[innsertnamehere]

On the currently under construction part of the Crosstown, the HOV lanes will be eliminated. While the Eastern Crosstown may be different, I find it unlikely.

 

[bobbob911]

I agree; several times, when posting about the billions saved by skipping the overbuilt, unwarranted subway, they could easily add heated floors and infrared overhead panels to every LRT stop, and still have billions left over.

My understanding is that the primary problem with heated shelters is the concern about homeless people setting up shop. However, an unwalled sheter with infrared overhead panels that are operated by a button could be a reasonable compromise.

Ford's crazy hardball Politics basically saved Scarborough from a legacy of poorly FUNDED and designed transit.

It would be fantastic if Ford's only lasting legacy is a .5% property tax levy

 

[salsa]

At first , that was the plan. But the plan has since been amended to keep 3 lanes of traffic along the Golden Mile intact. So no, traffic lanes will not be reduced.

Is that the plan only for the Golden Mile, or will they also maintain traffic lanes west of Victoria Park as well?

 

[ILuvTO]

I'm skeptical as well. My original understanding was that, since there is a diamond lane on either side, those 2 lanes would be replaced with LRT, and so no practical reduction of lanes. If the plan is to have 3 full lanes each way and LRT, that's new to me.

Not that I am doubting cbrown2009, but I have not been able to find a link that discusses keeping three lanes in both directions. The crosstown official website does not have any information unless I am hopeless at searching.

http://www.thecrosstown.ca

 

[crs1026]

Shame they couldn't have put in heated shelters. It would do a lot to change the perception of the LRT.

The perception becomes the reality.

The average suburbanite doesn't know what they want, but they know what is causing them inconvenience. Facts and numbers don't really impact on that.

On a purely rational basis, there's a compelling argument that a rebuilt SRT would meet the need at lower cost. But when I ride it, I have to admit it's the junkiest piece of #$*%@ in our system. I can't imagine coping with it every morning. Frankly, if they'd built one of those here in Etobicoke, the residents would have demanded it be torn down - and they likely would have gotten their way. So maybe while we don't recognize the power imbalance as such, we may be sticking Scarboro with some of the transit dregs and forcing them to like them.

Does it carry a lot of people economically and effectively? Yes. Is it something people feel good about using? I doubt it. Would Scarberians point to it as something about their city that makes them proud? Absolutely not. Does their commuter experience improve once they've transferred to the Subway? Probably. Objectively SRT gives Scarboro a transit line that's much bigger than Etobicoke's share of same (until Finch arrives, anyways) - but the 501 streetcar on lakeshore probably looks like a better deal. (It isn't - it's slow, at least the SRT is a quick ride end to end)

The Fords didn't understand subway transit at all. They just seized a lever that many people can attach to emotionally. People do like Toronto's subways, and they just proposed to give them more of what they like. I give Keesmsat and Tory credit for finding a new angle that chipped away at what could have been money spent for little gain, and redirected a good part of that to something that is both useful and acceptable.

- Paul

 

[kEiThZ]

Your comment really hits home. For years, I've been one of those downtowners, sermoning any and all about the suitability of light-rail for Scarborough, pulling hard numbers out of my Evernote stash, and being quite testy at monosyllabic Nayshunals and their blind repetition of every LRT/subway lie thrown their way. (See? I'm getting testy even now.)

I've tried to get into the mindset of Scarborough and Etobicoke voters since Ford was elected. I would love for you to expand on what, in your opinion, drives these residents. What reasons do they have for opposing appropriate transit that would make much more of a difference to many more of them?

I think it really got started with the Sheppard subway. Scarborough was told that it would reach Scarborough Centre. But it got cut short at Don Mills. Then, pre-Miller, the idea of replacing the SRT with a subway (stops at Lawrence and SC) was floated. Miller came in and dropped the Transit City bomb and then quite a few people started going on about how subways were too expensive. Etc. At some point, a lot of Scarborough residents started looking at this like a concerted effort to underspend in Scarborough. This also came as the SRT was on its last legs.

Now, there are certainly those who don't like SRT because "gets in the way of my car". But I would think a lot of the opposition is based on the perceived lack of value or ineffectiveness of LRT. Because, the average transit rider thinks of St. Clair or Spadina or worse (King or Queen) when they think LRT. So now this sets up in their heads, "subway vs. rattley ole streetcar". Under that circumstance, what would you choose?

There's also the transfer issue. Look at the ridership. It's pretty clear on the SRT, that ridership is really two points beyond Kennedy: Lawrence East and SC. McCowan is really a proxy for SC. Everybody living in Scarborough knows that. It's a glorified Kiss 'n Ride. So if you do that ride everyday for decades, and you see the hoardes of people transferring with you to get on and off at the exact same stops, the entire transfer starts to look amazingly stupid. And then they doubled down on stupid by forcing transfers at Kennedy for those staying on Eglinton (Crosstown to SMLRT) and on Sheppard.

