[Lemmy]

OnTheIce OnTheIce:

LRT is a fancy streetcar, no matter how fancy it looks.

A streetcar runs on the street and stops every block or so, just like as a city bus. LRT doesn't run on the street. It runs on a train bed. And it stops at more distant stations. LRT is exactly like a subway, except above ground and, hence, cheaper to build.

OnTheIce OnTheIce:

And the LRT option isn't going to get people out of their cars.

Then a subway won't either 'cause they're the same damn thing, except one's underground and the other isn't. The only difference to the user is that you don't have to walk down the stairs to use the LRT.

[Tricks]

Lemmy Lemmy:

OnTheIce OnTheIce:

And the LRT option isn't going to get people out of their cars.

Then a subway won't either 'cause they're the same damn thing, except one's underground and the other isn't. The only difference to the user is that you don't have to walk down the stairs to use the LRT.

The difference is that the subway won't take up two lanes. So if it doesn't reduce traffic, it won't make it worse either.

[Lemmy]

LRT doesn't have to take up any lanes. There's lots of places to put it.

[BeaverFever]

OnTheIce OnTheIce:

Wow, how false is that.

Do you know that people drive to Subway stations and then take the train into Toronto? The people that use the Yonge line aren't just people who live on or travel on Yonge.

The Sheppard line is Ghost line? Yea, those numbers keep growing, are larger than the Scarborough RT and have spawned tons of development along it's path. New retail, condo's, etc. More tax dollars for your fine City.

All those people in East Scarborough that have brutal transit options would happily drive to a East Subway location and take the train along Sheppard or Eglinton.

When you accommodate all those people clogging up your roads, you make the City better for the residents. Neither project benefits me at all, it just makes more sense for the future of the City; having been a resident of Toronto for 23 years.


Crappy suburban lifestyle? Yea, it sucks living in a house double the size for the same price, with good roads and infrastructure.

Eglinton and Sheppard are not Yonge so I don't subscribe to your "if you build it they will come" approach to the Eglinton and Shep lines. It's a straight shot down the Yonge line to the core, but its quite another thing to take a subway to the end of the line just to get to another subway. Few if any suburbanites are going to drive to the outskirts of Toronto just to spend another 90-minutes on the TTC to get downtown. I ride both the Yonge and Shep lines every day (I also take a streetcar and bus to/from the subway). I spend about 90 minutes on my commute each way. I can tell you first-hand, the Shep line is a ghost town and few people even make the trek that I regularly do.

The people in Scarbourough mostly take the RT to the Bloor Line, nobody is interested in transiting across the north part of the city uncessarily when they're headed downtown.

The real problem for Transit here is that the Y-U-S and Bloor lines are well over peak capacity. There are too many people crowding those lines, particularly at the far points. The funny thing is, most of the people crowding those lines don't even live or work along those lines, they are transfering to/from surface routes headed off in all directions to get to/from their points of travel. What are needed are alternate ways to feed people from a hundred different corners of the city into the downtown core and back out again, and not herding them en masse unnecessarily through a small handful of transfer points and onto the extremities of the Y-U-S and Bloor lines.

The original Transit City plan had a number of LRT routes crossing different parts of the city, both North-South and W-E. Many of these would take riders directly from their neighbourhood (not a subway station 2 miles away) and bring them directly to the city core, without having to touch the subway. And the ones that DO bring people to the subway can do so at the less crowded subway stations or stations that are closer to their final destination, to ease crowding and minimize the 2nd leg of the trip. The people want to go downtown, so why not take them directly downtown, instead of across Eglinton and then down Yonge? You cant build dozens of subways heading in all directions, but you can build dozens of LRT lines along existing roadways.

[BartSimpson]

Lemmy Lemmy:

LRT doesn't have to take up any lanes. There's lots of places to put it.

Like, say, underground in a subway?

I'm not tweaking you here, but in San Francisco along Market there's streetcars on the street, Light Rail on the first sublevel, and the subway (BART) below that.

[Lemmy]

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

Lemmy Lemmy:

LRT doesn't have to take up any lanes. There's lots of places to put it.

Like, say, underground in a subway?

