[ehlow]

I don't think the TTC would sign off on this route. There would be significant operational challenges if this alignment were to be picked. Namely the impossibly small curve radii. The curves radii would be need to be significantly widened (probably with a tunnel) or smaller vehicles will need to be used on the SRT corridor.

The only possible routes I see are Heavy Rapid Rapid Transit via. McCowan or Light Rail Rapid Transit via the SRT corridor. Somehow I doubt that Murray's Heavy Rail Rapid Transit via SRT corridor idea was very well thought out. Probably something scribbled on a napkin hours before the announcement.

It also negates one of the main advantages of the McCowan subway, that the SRT riders won't need to ride buses for 2.5 years as the SRT converted.

 

[Solid Snake]

He's endorsing that people who know what they're doing look at ridership numbers to determine which mode of transit works for that number of people and to determine whether full grade separation is required or not.

If you look at the projected ridership numbers you simply look at the range it falls under to determine the mode.

For example Eglinton is projected to have 5400 ppphd in 2031, well below the required 10,000 ppphd which is the minimum for full grade separation (subway).

http://thecrosstown.ca/the-project/reports/EglintonCrosstownLRTEnvironmentalProjectReport

page 59 of the report

http://www.neptis.org/sites/default...olinxs_big_move_neptis_foundation_schabas.pdf

Eglinton Crosstown Ridership

There are some inconsistencies in the data presented in the Eglinton Crosstown BCA. Ridership seems to be very high: about 350,000 per day and more than double the TTC forecast and three times existing bus ridership. Yet incremental revenues are very small, implying less than 10,000 new riders per day. Operating costs seem optimistic; the figures suggest that savings from operating fewer bus-km would not only entirely offset all costs of operating the LRT, but also provide a substantial surplus.

Metrolinx provides some total ridership figures for the “Big 5” schemes in a series of project fact sheets, but has not specified the proportion expected to be new riders. The Eglinton Crosstown BCA gives a figure of 105 million boardings in 2021, which works out to 350,000 riders per day with an annualization factor of 300. This is double TTC’s forecast of 176,000 per day, and about three times as much as current bus ridership on the route. It is also two-thirds of the current traffic on the Bloor Danforth subway. We question the validity of this figure.

The Metrolinx BCA provides a figure of $5.6 million per year or $101 million NPV for incremental
revenues on the Eglinton LRT. This figure implies new ridership of less than 10,000 per day. We do not understand how this figure can be consistent with Metrolinx’s forecast of 105 million boardings on the line in the same year. Again, we find the figure questionable.

Eglinton Crosstown Cost

Although LRT is often proposed as a way to offer the service speed of a subway, at the cost of a streetcar, the infrastructure costs are still substantial and in some cases not much less than for a full subway.

They are questioning TTC ridership numbers. Without going back to subways vs LRT, this line should have been 100% grade separated. Were the numbers purposely underestimated just to have at grade trains on the avenue?


Ways to improve the Eglinton Crosstown scheme

1.Reduce the number of intermediate stations, to reduce capital and operating costs, offer faster journey times that will attract more new riders, and reduce disruption in surrounding communities. There should be a maximum of 10 stations on the 11-km underground section. The Avenue Road, Chaplin, and Oakwood stations could be omitted. Laird Drive station can be deferred, and built if and when a developer makes a substantial capital contribution to the station. Capital cost savings would be about $600 million, with a further savings of $1 million per year O&M costs per station.

2. Use high-floor cars with a top speed of 100km/h, such as the ALRT Mark 3 being supplied to Vancouver, instead of the 80 km/h low-floor cars TTC has specified. Besides saving staff costs, the higher speeds and faster journey will attract additional riders. Note that, as on the subway and existing RT, high-floor ALRT cars stop at high platform stations and will therefore be fully accessible.

3. Grade-separate the entire line, so trains will not affect road traffic and will offer faster journeys for transit riders. East of Laird Drive and west of Weston Road, Eglinton is a wide street with plenty of space to build an elevated line without harming the environment. This would add about $800 million to project costs, or perhaps $100 million per km, compared with the surface line that is currently planned. Road traffic disruption will be greatly reduced and there will be little or no permanent loss of road space.

4. Automate the trains. With an entirely grade-separated line, trains can be automated, with large
operating cost savings and the ability to offer more frequent off-peak services.

