[Rainforest]

If it was possible to shift funds between projects, I would probably build SLRT (to Malvern Centre) and Finch LRT (Humber to Yonge); those two would provide improved transit to the north-eastern and north-western corners, are not awfully expensive, and are in advanced design stages. Then, I would defer Sheppard and Eglinton, and build DRL first.

In reality, I doubt that funds can be transferred to DRL.

Also, I'm pretty sure that SELRT will go ahead, despite being the most controversial of TC lines. Powers that be want to show that they are actually building something at last, and SELRT has advanced further than any other line. Plus, they would look like complete idiots if even a trivial amount of money is paid as cancellation penalty to subcontractors. At the same time, more reasonable Finch West line is in trouble; their latest plan to built light rail just between Humber and Keele does not make much sense.

 

[LAz]

And people wanted to build highways. But people rose up and stopped them right in the air. And there they hang today.


Oppose the insanity of short term profits. Plan for the future.

 

[W. K. Lis]

They don't live in Scarborough. They don't care. It's not them who have to make the transfer everyday. I still can't believe some here defend the transfer at Kennedy. Find me a single Scarborough resident who thinks that transfer should be made permanent for another 3 decades and I'll change my stance. Find me one.

The Kennedy station is to have 3 rapid transit lines coming in to transfer to the Bloor-Danforth. Eglinton Crosstown, Scarborough Malvern, and Scarborough Rapid Transit riders will be transferring riders. Leaving the Eglinton Crosstown out, that leaves 2 rapid transit branches into Scarborough. Because of the 2 minute or so headway during the rush hours, Kennedy would have been a bottleneck if both branches were continuations of the Bloor-Danforth.

The branches would end up with 4 minute rush-hour headways instead of 2 minute on the branches. Better to supply better headway than a longer wait. The headways would be worse during the non-hour as well.

 

[nfitz]

Except that the LRT won't frequently be above 30 km/hr and you know it.

What are you talking about. The entire underground section of the Eglinton LRT will at 30 km/hr. Why are you trying to deceive us.

... the present-day 34 bus with no dedicated ROW clocks in at around the same speed.

In rush hour? That's why it's stuck in traffic. Why are you trying to deceive us.

.. And seeing as both YUS and B-D run trains every 2' 35" or better, there's no reason why a subway along Eglinton couldn't operate at the same headways.

Of course it could, technically ... 90 seconds probably, as it would have ATC and wouldn't have a bottleneck as bad as Bloor/Yonge. What it wouldn't have is the demand to support trains that frequent. The same way Sheppard doesn't have trains that frequent. It would be deceptive to suggest that trains would operate as frequently as B-D - unless they were very, very short.

If Eglinton's going to be an underachiever initially, we can start off with 4-car trainsets which have the capacity to carry 800 and then gradually work our way up to 6 vs. a maximum of 260 for a 2-car Transit City tramset.

I thought the plan was an ultimate 3-car LRT. If the capacity is 390, and the peak-hour is 5000, frequency would only be about once every 5 minutes; presumably LRT would be running faster than that as that would be a pretty cramped service.

Case in point, the Spadina LRT - in service since 1998 - is already planned for rebuilding over the next two years.

You know that the lifespan of the current structural design is more than 12-years. Why are you trying to deceive us?

Politicians will promise anything to get elected, which is precisely what Miller did in '06.

How has Miller not delivered on the bulk of his 2006 promises. Why are you trying to deceive us?

 

[Rainforest]

How has Miller not delivered on the bulk of his 2006 promises.

Let's give Mr. Miller the benefit of doubt, and assume that he honestly believed that Transit City is the best course of actions for Toronto, and that he could build it for the originally estimated cost.

Blaming Miller only sidetracks the debate; the important issue is what is the best course of actions in the situation we find ourselves now.

 

[nfitz]

And people wanted to build highways. But people rose up and stopped them right in the air. And there they hang today.

I thought the only highway that ended hanging in the air had now been removed.

 

[W. K. Lis]

And people wanted to build highways. But people rose up and stopped them right in the air. And there they hang today.


Oppose the insanity of short term profits. Plan for the future.

Cities are removing their expressways. Paris wants to get rid of their expressway and replace them with parks along the river. Even Los Angeles. See this link on Urban parks take over downtown freeways from USA Today.

 

[kEiThZ]

The Kennedy station is to have 3 rapid transit lines coming in to transfer to the Bloor-Danforth. Eglinton Crosstown, Scarborough Malvern, and Scarborough Rapid Transit riders will be transferring riders. Leaving the Eglinton Crosstown out, that leaves 2 rapid transit branches into Scarborough. Because of the 2 minute or so headway during the rush hours, Kennedy would have been a bottleneck if both branches were continuations of the Bloor-Danforth.

The branches would end up with 4 minute rush-hour headways instead of 2 minute on the branches. Better to supply better headway than a longer wait. The headways would be worse during the non-hour as well.

