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.
Both of the above can be solved by prioritizing the Relief Line, but the Ontario Liberals and our spineless Mayor John Tory would rather build a $4 billion, 1-stop, vote buying subway to Scarborough Town Centre than addressing overcrowding first one the existing system. One of these days, when Yonge Bloor reaches 200%+ of its built capacity (almost weekly nowadays even with crowd control measures in place), there will be an accident when someone gets pushed over the platform. And when that happens someone - Tory or the Ontario Liberals - will have to deal with fallout. When you keep extending subways into the suburbs while refusing to build new capacity on the existing lines, it's just a matter of time when that fatal accident occurs due to platform overcrowding.
.
It is the same thing as part of our discussion about Yonge street where it isn't simply just a matter of creating a more pleasant pedestrian experience, it is a basic matter of safety. The city likes to throw growth rates and the DT core doubling in population to over 450K people by 2040, yet it is shockingly so negligent in making the right and common sense decisions to ensure basic infrastructure needs are met for safety. It is a good idea to flag this because not enough people are giving this matter the attention it deserves.
No one said and will ever say that "more transit will fix everything".
My post was more on the Ontario Liberals' spotty track record when it comes to prioritizing transit funding and construction. During this whole time, they have prioritized projects like Spadina extension to Vaughan and Scarborough Subway while ignoring the real bottlenecks in the TTC system:
- Bloor Yonge Station reaching 150% of peak capacity today
- Overcrowding on Line 1 south of Bloor
When we talk about congestion and overcrowding with the subways, my question is is it really that bad? I mean outside of rush hour time, is the subway system really all that busy? While I admit that I haven't used the TTC regularly in a very long time, I do remember back in the day when I used the subways that outside of the usual busy times that it wasn't all that crowded the rest of the time.
Namely past like 8-9pm is the subway system really that crowded or is anywhere near as crowded as rush hour is? If not then is it really worth building the DRL instead of spending that money on other transit projects or doing something else with those funds?
And also I think more people will suicide in the TTC system in a single year than there will be accidents or people getting killed from getting pushed off the platform etc. for 10 or more years. So that shouldn't be a major concern compared to people causing delays because they want to jump in front of a subway to end things.
Quote:
And yes, I agree with you that there should be alternative solutions to address transport in the suburbs - bike lanes, wider side walks, and even electric bike lanes along side existing roads. All of those are good solutions that should be combined with existing transit infrastructure.
My question is why can't we do this first? Building these multi-use pedestrian/bike/small electric vehicle lanes by repurposing already in place, but severely underutilized sidewalk infracstructure all across the GTA. Its magnitudes cheaper in cost, it covers vastly more area, and you can implement and build this infrastructure in a vastly quicker time frame than you ever could with the DRL or any other major TTC project.
We keep talking about more bike paths as a way to reduce vehicle traffic so why not get that going first so we can see benefits more quickly for more people? As I said before with the way the city is constructed, transit will never be a better option in the suburbs no matter how much you spend and build in trying to get people to use it over driving.
When we talk about congestion and overcrowding with the subways, my question is is it really that bad? I mean outside of rush hour time, is the subway system really all that busy? While I admit that I haven't used the TTC regularly in a very long time, I do remember back in the day when I used the subways that outside of the usual busy times that it wasn't all that crowded the rest of the time.
Namely past like 8-9pm is the subway system really that crowded or is anywhere near as crowded as rush hour is? If not then is it really worth building the DRL instead of spending that money on other transit projects or doing something else with those funds?
And also I think more people will suicide in the TTC system in a single year than there will be accidents or people getting killed from getting pushed off the platform etc. for 10 or more years. So that shouldn't be a major concern compared to people causing delays because they want to jump in front of a subway to end things.
You're one of those wait until it busts type of people aren't you.. During peak hours it IS quite bad. Line 1 is the busiest line in Canada and second in U.S/Canada after one in NYC and it is getting worse yoy. The DRL is needed desperately and the situation is getting worse. Fact is you also have to build in some capacity for when things fail. Things are bad during peak times with everything running optimally so yes, it is time and clearly you haven't used the TTC in a long time.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Max Sterling
My question is why can't we do this first? Building these multi-use pedestrian/bike/small electric vehicle lanes by repurposing already in place, but severely underutilized sidewalk infracstructure all across the GTA. Its magnitudes cheaper in cost, it covers vastly more area, and you can implement and build this infrastructure in a vastly quicker time frame than you ever could with the DRL or any other major TTC project.
We keep talking about more bike paths as a way to reduce vehicle traffic so why not get that going first so we can see benefits more quickly for more people? As I said before with the way the city is constructed, transit will never be a better option in the suburbs no matter how much you spend and build in trying to get people to use it over driving.
