61 Comments

1. Its not a matter of one technology being better or always more appropriate than the other.

   Sometimes LRT is the right choice; sometimes subway; sometimes neither; and in rare cases both!

   And Let’s not forget the roll of long-haul, heavy rail passenger service too.

   You first have to determine what current land use and travel patterns for an area are; then what you (government) want them to be.

   Only then can you even begin to think technology.

   You also need to assess, for instance, if the intent is to increase density in an area, how much density or feeder capacity makes a given technology viable, and if you can achieve the desired density, how long will it take to do so.

   Given even 1/2 Toronto’s current growth rate, there is little doubt we could organize new development to support 1 or more new subways lines. But are we? Will we? How long will it take for a given stretch or road or community to intensify? You can always build it first (and they will come); but if you are too far out in front, your investment could drain the system of operating funds for years to come.

   In the current Toronto, I support a balance of both of these technologies; though I have some issues with where they are currently proposed. But like many advocates, I worry that to delay current proposals unduly may just be to get no investment at all.

   If I were to critique current proposals; I’m not overly impressed with subways north of Steeles at this stage. I tend to think that this is capacity overkill, particularly in Vaughan.

   On the other hand, I would very much favour ditching the Scarborough RT and its one orphan example of ICTS in favour of a B-D subway extension to Scarborough City Centre. (with a proper rerouting it could serve Scarborough General Hospital on the way up)

   When it comes to Transit City, most of the lines are fine, but I think Sheppard East as currently envisioned is not the best investment.

   Ultimately the Sheppard subway will be expanded, in five years or twenty five, and make the LRT investment largely redundant. In the meantime, Finch West will run as a stranded service. I would rather see Finch East serve Seneca College, and the Bridletown and Woodside areas than invest in Sheppard East as an LRT.

   However, holding up a ‘network’ plan to quibble, might delay the investment till the next government can cancel it.

   Which brings us to the way we usually choose transit technology in these parts…..political expediency.

   Comment by James — August 22, 2008 @ 9:58 am

2. Great, thoughtful post. And I think James also has a good point with the long/broad view needed in regional transit planning. It always seems like it is an either/or with LRT/Subway, but they can coexist nicely. I think the TTC is on the right track with the Transit City stuff. Frankly, I’ll take any expansion, LRT or otherwise, over doing nothing. But for LRT to really make sense you have to have the dedicated lane that gives preference to transit over personal vehicle, and it seems that the City and the TTC often fear the wrath of drivers more than anything.

   Keep up the good work, loving the site.

   Comment by Ben — August 22, 2008 @ 10:10 am

3. I think it’s important to note that there is a direct relationship between stop spacing and line speed. To say that subways have a speed advantage, and LRT a stop spacing advantage glosses over the point.

   If speed is more important than frequent stop spacing, select a fixed number of widely spaced stops, and calculate the projected cost and speed of LRT versus subway. It’s not a fair comparison to load up LRT with a bunch of additional local stops, and then say it’s too slow.

   Comment by Mike — August 22, 2008 @ 11:03 am

4. You want a faster speed on a a HRT or LRT, get wider station/stop spacing. The fastest our current CLRV and ALRV can go is on the Queensway right-of-way, especially between Parkside Drive, Colborne Lodge Drive, and Ellis Avenue. Between Parkside and Colborne Lodge, the distance is about 433 m with a hill at Parkside. Between Colborne Lodge and Ellis, the distance is 595 m, no hill.
   The drivers can open it up, except that there is currently no transit priority on that right-of-way, which slows the speed down.

   Comment by W. K. Lis — August 22, 2008 @ 12:23 pm

5. Very interesting article – good to actually hear what’s actually happening up on Sheppard, as opposed to what’s supposed to be happening or not happening. Well-written, and sort of attacking my own (apparently unfounded) preconceptions of what was going on up in Sheppard – I had assumed wasteland between stations. Very cool.

   However, I think any discussion of a Queen Subway has to take into account the pragmatic problems of actually constructing a subway there: expropriation for stations, construction, relocation of existing underground structures. You couldn’t do what you did up on Bloor-Danforth in the early 1960s (i.e. widescale expropriation – that long stretch of infill houses and mostly parking lots/parks just north of Bloor above the cut-and-cover of the B-D).

   I suspect even if you could muster the capital and political will to do it, you’d end up with wide station spacing – which would certainly impact the existing streetscape. You’d have to run parallel surface service, which’d be undoutably infrequent, penalizing those in between the spread-out stations.

   Steve Munro (www.stevemunro.ca) has written far more intelligently on this than I could ever pretend to. Click on his tag for the ‘Queen Car,’ and be amazed at how the problems on Queen Street really seem to lie in route mismanagement, rather than traffic congestion (I especially like how even on a clear Christmas Eve, his analysis found the ever-present bunching and mismanagement). Great data analysis.

   Comment by Ian Milligan — August 22, 2008 @ 2:16 pm

6. Thanks for all the great comments. I really appreciate all the kind words and the criticism.

   To address the issue of technology choice and the average stop spacing:

   There is no reason why you can’t have a light rail line with stations spaced 1 kilometre apart, and there is no reason why you can’t have a subway line with stations spaced 500 metres apart. I based my assumptions on the most recent rounds of subway construction in the city (Sheppard has 1.0 km on the Bayview – Bessarion – Leslie stretch, 2.0 everywhere else) and the EA proposals for surface light rail (around 500 metres is being recommended). In addition, both the EAs and the Metrolinx white papers recommend this type of spacing, so I think its safe to assume that the average new Toronto LRT will have 500 metre spacing and the average, and the average new Toronto subway line will have 1.0 km spacing.

   In the grand scheme of things the technology and station spacing should be separate issues, but unfortunately they have been married and the discussion framed around that wedding.

