Semantics are fun!
A friend of mine who supports Transit City sent an email to Karen Stintz, and got a response from which I will now quote:
"As you may know, Transit City was not fully funded by the Province of Ontario or the Federal Government. The transit plan that has been funded is the Metrolinx Plan and that plan includes transit investment on Sheppard, Eglinton, the Scarborough RT and Finch. Stopping Transit City does not jeopardize the Metrolinx Plan."
While I do have the utmost respect for Karen Stintz, and have considered living in her ward, it must be said that the above quote is either factually mistaken or inadvertently misleading. The Metrolinx Regional Transportation Plan identifies numerous policies for improving transportation in the Greater Toronto and Hamilton Area, and building physical infrastructure is a part of the RTP. Transit City is the marketing name for a subset of projects within the RTP, and those projects include the half tunnel, half surface Eglinton-Crosstown LRT; the fully grade-separated Scarborough RT upgrade; and surface LRT lines on Finch, Jane, Sheppard, Don Mills and Eglinton/Kingston/Morningside. The first phase of some of these projects have been funded, but others are unfunded at this time.
Transit City is a part of the Metrolinx plan. In my opinion, it's an integral part. As such, cancelling it is cancelling part of the Metrolinx plan. If cancelling part of something places the rest of it in jeopardy, then cancelling Transit City jeopardizes the Metrolinx Plan.
My position on this issue was made quite clear
several posts ago, so I'm not going to repeat it. However, if we are going to have a discussion on these issues of the day, then we need to make sure that we're debating with facts - not with lies, hearsay and misinformation.
Labels: GTTA plan, light rail, municipal sillyness, politics, ttc
Can subways build a transit city?
Rob Ford, Toronto's incoming mayor, was elected on a platform that called for subway construction instead of light rail construction. From the people I have spoken to, many are concerned about the future of Transit City, David Miller's initiative to build a series of light rail lines across Toronto. While there are many good reasons to forge ahead with Miller’s plan, what if we could build these proposed lines as subways. Are we still building Transit City?
Transit City became synonymous with light rail transit, but in many ways, the modal choice was the means to an ends. For transit city, the end goal was to add capacity and reliability to locally-oriented transit and to support constant strings of mid-rise development along Toronto's avenues. In essence, the true goal of Transit City was to transform suburban arteries into more vibrant, successful streets where people can live, work, play and shop. It was a project to urbanize the suburbs and attract investment by making these lands just as attractive for development as the downtown core. If subways can build a transit city, then these are the standards by which a subway plan must be measured.
Read more »Labels: GTTA plan, light rail, politics, streetcars, subways, ttc
Thoughts on transit platforms
With the Toronto mayoral election campaign in full swing, here are my thoughts on the transportation related issues that are at play.
Read more »Labels: cycling, light rail, politics, streetcars, subways
A rare rebuttal
I don't usually do this, but a letter
appearing in the Star today needs a response:
It is interesting to note that most LRT proponents live along or near subway lines. Their ideology prevents them from reading or understanding studies and reports that clearly spell out the negative impacts on traffic and communities. Communities in the suburbs are designed and behave differently than those in the downtown core. Just because people aren't walking along Sheppard Ave., Catherine Porter asks, "What community?" and suggests we have nothing to save! Porter's article highlights the disconnect between downtown Toronto and its suburbs.
Patricia Sinclair, Save Our Sheppard, Scarborough
First of all, I find it wholely offensive to suggest that those who support Light Rail Transit are making their decision based on ideology, rather than the facts being presented to them. I also find it wholly offensive to suggest that this is downtown ganging up on the suburbs. These comments are completely without basis, and I would expect better from seasoned neighbourhood activists trying to win the hearts and minds of citizens and decision makers in particular.
Secondly, the impact on the transportation network and on communities are positive. The transportation network isn't about moving vehicles - it's about moving people. When you remove transit from traffic then people in vehicles don't have to wait behind buses and people on trams don't have to wait behind vehicles. Everybody wins. When it comes to the impact on the community, there is no evidence that the community will be cut in two. Is the east side of Spadina segregated from the west side? Is the LRT along Queens Quay preventing people on the north side from enjoying the waterfront? The construction phase did cause disruption, but this will be true of any project. There is no basis to suggest that the community will be destroyed by building this project. Look at St. Clair two years from now and you will see it back to its old self, if not better.
Finally, it is true that the suburbs behave differently than the downtown core. However that behaviour contributes to the arguments against building a subway. There are fewer major trip generators, fewer mixed use areas, lower densities and fewer opportunities for intensification. We need to have these things in order to make a subway economically viable, since they cost ten times that of an LRT line. These are not ideological beliefs. These are facts.
Labels: comments, light rail
Are anti-LRT activists being railroaded? - Toronto Star
A Toronto Star article identifies a group of residents on Sheppard Avenue east who have some concerns about the LRT currently under construction. While it's good that there are people who care about their neighbourhood, what concerns me is that one of the quotes that appeared in the paper. Assuming that it was not been taken out of context, I worry that there is a bit of misinformation about the speed that the LRT is going to travel at.
