Transit City Plan

[SlickFranky]

I think it's important to note that construction cost is hardly the TTC's sole, or even their primary, concern. They have a set amount of funds to spend on upgrades, so obviously they want to try and cover as much ground as possible, hitting as many trouble-spots as possible, and generally getting the most bang-for-the-buck they can. But the primary thing the TTC cares about is the ongoing operation of the system, with particular focus on the operating costs. They're interested in reducing/limiting costs from labour, maintenance, fuel, etc. All of this needs to be taken into account.

compare cost of:
-running 40 buses an hour vs. running 20 LRVs
-maintaining asphalt ROW vs surface rail ROW vs tunnel
-ridership growth costs and limitations
-diesel cost increase vs electrical rate increase

It's not as simple as $2.4B vs $0.9B vs $0.4B, especially when that's not even the part that the TTC or the city are on the hook for. Ironically, this is the part that Ford should be most interested in as well, and yet he's pushing for subways....but that's a subject better suited to another thread.

 

[lafard]

Re Ottawa, didn't they try to convert part of the system to LRT, until their version of Rob Ford killed it?

Viva is similarly long term planned for upgrade to LRT.

The primary issue with BRT is that it doesn't solve the primary argument against LRT, which is related to losing traffic lanes. If anything the devoted infrastructure needed for the sort of ridership is worse because of the width of traffic lanes vs railed RoWs. Particularly true in places like Finch between the two subway lines where they already had to take front yards to fit the LRT line in, let alone an extra 10 feet for bus lanes. It's much more difficult to dip a BRT underground under narrow segments.

 

[Rainforest]

Re Ottawa, didn't they try to convert part of the system to LRT, until their version of Rob Ford killed it?

?
I thought Ottawa still wants to convert the central section of Transitway to LRT; they just selected another corridor for their first LRT ...

 

[Rainforest]

On Finch West, the projected ridership volume points to LRT being a better choice than BRT. Perhaps BRT can barely handle that volume, but is it worth pulling the area through the pains of construction to create a system that will be full from the very beginning? The biggest obstacle is Ford's aversion to any form of street-level rapid transit, which probably applies to BRT as well. But if that can be overcome (say, he gets tired of the transit file in a couple of years, and allows the TTC to do whatever they see fit) and there are money for BRT, it is not unrealistic to prompt the provincial and federal governments for some extra cash to get it built as LRT. The amount in question is not astronomical.

BRT on Sheppard East, as an interim solution, is not unreasonable if the expected ridership volume fits BRT.

However from the operating costs perspective, it might be better to invest in a short extension of the Sheppard subway (I am thinking of Warden as interim terminus), and use that to reconfigure the Finch East bus service and reduce the number of buses needed there. One branch would run from the Sheppard / Warden terminus, up Warden to Finch, and serve the section of Finch east of Warden all the way to Malvern. The other branch would serve the section of Finch between Yonge and Warden. Since the riders originating on Warden and points further east will be going to the subway, much fewer buses should be needed between Yonge and Warden; perhaps one in 3 or 4 minutes instread of every 90 or 70 s.

 

[sixrings]

Again I'd suggest just doing finch west LRT just as a experiment to see if people will be receptive and like LRT in our city.

How about downtown making welsley richmond and adelaide two ways. Then could add streetcar service to those streets which would eleviate pressure from queen and king. You could even add the streetcars to the one way street but then it would be half the amount of transit. But still more then what is there now. Make sense?

 

[gweed123]

Re Ottawa, didn't they try to convert part of the system to LRT, until their version of Rob Ford killed it?

Viva is similarly long term planned for upgrade to LRT.

The primary issue with BRT is that it doesn't solve the primary argument against LRT, which is related to losing traffic lanes. If anything the devoted infrastructure needed for the sort of ridership is worse because of the width of traffic lanes vs railed RoWs. Particularly true in places like Finch between the two subway lines where they already had to take front yards to fit the LRT line in, let alone an extra 10 feet for bus lanes. It's much more difficult to dip a BRT underground under narrow segments.

The first plan was fundamentally flawed. You don't build an at-grade LRT through downtown, and a line that runs N-S, in a city that runs E-W. The new plan includes a tunnel downtown.

And while Ottawa is planning on updating their central portion to LRT, over the next 30 years, they'll be building twice as much BRT as they will be LRT. Some people have suggested that Ottawa is abandoning BRT. This simply isn't the case at all.

