Transit City Plan

[gweed123]

With Ford, what makes you think that the two are separate?

Dan
Toronto, Ont.

Ford may be stuck in soundbyte mode (whether that's just how he communicates, or how he actually thinks remains to be seen), but I don't think his advisors are. I think they are people on his staff who realize that elevated accomplishes the same goals as underground, for a lot less cost. If there aren't, I'm pretty sure Metrolinx would have explained to them the other options available, while still keeping the idea of not having transit get in the way of his SUV.

The "underground" is just a PR tactic, partially because people don't know what "grade-separated" means, and it doesn't have the same zing to it.

 

[nfitz]

And yes, I agree that a non-grade separated SLRT would not be able to handle the peak load. However, given that it's more of an upgrade than a new line, it wouldn't have made sense to eliminate already existed grade separations.

The current 6.5-km 6-station line is more of an upgrade, but the project includes a 5.5-km extension with 5 new stations, then they could have saved some significant $ and not grade-separated the extension - but I think that would have been a mistake.

 

[gweed123]

The current 6.5-km 6-station line is more of an upgrade, but a the project includes a 5.5-km extension with 5 new stations, then they could have saved some significant $ and not grade-separated the extension - but I think that would have been a mistake.

I agree. The grade separation on the extension though came from the fact that ICTS needs grade-separation in order to function. The TTC figured it was easier to keep the current plan, than to replan the entire extension to remove the grade-separation. It's a lot easier to redecorate and hang a new sign up outside when a restaurant changes management than it is to design a whole new building on the same site.

 

[Tewder]

Those must some pretty rose tinted glasses. Comparing what was literally about to be started with what might be built is a pretty startling contrast.

Your glasses must be poop coloured...

Gweed has already conceded that the plan is flawed but has found some positive points in it, and some very positive ones indeed. TC wasn't perfect either, by anybody's standard, and we now at least understand that the funding secured hasn't been 'lost'. Having said all this, this plan is still yet to be finalized... not that it matters to you, as you seem hell bent on hating any vision that isn't TC as envisioned by Miller.

 

[GraphicMatt]

I think people give Ford too much credit - the team seems really hung up on this "underground only" thing.

 

[Asterix]

we now at least understand that the funding secured hasn't been 'lost'.

You are right, it hasn't been 'lost'. We are only getting a lot less for the same amount of money.

What are the real, quantifiable performance and service benefits of spending an extra $2 billion+ on Eglinton going to achieve by tunneling/elevated beyond the previous plan?

Are those benefits really the best expenditure of that kind of money? Would more bang for the buck not be achieved by putting that money to provide drastically improved transit to northern reaches of Etobicoke and Scarborough, because that is what is being sacrificed for the Eglinton improvements?

Basically I'd ask to be shown the analysis that demonstrates how the marginal increased benefits on Eglinton can outweigh having Etobicoke and Scarborough wait a further unknown number of years on sitting on buses stuck in traffic.

It's not a matter of having a hate-on for anything non-Miller TC, it's a matter of sane capital expenditure for logical and rational goals. Sheppard East and Finch West were specifically intended to provide far better transit to underserviced areas. That's no longer happening. How does a Sheppard subway to STC really do anything improved for either of those targeted areas? What do you think the chances are of the suggested Sheppard subway even being built in the foreseeable given the fantasy funding proposed?

 

[gweed123]

You are right, it hasn't been 'lost'. We are only getting a lot less for the same amount of money.

I'd take 1 line from one side of the city to the other over a couple piecemeal lines anyday.

What are the real, quantifiable performance and service benefits of spending an extra $2 billion+ on Eglinton going to achieve by tunneling/elevated beyond the previous plan?

The ability to run longer trains, not having the trains be subject to accidents (which occur most often at intersections), not having trains subject to pedestrian interference (jay-walkers), and being able to run trains at higher frequency using ATC. I'd say those are some decent benefits.

Are those benefits really the best expenditure of that kind of money? Would more bang for the buck not be achieved by putting that money to provide drastically improved transit to northern reaches of Etobicoke and Scarborough, because that is what is being sacrificed for the Eglinton improvements?

If you really cared about the financial impact, you would be satisfied with bus lanes along Sheppard and Finch West, because that's all the demand really justifies. You could build that for half the cost of building the LRT lines. What are the real, quantifiable performance and service benefits of spending an extra $1 billion on Sheppard and Finch going to achieve by doing LRT over BRT?

Basically I'd ask to be shown the analysis that demonstrates how the marginal increased benefits on Eglinton can outweigh having Etobicoke and Scarborough wait a further unknown number of years on sitting on buses stuck in traffic.

Umm... Etobicoke would get a grade-separated line along Eglinton, and Scarborough would get a real rapid transit line that doesn't end before the Scarborough border, and forces passengers to change trains to keep going in the same direction.

