HA! Turns out I am correct! My turn to gloat! I've been dismissed as a screwball European for suggesting that Light Rail is cheaper than subways- here's a good article that demonstrates that I am correct! (Those guys at Urbantoronto would not be able to handle this article. KGB might also go ape over this)
Printed from NOW Magazine Online Edition
http://www.nowtoronto.com
Subway's last hurrah
Council's transit advocates say subway expansion is dead and cheaper light rail transit is the wave of the future
By DON WANAGAS

When the Toronto Environmental Alliance issued the city's 2004 Smog Report Card this week, it was full of congratulatory remarks about the many "clean air initiatives" Mayor David Miller and his left-leaning council have adopted.

There were kudos for a new energy efficiency program, the purchase of bio-fuels and hybrid vehicles for the municipal fleet, the political rejection of an expanded island airport, the recent adoption of a harmonized tree bylaw and the approval of a dedicated streetcar right-of-way along St. Clair West.

"Toronto has become a real leader in fighting smog," Keith Stewart, TEA's lead climate change campaigner, told a news conference at City Hall on Tuesday, October 12.

In just 12 short months, the city managed to improve its grade from a dismal C- to a respectable B+. And the mark would have been even higher (an A) had the powers that be at 100 Queen West gotten around to implementing the TTC ridership growth strategy the previous council approved in March 2003.

"Better transit is the missing piece," said Gord Perks, TEA's transportation guru. "We need to stop talking about ridership growth and start doing it."

TTC commissioner Joe Mihevc couldn't agree more.

"The status quo is not acceptable," the Ward 21 (St. Paul's) councillor says. "We have seen automobile traffic increase by 3 or 4 per cent since about 1970, and we have a lot of lost ground to make up. If we really are interested in improving the economy, cleaning the air and developing our official plan, then we have to get into an expansion mode and put some resources into transit-oriented development. That's the new biblical text that has to govern City Hall for the next while."

To Mihevc, the recently approved St. Clair streetcar right-of-way "shook some people up" and may spark an important debate about the overall future of transit.

"We're at the beginning of asking the question: 'Is this the rebirth of streetcars in Toronto?' We had a very sophisticated light rail transit (LRT) network before we fell in love with buses and subways, and I believe the time for rethinking that is now. What we need is an LRT master plan."

Mihevc spent three days in Atlanta this week at the American Public Transit Association conference with TTC chair Howard Moscoe and came away convinced that light rail transit is making a comeback in the United States.

"The Americans are getting it," he says.

What makes streetcars travelling on dedicated right-of-ways so attractive is their relative low cost compared to the construction of new subway lines.

Laying a kilometre of LRT track costs $10 million compared to $100 million for an equal length of subterranean steel. Add on the expense of building underground subway stations and the costs really start to snowball.

As the mayor, himself a TTC commissioner, is quick to point out in an interview this week, it would cost between $4 billion and $6 billion to complete a subway beneath St. Clair from Yonge to Keele. The bill for the new streetcar line along that route – complete with major street improvements – will be about $65 million.

"They're a way to bring very high-quality transit at a reasonable cost to neighbourhoods that don't have it," Miller says. "I think people will look back on the St. Clair experience and see that it was the start of a way to provide excellent transit right across Toronto."

Like Mihevc, the mayor sees a number of major transportation corridors identified for intensified redevelopment in the Official Plan as prime candidates for future streetcar lines or reserved bus lanes.

"Eglinton, particularly in Scarborough, is ideal for rapid transit," Miller says. He even suggests it may make economic sense to have a streetcar route along Sheppard to Scarborough Town Centre rather than continue the subway line there (at a cost of $2 billion) from where it now ends at Don Mills.

Mihevc offers Finch as another possibility for light rail track to and from the Yonge subway line. The Kingston Road streetcar route could also be extended from where it now ends at Victoria Park all the way to the city's eastern boundary, the councillor says. And the waterfront east of Yonge along Queens Quay and beyond would also be ideal for light rail.

"My hope is that we start to develop some of these lines so that we prompt the next generation of streetcars to be developed earlier than the current 2015 target date," says Mihevc. "These streetcars we have now? They're not streetcars. They're tanks that hold a lot of people, 2.5 times the weight of the sleek European-designed low-floor, wide-door models. What we're aiming for here is an above-ground subway."

Is the councillor dreaming? He doesn't think so.

"The reality of the TTC is that we've had to be obsessed with keeping the system we have in a state of good repair. We haven't allowed ourselves the luxury to dream," Mihevc says. "But now, with the gas tax coming from the province and the feds, we can hopefully start to think beyond state of good repair and bring our ridership growth strategy in line with our Official Plan."

And get Toronto an A on the next smog report card.
news@nowtoronto.com



NOW Magazine Online Edition, VOL. 24 NO. 7
Oct 14 - 20, 2004
Copyright © 2004 NOW Communications Inc.
story link: news_feature.php

the answer lies in a mix of streetcar and subways... subways are needed to seriously channel development (sheppard corridor, eglinton corridor), while streetcars are nice additions to areas that could use transportation improvements (Finch, Dufferin) without totally changing the face of the neighbourhoods...

it sounds like they would prefer subways, but have to settle for extending streetcars

"KGB might also go ape over this"


Well, I didn't back when I read the article...why would I now?







"I've been dismissed as a screwball European for suggesting that Light Rail is cheaper than subways"


Leave the poor Europeans out of this...you are a screwball all by yourself. LOL!!

And what's all the hullabaloo about???? We already know streetcar lines are cheaper than building subways....this is your big revelation???? We don't need an article to prove that.

Screwball is putting it lightly.

And I don't recall this being your big "screwball" idea anyway...aren't the fella who wants to put transit on existing rail corridors where nobody will ride them? Oh ya...and they will be powered by those fabulous incinerators. LOL!!!






KGB

And very European!

What are you guys arguing about?

The Toronto Environmental Alliance is very biased against Subways. They actually filled a lawsuit to stop the Sheppard Subway. They wanted the entire 960 million to go into lightrail, in a ideal world yes, but as you said yourself AreBe, there are no ribbon cutting oppurtunities for light rail transit. They believed if they succeded in killing the Sheppard Subway, the entire 960 million would then be used for light rail, when it reality it's likly the 960 million would go back to higher levels of government and never be seen again for transit. So anything TEA puts out is usualy anti-subway BS. They live in a dream world where a zero sum game exists between subway construction and light rail construction.

"The Americans are getting it," he says.

Mihevc and Moscow are truly dumbasses if they believe that.

[b] HA! Turns out I am correct! My turn to gloat! I've been dismissed as a screwball European for suggesting that Light Rail is cheaper than subways- here's a good article that demonstrates that I am correct! (Those guys at Urbantoronto would not be able to handle this article.


Ha your kinda write...they had it posted on UT and no one really liked it. You read NOW ?. Also its not like they were going to be spending any cash on building new lines in the forseeable future so this isnt really news? Of course the Spadina extension will eventually come and then maybe the sheppard but after those I doubt we'll see any new tubes for atleast a decade or two.

Lol, at least the argument is over Subway vs Light Rail...here the issue seems to be Light Rail vs Busway, with the State Government regularly deciding that a new busway is the more economical option! :| :)

Sigh - It's unfortunate but I have a feeling that a transit busway will be the only (ergo, cheapest) option. Ottawa has an extensive one, and I heard that North York is getting one. Vancouver thinks it has one (although it lacks dedicated lanes). It's a great way for politicians to say they are relieving traffic problems without ponying up for a real mass transit system. On the one hand, they do move people at the same rates, if the buses come frequently enough. Still, I'm a big fan of subway, or above ground LRT (like Vancouver's skytrain). LRTs, even with dedicated rights of way, still have to wait at intersections. *Yawn*

Personally, I think we need a Queen street subway from Long Branch to the Beaches, the extension of the University line to York-U, and a GO/rail line to the airport. An Eglinton line wouldn't hurt either. Ha ha wishful thinking I know. They whine about the price, and yet continue to add lanes to the 401/400/427. What the f?

