News   Aug 12, 2022
 3.1K     1 
News   Aug 12, 2022
 1.5K     1 
News   Aug 12, 2022
 735     0 

Transit City Plan

Which transit plan do you prefer?

  • Transit City

    Votes: 87 81.3%
  • Ford City

    Votes: 20 18.7%

  • Total voters
    107

Brandon716

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
May 12, 2007
Messages
1,428
Reaction score
0
Location
Niagara Region
I agree with all of that. Toronto needs a subway PLAN, and it doesn't have one. It has this idea of LRT as "rapid" transit, but we have no inkling that it will indeed be rapid at all. And if it's not faster than the buses, if it won't get people out of their cars, what's the point?

I think Scarberian's point about getting people out of their cars is a good one. I wouldn't take a streetcar from Port Credit to Union. That'd be crazy. That's what the GO train is for. It just doesn't seem any sense of rationality has been applied to these plans. It's like GO train or LRT and those are the only two options.

Yea, hopefully Miller will snap out of his LRT-only plan and start to mix it up.

Again, I think Light Rail would be ideal for certain areas that need better transit than buses, but not suitable for subway. Sheppard is already mostly done, Eglinton is too busy, and the DRL would need to be subway as well. All these other routes could easily be LRT without any problem. I wished both sides would come to the table, agree to work some details out, then present a unified transit plan the entire Toronto area can get behind.

However, if LRT is all they will build, I'd say go for it and fight for a high quality system that has platforms that take more than 2 cars per train. LRT isn't that slow, it is a better option than buses... I just think bastardizing Sheppard with a hybrid subway-LRT mix is the most insane idea ever, among other things. So hopefully they build other lines first and leave Sheppard alone for a while so that conditions may change in the future.
 
Last edited:

T.O.Fanatic

Active Member
Member Bio
Joined
Jan 4, 2009
Messages
136
Reaction score
10
The Eglinton Crosstown line is another problem. On paper it seems like a great idea, but I live right at Eglinton and Allen Rd, so I see now narrow the street is. Where are they going to fit a dedicated streetcar line? Or if the line goes underground, where will the stops be? Sounds like an expensive proposition.

On the issue of the Malvern-Morningside LRT, I think it will coax people out of their cars if done correctly. I grew up in the area, and my parents say that if transit were more reliable (read: If transit city were completed) they would actually use it to get around.
 

kEiThZ

Superstar
Member Bio
Joined
Jul 31, 2008
Messages
11,067
Reaction score
6,066
The most useful balance of service and capital expenditures would be to terminate Sheppard at STC (as a subway), the Kingston LRT at either UTSC or Rouge Hill, and extend the RT to Malvern. That, I think, would be more than sufficient.

And that's almost exactly what I have supported in the past with the minor modification running Morningside further north to Malvern allows for a loop to completed...thereby connecting UTSC with STC and Kennedy. I have no problem with Sheppard ending at STC. Where Scarberian and I differ is that he thinks none of the lines should go to Malvern. I think the RT at minimum should be extended to Malvern. The other lines I am not so picky about. All I was attempting to do was explain the TTC's logic on the placement of those lines. For example, if approaching UTSC from Kennedy via Kingston, Eglinton and Morningside, it does not make sense that you would not go 2km north to connect to Sheppard. Ther termination at Malvern of the Morningside line is merely making use of the Sheppard corridor so it does not incur extra construction costs.
 

Voltz

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Jan 26, 2008
Messages
1,725
Reaction score
610
The Eglinton Crosstown line is another problem. On paper it seems like a great idea, but I live right at Eglinton and Allen Rd, so I see now narrow the street is. Where are they going to fit a dedicated streetcar line? Or if the line goes underground, where will the stops be? Sounds like an expensive proposition.

On the issue of the Malvern-Morningside LRT, I think it will coax people out of their cars if done correctly. I grew up in the area, and my parents say that if transit were more reliable (read: If transit city were completed) they would actually use it to get around.

The eglinton line will be underground at that location, the length of the underground section and planned stop locations are on the projects web site.

