Whose vision of transit in Toronto do you support?

[Second_in_pie]

I was talking about an extended Sheppard subway.

As for GraphicMatt, is it not possible that, you know, those things could be done without a LRT white elephant?

 

[nfitz]

I was talking about an extended Sheppard subway.

Ah ... I'd forgotten all about that. Wasn't there talk once upon a time of exending the Sheppard subway past Don Mills?

 

[Rainforest]

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.

People on the eastern half of BD are not worse off than those on the western half. Riding past Yonge to St George is only 2 minutes extra, and a shorter transfer walk. I personally know several people who do that.

The reason Bloor-Yonge is more crowded than St George is that Yonge line has more destinations, and people are reluctant to backtrack via Union.

 

[Rainforest]

No, we talk about cities like Vienna, Frankfurt, Munich, Amsterdam, and Berlin. All are somewhat around Toronto's population, give or take a couple million, and all have extensive streetcar networks.

Europe split in the 1960s and 1970s. Central Europe (Germany, Netherlands, Austria, Switzerland,and others) picked a transit mix of some subways and many trams. Western Europe (France, Britain, Spain) and Communist Eastern Europe abandoned most of their tram lines and switched to systems based on extensive subway and bus networks.

40 years later the evidence is clear. The cities that stuck with tram lines have less congestion, less air pollution, and higher standards of living. As a result cities in the UK, Spain, and France are today rapidly working to bring back tram lines.

Vienna: metropolitan area population 2.3 million (vs Toronto's 2.5 million). 6 Fully grade-separate subway lines (U1 - U6). Sizable streetcar network (with some sections in dedicated lanes), but the transit backbone is definitely subway not streetcar.

Amsterdam: less than 1.5 million including suburbs. The subway network is pretty small and the streetcar network is much larger. However, it is worth to mention that the Dutch commuter rail system is far superior to GO train system (many lines, with all-day every 30 min or better service on most). More than half of the Netherlands population probably lives within a 1 or 1.5 hour train ride from the Amsterdam Central Station.

Berlin: the city has 3.4 million, the metropolitan area about 5 million. The existing network of fully grade-separated U-bahn and S-bahn lines is more dense than the boldest dreams posted on the "Fantasy Map" thread of this forum.

I don't know enough about Frankfurt and Munich to comment here.

 

[Dan416]

I don't know where people get this idea that Europeans love trams so much. Europe has trams, yes. But their function is as buses. They aren't fast, that's for sure. Unless they're grade-separated like the U6 in Vienna.

 

[SimonP]

Vienna: metropolitan area population 2.3 million (vs Toronto's 2.5 million). 6 Fully grade-separate subway lines (U1 - U6). Sizable streetcar network (with some sections in dedicated lanes), but the transit backbone is definitely subway not streetcar.

Toronto:
Subway: 70 km
Streetcar: 75 km

Vienna:
Subway: 69.5 km
Tram: 214.9 km

We have about the same backbone as Vienna, it's the rest of the skeleton that is a lot smaller in Toronto.

Amsterdam: less than 1.5 million including suburbs. The subway network is pretty small and the streetcar network is much larger. However, it is worth to mention that the Dutch commuter rail system is far superior to GO train system (many lines, with all-day every 30 min or better service on most). More than half of the Netherlands population probably lives within a 1 or 1.5 hour train ride from the Amsterdam Central Station.

Yes, pretty much every European city has much better commuter (and intercity) rail. The Amsterdam-Hague-Rotterdam conurbation has about 7.5 million. Similar in size to Hamilton-Toronto, but with much better links.

Berlin: the city has 3.4 million, the metropolitan area about 5 million. The existing network of fully grade-separated U-bahn and S-bahn lines is more dense than the boldest dreams posted on the "Fantasy Map" thread of this forum.

Berlin does clobber us. The combined S-Bahn and U-Bahn cover about 300 km and carry some 800 million people per year. The tram network is also much larger than our streetcar lines, at 191.6 km.

For the other two Munich has about 100.8 km of subway and 75 km of trams. Frankfurt has 58.6 km of subway and 63.37 km of trams.

