News   Mar 28, 2024
 114     1 
News   Mar 28, 2024
 568     0 
News   Mar 28, 2024
 359     0 

Transit City Plan

Which transit plan do you prefer?

  • Transit City

    Votes: 95 79.2%
  • Ford City

    Votes: 25 20.8%

  • Total voters
    120
Rainforest

Pretty much every pro-LRT argument people are coming up with on the forum is easily shot down, so unless y'all approach it from different angles, I'm not going to do this again.

Well, I don't think you "easily shot down" all of my (or Voltz's) arguments. I see merit in many of your statements though.

First, some points I'd like to object to.

Give the public a choice and they'll probably choose [to pay for] the subway extension. And the GTA will only be paying for part of it, anyway.

The provincial government is not exactly awash with cash, either. Its surplus is thin, the business leaders are lobbying for tax cuts to counter the losses in manufacturing, and health care costs keep climbing as ever. The federal government has already used most of its surpluses to cut taxes, and at best will pay 1/3 of the costs.

I personally would agree to pay somewhat more taxes to afford subway construction. However, I don not bet on the majority of public sharing that view.

It's possible that a streetcar could handle short-term loads east of Don Mills (ridership won't go up as much without a subway extension, and without said extension, there'll be less development) but why would anyone want to build a line that could be overcrowded on day one, let alone in 20 years?

What's the evidence the LRT will be overcrowded on day one? It replaces the 85 Sheppard E bus and possibly the 190 STC Rocket (unless the latter is retained). The combined ridership of the two was 33,000 per day in 2005-2006, less than of such bus routes as Finch E, Finch W, Eglinton W, Lawrence W, Wilson. The addition of LRT will increase the ridership, but its capacity will be about 3 times that of a bus route (2-car trains and each car is larger than a bus) ... hardly any overcrowding.

Add this, add that...wake me up when the numbers stop rising, ok?

Cost overruns are common plague of many transit projects. Neither LRT nor subways are immune. Who can guarantee that the Sheppard subway extention won't overrun, or overruns less than the LRT line?

Sure, the TTC has a penchant for unnecessarily costly construction, but let's compare oranges (LRT built by TTC) to other oranges (subway built by TTC). There is no point comparing LRT built by the real TTC, to subways built by a hypothetical organization that excels in avoiding all redundant costs.

If N/S rail lines are added or upgraded, there'll actually be fewer people per peak hour riding Sheppard east of Kennedy since they'll be transferring to the various N/S rail lines in large numbers (Morningside, SRT, Stouffville, Midtown, possibly McCowan/Markham) and not riding all the way along Sheppard.

SRT - yes.

Stouffville and /or Midtown GO will have the opposite effect, increasing the number of passengers riding Sheppard east of Kennedy, as they will want to get to the GO transit hub at Agincourt.

Morningside LRT won't have much effect at all, due to its very low ridership north of UTSC (and that's why it should not go north of UTSC in the first place). McCowan LRT is a much better idea than Morningside, but it is too hypothetical at this point.

Now, the part of your post that I found very interesting.

Subtract the stretches of Sheppard where the streetcar will be underused and the stretches where a subway makes sense and you're left with the 3km between Midland and Markham...3km that are or will be very well-served by GO, the RT extension, or short bus rides to the RT.

So, you are saying that:
- Sheppard E between Don Mills and Kennedy has a very high development potential;
- Between Kennedy and Markham Rd, it has medium potential;
- East of Markham Rd, it has very limited, if any, development potential.

Any third-party opinion here? I am not very familiar with the area, having been there just a few times en route to the Zoo.

If so, then the "stingy" option is to proceed with the Sheppard LRT plan, but amend it so that the line's terminus is at McCowan or Markham Rd. That would save 200 - 250 million, which can be used for other transit projects. The remainder of Sheppard should be served by a bus route (10-15 min headways?) that runs to the subway terminus at Don Mills, perhaps running express where it duplicates the LRT.

The "greater funding" option is to extend the subway to Kennedy / Agincourt (and possibly STC, although that section would see the lightest ridership). That would be nice, but only if we can afford that alongside with other, more important, transit expansions. I think that first we need to secure funding for the DRL's eastern wing (full subway, minimum to Bloor and preferably to Eglinton) and the five most important LRT projects (Sheppard, Finch, Eglinton, Don Mills to DRL, Jane). Only if that is secured, we can seek extra funding to substitute some of them (Sheppard, Eglinton, Don Mills further north) with full-fledged subway lines.
 
Yes, all pro-Sheppard LRT arguments are easy to shoot down. No one on this forum or anyone else in the entire city has ever been able to provide a solitary shred of good evidence that east Sheppard East should be upgraded to a streetcar.

The provincial government is not exactly awash with cash, either. Its surplus is thin, the business leaders are lobbying for tax cuts to counter the losses in manufacturing, and health care costs keep climbing as ever. The federal government has already used most of its surpluses to cut taxes, and at best will pay 1/3 of the costs.

I personally would agree to pay somewhat more taxes to afford subway construction. However, I don not bet on the majority of public sharing that view.

I guarantee that people would be more willing to pay for billions of dollars of subways than billions of dollars of suburban streetcars. Again, though, if there's no money for any subway extensions, there's no money for Transit City, or anything else.

