jks
Continuous Lurker
This thread is starting to get on my nerves because whenever I read the title, I say to myself "Well, DUH!!"
|
|
|
Toronto wants subways
- Thread starter borgo100
- Start date
nfitz
Superstar
Now don't start throwing common sense and logic in here - we can't be having that!
scarberiankhatru
Senior Member
Yeah, or everyone would start agreeing with me.
If Voltz had bothered to read what the entirety of I actually posted instead of just the first few words, he'd know that I was referring to the entire Eglinton line as a site for potentially massive cost savings...or he could have used the "logic" nfitz claimed he spotted and done some math - if billions could be saved over a 4km stretch, that would mean construction of the entire line would turn a profit. 30+km of cumulative savings just might be higher than 4km of savings. If they tunnel under the Richview corridor, there's no hope of rational cost savings occurring elsewhere along the line.
nfitz
Superstar
Unlikely - you've stretched things in the past enough well beyond believability - and failed to recognise that there is a finite amount of money available - and sure you could blow it all on 3 or 4 mega projects - or spend it on more projects.
Though I'm not sure building a trench along Eglinton East is anyone's interest - it will forever limit the future use of the land. Surely parts of Yonge north of Bloor would be better today if they had tunelled rather than that space-wasting trench.
Rainforest
Senior Member
The goal of LRT is not to beat a car. Cars do not stop for passengers, public transit does. Even a subway (its average speed in Toronto is 32 kph) is not guaranteed to beat cars unless the car traffic is jammed.
The goal is to improve public transit by operating it in a right-of way, compared to the mixed-traffic buses. The buses run at 15 - 20 kph on average, but on congested roads in bad weather, that could be 10 kph or worse. A few times during heavy snow, I managed to beat the Eglinton bus from Bathurst to Yonge on foot
.
Dan416
Senior Member
Let's not forget that the SRT got shut down due to snow this weekend. And some people want to extend it. what a laugh.
Rainforest
Senior Member
If Eglinton is built as a subway, tunneling will be needed, at the very least, from Weston Rd. to Leslie (11 km), from Don Mills to Pharmacy (3 km), and from Warden to Kennedy (2 km), total 16 km. Estimating 16 km at 300 M / km plus remaining 14 km at 200 M / km, the cost goes to 7.6 B, versus the 3.5 B estimate for the LRT solution.
Surely the cost depends on the engineering complexity rather than just on the length, but the Eglinton subway would have its fair share of complexities. It would have to cross Humber River, West Don, and East Don (LRT would have to cross them, too, but it might fit on the existing bridges). A connection to the existing system at Yonge or at Eglinton West would be difficult to build because the areas are built up. (Connection at Kennedy would be easy, but starting the Eglinton line from there is quite odd).
A successful push for the Eglinton subway will have one of the following outcomes:
1) Eglinton subway gets build fully, but costs at least 3 or 4 B more than the light rail solution, and that expense derails a number of other transit projects in GTA. It doesn't mean just derailing Jane or Morningside LRT (that are not likely to get built anyway), but really important projects like Downtown Core line.
Or
2) Only the central section (likely Jane to Don Mills) gets built within 25 years, and bus service is retained at the extremities. The line could be extended later on, but in the interim, we'll have a pretty poorly connected system. A stubway on Eglinton, another stubway on Sheppard (hopefully lengthened but likely not reaching the full project length). A Downtown Core stubway - that one would see a very decent usage even at the stubway phase, but anyway.
Regarding the LRT solution, I don't see a big problem if it runs in a 2 B dollar tunnel in the centre, but stops at red lights at the extremities. This is how many other LRT systems in the world operate.
However, I'd extend the fully grade-separate LRT section a bit, and make it Jane to Don Mills rather than just Weston to Laird. If that section is built properly (can handle long trains and allows tight headways), its capacity limit could be in the 15,000 - 20,000 pphpd range. This is more than enough to support local passengers (even if densities grow) as well as transfer passengers. Long 4-car or 5-car trains would operate between Jane to Don Mills only, whereas 2-car trains would run end to end.
Sections west of Jane and east of Don Mills would be serviced by 2-car trains on 4 or 5 min headways, which is still a lot more capacity than what regular bus routes typically provide.
