[Undead]

The one big fail of Transit City was running an LRT on Don Mills. This would have made it rather difficult to fix Line 1 capacity problems north of Bloor. As for the other LRTs, I think a reasonable compromise would have been tunneling under major intersections.

 

[Steve X]

The one big fail of Transit City was running an LRT on Don Mills. This would have made it rather difficult to fix Line 1 capacity problems north of Bloor. As for the other LRTs, I think a reasonable compromise would have been tunneling under major intersections.

I envision the Don Mills LRT could be so much better if it took an alignment following DVP/Bayview straights to downtown perhaps via Queen and King. At Overlea, they could have a loop through Thorncliffe Park and Flemingdon Park. The LRT would be fine on the surface with elevated stations over Eglinton, Lawrence, York Mills, Sheppard and Finch intersections. I think it's okay to have a slower section through Overlea/Don Mills area as there is tons of low income people to serve. Instead OL would just put two stations in the area and forcing everyone to walk 10+ minutes or take a bus.

The OL/Relief line should still be built but would take a different path if Don Mills LRT was built.

 

[nfitz]

The one big fail of Transit City was running an LRT on Don Mills. This would have made it rather difficult to fix Line 1 capacity problems north of Bloor. As for the other LRTs, I think a reasonable compromise would have been tunneling under major intersections.

They never finished the study for the LRT on Don Mills. If you remember the discussion in that thread, towards the end, they had mentioned they were looking at higher order options south of Eglinton. And then, while David Miller was still mayor, they started resurrecting the Downtown Relief Line.

So surely the Transit City study for Don Mills were a success, as it indicated that LRT was going to be problematic from Eglinton to Danforth.

This is why one does studies - sometimes things don't go the direction you expect. Of course, this was back when the approach was science-based, rather than politicians pushing lots of money into unnecessarily expensive projects because they don't want to see streetcars in their neighbourhood.

 

[Undead]

Of course, this was back when the approach was science-based, rather than politicians pushing lots of money into unnecessarily expensive projects because they don't want to see streetcars in their neighbourhood.

Was it? Pretty sure Transit City also had clear preferences as to mode/choice of technology. Or at least a finger on the scales when it came to weighing preferred options. Doesn't excuse the super expensive and deep subways that came after. Which is why I support elevated and grade separation at major intersections.

 

[nfitz]

Was it? Pretty sure Transit City also had clear preferences as to mode/choice of technology. Or at least a finger on the scales when it came to weighing preferred options. Doesn't excuse the super expensive and deep subways that came after. Which is why I support elevated and grade separation at major intersections.

There were certainly clear preferences, but the project evolved over the years. That there was never a final report for some of the lines (such as Don Mills or Jane) before it was all cancelled is unfortunate.

That being said, perhaps my memory is fuzzy. The death of Transit City and the DRT/DRL expansion from Pape to Eglinton all happened about the same time. I'm pretty sure someone said something about what had become evident in the LRT planning.

Perhaps Steve Munro has a better recollection, as it was during the period he was pushing hard for the service south of Eglinton being subway rather than LRT.

 

[ARG1]

There were certainly clear preferences, but the project evolved over the years. That there was never a final report for some of the lines (such as Don Mills or Jane) before it was all cancelled is unfortunate.

That being said, perhaps my memory is fuzzy. The death of Transit City and the DRT/DRL expansion from Pape to Eglinton all happened about the same time. I'm pretty sure someone said something about what had become evident in the LRT planning.

Perhaps Steve Munro has a better recollection, as it was during the period he was pushing hard for the service south of Eglinton being subway rather than LRT.

Important to note that around the time, many people like Miller scoffed at the idea of the DRL believing that the Yonge Line would suffice with the capacity provided by ATC for a long time. Heck, it seems like David Miller still believes this:

https://twitter.com/x/status/1599209934867951622

 

[nfitz]

Important to note that around the time, many people like Miller scoffed at the idea of the DRL believing that the Yonge Line would suffice with the capacity provided by ATC for a long time. Heck, it seems like David Miller still believes this:

I believe Miller's objection is from west of Yonge - and especially not in reference to Leaside.

The DRTES and Downtown Relief Line projects were both started under Miller, after the Transit City LRT. To pretend that by 2010 that he still supported subway from Pape to Eglinton is rather a retcon.

There is no streetcar on Pape or Don Mills Road!

 

[ARG1]

I believe Miller's objection is from west of Yonge - and especially not in reference to Leaside.

But the DRL always had the going west of Yonge all the way to Osgoode (that's where Osgoode Hall is btw), and there was even a proposed extension to Dundas West?

 

[robmausser]

Important to note that around the time, many people like Miller scoffed at the idea of the DRL believing that the Yonge Line would suffice with the capacity provided by ATC for a long time. Heck, it seems like David Miller still believes this:

https://twitter.com/x/status/1599209934867951622

View attachment 452009

How about using the money to build rapid transit where it isn’t

Man, this is an amazing quote by David Miller.

The guy thinks a streetcar is rapid transit. Really really indicative of the shortfalls of Transit City summed up in one sentence.

 

[sixrings]

Man, this is an amazing quote by David Miller.

The guy thinks a streetcar is rapid transit. Really really indicative of the shortfalls of Transit City summed up in one sentence.

Maybe David Miller would have advocated for all the street car lines downtown to be in their ROW like King is. I wouldn’t have a problem with that.

