Transit City Plan

[Ed Drass]

Yes, adding express/Rocket service is a necessary interim step on some arterial routes (until an infrastructure-based transit solution is viable) and a more permanent solution on other arterial routes (Morningside, for instance).

Can you elaborate?

I'm not clear what upgrades to overcrowded surface routes are allowed if the anti-surface-transit-lanes approach prevails. If the only acceptable upgrade to better, more reliable service is subway, then where does that leave routes that reach their practicable mixed-traffic capacity -- but aren't on Ford's map?

Adding express branches (to the existing TTC routes that don't already have them) counts as a minor upgrade -- until you start talking queue jump lanes or heaven forfend, exclusive transit lanes. (Note: I would put Rockets in another category than "express" -- but both are subject to traffic conditions.)

Doesn't the anti-street-LRT approach tacitly include a ban on all street-level upgrades to transit? Subway desire is now holding back exclusive, protected bus lanes on Yonge north of Finch, just as it did the off-street busway to York U -- and the riders suffer in the interim. The 'interim' in some corridors could last decades.

Collectively, we seem to have been unable to spend political/economic capital on building sufficient subways over the last few decades, but neither have we spent much political capital on adding BRT to busy arterials -- even ones which can be widened. I see TC as the compromise, politically and economically, but compromises often fail to be adopted until the participants can no longer take the status quo. Obviously congestion is still tolerable enough that many are willing to wait for subways. That's too long a wait for too much of the city, in my view.

Some are attacking Transit City as anti-BRT, or too fascinated with steel wheels. In a place where the "subway is the only way to go" mentality has been implicit and now explicit, would a BRT-heavy network have even made it out the door? Where is the BRT-only faction, anyway? Nothing but steel-wheelers here...

Ed

 

[reaperexpress]

It appears to be a deliberate attempt to perpetuate the lie that LRT isn't rapid transit.

Which is pretty disingenuous when the case is being made that comparing the complete Ford rapid transit platform to the complete Transit City rapid transit platform isn't a fair comparison.

The technical definition of Rapid Transit is a grade separated electric passenger railway. LRT is not Rapid Transit because it is not grade separated. It can act as rapid transit, provide speed and capacity similar to rapid transit, but is technically not rapid transit unless it is fully grade separated (such as the future Scarborough LRT or the LACMTA Green line).

These debates about whether or not BRT, LRT and TC are "rapid transit" annoying and irrelevant. We should be considering technologies based on criteria such as speed, cost and capacity, regardless of whether or not they're "rapid transit".

Doesn't the anti-street-LRT approach tacitly include a ban on all street-level upgrades to transit? Subway desire is now holding back exclusive, protected bus lanes on Yonge north of Finch, just as it did the off-street busway to York U -- and the riders suffer in the interim. The 'interim' in some corridors could last decades.

Fortunately for us, the York U Busway was approved before the Spadina Subway Extension turned out to be serious, and was not held back.

 

[nfitz]

Adding express branches (to the existing TTC routes that don't already have them) counts as a minor upgrade -- until you start talking queue jump lanes or heaven forfend, exclusive transit lanes. (Note: I would put Rockets in another category than "express" -- but both are subject to traffic conditions.)

I've spent a lot of time in the last few years driving and taking the 25 Don Mills on Don Mills Road. Express buses and Rockets would have been a godsend. The HOV lane generally is respected (not totally, but generally) and moves well. It was easy to overtake buses during rush hour most of the time, even when I wasn't in the HOV lane, because of all the stops they make. Out-of-service buses certainly would vanish in the distance fast while you were sat on an over-crowded bus, not moving because the driver was trying to get even more people into the sardine can.

While LRT would be great, just adding express buses and Rockets with absolutely no infrastructure spending, would have been a godsend. Imagine a bus leaving Greenwood station, first stop Overlea and Don Mills Road, 2nd stop Science Centre, Third stop Eglinton, 4th stop Wynford, 5th stop Lawrence, 6th stop York Mills, 7th stop Duncan Mills, 8th stop Sheppard.

 

[nfitz]

The technical definition of Rapid Transit is a grade separated electric passenger railway. LRT is not Rapid Transit because it is not grade separated. It can act as rapid transit, provide speed and capacity similar to rapid transit, but is technically not rapid transit unless it is fully grade separated (such as the future Scarborough LRT or the LACMTA Green line).

So your going to say that the LA Gold Line isn't rapid transit, even though it's average speed is more than any subway in Toronto?

Come on ... it's rapid transit!

 

[reaperexpress]

So your going to say that the LA Gold Line isn't rapid transit, even though it's average speed is more than any subway in Toronto?

Come on ... it's rapid transit!

To be honest I think the Gold line is better than the Green line in just about every way. It is far more pedestrian friendly and was probably cheaper to build yet it achieves a comparable average speed. It just goes to show that being "rapid transit" doesn't matter at all. (The Green line is technically a light metro, wheras the Gold line is nothing more than LRT.)

