[W. K. Lis]

Transit City was never Rapid Transit.

Transit City would have been more rapid and serve much more people than today.

[video=youtube;yav38zru4Xo]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yav38zru4Xo[/video]

[video=youtube;U3kg90hV1M4]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U3kg90hV1M4[/video]

Have you been on the 501 Queen streetcar on The Queensway right-of-way. Even without transit priority, it can be rapid. It was built in 1957 for two reasons: 1) The Gardiner Expressway was being built, destroying the Sunnyside Amusement Park and the surrounding area, forcing the streetcar to be moved from Lake Shore Blvd. to a a wide street just north of the railway tracks taking land from High Park 2) The Queen Subway was planned, so the west leg would have been provided with a surface extension in the future. The Queen Subway was to use PCC streetcars at first. The TTC was copying Boston's subway at the time.

 

[JoeParez]

Transit City would have been more rapid and serve much more people than today.

Not the parts of Transit City that were going to be in mixed traffic. Which of course would've been nearly identical to our streetcars.

For some reason, the LRT has a stigma of being "peasant" or "second rate" rapid transit and that "anything other than subways" is not good enough for Toronto. I understand that here on UT it's not really the case, but we're a minority. Where did Toronto get this sense of entitlement? There are other World Class cities that run LRT and nobody seems to have a problem with that.

Exactly what is the problem with this? I'll never know:

Like your example W.K, Boston.
I was there in October of 2011 and I found the Green Line (streetcars) to be more reliable, more frequent than their Orange and Red Line (subways) -- not to mention the stations and trains on the Orange Line looked horrendous.

TC had it's pro's and cons, but where it was done right (Eglinton and Finch) should have been the model to follow and to promote.


Edit: I actually agree with you W. K.

 

[sixrings]

could council simply vote to bring back transit city on january 17 and save the city 65 million cancellation fee and the extra 10 million it needs to complete the sheppard research? i mean it would obviously be a huge debate but is it not possible?

 

[rbt]

could council simply vote to bring back transit city on january 17 and save the city 65 million cancellation fee and the extra 10 million it needs to complete the sheppard research? i mean it would obviously be a huge debate but is it not possible?

It's possible but i don't think there will be any net-savings. With either direction there is a loss due to Ford's decisions.

Delaying the start/tendering of Sheppard will probably cost $50M to $75M (5% to 7.5%) and I have no idea how much has been spent on Engineering for the east end of Eglinton but it must be in the tens of millions.


I certainly have an opinion on the value of a $2B tunnel under Eglinton East versus above ground; but at this point we could not revert back to the original plan simply because the original plan will cost more. Yes, the Construction Price Index was static in 2008 to 2010 but I do not expect this to hold much longer.

 

[W. K. Lis]

Transit City was mostly centre-of-road LRT with some underground portions. This shows side-of-road alignment with underground. I also think an example with car traffic more similar to Toronto would have been better. I think that was a major marketing error of TC - that the examples they were showing were not the same as being proposed.

Side-of-the-road right-of-ways were used in Toronto. However, the auto dominated politicians changed that in the past, as are those in the present going against public transit.

Here's Dundas & Sorauren in 1936:

History keeps repeating by ignoring the past.

 

[sixrings]

It's possible but i don't think there will be any net-savings. With either direction there is a loss due to Ford's decisions.

Delaying the start/tendering of Sheppard will probably cost $50M to $75M (5% to 7.5%) and I have no idea how much has been spent on Engineering for the east end of Eglinton but it must be in the tens of millions.

even if toronto losses 80 million either way id still consider reverting to transit city because we have a final total of how much the project will cost and when it will be completed. Fords plan does not have a final price tage nor does it have a final completion date unless you believe the 2015 figure.

 

[rbt]

even if toronto losses 80 million either way id still consider reverting to transit city because we have a final total of how much the project will cost and when it will be completed. Fords plan does not have a final price tage nor does it have a final completion date unless you believe the 2015 figure.

I agree entirely. It's worth doing just because Sheppard + Finch + Eglinton is the better plan.

 

[k10ery]

Not the parts of Transit City that were going to be in mixed traffic. Which of course would've been nearly identical to our streetcars.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but none of Transit City was planned to operate in mixed traffic, was it?

 

[Tuscani01]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but none of Transit City was planned to operate in mixed traffic, was it?

Correct... The only thing about Transit City that is 'identical to our streetcars' was the fact that some of the track would be above ground. Thats where the similarities end, yet a few still cling to the idea that Transit City was nothing more than typical streetcar lines throughout the city. The stop spacing was going to be much greater than streetcar stop spacing, they were to have a POP system in place with all door boarding (And stops would all be mini-stations), trains would be coupled to increase capacity, and the line would be tunneled in areas where there was no space for above ground tracks.

