Should Transit City be cancelled? A re-prioritization of how to allocate the funding.

[Fresh Start]

I understand the ideology behind Transit City, to get mass transit into virtually every city ward of the 416. While that concept has merit, what doesn’t have merit is stretching the denotation of what exactly “mass transitâ€, or better yet “rapid transitâ€, truly means by equating long distances of road-median ROW operation through mixed traffic to transit that operates in an exclusive corridor whereby optimal high service frequencies and speeds can be achieved. In attaining sustainable growth, a corridor's desirability for travelling along can be hindered by the former scenario while the latter in Toronto's case is a proven success given the hundreds of thousands that flock to subway corridors in a reserved ROW everyday.

In keeping with the SOS- Save Our Subways movement, I’ve decided to not only challenge the Sheppard East LRT’s credibility as an optimal solution for riders along that corridor and throughout the greater northeast quadrant of Scarborough; but I also aim to critically analyze the worth of the other proposed LRT lines as well. Seeing where corridors and destinations could survive with other modes of transportation- Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) along designated lanes which can accommodate similar passenger volumes as light-rail yet has less per kilometre expense to implement; and subway rapid transit (HRT) for areas with too dense a population or destinations demand to make do with lower capacity surface trams.

I open this thread, not to attack light-rail per se but rather to assess where it will fit in and function best within our transit network. Because governments’ involvement in providing funds should be tied to allowing the municipality to best service its constituents’ wants and needs, and not dictating to grantees how those funds ought to be spent; I charge that the ideological motives of one mayoral reign can change over time without mass upheaval. And a lot has happened since the reelection campaign of 2006. While it is good to come with a conservative spending plan, sometimes it is worth the increased costs of some projects if the end-goal is how to best cater to linking major trip-generators where the greatest number of transit users seeks to go. No sense cutting corners in the short-term, if 25 years from now the cries to replace a Transit City corridor with a subway due to demand levels exceeding the LRT's carrying capacity go unrequited because of an even more highly inflated cost to build than in the present.

So forum how would you answer the following poll question:

If we could start all over from today, and the roughly $12-$15 billion dollars being reserved for the City of Toronto/416 transit expansion that’s going towards Transit City was open to be used for any number of transportation/infrastructure projects, how would Urban Toronto best reallocate the funds?

1. Keep Transit City as is, don’t fix what’s not broken
2. Modify Transit City (more grade-separation, less minor stops), but nothing else
3. Keep Don Mills and Jane LRTs, build Eglinton and Sheppard East as subways
4. Build a complete DRL (Pearson Airport-OSC) and Yonge extension to RHC
5. Build partial DRL, partial Eglinton, finish Sheppard to SCC, extend B-D in both directions, Yonge Line to Steeles
6. BRT network citywide + DRL and Eglinton subways in full.
7. Improved local GO Transit including "DRL-lite" completely alongside the rail corridors + LRT elsewhere
8. Cancel just Finch West, Jane, Scarborough Malvern, Waterfront West; replaced by BRT
9. Cancel just (lower) Don Mills, Eglinton, SELRT; replaced by subways
10. Build Skytrain-like MarkII/ICTS corridors along Eglinton, Don Mills and Finch Hydro

And here are my own personal recommendations based on discussions here for satisfying the commuting transit needs of Scarborough:

 

[leopetr]

# Build a complete DRL (Pearson Airport-OSC)

1. Since when is that an option?

DRL Stage 1: Queen-Pape
DRL Stage 2: Extension to Osgoode
DRL Stage 3 or 4: Extension to Eglinton (OSC)
DRL Stage 3 or 4: Extension to Dundas West
...
...
...
DRL Stage Umpteen: Extension to Pearson Airport

2. Your subway curve at Eglinton/Don Mills is impossible. The tighest curve in the System is around Union, and we really shouldn't be building anything nearly as tight as that if we want the transit to be rapid.

3. Why on earth would you want to convert the Scarborough Rapid Transit corridor to BRT? BRT requires <em>more width</em> than rail. Buses aren't guided by rail -- they are human controlled.

Compare the width of the bus tunnel at Lawrence to the streetcar tunnel at Spadina. The Lawrence bus tunnel is wider, but the buses have to go pretty damn slow because operators can't handle that little padding.