5.Build shorter platforms to reduce station costs. Current plans show 150-metre platforms, similar to the subway. Savings of about $10 million per underground station, or about $100 million could be captured by building 60-metre platforms, sufficient for all foreseeable traffic.

Eglinton East being at grade makes no sense at all. The truth is that the numbers were underestimated on purpose by those who designed Transit City. They wanted the line to be at grade and ignored the fact that it would easily qualify for 100% grade separated. When Ford and McGuinty signed the MOU to merge Scarborough LRT and Eglinton LRT into a single line, Metrolinx number confirmed that the ridership would be higher than 10,000 pph.

And yet, we're botching this project as of now...

 

[ehlow]

Ahh the Neptis report

I have no doubt Eglinton will have good ridership per day (way more than Sheppard), but it's the peak person per hour that you have to look at to determine things like whether it needs grade separation or not, from what I understand.

Do you dispute that the peak person per hour projection in 2031 is 5400 PPPHD as specified in the EA? If so, what number do you think it will be and why?

The fact that transit experts and planners decided that full grade separation is not required during a study of it is pretty convincing to me.

 

[Solid Snake]

Ahh the Neptis report

I have no doubt Eglinton will have good ridership per day (way more than Sheppard), but it's the peak person per hour that you have to look at to determine things like whether it needs grade separation or not, from what I understand.

Do you dispute that the peak person per hour projection in 2031 is 5400 PPPHD as specified in the EA? If so, what number do you think it will be and why?

The fact that transit experts and planners decided that full grade separation is not required during a study of it is pretty convincing to me.

Build as is, you are correct.

Build under the MOU, Metrolinx said above 10,000 pph just like Neptis numbers. Neptis also criticized the methodology used by the TTC to prepare the EA as flawed.

Old Post

Page 57 of the report

http://www.neptis.org/sites/default...olinxs_big_move_neptis_foundation_schabas.pdf


They are really tearing Transit City apart...especially how the reports to justify Transit City had poor methodology, incomplete data and flawed conclusions...border line bias.

Methodology

Although the schemes together will cost billions of dollars, and contracts are already being signed, there seems to have been very little evaluation of the economic or financial impacts. TTC staff produced an 18-page report, really just a memorandum,63 called “Evaluation and Comparison of Routes,” which simply lists the proposed schemes, giving their length, capital cost, and annual ridership. There is no mention of alternative routes or modes. There is no estimate of economic benefits. There is no information about operating costs or revenues. While the report breaks riders down into “Existing” and “New – Projected 2021” it is not clear whether these number represent riders that are new because of the scheme, or merely underlying growth; probably they include a bit of both. Background tables list potential populations and specific traffic generators that will be served, but no information was published on whether the impact would be worth the costs.

Methodology

The Transit City schemes attracted political support very quickly, and Metrolinx included them in The Big
Move. Four of Metrolinx’s “Big 5” schemes are in fact Transit City schemes.65 Transit City materials are liberally illustrated with photographs of trams running on tree-lined avenues. But they are short on hard facts and figures about cost, ridership and benefits.

Transit City cost ratio

According to Metrolinx’s own Benefit Case Analyses, these schemes are not worthwhile, at least as transport investments. The Benefit:Cost ratios are all less than 1.0 and some are less than 0.5, indicating that costs are more than double the estimated benefits. Cost per new transit rider is high: $40,000 or more. At this rate, Metrolinx would need $50 billion to achieve its 2033 ridership objectives, not the $36 billion it
is currently trying to raise.


Transit City purpose

The Transit City schemes seem to have been developed more to achieve an urban design vision than to improve transportation in Toronto. The TTC’s original “Transit City” report of 2007 describes the scheme as supporting “city-building,” and includes pictures of LRT systems in attractive, mostly European environments. At about the same time, the city was developing its “Avenues” program, attempting to create a more pedestrian- and bicycle-friendly environment along urban and suburban arterials.[/B]

See note in red above. Tell me, should build an infrastructure capable of serving above 10,000 pph or keep it as is for flawed reasons to serve half of it?

 

[newearthling]

This is fun.

http://warrenkinsella.com/2014/03/kinsella-vs-kouvalis-a-comparison/
Kinsella vs. Kouvalis: a comparison

March 24th, 2014, 6:12 pm

Because the media are in the shorthand business – and because social media renders everything bite-sized and/or stupid – some people have taken to comparing me to John Tory’s campaign manager, Nick Kouvalis.