It's not a matter of having a hate-on for anything non-Miller TC, it's a matter of sane capital expenditure for logical and rational goals. Sheppard East and Finch West were specifically intended to provide far better transit to underserviced areas. That's no longer happening. How does a Sheppard subway to STC really do anything improved for either of those targeted areas? What do you think the chances are of the suggested Sheppard subway even being built in the foreseeable given the fantasy funding proposed?

How does a Sheppard subway to STC have anything to do with the current provincial funding? The province has made it quite clear that if Ford wants to do his Sheppard subway, he's doing it on Toronto's dime. That's a completely independent plan from what Metrolinx is proposing with the current allocated funding. Bringing up Ford's Sheppard subway plan to show how the Metrolinx plan is flawed is like blaming the TTC for not having GO run adequate service between Dundas West and Union in order to alleviate Bloor-Yonge and St. George.

 

[Asterix]

I'd take 1 line from one side of the city to the other over a couple piecemeal lines anyday.

Finch West and Sheppard East would have been far longer lines than the proposed Sheppard subway. What's the definition of 'piecemeal'?

The ability to run longer trains, not having the trains be subject to accidents (which occur most often at intersections), not having trains subject to pedestrian interference (jay-walkers), and being able to run trains at higher frequency using ATC. I'd say those are some decent benefits.

But you haven't quantified them or demonstrated how they are worth $2 billion+. I realize those are benefits, but there is a financial trade-off in play and that's what matters in this age of counting every nickel and dime.

I believe the current plan for Eglinton was to be able to run two or three car trains. Is there a need for longer trains?

With the median ROW and next to no left turns (unlike St Clair), how many accidents would there be? How often have pedestrians been a problem on St Clair?

What would be the performance improvement by running the current surface sections ATC? Would that be worth the Sheppard and Finch lines?

If you really cared about the financial impact, you would be satisfied with bus lanes along Sheppard and Finch West, because that's all the demand really justifies.

Are you stating that bus lanes as you suggest would result in the same level of local development that surface LRT would?

What would be your additional operating cost of needing more buses and drivers to meet the capacity of the LRT lines?

What practical increases in demand could those bus lanes tolerate beyond that which currently exists (particularly the Finch West line)?

Umm... Etobicoke would get a grade-separated line along Eglinton, and Scarborough would get a real rapid transit line that doesn't end before the Scarborough border, and forces passengers to change trains to keep going in the same direction.

Maybe you missed the point previously stated that Finch West and Sheppard East were targeted to serve the significantly underserved areas of northern Etobicoke and Scarborough respectively. The proposed Sheppard subway line does neither.

How does a Sheppard subway to STC have anything to do with the current provincial funding?

Because we all know that the Sheppard subway either won't get built at all or will be a huge bill dumped on the Toronto taxpayer. The previous plan was for more people being served by a line paid for by the province. That is purely due to Ford and his 'plan to have a plan'.

 

[gweed123]

Finch West and Sheppard East would have been far longer lines than the proposed Sheppard subway. What's the definition of 'piecemeal'?

I wasn't talking about the Sheppard Subway, I was talking about the Eglinton Crosstown.

But you haven't quantified them or demonstrated how they are worth $2 billion+. I realize those are benefits, but there is a financial trade-off in play and that's what matters in this age of counting every nickel and dime.

Sorry, but I don't have the necessary financing or data to undertake a study like that.

I believe the current plan for Eglinton was to be able to run two or three car trains. Is there a need for longer trains?

There may very well be down the road, especially if it's interlined with the SLRT, which on its own will be needing 4 car LRT trainsets.

With the median ROW and next to no left turns (unlike St Clair), how many accidents would there be? How often have pedestrians been a problem on St Clair?

Just look at how many accidents happen in the intersections along Eglinton between Don Mills and Kennedy, and Jane and Martin Grove. Every one of those accidents that occurs inside the intersection would cause a delay on the line.

What would be the performance improvement by running the current surface sections ATC? Would that be worth the Sheppard and Finch lines?

AFAIK, you can't even run ATC at-grade in-median, because of the dangers associated with foreign objects crossing in front of the train (people, cars, etc).

Are you stating that bus lanes as you suggest would result in the same level of local development that surface LRT would?

York Region seems to be banking on it. Look at the renderings they have for some of their VIVA projects.

What would be your additional operating cost of needing more buses and drivers to meet the capacity of the LRT lines?

The cost of not having to buy the new LRT trains, the cost of not having to build a separate storage facility for the LRT trains, and the cost of not having to spend double on the actual construction

In any case, you're arguing against BRT because of the increased operating costs, but are completely discounting the fact that LRT costs TWICE AS MUCH TO BUILD compared to BRT. Penny wise, pound foolish!