Why would both have to be branches of Bloor-Danforth? First, extend the Bloor-Danforth to STC. The bulk of riders at Kennedy are getting on the SRT to go to STC. Next, build Eglinton as a thru-route. Don't terminate at Kennedy. That would solve a lot of the transfer congestion. Let it run to Kingston or even up to Kingston and Morningside. Scrap the SMLRT. The bulk of the SMLRT's ridership would be on the Eglinton portion. Extending the Eglinton LRT to Kingsston would take care of them. Take the Morningside bus, you'll see this first hand. Or if they must have the SMLRT, combine it with the ELRT. If they are so confident that they can manage a 30+km LRT route, what's a few more clicks? In any event, the congestion at Kennedy is precisely because TC planners insist on there being congestion at Kennedy station by have three LRT lines and a subway terminate there. They have visions of a Scarborough version of Union station at Kennedy. Sadly, it's going to turn out more like Yonge/Bloor.

A thru-subway and a thru subway or LRT on Eglinton would actually reduce congestion at Kennedy station.

 

[LAz]

Cities are removing their expressways. Paris wants to get rid of their expressway and replace them with parks along the river. Even Los Angeles. See this link on Urban parks take over downtown freeways from USA Today.

This is more the exception than the rule. Very few such things happen here. In Boston, they removed one highway - but a new one replaced it underground from where it used to go. That is about what happens here. The auto usage in the US and Canada is far more than anywhere else in the world...
...all this was built on short term thinking... the suburbs, highways, and subsquent traffic hell jams...
...and tramsit city of course falls into this short term thinking - not all of it, but certainly a lot of it.


edit: Just read your link before you post it. A quote from it...
...

Transportation departments are not opposed as long as the plans don't reduce highway capacity. In most cases, traffic is rerouted.

So there we have it.

 

[Fresh Start]

Blaming Miller only sidetracks the debate; the important issue is what is the best course of actions in the situation we find ourselves now.

I agree that it sidetracks the issue, but people here have stated that he won the election on the basis of Transit City, so it must be pointed out that his plan in retrospect was highly unrealistic and screams of pandering to Etobicoke, North York and Scarborough electorates without thinking long-term. Jane Pitfield's 2 kilometres per year of new subways platform by constrast was moderate, fiscally responsible and probably would've began construction within her term in office.

 

[Fresh Start]

Why would both have to be branches of Bloor-Danforth? First, extend the Bloor-Danforth to STC. The bulk of riders at Kennedy are getting on the SRT to go to STC. Next, build Eglinton as a thru-route. Don't terminate at Kennedy. That would solve a lot of the transfer congestion. Let it run to Kingston or even up to Kingston and Morningside. Scrap the SMLRT. The bulk of the SMLRT's ridership would be on the Eglinton portion. Extending the Eglinton LRT to Kingsston would take care of them. Take the Morningside bus, you'll see this first hand. Or if they must have the SMLRT, combine it with the ELRT. If they are so confident that they can manage a 30+km LRT route, what's a few more clicks? In any event, the congestion at Kennedy is precisely because TC planners insist on there being congestion at Kennedy station by have three LRT lines and a subway terminate there. They have visions of a Scarborough version of Union station at Kennedy. Sadly, it's going to turn out more like Yonge/Bloor.

A thru-subway and a thru subway or LRT on Eglinton would actually reduce congestion at Kennedy station.

There wouldn't even be a bottleneck at Kennedy if B-D's extended since the major interchange would be at Brimley-Eglinton where a bi-level St George style interchange could occur. In the meantime, instead of waiting for the Eglinton "subway" to eventually stretch all the way across to Kennedy, I wouldn't mind it if there were two branches of the Bloor-Danforth: one terminating at Scarborough Centre and another to Kingston Rd with every other train serving either terminal. I do believe that Scarborough's large enough to support two terminals, and right now eastern and southwest Scarborough is so cut off from the rest of the city that a stop to around Kingston/Guildwood Pkwy would save commuters to/from those areas a lot of time.

 

[Fresh Start]

What are you talking about. The entire underground section of the Eglinton LRT will at 30 km/hr. Why are you trying to deceive us.

From the Transit City website:

Eglinton Crosstown LRT
– West Surface Section 670 metres 28-31 km/hr
– Underground 850 metres 32 km/hr
– East Surface Section 660 metres 22-25 km/hr

Looks like you're the one deceiving your own self. Less than one-third of the total route being underground doesn't equate remarkably faster run times. Given the number of stops in the west end I doubt 31 km/h would be the norm either. At least they were honest about the Golden Mile section though which has less stops than either the west or central sections yet is operationally the slowest. That trounces the credibility of their data right there.

In rush hour? That's why it's stuck in traffic. Why are you trying to deceive us.

