Jump to content

What's better for Eglinton? Subway/ALRT or LRT?


York Transit
 Share

Eglinton Rapid Transit  

50 members have voted

  1. 1. What's better for Eglinton? Subway/ALRT or LRT?

    • Subway / ALRT Technology
      26
    • LRT
      24


Recommended Posts

I'm sorry but with that sentence you lose any credibility you may have. I urge you to look up the word "unbiased" in a dictionary. Hence I haven't read any of your other posts.

And honestly, I find this thread rather difficult to read. I can't read any more LRT fanatic ravings. And they seem rather endless on this board.

I'll just reiterate that to build LRT on Eglinton at this point would not be building for the future, and would be a big mistake.

So because I suggest you read a blog of someone who has a different opinion of you, my comments are uncredible? If you think I would absolutely say no to a subway, well then you're wrong, but the point I keep making is that do you honestly think the odds are good that we'll get a subway on Eglinton which provides local service AND improve transit in the rest of Toronto? I agree that we'll eventually need another east-west subway line, but is it too soon? Remember the Yonge and Bloor-Danforth lines had such high usage that it was a common sight to see 'trains' of streetcars; all which were jam packed.

I love how you claim I lose my credibilty and that I have a biased view. I like subways as much as the next person (of course it's more appealing to people), but look at what's happened the past 10-20 years and say that we'll get a subway plus other projects. I'd like to see your background of education and experience before you start calling others uncredible and biased. While Steve Munro IS a proponent for LRT, I'm sure you don't know of his reasoning behind it. Note he does not necessarily say no to subways, but rather that each mode has its own purpose and has its own proper time for use. Note I also said 'attempts', as I'm sure you're very biased towards having a subway constructed.

People will say that it'll cost more to build LRT now, then build subway later, but without the proper building of ridership, it's a moot point. Like I keep saying, IF the levels of government fork over enough capital AND operational funding to do so, then go ahead and overbuild for the next 20-30 years and have a network of subways which serve both local and commuters. How much is it going to cost though? How will taxpayers handle it? What other public services will have to be sacraficed?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

At least with electronic fare collection you can keep track of the number of underpayments, heck I've let people ride my bus if they've been a bit short. Also electronic fare collection will also help reduce the amount of pass, ticket and token fraud. As for service adjustment cirteria, if you think some of their reasoning is questionable, shouldn't efforts be made to make them better? Everyone should always make an effort to make improvements, whether personally to themselves, the company they work for or the services they provide, otherwise you get stuck in a rut. Also, I never said to scrap underperforming routes, your using my extreme example as meaning that's my opinion, it isn't, heck GRT's only recovering about 40% of its costs, I don't want them to scrap routes.

Will the cost of implementing electronic fare collection be worth the savings in fraud? Who knows. It seems the TTC doesn't think so. So I am not going to argue on it.

If the money is not fortcoming, how can you make improvements? People wants everything, yet are not willing to pat for it.

When someone talks about financial performance, they have to be talking whetever a route is making money, or not. That is essentially what you're saying, is it not? What do you if a route is not up to your financial standards?

I never said provide duplicate service, what I am saying is that this system has evolved without the TTC providing reciprocate service going the other direction for their customers. Take YRT's express route to Yorkdale, or VIVA routes for example, you don't need to pay a second fare crossing into Toronto, you aren't able to simply transfer for free to the TTC, but at least these routes will get you fairly deep into Toronto proper for one single fare. For any TTC routes that cross borders, if if you're only going one block, you cross that boundary you pay twice (even coming back). As for where would the TTC put routes into other municipalities? Well, as you're so fond of pointing out I'm not from Toronto, so maybe people should ask those Toronto commuters who aren't being serviced where they think such routes would operate.

Once again, that is an fare issue, and I am not going to talk about that. It makes me wonder why people are for distance-based fare, but hate the fare boundary at Steeles. Makes no sense to me. Yet It is fine for YRT to have a zone fare.

