Transit City Plan

[GraphicMatt]

I don't disagree, but the perception after it opened certainly became that it was second-class, particularly given all the troubles they had with the tech.

 

[superman]

Eglinton Line and Kennedy Interchange

This point was somewhat brought up before. If the Eglinton line was fully grade separated (essentially making it a "subway" with different vehicles) and connected with the Scarborough line, this transfer would probably matter less as people going downtown can take Eglinton all the way to Eglinton-Yonge or Eglinton-Allen and interchange there. Probably would help with the overcrowding problem at Bloor-Yonge too.

 

[LAz]

Because of course the real world works exactly the same way as idealized classroom settings. Can you tell me how long the EAs took for TC or for the Vaughan subway extension?

EA's are easy. It is the EIS that is the hard part.

Guess what. TC is not a downtown centric plan. In fact, it specifically ignores downtown. It thus provides more opportunities for people than any subway scheme in play.

Uh, we are talking about fast things. Most of TC is slow stuff.
Don't mix my subway criticism with tram support.

Interesting that despite pretty well every pro-TC poster saying they also want subways in some shape or form, the anti-crowd still likes to use terms like 'tram fanatic' or LRTista as if by simply blindly using them, it somehow makes their argument more valid.

Well TC is a tram-only plan. The supports have no problem with it. So, I call them tram fanatics, because even those who like trams should have issues with TC.

TC as a whole was a city-wide network plan that would greatly improve the transit options to large chunks of vastly underserved inner subburbs. That price tag not only included well over 100km of lines, but also the vehicles to run on them and the carhouses to store/maintain them.

100 km of anything is ridiculous. Such big stuff simply do not get build nowadays. Incremental planning is more practical. Such big planning is damned from even before the start.
A 100 km subway plan for the next 50 years is a better plan.

You think? Don't you have a cite? How does the number compare to how fast you think the subway operates?

The fact is well known. Even the tram supporters were not happy that the sheppard tram was so slow.

And again, with Ford, BRT is not on the table.

Neither is TC. Cheers!

Sheppard should never have been started as a subway in the first place

But it was built and it is a success.
You can build one anywhere. Just as long as there is a change in land use then any such project can be a spectacular success. These are long term investments.

 

[nfitz]

EA's are easy. It is the EIS that is the hard part.

Which - Class EAs or Individual EAs are easy?

 

[LAz]

Any EA is easy. An EA is simple, and it tells what should be done next - in this case an EIS is done next.


I had my environmental planning in the US. I think the process is the same in Canada? After a standard EA they can pick a few things... like a FONSI or going on to an EIS if it is something big.

 

[nfitz]

Any EA is easy. An EA is simple, and it tells what should be done next - in this case an EIS is done next.


I had my environmental planning in the US. I think the process is the same in Canada? After a standard EA they can pick a few things... like a FONSI or going on to an EIS if it is something big.

I think you have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. Nor what is required to be done in an EA in Ontario.

 

[LAz]

No? So my environmental planning from the US is redundant?

What is required? I think anyone can do one on their own - them accepting it is a different thing.

 

[nfitz]

No? So my environmental planning from the US is redundant?

I wouldn't think so, as I would think the first thing you'd have been taught would have been to read the local legislation. But perhaps that's not the case. I'm not familiar with Planning education in the USA ... but I am familiar with Engineering education ... and the standards down there are terrible. Some schools do a good job, but others don't ... the variable quality of engineers coming out of US schools is very shocking ... which probably explains why they have to do such extensive testing to become licensed.

What is required? I think anyone can do one on their own - them accepting it is a different thing.

For starters, not anyone can do an EA. The MOE would simply ignore it. If you check the the Environmental Assessment Act, it notes in Section 5(1) that "Every proponent who wishes to proceed with an undertaking shall apply to the Minister for approval to do so." Presumably when you do so the Ministry would say no. And that's because you don't qualify as a proponent - which is defined as (a) carries out or proposes to carry out an undertaking, or (b) is the owner or person having charge, management or control of an undertaking.

