Smitherman's Transit plan

[Justin10000]

God, how many times does it take for you to understand that nobody, I think here, is against LRT as a system. LRT would work quite well on many routes in Toronto.

It's the prioritization and the way the system's being built. Toronto right now needs to build the backbone of our system. LRT can't act as that backbone. Not for a city of 2.5 + million, urban area of 5.5+ million and metropolis of 8.1+ million, growing each year. Toronto's transit system is woefully incomplete. You can talk about all of the kms of subway we have, but it doesn't excuse the fact that we've got gigantic system gaps and the TTC's ridership is growing astronomically.

And you people cannot seem to understand us "LRT-istas" are not against subways WHERE THEY CAN be justified. I do not believe in building a subway network for the sake of building subways. It's a waste of money especially in areas where LRT can work fine. You guys cannot seem to understand this. Transit City, imprefect it may be, at least attempts to bring better service to most of the city. Your idea backbone subway network totally ignores Northwest Toronto. Why should I go along with a plan like that? It's horrible. Toronto's system is woefullyinadequate because we create grandiose subway plans, build a fraction of the plan in a decade due to the reality of the costs and start over again! The city finally comes up with a plan that will build decent transit to most parts of Toronto, and plan that can show that transit can be affordable, and you guys

LRT just isn't right for Toronto now. We need the big transit pieces right now; the DRL, Eglinton, and Sheppard. LRT can't replace those lines, and you can't prioritize smaller LRT lines over those 3 big ones that are necessary for the city's transit success.

"Big Pieces" Your plan does not even include a extension to Steeles!, The fact that you think a subway to the Airport, and a Sheppard subway extension, both whose demand do not approach the justification for a subway are high priority tells me you do not really know what Toronto needs.

 

[Second_in_pie]

And you people cannot seem to understand us "LRT-istas" are not against subways WHERE THEY CAN be justified. I do not believe in building a subway network for the sake of building subways. It's a waste of money especially in areas where LRT can work fine. You guys cannot seem to understand this. Transit City, imprefect it may be, at least attempts to bring better service to most of the city. Your idea backbone subway network totally ignores Northwest Toronto. Why should I go along with a plan like that? It's horrible. Toronto's system is woefullyinadequate because we create grandiose subway plans, build a fraction of the plan in a decade due to the reality of the costs and start over again! The city finally comes up with a plan that will build decent transit to most parts of Toronto, and plan that can show that transit can be affordable, and you guys

This plan is nowhere near decent. You're giving up a bandaid solution that'll look good on a map but doesn't provide anywhere near the service that's needed. I'll admit it. I'd rather have a backbone network that'll be able to hold up our transit network for decades that will still leave gaps to fill rather than a plan that serves more, but won't provide adequate transit for those corridors in the future.

"Big Pieces" Your plan does not even include a extension to Steeles!, The fact that you think a subway to the Airport, and a Sheppard subway extension, both whose demand do not approach the justification for a subway are high priority tells me you do not really know what Toronto needs.

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.

Try reading. B-D extension and Yonge North are just as important, just apparently harder politically.

 

[kEiThZ]

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?

You might need engineers to write software (especially 3 decades ago). But you don't engineers to run the software. I would presume that's what plannners do.

Besides, have you ever seen a PEng seal on any TTC forecast?

As for the field of Transportation engineering, quite often it's less about forecasting than it is about actually building highways, airports, railroads, ports and harbours. City-wide schemes are more the purview of urban planners.

 

[kEiThZ]

These debates might be all be irrelevant if Rob Ford gets elected...hahaha...

 

[nfitz]

You might need engineers to write software (especially 3 decades ago). But you don't engineers to run the software. I would presume that's what plannners do.

Non-engineers can't simply run engineering software to design things. It doesn't work like that. They won't understand the assumptions that are built into it.

Besides, have you ever seen a PEng seal on any TTC forecast?

I haven't seen a PEng or PGeo seal on any document on the TTC website, even those that I know have been prepared by engineers - both TTC and private consultants. Even though they are required to do so. Presumably the seal is only on the hardcopy original, and not the electronic versions that are provided to the public.

 

[kEiThZ]

Non-engineers can't simply run engineering software to design things. It doesn't work like that. They won't understand the assumptions that are built into it.

It's transportation modelling software, not Solid Works. I am pretty sure a non-Engineer can run it. You don't need engineers to run network planning tools.

I haven't seen a PEng or PGeo seal on any document on the TTC website, even those that I know have been prepared by engineers - both TTC and private consultants. Even though they are required to do so. Presumably the seal is only on the hardcopy original, and not the electronic versions that are provided to the public.

Fair enough. Though I still wonder if a planning forecast requires a seal. It's not critical to public safety after all.

