 |
|
|
UER Store
|
|
sweet UER decals:
|
|
|
 Air
      
Location: Canada
 |  | TTC --- Provincial?
< on 10/24/2007 3:20 PM >
|  | | | TTC suspects province is plotting a takeover
RENE JOHNSTON/TORONTO STAR
Why province should run TTC - and why not
If the TTC were to be taken over by the Greater Toronto Transportation Authority, here are some of the possible advantages and disadvantages:
PROS
One step closer to rationalizing a system that involves nine transit authorities.
Easier for commuters to cross city and regional borders.
Improve fairness of service across the GTA.
A stronger voice for funding at Queen's Park.
Standardized fare system.
Cost savings with bulk buys of equipment.
Would help Toronto to cut costs.
CONS
TTC service in low-demand areas may suffer as priorities shift to 905 region.
Loss of autonomy by the GTA's largest transit system.
Possible loss of iconic symbolism for TTC.
It's been quietly talked about in backrooms for months. But as the city's budget travails continue, the idea of a provincial takeover of Toronto's best brand – the TTC – is being discussed openly at city hall.
Rising speculation about a provincial takeover of at least part of the Toronto Transit Commission has sparked a backlash from councillors, and TTC officials are quietly assembling a public relations campaign to defeat a move they think could destroy one of Toronto's iconic services.
TTC chair and Councillor Adam Giambrone, who is adamantly opposed, says he's received no direct overtures from the province but is aware of the speculation.
With transit high on the public agenda, "the province might have an interest in managing that file directly and being able to take credit for it," he said.
The Greater Toronto Transportation Authority already has the province's mandate to plan the entire transportation network for the Golden Horseshoe. Its report is expected in spring.
It's also poised to take over GO Transit, fuelling suggestions that it could be the vehicle the province needs to co-opt all or part of the TTC as part of a harmonized GTA transit system that would garner provincial resources, parcel out service fairly across what is now nine transit systems, and make it simpler for commuters to travel across city borders.
The authority also gets to say how Premier Dalton McGuinty's $17.5 billion MoveOntario transit plan, which includes funds to extend the subway and build Toronto's ambitious light rail Transit City network, moves forward.
GTTA chair Rob MacIsaac has suggested everything is on the table. "I think there are opportunities for new things that haven't been thought of before, but I think 90 per cent of what we need has already been thought of and it's out there and we just need to ... assemble it," he said back in January.
A source inside the provincial government said there hasn't been any recent, serious discussion of a TTC move. But the commission is taking no chances.
In the next six months Torontonians can expect to see a public relations campaign on the TTC telling them why the city's transit deserves more funding from senior levels of government.
"The TTC does a lot of things very well and over the next six months we're going to have to start telling Torontonians a little about what is good about the TTC, about its efficiencies," said Giambrone. "We have to define what we want from a public transit system."
Toronto Deputy Mayor Joe Pantalone said he doesn't think the idea will come to fruition and that the TTC is a key part of the city.
"The City of Toronto is very protective of the TTC. It's essential to everything we believe in, from quality of life to economic development to the environment and so forth."
The GTTA, Pantalone said, is an unproven entity.
"The thought of them absorbing the TTC is asking for trouble."
But Toronto councillor and former GTTA member Brian Ashton said the issue has been discussed by transit officials.
"There are a lot of trial balloons being floated out there. I just don't know who's putting the air in them," he said, adding there are many options.
"The province might want to separate the bus from the subway system. One thing I know is that when the GTTA came along it was a natural platform that accelerates those discussions. GO eventually will be part of the GTTA. You could argue the TTC also should be part of it if the GTTA is be truly regional."
Ashton said taking the TTC away from Toronto would "lift a large part of the city's financial burden. The province would be able to manage and control costs. But the city has a long tradition and this would be like cutting the umbilical cord."
Mayor David Miller has denounced a provincial takeover as "incredibly short-sighted." He said it would probably mean higher fares and worse service.
But Councillor Karen Stintz yesterday said it would make sense for the province to run at least part of the TTC. The city also could make money by selling Union Station to Queen's Park, she said.
