[Asterix]

I think almost everyone here agrees the DRL should have been given a much higher priority, if not the highest, when Queen's Park and City Hall got serious about transit planning in 2007, but that ship has sailed, and we're not getting a DRL for years/decades.

True. The point is that the province has said that the TC is money is for TC and if you don't want TC, then you don't get the money and can't arbitrarily switch it to some other subway scheme.

If a new mayor gets all hot for subways and manages to find enough money to build something, then that something should be DRL before any Sheppard extension (either direction), Mississauga extension or even Yonge extension.

 

[GenerationW]

I agree about the DRL, but unfortunately none of the three main candidates is pushing for it. Thomson was the only one before she dropped out (which was partly why she was my first choice).

The provincial Liberals are also up against a likely difficult election in a year, and Ford would be early into his mandate. If Ford were to filibuster TC, would the Libs drop TC and give him what he wants, or would they risk going to the Toronto electorate with a transit strategy the mayor opposes (or no transit strategy at all)?

Then there is the Ottawa wild card. How would Ford's relationship with Flaherty & the feds translate to the transit debate?

 

[LAz]

If one can't understand the argument made by the opposing side, then one will have a much harder time convincing them of your case. Personally, I too would love subways here, there and everywhere. But I also realize that there is not enough money to build them everywhere people want them and in cases where there isn't the demand to justify their construction, it is better to get surface LRT (in their own right of way and not in mixed traffic like most of the existing streetcar lines than nothing.

And it's not simply a matter of saying 'if you build it, they will come' with respect to forecast demand. Will Sheppard (or Eglinton) really produce subway level demands if you have a Yonge line that is unable to handle the inflow? Wouldn't that subway money be better spent on a DRL, thereby reducing the Yonge load and keeping lines like Eglinton within LRT capacity range demand?

I admit that some components of the tramsit city plan are okay. Finch LRT, Jane LRT, yeah why not.

Quite frankly, there is not enough money to build LRTs either.

Own right of way LRT is quite expensive. I don't see it happening in Toronto, unless if you have other corridors in mind, or want to go elevated.

Oh, but it is so, they always come once it is built. Integrating transit and development makes them come way faster too. Heck, sheppard was miserable before it was built. But because it was built, they did come, like three times the number before. And it would be only more if they bothered to finish the line.

Yeah, the DRL is important. Perhaps more important. But just think about the situation that we are in. Even if we starting building anything, that anything is under big threat of cancelation down the line. So, I think that when one thing is started, it oughta be finished before one goes on to another line. Otherwise the other line might be a stub line too.

Sheppard anyways has plenty of demand as it is right now. It is extremely important to finish it so that it is not a downtown-centric line. It is key to have non-downtown centric lines if the long term goal is to reduce auto-usage.

Also those lines both go downtown, where there are major destinations

Building only downtown centric lines is a failure for transit planning.
It is a signal of victory for the automobile lobby. Even in the US the auto lobby supported metro development along major corridors, to reduce all the car congestion. Induced traffic ya know... some people witching would make the ride more pleasant for those who still ride, and it would improve their downtown property corporate seat values.
So, we have to build lines that do not go to the downtown. It's a must.

Unfortunately, this is because the majority of voters / taxpayers are not willing to study particulars of any transit plans, and take an informed stand.

One does not need to be an expert or study plans to have a legitimate opinion. That was the problem in roxbury - these outside experts felt they knew what was best. But the masses were somewhat organized and tossed out those chauvinistic plans. We need to do the same... to tell them, HEY extend Sheppard - if a little, then by a little, maybe not the full way - if the full way then better - but for crying out loud just extend it...

If a new mayor gets all hot for subways and manages to find enough money to build something, then that something should be DRL before any Sheppard extension (either direction), Mississauga extension or even Yonge extension.

But this thing's unfinished and costs less to finish.

 

[gweed123]

Unfortunately, this is because the majority of voters / taxpayers are not willing to study particulars of any transit plans, and take an informed stand.

Neither are most of the politicians...

 

[Dan416]

I agree with some other people on here who have said that the Danforth line should be finished to STC before Sheppard. Although ultimately both should end at STC. And Sheppard should go from Downsview to STC. It's only logical.

Eglinton is a bit different because it's a completely new line. I don't think if we build it as LRT we'll regret it, at least not right away. The one good thing about LRT is it can be used in a grade-separated ROW and above-ground. That way we can bury more of it as more money arises, and once it's fully tunnelled, you can always switch it to subway easily later.

