All aboard for more subways

[Justin10000]

Go subway advocates!

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news...ford-to-rossi-i-said-it-first/article1556385/

Ford to Rossi: I said it first!

Kelly Grant

Well, that didn’t take long. Rocco Rossi had barely finished announcing his transit plan when Rob Ford’s camp fired off a press release congratulating him for being a copy cat. “Mayoral candidate says imitation is the sincerest form of flattery,†the e-mail thundered.

On Tuesday morning, Mr. Rossi unveiled his public transit platform, confusingly titled Transit City Plus. The name is a head-scratcher because Mr. Rossi is suggesting largely scrapping, not expanding Mayor David Miller’s signature light-rapid transit plan. The former Liberal fundraiser and businessman is in favour of more subway and bus service, a pricey proposition he said he could pay for, in part, by selling Toronto Hydro. (My colleague Anna Mehler Paperny has a much more detailed take on the plan here.)

Mr. Ford said last week he prefers subways to streetcars and that he would turn to the private sector to pay for going underground. Details, however, were thin. For instance, how would Mr. Ford convince the private sector to invest in a money-losing proposition like public transit in the first place? It’s not impossible, but it’s no snap either. Mr. Ford has promised more details on his transit plan in the coming weeks.

In the meantime, the Ford camp is clearly enjoying pricking Mr. Rossi to see how much more air leaks from his campaign.

“I’d like to congratulate Rocco on coming on side with the Ford plan for financing subway construction,†Mr. Ford said in his release. “Realizing that subways, not streetcars are the way to go, and that the private sector be part [of] the solution to our transit and gridlock problems is a pretty big deal in this city, so I’m excited to see that my ideas are catching on.â€

How long before Subway Sarah Thomson accuses of Mr. Ford of copying her? She was first out of the station on subways, pledging to levy a rush-hour road toll on the DVP and Gardiner to pay for an expanded underground network.

If you're keeping track, that's three leading candidates who've rejected Transit City and light-rail. George Smitherman's support for the program has been lukewarm at best (he lamented the province's decision to postpone funding, but said it gave the city and province the necessary time to make sure the St. Clair streetcar fiasco isn't repeated in the inner suburbs.) Joe Pantalone, the only unabashed supporter of Transit City, has been much quieter on the subject than one would expect of the guardian of David Miller's legacy. None of this bodes well for Transit City.


What a joke.

 

[nfitz]

Ottawa-style BRT requires a wider ROW than LRT. I can't imagine two buses passing each other at 60 km/hr down a dedicated ROW built for streetcar - even without the centre poles!

 

[kEiThZ]

Any plan that gets anywhere needs to be a political plan. The DRL for a long time was seen as politically unwise, especially in the post-amalgamation environment, as it'd be Mass Transit For Downtown when the suburbs have nothing. Transit City was a reaction to the Sheppard subway which, despite ridership numbers (and I know they're not at all bad when put in a global context), is seen as a largely ineffective vanity project. Transit City proposed to take a realistic amount of funding and create a light rail network in the suburbs, which some would see as a better outcome than spending a decade planning and building (and dealing with funding cuts, etc) a five-stop stubway on Eglinton West or a short extension to Sheppard that, come on, no provincial government is going to consider a priority when they need to reduce the deficit.

There is a lot to debate about this strategy. Why are we putting all our eggs in the on-street rail basket when TTC management seems entirely unwilling to do anything to improve service on existing streetcar lines (even those in medians)? Why is Eglinton on-street in the west when there's some real potential to run it on the side of the road? The arrangement at Sheppard with the subway-LRT transfer is still odd, and if the goal there is to eventually shift the subway to LRT technology, it should at least be articulated and planned.

Saying "Just scrap it all and build subways" isn't a constructive argument, however. Nor is yelling and screaming and insinuating there's a widespread conspiracy in this city.

Matt,

A reasonable post.

Glad you acknowledge that Sheppard wasn't the total failure that some here assert. Now if it's seen as a vanity project, does that somehow indicate a flaw in the planning basis of the subway or a flaw in heavy rail technology? Really, if that's the argument, then what justifies keeping the SRT around. That was provincially imposed vanity project too. Scarborough residents and councillors didn't want it then. They don't want it now.

As for Transit City being affordable. That's debatable. When it first started with a $6 billion budget, it was affordable. Now that it's running at $15 billion, why can't we debate if it's still worthwhile to spend that much money solely on LRTs.