Those routes go deep into Toronto, because that is where people want to go! There was obvious demand to travel to these destinations, so YRT is offering a cheaper alternative to GO transit.

So why complain about the TTC not providing service then? As it stands, I would the biggest worry for customers, is that industrial areas are not being serviced well at night. And those for the TTC,YRT,Brampton, and Mississauga Transit.

HA! No, I understand perfectly, I'm just presenting some other perspectives, and you're blowing my words way out of proportion, and I'm not all "gung-ho" for a subway on Eglinton, but I've said repeatedly, Metrolinx raised the idea, there must be a reason for doing so, but we will have to wait and see IF they do propose a different service for Eglinton, what their ridership figures are and what it will be, IF they even propose something other than LRT, they may not. If Metrolinx finds that subway, or something other than LRT, is warranted (and yes, they'll need to back that up with ridership figures, figures YOU HAVE NOT SEEN, so you do not know!) for Eglinton then why proceed with the LRT then? I understand perfectly that the Eglinton LRT is to provide Local Service but that's not been my point, if a subway ends up being needed to meet capacity demands (AGAIN, ridership figures will be needed to warrant that) than there's no point in building a duplicate LRT line on top for local service. If metrolinx proposes nothing in the end for Eglinton, than the LRT can proceed and no harm done.

Unfortunately, those perpesctives are not what is intended for Eglinton. I am not trying to be a prick, but Eglinton Avenue is not intended to be a regional line, with development at station nodes. It is intended to develop linearly along the entire stretch, and subways simply do not promote that sort of development. That is what is outlined in the City's official plan. The LRT line with be underground from Laird, to Jane, anyways which is a significant distance. But the station spacings with be roughly 500M-600M which will promote linear development. And encourage people to walk/bike to the stations.

Be honest. The only way for Metrolinx to come up with numbers to even justify a subway would be if they were planning to make Eglinton a regional line, which the CITY DOES NOT WANT. Metrolinx is clashing with the city's Official plan. Numbers, or not. A subway on Eglinton will not happen. The City, and the TTC do not WANT a subway on there. I am interested to see how Metrolinx came up with the numbers though. It's going to take some serious number crunching to go from 9000 to 25000-30000/hr.

Keep up with your political conspiracy theories, there may or may not be truth to them, but at any rate we're going to have to wait until Metrolinx releases it's final plans, and I will most likely stand behind them, Eglinton subway or not. The question is will you?

There is no conspiracy at all. It's well known, that they wanted a subway through York U, and they were not going to settle for less. This is one of the reasons the Busway was delayed. Fear, that it would derail the subway extension if the busway proved adequate enough. If you think there is no political meddling going on in the background, then you put too much faith into politcians. Somewhat to the same sort of political meddling that Metrolinx is doing with Eglinton.

And I will not suppot a subway in that corridor. And the reason is, subways do not promote the sort of development that is occuring/required on Eglinton. If the stations spacing were 500M-600M apart, fine. But that will not be the case. Also, the LRT will be underground for a significant portion of the route, and aboveground at the outer portions. Nodal development is not the way to go in that area.

I love how you claim I lose my credibilty and that I have a biased view. I like subways as much as the next person (of course it's more appealing to people), but look at what's happened the past 10-20 years and say that we'll get a subway plus other projects. I'd like to see your background of education and experience before you start calling others uncredible and biased. While Steve Munro IS a proponent for LRT, I'm sure you don't know of his reasoning behind it. Note he does not necessarily say no to subways, but rather that each mode has its own purpose and has its own proper time for use. Note I also said 'attempts', as I'm sure you're very biased towards having a subway constructed.

I wouldn't bother arguing with the guy. He cannot see beyond the hobby. He assumes that I am some LRT fanatic because I have a pantograph avatar. He doesn't seem to grasp the idea, that some people understand that subways are not the ultimate answer,and that money is limited. I am not against subways by any means, but I understand that a Subway on Eglinton will not work with how the city wants the corridor developed. I would take Steve Munro's judgement over most people's anyday. Not to say I follow him blindly, but he does back up his points with credible evidence.

