Whose vision of transit in Toronto do you support?

[SimonP]

As I've said before, my biggest objection with Eglinton is the lack of grade-separation in the west.

The section of Etobicoke along Eglinton currently has the lowest transit ridership of anywhere in the city. It's wealthy, low density, suburban, and close to highways. Even if these people had a subway line outside their door, most people wouldn't use it. (As is the case for residents further south in The Kingsway). The eventual connection to the airport would bring some riders, but this would still be a very low ridership part of the line. The rider numbers in this area just doesn't justify an LRT tunnel, much less a full subway.

Once the line is built, I expect many streetcars will short turn at either Keele or Jane. This will keep the capcity on the main part of the line high, and would allow the running of longer trains.

 

[Dan416]

The section of Etobicoke along Eglinton currently has the lowest transit ridership of anywhere in the city. It's wealthy, low density, suburban, and close to highways. Even if these people had a subway line outside their door, most people wouldn't use it. (As is the case for residents further south in The Kingsway). The eventual connection to the airport would bring some riders, but this would still be a very low ridership part of the line. The rider numbers in this area just doesn't justify an LRT tunnel, much less a full subway.

Once the line is built, I expect many streetcars will short turn at either Keele or Jane. This will keep the capcity on the main part of the line high, and would allow the running of longer trains.

Low density? Have you driven along Eglinton West? There's tons of apartment buildings there.

 

[gweed123]

Fresj Start has made it clear he only wants subways because it is out of the way of cars. Do you deny this? There is more than enough evidence in threads to validate it. This is anti-transit as it gets. I have made it clear so many times, I favour subways where justified, but you and others just ignore it, because you want an LRT vs. Subway debate.

So then why have you claimed on more than one occasion that I myself am anti-transit? I prefer grade separation because it gets cars out of the way of transit. You just seem to want to twist that into some notion that I'm pro-car. I'm not. Getting cars out of the way of transit makes transit more reliable, efficient, and higher capacity.

And your view of what is "justifiable" for subway and what my view is is where the debate lies. Your view of what is "justifiable" for subway is a criteria that is beyond stringent. However, I can accept that. What I cannot accept is your insistance that at-grade, in-median LRT is the right choice for nearly every rapid-transit worthy corridor in the city. It's not.

 

[gweed123]

The section of Etobicoke along Eglinton currently has the lowest transit ridership of anywhere in the city. It's wealthy, low density, suburban, and close to highways. Even if these people had a subway line outside their door, most people wouldn't use it. (As is the case for residents further south in The Kingsway). The eventual connection to the airport would bring some riders, but this would still be a very low ridership part of the line. The rider numbers in this area just doesn't justify an LRT tunnel, much less a full subway.

Once the line is built, I expect many streetcars will short turn at either Keele or Jane. This will keep the capcity on the main part of the line high, and would allow the running of longer trains.

Who said anything about a tunnel? I was proposing a trench. Much cheaper to build, and gives the same grade-separation advantages as a tunnel.

And as for the ridership numbers, I keep saying this over and over again: ridership numbers are designed to reflect the type of system you want to build. In otherwords, ridership numbers say whatever you want them to say. Need to justify at-grade LRT? We'll fiddle with the numbers to justify it. Need to justfiy grade-separated transit? We'll fiddle with the numbers to justify it. Ridership projections are not gospel, and they should be taken with a grain of salt, particularly when they are attached to a politically motivated plan. At-grade in-median LRT was chosen by the politicians, and the ridership projections were created to justify it, not the other way around.

The planning process unfortunately flows both ways. When it is followed from start to finish, you get a plan that reflects the reality of the situation. When it is followed from finish to start, you get a plan that reflects the reality that you want it to reflect.

 

[gweed123]

Low density? Have you driven along Eglinton West? There's tons of apartment buildings there.

If anything, I'd say the Golden Mile is much less dense than the Richview Corridor area. Not saying Richview is a mini-Manhattan, but there certainly is potential for some pretty decent nodal development around stations along the route.

 

[Second_in_pie]

Well, Richview probably could be turned into a mini-Manhattan. It'd just probably be better if it didn't, but you never know. The first thing to do would definitely be lots of nodal intensification at station stops, which definitely could reach pretty high densities.

And gweed, while you say that there's debate in what justifies subway, I can only partially agree to that. I could pretty well say that if you were to go to any non-North American transit agency and asked what to do, they'd instantly say subway for Sheppard, Eglinton, the SRT, Yonge Extension, etc. etc. The fact that network crowding is forcing us to build more rapid transit goes well enough to show just how much transit potential there is in the city, when you realize how much of the suburban population still doesn't use transit.