What's the evidence the LRT will be overcrowded on day one? It replaces the 85 Sheppard E bus and possibly the 190 STC Rocket (unless the latter is retained). The combined ridership of the two was 33,000 per day in 2005-2006, less than of such bus routes as Finch E, Finch W, Eglinton W, Lawrence W, Wilson. The addition of LRT will increase the ridership, but its capacity will be about 3 times that of a bus route (2-car trains and each car is larger than a bus) ... hardly any overcrowding.

There's that word again...capacity. God forbid someone actually get a seat or make it over to Yonge without transferring as long as it's mathematically possible to squeeze the same number of human bodies onto streetcars. Why can't we make desirable transit lines? You know, vehicles that are comfortably loaded with people? Routes can be overcrowded but not yet be at their theoretical capacity.

The 85 + 190 ridership has increased to 36,500 and continues to rise, which if you're looking strictly at total ridership (an often flawed approach) is about the 7th busiest bus route in the city, slightly below Don Mills and Eglinton (both of which are split by subway stations), farther below Dufferin (heavily split by the subway), and slightly below Finch East/West and Jane, three long routes like Sheppard. Lawrence West and Wilson are far lower. Ridership on the Sheppard subway zone could easily double in the near future, due to improved (extended) transit, redevelopment, gas prices, etc. The longer the subway is, the more people will switch from other routes, like Finch...no one will switch from the Finch bus to a streetcar/stubway combo, though.

Everybody knows that subway ridership potential is higher than other modes...the EA even admits this. Combine a partially completed stubway with an area filled with existing and future skyscrapers, with a road that sees very heavy traffic, etc., and the subway will see good ridership (but not "at capacity" though if it was, how would someone at Bayview get on?). A surface ROW on Sheppard is a bad idea...there's no other streets that traffic can take instead and Sheppard isn't a dozen lanes wide like some 905 arteries. Why throw the investment of the stubway down the drain by building a streetcar that has a lower capacity, would draw fewer riders and fewer redevelopment projects, would need to be rebuilt sooner, would still cost a billion dollars, and would require rewriting the official plan? Why are we letting good plans get thrown out the window just because a streetcar evangelist convinced the mayor of the inherent awesomeness of streetcars and absolute unaffordability of subways?

Would you like to see a Sheppard LRT version of this just to be able to say LRT is appropriate for Sheppard?
metro.jpg


Cost overruns are common plague of many transit projects. Neither LRT nor subways are immune. Who can guarantee that the Sheppard subway extention won't overrun, or overruns less than the LRT line?

Sure, the TTC has a penchant for unnecessarily costly construction, but let's compare oranges (LRT built by TTC) to other oranges (subway built by TTC). There is no point comparing LRT built by the real TTC, to subways built by a hypothetical organization that excels in avoiding all redundant costs.

You and Voltz and others are basing your entire argument on the relative costs of one over the other and you repeatedly conclude that subways are unaffordable but LRT is necessary because you can get more km of it (even though you need to spend billions to do so). There are no examples of LRT in Toronto that compare with Transit City...no billion dollar lines. The only subway projects we have to comapre to are Sheppard (whose short length grossly magnified the cost/km) and Spadina (which is padded beyond belief). Your argument is based on subways costing more but streetcars being longer, as if the capital cost per inch of new lines on transit maps was all that mattered. Removing transfers and total travel times and redevelopment potential and comfort and reliability and a hundred other things matter to real people, and none of them care that streetcars are a bit cheaper. They just want to be moved around the city as quickly and comfortably as possible. The subway + Rocket bus combo would cost an unknown number of millions more than just a streetcar, but lots of people think travel times and transfer removal and city-building potential are worth the difference.

SRT - yes.

Stouffville and /or Midtown GO will have the opposite effect, increasing the number of passengers riding Sheppard east of Kennedy, as they will want to get to the GO transit hub at Agincourt.

Morningside LRT won't have much effect at all, due to its very low ridership north of UTSC (and that's why it should not go north of UTSC in the first place). McCowan LRT is a much better idea than Morningside, but it is too hypothetical at this point.

Morningside may not have much effect but we're only talking about a very limited total ridership base, here, where 1000 rides a day will represent a decent fraction of the total. Some 85 riders will go the other way to Rouge Hill, and some current 85 riders will stop transferring to the 85 because of all the other proposed improvements, including buses like Finch or Markham or Neilson, all of which could be markedly improved through different fare collection schemes, increased service, transit priority signals, etc. Lots of riders will get off at the RT (Markham), leaving only the 3km over to Midland/Stouffville to pick up enough riders to justify upgrading the bus to streetcar - that's not going to happen.

McCowan only remains hypothetical because it doesn't go to Malvern...anyone remotely familiar with the area knows that McCowan would make a fine and busy LRT line, one that replaces a bus that needs fixing, one that does not cripple traffic, one that can be operated as a real light rail line. This is just another reason why Transit City is a terrible plan.

I know it seems like I'm describing a corridor that's very busy west of Kennedy and then drops down to nothing very quickly, but that's closer to the truth than you realize. Currently, there's a slightly dominant travel pattern in Scarborough where people west of the Stouffville GO line travel east/west and those east of the tracks travel north/south. The RT extension may steal thousands of rides from Sheppard, and even if more riders take Sheppard *to* the RT, riders that are turned over on the route are not cumulative and do not contribute to demand for higher capacity. If GO service is added to the branch that runs just north of McLevin to Finch & Morningside, fewer people would take Sheppard over to Agincourt station, further reducing the potential loads east of Kennedy. As long as each segment of Sheppard stays below a certain point, LRT is not warranted, even if the total ridership seems high.