"You get in the car and you go 60 kilometres per hour and you get on the streetcar and you go 12 kilometres per hour," said [Patricia] Sinclair [of Save Our Sheppard].
"If you're trying to pull people on (transit) and you're trying to get less traffic, you've got to give them transit they will use. Where is the analysis of not just the costs but the benefits?"
First of all, the speeds quoted by the City of Toronto are the average speed, including the time it takes for stops. Even though the posted speed limit is 60 km/h (and the speed the trams will travel at is 60 km/h), the only way you can maintain that speed is if there were no traffic and no stop lights. The average speed, taking these factors into consideration, is much lower for both traffic and the LRT. And, for the record, the LRT will average around 22 to 25 kilometres per hour. This is faster than the 85 SHEPPARD EAST bus and has a higher capacity. The only way to increase end-to-end speeds is to increase the distance between stops, but fewer stops means a very inconvenient walk for those who are destined for locations in between stops.
Secondly, the analysis of the costs and benefits are available in several documents on the City of Toronto and Metrolinx's websites.
The article points out that everyone wants subways, and while there is a acknowledgement that they cost more, there is a desire to let development pay for it. This is how it works in Hong Kong, but this is because the transit authority has a development arm. If we want the development to pay for subways, we need to overhaul our political culture:
- First, we need to change our opinion that government should not compete with the private sector. This is the only way it can gain the same degree of development powers - the power to purchase entire districts and redevelop them - that Hong Kong has.
- Second, we need to change our opinion that stable neighbourhoods should not be redeveloped, In order to get development to pay for these subway lines we then we will need to do more than just build on strip mall parking lots. We will have to redevelop entire neighbourhoods adjacent to the artery in question.
- Third, we need to accept high-rise, high-density development in our cities. We seem to have a fear of highrises, but the revenue from the mid-rise development planned will not be enough to pay for a subway line.
I'm not saying that we should enact any or all of the above, but we do need to understand what it will take to have the kind of subway network that many Asian cities have enjoyed for years.
Sorry Theo.
Labels: light rail, politics
Sean Burak over at Raise the Hammer has
a new article debunking the myths that LRT will bring us doom and gloom. It's a great read so be sure to check it out.
Labels: light rail
Visions for the GTTA: Rapid Transit, Part II
This post is a continuation of
this post.
Recommendation #3 - Quickly introduce Rocket service to major corridors
Within recent memory, several bus-based rapid transit projects have been implemented to improve transit service in the GTHA. Notables among them include iXpress, which snakes through Waterloo Region; A-Line and B-Line, forming a north-south network in Hamilton; and VIVA, York Region Transit's celebrated rapid transit network. In the fall of 2010, Zum in Brampton will come online and provide express service along the Queen Street corridor. While there is no question that these routes have been successful, they all run primarily in mixed traffic and they all experienced long implementation times. Zum, for example, can be traced back to 2004 - a six year lead time for only 1/3rd of the first phase.
[More after the jump...]
Read more »Labels: bus rapid transit, GTTA plan, light rail, streetcars
Transit City measures up to international standard - Toronto Star
Metrolinx, which will be responsible for constructing and owning (they will likely contract day-to-day operation to the local transit agency) all new rapid transit lines built in the Greater Toronto and Hamilton Area,
has announced [Toronto Star] that the Transit City light rail lines to be built in Toronto will use standard track gauge. Most railways around the world run on rails spaced 4 feet, 8-1/2 inches apart. The TTC uses rails separated 4 feet, 10-7/8 inches apart. Some say that it was to prevent freight trains from using city streets, while other say it was to allow private wagons to use the ruts between the rails. This was Muddy York, afterall, and I remember reading something about a by-law that allowed for citizens to use the rails provided they did not delay streetcars... but I digress.
What does this mean for transit it Toronto? Some feel that moving to standard gauge will allow more companies to bid on the supply of vehicles, and more choice will result in more competitive prices. Others contend that it is the steep hills and sharp curves that keep many bidders away, and that modifying to TTC gauge does not have a noticeable effect on the price of a light rail vehicle. Some rebut that Transit City lines will not have the sharp curves and steep hills of downtown, so breaking down all - not some - barriers to using "off the self" equipment is appropriate. Others counter-rebut that this move will prevent connecting new lines to old lines to share storage yards and offer customers a one-seat ride into the downtown core.
From my perspective, there is no need to make an issue here. Downtown cars would never be able to travel on the Transit City network because they aren't double-ended, and Transit City cars would never be able to handle the curves of the downtown core. The systems have to be separated. Besides, what Metrolinx has said is that the Transit City lines will use standard gauge. But,, Transit City is merely a marketing name applied to the Mayor's vision. Routes like proposals Sheppard, Finch West and Eglinton can continue to be called Transit City lines, but what is stopping these agencies from rebranding projects like the St. Clair streetcar extension, the Waterfront West line, or any other line that requires a connection to the downtown network? They could be called "Toronto Streetcar Expansions", rather than Transit City, and constructing them to TTC gauge would not contradict what was announced today.
