Strange, I don't notice any rapid transit connection to Durham Region at the end of the SELRT... Do you??? And the 25 Year plan is about as "long term" as it gets. If it's not there, it's not happening...
|
|
|
- Thread starter W. K. Lis
- Start date
Strange, I don't notice any rapid transit connection to Durham Region at the end of the SELRT... Do you??? And the 25 Year plan is about as "long term" as it gets. If it's not there, it's not happening...
nfitz
Superstar
They did ... they amalgamated Kingston and Kingston Township in the 1990s.
nfitz
Superstar
Yes, this is how TTC originally sold it. In the initial March 2007 Report "This 14-kilometre long corridor would extend rapid transit service east from Don Mills Station to northern Scarborough, Malvern, and, potentially, Durham Region." I seem to recall early figures also showed this. I'm surprised you don't remember this.
This is how it was sold ... and yes, probably unlikely, still that was their angle.
cacruden
Senior Member
That has nothing to do with the bus issue. The bus issue existed for decades before that. If you are going to "amalgamate" to get rid of different organizations, it will be a never ending amalgamation - because each city has a city or town next to it where the transit agencies must co-operate. Amalgamation would create one humoungous transit agency - or city - or whatever. The larger an agency gets, the less efficient it becomes and the less responsive it will become to local issues.
nfitz
Superstar
For a megacity perhaps. Kingston stretches into rural in each direction; with the possible exception of Amherstview. Though Kingston Transit seems to service that now.
Wow, I haven't looked at a Kingston bus map in years. There's a reason I used to bike to work ... I kept looking at the bus map while I was there, and it never made any sense to use it. Yikes ... it's been almost 40 years since I remember riding a Kingston bus! Hmm, just reading on this ... the Township only started transit service in 1975. Hmm, so what do I remember taking in 1972?
Last edited:
I do remember that. However, it doesn't really matter how it was sold, because it's not in the RTP. If it's not in the RTP, it's not on the books. I was merely trying to rebuttle the fact that you somehow think that because of 1 line in a Transit City report saying "potentially, Durham Region" that that makes the SELRT more of a regional line than a Sheppard Subway to STC. I was simply trying to point out how asinine that assertion was, given the fact that the only evidence for its "regional" implications is 1 line in a report, while the RTP ignores it completely (and rightfully so, because it's a dumb idea).
nfitz
Superstar
Not sure what that has to do with anything. The point is that Metrolinx will have no interest in replacing a long LRT line with 3 km of subway. The government has already stated this.
If they were to assume control of TTC this would become even less likely.
If they were to assume control of TTC this would become even less likely.
DavidH
Senior Member
Agreed completely.
Having said that, those talking up the Durham connection should make note of the fact that Durham does NOT want its hoped-for future Highway 2 LRT to connect to Sheppard; they want to run it along Ellesmere to STC via U of T Scarborough.
hbl33
Active Member
Really? There was a rumour regarding the Highway 2 LRT?
DavidH
Senior Member
More than a rumour; a very detailed study was completed last spring. See the following URLs for the documents and plan. Of course, keep in mind that almost none of it is funded right now.
http://www.durhamlongtermtransitstrategy.ca/MainReport.html
I just took a quick look at it, and it turns out that the report does advice protecting the route for a Sheppard East LRT connection to a proposed transit terminal in eastern Scarborough, but that's not the main proposed route.
Last edited:
M II A II R II K
Senior Member
Is Effective Decision-Making Possible at the Regional Scale?
Sep 21st, 2010
By Yonah Freemark
Read More: http://americancity.org/columns/entry/2626/
Talk to people about public transportation in the Bay Area, and you’ll always hear the same sort of thing: There are too many conflicting interests, and they’re working at cross-purposes. It’s an odd reflection on a region with some of the nation’s best transit, and thus sometimes it’s difficult for outsiders to understand. But for people who are pushing for improvements in the day-to-day commutes of the hundreds of thousands of people in the area who rely on public transportation, it’s a frustrating reality. And it puts into question whether other regions with similar political divides will be able to work effectively as a unit.
“It’s a very fragmented government,” said Tom Radulovich, a member of the BART rapid transit board. Though one agency, BART, provides service to much of the region, most of the other transit operators are confined to their limited districts. This means that buses in San Francisco are run by one group, while those in Oakland and San Jose are operated by two others. Each has its own staff, own maintenance facilities, and own priorities. The end result is a seemingly permanent conflict of interest between the agencies, all of which have to compete for the same pot of funds controlled by the federally authorized Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC). The MTC commands control over transportation spending in nine counties and 101 municipalities encompassing seven million people.
The situation was so bad until recently that customers using multiple forms of transit had to have separate passes for each. Only the introduction of the Clipper Card this year (after a decade of work) helped improve that problem. But other circumstances make the balkanization of control still relevant—and could mean that taxpayers in the area are paying more than they ought to for the same level of service provided elsewhere, because of an inability to take advantage of economies of scale.
Despite having on its board elected officials from throughout the region, the MTC is structurally suburban-oriented because each county, rather than city, is represented. This, according to Rebecca Saltzman of Living in the O, has produced a strange situation in which “Oakland has no seat on the board.” That city has a population of 450,000. And indeed, this means that Oakland’s priorities, like ensuring the reliable operation of standard city buses even during the recession, are some times ignored in favor of the MTC board’s preferred investments, like an airport people mover.