And nobody here is saying "Scrap it all and build subways." You know that's an unfair comment. And you know that even among the most ardent subway fans there is support for LRTs in some corridors. The debate is not over LRT vs. subways (as much as some would like to frame it that way), it's over LRT vs. subway for a specific corridor. And it's over priorities. If we want more subways, shouldn't be build them now, then 20 years down the road when they cost $800 million/km?

 

[Justin10000]

Ottawa-style BRT requires a wider ROW than LRT. I can't imagine two buses passing each other at 60 km/hr down a dedicated ROW built for streetcar - even without the centre poles!

Elevated busways down Jane Street!

 

[Fresh Start]

Any plan that gets anywhere needs to be a political plan. The DRL for a long time was seen as politically unwise, especially in the post-amalgamation environment, as it'd be Mass Transit For Downtown when the suburbs have nothing. Transit City was a reaction to the Sheppard subway which, despite ridership numbers (and I know they're not at all bad when put in a global context), is seen as a largely ineffective vanity project. Transit City proposed to take a realistic amount of funding and create a light rail network in the suburbs, which some would see as a better outcome than spending a decade planning and building (and dealing with funding cuts, etc) a five-stop stubway on Eglinton West or a short extension to Sheppard that, come on, no provincial government is going to consider a priority when they need to reduce the deficit.

There was nothing realistic about the Transit City proposal, other than proving how really broad and deep the levels of corruption and voter manipulation go in this city. You can also stop with the rhetoric that it takes a decade to complete a subway line. Complete bovine excrement! Building both a subway line to Mount Dennis and to Victoria Park would still cost under the $4 billion Miller is asking for. From there there’d be enough money left over to place dedicated bus lanes all over the city, which achieves faster transit speeds without the bells and whistles of surface ROW construction.

Saying "Just scrap it all and build subways" isn't a constructive argument, however. Nor is yelling and screaming and insinuating there's a widespread conspiracy in this city.

Wow, it looks like the only way that the LRT Lobby can try at winning arguments is to brandish their opponents as conspiracy theorists, no matter how valid their objections might be.

 

[Justin10000]

There was nothing realistic about the Transit City proposal, other than proving how really broad and deep the levels of corruption and voter manipulation go in this city. You can also stop with the rhetoric that it takes a decade to complete a subway line. Complete bovine excrement! Building both a subway line to Mount Dennis and to Victoria Park would still cost under the $4 billion Miller is asking for. From there there’d be enough money left over to place dedicated bus lanes all over the city, which achieves faster transit speeds without the bells and whistles of surface ROW construction.

You like to make a lot of accusations, and assumptions. Care to back them up?

Wow, it looks like the only way that the LRT Lobby can try at winning arguments is to brandish their opponents as conspiracy theorists, no matter how valid their objections might be.

Again with the accusations. Can you direct me to this "LRT lobby"? I want to join!

 

[nfitz]

There was nothing realistic about the Transit City proposal, other than proving how really broad and deep the levels of corruption and voter manipulation go in this city.

You should be ashamed of yourself for making such blanket statements?

Corruption? What does corruption have to do with anything? The only corruption that has come to light was on the part of the Ontario judge who tried to stop the St. Clair streecar line.

As for realistic ... you think these subway propoals that have floated around Urban Toronto are realistic?

 

[GraphicMatt]

Matt,

A reasonable post.

Glad you acknowledge that Sheppard wasn't the total failure that some here assert. Now if it's seen as a vanity project, does that somehow indicate a flaw in the planning basis of the subway or a flaw in heavy rail technology? Really, if that's the argument, then what justifies keeping the SRT around. That was provincially imposed vanity project too. Scarborough residents and councillors didn't want it then. They don't want it now.

Nothing justifies keeping the SRT around, though there is some merit in an LRT network in Scarborough. It leaves far more room for expansion in the future than does a subway extension. Again, this is a point that could generate a lot of debate.

Sheppard was a failure in the sense that it didn't really lead to much of an improvement in the transit network. It took a long time, it was expensive, and ultimately led to increased development along its length but not much else. Obviously connecting it to STC would improve the situation greatly, but is that where we should be placing a significant portion of our resources?

As for Transit City being affordable. That's debatable. When it first started with a $6 billion budget, it was affordable. Now that it's running at $15 billion, why can't we debate if it's still worthwhile to spend that much money solely on LRTs.

