Transit City Plan

[sixrings]

personally I think that the wide lanes of north america have become a blessing in disguise. Sure they made a car culture but now they can be retrofitted for ROW LRT.

Same thing for Big Box stores. They advocate car driving but in the future they will be prime land to be developed. Plazas and Big Box Stores will disapear while condo podiums and malls take their place.

 

[W. K. Lis]

personally I think that the wide lanes of north america have become a blessing in disguise. Sure they made a car culture but now they can be retrofitted for ROW LRT.

Same thing for Big Box stores. They advocate car driving but in the future they will be prime land to be developed. Plazas and Big Box Stores will disapear while condo podiums and malls take their place.

We already see that with the disappearance (merging? downsizing?) of gasoline stations. Some have become small strip malls, or offices. Unfortunately, they are mostly single-story and not multi-level buidlings.

Then there are other uses as well, such as the gas station at the south-east corner of Dufferin & Eglinton to be replaced as the entrance to the underground Dufferin Station on the Eglinton Crosstwon LRT.

 

[Justin10000]

Whether it has been mentioned in the media or not, it is something that people will consider and think about. Rapid transit when including travel time to and from the stop might not beat car travel times, but should be relatively competitive to it. From Yonge and Sheppard, it is almost certain that it is faster to get downtown by taking the subway when compared to driving down Yonge, or diverting east to the DVP. The same cannot be said about getting to Morningside, or even Fairview Mall.

Transit will never be competitive to the car, unless you're lucky to have a stop outside your house. By the time you walk to the stop, a driver is probably 10 percent into his trip. That's just the way it is. Even a transit user from Yonge/Sheppard might have trouble beating a driver, unless you happen to live near the station. It's not just speed that annoys riders, service plays a huge factor too. Nothing worse than a crowded bus, or waiting 10-20 minutes at a stop, only for a packed bus to blow by you.

Maybe not a hydro corridor specifically, but certainly taking advantage of nearby right of ways is pretty much the norm. Kitchener-Wateroo's LRT will be using a rail corridor for part of its route, Meanwhile LRTs in Minneapolis and Charlotte both use off road alignments when possible.

Of course, to cut down costs on acquiring, and expropriating land. It used to be the norm in the 80's/90's when communities were looking at LRT, and wanting to build on the cheap, St. Louis, and San Diego being good examples. It's not the norm these days, because available abandoned Rail ROW is becoming hard to secure. One Denver LRT line may be cut, because the rail company does not want LRT in it's ROW. Another problem is, rail corridors may not be located near people limiting accessibilty, and devolpment opportunities in corridors. Phoenix, Houston, L.A.'s Expo line are all median LRT lines that may not be the fasted possible, but serve more people, and are accessible. It's like talking to a dead horse, but speed is not the most important factor, accessibilty is.
This is why LRT is so popular. The versatility of the technology allows it to be placed almost anywhere.

 

[Electrify]

Transit will never be competitive to the car, unless you're lucky to have a stop outside your house. By the time you walk to the stop, a driver is probably 10 percent into his trip. That's just the way it is. Even a transit user from Yonge/Sheppard might have trouble beating a driver, unless you happen to live near the station. It's not just speed that annoys riders, service plays a huge factor too. Nothing worse than a crowded bus, or waiting 10-20 minutes at a stop, only for a packed bus to blow by you.

There are several instances where public transit is faster than driving. For example, in the morning if I'm going downtown it is faster to take a local bus which detours through cul-du-sacs and into a local bus terminal before reaching the GO station to connect with the train, than it is to drive. Even outside of rush hour it can be faster to take transit than to drive, if the conditions are congested enough. Someone enjoying a leisurely weekend afternoon along Yonge St. downtown would be best to take the subway instead of opting for a cab.

Where transit is not faster, it should at least be relatively competitive to driving. If I'm going to the mall at Yonge and Carville right now, according to Google by car it would be 13 minutes standard (no travel time given for traffic) and according to Bing it would be 11 minutes standard (13 minutes in current traffic). So we'll say 13 minutes total. According to Google if I ride my bike to the bus stop and take the Viva from there it would be 6 minutes to the bus stop and 13 minutes to the destination stop, total 19 minutes. Not the best, but still moderately competitive in getting me there in a dignified time frame when compared to driving.

