TTC: Jane (LRT) RapidTO

[jmi22]

At grade suburban lrts are a purely aesthetic approach to transit and are not fit for transit outside the core. The transit capitals of the world, Paris, Seoul, NYC etc, do not run slow unreliable trams in the middle of 80m wide arterials. They build cheap, very fast elevated metros that can tie together far flung suburbs and can be constructed much faster than a typical buried subway. This belief that we will only ever need the two subways we already built is nonsensical. Finch and Eglinton East should have been elevated, a fact which will become painfully clear as they open and headways are only marginally better than the express buss that existed prior. This light rail obsession seems to be based upon the partisan divide of the 2010's where subways were 'conservative' and lrt was 'progressive'. I don't think I need to explain how childish and reductive that is.

 

[W. K. Lis]

In Berlin, they replaced a 6-lane stroad and replaced with with a 2-lane street with cycling lanes and a grassy right-of-way for trams (not in the middle, but on the side).

https://twitter.com/x/status/1655634022582591488

 

[T3G]

At grade suburban lrts are a purely aesthetic approach to transit and are not fit for transit outside the core.

Clearly you have never been to Prague or studied their vast, expansive, and reliable at grade network.

This light rail obsession seems to be based upon the partisan divide of the 2010's where subways were 'conservative' and lrt was 'progressive'. I don't think I need to explain how childish and reductive that is.

Or, perhaps, it's based on the pragmatic realization that different types of urban environments are better served by different types of transit. In the same way you wouldn't run a 6 car TR train under Spadina Road to replace the 33 Forest Hill bus, so too it would be overkill to run a subway under (or over) many suburban arteries.

Disciples of the Ford brothers frequently fail to bring up that grade separation costs more money. The money you spend on grade separation is money that won't be spent on further transit expansion. Already, we are seeing this reduction in practice. The proposed LRT replacement for the Scarborough RT was proposed to run as far as Malvern, and heaven knows where else it could've ran, if it was built. As it stands, the overbuilt SSE boondoggle marginally improves service for those who live in the vicinity of Kennedy or STC, but for most people in Scarborough, their transit will continue to be of substandard quality. If I lived in Malvern, I would much rather have an LRT network that covers more ground and would tangibly benefit me in some way, rather than the warm and fuzzy feeling that other people who are not me get a slightly faster commute on a far more limited grade separated network.

Remember, the whole subway vs LRT culture war started with Rob Ford, who thought that the latte sipping downtown liberal elites were committing a hate crime against Scarborough for not giving them a subway. Childish and reductive, indeed. Up until that point, no one would've ever thought to question the sensible thinking that places with lesser density don't need such high order transit as densely built up places, but now that Pandora's box is open, decades of sensible thinking about demand have gone out the window.

 

[W. K. Lis]

In Quebec City, they going ahead with a new 23-km tramway. Some will leave a single-lane for traffic.

From link.

From link.

(Translated using Google translate)

The tramway project has passed an important milestone with the filing of the business case with the Government of Quebec. This document, of more than 200 pages, compiles all the strategic information of the project. It includes, among other things, the scope, cost estimate, risks, schedule, governance and communication of the project. It also includes the management plan, which explains the actions needed to complete the project.

Video in French...

(You can set the subtitles in the video for English.)

 

[jmi22]

Since you brought up Paris, how would you describe the new Paris 3a/3b line? It's an at-grade LRT in the middle of a wide ROW for much of the length, albeit laid out with very wide sidewalks and protected bike lanes rather than 8 lanes of traffic as we might have in Toronto.

It's not unreliable. It's not particularly fast though @ 18km/h on average.

They wanted a higher-capacity suburban circulator line than buses could comfortably provide but the expected ridership could not justify a full metro service.

I believe the photos largely speak for themselves in this instance.

The T3, runs through a beautiful neighbourhood, that if it existed within Toronto would be one of the most urbanized and dense areas in the whole city.

It connects various other heavy rail and metro routes (Marked in blue) which primarily are used for cross city trips, and the tram is able to run reliably (due to signal priority) as a great last mile connector.

Now lets look at Finch. A gross, suburban arterial that has little fronting directly onto it. The roadway is very wide and serves as a regional connector across the north end of the city.

As i'm sure I don't have to remind anyone here, the Finch LRT will run through a rapid transit dessert and have only a single metro connection at its eastern terminus. This line will be used as apart of commuters crosstown trips, not simply the last mile connection of faster RER or Metro.

The cost to benefit ratio on suburban arterials whose transit ridership is driven heavily by cross city commuters will always benefit elevated metro over at grade trams. I no way do I think lrts don't have a place, however they work best in urban settings over smaller distances. I personally would love to see a Mount Pleasant LRT, Ossington LRT and a Parliament LRT as these are urban streets that would benefit from higher capacity transit in order to improve the streetscape and ride quality.

In terms of low ridership concerns, Toronto is the fastest growing city in the western hemisphere and anywhere we legalize high density, it will be built. This has already been seen on Eglinton East, and Finch has been getting quite a few tower proposals. The solution is not to build worse transit, but to allow more people to live near good transit.

