ehlow
Senior Member
You can't really compare Canada to China in any way from what I understand, whether it be city population, density, regulations, government, labour costs, it's a completely different world.
|
|
|
- Thread starter denfromoakvillemilton
- Start date
TheTigerMaster
Superstar
Mind that this is China we're talking about... the country that will build entire uninhabited cities just because. I don't think that it's fair to compare Toronto to any city in that city. Even comparing New York to Beijing seems a little asinine to me. It's a completely different political and social environment in China.
nfitz
Superstar
So, your saying we should start voting communist then, so we build more subway lines?
Or perhaps we should do it properly, execute the Tories and Liberals, and then go all Tiananmen Square Massacre killing thousands of opposition, so we can build the subways cheaper without proper studies or environmental assessments?
I say we simply should not change horses ...
denfromoakvillemilton
Senior Member
This is so over the top. All the guy said is that Toronto is indecisive, which is true.
nfitz
Superstar
No, he compared Toronto to cities in a communist dictatorship that has shamed the world by slaughtering it's own citizens, and then lying about it; and that steals land from people to build infrastructure with no compensation.
You can't compare the results, without starting to look at the tyrannical regime behind them.
diminutive
Active Member
There are lots of other cities that are not in the PRC which have still seen pretty substantial rapid transit growth.
Vienna's U-Bahn is two decades younger than Toronto's, yet is longer.
Taipei's Metro isn't even two decades old and is twice our network.
Stockholm's Metro is about the same age as ours, but is much longer.
Madrid has probably built several hundred kilometres of metro since the 1970s, ditto for Barcelona.
Milan's Metro is younger yet larger than ours.
Even Vancouver's more or less caught up with Toronto, despite our big head start and larger population.
I seem to remember that China doesn't even have especially low metro construction costs by global standards; while China has lower labour costs, this tends to be balanced by lower productivity. And while I'm hardly an expert on the Chinese legal environment, I don't think they get as many shortcuts as we like to imagine.
Vienna's U-Bahn is two decades younger than Toronto's, yet is longer.
Taipei's Metro isn't even two decades old and is twice our network.
Stockholm's Metro is about the same age as ours, but is much longer.
Madrid has probably built several hundred kilometres of metro since the 1970s, ditto for Barcelona.
Milan's Metro is younger yet larger than ours.
Even Vancouver's more or less caught up with Toronto, despite our big head start and larger population.
I seem to remember that China doesn't even have especially low metro construction costs by global standards; while China has lower labour costs, this tends to be balanced by lower productivity. And while I'm hardly an expert on the Chinese legal environment, I don't think they get as many shortcuts as we like to imagine.
denfromoakvillemilton
Senior Member
Fine, nfitz. Let's look at the other cities mentioned by diminutive. All of them also have done something. We need to stop making excuses for this city.
ksun
Senior Member
An excellent example is Los Angeles. Since our Sheppard line opened in late 2002, they have built:
2003 Gold line
2006 Purple line
2009 Gold line east extension
2012 Expo line
as well as in the near future (all under construction or in pre-construction)
2015 Gold line extension
2015 Expo line phase 2
2019 Crenshaw/LAX
2020 Regional connector
2023 Purple line extension to La Cienega
In a city Toronto mocks all the time for being car dependent. But I guess it is OK as we can always find comfort in having "the second highest ridership after NYC in North America".
ksun
Senior Member
Nanjing is about 45% denser (1200 vs 850), significant but not day-and-night different.
ehlow
Senior Member
Yes Los Angeles voted for transit taxes and built lots of light rail brt and express buses. Having said that it is a much bigger city than us and is actually pretty dense. Not saying we can't learn from them but it's just a fact that LA is much bigger.
Interesting discussion here on re-examining old alignments and station locations.
One of the things that I have been thinking about is, when the GO REX network (or something like it) comes to fruition, how will the dynamics of the subway system change? Chances are a lot of current subway riders, particularly the long haul ones (Finch -> Downtown, Kipling -> Downtown, etc) will become GO REX riders. This means that the subway will have the potential to perform a more local rapid transit role.
