[MisterF]

And who could forget Finance Minister Jim Flaherty's out-of-the-blue proposal in his budget last February to establish a train line between Toronto and Peterborough? Coincidentally, it would have gone through Flaherty's riding, Whitby-Oshawa. The scheme has since been dropped.

No it hasn't. The detailed study for the line is due in April.

 

[khris]

It is true that one new subway line, like the DRL, would be preferable to a dozen new streetcar lines, particularly when the streetcar lines are replacing buses for absolutely no good reasons, like on Morningside.

Transfer City is consistently hilarious...their own estimates claim routes like Sheppard East will be no faster than the Rocket bus, so by spending almost a billion dollars, all they'll accomplish is a reduction in frequency along Sheppard, and an increase in travel times for some riders.

There's plenty of places in this city where surface routes are dysfunctional in mixed traffic - more than enough corridors to wisely spend $10B on streetcar ROWs - but the intersection of Sheppard & Morningside is not and will never be one. Too bad Metrolinx has rubber stamped worthless parts of Transfer City.

Streetcar lines? I think you mean LRT lines. There is a difference.

 

[RedRocket191]

Streetcar lines? I think you mean LRT lines. There is a difference.

He's trying to make a statement

 

[Voltz]

It is true that one new subway line, like the DRL, would be preferable to a dozen new streetcar lines, particularly when the streetcar lines are replacing buses for absolutely no good reasons, like on Morningside.

Transfer City is consistently hilarious...their own estimates claim routes like Sheppard East will be no faster than the Rocket bus, so by spending almost a billion dollars, all they'll accomplish is a reduction in frequency along Sheppard, and an increase in travel times for some riders.

There's plenty of places in this city where surface routes are dysfunctional in mixed traffic - more than enough corridors to wisely spend $10B on streetcar ROWs - but the intersection of Sheppard & Morningside is not and will never be one. Too bad Metrolinx has rubber stamped worthless parts of Transfer City.

The average speed of the 190 in the afternoon peak is 17.4 km/h, (including the relatively congestion and stop free section between sheppard and STC) the average speed of the sheppard east LRT is expected to be 22-23 km/h. That is about 30%-35% faster. Bus performance will only get worse as traffic gets worse, and buses will not be able to handle the expected demand on sheppard anyway.

Of course there are other routes where LRT would be useful, but the simple fact is we can't built them all at once.

 

[Whoaccio]

The average speed of the 190 in the afternoon peak is 17.4 km/h, (including the relatively congestion and stop free section between sheppard and STC) the average speed of the sheppard east LRT is expected to be 22-23 km/h. That is about 30%-35% faster. Bus performance will only get worse as traffic gets worse, and buses will not be able to handle the expected demand on sheppard anyway.

Using those numbers though, you could probably find similar (30-35%) time savings at a fraction of the cost by just buying more buses and reducing headways by a proportionate amount of time. The TTC could also improve boarding quite easily through some kind of POP system- which will (should) be a prerequisite to any true LRT system anyways- and reduce dwell times with all door boarding. And when in doubt, the odd bus priority lane & queue jump could do wonders for the 190. If the Sheppard East LRT has a reduction of headways between LRVs, total transit time could easily remain more or less unchanged.

 

[Voltz]

^^^^

Of course, LRT is definitely not the only possible solution, but they can only run so many buses before they start to slow themselves down, and bunch up, ect.

 

[kEiThZ]

Ottawa faces similar challenges in the downtown core. Buses bunching up during rush hour are threatening to choke downtown and the system. It's not that Sheppard faces such a daunting situation but adding more buses and reducing headways would certainly induce bunching.

I doubt anyone here would argue that Sheppard East needs higher order transit from Yonge till McCowan. The question is one of what system should that be. I am skeptical that the option should simply be rocket buses or subway. Why can't LRTs be a reasonable compromise. Where cost is a concern, I certainly think LRT is a reasonable in-between. I for one, would argue that while subway is desirable, LRT is not as terrible a substitute as some would suggest. It will be both faster and more comfortable than a bus and only slightly slower than a subway for the same distance.

 

[unimaginative2]

I would argue that Sheppard needs higher-order transit from Yonge to McCowan. It's one of the most densely-developed corridors in the city, it connects the city's two major suburban development centres, it's one of the busiest transit corridors in the city, and it's an excellent crosstown route. The Sheppard subway is already much busier per mile than many New York subway routes, for example.

I certainly don't think that Sheppard east of McCowan needs any kind of high-order transit beyond perhaps express buses, including LRT.

 

[kEiThZ]

^ Sorry I meant to say that I doubt anyone would argue that Sheppard East DOES NOT NEED higher order transit....

 

[drum118]

Using those numbers though, you could probably find similar (30-35%) time savings at a fraction of the cost by just buying more buses and reducing headways by a proportionate amount of time. The TTC could also improve boarding quite easily through some kind of POP system- which will (should) be a prerequisite to any true LRT system anyways- and reduce dwell times with all door boarding. And when in doubt, the odd bus priority lane & queue jump could do wonders for the 190. If the Sheppard East LRT has a reduction of headways between LRVs, total transit time could easily remain more or less unchanged.