 

[SimonP]

Low density? Have you driven along Eglinton West? There's tons of apartment buildings there.

Look at the stats. There is a line of towers along Eglinton, but they are not particularly large and they are surrounded by so much greenspace that they don't push the density numbers up much. Census Tract 237.3 (north side of Eglinton between Kipling and Martin Grove) is the densest in that area and home to most of the towers, and it only has 2200 people per km. The tract just to the east, with more of the towers, has a total density of 1,200 per km. These are the densest areas along that stretch. Overall the area averages about 1000 per km, not even close to what justifies a subway.

 

[SimonP]

If anything, I'd say the Golden Mile is much less dense than the Richview Corridor area.

Population wise you're right. The Golden Mile area averages about 700 people per km. There are also some 12,000 jobs the area, or about 1800 jobs per km. Jobs are even more likely than residents to generate trips, so that area would somewhat edge out Richview.

There is also a pretty dramatic wealth gap. Many of the people in that part of Etobicoke are simply too wealthy to be likely transit riders. People in the Golden Mile area are more transit dependent and that would also boost Scarborough ridership numbers.

 

[nfitz]

Fresj Start has made it clear he only wants subways because it is out of the way of cars. Do you deny this? There is more than enough evidence in threads to validate it. This is anti-transit as it gets.

It is anti-Transit ... but surely one can be pro-transit and still want subways. I don't see Gweed advocating for the removal of streetcars, and the elimination of bus services outside of peak periods, like FS.

 

[Dan416]

Does anyone actually take Justin0Credibility seriously? His opinions are just so out of whack I just laugh and shake my head sometimes. I don't know why people bother to reply sometimes. I know, I know, I shouldn't feed the trolls. Sigh.

 

[Fresh Start]

It is anti-Transit ... but surely one can be pro-transit and still want subways. I don't see Gweed advocating for the removal of streetcars, and the elimination of bus services outside of peak periods, like FS.

If the tradeoff for more subway expansion is the replacement of streetcars and/or buses from a corridor with said subways, then that is not anti-transit, that's as pro-transit as they come. Most large world cities got rid of LRTs in the 1950's because they cause severe gridlock and with it horrendous pollution. When Toronto cites European cities where streetcars are still in use, they talk about cities like Strasbourg 1/20th the size of Toronto, or Basel 1/30th the size of Toronto. The LRTs they are planning to build in Toronto are just plain streetcars, but by calling them LRTs the public actually believes they are getting something like a subway! The public has never been properly consulted until after they made the decision to build the streetcars. When the city tells us this will get people out of cars, they are hallucinating. All surafce light rail encourages is avoidance of certain parts of the city.

And I don't know whether this has ever occured to either of you but cars are a viable form of transportation as well. They're not transit's adversary, they're its ally. High-larious how the left wing Toronto municipal government (and their lackies) are so anti-car when the province's economy is largely built on the automobile industry.

 

[Justin10000]

So then why have you claimed on more than one occasion that I myself am anti-transit? I prefer grade separation because it gets cars out of the way of transit. You just seem to want to twist that into some notion that I'm pro-car. I'm not. Getting cars out of the way of transit makes transit more reliable, efficient, and higher capacity.

And you're calling my justifications for rapid transit stringent? Grade-seperating transit and not even looking at the alternatives is as stringent as you can get! I have heard the same lines from people like Rob Ford,and Randall O'toole. I'll be honest, why would you be offended by my comments? You've called me an "LRTista" on more than one occasion for my view that surface rail.

And your view of what is "justifiable" for subway and what my view is is where the debate lies. Your view of what is "justifiable" for subway is a criteria that is beyond stringent. However, I can accept that.

My criteria for subways: Build a subway where the ridership can be justified, or improves transit connection. Sounds like the DRL. I'm all for it! Sounds like the YOnge Extension to Steeles. Let's go it done! I do not see how that is stringent. Here is the main difference between you and me: I do not call for the cancellation of plans. I am not a fan of the Spadina extension, but it's funded, let's build it, and make the most of it. Transit City is funded, let's get it built, and focus on the DRL. I have not see you, and others even consider this idea.

What I cannot accept is your insistance that at-grade, in-median LRT is the right choice for nearly every rapid-transit worthy corridor in the city. It's not.

"Rapid Transit worthy" Well here is the problem. What is exactly is a "Rapid transit worthy" corridor? Finch West seems worthy of rapid transi,and it is getting in the form of surface LRT. Eglinton seems worthy of rapid transit, and a tunnel and RROW is being built. I would call those 2 line rapid transit.

 

[nfitz]

High-larious how the left wing Toronto municipal government (and their lackies) are so anti-car when the province's economy is largely built on the automobile industry.

