Metronauts
Exploring a sustainable urban future
Why Me? Why LRT?
Posted on September 23, 2008 at 2:26 pm by jamesbow
This post has been crossposted over on my blog.
Over at the Metronauts’ website, there has been vigorous debate over the merits of Toronto’s proposed Transit City plan. Is installing 120 kilometres of light rail transit lines across the city (essentially, streetcars on private right-of-way) worthwhile? Or would it be better to rustle up more cash and get subways into the ground? The debate has, in general, been healthy, though I do detect a little bit of animosity towards those who favour the cheaper LRT option, and even to those who successfully convinced the TTC, back in 1972, to abandon its policy of eliminating the streetcar altogether from the streets of Toronto.
A debate is good, although I’m not sure if it’s healthy to try and divide transit advocates as either “LRT fanatics” or “subway advocates.” Even the word “railfan” has been used to describe those who favour maintaining and improving streetcar service, with the insinuation that our vision is being blinkered by our train conductors’ caps. That’s not what I’m about. Yes, I consider myself to be a railfan, but I think in terms of this: a railfan makes me a fan of streetcars, AND LRT networks, AND subways. At their core, they are essentially the same thing.
As public transit fan, I have nothing against using buses to get where I need to go. But as a rail advocate, I instinctively believe that a streetcar is better than a bus. But I also believe that an LRT is better than a streetcar. And, in many ways, a subway is better than an LRT.
A streetcar, an LRT and a subway are all basically a box that runs on rails. All other differences are superficial, whether the motive power is provided by overhead wire, third rail or linear induction. It doesn’t matter. All share the advantage over rubber-wheeled transit: fixed routes guiding the vehicles through narrow right-of-ways, the ability to operate larger vehicles, the ability to operate larger vehicles in trains, all providing higher capacity than what bus service can offer. The only real difference when we’re talking about these modes is the conditions they’re run in. Streetcars generally operate in mixed traffic, subways are fully grade separated, and LRTs can face conditions that range between these two extremes.
So, I’m not opposed to subway construction per se, as long as the end result properly serves the neighbourhood it operates through. I don’t fear that a Queen subway will destroy Toronto’s inner-city streetcar network, as long as I can still use the Queen subway to access services along Queen. A Queen subway built to Sheppard subway standards, with station stops between a kilometre or two apart, wouldn’t be good for Queen Street. A Queen subway built with station stops spaced akin to the Bloor-Danforth subway would serve local traffic much better. But could we afford that?
And despite my strong advocacy for the Transit City LRT plan, I can prove that, as recently as five years ago, I believed subways were the better option for the northern suburbs, or even for a downtown relief line. Have a look at this Transit Toronto editorial I wrote back in December 2000. Have a look at this blog post from 2002 or this post from 2003. As recently as five years ago, I strongly believed that the way forward in improving public transportation in this region was in new subway construction. Now, I’m not so sure.
Subways are the creme-de-la-creme of mass transit: emphasis on mass. The Yonge subway, as currently operated, has a crush load capacity of upwards of 45,000 passengers per direction per hour. Yonge Street service operating at five minute intervals could comfortably handle 20,000 passengers per hour. There is no other mode of transport that can beat it. By comparison, a bus route operating in mixed traffic has difficulty handling more than 3,000 passengers per direction per hour. A streetcar in mixed traffic bumps that up to 4,500 passengers per hour. (These numbers are all rule-of-thumb, so take them with their requisite grain of salt)
But if you build a subway for below 20,000 passengers per hour, you’re building an expensive piece of infrastructure with a capacity well above the demand for its use in the foreseeable future. The Sheppard subway cost around $900 million for 6.2 kilometres of line. It only carries about 40,000 passengers per day — about as much as the King Streetcar. Since 1985, we have been opening a number of new stations that are among the leased used of the rapid transit system. Would not their traffic be handled better by something less expensive, less overbuilt?
Back in the mid-to-late 1970s, planners for the TTC and the City of Toronto came to believe that subway construction was a thing of the past. The dense areas that were best suited to subway development had, by and large, been served. Despite this, the city was growing, and large areas of new suburb were springing up far from any rapid transit route. The Bloor-Danforth subway extensions to Kipling and Kennedy in 1980 were touted (touted!) as the last bit of new subway construction for a while, as planners wrestled with the question of how to get rapid transit service to the suburbs without spending as much as new subway construction cost.
In 1975, we thought we had a plan: streetcar trains operating on exclusive rights of way could extend rapid transit service deep into the new suburbs, meeting demand at a fraction of the cost. A new line in Scarborough was proposed to tout this new service, connecting the eastern end of the Bloor-Danforth subway to the Scarborough Town Centre. Unfortunately, Ontario premier Bill Davis essentially vetoed this plan, preferring to use the new line as a showcase for a high-tech rapid transit solution, using linear induction motors to do what the streetcars could do.
The redesign of the Scarborough RT from a traditional dedicated streetcar line into a fancy Intermediate Capacity Transit System ™ ran into excessive cost overruns that made the line almost as expensive as a subway to build. The re-use of streetcar design specifications that had already been built into the line didn’t sit well with the untested linear induction cars, and as a result additional tens of millions were spent to fix the problems. The failure of the Scarborough RT to cross the capacity gap between mixed traffic streetcar and low-end subway led to subways being brought back as the preferred vehicle of choice for a new set of rapid transit lines to the suburbs (a plan called Network 2011), but the idea of intermediate capacity transit service hadn’t failed — just the idea of using new high tech equipment when low tech technology could have served.
And what happened next, of course, is history. The politicians waffled, and various changes of government kept shovels out of the ground for five years. The Sheppard subway, which was supposed to open in 1994, wouldn’t start construction until after that year. But I as a transit advocate still believed in subways back then. As late as 2002, as we waited for the Sheppard subway to open, I was convinced that a new government in Queen’s Park was all we needed, to spend the money to get the state of good repair projects dealt with, and then invest $200 million more per year, to ensure the construction of one kilometre of subway each year, every year. I thought that was politically feasible. Turns out I was wrong.
