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 »
Suicide barriers a waste of TTC money - Toronto Star
I don't know why, but I find myself mostly disagreeing with most of the posts in the Toronto Star's Your City, My City series. The most recent post is about the plan to install suicide barriers at selected subway stations, and the writer feels that the money is better spent lowering the fares or hiring observers to watch for distressed individuals on the platform. The first part is nowhere near true, as a one-time $30 million injection (the value of this project) would only lower fares a few cents for a few months. The second part has merit, but we have to consider all of the benefits of suicide barriers:
They prevent suicides and accidental death by physically preventing people from jumping in front of the train.
They improve the subway's people-moving capacity. Generally, automated train control is necessary to ensure the train's doors line up with the barrier's doors. This automated control system will allow the trains to operate much closer together than would be safe with humans in control, and higher frequencies (not higher speeds!) means higher capacity.
They almost eliminate the delays caused by trash blowing onto the electrified rail and igniting, triggering the trackside smoke detectors. Unless there is a fire in a nearby building, this is the likely cause of the near daily 10-15 minute delays on the subway.
Suicide barriers don't seem like a good investment on face, but when one considers all the benefits it begins to seem like a pretty good value.
When it comes to rapid transit, one thing is clear: Torontonians want subways. If anything less than a subway is constructed then the system is somehow inadequate - too slow and too crowded. But, a transportation planner once told me that congestion can be defined as the result of a justified rationing of a scarce resource. Many years ago, society decided that our forests were a scarce resource and that it was not acceptable to cut down all the trees in the world to make paper. As a result, we began rationing new trees and encouraging the use of recycled materials. The transportation network is similar. Capacity is a limited resource, and constructing enough capacity to match all demand may placing our society in an unwanted position.
Imagine if we added enough capacity to Highway 401 through Toronto to ensure that every car could travel at the speed limit at all times of the day. In order to provide this level of capacity the highway would have to be at least 50 lanes wide. To accomplish this, we would have to bulldoze the communities adjacent to the highway and displace all of the residents and businesses. This would cost billions of dollars that could not be spent on other things that could benefit our society. Such a highway would be grossly underused at all times other than the peak hour and leave us with wasted capacity. In short, constructing enough capacity to provide the highest quality of service imaginable is not a good idea. I am not saying that we should never build another subway line in the GTHA, as some that feel light rail advocates believe. What I am saying is that the transit technology choice is a complex decision and needs to involve demand, expected development, and cost. Not every line can or should get a subway, but here is where I think we should upgrade our transit facilities to deliver a higher quality transit service.
Washington DC is a city that only exists for a single purpose - to be the capital city of the United States of America. From a transit perspective this is both a good thing and a bad thing. The master plan for the city, created by Pierre Charles L'Enfant (whom the locals that I spoke to never failed to point out was French) resulted in a very orderly street grid with wide avenues. There was plenty of road capacity from what I could tell, so there was less of an enticement to leave the car at home and take transit. But, because the main employers in the city are essentially recession-proof, I don't think the city has seen the ridership drop that other cities have had (since you don't take transit to work if you don't have a job). I spent five days in Washington last week, and was able to experience most of what the district's transit system had to offer. Here are some random thoughts:
Metrorail: The subway in Toronto was built under the philosophy that busy surface routes should be upgraded to higher order transit. As a result, the TTC subway follows the street grid. Washington followed a different philosophy, so the network has arms shooting out in all directions from a series of downtown interchanges. Stations are spaced fairly far apart, which makes for a quicker ride but does makes stations hard to locate, especially because they don't follow the street grid. Sign directing tourists to nearby monuments also show Metro stations, but there are few monuments (and these signs) outside of the central city. The lines are mostly in bored tunnels downtown, making the stations deep and escalators being the only way to get down to the concourse in many stations. Some escalators are exposed to the elements as the station entrances are minimalist, and it made me wonder how they were able to keep them operational with all the dirt, snow, sand and debris from the outdoors. Architecturally, there are two styles for stations - all underground stations look identical and all outdoor stations look identical. I found the stations to be dark and signage to be small and hard to read at a distance, but they did have platform floor lights that would flash when a train was approaching and were cleaner than my bedroom. Multiple lines share tracks at many stations, and next-train displays helped make sure I got on the right train, but I often found it difficult to figure out which platform to wait at and to know when I had arrived at the destination. Sometimes the in-train displays showed the next stop and which doors would open, sometimes they didn't, but the trains themselves were fairly nice with forward facing cushion benches and carpet floors. Cell phone companies are also in the process of installing transmitters in the tunnels, with the Verizon network up and the others in progress. Fortunately, riders tended to respect the unwritten code of keeping quiet in the tunnels.
Metrobus: The bus network in Washington is fairly extensive, both in coverage and frequency. Aside from the DC operated Metrobus service, there are about a dozen other suburban systems that either connect to the Metro at the outskirts or run express into the downtown core. Effectively, one doesn't really need to use the Metro as the bus service is one of the largest and most extensive in the USA. But, one thing that I found very confusing was the number of brands operated even under the Metrobus umbrella. There are Metro Local routes (buses painted red and grey), Metro Express routes (buses painted blue and grey, premium fare), Metro Extra routes (buses painted grey and blue, regular fare express), and DC Circulator routes (buses painted red, not quite express but not quite local either for a reduced fare). While this makes it very easy to identify what bus is coming, a rainbow of buses looks less like a fleet and more like distinct systems to those who are unfamiliar with the setup - especially in a city that has multiple tour bus companies. The only route I rode was the DC Circulator, which is a network of five routes operating on the more touristy corridors. The red route connected the ritzy Georgetown shopping district with Union Station and passed by the hotel, and frequencies were every 10 minutes. The circulators used Belgian Van Hool buses like VIVA in the 30-foot and 40-foot varieties, but the 40-footer had the three door option. While the regular bus fleet had a ton of older American buses, the vast majority of the post 1995 fleet was Canadian built. There appeared to have been a significant investment in stylish BRT buses, even for ordinary local routes.
