[gweed123]

Where would stations go on a BD extension to STC? I'd guess 2 inbetween stations; one at Eglinton/Brimely/Danforth and another at Lawrence/McCowan. Would the passenger demand from these stations exceed what is lost at the existing Lawrence East, Ellesmere, and Midland stations, not to mention the proposed SRT stations at Brimley, Bellamy, Centennial College, Sheppard, and Malvern.

I don't think it's fair to throw in the extension stations into the debate between going from Kennedy to STC. There's nothing saying that those stations cannot be built as some other form of LRT or BRT. I see the refurb and the extension as two separate projects, they just happen to be happening simultaneously. But yes, I do believe that the ridership of those two stations would be greater than the current 3 stations in between Kennedy and STC. And there's nothing stopping the TTC from building a buses-only road along at least part of the proposed SLRT extension route, at a cost that's magnitudes less.

In theory, ultimately, it could do both. There is no reason not to have branches. However if the Eglinton LRT get's extended to STC, there is always the option (ultimately) of extending the BD line east with stations at Eglinton/Brimley/Danforth, Bellamy (Eglinton GO), and perhaps even Kingston Road. Though presumably at some point in the far future.

I would think it would be more likely that an LRT could be extended in the future along Kingston Rd, rather than a subway. Routing the ECLRT anywhere east or north of Kennedy basically ensures that B-D will only ever get a 1 or 2 stop extension. I'm not saying routing Eglinton to STC wouldn't work, because it definitely would. Thinking very long-term though, what's the best option? Routing ECLRT to STC would mean that, aside from Sheppard, no subway line will be going any further east into Scarborough, except for maybe a couple new stops along Eglinton east. At least with B-D to STC, there's the option of eventually pushing the subway further east along a pretty major corridor (the 401 and surroundings).

 

[nfitz]

I don't think it's fair to throw in the extension stations into the debate between going from Kennedy to STC.

Why not? That is what will be sacrificed to get the money for the subway extension to STC. In 2010 dollars the subway extension would cost about $2 billion (2010 dollars), while the SRT to Sheppard costs about $1.8 billion in 2010 dollars (the Metrolinx cost is $2.465 billion in escalated dollars, but most of the spending is 2018-2020 ($1.9 billion), so $1.8 is converted to 2010 dollars using the 4% escalation rate)

It's a cost/benefit analysis. If we could build a 9-station SRT conversion/extension to Sheppard for the same cost as just a 3-station subway to STC, then we have to compare one to the other.

I see the refurb and the extension as two separate projects, they just happen to be happening simultaneously

It's a question of where the $ come from.

At least with B-D to STC, there's the option of eventually pushing the subway further east along a pretty major corridor (the 401 and surroundings).

There's always the option of pushing subway further. Presumably once LRT is in place, any subway extensions with LRT nearby would have extremely wide stop spacings. BD could simply have stops after Kennedy at Scarborough Centre and then in Markham, if there is LRT as well. If SELRT is built, then a Sheppard subway could simply stop at Agincourt and STC ... and then onto Durham. If LRT is built along Dundas into Mississauga from Kipling, then a BD extension can run non-stop or one-stop to Square One.

 

[Dan416]

Fixed it for you. I'm assuming that's what you meant anyways, haha.

Well if you separated the streetcars from the cars, gave them some signal priority, and reduced the number of stops, then they may actually be "rapid transit". Or at least not as plodding as they are now.

Buses I don't mind terribly. Although they can still be annoying.

 

[nfitz]

Well if you separated the streetcars from the cars, gave them some signal priority, and reduced the number of stops, then they may actually be "rapid transit". Or at least not as plodding as they are now.

Buses I don't mind terribly. Although they can still be annoying.

Streetcars don't operate any slower than buses on the same route. The TTC Service Summary shows that the Coxwell (Danforth-Queen) bus only does 10.9 km/hr in rush-hour. The Dupont to Queen's Quay Bay bus does 12.5 km/hr. Compare to 12.3 km/hr for the Bathurst streetcar.

So I guess your now saying that a 25 to 30 km/hr LRT is rapid transit?

