The Future of subway and rapid transit in the GTA

[ARG1]

A "massive parkway/car sewer" - you just described Finch Avenue! No, this design isn't necessary at all if you want to run a tram quickly. It can also look like this. Maybe not a "surface subway" with 100% priority over cars, but trust me, it's a huge improvement over Line 6.

A huge improvement over Line 6, maybe. A form of rapid transit that gets you across town at reasonable speeds, no not really. I'll be the first to admit as @T3G pointed out to me that Prague's trams do feature much higher speeds than many of its contemporary "Type B" trams, such as those in Paris and western Europe, however that's not to say that Prague's trams are that fast in general. In Urban areas (so sections that aren't in the middle of nowhere with barely any development or basically no intersections) Prague caps out at around 22km/h average speed, with top speeds reaching around 40-45km/h. In fact I found a few cab ride videos of trams running through the section that you linked, and I used landmarks such as streetlights and wires to measure the speed of this specific section. Lo and behold, it averages out to around 46km/h. Meanwhile measuring the speeds of the 36st NE section of the blue line, the line seems to cap out at 70-80km/h. Even if we take the lower number, I shouldn't have to tell you that 70km/h is significantly faster than 45km/h.

Either way, you're missing the point. The point is that LRT can be built to be fast and with priority over other traffic. Whether you find faults with specific examples isn't relevant.

The fact that you're saying this shows that you're completely missing the point that the rest of us are saying. Yes LRT can be built fast with priority over other traffic, however it entirely depends on what the ROW looks like, the environment it runs in, and what additional infrastructure is built to support it. Building Light Rail like a sort of mini S-Bahn where it reused dedicated ROWs or features significant separation from the rest of the street like Calgary does will yield significantly better results than an Urban Tramway such as Prague or Finch West. Trying to compare the two and claiming that one can be like the other with "proper priority" is misleading and a big game of comparing apples with oranges. You've tried to counter this point, but every example you bring up completely fails to demonstrate this. This is something that can be seen in virtually every city that has light rail. Look at LA, compare the speeds of the A Line when its running down Flower Street near Downtown or Marmion in Highland Park, and compare it with every other section that's either built on a freight corridor or a former Interurban ROW - the speed difference is night and day.

 

[urbanclient]

A huge improvement over Line 6, maybe. A form of rapid transit that gets you across town at reasonable speeds, no not really. I'll be the first to admit as @T3G pointed out to me that Prague's trams do feature much higher speeds than many of its contemporary "Type B" trams, such as those in Paris and western Europe, however that's not to say that Prague's trams are that fast in general. In Urban areas (so sections that aren't in the middle of nowhere with barely any development or basically no intersections) Prague caps out at around 22km/h average speed, with top speeds reaching around 40-45km/h. In fact I found a few cab ride videos of trams running through the section that you linked, and I used landmarks such as streetlights and wires to measure the speed of this specific section. Lo and behold, it averages out to around 46km/h. Meanwhile measuring the speeds of the 36st NE section of the blue line, the line seems to cap out at 70-80km/h. Even if we take the lower number, I shouldn't have to tell you that 70km/h is significantly faster than 45km/h.

The fact that you're saying this shows that you're completely missing the point that the rest of us are saying. Yes LRT can be built fast with priority over other traffic, however it entirely depends on what the ROW looks like, the environment it runs in, and what additional infrastructure is built to support it. Building Light Rail like a sort of mini S-Bahn where it reused dedicated ROWs or features significant separation from the rest of the street like Calgary does will yield significantly better results than an Urban Tramway such as Prague or Finch West. Trying to compare the two and claiming that one can be like the other with "proper priority" is misleading and a big game of comparing apples with oranges. You've tried to counter this point, but every example you bring up completely fails to demonstrate this. This is something that can be seen in virtually every city that has light rail. Look at LA, compare the speeds of the A Line when its running down Flower Street near Downtown or Marmion in Highland Park, and compare it with every other section that's either built on a freight corridor or a former Interurban ROW - the speed difference is night and day.

I subjectively prefer walkable tram lined streets actually, but that doesn't take away from the fact that for some trips in some parts of the world, only metro can be time competitive with driving. I prefer tram streets in Amsterdam because for short trips around town, I can hop on and off a tram with ease. For metro, you have to actually get in and out of the stations from street level. This can take an extra 3 to 15 minutes (interchange stations in China) for a one way trip, depending on the city.

 

[Burnt creek]

I go back to what I said before - opposing transit expansion because it doesn't meet the standard you want is counterproductive. It will give worse results, not better. Especially given how dire the transit expansion situation was in the 2000s. Transit City, for all its faults, helped lay the groundwork for the more substantial expansion that is now underway.

What is the goal of Public transit? To me its: to transport people effectively, conveniently and in timely manner from home to their desired destination & back. Principally, it should effectively provide transportation to and from home to place of work in a safe, convenient and timely manner and thus providing significant economic benefits to the people/city through time saving.

For example, with good public transport, you should not feel that you need to move to a far more distance suburb because your commuting time to work (through public transit like GO) would be faster.

But the minds behind Transit city did not quite see it this way. Here is the vision of Transit City through a direct quote from its architects (see video proof at 2:15)

Quote: "The importance of transit city was to try to build a city in which people did not have to own a car. A cars is an expensive thing and in order to live in a city where you are not obliged to have a car you need transit network."

