Referendum on Transit City needed

[Tewder]

Even if you hate 90% of Transit City you're still better to support maintaining it - even just the 10% you do like - than a "let's go back to the drawing board!" move. Salvaging the good is better than hoping for better.

I have to agree with AoD. It is time to stop hoping for better and start demanding better, regardless of who is mayor. I cannot understand such a defeatist, 'crumbs are better than nothing' attitude for a prosperous growing city like Toronto. Well not 'crumbs' exactly but you know what I mean.

 

[GraphicMatt]

But holding to some sort of ideals wherein eventually there will come a perfect transit plan divorced from politics and social engineering and so on means waiting a hell of a long time. Maybe forever.

In the meantime, we are literally only a shovel's distance away from building rapid transit on Eglinton Avenue that will meet the needs of the city for decades.

 

[js97]

But holding to some sort of ideals wherein eventually there will come a perfect transit plan divorced from politics and social engineering and so on means waiting a hell of a long time. Maybe forever.

In the meantime, we are literally only a shovel's distance away from building rapid transit on Eglinton Avenue that will meet the needs of the city for decades.

That is rhetoric if I've ever heard.


Not sure if you forgot, Province pulled the 4 billion required to put shovels down....

No money!


ready to do a special 4 year assessment of 1 thousand per household?

 

[GraphicMatt]

That is rhetoric if I've ever heard.


Not sure if you forgot, Province pulled the 4 billion required to put shovels down....

No money!


ready to do a special 4 year assessment of 1 thousand per household?

The province has transferred money to start the Eglinton line (boring machines have been ordered and paid for), but you are correct the post-2015 money is cash that the province hasn't sourced yet.

 

[Tewder]

But holding to some sort of ideals wherein eventually there will come a perfect transit plan divorced from politics and social engineering and so on means waiting a hell of a long time. Maybe forever.

In the meantime, we are literally only a shovel's distance away from building rapid transit on Eglinton Avenue that will meet the needs of the city for decades.

... or upgrading it somewhat now to meet the growing needs for far longer?

Yes, I agree it's an endless debate... but at least we are having the debate. It wasn't that long ago when transit was completely ignored, when it was completely apolitical. It is only with the latest election that the public spotlight has been on the debate... which is where it should have been for the past 20 or 30 years...

and I do find it dispiriting that our city leaders are unable or incapable to think long term when it comes to large infrastructure projects. It isn't an issue of 'ideals' so much as self-serving politicians taking advantage of an apathetic public. It is up to the people of Toronto, of the whole GTA, to demand long term thinking and responsible investment in the right infrastructure plans. This should have been demanded decades ago and we would have had more subway and LRT lines by now. In other words, it is the responsibility of each generation to keep this going. Instead of the ongoing polarizing rhetoric that dominates public discourse what we should be talking about is what we expect and demand of our governments, regardless of political stripe. Grrrrrrr, frustration!

 

[GraphicMatt]

... or upgrading it somewhat now to meet the growing needs for far longer?

But the capacity gain isn't free - you pay for it in spades due to operating costs. The Sheppard subway is so poorly regarded by many because it's seen as a huge drain on the operating budget each year. The Vaughan extension will be the same way.

Yes, I agree it's an endless debate... but at least we are having the debate. It wasn't that long ago when transit was completely ignored, when it was completely apolitical. It is only with the latest election that the public spotlight has been on the debate... which is where it should have been for the past 20 or 30 years...

and I do find it dispiriting that our city leaders are unable or incapable to think long term when it comes to large infrastructure projects. It isn't an issue of 'ideals' so much as self-serving politicians taking advantage of an apathetic public. It is up to the people of Toronto, of the whole GTA, to demand long term thinking and responsible investment in the right infrastructure plans. This should have been demanded decades ago and we would have had more subway and LRT lines by now. In other words, it is the responsibility of each generation to keep this going. Instead of the ongoing polarizing rhetoric that dominates public discourse what we should be talking about is what we expect and demand of our governments, regardless of political stripe. Grrrrrrr, frustration!

I don't disagree with any of this (except when you indicate that transit was a major issues during the last election - it wasn't, really) but whereas you seem to hold to some sort of measured solution to these problems I think the only way out is pure compromise.

We should make the best of what we have now because there are surely a number of forces out there who would much prefer we push transit back to the planning stages and avoid spending capital dollars until the larger economic (and deficit) outlook improves.

