[pw20]

Mike,
have you ever taken a research class? I don't mean this in any sense of disrespect, but posting pictures and saying its better than Toronto's transit system or surpasses us transit expansion makes completely no sense unless you do the research to back up your thesis. That's why these threads are so ludicrous.

But yes... the pictures look lovely, and the expansion is impressive.

 

[miketoronto]

I did not say its better then Toronto's transit system. I said they surpassed us in the number of KM of rapid transit they built. And that we could use a system like theirs in certain areas of Toronto, and it could bring rapid transit to more people in Toronto at a fraction of the cost of subways.

The St Louis Metrolink is not that great by Canadian standards in ridership. The entire system which is longer then the Toronto subway system, only carries about 50,000 riders a day.

 

[mgl2]

I lived in St. Louis when it was first opened back in the late nineties. I happened to live near the Forest Park station and worked near one of the downtown stations. However, if I went anywhere on the weekend, I drove because the system was designed for one purpose, to get people downtown. And if you've ever visited St. Louis, you'd know that you don't want to go downtown except for work or tourism because downtown is a wasteland.

Some of the problems with Metro St. Louis:

1. The system carries very few people. The trains are only 2 small cars and at peak they run only every 10 minutes.

2. The Illinois portion (the huge part east of the Arch stop) is a dead zone. It was designed for Illinois commuters to park in East St. Louis, a scary prospect, and it was designed to connect to the former Scott air force base thinking it would become a second transportation hub after Lambert field at the west end. Mid America Airport as Scott is now known is a white elephant and the connection to it still wasn't built as of a couple of years ago. It's a very long line to nowhere so don't get too excited about the kilometres of track laid.

3. The system has a terrible POP system which frustrated honest people because you'd miss your train while waiting for the single working validation machine (which was separate from the ticket dispensing machine) and because fraud was so rampant.

4. This is a big one for everybody who thinks running trains through right of ways is the best option, the stations were often in useless places. Just like Chicago's Dan Ryan red line stops, the stops on part of St. Louis' system were too far away from where you'd actually want to be to be truly useful. The Grand station is an excellent example. St. Louis was trying to build an entertainment district there. But if you went to a show you had to drive because by the time you got to the theatre from the stop you'd be freezing or sweated through, depending on the season.

5. There was no connection to Amtrak while I lived there. On the other hand, Amtrak was a series of mobile trailers because the train station had been turned into a shopping mall for tourists so I'm not sure why you'd want to connect to it, but if you came in from the airport, you'd have to slog your way through to Amtrak.

6. The main airport stop was incredibly far from the ticketing area. In Chicago, the blue line comes in under the airport and there are moving sidewalks in all directions to the 3 different terminals. St. Louis did it the cheap way as has been mentioned so the connection is to the Siberia portion of the airport. Narrow stairs with luggage is not fun! It was so out of the way that I don't think tourists would find it. I hope our eventual line to Pearson is more like Chicago than St. Louis, but I'm fearing the St. Louis option.

7. To re-coup the costs of the airport connection, the city decided to charge a LOT more for a ticket purchased at the airport then anywhere else. Natives knew this and bought round-trip tickets downtown so they'd be fine on their return trip, but visitors were screwed. On the other hand, they'd never figure out to validate the ticket so they could use the same one on their return trip!

8. The line didn't go anywhere except from the airport to downtown. It did go to Illinois but nobody went there. It was built for 2 reasons, to get commuters off highway 40, a laudable goal, and to help bring conventions to St. Louis, the real reason. The Cervantes Convention Centre was expanded around the same time and renamed to America's Centre. The real financial district has long since moved out of downtown to Clayton, a close-in suburb. The new line will go through Clayton.

9. Clayton residents were very unhappy due to the proposal to build the new line at grade through their expensive neighbourhood, meaning noise and safety issues. Did the new line get built at grade after all?

10. The Forest Park station, and a few others, were poorly designed. This one encouraged people to cross the street illegally because the parking lot was on the opposite side of the street from the station. They were actually talking about moving the station because there was no good way to fix the problem!

