News   Jul 17, 2024
Side-by-Side The Davisville and Uovo Top Off on Yonge in Midtown
 501     0 
News   Jul 17, 2024
Midtown Resubmission Adds Height, Density, Matches Adjacent Proposal
 1.4K     2 
News   Jul 17, 2024
News Roundup for July 17, 2024
 620     0 

Transit City Plan

Which transit plan do you prefer?

  • Transit City

    Votes: 95 79.2%

  • Ford City

    Votes: 25 20.8%
  • Total voters
    120
gweed123 said:
Tell that to York Region, Brampton, Ottawa, etc etc etc. Granted the 905 GTA bus services didn't have very high ridership to begin with, so any increase would be seen as a success, but when you look at the anti-transit environment they have to work with (low density suburbia), they do pretty well for themselves. Imagine what the ridership would be in an area that is a more transit-friendly design.

If the 20 minute rush-hour trip to the subway was reduced to 10 minutes running 5-8 minute headways, I'd think that would get a lot more people to think twice about taking transit. This is of course based on the assumption that the subway system will have the capacity to handle the influx of new riders (which is the same knock for every transit plan that doesn't include capacity improvements leading into the downtown core).

The ideal application of BRT would be two-fold:

1) Use a hub and spoke concept in the outer 416, to create efficient, medium capacity, high frequency feeder routes to and from major transit hubs that have subway access (Finch West to Finch West Station would be a perfect example, or Finch East to Finch Station).
2) Use dedicated corridors for express crosstown travel (Finch Hydro Corridor, buses using the DVP, Lakeshore Blvd, etc).
Click to expand...

BRT is a good lower cost option, but (at least in Toronto) people hate buses and realistically people hate LRT. This is mainly a result of a bad image (i.e. buses are always late, they are stuck in traffic, they have horribly bumpy rides, and so on). People don't want LRT, because they do not understand the operation of LRT vs Streetcars, and we all know what a lot of people think of Streetcars (i.e. unreliable, always stuck in traffic, etc.). All of this is compounded by Mayor Ford that is telling everyone that LRT is horrible and to cut these lines in favor of the best mode of public transit ever created the subway. So if you are looking at the City of Toronto I can see why people are saying BRT is a non-starter.

As gweed said, there are many very good applications of BRT for Toronto to compare to, but will people care? Will developers care? The entire Transit City vs BRT vs Subway debate is being driven by both public distaste for certain modes, but more importantly by the Mayor's promise to Scarborough.

As for gweed's comments about the corridors, i am doubtful these corridors would be transit friendly in any fashion. I believe a better use for these corridors would be to actually build a cross town avenue and let cars use it. Why? Then we may have some justification to actually take lanes on the adjacent roads (Steeles, Finch, or other) and make the dedicated LRT or BRT lanes and keep the transit lines where people will actually see and want to use them.
 
Is the transportation network we want to build to be used only for commuters or for local transportation? To me, HRT (heavy rail transit) will be built not for local use, but for commuter use, to get from home to work, period. The stations will be far apart, because of the lack of high density. For HRT to be use for local transportation, we need high density (something the NIMBYs will be very upset about).

If LRT (light rail transit) were to be built, its main purpose would be for local transportation. The stations would be closer together, providing better service to the medium density expedited.

Rob Ford's vision seems to be that public transit is of only benefit for commuters, therefore HRT subways. You are expected to use your car for local transportation. Even if the price skyrockets as forecast, you will continue to use your car to get a carton of milk.

We need a network of public transit for local transportation, meaning LRT.
 
W. K. Lis said:
Is the transportation network we want to build to be used only for commuters or for local transportation? To me, HRT (heavy rail transit) will be built not for local use, but for commuter use, to get from home to work, period. The stations will be far apart, because of the lack of high density. For HRT to be use for local transportation, we need high density (something the NIMBYs will be very upset about).

If LRT (light rail transit) were to be built, its main purpose would be for local transportation. The stations would be closer together, providing better service to the medium density expedited.

Rob Ford's vision seems to be that public transit is of only benefit for commuters, therefore HRT subways. You are expected to use your car for local transportation. Even if the price skyrockets as forecast, you will continue to use your car to get a carton of milk.

We need a network of public transit for local transportation, meaning LRT.
Click to expand...

We already have local transit, it is our bus network. Really is spending billions to improve our local transit a worthwhile investment? Are people going to be more likely to spend up to $6 on a two way trip (more if they make a stopover) to go down the street because there is a light rail line instead of a bus? Are they more likely to part with this money instead of walking, cycling, or even driving which for such a trip would be time and cost competitive to transit?

The stop spacing on Sheppard would be 400m. We could easily move the current stop spacing to match this, and achieve pretty much the same results as with a billion dollar streetcar.
 
W. K. Lis said:
Is the transportation network we want to build to be used only for commuters or for local transportation? To me, HRT (heavy rail transit) will be built not for local use, but for commuter use, to get from home to work, period. The stations will be far apart, because of the lack of high density. For HRT to be use for local transportation, we need high density (something the NIMBYs will be very upset about).

If LRT (light rail transit) were to be built, its main purpose would be for local transportation. The stations would be closer together, providing better service to the medium density expedited.

Rob Ford's vision seems to be that public transit is of only benefit for commuters, therefore HRT subways. You are expected to use your car for local transportation. Even if the price skyrockets as forecast, you will continue to use your car to get a carton of milk.