 

[Darwinkgo]

3. Why on earth would you want to convert the Scarborough Rapid Transit corridor to BRT? BRT requires <em>more width</em> than rail. Buses aren't guided by rail -- they are human controlled.

Compare the width of the bus tunnel at Lawrence to the streetcar tunnel at Spadina. The Lawrence bus tunnel is wider, but the buses have to go pretty damn slow because operators can't handle that little padding.

Could always use guided buses for tight spots.

 

[kettal]

I wanted to vote for mag-lev rail everywhere with stations every 1 km, but it's so fast that you don't even noticed it stopped.

Please add that option to the poll. tia.

 

[UD2]

...

I wanted beam me up Scottie transporters. Can we add that too?

 

[Fresh Start]

1. Since when is that an option?

DRL Stage 1: Queen-Pape
DRL Stage 2: Extension to Osgoode
DRL Stage 3 or 4: Extension to Eglinton (OSC)
DRL Stage 3 or 4: Extension to Dundas West
...
...
...
DRL Stage Umpteen: Extension to Pearson Airport

2. Your subway curve at Eglinton/Don Mills is impossible. The tighest curve in the System is around Union, and we really shouldn't be building anything nearly as tight as that if we want the transit to be rapid.

3. Why on earth would you want to convert the Scarborough Rapid Transit corridor to BRT? BRT requires <em>more width</em> than rail. Buses aren't guided by rail -- they are human controlled.

Compare the width of the bus tunnel at Lawrence to the streetcar tunnel at Spadina. The Lawrence bus tunnel is wider, but the buses have to go pretty damn slow because operators can't handle that little padding.

Just a few things. First of all, a DRL from Pearson to OSC is doable either via the Weston-Galt corridor or via turning west along Eglinton then northwest rom Martin Grove towards Pearson. It's been discussed here several times before, could also be built in phases and I'm certain $15 billion could more than cover that total length. As for the curve around OSC it is not too tight. The alignment I'm using to get to Wynford/Concorde is the Belleville Sub which can be built above-grade to save on tunneling costs. There is no precedent as to how to curve back down to St Dennis/Don Mills, any number of feasible turning radii can be attempted. The one I used in my example cuts through Eglinton east of Ferrand, so lots of space.

Converting the SRT to BRT again is feasible. There's a whole swath of vacant land adjacent the west side of the SRT corridor that is now nothing else than back driveways and grassy knolls. The width only needs to expand all of 5.4m. Rennovations to the existing stations and the elevated guideway would be minimal. As well the future ROW would be built with BRT in mind from scratch so no retrofit in that regard.

Not saying that I have all the answers but at least it's a plan. If we don't come up with some logical and viable alternatives to Transit City; what we may end up with is a lot of money wasted that hasn't resulted in much improvement over the existing bus network and still 90 minutes long treks just to get across the city, if that.

 

[Second_in_pie]

Wow, that's a pretty huge selection now that I can actually see it full (I voted off my phone )

I voted for option 9, but now that I think about it, 5 seems to be more in line with the way I'd allocate the funds. I wouldn't ask for full Sheppard, Eglinton and DRL subways right off the bat, and I think there are corridors that LRT or BRT would make a bunch of sense (LRT on Finch West, BRT on Kingston Road, BRT on Jane south to Eglinton, then regular bus service to Bloor, and upgrading the Waterfront West route so it's up to more modern LRT specs.)
Then, I'd just get a bunch of subway projects started. Fix the central portion of Eglinton up with a Jane-Don Mills subway, start a Union-Pape/Eglinton DRL, and do some extensions to Sheppard, the YUS and the B-D. Gradual improvement instead of "here's the money, let's pretend it's all we have for the next 50 years."

I don't think there's any way to change my vote, so ignore that one vote on #9 and imagine one on 6

 

[Whoaccio]

I'm not sure any of those options really matches my opinion in full, but it is neat how evenly distributed the responses have been over so many categories.

Yonge-RHCC extension: I'm less and less a fan of this. The BCA quite clearly showed that it will never yield enough benefits to justify its costs. I'm sure the NORAD scale bus-terminals don't help matters, but as things stand now I don't really see the point in proceeding. A kind of Calgary LRT could work, so could an advanced BRT (maybe with it's own ROW between Steeles & Finch?). Can't really rank either of those without more info though.

