[Asterix]

The people there would rather see a subway and will never use the LRT.

You are missing the point I've been trying to make. It is not a question of subway or LRT they should be asked, but LRT or the status quo (sitting on buses in mixed traffic like they do now). That, or pony up for hefty tax increases.

Canceling the Eglinton LRT line is virtually guaranteeing they won't see any improvement for a long, long time.

 

[Edward Skira]

I know a lot of people living there, spoke to their families, their neighbours (you'd be surprised how curious this issue got me) and spoke to the councillors in the corridor. Holyday was the one who told me that he receives countless complaints from his constituents about this LRT. His secretary told me he has not once received a positive word about it, only complaints.

That's because they are ignorant of what the LRT is. They think of the Queen Streetcar and say no. But LRT is nothing like the Queen Streetcar. If someone was proposing that I would say no as well.

 

[gweed123]

Ok, reword the question that way, but the point is that you need to make people aware that it is not a cost-neutral question. If instead of a LRT line across town on Eglinton, they want a subway the same distance, it is going to cost extra, a lot extra. That extra needs to be a part of the question if you want to get a realistic answer from the taxpaying populace.

That is what I pointed out. Either they can choose to spend a lot more money (and shoulder an X% increase in their taxes) to build the same amount of subways as planned LRT, or they can choose to build less subway (around only ~30% of the LRT distance given the proportion of their costs), thereby preventing large numbers of people from having easy access to the higher order transit they otherwise would have received.

The fundamental fact that subway advocates (or those who just say they favour subways over LRT) need to acknowledge is that there ain't no such thing as a free lunch. You can't choose subways over LRT without having to pay a lot more money (or get a lot less service). Trumpeting 'facts' like 'people want subways, not streetcars' is just sticking one's head in the sand and pretending money grows on trees.

(And before someone jumps in with the usual 'LRTista' slandering, I'd fully support the provincial and municipal taxes needed to start building the DRL, especially before any Richmond Hill Yonge extension or Mississauga Bloor extension.)

If people are willing to settle for fewer KMs of rapid transit in exchange for better rapid transit, I would think that's a pretty fair choice to make. I myself would make it. In Ottawa, there was debate during the mayoral election about the downtown tunnel project. For the same cost, and LRT line could have been built across most of the city. However, most people, including myself, saw the tunnel as a necessary investment. In that case, people were willing to sacrifice a longer line for a better line. I think the same holds true with a lot of pro-subway people.

 

[GraphicMatt]

That's a fair assessment of Ford himself. However, that's logic does not extend to the majority of those who favour subway expansion. The majority of those who favour subway expansion do so because they see it as a worthwhile investment in rapid transit. Being pro-subway has very little to do with your opinion of cars. I'm pro subway, yet for my entire time in Toronto, I did not own a car, nor did I have convenient access to one.

Being pro-subway does not make you pro-car. Nor does being pro-car make you pro-subway. Being pro-car makes you more likely to be pro-subway than pro-LRT, but it's even more likely that being pro-car would make you anti-transit in general.

I don't disagree - I'm talking specifically about this instance. I don't think Ford's team would see the possible scenario where Transit City gets canceled and no subways get built as necessarily a bad outcome. So-called "pro-subway" advocates should be careful about the horses they're backing in this race.

 

[Filip]

Not in your lifetime. And Miller now has the honour to move onto consulting for the Global Cities Commity thing based on his performance, so.. once again, you completely show your ignorance and that you really don't understand any of what is happening/has happened...

Oh his gig with the World Bank on advising urban issues? The same world bank responsible for single handedly collapsing numerous economies with their archaic demands? Surprisingly, this is a very fitting position for Miller.

 

[gweed123]

That's because they are ignorant of what the LRT is. They think of the Queen Streetcar and say no. But LRT is nothing like the Queen Streetcar. If someone was proposing that I would say no as well.

Although to be fair, Transit City is much more like the St. Clair streetcar than it is the C-Train, or the Green Line in Boston. If Transit City were like that, I would have very few issues with it. However, it is not. People may be incorrect in looking to Queen as an example, but people see the ROW on St. Clair, and people look at what is proposed for Transit City (or at least the pretty pictures of it), and they go "hmm, they don't look all that different".

 

[Filip]

That's because they are ignorant of what the LRT is. They think of the Queen Streetcar and say no. But LRT is nothing like the Queen Streetcar. If someone was proposing that I would say no as well.

Of course it isn't, but they don't see it that way, and won't even if it's built.

Nobody will leave their car at home to take a marginally faster streetcar if they still have to wait outside in rain or shine, blizzard, ice storm, you name it.

 

[Calrissian]

Oh his gig with the World Bank on advising urban issues? The same world bank responsible for single handedly collapsing numerous economies with their archaic demands? Surprisingly, this is a very fitting position for Miller.

Apology accepted.

 

[nfitz]

Only subways will potentially get drivers out of their cars, streetcars or their improved version, the LRT, will not.

That statement makes so no sense

If no one will take buses or streetcars because they are not subway, how come so many of our long-haul bus and streetcar lines are operating under such overloaded conditions? Even though many of the riders - particularly on the streetcars - own cars.

If a streetcar or bus is coming every 2 minutes, then clearly many, many people are taking it now.

 

[Filip]

That statement makes so no sense

If no one will take buses or streetcars because they are not subway, how come so many of our long-haul bus and streetcar lines are operating under such overloaded conditions? Even though many of the riders - particularly on the streetcars - own cars.

If a streetcar or bus is coming every 2 minutes, then clearly many, many people are taking it now.

Because there are no other options for commuters?

I can tell you those facts mean squat outside the downtown core. I live in a fairly urbanized part of Etobicoke, and the only reason the bus I take is overcrowded is because people avoid the 501 Queen car like the plague.. They would rather put up with a crowded, 15 min bus ride to Royal York station than sit in that red piss bucket for an hour. Buses act as feeders to the subway, which is why they're crowded.

 

[nfitz]

Although to be fair, Transit City is much more like the St. Clair streetcar than it is the C-Train, or the Green Line in Boston.

To be fair. It isn't.

 

[nfitz]

Because there are no other options for commuters?

Nor will there be now that Transit City is cancelled.

I guess the NIMBYs win.

 

[gweed123]

To be fair. It isn't.

Find me 1 portion of Transit City where there is a at-grade intersection that has crossing arms. Find me 1 portion of Transit City that runs through a transit mall. Find me 1 portion of Transit City (aside from the SRT, which we all know was initially intended as an ICTS upgrade) where the surface sections DON'T run in-median. Either the C-Train or the Green Line have most of these, which play a significant role in their speed and efficiency. Transit City does not have these. It is certainly more towards the "streetcar" end of the LRT spectrum than either of those 2 other lines are.

 

[Electrify]

To be fair. It isn't.

Maybe somewhere in between, but it is more like St. Clair (higher order local service) than the C-Train (rapid transit service for intermediate to long distance travel). Transit City would feed the main lines, rather than BE the main lines.

Then again, most people have no idea what the hell Transit City is anyways, that includes both opponents and supporters.

 

[Filip]

Nor will there be now that Transit City is cancelled.

I guess the NIMBYs win.

Transit City would just be an expensive feeder to the subway.. Everyone will always gravitate to a subway and use everything in between to get to one.. Hence why suburbanites will never leave their cars to go ride a streetcar with 'possibly' priority signalling.