Transit City Plan

[k10ery]

Moving people more quickly to and from their place of employment may enhance their home/family life but has no bearing whatsoever on productivity or economic returns to the city or anyone else.

You don't believe there's any connection between an employee having a happy home/family life and their productivity in the workplace?

Do you operate a nineteenth century factory?

Don't you know government is all about making people better worker drones, not making them healthy and happy? Stop the gravy tram, you left wing pinko.

 

[k10ery]

...

I'd say I'm short- to mid-term focused, on average, with long-term being a relative luxury that I compromise on because of the decades-long transit drought. I acknowledge the trade-off in favour of current riders at the expense of riders in mid-century and beyond.

In this continuum, I see the lean toward subway-building -- to the point of excluding surface rail in 416 -- as unwilling to short-change future citizens (a completely understandable position) but also inexplicably silent on the experience of contemporary riders who now ride in mixed traffic routes.

[etc.]

ed d.

Ed's post is as balanced and convincing a case for [something like] TC that I've seen.

In contrast, organizers of Sunday's NPS rally seem to emphasize social policy and "city building", not cost effectiveness and the need for immediate action. From the Star:

“Transit City is a lot more than a transit plan, it’s a city-building exercise,†Vaughan told the gathered crowd. “This city is connected by much more than transit. It’s connected by families, by work environments, by constituencies called students, workers, you name it, and Transit City serves everybody. It’s not a suburban service, it’s a city service and we need it.â€

I wonder if they are figuring that ECLRT and something to Agincourt are going to happen, so it's now about saving Finch West and Malvern?

 

[DavidH]

This is where it bugs me that GO gets let off the hook. Isn't what commuters are really looking for in the Northern part of the city is a crosstown GO service?

While I fully understand the cost reasons why it was dropped, I still think that the 401 GO REX route that was proposed during the early phases of the Metrolinx RTP process should have been kept. It would have been massively useful.

 

[M II A II R II K]

Maybe Transit City can run trolley busses instead, which would make them completely electric. And try out the newest tech that limits overhead wires.

 

[leopetr]

Maybe Transit City can run trolley busses instead, which would make them completely electric.

Trolleybuses reduce (or at least relocate) pollution, but they don't do anything for capacity. Are you suggesting that the TTC build medians/rapidways with trolleybuses in mind? Or that it simply replace regular buses with trolleybuses?

And try out the newest tech that limits overhead wires.

Newest tech tends to be expensive, unreliable, and quickly replaced by an incompatible second generation.

 

[M II A II R II K]

Well the trolley busses would have to be fast enough and most likely articulated, perhaps even bunch together to add at least a 3rd bus to it, and with articulation.

 

[gweed123]

@ EnviroTO: I still don't think that the added operational cost of running a BRT compared to LRT outweighs the amount saved through construction of BRT vs LRT. Do you really think that an LRT is going to generate $25 million PER KM worth of cost savings over a 25 year period compared to a BRT? That's $250 million in operating funding differences for just a 10km line. I'm sorry but I really don't see how that would add up, unless the line was doing significantly over 5,000 pphpd, and buses were running every minute or less. For the majority of the corridors in Toronto where BRT would be useful, we're talking 3 minute headways with artics during peak hours, and around 6-8 minutes off-peak.

My point is, unless the BRT is carrying significantly north of 5,000 pphpd, the added expense of operating BRT comes nowhere close to the amount saved by building BRT compared to LRT. Only when you get up over 5,000 pphpd does LRT really make sense over BRT.

 

[k10ery]

Here's a metastudy that managed to make total cost per passenger km work out a bit lower for LRT than BRT.

http://www.sxd.sala.ubc.ca/8_research/sxd_FRB07Transport.pdf


It seems to me they had to work pretty hard to do it though.

 

[gweed123]

Here's a metastudy that managed to make total cost per passenger km work out a bit lower for LRT than BRT.

http://www.sxd.sala.ubc.ca/8_research/sxd_FRB07Transport.pdf


It seems to me they had to work pretty hard to do it though.

Interesting analysis. And yes, I agree with you, they had to work pretty hard in order to justify it though. The criteria that they use placed a very large emphasis on the fact that short-range trips are 'better' than long range trips. This line of thinking would naturally conclude that a form of local transit is the best option. When comparing local trips within an urban area, no doubt that streetcars have the advantage over buses (which is what the report found).

They also placed a large emphasis on the impact of greenhouse gases on the preferred technology choice. This of course would naturally favour LRT over BRT. While this is important, I don't think this factors into a strict analysis of comparative costs. An analysis of kW/h vs $/L is perfectly fine for this though.

