[nfitz]

I don't understand you. What is it that you want for Toronto?

I want us to move ahead as fast as possible with the proposals that are on the table; which while not perfect, will signficantly improve transit in this city.

What I do not want, is the Ottawa situation, which has delayed them dealing with their downtown transit problem now for 30 years! (and likely much longer yet, have you heard the latest? After scrapping the O-Train for LRT, they've started talking about scrapping the LRT for heavy-rail subway ... and while various proposals have merits, decades of discussion with no construction or funding, has resulted in no action.

My nightmare scenario is that a new Premier or Mayor would stop all construction, pending a review ... and then 4 years after that we go into the 2014 mayoral election with nothing actually having been built, when there could have been near completion on several major projects.

 

[gweed123]

What???

Look at St. Clair; look at the traffic light and other intersection spacing. 200 to 300 metres is pretty common. 400 to 500 metres is more common. That's a huge difference! Combined with the turning restrictions on intersection, the longer vehicles (St. Clair is running with one-door loading CLRVs), the all-door loading, there are huge differences!

They will use the same type of in-median lanes, same type of platforms, same type of vehicles (twinned new streetcars), same headways. But because the streets on St. Clair are closer together it suddenly doesn't make it an LRT?

Granted right now it isn't really an LRT because it is still using the older streetcars, but when the new ones are delievered, it will be identical to most other TC routes (aside from the intersection spacing).

 

[scarberiankhatru]

We're better off not building some of the Transit City lines. The entire scheme should be put on the backburner until things like the GO network, fare integration, and the DRL are dealt with.

Maybe nothing will change, but there's certainly the possibility things will. The new lines won't even be property of TTC. They will be owned by Metrolinx, and one can hope the Metrolinx guys have their heads screwed on straight enough that they will call TTC out on their bouts of operation incompetence. And the physical properties of this corridor in itself is different enough from Spadina or St Clair that some of the more obvious problems won't be an issue.

And we shouldn't bother to address as many operational cancers as possible within the TTC before spending $10 or $12 or more billion dollars on the lines? There's better things we can do with that much money...a funding windfall of a lifetime and it's being squandered (though even a funding windfall isn't enough to pay for all of Transit City's bloat).

I'm imagining town houses, mid-rises, and streetfront retail on the current greenfields along Richview.

You should take a trip along Sheppard, from Downsview to well east of Yonge to see what this fantastic future Avenue will actually end up like, keeping in mind that Eglinton will be wider and less urban than Sheppard. The corridor should be used for transit and they can develop whatever parcels are left over.

The people who live in between Lawrence & Eglinton at Yonge are much more car-dependant than those who live walking distance from the stops. I'm not insulting the neighbourhood, it is beautiful and pleasant and has great restaurants and shops, but it is certainly underserved by transit compared to other neighbourhoods on Yonge, and this seems to have an influence on the travel patterns of residents.

The point you missed is that Lawrence and Eglinton stations are over 2km apart...Islington to Royal York is only 1km. The 1km stretch of Yonge north of Eglinton is also blessed with a great retail strip, so it's not like they're walking across hot coals to get to the subway. If a Lytton/Blythwood station had been built decades ago, the area might have redeveloped, but today there's almost nothing there, mostly just a few Lawrence Park mansions and a few apartments on Yonge served by the 97. There's no comparison with a station like Russell or Wincott on Eglinton, which would exist to slash an entire minute or two off the walk for an entire one or two hundred people and do nothing to change travel patterns.

Well it's underground, so adding more any more stations here wouldn't be practical.

Instead, we're adding stations like Russell to serve 300 detached houses in Etobicoke...what's practical about that?

nfitz is right, one LRV driver in Transit City can replace about 5 bus drivers. Your conspiracy theory doesn't hold up, monkey.

5 bus drivers can run at 5 times the frequency of 1 LRT driver, or can run on multiple branches. It's not like we can serve the whole city properly by having a single driver drive a single 10,000 car train wandering around the suburbs like some giant Transit Snake game...frequency matters and is at the core of TTC philosophy.

