Jump to content

Talk:Transit City/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Other light rail projects

I don't think it makes sense for more than half of this article to be about other light rail systems in Canada. Maybe there should be an article on Light rail systems in Canada. This article should be about only the Transit City plan being promoted by the TTC. I'll take out the other stuff. Ground Zero | t 02:03, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Disambig

PErhaps a rename is in order to Transit City (TTC). It might not conflict with anything at the moment, but that's only temporary. Pellaken 04:12, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

The name does conflict with something! Melbourne and it's Melbourne 2030 plan has a Transit City designations, where several CBD areas around the city have been designated as transit cities. Sadly, a few Melbourne related articles, such as Frankston, Victoria link back here. aliasd·U·T 00:22, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Map

Anyone feel like making a map like those seen in other TTC articles? Anung Mwka 03:04, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. I don't have the skills, but I know there are Wikipedians out there with great map-making abilities. --Padraic 21:25, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
There is a problem: the routes are speculative. We should wait until the plans are finalized. Johnny Au (talk/contributions) 02:34, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
There are many of maps of future or failed plans (O-train, Eglinton West subway, Skytrain) that add value to articles. A basic map like this would help the reader visualize the plan, which despite being still just a plan, is the subject of the article. --Padraic 12:29, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
Even the colours are speculative, as shown on the Eglinton West subway map. Johnny Au (talk/contributions) 14:26, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Underground segments of lines

I have deleted the language suggesting that portions of the Don Mills and Jane lines will run underground, as this is not supported by the Transit City report (in the case of the Jane line the report explicitly states that the entire line will run on the surface). If this is restored please give an alternate citation. S20451 (talk) 16:58, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Waterfront east line?

I added a {{cn}} to this section. I live near Cherry Street. I have read no serious discussion of this route since Toronto's application to host the 2008 Olympics. The underused former port lands were to be site of the athelete's village, and some of the sports sites.

I doubt a two stop stub on Cherry Street would be useful. There is a large parcel of underutilized land, east of historic part of Gooderham and Wortz property. Perhaps it will be of high enough density to justify being the destination of a streetcar, and the second stop will turn east to go into the center of the development?

Don River, about 100 yards east of Cherry Street

I am speculating as to how this line would cross the Don River if it were to be part of a line along Commissioner Street. There is a lift bridge where Cherry Street crosses the Don. I have never seen it raised. A dredger is moored there, and a harbour tug. When the former CCG vessel Still Watch was moored there for many years. But the navigable portion of the Don is only a few hundred yards long. The approaches to a bridge tall enough to allow these two vessels to cross under it would be too tall to cross under the Gardiner Expressway.

This section of the article currently speculates as to how the line would connect to Union Station. If it branched off the King Route perhaps it would not connect to Union Station.

I have some pictures of this area. And, if enough references were found to justify an article, I'll take some more. Geo Swan (talk) 00:22, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Whether or not there's a good case, a 'Harbourfront East in EA process' line running to Union Station still appears on the official Transit City diagram. David Arthur (talk) 14:35, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
"EA" == "Environmental Assessment"? Geo Swan (talk) 04:00, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
Yes. Johnny Au (talk/contributions) 04:09, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

GTA Transportation Portal - Report - no longer works, does anyone have another link for this report? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.65.73.202 (talk) 14:50, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Neutrality

