Transit City Plan

[BurlOak]

Yeah, a councilor with no analytical skills whatsoever.

If Emery Village businesses are concerned about the trucks access, the logical response is to modify the relevant section of the LRT line, rather than shoot the whole project down.

Emery businesses are located on the north side of Finch, along a 1 km stretch from Weston to Milvan. They can ask to shift LRT tracks in that section to the south side of that stretch, so that the left-turning trucks are not blocked. Two residential streets on the south side of Finch can be guarded by crossing arms.

Or, they can ask to elevate that 1-km stretch of LRT. The trucks will make left turns using space between the support columns.

Finch West is predominantly residential; killing the whole LRT project because of a 1-km business stretch would be quite shortsighted.

That south side alignment and elevated portion did not wotk out so well for the east part of ECLRT. I think the logical assumption is that Metrolinx will not make any changes.

 

[Rainforest]

That south side alignment and elevated portion did not wotk out so well for the east part of ECLRT. I think the logical assumption is that Metrolinx will not make any changes.

Fair enough, but replacing LRT with something else or abandoning it altogether is a larger change than adjusting one section. If they are not expected to adjust a 1 km stretch, then why would they agree to cancel the whole project?

 

[BurlOak]

I still don't understand why Finch couldn't just have a BRT a la York Region or Cleveland Healthline.

I agree with you. As this thread is about all of Transit City, I have a few minor comments about the rest of Transit City as well.

1. Eglinton: It should have use a South side alignment at Leslie and an elevated alignment from DVP to Kennedy.
2. SRT: There should be no transfer at Kennedy and means of reducing the closure time should have been explored (probably SkyTrain, but maybe some other type of mini-metro may work).
3. Sheppard East: There is some logic to extend the Subway, but the 2031 forecast was just over 3,000 ppdph, so even LRT may be overkill. Just add some Articulated Buses and some bypass lanes at intersections. Wait until after SRT is extended to make final decision as there are higher priorities.
4. Finch West: Again, the ridership is forecast around 3,000 and even LRT may be overkill. Just add some Artics and some bypass lanes at intersections. Wait until after Spadina line is extended to make final decision as there are higher priorities.
5. Scarborough-Malvern: I do not recall the ridership projections, but doubt that LRT is warranted. Should extend the B-D Subway along Eglinton to Kingston Road. UTSC better served by BRT along Ellesmere to STC.
6. Don Mills: South of DVP, it would have to be underground anyways, so the initial plan is greatly flawed. This should be the continuation of the DRL, going from Osgoode to Pape and to Eglinton/Don Mills. This entire line must act as a Yonge relief line so the subway (with some portions elevated) should be extended all the way to Finch or Steeles (Seneca) to intercept riders before they get to the Yonge line.
7. Finch Central: Instead, complete the Sheppard West subway from Yonge to Downsview and interline it both north and south to have trains going from Don Mills to Downsview to Union to Finch and Don Mills to Downsview to Vaughan. It would also connect Steeles West, Finch West, Sheppard West and Wilson West to the same east-west subway.
8. Jane: South of Eglinton (maybe even highway 401), it would have to be underground anyways, so the initial plan is greatly flawed. It is not worth having an LRT for only the 6km north of 401. Instead, convert the ARL to an electrified rapid transit line going from Pearson to Union, with a few extra stations added. (The east side of this line would continue up to Markham). Also, have the West leg of the DRL go up to Eglinton - I have yet to come up with a good route for this though.
9. Waterfront West LRT: This is essentially a streetcar line – I think they even wanted to use TTC Gauge.
10. Eglinton West: There is plenty of room in the Richview corridor to the north of Eglinton. Complete this as an elevated line with north side alignment all the way to Pearson.
11. Wilson BRT: In the original plan this should have at least been extended to Jane. Even without a Jane LRT, it should be extended to Jane – possibly as a Jane-Wilson BRT Lite from the Steeles West Station (Pioneer Village) to Wilson Station.
12. Dundas BRT: The subway should be extended to Honeydale Mall (at highway 427) which would be the terminal for the Dundas BRT and the Mississauga BRT coming down 427.
13. Kingston Road BRT: Agree with this one. It should extend up to UTSC.

