Recently we have heard a lot about congestion and its supposed causes. The single largest ones, of course, are the lack of investment in transit and the continuation of building an auto-oriented GTA. There are more people (and cars) hunting for space on a limited amount of roadway, and nowhere near enough capacity to handle all of the demand.
Transit will help, partly, eventually, but the sad fact is that development and travel patterns encouraged by auto-oriented planning cannot simply be reassigned onto a transit network. There is no 905 equivalent of “King and Bay” to which we can conveniently funnel thousands of riders, let alone a network of routes focused on such a location from century-old travel patterns.
We can try, but there are limits, and the brave statements by Metrolinx about reducing congestion are at best optimistic. Even Metrolinx acknowledges that their 25-year network, fully built out, will only keep congestion (or more accurately auto trips) at the current level, not reduce it. Moreover, reductions in corridors where transit makes inroads will be offset by increases in travel where transit is not competitive.
In another thread, a discussion sprang up of problems related to congestion and to a list of the 10 worst intersections in Toronto. Some have the temerity to point out that none of these has a streetcar line anywhere near it, and indeed a few are served by the Sheppard subway, that panacea for all our transportation ills.
To keep comments on this thread together, and to leave the original thread for its purpose (Citizen Commissioners on the TTC), I will move the congestion-related comments here.
Steve Munro 
What I would like to see less of is politicians decreeing our next transit priorities in the absence of studies identifying and comparing all possible alternatives first. This also includes the Downtown Relief Line. Even though the future peak volume is forecast to be 14,000 pphpd, has the study considered other infrastructure changes beyond the jurisdiction of the TTC? And could GO transit network improvements substitute for the DRL and still achieve the same goals of improving downtown-bound capacity? And if not, why not?
(yes, it’s been explained numerous times before that locations such as Union Station cannot handle the increase in volumes that a DRL can accommodate, but I would like to see this explained in the same document).
(I notice that someone else has the same name/pseudonym as me. No confusion is intended, but “Mikey” has always been my preferred name).
Steve: You may want to adopt a new pseudonym such as “The Real Mikey” to distinguish yourself.
I agree with your general point. When the TTC plays down the DRL and talks about throwing everything they’ve got at the Yonge line, they never do a comparative costing and benefit analysis of what would be avoided on Yonge if the DRL were built, and the benefit of a new, alternate path into the core. Similarly, Metrolinx won’t even talk about inside-416 riders even though parts of Toronto are further away from the core than Richmond Hill. A consolidated view of the options for moving people into downtown is required so that we can understand where the needs actually are and which routes would best serve them. The colour of the trains is unimportant particularly considering anything will likely be funded by new regional revenue tools.
LikeLike
Mikey says:
June 13, 2012 at 11:02 pm
I am glad you pointed this out. I was beginning to wonder if you were schizophrenic.
For the other Mikey, if we build more subways in the suburbs without providing a way for them to get downtown, which a lot of them seem to want to do, then they will need to cram themselves onto the already crowed Yonge and Spadina trains. The DRL will provide more relief for people in the outer 416 than in the old city.
You also say:
I would like to know what “rail corridors’ you are talking about. Granted it would run in the same general direction as the Kingston Sub from Pape and Gerrard to Union but so do the King car and the Carlton car. This doesn’t mean that one can replace the others. If the DRL is going to be useful it has to give riders a reason for making an extra vehicle change; a faster and less crowded ride works.
The DRL cannot be used to replace existing surface rail system without totally screwing up everything. It won’t be fast or comfortable enough to be a good DRL and it won’t provide enough local stops to be a good local transit system. Decide which you want but you can’t have both. It also cannot go through Union Station; it must meet the Yonge and University lines at either King/St. Andrew’s (preferred) or Queen/Osgoode. It should also probably stop at Jarvis, to start an eastern expansion of the core, Spadina and Bathurst. Outside of this area I believe it should have wider stop spacing to provide a higher speed ride to serve the outer 416 commuters, not those downtown, bike loving lefty leaning wierdo pinky commies. Did I leave out any of the Ford brother’s terms of endearment?
