saveoursubways (SOS)

[Dan416]

LowerBay I think you're right that Transit City will turn out to be a failure, because the way it's being built isn't very rapid (except for the central, tunnelled portion of Eglinton). It'll be barely faster than a bus, and people won't get out of their cars for another mode of transit that also stops at red lights. It's billions of dollars wasted for little gain.

I'd rather spend that same billion dollars on a shorter subway plan than streetcars to every ward.

There's a little phrase I learned from a Will Smith movie, Six Degrees of Separation. It "quality over quantity" or something like that. I'd rather have less subway than more streetcars, simply for the fact that they're high quality transit (i.e. by definition grade-separated, own-row, will never stop for a red light). The problem with LRT is the variable definiton of it. LRT isn't one thing. Our streetcars are technically LRT. The Eglinton tunnel is LRT. But in reality, beyond using the same rolling stock, they're completely different. The way a corridor's ROW (or lack thereof) is built is far more important than the rolling stock chosen (LRV vs subway).

Maybe we should make that SOS's tagline: Quality over Quantity?

 

[Second_in_pie]

For me, it's not anything personal against LRT. I think that LRT on routes like Finch West will be great. Of course, it needs to be tailored very carefully. Short stop spacing so people find it more convenient to get to stations, or farther stop spacing so it goes faster? On something like Finch East, I'd argue that longer stop spacing isn't a very good option, but Finch West is quite well suited to it. Full priority to LRTs should be a no-brainer, including ROWs built to give as much speed to the LRT as possible, and full LRT signal priority. After that, you could opt to tunnel under some intersections (probably arterial roads,) further separate it from the road where it's not needed (possibly Eglinton East,) etc. etc.

But no, the beef I have with LRT is that it's sucking up all the proper transit logic. LRT is absolutely fine on a route like Finch West, or to upgrade the downtown streetcars and give them ROWs. But we still need subways, and that's the important thing.

So Coruscanti, I partially agree with your Quality over Quantity. The LRT to every ward thing is stupid, and we need the quality of a good RT network instead of politically based lines on a map that are the result of a trip to Europe. But the Quality is in a good network, not just because subways are there. We could build a subway on Elesmere and Keele, but would that be good planning or make a good network? I don't think so.

 

[Dan416]

My "quality" argument refers to how subways are built. They can only be built to a high standard, whereas LRT you can get away with at-grade crossings and the like. If LRTs are built to be fast, then they'll be fast. But if they're like King or Queen, then they're definitely not fast at all. The downtown streetcar lines are brutally, almost unuseably slow.

I'm not hating on streetcars/LRT as a bad technology. It's all about how you use it, and where it's appropriate. LRT on Sheppard East is entirely inappropriate because you already have a subway line that was started there. And building a subway from Kennedy to STC would allow the SRT to remain in operation until the subway was completed. I think its a practical solution to what the TTC is making a difficult decision.

 

[gweed123]

LowerBay I think you're right that Transit City will turn out to be a failure, because the way it's being built isn't very rapid (except for the central, tunnelled portion of Eglinton). It'll be barely faster than a bus, and people won't get out of their cars for another mode of transit that also stops at red lights. It's billions of dollars wasted for little gain.

I'd rather spend that same billion dollars on a shorter subway plan than streetcars to every ward.

There's a little phrase I learned from a Will Smith movie, Six Degrees of Separation. It "quality over quantity" or something like that. I'd rather have less subway than more streetcars, simply for the fact that they're high quality transit (i.e. by definition grade-separated, own-row, will never stop for a red light). The problem with LRT is the variable definiton of it. LRT isn't one thing. Our streetcars are technically LRT. The Eglinton tunnel is LRT. But in reality, beyond using the same rolling stock, they're completely different. The way a corridor's ROW (or lack thereof) is built is far more important than the rolling stock chosen (LRV vs subway).

Maybe we should make that SOS's tagline: Quality over Quantity?

Bang on. Rapid transit doesn't have to hit every ward in the city to be a good network. It just has to get people from where they're coming from to where they're going quickly (or in the case of Move Toronto, quickER).

If we can do some estimates on time from various points of the city using the current network, using the proposed TC network, and using the Move Toronto network, we can really showcase how much better our plan actually is. Maybe pick some major urban growth centres, Post-Secondary institutions (U of T Scarborough, Humber, etc), and other key points. Focus specifically on the areas that are getting a 'drop' in service from TC to MT (where there was once LRT, and now it's only BRT Light), to show them that it will still be faster using our plan.

 

[kettal]

I disagree. I highly doubt Steve will offer constructive advice that helps sink his baby. nfitz, graphic matt, etc. as UT members and while they might disapprove of our efforts, they don't have an agenda. In Steve Munro's case, he has pliable politicians putting his plan to work. Transit City is as much Steve Munro's legacy as David Miller's. Keep that in mind.

I'm imagining Steve Munro in a dark room, stroking his cat and laughing maniacally as his plot for destruction goes ahead.

He's not as stubborn as you think. He used to be against the DRL, and after he crunched the numbers and realized how important it was, he is now a huge proponent of it. If you can prove the importance of your subway expansions he will be convinced. As far as I'm concerned, you haven't. You're just throwing a lot of "wouldn't it be nice if..." ideas around.

 

[Dan416]

I'm imagining Steve Munro in a dark room, stroking his cat and laughing maniacally as his plot for destruction goes ahead.

