WHEN: 6-7:30PM, April 21, 2010 (tonight!)
WHERE: Council Chambers, Toronto City Hall, 100 Queen St. W.
INFO: See Facebook event page or visit PublicTransitCoalition.ca
Join a broad coalition of public transit supporters tonight as the Public Transit Coalition launches a bid to save Transit City. Come out to show your support and find out how you can get involved in this campaign.
Hosted by Alejandra Bravo and Norm Alconcel, organizers will unveil a pledge that they hope all councillors, MPPs and candidates will sign, which promises support for Transit City funding.
photo by bookchen
23 comments
for those without a facebook account, what “more information” is available?
Not much else on the facebook page. Just explaining the purpose of the event which I’ll paste below.
“Thanks, Mr. Premier… we could’ve been building Transit City by now.
Join us for the launch of the Public Transit Coalition: http://publictransitcoalition.ca
Speak out. Send a message. Save Transit City.
Are you tired of waiting for overcrowded buses?
Are you upset that the Province broke its promise and cut $4 Billion in funding for Transit City?
Do you think all Torontonians deserve good public transit no matter where in the City they live?
If you said yes to any of these questions, you need to join us for the launch of the Public Transit Coalition on Wednesday April 21st, 6pm at City Hall!
We need to pack the room to show our elected officials that there is a steep political price to pay if they don’t change their minds and build Transit City!
At the launch we’ll debut a public transit pledge we want all Councillors, MPPs and candidates to take to guarantee that we are electing people who support strong public transit for Toronto.
Fully funded, affordable and rapid transit is critical to our economic prosperity, our environmental future and our goal of building a city that is equitable and provides opportunity for all.
Join us in demanding that the province and elected officials live up to their end of the bargain.”
I hope Dalton does not save “TRANSFER CITY” If he really cared about the plan, he would not have made the announcement he had made.
Transit City is just dividing transit advocates in Toronto. What can be expected from such a significant plan formulated without public input? That’s simply not legitimate.
A.R. – with all due respect, good luck finding a transit plan that will unite transit advocates. Without getting a defence of transit city here, the idea that it’s illegitimate because it divides transit advocates is funny. What’s the saying? Get 10 “transit advocates” into a room, emerge with 11 opinions?
“Transfer City”. Lord, what right-wing talking points memo did that one come from?
The previous comments illustrate exactly why “delaying” this project will be the same as destroying it. All the snipers see this as a perfect opportunity to come out of the woodwork and tear it apart while it’s stalled.
The article in Wednesday’s Star by Greg Gormick is a good comment on how critics of Toronto’s Transit City plan keep ignoring the evidence from many European cities with similar light rail. See http://www.thestar.com/opinion/editorialopinion/article/798311–clean-affordable-light-rail-also-delivers-economic-lift for the editorial.
Haven’t posted here for a while for time reasons, but couldn’t resist commenting on this post.
I don’t agree with the Premier’s move to “postpone” funding for “Transit City”. But the fact remains that the plan (no matter what its merits or lack thereof) was/is vulnerable for a variety of reasons. To start with, there was a failure to adequately engage the public (particularly in those areas where the projects will be situated). Secondly, there’s been a scarcity of recent evidence that those responsible for implementing the plan (City of Toronto and TTC) can implement large-scale capital projects effectively.
The Premier’s ‘postponement’ has resulted in a lot of flailing about by certain transit advocates (primarily the ‘downtown’ located transit advocates), but there has been few noises of protest from the neighborhoods where the projects are being postponed. That’s not a good sign regarding the public support for the plan. With respect to the ability of TTC and the City to implement large scale projects, the St. Clair left a lot to be desired (to put it mildly).
Having a good plan is simply not enough (and I do think that parts, but not all, of the TC plan make sense). But if this Mayor and this Council had been so concerned about the future of transit in TO, they would have: 1) made sure that capital projects during their tenure went off a smoothly as possible (as opposed to the fiasco of St. Clair); 2) taken the time to bring the various communities affected on side; 3) made sure that they had launched a transit project as early on as possible that they could point to as a winner in terms of developing transit solutions for this city.
They didn’t do any of these things. Why anyone is surprised that the McSquinty saw this is an area to “postpone” funding to is beyond me, especially given that there is no broadbased groundswell of broad public support for it.