So, you are saying that:
- Sheppard E between Don Mills and Kennedy has a very high development potential;
- Between Kennedy and Markham Rd, it has medium potential;
- East of Markham Rd, it has very limited, if any, development potential.

Any third-party opinion here? I am not very familiar with the area, having been there just a few times en route to the Zoo.

If so, then the "stingy" option is to proceed with the Sheppard LRT plan, but amend it so that the line's terminus is at McCowan or Markham Rd. That would save 200 - 250 million, which can be used for other transit projects. The remainder of Sheppard should be served by a bus route (10-15 min headways?) that runs to the subway terminus at Don Mills, perhaps running express where it duplicates the LRT.

You don't need another opinion...I gave you facts. If you want further proof of the limited potential of east Sheppard East, just look at the official plan amendments being shuffled along with the streetcar, or go out and see the area for yourself...see the backyards fronting Sheppard east of Markham, and see the detached houses going up east of Morningside.

Theoretically, any place could have large redevelopment potential if the area is rezoned and developers are courted, but why should random places be slated for this process just to justify building a billion dollar streetcar to nowhere? Why is removing houses in Malvern more important than adding density to Agincourt?

Transit City proposed a fantasy streetcar map with 8 or 9 billion dollars worth of projects...MoveOntario promised about $17 billion worth...Metrolinx is considering almost $100B worth of projects. Why on earth should we be stingy in our long term transit planning? It's not like we can afford *anything* right now, like $0.5+B for a streetcar just to McCowan, so let's plan properly. If we plan for more and better transit, we'll be spurred on to go out and get it. If we plan right, we'll be ready to build when the money does come through.

The "greater funding" option is to extend the subway to Kennedy / Agincourt (and possibly STC, although that section would see the lightest ridership). That would be nice, but only if we can afford that alongside with other, more important, transit expansions. I think that first we need to secure funding for the DRL's eastern wing (full subway, minimum to Bloor and preferably to Eglinton) and the five most important LRT projects (Sheppard, Finch, Eglinton, Don Mills to DRL, Jane). Only if that is secured, we can seek extra funding to substitute some of them (Sheppard, Eglinton, Don Mills further north) with full-fledged subway lines.

Yes, we can afford it all. We can afford anything we want. If we only had enough money next year to start one project, Sheppard is not the priority, but that does absolutely nothing to change its viability in large transit schemes.

Don't underestimate ridership on the Agincourt-STC section. The 190's popularity is steadily increasing, and there's enough vacant/underused land for dozens of skyscrapers...land that's actually targeted for development (unlike Malvern).
 
Rainforest

Well, money is the biggest issue as always.

Yes, we can afford it all. We can afford anything we want. If we only had enough money next year to start one project, Sheppard is not the priority, but that does absolutely nothing to change its viability in large transit schemes.

Transit City proposed a fantasy streetcar map with 8 or 9 billion dollars worth of projects...MoveOntario promised about $17 billion worth...Metrolinx is considering almost $100B worth of projects. Why on earth should we be stingy in our long term transit planning?

Those almost $100B worth of projects is a dreamland at this point, nobody knows how to pay for them. There are 9 million Ontarians, so $100B is $11,000 per capita including newborns. Roughly half of the population are children, students, and those on low or modest income who cannot be taxed any more than they are already. Counting only people with medium and high incomes, that's $22,000 per capita. How many years will it take to collect that amount just for transit expansions, given that many other fiscal priorities exist?

Even the "modest" $17.7B per MoveOntario are not guaranteed yet. The provincial government promised $11.8 billion but did not allocate them yet, and the feds have been silent on their expected $5.9B portion.

I guarantee that people would be more willing to pay for billions of dollars of subways than billions of dollars of suburban streetcars. Again, though, if there's no money for any subway extensions, there's no money for Transit City, or anything else.

There are no examples of LRT in Toronto that compare with Transit City...no billion dollar lines. The only subway projects we have to compare to are Sheppard (whose short length grossly magnified the cost/km) and Spadina (which is padded beyond belief).

Sure, I'd rather contribute my $200 a year to build a subway, than to build an LRT of the same length. But those are not same billions.

You are right that there is no accurate numbers for subway versus LRT construction in Toronto. However, it is a fundamental fact that digging a tunnel costs more than laying a surface rail line. The cost per km data are available for subway and LRT projects completed in other cities, and the subway values are 4-5 times higher than LRT values.

The 85 + 190 ridership has increased to 36,500 and continues to rise, which if you're looking strictly at total ridership (an often flawed approach) is about the 7th busiest bus route in the city, slightly below Don Mills and Eglinton (both of which are split by subway stations), farther below Dufferin (heavily split by the subway), and slightly below Finch East/West and Jane, three long routes like Sheppard. Lawrence West and Wilson are far lower.

I do not have the latest data, but that 2005-2006 table contained:
- Sheppard E (# 85 + 190): 32,800 per day
- Lawrence W (# 52 + 58 + 59): 38,000 per day
- Wilson (# 96 + 165 + 120): 37,400 per day

Ridership on the Sheppard subway zone could easily double in the near future, due to improved (extended) transit, redevelopment, gas prices, etc. The longer the subway is, the more people will switch from other routes, like Finch...no one will switch from the Finch bus to a streetcar/stubway combo, though.

