Transit City Plan

[golodhendil]

Sad how Toronto follows the route of lower tier cities like Buffalo, Pittsburgh, Edmonton and Calgary, instead of real cities like Berlin, Paris, London, New York, etc.

Boston:

San Francisco:

Bruxelles:

Köln:

Frankfurt:

Granted, Köln and Frankfurt are no Berlin, Bruxelles is no Paris, and Boston and SF are no New York, but Toronto is not exactly London either. What these do show is that even "real cities" at par with or above Toronto do develop underground tramway/premetro/Stadtbahn systems too, sometimes relying heavily or even exclusively on such implementations (like many of the German cities). One difference is many of these cities also have a well-developed S-bahn/medium-haul railway network, more the reason why GO needs to be improved with more frequent services.

By the way, no I am no light rail fanatic. I would much rather see heavy rail subways or elevated built where they need to be, including Eglinton if the ridership justifies. Just trying to clarify some misconceptions that I am perceiving.

 

[Rainforest]

If we're going to build Eglinton as completely grade separated, why cheapen out the last 10% and use 2 car LRVs? It makes much more sense to overbuild in the short run (you can always run 4-car subway trains and add cars on if ridership increases) to assure the line does not get packed like sardines in 30 years.

This is the exact problem in the Vancouver Canada Line: it's completely built as a metro system, except where the stations are 40 m long and trains can only be 2 cars until billions are spent expanding the line.

That really depends on the relative cost of the three options on the table:
1) Transit City LRT
2) Fully grade-separate LRT
3) Subway

If (2) is slightly more expensive than (1) and substantially cheaper than (3), then (2) is the logical choice.

If (2) is only slightly cheaper than (3), then the meaningful choice is either (1) or (3). In that case, I'd rather go with (1) and save the funds for other GTA transit projects. If the capacity becomes an issue in 30 or 50 years, there are ways to deal with it, other than converting the line to a subway:

a) Ensure that the central section (Jane to Don Mills) is fully grade-separate and can sustain long (4-5 car) LRT trains on short headways. For that section, overbuilding is justified, as closing it for renovation would cause a lot of strain.

b) Redirect longer-range E-W traffic to parallel routes: North Toronto (midtown) GO line, Bloor subway, and (potentially) extended Sheppard subway.

c) Note that the Eglinton line will intersect many high-capacity N-S transit lines: Yonge, Spadina, (hopefully) DRL - Don Mills subway, Brampton GO Express, Richmond Hill and Stouffville GO. Those lines will tend to divert passengers after a short trip on Eglinton LRT.

 

[Dan416]

That really depends on the relative cost of the three options on the table:
1) Transit City LRT
2) Fully grade-separate LRT
3) Subway

If (2) is slightly more expensive than (1) and substantially cheaper than (3), then (2) is the logical choice.

If (2) is only slightly cheaper than (3), then the meaningful choice is either (1) or (3). In that case, I'd rather go with (1) and save the funds for other GTA transit projects. If the capacity becomes an issue in 30 or 50 years, there are ways to deal with it, other than converting the line to a subway:

a) Ensure that the central section (Jane to Don Mills) is fully grade-separate and can sustain long (4-5 car) LRT trains on short headways. For that section, overbuilding is justified, as closing it for renovation would cause a lot of strain.

b) Redirect longer-range E-W traffic to parallel routes: North Toronto (midtown) GO line, Bloor subway, and (potentially) extended Sheppard subway.

c) Note that the Eglinton line will intersect many high-capacity N-S transit lines: Yonge, Spadina, (hopefully) DRL - Don Mills subway, Brampton GO Express, Richmond Hill and Stouffville GO. Those lines will tend to divert passengers after a short trip on Eglinton LRT.

But why the whole song and dance just so that an Eglinton subway isn't built? Why not just build what the people want?

 

[Rainforest]

But why the whole song and dance just so that an Eglinton subway isn't built? Why not just build what the people want?

Because of $$. There is no chance to built DRL subway AND Eglinton subway for the whole length AND a rational solution for Sheppard AND the Spadina and Yonge northern extensions AND the numerous GO enhancements. That holds even if we defer some less useful LRT projects like Jane and Don Mills.

Once we start Eglinton subway, we are on hook for at least 7B to get it complete, or we get a stubway and a fragmented network (real Transfer City - ).

One has to prioritize. DRL is #1 due to the ridership projections and the network sustainability. Northern extensions are debatable, but they are already committed.

Choosing between Sheppard and Eglinton, I'd rather see LRT built on Eglinton quickly and Sheppard subway being expanded gradually, rather than preserving Sheppard stubway and adding Eglinton stubway.

 

[Voltz]

But why the whole song and dance just so that an Eglinton subway isn't built? Why not just build what the people want?

And who says that is what the people actually want? And why is just building what the people want a good way to make decisions?

