Star: 10-point Transit Blueprint

[Antiloop33rpm]

Here is a thought. How about ignoring what other cities are doing and what has been done in the past and actually evaluate what the needs are today? It is one thing to look to other cities around the world for ideas once all the problems are known and there is a good idea as too what a solution might be. Yet the most important of all this discussion, actually figuring out how people travel, too where, and what cost they are willing too pay, for the most part is glossed over in favour of talks of fantasy subway lines and ridiculing the city for not building as fast as Madrid or whatever city will be tossed around in a years time.

Toronto, from my own perspective, needs a solution that will meet these 3 factors. First, it has to be able to cover distances that are going to range 30 or more kilometers, whether crosstown or from the core into the suburbs. Second, it has to be fast and convenient. If the total time of waiting and being on transit is more than 45 minutes or so for one trip, it doesn't seem that the mainstream public is even going to look at transit as a real option unless they are poor or it is for commuting purposes. Third, it has to be cost effective to build. Unless a subway is being built in an area of high ridership, most likely in areas of high density, and can recover most of its costs, it makes no sense to build them. Period. This is not anti-subway, brainwashed by Harris nonsense, it is just simple common sense.

I have no faith anything constructive in terms of transit solutions will be achieved in Toronto in the next decade. Far too many people (citizens, politicians, transit professionals, etc) have their minds stuck on one philosophy and approach to transit and refuse to think otherwise. Until that changes, nothing will happen. And really, its a shame given that there are probably a lot of intelligent, creative people with a lot of good ideas about transit that are based on logic, reason, and rational thinking, but are likely to live in silence until the old guard whithers away.

 

[unimaginative2]

Third, it has to be cost effective to build. Unless a subway is being built in an area of high ridership, most likely in areas of high density, and can recover most of its costs, it makes no sense to build them. Period. This is not anti-subway, brainwashed by Harris nonsense, it is just simple common sense.

Yes, but who defines high density, high ridership? Care to give me your definition? Why is it that not a single route in Toronto is high-density or high-ridership enough for subway, yet innumerable other cities are building them on routes with less density and ridership?

 

[scarberiankhatru]

^ Because LRT lines are the future, and consolidating them into fewer, more expensive, faster subway lines is raving lunacy.

"How about ignoring what other cities are doing and what has been done in the past and actually evaluate what the needs are today?"

What if subways are needed? The absolute only reason why the SRT should not be replaced by a subway extension is the initial capital cost, even though it would have the lowest operating costs, trigger the most development, move the most people the fastest, and be more easily integrated into both the existing TTC network and into people's daily lives. A dozen variations on the LRT theme have been built in a hundred cities around the world but we're fascinated by Madrid precisely because they built so much subway at a time when we're desperate for a few km. They built 150km...maybe we can learn a few lessons from them to get 1/10th of that built.

Lowering our expectations may not help get anything built, anyway - the St. Clair ROW is a baby step compared to a new major subway line but we're still having to pull teeth to get it built. The billions needed to build subways may not be there, but the hundreds of millions needed to build anything else aren't there, either...if we need to fight, let's make it worthwhile and fight for subways where they're worth it (not Vaughan).

"If the total time of waiting and being on transit is more than 45 minutes or so for one trip, it doesn't seem that the mainstream public is even going to look at transit as a real option unless they are poor or it is for commuting purposes."

Most people in Toronto would love it if their TTC travels only took 45 minutes, even when they're middle class and taking the TTC for leisure trips. 90 minutes is a more realistic threshold when talking about any place in the city other than the Annex.

 

[Antiloop33rpm]

Yes, but who defines high density, high ridership? Care to give me your definition? Why is it that not a single route in Toronto is high-density or high-ridership enough for subway, yet innumerable other cities are building them on routes with less density and ridership?

Can I give you a precise definition? Not using specific numbers and statistics. And I will admit that maybe the extension to Vaughan is a financially sound decision. Maybe I am mistaken that it has nothing to do with politics and is based on sound, economic reasoning. Yet somehow I have trouble believing that building a subway line into what amounts to a big field makes much sense.

And I am sure there are some areas of Toronto where a subway would make sense. Along Queen Street and heading into the new development along the waterfront and into the Portlands seems logical. You allready have areas of high density and the areas that are under construction will not just be office parks and single family homes but an extension of the same urban fabric and density that allready exists in the blocks next to it. But thats not being proposed or even on the radar.

A dozen variations on the LRT theme have been built in a hundred cities around the world but we're fascinated by Madrid precisely because they built so much subway at a time when we're desperate for a few km. They built 150km...maybe we can learn a few lessons from them to get 1/10th of that built.