If the above is not possible, then there are
international precedents of trams using dual gauge tracks for running in the same right-of-way as incompatible systems. If that is not possible, then there are even wheelsets that automatically vary the width of the wheels to match a changing rail width.
They are used successfully in Spain, where high speed lines use standard gauge and traditional lines use a broad gauge.
Semantics are important, but we can't get bogged down in them!
Labels: light rail, ttc
We are here to talk about maps
Ladies and gentlemen, we are here to talk about maps. Maps guide us through the urban landscape, but they also hint at parts of our environment that have not yet been explored.
That is how I opened my final presentation on a comprehensive mapping and analysis project of the laneways and back alleys of Ward 20 (Trinity-Spadina). Today's post is also about maps, but of a different kind.
Should we put Transit City (LRT) lines on the TTC subway map?
Some feel that because these lines will not be subway lines they do not belong on a subway map and will cause rider confusion about the level of service being offered. Some have cited international precedent to support this argument. The Tramlink network in Croydon, Greater London does not appear on the base Underground Map, for example.
While we need to borrow best practises from the rest of the world, each city has developed its own subway map style. Just because the Europeans leave certain lines off of their subway maps does not mean that we should follow. Perhaps the solution is using a thinner line width than the subway lines, but we marginalize our LRT lines at our own peril. They may not be subway lines, but they are a service enhancement over a mixed-traffic bus route - and that's something we should recognize and celebrate.
That's what I think. What about you?
Labels: light rail
Error of omission
A Royson James column in today's star brings to light the reflections of Howard Levine, retired planner, city councillor and transit buff, on the St. Clair West streetcar project. Suffice to say, he is not very happy with the direction the city has gone with the project.
While many of his concerns are about design elements (which are inherently subjective), one point did catch my attention. When the line is done, travellers will save one minute on a complete trip from Jane to Yonge. While this is true, it ignores one fact - that the one minute saving is over the scheduled time. Since the delays due to traffic are habitual for any mixed traffic-streetcar, the community will benefit from reliable and predictable service. Also, since there is a limit to the level of practical service that mixed-traffic operation can provide, the right-of-way will allow for more frequent service.
$100 million for a minute saved is not a good investment, but such a conclusion can only be reached if one ignores most of the other benefits of the project. $100 million for reliable, higher capacity transit, streetscape improvements, jobs and general community investment is a pretty good investment if you ask me.
Labels: light rail, streetcars, ttc
The Mississauga-ey Knoll
Fact: The Hurontario Rapid Transit project is proposed to connect Downtown Brampton (and eventually Mayfield West, Caledon) with Port Credit, Mississauga along Highway 10 / Main Street / Hurontario Street.
Fact: Square One is the most important transfer point in Mississauga.
Fact: Diverting the line to the existing Square One terminal would increase travel times along the corridor.
Fact: Moving the terminal closer to Hurontario would divert funds from other worthy projects.
Fact: It is unclear if the terminal is able to handle the projected ridership demands.
Question: How much existing infrastructure should be used when we build new rapid transit lines? Should we attempt to maximize existing infrastructure at the cost of convenience or should we correct all perceived mistakes of the past at increased cost? At what level of cost and convenience does the balance tip?
Discuss, with examples. Also, this fact/question post applies to the SRT refurbishment. Continue to discuss with examples.
Labels: light rail, mississauga transit
The Grassy Knoll
Whereas there exist theories that the Sheppard LRT project is a calculated and nefarious plot to put a permanent end to full-fledged subway construction in the city of Toronto and to generally screw Scarborough over, I've decided to pose the following thoughts:
Fact: The Sheppard Subway was intended to operate from Yonge Street to Scarborough Town Centre.
Fact: The Sheppard Subway was only constructed from Yonge Street to Don Mills Road.
Fact: A surface light rail line can accommodate projected ridership along the remainder of Sheppard Avenue.
Fact: Projected ridership, even with the increased attractiveness of a subway, would still fall below the justification point for subway construction.
Question: Does the fact that a part of the original plan was constructed justify finishing the plan, or is it acceptable to change priorities in order to correct
perceived mistakes of the past?
Fact: The Bloor-Danforth Subway currently terminates at Kennedy Station.
Fact: Scarborough Town Centre serves as a major transfer point between riders and the larger rapid transit network.
Fact: The existing Scarborough RT primarily serves as a shuttle between Kennedy Station and Scarborough Town Centre.
Fact: Trains using the existing alignment can accommodate projected ridership along the corridor, including demand from the proposed extension to Malvern.
Question: Is eliminating a transfer enough of a justification for the construction of a subway when less expensive, incremental improvements can accommodate the demand placed on the line?
Discuss with examples.
