News   Jul 30, 2024
 977     4 
News   Jul 30, 2024
 1.6K     4 
News   Jul 30, 2024
 660     0 

saveoursubways (SOS)

Status
Not open for further replies.
Hey, neat, an FAQ.

You'll need to wait a day or so. I just got some feedback back from the group, and I'm doing some changes to sections right now, so showing you the most recently-posted version would not be an accurate representation.

I can however show you this, which is an FAQ I wrote up yesterday to post on our website:

Debunking Move Toronto

Q: Won’t this plan cost more than Transit City?

A: Transit City is a 15 year plan, projected to cost $15 billion. The 15 year portion of Move Toronto will be cost-neutral to Transit City, also costing $15 billion. Not included in either of those estimates are the Downtown Relief Line (DRL), the Spadina Subway extension, or the Yonge Subway extension. They are being funded independently, but are included in Move Toronto.

For the same cost as Transit City, Move Toronto will provide true, grade-separated rapid transit to many areas of Toronto.

I think this is a little disingenuous because it seems to sort of imply that Toronto has $15 billion of committed Transit funding, which it does not. How much of your plan could you execute with existing funding?


Q: Will Transit City help reduce congestion at Bloor-Yonge station, or on the subways leading into downtown?

A: No. There is nothing in the Transit City plan that will reduce congestion at Bloor-Yonge station, or on the Yonge and University lines south of Bloor. If Transit City succeeds at boosting ridership, it will likely make the congestion even worse.

However, Move Toronto is proposing the Downtown Relief Line (DRL), a wider U-shaped line passing through downtown which, according to Metrolinx, will take approximately 17,000 rush hour passengers off the Yonge-University-Spadina subway south of Bloor.

The TTC is currently studying the Downtown Relief Line as well and Toronto Council has stated its support for making its construction a priority, so this doesn't really do much to separate SOS from the status quo.


Q: Will Transit City help reduce congestion on the subway network at all?

A: No. The entire Transit City plan is based around dumping LRT riders onto the existing subway network. Under Transit City, there are no new subway lines or extensions inside the 416. This will only increase congestion on existing subway lines that are already congested. In essence, Transit City is a $15 billion project to make it more efficient for people to reach a backlog on the subways.

Move Toronto proposes several new subway lines, which will have several advantages. They will relieve the existing lines by providing passengers more rapid transit options. They will also provide service to areas that are currently under-served. They will also mean shorter travel times on your local bus in order to reach the subway system.

This is a good point, though do any of your lines aside from the DRL (Which isn't unique to your plan) really do anything to change YUS being the only way to get downtown?

It doesn't really matter if people are transferring from a subway or a bus or a streetcar if they're still transferring to YUS.

Q: Aren’t LRTs being built in big cities all over Europe?

A: Yes, they are. But nearly all of these European cities already have well developed subway networks, covering nearly the entire city. These LRT lines are being built to ‘fill in the gaps’ in the subway network. Toronto does not have an equivalently large subway network, and LRTs are not a substitute for subways. They are slower, can hold fewer people, and are susceptible to red lights, traffic accidents, and inclement weather.

LRT lines are well suited for secondary corridors in the city, once the subway network has been fully developed and is suitable for a city of Toronto’s size, not before.

This is a bit of a moving target and I don't really buy your logic - what cities need is an effective transit system. The technology itself is irrelevant as long as it works well.


Q: Isn’t BRT less effective than LRT?

A: In the case of many of the proposed Transit City lines, no. Many of those lines will have relatively low off-peak usage, resulting in wait times as long as 10 minutes. Move Toronto includes BRT lines instead of LRT lines. Because buses can hold fewer people than LRT trains can, they will run more frequently, resulting in less wait time.

The BRT lines that will be used in Move Toronto are also designed to carry people on short, 5-15 minute trips to the closest subway stop. This is very different from Transit City, in which passengers may be on an LRT train for over half an hour before finally reaching a subway stop.