Whoaccio
Senior Member
If we did build an 'Eglinton subway,' it really wouldn't/shouldn't go the full 30km from Mississauga to Kennedy. It just doesn't make sense. The only part that needs to be grade separated is the central four lane segment between Laird (though, in prep for a possible DRL this should go to Don Mills) & Weston. Outside of that, bus service would be completely sufficient. Even today the Eglinton buses aren't so bad. I use them every day, the only problem is that the roads around EglintonStn. might as well be static. Outside the central section though there are no real problems. Certainly nothing that couldn't be addressed by artics/2x artics, priority lanes, queue jumps, wider stop spacing and all door boarding.
Even if we did build an LRT, we should basically separate the grade separated components from the rest at rush hour if not the whole day. After that, you could call it whatever you want. It would be a de facto subway, and that is all that matters. My point is that if we agree that the central section should be de facto subway with no real cost savings between LRT and HRT, the only question becomes simply do the extremities need LRT? I doubt it.
Even if we did build an LRT, we should basically separate the grade separated components from the rest at rush hour if not the whole day. After that, you could call it whatever you want. It would be a de facto subway, and that is all that matters. My point is that if we agree that the central section should be de facto subway with no real cost savings between LRT and HRT, the only question becomes simply do the extremities need LRT? I doubt it.
Rainforest
Senior Member
If LRT technology is used for both the central part and the extremities, then through service is possible. I don't think that a full separation of the components is required, or even desirable. Let's assume that service in the central section runs on 2-min headways, alternating 4-car short-turn trains (Jane to Don Mills) and 2-car through trains. The 4-car trains will provide both capacity and reliability in the central section. (Even if a 2-car through train got delayed at a traffic light and missed its window, the next 4-car train is just 2 minutes away.)
Any other combination (subway in the centre / buses at extremities, or subway / LRT, or LRT / buses) would necessitate transfers at the junction points.
scarberiankhatru
Senior Member
Oh dear, now you're making even less sense...how unfortunate.
Money for transit infrastructure is neither finite nor infinite...that's not how transit funding works. The powers that be choose to fund certain projects at certain times; that money is not available for other projects (not that anyone really wants to spend $3+ billion on a rapid transit line that stops at red lights). "Mega" projects often have much higher values than a series of "cheaper" projects that cumulatively cost more but do less.
It's quite rich for you (or anyone) to say that a trench or any other non-underground subway structure "wastes space." What is a streetcar ROW if not a waste of space? It'll eat up, among other land, some of the Richview corridor, and it won't be possible to build on top of it - a trench could be decked over in the future as needed, which is important to keep in mind since Eglinton is slated for potentially massive Avenues redevelopment, anyway. Strips of grass along roads like Eglinton are transportation lands...why is it ok for them to be used for bike lanes, streetcar ROWs, road widenings, sidewalks, utilities, signs, etc., etc., but not a subway line (or even a grade-separated LRT)? That hypocrisy is costing this city, in both time and money.
Mind you, that's only an issue if great numbers of people are actually travelling the entire or most of the length of Eglinton. Since such "where are people actually going and what transit improvements will help them?" studies were not part of Transfer City, we just don't know...it's quite difficult to gauge the "busyness" of various types of trips along an arterial bus corridor like Eglinton whether through ridership totals or anecdotes or even daily experience since you have so many people transferring on/off at Eglinton West and Yonge, since you have so many overlapping routes, etc.
At the very least, a subway in the necessarily underground part (something like Jane or Weston-Don Mills would make more sense as terminus points in the event the tunnels exit at random places like Brentcliffe) would give the line the freedom to be extended in the future...building LRT extensions would preempt a subway extension for generations, beyond what it is feasible to plan for.
spider
Senior Member
Confused
Rainforest said:
If an LRT is not meant to be faster than vehicular traffic is it supposed to be slower? Is the sacrifice of 2 lanes of vehicular traffic necessary to achieve this goal, can't it be done by lollygagging operators as on the 501? In my limited experience it is quite obvious that the Streetcars are holding up vehicular traffic not the other way around as the TTC constantly complains.