Labels: light rail, politics, subways
The Endless Waltz
As we turn the corner towards a more sustainable transportation plan for the Greater Toronto and Hamilton Area, there is a fair bit of consensus on where lines should be drawn. But, there is bitter debate over what sort of trains we should run along those lines.
On heavy rail lines where GO Transit has a foothold, there is strong support for a concept called Regional Express (REX), similar to the London Overground / National Rail services or the Paris RER, REX brings the frequency of subway lines to the commuter rail network. Station spacing will remain generally the same, resulting in a fast, frequent suburban metro to connect the 905 at all hours of the day and turn the stations into true mobility hubs. On other GO lines, the familiar green bi-level trains will continue to operate, but at much higher frequencies. Most lines will see two trains per hour at the bare minimum. On the highways and off-road corridors, Ottawa-style transit-ways will be built to bring long-distance buses out of traffic. Higher quality stations and extensions will improve access to the network which is currently restricted to GO stations and wind-swept park-and-rides. On city streets, bus rapid transit, light rail transit and heavy rail subways will be the workhorses, but the pros and cons between these three technologies has turned friend into foe and neighbour into rival.
Bus Rapid Transit and Light Rail Transit (of which I prefer the latter, as they both have identical applications but experiences in Hamilton and Ottawa have shown that residents are willing to spend more to have rail), as implemented in Toronto, will likely run in transit-only lanes in the median - much like a 510 SPADINA or a 509 HARBOURFRONT streetcar, only much faster. These lines are much less expensive to build than subways, and can be built much faster than subways. However, passenger capacity is lower and travel time is much longer. In addition, light rail tends to encourage a constant strip of medium-density development along the route due to the relatively close station spacing. Since property around the stations are most valuable, the close spacing results in a generally equal value from end to end. If we were to build light rail in Toronto and optimize the land use policies to reflect the transit service, then we can expect the built-form to resemble Queen Street or College Street.
On the other hand, subways, as implemented in Toronto, will likely run exclusively underground. These lines are much more expensive than light rail, and take much longer to build. However, subways can carry more people and move them much faster. As for development, subways tend to encourage very high densities around the stations due to the distance station spacing. Since property around the stations are most valuable, the areas in between stations won't attract the same level of investment. If we were to build subways in Toronto and optimize the land use policies to reflect the transit service, then we can expect the built-form to resemble.
So which approach is better for Toronto?
Check out any thread related to Transit City on the
Urban Toronto Forum, and you'll quickly find that there is no shortage of opinion. But how do we resolve such conflicting views?
If travel times are the most important factor, then subways are the only way to go. But, will subways hurt businesses in between stations by speeding potential customers past?
Looking at Queen West, one of the reasons I believe it is so successful is the fact that someone can browse the stores just by riding the streetcar. If we were to build a subway, there is a possibility that this dynamic could be lost forever, as a Queen Street Subway would completely replace the streetcar - shifting travel patters would make surface ridership dwindle to the point where reconstruction of the line would not pass any business case. But, some neighbourhoods are strong enough to withstand this transition. Danforth was - as was North Yonge - but is the rapid gentrification of Queen West the instability needed to tip the balance?
If we're looking at ensuring that every point on the corridor has generally equal access to higher order transit, then light rail is a viable option. But, are the travel times enough to speed up the commute of the potential riders, and are the capacities high enough to carry us 30 years into the future? The relatively low cost is very attractive, but does it really help build the sort of complete communities that many advocates predict - and if so, is this type of development any better than subway-oriented development?
The City of Toronto has a plan to cover the city in modern light rail transit. Some have suggested that it is nothing more than a fetish for streetcars, and if there is money for light rail, there is money for subways. Yes, this is true, but the issue is far more complex. In the real world, we cannot afford to build subways instead of light rail. We will not make a dent in the issues of improving commutes for people if we trade 5 light rail lines for 2 subway lines. Also, in the real world, we cannot ignore the development that transit can encourage. It's not as simple as zoning for what we want and watching developers flock - there must be some incentive for them to invest in underused properties.
While there are certain corridors which could be upgraded to subway if the money is there to ensure that it doesn't come at the cost of rapid transit on other corridors, but we ultimately need to balance the need for improved travel times, the need to encourage the best use of land to build the communities which best support desired lifestyles, and the need to build in every corner of the city.
Building a transit city is not just about light rail, not just about subways, and not just about urban design. It is a mesh of all three topics, and while the endless waltz of debate will likely never die, we must do all we can to resolve different visions of what transit and neighbourhoods on controversial corridors like Sheppard and Eglinton can realistically become.
Labels: GTTA plan, light rail, subways, urban design
Etobicoke-Finch West LRT
The City of Toronto's webpage for the proposed Etobicoke-Finch West LRT has gone live, with more detailed documents and public meetings to follow in the coming months. The line is expected to follow the Transit City formula of light rail vehicles operating in reserved lanes, but like all transit projects, there are many options on the table. The method of connecting the line to Finch and future-Finch West station will come out in the EA, but are minor details in comparison to some critical "how far" questions:
How Far West?
