Transit City Plan

[gweed123]

Ford’s transit plan shortchanges suburbs, critics charge


Mar 07 2011

By Tess Kalinowski

Read More: http://www.thestar.com/news/transpo...ging-suburbs-with-transit-plan-critics-charge


Mayor Rob Ford’s transportation plan cheats Toronto’s suburbs of their fair share of $8.7 billion in provincial transit funds, according to the Toronto Environmental Alliance. TEA, which supports an older transit plan, says Ford’s underground proposal will mean less transit, to fewer riders. Only 217,000 commuters would benefit from light rail under Ford’s plan, which is still being considered by Metrolinx, the provincial agency that approves transit funding. That compares with about 460,000 commuters who could have accessed light rail under the old plan, which Ford has declared dead. TEA’s ridership numbers are based on the population living or working within 500 metres of the proposed light rail lines.

The “compromise” Ford plan, which calls for the entire Eglinton light rail line to be tunneled from Jane St. to the Kennedy subway station, is also more expensive, argues TEA. Its report, issued Monday, compares only the light rail covered by the $8.7 billion pledged by the province. TEA hasn’t included ridership on Ford’s proposed Sheppard subway extensions or any increase from more buses on Finch Ave. because neither accounts for any of the $8.7 billion in provincial funding. “There’s been a lot of skepticism of the mayor’s plan because there isn’t a plan yet,” said TEA spokesman Jamie Kirkpatrick.

.....

Really? This old song and dance again?

These numbers include the Jane LRT, but don't include Ford's Sheppard Subway proposal. If you're going to include fantasy lines that have little to no chance of ever being built, at least include them for both parts of the statistic.

EDIT: And where did this $8.7 billion number come from? Did the TEA pull a Rob Ford and include York Region's dedicated funding in there as well? I guess they're more alike than people are willing to admit. They both distort the facts, and they both suck at math.

 

[M II A II R II K]

Toronto's aggressive new mayor ignites a transit fight


March 10th, 2011

By Philip Langdon

Read More: http://newurbannetwork.com/article/torontos-aggressive-new-mayor-ignites-transit-fight-14272


Last October, Toronto elected a new mayor of breathtaking crudeness: Rob Ford, a corpulent councillor from Etobicoke who can be seen on You Tube calling his opponents in government "weasels" and "snakes" and pursuing an exasperated reporter who may or may not have called him a bad name. At a Council session on whether to reduce the number of traffic lanes on a downtown thoroughfare, Ford took the side of drivers, declaring that "cyclists are a pain in the ass to the motorists." In a 2007 debate, he said, "I can't support bike lanes. Roads are built for buses, cars, and trucks. My heart bleeds when someone gets killed, but it's their own fault at the end of the day."

- With that as prologue, it was to be expected that the 41-year-old businessman and councillor turned mayor would be at odds with many transit advocates. On his first day in office in December, Ford pronounced Transit City — a rapid light-rail network planned to extend throughout the city — dead. Now the battle over whether and how to reshape Transit City is heating up. Behind the closed doors of Ford and Ontario Premier Dalton McGuinty, a proposed compromise transit plan has recently been developed. It has prompted strong protests from the Toronto Environmental Alliance.

- Joe Mihevc, former vice chairman of the Toronto Transit Commission, told the Toronto Sun there is a "tragedy unfolding" as the city blows a good transit opportunity. The Alliance charges that the new plan "leaves those who live in the suburbs stranded," harming some of the outlying residents who form Ford's base of support. Why the aversion to placing the four light-rail lines above ground? "The mayor has decided that rail on roads is not something he wants in his city," Kirkpatrick says. The mayor wants to build a subway instead of one of the previously proposed light-rail lines, Kirkpatrick notes. That subway would be dependent upon attracting private investment. "When would that happen?" Kirkpatrick asks.

- Kirkpatrick argues that Toronto's transit planning requires greater transparency, including a vote by Council. He worries that with provincial elections coming in the fall and "with transit becoming a political hot potato," the whole proposal could end up delayed, making the transit package vulnerable to a political change of heart. Whatever happens to the transit plans, the outlook for Toronto government in the immediate future is dismaying, especially for those who care about urban planning and placemaking.

