[kettal]

What if I don't support either proposal?

I think all subway and transit construction should be halted for 25 years. During this period, private developers, corporations etc could develop around and buy rights to future subway stations. No parking would be allowed in these buildings. In exchange for density and lack of red tape (developers could build anything they wanted, so long as they met Design Review Panel needs), developers would pay funds towards construction of future transit (stations, whatever.)

Might want to put this one back in the oven, it's half baked.

 

[Rainforest]

MO plan and Hamilton Rapid Transit study

Just looked at "Hamilton King-Main Benefits Case". Line B: 14.2 km. Capital costs are listed in Table 8 on Page 42.

Capital cost of Option 1 (all BRT): 218 million in 2008 dollars, or 15.4 M/km.

Capital cost of Option 2 (all LRT): 829 million, or 58.4 M/km.

From that, 15 M/km seems to be a better estimate for your BRT costs, rather than 10 M/km you adopted.

 

[Fresh Start]

A few points. We've been pondering in the group about the need for a BRT or LRT from STC to Malvern. Here's the way I look at it...It's not a priority. A BRT would effectively only serve the Progress bus. Even if there was a LRT to Malvern, Milner, Nugget, Morningside and Neilson would not see their routes changed since they serve far more than Malvern. So why not leave them for now? The Neilson bus would benefit from the Ellesmere BRT. You could also split Morningside and have these routes start at STC, use the EBRT and turn North or South from there. Nugget and Milner could benefit, if and when, curbside bus lanes are added to McCowan. But in all these cases, BRT would shave mere minutes off (at best 3-4 mins from a 23 min average bus ride from MTC to STC). Far more is being saved by knocking off the transfer and increasing the speed of these riders' trip to Kennedy.

BRT from SCC to Malvern is superior. A dedicated busway (beginning as a viaduct from the existing SCC bus terminal) would cater not only to the Progress bus but to virtually every bus route approaching SCC from the north and east; 129, 131, 132, etc. You can build it along the Highway 401 enbankment lands at relatively low cost and allow for a 8-10 minute run time between SCC and Sheppard/Neilson, with a stop directly in the middle of Progress Campus. You may see Ellesmere as a better candidate for BRT but I simply don't. West of Neilson it would not be warranted and its construction would disrupt several residential communties along the way. I'd rather see the 95 bus itself feed into SCC directly then continue along its way across Ellesmere. Routes 38 and 133 are better off using the busway til Neilson. I find it interesting that you recommend a split of the 116 bus route with separate north/south legs yet feel so strongly that 133 Neilson cannot be split at the 401. I honestly don't see any issue with that as per a proper station at Neilson, one can easily switch buses within the ROW prior to exiting onto Neilson for continuous travel.

Cost wise, side-of-highway/hydro corridor ROW are relatively more affordable compared to other modes; can be operational sooner; and achieve faster speeds than on-street mixed traffic ROW.

Also, I see demand from Malvern to downtown being split by the extension of the SELRT to MTC. To Union via Sheppard is going to be: 17 mins on LRT, 21 mins on the Sheppard subway, 25 mins on YUS and two transfers (10 mins) for a total of 73 mins. This compares to 80 mins and 3 transfers currently using buses to STC, the SRT and the BD line. The extension of the Bloor-Danforth subway will remove one transfer. This will basically bring both routes to Union on par for trip time. Anybody who has a destination a few stops north of union or riders who don't live near Malvern Town centre, would probably use STC. Other riders will probably use Sheppard. The SRT extension would have been a bit more advantages (it would have save 15 mins from Malvern). However, we are delivering about half of that in time savings from for most riders through the improvements being provided for Malvern. That's not to say that a Progress LRT isn't a good idea. It's one I fully support enthusiastically. And I would have preferred it to a Sheppard LRT. But our hands are forced on this one, so it can wait, other concerns are more pressing.

I forsee issues with a spur; one it reduces the frequency of SELRT east of Progress, and the other it directs majority of passengers in a direction they probably don't necessarily want to go. Even after explaining the time advantages, the convoluted method of travel westwards along Sheppard may prove discouraging to many Malvernites. Besides, in a post B-D to SCC/DRL to Pape Stn world further time avantages are in favour of a north-to-south travel directionality vs. east-to-west then south. A better alternative would be to have BRT run throughout Malvern with the northern end continuing northwestwards to Finch Stn in its own exclusive ROW, such that customers now have two rapid alternatives feeding them to the nearest subway to pick from.

