[Forgotten]

Basic gist of the report: If you're an existing transit customer you can go to hell. Medium length intracity transport users? You can go to hell too. If you're a long distance commuter that does not care for transit you should be pampered and have your every whim catered to possibly at the expense of the former group.

When a subway to empty fields in Vaughan (that sits right next to a GO corridor) scores ahead of subways that would be used by 10 times as many people you know the metrics are useless and the report deserves to be mocked.

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

Well put Forgotten.

AoD

 

[TheTigerMaster]

+1

 

[rbt]

Any political challenges to giving priority to buses would apply equally to LRT, though. It's not like the 'war on car' mantra hasn't been applied to Transit City with great success. WWLRT, Jane and Don Mills were killed pretty much right away. The only reason Sheppard and Finch seem to even exist at this point is so that Queen's Park and Metrolinx can claim they are doing "something."

So, what's "politically achievable"? Apparently not surface LRT in Toronto.

It's much closer. LRT with very-long but infrequent trains at least gets approval by the works department. To a large extent, transit city was a proposal by the works department, or at least showed what was required to meet all their requirements.

You're right though the public still didn't accept it.


Although, if Giambrone just winked when accused of having sex instead of going all twiggy then dropping out, we may have had a remarkably different Toronto today so it was still pretty close. He certainly didn't react well to a bit of dirty laundry; fell off the map completely politically.

 

[salsa]

Metrolinx defends Big Move. "We have to listen carefully to the community and what their interests and concerns are and be responsive to them". That ought to silence the critics.

http://www.thestar.com/news/gta/tra...gainst_critical_neptis_foundation_report.html

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

salsa:

I think you are being sarcastic - because it is a really rather weak response.

AoD

 

[salsa]

Correct

 

[innsertnamehere]

Things are complicated, as I said the report is very, very far from a holy gospel. You must ensure that things are in the public interest at all times, the question, as always, is what is the public interest. You cannot exclude public input from transit planning completely, though I think it needs to be reduced from current levels of control as transit planning requires more than lines on a map that people thought of while sitting on the subway or the 401.

As for the "subway that runs through fields", as I have repeated multiple times on the Yonge extension thread, the key is bus connections, not walk in passengers. As for bus connections, the extension has them in spades.

 

[Solid Snake]

Christopher Hume's comments on the report

http://www.thestar.com/news/gta/2013/12/12/more_good_advice_on_transit_but_we_dont_listen_hume.html#


On Scarborough Subway and ticketing

Schabas makes a number of excellent points, most of which we’ve heard before. His discussions of everything from the Scarborough subway (thumbs down) to ticketing (we’re way behind) are unassailable.

On GO Train

His argument for substituting an existing GO line for the downtown relief line is eminently sensible, and the case for electrifying GO and turning it into an all-day 15-minute service will be music to any commuter’s ears.

On Transit City

His rejection of the Eglinton Crosstown (“speed of a streetcar, at costs . . . not much less than a full subwayâ€) and the Finch and Sheppard LRTs (“fashion accessoriesâ€) is painful, but appropriate.

On Metrolinx role and priority

From the report

“Metrolinx’s main priority,†Schabas writes, “should be upgrading the GO Rail system into a ‘regional metro,’ with frequent, fast, all-day services that would attract suburb-to-suburb, contra-peak and off-peak trips and support the development of higher-density development nodes throughout the region. This is to be the “backbone†of the regional transit system. It is the only scheme that can make a major impact on inter-regional traffic. Without it, the effectiveness of all other investments will be greatly reduced.â€

Christopher Hume comment on that

Who could argue? But the fact we have failed to implement such a system says everything one needs to know about transit in the GTA. The real issue is the planning process itself. Metrolinx, which was to have provided apolitical, evidence-based leadership, has ended up a pawn in the hands of politicians — provincial, municipal and even federal.

 

[kd86]

The report pretty much regurgitate what we've been saying all along. Eglinton is a regional corridor just by the nature of its length, and therefore any transit line proposed on it should function that way as well. If my memory serves me correct even Metrolinx at one point proposed a light metro on Eglinton but eventually succumbed to Millers Transit City proposal. LRT has it place but certainly not on a line like Eglinton. Its unfortunate this report wasn't made public 2 or 3 years ago. Ford is not the only one that has screwed transit expansion in Toronto, Mike Harris, Mel Lastman, McGuinty , Karen Stintz, and Giambrone have all contributed to the mess we see today.

 

[ShonTron]

Interesting. The author, Michael Schabas, was involved with Urban Transit Development Corporation - the ones behind the ICTS technology that Bombardier now owns. No wonder calls for its use in the Neptis report.

 

[Electrify]

I think the problem is that we treat transit planning like urban planning. Urban planning for a specific place, it is common to change plans and take the public's input with the highest regard, despite how indecisive they might be. While it is important to take the public's concerns into consideration with transit planning, the fact is that it is a piece of regional infrastructure which stretches through a lot of places. This is why nothing ever gets done. It is treated as a road widening, when in reality it is like building a whole new road.

If we want transit built, we have two options: First is to just go ahead and build it, mostly to the vision of the planners. Limit consultation and expropriate what needs to be moved. The second is to build it piecemeal. For example rather than building a subway or LRT in a single go, have developers pay for tunnel or right of way construction in front of their shiny new condos, even if it is not used right away. Eventually enough infrastructure will be in place that the public can easily fill in the gaps.

 

[innsertnamehere]

another problem I found with the Report, It claims it will take an hour and 15 minutes to get downtown on the scarborough subway from Sheppard, while in reality it will take around 45. (presuming a 5 minute transfer at Bloor-Yonge and the final destination being King)

 

[TheTigerMaster]

another problem I found with the Report, It claims it will take an hour and 15 minutes to get downtown on the scarborough subway from Sheppard, while in reality it will take around 45. (presuming a 5 minute transfer at Bloor-Yonge and the final destination being King)

The amount of errors in this report makes me suspicious that whoever put this together hasn't spent much time in Toronto or on the TTC.

 

[denfromoakvillemilton]

another problem I found with the Report, It claims it will take an hour and 15 minutes to get downtown on the scarborough subway from Sheppard, while in reality it will take around 45. (presuming a 5 minute transfer at Bloor-Yonge and the final destination being King)

The amount of errors in this report makes me suspicious that whoever put this together hasn't spent much time in Toronto or on the TTC.

1) That's real long
2) How will that change with the DRL? When you get off at Pape or Donlands?