News   Apr 25, 2024
News Roundup for April 25, 2024
 131     0 
News   Apr 25, 2024
How It Started
 393     0 
News   Apr 24, 2024
Latest Iteration of 50 Eglinton West Proposes 46- and 58-Storey Towers
 1.3K     1 

Toronto Crosstown LRT | ?m | ?s | Metrolinx | Arcadis

JSF-1 said:
I think another thing that needs to be understood about getting people out of cars and onto transit isn't just the transit line itself but the convenience of driving. I know over here in North America it is a sacrilegious idea but one of the things that needs to be accepted is the fact that building transit alone won't get people out of their cars. You also need to make driving itself less desirable. This is one of the less talked about reasons for why transit usage is so high over in Europe and East Asia, its because driving over there comes with more "baggage" then over here. Planners over there have absolutely no qualms with taking away driving lanes for things like Bike Lanes, pedestrian space, or transit lanes whereas over here its like pulling teeth from a dog. You also have things like congestion charges like in London, streets being closed to car traffic entirely like in Madrid, or the incredible expense of owning a car in Japan. Then of course there is the question of our atrocious urban planning practises that also lends itself to the car culture we have over here and further hurts the ability of public transit to be used and be built.
Click to expand...
Except that's not how it works in Europe. You go to cities like Berlin, Tokyo, Madrid, and even Sydney , and they have extensive highway networks, even moreso than what we have here in Toronto. The reason why Transit has such a high marketshare then is because transit in these cities IS COMPETITIVE WITH THE CAR. I can take the U-Bahn in Berlin, and comfortably get from one side of the city to the next with barely any issues. Meanwhile in Toronto we're building subpar Light Rail lines that stop at every red light, and that ultimately don't show any advantage over the car. People don't take the car because they're stubborn, people take the car because most of the time its the best and most convenient option.
 
ARG1 said:
Except that's not how it works in Europe. You go to cities like Berlin, Tokyo, Madrid, and even Sydney , and they have extensive highway networks, even moreso than what we have here in Toronto. The reason why Transit has such a high marketshare then is because transit in these cities IS COMPETITIVE WITH THE CAR. I can take the U-Bahn in Berlin, and comfortably get from one side of the city to the next with barely any issues. Meanwhile in Toronto we're building subpar Light Rail lines that stop at every red light, and that ultimately don't show any advantage over the car. People don't take the car because they're stubborn, people take the car because most of the time its the best and most convenient option.
Click to expand...
Yes and transit is competitive with the Car because those cities don't put the car on a pedestal like we do. As I said if any one of those cities wanted to do something like tare up a car lane to install a bike lane they would do it. If they wanted to build a streetcar line at the expense of 2 lanes of car traffic they would do it. Those cities have absolutely no issue making driving more inconvenient if it means making public transit more convenient. Those cities also have far better urban planning principles which ensures public transit is always available. As for highways do they really? Most Eurpean cities keep their Highways to the outer peripheries of there cities since they didn't fall for the "blasting a highway through your downtown core" joke like we and American cities did. This itself lends itself to greater transit usage since driving from the suburbs into the downtown core is hard due to the lack of direct highway access. Most Londoners have no problem taking the train when the alternative is sitting on the M25 for 2 hours. Tokyo isn't even an exception since while it has an extensive urban freeway network, all those highways are tolled so this adds a further expense the vehicle ownership in Japan. Transit is competitive in Europe and East Asia because either by the nature of the cities and urban planning or by intentional design (i.e. Toll roads or congestion charges) driving is simply an investment many aren't willing to make either due to time or cost. Then of course once you have this large captive market, expansion of the transit system becomes even easier. Transit shouldn't have to compete with the car, the car should have to compete with transit.
 
Last edited:
ARG1 said:
Except that's not how it works in Europe. You go to cities like Berlin, Tokyo, Madrid, and even Sydney , and they have extensive highway networks, even moreso than what we have here in Toronto. The reason why Transit has such a high marketshare then is because transit in these cities IS COMPETITIVE WITH THE CAR. I can take the U-Bahn in Berlin, and comfortably get from one side of the city to the next with barely any issues. Meanwhile in Toronto we're building subpar Light Rail lines that stop at every red light, and that ultimately don't show any advantage over the car. People don't take the car because they're stubborn, people take the car because most of the time its the best and most convenient option.
Click to expand...

I believe public transit is popular in Europe due to a combination of factors. Good price / high subsidy level ceratinly plays a role. And, many old capitals have extensive subway networks, built at the times when construction was cheaper. Plus, the built form: if driving the car is easy, but parking the car at both your destination and at you home in the historical part of the city is a chore, then you are less likely to drive.

