Rob Ford's transit plan is, imo, devastating to the city of Toronto. Here is the link to the plan:
http://www.robfordformayor.ca/wp-content/uploads/2010/09/Transportation-Plan4.pdf
He proposes scrapping Transit City and instead extending the Sheppard Subway to Scarborough. Instead of building several new transit lines that would vastly improve mobility in the city, attract tens of thousands of new transit riders, and spur vast TOD development all along the routes (even if they are LRT), he proposed building a much costlier heavy real extension through a relatively low-density suburban area where not only is there not much demand for a heavy rail line, but zoning (not to mention nimbyism) would prevent any real development from happening. He also proposes ripping up the tracks that have already started to be laid for the Sheppard East LRT, scrapping Transit City and thereby returning the $8.6 billion dollars allocated to the Transit agency for the project by the Ontario government, as well as cutting many (although he hasn't specified which) of the existing streetcar lines. What the hell?

From the pdf.

Streetcars are not the answer to Toronto’s transit needs
To attract drivers into transit, it must be comfortable, convenient, affordable, reliable and rapid. Streetcars are none of these things. Streetcars are slow (average speed: 17km/h) and take hours to travel across town. This limits your ability to live in one part of the city and work in another. Streetcar construction destroys streets and interrupts businesses. Streetcar lines down the centre of arterial roads increase gridlock and create pollution.
Yes, and building more freeways and roads will clearly not destroy streets, interrupt businesses, increase gridlock and create pollution. :ohno:

Also, thank the stars that Baltimore escaped a similar fate.

I'm sure no one is advocating freeways and roads here. The discussion is about one form of transit vs another, and how current plans are proposing all the wrong kinds in all the wrong places, for political reasons.

Rob's war on streetcars!!!

I love cars. I have my "G" license. I've been driving for almost 10 years. The vehicle registration tax needs to go, but can someone please explain to me Rob's odd obsession with catering and bringing more cars into the downtown core? How are we going to benefit from this?

Re-paving and keeping roads in good condition is one thing, but ripping up public transit to cater to drivers is another.

We will complete the Sheppard Avenue Line as a subway line. This
will include 12 km of new track and up to 10 new stations between
Downsview and Scarborough Town Centre. Cost: $3 Billion"

Completed by 2015 and only 3 billion dollars? laughable! He will fail miserably at this and it will cost him a second term. If you don't believe me, screen cap this comment and save it for 2014. :banana:

The only thing I like about his plan is getting the TTC to use the Presto card. I'm assuming thats what he means when he talks about brining smart card technology to the TTC.

The map looks like it will miss the places where the subway would be most useful.

Unfortunately, if he gets rid of streetcars, this will result in congestion on the subway system and on the buses, as there would be no other form of public transport to share some of the passenger load.

Well as we all know this plan was his first lie to his voters, and the streetcars stay. Yay!

The streetcars are staying. The City spent millions to upgrade, and rebuild the network, and we have 204 new streetcar arriving in a few years.

Keep in mind, Ford is only one man. He has to deal with the Toronto council to get things done, and the front-runners for the TTC chair seem to be reasonable, they get it that plans should not be scrapped when new politicians take power.

Ford did not come up with the plan himself. Whoever devised the plan looked at this plan for insight:

http://www.gettorontomoving.ca/Subways.html

If you read the plan, and site, this party is clearly against surface rail transit in any form.

The streetcars are staying. The City spent millions to upgrade, and rebuild the network, and we have 204 new streetcar arriving in a few years.

Keep in mind, Ford is only one man. He has to deal with the Toronto council to get things done, and the front-runners for the TTC chair seem to be reasonable, they get it that plans should not be scrapped when new politicians take power.

Ford did not come up with the plan himself. Whoever devised the plan looked at this plan for insight:

http://www.gettorontomoving.ca/Subways.html

If you read the plan, and site, this party is clearly against surface rail transit in any form.

Where do all you people who are against cars and freeways live? I live on St.Clair and Keele area, and I despise the LRT mess they made over here. There is so much traffic now as oppose to the way it was, and cars idling is suppose to help the environment? Streetcars are horrible! Subways are much more reliable, less time consuming and don't make traffic on city streets. How can you argue with Ford's plan? Miller and his buddies took away lanes for cars to put bike lanes which are always empty as compared to the car lanes, really all you people attacking someone who makes sense, why because he is conservative... :ohno:

Where do all you people who are against cars and freeways live? I live on St.Clair and Keele area, and I despise the LRT mess they made over here.

The 512 St. Clair is NOT LRT. It's a streetcar in it's own reserved right of way. I live at St. Clair/ Bathurst, and the streetcar is much more reliable than before the ROW.

There is so much traffic now as oppose to the way it was, and cars idling is suppose to help the environment? Streetcars are horrible! Subways are much more reliable, less time consuming and don't make traffic on city streets. The How can you argue with Ford's plan?

The streetcars are not the cause of congestion at St. Clair and Keele. The big box retail, and all the new homes in the area are the cause. The point of the ROW was to get streetcars out of the congestion, and I say it has been successful in that regard. You cannot say streetcars are the cause of congestion, when the streetcars do not compete with traffic anymore along the corridor.
You're never going to see a subway on St. Clair, ever, and Ford said he is not going to suspend service on St. Clair because of the ROW.
Subways are reliable if they are run reliably. You're falling into the technology trap. Toronto's subway lines are prone to delays, and bunching too.

Ford's plan totally ignores the northwest part of the city, give one part of the city far more capacity that it will ever need, proposes building 2 new subway lines in 4 years, using funds that are already allocated to York Region for their busways, favours scrapping streetcars to "save" money, when it will cost hundreds of millions to rip out the tracks, buy new buses, build new garages, possibly train extra drivers, because it requires at least 2 buses to replace one streetcar, and proposes to raise money using "air" rights over stations, even though most developers would simply purchase land near stations to develop. And now that Mr. Ford is elected, he denies saying he will scrap the streetcars, and looks to be backing down from stopping Transit City. I can go on, if you want.

Miller and his buddies took away lanes for cars to put bike lanes which are always empty as compared to the car lanes, really all you people attacking someone who makes sense, why because he is conservative... :ohno:

Oh god, you're just another Ford supporter who has no clue what he saying. The elections over, your man won, and he already breaking promises. Give it a rest already. For the record, the city posted a $275million surplus. Gotta love the gravy train, eh? And I just noticed that was your first post. Trolling? Not going to work here.
Since you love freeways so much, why not live near one? Easier access, right?

Well as we all know this plan was his first lie to his voters, and the streetcars stay. Yay!

I know that the streetcars will almost certainly stay, especially since the deal has been made for the new cars, but i'm very worried about the effects this could have on Transit City. Is this just another false promise (as if it were positive) or will it be carried out?

It's fairly certain the funded portions of Transit City may be built as planned. There is no way Ford will be able to build subways in4 years. It's simply not possible.

From youtube:
D4DRtpO-r5U

Transit city was David Millers mistake. It would be a good thing if Rob Ford could scrape as many of the streetcar plans as possible. Streetcars and ROW LRT cause traffic, hydrogen buses are the way to go. Cheers!

Man that Youtube flick was halarious. Thank you Current!

good plan.

good plan.

If you live in northwest Scarborough. For everyone else...not so much.

Actually, even for them too, because this is never going to happen.

If everything works out, TC will be a go. It may not be the most efficient transit method, but any transit for Toronto is a step in the right direction (as long as it's not Ford's miserable excuse for a subway plan).

This subway plan does not even help Scarborough much. I do not understand why STC is considered a major destination for travellers. It's just a large transfer point, and 2 subways is not going to improve anything, other than saving riders a few extra minutes.

Yes, Rob Ford seems for some reason to think that the entire GTA is centered on Scarborough Town Center. He also seems to think that forcing hundreds of thousands of transit and potential transit riders into single-occupancy vehicles will decrease traffic. He also seems to think removing bike lanes will lead to biking being more pleasant and viable. He also seems to think that paying back billions of dollars allocated for TC and streetcars is a good way to balance the budget. He also seems to think a multi-billion dollar 7-station subway line along a mostly sprawled out essentially suburban corridor is the top transit priority for the city right now. I could go on and on... His advanced form of logic really is quite confusing to us mere mortals:lol:

This subway plan does not even help Scarborough much. I do not understand why STC is considered a major destination for travellers. It's just a large transfer point, and 2 subways is not going to improve anything, other than saving riders a few extra minutes.

STC is the heart of Scarborough. Yes, it's just a transfer point. But it's not like there are any other significant destinations in the area.

Streetcars and ROW LRT cause traffic, hydrogen buses are the way to go.

No, reducing the transportation options available to Torontonians causes traffic. Removing street cars and LRT, which are often in their own right of way, for twice as many vehicles running in mixed traffic, slowing down, pulling out of traffic, then, by law, causing all traffic in that lane to stop while they rejoin the traffic flow, more frequently than a streetcar line would stop, causes traffic problems.

The issue is that Toronto needs rapid transit and none of the TC lines offer it.
Eglinton underground would be fast but a system is only as reliable as it's weakest link and outside the tunnel many things can stop or slow it down.
TC did nothing for the original city of Toronto.
I think the basic problem with TC is that it never knew what it should be.
Was it suppose to be a reliable and pleasant streetcar or a mass and rapid transit system.
Miller hoped by doing a TC model is would do both but it has conversely turned out that it will do neither. In it's effort to serve everyone bit better the result is that no one is served well. This is not what the populace wants for it $8 billion transit expansion program.

No, reducing the transportation options available to Torontonians causes traffic. Removing street cars and LRT, which are often in their own right of way, for twice as many vehicles running in mixed traffic, slowing down, pulling out of traffic, then, by law, causing all traffic in that lane to stop while they rejoin the traffic flow, more frequently than a streetcar line would stop, causes traffic problems.

Toronto streets are already built, and usually built too narrow for widening. Streetcars stop both lanes when picking up and dropping off passengers. ROW streetcar lanes eliminate a lane in each direction completely and is not a good obtion for narrow streets. Buses can manuever across lanes and still allow traffic to flow while picking up and dropping off passengers. Ala VIVA!

As for removing streetcars and LRT, thats years down the road. People will start realizing buses and subways are the way to go when building a better transit system.

Why more people will take transit instead of driving? The cost of owning a car will increase. People will have to ride bikes during the summer and take transit during the winter.
]http://misc.clzg.cn/bbs/day_080602/20080602_1a246a38b5eaedea8575q2EwZK4ufXpV.jpg[/

The issue is that Toronto needs rapid transit and none of the TC lines offer it.
Eglinton underground would be fast but a system is only as reliable as it's weakest link and outside the tunnel many things can stop or slow it down.
TC did nothing for the original city of Toronto.
I agree that obviously we could come up with a much better plan (SUBWAYS!!!!) than TC, but that's all were going to get for now. At least the fact that the central portion of the Eglinton LRT is tunneled means that it can be extended once people see that that serves the city far better.

As for TC not helping Old Toronto, again that can be viewed positively. As I and others have said, what we really need is a high-capacity subway rapid transit system. If there were tons of TC lines in Old Toronto, the area that needs rapid transit most, it would never get built because there would "already be transit." Because there is a lack of lines downtown, after the project is finished or priorities switch, that leaves room to build true rapid transit on high-ridership routes like the Downtown Relief Line, Queen, and St. Clair.

If there were tons of TC lines in Old Toronto, the area that needs rapid transit most, it would never get built because there would "already be transit."

Erm, and what is wrong with that? Imagine if Dundas, College, Queen, and King all ran in a surface ROW with guaranteed 5 minute frequencies at 30kph with 60m to 90m long trains. Do you still feel inclined to walk up to Bloor from Queen and Parliament to go across town to Queen and Roncessvalles?

Frankly, I think Melbourne got it right by having numerous lighter systems where the people are rather than trying to shuttle them all to a small number of backbones, then shuttle them away again.

I would trade Toronto's subways for 5 minute headways on the GO system and a much larger number of limited-stop surface LRT lines any day.

^^If Dundas, College, Queen, King all had ROW for streetcars there would be no more cars on them. Is that your plan?

Actually would be a good idea if more people knew how to ride a bike during the summers. In the winters the one left over lane in each direction can go back to being used by cars. No more parking on any of these streets though you'll just have to park on side streets.

^^If Dundas, College, Queen, King all had ROW for streetcars there would be no more cars on them. Is that your plan?

That is the choice some cities made (Melbourne being a really obvious one) instead of building a subway system. Multiple over-lapping LRTs (~60m trains) in ROWs with high frequencies can move a large number of people over short distances (25km and under).

They also have a regional rail system which covers longer distance trips.


Anyway, if I was building a city from scratch, I would probably set aside numerous above ground ROWs for trams rather than building an extensive subway system.

^^I'm looking at possible future streetcar/LRT routes in Vancouver, and do lament how we don't have many right-of-ways to work with. Where we do have nice wide medians to build on is also where we least need higher-capacity transit, haha. Sharing the route with car-traffic is pretty much a non-starter here.

That is the choice some cities made (Melbourne being a really obvious one) instead of building a subway system. Multiple over-lapping LRTs (~60m trains) in ROWs with high frequencies can move a large number of people over short distances (25km and under).

They also have a regional rail system which covers longer distance trips.


Anyway, if I was building a city from scratch, I would probably set aside numerous above ground ROWs for trams rather than building an extensive subway system.If you were to start a city from scratch that would probably be the best option since it would be better integrated into the urban fabric. People wouldn't have to travel as far to reach the transit corridor and transfer from another mode which would reduce travel times and increase ease of use (not to mention reduce cost).

The only problem being that in many cities there just aren't enough existing corridors that are wide enough in the central city. A partial solution is to do something like the Boston green line which has tunnel downtown and then becomes surface LRT as soon as density decreases enough. Many cities already do something similar in that their heavy rail subway is only underground in the densest and most central areas and either surface or elevated outside those areas. But heavy rail is not suited to street level operation, even in a centre median, so expensive full separation is needed.

A green line type of project would be good for Toronto since many street in the outer areas are wide enough to be suitable for a centre median, and 3-5 branches of LRT lines could come together to enter the downtown tunnel to shuttle people into town quickly.

A green line type of project would be good for Toronto since many street in the outer areas are wide enough to be suitable for a centre median, and 3-5 branches of LRT lines could come together to enter the downtown tunnel to shuttle people into town quickly.

The Transit City Eglinton line is EXACTLY that. Tunneled in the middle densest 10km, on street level for the rest.

Toronto streets are already built, and usually built too narrow for widening. Streetcars stop both lanes when picking up and dropping off passengers. ROW streetcar lanes eliminate a lane in each direction completely and is not a good obtion for narrow streets. Buses can manuever across lanes and still allow traffic to flow while picking up and dropping off passengers. Ala VIVA!

Streetcars are faster than buses on downtown streets. Studies done by the city have shown the avg. speed on streets that get rid of streetcar lines actually DROPPED. It's time to lay to rest the silly idea streetcars slow traffic down. It is auto congestion(and bad drivers) that slow traffic down! I doubt you have been on a streetcar during the weekends, or outside of rush hour,. The streetcar moves just as fast as autos.

Articulated buses on downtown streets are a non-starter. It will take at least 2 60 foot buses to replace one streetcar. A bus will still block lanes, as it maneuvers to, and from the curb. You ever get stuck behind a bus? You have to yield to a bus, it is the law! Considering the limited width on downtown streets, and the on-street parking, a bus may not be able to pull fully to the curb, blocking traffic.
VIVA runs on wide suburban streets. A system like VIVA will never be able to match the speed, and capacity of streetcars. It's true! VIVA is quite slow, since it runs in mixed traffic. That is why York Region is spending 2 Billion to build busways along Hwy 7, Yonge St, and Davis Drive. The busways will be built for easy conversion to LRT, since York understand LRT is beneficial in the 'burbs.