Another reason to not build a subway is because is is not needed, and the extra money that would be required is better spent elsewhere, such as the crosstown Go line and a lawrence LRT

 

[Rainforest]

Another reason to not build a subway is because is is not needed, and the extra money that would be required is better spent elsewhere, such as the crosstown Go line and a lawrence LRT

Crosstown GO service is definitely the way to go. It is not a substitute for either Eglinton LRT or Eglinton subway, but for many longer-range trips, the GO service could actually work better than Eglinton subway, simply because it will be faster. Of course, that will only happen if the frequency is good. But the potential is great: Pearson / Mississauga, Etobikoce, Midtown, Flemmington, northern Scarborough.

Lawrence LRT should be considered for Transit City 2, though there are some issues with the street geometry. I know first-hand that Lawrence West is wide enough for LRT between Bathurst and Jane, and heard (though not familiar with the area) that much of Lawrence East east of Leslie is suitable, too. Bathurst to Yonge is too narrow for a surface LRT. Not sure about Yonge to Bayview. Between Bayview and halfway to Leslie, the space is occupied by the Glendon college campus. So, some tunneling would likely be needed.

 

[Dan416]

And who says that is what the people actually want? And why is just building what the people want a good way to make decisions?

Another reason to not build a subway is because is is not needed, and the extra money that would be required is better spent elsewhere, such as the crosstown Go line and a lawrence LRT

You need only ask people whether they prefer taking the subway or bus or streetcar and you get your answer. I don't need to take a poll to know that. Streetcars are great if you're not in a rush, but most commuters would actually prefer to get to their destinations faster. At least commuters who aren't transit geeks.

And yes, for me it is all about the speed. I'll get out of my car for the subway or for GO. But I won't for local transit or streetcars.

 

[jamesbow]

And yes, for me it is all about the speed. I'll get out of my car for the subway or for GO. But I won't for local transit or streetcars.

At some point, it may get too expensive to serve you. We don't have the resources to transform the GTA so that every resident is within 500 metres of a rapid transit line -- at least, not within our lifetimes.

However, even if you won't get out of your car for anything other than an express service, there are others who will get out of their car for a less expensive LRT service. and in this respect, you do benefit from the LRT line. That person who got out of his or her car has now given his or her parking space, not to mention his or her space on the lane in front of you, to you.

...James

 

[scarberiankhatru]

If people aren't going to get out of their cars for buses that stop at red lights, they aren't going to get out of their cars for streetcars/light rail (either of them) that stop at red lights. It just won't happen.

Some would get out of their car for a grade-separated streetcar/light rail line that never stops at red lights, but saying that's "less expensive" is like saying a house in Rosedale is less expensive than a house in Forest Hill.

 

[jamesbow]

If people aren't going to get out of their cars for buses that stop at red lights, they aren't going to get out of their cars for streetcars/light rail (either of them) that stop at red lights. It just won't happen.

But people *are* getting out of their cars today simply because we're offering more buses that stop at red lights. The TTC's ridership is set to pass the record it achieved in 1988 -- 463 million riders per year. And this latest increase (about 40 million passengers per year since the Ridership Growth Strategy was implemented and Metropasses were made transferrable) has been achieved through a fair amount of cash, though far less cash than would be spent on a new subway line.

If we provide better service -- ANY better service -- there WILL be a return. The question is, how much return, and how much investment? And while it is important to invest, our ability to is limited, so choices have to be made.

I've said it before: if you can show me that McGuinty or some other leader can come forward with the funding to complete the Sheppard subway, AND build the Eglinton line as a subway, AND build the DRL, and build LRTs in Mississauga, Hamilton and K-W, AND improve GO Transit, AND replace our aging streetcar, bus and subway fleets, then I will support going whole hog on subway developments.

However, I've been waiting for some of these projects since 1985, and have seen provincial politician after provincial politician back off because of the price tag of new subways. They appear to be biting the bullet at last in some ways, which I'm happy about, but to get improved transit spread around the GTA, we will have to make some careful choices, and not every line can be a subway.

And, to reiterate, Metrolinx is speculating about a Downsview-Kennedy Sheppard subway with a Sheppard LRT extending east. I'm not opposed to that, and the current construction schedule of the Sheppard LRT even supports that. If the money is available within the year to proceed, then let's do it. If it isn't, then the Sheppard East LRT as planned is still better service than what's currently there, and it doesn't preclude the possibility of K-W getting its LRT service either.

 

[Voltz]

You need only ask people whether they prefer taking the subway or bus or streetcar and you get your answer. I don't need to take a poll to know that. Streetcars are great if you're not in a rush, but most commuters would actually prefer to get to their destinations faster. At least commuters who aren't transit geeks.

And yes, for me it is all about the speed. I'll get out of my car for the subway or for GO. But I won't for local transit or streetcars.

Of course people would prefer a subway, I would as well. Many would also prefer to take the Concorde to europe instead of a regular jet, but thats not going to happen.

People may prefer a subway, but they will not be able to look at the facts objectively and decide that a subway is the most appropriate solution, not when the same amount of money can be used to build better and faster overall service over a wider area (eglinton + lawrence LRT + midtown go line)

Again with the "Streetcars" nonsense, the service on a eglinton LRT will be completely different from streetcar line, especially in the central section.