No problem whatsoever with the expansion of LRT: obviously, it needs to be expanded. And, as charming as our streetcars are, it's true that we will benefit from new ones. BUT, it's simply unrealistic to think that the LRT can always replace the subways. Because they cannot. Nonetheless, I'm all for their expansion.

Busway isn't going to happen for places mentioned in the article. Not enough capacity.

The Busway that is coming through North-York is a GO Transit spear-head in combination with other GTA networks, most significantly Mississauga, as Hurricane Hazel is a big player in that project. It is NOT TTC turf.

To suggest Sheppard not be completed as a subway is stupid.

To suggest a dedicated ROW streetcar route from Eglinton and Allen to Eglinton and Kennedy, is a pretty good idea actually. Finch, same story (also via York U?, especially true in that case). Eglinton west of Allen needs a subway though, big time.

Lakeshore? I don't know, streetcar service through the downtown core is pretty heavy as is, but it would tie in nicely with the waterfront project, if it still exists.

The TTC really does need to replace its fleet though, and get some rider-friendly/accessible models like several European countries have.

HA! Turns out I am correct! My turn to gloat! I've been dismissed as a screwball European for suggesting that Light Rail is cheaper than subways- here's a good article that demonstrates that I am correct! (Those guys at Urbantoronto would not be able to handle this article. KGB might also go ape over this)

Then what were all those other times?

there was an announcement on the news today about the argos getting a stadium on york-u . it was also mentioned that a subway extension to york is not that far off or dead. it's still on the tables.

sorry for the bad news Are Be.

I hope they take the subway not only up to York U, but way up to York Region! Then the TTC funding problems will be solved (provided we keep pushing the TTC into 905, by running LRT's in existing rigths of way. Way too European, I know.

do you have to say your stupid European line in ever friggin post you write??

Yup. Just like the Europeans do. :cheers1: :jk:

"do you have to say your stupid European line in ever friggin post you write??"


He's still under the delusion that it's cute and funny.

The real joke is...that are be refelects a more Brampton attitude than a Euro one. LOL!!!







KGB

Taking the TTC past 416 is a very European idea. And serving the minorities of 905, who do not have the good fortune to be able to afford to raise extended families downtown, is an even better one! Think how the TTC 's problems would be solved! :)

The Busway that is coming through North-York is a GO Transit spear-head in combination with other GTA networks, most significantly Mississauga, as Hurricane Hazel is a big player in that project. It is NOT TTC turf.

I thought GO's busway was going through York Region? Was the plan changed? Personally, I think going through the Finch Hydro Corridor and connecting to the subway is much better idea, so hopefully you are right.

Taking the TTC past 416 is a very European idea. And serving the minorities of 905, who do not have the good fortune to be able to afford to raise extended families downtown, is an even better one! Think how the TTC 's problems would be solved! :)

"Serving the minorities of 905"? What exactly do you mean by this? Do you mean that only minorities use public transit? Or that minorities in the 416 are rich while the ones in the 905 are poor? That is a wierd view. And anyways, minorities alone are not enough for the suburban transit systems to make money, so it won't be enough for the TTC.

And the TTC already does serve the 905 don't they? And I know for a fact that the 32B and 58 don't make a profit for the TTC. The costs for those routes are covered by Mississauga Transit. And I really doubt the routes serving York Region make a profit either.

Really, nothing you say makes sense.

Ah-- all you have to do is run streetcars along existing GO right fo way, along the tracks and hydro rights of way, all through the GTA. Very European.
And yes, property owners in 905 have less money than property owners in 416. Most of all, taking th TTC to 905 would GREATLY increase the number of MP's and MPP's who's suddenly be in favour of real -deal transit expansion in Toronto. Heck, perhaps the province would fall over itself to pick up the tab for a GTA wide TTC.

"Taking the TTC past 416 is a very European idea. "


No it isn't...Europeans, like Torontonians, know the difference between inner-city mass transit and suburban commuter rail.







"And serving the minorities of 905, who do not have the good fortune to be able to afford to raise extended families downtown, is an even better one! Think how the TTC 's problems would be solved! "


Use your head for something other than dreaming of a facist gov't once in a while. Suburbanites just want to travel to and from downtown...they will either take their car or commuter transit directly downtown (that's why there is a GO Transit and 96% of all GO trains begin or end their trips at Union Station)...they aren't going to take a long ride with a zillion stops to get there...not practical.

The moral of the story is suburban and inner-city mass transit don't mix. Which is why the TTC is phenominally better at what it does...because it strictly focuses on what it's for...inner-city mass transit....and why GO Transit focuses on what it does best....suburban commuter travel. It's when you try to make one do the other that causes problems. If the TTC got tied into some regional urban-suburban body, it would be destroyed. Look at Vancouver...Translink is one body that controls all transit in the region...that's why all that expensive Skytrain/Scarb RT stuff is all about the suburbs...and the poor inner-city Vancouverites are stuck getting around on shitty buses.

The suburbs don't need to be connected to the 416's mass transit system...they just need commuter transit to get to downtown Toronto (which they already have), and local mass transit to get around their local areas. This has nothing to do with TTC.






KGB

"Taking the TTC past 416 is a very European idea. "


No it isn't...Europeans, like Torontonians, know the difference between inner-city mass transit and suburban commuter rail.







"And serving the minorities of 905, who do not have the good fortune to be able to afford to raise extended families downtown, is an even better one! Think how the TTC 's problems would be solved! "


Use your head for something other than dreaming of a facist gov't once in a while. Suburbanites just want to travel to and from downtown...they will either take their car or commuter transit directly downtown (that's why there is a GO Transit and 96% of all GO trains begin or end their trips at Union Station)...they aren't going to take a long ride with a zillion stops to get there...not practical.

The moral of the story is suburban and inner-city mass transit don't mix. Which is why the TTC is phenominally better at what it does...because it strictly focuses on what it's for...inner-city mass transit....and why GO Transit focuses on what it does best....suburban commuter travel. It's when you try to make one do the other that causes problems. If the TTC got tied into some regional urban-suburban body, it would be destroyed. Look at Vancouver...Translink is one body that controls all transit in the region...that's why all that expensive Skytrain/Scarb RT stuff is all about the suburbs...and the poor inner-city Vancouverites are stuck getting around on shitty buses.

The suburbs don't need to be connected to the 416's mass transit system...they just need commuter transit to get to downtown Toronto (which they already have), and local mass transit to get around their local areas. This has nothing to do with TTC.






KGB

I think it's really close-minded of you to think that people in the suburbs would only travel to downtown Toronto and none of the places in-between. It is also close-minded of you to assume that people in Toronto would not need connections to the suburbs. I suppose that YRT and MT need not bother providing their most frequent service to and from the TTC subway up to 3am in the morning like they do now.

Please don't call me closed-minded unless you have something to back it up. I get tired continuously having to prove the obvious common sense to some of you who like to disagree with me for nothing other than to just disagree. And I don't "assume" anything.

If the 905 is such a transit-friendly environment, why hasn't their transit systems been more successful? It's very simple...it isn't designed to. Running TTC into the 905 instead of using their own existing transit isn't going to change a fuking thing. Why do people commute to and from the suburbs? Work? shopping? Going to grandma's house for Sunday dinner?

There's a reason why the 416 carries 90% of the mass transit of the GTA, despite having less than 50% of the population.

Disagree with me if you like...but let's hear some logical and intelligent arguement...calling me "closed-minded" doesn't cut it. Put up or shut up.






