[Electrify]

I was reading a book called Toronto Sprawls, which details the history of the city's growth through the 20th century. Side note, despite the author being pro-oil and even being a climate change denier, even he is against urban sprawl as it is unsustainable economically and environmentally (actually I thought he was a progressive until just now when I Googled him).

Back on topic, early on he details how the private streetcar network in the city was one of the most profitable on the continent, despite having the poorest service. He points out that while other private operators were constructing new suburbs for their tracks to go through, the Toronto Railway Company focused on servicing the developed urban area exclusively, with the fewest lines possible. In fact the city had to start their own streetcar company to serve the growing suburbs.

When I read this, it got me thinking about how so little has changed, despite public ownership. 100 years later, Toronto's transit continues to focus more on revenue generation than efficiently moving people. One example which comes to mind is in a long lost thread here (though it may have been Skyscraper City) discussing opportunities to expand transit on Finch Ave. Running transit along the hydro corridor would create an excellent opportunity to provide rapid transit to the far reaches of the city at a low cost. However it was decried because a local service would have to operate along Finch itself, and running duplicate services would be wasteful - even if it did better meet individuals' transportation needs.

Another point is the implementation of timed transfers. The TTC has continued to relay mixed messages about their implementation, and continues to be concerned about their cost impact. However it chooses to ignore not only the greater good for the city if such a fare system was implemented, but also how it would make transit more attractive for shorter trips - which is what the TTC should excel best at with its frequent stop spacing (which I believe has more to do with creating more points for revenue than it is about meeting local needs).

Of course, the biggest elephant in the room are the Sheppard and Eglinton/Scarborough subway lines. Perhaps such a line may end up costing more to operate, but there certainly are mobility benefits in linking the Scarborough, Pickering, and Oshawa urban growth centres directly onto the subway system rather than requiring an extra transfer to bridge them to the rest of them to the rest of the public transit network. Hell, we aren't even giving our new LRT lines limited/express stop operation, simply because we are too cheap to consider running a local bus alongside!

I'm not saying that we should build Ford's transit plan, or that we should throw out all fiscal sense in favour of building subways everywhere. I'm saying that in providing a service there needs to be a balance between revenue and quality. One of the benefits of a public service is that it generally favours quality because it is subsidized by the public at large, and thus needs to be less concerned about profits to stay afloat compared to a private service. However the way that we obsess over costs regarding transit, one would think otherwise.

 

[diminutive]

He points out that while other private operators were constructing new suburbs for their tracks to go through, the Toronto Railway Company focused on servicing the developed urban area exclusively, with the fewest lines possible. In fact the city had to start their own streetcar company to serve the growing suburbs.

When I read this, it got me thinking about how so little has changed, despite public ownership. 100 years later, Toronto's transit continues to focus more on revenue generation than efficiently moving people.

I kind of drew the exact opposite conclusion. The TTC's expanded a lot into the suburbs in order to improve rapid transit coverage, often with less of a focus on ridership recovery than socioeconomic concerns ('serving priority neighbourhoods') or simple parochialism (Scarborough *deserves* a subway...)

All of the major RT projects I can think of since the BD subway was built seem, primarily, to expand coverage to less dense parts of the City. The Sheppard Subway, Eglinton Crosstown, Eglinton West subway (back in the day), the Spadina extension ect... Transit City, the major transit plan of our last, um, cogent Mayorlty came after a decade long boom in downtown living yet focused exclusively on suburban orbital routes.

Plus running the entire suburban bus network to feed these lines.

I think a more revenue conscious TTC would have focused more on building its downtown routes where it doesn't have to support huge feeder bus networks. That's not to criticize any of the aforementioned projects, they just don't seem like what an organization prioritizing revenue growth would have championed.

 

[innsertnamehere]

the problem becomes not whether or not to duplicate service, but rather if the money spent on duplicating that service is better spent elsewhere. (which it most certainly is)

 

[W. K. Lis]

1978 was the year when the Spadina extension of the 1 Yonge-University-Spadina opened from St. George to Wilson Stations, that included stations within the old City of Toronto. Except for the underground streetcar tunnel (subway) from Queen's Quay to Union Station and the underground Spadina streetcar loop at Spadina Station, there would be no new subways (defined as electric underground railways) built within the old City of Toronto, until today with the construction starting on the Eglinton Crosstown LRT.