Don Mills I agree with you. It should go to Steeles. This is particularly important given York Regions desire to continue the LRT past Steeles. We've been debating what to do with the Finch East portion though. It wasn't originally in Transit City. We'd like to go back to that vision. But with Metrolinx so instant on their giant northern crosstown LRT, we feel like our hands are tied here.

The implementation of light-rail at all along Finch West severely destroys any chance for a true crosstown right-of-way spanning the 416 north of the 401. The City could never afford to expand it beyond where it's been planned to go, making it another orphan line in the vain of the SRT or Stubway. For the same money we could have had rapid transit from Albion to the Zoo and just as easily have been able to interface with Finch/Finch West Stns, target Seneca and Humber Colleges as well numerous other attractions. What a joke that the busiest part of the Finch corridor has to contend with buses with headways as short as every 70 seconds yet it's the 36 bus with a usage of around 1300 pphpd that's getting an upgrade.

Don Mills is my only candidate for light-rail as of now but I would recommend grade separation as much as possible for it (particularly north of the 401).

 

[Fresh Start]

Just looked at "Hamilton King-Main Benefits Case". Line B: 14.2 km. Capital costs are listed in Table 8 on Page 42.

Capital cost of Option 1 (all BRT): 218 million in 2008 dollars, or 15.4 M/km.

Capital cost of Option 2 (all LRT): 829 million, or 58.4 M/km.

From that, 15 M/km seems to be a better estimate for your BRT costs, rather than 10 M/km you adopted.

You're about right. Looking at the City of Mississauga/Mississauga Transit's estimates for their Transitway, one reads $259 million for 18 kilometres from Churchill Meadows to Renforth. This breaks down to $14.38 million per kilometre. Of course estimates like these tend to clump everything together; the relatively level, wide suburban roadway with few mitigating intersections, making ROW construction costs a literal walk in the park, to the complex navigation of narrow matrices of urban streets.

 

[kEiThZ]

BRT from SCC to Malvern is superior. A dedicated busway (beginning as a viaduct from the existing SCC bus terminal) would cater not only to the Progress bus but to virtually every bus route approaching SCC from the north and east; 129, 131, 132, etc. You can build it along the Highway 401 enbankment lands at relatively low cost and allow for a 8-10 minute run time between SCC and Sheppard/Neilson, with a stop directly in the middle of Progress Campus. You may see Ellesmere as a better candidate for BRT but I simply don't. West of Neilson it would not be warranted and its construction would disrupt several residential communties along the way. I'd rather see the 95 bus itself feed into SCC directly then continue along its way across Ellesmere. Routes 38 and 133 are better off using the busway til Neilson. I find it interesting that you recommend a split of the 116 bus route with separate north/south legs yet feel so strongly that 133 Neilson cannot be split at the 401. I honestly don't see any issue with that as per a proper station at Neilson, one can easily switch buses within the ROW prior to exiting onto Neilson for continuous travel.


Cost wise, side-of-highway/hydro corridor ROW are relatively more affordable compared to other modes; can be operational sooner; and achieve faster speeds than on-street mixed traffic ROW.

It is superior. I don't dispute that. Cost is the worry though. And the perception that the plan is too east-centric. Even ditching Ellesmere for this, I still don't see it being as cheap.

As for splitting Morninside. That's an easy call. The demand is completely different. Malvernites who live along Morninside take the 116 to access Kennedy station. They would gladly take a different route if offered one. The soouthern half of morningside consists of West Hill residents and UTSC students. This is why the city is proposing servicing one set with LRT and another set is probably going to get a bus to STC.

Neilson is different. A mere 1.5 km lies south of the 401. The demand is almost entirely from Malvern for that bus route. If you were to split it, you would seriously harm service to those residents who are south of the 401.

Cost though is a big thing. Why don't you throw up your map and cost estimate out here and let's get some feedback and fidelity on those numbers.

