Transit City Plan

[unimaginative2]

nfitz, please don't try to quote to me from Transit Toronto's article on the DRL. I'm quite aware of where it's accurate and inaccurate. After all this, what is you're point? All you keep presenting are these circular arguments about how everything is too expensive, and making inarguable statements about how much funding would be available if, hypothetically, the TTC actually wanted to build subways. What is it that you actually want? Is it an all-streetcar approach? Do you support Transit City? What is it? Or do you just come here to argue?

The $9 billion figure for Transit City is from the city's latest capital report. Steve Munro's got a link to it on his blog, albeit amusingly well-concealed.

Dentrobate, I'm not sure on what evidence you've based your claims that Sheppard East has no "intermediate demand". The Rapid Transit Expansion Study showed it to have close to the highest ridership of any subway extension.

Well said as always, scarberiankhatru, but I might add that Metrolinx officials have supposedly been wanting to study whether some of the Transit City routes should use LRT or other modes, like subway. Toronto has refused to allow it.

MisterF, scarberian, you're obviously right, but it doesn't seem to get through to these people that this doesn't have to be some kind of transit geeky "Who's subway is best?" competition. Wanting to build an Eglinton subway or streetcar or monorail or blimp route doesn't mean that we shouldn't build a DRL, too. Or Sheppard East, for that matter.

You even missed a few big trip generators along the DRL. East Bayfront, the Port Lands, the transfers from the Queen and College streetcars, and others. It would put a subway station right at the new George Brown campus, too.

 

[nfitz]

Everyone, including you, knows that they wouldn't have proposed that much, so how does this exaggeration help your argument that they wouldn't have funded any additional projects? It doesn't.

I didn't say they wouldn't have funded any additional projects. My point was that there isn't a virtually unlimited supply of money. $12 billion doesn't go that far. Perhaps about 50 km of track, including yards, signalling upgrades, and equipment, in average 2013 dollars, if your lucky - for Toronto, Peel, Durham, Hamilton, and Halton.

You're the one in fantasyland since everyone else is suggesting that maybe 20-30km - not 120km - of subway should/would/could have been included in MoveOntario

There was about 15 km in MoveOntario 2020. I've already suggested in this thread that there should be another 8 km for the DRL. That's 22 km then I'm advocating. Why are you picking on me here?

nfitz, please don't try to quote to me from Transit Toronto's article on the DRL. I'm quite aware of where it's accurate and inaccurate. After all this, what is you're point?

Why are you arguing with me? My point was that there wasn't an unlimited amount of money. And that the province committed 4 billion for Transit City. I'm only pointing out the basis for the $4 billion after it was questioned. Is Ontario going to pony up the 50% inflation in 1 year? Who knows ... even if the Liberals stay in power until 2020, I'm sure what gets built will have changed a couple of times.

All you keep presenting are these circular arguments about how everything is too expensive, and making inarguable statements about how much funding would be available if, hypothetically, the TTC actually wanted to build subways.

I'm merely pointing out that you will get a lot more bang for your buck with what's been funded, than with $18 billion of subways.

What is it that you actually want? Is it an all-streetcar approach? Do you support Transit City? What is it? Or do you just come here to argue?

No, funding should be balanced for all modes, where appropriate. MoveOntario 2020 funds trains, subways, SRT (yeah, I could live without that), streetcars, and BRT - and there has been other programs funding new buses. I came here to argue? Christ, every time I pull out a reasonable number, someone here starts whining on how impossible the number is. Give it a rest!

The $9 billion figure for Transit City is from the city's latest capital report. Steve Munro's got a link to it on his blog, albeit amusingly well-concealed.

Yes, I've seen it. And I'm not arguing with it. I was simply pointing out where the $4 billion that McGuinty funded came from, almost a year ago. The $9 billion figure post-dates that. My god, it's like I make a comment about East German athletes taking steroids in the 1970s, and someone comments that I must be wrong, because East Germany doesn't exist any more!

 

[unimaginative2]

You're right about a lot of things, nfitz, and you've obviously given it some thought. None of us here want exclusively subways to be built. Many of us are supporters of new subway to the downtown core in the form of a downtown relief line, and we're frustrated that every time it's mentioned, people pop up saying how their pet project (i.e. Eglinton) is better and therefore the DRL should not be built, or how subways are more expensive per mile than LRT and therefore new subways are a lousy idea. Both positions display very specious reasoning. I'll explain why: the former is predicated on the assumption that for some reason only one pet line will get built, so we have to fight like hell that ours and only ours gets built. I'll call that the David Jeanes approach. The problem with the latter is that LRT and subways are not comparable. Subways are a superior mode of transit in every way: they're faster, more reliable, have higher capacity, provoke more redevelopment, and attract more riders. That's not to say that they're right everywhere. Obviously some places just don't have enough riders to support it, and that failing isn't sufficiently mitigated by the need to develop a cohesive network. I'd say that Eglinton is probably a good spot for LRT, and so are Finch West and Jane. None are suitable for a full subway, or at least would be way down on the priority list. Other routes, by contract, would unquestionably be busier than the vast majority of subway lines in North America and would therefore be quite well-suited to a subway. The DRL, Kennedy-Scarborough Centre corridor, and Yonge North extension come to mind. Finally, there are routes which are quite busy and are needed for reasons of network coherence and quality of service. Sheppard and York U come to mind.