 

[Fresh Start]

Given that Eglinton is now projected to be nearly 5 billion, 1.6 billion more to get fully grade separated transit from Scarborough to the airport is a rather good deal.

This has happened several times now. Many of you are intentionally understating Transit City costs by quoting older numbers. Transit City does not cost 6 billion. And it's probably not even going to be less than 10 billion. And Eglinton is going to be at least 5 billion or more (it's already up to 4.6 without even a shovel in the ground). How come I don't see any concern from TC proponents about the fact that Eglinton alone is coming for over 80% of the original Transit City projected cost. Would you guys be so silent if a planned subway extension came in with that kind of cost metric?

Yes Keith, the levels of hypocrisy being displayed here are astounding. The Crosstown LRT in reality will wind up costing far, far more than a single subway line would when we've got people like Rainforest readily admitting that Crosstown LRT on its own is indeed an inferior mode and will require spending even more to build a Midtown GO corridor, Sheppard West subway extension, Finch-Albion LRT, TARL commuter-rail including the massive overhaul of the Georgetown corridor and lord knows what else to compensate for the lack of a trunk line through the central 416. Does he really think that people awaiting their "train" within the central TC tunnel will tolerate for very long the extended wait periods from having LRTs along the surface bunch and stall due to a lack of true signal priority or route exclusivity? Anyone who seriously thinks the 501 car levels of service is sufficed enough for Eglinton, needs to pay a visit to the corridor especially during rush and just witness for themselves how desperately real mass transit is needed there.

Exaggerating the real costs to build subway in this city does everyone a misjustice, when it should be clear to everyone by now that Transit City costs were deliberately low-balled to get past the approval stage.

 

[nfitz]

They will use the same type of in-median lanes, same type of platforms, same type of vehicles (twinned new streetcars), same headways. But because the streets on St. Clair are closer together it suddenly doesn't make it an LRT?

Your statement was "The only difference between the St. Clair ROW now and the proposed TC lines is the rolling stock." As that was factually wrong, I was simply pointing it out. BTW, there has been no vehicle selection yet for any of the TC lines ... too early to say that they "new streetcars".

Granted right now it isn't really an LRT because it is still using the older streetcars, but when the new ones are delievered, it will be identical to most other TC routes (aside from the intersection spacing).

And interesection design ... and of course the average speed.

 

[DavidH]

Granted right now it isn't really an LRT because it is still using the older streetcars, but when the new ones are delievered, it will be identical to most other TC routes (aside from the intersection spacing).

It's hardly fair to say that adding Flexity cars to St Clair would cause us to redefine it as an LRT. If it is, it already is. If it isn't, Flexities won't make it so.

 

[gweed123]

Your statement was "The only difference between the St. Clair ROW now and the proposed TC lines is the rolling stock." As that was factually wrong, I was simply pointing it out. BTW, there has been no vehicle selection yet for any of the TC lines ... too early to say that they "new streetcars".

And interesection design ... and of course the average speed.

Please explain to me then how a line that has a dedicated lane and only interacts with traffic at intersections is not light rail, because from every definition I've seen, it is. Things like redirected left turns, signal priority, intersection spacing, etc increase the efficiency of the line, but they do not determine whether the line is or is not classified as LRT. That is determined by the type of vehicle used and whether or not it is mixed in with regular vehicle traffic.

 

[nfitz]

Please explain to me then how a line that has a dedicated lane and only interacts with traffic at intersections is not light rail,
because from every definition I've seen, it is.

Of course it's light rail. The current streetcars are light rail. I never said it wasn't light rail!

I was merely pointing out the error in what you posted. I never said X or Y weren't light rail.

Things like redirected left turns, signal priority, intersection spacing, etc increase the efficiency of the line, but they do not determine whether the line is or is not classified as LRT. That is determined by the type of vehicle used and whether or not it is mixed in with regular vehicle traffic.

I fail to undestand why you are stating the obvious. Let me repeat (again) what you said that I objected too. "The only difference between the St. Clair ROW now and the proposed TC lines is the rolling stock". Nothing to do with what is, and isn't LRT.

