Transit City Plan

[gweed123]

How can we start building subways now?

How can one human be that utterly ignorant?

I guess he didn't get the memo that the campaign is over... He's stuck in soundbyte mode.

 

[kEiThZ]

I expect it is suburban motorists who disliked surface transit most, and so are fine with ending TC.

I know it's in vogue among the chattering classes to say this, but I just don't believe it's true. People don't like the construction that was going to come with TC. But really, most folks scarcely had a clue about what TC was, let alone how it was going to impact driving. And at the end of the day without any lane reductions on Sheppard and just a few left turns eliminated, I doubt most motorists would be that worried. It's just fashionable these days to imagine that any motorist must automatically despite transit. That's not reality. Most people drive some places and ride transit elsewhere.

However I am curious how suburban transit riders view the choice, but I saw no exact polling on that.

Nobody ever wants to ask honest questions in a poll. Ask Scarborough residents if they want LRT to Progress and Sheppard or a subway from Kennedy to STC. Ask them if they want LRT from Don Mills to the zoo or a subway that connects Scarborough and North York. Then ask them how these desires stack up against driving. Ask them how much more they'd pay in taxes to get these kinds of services. Etc. I think the answers would surprise most people.

And are transit riders as powerful politically as motorists, in the way apartment dwellers are seen as having less clout compared to home-owners?

Like I said before, there are few people on the extremes (exclusively drivers or exclusively transit users). Most inner suburbanites are in the mushy-middle. It's this rush to put labels on them that leads to the vast majority of the chattering classes misunderstanding their needs and desires for this city.

What if amalgamation (particularly loathed by downtowners) had not occurred -- would south-of-Bloors have felt as disposed to those in the "Metro Toronto" burbs?

How would anything have changed? Transit was a metro responsibility not a City of Toronto mandate. As such, it would still have been the 'burbs' that would have dictated what happened to transit.

And had DRL got momentum prior to TC ... that would have softened support for improvements in the suburbs.

Not necessarily. But it would have delayed it. The majority of DRL users would be surburbanites. They implicitly understand the need for the DRL. And they'll prioritize that over any other line. But that does not mean they'll accept a situation where only the DRL gets built and nothing else.

And don't forget that TC has a real fiscal conservative appeal, as ironic as that seems in the new Ford world. Saving construction time and money convinced me early on. After the decades-long drought of worthy new transit routes, it feels worth the sacrifice of my subway fetish of younger years.

This goes right back to the creation of Move Ontario. Why didn't Miller et al. even suggest subways at the time? They went right for TC and that's what they got. I for one, will never buy the argument that subway extensions were absolutely unfeasible from the start. I'll buy it if someone shows me evidence that we asked for subways and Queens Park told us to go back to the drawing boards.

BTW, back in the day we did not have enough transit-savvy activists to fill a small meeting room. The idea that transit geeks and later, hordes of newspaper website trolls, could sustain a full-throat yelling match over trams v. metro -- was not imaginable. Interesting times indeed.

And for all that yelling, they have not changed the public's desirability of subways, their skepticism of LRTs or their impression of the TTC one iota. That should tell you something too.

 

[lafard]

I gotta say, if even the star's comment section (that bastion of enlightenment) is calling Ford an idiot for this then I'm guessing people are pissed at his stupidity.

Congrats, you just killed transit expansion in Toronto. Possibly forever.

 

[kEiThZ]

The problem when people make statements like this, is that it implies they somehow have more facts and information than the professionals (and not just the TTC). It is apparently claiming that all the forecast demands on the TC lines that are currently well within the range serviceable by LRT but at the low (or lower) end of subway ranges are apparently bogus and completely fudged to fit someone's politically driven agenda.

That's because they often are. How is it that in one era subway was adequate for Sheppard and now LRT is the only acceptable solution? How is it that in years past we had to connect SCC and NYCC, yet today connecting the Zoo to Don Mills is priority #1 for transit in Toronto?

The numbers don't lie. But you can ask questions that get you the answers you want. And that's something politicians are really good at doing.

Sure I trust engineers (I am one). But I just don't trust the politicians who use their services.

 

[Asterix]

Who said I wanted subway cars? "Leave the Eglinton tunnel alone" means keep it as LRT. The only changes I would like to see are the eastern at-grade portion delayed, and termini stations built at both ends to allow for a decent transfer. And we really don't need a Warden-style massive bus terminal at both ends.

