The Great Canadian Transit Thread

[Andrewjm3D]

Originally Posted by Wharn

Which is absolutely true. I've never said that the DRL doesn't eventually need to be built, if anything it ought to be a high-priority project. What I don't agree with is the notion that Scarborough only deserves LRT and nothing better. I agree with mike, the SRT was a waste of time and money. Just a completely unmitigated disaster in retrospect: it's slow, over-used and introduces yet another inefficient transfer point. But when it was built it seemed like a good idea, partially because it was thought Scarborough didn't have the "density" to warrant an upgrade, partially because it was Metro tradition to give Scarborough the shaft.

Scarborough is not getting the shaft by getting LRT. For has led them to believe that by getting 3 LRT lines and not a 3-5 stop subway they are getting the shaft. This is not true. Ford has led them to believe that the Transit City LRT network is nothing more then streetcars or a St. Clair style ROW which is not true. Scarborough is about to get the biggest transit upgrade in the entire city.

Fords plan or lack there of would have given Scarborough the shaft. Ford and his few friends want people in the burbs to believe they are second class citizens even though they are not. If Ford used his energy to come up with a plan instead of running around the burbs spreading lies then maybe we would be getting a subway today. He failed.

Are we supposed to believe that Vancouver thinks of it's citizens as second class? Where is their subway?

The whole reason why we're now 18 months behind schedule is because Rob Ford is uneducated, doesn't know the facts, and wanted to destroy any trace of Miller even if it cost the city millions and deprived us of transit upgrades.

Again, and LRT is not a form of screwing over Scarborough, no transit upgrades is. Not building the DRL is a form of screwing over the entire system though.

[Tony]

Originally Posted by Wharn

The thing is, you're wrong. There is more than one way to "wreck" the bluffs. The new rocks all along the bottom prevent the natural erosion process, so over time the very impressive cliffs will just flatten out into steep hills. That's one way of wrecking them. Another way of wrecking them is to erect windmills either in the lake or on top, spoiling one of the last great natural views in Toronto from either side. Think of it as a different kind of "wreck".

soo.. better to leave them to continually erode and destroying the properties and houses people own at the top of the bluff instead of trying to stabilize the bluffs where the current state of the bluffs can probably be held for a couple hundred years before they so-call flatten out? I'd trade a view that may or may not change in a few hundred years over risking people's lives.

[miketoronto]

Sorry I know this is off topic. I am sort of on the fence concerning the bluffs.
The erosion control is creating an amazing walking and bike path along the lake which is a pleasure to use.
At the same time however, we are spending millions of dollars and altering nature for a few homeowners who want to protect their million dollar views.
These homes should never have been built at the edge of the bluffs, and instead should be public parkland for all to enjoy.
--

Onto the LRT thing. I just found out that the Sheppard LRT is most likely going to operate as a streetcar in the fact that it will have stop request buttons, and only stop at stops if people request or are waiting.
That right there tells you this is not rapid transit, but just upgraded local transit.

[Wharn]

Originally Posted by Andrewjm3D

Scarborough is not getting the shaft by getting LRT. For has led them to believe that by getting 3 LRT lines and not a 3-5 stop subway they are getting the shaft. This is not true. Ford has led them to believe that the Transit City LRT network is nothing more then streetcars or a St. Clair style ROW which is not true. Scarborough is about to get the biggest transit upgrade in the entire city.

If you think making existing feeder routes into much better feeder routes is the biggest transit upgrade Scarborough will ever receive, then surely you can see how dire things are right now.

Sure, the LRT may not be a St. Clair streetcar, but I'll tell you what it is: it's local bus service with fewer stops, and half-assed subway service with more stops. If it is still beholden to road regulations and traffic lights, it is not true rapid transit. Both sides are deceiving people, not just Ford.

Originally Posted by Andrewjm3D

Are we supposed to believe that Vancouver thinks of it's citizens as second class? Where is their subway?

I haven't necessarily been an advocate for subways per se, as you may have noticed. I've been advocating complete grade-separation, which Vancouver most certainly possesses. Even Edmonton has this to some extent. All the Scarborough LRTs, if they're built according to spec, aren't even going to be as good as the Boston Green Line, which at least offers some grade-separated ROW free from traffic lights. And no, a dinky little boulevard does not count as grade-separation.

Originally Posted by Tony

soo.. better to leave them to continually erode and destroying the properties and houses people own at the top of the bluff instead of trying to stabilize the bluffs where the current state of the bluffs can probably be held for a couple hundred years before they so-call flatten out? I'd trade a view that may or may not change in a few hundred years over risking people's lives.

If you buy a property hovering over an area with continuous natural erosion, you bear the risks of that property. It's not even like this was information that was withheld or unavailable a la Love Canal, so don't expect the public purse to come to the rescue and save you from your irrational decisions.

I thought you were the kind of person who frowned down on externalizing behaviour?

Originally Posted by miketoronto

Onto the LRT thing. I just found out that the Sheppard LRT is most likely going to operate as a streetcar in the fact that it will have stop request buttons, and only stop at stops if people request or are waiting.
That right there tells you this is not rapid transit, but just upgraded local transit.