Thanks Pauline (err Paul) for the nerdy comment! Many Liberals like myself do not like Transit City and we want a combination of subways and LRTs (i.e. 20/80 or 30/70 ratio) versus 100% LRTs. Stop reading and believing everything from the gospels according to Munro, Giambrone and Miller :p
I guess marcia also wants us to ignore the fact that we can’t afford subways. We seem to be having a hard enough time with LRT, which is about 10-times less expensive.
And maybe we should ignore the great transit successes of the last decade have nearly all been smart LRT developments.
Like Marcia, I want subways too. But there is only one subway line that’s needed at the moment and that’s the Downtown Relief Line. But we also have almost no LRT. So building 120km of it is a great idea (and what this provincial government endorsed).
Toronto seems to do things at different currents: we saved streetcars when everyone was getting rid of them; now it seems like everyone wants subways when all the rage is LRT.
The Gormick article was disappointing. For one thing, Transit City will be nothing like many of the LRT implementations he cites, like Edmonton’s. For another, the experience in other cities may have been positive, but we have direct evidence in *this city* that the TTC can’t properly design, build, and operate light rail. I’d like Gormick to ride the St. Clair line (or even walk, drive, or bike on the brutalized street) and say that this is a system to be proud of, and an experience to repeat all over the city.
We can afford subways. You can’t say “we can’t afford subways” and then support spending at least $15 billion on LRT. That’s not logical. It’s not about whether or not it’s affordable, for there’s a variety of options for funding which we have not taken up. Without dedicating a source of funding to expansion, next to nothing will be built.
To address Bob Krawczyk’s comment above:
“Without getting a defence of transit city here, the idea that it’s illegitimate because it divides transit advocates is funny. What’s the saying? Get 10 “transit advocates†into a room, emerge with 11 opinions?”
Just because it’s impossible to attain an absolute consensus, doesn’t legitimize a technocratic approach to transit expansion. Without discussion and compromise, you get a plan that’s much more divisive than it could be. I bet a lot of engaged citizens who could have sent letters to their MPPs and gone to this event will not do so, having felt ignored from the start and apprehensive about transit expansion.
I know that there is a big division between subway and LRT, and it’s too late for this now, but if the airport link was a subway we could be using federal and provincial money to make half of the downtown relief line. This subway would run mostly overground beside the train tracks so could be cheaper than digging.
People could get to the airport easily and cheaply. It could even take the place of a Jane LRT.
If this subway continued up Pape then up Don Mills to the Sheppard Line, it could take the place of the Don Mills LRT.
The only other piece (other than Eglinton Crosstown) would be to continue the Sheppard Line to Scarborough and then west to meet Downsview and to the Airport line. Then we’d have a good number of lines that actually go somewhere.
I’m not saying TC isn’t a good plan. I just think if the money was pooled and spent wisely we’d have a better system for everyone, downtown and uptown.
i am a huge transit city advocate, but i just got something to say. Everyone’s really concerned with the pearson link, and eglinton is supposed to do that. Although i totally agree that Eg should get an underground LRT or ‘Subway’ as the ‘fiscally conservative, socially liberal’ crowd calls them,
i mostly want to know why the bloor line is not continues to that airport!!!
ok guys, look on google maps. Kipling subway is located right next to a north-south running hydro corridor. if the subway turned north at Kipling, or shortly before, and ran north on a surface route through that grassy corridor, and then made a left turn at the highway interchange,
it would reach all the way to pearson.
i suspect that route would take probably seven or eight minutes from kipling and bloor.
why is this not the way to do it? this seems obvious from the aerial perspective…
if there is a real reason that this should not be done, i am ignorant of it. so tell me. but it does seem like the best way to connect the airport to the city if you ask me.
Thousands joined a Facebook page but roughly 200 people were at yesterday’s rally. Oh I could see McGuinty moving quickly to change his mind now (lol).
Unless the number of people attending a rally reflects the number of people signed up on the Facebook page, you will not be successful.
Better to cut Transit City than to force the Ontario Government to make large and painful cuts in Health Care and Education.