   Comment by Andrae Griffith — August 22, 2008 @ 3:28 pm

7. I don’t have a problem with LRT per se. However, the current proposal (apparently drawn up on the back of an envelope one day by Mr. Giambrone) isn’t going to make a dent in Toronto’s mobility problems. If we are going to spend $9 billion or so (the projected cost for Transit City is $8.4 billion – and adding some of the tunnelled sections that aren’t in the plan, the cost will exceed $9 billion very easily.)

   Does it make sense to spend $9 billion on transit that adds marginally to the service offered to those who live on the streets where LRT would be offered – OR is it better to spend that money on subway type services that are proven to draw riders from well away from the lines.

   I’ll give you an example. On Wednesday, we went to High Park to see the excellent Shakespeare production. We took the bus to the subway – and then across more than half the city to get to High Park. I’ve read (used to anyway) blogs such as Steve Munro’s and other that are promoting LRT. The argument is that there isn’t enough demand for subways because of density – yet they suggest that LRT will attract development and boost ridership.

   This type of argument is circular – and inconsistent. In my view, it shows is misconception of how people in this now very large city use transit, and a misunderstanding of what people are looking for.

   Transit is best suited to attract riders when short and reliable surface feeders join with arterial services. On Wednesday, out feeder bus up to the Danforth line was full of people going to the subway – in order to reach destinations all over the city. People could have taken the streetcar – but they weren’t.

   The LRT lines proposed in Transit City are not going to provide the speed to attract riders from off-line.

   LRT service as implemented in other cities could be useful. The Calgary C-train runs at about the same speed as our subway. Calgary is much more spread out that Toronto – yet the C-train lines have attracted ridership beyond the projections of any of the Transit City lines. Speed and convenience are the drivers for success – not the immediate density along a route.

   I was in Montreal for a few months earlier this year. The Metro there is even faster than our subway – and they have a great bus service. I think they have it right – extend the subway services and focus on running great feeder routes by bus on the surface. (As I understand, Montreal has the advantage of longer, narrower trains that can fit in parallel lines in one bore instead of two.)

   Comment by N Clawson — August 22, 2008 @ 8:57 pm

8. It’s a myth that a new subway could not be built downtown on Queen with Bloor-Danforth-like station spacing. Look at the planned Don Mills LRT line through the underground section — it has stations spaced even closer than BD. And, a Queen subway would have automatic entrances at both ends of each 500-foot platform, making the distances between stops even shorter.

   Comment by M. Briganti — August 22, 2008 @ 9:18 pm

9. PS – very informative article! There’s no substitute for going to see something with one’s own eyes. Keep up the good work.

   Comment by N Clawson — August 22, 2008 @ 9:34 pm

10. Thanks for the interesting article.

    LRT advocates in this debate tend to start with an ideal view of good LRT systems, such as Calgary’s, and use this as their point of comparison against subway technology. However, the reality on the ground is that Toronto’s existing LRT systems (Spadina and St. Clair) are very poorly designed and grossly mismanaged as compared to international best practices. There’s plenty of reason for pessimism that these errors will be repeated throughout Transit City — we’re already hearing that far-side stops will be used, and there’s already complaining that the 500m stop spacing is too wide (which is already narrow by the standards of most international systems). So I’d far rather see money spent on subway rather than entrenching bad practices in a city-wide mediocre LRT system.

    Comment by Andrew E — August 22, 2008 @ 10:10 pm

11. Andrew E — yes, the small but influential group of LRT advocates (or should I say fanatics?) who unfairly demonize subways are doing this city and public transit a great disservice.

    Hopefully the LRT vs. subway discussions here will be more balanced, unbiased, and objective. Railfanism masquerading as transit advocacy has no place in serious urban transportation planning.

    Comment by M. Briganti — August 22, 2008 @ 11:06 pm

12. I always find it ironic when the LRT-advocates or subway-advocates try to label the other as railphiles or some other rail-obsessive term when both fall under the same category; what, besides capacity, is the difference between an underground LRT and an underground HRT [subway]? Apart from signal technology requirements (including ATC), there isn’t a fundamental difference beyond the capacity they can carry.

    Both are compatible with fare-paid zones, both are compatible with flanking platforms or islands (if the LRT doesn’t use loops and is double-ended), and both can use either mode of power delivery (overhead catanery or third-rail). If you really wanted to, you could probably design a low-floor HRT vehicle.

    There are roles for both technologies to play, but what is worth looking at is a history of the subway developments to date, which have been successful, which haven’t, and what patterns exist therein.

    What I think is perhaps most worth noting is that the successful subways had a pre-existing high ridership foundation generated by healthy streetcar lines as their predecessors – Yonge and Bloor-Danforth. However, the University-Spadina and Sheppard subways didn’t have a streetcar predecessor and have long been under-performers (that said, the University line (St.George-Union) is a special case); the Spadina subway short-turns a huge portion of the morning rush-hour service at St.Clair West because demand is still low. Sheppard may be spurring development, but it is still not getting the ridership it needs to sustain itself.

    In this light, Transit City is a great step forward since it will provide a safe way of upgrading existing popular bus routes without the risks associated with subways – and where tunneling is needed, provisions are being made for compatability with a future upgrade, should it become necessary 40 years later.

    However, that said, it is rather misguided to be extending the Yonge line further north when it is already over-capacity. There is one badly-needed subway line that has a good combined LRT- and HRT-based ridership: The Downtown Relief Line should be the highest subway priority (however, I don’t think it should run on Queen, but a Richmond-Adelaide alignment that almost entirely avoids exproriation and vastly minimizes disruptions to existing transit services).

    Not to say that Yonge extending further north doesn’t have merits – it does (and to a lesser extent, so does the Downsview-York University stretch of subway… but north of Steeles West is a big problem, particularly the 407 station). However, the main purpose of subways isn’t speed, it is supposed to be about capacity – how attractive it is becomes of questionable significance if there aren’t enough riders available to make the investment pay off. It should be implemented to satisfy a demand that can’t be met by other solutions; cause and effect.