KGB

"There's a reason why the 416 carries 90% of the mass transit of the GTA, despite having less than 50% of the population." The lack of subway connections to 905, of course, being a key reason.

Simply running parallel streetcar tracks beside existing GO tracks, and along other existing rights of way, would be a very effective way of dramatically increasing the public transit network in the GTA. This could be done at a tiny fraction of the cost of subways, and built in meaningful [phases between elections ( a key factor).

"The lack of subway connections to 905, of course, being a key reason."

No are be, that is not the key reason. The 905 cannot support very good bus ridership...what makes you think they could provide good subway ridership? You do understand that to build a subway, there has to be a maximum subsidy per rider limit to adhere to before you could justify the cost of building it.








"Simply running parallel streetcar tracks beside existing GO tracks, and along other existing rights of way, would be a very effective way of dramatically increasing the public transit network in the GTA. "


Why would we put mass urban transit vehicles on an existing commuter transit line? Are the GO trains not big enough???

You do understand the difference between commuter transit and mass transit?







KGB

Commuter rail - high capacity- low frequency - few stops- Very good for people who need to travel downtown, between Monday and Friday, between 7:30 and 9:00 in the morning and between 4:30 and 6:00 p.m.- lousy at all other times.
Local transit- provides convenient, frequent service between many destinations, with very convenient hook ups to other transit lines and numerous surface routes. Serves far more people than a commuter service. Helps visible minorities, who traditionally have less money and are forced to own property outside of the downtown core to travel around easily through a metropolitan area- a great equalizer. However, it's politically suicidal if the coasts of infrastructure are obscene and take a long time to construct, such as is the case with subways. however, a GTA wide TTC transit infrastructure, making use of already paid for rights of way could be built quickly, cheaply and would be the height of political aptitude on the part o f federal and provincial politicians.

Please don't call me closed-minded unless you have something to back it up.



You are close-minded dude. You just ignored my explanation as to why you are.

There's a reason why the 416 carries 90% of the mass transit of the GTA, despite having less than 50% of the population.

THE SUBWAY.

"You are close-minded dude. You just ignored my explanation as to why you are."


No "dude", you think I'm closed-minded because you imagine I make "assumptions"...they aren't assumptions...they are reality....and when they are just "opinions", they are based on the big picture...the opposite of being closed-minded.







"There's a reason why the 416 carries 90% of the mass transit of the GTA, despite having less than 50% of the population.

"THE SUBWAY"



No..it's not because of the subways at all...it's because of the high density and well placed transit infastructure that makes the subways possible in the first place. The 416 is designed to be transit friendly...96% of the population lives within 400 metres of transit (many closer than that)...and it's well planned transit at that.....the 905 simply isn't.




So are be...if you know the difference between commuter and mass transit....why do you want to put mass transit on commuter transit lines, where it doesn't follow the rule of mass transit that makes it possible in the first place?







KGB

THE SUBWAY.

Well, no, you've confused cause and effect but many others (including the TTC at various points of time) have confused these as well.

A subway cannot generate high ridership where there is no demand unless you're willing to heavily subsidize (on the order of $10 to $20 per ride -- many new american LRT systems are at this level) running it. We have many examples of subway stops being installed at stations that had low bus usage which are still among the least used stations 30 years later.

Sheppard (sometimes described as a white elephant) replaced a bus route which carried 15k to 25k riders/day. Flanking it are bus routes which had ridership in the 15k to 25k rider/day mark. It has successfully pulled about 7k rides/day off those flanking routes, and absorbed nearly 100% of the local route.

Even after having a jump start of nearly 30k riders/day on it, it is considered to be a white elephant and continues to be operationally subsidized (though likely less than the bus route it replaced, at this point).

To run a subway line to an area where there are 10k riders/day between 3 parallel routes would likely take decades to become operationally self sustaining -- making it a poor fiscal investment compared to routes with higher growth rates and significantly less initial subsidy required.

To randomly run subway lines around without first confirming there is a demand for the line is foolish and as AreBe has demonstrated, a demand for commutter rail is quite different from local transit -- so you cannot take high GO ridership and assume they'll take a slower moving local system instead.

If Vaughn can demonstrate that their BRT's are carrying 30k riders/day along a given section (about 2km), then it's a good site for a subway. Yonge south of Steeles is already there, and up to Clark is close. This will be the first real expansion in to York (aside from Steeles West station) unless the VCC BRT does exceedingly well over the next 10 years.

Mississauga has repeatedly turned down the suggestion that they're ready for an expansion into their territory, otherwise the system would likely be in 905 already.

On a side note...taking the cheapest route is generally never the best route...all it does is ensure the route will lose money in perpetuity...bad investment....you lose in the long run.

Transit placement is not a game of compromise...get it right, or suffer.

And isn't Are Be the guy who's always complaining about the "cheap-out" ???

So why would you want to do it with our transit???







KGB

THE SUBWAY.


A subway cannot generate high ridership where there is no demand unless you're willing to heavily subsidize (on the order of $10 to $20 per ride -- many new american LRT systems are at this level) running it. We have many examples of subway stops being installed at stations that had low bus usage which are still among the least used stations 30 years later.

Sheppard (sometimes described as a white elephant) replaced a bus route which carried 15k to 25k riders/day. Flanking it are bus routes which had ridership in the 15k to 25k rider/day mark. It has successfully pulled about 7k rides/day off those flanking routes, and absorbed nearly 100% of the local route.

Mississauga has repeatedly turned down the suggestion that they're ready for an expansion into their territory, otherwise the system would likely be in 905 already.

Your first paragraph, thats typical CDN mass transit thinking. You have to build the subway system in anticipation of future ridership. By the time most lines are built, its already too late.

Shepphard line has to be extended to STC realistically. + Its too early, for subway systems, you have to wait till the development gets there. Analyize it after 10 years, 20 years, 30 years. If you are going to knock a subway line, you should do so for the line expansion from Yorkdale to Downsview. What a waste.

Mississauga - look at the urban planning there, seriously. If they were really interested in combatting traffic, they would put LRT down hwy 10. They need it just as much as Vancouver area needs the skytrain.

You have to build the subway system in anticipation of future ridership. By the time most lines are built, its already too late.

Of course you need to be ahead of the curve a little bit (which Sheppard is -- though it's a little short) but you don't need to be ahead of the curve by 30 years.

There is no place in Vaughn with the exception of the theoretical Thornhill redevelopment plan which could use a subway today or 10 years down the road.

If you are going to knock a subway line, you should do so for the line expansion from Yorkdale to Downsview. What a waste.

Erm.. I didn't knock Sheppard. My goal was to be pro-Sheppard because it's in an established transit corridor, and anti subway in areas that have very low established ridership levels with insignificant growth, of which you've mentioned one example and 98% of Vaughn is another.

"If you are going to knock a subway line, you should do so for the line expansion from Yorkdale to Downsview. What a waste."


Downsview was just a way for Queen's Park to look like the good guys because they had a shovel in the ground for subway expansion while everybody was squabbling over the "Network 2011" plan, without really having to put up much money. And let's not forget one of the most important aspects of transit...politics.

With the olympic bid happening, and York U being both a good prospect for venues...and just a priority for subway anyway, they decided to "start" the Spadina extension. Plus they had origionally planned for a western extension of Sheppard over to Downsview.

All these ideas went bust of course...which is why we have probably our nicest station out in the middle of no-where.

Personally, I loved it...it was handy for a job I had for a few years a couple of blocks from there.






KGB

So you guys are saying that Toronto would still have high transit ridership if it did not have subways? The subway's much larger capacity and increased speed has nothing to do with it?

