The TTC thread

Black Dog · November 15, 2011

Toronto next spring takes delivery of its first three mega-streetcars, which workers are building at Bombardier in Thunder Bay. These beasts, built of stainless steel wrapped in aluminum, will require a massive rethink of how we use and interact with streetcars. On the weekend, 1,200 people visited a tent at the TTC’s Hillcrest Yard on Bathurst Street, where the TTC is displaying a 3/5 length mockup of the new 30-metre streetcar.

Ford's epic Eglington fail

Mayor Rob Ford’s plan to bury the 19-km Eglinton Crosstown LRT from end to end, instead of just through the crowded core of the city, will be rightly remembered as the single most expensive infrastructure mistake in Toronto history.
In fact, this optimistically-priced $8.2 billion scheme — which is $3.6 billion more than the original amount budgeted for the Crosstown, and includes $1.4 billion to replace the Scarborough RT — will make us harken back nostalgically to an innocent era of smaller flubs, like the Ontario government’s original Scarborough RT or even Mike Harris’ decision to cancel the Eglinton West subway after the province and Metro spent $100 million digging a tunnel stub that was subsequently filled in.

Ford’s vision of an Eglinton Crosstown that’s hidden from view will bring a deep blush of shame to the faces of future generations of Torontonians.

Black Dog · November 15, 2011

City urges `relief' subway line from Pape to Union

A TTC "relief'' subway line, a 20-year-old concept that died in the late 1980s, was resurrected this week at Toronto council amid heightened sensitivities over the future of mass transit in the region.
Councillors voted 31-13 to ask Metrolinx to give a higher priority in its 15-year plan to the downtown relief line – a subway or underground light rail that would run south from Pape or Donlands station to link directly to Union Station, and potentially continue west and north to Dundas West or Keele station.

The line is included in Metrolinx's regional transportation plan, but on a more hazy horizon of 25 years.

Toronto now wants it put ahead of the $2.4 billion plan to extend the Yonge line north to Richmond Hill.

Gee, why don't they just get the private sector to build it a la the Sheppard extension?

Or they could revert to the original plan for Eglington and plow the $2.2B in savings their into a relief line.

Edited November 15, 2011 by Black Dog

fellowtraveller · November 15, 2011

In fact, this optimistically-priced $8.2 billion scheme

That is a lot of money.

Who is paying for improved tranist in Toronto?

Michael Hardner · November 15, 2011

Heavily politicized megaprojects are a bad idea. Transit planning needs to continue forward, with changing administrations only having minimal effect. Otherwise, we'll never make progress.

Black Dog · November 15, 2011

Heavily politicized megaprojects are a bad idea. Transit planning needs to continue forward, with changing administrations only having minimal effect. Otherwise, we'll never make progress.

I agree and that was the idea behind setting up Metrolinx, but it doesn't seem to have worked. I don't think it's possible to take politics out of planning.

Michael Hardner · November 15, 2011

I agree and that was the idea behind setting up Metrolinx, but it doesn't seem to have worked. I don't think it's possible to take politics out of planning.

Read 'The Power Broker' by Robert Caro. They set up a Transportation Authority in NYC that was so far out of political control that it became a power in itself. This was the birth of the 'authority'....

Tough to do, especially because what politician doesn't want control ?

CPCFTW · November 16, 2011

The GTA is projected to grow from 6 to about 9-10mil in the next 25 years. We'll be happy furher Ford put our LRT underground then. Thank god for conservatives and their forward thinking minds.

Black Dog · November 16, 2011

The GTA is projected to grow from 6 to about 9-10mil in the next 25 years. We'll be happy furher Ford put our LRT underground then. Thank god for conservatives and their forward thinking minds.

None of this makes sense. But thanks for trying!

CPCFTW · November 16, 2011

None of this makes sense. But thanks for trying!

