[Update: As promised, I have received the updated ridership projections TTC is using for Transit City. They have been added in the body of this post.]
Recently, there has been a lot of ink about the technology choice for an Eglinton rapid transit line, whatever it may turn out to be. Earlier this weekend, after a nagging period when I thought the ridership projections looked a bit off, I went back to the source material to check.
In the Globe article on July 24, Adam Giambrone says that the route’s projected 9,000 riders in the peak hour of the morning rush in 2021 don’t justify a subway. Hmmm. 9,000 you say?
[This section has been updated.]
Let’s have a look at the original Transit City projections and the revised values now in use as part of the EAs in progress. Original values are in parentheses. Current values are for 2031 and reflect anticipated population and employment growth, although further refinements are possible as the EAs progress.
- Eglinton: 5,000-5400 (4,700) (see below)
- Scarborough-Malvern: 4,600-5000 (3,900)
- Don Mills: 2,600-3000 (2,900)
- Sheppard East: 3,000 (2,700)
- Jane: 1,700-2,200 (2,700)
- Finch West: 2,300-2,800 (2,300)
- Waterfront West: 2,000-2,400 in 2021 (Taken from EA document) (2,200)
The revised values are current while the originals date from March 2007.
The Eglinton projections do not include Airport ridership. However, traffic to Pearson will generally not co-incide with the peak time, location and direction and is unlikely to make much if any impact on the required level of service.
In the Sheppard EA, there is a note that peak ridership on a full Sheppard Subway to STC is projected to be about 5,000/hour versus 3,000 projected for the LRT east of Don Mills. This appears to support arguments that a subway network will attract more riders, but the TTC also notes that the majority of the additional riders are merely diverted from other transit services. What is unclear is the impact of less accessible transit service for local trips and the effect on transit usage and pedestrian amenities in the areas between subway stations.
If we look at the Eglinton projection of 5,400, we can expect that a full subway would attract more riders, but still well below the level needed to justify that level of capital investment, and still leaving the question of what other routes these riders might have used.
Even with revisions, none of the lines was expected to come anywhere near subway-level demand. I am particular struck by the drop in the estimated demand on Jane which begs the question of whether it is an appropriate corridor for this technology.
[End of Update]
Eglinton is a particularly important case because it is at least two separate routes west and east of Yonge, and the demand accumulating at any point will be affected by what routes and services intersect it. For example, as on the bus service, riding east of Eglinton West Station will be lower than to the west because many trips will transfer to the Spadina subway. East of Yonge, the provision of an alternate, fast route to Danforth or further south via a Don Mills or Downtown Relief line will drain much load that would otherwise continue west to the Yonge Subway.
Many months ago, I asked Metrolinx to release the detailed ridership projections for each component and segment of their various “test case” networks. I was assured that this information would be published concurrently with the draft Regional Transportation Plan. Alas, that plan sits in limbo and will not appear until, at best, late September. The modelling is for the test cases was done long ago, and there is no reason Metrolinx should keep the results secret.
Of course, the numbers may not back up some of the plans people have for various rapid transit schemes, and the data could set off a debate about just what sort of network is really needed.
The last thing we need is a huge rush this fall to ram through a draft plan just so that Queen’s Park can announce something in time for the next election. Given both the economic situation and the frosty reception from Ottawa to fund MoveOntario, let alone Metrolinx, the pressure to approve something, anything may have waned a tad.
Without question we need to spend more on transit, but let’s do so where and how it’s demonstrably needed rather than pre-announcing routes and technologies.
Steve Munro 
Here is a thought about station spacing strictly from an engineering prespective. 1000m to 1500m station spacing is the most ideal. We have to think about system expansion and the future. 400m spacing is horrible for expansion. One day, we may have to run the Bombardier Flexity trams in a 6 car multiple unit configuration. We need some space so that the trams can accelerate and brake.
In addition, longer spacing allow for tighter headways. With 400m spacing, at best, we can only do a tram every 140 seconds. It is like driving on the highway, the car in front of you stops. If you have 1000m of space, you can slowly coast while the car ahead of you starts to accelerate. With 400m, your foot will be on the brake. When Eglington gets a moving block signal system and 1000m to 1500m station spacing, we can probably have 90 seconds headway and 6 car multiple unit configurations.