Really, I'm not saying places like Vaughn should have a subway, but they do need better connections to Toronto's subway system. That's why both Mississauga and York Region are building their BRT's. Their transit system's are not only for local destinations, as KGB says. If that was true, then why are their busiest routes the ones that service the subway? And I know that for Mississauga Transit, some of those routes are only used by people in Toronto.

Mississauga - look at the urban planning there, seriously. If they were really interested in combatting traffic, they would put LRT down hwy 10. They need it just as much as Vancouver area needs the skytrain.

They are putting in signal priority and bus-only lanes on Hurontario St next year. Speed is the main issue with Hurontario St, so it might help. Mississauga is considering LRT for both Hurontario and Burnhamthorpe, but don't expect it anytime soon, especially on Burnhamthorpe. People in Etobicoke keep trying to ban Mississauga Transit buses from Burnhamthorpe Rd, so I doubt they will accept an LRT.

We won't have that Euro thinking on this forum!
First you build your subways downtown, and then you build lines elsewhere - perhaps. But, most importantly, you make sure that subways are never built at all. We know that they cost billions, and cannot be built between elections,. further, we know that the idea is to only help those who have the good fortune to be able to live downtown. Most importantly, you don't want to take the TTC to 905, as doing so would have tremendous positive impact for TTC funding and expansion. By being 'pro subway only' we, in fact, help kill transit expansion. Besides, do we want all of those in Brampton and Mississauga coming downtown? Best that they be denied good transit.
.

Are Be, taking the TTC to the 905 isn't necssarily going to make them money (I am pretty sure I said this already). There are TTC routes in the 905 already, the losses are paid for by YRT and MT. If the TTC wants to build the subway in 905, then York Region or Mississauga would have to be willing to pay for the losses, and Mississauga is definately not willing to, as someone already mentioned. Building the subways in the 905 is simply not going to be profitable, and Mississauga knows it.

"So you guys are saying that Toronto would still have high transit ridership if it did not have subways? "


Of course.

In fact it does...subways (and the RT) account for 863,000 boardings of a total of 2,271,000.

Not that that would make any sense...for a few reasons...if the subways didn't exist, they would just be replaced by other vehicles.

And the subways exist because it can be supported. You don't build subways in the suburbs, when there are much better candidates right in the city.

Hey...I'm for building subways under every main street in the city...and the suburbs.

But I prefer to live in the real world.








KGB

"So you guys are saying that Toronto would still have high transit ridership if it did not have subways? "

In fact it does...subways (and the RT) account for 863,000 boardings of a total of 2,271,000.

Not that that would make any sense...for a few reasons...if the subways didn't exist, they would just be replaced by other vehicles.



But would these "other vehicles" be as convenient as the subway is? Let's not forget that a large portion of the TTC's ridership are "choice" riders.

But would these "other vehicles" be as convenient as the subway is? Let's not forget that a large portion of the TTC's ridership are "choice" riders.

The question is not of convenience but rather of capacity. You're not going to put a subway where the ridership doesn't warrant. We can't build subays within the 416, let alone in the 905.

doady...it's getting tiring explaining the basics to you....clue in.






KGB

The question is not of convenience but rather of capacity. You're not going to put a subway where the ridership doesn't warrant. We can't build subays within the 416, let alone in the 905.

And did I say the subways should be built in the 905?

DIDN'T THINK SO.

And you people keep refering to that somehow.

KGB tells me to clue in, but i think u fucking people should clue in.

Ill say it again

I DONT THINK THE SUBWAY SHOULD BE BUILT IN THE 905.

And did I say the subways should be built in the 905?

DIDN'T THINK SO.

And you people keep refering to that somehow.

KGB tells me to clue in, but i think u fucking people should clue in.

Ill say it again

I DONT THINK THE SUBWAY SHOULD BE BUILT IN THE 905.

Either say what exactly your point is or stop littering the boards. We cannot read your mind or Chinese puzzle posts. I have no idea why you needed to personally insult me instead of explaining your point, but that probably means you don't have one.

Either say what exactly your point is or stop littering the boards. We cannot read your mind or Chinese puzzle posts. I have no idea why you needed to personally insult me instead of explaining your point, but that probably means you don't have one.

I really dont what to say. I was quite clear with my points. People keep pointing out to me that subways should not be built in the 905, even when i am not talking about that, and even though i have said that the 905 should not get them.

Are my posts really that stupid and hard to understand? I don't want to waste to my time and your time and the site's bandwidth if my posts of no value anyway. I admit that I have been feeling very sad for the past few weeks, so maybe that's why I am not thinking clearly. I'm sorry for getting mad and insulting you and KGB. It was unwarranted. No hard feelings I hope, though your reactions to my posts does make even me more sad, but suppose I will just have to swallow my pride, and admit to myself, that perhaps I don't know much about anything after all. There is nothing wrong with that, I guess. One can learn alot from these boards and I should have remembered that and kept my mouth shut (or kept my hands of the keyboard rather).

^ My problem came from hurling insults (which seems to be more common now than ever), rather than the posts. I was out of line in my last post, so I do apologize.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Now, you're not talking subways in the 905. Ok... Are you talking about just taking the TTC to the 905? Or, was your post explaining that 90% ridership is in the city proper because of the subway?

"No hard feelings I hope, though your reactions to my posts does make even me more sad"


First of all...don't worry...be happy (somebody said that didn't they??? )


Now...I do think I know the jist of what you were talking about...it just got mixed in with the other ideas getting fobbed around...easy to get confused.

You were saying that Toronto's ridership numbers being so much larger than the 905's is because it has subways?

Well, this is partly true...but not really in the way you were saying. You need ridership levels of a certain amount to justify building them...and yes, they do create more ridership after they are built, do to their superior nature. They also attract more development, which in turn create more ridership...it's a nice catch-22 situation.

Toronto doesn't have good ridership because it has subways...it has subways because it has good ridership.

Now...could this be applied to the 905?

No...for the simple reason that the initial ridership could never warrant it to begin with. Sure...you "could" build it if you wanted to spend the money, and be happy with and be able to pay the massive subsidies required to keep it functioning (like some crazy US cities have done). You would also have to be extremely careful where you put it, to make sure it attracted the kind of development to hopefully attract the ridership needed to sustain it down the road.

And you can't run these things on existing rail corridors or other non-grid locations....the stations will have to be right where people are. And I just don't see any routes in the 905 that would really fit the bill. Trying to justify running a subway line into higher density areas such as MCC or York region or something would be quite difficult...you need more than just one heavily used station to justify fairly long lines....they can't work like a commuter line.

The TTC created and runs a 416 transit system. This system is completely different because of the difference between the 416 and the 905. Trying to combine 905-416 transit is messy business right now...maybe some day it can be justified...in the meantime, the TTC has a hard enough time making a go of it.






KGB

^ My problem came from hurling insults (which seems to be more common now than ever), rather than the posts. I was out of line in my last post, so I do apologize.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Now, you're not talking subways in the 905. Ok... Are you talking about just taking the TTC to the 905? Or, was your post explaining that 90% ridership is in the city proper because of the subway?

I was talking all three at one point, but that particular post was about the last one. I can see how you might get confused.


You were saying that Toronto's ridership numbers being so much larger than the 905's is because it has subways?

Well, this is partly true...but not really in the way you were saying. You need ridership levels of a certain amount to justify building them...and yes, they do create more ridership after they are built, do to their superior nature. They also attract more development, which in turn create more ridership...it's a nice catch-22 situation.



Yes, thank you, that is a very good description. I can't agree more with it.

The TTC created and runs a 416 transit system. This system is completely different because of the difference between the 416 and the 905. Trying to combine 905-416 transit is messy business right now...maybe some day it can be justified...in the meantime, the TTC has a hard enough time making a go of it.


