saveoursubways (SOS)

[EnviroTO]

How much savings can be had by piggybacking subway construction onto the Georgetown work? I would think anything short of allowing cut-and-cover is unlikely to generate substantial savings. In this case that's not going to happen. So how much can be saved?

Not much. The West Toronto Diamond is well under construction with no allowance for subway and the Georgetown EA is taking up all the space in the corridor, minus the Railpath area, in addition to requiring some minor property acquisitions. The only way they could save money in the corridor is to take land away from Railpath and cut-and-cover under the corridor before the corridor tracks are laid. The density of the rail yard, St.Clair townhomes, and Ross' No Frills don't require the subway currently. The value of DRL West is offloading some Bloor capacity and serving the intensification and destinations located primarily south of Queen. There is little value for it to currently go north of Bloor. The DRL West is a different story due to Cosburn, Thorncliffe and Flemingdon Park.

 

[Whoaccio]

I'd just like to point out that a crosstown Eglinton subway isn't really that important. As long as the transfer with whatever the route used in the extremities was done properly, the difference would be marginal.

1.) Serving YYZ isn't really the be all and end all of transit planning. Most of its employees live in Peel Region, and the only area which has a significant group willing to take public transit to the airport is Downtown. Outside the core, bus service along the highways would be way better (i.e. a bus which goes along the 401, ducking into centers like STC and Sheppard Station on its way to YYZ). Connections to YYZ should be a bonus, not a goal.

2.) Connectivity with Mississauga Transit obviates the need for any kind of Westward subway. If we build a subway to suck up MT passengers, 99% of them will reach it by bus. So, no matter where we put a subway, MT users will have to deal with a Bus/Subway transfer. The comparison would be how much time would be saved by transferring the MT users to a subway near YYZ versus having them use a kind of Richview Transitway to transfer at a station around Jane? My guess is not much, assuming a properly functioning busway, so why bother with extending the subway?

3.) Eglinton east of Don Mills isn't really lacking in capacity. It's busy, but it's not problematic. The issues with Eglinton are the high congestion west of Don Mills, plus the other high volume buses which use the same stretch of road. If we built some kind of rapid transit at DonMills Eglinton, that would stop buses from being caught in congestion near Mt. Pleasant and Eglinton. Some kind of super-bus service could easily cope with an isolated Don Mills - Kennedy route.

4.) The further east you go, the more you just end up competing with Bloor-Danforth as a crosstown route. It's not worth spending billions to just cannibalize existing subway ridership.

The only part of Eglinton that really needs rapid transit within the foreseeable future is the central part. Beyond that though, just about anything would work and subways are overkill.

 

[Rainforest]

... The only part of Eglinton that really needs rapid transit within the foreseeable future is the central part. Beyond that though, just about anything would work and subways are overkill.

If so, then why bother building Eglinton subway at all? Eglinton LRT tunnel will handle all the demand in the central section, with a bonus of transfer-free connection to the Airport and Kennedy.

IMO, if Eglinton subway is useful at all, it is for the Airport connection foremost, an attempt to attract a greater percentage of air travelers to public transit. Almost every other job in this corridor can be handled by LRT well enough.

 

[Rainforest]

What I am wondering is what's more likely to generate ridership? DRL West or Eglinton West?

I'd think that both will have a decent (not huge) ridership, however Eglinton West will bring more new users to the system. DRL West will mostly attract riders who already use Spadina subway, Bloor subway, and / or downtown streetcar routes.

 

[Rainforest]

I thought it made more sense, rather than building the entire WWLRT, just build the Etobicoke part and have it connect to the B-D subway at Jane. BRT makes somewhat less sense, but it still does make sense. South Etobicoke to the B-D subway is still a huge trip generator for the area.

Given that streetcar tracks exist on Lakeshore already, and even run in their own ROW between Humber loop and Roncesvalles - there is no point converting that route to BRT.

If DRL West (south of Bloor) materializes, then the best thing for WWLRT is to connect to subway at Queen / Dufferin or so, perhaps with a short LRT tunnel between Roncesvalles and Dufferin.

