[nfitz]

That said, extended it to Vic Park might not be such a bad idea in the short term.

It seems like a relatively good idea. It extends the line by 33%, gets it to a fairly busy node, and get's it past the 404 congestion point. A future LRT from this point would be a lot more economical than starting at Don Mills, especially with the Agincourt grade separation already completed.

 

[k10ery]

Ah, Dr. Chong. A dentist by training, the Sheppard Subway extension, if built, should be called the Molar Express.

Nice.

“You will never, ever be able to get away from either government-direct funding or government backstop – ever,†he said.

How much have we paid this guy to figure out what everybody on this board already knew?

 

[W. K. Lis]

The "$5 to $10 million in funding" should go to the service cuts they are forced to do in Rob Ford's artificial budget problem that he created by himself.

"Mayor Ford's Four Priorities:
1 Customer Service Excellence
2 Transparent & Accountable Government
3 Reduced Cost and Size of Government
4 Transportation City"

Wrong on all counts.

Transit City was, and is, a better transit idea that serves more people at a lower cost.

 

[11th]

The "$5 to $10 million in funding" should go to the service cuts they are forced to do in Rob Ford's artificial budget problem that he created by himself.

"Mayor Ford's Four Priorities:
1 Customer Service Excellence
2 Transparent & Accountable Government
3 Reduced Cost and Size of Government
4 Transportation City"

Wrong on all counts.

Transit City was, and is, a better transit idea that serves more people at a lower cost.

Agreed on the money putting into the service that's being cut.
Disagree on Transit City being a 'better transit idea'. It might be cheaper, but doesn't mean is better.
"Better" can be defined as two ways for example: more people being closer to upgraded transit technology (bus to LRT), or, more people getting a better transit experience (i.e. waiting in an outdoor transit shelter, vs. underground/weather protected, and overall reliability).

Sometimes it's this sort of thinking that makes grand schemes to never happen. We are just too hasty to play catch up, that we spread our limited funding to build many halfbaked projects rather than to complete one big project.
Not to say we should extend Sheppard as a priority, but it should be on the to-do list of subway extensions. No one will deny Toronto's subway network as being inadequate relative to its population.

 

[rbt]

Disagree on Transit City being a 'better transit idea'. It might be cheaper, but doesn't mean is better.

Thousands of small businesses every year learn that a released "good enough" is better than "perfect" that never see the light of day.

Transit City was a significant improvement over what exists today (even for drivers) and the "perfect" solution of a subway under Finch and Sheppard isn't coming any time soon.

 

[ibhattac]

I wonder if Dr. Chong's report will call for densities to be pushed to the 200+ persons (or jobs) per hectare benchmark during operating hours to make the Molar extension financially viable . . .. Just because roads are full up during peak travel times doesn't mean there's enough demand to make higher order transit financially viable.

 

[ibhattac]

looks like the bills just won't stop

http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2011/12/13/transit-city-cancellation-cost_n_1147002.html?ref=canada

So 65m, Dr. Chong's new 15m, the 70% (let's be optimistic) of the Sheppard expansion cost, the increased cost from tunneling under the Don which likely won't happen and the Eglinton line will end before the Don, what else have I missed?

Hey, at least the war on cars is over!

 

[adeel]

just wondering, is the 65M additional money that the city has to pay out, or does it reflect money already spent (or expenses incurred) to date that is essentially wasted? I get sick to my stomach when money is wasted...that we have/are wasting $65M these times is just...ARGH

If its new money, what is this cost going towards? Is there any way to make use of it? Maybe re-prioritize the finch LRT?

I can sorta understand cancelling transit city sheppard lrt (given that Ford wanted to extend the subway). I wasnt a great supporter of the plan (I admit to be a subway kind of guy...I personally liked the idea of a B/D extensin to STC, with a Sheppard extension also to STC to close the loop, along with a DRL).

 

[Voltz]

looks like the bills just won't stop

http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2011/12/13/transit-city-cancellation-cost_n_1147002.html?ref=canada

So 65m, Dr. Chong's new 15m, the 70% (let's be optimistic) of the Sheppard expansion cost, the increased cost from tunneling under the Don which likely won't happen and the Eglinton line will end before the Don, what else have I missed?

Hey, at least the war on cars is over!

Hopefully this is the issue that finally forces this buffoonery before council for a vote.

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

$65M+ of cancellation fees for which the city got absolutely nothing for and it's "worth it", while the same amount spent on tangible services (no matter how much one disagree with them, it is still services rendered) is waste. Boy that's some twisted logic we have going here.

