Rob Ford's Subway plan and the 2001 Rapid Transit Expansion Study

[EnviroTO]

First of all, you have to define "benefit". If by "benefit" you mean shaving 5 minutes off of what used to be a 40 min bus trip, is that really a big deal? Say you live at Sheppard and Kennedy, would it be a greater benefit to have an electrified Stouffville line running 15 minute frequencies into downtown, or to have to travel by Sheppard East LRT, Sheppard Subway, and Yonge Subway to reach downtown. In that case, the amount of time shaved off that trip would be nearly half.

No, by benefit I mean maintain a reliable schedule, actually fit all the passengers waiting at stops, and cost tax payers less to operate. Agincourt is the only station on the whole of Sheppard that would have been served by Transit City. How are people supposed to get there and how will it benefit them if their destination was Yonge and Finch which is where Transit City or a Sheppard Subway would have taken them?

The other thing that electrified GO with additional stations would do would be to increase the turnover on existing bus routes. Take Eglinton for example. The current Eglinton West bus needs to run the nearly the entire length of Eglinton West before it reaches a rapid transit route to transfer onto to go southbound. This means that there is very little turnover, except at Eglinton West and Eglinton stations. With electrified GO, you would be adding in 2 additional transfer points, and there would be a lot of turnover at each of those points, freeing up space on the buses.

First there is the assumption that people will go onto GO from the TTC bus. There are GO trains at rush hour on every line which is when these routes are packed but the number of transfers at Eglinton GO, Kennedy GO, Agincourt GO, etc are minuscule. The only way to get people to switch has nothing to do with electrification. You would need to integrate fares and provide much greater frequency in service. Electrification doesn't increase service frequency nor provide the capacity necessary to significantly impact the TTC bus network loads, it increases average trip speed and only provides a marginal increase in capacity because the train can return more quickly. To provide a service that could significantly divert bus traffic you need to go beyond electrification to build double tracks everywhere, buy a lot more trains and employ a lot more staff, and significantly increase the capacity of Union Station. That can't be bought for the cost of Transit City.

Same thing goes for routes like Finch West (Barrie line), Eglinton East (Richmond Hill line and Lakeshore East line).

Yes, the same thing does go for those routes. There isn't a significant transfer now when the trains are running and the same lower cost for transfer plus significant increase in frequency and capacity would be required.

 

[EnviroTO]

no they dont use the same tracks. But they are laid right beside each other. Are you suggesting it is possible to somehow put a plexiglass roof over the SRT tracks between kennedy and midland without it as well going over the GO tracks? Is there enough room for that? If there was enough room wouldnt that add significant snow onto the GO line tracks after it falls off the new plexiglass roof?

I'm not even suggesting that I like the idea but I fail to see how it is an engineering marvel. The space in between the tracks is wide enough to fit a cement pylon to hold up a roadway and the roof could be angled in a number of ways.

 

[sixrings]

No, by benefit I mean maintain a reliable schedule, actually fit all the passengers waiting at stops, and cost tax payers less to operate. Agincourt is the only station on the whole of Sheppard that would have been served by Transit City. How are people supposed to get there and how will it benefit them if their destination was Yonge and Finch which is where Transit City or a Sheppard Subway would have taken them?

First there is the assumption that people will go onto GO from the TTC bus. There are GO trains at rush hour on every line which is when these routes are packed but the number of transfers at Eglinton GO, Kennedy GO, Agincourt GO, etc are minuscule. The only way to get people to switch has nothing to do with electrification. You would need to integrate fares and provide much greater frequency in service. Electrification doesn't increase service frequency nor provide the capacity necessary to significantly impact the TTC bus network loads, it increases average trip speed and only provides a marginal increase in capacity because the train can return more quickly. To provide a service that could significantly divert bus traffic you need to go beyond electrification to build double tracks everywhere, buy a lot more trains and employ a lot more staff, and significantly increase the capacity of Union Station. That can't be bought for the cost of Transit City.

Yes, the same thing does go for those routes. There isn't a significant transfer now when the trains are running and the same lower cost for transfer plus significant increase in frequency and capacity would be required.

Gweed has suggested that LRT lines or BRT lines would still be needed to get people to the GO lines.

