Alternatives to Transit City, the Spadina Extension, Yonge Extension, Etc.

[kEiThZ]

^^^ I was gonna say. Any S-bahn I've been on has been HRT. To my understanding, S-bahn is above ground metros (like the GO train) and U-bahns are regular (usually underground) subways.

 

[golodhendil]

^Yea, it was a typo on my part. But certain U-bahn lines of a few cities like Frankfurt are light rail subways, some continuing out onto the surface in median or on-street running.

 

[kEiThZ]

What really does bother me is that the TTC is insisting on deploying ART Mk IIs instead of LRT in the SRT corridor. That should concern everybody. Another orphan shall be brought into the TTC family again.

 

[Second_in_pie]

I think it started with some people saying the TC plan wasted billions on corridors that could have been better served just by buses (in some corridors, for sure), then people started pointing out the perceived advantages of LRT over buses, real or otherwise. Then some started saying LRT sucks and everything should be either bus or subway, and it went downhill from that

Ah, thank you!

Well, busses LRT and subway all have their role. I think that TC should be a combination of all of the above instead of just LRT.

It's kind of weird though. I would have thought that announcing 3 new subways alone would have been better politically than Transit City. I don't think I can channel my frustration with this plan much more than I already have though, so I won't try.

What really does bother me is that the TTC is insisting on deploying ART Mk IIs instead of LRT in the SRT corridor. That should concern everybody. Another orphan shall be brought into the TTC family again.

Same here. LRT would work fine, probably even better than the RT. Of course, the sensible thing to do is really just extend the Bloor/Danforth to STC instead of redoing the SRT.

 

[scarberiankhatru]

Unfortunately for you, I know where the Finch E discussion came from, it's the fact that you brought it up in a post against me that it is taken to imply I support that position.

I also said "people" and "in part," which clearly means not just you, though your support of the 'people prefer light rail over buses' argument was in direct support of replacing routes like Finch (but not limited exclusively to Finch, as was understood by everyone).

That the TTC is a poor transit operator overall, I have no disagreement (and have pointed out in my previous posts). But if the TTC has to screw up, they can screw up with anything, so that's not (completely) a reason to denigrate the technology/implementation.

The TTC is definitely not a poor transit operator overall...plenty of bus routes are remarkably well-run and the subway runs fine as long as there's no delays due to jumpers or due to the system physically falling apart (which you can't really blame on the TTC). It most certainly is a reason to denigrate the implementation...that's the whole point here!

 

[doady]

How can buses come out on top when they have the highest operatring cost on high travel routes???

Outside of the subway, the routes with the highest cost recovery are all bus routes. In 2004, the only surface routes in the GTA that were profitable 19 Hurontario and 99 Yonge 'C'. Within Toronto itself, the streetcars do not have a higher cost recovery ratio than many bus routes.

Of course, you can also compare LRT-based systems to BRT-based systems, and indeed Calgary does not have a higher cost recovery ratio than Ottawa, or Mississauga for that matter.

 

[kEiThZ]

A

... LRT would work fine, probably even better than the RT. Of course, the sensible thing to do is really just extend the Bloor/Danforth to STC instead of redoing the SRT.

That's been my position all along. It's ridiculous that STC is the only urban growth centre in the 416 with RT for its trunk line. And Malvern does not need RT at all. LRT would do just fine....a good chunk of the riders getting on the RT at McCowan or STC are from Malvern anyway so all you are doing is re-distributing the riders further down the line. If STC got a subway line then LRT and streetcars could be deployed from STC more appropriately: McCowan North, Ellesmere East to UTSC, McCowan South-Lawrence East till Morningside, Progress till Malvern. That would be a great network that would really cut down travel times.

 

[waterloowarrior]

Outside of the subway, the routes with the highest cost recovery are all bus routes. In 2004, the only surface routes in the GTA that were profitable 19 Hurontario and 99 Yonge 'C'. Within Toronto itself, the streetcars do not have a higher cost recovery ratio than many bus routes.

Of course, you can also compare LRT-based systems to BRT-based systems, and indeed Calgary does not have a higher cost recovery ratio than Ottawa, or Mississauga for that matter.

what is Calgary's cost recovery ratio?

 

[kEiThZ]

Although not directly related to TC, I would like to know if anybody thinks LRT would make sense on Kingston from Kennedy station going into Durham region on Brock Road?

 

[doady]

Thank you for posting data that nullifies your point. Clearly, rural population not served (or barely served) by transit is included in those stats.

Using Boston as an example, the population it gave is for the entire Greater Boston, which includes swaths of suburb, exurbs and even more sparsely populated areas that takes up almost the eastern half of Massachusetts and the southern part of New Hampshire -- areas served by the far-flung commuter rail and thus part of the "transit catchment" area considered in those numbers. Same thing with the pop given for San Francisco Bay Area: that's the stat given for the entire SF Peninsula and East Bay, sparsely-populated sprawl that is served by the BART but mostly by buses (if at all).

That is the whole point of the stats. If an urban area is too sprawled out to support adequate transit, then surely it will have lower per capita ridership.

It is no surprise that more compact urban areas like Winnipeg and Ottawa have higher per capita ridership. Higher transit ridership requires higher densities.