The marketing has been horrific. What the pro-LRT camp sees as a virtue (LRT is cheap), the suspicious public in Scarborough sees as a tactic to screw them ("They just want to cheap out on us. See that rattley ole SRT they haven't fixed."). And instead of pitching the no-transfer alternatives ("You can get on at Yonge and go right to Malvern without transferring!"), the pitch was, "We'll keep the transfer and make it a little less annoying for you."

The Tory plan hits all the right notes. Eliminates the transfer at Kennedy (for at least half the ridership) for a good chunk of SRT riders. Eliminates the transfer at Kennedy for Crosstown riders. Moves a lot of bus riders in northern Scarborough on to Smart Track.

Hopefully, everybody involved has learned a bit and they agree to either convert Sheppard to LRT if going LRT or simply stick to the bus/subway combo with a small subway extension. Hope they don't set up another perceived artificial transfer (LRT to subway) and set off another ruckus.

 

[kEiThZ]

Thats the thing. People prioritize twice, three times as many and even four times as much square feet then a downtown person. So the downtown person is sacrificing space but is getting better access to things which are walkable and transit. You just cant have it both ways. This downtown living thing has only taken off in the last 15 years. Before that everyone flocked to the suburbs. But thats what happens. People move to the suburbs to have bigger house, and more cars, and more space to put more clothes. I guess if you are so used to having more you wonder why you dont have more transit. Oh wait I know why. You dont want more taxes.

The first issue that the space argument ignores: families. What percentage of families in this city, live downtown? We're only now seeing more families in the core. The bulk of families in this city still stay in the suburbs. It's easy to argue that you need less space to a single person and/or married couple. Less so to families with kids.

The second issue is incomes. And this is exactly the kind of talk that is going to elect the next Ford. I'll say it now. Here's why. Go look at incomes. Not the space they have. Scarborough is decidedly poorer and darker skinned that core. For every politician who will argue, "You made your suburban bed. Now lie in it." there will be a Ford-esque politician reminding these voters that downtown elites with six figure salaries and 20 minute commutes don't care about them. You want another Ford, keep pushing this line.....

If you want to look at it that way, then there really isn't a rebuttal. Scarborough residents have a legitimate beef. I don't blame them for being upset. With that said, as badly as we want subways city wide, nobody wants to pay for them. One of my Scarborough friends once told me he isn't interested in the big picture or city building. All he wants is a subway in Scarborough and for his property taxes to be kept low. Ugh.

Edit: I'll just add that this same person also told me that if McGuinty didn't cancel the gas plants, the money used could have funded a subway. I don't disagree, but the idea that politicians are perfect and that there will be zero waste from their decisions is not realistic. He also thinks he pays enough in Federal and Provincial taxes that there should be money to 'get a subway done'. More 'bang my head against the wall' inducing stuff. Bottom line is that if we want more and better transit we have to be willing to pay for it. The current funding just isn't there.

Not that I agree with those who want to underspend, and I argue with all my friends and family who take this line..... But given how much Toronto gets fleeced for by the rest of Canada, there is some legitimacy to this argument. Why should a poor family in Rexdale be denied a somewhat comfortable transit ride just so the province can build multi-billion dollar highways up north to service less users than any of these subway would or the Feds can fund perpetual welfare communities in remote parts of the country, all with their tax dollars?

 

[W. K. Lis]

Why can't Scarborough have subways like they have in New York City, to protect us again the snow?

Because New York City's subway are all underground. No, they're not. Just like most of SmartTrack will be like, above ground.

 

[Spicy Garage]

Is [LRT] something people feel good about using? I doubt it.

Hey, streetcars stop 3 times as often than the LRT will, yet I love riding them.

 

[edmundoconnor]

And the ever-popular "So it's okay for a resident of Scarbororugh to freeze his/her ass of in the winter in the winter with an LRT , whilst a downtown resident enjoys the comfort of a subway stop?"

Has anyone found the most effective rebuttal to this argument? Much opposition to LRT is emotion-based and the "freezing" argument is right up that alley.

Calgary. Edmonton. Both have LRT. Both have colder winters than Toronto. Yet the world hasn't ended.

However, trying to shoot down this argument (and others like it) is in effect trying to logic people into agreeing with the need for LRT. LRT boosters (myself included) sometimes like to think that if they can somehow defeat all reasonable and unreasonable arguments against LRT, then their opponents will just give in, and say, "oh, okay, I guess I was wrong". Many of the arguments used on both sides are just trying to justify why they like LRT (or the idea if it) or dislike LRT (or the idea of it). But liking and not liking things aren't things that can easily be changed (if at all), so in extremis we shout past other in arguments that the other side cannot and will not comprehend. Batting down arguments feels good, but sometimes it can feel pointless, as the truly anti-LRT crowd will always conjure up another chimera in a never-ending game of Whack-a-Mole.

The only way to bust through this whole argument is to build some real live LRT, and have people experience it for themselves. My opinion, anyway.