 

[Rainforest]

3. Sheppard East: There is some logic to extend the Subway, but the 2031 forecast was just over 3,000 ppdph, so even LRT may be overkill. Just add some Articulated Buses and some bypass lanes at intersections. Wait until after SRT is extended to make final decision as there are higher priorities.
4. Finch West: Again, the ridership is forecast around 3,000 and even LRT may be overkill. Just add some Artics and some bypass lanes at intersections. Wait until after Spadina line is extended to make final decision as there are higher priorities.

Although it is possible to handle 3,000 ppdph with artic buses, such line will have higher labor costs than LRT. Assuming a 100 per bus load, 30 buses per hour will be needed in each direction, that means a bus with a driver every 2 min. LRT can handle the same load much more easily, with a 4 or 5 min headways, and room to accommodate future ridership growth if it occurs.

6. Don Mills: South of DVP, it would have to be underground anyways, so the initial plan is greatly flawed. This should be the continuation of the DRL, going from Osgoode to Pape and to Eglinton/Don Mills. This entire line must act as a Yonge relief line so the subway (with some portions elevated) should be extended all the way to Finch or Steeles (Seneca) to intercept riders before they get to the Yonge line.

Agreed on this one. Although the ridership will not be very high north of Eglinton, the positive effect of reducing the Yonge line crowding makes a Don Mills subway desirable.

12. Dundas BRT: The subway should be extended to Honeydale Mall (at highway 427) which would be the terminal for the Dundas BRT and the Mississauga BRT coming down 427.

I do not see much benefit in the subway extension to Honeydale Mall. It won't be cheap: tunneling may be avoided if the subway uses the rail corridor, but the new station structure and the bus terminal will cost quite a bit. The ridership will be quite low, the time saving for the Mississauga buses and a few TTC buses will be negligible compared to going to Kipling. An additional disadvantage is that the subway / bus interchange and the Kipling GO station will be set apart, unless you propose to move the GO station to Honeydale as well.

 

[andrewpmk]

Agreed on this one. Although the ridership will not be very high north of Eglinton, the positive effect of reducing the Yonge line crowding makes a Don Mills subway desirable.

On the contrary, I think this would have high ridership. Don Mills between Eglinton and Sheppard runs parallel to one of the most notoriously congested sections of highway in Toronto (DVP between Eglinton and 401). Also the northern end of the Yonge line is very heavily used. Finally a Don Mills subway up to Sheppard would make an eastern extension of the Sheppard subway, if that is ever built, a lot more useful.

 

[gweed123]

I do not see much benefit in the subway extension to Honeydale Mall. It won't be cheap: tunneling may be avoided if the subway uses the rail corridor, but the new station structure and the bus terminal will cost quite a bit. The ridership will be quite low, the time saving for the Mississauga buses and a few TTC buses will be negligible compared to going to Kipling. An additional disadvantage is that the subway / bus interchange and the Kipling GO station will be set apart, unless you propose to move the GO station to Honeydale as well.

The main advantage, as I see it, is this: a yard. The DRL doesn't really have anywhere along the route where it's convenient (or inexpensive) to place a yard. Where Honeydale comes in is that if that extension and new yard is built in conjunction with the DRL, the Bloor-Danforth line can switch yard operations to Honeydale, and the DRL can take over Greenwood, assuming the DRL goes through Donlands.

Honeydale is an ideal site to do a "wipe the slate clean, build from scratch" integrated yard, transit terminal, and mixed-use high density development site. You could build the subway extension + the station + the yard at Honeydale for less than you could build just the yard at pretty much any point along the DRL route, mainly because of land acquisition costs. And add to that the fact that you get a new station out of the deal, which under most alignment plans wouldn't really be the case for the DRL.

 

[W. K. Lis]

They may take away our SRT, but they’ll never take our LRTs!

With apologies to “Braveheart”.

 

[denfromoakvillemilton]

I do not see much benefit in the subway extension to Honeydale Mall. It won't be cheap: tunneling may be avoided if the subway uses the rail corridor, but the new station structure and the bus terminal will cost quite a bit. The ridership will be quite low, the time saving for the Mississauga buses and a few TTC buses will be negligible compared to going to Kipling. An additional disadvantage is that the subway / bus interchange and the Kipling GO station will be set apart, unless you propose to move the GO station to Honeydale as well.

