[Whoaccio]

I see it a little differently. While I think that LRT is seen as a tool towards neighbourhood improvement, it's not as desirable as a subway, so it improves the neighbourhood, but not to a degree that the low income residents are forced to leave.

Nobody would be "forced to leave." If, for whatever reason, property values were to rise then low income property owners would reap the benefits of rising equity when they sell out.

I don't think it is a good idea to try to use transit planning to achieve social aims. Anything which begins to infringe on providing the best transit for the least cost just screws things up. Especially trying to intentionally stunt neighborhood improvement in order to meet social housing needs.

 

[Chuck]

Please don't draw low income housing into the subway vs. LRT argument. The fact of the matter is that many subway stations are located in low income areas and are not forcing the poor out, while at the same time many high income areas even in the City of Toronto are not located near the subway.

Toronto has so few subways that to live near a subway station is still considered a perk. This is why neighbourhoods that already have momentum can see land values rise exponentially as you approach a subway station. But if we just built more subways (let's say Toronto built 100 new subway stations) and quadrupled the number of neighbourhoods with good subway access, a lot of that novelty would fade away. In that case, building a subway line would have little impact on land values, and would do nothing more than improve transit access throughout the city. That should be our goal!

 

[ShonTron]

The thing is too that subways have a strong gravitational pull that benefits a wider area, partly thanks to the TTC's excellent interfacing between the subway and surface systems, where many routes exist to funnel people into the subway (compared to many other systems, like even much of Montreal, or Chicago, where way more people ride buses than the L).

So if you live on Finch East you will probably benefit from a Sheppard Subway to STC. But not from a Sheppard LRT which, as a surface, simple, low speed LRT, won't have that gravitational pull. So perhaps if you live on Jane, or Finch West, or Don Mills, or Morningside, you hit the figurative jackpot, but not if you live on Keele, or Ellesmere, or Sheppard West, or Lawrence, or Dixon, or Wilson, or Victoria Park, all of which have characteristics similar to those lucky streets.

 

[Second_in_pie]

ShonTron, those are good points, but I think that this gets into another issue of changing the mode of transportation for the Transit City routes, which I fully endorse. Also, I was under the impression that many of those routes you mentioned are being looked at for a "Transit City Phase II," but I understand what you are saying.

 

[junctionist]

Just to clarify, I don't belief in the idea of land value change with subway versus LRT mentioned above. But I think that an ideology like that might be nascent.

 

[Whoaccio]

Virtually every Transit City render had sexy streetcars in the middle of Sheppard/Don Mills/Finch surrounded by faux-European buildings five stories high and street level cafes and boutiques.

Yes, the fourth law of thermodynamics. Introduce LRT into a depressed neighborhood and watch as suburban thoroughfares automagically transform to the Champs Elysees and single family homes morph into Tuscan Villas. I give it 10 years between a ride through Jane & Finch will be as classy as this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kJdwzY1o7k8

 

[Amphibius]

ShonTron, those are good points, but I think that this gets into another issue of changing the mode of transportation for the Transit City routes, which I fully endorse. Also, I was under the impression that many of those routes you mentioned are being looked at for a "Transit City Phase II," but I understand what you are saying.

He left out Kipling, Warden and McCowan.

 

[GTS]

The thing is too that subways have a strong gravitational pull that benefits a wider area, partly thanks to the TTC's excellent interfacing between the subway and surface systems, where many routes exist to funnel people into the subway (compared to many other systems, like even much of Montreal, or Chicago, where way more people ride buses than the L).

ShonTron that is an excellent point about the interfacing of the different modes of transit within the TTC system. Their was an article in the Toronto Star a few months ago that reported about the head of London's Piccadilly line visiting Toronto to see our system. Our system is small compared to London's system but one thing he said the TTC is doing right is the bus/subway stations and the ease at transferring between the two nodes. I have recently moved here from Vancouver and noticed that alot of these bus platforms are really designed well for easing transfers. I hope the LRT lines interface with the subway efficiently like the streetcars at Spadina Station or Union Station do. I think with convenient tranfers it will increase ridership and help the elderly and people of limited mobiliy.

