Transit City Plan

[DENTROBATE54]

Newsflash, we're already stuck with a transfer city, where it takes no less than 2-3 hours to get from Rexdale to West Hill by bus/subway/RT/bus. Transit City at least offers some transferless oppurtunities for long-range commuters. Even as a BRT network TC is leaps and bounds above what we currently have to contend with. Just think of the efficiency of YRT's VIVA and then picture that along Eglinton, Jane, Don Mills and Finch. Amazingly fast, reliable and convenient eh?

 

[urbanvillageboy]

progress on transit city

I love these "transportation experts" comments from on high about transit plans. They latch onto one concept- in this case population density- and insist that transit plans can only be made on this basis. Its a simplistic way of viewing things and that's why politicians are weighing in on this issue. They know that their constituents want better ways of getting around the city than what is currently on offer.

How about a "right" to efficient and inexpensive mass transit regardless of where you live? How about the effect on the environment of millions of cars? How about clogged roads that get worse every year? What about the 40000 students that commute in and out of York every day and complain about long waits because the buses are always packed. The Sheppard line is a bugaboo for these guys. Have any of them taken it lately? I take it every day and it gets busier and busier all the time. There are thousands of units of housing going up along the street as a result of it, providing future income for the city and lots of commuters for the subway. Cities get denser as their mass transit lines extend their reach. The whole thing is a lot more complex than that guy in the Globe makes out and in some ways it's a lot more commonsensicle. I say spend the money and get us into the 21st century.

 

[scarberiankhatru]

Yes, it is obvious that Sheppard extensions should be subway technology...if only because that subway's already there! Ripping it up a few years after it opens defies *all* logic.

 

[salvius]

Yes, it is obvious that Sheppard extensions should be subway technology...if only because that subway's already there! Ripping it up a few years after it opens defies *all* logic.

What defies logic is spending a few billion dollars on a route that's doesn't need subway capacity. Sheppard, and the new Spadina extension shows just how incredibly politically motivated subway construction is.

 

[scarberiankhatru]

Spadina will be used by over 100,000 people per day...40,000 people per day currently cripple the Spadina streetcar, the model for Transfer City routes.

Can you say leap of faith?

Oh, and Transfer City is far more politically motivated. The Sheppard subway at least replaced one of the busiest surface routes in the city, supporting massive redevelopment that was already taking place...Transfer City based its lines *entirely* on politics, on bringing streetcars to every ward, on bringing streetcars to underprivileged neighbourhoods, etc. The lines are not based upon ridership figures or the ability to Avenue-ize the corridors, either.

It reeks of special interests...god forbid we take the interests of the whole city into consideration by proposing a logical network using appropriate technologies.

 

[unimaginative2]

Steve Munro has an interesting commentary on the Soberman report on his blog. Unfortunately, I strongly disagree with one part and I fear it betrays some of his motivations:

The biggest problem seems to be that Transit City dispenses with a detailed alternative analysis and sets the Environmental Assessments the task of merely looking at how LRT would be used in each corridor. For shame! As if we have never had BRT or RT or subway proposals so loaded against LRT alternatives that these don’t even make the short list for detailed review!

Apparently he feels that since studies were unfairly biased against LRT in the past, we should design future studies to completely preclude consideration of any technology but LRT. That's not a way to plan multi-billion dollar projects.

He justifies the all-LRT nature of Transit City by claiming that employing only one mode makes it easier to sell to the public by providing "unity". I can't fathom why the public wouldn't be able to get beind and understand a plan that involves a mixture of subway and light rail technologies.

Another one of his comments explains why Transit City focuses exclusively on the suburbs and completely ignores the downtown core.

As for Transit City, it concentrates on the suburbs where much better service is required to make up for decades of neglect.

I find this statement more than slightly baffling since te downtown core has been far more neglected. There hasn't been a single infrastructure improvement, Spadina streetcar aside, in the entire core region since the 60s, while surface routes have seen significant declines in service.

Spadina will be used by over 100,000 people per day...40,000 people per day currently cripple the Spadina streetcar, the model for Transfer City routes.

Exactly. And the York University line would have even lower capacity than Spadina since it would have multiple left turns along the route, while Spadina is more-or-less straight.

 

[salvius]

Spadina will be used by over 100,000 people per day...40,000 people per day currently cripple the Spadina streetcar, the model for Transfer City routes.

Where does this idea that Spadina is the model come from?

Spadina, for one, uses CLRVs, a vehicle of a very different specification, that you can hardly compare in the same way to an LRT that may have up to 5 cars.



Add the all door loading, further station placement, and I'm not sure how exactly it's comparable.

The comparison, AFAIK, is with other LRT operations:

http://stevemunro.ca/?p=101

 

[doady]

The Scarborough RT is overcapacity as well, isn't it? It is around the same length as the Sheppard subway, has less ridership, yet it is the one that is overcapacity. Think about that now: what would it mean for Sheppard if it was built to the same capacity as the Scarborough RT?

IMO, a rapid transit line along Sheppard connecting NYCC and SCC would become overcapacity too eventually if it was light-rail. Not just because of redevelopment, it also because when you connect two major nodes like that, you need to think about the regional implications as well because it is not just about the local transit riders anymore. That is also why York University has to have subway as well.

