Transit City Plan

[Dan416]

Quite simply why are you choosing to raise the issue now. There was network 2011, RTES, etc, etc that were virtually tossed into the dumpster when Miller proposed Transit City (and it was Miller, not the TTC as previously to proposed it). You can argue that funding was not there however I have yet to see a report where senior governments told the city "here's $18 million spend it how you wish", in fact the $18 million plan came before the funding so therefore the city could have proposed whatever it wished.

To the TC supporters it doesn't matter that the TTC already had plans on the books. They'll take their back-of-a-napkin TC over RTES etc any day because they're more concerned with sending LRTs to priority neighborhoods than transit planning. And don't even ask a Transit City supporter to compromise. You might as well try compromising with Republicans you'd get as far. Republicans and Transit City supporters might be on opposite ends of the political spectrum, but they share many qualities. They don't listen to rational arguments. They don't understand compromise. They get offended if you question any of their beliefs.

 

[Paleo]

Maybe the locals would also like to actually go places, rather than be stopping all the time to let people on and off? According to Wikipedia, people walk about 80m per minute. Currently at 400m it is a 5 minute walk between stops (2.5 minutes from midway point). So at 800m, it would be a 10 minute walk between stops (5 minutes from the midway point), 1000m would be a 12.5 minute walk (6.25 from midway point), and 1200m a 15 minute walk (7.5 minutes from midway point). These stop spacings provide a compromise between a comfortable walk and transit performance, and are the most common rapid transit stop spacings around the world.

Locals want more stops. That much has always been made clear in almost any public forum. Even if stops add 5 minutes to a one-way trip, it is almost always preferable over walking for 5 minutes.

And having a parallel bus service is not a waste of resources, it is providing a different resource for people with different needs, and is done in downtown as well. Saying it is a waste is like saying the Lakeshore GO train in a waste because we have parallel service with the streetcar.

Which parallel services are you talking about? Last I checked, Queen streetcar doesn't go to Mississauga, Oakville, or Hamilton. Not that GO could ever provide local service to Lakeshore or Parkdale either.

 

[lafard]

Network 2011 died in 1996. It's been dead for twice as long as it existed. If you're going to mope over long dead transportation plans, I've got a couple expressways you might like to take a look at. Its offspring are clearly visible in modern planning today, though. 2011 included Eglinton and Sheppard (see below) and DRL (currently under study).

I'm not sure why you cite the RTES. There were 6 extensions studied in it.

Scarborough RT - extend to Sheppard. RTES was mildly in favour of this one
Current status: Included in Transit city (although to be converted to LRT rather than ART) but will be cancelled if BD is extended to STC.

Eglinton - Eglinton West stn to York Centre. Long term extension to airport was mentioned but not studied. York Centre never happened and quietly died after the City of York ceased to exist. No mention of an eastward extention
Current status: Transit city includes an underground LRT along the entire length of the original proposal; the current subway segment design is almost triple the length of the original subway proposal. Airport connection, although somewhat suboptimal, included.

Bloor-Danforth Extension to Sherway; long term to Mississauga. Mississauga was not interested and Sherway is not a hub; extremely high costs per rider (the highest in the study) unless Sherway was redeveloped.
Current status: Kipling remains the terminus for the forseeable future.

Spadina Subway Extension to York University, long term to Vaughan Corporate Centre. York University was high priority in the queue, VCC was eliminated for the same reasons Sherway was.
Current status: Route revised to run near Sheppard and Keele rather than Dufferin and Finch. Full project under construction. VCC funded for political reasons.

Yonge Subway Extension to Richmond Hill, Clark or Langstaff. The RTES was quite favourable of this one in the long term and suggested BRT to build up ridership to subway levels.
Status: Approved in principle; but requires significant secondary construction especially regarding capacity further south and the need for subway yard expansion, either extending Wilson or building a new one on a currently industrial site at Yonge and 407.

