City
Why I want subways, but would settle for Transit City
Mayor Rob Ford plans to dissolve "Transit City," former Mayor David Miller's plan to extend Toronto's existing transit systems to service the east and west ends of the GTA, and some of the north. Much has been written about the fact that the city has already spent about $130 million on "Transit City," while Ford has committed to new contracts in the amount of $1.38 Billion for his proposed transit plan.
It's no secret that Toronto is in a bind.
As the city's population burgeons, and transit infrastructure stagnates, Toronto now ranks among the top cities for longest daily commutes, alongside Los Angeles and New Delhi. Our current transit system needs to address this problem, but because the province has cut back funding, we have very little money to deal with our growing transit problem.
"Transit City" had much going for it: it planned to service Toronto's priority neighbourhoods, and to begin unify the GTA to create a more inclusive Toronto that caters to all of its boroughs. The LRT lines seemed to be the answer to limited funds and an immediate transit problem, offering purportedly better value for money than the more expensive subway route. There has also been much public outcry over the dissolution of "Transit City," with several sites petitioning to "Save Transit City."
But Ford, as he's made abundantly clear, has plans to stop "Transit city" in its tracks. While I applaud Ford for seeing in the subway a better long-term approach to transit, I resent his reasons for doing so: "Ladies and Gentlemen, the war on the car stops today." In fact, Ford's plans to build on the subway line (and that, too, in only a limited area -- east of Kennedy to Scarborough Town Centre, and east of Don Mills to connect with Kennedy) will cost the city roughly $250 Million per kilometre (some estimate more), money that the city simply doesn't have and that the province is highly unlikely to deliver.
Ford's puny alterations are also not enough to address the city's need for transit, but I do think that he's right about subways over LRT. While I am in full support of a transit system that seeks to unify the GTA, and service priority neighbourhoods, I don't think that LRT is the best way to go over the long term -- and I'm not alone. Although LRT (Light Rail Transit) has worked in cities with cold weather (Ottawa, Manchester, Dublin), most LRTs are located in cities with rather temperate climes (San Jose, Palo Alto, Houston, etc.), which is unsurprising, given that train cars travel above ground, and are thus subject to the elements. What is more, LRTs tend to be located in those cities with a lower population density than Toronto.
The subway system is better than LRT because it's faster, more reliable, and is able to ferry more people around. I also view subway development as key in the city's overall development. If Toronto is to become a major player on the world's stage, then our subway system must support our growth. Paris, Chicago, London, Madrid, New York, Tokyo, all have fabulous subway systems. It's time that Toronto caught up.
I'd love to see "Transit City" in a subway form, and one that extends even beyond Miller's plans. As the recent election proved, Toronto is made up of more than just the downtown core, yet the gap between the core and the suburbs remains wide. Transit that acknowledges that the majority of Toronto's population lives outside the core would help close that gap in so many ways. Thus, our transit also must amalgamate with other borough-linked transit systems to unify the city (Viva, GO), to encourage people in places like Richmond Hill, Vaughan and Markham to use the subway system. And I want to see a revival of the former dream -- the Sheppard line -- which linked Sheppard to Downsview and promised to continue east to Kennedy (from Don Mills) and west to Humber College and the Airport.
But I can only dream. I know the reality, and, for the time being, agree, with reluctance, that "Transit City" is what we need.
If our mayors are like landlords of Toronto, Ford is a "spare-no-expense" type, whose long-term goals are laudable (if grossly misguided), but whose construction plans will remain half finished because he will run out of money in the middle of building (à la Mel Lastman). Miller and "Transit City" backers are the kindly landlords with good intentions, who make do with what they have: they may build clapboard extensions to their houses, but the renos will get done and will work just fine.
Writing by Sheetal Lodhia.
Photos by kevinseanw and PJ Mixer in the blogTO Flickr pool.
Discussion
118 Comments
Sort By Oldest First / Newest First
Subscribe
We are falling behind our transit needs because we had focused too much on the automobile to get around. The automobile runs on petroleum, and there is only a finite supply of it. Remember 2008, that was only a warning, saved by the recession causing a reduction in demand. Today, the demand in China and India for petroleum is sucking it up along with the western countries.