Yes, we are spending more money, but we should always plan for the future. Wider spacing means certain people will have to walk longer to a station. However, this is offset by a higher average speed. To partially offset this, we can build predestrian tunnels and bridges so that people on Pharmacy or Bremosey can walk to Victoria Park / Eglinton station away from the elements.
If the Eglinton tram is built on a complete right of way, the TTC can save money in the long run. With ATO, they can hire fewer drivers. I spoke a Bombardier rep before and he assured me that their Flexity trams can operate in tunnels and elevated guideways in ATO mode. ATO also prevents bunching like what we see on the Queen trams.
Steve: If we are going to run 6-car trains of Flexitys, with stations 1 to 1.5 km apart, we might as well build a subway. Also, as I have written elsewhere, the operators driving the cars are only a small part of the staff complement needed to operate a subway system regardless of the technology of the trains you run there. The big cost comes in going underground in the first place.
LikeLike
You were mentioning earlier about how Scarboro council repressed growth at Eglinton and Kennedy. I’ve been wondering if since there is obviously no city council to control growth in Scarboro anymore just what chance there is that some reversal of policy might happen regarding the area of that intersection.
Steve: Eglinton is an “Avenue” in the new Official Plan, and I suspect you will see a completely new approach to that corner as part of the rejuvenation of Scarborough.
LikeLike
[I have done some formatting here to keep the voices clear. I am quoted a lot, then there are Dave’s replies, then my replies to him. The original quotes are indented.
The point was not the ‘why’ the line is currently at capacity- but rather that the line obviously reached capacity faster than expected based on the line and equipment as procured. This demonstrates that rapid and reliable service attracts riders. I make the same point with the growth in the Sheppard Line ridership – the demand on the line is growing quickly.
Steve: That’s not the context in which the original statement appeared, but I’m not going to belabour the point.
The point is that the risk is greater to surface operations – especially with wires above ground – than in tunnels. Until a few years ago, the large parts of Hydro Quebec’s grid had never been destroyed by an ice storm. I’m sure an insurance underwriter would say the risk is real over a 40 year time horizon.
Steve: So we should stop building subways in open cuts because the snow might pile up? Your argument is specious because you are assuming that the non-LRT option will always be underground.
The newer track may be better – but it is still outside in the sun, rain, snow, ice. The TTC has already been out rebuilding portions ailing Queen that were recently rebuilt. The track as Gerrard and Woodbine is rebuilt almost every other year. This has been costs and service impacts – which equate to real disadvantages.
Steve: The Queensway was a TTC cock-up and is in any event not track laid in concrete. The track at Gerrard you refer to is the stop which gets badly worn because it is on a hill and the track brakes are used often. There is track elsewhere that hasn’t been touched for years and shows no sign of needing repairs. I won’t mention the tracks on the subway that constantly need realignment in open cuts, or the SRT which is almost completely exposed to the weather, or the track on the YSNE that got so out of true that David Gunn almost had to close the line because it was unsafe. Once again, you are cherry-picking.
That may be that it won’t be at long an outage. However, in the downtown network, people have parallel routes and streets that are relatively close by. This isn’t true on streets like Eglinton and Don Mills. Furthermore, the proposed routes are much longer – so even if the rebuild is faster than now – the job is still a big job. (The TTC rep. at the Sheppard dog and pony show confirmed that the line would be shut down when reconstruction had to take place.)
An LRT line in Toronto would also need security personnel to enforce POP – no different.
Steve: But the stations, tunnels and elevated structures also require people to maintain various subsystems that have no equivalent in a surface LRT network.
It seem that other cities have a different approach to LRT that this Transit City. Madrid’s plan is more like most other cities – LRT is a lighter metro – rather that a heavy streetcar. The Madrid and Barcelona lines are for moving people from the ‘downtown’ out to new ‘burbs. Stop spacing appear to be between 500 – 1000 metres. Many lines are on converted freight lines. Others are in exceptionally wide thoroughfares – such as the Avenue Diagonal in Barcelona.