I've seen no evidence that the current administration is anti-car; between all the freshly paved roads and the below market price Green P parking lots.

I know you'd prefer them to be anti-car, as it would make it easier for your fascist types to bring in an anti-transit person ... however there is little basis for your statement.

 

[SimonP]

Most large world cities got rid of LRTs in the 1950's because they cause severe gridlock and with it horrendous pollution. When Toronto cites European cities where streetcars are still in use, they talk about cities like Strasbourg 1/20th the size of Toronto, or Basel 1/30th the size of Toronto.

No, we talk about cities like Vienna, Frankfurt, Munich, Amsterdam, and Berlin. All are somewhat around Toronto's population, give or take a couple million, and all have extensive streetcar networks.

Europe split in the 1960s and 1970s. Central Europe (Germany, Netherlands, Austria, Switzerland,and others) picked a transit mix of some subways and many trams. Western Europe (France, Britain, Spain) and Communist Eastern Europe abandoned most of their tram lines and switched to systems based on extensive subway and bus networks.

40 years later the evidence is clear. The cities that stuck with tram lines have less congestion, less air pollution, and higher standards of living. As a result cities in the UK, Spain, and France are today rapidly working to bring back tram lines.

 

[gweed123]

And you're calling my justifications for rapid transit stringent? Grade-seperating transit and not even looking at the alternatives is as stringent as you can get! I have heard the same lines from people like Rob Ford,and Randall O'toole. I'll be honest, why would you be offended by my comments? You've called me an "LRTista" on more than one occasion for my view that surface rail.

A primary transit corridor in a city the size of Toronto should not have at-grade crossings. Period. Secondary transit corridor, there may be a case for it. And I'm not offended by your comments per-say, because I know they're not true. And calling someone 'for something' (ex: LRTista, pro-subway), is very different than calling someone 'anti-something' (anti-car, anti-transit). I do not get offended when someone calls me pro-subway. I do however get a little bit more up in arms when someone refers to me as anti-transit, because it implies that my opinion on transit issues is tainted by a hate for it.

My criteria for subways: Build a subway where the ridership can be justified, or improves transit connection. Sounds like the DRL. I'm all for it! Sounds like the YOnge Extension to Steeles. Let's go it done! I do not see how that is stringent. Here is the main difference between you and me: I do not call for the cancellation of plans. I am not a fan of the Spadina extension, but it's funded, let's build it, and make the most of it. Transit City is funded, let's get it built, and focus on the DRL. I have not see you, and others even consider this idea.

The criteria you have put forward have very broad definitions though. One could make a very strong case under your criteria that a B-D subway extension to STC is justified, because the ridership from STC is there, and it would certainly improve the transit connection for all of Scarborough.

To reply to the cancellation thing, I find it rather hypocritical that Transit City supporters cry foul when someone proposes TC be cancelled, yet I'm pretty sure those same people did not shed a tear when Transit City replaced the RTES. Why does something NEED to be built just because it's (partially) funded? Does getting funding immediately throw aside the planning rationale that says it's a bad idea? There are several mistakes in Transit City that will screw this city over for probably the next half century. I for one do not want to spend billions on stop-gap solutions that will not yield a satisfactory increase in ridership, efficiency, and comfort. If the experience of Ottawa has taught us anything, it's that cancelling a transit plan in favour of developing and funding a better one is not the end of the world. In fact, it works out pretty well. Just because something has received funding does not make all the problems and faults with it go away.

"Rapid Transit worthy" Well here is the problem. What is exactly is a "Rapid transit worthy" corridor? Finch West seems worthy of rapid transi,and it is getting in the form of surface LRT. Eglinton seems worthy of rapid transit, and a tunnel and RROW is being built. I would call those 2 line rapid transit.

Rapid transit worthy is any route that requires something beyond a local bus or streetcar operating in mixed-traffic. Technically, dedicated bus lanes are rapid transit. It is to what degree rapid transit should be implemented where the debate lies. What degree of rapid transit a corridor receives is based on where on the 'rapid transit spectrum' the corridor lies. The higher up on the spectrum, the higher degree of capacity, technology, and grade-separation is needed. The envelope for in-median LRT on your spectrum is much larger and in a different spot than where it is on mine. I see its worthy application, I just don't see it in the same places where you see it. It is when a corridor lies in the overlap between technologies where even further debate arises. Jane St for example, is in the lower range of LRT, so low in fact that it could be covered under BRT. My preference would lean towards BRT, yours towards LRT. Neither of us is wrong, they would both work, because they overlap on the spectrum. It can be justfiied going in either direction.