[Filip]

^^Finally a decent post explaining the short-sightedness of the SELRT!

I've repeated this many times. I believe Transit City is a GREAT idea, but Eglinton and Sheppard are insulting in the simple sense that they offer the most short sighted approach to transit expansion. Sheppard is finally doing well, extending it to its logical terminus makes operational sense. Not only this, but it's an imperative that midtown Toronto receives a subway line. Bloor is far too south for most of the city, having Eglinton as a proper subway would encourage massive intensification of the midtown belt, similar to what is happening on Bloor. I'm 100% sure the ridership to extend Bloor from Keele to Islington didn't exist in the late 60s, but it was done as a plan for the future. Now, we couldn't imagine the subway not going out to Kipling. Btw, those accusing me of being paranoid of the anti-subway bias in the TTC: why is it that the TTC insists priority #1 for Sheppard and Eglinton? They were/are two subway corridors planned, yet now are being pushed through as LRT. Something isn't adding up.

It's this massive short-sightedness that has gotten me to be an opponent to Transit City. If it were a mix between subways and LRT (Eglinton subway, Sheppard completed to STC and Downsview, DRL and the rest of the lines remain LRT) I'd think it's the most ambitious and grand plan Toronto has ever come up with; however it now remains a disappointment to most Torontonians.

I have a question relating to the SELRT - where exactly will the line join Don Mills? Will it be at track level? (that way assuring Sheppard can never be extended) or will it be above? At least with the latter, Sheppard could be extended, even diagonally to STC, completely bypassing Sheppard Ave and its 'rapid transit' to the Toronto Zoo.

 

[GraphicMatt]

The SELRT is a similar political football but it's actually low enough in cost that it's made feasible.

Spending serious capital money on a Sheppard extension is just so hard to justify. To take a look at all the places where the TTC needs to make infrastructure improvements and then land on 'extend the northern cross-town line to a mall' is just not politically tenable. Even if it would bring substantial benefit in 20, 30 years (and I agree, it could), it's not going to bring enough short-term gain (and it'd probably piss off half the city) to be viable.

 

[Rainforest]

I have a question relating to the SELRT - where exactly will the line join Don Mills? Will it be at track level? (that way assuring Sheppard can never be extended) or will it be above? At least with the latter, Sheppard could be extended, even diagonally to STC, completely bypassing Sheppard Ave and its 'rapid transit' to the Toronto Zoo.

AFAIK, the connection is being planned at the track level for a single-platform transfer. The tunnel is designed to be compatible with subway, so theoretically they can use it to extend the subway and shorten the LRT in future.

The big problem will be, of course, funding. A very short subway extension (such as to Vic Park) will not be worth the disruption, whereas a long extension will compete for funding with a long queue of other high-priority transit projects.

 

[Filip]

You don't build expensive infrastructure to satisfy current demand, you do it for the future. Bloor surely didn't have the ridership to justify a subway, neither did Yonge, or northern Yonge, or University, or anywhere really, but it was done. Politicians back then knew that these projects would benefit the city enormously in the future and bit the bullet.

Short term gains have no place in transit planning.

 

[Filip]

AFAIK, the connection is being planned at the track level for a single-platform transfer. The tunnel is designed to be compatible with subway, so theoretically they can use it to extend the subway and shorten the LRT in future.

The big problem will be, of course, funding. A very short subway extension (such as to Vic Park) will not be worth the disruption, whereas a long extension will compete for funding with a long queue of other high-priority transit projects.

Wow. I officially think that the TTC has an anti-subway bias as this is literally castrating the subway line from any future (cost effective) extension.

 

[GraphicMatt]

You don't build expensive infrastructure to satisfy current demand, you do it for the future. Bloor surely didn't have the ridership to justify a subway, neither did Yonge, or northern Yonge, or University, or anywhere really, but it was done. Politicians back then knew that these projects would benefit the city enormously in the future and bit the bullet.

Short term gains have no place in transit planning.

I don't disagree but this is the framework through which transit planners must work.

To be correct, though, the Yonge and Bloor streetcar lines both surely had the ridership to justify conversion to subway.

 

[Filip]

In a city with under a million citizens back then, with competing streetcar lines all around them - I'm sure Yonge itself, didn't have the ridership. In fact, for what the TTC is saying warrants subways, there is no route in this entire city worthy of a subway line.

 

[gweed123]

The SELRT is a similar political football but it's actually low enough in cost that it's made feasible.

Spending serious capital money on a Sheppard extension is just so hard to justify. To take a look at all the places where the TTC needs to make infrastructure improvements and then land on 'extend the northern cross-town line to a mall' is just not politically tenable. Even if it would bring substantial benefit in 20, 30 years (and I agree, it could), it's not going to bring enough short-term gain (and it'd probably piss off half the city) to be viable.