It also means that expansions of the transit system off into the low-density suburbs often take priority over improvements in the dense urban areas. At the regional level, building new lines in places where people don’t currently have access to acceptable transit is more politically palatable than spending on areas that already have good transportation, even if the latter community is more transit-reliant and more in need of expensive investments. Thus the MTC is not necessarily even working for the “needs” of the greater region, however defined.
Fun in a BART station Credit: Flickr user Andrew Morrell
Sep 21st, 2010
By Yonah Freemark
Read More: http://americancity.org/columns/entry/2626/
Talk to people about public transportation in the Bay Area, and you’ll always hear the same sort of thing: There are too many conflicting interests, and they’re working at cross-purposes. It’s an odd reflection on a region with some of the nation’s best transit, and thus sometimes it’s difficult for outsiders to understand. But for people who are pushing for improvements in the day-to-day commutes of the hundreds of thousands of people in the area who rely on public transportation, it’s a frustrating reality. And it puts into question whether other regions with similar political divides will be able to work effectively as a unit.
“It’s a very fragmented government,” said Tom Radulovich, a member of the BART rapid transit board. Though one agency, BART, provides service to much of the region, most of the other transit operators are confined to their limited districts. This means that buses in San Francisco are run by one group, while those in Oakland and San Jose are operated by two others. Each has its own staff, own maintenance facilities, and own priorities. The end result is a seemingly permanent conflict of interest between the agencies, all of which have to compete for the same pot of funds controlled by the federally authorized Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC). The MTC commands control over transportation spending in nine counties and 101 municipalities encompassing seven million people.
The situation was so bad until recently that customers using multiple forms of transit had to have separate passes for each. Only the introduction of the Clipper Card this year (after a decade of work) helped improve that problem. But other circumstances make the balkanization of control still relevant—and could mean that taxpayers in the area are paying more than they ought to for the same level of service provided elsewhere, because of an inability to take advantage of economies of scale.
Despite having on its board elected officials from throughout the region, the MTC is structurally suburban-oriented because each county, rather than city, is represented. This, according to Rebecca Saltzman of Living in the O, has produced a strange situation in which “Oakland has no seat on the board.” That city has a population of 450,000. And indeed, this means that Oakland’s priorities, like ensuring the reliable operation of standard city buses even during the recession, are some times ignored in favor of the MTC board’s preferred investments, like an airport people mover.
It also means that expansions of the transit system off into the low-density suburbs often take priority over improvements in the dense urban areas. At the regional level, building new lines in places where people don’t currently have access to acceptable transit is more politically palatable than spending on areas that already have good transportation, even if the latter community is more transit-reliant and more in need of expensive investments. Thus the MTC is not necessarily even working for the “needs” of the greater region, however defined.
Fun in a BART station Credit: Flickr user Andrew Morrell
andrewpmk
Senior Member
Rather than amalgamating transit agencies it would make more sense to have increased interregional cooperation between transit agencies. Such as, municipal transit agencies should be encouraged to run more routes crossing borders where it makes sense to do so, not charge an extra fare for crossing the border, and allow customers to use their services for trips outside the agency's borders (e.g. how Zum can be used for trips within Vaughan). It is interesting that the 905 transit agencies seem to be much better at cooperating with each other than they cooperate with the TTC - for instance, all 905 transit agencies except Durham accept each other's transfers at the border. In contrast the TTC has ridiculous rules like not allowing YRT/Viva and Mississauga Transit buses to serve trips within Toronto (except Downsview-York University) and charging an extra fare on its own buses when they cross Steeles. Having Metrolinx take over all GTA transit agencies runs the risk of major diseconomies of scale.
Paleo
Active Member
Metro council did a good job of this. Merging all of the GTA systems together would probably do to Toronto what Metro did to the old city.
doady
Senior Member
Transit systems put the buses where the buses are needed the most. You don't see Mississauga Transit giving Winston Churchill 5 minute service or something like that, and it wouldn't get 5 minute service even if MT merged with the TTC.
Do anyone really want a separate transit system just for the old city of the Toronto? How elitist can you be, seriously...
Inner city Toronto did not decline because of amalgamation. It is prospering. If anything it is the former suburbs that are in decline. This insistence that amalgamation ruins the inner city doesn't make sense. If you think that politically separating the inner city and the suburbs benefits the inner city I suggest you look at the US cities like Detroit or Chicago.
On the other hand, how many European metropolitan areas don't have a high level of amalgamation and regional cooperation? Has transit in inner city London, England suffered because of Transport for London and Greater London? Has Berlin and Vienna suffered because of their amalgamated transit systems and huge municipal boundaries?
If given the choice between modeling Toronto after the US city or after the European city, I think I would go with the European city.
Do anyone really want a separate transit system just for the old city of the Toronto? How elitist can you be, seriously...
Inner city Toronto did not decline because of amalgamation. It is prospering. If anything it is the former suburbs that are in decline. This insistence that amalgamation ruins the inner city doesn't make sense. If you think that politically separating the inner city and the suburbs benefits the inner city I suggest you look at the US cities like Detroit or Chicago.
On the other hand, how many European metropolitan areas don't have a high level of amalgamation and regional cooperation? Has transit in inner city London, England suffered because of Transport for London and Greater London? Has Berlin and Vienna suffered because of their amalgamated transit systems and huge municipal boundaries?
If given the choice between modeling Toronto after the US city or after the European city, I think I would go with the European city.
nfitz
Superstar
The TTC are still issuing reports showing potential future extensions of the Sheppard East LRT to Durham Region.