Transit City Plan

[Fresh Start]

^ If GO Transit was more affordable I'd never have use for the TTC at all. I'd just cycle to Guildwood GO Stn everyday and be downtown within 20 minutes. To do the same journey via TTC from my house takes 1 hr 15 mins.

 

[Rainforest]

If we do no enhance the service from the suburbs, then we would not be putting them in a worse position, would we?

Jobs have already gone to the suburbs, because of lower taxes.

Can this get worse... I don't know. I don't think that the downtown locations are that hard to reach, are they? If anything, moving more people to the suburbs would create this on their streets - http://msnbcmedia4.msn.com/j/msnbc/Components/Photos/060801/060801_trafficJams_hmed_1p.hmedium.jpg - thus making their streets enjoyably and moving business back to the city?
But all things aside, I just don't see a rush of businesses from the CBD going to say vughan or somewhere. There are certain established patterns. Suburbs are naturally trying to change this, to take as much as they can from the city itself... things changed somewhat... how far will they continue? I hope that higher petrol prices are putting a stop to this, but higher prices alone won't do the job. There has to be more.

The thing is, suburb-to-core trips are naturally easier to serve with public transit (it is more efficient when the majority of passengers go to the same destination), whereas suburb-to-suburb trips are naturally more suitable for car trips (suburbs have more highways, wider roads, off-street parking, left-turn lanes and bus pockets to reduce impediments to traffic).

So, if you discorage suburb-to-core trips by refusing to enhance public transit, it can push some people to live closer to the core, but as a side effect it can prompt people who reside in suburbs to seek employment in other suburbs. And that means increasing the total number of car kilometers driven per day.

Petrol prices has long way to go before they can significantly affect people's travel patterns. Note that two large parts of the car ownership cost are insurance and amortization. So, even if petrol prices double, the total cost of car ownership might increase by 20% or 30% - more than enough to get people complaining, but not enough to force them into public transit without a major improvement in its quality.

There is a number of policy and taxation tools to encorage more transit-friendly development; I don't think stalling long-range transit enhancements is one of them.

 

[Rainforest]

This whole idea of living close to the inner city shoots the idea of living close to where you work all to hell. I don't suppose it's occurred to suburbanite living that maybe it's a shorter commute or closer to where their kids go to school or university/college.

Doable for single persons; not possible for many families. What if both sposes work, but cannot find jobs in the same area? Grown-up children attending a particular college / university located far from where their parents work?

In some industries, the job volatility is high and you have to find a new position every few years or even months. Relocating every time will be tedious even if you rent, and totally impractical if you own your house or condo (each relocation would cost you tens of thousands in comissions, taxes, charges and moving expenses).

In all those cases, it makes sense to reside in area with good transportation links (both public transit and roads just in case) and stick to it.

Daily trips across any metropolitan area are a reality, they can't be cancelled by stalling transit (at least, not without significant negative side effects).

 

[Electrify]

This is something I wrote on another forum, think it plays well here:

"God, I don't visit for a few days and look what I miss... This "416 vs 905" conflict continues to be one of the dumbest and most pointless debates in urban discussions.

First, it seems for the urban elitists that closer you are to the core, the more smug you can be. By this theory, the homeless people sleeping outside City Hall are above all you "suburbanites" all the way out by Church and Jarvis or your Harbourfront condos. If you have a problem with 905ers because of where they live, you have some serious issues.

Second, urban areas growing is not some new phenomenon that began in the 50s (or in retrospect with the new city limits, 70s). Even as recently as 100 years ago, areas like Forest Hill, The Junction, and Rosedale were suburban communities at the edge of the city - eating up farmland and forcing the city to build new infrastructure to accommodate these "distance commuters" rather than use resources to build infrastructure for the core itself.

Finally, while "416 vs 905" maybe a metaphor to describe "urban vs suburban," it makes a dumb discussion even dumber. For example, look at this image from Google Streetview...

http://maps.google.com/maps?f=d&sou...cSPwr9KxUOCDcvrMHoqE5g&cbp=12,244.61,,0,-5.88

Would you believe that this is Steeles Ave, the dividing road between 416/urban and 905/suburban? Would it even matter?

If you want an accurate way of discussing this, pre-war vs post-war makes far more sense. There is plenty of lower density post-war development within the 416, and likewise there are plenty of pre-war historic downtown villages with higher densities in the 905."