    LRTs may be slower, but what they are capable of providing is a much greater degree of reliability and comfort than the bus, and this does provide a signifant boost to the attractiveness of transit, even in areas where subway levels of demand cannot materialize (…yet).

    What I do think subway advocates should bear in mind is that historical pattern of the successful subways being preceded by streetcar services. The examples we have of going directly to subway without a streetcar predecessor in this city have been failures in the ridership department.

    Interesting thing about Sheppard though; a significant portion of the people that moved into the developments there don’t ride the subway to work (as it doesn’t go to their work). What I am particularly interested in seeing, is who moves in to the next new developments now that there are “beware of traffic” signs going up around there.

    Comment by Karl Junkin — August 23, 2008 @ 1:23 am

13. I agree with some of Karl Junkin’s post – we should be looking at technology for what it can do for us and teh city – not for it’s own sake. (Maybe, it’s a guy thing – falling in love with technology! One of the TTC commissioners has been calling the new streetcars – which haven’t been bought or built yet – “beautiful” – come now!)

    On the other side, I don’t see the history of ridership before our existing subways as relevant. Before our main lines were built, the city was much smaller – and people didn’t have as many cars. The streetcar service was busy with people making very short trips – and apparently moving very slowly.

    Today, our urban areas is very big – we have a population of about 5 million in the direct GTA – plus more in the further ‘burbs. To make this city work economically, we need transportation that will get us around. Subways don’t replace surface transit – they add to it and enable transit to be competitive for journey’s longer that a couple of miles.

    If you look at the ridership on Bloor-Danforth today, most of it is coming from areas that never had streetcars. The trips people take are now much longer than 50 years ago.

    We need to address today’s needs – not navel-gaze about how things were eons ago.

    Comment by N Clawson — August 23, 2008 @ 9:34 am

14. M. Briganti – that’s an interesting observation. I would hope that people would put the interests of the city before their technological preferences – but yes, people do get carried away and entrenched in their positions.

    I think some of the push for LRT is an unconscious desire on the part of the LRT lobbyists to try to make streetcars actually work – to somehow prove that the decision to keep the legacy network wasn’t a mistake. These people should set aside their pride and work for the good of the city.

    Comment by N Clawson — August 23, 2008 @ 9:51 am

15. I’ve been out of town for a few days and came to this thread a bit late in the game.

    First off, since I am mentioned here, I have to reiterate that I am not an LRT fanatic. However, given the decades of misrepresentation of LRT in Toronto, I start from a premise that someone advocating other technologies should be held to the same standards of advocacy that subway and BRT promoters ask of the LRT faction.

    The issue is not just technology per se, but the appropriateness of any technology to a given problem, and the fact that there is only so much capital to go around. Transit has been hamstrung for much of my advocacy “career” by high cost rapid transit schemes that suck up every penny and leave transit looking like an option that sounds good environmentally but is unaffordable.

    As for station spacing and built form: This is a long-term issue. Sheppard Avenue, subway or no, is still serving people who don’t necessarily work downtown and who are more likely to drive. Therefore, short-term, Sheppard will continue to build as a suburban street. Similarly, Queen’s built form is the product of the late 19th century.

    The whole point about building an LRT network is that it makes possible a change in how streets work. It won’t happen overnight. I could point out that the Danforth east from Broadview looks more or less the same as it did when the subway opened in 1966. Unlike Yonge Street in North York, there was no development pressure to remake the street and it has retained its early 20th century form. In the west, the land around Kipling Station, open for four decades, sat fallow thanks to mixed ownership and the fact that the Six Points was really not the most beautiful location for new condo towers, subway or no. Islington developed first, and it has an existing neighbourhood providing local services to the newer highrise buildings.

    The suburban arterials are on the verge of large-scale redevelopment. We can just build more of the same, or we can start their conversion into an extension of local neighbourhoods rather than car-filled barriers between them. Surface transit is part of that process.

    Comment by Steve Munro — August 25, 2008 @ 8:14 am

16. Come on Steve, on your site the Scarborough RT is Satan, the Sheppard Subway is the son of Satan, and buses are Linda Blair.

    Comment by M. Briganti — August 26, 2008 @ 2:19 am

17. I’m sorry, M. Briganti, but that’s neither an accurate nor particularly constructive assessment of Steve Munro’s argument, or his website.

    I have to admit that, five years ago, I more strongly favoured subway construction than I do now. But then, five years ago, the Sheppard subway was just one year old, and I had some hope that, with just $200 million per year of additional investment, we might get started on a slow-and-steady increase in the Toronto subway network, starting first with a two station extension of the Sheppard line to Victoria Park, which would start to remove the line’s “stubway” monicker.

    But as Queen’s Park and Ottawa continued to show a lack of political will, and as Toronto continued to be in financial dire straits, I couldn’t help but notice that, had the Sheppard line been built as an LRT to begin with, we could have had the whole line running from Downsview to the STC for the price of the stubway. Similarly, we could convert the Scarborough RT to grade separated LRT operation, and extend it to Malvern, for the cost of converting the line to run Bombardier’s Mark II vehicles.

    I support the proposed LRT network because it is financially more feasible than extensive subway construction, and it will provide us with the enhanced public transportation we need sooner rather than later.

    If our politicians in Queen’s Park had a miraculous change of heart, discovered oil beneath the legislature, or something, and willing to increase our investment in public transit by four or five times than what is the case now, even with MoveOntario, then I’d be happy to see subways start construction. I just don’t see it as likely.

    To reiterate: it doesn’t matter to me if we see a full subway beneath Eglinton or an underground LRT between Jane and Laird. I’ll happily ride both. I feel I’m more likely to ride the latter before I reach retirement age.

    And as for the buses as Linda Blair comment, that’s inaccurate given Steve’s support of the Ridership Growth Strategy, or the York University busway proposal.

    Comment by James Bow — August 26, 2008 @ 2:01 pm

18. James, in case you didn’t notice, my comment was a joke.

    I won’t talk about the transit “advocate” who opposes a Queen subway, the Spadina subway extension, the Sheppard subway, the SRT expansion, the proposed Eglinton-SRT ICTS system … shall I go on?

