The Great Canadian Transit Thread

[1overcosc]

I get the impression from the numbers that the Scarborough corridor is viable as either a non-grade separated LRT or a subway, it's in the grey area between the two. As opposed to say, the Sheppard East corridor, which is not viable as a subway. At least that's my impression as an outsider looking into Toronto's often confusing transit planning world.

[miketoronto]

Originally Posted by 1overcosc

I get the impression from the numbers that the Scarborough corridor is viable as either a non-grade separated LRT or a subway, it's in the grey area between the two. As opposed to say, the Sheppard East corridor, which is not viable as a subway. At least that's my impression as an outsider looking into Toronto's often confusing transit planning world.

And may I ask why you feel that way?
You are not going by people people per peak hour are you?

I ask, because, why would you subject an extension of an existing line to the people per peak hour standard? If a subway line is carrying the maximum or even a high PPH number at the beginning of the line, then people further down have no room to board. So it is actually not appropriate to be holding any subway extension to that standard at the start of the line.

Do any of you think NYC's subway lines reach 15,000 or 30,000 people per peak hour in the peak direction from the start of or even few starting KM's of their lines?
Most do not. In fact, most lines have low ridership stations at the end of their routes. The same goes for Paris, London, and other world cities.

The maximum capacity a subway line can carry is not meant to be carried at the beginning of the line. And in fact, it is questionable whether you ever want a subway line to reach that capacity, as you then have overcrowded conditions.

If we subject subway lines and extensions to this arbitrary number, then half the world's subway lines would never have been built.

When planning transit, you have to ask where grade separated rapid transit needs to be built to form a network.

I am sorry, but it is stupid to say people should have to get off the subway halfway through their trip, just to get on a smaller capacity train, because the last 5 stops on the line are expected to be as busy as the downtown portion of the subway.

It makes no sense, and I guess NYC better start closing down subway lines, because my friend is often only one of four or five people who get off at the end of his line.

[hipster duck]

Regardless of whether the Scarborough subway meets the threshold for subway technology, there is an existing, fully-built, grade-separated rail transit system already in existence.

There really are only 3 knocks against the SRT, as far as I'm concerned:

1. The vehicles are getting old,

2. There is a bad transfer setup at Kennedy station.

3. There isn't any other ICTS line in Toronto, so the SRT is orphaned.

With regards to (1), it isn't hard to buy new ICTS vehicles. I've been told that the main limitation to using MkII vehicles is the curve radius at Kennedy station and just north of Ellesmere. You could either modify the MkII car for greater turning radius, or you can spend several hundred million to smooth out the curves. At Kennedy station, this is as simple as building a new, elevated platform on a N-S alignment, parallel to the Stoufville GO line.

With regards to (2), the transfer is a little forced, but eventually, with the arrival of the Eglinton Crosstown, Kennedy station will seem a lot more like a hub than an unnecessary transfer point. Again, the marginal transfer costs are not worth building a $3 billion subway. If you really want a 1-seat ride from Scarborough to downtown, invest that money in SmartTrack, instead.

With regards to (3), so what? It doesn't matter that the SRT is a unique, "orphaned" technology. What matters is that the costs to build and maintain this technology have already been sunk: there is an existing maintenance facility and trained staff to deal with ICTS technology. If we were building a new line from scratch we probably wouldn't use ICTS tech, but we already have, so why would we get rid of it?

ICTS technology is neither outdated nor inadequate for serving Scarborough's needs. In Vancouver, the Expo line carries 300,000 daily riders - or roughly 8X the ridership of the SRT - using the exact same technology, almost always with the same 4 car consists found on the SRT. Of course, Translink actually uses the SRT to its full potential: it runs trains at 90 second headways, and has spent money to expand the stations and refurbish the trains. The TTC seems to almost take a perverse pride in dumping on the SRT - running at 5 minute frequencies and having let the 30 year old cars rot away (they are now the oldest rapid transit vehicles in the TTC fleet).