While the St. Louis system looks great on a map, it's not much of a system. To be fair, I think it would be very difficult and expensive to build a useful system in St. Louis due to the layout and density of the city. The actual city had lost over half its population in 30 years and that was a decade ago. There are pockets of people trying to improve the city but I don't think the trends have been reversed yet. This metro system is a great first step but it can't be compared to Toronto's system. Although our system has been stalled and we're building lines we don't really need, our 1950s-1970s system is still light years ahead of St. Louis.

There were a lot of funny things with the system opening. I think it took a year to finish the east airport stop. They ended up putting stickers over the station on the map so people didn't plan to travel to the stop. The post dispatch ran an article with a rocket scientist, a brain surgeon, and a genius trying to use the ticket dispensers and validators and none of them could figure it out. The machines were a disaster from a usability standpoint.

 

[mgl2]

I'm not extremely familiar with St. Louis' layout, but this extension does actually seem analagous to an Eglinton line or a completed Sheppard line, not a transit line to nowhere like the Vaughan subway extension.

The new line is not equivalent to Eglinton because the areas it passes through are very low density. It does connect to a major shopping mall, the real financial centre, and another neighbourhood, so it's definitely the most useful line, but it's more like building a line through an area of single family homes and strip malls.

AlchemisTO: I don't understand why all of today's rapid transit expansion is out to auto-dependent suburbs. Ditto for Toronto. Will an Eglinton or Queen subway never see the light of day?

MikeinToronto: Also the reason we gotta expand transit to the suburbs, is because thats where the ridership growth is. People in the inner core already take transit. Its the suburbs where we gotta get the choice riders.

Although people in the inner core already take transit, our options are limited by the time it takes to get places. I'd spend a lot more money on Queen West but it takes too long to get there so I don't bother. If we want to increase density, we need transit options that do more than just bring commuters in. The downtown streetcar lines are far beyond capacity. When I routinely have to let a couple of streetcars go by before there's room for me to stand on the front step, the system is over capacity. The situation can be improved through dedicated right of ways, and I think we should do more of those, but we need another east/west subway.

Instead of building the downtown relief line which would aid commuters but connect to little that is useful along the way, a Queen street subway that went north on Pape (and eventually reached Eglinton), with a similar connection on the west side, would be far more useful because it would connect to useful points in between. Instead of building transit the cheap way, building lines along existing right of ways which can only benefit commuters, we should build transit lines that go where people want to go. It will be more expensive but it will be useful. I'd willingly pay more taxes for this.

Whatever the St. Louis system's merits, we shouldn't lose sight of the fact that it includes a station named "Skinker."

At least this is a street name that is pronounced correctly! There are many French street names in St. Louis and you should hear the pronounciations that are standard. My favourite is Gravois which is pronounced gravoy. Ugh.

 

[adma]

Re the Illinois section, I'm trying to imagine a transit line running up Hwy 11 all the way thru Caledon to Orangeville...

 

[Antiloop33rpm]

mgl2: Thank you for the thoughtful comments on Metrolink and St. Louis. It certainly seems to reinforce many peoples notions and ideas as too the city and just what the true state and impact of the system is.

 

[EnviroTO]

As the ridership numbers prove number of kilometers of track is not a proper measure of a transit system. They have all that trackage and infrastructure to maintain and less ridership than Mississauga to pay for it all. It is impressive in that the funding was available to build the expansion despite the ridership, but hopefully we use their "funding availability" as the model and not the end result. The focus needs to be on number of people living within walking distance of a station, working within walking distance of the system, and having a route that satifies the origin and destination pairs of the customers.

That wheelchair ramp is a real obstacle course for the disabled. I guess it is a good supplement to an elevator in case the elevator is out of service though. In our stations out of service elevators means wheelchair passengers are screwed.

 

[Antiloop33rpm]

^To further that point, building with a hope or vision that "perhaps" one day ridership numbers will reach the required target for financial stability is really a poor idea. This is not too say that new transit expansion cannot be used as a catalyst for growth in some areas, but new lines should largely be built with today or the near future in mind, and not what may or may not happen over the next few decades.