    How many examples do you need before you see a pattern of bias?

    Comment by M. Briganti — August 26, 2008 @ 2:41 pm

19. “How many examples do you need before you see a pattern of bias?”

    It’s no more biased than you are — which is to say, a fair amount, and which is perfectly understandable given the context. We’re not writing a newspaper, here, we are advocating for our positions and stating our opinions, and I’ve stated my own reason why I think LRT is the better way to go and why certain subway extensions are, at best, misguided. You have every right to agree or disagree. I think it would be more constructive to make counter-arguments and debate, but you don’t seem willing to do so; instead just labelling those who disagree with you as “fanatics” and questioning their status as transit advocates.

    Besides, last time I checked, Steve Munro supported the northern extension of the Yonge subway line, and thinks a Bloor-Danforth extension to Cloverdale might make sense if designed right. It’s all about context, here. There are good reasons to oppose a subway beneath Queen Street, the Vaughan extension, or the Eglinton-SRT ICTS line. That does not make one anti-subway.

    Comment by James Bow — August 26, 2008 @ 3:52 pm

20. James, in case you didn’t notice, my comment was a joke.

    Well, it can be hard to detect irony on the text-based Internet, but from your second comment, I’m still detecting a fair amount of hostility towards Steve Munro. If that’s the case, I don’t think your response is particularly fair or constructive.

    Comment by James Bow — August 26, 2008 @ 3:54 pm

21. To take these comments in another direction for a moment:

    If we place stations greater than about 800 metres apart, we might need the run a bus service to cover the places in between. Clearly, the service on Sheppard (around 30 minutes) is not frequent enough and might even be the main reason why people perceive the street to be a wasteland.

    But how frequently is too frequently? We want people to access properties between stations, but we don’t want people to choose the surface bus over the rapid transit. Also, how do we encourage people to change from the surface bus to the rapid transit line at the earliest opportunity, instead of having them ride the slower service from the terminus just because they plan to get off midblock somewhere down the line?

    Comment by Andrae Griffith — August 26, 2008 @ 4:15 pm

22. Andrae, the line should have been built so that mid-block stations could have been added in later on. Sadly, I don’t think there is a solution to the mid-block access problem on Sheppard. This is why Metrolinx has floated the idea of a 4-track express/local system for Eglinton.

    Comment by M. Briganti — August 26, 2008 @ 4:33 pm

23. “Clearly, the service on Sheppard (around 30 minutes) is not frequent enough and might even be the main reason why people perceive the street to be a wasteland.”

    “But how frequently is too frequently?”

    That entirely depends on what the subsidy will bear.

    I’ve heard it said that a good frequency is ten minutes, assuming reliable service, of course. A person is willing to wait up to ten minutes at a transit stop before losing patience and looking at other options.

    “Andrae, the line should have been built so that mid-block stations could have been added in later on.”

    I believe that the Sheppard line has been built that way for a potential stop at Willowdale, and while the initial proposal for the connection to Downsview calls only for a stop at Bathurst, similar options would be kept open for Senlac and Faywood.

    Comment by James Bow — August 26, 2008 @ 4:45 pm

24. The TTC website (wow – what an improvement!!!! – coooolllll!) – says the 85 Sheppard is every 15 minutes during the day. That’s more frequent than many other routes at that time – e.g. the Christie bus is every half hour during the day.

    Not sure why it would be a concern if people chose local service over subway service. If someone is going mid block to mid block and is only going a couple of miles, then the bus service would be the logical choice.

    Comment by N Clawson — August 26, 2008 @ 6:00 pm

25. Does anyone have the ridership stats for the Sheppard subway + the 85 service between Yonge and Don Mills since the opening?

    Comment by N Clawson — August 26, 2008 @ 6:06 pm

26. I don’t know about the actual Yonge/Don Mills branch of 85 Sheppard East, but in 2005 the whole route was doing a respectable 25,000 passengers per day. And if I recall correctly, there was a report that indicated that the Sheppard subway had increased passenger traffic along that corridor by about 50%. The subway now carries as much as the Scarborough RT, with the difference being, it’s still just half full and has room to grow.

    Comment by James Bow — August 26, 2008 @ 7:48 pm

27. I too was a “let’s have a subway network all over the city” person until a couple of years ago. While I believe LRT is the most cost-effective way to play catch-up on the many years of no significant transit improvements, I am not totally against subway construction.

    As I have written on the Toronto LRT Information Page (http://lrt.daxack.ca) and its blog, I am all for justifiable subway construction that is network improving (i.e.: connects with current subway lines in two or more places). What I am against, is the radial expansion of the current system, with the exception of a Yonge extension to Steeles (which I have explained on my site, so I won’t repeat it here).

    Our in the burbs, LRT is a more ideal way of extending the reach of the system in a way that is more rapid than feeder buses, but less costly than subway extensions. For the same money, multiple LRT feeders can be built. This spreads the catchment area further and eliminates the need for mega-parking lots (GO Train style) that I guarantee will be the norm at any subway station built in York Region.

    A network of Transit City LRT lines (and I am crossing my fingers that they will get the proper signal priority from the roads department) is the most efficient way of improving transit facilities for the greatest number of people across the city. Once that is in place, focus can shift on how the subway network can be enhanced. With LRT lines forming connections across major arteries, it is reasonable to expect that subway improvements can focus on rapid services that need not follow major street patterns, thus providing rapid and convenient paths across the city.

    Radial expansion of the subway system is what has given us what we have now, but that model does not work as efficiently the farther you go out. It is interesting to note that Toronto has only had two brand new subway lines built: the original Yonge line, and the Sheppard stubway. Every other piece of subway construction has been an extension of what we had. Even the Bloor-Danforth line was originally built as an extension of the Yonge-University line (though, I have heard conspiracy theories that suggest it was to be a new line originally presented as an extension with interlining operation originally used, but Bay and St. George stations were designed for separate-line operation).