 

[LAz]

Petrol prices has long way to go before they can significantly affect people's travel patterns. Note that two large parts of the car ownership cost are insurance and amortization. So, even if petrol prices double, the total cost of car ownership might increase by 20% or 30% - more than enough to get people complaining, but not enough to force them into public transit without a major improvement in its quality.

In the US when gas reached 4 dollars a gallon two summers ago people were freaking out. I saw the go's equivalent here pass by - may times there were so many people standing. You like see through the windows that the train is cramped. Naturally people were fed up by high gas prices. There was panic here. And it triggered the current economic recession, as it started the housing bust in the exurbs.

So, if you discorage suburb-to-core trips by refusing to enhance public transit, it can push some people to live closer to the core, but as a side effect it can prompt people who reside in suburbs to seek employment in other suburbs. And that means increasing the total number of car kilometers driven per day.

Those people drive all the time anyways. They can look all they want - if jobs are not moved from the downtown then their search is pointless.
At any rate, the point is that at the minimum GO transit should not be improved in order to put more blood into the suburbs - we should want our blood back in toronto itself.

They pay their taxes like everyone else in the city so they should get good transit service as well. Yes they will be more expensive to serve on a per-capita basis than inner city folk but at the same time they do not enjoy the cultural {and city subsidized} events and civic entertainment options.

Screw the entertainment for all I care. In the world of authoritarian LAz, all clubs would be closed. Creepy, ain't it?
But anyways, we should not be spending money to help upgrade transit in the suburbs, as it is needed more in the city itself.

In 1998, we amalgamated Toronto and the boroughs, so instead of having East York, Etobicoke, North York, Scarborough, and York sprall independently, they are held to the same rules as Toronto proper.

The regional government metropolitan toronto coordinated development so that all these guys were on the same page. Now metro toronto is a lame duck. In 1998 - and even before - they needed another metropolitan government that would reign in other suburbs. That would have prevented companies from going away to the suburbs.
Only in the context of producing railroad suburbs can I see there some merit in this. But we do not have railroad suburbs - we have auto suburbs where life is dependent on the auto.

It would not surprise me if more people from the suburbs drive into downtown than take go to it.

 

[Mapleson]

In the US when gas reached 4 dollars a gallon two summers ago people were freaking out. I saw the go's equivalent here pass by - may times there were so many people standing. You like see through the windows that the train is cramped. Naturally people were fed up by high gas prices. There was panic here. And it triggered the current economic recession, as it started the housing bust in the exurbs.

The US is an oil importer, Canada is an oil exporter. They feel the prices more acutely and don't gain anything nationally.

Those people drive all the time anyways. They can look all they want - if jobs are not moved from the downtown then their search is pointless.
At any rate, the point is that at the minimum GO transit should not be improved in order to put more blood into the suburbs - we should want our blood back in toronto itself.

So you don't think turn-about would be fair play? Give people living in the core a chance to reverse commute? One reason why jobs when to the suburbs than Toronto is because Toronto is more expensive.

Screw the entertainment for all I care. In the world of authoritarian LAz, all clubs would be closed. Creepy, ain't it?
But anyways, we should not be spending money to help upgrade transit in the suburbs, as it is needed more in the city itself.

Mississauga is the 6th largest city in Canada. Are you saying that the Government of Ontario Transit shouldn't spend money to provide transit between them? Instead, the only people in Ontario that deserve better transit live in Toronto?

The regional government metropolitan toronto coordinated development so that all these guys were on the same page. Now metro toronto is a lame duck. In 1998 - and even before - they needed another metropolitan government that would reign in other suburbs. That would have prevented companies from going away to the suburbs.

Like the Greater Toronto Servicing Board? Harris and the Ontario PC Party did a great job stuffing our potential in the 90s. Toronto's budget has been hemoraging ever since the provience downloaded services and cut funding. The City/Metro Toronto divide just added to the disfunction. Since then TTC budget has been a political tool for the suburbs and the current state of affairs reflects two decades of fannying about.

Only in the context of producing railroad suburbs can I see there some merit in this. But we do not have railroad suburbs - we have auto suburbs where life is dependent on the auto.

It would not surprise me if more people from the suburbs drive into downtown than take go to it.

More people do drive from the suburbs than use GO Trains, but not from want of trying. I think something like 80% of GO Trains currently run at over 90% seating capacity. More people drive than walk, but does that mean we shouldn't build sidewalks?