A good example of sensible expansion is the new AMT commuter rail line in Montreal to Masscouche. Several communities along the line were very vocal in showing support for a new (first) line to the eastern part of the island. This was expressed through local media and by several city councils. This local support, in addition to the recommendations of transit and regional planners, means that the line has a strong chance of success and makes sense.

In Toronto, a few similair examples might be the extension of the Bloor line to replace SRT, or perhaps Brampton were GO service would make sense and would likely have strong community support from the get go.

Expansion needs to logical. Money is of course an issue, but if a project has enough support from the beginning, this can be overcome. Nobody is going to approve the construction of a bunch of LRT lines placed in an ad hoc fashion with "fingers crossed" that they will work out. This is largely why Blue 22 found itself facing public criticism. It was a plan that served almost nobody other than SNC-Lavalin. Its also why many people question the idea of a subway to Vaughan.

I really cant suburbs like Markham and Vaughan being prime candidates for rapid transit (outside of basic commuter services) until a majority of those residents actually express a desire for it. And that isnt likely to come until they choke under excessive traffic, or because of rising gas prices, or any other number of factors.

 

[scarberiankhatru]

"What I was being critical of is how this is relevant to Toronto."

Uh, an LRT line through the inner suburbs is not relevant to what Toronto needs? Hello, Eglinton or DRL! I guess anything that's not a Queen subway line (edit: or whatever wonderful systems the Germans have) is irrelevant to you.

"However, if I went anywhere on the weekend, I drove because the system was designed for one purpose, to get people downtown."

Toronto's subway system is exactly the same - it gets you downtown and nowhere else, which is fine because that's where the most people want to go by transit. I'm guessing the bus system isn't very impressive in St. Louis...it doesn't even seem to serve St. Charles County.

"The new line is not equivalent to Eglinton because the areas it passes through are very low density."

I also said it's analagous to the Sheppard line - which I'm certain you will have more trouble denying - connecting an inner suburban civic node, a mall, etc., with a line that goes straight downtown. Eglinton West is not a particularly dense area, has no mall, no university, no offices, etc., so it's more equivalent to the St. Louis line out to the airport.

"I really cant suburbs like Markham and Vaughan being prime candidates for rapid transit (outside of basic commuter services) until a majority of those residents actually express a desire for it."

Tens of thousands of Markhamers already take the TTC, YRT to the TTC, and GO. Connection issues and double fares prevent Markham from reaching 416-type ridership numbers. Vaughan is hopeless.

 

[Antiloop33rpm]

Uh, an LRT line through the inner suburbs is not relevant to what Toronto needs? Hello, Eglinton or DRL!

Im not saying that transit to the inner suburbs isn't relevant. I think passenger rail (including LRT) is probably the most relevant to meeting transit needs in the GTA. But there are a lot of questions and issues that need to be addressed first. How much new capacity can the main networks handle? If you are running a system on rail lines in conjunction with GO will Lakeshore be able to handle all the news trains feeding into it? If you are using the subway, how long until those lines reach capacity? If you are creating a new system seperate of those two, how would that even function? Would it be centralized with a new downtown terminus or decentralized delivering people to a number of random points downtown? If its a system using GO tracks and ROW's, what type of vehicles and systems must be used to meet NTSB standards? How much will it cost? Will a system in a ROW have enough high ridership nodes to make the system financially sustainable, or will it require many stations that may affect the overall speed of the line? Will it be electrified, third rail, or diesel? If not on standard gauge rail track, then will it run on streetcar gauge track perhaps? Will it be part of a regional network or only part of the TTC? What kind of expansion capabilities will it have? Will it function as an isolated line, such as the subway lines, or function as a branch of a series of trunk networks? Will the line be accessible to other agencies (VIA, TTC, GO) if standard rail track is used? Etc, etc....

Point being, if you want to expand transit service (be it LRT, heavy rail, commuter rail, etc) there are a huge number of critical questions that need to be asked and addressed first before jumping into it. The last thing Toronto needs is to install a few new lines into the suburbs and ending up with another SRT on its hands.