The subway to sherway would create some more ridership then honeydale.

 

[JayBeeGooner]

I still don't understand why Finch couldn't just have a BRT a la York Region or Cleveland Healthline.

I hope not. I just came back from Cleveland (Browns fans kick much ass), and I rode the entire HealthLine. It's nothing special. There is no way BRT can handle the expected ridership levels on Finch. It must be LRT.

My observations of the Cleveland HealthLine:

- The "busway" is just a regular painted bus lane with no physical separation at all. It can be easily converted to mixed traffic in the future. In fact, Public Square has many bus lanes.
- The "busway" extends from Public Square to Stokes/Stearns. From Stokes/Stearns to Windemere Red Line station, it's in mixed traffic. There's no signal priority. I rode on the weekend, so maybe it's turned off?
- The frequency isn't that great for BRT. It's 10-15 minutes most of the day, with 7 minute service in the peak hours.
- The stations are pretty nice, and you can enter the bus from inside the station (only one door). That's a nice touch.
- The station spacing is FREQUENT. I know a lot of people on here think station spacing should be 1+km. You'll hate the HealthLine. The spacing is roughly 400-500m on average. And that's a great thing, IMO.
- The buses tend to enter the stations slowly, I think this is because the driver has to navigate the bus to enable level boarding. I noticed their is a small wheel attached to the side of bus to aid in level boarding.
- The buses are NFI 60ft buses with extensive molding, next stop announcements and double doors. The buses are only 5 years old, but I found the ride to be pretty bumpy.
- The buses have a nice trolley style "gong" sound, that I found pleasant. Much better than the regular bus horn.

Bottom line: There is absolutely no way a BRT system like the HealthLine or the busways on Highway 7 can effectively handle capacity higher than 2,000pph. From what I read, the current ridership for the Healthline is around 15,000. The Finch Bus is more than double that. You'll need passing lanes, and that will require more space. Finch West must be LRT.

I am not going to talk about the TOD potential of the HealthLine. All I am going to say is, there is no way the HealthLine attracted 5 Billion in investment. I am putting Euclid Ave down as a natural growth corridor. It's doesn't help that there is a lot of boarded up buildings, and "for lease" and "for sale" signs along Euclid.

 

[js97]

Where the heck is Metrolinx in all this. Pretty ineffective (and probably very expensive and bloated) bureaucracy that can't seem to follow it's number one mandate: take the politics out of transit building.

This is one example where democracy fails.

 

[innsertnamehere]

hard to take politics out of planning when the politicians fail to give metrolinx the proper powers.

 

[Rainforest]

The main advantage, as I see it, is this: a yard. The DRL doesn't really have anywhere along the route where it's convenient (or inexpensive) to place a yard. Where Honeydale comes in is that if that extension and new yard is built in conjunction with the DRL, the Bloor-Danforth line can switch yard operations to Honeydale, and the DRL can take over Greenwood, assuming the DRL goes through Donlands.

Honeydale is an ideal site to do a "wipe the slate clean, build from scratch" integrated yard, transit terminal, and mixed-use high density development site. You could build the subway extension + the station + the yard at Honeydale for less than you could build just the yard at pretty much any point along the DRL route, mainly because of land acquisition costs. And add to that the fact that you get a new station out of the deal, which under most alignment plans wouldn't really be the case for the DRL.

Good point. If the main purpose of the Honeydale extension is to access a new yard needed for DRL, and this is the best / cheapest location for the new yard, then the new tracks can be used for revenue service as well.

In that case, the Honeydale extension should be a part of the DRL funding package.

Though, I would be still a little concerned about moving the bus terminal away from the GO station at Kipling.

 

[gweed123]

Good point. If the main purpose of the Honeydale extension is to access a new yard needed for DRL, and this is the best / cheapest location for the new yard, then the new tracks can be used for revenue service as well.

In that case, the Honeydale extension should be a part of the DRL funding package.

Though, I would be still a little concerned about moving the bus terminal away from the GO station at Kipling.