I can also see the potential benefits of the SM LRT, most other people can't get over the fact that it serves Malvern, even though it needs to go that far to access a yard, and to allow passengers to switch between lines, and it will make use of tracks that will be built anyways.
 

scarberiankhatru

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Apr 23, 2007
Messages
5,274
Reaction score
6
And that's almost exactly what I have supported in the past with the minor modification running Morningside further north to Malvern allows for a loop to completed...thereby connecting UTSC with STC and Kennedy. I have no problem with Sheppard ending at STC. Where Scarberian and I differ is that he thinks none of the lines should go to Malvern. I think the RT at minimum should be extended to Malvern. The other lines I am not so picky about. All I was attempting to do was explain the TTC's logic on the placement of those lines. For example, if approaching UTSC from Kennedy via Kingston, Eglinton and Morningside, it does not make sense that you would not go 2km north to connect to Sheppard. Ther termination at Malvern of the Morningside line is merely making use of the Sheppard corridor so it does not incur extra construction costs.

Instead of inaccurately paraphrasing someone, why not use the quote function? I said the RT should not be extended (and until it's officially killed, there's no use pretending it won't be kept/extended), and I've also said that one or two of the lines should be killed to prop up the third. You know perfectly well that I've said Malvern can get its precious light rail in the form of a Transfer City line from STC...that plus the proposed GO line is all the transit lines that Malvern is physically capable of supporting, and anything else beyond Rocket buses (which can be just as fast as Transfer City, only with a fraction the capital investment - and it's capital investments that the city was bitching about when it decided to not extend the Danforth line to STC - of billion dollar streetcar ROWs) is undeniably a fantastic waste of money. Seriously, who's going to be riding all of these lines?

Extending the RT to Malvern means punishing the rest of Scarborough by not extending the subway to STC. It's one or the other. Replacing the RT with a Transfer City LRT line and extending this to Malvern still does nothing for most RT riders and most of Scarborough, but at least less money will be outright wasted. Such a line won't be particularly crowded, though, no more so than a line branching out from STC along McCowan or Ellesmere, anyway. For a plan called "Transit City," remarkably large swaths of the city will be *entirely* unaffected by the expenditure of all these billions of dollars.

Scarberian thinks they might. I think they might not. My rationale was given above. When TO asks for 6-8 billion that does not sound bad. If they asked for 20 billion minimum, someone else in the GTA would lose out or the province's bill for MO2020 would have ballooned by about 10-15 billion. I am a little skeptical the province would willingly swallow that medicine. There are other demands across the province and MO2020 only meets the requirements of the GTHA. Ottawa's got light rail plans that call for at least 2 billion from the province. And I would not be surprised if Kingston or London was not too far behind.

Yes, they would have. Everyone got what they asked for with MoveOntario. The city did not ask for $6B, they asked for vaguely defined projects to be funded - of course, the price tag quickly went up a few billion. York Region asked for two subway extensions, not for $X. That's not how it works...you don't ask for $X and then see how many coloured lines you can draw on your city's transit map with that.

I can also see the potential benefits of the SM LRT, most other people can't get over the fact that it serves Malvern, even though it needs to go that far to access a yard, and to allow passengers to switch between lines, and it will make use of tracks that will be built anyways.

Malvern will generate a paltry smattering of rides for the line, but few from UTSC (which isn't anywhere near as big a school as it seems) will use it either. Virtually no one is going to be transferring between the two lines. Perhaps the local raccoons will. There's lots of places yards could go. Anyway, the Eglinton line should just be extended over a bit, amputating the diseased part of the line north of Kingston.
 

kEiThZ

Superstar
Member Bio
Joined
Jul 31, 2008
Messages
11,067
Reaction score
6,066
Instead of inaccurately paraphrasing someone, why not use the quote function? I said the RT should not be extended (and until it's officially killed, there's no use pretending it won't be kept/extended), and I've also said that one or two of the lines should be killed to prop up the third. You know perfectly well that I've said Malvern can get its precious light rail in the form of a Transfer City line from STC...that plus the proposed GO line is all the transit lines that Malvern is physically capable of supporting, and anything else beyond Rocket buses (which can be just as fast as Transfer City, only with a fraction the capital investment - and it's capital investments that the city was bitching about when it decided to not extend the Danforth line to STC - of billion dollar streetcar ROWs) is undeniably a fantastic waste of money. Seriously, who's going to be riding all of these lines?

I humbly, stand corrected.

Yes, they would have. Everyone got what they asked for with MoveOntario. The city did not ask for $6B, they asked for vaguely defined projects to be funded - of course, the price tag quickly went up a few billion. York Region asked for two subway extensions, not for $X. That's not how it works...you don't ask for $X and then see how many coloured lines you can draw on your city's transit map with that.