In addition to all that, the line was to have signal priority, with left turns at most intersections being eliminated to accomodate it. Left turns would have only been allowed at major intersections, where trains would be stopping anyway. Early proposals even had left turn lanes eliminated completely, in exchange for a righ turn, u turn concept that would allow vehicles to turn without having to turn at the tracks.

The plan was nothing compared to the streetcar system we currently have, but a few people think that is exactly what was proposed for some odd reason. Misinformed I guess...

 

[JoeParez]

Correct... The only thing about Transit City that is 'identical to our streetcars' was the fact that some of the track would be above ground.

.......Misinformed I guess...

Pretty much, I was under the impression that the Jane LRT and Don Mills LRT were going to operate almost like the streetcars.. I know that parts of the Jane LRT were proposed to go underground..

Mind you I was a fan of TC (Mostly of the Eglinton and Finch lines) -- I just think that it wasn't marketed correctly and as soon as someone brought up "Look at what happened on St. Clair!" that it was going to lose steam.

 

[BurlOak]

Correct... The only thing about Transit City that is 'identical to our streetcars' was the fact that some of the track would be above ground. Thats where the similarities end, yet a few still cling to the idea that Transit City was nothing more than typical streetcar lines throughout the city.

I found this figure in the Sheppard East LRT EA - it appeared in a lot of places. No wonder people thought LRT and streetcars were similar.

If I were to interpret this chart, streetcars (i.e. Queen) are in Mixed traffic, St. Clair, Spadina (and most of TC) are Partially Exclusive ROW (there are still cross streets) and LRT in place of the SRT would be Exlussive ROW. Also, Transit City type LRT is much more similar to BRT than subway in capacity.

 

[CDL.TO]

To be fair, the confusion can be understandable since all streetcars are technically a form of LRT, but not all LRTs can be considered a streetcar.

 

[gweed123]

I wouldn't necessarily be surprised if Transit City came back, although I wouldn't want a 100% return to the previous plan. My hope would be that the following changes would be implemented:

1) That Metrolinx would assume full control of the planning and design process. The TTC has shown that it is too politically driven and has too narrow of a mindset when it comes to designing the lines (i.e. "in-median at-grade LRT unless it absolutely can't be done").

2) That the SLRT and ECLRT remain one continuous through-line, instead of having the SLRT end at Kennedy like in the original Transit City plan. Keeping a linear transfer when you have the opportunity to remove it is just bone-headed.

3) Don't bring back the SELRT. Use the $300 million in federal money to improve the bus service along Sheppard (dedicated lanes in congested areas, queue jump lanes in others, etc). Take the other $600 million in Provincial funds and put them to better use someplace else. 3,100 peak hour in 2031 isn't worthy of LRT.

4) Use the $600 million from Sheppard East to complete the entire FWLRT, from Yonge to Humber College.

5) Figure out a solution that actually works for Eglinton East. Tunnelling is too expensive, but if you're running the ECLRT and SLRT as a single line, at-grade isn't going to be able to handle the demand. Trench it, elevate it, have it at-grade between intersections but dip down underneath major intersections (have the at-grade sections actually be 1m or so below grade if you're worried about the roller coaster effect). This is where the Metrolinx lead comes in, because they will hopefully be able to come up with some workable solutions that the TTC wouldn't consider.


Transit City had some good elements, and it had some not-so-good elements. A lot of those not-so-good elements were the result of the insistence on the part of Miller & Co that all Transit City lines be in-median LRT unless not possible. This lead to some design choices in some areas where another configuration would have been much more efficient (the Golden Mile and Eglinton & Leslie come to mind). Hopefully will less political interference in play (because let's face it, if Transit City is re-instated, Rob Ford's say on transit issues is completely muted), some design changes can be implemented that will make the lines more efficient.

 

[BurlOak]

2) That the SLRT and ECLRT remain one continuous through-line, instead of having the SLRT end at Kennedy like in the original Transit City plan. Keeping a linear transfer when you have the opportunity to remove it is just bone-headed.

Either SLRT and ECLRT continuous with some type of grade seperation, as you describe, OR B-D should be extended to STC, in which case ECLRT could be in-median at grade.

Bus (BRT or BRT lite) on Sheppard and/or Finch East along with frequent LRT on GO ROW from Agincourt to Kennedy Station would be more then enough for this area.

 

[M II A II R II K]

Perhaps a GO ALRT can be extended to STC instead, and that way people going downtown wouldn't have to transfer once on it to arrive downtown.