It may also help get some support from Etobicoke residents, as they would be getting a subway extension as part of the deal.

As for moving associated terminals, the biggest plus would be getting MiWay out of Islington, and freeing up that land for redevelopment. For GO, there is the possibility of building a new GO station and associated bus terminal (probably just include it as part of the MiWay terminal) at Honeydale. The southern border of the site is the railroad tracks, so theoretically they could include a new GO station in the redevelopment. From what I can tell, the GO station at Kipling is pretty basic anyway. This also wouldn't be the only GO station that is currently being considered for relocation (Mimico and Oriole come to mind right away).

That way, you could build a truly integrated transit terminal from scratch, as opposed to adding in different services ad hoc. Make sure the transfers are convenient and the different services are logically laid out.

Another benefit is that this puts the Bloor-Danforth Subway within about 1km of the Mississauga border. This would mean that if Mississauga ever decides it wants a subway, Toronto's role in getting it into Mississauga would be pretty minimal.

 

[diminutive]

Although it is possible to handle 3,000 ppdph with artic buses, such line will have higher labor costs than LRT. Assuming a 100 per bus load, 30 buses per hour will be needed in each direction, that means a bus with a driver every 2 min. LRT can handle the same load much more easily, with a 4 or 5 min headways, and room to accommodate future ridership growth if it occurs.

It's a bit more complicated that this and the resulting operational cost savings depend heavily on planned service patterns.

Yes, it should be possible to cut labor costs substantially by moving to larger LRVs. To take the extreme, you could link 2-3 LRVs together and the resulting train ought to accommodate 750 ppl! You could then drop from 30 peak hour vehicles to 4 to serve the demand you give. I don't think the TTC surface LRTs are being designed to handle 2-3 unit trains, but in theory it's possible.

And, yes, past certain ridership demands, LRVs ought to cost less per passenger trip or passenger km. The exact crossover point will depend, though. The typical range seems to be 1,500 pphpd to 2,500 pphpd, in both cases qualifying lines like Finch West.

Lower operational costs don't necessarily make something a good investment, however. Even the most expensive surface bus routes tend not to cost more than 20-30 million per year. Even assuming that running 1/3rd the number of LRVs would result in 1/3rd the operating costs (~10m/year), the operational savings don't quite make up for the hundreds of millions of dollars they cost to build. This is using very favourable assumptions for the LRVs.

Unless the TTC was going to hugely reduce operating frequencies down to 4-5 vehicles per hour, I don't think you could justify LRTs as a cost cutting measure. Then you'd also have to consider the travel time implications since you'd be increasing average wait times from a minute or two to 7-10mins.

 

[W. K. Lis]

It's a bit more complicated that this and the resulting operational cost savings depend heavily on planned service patterns.

Yes, it should be possible to cut labor costs substantially by moving to larger LRVs. To take the extreme, you could link 2-3 LRVs together and the resulting train ought to accommodate 750 ppl! You could then drop from 30 peak hour vehicles to 4 to serve the demand you give. I don't think the TTC surface LRTs are being designed to handle 2-3 unit trains, but in theory it's possible.

And, yes, past certain ridership demands, LRVs ought to cost less per passenger trip or passenger km. The exact crossover point will depend, though. The typical range seems to be 1,500 pphpd to 2,500 pphpd, in both cases qualifying lines like Finch West.

Lower operational costs don't necessarily make something a good investment, however. Even the most expensive surface bus routes tend not to cost more than 20-30 million per year. Even assuming that running 1/3rd the number of LRVs would result in 1/3rd the operating costs (~10m/year), the operational savings don't quite make up for the hundreds of millions of dollars they cost to build. This is using very favourable assumptions for the LRVs.

Unless the TTC was going to hugely reduce operating frequencies down to 4-5 vehicles per hour, I don't think you could justify LRTs as a cost cutting measure. Then you'd also have to consider the travel time implications since you'd be increasing average wait times from a minute or two to 7-10mins.

Transit City plans for Sheppard East LRT and Finch West LRT call for platforms to accommodate 3-car LRV trains. That's "accommodate". How many car that will be used will depend on passenger flow.

I can see single car vehicles late at night, but two car trains initially during the rush hours.