 

[ssiguy2]

The UP Link is an excellent example of how the city seems more concerned with revenue than providing a transit service for the masses. If it was just made part of the standard TTC system, potentially hundreds of thousands could use the line everyday instead of few thousand they are expecting. The only thing public about the UP Link is that is was the public that paid for it.

 

[Electrify]

I kind of drew the exact opposite conclusion. The TTC's expanded a lot into the suburbs in order to improve rapid transit coverage, often with less of a focus on ridership recovery than socioeconomic concerns ('serving priority neighbourhoods') or simple parochialism (Scarborough *deserves* a subway...)

All of the major RT projects I can think of since the BD subway was built seem, primarily, to expand coverage to less dense parts of the City. The Sheppard Subway, Eglinton Crosstown, Eglinton West subway (back in the day), the Spadina extension ect... Transit City, the major transit plan of our last, um, cogent Mayorlty came after a decade long boom in downtown living yet focused exclusively on suburban orbital routes.

Plus running the entire suburban bus network to feed these lines.

I think a more revenue conscious TTC would have focused more on building its downtown routes where it doesn't have to support huge feeder bus networks. That's not to criticize any of the aforementioned projects, they just don't seem like what an organization prioritizing revenue growth would have championed.

I was referring to the focus on cost containment rather than network planning at this point, though that is a fair observation. Hell, back when the B-D line was designed and constructed in the 50s and 60s, it was as a crosstown line rather than as a connection into downtown.

 

[Electrify]

The UP Link is an excellent example of how the city seems more concerned with revenue than providing a transit service for the masses. If it was just made part of the standard TTC system, potentially hundreds of thousands could use the line everyday instead of few thousand they are expecting. The only thing public about the UP Link is that is was the public that paid for it.

Wow, I'm getting a sense of irony here, cause now I have to disagree with this conclusion! The UP line will provide a regional metro line to the northwest inner suburbs of Toronto, while not compromising its efficiency as a shuttle between downtown and the airport. I have no problems with the TTC using the corridor to put in their own rapid transit line, but the UP line should remain express.

 

[kEiThZ]

I understand the concern about revenue. Unfortunately, what most transit geeks don't get (and maybe even many bureaucrats) is that when you are stuck waiting for a bus in -10 weather for 30 minutes, it's hard for the average rider/voter/taxpayer (most often forget that's one person), to feel that they are getting their money's worth.

It's this value proposition that's driving the whole, "we want subways" cry in the burbs. Subways to them represent the pinnacle of transit for three reasons: speed, comfort, convenience.

I would posit that if the system could offer those characteristics in a different form, you wouldn't see the same demand for subways. Here's the thing, the LRTs work on barely 1.5 of those three counts. It may be faster, but it doesn't get you to your final destination substantially faster. It's more comfortable to be sure. But on convenience, it's either no change or worse (you are walking further to the stop).

This is why I have alway believed that all-day GO integrated with the TTC should have been the first project. Would have utterly changed the way people look at transit in the region. The biggest impact would have been in the inner burbs. Those commuters would now be getting downtown 30 minutes faster. With that accomplished, all of a sudden, LRTs would not have been a hard sell at all. Nor would new taxes. Instead, in typical Toronto fashion, you have agencies that can't cooperate and politicians who think they can somehow impose new taxes without actually showing riders any tangible benefits first.

 

[dowlingm]

Let's not run away with ourselves. UPX is a 4 car maximum DMU set (limitation of the Pearson platform) running on conventional heavy rail rules without cab signals. It's not even the Sheppard subway!

 

[scar_resident]

I understand the concern about revenue. Unfortunately, what most transit geeks don't get (and maybe even many bureaucrats) is that when you are stuck waiting for a bus in -10 weather for 30 minutes, it's hard for the average rider/voter/taxpayer (most often forget that's one person), to feel that they are getting their money's worth.

It's this value proposition that's driving the whole, "we want subways" cry in the burbs. Subways to them represent the pinnacle of transit for three reasons: speed, comfort, convenience.

I would posit that if the system could offer those characteristics in a different form, you wouldn't see the same demand for subways. Here's the thing, the LRTs work on barely 1.5 of those three counts. It may be faster, but it doesn't get you to your final destination substantially faster. It's more comfortable to be sure. But on convenience, it's either no change or worse (you are walking further to the stop).

This is why I have alway believed that all-day GO integrated with the TTC should have been the first project. Would have utterly changed the way people look at transit in the region. The biggest impact would have been in the inner burbs. Those commuters would now be getting downtown 30 minutes faster. With that accomplished, all of a sudden, LRTs would not have been a hard sell at all. Nor would new taxes. Instead, in typical Toronto fashion, you have agencies that can't cooperate and politicians who think they can somehow impose new taxes without actually showing riders any tangible benefits first.