Otherwise, you can just run streetcars to Dundas West station using existing tracks. The short mixed traffic section along Dundas won't matter that much, so there is no reason to spend money for new LRT or BRT on South Kingsway.

 

[Whoaccio]

A subway, or something designed for grade separated operation, would be faster. LRV's designed for running in mixed conditions would be incompatible the advanced signaling systems required for frequent service. A high floor, subway esque, rolling stock would also be more cost efficient than low floor LRVs. I wouldn't put much weight in it, but subways also have a better perception. All three options would have nearly identical costs. So, as far as transit along the central segment is concerned, a subway/ICTS is better because it would be somewhat cheaper, faster and sexier.

Beyond that, what is the best way to serve the peripheral segments? Richview as a BRT corridor seems like a practical way to move MT users quickly into the city. The eastern segment is more or less fine as it is, do we really need to spend billions improving it?

What are the benefits of the mythical one seat across Eglinton ride? We know that next to no one would use such a service, given its low speed as LRT, and we can't afford to build it all as subway. So what exactly is the benefit of treating it like one big happy route?

 

[Rainforest]

A subway, or something designed for grade separated operation, would be faster. LRV's designed for running in mixed conditions would be incompatible the advanced signaling systems required for frequent service. A high floor, subway esque, rolling stock would also be more cost efficient than low floor LRVs. I wouldn't put much weight in it, but subways also have a better perception. All three options would have nearly identical costs. So, as far as transit along the central segment is concerned, a subway/ICTS is better because it would be somewhat cheaper, faster and sexier.

I'd think that LRV's can be easily designed for using advanced signaling while in the tunnel, and being driven by operators while in mixed conditions.

The "cheaper rolling stock" and "better perception" arguments are valid, but do they prevail over the convenience of uninterrupted trips?

What are the benefits of the mythical one seat across Eglinton ride? We know that next to no one would use such a service, given its low speed as LRT, and we can't afford to build it all as subway. So what exactly is the benefit of treating it like one big happy route?

Come on. While it is true that few would ride LRT from Kennedy to Pearson, a lot of people would cross Jane or Don Mills. Just a few examples:

Kipling to Eglinton W (to downtown)
Kipling to Yonge (to North York)
Vic Park to Eglinton W (to York U)

And even trips to Pearson by LRT would be attractive, except during peak hours.

 

[EnviroTO]

1.) Serving YYZ isn't really the be all and end all of transit planning. Most of its employees live in Peel Region, and the only area which has a significant group willing to take public transit to the airport is Downtown. Outside the core, bus service along the highways would be way better (i.e. a bus which goes along the 401, ducking into centers like STC and Sheppard Station on its way to YYZ). Connections to YYZ should be a bonus, not a goal.

The subway would capture Peel transit riders near Eglinton and 427 somewhere and take them to the airport with fare integration. Any service to the airport should also have a stop on Dixon to serve convention centres which do get a mix of both GTA residents and out of town visitors.

2.) Connectivity with Mississauga Transit obviates the need for any kind of Westward subway. If we build a subway to suck up MT passengers, 99% of them will reach it by bus. So, no matter where we put a subway, MT users will have to deal with a Bus/Subway transfer. The comparison would be how much time would be saved by transferring the MT users to a subway near YYZ versus having them use a kind of Richview Transitway to transfer at a station around Jane? My guess is not much, assuming a properly functioning busway, so why bother with extending the subway?

I suppose it would be possible to have MT buses coming into the city all the way to Weston Road. I have just never imagined that MT would run that far (a 12km return trip) into the city. I suppose if all the transit agencies merged it wouldn't matter as much how far west the subway goes.

3.) Eglinton east of Don Mills isn't really lacking in capacity. ...

4.) The further east you go, the more you just end up competing with Bloor-Danforth as a crosstown route. It's not worth spending billions to just cannibalize existing subway ridership.

Agreed. Eglinton east of Don Mills is probably the least important to serve with a subway and if there is a DRL subway already at Eglinton and Don Mills you really don't even need a subway east of Yonge since many of the existing riders in the area will take the DRL route.

