Warning: This post will be offensive to those with sensitive egos.
In recent months, probably thanks to the election campaign, I have acquired a few “followers” who have enough working brain cells to put together rants on a daily basis. They decry my antipathy to anyone-but-Chow, subways, SmartTrack, and various other schemes claiming that I am eminently unqualified to run this blog. One regular writer even claims that I should “resign” so that some more enlightened soul can be “elected” by the readership to mind the store.
One wonders what part of a personal domain name this person (or persons) does not understand, or the idea that the marketplace will determine whether writings here have credibility and influence.
Those with nothing better to do but criticize almost certainly have not put in the decades of watching, commenting, advocating, consulting and even occasionally getting paid (!!!) for their thoughts on transit. Early in this blog’s history, back in March 2006, that little agency called “Metrolinx” did not yet exist, and in anticipation of its creation, I wrote an article about how the region’s transit should evolve.
I gave credit to other organizations, notably the Toronto Board of Trade, as well as the army of professionals and amateurs with whom I have discussed transit over the years.
The plan included:
- Much more extensive use of the rail network for improved GO service.
- Much improved service on the surface bus and streetcar network including an increased bus fleet and purchase of an accessible low-floor streetcar fleet.
- An Eglinton LRT line including an underground section from Leaside to Keele including service to Pearson Airport.
- A Don Mills / Waterfront east line [Since 2006, I have come to think that a full subway would be better south of Eglinton as the line would be entirely grade separated anyhow. As for the waterfront, the planned development between Yonge and the Port Lands is now much more extensive and requires far more than a DRL or SmartTrack station to serve the entire site.]
- Various other LRT lines including one in the Weston corridor using the space that has now been consumed by the UPX trackage.
- A Yonge subway extension north to Steeles.
… and much more.
The plan isn’t perfect. My opinion of some lines has changed over the years, but the basic premise has not. Toronto must think of transit as a network with many parts, not just a bauble here and there to get someone through an election, or a showpiece for one municipality or transit operator.
Yes, I’m an advocate for LRT, a mode that other cities were building while Toronto wasted four decades on the anything-but-LRT attitude that dates back to Bill Davis. I make no apology for that, and only wish we had built more over the years rather than pursuing pipe-dreams and fighting over the selection of new routes.
By now, we could have had a network of LRT lines plus frequent GO service in two or three corridors serving Scarborough. What we got was the Toonerville Trolley to STC.
Some folks see me as a critic, a nay-sayer who denigrates new plans and opposes “progress” (a word that usually means building what they want). I have seen plans come and go, a lot of false starts, and too many cases where small-scale, short-term thinking wasted opportunities for real progress on transit. Far too many hobby-horses, far too much vote-buying, and far too much fiscal fantasy about something-for-nothing transit systems.
So the next time you feel like leaving a really snotty comment here about how I don’t care about anyone outside of downtown, how I am single-handedly responsible for the decline of civilization as we know it, take a few moments to polish off your resumé. Tell us all what you were doing for the past 40 years, and how carefully you have thought about the transit system. Then start your own website.
Steve Munro 
That’ll learn ‘Em. No…it won’t because their minds are set. But thanks for highly entertaining post.
Cheers, Moaz
LikeLike
Well come on you are single-handedly responsible for the decline of civilization as we know it, but on the other hand you do know a lot about transit.
Steve: I do my part to bring a little happiness into the world. It has been declining for a long time, and even the smallest contribution helps.
LikeLike
PS: are you going to take another look at “A Grand Plan?” Now would be a good time to do so given that the RER and SmartTrack are on the table, the East Bayfront is seeing developnent (and the failure to actually build “transit first” on the East Bayfront is getting noticed), there is a strong desire to connect the Unilever Lands to transit, the Crosstown is underway, and there are clear questions about how UPEx fits into the overall network.
Then there are the service expansion vision proposals from ttc management and the union.
All-in-all it looks like a good time for the review.
