[Electrify]

correct me if I'm mistaken, but doesn't LA's blue line have actual crossing arms that block intersections while the vehicles cross? Similar to Edmonton/Calgary? I would definitely consider that to be rapid transit. But all the information I've seen point towards the transit city lines not having this level of grade separation.

It does. And I agree that Transit City, in its current form, is a poor excuse for 'rapid' transit. At this point though, I think it would be better to modify Finch and Eglinton surface, as well as modify the trains on Sheppard to make them road compatible, than it would be to simply go with Ford's 'mandate.'

As for changing the traffic signals, that could work too. A while back, Viva had a video of all traffic shutting shutting down to let the bus pass, including parallel traffic. Not sure how it works in places like Phoenix and Seattle, but one advantage to doing it this way is it doesn't give parallel traffic too much of an advantage over crossing traffic.

 

[BMO]

Crossing Arms will impact the look of the streetscape negatively. There is no reason to have crossing arms on an arterial street.

I agree, ideally crossing arms would not be my first choice, I would prefer other forms of separation like elevation, or underground. But at least crossing arms would be an improvement in terms of speed and quality of service.

Not to mention that crossing arms, depending on the frequency of transit service, could actually increase congestion on perpendicular arterials, if headways end up having to be too small.

 

[canmark]

Kristyn Wong-Tam op ed in the National Post: Transit equity is about customer service

Imagine my surprise when I was named in the National Post by Terence Corcoran in his Feb. 23 column for “driving policy-making further off the rails†as it pertains to Toronto’s turbulent stop-and-go transit history.

It appears my amendment to incorporate “a gender and racial equity lens†to Councillor Karen Stintz’s motion on Feb. 8 to enhance the policy-making of the special advisory panel for Sheppard Avenue is causing Mr. Corcoran some discomfort.

He claims that my advocacy for the inclusion of gender and racial equity in transit planning is somehow misplaced or misguided. The participation of urban and social planning professionals from the Toronto Women’s City Alliance and Social Planning Toronto will enhance the transit discourse; without them, the intelligence gathering and sharing of this expert advisory panel may be incomplete.

I do wish to thank Mr. Corcoran and the National Post for this opportunity to explain how gender and racial equity principles should be interwoven into Toronto’s transit planning.

 

[BMO]

For the first 2 points, I think the problem is that many are saying that if Ford wants something changed than it is up to him to come up with a proposal. I think it is obvious that Ford is not the expert here. Maybe the spirit of what Ford was saying was partially correct, it is just that he does not know enough about transit to actually propose a solution that would satisfy some of his goals. Ford could have been the catalyst to correct many of the shortcomings of Transit City - if the true transit experts actually made an attempt to improve it.

Instead it appears that #3 was the most important factor and the political solution was to not explore any improvements to TC, and to see Ford fail, rather than make any improvements to Transit City that may allow Ford to claim a partial victory.

Exactly,

the issue at the moment is really option A VS. option B, but what Toronto really needs is option C. Council is being lazy in this regard, they didn't bother asking whether the existing plan was good, they only asked if the existing plan is better than the alternative that Ford was proposing. I do not believe that is a healthy and fair way of going about the issue. For every expert you find that supports one plan, you can find an expert that supports another.

 

[Electrify]

Sure, but it makes sense to have those usable on the other lines as much as is practicable.



Right, but your suggestion means that the TTC would actually have three different train types running on three different lines, all of which are incompatible with each other. That would be a servicing and procurement nightmare.

I just don't think that, given the ridership, such extreme measures are necessary to avoid one transfer.

If you throw automatic train control into the package, they could also work on the subway as well.

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

BMO:

Depending on how significant the changes are, it might a) not fit into the budget envelope and b) require a new EA. Another question is how much wiggle room is there once the general direction is set by council - though I can't imagine eliminating some stops will be a huge issue.

AoD

 

[BMO]

BMO:

Depending on how significant the changes are, it might a) not fit into the budget envelope and b) require a new EA. Another question is how much wiggle room is there once the general direction is set by council - though I can't imagine eliminating some stops will be a huge issue.

AoD

And that is why i'm advocating, that we should not build something because it is what we are given, you build something that SHOULD be built. If it turns out we need and should have completely separated transit on these routes, then I think it is council's duty to find a way to raise the money. If you're playing tennis, but are only given a squash racquet, you should find a way to get a tennis racquet.