$15 billion is a nonsense figure. Transit City has become, through politics and planning realities, a four line plan: Sheppard E, Finch, Eglinton and the SRT replacement. The additional lines are unlikely to be built. It's about $8 billion. (Half of which was recently cut/delayed.) Even the 'Save Transit City' page doesn't acknowledge Jane, Waterfront and Don Mills as projects at risk: http://www.savetransitcity.ca/

(This is generally a good thing, by the way, as the three lines had a bunch of problems associated with them. Jane, I think, was just an attempt to bring two transit lines to Jane & Finch, which politically would look awesome. Don Mills just brings up the more important topic of the DRL. The Waterfront line is more akin to our current streetcar lines, and there's no real way for TC cars to even get down there currently.)

And nobody here is saying "Scrap it all and build subways." You know that's an unfair comment. And you know that even among the most ardent subway fans there is support for LRTs in some corridors. The debate is not over LRT vs. subways (as much as some would like to frame it that way), it's over LRT vs. subway for a specific corridor. And it's over priorities. If we want more subways, shouldn't be build them now, then 20 years down the road when they cost $800 million/km?

We should have built more subways 20 years ago. We should still build subways now. The DRL is top priority, though I wouldn't support scrapping the four key TC lines in order to focus on it. I think TC will make the DRL an unavoidable reality, though that does depend on the TTC not completely screwing up service on these new lines.

 

[GraphicMatt]

There was nothing realistic about the Transit City proposal, other than proving how really broad and deep the levels of corruption and voter manipulation go in this city. You can also stop with the rhetoric that it takes a decade to complete a subway line. Complete bovine excrement! Building both a subway line to Mount Dennis and to Victoria Park would still cost under the $4 billion Miller is asking for. From there there’d be enough money left over to place dedicated bus lanes all over the city, which achieves faster transit speeds without the bells and whistles of surface ROW construction.



Wow, it looks like the only way that the LRT Lobby can try at winning arguments is to brandish their opponents as conspiracy theorists, no matter how valid their objections might be.

Quick summary of your post:

1) Transit City was born of corruption and voter manipulation!

2) Stop calling me a conspiracy theorist!

 

[nfitz]

(This is generally a good thing, by the way, as the three lines had a bunch of problems associated with them. Jane, I think, was just an attempt to bring two transit lines to Jane & Finch, which politically would look awesome. Don Mills just brings up the more important topic of the DRL. The Waterfront line is more akin to our current streetcar lines, and there's no real way for TC cars to even get down there currently.)

I'm really not very happy that Don Mills is getting tossed out with the bathwater. The bottom 5 km south of Eglinton is the problem - and the problem is that the demand indicates a subway should be built. One can argue that if this is the leg of Transit City with the most demand (the only one requiring subway) then it should be built first. But that would cost about $1.4-billion ... hmm, same as the Scarborough RT extension/upgrade. Ironically the remaining 10.5 km or so to Steels would only cost another $750-million as LRT ...

 

[CN Tower]

The choice of subway vs LRT technology does not matter for Ward 22. Yonge subway is underground, and Eglinton line will be underground through that ward, be it subway or LRT. Nobody will ever propose to relocate the St Clair streetcar line underground.
.

On that topic, what is the status of the Eglinton line? I am confused. Is it a go now?

 

[gweed123]

Can you not grasp the idea that there is a need for a intermediate capacity mode between buses, and subways? I do not mean to be rude, but you are a planner, and you do not seem to grasp the need for a mode to deal with ridership that cannot be handled by buses, but does not justify subway construction. I am amazed, to be honest. I would have thought most transit planners would have understood by now.

You used the references of the Yonge and Bloor-Danforth streetcars being at capacity, therefore justifying a subway. All I'm saying is that following your logic, a bus that is at capacity is worthy of the same thing. The only difference between the Bloor-Danforth streetcar and the Eglinton bus is that the Bloor-Danforth streetcar ran on rails. They both operated in mixed traffic, they both are (or were) at or near capacity. To differentiate between the two and say that because a streetcar route is full it deserves a subway, but if a bus route is full it deserves an LRT, well I just don't see the logic, or where the differentiation there is.

So you admit the Sheppard Subway should not have been built?