I’m not a young man anymore. It’s becoming clear to me that the subway network that was proposed in my childhood won’t be available to me until after I retire, and that’s just wrong. Having waited two and a half decades for dozens of kilometres of new subway construction, of which barely eight have materialized, I’ve had to ask myself some hard questions about the likelihood of such a subway network coming to pass. Politicians do not seem to have the political will to spend the tax dollars required to keep our public transit networks in a state of good repair, much less get the Greater Toronto Area the network it deserves, and we the voters of Ontario have failed to generate that political will for them. That’s what we need to fix.
So, what can we build? What is possible? What can we afford? Is it easier to raise, say, $13 billion for new projects that are needed right now, or can we raise $26 billion and overbuild for the future? These questions today are especially pressing given how much delay we have to catch up on. So, I return to the original question, which dogged Toronto planners back in the 1970s, which the Ontario government failed to answer properly, putting us in the situation we’re now in: we have limited money. How can we get rapid transit service to more places in the GTA without spending the money required to build that network in the form of subways?
The answer is the same now as it was in 1975. Streetcars on exclusive rights of way work. They work. They work cheap. We can build them and save money. We just need to generate the political will to take that final step.
-
Recent Conversations
And as for Blue Avenue electric scooters, they’re the best out there when it comes to ebikes and service.
Joey on "Riding electric in Toronto the Good"- HIghly recommend this company??? Ya right…this company called Silent Rider went bankrupt.
Joey on "Riding electric in Toronto the Good" 
i play Need For Speed all night long, this game is really cool and very addictive.,”*
Archie Hill on "Pulse of the community – Rethinking the need for speed"
Thanks for the recognition! I am still obsessed with public transit as a public art space, most recent is my fasination of those old...
Cheyenne on "Public art and public transit"
Need For Speed is the best game that i have ever played.:’-
Blake Butler on "Pulse of the community – Rethinking the need for speed"
Gas prices these days are just getting higher, i think the government should focus more on alternative energy.”":
Tyler Young on "Boom, Bust, Echo and gas price sensitivity"
-
Featured Post
Read PostPulse of the community: Discuss with examples
Andrae Griffith March 6, 2009
Sponsored by
Tags
401 905 announcement Bicycles Bike Bus cars community commute Commuters consultation cycling DRL experience fares featured Flickr Picks funding GO GO Transit Hamilton highway infrastructure investment strategy london LRT metrolinx metronauts parking Photojunkie plan Politics RTP Streetcar subway Technology Toronto Transit TTC Vaughan Viva Yonge York Region YRT zone faresMeta
The Archive
- December 2009 (1)
- May 2009 (1)
- April 2009 (2)
- March 2009 (4)
- February 2009 (2)
- January 2009 (1)
- December 2008 (6)
- November 2008 (18)
- October 2008 (19)
- September 2008 (35)
- August 2008 (25)
I frankly don’t care about modes. I don’t feel any extra warm and fuzzy feeling while riding rails, nor do I feel any particular fear and loathing while riding a rubber-tired vehicle — or vice versa. Speaking personally, the only metric that I’m interested in is speed: I don’t want to pay a large speed penalty for my decision not to drive. And I’m fortunate enough to have a route to work — subway followed by BRT — that takes about an hour, compared to 45 minutes driving in rush hour. Taking a long walk from parking in to my office, it’s nearly a wash.
I’m not alone on that count. Far from it, modern transport planning indicates that I am average: studies like (Downs, 1992) indicate that the speed of grade-separated transit is an equilibrium point for traffic speed. As transit gets faster, people get out of their cars, reducing congestion and speeding up traffic by the same amount. Conversely, as transit gets slower, people get back in their cars, clogging up the roads more. There’s no bonus for rails.
On this site, I’ve gone on record with several of my objections to Transit City. But one of the unforgivable compromises this system makes is the lack of focus on speed. The speed numbers we hear are well short of fully grade-separated transit, and not significantly faster than the buses they are meant to replace.
The sad part is that speed increases could be had with little to no extra expense if Transit City’s designers and advocates held firm on proper design and operation, such as true traffic priority (like, LRT vehicles always have the right of way), or at least abolishing the far-side stop (a lesson apparently not learned from Spadina and St. Clair). And if these changes were politically impossible, I would argue that Toronto is not an appropriate city for large-scale LRT.
By implementing a system that runs at, or barely above, bus speeds, Transit City will only capture people with time on their hands. The rest of the city, the majority who don’t care much about rail one way or the other, will continue to drive. Toronto will be as much a car city as it has ever been.
I think that Transit City was supposed to focus on speed – but, now that we know it won’t provide it, it’s just become more of an urban development project.
I’ve now read enough of these blogs to know that there is a subset of the posters who are actively denigrating bus service. Hey – guys – this is not the way to sell transit!
Even with more rail, most transit journeys will rely on a bus trip at the start, end or both.
I think the subway capacity argument is completely false. Build a good RAPID TRANSIT line with good feeder service and ridership will grow. Look at Calgary – the city is very sparsely populated. However, the C-train is as fast as our subway – and the riders therefore find it attractive.
It really doesn’t matter — the funding already committed by Ontario/Metrolinx isn’t even enough to build Transit City.
With respect, I have to conclude that ‘blinkered’ and ‘biased’ are appropriate.
First, I’m a railfan. I love to watch big freight trains go by – and especially watching trains being assembled at the hump. I used to be able to tell the different locomotives (GPs, SD etc) from a glance. However, one needs to set aside personal preferences when it comes to determining what is best for the city and region.
Mr. Bow as a ‘railfan’, ’streetcar fan’ , ‘LRT fan’ has a personal preference for this technology. There’s nothing wrong with that – but he does look at things with this bias.
