Dan416
Senior Member
It doesn't really even make sense to talk about Transit City as a whole. It makes more sense to discuss each project on a case-by-case basis. And the majority of this board has voted for subway on Eglinton, Sheppard and the SRT.
|
|
|
- Thread starter 299 bloor call control.
- Start date
lafard
Active Member
There's nothing to report other than the re-jigged Transit city plan has been delayed. Take from that what you will, though the some of the implications are pretty obvious - esp. WRT Sheppard vs Eglinton.
quicksilver
Active Member
One of the biggest cognitive problems with the TTC and transit planning in this city is that its designers don't think about the WHOLE network, just little pieces. Just because a majority of the people who chose to reply to an "either or" survey on a discussion board doesn't mean the topic isn't still open for discussion. That is kind of the point.
Ed Drass
Active Member
After reading Hume's piece -- and in the midst of a very difficult week for the TTC -- I'm reminded that those who advocate for better transit might do better to define where they agree than focus on the differences. Fiery debate is entertaining to take on, but is it a good use of limited energy?
-ed d.
Hume: Toronto, the once and future city
Published On Thu Jan 27 2011 (in today's print edition)
By Christopher Hume Urban Issues, Architecture
By now, Toronto’s transit failure is all but complete. Our inability to plan, let alone construct, a transportation infrastructure equal to demand has already hobbled Toronto, and will continue to do so.
A recent suggestion to hand the Toronto Transit Commission over to the province is not the answer. Everyone knows that; the talk is more about Rob and Doug’s desire to rid the city of this meddlesome issue.
If only it were so easy.
As for the province, it’s too preoccupied with its own fortunes to do anything but acquiesce to the misguided demands of this petulant regime, one that sees no further than the next red light.
The Fords’ decision to undo Transit City and Premier Dalton McGuinty’s unwillingness to stand up to their recklessness will have disastrous consequences that will reverberate for years, even decades, to come.
Indeed, the failure of the GTA to grapple with transit could well be the turning point for a region that refuses to get real about its position in the world. Despite the self-congratulatory tones, the civic culture that made Toronto (and Canada) successful is fast being dismantled.
As this country grows more like the U.S. and our politics turns angry, polarized and self-serving, the likelihood we can undertake large transit projects decreases with each passing day.
That pretty well rules out any chance of becoming the “world-class†city we like to dream about.
Rather than debate how to raise the vast sums needed to build transit, we have reached the point where we’re trying to decide which bus routes to chop and how many new drivers we can afford not to hire. And even if all the fantasies about electrified trains and kilometers of subways were to materialize suddenly, we couldn’t pay to keep them running.
Still, there is no serious debate about road tolls, congestion fees or the like. In fact, thanks to the Fords, the city’s modest $65 vehicle registration fee has been removed, a political victory that will sink Toronto a little deeper in debt.
Let’s be clear, this is not a problem of the Fords’ making; certainly they have made a bad situation a whole lot worse, but governments have been ducking the transit issue for 30-odd years at this point. And Transit City, which was to have brought Toronto into the modern age — sort of — has been scrapped.
This isn’t mere short-sightedness, it’s self-destruction. The idea that we can build a great city without investing in its most basic needs is nonsense. The results of this kind of politics can be seen across the U.S., where millions live on the edge of poverty in cities that have long since fallen into decay.
Toronto isn’t about to become Detroit North any time soon; Indianapolis might be more like it, or Minneapolis, St. Louis — once-functioning cities reduced to scraping by and irrelevance.
Thus far, the transit debate has been presented as a strictly economic issue. Again and again, we are told we cannot afford the transit we need. But however costly new lines — subways or LRTs — may be, the cost of inaction will be much worse.
Delay, though unconscionable, is the new normal. And as the war on the city heats up, the sense of urgency has evaporated. This week the provincial transportation agency, Metrolinx, agreed electrifying GO lines would be a good thing to do — sometime over the next 20 years.
Who knows what that means? By then, electrification could well have been replaced by something cleaner and cheaper. Everywhere but here.
-ed d.