Will we have only a small section of heavy rail subway in one corner of Toronto, or a large network of light rapid transit across Toronto, when we will be facing $5.00/litre fuel at the pump. Which will it be?
We still need heavy rail subways, especially as a downtown relief line.
For the time being.
You can forget about a subway anywhere an LRT is built. No one in their right mind is going to rip out the tracks to put in a subway. Transit City is not "for the time being"
It is pretty much forever.
I want subways. I want the province, and the Feds to pay for it and I want politicians and citizens to fucking fight for it. Demand subways Toronto.
Up to a hundred year head-start comes to mind...
Also, I know people like to cite Ottawa's O-Train, but it's a mesely single line north south, the majority of the city's (excellent) transit is still buses (with priority lanes on highways & local roads during rush hour).
A few things other thoughts.
A: Toronto does not rank alongside L.A. and New Delhi for commuting times. That was a flawed study which compared commuting times in the entire GTA with commuting times only for Los Angeles, not Los Angeles County—which would be a much more apt comparison.
B: This idea that LRTs are inefficient in cold environments is pure bunk. I lived in Calgary for ten years, a city with longer, harsher, snowier winters that Toronto, and the LRT ran quite reliably there. (In fact, more reliably than Toronto’s subway.) Edmonton as well.
C: It doesn’t matter that subways are higher-capacity than LRTs, because the suburban lines will service low population densities. Want more capacity as density increases? Add more cars and more frequent service.
D: There’s an argument here that LRTs usually serve cities with lower population densities than Toronto. Downtown Toronto, maybe. Not Sheppard Ave.
E: Subways are faster, I’ll concede, but not that much faster. And only because the LRT will have more stops.
Its because of FUNDING. Funding by high levels of government with large budgets. Not on the back of a single city.
But in Canada, funding Toronto is a third rail in politics. Pun intended.
And until amalgamation, we were even smaller than that. You can't really compare Toronto-a medium density, largely suburban metropolis that only recently joined the ranks of truly big cities--to New York.
TTC in toronto is around than 75 years old.
a country who's growth was not fueled by the industrial revolution so much as post-war immigration did not see the need to have viable, inexpensive rail either above nor underground in order to sustain industries such as textiles, the TTC was built more on "ease of transporting citizens" and less on "ease of transporting workers to their jobs".
Is Sheetal simply a concerned citizen? Giving some background on your contributors would provide some helpful context. While I am sympathetic with the article's sentiment, some statements seem strange. For instance, Amsterdam is very dense and has good light rail. London, new York etc are dense too and have subway. Toronto isn't that dense but will get denser and could likely succeed with either implementation. We shouldn't get so excited about subways because Paris does a great job with them. There is far more to Paris public transportation than just subways. We can blaze our own trail.
Remember, our goal should be a livable city. Part of that is a transit plan. And part is subways and LRT. But biking, walking and, yes, smart handling of car traffic are all important.
We should also keep in mind that much of the projected ridership for some of the transit city lines is not really considered optimum for a full subway.
1) VERY FEW arterial roads suffer anywhere near the congestion with traffic that the downtown cores do, and as a resident of the suburbs, I can assure anyone that the 3-lane streets CAN suffer a reduction in lanes (1 each way) to make way for LRT.
2) Most people from the suburbs drive because its the easiest and fastest way to get around. That said, quite a few of them who work in the downtown core, or even as far-flung as Etobicoke, travel TO the subway, park there, and to get to work on the subway. No hassle with parking, traffic etc... My bet is that a solid LRT would result in a significant cut in the number of people choosing to drive that distance.
3) Maintaining infrastructure against the cold isn't exactly a harder mission than we already have, and I can't see this as being a primary reason to vote against transit city.
Just my theory. It's also exactly what I would do.
Is Sheetal simply a concerned citizen? Giving some background on your contributors would provide some helpful context. While I am sympathetic with the article's sentiment, some statements seem strange. For instance, Amsterdam is very dense and has good light rail. London, new York etc are dense too and have subway. Toronto isn't that dense but will get denser and could likely succeed with either implementation. We shouldn't get so excited about subways because Paris does a great job with them. There is far more to Paris public transportation than just subways. We can blaze our own trail.