Do we know this for sure though? You and I can disagree, but there's no evidence on how MO2020 selected all those projects. I for one, cannot see a higher level of government giving blank cheques to municipal politicians they can barely stand let alone trust. Anyway, I haven't seen anything on MO2020's consultations that suggested they were given a blank cheque. If you've seen otherwise, please share....
 

DavidH

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Sep 4, 2008
Messages
1,033
Reaction score
30
Do we know this for sure though? You and I can disagree, but there's no evidence on how MO2020 selected all those projects. I for one, cannot see a higher level of government giving blank cheques to municipal politicians they can barely stand let alone trust. Anyway, I haven't seen anything on MO2020's consultations that suggested they were given a blank cheque. If you've seen otherwise, please share....
Well, Durham Region was asking for money (not sure how much, but it was significant) for vaguely defined projects and got nothing in MO and was told they needed to be much more specific.
 

unimaginative2

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Apr 23, 2007
Messages
4,554
Reaction score
8
Location
New York
I know for a fact that MoveOntario 2020 was developed by asking municipalities for the transit projects they were planning, which were then compiled into a list.
 

scarberiankhatru

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Apr 23, 2007
Messages
5,274
Reaction score
6
Do we know this for sure though? You and I can disagree, but there's no evidence on how MO2020 selected all those projects. I for one, cannot see a higher level of government giving blank cheques to municipal politicians they can barely stand let alone trust. Anyway, I haven't seen anything on MO2020's consultations that suggested they were given a blank cheque. If you've seen otherwise, please share....

Well, Durham Region was asking for money (not sure how much, but it was significant) for vaguely defined projects and got nothing in MO and was told they needed to be much more specific.

I know for a fact that MoveOntario 2020 was developed by asking municipalities for the transit projects they were planning, which were then compiled into a list.

When I said "vague," I meant more along the lines of "we want to build this light rail line along that corridor but we haven't worked out the details" as opposed to "we want to build transit lines." Toronto went further and tacked a silly vision of idyllic redeveloped suburbs onto its streetcar ROW plan, even though it was and is still unable to justify these lines using basic planning principles, common sense, or sound social/fiscal policies. We know that regions asked for projects, and not for $X of funding, because relatively firm projections (not just vague estimates) for things like Transfer City or the Yonge subway extension did not exist back then. The province probably hinted that spending increases were on the way, though, because Transfer City is astronomically more expensive than what the city of Toronto was capable of building, which means there must have been a good reason to alter existing official and transit plans.
 

jamesbow

New Member
Member Bio
Joined
Oct 3, 2007
Messages
68
Reaction score
1
I vote against. Why change a title linking to the official title of a project with a few people's derisive interpretations thereof?

...James
 

RedRocket191

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Jul 30, 2007
Messages
2,306
Reaction score
0
I vote against. Why change a title linking to the official title of a project with a few people's derisive interpretations thereof?

...James

Seconded.

Reminds me of a Dane Cook routine where he disrespects his Tivo by calling it "Tito" when it recorded the History Channel instead of Lost.
 

unimaginative2

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Apr 23, 2007
Messages
4,554
Reaction score
8
Location
New York
Anybody who wants to be a transit advocate should be sure to not aggressively oppose transit improvement projects. While some of the Transit City lines are perhaps poorly thought out, they're certainly better than no project at all. I would never oppose an LRT line as opposed to the status quo. My problem comes where a higher-order mode, like subway, should be built but the city is pushing for LRT monoculture. It's a very delicate thing, because I don't oppose Transit City in general, I just think certain segments should be upgraded and others should be shortened.
 

isittimetomoveyet

Active Member
Member Bio
Joined
Dec 13, 2007
Messages
306
Reaction score
0
Anybody who wants to be a transit advocate should be sure to not aggressively oppose transit improvement projects. While some of the Transit City lines are perhaps poorly thought out, they're certainly better than no project at all. I would never oppose an LRT line as opposed to the status quo. My problem comes where a higher-order mode, like subway, should be built but the city is pushing for LRT monoculture. It's a very delicate thing, because I don't oppose Transit City in general, I just think certain segments should be upgraded and others should be shortened.

Very well put and I couldn't agree more...
 

Top