Transit City Plan

[Woodbridge_Heights]

I'm a little late to the Bus only lane discussion but FWIW the HOV lanes on the 403 and 404 seem to work quite well without much abuse. I haven't driven them in bumper to bumper traffic, however even in fairly heavy traffic there are only a handful of drivers who abuse the HOV lane (drive in it with only one occupant). So I think Toronto drivers can adapt to curbside Bus only lanes.

 

[rbt]

I'm a little late to the Bus only lane discussion but FWIW the HOV lanes on the 403 and 404 seem to work quite well without much abuse. I haven't driven them in bumper to bumper traffic, however even in fairly heavy traffic there are only a handful of drivers who abuse the HOV lane (drive in it with only one occupant). So I think Toronto drivers can adapt to curbside Bus only lanes.

OPP has been paying pretty close attention to them and ticketing as appropriate.

The StreetCar only lanes (peak periods IIRC) on King worked out extremly poorly. Even Lastman tried to get the cops to enforce those rules and couldn't (claims of lacking budget and other priorities).

 

[nfitz]

When do you think that Ford and Metrolinx will release their full revised plans? They were supposed to be out by February.

When they come to an agreement.

With Ford's recent verbal attack on McGuinty and threat of a Ford Nation, I wouldn't be surprised if they fail to come to an agreement until after the next provincial election, unless there is some peace declared between them soon.

I wouldn't be too surprised if a plan were released during the election period or even afterwards.

If it lingers until then, I doubt there will be an agreement reached during the election. Which if the Conservatives win, might be in Toronto's best interest, as it would force Hudak to take a position (though so far Hudak seems to not have the capacity to actually take a position). Though if the Liberals win, then I'd think that they'd simply tell Ford where to go fly his kite ... and tell him that's it's Transit City or nothing.

 

[lafard]

I suspect both sides are being hard-headed about LRT. It's almost as if the Eglinton-fully-underground was a bluff to demonstrate how you basically kill off Finch and Sheppard to get not a lot more in return. Metrolinx did spend a fair bit of money and effort bringing Finch and Sheppard to fruition and they're likely not as amenable to killing the lines as they originally appeared when they played nice with Ford.

They might have been agreeable at first, and been ready to try and convince him with logic and powerpoint demonstrations that TC is the way to go. As we know, that wouldn't have gotten far with Ford.

It also explains bringing in David Gunn, who is known to be opposed to Ford's "plan".

 

[rbt]

It also explains bringing in David Gunn, who is known to be opposed to Ford's "plan".

Gunn is also most likely against the LRT plan too. He's not a fan of expansion of any kind when SOGR work is unfunded. Although the TTC has kinda abused the title SOGR and started putting more and more non-maintenance items under it just to get them funded; they might be essential but they're not SOGR.

From a money spending point of view, he's right. If TTC took $3B for SOGR work (SRT is in here) and minor improvements like jump-queue lanes they would close their capital funding gap for the next decade. Give the remaining $5B to GO to electrify LakeShore and GeorgeTown corridors and run trains every 2 minutes during peak and 15 minutes off-peak.

Of course, it was too late for that combination after TBM and LRT orders were placed.

 

[Dan416]

I think this is the first time I saw an actual alignment of this part of Sheppard. If it was me, I'd move the stations around a bit:

 

[Electrify]

Just wanted to add that if Sheppard becomes a BRT, at least the investment required matches the stopping pattern of such a line. I'd rather see a few hundred million spent on an improved bus service with stops every 400m rather than a few billion spent on a streetcar-LRT line with stops every 400m. And as mentioned, if demand outstrips any enhanced bus service it can not only be easier to secure funding to upgrade to a higher mode, but can make it easier to see which stops are used the most so that you can operate a truly rapid service with stops every 800-1200m along with a local bus service with stops every 250-300m.

 

[gweed123]

I agree with the comments here...

Widen Sheppard Avenue from Pharmacy to Markham Road then to Morningside afterwards.

