If council was able to defeat Ford on tax cuts then Transit City could come back

[Hipster Duck]

^Absolutely. My preferred option for Transit City - which was not even on the table - would have been to have 1,000 meter stop spacing, and to travel at grade, but duck under the most major intersections (Vic Park, Warden, Birchmount, Kennedy - not even Pharmacy or Consumers).

To give you an idea of the stop spacing, between Warden and Kennedy (2km), the Sheppard LRT would have had stops at Warden, Bay Mills Blvd., Birchmount, Allanford and Kennedy. Allanford and Kennedy are at opposite ends of the same strip mall! Warden-Birchmount-Kennedy would have been more than sufficient.

 

[kkgg7]

To give you an idea of the stop spacing, between Warden and Kennedy (2km), the Sheppard LRT would have had stops at Warden, Bay Mills Blvd., Birchmount, Allanford and Kennedy. Allanford and Kennedy are at opposite ends of the same strip mall! Warden-Birchmount-Kennedy would have been more than sufficient.

That's way too many stops, which makes it almost a bus, except with the ROW. Even with Shanghai's density, they didn't space their subway stops that closely in the inner city, mostly 1000-1500 meters. To take a stop each 400 meters in the suburbs, that's just waste everyone's time.

Rob Ford may have done many stupid things, but cancelling this cheap and temporay transit solution probably isn't one of them. Toronto deserves something better. Many people are outraged probably because they, like me, didn't even have a good idea what transit city was really like. I always thought it was like the skytrain. And when they realize it is just a larger streetcar, it would be different. Adding more buses might even be a cheaper/more effective solution than that.

Media played a big role in manipulating/hiding facts. The star etc only compares the cost and coverage area and misled people into believing the city scrapped something so "progressive" just to protect drivers, when it is really not the case at all (I don't drive BTW).

That being said, I hope when time comes for the DRL to be built (maybe in 2030?), it won't be another transit city kind of plan. The inner city deserves nothing less than a full fledged subway.

 

[BurlOak]

^Absolutely. My preferred option for Transit City - which was not even on the table - would have been to have 1,000 meter stop spacing, and to travel at grade, but duck under the most major intersections (Vic Park, Warden, Birchmount, Kennedy - not even Pharmacy or Consumers).

However, not only do the tracks duck under the intersection - which proably take a length of about 150m on either side - but the stations would also have to be built below grade. Thus, compared to at grade LRT, all stations are required to be burried - which involve elevators, etc. - and about 20% of the track would be either trenched or covered (at the intersection itself).

If it is relatively easy to trench for this distance (i.e. in terms of traffic disruption and utilities conflict), then it may not be that much harder to trench (and cover) for the entire length - since the hardest part with the station is already built below ground.

 

[Automation Gallery]

I hope when time comes for the DRL to be built (maybe in 2030?)

Regarding transportation chaos.....with all this residential construction, downtown Toronto is bursting out of the seams.
I predict some kind of DRL to be approved and in the constuction stage by 2020.

of

 

[Hipster Duck]

However, not only do the tracks duck under the intersection - which proably take a length of about 150m on either side - but the stations would also have to be built below grade. Thus, compared to at grade LRT, all stations are required to be burried - which involve elevators, etc. - and about 20% of the track would be either trenched or covered (at the intersection itself).

If it is relatively easy to trench for this distance (i.e. in terms of traffic disruption and utilities conflict), then it may not be that much harder to trench (and cover) for the entire length - since the hardest part with the station is already built below ground.

It may be possible to avoid this by setting the station about 150 m back from the intersection so that it, too, is at grade before it passes under the cross-street. LA's expo line, which is the closest to my ideal version of Transit City has a few examples of this:

Here's the same view from the platform, in real life.

The problem, of course, is that it would be difficult for people transferring from the perpendicular bus route because they would have to walk from the corner of the intersection up Sheppard to the light rail station. However, I think this can be somewhat accommodated for by making the walk relatively pleasant: better landscaping, nice sidewalks with adequate lighting and, where possible, sheltered from the elements.