    Sheppard was to be a “network enhancing” new line. It would connect with the existing system in three places: Downsview, Yonge-Sheppard, and Scarborough Centre. To do so would be too costly, so snip-snip here and snip-snip there, and you are left with a stubway that looks like an odd sort of radial extension. We would all like to think that it was too costly in terms of funds, but I also suspect that it was too costly politically. Politicians are all smiles when it comes to making great tangible funding announcements. For, you see, they come with photo opportunities. Hold up a cheque for a new subway line, or some new buses, and the press is there to add to your career scrapbook. Come with a cheque to help operate the current system, and not even crickets show up to chirp.

    Funding a real, network enhancing, Sheppard line is a great photo op. As with any costly capital project, you get a double or triple shot as a politician: the original announcement, the ground breaking, and then opening day. The problem with a project that is a bit too big is that very few politicians will be able to use a shovel at the ground breaking, and then be back with giant scissors for the ribbon cutting. We can’t have that, so scale back the project so that we’ll be around for both!

    Comment by Calvin Henry-Cotnam — August 26, 2008 @ 11:50 pm

28. The simple fact is that for the past 50 years, Toronto has not been developed in the fashion that is appropriate for a network of subways.

    Long-distance commutes should be served by something along the lines of GO, not subways. That’s where the speed is, for those who seem to be so concerned with speed.

    Comment by Triceratops — August 27, 2008 @ 12:28 am

29. Calvin said: “A network of Transit City LRT lines (and I am crossing my fingers that they will get the proper signal priority from the roads department) is the most efficient way of improving transit facilities for the greatest number of people across the city.”

    First, if 8 billion dollars are on the line, why should you be crossing your fingers — shouldn’t you be sure that the system will be properly designed and operated beforehand, especially since your entire argument is that this will be a more efficient system? Second, given Toronto’s experience with LRT, what gives you any confidence at all that your hopes for proper design will be realized?

    Comment by Andrew E — August 27, 2008 @ 8:41 am

30. “First, if 8 billion dollars are on the line, why should you be crossing your fingers — shouldn’t you be sure that the system will be properly designed and operated beforehand, especially since your entire argument is that this will be a more efficient system?”

    Well, we _should_, but as you note, given Toronto’s previous experience, we’re left with that frustrating question mark. However, the subways haven’t fared much better.

    Consider: the Sheppard subway, as Calvin notes, was initially conceived as a network enhancer, connecting with the rest of the network at three places. Crowds could be channelled between different lines, and we could actually begin to deal with crosstown commutes across the northern part of the city.

    But instead, only the barest stub of the line got built, and the result has been the crowds on the Sheppard line has been channelled onto the Yonge line, which is almost at capacity.

    And when the Eglinton subway started construction, the line extended west from Eglinton West station, and not the part of the street that really had the traffic. For some reason, the idea of building a line that crosses between the Spadina and Yonge lines was seen as too costly financially, while not providing enough benefit politically.

    Likewise, the Spadina subway was built on the cheap, up the middle of an expressway and not under a street like Bathurst or Dufferin, which could have enhanced the urban fabric enroute. For that reason, Spadina still has capacity to spare.

    It’s not the fact that our previous experience with LRTs are poorly planned, it’s that Toronto’s transit infrastructure has suffered from poor planning, full stop. Whatever mode we choose — subway or LRT — we’ll need to pay attention to ensure that the implementation is done properly.

    “Second, given Toronto’s experience with LRT, what gives you any confidence at all that your hopes for proper design will be realized?”

    It’s also worth noting that Toronto’s earlier experience with LRT has been in areas where reserved streetcars might be more important. The Spadina streetcar is slow, because stop spacing is averages 300 metres apart. But the Spadina streetcar serves its community, and they strongly demanded that certain stops be maintained. Indeed, when the line was first proposed as an LRT route, with fewer station stops, the neighbourhood resisted the measure specifically because they thought that something that wasn’t designed for them was being railroaded (no pun intended) through the community. But then people enroute didn’t really know what an LRT was. I have an opposition flyer somewhere which shows a composite photograph of a Scarborough RT vehicle travelling down the middle of Spadina Avenue.

    In the early 90s, local opposition to the construction evaporated, but only after stops were added, and the line ws rebranded as the Spadina _streetcar_ route.

    St. Clair is similar. It’s a streetcar line serving its community more than it is an LRT line pulling long distance passengers from one end to the other. A corridor of screaming trains with stops far apart isn’t going to be tolerated. But Finch West and Sheppard East, being wide suburban arterials, are more conducive to rail cars that can move faster, and get some room to move.

    Still, as I said above, we’ll need to keep an eye on things, and metaphorically throttle any politician which allows the road department to leave the LRT vehicles behind at the stoplights. But that vigilence is worth building an LRT network that would cost half to one third the amount we’d have to spend to build a similar subway network.

    In the case of Eglinton, the line will be underground, likely between Jane and Laird, the busiest part of the route. The underground section will likely offer 90 metre LRT platforms (roughly the length of the current Sheppard subway platforms) capable of handling 3-car LRT trains. With crossovers at either end of the tunnel, we can have a dedicated service augmenting the trains through-routed to Renforth and Kennedy. It’s not out of the question to expect this mini-subway operating at subway speeds at intervals of four minutes. Not only is that better service than the Sheppard subway offers, but at that frequency, that part of the line could handle 9000 passengers per direction per hour. That’s more than the “normal service” capacity of the Sheppard subway at the line’s current frequencies, and like Sheppard, the Eglinton LRT would have room to grow.

    Comment by James Bow — August 27, 2008 @ 9:31 am

31. Andrew E wrote, “First, if 8 billion dollars are on the line, why should you be crossing your fingers — shouldn’t you be sure that the system will be properly designed and operated beforehand, especially since your entire argument is that this will be a more efficient system? Second, given Toronto’s experience with LRT, what gives you any confidence at all that your hopes for proper design will be realized?”

