I completely agree with waterloowarrior's post, and my quotes are just elaborating on what I think of it.
Transit City (with some exceptions) is not a rapid transit system. The trams of Europe that the TTC points to are generally not rapid transit systems, they are supplementary corridors to the metro and suburban rail systems and good for short to medium distances or as the main system for small cities like Grenoble. Some cities have trams using rail corridors and some put them underground, but the TTC is only doing this for a small portion of Transit City.
This is true. In European cities, LRT basically acts as an upgraded bus service, giving local trips a faster and higher capacity way of feeding Subway and Regional Rail, or getting people around downtown. It's "rapid" transit in the sense that it's faster than a bus.
The TTC vision is that their style of LRT is a rapid transit system on it's own, which is totally untrue. There are certain corridors that
need true rapid transit, and Transit City is totally ignoring that.
The real problem is that the TTC doesn't have a rapid transit plan, except for a few small subway extensions and a partial Eglinton line that should probably be automated LRT like the Canada Line or Skytrain rather than a half-subway half-convoluted turns/track crossovers/service road system. If Transit City was being done as part of a comprehensive rapid transit plan for the City including the core (Council motions about a DRL don't count), I think people would be a lot more satisfied. But it seems like there's this idea that subways are super-expensive and LRT is the future based on things like Sheppard (which would be a successful line in other cities for such a short line), over-building lines and stations, and building giant unneeded underground bus stations. Case studies from other cities like Madrid are immediately dismissed by advocates looking for all sort of excuses why we can't do things that way. The advocates don't mention that Transit City will cost several times its original estimates before construction has even started.
And if subway construction costs do actually inflate to bursting point, they will simply be getting close to the TTC's ludicrous prediction of $360 million/km for subways. If built right, a subway could be as low as $120 million per kilometer, that'd be trenched like Eglinton could be and like Bloor-St. Clair was, or in an elevated guideway. $200-250 million in the worst underground digging conditions, or if you factor in the TTC's stupidly overbuilt stations.
I'm pretty sure that the at-grade portions of Eglinton would have almost the exact same cost if they were trenched in the Richview corridor. When you think about it, it probably costs a lot to rip up a road like they do when building LRT. Ripping up a road vs. digging a trench, digging a trench is probably only marginally more expensive, and will end up giving a much, much better (and needed) service than stupid curb-separated LRT will.
Hundreds of millions are being spent to send Sheppard right past an urban growth centre (without serving it) out to backlotted single family homes, water towers, farm fields and Home Depot, despite clogged streetcars around the City core, despite that the people using the line out there will likely have increased transfers and only marginal speed increases meaning worse service than could be provided for by an improved bus system, and despite that these aren't "Avenues" but areas that are meant to be stable neighbourhoods and industrial parks.
And it will probably cost about the exact same to provide a true rapid transit service where it's actually needed. I doubt that a Don Mills-STC subway would be over $1.2 billion if built with the slightest bit of sense, and people in Malvern would still get a faster trip than with the LRT.
These areas don't need light rail but are likely getting a line to justify the rest of the Sheppard East line so it doesn't become a tram-stub. If that's the case, why not just extend the subway to STC... It's been demonstrated on this forum multiple times by posters like Mike in TO, Ansem, and scarberiankhatru that the idea that Sheppard isn't attracting development is a myth, that Sheppard would be a successful short line elsewhere, and that service will be worse under the new plan.
Well at least they're not proposing half stubway, half StubLRT! And of course the Sheppard line is attracting development. Not only that, but it's increasing transit ridership in leaps and bounds. It's only 7 years old, for crying out loud! And all that talk of making it a rush hour only route definitely didn't help. As people have said before, compared to other subways, Sheppard is doing pretty well. If you want to compare, Sheppard and LA's Red line are a similar age (though the Red line is about 5 years older.) The Red line goes pretty much straight through downtown LA and is over 4 times longer than Sheppard, with 3 times the number of stations. The Sheppard line half bisects a significantly smaller downtown which, all though growing quickly, is similar in size to that of a city at least 10 times smaller than LA. Despite the fact that Sheppard seems vastly inferior in almost every way, it's ridership is only over half of that of the Red line.
Extending it to STC would at least mirror the ridership. Similar to how people in North York would commute to NYCC, people in Scarborough would commute to STC. Since the density along the corridor is similar, extending it would at least double the ridership right off the bat, based off this assumption of a mirror around Consumer's or VP. Then, there's also the fact that it becomes a route that can be used to get from STC to NYCC, or from Scarborough to North York, and other routes that are neither mirrored nor carried out today. I think it's safe to say that if Sheppard was extended to STC, it's ridership would triple within two or three years, and continue to grow just like it is now.
EDIT:
kEiThZ said:
^ That's basically something like what I would look for. I'd like to see the subway extended to STC and a Progress LRT (would need a Bloor-Danforth extension to STC as well) and SELRT from Agincourt built instead of a SRT extension. This way three LRT routes could be offered: Malvern to STC on Progress, Sheppard East to Agincourt GO and Sheppard East to STC.
If a McCowan North LRT was built in the future then the SELRT could be interlined with it instead of with the Progress LRT.
I agree with extending Sheppard and the B-D to STC, as well as a Progress LRT. What I don't agree with is a Sheppard East LRT past Agincourt. Really, there's nothing there! It's all either industry or nice suburbs with fenced backyard lots facing Sheppard. Nothing is there to warrant a LRT! Almost every arterial route in the city has an edge on Sheppard East of Kennedy.