You are right, they are different kind of systems. But I do think these systems should be connected better. I think BRT from the suburbs to the subways is a good start. You don't need to bring the subways to the 905, you can just find a better way to bring people to the subways.

I just think that all the transit systems in the GTA can be better connected to each other somehow. For example, people shouldn't have to take 4-5 buses to get from their home in Brampton to their workplace in Mississauga, you know what I mean? Yet there actually some people who do that. More coordination is needed, I think. It is a problem I face sometimes too.

"You are right, they are different kind of systems. But I do think these systems should be connected better. "


I think the 416 and 905 is already pretty connected....the TTC and 905 cities and their local municipal transit it borders are intigrated. They are also connected by commuter transit.

The mandate of the TTC is just it's own jurisdiction...which is the city of Toronto...Mississauga Transit's mandate is strictly for the city of Mississauga. It's in both's best interest to attract ridership from the other by intigrating with it when it can.

Not that there isn't room for improvement...and since both Toronto and it's border cities are developing fast, the future looks bright to intigrate it more...but right now, the opportunity is in their bus systems which are compatable...and those are pretty much utilized.

There simply is no opportunity to run any subway lines to service the 905. The best we could hope for is a small extension from a York U line a little into York region. But that wouldn't really be a subway line servicing York region the way it does in Toronto...it would just be putting a single station closer to people in York region...it would be more like a commuter station...where people would treat it as a park'n ride station the same as a GO station.

That is not really a solution...it does not bring any real subway mass transit to the 905...it's the same thing as we have now...it just means the 905'ers just don't have to travel as far to get to the subway....whether it's by car or GO to Finch station.

Sounds like a lot of money to have the pretty much the same situation that already exists. I'm sure it would attract a few more riders that would normally just drive into the city...but not enough to justify the cost.

Which brings up the main question...who's going to pay for it?

If the province, the feds or the 905 wants to pay for it....spend away...no skin off the TTC's nose. But if anybody expects the city of Toronto to blow money on that, when there are plenty of other subway line candidates that are far more doable, then there is no way.








KGB

^ Yes, the basic problem really does lie in the fact that 905 is largely suburban. This doesn't mean that the transit shouldn't be improved, but doing it is a whole different dynamic as compared to the 416.

And yes, cooperation, rather than merging and integration is exactly what is needed. A regional transit authority would indeed mean lots for the 905 and very little for the 416.

Ok...let's just ask ourselves a logical question...why would making transit better for the 905 hinge of getting into Toronto? It should be about making the 905 more transit friendly for getting around the 905 first.

That's excactly how the 416 did it.

Of course that will be difficult for the 905, as it was sadly designed to get around in cars....now it's going to be difficult to change it.

GO is doing a good job of moving the commuters, and the municipal transit is improving...but it has a long way to go before they can sustain subways.






KGB

But GO, as you indicated, does the "GO thing. Why not simply run LRT's in the 905, connecting not only with the subway, but heading downtown as well? Think of all the surface routes a streetcar line in a railway or hydro right of way would connect with: darn well each and every one! An LRT system - or even an above ground 'subway' - could join the subway as part of the 'spoke and wheel' mold of the TIC.

Taking the TIC to 905 is politically necessary. There simply aren't enough seats in 416 for senior governments to risk helping Toronto. Doubling the MP's and MPPs who would be full backers of TIC expansion is critical. We have to be very mindful of various facts (as unpleasent as they may be) : 1, cost, 2) getting projects built between elections 3) Not being seen to help only 416, 4) improving transit GTA wide,
First you build the LRT into 905, then you get the political support. Once you get the political support, then you build your subways!
Wouldn't it be fantastic if some levels of governments were falling over backwards to improve transit and 'upload' the massive costs, instead of being eager to be seen to fleece Toronto? This will not happen until there is real deal TTC expansion into 905.

Taking the TIC to 905 is politically necessary. There simply aren't enough seats in 416 for senior governments to risk helping Toronto. Doubling the MP's and MPPs who would be full backers of TIC expansion is critical. We have to be very mindful of various facts (as unpleasent as they may be) : 1, cost, 2) getting projects built between elections 3) Not being seen to help only 416, 4) improving transit GTA wide,
First you build the LRT into 905, then you get the political support. Once you get the political support, then you build your subways!
Wouldn't it be fantastic if some levels of governments were falling over backwards to improve transit and 'upload' the massive costs, instead of being eager to be seen to fleece Toronto? This will not happen until there is real deal TTC expansion into 905.

You keep bringing this up except for the obvious flaw that if the TTC expands to the 905, it will stay there and the 416 will get zilch. In the 905/416 political transit game, who do you think would win the game? 905 it is.

But GO, as you indicated, does the "GO thing. Why not simply run LRT's in the 905, connecting not only with the subway, but heading downtown as well? Think of all the surface routes a streetcar line in a railway or hydro right of way would connect with: darn well each and every one! An LRT system - or even an above ground 'subway' - could join the subway as part of the 'spoke and wheel' mold of the TIC.

Taking the TIC to 905 is politically necessary. There simply aren't enough seats in 416 for senior governments to risk helping Toronto. Doubling the MP's and MPPs who would be full backers of TIC expansion is critical. We have to be very mindful of various facts (as unpleasent as they may be) : 1, cost, 2) getting projects built between elections 3) Not being seen to help only 416, 4) improving transit GTA wide,
First you build the LRT into 905, then you get the political support. Once you get the political support, then you build your subways!
Wouldn't it be fantastic if some levels of governments were falling over backwards to improve transit and 'upload' the massive costs, instead of being eager to be seen to fleece Toronto? This will not happen until there is real deal TTC expansion into 905.

The smart ride LRT plan is dead almost even before it came out. Could have been had for 2.3 billion back in 2000. But lets face it, its just a bandaid solution. LRT along highway corridors. Sounds like a bust. Just look at the subway line between Yorkdale and Downsview. Where is the ridership going to come from. GO is doing a fine job, great expansion of the existing system + increased frequencies will do the trick. LRT should be limited to only a few viable 905 surface routes like Hwy 10. In addition, parking garages should be built at 905 transit hubs - Earlier this month, I tried to go downtown at 10 am (after rush hour). Couldn't find parking at Clarkson GO, Port Credit GO, and Long Branch GO/Street Car stop, I said screw it I'm not checking parking at the subway stops. Ended up parking at Sherway and taking the bus to the subway from their.

Subway is still needed in Toronto and anybody who thinks otherwise is foolish.

I am a big fan of LRTs, but they just don't have the ability to cover intermediate distances quickly.

Agreed! We need to set the conditions for subway expansion:
1, take Spadina up to 905.
2, build an LRT network linking up the GTA
3, build subways like crazy, as governments and the 45+ Mp and 45+ mpps bend over backwards to make sure they are not only seen to be delivering massive transit funding for 416 & 905, but, in fact, are delivering massive funding for grand scale transit expansion.

Are Be...do ever listen to anybody? You just keep spewing the same silly message over and over agian, despite everything being said....you should be renamed Tokyo Rose for your ability to spew propoganda despite reality. LOL!!







"Yes, the basic problem really does lie in the fact that 905 is largely suburban. This doesn't mean that the transit shouldn't be improved"


Well, yes, unfortunetely it is a problem. Built form and transit are inescapably linked. You can't "improve" transit by simply building more of it, if the built form isn't compatable with it.






KGB

^Tokyo Rose :lol:

http://www.transittoronto.org/images/subway-5507-04.jpg


Anyways, back to the topic. The idea of extending TTC servis to the 905 doesn't work all that well because of the suburban nature of the region. The mere fact that over 90% of transit trips made in the GTA are made in Toronto shows that this is not a worth while enterprise.