Fare systems: The name of the game in DC for transit fares is SmarTrip, a reloadable debit-style smart card that's good for travel on both district and suburban services. The bus service runs on a flat fare system, but paper transfers are no longer issued - the SmarTrip card knows when you first boarded the bus and gives you free transfers for three hours. There is also a discount over the cash fare when using the card. The Metrorail fare system is a bit more complex and uses a fare-by-distance system. You tap your SmarTrip card to unlock the fare barrier when you enter the system and then tap again to leave. The fare is deducted based on those two points, and discounts are available for off-peak travel. A paper ticket is available and works by inserting the ticket into the fare barrier to unlock it. While SmarTrip cards will let you leave with a negative balance, travellers with paper tickets might have to top up before they can leave. SmarTrip is the only way to pay for parking at the Metrorail parking lots, and it reduces the cost of boarding the bus after a subway trip to 75-cents. SmarTrip works exactly how I hope Presto will work when it's fully implemented, but there are some downsides. Firstly, it doesn't have a travel cap so you need a paper ticket if you want to buy a day pass (but they are working on it). Secondly, it is only sold at Metro stations with parking lots - generally on the outskirts. Within the downtown core they are sold at participating CVS Pharmacy locations, but it was next to impossible to figure out which ones were participating and which ones weren't. I ended up going to Falls Church, Virginia to purchase one. Fortunately, you put the leftover balance on the paper ticket on the SmarTrip card.
Cycling: I managed to get 35 km of cycling on a rented cruiser while I was in town, thanks to Big Wheel Bikes in Georgetown. Initially I headed west along the towpath of the historic Chesapeake & Ohio canal, and spotted a crane along the shoreline. For most of the length the towpath ran parallel to the Capital Crescent Trail, a paved rail-trail on the old Baltimore & Ohio ROW that I followed when it turned northeast. The trail features a very interesting railway tunnel, some massive bridges, and tunnel under downtown Bethesda, Maryland. I decided to stay on the surface, and was very happy that I did. The downtown reminded me of downtown Burlington - a mix of well-placed high-rises and historic low-rises that I have always really liked. Continuing northeast, the trail ended just on the edge of Silver Spring, Maryland, and I connected to the Rock Creek trail to head back into DC. The trails were off-road to the District Line, but became on-road when I crossed into DC and entered Rock Creek National Park. Traffic was light, but I can foresee it being a little dicey during the peak tourist season. The off-road trails eventually returned around the historic Peirce Mill, and I had a smooth, traffic-free ride into Georgetown. The whole circuit took about three hours, but the trail facilities were few and far between. A few things that I did notice about the cycling culture in DC really surprised me. First of all, it didn't seem like bike theft was a major concern. I saw a road bike with expensive 4-spoke carbon wheels locked up on the street overnight. You wouldn't dream of doing that in Toronto. Secondly, while Toronto has a fair number of utility cyclists and trendy riders - the woman in boots and a skirt on a dutch bike with flowers in the basket, for example - DC riders were almost all business. The vast majority of riders on the streets were weekend warriors and weekend warriors with panniers to carry their suits. It was interesting, to say the least.
Adam Giambrone's Facebook profile is always interesting to read. Like a great blog, it generates dozens of comments on almost every post. I'm not ashamed to say that I'm jealous. But, this post isn't about his profile - it's about one particular comment posted a while back.
When the TTC chair posted that he was working on a note to explain why the subway cannot run 24 hours per day (due to necessary maintenance being conducted overnight), someone commented saying "One train an hour during off hours doesn't sound unreasonable... no? Or at least a train right after the bars let out!" Likely this would not fly as the power to the tunnels has to be cut entirely to ensure worker safety, but it got me thinking:
What is better from the perspective of the quality of service provided to the rider - a single subway train once an hour or a frequent night bus service every 10 minutes or better? Subways are viewed as a higher quality transit service than buses and would probably encourage people to stay out and enjoy the city later - in theory - but an hour is a very long time to wait for a train at 3am. If the choice is between waiting for up to an hour to get home and getting home immediately then I suspect that most people would choose the latter and take a cap or slug it out on the night bus. People will be willing to wait longer for a subway train than they will for a bus, but there is a limit. People will not use a service if it doesn't provide convenient departure times, and an hour between trains is really pushing it.
The same line of thinking can be applied to the off-peak train service on the Georgetown line. Currently there is an inbound train departure every two hours or so between 9 am and 2 pm and until recently, a departure every three hours after that. While the GO train is much more attractive than a GO bus, a departure every two hours has caused me to choose between arriving an hour-and-a-half early or a half-hour late to my appointments. From a quality of service perspective, buses running every half hour would be more convenient for the average user of the service.
But, what do you think? If our objective is to provide high quality transit service that is convenient for people to use then is it better to provide an infrequent train service or a very frequent bus service? Our aim should be very frequent train service, but as an interim measure should we invest our money in creature comforts or in frequency?