As for removing streetcars and LRT, thats years down the road. People will start realizing buses and subways are the way to go when building a better transit system.

If subways are way to go, why is the Sheppard Subway so lightly used? How is a subway plan that builds 2 lines in Scarborough better than a LRT plan that builds lines all over the city? It's not, and even his allies(Stintz, and Nunziata) want to see Transit City built. They understand the folly of cancelling a funded plan.

^^Justin you make some really good points. I'm aware streetcars are a really good public transportation obtion, in some case better then subways. In other cases like the narrow downtown streets and stops where streetcars block both lanes? The cost of laying tracks and the fact hydrogen buses are now more enviromentally friendly?

I would not remove any of the existing tracks, but if the tracks were not already put in on streets like Dundas and Queen, would it not make sense to run double decker buses along them? Come to think of it, other parts of the world like Europe and Asia have double decker buses. Why doesn't Toronto have double decker buse?

As for why Sheppard Line is not heavily used? Look at it as infrastucture investment. Better to build it today, then when you need it and it's too late. Sheppard is starting to fill out nicely with condo's close to and along all of it's stops. Surely in due time Sheppard subway line will be just as busy as any of the downtown lines. :)

Double decker buses are an option, but they have drawbacks... getting on and off is more time consuming and difficult than on a single-level streetcar.

Streetcars are only faster than buses because they have higher capacity and can replace several buses, thus clearing up space on the road. It's only worth it above 7000 pph...

^^What?

He's saying that if it's low-ridership route, a bus can be preferable to a streetcar, which makes sense. Although I don't know how he got the number 7000 pph?

Let see Ford "fix" the city.

I don't really care - let him eliminate all the bike lanes .. let him ruin the city.

Who cares clearly Canadian's are idiots and only get it if they can see it.

There will be more gridlock in the city in 4 years than there is now.

Lets vote in Conservatives for MP/MPP's ... let them run the show ... see that they have NO fixes for the city and are nothing more than hot air.

But if anything it will shut them up for the next 30 years. That's worth 4 years.

^^I have a feeling that you are a visible minority. But if you move to Scarborough or Markham then maybe you'll start to feel better about yourself. Either way it is hard work making money, the government just keeps on asking more and more of you. A way to save money is getting ride of your vehicle and biking or taking transit. You can also start down sizing and then you won't have to work as hard. Cheers!

^^I have a feeling that you are a visible minority. But if you move to Scarborough or Markham then maybe you'll start to feel better about yourself. Either way it is hard work making money, the government just keeps on asking more and more of you. A way to save money is getting ride of your vehicle and biking or taking transit. You can also start down sizing and then you won't have to work as hard. Cheers!

... Or it cost more to run our country.

Our infrastructure is AGING. DA

My taxes are fine. I live Downtown - and Transit sucks here as well.

It's because we have ticket takers making 100,000 a year.

He's saying that if it's low-ridership route, a bus can be preferable to a streetcar, which makes sense. Although I don't know how he got the number 7000 pph?

That is what I am confused about. It's seems like a number he pulled from the air.

7000pph is probably for all of Queen St. during rush hour, and see if you city slickers can get that number up to 8000pph by lobbying for car free streets during the summer months. Next year should be good oppurtunity for people interested in opening new bike and electric moped shops. Gas prices are getting ridiculous, parking is getting scarces. If I had a choose of moped or car in the city, I'd choose the moped during the summer.

Miller also lied thru his teeth when he did his ridership forcasts to make TC look adequate for future demand.
TC was built on the premise that Toronto will hit 3 million by 2030. That is an outright lie. At current trends Toronto will hit 3 million by 2020 and 3.3 by 2030. That doesn't sound like much until you look at it and realize that's almost an extra Oakville and Burlington combined squished into the city above what Miller said.
Also transit use will continue to rise much faster than the general population growth over the 30 years. Why?.......it's called demographic changes. The population is growing, in large part, due to immigration. It is a well documented fact that immigrants are more likely to take transit than the current citizens. The number of elderly and disabled will also growing as a percentage of the population and they too are much more likely to take transit than the population at large.
This backed by people's concerns over the enviornment and you realize how Miller deliberately under estimated future ridership levels in order to justify putting in ROW streetcars as opposed to subways where needed.

I think 7000 pph is virtually impossible for a bus route.

Assuming one capacity bus every 30 seconds is the extreme limit of what bus transit can provide on a busy street, that would be (55.5*2)*60 = 6,660 pph.

((capacity of a bus * 30 second intravels in a minute) *number of minutes in an hour) = maximum people per hour if bus transit is used at a 30 second frequency.

The maximum number of people per bus is based on the maximum I know of in Thunder Bay, where 37 seats (the average on our buses) times 1.5 = 55.5, the maximum legal number of passengers before a bus must go out of service until at least one person gets dropped off. (They don't go out of service, though. I think they get joy out of packing us into those things.)

Having 120 buses serve a stop every hour on just one corridor, to me, seems absurd. It would cost over $7,000/hour to operate based on driver's salaries alone, and having buses basically perpetually pulling in and out of traffic to service bus stops would wreak havoc on rush hour transit.

That is assuming you'd have that many people waiting for the bus though. Our buses only reach capacity because they don't go frequently enough, so instead of all passengers being spread out over multiple possible stop times per hour, they only get two chances to get on the bus. But technically, to have 7,000 people use a bus route per hour is probably technically impossible. I don't think any bus routes in the GTA even pass 30,000 passengers per day. :dunno:

Well, an articulated bus (120 passengers) every minute would handle 7200pph =) though you're right, it's well past the point of diminishing returns on buses. Even for streetcars it's it'll be pretty busy (one every 2.5 minutes). 7000pph is probably in reference to LRT as in skytrain-type routes.

I don't think any bus routes in the GTA even pass 30,000 passengers per day.
Just the 99B-line on Broadway has daily ridership of 60,000, served by 130 articulated buses at 1-minute headways (more like 4 buses every 4 minutes in reality). Even then it's so full that everyday, 4000 students will have to wait for the next round of buses. Combined with other non-express routes on the same street, Broadway sees between 100,000 and 150,000 passengers daily :lol: But of course, it's North America's busiest bus corridor...

I don't think any bus routes in the GTA even pass 30,000 passengers per day. :dunno:

Well, I don't know about the GTA, but in Toronto: Dufferin, Jane, Finch E, Finch W, Don Mills, Eglinton W, and Lawrence E.

If you combine the 3 routes between Shopper's World and Port Credit GO Station on Hurontario, the ridership could be around 25,000.

But of course, it's North America's busiest bus corridor...

I doubt that.

The Wilshire Corridor in L.A. has to be the busiest.

No, it's pretty much official. The Wilshire corridor carries 90,000 bus passengers, up from 80,000 in 2002 when BRT was introduced (which is why they're pushing for subway to Santa Monica now). That's a lot only by US standards... they've built LRT/skytrain lines in other cities for a fraction of that kind of ridership. But the Broadway corridor carries 115,000... ridership estimates for the UBC subway is 150,000 due to the number of would-be passengers currently redistributed to parallel routes on 4th, 16th, and 41st Ave.

That is the choice some cities made (Melbourne being a really obvious one) instead of building a subway system. Multiple over-lapping LRTs (~60m trains) in ROWs with high frequencies can move a large number of people over short distances (25km and under).

They also have a regional rail system which covers longer distance trips.


Anyway, if I was building a city from scratch, I would probably set aside numerous above ground ROWs for trams rather than building an extensive subway system.

Toronto isn't exactly like Melbourne. For starters, Melbourne is a little more sprawly than Toronto.

Toronto is more akin to cities like Munich, Vienna and Warsaw.

Toronto isn't exactly like Melbourne. For starters, Melbourne is a little more sprawly than Toronto.

Toronto is more akin to cities like Munich, Vienna and Warsaw.

I have to admit it's the first time I've heard that one.

Melbourne's transit is highly focused on the CBD. Using a train or tram to go anywhere else is useless.

Anyone knows if TTC is tunneling Sheppard from Yonge to Downsview? I want to see more action happening in uptown, the future of Toronto depends on this area.

^^Sheppard between Yonge and Downsview is a low density corridor where the travel pattern is local. A subway with 2 stops is not going to help that area at all. And no, the TTC is not tunnelling between Yonge and Downsview. The future of Toronto does not depend in that desolate area.

I find it very hard to accept that the ridiculous Spadina extension will go ahead, while opposing a much more worthwhile and logical extension of the Sheppard line. Completing the Yonge-Spadina circuit makes much better use of the existing infrastructure, allowing for a long overdue shift to accomodating inter-nodial traffic patterns. Ridership increases exponentially with every step toward a better-integrated network. Personally I don't think far-flung suburbs deserve subway, but tunneling just 4km to connect essentially 2 separate subway lines together seems to be a no-brainer.

I find it very hard to accept that the ridiculous Spadina extension will go ahead, while opposing a much more worthwhile and logical extension of the Sheppard line. Completing the Yonge-Spadina circuit makes much better use of the existing infrastructure, allowing for a long overdue shift to accomodating inter-nodial traffic patterns. Ridership increases exponentially with every step toward a better-integrated network. Personally I don't think far-flung suburbs deserve subway, but tunneling just 4km to connect essentially 2 separate subway lines together seems to be a no-brainer.

I don't find either very compelling; however, the Spadina extension does have York going for it [but yes, York could have and should have been connected another way!]. I don't think this internodal argument is very compelling, frankly: not here, at least. Not a lot of ridership is going to happen as a result of the westward integration of Sheppard.

That was a dumb project, really. I would, to be completely honest, rejig the Sheppard East into an LRT but that's obviously not going to happen even though that would have been a natural solution for this corridor. Can't have capacity taken away, even if it is wasted. [After all, this city is currently in the anti-LRT, subway everywhere hysteria as if we're going to have subway-conducive corridors all over the place. I think people just don't realize that this city won't grow that fast at all and that large swaths outside the old city are never going to become little satellites of bustling activity. The point is to get them connected and encourage some mixed use. It's an achievable, relatively cheap plan, and we have success with LRT right in this city. People somehow seem to forget that. Ok, my rant's over.]

Well, extending the Sheppard Line west can potentially move some people off the Yonge line, and have them go down the University-Spadina section. Then the developers can intensify the Sheppard corridor west of Yonge.

But I've always wondered why not extend the Yonge line north to Thornhill/Richmond Hill rather than to Vaughan. I'd imagine more people go north along Yonge.

Offloading from Sheppard to YUS would be minimal and certainly not worth the cost. If there was any sanity, neither Y nor the US part of the YUS should be extended. Ditto for Sheppard, which should have been an LRT through and through. There's far more important projects.

Well, extending the Sheppard Line west can potentially move some people off the Yonge line, and have them go down the University-Spadina section. Then the developers can intensify the Sheppard corridor west of Yonge.

But I've always wondered why not extend the Yonge line north to Thornhill/Richmond Hill rather than to Vaughan. I'd imagine more people go north along Yonge.

The TTC says the Yonge Line is at capacity during the peak hours. Having used the line for years, I believe them. Extending the line towards Richmond Hill will probably push the line beyond its capacity, and deny a lot of Toronto riders seats. The City told Metrolinx, the DRL must have priority over the Yonge Extension. I think the best option is to extend the Yonge Line to Steeles Ave, build the DRL, bus lanes on Yonge to connect with the proposed lanes in Richmond Hill and then think about extending the subway to Richmond Hill.

Karen Stintz has been tapped for TTC chair. She's a right-winger but she strongly supports the Eglinton LRT in her riding and has supported Transit City.

Well, extending the Sheppard Line west can potentially move some people off the Yonge line, and have them go down the University-Spadina section. Then the developers can intensify the Sheppard corridor west of Yonge.

But I've always wondered why not extend the Yonge line north to Thornhill/Richmond Hill rather than to Vaughan. I'd imagine more people go north along Yonge.

Anyone with 57,000 post has got to really know what he is talking about.:cheers:

Anyone with 57,000 post has got to really know what he is talking about.:cheers:

We all know the Spadina leg is underutilized, and the extension into Vaughan will not likely bring it to capacity any time soon. We also know the Yonge corridor is very busy, and there is a big population in York Region that can support even more traffic. The smart way to do is likely to extend the Sheppard west to Downsview, and have the passengers coming in from the east to interchange there - to alleviate the Yonge corridor. It's an extra 2 stops likely, but that may mean a seat or a more comfortable standing position for the ride downtown. Then extend the Yonge line north from Finch to Hwy 7 with an interchange to the bus terminus and GO station.

Anything wrong with that proposal?

We all know the Spadina leg is underutilized

That's just not true. I ride it every day and every day there are people left on the platform because the train is too full. It's not as bad as the Yonge line where you sometimes have to let three of four trains go before you can get in, but it is full to capacity.

Me Too, the Spadina leg is nowhere near full capacity, especially north of Eglinton W.

That's just not true. I ride it every day and every day there are people left on the platform because the train is too full. It's not as bad as the Yonge line where you sometimes have to let three of four trains go before you can get in, but it is full to capacity.

Where are you getting on though? On the Yonge side you won't get a seat even when boarding at North York Centre during the morning rush.

Looking at actual TTC data for 2009-2010, the average weekday daily ridership by station shows a significant difference between the Yonge and Spadina legs :

http://www3.ttc.ca/PDF/Transit_Planning/Subway%20ridership%202009-2010.pdf

North of Eglinton on the Yonge side, the stations cater for an average of 316k passengers / weekday :

Finch - 94400
North York Centre - 25480
Sheppard - 75970
York Mills - 27260
Lawrence - 22230
Eglinton - 70720

Meanwhile, the Spadina leg caters for just 40% of the Yonge side over the same period north of Eglinton :

Downsview - 31600
Wilson - 21680
Yorkdale - 24930
Lawrence West - 20560
Glencairn - 5560
Eglinton West - 19850

Me Too, the Spadina leg is nowhere near full capacity, especially north of Eglinton W.

This doesn't make sense because your saying Spadina line is nowhere near full, where as Me Too is saying he takes the line everyday and people are getting left off because trains are full to capacity. Who is telling the truth here?

See numbers posted by hkskyline. Spadina is not anywhere near capacity, and for that matter probably should not have been extended up and up and up in the first place.

You cannot assume a subway is at capacity, because a couple of trains at one station is full. The Spadina line has failed to met it's projected ridership, and the TTC will even admit that. The TTC turns back every other train at St. Clair West during the peak hours. That should tell you the demand north of Eglinton W.

I wonder why Rob Ford isn't setting aside money for a downtown relief line. I mean, he did say that he supports subway construction.

Something just doesn't add up.

By the way, here is a followup video to the first. This one is a little bit more understanding to the "TTC screwed everything up" viewpoint while still being pro-streetcar.

A-vXY42Zhu4

I wonder why Rob Ford isn't setting aside money for a downtown relief line. I mean, he did say that he supports subway construction.

Something just doesn't add up.

His electorate doesn't live there.

Noone ever commented on my subway suggestion posted in the Eglinto LRT thread so I thought I'd post it here. Is it possible that this could help address some of the issues around subway construction in lower density areas?