And thus, we will not have any expansion any time soon. Too costly. Takes too long to build. Too 416. So, I guess transit is up the creek. Unless we take it to 905, and we'll build transit so freaking fast your head would snap.

^ Ok, explain why taking the TTC to 905 will help the 416, other than this (rather unimportant) count of MPs and MPPs. WHY would the 905 be interested in helping out the 416 with this? How come in every instance I know where the suburban and urban transit mix, the suburban transit becomes a commuter line and the urban transit gets nothing? I want to know why this wouldn't happen here.

I thought GO's busway was going through York Region? Was the plan changed? Personally, I think going through the Finch Hydro Corridor and connecting to the subway is much better idea, so hopefully you are right.
They're related. Mississauga is where it is really being used as its point of origin and launch pad, because it is the largest of the suburbs. GO transit has its three heaviest lines (Lakeshore W, Milton, and Malton station on the Georgetown line) running through there, and Mississauga Transit is in need of answers to its problems at the same time, which are similar to GO's with its own bus service as well. Already buses in Mississauga are allowed to use the shoulder on the highways. The York Region corridor is of course part of it, but the possiblity of you might be thinking of a previous plan - one that I don't know is still around or not, is also there.



They are putting in signal priority and bus-only lanes on Hurontario St next year. Speed is the main issue with Hurontario St, so it might help. Mississauga is considering LRT for both Hurontario and Burnhamthorpe, but don't expect it anytime soon, especially on Burnhamthorpe. People in Etobicoke keep trying to ban Mississauga Transit buses from Burnhamthorpe Rd, so I doubt they will accept an LRT.

It's about time. Mississauga really needs to consider REALLY seriously some form of ROW high-frequency service between Sq1 (or Eglinton, due to the mass convergence of bus routes at that point on Hurontario) and PC, those buses are seriously about to explode, and way over capacity. Hurontario isn't even given an express route like Dundas, Burnhamthorpe, and Eglinton have recieved. This is probably because it doesn't go to Islington.

But why in the world is MT thinking of Burhamthorpe for LRT and not Dundas? Dundas recieves more ridership, no contest. I used to live along Burnhamthorpe's route, and my best friend lived along Dundas's. The Dundas bus always has more people... always. However, the TTC wants to extend the B/D along Dundas to Dixie (or has, in the past, proposed such), for the same reason, Dundas has a lot of ridership.

I didn't know Etobicoke was trying to get rid of MT buses on Burnhamthorpe. I think that they should move to Kipling personally, as it could then function as a well-integrated transit hub between TTC/MT/GO.

^ Ok, explain why taking the TTC to 905 will help the
416, other than this (rather unimportant) count of MPs and MPPs. WHY
would the 905 be interested in helping out the 416 with this? How come
in every instance I know where the suburban and urban transit mix, the
suburban transit becomes a commuter line and the urban transit gets
nothing? I want to know why this wouldn't happen here.
1) it is critical to get more MPs and MPP's fighting for the eTTC- 22 of
each is simply not enough- thus all big ticket items get killed before
they start, as it is politically risky to be seen to be helping 416. 416,
as we all know, is a huge money pit, sucking in money form the rest of
the county and the rest of the province (OK, not true, but all but 22
MP's and MPP's recognize this) Want proof that 416 is a huge money pit?-
BILLION DOLLAR SUBWAY!
2) 905 would be VERY INTERESTED in helping 416 with transit. People in
905 have to a) get into and b) move around in 416- FURTHER, more and
more, people in 416 have to move around in 905!
3) Who said anything about a commuter line?
4) LRT costs 1/10th of a subway, and can be built between elections
5) Stupid screwball Europeans have all sorts of 'above ground' subways.
6) By taking an above ground subway or some beefed up streetcar line out
to 905, the fact is that such a line would go through 416, and stops
could easily be simply put in at major streets-- where busses could pull
in, etc. Don't you think subway readership increases because buses drop
people off at the subway stations?
7 Simply look at a map, find the already paid for railway rights of
way and the hydro rights of way, and see how every major streets would
intersect with such a line.

1) it is critical to get more MPs and MPP's fighting for the eTTC- 22 of
each is simply not enough- thus all big ticket items get killed before
they start, as it is politically risky to be seen to be helping 416. 416,
as we all know, is a huge money pit, sucking in money form the rest of
the county and the rest of the province (OK, not true, but all but 22
MP's and MPP's recognize this) Want proof that 416 is a huge money pit?-
BILLION DOLLAR SUBWAY!
2) 905 would be VERY INTERESTED in helping 416 with transit. People in
905 have to a) get into and b) move around in 416- FURTHER, more and
more, people in 416 have to move around in 905!
3) Who said anything about a commuter line?
4) LRT costs 1/10th of a subway, and can be built between elections
5) Stupid screwball Europeans have all sorts of above ground' subways.
6) By taking an above gourd subway or some beefed up streetcar line out
to 905, the fact is that such a line would go through 416, and stops
could easily be simply put in at major streets-- where busses could pull
in, etc. Don't you think subway readership increases because buses drop
people off at the subway stations?
7 Simply look at a map, find the already paid for railway rights of
way and the hydro rights of way, and see how every manor street could
interest with such a line.
1 and 2 and 7)No, what is critical is first getting the existing network complete and current services increased to meet current capacity where it is exceeded, and allow room for growth if it isn't available. This includes completing Sheppard, extending Spadina to York U, Eglinton W Line, Yonge to Steeles, maybe further, and increasing GO Train frequency along Georgetown and Milton corridors, because Mississauga has the demand to both satisfy and justify such service increases. If possible, which it currently isn't, but they are laying more track, service along Lakeshore W should be increased. GO still hasn't abandoned the idea of using the CP rails that cut through Toronto alongside St.Clair to North Toronto Station, although it is very difficult for that proposal to get off the ground, mainly due to the fact that the track space doesn't exist. The ridership it would generate is also questionable.
Billion dollar subway = billions of extra dollars in new collectable taxes from new developments made possible from a subway line. Subway lines cost money, lots of it, but they in turn create a lot more money for the city in 10 years after construction - complete construction, so we shouldn't set the stop watch for Sheppard until the STC extension.
The second critical thing is securing autonomy for 416, and not being treated like a child or being hijacked by 905. Toronto doesn't cost money, it makes money, the problem lies in Toronto gets robbed by the country and is powerless to do anything about it. Toronto needs special status, which it is finally on route to getting. Once Toronto is looked at as special by the feds and province, and treated as far more than just a city equal to others in the province and country, as it is rightfully entitled to considering what it is and what it does, the problems can start to be fixed, with real progress to be made in far less time than the current system would even allow, and your idea that the 905 and 416 need to work as a co-op single body for transportation is out the window - frankly where it belongs. The systems need to be integrated, yes, and the systems need to be co-ordinated with each other, yes, they should even have a fare system that all use the same method of payment (Smart Card), yes, but they cannot ever be one system without completely falling apart and breaking into a disaster. The system to link other systems together and carry most of the longer trips from side of the GTA to the other needs to be taken care of by GO Trains through increased service on their end. This is because they are a)one system, which can provide one ticket and depending on your origin-destination, one-seat travel, and b)are far more speedy than any other system, this combined with their capacity is their greatest strength. If only they had frequency, which they don't. The 905 and 416 already work together on GO, which they should, but GO is the exception, not the rule, as it is a provincial body, and designed to be regional.