Build the Scarborough subway if you must, but it really feels asinine. Replacing the SRT with an LRT was short-sighted enough, but abandoning a perfectly good rapid transit line and building a duplicate subway through suburbia 2 km to the east seems like one of the biggest wastes of scarce transit money imaginable.

[TorontoDrew]

Originally Posted by hipster duck

Build the Scarborough subway if you must, but it really feels asinine. Replacing the SRT with an LRT was short-sighted enough, but abandoning a perfectly good rapid transit line and building a duplicate subway through suburbia 2 km to the east seems like one of the biggest wastes of scarce transit money imaginable.

100% behind you here. Sure it's great that Scarborough is getting 3 new stops but at what cost to the rest of the TTC? Over $1,000,000,000 that really should have been used elsewhere. This subway is nothing more then a vote purchasing method all three levels of government hopped on board with and should be ashamed of. The worse part is Rob Ford the college drop out instigated the whole thing. An undereducated man and his moronic rhetoric have set this city back at least another decade when it comes to real system wide upgrades. Thanks Scarborough voters, enjoy your longer bus commutes to one of your three new stations.


from the torontosun.com

[miketoronto]

Thanks Scarborough voters, enjoy your longer bus commutes to one of your three new stations.

We will thanks, and that comment shows just how little people know about this project.

You really have to be grasping at straws to say bus commutes to the new stations will be longer.

But then, if the subway idea was so bad, it would not be projected to carry vastly more people than the LRT. So I guess Scarborough voters will enjoy the subway, because more of them will choose to take transit.

[TorontoDrew]

Originally Posted by miketoronto

We will thanks, and that comment shows just how little people know about this project.

You really have to be grasping at straws to say bus commutes to the new stations will be longer.

But then, if the subway idea was so bad, it would not be projected to carry vastly more people than the LRT. So I guess Scarborough voters will enjoy the subway, because more of them will choose to take transit.

It's not grasping at straws it's a reality. Seriously enjoy your Ford Nation 3 stops. It does nothing to improve the TTC as a whole. And saying we don't know is a big assumption that we haven't been following city politics and transportation politics for the past decade or more. I wouldn't be shocked if you were also one of those Scarbarians against wind mills off the bluffs.

On top of enjoying you three extra stops enjoy your extra waits for crowded buses. What a waste of tax payers dollars.

[lrt's friend]

Wasn't the SRT a demonstration project for Ontario technology?

Its seems to me that it is advantageous to eliminate aging and orphaned technology and replace it with the prevalent rapid transit technology while eliminating a clumsy transfer that was never ideal from day one.

Here in Ottawa, we have embarked on the same foolishness after the 2006 debacle with band aid solutions. While the cancelled 2006 plan offered a one seat service from the southern suburbs to downtown, the latest plan (just announced) will deliver 3 to 4 (yes 4) seat service instead. This is what happens when a trip downtown requires three modes of transit. And what was originally a single rapid transit line, will no longer use rail vehicles on its entire length. Stupidity built on stupidity. Meanwhile, single seat transit service to the airport will be replaced with a rail line that requires at times 2 transfers.

[TorontoDrew]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

Its seems to me that it is advantageous to eliminate aging and orphaned technology and replace it with the prevalent rapid transit technology while eliminating a clumsy transfer that was never ideal from day one.

True but 6 years ago we had a plan to replace it with an LRT. This would have had more stops and would have had a greater chance at future expansions in the not so distant future. Every single study and report said that was the best option. Every single study about priority subway lines always put the URL first. Now we are literally throwing away over a billion dollars just to service a small number of ttc users. I agree with those that say the fare system sucks in Toronto. Those that travel further should pay more that way the Scarborough Subway would be funded by those who use it and not those downtown that can't even get onto transit during rush hour because it's so cramped in the core.

