Rob Ford's Transit plan

[Twisted Son of Gumby]

So the guy who's all about fiscal restraint wants to build more subways? With what money?

This guy makes Mel Lastman look like Richard Daley.

And his alleged transit policy "guru", Mark Twohey, is as suitable for that position as Adolf Hitler would be for running a synagogue. I really don't think enough people in Toronto do enough homework on the mayoralty candidates they're choosing to vote for.

As expected, Ford's best friend Sue loves the plan.

http://www.torontosun.com/comment/c...nists/sueann_levy/2010/09/08/pf-15285636.html

Nice article. As a journalist for The Toronto Sun, it must be hard to get oxygen to the brain while having one's nose firmly planted up the ass of the political right.

 

[drum118]

Why only 279 buses? With the new 204 cars, you'd need about 816 buses to provide the same capacity.

The max # of cars TTC puts out at peak time is 186.

It has been said that the replacement ratio is 3:2. That means you need 186 / 2 * 3 = 279 buses.

Therefore to replace 252 streetcars, you need only 378 buses in total to cover the spare ratio of 15% and put more service out there.

I like working on a peak point and service levels to arrived at the number of vehicels of various type will be require and what the headway will be for them.

King has a high point of 3,000.

Based on the 3,000/hr, you need 43 articulated buses with a headway of 84 seconds or 1.4 minutes carrying 70 riders.
You need 58 buses carrying 52 riders every 62 seconds or 1.04 minute.
Using 125 for the new LRT, you will need 24 cars with a headway of 250 seconds or 2.5 minute.

The replacement ratio is 58:24 or 2.4:1 using buses.

 

[nfitz]

The max # of cars TTC puts out at peak time is 186.

It has been said that the replacement ratio is 3:2. That means you need 186 / 2 * 3 = 279 buses.

Therefore to replace 252 streetcars, you need only 378 buses in total to cover the spare ratio of 15% and put more service out there.

So how do you get 279 then? And what about the problem of there not being enough streetcars right now, and overcrowding.

Surely the number you should go for is the 204 new cars.

I'm not sure why you only have a replacement ratio of 3:2. You can get more than 50% more people on a CLRV ... what about an ALRV?

 

[Rainforest]

King has a high point of 3,000.

Based on the 3,000/hr, you need 43 articulated buses with a headway of 84 seconds or 1.4 minutes carrying 70 riders.
You need 58 buses carrying 52 riders every 62 seconds or 1.04 minute.

Will that be a sustainable operation mode? This is more frequent than the most frequent of the today's routes, the Finch East bus. But I believe that the amount of parked cars and other obstacles on King is much greater.

Using 125 for the new LRT, you will need 24 cars with a headway of 250 seconds or 2.5 minute.

 

[adma]

I notice Fresh Start is posting there now. And getting more thumbs down, than up! lol

Ah, in the end, just another serial newspaper commenteer who thought he could get his whang dang doodle going on UT. Good riddance.

 

[W. K. Lis]

While I would prefer to see all of Transit City be heavy rail subway, I know that it would be too, too expensive to do so. Having light rail and light rail subway will get rapid rapid out to more of Toronto and at a less expensive cost.

My preferences are:

1 — heavy rail subway
2 — light rail subway
3 — light rail right-of-ways
4 — streetcars
5 — bicycles
6 — buses
7 — walking
8 — cars

I do have a car, but which I am forced to use because of the sprawl conditions the outer areas of Toronto is under. I do use the bus, when I am not using the car, but would prefer to see the bus I use replaced by a streetcar or more preferably light rail (and yes, there is a difference to those who don’t seem to know).

 

[denfromoakvillemilton]

That's exactly what I said

What about your save our subways plan?


You should donate that to the ford campaign. He just might get it done.

 

[Ed Drass]

And his alleged transit policy "guru", Mark Twohey,

I recall an online commenter named as James Alcock 'correct' a Sun article and state he was the Ford's transit policy "guru".

According to the Facebook page <<"Links on "Team Rob Ford">> James Alcock wrote, "I am delighted to have been asked to chair the campaign's transportation committee. We have a wonderful and comprehensive plan to get us out of gridlock. We want an end to the war on the car in Toronto. It's time for new subways and highways. Toronto has not built a road since 1971 when construction of the Allen Expressway was stopped!
April 7 at 4:02am"

The only reference from a brief google search found that on:
February 1, that Mr. James Alcock would present "Get Moving Toronto; a Comprehensive Transportation Plan for Toronto" to the Rotary Club of Toronto West.