 

[andrewpmk]

I am beginning to think that Transit City needs to be totally killed. Traffic congestion has deteriorated significantly in the 5 years since it was proposed. Take a look at the Google traffic congestion map, in rush hour almost every major highway is bright red (severely congested) now. Heavy congestion during off peak hours is a common occurrence as well. Light rail is not adequate to reduce traffic congestion, it is too slow and too low capacity and will make no difference to highway congestion. There needs to be $10s of billions of subway and GO train expansion in addition to Eglinton, if this needs deficit spending or big tax hikes then do it anyway because Ontario's economy will suffer without it. Also I don't think we can afford to remove traffic lanes because the traffic is too bad. We need to widen the DVP to 8 lanes, can any proposals to tear down the Gardiner, widen roads like Sheppard which have room to 6 lanes, and remove the Jarvis bike lanes. Obviously this is not a substitute for subways but it will reduce congestion a bit. I am not a Ford supporter, I strongly disagree with the TTC bus cuts, but I am not a Miller supporter either.

 

[kkgg7]

if this needs deficit spending or big tax hikes then do it anyway because Ontario's economy will suffer without it.

I agree! If we don't, we will suffer more later. I am sick of those who claim we don't do it because it is too "expensive" and we "simply" don't have the money.
gridlock is like cancer. if you think it is too expensive to remove now, it only gets more painful and costs more in the future. If our loved ones have cancer, will we say it is too costly to be treated? yes, newer generations will be liable to pay for the debt, or part of it, but they will be grateful for it. Toronto has no future without a vastly improved public transit system.

Additionally, there are so many pseudo government "programs" and "agencies" that can be cut. Only yesterday CBC was talking about a crown agency with almost nothing to do for the past 3 years.

 

[voxpopulicosmicum]

^Except we all know that senior levels of government have zero political incentive to pay for anything close to "what we should have", so we're forced to come up with incremental, unsexy ways to increase ridership (e.g. transit city, increased bus service) to the point where actual, existing ridership is sufficient to support subway expansion. Or, we have pet projects like Sheppard Subway and Vaughan Extension that pander to particular suburban ridings.

I swear to god, it's like you guys are trolling with this "scrap transit city 'cuz it's not subway" stuff. You can't possibly be so politically obtuse to think things will happen just because it would be rational, in a properly functioning society, for them to happen.

 

[Rainforest]

I am beginning to think that Transit City needs to be totally killed. Traffic congestion has deteriorated significantly in the 5 years since it was proposed. Take a look at the Google traffic congestion map, in rush hour almost every major highway is bright red (severely congested) now. Heavy congestion during off peak hours is a common occurrence as well. Light rail is not adequate to reduce traffic congestion, it is too slow and too low capacity and will make no difference to highway congestion. There needs to be $10s of billions of subway and GO train expansion in addition to Eglinton, if this needs deficit spending or big tax hikes then do it anyway because Ontario's economy will suffer without it. Also I don't think we can afford to remove traffic lanes because the traffic is too bad. We need to widen the DVP to 8 lanes, can any proposals to tear down the Gardiner, widen roads like Sheppard which have room to 6 lanes, and remove the Jarvis bike lanes. Obviously this is not a substitute for subways but it will reduce congestion a bit. I am not a Ford supporter, I strongly disagree with the TTC bus cuts, but I am not a Miller supporter either.

I personally support a region-wide, dedicated tax for transit expansion. However, convincing the majority of taxpayers / voters that such tax is beneficial won't be easy.

Regarding the road widening, I think that's a lost game. A limited road widening will simply shift congestion to the next bottleneck and won't improve anyone's travel time. A comprehensive road widening is not possible due to both the costs and the community opposition.

If DVP really can be widened to 8 lanes, then I would rather keep it at 6 lanes and use the extra space for Downtown Relief subway. The capacity of a highway lane is about 2,000 pphpd, whereas a subway "lane" easily handles 30,000 and can reach up to 40,000.

 

[sixrings]

I personally support a region-wide, dedicated tax for transit expansion. However, convincing the majority of taxpayers / voters that such tax is beneficial won't be easy.

Regarding the road widening, I think that's a lost game. A limited road widening will simply shift congestion to the next bottleneck and won't improve anyone's travel time. A comprehensive road widening is not possible due to both the costs and the community opposition.

If DVP really can be widened to 8 lanes, then I would rather keep it at 6 lanes and use the extra space for Downtown Relief subway. The capacity of a highway lane is about 2,000 pphpd, whereas a subway "lane" easily handles 30,000 and can reach up to 40,000.

Interesting idea is it even possible to run a subway over the DVP and somehow have a station that interlines underneith the bloor viaduct. The Subway could continue elevated up to Don Mills and Eglinton. So the stop spacing would be something like Union, Jarvis, Sherbourne, Queen, Bloor viaduct, Thorncliffe, Eglinton, lawrence, york mills, sheppard.