Part of the reason why it is not better is because I am so far in from Yonge St and the Viva stop. If I was right at Yonge and Bernard, according to Google by car it would take 7 minutes standard (no travel time given for traffic) and according to Bing it would take 8 minutes standard (9 minutes in traffic). So a 13 minute bus ride compared is not bad at all.

If we aren't going to design for speed, then why are we investing billions in rapid transit in order to make it a feasible alternative for regional travel? To simply get "other" drivers off the road? To further stigmatize those who cannot afford a car and limit their mobility? Because it is the politically correct thing to do? Really, I'd like to know what the point of transit is (or at least what you think the point is) if it is supposed to be too slow to compete with driving for longer distances, and too expensive to compete with walking and cycling for shorter distances.

Of course, to cut down costs on acquiring, and expropriating land. It used to be the norm in the 80's/90's when communities were looking at LRT, and wanting to build on the cheap, St. Louis, and San Diego being good examples. It's not the norm these days, because available abandoned Rail ROW is becoming hard to secure. One Denver LRT line may be cut, because the rail company does not want LRT in it's ROW. Another problem is, rail corridors may not be located near people limiting accessibilty, and devolpment opportunities in corridors. Phoenix, Houston, L.A.'s Expo line are all median LRT lines that may not be the fasted possible, but serve more people, and are accessible. It's like talking to a dead horse, but speed is not the most important factor, accessibilty is.
This is why LRT is so popular. The versatility of the technology allows it to be placed almost anywhere.

I suggest you Google up "transit oriented development."

 

[Justin10000]

If we aren't going to design for speed, then why are we investing billions in rapid transit in order to make it a feasible alternative for regional travel? To simply get "other" drivers off the road? To further stigmatize those who cannot afford a car and limit their mobility? Because it is the politically correct thing to do? Really, I'd like to know what the point of transit is (or at least what you think the point is) if it is supposed to be too slow to compete with driving for longer distances, and too expensive to compete with walking and cycling for shorter distances.

What hyperbole! You surely should know the bulk of transit is local, short/medium trips, not regional travel. If transit is so expensive, why is TTC ridership growing every year? It transit is so slow, why is ridership growing? Why is there is such strong support for LRT amongst EXPERTS, and Business groups?
I am pretty sure I am going to sound rude here, but you are trying to push some utopian fantasy that is based in 1960's plannning, and has failed in Toronto. Again, talking to a dead horse... SPEED IS NOT THE MOST IMPORTANT FACTOR FOR TRANSIT USERS.

I suggest you Google up "transit oriented development."

I suggest you look beyond failed 1960's planning. *ding*

 

[gweed123]

Both speed and accessibility matter, but it all depends on what the goal of the line is.

If the line is as a long haul express line, connectivity with bisecting routes in my opinion is more important than connectivity with adjacent development, because that's where the ridership is going to be coming from. Either that or from Park N Ride passengers.

But if the line is a feeder line, you want it to be more accessible, because the ridership is going to be coming from the adjacent neighbourhoods.

Just look at GO. Most of the GO lines in the suburbs pass through largely industrial areas (especially Lakeshore West). The ridership comes from feeder routes to the stations and Park N Ride. The amount of people who are within walking distance of the GO station is a very small percentage of the overall ridership on the line.

This is why anything in the Finch Hydro Corridor needs to be an express line, because the ridership can only come from bisecting routes or from strategically placed Park N Rides, because the amount of people who are going to walk to it is going to be pretty low. I think an express line along that corridor can be viable, as long as it facilitates easy connection between it and the bus routes on bisecting arterials.

 

[Electrify]

What hyperbole! You surely should know the bulk of transit is local, short/medium trips, not regional travel. If transit is so expensive, why is TTC ridership growing every year? It transit is so slow, why is ridership growing? Why is there is such strong support for LRT amongst EXPERTS, and Business groups?
I am pretty sure I am going to sound rude here, but you are trying to push some utopian fantasy that is based in 1960's plannning, and has failed in Toronto. Again, talking to a dead horse... SPEED IS NOT THE MOST IMPORTANT FACTOR FOR TRANSIT USERS.

When I say that transit is expensive for short trips, I mean compared to walking, which is free. $5-$6 both ways versus $0. And while TTC ridership is growing, many people do believe it can and should improve - this includes in the speed realm.

LRT has strong support because it is a fast, efficient, and affordable means of mass transit, but LRT can mean a number of different things. It can range from commuter like regional services, to a local urban route. Depending on your scope, our streetcar system is a form of LRT. If your scope of the definition does not include streetcars as LRTs (and even if it does), then Transit City is definitely at the bottom end of what qualifies as an LRT. The debate on council should not have been between subways and LRTs, but what kind of LRT we are to build.