The line is expected to terminate at Humber College in the Highway 27 and Finch area, but there are several options beyond that destination. Further west lies Westwood Mall, a major terminal for Mississauga Transit, while a southward extension could bring the line to support a redevelopment of Woodbine Centre and Woodbine Racetrack. These destinations are logical extensions, but are they logical enough to be considered in the current study?
How Far East?
The 39 FINCH EAST bus is bursting at the seams, so there is a market to extend the line eastward. Seneca college at Don Mills is a key source of this crowing, but higher densities along Finch don't start to dissipate until after you pass Kennedy. Should an LRT along Finch East be considered during this study, or should the project remain in separate, more manageable chunks?
How Far Away From Finch?
The hydro corridor gives us an opportunity to run the line out of traffic from Highway 400 to Highway 404. Faster travel times will result, but with the corridor about 300 metres away from Finch Avenue, will this support the growth management policies for Finch and replace the bus service with high-quality transit?
These are some key things to watch in the EA - and a close watch will be necessary, as this line doesn't have the controversy attached to its cousin on Sheppard East.
Labels: light rail, ttc
The New Streetcars - don't act so surprised
Major news outlets are now reporting the story, but credit must be given to wil9402 on the Canadian Public Transportation Discussion Board for reporting that only two companies have submitted bids to build the next generation of Toronto's streetcars.
One is a company from UK called TRAM Power Ltd. They have built a prototype which operated in Blackpool for a few years, but haven't really made a name for themselves until now. The other is Bombardier.
Surprisingly, Siemens did not bid on this contract, citing technological and financial reasons - but this might actually be a good thing. CBC Radio reported earlier today that Bombardier was unaware of Siemens pulling out, hinting that Canada's favorite transportation company may have lowballed their bid If that is the case, and Bombardier is awarded the contract, then the citizens of Toronto stand to gain. Of course, the TTC could re-issue the tender, but I have a feeling that it was the unique requirements of Toronto's network (or maybe the Can-Con requirements) that kept the European manufacturers from bidding.
If Bombardier is awarded the contract, the new vehicles will likely resemble their FLEXITY family of European Trams, will be 100% low floor, and will feature all-door boarding with an alternate fare payment system. Hopefully, this will take the form of the Presto smart fare card, and not some stop-gap solution while the TTC crawls on its Presto implementation. They will be uni-directional, and will only have doors on one side. The first cars will be equipped with Trolley poles, but will be upgradeable to European-style pantographs when the network is ready.
As for the cars to be used on the Transit City network, there is some confusion. Initially, the TTC had indicated that these cars would be based on the downtown cars, but would be longer, have cabs at both ends and doors on both sides. Now, there are suggestions that the Transit City cars will be based on off-the-shelf designs, making them incompatible with the downtown network. I think that this would be shortsighted, as maximizing existing maintenance facilities at TTC carhouses will save us money in the long run.
The first vehicles should appear in Toronto around 2010, around the same time as the new subway cars arrive. It should be a very interesting year for transit in Toronto.
Labels: light rail, streetcars, ttc
Hurontario LRT & Urban Design PIC
I went to the Hurontario Rapid Transit / Urban Design public information centre at Brampton City Hall tonight, and found
Sean Marshall from Spacing hanging around his old stomping grounds. While there were very few people there, staff answered all of the questions asked with a lot of depth. They seemed genuinely interested in the suggestions we had to offer, both written and verbally. There was paper, pens and post-it notes for us to use, and it was always within arms' reach.
From the transit side of things, the decision was clearly between LRT and BRT, with the only uncertainty being how to deal with the narrow sections between Queen Street & Shoppers World, and between the QEW & Lakeshore. Going elevated might interfere with the urban design of the area, going underground might be costly, and traveling in mixed traffic might end in disaster. The City of Brampton is also looking at moving the Shoppers' World terminal closer to Main Street, which I take as an indication that they are striving for better. In addition, the project leader was very clear that there was no intention of making people transfer at municipal boundaries - another sign they are looking to provide a better customer experience.
From the urban design side of things, I got the sense that there was a real desire to build transit oriented development along the corridor in order to make Hurontario be more of a complete street. The slogan used was "21st Century Main Street", and many of the concepts presented reminded me of the lively main streets in small towns in Ontario. The only challenge will be how to urbanize the area between Steeles and Bristol, which is currently a mix of warehouses, vacant fields and offices setback fifty feet from the property line.
Overall, I think it was a great session, and I can only hope the Mississauga side presents the same vision to the public tomorrow.
