Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I am living in a French city now. It has a metro population of 650-700k and FIVE lightrail lines.
There are a couple of cities in France in that size range that have about that many light rail lines.
We will just have to wait for him to come back. His statement about Lyon was incorrect in the amount of lines so who knows how accurate he is on population stats.
However, it really doesn't matter. His point is pointless. The number of lines does not mean that transit is better. He was comparing Lyon to Vancouver and as I pointed out Lyon being inland is going to naturally have more lines from all directions.
Rubbish, I enjoyed his musings. He highlighted assignments of priorities. Coming from a place where (far fewer) deli goods cost thrice as much what most Canadia/ens pay, your haughty dismissiveness makes sense.
So much of the past you can't change, this is true. But how effectively are Canadian/North American cities moving away from those ways of building? That's what they deserve to be judged upon.
thanks ACAjack, you got everything right.
This "because we had different history and culture" thing is heard many times. Should we use it to justify poor urban infrastructure forever? And most importantly, is transit getting better? Yes, one can say there are more lines (marginally) but GTA is always expanding. In general transit experience is worsening in my point of view.
Are we moving away for the bad choice we made? I don't think.
Nat, took those words right out of my mouth. Botti, you aren't the only one who's traveled to Lyon. As Nat correctly stated, Lyon has 4 metro lines, not 5, and there are no expansion plans for its metro unlike the GTA cities in southern Ontario.
Lyon Metro may have 4 lines, same number as Toronto (or as you say you don't consider Toronto's Line 4 as a proper "line" with only 6 stations, so we'll say Toronto has 3 lines), but Lyon's total system length is less than 30 km, less than half of that of Toronto's:
Lyon Metro Length: 30 km
TTC Subway Length: 68.3 km
Lyon Metro Stations: 40 stations
TTC Subway Stations: 69 stations
Lyon Metro Expansion as of 2016: no ongoing projects
TTC Subway Expansion as of 2016: 35.1 km under construction, 28 new stations to come online in the next 1-4 years, increasing system capacity by 51.2% not including other fully funded projects that have not started construction as of Oct 2016.
Lyon Tramway Lines: 6 Lines
TTC Streetcar Lines: 11 Lines
Lyon Tramway System Length: 75.3 km
TTC Streetcar System Length: 83 km
I fully appreciate the fact that Toronto is a more populous, more important city relative to Lyon, hence it SHOULD and MUST build larger, more expansive transit. However, I also want to put your words into perspective when you praise certain European city's transit through the stratosphere while making it sound as if Toronto is purposely getting pulling up and destroying its own transit tracks like we still live in the Medieval Ages.
*And since you don't consider TTC's Sheppard Yonge Line 4 as a "real subway line", fair enough. In the same logic, I will say that Lyon's 2.5 km, 5-station Ligne C is also not a "real" metro line, given that it's only half the length of TTC Line 4. Fair and square, chico?
Also, I would consider only the streetcar lines that have ROW to be similar to Lyon's tramways (still not quite there). 501/504/505/506 etc are more like buses than trams. This is Lyon trams. I don't think it is similar to the 501. The eglinton line will be more like it.
This "because we had different history and culture" thing is heard many times. Should we use it to justify poor urban infrastructure forever? And most importantly, is transit getting better? Yes, one can say there are more lines (marginally) but GTA is always expanding. In general transit experience is worsening in my point of view.
Are we moving away for the bad choice we made? I don't think.
Only slightly so. And only in specific areas. Generally the ones that already had the denser, Euro-style built form.
Which is to say that the main change from the past is that we aren't taking denser, walkable Euro-style areas and turning them into auto-dependent low-density areas, like we used to do.
But we're not really building many new areas in the denser, walkable style.
This is what the Europeans often do - when they have a new part of the city to be built, they just entend the older, walkable urban form outwards.
Only slightly so. And only in specific areas. Generally the ones that already had the denser, Euro-style built form.
Which is to say that the main change from the past is that we aren't taking denser, walkable Euro-style areas and turning them into auto-dependent low-density areas, like we used to do.
But we're not really building many new areas in the denser, walkable style.
This is what the Europeans often do - when they have a new part of the city to be built, they just entend the older, walkable urban form outwards.