Case in point (from three years ago – sorry the dredge up old stuff) – James Bow wtote the following in an exchange in a different forum:
“Streetcars that can take the TTC’s minimum radii exist. Indeed, they’re still running in Europe. The Belgium Flexity could be adapted to Toronto’s streets without difficulty. Bombardier’s cars may well be overbuilt to what the TTC requires and may require additional $$$ to customize, but they’re not the only game in town. The models exist. It only takes a clarity of political vision to obtain them. And given that the Ontario government isn’t forcing the TTC to buy local anymore, I hope that the commissioners look to them.”
This aside from the fact the TTC Manager Bob Boutillier indicated that any vehicle for Toronto would require 5 years of design, and major engineering modifications.
As it turned out, Boutillier was right – it’s a major challenge for the TTC to acquire a vehicle that will meet the requirements to replace the current streetcars.
Mr. Bow – as many LRT advocates were and are all too ready to believe LRT and streetcars are easy and cheap. They continually overlook real problems and issues.
In the same post, Bow writes:
“Yes, it’s time to move on and consider a new model, but I don’t want to contemplate a future Toronto without its streetcar service.”
Again, a built-in bias preventing automatically excluding alternatives.
Now – fast forward from the ancient history of 2005 to Sept 2008(er yes, the TTC is still designing and building the St. Clair streetcar line – but “let’s ‘not go there!:-)).
The $6.1 billion Transit City proposal is now at $10.1 billion. The final estimate for the 120 km will be about $11.5 billion. This is roughly $96 million per KM – so approaching 50% of the cost of a subway line. Yet, according to Mr. Bow:
“Streetcars on exclusive rights of way work. They work. They work cheap.”
I’m sorry, $11.5 billion for this proposal in not ‘cheap’. Residents looking for noticeably faster transit service will in many cases not consider a very modest increse in speed to be ‘working’.
One thing that I’d like noted is that the current request for proposals only really went off the rails when the TTC changed the specifications, requiring 100% low floor. This seems odd to me since there appears to be no restriction to the TTC purchasing 70% low floor buses and operating them.
I stand by my statement that decent streetcar vehicles exist and are operating in Europe that can be adapted to the TTC network with minimal effort. Unfortunately, the bureaucracy kept on placing restriction after restriction (25% Canadian content, et cetera) until those options weren’t available.
In the three years that have passed since 2005, I’ve been astounded at some of the blunders made by the TTC on a number of fronts. It makes me quite angry, to be frank, to have advocated for something that has failed in some embarrassing ways. I stand by my original statements, though I think to accuse me of bias would be hyperbole.
I have been willing to talk about the use of a subway beneath Eglinton Avenue; I have said, if McGuinty shows us the money and builds a subway, and the other MoveOntario 2020 projects, I’ll be happy. Certainly the Jane LRT looks like it needs a rethink, and I certainly agree that we could use a downtown relief line of some form. If you’re arguing that I can’t be moved from my positions, and I do detect a hint of hostility there — forgive me if I’m misinterpreting it — then one wonders what’s the point of having a debate.
Now, I do admit, I have a strong attachment to the current streetcar network, and I would have strong feelings if anybody advocated its widespread abandonment. But that doesn’t mean we couldn’t improve things or move things about with a judicious use of an LRT right-of-way here, or a subway there. Again, in the end, it comes down to what funds are available, and I’m getting impatient for McGuinty to show us the money.
Can you dispute the fact that we have dallied for almost three decades? Given that we’ve had many different subway plans waved in our faces, but so little built, doesn’t that suggest that we should be considering other options?
And, yes, BRT might work for some of them.
To add to: “I stand by my original statements, though I think to accuse me of bias would be hyperbole.” In some ways, aren’t we all biased to some degree? I don’t think I’ve offered myself up as a completely unbiased observer. I’ve always argued for what I believe in, though I try to listen (and sometimes fail, I admit) to what others have to say. I am, after all, a transit advocate. I am biased for better public transit.
And aren’t we all?
I think I started all this, so I’ll end it with the following cheer …
light rail, light rail, SIS BOOM BAH
light rail, light rail, RAH RAH RAH
Yay STREETCAR-LINX !!
Having not read through the full report yet, I’m curious if it sets out expected cost recovery projections for each of the proposed projects (essentially operational cost recovery through the farebox as I doubt the capital will ever be)?
The lines projected cover a large swath of the region and seem to be aimed at being politically friendly, rather than being the best use of the resources (likely because that would mean almost all projects being in Toronto proper).
I am not a just a railfan, but a public transit fan. The reason that I like electric rail such as streetcars, SRT’s, LRT’s and subways is that their source of power is from the electical grid rather then an internal combustion engine, so, their is now local area pollution generated. The generation of power does pollute but not as much locally as a bumber to bumper filled Don Valley Parkway produces. I am on another website where I rant about taking Nanticoke and Ontario’s other coal-fired generating plants off our grid but I save that arguement for elsewhere. All I am sure of is that the more people leave their vehicles at home the less smog days Toronto will experience and that will save us health-care costs.
Some of the comments from members here show me, that people are truly limited in their transit scope. It is not always about speed, or subways.
People talk about the increased cost of Transit City. Are you that blind, or naive to think that subway construction is immune to project changes, and construction cost increases?
We are supposed to be transit enthusiasts/advocates. And that means improving services for ALL. Subways in Toronto are not providing that service.
For what it’s worth, the Metrolinx projects have been costed only at the most basic, back-of-the-envelope level using assumed unit costs. There is no reason to expect that these costs will not grow above the rate of inflation (that $50-million estimate is in current, not inflated, dollars). I expect that those who trash Transit City for lowballed costing will vent their anger on Metrolinx when, inevitably, the hidden costs (including those that are assumed to be borne by other agencies) are added to the grand total.
They have cost estimates — these must exist as a source for the cash flow charts in the “Investment Plan” — but they have not published them.