And before people mistake that I am 100% against local transit, the thing is Toronto already has a very competent system for meeting such needs - possibly too competent. Toronto, both the city proper and its greater urban area, covers a massive territory. While local transit is important, we need options to move us efficiently across intermediate and regional distances. If we ignore the need for longer distance travel, the metropolitan area will choke economically on peak oil prices and/or on traffic congestion. To paraphrase a comment I once read on a blog, 'My father who lived next to a bus route which ran every 5-10 minutes didn't take transit not because it didn't run frequently enough for him, but because it would take an hour to get to work downtown compared to 15 minutes by car.'

I suggest you look beyond failed 1960's planning. *ding*

What about streetcar and railway suburbs? You know, the ones which today are considered some of the city's finest urban neighbourhoods...

Both speed and accessibility matter, but it all depends on what the goal of the line is.

If the line is as a long haul express line, connectivity with bisecting routes in my opinion is more important than connectivity with adjacent development, because that's where the ridership is going to be coming from. Either that or from Park N Ride passengers.

But if the line is a feeder line, you want it to be more accessible, because the ridership is going to be coming from the adjacent neighbourhoods.

Just look at GO. Most of the GO lines in the suburbs pass through largely industrial areas (especially Lakeshore West). The ridership comes from feeder routes to the stations and Park N Ride. The amount of people who are within walking distance of the GO station is a very small percentage of the overall ridership on the line.

This is why anything in the Finch Hydro Corridor needs to be an express line, because the ridership can only come from bisecting routes or from strategically placed Park N Rides, because the amount of people who are going to walk to it is going to be pretty low. I think an express line along that corridor can be viable, as long as it facilitates easy connection between it and the bus routes on bisecting arterials.

I'm using this opportunity to remind everyone that the merits of Transit City were debated in council as to whether it would provide sufficient rapid transit. While rapid and express tend to reflect different things, it does suggest that it should be substantially improved over local lines.

 

[Rainforest]

Speed certainly matters, and I agree with gweed123's express line vs feeder line distinction.

However, I doubt that Finch West HC has much potential as a trunk line, for two reasons: a) it does not run parallel to all of Finch West, but veers south-west at 9 km from Yonge; b) all bus routes bisecting the parallel stretch gravitate towards a subway station and that's where most of riders want to go.

That, plus the engineering challenges of a Finch West HC line, make me think that street-median LRT is the optimal choice for Finch West.

However, if the line is extended east of Yonge, I would consider HC alignment between Yonge and Don Mills; not so much to increase the speed but rather to reduce the construction costs. That segment of Finch is narrow, lined with lowrises, and has little density potential. Moreover, the HC runs next to two trip generators there: Bayview Mall, and the Old Cummer GO station.

 

[Justin10000]

When I say that transit is expensive for short trips, I mean compared to walking, which is free. $5-$6 both ways versus $0. And while TTC ridership is growing, many people do believe it can and should improve - this includes in the speed realm.

Comparing transit to walking. Really? A short trip can be considered Yonge to Eglinton. You think you're going to get a lot of commuters walking that distance? I am astounded people are so obsessed with trying to determine a "fair" fare structure. It's just going to hurt the people that you want to use transit: Suburbanites.

LRT has strong support because it is a fast, efficient, and affordable means of mass transit, but LRT can mean a number of different things. It can range from commuter like regional services, to a local urban route. Depending on your scope, our streetcar system is a form of LRT. If your scope of the definition does not include streetcars as LRTs (and even if it does), then Transit City is definitely at the bottom end of what qualifies as an LRT. The debate on council should not have been between subways and LRTs, but what kind of LRT we are to build.

However you want to define LRT is up to you, I see no merit in debating what kind of LRT to build, when that matter was settled years with the announcement of Transit City.

And before people mistake that I am 100% against local transit, the thing is Toronto already has a very competent system for meeting such needs - possibly too competent. Toronto, both the city proper and its greater urban area, covers a massive territory. While local transit is important, we need options to move us efficiently across intermediate and regional distances. If we ignore the need for longer distance travel, the metropolitan area will choke economically on peak oil prices and/or on traffic congestion. To paraphrase a comment I once read on a blog, 'My father who lived next to a bus route which ran every 5-10 minutes didn't take transit not because it didn't run frequently enough for him, but because it would take an hour to get to work downtown compared to 15 minutes by car.'