After scanning the thread, it seems like the arguments come down to a few simple points on each side:

Pro-subway
Long term investment (will handle future ridership growth)
Faster service (many proponents claim LRT will be too slow)
More reliable (some fear LRT will succumb to delays due to traffic interaction)

Pro-LRT
Lower initial investment
Some say the corridor doesn't warrant HRT capacity
Better local service (many proponents claim subway stops are too far apart)

So what we need is a solution that is cheaper than normal subway but equally fast and reliable, and significantly increases capacity (but not necessarily to the level of normal subway) that provides strong local service but also enough speed to service across town travelers, and is expandable to handle future growth.

Of all the suggestions made so far, I like the one consisting of local and express LRT the most. But has anyone considered this suggestion? How about a single tracked subway?

The line would have a single tunnel that would accommodate a single HRT track, but would have double tracks in station. Since stations are a major component of subway cost, the stations would be fairly far apart (think Northern Yonge St.) to provide fast express service, and local service would be provided by continuing surface bus service. Here's a segment of the subway:

Legend
_______________ Single track

{1=========} Double track (in station 1)

-A<-<-<-<-<-< 6 Car Train 'A' traveling right to left

{1->->->->->->B-} 6 car Train 'B' in station 3 beside empty track


In the following example, there is a cross section of three stations 1, 2, & 3 (it would be best to keep an uneven number of stations) in which train A is about to meet and pass train B

{1->->->->->->A}_____________{2=========}____________{3-B<-<-<-<-<-<}

The trains are electronically controlled and their speed is adjusted to arrive at station 2 at the same time, leaving stations 1 and 3 empty.

----------------------------------------------- -B<-<-<-<-<-<-
{1==========}______________{2->->->->->->A}______________{========}

At the same time as trains A and B leave station 2 to reach stations 1 and 3 respectively, imaginary trains leave stations 0 and 4 (not shown) to arrive at 1 and 3 to repeat the process.

The benefit to this is that although the initial cost would be greatly reduced, the setup could be expanded in the future to address growth by twinning the tunnel and adding/renovating stations to give both express and local service. The capacity would not be quite as high as twin tracked HRT, but would still be excellent. If there was 2km between each station, the trains have an average traveling speed of 80km/h (max 110km/h) and stop at each station for about 30 sec, then there would be a train arriving at each station from each direction in as little as every 4 min. This may not be the super high 2-3 min frequency of the busiest subway lines during peak periods, but close enough. And I'm sure that the computer technology available currently would allow the automation to work quite well.

So what does everyone think of this alternative? Personally I've often wondered if things like this would be a good alternative for lighter-capacity routes or as an entry level alternative for cities buildings their first system.

Hey Nouvelle,

That's an interesting idea. While novel, I do see some potential problems:

1. Automated signaling of this kind would be fairly expensive to set up and it's definitely an engineering project.

2. Trains on both sides are delayed if a train is delayed on one side.

3. As with two, if one line is taken out of service, both lines are.

4. The 2km stop spacing is not really realistic. It doesn't give the line a large catchment area. With such large spacings, conventional wisdom dictates that you'd still need local bus service.

5. Most of these problems disappear [but are not entirely eliminated] if service times were reduced to, say, every 10 minutes. Such service would not really cut it for lines like Eglinton [which really represents one of the finest cases of where LRT really is the best of all worlds], but there certainly is a place for it. It could work well and be built or utilized in already built single-track rail corridors a la O-Train, and in that case it could be dirt cheap as it's much easier to operate.

Hey Nouvelle,

That's an interesting idea. While novel, I do see some potential problems:

1. Automated signaling of this kind would be fairly expensive to set up and it's definitely an engineering project.

2. Trains on both sides are delayed if a train is delayed on one side.

3. As with two, if one line is taken out of service, both lines are.

4. The 2km stop spacing is not really realistic. It doesn't give the line a large catchment area. With such large spacings, conventional wisdom dictates that you'd still need local bus service.

5. Most of these problems disappear [but are not entirely eliminated] if service times were reduced to, say, every 10 minutes. Such service would not really cut it for lines like Eglinton [which really represents one of the finest cases of where LRT really is the best of all worlds], but there certainly is a place for it. It could work well and be built or utilized in already built single-track rail corridors a la O-Train, and in that case it could be dirt cheap as it's much easier to operate.1. Yes, automated signaling would be challenging for sure. But in reality, the system could even operate with the trains being manually driven. When a driver pulled into station, there could be a red light saying not to proceed into the next tunnel if there was already a train inside it (in the rare case that the trains didn't arrive at station at the same time). The driver might have to wait a minute for the opposite-directed train to emerge, but that wouldn't be the end of the world.

2. Yes, this would be a drawback.

3. Ditto, but you get what you pay for I suppose.

4. Yes, this solution (in the form that I proposed) would not be suitable on its own for a very dense corridor in which ridership was high enough to warrant a local subway (unless it was double-tracked in denser areas and single in less-dense stretches). It would largely rely on transfers to/from buses/streetcars and other subway lines. Of course, there's no reason (other than higher cost) that the station spacing couldn't be decreased to make it into a local rather than an express service. And as a plus, decreased station spacing would allow for increased frequency.

5. Eglinton may be pushing it a bit, but how about Sheppard? There has been talk about extending it to Scarborough town centre, yet some have raised objections about the potential ridership being too low to justify conventional subway.

Honestly, with all the talk about choosing between subway and LRT, I have to say, I want both! I want to see a wide array of transit options and I want unique solutions that implement these technologies to best serve each unique situation. Metro, light metro, LRT, commuter rail, streetcars, buses, trolley buses, all cool and all have their place.

I get tired of hearing "We can't have HRT as seen in NY or Younge/Bloor because of A, B, C reasons", and "We can't have LRT as seen in Calgary or Portland due to X, Y, Z reasons". Well if these exact setups don't work for those reasons, alter the setup to meet the situation. Make changes to allow it to work around ABC or XYZ, don't just rule it out. There's not always going to be a perfect solution, but as the old cliché goes, "Don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good"

But I've always wondered why not extend the Yonge line north to Thornhill/Richmond Hill rather than to Vaughan. I'd imagine more people go north along Yonge.

Because the Yonge subway cannot handle the added ridership that an extension would bring!! You think over-crowding is bad now??

Because the Yonge subway cannot handle the added ridership that an extension would bring!! You think over-crowding is bad now??

Can't be worse than Tokyo!

Japanese commuters are orderly and polite. Put the Toronto demographics and TTC management into Tokyo crowded subways and many deaths will occur (some of them unintentional).

You two never thought of why city is extenting YUS line. YUS line is going to reduce riders from having to go all the way across to Yonge from the west end. Then Yonge line can be extented without having to handle anymore passengers then what it is carrying today.

You two never thought of why city is extenting YUS line. YUS line is going to reduce riders from having to go all the way across to Yonge from the west end. Then Yonge line can be extented without having to handle anymore passengers then what it is carrying today.

the YUS is being being extended because Stephen Harper wants Vaughan.

You two never thought of why city is extenting YUS line. YUS line is going to reduce riders from having to go all the way across to Yonge from the west end. Then Yonge line can be extented without having to handle anymore passengers then what it is carrying today.

The number of diverted riders is not going to be enough to justify an extension to Richmond Hill. The extension into Vaughn is mostly political.

I'll bet you they extend Yonge line north of Steele's, I could use the extra cash.

I think 7000 pph is virtually impossible for a bus route.

Assuming one capacity bus every 30 seconds is the extreme limit of what bus transit can provide on a busy street, that would be (55.5*2)*60 = 6,660 pph.

((capacity of a bus * 30 second intravels in a minute) *number of minutes in an hour) = maximum people per hour if bus transit is used at a 30 second frequency.

The maximum number of people per bus is based on the maximum I know of in Thunder Bay, where 37 seats (the average on our buses) times 1.5 = 55.5, the maximum legal number of passengers before a bus must go out of service until at least one person gets dropped off. (They don't go out of service, though. I think they get joy out of packing us into those things.)

Having 120 buses serve a stop every hour on just one corridor, to me, seems absurd. It would cost over $7,000/hour to operate based on driver's salaries alone, and having buses basically perpetually pulling in and out of traffic to service bus stops would wreak havoc on rush hour transit.

That is assuming you'd have that many people waiting for the bus though. Our buses only reach capacity because they don't go frequently enough, so instead of all passengers being spread out over multiple possible stop times per hour, they only get two chances to get on the bus. But technically, to have 7,000 people use a bus route per hour is probably technically impossible. I don't think any bus routes in the GTA even pass 30,000 passengers per day. :dunno:It depends on if you are saying Passengers per hour or passengers per hour per direction...

a route that has 3500 passengers per hour per direction would have 7000 passengers per hour.

Cheers, m

the YUS is being being extended because Stephen Harper wants Vaughan.go back a few years ago and people were calling the YUS Spadina extension the "Sorbara Line" ... so who will the Yonge St. extension be named after?

Hmmm..."liberal" riding at one end of the line, "conservative" riding at the other end of the line - yet both ridings are pretty much "side by side" and based on the extension plans we know that the loop will never be constructed and "never the twain(s) shall meet"

I love Toronto.

Cheers, m

It depends on if you are saying Passengers per hour or passengers per hour per direction...

a route that has 3500 passengers per hour per direction would have 7000 passengers per hour.

Cheers, m

Not even then. Passengers per hour per direction is implied to be the peak point for the purposes of the EA.

100 people per train getting on at Finch and off at Sheppard do not contribute to the Yonge lines load for capacity planning despite being very welcome income.

3500 passengers per hour per direction at the peak point means a minimum of 7000 passengers per hour using some segment of the line as a whole. Actual ridership could be significantly higher.

With all this talk about the Yonge line not able to take on additional capacity, I really wonder why the TTC didn't opt for higher capacity new trains, with side seats so more people can stand within?

I'm surprised but also glad they didn't. Hopefully they'll just decrease times between trains.

Is it not better to stand and get the reduced fares?

With all this talk about the Yonge line not able to take on additional capacity, I really wonder why the TTC didn't opt for higher capacity new trains, with side seats so more people can stand within?The new trains are higher capacity:

...From a rider’s point of view, the most obvious change is that the new rolling stock is so much more spacious than the current equipment. The fact the cars open to one another, instead of each one being self-contained as they are now, alters the experience significantly. Henceforth, you won’t enter a particular car; you’ll enter a train. The interior runs uninterrupted from one end to the other, which means you can see all the way from front to back......TTC officials claim the new vehicles can carry up to 10 percent more passengers, but most of them will be standing. Given this, it’s no surprise there are more stanchions and poles throughout the interior....http://www.thestar.com/News/GTA/TTC/article/875512

The new trains are higher capacity:

http://www.thestar.com/News/GTA/TTC/article/875512

So does that mean extending the Yonge Line north is now feasible, since the trains can carry more passengers?

With all this talk about the Yonge line not able to take on additional capacity, I really wonder why the TTC didn't opt for higher capacity new trains, with side seats so more people can stand within?They proposed side seating for the new trains.

Howard Moscoe as TTC Chair publicly rejected their proposal for side seating back in 2008, calling them "cattle cars"

Cheers, m

So does that mean extending the Yonge Line north is now feasible, since the trains can carry more passengers?not really. The increased capacity from an open train is supposedly 10% but very likely to be less. Having the 7th car might add an increase of 15% (yes, I'm guessing) and perhaps more.

But the other issue is that the stations downtown cannot handle more people and have very little chance of being able to be expanded.

Cheers, m

Not even then. Passengers per hour per direction is implied to be the peak point for the purposes of the EA.

100 people per train getting on at Finch and off at Sheppard do not contribute to the Yonge lines load for capacity planning despite being very welcome income.

3500 passengers per hour per direction at the peak point means a minimum of 7000 passengers per hour using some segment of the line as a whole. Actual ridership could be significantly higher.that's why Im wondering context exists behind those actual numbers that were given.

Is it hourly ridership of 7000 passengers averaged over a whole day, or pphpd multiplied by 2 directions, etc.

Cheers, m

After doing alittle more driving over some of Toronto streetcars tracks last weekend it wasn't as bad as I originally thought. You just need to pick a side wheather left or right and stay away from the center. Wonder how it'll be like in the winters though.

They proposed side seating for the new trains.

Howard Moscoe as TTC Chair publicly rejected their proposal for side seating back in 2008, calling them "cattle cars"

Cheers, m

Yes - I recall hearing that argument a few years back, but it's mass transit and the trains are not designed for maximum comfort and a guaranteed seat and legroom for everyone.

not really. The increased capacity from an open train is supposedly 10% but very likely to be less. Having the 7th car might add an increase of 15% (yes, I'm guessing) and perhaps more.

But the other issue is that the stations downtown cannot handle more people and have very little chance of being able to be expanded.

Cheers, m

The problem isn't so much station design - the downtown ones are not designed to cater for today's crowds already. The issue is more on scheduling - with the stations all bunched up downtown, you can't increase frequency much more from what they have now. So the solution is added capacity inside trains. By the time the next train arrives in 90 seconds, the flow of passengers from the last train would have sufficiently dissipated.

It depends on if you are saying Passengers per hour or passengers per hour per direction...

a route that has 3500 passengers per hour per direction would have 7000 passengers per hour.

Cheers, m

Still, a bus a minute in either direction is a lot.

^^Sometimes I see two or three stopping at the same stop. It makes sense that streets like Finch and Steele need at least 120 buses running back and forth during the rush.

That is what I am confused about. It's seems like a number he pulled from the air.

It's a number he pulled out of his bum-no more and no less.:lol:

^^Sometimes I see two or three stopping at the same stop. It makes sense that streets like Finch and Steele need at least 120 buses running back and forth during the rush.

Now multiply that 120 by the $60 an hour each driver is making.

Breaking News!

Rob Ford's new green electric plan. No streetcars or subways needed.

http://www.redundancycom.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/04/fat-guy-on-scooter.jpg


To save you asking, yes I'm 10 years old.

the war on the car is over...fat f*ck indeed

if he ever succeeds on stopping the eglinton line altogether, i'd be more than happy to chip-in to an assassin's bill...

^^You must be from North Korea.:lol:

not really. The increased capacity from an open train is supposedly 10% but very likely to be less. Having the 7th car might add an increase of 15% (yes, I'm guessing) and perhaps more.

But the other issue is that the stations downtown cannot handle more people and have very little chance of being able to be expanded.

Cheers, m

The TTC is installing Automatic Train Control to replace the 50-year-old signal system on the Yonge-University line and this will increase the capacity because the trains will be able to operate closer together:

http://www.thestar.com/News/GTA/article/601538
=========================

Subway plans could signal end of line for train drivers

TTC plans $340-million upgrade to automate Yonge-University line
Mar 13, 2009 04:30 AM
Tess Kalinowski
transportation reporter

Imagining the subway without a driver would be a leap for many riders on the TTC, which puts an operator and a guard on the trains.

But as counterintuitive as it might be, computer-driven trains – like the ones on Scarborough Rapid Transit – are safer and more efficient than manually driven systems.

Driverless trains are now standard on new urban rail systems and older ones that are re-signalling their lines.

Three decades ago, when the SRT and its technology were brand new, the TTC decided instead to use drivers.

But the SRT runs automatically. The attendant sitting at the front is responsible for monitoring the platform and track, then closing the train door so it moves off again.

The TTC will award a contract next month for automatic train control (ATC) to replace the 50-year-old wayside signal system on the Yonge-University subway line, at a cost of $342.3 million.

The computerized system means 35 to 50 per cent more passengers could comfortably use the subway, because the trains could operate closer together: 90 to 105 seconds apart, compared with 141 seconds now.