Steve, thanks for the info on cost projections. On a related note, it wasn’t covered in the media that I saw, but is CP really on board with the proposed midtown line?
From what I have heard, Metrolinx hasn’t had detailed discussions with the railways at all. They have only been drawing lines on maps.
And it doesn’t seem clear:
project 7 (Dundas West to Summerhill) will be regional peak service – not sure about densities to support this, but as far as I know, easily done in terms of not having to add rail lines or build new bridges. But I assume they mean Dundas West as in the Junction, not the Dundas West Go station (I assume they’re thinking this junction could be a transfer point to the Union-Pearson line, etc.).
Then project 13 on same line goes from Seaton to Union (not summerhill) on regional peak, meaning it will turn south at Bayview. Then why the heck does the map show there is service on the north Toronto sub between the Bayview split to Summerhill?
Either way, if the midtown/crosstown service is tied to service to Seaton, there’s no way it will be in the 15 year timeline, as far as I can tell.
The midtown line they propose seems dependent on many other things happening first (Union-Pearson link, Seaton becoming a smart-growth city).
So, it doesn’t look like a crosstown line of, say, Kipling to Agincourt or whatever is going to happen for a long, long time, despite what they’ve thrown on a map. Unless they have some numbers to show a Dundas West-Summerhill line can be supported on its own.
Heck, maybe it’s time to simply give up on the crosstown line, rip up one track, and make it a cycling-pedestrian track across town. Could get 25 years out of that service before we have to worry about getting regional rail on the sub.
All projects need independent cost evaluations. The reason for being especially critical Transit City is that those lobbying for it are harping on how inexpensive it is. Why doesn’t the slick marketing website show up to date cost estimates?
The cost of estiblishing RER type service on key rail lines is very difficult to estimate.
All projects need independent cost evaluations. The reason for being especially critical Transit City is that those lobbying for it are harping on how inexpensive it is. Why doesn’t the slick marketing website show up to date cost estimates?
The cost of estiblishing RER type service on key rail lines is very difficult to estimate.
It should be noted that no final decisions have yet been made on at least half of the lines in Transit City.
Jane, for example, is still in its feasability study. That’s why the people at the open houses are consultants from outside the TTC, because the TTC wants them to find out what options are available for Jane, as well as what the public will accept.
I do suspect, as others have said, that Jane will be too expensive for the TTC’s wallet (even though they’re not the ones paying for it in capital, they’d still be on the hook for maintenance). So it is conceivable that TC’s price may go down if the TTC opts for an alternate route.
All of Transit City needs to be reviewed as to cost for the simple reason that if we waste a lot of money on a line that we cannot justify, that’s money we don’t have for other projects. This is the same sort of criterion I have applied to things like the VCC subway and the proposed Eglinton/Scarborough Skytrain line.
Jane, as anyone who reads the report can see, is not part of the shortlist for funding out of the available MoveOntario money from Queen’s Park, and I suspect it may not (at least in its current form) make it into the long list either. None of this stuff is set on concrete, and bashing TC supporters on the assumption that we cling to the original proposal really is a waste of text.
We know that some TC stuff needs fixing, as does a lot of Metrolinx plan. Fighting a “straw man” that doesn’t represent the real way these studies and plans work simply diverts attention from the important job of fine tuning the overall strategy and “getting it right” to the degree this is possible.
As for the TC site not having costs on it, well, try to find cost estimates anywhere on the Metrolinx sites. At least anyone who cares to know can find updated TC estimates in the TTC reports.
@Karl Junkin
Maybe you could give a breakdown of which Transit City lines are in ‘feasibility study’ only. I don’t know about the rest of you guys, I find most of the documents on the city website look about the same. Even the Jane documents say something about the project being ‘pre-approved’. I’m not sure how a pre-approved project equates to being a ’strawman’.
My understanding is that as far as transportation patterns and planning are concerned, Jane makes sense. That is subject to physical conditions that must be worked with if they are going install new infrastructure. If the physical conditions ultimately say “you need to make this a subway south of Wilson,” I’d expect the TTC will balk and try to find a different, more practical corridor.
Jane would be an ideal option if going by just ridership and existing density along the route, but the geography is not friendly for LRT here. Jane’s future projectons are not high enough to warrant the investment in a lengthy tunnel, especially when the city already has a subway line west of Yonge.
I think this planned 120km of light rail is a good idea; light rail is more efficient than buses because they hold more people. they are also better than buses because they use electricity directly from the power lines. unlike many believe most of our power comes from nuclear power; nuclear power is much cleaner and safer than most other sources of power. streetcars are very limited because they can’t go to as many places as buses, but they are cheaper to run, with the rising cost of gas. subways are another electrically powered mass transportation vehicle; it is efficient but it is very expensive to build, and cannot go to as many places as light rail trains. in conclusion, the 120 km of proposed light rail is a good idea.
What are your thoughts of the ongoing construction for the street car tracks around St. Claire and Davenport? Do you think that it is needed or not? If you don’t think its needed then how the money could have helped the city in a different way.
In my personal opinion, because i have never ridden a streetcar i feel that the subway is the best way to travel. The points you make are all true but i feel that it is safer riding the subway then it is to ride a streetcar. Streetcars use electricity to travel don’t they? in my opinion, that is a waste of electricty. Subways are faster and can take you to more places can’t they? they also hold more passengers just as you mentioned in your blog.
“What are your thoughts of the ongoing construction for the street car tracks around St. Claire and Davenport? Do you think that it is needed or not? If you don’t think its needed then how the money could have helped the city in a different way.”
A good question.
The St. Clair project has proven to be a perfect storm of bad planning, a refusal of all sides to really communicate, and just plain bad luck. The initial proposal, as suggested, would have merely increased the cost of replacing the current tracks — a cost that had already been budgeted for — by an additional $6 million. But then the project became a Christmas tree on which all sorts of incidentals got hung. The cost ballooned. Toronto Hydro has complicated the process since it has its own work crews, its own tenders, et cetera. Then, of course, there was the ill-fated injunction imposed by a tribunal which included a judge that was later found to be in conflict-of-interest, which delayed construction and threw the schedule into turmoil. All told, there should have been a better way.