One thing I would like to say about the argument that you "should build for the future." How do you know exactly what the future will hold in terms of development? Why do you automatically assume that all development will be high enough to justify a network of subways?

The excuse of "building for the future" should never be a reason to spend billions of subways that may not reach their full potential for 50-60 years.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And I will not suppot a subway in that corridor. And the reason is, subways do not promote the sort of development that is occuring/required on Eglinton. If the stations spacing were 500M-600M apart, fine. But that will not be the case. Also, the LRT will be underground for a significant portion of the route, and aboveground at the outer portions. Nodal development is not the way to go in that area.

...

Subway on Eglinton will not work with how the city wants the corridor developed.

Ah so you're one of those who believe in this fantasy that streetcars promote a certain type of development whereas subways promote another. LOL. Dream on buddy. You're just as deluded as Miller and Giambrone and Monroe. Thank God we have Metrolinx. The TTC should be dismantled at this point. They've proven they can't manage headways or decide where to build subways. They don't deserve to do the job.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's a fantasy, eh?

Frick, you should go tell Portland, Charlotte, Salt Lkae City, Dallas, Houston, Calgary, Vancouver(who is building a streetcar line in downtown), countless European cities that the development that resulted from building LR-- sorry Streetcar! line, is actually a fantasy, because some clueless bus watcher said so!

Well, you should go back to dreaming about Metrolinx, as there is no chance in hell Metrolinx is going to take over any agency other than GO. Metrolinx will have a serious fight on their hands, if they tried.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, you should go back to dreaming about Metrolinx, as there is no chance in hell Metrolinx is going to take over any agency other than GO. Metrolinx will have a serious fight on their hands, if they tried.

The only authority Metrolinx has to take over agencies is when specifically requested by the agency. For example, to pick a ridiculous example, Mississauga could hand off MT to Metrolinx if both they and Metrolinx wanted to - but Metrolinx could not do so involuntarily, nor has Metrolinx ever even suggested that it was interested in doing so.

That's not to say that the provincial government could not amend the GTTA act to create a single agency for the GTA, and in fact I'd be willing to bet a few dollars that the act will be amended next year based on recommendations from the RTP process - but it would have to come from that level.

BTW, John Barber at the Globe has a column on the Eglinton situation: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/sto...onal/columnists

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I personally hope not.

There is little need for a single GTA agency. In my opinion, the major issue is the fare boundary at the Toronto border. That could be eliminated with stable funding. But I think the integration between agencies, is pretty good as it stands.

And I totally agree with the article.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is little need for a single GTA agency. In my opinion, the major issue is the fare boundary at the Toronto border. That could be eliminated with stable funding. But I think the integration between agencies, is pretty good as it stands.

Judging from the white papers, Metrolinx seems to be leaning towards improved communications/planning between existing agencies (e.g. a common web site for transit schedule and other information, etc). Ultimately, it may end up with something like the Translink model in which service is provided by separate companies (subsidiaries of Translink, but independent agencies here) but communications and other branding is pulled together. Also, they have talked a bit about common service standards.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I like the idea of a common website for all transit agencies. It would be a huge asset for transit riders.

Improved communication would be a positive asset. As long as the agencies stay independent of each other, and are allowed to create their own plans, and manage their service, I am fine with it.

Having one huge agency would be an deterrent, rather then an asset. Especially for the outer suburbs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Having one huge agency would be an deterrent, rather then an asset. Especially for the outer suburbs.

To be perfectly blunt, I have a hard time imagining that Metrolinx running transit in Durham Region could possibly be worse than the current situation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To be perfectly blunt, I have a hard time imagining that Metrolinx running transit in Durham Region could possibly be worse than the current situation.

It Simply can't be, there is nothing else to cut.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It Simply can't be, there is nothing else to cut.

