Transit City Plan

[scarberiankhatru]

Even the Sheppard subway, if connected to STC, would probably move less than 100,000 people per day.

The Sheppard subway cost around 900Million to build, and costs 10 Million a year to operate, and the TTC still provides parallel bus service. I am more than certain, LRT from Downsview to Meadowvale would have attracted far more rides than the subway.
I am not anti-subway, far from it.

Another myth pro-subway advocates like to bring up: Speed attracts riders. What is the point of a super quick subway ride, if you have to wait for an infrequent bus to reach your destination, if you live between stations?

The Phoenix LRT has been a major revenue booster for business, for that exact reason. Hop on-Hop off. It is also possible with subways, but usually at stations only, unless the station spacing is small enough, that people can walk between stations.

Oh dear, another person moaning about total ridership. Of course, if it hit 10,000 per hour, it'd cross the magic threshold on the little chart the city trots out to discredit sensible subway projects (no such minimum is ever considered for multi-billion dollar light rail projects, though). Let me guess: any line that moves less than its theoretical capacity is a TOTAL FAILURE, right?

How much money does our precious Queen streetcar cost to operate? How much money do the Steeles buses lose every day? The *only* reason the central stretches of subway profit operationally (if they even do so) is because other routes 'lose' money feeding riders onto them.

As for the 85J, it wouldn't be needed if the subway was extended and if Willowdale was built.

Now you're going on about a 25km LRT line from Downsview to Meadowvale versus a 5km subway line. I am more than certain that this is a stupid comparison. Adding "I am not anti-subway" just makes your statements seem even more clownish.

It's not a myth: travel time is far and away the main issue people have with transit and what keeps people in their cars, and travel time is a function of more than just vehicle speed.

That stop spacing argument might not make no sense if you used a city/LRT system that didn't have the same stop spacing as Toronto's subway network, which is about 1km, except for a small number of 2km gaps, most of which cross completely empty pockets. Your entire stop spacing diatribe is based on the lack of a Willowdale station and maybe a Lytton/Blythwood station. That's about it. Filling in the other handful of 2km gaps would just create more Ellesmeres.

 

[Justin10000]

Ha ha ha. Amazing. If we use your criteria then lines in Paris, London, and New York are wastes of money.

I was referring to Toronto's situation. Each city is unique, yeah? You should not even compare Toronto to London, Paris, or New York, since their networks were built in the early 20th century, London and New York built largely with private funding. Toronto missed the boat, should have started in 1910. If you want to compare the cities TODAY, you will notice Paris, and London are focusing on expanding their regional rail systems with incremental expansions of their subways. Out of the 3 cities, only New York is building a new line.

I can make up numbers too! LRT is a complete waste of money if they move less than 150,000 people per day (half of what you state is the minimum for subway). Oh no! That makes every single LRT in the USA (other than the Boston Green line) a waste of money!

The TTC considers the demand in a corridor to be MINIMUM 10,000pph to justify a subway. I assume you read the EA's. Will any of the Transit City Line reach that minimum by 2030? Nope. The demand forecast for the Transit City line can be easily handled by surface rail, considering surface rail can handle up to 15-16,000pph, all within a narrow ROW!

Buildng a subway that will be lightly used, for the sake of building a subway is a waste of money. Toronto is not Paris, New York, or London. Those cities built their networks when it was cheap to do so. Toronto did not. Live with it. Toronto will not be getting a subway network that big, and quite frankly, Toronto does not need one right now.(except for the DRL, and Yonge Extension).

 

[CDL.TO]

I was referring to Toronto's situation. Each city is unique, yeah? You should not even compare Toronto to London, Paris, or New York, since their networks were built in the early 20th century, London and New York built largely with private funding. Toronto missed the boat, should have started in 1910. If you want to compare the cities TODAY, you will notice Paris, and London are focusing on expanding their regional rail systems with incremental expansions of their subways. Out of the 3 cities, only New York is building a new line.