 

[gweed123]

Of course it's light rail. The current streetcars are light rail. I never said it wasn't light rail!

I was merely pointing out the error in what you posted. I never said X or Y weren't light rail.

I fail to undestand why you are stating the obvious. Let me repeat (again) what you said that I objected too. "The only difference between the St. Clair ROW now and the proposed TC lines is the rolling stock". Nothing to do with what is, and isn't LRT.

I understand now. I should have said "main" instead of "only". My initial objection was to this quote:

St. Clair is not a pilot project for Transit City. And it never was or will be. Same with Spadina. They are both streetcars on a right-of-way. Even the Queensway portion of Queen and Queens Quay are still streetcars on a right-of-way.

You may even think an bicycle and a motorcycle are the same because they both ride on two wheels.

 

[Rainforest]

... when we've got people like Rainforest readily admitting that Crosstown LRT on its own is indeed an inferior mode and will require spending even more to build a Midtown GO corridor, Sheppard West subway extension, Finch-Albion LRT, TARL commuter-rail including the massive overhaul of the Georgetown corridor and lord knows what else to compensate for the lack of a trunk line through the central 416...

First of all, you misrepresented some of my statements. I did not suggest "Finch-Albion LRT", and do not know what the heck it is. I know what Finch West LRT is, but it is irrelevant for the debate about Eglinton.

Likewise, I did not support TARL in its present form.

Secondly, yes I agree that LRT is somewhat inferior mode for Eglinton route. However, I believe that LRT, while being substantially cheaper, will accomplish the majority of tasks that a subway would. Therefore, LRT is the best choice, as it will not compete for funding with other urgent priorities, such as DRL.

And finally, the main goal of Midtown GO corridor, Sheppard West subway extension, and enhancements in Georgetown GO corridor is not to mitigate deficiencies of Eglinton LRT. Each of those projects would serve many travel patterns, relieving Eglinton being just one of the effects. In particular, Midtown GO would provide faster cross-GTA trips than any Eglinton subway can handle. Note that Midtown GO corridor and Sheppard West subway extension are not as urgent as Eglinton traffic relief or DRL, and can be addressed much later.

 

[nfitz]

I understand now. I should have said "main" instead of "only". My initial objection was to this quote:

I don't think he was really saying that either was, or wasn't LRT; simply that the St. Clair ROW was just what we have now (streetcars) on a dedicated right-of-way. More a reference to the existing infrastructure and vehicles, than to a particular class of vehicle ... there's probably a nice grammatical word for how it was meant ... that would be lost on all of us.

 

[gweed123]

I don't think he was really saying that either was, or wasn't LRT; simply that the St. Clair ROW was just what we have now (streetcars) on a dedicated right-of-way. More a reference to the existing infrastructure and vehicles, than to a particular class of vehicle ... there's probably a nice grammatical word for how it was meant ... that would be lost on all of us.

As it stands now, he's right. But the new streetcars will be here long before any of the TC lines (with the exception of St. Clair and Spadina) are in operation, and therefore will infact act as a pilot project.

HOWEVER, the main purpose of a pilot project is to determine whether or not this new form of transit (new to Toronto anyway) will work here. By starting work on the rest of the system before the pilot project is even fully implemented defeats the purpose of having it as a pilot project in the first place. It's like taking a taste test after you've already bought the cake. What the TTC should have done is placed an order for a smaller number of the new streetcars 4 or 5 years ago (enough to run both St. Clair and Spadina, Spadina less so because of it's interlining with several other streetcar lines), so that the new ROW could have been unveilled along with the new streetcars. That way we could have seen the full benefits of the new LRT line, instead of just "a streetcar on a dedicated ROW".

But just because the implementation was a bit off doesn't mean it wasn't intended as a pilot project.

 

[Rainforest]

Recall that all of these "subway" calculations are based on a very simple $300 million/kilometre figure that assumed bored tunnels (and overbuilt stations) over the entire length. Most of the Eglinton corridor is more than wide enough to accommodate cut-and-cover, trench, or elevated construction that should be feasible for a fraction of that figure.