What I was thinking is that the TTC or Metrolinx should maybe start looking at an "infill" policy, for lack of a better term. What I mean by this is identify areas on the subway system that have been bypassed for the sake of speed or cost, but could support a station. A few locations of the top of my head:
Yonge: Blythwood (between Eglinton and Lawrence), Glen Echo (between Lawrence and York Mills), Lord Seaton/Highway 401 (would serve southern end of NYCC cluster).
Bloor-Danforth: Firvalley (between Vic Park and Warden stations), Birchmount (between Warden and Kennedy).
Sheppard: Willowdale (between Yonge and Bayview).
Some of these locations had planned areas for future stations that were just never built, while some would need more extensive upgrades in order to fit a station in.
Given the premium that developers place on direct subway access, there could be some interesting opportunities for full or partial funding of these stations via redevelopment of adjacent properties. When you look at Yonge south of Eglinton and most of Bloor-Danforth, the walking radii around stations nearly all overlap. It's only north of Eglinton and east of Victoria Park that you get substantial gaps in those radii. Adding infill stations would mean that pretty much anywhere along those corridors would be within walking distance of a subway stop.
One of the things that I have been thinking about is, when the GO REX network (or something like it) comes to fruition, how will the dynamics of the subway system change? Chances are a lot of current subway riders, particularly the long haul ones (Finch -> Downtown, Kipling -> Downtown, etc) will become GO REX riders. This means that the subway will have the potential to perform a more local rapid transit role.
What I was thinking is that the TTC or Metrolinx should maybe start looking at an "infill" policy, for lack of a better term. What I mean by this is identify areas on the subway system that have been bypassed for the sake of speed or cost, but could support a station. A few locations of the top of my head:
Yonge: Blythwood (between Eglinton and Lawrence), Glen Echo (between Lawrence and York Mills), Lord Seaton/Highway 401 (would serve southern end of NYCC cluster).
Bloor-Danforth: Firvalley (between Vic Park and Warden stations), Birchmount (between Warden and Kennedy).
Sheppard: Willowdale (between Yonge and Bayview).
Some of these locations had planned areas for future stations that were just never built, while some would need more extensive upgrades in order to fit a station in.
Given the premium that developers place on direct subway access, there could be some interesting opportunities for full or partial funding of these stations via redevelopment of adjacent properties. When you look at Yonge south of Eglinton and most of Bloor-Danforth, the walking radii around stations nearly all overlap. It's only north of Eglinton and east of Victoria Park that you get substantial gaps in those radii. Adding infill stations would mean that pretty much anywhere along those corridors would be within walking distance of a subway stop.
ehlow
Senior Member
Blythwood I could definitely imagine. Glen Echo I'm less sure about since there's the ravine just north of it, it seems like there are less people living around it than Blythwood.
Good point. Blythwood would in essence extend the Yonge-Eglinton cluster further north, much in the way that Rosedale does for Yorkville.
Glen Echo has some opportunity for densification around it, but for me it's about making that area between Lawrence and York Mills subway accessible for people who aren't within walking distance of either of those stations.
For a station like Lord Seaton, I could see it being very useful if the NYCC cluster ever decides to "jump the tracks" and expand south of the 401. Even if it stays north of the 401 though, it would be the preferred station for a lot of people in the southern end of that cluster. Not to mention it could be useful for a Pearson - Wilson - Lord Seaton - STC express bus service.
ksun
Senior Member
I am afraid those stations don't have enough density to justify them. Honestly even Dupont station doesn't have enough density around it (hardly any midrises even, very odd indeed), not to mention Lawrence. Summerhill and Rosedale should have been one station too. The money should be spent on areas with high density but without rapid transit, not on nodes surrounded by single family homes. If we had a station at Blythwood, how many people would be within 10 minutes walking distance? Probably not many. As to Glen Echo, it feels like Niagara-on-the-lake, where 30 seconds into the side streets, it is all low rise homes. definitely doesn't remind me of a needed subway station.
Yonge south of Bloor does have a lot of overlapping, but when you consider how many people and business are located there, plus the future new residents attracted by quite a few towers within the next few years, that makes perfect sense.
Last edited:
Johnny Au
Senior Member
Blythwood station can have a branch of the 124 Sunnybrook bus route as well.