Transit City Plan

[Electrify]

I'm calling BS on this one.

There is nothing in the defnition of LRT that is a function of stop spacing.

Your just making this up.

Even in this, the average stop spacing on the reserved lane from the North Service Road to Nanwood is 850 metres. The average stop spacing on the Eglinton LRT is 700 metres. One is LRT and the other one isn't?

And much of this line actually operates in mixed traffic. Mixed traffic is LRT but non-mixed traffic isn't?????

There is no golden rule between local and rapid transit, since it depends on a number of factors. The Paris Metro has an average stop spacing of 300 meters, but Paris is also an extremely dense and compact city. The tight stop spacing was also one of the key reasons why the RER was built, because it could not provide the speed required for travel across the greater urban area. The stop spacing on the Yonge line is about 400 meters in downtown (same as the SELRT), but that is through the densest concentration of employment and commercial activity in the country.

Generally speaking, rapid transit stop spacing beyond the CBD is between 800-1200 meters (half mile to 3/4 of a mile). Not only do transit experts agree on this (http://www.humantransit.org/2010/11/san-francisco-a-rational-stop-spacing-plan.html), but play with Google Maps and you will see similar stop spacings on several rapid transit lines. So the underground portion of Eglinton east of Yonge fits squarely into rapid transit. The west end of Eglinton could see some stops removed (Oakwood and Chaplin Cres), but is acceptable.

As for mixed traffic, it is acceptable in small amounts, usually in dense central areas. As long as the majority of the line runs rapidly (wider stops, off board payment, signal priority, etc), then it should be able to maintain LRT status.

EDIT: As Markster said above, we can argue the definition of naming rights all we want. The reality is that many of the critics to Transit City would rather see fast rail supplemented by a slow bus compared to the current one-size-fits-all approach. Considering the dynamic range of Toronto and region, this is not an unreasonable request.

 

[Asterix]

I do support Transit City more than some, but the stop spacing is a deal breaker for me personally. The stop spacing makes the difference between a rapid transit line and a tramway. If they can fix the stop spacing, then I can and will support it 100%. I've stated this numerous times, and I think you would find that many TC opponents would get on side with the project as well.

If one were to take this at face value, it suggests that you are willing to take no transit improvements in place of a Transit City that has stop spacing around 700m.

Eglinton western surface will have 670m stop spacing. Eglinton tunnel will have 850m stop spacing. Eglinton eastern surface will have 660m stop spacing. Since you later specify non-CBD spacing should be 800 - 1200m, are you really saying you'd turn your back on TC unless stops could be spaced an extra 200 - 300m apart?

But stops aren't just arbitrarily plopped down every X meters, they are placed at relevant locations (major intersections, connections with other transit). Beyond the Oakwood and Chaplin stops you've identified, what other stops on Eglinton would you remove to satisfy your average spacing demands?

(For what it's worth, a supporting point for Chaplin, although it is not a 'major intersection' is that it would serve the local neighbourhood who otherwise would have close to a half mile walk to either Avenue or Bathurst stations, likely involving a significant hill given the local geography.)

But more importantly relevant to your 800 - 1200m stipulation, might it be possible that an LRT line could be meant to be a bridge between full subway spacing (with reduced local service) and tighter bus spacing (with much more convenient local service)? Sure in that context ~700m stop spacing is not a deal-breaker.

 

[howl]

Transit engineers work with fairly sophisticated modeling software that allows them to predict what the ridership will be when they add or remove stations. They can model in actual and future local densities and traffic patterns to see what the impacts are. Adding a station may allow more people to get on, but the slower service may discourage other people further along the line. It’s a tricky balance between making it rapid and making it accessible, while taking local constraints into account (you can’t put a stop just anywhere).

In most cases the best spacing of LRT/BRT stations is about 700m to 800m but can range from 300m to 1.5km or more depending on the situation. Most people will walk about 400m to 500m to a LRT/BRT station so a spacing of 800m captures just about everybody living adjacent to the line. That distance also allows the vehicles to get up a good speed between stops which can make it faster the travelling by car along the same route, even with the stops. Therefore 700m to 800m seems to be the range that maximizes ridership along most corridors, but not all.

Regarding adding or removing stops - on the Hurontario line it’s more likely that additional stops will be added in the future (not all stops shown on the flyer will be operational on day one), because many are in very low density locations. However, new development is expected at those locations so at some point in the future a stop will probably be added. Removing a stop might be possible only if very few people ended up using a stop.