GO is not going to provide capacity needed for the DRL because Union Station is operating over capacity and the rail corridors do not have enough extra capacity as long as they are run as mainline rail rather than proper transit lines. GO knows how to run an efficient commuter rail system but they do not have a clue how to operate a heavy rail transit system.
Hi Deb.
LikeLike
Love the site Steve … thanks for your analysis and comments … don’t always agree, but isn’t that a good thing?
Anyway, you mentioned in a comment reply about the previous proposed Sheppard Subway was to go to Scarborough town, whereas the LRT is going along Sheppard all the way.
Can you tell me if you know what the plan is for the 190 rocket that goes from STC to Don Mills Subway?
Just wondering how the STC riders will get to Don Mills in the future … (or will they just take a bus north to the LRT) … Thanks again.
Steve: The TTC has not published any schemes for the new bus network in northern Scarborough. With the extension of the RT north to Sheppard, this will shuffle a lot of routes, not just the 190. Depending on the timing of a further extension to Malvern Centre, or of the Sheppard line to UTSC, there would be another shuffle.
LikeLike
Recently, Coun. Minnan-Wong commissioned a report by city staff to find out what the most congested roads & intersections are in Toronto … and lo and behold, the spin begins.
According to The Star, most of the intersections are outside of downtown, with nary a streetcar in sight. But according to Minnan-Wong, this is proof positive that public transit is not the only solution that Toronto needs, and better roads & highways are part of the solution. I wonder if he means flyovers & flyunders, road widening etc. More spaghetti for Toronto, this time in 3 dimensions.
Toronto needs transit expansion in the city to accommodate rising demand. It also needs transit expansion to help people get downtown. We also need transit expansion to connect points within the GTA. How do we get them out of their cars?
Hazel McCallion spoke of taxes or tolls to fund public transit. I wonder if now is the time for something radical: make the express lane portions of the 401, 404, 427, and Gardiner into HOV/Toll roads, and expand the number of GO buses running from town ‘centre’ to town ‘centre’.
Would that not make a huge difference & encourage more people to use public transit instead of driving?
Cheers, Moaz
Steve: The problem with any sort of transit network based on highways and “town centres” is that without a distribution network, this is rather like building subways in the middle of fields and nothing else. Getting people out of their cars will not be easy because the entire network and development pattern is built around that sort of travel. Imagine if the Eaton Centre were in the middle of an enormous parking lot. It would either have a subway station serving the mall and nothing else in the neighbourhood, or would be a long walk from a station out at the “nearby” intersection.
If Minnan-Wong wants more roads, it will be amusing to see where he wants to build them. For example, extending the Spadina Expressway to downtown or widening the DVP will do nothing to relieve congestion on suburban arterials, even though these may be among the holy grails of expressway advocates. If suburban dwellers want to become even more snarled in traffic and support only road building, I am almost prepared to say to hell with them, and let them pave over every last subdivision. That’s not what is really going on, of course, and Minnan-Wong’s attitude is a continuation of his anti-transit stances generally.
LikeLike
I found it ironic how much of the city’s worst congestion is in the Sheppard East corridor, including a disproportionate concentration of those worst stretches/intersections along the Sheppard Subway. That speaks volumes (pardon the pun).
LikeLike
Karl Junkin wrote, “I found it ironic how much of the city’s worst congestion is in the Sheppard East corridor…”
What is more ironic is that a substantial cause of this are all the buses needed on Sheppard. It is not unusual during peak times to see one or more buses waiting to enter a bus bay lane while another bus is stopped for loading/unloading. What makes this ‘more ironic’ is that a Sheppard subway would do little to alleviate this, partly due to the subway only being along Sheppard as far east as Kennedy, and partly due to wider stop spacing that will require bus operations on street.
With the LRT being built, east of Pharmacy Avenue, Sheppard will be widened so that not one square foot of road space will be lost to the LRT or bike lanes, BUT most of the space currently needed for buses will be opened up for traffic.
LRT on Sheppard will not only improve transit along Sheppard, but INCREASE automobile capacity on the road. Hopefully, the improved transit will slow the natural force that fills in that extra capacity.