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?
There's been a fair bit of debate in the forums lately about the best way to move people from the future growth centre at Richmond Hill Centre / Langstaff Gateway into the downtown core. The Yonge subway will be extended serve this new growth centre, essentially replacing VIVA Blue below Highway 7, but the Richmond Hill GO line will also be improved with 15 minute, high speed service. The issues I've had, however, is that the comparison between these two lines has been between apples and oranges - mainly comparing the future subway to the present day GO service. Doing this skews the results and is generally a poor way to decide which projects to advocate for. So, let's look at the future conditions of both lines:
Subway: In the future, it will be 22.5 kilometres straight down Yonge Street from Richmond Hill Centre to Union Station. Subways have an average speed of about 40 kilometres per hour, so this trip will take between 30 and 35 minutes. Since service on opening day is expected to be a train every 15 minutes (every 3rd train), a person who wants to go from Richmond Hill Centre to Union Station will spend between 30 minutes traveling (best case) and 50 minutes traveling (just missed the train case).
Train: The GO line between Langstaff station and Union station is 29.5 kilometres long, and since upgraded regional express trains are expected to average 80 kilometres per hour, the trip will take between 20 and 25 minutes. Since service is expected to run every 15 minutes, travel times could range between 20 and 40 minutes. If the train is rerouted along the CP Belleville subdivision through Leaside, we cut 2 kilometres from the route length, cut travel times to 20 minutes exactly and reduce the curves on the line that could slow the train down. Of course, this would put the line closer to houses and could be a more contentious proposal.
In order to come to these projections I've had to assume that the numbers forecasted by the RTP can be achieved. There will always be some uncertainty and cynicism here, but this has to be ignored because a) as-built conditions are beyond my technical expertise to forecast, and b) one can use the uncertainty argument to disprove anything. I believe it undermines the discussion almost as much as the "you don't live here so you don't understand" argument. I'm also making the assumption that a fare integration model is used which does not discriminate between taking the GO and taking the subway.
So what does this mean? On the surface, it means that the GO train will be 10 minutes faster than the subway from end to end. While the end-to-end trip only applies to a small percentage of subway riders, it means that it may be advantageous for someone coming from the terminus to take the GO and backtrack. From union station, this could potentially put the entire financial district within reach. Based on this, we can use the Richmond Hill GO line as one more tool to address the anticipated overcrowding on the subway extension, in addition to a DRL, higher capacity trains and automatic train control systems.
I guess what I've been trying to show here is that we have to remember to compare apples to apples when we're looking at alternatives to projects. It makes no sense to compare the future subway with the present-day GO train, especially when the same package that funds the subway improvements also funds the GO improvements. Secondly, we can't count out the Richmond Hill GO train as a tool for improving capacity in the Yonge Street corridor - possibly the most important transit corridor in the GTHA.
Metrolinx RTP: Considerations for subway construction
There's no question that Toronto is at a junction when it comes to the preferred technology for rapid transit construction in the region. Subways have traditionally been the preferred technology, but the undeniable truth is that many corridors outside of the downtown core do not have the necessary ridership projects to warrant that kind of capacity in the short, medium and probably even the long term. Modern light rail has been used successfully around the world as an alternative in these cases, but this suffers from many criticisms in a city where many view them as replicating less-than-stellar streetcars lines uptown. This has been particularly controversial on Sheppard Avenue East, where the recently completed Environmental Assessment is recommending a modern light rail line be constructed instead of the long standing plan to extend the Sheppard subway.
There are many arguments to be made that the Sheppard subway should have been built as a light rail line to begin with, and that the current proposal is appropriate given the projected ridership. There are also many arguments to be made that since the subway was partially built, it is only appropriate to finish it, and that projections do not take into effect the extra draw that a faster subway would have. The way I see it, about 500 years ago we knew that the Earth was at the centre of the universe. About 100 years ago we knew that the Titanic was an unsinkable ship. About 50 years ago we knew that the garden city-style plan proposed for Regent Park would be one of the greatest social housing developments in Canada. Opinions and priorities change over time, and that means that as the city evolves light rail proposals will transform to higher capacity lines, while subway proposals will transform to more cost effective technologies. It's ebb and flow, and one of the things that makes living in the city all the more exciting.
Even through there has been a shift in priorities over the last few years, we can still expect significant subway construction to occur over the next 25 years, and each one comes with challenges that will have to be overcome as we move forward.
Yonge-University-Spadina Subway The detailed engineering design of the Spadina subway extension is pretty much done, and while pre-construction utility relocation has been going on for quite some time, actual construction should begin this year. Currently, the plan is to run every third train to the terminus, which suggests a 15 minute off-peak frequency to Vaughan Corporate Centre. I would strongly prefer that this frequency be shortened to every ten minutes at most. Otherwise, the level of service will be only marginally better than the VIVA line it replaces. The Steeles West station is planned to have a large bus terminal, but the RTP calls for Jane and Steeles to become rapid transit routes. Hopefully the terminal is designed in such a way that the unused space can be used for other purposes once routes are consolidated.
On Yonge Street, those same two issues exist. More frequent subway service to Richmond Hill Centre will mean a higher level of service improvement over VIVA, and a plan is needed to deal with large bus terminals that could become surplus as more and more lines are consolidated into rapid transit lines. The main issue, however, is how to ensure that passengers boarding north of Finch do not overwhelm the line and prevent those boarding at the southern stations from getting a seat. There are a few tools which can help improve the capacity of the line, and many of them are already well underway.
