News   Jul 12, 2024
199 Church Showcases Heritage Facade and Artwork at Street Level
 1.1K     0 
News   Jul 12, 2024
Six Points Plaza Redevelopment Advances With 36-Storey First Phase
 995     1 
News   Jul 12, 2024
Trading Spaces: Can Real Estate Conversion Help Boost Housing Supply?
 370     0 

Rob Ford's Subway plan and the 2001 Rapid Transit Expansion Study

ssiguy2 said:
TC was a disjointed mess, anyone looking at the map can see that.
What to do?
Click to expand...

The problem was after the 1950's, Metro (now city) was auto-oriented. Buses, streetcars, and Subway were afterthoughts. Low-density development plans meant one had to use an automobile to get around. Today most people see that public transit is important function of the city (except for Rob Ford), but to retrofit public transit into an auto-dominated neighbourhoods is hard to do. They want heavy density transit, but the low-density neighourhoods cannot accommodate heavy-density public transit. Do you want high density in your neighbourhood so that the heavy transit can be accommodated? It will take time, a long time.
 
gweed123 said:
Electrified GO. You could have electrified nearly the entire GO system for the cost of Transit City, and that would have benefited a hell of a lot more people.
Click to expand...

I read in a toronto newspaper lately that GO has to subsidize their average 905 user $4 per ride versus TTC rides $1 per ride. If you electrified the entire GO line and ran it on 15 min intervals how much do you figure the cost per passanger would be to subsidize the ride.

IF the $4 figure is actually true then combining the fare structures so more 416 residents use the system is a financial disaster for the GO.
 
ssiguy2 said:
First, scrap the Eglinton LRT plan and leave it as a SkyTrain STC/Eglinton line. The idea of making the STC & Eglinton as one route is a good one but the fact that they are pulling down one line to build another is an obscene waste of funds. If they were to use the line as SkyTrain they would not only save themselves a cool billion but also the headache of closing the SRT down for what Metrolinx says will take a truly unbeleivable 4 years. Put in the cheap heating mechanisms and reconstruct the GO underpass and run the new MK11 trains.
Click to expand...

I think when the public has time to think about the 4 year closure, there will be a significant number of complaints.

Instead of heaters, is it possible to cover the SRT with a plexi (glass) enclosure so that it runs indoors?
 
sixrings said:
I read in a toronto newspaper lately that GO has to subsidize their average 905 user $4 per ride versus TTC rides $1 per ride. If you electrified the entire GO line and ran it on 15 min intervals how much do you figure the cost per passanger would be to subsidize the ride.

IF the $4 figure is actually true then combining the fare structures so more 416 residents use the system is a financial disaster for the GO.
Click to expand...

As a percentage of the revenue, GO subsidy is lower than TTC's. In fact, GO has the highest cost-recovery ratio amongst all major transit systems in North America, while TTC has the second highest.

That $4 figure should be compared to the average GO train ride cost, that is quite a bit higher than the cost of TTC token.

Operation-wise, GO trips within Toronto are likely to be even more cost-efficient than the 905-to-Union trips, due to the large passenger counts and the economy of scale. The average subsidy for GO trips within Toronto will likely by lower than $1, or they even might bring a profit.

However, considerable capital expenses are needed to enable GO for such a role. Due to that factor, it is hard to say whether GO enhancements, LRT construction, or a combination of both is the best course of actions.
 
Last edited:
Just another point. If we spend 65 million to cancel transit city, we spend another 10 million to pay chong to finish the report that adds up to 75 million. if we elevated part of the Eglinton line we would save some money. all those savings could have went to converting the sheppard subway to LRT and having a complete LRT to STC. Also it should be known that any transit on sheppard LRT or SUBWAY would have been underground till at least consumers so Sheppard would have seen significant improvements. WILL Transit City ever be voted on? or are we stuck with this plan?
 
EnviroTO said:
First of all you are saying it would benefit a hell of a lot more people but the ridership of the Eglinton routes, Sheppard route, and Finch route plus the ridership of routes running partially along those same streets is more than the total GO train ridership. Focusing on GO trains would leave people who are living close to where they work with a system that doesn't have the capacity to handle them while at the same time delivering others to places far from home. Does that really make sense from a prioritization perspective? Transit City was going to electrify the Eglinton, Sheppard, and Finch routes.
Click to expand...

First of all, you have to define "benefit". If by "benefit" you mean shaving 5 minutes off of what used to be a 40 min bus trip, is that really a big deal? Say you live at Sheppard and Kennedy, would it be a greater benefit to have an electrified Stouffville line running 15 minute frequencies into downtown, or to have to travel by Sheppard East LRT, Sheppard Subway, and Yonge Subway to reach downtown. In that case, the amount of time shaved off that trip would be nearly half.