Running more frequent buses as opposed to LRT has a higher operational cost, which you should probably account for.
 
I think this is a little disingenuous because it seems to sort of imply that Toronto has $15 billion of committed Transit funding, which it does not. How much of your plan could you execute with existing funding?

Already answered in the previous post, but I'm guessing you were writing this as I posted that, so you're excused, haha. Eglinton Central, Sheppard East, and Bloor-Danforth East can be built with the $8B of existing funding (those 3 total $8.07 billion).

The TTC is currently studying the Downtown Relief Line as well and Toronto Council has stated its support for making its construction a priority, so this doesn't really do much to separate SOS from the status quo.

We specifically stated Transit City though. The DRL is not on the Transit City map, and is not even mentioned on the TTC's TC website. Just because we aren't "unique" anymore in that we support it doesn't mean our plan loses any validity because of it.


This is a good point, though do any of your lines aside from the DRL (Which isn't unique to your plan) really do anything to change YUS being the only way to get downtown?

It doesn't really matter if people are transferring from a subway or a bus or a streetcar if they're still transferring to YUS.

Yes they will still have to, but removing transfers at Don Mills and Kennedy will mean an increase in convenience for thousands of commuters. And with the DRL in place, coupled with more subway lines, the existing routes will not be as crowded, making for a more comfortable commute as well.

This is a bit of a moving target and I don't really buy your logic - what cities need is an effective transit system. The technology itself is irrelevant as long as it works well.

"Euro-style transit" has been a big selling point of Transit City. We're just saying that yes, big European cities are building this, but they aren't building them with the intention of being primary transit corridors, as Transit City is proposing.

Running more frequent buses as opposed to LRT has a higher operational cost, which you should probably account for.

Then it should also be taken into account the fact that little (if any) additional rolling stock will need to be purchased, because we already have them. This is not the case with LRT. But yes, the operational costs will be marginally higher.
 
Already answered in the previous post, but I'm guessing you were writing this as I posted that, so you're excused, haha. Eglinton Central, Sheppard East, and Bloor-Danforth East can be built with the $8B of existing funding (those 3 total $8.07 billion).

So you're still advocating for Eglinton Central to be subway as opposed to the current plan? Would you compromise on that one? I thought some SOS members weren't opposed to that bit.

We specifically stated Transit City though. The DRL is not on the Transit City map, and is not even mentioned on the TTC's TC website. Just because we aren't "unique" anymore in that we support it doesn't mean our plan loses any validity because of it.

It doesn't make you lose your validity, but is it really fair? Compare TC + DRL to your plan. That's what is currently on your table. The adoption of the SOS plan wouldn't realistically do any more to spur the DRL's construction than what is currently going on.

If you want to sing the wonders of the DRL, maybe you should advocate cancelling all TC projects and putting all transit funding toward the downtown line?

Yes they will still have to, but removing transfers at Don Mills and Kennedy will mean an increase in convenience for thousands of commuters. And with the DRL in place, coupled with more subway lines, the existing routes will not be as crowded, making for a more comfortable commute as well.

Good point on the Don Mills & Kennedy transfers. Maybe you should include that in your answer here.

"Euro-style transit" has been a big selling point of Transit City. We're just saying that yes, big European cities are building this, but they aren't building them with the intention of being primary transit corridors, as Transit City is proposing.

Is it fair to label Sheppard and Finch primary transit corridors? The only real primary transit corridor that is part of TC is getting underground LRT that will operate at subway speeds.

Then it should also be taken into account the fact that little (if any) additional rolling stock will need to be purchased, because we already have them. This is not the case with LRT. But yes, the operational costs will be marginally higher.

Operational costs are a huge issue facing the TTC and definitely need to be considered.
 
I'm speaking for myself here. Personally, I'd welcome an LRT down Sheppard if transfers were short and the route ran like it did for me on St. Clair yesterday, but all the same I enjoy riding on the subway more, and it makes sense to extend the Sheppard line past being more than a stub, which is basically what it is now.