I actually think this is a good idea. I don't know why it can't be done in conjunction with RT development. The two can go hand in hand actually. You'd need a bit of vision for it to happen though and that is lacking in political leadership it seems. You also need 905 support for it and they love their cars and power centre's though I think that'll start to change once LRT lines in those areas become more of a reality - they will see that the car isn't always the only option and will take to the streets more without car.
When we talk about congestion and overcrowding with the subways, my question is is it really that bad? I mean outside of rush hour time, is the subway system really all that busy? While I admit that I haven't used the TTC regularly in a very long time, I do remember back in the day when I used the subways that outside of the usual busy times that it wasn't all that crowded the rest of the time.
Namely past like 8-9pm is the subway system really that crowded or is anywhere near as crowded as rush hour is? If not then is it really worth building the DRL instead of spending that money on other transit projects or doing something else with those funds?
To answer your question - outside of rush hour (7 to 930 am, and 4 to 7 pm weekdays), the TTC subway system isn't so bad in terms of crowding. So you are correct in your observation that Line 1 and 2 aren't overly crowded outside of rush hour.
However, that's not how one builds and operates a transit system - or any transportation system for that matter. As best practice, most heavily used transport lines - whether it be a subway line or a major highway like 401 or the new Champlain Bridge in Montreal - are planned and built to meet "peak period capacity", that is, when the lines or roads are most heavily used.
Can you imagine if Highway 401 was built with only 2 lanes each way and we never bothered to add additional lanes or collector lanes in the past 40 years? Sure, it would appear pretty smooth at 11 pm on a Sunday night, but it would be absolute chaos during peak periods. The same logic applies to other modes of transport, including the TTC Line 1 Subway, which has consistently breached its crowd safety standards by 120 to 150% on regular weekdays over the past 10 years.
Lastly, it's not just a matter of having a smooth, comfortable subway ride, but also a matter of life and death safety. Subway overcrowding is a significant safety hazard and Toronto City Counsel is currently playing with fire on Line 1. Two weeks ago, due to overcrowding, TTC had to completely shut down Bloor Yonge station for 2 hours during rush hour, because they cannot physically fit more people onto the platforms short of pushing people onto the tracks. That's a disaster waiting to happen, and we - as taxpayers - will all pay for it when that happens (think of the civil liability law suits that will be hurled at the City and Province when someone gets hurt due to exceeding overcrowding and fire safety standards at a subway station).
However, that's not how one builds and operates a transit system - or any transportation system for that matter. As best practice, most heavily used transport lines - whether it be a subway line or a major highway like 401 or the new Champlain Bridge in Montreal - are planned and built to meet "peak period capacity", that is, when the lines or roads are most heavily used.
There are some systems whereby there is a controlled distribution of demand over time, although that doesn't really apply to the TTC or highways. That said, as the city grows the valleys that exist now within the TTC will start to gradually fill in at times that were previously not 'peaky'.
I actually think this is a good idea. I don't know why it can't be done in conjunction with RT development. The two can go hand in hand actually. You'd need a bit of vision for it to happen though and that is lacking in political leadership it seems. You also need 905 support for it and they love their cars and power centre's though I think that'll start to change once LRT lines in those areas become more of a reality - they will see that the car isn't always the only option and will take to the streets more without car.
The thing is why can't we build our bike infrastructure first and see what effects it has before going ahead with building transit that will take years to finish? I mean is it really that difficult to resurface sidewalks with asphalt and paint a few lines and put up some signs and voila new bike paths ready for use. Quick and easy. I'm just looking at options that can help the city and its population NOW and is easy to implement and low in cost and bike paths fit the bill.
Any type of transit project takes time to implement and then build and put into operation especially when we're talking about Toronto so again why not give priority to bike infrastructure first which is what people want and is easy to implement especially when we're talking about repurposing sidewalks to be multiuse? I mean even if you started building the DRL tomorrow its still going to be a number of years before it actually becomes operational, so I'm saying lets just build something that we can use now.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bostonkid123
To answer your question - outside of rush hour (7 to 930 am, and 4 to 7 pm weekdays), the TTC subway system isn't so bad in terms of crowding. So you are correct in your observation that Line 1 and 2 aren't overly crowded outside of rush hour.
However, that's not how one builds and operates a transit system - or any transportation system for that matter. As best practice, most heavily used transport lines - whether it be a subway line or a major highway like 401 or the new Champlain Bridge in Montreal - are planned and built to meet "peak period capacity", that is, when the lines or roads are most heavily used.
Can you imagine if Highway 401 was built with only 2 lanes each way and we never bothered to add additional lanes or collector lanes in the past 40 years? Sure, it would appear pretty smooth at 11 pm on a Sunday night, but it would be absolute chaos during peak periods. The same logic applies to other modes of transport, including the TTC Line 1 Subway, which has consistently breached its crowd safety standards by 120 to 150% on regular weekdays over the past 10 years.
