The Great Canadian Transit Thread

[SFUVancouver]

Rob Ford’s subway dream dead as Toronto council votes 24-19 for LRT



Toronto Star
Tess Kalinowski and David Rider Urban Affairs Reporters

Mayor Rob Ford’s Sheppard subway dream is officially dead with city council voting 24-19 to build light rail following a debate that has divided the city along suburban and urban lines.

“It’s obviously upsetting. Today, we lost. I feel sorry for the taxpayers, I feel sorry for the residents,” said Ford in a scrum following the vote.

Speaking to reporters after the vote, Ford asked the province not to fund the Sheppard LRT.

During the two-day transit showdown, council also opened the door to considering new taxes and strategies to expand Toronto’s transit network.

Earlier in the day, Ford said, “The people of the city have spoken loud and clear. They want subways folks. They want subways, subways, subways,” said Ford, urging city councillors to wait for the outcome of the provincial and federal budgets to determine whether LRT funding will actually surface.

“People hate the St. Clair. They hate these streetcars. You can call them what they want. People want subways folks. They want subways, subways. They don’t want these damned streetcars blocking up our city,” shouted the mayor.

[snip]

Estimated comparison of Sheppard subway versus LRT

Sheppard LRT (Don Mills to Morningside)

13.6 km
Annual ridership in 2031: 17 million
Annual new ridership: 7.7 million
Typical time saved per person: 4 minutes
Total weekday time saved: 3,800 hours
Cost (in 2010 $): $1 billion

Sheppard subway extension (Don Mills to Scarborough Centre)

8 km
Annual ridership: 27 million in 2031
Annual new ridership: 12.2 million
Typical time saved per person: 10 minutes
Total weekday time saved: 5,000 hours
Cost (in 2010 dollars): $3.25 billion

Source: TTC

http://www.thestar.com/news/article/1150280--will-toronto-s-transit-fight-be-won-today?bn=1

[Wharn]

That's rather unfortunate. Ford is getting too moronic for his own good. Subways are probably better from a long-term perspective, but he can't make any rational economic arguments in favour of them. All he does is shout "SUBWAYS, FOLKS!" and that simple-minded arguing is probably what killed the heavy rail proposals. The numbers speak for themselves; if you save just an extra 6 minutes per day per rider, and assuming peoples' time is worth at least double of minimum wage, you start racking up huge economic savings over time.

Once again, Scarborough gets the shaft.

[Rico Rommheim]

Jesus, I find this whole Toronto LRT vs subway narrative quite needlessly complicated and boring. When did Toronto become such bogged-down city? It's sad, really.

[Rotax]

Originally Posted by 1331Massi

I think the OPUS only works for the entire STM and STL systems, plus the commuter train. But you're right about the fares.

Incorrect. Most transit operators in the greater Montréal rely on the OPUS card, at least for the monthly passes. I have personnaly used STM, STL, RTL, AMT, CIT Laurentides, CIT Vallée du Richelieu and CIT Roussillon with passes or tickets loaded on my OPUS card.

If you have to travel through more than one transit agency, you can buy the TRAM (Train Autobus Métro) metropolitan passes, which is much cheaper than buying, say, STL and STM passes.

[Rico Rommheim]

Originally Posted by Rotax

Incorrect. Most transit operators in the greater Montréal rely on the OPUS card, at least for the monthly passes. I have personnaly used STM, STL, RTL, AMT, CIT Laurentides, CIT Vallée du Richelieu and CIT Roussillon with passes or tickets loaded on my OPUS card.

If you have to travel through more than one transit agency, you can buy the TRAM (Train Autobus Métro) metropolitan passes, which is much cheaper than buying, say, STL and STM passes.

That's fucked up man, we need to simplify shit. Just need to simplify our shit broheim...