If this is true (and I hope to God it isn't), then it would be plain and clear that this isn't rapid transit, not in the slightest. Have you got any sources to post for this?

[Metro-One]

Originally Posted by Wharn

I haven't necessarily been an advocate for subways per se, as you may have noticed. I've been advocating complete grade-separation, which Vancouver most certainly possesses. Even Edmonton has this to some extent. All the Scarborough LRTs, if they're built according to spec, aren't even going to be as good as the Boston Green Line, which at least offers some grade-separated ROW free from traffic lights. And no, a dinky little boulevard does not count as grade-separation.

This is the point Andrewjm seems to miss. Good transit does not necessarily depend on if it is LRT or HRT rail, but grade separation.

Due to grade separation, and other features, Vancouver's "ALRT" has much more in common with a traditional subway than it does with at grade LRT. In fact the Canada Line uses traditional subway rolling stock.

The debate here should not be between LRT or HRT, but between Metro and non-Metro.

The majority of sources describe a system as "Metro" if it is fully grade separated.

So essentially, Montreal Subway, Toronto Subway & Vancouver skytrain = Metro.

Calgary C-Line and Edmonton LRT are not true Metro systems. That being said they are probably the best LRT set ups on the continent when compared to their US counterparts.

I am happy though that Vancouver has a grade separated, automated Metro system for its transit backbone.

I don't see why Toronto can't also build a a few lines akin to Vancouver's technology, why only extremes? (full subway or at grade LRT?) Why not grade separated ALTR using underground and above ground?

[nname]

Originally Posted by Metro-One

The majority of sources describe a system as "Metro" if it is fully grade separated.

Even APTA and Wikipedia (global pages, not the Canadian ones) won't consider a line to be rapid transit if it is not fully grade separated.

[Tony]

Originally Posted by Wharn

If you buy a property hovering over an area with continuous natural erosion, you bear the risks of that property. It's not even like this was information that was withheld or unavailable a la Love Canal, so don't expect the public purse to come to the rescue and save you from your irrational decisions.

I thought you were the kind of person who frowned down on externalizing behaviour?

Sorry to keep with the off-topic discussion... but..

Leaving the threat to property and life aside (being the main mandate of the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority to protect - TRCA being the government agency doing the erosion control works)...

What happens when the erosion finally makes it to the road, and then starts to threaten the municipal infrastructure in the road, access to the properties across the street as well as those properties too? At what point does it become a buyer beware situation or a reasonable assumption of safety?

It's not like we're talking about a UNESCO World Heritage site here. Nor are we talking about eliminating the bluffs, it's simply to stabilize them in their existing condition.

[vanman]

Originally Posted by Metro-One

I don't see why Toronto can't also build a a few lines akin to Vancouver's technology, why only extremes? (full subway or at grade LRT?) Why not grade separated ALTR using underground and above ground?

I think the reason has to be the Scarborough RT. I rode it during my visit to Toronto in rush hour just to see what Canada's other skytrain system was like. What a pile of shit! It was nothing like our skytrain. It was dark, overcrowded, slow, bumpy, infrequent, loud, smelly, and just gave off the feeling that overall it is not well maintained. I can imagine the average Torontonian scoffing at the thought of expanding such an obvious failure of a system. To them this is what skytrain represents.

[Rico Rommheim]

The sky train is pretty rad. I rode the entire expo line today just for kicks and it was a real treat. A sensoral experience much more superior than
The Toronto subway or the Montreal metro. I really do love the sky train!!

[vanman]

^In Vancouver eh? You should ride the Millenium line for futuristic stations and some very impressive TODs.

[MexiQuebecois]

I had a bad experience with the TTC, the stupid ass machine took my money and didn't give me those weird coins it uses, so I lost about $5.

Also the stations looked like I was inside a freaking huge bathroom.

[Rico Rommheim]

Will do! Tomorrow...


I've said it before and I'll say it again, the advantage and disadvantage with the sky train is that it's a suburban-oriented transit system (well if you want to call Burnaby a suburb).

On the other hand , the Montreal metro is almost exclusively concerned on serving Mobtreal city proper.

[MexiQuebecois]

Originally Posted by Rico Rommheim

Will do! Tomorrow...


I've said it before and I'll say it again, the advantage and disadvantage with the sky train is that it's a suburban-oriented transit system (well if you want to call Burnaby a suburb).

On the other hand , the Montreal metro is almost exclusively concerned on serving Mobtreal city proper.

Not sure if typo....

[Wharn]

Originally Posted by Tony

Sorry to keep with the off-topic discussion... but..

Leaving the threat to property and life aside (being the main mandate of the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority to protect - TRCA being the government agency doing the erosion control works)...

What happens when the erosion finally makes it to the road, and then starts to threaten the municipal infrastructure in the road, access to the properties across the street as well as those properties too? At what point does it become a buyer beware situation or a reasonable assumption of safety?

It's not like we're talking about a UNESCO World Heritage site here. Nor are we talking about eliminating the bluffs, it's simply to stabilize them in their existing condition.