When the work is done, in about 2016, the subway could theoretically operate without drivers, like Vancouver's SkyTrain.

That discussion is still three to five years off, according to TTC chief general manager Gary Webster. "We will spend a lot of time thinking about whether we do that or not," he said.

"We have not made any decision to go driverless, but we know if you invest this kind of money in an ATC system, and all the ATC systems around the world are designed to be driverless, it just makes sense that when we procure a system it will be designed to go driverless."

The SRT runs at 15 per cent less capacity when driven manually.

The TTC has about 500 subway operators. If Toronto goes driverless, there won't necessarily be fewer staff, Webster said.

The TTC has a relatively light staff presence on its system, but with pending electronic fare innovations, more are likely to be needed, he said.

Many driverless trains, including those in Vancouver and London, still have attendants on board for customer service and security.

The SkyTrain, which runs at 108-second intervals, has been without drivers since it opened in 1986, said spokesperson Ken Hardie.

If the SkyTrain shuts down, the attendants reboot the system.

But sensors on the train can detect whether there is a hazard up ahead.

In special circumstances, such as extreme weather, it might be driven manually.

Thales Rail Signalling Solutions Inc. in Toronto, one of four companies bidding on the TTC's signalling contract, has installed about 30 such systems around the world.

Bombardier, Siemens Canada and Alstom are also bidding on the TTC contract.

But the other issue is that the stations downtown cannot handle more people and have very little chance of being able to be expanded.

Cheers, m

The TTC wants to expand the capacity of the Bloor-Yonge station according to the former TTC Chair in a Torontoist article from this past summer:

Rocket Talk: What's the Status of the Downtown Relief Line?

By Torontoist on June 1, 2010 12:30 PM


TTC Chair Adam Giambrone says:

Toronto has talked about an east–west subway line serving the downtown all the way back to the early twentieth century, when the first studies were done. Indeed, the thought of the subway was so much on people's minds that when they built the Prince Edward Viaduct, it was designed to accommodate a subway under the road platform.

Then in the early 1940s, as Canada was at war, TTC engineers began drawing up plans for a subway on Yonge to replace the Yonge streetcar, which simply could not carry enough passengers in the heavy traffic of the time:

"The Commission does not propose to stand idly by and allow this deterioration of its services and of the city itself to take place. There must be a gradual separation of public and private vehicles, both of which are now trying to operate on the narrow streets originally designed for horse-drawn traffic," said a Policy Statement by the Toronto Transit Commission in 1945.

At the same time, the TTC began initial designs on an underground east–west streetcar route that would have travelled along Queen Street in the centre of the city. The TTC even built out the shell of a "Queen Lower" station for this line.

The TTC paid for most of the construction of the Yonge line from operating profits gained from increased ridership during WWII. (Due to parts and vehicle rationing, the TTC was unable to invest profits from increased ridership into new vehicles, though industrial production was otherwise ramped up.) There was not, however, enough for the Queen line, and in what would become a pattern, requests for federal or provincial funding in the late 1940s for it were turned down.

The first east–west subway was, as we know, built on Bloor–Danforth by the TTC under direction from the then-Metro government, and funded by both Metro and provincial governments.

Then-Mayor Nathan Phillips spoke against the decision to build the Bloor–Danforth line, and instead advocated for the Queen subway. The TTC and others, however, argued for Bloor–Danforth, and we all know the result.

Subway construction in the 1960s and 1970s was focused on pushing outwards to the inner suburbs. However, by the late 1980s, ridership was at an all-time high (only surpassed in the last few years) and the Yonge line, which had reached ridership in the low- to mid-thirty thousands per hour, was near capacity.

It was at this time that the TTC began a study of a "relief" line from the east part of the Bloor–Danforth line to the centre of the city, to offload the pressures on the Yonge line south of Bloor, where the problem was and still is the greatest.

The very preliminary study looked at a line that would come down somewhere in the Pape corridor and east–west in the Richmond corridor, stopping just west of the University line. The second phase of the line was envisioned to head north somewhere in the Roncesvalles corridor, possibly using the Georgetown rail corridor. A third and maybe fourth phase—reviewed even less—considered continuing north up to around Jane and Eglinton in the west, and Don Mills and Eglinton in the east through what is now Flemingdon Park.

The plan was killed with the recession of the early 1990s. With TTC ridership plummeting due to massive job losses, large fare increases, and service cuts, the pressure was relieved to the Yonge line in general and the choke point of Bloor-Yonge Station in particular.

Fast-forward to today.

Ridership on the TTC and Yonge lines has reached record highs. The Commission has not cut service, and as a result the TTC is one of the few North American or European systems to not see a drop in ridership—rather, we are on track to continue to set record ridership numbers this year and next. In addition, the condo market shows no signs of letting up, and there is even talk of extending the Yonge line to Richmond Hill and beyond, bringing more and more riders to what passengers know is an already busy line (indeed, the busiest piece of transportation infrastructure in Canada and one of the busiest in North America).

The new Toronto Rocket subway trains arriving this year will hold eight percent more passengers because they are one long tube, with no room lost to having separate cars. The Automatic Train Control (ATC) project, which will be complete by 2015 on the Yonge–University–Spadina line (Union to Eglinton will be complete by late 2012 or early 2013) will also allow the use of more trains on the line since the headways—the distance between trains—can be shortened and perhaps will also allow for longer trains.

These measures, however, will eventually not be enough to keep up with demand. Even with these increases in capacity to the Yonge line (and eventually also the Bloor–Danforth, which will get ATC by the early 2020s), the choke point will increasingly become Bloor-Yonge station. Today, around 480,000 people daily move through the station and many transfer trains. The station will not be able to handle the increased volume.

Currently the passenger separation project, which uses barriers and staff at Bloor-Yonge station to ensure better traffic flow, has increased the Yonge line's capacity by six to ten percent a day by allowing, on average, two more trains to get through per hour, and sometimes as high as four more. With each train carrying one thousand people in rush hour, this program, which costs around $250,000 a year, has been a tremendous success. While it is somewhat unpopular, it is an absolute must until ATC is brought online and major multi-hundred-million dollar renovations to the station are made. These renovations, which will be expensive and very difficult, are needed to help the "vertical flow" of the station—the movements of passengers up and down between the two lines—which is constrained.

Seeing the current and future challenges at Bloor-Yonge station, on the Yonge line, and perhaps eventually also the Bloor-Danforth line, the TTC recently restarted studies on the Downtown Relief Line. The study will cost three million dollars, and is being broken down into two phases. Phase 1, which will be completed by the end of this year, will look at ridership, capacity, and transit policy issues for serving the downtown core. Phase 2, which will be completed by the end of 2011, will consider rapid transit needs up to 2031; it will look at different technologies, possible routings, and possible station locations. And, importantly, it will let the City know what property must be protected so that future construction may be considered.

At the current $300 million per kilometre cost for subway construction, this is anywhere from a three billion– to eight billion dollar–line, depending on how long it is. Due to the large amount of big buildings in the downtown core, this will be a very challenging project and, unlike the 1980s, when surplus industrial land was available in the east end for a new car-house, today much of that land is already spoken for.

The original Queen subway was conceived of as an underground streetcar line, and the plan for the original DRL of the 1980s was to use ICTS (the same technology as the SRT), but today, the DRL would be built either as an underground LRT (like Eglinton) or as a full subway.

Demand projections for the original DRL were in the fifteen thousand to eighteen thousand people per direction range, per hour in the peak hour, but demographics have changed and it will be interesting to see if all the condo construction and some new commercial space offsets the loss of some very large employers (like Massey Ferguson) that were expected to generate ridership. Remember, subways need more than just rush hour traffic to be justified, and while the King and Queen streetcars carry around one hundred thousand people a day combined (and perhaps they would carry more if they weren't seen as unreliable due to traffic congestion), there needs to be hundreds of thousands per day to justify a subway.

There will be public meetings late this year and early next year, and the study will be done by the end of 2011. While the DRL is in the twenty-five-year funding plans, the last few months have shown there is little appetite financially at the Province for large projects, so it will be interesting to see if the DRL is ever built.

A great city needs a strong transit system built on a variety of modes and one would hope that one day, funding will be in place to allow us to move forward on great city-building projects like the DRL. The TTC is doing its part to push forward the debate.

http://torontoist.com/2010/06/rocket_talk_whats_the_plan_for_a_downtown_relief_line.php

^^Seems like uptown always gets the new subway. If I were Rob Ford I wouldn't like the sound of Eglington going underground. To far from the suburbs, the new uptown these days is North York. Doesn't make sense putting money into two east/west lines when the real growth is north of the city.

So TTC will:

*buy new trains with 8% more capacity
*install ATO which will increase train throughput per station
*redirect the movement of passengers through the station platforms

The question was, will all of that be enough to maximize capacity to handle the additional crowds from the extension to Richmond Hill?

Seems to me that the answer is still 'not really' and we haven't looked at interchanges, or increased numbers of passengers on Sheppard

the crucial piece will still be the station platforms - even if you can get more trains, you still have to be able to get the passengers in and out of the trains quickly and comfortably, out of the platforms quickly and comfortably, etc.

It's hard to do all of that if the platforms are going to be crowded because passengers are being left behind by full trains.

Cheers, m

^^You must be from North Korea.:lol:

and you must be from suburbia, an equally horrible place :lol:

That's what I don't understand. How can Ford not see that adding more east west lines will only clog the already congested Yonge line? We need to build the DTRL before we even talk about more east west lines.

i would have preffered a queen line for my own selfish reasons being that i like queen better than bloor and live closer to it. but the bloor danforth line made more sense to the city as a whole

We can uncloge the Yonge line by decentralizing the urban fabric of the city. We'll build more towers uptown and along Sheppard line. Downtown citizens will have a chose of where they want to shop and party. It's been done and has proven succesful in cities all around the world. It's time for T.O to jion the party and get with the program.
In earlier years I too was fascinated with the waterfront and wanted density downtown. But now with raising gas prices and cost of cummuting it's not very feasible for the large number of citizens living north east and west of the city. Why should a large number of the population now have to travel so far to be where the action is. Why not move the action to a new center that is more easily accessible to everyone. Sure it won't be done over night, but this seems like the cities new plan.

^^^ contradictions out the wazoo

We can uncloge the Yonge line by decentralizing the urban fabric of the city. We'll build more towers uptown and along Sheppard line. Downtown citizens will have a chose of where they want to shop and party. It's been done and has proven succesful in cities all around the world. It's time for T.O to jion the party and get with the program.
In earlier years I too was fascinated with the waterfront and wanted density downtown. But now with raising gas prices and cost of cummuting it's not very feasible for the large number of citizens living north east and west of the city. Why should a large number of the population now have to travel so far to be where the action is. Why not move the action to a new center that is more easily accessible to everyone. Sure it won't be done over night, but this seems like the cities new plan.

I actually agree with this to a certain extent. Toronto is large enough that it can have more than one centre of activity and it won't detract from downtown. North York along Yonge street would be the best place for this to happen. People downtown will never go uptown for entertainment, but it doesn't make sense that people in York Region have to travel for an hour to be somewhere interesting. Maybe we can move the club district up there so clubgoers have less distance to travel.

We still need a DRL first before building subways throughout the suburbs though.

We can uncloge the Yonge line by decentralizing the urban fabric of the city. We'll build more towers uptown and along Sheppard line. Downtown citizens will have a chose of where they want to shop and party. It's been done and has proven succesful in cities all around the world. It's time for T.O to jion the party and get with the program.
In earlier years I too was fascinated with the waterfront and wanted density downtown. But now with raising gas prices and cost of cummuting it's not very feasible for the large number of citizens living north east and west of the city. Why should a large number of the population now have to travel so far to be where the action is. Why not move the action to a new center that is more easily accessible to everyone. Sure it won't be done over night, but this seems like the cities new plan.



That is the intention with Transit city, to create new urban hifgher density hubs.

I actually agree with this to a certain extent. Toronto is large enough that it can have more than one centre of activity and it won't detract from downtown. North York along Yonge street would be the best place for this to happen. People downtown will never go uptown for entertainment, but it doesn't make sense that people in York Region have to travel for an hour to be somewhere interesting. Maybe we can move the club district up there so clubgoers have less distance to travel.

We still need a DRL first before building subways throughout the suburbs though.

DRL would be a waste of money, streetcars are the way to go and every east/west route downtown already has rail.

DRL would be a waste of money, streetcars are the way to go and every east/west route downtown already has rail.

But it should go beyond downtown. It could take a diagonal path into the Northwest and Northeast corners of Toronto. This would get people in these areas downtown a lot faster than traveling straight across and then straight down.

It would also take pressure off the Yonge line. I'm not a transportation planner, but it seems like common sense that a subway line that's already full cannot handle 3 other subway lines (if both Sheppard and Eglinton are subways) unloading everybody onto that one line. Unless Eglinton and Sheppard don't have that many riders, in which case there's no point in building those subways.

Maybe the people northwest can take a bus or streetcar over to the under used YUS line. Only people northest in Scarborough will need to take Yonge line via B/D. If there is over crowding, could it not be a result of the metropass and people joy riding. Maybe TTC should get rid of the metropass and make riders pay per use. Can also have riders swipe before entering and exiting that way you are only charged for the number of stops you ride. Everyone can buy a prepaided metrocard, $1 upon boarding and 25cent per stop depending on distance. This would in the end reduce joy riding and generate more revenue for TTC.

The funny thing is, like I said before, of all mayors in the last 20 years that would be a staunch supporter of the DRL it would be Ford.
The death of TransitCity has meant that after 2015 when more of the transit infastructure money will begin to flow, there will be money for expansion.
I could see Ford wanting to build a DRL from Pape to Dundas West via a Queen tunnel as it would give him an excuse to get rid of both the Queen and King Street streetcars.
That may not be what some on this thread desire but it is logical. The route would also be naturally extended up to at least Weston and eventually, by use of existing rail ROW, elevation, and limited tunneling, to Woodbine or even Humber College. Not only would that serve his own neck of the woods but also serve the eastern part of the city which will demand their fair share of transit inprovements due to NY and Scar just will have gotten their new Spadina Ext, Sheppard subway, and transference of SRT to subway to STC.
Ford rolled in on the Miller big spending city government protest vote but he will not have that luxury next time and he knows it. He knows he must get more of the hardcore urban vote to stay in office and a DRL would be just the ticket.
Life's funny. Sometimes your worse enemy can turn out in the longterm to be your best friend.
The federal Liberals knew Toronto was a bastion and therefore was not put on a high priority list for spending as it would have just been preaching to the converted.
The Conservative Harper got in with relatively little big city votes and Canadian cities haven't been the recipients of such federal government largess in over a generation.
From the transit pass tax credit, ongoing gas tax transfers, and huge amounts for transit expansion ie Union, Spadina, Sheppard, GO. Compared to when the "urban Liberals" were in power, Harper makes it seem like they hit the jackpot.

Ford will get rid of King and Queen streetcars by replacing them with buses. Has he even mentioned the DRL at all? Or even touched on the subject?

He doesn't strike me as clever enough to do what you describe, but maybe he is?

I suppose it depends on whether or not his brother is clever enough to tell him to do it.

Tearing away perfectly good tracks is not the way to build a city. Maybe in 25/30years when the tracks are worn and need replacing. What's with you people who recently bought realestate downtown all wanting a DRL for. You think it will really help the city or you just want to spoil it for everyone else. When TTC starts using smart cards and having people pay for distance traveled I bet one one will even ride subways downtown. With all the sights and amenities why would you even want to be underground when alot of your walking distances are minimal compare to what people and to walk up north.