The TTC considers the demand in a corridor to be MINIMUM 10,000pph to justify a subway. I assume you read the EA's. Will any of the Transit City Line reach that minimum by 2030? Nope. The demand forecast for the Transit City line can be easily handled by surface rail, considering surface rail can handle up to 15-16,000pph, all within a narrow ROW!

Building a subway that will be lightly used, for the sake of building a subway is a waste of money. Toronto is not Paris, New York, or London. Those cities built their networks when it was cheap to do so. Toronto did not. Live with it. Toronto will not be getting a subway network that big, and quite frankly, Toronto does not need one right now.(except for the DRL, and Yonge Extension).

What you're ignoring is that you are calling well-used and fundamental parts of other city's transportation systems "wastes of money" because you apply extremely raw criteria to try and assess the value of a line to a system. It's not that "each city is unique" is a justification that one level of ridership is somehow feasible in one city and another level is feasible in another. It's that there's a lot more going on than a total number of riders on the complete length of a line! (And, by the way, Paris may not be building a new line, but they are building four extensions as we speak!)

I have read the EA's. Each and every one. As I recall, they were not printed on stone tablets passed down to man from the hand of god. How familiar are you with the methodologies used to determine what the demand forecasts are for each of the planned lines?

And for that matter, what with the "building a subway for the sake of building a subway"? What type of a non sequitur is that? Who has ever said that? Who has ever said that they want a subway system as big as New York or London? If systems can't be built in the modern times, how about the systems of Madrid, Munich, or Vienna?

If you re-read my posts, I haven't even called for any subway extensions to be built! Clearly, you see subway fanatics where there are none! I just want to see an end to the poor justifications and made-up-on-the-spot statistics that have no place in proper transportation planning!

 

[The Mad Navigator]

You will hardly find anti-LRT here...

after reading from many of what the users post here in this particular forum, it sure seems contrary to that statement.

I really like them...not on Eglinton or Sheppard.

I don't feel like beating the proverbial dead horse to nothing but atoms, but I disagree.

You want to put them on Lawrence, Wilson/York Mills/Ellesmere, Jane, Steeles, Finch, Kipling, Islington, Dufferin, Don Mills...
be my guess

Lawrence (Yonge and westerly) - Yes
Wilson/York Mills/Ellesmere - Yes, but I don't know how if that could work with the topography specifically at Yonge, unless it dives below grade like Eglinton
Jane - Definitely
Don Mills - North of Eglinton, yes
Dufferin - Isn't the ridership worthy of a subway? I don't know the stats here, but that Dufferin bus is ALWAYS busy.
Kipling OR Islington - Yes

 

[CDL.TO]

One thing I gotta say...

You can't help but feel that you're doing something right when you were condemned before Transit City was announced for saying that the city should build LRT and condemned after Transit City was announced for saying that LRT isn't a one-size-fits-all solution.

 

[The Mad Navigator]

Your level of enthusiasm is both inspirational but yet tragic at the same time. Short of dismantling the entire TTC hierarchy and starting anew, I don't think that the current modus operandi will ever get a nack for route management, by far the TTC's worst problem. If an exclusive ROW such as a subway tunnel these concerns are mititgated because whether the train's on-time or not is largely within the driver's control. However surface transit in the absence of an exclusive ROw just too many variables working against it in a Toronto context for me personally to have realistic expectations of time/speed advantages. Rapid can only exist in exclusive ROW. However, that's not to say that here too challeneges can't emerge when trying to mix both on-street and grade-separated ROW operations. 510 Spadina has many issues facing it particularly the bottleneck of trams that show in the Bloor tunnel at any given time and have to stand and wait to gain entry to the platform area. The issue of bunching/stalling is very real and at 5 minute headways, this can pose a problem for the reliability of trams showing up in the Eglinton tunnel. We don't want to see these mistakes repeated elsewhere in the city what going on across the Queen-Lakeshore corridor. Never has a street with so many shopping districts has been left with such infrequent, unreliable service. Be greateful if your destination is nearby a north-south feeder to the B-D subway if travelling through its neighbourhoods because it's a hit and miss awaiting the 501 car.