Sheppard subway Extension to Victoria Park, Kennedy, CN/CP, or Scarborough Town Centre. The report suggested that excluding Kennedy, the other three options were all roughly equally favourable, though the CN/CP line connection was marginally the most cost-effective option. The RTES did not consider STC a particularly important destination relative to the other two primary options; in fact because STC was more expensive per rider gained it was not even the top option. The majority of its ridership originated on Sheppard itself. The westward extension to Downsview, originally proposed in Network 2011, was discarded as not cost effective.
Current status: Under review. However, the LRT would have achieved similar goals as two of the three "favourable" options.

The RTES was more expansive than Network 2011, except for the notable complete absence of the DRL from the RTES. It is very likely that its ommittance is what set back its construction by at least a decade (It's currently under study; originally the study was deferred for a year in the recent budget crunch)

Something else interesting: VCC extension was priced out to 1,348 million, Actual funding is 2,630 million. 195%. STC extension was priced at 1,535M which would be almost precisely 3 billion dollars today.

The Eastern waterfront LRT and Union - Airport link are both mentioned but not a priority. Both have since moved forward substantially.

The RTES, was far from abandoned. Three of its six proposals are getting built, a fourth is high priority on the books, the fifth being built modified, and the sixth was known to be a tragically expensive white elephant even then. Network 2011 is clearly visible in modern construction proposals.

 

[W. K. Lis]

Not counting the Downtown Relief Line, Rob Ford would us rather build 12 km of heavy rail subway in one corner of Scarborough versus the 120 km of light rail rapid transit across the entire city. He would rather us use the car to get around without the bicycles and streetcars getting in his way.

How long would that scenario last before the real uproar of a lack of any rapid transit for Toronto comes up as the the age of cheap oil ends with a bang?

This article is from liveoilprices.co.uk:

The age of cheap oil prices is over, comments IEA Chief

Global oil demand is set to hit a new record in 2011 (peak oil anybody?) and we maybe getting closer to waving goodbye to cheap oil prices, according to the IEA ahead of their December 2010 oil report.

The Age Of Cheap Oil Over?

“In terms oil markets, I believe the age of cheap oil is over. There may be zig-zags in the future according to the economy, this and that, but the general trend is we will see higher oil prices.” IEA Chief Economist Fatih Birol said at a conference in Budapest, Hungary on 26th November.

The bottom line is that crude oil demand is extremely strong and is set to climb even higher, with emerging economies in the driving seat.

China’s recent stronger demand for oil has contributed to the large move in crude prices, with the IEA forecasting Chinese oil consumption will grow by 9.8% for 2010 alone. See illustration below:

OPEC Sec. General Says $100 Oil Potentially Undamaging

Meanwhile, OPEC Secretary General Abdalla El-Badri said prices at $100 wouldn’t necessarily damage the global recovery or prompt it to increase oil production unless accompanied by a oil supply disruption.

JP Morgan’s recent oil price forecast had commented that OPEC is unlikely to increase it’s members oil production in the first half of 2011 unless oil prices surge through $100 a barrel.

So, Where Next for Oil Prices

A change in the oil markets may now be upon us and this is being reflected in higher oil prices.

Crude oil prices are nearly certain to climb past $100 in 2011 as central banks pump cash into their economy’s to revive growth, as recently forecasted by JPMorgan and Merrill Lynch. The more money pumped into economies in the west to prop up failed banks will have affects both in stock markets, but also commodity prices, of which oil is the star.

With a weaker US dollar and rising oil demand, investors may turn increasingly to oil futures and other commodities to make decent returns.

Changing streetcars to buses is also not answer. One diesel bus needs 125 US Gallons (473 litres) and a hybrid bus needs 100 US Gallons (378 litres) each and every day. Buses are not the answer, either.

People need to get around Toronto rapidly. Transit City would provide that, inexpensively and completed much more promptly. With the price of oil on the increase in the coming years, less people will be driving, in turn less single-occupant automobiles that would block transit vehicles in mixed-traffic.