Agreed here.

Would you like to see a Sheppard LRT version of this just to be able to say LRT is appropriate for Sheppard?

Yeah, nice picture. But a lot sooner than it happens on Sheppard LRT, it will happen on Yonge subway at Bloor, if DRL subway is not built.

Some 85 riders will go the other way to Rouge Hill, and some current 85 riders will stop transferring to the 85 because of all the other proposed improvements, including buses like Finch or Markham or Neilson, all of which could be markedly improved through different fare collection schemes, increased service, transit priority signals, etc. Lots of riders will get off at the RT (Markham), leaving only the 3km over to Midland/Stouffville to pick up enough riders to justify upgrading the bus to streetcar - that's not going to happen.

For those going towards North York and other destinations along northern Yonge subway, it's either Sheppard or Finch, and Finch E bus is at capacity already. The proposed N-S routes are of little relevance for them.

And if a frequent REX service runs through Agincourt, wouldn't it attract a fair amount of riders from east of Kennedy (not just Malvern!), using Sheppard E to get there? That will be their best, fastest way to get downtown for many, SRT + subway being no match.

If GO service is added to the branch that runs just north of McLevin to Finch & Morningside, fewer people would take Sheppard over to Agincourt station, further reducing the potential loads east of Kennedy.

But only those living near Malvern Town Centre will have convenient access to the GO station at McLevin. For many more GO users, Agincourt will be the connection point.

McCowan only remains hypothetical because it doesn't go to Malvern...anyone remotely familiar with the area knows that McCowan would make a fine and busy LRT line, one that replaces a bus that needs fixing, one that does not cripple traffic, one that can be operated as a real light rail line. This is just another reason why Transit City is a terrible plan.

Just if two of Transit City LRT projects (Sheppard E and Morningside) have flaws, it does not mean that the whole plan is terribly bad. McCowan LRT may be added in Phase II.

I know it seems like I'm describing a corridor that's very busy west of Kennedy and then drops down to nothing very quickly, but that's closer to the truth than you realize.

Even though I support Transit City overall, I might have to agree with you partly on the Sheppard corridor. The LRT line to the eastern confines will cost 800 - 1000 million, or 600 - 800 million if limited to McCowan. Alternatively, the subway extension just to Kennedy / Agincourt will cost around 1200 million, not that much more. If the development potential along Sheppard is so uneven, then the subway option might actually be preferable. The matter of extending the subway further to STC, or building alternative transit routes east of Kennedy, can then be deferred till the next round of funding.

However, the following question arises: where will all those numerous riders of the extended Sheppard subway go? North York and STC won't attract that many employees, even if the line is 1/3 full. If many of those riders take Yonge subway downtown, they will swarm the Yonge line.

It looks like building the DRL subway all they way up to Sheppard, or a drastic enhancement of the Agincourt - Union GO service, has to be planned and funded, before the Sheppard subway extension can proceed.
 
Well, money is the biggest issue as always.

If there isn't enough money for a subway extension, there isn't enough money for an LRT line. It's that simple. The city had no intention of paying for any of Transit City on its own.

You are right that there is no accurate numbers for subway versus LRT construction in Toronto. However, it is a fundamental fact that digging a tunnel costs more than laying a surface rail line. The cost per km data are available for subway and LRT projects completed in other cities, and the subway values are 4-5 times higher than LRT values.

Subways don't need to be 100% tunnelled, while not-insignificant stretches of Transfer City may be run in tunnels. But there's entire other threads about this topic.

I do not have the latest data, but that 2005-2006 table contained:
- Sheppard E (# 85 + 190): 32,800 per day
- Lawrence W (# 52 + 58 + 59): 38,000 per day
- Wilson (# 96 + 165 + 120): 37,400 per day

Both the Lawrence and Wilson routes are more branched than the 85 + 190 (meaning more people can get on and off along segments that do not overlap) and they are both split by subway stations, reducing the loads. Blindly going around the city doling out transit projects based on total ridership is a highly flawed endeavour...Dufferin would "win" in this case, yet it moves quite a few less people than other routes in one direction at one point at one time - the main determinant in figuring out if more capacity is needed.

Your "argument" that the Sheppard subway should not be extended because a few combined bus routes on Wilson have 1000 more total riders per day makes little sense. The only thing it suggests is that perhaps Wilson should be targeted for improved service, too. Ranking routes this way also completely ignores context - can the road afford to have a ROW tacked onto it? Does ridership bulge during rush hour or is it more even throughout the day? What are the redevelopment prospects? Are there future, parallel or intersecting lines that would cannibalize the ridership? Is there already a partially finished subway line on the corridor?

It's too bad none of these questions are being asked in the EA process, which is being designed around making LRT seem like the only legitimate option and something we can't afford not to build on Sheppard. Well, the public has asked them, and the public was mostly ignored, as usual. Instead of looking at what Sheppard or any other road needs and coming up with an appropriate solution, Transfer City said "where should we put LRT?" and decided to intersect lines at Jane & Finch, Flemingdon Park, and Malvern...using billions of dollars of transit infrastructure to try to assist 'underprivileged' youth by encouraging Parisian boulevards to sprout in their neighbourhoods.

Yeah, nice picture. But a lot sooner than it happens on Sheppard LRT, it will happen on Yonge subway at Bloor, if DRL subway is not built.