The TTC needs to fix the cracks and leaks in its vessel now before talking about adding on a new deck. Even Steve Munro, whom many think of as the envisage of Transit City, is now admitting on his website that there's several operational flaws with the recent 512 rebuild. Europe we are not. What we are good at is metro subways and many people clamor to live or work nearby one because of that fact. Ergo subways will attract more TOD than ever imaginable with LRT.

I agree that route management needs to greatly improve, but just because the TTC can't do that right, doesn't justify a subway in my mind. It's kind of a weak solution to avoiding the problem outright.

It seems that you're trying to justify rapid transit service when really what is needed is better local service. Why can't GO provide express service in the city? Why does it have to be so that TTC should have to provide ALL rapid transit service? Wouldn't it be cheaper to improve GO rail infrastructure and service WITHIN the 416? Sure there are land constraints and rail rights issues with CN and CP, but I'm sure something can be done if all parties work together. GO has to stop being so commuter oriented, and slowly that is starting to happen.

 

[The Mad Navigator]

What fun

1/2. Actually, it kind of does. LRT does not replace subway in any way shape or form. You can't have several much needed subway routes and just say "LRT'll do the job good enough and it looks pretty too!!" If you look at most of the other cities that use LRT (especially the hallowed European /ones that do,) you'll realize that LRT is not used as a subway replacement! LRT is used as a supplementary transit service, essentially acting as a super-bus thing for getting people to the already dense subway and rail networks.
If you're talking about places like Edmonton and Calgary, I hate to break it to you, but that's not the LRT we're talking about! Edmonton and Calgary both use almost fully grade separated LRT lines that run as metro systems.
And if you're talking about Pheonix and other American cities, I'll remind you that these LRTs have done nothing to stem car dependence in them. Any "success" by LA's LRTs has to be taken with the fact that they're a metropolis of over 15 million people, of whom a vast majority are fully car dependent. In reality, LA's LRTs have actually done minimally. A good start for the city, but not as much as could be done, and should not be a basis for doing the same in Toronto.

I agree that LRTs do not replace subways, but unfortunately we live in a world where money doesn't grow on trees and Toronto needs better transit sooner rather than later. If Toronto was Calgary or LA or Edmonton or any other mostly suburban metropolis, then yeah, LRT won't work. Toronto is it's own beast and if we want to stray away from future suburban development, then LRT is the way to go, not HRT. Does Sheppard feel any less suburban between Yonge and Don Mills today than it did pre-subway?

3. "Subways are more expensive because we like to build them expensively, therefore LRT is better." Does this logic even make sense to you? The TTC could easily build subways using reasonably-sized stations and alternative building methods, which could easily put the cost of subway at $200m/km with TBMing, and even lower if you're going to elevate, trench or cut and cover some bits, which could easily be done on a route like Eglinton.

Yes, but these alternative methods. Do you honestly think it will happen this way?

4. Yes I have, and it's very pretty. But I notice that a lot of people use Paris' subways too! In fact, it might just be harder because it's underground, but it'd seem like tonnes of more people use Paris' subway than the LRTs!
It's very pretty, but shouldn't aesthetics come second to... you know, actually making a network that gets people around as efficiently as possible? I agree, it'll be nice to have some LRT along some corridors in the city and region (not that TC is going to be making them particularly pretty,) but it'll also be nice to be able to get around the city quickly in a system that can handle the city's needs.

Well of course lots of people use Paris' subways moreso than LRTs because it's already an established network. Maybe if we had a similar network of subways we can compare it against our future LRT lines. Perhaps we will build a subway network with Monopoly money, drawing a few "chance" and "community chest" cards along the way that could provide us with some extra magical funds.

