Transit City Plan

[gweed123]

Add increased ridership to the list and yes, I think a higher upfront cost can be justified. Why wouldn't it be?

I just find it somewhat ironic that the same argument that he was using for LRT over BRT is the same argument that many pro-subway people have been using for HRT vs LRT. "A higher up-front capital cost can be justified by a reduction in operating costs, increased ridership, fewer vehicles, and a greater quality of ride". Seems to me like that's just as much an endorsement of subway over LRT as it is LRT over BRT.

 

[GraphicMatt]

The scales aren't even remotely similar, though - you're talking significant operating costs for a low-ridership subway & stations over LRT & BRT, which both have similar operating costs. It's a totally different ballpark.

 

[gweed123]

The scales aren't even remotely similar, though - you're talking significant operating costs for a low-ridership subway & stations over LRT & BRT, which both have similar operating costs. It's a totally different ballpark.

To a certain extent, yes, you're right. But the fundamental premise behind them is the same: the belief that higher capital costs are justified because of the benefits (short-term, long-term, intangible) that that extra expenditure creates.

 

[Asterix]

So your assertion is that a higher capital expense can be justified in reduced operating costs, fewer vehicles, and greater ridership comfort?

You ignored increased capacity. The only way BRT could theoretically get the same capacity and operational efficiency as LRT would be if it went where it wasn't needed. You could not put BRT down Sheppard or Finch and get the same capacity, operating cost, passenger comfort and travel times as with the planned LRT lines.

As GraphicMatt already posted, an end result would also be increased ridership (for many of the same reasons people say subways would increase ridership only for a fraction of the cost of subways). If there were remotely plausible subway level demands forecast, then by all means, it deserves subways.

But until someone can come up with a more substantive argument than 'if you build it, they will come', I'm simply not convinced that money spent to build subway level capacity along Sheppard is money well spent.

 

[gweed123]

You ignored increased capacity. The only way BRT could theoretically get the same capacity and operational efficiency as LRT would be if it went where it wasn't needed. You could not put BRT down Sheppard or Finch and get the same capacity, operating cost, passenger comfort and travel times as with the planned LRT lines.

No, but you could put it down for less than half the cost. AND you wouldn't have to purchase a bunch of new LRVs to run on it. And come on, BRT can easily handle 5000 pphpd, let's not kid ourselves here. And I did not ignore it, I simply forgot to include it.

As GraphicMatt already posted, an end result would also be increased ridership (for many of the same reasons people say subways would increase ridership only for a fraction of the cost of subways). If there were remotely plausible subway level demands forecast, then by all means, it deserves subways.

There would be a moderate increase in ridership compared to what a BRT would draw, however, there haven't been very many cases of BRT to LRT upgrades, so it's difficult to say how many people would be drawn in just because it was rail, vs how many would be drawn in because it's a significant improvement over the current bus route. If intallation of BRT nets a 30% increase in ridership, and LRT nets a 40% increase in ridership, is double the capital cost really worth that extra 10%? If it would net double the amount of riders compared to the alternative, then yes, it would be worth it.

But until someone can come up with a more substantive argument than 'if you build it, they will come', I'm simply not convinced that money spent to build subway level capacity along Sheppard is money well spent.

I think putting in LRT on Sheppard east of Agincourt is a complete waste of money. In fact, I've said numerous times that BRT would do just fine for that corridor. And you'd have enough money left over to put bus lanes on a bunch more corridors throughout Scarborough for the same cost of building 1 under-used LRT line out to the zoo (and it doesn't even go there!).

 

[Ed Drass]

As a supporter of the appropriate technology for a given corridor, I don't object to the general logic that BRT can be a less-expensive version of LRT, in roughly the same way as LRT has this advantage over HRT.

I think at-capacity bus routes should be bumped up to BRT wherever LRT and HRT don't make financial/ridership sense. The problem is that if LRT won't fly for car drivers and the subways-for-nothing mentality, BRT would be an even harder sell. On-street BRT is damned hard to sell -- I wonder if we could even get more diamond lanes in the next 4 years.