 

[scarberiankhatru]

I didn't say they wouldn't have funded any additional projects. My point was that there isn't a virtually unlimited supply of money.

They funded every single project that was asked for and threw in a few extra...when people say funding was near-unlimited, you don't need to take that literally and suggest a theoretically possible but undeniably ridiculous proposal of enough subway tracks to go from Union Station to Orillia.

I'm merely pointing out that you will get a lot more bang for your buck with what's been funded, than with $18 billion of subways.

*struggling to not take that bait*

 

[Dan416]

At the very least we shouldn't be shooting ourselves in the foot with a boneheaded LRT on Sheppard East when that was meant to be a subway!

 

[Anth]

The $9 billion figure for Transit City is from the city's latest capital report. Steve Munro's got a link to it on his blog, albeit amusingly well-concealed.

Isn't Munro supposed to be an engineer who's able to dispassionately evaluate different technologies and determine their optimal use? It's amazing how someone with such crackpotish tendencies has been able to amass so much influence.

Well said as always, scarberiankhatru, but I might add that Metrolinx officials have supposedly been wanting to study whether some of the Transit City routes should use LRT or other modes, like subway. Toronto has refused to allow it.

This is simply infuriating and proves the early GTTA legislation criticism right. What was the whole point of this Metrolinx exercise if not to mitigate municipal stupidity and slam down the iron fist once in a while?

 

[MisterF]

unimaginative and scarberian - you're right I did miss some generators! That tips the scales even more in favour of the DRL. Obviously both lines should get built in some form, whether it's underground LRT, subway, or regional rail. It's a shame that the city and the TTC have somehow gone anti-subway and seem put their hands over their ears going "la la la I'm not listening" whenever someone brings up the DRL.

 

[DENTROBATE54]

Only in Toronto would a subway serving a continuous string of busy, high density nodes be called "over-indulgent." God forbid we build successful transit lines!

At what cost? You're forgetting nearly all those stops wouldn't be juxtaposed to any major development/node. You're forgetting DRL would be just as dependent on go-slow streetcars as YUS currently is. I'm not against DRL, I'm against the notion that it takes a single subway line to resolve all of Toronto's transit issues. DRL lies at periphery, not central to anywhere. Downtown needs a new subway line that reflects BD, not a few scattered stops then off to the hinterlands. This is why Paris, London, Chicago, Tokyo, etc. has a plethora of lines, several overlapping service in a particular area then branching off to other areas. Even Canada gets this right in Vancouver.

The part of DRL I agree with most (Don Mills-Thorncliffe Park) exemplifies what it takes to make such a line successful, density every 500 metres. And I'm not saying there isn't a market for south-of-Overlea service, just not as a subway when O'Connor southwards is less than ten mins away from the BD line. Worrying about overcrowding at YUS should be the least of our worries, since Eglinton riders will have entered the subway system at some point anyway. All I'm saying is, for all the talk of spreading the wealth of subways beyond downtown, we sure can think up ways to not only improperly serve downtown (i.e. confined to the peripheries) but also limit the accessibility of lines in those very beloved suburbs.

I'm not arguing against an Eglinton subway per se, I'm arguing that a DRL would be far more valuable and busy. You mention some nodes that would supposedly give Eglinton the advantage. Interesting idea...

I never said Eglinton would have the advantage over downtown, it is downtown afterall. You can also add TCP and DMC to Eglinton as I illustrated how that area could be grafted onto an Eglinton line. I was just making the comparison to show that Eglinton, in the grand scheme of things, WOULD in fact fill alot of gaps in the system much the way a downtown subway could there. Everything south of Bloor on DRL I like and in my vision for a downtown subway I would include all of that and then some. This is why I dislike the one-line-serves-all hypothesis because it's impossible to do that and remain time/cost effective to commuters.

 

[scarberiankhatru]

At what cost? You're forgetting nearly all those stops wouldn't be juxtaposed to any major development/node. You're forgetting DRL would be just as dependent on go-slow streetcars as YUS currently is. I'm not against DRL, I'm against the notion that it takes a single subway line to resolve all of Toronto's transit issues. DRL lies at periphery, not central to anywhere.

This set of sentences is extremely amusing...they're just totally wrong.

 

[nfitz]

Isn't Munro supposed to be an engineer who's able to dispassionately evaluate different technologies and determine their optimal use?

Munro an engineer? I've never heard that. He's not listed at http://members.peo.on.ca He works in IT.

It's amazing how someone with such crackpotish tendencies has been able to amass so much influence.