 

[Justin10000]

A quick google search shows James Alcock is a member of the Toronto Party.

His "Get Toronto moving plan is here:

http://www.gettorontomoving.ca/

A pretty typical plan:

-Extend the subway to Sherway Gardens
-Use the Scarborough ROW for a subway, and extend to zoo.
-Replace the streetcars with electric trolleybuses(Why??)

Actually, the plan is pretty bad. I think Rob Ford used some of the ideas from this plan.
-

 

[Swarley]

That site also proposes extending Black Creek Drive in a tunnel under the rail corridor down to the Gardiner. Nevermind the several billion dollar cost, this will just create more traffic problems than we already have. Geniuses...

 

[nfitz]

That site also proposes extending Black Creek Drive in a tunnel under the rail corridor down to the Gardiner. Nevermind the several billion dollar cost, this will just create more traffic problems than we already have. Geniuses...

As opposed to Rossi's plan to extend the Spadina expressway to the Gardiner?

 

[Justin10000]

Isn't there an agreement with the province, and the city not extend the expressway downtown?

 

[Swarley]

As opposed to Rossi's plan to extend the Spadina expressway to the Gardiner?

Well he's a genius on par with Ford then. Apprently Rossi's tunnel will : "jump-start Toronto’s economic growth and encourage businesses to return to the downtown core."

Silly me, I didn't realize businesses were leaving downtown, what with all the office towers just built and under construction. Or that expressways are the key to economic growth.

 

[howl]

The max # of cars TTC puts out at peak time is 186.

It has been said that the replacement ratio is 3:2. That means you need 186 / 2 * 3 = 279 buses.

Therefore to replace 252 streetcars, you need only 378 buses in total to cover the spare ratio of 15% and put more service out there.

I like working on a peak point and service levels to arrived at the number of vehicels of various type will be require and what the headway will be for them.

King has a high point of 3,000.

Based on the 3,000/hr, you need 43 articulated buses with a headway of 84 seconds or 1.4 minutes carrying 70 riders.
You need 58 buses carrying 52 riders every 62 seconds or 1.04 minute.
Using 125 for the new LRT, you will need 24 cars with a headway of 250 seconds or 2.5 minute.

The replacement ratio is 58:24 or 2.4:1 using buses.

What is the traffic signal timing like along King? If lights are red for more than 1 minute you'll get two or more regular buses bunched up at every traffic light. With LRT's you'll probably get one LRT every second light.

As Drum118 eluded to earlier - one cost that is rarely discussed is the cost of labour. Assuming bus/LRT drivers get about $20 per hour you'll be paying them $1160 per hour for 58 buses or $480 per hour for 24 LRT's. I realize those are peak times, so let's assume that the average daily volume was only half that over 20 hours (5am to 1 am). That's $11,600 per day for the buses and $4,800 per day for the LRT. Over a year that works out to $4.25 million for the buses and $1.75 million per year for the LRT's. The LRT's are saving $2.5 million dollars a year in labour costs, and that is just for the King Line (assuming the volume numbers are more-or-less correct). Now that's a back-of-envelope calculation. You have to factor in the length of shifts, the actual volumes and indirect labour costs (health, pensions) to get a more accurate number, but I bet that number is in the right ball park.

 

[gweed123]

It is only a flawed plan if you accept Transit City as the final product. When the DRL does get built the lines created as part of Transit City will still be there and the combined service will be better than the DRL alone. The DRL is going to get built out of necessity as long as the downtown continues to grow. The other lines don't have the same pressures and the routes are meant to spur development more than handle overload.

If Miller, Giambrone, and Co. were so supportive of the DRL and thought it was so important, why wasn't it included as part of Transit City? The fact that it wasn't even shown on the plan shows just how much lip service it was being paid, and how little real consideration it was being given by them. Heck, even the Jane LRT and WWLRT were shown on the plan, with little to no intention of ever seriously getting built. Ergo, the DRL was lower on the priority list than a couple of suburban LRT lines that were put on the map to make it look good. Very comforting.