Well, yeah, but we're trying to provide a service in the most cost-effective manner. Hell, that's the mandate that Rob Ford was elected on. Why would you spend 10 times the money to put it under ground just for the sake of it being underground?

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

I'm not tweaking you here, but in San Francisco along Market there's streetcars on the street, Light Rail on the first sublevel, and the subway (BART) below that.

You're not going to tweak me. I honestly don't give a shit what Toronto builds. But as a provincial tax payer, I'd prefer to see government money used as smartly as possible. And I lived in Boston for years and their "T" is similar to San Francisco's system: a web of different types of light rail and subway. Keeping subways in Toronto's downtown core, with LRT to the 'burbs would resemble those models and seems the smartest decision, both practically and economically.

[OnTheIce]

Lemmy Lemmy:

LRT doesn't have to take up any lanes. There's lots of places to put it.

But in Toronto, they're removing two lanes and putting it on the street. That's the plan.

[Lemmy]

OnTheIce OnTheIce:

But in Toronto, they're removing two lanes and putting it on the street. That's the plan.

Then change that part of the plan. But if Eglinton is reduced to one lane each way (which it already is in places) what's the big deal? It's not a major artery. It's not we'd be ripping up the 401. Anyone who commutes on Eglinton could just as easily switch to Lawrence or St. Clair.

[OnTheIce]

Lemmy Lemmy:

OnTheIce OnTheIce:

But in Toronto, they're removing two lanes and putting it on the street. That's the plan.

Then change that part of the plan. But if Eglinton is reduced to one lane each way (which it already is in places) what's the big deal? It's not a major artery. It's not we'd be ripping up the 401. Anyone who commutes on Eglinton could just as easily switch to Lawrence or St. Clair.

That part of the plan isn't up for debate. It's either below or above ground on Eglinton.

Have you ever spent time on any of these roads during rush hour?

All major roads heading into Toronto...Lawrence, Eglinton, Ellesmere, Kingston Rd are very busy.

Eglinton IS a major artery both into and out of Toronto....and across Toronto.

[andyt]

Sort of a vicious cycle you guys are caught in. Build the subway and all the people will abandon their cars and the roads will be empty so they could build an LRT line but then people won't abandon their cars so the roads will be too busy to make room for LRT so you have to build a subway.................................... Oh, the humanity!

[OnTheIce]

andyt andyt:

Sort of a vicious cycle you guys are caught in. Build the subway and all the people will abandon their cars and the roads will be empty so they could build an LRT line but then people won't abandon their cars so the roads will be too busy to make room for LRT so you have to build a subway.................................... Oh, the humanity!

It just makes little sense to take roads that are already congested and remove 1/3 of the lanes to make room for a LRT on a route already serviced by buses.

[bootlegga]

OnTheIce OnTheIce:

Sorry, but what works in Edmonton and what works in Toronto, isn't even in the same category. The suburbs of Toronto have more people than all of Edmonton.

Coming from someone who actually drives on these roads in question (was just down on Eglinton Ave) in Scarborough removing 2 of the 6 lanes would be utter chaos on a road that's the economic hub of this area.

Of course the LRT isn't a streetcar, but they're very similar in a lot of ways...including taking up vital room on the road for vehicles that aren't going away.

I don't get why we don't stick with busses if the LRT plans to have as many stops? I mean, at least a bus can drive around accidents,debris, ice, while the LRT is just stuck in it's tracks and they have to bring in a bus to move the people anyways.

Sure it can work in Toronto. Size is irrelevant in this case.

The fact is that an LRT line can carry thousands more people per hour than a four lane road can, even at peak times. A one lane road can carry about 2500 people per hour (calculated by multiplying roughly 2000 vehicles per hour with 1.2 people per car), while a LRT line (using multiple LRT cars of course) can carry upwards of 20,000 per hour, using less right of way. In essence, replacing two lanes of roads with LRT lines vastly INCREASES the ability of a road to carry traffic.

For example, an existing four lane road carries roughly 10,000 people per hour, while the same road separated into two lanes of car traffic and an LRT line carries 25,000 people per hour.

Which solution does Toronto need? It's a no brainer - the LRT line.

And while it would be wonderful to put the lines underground, the price rapidly increases when an LRT line goes underground - by as much as 10 times. So your choice as a taxpayer is to either build a $2 billion LRT surface system or a $20 billion underground system. Which are you willing to pay for?