Unfortunately it seems we have to reach crisis-congestion levels before Toronto would allow new BRT. How long 'til Yonge North neighbourhoods figure out they are not getting a subway any time soon, and finally allow protected bus lanes above Finch? TTC, Viva/YRT riders deserve them, like yesterday.

ed d.

 

[gweed123]

As a supporter of the appropriate technology for a given corridor, I don't object to the general logic that BRT can be a less-expensive version of LRT, in roughly the same way as LRT has this advantage over HRT.

I think at-capacity bus routes should be bumped up to BRT wherever LRT and HRT don't make financial/ridership sense. The problem is that if LRT won't fly for car drivers and the subways-for-nothing mentality, BRT would be an even harder sell. On-street BRT is damned hard to sell -- I wonder if we could even get more diamond lanes in the next 4 years.

Unfortunately it seems we have to reach crisis-congestion levels before Toronto would allow new BRT. How long 'til Yonge North neighbourhoods figure out they are not getting a subway any time soon, and finally allow protected bus lanes above Finch? TTC, Viva/YRT riders deserve them, like yesterday.

ed d.

I agree completely. Personally, I think the city should take ~$100 million from the current Transit City fund bag (hey, it's likely being redistributed to a bunch of different projects anyway) and see how many intersections that fall along major bus routes in the city they can install queue jump lanes at for that amount of money. Assuming around $4M/intersection (just a rough number), that would mean around 25 intersections. I'm sure we could find 25 intersections along major routes where installing queue jump lanes would substantially increase the efficiency of bus flow.

It would be a relatively modest investment, but it would have a substantial impact for the money. Over time, upgrade portions of these routes to having diamond or bus-only lanes. That's the beauty with BRT, you don't have to do the whole thing at once in order to have it be effective. You can do it in sections where it's needed most first, and then come back later and do the sections where it wasn't as needed. You determine the most constricted points on the route, and implement targeted improvements at those locations.

 

[Northern Magus]

To a certain extent, yes, you're right. But the fundamental premise behind them is the same: the belief that higher capital costs are justified because of the benefits (short-term, long-term, intangible) that that extra expenditure creates.

Strictly speaking, I think you're misstating the premise by omitting ridership and financial feasibility considerations -- which change things considerably. I don't believe the LRT position is as simplistic, ideological, or as abstract as you're suggesting.

 

[LAz]

How is building full subway for full subway costs and operating expenses when there is no where near full subway demand smart spending of limited resources?

Well the difference between underground light rail and underground heavy rail is very small.
Very small.
With that - very small - in mind, I do not see it as a waste of resources, but the better long term investment.

I look at it like this - oh no, we have 10000 dollars to throw away, but no, we can't throw away 10010 dollars for something better.

Changing landuse is not going to suddenly cause enough people to materialize to produce three times current projected ridership for 2030.

From the other topic...

[from laz's materials...]...the system’s first expansion period, between 1954 and 1956, 50% of highrises and 90% of offices were constructed within a five minute walk from the metro (Cervero, 1998: 83). Since 1965, for 20 years, subway ridership and the system’s expansion paralleled one another... [/flm]

So, I ask why not?

Lets jump down to another part...

[from laz's materials...]). The Tunnelbana was built in advance of demand, and therefore incurred huge operating deficits initially, but this would pay off as the new settlement pattern took form (Cervero, 1998: 113). The city owned much land in the fringes. This allowed for ongoing coordination of transit and fringe area development, unlike in Toronto (Cervero, 1998: 113).[/flm]

Were people in Toronto insane?
Were people in Stockholm insane?

I think not.

I think there is some logic to this. Or you think it's all bullocks?


These results speak for themselves...

-All these policies have led to a reduction in automobile dependency. The city actually experienced a reduction in auto use in the 1980s, while transit use increased. Transit use is at some of the highest levels in the world (Newman and Kenworthy, 1999: 208-209).-




So this leads me to conclude the cynical conclusion that the goal is to keep people driving. Thus, worse options are taken, and transit is not being integrated with land use. In fact it's fair to say that significant land use changes are not taken into consideration by planners.