In terms of providing parallel express and local services – this should be based on demand. Building a subway doesn’t preclude running local service. In somes cases, there isn’t demand – or the TTC doesn’t recognize the demand exists. Perhaps because our current main rapid services run on specific streets – the mindset is that rapid transit is service for a street. This plain isn’t true – subways / metros – with supporting local feeders – enable longer journeys to be made on transit than otherwise would be the case. Look at how many people arrive at D-D on the bus routes. This is why these services attract ridership – not so for slow local service.
LikeLike
I checked out Eglinton St. at Yonge and was wondering what the TTC is going to do with the lands where the old bus depot use to be? The old depot is poorly designed like the Warden Station’s separate bus bays and Vic Park’s seperated bus bays. I thought the old depot could be used as a surface turnaround for the Eglinton East LRT and the Eglinton West LRT. The newer bus station at Eglinton St. is a lot more efficient- it is like STC or Kennedy St.- fairly easy to get to any bus route at that Station so I thought that for the future Eglinton LRTs the TTC should try and make tranfers easy and convenient as possible.
Steve: The property at Eglinton is up for grabs on a long term lease for redevelopment. I am looking forward to the open houses coming up to see how they will address the LRT/subway interchange.
LikeLike
I appreciate the work to reformat.
When someone points out the plusses and minuses of an alternative, this shouldn’t be construed as a ‘don’t/do’ follow that alternative. Decisions – be they choosing what type of roofing material to use – or what do build transit wise come with alternatives. The alternatives have costs, benefits and drawbacks.
It think one should be able to point these out – without being told that one’s argument is specious.
The section that I was referring to is Queen St E (near where I live) – not the Queensway.
Steve: Sorry about misreading Queen for Queensway (although it had problems too). I think what bothered me about your last message and triggered that response was a sense of a double standard. Look at the worst aspects of streetcar/LRT infrastructure and operations, and contrast this with the best of subways. If capital costs are no object, then we would probably build underground everywhere, but we don’t have the money.
Transit has starved for years because only megaprojects attracted any interest at the political level, and when they were funded, we were told not to ask for contributions to the mundane parts of the system because “we’re already spending lots on Toronto’s transit system” (insert name of any government as the speaker here). We have billions for Sheppard and the Spadina extension, but we just get by with a bus fleet that is still smaller than in was 20 years ago and service that is granted sparingly to keep costs down.
The TTC has given LRT a huge black eye with their implementations, and does nobody any favours by claiming that they can’t possibly run good service without completely reserved lanes. That’s a load of bovine excrement on two counts, both that politically they will never get such an arrangement on major streets and that they can’t be bothered to manage the service that is on the streets properly. But that’s another thread.
LikeLike
This sparked a thought in it’s own right…
Benny Cheung said:
Ok six car trains running every 2 mins.=24,000 per hour? This will be off topic, but what if GO Transit used LRT? I really think when ridership levels hit this kind of levels GO LRT could do ten car sets and have a higher capacity then the subway. Of course GO Transit won’t hit those numbers for a hundred years, but with a service minimal of every 15 mins on the Stouffville line for example, we could run a single car and meet the demand. When demand gets higher, we can increase the headways first and foremost. Once it hits six minutes then add another car, then another. If you hit the 10-12 car range increase the headways. OH METROLINX USE YOUR HEAD!
Steve: GO has plans for electrification of at least the Lake Shore corridor, and Metrolinx is talking about frequent service on many lines. The basic difference between an electrified commuter rail service and LRT lie in the performance characteristics (higher top speed, suspension and trackbed engineered accordingly), vehicle layout (more seating to reflect the higher number of long haul trips) and carbody strength (in case a freight train gets in the way).
LikeLike
Steve said: “I am particular struck by the drop in the estimated demand on Jane which begs the question of whether it is an appropriate corridor for this technology.”
Is the list of Transit City Phase 1 lines open for changes / amendments?
For example, estimate the ridership on Kipling LRT, and if it is substantially higher than on Jane, build Kipling in lieu of Jane in Phase 1. (Jane still can be built at a later round).
