Smitherman's Transit plan

[Second_in_pie]

The forecast demands for neither the Sheppard extensions or much of Eglinton don't approach what can be justified for Subway. Yet you ignore routes with higher demand such as north of Finch station or northeast of Kennedy?

And if I paid $10 million, I could get a bunch of experts to say that Sheppard and Eglinton do approach what can be justified for subway, and in fact exceed it.
In fact, they did that before. And they didn't tell the experts to choose subway, yet they chose it anyways. Hm, interesting.

I'd definitely add a B-D extension to STC and Yonge North on that list, but I figure that flat out extensions wouldn't be as important when talking entire routes that need to be sorted out.

 

[nfitz]

What now? The demand northeast of Kennedy is travelling primarily to Scarborough Town Centre where the Sheppard East subway would be heading.

1) The scheduled travel time on the current SRT and subway to Bloor-Yonge is 35 minutes; that would drop to 31 minutes if it didn't include the 4-minute time to change at Kennedy (I'd assume the slower subway trains would be balanced by few station stops). Scarborough Centre (SC) to Bloor-Yonge on a future Sheppard subway and Yonge subway would take about 39 minutes. Even if it was built, it would be faster to take the existing SRT.

2) A Sheppard subway extension to SC would require 8 km of track, compared to only 6 km for a Danforth extension - about 1/3 longer ... and presumably 1/3 more expensive.

3) The LRT on Sheppard East is already under construction; track construction and vehicle contracts are expected to be tendered within weeks. By the time a new council comes into office in 6 months time there will be no going back. There is no timeframe for SRT replacement.

4) Predicted demand for a Danforth extension is much higher than a Sheppard extension.

Seems like a no brainer to me.

As for arguing that the predicted 5,000 demand on Eglinton is underestimated ... remember that's the peak location ... not sure if that's Yonge or Dufferin ... but somewhere around there, in the subway section. If you want to argue that the subway should extend further east than Don Mills road (which is where the cost would become more than the current tunnel) then you have to look at that demand, which is even lower than 5,000! You could triple the 2031 forecast demand east of Don Mills road on Eglinton and it would still be in LRT range.


Swap Agincourt in for Lawrence East as your intermediary trip generator and we're still talking about a high daily yield of riders that'd use it. Demand north of Finch Stn is York Region's problem, nothing a Toronto Mayoral candidate should have to worry about. The TTC had a choice in 2006 to approve a dedicated bus lane down Yonge from Finch to Steeles which would do away with a majority of the congestion issues but they chose instead to massage RHC planners' egos instead.

The TTC says Eglinton is at 5400 ppdph by 2031. Both the census and existing demand put that figure at much higher level considering the high volume of transferees a subway along the same route could attract. And we all know for a fact that 17,500 pph minimum would utilize a DRL. So yes, let's by all means extend the YUS further and further into suburbia where park' n' ride commuters will overcrowd morning rush trains before we even arrive in Toronto proper (Lawrence southwards) meanwhile it takes close to an hour or longer for east-west routes to dump passengers onto the Yonge Line. And let's build the new TC light-rail lines in a disjointed, fragmented manner such that one's one-seat bus commute from the far end of the city directly to the subway becomes a three ring circus as in Sheppard's case of bus + LRT + "stubway" + subway taking 90 minutes to complete. [/QUOTE]

 

[nfitz]

And if I paid $10 million, I could get a bunch of experts to say that Sheppard and Eglinton do approach what can be justified for subway, and in fact exceed it.

Only if they were lying. If you think the current experts are lying, then you can complain to Professional Engineers Ontario and have their licences pulled, and likely get them fired; Contact Bruce Matthews at 416-840-1076. I know you won't do it.

 

[Rainforest]

Only if they were lying. If you think the current experts are lying, then you can complain to Professional Engineers Ontario and have their licences pulled, and likely get them fired; Contact Bruce Matthews at 416-840-1076. I know you won't do it.

1) Are you sure that those experts are licensed as Engineers? Running computer models is not the same level of responsibility as designing bridges and tunnels that could collapse and kill people if built improperly.

2) Obviously the experts are not falsifying their calculations, or the final numbers. The big question is how they choose the input assumptions. Such assumptions are always based on "reasonable guesses" rather than formal mathematical procedures.

How many people will want to buy or rent property near the given corridor, and what price will they agree to pay? How many of them will use public transit? Most importantly, which route will riders choose if there are several options with similar trip durations?

It is easy to ether make an honest mistake in those assumptions, or skew them deliberately to produce the desired result. From the legal standpoint, no actions can be taken against the expert who skewed assumptions in that manner, because they are still "within reason".

 

[Rainforest]

The forecast demands for neither the Sheppard extensions or much of Eglinton don't approach what can be justified for Subway.

Note that in case of Eglinton, funds already designated by Metrolinx ($6,065 B) would be sufficient to build subway between Jane and Don Mills (14 km). $6,065 / 14 = $433 million / km. We don't need to find, or wait for, extra money.

 

[W. K. Lis]

Note that in case of Eglinton, funds already designated by Metrolinx ($6,065 B) would be sufficient to build subway between Jane and Don Mills (14 km). $6,065 / 14 = $433 million / km. We don't need to find, or wait for, extra money.

Except that heavy rail subway will need tunnels to connect with yards for store the trains, yards that will need more space than light rail vehicles, because of the wider turning curves they will need. So extra money would be needed.

 

[Rainforest]

Except that heavy rail subway will need tunnels to connect with yards for store the trains, yards that will need more space than light rail vehicles, because of the wider turning curves they will need. So extra money would be needed.

Not necessarily. In fact, if Wilson yard can be expanded to host Eglinton subway trains, then the yard expense could end up being lower for the subway option than for LRT. LRT will definitely need new yard (planned at Kodak lands).