Yonge-VCC extension: Same basket as above, but it's probably going to happen regardless. I don't see the priority of building some gold-plated subway to Vaughan.

Sheppard East/West subway extensions: My ideal solution here would be to convert the existing subway tunnels to SRT and build the rest on cheapo elevated viaducts. Could even save money by interlining it with the SRT and using the same tracks between Kennedy & SCC. Not sure, but that should comply with forecast demand levels (something like 8k pph/pd) and be faster than LRT.

Sheppard East LRT: Euthanize it. Street level LRT at Sheppard & Morningside is moronic. If we were talking Docklands Light Rail style "LRT", I would probably change my mind. Good LRT really has more in common with SRT type systems though.

SRT replacement: The status quo is probably pretty okay here. Ideally we would scrap linear induction in favor of normal person motors, and the extension to Malvern seems kind of pointless to me. As long as the BD/SRT interchange is made better, I'm happy. The capacity seems more appropriate than full blown subways. SRT is faster to, I believe, which I consider an advantage.

DRL: I consider it almost essential. I would consider the branch from Pape-Eglinton quite important (arguably more so than CBD-Dundas West), so I would like to see this included. I don't think the DRL really has much to offer further north however.

Finch W LRT: I suppose it is okay. My main worry is it merging with the Sheppard E LRT and Don Mills LRT into some kind of ungodly LRT country-music festival. I can't think of anything stupider than bypassing an underused billion dollar subway with a slower and equally expensive LRT.

Don Mills LRT: It shouldn't travel south of Eglinton. That is DRL territory, and there is no advantage to running LRT there. Beyond that, I don't really see why LRT is such an improvement on some kind of RapidBus route.

Jane LRT: I get the feeling even the TTC realized this doesn't quite make sense.

WWLRT: Can't say I know enough about it. Like the Gummo Marx of Transit City.

Eglinton: As a rule the central portion should be grade separated (really, a viaduct wouldn't be awful...) which more or less necessitates either LRT or SRT/Subway. Something Canada Line in scale would work, and the costs/km are more or less the same.

I'm not even sure where all the TC money is going to come from anymore. Thursday's Fall Economic Update is supposedly going to by abysmal, Ontario's tax base sucks and the deficit really shows no sings of disappearing. It wouldn't really surprise me if the province starts to rethink the wisdom of spending billions on projects they are told will return less than their initial investment, and potentially create ongoing costs of several billions of dollars per year.

 

[Fresh Start]

Wow, that's a pretty huge selection now that I can actually see it full (I voted off my phone )

I voted for option 9, but now that I think about it, 5 seems to be more in line with the way I'd allocate the funds. I wouldn't ask for full Sheppard, Eglinton and DRL subways right off the bat, and I think there are corridors that LRT or BRT would make a bunch of sense (LRT on Finch West, BRT on Kingston Road, BRT on Jane south to Eglinton, then regular bus service to Bloor, and upgrading the Waterfront West route so it's up to more modern LRT specs.)
Then, I'd just get a bunch of subway projects started. Fix the central portion of Eglinton up with a Jane-Don Mills subway, start a Union-Pape/Eglinton DRL, and do some extensions to Sheppard, the YUS and the B-D. Gradual improvement instead of "here's the money, let's pretend it's all we have for the next 50 years."

I don't think there's any way to change my vote, so ignore that one vote on #9 and imagine one on 6

It's actually a multiple choice poll so you can pick as many or few choices as you'd like. That wasn't really my intent though, I really want voters to pick just what they feel the #1 priority ought to be.

The wording to each is specific as to how exactly we'd best spend $12-15 billion. I knew some choices would be more popular than others, so I tried to pair those plans/proposals that I felt the majority would most closely agree upon in each option and have them base their decisions on that.

 

[unimaginative2]

Sheppard East/West subway extensions: My ideal solution here would be to convert the existing subway tunnels to SRT and build the rest on cheapo elevated viaducts.

There's absolutely no reason why lines using subway technology can't be elevated. I've posted some images from the Canada Line's elevated section in another thread. Those cars have the same dimensions as Toronto subway cars.

I don't think the DRL really has much to offer further north however.

Don Mills north of Eglinton is one of the most densely developed parts of the city. A line would also intercept some of the busiest east-west bus routes, preventing those riders from crowding onto the Yonge line. The line could also be built cheaply using elevated construction (see above).