 

[rbt]

Berlin does clobber us. The combined S-Bahn and U-Bahn cover about 300 km and carry some 800 million people per year. The tram network is also much larger than our streetcar lines, at 191.6 km.

Toronto could do this too, pretty damn quickly, if we went up to Berlins current debt load per capita (roughly $80B in 2008, well over that now).

If you add together GTA debt + Ontario debt per capita in the GTA; you can add roughly $50B to the regions debt load and still be under Berlins. That could easily buy 100km+ of additional subway and electrify/improve service to 10 minute frequencies on most of the GO network.

Call the province and demand a tax increase for transit spending.

 

[Second_in_pie]

Toronto:
Subway: 70 km
Streetcar: 75 km

Vienna:
Subway: 69.5 km
Tram: 214.9 km

We have about the same backbone as Vienna, it's the rest of the skeleton that is a lot smaller in Toronto.

But while Toronto has over 2.5 million people within it's city that it needs to serve, Vienna has 1.7. And note that Vienna's got plans to extend the U-Bahn even further.

Yes, pretty much every European city has much better commuter (and intercity) rail. The Amsterdam-Hague-Rotterdam conurbation has about 7.5 million. Similar in size to Hamilton-Toronto, but with much better links.

But Amsterdam's transit network only serves Amsterdam, and the urban boundaries of Amsterdam are the only real logical places you'd put transit across, as the closest urban area (Rotterdam,) is 20 km away from the urban boundaries of Amsterdam. So an urban area with a population of 1.3 has over 40 km of metro, 50 with the newest expansion. That doesn't even compare to Toronto proper's population, let alone the GTA.

Berlin does clobber us. The combined S-Bahn and U-Bahn cover about 300 km and carry some 800 million people per year. The tram network is also much larger than our streetcar lines, at 191.6 km.

For the other two Munich has about 100.8 km of subway and 75 km of trams. Frankfurt has 58.6 km of subway and 63.37 km of trams.

The urban population of Munich is lower than that of Toronto, and the metro pop is about the same. Frankfurt's urban population is lower than that of Toronto, and the Metro population is the same as the GTA.

But even so, just comparing numbers is useless. You need to understand how Tram systems are built all around the world. They need a strong transit backbone. And "strong" can't be defined by a km of metro dick waving contest. You need to look at how their systems are built out. In all these aforementioned European cities, the Metro zips around the entire city, connecting locations and providing support for the trams. In Toronto, this ability to zip about on the subway is nonexistant. The subway network is essentially skin and bones when you look at how much of the city it serves; there are massive holes throughout the city, and not just the suburbs. You need to address these holes before you start building secondary tram lines throughout the city. As Coruscanti said, Europe treats it's trams like upgrades busses, not as rapid transit.

 

[Woodbridge_Heights]

Toronto:
Subway: 70 km
Streetcar: 75 km

Vienna:
Subway: 69.5 km
Tram: 214.9 km

We have about the same backbone as Vienna, it's the rest of the skeleton that is a lot smaller in Toronto.

An interesting counter, really it is. I'd have to look deeper into the two systems to see what other differences might have caused this. For example Toronto is a rather wide spread out region (in comparison to Vienna which is?), also how Vienna manages to have 6 subway lines with only 70 km of track.

A quick wikipedia shows that no line in Vienna is longer than 18-20 km while Toronto's main lines are ~26 to 30 km in length. You could argue that the lines split at the midway point of the system (Yonge-Bloor, Union) since that is how riders treat them, however operationally they run as two lines (not counting Sheppard). So maybe Vienna is doing more in it's inner core subway wise while Toronto expanded out into the burbs, or maybe Vienna is more "compact" than Toronto is.

Something I had brought up, and was blasted by Steve Munro for suggesting was that maybe we should have stopped subway expansion around the borders of the older, denser, original city of Toronto and repurposed the streetcars to create a web expanding out from the terminal stations. Would you support, say, not doing the last 20 to 30 km or so of subway expansion and instead built that trackage in the core? 30 km of subway could have built a DRL and perhaps another local line along one of the other main routes (Queen most obviously, or Dundas, or College).