Should have saved a token because last night’s rally won’t change anything. Just fight for 2 or 3 most important lines at this time (Scarborough-Malvern, Eglinton,and Don Mills)
A.R. wrote: “We can afford subways. You can’t say “we can’t afford subways†and then support spending at least $15 billion on LRT. That’s not logical.”
Yes it is logical. $15 billion for subways = maybe 30km. $15 billion for LRT = 120km.
Affordable is not just the price, its the value. Much greater transit service across the city is needed, and that’s why TRansit City makes sense. The TTC and the City have its flaws, but not recognizing the value of Transit City is the one almost every TC basher overlooks.
Obviously, the goal should be for the public to pressure the TTC to provide rapid transit, not just another streetcar line.
Moses,
The city doesn’t need 120km worth of surface light rail. Despite the natural griping that any successful transit system attracts, most of the city is well-served by buses. For the corridors where the existing bus, streetcar, and subway network is under strain, either BRT or grade-separated transit is preferred.
If the proposed light rail service was significantly faster than buses, then it would be worth considering. It’s not. I value transit that is cost-effective and sensitive for the corridors its serves. Ripping up the streets and daisy-chaining ugly overhead wires all over Toronto–for something that doesn’t increase travel times–is a non-starter.
A continuous repeat of St. Clair isn’t what most citizens of this city want.
Chad:
I don’t disagree with you about BRT and buses. They would be preferable from a cost-effectiveness. But I think the problem is people equate St Clair with Transit City. The street dynamics of TC routes is much different, not to mention the capacity will be much greater than buses. Tearing up Don Mills will not affect businesses along Don Mills like it did on St Clair. Why? They are no businesses on Don Mills — just lots of business parks and a few malls. St Clair businesses were affected by the lack of pedestrian traffic, not car traffic. Or the fences of back yards face onto the Don Mills.
I would argue that the real fight is to keep the TTC/Metrolinx focused on providing LRT not streetcar service. The removal of a few stops will go a long way to a better system (but tell that the old ladies who already walk far for a bus stop in the burbs).
But there is great value in putting down tracks: it is permanent and hard to remove. Bus lanes can be repainted. And I have never really seen much development be spurred by a BRT, while I’ve seen lots of LRT-inspired developments.
I agree that light rail is an excellent fit for corridors where installation is minimally invasive, neighbourhoods can keep their character, stops are well-spaced, and many buses are taken off the roads. Don Mills offers a lot of opportunity for that, at least north of the Don. Crossing the Don Valley, though, will cost mega money. And the streets of East York may not be wide enough for rails. BRT can use the existing infrastructure and save Danforth North a lot of construction headaches.
Extending the DRL up Don Mills makes a lot of sense, but I sense that the political appetite for anything relating to the DRL is nil.
I admit I’m skeptical of the “permanence of rails” argument. It’s seems all theoretical to me, but I’m willing to entertain it. What research has been done on this phenomenon?
Say BRT was used instead of light rail. In what case would a transit planner take a bus lane and wildly divert it off any of the proposed corridors? What examples are there where bus routes were moved from major streets without alternatives? Are there cases where reroutings from major streets have happened and businesses and communities suffered? If a lot of BRT “infrastructure” was installed (shelters, payment machines, raised curbs), would that alleviate developer concerns?
First, I really get sick and tired of “subway vs lrt” talk. The ‘sub’ in subway means ‘sub-terrain’. The Eglinton LRT would be far more of a ‘subway’ than the Spadina line between Wilson and Eglinton West! At the very least, please say ‘metro rail vs lrt’ or ‘heavy rail vs light rail’.
I don’t mind the term ‘light rapid transit’, since when implemented properly it shares many characteristics of a ‘metro/subway/heavy rail’ rapid transit line. Not to mention it is continually touted as rapid transit by the mayor. Thing is, Transit City is going to have more in common with our current streetcar lines than any international LRT system. Like heavy and bus rapid transit, stops should be at least 1000 meters +-200 meters on average. The Sheppard LRT is going to have an average distance of 400 meters. This line will be great for people who are along the corridor, but it won’t get people parking their cars at Meadowvale and taking it to the subway or GO train.
But Moses, 30 kilometres of real grade separated rapid transit is a good value. That’s an always fast and reliable mode which can generate a lot more economic development than an LRT line in a. Subways are proven and we already have a network which we should build on.