The funny thing is, like I said before, of all mayors in the last 20 years that would be a staunch supporter of the DRL it would be Ford.

I was thinking along these lines too. I was never a fan of Transit City. It just seemed like putting a grid over a map of the city without any regard for where people live or commute. Scrapping the DRL and putting in routes like Finch are what soured me on it. I wouldn't mourn its passing, except for the knowledge that it probably means that nothing will get done for the foreseeable future.

The DRL should be right up Rob Ford's alley. It is an underground subway, which he says he wants. The ridership is already there for at least the main, downtown portion. Plus, it gets streetcars off of Queen and/or King, opining up traffic for the cars taht Ford loves. IIRC the Province also wanted this line and wanted to retain it for Transit City.

Ford could counter a lot of his critics by committing to the DRL and maybe to building Eglinton (this one seems to make the most sense in terms of current ridership and it will be mostly underground).

^^Majority of the people don't live downtown anymore, why put money into something that only the few wealthy people who live downtown can use.

Majority of the people don't live downtown

That's why they have to commute.

That's why they are doing EA study to extend Yonge line to hwy 7, They need to commute further. We can meet half way though, Yonge and Steele 25km for you and 25km from me. There is a huge parking lot there.

I was thinking along these lines too. I was never a fan of Transit City. It just seemed like putting a grid over a map of the city without any regard for where people live or commute. Scrapping the DRL and putting in routes like Finch are what soured me on it. I wouldn't mourn its passing, except for the knowledge that it probably means that nothing will get done for the foreseeable future.

The DRL should be right up Rob Ford's alley. It is an underground subway, which he says he wants. The ridership is already there for at least the main, downtown portion. Plus, it gets streetcars off of Queen and/or King, opining up traffic for the cars taht Ford loves. IIRC the Province also wanted this line and wanted to retain it for Transit City.

Ford could counter a lot of his critics by committing to the DRL and maybe to building Eglinton (this one seems to make the most sense in terms of current ridership and it will be mostly underground).

Ford's constituents are from the suburbs. As much as he loves subways, it must be tied to his love for the suburbanites. Hence, suburban subways... Newmarket here we come...

^^Majority of the people don't live downtown anymore, why put money into something that only the few wealthy people who live downtown can use.
The DRL goes through the inner city rather than just serving downtown. It doesn't really help the rich (who a) drive, and b) whose inner-city mansions are typically a bit out of the way of most transit corridors), but rather rewards those who are willing to forgo the suburban house in favor for high-density housing right along said transit corridors.

^^Majority of the people don't live downtown anymore, why put money into something that only the few wealthy people who live downtown can use.

http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/85-561-m/2009018/m001_en.gif

Nice graph Andrew, but that was 2006. Alot has changed, alot of people have moved out of the dark blue areas and into to new homees surrounding the city. You can't even call the surrounding areas of the city especially up north a suburb anymore because houses are now pretty much side by side or townhomes. It's crazy dense and condo's are poping up everywhere. Soon the 25km north od Steeles Ave, is going to have as many people as the 25km south of it. This is going to be an interesting next ten years for the city. In 20years you might see downtown, being the same as Newmarket which is considered the fringes of what is a New City Center at Yonge and Steeles.

Nice graph Andrew, but that was 2006. Alot has changed, alot of people have moved out of the dark blue areas and into to new homees surrounding the city. You can't even call the surrounding areas of the city especially up north a suburb anymore because houses are now pretty much side by side or townhomes. It's crazy dense and condo's are poping up everywhere. Soon the 25km north od Steeles Ave, is going to have as many people as the 25km south of it. This is going to be an interesting next ten years for the city. In 20years you might see downtown, being the same as Newmarket which is considered the fringes of what is a New City Center at Yonge and Steeles.

You have not provided evidence to show the areas outside of the core are "crazy" dense. It's not hard argue to against your claims. You make a lot blanket statements, and assumption without providing evidence to back it up.

Well, it is true that the 905 is building some of the densest subdivisions in North America. The problem is that they're arranged in a pedestrian-hating suburban layout that is completely dependant on power centres and office parks. So no, density doesn't not necessarily translate into transit ridership potential.

Nice graph Andrew, but that was 2006. Alot has changed, alot of people have moved out of the dark blue areas and into to new homees surrounding the city.


Okay back that up if you have more up to date data. I fail to see how over the past 4 years it has changed that much, and with most of the construction having been in the core and along Yonge it seems safe to say that the Core has only increased in density. I'm unaware of anywhere in the cities core that has seen any sort of migration of numbers to the cities burbs.

Main article: Demographics of Toronto
Toronto population by year, within present boundaries
Year City CMA GTA
1861 65,085 193,844[59] —
1901 238,080 440,000[59] —
1951 1,117,470 1,262,000[59] —
1971 2,089,728 2,628,045[60] —
1976 2,124,295 2,803,101[61] —
1981 2,137,380 2,998,947[62] —
1986 2,192,721 3,733,085[63] —
1991 2,275,771[64] 3,893,933[65] 4,235,756[64]
1996 2,385,421[66] 4,263,759[66] 4,628,883[67]
2001 2,481,494[2] 4,682,897[2] 5,081,826[68]
2006 2,503,281[2] 5,113,149[2] 5,555,912[69]

This shows a trend of how surrounding areas have continually out grown Toronto.

This shows a trend of how surrounding areas have continually out grown Toronto.

You claimed that people were leaving the city (specifically, the densest parts), which is not at all the case.

No, but despite all the construction downtown, and the increase in Greater Toronto's population by a million over the last 15 years, almost all of that growth went into the 905, while Toronto proper went from 2.4 to 2.5 million. We know that the daily transit ridership in this high-growth area - Peel, York and Durham region combined (population 3 million), is less than 300,000. The growth pattern out there largely continues to be of a suburban or tower-in-the-park nature. So all in all, there are good reasons against wasting transit dollars on areas that don't really want to abandon the automobile.

You claimed that people were leaving the city (specifically, the densest parts), which is not at all the case.

I was thinking about Regent park when I wrote that, my apologies. But anyhow it looks like more people are choosing to live around the city then within the city now. This seems like the perfect time to move larger developement to areas that are more accessible to people living all around the city. Just my opinion though.

I was thinking about Regent park when I wrote that, my apologies. But anyhow it looks like more people are choosing to live around the city then within the city now. This seems like the perfect time to move larger developement to areas that are more accessible to people living all around the city. Just my opinion though.

Peripheral sites are not more accessible for most GTA'ers though. Your idea of having a tower at Steeles for example would be more accessible to people in York region, but would be less accessible to people in Peel or Durham. Toronto (downtown) is still the centre of the region, and still the most easily accessible location for most of the population (considering its where all the train lines lead to).

York Region is the fastest growing out of the three Regions. It has two major hwy's that are overly conjested from people having to commute downtown for work. If a couple of office towers move to Yonge/Steele it would only be a good thing. Durham and Peel can easily access location off of hwy 401.:)

York Region is the fastest growing out of the three Regions. It has two major hwy's that are overly conjested from people having to commute downtown for work. If a couple of office towers move to Yonge/Steele it would only be a good thing. Durham and Peel can easily access location off of hwy 401.:)

Yonge, and Steeles is not easily accessible for Peel and Durham! It's a royal pain in the ass to travel to that area during the peak. I know, I used to do it from Brampton :lol:

Unless a company is offered significant incentives to move to that area, I do not see that area as high density development potential. It's not that great of an area, especially considering companies can set up shop in the Yonge/Sheppard area which is much closer to the 401, and a pretty mature area.

Main article: Demographics of Toronto
Toronto population by year, within present boundaries
Year City CMA GTA
1861 65,085 193,844[59] —
1901 238,080 440,000[59] —
1951 1,117,470 1,262,000[59] —
1971 2,089,728 2,628,045[60] —
1976 2,124,295 2,803,101[61] —
1981 2,137,380 2,998,947[62] —
1986 2,192,721 3,733,085[63] —
1991 2,275,771[64] 3,893,933[65] 4,235,756[64]
1996 2,385,421[66] 4,263,759[66] 4,628,883[67]
2001 2,481,494[2] 4,682,897[2] 5,081,826[68]
2006 2,503,281[2] 5,113,149[2] 5,555,912[69]

This shows a trend of how surrounding areas have continually out grown Toronto.

Those numbers reflect the entire city of Toronto. Can you show stats that show the downtown area lost population, with a link to the source? As it stand, you are proving that Toronto is gaining population, and that includes the core.

http://maps.google.ca/maps?f=q&source=s_q&hl=en&geocode=&q=Toronto,+Ontario&sll=49.891235,-97.15369&sspn=27.767087,78.662109&ie=UTF8&hq=&hnear=Toronto,+Toronto+Division,+Ontario&ll=43.792721,-79.414673&spn=0.030297,0.076818&z=14
This is going to be everyones stop off point at Steeles.

Downtown Toronto taking on the characteristic of a suburb in favour of growth in the north? fat chance...and should that happen, that would be the death of Toronto...

Sure it will work, just look at the map. I can design it efficiently to make it happen. Every part of Yonge and it side streets from south of 401 to north of Steeles. We will freeze taxes in the south and by the lake, to keep downtowner's happy. Now look Sheppard is pretty much parralel to the airport, we'll run Sheppard line eventual across hitting Thistletown, Albion Centre, Humber College and then the airport. Even makes seen to go into Missisauga and connect to Square One. Give's the south/west access to North York Center.

^^freeze taxes downtown and, how do it put...undesirables will move in...i guess there's no 'politically correct' way of saying it, so i'll just say it...those low-income residents living in the fringes of the current downtown area, people who are more likely--thanks to their socio-economic status--to engage in criminal activity, will move in to the downtown core...Toronto will die the death that many other great cities in this continent have had

It's more like Toronto will reinvent itself in a central location away from the lowland of Lake Ontario. With skyscrapers nowadays 15-20 years is all it'll take, Look at Dubai, Shenzhen, and Korean cities. Look some great historic cities like Paris, Madrid, Beijing, they reinvented themselves and use a centralized city center. Even NewYork, ShangHai, Guangzhou, they all meet in the middle, pulling in people from all direction.
Some people might say there is so much history downtown, but we will keep that history alive by making downtown a heritage site. Toronto is still a young city and with rail tracks in the north part of the city, Toronto will eventually include Vaughn/Richmond Hill/Markham in York, Missisauga/Brampton in Peel and Pickering/Ajax in Durham. The North Rail Station can be bigger and better then Union Station. People who work Yonge/Steeles can ride GO train and people who work Yonge/Sheppard can come by subway or car off of hwy401. Everything will get filled up from hwy401 to north of Steeles.

Well, I read the railway gazette article about Rob Ford trying to put a stop to Transit City. I think I'll pour out my drink to mourn the loss of Toronto.

Ford's constituents are from the suburbs. As much as he loves subways, it must be tied to his love for the suburbanites. Hence, suburban subways... Newmarket here we come...

People from the suburbs don't necessarily want to travel elsewhere in the suburbs by transit. There are 250,000 who work in the towers of the financial district alone. Add in Ryerson, U of T. Queen's Park, City hall and associated provincial and city workers along with downtown retail and there is a significant percentage of the population of people coming downtown every day. Most live theatre, concert and sporting venues are also downtown.

I live in North York and when I want to go somewhere in the suburbs I drive. When I want to go downtown, I take the subway.

I live in North York and when I want to go somewhere in the suburbs I drive. When I want to go downtown, I take the subway.

That is true today. The works department issued a report to Lastman which showed a half dozen roads in the suburban portions of Toronto that were expected to have similar congestion issues as downtown by 2020.

Simple fact of the matter is that the "Do Nothing" option will cost a ton of money. Like 100 buses and drivers to maintain the exact same service as we have today kind of money; not to mention your ever increasing commute times.

Oddly, you have no control over growth. Markham isn't going to turn away development in an effort to keep people off Finch or Don Mills.

I believe the saying goes:
You got the government you deserve.

I'm very mobile (lived in 3 countries this year). Not sure why I care about Toronto's future, but I seem to.

BUS RAPID TRANSIT

63067259]22.5km, opened Feb 10 2010

http://www.itdp-china.org/i-lib/images/g/gz-20100812-tiyuzhongxin.jpg

http://www.itdp-china.org/i-lib/images/g/gz-20100812-tangxia-1.JPG

http://www.itdp-china.org/i-lib/images/g/gz-20100812-huajingxincheng-2.JPG

http://www.itdp-china.org/i-lib/images/g/gz-20100812-dongpu-2.JPG

http://www.itdp-china.org/i-lib/images/g/gz-20100811-gangding-5.JPG

http://www.itdp-china.org/i-lib/images/g/gz-20100811-gangding-4.JPG

http://www.itdp-china.org/i-lib/images/g/gz-20100804-shangshe-2-ly.jpg

http://www.itdp-china.org/i-lib/images/g/guangzhou-kf-140810_150.JPG

http://www.itdp-china.org/i-lib/images/g/guangzhou-kf-260510_147.JPG

http://www.itdp-china.org/i-lib/images/g/guangzhou-kf-260510_122.JPG

http://www.itdp-china.org/i-lib/images/g/guangzhou-kf-260510_054.JPG

http://www.itdp-china.org/i-lib/images/g/guangzhou-kf-260510_045.JPG

http://www.itdp-china.org/i-lib/images/g/guangzhou-kf-210510_151.JPG

http://www.itdp-china.org/i-lib/images/g/guangzhou-kf-260510_037.JPG

http://www.itdp-china.org/i-lib/images/g/guangzhou-kf-170510_108.JPG

http://www.itdp-china.org/i-lib/images/g/guangzhou-kf-210510_098.JPG

http://www.itdp-china.org/i-lib/images/g/guangzhou-kf-170510_028.JPG

http://www.itdp-china.org/i-lib/images/g/guangzhou-gangding-kf-24-May-10-2.jpg

(www.chinabrt.org)

Ford's constituents are from the suburbs. As much as he loves subways, it must be tied to his love for the suburbanites. Hence, suburban subways... Newmarket here we come...
People from the suburbs don't necessarily want to travel elsewhere in the suburbs by transit. There are 250,000 who work in the towers of the financial district alone. Add in Ryerson, U of T. Queen's Park, City hall and associated provincial and city workers along with downtown retail and there is a significant percentage of the population of people coming downtown every day. Most live theatre, concert and sporting venues are also downtown.

I live in North York and when I want to go somewhere in the suburbs I drive. When I want to go downtown, I take the subway.

I was just explaining Ford's motives. Not that I agree with it, AT ALL, lol.

People from the suburbs don't necessarily want to travel elsewhere in the suburbs by transit. There are 250,000 who work in the towers of the financial district alone. Add in Ryerson, U of T. Queen's Park, City hall and associated provincial and city workers along with downtown retail and there is a significant percentage of the population of people coming downtown every day. Most live theatre, concert and sporting venues are also downtown.

I live in North York and when I want to go somewhere in the suburbs I drive. When I want to go downtown, I take the subway.

When we get a subway and better public transit up north, you can car free. That means No maintinence, No insurance, or No vehicle depreciation. Think of all the extra money you'll have for shopping and entertainment.

BUS RAPID TRANSIT

Yes, that should fit comfortably in the middle of Sheppard Avenue. I don't think Ford will have any issues with removing 4 lanes of traffic on that street.

His main complaint about transit city was that it gets in the way of cars due to being on the surface and having dedicated lanes. Best of luck getting an Ottawa style BRT system out of him.

There would be half as many buses if they used streetcars. That means half as many fleet replacement purchases (every 30 years instead of every 15), and half as many drivers, which means half as many salaries and union benefits have to be paid out.