At the same time, your operation cost just increase by adding more drivers.

Labour eats up 80% of operation cost and therefore this is where LRT's out performs buses. You can always add another car or two to a single car and not increase operation cost compare to a bus as you will only need "1" driver, not the 2 or 4 for buses.

At the same time, TTC does the dumb thing by making headway's longer because they us the crush load factor for their schedules.

POP is coming, so it will speed loading for any vehicle within 416 let alone the 905.

As noted by others, any increase of speed in the ROW will be the same 5 years after a line open as it will "NOT" have to deal with more traffic that buses will have to deal with then. This is assuming the traffic engineers leaves the intersection lights alone.

Throwing more vehicles to carry the same numbers of riders cause by increase of traffic is waste of resources as well more $$ out of your pocket.

The time has come to start taking a lane of traffic off the road and be replace by transit regardless LRT, Subway, LRT or what every.

 

[Whoaccio]

At the same time, your operation cost just increase by adding more drivers.Labour eats up 80% of operation cost and therefore this is where LRT's out performs buses. You can always add another car or two to a single car and not increase operation cost compare to a bus as you will only need "1" driver, not the 2 or 4 for buses

Yes, that is true. But I wonder if it makes a difference. To begin with, buses would be free of expensive track reconstruction every few years. This alone could rule out any slightly lower operating costs on an LRT system. In addition, the gulf between capital costs of LRT and a few more buses would pay for a lot of additional labor hours. Lets say we ran 7 more buses during peak periods, even if we bought super sexy Van Hool buses that would still only add up to 7-14m dollars (compared to ~600-700m). The 590-690m in savings could fund the route practically in perpetuity.

 

[drum118]

Yes, that is true. But I wonder if it makes a difference. To begin with, buses would be free of expensive track reconstruction every few years. This alone could rule out any slightly lower operating costs on an LRT system. In addition, the gulf between capital costs of LRT and a few more buses would pay for a lot of additional labor hours. Lets say we ran 7 more buses during peak periods, even if we bought super sexy Van Hool buses that would still only add up to 7-14m dollars (compared to ~600-700m). The 590-690m in savings could fund the route practically in perpetuity.

Based on cost of LRT's vs BRT for the 403 BRT, cost saving for LRT over 20 years was $250M from day one and that no small number. This did not included the steep fuel cost that's around the corner for buses, but had some in the cost different. Once it gets above $150 a gallon, pure saving for LRT.

The cost of rebuilding the LRT tracks will be for the rail only under the new design and that is far cheaper than adding drivers and buses. Regardless if it's buses or LRT's, that lane has to be rebuilt and therefore it will be the same cost minus rail. Only the top section of the ROW is removed when it comes to replacing the rail, not the whole thing.

LRT ROW will last between 25-35 years based on today design based on TTC info and we will have to wait to see if that is true at time of rebuilding St CLair ROW that is in place now. Roads have a shorter life span and that is based on traffic itself as well the type. Buses and trucks are very hard on the roads.

7 drivers cost about $65,000 each per year today. In 20 years using 3% increase, it will be $85,000. It cost about $110/hr to put a bus on the road based on TTC numbers. If you add 7 more buses, you need 10 drivers since you need spares as well shift changes. Then you need 10 buses as you need spares also for the 7 extra drivers. As you add more buses, you need more staff to clean and maintain them and up goes your cost.

It's not straight forward for adding a bus or two to say it would be cheaper than LRT.

 

[Whoaccio]

Based on cost of LRT's vs BRT for the 403 BRT, cost saving for LRT over 20 years was $250M from day one and that no small number. This did not included the steep fuel cost that's around the corner for buses, but had some in the cost different. Once it gets above $150 a gallon, pure saving for LRT.

Who said anything about BRT? I just said add 7 buses to the current route. A BRT system along Sheppard would be an awful idea. That is, assuming by BRT we are both referring to Ottawa Transitway type limited access bus roadways. I don't have anything against LRT, but spending 700m (probably closer to a billion) for a system that, in the best case projection, will only speed up travel time 30% (maybe not at all, if you include longer headways) just doesn't seem worth it.

 

[Ansem]

There is one argument that you can't ignore.

We are willing to link Richmond Hill and Vaughan Centers with Toronto Downtown
and not
Scarborough Town Center with North York Downtown?

I rest my case.

This is dumb.Period.

They are 2 downtowns, not some hoods...

Centers should always have pure and fast rapid transit.

I dont buy Transit city at 100%.

The TTC had to compromise to not be too hard on drivers on St-Clair and Spadina Streecars in regards to transit priority lights and they want to make you beleive they wont compromise on Transit city???

Unless Sheppard East is underground from Don Mills to Agincourt, I'm a 100% against.

 

[doady]

There is one argument that you can't ignore.

We are willing to link Richmond Hill and Vaughan Centers with Toronto Downtown
and not
Scarborough Town Center with North York Downtown?

Not to mention Scarborough Centre with Toronto Downtown.