That said, I think what is appearing on St. Clair is a big improvement on the service that existed beforehand and, once completed, the line will be a boon to the surrounding neighbourhoods. But I hope we take a good long look at the St. Clair process, and try to avoid those mistakes as we embark on Transit City.
I strongly think that TTC® street cars should be remain in the city. They are a part of the city’s heritage and adds an alternate form of public transportation. The street cars also offer a faster above ground public transportation due new routes that have been recently constructed on St. Clair. The street car also does not burn any oil and is more ecologically friendly to keep the street cars because destroying them would cost many miles of already filled dumps. I also think that if Toronto kept their street cars they would be known for that and would draw more tourism to the city along with many other attractions, leading to a burly economy. Using a street car also decreases the risk of misdemeanor in those troubled neighborhoods that are on the street car routes, because of the easy evacuation for the victim(s). Although some people(s) may quarrel that removing street cars from the city would be beneficial, but the only legitimate arguments that they would be able to instill would be sanitation which is a large predicament that would face any form of public transportation.
“because i have never ridden a streetcar i feel that the subway is the best way to travel.”
There is no question that a subway line is the top form of public transportation. However, it can be extremely expensive. The Sheppard subway cost $900 billion to build and it only extended 6.2 km, or roughly $150 million per kilometre in 2002 dollars.
Streetcars carry more than buses, and can offer a higher order of transit for just one quarter the cost of subway construction. No, it’s not a subway line, but it’s significantly better than a bus route, and we could build more of these things in places where they’re needed — where a subway would just be too much wasted capacity.
Think of it as a bunch of increments. A bus route is right and proper in some areas, but if ridership increases too much, then it might make more sense to build a streetcar. Subways make the most sense when you’re talking about ridership 6.6 times more than a maxed out bus route can handle. That’s a wide gap that streetcars or LRT vehicles can fill.
I don’t think that this 120km of light rail is a good idea, for I would much rather if the government would save this money, invest more, and use it for the TTC. We should definitely keep our street cars, for the reasons mentioned in the post above (by Mr. Bow), but it would be better if there were more subway lines. I heard that there are plans to continue the subway line from Finch to Highway 7 (with various stops along the way like Steeles Ave. and Clark St.) and I find this a great idea. If there was more money, I think that it would be useful to continue the subway line in various other places. This will take some time and a lot of money, but in the end, I think that it will be worth it. The money will be regained with profit after all the people using this service will pay for their tickets; and if these new routes will be built, then they will definitely help a lot of people.
I accidentally clicked send before I was supposed to, so I’m very sorry. Don’t read this again. It’s the EXACT same comment.
I don’t think that this 120km of light rail is a good idea, for I would much rather if the government would save this money, invest more, and use it for the TTC. We should definitely keep our street cars, for the reasons mentioned in the post above (by Mr. Bow), but it would be better if there were more subway lines. I heard that there are plans to continue the subway line from Finch to Highway 7 (with various stops along the way like Steeles Ave. and Clark St.) and I find this a great idea. If there was more money, I think that it would be useful to continue the subway line in various other places. This will take some time and a lot of money, but in the end, I think that it will be worth it. The money will be regained with profit after all the people using this service will pay for their tickets; and if these new routes will be built, then they will definitely help a lot of people.
I agree that subways do hold more people and are more efficient as a way of publice transport. But i have a question as to something you said in your article. You asked if the money should be spent elsewhere but what would it be spent on in terms of transportation? I also agree that streetcars are a cheap, easy and eco friendly way to travel but i think that taking a subway is equally as cheap and easy to acces as well as they can take many more people around. Although, it is more expensive to construct ways for a subway to get around than to construct lines for a street car to travel on. With the same amount of money, much more places could be made to get street cars around rather than to spend the money on extending subway tracks. Instead of extending the street cars outside of the city i think that the money could be spent on improving the areas in which they can travel within toronto and improve the quality of the street cars themselves. Also adding too many more tracks would mean that some things would have to go in order for the tracks to fit which would mean a lot of contruction and a lot of money to pay for the construction also. This would also CAUSE traffic because roads would have to be blocked off in order to create more street car lines.
Streetcars are slower than subways because they get held up in traffic above ground. To solve this, you make a dedicated streetcar and bike line on Queen St. We could abolish cars on Queen, including taxis, because it’s the longest line, running from Etobicoke to The Beaches. On King St, Dundas, Richmond and Adelaide, taxis, cars, buses and bike lanes would be allowed. If you want to get around on Queen, park your car on King or Richmond and walk over. If a car is out of the option, then TTC it over and walk! In order to solve the east-west downtown traffic jams, we have to make tough choices. Keep some streetcars because they are distinctive but get rid of others in order to improve traffic flow.
Though as the government said, “Streetcars on exclusive rights of way work. They work. They work cheap. We can build them and save money. We just need to generate the political will to take that final step.” I personally believe that the TTC is the way to go. They can carry many more people and bring you to the exact place you need to go. With street cars, you might have to take multiple rides to get to your final destination.
I agree with the proposed LRT system. It has worked great on the St. Clair to St. Clair west subways systems to have a dedicated streetcar line. It isn’t LRT but its pretty close. It reduces the amount of stoppage on the streetcars and I think it worked out pretty well. The LRT system will out do the subway in a lot of ways. First of all there is reduced cost. Second, it won’t take long to build, as the new subway line did, and third it will bring quick mass transport to a lot of places. These are all my opinions and I am not closing out any subway advocates here. I just think that it will make every happier. The reduced greenhouse gas it will create is also a plus. Instead of tens of thousands of cars clogging the 401, QEW and DVP every morning/afternoon, there will be LRTs.