Don't let Rob Ford's streetcar and light rail phobia get in the way of reason.

 

[Ansem]

http://www.thestar.com/opinion/edit...rmed-transit-city-just-the-ticket-for-toronto

Richard Gilbert

Transit City is Toronto’s plan to add 52 kilometres of light-rail transit (LRT — streetcars mostly on their own rights-of-way) by 2020, and more later. With the election of a new council, the plan is up for discussion again. This could provide an opportunity to do something much better than is now proposed, within the same budget and respecting purchase orders already issued.

The biggest problem with the current Transit City proposal is that it does so little. The revision set out below would add 136 kilometres of electrified transit route by 2020 rather than the presently proposed 52 — while adding two new subway lines — all in addition to the ongoing nine-kilometre extension of the Spadina subway line.

Until recently, the two most authoritative voices in energy matters, the International Energy Agency (IEA) and the U.S. Energy Information Administration (USEIA), resisted the notion that there will soon be major problems with the world’s oil supply. This has changed. Last year, USEIA warned that by the late 2020s current and anticipated sources of crude oil production will be producing only half as much as now, and there is little idea as to how to bridge the potentially massive gap between demand and supply. Last month, IEA confirmed this conclusion.

Ontario is especially vulnerable to a disruption in world oil supply. Every drop used here comes from or via another country. The imperative to switch transportation away from oil is strong. Electrifying transit is a tried and true means of doing this.

The fastest and cheapest way to electrify transit is to install electric trolleybuses, such as the 224 state-of-the-art, made-in-Canada vehicles recently purchased for Vancouver. Trolleybuses on their own rights-of-way can provide the same capacity as LRT at a tenth of the capital cost. Replacing most of the planned LRT routes with trolleybuses would allow electrification of all proposed Transit City routes by 2020 rather than less than half: 124 rather than 52 kilometres.

Two LRT routes should be proceeded with. Work has already begun on the Sheppard East route and should continue. The Malvern route from the east end of the Bloor-Danforth subway would be a relatively low-cost installation that could share resources with the Sheppard East route.

Almost unbelievably, 10 kilometres of the proposed Eglinton LRT route — from Keele to Laird — is to be tunnelled, at a higher per-kilometre cost than the Spadina subway extension. It would make sense, and save money, to install a subway line there instead, using trolleybuses for the remaining 23 kilometres of the proposed route. Equipment has already been ordered for the tunnelling. This equipment could be used to install a subway line.

An Eglinton subway should be fully automated, which would reduce operating costs substantially. Lower operating costs would reduce the need for the redevelopment at proposed stations that would be required to justify a subway line. Substantial redevelopment along this part of Eglinton Avenue would still be required, and there is much scope for it.

Enough funds would remain to build another subway line. This should be a westward extension of the Sheppard line to Downsview station on the Spadina line, providing a valuable northern link between existing lines. Redevelopment along these five kilometres of Sheppard Avenue West would be required to justify the subway line. There is even more scope for it there than along Eglinton Avenue. Tunnelling equipment for the Spadina extension could be readily used for the Sheppard line extension.

Not all the LRT vehicles ordered from Bombardier Inc. would be required. New subway cars would be needed. Negotiations to replace some of the LRT vehicles with subway cars should be straightforward and leave the TTC with no added liability.

Refashioning Transit City in the above manner would result in major, earlier improvements in service along the proposed routes. It would add two valuable east-west subway lines. Above all, it would leave Toronto’s transit system much better prepared for the oil challenges ahead.

Richard Gilbert is a consultant on transportation and energy with clients in Asia, Europe, and North America. He was a Toronto councillor from 1976 to 1991.

 

[Ansem]

I disagree with his trolley bus and SELRT but his last point on negociating replacing some of the LRT vehicule with subway cars to lower cancellations fee is a valid point.