The Spadina Subway extension - Currently the Yonge subway is the only rapid transit destination for users of the Finch West, Steeles West and the Highway 7 buses. The Spadina subway will add a second connection with all of these routes, and I suspect most who currently ride all the way to Yonge will switch to the new route.
New subway trains - The next generation subway train will be able to carry more passengers per car, and passengers will also be able to walk from from one end of the train to the other while the train is in motion. This will help increase capacity by eliminating uneven crowding at stations where the most popular exit is at one end of the platform.
Automatic train control - A computerized signaling and control system will allow trains to run closer together than they can safely do when humans are in control. More frequent trains means more capacity.
Bottleneck redesign - On the existing system there are two bottlenecks which limit the minimum frequency of the trains. With extensions the bottlenecks turning trains around at the terminals should be eliminated, but the delays caused by extreme passenger turnover at Bloor will remain. The station itself may have to be re-designed, and potential configurations could include a new island platform between the trains, or it could include a double length station with an unload-move forward-load protocol. Either way, it will be a very complex project.
Downtown Core Line One of the solutions to the Yonge capacity issues is to divert the passengers elsewhere, and the Downtown Core Line, also known as the Downtown Relief Line, is one of those solutions. The original DRL and enduring proposal saw a subway from Pape station south to Eastern Avenue, then westward parallel to the railway corridor to the CNE grounds, then north along the railway corridor to Dundas West station. The current DCL proposal would likely follow Queen Street instead of the more southerly route, and I support this option for a few reasons. Firstly, my vision for GO service along the railway corridor would provide a subway-like service within the built-up area of Toronto, so a subway along this corridor would be a needless duplication of service. In addition, a northerly route would provide a massive service improvement along the Queen / King corridor - lines which have reached their practical capacity. Of course, since I believe that streetcars are to Toronto as double-decker buses are to London, we may need to come up with creative ways to ensure an east-west subway line doesn't lead to an abandonment of streetcar lines.
At the west end of the DCL I prefer a Roncesvalles alignment rather than a railway corridor alignment, mainly for the reasons outlined above. In London, surface railways, as opposed to Underground lines, form the backbone of the heavy rapid transit service south of the Thames. My vision for GO rail involves something similar, so building a subway would be a duplication. At the east end of the line, the originally proposed extension to Eglinton following the Don Mills bus route would connect to the Eglinton-Crosstown line could divert passengers away from the Yonge subway. Above Eglinton the character of Don Mills changes drastically, making it a logical terminus. On the west end, however, there is no logical path for northern extension besides the railway corridor.
There is no question that the projected ridership justifies a heavy rail subway, but an underground light rail line will allow the Don Mills line, the Waterfront West line, Queen East, King and possible even a Junction/Dundas West line to use the tunnel to reach the downtown core. If this can handle the capacity then it's my preferred solution, but some projections indicate that the line might carry more people then the entire Bloor-Danforth line.
Bloor-Danforth Line Under the RTP, the Bloor-Danforth line remains relatively static, but limited expansions may be useful to connect emerging growth centres. A westward expansion would serve Sherway Gardens, where a few towers have been constructed and room for many more exists. In addition, this expansion would serve the Honeydale Mall property, which is in desperate need for redevelopment. A line to Mississauga, in my opinion, would be best handled along the GO line. At the east end, while I believe that a refurbished Scarborough RT line interlined with the Eglinton-Crosstown will prove to be a great improvement over the current line, a subway extension to Scarborough Town Centre may be necessary if it becomes overwhelmed.
Sheppard Line I suspect that if modern light rail were seen as a viable transportation option in 1995 when the Sheppard subway proposal began to move forward there would have been no controversy attached to this line. Of course, hindsight is 20/20.
At the eastern end of the line, I have long supported the current proposal to build a light rail line to far Scarborough, as I believe it to be the most cost effective solution, and will be a great improvement over the Sheppard East bus. I also believe that a branch to Scarborough Town Centre would be a well-used link. From an official standpoint, the only outstanding issue is the connection between the existing subway line and the LRT. One option is to extend the subway eastward to Consumers Road where a dedicated transfer station could be made. The other option is to make the connection at Don Mills station, possibly along a double-length platform. If the former is chosen, then perhaps Victoria Park would be a better place for the connection, as this would serve the #24 bus. Either way, the tunnels will be build to accommodate a subway, opening the door to unique opportunities.
At the western end of the line there have always been calls to extend the line to Downsview, and according to the TTC, this is necessary - but not for the reasons you might think. According to the TTC, a western extension of the Sheppard subway might be necessary to allow trains from Wilson Yard to reach Richmond Hill centre quickly at the daily start of service. But, this could also be accomplished by storing those trains overnight at Davisville, according to Steve Munro. In my opinion, it could go either way. I don't think that Sheppard West warrants the capacity of a subway, but having a subway line between two light rail lines would be an awkward arrangement indeed.
Most proposals for east west connectivity across Yonge involved Finch West trams running east to Don Mills, south to Sheppard and continuing eastward, serving Seneca College along the way. If an underground transfer between the subway and the LRT is made at Don Mills, it might be wise to reconfigure the tunnels to accommodate light rail vehicles. This will result in a one-seat east-west ride along Sheppard from far-Scarborough to Downsview at a capacity that matches the demand, at a speed far faster than buses and at a cost far less than a subway. As for Finch East, I believe an extension of the Finch West LRT eastward into Scaborough is justified by the number of buses that currently serve the avenue.