    Simple answer to both: traffic signal priority will not be in the hands of the TTC, but in the Roads and Traffic department at city hall. Empire-building is alive and well at city hall and some people down there really need to be metaphorically “slapped” around to remind them they are here for the collective good of everyone in the city.

    Comment by Calvin Henry-Cotnam — August 27, 2008 @ 10:15 am

32. “Too high and there is a risk that pedestrian may feel overwhelmed by tall buildings everywhere.”

    I’ve never understood this idea that tall buildings “overwhelm” people. What exactly does this mean? What are the symptoms of being overwhelmed? Is it like vertigo? I’ve never felt overwhelmed by a tall building, so I wonder.

    [We] have to require that the retail components be more than just “Raba, dry cleaners, subway, dentist, repeat,” as Sean Marshall puts it.

    And how shall we “require” it? Sounds kind of totalitarian, no?

    Comment by Mike Wallace — August 27, 2008 @ 12:21 pm

33. What I’m getting at is the canyon effect. If you have a street lined with highrises, the shadows cast by the building prevent natural light from penetrating. This can make the street dark during the day and darker than normal at night. Generally, people don’t like to stay in dark places. A symptom of people feeling overwhelmed is a fear of the area.

    As for the retail components, in my opinion, allowing developers to strive for the minimum hasn’t worked. We require developers to set land aside for parks, so I do not think it is totalitarian at all. Several ways we could do this include regulating how small an undivided retail space can be. If you let the developer divide the retail area into small units, all you’re going to have are duplicates of small stores.

    This is why there is no grocery store in downtown Brampton.

    Comment by Andrae Griffith — August 27, 2008 @ 4:32 pm

34. What I’m getting at is the canyon effect. If you have a street lined with highrises, the shadows cast by the building prevent natural light from penetrating. This can make the street dark during the day and darker than normal at night. Generally, people don’t like to stay in dark places. A symptom of people feeling overwhelmed is a fear of the area.

    This reminds me of the debate over the Yorkville towers. Remember when the CEO of the Four Seasons pointed out the benefits of casting a shower over the local school: “When you think about the realities of it, first of all you don’t want your children in the sun all day long. It’s the cause of cancer, in terms of sun,” said Isadore Sharp, the founder and CEO of Four Seasons Hotels and Resorts.[http://www.cbc.ca/canada/toronto/story/2006/04/05/tor-four-seasons060405.html]

    Comment by Ian Milligan — August 27, 2008 @ 4:42 pm

35. Apparently, the projected cost of Transit City is now over $13 billion! Question for the LRT advocates and lobbyists here: at what point do you agree that the plan costs too much for what it will do?

    Comment by N Clawson — August 28, 2008 @ 7:33 am

36. And how much subway do you think we could get for that amount? And how much do you think we need?

    Comment by James Bow — August 28, 2008 @ 10:27 am

37. After I posted that, I had second thoughts. I’m being facetious, and I apologize. But I have to note that, while the cost of Transit City is rising, the cost of a subway equivalent is rising too. That seems par for the course of _any_ transit project that the GTA has launched over the past twenty years. It’s frustrating; I don’t know what to do about that, but it affects subways as well as LRTs.

    The cost of building a comparable subway network to this LRT network remains about twice to three times the price.

    Comment by James Bow — August 28, 2008 @ 10:38 am

38. $13B? They said $10.8B at the commission meeting yesterday.

    Comment by Karl Junkin — August 28, 2008 @ 11:12 am

39. The original Transit City announcement in the spring of 2007 had the cost pegged at about $6.2 billion, but at that time several aspects were subject to changes. Only 10 km of the centre of the Eglinton-Crosstown line was to be underground. Other changes have naturally increased the cost of the whole network, but not significantly out of line with what they should be.

    For instance, the original estimate of the Sheppard East line was $555 million. This was for a line from Don Mills to Morningside entirely on the surface. When the second EA open houses announced that the line would go to Meadowvale, and the west end would likely be underground from Consumers to Don Mills (or a subway extension would meet it at Consumers), I did a quick calculation using per-kilometre costs for surface and underground construction taken from the original estimates. I go through this in detail in a comment at http://lrt.daxack.ca/blog/?p=42#comment-264, but simply put, I came up with $863 million as the total cost, using spring 2007 numbers. I believe the price is now at $880 million. That is only a 0.11% increase over last year’s estimate.

    My whole point is, regardless of whether it is an LRT or subway project, initial estimates will change, likely upward, once public input is taken into consideration and changes are made that, hopefully, will make it better for everyone. Or, should we just dispense with public input and build it as the “experts” originally proposed?

    James Bow asked, “And how much subway do you think we could get for that amount?”

    Based on typical costs, (see http://lrt.daxack.ca and click on “Cost to Build?”), $13B (N Clawson’s figure, the commission report said $10.8B, but I’ll be generous to the subway side) can build 52-65 km of subway with stations spaced 1000-1500 metres, below or above grade. Keep in mind that TC will be about 145 km of lines with stops 400-600 metres on the surface, 600-1000 when below grade.

    Comment by Calvin Henry-Cotnam — August 28, 2008 @ 11:43 am

40. I remember back in the early days where the costs of LRT were argued as being only 10% of subway costs, not it’s all the way up to over 50% of subway costs… I still support the LRT because I think it can provide better service sustainably, but I’m concerned about public reaction to this shift.

    Calvin, assuming about ~$70 million (no bus/streetcar terminal) to $115 million (with bus/streetcar terminal) per station, what if station spacing was every 800m similar to what Eglinton will be and similar to what Bloor-Danforth averages out to in its current form? Then how many km can you build?

    Comment by Karl Junkin — August 28, 2008 @ 3:24 pm

41. “The cost of building a comparable subway network to this LRT network remains about twice to three times the price”

    Well the critical word is ‘comparable’. An LRT line that moves at 21 km/hr is not comparable to a subway that moves at 31 km/hr. The subway attracts riders in who want to get soem distance across the city – and not just local.