Hume: Toronto, the once and future city
Published On Thu Jan 27 2011 (in today's print edition)
By Christopher Hume Urban Issues, Architecture
By now, Toronto’s transit failure is all but complete. Our inability to plan, let alone construct, a transportation infrastructure equal to demand has already hobbled Toronto, and will continue to do so.
A recent suggestion to hand the Toronto Transit Commission over to the province is not the answer. Everyone knows that; the talk is more about Rob and Doug’s desire to rid the city of this meddlesome issue.
If only it were so easy.
As for the province, it’s too preoccupied with its own fortunes to do anything but acquiesce to the misguided demands of this petulant regime, one that sees no further than the next red light.
The Fords’ decision to undo Transit City and Premier Dalton McGuinty’s unwillingness to stand up to their recklessness will have disastrous consequences that will reverberate for years, even decades, to come.
Indeed, the failure of the GTA to grapple with transit could well be the turning point for a region that refuses to get real about its position in the world. Despite the self-congratulatory tones, the civic culture that made Toronto (and Canada) successful is fast being dismantled.
As this country grows more like the U.S. and our politics turns angry, polarized and self-serving, the likelihood we can undertake large transit projects decreases with each passing day.
That pretty well rules out any chance of becoming the “world-class†city we like to dream about.
Rather than debate how to raise the vast sums needed to build transit, we have reached the point where we’re trying to decide which bus routes to chop and how many new drivers we can afford not to hire. And even if all the fantasies about electrified trains and kilometers of subways were to materialize suddenly, we couldn’t pay to keep them running.
Still, there is no serious debate about road tolls, congestion fees or the like. In fact, thanks to the Fords, the city’s modest $65 vehicle registration fee has been removed, a political victory that will sink Toronto a little deeper in debt.
Let’s be clear, this is not a problem of the Fords’ making; certainly they have made a bad situation a whole lot worse, but governments have been ducking the transit issue for 30-odd years at this point. And Transit City, which was to have brought Toronto into the modern age — sort of — has been scrapped.
This isn’t mere short-sightedness, it’s self-destruction. The idea that we can build a great city without investing in its most basic needs is nonsense. The results of this kind of politics can be seen across the U.S., where millions live on the edge of poverty in cities that have long since fallen into decay.
Toronto isn’t about to become Detroit North any time soon; Indianapolis might be more like it, or Minneapolis, St. Louis — once-functioning cities reduced to scraping by and irrelevance.
Thus far, the transit debate has been presented as a strictly economic issue. Again and again, we are told we cannot afford the transit we need. But however costly new lines — subways or LRTs — may be, the cost of inaction will be much worse.
Delay, though unconscionable, is the new normal. And as the war on the city heats up, the sense of urgency has evaporated. This week the provincial transportation agency, Metrolinx, agreed electrifying GO lines would be a good thing to do — sometime over the next 20 years.
Who knows what that means? By then, electrification could well have been replaced by something cleaner and cheaper. Everywhere but here.
nfitz
Superstar
Well that's how I'd do it ... but that's really not how they've been doing it for the last few years ... I don't see anything unusual here with how they've been doing things for the last half-decade or so ...
quicksilver
Active Member
Electrify
Senior Member
What I like about your map is that you have subway like spacing on the LRT. While I still see some room for improvement, it is on a much better track than what Miller wanted.
quicksilver
Active Member
By all means please share your improvements. With the many enthusiasts on this forum, it would not surprise me if Urban Toronto's users could plan and cost a system better than whatever the politicos at city hall will come up with. Has anyone wiki'd a transit system before?
quicksilver
Active Member
Drum, I tried out this service and received what I think are prepared statements from councillors Grimes and Fragedakis. Thank you. This suggests to me that, at least for these councillors, Transit City and its potential cancellation has become a big issue. I would encourage any users who would like to keep Transit City moving forward to use the emailthem automated form. Powerful stuff.
drum118
Superstar
You can modify it or add to it, to suit you.
I made a number of changes to suit my views.
As for the new map, I would take the Eglinton line over to Kingston Rd. I still prefer to see the existing subway converted to LRT, as you then can take the line west to Downsview faster and cheaper as well to Weston Rd, then the airport.