And for the record, I personally think subways in general are largely irrelevant for the city at the momment and think Toronto would do best by not worrying about them right now.

Tens of thousands of Markhamers already take the TTC, YRT to the TTC, and GO. Connection issues and double fares prevent Markham from reaching 416-type ridership numbers. Vaughan is hopeless.

Tens of thousands hardly seems like enough to warrant full scale service to these areas yet. Perhaps once fare integration takes place, better and more frequent service offered, a larger YRT network developed, and a transit culture in general has sprung up in places like Markham, then, the idea of spending hundreds of millions on high capacity rail service upgrades, expansions, and new construction will make sense. As of today, I havent seen any argument that could really justify doing such a thing when there are other transit priorities that make a lot more sense.

 

[scarberiankhatru]

"Point being, if you want to expand transit service (be it LRT, heavy rail, commuter rail, etc) there are a huge number of critical questions that need to be asked and addressed first before jumping into it."

Obviously, which is why I'm not immediately dismissing the St. Louis example like you are. You may call LRT in a rail corridor from downtown to the airport "irrelevant" but I call it an option worth examining to identify the pros/cons for a similar line such as the Weston corridor, which would travel in a rail corridor from downtown to the airport.

"Tens of thousands hardly seems like enough to warrant full scale service to these areas yet.

I never said anything should be built out there - Viva is fine for now and should work nicely once upgraded to something a bit more than fancy bus shelters. All I just said there already is a transit culture in Markham despite the double fares, mediocre frequency and connection issues...Markham is not entirely composed of evil SUVs and cul-de-sacs.

 

[Antiloop33rpm]

Obviously, which is why I'm not immediately dismissing the St. Louis example like you are.

My main reason for dismissing the St. Louis model was simply the scale of their system really doesnt offer much to Toronto (but as I said, it might be a model for someplace such as Kitchener-Waterloo too gain insight and ideas in operating a transit system that size). There are far better cities that would be closer to Toronto's size and needs that would actually be worth investigating in regards to this form of transit.

You may call LRT in a rail corridor from downtown to the airport "irrelevant" but I call it an option worth examining to identify the pros/cons for a similar line such as the Weston corridor, which would travel in a rail corridor from downtown to the airport.

Actually I have said quite the opposite in discussions on the Weston Corridor. I have always thought that LRT in the Weston Corridor is a perfectly good option. I also think that the Weston Corridor is one of the more critical lines in the GTA and has a great potential for serving local and regional transit needs. In addition to serving the airport, and could also be spurred to serve several locations in Brampton, as well as GO or increased VIA service with Kitchener-Waterloo. The line could also easily be tied in with the York Sub giving the 905 easy access to Pearson and providing more transit options in the region. The Weston Corridor is a great case where LRT (or small commuter trains) serving local needs, in addition to GO commuter service, VIA service, and perhaps a dedicated Pearson-Union service could all coexist on a single system thus meeting far more needs than reducing it to a single purpose.

Which is another reason why systems like Metrolink really are not that relevant to Toronto. The provide a single technology in a single use corridor which can only really serve one or two specific purposes. In a city like Toronto where a corridor may be suitable and desireable for inter-city, regional, and local service, these options dont make a lot of sense.

I never said anything should be built out there - Viva is fine for now and should work nicely once upgraded to something a bit more than fancy bus shelters. All I just said there already is a transit culture in Markham despite the double fares, mediocre frequency and connection issues...Markham is not entirely composed of evil SUVs and cul-de-sacs.

Fair enough. And in that respect Markham is also making at the very least some attempts at moving past the auto dependant model of suburbia with Cornell and its recents plans for a "Downtown Markham". Granted, I havent seen the downtown plan in detail (or any form other than a few renderings) it is still something.

It does also bring up the point that not all problems are best solved by just building lots of new lines. Fare duplication is a good case in point. By simply integrating fares across the GTA and with the introduction of the GTTA and perhaps its ability to better coordinate regional service, that could have a great effect at making transit use more efficient and effective for places such as Markham and Vaughan.The same could be said for GO. If GO did not have to share many of its tracks with CN and CP it could easily begin to offer better service. In this case, by adding dedicated tracks in existing ROW's (where possible), building some more stations along the lines, and using rolling stock more suitable for frequent stop service, GO would be transformed into a powerhouse for local and regional transit. Mix in the GTTA and better integration between GO and regional services, and you have a recipe success.