The thing is where are we going to get the money to build the DRL? And also how many years will it take to build? As I said above why not implement something that is far less costly and will be available for use much more quickly with bike paths?
And also as people have suggested before, why not implement another short term solution where businesses can vary the start time of the work day for their employees so that not everyone has to use the TTC at the same time? I'm not against the DRL project, just that as I suggested above there are other solutions that can help the city now and that doesn't take forever to implement or cost an arm and a leg.
And its abit off topic, but I think part of the reason why traffic is bad in downtown Toronto is because of bad traffic light timings and bad intersection design. They really need to implement more scramble intersections all over the downtown core to get traffic moving as right now the way they have things setup is horrible. Just make scramble intersections that have 30 seconds for only east-west traffic, 30 seconds for only north-south traffic and then 30-40 seconds for only pedestrian traffic. Something as simple as this would probably relieve a ton of traffic that is currently clogging up the core.
The thing is why can't we build our bike infrastructure first and see what effects it has before going ahead with building transit that will take years to finish? I mean is it really that difficult to resurface sidewalks with asphalt and paint a few lines and put up some signs and voila new bike paths ready for use. Quick and easy. I'm just looking at options that can help the city and its population NOW and is easy to implement and low in cost and bike paths fit the bill.
Any type of transit project takes time to implement and then build and put into operation especially when we're talking about Toronto so again why not give priority to bike infrastructure first which is what people want and is easy to implement especially when we're talking about repurposing sidewalks to be multiuse? I mean even if you started building the DRL tomorrow its still going to be a number of years before it actually becomes operational, so I'm saying lets just build something that we can use now.
I really don't think bike infrastructure alone is going to replace all transit infrastructure projects. An arterial like Finch has enough demand for a LRT as example. There are quite a few arterials in the city like that. Crossing vast distances on a bike is not practical for most people and it isn't going to get you from A to B fast enough. Bike lanes and LRT/BRT as well as full fledged subway lines still have demand in this city. Torontonians are very transit friendly and an expanded network would help reduce congestion on our roads, is more green and connects the city in a more integrated manner to parts within and external. As for money, well the time is now to pay for it - not down the road when it becomes more expensive. I think we should continue to correct the mistakes of the past.
You're right about the DRL - It'll take years to construct - no better time to start ASAP. Imagine if we were having this discussion 15 years ago - the thing would be built and we'd reap the rewards. A big problem is we aren't mating Rapid transit development in the areas in most need. Now is the time to correct that.
I really don't think bike infrastructure alone is going to replace all transit infrastructure projects. An arterial like Finch has enough demand for a LRT as example. There are quite a few arterials in the city like that. Crossing vast distances on a bike is not practical for most people and it isn't going to get you from A to B fast enough. Bike lanes and LRT/BRT as well as full fledged subway lines still have demand in this city. Torontonians are very transit friendly and an expanded network would help reduce congestion on our roads, is more green and connects the city in a more integrated manner to parts within and external. As for money, well the time is now to pay for it - not down the road when it becomes more expensive. I think we should continue to correct the mistakes of the past.
You're right about the DRL - It'll take years to construct - no better time to start ASAP. Imagine if we were having this discussion 15 years ago - the thing would be built and we'd reap the rewards. A big problem is we aren't mating Rapid transit development in the areas in most need. Now is the time to correct that.
I'm not looking at bike paths to replace all or even most transit projects, but I'm saying that it can make a significant impact in the short and longterm, its relatively cheap and it can have positive effects for the entire GTA if you choose to build it across the city. With the cost of even one small or medium sized transit project, you could probably build dual use bike/pedestrian bike paths completely across the whole GTA connecting the entire city so that you could pedal from one end of the GTA to the other if you wanted to.
That would give at least several benefits:
- a expansive bike network that many of people have always wanted
- paths that people can use for exercising in their neighborhoods for bikers and others
- have bike paths that are completely separate from vehicle traffic and hence saving people from injury or even death that we often see now in the city
- allows people to use the paths for short to medium trips which would help with taking some traffic off the roads
I think the last point is important in that even if not a ton of people are going to pedal from Markham to downtown to get to work, I think a large bike network could help with people choosing to bike or use means other than a car to go to their local mall or restaurant etc. And also if the city allows small motorized vehicles like electric skateboards, bikes etc. then that will solve part of the distance issue and allow people to travel further without using a car. People might not want to pedal many kilometers, but using say an electric skateboard or other electric vehicles I think much more people would be open to that because its easier and its fun and you don't have to arrive to work or school etc all sweaty and out of breath.