Is that supposed to make me think twice about extending Sheppard, that it'll hold the DRL hostage? We can build both.

For those going towards North York and other destinations along northern Yonge subway, it's either Sheppard or Finch, and Finch E bus is at capacity already. The proposed N-S routes are of little relevance for them.

And if a frequent REX service runs through Agincourt, wouldn't it attract a fair amount of riders from east of Kennedy (not just Malvern!), using Sheppard E to get there? That will be their best, fastest way to get downtown for many, SRT + subway being no match.

But only those living near Malvern Town Centre will have convenient access to the GO station at McLevin. For many more GO users, Agincourt will be the connection point.

Of course some people would use the line. You aren't appreciating how limited the population base is that is supposed to support the eastern half of the Sheppard line, though. It's a mathematical certainty that there won't be enough riders both east of Kennedy *and* east of Markham to warrant upgrading beyond Rocket buses to a mode that can handle several thousands riders per hour. Even if higher capacity streetcars are built, ridership will be so low that frequency may be slashed, greatly affecting travel time compared to lower capacity but higher frequency buses.

A GO station at Neilson or Morningside would be less than 1 or 2km away for many people along Sheppard and some would go to this station instead of riding several times as far over to Agincourt station. Some will take Morningside and I guarantee that plenty of people will still take the RT and will still take N/S routes to get around the city. There's going to be a lot of options available for people and the limited pool of riders will be spread around quite a few transit routes.

And if by some fluke people flocked to the Sheppard line in huge numbers, it would mean other routes like the RT extension would be abandoned. The most likely scenario is that a small group of people finds each route useful, so each route has a small share of the total riders.

Just if two of Transit City LRT projects (Sheppard E and Morningside) have flaws, it does not mean that the whole plan is terribly bad. McCowan LRT may be added in Phase II.

Just two? Don Mills should also be a subway line, a NE wing of the DRL. Jane is a bit of a question mark for me...it could be worth it, but Rocket bus service to complement the Spadina extension and Finch and Eglinton lines could be very useful while costing next to nothing. Eglinton itself is a big unknown...it could work well, but it could be disastrous - if it's overcrowded and overbudget, we may have been better off just building a subway line. Of the six suburban lines, Finch West is the only clear winner.

If Phase II consists of routes like McCowan, Lawrence East/West, Wilson, Kipling, Warden, Kingston, Victoria Park, Bathurst, etc., etc., it should have been Phase I. Some of these arterials would benefit from even plain old streetcar service (Bathurst comes to mind), while others could handle a more real version of LRT (McCowan is a picture perfect candidate).

Even though I support Transit City overall, I might have to agree with you partly on the Sheppard corridor. The LRT line to the eastern confines will cost 800 - 1000 million, or 600 - 800 million if limited to McCowan. Alternatively, the subway extension just to Kennedy / Agincourt will cost around 1200 million, not that much more. If the development potential along Sheppard is so uneven, then the subway option might actually be preferable. The matter of extending the subway further to STC, or building alternative transit routes east of Kennedy, can then be deferred till the next round of funding.

However, the following question arises: where will all those numerous riders of the extended Sheppard subway go? North York and STC won't attract that many employees, even if the line is 1/3 full. If many of those riders take Yonge subway downtown, they will swarm the Yonge line.

Finally, you're recognizing that by spending a bit more the benefits in some cases might be far greater. A subway/GO interchange like Agincourt would be a great place to step down to Rocket bus service. Everyone east of there would still be close to one of several rail lines.

A Sheppard subway extension does not need to cost 4-5 times what the LRT will. The subway extension should explore trench/elevated options to keep costs down - stations would be far cheaper that way, too. Real estate is still suppressed enough in Scarborough that buying 50 houses and a strip mall or parking lot or two and running in a trench is a viable option, whereas a surface or elevated alignment would be ideal between Kennedy and STC.

Extending Sheppard will add riders to Yonge, yes, which is why we need to build a DRL. Sheppard should also go over to Downsview, and then many more people will start using it to go shopping or to school or work or wherever else.

It looks like building the DRL subway all they way up to Sheppard, or a drastic enhancement of the Agincourt - Union GO service, has to be planned and funded, before the Sheppard subway extension can proceed.

Yes, alternative suburb-to-downtown routes that do not involve the Yonge line should be built before widescale construction on routes that might feed Yonge. But this is a matter of staging and timing and should not translate into opposition to Sheppard extensions...even though Sheppard extensions aren't the highest priority, they would be valuable pieces of our transit network.
 
Rainforest

Well, our posts are getting so long that I'd like to split them into 3 sections: 1) Sheppard E; 2) Transit City in general; 3) Funding matters.

On Sheppard E, my take after the discussion with you:

1) Can LRT sustain passenger traffic on Sheppard east of Don Mills? - Yes, it can. Won't be overcrowded for long time, perhaps forever.

2) Nevetherless, would it be more beneficial to build a shorter subway extention at the expense of that LRT? - Probably, yes.

Your "argument" that the Sheppard subway should not be extended because a few combined bus routes on Wilson have 1000 more total riders per day makes little sense. The only thing it suggests is that perhaps Wilson should be targeted for improved service, too.