 

[Northern Magus]

I look at it like this - oh no, we have 10000 dollars to throw away, but no, we can't throw away 10010 dollars for something better.

So, I ask why not?

[from laz's materials...]). The Tunnelbana was built in advance of demand, and therefore incurred huge operating deficits initially, but this would pay off as the new settlement pattern took form (Cervero, 1998: 113). The city owned much land in the fringes. This allowed for ongoing coordination of transit and fringe area development, unlike in Toronto (Cervero, 1998: 113).[/flm]

So this leads me to conclude the cynical conclusion that the goal is to keep people driving. Thus, worse options are taken, and transit is not being integrated with land use. In fact it's fair to say that significant land use changes are not taken into consideration by planners.

So ... a false analogy, followed by an argument from ignorance, a self-referential citation, reliance on another false analogue ("This allowed for ongoing coordination of transit and fringe area development, unlike in Toronto"), and an unsupported conclusion followed by unsubstantiated assertions?

Such a lazy effort from a wannabe faux polemicist.......

 

[Rainforest]

An LRT train T-boning a car because they couldn't brake in time at a red light during a heavy snowfall would also cause a pretty big inconvenience for commuters...

This is a rare occassion though. In contrast, ICTS snowfall problems are very familiar to Torontonians.

All of the TTC's subway orders are custom-orders anyway, as are the legacy network streetcars. Hasn't been that big of a deal so far. Yes, there is the Mark I SRT, but that was very much a prototype technology. The Mark II has been widely adopted, and I doubt very much that there will be similar issues as what happened with the Mark I.

You are right that there was no real competition for the legacy network streetcars. But TTC had a lot of custom requirements there: nonstandard gauge, plus untypically tight curves, plus 100% low-floor.

The new lines would have standard gauge and smoother curves, thus the chance to get multiple bidders.

Jane should be built as a BRT, not an LRT, and the DRL will reach Eglinton in the east, so there won't be very many N-S LRT lines 'crossing' Eglinton anytime soon, if ever.

Two other N-S light-rail candidates are Kipling and Victoria Park. Not a part of Transit City, but might be more viable than Jane or Don Mills.

 

[gweed123]

This is a rare occassion though. In contrast, ICTS snowfall problems are very familiar to Torontonians.

I would venture to say that the technology has been improved since it was first implemented with the SRT...

You are right that there was no real competition for the legacy network streetcars. But TTC had a lot of custom requirements there: nonstandard gauge, plus untypically tight curves, plus 100% low-floor.

The new lines would have standard gauge and smoother curves, thus the chance to get multiple bidders.

Realistically, the only company getting TTC contracts for rail vehicles is Bombardier, let's not kid ourselves.

Two other N-S light-rail candidates are Kipling and Victoria Park. Not a part of Transit City, but might be more viable than Jane or Don Mills.

I would agree with that. However, I would venture to say that Highway 27 would be a better candidate than Kipling would be. And the TTC wouldn't likely interline those lines anyway, so it would be a transfer either way. Compatible technology is only really an advantage if you're going to be running some sort of interlining.

 

[k10ery]

Realistically, the only company getting TTC contracts for rail vehicles is Bombardier, let's not kid ourselves.

You really don't think making Bombardier bid against the competition affects the price we end up paying them when they win???

Not that we'll see another deal like the TTC apparently got for the legacy LRVs.

 

[lafard]

I would venture to say that the technology has been improved since it was first implemented with the SRT...

As a born-and-raised Vancouverite, I would respectfully disagree with this. The new generation cars are not any better, they still get confused by snowflakes and have to be driven manually when it snows, and reaction and power rail fouling is an artefact of the track design itself. ICTS is one of those solutions without a problem, there are no advantages over an automated rotary-motored design. Except political advantages, and as we've seen that's all that matters. Even Vancouver, the showcase system, has tried to abandon ICTS more than once.

 

[nfitz]

How has the Scarborough Skytrain service been this winter? I haven't seen the usual glut of service suspensions during the snow ... have they actually done something to fix it?