All aboard for more subways

[gweed123]

Obviously you are ignoring his "I do not want to give any road space to transit comments". How is restricting a road to single occupant vehciles "more efficient?" It's a waste of road space, especially when you can better utilize the space by giving 2 lanes to transit.

Because the transit is UNDERNEATH the road! My God! It's not like just because you can't see the line at surface level doesn't mean it isn't there! How is having 2 underground 'lanes' of transit + 2 above ground lanes of traffic in each direction LESS efficient than 2 transit surface lanes and 1 traffic lane in each direction? And one could make the argument that putting in surface transit takes away roadspace for dedicated, curb-separated bike lanes.

Isn't that increasing a roadway's theoretical capacity too?

Yes, it is. But having the transit underneath the roadway also increases the CORRIDOR's capacity, to a far greater extent than LRT down the middle of the street could.

At a much cheaper cost, and quicker to implement? That is efficient use of road space, and costs much less than building a subway whose capacity would most likely not be fully utlized.

Except in the case of the Yonge and Bloor-Danforth subways, which are bursting at the seams during rush hour. Yeah, who needs all that extra capacity anyway?

So please, before calling someone's argument fallacious, you should check yours. Who cares if you are maximizing passenger capacity, if that capacity will never be fully utlized. increase the theoretical capacity on the surface first by building ROWs, and eventually build a subway if needed. Sound pretty logical to me(and nearly every respected transit planner).

Again, look at Yonge and Bloor-Danforth during rush hour, or even Yonge sometimes off-peak, and tell me that the capacity isn't being 'fully utilized'.

One more thing, you see the state the Yonge Line, and Bloor-Danforth subways are in. Tell me why building a subway "for the future" makes sense, especially when it will be lightly used? Hell, the Sheppard Line has been closed to make repairs a few times!

How can you honestly make the statement that the Yonge and Bloor subways are being 'lightly used'? I don't even know how to rebuttle that statement.

Quote Chris Sellors: "Subways do not rob us of road capacity" He is PRO-CAR.

Get out yer pitchforks! There's someone who wants to benefit both transit users AND drivers! Get him!

If he even had some knowledge of transit, he would not be re-hashing the same "Let's build a km every year until we get the network we need" sound bites again. Worked well for Jane Pitfield, eh? And this guy is supposed to be Michael Walker's protege.

I agree that the 'incremental approach' has some holes in it. But clearly getting all the funding at the same time isn't working so well either.

If he remotely cared about the reast of the city, he would look at Transit City, and think "hmmm", those lines are serving neighbourhood with poor transit.

And why does the technology used matter if it's just looking at a map and seeing what lines go through what neighbourhoods? Your point would work the exact same if they were a mix of subway lines and BRT lines as well.

It's not subways, but it a good stop-gap until subways are needed. No. He is just copying Sarah Thomson, who copied Jane Pitfield. And for the record, I am not going to lose sleep over the fact you cannot accept my opinion. I do not have a problem with anyone advocating subways over LRT. Your choice, but when the reason for building subways is to "save road space for cars", that in my book is anti-transit. Get transit out of the way of cars. Sorry cannot accept that thinking.

That is not my thinking at all. My thinking is 'subways are faster, more efficient, have a higher capacity, and are more comfortable to ride (and to wait out in the snow for)'. Yes, they are more expensive, but I believe the long-term investment is worth it. I'd be perfectly happy with the city taking the lanes that they were going to use for LRT, and turn them into bike lanes and a wider sidewalk on all those roads. I believe all suburban arterial roads should be equipped with dedicated bus lanes, so that there is a clear commitment to transit in areas that can't yet support rail-based transit. My preference for subways is rooted in the fact that I want higher quality transit, not because I want a wider avenue for the car that I don't even own.

 

[gweed123]

Why do you say ridership projections were still within the range of LRT? Bloor ridership was almost 9,000 passengers per direction per hour in the 1950s. Forecasting is a bit of an art - but it wouldn't be that difficult to see that it would require subway, when you started adding in parallel routes such as Harbord, Carlton, etc.

9,000 pphpd is still within the range of LRT, is it not? It was because they used very generous forecasting models (which turned out to be correct) that the decision was made to spend the extra and make it a full subway. All I'm saying is, thank goodness they did. If they had gone with more conservative models, we'd be screwed today even more than we already are.

And you don't think that an Eglinton subway would canabalize a significant portion of Bloor-Danforth's ridership? Especially when you factor in the number of people that are coming to B-D stations from origin points north of Eglinton, who travel PAST Eglinton in order to get to a station on B-D. In short, I think the TTC low-balled the Eglinton projections big time. If built as an LRT, the line will be at or very near capacity from Day 1.