Cheers, Moaz
Steve: I have not written a commentary about the ATU’s paper because I was a reviewer of it while it was still in draft and did not want to be accused of shilling for something I had even a minor hand in. As for the waterfront, I am working on articles for Waterfront Toronto about precisely the problems of the east-of-Yonge areas and the “transit last” attitude that seems to have infected those plans.
LikeLike
Hey Steve.
I enjoy reading your posts and the follow-on comments. I certainly haven’t come across a more informed website on Transit in Toronto. Your 4 decades of passionate interest in public transit shows.
Thanks for all the time and effort you devote to this website. If trolls have found it, maybe that’s simply a sign of your success. Keep up the good work!
LikeLike
Are you the person who came up with Miller’s Transit City plan? Your proposals seem rather similar to his Transit City plan even though you came up with these proposals in 2006, before Miller was re-elected as mayor.
Steve: When I first saw Transit City, it was presented to me pretty much as a fait accompli, although there are some obvious parallels. Other folks read my blog, of course, and they may have poached a few things, but some of these ideas have been around in various forms for years notably a “DRL” like line and the Scarborough line to Malvern (which was going to be LRT back when that area was almost all vacant land). Waterfront West dates from 1990, although the city and TTC messed with the plan several times along the way. The GO Transit ideas have also been around for ages (some of them show up on a TTC proposal in the 1960s) and, of course, the Board of Trade had already been pushing this idea.
If anything, what has been missing is the actual will to do something, and we have not been helped one bit by Ford’s dog-in-the-manger attitude to anything David Miller proposed. Transit City has its flaws (I have written about this here) and the process was not helped by the ham-fisted way some of the public participation for the projects was handled, and some of the screwball ideas for how some features of the line would be built.
The St. Clair project was also underway at the time, and it provided a perfect example of why the TTC should not be allowed to do anything, in the minds of some critics. There were folks at the TTC who didn’t “get it” that the screw ups on St. Clair would threaten the credibility of the whole LRT project.
If Miller had stood for a third term, we would have gone far enough with some projects that they would have been unstoppable, but this was not to be.
LikeLike
On the question of transit first for the waterfront, how many condos were occupied on Queens Quay West when the original 604 Waterfront streetcar line opened with the refurbished PCCs? That was before I moved to Toronto.
Steve: Not too many. Harbour Square (foot of Bay), plus the Huang & Dansky buildings (the three ugly towers east of Rees that were built without a permit). I am fairly certain nothing else was there at the time, but a lot was in the pipeline.
LikeLike
Thank you Steve for your passion and the hard work you have done over decades. I do not live anywhere near Toronto, but it is a city I like and what happens in Toronto has influence all over the province.
Each time I visit Toronto I make a point of using the streetcar as it is so practical and brings me where I want to be.
Hopefully you will not get discouraged and continue writing on YOUR website and continue to advocate for better transit in Toronto.
It shows that citizens can have an impact on city life and on decisions made by politicians. Perhaps we can entice you to give a master class for those of us outside Toronto who want to improve transit in our cities.
Oh and we need swans!
LikeLike
Damn straight! You tell ’em Steve!
Steve: A good rant is essential now and then. Look at Rick Mercer — he does one every week, although he has a rather larger audience that I do.
LikeLike
Steve: Don’t let the trolls get you down. Some people are too lazy to contribute, leaving them only capable of complaining or criticizing.
Like most, I haven’t taken the time to give credit where credit is due, so here goes: Steve’s writings have led me to change my mind about a number of issues surrounding transit in general and Toronto transit in particular. I hope this is taken as the high praise it is intended to be. For what other purpose does this site serve, than to persuade?
Steve is well to my left on the political spectrum, which makes it all the more delightful to find well researched and reasoned arguments which routinely demonstrate an excellent grasp of the advantages of markets and their limitations. If there were a lot more people like Steve, there might be a technocratic utopia after all.
LikeLike
Steve appreciate your work, and your responses. I am always amused at the one size fits all notions that seem to come up from some of the trolls. Love your basic approach, that is data driven. Advocating the idea of building based on existing load, origin-destination information, likely development and a real vision of an overall network oh and actual available space (i.e. LRT through the core with narrow roads doesn’t work) is not playing favourites, it is common sense.