And even if you were to do one ... you'd need qualified professionals in each technical area that is covered in the EA. And presumably also in the design of the undertaking itself.

 

[gweed123]

nfitz: You're right. I've had a hand in doing a couple MOE packages at work (or at least some of the planning aspects of them), and the info and reports that they require are pretty extensive. I haven't done them for transportation projects, but rather site plans. There's a list of about 10 different reports that you need just to have the application deemed as complete (Servicing Report, Environmental Impact Statement, Traffic Impact Study, Planning Rationale Report, etc etc etc).

With a lot of these EAs, it's not just the EA that needs to be filled out, it's all the supporting documents. Anyone can fill out an EA form, this is true. Same as anyone can fill out a rezoning or site plan application with the City, but that doesn't mean that form on its own is sufficient.

 

[Asterix]

Uh, we are talking about fast things. Most of TC is slow stuff.

Can you actually provide cites as to the expected operating speeds of the various TC lines, maybe even comparing them with the existing bus routes? Or is this another example of simply repeating 'TC is slow' enough times will eventually make it true?

Well TC is a tram-only plan. The supports have no problem with it. So, I call them tram fanatics, because even those who like trams should have issues with TC.

Talk about being single-minded in ones blindness. TC ain't perfect and few, if any, are claiming otherwise. But the basic point is that it is a plan to provide vastly improved transit to large areas of the city that are currently underserved. Quibbling about median vs. side alignment or specific routings or intersection priority is different than saying the whole thing should therefore be chucked, money flushed down the toilet and a completely different vision brought in.

100 km of anything is ridiculous. Such big stuff simply do not get build nowadays. Incremental planning is more practical. Such big planning is damned from even before the start.

So despite the fact there is promised provincial funding for the first three lines, you are wanting to tell all those residents of North York and Etobicoke within range of Finch West or all those residents in Scarborough, East York, Toronto, York, North York and Etobicoke that they don't deserve vastly improved transit for the next several decades? Because everyone knows there is not the money to build subways here there and everywhere to service all those who would benefit from TC.

A 100 km subway plan for the next 50 years is a better plan.

Is it really a better plan if it never gets built? Is it really a better plan to have 100 km of subway in 50 years vs 120km of LRT in 15 - 20 years (and the potential for more of something in the following 30)?

The fact is well known. Even the tram supporters were not happy that the sheppard tram was so slow.

I'd really like to see your cite as to the projected operating speed of the Sheppard LRT line.

You can build one anywhere. Just as long as there is a change in land use then any such project can be a spectacular success. These are long term investments.

And the exact same thing can be said about an LRT line. It will have a lifespan of decades. It will drive land use change and improved development. Further, in these cases, it makes more sense to build cheaper LRT when there will not be subway level demand on those lines within their projected lifetime, no matter what kind of land use hopes you might have. Nothing is stopping the replacement of the lines with subway decades from now when they are needed (remember the Bloor streetcar was seeing 9000 per hour just prior to the subway opening).

 

[Rainforest]

It most certainly has not. The TTC/Miller admin's early TC LRT estimates were all ridiculous lowballs, yes, but there's no way anyone, be it the TTC, Metrolinx, or magical private sector fairies can build a B-D subway extension for "almost the same" as a refit of the SRT.

The "almost the same" statement is based on the TTC's own estimate, as referenced on Steve Munro's site: http://stevemunro.ca/wp-content/uploads/2010/12/201012TTCBriefing.pdf

Looking at Page 3, the projected cost for SLRT is $2.5 B, versus the BD subway to Scarborough Centre for $2.6 B plus the cost of new yard "up to $500 million". So, the total extra cost is $2.6 + $0.5 - $2.5 = $0.6 B; effectively it might be even less if the new subway yard is shared with future DRL.

That's why I believe that the BD subway extension is justified. If it was much more expensive than SLRT, then I'd prefer SLRT; but it is not.

Also, everyone conveniently forgets that the SRT refit price as usually quoted includes a fairly substantial extension to the northeast via Centennial College (and a ludicrously overbuilt interchange at Sheppard) that has no equivalent in most subway plans.