Your second point is a good one though. You would clearly need much more trains. However would you really need to double the tracks? Could you not simply run the 905 trains once a hour and the 416 trains every 15 mins between.. So say 10am 905 GO Train 1015 1030 1045 416 GO train 11am 905 GO train. Gweed has been a supporter of fare integreation although I question how that would work. Also in previous transit threads GWeed has suggested additional GO stops so although TC would only connect to one of GOs current stops if Go were to add additional stops on Eglinton at weston caledonia leslie and bloor at lansdown that would be a significant upgrade. Again extra stops would cost extra money in stations. I do agree.

I like TC because it gets me around the city. I like the GO idea because it gets ppl downtown faster and potentially could substitute for a DRL. That being said I think a DRL might be easier to poltically get done because you maintain keeping GO and TTC seperate.

 

[denfromoakvillemilton]

I think he meant halving compared to the time it takes currently using the TTC. In a lot of cases, that may actually be true, especially on trips from the outer 416 into downtown.

Yes.

 

[EnviroTO]

Gweed has suggested that LRT lines or BRT lines would still be needed to get people to the GO lines.

If we are still talking about separated ROWs running at grade where possible and in a tunnel where not possible... then we are still talking about Transit City. BRT just costs less to construct but costs more to operate and doesn't lure as much development and ridership.

However would you really need to double the tracks? Could you not simply run the 905 trains once a hour and the 416 trains every 15 mins between.. So say 10am 905 GO Train 1015 1030 1045 416 GO train 11am 905 GO train.

Yes, you need to double the tracks because there is no way to get a train from Union Station to Steeles and back in 15 minutes. You could put in a passing track somewhere but it would mean no extra trains could fit in the schedule and a delay in one train would delay the other.

I like TC because it gets me around the city. I like the GO idea because it gets ppl downtown faster and potentially could substitute for a DRL. That being said I think a DRL might be easier to poltically get done because you maintain keeping GO and TTC seperate.

The DRL makes the most sense from an expected ridership and reducing over capacity on other routes perspective, if only the politicians could support giving that scale of money to a project in an area where bike riding pinkos might live.

 

[ssiguy2]

If TC was an ICTS plan, ssiguy2 would love it. It's all about technology with him.

That is complete rubbish.
As I have said MANY times before , if the SRT wasn't already there then I would not recommend SRT but rather Metro or monorail.
My point is that spending $1.2 billion and shutting a line down for 4 years just to transfer from one rapid transit technology to another is an obscene waste of precious funds and time. $1.2 billion for not one extra foot of rapid transit in a city that desperately needs a larger system.
People use the SRT as an example of ICTS which is ridiculous as anyone is Vancouver will tell you. Except for monorail, SkyTrain is the most affordable elevated system due to lighter trains which results in thinner support columns and the line should be elevated from Kennedy to Don Mills. Also, as I confirmed by the Eglinton Crosstown office, tunneled LRT is the most expensive tunnel system due to needing to put in the overhead power supply. The whole reason city's use LRT is because it is a cost effective alternative to other systems that need total grade separation but Eglinton will be precisely that so you are spending more funds to get the lowest capacity system. This is to say nothing about how using SkyTrain will save massive amounts by not having to build a completely new LRT garage, maintenance, and control centre.
The 2 billion saved by keeping the SkyTrain and elevating the Kennedy to Don Mills section would give Ford funds to expand his Sheppard line and leave $1.3 billion to electrify the Pearson line and add stations to make it standard Metro for TTC patrons as opposed to a tax write off for bankers.

 

[gweed123]

No, by benefit I mean maintain a reliable schedule, actually fit all the passengers waiting at stops, and cost tax payers less to operate. Agincourt is the only station on the whole of Sheppard that would have been served by Transit City. How are people supposed to get there and how will it benefit them if their destination was Yonge and Finch which is where Transit City or a Sheppard Subway would have taken them?

Well if people were going from Agincourt to Yonge & Finch, why would they bother taking GO? The example I used is getting from Agincourt to downtown. And I think you missed my point about turnover on bus routes. If a bus turns over twice or 3 times over the span of a route instead of 1, that bus is much more profitable. The more transfer points you have along a given route, the higher the turnover will be.

