Transit City Plan

[nfitz]

Canada Line:
Average daily ridership: 100,000
Length: 19.2 km
Ridership per km = 5,200
Generally accepted interpretation: MASSIVE RUNAWAY SUCCESS EXCEEDING ALL PROJECTIONS

Sheppard Subway:
Average daily ridership: 46,000
Length: 5.5km
Ridership per km = 8,400
Generally accepted interpretation: MASSIVE USELESS FAILURE PROVING THAT WE SHOULD NEVER BUILD METROS EVER AGAIN

But it's a question of technology and capacity isn't it. The problem with Sheppard is they chose the wrong technology. Canada Line trains are only 41 metres long (ultimately expandable to 50 metres), compared to the 92 metre trains on Sheppard (expandable to 138 metres).

I must say though, that Canada Line stations seem to have a lot more people coming and going into them off-peak than I see on the Sheppard Line.

 

[Justin10000]

Hells yes.

And here are my reasons why:

1) As a former pro subway nut, I've opened my eyes to LRT as a transit mode. Just because we don't get subways built does not mean it's the end of the world.

Subways are meant to move a lot of people quickly. If you build in a corridor, and the line is moving less than 300,000-400,000 per day, it's a waste of money. There are few corridors where subways are needed in Toronto. Even the Sheppard subway, if connected to STC, would probably move less than 100,000 people per day.

2) LRT can work if it's implemented and maintained properly. Other cities have done it, why can't Toronto? (This does concern me because the city's success rate of implementing LRT/streetcars in ROWs is less than stellar)

The construction delays of ROW were due to poor coordination between departments. From what I understand, the scope of the project changed a few time during construction, delaying the project. What happened on St. Clair is not going to occur with Transit City. If we use ST. Clair as an example, then you can assume the Spadina extension will be face the same problems.

3) Subways are more expensive to build here because of the methodology used by the City and the TTC. Hiring private consultants and sub-consultants to do the majority of the work, using TBMs instead of cut and cover to excavate the tunnels, overbuilt stations, and let's not forget that there's always cost overruns with any large scale transit infrastructure project.
4) Have you ever ridden on an LRT line in Europe by chance? If you haven't, I suggest you do. The T3 line in Paris is one that I recommend highly. Beautiful trams, the ROW has grass plantings between the tracks, you don't have to wait to board the vehicle when it arrives, and it's a smooth and comfortable ride!

The Sheppard subway cost around 900Million to build, and costs 10 Million a year to operate, and the TTC still provides parallel bus service. Is that a good use of funds? Especially a subway that carries only 50,000 per DAY? Subway advocates love to avoid this, by attacking alternative modes as being "slow", and "won't attract riders". The Sheppard line only attracts 50,000 a day, and Sheppard is a traffic nightmare.I am more than certain, LRT from Downsview to Meadowvale would have attracted far more rides than the subway.
I am not anti-subway, far from it. But subways have their place, and unfortunately, we have wasted decades planning for subways, and building scant km of subways in the wrong places.

5) Subway station spacing versus LRT station spacing. Clearly, LRT stations are more closely spaced (500m on average) than subway stops (minimum of 1km? I'm not exactly sure), leaving better access points for more residents (if they travel by foot).

Exactly. Make transit easily accessible, and people will ride. Another myth pro-subway advocates like to bring up: Speed attracts riders. Speed is just one factor, and a minor one. What attracts riders is a mix of speed, predictability, and reliability., and access. What is the point of a super quick subway ride, if you have to wait for an infrequent bus to reach your destination, if you live between stations? The success of Paris' subways is the close station spacing. The subway is actually quite slow in Paris(except for Line 14).

6) Better for businesses and tourists. What better way for potential clients to see businesses along a street than LRT? A subway isn't going to accomplish that beneath the ground. And please don't say bus service would suffice because it's just not comparable to LRT in this case.

The Phoenix LRT has been a major revenue booster for business, for that exact reason. Hop on-Hop off. It is also possible with subways, but usually at stations only, unless the station spacing is small enough, that people can walk between stations.

Anyhow, those are my points. Correct me if you think I'm wrong on anything, but I think I'm fairly justified with them.

Nothing to correct. Good points.

 

[M II A II R II K]

A Sheppard LRT with underground sections probably would have been better in the first place. An Eglinton Subway could work better if Eglinton East were rezoned and allowed to increase density and adding more sidestreets, condos, and malls and stuff.

So if one builds it so they will come, they must be allowed to come.

 

[junctionist]

The Sheppard subway cost around 900Million to build, and costs 10 Million a year to operate, and the TTC still provides parallel bus service. Is that a good use of funds? Especially a subway that carries only 50,000 per DAY? Subway advocates love to avoid this, by attacking alternative modes as being "slow", and "won't attract riders". The Sheppard line only attracts 50,000 a day, and Sheppard is a traffic nightmare.I am more than certain, LRT from Downsview to Meadowvale would have attracted far more rides than the subway.
I am not anti-subway, far from it. But subways have their place, and unfortunately, we have wasted decades planning for subways, and building scant km of subways in the wrong places.

