Despite what Ford says The Streetcar in Toronto is here to stay.

[nfitz]

Have I ever, ever written that we shouldn't build LRTs? No, so don't put words in my mouth.

Have I ever, ever written that you said we shouldn't build LRTs? No, so don't put words in your mouth.

I wasn't replying to your post in particular - but what people said in general. Which is why I didn't quote you.

 

[GraphicMatt]

Here's a crazy idea: Let's carefully examine what's working in other cities, balance that with our city's unique needs, then make thoughtful decisions that deliver good cost-benefit and work within current funding constraints.

 

[Woodbridge_Heights]

Here's a crazy idea: Let's carefully examine what's working in other cities, balance that with our city's unique needs, then make thoughtful decisions that deliver good cost-benefit and work within current funding constraints.

Too screwball European

 

[reaperexpress]

Here's a crazy idea: Let's carefully examine what's working in other cities, balance that with our city's unique needs, then make thoughtful decisions that deliver good cost-benefit and work within current funding constraints.

That's just ridiculous.

 

[Amy Rose]

Here's a crazy idea: Let's carefully examine what's working in other cities, balance that with our city's unique needs, then make thoughtful decisions that deliver good cost-benefit and work within current funding constraints.

Too much gravy
(I have to say this xD)

 

[Dan416]

Here's a crazy idea: Let's carefully examine what's working in other cities, balance that with our city's unique needs, then make thoughtful decisions that deliver good cost-benefit and work within current funding constraints.

It's so crazy it might actually work.

 

[jje1000]

Here's a crazy idea: Let's carefully examine what's working in other cities, balance that with our city's unique needs, then make thoughtful decisions that deliver good cost-benefit and work within current funding constraints.

One problem, as always- what works for some people doesn't work for others.

One side will look at cities like Shanghai and Madrid and declare that subways are the answer. They will say that subways will be worth it in the future and provide rapid transit throughout vital parts of the city.

Another side will look at cities like Melbourne and Minneapolis and declare that LRTs are the answer. They will say that LRTs are more cost-efficient and affordable in the short while and provide mass transit across the entire city.

Another side will look at Paris and Tokyo and declare that a mix of transit options is the answer. They will say that certain areas deserve subways and others deserve busways and LRTs.

The final side will look at Sao Paulo and Dubai, and declare that monorails are the answer. They will say that monorails are fast, futurist and plain cool to look at, cost-be-damned.

 

[EnviroTO]

One problem, as always- what works for some people doesn't work for others.

Which is why he said "balance that with our city's unique needs, then make thoughtful decisions that deliver good cost-benefit and work within current funding constraints".

One side will look at cities like Shanghai and Madrid and declare that subways are the answer. They will say that subways will be worth it in the future and provide rapid transit throughout vital parts of the city.

Which can only be true if you can show zoning and growth projections that require subways, have the funding to build it, and prove that there is some need (capacity) or missed opportunity cost associated with delaying the project that is commensurate with the up front cost of building the subway versus making other investments.

Another side will look at cities like Melbourne and Minneapolis and declare that LRTs are the answer. They will say that LRTs are more cost-efficient and affordable in the short while and provide mass transit across the entire city.

Which can only be true if LRT can handle the demand.

Another side will look at Paris and Tokyo and declare that a mix of transit options is the answer. They will say that certain areas deserve subways and others deserve busways and LRTs.

Which is probably more true than anything else. One size never fits all.

The final side will look at Sao Paulo and Dubai, and declare that monorails are the answer. They will say that monorails are fast, futurist and plain cool to look at, cost-be-damned.

You are showing an obvious bias against monorails. Monorails can be the cheaper option. I doubt Sao Paulo is getting monorails because they are "cool to look at" and "cost-be-damned".

 

[golodhendil]

One side will look at cities like Shanghai and Madrid and declare that subways are the answer. They will say that subways will be worth it in the future and provide rapid transit throughout vital parts of the city.

...

Another side will look at Paris and Tokyo and declare that a mix of transit options is the answer. They will say that certain areas deserve subways and others deserve busways and LRTs.