I think that there is a lot of misunderstanding going on here. Some people are reffering to "rapid transit" using the technical definition (the one also known as Metro, Underground or Subway) while others use the broader definition which generally refers to higher-order transit such as commuter rail, LRT, BRT as well as "rapid transit". This results in long and pointless arguments over semantics.

EDIT:

Here is the American Public Transit APTA definition of "rapid transit", from page 16 of this document:

Rail or motorbus transit operating completely separate from all modes of transportation on an exclusive right of way.

That is the generally accepted definition, from what I can tell.

We could argue for an infinite amount of time about what is or is not rapid transit, and there are long discussions on the topic on many forums.

 

[Dan416]

It is somewhat worthwhile because the Eglinton tunnel would deserve to be on a subway map. The SELRT would not. The SLRT would. So it is kinda relevant, whether we want to debate the definition of "rapid transit" or not.

 

[LowerBay]

He meant it as shown. He was trying to show a comparison of fully grade separated rapid transit... both which would be expected to perform at the same speed and have no impact from and to traffic.

Ah ... in that case, even the underground Eglinton section doesn't count as true rapid transit. There's a reason the TTC refuses to extend a converted SRT in anything other than an exclusive ROW ... service reliability and headway regularity.

 

[reaperexpress]

Here we go again...

 

[M II A II R II K]

And none of these lines would do anything to relieve the crowding on the already existing network, in fact the potential opposite. Where's a new downtown route in any of these proposals....

 

[GraphicMatt]

I don't know. Let's throw out all the existing planning and spend the next decade planning a downtown route. I am a huge supporter of this idea and others like them.

 

[Ed Drass]

CBC's take on the Pembina Report: http://www.cbc.ca/canada/toronto/story/2011/01/05/subway-light-rail-report241.html

Makes me wonder how think-tanks with fiscally conservative reputations would review the business-case comparisons of TC and Ford City.

Fortunately for us, the York U Busway was approved before the Spadina Subway Extension turned out to be serious, and was not held back.

Reaper, the York U busway was proposed in 2000 (if not earlier) but construction did not begin until after the subway extension was approved. York U apparently insisted the busway not be okayed until the subway was guaranteed, in case the busway might be considered as adequate for York's (uneven) demand levels -- and the case for heavy metro thereby be diminished. York also insisted, IIRC, that the busway be removed after the subway opens, but Giambrone disputed this saying it could be of further use to the network.

-ed

 

[nfitz]

It is somewhat worthwhile because the Eglinton tunnel would deserve to be on a subway map. The SELRT would not. The SLRT would. So it is kinda relevant, whether we want to debate the definition of "rapid transit" or not.

LA puts the Gold Line on their subway map.

The issue however is getting transit that works. By raising the LA situation, you've demonstrated that it doesn't matter if we build rapid transit or not ... because we could build LRT lines like in LA that are faster than TTC subways, and they still wouldn't meet some people's definition of rapid transit. If it's faster than a subway, who cares what it's called?

 

[nfitz]

York also insisted, IIRC, that the busway be removed after the subway opens, but Giambrone disputed this saying it could be of further use to the network.

My vague recollection is that the busway get's removed west of Keele, but the piece to the east might still be of some minor benefit to TTC.

 

[superman]

LA puts the Gold Line on their subway map.

The issue however is getting transit that works. By raising the LA situation, you've demonstrated that it doesn't matter if we build rapid transit or not ... because we could build LRT lines like in LA that are faster than TTC subways, and they still wouldn't meet some people's definition of rapid transit. If it's faster than a subway, who cares what it's called?

The majority of the Gold line is either elevated, underground, run in the middle of a highway, or has surface operation similar to a GO train with gates and true signal priority (when I was on it it didn't stop anywhere between stations). Stations are also farther than those proposed by Transit City with high platforms for faster loading. Also, as you said the speed is high, so I think people would be more inclined to see it as rapid transit even though the technical definition can be challenged.

But lines like the SELRT running at around 20 km/h with frequent stops and stopping at lights with no gates is not close to what the Gold line is. It is meant to serve shorter distances (the "Avenues" plan) and not necessarily to connect centres making it more of a local transit service than a rapid transit service. It'd be a different discussion if speeds were comparable to the subway with the majority of the line either elevated, underground, or at grade with proper separation like the Gold line.

 

[gweed123]

The problem with "LRT" as a definition is that it has such a wide spectrum of operating environments. It can run as anything from a glorified streetcar to what most people would refer to as a subway in all but rolling stock. The Green Line in Boston is the perfect example of the different types of operating environments LRT can travel in. The central portion through downtown is completely grade-separated, one branch runs through a former rail corridor and has wide stop spacing and full traffic separation via crossing arms, and the other two run in-median down the middle of avenues.

When someone refers to subway or ICTS, it is almost universally understood that that implies full grade separation with full stations. The only ambiguities are train length, and whether or not it runs in a tunnel, in a trench, at grade with road overpasses, or elevated.