News   Nov 04, 2024
 534     0 
News   Nov 04, 2024
 762     5 
News   Nov 04, 2024
 963     1 

Transit City Plan

Which transit plan do you prefer?

  • Transit City

    Votes: 95 79.2%
  • Ford City

    Votes: 25 20.8%

  • Total voters
    120
It's interesting to note that London is adding 1-3 new LRTs soon (CrossThames Transit in the West End of Central London, West End Transit, and Greenwhich Waterfront Traffic are all possible LRTs esp. CrossThames)

We'll see. They've been talking about these for years now.

Cross River (not CrossThames) Tram was first announced by London Transport back before 1996. As a project, it makes a lot of sense. It would be essentially a central area tourist circulator but with one branch serving an under-served area (Peckham) and the rest would line closely replicate the Northern Line, but on the surface. Planning for this project seems to be moving backwards. Maps for the line in 2004 showed the exact route and planned stops, while maps in 2006 show a number of possible routes with no stop locations identified. (The most amusing part about this project is that it will be running over top of an abandoned tram tunnel.) I have no doubts that the line will be successful, but if you think it's being built within the intention of being comparable to the tube, you're fooling yourself.

West London (not West End) Transit has been scrapped. This slightly shocks me as they had even done detailed engineering plans for the line (presented in beautiful detail on the TfL website... I would love to see the TTC do that), but with Crossrail serving the same general area with higher-quality, faster trains TfL wisely realized that people are more than willing to travel out of their way for a faster trip (*cough* Finch West LRT *cough*).

Greenwich Waterfront Transit is a bus scheme, not a tram. It was originally planned around the time of the Millennium Dome... needless to say the plan has been through many changes since.

The Croydon Tramlink has been an incredible success and is a system that I absolutely love. It works well, is remarkably fast and is well-used. But I wish I had enough money to buy every fan of Transit City a plane ticket so they could go and ride it themselves. Both Transit City and Croydon Tramlink are trams, but that's where the similarities end. The system never runs in median ROWs, but instead replaced heavy rail lines and runs along the edges of greenspaces and beside streets... and it's amazing. The trams have a max speed of 80 km/h and they make good use of it.

It's also worth noting that in London the trams are treated as part of the bus network. The lower fares reflect that trams are seen as faster, higher capacity, more comfortable buses on rails... not equivalent to the tube or network rail.
 
There's some modern LRT systems with a lot of semblance to Transit City , but the similarities are limited. VTA Light Rail in San Jose has a mix of median street running and highway running, with some one-way side of street service in downtown San Jose. But generally, street running (usually in ROWs) appears to be used mostly to service downtown cores with closer stops (ie Sheffield, Croydon, Baltimore, Dallas, Houston, Minneapolis) and outer areas in more reserved ROWs. Then there are routes completely separate - St. Louis, Newark City Subway, LA Bronze, Green and future Expo line (the Blue line has a limited street running section).

Transit City will be better than Spadina and St. Clair, and Eglinton will hoepfully shine as a good example of premetro. But it's not the way most light rail is going.
 
I'm afraid Toronto will never be as "world-class" as Dubai.

It's hard to believe at one time we had such a great transit system. But we sat on our laurels and haven't made any significant expansion on the subway system since the Bloor-Danforth line was built, excluding Sheppard, and now people want to fully-abort the partial-abortion that Sheppard is. To me, the most obvious solution is the best: build more subways. This is a prosperous city. We should be building subways.
 
I couldn't agree with you more. It seems on this forum though that that is a dangerous thing to say!

If an Eglinton subway existed it would be hell of a lot busier than the Sheppard Line!
 
I see no point in arguing which sTubway would be busier, Eglinton or Sheppard. Build them both out to their maximum potential. Eglinton is a great choice because it crosses virtually all of Toronto and it can take you to the airport. Sheppard is already started, so let's not waste that investment by forcing an LRT transfer. Dumbest. Idea. Ever. It'll be just as bad as transferring at Kennedy to the SRT.
 
From the Globe:

Competing plans for Toronto transit cause delays
Province's Metrolinx agency is clashing with the TTC over a plan that would rewrite the mayor's vision for a light-rail network
JEFF GRAY AND MATTHEW CAMPBELL

From Thursday's Globe and Mail

July 24, 2008 at 3:50 AM EDT

As it contemplates road tolls and up to $80-billion in new public transit construction across the Toronto area, the province's Metrolinx agency is clashing with the TTC over a scheme that would radically rewrite Mayor David Miller's Transit City plan for a light-rail network.