Pre-election comments from former Liberal finance minister Greg Sorbara, published in July, "suggests this is something that's being thought about, whether it's being considered seriously or not," Giambrone said.
Back then, Sorbara told reporters there might be a different way to approach Toronto transit – such as combining it with GO's rail operations – but went on to say that the discussion was premature.
It doesn't help, Giambrone said yesterday, that other Toronto councillors are raising the issue in public. For him, the really frightening possibility is that the province might hand the job to a private operator – an idea that gains traction when you consider that expanding the Yonge and Spadina subway lines will take the system into York Region.
But third-party transit operations will almost certainly lead to reduced service outside downtown, Giambrone said. "All over Europe you see privatization, and what you see is lower levels of service to other parts of the city."
Giambrone said the GTTA is on record as saying it doesn't want to be an operator. But he is among those GTTA board members surveyed recently on a catchier name for the regional transit authority – and logo ideas, including where that logo might appear on regional transit.
Although it's possible the GTTA's name could replace that of the province of Ontario inside TTC vehicles, it won't go on the outside, Giambrone insists.
http://www.thestar...rio/article/269896
"The extraordinary beauty of things that fail." - Heinrich von Kleist |
|
90rock
 
Location: Calgary
Gender: Male
| | Re: TTC --- Provincial?
<Reply # 1 on 10/24/2007 4:40 PM >
| | | | TTC not GTTC, that's what GO is for.
|
|
NoSuchPerson
  
Stop, or I'll ask you again!
| | Re: TTC --- Provincial?
<Reply # 2 on 10/24/2007 9:45 PM >
| | | | My reply on another forum;
Excellent news.
The TTC is absolutely inept when it comes to budgeting and setting it's priorities straight (in my opinion).
I believe the only thing that is going to get the TTC back "on track" is if the Provincial Government comes in and starts slashing - Harris style.
The TTC has demonstrated it's inability to budget and keep ridership - I say it's about time to start firing management and bringing in people who know what they're doing. Hopefully this is the first step towards that.
...all my personal opinion, of course.
Unit calling radio say again? |
|
Agent Skelly
Web Sheriff
Location: Oregon Territory
Gender: Male
Prenez De L'Avance Avec Chrysler!
| |  |  |  | Re: TTC --- Provincial?
<Reply # 3 on 10/24/2007 9:48 PM >
| | | | While we are at it, just merge Oakville Transit, Mississauga Transit, Durham Region Transit, York Region Transit, GO Transit, TTC, and so forth into "GTA Transit" 
[last edit 10/24/2007 9:48 PM by Agent Skelly - edited 1 times]
|
|
Air
Location: Canada
| | Re: TTC --- Provincial?
<Reply # 4 on 10/24/2007 10:52 PM >
| | | | I posted this on my way out to work, but the first thing I thought when I read it was....it's about damned time. get some people on board who actually have a transit planning background, not political figures who don't know which end is up.
Skelly, i think that is a great idea to amalgamate as well, as so many people travel in and out of the city for work that it's just stupid to keep it all separate. Just look at what they have done in Hong Kong, its great.
"The extraordinary beauty of things that fail." - Heinrich von Kleist |
|
Hi/Po
Location: Earth
Gender: Male
| | Re: TTC --- Provincial?
<Reply # 5 on 10/24/2007 11:24 PM >
| | | | It's an interesting news story, but it's more of a topic for Urban Toronto, judging from the lack of exploration discussion here. If you like discussing local Toronto matters, it's worth your time.
The merging of the transportation authorities is a good move, but Toronto shouldn't lose any bus routes as an urban centre. Slashing routes makes getting around by public transit more difficult and less pleasant. The goal is to increase ridership, not create one mediocre system for the poorest of the poor. It's too early to tell what kind of attitude the new authority will have. On the plus side, coordinating capital projects such as new subways or LRTs will save money theoretically (allowing bulk purchases), and create a more efficient means of getting around the GTA in general, if current Toronto routes stay put. It'll also force the province to encourage developers to build more compact communities outside of Toronto, not only for the environmental benefits, but because longer lines are more expensive to run, and lower density means lower ridership.
|
|
Arc_Tangent
Arrr, I'm a PIRATE!