Like Bloor-Danforth line, there may come a time when the Sheppard LRT becomes overwhelmed. If the subway remains then extensions will be more than appropriate. If the line is converted to light rail, then a buried light rail line could be used very effectively here - a concept called Pre-metro used in Belgium.
Subways have not died in Toronto, but an era when the choice was only between local buses and subways has been replaced with an era where the technology choice can be tailored to the desired speed and necessary capacity of the line. There will be some adjusting to this new era as celebrated mega projects of the past give way to more practical solutions, I think that in ten years we'll wonder why this paradigm shift didn't occur sooner.
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.
Torontoist had a recent post about the reason why Toronto won't be seeing platform screen doors - safety devices that prevent passengers from going onto track level when a train isn't at the station with doors open - anytime soon. While I agree that we won't be seeing them for a few years, I think this is an avenue the TTC should go down.
"It's too expensive..." While they are expensive to install and operate, they bring about some very important efficiencies. "Passenger injury at track level" will be a thing of the past, and this will reduce costs associated with sending dozens of shuttle buses to deal with the delays. Also, this will virtually eliminate operators having to go on disability when they witness a horrible incident. They don't mean service improvements, but they will make the service we do have safer, more attractive and more efficient.
"They don't have the ability to stop in the same spot..." Getting platform screen doors would require automatic train control, or service would be slowed down as trains would have to enter the station much slower in order to ensure the doors line up properly. However, the first phase of this system has already been funded by the provincial government. It will take some time to install, but moving to ATC will allow trains to run closer together. Higher frequencies will increase capacity and reduce crowding. It will also allow trains to use either track in either direction, opening the door to overnight service without needing to cancel maintenance.
"Everything mechanical at the TTC breaks down weekly..." The Ford Pinto blew up when you rear ended it, but people still buy their cars today. Yes, the TTC has maintenance issues, but I think it's unfair to argue that they can't handle it. I'm sure everyone has a D or two on their transcript, but that doesn't mean they aren't qualified to do the job they are trained to do. Similarly, just because the Queen car has problems doesn't mean Transit City is an imminent failure.
"But what about ventilation..." The TTC uses the subway trains to push fresh air into the station, and a full floor-to-ceiling platform screen would interfere with that. But, they don't have to be full height to provide the protection they are designed to protect. As long as they are tall enough to ensure someone doesn't fall over, or tall enough to give the authorities enough time to react if someone is deliberately trying to climb over it, they will be successful. If full sized screens are necessary, then an engineering solution that doesn't involve redoing the HVAC system could be implemented. Slats in the glass could potentially do the job.
Safety sells come budget time, but platform screens are a good investment regardless. They save lives, save money and create spinoff projects that improve service all around.
If you play the YouTube video above, you'll see a platform attendant on the London Underground. Presto might allow us to close collector booths at lightly used stations, and this could be one of the places where we re-deploy the collectors.
Metronauts (powered by Transit Camp) was a whirlwind of good ideas, interesting conversations and networking with industry professionals and transit advocates. Here, the second 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 regional rail.
Regional rail is not a radical concept by any means. But, it could radically change how suburban riders interact with the transit system. Simply put, regional rail is the result of increasing GO train frequency to headways of every 15 minutes or better. At this level of service, the "I don't know when it runs" argument tends to vanish, as does the "I'll either get there 45 minutes early or 15 minutes late" argument. This is pretty much how VIVA works. It runs so frequently that you'll know you won't be waiting long for the next trip to arrive.
Regional rail, in the Toronto context, requires several changes to the way the GO network works. Firstly, we would require two dedicated tracks on each railway corridor exclusively for GO's use. I believe that the best way to do this is to build a freight by-pass line, but as long as we can have two tracks which will never be blocked by freight trains, regional rail can be implemented. Secondly, we need to think about vehicles. It is technically possible to use traditional GO trains in this application, but it might be capacity overkill and an inefficient use of fuel. Self-propelled diesel multiple unit (DMU) or electric multiple unit (EMU) trains - something similar to the London Overground stock - could be used to solve the efficiency gap. Finally, we need to think about station spacing. DMU and EMU trains can accelerate and brake much quicker than a heavy rail train (as anyone who rides the subway knows), allowing us to add stations without increasing travel times. There wouldn't be a doubling of stations along the line, but on the Georgetown Line, for example, we could see new stations at Eglinton & Queen - where connections with other lines would be located.
The final - and most exciting - part of the concept is the possibility of branch lines. If we'll be using subway-sized trains, we can build subway lines to serve destinations which are located just off the existing corridor. The airport could be served by a branch of the Georgetown line, downtown Oshawa by the Lakeshore East line and the Mississauga City Centre by the Milton line - the latter becoming the elusive subway to Square One and the former being the compromise on the airport connection that Weston residents have fought so hard for.
Regional rail is also known as REX by Metrolinx, S-Bahn in Germany, Overground or National Rail in London and Pendeltåg in Sweden. But, regardless of what you call it, it offers a way to reduce traffic on the highways, a way to increase the capacity on the Yonge corridor, and provide the impromptus for the suburban municipalities to offer more connecting bus service - and that means better service for areas across the GTA.