Too often I think people are bringing politically charged, unanchored expectations. Unfortunately until the politics of the city can get closer to your approach to transit, it is likely that the frustration will continue. Fiscal reality has a bad habit of interfering with overly grand dreams of overbuilt systems. Those wild dreams having already destroyed real plans. You seem to have consistently called a spade a spade.
Toronto needs to start building based on good modelling of network demands and best transit practice. It has spent decades planning transit based on vote maximisation.
LikeLike
I always enjoy reading your ideas as they come across as being without glaring partisan (or otherwise “politician of the day”) slants but seem to be interested in forwarding the ideas which you think need attention.
You also go into some pretty deep dives which is good since it provides context for your thoughts and including the historical context of the political or financial climates surrounding these ideas grounds them in something less akin to the kinds of “just do things the way I think are best, today” rants which have made the modern internet [in]famous.
Of course, the internet only has angry pundits, if you listen to who speaks. Thus, you probably picked up many times as many honestly interested readers as angry mouthpieces.
LikeLike
Bravo!
LikeLike
We are stuck in a world where transit plans are mixed in with politics. Politics have no place in transit planning. If the TTC was a private organization, I am sure you would have left quite a legacy. Ford Motor Company annouced that they will not be building engines in Windsor recently. This was a business decision. How many people complain about that? Talk about Transit City and Ford Nation will tar and feather you.
Politicians do not make good choices. They make political decisions. For example, if Hitler had spent money building U-boats in the 1930s. Britain would have been defeated well before the Battle of Britain. Instead, he built the Bismarck. Politics divide and do not unite.
If the TTC was a publicly traded corporation, they would have brought in guest workers to finish off the Spadina extension by 2015. They would have made business decisions on what technology to use for all the corridors concerned. No business man would build for prestige. If Scarborough cannot justify metro technology, perhaps monorail would be built instead. This is like asking Westjet to fly Boeing 747 to Gaspe because they have not been well off since confederation. Westjet will only fly Q400s if demand justifies that.
LikeLike
Another feather in your cap – as if you needed one – was Andy Byford’s column on the TTC page in Metro (on Friday). He suggests (a) using the CLRVs freed up on Spadina (as more Flexities arrive) to augment service on Queen and King, including moving ALRVs to King and (b) looking at moving up the dates on which King and Queen will be converted. That doesn’t sound at all familiar! 🙂
LikeLike
Thank you for the post, Steve. You have been able to change my opinions. I was very pro-subway before I found this site. Over the years, I have learned more from this site about LRT and its benefits. While we may somewhat disagree over some specifics, this does not mean that this site is not educational. And the reply option allows people to continue the discussion.
LikeLike
Thank you!
LikeLike
I cannot understand how anyone who cares so much for swans could possibly be “single-handedly responsible for the decline of civilization”. 😉
Keep up the great work!
LikeLike
Amen, if there were truly high frequency service in Stouffville, UPx, Richmond Hill, Lakeshore East and West, it may radically alter the possible networks. In your comments you have been fairly clear what you think the impact would be on the western portion of the Waterfront West LRT, and also I think you have been clear on the impact should be on the Scarborough subway extension.
I hope the planners are looking at this, however, a basic look at what the network could or should look like with these in place might be worthwhile.
I wonder in terms of what the network should look like based on varying levels of capacity and frequency in each of these routes, and logically what transfer points need to be protected for (Richmond Hill and Crosstown, if Richmond Hill RER runs every 10 minutes or better does there need to be a transfer here?). What connections to the UPx? How sensitive is that to headway? What sort of capacity should be protected for here and in Stouffville, and what about Richmond Hill?
What will the impact be of tying the Mississauga transit way to the Crosstown and that to a high frequency service in UPX? What about Finch LRT? What other connections should follow? What should a bus network look like with this and Stouffville in place? I really hope that SmartTrack is weighed as part of a wide variety of alternatives, and not just added as a base assumption to build the network around. Also I really hope the real routes and limitations are looked at critically, as you did the western end. What is your understanding in terms of what should be next? Can SmartTrack even in the east deliver the type of capacity promised (what about required?) without a radical change in route or a substantial expansion of the ROW?