I cannot believe I have to actually spend five precious minutes of my life on this, but apparently I do. So, as a public service, here are some of the ways in which I differ from Nick Kouvalis.

• Kouvalis has been charged, criminally, for making death threats. I have never been charged with anything, although I have received two speeding tickets in my life, for which I apologize.

• Kouvalis has been found guilty of several ethical violations by the professional marketing/polling organization to which he belongs. I have never been found to have breached any professional rules or standards whatsoever – although, I was on the executive of both the Canadian Bar Association and the Ontario Bar Association, which I suppose was punishment enough.

• Kouvalis brags about using dirty tricks – fake identities and whatnot – in election campaigns. I have written books in which I have said, among other things, that dirty tricks do not work – and I have fired youngsters who show up with same. I did, however, wave around a purple dinosaur on TV once to poke fun at Kouvalis’ friend Stockwell Day. I admit that.

• Kouvalis uses front companies to conduct “polls†to push voters one way or another. I have written books in which I have said that “push polls†should be banned, and that those who make use of them are hurting democracy. I am old-fashioned about democracy, in that I think it is fragile thing, and worth defending.

• Kouvalis says that he is good at beating Liberals, and then went on to work for BC Liberal leader Christy Clark; he has said that John Tory wasn’t much of a leader, and then went on to work for John Tory. I, for my part, worked for many years for guys named Chrétien and McGuinty, and I have stuck by them, in good times and in bad.

• Kouvalis is friends with Rob Ford and ran his campaign in 2010. I consider Rob Ford to be a crack-smoking, heroin-dabbling, baldfaced-lying, drunk-driving thug who belongs in jail, not the mayor’s chair.

There you go. Those are some of the key ways in which Nick Kouvalis and I differ. There are others.

Oh, and Mr. Tory? Best of luck. With Kouvalis running the show, you will need it.

 

[salsa]

I did mention earlier that the old LRT plan merging tge crosstown with the Scarborough LRT was my favored plan, right?

Right. The plan that would have had the entire Eglinton line buried, paid for by raiding the funds from Finch and Sheppard. What a great plan.

 

[Solid Snake]

Right. The plan that would have had the entire Eglinton line buried, paid for by raiding the funds from Finch and Sheppard. What a great plan.

it was a better plan than this hybrid version of the line which left the Scarborough LRT vulnerable to hijacking. Was it necessary to be buried the whole way? No. Elevated tracks would have been an option but it would have been better than what were getting now.

 

[Silence&Motion]

This is fun.

http://warrenkinsella.com/2014/03/kinsella-vs-kouvalis-a-comparison/
Kinsella vs. Kouvalis: a comparison

Thanks for posting this. A great reminder of why Kouvalis is a scumbag who taints John Tory by association. When your campaign manager boasts about his ability to mislead the public, all the information released by your campaign becomes suspect.

 

[Silence&Motion]

Former TTC head calls transit debate "ludicrous"
David Gunn says the politicians and mayoral candidates should leave transit planning to the experts
Posted on 3/24/2014 5:02:00 PM by Justine Lewkowicz

It should be pointed out that the main reason transit planning is such a mess right now is because we have weak governments at both Queen's Park and City Hall. When we had strong leaders with fresh mandates in the mid 2000's (McGuinty and Miller) we had a coherent transit plan. It was not a transit plan that everyone supported (such a plan does not exist), but it was backed by politicians who had the confidence to see it through. Now we have a struggling minority government whose policies seem to be based entirely on buying individual ridings in order to ensure their survival. And we have a City Council with no mayor. If nothing else, hopefully 2014 will bring some stability back to both levels of government.

And to all those criticizing Chow for her unwillingness to hike property taxes in order to fund a DLR, keep in mind that Miller was able to secure billions of dollars to support Transit City without raising property taxes. The Left has traditionally favoured income and corporate taxes because they're progressive. Property and consumption taxes are not.

 

[edmundoconnor]

One thing Rob might get right--

ddale8 5:46pm via Web
Earlier today, Rob Ford predicted "the largest turnout in Toronto's history in municipal elections."

High turnouts rarely favour the incumbents.

 

[edmundoconnor]

Does anyone know who funded the Neptis report? It would be useful to know.

 

[edmundoconnor]

The Neptis report's criticisms of the Eglinton LRT ring hollow.