We need a network of public transit for local transportation, meaning LRT.
Click to expand...

This probably takes the cake for the most nonsensical post you've ever written. Congratulations. You have 0 credibility. Silly fox.
 
gweed123 said:
...or BRT...
Click to expand...

Well, no, the essence of being a LRT-fanatic is shutting other options out. It's a religious like zeal, their insistance on LRT.



Well anyways, the T.C. debacle is over, yay.
 
Coruscanti Cognoscente said:
This probably takes the cake for the most nonsensical post you've ever written. Congratulations. You have 0 credibility. Silly fox.
Click to expand...

I wouldn't say that this post is that far off base. Higher capacity transit can make sense for local needs in areas of very high density. For example, 400m is about the same stopping distance as the subway through much of downtown. However, I disagree that if we are to be spending this money in north Scarborough, that we should be spending it on local transit over rapid transit (regardless of technology used).
 
Its worth looking at the pros and cons of elevated, but I wonder if there would be serious NIMBY opposition near residential areas, like a lot of Sheppard East, or Richview. Its easy to dismiss those concerns, but after St. Clair I'm sure the city has no taste for building anything without community support.
 
jwill said:
Its worth looking at the pros and cons of elevated, but I wonder if there would be serious NIMBY opposition near residential areas, like a lot of Sheppard East, or Richview. Its easy to dismiss those concerns, but after St. Clair I'm sure the city has no taste for building anything without community support.
Click to expand...

It would never pass in that case since the locals will complain of lowered property values, and that it can pose a public hazard for falling concrete chunks 40+ years after construction
 
jwill said:
Its worth looking at the pros and cons of elevated, but I wonder if there would be serious NIMBY opposition near residential areas, like a lot of Sheppard East, or Richview. Its easy to dismiss those concerns, but after St. Clair I'm sure the city has no taste for building anything without community support.
Click to expand...

It would never pass in that case since the locals will complain of lowered property values, and that it can pose a public hazard for falling concrete chunks 40+ years after construction
 
jwill said:
Its worth looking at the pros and cons of elevated, but I wonder if there would be serious NIMBY opposition near residential areas, like a lot of Sheppard East, or Richview. Its easy to dismiss those concerns, but after St. Clair I'm sure the city has no taste for building anything without community support.
Click to expand...

At least unlike St. Clair, being elevated would have no practical side effects to traffic flow.

After spending some time with Google Street View, a median viaduct seems like the best way* to fit an elevated line on to an arterial:

*best of a bad situation

Vancouver: http://goo.gl/maps/tYl9
New York City: http://goo.gl/maps/ra8U
Miami: http://goo.gl/maps/RA70
Paris: http://goo.gl/maps/lwur

Of course, we COULD convert the current Sheppard line to monorail, that would be the best case elevated:

Las Vegas: http://goo.gl/maps/Acyj
 
Electrify said:
At least unlike St. Clair, being elevated would have no practical side effects to traffic flow.

After spending some time with Google Street View, a median viaduct seems like the best way* to fit an elevated line on to an arterial:

*best of a bad situation

Vancouver: http://goo.gl/maps/tYl9
New York City: http://goo.gl/maps/ra8U
Miami: http://goo.gl/maps/RA70
Paris: http://goo.gl/maps/lwur

Of course, we COULD convert the current Sheppard line to monorail, that would be the best case elevated:

Las Vegas: http://goo.gl/maps/Acyj
Click to expand...

I wonder what it would cost/if it would even be feasible to convert the subway to monorail. I would suppose that as long as the vehicles are as wide or thinner than the current vehicles, and the platforms would be around the same height (+/- a foot or so can be ok to deal with), I would imagine it wouldn't be as extensive as a subway to LRT conversion.
 
gweed123 said:
I wonder what it would cost/if it would even be feasible to convert the subway to monorail. I would suppose that as long as the vehicles are as wide or thinner than the current vehicles, and the platforms would be around the same height (+/- a foot or so can be ok to deal with), I would imagine it wouldn't be as extensive as a subway to LRT conversion.
Click to expand...

I think that any heavy rail conversion needs to be looked at as an investment. Sure, you can argue that we spend x million and not see a single new kilometer of new transit, but it can also mean that future extensions become much more affordable. Theoretically speaking, if we converted our entire heavy rail network into monorail, extending or even creating new rapid transit (aka: 100% grade separated) could become much easier and less controversial. Even if we converted it to light rail, we could expand our network at-grade and create a "semi" rapid transit network like they have in Calgary (NOT like Transit City!).

If we were to go with monorail, the good news is that since our subway is high floored, the stations themselves would need minimal renovations. This picture of Tokyo's monorail (I believe) illustrates what I'm talking about:

356327739_4b3fe3d68f.jpg


The bad news is that the straddle design is not fully equipped for our winters. Moscow is the only place I am aware of which has a straddle transit monorail, and it could pose a safety concern:

CnstMM10.jpg


The good news is that there is a suspended monorail where the running surfaces are covered, so that this problem (not to mention other problems caused by standard rail in winter weather) are avoided. However, retrofitting our subway would become far more difficult. Here are some GSV images of one from Chiba, Japan:

http://goo.gl/maps/ZsGi
http://goo.gl/maps/dwOd
http://goo.gl/maps/STVe
http://goo.gl/maps/gzB2
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top