3 and 4) You did. LRT along GO tracks is stupid because GO tracks have very few places to stop at any relevant location. They rarely go where you want except for downtown T, or other subway stations like Danforth, Bloor, Kipling, Oriole, and the future Kennedy GO stations. The system is intended for you to drive to the station, or connect with a bus service (like in Brampton, Meadowvale, and Clarkson GO stations) to get to your final destination. The costs are not the deciding factor for transit lines - it's meeting the need where it exists. Not to say that the system is currently sufficient, it isn't, but your suggestions are some of the worst I've ever heard. Have you ever taken these GO Train lines? I've travelled on all of them except Markham/Stouffville and Bradford (soon-to-be Barrie) Corridors, and do you know what's along these lines? Usually nothing! It's grass, forests (especially in the case of the Richmond Hill line that goes through the Don Valley, it's very scenic and attractive, doesn't look like you're in a city), small-scale residential backyards, factories and department store warehouses, train yards, places where freight trains go. Because who owns these tracks? FREIGHT TRAIN COMPANIES! They used to carry passengers, but haven't for a long time, it will soon be a century since CN and CP bailed out of passenger rail service. Since GO didn't exist before '67, and most of its lines outside lakeshore didn't show up until the late 70s or 80s depending on the line, they're extremely freight-dominated/orientated corridors, as unfit for LRT as can be.

5) So does T, look north of Eglinton West, West of Dundas West (on and off above ground), Vic Pk to Warden, and Rosedale and Davisville areas. Above ground subways are high-mainenance though. They're better off underground. Lower maintenance costs are a much bigger savings than anything made in capital costs.

6) If a bus route (or a group of very similar routes that intersect with a lot of other notable routes) can generate the ridership, it will become a subway. Not before. While the subway runs off a feeder system, the routes are where they are because that's where the ridership has historically been. Bloor used to be a streetcar, for example. And again, above ground is not the hot idea you think it is for subway projects. If you cut corners in the short run, you'll pay in the long run.

"Who said anything about a commuter line? "

You did. The line and service you suggest is indeed more commuter than mass transit.





"LRT costs 1/10th of a subway, and can be built between elections"

You put too much emphasis on capital costs, and not enough on opperational or eficiency costs. The capital costs are one-time...the opperational and efficiency costs are on-going.






"Stupid screwball Europeans have all sorts of 'above ground' subways."


I think you rely too much on this "screwball european" thing...first of all you assume everything they do is fantastic and efficient, and old inner-city european cities, like anyplace built previous to the 20th century, is enviably dense and urban built form....but their sprawling suburban mess can be even worse than North American cities. A Toronto solution to improvement needs to emulate Toronto...not somewhere else.






"By taking an above ground subway or some beefed up streetcar line out
to 905, the fact is that such a line would go through 416, and stops
could easily be simply put in at major streets-- where busses could pull
in, etc. Don't you think subway readership increases because buses drop
people off at the subway stations?"


Again...you are putting all your eggs in one basket....feeder lines and transfer points are nice...but you can't run a line based soley on that...it needs to also act as an entry point to the system....and to do that, it needs to be accessable to those living, working and shopping around a stop. Your proposed line just doesn't do that.







KGB

Simply said:
1) The 905 MPs are more likely to split the vote with the 416 MPs because what is good for one is not for the other.

2) With the exception of the 10% of the trips taken on transit in the GTA that occur in the 905, I don't think there is much interest.

3) Don't knock commuter lines, but we alread have enough dedicated commuter lines as it is.

4) The Street Car fleet us maxed out right now and we would need to buy more as well as expanding the track network which in itself could cause gridlock for a couple of years.

5) The Euros are in a totally different situation than we are and are thus uncomparable.

6) Not really IMO, 905ers usually have very little interest in taking the subway with the exception of that 10% I mentioned earlier.

7) As TRZ pointed out, there are far too many bottle necks along those ROWs to do this as cost effectively as I had thought. A cheaper/easier solution that would not be as effective would be to use hydro fields as a ROW.

i dont know if you have all seen this, but this is the proposed/future transit system for the GTA.

http://www.pir.gov.on.ca/userfiles/page_attachments/Library/4/ENGmap5.pdf?N_ID=4

^I have seen that map before but to tell you the truth, it is so vague that I wouldn't put to much weight behind what it shows.

Here's one for you ARE BE


From today's Star:
www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs...8793972154

$680M to refuel transit
TTC to get $355 million in provincial gas tax over 3 years
Revenues will fund 78 transit systems in 105 communities

CAROLINE MALLAN
QUEEN'S PARK BUREAU CHIEF

Public transit systems across Ontario will get $680 million from the provincial gasoline tax over the next three years, the lion's share of which — $355.3 million — will go to the Toronto Transit Commission.

Sources in the Liberal government say the move to deliver on a key election campaign promise to devote 2 cents a litre of the gas tax to transit is part of a push to convince people to leave their cars at home and change their commuting habits.

"In the Greater Toronto Area, commuting times will be 50 per cent longer in the next 20 years unless we invest in transit," said one official.

The TTC could use the money in a variety of ways, the Star's Kevin McGran reports.

The Scarborough RT needs major work and the streetcars will need either to be refurbished at a cost of $1 million each, or replaced at a cost of $3 million each in the next five years or so.

Light rail transit, touted as a low-cost option to some streetcar lines, costs about $10 million per kilometre to build, while a kilometre of subway costs about $100 million.

The government announced in May that the first cent will be delivered on Oct. 1, with an additional half-cent coming on Oct. 1, 2005 and the final half-cent coming on Oct. 1, 2006.

Transportation Minister Harinder Takhar and Municipal Affairs Minister John Gerretsen spent the summer talking to mayors and transit officials to determine the best way to divide up the money. Toronto pushed for a formula based on existing ridership, and suburban communities strongly favoured a plan based on population.

The government has decided to allocate 70 per cent of the money based on the number of transit riders in the community and 30 per cent on a per capita basis.

Municipal leaders will start getting details of how much they can anticipate beginning today and a formal announcement is expected shortly.

Toronto Mayor David Miller was asking for a 90/10 split of the money, but provincial officials said they had to be very mindful of the need to bolster transit in expanding suburbs in York, Peel and Durham regions if they are to cut car use. Under the planned formula, more than half of all the money collected will go to Toronto.

"There are a lot of people in this government and this caucus defending Toronto and we have come up with a formula that is good for the city. We think everyone will be pleased in the end, it's a lot of money," said an official, who cited a slew of Toronto ministers and former TTC chair and Liberal backbencher Mike Colle (Eglinton-Lawrence) as key advocates.

The province collects 14.7 cents per litre in gas tax and the Liberals promised to devote a portion of it to transit in a bid to cut smog emissions and take some of the financial pressures off municipalities.

The money will fund 78 transit systems in 105 communities around the province, but municipal councils must agree to use the money on transit, and to focus on luring more users by boosting service and efficiency.

Local councils in each community have to vote to accept the gas tax and spend it on improving transit — they cannot divert existing transit money to other projects such as road construction.

"Once it is approved by council and returned to us, we will start to send out the cheques," the source said.

The money can be used for either capital projects such as new buses, or operating expenses such as staffing as long as it is directed at boosting transit use.

Over the next 12 months, and retroactive to Oct. 1, Toronto will get $81.5 million in quarterly instalments.

It is estimated that the city will get $111.3 million for the year that runs from Oct. 1, 2005 to Oct. 1, 2006 and a further $162.5 million from Oct. 1, 2006 to Oct. 1, 2007.

The gas tax money is on top of the $128 million the province has already committed to the city for transit this year, the source said.

In the regions surrounding Toronto, local politicians will be urged to spend the money on transit plans that are in sync with planned new housing developments.

For the year ahead, York Region will receive $5.6 million, Mississauga will receive $7.4 million, Oakville will get more than $1 million, Hamilton will get $5.9 million, Waterloo Region will get $4 million and Guelph will get $1.4 million.

In eastern Ontario, Ottawa will receive $18.9 million for the coming year.