Reading his material, he doesn't sound crackpotish at all. We're the ones who sound like crackpots. Heck, even Steve has spoken out in favour of a Yonge subway extension, and some kind of DRL.

This is simply infuriating and proves the early GTTA legislation criticism right. What was the whole point of this Metrolinx exercise if not to mitigate municipal stupidity and slam down the iron fist once in a while?

What, to create more provincial blunders, like the SRT, and a GO system that is run to as to actually discourage use within the city? The municipalities have no monopoly on stupidity. Metrolinx (GTTA, or even GTTA) can't even get their act together to integrate the Oriole GO Station with Leslie Station.

 

[unimaginative2]

At what cost? You're forgetting nearly all those stops wouldn't be juxtaposed to any major development/node. You're forgetting DRL would be just as dependent on go-slow streetcars as YUS currently is. I'm not against DRL, I'm against the notion that it takes a single subway line to resolve all of Toronto's transit issues. DRL lies at periphery, not central to anywhere. Downtown needs a new subway line that reflects BD, not a few scattered stops then off to the hinterlands. This is why Paris, London, Chicago, Tokyo, etc. has a plethora of lines, several overlapping service in a particular area then branching off to other areas. Even Canada gets this right in Vancouver.

Absolutely nobody has ever said that the DRL alone would solve all of Toronto's transit issues. I can't fathom how you could possibly suggest that the DRL is at the periphery when it runs right through the densest part of the downtown core, plus all the new waterfront neighbourhoods. You really should read the waterfront plans and maybe the Fort York secondary plan. Read about the East Bayfront and the West Don Lands.

I never said Eglinton would have the advantage over downtown, it is downtown afterall. You can also add TCP and DMC to Eglinton as I illustrated how that area could be grafted onto an Eglinton line. I was just making the comparison to show that Eglinton, in the grand scheme of things, WOULD in fact fill alot of gaps in the system much the way a downtown subway could there. Everything south of Bloor on DRL I like and in my vision for a downtown subway I would include all of that and then some. This is why I dislike the one-line-serves-all hypothesis because it's impossible to do that and remain time/cost effective to commuters.

First of all, no Eglinton line could ever directly serve both Thorncliffe Park and the Don Mills neighbourhood. Kay...you like everything south of Bloor on the DRL, and you like Thorncliffe Park-Don Mills. What is it that you don't like? The short connecting section on Pape north of Danforth? Are you actually suggesting that they should be two disconnected lines separated by a short gap?

You gotta understand that the purpose of a subway is to actually get people places, not to scatter disconnected stations all over the city in some kind of even distribution.

 

[299 bloor call control.]

What, to create more provincial blunders, like the SRT, and a GO system that is run to as to actually discourage use within the city? The municipalities have no monopoly on stupidity. Metrolinx (GTTA, or even GTTA) can't even get their act together to integrate the Oriole GO Station with Leslie Station.

Good point, it's taken what? 5 years? And finally there's a walkway built between Oriole and GO?

 

[Anth]

Reading his material, he doesn't sound crackpotish at all. We're the ones who sound like crackpots. Heck, even Steve has spoken out in favour of a Yonge subway extension, and some kind of DRL.

His crackpotishness comes out more in his responses to comments on his blog, where there's always some sort anti-LRT conspiracy by the "pro-subway lobby" and where he summarily dismisses (or worse, censors) anything reasonable that even remotely conflicts with his transit world view. It's behaviour unworthy of a rational technologist, which is who he presents himself to be.

What, to create more provincial blunders, like the SRT, and a GO system that is run to as to actually discourage use within the city? The municipalities have no monopoly on stupidity. Metrolinx (GTTA, or even GTTA) can't even get their act together to integrate the Oriole GO Station with Leslie Station.

Or, more positively, GO ALRT?

Absolutely they don't have a monopoly, but I'm saying it seems the critics are being proven right for claiming the organization was set up to fail with the lack of teeth and all the local politicians on the board in lieu of professionals. Sheppard East LRT being the obvious example.

 

[RedRocket191]

Absolutely they don't have a monopoly, but I'm saying it seems the critics are being proven right for claiming the organization was set up to fail with the lack of teeth and all the local politicians on the board in lieu of professionals. Sheppard East LRT being the obvious example.

Politicians are on the board of directors because they are accountable to the people. While this means that they have to use experts tell them what to do, it means that if you don't like what they are doing, you can vote them out.

However, the experts outnumber the politicians in that building. It is experts who write the reports. It is experts who do the research, and I think that its unfair to minimize their importance. In addition to the board of directors, there are no less than three review committees stacked with experts, and believe me, those experts have a much greater influence on the plan that will guide the future of transit in the GTA.

 

[ShonTron]

One municipality, however, with a population of excess of 450,000, does not have a politican accountable to them at the GTTA.

I'd rather have some professionals mixed in with a few pols. Roger Anderson should not be sitting on a transit body, while others, like Bill Fisch, aren't bad.