[taal]

To this day ... Toronto provides some of the best transit service to the outer regions of the city .... You really need to pay a visit to other 'great' cities like Chicago / Montreal ... to see how bad the transit is there outside of the core (or getting to the core) ...

 

[Electrify]

It seems every time I drive through Montreal of late, there are emergency highway, bridge, and tunnel closures, because the highway system is falling to pieces, structure weren't built how they should be, and maintenance has been deficient for years.

At the same time, in the last quarter-century, with announcement after announcement of Metro expansion, they've only managed to add 4 km and 3 stations to the system, with nothing else in construction, or even in detailed design.

If Montreal did indeed do many things right, it doesn't seem to have happened since Jean Drapeau left office.

Fair enough, but they built a far stronger foundation than Toronto did during the same time period. Both their west-east and north-south lines infiltrate downtown, as opposed to here where west-east commuters have to transfer to get to the city centre. Rather than have endless debates on what modes should be used where, they built a solid rapid transit network, a comprehensive highway network (including tunneling through downtown), all-day commuter rail services, convenient and affordable smart cards, bike lanes, and transit lanes which enjoy frequent service from articulated buses. It is a city where you can drive through its downtown relatively easily, Quebec drivers notwithstanding, but you really don't want to because the alternatives are so attractive.

Meanwhile here we bicker and bitch about everything, and have so much political interference, that nothing gets done. No downtown west-east rapid transit route, no city highway network, and few bike and transit lanes. Even when something gets constructed, it is usually based around political gain than any form of sound planning (Sheppard subway, Jarvis bike lanes, Presto implementation, etc). Here we feel that we have to punish drivers for driving in the city to get them to use transit, rather than have them want to use it.

Going back to my initial point, mskashmoney was disappointed in Canada because he felt we screw up the most obvious of executions. I was trying to show him that while Toronto seems to consistently trip over itself, other Canadian cities such as Montreal have been able to show vision and follow through on it. The city might need some more funding for maintenance, but I believe it is worth every penny.

 

[nfitz]

Rather than have endless debates on what modes should be used where, they built a solid rapid transit network, a comprehensive highway network (including tunneling through downtown), all-day commuter rail services, convenient and affordable smart cards, bike lanes, and transit lanes which enjoy frequent service from articulated buses.

Seems there's some major grass-is-always greener stuff here.

Comprehensive highway network? How many years have they been talking about connecting the Ville Marie to the 25? They started digging it when ... late 1950s? And it's still not there ... there's a stretch east of Papineau, where they knocked down a lot of housing to build it in the early 1980s ... and there's still nothing happening, but more talk, talk, and talk. If they do ever get it connected, the odds are, the western bit will have fallen down, it's so badly constructed.

All day commuter service? Well it's improving ... but I think Toronto has added more hours of peak-hour commuter service in the last 30 years than Montreal. And we are working on much more than Montreal currently is working on. Good grief, I look at the Rigaud line, and it doesn't look to have any better service when I used to commute reverse-direction to work on it over 20 years ago. It doesn't even go to Rigaud any more!

 

[In4matt]

I'm just wondering, if high density is needed for a subway, why don't they use densities to map a subway line instead of just running it underneath a road. I know going downtown is essential for most lines to be successful, but if the line was designed to go through high density neighbourhoods, then head downtown(where there is high density anyways) or at least connect with the other lines in a couple of places so people can transfer to go downtown then continue back out through other high density areas (maybe making the odd stop in a lower density area with potential for development). Opening day the line would probably have a high enough ridership.

I really don't see any reason why subways should just be built under roads ( I know that occasionally the lines are not directly under a road or take a bit of a different path)

Just my thoughts,

 

[unimaginative2]

Toronto's greatest transit strength is its suburban bus network. They're slow, but they're sure frequent and comprehensive. There aren't too many places where you can get a bus every 7 minutes at 10pm in a mostly single-family suburban residential neighbourhood.

 

[Woodbridge_Heights]

I'm just wondering, if high density is needed for a subway, why don't they use densities to map a subway line instead of just running it underneath a road. I know going downtown is essential for most lines to be successful, but if the line was designed to go through high density neighbourhoods, then head downtown(where there is high density anyways) or at least connect with the other lines in a couple of places so people can transfer to go downtown then continue back out through other high density areas (maybe making the odd stop in a lower density area with potential for development). Opening day the line would probably have a high enough ridership.

I really don't see any reason why subways should just be built under roads ( I know that occasionally the lines are not directly under a road or take a bit of a different path)

Just my thoughts,

There's this,
http://urbantoronto.ca/forum/showthread.php/7238-Toronto-Density-Map-2006/page1 which is based on the 2006 census.

I think it shows clearly that the Liberty Village, King West, Queen West neighbourhood could easily support a subway, as well as the eastern DRL.

 

[M II A II R II K]

To go beyond pre-war existing density there could be the move for new urbanism in these corridors like Sheppard where it was build it and they will come, and allow it to come.

Granted that cars would have to be accommodated in the mix, but it could be delegated to the back and have laybys for limited need for parking.

Ideally Sheppard should mirror the current setup on Front St. East, where there are midrises that cover a whole block, owned by one developer, but have leased out retail at the bottom and are at street level. And south of it they have highrise condos as well as a highway south of it and lots of housing. Although instead of government housing, townhouses that can take advantage of both worlds of transit and highways.

If the zoning laws aren't changed to insist these kind of new densities, then it's setup to fail.