Whose vision of transit in Toronto do you support?

[gweed123]

Transit City is funded, let's get it built, and focus on the DRL. I have not see you, and others even consider this idea.

I have considered this idea. And then I dismissed it as being the incorrect way to approach it. DRL is Priority #1, I don't think many of us disagree on that. It's the single most important piece of transit infrastructure this city will build in the next 30 years. However, let's review the TTC's priorities in terms of transit projects:

1) Spadina Subway Extesion
2) SELRT
3) Eglinton LRT
4) Scarborough LRT
5) Finch West LRT
6) Don Mills LRT
7) Scarborough-Malvern LRT
8) Jane LRT
9) Waterfront West LRT
10) Yonge Subway Extension
11) DRL

Am I the only one that thinks that something is a bit off here? Since when did Network Priority #1 become Funding Priority #11? If you are as big of an advocate of the DRL as you say you are, you should realize it should be at the top of the list, not all the way down at #11.

I can maybe see the need for the Eglinton LRT and the Scarborough LRT (but preferably B-D subway extension to STC) going ahead of the DRL just because of network urgency or timeline issues. However, the fact that the SELRT is #2 on the list and that the DRL is BEYOND on the backburner, irks me to no end. Projects that have under a 10% chance of actually getting built are still higher on the TTC's to-do list than the DRL, as the Metrolinx RTP still has all of Transit City in the 15 year portion of the RTP, while the DRL is relegated to the 25 year plan. Transit City should be built as a supplement to the DRL, not the other way around.

PS: I realize that #6-9 haven't been prioritized in terms of order, but they're interchangable in those spots.

 

[GraphicMatt]

That's a weird way of evaluating the current situation. I'd say the DRL & Yonge Subway Extension are both at #6, as they've become so politically intertwined.

Don Mills, Malvern, Jane and Waterfront West are dead.

 

[gweed123]

That's a weird way of evaluating the current situation. I'd say the DRL & Yonge Subway Extension are both at #6, as they've become so politically intertwined.

Don Mills, Malvern, Jane and Waterfront West are dead.

I'm just going by what the Metrolinx RTP says. According to it, all of Transit City is in the 15 year plan, while the DRL is in the 25 year plan. Until the RTP changes to reflect what you have described, it's still the current situation.

Had the TTC engaged in logical transit planning instead of trying to do social planning, we could have very well ended up with a Transit City Plan that prioritized the DRL, Eglinton, and connection to STC. Instead, they decided to play Social Worker and we ended up with what we did.

 

[SimonP]

Had the TTC engaged in logical transit planning instead of trying to do social planning, we could have very well ended up with a Transit City Plan that prioritized the DRL, Eglinton, and connection to STC. Instead, they decided to play Social Worker and we ended up with what we did.

Is there something wrong with trying to reflect social needs? We're not just building a transit system, we're trying to build a livable city. Maximizing ridership numbers isn't everything.

A subway through Riverdale might carry more riders than an LRT to Malvern, but if the LRT leads to better urban form; fewer cars on the road, and thus less CO2 in the air; as well as reduced unemployment, poverty, and crime then the wouldn't you agree the LRT should be the priority?

 

[nfitz]

Don Mills, Malvern, Jane and Waterfront West are dead.

I don't see why Don Mills is dead; that line has been under study long before Transit City was convieved ... the studies go back to Lastman's term in office. It's still on Metrolinx's 15-year timeframe; and it's hard to argue it should be subway north of Eglinton. And it's not particularily expensive either (assuming the DRL get's built).

Waterfront West will likely come slowly, other the years in bits and pieces ... it was more of an upgrade to the existing network, than a new line.

Jane ... yes, seems to be troubled.

 

[gweed123]

Is there something wrong with trying to reflect social needs? We're not just building a transit system, we're trying to build a livable city. Maximizing ridership numbers isn't everything.

A subway through Riverdale might carry more riders than an LRT to Malvern, but if the LRT leads to better urban form; fewer cars on the road, and thus less CO2 in the air; as well as reduced unemployment, poverty, and crime then the wouldn't you agree the LRT should be the priority?

Nothing is wrong with it. The problem arises when you start transit planning for social needs AT THE EXPENSE of city-wide transit needs. An LRT through Malvern may very well do all of those things, but the benefit is limited to Malvern. Building a subway through Riverdale that provides an alternative for literally hundreds of thousands of commuters every day in my books out-ranks an LRT to Malvern. Once there is a sufficient transit backbone in place, I have no problems with an LRT to Malvern. But until that backbone is in place, that should be the main priority, not social planning.