Here, you grossly misstated my argument. (And then, of course, "easily shot it down".) Actually, my point is that Sheppard E east of Don Mills is quite a regular bus route, in line with others such as Wilson, Lawrence W etc. It does not matter if Wilson is 1000 riders above Sheppard E, and it would not matter if Sheppard E was slightly ahead of Wilson. The point is that LRT would have more than enough capacity to handle the demand on this route.

Which does not preclude choosing the subway extention instead of LRT, as capacity is not the only criterion.

... What are the redevelopment prospects? ... Is there already a partially finished subway line on the corridor?

Yes, here I'll have to agree with you, given the picture of development prospects you presented, and the desirability of minimizing transfers. Even though the subway extention is not the only viable option for this corridor, it might be the best option after all.
 
Transit City in general:

Just two? [flawed projects] Don Mills should also be a subway line, a NE wing of the DRL. Jane is a bit of a question mark for me...it could be worth it, but Rocket bus service to complement the Spadina extension and Finch and Eglinton lines could be very useful while costing next to nothing. Eglinton itself is a big unknown...it could work well, but it could be disastrous - if it's overcrowded and overbudget, we may have been better off just building a subway line. Of the six suburban lines, Finch West is the only clear winner.

Yes, only two of Phase I projects are conceptually flawed: Sheppard E and Morningside-Malvern. While TC marches under the stingy banner, extremities of those two routes would be actually overbuilt. They should be reconsidered, and the funds redirected to where the dencities are higher.

The Don Mills and Eglinton debate is LRT vs subway, but neither would be overbuilt as LRT.

And, what's wrong with Jane LRT? The street is wide enough north of St Clair, the ridership is high. If you support LRT on such streets as Kipling, Warden, McCowan, then why not Jane?

If Phase II consists of routes like McCowan, Lawrence East/West, Wilson, Kipling, Warden, Kingston, Victoria Park, Bathurst, etc., etc., it should have been Phase I. Some of these arterials would benefit from even plain old streetcar service (Bathurst comes to mind), while others could handle a more real version of LRT (McCowan is a picture perfect candidate).

McCowan, Wilson, Kipling, Warden, Kingston are all good LRT candidates indeed, but bunching everything into Phase I will cause it to inevitably split into Subphases I, II, III etc. You have to start somewhere.

Btw, Kingston is partly included in the "Morningside-Malvern" project, that really should be Eglinton E - Kingston and do not venture too far north. Now the portion of Kingston south of Eglinton is being considered as well, although not a part of TC technically.

Lawrence E and W would be quite useful, although a fair bit of tunneling might be needed.

Bathurst definitely does not need mixed-traffic streetcars, that would be a disaster similar to Queen. I used to live in the area and know first-hand. The Bathurst bus carries decent loads but usually is not overcrowded. The flexibility of bus is more important for this route than the capacity of mixed-traffic streetcar.
 
Transit City was the FIRST Light Rail Transit expansion into the suburban areas of Toronto. Being the first LRT, it lays the groundwork for future LRT expansion along other roadways, such as Steeles, Albion/Wilson/York Mills/Ellesmere, Lawrence, Victoria Park, Islington, and maybe others. If it creates demand for other routes, we will see.

Whether or not a Downtown Relief Line is LRT or HRT is still to be decided. Afterall, the Queen subway was to follow the Yonge, but the Bloor-Danforth was built instead because demand changed.
 
Transit City was the FIRST Light Rail Transit expansion into the suburban areas of Toronto. Being the first LRT, it lays the groundwork for future LRT expansion along other roadways, such as Steeles, Albion/Wilson/York Mills/Ellesmere, Lawrence, Victoria Park, Islington, and maybe others. If it creates demand for other routes, we will see.

Overall, Transit City is definitely a good step forward. However, now I tend to agree with Scarberian's objections to the planned north-eastern LRT routes. Indeed, too many routes would congregate in the same corner of the city, with no customer base to support all of them.

It is good to provide one rapid transit route to Malvern and the north-east of Scarborough, but 3 at once is an overshoot. The funds can be better spent in the areas of higher density.
 
Rainforest

On the fiscal matters:

If there isn't enough money for a subway extension, there isn't enough money for an LRT line. It's that simple.

This is not correct. The cost of Transit City is now projected to $9B. If all those money are directed to subways, it will pay for a full Eglinton subway and a section of DRL from downtown to Bloor / Pape, but nothing else. Or, you can take DRL from downtown to Sheppard / Don Mills plus Sheppard subway to STC, but nothing else.

OK, Danforth subway could be extended to STC in lieu of the SRT upgrade/extension. And, the York U extension could be replaced with another piece of a similar cost.

But however you slice it, a comprehensive network does not come up.

Had not LRT been much cheaper than subway, why would other cities bother building LRT lines? But they do. Many cities in Europe, the land of advanced public transportation, build and use LRT (true, they build subways too, but not only subways).

Is that supposed to make me think twice about extending Sheppard, that it'll hold the DRL hostage?

I know that wouldn't concern you, as you believe in virtually unlimited transit funding. But in my books, this is a major concern. Same applies to Eglinton.

We can build both.

You have a right to stick to your belief, but I cannot see what substantiates it. The MoveOntario $18B announcement, per ce, is unprecedented in the Canadian history. But it remains, well, an announcement: half-committed by the province, no word from the feds so far.

Nevertheless, Metrolinx ups the ante, and asks for $80B, no, $100B!

Nice try, but how can we regard this as a funding guarantee?
 