What practical increases in demand could those bus lanes tolerate beyond that which currently exists (particularly the Finch West line)?

Certainly more than the projected riderships on both lines. The 407 Transitway is targetting well over 10,000 pphpd. Bus lanes in Ottawa carry well over the 5,000 pphpd that is forecast for Finch.

Maybe you missed the point previously stated that Finch West and Sheppard East were targeted to serve the significantly underserved areas of northern Etobicoke and Scarborough respectively. The proposed Sheppard subway line does neither.

Again, I wasn't talking about the Sheppard Subway, I was talking about the Eglinton Crosstown. And maybe you missed the point where I was saying that if you were really concerned about delivering cost-effective service to these neighbourhoods, you'd realize that given the projected riderships, BRT would do just as good of a job as LRT, for significantly less cost.

Because we all know that the Sheppard subway either won't get built at all or will be a huge bill dumped on the Toronto taxpayer. The previous plan was for more people being served by a line paid for by the province. That is purely due to Ford and his 'plan to have a plan'.

Did I ever say I supported Ford's vision of the Sheppard Subway?

 

[GraphicMatt]

You really need to substantiate your BRT versus LRT capital costs figures if you're going to continue making these kinds of arguments. An apples to apples comparison.

 

[gweed123]

You really need to substantiate your BRT versus LRT capital costs figures if you're going to continue making these kinds of arguments. An apples to apples comparison.

From the City of Ottawa's "Development of the Supplementary Transit Network" report, from October 2008:

Baseline Rd Bus lanes (Baseline Stn to Billings Bridge Stn): 7.4km, $90M = $12.16 million/km (Note: Baseline Road is a 4 lane suburban arterial, which would need to be widened to 6 lanes for this proposal)

Merivale Rd Bus lanes (Hunt Club to Baseline): 3.8km, $29.9M = $7.87 million/km (would also require a widening out to 6 lanes, along a busy commercial arterial)

Carling Ave LRT (Lincoln Fields Stn to Carling Stn): 6.75km, $250M = $37.04 million/km (would require minor widening, as the majority of Carling has an ~3m median)

Source: http://ottawa.ca/calendar/ottawa/citycouncil/trc/2008/11-10/Document 1 - Supplementary Corridors.pdf

There's your apples to apples. The LRT vs BRT, both on suburban corridors, with LRT coming in at over THREE TIMES the cost of BRT per km. Same city. Same report. Same cost analysis.

Can I continue making "these kinds of arguments" now?

 

[Asterix]

I wasn't talking about the Sheppard Subway, I was talking about the Eglinton Crosstown.

Even better. You were apparently saying you were willing to go with building a single line (albeit with full grade separation) in place of three lines. Interesting balance.

Sorry, but I don't have the necessary financing or data to undertake a study like that.

Just make it a PPP then. That apparently is able to make financing grow on trees.

There may very well be down the road, especially if it's interlined with the SLRT, which on its own will be needing 4 car LRT trainsets.

SRT ridership appears to be about 40,000 per day right now. Isn't that comparable to the 36 Finch bus? What do you think the capacity of the line would be with two or three car trains?

Just look at how many accidents happen in the intersections along Eglinton between Don Mills and Kennedy, and Jane and Martin Grove. Every one of those accidents that occurs inside the intersection would cause a delay on the line.

How many of those accidents are caused during left turn operations?

Look at the plans for Eglinton and see how many straight-up left turns there would actually be. If you don't have any point in the light cycle where you have the potential to have traffic cutting in front of other traffic, you are greatly reducing your potential for car-on-car interactions.

AFAIK, you can't even run ATC at-grade in-median, because of the dangers associated with foreign objects crossing in front of the train (people, cars, etc).

I meant being able to run ATC in your grade separated implementation vs non-ATC in the surface sections in the current plan. What kind of improvement numbers are we talking?

The cost of not having to buy the new LRT trains, the cost of not having to build a separate storage facility for the LRT trains, and the cost of not having to spend double on the actual construction

A new facility is required regardless of whether you buy 50 LRT vehicles or 100+ buses that would otherwise be needed.

In any case, you're arguing against BRT because of the increased operating costs, but are completely discounting the fact that LRT costs TWICE AS MUCH TO BUILD compared to BRT. Penny wise, pound foolish!

I'm not discounting it. I'm saying that the benefits of spending twice as much to build LRT with improved streetscaping are more feasible than the benefits of spending six times as much to build subways.

Certainly more than the projected riderships on both lines. The 407 Transitway is targetting well over 10,000 pphpd. Bus lanes in Ottawa carry well over the 5,000 pphpd that is forecast for Finch.

