Transit City Plan

[W. K. Lis]

They also had the Dundas streetcar shut down for an entire year (I think it was a year, if not damn close to it) in 2007 for track replacement. Just saying.

It used to be that streetcar traffic would continue, even with the rebuilding or repair of streetcar tracks.

The car traffic on the side was what affected and diverted to other streets. Today, it is the streetcar traffic affected and diverted to other streets.

 

[Justin10000]

For the future LRT lines, rebuilds will be simpler. Remember that the new cars are multi-directional. This will allow for two things. One is that they can run right up to the construction area, and then turn-around and go the other direction, and use the next cross-over. Also, the cross-overs (which don't exist on the downtown system) should allow them to operate a single track through a construction area.

The TTC could also use Portable Crossovers:

http://hampage.hu/trams/eletkep41/e_index.html#Kletterweiche

 

[W. K. Lis]

Now there are those who want a referendum on the subway question. However, it would be the wording of the question and how it is presented that could change the outcome.

There is new information on such questions reported by Blog.to:

Leger Marketing, who posed more specific questions and provided crucial background information to its online survey group. "When you ask people, 'do you prefer subways or light rail,' a razor-thin majority chooses subways. But when you let them compare the plans on the table today, there's a clear preference for City Council's light-rail plan," executive vice president of Leger Marketing Dave Scholz said in a press release.

Here are some of the findings Leger has reported today:

• 51 per cent believe Toronto should "keep the light-rail lines as voted on by City Council", while 38 per cent agree with the mayor's preference to "stop the light-rail lines and build subways instead."
  
• Only 32 per cent agree that "we should build subways because it's what Rob Ford promised in the election, and he has a mandate, even if it means overriding the city council's vote on the matter."
  
• 91 per cent believe that "smart transit planning is done for the long term and should not be changed every time a new government is elected."
  
• When asked to choose between subways and light rail in abstract terms, respondents prefer subways by a margin of 50 per cent to 40 per cent. However, 82 per cent agree that "Toronto should have a mix of subways, light rail, streetcars and buses, depending on the number of people living in the neighbourhoods."

It should be remembered that the election for mayor was not a referendum because each candidate had presented several points in their campaign, not just one.

You can download the PDF from Leger at this link.

 

[dunkalunk]

That is, quite literally, the worst stretch of track on the Kitchener-Toronto route (for both GO and VIA). The trains, despite being on its own ROW literally crawls in and out the Guelph Train station.

There needs to be a better ROW for that stretch of track. And I don't see how. Elevate? Tunnel? Divert?

Completely off-topic, but you'd pretty much have to demolish the south side of Kent Street and divert the track there. I can't imagine the cost of property acquisition would be that great considering the location.

 

[Paleo]

The LRT won't last nearly as long as subways, and it will cost more in car driver gridlock than the subway will have cost to build over the time frame of 15-20 years. The fuel waste in traffic slowdowns alone is bad enough.

And your evidence for these claims are...?

On the supply end of things. Train cars, bus components, etc. Costs are fascinating.

And your evidence for these claims are...? Hell I'd even settle for elaboration of your original talking point.

 

[Dan416]

None of these streets can do without a lane but Sheppard sure could

Traffic hardly moves on the aforementioned streets during rush hour anyway. Big deal if we take away two lanes of barely moving traffic to move a hell of a lot more people much faster.

The only reason this isn't happening is because drivers really would think there was a war on the car. But somewhere like downtown it makes sense to have less car capacity, whereas on Sheppard, despite having more lanes, it does not make sense.

 

[M II A II R II K]

LRTs: better than subways by miles


February 16th, 2012

By Adam Giambrone

Read More: http://www.nowtoronto.com/news/story.cfm?content=185274


.....

It’s true – everyone but hardcore transit advocates and urban planning experts wants subways. The problem is that they cost $350 million per kilometre (in 2014 dollars, for tunnels and stations) due to Toronto’s geology, stringent safety and building codes, high property costs, accessibility guidelines and current private sector construction wage rates.

- Light rail, defined as medium-capacity rapid transit using low-floor rail vehicles running in dedicated and separate rights-of-way, is used worldwide to provide public transportation while allowing neighbourhoods to rejuvenate. The system promotes balanced and moderate intensification of shopping areas and neighbourhoods without requiring the same densities as subways in order to be operationally cost-effective. And LRT only costs $60 to $70 million per kilometre.

- LRT is also used by municipalities known for their subway systems, like Hong Kong, Tokyo, Paris and London, all of which have built light rail over the last 25 years as a more affordable way to expand their network. Some of these systems, like those in Paris and Boston, carry close to 300,000 people a day, just about a third of the entire daily volume of passengers carried by our subway system. Paris in particular has used LRT as a tool for urban redevelopment.

- Don’t confuse T.O.’s LRT plan with what you see on St. Clair or Spadina. LRTs have wider doors than streetcars, all-door boarding, more distance between stops, which speeds up the ride, and proof of payment to reduce delays, and the vehicles can control traffic lights so they’re rarely held up by reds. Longer than our current streetcars and with more seating and capacity, they’re air-conditioned and have a fully accessible low-floor design. The network plan here calls for widening streets in most cases so there’s minimal loss of vehicular travel.

- Our vehicles will move at 22 to 24 kph, less than the subway’s average speed of 32 to 34 kph, but since the average TTC trip is just over 6 km (verses the average GO trip of 31 km), this speed difference will amount to only a few minutes per ride. In a trip from Don Mills and Eglinton to Yonge, for instance, that time gap might be only five or six minutes, hardly worth billions of dollars.