I also don't think we should pick and choose projects based on the ability to pay for it. But I think we should definitely prioritize what we NEED right now, from a network perspective. I.e. finish Sheppard to STC, replace SRT up to STC, build the DRL, Eglinton, Bloor to at least the Mississauga border, Yonge to Hwy 7, get rid of the VCC extension entirely IMHO, divert funding for the Steeles to VCC section for Yonge from Steeles to RHC. Etc.
 
1) Can LRT sustain passenger traffic on Sheppard east of Don Mills? - Yes, it can. Won't be overcrowded for long time, perhaps forever....2) Nevetherless, would it be more beneficial to build a shorter subway extention at the expense of that LRT? - Probably, yes.

If #1 is true, it will be because ridership will not increase much. There'll be fewer redevelopments, fewer people moving to the area to live near a subway station, fewer people switching from other routes due to speed or less transfers or comfort or not having to wait for vehicles out in a blizzard, fewer people using the line to travel longer distances east/west. The potential ridership we're talking about with an extended subway will not materialize by building LRT.

Here, you grossly misstated my argument. (And then, of course, "easily shot it down".) Actually, my point is that Sheppard E east of Don Mills is quite a regular bus route, in line with others such as Wilson, Lawrence W etc. It does not matter if Wilson is 1000 riders above Sheppard E, and it would not matter if Sheppard E was slightly ahead of Wilson. The point is that LRT would have more than enough capacity to handle the demand on this route.

You're using "regular" to define the 8 or so busiest routes in the entire city, all of which have practically identical daily riderships (though not all have identical peak loads), and all of which could use better service. You and others are just irked that one of the bunch was chosen over the others. No, it's not fair, but that's life and politics. If the future demand of a corridor is 30K or 40K yes, LRT could be a good choice, but the potential demand given a subway extension is far higher. And everyone knows that. The full Sheppard corridor has long been seen as a place worthy of focusing redevelopment attention, too.

The Don Mills and Eglinton debate is LRT vs subway, but neither would be overbuilt as LRT.

No, they might be underbuilt. There's really a rather limited number of corridors in this city that would viable candidates for subway lines, and Don Mills and Eglinton are two of them.

And, what's wrong with Jane LRT? The street is wide enough north of St Clair, the ridership is high. If you support LRT on such streets as Kipling, Warden, McCowan, then why not Jane?

The ridership loads aren't as high as other routes...with its higher turnover than other routes, I think it's possible that bus-based fixes could be sufficient, and that's something you should consider, especially given your concern with appropriate capacity and spending less money. They didn't approach it asking "what's best for Jane, how do we improve Jane?" they just drew an LRT line on the map and claimed ridership will more than double. With the Finch and Eglinton lines and the Spadina extension, few people will be riding Jane for long distances.

McCowan, Wilson, Kipling, Warden, Kingston are all good LRT candidates indeed, but bunching everything into Phase I will cause it to inevitably split into Subphases I, II, III etc. You have to start somewhere.

Removing Sheppard, Don Mills, etc., from Phase I would have freed up room for routes like McCowan and Wilson. Same number of routes, same cost, same number of people served. Transit City wasn't a plan to improve service, it was a plan to add some LRT lines.

Btw, Kingston is partly included in the "Morningside-Malvern" project, that really should be Eglinton E - Kingston and do not venture too far north. Now the portion of Kingston south of Eglinton is being considered as well, although not a part of TC technically.

Yes, I know. I was talking about the non-Transfer City part of Kingston, which was not included in Transfer City because it doesn't run through underprivileged neighbourhoods.

Lawrence E and W would be quite useful, although a fair bit of tunneling might be needed.

Lawrence East wouldn't need tunnelling...the route would terminate at Don Mills. A fair bit of tunneling didn't prevent pose an obstacle to the current Transfer City routes.

Bathurst definitely does not need mixed-traffic streetcars, that would be a disaster similar to Queen. I used to live in the area and know first-hand. The Bathurst bus carries decent loads but usually is not overcrowded. The flexibility of bus is more important for this route than the capacity of mixed-traffic streetcar.

Really, I'd consider St. Clair and Spadina plain streetcars...the Queen streetcar barely counts as public transit. I'm also talking about Bathurst at least as far north as Centre. If capacity was all that mattered, articulated buses could return to Toronto's streets.

It is good to provide one rapid transit route to Malvern and the north-east of Scarborough, but 3 at once is an overshoot. The funds can be better spent in the areas of higher density.

There could be 5. Improved Stouffville line (4 trains a day doesn't count as a current service), Midtown/Seaton line, SRT extension, Morningside LRT, Sheppard LRT...also include improved service on regular routes like Finch or Markham.

This is not correct. The cost of Transit City is now projected to $9B. If all those money are directed to subways, it will pay for a full Eglinton subway and a section of DRL from downtown to Bloor / Pape, but nothing else. Or, you can take DRL from downtown to Sheppard / Don Mills plus Sheppard subway to STC, but nothing else.......OK, Danforth subway could be extended to STC in lieu of the SRT upgrade/extension. And, the York U extension could be replaced with another piece of a similar cost.......But however you slice it, a comprehensive network does not come up.

Of course it's correct and only Transycophant City fans seem to disagree. Currently, there's no money for anything, so how can there be $9B for LRT? For years, even short extensions like Danforth to STC or Spadina to York have been prevented by using the excuse that even a few hundred million dollars is unaffordable. You can't justify saying no to a $1 or $2 billion subway project because you can't pay for it and then turn around and propose $9 billion worth of other projects explicitly intended to be paid for by someone else.