 

[nfitz]

Interesting idea is it even possible to run a subway over the DVP and somehow have a station that interlines underneith the bloor viaduct. The Subway could continue elevated up to Don Mills and Eglinton. So the stop spacing would be something like Union, Jarvis, Sherbourne, Queen, Bloor viaduct, Thorncliffe, Eglinton, lawrence, york mills, sheppard.

If one were to go that route, I'd think it would make more sense to run it down the other side of the river - down Bayview (south of O'Conner at least) ... and then you build a Science Centre like escalator into the east end of Castle Frank station.

 

[mskashmoney]

...when time comes for the DRL to be built (maybe in 2030?), it won't be another transit city kind of plan. The inner city deserves nothing less than a full fledged subway.

Great post, with one criticism. We can't wait for the DRL in 2030. We need it NOW!

Have you ever tried boarding a train at rush hour? It's impossible to get on. If I want to travel from my station (Wellesley) to Union, it's faster to jump up to Bloor, push through some people and get on a train going south. And yeah, I get feisty. I'm travelling 3km and really sick of subsidizing people from York region (or Scarb, Missisauga, etc.) travelling 20+ km with the same 3 dollars. We need zoning. We need some direction. We need to elect people to the TTC board that aren't from the suburbs meshed into the new "city" of Toronto. And a requirement should be that they have travelled and seen other cities in this world. I have, and let me tell you, we're doing it all WRONG.

 

[andrewpmk]

If one were to go that route, I'd think it would make more sense to run it down the other side of the river - down Bayview (south of O'Conner at least) ... and then you build a Science Centre like escalator into the east end of Castle Frank station.

My idea would be to run the DRL up Don Mills, not the DVP. Ideally it would reach Finch and act as a Yonge line/DVP reliever.

The whole point of road widening is to slightly increase road capacity wherever there is room to do so. Obviously since there is little room to do so most new capacity must come from transit. However the held-over anti car BS from the Miller administration needs to die. Also I think that the bad idea of putting bike lanes on main roads needs to be abandoned because cycling on these roads is dangerous with or without a bike lane. Bicycling is a totally impractical method of transportation in this city.

The goal of transit/road expansion is to reduce congestion. Transit City is too slow to effectively compete with 400 series highways, did not serve many major destinations, did not serve the 905 and did not address the inadequate commuter rail service in the GTA.

 

[sixrings]

The goal of transit/road expansion is to reduce congestion. Transit City is too slow to effectively compete with 400 series highways, did not serve many major destinations, did not serve the 905 and did not address the inadequate commuter rail service in the GTA.

To be fair I dont think any of your complaints were any of TC goals. It was designed to help those bus lines which were over capacity but not subway sustainable. It was also designed to get the most rail for the least money, A DRL and Go was suppose to take care of the rest.

 

[kkgg7]

Great post, with one criticism. We can't wait for the DRL in 2030. We need it NOW!

Have you ever tried boarding a train at rush hour? It's impossible to get on. If I want to travel from my station (Wellesley) to Union, it's faster to jump up to Bloor, push through some people and get on a train going south. And yeah, I get feisty. I'm travelling 3km and really sick of subsidizing people from York region (or Scarb, Missisauga, etc.) travelling 20+ km with the same 3 dollars. We need zoning. We need some direction. We need to elect people to the TTC board that aren't from the suburbs meshed into the new "city" of Toronto. And a requirement should be that they have travelled and seen other cities in this world. I have, and let me tell you, we're doing it all WRONG.

I 100% agree with you. The DRL is more needed than anything else, yet it is not even on the agenda. Apparently, making those in Vaughan and Markham happy is more important for the time being.

I have posted on this forum suggesting a distance based fare system. However, many think it "unfairly punishes those suburbanites", which I found ridiculously funny. Our fare system is completely unfair, forcing urban dwellers like you and me to subsidize those who live far way in order to get larger house. It should cost about $1-$1.5 to travel from anywhere downtown to Union, and $5 from the very edge of the city. I think it is not only fair, but the only right way. Yet many hate the idea, not because it is not fair, but simply because they would have to pay more, and they would prefer being subsidized.

I would suggest you try to bike to work, and stop subsidize those coming from 20km away. It will probably take no more than 15 minutes, and you might save your gym fee. If you are renting, consider moving. The whole TTC system is about greed, and I avoid it as much as I can

I am extremely satisfied at my complete nonchalance to any budget shortfall, or "signal problem", or fare hike, or any service cut now after moving to 7 minutes walk away from work. I am simply not subsidizing those from Scarborough/Richmond Hills/Vaughan, or the outrageous wages/benefits of TTC ticket collectors any more. It is not about even the money.