1. If you eliminate more stations, then yes, the train will run faster. However, if you see transit as a way of connecting people to places, then you don't always see things in such black and white terms. I doubt the author of the report would trouble himself to explain to the (upset) residents near the Oakwood, Avenue Road or Chaplin stops to explain why their communities aren't important enough to deserve a stop. If we eliminated every stop that didn't serve a given number of people, things would run faster, but much of the social utility of transit would be gone.

2. Given that the trains will likely never go faster than 50kph if they're lucky, buying ones that go 100 kph seems rather redundant.

3. The 'analysis' for the elevated portion is downright Panglossian in its optimism. The report ignores or downplays the cost of elevated stations, with the need for now-mandatory elevators, stairs, etc. making for an extensive footprint. The opinion of those living near such an elevated transitway appears not to have been considered. Elevated stations would be much more expensive to maintain, never mind expand.

4. Automation flows from the third suggestion, which as pointed out above, is problematic. Automation is impossible at-grade, because of the unpredictability of some intersections.

5. Smaller stations, especially underground ones, are hostages to fortune. You are perversely thinking that the line you are building will not be that much of a success. Vancouver's Canada Line suffers from a number of shortcomings, one of which is that the platforms are much too small, leaving it high and dry if and when people really start using it. We should see that line as a warning, not an example to emulate.

 

[ehlow]

Build as is, you are correct.

Build under the MOU, Metrolinx said above 10,000 pph just like Neptis numbers. Neptis also criticized the methodology used by the TTC to prepare the EA as flawed.

Old Post



See note in red above. Tell me, should build an infrastructure capable of serving above 10,000 pph or keep it as is for flawed reasons to serve half of it?

Yeah because the MOU version funnelled all the SRT riders heading downtown onto Eglinton . However right now the plan is still the Danforth subway extension, so those riders would be on Bloor instead, so that does not apply.

In the section of the EA where they decided on LRT instead of subway, they don't mention "urban design" at all! All they mention is that in the Official Plan, there may be development along Eglinton, which is perfectly valid, there could very well be condo developments at Leaside or in the Golden Mile in Scarborough in the future when the LRT is built.

From the EA:

Based on the City’s population and employment forecasts for the Eglinton Crosstown LRT corridor, the City
and the TTC have projected that the transit demand in the corridor will increase to 5,400 passengers per
hour in the peak direction at the busiest point on the line by 2031.

LRT was recommended as the preferred transit method over Subway/SRT and Bus Rapid Transit mainly
due to its passenger carrying capacity. The City forecast peak point demand for the Eglinton Crosstown
LRT corridor as shown in Exhibit 8 is 5,400 passengers per hour which is below the threshold of 10,000
passengers per hour that is normally required to justify the very high cost of constructing Subway/SRT
facilities.

So in 2031 it's at 54% the minimum requirement for a subway. Nothing about urban design that I see, it's just ridership estimates by transit planners and people the city employs to make transit decisions.

 

[ehlow]

ThAvenueis report's criticisms of the Eglinton LRT ring hollow.

1. If you eliminate more stations, then yes, the train will run faster. However, if you see transit as a way of connecting people to places, then you don't always see things in such black and white terms. I doubt the authors of the report would trouble themselves to explain to the (upset) residents near the Oakwood, Avenue Road or Chaplin stops to explain why their communities aren't important enough to deserve a stop. If we eliminated every stop that didn't serve a given number of people, things would run faster, but much of the social utility of transit would be gone.

2. Given that the trains will likely never go faster than 50kph if they're lucky, buying ones that go 100 kph seems rather redundant.

3. The 'analysis' for the elevated portion is downright Panglossian in its optimism. The report ignores or downplays the cost of elevated stations

The Neptis report values certain things in order to make its decisions. For example it tries to maximize "new riders" vs cost, and it's main recommendations weren't really about Eglinton, it was about using the GO corridors more. Making transit better for current users wasn't valued at all.

If the foundation that sponsored the report really wanted to make a difference to the LRTs they should have published the report years ago instead of the end of 2013.

There's a lot of discussion here:
http://stevemunro.ca/?p=8995

There was also a thread about it in the transit forum.

 

[adma]

Speaking of said transit forum, is there any way a lot of this discussion can be shunted onto a separate Election 2014-related thread *there*? Right now, it's hogging all the oxygen here (and blotting out other tidbits like another Forum Research poll showing Ford back on top)