Remember, our goal should be a livable city. Part of that is a transit plan. And part is subways and LRT. But biking, walking and, yes, smart handling of car traffic are all important.
This is not a fact, nor should it be presented as such. The climate argument is old and irrelevant.
Besides, our wonderful subway always has problems in winter weather, because a subway isn't exclusively underground. And don't forget the constant "smell of smoke at track level" delays.
LRT isn't ideal, but neither are subways, so let's not forget that.
Also on this issue, I think when constructions for transit projects begin, they should be allowed to finished, rather than waste millions digging holes and filling them in. Otherwise, Ford is going to put in place a plan that is then up to debate once again by whoever replaces him. I don't think phase 1 of Transit City should be up to debate when $137 million has already been spent, plus a reported $140 to $150 million to cancel the contracts worth over a billion dollars, on top of how many more millions to rip out the tracks already placed down. Phase 1 should be allowed the be finished and then phase 2 and later is what should be up for debate. If Ford gets construction of subways started then, whoever replaces him should have to let that project finish, even if that person won on an election platform that was anti-subways. Any future plans that Ford has made that had yet to start construction at that point (years down the line) should be up for debate at this point. It's the only way we are going to get any process in transit infrastructure. Ideally there would be some laws forcing new mayors to respect transit projects where construction started.
>Up to a hundred year head-start comes to mind...
Higher taxes also comes to mind.
These LRTs aren't traveling along Queen or King Sts where the density along the street is high and density hundreds of metres away remains high - we're talking about LRTs that go through the inner suburbs of the city. The subway shouldn't be built so that in 30 years it reaches quarter capacity, it should be opened when the LRT system becomes overcrowded.
The pragmatic approach is the only way to ensure that the subway lines at least cover most of their costs, as was done with the Yonge and Bloor-Danforth lines. It's also the way other cities built subways and it's the way a private enterprise would build the subways, as can be seen by the subways built in NYC, London, and Paris.
Please when writing articles, do research on the topic first. It shows here that research was not done. The operating costs of a subway system with low ridership is much higher. Subways do not per se increase development of the city (Bloor Danforth Line... Spadina segment of the subway line). The article is completely flawed... if this was a paper for school it would fail. The studies have been done and subway ridership is not supported in those areas of Toronto. Even the Downtown Relief Line supports subway level ridership from the east end down to Yonge. A extended subway system requires much higher taxes than we pay.... considering we just elected Rob Ford, it's not something citizens of Toronto want.
NYC subway in 1906 was already as large than Toronto's in 2010.
The most costly is the cost in lost opportunity. It's been planned, we don't have money, we need Transit City to get things going.
http://www.ottawacitizen.com/story_print.html?id=3949414&;sponsor=
New York's transit system is unlikely to be replicated in Toronto any time soon, since the very first builders of the subway lines were two private companies in competition with each other - the drive to offer more extensive and further-reaching services to outstrip the other guy was a pretty big motivator in getting lines and stations built, as were attempts to "get there first" by building services to low-density areas. The city bought out the two companies in 1940 and has operated the MTA ever since.In many areas, the competitors tracks ran parallel to each other, allowing the city to operate express lines when it took over the system.
None of this is really replicable in Toronto, leaving the province, the city, and most of all, the riders, to foot the bill for long-overdue infrastructure upgrades. I don't care if it's LRT, subways, or helicopters driven by mice. All I know is that riders should be able to get to work, to the airport, to the other side of the city, and downtown without spending lots of money and/or lots of time.
@omar: you are correct, and in fact both Paris and London have LRTs (Docklands LRT in London and the Tram 4 in Paris) in addition to their legacy subway systems. Good cities have good, reliable transit, regardless of modality, period. The modality depends on biggest bang for the buck, i.e. greatest number of people served, which is something Ford, Stinz, and Metrolinx should keep in mind before using all of the TC funds for 75 km of lines to build a measely 7.5 km of subway to Scarborough Town Centre!