 

[scarberiankhatru]

Factors like connecting routes can skew the numbers somewhat, but they mostly shift riders from one nearby station to another. Chester with no routes has a low ridership, but Pape next door has a much higher ridership than the other Danforth stations. A line averages out to match the density of its surroundings. For Danforth that average is about 20,000 daily riders per km. For Sheppard it's more like 5,000 riders per km. No amount of feeder route tweaking will do much to change those numbers.

It's also surprising how little effect trip generators seem to have. Consider Yorkdale. One of the largest malls with a GO Transit and Greyhound station, but look at the rider numbers for that stretch of the system:

Lawrence West - 20,560
Yorkdale - 24,930
Wilson - 21,680

There is nothing much of note at Lawrence West or Wilson, and while Yorkdale does get more riders it's only a few thousand.

Thanks for proving my argument. I know you didn't mean to, though.

What do Broadview and Pape have that Chester does not? People coming in on buses, and many from places that aren't that close by like Thorncliffe and Flemingdon Park. Density does not determine station usage unless you factor out feeder bus routes, malls, schools, and park'n'kiss'n'riders. North York Centre vs Chester vs Bessarion make sense with density. Warden vs Wellesley does not. Demographics also play a role, as does distance from the core.

Feeder route differences explain most of the higher average use for stations along the Danforth compared to Bayview/Bessarion/Leslie. What if the city connected O'Connor and St. Clair East and buses fed different stations? There goes half the ridership at Broadview and Pape. Meanwhile, the next 10 years will see like 5000 condo units added to the middle of Sheppard. If they did extend Sheppard, Sheppard's hinterland would expand to include the dense areas east of Don Mills...the area at and east of Don Mills was always denser than the areas around Bayview and Leslie.

If the density of those 500m radii around stations is all that matters, why does Yorkdale see more use than Museum? Lawrence West and Wilson have very busy bus routes feeding it...each probably sees 12K-15K riders a day from them. Yorkdale sees close to zero TTC riders connecting to it, but does see 15K+ people a day going to the mall. There's less density at Yorkdale and no feeder bus routes, but there are a lot of shoppers.

That, for sure, is a genuine deep flaw with transit city. It’s not really tied up with the official plan for intensification in the city. But it’s the first money that’s been available in generations, so just take it and run and damn the consequences :|

The two biggest zones or corridors slated for growth - growth that actually planned and underway - is the King/raillands/portlands/waterfront zone and the Sheppard corridor between Downsview and STC. There's plenty of other infill townhouses and condo complexes in the pipeline all over the city, but those two zones are the biggest if we're talking about rapid transit corridors. Tridel is still advertising "future TTC subway station" for its Metrogate complex at Kennedy & the 401.

Looking at the density map, a strong case could be made that the Flemingdon-Thorncliffe area along Eglinton East is the single part of the city most in need of higher order transit.

If you were basing transit expansion solely on density, no. That would be a line downtown like King.

Conveniently, a DRL could serve both downtown and Thorncliffe/Flemingdon. The DRL, not Eglinton, would serve spots like Thorncliffe. Most of Flemingdon isn't close to Eglinton, either.

But, darn it, we can't have a DRL because we're too busy running all the lines out to Malvern.

 

[Chuck]

Well here's what I would do, and what is probably most politically feasible:

1) All approved Transit City funding, except that going toward underground portions of Sheppard, gets diverted toward underground parts of the Eglinton LRT. Construction starts ASAP.
2) Underground portions of Sheppard still get built, BUT the design is changed to be subway instead. Construction starts ASAP.
3) All remaining aspects of Transit City are canceled.
4) All pending but not released Transit City funding goes toward building the DRL, as a subway, in the hopefully not too distant future.

The advantages are:
a) TBMs and many LRT vehicles are still purchased and put to use, reducing wasted money and cancellation fees.
b) The LRT tunnels beginning at Don Mills would have represented a permanent roadblock at the east end of the Sheppard subway, but are replaced with subway at almost no change in cost.
c) With the surface component to the Eglinton line gone, souped up LRT consisting of much longer train sets can be used without conflict, and easily accommodate future capacity needs.
d) The silly parts of Transit City that would either need to be replaced with subway rather soon anyway, or are just not needed at all, are canceled.
e) We instantly have money for the DRL!