    Comment by N Clawson — August 28, 2008 @ 5:29 pm

42. Any transit solution needs to meet local demand and patterns first, otherwise it will fail. The long distance pattens are best handled by GO Transit expansion through the Midtown and possibly York corridors.

    Comment by Karl Junkin — August 28, 2008 @ 5:37 pm

43. Good grief – we’ve been invaded by Steve Munro’s groupies.

    Comment by M. Briganti — August 28, 2008 @ 11:16 pm

44. To shape the conversation a bit:

    What about the use of the Hydro corridor north of Finch? Should a transit line be constructed along Finch Avenue (where the people are), or should it use the hydro corridor (where it will be able to go faster)?

    Comment by Andrae Griffith — August 29, 2008 @ 8:10 am

45. Finch East is particularly interesting in this one; there are noteworthy density pockets along Hydro corridor north of Finch East, but not Finch West… but you can’t make a Hydro corridor an Avenue.

    Comment by Karl Junkin — August 29, 2008 @ 9:56 am

46. M. Briganti’s comments against Steve Munro (whether in jest or not) are quite unnecessary. This badgering should not be tolerated; we’re here to debate ideas.

    Comment by J — August 29, 2008 @ 1:00 pm

47. Karl Junkin said, “I remember back in the early days where the costs of LRT were argued as being only 10% of subway costs…”

    I have seen claims like that, and it shows that one can twist facts to get their point emphasized. I personally, think one’s argument is made more credible if one compares their own worst-case with the other side’s best case, rather than the other way around. If one were to compare subway costs with LRT costs using a previously proposed western extension of the Bloor-Danforth line (at $270 million per kilometre) and the cost of St. Louis’ St. Clair County LRT extension (just under $19 million per kilometre), then claims of 10% look feasible, but they are not typical.

    It is far better to make the claim that LRT is typically 25% the cost using a best-case for subway ($200 m/km) and a worst-case for LRT ($50 m/km).

    Karl also asked, “assuming about ~$70 million (no bus/streetcar terminal) to $115 million (with bus/streetcar terminal) per station, what if station spacing was every 800m similar to what Eglinton will be and similar to what Bloor-Danforth averages out to in its current form?”

    The simple answer would be “less than 50 km”. My calculation was based on a per-kilometre cost for subway construction that assumed the wider station spacing with average costs built into that figure. I would have to dig around and do some calculations to come up with a reasonable figure, but the lazy side of me tells me it would probably be in the range of 30-40 km.

    Comment by Calvin Henry-Cotnam — August 29, 2008 @ 2:23 pm

48. Andrae — the Finch Hydro corridor would be an excellent choice for an express route, but the LRT advocates aren’t too keen on it I’m afraid.

    J … my comment was a bit of humor. We don’t want to re-hash the same arguments here that have been discussed ad nauseum on Steve’s site.

    The goal is to get a diverse range of opinions here that are broadly representative of the transit using public. Instead, this thread seems to have been hijacked by the same group of individuals whose opinions we have heard over and over, and do not represent those of the average transit rider.

    The average transit rider doesn’t care about cost per km, LRT vs subway. They care about a faster more reliable trip.

    While I advocate for subways, I do not oppose the construction of LRT. I support LRTs on Jane, Don Mills, WW West. The LRT advocates, on the other hand, oppose all subway construction, to the point of depriving those on Queen and those in Vaughan with badly needed service improvements into the downtown core. I’m sorry, but I just can’t get past that.

    True transit advocates would not oppose any kind of transit improvement anywhere.

    Comment by M. Briganti — August 29, 2008 @ 3:07 pm

49. Depends on your definition of “improvement.” If “improvement” only makes it more difficult to expand transit in the future… is it really an improvement? Metronauts states that it is about transit sustainability among other things. The average transit rider might not care about costs… but they should, because it will affect their fares.

    Comment by Karl Junkin — August 29, 2008 @ 3:27 pm

50. M. Briganti, I propose a subway going from Oshawa to Peterborough. All underground, with stops every 1.5 KM. To be paid for by taking money from other transit projects in Ontario.

    “True transit advocates would not oppose any kind of transit improvement anywhere.”

    Thanks for your approval!!

    Comment by Triceratops — August 29, 2008 @ 3:31 pm

51. I just wanted to thank everyone for the lively discussion on this post. I know I’ve learned a lot from it.

    I want to point commenters to a new post if you haven’t already seen it – How to be a good Metronaut.

    I would ask that commenters follow these three key principles: 1) Be Real, 2) Respect each other and 3) Find solutions for the future.

    I encourage all commenters to use their full real names and get a profile photo on Gravatar.com. Being real is an important part of being a respected member of the community both online and at events.

    Also, please avoid ad hominem attacks against fellow community members and respect differences in opinion as legitimate parts of the conversation.

    Finally, what is the way forward for solutions? In the context of this eternal debate on LRT vs. subway, how is the debate resolved in a way that gets things moving? What are the criteria for determining appropriateness for one technology vs another in a specific context? How do planners look at these questions? What are the variables?

    A tip: the comments accept emoticons:
    , so please use them if you’re using humour or irony or sarcasm, which may not always come through in text alone.

    Thanks again for getting a great conversation going and keep it up!

    Mark Kuznicki, Editor
    info@metronauts.ca

    Comment by Mark Kuznicki — August 29, 2008 @ 3:53 pm

52. Mark,

    The simple answer is network connectivity — not density along the route, not initial ridership estimates, and not cost.

    This means the completion of the Sheppard subway from Downsview to STC, an Eglinton subway from the airport to Kennedy, and a Queen St. subway that curves north in the east and west to meet the Bloor and Eglinton lines.

    Other routes should be converted to light rail or bus rapid transit.