Labels: brampton transit, light rail, mississauga transit, urban design
Progress on Transit City
While the Regional Transportation Plan is still on track for a fall release, previous funding announcements have given the green light to many transit projects across the GTA. Essentially, there are two classes to these projects. Fully funded projects, such as the Mississauga BRT and Brampton Acceleride have received most (if not all) of its funding, while EA funded projects, such as the Hamilton LRT lines and parts of Transit City, have the funding to move to detailed planning stages. We will have to wait and see how the RTP deals with these projects, as it could ratify, upgrade or provide alternatives to some of the proposed transit line. But, this uncertainty hasn't stopped the City of Toronto from moving forward on its plan to improve transit services across the city.
Among those these projects are the Sheppard East LRT, the Scarborough RT rehabilitation and expansion, the Don Mills LRT and the Waterfront West LRT. Here's a rundown of where the study for each project is and what options have left to be decided.
Sheppard East LRTThe city is moving ahead with a LRT line from Don Mills Road to Meadowvale Road, with stations spaced every 400-500 metres. This means that many stops will be eliminated, but the end-to-end ride will be much faster than the current bus route. The Sheppard bus will be completely eliminated, allowing resources to be deployed elsewhere, but the buses that currently serve Don Mills station will remain.
There are two options on the table for linking the Sheppard LRT with the Sheppard Subway. Both require tunneling, and both would have tunnels built to subway clearances.
"Option 3" calls for the LRT to go underground at Consumers Road, and stop at a double-length Don Mills Station platform. Passengers would transfer by walking further down the platform. This is the lower cost option, and has no drawbacks beside ensuring that a runaway subway train can be stopped before entering into the LRT section of the station.
"Option 5" calls for the subway to be extended to Consumers Road, and the LRT terminate on the surface, directly above the subway platform. This option has a higher price tag, but comes with some interesting pros and cons. The whole point of Transit City being an LRT project is to discourage disconnected spot of ultra-high density development around stations. The hope is that the relatively close station spacing will bring a constant string of medium density development, much like Queen Street. But, the area between Victoria Park and Highway 404 is a business park and a good place to develop a high-density area - so it may be wise to extend the subway as far as Victoria Park. But, many pro-LRT advocates worry that such an extension will bring calls for "just one more stop."
I think that an extension to Victoria Park has merit, but we need to know what the plan for Sheppard West is. If we are going to build an LRT from Yonge Street westward (as the official plan calls for), then we should convert the subway to LRT for a continuous journey - and not build any extensions.
Another aspect still under consideration is a branch to Scarborough Centre, either down Brimley or McCowan. I believe its a necessary connection, but both Brimley and McCowan have their pros and cons. More study is needed.
Scarborough RTIt's a pretty much guarantee that the Scarborough RT will be upgraded to the Bombardier ART Mk. II standard that has served Vancouver so well. This means higher capacity trains and the possibility of running them more frequently.
The extension of the Scarborough RT to Malvern Town Centre is already under consideration, and has been broken into two sections. Between McCowan and Markham Road, three choices are available. The first has the line follow Progress Avenue in its entirety, but this might mean moving McCowan Station. The second follows the abandoned railway corridor and Progress Avenue, while the third follows Highland Creek. I think the second option is best, as it only crosses the creek once, maintains McCowan station and puts a the proposed Bellamy station as close to Progress as possible.
The northern segment has four possible alignments, but each has issues. Option 1 runs up Progress and Markham Road to the CP Rail line, but runs through the front yards of some townhouses. Option 2 diverts to avoid these houses, but has significant backtracking on its way to the terminus. Option 3 takes the most direct route (the old railway corridor), but runs through the back yards of some homes. Option 4 follows the 401 and Neilson Road, but infringes on another Transit City project.
Option 3 could be viable, if the line runs through a trench when it passes close to the residences. It would result in the fastest journey and would place a station at Progress and Sheppard, where redevelopment potential exists. Option 4 serves more existing high-density development, and could reduce the need for the Scarborough-Malvern LRT north of U of T Scarborough, but would see a longer ride to the subway.
Nothing is currently planned beyond this extension, but the opportunity to extend the line in both directions exists. Eastward, Seaton can be served with an extension along the CP Rail corridor. This could serve trips to Scarborough, with downtown trips using GO services. Westward, there is the possibility to build the Eglinton-Crosstown line as an extension of the Scarborough RT. It would be elevated east of Laird and west of Weston Road, with a tunnel in between. Once at Renforth, a branch could head to Pearson Airport, while another branch could head to Mississauga City Centre.
Waterfront West LRTFrom Dufferin Street to Union Station, the Waterfront West LRT will run parallel to the Gardiner to Fort York Blvd, then will stick to city streets to the Air Canada Centre, where it will join the tunnel to Union Station. West from Dufferin Street, there are many options, and alternatives on options, to get to the Roncesvalles/King/Queen/Queensway intersection.
Among them, I believe that "Option 2" is the best alternative. From the area around Dufferin Loop, the LRT line would run along the embankment beside the railway corridor to a direct connection with the line heading westward along the Queensway. This would allow the 508 LAKE SHORE to be rerouted into Union Station. Combined with all day service and improved frequencies, this will solve the problems of spotty service west of Humber Loop. However, the variant of Option 2 still under consideration doesn't allow for cars southbound on Roncesvalles to head to Union Station. If the Jane LRT uses the railway corridor to terminate at Dundas West, as many have recommended, this missing link will be needed to bring the line into the core.