LikeLike
@Calvin:
While I agree with you, what I found most ironic is that Yonge/Sheppard, Bayview/Sheppard, and Leslie/Sheppard (some were identified as the stretches between Sheppard and 401) were on the list. This part of Sheppard only has a skeleton crew bus service, yet is about a third of the list concentrated in this corridor that some try to argue has first class transit service that is the solution to congestion problems. Their arguments are supposed to imply that the list staff handed to the Public Works Ctte chair are impossible, because a subway is there and so congestion would be going down, not up.
Yes, I agree, if stop spacing were far closer than it was designed with, the situation would be better (the subway would still be underutilized and as such still be a financial sinkhole), but there is still a broad disconnect with the public understanding of how 400-series highways (as well as the DVP, the Gardiner, and the Allen) have very poor compatibility with transit. Some actually come out on this very blog and argue that the Sheppard Subway is needed to alleviate the 401, which is a fallacy, and the above list, I believe, demonstrates that.
This expands somewhat on the lessons that have already been learned from the Allen [Spadina] Subway.
LikeLike
Robert Wightman says: For the other Mikey, if we build more subways in the suburbs without providing a way for them to get downtown, which a lot of them seem to want to do, then they will need to cram themselves onto the already crowed Yonge and Spadina trains. The DRL will provide more relief for people in the outer 416 than in the old city.
I don’t think people fully grasp what a northern crosstown subway could have done for this City. Sheppard Line, if stretched far enough across the 416, would interconnect Eglinton-SRT (or someday Bloor-Danforth) at Scarborough Ctr, Agincourt GO, the DRL at Don Mills, Oriole GO, Sheppard-Yonge, Downsview, and a possible GO/DRL connection in Emery (assuming a swing up to Finch Avenue West beyond Downsview). Not to mention interfacing with interregional transit routes at either end of the line.
Toronto’s rapid transit system currently suffers from two major physical problems. The subway/LRT network leaves a large portion of the city underserved or wholly unserved. Also, the lines are too “downtown-centric”, making travel between different non-core areas slow and time consuming. Neighborhood-to-neighborhood service on its own may not be profitable enough for the securities holders who regularly flex their political power but IMO transit operation is as much a social service as it is a business.
The Sheppard proposal here seeks to address redundancy and coverage issues by creating new travel patterns in the city and reorganizing the current system.
North-south travel away from the Lake is tedious. With no train service, outside of long and inefficient trips all the way downtown and then a transfer back out, the back bone of service is slow moving buses on crowded city streets. The aforementioned Sheppard Line (Outer Loop) train would provide cross town connectivity; and it would be essential to making the DRL functional and useful outside of the core.
North-south travel is difficult away from the lake, but east-west travel at latitudes further from the core also requires too much redundancy: rather than a straight line, travelers have to make parabolic trips to go from point point a (west) to point b (east). The way the current adminstration went about advocating for this line may have been all wrong but by no means does that mean that a northern crosstown subway is totally unwarranted and must never be spoken of again. If there’s any wonder why there’s major congestion near Sheppard Avenue, it is because of the sheer desirability of the corridor as a transportation corridor, which only would be boosted were the subway to continue to expand in both directions.
Robert Wightman says: I would like to know what “rail corridors’ you are talking about. Granted it would run in the same general direction as the Kingston Sub from Pape and Gerrard to Union but so do the King car and the Carlton car.
Weston-Galt Sub (Georgetown GO Line), Kingston Sub (Lakeshore West/East GO Line) and Bala Sub (Richmind Hill GO Line). If we added in more stops, straightened out the Bala corridor, built a short connector tunnel between Gerrard Sq and the Don Valley under Pape, and improved frequency to every 5 minutes we’d already have a de facto DRL. But if a DRL does not address the constant overcrowding on the 501/2/5 and 10; of what use is it really other than a suburbanite shuttle into the core with no means of aiding them to destinations once there?
LikeLike
the other Mikey says:
June 16, 2012 at 3:15 pm
Most people, not me, always refer to the DRL as an east side line. I have always said that the ARL should be part of the DRL and should be run as a rapid transit line, not a commuter rail line. The major problem with using the GO lines is lack of capacity on the lines, minimum 10 minute headway with archaic signalling and operating rules, and at Union Station. The line has to connect at either King or Queen St. with the 2 subways, not Union.