Steve: We need to understand why there has been such a big drop for that route and whether this is a function of its alignment at the south end. I agree that we need to look at alternative routes where the capital investment might be more appropriate.
Current service levels on both Jane and Kipling are roughly 20 buses/hour for a capacity around 1,100 at peak. The question, then, is what sort of growth we might expect on either of these corridors based on redevelopment plans.
In addition to the ridership issues, Jane has a little problem with the alignment at the south end (either a tunnel is needed, or run in Weston rail corridor). Perhaps the Kipling line could run on-street entirely.
LikeLike
It is not surprising that the City of Toronto/TTC and Metrolinx have different perspectives regarding the Eglinton Crosstown, regardless of the influence of any special interest group, given the diverse opinions represented on this site.
The first instinct of most Torontonians, including myself, is almost certainly to build another heavy rail line. As many people have noted in the past, Torontonians only consider something to be a subway if it powered by a third rail. A subway powered by overhead wire, by contrast, is just a streetcar travelling in a tunnel.
The public’s perception of Transit City, although I am not in total agreement with the whole plan, has been damaged by the popular belief that it will use traditional (i.e. CLRV and ALRV-type) vehicles, even if the TTC has repeatedly stated that it will only share common components with the current tendering for replacement vehicles. As you have noted before, the TTC needs to beef up its marketing efforts to improve public perception and achieve mass buy-in from all stakeholders.
A picture really is worth a thousand words. The public, with the aid of illustrations, will likely find it appealling not to have to “Mind the Gap” in underground sections of the line, or worry about falling off of the platform and potentially being run over and/or being electrocuted. They will also appreciate shallower stations, with fewer stairs to climb. Although not a perfect comparison, it is likely that most Torontonian have never seen the Queen’s Quay stop on the 509/510 routes. A visualization of a LRT vehicle that resembled a “Toronto subway” more than a “Toronto streetcar” would be very helpful too to emphasize an improvement in public transit. (Note: I am not advocating six-car trains.) This type of effort, well-received by the public, can beat out the heavy rail and ICTS proponents.
Of course, the whole pitch to the public cannot simply be a visualization exercise. A LRT subway on Eglinton has to at least satisfy the following conditions: 1) Can it satisfy forecasted demand well into the future (i.e. 99% confidence interval, not outlier projections)? 2) Given forecasted demand scenarios, is it the most cost-effective option?
The TTC might want to advocate the idea of express and local trains, both using the same LRT technology though, in the underground portion even if it requires four tracks and a larger budget for that section. Yes, some people might be required to make a transfer but, in my experience in New York City, the improved travel time more than makes up for it. Current Route 34 patrons, to a large degree, are really commuting between Eglinton Station and points east of Brentcliffe. Patrons boarding between Eglinton Station and Brentcliffe might take advantage of the express service, but they will benefit from a significant reduction in travel time just by removing the local service from the most congested part of Eglinton Avenue.
LikeLike
Hi Steve:-
Yes, I find the drop in expected ridership on Jane a little odd too. It would be nice to see why! But nonetheless, to make the TC a true network and system and not just lines on a map, a north south connection somewhere out west of Yonge is essential. If not Jane, one of the other north south corridors would and should be chosen. Jane still appears to be ideal as far as distance from Yonge and even the Allen is concerned and even if the ridership counts don’t seem to justify LRT at this time, I truly believe that once built and performing its connecting function, the ridership will follow. Let’s build it ahead of the YUS extension and see the ridership swell fast.
I’ll quote my recently retired professional transit planning friend who said that rapid transit routes should be spaced much more widely apart than just Bloor to Eglinton. He is of the opinion that there should not be another heavy rapid until Finch, thus leaving Eglinton for whatever may be appropriate to the line, LRT or……? His opinion is that with a line like that, (B/D and Finch) with few stations on it, that it would have the connecting bus and/or TC services serve it, local stops being forfeit for the greater good.
Why Metrolinx is ignoring this kind of advice, which is the state of the art planning wisdom at present, I can only guess is because they are still at transit 101 in their new school! I truly hope though that their professors, you included Steve, can give these neophyte planners their PHD in ‘Transit Planning’ sooner than waiting for them to complete a five year course; for all of our sakes.