The ending paragraph regarding the economic costs is not neutral and is quite biased in favour of building. Further should be mentioned about how the provincial deficit is raising the possibility of a future credit downgrade, which would result in higher interest payments for the province. Canking (talk) 04:10, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Though I support Transit City completely, there should be a mention of newly-elected mayor Rob Ford's opposition to Transit City to bring forth neutrality. Johnny Au (talk/contributions) 01:18, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
Since Rob Ford is now mayor, there should be reliable sources that discuss his opposition to Transit City, as well as newly-appointed TTC Chair Karen Stintz's support for the Eglinton Crosstown LRT. Johnny Au (talk/contributions) 16:32, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
Bad news: Transit City is officially dead. See this article. Johnny Au (talk/contributions) 19:46, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
Is this bad news? Subways built now represent investment in the future that expands to the 60+ year mark (look at the Yonge Subway line which only reached "full capacity" during rush hours in the 90's at the 50 year mark)... transit city would reach maximum operating capacity by some estimations within 15 years depending on the rate of city population growth, subway investments now ... while expensive will undoubtedly be cheaper than if we build transit city, and then find that they are at capacity and have to build subways 20 years from now on the same routes... we need transit visionaries who are looking long term into the city's future (30+ years not 10) [im not saying ford is a visionary] ... but subways on the SRT route and across Sheppard, will be needed in the not so distant future, as will Eglinton out to the airport... its best we invest in these sorts of projects sooner rather than later... the cost will only increase for every year we defer it. A mix of subway, express, and local bus is by far the best way to serve the needs of the expanding "inner suburbs" (former boroughs) while balancing the needs of those with cars, bikes, and those on foot... the city is changing ... its best we build to meet the needs of the future, rather than building for the past/present...
(Just my opinion/commentary ... I don't usually rant like this ... sorry)
eja2k 06:00, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

All of that can have elements discussed in the article. Johnny Au (talk/contributions) 13:33, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Politics of light rail in North America

I created a section in its talk page about mentioning Transit City. That article is lacking a Canadian example and it would be good to discuss it, even if it is one paragraph long. Johnny Au (talk/contributions) 18:27, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

It has been updated with more prose, but still lacking citations. Johnny Au (talk/contributions) 01:42, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
Most of the edits so far has been bypassing redirects. Johnny Au (talk/contributions) 20:14, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Criticism

Below is the criticism section, based on the links provided completely unsourced. Please add sources and then it can be added back to the article.

The precursors to Transit City — the previously constructed streetcar rights-of-way on Spadina Avenue and St. Clair Avenue — have faced heavy criticism among some local business leaders and residents for taking away space for cars and blocking through streets.[1] The Transit City plan partially addresses these criticisms by running portions of the line underground, such as along parts of Eglinton Avenue. Although some routes, such as Don Mills Road, offer wide streets with expansion potential and few cross streets, there are problems with other routes. In particular, there is the problem of implementing a right-of-way tramway on streets such as Jane Street and Pape Avenue. These are arterial roads with two lanes in each direction, and it would be impossible to give transit vehicles a ROW without sacrificing parking space, sidewalk space or traffic lanes. It is for those reasons that the TTC also proposes to run the final kilometre or two of these lines underground, which is why they are not priority lines (because of the high cost). Furthermore, the Spadina streetcar right-of-way has not realized promised increases in speed, likely as a result of design compromises demanded by motorists, and problems with implementing priority traffic signals.[2] Many of these compromises were repeated on the St. Clair right-of-way, and it is unclear how they will be avoided throughout the Transit City network. Although it has been pointed out that in Calgary the C-Train does not have traffic priority in the downtown core, but does have traffic priority in the suburbs. The St. Clair and Spadina Lines are both downtown lines.

Though the provincial government is providing support for the capital expenditure to build Transit City, it will provide no additional funds to operate the system. The City of Toronto owns the TTC and currently pays its operating costs, and has committed itself to cover the additional operating costs. While the Transit City LRT routes will likely operate at or above the average of 75% cost recovery, they will still add significantly to the TTC's operating budget (while routes like 39 Finch East have excellent cost recovery rates, they incur large operating costs from high service levels).

There is also some criticism about the specific routes. The Sheppard line is surrounded in controversy because that line is perceived as being underused,[citation needed] and was considered for mothballing. The light rail transit/tram is proposed to replace the extension of the subway itself, but critics point out that service on nearby Finch Avenue is far more frequent. During the morning rush, the headway on Finch is 79 seconds as opposed to nearly 5 minutes on the Sheppard East bus. Efforts to divert traffic on Finch 2 km south to the Sheppard subway to complete the trip to Yonge have been unsuccessful, as express service on Finch now runs six days a week. Critics also point out that in order to connect the Sheppard LRT to the Finch West LRT, a link will likely be established on Finch Avenue East from Yonge to Don Mills, furthering its case for an LRT.