It sounds like Sheppard has done well. It's a suburban transit line that's not even 6 kilometres long, but moves as many people as far longer streetcar routes on downtown's densest streets. Look at the development along Sheppard as well. The subway lets the city grow rather dramatically by providing a high quality transportation amenity which attracts subsequent investment and development. Sheppard is just part of an actual network that people like; using one mode keeps things consistent, which is reassuring for getting around the city. Also, it's not like we have a dismal record building subways beyond the last 15 years; in less than 60 years we've built 67 kilometres of rapid transit infrastructure.

Another myth pro-subway advocates like to bring up: Speed attracts riders. Speed is just one factor, and a minor one. What attracts riders is a mix of speed, predictability, and reliability., and access. What is the point of a super quick subway ride, if you have to wait for an infrequent bus to reach your destination, if you live between stations? The success of Paris' subways is the close station spacing. The subway is actually quite slow in Paris(except for Line 14).

Speed of travel certainly does attract a lot of riders. Speed is vehicle speed, frequency, and reliability. The subway achieves those with easy. Full grade separation makes it the most reliable mode. 500-750 metre spacing really doesn't make for long walks.

 

[kettal]

Gah I read that article yesterday. Is this person totally out of it, or has he just never taken the TTC and believes we shouldn't be wasting money where we could be widening roads or building highways?

What fun

1/2. Actually, it kind of does. LRT does not replace subway in any way shape or form. You can't have several much needed subway routes and just say "LRT'll do the job good enough and it looks pretty too!!" If you look at most of the other cities that use LRT (especially the hallowed European /ones that do,) you'll realize that LRT is not used as a subway replacement! LRT is used as a supplementary transit service, essentially acting as a super-bus thing for getting people to the already dense subway and rail networks.

Your fallacy here is assuming that Sheppard or Eglinton were ever subway appropriate to begin with. These metro-cities you talk of, the subways serve overwhelmingly as routes into and out of the city centre. Suburban corridors like Sheppard or Eglinton are exactly where these cities would build their LRTs.

 

[Dan416]

Your fallacy here is assuming that Sheppard or Eglinton were ever subway appropriate to begin with. These metro-cities you talk of, the subways serve overwhelmingly as routes into and out of the city centre. Suburban corridors like Sheppard or Eglinton are exactly where these cities would build their LRTs.

I guess that depends if you define Eglinton and Sheppard as urban or suburban. I don't agree that Eglinton is suburban. Sheppard maybe. But Sheppard is the one that already has the subway, and the subway has grown ridership very well. Already having the subway there, it should be expanded, otherwise that initial investment to build it was a waste. Furthermore, since Eglinton is the one that really should have gotten a subway in the first place, it should get one now.

OTOH, corridors like Finch and Jane make sense as LRT corridors.

 

[fanoftoronto]

I guess that depends if you define Eglinton and Sheppard as urban or suburban. I don't agree that Eglinton is suburban. Sheppard maybe. But Sheppard is the one that already has the subway, and the subway has grown ridership very well. Already having the subway there, it should be expanded, otherwise that initial investment to build it was a waste. Furthermore, since Eglinton is the one that really should have gotten a subway in the first place, it should get one now.

OTOH, corridors like Finch and Jane make sense as LRT corridors.

I second that.....Sheppard and Eglinton have to be subways!! The other Transit City lines should be LRT except for the DRL extension to Don Mills and Eglinton.

 

[kettal]

I guess that depends if you define Eglinton and Sheppard as urban or suburban. I don't agree that Eglinton is suburban. Sheppard maybe.

Call it whatever you want to call it. Point is, it doesn't serve the city centre like so many "great" metro city subways do.

Already having the subway there, it should be expanded, otherwise that initial investment to build it was a waste.

This argument has merit and I can understand your reasoning.

Furthermore, since Eglinton is the one that really should have gotten a subway in the first place, it should get one now.

"Should have"? Was it written in scripture thou shalt build subway on eglinton? . If you look at the 2011 plan, Eglinton should have been a BRT. The Eglinton Subway didn't come out of any definitive study, it was an election platform from some Premier's campaign office.

 

[CDL.TO]

Subways are meant to move a lot of people quickly. If you build in a corridor, and the line is moving less than 300,000-400,000 per day, it's a waste of money. There are few corridors where subways are needed in Toronto. Even the Sheppard subway, if connected to STC, would probably move less than 100,000 people per day.

Ha ha ha. Amazing. If we use your criteria then lines in Paris, London, and New York are wastes of money.

I can make up numbers too! LRT is a complete waste of money if they move less than 150,000 people per day (half of what you state is the minimum for subway). Oh no! That makes every single LRT in the USA (other than the Boston Green line) a waste of money!

