Transit City: Sheppard East Debate

[Juan_Lennon416]

Have YOU tried to meet with Giambrone, City Council, the TTC or Metrolinx to get them to change their minds? If not, then clam up and stop complaining. Otherwise you're just trolling.

Huh?

I do not need to meet with Giambrone, City Council, the TTC, or Metrolinx to change their minds because they are building something in my favour

 

[Chuck]

I know that he's lived downtown his entire life, never married/had his own family, and never drove a car (he doesn't even have a driver's license). That kind of lifestyle doesn't exactly give you the perspective of a suburban resident who needs a fast long-distance travel alternative to the car. So, he thinks in terms of local, slow, short-distance trips. Giambrone is the same. Add in the streetcar nostalgia from childhood, and there you have it.

Get what you're saying, but recognize that even people in his situation tend to prefer subways over streetcars. I used to be one of those downtown residents who said "and the best part of my neighbourhood is that I have a streetcar at my doorstep." A few years later, I've made it a rule to never live more than 500m from a subway station ever again, at least at this stage of my life.

Most downtown residents prefer streetcars over buses, but at the same would happily swap any streetcar line with the subway. Tourists and suburbanites are nostalgic toward downtown streetcars. Downtown residents want a faster way to get around.

 

[Second_in_pie]

From talking to him in the summer at an open house, I understood Giambrone's "broader picture" for the TTC to be that Transit City will only go part ways to modernizing the TTC, and that another major upgrade/plan/phase will be required after TC is completed which will require more subway expansion than we're getting with TC.

Now, considering that subway construction costs are ever increasing (or so we're told), I'd like to know why his vision isn't bass ackwards.

Wow, that's kind of crazy.

First of all, they're LRT-izing and screwing over all the real viable subway routes. I'd be interested to see how they try to sell a Lawrence or Victoria Park Subway.
Second, in every single city of this size, subway has built first, and LRT to fill in the congested bus routes that wouldn't add largely to the network. But I guess we've already noticed that Transit City is backwards in the logical sense, so I won't blame them for that

 

[GraphicMatt]

Wow, that's kind of crazy.

First of all, they're LRT-izing and screwing over all the real viable subway routes. I'd be interested to see how they try to sell a Lawrence or Victoria Park Subway.
Second, in every single city of this size, subway has built first, and LRT to fill in the congested bus routes that wouldn't add largely to the network. But I guess we've already noticed that Transit City is backwards in the logical sense, so I won't blame them for that

How many TC routes could really be subway? Don Mills - which still might be -, Sheppard (but only because there already is subway there) and Eglinton. Eglinton will be, assuming nothing changes and the TTC doesn't screw it up, running at close to subway speeds.

I don't think any of the other lines have any real potential for subway.

TC will put enormous pressure on the existing subway lines, particularly Yonge, which should strengthen the political will and support for the DRL. TC + DRL strikes me as a pretty damn good transportation network.

It would have way more sense from a planning perspective to look at the DRL first (while adding bus service as a temporary measure on the northern routes) but that would have been a harder sell politically, as it essentially would be seen as adding infrastructure for downtown residents while continuing to neglect others.

 

[W. K. Lis]

There is always a third option some mayor-hopeful may do: build nothing.

If it were a choice between:

1. $247.5 million per kilometre for a heavy rail subway
2. $42.6 million per kilometre above ground LRT ($142.8 million per kilometre for the tunnelled portion)
3. $0 for status quo

I would go with the LRT, more service across more area.

The next battle for mayor will be with the city budget. A heavy rail subway will be very expensive to build and the Spadina extension will be watched very carefully over costs. Changing the Sheppard East to heavy rail will send the city budget up too much for whatever mayor we get.

 

[lead82]

Lets hope the next mayor vows to keep transit as a priority. Miller did a decent job of bringing transit issues to the fore-front. It is only now that those results are starting to come in as projects get kicked off and construction begins.