Regarding running in mixed traffic – again the modeling software can be used to see the impact both on the transit system and vehicular traffic. Compromises are made between keeping the maximum ridership on the transit and keeping the traffic moving at an acceptable level. On the Hurontario line the LRT will run in mixed traffic at both ends, where the existing right-of-way is not wide enough to allow dedicated lanes and two lanes of vehicular traffic.

 

[nfitz]

5 out of 29 stations are in mixed traffic. I'm not entirely sure that constitutes "much".

Much is rather vague. The main route (ignoring the downtown loop) is 22 km long. 16.7 km of this is not mixed traffic, and 5.3 km is in mixed traffic. Almost 1/4 of the main route is in mixed traffic.

That being said, I'd happily see some of the Transit City stops eliminated. I'd even be happy to see many stops eliminated on our existing routes; some are just silly how close they are to other stops.

 

[Electrify]

I second the BS call. The Mississauga plan is virtually identical to most of the Transit City proposals. Stop spacings vary according to local conditions and the purpose of the line of course but in many respects they aren't that much different.

Both Scarborough and Mississauga share many elements in suburban design. Let's compare the stops:

Huontario (north to south)

Brampton GO (major transit connection)
350m
Downtown Brampton (major street)
450m
Wellington (downtown Brampton and local street)
1.3km
Nanwood (local street)
1.1km
Charolais (secondary street)
600m
Shoppers World/Steeles (mall and major street)
650m
Sir Lou (local street)
450m
Ray Lawson (secondary street)
800m
Highway 407 (major transit connections)
1.2km
Derry Rd (major street)
1.4km
Courtney Park (major street)
1.7km
Britiannia (major street)
1.0km
Matheson (secondary street)
800m
Bristol (secondary street)
1.2km
Eglinton (major street)
1.3km
Rathburn (secondary street)
350m
City Center (downtown Mississauga)
400m
Burnhamthorpe (downtown Mississauga and major street)
650m
Central Parkway (secondary street)
750m
Cooksville GO (major transit connection)
650m
Dundas (major street)
1.0km
Queensway (major street)
650m
North Service Rd (local street)
400m
South Service Rd (local street)
850m
Mineola (secondary street)
600m
Port Credit GO (major transit connection)
700m
Elizabeth (downtown Port Credit and local street)

Sheppard (west to east)

Don Mills (mall, major transit connection and major street)
1.3km
Consumers (local street)
650m
Victoria Park (major street)
450m
Pharmacy (secondary street)
550m
Palmdale (local street)
270m
Warden (major street)
290m
Bay Mills (local street)
500m
Birchmount (secondary street)
400m
Allanford (local street)
400m
Kennedy (mall and major street)
400m
Agincourt GO (major transit connection)
400m
Midland (secondary street)
850m
Brimley (major street)
500m
Brownsprings (local street)
300m
McCowan (major street)
400m
White Haven (no street)
400m
Shorting (local street)
300m
Massie (local street)
500m
Markham (major street)
475m
Sheppard East (major transit connection)
475m
Washburn (local street)
350m
Burrows Hall (pathway to local street)
450m
Nielson (major street)
400m
Murrison (local street)
500m
Brenyon (local street)
600m
Morningside (major street)

(Secondary streets determined by being major in Google Maps, but minor in Mapquest)

So with exception, the Mississauga's line is about a kilometer. Meanwhile the Sheppard East LRT isn't even half that.

 

[kEiThZ]

Two question related to the as planned SRT extension,

1.The Markham rd bus already runs a branch into the campus, why do you think there are a mass of students that need to walk from Markham rd?, I would also presume the TTC would divert the Markham rd bus via progress and milner after the extension opens to meet the centennial college station, it would not miss any stops.

2. Why do you seem think it is impossible to reroute the bus routes in Malvern to meet the planned terminus on Sheppard?

And having attended that campus recently, the progress bus was a pain and I would have much preferred the SRT extension

1. Sure they run a branch. It's just not frequent enough. There's a lot of times you see bunches of students walking up and down that hill. But again, you're missing my wider point. Most students don't arrive from STC. How would the SRT extension benefit the majority of travellers to the Progress campus who aren't coming from STC and using the Progress bus today.