And to back up a bit into the body of your post, where is GO in all of this through routing? If we’re talking the distance of the length of Eglinton Avenue from end to end, why is this being touted as a transit line there and not a heavy rail line somewhere close by, ie. GO North Toronto? Maybe we’re not even at the University level in our announcements yet and we’re barely into High School thought processes. Something is truly out of whack here. The whole idea of transit serving the city that put forward TC is being forsaken for the 905 good again, eh? Few of your posters’ comments have touched on this necessary comparison of city needs versus otherworldly needs. I’m afraid that I’m a selfish cityite and see our city’s needs first. And you know I’ve said it before; improve our city and the spinoff will be an improved 905 too!
ICTS for Eglinton, give me a break, assinine, absolutely assinine!! with a capital ASS!!!! Mark IIs means you ‘II’ are a ‘Mark’ if you believe this inappropriate technology should be anything but scrapped! 1920’s streetcar technology eclipses ICTS by many many light years for crying out loud. The only things ICTS is better than is a disesel bus and mag lev. I might even go as far to say that ICTS might be, although it’s a tough argument, better than the Montreal Subway’s technology. It is a toss up on that one! Sur pneus indeed!!!
Mr. D.
Steve: Metrolinx would prefer a program of cultural re-education for people like me rather than actually listening to what we have to say.
Indeed, given their apparent preference to make up their minds and then go thorough “consultation”, they may be even more arrogant than the TTC at its worst.
LikeLike
Mr. D, I’m afraid that I have to say that Montreal’s subway is better than ICTS. No toss up here. I do hope though that other places which adopted ICTS after the TTC did have had better luck with it. Just think, if the right politicians had been in power at Queen’s Park at any given point in time in the past 40 years or so there could have been rubber tired subway line in Toronto! (LOL)
Steve: Ah but Montreal only got a rubber tired subway because they were trying to emulate Paris!
The original Skytrain actually did rather well in Vancouver, once the local project staff got rid of the folks from UTDC who were not doing a very good job. Some very innovative operations were used to manage the Expo shuttle on top of the regular service, and this was only possible with the completely automated operation.
You may be amused to know that the system produced charts of actual operations just like the ones I am now providing for surface route analyses on this site (the standard railway graphic analysis with the zigzag lines back and forth on the page). These were used to identify problems in line management protocols and systemic problems in the way service operated.
Skytrain was Vancouver’s “Yonge subway”. It had to work, and it was made to work by some very dedicated people who cared about running good transit service. Here, the TTC was still basking in its former glory and dreaming up yet more ways to win awards.
LikeLike
Hi Steve:-
I guess I shouldn’t have been as hard on Montreal as comparing it to ICTS, but as far as innappropriate technology for a heavy rail transit line, well there is no comparison that ‘sur pnues’ is Disneyesque when held up against the proven technologies that conventional subway systems enjoy!
Steve, I agree that with the dedication you laud the Vancouverites for is in applying the automated computer control system, not the horrible vehicles and infrastructure that this is controlling. Automatic (read non manned) vehicle control can do all kinds of good things and the Philly/Lindenwold (PATCO) line is proof that a standard train can be a workhorse day in and day out for many many years with automation. Whether that line can do interlining and short turning as your comment suggests, I’m not sure , since it is one route only, but it proves, as does Washington subway, that linear induction and crappy cars, MarkIIs included, are not an essential for computer control. PATCO has been doing it since the 60s, WMATA, the 70s, with interlining. I’ve not experienced a smoother ride on a subway or trolley car, than the 70 mile an hour trip I took to the NW corner of Washington while riding over conventional ballasted, wooden tied track. Conventional equipment, track and computer control were in play that day, not Rube Goldberg.
My point is, that if computer control is such a necessity, then an off the shelf vehicle (CLRV and ALRV included) can be controlled this way too. The added expense and misconception that auto control must use linear induction propulsion is not a must.