About a month ago, my computer's motherboard died for the second time. Of course, the writing had been on the walls for several weeks, so I was able to backup everything. I was in the market for a new machine, and was seriously considering a Mac. With rumours circling about new Macs to be announced shortly, I decided to wait, and when they did come out, I was sold. I had two choices. I could purchase the computer in Brampton at a Best Buy or Future Shop, but they weren't receiving any in stock until the end of the month. My other option was to shop at one of the official Apple re-sellers downtown. With that option, I could have it a week after he announcement, but I would have a more difficult time getting it home.
So it really broke down to one question: Can you carry a computer home on the subway?
My first instinct was to bring a friend, but through clever marketing, Apple ships out the most expensive models first, forcing the "gotta have it now" crowd to up-sell. Not being able to accomodate a 24-inch iMac (or willing to pay for one), I decided to pre-order the 20-inch model.
One week ago tomorrow, at 3:30 PM, I got the call to pickup my order. Having to wait three weeks for rumours to be officially confirmed or denied was tough, and I simply couldn't wait overnight. But could I get from my home in Caledon to Queen & Broadview by the shop's 6PM close?
By taking sidestreets that I hadn't been on in half a decade, I managed to make it to Kipling Station by 4:45, and bolted into the subway. With a delay on the line that was cleared just as we approached the backup of trains, and a 504 car stuck behind a left turning driver at Broadview and Danfroth, I managed to arrive at the shop at 5:20.
Now, the 20-inch Apple iMac comes in a box 23 inches by 22 inches by 9 inches, and weighs around 20 pounds. It may be light in comparison to furniture, but it is an awkward box to carry. I recall that as I finished at the checkout, the clerk asked me if I needed help taking it out to the car. I thought "do you know who I am?", but in retrospect, I realize he was warning me. I managed to get the box about 20 feet down the sidewalk before I had to either switch hands or put it down to rest. I managed to get it to the streetcar stop and struggle up the stairs, but i then had to navigate the crowded car. Dragging it down to the subway was easier, but I still could only travel about 20 feet before I had to set it down. I can easily carry much more than 20 pounds, but the forces are much larger when those 20 pounds are supported only by a small handle.
As I headed back to the west end, I realized that I needed to make a pit stop, but would never feel comfortable leaving a several-thousand-dollar object out in the open without a firm grip on it. There must be something psychological, but most men are effectively defenseless when they are busy in the restroom. After making some phone calls, I couldn't find anyone downtown who would be able to accommodate me, so I decided to hold it and fend off the stares of people who knew what I had bough, despite it being in a plain brown box.
I arrived at Kipling without any delays, and carried it upstairs - in 20-foot intervals.
That day, I set out to discover if one could use the subway to carry cargo. The fact that I am updating this blog on an iMac is proof of concept, but far from proof of practicality. The TTC simply wasn't designed to transport people with cargo, but for those who are patient and are dedicated to the urban experience, it can be done.
For those looking for a mac and wanting to shop in an environment that isn't as claustrophobia inducing as the Apple Store, I bought the computer at Carbon Computing, 772 Queen Street East.
905 gridlock seeds city tower April 26, 2007 Donovan Vincent city hall bureau
A large engineering firm's plan to purchase city property at Bloor and Islington Sts. to build an office tower shows that "gridlock" in the suburban regions is making Toronto more attractive to businesses, a city politician says.
This week, city council okayed an offer by SNC Lavalin to buy one-third of Toronto's 4-hectare property at Islington and Bloor, a deal that must be finalized within 60 days.
The city wants to use the proceeds toward a $58 million redevelopment of Islington and Kipling TTC stations. The project includes building a new bus terminal at Islington and a new "inter-regional'' terminal at Kipling for the TTC, GO and Mississauga Transit.
The city's portion of the redevelopment cost is $17 million. Toronto wants Mississauga Transit, GO, the province and perhaps Ottawa to kick in the rest. Councillor Peter Milczyn (Ward 5, Etobicoke-Lakeshore), who represents the area, says proceeds from the sale would cover about half of that $17 million.
SNC Lavalin plans to build an office tower on the property to house about 1,200 employees. Part of a consortium that owns the 407 toll road, SNC Lavalin leases space elsewhere in the GTA and wants to consolidate offices.
The firm was originally eyeing a spot in Mississauga, Milczyn said.
"There's the fact that employees located in the 905 have to drive. (Due to) the lost productivity of people driving constantly, companies are beginning to look at that cost, saying an extra few hundred thousand a year in property taxes is more than worth it,'' he said.
"It means employees can use the subways, get downtown faster for meetings or to the airport faster. Gridlock in the 905 is beginning to make the city of Toronto a lot more attractive to put offices,'' he argued.
Gillian MacCormack, a spokesperson for SNC Lavalin, declined to comment yesterday, saying negotiations are continuing. Zoning allows for a building of up to 22 storeys.
Now that the city has a likely "anchor tenant," Milczyn said, the property around the SNC Lavalin building probably will be used for an underground parking facility, a public square, and perhaps another tower that would let the city consolidate some of its own offices.
This article contradicts reports last year that gridlock was pushing businesses out of the city and into the suburbs, but it proves what the Toronto Board of Trade has been saying for years. Gridlock and car-based areas are unsustainable, and will eventually lead to economic collapse. In order to attract new commercial investment, suburbs need to aggressively deal with congestion and gridlock.
SNC-Lavalin has annual revenues of $2.8 billion US, and I'm sure that the City of Mississauga is kicking themselves for losing this headquarters. However, the subway is a better place, as there's already the infrastructure and services to accommodate the 1200 workers. This means that Mississauga Transit gets moved to better facilities at Kipling and a new GO terminal gets built (although which routes will use it remain a mystery to me), so overall, this is a good deal.
