Transit City: Sheppard East Debate

[Fresh Start]

Out of curiosity, when you type out this drivel, do you ever think "what if somebody with an IQ higher than 50 actually reads my post, and they point out the massive amounts of BS contained therein?"

Seeing as you do not qualify as somebody with an IQ higher than 50, you're one to talk. And perhaps if you actually contributed to discussions for a change instead of posting veiled insults and 3 lines long non-sequitors that really mean jack; your opinion on anything would actually matter to me. Yes it must suck to take upwards of an hour aboard the 501 car to get downtown from Long Branch, assuming a streetcar's even available when one's ready to commute, when the local buses to the subway shows up like clockwork down on Lakeshore. Forgive me for not sharing your sentiment to put the entire city through that mess. We'd almost be better off with the preexisting bus service given the endless years of road construction ahead, stores going out-of-business from reduced visits, detoured routes adding on time to already long commutes, headaches for both motorists and pedestrians alike, etc., etc.

If you're going to subject the public to all of that, at least make sure the end-result is worth the trouble, otherwise this whole project is nothing more than a footnote that David Miller can put into his memoirs' list of "accomplishments." I almost wish SELRT to be built just so that I can laugh hysterically at every last person who supported this Epic Fail of a concept, everyone who can't heed sound warnings and apply the TTC's existing track record with light rail to figure out what quality of service lies ahead with Transfer City. But by then I will have moved out of the city, so the extremes at which y'all continue to screw it up will no longer be of any consequence to me.

Happy New Year!

 

[kettal]

Do you think we're all small children? We all know that the 501 is slow and unreliable, and we all know it doesn't have any relevance to the LRT lines being discussed here.

Why don't you bring up examples of unreliable and slow bus services and say "see, all buses are therefore slow, even BRT"?

 

[GTS]

I don't know why people are comparing the Transit City lines such as the Sheppard East LRT and others to the 501 streetcar. There are two examples of LRT (not low floor though) in Canada. The C train in Calgary and the Edmonton LRT. I have been luck in university and afterward as my work took me all over the Western part of Canada. If you get out and travel there or to LA, a place I have visited, you would have a lot more favorable opinion about LRT. Tranferring isn't such a bad thing, it just depends on how convienient the tranfer point is designed. Toronto has some really nicely designed subway/bus/streetcar transfer points. I hope that the transit city is really designed with the commuter's needs first in their tranfer points.

 

[LAz]

Eglinton Ave will not be losing any lanes of traffic, because it will be widened for the LRT.

Widening a street is a very costly thing, that is also aesthetically disgusting, in my opinion. They had some plans for that in some other cities and they just abandoned it because it was too costly - ljubljana, slovenia.

I would be willing to say that most cost of the at grade LRT on eglinton will be just widening the street. It's such a costly endeavor that is disgusting and causes even more disruption to businesses.

Please stop comparing Toronto to Chicago or New York. Toronto is not built in the same way as those cities. Chicago has 7 subway lines, but they are all downtown-centric.

The yellow line is not downtown centric. Further, there are major plans to expand this yellow line. On top of that, they are planning a circle line.
I however do feel that they need more lines. But the city is bankrupt much like toronto, so it can't afford building a real cross-town subway line.








Nowhere in the world can we find an example where such a project was cut off and then replaced by a LRT. Nowhere. All world class cities finish their subway project lines.

If we look at chicago - they were not able to extend the orange line as far as they wanted to back when they built it. They however have plans to extend it as heavy rail. Never did the stupid idea of LRT dawn upon them.

 

[kettal]

Widening a street is a very costly thing, that is also aesthetically disgusting, in my opinion. They had some plans for that in some other cities and they just abandoned it because it was too costly - ljubljana, slovenia.

I would be willing to say that most cost of the at grade LRT on eglinton will be just widening the street. It's such a costly endeavor that is disgusting and causes even more disruption to businesses.

It is quite expensive, but nowhere near as expensive as tunneling a subway.

Most of the land is already there, and in possession of the city. The sidewalk-to-sidewalk width (which currently includes a strip of grass between the sidewalk and road curb) is already about 36m, so widening the road for the LRT will be fairly easy.