[dleung]

The subway vs LRT debate in Toronto reminds me of a similar weighing of options for Vancouver's Broadway-UBC corridor, where the costlier option is also around $3 billion. Except that while there's a solid case for any of the main options for Vancouver, the Toronto debate is completely retarded. Here's the dollar value comparisons of both options in each city:

Option ------------------- Cost ---------- Annual New Ridership

LRT (Toronto) ----------- $1 billion ------- 7.7 million
Subway (Toronto) ------- $3.25 billion --- 12.2 million
Subway (Vancouver) ----- $2.8 billion ---- 60 million
LRT (Vancouver) --------- $1.1 billion ----- 9 million

In Vancouver a strong case can be made for subway (the only reason we'd settle for any other option is lack of funds). In Toronto, subway proponents are pushing for an option that is only 60% superior, but for over 300% the cost. Why there is even a debate makes me really sad for humanity...

[Nouvellecosse]

A big part of the difference is that when we say "subway" in Vancouver we're of course talking about light metro which is less expensive to build than Toronto subway due in part to shorter platforms and narrower vehicles. Places like Vancouver and Montreal seem to be able to build underground metro lines at half the cost of what it requires in Toronto.

The real debate should probably be whether to use traditional Toronto "subway" for all full metro services or to use lighter metros for lower ridership routes. I'm sure resorting to LRTs is not the only way Toronto can save money.

[logan5]

A big part of the difference is that when we say "subway" in Vancouver we're of course talking about light metro which is less expensive to build than Toronto subway due in part to shorter platforms and narrower vehicles.

What is the threshold between light rail and heavy rail anyways? Skytrain has an ultimate capacity of between 25 000 and 30 000 pphpd, depending on who you talk to. That's with 80m platforms. Toronto's capacity right now isn't all that much greater.

Why does't Toronto consider Skytrain technology? It's not that much more expensive for an elevated Skytrain line compared to a light rail line that runs down the median of the street and is much slower, and Skytrain would be way more frequent. And there are plenty of railway right of ways that could be used that run right into Union Station, instead of light rail lines that feed into a packed subway line along Yonge St.

[Nouvellecosse]

There are varying views, but the most common I've heard is that the difference between light metro and heavy rail metro is not so much measured by the overall capacity of the line by the capacity of individual trains. A heavy rail train usually has a maximum standing capacity in excess of 1000 people whereas a light metro may hold 500-600. For example, the maximum standing capacity for a standard 9 car Montreal metro train is 1440 people while the maximum standing capacity for a standard 4 car (Mark II) Skytrain is 520 people.

Obviously the Skytrain system has the advantage of automation which allows for extremely high frequencies thus increasing its total pphpd numbers, but an automated heavy rail system would have the same proportionate advantage.

[Hali87]

Originally Posted by logan5

What is the threshold between light rail and heavy rail anyways? Skytrain has an ultimate capacity of between 25 000 and 30 000 pphpd, depending on who you talk to. That's with 80m platforms. Toronto's capacity right now isn't all that much greater.

Why does't Toronto consider Skytrain technology? It's not that much more expensive for an elevated Skytrain line compared to a light rail line that runs down the median of the street and is much slower, and Skytrain would be way more frequent. And there are plenty of railway right of ways that could be used that run right into Union Station, instead of light rail lines that feed into a packed subway line along Yonge St.

The Scarborough RT uses the same vehicles and infrastructure as the SkyTrain (they choose to operate them manually), although it's ultimately supposed to be replaced with standard LRT. I don't get why Rob Ford is so dead set against LRT, what gets left out of many articles is that by choosing not to build full subway, the overall future LRT network will have a much larger service area than the subway extension would have. Sheppard is just the first of several lines, correct?

[Andrewjm3D]

Rob Ford has had 15 months to come up with a plan and failed to do so. He was also pushing for subways in places that don't need them. Now at last the Downtown Relief Line is back in discussion.

This was the best Rob Ford could come up with. No facts just a lot of noise.

[nname]

Originally Posted by Nouvellecosse

For example, the maximum standing capacity for a standard 9 car Montreal metro train is 1440 people while the maximum standing capacity for a standard 4 car (Mark II) Skytrain is 520 people.

In Toronto, a 4-cars Mark II can only carry 312 and a 6-cars Mark I can only carry 330, according various report regarding SRT upgrade.

[Nouvellecosse]

You're right; the Mark I is significantly smaller than the Mark II. In fact the Mark I is only 12m long compared to 17m long for a Mark II.