I forsee issues with a spur; one it reduces the frequency of SELRT east of Progress, and the other it directs majority of passengers in a direction they probably don't necessarily want to go. Even after explaining the time advantages, the convoluted method of travel westwards along Sheppard may prove discouraging to many Malvernites. Besides, in a post B-D to SCC/DRL to Pape Stn world further time avantages are in favour of a north-to-south travel directionality vs. east-to-west then south. A better alternative would be to have BRT run throughout Malvern with the northern end continuing northwestwards to Finch Stn in its own exclusive ROW, such that customers now have two rapid alternatives feeding them to the nearest subway to pick from.

There's a lot of things better. Unfortunately, our hands are tied on this one. You've seen how hard it is to sell a plan cancelling Sheppard to people who understand transit. Imagine briefing a mayoral candidate or getting the public onside with that.

The implementation of light-rail at all along Finch West severely destroys any chance for a true crosstown right-of-way spanning the 416 north of the 401. The City could never afford to expand it beyond where it's been planned to go, making it another orphan line in the vain of the SRT or Stubway. For the same money we could have had rapid transit from Albion to the Zoo and just as easily have been able to interface with Finch/Finch West Stns, target Seneca and Humber Colleges as well numerous other attractions. What a joke that the busiest part of the Finch corridor has to contend with buses with headways as short as every 70 seconds yet it's the 36 bus with a usage of around 1300 pphpd that's getting an upgrade.

I fully agree. But how do you sell this to Metrolinx who wants a network. We've already canned the link between Sheppard and Don Mills. Now we'd be disconnecting another two lines. Is that sellable? Personally, I'd support ditching the Finch East portion and using that money to get bus lanes on Finch East. For once, a major bus route that works in this town should get an upgrade.

Don Mills is my only candidate for light-rail as of now but I would recommend grade separation as much as possible for it (particularly north of the 401).

Is grade separation really needed though? That's money that can go elsewhere.

 

[gweed123]

I looked at the Metrolinx's "Sheppard-Finch LRT Benefits Case" study. Table 7 (page 35) lists the capital costs of the 5 options considered, in 2008 dollars. Let's compare Option 1 (separate Finch West and Sheppard East lines, no subway extension) to Option 4 (Sheppard subway extended to Downsview, and Finch LRT goes to Downsview instead of Yonge / Finch).

Option 1 is costed at 2,220 million, Option 4 at 3,650 million.

LRT in Option 4 is 2 km shorter (Finch / Dufferin to Sheppard / Alness, rather than to Finch / Yonge), and hence should cost 2 x 70 = 140 million less.

So, the cost of subway (Yonge / Sheppard to Downsview): 3,650 - (2,220 - 140) = 1,570 million in 2008 dollars.

That seems a bit more in line with the $1.23 billion that would be assumed if it was $300 million/km.

 

[gweed123]

Just looked at "Hamilton King-Main Benefits Case". Line B: 14.2 km. Capital costs are listed in Table 8 on Page 42.

Capital cost of Option 1 (all BRT): 218 million in 2008 dollars, or 15.4 M/km.

Capital cost of Option 2 (all LRT): 829 million, or 58.4 M/km.

From that, 15 M/km seems to be a better estimate for your BRT costs, rather than 10 M/km you adopted.

Sounds fair. For some of the BRT routes though, especially along Kingston, there is the option to just do queue jump lanes, etc, which would reduce costs. If I'm not mistaken, the York U BRT was only $10 million/km.

And are those BRT estimates for curbside lane, in-median, or dedicated ROW?

 

[nfitz]

I made measurements using map.toronto.ca, and it looks like the length of Kennedy - Kingston segment is slightly understated in your table. I've got 4.8 km, while your table gives 4.4 km. Please double-check.

I think you are measuring from the intersection of Kennedy and Eglinton to Kingston Road. The Kenendy subway station is about 400 metres east of Kennedy Road. So 4.4 km looks correct ... I just got 4.3!

 

[Rainforest]

I think you are measuring from the intersection of Kennedy and Eglinton to Kingston Road. The Kenendy subway station is about 400 metres east of Kennedy Road. So 4.4 km looks correct ... I just got 4.3!

I see. But then, the Don Mills - Kennedy section should be a bit longer, 6.7 km instead of 6.3 in the table.

 

[Rainforest]

You're about right. Looking at the City of Mississauga/Mississauga Transit's estimates for their Transitway, one reads $259 million for 18 kilometres from Churchill Meadows to Renforth. This breaks down to $14.38 million per kilometre. Of course estimates like these tend to clump everything together; the relatively level, wide suburban roadway with few mitigating intersections, making ROW construction costs a literal walk in the park, to the complex navigation of narrow matrices of urban streets.