European cities often have good highway networks; attacking the cars with artificial traffic jams is not the strategy they use. They do restrict or close certain areas for cars, that applies more to the final destinations than to roads leading there.

Though, I would not call the Eglinton LRT design "subpar". That on-street eastern section will have minimal effect on the line's performance, because it is short. That 9 km stretch can be travelled in 24 min at 23 kph (surface LRT speed), or in 17 min at 32 kph (subway speed with a wide stop spacing). So, we are looking at a ~ 7 min diff in the travel time. Maybe some people who can take either Line 2 or the LRT, will opt for Line 2 because of that extra travel time on LRT. So what, the eastern sections of both Line 2 and the LRT will not be close to full capacity for a long time, if the Ontario Line is built.

Yes, it will be slightly odd to have the lightly used western section all grade-separated, while in the east, the grade separation only reaching Laird and not even Don Mills. And, knowing before hand that the west will end up being grade-separated, it would make most sense to do the same in the east.

But I prefer to look at the situation this way. Going from the mixed-traffic buses that always get stuck, to the hybrid LRT design (partly tunnel and partly street median), delivers ~ 80% of benefits. Going from the hybrid LRT to full grade separation, would deliver the remaining 20% of benefits. So, the proverbial glass is certainly more than half full.
 
JSF-1 said:
Yes and transit is competitive with the Car because those cities don't put the car on a pedestal like we do. As I said if any one of those cities wanted to do something like tare up a car lane to install a bike lane they would do it. If they wanted to build a streetcar line at the expense of 2 lanes of car traffic they would do it. Those cities have absolutely no issue making driving more inconvenient if it means making public transit more convenient. Those cities also have far better urban planning principles which ensures public transit is always available. As for highways do they really? Most Eurpean cities keep their Highways to the outer peripheries of there cities since they didn't fall for the "blasting a highway through your downtown core" joke like we and American cities did. This itself lends itself to greater transit usage since driving from the suburbs into the downtown core is hard due to the lack of direct highway access. Most Londoners have no problem taking the train when the alternative is sitting on the M25 for 2 hours. Tokyo isn't even an exception since while it has an extensive urban freeway network, all those highways are tolled so this adds a further expense the vehicle ownership in Japan. Transit is competitive in Europe and East Asia because either by the nature of the cities and urban planning or by intentional design (i.e. Toll roads or congestion charges) driving is simply an investment many aren't willing to make either due to time or cost. Then of course once you have this large captive market, expansion of the transit system becomes even easier. Transit shouldn't have to compete with the car, the car should have to compete with transit.
Click to expand...
Those cities don't put cars on a pedestal? I'd like you to find a point in Amsterdam where you're not at least 5km away from a motorway. I'll wait.
 
JSF-1 said:
Yes and transit is competitive with the Car because those cities don't put the car on a pedestal like we do. As I said if any one of those cities wanted to do something like tare up a car lane to install a bike lane they would do it. If they wanted to build a streetcar line at the expense of 2 lanes of car traffic they would do it. Those cities have absolutely no issue making driving more inconvenient if it means making public transit more convenient. Those cities also have far better urban planning principles which ensures public transit is always available. As for highways do they really? Most Eurpean cities keep their Highways to the outer peripheries of there cities since they didn't fall for the "blasting a highway through your downtown core" joke like we and American cities did. This itself lends itself to greater transit usage since driving from the suburbs into the downtown core is hard due to the lack of direct highway access. Most Londoners have no problem taking the train when the alternative is sitting on the M25 for 2 hours. Tokyo isn't even an exception since while it has an extensive urban freeway network, all those highways are tolled so this adds a further expense the vehicle ownership in Japan. Transit is competitive in Europe and East Asia because either by the nature of the cities and urban planning or by intentional design (i.e. Toll roads or congestion charges) driving is simply an investment many aren't willing to make either due to time or cost. Then of course once you have this large captive market, expansion of the transit system becomes even easier. Transit shouldn't have to compete with the car, the car should have to compete with transit.
Click to expand...
Agreed.

Let's not forget that Ford's problem with Transit City in 2010 wasn't that it was poor transit, but rather that it was part of the "War On The Car". His entire transit platform was about appealing to car culture.

For the past while our transit philosophy has been about projects that don't make things anymore difficult for drivers.
 
syn said:
Agreed.