That clears up things a bit. Since you may not be aware, there already is plans for the bus station at Don Mills. See slide 41:
http://www.toronto.ca/involved/proj...n_lrt/pdf/2009-11-20_display_panels_part3.pdf

However if you want to continue the underground from the current planned portal all the way to Don Mills, you are likely going to require every last penny you are saving by cutting the remaining above surface running of the line (and given there would only be a single at grade intersection that would be avoided, you'd be trading many kms of LRT line to save maybe 30 seconds of travel time from just west of Leslie to Don Mills).

Have a look at the local geography. The current planned portal is on the side of a hill as Eglinton heads down the Don Valley towards Leslie. If you want to remain underground, you are going to have to build a really deep tunnel that goes not only to the bottom of the valley, but underneath a branch of the Don River. You'd then also need an underground station at Leslie (one that is going to be a long way down under the street - that means a lot more money) before continuing on underground to Don Mills.

How much will all that extra tunneling and station work cost versus your savings by cutting the rest of the surface line?

Or perhaps are you still willing to have the line exit the portal as planned and just terminate the line at Don Mills and leave everyone from there all the way to Kennedy to continue to deal with buses?

Wouldn't it make sense though to have the "Crosstown" line actually connect with the other rapid transit lines at Kennedy? Or is it better to have these deliberately planned gaps and transfers in the network?

 

[Asterix]

That's because they often are. How is it that in one era subway was adequate for Sheppard and now LRT is the only acceptable solution? How is it that in years past we had to connect SCC and NYCC, yet today connecting the Zoo to Don Mills is priority #1 for transit in Toronto?

I don't believe there were ever true subway level demand projections for Sheppard. That would be an example of politics trumping objective thought.

I can't speak for the merits of connecting to the Zoo versus SCC, but political decisions to prioritize one destination over another are not in the same class as saying demand projections of, say, 3000/hr are completely fabricated by the professionals when we all know there will really be 8000/hr.

 

[gweed123]

The numbers don't lie. But you can ask questions that get you the answers you want. And that's something politicians are really good at doing.

Sure I trust engineers (I am one). But I just don't trust the politicians who use their services.

Exactly. The variables, the assumptions, and the scope determine the study's results, sometimes even more than the actual data does. How you construct a study is just as important as the data you're analyzing in it.

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

That's because they often are. How is it that in one era subway was adequate for Sheppard and now LRT is the only acceptable solution? How is it that in years past we had to connect SCC and NYCC, yet today connecting the Zoo to Don Mills is priority #1 for transit in Toronto?

No offense though - considering you should also look at how subways are considered "adequate" - but not "overbuilt" in the first place. And beyond that, shouldn't one also question the rationale for connecting SCC and NYCC, considering the planning assumptions made thereof that never quite materialized? Like really, just how much demand is there for crosstown subway rides? That is exactly what you've mentioned yourself - "But you can ask questions that get you the answers you want."

Beyond that, one has to question the wisdom of - beyond political expendiency - putting all the resources in building two subway lines with more or less duplicate functions at the expense of other parts of the city with greater transit needs.

AoD

 

[gweed123]

That clears up things a bit. Since you may not be aware, there already is plans for the bus station at Don Mills. See slide 41:
http://www.toronto.ca/involved/proj...n_lrt/pdf/2009-11-20_display_panels_part3.pdf

I remember looking at those panels a while back, but I wasn't sure exactly where the planned bus loop was.

However if you want to continue the underground from the current planned portal all the way to Don Mills, you are likely going to require every last penny you are saving by cutting the remaining above surface running of the line (and given there would only be a single at grade intersection that would be avoided, you'd be trading many kms of LRT line to save maybe 30 seconds of travel time from just west of Leslie to Don Mills).

Have a look at the local geography. The current planned portal is on the side of a hill as Eglinton heads down the Don Valley towards Leslie. If you want to remain underground, you are going to have to build a really deep tunnel that goes not only to the bottom of the valley, but underneath a branch of the Don River. You'd then also need an underground station at Leslie (one that is going to be a long way down under the street - that means a lot more money) before continuing on underground to Don Mills.