While none of the gas tax will go directly to GO Transit, provincial officials said part of the mandate of regional systems will be to hook up with GO, which should also boost ridership on the regional train/bus service.

The province also plans to use its gas tax commitment as leverage in talks with Ottawa to speed up implementation of the federal Liberal election promise to commit 5-cents-a-litre to municipalities, primarily for transit.

Thanks Ed for getting him going again.

Atleast give us some time to get our :fiddle:

"The government has decided to allocate 70 per cent of the money based on the number of transit riders in the community and 30 per cent on a per capita basis."


I think that's actually a very fair split....it acknowledges the TTC's vastly heavier used system, as well as acknowledges that the more suburban systems need help getting their systems more efficient and more used.






KGB

"The government has decided to allocate 70 per cent of the money based on the number of transit riders in the community and 30 per cent on a per capita basis."


I think that's actually a very fair split....it acknowledges the TTC's vastly heavier used system, as well as acknowledges that the more suburban systems need help getting their systems more efficient and more used.






KGB


I agree, 70/30 seems fair indeed. I am pleased.

5) The Euros are in a totally different situation than we are and are thus uncomparable.
I must agree with that statement.
It tends to be only smaller European towns and cities (with the exception of Warsaw) that have light rail networks. All the world cities such as London, Madrid, Paris and Berlin etc have subway networks. Toronto is a world city so it definately needs the subways. However, Light Rail would still very much help with city traffic/environmental problems and keep the critics quiet. Not too expensive either.

I must agree with that statement.
It tends to be only smaller European towns and cities (with the exception of Warsaw) that have light rail networks. All the world cities such as London, Madrid, Paris and Berlin etc have subway networks. Toronto is a world city so it definately needs the subways. However, Light Rail would still very much help with city traffic/environmental problems and keep the critics quiet. Not too expensive either.

Um, Toronto does have a subway network, and it covers pretty much the entire old city core. We're talking about LRTs to cover areas that may not be heavy enough to justify an additional subway line considering how expensive they are. Are Be is probably the only person on this forum that thinks that subways are in their final days. Last time I was in Berlin, however, there was an extensive LRT so I don't know how they don't have it, when it is obvious that they do. London too has a tram, albeit for much more specific purposes.

Subways serve a specific purpose in any city, it Toronto it is the back bone of the system and right now that back bone needs some beefing up if the growth in population is going to happen the way the experts say it will.

LRTs are good for local traffic, subways are good at local and indermediate distance travel.

Toronto could use more of both.

^ Yep. I think York is going to be the first to get a new sub, and it needs it. More LRT would be a good thing as well, obviously. This is an area that indeed has a lot of potential.

no entender nada

Um, Toronto does have a subway network, and it covers pretty much the entire old city core. We're talking about LRTs to cover areas that may not be heavy enough to justify an additional subway line considering how expensive they are. Are Be is probably the only person on this forum that thinks that subways are in their final days. Last time I was in Berlin, however, there was an extensive LRT so I don't know how they don't have it, when it is obvious that they do. London too has a tram, albeit for much more specific purposes.
I don't think that subways are over- they are non- starters, however, until we get real deal TTC into 905 - Spadina line, above ground - into York to a highway 7 LRT, and then, LRT's into 905 (up to Brampton, with stops at Rexdale and Weston, etc, and a Hihgway 10 LRT) then, and only then, will support for subways not be poltical suicide. Thems be the facts, as much as they may suck...

I don't think that subways are over- they are non- starters, however, until we get real deal TTC into 905 - Spadina line, above ground - and then, LRT's into 905, then, and only then, will support for subways not be poltical suicide.

ARGH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

:badnews:

I don't think that subways are over- they are non- starters, however, until we get real deal TTC into 905 - Spadina line, above ground - into York to a highway 7 LRT, and then, LRT's into 905 (up to Brampton, with stops at Rexdale and Weston, etc, and a Hihgway 10 LRT) then, and only then, will support for subways not be poltical suicide. Thems be the facts, as much as they may suck...


As nice as that would be, those areas in the west end (Rexdale and Weston) would have settled for the Eglington line. The Eglington line was a transit proposal that had people in both areas salivating.

The irony of this is that originally the Subway was built as to replace the many streetcars on those streets but the approach which would have worked for Toronto was to have a local Streetcar and express Subway system on the same tunnles on Yonge, Bloor that would have created a very unique and smooth system.

You'll have to explain that one a little better.






KGB

^ I think he means have the streetcars and subway on the same route.

The irony of this is that originally the Subway was built as to replace the many streetcars on those streets but the approach which would have worked for Toronto was to have a local Streetcar and express Subway system on the same tunnles on Yonge, Bloor that would have created a very unique and smooth system.

The subway is local, GO Trains are "express" (commuter). "Express" trains to Union exist from Kipling, Bloor (Dundas West), Danforth (Main Street), Oriole (Leslie), and soon Kennedy GO Stations. None of these stations are on the same line tough (arguably Bloor and Kipling could be if they wanted to, but they aren't). Problem with GO is that is mostly rush-hours only outside the Lakeshore. Outside of rush-hours though, express runs aren't really needed, but the need for expanding the service hours (i.e. changing the definition of rush hour for these trains) is a growing need.

The track space doesn't exist to allow the capacity on the CP rail tracks, but a more "express route" between Kipling and North Toronto (Summerhill Subway) via Dupont, and perhaps continuing to Pickering via Agincourt (future extended Sheppard Subway connection) and via the Toronto Zoo would be a fantastic idea. This line could perhaps be even more popular than the Lakeshore corridor. The lack of track space is a crying shame.

Ah...so Thinkahead thinks the subway should have been quad-tracked, with subways running on some kind of express system (less stations than there are now), and streetcars with more stations than there are now?


This would never had been done for a few reasons....#1 being that the first Yonge line was designed back in the 40's, when a lot of people thought a subway was overkill for little Toronto in the first place. (luckily, the TTC didn't think that)....quad tracks would have been out of the question.

Secondly, the spacing of stations are very good as it is to facilitate good movement of people on one line that brings both speed and convenience to the line. It doesn't need high capacity express subways and low capacity "local" streetcars on the same line...the subway does both quite well.

What the Yonge line needs is a relief line to take pressure off it, as well as subway service to somewhere other than Yonge Street.

Express lines utilizing existing right-of-ways is always popular because it looks like a cheap solution. But of course putting cost over location is almost always a mistake. Toronto is not a commuting city...mass transit success has always hinged on solid proximity theories...which means the more expensive option of subways under main streets with stations less than a km apart and within 400 metres walking distance from existing populations or in an area that will attract development to increase population.

This fine with GO commuter lines...not for mass transit TTC.






KGB

What the Yonge line needs is a relief line to take pressure off it, as well as subway service to somewhere other than Yonge Street.

KGB

As ridership hasn't recovered for the yonge line since the late 80s when the DRL was being touted, I doubt ridership on the existing yonge line will warrant the DRL. However, I feel that the further extending of yonge subway north to hwy 7, will cause the increased ridership, and then we will hear more noise for the DRL. In a way, I am against moving HRT to 905, but I guess maybe sometimes the wrong thing can bring about a good thing.

Maybe adding an automated People Mover downtown could help take some pressure off. Although there maybe no where to put it and it may get too clogged with passengers.

"automated people mover" ??


ha ha ha

Sounds like something you invent for a World's Fair...and then become obsolete.

Downtown is adequately serviced by transit...you can't beat subways and streetcars..hell, even the underground systems work as a "people mover"...with feet as the propulsion.

Yonge definetely needs an eastern relief line. I also agree that the York extension will pull a hell of a lot off Finch GO station, as they will build a new regional station around York U.






KGB

Yep, there must be additional subways that go downtown, but I was wondering how it would do in addition to it.