Let's not forget that Ford's problem with Transit City in 2010 wasn't that it was poor transit, but rather that it was part of the "War On The Car". His entire transit platform was about appealing to car culture.

For the past while our transit philosophy has been about projects that don't make things anymore difficult for drivers.
Click to expand...

The irony of that is that the on street Eglinton portion of the LRT widened the road so that no lanes were lost, and the Scarborough LRT was entirely grade separated.

The only issue I take with the at-grade portion of the Crosstown is that its not great rapid transit, it has nothing to do with its effect on cars.
 
robmausser said:
The irony of that is that the on street Eglinton portion of the LRT widened the road so that no lanes were lost, and the Scarborough LRT was entirely grade separated.

The only issue I take with the at-grade portion of the Crosstown is that its not great rapid transit, it has nothing to do with its effect on cars.
Click to expand...
Eglinton did have an additional bus/HOV peak hour/general off peak lane.
 
ARG1 said:
Those cities don't put cars on a pedestal? I'd like you to find a point in Amsterdam where you're not at least 5km away from a motorway. I'll wait.
Click to expand...
Maybe you should realize that Amsterdam's contiguous urban area is like 15km across, maybe 25km if you use the most extreme measurement possible.

Toronto's continuous urban area is at least 30 km across no matter how you measure, and the only reason some measurements are only 30km is because of the lake. Most measurements are in the ballpark of 50km, and if you measure Burlington to Oshawa that's 100km.

30km from Amsterdam gets you to Utrecht. 50 gets you to Rotterdam. 100km gets you to Belgium. Or Germany. That's how terrible Toronto's car-centric sprawl is. Now, I wonder, where is Amsterdam's car-centric urban sprawl?

Distance to a highway is a silly question. The question more worth asking is, what proportion of OD pairs within a city have no reasonable alternative to driving? Or, what is the car mode share in the city? (hint: Amsterdam's is only 27% auto https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modal_share)

Amsterdam has good road infrastructure, good transit infrastructure, good cycling infrastructure, and good pedestrian infrastructure. Toronto has decent road infrastructure and terrible everything else.
The reason they can afford stuff and we can't is because as soon as you put cars on the pedestal and create massive swaths of car-centric urban sprawl, suddenly you need more roads, more services, more bus routes, more of everything per capita and per taxpayer, and suddenly you can no longer afford anything.
 
And yet Amsterdam's average population density is almost identical to Toronto, if I'm understanding the numbers right.
 
sche said:
Maybe you should realize that Amsterdam's contiguous urban area is like 15km across, maybe 25km if you use the most extreme measurement possible.

Toronto's continuous urban area is at least 30 km across no matter how you measure, and the only reason some measurements are only 30km is because of the lake. Most measurements are in the ballpark of 50km, and if you measure Burlington to Oshawa that's 100km.

30km from Amsterdam gets you to Utrecht. 50 gets you to Rotterdam. 100km gets you to Belgium. Or Germany. That's how terrible Toronto's car-centric sprawl is. Now, I wonder, where is Amsterdam's car-centric urban sprawl?

Distance to a highway is a silly question. The question more worth asking is, what proportion of OD pairs within a city have no reasonable alternative to driving? Or, what is the car mode share in the city? (hint: Amsterdam's is only 27% auto https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modal_share)

Amsterdam has good road infrastructure, good transit infrastructure, good cycling infrastructure, and good pedestrian infrastructure. Toronto has decent road infrastructure and terrible everything else.
The reason they can afford stuff and we can't is because as soon as you put cars on the pedestal and create massive swaths of car-centric urban sprawl, suddenly you need more roads, more services, more bus routes, more of everything per capita and per taxpayer, and suddenly you can no longer afford anything.
Click to expand...
The point being though that the city is quite accessible by car, with there being a highway that connects the outer ring road directly into the CBD.
 
Undead said:
And yet Amsterdam's average population density is almost identical to Toronto, if I'm understanding the numbers right.
Click to expand...
What are you comparing to what?

If you compare the 6.6 million in the urban portion of the Randstadt, you get a density of 1,500/km². Compare to the 6.4 million in the GTA where you get a density of only 849/km².
 
Ample parking, multiple lanes, and lack of connections will be a challenge against transit for many years to come if not forever in Toronto. To compare it to Europe and cities like Amsterdam is ridiculous at best. Transit here only works if you live, work, and play near transit. If you do, good for you, but you are missing the other 1000km of Ontario :)
 
afransen said:
You mean the Randstadt vs GTA? They have lots of farmland between cities.
Click to expand...

from wiki

Capture.PNG
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top