Transit City Plan

[ssiguy2]

The DLR is totally grade separated - it is an elevated subway not a tram system. Tram systems generally haven't been very successful in huge cities as big as Toronto. If we want rapid transit we should use elevated railways and existing rail corridors to cut costs, not build slow streetcar lines that stop at every fence post. We are in danger of ending up like Los Angeles (which has a crappy light rail system hardly anyone uses) if we don't build subways.

The 320,000 passengers who take LA's Metro Rail everyday would beg to differ. Metro Rail is both subway and rapid transit LRT similar to DART or CTrain not slow moving TC. It is also expanding a dizzing pace with another new 7 mile line LRT , the Expo Line, set to open in just 6 weeks. Toronto should be so lucky.
The reason why LA is managing to expand it's system so quickly is that the citizens of LA, unlike Torontonians, are willing to put large sums of their own money into rapidly expanding the system. LA residents have consistently approved sales tax increases and gass taxes to fund expansion. In other words they are willing to, unlike Torontonians, put the money where their mouths are. The state and feds would never just give money to local governments for transit and not expect the locals to chip in their fair share.
If I was McGuinty I would be so furious at Toronto right now that I would seriously consider pulling all the funding. No matter how much they fork over it's never enough. I think McGuinty should hold all funding back until Torontonians themselves agree to chip in another one third of the costs for expansion. That would give them $11 billion to work with. It would force Torontonians to put their money where their mouths are and may result in them being more accountable ass to where the money is going and how it's being spent ie a whopping $1.2 billion to transfer a tiny 6 km SkyTrain line over to LRT.

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

At the same time, the City is anteing for other capital projects (e.g. LRV, LRV barn, etc) - which I don't think there are equivalents at other municipalities.

I found it no small irony that you should be telling Torontonians how to spend money committed to them just so that you get your preferred end result... Planning by proxy? And yes, at 320k/day ridership, LA Metro doesn't even have 1/6 of TTC - I am sure the subsidy and debt /capita ratio looks real enticing.

AoD

 

[Rational plan]

If you are worried about equity of poor people, you can give them discount cards for the metro or higher benefits. The transit system should not be used as a part of the welfare system. If the system requires large subsidies then all it's activities will be based on pleasing the politicians who give them subsidy. The system ends up being seen as mobility for the poor rather than mobility for all. You end up with infrequent buses wandering down every street, geographical coverage ends up more important that than the numbers of people carried. Money that could be used to expand service on major streets ends up supporting circulators in the suburbs.

The problem in North America is tiny subsidies trying support public transport against the massive subsidies for private vehicles. Government could do far more for transit by ending maximum densities in planning and restricting free parking.

I'm not saying profitability is always possible but a system should be driven by the fare revenue it collects rather than the taxes it receives.

 

[Rational plan]

The DLR was grade separated, but it was built on the cheap. It connected up old disused viaducts and the built simple unstaffed elevated stations, no escalators, no ticket offices. The only human presence was the train captain who operated the doors on the automated trains and checked tickets. The initial trains were tiny just one articulated carriage long, smaller than many trams. The main point it was cheap, just £88 milliion. That was how they got it built when all Treasury said that the proposed development in the Docklands needed was an enhanced bus service. They weren't prepared for the property boom that was unleashed by the improved access to the docks. Since then extensions have been built and stations lengthened three times and now the system is approaching the capacity of the Circle line. it is now a multi billion pound system, it was not to start with.

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

Well, some would argue that's what happened as the province started to fund the TTC and expand services (even high order transit) into areas without the density to support it.

Mind you, the locational decisions of the poor are often driven in part by (in)accessiblity - the lack of density in said areas makes for double jeapordy based on what you've suggested.

AoD

 

[BMO]

Well, some would argue that's what happened as the province started to fund the TTC and expand services (even high order transit) into areas without the density to support it.

Mind you, the locational decisions of the poor are often driven in part by (in)accessiblity - the lack of density in said areas makes for double jeapordy based on what you've suggested.

AoD

Tying into this too, is that in many places in Toronto, you'll find some of the highest car usage in low income areas, and some of the highest transit usage in high income areas.

The second good and efficient transit reaches low-income areas, they get pushed out by increasing housing prices and increased land tax prices.