This isn't about Transit City but about The Station Modernization Program. They have just demolished the old Victoria Park Station seperated bus platforms and will start consructing a new set of bus platforms all on one level. This will help improve the interfacing of the different modes of transit that you talked of. I live near Warden Station now so I hope that this heavily used station gets similar treatment soon.

I hope that they give all the Transit City routes similar well thought out transfer points.

 

[Second_in_pie]

Hey guys, about the underground section of Jane... I took a good look at it (on bike, of course.) It really seems that an LRT could fit in very well. Okay, maybe the street won't have 2 lanes anymore, but all that space isn't needed (except for the occasional parking.) I think for just a bit less parking and a slightly slower route, the TTC would save a lof of money on tunneling to St. Clair (or wherever it is now.)

Just wanted to put that out there... Sorry if it's already been mentioned. This thread is bulging at the seams

 

[jks]

Actually, aparently they would have to tunnel to Wilson to keep the two lanes! To be honest, I don't think reducing Jane to 1 lane per direction is such a good idea. This isn't Yonge St.

 

[ShonTron]

You mean Wilson, right?

On a related topic, the TTC has proposed BRT for Danforth-Kingston, with a median ROW, even though Danforth would have to down to two lanes between Victoria Park (where buses would be in mixed traffic), on a route where they only run buses every 20 minutes! So they might think they can do it for Jane.

From Steve Munro's post:

The current project newsletter reports that a BRT line running from Victoria Park Station east via Danforth and Kingston Road to Eglinton is the preferred alternative. Mixed traffic running would occur only on Victoria Park. The Danforth section would have a central bus lane, one traffic lane and one bicycle lane. I find it quite astounding that the TTC thinks a single traffic lane is workable on Danforth. This reminds me of the head-in-the-sand approach to LRT design for the Don Mills and Jane routes on narrow streets.

The technology choice is based on projected demand that, by implication, is not sufficient to sustain an LRT line.

Why they can't even run more buses, or even quasi-LRT, is a mystery and a joke.

 

[jks]

You mean Wilson, right?

Right oooops!! I fixed it.

 

[nfitz]

Actually, aparently they would have to tunnel to Wilson to keep the two lanes!

I'm not sure where that came from, but it's clearly not true. Jane from Wilson to Dundas is the same width as parts of St. Clair where they managed to keep 2 lanes. Someone is spreading misinformation. It's only the shorter section from Dundas to Bloor that is that narrow.

 

[ShonTron]

I'm not sure where that came from, but it's clearly not true. Jane from Wilson to Dundas is the same width as parts of St. Clair where they managed to keep 2 lanes. Someone is spreading misinformation. It's only the shorter section from Dundas to Bloor that is that narrow.

ROW for St. Clair is 30 metres wide (the standard suburban width is 36). Except in the Eglinton Flats, Jane has a 27 metre ROW from Black Creek Drive to Dundas, and 20 metres (which is typical for most of city laid out before 1930).

So there is a difference of 3 metres (more significant than it sounds, this is more than a lane width) that will prove to be a problem.

Danforth, where a 2-lane BRT is proposed (as per above), with only one through lane in each direction, is the same 27 metres.

 

[nfitz]

ROW for St. Clair is 30 metres wide (the standard suburban width is 36). Except in the Eglinton Flats, Jane has a 27 metre ROW from Black Creek Drive to Dundas, and 20 metres (which is typical for most of city laid out before 1930).

Portions of St. Clair between Avenue Road and Yonge were 27 metres wide.

As for Danforth, that proposed ROW also includes bicycle lanes and quite wide sidewalks. It's pretty easy to eliminate the bicycle lanes, and cut back the sidewalks a little. Jane isn't Danforth.

(though I expect the local businesses on Danforth are going to have a bird when they notice that they are giving up street parking for bicycle lanes. Retail on Bloor downtown might be more pedestrian-dependent than car-dependent, but I don't think that is true on Danforth east of Victoria Park!)