    Comment by M. Briganti — August 29, 2008 @ 8:07 pm

53. Network connectivity looks great on a map. However, if it doesn’t serve the function that is needed for it to be sustainable, it shouldn’t be built. Ridership projections really needs to be the deciding factor, and I’ll reiterate that Bloor and Yonge lines are proof that you should never go directly from bus to subway.

    I support planning for the future, that includes making Eglinton’s tunnels compatible for an upgrade to HRT. I do not support running services that are guaranteed to incur a loss $30,000 PER DAY, because that’s what Sheppard’s subway costs.

    Comment by Karl Junkin — August 29, 2008 @ 11:18 pm

54. Wrong. If your standard was applied, the entire Bloor-Danforth-University system would not have been built. It lost money well into the late 1970s. In fact, if your standard was applied, the only thing we’d have right now is a Yonge subway from Eglinton to Union. Every extension lost money for the first 10 years.

    Comment by M. Briganti — August 30, 2008 @ 1:01 am

55. No, the ridership projections on Bloor alone were projected to hit 9,000ppdph – coupled pairs of PCCs every minute is the best the TTC could do and was struggling at 7,000ppdph at the time they decided to make Bloor.

    The only reason the Bloor line had this demand was because streetcars made the supply possible for such demand. Buses could never provide that level of service. This set the stage for a subway to be justified. Sheppard never had this, Eglinton doesn’t have this, but the DRL does have this and is thereby a justfiable subway corridor that I strongly support 1000%. The demands on the busiest streetcar routes cannot be met by bus, this is part of what makes the DRL viable.

    The only reason Bloor lost money though, was because of the extensions beyond Woodbine and Keele. If the Islington and Warden extensions hadn’t been built, and those extensions were subsidized by the province to be built, as was Coxwell, Woodbine, and west of St.George since the St.George-Greenwood stretch was originally the first phase after University, Bloor actually wouldn’t have lost money, it would have paid for itself, especially if zone fares remained. The scrapping of zone fares is one of the biggest single mistakes in TTC history, a key cause in its loss of government independence. We’d be much better off if we never got rid of zone fares because it would have avoided a cultural shift that has now become a big problem and we can’t turn back the clock nor the system mechanics.

    Had zone fares remained, the TTC would have money to make intelligent expansion decisions independent of political wrangling.

    Not sure I can say University wouldn’t have lost money, but that’s partly related to the wye failure, a flop in business strategy, management, and design, even though the theory was sound.

    Every line may lose money at first, because even from peak streetcar capacity, ridership will still need to grow. Yonge’s an exception because Church, Bay, and Yonge were all extremely busy, and Yonge took all 3 out in one hit. Bloor exercised the same kind of strategy in certain parts, but that can’t be done for the whole corridor.

    The daily loss of Sheppard’s subway on its own wasn’t the point, the point was how much per day, and how long it takes to grow its ridership. Sheppard is trying to grow from less than 3,000ppdph, as a bus can’t carry more than that in mixed traffic conditions… and the only reason it has gotten upto 7,000ppdph and change is because of Finch express and other re-routed bus feeders ending up at Don Mills, an artificial demand booster that is not part of the Sheppard Corridor proper.

    I again reiterate, you never go directly from bus to subway. It’s not sustainable.

    Comment by Karl Junkin — August 30, 2008 @ 1:15 pm

56. I’m tired of listening to the LRT crowd rewrite history to defend their position against subways.

    Karl, pay attention …

    Fact: The Bloor subway (from Keele to Woodbine) ran an operating defecit well into the 1970s. It ran with 4-car trains.

    Fact: The University subway, with the wye, and without, ran an operating defecit until about 1980.

    Comment by M. Briganti — August 30, 2008 @ 5:17 pm

57. I have been paying attention, and I’ll add the parts you conveniently left out:

    Fact: The Bloor subway was extended beyond Keele and Woodbine and 1968. This makes it cost more to operate as it is a longer line. Had this not occured, it would have paid for itself much sooner.

    Fact: The University subway only ran with the wye for 6 months, but I said several days back that the University line was a special case anyway, because it was known to be required during rush hours with the Bloor subway. Yonge was originally designed with Queen to be the east-west line, University is a make-shift solution of an unanticipated change of plan that cannot be compared to other lines fairly.

    Comment by Karl Junkin — August 31, 2008 @ 12:35 am

58. Bloor Danforth was expected to get 9,000ppdph from opening day.

    Eglinton is projected to get 5,000ppdph by the year 2031.

    Spot the difference!

    Comment by Triceratops — August 31, 2008 @ 12:38 pm

59. I hope this doesn’t degenerate into a flamewar because advocates like Mimmo are as passionate about improving public transit as the rest of us here. And I would further state that, if we could be guaranteed funds enough to build the subways we want, without detracting from the needs of other rapid transit projects, then I would support more subway construction. As M. Briganti notes, there is an issue of connectivity, at least with the Sheppard subway. We have started the stubway, and it would be a lot more useful if it were built all the way from Downsview to the Scarborough Centre. The current format, requiring people to change back and forth between modes to get across Sheppard is a loss of potential.

    That said, the current proposal is better than no subway at all, or no LRT at all. And the issue of connectivity can be addressed if we take the Sheppard subway and convert it to LRT operation. In the tunnels, fully grade separated, three car LRT trains can handle the projected loads of Sheppard and Eglinton; even a Downtown Relief Line, and it can do this cheaper. To my mind, we would get more bang for our buck, and that bang would be spread further across the Greater Toronto Area and the province (Mississauga and Waterloo need LRTs too). We need to be aware of the limits to our funding, and make what funding we receive stretch farther.

    Comment by James Bow — August 31, 2008 @ 3:02 pm

60. Or, to put it more succinctly: Eglinton can support a subway, but an LRT can support Eglinton.

    Comment by James Bow — August 31, 2008 @ 3:12 pm

61. Far-side stops in an LRT route are not a hindrance to service. When proper signal priority is in place, far-siders are in fact better than pre-intersection stops when it comes to speed.

    Comment by Triceratops — August 31, 2008 @ 6:00 pm

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.