GO would have to address capacity issues before attempting linkage with TTC (talking about physically transferring more passengers, not the physical linkage of GO and TTC platforms). LSE local (all stops pickering to union) is jammed during rush hour, it's standing room only from Eglinton in the morning. The Lincoln/Stoufville line is also filled by the time it hits Kennedy Station transfer stop. I know that the LSW line is equally stressed. I think that because both TTC and GO have capacity issues neither wants more transfers. It is curious that when GO has a major incident suspending services they do have an agreement where GO passengers can transfer to TTC to continue their trip for free. If BD line has major shutdown, there is no opportunity to transfer or even pay a co-fare to transfer to nearby GO line.

 

[Rainforest]

The UP Link is an excellent example of how the city seems more concerned with revenue than providing a transit service for the masses. If it was just made part of the standard TTC system, potentially hundreds of thousands could use the line everyday instead of few thousand they are expecting. The only thing public about the UP Link is that is was the public that paid for it.

Yes it should have been designed as a part of the standard TTC system.

But the city has no control over the UP link. It is entirely a provincial / Metrolinx project.

 

[rbt]

GO would have to address capacity issues before attempting linkage with TTC (talking about physically transferring more passengers, not the physical linkage of GO and TTC platforms). LSE local (all stops pickering to union) is jammed during rush hour, it's standing room only from Eglinton in the morning. The Lincoln/Stoufville line is also filled by the time it hits Kennedy Station transfer stop. I know that the LSW line is equally stressed. I think that because both TTC and GO have capacity issues neither wants more transfers. It is curious that when GO has a major incident suspending services they do have an agreement where GO passengers can transfer to TTC to continue their trip for free. If BD line has major shutdown, there is no opportunity to transfer or even pay a co-fare to transfer to nearby GO line.

The $8B being spent on Eglinton would go a heck of a long way toward fixing GO integration problems.

$5B for track improvements like we're seeing on Georgetown, $1B to electrify (rolling stock, grounding, and electrical), another $1B on Union Station (second level/tunnel as necessary), $500M for integration (bus loops/ties into subway stations), and $500M subsidy for a couple years operating subsidy.

Result is 5 to 20 minute frequencies on most GO lines between Union and some termination point in the 905; but no Eglinton line.


GO, prior to merging with Metrolinx, didn't really think big for their own stuff and prefered tiny incremental upgrades. Georgetown is a huge project for them (5x bigger than anything they've done in the past as a single project).

If the merger with Metrolinx occurred prior to the first round of Big Move funding being announced, it might have been applied differently.

 

[Adjei]

The $8B being spent on Eglinton would go a heck of a long way toward fixing GO integration problems.

$5B for track improvements like we're seeing on Georgetown, $1B to electrify (rolling stock, grounding, and electrical), another $1B on Union Station (second level/tunnel as necessary), $500M for integration (bus loops/ties into subway stations), and $500M subsidy for a couple years operating subsidy.

Result is 5 to 20 minute frequencies on most GO lines between Union and some termination point in the 905; but no Eglinton line.


GO, prior to merging with Metrolinx, didn't really think big for their own stuff and prefered tiny incremental upgrades. Georgetown is a huge project for them (5x bigger than anything they've done in the past as a single project).

If the merger with Metrolinx occurred prior to the first round of Big Move funding being announced, it might have been applied differently.

The 8 billion is not for Eglinton alone, it's for Eglinton, Finch, Sheppard, and the Scarborough RT. I don't know why we are always putting transit projects against each other. We need all these projects to come forward, our transit is so set back that everything is needed. In order for one project to go forward, another much needed project doesnt have to fail.

 

[rbt]

The 8 billion is not for Eglinton alone, it's for Eglinton, Finch, Sheppard, and the Scarborough RT. I don't know why we are always putting transit projects against each other. We need all these projects to come forward, our transit is so set back that everything is needed. In order for one project to go forward, another much needed project doesnt have to fail.

Yes, correct. The priority over all of those projects, (except minimal maintenance of the SRT), could have been 10 minute frequencies on all GO lines.

 

[RC8]

If we were prioritising revenue we would have built a DRL before any other section of Transit City.

My opinion is that Toronto treats transit and cycling as social services geared towards the poor - rather than as viable transportation alternatives for everyone.