I admit that the Sheppard Stubway should not have been built. Had the Sheppard Subway been built according to the original plan (to STC), it would make a lot more sense. For a line that was chopped off at the knees though, it still does remarkably well. It's like taking a guy, chopping off his legs, and then complaining about how poorly he can run. Well duh, you chopped off his legs!

Yes, their structural conditions. Replacing switches, repairing tunnel walls, linings, etc, etc. You have to maintain the infrastructure, right. So why build a subway now only for it to reach it's potential 40 years later? Why not build it when it is needed?

Because the cost to build it when it is needed will likely be even more expensive than what it is now (even when you factor in inflation). Contrary to what you might believe, the funding is actually there now to get a pretty significant amount of subway expansion done. When it's do or die for these lines, the funding may not be there, or it may be too expensive to build it. The other reason is, the time between when we realize "oh crap, we're running out of capacity" and the time the line opens would be a minimum of 10 years. That's a long time to sit and wait. The DRL was needed 10 years ago, yet in all likelihood it will be another 7-8 years before it's in operation. It's not like you can just snap your fingers and say "ok, now the LRT line is upragded to a subway".

Well, the TTC is at fault for that. The TTC built poor tracks, on wood ties, and used cheap concrete. What do you expect? The TTC changed procedures and is now using welded rail, steel ties, an better concrete. It;s going to last. Hell, the North Yonge Line needs extensive repairs after only 35 years.

What makes you think the same type of delays won't happen on an LRT line?

I have yet to see one Conservative candidate come up with a credible idea to fund their gradiose subway plans. They are repeating each other ideas! Sell a cash cow to fund subways? Come on! Even you cannot believe that.
I want to believe there is no ideological divide concerning transit, but I am not seeing any proof there is no divide.

Road tolls, air rights, PPPs, etc, all are valid ways of generating money. Many of those were proposed by conservative candidates, however some have explicitly said they do not support those funding measures. Disclaimer: I am not a conservative, I'm a left-leaning Liberal. So yes, I naturally have a bit of a distrust for Conservatives as well.

Do you honestly believe the provinve is going to give 1-2 billion to the city a year? The city cannot even secure operational fuunding. It's not going to happen, especially with this crop of candidates. I'll also play the assumption game, and state once George Smitherman gets elected, the province will suddenly release the TC funding.

It will give the money to Metrolinx. Once Metrolinx gets a permanent funding structure, or ways of generating funds on its own, a more stable funding formula can be established.

I cannot believe you are even proposing the Ottawa-Type BRT on Jane Street! I did my GIS training at Algonquin, and survived with the 95. Loved the 95. Except during rush hours. Hated waiting for aq bus at Rideau Centre, and walking up and down the platform trying to find the right bus. The Ottawa system is mostly grade-seperated with the exception of the central core, and the lanes on the Queensway. So do not take me for a fool. A transitway style BRT could never be built on Jane Street without significant widening, and property demolition. BRT only works well with grade-seperation. Not going to happen on Jane Street.

Please read my post again. I specifically stated the suburban parts of the system. Yes, the downtown section does not work well, I admit that, hence your experience at the Rideau Centre is not a valid reason to deny that BRT on Jane would work. I envision it to be like the section on Woodroffe between Baseline and Hunt Club, with curbside lanes. That can be done for substantially less than building LRT. And it would be slightly hypocritical to say that BRT would require property aquisition, road widening, etc, when LRT would require the exact same thing. The only difference is where the transit lane is located (curbside vs in-median). In my opinion, BRT is the optimal solution for Jane St north of Eglinton, as the ridership figures for that portion of the line barely justify LRT, if at all.

 

[rbt]

You used the references of the Yonge and Bloor-Danforth streetcars being at capacity, therefore justifying a subway.

Yonge + Bay + Victoria (+ Church?) were significanlty beyond even the most congested bus corridor (Finch to Steeles?).

Yonge was built primarily to save on operations expenditures. The Yonge line extension is still about the only one which can be built on the basis of the TTC budget; and only if you assume TTC isn't on the hook for the initial capital investment.

 

[GraphicMatt]

Streetcars have more capacity than buses. Transit City cars will have WAY more capacity than buses. Bloor-Danforth was running two-car trains at the time they decided to move toward subway. A bus at capacity and a streetcar at capacity are different things.

 

[nfitz]

Wow, using a member's personal info to discredit him. Low blow.

What? It's in his signature. Surely the low blow here is a claim of making a low blow over this!