So what's the difference between what I said and what they said? I referenced mobility and giving access to adequate mobility whereas they did not. They referenced the car and not needing to own a car and a bunch of other things that have nothing to do with actual public transit or mobility. That was/is the problem with the vision behind Transit City. For people in Toronto or anywhere on the planet, nothing can beat the Truck or auto as far as ground level mobility because it and its passengers are going to go to and from their destination at faster speeds and not make unnecessary stops. And a majority of people either own a car, have a car in the household or have easily access to transportation by car through friend and family. Plus, if you who wish to visit people and places outside the city, the vast majority will prefer the car. This is not disputable anywhere on the planet, ppl will drive whether we like it or not. And those who do not have any access to an auto? Well a lot of those will aspire to owning car. So now whose left? A very very tiny minority.

The only way to build a city(and public transit) in which people did not have to own a car would be to slow down the car and/or making auto mobility as inconvenient as possible. But how does that improve anybody's (transit users or motorist) mobility? it does not. Those who do not own cars, have no access to cars, and have no desires to ever own a car are the only ones who's mobility is not adversely affected by the Transit CITY vision even though their mobility is likely worst. In the GTA & the western world, that is a very tiny per centage of people.

See quote at 2:15

 

[urbanclient]

What is the goal of Public transit? To me its: to transport people effectively, conveniently and in timely manner from home to their desired destination & back. Principally, it should effectively provide transportation to and from home to place of work in a safe, convenient and timely manner and thus providing significant economic benefits to the people/city through time saving.

For example, with good public transport, you should not feel that you need to move to a far more distance suburb because your commuting time to work (through public transit like GO) would be faster.

But the minds behind Transit city did not quite see it this way. Here is the vision of Transit City through a direct quote from its architects (see video proof at 2:15)

Quote: "The importance of transit city was to try to build a city in which people did not have to own a car. A cars is an expensive thing and in order to live in a city where you are not obliged to have a car you need transit network."

So what's the difference between what I said and what they said? I referenced mobility and giving access to adequate mobility whereas they did not. They referenced the car and not needing to own a car and a bunch of other things that have nothing to do with actual public transit or mobility. That was/is the problem with the vision behind Transit City. For people in Toronto or anywhere on the planet, nothing can beat the Truck or auto as far as ground level mobility because it and its passengers are going to go to and from their destination at faster speeds and not make unnecessary stops. And a majority of people either own a car, have a car in the household or have easily access to transportation by car through friend and family. Plus, if you who wish to visit people and places outside the city, the vast majority will prefer the car. This is not disputable anywhere on the planet, ppl will drive whether we like it or not. And those who do not have any access to an auto? Well a lot of those will aspire to owning car. So now whose left? A very very tiny minority.

The only way to build a city(and public transit) in which people did not have to own a car would be to slow down the car and/or making auto mobility as inconvenient as possible. But how does that improve anybody's (transit users or motorist) mobility? it does not. Those who do not own cars, have no access to cars, and have no desires to ever own a car are the only ones who's mobility is not adversely affected by the Transit CITY vision even though their mobility is likely worst. In the GTA & the western world, that is a very tiny per centage of people.

See quote at 2:15

I second this and would like to expand on this idea further.

This is from both personal and secondhand experience: in Tier 1 and Tier 1+ Chinese cities, i.e. Beijing, Shanghai, Guangzhou, Shenzhen and a dozen others, the rapid metro/subway expansion over the last 10 years has not actually reduced car congestion by much. In fact congestion is still just as bad as Toronto, if not worse. And the stats back me up, car usage rates and metro expansion appear to be positively correlated in China. The most rabid Amsterdam-bike-urbanists would think the opposite would be true, wouldn't a fast and efficient transit system reduce demand for personal cars?

I’m intentionally simplifying this for the sake of discussion; basically, a gargantuan amount of fast public transit did not reduce demand for cars in China, what it did instead was allow more people, especially the less privileged to travel more. A lot more. Private jets and helicopters are a much smaller thing in China, if you are ultra-wealthy, you'll still travel by common carrier like commercial airline and high speed rail.

“A developed country is not a place where the poor have cars. It's where the rich use public transportation.” —former Bogotá Mayor Enrique Peñalosa Londoño

And here I ask, why not both? In an ideal world, the rich and poor can use cars and public transit as they please.

To each their own, but to me cars are for convenience, for trips too far for metro, but too short for intercity or high speed rail, best time of use would be non-peak. The metro is for rush hour and medium distance trips that stay within the city. Shorter trips you walk, ride a bike, or catch an Uber or bus.

 

[T3G]

Where are you getting Zlicin to downtown in 20 minutes on the tram? That sounds like Metro Line B trip times, not Tram 9 from Zlicin to Prague 1 or 2. Tram 9 is supposed to take 50-56 minutes to travel 17.4 km, nowhere close to 30 km/h, even for the faster segments, like the 10 to 12 km trip from Zlicin to downtown. IMO this is clearly a false claim. Maybe someone more familiar with Prague can chime in just in case I'm wrong.

There are no trams to Zličín. The closest tram terminus is a few kilometres over at Sídliště Řepy, and the travel time is supposed to be 23 minutes to Karlovo náměstí, a major exchange point downtown.