 

[EnviroTO]

What are the benefits of the mythical one seat across Eglinton ride? We know that next to no one would use such a service, given its low speed as LRT, and we can't afford to build it all as subway. So what exactly is the benefit of treating it like one big happy route?

I'm trying to push a one seat ride to Yonge subway on Eglinton West with no subway east of Yonge. I think there are a significant number of users who will go to Yonge from Eglinton between Weston and 427 but the number who would go from stations between Weston and Avenue Road to Don Mills is much less. Because Yonge is the most likely transfer point for people anyways the switch from subway to bus makes the most sense here.

 

[scarberiankhatru]

What are the benefits of the mythical one seat across Eglinton ride? We know that next to no one would use such a service, given its low speed as LRT, and we can't afford to build it all as subway. So what exactly is the benefit of treating it like one big happy route?

But it goes through all 6 boroughs! It's like when the Simpsons stood in 5 states just to say they'd been there. These people could take the B/D line that already goes from Scarborough to Etobicoke, of course. Or, we could just extend the B/D line and cannibalize Eglinton's potential.

 

[EnviroTO]

Or, we could just extend the B/D line and cannibalize Eglinton's potential.

These people could take the B/D line that already goes from Scarborough to Yonge, of course. Or create the Sheppard East LRT and cannibalize Sheppard's potential?

 

[Second_in_pie]

1.) Serving YYZ isn't really the be all and end all of transit planning. Most of its employees live in Peel Region, and the only area which has a significant group willing to take public transit to the airport is Downtown. Outside the core, bus service along the highways would be way better (i.e. a bus which goes along the 401, ducking into centers like STC and Sheppard Station on its way to YYZ). Connections to YYZ should be a bonus, not a goal.

You honestly have to think logic here! Do you really think there are more people employed at Pearson than people that go there to work? I highly doubt that.

And you also have to think psychology. I doubt many people would take a bus to the airport, even if it ran on the 401 or in a dedicated ROW. But loads of people would take the subway, probably catching everyone north of St. Clair, maybe even if they have to take the bus to the subway.

2.) Connectivity with Mississauga Transit obviates the need for any kind of Westward subway. If we build a subway to suck up MT passengers, 99% of them will reach it by bus. So, no matter where we put a subway, MT users will have to deal with a Bus/Subway transfer. The comparison would be how much time would be saved by transferring the MT users to a subway near YYZ versus having them use a kind of Richview Transitway to transfer at a station around Jane? My guess is not much, assuming a properly functioning busway, so why bother with extending the subway?

Because it just makes things easier. Assuming right now that the sole purpose of Eglinton is to serve MT riders, a BRT to a subway at Jane might make sense. But if you actually take into account the N-S bus lines, Pearson Airport and the development that exists and could happen on Eglinton, you might begin to wonder why we'd settle for a funneling BRT. If the idea is to create a network, wouldn't we want a continuous line to the airport, to spread the transfers across a number of stations, continue rapid transit service and create a regional terminal at Pearson rather than at Jane-Eglinton and expect everyone to funnel into that single station?

3.) Eglinton east of Don Mills isn't really lacking in capacity. It's busy, but it's not problematic. The issues with Eglinton are the high congestion west of Don Mills, plus the other high volume buses which use the same stretch of road. If we built some kind of rapid transit at DonMills Eglinton, that would stop buses from being caught in congestion near Mt. Pleasant and Eglinton. Some kind of super-bus service could easily cope with an isolated Don Mills - Kennedy route.

I partially agree, and that's why I'd say after Eglinton stretches Pearson-Don Mills, an in-depth study should be done as to what to do next. Perhaps bus lanes will suffice, perhaps by the time it's done, there will be demand for a subway, or maybe we should just wait to reevaluate it a couple years down the road.

What I do have to say about it is that there's a bunch of demand for a RT route along Eglinton on that short stretch from Kennedy to Kingston Road; tonnes of density, the Lakeshore Go line (also a connection to the Stouffville line,) and the future Kingston Road BRT/LRT. It could also help to spread out traffic on the B-D; Scarborough passengers would have 3 options; North on Sheppard, Midtown on Eglinton and south on the B-D. Sheppard will open up a totally new demographic for ridership, so that won't have any affects on southern ridership at all. In fact it might increase it. So that's putting a lot more pressure on the B-D, and that midtown option might become valuable.