The BALA sub is still too sinuous and badly located to be an effective DRL line. An East end line has to be east of the Don Valley and not in it. It preferably should stay east of Don Mills if it goes north of Eglinton. It should also serve Flemingdon and Thorncliffe Parks.
I fail to see how the Sheppard line would provide cost effective cross town connectivity across the top of Toronto as the Origin destination pairs are too diverse. It would help people who wanted to live and work near Sheppard but would not be very useful to others. The Finch corridor has higher demand than Sheppard, why not put it there? Oh, I know, some idiots actually built part of the Sheppard line. The DRL will not improve the connectivity and mobility of many people living in the core. The existing system serves them fairly well. It will get suburban residents downtown fast and more conveniently by reducing demand or the Bloor Yonge interchange and on the lower Yonge line. It would also provide another north south line into the core. This would be helpful if there ever were another Union Station flood or something else that shut down the Yonge-University Line.
The overcrowding on the 501, 502 and 503 could be reduced by running cars more frequently than once every 6 minutes. It would also help to split the 501 into 2 lines for better management of service. The 504 line requires help especially in the west end.
Perhaps there will be someway to connect the west end of it to the 509 to provide faster service to the downtown but then this will cause problems on the 509. The new cars with all door loading will definitely help. The city also has to improve flow by eliminating illegal parking and moving taxi stands an delivery trucks off King St. in the rush hours.
Steve: @the other Mikey: I didn’t mention this with the original post, but “straightening out” the Bala corridor would involve realigning the Don Valley which a river spent a rather long time cutting into its existing shape. Then there is the small problem of building any sort of interchange between east-west routes and a Bala-based DRL. Finally, a line in the valley shares a problem with schemes for rapid transit in expressway medians — there is nothing immediately adjacent to any station.
And the idea of a “short connector tunnel” from Gerrard Square to the Don Valley, it wouldn’t be under Pape, but under Gerrard, and would be anything but short. There are times I wonder if some who comment on this site have any real knowledge of Toronto geography.
Finally, getting suburbanites to places in the core will be done not by connections to the east-west streetcar system, but by the Yonge-University subway.
LikeLike
I think what the other Mikey is trying to propose is a DRL following the existing BALA line south from Eglinton to Millwood/Pape area, and then continue south under Pape, replicating the southern segment of the more popular DRL proposal without the need to build new tunnels through Thorncliffe and FlemingDon Parks.
The problem I see is that the segments north of O’Connor won’t penetrate the markets on Overlea Boulevard and Don Mills Road themselves. Elaborate stations would be needed to get riders from street-elevation all the way down into the valley in both neighbourhoods. Furthermore, the northern terminus for this DRL proposal would be considerably further east of Don Mills Road, complicating any potential transfer with a future Don Mills LRT.
Steve: Yes, the whole idea of going to Don Mills & Eglinton was to make a good connection with future lines in the area and to serve the neighbourhoods without creating problems of accessibility to stations.
It’s important to remember how the most recent “go to Eglinton” proposal came about. The TTC’s plans for the Don Mills LRT attempted to create a surface alignment through Thorncliffe Park, across the Leaside Bridge, and then down Pape. This ran into problems with load restrictions on the bridge, curve radius constraints at Millwood/Donlands/Pape, and the narrowness of Pape itself. If a new river crossing is needed, and if the portion from the valley south to Danforth has to be underground, then the alignment has more options because, among other things, it no longer has to go “out of the way” across the bridge to the west end of Thorncliffe Park.
If the line still comes up Pape, it could swing northeast, but cross the valley on a diagonal and enter the northwest side somewhere under Thorncliffe Park itself. I’m not going to get into drawing lines on maps here, and much would depend on how an ideal route across the valley and through Thorncliffe would work, but the TTC wasted a huge amount of everyone’s time by focussing on a surface alignment all the way to Danforth that is simply not practical.
Having said all of this, and knowing the projected demand for this portion of the route, if we’re going to be grade separated anyhow, then it makes sense to bring the DRL subway north to Eglinton rather than the Don Mills LRT south. I know this position is going to shock those readers who think I am incapable of making rational choices of transit modes, but it’s the opinion I have held all along.
LikeLike
I’m a little dubious of that study. I suspect it counts volume and then averages length of time it takes to get through. Congestion along Sheppard and Bayview is mostly south and north bound. East and west zips through fine. I go to that intersection twice a day now in my commute.
