[Second_in_pie]

It's a straw man to claim that because one line initially will be longer that it must be impirically better.

This is probably the most important thing to remember in this whole Transit City thing. LRT is automatically better than subway because you'll be able to get more of it, that's fool's logic. It may be true that you can get more LRT than subways and that LRTs are a big improvement on busses (not quite the Transit City LRTs, but that can be improved), but what matters is the service being provided. Subway provides a hugely better service than LRT, has the capacity that'll be needed to accommodate a modest 50% transit use increase (Metrolinx is going for an 100% baseline increase, I think,) and will attract many more riders and make transit more favourable to everyone by extending the RT network, something that LRT will only be able to do half at the best.

LRT may be useful in some situations; high density, shorter distance bus routes like Finch West or the Downtown streetcars, and it'll provide the service that's needed for a cheaper cost than subway. We don't need subway under every road; essentially the basic logic going around here. What seems hard for some people to grasp is that there is actually a need for a better service than LRT on certain routes throughout the city. When people are confronted by that fact, they go for wild shots, like "LRT can provide the same service," or "That service will never be needed," or "It's too expensive for the effort."

 

[Dan416]

I completely agree. We could build 10x as much BRT for the equal dollars of LRT. So why aren't we doing that? I know some of you guys want to though

The point is there isn't any rational choice being applied to these TC lines. Some of them are fine, like the Finch one, but Sheppard doesn't make sense because there's already a subway there that wasn't finished and the benefits of just extending it aren't being examined.

Oh and here's RTES in case anyone's interested. It really is the basis for SOS's plan:

 

[kettal]

^^ if that's the basis for your plan, I guess it would exclude you from any complaints about the Eglinton LRT corridor.

All I can say is thank god we went beyond that rubbish. Many lobbyists and special interests had their finger in that report, and it shows.

 

[Dan416]

^^ if that's the basis for your plan, I guess it would exclude you from any complaints about the Eglinton LRT corridor.

All I can say is thank god we went beyond that rubbish. Many lobbyists and special interests had their finger in that report, and it shows.

I was going to reply to this comment, but I'll just let it stand for itself.

 

[kettal]

I'm flattered.

 

[GraphicMatt]

In the alternate reality where RTES was adopted as the city's major transit plan, there's an SOS equivalent fuming about the 'stubway' plan and coming up with alternate proposal for an actual transit network.

 

[Dan416]

In the alternate reality where RTES was adopted as the city's major transit plan, there's an SOS equivalent fuming about the 'stubway' plan and coming up with alternate proposal for an actual transit network.

My brother's been watcihng Sliders. I'd love to slide into the dimension where RTES came to pass.

If the RTES had been adopted, all we'd have to do to finish the subway network is build the DRL, finish Eglinton and extend Danforth line to Kennedy. And we'd be done.

 

[kettal]

My brother's been watcihng Sliders. I'd love to slide into the dimension where RTES came to pass.

I'd love to slide into the dimension where Sliders didn't become a crap fest after the 2nd season.

 

[kettal]

It's amazing how much things have changed since RTES. When it was written, TTC ridership was still in a downward trend. Most of the proposals on that map are just trying to cannibalize the GO tansit demographic. Needless to say, our subways are no longer underutilized and the more people GO can take from TTC right now, the better.

 

[Dan416]

It's amazing how much things have changed since RTES. When it was written, TTC ridership was still in a downward trend. Most of the proposals on that map are just trying to cannibalize the GO tansit demographic. Needless to say, our subways are no longer underutilized and the more people GO can take from TTC right now, the better.

You could argue that any subway extension is "cannibalizing" GO ridership, but it doesn't make it true. Give people more transit choice and ridership will grow on both. You could argue the DRL would cannibalize potential GO stations in the core for God's sake. It's a complete strawman argument, especially considering how UNDERserviced Toronto is by transit.

 

[Woodbridge_Heights]

^^^I guess when you put it that way, then what your saying is good. As for the Scarborough example, I used it because it was one of the pros that was given by Adam Giambrone and David Miller when the funding for the Eglinton LRT was announced. ie: transferless travel from Kennedy to the airport.