Woops, same comment, i just forgot to check the box.
I agree with the proposed LRT system. It has worked great on the St. Clair to St. Clair west subways systems to have a dedicated streetcar line. It isn’t LRT but its pretty close. It reduces the amount of stoppage on the streetcars and I think it worked out pretty well. The LRT system will out do the subway in a lot of ways. First of all there is reduced cost. Second, it won’t take long to build, as the new subway line did, and third it will bring quick mass transport to a lot of places. These are all my opinions and I am not closing out any subway advocates here. I just think that it will make every happier. The reduced greenhouse gas it will create is also a plus. Instead of tens of thousands of cars clogging the 401, QEW and DVP every morning/afternoon, there will be LRTs.
I think that we should try and get the government to build more subways. Subways are faster, so more people can take them, and they make more money. They will also be more likely to get to work on time because of more options, so people make more money, boosting the economy.
It’s a misconception that streetcars are inordinately delayed by other vehicles. The big problem with the current service is that the vehicles take a long time to load/unload.
You can check the service summary from September 2007 (currently posted on James Bow’s Transit Toronto site):
http://transit.toronto.on.ca/archives/reports/service_summary_2007-09-02.pdf
The 512 CLRV (running between the two subway stations) has scheduled speed of 11.3 km/hr.
==> This is the portion where the right-of-way has been completed.
The 512 west of St. Clair West was running (still is I believe) bus service as of that time. It’s speed is given at 12.3 km/hr – faster despite a great deal of construction/constriction on that portion.
(Note – if the terminal time is taken out of the equation, the round trip running time for the ROW-enabled streetcar and the construction-slowed bus is almost identical: 13 km/hr.)
In terms of the Transit City proposal being inexpensive, I would say that $10.1 billion (latest projected cost I have seen) is not inexpensive.
Subways do not make more money, they cost more money both to build and to operate. Each subway train has 2 staff (although this will change on the Yonge line with the new signal system in about 7 years) and each station has at the very least 1 staff (likely more, since there’s more to a station than the collector booth). In wages alone, the costs are at least 3 times that of an LRT system to maintain, nevermind the 4 times the cost to build. Subway stations also have expensive maintenance requirements such as escalators and elevators and other electrical equipment including large ventilation systems. Tunnels also require regular maintenance (which is carried out nightly).
Subways do not automatically carry more people just because they’re faster. It is of course true that subways are more attractive, and have a greater pull to lure new riders, but only if they are put in the right places.
Busy bus routes do not guarantee a successful subway. Sheppard is proof. The Sheppard subway loses around $30,000 a day (that’s about $10 million a year). This is because it doesn’t carry enough people. It’s a huge cost for putting a subway in the wrong place. Sheppard was a very busy bus route, but as James Bow indicated, the maximum capacity of a bus and the minimum needed to justify a subway have a difference to the tune of the Sheppard subway’s current ridership (between 7,000-8,000 ppdph).
There are some badly needed subway extensions in the network. Finch – Steeles, Downsview – York Uni, and I’d argue Kipling – East Mall/Cloverdale is also a strong candidate given the flood of buses on that stretch of Dundas. Note that on all these stretches, it isn’t just one bus route, it is a swarm of converging bus routes, and that makes a big difference.
The subway extensions between York Uni and Vaughan Corporate Centre is dubious. However, there’s a slight chance that with fare integration, it might not be the failure it has long been feared. Fare integration is going to be absolutely critical for it to succeed though. Yonge, ironically, has exactly the opposite problem.
Theo and Karl,
Don’t fall into the trap of talking about whether or not a subway makes money or not. I think, according to the TTC’s accounting procedures, the Toronto subway network does run an operating profit since, with the exception of Sheppard, the lines carry lots of people and they’re often packed. However, you’re forgetting something: where do all these passengers come from?
Most people do not live on top of a subway — most people do not walk to the subway and take ONLY a subway to get to home or work. Many people drive to the subway, but the overwhelming majority arrive by bus and streetcar routes, which funnel passengers onto the lines, and NONE of which make anything approaching a profit. And yet the subways would not be able to function without the surface routes feeding it passengers.
Public transit as a whole is unprofitable, full stop. There isn’t a single transit agency in all of North America which makes a profit. All of them require subsidy to do what transit does — which is to provide mobility to all corners of the city, at most hours of the day. No business would touch that model with a ten foot pole, but we as society benefit because the service is available for us.
And that means all the services: bus, streetcar, AND subway. It all loses money, and it all provides a strong social benefit that we cannot do without.
Most every route o nthe TTC loses money. It would be interesting to know how Sheppard fares in comparison.
However, the real test is the performance over the next decade or so. Rail-based services are strategic/long term in nature. The figures I’ve seen show Sheppard subway ridership growing at about 5% a year. If this trend were to continue (and I have no idea what the projections are), in 10 years or so, naysayers might have to concede that the line was good idea.
The end of a subway line is always a natural point for a bus terminal. The YRT/VIVA presentation materials:
http://www.vivayork.com/downloads/october_16/Presentation.pdf
for the Yonge extension indicate 350+ buses southbound on Yomge between 6 am and 9 am. Moving the terminus will move the bus actvity. (There may end up being more bus traffic into the different planned stations – but riders will have shorter trips on the bus.)
Considering I take the subway every day, I personally believe that building a subway would be the right choice. The subway is much faster and a lot more convenient. If it’s really cold or raining, you won’t have to wait outside waiting for the bus to come. With the subway you walk down the stairs and get on. It’s just that easy. The subway can hold a lot more people than the streetcar can and it takes less time as well. By adding more streetcars to the road, it makes a lot more traffic because it is using up a whole other lane. There is already enough traffic as it is. We should also think about the future. There will be a bigger population and would be a lot more convenient for us later. That is why I truly believe the subway is the way to go.