LikeLike
P.S.
Steve I have quite the ego, and did not find this the least offensive.
LikeLike
First of all thank you Steve, but also thank you to the frequent commenters that add to the discussion. While reading the long list can be painful at times, I learn just as much from the blog, as I do from all of your input, as I do from Steve’s responses to the comments…. and yes, even when goes on a FordNation rant, I find the mental exercise interesting to try and understanding the head-space, and the rebuttal is good to holster as future ammunition.
This blog is a huge reason why I decided to throw away my successful (but unhappy) 9 year career and jump into an M.Eng in Transportation at Ryerson so I can be a more official part of this conversation, both within my peer/friends/family group and the city as a whole. (If you want to see my first attempts at explaining Toronto Transit planning at a talk I gave to ITE/CSCE Toronto Chapter.)
One piece of feedback I would give to the community is that I think we have to be more careful about crossing the line between being professional and constructive, and being offensive. I can’t begin to imagine the frustration that our gurus (like Steve and others) have experienced over the last 40 years, and maybe my relatively new contribution to this (the last 2 years or so), is keeping me on the “glass half full” positive side (for now). My previous career was in technical sales and marketing for automation products, and so I worked across industries, across seniorities. It’s been my experience that both the tone and delivery of the messaging is at least (if not more) important than the technical details themselves.
I think I’m saying this, is that while this blog and Steve is well respected, I know from conversations first hand that many people (who work at Metrolinx, MTO, TTC, City of TO, private consulting), have concerns about the tone that gets personal more often than it should be objective and have chosen to stop reading the blog, or do so only very very occasionally, because we are crossing this line too often… or they let their communications people follow the broader conversations in Toronto (across many sources), filtering/passing along details once in a while.
I will always keep reading as this will help me [hopefully] eventually get to Super Saiyan Munro status, swooping in on Swan Boats to save the day.. 🙂
Thank you again all of you.
Steve: Although the tone here, including my own, can get rather snarky I times, I have had long experience with the argument “why can’t you just say something nice”. For such efforts I would usually get, figuratively speaking, a pat on the head and maybe a lollipop. Too often, professionals simply don’t want to hear competing views either because these don’t accord with their well-ordered universe, or because they don’t look forward to having to explain to their bosses/politicos why the critics are wrong. There are times when one must really hit folks over the head to get their attention. Sad, but true.
LikeLike
We all should be quite thankful of Steve and most commenters for the opportunities to have detailed and far-ranging insights into transick operations and the politics, often sad politics as planning gets thrown under subway extensions etc. I don’t always agree with Steve for sure on some things, but it makes it more precious and worthwhile when he cuts to ribbons some decisions/institutions/people, though I wish we could see a bit more exploration of how cars are subsidized vs. transit for the larger context.
In the meanwhile, maybe the trolls could start their own blah-blah-blog – perhaps with name of Trolly Fellows – as odds are most of them are male, and perhaps anonymouse.
LikeLike
Applause, Steve. Applause.
LikeLike
Not familiar at all.
Credit Byford for this idea. He’s showing that he IS the guy to run the TTC. Of course throwing more assets at the streetcar lines does absolutely nothing for the rest of us that rarely make it downtown as we have no need to.
Steve: You may want to reread my previous critiques of the TTC’s fleet plan which would have retired the capacity of the ALRVs faster than they would be replaced with CLRVs. That’s the version that exists in the 2014 Capital Budget. I’m not saying Byford copied my plan, but it has taken a few years of hammering away at the TTC to get them to acknowledge that the original rollout scheme for the new cars would have been a mess.
I’m sorry you don’t make it downtown and have no need to. Downtowners deserve good transit too.
LikeLike
I’ve wanted to write to you to thank you for providing such an informative blog, and this seems as good a time as any – thank you!!