But a DRL still would have to be built. Maybe he would have advocated for a route that wasn’t under a street car line like Adelaide.

 

[Sunnyside]

Every mode in this city/region has its own set of network effects. To suggest streetcars can truly relieve the subway would force them into a role they are not designed for. The only way to relieve a subway network when pinch points are created is to design a “bypass” or something to that effect that offers a similar service within the same network. It’s just like when we build highway bypasses and such; adding capacity elsewhere to relieve an existing system constraint. To suggest LRT can replace a subway would be like saying Highway 7 can be an effective bypass for the 401- it is not, and we built the 407 (and also soon the 413) to do this instead.

Of course there is some leeway in this thinking. Line 5 is functionally similar to a subway in parts and will offer a similar service to Line 2 in their respective central sections. Hell, the Ontario Line isn’t the same technology as the rest of the TTC Subway, and it will probably fit it’s role neatly. The problem comes when the scale a service is meant to operate in is warped, and people use certain modes for trips they probably shouldn’t be. You could only consider the Queen car a candidate for relief is if you gave it subway like priority and stop spacing, which would compromise its actual, optimal utility.

With philosophies that contradict this, it’s no wonder Transit City failed. Much of the network was an upgrade to the burgeoned bus network with little attention to the strained subway network that said routes will feed into. We need both, and TC wished to tackle upstream local problems when the existing & ensuing downstream (trunk) issues would make all the problems far worse. It seems Miller thinks that just building transit elsewhere would alter travel patterns instead and make this a non-issue. Let’s see how that plays out.

 

[sixrings]

Every mode in this city/region has its own set of network effects. To suggest streetcars can truly relieve the subway would force them into a role they are not designed for. The only way to relieve a subway network when pinch points are created is to design a “bypass” or something to that effect that offers a similar service within the same network. It’s just like when we build highway bypasses and such; adding capacity elsewhere to relieve an existing system constraint. To suggest LRT can replace a subway would be like saying Highway 7 can be an effective bypass for the 401- it is not, and we built the 407 (and also soon the 413) to do this instead.

Of course there is some leeway in this thinking. Line 5 is functionally similar to a subway in parts and will offer a similar service to Line 2 in their respective central sections. Hell, the Ontario Line isn’t the same technology as the rest of the TTC Subway, and it will probably fit it’s role neatly. The problem comes when the scale a service is meant to operate in is warped, and people use certain modes for trips they probably shouldn’t be. You could only consider the Queen car a candidate for relief is if you gave it subway like priority and stop spacing, which would compromise its actual, optimal utility.

With philosophies that contradict this, it’s no wonder Transit City failed. Much of the network was an upgrade to the burgeoned bus network with little attention to the strained subway network that said routes will feed into. We need both, and TC wished to tackle upstream local problems when the existing & ensuing downstream (trunk) issues would make all the problems far worse. It seems Miller thinks that just building transit elsewhere would alter travel patterns instead and make this a non-issue. Let’s see how that plays out.

Sure but eglinton east and finch were never going to get subways. And the west of eglinton didn’t need to be underground. And there’s no reason that the SRT couldn’t have been converted to LRT. There was some good merits of Transit City. It just needed a subway DRL to go with it.

Going subways everywhere simply added to costs in places it didn’t need. Took away money from a DRL which needed as much money as possible and encouraged places like Mississauga to say hey look at us over here. We should have a subway next.

 

[Sunnyside]

Sure but eglinton east and finch were never going to get subways. And the west of eglinton didn’t need to be underground. And there’s no reason that the SRT couldn’t have been converted to LRT. There was some good merits of Transit City. It just needed a subway DRL to go with it.

Going subways everywhere simply added to costs in places it didn’t need. Took away money from a DRL which needed as much money as possible and encouraged places like Mississauga to say hey look at us over here. We should have a subway next.

You’ve phrased it better than I. This is essentially what I was trying to say about TC & a downtown subway- they need to go hand in hand (arguably you could build the DRL/OL without the TC LRTs, but not vice versa). Transit city was right to prioritize upgrading key corridors from buses to LRT, especially in lieu of subways. My main argument was that the core network couldnt handle a much higher capacity suburban feeder network composed of LRTs and buses without accompanying subway infrastructure. Luckily it appears that between the OL and GO RER, future LRTs in the vein of TC won’t suffer from the same critical oversight.

Again agree on Eglinton- the west and east do not need to be subways, and elevated or at grade is just fine. I think unlike the other TC lines, Line 5 teeters between the need to replace a busy local bus route, and the need to expand and alleviate the existing subway network. We chose to implement both on the same line.

 

[nfitz]

But the DRL always had the going west of Yonge all the way to Osgoode (that's where Osgoode Hall is btw), and there was even a proposed extension to Dundas West?

There's been so many iterations. I seem to recall one version that had a single station between Queen and Osgoode - I suppose that's techincally west of Yonge

Maybe David Miller would have advocated for all the street car lines downtown to be in their ROW like King is. I wouldn’t have a problem with that.

If my memory serves me correct, not only did he advocate for it, but as a TTC Commissioner before he was mayor, he's the one who proposed studying it on King Street - a couple of decades ago.

 

[JMSRead]

I am excited for the Eglinton and Finch LRTs but I can't say I was a massive fan of Transit City. Ignoring subways entirely just felt like stubbornly sticking to an ideology, rather than doing what's needed. Also I thought the Sheppard forced transfer idea was terrible. I can't believe Miller still insists the Ontario Line isn't necessary.