If people are so fascinated by Madrid why not actually investigate the reasons they were able to build so cheaply? Spain is not Canada and the construction methods used, labour, geological conditions, safety standards, etc are likely to be quite different than those faced in Toronto. Why not investigate why they had to build subways over other transportation systems? Why hold Madrid up as a shining example when those who write about do not seem to have bothered investigating it beyond the two numbers they like too toss around.

My issue is not with subways themselves. Instead it is the fact that there is this an almost silly obsession with them. One point worth keeping in mind is why subways were built in the first place. Paris, London, New York, etc, built subways because there was no other option available to meet there transportation needs. They were built because the cities were so dense and land non existent that underground became the only option, and an option that has always had a great cost attached to it.

Yes, in some parts of Toronto such as the downtown and adjacent neighborhoods there could be a reasoned, logical reason for subways if streetcars become even more stressed then they are. But elsewhere, why is there such a need to waste $100+ million dollars per kilometer building an underground transit system when you have oversized arterial roads and underutilized rail right of ways that criss-cross the city? I suppose you could spend $2 billion dollars for what, a 15km extension that serves only one small section of the city. Or you could invest that money in GO, create a regional rail network, and greatly improve transit to a far greater number of areas of the city.

Lets just say SRT was replaced with a subway, Shephard was finished and the Spadina line extended to Vaughan. For the $4 or 5 billion it would cost to do all that would that actually do a whole lot for transit in the city as whole or just benefit those residents that happen to live within a kilometer of those lines?

 

[cacruden]

A few thoughts from the peanut gallery:

I really don't care much about the distribution of "board seats", what I would prefer is a "professional board" with a mandate, and a budget. Having board seats assigned to regions, is already beginning the process of politicizing the board. The reason why you create a crown corporation and a professional board is to "buffer" / reduce political interference at a lower level (otherwise you would just make them civil servants).

Creation of the crown corporation is a good first step though.... but useless without the commitment to Toronto transit of the provincial government.

The goal of the transit system is to encourage people out of their cars, and reduce the number of cars from the highways. The more you remove from the highways -- the less the congestion on the highways, the less the cost is to business in that city.

How to you get people on transit (other than those that just cannot afford to drive) .... simple ... convenience. How easy is it to travel from point A and point B -- and how long will it take. Anything longer than around 45 (probably closer to 30) minutes and you will likely loose any chance in convincing that person to vacate their car. Too many transfers and the person will likely take their car. If they perceive that the transit system is congested and thus travelling slower than normal -- you will loose the person. If the person has to stand out in the cold/rainy weather too long -- and you will loose them.

The subway will always attract more people than an LRT/ROW. LRT/ROW will remove several lanes from the road system (and space is limited now without bulldosing whole neighbourhoods).

LRT/ROW is a mid-level solution, but it should only complement the subway system (backbone).

 

[scarberiankhatru]

"Or you could invest that money in GO, create a regional rail network, and greatly improve transit to a far greater number of areas of the city."

You're thinking pitifully short term...almost everyone in Toronto is these days. Yes, let's give GO some serious money within the next two or three years, but then what? There's no more money left after that $2 billion is spent? GO trains can serve an E/W route downtown and Eglinton across the city? One absurdly quick to implement and super cheap way to greatly improve transit is express/rocket buses...something the TTC seems to have no interest in even though they're proven to thrive on busy routes like Sheppard East. But they're not LRT, so they're not an option. The TTC also seems to have no interest in building new LRT lines in places where they'd be fantastic, like along Don Mills.

"Lets just say SRT was replaced with a subway, Shephard was finished and the Spadina line extended to Vaughan. For the $4 or 5 billion it would cost to do all that would that actually do a whole lot for transit in the city as whole"

Simple answer, yes.

"or just benefit those residents that happen to live within a kilometer of those lines?"

Honestly, since when does a subway benefit only those who live within a kilometre of it? Does anyone live within a km of Wilson station? Subway expansion at or north of Eglinton would take dozens, perhaps hundreds of buses off the road or allow the resources to be used elsewhere, such as for LRT projects.

edit - I live 10km from a subway but take it everyday. I guess it doesn't benefit me...yet I have this silly obsession with subways that lures me daily. Even if they built a streetcar line on Finch, I'd still take the bus for 10km to Kennedy station or a different bus for 12km to Finch station.

 

[spmarshall]

Actually, yes, people live within 1 km of Wilson Station, but to the east, not to the west. Bathurst Street can't be that much more than 1km from Wilson Station. Of course, to the west is Downsview airport, so it's not quite that fair, though I get exactly what you are saying.