He's not as stubborn as you think. He used to be against the DRL, and after he crunched the numbers and realized how important it was, he is now a huge proponent of it. If you can prove the importance of your subway expansions he will be convinced. As far as I'm concerned, you haven't. You're just throwing a lot of "wouldn't it be nice if..." ideas around.

You really need "proof" that finishing the Sheppard subway actually makes more sense than building LRT where the subway was supposed to go? I don't need a study to tell me that. And the Metrolinx BCA specifically didn't even look at it, because if they did then the answer would be obvious (even though they looked at a Sheppard West extension to Downsview, which isn't even as important). When you're talking about the downside of transfers and the benefit of a longer line (their reasoning for linking Finch West and Sheppard East) then yeah, it would make more sense to have Sheppard actually form a continuous subway from Downsview to Scarborough Centre.

 

[LowerBay]

If you went back in time to 1968 and told planners and the general public back then that in 40 years, streetcars would trump subways, they'd have put you in a mental hospital.

Sadly, I don't think anything can be done at this point, except to let the Transit City plan run its full self-destruct course. Trust me, it will die on its own. The odds are stacked against it -- left-turn restrictions, U-turns, construction headaches ... and then, once it's up and running you'll see the TTC crying foul over POP and fare evasion on the lines. The public will be indifferent as the service will not be that much faster than a bus, while the walks to the nearest LRT stop will definitely be longer as over 1/2 of the pre-LRT bus stops will be removed.

 

[kettal]

I have no doubt that a Sheppard subway going to STC would be an ideal outcome, mainly due to the existence of the Sheppard subway today. I do wonder aloud why Sheppard East was the #1 priority line, too.

Things being what they are, the transfer at Don Mills will be the easiest transfer on the system, and I hope there is eventually a spur going directly to STC.

On everything else SOS advocates, such as Eglinton, I see it as really petty. The service levels of the Eglinton LRT will be great, and I am very optimistic for it.

 

[kettal]

If you went back in time to 1968 and told planners and the general public back then that in 40 years, streetcars would trump subways, they'd have put you in a mental hospital.

If I went back to 1968 Toronto and said "people in the future who can afford cars will still use transit", they'd also look at me funny. And I wouldn't even want to know what they'd do when I tell them that more than half of Toronto would be non-white, or that gay marriage would be legal.

 

[LowerBay]

If I went back to 1968 Toronto and said "people in the future who can afford cars will still use transit", they'd also look at me funny. And I wouldn't even want to know what they'd do when I tell them that more than half of Toronto would be non-white, or that gay marriage would be legal.

Only the stupid ones still use transit. I bought a car in my 20s and never looked back. I still use transit occasionally though and feel that a strong transit system helps everyone.

Gay marriage ... now that's a valid comparison, although I have noticed that many of Toronto's transit advocates are gay 20-something downtowners who are deathly afraid to get behind the wheel of a car.

 

[Dan416]

Only the stupid ones still use transit. I bought a car in my 20s and never looked back. I still use transit occasionally though and feel that a strong transit system helps everyone.

Gay marriage ... now that's a valid comparison, although I have noticed that many of Toronto's transit advocates are gay 20-something downtowners who are deathly afraid to get behind the wheel of a car.

I'm a gay 20-something living in Mississauga who drives. I don't see what being gay has to do with subways.

And kettal the Eglinton line I've always been waffly about. I like that the tunnel is being built so its expandable and upgradeable to subway, so we won't be screwed in 50 years. But obviously I'd be prefer subway. If SOS had to make a compromise, it'd probably be on Eglinton to be perfectly honest, as Eglinton at least is a continuous line with a good underground portion where it's needed.

SOS's three main priorities are 1. Sheppard East 2. the SRT and 3. the DRL since those three items are the least contentious of our plan and all have wide support here on UT.

 

[Rainforest]

Gay marriage ... now that's a valid comparison, although I have noticed that many of Toronto's transit advocates are gay 20-something downtowners who are deathly afraid to get behind the wheel of a car.

Well, if they are downtowners, I understand their reluctance to get behind the wheel - even though I am not gay.

I like driving in the countryside, and don't mind doing so for groceries etc in the north of Toronto - but downtown? Narrow streets, continuum of parked cars in the curb lanes, crazy pedestrians crossing any time and at any angle ... I don't drive there unless I absolutely have to. I prefer subway even if it is crowded.

 

[kEiThZ]

What's even dumber than the Sheppard East fiasco is the SRT. They are gonna have to shut it down for years, while a subway could have been built with the SRT. It's only tolerated cause it's Scarborough. Imagine if they had shut down Yonge north of Finch during construction of Sheppard. North Yorkers would have been outraged.

 

[kettal]

If I were you, I would focus the group more on the SRT. With Sheppard, the horse has already left the barn. If the SRT redo is put on hold until after 2015, you have plenty of time to get the subway alternative on the agenda.

 

[kEiThZ]

Subways don't have to mean 300 mil/km HRTs. They could be built with LRT rolling stock stacked in a single tunnel. They could use cut and cover along Richview. Etc. There are ways to save money that LRT proponents completely ignore. I can't see why a Montreal style stacked LRT in a single tunnel can't be built on Eglinton for cheap. My issue with Eglinton is the operational risk from combining two types of operations (at-grade and grade separated) in one line. Who wants to bet that they'll be splitting the line in the first two years of ops.