Location: Steel-Town
NYAH!!!
| | | Re: TTC --- Provincial?
<Reply # 6 on 10/25/2007 4:43 AM >
| | | | It'd be nice to have a system where I don't have to fight with 2 different cities' transit help desks to get a route plan because their websites are both down +/ unnavigable.
[15:17:47] <Arc_Tangent> Hirnduebel: you rock.
[15:18:15] <Hirnduebel> Arc: You're a rock yourself you rock! |
|
y2k98
Gender: Male
| | Re: TTC --- Provincial?
<Reply # 7 on 10/29/2007 2:19 AM >
| | | | it would be nice to see the subway extended into mississauga and okaville
|
|
Curious_George
Location: Cambridge
Gender: Male
Straight outta New Bedlam
| | Re: TTC --- Provincial?
<Reply # 8 on 10/29/2007 4:30 AM >
| | | | Posted by y2k98
it would be nice to see the subway extended into mississauga and okaville
|
It would be nice to see some T.O.D.'s support that.
|
|
Jupiter
Moderator
Location: Toronto
Gender: Male
Boffo's alright... for now.
| | | Re: TTC --- Provincial?
<Reply # 9 on 10/29/2007 5:18 AM >
| | | | It'd be nice to have people realize that subways aren't meant to be that long distance, and even Kipling is stretching the bloor line with how many stations they put on it...
Abandoned Planet |
|
Swamp Thing
Location: Elsewhere
Not a real user.
| | Re: TTC --- Provincial?
<Reply # 10 on 10/29/2007 1:48 PM >
| | | | Posted by Jupiter
It'd be nice to have people realize that subways aren't meant to be that long distance, and even Kipling is stretching the bloor line with how many stations they put on it...
|
Yeah, a subway is just an LRT in a tunnel, and the tunnel is only necessary if the landscape is too built up to allow the trains an efficient right-of-way.
Enough right-of-way already exists (i.e. hydro line corridors) to allow a surface LRT service to Mississauga. Even an elevated line would be cheaper than tunnels.
Better yet: MONORAIL!
As I went walking, I saw a sign there,
And on the sign it said “No Trespassing.”
But on the other side it didn’t say nothing, That side was made for you and me. - Woody Guthrie, "This Land Is Your Land" |
|
kowalski
| | Re: TTC --- Provincial?
<Reply # 11 on 10/29/2007 2:07 PM >
| | | | Posted by Swamp Thing
Yeah, a subway is just an LRT in a tunnel, and the tunnel is only necessary if the landscape is too built up to allow the trains an efficient right-of-way.
|
Not to be pedantic, but Toronto's subways are heavy rail. Streetcars are LRTs, and the Scarborough RT is a bastard hybrid that was only birthed through provincial incompetence. When the TTC and transit advocates talk about a new network of LRTs, they're talking about streetcars on, as you say, dedicated right-of-ways.
|
|
Air
Location: Canada
| | Re: TTC --- Provincial?
<Reply # 12 on 10/29/2007 4:13 PM >
| | | | Posted by Jupiter
It'd be nice to have people realize that subways aren't meant to be that long distance, and even Kipling is stretching the bloor line with how many stations they put on it...
|
NYC...
Moscow...
1. London, England: 258 miles
2. New York City, United States: 230 miles
3. Moscow, Russia: 211 miles
4. Tokyo, Japan: 175 miles
5. Seoul, South Korea: 173 miles
Now, the fact that this subway doesn't even connect to the airport, which would also be greatly useful for workers who work in the light industry/hotel industry in that area isn't pathetic enough.... I've never understood why the university line is 400m away from the yonge line downtown. That's the stupidest layout ever.
"The extraordinary beauty of things that fail." - Heinrich von Kleist |
|
kowalski
| | Re: TTC --- Provincial?
<Reply # 13 on 10/29/2007 4:51 PM >
| | | | Posted by Air 33
I've never understood why the university line is 400m away from the yonge line downtown. That's the stupidest layout ever.
|
It was built that way because a) it was partly a relief route that took some of the traffic off the Yonge side of the line, which has suffered from overcrowding almost since the beginning; and b) because University Avenue was developing as a major working corridor, thanks to the insurance industry and the expansion of the provincial government. Look at your own maps, there are plenty of lines running N-S in Manhattan just a few blocks apart. Go downtown at rush hour and see conditions on both sides of the "U" -- the thing is packed all around.