The city isn't getting any smaller, a matter of funding has to do with the matter of how much will power council has to actually seek out viable financing options. Nobody in Toronto denies that congestion is bad. Many people don't have a problem with paying user fees or tolls for transit, as long as they KNOW it will improve their commute. If you just implement road tolls and use it for other public services (like Councillor Parker suggests) then, NO, there is no reasonable traction in this argument. Ppl don't want to pay a toll or user fee if it won't directly improve their life, or if it isn't a direct investment in their own quality of commuting.

I must admit I'm no expert on financing, but ideally I would like transit to be built (say DRL on Don Mills) before we started tolling the DVP. Once an alternative is in place, I think it is fair game to charge on highways. If there was no alternative to driving, ppl would be like "how can I reasonably get downtown? This is my only option, and i've been able to use it without a toll for my whole life". Whereas if you tool AFTER a viable alternative is available (whether it be DRL or GO) ppl would probably be more like "gee this toll is quite expensive, but it gets me downtown faster." or "gee this toll is expensive, I could probably save some money or time taking the new subway that was built."

Now I am not sure if the city has the ability to amortize transit projects and retain debt, but I know that the Province certainly has the power to.

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

BMO:

Except you can't really build the DRL without a financing plan of some sort - and to take on the amount of debt required will basically mean you have to get all the revenue sources lined up from day one, not after the fact. I think it is fair game to start tolling now to get the ball rolling - parking in downtown isn't a choice either and people still pay for the priviledge of driving in the core.

AoD

 

[BurlOak]

Exactly,

the issue at the moment is really option A VS. option B, but what Toronto really needs is option C. Council is being lazy in this regard, they didn't bother asking whether the existing plan was good, they only asked if the existing plan is better than the alternative that Ford was proposing. I do not believe that is a healthy and fair way of going about the issue. For every expert you find that supports one plan, you can find an expert that supports another.

Is it Council being lazy, or is it the politicized nature of City Hall. I would say:

Option A - defend David Miller
Option B - defend Rob Ford
Option C - do what is best for transit.

Councillors are choosing between A and B.

 

[BurlOak]

BMO:

Depending on how significant the changes are, it might a) not fit into the budget envelope and b) require a new EA. Another question is how much wiggle room is there once the general direction is set by council - though I can't imagine eliminating some stops will be a huge issue.

AoD

a) I would like to have the discussion on what changes are possible for what costs. It is apparent that full subway for an additional $2B is excessive. What about an improvement that costs $20M extra - should that not even be considered since it exceeds the budget envelope. The key is to find what improvements get you the most bang-for-the-buck. What Councillors should be weighing is whether the various benefits of alternatives are worth the costs.

b) I am not sure if the EA is such an important reason. Since the Provincial funding timeline is so stretched out - to improve the Provincial Defecit numbers in the next few years - it is probably still possible to delay by a year or two and deliver the project in the Metrolinx timelines (2020).

 

[rbt]

Option C - do what is best for transit.

Is this what Stintz initially proposed and Ford rejected? Short extension of Sheppard subway, aboveground Eglinton, and BRT on Finch?

 

[BurlOak]

Is this what Stintz initially proposed and Ford rejected? Short extension of Sheppard subway, aboveground Eglinton, and BRT on Finch?

Based on most of the polls her on UT, aboveground Eglinton as per Transit City is not the best option.

 

[Palma]

Only for the central portion its not - in the east its perfect

 

[BurlOak]

Based on most of the polls her on UT, aboveground Eglinton as per Transit City is not the best option.

I forgot to add, if Stintz thought it was an improved plan, why did she not bring it to Council.

 

[Riverdale Rink Rat]

I forgot to add, if Stintz thought it was an improved plan, why did she not bring it to Council.

Because the mayor refused her compromise. I'm not certain that Stintz thought her compromise was the best plan, she thought it was a honest brokering between council and the mayor.

And, for BMO: this wasn't an 'Option C' by your criteria, but rather a compromise between A & B. Option C, quite frankly, might well be the DRL before everything else. BUT, and its a BIG but, Transit City was funded, EA'd, and ready to go. A plan in hand is worth much more than scrapping everything AGAIN to chase after a mythical 'Option C' (especially since not even Metrolinx and TTC's experts can agree to one agenda, much less the politicians.)