EDIT: Also, Rob Ford gets his subways, left leaning councilors get to keep most of Transit City, and Rob Ford can ditch the Queen streetcar for subway instead depending on the alignment. Most importantly, all of the funding is approved!

 

[GraphicMatt]

You left out the SRT which is the most pressing item because it's falling apart.

None of these mix-and-match solutions are as simple as people think they could be, and it tends to shake out that someone is going to be left out in the cold. ie. You can either do Eglinton + SRT or Sheppard + SRT but not any significant combination of the three.

 

[Chuck]

You left out the SRT which is the most pressing item because it's falling apart.

None of these mix-and-match solutions are as simple as people think they could be, and it tends to shake out that someone is going to be left out in the cold. ie. You can either do Eglinton + SRT or Sheppard + SRT but not any significant combination of the three.

Oops, you're right. It's not too difficult to start all three projects at once - it's maybe 1-2 km of subway on Sheppard east of Don Mills, 10km along Eglinton, and 4-5km to STC. At $300M per kilometre, that'sabout $5 billion, compared to the $4 billion in approved funding? Maybe the Eglinton LRT could end not quite as far west in the interim.

 

[nfitz]

I disagree. Unlike 2006, when it only rarely made an appearance, transportation ranked second in most polls to the budget/taxes. Wikipedia went one step further...

Really - your quoting Wikipedia? A tertiary source? Come on, anyone can edit that ... and I already have.

 

[Asterix]

Maybe the Eglinton LRT could end not quite as far west in the interim.

But there is more to transit systems than drawing lines on a map with arbitrary end points.

If you stop the western part of the line, where are you going to store your LRVs?

Current plan has the Kodak lands at Black Creek slated to be the yard. But now you don't want to run the line that far.

So not only have you not accounted for the costs in building that maintenance/storage yard, but you haven't even got a suitable place to put it.

Refusing to acknowledge even such basic aspects of various transit lines, regardless of subway or LRT technology really makes the proposals not worth discussing.

 

[sixrings]

EGLINTON should be from JANE to DON MILLS underground... If thats the two spots where they are going to connect with future lines it should be Underground...

 

[Asterix]

c) With the surface component to the Eglinton line gone, souped up LRT consisting of much longer train sets can be used without conflict, and easily accommodate future capacity needs.

Which projections are you using that conclude that future capacity needs on Eglinton within the next generation are anything close to the maximum capable of being handled by the current LRT plan?

d) The silly parts of Transit City that would either need to be replaced with subway rather soon anyway, or are just not needed at all, are canceled.

Can you be more specific about the "silly parts" of TC that would need to be replaced with subway rather soon? I'm not aware of any realistic demand projections for any proposed TC route that suggest the LRT would be insufficient any time soon.

Could you also clarify which lines are "just not needed at all"? I thought the point was to put higher order transit on major surbuban corridors whose current bus system is turning out to be less than desirable.

e) We instantly have money for the DRL!

I suspect you don't really have a good idea as to how much the DRL is going to cost. Major factors that are going to heavily increase your presumed $300 million/km include tunneling under a section of downtown that already has an awful lot of man made stuff underground (so a lot trickier than tunneling under sprawling industrial land in Vaughan).

It also needs to include rolling stock. For that matter, it also needs somewhere to put that rolling stock. Do you have the money and a location you plan to build a new yard? Or will you spend some money to expand Wilson? If so, have you figured out how much it is going to cost to try and build a connection with the YUS line in the tight constraints of downtown?

We need a DRL, definitely before any Richmond Hill or Mississauga extensions. But we certainly aren't going to get the money to build it by tweaking TC plans and magically producing 'efficiencies'.

 

[Asterix]

EGLINTON should be from JANE to DON MILLS underground... If thats the two spots where they are going to connect with future lines it should be Underground...

Just so you know, that is not exactly going to be a token extra cost.

Have a look at the geography at each of the planned portals west of Keele and west of Leslie. Both come out of the side of a rather long and steep hill just before a stream.

If we want to continue tunneling instead of running on the surface, we are going to have to go a lot deeper coming down the hills (possibly meaning a deeper station for the previous station) and then have to deal with whatever issues there may be with tunneling under a watercourse.

On the western end, instead of having a straightforward signaled intersection to enter the LRV yard at Black Creek, you are now going to have to figure out a way to come up from underground when entering the yard. Another portal there will add to your construction bill and design headaches.