 

[Tdot_one]

Please stop comparing Toronto to Chicago or New York. Toronto is not built in the same way as those cities. Chicago has 7 subway lines, but they are all downtown-centric. They have no subway analogue to the Sheppard or Eglinton line. In New York, an analogue to the Transit City lines would connect Brooklyn and The Bronx via Queens. This subway line does not exist. If these 'world class cities' haven't built cross-suburban subways, you can't use them as examples of why we should build cross-suburban subways.

Transit City is not trying to make Toronto a 'world class city'. It is trying to make an improvement in capacity and reliability on the bus service that is bursting at the seams. It is also tying in with the Official Plan to urbanize the main avenues in the suburbs. Don't try to make this project something that it's not. Remember that both Yonge st and Bloor street were extremely busy streetcar lines before the decision was made to build subways. Build the ridership first, then build the infrastructure. One step at a time...

It won't be able to release all the buses in East Scarborough. Much of the area is sprawly and one tram line would be too local. The catchment zone won't be that high, but instead, the city is looking to develop corridors where the inhabitants primarily use public transportation.

That's the aim. It has nothing to do with enhancing transportation throughout SE. I doubt most of the buses that feed the RT will be phased out. Both will remain and possibly feed the GO system once frequency is up 20-25 mins.

 

[Tdot_one]

It is quite expensive, but nowhere near as expensive as tunneling a subway.

Most of the land is already there, and in possession of the city. The sidewalk-to-sidewalk width (which currently includes a strip of grass between the sidewalk and road curb) is already about 36m, so widening the road for the LRT will be fairly easy.

Well said. Much of the Eglinton corridor has a lot of vacant land. I think that maintaining the same number of lanes while widening the sidewalks would be the right thing to do. That would enhance urbanity.

I could see a lot of medium density zoning occurring in most of the Eglinton corridor. There is land available and once reaching Don Mills all the way to Keele, the density will likely be very high. Yonge-Eglinton is going to expand across Eglinton and the light rail, especially if it could be extended into Dufferin, Kennedy ,etc, would add a lot of character.

PS: I think corridors like Eglinton and Sheppard need both streetcars, subways joining a comprehensive GO service. Bringing downtown up towards Eglinton (or even better Sheppard) would be interesting to watch.

 

[LAz]

I want to know the costs first and foremost.

Second, if they are gonna dig down underground, it may as well be a subway.

Third, the airport needs a heavy rail connection. It is faster and more efficient.

Lastly, light rail is not for big cities in this modern era. It is stupid nice talk that comes from duany and co.

 

[RedRocket191]

I want to know the costs first and foremost.

Sheppard LRT: $63 million per km. Spadina Subway is $302 million per km. Even if you cut that in half, you're still more than double the LRT cost.

Second, if they are gonna dig down underground, it may as well be a subway.

It will be tunnelled under Eglinton. That makes it a subway in my opinion. If you want to debate semantics then feel free.

Third, the airport needs a heavy rail connection. It is faster and more efficient.

The airport is getting a heavy rail connection: Union Pearson Air Rail Link. Again, feel free to debate semantics.

Lastly, light rail is not for big cities in this modern era. It is stupid nice talk that comes from duany and co.

Monterrey, Boston, Calgary, Guadalajara, San Francisco, Los Angeles, Portland, Philadelphia, San Diego, Mexico City, Dallas, Denver, Newark, Saint Louis, Sacramento, Salt Lake City, Baltimore, Phoenix, Edmonton, San Jose, Minneapolis, Houston, Pittsburgh, Buffalo, Charlotte, Seattle, New Orleans, Ottawa, Cleveland, Oceanside, Memphis, Seattle & Tampa *must* all be tiny towns masquerading as big cities. Either that or you need to start making some phone calls to tell planners in these cities that they're stupid.

 

[LAz]

Most of the systems that you mentioned are US systems. Their overall impact is very small. They're worthless to be precise-precisely because they are so tiny. Other systems are just small... like edmonton... it just mimics a subway line.
You mention mexico city - what a joke! That city has one of the bigger metro systems in the world. Just look at the beauty,

A system which was first opened more than a decade after toronto's has fares that are roughly 10 times cheaper, and in total the system is more than three times bigger than toronto's.

This is the point, these places are not worried to finance these vital things.