 

[SlickFranky]

Building only downtown centric lines is a failure for transit planning.
It is a signal of victory for the automobile lobby. Even in the US the auto lobby supported metro development along major corridors, to reduce all the car congestion. Induced traffic ya know... some people witching would make the ride more pleasant for those who still ride, and it would improve their downtown property corporate seat values.
So, we have to build lines that do not go to the downtown. It's a must.

I really don't know what your point is here. You mentioned induced demand, but adding a subway line doesn't induce net auto demand. If the subway reduces road congestion, and then cars are induced back to that route because of the improved flow...that's neutral at best. The auto industry would gain nothing from this. It seems like you're saying they were in favor of this essentially because it decreased congestion, increased mobility, and increased property values. Isn't that the whole point?

 

[nfitz]

We are dealing with a dictatorship.

You have absolutely no idea what a dictatorship is. I've lived in real dictatorships ... this is about as far as you can get from one. I don't see people disappearing in the middle of the night. And on the rare occasion when police do arrest protesters, they protesters biggest complaint is about foul language and cheese sandwiches.

 

[SlickFranky]

I agree with some other people on here who have said that the Danforth line should be finished to STC before Sheppard. Although ultimately both should end at STC. And Sheppard should go from Downsview to STC. It's only logical.

Eglinton is a bit different because it's a completely new line. I don't think if we build it as LRT we'll regret it, at least not right away. The one good thing about LRT is it can be used in a grade-separated ROW and above-ground. That way we can bury more of it as more money arises, and once it's fully tunnelled, you can always switch it to subway easily later.

It's really that simple....I don't know why so many people are freaking out over this. Sheppard to STC is not that big of a deal right now, and there's nothing about the LRT that procludes a future upgrade to subway. If anything the LRT may boost demand to more justifiable levels within 15-20 years. Extension to Downsview will happen at some point, but again, it's not that important and not effected by TC.

Same goes for ECLRT. This whole 'go big or go home' attitude doesn't make sense. The current plan provides top notch service in the center, and a massive upgrades in the East and West. Future upgrade to subway is part of the plan.

I can understand being disappointed with TC, wanting more...but pro-actively campaigning against it at this point is foolish and extremely counterproductive.

 

[lafard]

This was the intent from the beginning. However, I read complaints that while the tunnel dimentions are OK for subway, and the level section around stations are long enough for subway trains, there might be problems with grades and with space for pocket tracks at some locations. Obviously the subway requires long pocket tracks, and presumably it is not as good as LRT at handling grades.

Conversion of Eglinton to "Subway" will be an operational thing. One day they'll simply operationally separate the central grade separated part and the outer LRT part. The line will always be run with low-floor stock, though once completely grade-separated there is nothing stopping you from coupling more units together, putting in a state-of-the-art ATC system, and running the line with a capacity that handily exceeds the YUS today.

Calgary is running into this very same dilemma and will have a mixture of high-floor and low-floor LRT lines and vehicles because interconverting is difficult and expensive and costs more than maintaining two separate rolling stock types.

If staged correctly, once the centre and peripheral segments operate separately it should be possible to extend the "subway" part of it with minimal disruption as demand warrants.

 

[LAz]

really don't know what your point is here. You mentioned induced demand, but adding a subway line doesn't induce net auto demand.

When they built systems such as san francisco's bart system, they did that to enhance automobile pleasantness while crossing the bridge into san fran. They did not build the line to replace the car, they made it to compliment the car. That was the fundamental thing behind the whole plan, to enhance car travel.

But, enhanced car travel automatically becomes induced demand.

You have absolutely no idea what a dictatorship is. I've lived in real dictatorships ... this is about as far as you can get from one. I don't see people disappearing in the middle of the night. And on the rare occasion when police do arrest protesters, they protesters biggest complaint is about foul language and cheese sandwiches.

A dictatorship does not have to be repressive. The key fundamental thing here is that there is no citizen participation in this planning. Hence it is an authoritarian dictators planning process. "we'll do what we want and fuck whatever anyone else thinks" very much a hilter or stalin like planning system. Or corbusier like style.

Same goes for ECLRT. This whole 'go big or go home' attitude doesn't make sense. The current plan provides top notch service in the center, and a massive upgrades in the East and West. Future upgrade to subway is part of the plan.

You can't upgrade it without major disruption and cost, that's the point.

I can understand being disappointed with TC, wanting more...but pro-actively campaigning against it at this point is foolish and extremely counterproductive.

When they tell the people of toronto "f you we know what is best and don't care what you think" then I really do think that it is our responsibility to do what we can to disrupt this.