The north south congestion is largely caused by poor entry ways surrounding the intersections from either side. Every car that wants to turn into the 401 Westbound has to get into the right hand lane in the 100 metres after Sheppard. The jockeying either before or after the intersection is the issue there. In essence the intersection is so crowded because the 401 on ramp is not designed to handle the traffic volume.
Northbound the issue is the inability of people turning out of the YMCA to get into the lane they need. They block the right hand only turn lane. Frankly somebody should close that exit – I don’t have much sympathy for people going to a gym who can’t get onto east bound Sheppard and then turn around somewhere.
Although DMW is wrong in that he believes we need more highways, I would say we need SMARTER highway entries to handle the volume we have now better.
LikeLike
I’m waiting for someone to come in here and tell everyone that all of those people clogging up that Sheppard thing are headed to Scarborough Town Centre and building the subway line all the way out there will remove most of the congestion.
LikeLike
Excluding the two downtown congestion hotspots, all the worst intersections listed are either at the 401 or have a very strong link to the 401 (i.e. Allen/Dufferin, Black Creek). This is a strong and compelling – but not surprising – pattern. In line with that pattern are the two downtown hotspots, which both have either a direct or very strong link to the Gardiner.
I think the phenomenon being seen here might be the highways are discharging surge volumes the local road network can’t accommodate when combined with the local roads’ existing non-highway-oriented volumes.
LikeLike
To those advocating more stops on the GO lines: every stop adds about three minutes to the journey time, and reduces the main advantage of the trains (shorter journey times). If you want to make GO lines a major high-order transit source within Toronto, then you would better off making TTC’s bus routes focus on GO stations (like they do on subway stations, and like some 905 agencies do).
LikeLike
in regards to the ‘flyovers & flyunders’ comment…
Is this a difficult thing for the city to work with on existing high demand intersections?
I think of Bayview & Lawrence… or most roads in Calgary…where everytime an intersection meets demand…they create the connections to avoid lights.
Don Mills & Eg would be my first opinion for using the overpass/underpass….same with the two or three spots on Black Creek.
I know Toronto has a serious fear of highways…but easing the crunch with ramps – when space is available – beats the wait at busy intersections… no?
Steve: The problem with ramp structures is the space they require on either side of the intersection, and their effect on the pedestrian character of the intersection. This is especially important for connecting transit routes, a function that is not a high requirement at Bayview and Lawrence. It’s also worth noting that the design of that intersection is integrated with the Bayview bridge immediately to the north and the grade change between the south and north sides of the valley. This sort of terrain does not present itself at most locations.
As another comment here pointed out, many of the locations in the top-10 list are near expressways which are likely the cause of the congestion in the first place due to the mismatch between local road capacity and the load going to or from the expressway. These are already grade-separated junctions.
Don Mills and Eglinton is not on the list, although it is a very busy spot. Planned new transit facilities here include an underground LRT station and an offstreet bus loop (on the northeast corner). This will remove a lot of the existing bus traffic from the surface lanes, including associated pedestrian activity for transfer movements between routes. Eventually, this intersection will redevelop from a great deal of open space to a major node, and the last thing it needs is a set of ramps and underpasses fouling up the street for the equivalent of a few blocks either side of the intersection.
Finally, although there are some locations where land is available for an underpass/ramp structure, there are far more where this is not possible given existing and likely future land use. We may “solve” congestion at a few points, but not for the network as a whole.
LikeLike
I believe that list of intersections is grossly incorrect – I can’t find a source for the data?
In the afternoon, Bayview and Leslie south of York Mills are both far more congested than the stretch of Leslie N of the 401. In fact, I find that traffic starts to flow properly again as you cross the 401 – that stretch of Leslie is the least congested on my entire (afternoon) commute.
If they’re talking about morning and southbound, well Leslie is pretty bad, but Don Mills from Sheppard to York Mills is much worse (the only reason I go that direction is the carpool lanes). And again, Leslie is just as bad from the 401 to York Mills.
Sure it’s just a couple of anecdotes, but I don’t believe that list is accurate – or if it is, the analysis used to create it needs work.