Above Bloor, new line routings (real and proposed) became very political, dictated by the interests of provincial governments and Metro mayors rather than soundly managed development plans. But I'm not clear on where in your analysis the University subway should have gone, if not beneath University.
As for airport service, it's a waste of money that would operate at a terrible loss. The Transit City LRT plan would achieve far more at less cost and wouldn't act as a drain on the rest of the system like an airport extension or stub line would.
|
|
Curious_George
Location: Cambridge
Gender: Male
Straight outta New Bedlam
| | Re: TTC --- Provincial?
<Reply # 14 on 10/29/2007 5:05 PM >
| | | | Posted by kowalski
It was built that way because a) it was partly a relief route that took some of the traffic off the Yonge side of the line, which has suffered from overcrowding almost since the beginning; and b) because University Avenue was developing as a major working corridor, thanks to the insurance industry and the expansion of the provincial government. Look at your own maps, there are plenty of lines running N-S in Manhattan just a few blocks apart. Go downtown at rush hour and see conditions on both sides of the "U" -- the thing is packed all around.
Above Bloor, new line routings (real and proposed) became very political, dictated by the interests of provincial governments and Metro mayors rather than soundly managed development plans. But I'm not clear on where in your analysis the University subway should have gone, if not beneath University.
As for airport service, it's a waste of money that would operate at a terrible loss. The Transit City LRT plan would achieve far more at less cost and wouldn't act as a drain on the rest of the system like an airport extension or stub line would.
|
Damn you Kowalski...taking all of my points and such.
|
|
Air
Location: Canada
| | Re: TTC --- Provincial?
<Reply # 15 on 10/30/2007 2:19 AM >
| | | | Posted by kowalski
It was built that way because a) it was partly a relief route that took some of the traffic off the Yonge side of the line, which has suffered from overcrowding almost since the beginning; and b) because University Avenue was developing as a major working corridor, thanks to the insurance industry and the expansion of the provincial government. Look at your own maps, there are plenty of lines running N-S in Manhattan just a few blocks apart. Go downtown at rush hour and see conditions on both sides of the "U" -- the thing is packed all around. |
Yeah, but they connect to different lines which go off in different directions. Sure some lines require switching, but what good is osgoode and queen so close to each other, when another street no so far away is far busier. If they got the streetcar off spadina, spadina would not be the nightmare to navigate that it currently is.
| Above Bloor, new line routings (real and proposed) became very political, dictated by the interests of provincial governments and Metro mayors rather than soundly managed development plans. But I'm not clear on where in your analysis the University subway should have gone, if not beneath University. |
Spadina is one of the most active routes downtown other then dufferin, I think it would have been better there, which also has a dual subway stop. And I won't say anything about that crazy long gap between the actual spadina station(s).
As for airport service, it's a waste of money that would operate at a terrible loss. The Transit City LRT plan would achieve far more at less cost and wouldn't act as a drain on the rest of the system like an airport extension or stub line would.
|
So where exactly would they put that? I could care less if its a subway or an LRT, there is not only a great deal of people who live there who currently need to drive to get anywhere or switch multiple buses to get around, there is also alot of industry workers, and airport workers and commuters who would have benefited from it, compared to the Sheppard line, which also was a political wet dream. Sheppard would have benefit from an LRT plan, but I guess it wasn't a fashionable concept then.
[last edit 10/30/2007 2:20 AM by Air - edited 1 times]
"The extraordinary beauty of things that fail." - Heinrich von Kleist |
|
Agent Skelly
Web Sheriff
Location: Oregon Territory
Gender: Male
Prenez De L'Avance Avec Chrysler!
| | | | | Re: TTC --- Provincial?
