Eglinton-Crosstown Corridor Debate

[Dan416]

I might take the Eglinton LRT to the airport as well... but I would curse if the vehicle stopped at Silver Dart, Rangoon, Lloyd Manor, Wincott, Eden Valley, or Mulham Place.

I think they should definitely look at eliminating those midblock stops to cut costs. Just stop at the arterial streets.

 

[reaperexpress]

I would eliminate the stupid jog all together and build a large hub at Martin Grove for the Missisauga Transitway buses. There's enough room there thanks to the Richview Expressway project. Then you can go straight to the airport (with maybe a couple stops on the way). Since the line will use POP, you can accept MT fares as well as TTC fares, so that Mississauga riders benefit from the quick link to the airport as well.

 

[gweed123]

I would eliminate the stupid jog all together and build a large hub at Martin Grove for the Missisauga Transitway buses. There's enough room there thanks to the Richview Expressway project. Then you can go straight to the airport (with maybe a couple stops on the way). Since the line will use POP, you can accept MT fares as well as TTC fares, so that Mississauga riders benefit from the quick link to the airport as well.

That's exactly what I was thinking as well. Part of my fantasy plan was also to have a Highway 27-Kipling BRT. Runs through the Hydro corridor from Kipling Stn to Eglinton, then up Highway 27 as a curbside BRT. This would allow MT buses to drop some people off at Martin Grove, and then continue south to Kipling Stn. This would offer 2 access points to the TTC rapid transit network, instead of just 1.

 

[ssiguy2]

If someone doesn't like ICTS fine as long as they have ridden the new MK11 cars and not the boxes run on the SRT. If you took the average Joe and had them run on 2 different lines but one with MK11 and the other with MK1 and didn't tell them they were ICTS I bet most would never even consider they were the same technology.
The TTC has left the SRT to rot. People don't like it with good reason while Vancouver's SkyTrain is another world.
As far as this "they don't work in snow"........that BS. The SRT doesn't because they didn't put in the quite cheap heating mechanisms.
It's true that it is a proprietary technology but the fact that it's a Canadian company means a lot. Also there have been two NEW SkyTrain systems opened up recently........one in S. Korea and the other in China. Kuala Lumper is expanding it's system by 16km and Vancouver will do so by another 27km this decade alone. Toronto is also a fine one to talk using it's downtown streetcars with non-standard rail which means all vehicles have to be made uniquely for the TTC guage.

 

[reaperexpress]

If someone doesn't like ICTS fine as long as they have ridden the new MK11 cars and not the boxes run on the SRT. If you took the average Joe and had them run on 2 different lines but one with MK11 and the other with MK1 and didn't tell them they were ICTS I bet most would never even consider they were the same technology.
The TTC has left the SRT to rot. People don't like it with good reason while Vancouver's SkyTrain is another world.
As far as this "they don't work in snow"........that BS. The SRT doesn't because they didn't put in the quite cheap heating mechanisms.
It's true that it is a proprietary technology but the fact that it's a Canadian company means a lot. Also there have been two NEW SkyTrain systems opened up recently........one in S. Korea and the other in China. Kuala Lumper is expanding it's system by 16km and Vancouver will do so by another 27km this decade alone. Toronto is also a fine one to talk using it's downtown streetcars with non-standard rail which means all vehicles have to be made uniquely for the TTC guage.

The problem with ICTS is not with the vehicles themselves, although MKII vehicles are still louder than vehicles with conventional motors. The problem is that ICTS is expensive, but it provides absolutely no advantages over an identical train that uses third rail or pantograph. Everyone is aware that the reason the SRT is falling apart is that it is so old. The problem is that because it uses a proprietary Bombardier Technology, we have no simple way of buying new trains! If we had built it as an LRT as originally planned, this would not have been a big deal: we could have simply bought new LRVs from whomever we pleased.