 

[toto]

IBM has LRT's in it's future.

IBM has LRT's in it's future. Why can't Toronto?

Here is a IBM Youtube video about developments it is planning in the next 5 years. Including traffic info updates. Mayor Ford needs to get his head out of a 1950's version of moving people, into a 21st century, IBM vision of traffic movment.[video=youtube;anKiEoxkpxM]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=anKiEoxkpxM[/video]

Screen grab attached shows LRT.

 

[reaperexpress]

I actually agree with the LRT guys on this one, there isn't much point in making it a subway, as long as it's grade-separated though (and that's the real key, in order for the LRT to be effective, it needs to be 100% grade separated).

The whole point of LRT is that it allows for level crossings to reduce construction costs. Although the TTC seems to take this as meaning that we need next to no grade separation, it doesn't have to be that way. Real LRT stops for nothing other than LRT stops, so it gets priority over any cross traffic. Consequently, when it crosses a major arterial grade separation is warranted, because residents would get pretty angry if car traffic were stopped every few minutes.

Some examples of Eglinton LRT intersections that should be grade separated:
- Don Mills (already part of TC plan)
- Black Creek Drive (proposed but rejected in TC Plan)
- Keele

Some examples of Eglinton LRT intersections that don't need grade separation (but they should have 100% transit priority):
- Don Valley Parkway ramps
- Credit Union Dr.
- Emmett Ave.
- Russell Rd.

In order for Eglinton to reach subway-level demand, there would need to be at least 5 N-S rapid transit connections to it (currently there would be 3, DRL East and West are needed). Otherwise, all you're doing is the same thing Transit City was designed to do: dump passengers onto an already over-crowded YUS. If YUS has a surplus capacity of only 5,000pphpd at Eglinton, does it really matter that the line has a capacity of 20,000pphpd? Unless 75% of the passengers AREN'T transferring onto YUS (which is extremely unlikely), then the answer is no. The ridership on Eglinton will ultimately be determined by the ridership on the bisecting N-S routes. As long as Eglinton is able to shuttle those riders freely without interference from cars from 1 N-S line to another, then it will do its job.

If the Eglinton line dumps 20,000 pphpd onto the Yonge Line, the DRL will get built in no time.
I have a feeling that simply allowing the TTC to make this mistake will be beneficial in the long run. Spending tons of money fixing a massive overcrowding problem is far more politically viable than spending money to prevent one.

Having said that, hopefully Metrolinx uses the money from Finch West to grade-separate Eglinton east and west outside of the tunnel.

I'm with you 100% that we need grade separation, but 100% grade separation is not necessary because it would drive up the costs, increasing opposition to the LRT itself.

 

[Dan416]

IBM has LRT's in it's future. Why can't Toronto?

Here is a IBM Youtube video about developments it is planning in the next 5 years. Including traffic info updates. Mayor Ford needs to get his head out of a 1950's version of moving people, into a 21st century, IBM vision of traffic movment.[video=youtube;anKiEoxkpxM]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=anKiEoxkpxM[/video]

Screen grab attached shows LRT.

You gotta admit that's a rather weak argument for LRT. I mean, if that's the best you got, you might as well argue for monorails and flying cars.

 

[allabootmatt]

I didn't see this commented on here (and by now it's well in the past), but per Steve Munro, at the Dec. 15 TTC commission meeting approval was received for the lease of a new building to house an expanded streetcar overhead department (for conversion of the legacy network to pantograph, as will be necessary for the new LRVs long-term). The Commission also deferred a decision on an extra $50-odd million for the new Ashbridges Bay carhouse, but because it wanted to explore different site options due to mounting soil remediation costs and some changes in the availability of alternatives. Apparently 'we won't need a carhouse because we're gonna rip out the network' wasn't a sentiment expressed at the meeting. Details here: http://stevemunro.ca/?p=4697

I suppose these are good signs for Ford's designs on the legacy streetcar system, at least for now. Even if he does still hope to rip it out, I am heartened (knock on wood) that such craziness isn't yet being discussed, since the longer it waits the less political capital he will have to spend. I suspect that after the first six months or so of his mayoralty, the large category of 'stuff that only Rob Ford thinks is a good idea' will become much, much harder to get past Council or defend in the media.

