my questions

[wagthedog]

1. im curious about the province when it provides funding to transit projects. What kind of oversight to they play? Do they do their own studies as to how much the project will cost OR do they take the municipality transit authority's word on the matter?

I know in america, the Feds leave the number to municipalities and grant them whatever money they need (or want).

 

[andomano]

EAs are submitted to the various ministries - ie transportation, environment,

 

[rbt]

A good chunk of the EA process is being overseen by Metrolinx including doing their own business case analysis for most projects in addition to whatever has been submitted by municipalities.

So yes, the province has pretty strong oversight in place -- though you can argue they don't really take advantage of it to direct development yet.

IMHO, we can see the province taking on a city building role. The extended Toronto area is over half the population of the province at this point so it is in their best interests to take the role Metro Council used to hold.

 

[wagthedog]

EAs are submitted to the various ministries - ie transportation, environment,

read them, they're made to distort information.

for example regarding assessment of BRT, they keep saying that 3000 people per hour will overload a standard bus of 50 people capacity, which will require 60 buses to service that line. this was part of their pitch for choosing LRT over BRT. current Orion VII has 78 person capacity, not 50.

another thing was two bypass lanes for BRT making the street feel "less comfortable." What does that even mean? What studies did they do to confirm that people will found this any less comfortable than expanding the street to 36 metres wide? another 7 meters on top will pale when street is widen to 36 m.

You're not going to get walkable Yonge streets when these LRT lines come in. They're a means to an end, just look at sheppard subway.

i could go on about other inaccuracies.

 

[andomano]

Are you trying just to lambast the information within EAs? If your going to make a stink about it, go talk to a city councillor about the semantics involved.

rbt has offered an excellent answer to your question

 

[wagthedog]

Are you trying just to lambast the information within EAs? If your going to make a stink about it, go talk to a city councillor about the semantics involved.

rbt has offered an excellent answer to your question

no, im just saying it how it is. an EA shouldn't be about semantics, it should be about cold hard facts. If they're going to make an assertion they should back it up.

Go talk to a councillor? Have you seen how mismanaged our city is? Besides yellowscarves don't listen to reason; how many times have they ignored Robbie Ford or Minnan-Wong?

 

[RedRocket191]

I don't think that the information presented to the public truly captures the depth of the actual EA document that gets submitted to the ministry.

Passing judgement on the entire process based on the dog-and-pony show isn't a wise decision.

 

[rbt]

for example regarding assessment of BRT, they keep saying that 3000 people per hour will overload a standard bus of 50 people capacity, which will require 60 buses to service that line. this was part of their pitch for choosing LRT over BRT. current Orion VII has 78 person capacity, not 50.

78 considered a crush load and is not really wanted. For starters, it means you are leaving people behind at every stop in order to maintain this capacity as every single person who gets off would need to be replaced. That means in most cases you have people waiting at a stop who cannot get onto the vehicle.

Second, it dramatically increases dwell time as the period required to load/unload a single individual is increased due to squeezing through.


Think of it like your home. The theoretical peak capacity of your home is probably about 4 people per bedroom (two stacked bunkbeds in each room). The actual comfortable capacity is closer to 1 to 2 people per bedroom.

The city, when planning water/sewer/school/etc. does not assume 4 people per bedroom simply because it is possible as in practice it never actually happens.

 

[wagthedog]

I don't think that the information presented to the public truly captures the depth of the actual EA document that gets submitted to the ministry.

Passing judgement on the entire process based on the dog-and-pony show isn't a wise decision.

then i guess we should trust our overseers, who are infinitely wiser than us. eHealth was a success.

the info presented to public should be a bit more compelling, what was the smoking gun rationale the province saw in the EA.

78 considered a crush load and is not really wanted. For starters, it means you are leaving people behind at every stop in order to maintain this capacity as every single person who gets off would need to be replaced. That means in most cases you have people waiting at a stop who cannot get onto the vehicle.

Second, it dramatically increases dwell time as the period required to load/unload a single individual is increased due to squeezing through.


Think of it like your home. The theoretical peak capacity of your home is probably about 4 people per bedroom (two stacked bunkbeds in each room). The actual comfortable capacity is closer to 1 to 2 people per bedroom.

The city, when planning water/sewer/school/etc. does not assume 4 people per bedroom simply because it is possible as in practice it never actually happens.

theory is good and all but reality works a bit differently. last time i checked drivers let people past the white line.

and they didnt look into higher capacity buses (100-150) which changes their calculation altogether. LRT works for high average volumes, but i don't think offpeak volumes will come to anything near peak volumes. So LRT cost effectiveness is only realized in high volumes.

when it comes down to average cost effectiveness, BRT is king hands down.

should i cite Bogota or Curitiba?

 

[kettal]

another thing was two bypass lanes for BRT making the street feel "less comfortable." What does that even mean? What studies did they do to confirm that people will found this any less comfortable than expanding the street to 36 metres wide? another 7 meters on top will pale when street is widen to 36 m.

I don't know exactly what quote you are referring to here, but the city-owned corridor on most of these streets is only 36 m. If they were to build more lanes of traffic, that would mean taking away sidewalk space, which I'm sure you will agree, makes things "less comfortable".

 

[kettal]

when it comes down to average cost effectiveness, BRT is king hands down.

Do you think it is cost effective to build busways in underground tunnels? All the ventilation for diesel fumes, the wider tunnels, lower speed compared to tunneled rail transit? Every Transit City line funded has underground portions, especially Eglinton. Building the same thing as BRT would be much more expensive.

You need to do some more research before you go off on your rants.

 

[RedRocket191]

then i guess we should trust our overseers, who are infinitely wiser than us. eHealth was a success.

the info presented to public should be a bit more compelling, what was the smoking gun rationale the province saw in the EA.

Or you could, ya know, pick up an EA and read it.

 

[wagthedog]

I don't know exactly what quote you are referring to here, but the city-owned corridor on most of these streets is only 36 m. If they were to build more lanes of traffic, that would mean taking away sidewalk space, which I'm sure you will agree, makes things "less comfortable".

cant they expropriate a bit more?

Do you think it is cost effective to build busways in underground tunnels? All the ventilation for diesel fumes, the wider tunnels, lower speed compared to tunneled rail transit? Every Transit City line funded has underground portions, especially Eglinton. Building the same thing as BRT would be much more expensive.

You need to do some more research before you go off on your rants.

I should say this right off the top. I dont mean to say that BRT should be applied to every line in Transit City, only the lowest volume lines.

but yeah the air in Bogota are horrendous [higher altitude accentuate pollution]

 

[kettal]

cant they expropriate a bit more?

Yes, this is a possibility, but is very expensive. In addition to the widening of bridges and overpasses that will be required, you'll start to find that the cost savings of using buses is soon negated by expropriation and widening costs.

 

[wagthedog]

Yes, this is a possibility, but is very expensive. In addition to the widening of bridges and overpasses that will be required, you'll start to find that the cost savings of using buses is soon negated by expropriation and widening costs.

i dont think the expropriation would be that expensive, it's not like it's 5-10 million per km of widening. If it weren't for bridges and overpasses, BRT would still much more cheaper than LRT.

eglinton LRT makes sense in that it is a gateway from the airport to the city.