nottoban
New Member
What's your point?
|
|
|
Bojaxs
Senior Member
Has anyone seen any testing on the line as of late? How fast do the trams appear to be moving?
yurt2022
Active Member
I think you already know the answer to that...
ssiguy2
Senior Member
The reasons ML/TTC/City put forward as to why they need so many surface stations is completely illogical. Why are the underground stations further apart than the surface ones? If one can walk the longer distance to an underground station, what is the logic behind them not being able to do the same at-grade?
Rapid transit is a trade off and always will be. You acknowledge that in order to get significantly faster and more reliable transit, you must have far fewer stations than a regular bus route. As stats have consistently shown worldwide, people are willing to walk longer distances to get to a rapid transit station than they are to a regular bus stop. People know and accept this. They know that the extra 2 minutes of walking time to rapid transit will be more than made up for by vastly faster travel times with more reliability.
In the City's desire to appeal to every transit rider, no one gets served well
Rapid transit is a trade off and always will be. You acknowledge that in order to get significantly faster and more reliable transit, you must have far fewer stations than a regular bus route. As stats have consistently shown worldwide, people are willing to walk longer distances to get to a rapid transit station than they are to a regular bus stop. People know and accept this. They know that the extra 2 minutes of walking time to rapid transit will be more than made up for by vastly faster travel times with more reliability.
In the City's desire to appeal to every transit rider, no one gets served well
Last edited:
JSF-1
Active Member
Well we know the whole point of the closer stop spacing was to eliminate the need for a parallel bus service, and this is laid out clearly in the project assessments. Of course we have thrown that idea out of the window since both the FW and EC have parallel bus routes on the surface sections of the LRT's which wasn't supposed to happen. The TTC doesn't want to operate these parallel bus services but unfortunately politicians and local residents demand that they do. Ideally the 36 would be eliminated entirely west of Finch West, and the 34 would only run between Don Valley and Mount Dennis but that's not what's going to happen. Its just an example of technical side of transit expansion coming into conflict with the political side of it.
WillTo
Senior Member
Does it count as transit priority if my left turning bus passes the LRT?
hw621
Senior Member
So what is stopping the line from opening now?! ,Any insider info?
Bordercollie
Senior Member
Probably want to implement transit priority and test it before it opens. I would say June 30th at the earliest.
They have to re-time all the signals, test it and then do a 30 day burn in without any issues, and the clock goes to 0 when there is.
Not to mention all the time they need to tweak it and adjust timing.
hw621
Senior Member
I won't hold my breath.
toronto647
Active Member
They are going to open in February as planned, transit priority if it comes will come at a later time. Remember EG LRT is grade separated from Mount Dennis till pretty much Aga Khan Station (except for the 1 light at Leaside) so even if transit priority were to be implemented, it would only impact the the very east end of the line from Wynford Station to Kennedy.
6ixGod
Active Member
Hahahaha the arrogance of Miller is astounding….for all the huffing and puffing he did about Transit City, I would expect him to be at the ribbon cutting ceremony and then ride the LRTs so people could give him a dose of reality.
I’m just glad Toronto saved itself by not diving 100% into this “TrAnSiT cITy” nonsense…..I always found the project timid, underwhelming and completely inappropriate for a city this size and stature. The frustrating part is that Toronto wasn’t always timid…..Post War Toronto up until the 80s, Toronto thought bold and big: the Yonge subway, Metro Toronto consolidation, the CN Tower, SkyDome, Pearson expansion, and the PATH system. These were built at a scale that matched the city’s growth. But starting in the late 70s and 80s, economic shocks, neighbourhood activism, and high-profile cancellations like the Spadina Expressway made ambitious projects politically risky. (For the record, I don’t oppose neighbourhood activism and am glad they got all the expressways cancelled, but the reaction by City Hall was way over the top). Restraint became a civic virtue, and caution hardened into ideology by the 1990s and early 2000s…..right by the time Miller became mayor.
Toronto was already a massive, diverse, international metropolis, but City Hall still operated with “Toronto the Good” instincts: risk-averse, obsessed with appearances, and cautious about anything that might upset the status quo. Transit City was the logical endpoint of that mindset: surface LRTs constrained by signals and intersections, sold as “pragmatic” and safe, but fundamentally mismatched to Toronto’s real needs. Miller may have believed in them…..or at least believed that appearing cautious was the right way to govern a city still psychologically uncomfortable with its own size.
The contrast with younger generations is stark. Late Gen X, Millennials, Gen Z, have only ever known Toronto as big, busy, and international. They don’t compare it to anywhere else; they just expect it to work….I was so happy when I heard people clowning Line 6….calling it a streetcar (because that’s exactly what it is) and how underwhelming it is…..I heard these conversations all on opening weekend:
- this should have been a subway
- how much did they spend on this?
- why are we stopping at signal lights?
And yet there are people on this forum who will go to the grave defending this ELL ARE TEE nonsense…..I guess some of you are from Millers generation as well….too timid and small minded…..unable to comprehend what Toronto has become. With Miller’s type of mentality, Line 1 would have never gone north of Eglinton and Line 2 would have ended at Woodbine and Keele.
With all due respect, the sooner this lot die off the better (not literally, but influentially). Hopefully this new generation of Torontonians who are unapologetically bold will force big city problems being addressed with big city solutions.
Undead
Senior Member
^Respectfully, lose the ageism.
TOtramz
Active Member
How would that even fit within the mandatory 90 day opening window after substantial completion was declared?
crs1026
Superstar
And the cheap misstatement of many other things and gratuitous inclusion of every agenda and kicking-post that the poster appears to hold dear.
The poster seems to have a pretty poor grasp on actual events and civic history from 1995 to 2007, or about any debates or serious proposals that were put forward in that timeframe.
It's Christmas Day, and I'm not going to ruin my chill by delving into all this. Maybe after Boxing Day.
But I will point out that Transit City was announced on 16 March 2007, after a decade of non-action by previous mayors including Mel Lastman, who did nothing about transit beyond North York. And a Premier named Mike Harris who was clearly anti-subway.
The point is not that Transit City was good or bad (I'm not really a fan).... but it was a serious proposal to do *something* at a time when little else was being proposed. And it was very conscious of a political mood that was still opposed to major spend on transit. It actually helped shift public opinion on that view, and triggered counter proposals that had higher pricetags that the public took seriously. And it had a serious body of study behind it.
Oh, and the TTC chair who co-announced Transit City wasn't even a Boomer.
On that note, a happy and mellow holiday greeting to all
- Paul
Last edited:
T3G
Senior Member
If your arguments were worth half a damn, you wouldn't have to insult and belittle anyone who disagrees with you. If you can't post civilly, then do us a favour and stop posting until you learn to be civil about the fact that other people have differing view points from you.