Aww you'll figure it out one of these days. Don't give yourself a headache thinking too hard! :lol:

Edited November 16, 2011 by CPCFTW

Black Dog · November 16, 2011

Aww you'll figure it out one of these days. Don't give yourself a headache thinking too hard!

It actually does make my head hurt when people who espouse fiscal responsibility as a doctrine think overspending by billions on a project for purely aesthetic reasons (the above ground portions of the original Eglinton plan would not have affected traffic in any way) is a good thing.

Look, I get it: you don't know anything about this. You're just popping up to seal clap and hoot for your political heroes. Educate yourself and STFU in the interim.

CPCFTW · November 16, 2011

It actually does make my head hurt when people who espouse fiscal responsibility as a doctrine think overspending by billions on a project for purely aesthetic reasons (the above ground portions of the original Eglinton plan would not have affected traffic in any way) is a good thing.

Look, I get it: you don't know anything about this. You're just popping up to seal clap and hoot for your political heroes. Educate yourself and STFU in the interim.

When did I mention anything about aesthetics?

I said we'll be happy we don't have hemp-powered streetcars clogging Eglinton when the GTA population is about 3-4 million people larger.

I hope you took a few tylenols before reading the above sentence, it's a doozy.

Black Dog · November 16, 2011

When did I mention anything about aesthetics?

You didn't, but that's the only reason Ford wants this underground.

I said we'll be happy we don't have hemp-powered streetcars clogging Eglinton when the GTA population is about 3-4 million people larger.

I guess you missed the part where the above ground portions of the original Eglinton line were on their own separated right-of-way. Oops.

I hope you took a few tylenols before reading the above sentence, it's a doozy.

Yeah it's hard to believe you can be so stupid and still figure out how to turn on a computer.

CPCFTW · November 16, 2011

You didn't, but that's the only reason Ford wants this underground.

Cite?

I guess you missed the part where the above ground portions of the original Eglinton line were on their own separated right-of-way. Oops.

The above ground portion will occupy space that roads could be occupying. Or did you forget that roads can be expanded? Oops.

Speaking of educating oneself, did you educate yourself on the fact that the subway will be able to go faster and move more passengers by being underground? Oops?

Yeah it's hard to believe you can be so stupid and still figure out how to turn on a computer.

Typical.

Edited November 16, 2011 by CPCFTW

Black Dog · November 16, 2011

Cite?

See the original article I posted.

The above ground portion will occupy space that roads could be occupying. Or did you forget that roads can be expanded? Oops.

Roads that would be congested with cars regardless. Of course if you actually built a decent transit system, people might actually forgo their cars. But it's hard to build a decent transit system when you tare pissing away money on projects like this.

The road allowances on Eglinton East are so wide that the city never planned to remove lanes to accommodate the right-of-way. But the additional cost of burying the line will mean fewer stations, so the utility of the project is actually reduced compared to the Transit City version.
...consider this comparison: the St. Clair right-of-way, at 7.5 km, is about the same length as the stretch of Eglinton East that will be buried as per Ford’s plan. The St. Clair ROW’s capital cost infamously swelled by $58 million, from an estimated $48 million to $106 million — a detail Ford and others used to bludgeon Transit City. Burying the Crosstown east of Brentcliffe, where it was to emerge from a tunnel, will cost about thirty times more than the overrun on St. Clair West.

Fiscal responsibility! :lol:

Typical.

Yeah you are fairly typical mouth breathing Fordpologist.

CPCFTW · November 16, 2011

See the original article I posted.

Your cite for your assertion that Ford only wants the subway below ground for aesthetic reasons is a biased opinion piece? :lol:

Roads that would be congested with cars regardless. Of course if you actually built a decent transit system, people might actually forgo their cars. But it's hard to build a decent transit system when you tare pissing away money on projects like this.

More lanes = less congestion. It's pretty simple.

Your true intentions are showing, you want everyone to forego cars because of your boner for the "green" movement.

Want a cite? Give me a few days to publish an internet article explaining your opinion. :lol:

Yeah you are fairly typical mouth breathing Fordpologist.

