Transit City Plan

[scarberiankhatru]

You're still completely missing the point...you mentioned an entire Phase II of Transfer City but if someone else proposes even one subway project, you claim this plan is unaffordable. You still think I desire nothing but subway lines because it's easier to fight with such a straw man.

A Warden streetcar would be decades away and would only happen given billions of dollars of funding (and if we got $100B of funding we might as well build a Jane streetcar, too). How can someone constantly going on about how there's no money think a billion dollar streetcar line (it'll end up being this much) on Jane is the best use of limited funds, a top priority?

 

[Rainforest]

You're still completely missing the point...you mentioned an entire Phase II of Transfer City but if someone else proposes even one subway project, you claim this plan is unaffordable.

Not at all. I do not want subway construction in Toronto to stop forever. As the population grows, more subways will be needed.

I just want a reasonable Phase I of the combined plan, subways + LRT, not just LRT / Transit City. Reasonable means it is fiscally realistic (within the known commitments/announcements), covers the most pressing needs (does not collapse in case Phase II is delayed), yet extensible (if Phase II arrives, it builds on top of Phase I).

You still think I desire nothing but subway lines because it's easier to fight with such a straw man.

I never said that ... and if you really could read my thoughts, you would know that I do not "think" that, either.

On the contrary, your approach to the capabilities of transit modes (subways vs LRT vs buses) is quite fair and thoughtful. It is the fiscal context that concerns me.

A Warden streetcar would be decades away and would only happen given billions of dollars of funding (and if we got $100B of funding we might as well build a Jane streetcar, too).

Accepted.

How can someone constantly going on about how there's no money think a billion dollar streetcar line (it'll end up being this much) on Jane is the best use of limited funds, a top priority?

Again, I do not claim that "Jane is the best use of limited funds"; just wanted to clarify your opinion on Jane vs Warden priority.

 

[scarberiankhatru]

The fiscal context of why I think Transfer City is a largely stupid plan is that the province funded every project that it was asked to fund...it did not take $18B and divy it up as best it could. Transit isn't funded by taking a set amount of dollars and then trying to divide it up...it's funded on a project by project (photo-op) basis. That's the main flaw in your arguments that replacing Transfer City with subways wouldn't be possible with the promised funding - that's not what was asked for.

What's not fiscally realistic is building Transit City and then replacing it with subways 20 years later. Once light rail goes onto any of these corridors, no one in Toronto will live to see it replaced with something else.

In my "subway-rich universe" I may not even build an Eglinton subway...I wouldn't just assume a subway is the best thing to do and start building it, which is what's being done with all these LRT lines.

Here's how the city proposed to pay for Transit City:
There is no funding currently provided in the TTC’s or City of Toronto’s capital budgets for the implementation of the Toronto Transit City – Light Rail Plan as described in this report. Implementation of this Plan is dependent on funding support from the Province of Ontario and the Government of Canada.

If it can do this for $9B worth of streetcars, making it their top funding priority (including Jane, which you found no fault with), it can do this for any transit projects...the city has just chosen not to.

 

[Rainforest]

The fiscal context of why I think Transfer City is a largely stupid plan is that the province funded every project that it was asked to fund...it did not take $18B and divy it up as best it could. Transit isn't funded by taking a set amount of dollars and then trying to divide it up...it's funded on a project by project (photo-op) basis. That's the main flaw in your arguments that replacing Transfer City with subways wouldn't be possible with the promised funding - that's not what was asked for.

But if a photo-op was too expensive, the politicians would get scared away and seek popularity on other accounts. Perhaps a merit of Transit City is that it (largely, although transit projects in other parts of GTA played their role) brought the transit funding back to spotlight.

Had the city proposed something really ambitious (multiple subways) back then, it probably would get ignored completely.

What's not fiscally realistic is building Transit City and then replacing it with subways 20 years later. Once light rail goes onto any of these corridors, no one in Toronto will live to see it replaced with something else.

This is probably the case. Replacing LRT with subway after 20 or 30 years might make sense technically (LRT has solidified the area and prepared the ridership for subway), but will be a hard sell politically (competes against new priorities).

 

[scarberiankhatru]

But if a photo-op was too expensive, the politicians would get scared away and seek popularity on other accounts. Perhaps a merit of Transit City is that it (largely, although transit projects in other parts of GTA played their role) brought the transit funding back to spotlight.