Note also that subway cars tend to be cheaper than Light Rail vehicles. The new subway Rockets will come at about $3 million per car, whereas the replacement streetcar fleet ended up costing about $6 million per car. While Transit City vehicles should be cheaper because of standard gauge, it is unlikely that they will be 2 times cheaper.

 

[nfitz]

1) Are you sure that those experts are licensed as Engineers? Running computer models is not the same level of responsibility as designing bridges and tunnels that could collapse and kill people if built improperly.

It's transportation engineering - and yes they have to be licensed. If not you also have cause to complaint. Obviously most licensed engineers are not structural engineers!

It is easy to ether make an honest mistake in those assumptions, or skew them deliberately to produce the desired result. From the legal standpoint, no actions can be taken against the expert who skewed assumptions in that manner, because they are still "within reason".

Which is why even if not perfect, predicted loads are not going to shift from the forecast 4,000 riders east of Don Mills Road to subway range. Heck, there is only 3,000 riders predicted east of Victoria Park!

 

[nfitz]

Note that in case of Eglinton, funds already designated by Metrolinx ($6,065 B) would be sufficient to build subway between Jane and Don Mills (14 km). $6,065 / 14 = $433 million / km. We don't need to find, or wait for, extra money.

Umm ... that's because they have funded a subway between Jane and Don Mills ... well between Keele and Leslie. The cost of the LRT running in subway is similiar to HRT running in subway. The debate isn't about this section, it's whether you want to create unnecessary transfers. And as the LRT running in subway can easily handle the peak loads, then there is absolutely no justification to run subway when LRT is as quick, more efficient, and more frequent.

I fail to understand why anyone would want to push for worse service by running subway - except to fulfil some fetish about lines on a map.

 

[gweed123]

Except that heavy rail subway will need tunnels to connect with yards for store the trains, yards that will need more space than light rail vehicles, because of the wider turning curves they will need. So extra money would be needed.

So your justification for not having a project that is already in subway-like budgetary numbers is a few extra million to build a slightly bigger yard? That's a pretty weak justification if you ask me. Spend the extra few million now, to avoid spending 10x that in 20 years to upgrade the line to what it should be in the first place.

What you're saying is "It's in the same price range as a luxury SUV, but I want to go for the luxury sports car that costs the same, because I don't want to pay to replace the bigger tires on the SUV". It's a trivial amount of money at the end of the day.

And I would say build the yard bigger than you have to, and build it somewhere around Eglinton and Don Mills, that way both the DRL and the Eglinton Subway could use the same yard. If you're going to be spending the "extra money" anyway, why not save some money down the road by not having to build a yard just for the DRL?

 

[gweed123]

It's transportation engineering - and yes they have to be licensed. If not you also have cause to complaint. Obviously most licensed engineers are not structural engineers!

It's also Transportation Planning, FYI. Therefore they can also be covered by OPPI.

Which is why even if not perfect, predicted loads are not going to shift from the forecast 4,000 riders east of Don Mills Road to subway range. Heck, there is only 3,000 riders predicted east of Victoria Park!

But we don't know what their initial assumptions were in terms of transfers, future zoning changes that could affect walk-in traffic, etc. It's easy to look at the end result and say "that seems reasonable", but if the assumptions you base that number off of have been underestimated, or not included at all, it could drastically change the result.

Using the example of the 190 that was being discussed earlier, demand on opening far exceeded what the planners had initially calculated, so trip frequencies had to be drastically altered. Somewhere along the line, someone made an assumption or neglected a factor that turned out to be a major implication in the actual demand, and ended up drastically skewing the projected demand.

When you consider the number of people who use the Eglinton East and West buses, as well as all the routes that cross Eglinton (nearly every N-S route running north of Bloor in the entire city), I find it hard to believe that peak demand is only 5000pph. Granted, I haven't crunched the numbers myself, so I may be wrong. But I do agree with what SIP and Rainforest have been saying, that it's very possible to manipulate the criteria for the inputs, in order to generate a result in a predetermined range.

 

[Voltz]

I highly doubt any significant amount of planning or ridership forecasting went in to the 190 bus route, it's just a bus route, nothing had to be built for it, if more people ride it than expected then another bus can simple be added to the route. So what is with the comparisons to planning for subway lines? There is almost nothing in common.

 

[gweed123]

The debate isn't about this section, it's whether you want to create unnecessary transfers. And as the LRT running in subway can easily handle the peak loads, then there is absolutely no justification to run subway when LRT is as quick, more efficient, and more frequent.

I fail to understand why anyone would want to push for worse service by running subway - except to fulfil some fetish about lines on a map.

So putting in HRT will create transfers, but putting in LRT won't? Regardless of what technology is chosen, the line will eventually cover the same distance, and will require the exact same transfers.

And with regards to the "worse service" part, running a 4 car trainset vs running a paired LRT trainset isn't that different. I don't imagine the headways would be that different. Only difference with the HRT trainset is that headways are not determined by the streetlights outside the tunnel, where as the LRT headways are. A system is only as fast as its slowest point.

 

[kEiThZ]

It's transportation engineering - and yes they have to be licensed. If not you also have cause to complaint. Obviously most licensed engineers are not structural engineers!

I was under the impression that urban planners do route forecasting. There maybe some overlap. But I don't think a route forecast has to be generated and signed off by a PEng. Your PEng only applies where there's significant public risk involved. Route forecasting is unlikely to result in deaths.

 

[nfitz]

I was under the impression that urban planners do route forecasting.

Back when I was involved with this stuff, which I admit was 3 decades ago, everyone I saw writing this kind of software were engineers. I didn't think planners had either the mathematical training or the programming skills to do more than push buttons. Do planners even have the professional and ethical legislation in place?