[gweed123]

We need north-south ROWs. I don't know why we can't have a ROW on Don Mills, it would only make sense since a DRL (which we need) is a fantasy and a cost out of our hands for now. I think a Duffrerin ROW, something from Downsview to the CNE/Liberty Villiage would work well in addition to a Jane and Victoria Park line.

The thing with N-S ROWs is in each case, everything south of Eglinton would need to be tunnelled (Don Mills, Dufferin, Jane). It's really only once you get out into Scarborough and Etobicoke that a N-S arterial has enough ROW room to actually permit in-median LRT. Any street that had its frontage developed prior to WWII, I can almost guarantee it won't be wide enough, unless it was specifically designed with a boulevard or something, which isn't very common in Toronto.

 

[Standard]

The thing with N-S ROWs is in each case, everything south of Eglinton would need to be tunnelled (Don Mills, Dufferin, Jane). It's really only once you get out into Scarborough and Etobicoke that a N-S arterial has enough ROW room to actually permit in-median LRT. Any street that had its frontage developed prior to WWII, I can almost guarantee it won't be wide enough, unless it was specifically designed with a boulevard or something, which isn't very common in Toronto.

So what is the issue with having underground LRT where it is required, such as the older and narrower parts of the street, and then above ground ROW?
I believe a lot of the initial designs for Jane and Don Mills LRT considered putting narrow parts below ground and put those forward as an option to consider. Unfortunately these lines were cancelled/put on hold when Transit City became delayed and Rob Ford came to power.

For the Don Mills portion, I think we should just have above ground ROW from Eglinton to Steeles. Then the DRT can start at Eglinton and Don Mills to go downtown. This would provide the best relief for the Yonge line by intercepting traffic on the Eglinton LRT.

 

[gweed123]

So what is the issue with having underground LRT where it is required, such as the older and narrower parts of the street, and then above ground ROW?
I believe a lot of the initial designs for Jane and Don Mills LRT considered putting narrow parts below ground and put those forward as an option to consider. Unfortunately these lines were cancelled/put on hold when Transit City became delayed and Rob Ford came to power.

For the Don Mills portion, I think we should just have above ground ROW from Eglinton to Steeles. Then the DRT can start at Eglinton and Don Mills to go downtown. This would provide the best relief for the Yonge line by intercepting traffic on the Eglinton LRT.

Because building the Jane LRT underground south of Eglinton is a waste of money. The projected ridership is barely worthy of in-median LRT, so spending the extra $240 million/km to bury it is even less justifiable.

The only N-S arterial in Toronto that I think is worthy of buried LRT is Dufferin, and even that is a hard case to justify, especially when you consider how that money could be spent on GO Transit upgrades, specifically to the Barrie corridor, that would siphon off a lot of that ridership.

As for Don Mills, I'm personally more inclined to wait until the Richmond Hill GO line is electrified, just to see how much ridership that does in fact syphon off. If RH, combined with Lakeshore East and Stouffville, takes enough demand away, I would be totally fine with doing at-grade LRT north of Eglinton, and then underground LRT along Don Mills to Queen, where it would continue west under Queen into downtown.

If it doesn't take away enough ridership, HRT from Eglinton to downtown via Wellington it is. This goes back to my comment earlier about being unsure about how travel patterns and demand will shift with the electrification of GO. We may find that projects that were #1 on the priority list aren't quite as high up there anymore.

 

[Dan416]

I don't think the current plans are going to change, seeing as the Liberals are staying in power.

Eglinton will get built.
Sheppard will likely languish due to lack of funds.
DRL will continue to be studied.

The rest of Transit City will likely not see the light of day due to lack of funds.

 

[Eug]

I don't think the current plans are going to change, seeing as the Liberals are staying in power.

Eglinton will get built.
Sheppard will likely languish due to lack of funds.
DRL will continue to be studied.

The rest of Transit City will likely not see the light of day due to lack of funds.

Precisely. Transit City in its prior form is dead in the water. Now if someone were to say a heavily modified / cut down Transit City is still alive inasmuch it may show up in the mid- to long-term, then I wouldn't disagree with that, but IMO that's not "Transit City". That's additional Toronto transit development on top of the targeted Eglinton-Scarborough Crosstown. You may as well call it Fred, because it's not the same thing as Miller's Transit City vision.

 

[Northern Magus]

I think there's a flawed premise frequently used in these transit-related threads, and that's to try and argue against LRTs by making subways into something they're not: commuter trains. The straw man invariably put forth is that streetcars can't travel quickly over 20+ km distances and therefore subways are required.

At the risk of stating the obvious, streetcars travel in mixed traffic while ROW LRTs do not. Stop spacing and the frequency of traffic lights are what ultimately determine how fast a ROW LRT can get.

Similarly if commuter trains are what's logically required by the basis of this premise, it's illogical to push for subways since, ownership issues aside, virtually all of the rail infrastructure is already in place and it would be far more cost effective to simply add commuter trains and enhance stations and transfer connections.