With the budget crunch at all levels of government, I doubt we will see much more subway or new transit announcements. In fact, I think we may see existing projects that haven't started yet either cancelled, delayed or rolled back to save money in the short-term.

This would be terrible, so we all have a responsibility to make sure we elect leaders in the coming elections that focus on building city services like transit, even if it means we go into more debt.

 

[Tdot_one]

You do not even live up here so how do you know what we residents think? I prefer to stick to those who have studied the line versus people like yourself who tells me stuff based on what you think or what you heard from non-credible sources.

You will be surprised as to the hundreds or thousands of people who support the SELRT. There are far more people than you think who know and welcome this projects but they are not very vocal about it. Again, you do not live up here, so what do you know!

I never said the next mayor will follow Miller's TC plan to the letter. All I am saying is the new Mayor could be sworn in and TC might not be their main focus at that specific time. Mind you, the 2011 City Budget would be #1 on the agenda and if the new Mayor is Smitherman, the #2 item on the list could be creating a more solid partnership with Daddy Dalton and uploading services. Therefore, with Smitherman as mayor, stopping the SELRT might be quite low on his list. Unless you have spoken to the candidates running for Mayor, you do not know what their priorities are and in what order.

When you are ready to stop this project, call me up because I would love to see you fail!

That's a terrible assumption and tells me that you have very little understanding of the community of Malvern. I used to play soccer in the community, plus have a number of friends or near-family living in those parts. Most, from what I see, don't even care.

However, businesses located on the stretch do care. It's negatively affecting the community, because these lines are local, corridor-level lines. In other words, their catchment areas are extremely limited. I swear, familiarize yourself with Toronto before talking.

The majority of transit users are bus-bound passengers. In other words, bus feeder networks is why the TTC's ridership is high. On the other hand, these LRTs are going through SPRAWLS that do not reach most. I don't see any indication that we're going to see buses feed these lines either.

So what's the point of this project? To push for the development of avenues. However keep in mind that density required to push the usage to LRT-levels would not be possible on the corridor. Most developers are not going to be building high rise towers on these corridors.

Subways and completely grade-separated lines tend to see such development and thus it's going to be medium density all the way. Transit conscious corridors are meant for a new population, one (as Scarberia) stressed will LOWER population density, and possibly change the demographics.

The city of Toronto is primarily lower income and the city is looking at an effective way of maximizing revenue. You got small businesses that developed the stretch and it seems like they're being ignored. The city isn't even looking to building a Malvern-wide line, because it doesn't have the core foundation present in rapid transit in other parts of Toronto.

Just saying, look around carefully. Look at those huge bus bays. This is obvious and this is coming from one who loves density.

 

[kettal]

but I definitely see LRT advocates dismiss the idea of ANY new subway route in Toronto..

name one person who meets this description.

 

[Juan_Lennon416]

That's a terrible assumption and tells me that you have very little understanding of the community of Malvern. I used to play soccer in the community, plus have a number of friends or near-family living in those parts. Most, from what I see, don't even care.

I lived in Malvern for 20 years and I have been living just east of there for the past 3 years. I KNOW MALVERN!

Most, from what myself and other residents see, DO CARE and welcome the SELRT

 

[Tdot_one]

I lived in Malvern for 20 years and I have been living just east of there for the past 3 years. I KNOW MALVERN!

Most, from what myself and other residents see, DO CARE and welcome the SELRT

I've heard the reverse. Most aren't aware of the implications of the projects either. It'd be very difficult to introduce one LRT to serve an essentially low density area.

Buses are the MAIN mode passengers take to get to the subway on Bloor. In other words, walk-in passengers form a minority. How the hell would it differ in Malvern of all places? I am not necessarily opposed to the project, it will achieve it's objects (gentrify and enhance the tax base of the city.

However to suggest that it'll benefit the wider population sounds very ridiculous. The Queens street car goes through a very different neighborhood. It has a much higher catchment zone.