[miketoronto]

Originally Posted by TorontoDrew

True but 6 years ago we had a plan to replace it with an LRT. This would have had more stops and would have had a greater chance at future expansions in the not so distant future.

What is the benefit of more stops, if it will actually be serving less people each day? The subway line, even with less stops will be serving more people each day. So is that not better?

Every single study and report said that was the best option.

No every study did not say that. It is has been known from the start that a subway would attract more riders. But the studies showing that were kept on the shelf, because the pro LRT crowd did not want that getting out. That is why they were so upset and acting like 5 year olds at public meetings, when one of the professionals who knew this spoke up.

[miketoronto]

Originally Posted by TorontoDrew

It's not grasping at straws it's a reality. Seriously enjoy your Ford Nation 3 stops. It does nothing to improve the TTC as a whole. And saying we don't know is a big assumption that we haven't been following city politics and transportation politics for the past decade or more. I wouldn't be shocked if you were also one of those Scarbarians against wind mills off the bluffs.
On top of enjoying you three extra stops enjoy your extra waits for crowded buses. What a waste of tax payers dollars.

No offense TorontoDrew. But those comments just sound like someone who is bitter that his way of transit expansion is not the preferred option in this case.

Why would there be extra waits and more crowded buses? That makes no sense, considering 99.9% of bus routes will be feeding into stations which they already feed into. The only exception being the 57 Midland bus. On that bus route, many people already ride through to Kennedy Station instead of transferring to the SRT.
The 95 York Mills bus has a walking connection outside of rush hours. But riders can transfer through walking transfer to Scarborough Centre Station. This is not a major connection, so it really is not an issue, as few people transfer to or from the 95.

Sorry, but the stats show a subway extension will bring much more benefit to the community, if we look at the actual number of people willing to hop on transit, if the subway is extended.

Are we not building transit to move people and attract the most people out of their cars? Or are we building transit to fit an ideology? For me, we build transit to move people and attract people to transit.

[Beedok]

Originally Posted by miketoronto

Are we not building transit to move people and attract the most people out of their cars? Or are we building transit to fit an ideology? For me, we build transit to move people and attract people to transit.

We should be building transit in all cities to serve those who can't afford alternatives as the necessary base. Expansion beyond that should be about getting people out of cars and onto transit though. (I do feel like Ottawa gives better transit to middle class commuters in the far flung suburbs than to people who need it. Not sure how Toronto compares, but I've seen some complaints that low income areas are under served.)

[miketoronto]

Originally Posted by Beedok

We should be building transit in all cities to serve those who can't afford alternatives as the necessary base. Expansion beyond that should be about getting people out of cars and onto transit though. (I do feel like Ottawa gives better transit to middle class commuters in the far flung suburbs than to people who need it. Not sure how Toronto compares, but I've seen some complaints that low income areas are under served.)

Transit without riders who choose to take transit is not good to captive riders either. As captive riders alone do not support the frequent and extensive transit they rely on. Just look at American transit, to see systems which rely only on serving poor riders.

Lower income areas are not under served in Toronto. This is all political and ideological talking points, and Toronto does an outstanding job of providing equitable transit service to all areas.

In fact, I would stand by the idea that the TTC provides the most equitable transit planning in North America, and even in many parts of the western world.
The TTC has a basic goal of providing the "Right to Mobility". This includes minimum service standards which even ensure all areas of Toronto have 24 hour service, and that service is every 30 minutes or better. This includes to all areas regardless of income. And that is how it should be.

Putting an LRT through poor neighborhoods that will take just as long to travel somewhere, as the buses they are replacing, is not serving poor neighborhoods better.

There is no equity problem in the provision of public transit in Canada, as our standards promote probably the best equity out of most industrialized countries.

[Metro-One]

How come the SRT is unable to upgrade to M2 and M3 cars like Vancouvers Skytrain system?

Also, why are there drivers?? Seems like a west of space capacity.

[Innsertnamehere]

there are drivers due to an 1980's union dispute.