 

[Justin10000]

Hey, I didn't start that, Justin was the one who brought up the whole "latching on" thing, I just rebutted it in an attempt to show him how hypocritical is arguments are.

I can direct you to quite a few threads on this board with quotes from subway advocates stating they would vote for a candidate because of their plan

And they may not have invented it, but they're the ones who have been trying to sell 'LRT everywhere in Toronto' to the City for the past 5 years. And based on the number of people that have called in to McGuinty to "Save Transit City", their sell hasn't really worked. The vast majority of the people that I have talked to do not like Transit City, they want subways. Even those who do want Transit City, want it because "it's better than nothing". Call them uneducated or unenlightened as to the wonders of LRT, but people want subways. I am educated, I know the benefits of LRT, yet I still want subways. Why? Because it's a better long-term investment.

Didn't Miller run on an election platform of building LRT, and did he not win against a candidate who proposing subways? Interesting, the packed public transit coalition meeting says otherwise. The canvassing at subway stations say otherwise. People want TRANSIT.

 

[nfitz]

9,000 pphpd is still within the range of LRT, is it not? It was because they used very generous forecasting models (which turned out to be correct) that the decision was made to spend the extra and make it a full subway

And such models are in use today - though a lot more sophisticated now. And the same models have indicated that ridership on the Don Mills LRT south of Eglinton will also exceed what LRT can handle.

And such models have also shown that construction of the DRL will significantly reduce future Bloor-Yonge transfers well below what they are today, even with the construction of the Yonge subeway.

Sorry ... I'm not sure I see the point here. If such models were indicating 20,000, or even 15,000 pphpd a couple of decades from now, then I think everyone would support subway. These models don't ... I don't think they even get to 10,000.

 

[Juan_Lennon416]

I can direct you to quite a few threads on this board with quotes from subway advocates stating they would vote for a candidate because of their plan


Didn't Miller run on an election platform of building LRT, and did he not win against a candidate who proposing subways? Interesting, the packed public transit coalition meeting says otherwise. The canvassing at subway stations say otherwise. People want TRANSIT.

The candidate proposing the subways was such a weak opponent and had no chance of winning

 

[gweed123]

What makes Sheppard a primary corridor? How is it any more of a primary corridor than Lawrence or York Mills or Finch? Would you support LRT on Lawrence?

Sheppard is a primary corridor because it passes through the heart of North York. And yes, if the ridership warranted it, I would definitely support an LRT on Lawrence, as long as there was a subway on Eglinton. Same as I would support an LRT on Finch or Steeles. They're significant corridors on a neighbourhood scale, but in terms of a city-wide transit network, they aren't as important as Eglinton or Yonge or Sheppard. The argument could be made however that Finch in the west is as Sheppard is in the east.

An LRT on Lawrence would increase transit reliability in the neighbourhood, and would act as an efficient feeder line for the Yonge and Spadina subways. Same thing goes for St. Clair. I'm not opposed to the St. Clair streetcar at all. I just don't want to see that type of transit along primary corridors that should be grade-separated transit.

The current subway headway is 120 seconds. Why do you need under 90 seconds on the LRT lines? If you need more capacity, you can run longer LRT trains.

They're also trying to use ATC to reduce the headways on YUS. Why? Because they need even more capacity than what they already have. And you would need under 90 seconds on LRT lines because you botched the ridership projections and the line that should have been built as a subway was instead built as an LRT, with a significantly lower capacity.

And the longer trains thing is a safety issue. Because you're running at-grade, you have the possibility of cars jetting out in front of the train, or pedestrians, or animals, or what-have you. The longer the train is, the longer it'll take to come to a stop. Subway trains (aside from at stations, which can be solved with suicide doors), don't have those problems.

How about Eglinton-style, underground LRT? Or S(L)RT-style elevated LRT?

Eglinton-style LRT would work great on a street like Queen, assuming the DRL uses a Wellington or rail corridor alignment. Closer stop spacing, yet the reliability of being underground, and separted from traffic. The DRL would cater to the B-D and Eglinton transfer crowds, while the Queen LRT would cater to those who are starting or ending along Queen, or those who live along Dundas who don't want to deal with the hastles of downtown streetcars.

Elevated LRT also has its place. Although I envision it as subway, Eglinton East would be the perfect candidate for elevated transit. Having a stylized transit guideway along the Golden Mile would actually make the neighbourhood look more attractive in my opinion.