That's true; but this is the common shortcoming of all ballpark estimates, be it BRT, LRT, or subways.

Sounds fair. For some of the BRT routes though, especially along Kingston, there is the option to just do queue jump lanes, etc, which would reduce costs. If I'm not mistaken, the York U BRT was only $10 million/km.

York BRT was built for even less, about 6 million/km; but it was particularly easy to build. Half of it (2 km of Allen from Sheppard to Finch) already had 6 lanes, 2 of them designated as HOV lanes. All they had to do there was repaint them as bus-only lanes.

Really, they built about 1.5 km of new road in the HC (Dufferin to Murray Ross) without grade separation with Newmarket sub; about 1 km of road on York U grounds west of Keele; new entrance to Downsview bus terminal; and a short new "Michigan-style" turn lane north of Finch to facilitate the left turn from Allen to HC busway.

And are those BRT estimates for curbside lane, in-median, or dedicated ROW?

In section called "Option 1: Full BRT" on Page 29 of the report, they talk about BRT in median lanes.

 

[Rainforest]

That seems a bit more in line with the $1.23 billion that would be assumed if it was $300 million/km.

Yes; that other, $2.3 billion / 4 km figure is hard to understand; and I could not even find the source.

The $1.57 billion figure inferred from the Finch-Sheppard study is still a bit higher than $1.23 billion based on the flat $300 million/km cost; may be the cost of bridge is taken into account. Anyway, if it goes into the non-priority section of your plan, the difference of 0.34 billion is not a deal-breaker.

 

[reaperexpress]

York BRT was built for even less, about 6 million/km; but it was particularly easy to build. Half of it (2 km of Allen from Sheppard to Finch) already had 6 lanes, 2 of them designated as HOV lanes. All they had to do there was repaint them as bus-only lanes.

Really, they built about 1.5 km of new road in the HC (Dufferin to Murray Ross) without grade separation with Newmarket sub; about 1 km of road on York U grounds west of Keele; new entrance to Downsview bus terminal; and a short new "Michigan-style" turn lane north of Finch to facilitate the left turn from Allen to HC busway.

Not to nitpick, but the hydro corridor busway is 2.1km long, not 1.5. And the entire route is 6.5km long, so the Dufferin portion is less than a third of the length.

When calculating the costs, I would just ignore the portion on Dufferin, since the cost would be negligible. Replacing the HOV signs with Bus signs would add up to what? A few thousand dollars?

So that's about $40 million for 3km of busways, a new entrance into Downsview, and that left turn thing on Dufferin.

 

[nfitz]

I see. But then, the Don Mills - Kennedy section should be a bit longer, 6.7 km instead of 6.3 in the table.

I'm measuring 6.3 km along Eglinton from Don Mills Road to Kennedy station. I only get 5.9 km from Don Mills Road to Kennedy Road.

 

[gweed123]

Just floating an idea here: What do you guys think about doing an LRT tunnel along Queen West to connect the Humber Bay LRT section to the DRL West (a distance of 1.5 km). Assuming $250 million/km for the tunnel (about the same as Eglinton), it would be $375 million for the tunnel. I think this would be much more of a benefit and offer greater network connectivity than TC's current WWLRT proposal. The funding for most of this could be transferred from the Kennedy to Kingston section of the Eglinton East LRT ($308 million).

 

[kettal]

Just floating an idea here: What do you guys think about doing an LRT tunnel along Queen West to connect the Humber Bay LRT section to the DRL West (a distance of 1.5 km). Assuming $250 million/km for the tunnel (about the same as Eglinton), it would be $375 million for the tunnel. I think this would be much more of a benefit and offer greater network connectivity than TC's current WWLRT proposal. The funding for most of this could be transferred from the Kennedy to Kingston section of the Eglinton East LRT ($308 million).

I'd like to know how you determined the location of DRL west anyways? I say using the Georgetown rail corridor is redundant, this will have high-frequency GO service in the near future. Why not have a DRL subway station at King-Roncesvalles intersection, which will become a major terminus for King, Long Branch, Roncesvalles, and Queen streetcars?