"Some" of the Eglinton corridor can accomodate cheaper construction, not "most" of it. I think that 10 km out of 30 would be an optimistic estimate.

It is true that Eglinton could save something on station costs (only Don Mills, Jane, Kipling, and the airport would need big stations). But this route has its share of other challenges:
- 3 highways: 404, 401, 427
- 4 rivers: East Don, West Don, Black Creek, Humber
- crossing old central part of the city with its numerous utility lines (I suspect that has added to the projected cost of Eglinton LRT tunnel)
- complex wyes for service connections to Spadina and/or Yonge lines

So, I think that $200 million/kilometre for the 10 km of "easy" Richview and East York sections, and $300 million/kilometre for the remaining 20 km, is not an overstatement (perhaps, an understatement). Adding up: $8 B, which is $3.4 B more than the allocated Eglinton LRT funding.

 

[Second_in_pie]

I want us to move ahead as fast as possible with the proposals that are on the table; which while not perfect, will signficantly improve transit in this city.

What I do not want, is the Ottawa situation, which has delayed them dealing with their downtown transit problem now for 30 years! (and likely much longer yet, have you heard the latest? After scrapping the O-Train for LRT, they've started talking about scrapping the LRT for heavy-rail subway ... and while various proposals have merits, decades of discussion with no construction or funding, has resulted in no action.

My nightmare scenario is that a new Premier or Mayor would stop all construction, pending a review ... and then 4 years after that we go into the 2014 mayoral election with nothing actually having been built, when there could have been near completion on several major projects.

This is the next 100 years of transit in the city we're talking about! All this talk of a new premier or new mayor cutting transit funding is pretty much totally redundant. First of all, we all have transit ingrained in our minds. No Premier will be able to be able to get elected with a platform to kill all these transit projects, and Metrolinx can veto any mayor who wants to kill any of the improvements.

Ok, let me put this into a metaphor. If you have an out of control river, how many rocks are you going to stick into it to try to block the flow before you say "Why don't we just build a dam?"
There's many cases where it makes sense to do something right and well the first time rather than do it in less time and have a big problem on your hands because it isn't up to par.
You can say that we haven't had a transit improvement in so long, so we need to get to work on quick projects now might make some sense. But 20 years down the road when people are still wondering why we didn't build a subway on Eglinton, the reason will be a little less clear.

 

[GraphicMatt]

This is the next 100 years of transit in the city we're talking about! All this talk of a new premier or new mayor cutting transit funding is pretty much totally redundant. First of all, we all have transit ingrained in our minds. No Premier will be able to be able to get elected with a platform to kill all these transit projects, and Metrolinx can veto any mayor who wants to kill any of the improvements.

We've had less than a decade of serious pro-transit leadership at the municipal and provincial levels. We still don't have it a federal level unless the Olympics happen to be coming to your city. It's more than a little optimistic to assume the current status quo is how it will always be.

It's not a question of being simply pro/anti transit, either. Transit projects are incredibly expensive, take a long time to build, and they are difficult for any one politician to take credit for. A self-professed 'fiscal conservative' leader might very well see transit construction as an easy place to make cuts.

Ok, let me put this into a metaphor. If you have an out of control river, how many rocks are you going to stick into it to try to block the flow before you say "Why don't we just build a dam?"
There's many cases where it makes sense to do something right and well the first time rather than do it in less time and have a big problem on your hands because it isn't up to par.
You can say that we haven't had a transit improvement in so long, so we need to get to work on quick projects now might make some sense. But 20 years down the road when people are still wondering why we didn't build a subway on Eglinton, the reason will be a little less clear.

At some point you have to exercise some pragmatism and go with the more plausible option, even if it's not ideal. Transit City is a wildly imperfect solution in many cases but it has one big thing going for it - it can actually get built.

With something as large-scale as transit construction, the real danger is that we'll all be sitting in the same spot in 20 years, looking at the same built network, arguing the same arguments about what deserves to be expanded next.