While the TTC is quite efficient (compared to other transit systems in North America), they still LOSE money with every rider. The $3 per trip doesn't cover the average costs to get that person where they're going.
All is not equal. Certain routes lose more money than others, some may even -earn- money. The big difference comes down to density and operating costs.
A subway through an area that doesn't yet have the density is going to hemorrhage money like nobody's business. This happened with the Sheppard line and will happen with any other subway line extended into the suburbs (with the notable exception of the York U extension most likely)
LRTs are scalable with low operating costs. Over several years more trains can be added as the LRT encourages growth along those lines. The LRTs will end up creating the growth needed to fund itself and be able to scale itself up with that growth, unlike subways, that while they might create growth, don't have the same ability to scale themselves down so they're not losing a ton of money.
Then when the density gets high enough in like 20-30 years they can bury the LRT and get almost the same capacity of a subway for still a fraction of the cost.
(Subways cost 200M per km, LRTs cost 30M for above ground and 130M for below ground. Even if an above ground LRT is created then later converted into an underground LRT, it will STILL be cheaper than building a subway initially)
Not to mention that it's very difficult to predict where growth will occur in 20-30 years. You could build a subway now and create some minor growth, but you can't guarantee that you'll <i>ever</i> get the density needed to fund it.
on the TTC website, under "jobs", the TTC had listed jobs for both the TTC and for Transit City...today jobs are listed only for the TTC...
Now i would love to see subways too, but i am at the point that any growth of the TTC is good. Because growth at the TTC has really been stagnant for too many years.
Again, more unsubstantiated writing: "LRTs tend to be located in those cities with a lower population density than Toronto". That is absolutely garbage. What are you sources? LRT exists is dozens of extremely dense European, Latin American and Asian cities. The few examples of LRT in North America exist in very dense San Francisco, to low densities of Denver. However, many North American cities, Philadelphia or Boston, etc, have LRT which compliment their subway/metro systems as well.
Furthermore, the density required to operate subways is extremely high. Because of the low-density inner suburbs of Toronto, towers would have to be built along all the lines to raise density. I highly doubt residents of these inner suburbs, the ones calling for subways, realize that they are also calling developers to build 20-40 storey towers in their backyards.
Transit City isn't just the most convenient or economical, it's the best choice period. LRT, trams, and streetcars build cities, not subways. If you claim that Yonge or Bloor are great streets, you should realize they had streetcars before subways too.
Now multiply $100 X 20 kms of subway track equals $2000 per resident for fund Rob's plan.
Now divide the $2000 per resident by say the 100 years that the track would be useful, and you have an annual tax of $20 per resident, exclusive of annual upkeep.
Rob's plan isn't that expensive.
And Canada's most important and most vibrant city deserves the best transportation system in Canada.
No excuses.
But i do agree toronto does need a better system, but in due reality i doubt it will ever happen.
I applaud when people champion subway building but then they also don't think of ways to pay for it. It's counter-productive. Ford must understand if he wants subways hes going to have to tax the F' out of the drivers hes trying to rally for. Congestion and toll chargers have to part of the broader transportation agenda if were going to see Subways a reality here in Toronto.
What I'm trying to get at is that Toronto needs to put the envy aside at other cities with robust systems, they capitalized on opportunities earlier on when it wasn't possible for Toronto to do so. What Toronto needs is more autonomy to be able to fund these types of projects on our own. Ford wont fight for this, he wont ruffle Queens Parks feathers for whom holds his future employment. Toronto and the GTA needs some type of special designation by the province, with more powers then metrolinx, something that can raise revenues on it's own without budgets and partisanship, and ideologies to get in the way! until discussion like this takes place, nothing of any true benefit will get built in this town. Transit City is funded and paid for, and thus we should support it because we could easily shoot ourselves in the foot and get nothing for another 15 years if we play are cards wrong.
What Cities are building subways? other then the Chinese nobody is touching them. Please tell me what western style city is building subways right now? other than bankrupt Spain? Los Angeles has sky high dreams of a 10 billion+ network with little to no funding in place, New York is building a line finally after planing it for nearly 45 years.