If you haven't heard of the news this morning out in the east end, you can read more here. I don't want to dwell on it, but I wanted to make a point about shuttle buses. Many complaints about the closure involved confusion over shuttle buses, and its time for a standardized policy to handle shuttle buses when the subway has to be closed.
Passengers should be kept informed as to why the diversion is taking place. I believe that people are more understanding if they are kept in the loop.
Passengers need to know where to go to board the shuttle buses, and their should be some sort of standardization. Either the shuttles board on the street or in the terminal - not on a station-by-station basis. Also, supervisors should be on hand to direct passengers.
The shuttle buses need to have some sort of display sign telling people where it's going. Most of the time you can orient yourself when you exit your home station and know which way is east and which is west. An unfamiliar station can be very disorienting. Perhaps buses heading towards downtown should say just that, while the opposite direction should say "Away from downtown".
Subways break down and tragedies happen, but by managing the chaos can sometimes save the rush hour.
"The Toronto Transit City plan is a bold vision for public transit. It will allow us to tackle climate change and reduce congestion, while improving service in all parts of the city." - Mayor David Miller
The mayor took the words right out of my mouth. This vision is bold and achieves many of the priorities the TTC has set out, builds many of the routes I've proposed in my GTTA plan, and brings transit to all corners of the city while allowing for extensions into the 905. There is literally something for everyone in this plan.
Lets go into detail:
The Don Mills corridor runs from Steeles to Bloor, via Don Mills Road and the Don Valley. The estimated annual ridership would be 21.2 million in 2021, and the line would cost $675 million for 18 km of surface LRT.
Since this line is pretty close to my GTTA proposal, I'm very excited. Its been a priority for some time, and with the line already in the EA process, its likely to be one of the first ones built. I recommend extending the line north into the Beaver Creek business area in Markham, to at least Highway 7. There's a huge number of workers in that area and condos under development, and it would connect to VIVA. I also recommend an extension southwards, paralleling the Don Valley. It could then swing west to Union Station via the railway corridor or via the Waterfront.
The Eglinton Crosstown Corridor runs from Kennedy Station to Pearson Airport, along Eglinton Avenue. The estimated annual ridership would be 53 million in 2021, and the cost will be $2.2 billion for 31 km of surface LRT with an underground section between Laird and Keele.
Another line which I proposed, this corridor is necessary as a crosstown alternative to the subway. It cuts through the some of the most dense areas outside of downtown, and provides the key rapid transit connection to the airport. Connections with the Mississauga busway will be sufficient for now, but the ultimate plan should be to incorporate the busway into an LRT branch. Out on the east end, this line should be merged with the proposed Scarborough Malvern corridor.
The Etobicoke-Finch West Corridor runs from Finch Station to Humber College, along Finch Avenue. The estimated annual ridership would be 25 million in 2021, and would cost $835 million for 18 km of surface LRT.
The line that surprised me the most, as every other proposal to date was to use the hydro corridor to get to Eglinton and Martin Grove from Finch and Weston. This will probably serve more people and will definitely provide a connection to Humber College. Extensions into Mississagua are possible, or into the far east end of Brampton.
The Jane Corridor runs from Steeles to Bloor, along Jane Street. The estimated annual ridership in 2021 is 25 million, and the cost is $630 million for 17 km of surface LRT.
There's definitely a need for rapid transit on Jane. Its one of the most frequent routes, and normally ends up bunching up. Possible extensions should take the line down the Humber River and into Union Station either by the Waterfront or by the railway corridor. There's also a connection to an extended St. Clair streetcar.
The Scarborough Malvern Corridor runs from Kennedy Station to Malvern along Eglinton, Kingston and Morningside. The estimated annual ridership in 2021 is 14 million, and the cost is $630 million for 15 km of surface LRT.
The line completes my GTA Line proposal, so I believe it and the Eglinton Crosstown Corridor should be one and the same. It will provide service to West Hill and to the University of Toronto, and provides a back-route into Malvern. Possible extensions go into Durham Region, or if not, by the Sheppard East corridor.
The Sheppard East Corridor runs from Don Mills to Malvern along Sheppard. The estimated annual ridership in 2021 would be 17 million, and the cost is $555 million for 14 km of surface LRT (which a short underground section at Don Mills).
I think I have a real problem with this line. If constructed, the cost of extending the subway goes up because of the financial hit we'll take demolishing the LRT. Essentially, it means that the Sheppard Subway dies. I do like the possible extensions into Durham Region, but I can't get over the fact that it will economically preclude subway construction. If this line is built as BRT (cheaper to build, cheaper to demolish), or if the existing subway tunnels are converted to LRT standards (to offer through service to Yonge), then it will have my full support.
The Waterfront West Corridor runs from Exhibition Loop to Roncesvalles & Queen, offering through service from Lake Shore and the Queensway to Union Station via the waterfront. Estimated annual ridership in 2021 would be 21 million, and the cost would be $540 million for 11 km of surface LRT.
In lieu of improving service on the 501 Queen, this is the next best thing to bring more people in from South Etobicoke. I'd like to see it connect with a southern extension of the Jane Corridor, and see connections with the Waterfront East corridor and the Don Mills Corridor.