<Reply # 16 on 10/30/2007 3:25 AM >
| | | | Air 33 & Jupiter: Pull up Boston's MBTA Green Line. Its a LRT line that operates as a regular LRT line in the suburbs and a subway line in the city.
|
|
Boffo
Moderator
Location: Smithers, BC
Gender: Male
HONK! HONK!
| | Re: TTC --- Provincial?
<Reply # 17 on 10/30/2007 3:44 AM >
| | | | Isn't it a bit silly to be comparing Toronto's transit to cities which clearly have double or triple the population? Afterall doesn't more people mean more money for transit?
London: 7,512,400
New York City: 8,214,426
Moscow: 13,200,000
Tokyo: 12,570,000
Seoul: 10,356,000
Toronto: 2,503,281
Numbers are courtesy of wikipedia and maybe inaccurate or approximate. Also this is the city size not including the metro area.
Here's a lockpick. It might be handy if you, the master of unlocking, take it with you. |
|
kowalski
| | Re: TTC --- Provincial?
<Reply # 18 on 10/30/2007 4:24 AM >
| | | | Posted by Air 33
Yeah, but they connect to different lines which go off in different directions. Sure some lines require switching, but what good is osgoode and queen so close to each other, when another street no so far away is far busier. If they got the streetcar off spadina, spadina would not be the nightmare to navigate that it currently is.
Spadina is one of the most active routes downtown other then dufferin, I think it would have been better there, which also has a dual subway stop. And I won't say anything about that crazy long gap between the actual spadina station(s).
|
The streetcar on its own right of way is the greatest thing that ever happened to Spadina. It's been fantastic for local businesses (who opposed it violently for years, just as has happened more recently on St. Clair) by increasing foot traffic and making it safe to cross Spadina both at and between intersections (before the ROW it could be argued the street wasn't safe to cross anywhere south of College). The Spadina streetcar is one of the great TTC success stories, transit that is scaled for the needs of the street.
By contrast, the only way one could justify a subway on Spadina in the past forty years is if one intended to destroy Chinatown and replace it with office buildings (a sequel to the destruction of the original Chinatown to make way for the new City Hall). The local ridership could never justify a subway, and as a downtown feeder route it's completely impractical, because no one is going to take a Spadina subway and then transfer to the Queen or King streetcars to get into downtown.
Finally, I think it would do us well to be on the same page as far as the history of transit service in this area before this discussion goes any further.
c. mid-1800s - 1948/1966 (Spadina/Harbord routes): Streetcar service on Spadina.
1948/1966: Streetcar service on Spadina replaced by bus.
1963: University subway opens from Union to St. George.
1966: Bloor-Danforth subway opens.
mid-1960s: Spadina Expressway proposed. This would have run from what is now Allen Road, down through the Cedarvale Ravine and then down Spadina to College Street, transforming everything in its path. This plan saw the Spadina subway line as it currently exists north of Bloor, connecting to the University line.
1971: Province withdraws support for the Spadina Expressway after heavy opposition from local residents.
1973: First proposal to rebuild Spadina streetcar route. TTC agrees in principle, but business opposition holds things up for years.
1978: Spadina subway extension from St. George to Wilson opens, following routing originally proposed as part of Spadina expressway plan.
1997: New Spadina streetcar line opens.
In the 1950s, when the University line was being planned, there was no centre of gravity on Spadina to justify putting a subway line there. We can know this if for no other reason than the fact that Chinese merchants were able to reconstitute a Chinatown there in the 1960s after being displaced from Bay-Dundas, and that the street retains much of its pre-war building stock. So I'm not clear on when you would suggest a subway line should have been built beneath Spadina, and would love to see you clear that up, preferably with some hard arguments.
So where exactly would they put that?
|
Ah, all over the place. Have you not seen the Transit City LRT plans? If you haven't looked at them, I can't see how you can claim to be qualified to discuss transit in this city at all. This is the capital plan that the TTC has proposed to adopt going forward, if upper levels of government will come through on the funding. Specific to your generic airport request, the envisioned Eglinton Crosstown LRT would provide connections to Pearson and Mississauga, and link to all major subways as well as envisioned north-south LRTs at Jane and Don Mills (routed beneath Pape south of the Don Valley).
| I could care less if its a subway or an LRT, there is not only a great deal of people who live there who currently need to drive to get anywhere or switch multiple buses to get around, there is also alot of industry workers, and airport workers and commuters who would have benefited from it, compared to the Sheppard line, which also was a political wet dream. Sheppard would have benefit from an LRT plan, but I guess it wasn't a fashionable concept then. |
There are a great deal of people who live at Pearson Airport? Where? South of the 401 and east of the 427, sure. This is mostly low-density houses though, except for a clutch of high-rises along Eglinton at Kipling.
