[nfitz]

Ah yes ... sorry, it was progress. Sorry ... carry on. I forgot the regression.

Here, I'l reboot.

Transit City has to be the greatest advance in transit since the invention of the wheel. Only a Nazi would oppose it!

 

[ssiguy2]

Anyone who wishes to have an INTELLIGENT debate please comment on my idea.
Would I prefer a subway?....................yes but that doesn't mean there is the money for it. My plan will provide a true rapid/mass transit line from one Kingston to Pearson. In fact I don't think the tunnell even has to be as long as Metrolinx wants and should have fewer stations. That will also save a couple hundred million which, if neccessary to transfer SRT to LRT. The plan also gets rid of all the damn transfers and will help relieve some of the volumes on both the Yonge and Bloor lines instead of tunneling even more traffic onto it. Due to underpassing where there is no stop it will have less effect on road traffic and be more reliable which means it could run at higher frequencies.
I have always stated that I think TC was a good idea but extremely poorly executed and this reduces those problems to make it a system that Torontonians want to ride and see it as a true rapid transit corridor which will lead to development around the stations.

 

[ssiguy2]

Had to go check out my map..................................here are my Eglinton statins:
Eglinton?GO..............Danforth...................Kennedy Station......................Burthanthrope................Golden Mile.............Don Mills.........Laird.............then tunnel to Bayview........Mt.Pleasant.........Yonge............Chaplin/Spadina...........Bathurst.............Spadina Line.........Dufferin.....then above ground to...Caledonia.......Keele.......Mt.Dennis/DRL interchange..........Jane.......Royal Oak.........Islington.....Eglinton/Kipling............Dixon/Kipling..........HWY#27.............Airport Road.........Pearson.
There should be absolutely no stops at all or grade intersection just smooth sailing between stations.

 

[Jeff]

Had to go check out my map..................................here are my Eglinton statins:
Eglinton?GO..............Danforth...................Kennedy Station......................Burthanthrope................Golden Mile.............Don Mills.........Laird.............then tunnel to Bayview........Mt.Pleasant.........Yonge............Chaplin/Spadina...........Bathurst.............Spadina Line.........Dufferin.....then above ground to...Caledonia.......Keele.......Mt.Dennis/DRL interchange..........Jane.......Royal Oak.........Islington.....Eglinton/Kipling............Dixon/Kipling..........HWY#27.............Airport Road.........Pearson.
There should be absolutely no stops at all or grade intersection just smooth sailing between stations.

Caledonia is too early to go back above round...I'd wait until Keele at the absolute earliest, Mt. Dennis more realistically.

 

[LAz]

Transit City has to be the greatest advance in transit since the invention of the wheel. Only a Nazi would oppose it!

Transit City is the biggest slap in the face to man in a long time. One of the biggest problems with the plan is that it does not coordinate development with transit. This coordination should be vital, and centerpiece. But it is not.

Anyone who wishes to have an INTELLIGENT debate please comment on my idea.
Would I prefer a subway?....................yes but that doesn't mean there is the money for it. My plan will prov

Sure there is money for a metro. The plan is to build a 13 km tunnel for crying out loud.

More importantly, and troubling, is the fact that they are not doing it democratically. They do not seek all possible solutions and then pick the best solution that there is. Things should be like that but they are not. This is the major failure, and why all such plans where one tries to ram something through without consultation are doomed to major opposition and perhaps failure.
Transit City has already been gutted, as far as I am concerned. It made my day when I heard those cuts in funds for this obscenity. Cheers, t'ya'll!

t.Dennis/DRL interchange..........Jane.......Royal Oak.........Islington.....Eglinton/Kipl

The oak trees have spoken!

 

[Electrify]

Sorry for the late reply, I'm sure this thread has gone elsewhere, but still wanted to get back to this:

Then expand the borders of toronto, not to set up these abominations that compete/suck toronto's blood. I personally feel that enhancing/expanding the sheppard line should be the priority for toronto - and that is well beyond eglinton.

