The Great Canadian Transit Thread

[Aylmer]

I don't underhand hew so many European cities can build surface LRT for $20-30 M per km, but we can't build for less than $90M.

I mean, Barcelona, Montpellier, Paris, Le Mans, and countless others have pulled off really nice systems and widespread urban improvement programs for a quarter on our LRT dollar.

[GlassCity]

Originally Posted by begratto

I don't think this has been mentioned, but Montreal's mayor wants to accelerate the construction of the Pie-IX boulevard BRT (SRB, or Service rapide d'autobus, in French), a 14km-long project . It will traverse densily-populated neighbourhoods in the east-end of Montreal, from rue Notre-Dame to boulevard Hemri-Bourassa. An extra 5km are also planned in Laval, at the northern end of the BRT. They now want to open in 2017 (vs 2019 previously). Expected ridership is 70,000 ppd.

SRB Pie-IX: Montréal met le pied au plancher for those who can read French (or you can use the Google Translate link).

Merci pour me donner la chance a pratiquer mon francais

[Innsertnamehere]

Originally Posted by Aylmer

I don't underhand hew so many European cities can build surface LRT for $20-30 M per km, but we can't build for less than $90M.

I mean, Barcelona, Montpellier, Paris, Le Mans, and countless others have pulled off really nice systems and widespread urban improvement programs for a quarter on our LRT dollar.

It's more basic. Adding a singular underground portion makes it expensive. Doing it really cheap a-la St. Clair is possible. That was a cheap line to build.

[caltrane74]

UPX Bitches!!!

[Innsertnamehere]

Metrolinx seems to have ramped up its advertising in anticipation of the transit tax vote. I noticed they took the billboard on te 45 bay site which has been advertising for the sport 590 for years..

[feepa]

looks like webster has grown up

[1overcosc]

I saw a Metrolinx youtube ad for the first ever yesterday.

[miketoronto]

Originally Posted by dleung

Your arguments could apply equally well to Vernon BC, or Antarctica for that matter; once again completely neglecting weighing the benefits against the cost.
The Yonge and Bloor street corridors had proven ridership by the time subway was built, as is normally the case for such projects when not hijacked by politics. Labour was also a lot cheaper in 1960.

Dleung, do you what year we are living in? It is 2014 and not 1950.

Do you understand that in today's age there are few corridors where you can wait until people are packed in like sardines on slow streetcars or buses traveling 5km an hour before you convert to grade separated transit lines?

The situations on Yonge and on Bloor in the 50's and 60's could almost not be replicated today except in a few circumstances, because people would just abandon transit for the car. In 1950, people had no choice but to take transit on Yonge or Bloor.
The Bloor-Danforth subway was required more so to halt public transit ridership decline as more people started buying cars and leaving slow, crowded transit lines behind.

As Toronto's subway was expanded to the suburbs (the very places you guys don't want rapid transit expansion), Toronto not only halted the ridership decline, but actually increased the per capita ridership rates metropolitan wide. One of the few cities in the western world to do this in the post war era.

You guys sometimes make me laugh. Expanding transit to new growth areas is nothing new, and actually makes total sense, as development can be built around the subway.

I guess Vancouver should not be building the Evergreen Line, as it is not replacing an at capacity bus line.

Calgary should not even extend their C-Train, as it does not serve previously heavily used bus routes in most cases.

Your arguments do not hold in 2014 where people have choices of how to get around. If transit does not rise to the challenge, people will just drive.

[Nouvellecosse]

Mike, your point is correct in that it's good to keep ahead of potential demand instead of putting off investment and then having to play catch up. The problem is that Toronto hasn't been doing this and as a result there are numerous areas where there is severe need for service and capacity improvement and people are already "packed in like sardines on slow streetcars or buses".

If current needs were already being met, then by all means we should be investing in the future. But future needs should never be put ahead of present day needs when we're already in a situation where future demand was ignored in the past and we now need to play catchup.

That's why people are criticising this project. It isn't because we don't think anyone will use it or that there will never be future redevelopment, but that there are other areas that needed the investment much more. And for a system with such great need and such limited funds, money must be spent and prioritized very carefully.

As far as the Evergreen line, I'd say it should also should have been a lower priority than projects like Broadway. But whether or not any other city is doing exactly what it should doesn't have any bearing on what Toronto should be doing.

[WhipperSnapper]

Originally Posted by feepa

looks like webster has grown up

That's obnoxious to say the least. Let's see what you look like. Head clean shaven?

[matt602]

That Pie-IX BRT is seriously dope. I've always wondered why Montreal doesn't have nor is planning any LRT routes. I'm sure the ridership is there. I guess the dollars aren't.

[GreaterMontréal]

There are SRBs in Europe and they do the job. LRT 14km is around $1.5B. Don't forget, Montréal will have trolleybus on St-Michel boul. Another big north-south boul. west of Pie-IX. $$

[GreaterMontréal]

The LRT's will be for the South Shore. Starting in 2018.

[miketoronto]

Originally Posted by Nouvellecosse

Mike, your point is correct in that it's good to keep ahead of potential demand instead of putting off investment and then having to play catch up. The problem is that Toronto hasn't been doing this and as a result there are numerous areas where there is severe need for service and capacity improvement and people are already "packed in like sardines on slow streetcars or buses".