You are right, the subway does help people from a much farther distance. The best thing about a subway to York U is that suddenly, transit is a lot better for people living along Finch West, including the very high density Jane-Finch area.

And all-day express routes like 190 are great ideas, at least in suburban E-W streets, like Finch, Wilson-York Mills, and some N-S streets like Don Mills or Victoria Park. I think MT should make the 201 and 202 all day and more frequent, and that would do wonders.

I just think GO regional rail and LRT like Hurontario and Yonge North would be best for the suburbs right now, and subway within 416 like the DRL and along streets like Eglinton, even underground streetcars along the core part of Queen Street.

 

[unimaginative2]

spmarshall, that is exactly the kind of system that I favour. With one or two exceptions, subways are likely inferior to significant expansion of GO transit in the outer suburbs. The 416, however, needs a lot more rapid transit.

Yet somehow I have trouble believing that building a subway line into what amounts to a big field makes much sense.

I certainly have some issues with the Vaughan Extension, but I see nothing wrong with extending rapid transit to a neighbourhood that will likely soon explode with growth, in order to encourage that growth to be transit-friendly. Does it make more sense to build a subway 20 years later into a neighbourhood that has already developed around the car?

And I am sure there are some areas of Toronto where a subway would make sense. Along Queen Street and heading into the new development along the waterfront and into the Portlands seems logical.

East-West downtown is exactly the kind of route for subway that I favour, yet the accusations that subway "obsession" is silly is exactly the kind of thing that shuts down talk of these routes.

If people are so fascinated by Madrid why not actually investigate the reasons they were able to build so cheaply? Spain is not Canada and the construction methods used, labour, geological conditions, safety standards, etc are likely to be quite different than those faced in Toronto.

Come on, this is Spain, not China. This is the European Union! Their labour laws are rather tougher than ours.

Why not investigate why they had to build subways over other transportation systems?

Because they provide capacity for decades to come, not just the next few years. Because they actually inspire economic growth and development. Look at the Yonge line. It was built through mostly single-family homes and low-rise shops.

Why hold Madrid up as a shining example when those who write about do not seem to have bothered investigating it beyond the two numbers they like too toss around.

I've been to Spain and ridden on countless subway lines there. I've also lived in Munich, a city with far greater subway density than Toronto. Their systems are successful, modern, attractive, and serve their population extremely well. They are built through neighbnourhoods that we would denounce as absurd for subways in Toronto, and yet they are well-used. They're frankly better systems than the TTC in every way, so why shouldn't we look at their example?

They were built because the cities were so dense and land non existent that underground became the only option, and an option that has always had a great cost attached to it.

You talk about Paris and New York, but what about the hundreds of other cities which have built subways and are building extensions? They certainly don't go through neighbourhoods of non-stop skyscrapers. Moreover, anyone who has been to the outskirts of Paris, New York, or any of those other cities would know that the subway lines stretch deep into the suburbs where, by your definition, subways make no sense.

Yes, in some parts of Toronto such as the downtown and adjacent neighborhoods there could be a reasoned, logical reason for subways if streetcars become even more stressed then they are.

Even more stressed than they are? I live downtown and take streetcars every day. I can tell you that they'd have a hard time becoming more stressed. The bigger issue isn't overcrowding, it's travel time. It takes me over 25 minutes to get from Front to Bloor on the Spadina line, and eons to get out to the Beaches on Queen. These streetcars are wonderful for neighbourhood service, but they're abysmal for long-distances. The exact same thing holds true for a number of busy bus routes in the inner suburbs.

But elsewhere, why is there such a need to waste $100+ million dollars per kilometer building an underground transit system when you have oversized arterial roads and underutilized rail right of ways that criss-cross the city?

A cursory inspection would tell you that the vast majority of arterial roads, both in the suburbs and downtwn, are far from oversized. Jane, Finch, Eglinton, McCowan, and others are all four lanes with no median for much of their length. Would you propose reducing them to one lane each way in order to accommodate a streetcar right-of-way?

As for the rail corridors, the railways just won't allow you to run some kind of frequent service along them. We're talking about expanding the tracks in Weston that would, in the future, potentially allow frequent urban service on the Georgetown Line. Of course, the neighbours are raising holy hell. The Stouffville line is a wonderful spot for light rail, and I wholeheartedly support it. The CP lines, arguably the most useful, are completely unusable since that railway is fiercely opposed to passenger traffic. These mythical rail corridors aren't all that they seem.