AoD

 

[11th]

Thousands of small businesses every year learn that a released "good enough" is better than "perfect" that never see the light of day.

Transit City was a significant improvement over what exists today (even for drivers) and the "perfect" solution of a subway under Finch and Sheppard isn't coming any time soon.

It was just the right timing. Transit City plan came out when the upper-levels of government finally decided to throw some transit money into Toronto. If we asked for DRL (up to Eglinton), Eglinton, and Sheppard, would we have gotten at least three quarters of those lines funded?

If we keep looking over our shoulders for "second-best" options, of course those, or any subways will not come any time soon (does not only apply to Sheppard).

Just out of curiousity, putting the funding issue aside, if there are two plans 1) DRL, Eglinton, Sheppard subways vs. 2) Transit City, to choose from, I wonder how will the general public and people on transit forums choose; because it seems there are people who really buy into the LRT crisscrossing the city plan.

 

[rbt]

It was just the right timing. Transit City plan came out when the upper-levels of government finally decided to throw some transit money into Toronto. If we asked for DRL (up to Eglinton), Eglinton, and Sheppard, would we have gotten at least three quarters of those lines funded?

Sure, but we didn't. Transit City got funded and is a reasonable improvement; so should have been built.

Once the new western tunnel/bridge section of Eglinton is designed and tendered I will say the same about it despite thinking it is a poor use of funds and having a dozen other priorities.

I am also in favour of completing Spadina subway to Vaughan despite thinking it is a poor use of funds north of Steeles. That money could have bought electrified 5 minute frequencies on the Barrie GO line (Newmarket to Union), one heck of a people mover from York U GO station to York U, TTC/GO fare integration, and half or more of DRL east.


At some point you need to commit to good enough. It's entirely possible to eat away an entire $4B in plan changes and construction delays. Every year that $4B buys less and less.

 

[sixrings]

Just out of curiousity, putting the funding issue aside, if there are two plans 1) DRL, Eglinton, Sheppard subways vs. 2) Transit City, to choose from, I wonder how will the general public and people on transit forums choose; because it seems there are people who really buy into the LRT crisscrossing the city plan.

i think you have to ask the general public if you have this amount of money which buys you x amount of lrt or x amount of subway which would you choose. obviously people would choose subway if its dollar for dollar the same. but lrt pricing was about half the cost per km and was also at least twice as fast to be built.

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

It was just the right timing. Transit City plan came out when the upper-levels of government finally decided to throw some transit money into Toronto. If we asked for DRL (up to Eglinton), Eglinton, and Sheppard, would we have gotten at least three quarters of those lines funded?

Really? You're under the impression the province is providing a carte blanche? Considering the TC plan got reduced in scope, what makes you think that somehow the initial commitment to fund a subway version won't get scaled back? Given the tete-a-tete post TC, it is clear the underlying factor is total spending, not what was proposed.

Just out of curiousity, putting the funding issue aside, if there are two plans 1) DRL, Eglinton, Sheppard subways vs. 2) Transit City, to choose from, I wonder how will the general public and people on transit forums choose; because it seems there are people who really buy into the LRT crisscrossing the city plan.

Not exactly an apples to apples comparison - especially at the cost level, to say the least.

 

[11th]

i think you have to ask the general public if you have this amount of money which buys you x amount of lrt or x amount of subway which would you choose. obviously people would choose subway if its dollar for dollar the same. but lrt pricing was about half the cost per km and was also at least twice as fast to be built.

The logic being, if both of those ideas cost exactly the same, three won't be this whole debate over partial- vs. complete-grade-seperated transit now would it?

Not exactly an apples to apples comparison - especially at the cost level, to say the least.

It's not apples to apples comparison, but we were already comparing the (different) costs associated with different mode of transit anyways. The point being, if we don't set the bar high, of course we won't get the "best" thing.
Here's an example, say if we have $5 billion to work with, is it "better" to 1) spend it all to build the DRL (partially?), or 2) spread it over to build some LRT lines around the city?
1 - give downtown area better access to reliable transit, at the expense of outer-city transit users
2 - more people having access to higher form of transit, but DRL will get pushed back for another decade or more.

Those who choose option1 probably believe further extension can be built when additional fundings come around in the future, while option2 assumes the opposite - no additonal fundings in the near future. We can't say which side is correct or not, it really depends.

If there isn't enough money right now, build it step-by-step. Sure, Queen's Park had already trimmed the funding for Transit City , but what does that tell us? Big transit plan never works/gets built in this city (network 2011, transit city, etc). It might be better to concentrate the limited resource to build one first-class trunk route (it can be DRL, or Eglinton)?