How much will all that extra tunneling and station work cost versus your savings by cutting the rest of the surface line?

It doesn't necessarily have to be tunnelled the whole way. Have it exit at a portal between Laird and the Don River, use the existing Eglinton Ave bridge (as planned), and then have it re-enter a portal just before Leslie St. The street naturally slopes upwards just before Leslie, so you can use the hill to help eliminate the drop in grade as a result of the portal. This way, it doesn't encounter an intersection, and you can still run longer trainsets when the demand reaches that point.

Or perhaps are you still willing to have the line exit the portal as planned and just terminate the line at Don Mills and leave everyone from there all the way to Kennedy to continue to deal with buses?

Seems fine for Don Mills apparently... At least this would be a temporary transfer, not a permenant one a la SELRT.

Wouldn't it make sense though to have the "Crosstown" line actually connect with the other rapid transit lines at Kennedy? Or is it better to have these deliberately planned gaps and transfers in the network?

It would also make sense to have a Crosstown going further west than Jane, to the airport. But alas, there isn't enough funding, so we need to prioritize. The majority of the congestion along the Eglinton route occurs through the narrower section of Eglinton, which would be the portion covered by the tunnel. Will the transfer be inconvenient? Sure. However, given that it will be temporary, it shouldn't be a show-stopper. And still, the time saved by not having to sit in traffic at Mt. Pleasant for 15 minutes will more than make up for the 2-3 minutes it takes to transfer. I think that's a fair trade-off. It will also give the opportunity to boost bus frequency on Eglinton East.

 

[kEiThZ]

First of all, the idea that opposition to Transit City is based on lack of understanding due to poor communication by Miller's mayoralty is just another example of the "we know better than you" attitude that resulted in Ford's landslide election. People understand what TC is and they aren't any less sophisticated than you, the twentysomething pseudo-intellectual nouveau urbanite. Accept it.

Secondly, why can't TC just be a terrible, ill-thought-out plan that's completely inadequate for the city and its metro area? The city of Toronto is at the centre of a region of 6 million people, not even including millions more in the Greater Golden Horseshoe, and is the economic engine of the country. No matter how 'urban' its suburbs become, massive waves of people and goods have to flow through the core efficiently for the whole organism to survive and building something like TC is essentially going up against nature by stubbornly putting capillaries where arteries are clearly required. Many of you complain about an extra billion dollars here and there "out of the pot" as if government relies on a children's savings account at the corner bank, when according to recent studies the city is hemorrhaging at least 6 billion dollars EVERY YEAR due to congestion. How can we afford THAT?

Transit City isn't about urban vs. suburban, 416 vs. 905, liberal vs. conservative, sophisticated vs. simple-minded, or whatever other false dichotomy you people routinely call up in the service of idiocy. It's about putting the cart before the horse in a town that doesn't even have a road yet.

Bang on. And worth repeating. I hate to say, "I told you so."

It seems that people still don't get why Rob Ford was elected. Let this parochial attitude continue and the Toronto itself will deliver the Premier's seat to Houdak. Just watch.

Why do some people insist on tempting the public's anger by constantly labelling them and belittling them?

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

And if nothing gets built in the end and history repeats itself - I will be the one telling you "I told you so" - just saying.

AoD

 

[TrickyRicky]

I for one accept our new populist conservative overlords and the me first zeitgeist. I hope transit and all public services are fully privatized. As a downtown elitist I can rest assured that I live in one of the only areas in the country where incomes and densities combine to guarantee that service levels and options will be enhances through privatization.

That's the secret of being a downtown elitist. You get average middle-class people in suburban and small centres to vote in populist conservatives to bring down the very institutions that distribute resources to maintain their living standard. Under a private system you benefit because virtually all new investment will occur in the core of the city.

 

[kEiThZ]

No offense though - considering you should also look at how subways are considered "adequate" - but not "overbuilt" in the first place. And beyond that, shouldn't one also question the rationale for connecting SCC and NYCC, considering the planning assumptions made thereof that never quite materialized? Like really, just how much demand is there for crosstown subway rides? That is exactly what you've mentioned yourself - "But you can ask questions that get you the answers you want."

Beyond that, one has to question the wisdom of - beyond political expendiency - putting all the resources in building two subway lines with more or less duplicate functions at the expense of other parts of the city with greater transit needs.