Not at all. MoveOntario included subway projects...there's really no such thing as too expensive when you're funding everything that was asked for.

Had the city proposed something really ambitious (multiple subways) back then, it probably would get ignored completely.

Of course not. And $9B of LRT that it has no intention of paying for isn't ambitious?

This is probably the case. Replacing LRT with subway after 20 or 30 years might make sense technically (LRT has solidified the area and prepared the ridership for subway), but will be a hard sell politically (competes against new priorities).

If a subway line is already known to be desired, no, it does not make sense technically, particularly along Sheppard. What does "solidifying the area" even mean? Physical changes can be brought about through rezoning and other planning tools. The future subway ridership base won't exist until the subway is built and cannot be prepared beforehand. You're not going to need park-n-ride lots at the end of streetcar lines. People in the suburbs won't base their house-buying decision on whether or not a streetcar station is nearby. People won't switch from other parallel lines unless there's substantial time savings...saving 5 minutes on the trip from Malvern to Don Mills would be a good thing for people along Sheppard, but no one's going to alter their commute for that.

 

[urbanfan89]

We should just build Eglinton as a full subway route, with major cost savings by having parts of it in viaducts and sunken. Eglinton West is already proven to be viable for a subway (more so than the Sheppard line), and a grade-separated rapid transit line can be extended with an elevated viaduct in Scarborough.

The Eglinton line should be a complete segregated route, with parts of it above ground, sunken, and tunnelled.

http://maps.google.com/maps/ms?ie=U....686495,-79.354248&spn=0.217233,0.517731&z=12

Red markers: transfer required for surface routes
Blue markers: Integrated bus/LRT terminals here
Red lines: elevated viaducts, note elevated section in Scarborough
Green lines: sunken, similar to the Yonge Subway around Rosedale or Davisville
Blue lines: below grade, will mostly be tunnelled though some sections could be Cut and Cover.

 

[W. K. Lis]

Here's examples of the Paris LRT in subway and surface. And imagine that on Eglinton and elsewhere. Paris uses grass on their right-of-way, but the SOS people would probably complain that emergency vehicles would not be able to use it. Note the size of the trams.

 

[Voltz]

We should just build Eglinton as a full subway route, with major cost savings by having parts of it in viaducts and sunken. Eglinton West is already proven to be viable for a subway (more so than the Sheppard line), and a grade-separated rapid transit line can be extended with an elevated viaduct in Scarborough.

The Eglinton line should be a complete segregated route, with parts of it above ground, sunken, and tunnelled.

http://maps.google.com/maps/ms?ie=U....686495,-79.354248&spn=0.217233,0.517731&z=12

Red markers: transfer required for surface routes
Blue markers: Integrated bus/LRT terminals here
Red lines: elevated viaducts, note elevated section in Scarborough
Green lines: sunken, similar to the Yonge Subway around Rosedale or Davisville
Blue lines: below grade, will mostly be tunnelled though some sections could be Cut and Cover.

Why? What is the advantage over the proposed TC line, in the central section, it is already underground, the western section would be running through a field with pretty wide stop spacing, and the eastern section would have wide spacing as well. Plus it is more than capable of handling the projected demand.

I also hate elevated lines; they make the street much less desirable, particularly the wide stations that would be over intersections

"just build a subway" is not a good enough reason.

 

[Dan416]

"just build a subway" is not a good enough reason.

Sometimes it is, e.g. when it comes to Sheppard East, since it's already there. Eglinton I'd prefer as a subway, but it won't be the end of the world if it's an LRT line, if done properly (i.e. nearly subway-stop spacing). And the SRT should just be done away with.

 

[scarberiankhatru]

The Eglinton LRT could be a success but it could be a multi-billion dollar disaster...we can't know until they release more information on how they plan to build and operate it. It won't be fully grade separated, so it won't be a full rapid transit line (cue "but city X has light rail that..."). Yet, if we built a tunneled/grade-separated LRT, the cost will be almost the same as a subway line...LRT has no inherent advantage here other than world-class awesomeness that comes with being the transit technology du jour. A line doesn't have to be fully grade-separated to be useful, but we don't yet know if it'll be a rapid transit line or it'll be the Spadina streetcar in a tunnel. The current streetcar network is way too messed up for us to be able to trust them that they'll run the vast surface sections as well as they could be.