Oh yes there is. Evening/Sunday service would be one, although it's pretty awful as it is and even DRT admits that.

The core problem here, as on Eglinton (see, I'm dragging this back on topic) is one of funding. DRT could certainly be a good system if they weren't woefully underfunded. LRT versus subway on Eglinton depends a lot on that as well, although I'm more than willing to bet that the LRT is the fiscally responsible option that lets us do more than build one half of a line.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On my Urban Toronto poll on the Eglinton Corridor, 62% favor subway. That's up at least 4 percentage points since I brought my old thread back to life. Clearly the support is there.

Forward-thinkers who like to plan ahead and build for the future are more than welcome to join my Facebook group, "I support an Eglinton Subway (Not LRT)" http://www.new.facebook.com/group.php?gid=28162208326

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On my Urban Toronto poll on the Eglinton Corridor, 62% favor subway. That's up at least 4 percentage points since I brought my old thread back to life. Clearly the support is there.

Not that a poll on this or any other narrow-focused site such as this one or Urban Toronto is particularly meaningful in any sort of way....

Besides, the poll is biased. You have not listed all of the options, with the benefits and drawbacks of each.

Forward-thinkers who like to plan ahead and build for the future are more than welcome to join my Facebook group, "I support an Eglinton Subway (Not LRT)" http://www.new.facebook.com/group.php?gid=28162208326

And what about those of us who think that there are better things to spend our money on? Are we not allowed? Are we not even forward-thinking?

Dan

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On my Urban Toronto poll on the Eglinton Corridor, 62% favor subway. That's up at least 4 percentage points since I brought my old thread back to life. Clearly the support is there.

Forward-thinkers who like to plan ahead and build for the future are more than welcome to join my Facebook group, "I support an Eglinton Subway (Not LRT)" http://www.new.facebook.com/group.php?gid=28162208326

Polls do not mean anything. Especially on Transit Fan sites.

Forward thinkers understand that Subways are not the ultimate answer in medium density areas, and that modern subway design does not promote linear development.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not that a poll on this or any other narrow-focused site such as this one or Urban Toronto is particularly meaningful in any sort of way....

Besides, the poll is biased. You have not listed all of the options, with the benefits and drawbacks of each.

And what about those of us who think that there are better things to spend our money on? Are we not allowed? Are we not even forward-thinking?

Dan

These polls are no less useless than any other. They're useful to look at. At the very least they give you a gauge of how a certain segment of the population feels. I.e. Transit fans seem to favour LRT (this site), whereas urbanists favour subway (Urban Toronto). How the general public feels, well, you'd have to do a random sample of say 1000 people, and even then it'd be only accurate 9 times out of 10 with a margin or error of +/- 5% or whatever.

And I don't see how the poll is biased. At least mine's not. The one here is more biased because it presents fewer options. As for benefits and drawbacks of each, that's the job of the person voting to figure out. In a voting booth, they don't list the benefits and drawbacks of Conservatives versus Liberals, now do they?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

With all due respect to those two distinguished members, when did they become the be-all and end-all to the discussion?

If you don't like his poll, don't vote in it. You don't have to revive a thread that has been inactive for 2 days just to jump on his back.

Everything anyone says on this board has some sort of bias. Myself included. Does that mean I shouldn't be allowed to post? No one said that polls on this forum had to be scientific, and every major news agency has polls that are about the same quality.

If you don't like his poll, don't vote and explain why you didn't vote in a post. Bashing the guy gets us nowhere.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And I don't see how the poll is biased. At least mine's not. The one here is more biased because it presents fewer options. As for benefits and drawbacks of each, that's the job of the person voting to figure out. In a voting booth, they don't list the benefits and drawbacks of Conservatives versus Liberals, now do they?

It is, because it doesn't list the repercussions of each choice.