And for the millionth time, no one, including me, is proposing we only build subway lines. If anyone is actually interested in helping riders, we can take $9 billion and put it all towards articulated buses and Rocket routes, covering every major road in the city and helping a million riders a day, all in a very short time frame. Or build the DRL, throw a few billion to GO, and spend the last few billion on Rocket buses...this would, by a fantastic margin, be the best thing we could do.

Transit City is not a comprehensive network...it just shuttles people to existing subway lines. It relies on billions of dollars worth of other projects to fill in the gaps.

Had not LRT been much cheaper than subway, why would other cities bother building LRT lines? But they do. Many cities in Europe, the land of advanced public transportation, build and use LRT (true, they build subways too, but not only subways).

Yes, they can and do build both, as we should. This is not an argument about "should we be building any LRT?" because the answer, obviously, is yes. We should not build LRT where we should be building subways, or keeping buses.

I know that wouldn't concern you, as you believe in virtually unlimited transit funding. But in my books, this is a major concern. Same applies to Eglinton.......You have a right to stick to your belief, but I cannot see what substantiates it. The MoveOntario $18B announcement, per ce, is unprecedented in the Canadian history. But it remains, well, an announcement: half-committed by the province, no word from the feds so far.......Nevertheless, Metrolinx ups the ante, and asks for $80B, no, $100B!......Nice try, but how can we regard this as a funding guarantee?

Again, you've *completely* missed the point: it'll take virtually unlimited funding to pay for all these LRT lines. It'll take the same dream/promised funding to pay for $9B of LRT as it would for $9B of subways, or $3B of subways, $3B of LRT, and $3B of buses, or $9B of any transit projects. If we can afford LRT, we can afford subways. If we can't afford subways, we can't afford LRT.
 
I have a question; with the exception of the Eglinton Crosstown which will run the middle portion underground, how are the other LRT lines considered to be any better or different from the current St. Clair ROW or Spadina ROW? (Stop spacing? Longer new cars?)
 
Rainforest

I'm also talking about Bathurst at least as far north as Centre.

This is a side topic, but I'll post my 2c anyway. Yes, a Bathurst LRT line across the Toronto / YR boundary might be a good idea. North of Wilson, Bathurst is wide enough for a ROW streetcar line, and the density is substantial. North of Steeles, there is a huge Promenade mall at Centre, and perhaps future developments north of it. The southern end of that line could connect with U-S subway via Wilson.

The section of Bathurst between Bloor and Wilson will be better off with the bus. There is no chance to place LRT on ROW there, while mixed-traffic streetcars would degrade the service rather than improve it.

(Regarding Jane LRT)The ridership loads aren't as high as other routes...with its higher turnover than other routes, I think it's possible that bus-based fixes could be sufficient, and that's something you should consider, especially given your concern with appropriate capacity and spending less money. They didn't approach it asking "what's best for Jane, how do we improve Jane?" they just drew an LRT line on the map and claimed ridership will more than double. With the Finch and Eglinton lines and the Spadina extension, few people will be riding Jane for long distances.

This might be a good point. On the other hand, in your subway-rich universe the Warden LRT line would connect to 3 subways as well (Danforth, Eglinton, and Sheppard), yet you support that LRT.

Now, to the main topic:

Currently, there's no money for anything, so how can there be $9B for LRT?

Again, you've *completely* missed the point: it'll take virtually unlimited funding to pay for all these LRT lines. It'll take the same dream/promised funding to pay for $9B of LRT as it would for $9B of subways, or $3B of subways, $3B of LRT, and $3B of buses, or $9B of any transit projects. If we can afford LRT, we can afford subways. If we can't afford subways, we can't afford LRT.

The MoveOntario's $18B are not guaranteed, but were at least announced and hence represent a sensible anchor for planning. There is a good chance that a large portion of those funds will be actually provided. In a cautiously optimistic scenario, the amount might be increased somewhat. So, it makes sense to target $18B + 50 % = $27B, of which roughly half can be directed for Toronto's subways and LRT (the other half being for local transit in smaller GTA cities, and for GO). It also makes sense to re-balance the subway / LRT portfolio within those $13 - $14B.

However, you just added many transit projects to the shopping list, without worrying about the price tag. Basically, your approach is all or nothing, and this rarely works.

Removing Sheppard, Don Mills, etc., from Phase I would have freed up room for routes like McCowan and Wilson. Same number of routes, same cost, same number of people served. Transit City wasn't a plan to improve service, it was a plan to add some LRT lines.

No, that would not free up any fiscal room. You are proposing to replace LRTs with more expensive subways, and then add expenses for other LRT routes on top.

In my books, "freeing up" room is re-balancing. Say, defer/cancel Sheppard LRT and shorten Morningside LRT, and use the funds to extend Sheppard subway to Kennedy (not STC); that would be almost a cost-neutral substitution, with extra cost in the range of 100 - 300 million. Another example: defer/cancel the Don Mills LRT, and build DRL subway from downtown to Eglinton / Don Mills; that would not be cost-neutral, about 2.5 billion for that subway stretch versus 0.8 - 1 billion for Don Mills LRT with Pape tunnel, but at least it takes the funding constraints into account.
 

Back
Top