We should just build Eglinton as a full subway route, with major cost savings by having parts of it in viaducts and sunken. Eglinton West is already proven to be viable for a subway (more so than the Sheppard line), and a grade-separated rapid transit line can be extended with an elevated viaduct in Scarborough.

The Eglinton line should be a complete segregated route, with parts of it above ground, sunken, and tunnelled.

http://maps.google.com/maps/ms?ie=U....686495,-79.354248&spn=0.217233,0.517731&z=12

Red markers: transfer required for surface routes
Blue markers: Integrated bus/LRT terminals here
Red lines: elevated viaducts, note elevated section in Scarborough
Green lines: sunken, similar to the Yonge Subway around Rosedale or Davisville
Blue lines: below grade, will mostly be tunnelled though some sections could be Cut and Cover.

Eglinton West is certainly not more "proven viable" than Sheppard...5.5km of subway would be just as stubway as the Sheppard line and a four stop Eglinton line would be running 4 car trains, too.

There's nothing wrong with some elevated stretches...it's not like the big box stores around Warden or the grass setbacks around Don Mills would be adversely affected. The eastern and western thirds of an Eglinton subway are potentially cheap enough that the option must be studied alongside an LRT.

If it's going to go all the way to Renforth, might as well run it straight into the airport...the busway can continue on to Martin Grove where the hydro corridor lies. An Eglinton subway absolutely must also be run along to Markham, not stopped at Kennedy.

 

[Rainforest]

Rainforest

The Eglinton LRT could be a success but it could be a multi-billion dollar disaster...we can't know until they release more information on how they plan to build and operate it. It won't be fully grade separated, so it won't be a full rapid transit line (cue "but city X has light rail that..."). Yet, if we built a tunneled/grade-separated LRT, the cost will be almost the same as a subway line...LRT has no inherent advantage here other than world-class awesomeness that comes with being the transit technology du jour. A line doesn't have to be fully grade-separated to be useful, but we don't yet know if it'll be a rapid transit line or it'll be the Spadina streetcar in a tunnel. The current streetcar network is way too messed up for us to be able to trust them that they'll run the vast surface sections as well as they could be.

Perhaps this can be resolved the following way. Initially, the section from Jane to Don Mills is built fully grade-separate (mostly tunnel but may be elevated east of Laird) and with curves and platforms that allow really long LRT trains, 5-6 cars. Sections west of Jane and east of Don Mills are originally built as surface ROW light rail, for 2-car trains.

When the line comes into service, 2-car trains operate from Kennedy to Renforth or Airport, on headways 5 min or so. In addition, longer 3-car or 4-car trains run between Jane and Don Mills. This configuration will certainly handle the volumes for 10 years or more.

In future, if needed, the grade-separate part can be extended both ways piece-by-piece, until the whole line becomes essentially a subway (long trains, high capacity, fully grade-separate), that just happens to be served by LRT-type rolling stock (low platform and overhead power collection). Those additional costs will only be incurred if needed, unlike the HRT choice that will require all costs upfront.

The addition of new grade-separate sections will not require a closure of the central, Jane to Don Mills, part. This is an advantage of the above scheme over the present TTC plan (build LRT tunnel but make it convertible to HRT).

 

[Hipster Duck]

LRT has no inherent advantage here other than world-class awesomeness that comes with being the transit technology du jour.

Awesome. And, to add, we would find ourselves in the company of other world class metropoli as Calgary and Strasbourg and Kassel and Charlotte and Minneapolis!

 

[waterloowarrior]

Awesome. And, to add, we would find ourselves in the company of other world class metropoli as Calgary and Strasbourg and Kassel and Charlotte and Minneapolis!

along with Paris, London, and New York . . .

 

[CDL.TO]

along with Paris, London, and New York . . .

You mean the Banlieues, Croydon, and Newark. All more comparable to Transit City (in location, not in application) than to the downtown network.

 

[hamiltonguyo]

You mean the Banlieues, Croydon, and Newark. All more comparable to Transit City (in location, not in application) than to the downtown network.

It's interesting to note that London is adding 1-3 new LRTs soon (CrossThames Transit in the West End of Central London, West End Transit, and Greenwhich Waterfront Traffic are all possible LRTs esp. CrossThames)