All aboard for more subways

[GenerationW]

Some of the Transit City lines were outlined in his platform, and he made it a major part of his election. Make all the excuses, and assumptions you want. Miller made Light Rail a part of his platform, and he won.

Nice try. It was vague at best during the campaign. And now his plan (the full TC, not the "some" part) is all but dead, and he's not running to defend it.

Or is that assuming too much?

As to the PATH system, is there any concrete evidence that it is good for the city? Yes, it helps people get out of the rain, but the financial district is pretty dead at street level. Would the city be distinctly worse without the PATH? Most cities, even cold ones, survive without such a system.

Financial districts teeming with people at street level are now important? Seriously??

 

[Justin10000]

Nice try. It was vague at best during the campaign. And now his plan (the full TC, not the "some" part) is all but dead, and he's not running to defend it.

Or is that assuming too much?

Good Lord.

You're really grasping for anything to discredit the plan.
Miller proposed a number of LRT lines, and busways in his platform. Unfortunately his election page is no longer up, but I did manage to find a piece by Steve Munro:

http://stevemunro.ca/?p=245

It was not a vague part of his election platform.

Financial districts teeming with people at street level are now important? Seriously??

Funny, considering you subway advocates moan, and whinge on why Toronto cannot be as great as New York, and Paris. Those cities have very vibrant streetscapes in their financial sectors(even La' Defense in Paris). Maybe it is worth looking at.

 

[W. K. Lis]

I just noticed, the Eglinton LRT has an increase of 1 underground stop from the previous plan to the new plan. Does this mean the tunnel extends up until Jane in the new plan? Maybe Metrolinx wants to make the underground LRT a subway!! This is good news!!

No. Jane Street would be above ground. The high water table (there's a pond in the south-east corner of Jane and Eglinton) makes an underground station at Jane too expensive. The EA has crossovers at Jane.

 

[nfitz]

Calling pro-subway advocates anti-transit is on the same level as calling Americans opposed to the War on Terror/Gulf War II unpatriotic closet jihadists.

No it isn't. Celebrating a cut in transit funding isn't being pro-subway.

The new subway on Eglinton is delayed by years - probably forever ... and there are people here who are so completely naive and ignorant that think this is a good thing?

I'm just shocked at some of the comments here. What this fetish with heavy subway is I don't know. If LRT can give the same travel times, with a higher frequency, and better ability to connect to surface routes (less transfers), then it's just as good as subway. Given that there is not the demand for the capacities that heavy subway give on Eglinton, then there is little need for debate.

 

[Asterix]

The people have always wanted subway expansion no matter the cost.

This is really the crux of the debate.

Yes, the people (and that probably includes many of those tarred with the pro-LRT brush on this forum) have always wanted subway expansion.

But no, not at any price. And that's the problem - subways cost a heck of a lot (just look at the percentage of the TC budget devoted to the tunneled Eglinton portion vs the rest of the lines).

It's one thing to say 'hey, the province and the feds should give all this money to build it', but in this age of budget deficits and high government debt loads, whether it is the city, province or feds providing the money, it is going to mean more out of the pockets of those people that want subway expansion.

Any basic examination of the numbers will show that you aren't going to be able to build much of a subway line by selling air-rights, by putting $5 tolls on the DVP or selling Toronto Hydro.

What do you really think will be the opinion of "the people" will be when you tell them property taxes are going way up, tolls will be $10 and also on major arterials, GST, PST and/or income taxes will be raised and various transfer taxes and fees imposed. You gotta find those billions of dollars a year somewhere and rooting out bureaucratic waste ain't gonna do it either. Maybe cut a few important government services and fundings for other programs.

Too many people who "want subway expansion no matter what the cost" seem to think that money from "the government" is just some bottomless well that can be tapped with no impact on them. That's not the way the world works.

As much as I might want subways everywhere, if we want to have any kind of discernible transit expansion in the next 10 - 20 years, it's going to come from TC or some parred-down variation, not from completely scrapping the plan and declaring 'subways for all!'

Pragmatism.

 

[LAz]

The new subway on Eglinton is delayed by years - probably forever ... and there are people here who are so completely naive and ignorant that think this is a good thing?

It is not a metro. Therefore it is great that this little stupid thing is no going to get built.

Celebrating a cut in transit funding isn't being pro-subway.

I am pro metro, not pro subway. At any rate, taking money away from some LRT projects would enable the construction of an expanded metro system.

Given that there is not the demand for the capacities that heavy subway give on Eglinton, then there is little need for debate.

If things go how they go, then there will be the demand, in the not so distant future. So the question is why waste a whole lot of money to upgrade the underground portion? That would be a shitload of money wasted to renovate/upgrade.
Again, you seem to not be able to answer... "why not build it as a metro from the get go"? If you bother to invest so much into tunneling, then why use it for a small capacity thing? If it costs so little to make it a metro vs lrt, why not go with the better long term option, that being metro?