These are ideas that can in part come from looking at other cities, but for the most part they will come by applying Toronto based solutions to Toronto problems by building upon Toronto's existing network.

Its also worth noting that these ideas have at one point or another been proposed or discussed by Toronto officials or planners or citizens. It is not that Toronto is without good ideas. Often however it seems that Toronto gets sidetracked (or sideswipped) by visions of Denver or Chicago or ambitions of the province (can you say OTDC/UTDC) and sensible ideas get pushed to the side.

Yet another edit: Just too offer two examples. The first in the infamous GO-ALRT program of the 1970's. This was a plan that offered a fair degree of planning and vision and was certainly ahead of its time in terms of North American transit planning. Another more recent example is the work of Steve Munroe, a local transit activist who offers some very cogent analysis and ideas on the subject.

Its frustrating but until more people are simply willing to get out of their cars and make vocal demands for public transit, Toronto will be stuck with good ideas and good intentions, but not much else.

 

[mgl2]

Me: "However, if I went anywhere on the weekend, I drove because the system was designed for one purpose, to get people downtown."

scarberian: Toronto's subway system is exactly the same - it gets you downtown and nowhere else, which is fine because that's where the most people want to go by transit. I'm guessing the bus system isn't very impressive in St. Louis...it doesn't even seem to serve St. Charles County.

Toronto's subway goes more than downtown. I took the subway to see a movie today. I take the subway to restaurants on the Danforth. I take the subway to go shopping. That's difficult to do with the St. Louis metrolink as it was originally built, the new line notwithstanding. Their original line just followed the highway and therefore unless you were going downtown or to the airport, it wasn't particularly useful. Toronto's subway lines go to several interesting places.

We had 2 cars in St. Louis because you couldn't get around without one. In Chicago, we managed with one because it had better transit. In Toronto, we get by with no cars. That is an accurate summary of the transit flexibility in the 3 cities.

Yes, the St. Louis metrolink doesn't serve St. Charles County but I believe that's because expansion was voted down by the county residents. In my opinion, the white voters in the suburbs don't want a transit system connecting them to the black city. St. Louis is a difficult city to understand unless you've lived there. It's segregated in a way that no Canadian city is. And due to a strategic error in the early part of the last century, the city is cut off from the county's tax base so it will be almost impossible for it to recover.

On the other hand, St. Louis has Forest Park, a wonderful urban park which Toronto should be very jealous of.

I don't recall much about the bus system, other than the Clayton-Galleria Shuttle Bee and the Forest Park Shuttle Bug, both of which were small buses with bug eyes and antennae. I believe they've been retired now but you can read more about the busy system at www.metrostlouis.org/InsideMetro/QuickFacts/metrobus.asp.

 

[GregWTravels]

I lived in St. Louis for 4 months (actually, it was for 1 month, then another month, and then 2 months straight, but you get the idea).

I can confirm most of what is written here. The system is clean, but runs infrequently. It does have some feeder bus routes, so the stops between downtown and the airport are mostly people transfer on from buses, but much of the line runs through very low density areas or industrial areas.

I think, though, we shouldn't dismiss looking at St. Louis for lessons on what to do or what not to do. St. Louis is a decent parallel for Toronto. It is bounded by it's waterfront (the river), but otherwise has no impedements to outward growth, which has spawned a pretty sprawled city. It, along with other midwest cities like Chicago and Minneapolis, are very relevant examples of what works and what doesn't work.

One of the key lessons we can take from St. Louis, at least without knowing much more about their transit system then as a casual rider 3 years ago, is an LRT system like the Metrolink could work in Toronto if we gave it a decent shot.

Greg

 

[roch5220]

The St Louis LRT seems a lot more commutter rail. Something like what I would hope K-W will get.

Mike. You should write headlines for the Toronto Star.