I want subways, Toronto needs at least 3 more lines IMO, but I'm also being realistic. Queens Park has no money for this and won't fork it over to fun a line that benefits such a small portion of the city.
Some have also stated they don't understand why Ford is making a big deal out of the subway issue they did not vote him in for that. They wished he would spend more time on getting rid of land transfer tax.
ford's plan of an extra subway line does not accomplish this. paying through the nose to host an international event in order to showcase your city is hardly worthwhile but Toronto is locked into this and the games will not go smoothly without an enhanced transit plan.
With Transit City, we're getting $8 billion in money from the province, why wouldn't we take advantage of it with 120km of LRT, which has similar speeds as subways but with more stops and without costing as much in terms of operating costs.
Yeah just like how we never removed the surface rail along Yonge St and later Bloor St to build subways.
If you implement a system of funding NOW, then in 25 years all you will need to do is drop shovels, and I'm sure we will be presently surprised how densities will develop. I'm not holding my breath for the private sector they mooch of our backs so anything we put in place they will make work. If you try doing it the other way you get screwed.
Excellent job, Sheetal!
2. Toronto only has one "borough" - Scarborough. The proper term is ward.
3. The province isn't "unlikely to deliver" more money for Ford's subway: McGuinty is already on record saying there won't be any more money from the province.
Apples and oranges. I must say being in Toronto for 2 years from out west. I really thought my old city had no pride in it's self. Toronto is so insecure with its self. I constantly looks to "world class cities" to see if they measure up.
They forget that these cities become world class by not caring what other did and doing what was best for them. Toronto would be setting the bar with Transit City, it would be the most extensive LRT network in the world, and yet people still cry.
Aw, muffin. The fact that it'll be 30 years before the inner suburbs have the density and ridership to justify subways and you may miss out on them doesn't make scrapping a planned, funded and tendered city-wide network a good decision.
Your argument is the reason that transit development in Toronto is decades behind the rest of the world: everyone in the city wants a subway to their doorstep and every time a project gets started the rest of the city cries and complains until it's cancelled to placate them.
If you want higher-order transit, we have a plan that's rolling along. Support Transit City, see it built, and enjoy the dividends - you'll be able to rest easily knowing that it will eventually lead to more density and more subways. The beauty of a city-wide network like TC is that when the need demands it, subway routes can be planning based on real ridership need, not pork-barrel politics like Ford's proposed Sheppard East extension.
"Rob's plan isn't that expensive."
The real long term cost isn't being considered by you OR Rob Ford... DECADES of a much higher rate of loss because of the ridership levels make subways a really really bad idea.
I didn't create the divide lol Look at the election results that shows there is a huge divide from the burbs and down town. I am not saying i like it or support it, but it is there. :D
Cities used to be designed to be walkable, because, frankly, that's how EVERYBODY used to get around. There were shops that could be walked to and grocery stores that you could take a bag of sugar home from on foot. If you were very rich you might have a horse and carriage, but that was mostly to keep the mud and poo off of your shoes, not for speed. Feet were the rule. Once we had electricity, commuter rail like streetcars became the alternative. But people still had to walk home from the train station / stop.
That is why Toronto can't build subways like these other "world class cities." Toronto is not nearly dense enough.
London: 5,100 people/sq km
Athens (recently built a subway): 5,400 ppl/sq km
Paris: 3,550
Toroto: 2,650
Also, this article continues the misinformation that the Transit City lines are all aboveground. for the last time, the Eglinton LRT will be UNDERGROUND! it's a subway but smaller.
Sigh.
Toronto fails at being world class. AGAIN.
London, NY and Paris have much better transit systems than Toronto because they were largely completed BEFORE CAR OWNERSHIP WAS WIDESPREAD. The smart way to build a better transit system post-WWII is to build rail that's light and relatively cheap to build demand and ridership, then take advantage of that increased demand to build the connecting subways that become financially viable. More or less exactly the opposite of the financial boondoggle the Ford team and his Windsor-based consigliere want to implement.
I've said it before and I'll say it again: I have no ideological objection to Ford. This city clearly needs a fiscal conservative to clean up its overspending on wages and several uninspired programs. But Ford was the WORST possible choice because he is simply not a thoughtful decision-maker or skilled manager. Mark my words, they are going to run this city into the ground and leave it in worse financial shape than before.