 

[Ansem]

Sell Toronto Hydro to pay for subways, says Rossi

http://news.nationalpost.com/2010/05/04/sell-toronto-hydro-to-pay-for-subways-says-rossi/


Mayoral candidate Rocco Rossi says if elected he would build subways, provided the city can clear it’s $2.4-billion debt.

Mr. Rossi unveiled “Transit City Plus†today, a vision to invest $4.5-billion of city money over ten years so that some of the planned light rail vehicle lines — starting with Sheppard East — turn into a subway. The plan relies heavily on the sale of Toronto Hydro, the publicly owned utility, and other assets to wipe out a debt Mr. Rossi says costs the city $450-million to service.

Mr. Rossi says that is what it costs to build two kilometres of subway tracks and open one station a year, which is what he is setting out to do. He said he wants to embark on “continuous tunneling†to reduce the expense of starting and stopping.

“And while we’re building subways we’re increasing bus service in the inner suburbs of Scarborough, Etobicoke and North York,†said Mr. Rossi. “Our goal has to be a transit system so good that when you wake up in the morning, you reach for your transit pass instead of your car keys.â€

Mr. Rossi also wants to explore alternative financial arrangements, air rights and land value capture. He promised not to institute tolls to pay for expanded transit.



Read more: http://news.nationalpost.com/2010/0...-to-pay-for-subways-says-rossi/#ixzz0mzCGxW2I

 

[gweed123]

And such models are in use today - though a lot more sophisticated now. And the same models have indicated that ridership on the Don Mills LRT south of Eglinton will also exceed what LRT can handle.

Yet the TTC is still pushing forward with Transit City as-is, despite the models telling them that portion of the plan is flawed.

And such models have also shown that construction of the DRL will significantly reduce future Bloor-Yonge transfers well below what they are today, even with the construction of the Yonge subeway.

Yet this hasn't been included in Transit City, despite overwhelming support (and logic) for the line.

Sorry ... I'm not sure I see the point here. If such models were indicating 20,000, or even 15,000 pphpd a couple of decades from now, then I think everyone would support subway. These models don't ... I don't think they even get to 10,000.

Therein lies the problem. If the numbers clearly show it, people would want it. Therefore, you have 3 options: change the plan accordingly to reflect the numbers, change the numbers accordingly to reflect the plan, or flat-out deny the numbers. Since the projections were being done in-house, the TTC had the opportunity to easily manipulate the first two. Given the fact that the numbers justified a subway along Eglinton West a mere decade ago, which one of those two do you think it is?

In any case (and this is not just for Transit City, it's for nearly every transit plan), the numbers are created the justify the pre-determined end result. You want a subway? We'll give you projections justifying a subway. You want LRT? We'll give you projections justifying an LRT. My worry is that the TTC was so worried about justifying LRT that they made errors or omissions in their demand forecasting to make the numbers work, in order to help justify a plan they knew they were going to build anyway, regardless of what the numbers said (as they have done with the Don Mills LRT south of Eglinton).

 

[nfitz]

http://news.nationalpost.com/2010/05/04/sell-toronto-hydro-to-pay-for-subways-says-rossi/

This seems to be a reannouncement of his previous hydro and subway promises from earlier int he campaign.

I thought his people were saying there was to be a new announcement today?

 

[Justin10000]

Rocco who?

 

[Fresh Start]

Wow, I cannot believe members are falling for that populist drivel. Chris Sellors is running for council in Ward 22 St. Paul's. The Yonge subway runs through the ward, as with the St. Clair Streetcar, and the potential ECLRT. Why would he be proposing subways to voters in a ward that is has good transit already,yet most of the resident hop in their BMV's to shop at the Forest Hill Loblaws?

Oh wait...Subways do not rob us of road capacity before people are able to leave their cars at home. He IS pandering to the voters in Ward 22! Build subways, and get transit out of the way of cars!!

I have to admit, I am liking the pro-subway crowd. The more they talk, the less credible they sound. Chris Sellors only wants subways because he care less about transit. It's about making sure cars do not have to share the road with transit. Build a few kms of subway that will do nothing to relieve congestion, and totally stifle any sort of additional transit due to the high cost, and build more roads instead. VOTE FOR CHRIS SELLORS!

No more than I am in disbelief that members have fallen for the lies spewed out by the LRT Lobby. Who says Eglinton has good transit already, you? Obviously it's not good enough. That he comes from a ward where the LRT will be underground yet he still sees the conventional wisdom in building the whole thing as a subway line compatible with the existing network, is to his credit. Maybe having lived through and witnessing firsthand the irreparable damage at-grade ROW construction can have on constituents lives and livelihoods, he doesn't want to see the same mistakes duplicated the city over.