Don Mills is another corridor that has regional implications beyond just the corridor itself. As a streetcar as in Transit City, it will just attract more local riders and the capacity will be enough and that is perfectly fine. But as a subway it would draw a huge number of riders from all over Scarborough (despite being located in North York) and provide much needed relief to the Yonge subway.

 

[unimaginative2]

Okay, going by the Steve Munro link you posted, the highest ridership on a Calgary branch is 6,600 in the peak. That's with a route that doesn't make constant turns at intersections and spends much of its time in a rail corridor. 6,600 is a fraction of what this subway line will handle.

It's once again this Toronto mentality that if a line isn't choking on traffic from day one, it's a failure.

 

[drum118]

why not raise the trackbed around the station?

Cannot as the the height from rail to top is the same or very close for an LRT or Subway car.

You can remove the existing rails and put gravel down in place of concrete, but not enough for a true base.

Big $$ to do this.

 

[salvius]

Okay, going by the Steve Munro link you posted, the highest ridership on a Calgary branch is 6,600 in the peak. That's with a route that doesn't make constant turns at intersections and spends much of its time in a rail corridor. 6,600 is a fraction of what this subway line will handle.

It's once again this Toronto mentality that if a line isn't choking on traffic from day one, it's a failure.

The figure is nowhere near capacity.

The Scarborough RT is overcapacity as well, isn't it? It is around the same length as the Sheppard subway, has less ridership, yet it is the one that is overcapacity. Think about that now: what would it mean for Sheppard if it was built to the same capacity as the Scarborough RT?

One 3 car LRT = more capacity than 2 SRT vehicles. Bad, orphan technology with only an expensive and time-consuming upgrade vs world-wide used technology with off the shelf components.

 

[unimaginative2]

According to the TTC's own Scarborough RT replacement study, trains of two full-size LRV vehicles (meaning four sections) has a capacity around 8,000 per hour. That's optimal capacity, something completely unattainable when you're running down the middle of a public street.

Yeah, and the RT's technology can operate in trains of six cars (or more) at consistent 90 second headways. Good luck trying to shove nine car streetcar trains down the middle of the street every 90 seconds. The train'd be a block long!

All of this is of course beside the point. Whether or not the Spadina extension route would be slightly above or slightly below the streetcar's theoretical maximum capacity, it still follows the new Toronto streetcar fan mantra of "Any route's a failure unless it's unpleasantly crowded from day one." God forbid any kind of growth takes place. Of course, the streetcar would never attract 100,000 riders a day. I really don't see a significant modal shift with a bus-on-rails that winds through intersections and requires the same inconvenient transfer.

 

[scarberiankhatru]

Yeah, and the RT's technology can operate in trains of six cars (or more) at consistent 90 second headways. Good luck trying to shove nine car streetcar trains down the middle of the street every 90 seconds. The train'd be a block long!

"""Current stop: Yonge for the front half of the vehicle, Mount Pleasant for the back."""

 

[DENTROBATE54]

"""Current stop: Yonge for the front half of the vehicle, Mount Pleasant for the back."""

Ha, ha, ha !

You're forgetting the Eglinton Crosstown Line's underground through the Yonge area. Why so cranky? You'd think getting a mess of nine transit routes off the streets, hence creating a street culture through Uptown was a good thing. Since there's no end to this objection to LRTs, why not entertain the thought of partial BRT, partial subways along the proposed TC routes? Transfer City, yes but at a fraction of the cost, less disruption to the current network and quicker operation commencement. Why you insist on continually badmouthing 120 kms (plus Queen Quay East-Cherry and Kingston-Eglinton) is beyond me. No matter what's built it'll always require a transfer of vehicles because no two people commute the exact same route. Was it not said that transit can't please everyone's specific commuting patterns? People WILL transfer from subway to streetcar at places because it's what's most convenient. Sometimes we get too clincial about projections and predictions and comparisons to other systems instead of letting the lines speak for themselves. Could anyone have forseen what Bloor-Islington or Yonge-Empress is today due to their stops? I rest my case!

Rennovating the Sheppard Line won't happen because we've become too accustomed to it as a subway, so the best we can possibly hope for is a slow push towards the SCC, one phase at a time. For instance: 2015 to Victoria Park, 2020 to Agincourt, 2030 SCC. Meanwhile people should just accept the reality that is TC or better the 190 since 30 mins is suddenly a rocket speed connection.

I find this statement more than slightly baffling since te downtown core has been far more neglected. There hasn't been a single infrastructure improvement, Spadina streetcar aside, in the entire core region since the 60s, while surface routes have seen significant declines in service.

Again the folly of our transit network, neglect its focus. It's disappointing all these suburban lines more or less dump unsuspecting commuters out on a dilapidated bus and streetcar system where 5, 10, 20 min intervals are the norm. Nothing short of new subways downtown can rectify this.

 

[unimaginative2]

You'd think getting a mess of nine transit routes off the streets, hence creating a street culture through Uptown was a good thing.

But according to the doctrine behind Transit City, it's a bad thing. It doesn't run in the median of the street, and it has less-frequent underground stops, both of which are to be avoided if at all possible.