The technology failed, and even Vancouver (one of the few places that bought it) has stopped using it. Because of this lack of success the Scarborough RT hasn't been maintained.
None of the hundreds of successful LRTs around the world use the Scarborough RT technology. It's irrelevant.
Funny, many of these cities are looking to expand or create LRT lines, and none have created new subway lines for decades.
Funny, many of these cities are looking to expand or create LRT lines, and none have created new subway lines for decades.
Not quite. LRT's are lighter, have far less capacity than subways, such up space above ground, and are much more prone to environmental changes than subways, by the sheer fact that they are above, and not below, ground. I guess Miller never really thought this one through. Look at the freaking cold weather we've been having the past few days! In conditions like these, the Scarborough LRT freezes all the time!
Construction of LRTs is like putting a Band-Aid on a wound that requires immediate surgery: it will slow the blood for about a minute. Toronto needs something permanent. Toronto needs subways.
Fact is, the longer Toronto waits to so anything, the more it will cost. Today depending on the length, subways costs about $250-300 million per km. LRT costs around $80 million per km.
---
And how much more will Crapid Transit cost to fix compared to subways, since LRTs, tracks and equipment are exposed to the elements 24/7? How long will it last before freezing rain screws up the switches?
Folks, we live in Canada, not sunny California! Light rapid transit is an idiotic idea!
The subways run above ground for huge stretches. There are successful LRT lines in colder cities than Toronto, both in Canada and abroad. The "cold weather" argument is a non-starter.
<i>Construction of LRTs is like putting a Band-Aid on a wound that requires immediate surgery: it will slow the blood for about a minute. Toronto needs something permanent. Toronto needs subways.</i>
Both Yonge and Bloor had streetcars before they had subways. LRT will be faster, higher capacity, and less involved in frustrating traffic than streetcars. Bus routes have a capacity that maxes out long before a subway is a financially viable replacement. The LRT network would extend higher-order traffic to a large part of Toronto, allowing for increased density and eventual conversion of high-ridership lines to subways.
Everybody <i>wants</i> subways. They're no silver bullet though.
"The "cold weather" argument is a non-starter."
Tell that to anyone who has waited for the Scarborough LRT delayed to freezing, and they'll beg to differ.
ALSO, with LRTs, who the heck wants to wait outside in this weather? Subway stations like Davisville are bad enough when the temperature drops to -24. Just imagine what an LRT would be like! Thanks, but no thanks.
Another point everyone forgets to mention is how the subway expansion drove the City of Toronto -- the same thing would NOT happen with light rail transit.
Face it. There is NO money for subways at this time. We don't have the federal and provincial governments funding our transit like other countries do. Transit City is the closest we're going to get to a funded expansion. Money has already been spent, the planning and approvals are complete, and the work has started. Cancelling what is planned and started in order to build 3 (maybe) subway stops that will serve a minute fraction of what the original plan would have served is ludicrous. This is an opportunity to be taken advantage of.
The current plan CAN be expanded as needed, and sure as hell is better than nothing which is what we'll end up with if we don't go ahead with TC. Enough tunnels have been dug and filled in already. I'm not willing to wait another 30 years.
The SRT was a one-shot line built on experimental technology that's no longer available on the market. Its reliability is hardly an indicator for how well a widely-tested technology like LRT will do.
Sure, being cold sucks. That doesn't make subways any more affordable.
<i>Another point everyone forgets to mention is how the subway expansion drove the City of Toronto -- the same thing would NOT happen with light rail transit.</i>
Did you ignore my second point? Both Yonge and Bloor had streetcars before they had subways. Surface rail along those routes indeed drove growth in the City of Toronto; it allowed them to build up enough density to support subway lines.
Keep in mind too that there are more costs than the capital costs required to build the subway. It takes LOTS of rides to make a subway financially viable. It's one thing to subsidize a slightly-unprofitable bus route, it's a whole different ballgame to drop tens of millions every year on an underutilized subway.