Conversion of Eglinton to "Subway" will be an operational thing. One day they'll simply operationally separate the central grade separated part and the outer LRT part.

The above ground part can not be grade separated. It will go with the traffic. There is no other way for it to function. It will have to stop at red lights and whatnot. If not then it will disrupt too any north-south travels, as the line should run on a frequent basis.

It is ridiculous from the very outset.

If they are going to build a 13 km tunnel then they bloody well ought to make it a full metro from the get go. There is no reason why not to. Don't give me that b.s. reason that "oh but another transfer bla bla bla" - they are adding another transfer onto sheppard instead of extending it. For sheppard's alternative study in the EA or EIS they stated what it might be if they built a subway - but the subway included the entire route along the SELRT plan - far more than one would possibly want. So who are they kidding here? They on purpose did a bullshit study to get their thing to go through. So we have to oppose the dictatorship!

 

[Asterix]

I admit that some components of the tramsit city plan are okay. Finch LRT, Jane LRT, yeah why not.

Well, there are some who are campaigning here for a complete cancellation of TC.

Quite frankly, there is not enough money to build LRTs either.

I wouldn't say that is accurate. There are the billions promised from Queen's Park. Granted they cut the number of those billions earlier in the year, but there is still a fair amount of money on the table and work has actually started to spend that money on real construction (and not just plans and studies).

Own right of way LRT is quite expensive. I don't see it happening in Toronto, unless if you have other corridors in mind, or want to go elevated.

It's not exclusive ROW, but TC lines will be running in their own separated lane. Yes, they will have red lights (hopefully with transit priority) and yes, they will have to account for left turns in there somewhere (although looking at the Eglinton line plans for the surface running, there don't appear to be many straight-up left turns allowed - those cars will have to do some form of three rights or a right and a u-turn - better for the streetcar operation). But they won't be affected by other vehicles to nearly the same degree as the Queen, King, College, etc lines.

Oh, but it is so, they always come once it is built. Integrating transit and development makes them come way faster too. Heck, sheppard was miserable before it was built. But because it was built, they did come, like three times the number before. And it would be only more if they bothered to finish the line.

But you can't have them continuing to come if you don't have anywhere for them to go. Sure, it would be great to be able to run Sheppard line with 6 car trains that are nearly full, but there is simply no room for those passengers once they hit the Yonge line. Until that problem is addressed, creating all this wonderful capacity on Sheppard (or even Eglinton) is pointless.

Yeah, the DRL is important. Perhaps more important. But just think about the situation that we are in. Even if we starting building anything, that anything is under big threat of cancelation down the line.

Well here's my hope, as naive as it may be. Toronto and the TTC aren't currently pushing hard for the DRL because they know that the province, whatever party is in power in the future, is likely going to want to carry on the vision of extending Yonge into Richmond Hill. The hope is that it will be so overwhelmingly obvious that that plan is unfeasible unless you have a DRL, that the province will end up getting on board with that plan, without Toronto having to expend anywhere near the amount of political capital they might otherwise have to pony up.

 

[LAz]

Well, there are some who are campaigning here for a complete cancellation of TC.

And I have nothing against this. Where was the debate and citizen participation regarding this? There was none. Hence it does not have legitimacy.

I wouldn't say that is accurate. There are the billions promised from Queen's Park. Granted they cut the number of those billions earlier in the year, but there is still a fair amount of money on the table and work has actually started to spend that money on real construction (and not just plans and studies).

There are billions? Why not use it for more metro?

It's not exclusive ROW, but TC lines will be running in their own separated lane.

It goes with traffic, that's the problem. Might not be right in with it, but it's right beside it and impairs it. If anything, such additional lanes for it adds more expense - making sidewalks smaller by widening streets.

But you can't have them continuing to come if you don't have anywhere for them to go. Sure, it would be great to be able to run Sheppard line with 6 car trains that are nearly full, but there is simply no room for those passengers once they hit the Yonge line. Until that problem is addressed, creating all this wonderful capacity on Sheppard (or even Eglinton) is pointless.

Instead of terminating there, it should terminate at downsview, or even jane. The subway should not be exclusively a feeder route that goes into the YUS line. It should be a east-west line.

 

[lafard]

The above ground part can not be grade separated. It will go with the traffic. There is no other way for it to function. It will have to stop at red lights and whatnot. If not then it will disrupt too any north-south travels, as the line should run on a frequent basis.

It is ridiculous from the very outset.