And to respond to your "maximizing ridership numbers isn't everything", you're right. But it is a substantial portion of it. One of the main goals of TC is to increase modal split, which means attracting new riders. Putting LRT lines into places with already high levels of captive ridership, and with little opportunity to increase choice ridership, does not really fit well with that goal. On the otherhand, improving network efficiency as a whole by making existing lines less crowded, will certainly increase choice ridership, as riders will not be packed in like sardines on every southbound train in the morning. The best way to increase choice ridership is not to make driving more inconvenient, it's to make transit more convenient and comfortable.

 

[SimonP]

Crowding on the Yonge subway is a problem

The steady decline of the inner suburbs is also a problem

Which is the graver problem facing Toronto today? In an ideal world I'd love to see work being done to solve both these issues, but personally I think the latter one is the bigger issue right now. We aren't only talking about Malvern. Much of Scarborough faces similar issues as Jane/Finch, and Rexdale. We're talking about a pretty huge swath of the city and a large portion of our population.

I also don't understand what you mean by "captive ridership." Malvern, Rexdale, etc. have fairly low Transit ridership numbers. Far lower than the downtown areas the DRL would pass through. Jane/Finch, Malvern, and Rexdale all have about 28% of workers commuting by transit each day Riverdale, Leslieville, and the Distillery District are all up over 40%. Looking more closely, those tracts in Riverdale that are right on the subway have about 45% of people taking transit. Those in Leslieville and southern Riverdale that are further away have an average of about 41%. Adding a nearby subway thus might boost ridership by about 4 points. Malvern has an average of 29%, but the demographically similar area of Oakridge along the subway sees 53% of people taking transit. While Malvern will only be getting an LRT line, even if the new line provides only a quarter the boost that a subway does, you'd still see more people being shifted out of their cars.

 

[gweed123]

Crowding on the Yonge subway is a problem

The steady decline of the inner suburbs is also a problem

Which is the graver problem facing Toronto today? In an ideal world I'd love to see work being done to solve both these issues, but personally I think the latter one is the bigger issue right now. We aren't only talking about Malvern. Much of Scarborough faces similar issues as Jane/Finch, and Rexdale. We're talking about a pretty huge swath of the city and a large portion of our population.

I also don't understand what you mean by "captive ridership." Malvern, Rexdale, etc. have fairly low Transit ridership numbers. Far lower than the downtown areas the DRL would pass through. Jane/Finch, Malvern, and Rexdale all have about 28% of workers commuting by transit each day Riverdale, Leslieville, and the Distillery District are all up over 40%. Looking more closely, those tracts in Riverdale that are right on the subway have about 45% of people taking transit. Those in Leslieville and southern Riverdale that are further away have an average of about 41%. Adding a nearby subway thus might boost ridership by about 4 points. Malvern has an average of 29%, but the demographically similar area of Oakridge along the subway sees 53% of people taking transit. While Malvern will only be getting an LRT line, even if the new line provides only a quarter the boost that a subway does, you'd still see more people being shifted out of their cars.

Captive ridership means people who, mainly through economic means, have very little option BUT to take transit (ie they don't own a car, or do not have sufficient access to one).

When looking at just the neighbourhood stats, you're right. However, specifically with the case of the DRL, the effect it will have on the immediate neighbourhood is miniscule compared to the effect it will have on transit across the city. How many people from the inner suburbs choose not to take transit because they have to stand on the platform and see 3 trains go by before they can squeeze onto one? How many alter their transit route to the point where it's extremely inconvenient because they would rather do that than go through the chaos that is Bloor-Yonge? Metrolinx has estimated that the DRL will draw 17,500 pphpd off of the YUS and B-D subways. That's a substantial decrease. When those seats (or standing room spots) open up on YUS and B-D trains, I would venture to say that a good portion of them will be filled by new riders who, now that taking transit is no longer like being packed into a sardine can, will see it as a valid option.

Even if only 25% of those now-empty seats on YUS and B-D trains are filled by new riders, thats still 4375pphpd of NEW riders. That figure is the upper limit of projections for most of the TC lines (specifically Finch West, the SLRT past STC, the SELRT, the SMLRT, and the JLRT. So even if only 25% of those seats are filled, you're still creating new equivalent ridership of the peak periods of half of the TC lines.