No worries about the off-topicness of the topic. Maybe we should create something about the Bluffs in the Toronto section?

Anyways, I would consider the whole thing to be a concern once it begins to threaten municipal infrastructure. In other words, when Sylvan Avenue itself (or Meadowcliffe Drive, or S. Marine Drive, or whatever) is endangered, then it's time to step in. Otherwise, it's the property owner's problem. The construction of cottages and homes partially contributed to the more rapid rate of erosion anyways. While they may not be a UNESCO site, they are special and ought to be something cherished by all Torontonians.

Originally Posted by Metro-One

This is the point Andrewjm seems to miss. Good transit does not necessarily depend on if it is LRT or HRT rail, but grade separation.

Exactly my point. If a system does not have a substantial portion of the route (ie, more than 60%) grade-separated, it should be considered a standard rubbish surface route. Why people try to dress up this street-grade LRT as "metro" or "rapid transit" is beyond me, since the only part that would qualify is the underground Eglinton section.

Originally Posted by vanman

I think the reason has to be the Scarborough RT. I rode it during my visit to Toronto in rush hour just to see what Canada's other skytrain system was like. What a pile of shit! It was nothing like our skytrain. It was dark, overcrowded, slow, bumpy, infrequent, loud, smelly, and just gave off the feeling that overall it is not well maintained. I can imagine the average Torontonian scoffing at the thought of expanding such an obvious failure of a system. To them this is what skytrain represents.

Because it isn't well maintained. All maintenance money goes into the subway network, and for the most part even that looks pretty tired. You notice that the Yonge and Sheppard lines are both taken care of much better than the Bloor line as well.

Personally I think Skytrain-ish technology can be fantastic when done right. The Vancouver system is modern, pleasant and quick, the Scarberian system is not. The thing is Toronto can't afford to have so many systems (streetcar, subway, LRT and ICTS) because it just creates diseconomies of scale when you try to maintain all of them.

[sober2ndthought]

Originally Posted by Wharn

If you think making existing feeder routes into much better feeder routes is the biggest transit upgrade Scarborough will ever receive, then surely you can see how dire things are right now.

This is why city council needs to integrate TTC fares with GO Transit. I don't mean just the presto system but a full and proper fare integration.

The plans for GO Transit will give an amazing boost to the quality of transit along the upgraded routes. Imagine all-day (not night though), two way GO Trains operating every 15 minutes. That should suffice when it comes to access to transit for Scarbrough it is comparable to Subway service in the area.

But only if the fare integration is put in place as well.

[sober2ndthought]

Originally Posted by Wharn

Exactly my point. If a system does not have a substantial portion of the route (ie, more than 60%) grade-separated, it should be considered a standard rubbish surface route. Why people try to dress up this street-grade LRT as "metro" or "rapid transit" is beyond me, since the only part that would qualify is the underground Eglinton section.

Calgary's LRT is hardly grade separated. 82 percent of Calgary's LRT runs at grade level, this includes overpasses, underground tunnels and railway rights of way.

But no one would say Calgary's LRT is not rapid transit.

[The_Architect]

Originally Posted by sober2ndthought

Calgary's LRT is hardly grade separated. 82 percent of Calgary's LRT runs at grade level, this includes overpasses, underground tunnels and railway rights of way.

But no one would say Calgary's LRT is not rapid transit.

But we're talking about Toronto here, which can't do anything right in the eyes of a lot of posters here.

[miketoronto]

Originally Posted by Wharn

If this is true (and I hope to God it isn't), then it would be plain and clear that this isn't rapid transit, not in the slightest. Have you got any sources to post for this?

A transit advocate who is very involved in the whole project told me that.
The stopping pattern however I guess has not been finalized by the TTC yet.

[miketoronto]

Originally Posted by sober2ndthought

Calgary's LRT is hardly grade separated. 82 percent of Calgary's LRT runs at grade level, this includes overpasses, underground tunnels and railway rights of way.

But no one would say Calgary's LRT is not rapid transit.

It does not matter if it is at grade. At the end of the day it still operates as a grade separated system (except downtown) with full priority and barriers from other traffic and pedestrians. And by barriers I mean more than a raised trackbed as in Toronto.

[Andrewjm3D]

Originally Posted by miketoronto

I just found out that the Sheppard LRT is most likely going to operate as a streetcar in the fact that it will have stop request buttons, and only stop at stops if people request or are waiting.
That right there tells you this is not rapid transit, but just upgraded local transit..

LOL, there you go again sounding like Rob Ford, Toronto's chief idiot, liar, and fear monger. If there is nobody at a stop, and if nobody needs off the TRAIN, then why should it stop? I'd call that sensible wouldn't you? You're trying to make it sound like it's going to have as many stops as a streetcar or bus line which is so far from the truth it's not funny.

Enjoy Transit City Mike, your mayor screwed you out of a subway. Seriously, you keep repeating BS, no matter how many times you say something over and over again it doesn't make it true.

I just found out that the Subway plan, had no plan, and no money. Oh wait anybody with a brain knew that years ago.