Vehicles do not have to be made uniquely for the TTC due to the gauge. If you were more versed in Torontonian history, you would know that the TTC imported vast quantities of PCCs from American cities that used standard gauge. This simply required a change of trucks. The cost of doing so was $2000 in 1952, which was less than the sales tax on the vehicles. You might want to check this out: http://stevemunro.ca/wp-content/uploads/2010/01/WEPDuncan19520603.pdf

 

[Dan416]

If someone doesn't like ICTS fine as long as they have ridden the new MK11 cars and not the boxes run on the SRT. If you took the average Joe and had them run on 2 different lines but one with MK11 and the other with MK1 and didn't tell them they were ICTS I bet most would never even consider they were the same technology.
The TTC has left the SRT to rot. People don't like it with good reason while Vancouver's SkyTrain is another world.
As far as this "they don't work in snow"........that BS. The SRT doesn't because they didn't put in the quite cheap heating mechanisms.
It's true that it is a proprietary technology but the fact that it's a Canadian company means a lot. Also there have been two NEW SkyTrain systems opened up recently........one in S. Korea and the other in China. Kuala Lumper is expanding it's system by 16km and Vancouver will do so by another 27km this decade alone. Toronto is also a fine one to talk using it's downtown streetcars with non-standard rail which means all vehicles have to be made uniquely for the TTC guage.

That's Mk II not Mk 11. I.e. Mark Two, not Mark Eleven.

 

[Ed Drass]

Just a general note regarding the pros/cons of off-street rapid transit in Hydro ROW: Put into the Con category the difficulty in promoting development, similar to experience of running subways down the centre of limited access highways, or those GO stations on freight trackage in industrial zones. Permanent transit infrastructure running in/under the street seems to foster increased economic activity -- and local ridership generation...

In my book development potential is not a more important consideration than ROW advantages such as construction cost/ease as well as reduced NIMBY opposition, etc., but it is a deal-maker for some.

Ford et al say they dislike surface transit because of inconvenience to cars, but there is also likely a belief that nothing short of subways will satisfy big development interests.

-ed

Hmm... I don't suppose any of the adamant "subway is the only way to go" folks on newspaper comment pages have a connection to large developers, do they...?

Y'all heard of QueensQuayKaren? http://davefleet.com/2010/10/unethical-social-media-worst/

 

[ssiguy2]

SRT would be a great idea down Eglinton to Pearson. It would save a small fortune by not having to pull down a whole line just to put up another one. Toronto needs EXPANDED mass/rapid transit and spending a billion bucks to not get one extra foot of service is a horrifc waste of funds which Toronto does not have.
I also love how TC supporters talk about SkyTrains problems in the snow/ice {which the heating mechanisms would solve} but refuse to comment on how one little fender bender in the snow by 2 cars would bring the entire LRT line to a screetching halt.
Also, the pillons can be made to be attractive and are excellent for running bike ways underneath the rails. Funny how people bitch about the elevated eyesores but neglect to mention the ugly overhead wires and street track to say nothing of the track barriers.

 

[EnviroTO]

The SRT needs to be virtually pulled down anyways. Newer cars can't handle the alignment, TTCs ART implementation is non-standard, the above ground connection to Kennedy is disliked, there is only one manufacturer, and the technology offers no benefit over LRT. LRT can run on elevated guideways and there is nothing preventing LRTs from using a third rail if that is what excites you. Who cares about the current SkyTrain... the question is why would SkyTrain be worse if run using ATC LRT?

 

[reaperexpress]

Good point, EnviroTO. Take a look at the London Docklands system, which uses LRVs, to the Skytrain. They provide an almost identical service.

 

[gweed123]

Just a general note regarding the pros/cons of off-street rapid transit in Hydro ROW: Put into the Con category the difficulty in promoting development, similar to experience of running subways down the centre of limited access highways, or those GO stations on freight trackage in industrial zones. Permanent transit infrastructure running in/under the street seems to foster increased economic activity -- and local ridership generation...

In my book development potential is not a more important consideration than ROW advantages such as construction cost/ease as well as reduced NIMBY opposition, etc., but it is a deal-maker for some.

Ford et al say they dislike surface transit because of inconvenience to cars, but there is also likely a belief that nothing short of subways will satisfy big development interests.

-ed

Hmm... I don't suppose any of the adamant "subway is the only way to go" folks on newspaper comment pages have a connection to large developers, do they...?

Y'all heard of QueensQuayKaren? http://davefleet.com/2010/10/unethical-social-media-worst/

Your assumption is of course that the purpose of putting the ROW through a hydro corridor (or through anywhere) is to spur development. That may not necessarily be the case. In a lot of cases it may just be the path of least resistance between Point A and Point B, and the route may be designed with as few stops as possible in between those two points. Think for instance of the Finch Hydro corridor. In my view, a BRT along that corridor would serve an entirely different function than the FWLRT. The FWLRT is designed to be a local feeder route to the nearest subway line. A Finch BRT would be a long-distance crosstown uptown route, designed to get from 1 side of the city to the other quickly, with stops only at major streets (which up there, I believe is every 2km). For what it's worth, the SRT was designed with this in mind as well (ie "what's the path of least resistance between Kennedy and STC?").