The other thing that electrified GO with additional stations would do would be to increase the turnover on existing bus routes. Take Eglinton for example. The current Eglinton West bus needs to run the nearly the entire length of Eglinton West before it reaches a rapid transit route to transfer onto to go southbound. This means that there is very little turnover, except at Eglinton West and Eglinton stations. With electrified GO, you would be adding in 2 additional transfer points, and there would be a lot of turnover at each of those points, freeing up space on the buses.

Same thing goes for routes like Finch West (Barrie line), Eglinton East (Richmond Hill line and Lakeshore East line).
 
gweed123 said:
First of all, you have to define "benefit". If by "benefit" you mean shaving 5 minutes off of what used to be a 40 min bus trip, is that really a big deal? Say you live at Sheppard and Kennedy, would it be a greater benefit to have an electrified Stouffville line running 15 minute frequencies into downtown, or to have to travel by Sheppard East LRT, Sheppard Subway, and Yonge Subway to reach downtown. In that case, the amount of time shaved off that trip would be nearly half.

The other thing that electrified GO with additional stations would do would be to increase the turnover on existing bus routes. Take Eglinton for example. The current Eglinton West bus needs to run the nearly the entire length of Eglinton West before it reaches a rapid transit route to transfer onto to go southbound. This means that there is very little turnover, except at Eglinton West and Eglinton stations. With electrified GO, you would be adding in 2 additional transfer points, and there would be a lot of turnover at each of those points, freeing up space on the buses.

Same thing goes for routes like Finch West (Barrie line), Eglinton East (Richmond Hill line and Lakeshore East line).
Click to expand...

I agree with much of what you suggest. However part of why I was in full support of TC (although I did want stop spacing a little farther apart) was because of the typical public perception in our city that transit is for "poor people". There are many people who will take the subway willingly or the GO lines willingly but will avoid the bus like a plague. LRT would be clean reliable and more comfortable service which would have given a serious injection of quality into a image that is anything but "the better way." If the GO line takes as much people off of the yonge and spadina lines as you suggest, could we not service the suburbs with both LRT lines on major streets NORTH of Eglinton and GO lines with 15 min headways. BTW unless we are going to keep the kiss and rides or the giant parking lots around stations people are going to have to take transit to get to the GO lines. Would we really still need a DRL? could we not simply bury the queen streetcar from bathurst to parliment?
 
sixrings said:
I agree with much of what you suggest. However part of why I was in full support of TC (although I did want stop spacing a little farther apart) was because of the typical public perception in our city that transit is for "poor people". There are many people who will take the subway willingly or the GO lines willingly but will avoid the bus like a plague. LRT would be clean reliable and more comfortable service which would have given a serious injection of quality into a image that is anything but "the better way."
Click to expand...

I'm not saying that we shouldn't build LRT, I'm just saying that building what many cities would regard as a supplementary transit network ahead of the primary transit network shouldn't be the way it's done. Get the primary network in place and working, and then start to focus on LRT and BRT lines that shuttle people to the nearest GO or subway station. Otherwise all you have is a bunch of really expensive feeder lines herding people onto an already overcrowded primary network.

sixrings said:
If the GO line takes as much people off of the yonge and spadina lines as you suggest, could we not service the suburbs with both LRT lines on major streets NORTH of Eglinton and GO lines with 15 min headways.
Click to expand...

Yes, and that would be implemented once the GO network is electrified. I have no problem with implementing BRT or LRT on most avenues north of Eglinton. In my mind it isn't a question of "should we?", the question is "in what order should we?".

sixrings said:
BTW unless we are going to keep the kiss and rides or the giant parking lots around stations people are going to have to take transit to get to the GO lines. Would we really still need a DRL? could we not simply bury the queen streetcar from bathurst to parliment?
Click to expand...

This is why I'm an advocate of putting an LRT line under Queen that branches up to become the Jane and Don Mills LRTs. GO handles the long distance commutes, TTC focuses more on effective local service.
 
I wish we could simply do the TC thing plus the Go line thing at the same time. Raise my taxes and Tax me to hell for driving my car. At least I will have a good alternative.
 
sixrings said:
I wish we could simply do the TC thing plus the Go line thing at the same time. Raise my taxes and Tax me to hell for driving my car. At least I will have a good alternative.
Click to expand...

This would be ideal. However, you would have a large segment of the conservative population screaming bloody murder. Especially with a minority Liberal government, I don't foresee any increase in taxes to pay for transit.
 
EnviroTO said:
What?? GO Trains do not run on the SRT track.
Click to expand...

no they dont use the same tracks. But they are laid right beside each other. Are you suggesting it is possible to somehow put a plexiglass roof over the SRT tracks between kennedy and midland without it as well going over the GO tracks? Is there enough room for that? If there was enough room wouldnt that add significant snow onto the GO line tracks after it falls off the new plexiglass roof?
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top