2. Have a look at the routes on the map. You tell me what sense it makes to divert the Milner, Nugget or Neilson buses to a terminal at Sheppard and Progress. Do you realize how far north and east those routes run in relation to Sheppard/Progress? And if they do start diverting routes, what happens to local travel in all of north-eastern Scarborough? Each of those bus routes serve areas other than Malvern. You'll have route fragmentation like there's no tomorrow leading to illogical transfers. Travelling down Neilson to get to the hospital? You have to transfer to Neilson South at Sheppard. Travelling down Nugget? You'll have to take the Nugget West at Washburn Way/Tapscott. I don't even know where you'd break the Milner route. Before or after Malvern Town Centre (if you're going westbound to the station)? And what about Morningside? That's one of the busiest routes serving Malvern. Are we going to have a Morningside North route that starts at Sheppard and Progress?

 

[kEiThZ]

WRT the earlier discussion about artics, I can't see why their employment could not be selective. What's wrong with artic employment on Sheppard East? I see no large hills that would stop an artic in its tracks.

I am also wondering if double deckers would work. Ottawa is dipping its toe in that pond right now.

 

[golodhendil]

They did this on the B Branch of the Green Line in Boston... Didn't really help much. It only marginally improved the line's performance.

Of course, taking out stops aren't going to solve all the other issues that compound the problem. They only took out 4 of the 22 stops, and none of them in the slowest section with the closest, 200-m spacing. It also doesn't solve the problem of having to stop at the traffic light at cross streets every 200 m. Again, none of these are problems with any of the TC lines.

 

[Voltz]

1. Sure they run a branch. It's just not frequent enough. There's a lot of times you see bunches of students walking up and down that hill. But again, you're missing my wider point. Most students don't arrive from STC. How would the SRT extension benefit the majority of travellers to the Progress campus who aren't coming from STC and using the Progress bus today.

2. Have a look at the routes on the map. You tell me what sense it makes to divert the Milner, Nugget or Neilson buses to a terminal at Sheppard and Progress. Do you realize how far north and east those routes run in relation to Sheppard/Progress? And if they do start diverting routes, what happens to local travel in all of north-eastern Scarborough? Each of those bus routes serve areas other than Malvern. You'll have route fragmentation like there's no tomorrow leading to illogical transfers. Travelling down Neilson to get to the hospital? You have to transfer to Neilson South at Sheppard. Travelling down Nugget? You'll have to take the Nugget West at Washburn Way/Tapscott. I don't even know where you'd break the Milner route. Before or after Malvern Town Centre (if you're going westbound to the station)? And what about Morningside? That's one of the busiest routes serving Malvern. Are we going to have a Morningside North route that starts at Sheppard and Progress?

There is not a plethora of students boarding the Progress bus between STC and the campus, the majority of students on that bus do come from the SRT. Most that take the progress bus from the north would be able to board the SRT at Sheppard, which would be running much more frequently than the progress bus currently does north of the campus. As I mentioned the Markham bus could easily be re routed to connect with the Centennial College station, benefiting all who take that bus to the college.

I am not going to claim that ending the SRT at Sheppard makes sense, but they are not going to keep all of those routes running to STC the way they are now, that does not make sense. I also don't think a route reorganization would turn out as bad as you predict.

 

[sixrings]

IF the only thing we are going to make is SUBWAYS.. can we simply just make a Pearson to Kennedy Subway and a SRT conversion to Subway.

 

[nfitz]

IF the only thing we are going to make is SUBWAYS.. can we simply just make a Pearson to Kennedy Subway and a SRT conversion to Subway.

Where do you find the extra money, given that neither Toronto, Ontario, or Canada have said they will provide any further furnding?

 

[sixrings]

Cancel everything else.

 

[MetroMan]

Adam Vaughan sent me this reply in regards to my concern about Transit City. I think it's an excellent argument in defense of LRT:

Thanks for your note.

I have always supported Transit City and continue to believe that it is the best opportunity to provide a mass transit network to the City of Toronto. It is not simply the best we can do under the circumstances; it’s the right thing to do period.

As a municipal project, much more than just transportation needs are addressed by Transit City. The programme delivers train service to virtually every corner of the city while providing opportunities for economic, social and cultural renewal to some of Toronto's most distressed neighbourhoods.