- George Dark, a partner in Urban Strategies, a leading Toronto urban planning firm, describes Mayor Ford this way: "He is like what you would get if Ronald Reagan and Dick Cheney got married and had children who finished grade 6 and then went to work; i.e., he announced 'the war on the car is over' — you know, 1950s stuff." This is hardly what citizens of the US had come to expect from Canada. Whatever flaws that country may have, Canada is a land whose large cities have routinely operated more safely, smoothly, and humanely than most cities in the US. Toronto, it's worth remembering, is where Jane Jacobs and her family settled when they departed New York.

.....

 

[nfitz]

People call Bessarion overbuilt? It's literally the minimum you would want to have for a station without a bus transfer.

I agree. A couple of hundred pages up the thread (or was it the Sheppard East LRT thread) some folks tried to put a case that subway would cost a lot less than $200 million/km because we overbuild the stations ... needless to say that have been very quiet about the estimates for the Eglinton LRT being well over $300 milllion/km with it's minimalistic stations.

 

[Thoughtless Miscreant]

Really? This old song and dance again?

These numbers include the Jane LRT, but don't include Ford's Sheppard Subway proposal. If you're going to include fantasy lines that have little to no chance of ever being built, at least include them for both parts of the statistic.

EDIT: And where did this $8.7 billion number come from? Did the TEA pull a Rob Ford and include York Region's dedicated funding in there as well? I guess they're more alike than people are willing to admit. They both distort the facts, and they both suck at math.

Those numbers do not in fact include Jane LRT. They're comparing the original truncated Transit city (Finch W, Sheppard E, partially-above ground Eglinton, and an extended and converted SRT) with a fully grade separated Eglinton and a Scarborough RT conversion.

 

[Amy Rose]

Those numbers do not in fact include Jane LRT. They're comparing the original truncated Transit city (Finch W, Sheppard E, partially-above ground Eglinton, and an extended and converted SRT) with a fully grade separated Eglinton and a Scarborough RT conversion.

SRT conversion and extension to meet the SELRT

 

[gweed123]

Those numbers do not in fact include Jane LRT. They're comparing the original truncated Transit city (Finch W, Sheppard E, partially-above ground Eglinton, and an extended and converted SRT) with a fully grade separated Eglinton and a Scarborough RT conversion.

The original comparison maps that they had a couple months ago were comparing the entire TC plan to Ford's plan. I guess they got a lot of flack for that (rightfully so, and changed their calculation method).

I don't really see how the numbers could be that different though. The new plan includes everything except for Finch West and Sheppard east of Agincourt (same Eglinton, same SRT conversion and extension, same Sheppard from Don Mills to Agincourt). I know Jane and Finch is a major population centre, but nearly double the numbers from two lines that were planned to average around 5,000 pphpd? Something's awry there...

 

[Dan416]

How can anyone take the Toronto Environmental Alliance's stance on a Mayor Ford issue seriously? How can it not be partisan?

 

[Thoughtless Miscreant]

The original comparison maps that they had a couple months ago were comparing the entire TC plan to Ford's plan. I guess they got a lot of flack for that (rightfully so, and changed their calculation method).

I don't really see how the numbers could be that different though. The new plan includes everything except for Finch West and Sheppard east of Agincourt (same Eglinton, same SRT conversion and extension, same Sheppard from Don Mills to Agincourt). I know Jane and Finch is a major population centre, but nearly double the numbers from two lines that were planned to average around 5,000 pphpd? Something's awry there...

The comparison doesn't include unfunded lines. So no Jane LRT for Transit City and no Sheppard Subway for Ford. It's strictly a comparison of Finch West+Sheppard East+Surface Eglinton+SRT vs. Underground Eglinton+SRT. Which considering the complaints about the last map is an entirely fair comparison.

 

[gweed123]

The comparison doesn't include unfunded lines. So no Jane LRT for Transit City and no Sheppard Subway for Ford. It's strictly a comparison of Finch West+Sheppard East+Surface Eglinton+SRT vs. Underground Eglinton+SRT. Which considering the complaints about the last map is an entirely fair comparison.

But that still leaves a bunch of the Transit City funding on the table. We don't know that Eglinton East is going to be underground (it could be elevated, or kept as-is). We don't know that Finch West won't be getting some type of improved bus service. You can't compare two plans when one plan doesn't officially exist, or the public doesn't know all the details of the plan. You can bet that every penny that was initially allocated for TC is going to be spent on transit improvements of some kind. And the money left over from the Sheppard and Finch LRTs isn't all going to grade-separating Eglinton east.