4.) The further east you go, the more you just end up competing with Bloor-Danforth as a crosstown route. It's not worth spending billions to just cannibalize existing subway ridership.

Again, I think the extra option could be very valuable. Also, I question the term "cannibalize existing subway ridership." There's really no such thing. It wouldn't decrease the ridership, that's certain. In the transit world, we instead say "relieve existing subway lines." When you say it like that, it makes it sound like you want the B-D's ridership to be propped up as high as possible, even though the B-D's getting closer and closer to the YUS bursting point, especially on the Danforth segment. An Eglinton line right now might easily take a pretty large amount of riders off the B-D, freeing up space at B-Y, and also improving that "network" thing.

 

[EnviroTO]

You honestly have to think logic here! Do you really think there are more people employed at Pearson than people that go there to work? I highly doubt that.

And you also have to think psychology. I doubt many people would take a bus to the airport, even if it ran on the 401 or in a dedicated ROW. But loads of people would take the subway, probably north of St. Clair, maybe even if they have to take the bus to the subway.

Well said

 

[Whoaccio]

You honestly have to think logic here! Do you really think there are more people employed at Pearson than people that go there to work? I highly doubt that.

Well, given that people who work at Pearson are employed at Pearson and people who are employed at Pearson tend to work at Pearson I would expect the amount of people employed at Pearson would equal the number of people who work there.

And you also have to think psychology. I doubt many people would take a bus to the airport, even if it ran on the 401 or in a dedicated ROW. But loads of people would take the subway, probably catching everyone north of St. Clair, maybe even if they have to take the bus to the subway.

If it was just as fast and cheaper, I see no reason why people wouldn't take buses. Toronto is uniquely well suited to this, given how developed the 427 & 401 corridors are. Even in cities with exceptional rail systems (London, Hong Kong, Tokyo, Kansai), buses are highly competitive for low budget travelers, offering point-point trips with many locations. Railways tend to cater to business travelers, a la Blue22.

Because it just makes things easier. Assuming right now that the sole purpose of Eglinton is to serve MT riders, a BRT to a subway at Jane might make sense. But if you actually take into account the N-S bus lines, Pearson Airport and the development that exists and could happen on Eglinton, you might begin to wonder why we'd settle for a funneling BRT. If the idea is to create a network, wouldn't we want a continuous line to the airport, to spread the transfers across a number of stations, continue rapid transit service and create a regional terminal at Pearson rather than at Jane-Eglinton and expect everyone to funnel into that single station?

Because it is almost universally more sensible to modify surface routes to serve subways than building subways to serve surface routes. One costs hundreds of millions of dollars and is permanent, the other will run more or less wherever we tell it to run.

Who said anything about tunneling a BRT? The original plan for Eglinton West was to run a transit way along the Richview lands. I don't think tunneling is practical.

A Richview Busway would also integrate exceedingly well into a Mississauga Transitway.

As sort of an aside, transit advocates need to be careful about what they say. Eventually you get to the point where what you say verges from sensible public policy to fanaticism. A subway from Jane to YYZ would be in the 2-3b range. That is a huge, massive, amount of money for a line with quite mediocre ridership potential. If we put that money into a prudent portfolio, the interest payments alone would equal about 50% of the TTC's current operating deficit. Network 2011 went to great lengths explaining why Eglinton West would operate quite well as a busway and didn't need a subway. The only reason the subway version got moving was to evenly distribute spending, a dubious basis for spending in an amalgamated City of Toronto.

 

[gweed123]

I suppose it would be possible to have MT buses coming into the city all the way to Weston Road. I have just never imagined that MT would run that far (a 12km return trip) into the city. I suppose if all the transit agencies merged it wouldn't matter as much how far west the subway goes.

Run it as an express bus (except for stopping at key transit connections, ie Kipling/Islington BRT, Jane BRT, etc). Run it as a normal BRT inside of Mississauga, but once it enters Toronto, it's an express bus to Eglinton Flats station.