[kd86]

I could see Rob Ford getting funding for his Sheppard East subway line. As for eglinton and the srt it would be more cheaper to convert both project to MARK II trains and connect the two project via eglinton ave east in a phased in apprach.

 

[Hubcap]

I understand that in theory both these projects SHOULD be completed as SUBWAYS. but with limited Money I think it isnt right that Scarborough gets 90% of the expansion and the rest of the city gets scraps. I think Scarborough needs to choose what it prefers the SRT conversion or the Sheppard extension. There are too many other areas in the city that need expansion as well for the city and province to put all its eggs in one basket. The most logical project I would think is the Scaborough RT conversion with an extension that connects to the Sheppard LRT.

This is what I was trying to get at, yes subways are more efficient, in a perfect world we could have subways running to many different parts of the city. However as we all know, the world is not perfect, had it of been perfect our government would have planned and invested in significant transit infrastructure a long time ago, we could have an Egliinton Subway running to the airport, we could have a DRL, we could have a full Sheppard Subway line instead of the Stubway we have now. I am not saying the money was not there to build these projects because it probably was there at the time the projects were originally planned. And yes Transit City (or Transfer City as it has become dubbed) is no where near perfect but it is progress, it is an attempt to get infrastructure built in multiple areas of the city rather than just one area. Subways may seem great but will they get built, the longest line built in recent times is the Sheppard line, but its not really that long, I think LRT is a better investment, its more logical

Well, the Toronto election for one. The only guy that supported ALL of TC got his ass handed to him pretty badly. Whether or not he got his ass handed to him BECAUSE of Transit City, I doubt. But it still raises the interesting question, that if Transit City was so logically sound, why was the only candidate who supported it the guy who had a hand in it?

In the Ottawa election, both frontrunners supported the exact same plan. It was only 2nd tier candidates that were offering up "alternatives". Why? Because the plan actually makes sense.

Obviously transit was not really an issue in the election, but we must understand that again it was an election, hence why the candidates who did not have a hand in the development of Transit City did not support it. Subways like the idea of cutting taxes appeal to the people, they may not be the most logical of ideas, but they do win elections. Why? because cutting taxes makes people think, "yeah, I will have more money in my pocket", when really it usually does not result in that it results in service cuts, and stagnant development. Likewise Subways are seen as non-intrusive, fast, and accessible, but they do not necessarily make for the best solution everywhere. The lack of depth in political discussions I think is the problem here, its so easy to say, "I will build subways everywhere", while that same candidate will discredit Transit City as a streetcar network which it is not. Here is my query, if we cancel Transit City (the closest thing we have had in years to an actual transit solution), will subways cover the same ground as Transit City, and will it even get built? unlikely

 

[EnviroTO]

Well, the Toronto election for one.

The campaign was about stopping a gravy train. Do you think that means the campaign was about more expensive trains?

 

[gweed123]

The campaign was about stopping a gravy train. Do you think that means the campaign was about more expensive trains?

Well considering the fact that Ford ran on a very clear pro-subway and ant-LRT platform, kinda yeah. And thank you for not quoting the rest of my quote, where I specifically state that TC was NOT the main focus of the election.

And "stopping the gravy train" just means cutting funding to things you don't agree with. Things that he agrees with are likely to get even more funding than they did under Miller. It's the NeoCon mantra, "we're going to cut spending and shrink government", and then they blow surpluses, spend into deficit, and expand goverment (re: Bush, Harper).

 

[LAz]

Why do you make stuff up here? Don Mills to Morningside on LRT is about 12 km. At the 23-km/hr speed of the LRT it will take 31 minutes. The bus at rush-hour takes 43 minutes. The LRT will take 12 minutes less (about 40% less time) than bus. If you then replaced the LRT by subway (ignore the $3.5 billion it would take to build a subway to Morningside) it would about 23 minutes at 31 km/hr - a savings of another 8 minutes; another 35% savings.

By what possible definition is a 40% savings barely faster, but a 35% savings much faster?

I submit that you don't know what you are talking about. I also wonder where you think the $3.5 billion would come to build a subway to Morningside.

Some months ago when I looked at official propaganda, they admitted that the sheppard LRT is only about 5 km an hour faster than the bus. It was going at I think about 20. The Subway option is much better - at 30 ish.

Nobody is insane enough to want to build a subway all the way to morninside. Nobody. But the TTC studies that as their alternative in their EA. Hence we need to listen to what the people want, and to extend sheppard eastwards - if by two or three stops, then okay, but that seriously is something.