 

[Rainforest]

Eglinton LRT: Overhead power
Eglinton Subway: Third-rail power

Eglinton LRT: Low-floor
Eglinton Subway: High floor

Eglinton LRT: 33 km/h (tunnel)
Eglinton Subway: 33 km/h (tunnel)

Eglinton LRT: No transfer where tunnel ends
Eglinton Subway: Transfer where tunnel ends

Eglinton LRT: No wye to connect to Spadina line
Eglinton Subway: Wye to connect to Spadina line

Eglinton LRT: Arbitrary train length
Eglinton Subway: Arbitrary train length

Eglinton LRT: Flexity rolling stock by Bombardier
Eglinton Subway: Toronto Rocket rolling stock by Bombardier

What precisely makes you object to making it a tram tunnel? I suppose low floor cars might be a bit shakier than high floor ones, but the trams I rode in Frankfurt and Berlin weren't particularly shaky.

Frankly, I'm ok either way.

If the Jane - Don Mills route is implemented as subway, it will afford higher capacity limit for virtually same price. 10 km west of Laird, and the Don Mills station were going to be underground anyway. Higher cost of the short 3-km section between Laird and Don Mills will be offset by cheaper rolling stock (subway cars are cheaper than LRV of similar capacity), slightly smaller tunnel (no space needed for overhead power), and possibly by the use of Wilson yard instead of building a new one.

I know that capacity projections are within what LRT can handle; and the relatively short Jane - Don Mills subway certainly will see lighter usage than Yonge or Bloor. Nevertheless, why not get extra capacity for no extra cost? In case the demand increases in the distant future, retrofitting the line will cost a lot more.

Golden Mile would not get subway in this round, but it can be served by buses with short connections to two subway lines.

Btw, is Eglinton 6 lanes or less through Golden Mile? If it is 6 lanes already, then repainting 2 of them as BRT would not cost much. Alternatively, mixed-traffic express bus service could operate between Don Mills and Kennedy (and further east).

 

[Asterix]

, and possibly by the use of Wilson yard instead of building a new one.

It isn't quite as simple. Wilson is already full (at least according to the TTC) and they've produced a rail yard needs study (can be found somewhere on their website) as they won't have room for the extra trains needed just for the Yonge and Spadina extensions, let alone a whole slew of more trains from an Eglinton line.

The rail yard needs study presents several possibilities (more tail tracks at the Richmond Hill end, squeezing something into Davisville) with the main conclusion being expansion of Wilson. But again, that is just to deal with the extra trains required for the YUS extensions, not another 20km of an Eglinton line, so there may not be much difference between expanding Wilson and building a new Eglinton focused yard.

(Further, it would be no small engineering task to connect the Eglinton line to YUS to move the trains.)

 

[The Mad Navigator]

It is not a metro. Therefore it is great that this little stupid thing is no going to get built.

It's not dead just yet. If you want to hold on to these ideas that Eglinton will become this pie in the sky dream metro/subway/HRT, be my guest.

I am pro metro, not pro subway. At any rate, taking money away from some LRT projects would enable the construction of an expanded metro system.

Because it's easy as that, right?

If things go how they go, then there will be the demand, in the not so distant future. So the question is why waste a whole lot of money to upgrade the underground portion? That would be a shitload of money wasted to renovate/upgrade.
Again, you seem to not be able to answer... "why not build it as a metro from the get go"? If you bother to invest so much into tunneling, then why use it for a small capacity thing? If it costs so little to make it a metro vs lrt, why not go with the better long term option, that being metro?

So you're able to predict the future so accurately based on ridership stats alone? It's not as simple as just that, pal.

Oh, and you've obviously never heard of building for what you NEED.

 

[kEiThZ]

No it isn't. Celebrating a cut in transit funding isn't being pro-subway.

Who's celebrating a cut in transit funding? I don't know anybody here that thinks this is a good thing.

I'm just shocked at some of the comments here. What this fetish with heavy subway is I don't know. If LRT can give the same travel times, with a higher frequency, and better ability to connect to surface routes (less transfers), then it's just as good as subway. Given that there is not the demand for the capacities that heavy subway give on Eglinton, then there is little need for debate.

That's a big IF. IF LRT can give me the same travel times (it can't...even all the TTC poster boards admit that), with a higher frequency (not compared to existing bus service), and a better ability to connect to surface routes (debatable when it's in a tunnel just like a subway), I'd support it. I see something that's less frequent that a bus (especially if branching comes into play) and slower than a subway. I am skeptical if this the best bang for out transit bucks.

That said, I am referring to only certain corridors in TC. This is not a slight on LRT, which is great technology when implemented well.

 

[GraphicMatt]

Who's celebrating a cut in transit funding? I don't know anybody here that thinks this is a good thing.