Transit City provides cheap, efficient and environmentally sound transportation to the city’s priority neighbourhoods. These are communities that are struggling under the weight of poor housing, social isolation and diminished economic opportunity. Transit City delivers connectivity and affluence to these areas. With the introduction of Transit City, land values go up and create platforms for revitalization of the housing stock which will bring jobs and economic opportunity to the commercial properties in the area. New tax revenue flows from this investment. City-owned lands increase in value and public investments in local social infrastructure like schools, libraries, community health centres and recreation centres suddenly become more sustainable.

The innovative Tower Renewal Project relies on land values being inflated by proximity to transit. Open fields and abandoned industrial land, like the properties around the Woodbine racetrack, are brought to market with an investment and service like Transit City. Other city projects like the revitalization of the Yonge-Eglinton bus bays also benefit by becoming major transit nodes. Without the additional lines that Transit City provides, these projects will fail to deliver the economic and social benefits first predicted. The city will be left poorer as a result.

Cancelling Transit City will also cost the city hundreds of millions of dollars in penalties and unneeded studies and Environmental Assessments. Additionally, despite the expenditures the city is left with the status quo. The status quo is a woefully deficient transportation system. According to the Board of Trade gridlock is currently costing Toronto’s economy billions in lost productivity.

Replacing the transit part of the city’s approach to fighting gridlock from Light Rapid Transit (LRT) to subways will cost billions more and actually deliver less service, or at best, the same amount of transit capacity. The only thing that changes is the length of a bus ride and the station you arrive at.

Financing

The incoming Mayor has said development charges can pay for the change in strategy. Intensification was already a controversial part of the Transit City costing estimates. Suburban neighbourhoods are on record as being opposed to doubling the as-of-right heights on streets with proposed LRTs. If jumping from 3 stories to 6 stories is currently unacceptable, what will these communities say when 40 storey towers are proposed along subway routes? To pay for the increased costs for subway lines through development charges, hundreds of buildings in this scale would need to be built. Putting aside whether the residents in these areas could stomach this kind of intensification, can the market absorb this kind of massive infusion of new units along suburban thoroughfares?

Setting Priorities & Planning

Then there is the issue of which line to build first. Do we extend Sheppard? Do we replace the Scarborough LRT? Is it the Finch Loop? After that decision is made, there is the cost and time involved in designing a new line, re-structuring a vehicle purchase to add subways and then the timelines for acquiring property, realigning underground infrastructure, switching the tunnelling contracts and building the one or two extra stations to meet the goals of subway first and subways only as a priority. None of this includes the legal fees attached to changing the plans.

Collateral Costs

Surface transportation also offers other opportunities. Once you build a subway, adding additional stops is virtually impossible. History also shows that while surface rapid transit stretches out intensification and distributes economic benefits along routes, subways tend to generate nodal developments with little impact between stations. Additionally, the new LRTs ordered for Transit City are not a good fit for our existing downtown streetcar lines. We may well end up with massive inner city streetcars that propel service cuts to operate.

Subways also need to be fed. In the suburbs massive bus bays will need to be constructed to deliver passengers to the subway. Local density is not enough. This too will cost money or underperforming lines will drive up costs or force service cuts elsewhere.

In other words after billions of new dollars, years of delay and construction and hundreds of other impacts what we end up with is a slightly more convenient subway line for a very few people and the status quo if we are lucky for the rest.

Respect for Taxpayers?

All of this has been decided without a public debate or comprehensive analysis of the impact of a decision made by one person, alone in an office at City Hall. This is not only no way to run a rail road, it’s no way to run a city.

Some of the leadership of City Hall may have changed, but the values, needs and expectations of Toronto residents have not. I am heartened by your willingness to speak up for the kind of City you want to build with us here at City Hall. We need to work together to ensure that residents across our City understand the importance of delivering Transit City and that they join with us in this fight.

Please encourage your networks to send letters and make calls to the Mayor, Executive Committee members, TTC Commissioners and Councillors.

In the meantime I will fight to save Transit City, as a councillor, as a citizen and as a Toronto transit rider.

Sincerely,

av



Councillor Adam Vaughan
Ward 20, Trinity-Spadina
416-392-4044

 

[nfitz]

Cancel everything else.

About 40 km of subway then. About $12-billion in current dollars. That's more money that Metrolinx has budgeted for Sheppard, Eglinton, Finch, and the SRT through 2020 in escalated dollars.

What else will you cancel?

 

[GraphicMatt]

Adam Vaughan sent me this reply in regards to my concern about Transit City. I think it's an excellent argument in defense of LRT:

The next mayor of Toronto.