 

[Ansem]

Why do you make stuff up here? Don Mills to Morningside on LRT is about 12 km. At the 23-km/hr speed of the LRT it will take 31 minutes. The bus at rush-hour takes 43 minutes. The LRT will take 12 minutes less (about 40% less time) than bus. If you then replaced the LRT by subway (ignore the $3.5 billion it would take to build a subway to Morningside) it would about 23 minutes at 31 km/hr - a savings of another 8 minutes; another 35% savings.

By what possible definition is a 40% savings barely faster, but a 35% savings much faster?

I submit that you don't know what you are talking about. I also wonder where you think the $3.5 billion would come to build a subway to Morningside.

Who wants a LRT to Morningside anyways????

No one ever said that a subway to Morningside should be build. You've been dodging this forever.

Don't you think a subway line (rapid transit line) linking STC to NYCC and the spadina line has more merits than a LRT?

 

[lafard]

If you run through the numbers extending the subway to Victoria Park (which is about what we could afford)

Distance is 2km.
Subway runs at 32km/h through this segment (slow, as consumers and VP are closer together than Sheppard's current spacing)
Subway takes 4 minutes to travel to VP.
Net saving of about 6 minutes over the bus (bus is unusually slow due to 404 interchange)
LRT takes about 6 minutes to traverse this distance, running 30% faster than bus and 30% slower than subway. Time savings for subway is only 2 minutes.

With subway people transfer to the bus, which now travels at 17km/h.
With LRT people ride at 22km/h.
Travelling 2.5km takes 9 minutes on the bus or 7 minutes on the LRT, further east the LRT is faster than subway + bus. 2.5km is about midway between Birchmount and Kennedy.

A subway extension to Vic Park is only net beneficial over the LRT to people west of Kennedy Road. Each km of subway extension moves this "net benefit" boundary further west by about 2.25km, at approximately double to triple the cost of the 2.25km of LRT.

 

[Ansem]

If you run through the numbers extending the subway to Victoria Park (which is about what we could afford)

Distance is 2km.
Subway runs at 32km/h through this segment (slow, as consumers and VP are closer together than Sheppard's current spacing)
Subway takes 4 minutes to travel to VP.
Net saving of about 6 minutes over the bus (bus is unusually slow due to 404 interchange)
LRT takes about 6 minutes to traverse this distance, running 30% faster than bus and 30% slower than subway. Time savings for subway is only 2 minutes.

With subway people transfer to the bus, which now travels at 17km/h.
With LRT people ride at 22km/h.
Travelling 2.5km takes 9 minutes on the bus or 7 minutes on the LRT, further east the LRT is faster than subway + bus. 2.5km is about midway between Birchmount and Kennedy.

A subway extension to Vic Park is only net beneficial over the LRT to people west of Kennedy Road. Each km of subway extension moves this "net benefit" boundary further west by about 2.25km, at approximately double to triple the cost of the 2.25km of LRT.

That's why Europeen and Asians have better networks than us.
You are seeing this only on the short term.

Transit is NOT an expense but an INVESTMENT. As long as we don't get this, we'll have mediocre networks...

In the long term, subway absolutely makes more sense. Even in the short term, you would get a commercial and residential projects multiplying along the avenue.
The TTC last ridership reports per station shows that the Sheppard station had among the biggest increase on the network.

 

[nfitz]

If you run through the numbers extending the subway to Victoria Park (which is about what we could afford)

Distance is 2km.
Subway runs at 32km/h through this segment (slow, as consumers and VP are closer together than Sheppard's current spacing)
Subway takes 4 minutes to travel to VP.
Net saving of about 6 minutes over the bus (bus is unusually slow due to 404 interchange)
LRT takes about 6 minutes to traverse this distance, running 30% faster than bus and 30% slower than subway. Time savings for subway is only 2 minutes.

With subway people transfer to the bus, which now travels at 17km/h.
With LRT people ride at 22km/h.
Travelling 2.5km takes 9 minutes on the bus or 7 minutes on the LRT, further east the LRT is faster than subway + bus. 2.5km is about midway between Birchmount and Kennedy.

A subway extension to Vic Park is only net beneficial over the LRT to people west of Kennedy Road. Each km of subway extension moves this "net benefit" boundary further west by about 2.25km, at approximately double to triple the cost of the 2.25km of LRT.

Bingo. Though I'd think the LRT would make Victoria Park in 5 minutes; it will be in a tunnel to Consumers Road

 

[LAz]

The worst part of the sheppard tram idea is the way that it will connect to the metro. To go into the ground?! Man, it's designed on purpose like that because that automatically makes it like infinity times more unlikely to ever see a subway extension there under such a scenario.