The only thing adding a shit ton of buses will do is employ a shit ton more unionized bus drivers making $60,000 a year with amazing benefits (and they always want more).

And unlike Transit City, that isn't something Rob Ford can get rid of on a whim. Contracting out public transit service would only save a little, and it would require a vote from city council to be approved.

When we get a subway and better public transit up north, you can car free. That means No maintinence, No insurance, or No vehicle depreciation. Think of all the extra money you'll have for shopping and entertainment.

But if you're going downtown for that shopping and entertainment, you'll have a hard time getting there. South of Bloor-Danforth, Young-University is packed. It will only get worse when more feeder lines are added to the system without the ability to really improve frequency or capacity, unless the downtown relief line is built. For Rob Ford's subway plan to work, that has to be done first.

And do you see this:

http://www.itdp-china.org/i-lib/images/g/guangzhou-kf-210510_098.JPG

The Eglington LRT would take up less than half as much space as that. If they had LRT, they could have 8 or even 10 lanes of traffic, instead of 6. :|

BRT is also aesthetically ugly.

OE, what transit fantasy land do you live in where you think BRT will attract more riders to the system?

Honestly, the subway fanboys need to wake up and see the financial realities here.

I actually found BRT aesthetically pleasing, and thoughy it was interesting how it used subway like platforms. But anyhow, why I think it will attract more riders is because buses do not requires the cost of constructing tracks and can charge a cheaper fare. Looking at the construction cost of buses, streetcars and subways, I'd say a fair ridership fare should be around $1-1.50 for buses depending on route, $2 for streetcars and $2 plus 10cent per Km for subways. Should also be half price for children and seniors and 3/4price for full/time students. It not just what type of public transit will attrack the most riders as they all serve their purpose, it's more to do with what is a fair price to charge to use these services that will attrack riders.

Now after seeing those BRT photo's it gave me the idea of having ROW surface rail stations, but these station take up another car lane or more. Now can we incorporate that into our streets, probably not. That is why surface rail would be hard to regulate and end up in the long run unsuccesful. People will skip paying the fair and just enter through rear doors. This would then require:) what I'd call useless people coming on board and getting paided for handing out ticket. Personally I'd rather have more drivers and have everyone enter the front doors with a swipe card.

So personally I am not against streetcars or Transit City, I'd just want for TTC to reavalluate and see what type of transit method would be best served where.

Those stations don't take up "another lane", they take up just as much space as those BRT stations. The savings is that the lanes for trains are narrower and there are only two instead of four, because they're on tracks and don't need extra room to manoeuvre. It would cost money to construct platforms and redesign the road to accommodate BRT, so why not spend a little bit more and build LRT? Unlike BRT, the light rail tracks will last longer than an asphalt roadbed, won't require regular repaving and plowing in winter, and like the rails, the vehicles last longer too. BRT basically involved replacing everything but the stations every 10 to 15 years. LRT only requires vehicle replacements every 30 years or so. In the long run, LRT is cheaper.

People enter through rear doors on buses, I see it all the time. Trains aren't any more secure. They can hold more people, too. Having people pay to enter the platform area wouldn't be difficult, and could virtually eliminate fare evasion altogether.

If you want transit costs to be cheaper, they're going to require more subsidy from upper levels of government. That means more taxes, or revenue from taxes taken away from something else.

As for attracting riders, there are people who will not ride a bus because, regardless of how flashy it is, it is still a bus and there is a stigma against that. LRT and subways are more appealing. If the CTrain was a BRT system, it would be nowhere near as successful as it is today.

If you want transit costs to be cheaper, they're going to require more subsidy from upper levels of government. That means more taxes, or revenue from taxes taken away from something else.

Or, more passengers and fewer drivers (I.e. longer vehicles) will do the trick too; particularly if combined with very consistent capital funding for economies of scale in constructing things. Bringing external contractors ($2000/day folks) in house.

SBC paid me $35 per hour and contracted me out at $2500 per 8-hour day to a half dozen firms on weekly gigs. It really can be cheaper to have professionals in-house provided you have years worth of work for them to do.

Those BRT platforms are 1and half lanes, but lets say we make ours smaller and make it just one lane. Sheppard is 6 lanes, 2 for ROW tracks and 2 for platforms will only leave one lane each way where the platforms sit.
What about when snow covers the tracks, how do you plan on removing it in the case of a snow storm?

Those BRT platforms are 1and half lanes, but lets say we make ours smaller and make it just one lane. Sheppard is 6 lanes, 2 for ROW tracks and 2 for platforms will only leave one lane each way where the platforms sit.

BRT would take up just as much space on Sheppard! And while I don't like Ford's transit plan, I do agree that Sheppard should be a subway, which replaces SRT and connects to the Bloor-Danforth line, with a western expansion (perhaps a loop through Etobicoke to connect back to Bloor-Danforth near Kipling), but that will still put strain on the system downtown if the relief line isn't built.

What about when snow covers the tracks, how do you plan on removing it in the case of a snow storm?

How do you plan on removing snow from a BRT line?

You do realize that there are snow plows that can operate on rail lines, right? How do they remove snow from the SRT? CP and CN mainlines? GO tracks? The same way they'll remove it from an LRT line: snow plow on rails. If the tracks are built so that they're at grade, a regular street snow plow could do the job.

BRT was just an example of where a city that had the ability to build subways or streetcars choose hydrogen buses, wasn't necessarily what I wanted for Sheppard. I would be fine with ROW surface rail on Sheppard but how would you regulate fares at street level before the train goes underground at Don Mills? Maybe we can widen streets and build platforms, but don't hire idiots to come on board and ticket people please. Those kinds of people should be jailed, ticketing people when they are crooks themselves.:no:

Make it so that people have to pay to enter the platform. Put doors on either end of something.

The only situation where BRT is really the best option is where there are wide streets (or other suitable right of way), a desire for speedier (rapid) transit, and ridership that's too low to justify LRT.

Usually, when cities construct rapid transit they do so primarily to increase capacity with increasing speed as an after thought. If one primarily wanted to increase speed without significantly increasing capacity, BRT is great. But there are few (if any) corridors in Toronto in which this applies.

Of course there are situations in which the political climate favours BRT due to the low start up cost, but that's really just a matter of either the public of certain levels of government being short-sighted and supporting ad decisions.

York Region Transit's Viva Rapidways are a example of decent mid-quality BRT that should improve the travel times on Hwy 7, and Yonge St.

York Region Transit's Viva Rapidways are a example of decent mid-quality BRT that should improve the travel times on Hwy 7, and Yonge St.

They are not (as built today) examples that will carry Sheppard's expected load. A fully built out VIVA route probably would be, but it will be some time before that is in place.

That is why subway is planning or going north to Hwy7. If done VIVA will not have to operate south of 7, except for the York U connecting bus.

Downtown Toronto taking on the characteristic of a suburb in favour of growth in the north? fat chance...and should that happen, that would be the death of Toronto...never say never - remember the power centre planned for the south end of Leslie St.

And check out the north side of Square One in Mississauga's "City Centre" - once was (as I heard) the largest continuous parking lot in Canada ... was planned to be filled with dense towers (commercial and residential) and now they are building some big box stores out in the corners.

So it can happen - the challenge is, how do you make sure it doesn't happen?

Cheers, m

NOW magazine has a really good take on the transit situation, pitting the subway against the bus and the LRT...LRT is the obvious winner, go check it out...

* * *

IMO, Toronto doesnt need to spread out to the suburbs just yet, there's still lot of space downtown...

There are some inaccuracies in the NOW article. LRT can be built for less than $40 milion, but the average for North American construction would put LRT construction closer to $50-$60 million, as LRT projects always include non-transit items such as road widening, corridor landscape improvements, and utility relocation.

If you just build the LRT without the extras included, you can easily build LRT for around $25 million.

If you just build the LRT without the extras included, you can easily build LRT for around $25 million.

This is a great question. The annual $70M track rebuild program seems to do several km of track with a long lifespan (100 year base, 30 year surface), rebuild sewer/watermain, repave the street, and often some work on sidewalks, tree planters, etc.

Intersections (rail-rail) and other special trackwork (loops) can be a few million a shot but a suburban arterial in a new system would not require loops or rail-rail intersections except at the storage yard.

Rob Ford ready to let transit projects hold in favour of Sheppard subway
ANNA MEHLER PAPERNY


For Mayor Rob Ford, a Sheppard subway line is Toronto’s top transit priority. And if that means putting all other transit projects on hold to make that a reality, so be it.

“I’m just focusing on doing the Sheppard subway underground. And then we’ll cross the next bridge when we get to it,” he said in an interview with The Globe Tuesday.
More related to this story

“Sheppard’s the first one I want to do. I’ve talked to the premier about it, talked to Metrolinx about it. They know where I stand and they’ve said it can be done.”

Mr. Ford took office Dec. 1 with the unequivocal promise of ending the existing Transit City plan’s European-style light rail in favour of subways. And, he said, everything is going underground – even if the inflated price will mean the city’s other plans for rapid transit won’t materialize.

“Eventually, I’m sure we can build the subways. It’s more expensive, but that’s what the people want. People in North York and Scarborough, they want that line connected to the Scarborough Town Centre. If I heard it once, I’ve heard it a thousand times.”

Even if that means cancelling or postponing indefinitely rapid transit in his own former ward of Etobicoke North?

“They have transit,” he laughed. “It sounds like we’re – we have transit. People get to the slots, they get to Woodbine racetrack, people get to Humber College. There are buses that run up there.

“Eventually, I’d like to have subways running through the whole city. But what we can afford realistically, right now, is just Sheppard, right?”

Transit City was meant to be a provincially funded series of four light-rail projects running along Eglinton, Sheppard, Finch and replacing existing Scarborough rapid transit.

With Sheppard as a priority, Mr. Ford suggested, the other projects may just have to wait.

Mr. Ford has criticized light-rail transit as too similar to the streetcars he believes causes congestion in Toronto’s gridlocked roadways. He scoffed at the idea that monorails or a similar above-grade technology, which in theory would allow cars to continue unimpeded, could replace light rail. Similar projects have been tried in Vancouver’s Canada Line, which opened this year.

“There’s no more above ground,” he said. “No, everything’s going underground. I want to do subways. Every poll you see, over 80 per cent of people in the city want subways compared to LRT or streetcars. So I’m going to do what I campaigned on.”

And Mr. Ford said he’s confident that can be accomplished. The Toronto Transit Commission has put a hold on new hires and new consulting work while transit staff try to come up with alternatives by 2011.

Ontario Premier Dalton McGuinty has said he’s waiting to see what new options the city comes up with. Transportation Minister Kathleen Wynne, too, has said the province is open to reallocating the existing funds toward an alternative transit project, provided it has the approval of council. But both have said the $8.15-billion total the province has pledged is a final figure: The $130-million already spent on Transit City, and any fees resulting from cancelling the $1.3-billion in contracts already signed, will come out of that allocation.

Mr. Ford also defended council’s decision last week to declare the TTC an essential service, curbing workers’ right to strike.

But many people, including TTC general manager Gary Webster and even deputy mayor Doug Holyday, who ended up voting with the mayor, have warned that essential-service designation may cost the city more than it’s worth.

“I think that’s what people want. For them to go on strike costs the city $50-million dollars a day,” he said. “We can’t afford that. So I think it’s essential that we make it an essential service.”

Mr. Ford added that despite threats from ATU local president Bob Kinnear, he doesn’t see there being a strike over the proposal, which the province would have to sign off on.

“We’ll cross that bridge when we get to it. But I expect people to show up for work every day, and if they don’t show up for work, well, I’ve got to do what I have to do.”

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/toronto/rob-ford-ready-to-let-transit-projects-hold-in-favour-of-sheppard-subway/article1846354/



Translation: "Them poor people can use the buses to get to the slots and the things you call universities!"

Frick, We officially voted Sideshow Rob! The next 4 years are going to be rough. :s

The SRT NEEDS to be replaced. This idiot is going to put that on hold to complete the biggest failure in Toronto Transit History! Prepare for even MORE crowding on the Yonge Line.

So gravy trains are only good if "people want them"?

They can change the Sheppard line's colour from purple to brown to celebrate!

Rob Ford said :

“We’ll cross that bridge when we get to it. But I expect people to show up for work every day, and if they don’t show up for work, well, I’ve got to do what I have to do.”

[url]http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/toronto/rob-ford-ready-to-let-transit-projects-hold-in-favour-of-sheppard-subway/article1846354

That's rich coming from a guy wh was rarely at work over the past 8 years.


Is he paying for subways by increasing the cost of garbage collection and our water rates? You guys did see yesterdays front page of the sun didn't you?

An MPP in charge of PPP projects has been contacting Ford for the involvement of the private sector into his subways. Btw, this Liberal MPP supports strongly Ford's plan.

Let's see:
-Companies, developers, whatnot, get the right to build the station, operate all concessions in the station and own the air rights.
-Tunnels are funded publicly by the governments

I can see that working out very well for everyone.

So lets say I live near one of these new stations and I'm giving directions to my firends. I might tell them to get off at the Taco Bell Station?

So lets say I live near one of these new stations and I'm giving directions to my firends. I might tell them to get off at the Taco Bell Station?

I wish.. there are so many inuendos I could make about that, but the stations will of course retain their name - it's just that they will pretty much be operated by the private sector. Stores, restaurants, towers (office or residential), they have the right to do whatever they want to that station, aside from renaming it.

This is how Madrid built their system... 150km of metro in 5 years? Si, por favor!

As long as they maintain a geographic identifier in the name and/or the company it is named after has a presence there (I would expect Taco Bell Station to have a Taco Bell) I'd have no problem with that.

Will the DRL be constructed in this manner as well?

This is how Madrid built their system... 150km of metro in 5 years? Si, por favor!

You also have to remember that Madrid also has an actual plan and the support of its national government, unlike Ford's two line 'proposal'. If he'd actually proposed a network like Sarah Thomson's plan, we likely wouldn't have so much resistance. But what we see now is essentially a car-centric plan, with a token subway line thrown in to appease the transit fans.

I really don't see why people would think that Transit City would lead to the end of subway expansion in Toronto. It's simply another step- once ridership increases enough, it would be natural that the light rail line would be replaced by subway.

once ridership increases enough, it would be natural that the light rail line would be replaced by subway.

It would seem natural but in practice, when has this happened recently?

You also have to remember that Madrid also has an actual plan and the support of its national government, unlike Ford's two line 'proposal'. If he'd actually proposed a network like Sarah Thomson's plan, we likely wouldn't have so much resistance. But what we see now is essentially a car-centric plan, with a token subway line thrown in to appease the transit fans.

I really don't see why people would think that Transit City would lead to the end of subway expansion in Toronto. It's simply another step- once ridership increases enough, it would be natural that the light rail line would be replaced by subway.

In 30+ years! Most of you will be dead by then and I'll be getting ready for retirement.

The city is plagued by gridlock.. It's only intelligent to pursue these big ticket transit items right from the get-go so that we don't paralyze an even more congested city decades down the road to fix it.
I keep repeating it, but if this sort of thinking existed in the 50s,60s and 70s, we wouldn't even have a subway system.

Well when Jilly's finally shuts down they may want a station.

In 30+ years! Most of you will be dead by then and I'll be getting ready for retirement.

The city is plagued by gridlock.. It's only intelligent to pursue these big ticket transit items right from the get-go so that we don't paralyze an even more congested city decades down the road to fix it.
I keep repeating it, but if this sort of thinking existed in the 50s,60s and 70s, we wouldn't even have a subway system.