Realistically, a mix of ROW LRT, subways and commuter trains will probably be needed in the not too distant future. And bear in mind that the first and the last of these three will be by far the most cost effective to build.

McGuinty won't use his political capital to formally reinstate Transit City. Such level of the Provincial involvement into the City's matters is legally possible, but does not fit the traditional division of powers and would be pretty hard to explain to the general public (that does not see transit as the #1 issue anyway), or even to his own MPPs.

McGuinty won't do anything unilaterally. But as Mihevc seems to suggest in that article, it's entirely open to Council to formally reinstate more or all of it. If passed by Council -- even over its mayor -- McGuinty would likely feel obliged to respect its will.

So this could potentially get very interesting.

Any street that had its frontage developed prior to WWII, I can almost guarantee it won't be wide enough, unless it was specifically designed with a boulevard or something, which isn't very common in Toronto.

This is where Jarvis could potentially enter the discussion: it's quite arguably the only major street between Yonge and the Don River where you have a little extra space, albeit probably not quite enough.

Is there enough courage among any of our councillors to put a ROW down Bay, Jarvis or Church at the expense of two lanes for cars, even if it would likely help take some pressure off the Yonge line?

Certainly not right now, but after another 2-4 years of stasis and increasing gridlock? Who knows?

So what is the issue with having underground LRT where it is required, such as the older and narrower parts of the street, and then above ground ROW?

Well we come right back to the question of where to get the money for the tunnelled part.

I think we're in a position where our transit needs are far too great and the available funding is far too little.

Rather than embrace a particular mode of rapid transit, I'd argue in favour of creating a shoestring budget model that starts with eliminating cars from some of the existing downtow streetcar lanes, opening the midtown line, and running short turn GO trains within 416 at 5-minute intervals. And then upscaling each as funding and ridership allows.

It looks to me like having several mega-budget items competing with each other is the best recipe for ongoing paralysis.

 

[nfitz]

We need north-south ROWs. I don't know why we can't have a ROW on Don Mills, it would only make sense since a DRL (which we need) is a fantasy and a cost out of our hands for now.

I don't see a DRL starting anytime soon. But I don't think it's a complete fantasy. It is in the Metrolinx 25-year plan.

It would certainly cost money ... but we are currently dropping $8-billion on a 20-km tunnel from near Jane to Kennedy station. A first stage of a DRL would only be about 6 km from Pape station to Bay/Wellington. Even extending it all the way to Eglinton/Don Mills is only a total of only 11 km. Compare that to Ford's 13.5-km Sheppard $4+-billion subway folly. The $ magnitude of the project is certainly within what we are seeing spent these days.

This is where Jarvis could potentially enter the discussion: it's quite arguably the only major street between Yonge and the Don River where you have a little extra space, albeit probably not quite enough.

Jarvis is only 3 metres wider any other downtown street. A standard road width of 1 chain (66 feet - 20 metres) for most arteries, and even side streets. Jarvis north of Queen seems to be 75-feet wide (23 metres). See this figure from the Official Plan.

I don't know whey we aren't discussing this on the other Transit City or DRL threads though.

 

[nfitz]

TTC has posted some new construction photos for the Eglinton LRT from last week on the Crosstown website:

http://www.thecrosstown.ca/news-media/whats-new/west-launch-area-construction-update

 

[sixrings]

I don't understand why NS lines like keele or dufferin or jane can't have basically street cars in traffic from bloor to eglinton the ROW from eglinton to steeles. It can still have LRT spacing. It would carry more passengers then a bus and be a more comfortable ride. And it would drastically change these streets. So again in traffic when not enough space to widen and ROW when there's is enough space. Seems like much more sense then going underground. Anything btw would be a improvement on dufferin.

 

[noctis]

Should the Transit City plan be revived? Now that the Liberals are minority, it could happen. Personally, I don't think it should because I think it is a waste of money and not a lot of ppl will use it. I will, however, support the Finch West LRT. Now that everyone has a say at Queen's Park, I think it's time to speed up the process.

With regards to the Eglinton-Crosstown LRT, and I've been thinking about this for quite a while now, would it be better if the western half (from Eglinton Station to Black Creek) was built first? Heck, if that can save some cash, they should just extend it to Pearson Airport. The eastern half can hold off till later cause it's not vital to have it built at this time, imo...

Should there be leftover cash, one can use it to either build the Sheppard subway that Ford has been dying to get it done (to me, it's useless though), extend the YUS line north to Richmond Hill Center (this should of been done LONG time ago), and build the DRL (again, should of been done LONG time ago). Since Toronto does not have a lot cash, why not build small projects, try to get some revenue and then focus on the big projects in the future?

 

[sixrings]

Should the Transit City plan be revived? Now that the Liberals are minority, it could happen. Personally, I don't think it should because I think it is a waste of money and not a lot of ppl will use it. I will, however, support the Finch West LRT. Now that everyone has a say at Queen's Park, I think it's time to speed up the process.