 

[Whoaccio]

If we provide better service -- ANY better service -- there WILL be a return. The question is, how much return, and how much investment? And while it is important to invest, our ability to is limited, so choices have to be made.

As it relates to Transit City, doesn't this make the assumption that the service will actually be "better"? I am guardedly optimistic about Eglinton and maybe the WWLRT, but other than those I don't see how TC is an improvement over vanilla bus service.The projected speeds are bus speeds, or within 3-4 km/h of bus speeds. Given the planned reduction in headways on these routes, to compensate for the larger passenger capacity of an LRT vs. bus, it is possible that overall travel time will increase.

 

[scarberiankhatru]

But people *are* getting out of their cars today simply because we're offering more buses that stop at red lights. The TTC's ridership is set to pass the record it achieved in 1988 -- 463 million riders per year. And this latest increase (about 40 million passengers per year since the Ridership Growth Strategy was implemented and Metropasses were made transferrable) has been achieved through a fair amount of cash, though far less cash than would be spent on a new subway line.

If we provide better service -- ANY better service -- there WILL be a return. The question is, how much return, and how much investment? And while it is important to invest, our ability to is limited, so choices have to be made.

I've said it before: if you can show me that McGuinty or some other leader can come forward with the funding to complete the Sheppard subway, AND build the Eglinton line as a subway, AND build the DRL, and build LRTs in Mississauga, Hamilton and K-W, AND improve GO Transit, AND replace our aging streetcar, bus and subway fleets, then I will support going whole hog on subway developments.

However, I've been waiting for some of these projects since 1985, and have seen provincial politician after provincial politician back off because of the price tag of new subways. They appear to be biting the bullet at last in some ways, which I'm happy about, but to get improved transit spread around the GTA, we will have to make some careful choices, and not every line can be a subway.

And, to reiterate, Metrolinx is speculating about a Downsview-Kennedy Sheppard subway with a Sheppard LRT extending east. I'm not opposed to that, and the current construction schedule of the Sheppard LRT even supports that. If the money is available within the year to proceed, then let's do it. If it isn't, then the Sheppard East LRT as planned is still better service than what's currently there, and it doesn't preclude the possibility of K-W getting its LRT service either.

There's no need to both miss the point and launch into a "we can't afford subways rant."

Yes, ridership will go up if you improve transit, but that doesn't change the fact that if someone won't get out of their car for a bus, they won't get out for anything else that stops at red lights. Fortunately, we know that lots of people will take buses...hundreds of thousands of people already do every day.

I was thinking (as usual) how a fraction of the ~$9B being mostly wasted on Transfer City could be used to revamp the bus network. For example, the Morningside LRT will probably result in higher ridership on Morningside, but the LRT will do absolutely nothing that an improved bus route (such as a Rocket route) could do for much less money, largely utilizing existing buses/drivers and with minimal infrastructure. If we must frame everything in these completely false "there's only exactly X dollars so choose how you want it divvied up" scenarios, saving a bit here and saving a bit there leaves enough left over to build some real rapid transit lines.

Much of Transfer City offers truly marginal improvements over existing bus service...many short trips could actually see longer travel times. Similar improvements in ridership/rider experience could be attained by marginally improving the existing bus routes. When we can increase capacity and reduce travel times using buses, we should do so, either on a limited number of routes (leaving plenty left over for a real rapid transit line that will actually change travel behaviour) or on a large number of routes (creating a real Transit City and helping vastly more people).

 

[jamesbow]

There is a limit to what we can do with buses though (though there is a lot that still could and should be done. Increasing minimum service levels to 20 minute frequencies from 30 is one example). Even with busways, we don't approach the capacities that LRTs can handle. And I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree over whether an LRT is a "marginal" improvement over a bus, or something more substantial.

...James

 

[scarberiankhatru]

There is a limit to what we can do with buses though (though there is a lot that still could and should be done. Increasing minimum service levels to 20 minute frequencies from 30 is one example). Even with busways, we don't approach the capacities that LRTs can handle. And I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree over whether an LRT is a "marginal" improvement over a bus, or something more substantial.

...James

Ah, the capacity gambit...classic mid-game strategy. Just how much of LRT's theoretical capacity is the Jane line going to use? Or along Morningside? Or the eastern half of Sheppard? We're burning through billions of dollars to replace buses that don't need replacing, meaning we're going to have to burn through unknown billions more to replace the bus routes that *do* need help (Dufferin, Lawrence, etc., etc.). It's not like I'm suggesting a busway at Eglinton & Yonge.

Marginal. Travelling (optimistically, and this is compared to regular service, not Rocket service) a few km/hr faster is marginal. "Yay, now transit will only take 80% longer than driving, not 90%!" Frequencies along corridors like Eglinton East and Sheppard East will be slashed. The TTC will run as many vehicles as necessary to ensure they're always basically full, so it's doubtful anyone's going to leave their car if they'd switch to transit if only seats were available.