In the case where you don't have cooperative senior governments, it might be better to take it step by step. Buses to streetcars, streetcars to subways, much like how the Yonge and Bloor lines were built. If you want so much right away, it's very likely that you'll see nothing at all.

In the case where you don't have cooperative senior governments, it might be better to take it step by step. Buses to streetcars, streetcars to subways, much like how the Yonge and Bloor lines were built. If you want so much right away, it's very likely that you'll see nothing at all.

I get your point on progression, so why if Sheppard is already built underground would you go back to surface rail. Sure it takes away funding from other streetcar lines, but for some reason it is the most requested subway line more so then Yonge line extension or DRL. Instead of hindering progress maybe we should push for this Line to be complete ASAP before making any othe request.

I get your point on progression, so why if Sheppard is already built underground would you go back to surface rail. Sure it takes away funding from other streetcar lines, but for some reason it is the most requested subway line more so then Yonge line extension or DRL. Instead of hindering progress maybe we should push for this Line to be complete ASAP before making any othe request.

Sheppard was Lastman's pet project, the same way the Spadina Extension is Sobara's pet project.

And the Sheppard definitely rates below the Eglinton in terms of 'requestedness'. Really, the only reason why people want the Sheppard extended is mostly due to the want of closure on the entire issue.

Instead of blindly extending Sheppard into a low density neighbourhood in order to 'finish it', it would be a much more prudent idea to start the Eglinton line as soon as we can. Really, the first step is the hardest. Even if a portion of the Eglinton line were finished while the rest was cancelled, then there would at least be the start of a subway line in the city.

I work in Scarborough, and I had the chance to walk along Sheppard around Birchmount. The area is full of single dwelling houses, with huge driveways, and cul-de-sacs. A subway will be totally useless along Sheppard. The road needs improve surface transit along many corridors, not just one subway.

Sideshow Rob is going to bankrupt the city with his ignorant belief in subways. People who voted for Sideshow Rob truly are idiots!

@jje10001, If Eglington Line was a more requested transit route wouldn't Smitherman have been elected instead of Rob Ford? Wasn't Smitherman a supporter of Transit City plans. Personally in a long term perspective I would choose Sheppard subway over Eglingtons anyday. There is just to much happen around the suburbs to ignore it's growth. Eventually the fringes of the city edge will have to get denser and the suburbs will eventually get amalgamated into the city to reduce governing cost. The potential for Sheppard Subway is far greater then the imediate benefits of streetcars, the city has spoken and choosen to look to the future insted of just fixing the present. Time to get over any imediate loses and plan for that future.

@jje10001, If Eglington Line was a more requested transit route wouldn't Smitherman have been elected of Rob Ford? Wasn't Smitherman a supporter of Transit City plans. Personally in a long term perspective I would choose Sheppard subway over Eglingtons anyday. There is just to much happen around the suburbs to ignore it's growth. Eventually the fringes of the city edge will have to get denser and the suburbs will eventually get amalgamated into the city to reduce governing cost. The potential for Sheppard Subway is far greater then the imediate benefits of streetcars, the city has spoken and choosen to look to the future insted of just fixing the present. Time to get over any imediate loses and plan for that future.

I can't see your connection between Smitherman and Eglinton. Smitherman was not elected because he simply had too much political baggage with him (his plan includes Sheppard btw).

Like what JustinB said, the suburb's potential will be limited by their built form. Cul-de-sacs simply do not translate directly to massive skyscrapers. Plus, Toronto's government doesn't seem to have a co-ordinated plan for the suburbs- they're developing mostly on their own.

If you're talking about the rise of the suburbs, GTA cities are a much better bet. Missisauga, Vaughan, Brampton and Markham all have plans to rebuild their city centers that are guided by their own governments.

Anways, back to transit!

Check out the Peel Region's masterplan for the Hurontario corridor, and their proposed LRT line. I would move back to Brampton if Peel can pull it off. It's that awesome.

http://hurontario-main.ca/PDFs/masterplan/Hurontario_Master_Plan_Final_LowRes.pdf

That is the beauty of LRT, and how it can fit in lower density suburbs. Yet somehow, people want a subway on Sheppard, whose densities are even lower than Hurontario!

With YUS Line going into Vaughn can't you tell that the boundaries of Toronto will eventually be expanding again. North York/Scarborough are not suburbs anymore, sure it's a different built form from the downtown financial district but the waterfront will be different from Downtown as well.

Regarding building skyscrapers at every stop, Sheppard Line doesn't need that to be successful. It's objective is to move people along Sheppard and from Scarborough Town Center to NYCC. If STC people want to go Downtown they'll simply take SRT and B/D Line.

The last time I checked, North York and Scarborough were still mostly suburban. Sheppard would need many more feeder lines than Eglinton to make it viable, or people might drive to the stations...which goes against the purposes of intensification.

And what is the point of a subway station if you don't have lots of people living around it? If the only point of the Sheppard line is to move people from the STC to NYCC, we might as well build two stations and connect them with tunnel.

Really, at this point, I'm hoping faintly that the provincial government will reallocate the money for Transit City to other municipalities' transit projects since they really deserve it more than we do.

North York is the same built form as how Toronto use to be. It is posed for major growth due to it's Central location within a 50km radius from the lake. It has Canada busiest hwy bordering its south end and a nice but so far lightly used rail going through it's north end via Vaughn and Markham. Scarborough is more of a business hub surrounding a mall, but that mall is busy enough to attrack people and is what justifies a subway that connects Scarborough with NY. Future route for north Scarborough could be LRT on Steeles. This will give residence living in between a choose of going north or south to connect to rail transit. Better then TC plans of streetcar along Sheppard and Finch but nothing for Steeles. All the potentials are there for Sheppard line to become B/D of the north end. Sheppard W. has potential at Downview to do something special. Looking to the future is a better bet then just trying to fill a downtown that in the future will be to far for alot of the cities residence to get to.

One- Sheppard is simply a single urbanized corridor that is still very much dominated by the car. You can't compare it even to Bloor because the form of the side streets are completely different.

Two- Scarborough has been leaking jobs for years. A single mall should not be the reason to build a expensive subway that far out in the suburbs. Many European cities do fine linking their peripheral cities with light rail.

Three- North York will never become a city comparable to Toronto. It could have, but that aspiration died when the city was almalgamated into Toronto. More so, it's simply too close to Toronto to become a center on its own. It also lacks a centralized transit hub (see Union Station) and as I said earlier, its built form restricts highrises to the arterial roads.

Ultimately, the good I see from Ford's plan is that when traffic gets increasingly bad, more people will turn to other forms of non-transit transportation, such as biking (for inner core residents) and carpooling. Might Ford's declaration that the War on the Car is over be the start of something better?

[QUOTE=jje10001;69405573]One- Sheppard is simply a single urbanized corridor that is still very much dominated by the car. You can't compare it even to Bloor because the form of the side streets are completely different.QUOTE]

Sheppard is just a new version of Bloor, bigger and better. It will have 10 stations east of Yonge and who knows how many are planned for the west end. Side streets are different but times have changed and these mickey mouse side streets on B/D are not need for modern city planning.

[QUOTETwo- Scarborough has been leaking jobs for years. A single mall should not be the reason to build a expensive subway that far out in the suburbs. Many European cities do fine linking their peripheral cities with light rail.QUOTE]

Scarborough is not a suburb it is a big and heavily populated district of Toronto.

[QUOTEThree- North York will never become a city comparable to Toronto. It could have, but that aspiration died when the city was almalgamated into Toronto. More so, it's simply too close to Toronto to become a center on its own. It also lacks a centralized transit hub (see Union Station) and as I said earlier, its built form restricts highrises to the arterial roads.QUOTE]

Almost every new city has mutiple rail transit hubs. Union Staion is very out dated and isn't worth expanding, so best option is to build a North York rail station.

Sheppard is just a new version of Bloor, bigger and better. It will have 10 stations east of Yonge and who knows how many are planned for the west end. Side streets are different but times have changed and these mickey mouse side streets on B/D are not need for modern city planning.

Sheppard is not like Bloor, not even close! I walked Sheppard, and it is still dominated single-unit houses, with a few Multiple Dwelling Units. Much of the new high density housing seems to be built off Sheppard, far from the stations. There is, what one complex on Bayview that is within walking distance of Bayview Station?
If you think Sheppard should be like Bloor, you're going to need many more stations. The station spacing for Sheppard means many major intersecting streets are not going to be served. It's just going to be a repeat of the current setup. The Bloor subway works because of the short station spacings(between Jane and Main St.), and the high frequency bus routes that feed into the subway.


Scarborough is not a suburb it is a big and heavily populated district of Toronto.

It's a suburb full of single-unit house with apartment blocks placed sporadically. It's not a heavily populated district.

Sheppard is not like Bloor, not even close! I walked Sheppard, and it is still dominated single-unit houses, with a few Multiple Dwelling Units. Much of the new high density housing seems to be built off Sheppard, far from the stations. There is, what one complex on Bayview that is within walking distance of Bayview Station?
If you think Sheppard should be like Bloor, you're going to need many more stations. The station spacing for Sheppard means many major intersecting streets are not going to be served. It's just going to be a repeat of the current setup. The Bloor subway works because of the short station spacings(between Jane and Main St.), and the high frequency bus routes that feed into the subway.

It's the new version of Bloor, bigger and better. You worried about single unit homes, those are the easiest for developers to buy up. Alot cheaper to buy then lowrise/midrise apartments. They can be move up north to a new piece of land if the owner is to attached to it.

Obviously Sheppard is nothing like Bloor, but there have been tons of new highrise developments along Sheppard, especially by Don Mills, since the stubway opened up in 2002.

Herp derp, Ford plans to cut transit. Enjoy your >$100 gas prices, people!

From Steve Munro's site.
A notice has appeared at Wilson Division with information apparently taken from the TTC’s Intranet indicating that a proposal for service cutbacks will be at a special TTC meeting on January 12, 2011.

Although I do not have all of the details, it appears that changes made in late 2008 to extend service on all routes until 1:00 am will be rolled back. The changes would take effect with the March 27, 2011 schedules.

If anyone has further info, please leave it as a comment in this thread.

From a budgeting point of view, the full hours of service are low-hanging fruit. Many of the routes operated late at night or on some weekend periods have low ridership, and they are an easy target for cost-cutting. “Fat” some would call it, although there was a bona fide reason for implementing full service.

The problem is that the next time someone wants a budget cut, they will say “see, we told you there was fat, and you cut it so easily in 2011″. Meanwhile what happens for routes where ridership is growing?

Let’s see how this story evolves even though the pols are on vacation.

http://stevemunro.ca/?p=4719

If people don't want the route at night it shouldn't be there, but they shouldn't cut every single one.

Late night transit helps to curb impaired driving. At the very least Rob could keep it running late on Friday and Saturday nights.

Really, what Ford's plan worries me the most is that of the lost economic cost. Traffic will only get worse, and building a single line (he hasn't proposed anything else) will not fix traffic issues in other parts of the city. The city will likely lose its economic advantage over other cities like Montreal, Vancouver and Calgary during the time it takes to even start construction on a subway.

Transit City is supposed to help provide a bandage for these issues until the provincial and federal governments cough up some money to replace them with subways. It's the equivalent of having a Toyota to meets your ends until you can afford a Benz.

Late night transit helps to curb impaired driving. At the very least Rob could keep it running late on Friday and Saturday nights.

Not trying to influence people to drink and drive, but when a person is driving they should know their limit of how much they can drink before they are impaired. That is why alcohol is a controlled drug, it is made so that the drug can be controlled. If a person has the ability to get on a bus normally and walk home they should still be able to drive. Late night buses should be eliminated where possible, I am liking this plan.

My brother was shitfaced drunk the other day to the point that he was saying he would call us if he dies, and he managed to not only take a bus home, but transfer from one route to another while doing it, and aside from throwing up on it, he didn't have any issues.

He should have been allowed to drive? :nuts:

A drunk driver killed someone here just a few days ago. How can you even think of defending that kind of behaviour?

What the fuck are you?

I never defended drunk drivers who kill. My point was that alcohol could be controlled and a few drinks should not intoxicate you to the point where you can't drive. A normal person would know ahead before drinking weather he or she is driving and only drink to the point where they can still drive. If you can't control yourself, and drink to the point where you drive and kill someone that is not normal.

I never defended drunk drivers who kill.

All drunk drivers have the potential to kill. You are defending that potential, and that is disgusting. It is irresponsible, it endangers people, and under no circumstances whatsoever should that kind of behaviour be encouraged or excused.

My point was that alcohol could be controlled and a few drinks should not intoxicate you to the point where you can't drive.

Alcohol IS controlled. Why do you think it can only be bought in two stores and during limited times of the day? Why do you think it is illegal for bartenders to serve alcohol to people who are clearly drunk? A few drinks don't intoxicate you to the point you can't drive; small amounts of alcohol even improve driving. But the risk is still far too high to encourage that kind of behaviour.

A normal person would know ahead before drinking weather he or she is driving and only drink to the point where they can still drive. If you can't control yourself, and drink to the point where you drive and kill someone that is not normal.

A normal person WOULD know. A person who has consumed any alcohol is not a normal person. Before going off drunk driving and then killing someone, drunk drivers usually say "I'm okay to drive", because their judgment is impaired!!! They CAN NOT decide for themselves whether they are fit to drive, but many times choose to, because the alcohol prevents them from knowing better.

Obviously you've never met a drunk person. :ohno: It is clear you don't properly understand how alcohol works and I really believe you should stop talking about it before you endanger someone.

OEincorparated: Why do you like making yourself sound like an idiot? I cannot believe you are defending drinking, and driving. What is wrong with you?
ONE drink can impair your performance! I know! I have friends who get buzzed on one pint, and they wait at least a couple of hours before even thinking about driving.

You clearly have no experience with drinking, yet you speaks as if you're an expert! You do this a lot, but this is one subject, you really need to shut up on. Seriously.

Stop. Talking.

It is no different then eating to much at a buffet and driving. You a clearly not at your best but you can still drive, that is why there is a acceptance level. If you are a softy just don't drink so much and dont bother those who can drink and still drive. It will be unfortunate for those who take transit at night when some routes get canceled but there is always early morning buses or car pooling.

Having a very full stomach, and having alcohol alter the chemistry in your brain and affect your decision making abilities, are two very different things.

:cripes: there really needs to be a facepalm emote for the defence of drinking and driving.

http://img207.imageshack.us/img207/707/facepalmsc.gif

Now reverse that around and make it no alcohol vs no food and driving, It's just as bad. Personally I'll choose driving home at night alittle bussed over driving in traffic during the day on a empty stomach. I still comes down to knowing your situation and driving according to those abilities over wheather you had a drink or not. You can be just as dangerous behind the wheel when you are tired as you are when drunk. Just use your common sense and losing over night transit is not going to be the end all of bars and clubs. People will eventually get use to it and find different methods of safe transportation.