As for St Clair, that a toss up as there needs to be something going from Main Street Station on the Danforth to Kingston Rd and it well being a faster route, than what there now It would help to redevelop this blight area.
As for the SRT being heavy rail, no, unless it is part of the current BD line. To used the BD line for the SRT, you have to build a new tunnel to line up with the existing line and 100% rebuilt of Kennedy station.
Otherwise it has to be LRT to Malvern. That needs to stay as phase I, not Phase II as plan.
Electrify
Senior Member
Without overhauling your vision to my vision, I'd cut the Midland station since it is very close to the Agincourt GO. Also you could cut some of those stops beyond the zoo as well. Either way, the official plan is to have it stop twice as often as what you have shown there (major arterials such as Palmdale, Allanford, and Massie
), so at least you know how to create a rapid transit line better than the TTC brass.I never would have thought of putting a stop at Wynford off of Eglinton. While it may seem unnecessary, looking at Google Maps there appears to be quite a few apartments there. I don't know if I agree with it fully, I myself would have served that area with a bus connection, but there is definitely a good argument for it. Also I don't know if I would detour the line to Sunnybrook Park, seems a little out of the way and might be better served by a bus connection. Finally, I've always questioned the merit of a Leslie station. There isn't much around there, unlikely to be much around there because of being in parkland/ravine, and always thought it might better to simply run the Leslie St bus out of Laird station.
I would also have the Sheppard and Scarborough lines meet up at Rouge Hill GO, the Scarborough line could run along Lawrence.
Also, just wondering why you have the Scarborough line running out of Warden station, rather than extending the Eglinton line?
Still, very good plan and if this is what the debate was about I'd support it fully
LAz
Active Member
Most places do not built things so that "okay we reached capacity, now we put rapid transit in". No. Rapid transit comes before capacity. And ridership follows.
I don't see sheppard as being used a little. I think that sheppard is quite fine. I think it should be improved and enhanced, rather than screwed.
Into downtown is one of the biggest problems with this statement. We need something that is not simply "into downtown". If we want to overcome automobile dependency, we have to have lines that are not downtown centric. That is a necessity. Not planning a system as such is a failure in my opinion. The idiot systems like san francisco's BART are like that. Lets not be american.
Wtf do you bring that up??? Calgary is a million person metropolis vs Toronto which has about five million.
Whenever the pro-Transit-City group concocted those poll statistics they did so by making a big error. Asking questions in the wrong way. In other words biased surveying. So screw those polls.
As for money costs - screw rail transit, I want rapid bus. We don't have money??? Lets use that logic then, to build only rapid bus stuff. Yeah. Backward logic of transit city.
You won't see questions like those being asked by the Transit City camp! No way! They're very biased, do not compromise, and deserve to lose everything.
SlickFranky
Active Member
People don't take transit downtown because 'that's where the lines go'. The lines go there because that's where people are going. Sheppard's bread-and-butter is the connection to YUS, not to NYCC. Same goes for whatever gets built on Eglinton.
None of this has anything to do with TC though. And actually, if your goal is to improve service to places outside of the core, and transform employment and land-use patterns....umm...have you seen TC?
quicksilver
Active Member
here's an adjustment and some detail down to the bus level. i think if you get frequent light rail service, it allows you to reduce the number of required bus lines, and their complexity. the spacing was just me thinking about where bus lines might interact with rail lines...but nonetheless if more space between stops promotes a little more walking in people's lives i'd imagine that's a good thing, though better in summer. people will tolerate more walking if they know they are getting better service. "i will walk a block and a half to get LRT but not a FREAKING BUS!" i'd like to integrate more changes now but am packing for a short trip.
quicksilver
Active Member
I would challenge this argument. Transit City has been reopened rightly or wrongly. Given that it's now an open discussion, it's not only the SUV-addicted mayor and transit bureaucrats that need to be part of the conversation. It's Toronto. Remember TC took how many years to plan and consult. Ford's Expand the Stubway Instead of Building a Network plan must now bear all of Toronto's scrutiny as well.