Our friend LAz has been celebrating these cuts in multiple threads across the forum. He's the one that inspired thie line of discussion.

I'm glad most rational people realize that, despite any issues there were with the TC plan, a cut in transit funding for Toronto is a very bad and unfortunate thing.

 

[ssiguy2]

Miller also used false assumptions. He stated that subway was needed as by 2030 Toronto will hit 3 million. Toronto , at current rates, will hit 3 million by 2020 and 3.4 by 2030. That's an extra 400,000 people trying to use this streetcar system. London city is now at 380,000 meaning you are going to have to be moving around an extra London more than Miller stated. Anyone who has been to London knows it's traffic is hell so god help you.
Did you notice the number of stops on each line?.............holy crap. It's nearly as many as a bus route.
Finch is a complete waste of funds as most will be getting off at the new extended Spadina line.
If they are going to build a true mass/rapid transit system then that means tough choices. Mass transit means you cannot please all the people all the time. You have to set priorities and in Toronto with the TC map that means 1st, 2nd, and last is Eglinton. It must be a mass/rapid transit line from Peasron to Kingston {not Kennedy} for a true cross city line. The line is approx 36 km and can definately be build as total grade separation by short tunnels at a MAX of $200 million per km. Tunnell from Bayview to Dufferin and thats it. It should be elevated or trenched for the entire rest of the system using street medians or rail ROW or other industrial/commercial routes.
These stations, which will average between 1 to 1.5 km do nopt have to be Yonge subway size. 100 metre stations {5 subway equivalent cars} will be more than enough for at least 50 years at a minimum.
It must have no street contact at all so trains can be automated which saves a fortune over the long tern.
Vancouver is about to commence construction on it's ICTS Evergreen SkyTrain line next year. 11.2 km being built in 3 years at $1.4 billion exactly one third of the proposed Pearon to Kennedy TC line so comparisons can be exact. For 33 km of "expensive" ICTS technology it will work out to $4.2 billion which includes a one km tunnel and 80 metre stations and rolling stock. Add an extra $ 800 million for a tunnel from Bayview to Dufferin { and that's it!}, $300 million for longer stations and $200 million for more rolling stock and Bob's your uncle.
If Toronto can't build a 36 km line from Kingston to Pearson for under $6 billion then it is for 3 reasons: Incompetence, Corruption, and Palm greasing.

 

[GraphicMatt]

A monorail all the way to Kingston would be awesome for Queen's students, for sure.

 

[The Mad Navigator]

Miller also used false assumptions. He stated that subway was needed as by 2030 Toronto will hit 3 million. Toronto , at current rates, will hit 3 million by 2020 and 3.4 by 2030. That's an extra 400,000 people trying to use this streetcar system. London city is now at 380,000 meaning you are going to have to be moving around an extra London more than Miller stated. Anyone who has been to London knows it's traffic is hell so god help you.
Did you notice the number of stops on each line?.............holy crap. It's nearly as many as a bus route.
Finch is a complete waste of funds as most will be getting off at the new extended Spadina line.
If they are going to build a true mass/rapid transit system then that means tough choices. Mass transit means you cannot please all the people all the time. You have to set priorities and in Toronto with the TC map that means 1st, 2nd, and last is Eglinton. It must be a mass/rapid transit line from Peasron to Kingston {not Kennedy} for a true cross city line. The line is approx 36 km and can definately be build as total grade separation by short tunnels at a MAX of $200 million per km. Tunnell from Bayview to Dufferin and thats it. It should be elevated or trenched for the entire rest of the system using street medians or rail ROW or other industrial/commercial routes.
These stations, which will average between 1 to 1.5 km do nopt have to be Yonge subway size. 100 metre stations {5 subway equivalent cars} will be more than enough for at least 50 years at a minimum.
It must have no street contact at all so trains can be automated which saves a fortune over the long tern.
Vancouver is about to commence construction on it's ICTS Evergreen SkyTrain line next year. 11.2 km being built in 3 years at $1.4 billion exactly one third of the proposed Pearon to Kennedy TC line so comparisons can be exact. For 33 km of "expensive" ICTS technology it will work out to $4.2 billion which includes a one km tunnel and 80 metre stations and rolling stock. Add an extra $ 800 million for a tunnel from Bayview to Dufferin { and that's it!}, $300 million for longer stations and $200 million for more rolling stock and Bob's your uncle.
If Toronto can't build a 36 km line from Kingston to Pearson for under $6 billion then it is for 3 reasons: Incompetence, Corruption, and Palm greasing.

Can you prove to me that you're not a spambot?

 

[nfitz]

If the Jane - Don Mills route is implemented as subway, it will afford higher capacity limit for virtually same price.

I think someone may have pointed this out before, but

There is no forecast demand for higher capacity, even 20-years after opening. Why cripple yourself and create unnecessary transfers?