And since the TEA makes no value based off of quality of service in their numbers, by their standards a BRT light along Finch West and Sheppard East would be 'serving' just as many people as an LRT would. If you don't make a distinction between the quality of service given by grade-separated LRT vs at-grade LRT, how can you make the distinction between at-grade LRT and at-grade BRT light?

I could make up my own plan where I take all the TC money, and spend it exclusively on BRT corridors throughout the entire City. With $8.15 billion, I'm pretty sure I could 'serve' a lot more people than if I did a few subway lines, or even the proposed Transit City lines. Would it be the same level of service? No. But based on how the TEA comes up with its 'benefit' numbers, that plan would be golden.

 

[Thoughtless Miscreant]

We've heard from several people now that Eglinton East is going underground, and burying that much LRT will effectively eat up all the money for improvements on Finch and Sheppard. The details of the plan may not be known but the broad outlines of it certainly are, so I think it's fair to make a comparison. If the numbers change drastically then they can release a new study. But no matter what the numbers ultimately look like the central point of the study, namely that if you spend more money on Eglinton then you have to pay for it by sacrificing transit improvements elsewhere, is still valid.

 

[gweed123]

We've heard from several people now that Eglinton East is going underground, and burying that much LRT will effectively eat up all the money for improvements on Finch and Sheppard. The details of the plan may not be known but the broad outlines of it certainly are, so I think it's fair to make a comparison. If the numbers change drastically then they can release a new study. But no matter what the numbers ultimately look like the central point of the study, namely that if you spend more money on Eglinton then you have to pay for it by sacrificing transit improvements elsewhere, is still valid.

We'll see what the final analysis says when it comes to how much money is left over. My main objection though is still how they derive this 'served' number without any type of weight being placed on the quality of the service. Being 'served' by a grade-separated LRT is not the same as being 'served' by an at-grade LRT. Yet they make no distinction between the two. I go back to my previous point: I could design a network of BRT lines across the entire city, that would 'serve' a hell of a lot more people than either a subway-based plan or an LRT-based plan. Is that a wise option? Of course not. Their definition of 'served', while easily quantifiable, is far from accurate when determining HOW WELL these people will be 'served'.

 

[lafard]

I think a citywide BRT network would make a lot of people happy, and be far more useful to Toronto than pretty much any subway extension save Eglinton....

 

[gweed123]

I think a citywide BRT network would make a lot of people happy, and be far more useful to Toronto than pretty much any subway extension save Eglinton....

I agree. In fact, of my Top 6 Transit Wishlist projects, 3 of them are BRT projects:

1) DRL
2) Enhanced rapid transit connection to STC that eliminates the forced Kennedy transfer (extension of B-D, or upgrade of SRT to run with the Eglinton line)
3) Eglinton rapid transit
4) Scarborough BRT (STC > Centennial > UTSC > Kingston Rd > Vic Park Station)
5) Etobicoke BRT (Kipling Station > Martin Grove Station > Highway 27 (stop at Woodbine) > Humber College)
6) Either BRT lanes on Finch (east and west), or Finch Hydro corridor BRT

 

[Dan416]

I dunno. BRT just seems like a non-starter to me. It sounds great in concept, that we could build a lot more for a lot less and serve a lot more people, but who would actually take it that doesn't take buses already?

 

[gweed123]

I dunno. BRT just seems like a non-starter to me. It sounds great in concept, that we could build a lot more for a lot less and serve a lot more people, but who would actually take it that doesn't take buses already?

Tell that to York Region, Brampton, Ottawa, etc etc etc. Granted the 905 GTA bus services didn't have very high ridership to begin with, so any increase would be seen as a success, but when you look at the anti-transit environment they have to work with (low density suburbia), they do pretty well for themselves. Imagine what the ridership would be in an area that is a more transit-friendly design.

If the 20 minute rush-hour trip to the subway was reduced to 10 minutes running 5-8 minute headways, I'd think that would get a lot more people to think twice about taking transit. This is of course based on the assumption that the subway system will have the capacity to handle the influx of new riders (which is the same knock for every transit plan that doesn't include capacity improvements leading into the downtown core).

The ideal application of BRT would be two-fold:

1) Use a hub and spoke concept in the outer 416, to create efficient, medium capacity, high frequency feeder routes to and from major transit hubs that have subway access (Finch West to Finch West Station would be a perfect example, or Finch East to Finch Station).
2) Use dedicated corridors for express crosstown travel (Finch Hydro Corridor, buses using the DVP, Lakeshore Blvd, etc).