Paint the third lane as Bus only.

I know that the lanes on Dufferin work well, VERY WELL actually... If it was a bit more enforced, it would be even better...

I also think Markham road is another good corridor that can have bus lanes from Kingston Road till Sheppard.

Then repaint Eglinton and Don Mills lanes to bus only and what you have is a "Golden Quadrilateral" around Eastern Toronto...

Sheppard on the north, Eglinton on the south, Don Mills in the west, Markham in the east.

I think such a solid corridor around scarborough would make major improvements in Scarborough!

BRT lanes are already being planned for Kingston Rd (unless that plan was scrapped too and we didn't hear anything about it). Supposed to run from Vic Park Stn to Eglinton via Kingston.

I think the biggest link from a BRT perspective would be putting BRT lanes on McCowan between STC and Nugget. That way, you could run 2 routes on the section of Sheppard between Don Mills and McCowan (1 running straight along Sheppard, one running from Don Mills to STC). The second would be a good way of gauging how much demand actually exists between Don Mills and STC (for the proposed subway extension). If that route is a hit, then you have quantifiable evidence that a subway extension may be warranted. If not, then at least you're serving that trip pattern with BRT.

In the west end, run a BRT straight up from Kipling Stn, via either Highway 427 or the Kipling Hydro Corridor (that one would be a dedicated at-grade ROW) to Martin Grove Stn on the Eglinton line, and then curbside BRT on Highway 27 up to Humber College, or even past that. There it would meet the E-W Finch BRT.

 

[lafard]

I'm struggling with the costing of BRT though. From what I can tell it's not actually much of a savings once you factor out the externalities.

- For SELRT, we're talking about 14km at 950 million dollars.
However, that includes rolling stock and a yard. The Ashbridge's carhouse is budgeted at 430 million dollars for 100 cars; by my calculation SELRT requires about 30. That's about 150 million dollars.
-The LRT cars theselves cost about $100M.
-The tunnel from Don Mills to Consumers is about 800m, costing somewhere around $180-200 million.

That's basically 500 million dollars for the LRT itself. St Clair cost $120M, and SELRT would be about 300 on the same per km scale. Factor in the need for new electrical infrastructure and construction cost inflation and the numbers agree pretty well.

For a BRT, you need a yard (say $60M, half of Mt Dennis), and rolling stock (~70 articulated buses at 1m each; but will have to be replaced sooner so we'll call it an even 100m for simplicity's sake) . The connection to Don Mills Stn would probably be at the surface and would be a bit cheaper - $120M? Ontario spent 35M reconfiguring King Rd/Hwy 400 interchange with a new bridge and it's not hard to imagine that Sheppard/404 would cost more than twice that, plus $40m for the bus loop facilities. That's about 280 million in externalities.

Now, a bit of research indicates that it typically costs about ~10m/km to widen a road by 2 lanes. This agrees with the $24M budget for the Finch to Steeles Yonge busway. Increase that to 15m/km for the special needs such as platforms and streetscaping and that's $220m for the physical infrastructure. So far we're up to $600M.

This is exclusive of property acquisition needs. The wider RoW needed for buses might well take an otherwise minimal expense and add quite a bit to it. Such cost information is unknowable and probably confidential so we'll ignore it, but it is a cost that's there.

But - obviously BRT, by virtue of having smaller non MU-able vehicles, has higher operating labour costs. 30 extra rush hour operators, more or less, costing $3M per year in operating costs (assuming a 2:1 replacement) + extra maintenance staff, say 1 per 2 vehicles is around $5m in total. LRT labour costs don't really move much at all as ridership rises, offpeak the line would be operating below capacity subject to minimum intervals meaning ridership growth has virtually zero net cost; whereas with buses most time periods would have intervals set by bus capacity rather than miminum intervals except for possibly late evenings. On-peak MU-ing LRT again means low cost increases while BRT can only be served by throwing more buses down the lanes.