Lets look at the stuff on your list...
st louis... 13 km light rail...
minnesota... 19 km light rail...
houston... 12 km light rail...
san jose... 68 km, because it's quite large, but total ridership is only 37,536 per day... so sad
buffalo... 10 km light rail...


I mean wtf is this crap? Seriously man, what crap is this?
Why on earth compare second rate - er no, lets say 4th rate - systems when you can look at some truly good systems in europe and asia? Your list is a bunch of miserable systems that a disgrace, that most surely should not be a model for the future of any big major city. The europeans and asians would laugh at this, and with good reason.

The airport is getting a heavy rail connection: Union Pearson Air Rail Link. Again, feel free to debate semantics.

I mean underground heavy rail. Good cities have their metro system connecting to the airport. Chicago has two metro lines going to two airports. Vancouver has one.

From what I know, toronto's plan is to put a go line to the metro, instead of a subway line. I would rather pay the 2.75 or what is it than to pay big money to go to downtown. Further, why the hell do you assume that people want to go downtown when they first get to town? People should have the choice to go where they want. They get off the airport, go on the englinton cross town subway... transfer up north up young and voila... oh wait, yeah, I gotta stop dreaming.

It will be tunnelled under Eglinton. That makes it a subway in my opinion.

Subway assumes heavy rail mass transit. I use metro and subway interchangeably. Perhaps if I said metro from now on... perhaps that would would make more sense.

Sheppard LRT: $63 million per km. Spadina Subway is $302 million per km. Even if you cut that in half, you're still more than double the LRT cost.

The benefits would be even greater.
As for the costs - I really think that they are ridiculous, if that is true.


However, we gotta think about the future... if we want to have a truly rock-star city we will need to invest a lot into lines to get people quickly from one part of town to the other. Metro is going to do this, not light rail.

Toronto can do better. But we're a bankrupt country when it all boils down. A country which took the wrong steps by being too similar to the rotting USA, instead of being more like efficient Europe and Asia. I see that we are falling behind.

 

[GTS]

A lot of people are calling Transit City 'Transfer City'. Making tranfers from bus to streetcar or subway or future LRT is part of taking public transit. I am originally from Montreal, lived most of my life in Vancouver (where I got hooked on public transit) and now live in Toronto. Making tranfers is one of the really well put together parts of this system at a lot of the stations. Like I said I lived most of my life in Vancouver and it was one thing about the design of the TTC that impressed me is that a lot of the times the buses enter right into the stations themselves. This didn't happen too often in the other cities I have lived in and visited.

It is comfortable to wait for your connecting bus indoors when the weather is not so ageeable. More stations are being designed this way as well. We live near Warden Station so I use that station most, the bus routes into the station are great but the seperate bus bays are not so comfortable or convenient. Victoria Park Station is going to be designed with a shared platform for all the different bus routes and we commuters are going to have an indoor area to wait for our connecting bus.

Hopefully Transit City has really good connections to the Subway stations where they meet. A good comfortable tranfer that is sheltered might even help increase ridership. I visit another transit enthusiast friend of mine in NYC and to go anywhere from his neighborhood 3 tranfers are needed to get downtown. If you don't like transfering maybe you should invest in a one seat ride like a big Cadilac SUV. Then commuting might be to your liking.

Having lived in a number of cities and visited other cities transit systems, I enjoy visiting transit in new cities (my wife not so much) we visit. I am really grateful for a lot of tranfer points at a lot of the stations (not all) but most. The TTC is really doing this well. I really advise you to go to Vancouver or to where my wife used to live Seoul, South Korea and you will appreciate this one thing the TTC is getting right a lot of times. Now only if the TTC would expand a bit more. I see that it is a little more expensive here though with the thought and convenience put into the station designs.

 

[LAz]

sorry for double posting...

...but, when comparing a final end product of a metro and a light rail, the conclusion should be a no brainer, that the metro is the far better option.

Tokyo

Paris

Moscow

Milan

Madrid

Instead of focusing on miserable examples where light rail is the backbone, why not focus on truly world class cities...


...because we're miserable and can't afford to make a truly amazing system!

Just look at them models that you use - of primitive american systems that are much worse than what we currently have. For crying out loud, how can a system that is so much worse than the current thing be a model for future expansion? How? I don't get that messed up logic. We need to look up, not look down.