West of Humber Loop, there are long term plans to build a right-of-way along Lakeshore, in addition to a new Loop around Park Lawn. This will benefit the towers around Palace Pier, but more will be needed to improve the relationship the residents have with the TTC. One thing idea that has been floated is to build a right-of-way along Queensway to Sherway Gardens. From the 427 to the Humber River, Queensway is under-developed with relatively poor transit service. If Transit City is truly a redevelopment tool, then this stretch is where it will bear the most fruit.
Don Mills LRTThe Don Mills LRT line will begin at Steeles and travel to Overlea and Millwood - that much is certain. Beyond that, there are multiple options for getting to the subway and on to the downtown core.
The route most commonly associated with this line is down Pape to Pape station. This would serve the most people employment and businesses, but would require tunneling to avoid bad surface conditions. To bring this line into the core, trams could continue down Pape to the railway corridor, then stay on the railway corridor to Union Station or interact with the proposed transit line on Queens Quay East. Alternatively, the line could use Carlaw to enter the Portlands, roughly following the route of the 72A PAPE bus.
Another proposed route uses O'Connor and Broadview to reach the subway, and could be extended to the Portlands using the proposed Broadview extension. While most places along this route need to be tunneled, there are some places where an at-grade alignment could be built. This alignment serves fewer people than the Pape alignment, but could bring some improvements to the 505 DUNDAS and 504 KING streetcars (though it could also completely screw them up).
The final alignment is to use Millwood, the railway corridor and the Bayview Extension to reach Castle Frank station. This alignment could be built completely at the surface, but serves the fewest people and has to deal with a very difficult approach to Castle Frank. To continue into the core, the line could follow the route of the 65 PARLIAMENT bus to Queens Quay East.
Of all the options, I think the Pape alignment will bring the most benefit. It has more people, jobs and businesses than the other alignments, and using the railway corridor will offer significant savings than Broadview or Parliament. If the line is to be tunneled, then stations will be located at Cosburn and Mortimer. If on the surface, O' Connor could be added, but I think this is an important stop to have regardless of the alignment.
Overall, progress on Transit City appears to be moving along well, and I'm eagerly waiting to see the direction the city plans to take on the other lines. Could some of the lines be built to subway standard? I suppose they could, but not without downgrading other proposed lines to BRT - and there is ample evidence to suggest that LRT brings the investment we need to keep this city growing. Of course there are faults to the project, but no one can disagree that its the most ambition (and most likely to get built) transit project the city has seen in quite some time.
Labels: light rail, ttc, urban design
Ottawa buildith, Toronto taketh away
After the light rail fiasco of 2006, the City of Ottawa went back to the drawing board and came up with a new rapid transit plan. Earlier this week, council approved a $4 Billion plan to convert the most heavily used parts of the Transitway to light rail, and to upgrade and extend the O-Train light rail line south to the airport and beyond.
Ottawa's rapid transit network consists of a very efficient system of bus-only roads and lanes radiating from the downtown core to all corners of the city. Routes 94, 95, 96 and 97 spend all of their time on the Transitway, providing frequent service. In addition, routes 101 and 102 use the Transitway in the outskirts, but use the crosstown expressway to bypass the downtown core during the peak hours. In addition, the O-Train light rail line connects Carlton University with the rest of the network. Built for a bargain price, it was always intended to be a pilot project.
In addition to these high-frequency services, the Transitway is also used by almost every bus route operated by OC Transpo. This allows a rider to get downtown from almost anywhere in the city without the need to transfer. But, the large number of buses have resulted in massive congestion during the peak hours, as the downtown section of the Transitway simply cannot handle the pressure.
The approved plan will see:
- BRT from Baseline to St. Laurent converted to LRT
- LRT from Bayview to Greenboro is upgraded and extended to Bowesville and the Airport
- New BRT from Barrhaven Town Centre to Cambrian and to Bowesville
- A downtown transit tunnel
- Future higher order corridors identified
- Objective criteria for upgrading further sections of the Transitway to LRT
I suppose you can say that this project is evolutionary rather than revolutionary, and there is no doubt that this will improve service, reduce crowing and bring downtown bus congestion to an end. However, Ottawa's system of one-bus-downtown will be disrupted. Riders on the 97 will have to transfer at Greenboro or Hurdman to continue further, as well as people comming from Barrhaven, Kanata, Stittsville, Blackburn and Orléans. It will be interesting to see how Ottawa residents take to the act of transferring - something that is second nature to most transit riders in the GTA. Either way, I'm happy Ottawa has an approved plan that is relatively inexpensive. Hopefully, the federal government will come to the table this time.
