Whose vision of transit in Toronto do you support?

[Rainforest]

Not naming anyone personally, a good practice is to avoid feeding trolls. If ignored, they may post a rant or two, then usually get bored and leave the thread.

 

[Justin10000]

Move Toronto is terribly flawed idea. Why would anyone support a plan that ignores a large portion of Toronto?Having Toronto's most respected transit advocate thoroughly criticize your plan doesn't help either.

 

[Rainforest]

Having Toronto's most respected transit advocate thoroughly criticize your plan doesn't help either.

This is actually a good sign. Steve Munro wrote an excellent review of the SOS proposal, let's now see how the group responds.

I wish that debate happened 2 years ago.

 

[kEiThZ]

This is actually a good sign. Steve Munro wrote an excellent review of the SOS proposal, let's now see how the group responds.

I wish that debate happened 2 years ago.

The group has always been of two minds. Should we present a pure vision that's in contrast to Transit City and let politicians and residents pick and choose what they like. Or should we just have a compromise solution that we think is realistic. You saw one version. You'll see the other side shortly. Taking all the criticisms into account, we figure we'll just have to accept some political realities and make them work for us instead.

 

[Rainforest]

The group has always been of two minds. Should we present a pure vision that's in contrast to Transit City and let politicians and residents pick and choose what they like. Or should we just have a compromise solution that we think is realistic.

I understand that, and the choice is up to the SOS members. As a non-member, I have no say in this matter. But in any case, it would be a good idea to address specific points that Steve raised.

You saw one version. You'll see the other side shortly. Taking all the criticisms into account, we figure we'll just have to accept some political realities and make them work for us instead.

Some points of interest:

1) Length of Eglinton subway in the tables - it looks like SOS made a mistake there.

2) Steve's suggestion that $317 M per km is too low an estimate for the bored central section of Eglinton. I don't think he is right on this point, but a response is due.

3) Westward extension of Sheppard - $1.2 B in SOS estimates versus $2.3 B in the latest TTC study. I feel that TTC numbers are suspect, but again, a response is due.

4) The rather odd Jane - South Kingsway BRT proposal. I think that Steve is absolutely right when he raises eyebrows about this part of the plan. Even the SOS members who commented here, actually feel that rapid transit on Jane is only needed north of Eglinton.

 

[GraphicMatt]

I agree that it wasn't clear which way the group should go initially, but I think the plan's too complicated now. Key priorities are necessary. Consider if your battle was simply for:

- Sheppard subway extension to Agincourt where it will connect with the Sheppard East LRT and a future extension to STC

- Full grade separation on at least the western half of Eglinton to the airport

Both very winnable battles. The latter especially - you'd have almost universal support on that one.

 

[Juan_Lennon416]

I would get rid of the BRT section and the subway extension to Square One in the revised report. Then, you should expand as much as you could on your 'top' subway lines.

I personally think you need to add photos and diagrams. Create the report as if everyone reading it has no idea what you are talking about. And not everyone has access to a computer to view Google Street View

 

[kettal]

The group has always been of two minds. Should we present a pure vision that's in contrast to Transit City and let politicians and residents pick and choose what they like. Or should we just have a compromise solution that we think is realistic. You saw one version. You'll see the other side shortly. Taking all the criticisms into account, we figure we'll just have to accept some political realities and make them work for us instead.

I think writing a softer "compromise" plan is a great idea.

 

[Juan_Lennon416]

I think writing a softer "compromise" plan is a great idea.

and maybe crediting Steve Munro somewhere in the report would be be great as well

 

[gweed123]

Several of you have just posted some compromises that would have "almost universal support", so I'll give you guys some insight on the updated map that I was working on for most of this afternoon. However the map is not finalized, so I can't really post that, we have to work out prioritizing, etc.

We still want to make a portion of the plan cost-neutral with TC, so what we have done is scrapped the 15 and 25 year division based on the Metrolinx RTP and have gone with 'Priority Projects' and 'Projects that Require Additional Funding'. Basically 'need to have' vs 'would be good to have'.