 

[spider]

Comparisons of transit modes in Toronto and various European cities tally up KM's of subways and streetcars/trams but no mention is made of bus lines. Are there no bus lines over there?

 

[gweed123]

Toronto could do this too, pretty damn quickly, if we went up to Berlins current debt load per capita (roughly $80B in 2008, well over that now).

If you add together GTA debt + Ontario debt per capita in the GTA; you can add roughly $50B to the regions debt load and still be under Berlins. That could easily buy 100km+ of additional subway and electrify/improve service to 10 minute frequencies on most of the GO network.

Call the province and demand a tax increase for transit spending.

A lot of that debt load came about as a result of the re-unification of Germany, and the redevelopment efforts that occured in Berlin (particularly East Berlin) after the wall came down. They literally rebuilt entire districts of the city. It makes the Regent Park redevelopment look like a kid in the sandbox. Redevelopment on that scale doesn't come cheap.

 

[gweed123]

An interesting counter, really it is. I'd have to look deeper into the two systems to see what other differences might have caused this. For example Toronto is a rather wide spread out region (in comparison to Vienna which is?), also how Vienna manages to have 6 subway lines with only 70 km of track.

A quick wikipedia shows that no line in Vienna is longer than 18-20 km while Toronto's main lines are ~26 to 30 km in length. You could argue that the lines split at the midway point of the system (Yonge-Bloor, Union) since that is how riders treat them, however operationally they run as two lines (not counting Sheppard). So maybe Vienna is doing more in it's inner core subway wise while Toronto expanded out into the burbs, or maybe Vienna is more "compact" than Toronto is.

Something I had brought up, and was blasted by Steve Munro for suggesting was that maybe we should have stopped subway expansion around the borders of the older, denser, original city of Toronto and repurposed the streetcars to create a web expanding out from the terminal stations. Would you support, say, not doing the last 20 to 30 km or so of subway expansion and instead built that trackage in the core? 30 km of subway could have built a DRL and perhaps another local line along one of the other main routes (Queen most obviously, or Dundas, or College).

This proposal sounds somewhat similar to the 1950s Queen Streetcar Subway proposal, minus the change in technology of course. The Dundas, Queen, and King streetcars would have used the streetcar tunnel through central Toronto, and then branched out onto their respective alignments later on. It certainly is a distincitive way of building a transit network: build all the capacity you'll ever need for the next 50 years in and around the destination, and then incrementally extend and upgrade from there, out towards the origins.

 

[rbt]

A lot of that debt load came about as a result of the re-unification of Germany, and the redevelopment efforts that occured in Berlin (particularly East Berlin) after the wall came down. They literally rebuilt entire districts of the city. It makes the Regent Park redevelopment look like a kid in the sandbox. Redevelopment on that scale doesn't come cheap.

I know where the debt came from. I believe Germany is still making war reparation payments in addition to rebuilding their own cities.

My point was that the GTA can afford to be building several new subway lines simultaneously based entirely on 50 year bonds. It is a matter of will.

 

[gweed123]

I know where the debt came from. I believe Germany is still making war reparation payments in addition to rebuilding their own cities.

My point was that the GTA can afford to be building several new subway lines simultaneously based entirely on 50 year bonds. It is a matter of will.

I agree. Something substantial needs to be done in order to shrink the infrastructure gap. We can't move forward if all we're doing is treading water, trying to keep ourselves afloat.

 

[nfitz]

I know where the debt came from. I believe Germany is still making war reparation payments ...

Uh ... it's been a few decades since I took history class, but my recollection is that there were no war reparation payments after World War 2, because of the economic damage caused by the ones after World War 1. And the World War 1 payments stopped sometime after Hitler was elected.

In face, the opposite happened; the victors in World War 2 - mostly the USA, payed the losers reparations so that they could rebuild. Remember the Marshall Plan?

Am I missing something; are you thinking of something else?