It is true that SLRT project reaches further east and north of Scarborough Centre, and more than half of those $2.5 B would be actually spend to build that extension.

Still, the two options to choose from are spending $2.5 B to refit and extend SRT, or up to $3.1 B to extend the subway. (Nobody is going to propose just refitting the existing section of SRT, although that would be much cheaper than the subway extension).

And comparing those two option, the subway extension will help a larger number of people: those who travel from STC, and those who ride a Lawrence, Midland, Brimley, McCowan buses to reach the subway. The SLRT option is preferable only for people traveling from the north-eastern corner of Scarborough, and those are only a fraction of all current SRT users.

If the subway reaches STC, then cheaper (in-median) rapid transit can be built from there to Centennial and Malvern in the next phase.

Now, interlining SLRT with Eglinton could alter the above conclusions, if a solid plan for a fast, fully grade-separate Eglinton line existed. But the Eglinton plans look very fussy at the moment; we don't even know if the central section will survive. Yes the Metrolinx has floated the El idea and it could potentially be used in the Golden Mile section of Eglinton. But will it, and when? Meanwhile, the final decision on the Kennedy - STC link has to be made promptly; and if the subway is chosen, it will fit any future network configuration.

 

[LAz]

*groan*

I'd really like to see your cite as to the projected operating speed of the Sheppard LRT line.

http://www.toronto.ca/involved/projects/sheppard_east_lrt/pdf/2008-06_faq.pdf
22-23 km/h. Downright miserable. Not worth the investment for such a small increase. Bus is just under 20, this is just over 20. No thanks. Lets go for subway and get 33.


[quiote]And the exact same thing can be said about an LRT line. It will have a lifespan of decades. It will drive land use change and improved development. Further, in these cases, it makes more sense to build cheaper LRT when there will not be subway level demand on those lines within their projected lifetime, no matter what kind of land use hopes you might have. [/quote]

No.
Subway is considered to be superior, given enough ridership.
Ridership demand studies are flawed because they do not take into consideration changing land use. They take into consideration the current conditions plus population increase. Such models are not good. Didn't I tell you before about the stockholm model? Building the metro into nowhere is what they did. They suffered big losses, but it paid back 10 fold. They are one of the lest car dependent cities in europe thanks to their planning. Subways are a long term thing, and are superior to trams.
But you want the worse thing.


[quiote](remember the Bloor streetcar was seeing 9000 per hour just prior to the subway opening). [/quote]

The only reason why Toronto transit expansion worked so well as it did is because they integrated land use and transit. Sprawl was limited. We interfered in people's freedom to sprawl.

So despite the fact there is promised provincial funding for the first three lines, you are wanting to tell all those residents of North York and Etobicoke within range of Finch West or all those residents in Scarborough, East York, Toronto, York, North York and Etobicoke that they don't deserve vastly improved transit for the next several decades? Because everyone knows there is not the money to build subways here there and everywhere to service all those who would benefit from TC.

Yes, if one is going to bother building something, then the goal should be to build well from the get go, with a metro.
If there are so many billions for trams, like what did TC call for - 20 billion?! - then there is surely plenty for new subway lines.

Quibbling about median vs. side alignment or specific routings or intersection priority is different than saying the whole thing should therefore be chucked, money flushed down the toilet and a completely different vision brought in.

No, we just need to return to our subway vision, the sane thing that was in place before TC.

Can you actually provide cites as to the expected operating speeds of the various TC lines, maybe even comparing them with the existing bus routes?

Well sheppard is slow, as the first response in this topic showed. Others vary more or less. But, then again the real speeds of other lines are questionable. They deflated the cost of the whole TC thing. No doubt that these promoters would also inflate speeds. That's just how they roll.

 

[Asterix]

http://www.toronto.ca/involved/projects/sheppard_east_lrt/pdf/2008-06_faq.pdf
22-23 km/h. Downright miserable. Not worth the investment for such a small increase. Bus is just under 20, this is just over 20.