But the reality is you're going to piss off half the people in the city no matter what you do. I mean look at the Ford campaign, he's created Tea Party north just by spouting off a few baseless facts about waste and how to "trim the fat". The fact is that a transit plan needs to balance the needs to today with the needs of tomorrow. A plan based entirely on LRT is very today oriented. An entirely subway-based plan is very tomorrow oriented, but could potentially hurt finances today. A good transit plan that will truly win broad appeal is one that balances technology types, financial impacts, and the today vs tomorrow debate. The problem is that the timeframe to pull of a plan like this and the timeframe that politicians are in office are not even close to the same scale. However, a plan with a broader appeal range could potentially survive multiple regime changes, but naturally with a few minor tweeks.

Just look at Ottawa. Last election, Ottawa had a transit plan going. It wasn't a very good plan, so naturally a series of candidates campaigned against it. They won, and the plan was scrapped. The new plan, a far superior plan, is now in place, and guess what? Politicians besides the current mayor actually support it, so it looks like it's going to survive the election, and as a result, another 4 years. The first plan is equivalent to Transit City. Whoever wins the mayor's race, it's likely that a significant portion of TC is going to be thrown out. The only question is will the plan that replaces it be balanced and have broad appeal like the Ottawa plan, or will it be the same mindset as Transit City, just from another regime? If it's the former, it stands a good chance of making past the 2014 election. If it's the latter, we'll be having this exact same debate 4 years from now.

 

[Voltz]

Wow. I officially think that the TTC has an anti-subway bias as this is literally castrating the subway line from any future (cost effective) extension.

I was literally scratching my head after reading this post, he just said the tunnels on the Sheppard LRT will be compatible with a future subway extension, how does that make a future subway extension harder to build or more expensive?

 

[Rainforest]

Wow. I officially think that the TTC has an anti-subway bias as this is literally castrating the subway line from any future (cost effective) extension.

No, theoretically they accounted for the possibility of subway extension in the future, by making the LRT tunnel compatible with subway. They can just change the tracks and wiring and they have about 1 km of subway tunnel.

The problem is that 1 km doesn't help that much if you have no funding for the remaining 5 or 7 km.

 

[Rainforest]

Whoever wins the mayor's race, it's likely that a significant portion of TC is going to be thrown out. The only question is will the plan that replaces it be balanced and have broad appeal like the Ottawa plan, or will it be the same mindset as Transit City, just from another regime? If it's the former, it stands a good chance of making past the 2014 election. If it's the latter, we'll be having this exact same debate 4 years from now.

In terms of having broad appeal, Smitherman's plan is not bad at all, it gives something to everybody.

It's major shortcoming is the absence of DRL, but same can be said about Ford or Pantalone plans.

 

[W. K. Lis]

In terms of having broad appeal, Smitherman's plan is not bad at all, it gives something to everybody.

It's major shortcoming is the absence of DRL, but same can be said about Ford or Pantalone plans.

All the candidates don't make mention of the DRL. Only the TTC has it down as a study. What will happen after the study, may result in a change of priorities. Could the DRL be ahead of the Yonge extension? Could the DRL be ahead of or behind the other Transit City lines? All questions that would need to be answered after the study.

 

[GraphicMatt]

Again, it's politics. Campaigning on the DRL puts you on the hook for like ten billion dollars in capital funding. Nobody wants to hitch their wagon to that.

 

[SlickFranky]

All the candidates don't make mention of the DRL. Only the TTC has it down as a study. What will happen after the study, may result in a change of priorities. Could the DRL be ahead of the Yonge extension? Could the DRL be ahead of or behind the other Transit City lines? All questions that would need to be answered after the study.

Yonge extension is more-or-less impossible without the DRL. Don Mills, (and maybe even Jane and WWLRT) planning should not proceed until DRL routing is determined. Basically...they need to figure out where this thing is going before they start anything else.

 

[gweed123]

In terms of having broad appeal, Smitherman's plan is not bad at all, it gives something to everybody.

It's major shortcoming is the absence of DRL, but same can be said about Ford or Pantalone plans.

Smitherman's plan is definitely a decent plan. It's much less based on a specific mode of transit, and focuses more on the needs of that corridor. I think the alignment for the B-D extension to STC is wrong, but an alignment study should fix that. It's pretty clear with that map all they did was modify the map on the TTC's website.

Again, it's politics. Campaigning on the DRL puts you on the hook for like ten billion dollars in capital funding. Nobody wants to hitch their wagon to that.

Which is why I'm hoping the DRL will be one of those 'midterm' additions. The mayor will go with the "Metrolinx made me do it" line, even though they wanted it all along (well, unless the mayor is Ford).