Overall, I think that the criteria and assumptions that they used substantially influenced the results of this analysis. While I don't discount the research, I think that the report is more designed to show what is the best form of transit for a locally-oriented urban environment, as opposed to a more suburban arterial environment.

 

[EnviroTO]

It shows on page 10 that the total costs excluding pollution are $7.64 for LRT and $9.62 for BRT. I would assume "excluding pollution" would exclude greenhouse gas costs. I also never mentioned that 5000 pphpd is the cut-off at which LRT becomes more efficient. The point I am making is that a comment that LRTs are as cheap as BRT unless you are skimping on something is correct and the key is the number of riders. If BRT is cheaper you are handling less people. If you are serving the ridership capacity an LRT is optimal to handle (a ridership level which starts above BRT but significantly below subway) then it is cheaper to use LRT. There is also a ridership level at which subway is cheaper... it is at a ridership level much higher.

 

[Juan_Lennon416]

Durham residents fuming over plan to build ‘half a highway’

http://www.thestar.com/news/article...ents-fuming-over-plan-to-build-half-a-highway


Carola Vyhnak
Urban Affairs Reporter

Halfway measures don’t work when you’re building a highway, the people and politicians of Durham Region have warned the province.

“No one wants to have half a highway,†Oshawa resident Mark Little told a public meeting on the planned east extension of Hwy. 407 Wednesday night. “We were promised a whole highway. Oshawa needs it (as) a kick start to get back on its feet.â€

The city and region were caught off guard last year when the province announced it plans to build the 50-kilometre extension to Hwy. 35/115 in two stages. The first section, to be completed by 2015, will end at Simcoe St. N., just south of the hamlet of Columbus. The rest of the public toll highway will be completed when money is available, Transportation Minister Kathleen Wynne has said.

The change in plans has unleashed a wave of anger with residents’ groups, municipalities, local MPs and MPPs, and the city of Peterborough, who are objecting to everything from imbalanced economic growth to traffic and safety issues.

Ending the 407 at Simcoe St. will spew 2,100 vehicles per hour onto a road that was never built for that volume, regional chair Roger Anderson told the City Hall meeting attended by about 150 people.

“It’s like a bunch of fighting red ants coming at you,†he said.

The $255 million it will cost Durham for road improvements “would take literally all our money to accommodate it,†he added.

In a letter to Premier Dalton McGuinty last month, Oshawa Mayor John Henry said the phased approach would have “devastating and crippling impacts.†He urged the government to reroute $8 billion set aside for Toronto’s LRT so the entire 407 extension can be completed by 2013, according to the agreement signed with the federal government in 2007.

In a televised interview shown at the meeting, Finance Minister Jim Flaherty warned the province to live up to its word. “We expect them to honour their agreement. This story isn’t over yet.â€

Columbus resident Rosemary McConkey urged council to “stick to your guns†in insisting the extension be built all in one go. The project will affect the entire GTA, she said, expressing concerns over traffic volume through a small heritage community.

Developer George Lysyk called the 407 extension the “most important issue†council will face during its four-year term.

“This is insane, folks,†he said, referring to “massive tax increases†that will result from stopping the highway at Simcoe St. “This is going to cost us huge money and will cost us in terms of safety.â€

In an interview Wednesday, Christine Elliott, MPP for Whitby-Oshawa, predicted the government’s “broken promise†will be the biggest issue in this fall’s provincial election.

“It’s not just the people of Columbus who are affected, it’s a wispread concern,†she said. “We need the 407 for our economic growth and our ability to travel.â€

 

[gweed123]

The question I have is, why is the province still pumping so much money into a privately-run highway that costs people an arm and a leg to drive it? Even by toll highway standards, it's expensive.

And the Oshawa mayor asking funds from Transit City be rediverted to the 407 project is very similar to Ford taking money from York Region's transit plans to help fund his transit plan. But at least that was transit for transit, not transit for roads.

 

[ssiguy2]

My question is..........what does the 407 have to do with Transit City?
Let's keep on topic.

 

[reaperexpress]

My question is..........what does the 407 have to do with Transit City?
Let's keep on topic.

Did you read the article? Did you somehow miss the stuff highlighted in red?

 

[Juan_Lennon416]

My question is..........what does the 407 have to do with Transit City?
Let's keep on topic.

A good example of someone who posts before they read

You should be shaking your head that the Mayor of Oshawa is trying to divert funds for Toronto's LRT network to a highway extension