CapitalSeven
Senior Member
Hmm, more or less madness. Where's the one that says "RER in the Kitchener corridor and Crosstown extension, both for about 1/2 the cost?"
|
|
|
SmartTrack (Proposed)
- Thread starter aquateam
- Start date
CapitalSeven
Senior Member
Not today, just having convinced city council that the Gardiner "Hybrid" makes sense.
Adjei
Senior Member
Haha. That's the first thing that comes to mind when I look at these maps. Madness is the right word for transit planning in this city.
CapitalSeven
Senior Member
And speaking of madness, stay away from the links below to the slideshare if you are using Internet Explorer. It will open on Chrome.
Last edited:
BurlOak
Senior Member
Option 3. Separate Service – Eglinton. A separate heavy rail corridor along Eglinton Avenue West with a transfer at Mt. Dennis.
How is this any better than an elevated continuation of the ECLRT?
How is this any better than an elevated continuation of the ECLRT?
nfitz
Superstar
Better yet, how will it get any more ridership? One of the big issues with the Eglinton line at the west end was the low ridership estimates.
Recall that the AM peak ridership eastbound at Renforth was only 400 per hour (and 1500 per hour arriving westbound) ... and this assumed that the line went all the way to Pearson! Even at Islington it was only 1500 eastbound (and 1800 westbound). Even at Jane Street, there were only 2,300 arriving eastbound (and 1,500 westbound).
And this was based on subway-like frequencies!
These ridership numbers are much lower than the Sheppard subway. It's hard to use them to justify BRT, let alone LRT!
I'd think a heavy rail line from Renforth to Mount Dennis would be even lower, as it wouldn't be as frequent as subway, and it wouldn't directly connect to another line. If something other than BRT is to be built here, it's hard to understand why LRT isn't the only possible option.
Midtown Urbanist
Superstar
We've been talking on or off about the possibility of these alignments.
I didn't think the City would actually be studying them!
If SmartTrack reaches AAC via Pearson via the Kitchener line, it really is not a bad transit investment. We can still build Eglinton Crosstown extension to a natural terminus with SmartTrack at AAC.
Last edited:
nfitz
Superstar
Other than a complete lack of ridership ... which makes it difficult to support one line from Mount Dennis to Renforth, let alone two!
Rainforest
Senior Member
Indeed. If they are not running that thing to Union, then there is absolutely no advantage in using heavy rail.
LRT will be more flexible, have smaller footprint, able to handle tighter turns, will cost less even if it is fully grade-separated, and will better match demand with capacity (still under-capacity, but not as much as a heavy rail line).
robmausser
Senior Member
Yes, lets build a spur right next to the already existing, multimillion dollar UPX one that already exists.
If that's not the definition of insanity...
If that's not the definition of insanity...
Midtown Urbanist
Superstar
There are more important things than just ridership, such as connectivity. Something people on UT seem to often forget. This would connect with two major regional nodes, Pearson Airport and AAC. Both Pearson and AAC are massive employment centers.
How much is it a chicken or the egg scenario here? Is the low ridership numbers a result of the low level of transit options? AAC is at present not the most transit friendly employment node in the Toronto area.
Also the Eglinton extension's primary purpose would still be funneling people eastbound to Mt. Dennis. Counter-direction service to AAC is just a plus.
--
SmartTrack is getting built anyway because our mayor champions it and he will be in office for as long as he wants. May as well get it right.
Midtown Urbanist
Superstar
I'd very much like to co-opt the UPX into SmartTrack if Metrolinx would allow it.
nfitz
Superstar
And neither are in Toronto. It shouldn't be city money building this. And neither draw significantly from the Eglinton corridor - the Eglinton line studies showed that - which is why the line was cut back at Jane (and later Mount Dennis)
The Eglinton studies were for 2031, assuming the transit was built.
Preciseley. So why build high-order transit for 400 riders an hour. That's one LRT an hour. A GO Train every 2-3 hours.
The numbers are not there. You have high-order connectivity from Mount Dennis to Pearson already. The only real option then is extend the LRT for connectivity (which yes does have some import ... so a few Hundred Million for LRT is barely justifiable ... but $billions for heavy rail? No ...
I'm not sure either of those statements is true. Even Tory should be able to walk away from anything on/near Eglinton after the ridership forecasts come out compared to cost - perhaps he'll even claim victory by "pushing the province to extend the Eglinton Line along the Smarttrack Corridor".
CDL.TO
Moderator
It in infuriating how the study doesn't seem to question the underlying assumptions.
Even the station locations are the same as proposed by the Tory campaign. Why Scarlett? Why not Royal York? That's an important question and I'm 100% positive that the people who developed the Smart Track concept gave zero consideration to that question. But yet we accept it as received wisdom from above.
Also, I've gone on rants before about misuse of the idea of a transit project "serving" a location or population. Smart Track is being quite an egregious example of this by being justified by the fact that it's "serving" the employment in the Airport Corporate Centre.
I traced the outline of the Airport Corporate Centre then overlaid that over downtown. The red dot is the approximate location of the Smart Track station.
Would anyone seriously suggest that a single station at Gerrard and Parliament would "serve" all of downtown Toronto, stretching over to Kensington Market and SkyDome? Of course not. 95% of people in the ACC business park are going to have to take connecting transit anyway which will severely reduce the attractiveness of the service and greatly reduce the benefit of having a station on the business park site.
I like the Smart Track concept.* I think it makes sense for the city to be involved in the planning (not just leaving it to the province) to ensure that its designed in such a way that meets the needs of the city. But we seriously need some semblance of critical thought to be brought to the planning process.
*(I remember myself and other forum members being lambasted for advocating such ideas years ago. We had to deal with people telling us "Subway-like service on GO lines? Subway trains can't run on GO tracks, you idiot!" or that "GO lines can't be used like a subway line because GO trains run only once an hour, you fool!")
Even the station locations are the same as proposed by the Tory campaign. Why Scarlett? Why not Royal York? That's an important question and I'm 100% positive that the people who developed the Smart Track concept gave zero consideration to that question. But yet we accept it as received wisdom from above.
Also, I've gone on rants before about misuse of the idea of a transit project "serving" a location or population. Smart Track is being quite an egregious example of this by being justified by the fact that it's "serving" the employment in the Airport Corporate Centre.
I traced the outline of the Airport Corporate Centre then overlaid that over downtown. The red dot is the approximate location of the Smart Track station.
Would anyone seriously suggest that a single station at Gerrard and Parliament would "serve" all of downtown Toronto, stretching over to Kensington Market and SkyDome? Of course not. 95% of people in the ACC business park are going to have to take connecting transit anyway which will severely reduce the attractiveness of the service and greatly reduce the benefit of having a station on the business park site.
I like the Smart Track concept.* I think it makes sense for the city to be involved in the planning (not just leaving it to the province) to ensure that its designed in such a way that meets the needs of the city. But we seriously need some semblance of critical thought to be brought to the planning process.
*(I remember myself and other forum members being lambasted for advocating such ideas years ago. We had to deal with people telling us "Subway-like service on GO lines? Subway trains can't run on GO tracks, you idiot!" or that "GO lines can't be used like a subway line because GO trains run only once an hour, you fool!")
Attachments
Midtown Urbanist
Superstar
Sigh, that is the unfortunate truth when it comes to serving transit to business parks.