As for the other plans on the books, there's:
The Harbourfront / Waterfont East LRT - To serve the eastern waterfront, and possibly to bring the Don Mills Corridor into Union Station.
The North Yonge busway -Speeding up buses on Yonge between Steeles and Finch.
The Spadina Subway Extension - To bring the subway into Vaughan.
The St. Clair Streetcar - To be completed and extended to at least Jane.
The Scarborough RT - To be extended to at least Sheppard.
The Kingston Road streetcars - To be extended to Eglinton.
All of these projects are in various stages of the planning process, but are integral parts of the whole transit picture. They should not be forgotten.
And so ends the post I had begun at 4:00 this afternoon. Transit city has been revealed, and aside from answering the funding questions, we he have a good plan to move forward with. If we make the commitments and stick to them, this plan stands a chance to bring about real change for a real city.
Is subway really the better way? 'Frustrated' TTC chair says money for line extension looks sexy but should go to further regional transit links March 07, 2007 Tess Kalinowski TRANSPORTATION REPORTER
It is being hailed by federal and provincial politicians as a breakthrough in cutting commutes and greenhouse gas emissions across the Toronto region.
But transportation experts were less enthusiastic about yesterday's announcement of $962 million for Toronto-area transit, particularly the extension of the Spadina subway line into York Region.
To put it bluntly, the city would have spent the subway money differently.
"We're frustrated in some ways we don't get to decide where you spend the transit dollars," said TTC chair and Toronto Councillor Adam Giambrone.
"If we have limited dollars there are better ways to service more people and get more riders – or better serve existing riders – than the York subway,"
If he had the $2.1 billion the extension is expected to cost, Giambrone says he'd spend half finishing the Sheppard line.
The other half would be used to build a light rapid transit system – such as dedicated streetcar lines – that would criss-cross Toronto.
That's what the city's official plan calls for.
But subways are sexy, particularly at election time, although they're not necessarily the best or most cost-effective way to reduce gridlock, say the experts.
They say the 8.6-kilometre subway extension with six stops, including a high traffic hub at York University, won't do much to address the transit needs outlined in the city's official plan, particularly in Scarborough where the rapid transit system is near the end of its life.
Then there's the cost of construction. Subways cost about $150 million per running kilometre to build compared with about $30 million to $35 million per kilometre for light rail transit or $20 million to $25 million per kilometre for bus rapid transit, Giambrone said.
And the announcement offers no operating funding. What still needs to be negotiated is whether there will be an operating subsidy for the Spadina subway.
"Subways get older and are more expensive to maintain in the long run," said Giambrone, backing up Toronto Mayor David Miller's call Monday for a national transit plan that would feature sustained funding of about $2 billion annually.
Although the extension will make this the first time the subway has crossed Toronto's city borders, with two stops in York Region, it will be wholly owned and operated by the TTC, said Giambrone, with York paying part of the operating cost.
"The subway is significant inasmuch as it traverses municipal boundaries. (But) ... the really heavy lifting in terms of integration and co-ordination has yet to occur," said Rob MacIsaac, head of the Greater Toronto Transportation Authority.
Still, it remains to be seen how far the subway and the other investments in a Mississauga bus corridor, Brampton's rapid bus system, called AcceleRide, and enhancements to York's Viva rapid transit go toward improving regional transportation links, he said.
MacIsaac argues the region is so starved for transit it needs more of everything, including subways.
Of the 1,660 buses that run on the York University campus each day, about half are operated by the TTC.
The others are regional transit services, including about 500 GO buses.
The 87 per cent of York's 50,000 students and 10,000 employees who list a Toronto-area address are evenly split among 416 and 905 residents, said a university spokesperson.
"This is another political subway in the same vein as the Sheppard line was," said Ed Levy of BA Consulting Group.
This will be my last post on the subject, as I have become very disillusioned by the reaction to this announcement.
A professor of mine once said that in 25 years, when the development around the stations is complete, we will be praising Mel Lastman for his foresight in pushing for the Sheppard Subway to get build. It may take 25 years, but Torontonians of the future will wonder why the people of 2007 ever questioned its merits.
Sometimes I feel like I'm the only blogger who supports the Spadina subway extension.
The project does have its drawbacks - in that it only serves a small area of the city - but isn't that true of all projects?
Everyone of my fellow bloggers wants the GTA to have a network of rapid transit lines, but isn't a network nothing more than a collection of individual lines?
Here is what others have to say about the planned expansion:
I hope that we soon realize that a transit network is a series of parts that make a whole, not a whole that gets build all at once. I hope that we recognize that Toronto is an integrated region, and that we cannot have a downtown bias any longer. Finally, I hope that we consider the 50,000 people who live around Jane & Finch who will directly benefit from the shorter commuting time that this line will bring before we condemn this project as a waste of money.
Greetings. I'm a graduate of Ryerson University's School of Urban and Regional Planning, and my interest in public transportation systems began at a very young age. Over the years, I've developed many ideas on how to improve public transportation in the Greater Toronto and Hamilton Area, and have been advocating for investment in public transportation, better urban design and more sustainable communities since 2003.
I am a writer, advocate and activist, and I have served on the Metrolinx Regional Transportation Plan advisory committee, where I have been able to offer my opinion on transportation policy in the GTHA.
On this blog and its companion website, www.gttavisions.com, I will chronicle my observations, travels and visions for public transit in Canada's largest city-region.
I hope you enjoy what I have to say, and never hesitate to leave me a comment or write me an email at andrae@gttavisions.com