Same thing with my proposal through the Kipling Hydro corridor. The purpose is a path of least resistance between Eglinton and Kipling Stn, that would only have a few stops along the way (Burnhamthorpe, Rathburn, and maybe Princess Margaret). By and large, a pretty straight shot through, with not a lot of stopping en-route.

Attracting development along a corridor means in theory closer stop spacing, which is at odds with the idea of providing a rapid long-haul service. There is nothing to say that the development along the hydro corridor could not be limited to nodal development around the intersection of the hydro corridor and a major arterial, where the transit station would be located. It wouldn't do a good job of attraction avenuized development, but that's not the only kind of TOD you can get.

 

[CDL.TO]

Good point, EnviroTO. Take a look at the London Docklands system, which uses LRVs, to the Skytrain. They provide an almost identical service.

Exactly.

Also, Bombardier builds trains for the London Docklands system. You can still give the company a contact without having to use their proprietary ICTS technology.

 

[CDL.TO]

Just a general note regarding the pros/cons of off-street rapid transit in Hydro ROW: Put into the Con category the difficulty in promoting development, similar to experience of running subways down the centre of limited access highways, or those GO stations on freight trackage in industrial zones. Permanent transit infrastructure running in/under the street seems to foster increased economic activity -- and local ridership generation...

In my book development potential is not a more important consideration than ROW advantages such as construction cost/ease as well as reduced NIMBY opposition, etc., but it is a deal-maker for some.

You, and many others make this claim. Yet all (as far as I can tell) of Toronto's major current development zones are located in former industrial lands and adjacent to railways. Liberty Village, Metrogate, Downsview Park, City Place, Fort York Neighbourhood, Queen West Triangle, the Portlands, Park Place, West Don Lands, etc...

Even with just Yorkdale expansions, Lawrence Square (and associated office complex), and the Ridelle Ave apartment complex, I'd still say the Spadina line has seen more development in 32 years than the stretch of the Danforth line from Castle Frank to Main Street has seen in 44 years.

Why has Lawrence (opened 1973, subway line runs under a street) seen very little development surrounding the station, while St. Clair West (opened 1978, subway line does not run under a street) is surrounded by apartment towers?

This claim about lines having to run along streets to foster economic development simply does not hold up to any scrutiny. Regulations, zoning, political realities, and local land ownership are factors that actually do have an effect on development.

Any European transit planner would find this claim that successful transit lines need to run along streets to be laughably absurd.

 

[k10ery]

Just a general note regarding the pros/cons of off-street rapid transit in Hydro ROW: Put into the Con category the difficulty in promoting development, similar to experience of running subways down the centre of limited access highways, or those GO stations on freight trackage in industrial zones.

But with BRT the capital costs are low enough that a corridor project can be justified even without additional development, right? Don't the numbers on the York BRT project show this?

Ford et al say they dislike surface transit because of inconvenience to cars, but there is also likely a belief that nothing short of subways will satisfy big development interests.

-ed

Hmm... I don't suppose any of the adamant "subway is the only way to go" folks on newspaper comment pages have a connection to large developers, do they...?

Cute. Only now I'm taking this idea more seriously than I think you intended.

 

[Rainforest]

Think for instance of the Finch Hydro corridor. In my view, a BRT along that corridor would serve an entirely different function than the FWLRT. The FWLRT is designed to be a local feeder route to the nearest subway line. A Finch BRT would be a long-distance crosstown uptown route, designed to get from 1 side of the city to the other quickly, with stops only at major streets (which up there, I believe is every 2km).

This is all correct; but we should also take into account that Finch Hydro corridor does not run all the way into Northern Etobicoke; it turns south-west between Jane and Weston.

Therefore, IMO, the goal of FWLRT is serving Finch West residents plus Northern Etobicoke / Rexdale. The Hydro corridor busway, if built, should target fast access to the Airport and Mississauga Transitway (for this task it will beat any existing surface route by a large margin).

Eventually, both the FWLRT and the Hydro corridor busway can be built and co-exist.