Even an elevated system is much cheaper than an underground one. Not only that, construction times are much shorter for surface lines than they are for underground lines, which means the line will be finished quicker and the extra capacity available sooner.

[bootlegga]

OnTheIce OnTheIce:

It just makes little sense to take roads that are already congested and remove 1/3 of the lanes to make room for a LRT on a route already serviced by buses.

Not when the LRT replacing the buses can carry thousands more per hour than the buses can (buses can carry about 7000 people per hour, while LRTs can carry 20,000).

[OnTheIce]

BeaverFever BeaverFever:

Eglinton and Sheppard are not Yonge so I don't subscribe to your "if you build it they will come" approach to the Eglinton and Shep lines. It's a straight shot down the Yonge line to the core, but its quite another thing to take a subway to the end of the line just to get to another subway. Few if any suburbanites are going to drive to the outskirts of Toronto just to spend another 90-minutes on the TTC to get downtown. I ride both the Yonge and Shep lines every day (I also take a streetcar and bus to/from the subway). I spend about 90 minutes on my commute each way. I can tell you first-hand, the Shep line is a ghost town and few people even make the trek that I regularly do.

The people in Scarbourough mostly take the RT to the Bloor Line, nobody is interested in transiting across the north part of the city uncessarily when they're headed downtown.

The real problem for Transit here is that the Y-U-S and Bloor lines are well over peak capacity. There are too many people crowding those lines, particularly at the far points. The funny thing is, most of the people crowding those lines don't even live or work along those lines, they are transfering to/from surface routes headed off in all directions to get to/from their points of travel. What are needed are alternate ways to feed people from a hundred different corners of the city into the downtown core and back out again, and not herding them en masse unnecessarily through a small handful of transfer points and onto the extremities of the Y-U-S and Bloor lines.

The original Transit City plan had a number of LRT routes crossing different parts of the city, both North-South and W-E. Many of these would take riders directly from their neighbourhood (not a subway station 2 miles away) and bring them directly to the city core, without having to touch the subway. And the ones that DO bring people to the subway can do so at the less crowded subway stations or stations that are closer to their final destination, to ease crowding and minimize the 2nd leg of the trip. The people want to go downtown, so why not take them directly downtown, instead of across Eglinton and then down Yonge? You cant build dozens of subways heading in all directions, but you can build dozens of LRT lines along existing roadways.

50,000 people a day use the Sheppard line, perhaps you missed them.

Why have lines on other routes and not go directly into the core? Amazingly enough, things happen outside the core. That's why. People don't all live and work within walking distance of Union Station.

The reason why the traffic is so bad in and around Toronto is because transit options are terrible.

We all should be pushing for a regional transit system where all systems are involved.

[andyt]

bootlegga bootlegga:

Sure it can work in Toronto. Size is irrelevant in this case.

The fact is that an LRT line can carry thousands more people per hour than a four lane road can, even at peak times. A one lane road can carry about 2500 people per hour (calculated by multiplying roughly 2000 vehicles per hour with 1.2 people per car), while a LRT line (using multiple LRT cars of course) can carry upwards of 20,000 per hour, using less right of way. In essence, replacing two lanes of roads with LRT lines vastly INCREASES the ability of a road to carry traffic.

For example, an existing four lane road carries roughly 10,000 people per hour, while the same road separated into two lanes of car traffic and an LRT line carries 25,000 people per hour.

Which solution does Toronto need? It's a no brainer - the LRT line.

And while it would be wonderful to put the lines underground, the price rapidly increases when an LRT line goes underground - by as much as 10 times. So your choice as a taxpayer is to either build a $2 billion LRT surface system or a $20 billion underground system. Which are you willing to pay for?

Even an elevated system is much cheaper than an underground one. Not only that, construction times are much shorter for surface lines than they are for underground lines, which means the line will be finished quicker and the extra capacity available sooner.

Quit being reasonable. This isn't about public transit at all, but blowing the wad on subways to say money's been spent on transit while in reality it's about stopping the 'war on cars.' People will have nice smooth roads to zip along on, who cares if nobody uses the proposed subway.