That's a rather negative interpretation of the following paragraphs:

"It is expected that the LRT will travel at speeds of about 22km-25km depending on the number of stops in the final design.

Therefore the travel time savings on Sheppard using an LRT are projected to be considerably faster than bus service in the p.m. peak period, when there is the greatest interference from traffic. Keep in mind that those are today's figures - the average speed of a bus in mixed traffic would be expected to decrease as the city grows; given that the LRT is to operate in separate lanes, it will be protected from increasing traffic congestion."

Looking at the actual time benefits, the 7.4km from Don Mills and Sheppard to McCowan and Sheppard would take over 26 minutes in a 17km/h bus, 17:45 minutes in a 25 km/h LRT and 14:48 minutes in a 30 km/h subway. In other words, going to LRT would be a 31% time savings vs 43% time savings with subway. LRT brings service far closer to subway than bus and at a fraction of the price. That sounds like financial efficiency without the gravy.

Subway is considered to be superior, given enough ridership.

Yes. But the key point "given enough ridership".

Ridership demand studies are flawed because they do not take into consideration changing land use.

Why is it that a random message board poster knows better what projected demand will be on a given corridor a generation from now than the professionals with access to far more data and city development plans? Even if you were to double their estimations, you still aren't at subway justification levels.

But you want the worse thing.

Contrary to your repeated claim, I want the best transit for the most number of people. That means no gravy train spending where it isn't warranted so that improved transit can be provided for significantly more people.

If there were anywhere close to subway demand levels foreseen within the next generation, then I'd want a subway (just like I want a DRL). But there isn't, so it makes no economic sense to wastefully spend money on excessive systems in one corner of the city when so many others also need improvements.

Yes, if one is going to bother building something, then the goal should be to build well from the get go, with a metro.
If there are so many billions for trams, like what did TC call for - 20 billion?! - then there is surely plenty for new subway lines.

But you are ignoring the huge differential in potential impact between the two options. One will provide excessive subway capacity to X number of people. The other will provide LRT (closer to subway than buses) for many times X number of people.

I could advocate they build a heliport next door to me so that I can commute via helicopter. My travel time would be a fraction what it is now. But we both know that would not be an efficient use of transit money, no matter how much better helicopter transit would be for this rider.

No, we just need to return to our subway vision, the sane thing that was in place before TC.

TC does not preclude subways. In fact, by focusing on the inner suburbs, there is still allowing for subways to flush out the higher-use inner network (like the DRL which was also a part of the last council's vision, although something for after TC).

They deflated the cost of the whole TC thing. No doubt that these promoters would also inflate speeds.

So years of planning and detailed design mean they've inflated speeds and deflated costs, but Ford's back-of-the-napkin subways everywhere scheme is efficiently costed and reasonably thought out?

 

[W. K. Lis]

Speed governors on trucks are limited to 105 km/h in Ontario.

There will be speed governors on light rail vehicles that could limit them to 70 km/h, like in other cities. The greater the distance between stops/stations, the quicker the light rail vehicles will be able to reach 70 and stay there. The 22km-25km figures mentioned includes the stops, or the average include going 0 km/h at the stops.

 

[GenerationW]

TC does not preclude subways. In fact, by focusing on the inner suburbs, there is still allowing for subways to flush out the higher-use inner network (like the DRL which was also a part of the last council's vision, although something for after TC).

The DRL was only put up for study in reaction to the apparent momentum at the time of the Yonge extension. There was nothing visionary about it.

So years of planning and detailed design mean they've inflated speeds and deflated costs, but Ford's back-of-the-napkin subways everywhere scheme is efficiently costed and reasonably thought out?

It was impossible for there to have been years of planning and detailed design for TC. Only about a year before signing off on Giambrone's plan, Miller was pushing hard for a Sheppard subway extension. If any plan was written on the back (or front) of a napkin, it was TC.

And I'm not sure how Ford's napkin plan for Sheppard and B-D extensions qualifies as subways everywhere.