Dr. Richard Soberman, a commentator in matters of public transit, has analysed the Transit City proposal. He offers the following criticism in a report issued in January 2008:[3]

"Toronto Transit City and MoveOntario 2020 both emerged as preludes to election campaigns. They are examples of ‘top-down’ planning where elected officials dictate what their professional advisors will implement, a reversal of the usual approach in which proposals are generated by professionals, in response to identified needs, for consideration by the body politic. Both the process and the outcomes lead to a number of questions regarding the main objectives and goals that the proposed plans actually attempt to achieve, the a priori selection of LRT technology for all of Toronto Transit City (to the exclusion of other higher order transit technology), and the practicality of implementing true LRT and BRT services in their own rights-of-way on all of the designated routes."

References

  1. ^ "Home page". Save our St. Clair. Save our St. Clair Citizen's Group. 20 August 2007. Retrieved 20 August 2007. {{cite web}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help)
  2. ^ Wickens, Stephen (7 May 2005). "Rapid transit? Not on Spadina". The Globe and Mail. pp. M2. Retrieved 20 August 2007. {{cite news}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help) It can be seen for free at this web location that is not the Globe and Mail [1]
  3. ^ GTA Transportation Portal - Report

Dispute: Alive or Dead?

Hi guys. I've seen anonymous edits to the introduction flipping between whether Transit City is or was, a statement of whether it is actually existing in the present or not. I want to resolve this in discussion. As you may know, the current Mayor of Toronto declared Transit City to be "dead" over a year ago. Recently, a Toronto city council vote went against the mayor's will and voted to have some light rail transit (LRT) to be implemented on some streets. Since it deals with LRT, and the council vote counteracted the politician who "killed" the original plan, I can understand why there's confusion. But we need to resolve this.

I'll start the conversation. I don't believe it should be called Transit City because it was never explicitly stated in the motion of the February 8th special meeting (see the text of the motion here). I would propose stating "Transit City was", and expanding the criticism section to include a description of the events that occurred leading up to and including the special meeting. Please continue the discussion, and remember to sign your posts! --Natural RX 03:18, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

The plan presented before council was dubbed by some as the 5 in 10 plan ... 5 lines built in 10 years ... but that may just be internal TTC jargon as mister Webster seemed to be one of the only people referring to it as that. I would suggest keeping it as "Transit City was..." with a "Recent developments" section... until there is a definitive answer from city council/metrolinx/the province. eja2k 07:55, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
I think "Transit City" is still the best name for this article, and I concur that the text should talk about it in the past tense - I doubt that the plans that were in discussion in 2007-08 will ever be constructed as such. However, please avoid using the verbiage "'recent' developments" - perhaps refer to 2012 or the Rob Ford agenda. PKT(alk) 12:20, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
The new plan is not Transit City. There are elements from transit city being proposed to council, but the plan itself has not been revived by council. There's been no talk at all about the Jane or Pape/Don Mills Lines. What was put before council is a new proposal, with parts of the Transit City plan, but until we can provide a source that says "Transit City is back", I think that we can use the past tense. 184.175.39.99 (talk) 04:58, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
I believe that the new council-approved that resembles Transit City is not Transit City. The new name of the initiative will be determined. Johnny Au (talk/contributions) 02:40, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Alright then. I think that's some good consensus for now. --Natural RX 20:23, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Taking Johnny Au's last comment one step further: As part of the evolutionary nature of Toronto's Transit plans, are we perhaps at a point where the Transit City article should be frozen and a new one started that represents the plans that are actually being pursued? PKT(alk) 15:56, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Well I made a change to the article today, and made reference to Metrolinx's "5 in 10" plan (see the ref). I meant to ask if you guys agreed with this assessment. If we wanted to start adding more content regarding what's going on now, maybe it could be part of that? --Natural RX 20:47, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
See The Big Move#5 in 10 plan. --Natural RX 16:19, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Transit City. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 11:17, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Transit City. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:38, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Transit_City/Archive_1&oldid=1164577903"