Juan_Lennon416
Senior Member
Whether it is LRTs or subways that get built...I'm still driving to work. I do not think TTC could do anything to get me back onto their system
Last edited:
|
|
|
Transit City Plan
- Thread starter 299 bloor call control.
- Start date
Tulse
Senior Member
And however many roads get built, I still won't be able to afford a car. For some folks, the TTC isn't an option, but a necessity.
valvenis
New Member
Many people, who work downtown and have cars, refuse to drive to work. They simply have no interest in putting up with the hassle of downtown traffic and the cost of downtown parking fees.
GenerationW
Senior Member
With things in a state of flux it's no surprise Queen's Park and Ottawa are holding firm with current funding levels, but that could change at budget time and, especially, during the Provincial election campaign. Of course, there's also a danger funding could be reduced (as the Province has already done once) due to larger-than-expected deficits.
Why would anyone expect more serious DRL consideration in Ford's administration than there was in Miller's? I just worry whether Toronto will be ready to act if York Region successfully pushes the Yonge extension to the top of the priority list -- and I think York will be successful sometime this decade.
Tulse
Senior Member
And due to a lack of any solid costed plan or sense of urgency from the city leadership. If I were McGuinty, I'd be wary about throwing any money Ford's way until he makes a serious, workable, costed out commitment to, well, something.
k10ery
Senior Member
As much as the DRL would be good for passengers, most of its trips would be diverted from other TTC routes, not new ridership, so it doesn't help the operating budget much. I would think this is partly why the TTC has so little interest in it.
Tulse
Senior Member
To the extent that the DRL relieves congestion, it would likely increase ridership to some extent, and it would also reduce the need to increase capacity on the main downtown lines. In those senses, it could indeed help the operating budget (although probably not enough to offset its capital costs).
GraphicMatt
Looking forward to a FRESH START for Toronto
That's a good point, though conceivably they could save money by reducing streetcar service along the DRL route.
But there is plenty of latent demand that would be opened up if the DRL were to be built. Think about it, how many people say "I would take the TTC, but it's too damn crowded". Taking 17,500 pphpd off of YUS opens up that many more spaces. I'm sure you could find 17,500 people in this city who, if space on YUS suddenly became available, would switch to using the TTC. Ridership wouldn't stay static, the equilibrium of different transportation options would just re-balance itself out.
Maybe. Although there is also the potential that putting the DRL through southern Riverdale et al will unlock a lot of latent demand for streetcars to shuttle to the DRL. People who would not be willing to tolerate a 30 min streetcar ride into downtown may be willing to tolerate a 5 min streetcar ride to get to the DRL. I would imagine the routes would balance themselves out internally. The outer portions would see increases in ridership, the inner portions would see decreases (assuming the full DRL network is built, if only the east is built, the impact on streetcar operations west of Yonge will be minimal). The outer portions would essentially act as a frequent shuttle service to the DRL.
Ed Drass
Active Member
GM, what if the Red line were to have the effect of increasing overall demand on lines that cross it -- including streetcar lines that partly parallel the proposed route? (Oh... gweed just said it better.)
--
Anyway, it's super-moot if DRL has little political traction. What bothers me more is that all the energy opposed to surface transit improvements, including from some on this board, is feeding a de facto ban on any on-street BRT or LRT upgrades with 416.
Even in a 'best case' compromise under Ford, we might get two routes (Eglinton underground, BD extension) that can justify their cost in short order, and perhaps one or two more that might reach potential in 50 years... (Sheppard). In the meantime, most other surface routes face increasing mixed-traffic congestion and attendant drops in trip speed, efficiency and reliability.
How many corridors are we talking about that justify surface upgrades now, or will within Ford's four-year mandate? 5, 10, 15? Is that four years without any new transit lanes -- even queue jump lanes -- in Toronto? Why are we not having this discussion -- or is it only worth having after the Sheppard/Eglinton/BD to STC fight is over?
Seems like narrow-minded planning.
-ed
Last edited:
adeel
Active Member
This is an extremely off topic question, but one thing i was thinking of was why was Sheppard chosen for the new subway back when it was proposed and built? Had any consideration been given at the time to a Steeles subway for cost sharing purposes?
Where as Sheppard could only get funding from City of TO and Ontario, a Steeles subway could have gotten money from York Region and Town of Markham as well? Thinking now it seems logical, and as far as I can tell Sheppard had no particular reason for getting a subway?
Where as Sheppard could only get funding from City of TO and Ontario, a Steeles subway could have gotten money from York Region and Town of Markham as well? Thinking now it seems logical, and as far as I can tell Sheppard had no particular reason for getting a subway?
js97
Senior Member
Are you serious? Public transportation by its definition is NOT financially efficient/viable.
It's an investment that is supposed to bring in other benefits and externalities to society as a whole. Public healthcare/ education are not financially viable models, are those the types of efficiencies your're speaking to?
It's supposed to reduce congestion/pollution and increase/encourage ridership and intensification along the corridor. It's supposed to ENCOURAGE current drivers to get out of their cars and into a faster and more efficient method of transportation: subways.
It's so, so sad for this city that people are caught up in a partisan battle, and nothing more.
If Rob Ford wanted Transit City, and the subways where are Miller idea, you would be all over it.
You want a real fight, look at the tunelling their doing all the way up to York University, to richmond hill on yonge (density much?)
Last edited:
SimonP
Active Member
The Toronto Environmental Alliance released an infographic today comparing Ford's plan with Transit City:
Large size
Large size
W. K. Lis
Superstar
The Toronto Environmental Alliance released an infographic today comparing Ford's plan with Transit City:
Large size
The link to the Making Tracks to Torontonians website at the Pembina Institute is here. The direct download for the PDF is here.
GraphicMatt
Looking forward to a FRESH START for Toronto
The answer to your question is Mel Lastman mostly. And a bit Jack Layton.
Mel was a bombastic personality with a deep love for his community of North York. In his eyes, it DESERVED a subway line because it was so great. He worked for years to get one, even when it was clear that any line built there would be a short stub.
In the 80s, the downtown progressive bloc led by Layton was very much all about limiting new developments in the core. The Downtown Relief Proposed at the time then was thus viewed as something that would drive more nasty development. So the progressives pushed for the TTC to focus their transit development in the suburbs.
This is kind of a facile explanation - it goes a lot deeper than this - but that's the short version.