But, Tara, unless you’re living right above a subway station, you’re still going to have to take a bus to get there, aren’t you?
I just hope Transit City will also include an added bonus of eliminating what I call the “bus convoy effect”. Allow me to explain: I take the 29 Dufferin bus from just south of St. Clair to the Dufferin mall where I work. I WISH DUFFERIN HAD A SUBWAY LINE. Obviously too narrow for LRT, but being the busiest bus route in the system, it can get crowded and of course late. But its late, at least from what I can see, a laughably preventable issue. The “convoy effect” something that’s quite unique and special with TTC. You see they make you wait in “anticipation” for about 20 min in which no bus passes. Then tada! a convoy of about 3,4 even 5 buses comes to your commuteral rescue. Well almost sounds like the old adage, just with a twist: “Too much, too late”.
I don’t understand, I mean I don’t need an escort service, I’m not a celebrity convicted murderer like OJ who needs an armada escort to court. I’m just a college student working a part-time job at the Dufferin mall. Its especially distressing because when that many come at once, first I’ve been waiting a long time, also a large crowd has gathered around me also in wait… for a crowded bus that became crowded because it allowed too much time for people like me and other patrons too gather in multitudes at many of the stops. Then, the real fun part, seeing 2 or 3 unnecessary buses wizz by of whom are practically out for a joy ride because everyone is now on their way and they are no longer needed… which would not be the case in a perfect world regarding transit/Europe.
I actually read in the Metro paper awhile back that the buses just don’t crunch up, no they just leave 3 or so at a time from their lot or station. Now I heard that it has something to do with shifts starting at certain times for the drivers. Now I don’t work for the TTC or know exactly how they operate but at least I can say that that doesn’t make any sense to me. I just get this feeling though that even if this was to be changed or at least attempted to that the union would fight back at this.
Don’t get me wrong, I love TTC and Toronto, its just that it has so much potential but it throws it all away whenever the union rears its unnecesarrily ugly head or when the commission screws up on planning and serving the transit fans and users of Toronto. Please get it right Transit City, I still have hope but it won’t last much longer than this.
Mr. Bow, if they would continue the subway lines, then even people who live farther away from the subway stop don’t have to take the bus. I live past Finch, so to get on the Finch subway, I have to take the bus. Thankfully, they are continuing this subway line all the way to Highway 7, helping me and a lot of people. In 10 years, I won’t have to take the subway to get to downtown! How great would it be if this could apply to everyone? Sadly, it can’t, and this is why streetcars should definitely be kept in the country. Maybe, in a couple of decades or a century, they would continue each subway line, allowing lots of people to just come on the subway without taking the bus or streetcar.
In 10 years I won’t have to take the BUS to get to downtown!
Sorry about that…
I don’t personally think that installing streetcar lines as often as subway tunnels or buses because streetcars are way less frequently used then the subway because they are very slow and do not get through traffic easily opposed to the subway tunnels and buses which are driven and not just guided along tracks. I think that putting more subway tunnels would be for the intent of the city because they save energy and get people where they fast. Consequently the subway is a much more efficient way of transportation because it is fast and saves energy.
I think street are a lot like subways but cheaper. They are like subways that ride on the road. The street cars would be way better if they had their own lane on the road so that cars would not slow them down. I think the streetcars would be a lot better than the subway because it’s cheaper to build since you dont have to dig a tunnel. Overall, I think it would be awesome if street cars would go as fast as subways but on the road with their own special lane.
I think that we should make streetcars because they are less expensive and they still transport a fair amount of people
Well, Rina, you’re lucky to live within walking distance of Yonge, but you’re pretty unique. What about people who live nearer to Bayview or Bathurst? Do you run subways up those arterials as well? What about those on Don Mills, Woodbine, Kennedy?
We simply cannot afford to put a subway under every single major road. The most ambitious plan under Metrolinx, which offers subways under Sheppard/Finch, Eglinton and Queen (mighty tasty, to be sure), is priced out to $55 Billion. This is over and above the commitments the government already taxes you for.
Even spreading this money evenly between now and 2030 requires us to spend an additional $2.5 Billion per year, or the equivalent of $208 for every man, woman and child living in the province of Ontario. Now are you willing to pursue a subway under every street? Care to cough over those extra $200 bucks?
It’s important to note that you can still say “yes” to this, and still be in the right. Because $208 per year cuts down to about $9 for every two weeks, or less than an hour’s work at minimum wage. Put that way, Metrolinx’s proposals are feasible, and you should campaign heavily for it. But don’t forget that this $55 Billion covers the GTA and Waterloo Region only, and Queen’s Park has a whole province to manage. What about projects in southwestern Ontario? What about projects in eastern Ontario? What about northern Ontario? And not even that, what about the cost of health care? Education? Roads, sewers, bridges, and even the cost of maintaining and replacing the transit stock we have?
The money adds up.
My point is, that unless we get a firm commitment from this provincial government that they actually intend to spend the money they need to give us the transit we want, we’re not going to get all of the transit we want. However, if we compromise, if we look for efficiencies — if we go for a less expensive underground LRT line for Eglinton instead of a full-fledged subway, we have more money to channel to priorities elsewhere. In the end, we’ll have to compromise to get the transit that we need.
I think that subways are a way better and more efficient way to get around Toronto, I agree with Sylvia that they should take away taxi’s and such on streets like Queen, and to make it only streetcar lines. Since it is too crowded with bikers, cars, and streetcars. We should extend the subway lines more than the streetcar lines, but make more in the city, but the subway extended more out.
i agree with Allie i think we should extend the subway because it is much more efficient.However Toronto does not have the money so they should save up their money for a few years say 2015 and then build a subway line that extends all throughout Toronto and maybe even make a deal with Vaughan and the surrounding cities to make their own subway lines and connect them to toronto’s subway line. If they did this i would never even consider buying a car because the subway would stretch farther so i could get to places fast and because of the new technology the seats would be more comfy!