6. It seems pretty obvious that you're just going for the longshot right now. I don't think that a tourist going along a Sheppard LRT would suddenly get out and walk into a nice looking shop they saw while going by. I certainly haven't done that in my LRT travels. If you're talking about inner-city LRT like maybe on Queen or something, yes, totally! There've been a few times I've gotten off the Queen streetcar to check out a cool shop. But when you're talking about LRTs far flung out into the suburbs, it's quite unlikely that any tourist would be riding it in the first place, and if they were it'd be for a specific reason.
The business one just seems kind of silly to me. Do you know of anyone who actively looks for clients by driving down a street in search of stores to press into clientship? If so, then yes, he can just take the bus anyways. If he'd rather look for those shops than be whisked along in a subway, then he can easily do that.

Maybe I am going for the long shot, but how many people do you know say, "Wow, look at that pretty TTC subway system and all its trains and stations? They're so clean and nice and maintained very well! Oh and those cold, barren looking tunnels, they're so neat!" I just love hanging around subway stations when I have nothing better to do and need a place to kick up my heels and have a tea or coffee.

As for the Sheppard LRT, no tourist would suddenly get out and walk into a nice looking shop they saw while traveling by them these days.... give it 40, 50, maybe 60 years if it takes that long and I'm pretty sure Sheppard will change into a more transit friendly avenue. But that will only happen if future redevelopment is compact and LRT oriented. When the day comes that Sheppard becomes a tourist destination within the city, then yes, your argument is completely valid.

I don't think the business point that I made is silly. A bumpy bus that probably would stop more frequently might be sufficient, but a comfortable LRT with stop spacing greater than a bus but less than a subway would give someone that opportunity to not have to walk to far to a business they may see as opposed to an all underground subway to which (if they had no clue as to what stores are above) would simply continue from station to station without getting off and just going all the way to the end of the line. We should rejuvenate our avenues, not build lines just to suburban malls for an end destination.....

 

[junctionist]

Well of course lots of people use Paris' subways moreso than LRTs because it's already an established network. Maybe if we had a similar network of subways we can compare it against our future LRT lines. Perhaps we will build a subway network with Monopoly money, drawing a few "chance" and "community chest" cards along the way that could provide us with some extra magical funds.

Maybe we can build the subway network using a realistic method just like any other city, using government money generated by positive economic performance. How about that? After all, we already have a network of subways. Its not extensive enough, but it's the major ridership draw.

As for the Sheppard LRT, no tourist would suddenly get out and walk into a nice looking shop they saw while traveling by them these days.... give it 40, 50, maybe 60 years if it takes that long and I'm pretty sure Sheppard will change into a more transit friendly avenue. But that will only happen if future redevelopment is compact and LRT oriented. When the day comes that Sheppard becomes a tourist destination within the city, then yes, your argument is completely valid.

Tourism is a very strange point to bring up. Tourists look at guide books, check websites, and then go to specific areas in cities they've researched. They don't just put their finger on the globe, come up with a city, then take a surface transit route on a street far from the city centre aimlessly looking for nice stores to shop at. After all, tourists also care about travel times when taking transit. They only have a few days typically to see a place and they don't want to waste a lot of time getting to the neighbourhoods, sights, and attractions they hear about.

 

[EnviroTO]

Where is the Transit City Progress thread? It would be nice to have a thread showing pictures of construction at Agincourt, news on tenders, news on EA completion, etc. Too bad all we have is poorly named Transit City Gripe threads.

 

[scarberiankhatru]

Dufferin - Isn't the ridership worthy of a subway? I don't know the stats here, but that Dufferin bus is ALWAYS busy.

Kipling OR Islington - Yes

No, Dufferin isn't "worthy" of a subway - its ridership is split by the Bloor line. Not that you'll understand or care that this makes an enormous difference, but it needs to be mentioned.

Kipling or Islington? Which one? If people would use either one, why are we bothering to run two bus routes today?