At issue is Metrolinx planners' desire to scrap the TTC's proposal for a $2.2-billion partly tunnelled light-rail line on Eglinton Avenue and instead build something the TTC warns would be two to three times as expensive, such as a subway or a tunnelled subway-like system with vehicles similar to the Scarborough RT or Vancouver's SkyTrain.

The dispute is partly to blame, insiders say, for the delayed release of a draft of Metrolinx's long-range regional transportation plan.

It was supposed to come out this week, but is now due Sept. 27.

Sources say the delay is also meant to allow Queen's Park time to mull Metrolinx's other controversial ideas, such as an extra $6-billion to $9-billion a year for public transit paid for by road tolls or parking taxes.

Metrolinx chairman Rob MacIsaac, the former mayor of Burlington, denies there is a "fight."

But he says something faster and with more carrying capacity than light-rail is needed on Eglinton - where subway construction was halted by premier Mike Harris in 1995 - especially if riders are to take it from Scarborough to Mississauga.

"If you're going to travel from one end of that line to the other, we think you'd probably better pack a picnic lunch," Mr. MacIsaac said.

"We would like to find a way to speed it up for people who are travelling longer distances."

And why, he asked, build something that could end up overcrowded?

"There's little point in spending a lot of money on an LRT line that will end up with passengers whose faces are pressed up against the windows."

Adam Giambrone, the Toronto city councillor who chairs the TTC and is one the city's four representatives on Metrolinx's 11-member board, argues that building either a subway or a Scarborough RT-style line on Eglinton would mean delays and a price tag of $6-billion to $8-billion, compared with the existing plan's $2.2-billion, potentially sucking money away from other projects.

"The TTC has said it doesn't make sense," Mr. Giambrone said.

He said the route's projected 9,000 riders in the peak hour of the morning rush in 2021 don't justify a subway. By comparison, the Bloor-Danforth line carries 27,000, while 35,000 now jam into the Yonge line in just one hour in the morning.

If the province wanted to build the light-rail tunnel wide enough to allow for future conversion to a subway, it would cost an extra $1-billion, he added.

The TTC has built several subways, with provincial funding provided, that have not reached ridership capacity, including Sheppard, and the original Spadina extension in the 1970s, and the transit agency has now clearly banked its future on light rail.

"Sometimes I would say there is a propensity to see that a solid commitment to public transit is a subway, and that that's a real sign of love," said TTC vice-chairman Joe Mihevc, a big booster of light-rail who spearheaded the controversial streetcar lanes on St. Clair Avenue.

"Of course we want subways. Everyone would. But the question is, what's the lost opportunity?"

Trying to rewrite the Transit City plan would put Metrolinx - and the province, if it approved the move - on a collision course with the mayor, who included the Transit City lines in his 2006 election platform. It would also appear to contradict the endorsement Premier Dalton McGuinty gave the scheme when he announced his $11.5-billion MoveOntario 2020 public-transit plan.

A senior TTC source suggested the province will veto any radical changes to the city's plans: "They're not prepared for a collision. They're not prepared to have a whole plan to go down in flames over a fight."

Transit activist Steve Munro, who fought to save the TTC's current streetcar system in the 1970s, says Metrolinx's "interfering" on Eglinton could slow down or scupper the rest of the TTC's plans, and that he believes the route is suited to streetcars.

But respected long-time transportation consultant Richard Soberman - an adviser to Metrolinx who has lately been critical of the TTC - said Eglinton needs more than light-rail and that extending the Scarborough RT along the busy route is under consideration.

This isn't the first time the city has been at odds with Metrolinx, which was created in the fall of 2006.

Some have called for the regional agency - which has yet to assume its responsibility for GO Transit - to take over part of all of the TTC, something Mr. Miller has vehemently opposed.

The left-leaning mayor has also raised concerns about Metrolinx's enthusiasm for new partnerships with the private sector.

Toronto has been down this track before.

In the 1970s, the TTC planned what is now the Scarborough RT as a high-speed streetcar, but was convinced by Queen's Park to change course and build the line as a demonstrator for a new transit vehicle developed by the then-government-owned Urban Transportation Development Corp., which was later bought by Bombardier.