I have to admit, I am liking the pro-LRT crowd. Never before have I encountered such a heavily indoctrinated set of people that can't help but regurgitate the same talking points over and over again even as they're being refuted from left to right in both the media and academic case studies more and more. People so hellbent and determined to ruin this city for generations to come. Yes subways remove transit from the surface, but by doing so they attract more riders! 2 less lanes being taken up by transit along Eglinton Avenue could be used to create bike lanes or on-street parking or expand out sidewalk space such that streetside markets and vendors can eke out a living; cafes and bistros can have outdoor patio sitting areas. Subways that more readily intice trade and toruism from all over the region but allow at the end of the day for customers to just hop back onto the subway and be on their way. What, did you think that reserving the lanes for motorists and motorists alone was the only motivation here? I'd say moving 1,200 people per 6-car trainset trip underneath Eglinton takes a hell of a lot more cars off the road than moving at crawl's pace 260 people per 2-car LRT trip.

 

[Justin10000]

Because the transit is UNDERNEATH the road! My God! It's not like just because you can't see the line at surface level doesn't mean it isn't there! How is having 2 underground 'lanes' of transit + 2 above ground lanes of traffic in each direction LESS efficient than 2 transit surface lanes and 1 traffic lane in each direction? And one could make the argument that putting in surface transit takes away roadspace for dedicated, curb-separated bike lanes.

Whoa! Calm down, you're gong to have a heart attack! Becuase it is, especially if the underground lanes are not being utilized fully. Spending a lot of money to add a lot of capacity that won't be used is not efficent, and the surface lanes will still be jammed with single-occupant vehicles. Look at Sheppard. Efficient? Hardly. 2 surface lanes + 2 auto lanes = efficiency at a cheaper cost.

Yes, it is. But having the transit underneath the roadway also increases the CORRIDOR's capacity, to a far greater extent than LRT down the middle of the street could.

Doesn't matter if the capacity is not utilized to it's fullest, or close to, extent. Hence why building subways when a surface ROW can suffice makes no sense. Show me a demand model where a subway is justified on the TC corridors.

Except in the case of the Yonge and Bloor-Danforth subways, which are bursting at the seams during rush hour. Yeah, who needs all that extra capacity anyway?

When the sbways were first planned, were the existing streetcar lines not bursting at the seams too? All right then. Streetcars lines at full capacity = justification for subways.

Again, look at Yonge and Bloor-Danforth during rush hour, or even Yonge sometimes off-peak, and tell me that the capacity isn't being 'fully utilized'.

I'll just look at the Sheppard line, and tell you the capacity is barely being utilized. Building a subway in the hope that it may one day reach capacity is stupid.

How can you honestly make the statement that the Yonge and Bloor subways are being 'lightly used'? I don't even know how to rebuttle that statement.

I love how you argue. You see a statement, and try to twist to your needs. I am talking about the general condition the lines are in. Both lines are 40-50 years old, and require a lot of maintenance to upkeep at the moment. The point is, subways, like any major infrastructure need to be maintained in good woking condition. You tell me why it is makes snese to build a subway now that may never see it's full capacity for another 30-40 years, and pay for the upkeep? Makes no sense. What makes sense is building subways where they are needed, and not because it a freaking subway!

Get out yer pitchforks! There's someone who wants to benefit both transit users AND drivers! Get him!

LOL. Keep on believing that! Chris Sellors could care less about transit. Same with the rest of the Conservative candidates.

I agree that the 'incremental approach' has some holes in it. But clearly getting all the funding at the same time isn't working so well either.

And getting stable yearly funding is going to be a piece of cake.....?

And why does the technology used matter if it's just looking at a map and seeing what lines go through what neighbourhoods? Your point would work the exact same if they were a mix of subway lines and BRT lines as well.

Just admit it, man. You hate LRT, and all forms of LRT. Don't hide it. Honestly, the TTC models projected BRT cannot handle the projected demand. Why do you insist BRT should have been part of the plan? I do not get this modal bias. And please, do not even say I am biased towards LRT. I have pledge my support for the DRL, and Yonge extension. I admit, BRT is a joke though. Especially the ludicrous claims South American style BRT systems can work here.