You're right that there are a great deal of people employed in the area around the airport. Unfortunately this area has been developed in a way that is completely unconducive to any transit -- spread-out, low-density, winding streets -- let alone heavy rail. There aren't sufficient workers in this area to justify a subway, and even if you built it, it wouldn't serve their needs anyway: most would still have to take a bus from one of the handful of stations you could justify building on this phantom line in order to get to their workplace, and these buses and the subway that fed them would be terrible money losers.
The Spadina subway extension to Vaughan is proposed to cost $2.2 billion. An airport subway spur would cost at least as much. For the same price, we can get an Eglinton LRT across the entire city. For someone who's so adamant about the need for the TTC to cut costs, it amazes me to see you pushing subways.
One thing I also want to add is about your previous post regarding transit network sizes. Toronto is a much smaller city (in both gross population, land area and density) than the examples you give:
1. London, England: 258 miles track for 609 sq. miles area
-- 7.5 million people, 4,760/sq. km
2. New York City, United States: 230 miles track for 410 sq. miles area
-- 8 million people, 10,500/sq. km
3. Moscow, Russia: 211 miles track for 417 sq. miles area
-- 13 million people, 12,200/sq. km
4. Tokyo, Japan: 175 miles track for 239 sq. miles area (special wards only)
-- 8.5 million people, 13,900/sq. km
5. Seoul, South Korea: 173 miles track for 234 sq. miles area
-- 10.5 million people, 17,000/sq. km
Toronto, Canada: 43 miles track for 243 sq. miles area
-- 2.5 million people, 4,000/sq. km
It's unjustified and foolhardy to compare our subway network with those of these cities, and just this sort of comparison deserves much of the blame for the limitations of transit in Toronto. Our subway fixation is something we need to get over if we're ever going to achieve real, cost-efficient improvements to our transit system.
ON PREVIEW: Yeah, what Boffo said, except with more numbers.
[last edit 10/30/2007 4:28 AM by kowalski - edited 1 times]
|
|
Air
Location: Canada
| | Re: TTC --- Provincial?
<Reply # 19 on 10/30/2007 2:47 PM >
| | | | Posted by kowalski
The streetcar on its own right of way is the greatest thing that ever happened to Spadina. It's been fantastic for local businesses (who opposed it violently for years, just as has happened more recently on St. Clair) by increasing foot traffic and making it safe to cross Spadina both at and between intersections (before the ROW it could be argued the street wasn't safe to cross anywhere south of College). The Spadina streetcar is one of the great TTC success stories, transit that is scaled for the needs of the street. |
I know your arguing now for the sake of arguing, because Spadina is and was busy enough to justify placing the subway line there which would have eliminated a secondary streetcar lane. University and Yonge are too close together. Also, the university subway line was you know eventually comes up and then snakes further west via bathurst and then ending at dufferin at downsview.
| By contrast, the only way one could justify a subway on Spadina in the past forty years is if one intended to destroy Chinatown and replace it with office buildings (a sequel to the destruction of the original Chinatown to make way for the new City Hall). The local ridership could never justify a subway, and as a downtown feeder route it's completely impractical, because no one is going to take a Spadina subway and then transfer to the Queen or King streetcars to get into downtown. |
So that is how the university line is justifiable so close to yonge street?
| In the 1950s, when the University line was being planned, there was no centre of gravity on Spadina to justify putting a subway line there. We can know this if for no other reason than the fact that Chinese merchants were able to reconstitute a Chinatown there in the 1960s after being displaced from Bay-Dundas, and that the street retains much of its pre-war building stock. So I'm not clear on when you would suggest a subway line should have been built beneath Spadina, and would love to see you clear that up, preferably with some hard arguments. |
The Chinatown is quite new @ Dundas and Spadina. Its actually grown substantially with many European buildings and churches torn down which were in the early 80's bought up by Chinese businessman. It's not as old as you suggest. If anything that area was Jewish, eastern European if anything with Kensington market and the outlying area.