 

[nfitz]

Richard Gilbert is extremely ignorant if he thinks the Eglinton tunnel is costing more per kilometre than Spadina. The reason the costs are higher is that both are presented in the TTC and Metrolinx documents as dollars in year of construction. As Spadina is finished in 2015 and Eglinton is finished in 2020 there is 5 years extra of inflation. Assuming that the construction price index averages 5% (which is the normal assumption and lower than what has happened in recent years), the $/km cost would increase from (for example) $300 million in 2015 to over $380 million in 2020.

Constructing it as subway instead of LRT on the same timeframe doesn't make it any cheaper unless the construction was accelerated for 2015 completion. Though the LRT construction could also be accelerated to achieve the same gain.

 

[Asterix]

Richard Gilbert is extremely ignorant if he thinks the Eglinton tunnel is costing more per kilometre than Spadina. The reason the costs are higher is that both are presented in the TTC and Metrolinx documents as dollars in year of construction.

I suspect there may also be the fact that there is a lot more man made stuff already under Eglinton that needs to be built/tunneled around than the industrial and open land heading off into Vaughan. Plus more than a couple underground streams that won't make construction easier.

 

[lafard]

Redevelopment is already well under way on Sheppard with or without subway. Further, the development along that stretch of Sheppard is low rise and continuous, not high rise and nodal. Exactly the sort of stuff that's best served with surface transit such as LRT rather than subway.

His claims of cost savings are dubious. Not only does Eglinton include inflation, but also yard costs and rolling stock - something that has been priced separately in the YorkU extension. There are also more stations per KM. If you compare apples to apples, the LRT version is not that expensive.

Finally, how does he propose to put these trolley buses in for $9m/km especially if he wants a RoW? Far as I can tell, that pretty much covers vehicle costs and yard costs, let alone road widening and overhead.

 

[Ed Drass]

Gilbert's suggestions are worth considering on a planning and energy/economics level, but there are substantial political realities to overcome. (He's a former municipal politician, so I doubt he's ignorant of them -- perhaps he chose not to acknowledge & refute them in the piece since this takes scarce space.)

1. The objection from many is the presence of exclusive transit lanes on arterial streets, LRT or otherwise. Even if new projects include widening roadways to no net loss of through-traffic lanes (SELRT, yes?) then there is the disruption to other automobile maneuvers such as left turns, etc... Mr Ford acknowledged this objection implicitly in his "subway"-only statements this week.

2. The objection that Toronto is a winter city and surface transit is not reliable enough in snow. I find this argument compelling in a basic way, except that I gave up my underground-focus based on cost. Subways and their increased reliability add up to luxury in a transit city that merits higher-order service on dozens of corridors. Give these riders relief -- it's long overdue -- before spending the majority of capital on future riders.

So, from a planning perspective and sitting in my snug downtown enclave, I would entertain giving up both subways and LRT for a swath of BRT lines on every major arterial. But from a political perspective, taking into account my personal collection of biases, I would be reluctant to spend time promoting BRT-everywhere because of the huge uphill battle against the key objections.

Frankly, it's the same with DRL. I'm generally convinced of the planning justification (and of my personal benefit) but have not invested much time thinking about 'the Red line' in the face of economic limits as I envision them, and more importantly the huge optics obstacle of DRL appearing to be a downtown-serving subway.

-Ed

 

[superman]

Hmm,

I wonder if the talks of upgrading the SRT to the new skytrain technology (or another high floor Intermediate Capacity Transit System), which I believe was the original plan, and making the Eglinton line the same technology is back on the table...