Can't upgrade to the longer MKII and MKIIIs as the newer cars are longer and cannot fit around the curve in the tunnel or the approach to Kennedy.

Remember that the SRT was originally planned to use CLRV trains (streetcars), but that got scrapped at the last minute for poilitics. Thus the loop at Kennedy that goes 100% unused.

[Nouvellecosse]

Union dispute, that's so stupid. Giving people money to do something that doesn't even need to be done is not employment, it's charity. Vancouver is lucky that it's system has been automated from the beginning and therefore had no train operators to cry like babies whose candy was taken.

[Metro-One]

That is a pretty classic reason. I support unions, but that is stupid.

Too bad it was built with too tight of curves to expand to the longer cars.

Also funny about that loops not being able to be used. Was looking at it on Google Earth, that is pretty crazy tight.

Seems like the SRT route has never had a clear vision (and the same seems to be kind of happening again).

[ssiguy]

Toronto want to spend $3 billion on a subway so it doesn't have to spend $200 million to improve a couple of curves.

Actually until Miller's LRT-or-nothing TransitCity Plan came along Metyrolinx just wanted the whole SRT line to be improved as SkyTrain and continue west along Eglinton to make one long route.

Torontonians still have this idea that unless something isn't buried it's not true rapid transit.

[1overcosc]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

Wasn't the SRT a demonstration project for Ontario technology?

Its seems to me that it is advantageous to eliminate aging and orphaned technology and replace it with the prevalent rapid transit technology while eliminating a clumsy transfer that was never ideal from day one.

Here in Ottawa, we have embarked on the same foolishness after the 2006 debacle with band aid solutions. While the cancelled 2006 plan offered a one seat service from the southern suburbs to downtown, the latest plan (just announced) will deliver 3 to 4 (yes 4) seat service instead. This is what happens when a trip downtown requires three modes of transit. And what was originally a single rapid transit line, will no longer use rail vehicles on its entire length. Stupidity built on stupidity. Meanwhile, single seat transit service to the airport will be replaced with a rail line that requires at times 2 transfers.

To be fair, the transfer at Bayview in Ottawa will be comparable to the existing transfer at Bloor-Yonge in Toronto.. only much less overcrowded.

[Innsertnamehere]

Originally Posted by ssiguy

Toronto want to spend $3 billion on a subway so it doesn't have to spend $200 million to improve a couple of curves.

Actually until Miller's LRT-or-nothing TransitCity Plan came along Metyrolinx just wanted the whole SRT line to be improved as SkyTrain and continue west along Eglinton to make one long route.

Torontonians still have this idea that unless something isn't buried it's not true rapid transit.

it would cost more than $200 million to fix those curves. The entire Kennedy rebuild project was $400 million before the subway came along, and that project would still be needed. Then there is the need for the rail corridor curve, extensive rehabilitation of the elevated portion, essentially entire replacement of track structures, maintenance yard upgrades, etc. Plus, where would you propose the additional yard space for the trains be located? the current yard is full and would need additional space for the new, longer cars. Also involves platform extensions, and of course the planned extension which ate into much of the original budget.

The reason they used LRT as the replacement in earlier schemes was because they could integrate the yard with the Sheppard LRT and skip the tunnel rebuild. The additional costs for the technology switch essentially offset the savings, as most trackwork would have to be replaced anyway, and the conversion of stations to low platform was a minimal issue as the stations needed to be rebuilt and extended no matter what as well.

The LRT tech also provided much higher capacity capabilities than what the ICTS tech would have, and given that the SRT has been running at capacity for decades now.. its badly needed.

[Metro-One]

In the end it is too bad that they didn't built it to the full Vancouver style skytrain standards originally back in the 1980s. (or just went with their original LRT idea) Instead a flip flop mid way project is what happened... This is what worries me about some of the recent Toronto expansions, still a lot of flip flopping happening, honestly it is hard to keep track with what the current plans are because they keep changing.