I'd admit to not being Ottawa familiar. 10,000 pphpd to me sounds like well over 100 buses/hr or nearly 1 every 30 seconds. How would such a transitway/lane be implemented on Finch? (And that is ON Finch, not on the hydro corridor which is not as convenient to the places people want to go and whose owner isn't too keen on opening it to that kind of development.)

Did I ever say I supported Ford's vision of the Sheppard Subway?

My mistake then. I thought you liked 3/4 of his 'plan to have a plan' of which the subway made up the largest portion and biggest new burden to the Toronto taxpayer.

 

[GraphicMatt]

Re: gweed.

But there are a ton of variables, is what I'm getting at - are you buying new vehicles? New yards? Widening roads? Expropriating properties? Are there complicated bridges? Etc. etc.

I don't think it's realistic to say you'd save half the cost of, say, the Finch LRT if you just got rid of the rails and wire and ran buses.

 

[gweed123]

Re: gweed.

But there are a ton of variables, is what I'm getting at - are you buying new vehicles? New yards? Widening roads? Expropriating properties? Are there complicated bridges? Etc. etc.

I don't think it's realistic to say you'd save half the cost of, say, the Finch LRT if you just got rid of the rails and wire and ran buses.

There are variables, I will admit that, but I just gave you 3 examples, and there are tonnes more in that report, that show that BRT along certain corridors consistently comes in at about 1/3 the price per km of the LRT projects. Does that depend on the corridor? Absolutely. But you can't deny that all of those cost estimates coming in with about the same ratio point to the fact that BRT is clearly the less expensive option, by about 50% to 66%.

The other advantage with BRT compared to LRT is that the BRT storage and maintenance yard doesn't have to be on the line, or anywhere near the line. The two major bus depots in Ottawa are on Queensway Terrace North (between Pinecrest and Woodroffe, close to the 417 and the Transitway, but with no direct access to it), and the other one is at St. Laurent Rd and Belfast St, over 1km away from the Transitway. You can build the bus depots wherever it's convenient, not just where it has access to the line (like you need with LRT).

 

[nfitz]

I'd take 1 line from one side of the city to the other over a couple piecemeal lines anyday.

No one has offered that though. The Eglinton line still only goes from Jane to Kennedy - it just now also takes all the money that was going to be spent on Finch West and Sheppard East to build it as well. I can see that if the Sheppard East subway is extended (and that's a big if ... I doubt that it would happen this decade - let alone by 2015 as Rob Ford has promised - at least the entire extent that has been proposed) that it may not be possible to justify LRT east of Kennedy on Sheppard. But losing the Finch West LRT to instead spend extra money on Eglinton is asinine. So we save $1.3 billion on Finch West and $1.1 billion on Sheppard East (escalated dollars) - but we spend it on Eglinton without adding any track? Even if we don't build Finch or Sheppard, that money could have been spent on the 14-km Eglinton extension to the Airport ($770-million in 2009$) or the 1.5-km SRT extension to Malvern ($390 million in 2009$).

For what Metrolinx is now talking about spending on just Eglinton (Jane to Kennedy) and the SRT extension/rebuild to Sheppard (total length of 29 km), we could have instead also built Finch West (Keele to Humber); Eglinton (Jane to Pearson); and SRT (Sheppard to Malvern) (total length of 58 km).

And if we'd spend that $5-billion that Ford wants to spend on the Sheppard Subway on LRT, we could also finish Finch West to Yonge (6 km - 460million); Sheppard East to Morningside (2-km for $100 million on top of the $1.1 billion); Don Mill LRT (16 km from Danforth to Steeles ... guess at $2.1 billion), Sheppard-Malvern LRT (12 km from Kennedy to Sheppard ... guess at $950 million ... and still have $300 million left over to start on the Waterfront West LRT (say 4 km worth).

So the currently fully-funded Phase 1 Transit City gives us 46 new kilometres of transit (unfunded Phase 2 would give us another 22 km to make 68 km) for around $8 billion. Rob Ford's current plan gives us only 35 new kilometres for $13 billion (32 km if he doesn't extend SRT from Scarborough Centre to Sheppard). Yet with the same $13 billion we could instead have had 108 new km of transit.

Ford wants to spend $13 billion on 35 km of transit, when it could instead buy us 108 km of transit.

That's incompetence.

I'd If you really cared about the financial impact, you would be satisfied with bus lanes along Sheppard and Finch West, because that's all the demand really justifies. You could build that for half the cost of building the LRT lines.

That might be all that Sheppard East demand justifies east of Kennedy. However the AM peak on Finch East is almost 5,000 which is pushing BRT. Ford isn't talking about real BRT though with lanes cost $10s of million per kilometre. He's talking about some new express buses on the existing road.

What are the real, quantifiable performance and service benefits of spending an extra $1 billion on Sheppard and Finch going to achieve by doing LRT over BRT?

Again, no one is pushing BRT.