 

[gweed123]

On Finch West, the projected ridership volume points to LRT being a better choice than BRT. Perhaps BRT can barely handle that volume, but is it worth pulling the area through the pains of construction to create a system that will be full from the very beginning? The biggest obstacle is Ford's aversion to any form of street-level rapid transit, which probably applies to BRT as well. But if that can be overcome (say, he gets tired of the transit file in a couple of years, and allows the TTC to do whatever they see fit) and there are money for BRT, it is not unrealistic to prompt the provincial and federal governments for some extra cash to get it built as LRT. The amount in question is not astronomical.

Ford has also stated though that he wanted to replace streetcars with buses. He could claim that he was switching streetcars for buses on Finch, even though that wouldn't be 100% accurate. Yes, it's at-grade, but it's also not a streetcar.

Again, the projected ridership (by 2031 I believe was when it was scheduled to hit the 4,500 pphpd) is in the upper limits of BRT. Does anyone know what the opening day projected ridership for Finch West will be? I'm guessing it's somewhere around 3,000 pphpd. If it's not going to hit the upper limits for another 15 years or so, that's still 15 years of reasonably smooth operation. The extra funds that would have gone to building LRT instead of BRT can be directed to other areas of the city where transit improvements are desperately needed. They can come back in 15 years or so and do the upgrade, once more of the city has been given higher order transit.

BRT on Sheppard East, as an interim solution, is not unreasonable if the expected ridership volume fits BRT.

However from the operating costs perspective, it might be better to invest in a short extension of the Sheppard subway (I am thinking of Warden as interim terminus), and use that to reconfigure the Finch East bus service and reduce the number of buses needed there. One branch would run from the Sheppard / Warden terminus, up Warden to Finch, and serve the section of Finch east of Warden all the way to Malvern. The other branch would serve the section of Finch between Yonge and Warden. Since the riders originating on Warden and points further east will be going to the subway, much fewer buses should be needed between Yonge and Warden; perhaps one in 3 or 4 minutes instread of every 90 or 70 s.

I would think that Victoria Park would be a better interim terminus. But yes, your logic is correct. For termini, I would either do Victoria Park or Agincourt. If there's more money available, I would be tempted to go with Agincourt. That could potentially turn that area into a subway-GO-BRT-bus hub. It would become the transit focal point for Northern Scarborough.

 

[gweed123]

Again I'd suggest just doing finch west LRT just as a experiment to see if people will be receptive and like LRT in our city.

How about downtown making welsley richmond and adelaide two ways. Then could add streetcar service to those streets which would eleviate pressure from queen and king. You could even add the streetcars to the one way street but then it would be half the amount of transit. But still more then what is there now. Make sense?

Wouldn't having transit on one-way opposite streets increase the efficiency of transit? The original LRT proposal for Ottawa had the at-grade LRT running on opposite one-ways in a similar configuration. That was deemed as being the most efficient method of passenger flow, as opposed to one two-way street.

 

[Woodbridge_Heights]

Yeah I think running a paired route along 2 one way streets could work. Run in a ROW in the right lane with a possible bicycle lane beside it. You'd lose probably 1-1.5 lanes from personal vehicle traffic but this route could have the potential to be as if not more efficient than Queen/King. Also given the development that is happening along these former back streets there should be a fair number of riders at your door (bus) step.

Better IMHO than turning the one way streets into two way streets as Vaughan has proposed

 

[Rainforest]

Ford has also stated though that he wanted to replace streetcars with buses. He could claim that he was switching streetcars for buses on Finch, even though that wouldn't be 100% accurate. Yes, it's at-grade, but it's also not a streetcar.

Again, the projected ridership (by 2031 I believe was when it was scheduled to hit the 4,500 pphpd) is in the upper limits of BRT. Does anyone know what the opening day projected ridership for Finch West will be? I'm guessing it's somewhere around 3,000 pphpd. If it's not going to hit the upper limits for another 15 years or so, that's still 15 years of reasonably smooth operation. The extra funds that would have gone to building LRT instead of BRT can be directed to other areas of the city where transit improvements are desperately needed. They can come back in 15 years or so and do the upgrade, once more of the city has been given higher order transit.

That would be absolutely correct, if the conversion from BRT to LRT was a matter of writing a cheque for $500 million or whatever, and the next day the LRT is up and running. In reality, it would probably take 3 or 4 years to build a median BRT, and after 10 or 12 years of operation, another 2 years or so to convert it to LRT; with the work being done section by section both times, and the associated diversions, traffic jams etc.

