Transit City Plan

[Asterix]

The majority of those who favour subway expansion do so because they see it as a worthwhile investment in rapid transit. .

I don't think so. I think that most of those counted as favouring subway expansion weren't really asked the realistic question.

Very few people in Toronto, if asked the question "would you favour subways or surface transit?" would answer the latter.

But that is not the question for the real world because the subway plans would either provide subway to a large number of fewer people, or cost a whole lot more to provide the same service to the same number of people.

The realistic question would be "would you favour subways AND an increase in X% in your taxes or surface transit?".

I'd be willing to bet that with just about any non-zero value of 'X' (let alone a realistic value for 'X') the answers would be significantly different.

 

[SimonP]

Some folk are organizing a canvass to save the Eglinton Line.

 

[Filip]

Some folk are organizing a canvass to save the Eglinton Line.

LOL.. I don't think we'll see anyone on this website ridiculing them like they did when the Save our Sheppard group began to demonstrate in favour of the subway they were promised years ago.

 

[gweed123]

But that is not the question for the real world because the subway plans would either provide subway to a large number of fewer people, or cost a whole lot more to provide the same service to the same number of people.

This is also not a fair assessment though. Your argument is based on the assumption that if it isn't within a 5 minute walk of you (or right at your door) that the line is of no benefit to you. This is simply not the case. If it cuts the person's feeder bus trip in half, most people would see this as a significant improvement.

Also, in-median LRT does NOT provide the "same level of service". Sure there may be some sections where it reaches subway-like speeds, but tell that to the person standing on the surface platform in the middle of a wind-blown street when it's -20 outside. I'm sure they'll really appreciate that the person standing on a semi-heated subway platform is getting the "same level of service" as they are.

The real question is "do you believe that the added cost of a subway line compared to an at-grade LRT warrants the increase in reliability, comfort, and speed, compared to the LRT?"

The realistic question would be "would you favour subways AND an increase in X% in your taxes or surface transit?".

I'd be willing to bet that with just about any non-zero value of 'X' (let alone a realistic value for 'X') the answers would be significantly different.

Again, you're assuming that the subway plan will inherently be more expensive. This could not be the case. You could simply choose to build less subway, to the point where the subway plan costs the same as the LRT plan. In that case, the subway and LRT would have identical tax increases. That question is just as deceptive as the subway vs LRT question!

 

[DavidH]

LOL.. I don't think we'll see anyone on this website ridiculing them like they did when the Save our Sheppard group began to demonstrate in favour of the subway they were promised years ago.

In part because this is a Facebook group rather than a site where you can just enter any name at all. There's a bit more security to it - although of course it can still be gamed.

But if they want to do it for real, they need to have an impact. Emails and phone calls to council members will go a long way.

 

[nfitz]

Except that the province ISN'T finicky with infrastructure spending. Heck, they're spending $55 billion over the next 25 years!

I need some of what your smoking!

 

[Filip]

I need some of what your smoking!

Which reminds me, I need to go buy a pack of cigarettes...

Seriously though, this was expected. As soon as Ford won the elections it was bound to happen. From that point on, Transit City was dead in the water. Luckily we might see a comprehensive subway plan drawn up, or we might not see anything, but this is infinitely better than spending billions on sending streetcars up to the suburbs. Suburban dwellers don't want it, they have made it clear. Only subways will potentially get drivers out of their cars, streetcars or their improved version, the LRT, will not.

Hopefully this can be approached with a fresh perspective sometime in the future. Miller's social engineering plan failed miserably, so let's just leave at that and let it die peacefully.

RIP Transit City.. Maybe in another dimension.

 

[Asterix]

The real question is "do you believe that the added cost of a subway line compared to an at-grade LRT warrants the increase in reliability, comfort, and speed, compared to the LRT?"

Ok, reword the question that way, but the point is that you need to make people aware that it is not a cost-neutral question. If instead of a LRT line across town on Eglinton, they want a subway the same distance, it is going to cost extra, a lot extra. That extra needs to be a part of the question if you want to get a realistic answer from the taxpaying populace.

Again, you're assuming that the subway plan will inherently be more expensive. This could not be the case. You could simply choose to build less subway, to the point where the subway plan costs the same as the LRT plan. In that case, the subway and LRT would have identical tax increases.

That is what I pointed out. Either they can choose to spend a lot more money (and shoulder an X% increase in their taxes) to build the same amount of subways as planned LRT, or they can choose to build less subway (around only ~30% of the LRT distance given the proportion of their costs), thereby preventing large numbers of people from having easy access to the higher order transit they otherwise would have received.

The fundamental fact that subway advocates (or those who just say they favour subways over LRT) need to acknowledge is that there ain't no such thing as a free lunch. You can't choose subways over LRT without having to pay a lot more money (or get a lot less service). Trumpeting 'facts' like 'people want subways, not streetcars' is just sticking one's head in the sand and pretending money grows on trees.