If one keeps the future in mind, then one builds above, not going into.




Oh hey, howabout we take 10 meters of subway speed vs 10 meters of bus speed vs 10 meters of walking speed. Ha see, we don't need anything than our legs. But oh wait, the tram fanatics will say, in this scenario the tram is the best solution.
That's the stupidity in looking at such small distances.

And again, we see how they are retardo once again - they are going to build a tunnel for some distance! - and they will use that tunnel for a tram rather than a subway extension again. It's eglinton all over. It's only a matter of time until we hear those pricks demanding that the sheppard line becomes a tram line entirely.

That's why Europeen and Asians have better networks than us.
You are seeing this only on the short term.

Using that thinking, we never would have build the subway system we have today. We integrated development with transit. And our subways attracted development on their own. They do that wherever they go. If this was stockholm we would have no problem building a subway into a cornfield like they did - they just build more stuff around those stations and voila, big loses at first, but nowadays they are one of the least petrol-dependent cities with some of the lowest car riderships (looking at major cities that is).
Wherever we look we see superior and aggressive expansion of metro systems. Only here can one come up with a 20 billion tram plan and shun metro expansion. It's an insult to being a resident of Toronto. A slap in the face.

Transit is NOT an expense but an INVESTMENT. As long as we don't get this, we'll have mediocre networks...

That is why the people who love cars prefer to have a mediocre transit network - imagine how much harder it would be to get people riding their cars if transit was actually good.
This is why the auto interests support tramsit city rather than a subway plan.






Ford's still quiet huh. I think we need to write him a petition to get sheppard expanded. He's too slow. I don't like that one bit. Then again, that is what we have at the top nowadays, leaders who don't give a rats ass more or less.

 

[EnviroTO]

Well considering the fact that Ford ran on a very clear pro-subway and ant-LRT platform, kinda yeah. And thank you for not quoting the rest of my quote, where I specifically state that TC was NOT the main focus of the election.

Why leave the rest of your comments in? You were replying to a question: "which poll?" The rest of your comments also do not show a poll, plebiscite, or anything else that shows clearly that the majority believe that cancelling Transit City is either desirable in itself, or would automatically lead to a more desirable alternative with future subways being built.

And "stopping the gravy train" just means cutting funding to things you don't agree with. Things that he agrees with are likely to get even more funding than they did under Miller. It's the NeoCon mantra, "we're going to cut spending and shrink government", and then they blow surpluses, spend into deficit, and expand goverment (re: Bush, Harper).

If you are going to compare Ford to Harper and Bush, or Harris who was at his victory celebration, you need to admit it isn't a conservative platform to use public funds to pay for transit. When conservative expand government it tends to be in policing and military. They usually aren't big infrastructure builders without selling the farm to private interests.

 

[EnviroTO]

Bingo. Though I'd think the LRT would make Victoria Park in 5 minutes; it will be in a tunnel to Consumers Road

It would likely vary between 4 and 8 minutes depending on the stoplights at Consumers and Settlers Rd. If they put proper light priority on the route the LRT should be no slower than the subway on that section since the subway and LRT would have the same number of stops. If not, the LRT will do it in the same time as the subway with green lights, and slower if it hits two reds. The Sheppard East LRT doesn't seem as well designed as the Eglinton LRT. Palmdale and Bay Mills almost touch the neighbouring stops.

 

[gweed123]

If you are going to compare Ford to Harper and Bush, or Harris who was at his victory celebration, you need to admit it isn't a conservative platform to use public funds to pay for transit. When conservative expand government it tends to be in policing and military. They usually aren't big infrastructure builders without selling the farm to private interests.

That's true to a certain extent, certainly with the military spending. However, I think even the conservatives have realized that infrastructure spending is a necessity. You won't find very many voters (even many conservative voters) saying that transit or infrastructure spending isn't needed. The disatisfaction with current infrastructure is not just contained to the centre and left anymore (like it was in the 80s and 90s). "Our transit sucks" or "we're really far behind" are statements that cross political lines.

But anything to do with social housing or any other "soft" service is on the chopping block for sure.

 

[LAz]

I do not understand where this aggressive hatred of subways comes from. I just don't.

 

[nfitz]

I do not understand where this aggressive hatred of subways comes from. I just don't.

Who here hates subways? I love them. They should build more of them ... on Yonge and through Downtown. Along with the subways we are currently building to York, and under Eglinton.