 

[W. K. Lis]

Replacing the parking lots of shopping malls and strip malls relies on the corporate owners agreeing with rezoning. Current separate commercial zoning favours the corporations who own that real estate who want to rent out their stores at a very high commercial lease. To change the zoning, we have to override the objections of corporations that own that property.

 

[JordanHo2782]

I believe the photos largely speak for themselves in this instance.

The T3, runs through a beautiful neighbourhood, that if it existed within Toronto would be one of the most urbanized and dense areas in the whole city.
View attachment 502475
It connects various other heavy rail and metro routes (Marked in blue) which primarily are used for cross city trips, and the tram is able to run reliably (due to signal priority) as a great last mile connector.
View attachment 502476

Now lets look at Finch. A gross, suburban arterial that has little fronting directly onto it. The roadway is very wide and serves as a regional connector across the north end of the city.View attachment 502478

As i'm sure I don't have to remind anyone here, the Finch LRT will run through a rapid transit dessert and have only a single metro connection at its eastern terminus. This line will be used as apart of commuters crosstown trips, not simply the last mile connection of faster RER

I believe the photos largely speak for themselves in this instance.

The T3, runs through a beautiful neighbourhood, that if it existed within Toronto would be one of the most urbanized and dense areas in the whole city.
View attachment 502475
It connects various other heavy rail and metro routes (Marked in blue) which primarily are used for cross city trips, and the tram is able to run reliably (due to signal priority) as a great last mile connector.
View attachment 502476

Now lets look at Finch. A gross, suburban arterial that has little fronting directly onto it. The roadway is very wide and serves as a regional connector across the north end of the city.View attachment 502478

As i'm sure I don't have to remind anyone here, the Finch LRT will run through a rapid transit dessert and have only a single metro connection at its eastern terminus. This line will be used as apart of commuters crosstown trips, not simply the last mile connection of faster RER or Metro.
View attachment 502479

The cost to benefit ratio on suburban arterials whose transit ridership is driven heavily by cross city commuters will always benefit elevated metro over at grade trams. I no way do I think lrts don't have a place, however they work best in urban settings over smaller distances. I personally would love to see a Mount Pleasant LRT, Ossington LRT and a Parliament LRT as these are urban streets that would benefit from higher capacity transit in order to improve the streetscape and ride quality.

In terms of low ridership concerns, Toronto is the fastest growing city in the western hemisphere and anywhere we legalize high density, it will be built. This has already been seen on Eglinton East, and Finch has been getting quite a few tower proposals. The solution is not to build worse transit, but to allow more people to live near good transit.

I am also concern LRT will fail to meet future demand, if Golden Mile develop into a high density neighborhood like near Fairview Mall.

You can also search HK LRT, which resident always complain it is slower than bus, and always congested.

 

[W. K. Lis]

I am also concern LRT will fail to meet future demand, if Golden Mile develop into a high density neighborhood like near Fairview Mall.

You can also search HK LRT, which resident always complain it is slower than bus, and always congested.

The street platforms could be extended for longer trains at street level. It's the underground platforms that maybe a problem, if they don't include expansion space in the station boxes.

 

[W. K. Lis]

...
As i'm sure I don't have to remind anyone here, the Finch LRT will run through a rapid transit dessert and have only a single metro connection at its eastern terminus. This line will be used as apart of commuters crosstown trips, not simply the last mile connection of faster RER or Metro.

...

In terms of low ridership concerns, Toronto is the fastest growing city in the western hemisphere and anywhere we legalize high density, it will be built. This has already been seen on Eglinton East, and Finch has been getting quite a few tower proposals. The solution is not to build worse transit, but to allow more people to live near good transit.

Finch Avenue West is currently served by the 36 Finch West bus, one of the three busiest Toronto Transit Commission bus routes in Toronto with about 42,600 passengers per weekday.

 

[dowlingm]

As i'm sure I don't have to remind anyone here, the Finch LRT will run through a rapid transit dessert and have only a single metro connection at its eastern terminus. This line will be used as apart of commuters crosstown trips, not simply the last mile connection of faster RER or Metro.

I do wonder if the Emery LRT stop and consequent development in the area will in turn move the dial on getting GO to Woodbridge/Bolton done

 

[W. K. Lis]

I do wonder if the Emery LRT stop and consequent development in the area will in turn move the dial on getting GO to Woodbridge/Bolton done

Hmm. How about a Jane & Weston stop for the GO Bolton line? Would be able to transfer to and from the Jane LRT.

 

[jmi22]

Finch Avenue West is currently served by the 36 Finch West bus, one of the three busiest Toronto Transit Commission bus routes in Toronto with about 42,600 passengers per weekday.

I should have clarified, people are often concerned that these corridors do not have enough ridership to justify subway/metro level transit, not that these are low use routes.

 

[jmi22]

Clearly you have never been to Prague or studied their vast, expansive, and reliable at grade network.