I agree. I don't know if a "super-megacity" of Toronto-Hamilton-Oshawa is the right answer, but some sort of regional government to coordinate planning and services throughout the GTHA should be looked at.

I am not saying to shun the car - I am saying that the car is the urban menace which is subsidized. Any sustainable transportation plan must have both transit incentives - and more importanlty- transit disincentives.

Fair enough, but is there any city which has outright banned all auto transportation within the downtown?

Also, when you say transit disincentives, are you talking about public transit? Public transit already has the disincentive of being unable to provide a direct start-to-finish commute that other modes provide. While there is a need for local, frequent stop service, this is why more transit proposals need to focus on speed - so the time lost getting to and from the station is made up for by the actual transit ride.

The very building of these places is what is increasing car dependancy. So you want to continue to build them up, thereby taking more of toronto out of toronto, while claiming that it would help them - no thanks. That's a one sided relationship. I bet only a small fraction of the people take Go anyways. My experience in the US is that people do not take commuter lines into town, nor do they even bother to go to the city often.

When I'm talking about building them up, I'm not just talking about the outer suburbs. I'm talking about inner suburbs within the 416. Fortunately, thanks to the Places to Grow Act, many places in the GTA and Toronto proper will see increased growth.

As for GO Transit, daily ridership is at over 163,000, with 90% going through Union Station. Keep in mind too that trains only run during the rush hour, with the exception of the Lakeshore line (and even then, they run fairly infrequent). Because of this, many trains are carrying up to 10 bi-level cars... with standing room only. Toronto is different from many US cities: public transit does not suffer from the same social stigma that only "poor people" use it - many riders are choice riders. Also unlike many US cities, people in the GTA feel connected to the city proper and downtown. Toronto and downtown is the heart of the region, not haven for crime and poverty.

The main problem is not identified in this wording - unplanned growth.

What you propose can easily be the market doing whatever it wants - that is a big disaster. Unplanned growth is a failure. Planned growth is what put toronto on par with the best cities of the world by the 1980s. Since then we have had a nose dive downwards.

I'm not proposing unplanned growth. As I said, it is very unlikely that we will be bulldozing subdivisions in Pickering to make room for farmland. These places are already there, so we need to make lemonaid out of our lemons. We can do this by increasing density in already developed communities.

 

[ssiguy2]

Does anyone know exactly what the difference in cost it is between a tunneled subway and a tunneled LRT?
It doesn't help that even the tunneled part of Eglinton has too many stations which adds greatly to the cost but LRT trains are thinner but at the same time subway stations can be smaller and carry the same capacity. The new TC trains {which I must admit are pretty hot looking} would probably be a max of 4 trains or 120 metres but that is the same capacity of only 5 standard subway cars or 100 metres.

 

[Second_in_pie]

Also, when you say transit disincentives, are you talking about public transit? Public transit already has the disincentive of being unable to provide a direct start-to-finish commute that other modes provide. While there is a need for local, frequent stop service, this is why more transit proposals need to focus on speed - so the time lost getting to and from the station is made up for by the actual transit ride..

I'd like to note that public transit does have some big legs up on driving, mostly the comfort of your ride. When you drive, you have to constantly be looking at the road. In rush hour, you have to put up with frustration of bumper to bumper traffic. Even if you're taking the bus, you just have to open up your laptop, get out your phone, ipod, book, or newspaper and relax. Unfortunately, it seems like the actual experience of living isn't nearly as highly valued as profit someone could make by having you work an extra 40 mins per day. And nothing beats gliding back home on the train after a long day.

I'm not proposing unplanned growth. As I said, it is very unlikely that we will be bulldozing subdivisions in Pickering to make room for farmland. These places are already there, so we need to make lemonaid out of our lemons. We can do this by increasing density in already developed communities.