First there is the assumption that people will go onto GO from the TTC bus. There are GO trains at rush hour on every line which is when these routes are packed but the number of transfers at Eglinton GO, Kennedy GO, Agincourt GO, etc are minuscule. The only way to get people to switch has nothing to do with electrification. You would need to integrate fares and provide much greater frequency in service. Electrification doesn't increase service frequency nor provide the capacity necessary to significantly impact the TTC bus network loads, it increases average trip speed and only provides a marginal increase in capacity because the train can return more quickly. To provide a service that could significantly divert bus traffic you need to go beyond electrification to build double tracks everywhere, buy a lot more trains and employ a lot more staff, and significantly increase the capacity of Union Station. That can't be bought for the cost of Transit City.

Yes, the same thing does go for those routes. There isn't a significant transfer now when the trains are running and the same lower cost for transfer plus significant increase in frequency and capacity would be required.

Yes, it does have something to do with electrification. With electrification you can run trains more frequently. The 3 things you need in order to increase the amount of TTC<->GO transfers are: fare integration, more frequent GO service, and more stations. Your model is based on the assumption that GO will only keep the current service levels. You're looking at the status quo and saying why it doesn't work, and I'm telling you how it can be fixed so that it can work.

As for track doubling, to the best of my knowledge the only three lines that are single tracked are the Stouffville, Richmond Hill, and Barrie lines. You don't have to double track the entire line, but just double track it in select locations. And like was mentioned, you can run 15 min service inbound, 30 minute service outbound in the AM (or something to that effect).

Again, I'm not saying we shouldn't build BRT and LRT, I'm just saying it shouldn't be the #1 priority. The #1 priority should be GO, because it will provide the greatest increase in capacity and mobility for the cost, especially compared to suburban LRT routes that aren't (and shouldn't) be designed for long distance commuting.

 

[gweed123]

Gweed has suggested that LRT lines or BRT lines would still be needed to get people to the GO lines.

Your second point is a good one though. You would clearly need much more trains. However would you really need to double the tracks? Could you not simply run the 905 trains once a hour and the 416 trains every 15 mins between.. So say 10am 905 GO Train 1015 1030 1045 416 GO train 11am 905 GO train. Gweed has been a supporter of fare integreation although I question how that would work. Also in previous transit threads GWeed has suggested additional GO stops so although TC would only connect to one of GOs current stops if Go were to add additional stops on Eglinton at weston caledonia leslie and bloor at lansdown that would be a significant upgrade. Again extra stops would cost extra money in stations. I do agree.

I like TC because it gets me around the city. I like the GO idea because it gets ppl downtown faster and potentially could substitute for a DRL. That being said I think a DRL might be easier to poltically get done because you maintain keeping GO and TTC seperate.

Yes, you would need more trains. If you're going to run 15 minute frequencies, more trains is pretty much a given.

And I don't think TTC and GO should be separate, at least when it comes to fares. Transfering from a TTC bus to a GO train should be just as simple as a transfer from a TTC bus to a TTC subway.

 

[rbt]

This is to say nothing about how using SkyTrain will save massive amounts by not having to build a completely new LRT garage, maintenance, and control centre.

Which SkyTrain cars currently on the market can we order that will allow this? Hint, check out the curvature/clearance requirement at Kennedy, in the tunnel, and in the existing yard. Also, take a look at the current maintenance building size.

Keeping the current setup would require a custom run of a custom car both today and in the future (30/60/90/... years from now when they wear out).

Reconfiguring to fit off-the-shelf vehicles is the better option.

 

[Dan416]

Yes, you would need more trains. If you're going to run 15 minute frequencies, more trains is pretty much a given.

And I don't think TTC and GO should be separate, at least when it comes to fares. Transfering from a TTC bus to a GO train should be just as simple as a transfer from a TTC bus to a TTC subway.

Easier said than done. Though I agree with you.

 

[SgtBullmoose]

What I think needed to be done with lrt was to turn the legacy lines into LRT lines with dedicated ROWs, wider stop spacing, and signal priority rather than the botched up job that was done with Spadina and St. clair. The suburbs, of course, need rapid crosstown transit and Eglinton needs to be some sort of sky train or it will just be overloaded within ten years of its opening. Then we can talk about some sort of DRL and Sheppard subway. If the downtown streetcars ran faster and more reliably, they could significantly reduce pressure on existing subway lines like in Vienna.