Throw in ridership growth and it's even worse - 3x to 4x on-peak labour costs and 1.5x offpeak if ridership doubles. 100 extra operators + maintenance staff at upwards of $15m/yr extra.

Those extra costs actually allow you to amoritize the difference from heavier infrastructure. Assuming the BRT costs an extra $10m/yr in operating costs that amoritizes an extra 200 million dollars.

This means the BRT cost is roughly equivalent to 800 million dollars, or approx. 85% the cost of the LRT.

 

[gweed123]

lafard:

Interesting analysis. However, you do make several assumptions that may not be needed:

1) Why would you need to use artics right off the bat? The biggest issue with the Sheppard buses now is the speed, not the capacity. Yes, an increase in speed will result in a moderate increase in ridership, but not enough to warrant purchasing ~70 new artics. They could be bought over time to minimize the impact. BRT is different from LRT in that the vehicles don't necessarily have to be purchased at the same time as the infrastructure is built. Maybe buy 10 new buses to handle the modest increase in ridership, but that's about all you'll need on Day 1.

2) Why would you need a new bus yard? The current buses reach up there. Once a BRT is built along the Finch corridor, then you could potentially build a new yard serving both the Sheppard and Finch BRTs. Until then, the new yard is a want, not a need.

3) Labour costs: you would have roughly the same number of buses on the route as you do now. If the route is profitable now, it will continue to be profitable. It's not like there's going to be double the number of buses on the route during rush hour.

Let's not forget that the line will experience an increase in capacity just by the very nature that the route will take less time to run that it currently does. The TTC trip planner says that going from Morningside & Sheppard to Don Mills Station at 8am on Monday morning currently takes ~40 minutes. If you can reduce that trip time by even 5 minutes, you've just increased the capacity of the line by around 15%, without adding a single new bus. The sooner the bus can get to the end of the line, the sooner it can turn around and get back into service.

 

[Electrify]

Here is part of a really good article for those who feel that overly local LRT (or any transit) is a good investment:

Imagining cities without mobility

By Jarrett Walker, March 14, 2011

"There is a strong current in New Urbanism, not without detractors, that does seem interested in abolishing mobility. (Dr.) Patrick Condon's idea for Vancouver, for example, would cancel a single proposed subway line and instead replace all of the city's electric trolleybuses with streetcars that go the same speed as the buses do. He would cancel a mobility-improving project and instead spend money in way that that may do great urban things but doesn't increase mobility at all. Once his network was complete, nobody could get anywhere any faster than they can now.

This makes sense only in a context where going places (even under renewable elecric power) is an objective evil. Streetcars, in this vision, supposedly cause greater urban density to be built at livable neighborhood scales, so that people meet more of their needs close to home. People spend most of their time in their own "villages" and others nearby. They simply do not travel far across the city, and had better not be in a hurry when they do.

It's understandable that "urban village" is a winning concept right now. We do need to increase the self-reliance of each part of a city, so that travel demand for many of life's needs can met closer to home. The pendulum swung far the other way in the late 20th century, toward surrendering placehood to movement. I support and eagerly participate in efforts to help it swing back.

But I think we can see what it might look like to swing too far in the new direction. We stay close to home, and thus evolve transport systems that are useful for going short distances and useless for going long ones. And the obvious retort to this is: In that case, why live in a city? Why not just live in a country village, or in a small city?

The whole point of living in a city is to have access to unusual things that are only possible at a large scale. If you want major league sports or a good symphony orchestra or a world-class major university, you need to be in some kind of urban area. If you have a very unusual interest, only a place with lots of people will have a few people who share that interest. If you want choices, you need redundancy, also known as competition. You need there to be two or more sources for whatever service or product or experience you're looking for, readily available from where you live. For those things, you need a certain amount of urban mass, and some options for moving around within it.

The great irony of anti-mobility village-first thinking is that it inevitably leads to monotony -- less choice and therefore less opportunity for people to form specalized communities where unusual thought and creativity can flourish. More disturbingly, it leads to a world where only the internet offers those things, which leads in turn to nightmare images of a world of plugged-in couch potatoes, people who never go outside anymore because their social and intellectual needs simply aren't met by the 500 people who happen to be within walking distance.