LikeLike
Hi Steve:-
Co-incidentally to this article, my wife and I were looking out our front window this morning onto the Danforth near the Luttrell Loop and we commented on the traffic backed up from Dawes Road WB and I said I had to agree with our wise Olde Mayor. Those damned streetcars are holding up rush hour traffic again! But wait, they’ve been gone 44 years now. What oh what can the matter be? And we’re on the subway and the GO’s Lakeshore line here too.
Hmmmmmm. Methinks something is afoot other than blaming the transit vehicle that can help rather than hinder. But is he watching too???! Not bleedin’ likely!! Could it be that those vehicles we saw on the Danny are suburbanites commuting from the far reaches of Scarborough and those that are proud to be 905ers!!??
Dennis Rankin
LikeLike
Karl is right on the money here I think. The reason why these intersections are the most congested is because you have highway traffic being injected into areas that are not only too built up handle it, but continue to choke because of intensification.
When I’ve been on road trips through the United States, the suburban and rural areas surrounding Interstate interchanges tend to be very low density and very open. While there is no argument that this is very poor sustainable design, it does allow the area to handle the influx of traffic coming in from the highways remarkably well.
If we could go back in time 30 years, any northern west-east rapid transit route should have been planned along Finch instead of Sheppard. Sheppard’s environs could have remained low density, thus allowing traffic to absorb on to local roads before approaching the intensified urban areas along Finch.
LikeLike
The cause of the traffic congestion problems on Sheppard and 401 between Yonge and 404 are obvious: thousands and thousands of condo units have been built along Sheppard yet the Sheppard subway only goes from Yonge to Don Mills and thus is not very useful for commuters who do not work downtown, so people drive. This stretch of Sheppard/401 is not only congested in rush hour, but can be badly jammed in the middle of the day and weekends as well. Furthermore a whole bunch of condo units are under construction or planned east of Don Mills, in particular the massive Metrogate complex at Kennedy/Sheppard which will house many thousands of people once complete, and other condo developments like the ones at Victoria Park/Sheppard. If we build nothing these people will just jam up the 401 and Sheppard, and if we build LRT than developments of this scale could easily overwhelm it and make it severely overcrowded. The subway needs to be extended to Scarborough Centre and Downsview as originally intended to make it a northern crosstown and true reliever to the 401. Adding other lines to the network, such as improved GO train service, as well as the Eglinton line and a subway along Don Mills Road, would also make the Sheppard subway far more useful for getting to parts of the GTA other than downtown and discourage condo residents along Sheppard from driving.
Steve: How do you establish that the condo developments along Sheppard would overwhelm an LRT? How will a line that only goes from Downsview to STC relieve the 401 which straddles Toronto and the GTA?
LikeLike
The problem with tolls is that people will get upset if they have to pay them without another real choice. You need a good transit system and then toll all roads in downtown similar to London England. Also, toll the highways – then use the money saved there to invest in transit (the tolls need not be a money making scheme, but just to cover the operating costs of having highways.)
If toll roads make a profit, then the profit goes directly to the capital budget for transit, while the costs the tolls are offsetting can be split between the operating and capital budgets according the needs at the time.
A DRL running as a wide U shape should connect both the east and west ends of the city.
I also wouldn’t mind see a restored 507 streetcar operating to Dundas West. For every 507 on Roncesvalles, a 504 car can be short turned at Sunnyside/Roncesvalles and sent back into the city. That should give some advantage to King. Split the 501 three times – remove the service west of Humber (now operated by the 507 car, which can always have a dedicated car or two during the day operating west of Humber only as demand is there for a local service.) The “501” can operate from Humber to Church with a separate car operating from McCaul to Neville Park.
LikeLike
Isn’t it obvious? The Sheppard subway is going to be such an amazing thing that everyone from the east is going to drive to STC, park, take the subway to Downsview, and then rent a car to continue their journey westwards with those coming from the west doing the reverse.
The funny thing about this is that the vast majority of those who live along Sheppard and don’t work downtown work outside of the city and thus a “completed” Sheppard subway would still be useless to them.
Frankly, if you are so fearful of the Metrogate complex, you should be pushing for something like a new branch of the SRT heading north out of Ellesmere station if you wanted to actually solve future traffic problems in the area.