I have a feeling I know who wrote that father example, he is sadly obsessed with speed, and nothing else. Some of his ideas were pretty kooky. Anyways, there are a lot of GO stations within the City limits, and GO buses do serve the outer fringes of the city. It's has been said many times, but GO needs to serve Toronto better, and not just focus on the suburbs.
A great example of is the Paris RER system that is able to provide medium-long distance trips within Paris, and the suburbs with frequent trains.

What about streetcar and railway suburbs? You know, the ones which today are considered some of the city's finest urban neighbourhoods...

Yeah, many of the neighbourhoods were the result of streetcar lines providing local service because people's mobility was limited in those days. You essentially just made a case for Transit City which will allow the sort of corridor development that created Toronto's great neighbourhoods. Speaking of railway suburbs, I guess Mississauga, and Brampton can be considered railway suburbs, and again, those are much better served by commuter rail.

 

[Palma]

'My father who lived next to a bus route which ran every 5-10 minutes didn't take transit not because it didn't run frequently enough for him, but because it would take an hour to get to work downtown compared to 15 minutes by car.'
.

I find it hard to believe it took 15 min by car to get downtown and 1 hr by transit. Define downtown and the start and end points. I can get to Bloor and Bathurst street on Sat morning in 20 min (before 10 am)from couple blocks south of Lawrence and Keele St. But it takes 15 min by Lawrence bus to Lawrence west subway, roughly 10 min to St George and then subway to Bathurst which is few min. Its 5 min walk to lawrence for a total of about 35 min But again for both options this is early Sat morning. Later in the morning, traffic on Lawrence, more people getting on the bus and it has taken 30 min to get to Lawrence West subway. But it would be the same case by car. Later in the morning by car and specially by afternoon, there is traffic and it takes way more than 20 min. And this is no matter where you go downtown. There is less traffic than on the weekday but there is traffic.

 

[W. K. Lis]

I find it hard to believe it took 15 min by car to get downtown and 1 hr by transit. Define downtown and the start and end points. I can get to Bloor and Bathurst street on Sat morning in 20 min (before 10 am)from couple blocks south of Lawrence and Keele St. But it takes 15 min by Lawrence bus to Lawrence west subway, roughly 10 min to St George and then subway to Bathurst which is few min. Its 5 min walk to lawrence for a total of about 35 min But again for both options this is early Sat morning. Later in the morning, traffic on Lawrence, more people getting on the bus and it has taken 30 min to get to Lawrence West subway. But it would be the same case by car. Later in the morning by car and specially by afternoon, there is traffic and it takes way more than 20 min. And this is no matter where you go downtown. There is less traffic than on the weekday but there is traffic.

Now with apps on our smartphones, and if we know how long it will take us to walk to a bus stop, we can find out the real time arrival of buses (and streetcars). No more arriving at a stop and wait and wait and wait. At least in theory.

 

[ssiguy2]

Unless it some kind of long haul commuting service in rush hour ie GO trains, transit will never be have the speed of cars. Transit will never be as convinent, comfortably, fast, or reliable. So let's not start making comparisons against someone taking a TC LRT and someone on the 401.
That said, however, does not mean that speed is not relevant, it is very relevant. The reality is that the best transit trip for people is the one they don't remember.............it was fast, comfortable, and blissfully uneventful. People don't take transit for the view but because they want to get from A to B as fast as possible because the less time they spend getting somewhere is more time they have for play, work, study, or spend with family and friends.
How many people take the subways everyday yet they are out of the way? People will take the subways even if the route is out of the way and it's not because they like the view of the tunnels or sitting beside someone who hasn't had a bath in a month. People do want speed............this is why rapid transit lines get it's ridership in the first place. When rapid transit is first built it always gets higher ridership than the bus it replaced well before an urban infill/TOD happens.
People flock to rapid transit because it is exactly that.....rapid. Rapid not only includes speed but also reliability, frequency, and also "relative speed". Realative speed as in you may not be going fast at all but if you are creeping ahead of the cars which are also going no where fast it doesn't seem as bad.
This is the problem I have said from the start in regards to TC...............it doesn't know it's purpose for being.
It will improve transit greatly, no question. TTC patrons will find their transit trip smoother, quieter, more reliable, more spacious, and more accessible but they will not find their trip much faster than what they presently have. The TTC keeps saying that TC will be rapid transit that will improve local service.............there is no such thing as they are two completely different services.
TC will be an improvement over the current situation, no doubt about that and it will serve it's current users well but it will not attract any new riders in any great amount.
If TC {Finch/Sheppard} goes ahead those areas will be receiving far superior transit to what they have now but they will still remain areas that are void of rapid transit.