.....

 

[andrewpmk]

What at-grade LRT system in the world carries 15000 passengers/hour? I think that this is greatly exaggerating the capacity of LRT.

Also if the average TTC trip is only 6km, this strongly suggests that the TTC is not competitive with driving on longer trips. GTA highways are congested for a reason.

Finally I wish that the LRT supporters would get rid of the claim that LRT serves more people. While LRT might put more people within walking distance of the lines than subway, people from all over the region will be able to take buses to subway stations. Subway lines will attract much more feeder bus traffic than buses because they are faster and higher capacity, and because subways usually include proper bus transfer facilities which LRT does not.

 

[andrewpmk]

Reducing a downtown street to one very narrow lane each way is sure to make it close to unusable by cars. If a car illegally stops to drop someone off, a delivery truck is stopped, etc, then the one lane will be impassible. Will never happen. A second east west subway is needed downtown, even the LRT advocates will admit that.

Reducing a suburban road from 3 lanes each way to 2 is acceptable. My big problems with Transit City are that (a) transferring at Sheppard/Don Mills is stupid (b) too many minor stops (c) a LRT line with full signal priority cannot efficiently run headways less than 5 minutes without disrupting cross traffic too much, or disabling the signal priority, resulting in much lower capacity than a subway.

 

[SlickFranky]

What at-grade LRT system in the world carries 15000 passengers/hour? I think that this is greatly exaggerating the capacity of LRT.

Also if the average TTC trip is only 6km, this strongly suggests that the TTC is not competitive with driving on longer trips. GTA highways are congested for a reason.

Finally I wish that the LRT supporters would get rid of the claim that LRT serves more people. While LRT might put more people within walking distance of the lines than subway, people from all over the region will be able to take buses to subway stations. Subway lines will attract much more feeder bus traffic than buses because they are faster and higher capacity, and because subways usually include proper bus transfer facilities which LRT does not.

Are you concerned with LRT's lack of draw, or with its insufficient carrying capacity? It can't be both incapable of attracting riders, AND in danger of attracting too many riders. Please pick one.

 

[andrewpmk]

LRT will be less attractive than subway to passengers but at the same time it has a much lower capacity than subway so that capacity is more likely to fill up. Say LRT attracts 2/3 of the ridership of subway, but say it has 1/2 of the capacity of subway as Adam Giambrone claims.

 

[11th]

LRTs: better than subways by miles


February 16th, 2012

By Adam Giambrone

Read More: http://www.nowtoronto.com/news/story.cfm?content=185274


.....
..
- LRT is also used by municipalities known for their subway systems, like Hong Kong, Tokyo, Paris and London, all of which have built light rail over the last 25 years as a more affordable way to expand their network. Some of these systems, like those in Paris and Boston, carry close to 300,000 people a day, just about a third of the entire daily volume of passengers carried by our subway system. Paris in particular has used LRT as a tool for urban redevelopment. ..

No one denies LRT costs less (except the vehicles). Maybe they should also admit the fact those cities also had/have well established grade-seperated rail networks; and I'm not sure why's he using Hong Kong as an example, it's the farthest thing from what's being proposed for Transit City - or maybe he's referring to the trams (in-median ROW).

 

[11th]

(c) a LRT line with full signal priority cannot efficiently run headways less than 5 minutes without disrupting cross traffic too much, or disabling the signal priority, resulting in much lower capacity than a subway.

Sheppard does have a lot of left-turn traffic at major intersections (either heading south to 401 or north to York Region), but heck, who cares about non-LRT vehicles being clogged up behind intersections. I guess the emergency vehicles can use the ROW?

 

[Justin10000]

What at-grade LRT system in the world carries 15000 passengers/hour? I think that this is greatly exaggerating the capacity of LRT.

The NOW article is misleading. LRT can have a capacity up to 15-20,000 pph depending on the design of the line. A good example is Budapest's Line 4 and 6 which utilizes Siemens Combino Supra Trams. This line has operating capacity of 10,000pph at the moment. The headways are 2 minutes. Yes, 2 minutes. I find it amazing you would doubt experts that say LRT cannot achieve 15,000pph. Are you an expert?

Also if the average TTC trip is only 6km, this strongly suggests that the TTC is not competitive with driving on longer trips. GTA highways are congested for a reason.

No S*it. Long distance trip should be the responbility of GO Transit. Are you saying the TTC should be responsible for someone's trip into the 905?

Finally I wish that the LRT supporters would get rid of the claim that LRT serves more people. While LRT might put more people within walking distance of the lines than subway, people from all over the region will be able to take buses to subway stations. Subway lines will attract much more feeder bus traffic than buses because they are faster and higher capacity, and because subways usually include proper bus transfer facilities which LRT does not.

You talking nonsense. I see why most members do not bother answering your posts. LRT serves more people because it's cheaper and quicker to build and serves more neighbourhoods than subways. It's a fact. You just need to look at this graph comparing Ford's plan to Transit City:

Of course, if the money was there more subways could be built, but it's not going to happen.

Here's a newsflash, buses can feed into LRT too, and it will happen with the Transit City plan. Leslie has a "proper bus facility" and it's barely used. How does a proper bus facility attract ridership?

 

[M II A II R II K]

Let's hope that they are given enough priority and at the very least not have to stop at red lights in between stops.