Now reverse that around and make it no alcohol vs no food and driving, It's just as bad.

http://img207.imageshack.us/img207/707/facepalmsc.gifhttp://img207.imageshack.us/img207/707/facepalmsc.gifhttp://img207.imageshack.us/img207/707/facepalmsc.gifhttp://img207.imageshack.us/img207/707/facepalmsc.gifhttp://img207.imageshack.us/img207/707/facepalmsc.gifhttp://img207.imageshack.us/img207/707/facepalmsc.gifhttp://img207.imageshack.us/img207/707/facepalmsc.gif
http://img207.imageshack.us/img207/707/facepalmsc.gif:nuts: :ohno: :bash: :|http://img207.imageshack.us/img207/707/facepalmsc.gif
http://img207.imageshack.us/img207/707/facepalmsc.gifhttp://img207.imageshack.us/img207/707/facepalmsc.gifhttp://img207.imageshack.us/img207/707/facepalmsc.gifhttp://img207.imageshack.us/img207/707/facepalmsc.gifhttp://img207.imageshack.us/img207/707/facepalmsc.gifhttp://img207.imageshack.us/img207/707/facepalmsc.gifhttp://img207.imageshack.us/img207/707/facepalmsc.gif

The truth fustrates you?

No, your priorities frustrate and alarm me.

What the fact that I want to bring the city north to a more central location?

The truth fustrates you?

YOU frustrate members. Dude, seriously, why are you defending drinking and driving? No one can be that stupid!

Someone has to defend the innocent people who drink responsibly. My apologies for stepping up to the plate before you did. People do not go stupid from a glass of beer, if they are stupid they would have been before they drank. You should know ahead of time if you are driving and that decision is made when you are sober so don't give me that crap you can not make a concious decision because you got drunk.

I am totally against drunk drivers, I do not get where you see me defending drunken driving.

This conversation is retarded. He's already backtracking... within a few posts, OEincorparated's argument will have evolved to the point of practically mirroring the intent of our drinking/driving laws, so it'll be moot anyway.

He's at most 15 years old, so I forgive the stupidity.

I think what he is trying to say is that you are allowed a certain amount of alcohol in your blood. Usually one beer, sometimes less depending on your body type or what you ate. If you have a shot of hard liquor you are over the limit.


Either way, stop defending your statement because its downright outrageous. Anyone who drinks responsibly knows he/she should NOT drink and drive. That's why he's RESPONSIBLE. That's the key word here right? Hey, you said it... not me ;)

we're straying out of the discussion here guys...anyway, my 2-cents on the night buses (and the TTC at night in general):

am i the only here who thinks that the TTC has been fooling us for the past few months? from last that i recall, tunnel repairs on the Yonge line from Eglinton to Finch were supposed to be done by mid-2010, why do they still close the line past midnight?

anyway, i think night buses should be retained, even increased in frequency, they're vital to the transit-riding, late-night party people...and the subways should stay open to well after last call, perhaps till 3am

Rob Fords Transit Map


http://www.torontoobserver.ca/wp-content/uploads/2010/09/0923_rodfordtransit_kn.jpg

Provided by Rob Ford

http://alexcooper.ca/ac/wp-content/uploads/2010/12/ROB-FORD-PIC.jpg

Transit City map Rob Ford wants to deny the city.

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/152/430589227_6612e8c441_o.jpg

Rob Ford look like he just connected the dots. No thought and research at all went into his transit plan.

HERP DERP! Look! I made a loop!

Isn't it amazing how the people of Etobicoke love Rob Ford's plan, yet he plans to scrap Transit City which would stretch out to Etobicoke in favour of a plan that won't even touch Etobicoke.

This might have been when he finished his map. Look how proud he looks. That, or he was able to stay in the lines in his colouring book.......or he was just sniffing it to kill time until lunch.

http://www.canada.com/sports/3556201.bin?size=620x400

The good news is that only about 20 councilors back him. He will need to sway people to his side. This is a minority power mayor. Hopefully people in the ridings where he wants to cut back on transit improvements will contact their councilors and let them know what they think on the issue.

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_B5HLt2fxifQ/TMqIFbIpKqI/AAAAAAAAAFM/2xNWVjajMh8/s1600/2010+Toronto+councillor+map+d.jpg

http://www.torontoobserver.ca/wp-content/uploads/2010/09/0923_rodfordtransit_kn.jpg
Original plan was better, no Agincourt GO and Progress station. West of Yonge you can eliminate Senlac station, I can't see too much developement happening so close to a large cemetary. The less stops the faster the train will get you to your destination and that seems to be the whole purpose of Sheppard Line from the start.

Original plan dooms the rest of the suburbs to transit mediocrity.

^^If planned properly it doesn't have to be. Areas further away from subway transit hubs can be more affordable housing, meaning these families can afford to own cars instead of just living in a expensive condo. If stops were put everywhere all areas will have to be redeveloped into highrise and there really isn't a demand for this in Toronto. Spread out stops aren't bad if you look at the different life style options it presents.

it's funny coz all the blue wards happen to be the most boring wards in town, except for the beaches :lol:

Original plan dooms the rest of the suburbs to transit mediocrity.



That's only if you feel a better local form of transit (LRT) to be inferior. A possible subway in the far future that will only shuttle people from one area of the city to the core without creating any new urban hubs in new areas is not the way to go. Ford's plan is a long term sentence for most of the burbs to be stuck with crowded noisy uncomfortable busses with no end in sight. LRT's will help create more vibrant high density hubs that serve a more dense urban style community then subways do.

Just think what an LRT could do for a road like Kingston Rd in Scarborough.

^^Exactly. Ford does not even care about building density or improving neighbourhoods, anyways. He just wants to fulfill a ridiculous election promise, or least say he tried to fulfil a promise.

There is more than enough evidence LRT requires the capacity gap between buses, and subways, and can also attract developers along a corridor. Nodal development has not been successful in Toronto. It's an outdated, and quite frankly silly planning ideology.

toronto needs to be punished, i say that ontario should take back the money promised for transit city and spend it somewhere else, maybe brampton...

toronto needs to be punished, i say that ontario should take back the money promised for transit city and spend it somewhere else, maybe brampton...



Why spend so much money on a city that no one outside of Brampton even goes to?

Why spend so much money on a city that no one outside of Scarborough even goes to?

Good question.

That's only if you feel a better local form of transit (LRT) to be inferior. A possible subway in the far future that will only shuttle people from one area of the city to the core without creating any new urban hubs in new areas is not the way to go. Ford's plan is a long term sentence for most of the burbs to be stuck with crowded noisy uncomfortable busses with no end in sight. LRT's will help create more vibrant high density hubs that serve a more dense urban style community then subways do.

Just think what an LRT could do for a road like Kingston Rd in Scarborough.

Yes, I was referring to Ford's plan, not Transit City.

toronto needs to be punished, i say that ontario should take back the money promised for transit city and spend it somewhere else, maybe brampton...


Ummm, Toronto is the cash cow for this province. It's time we keep our money.

Every part of the province is the cash cow and should get to keep its money!

Ummm, Toronto is the cash cow for this province. It's time we keep our money.

for what? so ford can build his subway?

okay, i exaggerated a bit about brampton, but would there be a way to redirect the cash meant for transit city into something else that will benefit more people--in contrast with being used to finance the fulfillment of ford's campaign promise--like using that money to improve toronto's community centres or to bring pre-amalgamation social services that basically disappeared right after the birth of our mega-city

Subways are the best method of tranportation, you don't have to even step on snow in some cases.

But my game is more catered to car feul so who am I to say right.:cheers::cheers:

But you need to step on snow regardless to get to and away from most subway stops in the city.

What is the deal with snow? Too pussied-out to handle it?

It's too hard to walk in snow in high heels.

Subways are the best method of tranportation, you don't have to even step on snow in some cases.

But my game is more catered to car feul so who am I to say right.:cheers::cheers:

http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5130/5296594499_76990ae4ed_z.jpg

(Courtesy of Second Ave. Saga, Blog, http://secondavenuesagas.com/ )

I am just going to it up as another stupid comment by you!

http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5130/5296594499_76990ae4ed_z.jpg

(Courtesy of Second Ave. Saga, Blog, http://secondavenuesagas.com/ )

I am just going to it up as another stupid comment by you!

I've never seen anything like that in Toronto...

And he's actually right for once, in some cases you don't have to go through snow - if by some chance you live in a condo connected to PATH and work in an office also connected to PATH, you can walk underground to the subway and underground from the subway to work (or just walk the whole way).

toronto needs to be punished, i say that ontario should take back the money promised for transit city and spend it somewhere else, maybe brampton...I say Torontonians should stop paying taxes to the province and the feds, which only serve to prop up people living unsustainable rural lives in the outer edges of this country, and build something useful.

For the majority and if not all of the subway users outside of the core they have no direct access to a station. Subways won't save them from the snow. Bus stops and LRT stops would be much closer for most users. I go out of my way to avoid buses and subways. But I'm lucky enough to live near 4 streetcar lines. Though I'd much rather commute across town above ground then below it in a featureless tunnel.

I've never seen anything like that in Toronto...

And he's actually right for once, in some cases you don't have to go through snow - if by some chance you live in a condo connected to PATH and work in an office also connected to PATH, you can walk underground to the subway and underground from the subway to work (or just walk the whole way).

A tiny, tiny percentage have that luxury. The other 99.9% have to touch snow to reach a station. It's just a stupid comment, that does not apply to the majority of riders. I do know of a few buildings that have access to a subway.

For the majority and if not all of the subway users outside of the core they have no direct access to a station. Subways won't save them from the snow. Bus stops and LRT stops would be much closer for most users. I go out of my way to avoid buses and subways. But I'm lucky enough to live near 4 streetcar lines. Though I'd much rather commute across town above ground then below it in a featureless tunnel.

Time to move, maybe Vancouver or London is better suited for you. Toronto becomes a frozen Tundra for a quarter of the year and it snows enough here to justify a change in living style. Sure there are only a few examples of underground subway access from apartment condos, but people that have it seem to use public transit more then those who don't. To me it indicates a good example of something that is successful and should be more of. The whole point of trying this type of developement was to see if would work for Toronto, the results came out that it works. Now it is the obligation of the city to use these examples and implament it all through the city. Density to the point of congestion is not a good way of planning a city. If one area is getting congested move developement to another part.

A tiny, tiny percentage have that luxury. The other 99.9% have to touch snow to reach a station. It's just a stupid comment, that does not apply to the majority of riders. I do know of a few buildings that have access to a subway.

Well he did say "in some cases", and that is "in some cases".

I mean, its basically meaningless, but it is true.

http://www.thestar.com/news/article/915410--ford-transit-city-hybrid-plan-in-the-works?bn=1

Ford-Transit City hybrid plan in the works


David Rider Urban Affairs Bureau Chief

Talks between the TTC and the province’s Metrolinx agency are proving fruitful enough that a compromise transit plan for Toronto should be ready by the end of January, both sides say.

And, despite fears that Mayor Rob Ford’s focus on getting more subway into Scarborough will kill light-rail-based Transit City, signs point to a hybrid plan with at least the Eglinton Crosstown LRT surviving, and Toronto paying a premium on the provincially funded expansion to get more of it underground and otherwise away from road traffic.

TTC and Metrolinx staff are communicating “daily,” said Metrolinx chief executive Bruce McCuaig, while the agencies’ leaders, and senior officials from Ford’s office, are to meet again before the end of next week, following a “very constructive” Dec. 17 session.

“I think we would like to bring (a revised plan) forward to both the Metrolinx board and the TTC as early as we can, and if we can do that before the end of January, then we’ll do our darndest to get there.”

In a separate interview, TTC chair Karen Stintz said: “It’s too premature to say we’ve arrived at a plan but we’re working toward that . . . There’s an expectation from the mayor that we’ll have something by the end of the month.”

Neither would discuss specific transit options on the table.

However, McCuaig made it clear the province remains committed to the Eglinton Crosstown line, a cornerstone of Ontario’s first-phase, $8.15 billion Transit City plan that also includes Finch and Sheppard LRT lines and revitalization of the aging Scarborough RT.

The Crosstown “reaches across the entire city; it connects to the regional systems, the various GO lines, it ultimately connects into Pearson airport and into the Mississauga transitway,” McCuaig said.

“We have certainly communicated to the City of Toronto that Eglinton is the most important regional project in the ‘big four’ (lines) and that we are very committed to it. I think it would be fair to say the city acknowledges the importance of the project.”

Eleven kilometres of the line are to be underground, he added, so “it actually reflects the mayors’ interest as well in terms of getting transit off of roads and underground.”

Ford has said his top priority is extending the Sheppard subway with more subway, not an LRT, to connect it to Scarborough Town Centre, and he’s willing to put all other transit projects on hold to accomplish it.

Premier Dalton McGuinty and Metrolinx have told the city “it can be done,” Ford said last month.

McCuaig wouldn’t comment, except to repeat that peak ridership on the Sheppard LRT is forecast to be about 3,000 people per hour, well below the 15,000 per hour normally considered the minimum to support a subway.

The Metrolinx CEO told the Star last month elevated trains are one option being considered.

He confirmed Monday that a bus-only road, like the part of the York University Busway that goes through the Finch hydro corridor, could be part of the plan.

A new Toronto transit plan, if it is ready, could be presented to Metrolinx board members at a Jan. 26 meeting. The TTC board is scheduled to meet next Feb. 2.

The boards could ask for changes, McCuaig said, with an eventually endorsed plan going to McGuinty and Transportation Minister Kathleen Wynne “to make sure the province is entirely comfortable with what is being recommended and endorsed at that point.”

Isn't a hybrid plan going to increase transfers during trips and make public transit disjointed?

I would rather we either go 100% subways or 100% LRT.

The Sheppard line should probably be a subway along its whole length, I never really got the whole "and then at this point everyone gets out and goes into a different vehicle to continue their trip!" thing.

Aside from a downtown relief line, the other lines should be fine as LRT.

Time to move, maybe Vancouver or London is better suited for you. Toronto becomes a frozen Tundra for a quarter of the year and it snows enough here to justify a change in living style. Sure there are only a few examples of underground subway access from apartment condos, but people that have it seem to use public transit more then those who don't. To me it indicates a good example of something that is successful and should be more of. The whole point of trying this type of developement was to see if would work for Toronto, the results came out that it works. Now it is the obligation of the city to use these examples and implament it all through the city. Density to the point of congestion is not a good way of planning a city. If one area is getting congested move developement to another part.



Where did I say I don't like the cold. In fact all of my friends know me as the guy who doesn't wear or own a winter coat. For somebody like me that has lived in both the cities you mentioned I like our more extreme weather here so I'll stay thanks. To your point about PATH connections and transit use, who would argue with that. However many people in Scarborough do you think will have direct underground access from where they live to a Ford subway? I'd say almost none so what is your point?

It's stupid that Ford is so obsessed with taking transit off of roads. When a city's roads have trouble with too much traffic congestion, the last thing it should do is use more lanes for mixed automotive traffic considering that each lane can carry more people per hour when dedicated to mass transit vehicles than when carrying mixed traffic. And considering how much cheaper it is to dedicate road lanes to transit than to build tunnels, dedicating road space to transit is probably the most efficient option (or at least the most most cost effective).

The Sheppard line should probably be a subway along its whole length, I never really got the whole "and then at this point everyone gets out and goes into a different vehicle to continue their trip!" thing.

Aside from a downtown relief line, the other lines should be fine as LRT.

THANK YOU!

I would rather see Eglinton as a full subway but an LRT is alright - Sheppard, I draw the line!

It's already a subway, FINISH IT!

The Sheppard line should probably be a subway along its whole length, I never really got the whole "and then at this point everyone gets out and goes into a different vehicle to continue their trip!" thing.

Aside from a downtown relief line, the other lines should be fine as LRT.

I can agree with this.

i used to travel a lot along Sheppard during rush hour, using the subway, and continuing farther east by bus, and i don't really see the point of prioritizing a subway extension, even an RT in that area...IMO, Ford, being the subway fan that he is, should make building a downtown relief line his priority...too bad, he's not a fan of downtown :lol: