Transit City Plan

[sixrings]

Be careful, if you hold your nose up any higher, you may accidentally bump into something...

I want to clear up reasons I dislike Loath Hate the bus.... BTW I think all of my reasons are very similar to many other Torontonians who contemplate if they want to take transit....

5. Busses for whatever reason seem to be by far the filthiest of any transit options. Often they are far beyond dirty. (The invention of free newspapers like the METRO and 24 hasnt made them any cleaner)
4. Busses can often be driven two ways equally frusterating. One when the driver is behind schedule and drives like a maniac or two when the drivers so far ahead of schedule that they stop and wait at random stops for no reason)
3. Busses are the least smooth option to ride on. Either the bus is hitting pot holes or weaving in and out of traffic.
3. Busses are small (the newly designed low floor busses are the worst. theres no where to stand)

FINALLY my number one reason to not take a bus....

1. Customer Service.... on a bus I must interact with a driver. This is not a small issue it can be a HUGE issue. I understand the drivers are paid to DRIVE but it is beyond crazy how some of them treat their customers. What's worse is the TTC signs where they say they support their TTC workers and there are like 5000 fines if they are "verbally assaulted". If the TTC would reverse that and give $5000 to every customer that is treated beyond rudely alot of drivers would be turning in their pensions. I dont for the life of me understand why its so difficult to provide both the service and the politeness. But for what ever reason this is what TTC customers are often left with. A grumpy driver who basically makes you feel that you are too poor to make a complaint and you should just be happy to have any service at all. When I ride a Streetcar or a Subway I almost never have these experiences.

I have four legitamate reasons which I assure you at times bother other riders as well.. Customer service is subjective and each of us have had our own experiences both good and bad... But I dont think this is a secret in Toronto.

 

[sober2ndthought]

That's a lot of extra money spent just because you're concerned they won't have good a signal priority system, isn't it?

I don't think it would cost much more. Other than the changes on Sheppard, the route is identical, and the technology is also identical.

According to Calgary Transit, it costs about $18 million/KM to build LRT extensions in Calgary. The most recent West LRT is being constructed at a cost of $88 million/KM. That line has considerable grade separation due to the fact most of it runs in a highly develop portion of the city. [Source, this document is a really good read for anyone interested in Transit City].

Now If Toronto opted to build only platforms and not complete stations then it could be constructed at a cost of $110 million per/KM (same price as Transit City).

 

[GraphicMatt]

If you used rail-road crossings at intersections (with lowering arms), the price wouldn't be too bad. But I don't think that would ever fly in this city. Full grade separation at intersections (going below or over) would add a lot to your costs.

And I guess I just don't get it. Spending tons of money because you believe the TTC won't be able to manage the lines well or signal priority won't work isn't good business practice. We can demand better.

 

[sober2ndthought]

If you used rail-road crossings at intersections (with lowering arms), the price wouldn't be too bad. But I don't think that would ever fly in this city. Full grade separation at intersections (going below or over) would add a lot to your costs.

And I guess I just don't get it. Spending tons of money because you believe the TTC won't be able to manage the lines well or signal priority won't work isn't good business practice. We can demand better.

It wouldn't be much grade separation. It would follow Calgary's model. Grade seperate where it would cost more to build at grade or where the LRT intersects a major roadway. By major roadway, I mean something akin to the Don Valley Parkway or Black Creek Drive.

I think it would be better to illustrate what I am referring to with concrete examples. Here is where Calgary grade separated on the North East line (the video I linked above is from the North East Line):

McKnight Blvd and Metis Trail. (Both are at-grade expressways with limited interchanges).
36th Avenue NE and 16th Street NE. (16th Street is the Trans Canada Highway)
36th Avenue NE and Memorial Drive NE. (The LRT changes ROWs from 36th Avenue to Memorial Drive).
Memorial Drive and Barlow Trail. (Barlow is also an at-grade expressway with limited interchanges).
Memorial Drive and Deerfoot Trail (Deerfoot is Calgary's main expressway)
Over the Bow River (obviously).

Every other intersection is at grade. 85 percent of Calgary's LRT is at-grade.

Anyways, this whole thing is a moot point, Transit City is dead and it will remain so for at-least another decade. Lets just hope Metrolinx can negotiate something with Rob Ford which gives Toronto a decent amount of Transit.

Heck, maybe it is for the better. Transit City has some major flaws. Traffic priority being the number one flaw. Maybe in 10 years we could fix those flaws and come back with an LRT plan which more akin to what operates in Calgary or in other cities around the world.

In the mean time, as I was suggesting on Skyscraper City, the model offered by Vancouver's Canada Line could be compromise and a good alternative. It cost about $108 million per/km (v. $111 million per/km for Transit City). If we built something along those lines, I think we could get Eglinton and Sheppard constructed. Instead of Ford's proposal to only build an extended Sheppard Subway.

 

[nfitz]

BRT isn't true rapid transit either.

Bus Rapid Transit isn't Rapid Transit ...

Right ...

 

[prosperegal]

Not sure if this has been posted on another thread, but it seems that the Transit City page has disappeared.

 

[gweed123]

Bus Rapid Transit isn't Rapid Transit ...

Right ...