Buses, even after this project, will be the primary mode. New bus lines will have to be established the feed the GO stations as well. This formula used is being used quite effectively in Toronto and I highly doubt that every single bus line could be replaced by LRT either.

 

[LAz]

All these LRT plans are cheap temporary solutions to enhance something for a short run, not the long run.

The fact is that Subways are worth the money invested in the long run. But, the government is not interested in long term stuff - they want short term gains. I'm gonna laugh at them, and Toronto folk, when a subway line replaces the LRT, if that gets built.



Lets see... what city in the world opted for light rail instead of heavy rail... ah yes, Belgrade, Serbia's capital. The result is a fucked up city because of this stupid decision.



Subway lines will pay for themselves. They encourage development too, so density will come around them. On top of that, LRT is stupid, something good for cities of bellow 500,000 people. Perhaps it can work in some places in more urban areas... but the subway is always the better long term investment.

 

[nfitz]

Subway lines will pay for themselves.

not only do they not; they require future investment for major maintenance every 40 years or so.

 

[LAz]

not only do they not; they require future investment for major maintenance every 40 years or so.

Go read a textbook on mass transit, and learn that the main problem with costs associated with subways is in building them, not maintaining them. These maintenance costs are relatively small.

There are maintenance costs for everything. I think that underground rail has lower maintenance costs than rail above ground, for it is not exposed to all the rain and snow and weatherization.




Look at it this way - imagine the TTC's green line... imagine if that were a LRT line. Oh man, if you ever go to hell, I would love to see you go to a Toronto where all the subway lines are LRT lines isntead... oh yeah, the horror.




edit: Perhaps you should have read the other sentences after what you quoted me - to understand that I framed it in the "long run". Whenever you build a subway line you will for sure change the land use patterns around the place. Current me if I am wrong, but the construction of the short sheppard line brought about an increase of density- no?

 

[Tdot_one]

All these LRT plans are cheap temporary solutions to enhance something for a short run, not the long run.

The fact is that Subways are worth the money invested in the long run. But, the government is not interested in long term stuff - they want short term gains. I'm gonna laugh at them, and Toronto folk, when a subway line replaces the LRT, if that gets built.



Lets see... what city in the world opted for light rail instead of heavy rail... ah yes, Belgrade, Serbia's capital. The result is a fucked up city because of this stupid decision.



Subway lines will pay for themselves. They encourage development too, so density will come around them. On top of that, LRT is stupid, something good for cities of bellow 500,000 people. Perhaps it can work in some places in more urban areas... but the subway is always the better long term investment.

I wouldn't say that LRTs are bad. These systems can work at a local level, and beautify corridors and raise tax revenues if that is the aim.

Both are very different systems and even in Europe, where tram runs, there still is some sort of frequent heavy rail service. GO Transit is joke and it doesn't seem like the freight giant are going to allow radical change.

Munro may oppose it, but the ALRT if present would've been well utilized. Toronto has enormous experience in maintain a comprehensive bus service that has produced one of the most efficient transit services in the world. Suburban rail frequency if taken to 4-5 minutes rush hour frequency and 10-15 minutes inter-peak would see immense ridership numbers. Similar suburban rail lines, but tied with extremely inefficient bus feeder network still see 400,000/day. That is, with a 15-20 minute rush hour frequency and 25-35 minutes inter-peak.

 

[LAz]

I wouldn't say that LRTs are bad. These systems can work at a local level, and beautify corridors and raise tax revenues if that is the aim.

I think that LRT is great for small cities of between 300,000 and 500,000 people, give or take a bit.

LRT went out of cities for a reason. Chicago for example had the biggest streetcar system in the world, I think. They tore it all up. I am like wow wtf how did they have so many lines when I look at the map... the point is that LRT is not a good option for places that are dense.




I suppose the problem here is that the city official and private sector want to continue the old system of supporting suburbanization. That is insanity when planning mass transit, as it works against mass transit. Higher density is what the focus should be on. I do not see much focus on that. I see short term ideas that are more costly in the long run.