Comments on: Hazy Future for Transit City as Toronto Gears Up for Mayoral Election

By: Matt Fisher

Matt Fisher — Wed, 26 May 2010 18:04:51 +0000

Yes, that is bad. But it should be noted that there is also a BRT project well underway in Mississauga at this time, from the west terminus of the Eglinton Crosstown LRT. I support it, but ultimately it should be a full subway (and I’m going to say that the plans for the light rail line aren’t always the most well thought out). For example, the airport should be served by a branch via the ex-Highway 27 and Dixon Rd., and Mississauga should be served by a branch (the current route up to Commerce, where the BRT project would terminate), which would be more effective, in my opinion.

There is also a BRT project the TTC is undergoing on Kingston Road, which would go from the streetcar terminus to Eglinton. While I would much rather see this as an extension as light rail, the demand isn’t unfortunately currently justified, so bus rapid transit is sufficient.

By: Nathanael

Nathanael — Tue, 18 May 2010 21:59:31 +0000

Toronto’s more than a little subway-mad. Surface light rail with its own lanes *if done properly* — and admittedly so far the TTC and City of Toronto seem to have somehow cooperated to prevent it from being done properly, per Steve Munro’s blog — can provide tremendous relief for outlying areas. They can also dive into subways in the truly-congested downtown areas (and indeed the Eglington line is planned to be in subway in the center section, surface on the outlying sections).

By: Alon Levy

Alon Levy — Wed, 12 May 2010 06:48:36 +0000

The political difficulty isn’t about Canada; it’s about Ontario. Vancouver has no trouble building rapid transit at reasonable cost. Calgary has done even better: it reserved surface right-of-way decades in advance, so that it more or less got rapid transit at the cost of light rail.

By: Brandi

Brandi — Wed, 12 May 2010 03:32:34 +0000

Toronto definitely seems like a city that could use more subway. I mean it is the largest city in Canada and has the worst congestion. Is light rail really going to solve those problems? I mean I think in some of the outer areas light rail could be effective but some of the corridors it just seems like a bad idea. Shame it seems like Canada has the same problem as America in that is is practically politically and financially infeasible to build subway. I can think of a few places like the Geary in San Fransisco and the Red Line in Baltimore that could really use subway. I mean take the Red Line in Baltimore and this Elington Line in Toronto, if you are already going to build huge tunnels, why not build a subway that can provide time savings and much increased capacity. I wish we really did live in a world where more politicians fought over getting the right transit built.

By: Pantheon

Pantheon — Tue, 11 May 2010 23:03:12 +0000

Toronto is a city in crisis. The roads are extremely congested and average commute times are “by far the longest in North America”, a whopping 40% longer than Los Angeles. It isn’t a coincidence that L.A. and Toronto have the strongest political incentive to expand their meager transit offerings. I therefore disagree with three points:

1) This is not a story of one politician heroically championing transit and moving the debate. Politicians are by definition never heroes. They only reflect reality.

2) Rossi’s opposition to transit is not “pro-car”. How can it be pro-car to be against relieving congestion? In a city like Toronto, the U.S.-style car vs. transit paradigm doesn’t apply.

3) Surface running light rail will do little to solve Toronto’s problems. Subways are the only answer, and sadly the inability to afford them doesn’t change that.

By: Slaton the LSAT Tutor

Slaton the LSAT Tutor — Tue, 11 May 2010 22:03:09 +0000

I wish Atlanta had a strong mayor who would take the initiative in changing our transportation system. Our system (MARTA) is based on dumpy buses that are constantly breaking down in the middle of their routes, leaving passengers stranded and causing huge backups. Our train’s aren’t that much better either; we need a reform and building a better transportation system is definitely worth the cost.

By: TGUY

TGUY — Mon, 10 May 2010 21:05:50 +0000

The map is correct. The Richmond Hill extension has not been funded.

By: Leo Petr

Leo Petr — Mon, 10 May 2010 19:27:43 +0000

@Yonah:
The plan is to start with two-LRV trains on Eglinton and three-LRV trains on the Scarborough RT rebuild.

I might be mistaken, but I think the underground stations on Eglinton will be finished for two-LRV trains with extra space left over for future expansion to three-LRV trains.

By: Steven Dale

Steven Dale — Mon, 10 May 2010 18:24:11 +0000

@Yonah: The new LRT vehicles would be twice as long as the current streetcar fleet. The current streetcars, however, hold a maximum of 80 – 100 (in crush loads). Therefore, the new vehicles are more likely to only be capable of holding 200-250 (maximum). Great post as always and excellent analysis!

By: Yonah Freemark

Yonah Freemark — Mon, 10 May 2010 17:41:00 +0000

From what I understand, the trains will be twice as long as existing streetcars, making them 150 feet long with a capacity of 300 passengers each, or 400 during crush loads.