Or, perhaps, it's based on the pragmatic realization that different types of urban environments are better served by different types of transit. In the same way you wouldn't run a 6 car TR train under Spadina Road to replace the 33 Forest Hill bus, so too it would be overkill to run a subway under (or over) many suburban arteries.

Disciples of the Ford brothers frequently fail to bring up that grade separation costs more money. The money you spend on grade separation is money that won't be spent on further transit expansion. Already, we are seeing this reduction in practice. The proposed LRT replacement for the Scarborough RT was proposed to run as far as Malvern, and heaven knows where else it could've ran, if it was built. As it stands, the overbuilt SSE boondoggle marginally improves service for those who live in the vicinity of Kennedy or STC, but for most people in Scarborough, their transit will continue to be of substandard quality. If I lived in Malvern, I would much rather have an LRT network that covers more ground and would tangibly benefit me in some way, rather than the warm and fuzzy feeling that other people who are not me get a slightly faster commute on a far more limited grade separated network.

Remember, the whole subway vs LRT culture war started with Rob Ford, who thought that the latte sipping downtown liberal elites were committing a hate crime against Scarborough for not giving them a subway. Childish and reductive, indeed. Up until that point, no one would've ever thought to question the sensible thinking that places with lesser density don't need such high order transit as densely built up places, but now that Pandora's box is open, decades of sensible thinking about demand have gone out the window.

No I have not visited Prague, and see little relevance as to how their tram network with signal priority functions when comparing to a city (and province) that won't even let streetcars move across the intersection before left turning drivers. So yea I would love if we gave surface transit priority but that is not happening with either of the new billion $ lines despite the clear benefits. Show me any serious movement in the cities politics for signal priority (rapid TO is a joke, they are 3 years into a 1 year study on Jane) and maybe i'll change my mind. Even Chow has never once mentioned expanding the King Priority corridor or converting other streets to similar setups.

You imply i'm a 'Disciple of the Ford Brothers' for suggesting we maybe grade seperate new transit in the same breath as denying that this bizarre transit mode culture war is in anyway perpetrated by progressives. I am saying this as a communist if that asages your concerns of my love for either of those brothers.

Anyways, I wish the LRT conversion of the RT, or its original form with CLRVs was built, as they would have both provided rapid transit running elevated through Scarborough to Malvern or UTSC or wherever. I am not asking for a subway on Finch, I wish it was elevated, which is drastically cheaper any would allow more, and better service for what we are currently spending on transit. If it convinces you of anything, I also wish the Yonge north extension was elevated, same as the extension to Vaughn. We can have a large, fast rapid transit system that serves the whole city without magically finding $100 billion in a treasure chest.

To address the 'density is not high enough for rapid transit', we are literally the fastest growing city in the western hemisphere. Eglinton East will be lined with 30+ story towers over the next decade, and proposals are steadily increasing on Finch already. All that is needed to ensure rapid transit costs are fully utilized is to allow density along the corridors we build it in. "places with lesser density don't need such high order transit" is something I am sure that many people said about North York Centre when line 1 was extended there. It does not take a statistical genius to see we have massive latent demand for new units on rapid transit corridors.

 

[lead82]

I don’t see why even with the coming density on Eglinton and Finch that we would need an elevated subway/metro there. One only needs to look at Sheppard to see that even with some density, Line 4 is heavily underused and is basically empty. I recently rode it last week during rush hour taking my kids to the community centre at Bessarion. On my observations, eacb train maybe had about 200-250 people in peak direction and less than 100 the other way. This is during peak rush hours. Yes it maybe a bit lower due to summer but even if I double it for fall volume, that would still be 4-5K riders per hour during peak period. It’s a colossal white elephant to have a subway on Sheppard as it will likely never ever have any kind or ridership to meet its design capacity. It’s a stranded and wasted investment that drains the system of operating and capital maintenance costs.

So let’s come back to LRTs. Take Finch, yes the bus gets 42K riders a weekday. What’s that per hour? Maybe 3-4K per direction per hour? Even if that were to double we would not need grade separation. The issue you seem to be implying is that LRTs are slow. That is only the case in Toronto by design. LRT as a technology can be fast. Again if we take Finch, the stations are close in some locations and will slow down travel but the big issue is transit priority. If we got that then the Finch LRT would be very fast and a huge improvement in travel time.

Similar for Eglinton, the issue in the east is that stations are closely packed together. If Toronto transportation can provide transit priority so Eglinton LRT will have little stop time at lights it will go fast. We will have to see how it operates.

 

[anb]

Think that some of you are also missing the point. The LRT won't only appeal to just the ridership that exists on Finch, but will also attract to new riders that will now take the LRT to get to the Subway or Humber/York U for example. As the 36 bus is being fully replaced, most of the 42k riders will probably remain using the corridor, and then you got bus connections and parallel nearby E-W corridors of riders who would prefer this option instead. The corridor doesn't need always have density to it as long as there are at least some destinations of interest and decent enough transit connections to the line overall.