 

[Darwinkgo]

Lets look at the stuff on your list...
st louis... 13 km light rail...
minnesota... 19 km light rail...
houston... 12 km light rail...
san jose... 68 km, because it's quite large, but total ridership is only 37,536 per day... so sad
buffalo... 10 km light rail...

Sorry, but the first one on your list is wrong. St. Louis's LRT is 74 km long. Really adds to the credibility of your argument there...

As for the others posting the urban cores of cities denser and bigger than Toronto as examples, it doesn't work. Especially when Toronto's network should never be like those since downtown is right on the lake, not on a river in the middle of a flat expanse of land.

 

[LAz]

Either that or you need to start making some phone calls to tell planners in these cities that they're stupid.

Planners of today are well aware of the nightmare that they face. They have very limited resources to do anything. In the US sprawl has only recently began to decrease, and average vehicle miles traveled finally went down last year. This is unprecedented, and is a change that may allow some serious things to be built in the US. That being said, there are some okay systems in the US.
I was at a planning lecture in chicago, about some smart growth. It was what some agency was doing to promote it. I talked to the presenter at the end, and she said agreed that what is being done in the US is not enough or much, but that it is at least <i>a step in the right direction</i>.

And you want me to accept your <i>step in the right direction</i> over the better thing?! No, we are already beyond that step in the right direction.


And trust me, city planners in the US are aware of how shitty their stuff is.



I was bashing the US quite a bit, but there are some okay things here...

Washington DC for example has a metro that is more than 20 years younger than toronto's system. yet it is 50% bigger in terms of rail length.

Good systems can be found in the US, but the key thing is that we have to aim higher, not lower.

Sorry, but the first one on your list is wrong. St. Louis's LRT is 74 km long. Really adds to the credibility of your argument there...

Go to saint louis. You will see that their LRT is short and goes to only a few places. On top of that there is a big movement against expanding it. Apparently the rich parts of town do not want to be connected with the poor part. St Louis is a big on car city. it really does not serve as a model. It is a failure in my opinion.

As for the others posting the urban cores of cities denser and bigger than Toronto as examples, it doesn't work. Especially when Toronto's network should never be like those since downtown is right on the lake, not on a river in the middle of a flat expanse of land.

Sorry mr fancy pants, but Milan is smaller.

Further more, even if these cities are bigger, that is no excuse. Say Moscow. It's maybe twice bigger than Toronto. Lets double Toronto's metro system, it still won't be able to be compared.

The problem is that it's hard to find cities of the same/similar size. Cities far bigger or cities far smaller is what we go with... and they tend to all be bigger and better. Your argument here is rather hollow.

 

[LAz]

If we want to talk about improvement we have to compare toronto to countries that are doing much more towards developing their mass transit infrastructure. All over we see large cities investing heavily. We are just not there. We lag behind, as most north american cities do. I really feel that this is something that should be accepted as a fact.


Once we accept this as a fact we can conclude that we are 2nd rate and that our plans for the future are 2nd rate. We're becoming a second class city. We are not trying to be up at the top, but instead we're competing to be the top of the bottom tier.

I think we need more comparison with asian countries, where so much money is being funneled towards their infrastructure and metro systems. In Europe this has already been done, and they are still expanding their stuff.

I think the problem is that people here live in fairy tale type of environments. There is no real plan to change the urban structure to be more sustainable. We do not see urban growth boundaries being set up all over the place. No. We only see the influence of big auto and gas promoting people to drive and undermine rail transit. All the new proposed TTC light rail extensions could be full subway lines if we had the kind of gas taxes that europe has. But, it's all a matter of where ones priorities are. With us it is still in front of the driver seat, with the foot on the gas pedal. Vroom vroom and away we go!


Here is a small clip where we can see some analysis no the problems facing toronto... they are inherent problems. One line or two lines of LRT will not fix them, it won't come close...

http://video.google.com/videoplay?d...4-MqALprrCEAg&q=jane+jacobs+toronto+montreal#

Keep a good thought on what she says... it's clear that we took the wrong steps back in the 1960s. Very wrong steps. And our final result is much better than the average in the US. Daunting, ain't it?