In order to do it once, rather than twice, might be better to try to get extra funding and build it is LRT from the start. The amount of extra funding needed is not huge, compared to grand projects like DRL, full Sheppard subway, or Yonge North.

I would think that Victoria Park would be a better interim terminus. But yes, your logic is correct. For termini, I would either do Victoria Park or Agincourt. If there's more money available, I would be tempted to go with Agincourt. That could potentially turn that area into a subway-GO-BRT-bus hub. It would become the transit focal point for Northern Scarborough.

A case can be made for either Vic Park, Warden, or Agincourt as an interim eastern subway terminus on Sheppard. I am aware that the Sheppard / Warden intersection is the least appealing of these three locations in terms of local density. Yet, it might make sense from the network prospective. It gives a connection to the Finch / Warden cluster, and to the Downtown Markham and Enterprise areas further north. Plus, Warden is the shortest possible extension that makes redirecting the Finch East buses to Sheppard subway undoubtfully useful for their riders.

 

[Rainforest]

Again I'd suggest just doing finch west LRT just as a experiment to see if people will be receptive and like LRT in our city.

That makes sense. That particular route won't be a failure in any case, and any debate on other street-median LRT lines will have a reference point.

How about downtown making welsley richmond and adelaide two ways. Then could add streetcar service to those streets which would eleviate pressure from queen and king. You could even add the streetcars to the one way street but then it would be half the amount of transit. But still more then what is there now. Make sense?

Unfortunately, that won't help King or Queen. The congestion on those streets is caused by cars (both running and parked) and not by too many streetcars. If anything, splitting the flow of streetcars between 4 routes instead of 2 would make it less convenient for people boarding in the downtown area, as they will have to wait longer at a particular stop.

What could help, is allocating 2 lanes out of 14+ total available on the 4 streets (Queen, Richmond, Adelaide, King) as a ROW. For example, eastbound ROW on Queen + westbound ROW on Richmond + mixed-traffic 2-way service on King. Or, eastbound ROW on Adelaide + westbound ROW on King + mixed-traffic 2-way service on Queen. Whatever the choice, the route that serves Queensway / Etobicoke and the Beaches would use the ROW, and that could make the service more reliable.

 

[gweed123]

That would be absolutely correct, if the conversion from BRT to LRT was a matter of writing a cheque for $500 million or whatever, and the next day the LRT is up and running. In reality, it would probably take 3 or 4 years to build a median BRT, and after 10 or 12 years of operation, another 2 years or so to convert it to LRT; with the work being done section by section both times, and the associated diversions, traffic jams etc.

In order to do it once, rather than twice, might be better to try to get extra funding and build it is LRT from the start. The amount of extra funding needed is not huge, compared to grand projects like DRL, full Sheppard subway, or Yonge North.

I'm not talking about median BRT, I'm talking about curbside. It's easier to build, and would also follow the same timeframes as a regular road widening. Because that's basically what it is, plus a few extra painted lines and a few larger bus shelters.

Again, if I have the choice between a BRT on Finch AND a BRT somewhere else vs just an LRT on Finch, I'd take the BRTs. You could easily build the entire Finch West LRT route as BRT for the same cost as building the western portion of the Finch West LRT. God knows how long the funding for the central portion of the Finch West LRT will take to materialize. Get it done now, upgrade it to LRT when you need it.

Yes, the funding difference may not be that big between BRT and LRT, but if that funding difference can get you an extra ~10km of BRT somewhere else in the city, I'd say that's worth it.

A case can be made for either Vic Park, Warden, or Agincourt as an interim eastern subway terminus on Sheppard. I am aware that the Sheppard / Warden intersection is the least appealing of these three locations in terms of local density. Yet, it might make sense from the network prospective. It gives a connection to the Finch / Warden cluster, and to the Downtown Markham and Enterprise areas further north. Plus, Warden is the shortest possible extension that makes redirecting the Finch East buses to Sheppard subway undoubtfully useful for their riders.

I agree that Warden wouldn't be a bad option. One of the reasons why I said Vic Park is because, just based on rough numbers, you could build the BRT on Sheppard East AND get the extension to Vic Park for around the same cost as the SELRT. That's what makes it attactive. An alternative option without any significant additional investment. The money promised for Sheppard stays on Sheppard. It would also mean that Ford built subway on Sheppard, even if it's just a small extension (he can get the ribbon cutting photo op, and that's all he really wants out of this).

