[TOareaFan]

Undoubtedly, although I suppose the "escape clause" is that these projects were already prioritized by Metrolinx, and they are allowing the processes to continue.

But between this and the new legislation, it's easy to see the province taking a much firmer hand at the controls, for better or worse.

This may sound like a sarchastic question...but it isn't....for the purposes of transit...has anyone actually defined "shovel ready".

With Mr. Giambrone's statement that earliest construction of this line is "at least" 18 months away....a simple 2 month delay (which ain't hard) would mean that this "shovel ready" project might not create a single construction job until 2011......hardly the impression the announcing politicians gave.

 

[rbt]

Exactly, although given the TTC's projections of 26-27 km/h on the surface segments, I fear we are wasting a huge amount of money on projects that will be only marginally better than buses, other than for the central tunneled section of Eglinton.

Marginally better? You will be able to get on this vehicle. The buses are full, more cannot easily (or cheaply) be added, congestion is worsening.

Transit city is about boosting capacity and reducing operating expenses per rider. It has always been about that ever since planners under Lastman released a list of roads which would be excessively congested in 2011.

 

[DavidH]

Marginally better? You will be able to get on this vehicle. The buses are full, more cannot easily (or cheaply) be added, congestion is worsening.

Transit city is about boosting capacity and reducing operating expenses per rider. It has always been about that ever since planners under Lastman released a list of roads which would be excessively congested in 2011.

Then why has Transit City, from its earliest announcement, been called a "rapid transit" system.

There is a name for this, and it's called "bait and switch". Instead of calling it rapid transit, we should simply be calling it "reliability improvements".

 

[Tuscani01]

Then why has Transit City, from its earliest announcement, been called a "rapid transit" system.

Because the "RT" in LRT stands for rapid transit? Its exactly what Transit City is. Having had to rely on the Eglinton West bus every morning for two years, I can say ANY improvement, will be a great one. As was stated, even getting on a bus now is difficult. That could cut commuting time by up to 10 minutes alone.

 

[DavidH]

Because the "RT" in LRT stands for rapid transit? Its exactly what Transit City is.

The "R" in "LRT" can stand for "rail" or "rapid". And in this case, 26 km/h on the surface sections is hard to call "rapid".

 

[Ansem]

Because the "RT" in LRT stands for rapid transit? Its exactly what Transit City is. Having had to rely on the Eglinton West bus every morning for two years, I can say ANY improvement, will be a great one. As was stated, even getting on a bus now is difficult. That could cut commuting time by up to 10 minutes alone.

that's not rapid transit, it a service and capacity improvement but not rapid transit

 

[Tuscani01]

The "R" in "LRT" can stand for "rail" or "rapid". And in this case, 26 km/h on the surface sections is hard to call "rapid".

26km/h without any traffic or lights is pretty rapid. Subways travel around 40km/h. The LRT wouldn't be too far off, and may even be faster in the tunneled portion.

 

[DavidH]

that's not rapid transit, it a service and capacity improvement but not rapid transit

Bingo.

I'd have no problem with all of this stuff if it had been positioned as such from the beginning, but it hasn't been. Instead, it's been positioned as a low-cost subway idea, and it isn't.

The city desperately needs longer distance ways of getting around, and it's hard to see that TC as it presently exists provides that except for the tunnelled core of Eglinton (because of the absence of stop lights since I have zero confidence that a proper transit priority program will be established, and because of the doubled distance between stops).

 

[Whoaccio]

Doesn't the "R" in "LRT" stand for Light Rail Transit? LRVs are Light Rail Vehicles, and no TTC brochure remarks how "Light Rapid" is coming to Scarborough.

Regardless, arguing that T/C is "rapid" by virtue of euphemistic labeling is ridiculous. Its been pointed out here that travel times on routes like Sheppard East could very well increase, thanks to grossly higher headway with only marginal speed increases, which certainly strains the use of the word "rapid." Of T/C, the only route which really meets LRT standards is Eglinton. Most of the others are just trams in medians.

 

[Tuscani01]

Doesn't the "R" in "LRT" stand for Light Rail Transit? LRVs are Light Rail Vehicles, and no TTC brochure remarks how "Light Rapid" is coming to Scarborough.

It can stand for both. And Scarborough already has Rapid Transit (SRT). Its just being refurbished.

 

[nfitz]

26km/h without any traffic or lights is pretty rapid. Subways travel around 40km/h.

According to the TTC's own schedule, in AM rush-hour the Bloor-Danforth averages 31.2 km/hr and the YUS averages 30.9 km/hr. The highest for these 2 routes is the late-night weekday service which is 32.4 km/hr on both lines. If we get 26 km/hr then that's pretty good.

Of course the SRT averages the best, being 36.6 km/hr in AM peak.

 

[Tuscani01]

According to the TTC's own schedule, in AM rush-hour the Bloor-Danforth does 31.2 km/hr and the YUS does 30.9 km/hr. The highest for these 2 routes is the late-night weekday service whish is 32.4 km/hr on both lines. If we get 26 km/hr then that's pretty good.

Of course the SRT does the best, being 36.6 km/hr in AM peak.

Even better. Thanks.

 

[DavidH]

Let's be clear; the surface portions of TC will succeed or fail based on whether or not a real transit priority mechanism is in place. If one is such that vehicles get "green" pretty much exactly when they need it and spend minimal time waiting at reds, it'll be good.

Is there any evidence to suggest that we'll get good TSP?

 

[nfitz]

Is there any evidence to suggest that we'll get good TSP?

The best predictor of future behaviour is past performance. And to that end we have the Spadina, Harbourfront, and part of the St. Clair LRTs in place - which in AM Peak average 14.1 km/hr (12.6 km/hr on the service to King), 14.0 km/hr, and 11.3 km/hr (the section currently served by buses in mixed traffic is 12.3 km/hr). Interestingly, the much maligned King and Queen cars are faster that St. Clair averaging 13.3 km/hr and 15.8 km/hr.

As St. Clair is pretty close to what they want to do for Transit City, I'd say that the evidence is that we won't get good TSP.

 

[Tuscani01]

The best predictor of future behaviour is past performance. And to that end we have the Spadina, Harbourfront, and part of the St. Clair LRTs in place - which in AM Peak average 14.1 km/hr (12.6 km/hr on the service to King), 14.0 km/hr, and 11.3 km/hr (the section currently served by buses in mixed traffic is 12.3 km/hr).

As St. Clair is pretty close to what they want to do for Transit City, I'd say that the evidence is that we won't get good TSP.

Then again, the TTC isn't saying Transit City is going to be like the St. Clair ROW. Im assuming and hoping thats the case.