(And before someone jumps in with the usual 'LRTista' slandering, I'd fully support the provincial and municipal taxes needed to start building the DRL, especially before any Richmond Hill Yonge extension or Mississauga Bloor extension.)

 

[Filip]

Ok, reword the question that way, but the point is that you need to make people aware that it is not a cost-neutral question. If instead of a LRT line across town on Eglinton, they want a subway the same distance, it is going to cost extra, a lot extra. That extra needs to be a part of the question if you want to get a realistic answer from the taxpaying populace.



That is what I pointed out. Either they can choose to spend a lot more money (and shoulder an X% increase in their taxes) to build the same amount of subways as planned LRT, or they can choose to build less subway (around only ~30% of the LRT distance given the proportion of their costs), thereby preventing large numbers of people from having easy access to the higher order transit they otherwise would have received.

The fundamental fact that subway advocates (or those who just say they favour subways over LRT) need to acknowledge is that there ain't no such thing as a free lunch. You can't choose subways over LRT without having to pay a lot more money (or get a lot less service). Trumpeting 'facts' like 'people want subways, not streetcars' is just sticking one's head in the sand and pretending money grows on trees.

(And before someone jumps in with the usual 'LRTista' slandering, I'd fully support the provincial and municipal taxes needed to start building the DRL, especially before any Richmond Hill Yonge extension or Mississauga Bloor extension.)

There is something important to take into account...

I'm not familiar with the sentiment regarding the ECLRT in Scarborough, but I know in Etobicoke it isn't welcome. The people there would rather see a subway and will never use the LRT. So, by building on the tunnel portion as a subway, it's not like you're depriving the citizens living on the fringes from transit - as they don't want it!

 

[MetroMan]

I'm willing to bet that the Ford admin will eat the millions of dollars in cancellation fees and lost consultations planning and then spin it as a Miller screw up. "Look! Miller spent hundreds of millions of your tax dollars and you got nothing for it. Look at the mess he left us with!"

The only positive news is that Stintz is TTC chair. There's no way she's going to be able to tell her Eglinton constituents that they're cancelling the Eglinton LRT in return for nothing. Either the LRT gets built as planned or a subway gets started.

I live downtown, yet I wanted to see citywide rapid transit before building subways. It was good for the city as a whole. At this point, I could care less about the outer city's transit needs. They elected Ford, now let them deal with him cancelling their transit lines. All I'm interested in now is an Eglinton line to relieve pressure off of Bloor.

 

[DavidH]

The people there would rather see a subway and will never use the LRT. So, by building on the tunnel portion as a subway, it's not like you're depriving the citizens living on the fringes from transit - as they don't want it!

Every single last one of them? Want to provide evidence of the referendum that showed this?

 

[Asterix]

Only subways will potentially get drivers out of their cars, streetcars or their improved version, the LRT, will not.

Then you are living in a dream world. Ridership across the TTC has been increasing for years. Ridership on the revamped St Clair line has been increasing. Beyond possibly some of the Lakeshore line, neither include anything remotely resembling the proposed LRT. To continue with the 'subways or nothing' line of thinking will just leave the city with another token stubway and nothing else for decades. That is not a 'fresh perspective' I could endorse.

 

[Filip]

Every single last one of them? Want to provide evidence of the referendum that showed this?

I spend my time in that area. Of course not everyone, but I have a general feel on the sentiment regarding it.

I know a lot of people living there, spoke to their families, their neighbours (you'd be surprised how curious this issue got me) and spoke to the councillors in the corridor. Holyday was the one who told me that he receives countless complaints from his constituents about this LRT. His secretary told me he has not once received a positive word about it, only complaints.

 

[gweed123]

I need some of what your smoking!

The City asked for the Province to fund Transit City. The province did. What about that is finicky? The province didn't interefere with the city's planning process. The city came up with a plan, and the province gave $8B towards it.

 

[Calrissian]

Which reminds me, I need to go buy a pack of cigarettes...

Seriously though, this was expected. As soon as Ford won the elections it was bound to happen. From that point on, Transit City was dead in the water. Luckily we might see a comprehensive subway plan drawn up, or we might not see anything, but this is infinitely better than spending billions on sending streetcars up to the suburbs. Suburban dwellers don't want it, they have made it clear. Only subways will potentially get drivers out of their cars, streetcars or their improved version, the LRT, will not.

Hopefully this can be approached with a fresh perspective sometime in the future. Miller's social engineering plan failed miserably, so let's just leave at that and let it die peacefully.

RIP Transit City.. Maybe in another dimension.

Not in your lifetime for new plans, and in no way is this infinitely better than the current plans. And re: Miller as a failuer? He now has the honour to move onto consulting for the Global Cities Committee thing based on his performance, so.. once again, you completely show your ignorance and that you really don't understand any of what is happening/has happened...