Believe me, I want an expansive subway network. I want to see the DRL built. One day, assuming we build Transit City, the suburban routes will build up the ridership to merit a subway, and it will be awesome. But that day is not today.
transit city runs on electricity, not gas from Iraq. THe Eglinton line is going to be a subway between keele and the DVP.
whats the problem? BUILD IT
And if they build subway lines, it needs to be one of two things:
a) a new line from scratch or
b) a revamp of the current subway lines
I'm sick of hearing these extensions that they want to tack on our current lines. Even if you polish a turd, it's still a turd. There's no point in extending the tracks from Kennedy to the Sheppard Line because it'll just delay the Sheppard Line when there's an issue somewhere along the aging Bloor-Danforth Line.
The Scarbrough RT is garbage. The Transit City LRTs will be more akin to those found in Northern Europe and Alberta, as other commenters have mentioned. Living in Calgary for ten years, I don't recall a single snow or cold delay on the LRT, which I used daily.
T.O. collective mentality is scared of another mess called ICTS (a.k.a. SRT) and does not even want to report of LRT successful projects, be they in Buffalo (NY), Calgary, Edmonton, San Diego or elsewhere.
You are correct that LRT has more in common with subways/metros/rapid transit/etc. than streetcars. You essentially have trains operating station to station, with full signal priority and rail crossings. Stops are also spaced comparable to what a subway would be, about 1km.
Thing is, Transit City is NOT LRT. The traffic signal priority is in question, and stop spacing will only be slightly wider than what is currently offered (average 400m, some as close as 200m). Transit City is essentially a European tramway - a higher order local service rather than an intermediate-long distance express service like subways are. The exception is the midtown portion of the Eglinton line, which is grade separated and has stops spaced about 800m apart.
- Transit City is NOT a streetcar, which due to terrible operation has a bad name in Toronto now. Transit City will in places be fully separated (i.e. central Eglinton) and in others will be in a median that does not displace cars. The photo at the top of the page should have been more like this: http://bit.ly/eGbCoV
- Paris has four LRT lines that work the less-dense fringes, feeding into other transit nodes, just like Transit City does. They have four more LRT lines under development. London has a huge LRT system (Docklands light rail) that is like what SRT would become under Transit City, and a street-surface LRT in suburban Croydon. Madrid has had three LRT lines since 2007. Chicago is planning three huge LRT lines. Cities similar in size to Toronto -- metro Houston, Dallas, Philly, Boston - all have LRT. Tokyo and Manhattan have no LRT but these cities are seriously of a different size and density and age than Toronto and not a fair comparison.
- If you do want to talk streetcars and not Transit City, Washington DC has started construction on a huge streetcar system to provide better transit downtown (the Metro is more of a commuter system for long trips). And heck, Brooklyn is studying building a streetcar.
- As others have pointed out, mentioning weather immediately undermines any other points made because it is so ridiculous given the global data set. Besides, the SRT and subway have had more weather issues than the streetcar lines that operate in their own ROW.
- You fail to mention that Transit City is funded and ready to start construction. A switch back to subways (which you do correctly point out would do no one any good if it only runs from Don Mills to STC) will waste millions.
There is no reason that subways and TC can't work together. Build the first few TC lines now because they are funded, they make sense and they will seed future development. They can also be cheaply extended and tweaked as needed - we're much more likely to get inexpensive rail transit to the airport if Eglinton LRT is built now and then later extended. Then extend Sheppard going WEST to Downsview, not east, as a spur line off the Y-U-S to close the loop and create an alternate one-seat ride to the west side. Then, once Toronto gets proper funding like a payroll tax or road tolls or gas tax (pipe dream, but hey), a real subway that might actually be useful like the Downtown Relief Line can be built. That's why it is ok to settle for Transit City for now and work on intelligent subway plans for later. Ford is wrong, period.
I think we forget that anything that stops the LRT lines will also stop the buses so even if the subways are running (and they often get bogged down, as the turnback switches at Kipling or feeding out of the yards at Wilson or Davisville ARE OUTSIDE) you can't get to them anyways.