I suppose you could spend $2 billion dollars for what, a 15km extension that serves only one small section of the city.

If we matched Vancouver's costs, we could spend $2 billion for a 15km extension. That extension would mean an entire Eglinton subway from east to west of the city, revolutionizing transit for well over a million people, and eliminating capacity problems on the Bloor line almost in perpetuity. Yes, that would be a very good investment of $2 billion.

Or you could invest that money in GO, create a regional rail network, and greatly improve transit to a far greater number of areas of the city.

I'm very supportive of GO improvement. I would love to see S-Bahn style service along all of the GO lines. Toronto could support it, and I think it would be a wonderful improvement. It wouldn't do a whole lot for the inner city, however, which is tragically bereft of rapid transit by comparison to just about any other world city.

Lets just say SRT was replaced with a subway, Shephard was finished and the Spadina line extended to Vaughan. For the $4 or 5 billion it would cost to do all that would that actually do a whole lot for transit in the city as whole or just benefit those residents that happen to live within a kilometer of those lines?

The SRT replacement would completely transform the transit experience for the 300,000 people who live north of Eglinton and east of Kennedy, plus hundreds of thousands of people in Markham and Pickering. It would also encourage development at Scarborough Centre that no RT or streetcar ever would.

 

[scarberiankhatru]

"and subway within 416 like the DRL and along streets like Eglinton"

I'd prefer a subway for those two lines, too, but if [non-streetcar] light rail lines would be cheaper and easier to build and provide a service that's almost as good, I'd wholeheartedly support them with my tax dollars.

 

[cassiusa]

Vancouver is building a 15km subway for only $2B? Or do you mean some kind of LRT or something?

 

[unimaginative2]

They're building 19.1km of rapid transit similar to their existing Skytrain, about half of which is underground, for $1.5 billion.

 

[Degnaw]

"You talk about Paris and New York, but what about the hundreds of other cities which have built subways and are building extensions? They certainly don't go through neighbourhoods of non-stop skyscrapers. Moreover, anyone who has been to the outskirts of Paris, New York, or any of those other cities would know that the subway lines stretch deep into the suburbs where, by your definition, subways make no sense."

The areas they stretch into dont have nonstop skyscrapers, but they DO have them, much more so than Weston or some other area. And if you think Bronx or Queens is a suburb in the same sense as suburban areas in Toronto, it isn't.

Like many people have said before, I think lightrail is good for the suburban areas (REAL light rail, limited stop with prepayment and stuff, not streetcarsinarightofway)

I also dont see why GO can't electrify in the near future, if it can build new railways in CN ROWs, why can't it put up electri-er-hydro poles in it too?

 

[unimaginative2]

Have you not noticed the hundreds of skyscrapers in all of the Toronto suburbs. Even York and Peel region have many. Toronto's suburbs certainly have far more skyscrapers than, say, those in Munich.

Anyway, I don't seem to be making myself very clear. What I support is more subways in the central part of Toronto, not further extensions deep into the suburbs. I support the Scarborough subway, the Sheppard completion, and the York U extension, but after that I feel that new subway construction should shift back closer to downtown.

The outer suburbs would be much better, and more economically, served by a high-frequency GO Transit. We're kidding ourselves if we think this will be cheap, though. CP would kick and scream in opposition to any increased passenger traffic on the Milton Line, so GO would likely be obliged to build an entirely new set of tracks. Every other route would have to be completely rebuilt from end to end in order to provide urban frequencies. Of course, the very projects that would be necessary to accommodate such frequencies have met with intense opposition in, for example, Weston. Electrification has long been studied. The cost would be high, but if frequencies were increased, it would be worth it.

My problem with light rail in Toronto is that nobody seems to be talking about "real" light rail. All of the city's official documents show light rail along major streets out in the suburbs. Nobody seems to be able to explain why this would be so much of an improvement over buses, factoring in the tremendous relative cost, or how it would be implemented on our many rather narrow suburban arterials.

 

[cacruden]

There is a difference between London/Paris and Toronto -- Paris and London have a more evenly spread out population with more medium density throughout -- as compared to Toronto -- very dense at points (in comparison) and not very dense at all in other locations. Also Paris and London have a larger population overall by a considerable amount -- than Toronto. In Paris the subways run smaller vehicles through smaller tunnels (because of the population being more evenly spread out). New York is considerably larger than Toronto.... so using these cities does not make for a good comparison (either for or against).

 

[Degnaw]

"but if frequencies were increased, it would be worth it."

I remember seeing frequencies of 10-15 minutes for a period of about an hour on the lakeshore line, I may be wrong, though