Some specific changes:
-Eglinton LRT from Kingston to Pearson, with the western section using the Richview corridor for cut-and-cover and/or trench.
-Sheppard subway extention to Agincourt, with optional extension to STC later.
-SELRT from Agincourt east to Meadowvale, with spur line north to Malvern Town Centre.
-Kipling BRT north from Kipling station using hydro corridor, connects with Eglinton LRT and Mississauga Transitway (becomes Mississauga Transitway after it turns west, provides direct link to Square One). Also BRT south from Kipling station to Long Branch via Kipling and Lakeshore, likely in the 'additional funding' category.
-Finch West and Don Mills LRTs in priority projects, connector segment between the two to come later (Finch East bus works fairly well as-is, building only part of the line would disrupt that continuous service).
-Jane LRT from Steeles West station to Weston and Eglinton, where it will meet western leg of the DRL and Eglinton LRT (mirror image of Science Centre interchange)
-Kingston BRT from Vic Park to Morningside, where it will turn north to Ellesmere, loop at UTSC, then Ellesmere west to STC. Optional extension along Kingston to Durham Region.

 

[GraphicMatt]

That's sounding pretty good - I think you should focus on just the changes you'd propose for the already funded lines, however. Eglinton, Finch, Sheppard and the SRT. The other lines: Jane, Don Mills and Waterfront are so far off that they're not really relevant to the here-and-now of transit planning.

The thing I worried about with the MoveToronto plan as it was originally was that it basically called for the complete scrapping of TC, more years of planning and debate, and maybe some actual construction much much later on. If you're proposing to strengthen the plan as opposed to scrapping it, I think things will flow more smoothly.

When you say Don Mills LRT, would that only be north of Eglinton?

 

[kettal]

Eglinton LRT from Kingston to Pearson, with the western section using the Richview corridor for cut-and-cover and/or trench.

Have you considered having it at surface, but in the green corridor, having it dip under major intersections? After all there's only 4 major intersections in this whole stretch. I reckon it's worth considering.

Edit: and by green corridor, I mean the empty lands just north of Eglinton, as opposed to middle-of street.

 

[GraphicMatt]

Also: It's fascinating to me that the SaveOurSubways MoveToronto plan seemed to develop as a microcosm of city transit planning. It became very political very quickly, and in a lot of ways the initial plan seemed to try too hard to make all of your members happy. So for CC you had subways to Mississauga, for Fresh Start you had your BRT section, for KeithZ you had the emphasis on STC, etc. In the end, just like with TC, there were compromises, and parts of the plan not everyone agreed with, but were there to keep certain members from freaking out.

 

[Dan416]

Not naming anyone personally, a good practice is to avoid feeding trolls. If ignored, they may post a rant or two, then usually get bored and leave the thread.

Trust, that's exactly what I did.

As for not being a member, it's not some exclusive club. Anyone can join and have a say.

 

[gweed123]

Have you considered having it at surface, but in the green corridor, having it dip under major intersections? After all there's only 4 major intersections in this whole stretch. I reckon it's worth considering.

Edit: and by green corridor, I mean the empty lands just north of Eglinton, as opposed to middle-of street.

The gren stretch you're referring to is the Richview Expressway corridor, which we do propose using. While dipping may be good at some spots, I think it would be better to spend the extra to trench it, that way it can be decked over and redeveloped, like they have done on sections of the Yonge line between Rosedale and Eglinton.

And GraphicMatt: Yes, the Don Mills LRT is only north of Eglinton. Basically, the Don Mills and Jane LRTs are twinned on each side of the YUS loop, and at Eglinton both transfer to the DRL loop for the trip downtown. This option will substantially lower the cost of the Jane LRT, because the tunnel from pretty much Eglinton to Bloor will no longer be needed. This money can help fund the boosted up portions of other projects, mainly the STC B-D extension and the Agincourt Sheppard extension.

I haven't gotten a chance to do any of the updated costing yet, but my hope is to still find a balance with it so that we can still go "For the same amount as Transit City, this is what Toronto could have. And if Toronto wants to spend more, this is what else we're proposing." So I'm still hoping to fit all the priority projects we need under that all-important $15 billion mark, while still being able to have a network that is superior to the current TC proposal.