It is going to be pretty embarrassing when the St. Clair fiasco is finished at God knows what cost and guess what, the same number of Streetcars will take the same time to carry the same number of riders the same distance as previously. OOPS!
Rainforest said:
If an LRT is not meant to be faster than vehicular traffic is it supposed to be slower? Is the sacrifice of 2 lanes of vehicular traffic necessary to achieve this goal, can't it be done by lollygagging operators as on the 501? In my limited experience it is quite obvious that the Streetcars are holding up vehicular traffic not the other way around as the TTC constantly complains.
It is going to be pretty embarrassing when the St. Clair fiasco is finished at God knows what cost and guess what, the same number of Streetcars will take the same time to carry the same number of riders the same distance as previously. OOPS!
Rainforest
Senior Member
They are both holding up each other. The difference is that a streecar carries several times more voters / taxpayers then a car, per a square meter of road space they occupy. Therefore, a streetcar deserves priority, on the busiest routes at least.
The goal of ROW lines is to let streetcars to run faster compared to themselves in mixed traffic. When the ROW is completed, they will run somewhat faster than before, the vehicles will be used better (due to faster turnaround), and hopefully they will attract more riders.
There is no chance for street-level public transit to beat cars on speed, because public transit has to stop for passengers. Even subways are not guaranteed to beat cars, they might run faster between the stations but then they have to stop and service the station.
The goal is to make public transit more attractive on the combination of factors: speed + cost + no need to look for parking spaces or visit auto services etc. If one factor (speed) trails hopelessly, then people will stick to their cars and ignore other factors. If the speed is decent (even if it is still somewhat below private cars), then other factors will bring at least some new riders to transit.
Disparishun
Active Member
Huh? Wouldn't you want a goal of grade-separated "rapid" transit to be that it is rapider than other forms of transit at getting from a given stop to the next stop? Otherwise, you're not much further ahead than buses, are you?
As you point out, any route comparison that involves transit stops isn't going to work too well. But if you can't get between stops faster with grade-separated RT, then it's not very R.
Rainforest
Senior Member
"Any other combination (subway in the centre / buses at extremities, or subway / LRT, or LRT / buses) would necessitate transfers at the junction points."
While it is true that we do not have any formal statistics on the travel patterns, it is conceivable that a large portion of trips along the Eglinton corridor will cross Jane or Don Mills. Examples: west to Spadina subway; west to Yonge subway and North York; Vic park to Yonge subway and North York; Vic park to Spadina subway and York U. Just select 10 or so origin / destination pairs at random, and probably 60 or 70% would involve an extra transfer if Jane or Don Mills is a mode junction.
Basically, Eglinton subway truncated at Jane and Don Mills would exhibit same problem as Sheppard subway truncated at Don Mills.
I am not suggesting Eglinton subway from Jane to Don Mills with LRT appendices. If such subway existed already, I would rather suggest gradually expanding it until it reaches a meaningful length.
But starting from scratch, we will get a better return on investment if LRT technology is selected for this corridor. As LRT, this line will go further and serve more passengers for every chunk of investment.
While it is true that we do not have any formal statistics on the travel patterns, it is conceivable that a large portion of trips along the Eglinton corridor will cross Jane or Don Mills. Examples: west to Spadina subway; west to Yonge subway and North York; Vic park to Yonge subway and North York; Vic park to Spadina subway and York U. Just select 10 or so origin / destination pairs at random, and probably 60 or 70% would involve an extra transfer if Jane or Don Mills is a mode junction.
Basically, Eglinton subway truncated at Jane and Don Mills would exhibit same problem as Sheppard subway truncated at Don Mills.
I am not suggesting Eglinton subway from Jane to Don Mills with LRT appendices. If such subway existed already, I would rather suggest gradually expanding it until it reaches a meaningful length.
But starting from scratch, we will get a better return on investment if LRT technology is selected for this corridor. As LRT, this line will go further and serve more passengers for every chunk of investment.
Rainforest
Senior Member
That's true. But the original post of Spider described a competition between the car and the streetcar that happened on the stretch from Yonge to Bathurst. Obviously, the streetcar was making some stops along that stretch. The streetcar almost kept up with the car despite making those stops, I'd say this outcome is not too bad.