Meanwhile, WATERFRONToronto, the Toronto Waterfront Revitalization Corporation, has recommended that the Gardiner Expressway be removed between the DVP and Lower Jarvis Street to facilitate a better urban design of the area. It would be replaced with an at-grade avenue, similar in width to University. This street would have a landscaped median, pedestrian facilities. While it would add a few minutes (they claim 2, but my intuition suspects that is a low estimate) to the commute, it would allow for the kind of development that will make the area a place for people to live, work and play in. Here are some artists conceptions:
Many have claimed that the Gardiner is a barrier to the waterfront, but I disagree. The true barrier is the urban wasteland that lays beneath it and the lack of transit options to get through it. Yes, we can spruce it up, but this limits our options to improvements which can survive in such a hostile place. Plants are iffy, and public art would be difficult to appreciate if it were under a bridge. Realistically, no one wants to hang out under a bridge. I believe that this is a good plan, but it should not be done in the name of removing a barrier to the waterfront. It must be done in the name of transforming the area into a destination in itself. Without the highway hanging overhead, we can build a high-density, pedestrian oriented neighborhood from the ashes of the highway. It has been done in many cities, including Chicago, and has been very successful. Yes, it will be a wide street to cross, but like University Avenue (and almost every major artery in the 905), wide streets and heavy traffic are not something residents of the GTA are unfamiliar with.
The original preferred option was to remove the entire Gardiner Expressway from Spadina to the DVP, with the section between Simcoe Street and Jarvis Street to operate as a pair of five-lane one-way streets. From Jarvis east, there would be eight lanes with a median. The cost of this proposal was too high for the city to bear, so I suppose the mayor is endorsing this plan as a compromise. If the Jarvis to DVP successful though, I have a feeling that the full proposal may be resurrected. However, the Front Street Extension was always considered necessary for taking down the other half of the elevated Gardiner, and that project is DOA, according to the grapevine.
It could be eight years before this project is complete, due a full environmental assessment being required. The car lobby isn't happy, but I suppose that since this area is almost completely brownfield there won't be very many local residents to be opposed to this project. The waterfront may seem like an isolated area, but it is very clear that decisions we make have far reaching effects on other areas of the city. Perhaps that is why the original report was titled "Transforming Toronto" and not just "Transforming a Few Blocks Here and There."
Labels: light rail, urban design
Metronauts: Continuing the conversation (Part 1)
Metronauts (powered by Transit Camp) was a whirlwind of good ideas, interesting conversations and networking with industry professionals and transit advocates. Here, the first in a series of posts, I will try to continue some of the conversations started on that interesting day. In this post, I'll be taking about transit malls.
Essentially, a transit mall, in the Toronto context, is a street closed to all but transit vehicles. There are no examples in Toronto, but if European models were followed, we could see a lively pedestrian street, wide sidewalks and cycle lanes, and a transit right-of-way down the centre. There would be no cars permitted.
The city has planned to implement a project on King Street between Dufferin and Parliament which would result in a sort of transit mall (
more info is available here), but local opposition to the notion of eliminating cars from the street has resulted in a pilot project between Yonge and University being postponed seemingly indefinitely. I'd like to see the pilot implemented, but there are a few questions I would love to ask.
Firstly, I've always wondered how much on-street parking contributes to the overall parking stock in an area. In the entertainment district, where the worst congestion is, there are many off-street lots. I know that there are traffic calming benefits to on-street parking, but I suspect that eliminating on-street parking and replacing it with less crowded, more frequent transit service would see an increase in customers. I'm not a business person, but isn't the bottom line to attract more customers?
Secondly, I think that half of a transit mall is to complement a pedestrian-friendly area, and not just to give transit an advantage over congestion. Based on this, why King and Bay for the pilot project? After dark, the area becomes deserted enough to play large games of urban capture-the-flag without even having to close down the streets. Why not King & Spadina or Queen & John? Those are two areas where adding transit malls will improve service and complement existing pedestrian areas. Obviously, we need to establish success through a pilot before we get too ambitious, and if we want the pilot to be successful, we should select a location where it will have a fighting chance. But, we can't take our eye of the prize.
Transit Malls have worked well in Europe, and do have a place in Toronto. But, before we can implement them, we have to have a culture shift from cars and on-street parking to transit and no-need-for parking. That, unfortunately, will take much more time than the construction ever will.
Labels: light rail, ttc, urban design
Over at Spacing Toronto, Sean Marshall has an
excellent article about the relationship between transit and development - light rail and suburban avenues in particular.
One thing we have to remember when building a transit line is that that ridership is only one of many factors, and the desired character of the streets is very important in making these choices. As Sean says, subways tend to result in clusters of very high density around the stations, with little in between (as we've seen on Sheppard). Bus rapid transit and light rail (and subways with very close station spacing) tend to cause the development to even out along the line, as we've seen on Queen. We have to be very careful about what changes we make, as they might forever change the character of the street.
Labels: light rail, streetcars, urban design