If you tell a 5 year old child that he can have either an ice cream or an apple, but without telling them that the ice cream might be a flavour they don't like, what do you think their choice will be? Most kids that I know will choose the ice cream, 10 times out of 10 with a percentage of error of 0%.

Of course you don't list the benefits/drawbacks in an election - it is assumed that each voter will be informed ahead of time (and frankly, there isn't enough room anyways). In this kind of poll, many people may not realize that (as an example) if a subway is chosen, one of the LRT lines may not be able to be built. This is the kind of thing that needs to be explained to people.

Everything anyone says on this board has some sort of bias. Myself included. Does that mean I shouldn't be allowed to post? No one said that polls on this forum had to be scientific, and every major news agency has polls that are about the same quality.

As you wrote, everyone has some sort of bias - the key is to be able to turn your bias into a reasonable argument, backed with facts, to fight the other biases. It's called a discussion, and it seems to be something that many on this forum are incapable of doing.

My point about the poll however was that people are trying to put too much stock into polls here and on other forums. A poll here will never be scientific or should be the basis of a logical argument.

Dan

Link to comment
Share on other sites

With all due respect to those two distinguished members, when did they become the be-all and end-all to the discussion?

I never claimed to be an expert. But I will defend myself, especially when I am being called an "LRT fanatic".

If you don't like his poll, don't vote in it. You don't have to revive a thread that has been inactive for 2 days just to jump on his back.

Everything anyone says on this board has some sort of bias. Myself included. Does that mean I shouldn't be allowed to post? No one said that polls on this forum had to be scientific, and every major news agency has polls that are about the same quality.

Members have revived threads before, this is no different. Having a bias is fine. Having a poll is fine. But trying to prove a point with a unscientific poll is another thing. It's like me trying to prove that Barack Obama is a Muslim, because a poll shows 54% thinks he is one. (He is not a muslim). It's simply not a valid way to prove a point.

If you don't like his poll, don't vote and explain why you didn't vote in a post. Bashing the guy gets us nowhere.

The guy is not innocent. Calling people "LRT fanatics" is bashing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The guy is not innocent. Calling people "LRT fanatics" is bashing.

Harmless, petty, juvenile, and easy, yes... contact us when you see some real bashing!

Back to the Eglinton discussion, which I find to be a great topic actually.

SMS, posting in his capacity as "the smooth administrator"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Harmless, petty, juvenile, and easy, yes... contact us when you see some real bashing!

Back to the Eglinton discussion, which I find to be a great topic actually.

SMS, posting in his capacity as "the smooth administrator"

The real bashing gets deleted too quckly.

Yeah, it's like the bully pounding someone into the ground, because he was nudged from behind.

It is a god topic.

I am looking forward to the meetings. I have a feeling I will be residing somewhere on the Eglinton Corridor, permanently, so I have a vested interest on what is built.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The real bashing gets deleted too quckly.

Yeah, it's like the bully pounding someone into the ground, because he was nudged from behind.

It is a god topic.

I am looking forward to the meetings. I have a feeling I will be residing somewhere on the Eglinton Corridor, permanently, so I have a vested interest on what is built.

I challenge you to prove that I've said anything that would constitute "bashing" and that it's ever been deleted.

P.S. Good luck with that.

P.P.S. Good luck saying that being called an "LRT Fanatic" is bashing. Call me a "Subway Fanatic" and I won't be offended, trust me.

In regards to polls, interesting that this one is pretty much 50/50 now, SSC is 67% subway vs. 33% LRT; UT is 60% subway vs. 38% LRT.

Yes I'm sure some of the respondents overlap between the different boards (obviously since I'm on all three), but you pretty much have to accept that somewhere between 50 and 70% of people prefer subway on this route. I imagine for the general public that number would be even higher, since they really have no point of reference for LRT.

Polls are fun to talk about because they involve numbers, and numbers are useful.

That said, I think the most important part of making Eglinton subway is to build for the future, as I've said many times. Subways won't be cheaper in 50 years when we absolutely must have one along Eglinton.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...