Your comment too about the TTC wanting the grade separation on the SRT through the Town Centre was probably all that they wanted. Your comments in many places have pointed out the TTC Staff’s aversion to ‘at grade’ LRT and if they can have their cake and eat it too with total private right of way is at the top of their wish list is no surprise at all. I doubt that they were willing proponents of ICTS though. I’d be truly amazed if there were any thinking people, and in those days there were a lot of good solid transit people on that staff, who wanted the junk foisted on them by our Province. Could this be why any one presently that should be concerned about the uselessness of ICTS might want to see it retained?, for it must be grade separated and with that technology choice, voila, they’ve got it without any further discussion!!
The contoversy even now with any discussions of alignments in Transit City seems to harken back to the dark days of attempts to enlighten transit folks that there is a whole world of possibilities out there beyond blinkered, talk to the hand demands of PRW, if plain old vanilla streetcar technology is employed. Consider some of those possibilities with the choice of conventional LRT rolling stock; automatic control when segregated, high floor loading, low floor loading, on an el structure, at grade, in a tunnel, shared with other traffic, on a former railway right of way, in a highway median, down the middle of a wide Avenue, along the curb line, through a hydro field, pole collection, pantograph collection, signalled, line of sight, single cars, trains of cars, single end, double end, streetcar track, open railway type track (which track opens up numerous possibilities for type of construction here, from the cheapest possible to the ultimate let no dollar be spared with all types being safe, sevicable and appropriate where required), single suspension wire, catenary, centre pole, side pole….. You get the picture. With ICTS, many of those choices, meaning flexibility in affordable budgetting for and building a great transit system into an existing city, would have to be discarded. When minimizing choices loses us the chance to be a showcase to the world, why should we. And by choosing LRT over any other mode, we won’t even have to try to be a showcase, it will naturally follow.
Mr. D.
LikeLike
Steve wrote: “Metrolinx would prefer a program of cultural re-education for people like me rather than actually listening to what we have to say.
Indeed, given their apparent preference to make up their minds and then go thorough “consultation”, they may be even more arrogant than the TTC at its worst.”
This comment of yours had me laughing so hard when I read it because I think you have actually revealed the truth. Because Metrolinx is a creation of the Provincial Government and its board is made up of Provincial Government appointees (plus representatives of the various transit agencies), its major purpose is to follow the vision of the Provincial Government and not the actual needs and requirements of the various municipalities (especially Toronto) and (of course) the actual system riders.
I am afraid that Metrolinx has been created to produce major announcements for the Provincial Government about new routes from here to there using new and wonderful technologies just in time for elections and slow news days. I see lots of announcements coming with very little or no shovels actually in the ground. Metrolinx and Toronto (TTC) proposals for the Eglinton line are not in sync with each other. Until they are, there will be not actual work started and we here in Toronto will continue to be left hanging due to lack of funding.
Steve: There is some irony in the fact that the Metrolinx plans (so-called “test cases”) are far more expensive than MoveOntario just at a time when Queen’s Park is feeling rather poor. Last night, the Minister, Jim Bradley, was on Global talking about how he hoped Ottawa would come to the table for their 1/3 of MoveOntario. He is dreaming! Ottawa never signed up for 1/3 of local transit costs, and if they funded Ontario’s scheme, they would be on the hook coast-to-coast.
Meanwhile, the price tag for Metrolinx is vastly higher than MoveOntario guaranteeing that nothing gets built, or only a handful of pet projects. When will Queen’s Park tell Metrolinx to rein in its plans and, at least, produce something on a scale we can afford to do even without Ottawa’s participation?
LikeLike
Steve said: “Ottawa never signed up for 1/3 of local transit costs, and if they funded Ontario’s scheme, they would be on the hook coast-to-coast.”
This is a very interesting point: what qualifies as a project of national / federal interest, versus a meager local transit project? Are there any formal criteria in place (length, capacity limit, stop spacing, technology used)?
The Eglinton Crosstown line will be quite a formidable project, even being implemented as light rail. The tunnel portion alone will be about as long as the whole Spadina – YorkU – VCC subway extension.
Steve: There are no formal criteria because Ottawa has never acknowledged any sort of ongoing participation in urban programs. A transit line across Toronto is not a project of national interest no matter what the locals may like to think.
LikeLike