1) It would eliminate the need for a BD extension (probably less costly) and would keep the same amount of stations in Scarbrough
2) The new Flexity LRTs won't become an orphan technology on the system as the rest of Transit City won't appear to be built
3) They have the proven ability to be automated ($ savings)
4) It ensures that it will be transit in a fully exclusive right of way
5) Future connection of the SRT and Eglinton, and satisfy the crowd that doesn't believe these 2 lines are at subway capcity

 

[Asterix]

The fastest and cheapest way to electrify transit is to install electric trolleybuses, such as the 224 state-of-the-art, made-in-Canada vehicles recently purchased for Vancouver. Trolleybuses on their own rights-of-way can provide the same capacity as LRT at a tenth of the capital cost. Replacing most of the planned LRT routes with trolleybuses would allow electrification of all proposed Transit City routes by 2020 rather than less than half: 124 rather than 52 kilometres.

While saving something on the capital costs, he'd be adding significantly to the operating costs. About 80% of the TTC operating budget is labour. He certainly can't expect to replace 30m LRTs, let alone multi-vehicle trains with trolley buses on a one-to-one basis, so he'd be having to hire a whole lot more TTC union members.

I guess there's also no point in arguing with him that passengers would strongly prefer the smoothness of riding on rails versus buses.

An Eglinton subway should be fully automated, which would reduce operating costs substantially. Lower operating costs would reduce the need for the redevelopment at proposed stations that would be required to justify a subway line.

Underground portion of Eglinton LRT is also planned to be automated, so no operating cost savings. But more importantly, as noted several times before, not only will there not be subway level demand on Eglinton for generations, but he's also got to deal with the issue of where to put the subway trains. If he wants to use the planned LRT yard by Black Creek, it is going to be really tricky to get access to the yard when you're dealing with a fully grade separated line versus an on surface LRT line.

But then why spoil the fun of people who like drawing pretty lines on maps.

Enough funds would remain to build another subway line.

I really have a hard time buying this, given the total amount of money on the table. Guess that's why his opinion piece doesn't actually include financial breakdowns listing actual numbers.

Not all the LRT vehicles ordered from Bombardier Inc. would be required. New subway cars would be needed. Negotiations to replace some of the LRT vehicles with subway cars should be straightforward and leave the TTC with no added liability.

"Straightforward"? I thought the Mayor didn't believe in sole-sourcing major contracts? Seems to me he wants the province to cancel existing contracts (sticking the taxpayer with the bill) and then issue a new RFP which Bombardier would have to bid upon against other competitors.

 

[Ed Drass]

Can anyone gather what Ford has committed to regarding BD to STC, and how this is translating into public expectation? Is there a level of understanding in Scarborough that he has promised a particular routing or technology? My impression from discussion (mostly here) is that his "Transit Plan" mapped the extension onto the existing RT route, with little apparent acknowledgment of the upgrades and extra construction required.

Also, his subway-only statement this week seems absolute. So he loses a bit of political capital in compromising to above-ground running. I wonder how Scarborough councillors now view the options between a straight-run below grade to STC, vs. a long closure of SRT to keep some existing stations. (And does no-one there mourn the apparent loss of a planned LRT network across Scarborough?)

 

[superman]

Underground portion of Eglinton LRT is also planned to be automated, so no operating cost savings. But more importantly, as noted several times before, not only will there not be subway level demand on Eglinton for generations, but he's also got to deal with the issue of where to put the subway trains. If he wants to use the planned LRT yard by Black Creek, it is going to be really tricky to get access to the yard when you're dealing with a fully grade separated line versus an on surface LRT line.

The underground portion is supposed to be automated, but is it planned to run without an operator? It seems kind of unlikely since they would be needed to drive on the 2 at grade ends of the line. Unless they hop on and off at the ends of the underground section. I thought it's just going to have ATC but still have an operator like how the SRT is currently.

 

[Ansem]

Redevelopment is already well under way on Sheppard with or without subway. Further, the development along that stretch of Sheppard is low rise and continuous, not high rise and nodal. Exactly the sort of stuff that's best served with surface transit such as LRT rather than subway.

Sheppard West and Allen Road

Mid rise is more appropriate. Mid rise condos are being build and bungalows are being expropriated and demolished between Allen Road and Bathurst