If Toronto was Calgary or LA or Edmonton or any other mostly suburban metropolis, then yeah, LRT won't work. Toronto is it's own beast and if we want to stray away from future suburban development, then LRT is the way to go, not HRT. Does Sheppard feel any less suburban between Yonge and Don Mills today than it did pre-subway?

So now LRT doesn't work in Calgary? It's a challenge to name cities in the world where LRT works better. Toronto is mostly suburban, by the way, and it became less suburban by building subway lines and rebuilding places along the subway line. Yes, Sheppard already feels less suburban, even though only a tiny fraction of Sheppard has been redeveloped so far and even though the design of the projects has often been dubious.

We should rejuvenate our avenues, not build lines just to suburban malls for an end destination.....

This makes no sense. We rejuvenate streets by rezoning and letting developers build stuff - like Sheppard West, the city's farthest along Avenue and a street getting neither an LRT line nor a subway line. That said, suburban malls are where the people are going, where there's room for parking, where there's room for redevelopment, and tend to be great spots for bus connections. If you're going to push for certain types of transit, remember that the transit has absolutely no effect on what gets built...the city and the OMB have explicit control over that.

 

[Rainforest]

Lawrence (Yonge and westerly) - Yes
Wilson/York Mills/Ellesmere - Yes, but I don't know how if that could work with the topography specifically at Yonge, unless it dives below grade like Eglinton
Jane - Definitely
Don Mills - North of Eglinton, yes
Dufferin - Isn't the ridership worthy of a subway? I don't know the stats here, but that Dufferin bus is ALWAYS busy.
Kipling OR Islington - Yes

Lawrence West LRT is worth considering. Between Bathurst and Jane, the street is wide enough to host LRT ROW. But Yonge to Bathurst would certainly need a tunnel. Jane to Dixon, probably too.

Dufferin bus is very busy, but I don't think a subway is warranted there, because of the proximity of Spadina - Allen Road subway.

 

[Rainforest]

Why can't GO provide express service in the city? Why does it have to be so that TTC should have to provide ALL rapid transit service? Wouldn't it be cheaper to improve GO rail infrastructure and service WITHIN the 416? Sure there are land constraints and rail rights issues with CN and CP, but I'm sure something can be done if all parties work together. GO has to stop being so commuter oriented, and slowly that is starting to happen.

They have to, but in reality they don't. GO remains prominently out of the picture of rapid transit within 416.

They aren't planning any service to Pearson as an alternative to ARL. They aren't planning any Crosstown service on the Midtown (North Toronto) CP branch (which would nicely provide a rapid alternative to Eglinton LRT, and safeguard the LRT against overcrowding).

Even though major enhancements of the Brampton corridor are underway, there is no interest in treating it as a rapid transit line for the north-west of Toronto. GO can't be even bothered with moving Leslie station closer to the subway station.

I don't know the reason: just the mindset of the past, or some inherent capacity / cost limitations? If the latter, then we cannot rely on GO network as a substitute for enhanced subway network.

 

[kettal]

Yes, Sheppard already feels less suburban, even though only a tiny fraction of Sheppard has been redeveloped so far and even though the design of the projects has often been dubious.

Only if less suburban means more Dubai.

 

[Dan416]

Only if less suburban means more Dubai.

Dubai? You had to bring Dubai into this? On a Transit forum that's like bringing up Nazis. All rational debate ends when you bring up Dubai or Nazis

 

[Fresh Start]

Lawrence West LRT is worth considering. Between Bathurst and Jane, the street is wide enough to host LRT ROW. But Yonge to Bathurst would certainly need a tunnel. Jane to Dixon, probably too.

Dufferin bus is very busy, but I don't think a subway is warranted there, because of the proximity of Spadina - Allen Road subway.

Subway stations at Dufferin/Eglinton and Dufferin/Queen would severely alleviate the Dufferin bus. The major transition points of that line are Corso Italia, Dufferin Mall and the Ex, so I can see how the new stops would drastically reduce the time spent commuting to those points and even create alternate route options for customers.