If they are going to build a 13 km tunnel then they bloody well ought to make it a full metro from the get go. There is no reason why not to. Don't give me that b.s. reason that "oh but another transfer bla bla bla" - they are adding another transfer onto sheppard instead of extending it. For sheppard's alternative study in the EA or EIS they stated what it might be if they built a subway - but the subway included the entire route along the SELRT plan - far more than one would possibly want. So who are they kidding here? They on purpose did a bullshit study to get their thing to go through. So we have to oppose the dictatorship!

You don't necessarily have to run the trains through end to end. You can turn them back at the ends of the tunnel, and those trains will never leave the tunnel. For all intents and purposes, it's a metro with low-floor rollling stock. You can then operate the separate LRT segments as independent services. There is an added transfer there, doing that, but it's no worse than building a full subway the full stretch and having buses on the fringes. Until demand warrants fully segregated operation though, there is no reason why trains cannot be routed through the tunnels onto the surface.

It is likely that on opening day about half the trains will never leave the tunnel. Operationally,in that state it's a subway interlined with an LRT, bringing the best of both worlds. Subway capacity with the transfer-free peripheral connection. As demand warrants the two parts can be separated, and if the LRT portion gets overloaded then you can extend the "subway" portion while the LRT stays in operation.

that's the beauty of LRT. Very flexible.

They did study a similar tunnel/surface operation for Sheppard but it was discarded as modifying the sheppard line to use low floor stock would have been too expensive. Had the Sheppard line been constructed for low floor vehicles on day 1, it would have been much better for subsequent planning. Now we're stuck with it. Don't get me wrong, the tunnel is a very useful piece of infrastructure (as is the SRT guideway), but could have been used better with a bit of foresight.

 

[SlickFranky]

It goes with traffic, that's the problem. Might not be right in with it, but it's right beside it and impairs it. If anything, such additional lanes for it adds more expense - making sidewalks smaller by widening streets.

I finally got why you're so upset about this....you don't understand it!

The ROW is everything. Cars are not impeded by transit. Transit is not impeded by cars. Lanes are not being taken away from cars or from sidewalks (how wide do you think the sidewalks are on Sheppard anyway?). Surface frequency will be in the 5min range, so signal priority will not greatly influence N-S traffic.

You don't have to enthusiastically support it, but you can't logically vehemently oppose this. I know it's not ideal, but it's not harmful. You need to find some middle ground...this 'take to the streets!' business makes you sound like a lunatic.

 

[LAz]

You don't necessarily have to run the trains through end to end. You can turn them back at the ends of the tunnel, and those trains will never leave the tunnel. For all intents and purposes, it's a metro with low-floor rollling stock.

No. If they are going to tunnel so much, then they may as well make it a metro from the get go, because the cost of tunneling is like 98% of the cost of making it a metro instead of a tram tunnel.

that's the beauty of LRT. Very flexible.

In my opinion it is ridiculous B.S., especially east of the eastern end of the tunnel.

I finally got why you're so upset about this....you don't understand it!

The ROW is everything. Cars are not impeded by transit. Transit is not impeded by cars.

No, I fully understand it. Adding more car lanes, even if having the same number of lanes in the end, bothers me very much.
I think it's a no brainer that SELRT is a bad choice on a part of sheppard avenue. There is no debate there. The tram is too slow and is just b.s. for some time.

You don't have to enthusiastically support it, but you can't logically vehemently oppose this. I know it's not ideal, but it's not harmful. You need to find some middle ground...this 'take to the streets!' business makes you sound like a lunatic.

You want middle ground??! Okay, lets take my extreme. Some 150 km of subways in a decade. That there is my upper end. So my opinion is the middle ground. The tram fanatics are the ones who do not want to approach middle ground. They want several new tram lines and no new metro lines or extensions. You call that middle ground? I call it biased one way planning that shuns out the other side. That is the problem here, there is no debate. No debate whatsoever. It's undemocratic. There must be citizen participation. If there was overwhelming support for this plan, then hey, so be it, but there is not and they knew there would not be - that is why they have avoided citizen participation.

In Chicago, their first step in planning was going out and having community meetings for what people think about where the new extension and whatnot should go. People were invited to bring their opinions forth. That was the first step of planning. It's called the scoping step I think. What we have in Toronto is authoritarian "informing"... "we're doing this, FU if you think otherwise." Hence we have to oppose this. It is our obligations as citizens and people who love Toronto to oppose Transit City. It is a favour to not just ourselves but to the city too.



But back to tram stuff. I am not so opposed to a tram on Jane or Finch. But much of the sheppard tram should be a subway, no question asked. This is a no brainer.