 

[W. K. Lis]

The whole point of LRT is that it allows for level crossings to reduce construction costs. Although the TTC seems to take this as meaning that we need next to no grade separation, it doesn't have to be that way. Real LRT stops for nothing other than LRT stops, so it gets priority over any cross traffic. Consequently, when it crosses a major arterial grade separation is warranted, because residents would get pretty angry if car traffic were stopped every few minutes.

Some examples of Eglinton LRT intersections that should be grade separated:
- Don Mills (already part of TC plan)
- Black Creek Drive (proposed but rejected in TC Plan)
- Keele

Some examples of Eglinton LRT intersections that don't need grade separation (but they should have 100% transit priority):
- Don Valley Parkway ramps
- Credit Union Dr.
- Emmett Ave.
- Russell Rd.




If the Eglinton line dumps 20,000 pphpd onto the Yonge Line, the DRL will get built in no time.
I have a feeling that simply allowing the TTC to make this mistake will be beneficial in the long run. Spending tons of money fixing a massive overcrowding problem is far more politically viable than spending money to prevent one.



I'm with you 100% that we need grade separation, but 100% grade separation is not necessary because it would drive up the costs, increasing opposition to the LRT itself.

I would add Weston Road, Islington, Kipling, and Martin Grove to the list of grade separed intersections as well. Weston Road as an underground station.

In addition, because the new low-floor streetcars coming soon, we should start Proof-Of-Payment (POP) as well as timed-transfers now on all streetcar routes, before expanding it across the network.

 

[gweed123]

I would add Weston Road, Islington, Kipling, and Martin Grove to the list of grade separed intersections as well. Weston Road as an underground station.

In addition, because the new low-floor streetcars coming soon, we should start Proof-Of-Payment (POP) as well as timed-transfers now on all streetcar routes, before expanding it across the network.

I think the entire network should be time-based transfers. The whole system in Ottawa used time-based, and I find it to be much easier to use.

 

[Dan416]

Time-based transfers are a no-brainer. Meaning the TTC has been brain-dead not to implement them widely up to now.

 

[GraphicMatt]

Timed transfers would result in a hit to revenue which the TTC can't really afford at the moment. It's another downfall of running a system with such a small operating subsidy.

 

[gweed123]

Timed transfers would result in a hit to revenue which the TTC can't really afford at the moment. It's another downfall of running a system with such a small operating subsidy.

Maybe a small hit. But more people may be willing to use it for discretionary trips (such as grocery shopping), where before it would have cost them two fares, but under the new system, just one.

And maybe they could balance it out by implementing a modern payment system at the same time.

 

[W. K. Lis]

Timed transfers would result in a hit to revenue which the TTC can't really afford at the moment. It's another downfall of running a system with such a small operating subsidy.

There will be a fare increases this year for sure, but a timed-transfer would make any increase more acceptable.

 

[reaperexpress]

I would add Weston Road, Islington, Kipling, and Martin Grove to the list of grade separated intersections as well. Weston Road as an underground station.

In addition, because the new low-floor streetcars coming soon, we should start Proof-Of-Payment (POP) as well as timed-transfers now on all streetcar routes, before expanding it across the network.

Those were only some examples of grade separations, not a complete list. I agree with you on all counts.

POP needs to be in operation before the new streetcars arrive, because they won't be able to operate using PAYE. This means reconfiguring all the streetcar-subway interchanges by moving streetcars outside the fare paid zone. This could be a big task, but I don't see any talks about it from the TTC.

Timed transfers would result in a hit to revenue which the TTC can't really afford at the moment. It's another downfall of running a system with such a small operating subsidy.

I don't think time-based transfers will have much of an impact on the bottom line. They reduce the cost of short trips, such as shopping trips, but they keep the cost for commuters exactly the same. That means that off-peak ridership will grow without increasing pressure at rush hour, filling up empty buses and trains without cramming already crowded ones. I think the increase in ridership due to more reasonable fares would take out a lot of the impact of the average fare reduction.