But if its true that these are being signed off by engineers then we should really be concerned about the quality of advice they are getting. They underestimated demand on the Sheppard Subway. How is it not possible that they might have under-estimated demand elsewhere?

 

[nfitz]

It's transportation modelling software, not Solid Works. I am pretty sure a non-Engineer can run it. You don't need engineers to run network planning tools.

No, but you need trained professionals to interpret the results.

They underestimated demand on the Sheppard Subway.

Did they? Service is still running with only 4 4-car trains on a frequency of less than one every 5 minutes, that it has had since the beginning of service. In a report a few months after it opened, the TTC reported that ridership was only 34,700 per weekday, less than the 48,000 that had been forecast in the near term. The most recent report (2008/2009) of ridership was only 45,410. That's about 95% of what was forecast. What's your basis for saying they underestimated demand?

 

[kEiThZ]

No, but you need trained professionals to interpret the results.

A trained professional could be an urban planner. Doesn't have to be a PEng. The cost of running government would be astronomical if every detail and plan require a PEng to sign off.

Did they? Service is still running with only 4 4-car trains on a frequency of less than one every 5 minutes, that it has had since the beginning of service. In a report a few months after it opened, the TTC reported that ridership was only 34,700 per weekday, less than the 48,000 that had been forecast in the near term. The most recent report (2008/2009) of ridership was only 45,410. That's about 95% of what was forecast. What's your basis for saying they underestimated demand?

It was my understanding that they had booked 25000 at start. I stand corrected. Was that forcast for a completed first phase to VP, or was it to Agincourt, or to STC, or the truncated line at Don Mills? Anyway, reaching 95% of the forecasted ridership in less than a decade seems pretty decent.

 

[nfitz]

A trained professional could be an urban planner. Doesn't have to be a PEng. The cost of running government would be astronomical if every detail and plan require a PEng to sign off.

A) The cost of running government IS astronomical. B) I don't think trained planners who could sign off on that thing are paid that differently than engineers. C) I'm going to plead ignorance as I haven't practised in that area for many years, and I'm not really up on what areas transportation planner can professionally and ethically practice these days.

Was that forcast for a completed first phase to VP, or was it to Agincourt, or to STC, or the truncated line at Don Mills?

Given that report was written a few months after it opened to Don Mills, with no plans at that time for further extension, I'd assume it was talking about Don Mills. In 2002 TTC had forecast Victoria Park as 50,000 (between Don Mills and Victoria Park) ... but I assume there were other estimates done before then as part of the EA; and I'm not aware of what was in there.

Anyway, reaching 95% of the forecasted ridership in less than a decade seems pretty decent.

As forecasts go, it seems very good; Sheppard has been pretty static for the last few years. The 2008/2009 numbers were actually a small drop from 2007. Presumably it will grow when all the development comes on line between Bessarion with Leslie.

 

[scarberiankhatru]

People who think these forecasts are handed to mortals on a stone tablet from God really have no clue how the numbers are arrived at. We know with certainty that some forecasts are laughably high while others are equally low, and it all depends on what assumptions are being made and whether the project is being supported or not.

 

[gweed123]

Non-engineers can't simply run engineering software to design things. It doesn't work like that. They won't understand the assumptions that are built into it.

Transit Planners don't understand how route ridership assumptions are calculated? I seriously doubt that...

 

[nfitz]

Transit Planners don't understand how route ridership assumptions are calculated? I seriously doubt that...

I really haven't met a planner yet who has a great grasp of the calculus involved in defining the marginal sensitivities. They seem to think it's just fill in the numbers and let her rip.

 

[gweed123]

No, but you need trained professionals to interpret the results.

Are you implying that a professional Planner could not be trained to use a piece of software and properly intrepret the outputs? I sincerely hope you aren't implying that.

 

[nfitz]

Are you implying that a professional Planner could not be trained to use a piece of software and properly intrepret the outputs? I sincerely hope you aren't implying that.

Trained to use software? Good grief, that's not how it's done. You trained on the theory ... the software aspect of it is trivial.

That you would even say that is proof of why planners must not practice engineering!

 

[gweed123]

Trained to use software? Good grief, that's not how it's done. You trained on the theory ... the software aspect of it is trivial.

That you would even say that is proof of why planners must not practice engineering!

You mentioned "software", you didn't say anything about "theory". As a planner, I understand the theory behind forecast modeling. I just have not been trained in the software.

The fact that you would make those assumptions about what a planner can't do demonstrates how ignorant a lot of engineers are about what planners actually do.

Ever seen a subdivision that was designed by an engineer? It's pretty clear that it was designed by an engineer, hahaha. It's boring as hell.