 

[Fred.S]

What I think needed to be done with lrt was to turn the legacy lines into LRT lines with dedicated ROWs, wider stop spacing, and signal priority rather than the botched up job that was done with Spadina and St. clair. The suburbs, of course, need rapid crosstown transit and Eglinton needs to be some sort of sky train or it will just be overloaded within ten years of its opening. Then we can talk about some sort of DRL and Sheppard subway. If the downtown streetcars ran faster and more reliably, they could significantly reduce pressure on existing subway lines like in Vienna.

While there are many improvements that could be made to the legacy lines, You can't fit dedicated ROWs in most places, and if you could, the small blocks and traffic on cross-streets would still bog them down. It's unrealistic to think of making the streetcars rapid transit. A DRL is much needed to take off existing pressure on all streetcar and subway lines.

On Eglinton, As far as I know, the LRTs will have a higher capacity then ICTS, and even ART (Bombardier's larger modern version of ICTS). I think the plan there is good. But again, a full DRL makes so many important connections to the network, that Eglinton would act as both a feeder to it, and local service to Eglinton, but not a trunk line, and so shouldn't hit subway levels for a long time.

I agree the Sheppard Subway should not be looked at for a while, except for making a connection to Downsview, so people will be enticed not to transfer on the overcrowded Yonge line, and have a connection to Vaughan. However, the TTC could make a really good, simple BRT system east of Don Mills using artics that could easily handle and increase ridership on that section of Sheppard.

 

[SgtBullmoose]

I think we need to have a rethink aout right of ways. I'm in Vienna right now;a smaller city with twice as many streetcar track km's as Toronto which, admittedly serve the suburbs, but the population density is similar. Toronto's right of ways are absolutely massive in comparison. Most Viennese right of ways are little more than a slightly raised concrete surface. Trams usually run in the middle lanes with one lane of traffic running on each side. The streets here are no larger than Bathurst st. Loading is still done from the side walk and left turns are only allowed when there is no tram in the right of way. I think it definitely could be done by, for example, banning parking on the downtown section of king st and other narrow streets like Bathurst.

Traffic on cross streets is handled through one way streets. Something, I think, we can all agree, Toronto needs more of.

Moreover, to improve regularity of the streetcars, they should remove many of the stops but have dwell time at every stop. With longer,low floor trams, this is much easier.

For the suburbs, dedicated bus lanes are likely needed along sections of the routes. If you run those with articulated busses,again, many would give up the subway for easier alternatives with less transfers.

I haven't looked at the specifics of the Eglinton LRT, but it definitely needs more capacity than the RT currently has.

 

[Fred.S]

I think the BD subway should be extended to STC, that would be the most logical step (no forced transfer, minimal disruption to RT during construction, high capacity, better network). However, I support LRT over ICTS (higher capacity, street-running options, better winter operation, fleet commonality, off-the-shelf tech).

I agree that one-way streets are the way to go. I think making many downtown streets one-way would make room to put streetcars on their own ROW (they would alternate direction on each parallel street, such as Queen/Richmond and King/Adelaide, and maybe even Wellington/Front). But for many other streets, trying to put a ROW in the middle and having one-lane of traffic per direction still wouldn't leave room for platforms, snow clearing space, cyclists etc, the streets are just too tight. There are definitely many stops that could be removed.

BRT is something that really needs to be given much more thought. It's a cheap and very effective alternative to LRT that I think has a place in many spots in the city. As well, it's a good precursor to subway, which wouldn't be as big a deal to get rid of once a subway is built. I think it should really be looked at for Sheppard East, Finch, Jane, and Yonge North. All you need to do is repaint some lines, put in bollards or some cheap separation, and reconfigure intersections with signal priority and passenger platforms.

 

[Rainforest]

BRT is something that really needs to be given much more thought. It's a cheap and very effective alternative to LRT that I think has a place in many spots in the city. As well, it's a good precursor to subway, which wouldn't be as big a deal to get rid of once a subway is built. I think it should really be looked at for Sheppard East, Finch, Jane, and Yonge North. All you need to do is repaint some lines, put in bollards or some cheap separation, and reconfigure intersections with signal priority and passenger platforms.

In most cases, it will be necessary to widen the street (adding 2 new lanes). Of course this is doable along suburban arterials with wide public right-of-way, and cheaper than LRT or subway, but not as cheap as simply repainting the existing lanes.