 

[LAz]

The US is an oil importer, Canada is an oil exporter. They feel the prices more acutely and don't gain anything nationally.

The consumer feels them the same. The price of petrol in Toronto and just over the border is not very different. Even in Russia it is a similar price.

So you don't think turn-about would be fair play? Give people living in the core a chance to reverse commute? One reason why jobs when to the suburbs than Toronto is because Toronto is more expensive.

Don't call it expensive, call it that the suburbs offered lower tax, and the corporations wanted to increase their piles of cash.
Nah, I don't like the turnaround thing. In fact I would look for ways to get those companies to come back to toronto, or do something to not give the suburbs this unfair advantage that is disasterous for long term impacts.

Mississauga is the 6th largest city in Canada. Are you saying that the Government of Ontario Transit shouldn't spend money to provide transit between them? Instead, the only people in Ontario that deserve better transit live in Toronto?

I look at vaughan and richmondhill moreso than mississauga. Mississauga should look towards building a subway perhaps.

More people do drive from the suburbs than use GO Trains

And I think that most people in the suburbs do not even go downtown whatsoever, that only a small portion does.

My experience while growing up in the US suburbs was that kids are totally oblivious to the city, do not care about the city, and that the suburbs are their own for the most part their own things that retain people and business, life, and so forth.

 

[Electrify]

This may come as a surprise to some, but Toronto is NOT the center of the universe, and there is a whole world beyond Eglinton - a world that may not be accessible by public transit.

And as anti-car as some are here, is there any city or country on the planet that has shunned auto transportation entirely?

Besides the fact that most of the job growth in the GTHA is occuring beyond Toronto's city limits (hey 416ers, get the hell off of MY roads!!!), our goal should be to reduce car dependancy, not to kill the car entirely. Do you really need to turn on your car to go to the bank if it is a 5 minute walk away? Do you really need to drive all the way downtown when the train will get you there faster?

Fact is cities grow. We may never tear down subdivisions in Brampton to make room for farmland and forests, but we can make sure that future growth focuses on intensifying density rather than increasing sprawl.

 

[Second_in_pie]

^^ Exactly, exactly, exactly. Especially that last point there.

 

[LAz]

This may come as a surprise to some, but Toronto is NOT the center of the universe, and there is a whole world beyond Eglinton - a world that may not be accessible by public transit.

Then expand the borders of toronto, not to set up these abominations that compete/suck toronto's blood. I personally feel that enhancing/expanding the sheppard line should be the priority for toronto - and that is well beyond eglinton.

And as anti-car as some are here, is there any city or country on the planet that has shunned auto transportation entirely?

I am not saying to shun the car - I am saying that the car is the urban menace which is subsidized. Any sustainable transportation plan must have both transit incentives - and more importanlty- transit disincentives.

Besides the fact that most of the job growth in the GTHA is occuring beyond Toronto's city limits (hey 416ers, get the hell off of MY roads!!!), our goal should be to reduce car dependancy, not to kill the car entirely.

The very building of these places is what is increasing car dependancy. So you want to continue to build them up, thereby taking more of toronto out of toronto, while claiming that it would help them - no thanks. That's a one sided relationship. I bet only a small fraction of the people take Go anyways. My experience in the US is that people do not take commuter lines into town, nor do they even bother to go to the city often.

Fact is cities grow ... but we can make sure that future growth focuses on intensifying density rather than increasing sprawl.

The main problem is not identified in this wording - unplanned growth.

What you propose can easily be the market doing whatever it wants - that is a big disaster. Unplanned growth is a failure. Planned growth is what put toronto on par with the best cities of the world by the 1980s. Since then we have had a nose dive downwards.

 

[Second_in_pie]

The very building of these places is what is increasing car dependancy. So you want to continue to build them up, thereby taking more of toronto out of toronto, while claiming that it would help them - no thanks. That's a one sided relationship. I bet only a small fraction of the people take Go anyways. My experience in the US is that people do not take commuter lines into town, nor do they even bother to go to the city often.


The main problem is not identified in this wording - unplanned growth.

What you propose can easily be the market doing whatever it wants - that is a big disaster. Unplanned growth is a failure. Planned growth is what put toronto on par with the best cities of the world by the 1980s. Since then we have had a nose dive downwards.