Transportation Response.
I feel that street cars are the way to go well for me because it take 5 minutes by street car but to the same destination it takes 20 minutes to half an hour by subway so that is better for me so I agree with streetcars over subway and they should make more but maybe make them faster and make their on road like they did on St. Clare.
Paige M
I believe Toronto has one of the best transit systems in North America. Toronto is known as an underground city. People can travel underground by subway from north to south, east to west and never have to go above ground level. If they live in a condo at Yonge and Sheppard and work in the financial districts at Yonge and King Street or they work at the Eaton Center at Yonge and Queen Street, they don’t even have to wear a winter coat to travel to work each day! Streetcars are a great use of transportation, although they do create a lot of traffic jams. Besides Toronto having streetcars, I believe Philadelphia took all of Toronto’s old Street cars and they are actually running today. Streetcars are part of the history of Toronto. I believe Toronto is a big metropolitan city with a lot to offer. The subway is also a great way to get around the city and I feel we should keep planning more subway lines in all directions, as our city is growing and the suburbs are getting closer to the cit y. The subway will keep more cars off our roads, but the many years it takes to build it will create more construction. In the end, I vote for subways!
I think that we should copy Calgary and build a rail in the air, as well as keeping current LRTS. However, since that is hard to make (Although cheaper) I suggest making a street car system. It’s stupid to make new LRTS, since it is slower in the long run and since the city is still growing, more of them will have to be made, however the under, or over ground street cars will last longer due to their capacity and speed, and cost less in the long term as well as being more efficient. Also it is much more environmental friendly since it uses electricity instead of gas. Also a street car under ground can have up to double the capacity of a LRT, as well as traveling faster than a LRT. However it will take a long time to bring out the money, let alone actually to build the street car. Although it may appear that there is a lack of demand for street cars, like on Sheppard, which is a massive waste of, money taking in only about 40,000 people in it per day it may seem stupid to build one. However with the troubles in the environment, and the recession people will turn to the street car for a cheaper greener option. Also, if gas prices go up, even more people will take the street car and demand will go through the roof. But, since that takes a long time to build, perhaps we should make a quarter of the planned LRT’s, well we wait for the street cars to be built. But if we make air rails, traffic will be slowed down much less than if we start making air rails, and they are much more efficient, not being slowed down by traffic, would attract more people due to the efficiency and the ‘cool’ factor. Also in a few years the roads will be crowded and even street cars and subways will be slowed down, but as I said the air rails will go over the traffic and make it a non issue. Also with streets you can only fit so many cars, but with air rails you can overlap them on top of each other, doubling or even triple the capacity of people traveling while saving land space for housing.
James slipped a few digits when he said the Sheppard line was a $900-billion. Only million.
Re future growth on the Sheppard subway: The TTC’s own subway fleet plan makes no provision for additional service on this line for the next 10 years.
Re buses bunching on Dufferin and elsewhere: This is as much a problem of poor line management coupled with the fact that on close headways, vehicles will tend to travel in packs with uneven loads. I have written about this extensively on my own blog.
Re just extending the subway so that more people can live on top of it: The Yonge-Langstaff extension will benefit many people, and I can agree with it, to a point, as an alternative to flocks of buses. However, a lot of the people on those buses are going downtown, and they would be better served by frequent, all-day service on GO to Richmond Hill. Alas, Metrolinx has that in their 25-year plan, but not their 15-year version. It appears that we would prefer to overload the subway and trigger hundreds of millions in needless cost to accommodate demand there rather than providing good long-haul service for the long-haul riders.
People who happen to live on Yonge close to a station (they will be at best 1 km apart) will do well, but as James pointed out, those who don’t are at the mercy of surface feeder services. At least in the 416, we will have an LRT on Finch West (and possibly Finch East).
Re running times on St. Clair:
There has been no adjustment of running times to allow for the right-of-way’s existence. Anyone who actually rides the line will know that there were times when the queue of cars laying over at one end of the other was immense. On one occasion, I think there were 8 cars at St. Clair Station. They did not need anywhere near the scheduled time to make the round trip to St. Clair West.
Comparing the existing schedules with a future “LRT” operation is totally meaningless.
Of course, TTC operations is notorious for always wanting more running time which usually causes dawdling and erratic service because there is no push to stay on time and get to the terminus with time left over for a short break. There should never be multiple 501s at Long Branch Loop, but it happens quite regularly.
Re – running times on St. Clair
There are only 9 cars scheduled in total on the stretch between the two stations (in am peak as an example) – so it would be hard to have 8 cars jammed up in the station attributable to over-scheduling. (If indeed so, then is the promised reliability improvement being delivered?)
==> It would seem more likely that these vehicles were simply parked in advance of the peak period.
Regardless, the speed improvement promised as a result of the ROW has always been very small. The 13 km speed is not that different than the speed on the Spadina ROW.
^ Are the Bathurst tracks north of the Bloor subway open or under construction?
I think part of the construction is complete – but there will be more closure due to bridge work at Dupont.
I agree that the scheduled speed improvement will be small because the running time is constrained by stops, traffic lights and loading delays. When you look at the analysis of 512 St. Clair on my site, you will see that the worst traffic delays are on weekends although peak periods are no picnic.
The benefit will be mainly from reliability, not from reduced running time, assuming the TTC can actually manage the service properly.
The 8 cars at one end of the line were just being lazy. One or two would venture out now and then on a very wide headway to make a trip to St. Clair West and back. It didn’t take very long.
I’m not surprised that the delays are worse on weekends – that’s when people come to St. Clair to shop.
There isn’t anything much in the way of retail between the subways – more so West of St. Clair W. It’s really the retail traffic that causes the street to be busiest.
The times I’ve been on the section between the stations – even before the project – it’s never really suffered from congestion. (Granted – this is only about 4 or 5 times.) Remember that this stretch was not originally targetted for ‘higher order transit’.