I think building large transit projects is fine, but I think something smaller like a good bike path network could ultimately yield more benefits and be more useful to more people than say the DRL which would benefit mostly one part of the city. And you talk about correcting past mistakes, what about correcting the mistake of building literally thousands and thousands of kilometers of sidewalk that are almost never used? Literally outside of the downtown core, sidewalks are almost always empty of the foot traffic that it was built for. Why not correct that mistake and repurpose those sidewalks and get people to use that infrastructure that's pointlessly sitting there most of the time?
And again when it comes to funding, I'd think it'd be much easier to find maybe 100-200 million or something along those lines to build a bike network than it would be to find several billion to fund the DRL or other large transit projects. So if it were me, I'd do the bike network first where hopefully the redtape should be much less and we could get to building ASAP, while we're waiting for the DRL or other transit projects to get approval and funding to get started which will for sure take a number of years.
I'm not looking at bike paths to replace all or even most transit projects, but I'm saying that it can make a significant impact in the short and longterm, its relatively cheap and it can have positive effects for the entire GTA if you choose to build it across the city. With the cost of even one small or medium sized transit project, you could probably build dual use bike/pedestrian bike paths completely across the whole GTA connecting the entire city so that you could pedal from one end of the GTA to the other if you wanted to.
That would give at least several benefits:
- a expansive bike network that many of people have always wanted
- paths that people can use for exercising in their neighborhoods for bikers and others
- have bike paths that are completely separate from vehicle traffic and hence saving people from injury or even death that we often see now in the city
- allows people to use the paths for short to medium trips which would help with taking some traffic off the roads
I think the last point is important in that even if not a ton of people are going to pedal from Markham to downtown to get to work, I think a large bike network could help with people choosing to bike or use means other than a car to go to their local mall or restaurant etc. And also if the city allows small motorized vehicles like electric skateboards, bikes etc. then that will solve part of the distance issue and allow people to travel further without using a car. People might not want to pedal many kilometers, but using say an electric skateboard or other electric vehicles I think much more people would be open to that because its easier and its fun and you don't have to arrive to work or school etc all sweaty and out of breath.
I think building large transit projects is fine, but I think something smaller like a good bike path network could ultimately yield more benefits and be more useful to more people than say the DRL which would benefit mostly one part of the city. And you talk about correcting past mistakes, what about correcting the mistake of building literally thousands and thousands of kilometers of sidewalk that are almost never used? Literally outside of the downtown core, sidewalks are almost always empty of the foot traffic that it was built for. Why not correct that mistake and repurpose those sidewalks and get people to use that infrastructure that's pointlessly sitting there most of the time?
And again when it comes to funding, I'd think it'd be much easier to find maybe 100-200 million or something along those lines to build a bike network than it would be to find several billion to fund the DRL or other large transit projects. So if it were me, I'd do the bike network first where hopefully the redtape should be much less and we could get to building ASAP, while we're waiting for the DRL or other transit projects to get approval and funding to get started which will for sure take a number of years.
I actually think your idea(s) about bike lanes/network and getting people on the sidewalks using them is actually excellent so don't get me wrong. It would probably take less time than say the DRL but i'm still not of the mind that one has to come at the expense of the other. The DRL would relieve a huge pressure point on the existing subway system and as such, in terms of transit dollars should be bumped to the first. The largest transit build in Canadian history is occurring right here in the GTA so the 7 billion dollar price tag of the DRL could be found within the 40 Billion being spent.
I actually think your idea(s) about bike lanes/network and getting people on the sidewalks using them is actually excellent so don't get me wrong. It would probably take less time than say the DRL but i'm still not of the mind that one has to come at the expense of the other. The DRL would relieve a huge pressure point on the existing subway system and as such, in terms of transit dollars should be bumped to the first. The largest transit build in Canadian history is occurring right here in the GTA so the 7 billion dollar price tag of the DRL could be found within the 40 Billion being spent.
Is there actual funding already in place for the DRL? A quick search and it seems like there's only money for more studies and assessments and all that crap. About 100-150 million being used for these studies/enviromental assessments which probably could've built a pretty decent amount of bike infrastructure now.
That's why I keep saying its better to get the bike infrastructure built first because its going to take seemingly forever to get everything together to build the DRL along with who knows how much money will have been spent before even a single shovel has been put into the ground that could've built a good if not great bike network by now. That's the problem with big projects like these. So much time used and so much money disappearing into these studies and assessments that cost crazy amounts of money whether it actually costs that much or not.
Compare that to simply getting a bike network up that people can use in the next couple of years and doesn't cost a ton of money and doesn't require endless studies to approve and implement considering its just a sidwalk resurfacing job in most areas and I don't get why we shouldn't build that first.
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.