That's hitting the nail on the head, and is something LAz doesn't seem to realize. Suburban decay would be just as bad as US-style downtown decay. So the answer should be to integrate urban living into current suburban areas, so the suburbs can benefit from RT and something other than strip malls and big box stores, while keeping the general layout that makes them appeal to some people. To do that, we need Go transit.

 

[LAz]

Also, when you say transit disincentives, are you talking about public transit? Public transit already has the disincentive of being unable to provide a direct start-to-finish commute that other modes provide. While there is a need for local, frequent stop service, this is why more transit proposals need to focus on speed - so the time lost getting to and from the station is made up for by the actual transit ride.

Typo there. *frown* Could you forgive me? *sob*

I meant to say transit incentives and auto disincentives.

Comparing sweden and the US... 80% petrol tax vs 25% petrol tax... 58% new car tax vs 8% new car tax. It's no challenge to guess which consumes more petrol per capita.

These places are already there, so we need to make lemonaid out of our lemons.

But jee, I kinda look at it as making bread without yeast, salt, and uh, yeah, just out of water and flower...

That's hitting the nail on the head, and is something LAz doesn't seem to realize. Suburban decay would be just as bad as US-style downtown decay.

Hey, don't say that. Illinois has loads of rural ghettos, and there's only gonna be more of them. Like this place, appropriately called Pembroke... emphasis on broke... http://cbs2chicago.com/local/pembroke.illinois.poorest.2.1307100.html ... I was there a few weeks ago. It's frightening.

Or go to the southern most tip of illinois and come to cairo. That is a city that is mostly abandoned. It's quite creepy... a depressed place that is turning into a ghost town slowly.

To avoid this we need suburban modification and dismantling of some existing structures.

Does anyone know exactly what the difference in cost it is between a tunneled subway and a tunneled LRT?

I imagine it to be 5% more. Heck, it could be less. Depends on how much money is gonna be thrown away on stations. Compare pape and downsview. Pape's much cheaper. But, you could put most of the construction cost into huge stations and whatnot.



Does anyone else have info on this difference?

 

[nfitz]

I imagine it to be 5% more.

The actual tunnelling for the LRT will be more expensive, because the diameter of the LRT tunnel is bigger (by 0.2 metres if I recall). However, the stations are smaller, and cheaper (and more spartan I believe). The electrical system for LRT is simpler and cheaper with just wire, rather than rail. The other big factor that comes to mind is that vehicles are more expensive.

Generally, I think it's safe to assume that the costs are pretty similar.

 

[kEiThZ]

Compare pape and downsview. Pape's much cheaper.

Them being built decades apart to widely different standards may have something to do with it....just a hint.

 

[M II A II R II K]

They can scrap the Finch Line and extend the Sheppard Subway west for proper subway connectivity, and that would still provide better rapid transit to that general area anyway.

 

[nfitz]

They can scrap the Finch Line and extend the Sheppard Subway west for proper subway connectivity, and that would still provide better rapid transit to that general area anyway.

Given that the Finch line is currently planned to run only west of Keele, and on Finch. And the Sheppard subway extension only runs east of Dufferin, on Sheppard, then I really don't think most of the Finch riders would get much benefit from the Sheppard extension ... unless you were to take it further, to Etobicoke.

 

[EnviroTO]

They can scrap the Finch Line and extend the Sheppard Subway west for proper subway connectivity, and that would still provide better rapid transit to that general area anyway.

Give me some examples of routes where people that would ride on the Finch West LRT would find the Sheppard subway extension to be a better improvement.

 

[Justin10000]

They can scrap the Finch Line and extend the Sheppard Subway west for proper subway connectivity, and that would still provide better rapid transit to that general area anyway.

Even if the SHeppard Subway could be extended past Dufferin, Sheppard Ave ends at Weston, with a large park immediately west of Weston. How will a Sheppard extension help Finch West LRT riders?