 

[andrewpmk]

The 320,000 passengers who take LA's Metro Rail everyday would beg to differ. Metro Rail is both subway and rapid transit LRT similar to DART or CTrain not slow moving TC. It is also expanding a dizzing pace with another new 7 mile line LRT , the Expo Line, set to open in just 6 weeks. Toronto should be so lucky.
The reason why LA is managing to expand it's system so quickly is that the citizens of LA, unlike Torontonians, are willing to put large sums of their own money into rapidly expanding the system. LA residents have consistently approved sales tax increases and gass taxes to fund expansion. In other words they are willing to, unlike Torontonians, put the money where their mouths are. The state and feds would never just give money to local governments for transit and not expect the locals to chip in their fair share.
If I was McGuinty I would be so furious at Toronto right now that I would seriously consider pulling all the funding. No matter how much they fork over it's never enough. I think McGuinty should hold all funding back until Torontonians themselves agree to chip in another one third of the costs for expansion. That would give them $11 billion to work with. It would force Torontonians to put their money where their mouths are and may result in them being more accountable ass to where the money is going and how it's being spent ie a whopping $1.2 billion to transfer a tiny 6 km SkyTrain line over to LRT.

320,000 a day is peanuts compared to the traffic volumes on 5, 10, 405, 110, etc. Los Angeles transit is a joke.

Also the claim that Toronto is "too low density" for subways is BS. Toronto is similar in densities to the following cities, which have lots of commuter rail and subways:

City of Toronto: 4149/km^2
Greater London: 4932/km^2
Val de Marne (southeastern suburbs of Paris): 5299/km^2
Madrid: 5403/km^2
Amsterdam: 3506/km^2

Source: Wikipedia

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

Err, that's not honest use of stats - without knowing the urban boundaries from which those figures are based on, and the distribution of population within said boundaries you can't come to any conclusion at all.

AoD

 

[andrewpmk]

The boundaries of these areas can easily be looked up on the Internet, in most cases if you just type the name of the city into Google Maps then its boundaries will show up. Greater London, for instance, includes most of the urbanized area of London inside the M25 and includes little undeveloped land. It is a bit over twice the area of the City of Toronto and slightly denser. However there are nowhere near as many suburbs outside Greater London as there are in the 905. One would have to look up the densities of the suburbs e.g. Croydon vs Scarborough, but my point is that Toronto is not a low density city contrary to the claims that the pro-TC group makes. Many parts of Toronto consist of single family homes (like London) but in general single family homes in both places are expensive (London much more so). The majority of the population of Toronto lives in apartments.

Meanwhile Toronto has 2.5 subway lines and the Scarborough RT, hourly commuter trains, a bunch of big congested freeways like 401, and a crappy streetcar system downtown. London has a big subway system (mostly above ground but grade separated in the suburbs), a huge commuter train system, a tiny tram system (a very small system in Croydon that is a minor part of the network) and hardly any freeways (basically just the M25 and a few minor ones).

 

[Tulse]

If you are worried about equity of poor people, you can give them discount cards for the metro or higher benefits. The transit system should not be used as a part of the welfare system.

It's not part of the "welfare" system, but part of the "get people to jobs" system, the very opposite of "welfare". The more people can get to work, the more they earn, the more they spend, and the more they pay taxes, some of which can then go to the transit system. Transit gets people off welfare.

 

[Paleo]

320,000 a day is peanuts compared to the traffic volumes on 5, 10, 405, 110, etc. Los Angeles transit is a joke.

Also the claim that Toronto is "too low density" for subways is BS. Toronto is similar in densities to the following cities, which have lots of commuter rail and subways:

City of Toronto: 4149/km^2
Greater London: 4932/km^2
Val de Marne (southeastern suburbs of Paris): 5299/km^2
Madrid: 5403/km^2
Amsterdam: 3506/km^2

Source: Wikipedia

The density of the inner suburbs pale in comparison to the old city and York.

 

[andrewpmk]

Croydon (southern suburb of London): 3,994.5
Scarborough: 3,160.9

Toronto suburbs are not that much lower density than London suburbs.

 

[Solid Snake]

Croydon (southern suburb of London): 3,994.5
Scarborough: 3,160.9

Toronto suburbs are not that much lower density than London suburbs.

and rapidly increasing...

 

[Rational plan]

It's not part of the "welfare" system, but part of the "get people to jobs" system, the very opposite of "welfare". The more people can get to work, the more they earn, the more they spend, and the more they pay taxes, some of which can then go to the transit system. Transit gets people off welfare.

But you don't need to cut the cost everyones ticket to do that, just the poors. You could offer them discounted travel passes you cold give them more benefits. You could raise the minimum wage so people did not need welfare to be able to live.

 

[nfitz]

Toronto suburbs are not that much lower density than London suburbs.

I'm surprised by how many Torontonians don't actually appreciate just how big Toronto is on a global scale. And how dense too - with all our apartment blocks. Sure, Willowdale away from the arteries is very undense ... but so is Wimbledon Common/Richmond Park or Bushy Park.