals nor Conservatives have had a particularly outstanding record on building transit.

I think it has to come down to the people really wanting a solid transit network for their cities and a national one as well, because really, there's no motivation for the feds to take this issue seriously when most of our citizens seem to be happy to drive everywhere.

 

[Second_in_pie]

^^ That's Canadians for you. We all know we could do so much better, but why do we really bother? It's not like it's going to happen anyways.

 

[The Mad Navigator]

^^ That's Canadians for you. We all know we could do so much better, but why do we really bother? It's not like it's going to happen anyways.

Apart from someone getting elected PM or Premier who's heavily pro transit, the city's future transportation system looks bleak.

 

[Second_in_pie]

Yep. And that's why advocacy is never a bad thing.