With regards to the Eglinton-Crosstown LRT, and I've been thinking about this for quite a while now, would it be better if the western half (from Eglinton Station to Black Creek) was built first? Heck, if that can save some cash, they should just extend it to Pearson Airport. The eastern half can hold off till later cause it's not vital to have it built at this time,

I don't know why anyone would question if lines like sheppard jane or don mills would see higher ridership. They are already busy routes and with rail would come development which would bring even more riders. I agree drl is needed but to say the b usiest routes if converted to lrt wouldn't bring higher ridership doesn't seem to make much sense.

 

[DKsan]

I think what everyone needs to remember about Transit City that really caused a clusterfuck is that it was designed with regional connections in mind. Sheppard didn't connect with STC because it was to eventually connect with the Durham BRT. Jane and Don Mills LRT were to be extended north into York Region (with York paying for them as they went up).

If we're going to build a transit system, it needs to have regional, as well as local connections.

 

[sixrings]

I think the stop spacing of 400M was made for local transit use. I'd argue that for most people they would think that the stop spacing should have increased if anything. Larger stop spacing means faster ride which means shorten trips. In practice I think this is true if people are willing to walk 5mins to a stop. Sadly I think many people are too lazy to walk which is why we see so many stops so close to each other which ultimately increases travel times. Again I think TC was designed more locally and that's exactly why people had problems with it. They want to get downtown ASAP. General opinion Less stops the better.

 

[Rainforest]

I think there's a flawed premise frequently used in these transit-related threads, and that's to try and argue against LRTs by making subways into something they're not: commuter trains. The straw man invariably put forth is that streetcars can't travel quickly over 20+ km distances and therefore subways are required.

At the risk of stating the obvious, streetcars travel in mixed traffic while ROW LRTs do not. Stop spacing and the frequency of traffic lights are what ultimately determine how fast a ROW LRT can get.

Similarly if commuter trains are what's logically required by the basis of this premise, it's illogical to push for subways since, ownership issues aside, virtually all of the rail infrastructure is already in place and it would be far more cost effective to simply add commuter trains and enhance stations and transfer connections.

Realistically, a mix of ROW LRT, subways and commuter trains will probably be needed in the not too distant future. And bear in mind that the first and the last of these three will be by far the most cost effective to build.

Conceptually it is correct that commuter trains are better suited for long trips than subways. However, currently we don't know how much it will cost to upgrade the rail network to the point when it becomes a viable option for multiple trips patterns within the city.

At the Sheppard level, there is no E-W rail line for crosstown trips; hence I expect the Sheppard subway to become essential at some point in future (even though it should not be the #1 priority right now).

Quite a large number of E-W crosstown trips could be served by the Midtown line if it had train service on 15-min frequency or better. But the existing tracks are heavily used for the CPR freight traffic, and space to add more tracks may not be available for some sections of the corridor.

The inner suburb-to-downtown trips are in a better shape as there are multiple rail lines to Union. Still, a lot of issues have to be resolved before GO trains can play a role similar to that of S-Bahn in Berlin or RER in Paris:

1) Capacity at Union; they do expand it but not very quickly. There is a risk that all capacity growth will be eaten by the growing 905-to-downtown demand, with nothing left for 416.

2) Width / number of tracks in the corridors.

3) TTC route structure. Currently, getting to a nearby GO station by TTC often requires a transfer between two TTC routes, or a long walk from the "closest" TTC stop.

And then, of course, there is an issue of fare integration; but I'd think that it will be resolved if the above mentioned issues are resolved.

So, it is doable, but the costs might be considerably higher than they seem at the first glance.

 

[andrewpmk]

I think what everyone needs to remember about Transit City that really caused a clusterfuck is that it was designed with regional connections in mind. Sheppard didn't connect with STC because it was to eventually connect with the Durham BRT. Jane and Don Mills LRT were to be extended north into York Region (with York paying for them as they went up).

If we're going to build a transit system, it needs to have regional, as well as local connections.

Transit City would have been pretty useless for regional connections because it is slow and required far too many transfers. Transit City would have improved local bus routes somewhat but would have been totally useless in relieving highway congestion. On Sheppard, the transfer at Don Mills would have discouraged a lot of ridership, never mind the fact that travelling from west of Yonge to east of Don Mills would have required transferring three times which just encourages driving on the 401. Also I think that STC is the best place for regional connections because it has a big bus terminal, and GO buses to Durham Region stop there; STC to Brock Road tends to be just about the only section of the 401 that doesn't suffer from heavy congestion in rush hour. I can't imagine that many people want to suffer taking Sheppard subway to Don Mills, slow LRT from Don Mills to UTSC and then a Durham Region Transit bus.

Extending Don Mills LRT and Jane LRT to Markham and Vaughan respectively is total overkill. First YRT needs to run routes 90 and 20 more than every 51 minutes and 45 minutes respectively on Sunday.