You don't have to equate Toronto and Rob Ford; you do have to accept that he and the council elected by Torontonians have derailed what looked like a decent (if, sure, flawed) long-term transit plan for the city.

The Lastman situation was different in that the province actually stopped the lines under construction and naturally Mel fought for the one in his turf. this is different because we had forward momentum that the city itself squandered. Really, regardless of whether any fed $ were actually going to the DRL, I don't know how anyone can look at the Scarborough situation and not see how it negatively affects everything downstream. The fact that Ford is campaigning on continued subversion of The Big Move (with the same total lack of a funding plan he had 4 years ago) perpetuates this.
 
I'd hardly call Transit City a decent plan. It was "a" plan. The only good parts of it were Eglinton and Finch though. There was no DRL on it. Transit City, such as it was, is a failure.
 
Coruscanti Cognoscente said:
I'd hardly call Transit City a decent plan. It was "a" plan. The only good parts of it were Eglinton and Finch though. There was no DRL on it. Transit City, such as it was, is a failure.
Click to expand...

Transit City was not intended to address travel to the core, but to provide higher capacity and higher speed service to suburban areas. You are criticizing a plan for omitting something for which it was never intended. Of course the DRL is important, but the suburbs have their own transit needs as well. In reality both the DRL and Transit City is needed, so there's no point wishing that one or the other should never have happened.
 
Last edited:
This isn't preached enough. The frequent bus service would have had a profound impact on our perception of TTC service had it been fully implemented. Instead we are barely at RGS loading standards with any sort of frequent bus or rapid bus service out of our purview. Frequent and rapid bus service would also have acted as a potential release for all the pent up demand in the suburbs for good transit. Not to say that capital expansion works wouldn't be needed for the ridership levels and RT access, but it would have definitely helped.
 
I think they should have implemented the Transit City bus plan first. It would have created support for improved transit and doing something without spending a ton of money.
 
Some of the TC Bus Plan has been implemented by the TTC peacemeal. Hopefully one of the mayoral candidates will run on reinstating the full TC Bus plan. That and the TC LRT plan would have represented a massive improvement to Toronto's suburban transit network unlike any other proposal before it.
 
The TTC ordered the articulated buses for its "Transit City" bus plan. At least they are being used.
 
salsa said:
Transit City was not intended to address travel to the core, but to provide higher capacity and higher speed service to suburban areas. You are criticizing a plan for omitting something for which it was never intended. Of course the DRL is important, but the suburbs have their own transit needs as well. In reality both the DRL and Transit City is needed, so there's no point wishing that one or the other should never have happened.
Click to expand...

Transit City was massively flawed exactly because it didn't address the very peak demand issues that this city has. We desperately need the DRL and Miller thought that Sheppard East should go first? And apparently this is a good plan?

I'd go further and say that Transit City and The Big Move are failures because they simply don't look at the problem wholistically. The GTA needs proper suburban rail service first. Before it needs any LRT line. It needs proper service and fare integration after that. It need a functional transport planning agency that handles not just transit, but roads, highways, taxis, etc. It needs a fare by distance scheme. And after all that, we'll need the DRL before any LRT line.

But Transit City was thought of with some idea about building up disadvantaged neighourhoods and zoning transformation. It had less to do with transport than it should have. And that was the critical flaw.
 
remember that in 2009 capacity issues weren't as big a problem, and Miller had dealt with it with new trains, ATC to improve frequency, improved crowding standards on buses, and new streetcars.

Metrolinx is dealing with most of those issues right now, Fare integration is coming once the TTC finally manages to implement PRESTO.

whether we need "proper suburban rail service" is subjective, especially considering that most GO lines post extremely poor off peak ridership figures. You would improve many, many, many more commutes with the LRTs. More people are going to use Eglinton in 2 hours than people use Stouffville in an entire day.
 
Transit City was only one plan. It was to bring rapid transit to suburban areas at a lower cost. But only one plan.

Other plans, such as the Transit City Bus Plan, new subway lines and extensions, and GO improvements, all help to improve public transit. There could bee other plans (IE. increase service levels) that will come up that would improve public transit. However, all the plans cost money. If we don't open the purse strings, there can be no improvements.
 
W. K. Lis said:
Transit City was only one plan. It was to bring rapid transit to suburban areas at a lower cost. But only one plan.
Click to expand...
For local Toronto transit expansion, Transit City was the only plan. Nothing else would have been built until it was finished, and definitely not a DRL. Giambrone said that repeatedly.
 
Repeating the same damn thing for the same millionth damn time.

Miller was playing hardball with the province by purposely waiting for one the Yonge Line to become over capacity and waiting for northern yonge to be desperate for a subway extension. Miller knew for whoever was in power to buy votes in Richmond hill they would need to buy a subway but he didn't want them to without forcing them to build the drl for toronto. Just because Miller was forced to leave the poker table before the game was done doesn't meant that he didn't have a plan in his bluffs. Btw tc was a very good plan when you add the drl to it which was always the future plan. All you subway advocates have to at least try to accept that premise.

I hated Miller because I thought he caved to the garbage unions right when we had them in order to win the pan am games.

BUT it sure as hell looks like everything he was putting together is coming together transportation wise. People say alot that reports are designed to fit who ever is in power. So a pro transit guy will have reports that will justify transit expansion and a pro car guy will use facts to justify more roads or less transit on the street. Yet somehow we have a pro car mayor and we have reverted once again to transit city, and we are about to hear a recommendation that we should tear down the Gardner expressway.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top