Let me get it across right now: I'm not anti-LRT. I've liked the Eglinton crosstown LRT and Don Mills LRT proposals for quite some time, and Mammoliti's idea of a subway down Jane instead of an LRT is absurd. Also I think the DRL line, whenever it comes, is cool but a bit dodgy and it needs to be fine tuned. I do however support both the Yonge and Spadina extensions and a possible B-D eastern extension replacing the SRT.

I am torn on Eglinton too. Ultimately, though what pushed me towards subway was because I just don't believe it'll work well when combining the at-grade and below grade portions in one operation. Does that mean that it has to be a TTC style subway? Not necessarily. I would have no issues supporting smaller trains in a single tunnel (for cheaper construction) or some kind of above grade operation. What I don't want is a critical cross-town LRT running at-grade.

I support both subway and LRT, where they're needed. Sheppard is really where I'm torn because I think both aspects could fit, but I'm not going to shout repeatedly at gweed and KeithZ to scramble up a half-assed report so that I can see the benefits of a Sheppard extension quickly, like Juan is.

First off, credit to gweed who did most of the work of compiling and drafting the report. The rest of us were just contributing ideas and doing edits.

On Sheppard I am not torn at all. To me it's blatantly obvious that Sheppard was chosen first not because of need but because of its symbolism. They are writing off subway construction in the 416. With a move like that, I am even beginning to doubt their sincerity about the DRL.

If you look city-wide, would anybody here have picked LRT on Sheppard as the priority? If the DRL is so important, how come that's not on top of the list? Had Miller not decided to make Sheppard his legacy, I probably would not have gotten involved in this effort. For me, it seems like he's trying to foist another SRT type of solution on Scarborough when all most Scarborough residents really want are a few more subway stops.

I was hoping that Metrolinx would take a hard look at the planning that was done and push for a more regional approach to transit. They didn't. They just decided they were going to be a rubber stamp for province's cheques to the municipalities.

Leaving the only urban growth centre in the 416 without a subway seems to be like bad planning that needs to be contested.
 
So you're still advocating for Eglinton Central to be subway as opposed to the current plan? Would you compromise on that one? I thought some SOS members weren't opposed to that bit.

I would be willing to compromise on the technology used, but not on the grade separation, as would a lot of other SOS members. It's the grade separation and station spacing that gives you the speed and reliability, not the technology. If the whole thing is grade-separated, the technology only determines the capacity, for which Eglinton is in that cross-over zone between LRT and HRT, where either would work and be successful.

It doesn't make you lose your validity, but is it really fair? Compare TC + DRL to your plan. That's what is currently on your table. The adoption of the SOS plan wouldn't realistically do any more to spur the DRL's construction than what is currently going on.

But DRL + TC would only mean the DRL going to Danforth-Pape, which would force another transfer on Don Mills LRT passengers. How is that any better than Kennedy or Don Mills? In fact, it's almost exactly Don Mills. A DRL from Eglinton to Eglinton provides much more relief.

If you want to sing the wonders of the DRL, maybe you should advocate cancelling all TC projects and putting all transit funding toward the downtown line?

In a perfect situation, the DRL would be built first, but this is not a perfect situation. We have Sheppard that needs to be dealt with soon, and we have the SRT due to be replaced in 2015. So in light of that, DRL is 3rd on my list.

Good point on the Don Mills & Kennedy transfers. Maybe you should include that in your answer here.

Thank you, I'll make the changes.

Is it fair to label Sheppard and Finch primary transit corridors? The only real primary transit corridor that is part of TC is getting underground LRT that will operate at subway speeds.

I would. Certainly Finch west of Don Mills and Sheppard east of Downsview.

Operational costs are a huge issue facing the TTC and definitely need to be considered.

I acknowledge that. But the money saved from not having to purchase millions in rolling stock would cover the marginal increase in operational costs for several years.
 