Madrid also has its fair share of metro ligero LRT in the mix, not that different from Paris. And if anything, Tokyo is probably one of the most HRT-dominated cities. Other than a handful of people mover and monorail lines plus one leftover tram route, Tokyo is covered by several different grades of HRT lines. Much better examples of "mixed" cities would be the Benelux/German/Central European cities, with their trams, LRT premetros and/or HRT metros, and regional express railways all doing their part.

 

[valvenis]

Here's a crazy idea: Let's carefully examine what's working in other cities, balance that with our city's unique needs, then make thoughtful decisions that deliver good cost-benefit and work within current funding constraints.

Why would you want to do a silly thing like that?

 

[gweed123]

Here's a crazy idea: Let's carefully examine what's working in other cities, balance that with our city's unique needs, then make thoughtful decisions that deliver good cost-benefit and work within current funding constraints.

Sounds good on paper, but consider the following:

What does the city actually need? We all know it needs "better transit", but that is such a vague concept that it's really hard to pin it down. It's a good election talking point, but nothing more.

Is "better transit" establishing a network of higher capacity, higher reliability suburban feeder lines that are designed to cater to the more local suburban travel patterns?

Or is "better transit" a series of trunk lines with wider stop spacing designed to alleviate congestion on the existing rapid transit network?

Both of those sound very good on paper as well, and they both sound as if they could work. However, what you define as the city's most pressing transit "needs" will drastically affect the end result of the planning exercise. Making wishy-washing mission statements is all well and good (and yes, it is a good starting place), but without specific goals describing what you would like to achieve, it's a vision without a direction. Having said that, here are the goals I would like to see the new transit plan address:

1) Alleviate the congestion on existing rapid transit routes by providing viable alternatives to existing travel patterns.
2) Identify corridors that are most in need of a transit upgrade, and which corridors are in need of upgrades to select areas of the corridor.
3) Select a technology for the corridor that balances local needs, regional needs, connectivity with the rest of the system, and cost-effectiveness.
4) Identify key locations along existing bus routes that could benefit from queue-jump lanes, curbside cut-outs, and signal priority, in order to provide a moderate increase in reliability for a marginal cost.

 

[dowlingm]

Which is probably more true than anything else. One size never fits all.

With that kind of sloppy thinking you'll never get a job in TTC Bus Procurement

 

[Ed Drass]

1) Alleviate the congestion on existing rapid transit routes by providing viable alternatives to existing travel patterns.
2) Identify corridors that are most in need of a transit upgrade, and which corridors are in need of upgrades to select areas of the corridor.
3) Select a technology for the corridor that balances local needs, regional needs, connectivity with the rest of the system, and cost-effectiveness.
4) Identify key locations along existing bus routes that could benefit from queue-jump lanes, curbside cut-outs, and signal priority, in order to provide a moderate increase in reliability for a marginal cost.

Fair and objective questions, if you are planning Heaven's transit system. But what the hell are we going to do down here?

Perhaps these are the sort of questions we can ask amid the existing mess of a process, all the while tempering our expectations that it will make much of a difference. Those that will hear, let them hear.

 

[gweed123]

Fair and objective questions, if you are planning Heaven's transit system. But what the hell are we going to do down here?

Perhaps these are the sort of questions we can ask amid the existing mess of a process, all the while tempering our expectations that it will make much of a difference. Those that will hear, let them hear.

Well, assumingly that's where prioritization will come in, haha. But that in itself is a whole different can of worms. How do you prioritize needs? On a local basis? On a network basis? On a regional basis?

 

[lrookies]

Streetcars

Streetcars always have been part of Toronto's charm. To remove them from service to serve some idiotic notion that Ford needs to do this to further his the "war on cars" is over argument would be like spitting on the heritage of the city. I am a suburbanite now (Scarborough). But I grew up a downtowner. Streetcars are part of MY history as well as Toronto's.

Rob Ford (trust me!!), we are going to find out is more about broken promises than reality thinking. We cannot afford the Rob Ford vision of transportation. He doesn't have the money and he won't anytime soon while trying to keep the promise not to raise taxes. While I was never a fan of the previous administration at City Hall, I think in the end, we will come to find out that while his political idealologies differ, his ability to initiate major costly changes stay the same as the previous group.

Streetcars will remain a part of Toronto.