Grow up.

Edited November 16, 2011 by CPCFTW

Black Dog · November 16, 2011

Your cite for your assertion that Ford only wants the subway below ground for aesthetic reasons is a biased opinion piece?

There's no other rational explanation. It's either that or Ford, like you, doesn't know naything about transit or planning.

More lanes = less congestion. It's pretty simple.

If it wasn't already obvious that you know FA about this, this would seal it. More roads=less congestion is a common fallacy among people who don't know any better. The simple fact is, rather than relieving traffic volumes, new roads actually increase demand as more people decide to drive as a result of what they perceive as improvements to the road network.

Your true intentions are showing, you want everyone to forego cars because of your boner for the "green" movement.

And this is based on...?

Want a cite? Give me a few days to publish an internet article explaining your opinion.

Grow up.

Not really up on irony are you? Idiot.

Charles Anthony · November 16, 2011

Everybody,

Stop the personal attacks and insults.

Ch. A.

Shady · November 16, 2011

It's not suprising that a Black Dog thread about Rob Ford would end up in insults.

Michael Hardner · November 16, 2011

More lanes = less congestion. It's pretty simple.

Transit is a far more efficient way to carry people than roads, though. They can't make a lot of the current roads any wider as it is.

fellowtraveller · November 16, 2011

where is the $8.2 billion required for this exspansion coming from?

Black Dog · November 16, 2011

It's not suprising that a Black Dog thread about Rob Ford would end up in insults.

Not as surprising as you popping in with nothing to add. Get your BDDS under control.

CPCFTW · November 16, 2011

Transit is a far more efficient way to carry people than roads, though. They can't make a lot of the current roads any wider as it is.

No doubt. But this thread is about putting the transit underground so that we can have both faster public transit along the eglinton line, as well as the possibility of more eglinton car lanes in the future. Transit is not being affected other than being put underground where it will be able to go faster.

Edited November 16, 2011 by CPCFTW

Black Dog · November 16, 2011

No doubt. But this thread is about putting the transit underground so that we can have both faster public transit along the eglinton line, as well as the possibility of more eglinton car lanes in the future. Transit is not being affected other than being put underground where it will be able to go faster.

1. There's no indication it will be able to travel faster because it's underground versus on a separated right of way with signal priority pace Transit City.

2. Transit on Eglinton is being affected because the new line will have 18 fewer stops spaced further apart than the original proposal.

3. Transit across Toronto is affected because this boneheaded decision to put it underground is diverting money from other transit projects (such as the Finch West and Sheppard East LRT that Ford killed or a possible downtown relief line).

guyser · November 16, 2011

... as well as the possibility of more eglinton car lanes in the future.

You can put in tenfold the lanes and we'll still be left with most of the gridlock we have now.

A funnel can be ten feet across allowing for more water to be put in to drain, but we are still left with a 2 inch spout. Guess what? The drainage is still slow. And that is exactly what you propose.

Gettig people who do not need to drive into transit should be the aim.

Eglinton being 6 lanes East and 6 lanes West is nice pie in the sky, but when it hits Bayview it will bottleneck back past Don Mills.....much like it does today.

Ergo, no time savings.

Edited November 16, 2011 by guyser

Black Dog · November 25, 2011

TTC service cuts will hit busiest routes

In September, the commission approved changing its “peak and off peak loading standards,” which means that it will be running fewer vehicles on the specified routes starting Jan. 8. Mayor Rob Ford has asked every department to cut 10%. For the TTC, that brought its funding shortfall to more than $80-million. By rolling back loading standard levels to 2004 levels, it will save $15-million.

Another nail in the coffin of Rob Ford's "no service cuts, guaranteed" promise, another middle finger to anyone who doesn't drive in this city. And for a mere $15 million in savings (or roughly a third of what the now-dead VRT brought in). All this while the TTC considers a fare increase on a system that already derives the bulk of its revenue from fares.