Electrify is saying that upwards in the suburbs is more than okay, because they're already there. If upwards growth in Markham or Mississauga is bad, then we should also consider STC or NYCC bad as well, but it's obviously not the case. And what makes Toronto such an angel that it can cope with planned growth? I guess you missed the dozens of new mid-rises going up in Markham around MTC, or the town meetings in Richmond Hill and Vaughan for their new downtown centres. The point is that nobody's really planning their growth out that well, and planning is something that needs to be going on extensively at least in the GGH, if not all of Canada.

And plenty of people use Go transit. It garners about 220,000 weekday trips, which are basically all confined to trips going downtown. The DVP, one of two major highways feeding downtown, carries about 200,000 vehicles a day, which equates to around 240,000 people, of which a large portion may not even be commuters headed downtown. If we assume that roads leading into downtown and the QEW all carry approximately the same number of people, Go Transit still carries about 25% of all commuter trips into the core.

 

[ssiguy2]

The thing that really pisses me off about the whole TC thing is that it can be salvaged into a TRUE mass/rapid transit system easily withing the $8 billion Metrolinx budget.
Metrolinx and the TTC have been trying to serve everybody everywhere and the result is that no one gets served well.
Here is my plan for an effective TC.....................................cancel Finch. cancel Sheppard, and cancel an subway extention past the current Kennedy and instead transfer to LRT to McCowen but no further.
Use those funds for an improved and turn those savings into a real Eglinton? Pearon to Kingston LRT. Start at Kingston and go over all the way to roughly Islington and head north to Dixon to serve that heavily populated area and then onto Pearson which will also serve the large hotel and commercial areas near HWY 27. That's about 36km and there for should have, at a maximum 25 stops, and where it doesn't stop it should have underpasses at all traffic lights to highly increase both speed and reliability. It can be at grade where it stops and these stops will really be no longer than an average subway stop anyway. All underground stations should be about 125 metres to to acommodate further expansion but until that time 60 metres will be fine along the at grade stops. Cancelling the Sheppard and transfering to LRT with no extension will save about $1.6 billion and Finch $1.1 billion.
The Eglinton extension of 16km will come in at about $100 million per km. I assume $100 million because it will cost more to have under/overpasses with small saving not having to build the fewer stops.
That will cost $1.6 billion for the 16km {Metrolinx has already accounted for 20 km of it in its budget} which still leaves Metrolinx with a cool billion to do the Don Mills to Union DRL. Despite going downtown it will be relatively cheap due to using the existing rail ROW that goes from Union to nearly Pape station. Past Pape go thru Pape Village and via Thorncliff Park get to Eglinton and Don Mills.
This will be subway speed offer a true crosstown route and create an entire eastern section of a DRL. It will be just as fast as a subway at one third the cost. It's affordable, fast, mass, and can be easily completed by 2020 as the original Metrolinx plan will be.
What do you think and has this idea ever been proposed to Metrolinx?

 

[ssiguy2]

Phase 2..................2020 to 2030.

Extend the LRT from STC to Malvern, extend the DRL north using the rail ROW to At least Eglinton and ideally to Humber. Extend Don Mills north to Sheppard station, do the Waterfront Line, extend Kingston to U.of T. Scarborugho.
But this is where the shit will really fly....................................short of divine intervention and Toronto gets a shit load of money, turn the Stubway into LRT. Yes you heard it here first kids transfer to LRT.
By transfering the stubway to LRT it can be extended west to the University line, east to GO rail and then head south to meetup with the STC/Malvern LRT. A seemless system where transfers are not required. The north line can continue to Malvern and Sheppard further east to Morningside/U. of T. campus. The western section can go north from University/Spadina line to Finch/Bathurst the head west again all the way to Humber.
Again all of this system will be limited stop and use underpasses like the Eglinton and DRL/Don Mills routes which will already have been constructed.
I know this may sound wild and crazy but as the ancient Chinese secret goes.........................I don't give a shit.

 

[SlickFranky]

But this is where the shit will really fly....................................short of divine intervention and Toronto gets a shit load of money, turn the Stubway into LRT. Yes you heard it here first kids transfer to LRT.

Actually, that has been examined, and found to be prohibitively expensive.

 

[Second_in_pie]

(the official title of this thread is in fact "Transit City Plan debate, in case that needed clearing up.)