 

[W. K. Lis]

Unless it some kind of long haul commuting service in rush hour ie GO trains, transit will never be have the speed of cars. Transit will never be as convinent, comfortably, fast, or reliable. So let's not start making comparisons against someone taking a TC LRT and someone on the 401.
That said, however, does not mean that speed is not relevant, it is very relevant. The reality is that the best transit trip for people is the one they don't remember.............it was fast, comfortable, and blissfully uneventful. People don't take transit for the view but because they want to get from A to B as fast as possible because the less time they spend getting somewhere is more time they have for play, work, study, or spend with family and friends.
How many people take the subways everyday yet they are out of the way? People will take the subways even if the route is out of the way and it's not because they like the view of the tunnels or sitting beside someone who hasn't had a bath in a month. People do want speed............this is why rapid transit lines get it's ridership in the first place. When rapid transit is first built it always gets higher ridership than the bus it replaced well before an urban infill/TOD happens.
People flock to rapid transit because it is exactly that.....rapid. Rapid not only includes speed but also reliability, frequency, and also "relative speed". Realative speed as in you may not be going fast at all but if you are creeping ahead of the cars which are also going no where fast it doesn't seem as bad.
This is the problem I have said from the start in regards to TC...............it doesn't know it's purpose for being.
It will improve transit greatly, no question. TTC patrons will find their transit trip smoother, quieter, more reliable, more spacious, and more accessible but they will not find their trip much faster than what they presently have. The TTC keeps saying that TC will be rapid transit that will improve local service.............there is no such thing as they are two completely different services.
TC will be an improvement over the current situation, no doubt about that and it will serve it's current users well but it will not attract any new riders in any great amount.
If TC {Finch/Sheppard} goes ahead those areas will be receiving far superior transit to what they have now but they will still remain areas that are void of rapid transit.

Also frequent headways. 5 minutes headway is better than a 15 minute headway.

 

[andrewpmk]

At rush hour a subway on Eglinton and Sheppard ought to be at least comparable in speed to driving on the 401. Let's assume that building subways does not reduce congestion on the 401 significantly, because anyone who switches to transit from driving on the 401 is replaced by new traffic (probably true). A subway goes about 30 km/h and due to traffic congestion the 401 can often be slower than this in rush hour. A subway or underground LRT on Eglinton will definitely be faster than driving because Eglinton is congested all day long 7 days a week. I am pretty sure that if driving and transit take about the same amount of time lots of people will take transit, because driving in heavy stop and go traffic is no fun at all, though lots of people will drive anyway.

A LRT on Eglinton, as long it is well designed (like Calgary LRT, not St. Clair) should be only slightly slower than a subway, the big issue is capacity. With headways constrained for 5 minutes for the line to run efficiently and shorter trains than a subway, you are limited to 1/4 the capacity of a subway which means that the line risks being a victim of its own success and becoming overcrowded. Sheppard on the other hand will be a lot slower because of the transfer at Don Mills/Sheppard (5 minutes wasted), and the lack of connection to Scarborough Centre (people going there will have to either transfer again, or avoid the Sheppard LRT and use the York Mills bus). I have a strong suspicion that the trip from Scarborough Centre to Yonge/Sheppard by TTC will take LONGER than it does now due to the elimination of bus #190, if the Sheppard LRT is built.

The only way to build a rail line that is a lot faster than driving in rush hour would be to buy the CP main line and run trains every 5 minutes on it. Convincing CP to sell this line to GO will be hard, and this line would only stop at major stations so you still really need a subway on Eglinton and/or Sheppard as well to serve the more local stops. This line could take a ton of people off the 401 but connections to Eglinton and Sheppard at Sheppard/Kennedy and Eglinton/Leslie are absolutely essential. Lakeshore and Georgetown GO might take a bit of traffic off 401 as well but are too far from the 401 in most areas to make much of a difference.

 

[ssiguy2]

Eglinton will certainly be comparable to a subway {all the more reason to elevate it from DM to Kennedy to give it subway speed} but Finch and Sheppard will only be comparable to a regular bus.