AoD

Hey. I'm not saying my views are necessarily gospel. But I would suggest that changing a fundamental transport planning tenet (that of connecting our urban centres) to using transit to spur development along avenues should have warranted more public debate than it received. Particularly, when you expect the public to dramatically alter travel and commute patterns to fit your fantasy network.

We went from a longstanding goal of incremental subway expansion connecting urban centres (a concept that most residents in this city understand implicitly) to the "avenues" concept overnight, with little public debate, other than among urbanists and transit geeks. When you do that, you run the risk of not carrying the public with you and I would daresay that's what happened.

Not only that, the order of priorities changed too. Can anybody explain why Sheppard East was the first corridor to go through? What is so pressing about Sheppard East that it's more important that the DRL or Eglinton or even the SRT replacement? Was that priority list made by an engineer or (more likely) by a politician?

Then tack on St. Clair. Rightly or wrongly, for most folks who did know about light rail, that probably did impact their perception of the technology and its implementation.

Anyway, my reply was aimed at Asterix's assertion, "In engineers we trust." This idea that all numbers from any authority are to be trusted absolutely is BS and you know it. The numbers answer the question that was asked. The idea that the public is ignorant and stupid because they don't buy the scripted answers is ludicrous. Sometimes they just don't agree with the question that was asked.

Personally, I would have supported LRT on Sheppard East had it involved some compromise. For me that would have been an eastward subway extension to Agincourt, a long term plan for a westward extension to Downsview and an LRT spur to STC....(though if you take the subway to Agincourt, I daresay that you only need buses beyond that). To me that would have been a reasonable compromise....though I would have simply rather seen LRT on Ellesmere to begin with. It's the way they rammed it through, and put up Sheppard first that made me suspicious that TC was just an effort to permanently kill off subway expansion in the 416 suburbs.

 

[Asterix]

It doesn't necessarily have to be tunnelled the whole way. Have it exit at a portal between Laird and the Don River, use the existing Eglinton Ave bridge (as planned), and then have it re-enter a portal just before Leslie St. The street naturally slopes upwards just before Leslie, so you can use the hill to help eliminate the drop in grade as a result of the portal. This way, it doesn't encounter an intersection, and you can still run longer trainsets when the demand reaches that point.

That might be possible, although there really isn't all that much room between the Eglinton bridge and Leslie in which to fit the portal. In addition to the extra tunneling (presumably cut and cover, costing more and causing more disruption through that stretch than building a new median), you'd also have the additional expense of an underground station. Again, all to save a few seconds at the lights at Leslie that could be more efficiently addressed by signal priority. Seems like several millions in gravy train to me.

It would also make sense to have a Crosstown going further west than Jane, to the airport. But alas, there isn't enough funding, so we need to prioritize. The majority of the congestion along the Eglinton route occurs through the narrower section of Eglinton, which would be the portion covered by the tunnel. Will the transfer be inconvenient? Sure. However, given that it will be temporary, it shouldn't be a show-stopper. And still, the time saved by not having to sit in traffic at Mt. Pleasant for 15 minutes will more than make up for the 2-3 minutes it takes to transfer. I think that's a fair trade-off. It will also give the opportunity to boost bus frequency on Eglinton East.

I don't it is just the time taken to transfer to a bus at Kennedy and then the LRT at Don Mills, but also the running time of the bus in mixed traffic versus the LRT in its median (with projected average speed approaching 25km/h compared to well under 20km/h for the Eglinton East bus) between Kennedy and Don Mills. Would be significantly more than 2 - 3 minutes.

So while you are saving some money by cutting several kms of the line, you are adding expenses for the tunnel and station at Leslie and not providing improved transit for those traveling between Don Mills and Kennedy.

Have you done the math for how much money you'd ultimately gain that can be spent towards your preferred schemes?

 

[kEiThZ]

I can't speak for the merits of connecting to the Zoo versus SCC, but political decisions to prioritize one destination over another are not in the same class as saying demand projections of, say, 3000/hr are completely fabricated by the professionals when we all know there will really be 8000/hr.

But that demand is driven by the destination. Are you going to suggest that irrespective of routing the demand on Sheppard would be the same? Going to STC would not generate more ridership than going to the zoo?