That is not my thinking at all. My thinking is 'subways are faster, more efficient, have a higher capacity, and are more comfortable to ride (and to wait out in the snow for)'. Yes, they are more expensive, but I believe the long-term investment is worth it. I'd be perfectly happy with the city taking the lanes that they were going to use for LRT, and turn them into bike lanes and a wider sidewalk on all those roads. I believe all suburban arterial roads should be equipped with dedicated bus lanes, so that there is a clear commitment to transit in areas that can't yet support rail-based transit. My preference for subways is rooted in the fact that I want higher quality transit, not because I want a wider avenue for the car that I don't even own.

It was Chris Sellors thinking I originally commented on, not yours. You just jumped into somewhere in the thread.

 

[Fresh Start]

http://news.nationalpost.com/2010/05/04/sell-toronto-hydro-to-pay-for-subways-says-rossi/

Mayoral candidate Rocco Rossi says if elected he would build subways, provided the city can clear it’s $2.4-billion debt.

Mr. Rossi unveiled “Transit City Plus” today, a vision to invest $4.5-billion of city money over ten years so that some of the planned light rail vehicle lines — starting with Sheppard East — turn into a subway. The plan relies heavily on the sale of Toronto Hydro, the publicly owned utility, and other assets to wipe out a debt Mr. Rossi says costs the city $450-million to service.

Mr. Rossi says that is what it costs to build two kilometres of subway tracks and open one station a year, which is what he is setting out to do. He said he wants to embark on “continuous tunneling” to reduce the expense of starting and stopping.

“And while we’re building subways we’re increasing bus service in the inner suburbs of Scarborough, Etobicoke and North York,” said Mr. Rossi. “Our goal has to be a transit system so good that when you wake up in the morning, you reach for your transit pass instead of your car keys.”

Mr. Rossi also wants to explore alternative financial arrangements, air rights and land value capture. He promised not to institute tolls to pay for expanded transit.

Read more: http://news.nationalpost.com/2010/0...-to-pay-for-subways-says-rossi/#ixzz0mzCGxW2I

Wow, for all the baseless rhetoric and accustions that the right-wing are somewhat maligned anti-transit/pro-car ideologues; it would appear that only the "conservative" mayoral candidates (Rossi, Ford and Thomson) want to provide the city with a real rapid transit system and seem to be trying to offer thought-out alternative funding solutions to pay for rapid transit expansion rather than follow the left's lead in their relentless pandering to the public trough.

 

[Justin10000]

Wow, for all the baseless rhetoric and accustions that the right-wing are somewhat maligned anti-transit/pro-car ideologues; it would appear that only the "conservative" mayoral candidates (Rossi, Ford and Thomson) want to provide the city with a real rapid transit system and seem to be trying to offer thought-out alternative funding solutions to pay for rapid transit expansion rather than follow the left's lead in their relentless pandering to the public trough.

Do you notice that every candidate is proposing nearly the exact ideas to fund subways? Does this not concern you? Not one of the conservative candidates have an original idea to fund subways!

 

[GraphicMatt]

Yet the TTC is still pushing forward with Transit City as-is, despite the models telling them that portion of the plan is flawed.



Yet this hasn't been included in Transit City, despite overwhelming support (and logic) for the line.



Therein lies the problem. If the numbers clearly show it, people would want it. Therefore, you have 3 options: change the plan accordingly to reflect the numbers, change the numbers accordingly to reflect the plan, or flat-out deny the numbers. Since the projections were being done in-house, the TTC had the opportunity to easily manipulate the first two. Given the fact that the numbers justified a subway along Eglinton West a mere decade ago, which one of those two do you think it is?

In any case (and this is not just for Transit City, it's for nearly every transit plan), the numbers are created the justify the pre-determined end result. You want a subway? We'll give you projections justifying a subway. You want LRT? We'll give you projections justifying an LRT. My worry is that the TTC was so worried about justifying LRT that they made errors or omissions in their demand forecasting to make the numbers work, in order to help justify a plan they knew they were going to build anyway, regardless of what the numbers said (as they have done with the Don Mills LRT south of Eglinton).

The Don Mills LRT is nowhere near ready to start construction and will surely go through a number of changes should it ever get to that point (it won't) - as of now, the Don Mills LRT is little more than a line on a map indicating 'hey, we need more transit here.' It's the same with Jane and the Waterfront LRT.

But, hey, Andrew Johnson, who assumedly wants to pursue a career in urban planning in Toronto, are you going to put your above claim that planners working for the city deliberately lied about passenger numbers in an effort to give the public substandard transit on your résumé? That sure does make you sound professional.

(Eglinton West did justify a subway, and still justifies a subway, obviously - it's getting underground transit - making it LRT is an effort to avoid another stubway situation.)