And there's no reason why the Finch East buses can't run along Sheppard for a small stretch. Just look at the Ottawa transit systems map. Take a look at how many regular non-BRT routes run part of their route using the Transitway. Quite a few do.

 

[gweed123]

Unfortunately, that won't help King or Queen. The congestion on those streets is caused by cars (both running and parked) and not by too many streetcars. If anything, splitting the flow of streetcars between 4 routes instead of 2 would make it less convenient for people boarding in the downtown area, as they will have to wait longer at a particular stop.

What could help, is allocating 2 lanes out of 14+ total available on the 4 streets (Queen, Richmond, Adelaide, King) as a ROW. For example, eastbound ROW on Queen + westbound ROW on Richmond + mixed-traffic 2-way service on King. Or, eastbound ROW on Adelaide + westbound ROW on King + mixed-traffic 2-way service on Queen. Whatever the choice, the route that serves Queensway / Etobicoke and the Beaches would use the ROW, and that could make the service more reliable.

What I would do is between say Bathurst St and the DVP off/on-ramps that become Richmond/Adelaide, run both the King and Queen cars via those two streets. The one-way nature of them makes it more efficient for vehicle flow, which is exactly what those cars need.

The other option is, during peak periods, use Richmond/Adelaide as 'express' lanes for both King and Queen streetcars. Have them run the 'collector' routes on the outer edges of the line, and then once they hit the Bathurst-DVP stretch, switch to Richmond/Adelaide and only stop at 'major' stops (Spadina, University, York, Bay, Yonge, Jarvis, Parliament). This would eliminate the bottleneck through the central stretch of the route, which is often the most congested part.

It would also give residents of the central area the opportunity to board a Queen or King streetcar that isn't jam packed with people from outside the central area, leaving the cars to perform the more local role that they're designed for.

 

[W. K. Lis]

When David Miller became mayor, one of his promises was no bridge to the island airport. It was to have been a drawbridge, allowing for boats and ships to cross the gap but stop access to the mainland and the island temporarily.

Currently, there are plans for a tunnel between the island and the mainland. An access that would not be disturbed by passing ships. A better access it seems to me.

Rob Ford’s phobia has lead to his current transit plans, mostly underground. At least, it includes a possibility for expansion along Eglinton to the airport, in whatever form it may be.

I think that with the current escalation of crude oil prices, gasoline prices, diesel prices, asphalt prices, etc., we will be seeing a new Transit City come out of this mess, but only after either the Ford brothers loose control of city hall or if the crude oil prices force city council to come up with a new plan. Hopefully, a better Transit City for all. The problem will be that because of the delay, there will be cause for much more arguments, discussions, and financial headaches along the way for everyone.

Maybe the New Transit City plan will come out, after the Ford brothers, will include a Downtown Relief Line as well.

 

[Woodbridge_Heights]

When David Miller became mayor, one of his promises was no bridge to the island airport. It was to have been a drawbridge, allowing for boats and ships to cross the gap but stop access to the mainland and the island temporarily.

Currently, there are plans for a tunnel between the island and the mainland. An access that would not be disturbed by passing ships. A better access it seems to me.

Rob Ford’s phobia has lead to his current transit plans, mostly underground. At least, it includes a possibility for expansion along Eglinton to the airport, in whatever form it may be.

I think that with the current escalation of crude oil prices, gasoline prices, diesel prices, asphalt prices, etc., we will be seeing a new Transit City come out of this mess, but only after either the Ford brothers loose control of city hall or if the crude oil prices force city council to come up with a new plan. Hopefully, a better Transit City for all. The problem will be that because of the delay, there will be cause for much more arguments, discussions, and financial headaches along the way for everyone.

Maybe the New Transit City plan will come out, after the Ford brothers, will include a Downtown Relief Line as well.

W.K. you promote an electric train on rails solutions to everything. I'm curious as to where you think all this energy will come from. Gas and oil are both just as affected by the cost of crude oil, coal is terribly polluting, nuclear is under even stronger attack now after the Japan disaster, even hydro will be more difficult going forward as people are becoming aware of the environmental impacts on the surrounding area (flood one area reduce water flow to another) and displacement of residents, NIMBY'ism has made wind turbines a difficult proposition in this province (the 500 m restriction prevents local small scale turbines), and any other combination of renewable sources including solar will never be able to catch up to our energy demands.

Just where are we going to get the energy to run all these trains? At least buses maximize the number of people per L of fuel that they transport.