But let's go with your argument for a minute, if the subway was built under spadina, how would that disrupt that 'building stock'? Are you suggesting that building a transit system there is impossible, because if it physically is -- rather then practically I'd love to know why. Also, practical arguments aside, I won't even bring up how yonge and Sheppard was torn up for 3 years if I remember right when it was being built.
| Ah, all over the place. Have you not seen the Transit City LRT plans? If you haven't looked at them, I can't see how you can claim to be qualified to discuss transit in this city at all. This is the capital plan that the TTC has proposed to adopt going forward, if upper levels of government will come through on the funding. Specific to your generic airport request, the envisioned Eglinton Crosstown LRT would provide connections to Pearson and Mississauga, and link to all major subways as well as envisioned north-south LRTs at Jane and Don Mills (routed beneath Pape south of the Don Valley). |
I didn't realize one had to be qualified to enter a discussion here. Your making that claim for me, and obviously for yourself. If we want to speak about 'qualifications' maybe the only person engaging in this discussion should be a transit planner or urban planners.
| There are a great deal of people who live at Pearson Airport? Where? South of the 401 and east of the 427, sure. This is mostly low-density houses though, except for a clutch of high-rises along Eglinton at Kipling. |
There is a whole corridor of apartments along Eglinton from Weston road onwards which is high density. Also I never said people lived at the airport. I said many people work there, both at the airport and the related light industry around.
| You're right that there are a great deal of people employed in the area around the airport. Unfortunately this area has been developed in a way that is completely unconducive to any transit -- spread-out, low-density, winding streets -- let alone heavy rail. |
Well that's a whole 'nother issue all together. I won't even bother saying anything about how poorly the future developments were planned for by the city itself. There area large sections of this city that are impossible to navigate without a car.
| The Spadina subway extension to Vaughan is proposed to cost $2.2 billion. An airport subway spur would cost at least as much. For the same price, we can get an Eglinton LRT across the entire city. For someone who's so adamant about the need for the TTC to cut costs, it amazes me to see you pushing subways. |
Are you going to be happy when they raise fairs again? Its not the $3 you know, its how sometimes I wait 40+ minutes to catch a bus on st.clair, or now 30-40 minutes to catch the steels bus at York. The service the TTC provides has always been poor, but now with further discussion of cuts and a fair hike, I don't think there's much to defend there.
Also, I'm not against an LRT lines as you seem to be saying, I'm asking why this was NOT something that happened 20 years ago.
Toronto, Canada: 43 miles track for 243 sq. miles area
-- 2.5 million people, 4,000/sq. km |
No, I was aware of the density and size differences, but is there any other type of infrastructure development going up to accommodate all the high density buildings downtown? Because if transit isn't cutting it now, they won't be 10 years from now either.
And you've ignored the best part of this post itself, the amalgamation/take over aspect aspect. I think its a great idea.
| It's unjustified and foolhardy to compare our subway network with those of these cities, and just this sort of comparison deserves much of the blame for the limitations of transit in Toronto. Our subway fixation is something we need to get over if we're ever going to achieve real, cost-efficient improvements to our transit system. |
How is a discussion about what is poor about out current transit system causing the limitations? You know what's causing limitations -- the political wrangling which has determined how this system is laid out in the first place, not me talking on UER about why the TTC sucks, or even you defending it. What we say has no impact on these developments whatsoever.
"The extraordinary beauty of things that fail." - Heinrich von Kleist |
|
|
|
All content and images copyright © 2002-2024 UER.CA and respective creators. Graphical Design by Crossfire.
To contact webmaster, or click to email with problems or other questions about this site:
UER CONTACT
View Terms of Service |
View Privacy Policy |
Server colocation provided by Beanfield
This page was generated for you in 110 milliseconds. Since June 23, 2002, a total of 739768804 pages have been generated.
|
|