There are many suburban parts of American urban areas that have no transit at all. But just because they have no transit, doesn't mean they should be excluded from the calculation. Because per capita ridership is the measure of the level of transit service and the effectiveness of transit. if you start removing poorly serviced areas form the calculation, it becomes meaningless.

It has also clearly done the same thing for metros like Portland, Sacremento, San Diego, etc, as far down the list as I can see, so there's no reason to believe it has done otherwise with any of the other "light rail cities". To compare the tiny and compact city of Winnipeg to these sprawling metros where the light rail covers only a small portion and where there is barely any transit service in much of the rest of the area is utterly disingenuous and says nothing about the relative "attractiveness" of light rail vs buses.

A much fairer comparison would be to only look at the actual cities in those metros where the light rail runs. To again take Boston as an example (which is in large part also a "light rail based" system). The Green Line's total boarding in 2007 is ~80M. The Green Line serves half of Boston, the town of Brookline, and a small corridor in Newton. With a population of ~400000, the "per capita" ridership for Green Line is close to 200, and that's not even taking the buses into account yet. That's significantly higher than even Ottawa with it vaunted BRT system, let alone Winnipeg, if you're still into intersystem comparisons. To compare systems based on such different metrics for population, area, etc, as that report did, is sloppy statistics in action.

I posted transit ridership stats and populations stats for the entire urban area. I am not going to cherry pick which stats are included or not.

For every urban or urbanized area ridership of ALL transit is included.

An entire urban area should be served by transit, no matter how sprawled out or suburbanized some parts of it are. It is as simple as that.

 

[doady]

How is it beyond you? Did you read the studies in the links I posted? BTW, I've never claimed that light rail should be built solely to increase ridership. Don't misrepresent my arguments.

I never said that you said that light rail should be built solely to increase ridership. Don't misrepresent by arguments.

 

[Rainforest]

Although not directly related to TC, I would like to know if anybody thinks LRT would make sense on Kingston from Kennedy station going into Durham region on Brock Road?

Speed would be a concern. Good 30 min just between Kennedy Stn and the eastern border of 416 ... plus 10, 15, 20 min within Durham ... and Kennedy is not a major destination on its own. If it is a transfer point, then the trip from Kennedy must be added.

For trips between southern Durham and Toronto's downtown, Lakeshore East GO is probably the best bet, so Durham's BRT or LRT spine should connect to one of GO stations.

Regarding an LRT line that crosses the eastern border of 416, perhaps it would be appealing if it operates off STC (a destination on its own) via Centennial College and UTSC. Better yet if it is a rapid LRT within 416 (not street-median), although its Durham portion might run in street median.

 

[GenerationW]

That's been my position all along. It's ridiculous that STC is the only urban growth centre in the 416 with RT for its trunk line. And Malvern does not need RT at all. LRT would do just fine....a good chunk of the riders getting on the RT at McCowan or STC are from Malvern anyway so all you are doing is re-distributing the riders further down the line. If STC got a subway line then LRT and streetcars could be deployed from STC more appropriately: McCowan North, Ellesmere East to UTSC, McCowan South-Lawrence East till Morningside, Progress till Malvern. That would be a great network that would really cut down travel times.

If only there were more people representing us at City Hall who agree with this.

Speaking of which, is there any sort of constituency at City Hall which opposes (parts or all of) Transit City?

 

[Whoaccio]

While I have heard this claim floating around for some time and I can see how it might have some truth in it, when you see the same sentiment arising in other countries (ooh scarb must not like this), such as places like HK where this class and racial segregation doesn't exist (at least not nearly to the same extent as North America), then you know this cannot be just a "white middle class kid" thing. Also, currently in Boston (I hope scarb doesn't snap), the "hype" is with buses and BRT, not LRT, and the city/state is pouring millions or even billions into building glorified bus routes and "pinnacle of dumb" bus tunnels. Some of the most vocal opponents of this boondoggle are the community groups of predominantly poorer Black neighbourhoods, who had been fighting for decades for a return of trolley/LRT service to those neighbourhoods. If the "anti-bus stigma" is really just one of racial/class differences, which race/class is the Black communities trying to stigmatize? The Latinos?

I can't speak for Boston, but there is a fairly well documented phenomenon in the USA where suburban white people view public transit and buses in particular as filled with poor, usually black, minorities. In more than a few cases this has led to LRT systems being planned for no reason other than to assuage white people that they wont be buses, even if a route may not even have high enough ridership to justify a golf cart.

As many good reasons there may be to build one mode over another, just stating that people like trams more than buses is ridiculous. There are more than enough successful bus routes to prove that. Most academic studies show that transit ridership is almost entirely dependent on either cost (not relevant in Toronto) or speed. Were it quicker/cheaper, we would probably ride camels to work. All of the nostalgic claims about the glory of trams and their undeniable superiority is bollix in light of this. Especially on cases like Sheppard East where, after billions in expenditures, total transit ridership time will either stay static or rise. No amount of niceisms about how smooth they are and how they create coffee shops wherever they run will change that.

P.S. That bold quote sounds familiar

 

[kettal]

What really does bother me is that the TTC is insisting on deploying ART Mk IIs instead of LRT in the SRT corridor. That should concern everybody. Another orphan shall be brought into the TTC family again.

Is this still happening? I've heard that a conversion to LRT is now being carried forward.