And that's exactly what the problem with the Eglinton line, as proposed, is. As a crosstown route, Scarborough to the airport it fails bc the trip would be horribly long, I bet a taxi on Eglinton would be faster. Stop spacing is too wide to be a successful local service route. However the corridor actually behaves lilke 2 separate lines. The East and West portions both will be funnelling mainly into the YUS subway, much like the B-D line does. Turns out, though, that unlike the B-D line the Eglinton E and W routes have very different ridership numbers and profiles.

The TTC wants us to believe that it will be a fast transferless crosstown route with local service that will extend the backbone of the network out from the YUS subway. You can't be everything to everybody

 

[Rainforest]

Pearson Airport is getting a heavy-rail express train, remember?

Anybody going from Scarborough to the airport would be well-advised to use GO transit plus the airport train. That would save a lot of time, even compared to an Eglinton Subway.

That would work, if there was a frequent crosstown GO route from Pearson - either using the North Toronto sub via Junction - Summerhill - Agincourt, or via Union - Kennedy - Agincourt - Markham. One surface transit ride + one train ride, cost within $5 - $10 range.

Unfortunately, the Pearson - Union ARL does not cut it: transfer to GO train first, transfer again to ARL at Union, and pay 25 - 30 dollars ... A ride given by a family or friend certainly wins on the price / quality scale. Those who can't get a ride, can use Bloor subway + bus 192 from Kipling: about same trip duration and same number of transfers, but a lot cheaper.

 

[Darwinkgo]

A ride [to the airport] given by a family or friend certainly wins on the price / quality scale

And it almost always will. It is hard to serve a destination that has relatively low demand from almost everywhere going to one point. One point of concentrated demand, downtown, is getting a very high value service. There is little reason to provide that level of service from multiple points.

Most everywhere else transit to the airport will remain for captive riders and workers only.

 

[Dan416]

And that's exactly what the problem with the Eglinton line, as proposed, is. As a crosstown route, Scarborough to the airport it fails bc the trip would be horribly long, I bet a taxi on Eglinton would be faster. Stop spacing is too wide to be a successful local service route. However the corridor actually behaves lilke 2 separate lines. The East and West portions both will be funnelling mainly into the YUS subway, much like the B-D line does. Turns out, though, that unlike the B-D line the Eglinton E and W routes have very different ridership numbers and profiles.

The TTC wants us to believe that it will be a fast transferless crosstown route with local service that will extend the backbone of the network out from the YUS subway. You can't be everything to everybody

I don't think that's where Eglinton fails. The Eglinton LRT line will be at the speed of the subway in the tunnelled portion. You simply can't mess that up. LRT vehicles move as fast if not faster than HRT because they're lighter. And the stop space = Bloor-Danforth stop spacing. The speed of the outer portions is debatable, but they should the eastern part as slower, and the western part as about the same as the central part. So will it be "fast"? Well that depends, do you consider travelling across the city on the Bloor-Danforth line to be "fast"?

 

[Woodbridge_Heights]

I don't think that's where Eglinton fails. The Eglinton LRT line will be at the speed of the subway in the tunnelled portion. You simply can't mess that up. LRT vehicles move as fast if not faster than HRT because they're lighter. And the stop space = Bloor-Danforth stop spacing. The speed of the outer portions is debatable, but they should the eastern part as slower, and the western part as about the same as the central part. So will it be "fast"? Well that depends, do you consider travelling across the city on the Bloor-Danforth line to be "fast"?

but that's just it. I'm not the one claiming that there is a market for cross-town commuters along the Eglinton corridor, the TTC/City is. However we know that that trip won't be fast.

Eglinton like B-D really behaves like 2 separate lines, one on the east and one on the west. B-D just happens to have subway levels on both sides, Eglinton is less so.

So what will Eglinton LRT be? Fast crosstown trips, or better service along shorter trips.