The antidote to conformity and monotony is the city. For a city to function as a city, you need mobility. Streetcars are fun to ride, but not if you're in a hurry. Closing a street on Sundays so people can dance is a great thing. But you can't run an economy that way, nor can your citizens feel free. "

http://www.humantransit.org/2011/03/imagining-cities-without-mobility.html#comments

 

[W. K. Lis]

Using buses will be getting more expensive for the TTC. From Statistics Canada, at this link:

In Ontario, consumer prices rose 2.5% in the 12 months to February, after advancing 2.9% in January. More than half of the 0.4 percentage point decrease can be attributed to a smaller year-over-year increase in electricity prices in February compared with January. Electricity prices increased 1.1% in February, much less than the 10.4% increase recorded the month before.

Gasoline prices rose 18.3% in Ontario following a 15.6% increase in January. Consumers in Ontario also paid more for passenger vehicle insurance premiums.

Diesel went up at a higher rate. Should the TTC continue to rely on diesel buses?

 

[Tewder]

Here is part of a really good article for those who feel that overly local LRT (or any transit) is a good investment:

Imagining cities without mobility

By Jarrett Walker, March 14, 2011


http://www.humantransit.org/2011/03/imagining-cities-without-mobility.html#comments

Interesting perspective. It points to how dogma in transit can go terribly wrong, which is the case in Toronto given a fundamental lack of funding where in the void left by the long-gone departure of responsible, consistent, long term city planning and infrastructure investment Transit became a messy and volatile political battleground best characterized as stalemate. In the end, the gain of an inch here does little to compensate for the loss of one there, and no 'side' wins. In the meantime this transit war of inertia and words awaits nothing less than a Vimy Ridge-style assault to break its standstill.

Stalemate and politics notwithstanding, most of us without some vested or partisan interest understand that speed across distance along with local mobility are what is required over time to make a truly sustainable form of public transit. This means a framework of subways fed by a network of LRT. Simplistic, yes, but is this really all that different from what we see in other cities of Toronto's scale that we would want to emulate?

 

[Woodbridge_Heights]

Using buses will be getting more expensive for the TTC. From Statistics Canada, at this link:

Diesel went up at a higher rate. Should the TTC continue to rely on diesel buses?

What other fuel alternative do you suggest?

A bus filled with 40-60 riders is still a much better use for fuel than 40 odd single occupant vehicles on the road.

 

[Woodbridge_Heights]

Interesting perspective. It points to how dogma in transit can go terribly wrong, which is the case in Toronto given a fundamental lack of funding where in the void left by the long-gone departure of responsible, consistent, long term city planning and infrastructure investment Transit became a messy and volatile political battleground best characterized as stalemate. In the end, the gain of an inch here does little to compensate for the loss of one there, and no 'side' wins. In the meantime this transit war of inertia and words awaits nothing less than a Vimy Ridge-style assault to break its standstill.

Stalemate and politics notwithstanding, most of us without some vested or partisan interest understand that speed across distance along with local mobility are what is required over time to make a truly sustainable form of public transit. This means a framework of subways fed by a network of LRT. Simplistic, yes, but is this really all that different from what we see in other cities of Toronto's scale that we would want to emulate?

I agree, but add. At least IMO that the slow silent undercurrent to the whole transit fight in the GTA is not only when and where are each mode (subway, LRT, BRT, Bus) suitable, but also in what order should they be built. We all agree that the CBD needs at least one if not two HRT upgrades (well unless you're totally LRT dogmatic) and yet there was not political will to put these lines on the table. Meanwhile lines and lines and lines of LRT and BRT were drawn all over the city map with little apparent regard for their effect on the already taxed existing system. Furthermore there was silence from the regional rail network (GO) which should be providing the commuter service that we seem to have appropriated to the subway network.