 

[Whoaccio]

There's absolutely no reason why lines using subway technology can't be elevated. I've posted some images from the Canada Line's elevated section in another thread. Those cars have the same dimensions as Toronto subway cars.

There's no reason why it can't. I suppose I should have said "medium capacity system" as opposed to SRT. Anything in the Canada Line-Skytrain-DLR spectrum of rolling stock would fit my preferences perfectly though. Smaller trainsets, smaller stations, lighter guideways, tighter turns and hopefully ATO.

The 5.4km SRT extension to Malvern is supposed to cost 1.14b, or about 210m$/km. As long as the TTC can meet that price target for a subway extension to STC, I would be happy. If we use something compatible with whatever replaces the SRT, we can also save ~2km of costs.

Don Mills north of Eglinton is one of the most densely developed parts of the city. A line would also intercept some of the busiest east-west bus routes, preventing those riders from crowding onto the Yonge line. The line could also be built cheaply using elevated construction (see above).

It's pretty dense around Sheppard, but that's already served by real rapid transit. Don Mills/Finch is pretty dense, but really not subway dense.

There aren't any significant bus routes south of Sheppard that couldn't already intercept an Eglinton/DonMills station.

Maybe in like 2060 it could be practical, but for the immediate future I don't really think it should be a priority.

 

[scarberiankhatru]

It's pretty dense around Sheppard, but that's already served by real rapid transit. Don Mills/Finch is pretty dense, but really not subway dense.

There aren't any significant bus routes south of Sheppard that couldn't already intercept an Eglinton/DonMills station.

Maybe in like 2060 it could be practical, but for the immediate future I don't really think it should be a priority.

What's subway dense...Wilson?...Warden? I don't think people realize how large Seneca College is. There's also huge redevelopments on the way at Lawrence and Steeles. And this doesn't even include the real 'relief' - intercepting bus riders on routes like Finch East or York Mills before they get to Yonge.

The only way to get a large number of people off the Yonge line is to run the DRL up Don Mills to Finch, where buses on Finch, McNicoll, Steeles, Leslie, Woodbine, Viva Green etc., can all easily pour into an ideal terminus.

 

[Second_in_pie]

^^ That's another good thing about going to Seneca. Other than terminating at a huge education centre, it is a great terminus station for numerous high ridership bus routes.

 

[Whoaccio]

What's subway dense...Wilson?...Warden? I don't think people realize how large Seneca College is. There's also huge redevelopments on the way at Lawrence and Steeles. And this doesn't even include the real 'relief' - intercepting bus riders on routes like Finch East or York Mills before they get to Yonge.

York Mills is hardly subway worthy. York Mills only gets 27k riders for the TTC. Assuming 100% of that is from the York Mills bus, and 75% of them decided switching to a DRL-north would be practical (i.e. all of them working in the CBD), the resulting station would be in Warden range. If diversion really was the name of the game, it would be way more practical to simply divert buses down Don Mills or the DVP to a terminal at Don Mills/Eglinton. Using the DVP that would be more or less the same travel time as switching to RT of some sort, at a fraction of the cost.

For bus routes North of Sheppard, we are better basing our transit off of the Sheppard subway and whatever we plan for Finch-Sheppard Corridor. And, once again, it would be more efficient to divert buses down the DVP either strait into the CBD or some kind of Don Mills/Eglinton terminal than to build 8km of rapid transit.

The only way to get a large number of people off the Yonge line is to run the DRL up Don Mills to Finch, where buses on Finch, McNicoll, Steeles, Leslie, Woodbine, Viva Green etc., can all easily pour into an ideal terminus.

This relief mission is being way overstated. Yes, Yonge is approaching its design parameters. That doesn't mean we have to build a subway to Finch to fix it. Intercepting the Eglinton East, Lawrence East, Don Mills, Leslie, Flemingdon Park and maybe York Mills buses at an Eglinton/Don Mills terminal, while also intercepting the Bloor Line and a few streetcar routes, would provide adequate relief for the foreseeable future. Especially in conjunction with planned improvements on Yonge line headways and train size.

 

[kettal]

There's absolutely no reason why lines using subway technology can't be elevated. I've posted some images from the Canada Line's elevated section in another thread. Those cars have the same dimensions as Toronto subway cars.

Would that not lead to serious noise problems? at least with current TTC subway stock.