Montreal-based Bombardier, which is already building Toronto's subway cars at its Thunder Bay plant, manufactures the next generation of Scarborough RT-style vehicles. It is also keen to move into public-private partnerships in which it maintains or even operates public-transit lines: It already has a contract with GO Transit to operate the bulk of its commuter rail lines, starting this year.

***

The competing visions

TTC

The Transit City plan calls for light-rail vehicles in dedicated lanes, with a tunnelled section through the most congested stretch, possibly from Laird to Keele.

Light rail

Increasingly common across the U.S. and Europe, are light-rail vehicles, such as the Flexity streetcar. The TTC rejected its builder's bid last week.

METROLINX

A fully tunnelled subway across Eglinton, or a subway-like rail system using heavier vehicles such as Bombardier's Advanced Rapid Transit system.

Rapid transit

Similar to the Scarborough RT and Vancouver's SkyTrain, vehicles such as Bombardier's Advanced Rapid Transit Mark II can be automated and carry more people than conventional light-rail lines, but fewer than traditional subway trains.

SOURCE: TRORONTO TRANSIT COMMISSION

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20080724.wmetrolinx24/BNStory/National/Ontario/

AoD
 
I see no point in arguing which sTubway would be busier, Eglinton or Sheppard. Build them both out to their maximum potential. Eglinton is a great choice because it crosses virtually all of Toronto and it can take you to the airport. Sheppard is already started, so let's not waste that investment by forcing an LRT transfer. Dumbest. Idea. Ever. It'll be just as bad as transferring at Kennedy to the SRT.

As much as I agree that the transfer is dumb, and that the intention is largely to cement Sheppard as a stubway, it will not be as bad as Kennedy, at least they recognized that - it will either be a level platform transfer (subway at one end, light rail on other), or one level difference if they go with the Sheppard to Consumers alternative.

The subway should have gone to Victoria Park, with a simple transfer there, even if it means the end of Johnny's.
 
From the Globe:

He said the route's projected 9,000 riders in the peak hour of the morning rush in 2021 don't justify a subway. By comparison, the Bloor-Danforth line carries 27,000, while 35,000 now jam into the Yonge line in just one hour in the morning.

AoD

With figures like that, it's hard to justify a subway being built.
That figure seems lower even than Sheppard's.
 
^^^Wow, that's quite an interesting new development, re: Eglinton.

Soberman can sometimes be quite the asset, especially when he's a thorn on the side of our streetcar evangelists. I don't know whether he's just trying to be contrarian, though.

Subway technology would, of course, be preferable, but ICTS has never had a fair chance to prove itself in Toronto. The SRT was a stubway with first generation vehicles and a superfluous driver that always operated in a strict 4-car formation on subway-like headways (while Vancouver varied the length of its trains and got headways down to 90 seconds).

The way TTC uses ICTS technology is like buying a state-of-the-art 3.0GHz, 4.0 GB DDR2, Intel Core2Duo notebook with a 17" screen and a top of the line NVIDIA GeForce graphics card and then using it to word process or play Solitaire.
 
If one is going to tunnel such a large portion of the line, they might as well size the project for subways. Besides, does the ridership projections include the effects of densification?

AoD
 
With figures like that, it's hard to justify a subway being built.

Of course, that's their intention. Their projections are nonsense and never take the network effects of huge masses of people changing their behaviour into account. The subject of their "analysis" at any given time seems to exist in a vacuum.
 
I missed that. Interesting to see the different visions. I totally agree that the SRT is a bad example of a decent technology that has its place, with medium-capacity rapid transit that has worked in Vancouver, Kuala Lumpur, East London, and Continental Europe (as the VAL variant). Since Soberman preserved ICTS in Toronto, even expanding it somewhat, it is now logical to at least look at it further.
 
Spending billions on a tunnel that's too narrow for subways, along an important corridor, does seem silly. Hopefully the best solution wins and pragmatic, not ideological, heads prevail.
 
Why don't we just look at smaller subways? Knowing the way things work here, I am sure we will most likely end up with the most oversized and overpriced option available, but never the less I feel like we do have other options. For instance, some of the rolling stock used on Paris' subways is ~2.2m in width (vs. ~3.4 er so here). We could shrink the the size of the tunnels, hopefully to single tunnel. The Madrid Metro is a good example of this.

I mean, I don't understand how on earth we can spend as much as we do on subway construction. The kicker is, I bet if the Eglinton subway ever went ahead, we would probably wind up running a tunnel 20m under the old expressway ROW.
 

Back
Top