Some of the comments I’ve seen here must induce substantial rolling of eyes – I hope you have a good supply of aspirin.
So thank you for providing a very informative, well-written blog. And keep up the good work!
LikeLike
Hi Steve
I also want to thank you for your advocacy of a reasoned approach to public transit. It stands in stark contrast to the circus like administration of the past four years. The Fords, and their followers, complete disregard of such basic things as facts and reality is just amazing. The damage that their approach has done will be with us for decades. If you can, please keep the information and facts coming. It’s a powerful weapon that can work.
LikeLike
As a carless downtown Torontonian who has friends in the suburbs I am an occasional user of the TTC for both downtown trips and longer excursions. I discovered your blog shortly after you launched it and have learned so much from you – and some of your correspondents. Of course, one knows that any big picture is composed of many smaller ones but your ability to see and understand both the big picture and the minutae of the smaller pieces is amazing. That you can also explain quite complex systems clearly, are prepared to change your mind if there is new evidence and to do so with (generally!) good humour is fantastic. Though you do post some rather repetitive or ill-informed comments, I assume you do not ‘publish’ all the comments you receive. What’s your ‘rejection rate”.
Anyway: thank you for all your work on the blog (and for the occasional arts/film commentary). I look forward to seeing your comments on the recent proposals from Local 113.
Steve: I have refrained from commenting on the ATU 113 paper because I was a reviewer of the document in its draft state. The writing is the work of others, but I made several suggestions to tidy up and strengthen the arguments.
LikeLike
Finally putting your foot down. Well done Steve. This is long overdue.
Steve: Imagining the Monty Python foot making a guest appearance …
LikeLike
To be fair to your detractors, your discussions of various transit plans often suffer from a “perfect is the enemy of good” problem. Even when someone proposes some good incremental improvements, you bring out the bugaboo of how we need holistic network planning. When someone proposes a grand holistic vision, you describe it as unrealistic lines on a map. Long time readers of your blog know to skip over your negativity and read just the analysis, insights, and historical perspective. Casual passers-by might take your devil’s advocate writing style at face value and assume that you’re against everything.
Steve: I have no problem with incremental improvements, but when they are presented as the ultimate solution, rather than merely a step along the way, then I take exception.
There are also degrees of “holistic” where coverage has to be tempered with affordability and achievability. A lot of coverage will always be provided by the surface routes, not by rapid transit, and an “holistic” plan that ignores this really does not deserve the term.
LikeLike
Really? There are a lot of egotistical bastards out there who would do so, as long as it was someone else’s money. Does the name “The Donald” ring a bell?
I have two comments for you:
1) Do you have dictionary of all the intentional mis-spellings you come up with like “Transick?” If you do please publish it or a link to it.
2) Hopefully you realize that when it comes to driving one’s own private car (I won’t insult you by saying you and your) that rationale arguments are almost useless. Since I “have to have a car anyways” I might as well drive it to work. You can’t get rid of parking on the street in front of my store. Where will my customers park? How do I make deliveries?
One fact I do know is the the cost of the last set of parking garages built by Metrolinx cost $42,000 per space on average. On top of that you have the maintenance costs which I have not been able to find. If they would give some of that money to operating a decent feeder bus service then more people would bus instead of drive. This would free up space for intensification which would also make the area more transit viable.
The other thing I love is the group of people who buy property next to a train line and then complain of the noise.
LikeLike
Speaking of LRTs, although they make a lot of sense now, I’ve recently started wondering whether technology shifts in the next 10 years will start changing the economics of them. It seems like in 10 years, we’ll have battery powered buses that can drive autonomously at high speed in tunnels and dedicated lanes. Given the advantages of rubber tire over steel wheel technology (i.e. faster braking, faster acceleration, and ability to handle steep grades), these buses will be able to do things that people have always dreamed about for LRT but just weren’t feasible, like weaving through mixed traffic, dipping underground to bypass intersections, requiring no ugly overhead wires or expensive electricity infrastructure, etc. They could be like a much more advanced version of Boston’s silver line. If Toronto transit is still a mess in 10 years (I don’t think we need a crystal ball to be able to predict *that* future), the future might have some interesting new tools in the toolbox to fix things.