I would be willing to compromise on the technology used, but not on the grade separation, as would a lot of other SOS members. It's the grade separation and station spacing that gives you the speed and reliability, not the technology. If the whole thing is grade-separated, the technology only determines the capacity, for which Eglinton is in that cross-over zone between LRT and HRT, where either would work and be successful.
If I could elaborate, if it needs to be grade separated, why not make it subway when subway's already a standard in the city and the corridor may see subway level activity? I don't care about the mode as long as it's grade separated, but I don't want the city to be kicking itself 10 years down the road when Eglinton has to be upgraded to H-er HRT because they didn't account for that ridership and made it LRT or ART instead.
 
Someone posted a comment about SOS on Steve Munro's website and he wants to know how the next mayor will fund the "mad schemes of the subways group."

Maybe the 'young guns' will show that they are wiser than the so-called 'transit guru'
 
Someone posted a comment about SOS on Steve Munro's website and he wants to know how the next mayor will fund the "mad schemes of the subways group."

Maybe the 'young guns' will show that they are wiser than the so-called 'transit guru'

I searched through his site but couldn't find the comment, can you post a link?

EDIT: Nevermind, I found it...
 
Last edited:
Does anyone care what Steve Munro thinks? With Miller out, Munro is a lot less relevant. There's no need to even debate him. We can just put out our vision and let the public choose.
 
I would love for Munro to stand on a soapbox at STC and explain to commuters why Scarborough does not need more subways and should be a testing ground (again) for trams.
 
I searched through his site but couldn't find the comment, can you post a link?

EDIT: Nevermind, I found it...
It's probably Juan putting up the commenys himself hoping to get Munro to critque our ideas. Meh. I respect Munro but I do think that relic is past his prime.
 
Let me get it across right now: I'm not anti-LRT. I've liked the Eglinton crosstown LRT and Don Mills LRT proposals for quite some time, and Mammoliti's idea of a subway down Jane instead of an LRT is absurd. Also I think the DRL line, whenever it comes, is cool but a bit dodgy and it needs to be fine tuned. I do however support both the Yonge and Spadina extensions and a possible B-D eastern extension replacing the SRT.

In defense of my map proposal, I too am in favor of Don Mills and Jane LRTs north of Eglinton and so naturally thought that some transfer points could be eliminated via linking the two stubs together via the Eglinton LRT subway. Creating one line line vs. several shorter lines makes travel continuous. And in that vain having the DRL extends west and east though Richview and the Golden Mile could fulfill the goal of a subway right across Eglinton only requiring 2 cross-platform transfers en route from Kingston to Commerce.

But if linking Scarborough to Mississauga directly via Midtown is a must, I would support a true Eglinton subway from Wynford Hts to ACC for now. The TTC pledging to one day upgrade the LRT line to subway "in the distant future as its warranted" is an empty promise. Just look at what's become of the promised Sheppard extensions and dismantling the SRT. The possibility of building at- and above-grade west of Mount Dennis substantially lowers the cost. Remember that the elevated guideway for MarkII Skytrains (of the exact same diameter as the TTC's Orion T1s) cost as low as $190 million per kilometre in 2008 dollars. TYSSE in a complete tunnel bore is costing $304 million/km. Above-grade stations also minimize the potential to wastefully aggrandize the station layout with a reduced number of features. Not since the original Spadina Line has the TTC been able to reign in its penchant to build larger than needed facilities at subway stops but the SRT ROW by contrast is minimalist yet practical and user-friendly.

Furthermore, a city of Toronto's population size with the 29th busiest international airport in the world should not be without a metro link to it. Building a subway grade line to the airport from now is advantageous should the DRL be extended to Eglinton/Weston because of the potential to interline train trips along the Richview ROW to/from Pearson and the downtown core. Every second train of course continues east along Eglinton to Wynford. People may say that the Union-Pearson AirLink is better but it will be very limited in its catchment (virtually useless to the downtown outside of Union and Dundas West), will lead to road closures in Weston and could see the re-alignment of a presently very fast and direct railway into Brampton, Georgetown and Guelph. Not to mention the substantiated cost to ride, not even fare-integrated with GO. And there's little time advantage over a DRL-Richview subway even with fewer stops, given the out of the way alignment swinging two kilometres southwest from 27/Bethridge. So the money saved from one project can contribute towards more worthwhile ones.