 

[ILuvTO]

Not that I agree with those who want to underspend, and I argue with all my friends and family who take this line..... But given how much Toronto gets fleeced for by the rest of Canada, there is some legitimacy to this argument. Why should a poor family in Rexdale be denied a somewhat comfortable transit ride just so the province can build multi-billion dollar highways up north to service less users than any of these subway would or the Feds can fund perpetual welfare communities in remote parts of the country, all with their tax dollars?

Can't say I disagree, Toronto does give more than it gets back, but that goes for Ontario as a whole. With that said, I don't see us ever gaining a greater amount of financial equality which then leaves us with the painful conversation we are having now regarding funding tools. If we want serious transit we will need to step up and pay for it ourselves via city sponsored funding tools. No one says these need to be permanent. Make them temporary until the city can raise enough money to eliminate the transit deficit. It could take 50 years but it is what is.

 

[ILuvTO]

Why can't Scarborough have subways like they have in New York City, to protect us again the snow?

Because New York City's subway are all underground. No, they're not. Just like most of SmartTrack will be like, above ground.

Same goes for London. Subways in the core are buried. As you venture out they come above ground (at least the lines I travelled on). This really isn't a bad thing, yet so many people in Toronto think it is. We have such strong transit envy without even understanding what we're envious of.

 

[LNahid2000]

Same goes for London. Subways in the core are buried. As you venture out they come above ground (at least the lines I travelled on). This really isn't a bad thing, yet so many people in Toronto think it is. We have such strong transit envy without even understanding what we're envious of.

This is common almost everywhere else in the world, and is one of the reasons why other cities have so much more transit than us. Digging under low density neighbourhoods in Scarborough and Vaughan is one of the reasons why we don't have enough money to build a decent transit network.

 

[sixrings]

The first issue that the space argument ignores: families. What percentage of families in this city, live downtown? We're only now seeing more families in the core. The bulk of families in this city still stay in the suburbs. It's easy to argue that you need less space to a single person and/or married couple. Less so to families with kids.

The second issue is incomes. And this is exactly the kind of talk that is going to elect the next Ford. I'll say it now. Here's why. Go look at incomes. Not the space they have. Scarborough is decidedly poorer and darker skinned that core. For every politician who will argue, "You made your suburban bed. Now lie in it." there will be a Ford-esque politician reminding these voters that downtown elites with six figure salaries and 20 minute commutes don't care about them. You want another Ford, keep pushing this line.....

The problem is one that if you look historically houses were once much smaller in size. People would raise children in 900 square foot bungalows in my area. Children would share rooms together on bunk beds. That was a common thing. Now people want all their children to have their own room, the man to have a man cave and who ever the cook is to have something that belongs on the food network for a kitchen. Almost all the homes in my area are from pre 1920 and I am pretty sure they all at one time had families. It was in the 1950s when everyone started to go after the leave it to beaver white picket fence suburban house.

The second issue I have with your statement is that you look at the prices of property for the downtown houses and say oh look you would have to be rich to live there. In reality though, those same houses were cheaper then their suburban counterpart 20 years ago because no one wanted to live in the city and the white flight thing happened, maybe not as bad as the states but it still happened. So now these families have made their decisions to buy in the suburbs and when market trends changed they are complaining that only the rich people live downtown.

Third, there are still plenty of houses in the junction or near eglinton and dufferin which are well priced. But the area is not trendy despite being somewhat close to downtown. Instead people would rather move to places with similar prices like brampton.

 

[W. K. Lis]

The problem is one that if you look historically houses were once much smaller in size. People would raise children in 900 square foot bungalows in my area. Children would share rooms together on bunk beds. That was a common thing. Now people want all their children to have their own room, the man to have a man cave and who ever the cook is to have something that belongs on the food network for a kitchen. Almost all the homes in my area are from pre 1920 and I am pretty sure they all at one time had families. It was in the 1950s when everyone started to go after the leave it to beaver white picket fence suburban house.

The second issue I have with your statement is that you look at the prices of property for the downtown houses and say oh look you would have to be rich to live there. In reality though, those same houses were cheaper then their suburban counterpart 20 years ago because no one wanted to live in the city and the white flight thing happened, maybe not as bad as the states but it still happened. So now these families have made their decisions to buy in the suburbs and when market trends changed they are complaining that only the rich people live downtown.

Third, there are still plenty of houses in the junction or near eglinton and dufferin which are well priced. But the area is not trendy despite being somewhat close to downtown. Instead people would rather move to places with similar prices like brampton.

In the 1950's and 1960's, public transit (buses) ran very infrequently. Hourly or half-hourly service was the norm. Today, the inner suburbs (IE. Eglinton & Dufferin) does have frequent service, which is why they are getting rapid transit, okay using light rail. Will the far reaches of suburbia get rapid transit? Only if there is the demand in the form of frequent service first. Even then, there might not be enough for heavy rail, but light rail.