Total strawman
Vancouver is reverting to Skytrain technology for its fourth line, the Evergreen line. The Canada line uses a different technology because it was a "private public partnership" which means it was built on the cheap (ie, it's already clear there will be very expensive capacity issues, soon) with orphan rolling stock.
Anyone who thinks weather will not affect an LRT is a retard.
Toronto weather (which to be honest is fairly ho-hum) is not a reason to choose a technology. Cost to build, cost to operate, bodies transported, speed, ROW, station design -- these are infinitely more relevant.
It's a completely separate, unique type of technology.
and another thing, SuziQ: The cold weather doesn't affect the Scarborough RT.
Nope, it will cost us billions.
Uhhh, you don't build a subway when you know it's going to hemorrhage money. The YUS and B-D make money for the TTC, or at least break even, while the Sheppard line costs millions upon millions per year in operating costs.
As for your assertion that the Sheppard Line is gaining riders, it's barely doing that. The Sheppard line carried a total of 47,700 people per day in 2009-2010, while the SRT carried 39,320, B-D 495,280, and YUS 714,210. On Sheppard only Don Mills and Sheppard-Yonge get more than 10,000 riders, with Bessarion at 2,590. Subways through suburbs are not and should not be used as a magical social project because it sucks huge amounts of money out of the system.
@Suzi Q - when planners want to put in a rail line, their reasoning is whether it'd be warmer for the rider or not, it's about what's appropriate for an area based on what the maximum and average ridership levels are and will be within the next few decades. It's the reason why NYC had streetcars at capacity before they put a subway line underground (same thing happened with Yonge and B-D here, that's how those lines make money).
Anybody that thinks that subways, and the buses that feed them, or even car traffic for that matter, will continue without delay in an LRT stopping storm, is a retard.
If the weather is bad enough to stop the LRT, you're not getting to work on a subway either. Period.
But yes, that indeed was not me. It seems a certain blogTo commenter (in this thread) is holding a grudge after being embarrassed by myself and another poster, and has taken to cowardice by abusing the anonymous posting system.
stu: yes it was killed prematurely but the point is still that it's no shining example of LRT we should strive for. Subways cost, but even a fraction of length now would be good if you want something 'to get things moving', and better in the long run.
Shannon: I don't live in the suburbs (not dt either) but I also know and talk to many drivers from uptown and none have voiced any opposition to better transit. In fact most drive because transit is poor where they travel, including midtown.
I simply don't think the mentality of the suburbs you're presenting fair to all suburbanites.
Toronto did, and their populations grew much faster than that of the GTA.
As a result it was an easy thing to accomplish at the time. Now-a-days, only New York has built any new subway. and that's because they have density to cover the costs. something Toronto does not have.
Even then, London has trouble maintaining the complexity of the system. the underground is the most expensive subway system in the world...and increasing fares astronomically doesn't look like a viable option in a car-dependent society like our own.
Vienna also has an extensive streetcar system, sharing narrow roadways, but also with some dedicated underground stretches and separate ROWs, and Vienna's big buses, many articulated, traverse twisty narrow streets with surprising ease. The S-Bahn is the surface rail component, like GO, but fully electrified and very frequent and extensive. To top it off, the entire system AND the national intercity railway system (the OBB) is integrated into one POP open-payment automated fare system!
Of course, some of the infrastructure dates back to the days of Emperor Franz Josef, but much of the system is very modern, and constantly being improved (Euro 2008 or no Euro 2008). The more recent extensions and renovations are spectacular. The monthly integrated pass (all modes) a year or two ago was under 50 euros (CDN $67)!
Vienna is light years ahead of Toronto in its development of public transit, with much of it built recently. The arguments regarding Toronto having a comparatively late start don't hold water. Vienna has only recently begun to experience car-based urban sprawl, and its mountain-bound geography constrains that sprawl, but there's no question that Toronto simply has a lot of catching up to do. Pending the development of new subway and LRT lines, a good way to begin would be to greatly increase the number of articulated buses and dedicated HOV lanes on arterial routes. And the TTC should carefully study whether lowering fares might lead to a profitable increase of ridership ... that has worked elsewhere (Vancouver and Los Angeles come to mind).