And meanwhile, dedicated bus lanes down the median of Eglinton east of Don Mills cost substantially less than LRT and will still have a practical use/purpose even after the subway's extended eastwards (given the large spacing gaps involved). Building LRT now, at its higher price tag, will undoubtedly make the TTC more reluctant to undo all that spending by then building a subway beneath. So one modal mistake hoists sub-par service onto generations to come.

Anyway, just thought I'd defend the Eglinton as heavy-rail metro position because for the life of me I don't understand why it's always being put on the chopping block when Sheppard West extension by contrast will move far fewer people and does nothing to alleviate the Bloor-Danforth Line nor intercept inbound commuter traffic coming from 905 West.

With the way the TTC is going about things right now, though, I'm not sure if the quality of either subway or LRT will be all that great.

On this, we can both agree. Our existing stations are literally crumbling apart while the TTC invests $140 million in pork on the most absurdly excessive station renders for TYSSE that I've ever seen. I did not realize the function of the TTC had shifted from providing efficient public transport to being art gallery/museum curators.
 
I've found this thread getting to be getting progressively harder and harder to read. What some members would like to call "contradictions" is probably due to the fact that SOS isn't some monolithic group. It's different people with different ideas. The reason the Mississauga extension is there is because I'm from Mississauga and Mississauga must be represented for my support. FFS, Scarborough gets two subways (Sheppard and Danforth), the west end deserves something. Frankly, some SOS members would probably love to leave out any extensions beyond the 416 borders if they had it their way I'm sure.

SOS is a plan that builds on our current subway system and takes it to its next logical point. The Eglinton subway was begun, we've brought it forward. The Sheppard subway wasn't finished, we're finishing it. The westward Sheppard extension to Downsview was even looked upon favourably by the Finch-Sheppard BCA. The DRL has been proposed for decades, we're showcasing it. The Bloor extension to Mississauga was in RTES, we're incorporating it. This isn't pie-in-the-sky planning. It's virtually all based on previous ideas. The only thing we're suggesting that hasn't been planned is the most logical of all: extending Danforth to STC to replace the SRT.

I find the standard that some of you are holding SOS to to be quite disingenuous, when governments in power are required to provide far less factual data to justify lines. Everyone knows consultants can produce a report to show whatever the originating agency wants to see.
 
I've found this thread getting to be getting progressively harder and harder to read. What some members would like to call "contradictions" is probably due to the fact that SOS isn't some monolithic group. It's different people with different ideas. The reason the Mississauga extension is there is because I'm from Mississauga and Mississauga must be represented for my support. FFS, Scarborough gets two subways (Sheppard and Danforth), the west end deserves something. Frankly, some SOS members would probably love to leave out any extensions beyond the 416 borders if they had it their way I'm sure.

SOS is a plan that builds on our current subway system and takes it to its next logical point. The Eglinton subway was begun, we've brought it forward. The Sheppard subway wasn't finished, we're finishing it. The westward Sheppard extension to Downsview was even looked upon favourably by the Finch-Sheppard BCA. The DRL has been proposed for decades, we're showcasing it. The Bloor extension to Mississauga was in RTES, we're incorporating it. This isn't pie-in-the-sky planning. It's virtually all based on previous ideas. The only thing we're suggesting that hasn't been planned is the most logical of all: extending Danforth to STC to replace the SRT.

I find the standard that some of you are holding SOS to to be quite disingenuous, when governments in power are required to provide far less factual data to justify lines. Everyone knows consultants can produce a report to show whatever the originating agency wants to see.

Well said...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top