Capacity is also slightly reduced in the SRT since despite being equally capable of automated operation as their Skytrain counterparts, the TTC has always opted to staff them meaning there needs to be a control cab.

[nname]

Originally Posted by Nouvellecosse

You're right; the Mark I is significantly smaller than the Mark II. In fact the Mark I is only 12m long compared to 17m long for a Mark II.

Capacity is also slightly reduced in the SRT since despite being equally capable of automated operation as their Skytrain counterparts, the TTC has always opted to staff them meaning there needs to be a control cab.

For the same train, Toronto fits 78 and Vancouver fits 130... does the cab really that large that it takes up space for 52 passengers? Or does Toronto really low balling the capacity for ALRT/ICTS trains?

[Alexcaban]

http://www.stm.info/english/info/a-4expressouest.htm

[isaidso]

Why is it that Montreal can build subways, Beijing can build subways, Mexico City can build subways, London can build subways, Vancouver can build subways, but Toronto can't?

Honestly, just get the darn things built. If these other cities can find the money, our politicians aren't trying hard enough. Raise my taxes! I don't care, just start building them please! LRT is NOT good enough.

[cormiermax]

Originally Posted by isaidso

Why is it that Montreal can build subways, Beijing can build subways, Mexico City can build subways, London can build subways, Vancouver can build subways, but Toronto can't?

Honestly, just get the darn things built. If these other cities can find the money, our politicians aren't trying hard enough. Raise my taxes! I don't care, just start building them please! LRT is NOT good enough.

If you had a competent mayor who actually had a plan rather than just screaming subways! Perhaps they would be being built.

[Innsertnamehere]

subways are better, nobody is doubting that. ford should have enabled the parking tax & the 1% tax hike needed for this. (I think that was all the new taxes needed for Sheppard)


but on another note, LRT really is what is best for Sheppard. But unfortunately, we have a subway there now. we made the decision that Sheppard will be a subway in the 1990's, so i say we are now stuck with it.

[Innsertnamehere]

double post

[Wharn]

Originally Posted by dleung

In Vancouver a strong case can be made for subway (the only reason we'd settle for any other option is lack of funds). In Toronto, subway proponents are pushing for an option that is only 60% superior, but for over 300% the cost. Why there is even a debate makes me really sad for humanity...

First of all, you may want to check on your numbers. I find that 60 million figure a little dubious, to say the least. Secondly, The Toronto numbers don't really account for future growth spurred by transit lines, they just pretty much assume current trends. And the current trends for Scarborough are rubbish.

Originally Posted by Innsertnamehere

subways are better, nobody is doubting that. ford should have enabled the parking tax & the 1% tax hike needed for this. (I think that was all the new taxes needed for Sheppard)


but on another note, LRT really is what is best for Sheppard. But unfortunately, we have a subway there now. we made the decision that Sheppard will be a subway in the 1990's, so i say we are now stuck with it.

I would have supported Miller shit like the personal vehicle tax, parking tax, etc if it was actually put towards something useful, and not just doling out generous compensation packages to overpaid municipal workers. If it was used for a Sheppard subway then definitely, I would have been 100% supportive of those measures.

As far as subways on Sheppard go in general, I would agree with you if this was 2002. I remember when the line first opened it seemed a little daft to have an underground rapid-transit line running through low-to-medium density suburbs. But looking at the street now, and the sheer number of high-density redevelopments brought on by the subway link, I think that line is perfectly appropriate.

Originally Posted by isaidso

Why is it that Montreal can build subways, Beijing can build subways, Mexico City can build subways, London can build subways, Vancouver can build subways, but Toronto can't?

Toronto has contracted the dreaded "London, Ontario Syndrome (L.O.S.)". That is, its politicians no longer look at very long-term benefits when planning public projects, the inhabitants become too apathetic or retarded to care, and everything gets boiled down to a cost and what best serves current needs.

Why is it called the L.O.S., you ask? Look at our LRT plans. Look at our expressway plans. Look at our downtown revitalization plans. The same sort of logic that's dominated the Great Toronto Transit Debate also underpins all of our (incomplete) projects.