The technology only influences capacity, it's the operating environment that influences how 'rapid' it is. So arguing whether or not BRT is actually rapid transit or not is pointless. A bus operating in a tunnel with stop spacing every 1 km would be significantly more 'rapid' than an LRT running along the middle of an avenue with cross-streets every 60m. The technology choice is irrelevant when talking about what defines 'rapid'.

 

[GraphicMatt]

Not sure if this has been posted on another thread, but it seems that the Transit City page has disappeared.

That was the page that directed people to get involved with the mayor's Transit City initiative.

The main Transit City page, off the TTC website, still exists though there's a big "NEW PLAN COMING" disclaimer at the top.

 

[MetroMan]

Mihevic is sending this out tonight. Watch your inboxes for upcoming meetings...

\

More people need to see this. The choice is obvious.

 

[superman]

Brt

While the Sheppard and Eglinton lines have a requirement by capacity to be at least a grade LRT line, have the considered having the Jane, Don Mills, Finch, and Malvern lines be BRT (if they are within the capacity constraints, which IIRC Jane and Finch is)?

Like how at-grade LRTs cost 1/3 of grade separated Rapid Transit, BRT comes in 1/3 of the cost of at-grade LRT. And unlike the LRT vs RT argument, BRT and LRTs (if both at grade and have the same stations spacing) operate at similar speeds which should provide similar service levels, and it also gives room to provide branch lines that LRTs wouldn't be able to.

It would also mean that the Transit City vision of having lines on those corridors would be realized earlier.

 

[W. K. Lis]

While the Sheppard and Eglinton lines have a requirement by capacity to be at least a grade LRT line, have the considered having the Jane, Don Mills, Finch, and Malvern lines be BRT (if they are within the capacity constraints, which IIRC Jane and Finch is)?

Like how at-grade LRTs cost 1/3 of grade separated Rapid Transit, BRT comes in 1/3 of the cost of at-grade LRT. And unlike the LRT vs RT argument, BRT and LRTs (if both at grade and have the same stations spacing) operate at similar speeds which should provide similar service levels, and it also gives room to provide branch lines that LRTs wouldn't be able to.

It would also mean that the Transit City vision of having lines on those corridors would be realized earlier.

If Jane and Don Mills lines were BRT that would mean ending up taking away a lane of traffic in each direction because of the narrow streets they run on. If they were LRT, they would end up in tunnels where the roadways are too narrow, which is what a subway is defined as in the dictionary. Just in case you didn't do the research, the first subway in North America was in Boston using the streetcars they had in 1897.

 

[drum118]

[From Joe Mihevc, councillor]

Sunday, January 9, 2pm - 4pm

Save Transit City Rally

Supporters of the Transit City are invited to attend a rally in front of Toronto City Hall (100 Queen Street West).

Take part in local democracy and make your voice heard!

 

[Jupiter]

Was Yonge's ridership actually too low to justify a subway, or is the writer of the piece just assuming that because it opened over 50 years ago?

For those who are curious, Yonge's ridership justified a subway.

It was the most heavily used streetcar in North America at the time, with 13-14,000 pph in the peak hour (apparently back then the peak hour was the evening rush for some reason).

Taken from a 1949 HW Tate speech, former assistant GM of the TTC.
http://speeches.empireclub.org/61156/data

 

[gweed123]

If Jane and Don Mills lines were BRT that would mean ending up taking away a lane of traffic in each direction because of the narrow streets they run on. If they were LRT, they would end up in tunnels where the roadways are too narrow, which is what a subway is defined as in the dictionary. Just in case you didn't do the research, the first subway in North America was in Boston using the streetcars they had in 1897.

Then only build them north of Eglinton, which is likely what would have happened anyway. Anything other than the DRL south of Eglinton along Don Mills (aside from minor improvements to bus efficiency) is a waste of money.

But superman, your post is very true. A lot of the ridership projects for Transit City (the 5,000 pphpd estimate for the SELRT comes to mind), could easily be handled by a BRT service, at a fraction of the cost. But alas, BRT isn't as sexy as rail-based transit. People always tend to want to pay a premium to get sexy.

Even if lines like the SELRT and FWLRT end up getting scrapped, I still think some of that money should be used to implement queue jump lanes and curbside cut-outs along both of those routes. If they can't get rapid transit, at least let them get improved efficiency bus service. Even implementing those measures at around $3 million an intersection would do a world of good.

I counted 17 potential intersections (9 if you only wanted to do really major intersections) on the complete FWLRT route that could use that. There are also 15 along the SELRT route out to Meadowvale (11 if you only could really major intersections). That's a total of 32 intersections, for a cost of $96 million. That's a less than the cost of 1.5 km of in-median LRT!

While it may not be the optimal solution, these improvements could be done relatively quickly, and would make a pretty substantial difference in the quality and reliability of bus routes along these corridors. If these corridors are going to be stripped of their funding to build subways elsewhere, at least this relatively modest investment should be made on these corridors, so they aren't completely stuck with the status quo.

 

[Dan416]

Mihevic is sending this out tonight. Watch your inboxes for upcoming meetings...

\

More people need to see this. The choice is obvious.

Could we please stop spreading misleading untruthful propaganda? I thought this site was for rationalish debate, not Tea Party blind devotion.