I think once again, it is you whose deceiving yourself. Check the TTC Trip Planner (http://www3.ttc.ca/Trip_planner/index.jsp). According to their data, in rush hour it only takes 26 minutes to get from Brentcliffe to Kennedy Stn. At roughly 10 kilometres distance that means the bus is running at 23 km/h, one higher than the minimum speed of the propsed light-rail tram, and only 2 below the maximum speed. Billion dollar LRT lanes to grant us a mere 2 km/h speed advantage? Can you imagine how much faster the bus would run if simply given a permanent dedicated ROW, signal priority and prepaid boarding? It doesn't take rail technology quantity to improve the service quality!

Of course it could, technically ... 90 seconds probably, as it would have ATC and wouldn't have a bottleneck as bad as Bloor/Yonge. What it wouldn't have is the demand to support trains that frequent. The same way Sheppard doesn't have trains that frequent. It would be deceptive to suggest that trains would operate as frequently as B-D - unless they were very, very short.

You do realize that buses already move out from Yonge-Eglinton at this level of frequency during rush hour right? 32 Eglinton West alone moves 27 trips per rush hour or one typically overcrowded bus every 2 minutes and 20 seconds. 34 Eglinton has 21 trips per AM peak hour at intervals of every 4 minutes on a combined headway with 54 Lawrence East which moves 13 trips per peak hour. So that's under 2 minute intervals for trips eastbound from Yonge. It's not B-Y or Finch hectic, but still a lot of people would be moved across the corridor especially when factoring in all the cross-routes Eglinton intercepts along the way ahead of Bloor-Danforth.

I thought the plan was an ultimate 3-car LRT. If the capacity is 390, and the peak-hour is 5000, frequency would only be about once every 5 minutes; presumably LRT would be running faster than that as that would be a pretty cramped service.

3-car behemoths are impractical for a road-median through mixed traffic ROW. How long would the light cycle have to be for that to clear through an intersection? 5 minute intervals is too long to wait considering the 2 minute intervals enjoyed by Eglinton customers today. The more cars you add to the fleet, the longer it'll take to clear intersections (particularly ones with farside stations), increasing the likelihood of bunching/stalling.

You know that the lifespan of the current structural design is more than 12-years. Why are you trying to deceive us?

Okay, what was the lifespan for the 510 Spadina light-rail line ROW then which has virtually all the same specs as the proposed Transit City lines? If the TTC can't even manage what it has now, why are we even talking about introducing a brand new mode across the whole city? Or are isolated tram lines that don't connect to the rest of the network (as TC exists now) a sound planning decision?

How has Miller not delivered on the bulk of his 2006 promises. Why are you trying to deceive us?

For the umteenth time...

nfitz why are you deceiving yourself?!

These people like Miller don't get it. They live in an urban fantasy bubble where their comrades ride bicycles or take streetcars. Any LRT system will be a larger feeder to the already overcrowded, dirty and dilapidated subway system. My methods might be crude but I'm telling you the truth, which is more than I can say about 90% of our elected officials. Politicians have no business influencing where mass transit lines should go or what technology it should be. Leave that up to the professionals and the will of ordinary citizens whose daily motions are the best indicators as to where density and congestion are the greatest.

 

[Second_in_pie]

But also remember that this system would be using the best technology possible, in comparison to the subway's current 32 km/h on terrible tracks, using decades old trains and old technology. It'd be doing closer to 36 km/h on B-D type spacing with the new Toronto Rockets, and I'll bet that using trackage that actually allows for the max of 70 km/h would bring that significantly higher in straightaway sections such as between Kennedy-Lawrence-STC.

 

[GraphicMatt]

I agree that it sidetracks the issue, but people here have stated that he won the election on the basis of Transit City, so it must be pointed out that his plan in retrospect was highly unrealistic and screams of pandering to Etobicoke, North York and Scarborough electorates without thinking long-term. Jane Pitfield's 2 kilometres per year of new subways platform by constrast was moderate, fiscally responsible and probably would've began construction within her term in office.

The 2km/year a thing is such a red herring. Who does this? Can anyone name any cities in the world that have had success with this strategy? Once you get construction started, it doesn't take a full year to build 2 kilometres. So after the 2 kilometres, do you just have everything stop? Do you lay off people and return expensive equipment after each small section? Do you make every small extension a terminal, or just not operate any service in these new extensions until after a certain amount of track is built? How do you decide which direction to build in every year? Do you lay out a 'master plan' ahead of time? If so, wouldn't you want assurances of suitable long-term funding year-after-year to ensure you don't end with a useless, short stub of track? Isn't that the exact same problem we're facing today?

 

[LAz]

Matt, I suggest that you look into Moscow's subway network. It is so fricken huge and they still continue to expand it every year.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expansion_timeline_of_the_Moscow_Metro - continual expansion dude. That should be the model. Continual work, nonstop.