Steve: I would not hold your breath for the technology you describe. For decades, I have been hearing that there is always something new, just around the corner, that will make LRT obsolete. We shouldn’t build, just wait. This is usually a self-serving argument from folks who really would rather build roads that, o-by-the-way, buses get to drive on.
LikeLike
I am a long-time reader but a first-time commenter. As numerous other people have said above me, I just wanted to chime in and let you know how much I appreciate your level-headed and knowledgable opinions on transit in Toronto. The discussion would be much poorer without your contributions and I hope that you continue to keep up the amazing work for a long time to come. Thank you.
LikeLike
Right on Steve
LikeLike
I look forward every day to a cup of coffee after work and checking into stevemunro.ca, even before reading the newspaper. Keep up the good work, Steve!
LikeLike
Bravo!
I’ve been advocating sensible transit – with a far lower profile than yours – and I was pleasantly surprised when I found your blog, and tickled when I realized what your resume included. I’ve enjoyed reading your blog and have been guilty of pointing others here as an example of high quality discussion on transit in Toronto, some of whom may be the trolls you speak of.
P.S. as a business traveller – I’ve taken the odd pics of various transit systems around the world (mostly in the Netherlands) and would be happy to post some of these if you have the bandwidth for this type of thing.
Steve: Thanks for the offer. I tend not to post galleries of other systems or other people’s work as opposed to linking to repositories elsewhere.
LikeLike
Always appreciate reading your the insight & knowledge your provide on transit. Even after I read through all the comments the “anti-inclusive, already live near a subway stop” trolls who dominate the board.
Please continue the hard work you enjoy & keep the discussion going
LikeLike
Steve, what you’ve offered here over the years is to me – and many others – nothing short of superb. I cannot express how grateful I am for all that you have done and are doing in advocating for good, well-thought-out transit that is relevant and appropriate to the use to which it is to be put.
I think that once Toronto gets and has a good working example of what real LRT is and can do and can be experienced first-hand, a great deal of the long-standing misinformation and confusion over what LRT is will evaporate, and it will be able at long last to take its proper place in the larger transit scheme, as it so richly deserves to.
LikeLike
Barry Ritholtz provides the following direction for his comments section of his blog. It is instructive.
LikeLike
I believe that an LRT can stop very quickly, as it has a requirement for more than one form of brakes. Also the basic technology you describe effectively exists now.
There are other considerations with regards to steel wheel vs rubber that also need to be taken into account, such as efficiency, load carrying ability etc. From what I understand there have been some teething issues, and even where they have been adopted, I believe the traditional LRT is still being rolled out on various lines. I think this is really a question of applicability, and we cannot delay building LRT in order to adopt this technology. Also, steel wheel LRT will still apply where it is being proposed now. I think we may find application for this, where we will be able to deploy additional lines in the future. I believe the need to dive under intersections would be important at only a few intersections and on the currently proposed lines the real issue is a basic need to go back and revisit the implementation of signal priority. A revisited, improved, and better coordinated signal priority for transit, that took into account the route headway (both current, and what is likely in the next few km) and was aware of approaching vehicles and all relevant status would assist not just the LRT routes, but also transit in general across the city.
Also it is critical to pay attention to the cumulative impact of 2-3% growth on crowding, and the point at which systems collapse. The impact of load is not linear, but reaches a saturation point and there are then radical changes in performance for small changes in load (basic queue theory speaks to this 1-2% excess load sustained will lead to massive queues). Traffic and transit are like bridges, they can continue to absorb load, with minimal visible ill effect until you can hear the cracking and popping, and what follows shortly is structural failure. Toronto needs to act now on the cracking and popping, because it will not be long. Structural reinforcement is required now, not when a new perfect technology emerges.
LikeLike
Hi Steve:-
Please accept my heartfelt thanx for your continuing to slog away at this blog. I truly appreciate your efforts.