So it's not just about ridership at the source, it's about opening up space somewhere else, and it just happens to be where the demand is.

 

[SimonP]

How many people from the inner suburbs choose not to take transit because they have to stand on the platform and see 3 trains go by before they can squeeze onto one? How many alter their transit route to the point where it's extremely inconvenient because they would rather do that than go through the chaos that is Bloor-Yonge?

While squeezing in like sardines is unpleasant, looking at the data it doesn't seem to have much of an impact on ridership. Yonge-Eglinton and Yonge-St Clair are the areas most affected by overcrowding, but they actually have the highest ridership numbers of anywhere in Toronto.

On the BD line those on the western half don't have much of a capacity issue, while those coming from the east have to put up with Bloor-Yonge. Despite this, there doesn't seem to be much of any difference in the usage rates between the eastern and western halves. Someone who lives in Old East York is just as likely to take the subway as someone who lives in High Park North.

Overcrowding is certainly one of the factors that people take into account when choosing how to get to work, but it seems to have far less impact than things like proximity to transit, income, density, and geographic location.

Overcrowding is an issue, and we do need the DRL, but a plan for the inner suburbs is one of the few things we need even more.

 

[W. K. Lis]

While squeezing in like sardines is unpleasant, looking at the data it doesn't seem to have much of an impact on ridership. Yonge-Eglinton and Yonge-St Clair are the areas most affected by overcrowding, but they actually have the highest ridership numbers of anywhere in Toronto.

On the BD line those on the western half don't have much of a capacity issue, while those coming from the east have to put up with Bloor-Yonge. Despite this, there doesn't seem to be much of any difference in the usage rates between the eastern and western halves. Someone who lives in Old East York is just as likely to take the subway as someone who lives in High Park North.

Overcrowding is certainly one of the factors that people take into account when choosing how to get to work, but it seems to have far less impact than things like proximity to transit, income, density, and geographic location.

Overcrowding is an issue, and we do need the DRL, but a plan for the inner suburbs is one of the few things we need even more.

Please define "overcrowding"?

... or is it that there is no seat for you, and you have to stand?

 

[SimonP]

It's true, most countries would laugh heartily at what we consider overcrowding. Consider this video from Japan:

[video=youtube;STNWc7Rlpfk]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=STNWc7Rlpfk[/video]

 

[scarberiankhatru]

Is there something wrong with trying to reflect social needs? We're not just building a transit system, we're trying to build a livable city. Maximizing ridership numbers isn't everything.

A subway through Riverdale might carry more riders than an LRT to Malvern, but if the LRT leads to better urban form; fewer cars on the road, and thus less CO2 in the air; as well as reduced unemployment, poverty, and crime then the wouldn't you agree the LRT should be the priority?

It's amazing how many people are being smitten, hell, brainwashed by the "our inner suburbs - well, the ones we've heard about on the news before, lke Malvern - are declining and the only way to rescue them is a few random streetcar ROWs" nonsense that's underpinning our current transit expansion plans.

 

[Second_in_pie]

It's amazing how many people are being smitten, hell, brainwashed by the "our inner suburbs - well, the ones we've heard about on the news before, lke Malvern - are declining and the only way to rescue them is a few random streetcar ROWs" nonsense that's underpinning our current transit expansion plans.

I was going to point out the hilarity in this logic. While I'd choose to revive the inner suburbs in an instant over having better transit capacity, you have to be absolutely crazy to think that putting LRTs out to Malvern (which will really get people the exact same trip time whether they're on the SELRT or taking the bus to the Sheppard Subway,) will somehow revive the entire neighborhood and turn it into some pretty European district.

 

[GraphicMatt]

Yeah, and it's not like they're coupling the improved transit with other strategies to improve neighbourhoods. They are literally just assuming that all that is needed to improve neighbourhoods is a streetcar ROW. You called them on it exactly. This is so embarrassing for all involved.

 

[nfitz]

... putting LRTs out to Malvern (which will really get people the exact same trip time whether they're on the SELRT or taking the bus to the Sheppard Subway,)

Where do you get this stuff? The scheduled LRT travel times are significantly faster than the existing bus service; let alone the bus service in another 20 years of traffic congestion.