 

[Dan416]

"Should have"? Was it written in scripture thou shalt build subway on eglinton? . If you look at the 2011 plan, Eglinton should have been a BRT. The Eglinton Subway didn't come out of any definitive study, it was an election platform from some Premier's campaign office.

By "should have" I meant that of the two, I think it's pretty clear that Eglinton "should have" gotten the subway and not Sheppard. Sheppard got a subway because it's in Mel Lastman's North York. Though it's very likely that if he hadn't pushed for it to be saved, neither Eglinton nor Sheppard would have been built. And we'd be even farther behind than we are now. At the same time, you could argue he didn't push hard enough to save Eglinton and I'd agree with that as well.

 

[waterloowarrior]

Subway minimum 300-400k per day? lmao. Is this what LRT boosterism has come to? Looks like they'll have to shut down the Stockholm Blue Line; Helsinki Metro; Amsterdam line 50; London Metropolitan, Circle, and Hammersmith& City lines (Bakerloo barely makes the cut); Boston Red, Orange and Blue lines (but keep the LRT as mentioned by CDL.TO.....); Paris Line 10, 11, 12 & 14 lines (lines 3, 5, and 8 just make the cut); and every line in Chicago, LA, and Philly.... and that's just a few cities I had info for.

 

[CDL.TO]

Subway minimum 300-400k per day? lmao. Is this what LRT boosterism has come to? Looks like they'll have to shut down the Stockholm Blue Line; Helsinki Metro; Amsterdam line 50; London Metropolitan, Circle, and Hammersmith& City lines (Bakerloo barely makes the cut); Boston Red, Orange and Blue lines (but keep the LRT as mentioned by CDL.TO.....); Paris Line 10, 11, 12 & 14 lines (lines 3, 5, and 8 just make the cut); and every line in Chicago, LA, and Philly.... and that's just a few cities I had info for.

Exactly, WW. BTW, where did you get the Paris ridership stats from?

 

[waterloowarrior]

Exactly, WW. BTW, where did you get the Paris ridership stats from?

I have a chart I've been making with metro and LRT lines and their ridership. For Paris daily ridership is an estimate based on yearly ridership numbers. However the Paris numbers are slightly out of date as Line 14 apparently now has 450,000 passengers per day (ridership more than doubled from 2003 to 2007 due to an extension and new development in the area) Perhaps if Minato ku sees this page he will have some updated numbers.

 

[nfitz]

Subway minimum 300-400k per day? lmao. Is this what LRT boosterism has come to? Looks like they'll have to shut down the Stockholm Blue Line; Helsinki Metro; Amsterdam line 50; London Metropolitan, Circle, and Hammersmith& City lines

???? The Metropolitan, Circle, and Hammersmith&City lines (which have significant shared trackage, and are essentially all branches of the same service) have over 600,000 users a day; with capacity constrained by the limited capacity in the shared section. I'm not disagreeing with you, but I think your methodology is flawed.

 

[ShonTron]

Subway minimum 300-400k per day? lmao. Is this what LRT boosterism has come to? Looks like they'll have to shut down the Stockholm Blue Line; Helsinki Metro; Amsterdam line 50; London Metropolitan, Circle, and Hammersmith& City lines (Bakerloo barely makes the cut); Boston Red, Orange and Blue lines (but keep the LRT as mentioned by CDL.TO.....); Paris Line 10, 11, 12 & 14 lines (lines 3, 5, and 8 just make the cut); and every line in Chicago, LA, and Philly.... and that's just a few cities I had info for.

Easily, by that criteria, only the following subways would run in North America:
Most of the Mexico City Metro
Much of the New York City Subway , but maybe only, perhaps, the routes associated with the Broadway Subway (1,2,3), the Lexington Subway (4,5,6), the Flushing Line (7) and maybe the 8th Ave Line (A,C,E). Maybe one of the routes on the Nassau Street Line in Brooklyn would survive too (probably the J).
The Toronto Bloor-Danforth and Yonge-University lines
The Montreal Orange and/or Green Line
Maybe the Washington Red Line.
Maybe PATH.

For LRT, cities still with LRT would be Boston (only if you counted all the Green Line branches as one line), Portland, Calgary, maybe LA's Blue Line, San Diego, San Fran (only if you counted the Muni Metro as one LRT line - would anything from BART survive?). Any others?

Gone off the map would be most of Washington's system, all of Chicago, all but the Green Line of the MBTA, everything from SEPTA (including their light rail), Baltimore, Miami, LA (all but the LRT Blue Line), Cleveland, St. Louis, Denver, Salt Lake City, San Jose, Sacramento, Phoenix, Dallas, Houston, Charlotte, Minneapolis, Salt Lake City, Charlotte, New Jersey (Hudson-Bergen, Newark), Edmonton. Forget about Ottawa!

We'd suddenly need a lot of buses!