I am well aware of that and get your point. However we have to balance expansion on the outskirts with expansion of service in the core. It is not an either or situation.

There are also some low cost transit improvements which the TTC could be doing to improve commutes in the core area, but are not doing. Ideas like express bus services could greatly improve commutes and reduce overcrowding on the Yonge line. But the TTC is not doing simple things like that to help the situation, until further expansion can be completed.

[dleung]

Originally Posted by miketoronto

Dleung, do you what year we are living in? It is 2014 and not 1950.

Do you understand that in today's age there are few corridors where you can wait until people are packed in like sardines on slow streetcars or buses traveling 5km an hour before you convert to grade separated transit lines?

The situations on Yonge and on Bloor in the 50's and 60's could almost not be replicated today except in a few circumstances, because people would just abandon transit for the car. In 1950, people had no choice but to take transit on Yonge or Bloor.
The Bloor-Danforth subway was required more so to halt public transit ridership decline as more people started buying cars and leaving slow, crowded transit lines behind.

As Toronto's subway was expanded to the suburbs (the very places you guys don't want rapid transit expansion), Toronto not only halted the ridership decline, but actually increased the per capita ridership rates metropolitan wide. One of the few cities in the western world to do this in the post war era.

You guys sometimes make me laugh. Expanding transit to new growth areas is nothing new, and actually makes total sense, as development can be built around the subway.

I guess Vancouver should not be building the Evergreen Line, as it is not replacing an at capacity bus line.

Calgary should not even extend their C-Train, as it does not serve previously heavily used bus routes in most cases.

Your arguments do not hold in 2014 where people have choices of how to get around. If transit does not rise to the challenge, people will just drive.

Exactly, it's 2014, not 1950. The original Yonge Line (Union to Eglington) cost $400 million in 2012 dollars, and had twice the number of stations as the Spadina extension. A project like that will cost 10 times the amount today. Conversely, it's becoming prohibitively expensive to drive, hence we are seeing the rise of commuters who are willing to make many transfers on hours-long commutes, so the trajectory is the opposite of what you are arguing.

I'm very much against the Evergreen Line, as it should have been a very low priority compared to other improvements such as the Broadway Line. Plus it makes suburban sprawl more palatable, thus encouraging it. Despite these fundamental issues, it will STILL have a higher ridership than the Spadina Extension, and at half the cost, which is very telling.

[miketoronto]

Originally Posted by dleung

Conversely, it's becoming prohibitively expensive to drive, hence we are seeing the rise of commuters who are willing to make many transfers on hours-long commutes, so the trajectory is the opposite of what you are arguing.

No driving is not becoming that expensive, and people are not giving up cars to take transit service that does not meet their needs, and subjects them to undue transfers and travel times.

The only places transit is making gains, is where service is being improved to offer a fast, frequent alternative to the automobile.

I'm very much against the Evergreen Line, as it should have been a very low priority compared to other improvements such as the Broadway Line. Plus it makes suburban sprawl more palatable, thus encouraging it. Despite these fundamental issues, it will STILL have a higher ridership than the Spadina Extension, and at half the cost, which is very telling.

[/quote]

Both lines will have about the same ridership. And Evergreen is elevated, so of course it will be cheaper.

It does not make suburban sprawl more palatable. It helps curb urban sprawl, and gives people a transport alternative.
Without transit expansion to new areas, people will just drive. It is not like people are going to go "ohh we are not going to move there because the train is not there". No they move there and just drive. Very very few people make home decisions based on transportation.

We also need to get off the cost obsession. The truth is that we can afford to build transit lines if we want to. If transit was a priority, you would see the funding for the required projects, like you do in other countries.

[dleung]

Think for a second about some of these platitudes rolling off your tongue...

"subjects them to undue transfers and travel times..."

No one is walking to any of these new stations, so how exactly are you eliminating transfers?


"people are not giving up cars to take transit service that does not meet their needs"

Is there a single person in Vaughan, or North York for that matter, who is currently auto-dependent, who will give up their cars just because they can take a bus and make a transfer at Highway 407, instead of Sheppard West?


"The only places transit is making gains, is where service is being improved to offer a fast, frequent alternative to the automobile"

The shiny Sheppard subway - the most comparable yet-still-more-worthwhile project to the Spadina Extension - increased its ridership by a measly 15,000 after 13 years and operates at annual losses in the 8 digits, while the street intersections above it became among the most congested in the city. In the same period, the crumbling, neglected Yonge Line saw a ridership increase of 150,000.

[WhipperSnapper]

How can you possible compare a stub line to a line extension that will also take pressure off of Yonge?

[b13]

Why do people constantly criticize the Sheppard subway knowing that the line was never completed to its intended destination of STC. If the line was actually finished then maybe the ridership numbers would be different than what they are today.

[miketoronto]

Originally Posted by b13

Why do people constantly criticize the Sheppard subway knowing that the line was never completed to its intended destination of STC. If the line was actually finished then maybe the ridership numbers would be different than what they are today.

That is so true. Also the existing line does not have low ridership. At 50,000 riders a day on 5.5km of track, the Sheppard subway carries more people than many metro lines double or triple the length in other cities. The Sheppard subway line also attracts more riders per km than many subway lines in other world cities, including many of the London Tube lines.