Well OK maybe, not likely though. The question is how fast do you want the darned thing to stop, how fast should the acceleration rate be and how steep of a grade must be overcome? If there is a desire to have passengers, remember they are passengers, not bananas, unsafely thrown about in a transit vehicle due to uncomfortable rates of speed change, then I shall direct your attention to the studies that the President’s Conference Committee invested many hundreds of thousands of dollars in in the 1930s. Their conclusions and results are still valid and in spades today. They equipped a number of ‘steel’ wheeled streetcars with experimental controls, motors and gear ratios and discovered that it was entirely possible to set up a steel to steel traction car’s acceleration and deceleration values as to be so excessive as to be impractical for a conveyance intended to transport humans. So the question is, ‘is there really an advantage to rubber tires here’? Hmmm, maybe not!
Then there is the inherent power loss in a similarly sized vehicle that rides on rubber tires versus steel wheels. There is a significantly greater power requirement to just roll the rubber wheels as compared to steel wheels. The rubber tire has to be constantly driven uphill to overcome the flat spot, then load up the bus and wow, the flat spot is larger, thus requiring much more wasted force to propel said conveyance. Make sure that you keep in mind, there is no such thing as free power. Batteries, although self contained in themselves must somehow be recharged. Is it desirable that one throws away that electricity on the lesser efficient rubber wheel?
As to grades, well the City of Pittsburgh once had a far flung (presently much reduced in size, but parts are still there) streetcar and interurban system (read LRT here) for over 100 years. If you have ever investigated that US city you will realize that it is hilly, quite hilly. There are very few areas in Toronto where grades on the roads are over 7%, but Pittsburgh on the other hand had many. Not only the technically superior PCC cars were assigned to work those streets on a daily basis, but their standard control, clasp brake predecessors had provided the same routes with service for decades. To say that a rubber tired vehicle could outperform these cars would be misguided. In our own city, Avenue Road north of Dupont and Yonge Street south of Davisville have a reasonably steep grade and were routinely operated on with 4 motor streetcars lugging the un-powered deadweight of a trailer car up and down them.
I fail to see how a rubber tired conveyance can be touted as superior to a conventional steel wheeled LRT/streetcar when passenger volumes are large enough to justify the dismissal of the freewheeling bus as a serious choice.
Yours
Dennis Rankin
LikeLike
First I would like to say that I thought that was a good presentation.
I would suspect that the major personal, and snarky things come from out and out frustration at the issues of trying to build things where they make no sense. The Scarborough subway, as you point out in your presentation, is to routed around the major destinations, and the high priority neighbourhoods in Scarborough. Yet, it would appear that the city is not only going along with the local MPPs it is actively supporting them.
What is extremely clear, is that in effect, another awful decision that Scarborough will need to live with for decades is about to be made. How can someone who spends tremendous amounts of time championing high quality transit not be frustrated by this. When you are steeped in the basic fundamental notions of how transit should work, how would you not be offended (as in take personal affront) by the idea of building something that will suck up both massive construction dollars and just as importantly operating dollars. You mention the $18 per person being spent on the Sheppard Subway, why would we want to spend nearly the same operating a Scarborough subway in the post RER world. Remember it will lose much of its ridership to RER, and as you point out so well in your presentation, avoid most of the natural points of collection that exist in the area.
Your presentation is very good, and is in many ways in line with both what Steve advocates, and what has been put out by Metrolinx, in the first published requirements, and the routes they initially supported. How is it that we are now deviating so far from this? How can anyone who is reasonably aware of the available information, and has a reasonable recollection of the history of planning in the city not be offended by the continued political games being played? Remember where you were nearly swearing in your presentation, and had to move on …
The need to get past the politics in Toronto, will require the people who present the planning to actually be allowed to present the best plan, and the politicians to allow it to happen. I find it remarkably frustrating to watch, the politics surrounding transit, however, it is truly compelling, rather like a train wreck is to watch.
Steve: Unfortunately, we seem to be headed down yet another trail of listening more to the pols than to the planners, and we may even bastardize RER just to make John Tory look good.
LikeLike