Is that really the case in cities like Toronto and Montreal today? I think not. Maybe 20, 30 years ago, but you'd be hard pressed today to find the kind of auto-centric development in Toronto city proper today. I think many major North American cities have now reached a tipping point where the only way to develop is higher and denser, due to various forces:
1. Increasing land values in urban areas. A housing developer would be committing financial suicide if it attempts to build brand new SFHs in Toronto city-proper today. Denser condos and offices are just much more financially profitable, even if the construction costs of denser, concrete structures are higher than traditional wooden structures in detached homes.
2. Cities like Toronto already have very robust urban development plans along with zoning regulations in place today that strong encourage mid-level density development, while discouraging SFHs. This is especially true along current and future transit corridors, where only mid to high density development and commercial space are being approved by Council for developed. This is already the case for Toronto's downtown core and surrounding areas, but the City of Toronto recently published a joint program with U of T and Ryerson which lays out the City's vision for future development in currently suburban neighborhoods like Eglinton. It establishes that all future suburban developments conform to the exact type of mid-density areas found in European cities and suburbs, accompanied by robust surface transit like LRT, BRT, and street level retail. I'm quite glad that the City has finally established a clear vision and direction on this issue, especially for future suburban developments:
All of this is happening in conjunction with major public transit projects under construction in the GTA at the moment: Spadina Subway Extension, Eglinton Crosstown Subway/LRT, Finch West LRT, Sheppard East LRT, Scarborough Subway Extension, and of course the Province's massive Regional Express Rail project:
Last edited by bostonkid123; 10-17-2016 at 02:22 PM..
Toronto having a larger geographic area is purely a result of politics and has very little correlation with its former boundaries or where TTC transit serves. The current Streetcar network of 11 lines was designed to serve strictly the pre-amalgamated old city of Toronto. Not Scarborough. Not North York. And only the southern tip of Etobicoke and High Park. So if you want to compare apples to apples, I suggest we compare pre-amalgamated Toronto and Lyon, which would yield a much more accurate reflection of TTC's streetcar route patterns. If Toronto never went ahead with amalgamation in 1998, it could have easily come on top as having one of the best transit systems with great coverage in North America.
Is that really the case in cities like Toronto and Montreal today? I think not. Maybe 20, 30 years ago, but you'd be hard pressed today to find the kind of auto-centric development in Toronto city proper today. I think many major North American cities have now reached a tipping point where the only way to develop is higher and denser, due to various forces:
What I look at is where they build a new street grid from scratch. Admittedly, in many older redeveloped areas they just keep the old grid. But in new areas even in the inner city they build stuff like this:
Rubbish, I enjoyed his musings. He highlighted assignments of priorities. Coming from a place where (far fewer) deli goods cost thrice as much what most Canadia/ens pay, your haughty dismissiveness makes sense.
So someone pointing out that 4 lines that total a lesser amount of track and passengers, is not " better " than a 3 lines with double the amount of track is haughty?
Toronto having a larger geographic area is purely a result of politics and has very little correlation with its former boundaries or where TTC transit serves. The current Streetcar network of 11 lines was designed to serve strictly the pre-amalgamated old city of Toronto. Not Scarborough. Not North York. And only the southern tip of Etobicoke and High Park. So if you want to compare apples to apples, I suggest we compare pre-amalgamated Toronto and Lyon, which would yield a much more accurate reflection of TTC's streetcar route patterns. If Toronto never went ahead with amalgamation in 1998, it could have easily come on top as having one of the best transit systems with great coverage in North America.
Yes you are right. However, amalgamation not only makes Toronto's public transit inadequate on paper, but also makes any new improvement harder - to the extent that people think a Yonge relief line serve "the downtown elites", and that most recent infrastructure buildings seems to focus on the suburbs (University line extension, Scarborough "subway" etc) than on the city. The need to satisfy those people and buy their votes greatly hinders Toronto from progressing.
I wish amalgamation hadn't happened, but it has, and it has its consequences from bringing 2 million suburban minded people who love their white picket suburban house and "tree lined *dead* residential streets" into the equation in deciding how the city should be built.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