LikeLike
Earth to Andrew:
The 401 is already jammed. The reason people are buying condo’s along Sheppard is it’s supposedly easy access to the 401, not the Sheppard Subway. The destination matrix of these people is too diversified for a subway to be of much use.
The capacity rates for expressways as given in the literature vary from 1500 to 2000 CARS per hour per lane. Most give capacity for the road when there are ONLY cars present and your are between, not at, interchanges. I believe that the 401 is about 7 lanes in each direction paralleling the Sheppard subway so this gives a theoretical maximum capacity if 14 000 cars per direction which is the upper edge of LRT. (I know, some of the cars will have 2 people in them.) The line haul capability of the 401 could be replaced by a high level LRT system. It would just lack the car’s ability to handle widely varied origin and destination pairs.
The car traffic is overloading the intersections’ ability to handle it. If we continue to allow this high density development then we are going to have congestion problems around the intersections. I just spent 2 weeks in the Boston area and rush hour traffic there made Toronto’s traffic seem mild. Every interchange between an arterial and an expressway took multiple lights to clear. Spending $12 – $15 billion to extend a useless subway would not help the traffic problems on the 401 one iota and would drain all the fiscal resources for a number of years, or decades.
The GO train can relieve demand on the QEW and on the non existent Scarborough expressway because most of the destinations were lumped into the core area. The varied origins are served by the large parking lots and private cars leaving the private car to the final distance. There is no workplace area on the 401 that has anywhere near the demand of the core, instead there are a lot of smaller areas off the highway in those wonderful industrial and office parks that are not easily served by transit. Zoning designs need changing before we try another Sheppard Subway.
LikeLike
I almost fell off my chair when I read Dennis Rankin’s post (I was laughing so hard)!!!
I have spent the last six weeks on Cliffside, having to pass through the intersection numerous times four days a week (doing a regular). The City has had a contractor doing work with the traffic signals (physical positioning) at the intersection of Dawes Road and Danforth Avenue. The last week has seen the timing of the traffic signals so messed up that I came to the conclusion that there has been no oversight to this project!! The lights got set to 20 seconds of green for the westbound traffic (one morning, as I sat westbound (crawling from Sibley Ave. to Dawes), I was timing the light at Dawes) through 6 cycles of the lights. The light from Dawes to Danforth, however seemed to last an eternity. All I can add is that someone totally f…..d up the programming of the sequencing. I have given up trying to explain congestion vs. incompetence! More importantly, I had a full load of passengers who couldn`t believe what was happening!! I expect that there were numerous calls made to the city by disgruntled TTC passengers about this f..k up!!
LikeLike
Have there been studies as to where the populace in the condos along Sheppard actually go to in there commute? Until then, I remain skeptical of anybody who tells me the people who live there go anywhere where anything but a car makes sense.
On another note, as a daily commuter across Sheppard west of Yonge, I would suggest those hoping to get support for a Downsview to Sheppard link from a congestion standpoint will be unsuccessful. There is little if any link in the congestion east of Yonge to west of Yonge. With the exceptions of accidents along it, or when the 401 backs up along the central corridor, Sheppard West of Yonge sails along just fine and doesn’t carry a volume worthy of LRT let alone a subway.
Steve: Some of the O/D question was covered in the “expert panel’s” response to the Sheppard subway/LRT debate, and the information is available from transportation surveys of the GTA. Within Scarborough, there is more demand locally in Scarborough itself, and north-south across the 401 and across Steeles Avenue than there is for east-west travel. There may be zillions arriving westbound on the 401 from Durham Region or even driving down from York Region, but a subway starting at STC and running to Downsview isn’t going to attract them at all.
LikeLike
A Sheppard subway would serve cross-GTA traffic in conjunction with the Eglinton line, and one would be able to take Sheppard subway->Spadina subway->Eglinton line to the western GTA and avoid using the 401. Although not very fast, it would probably be faster than the 401 at many times of day.
Steve: I cannot help chuckling at all the comments people have left here about the “jog” in trips across a discontinuous Sheppard/Finch corridor. Also, dare I point out that Eglinton is a surface LRT in Etobicoke, assuming we ever build that part of the line rather than trying to avoid competition for Metrolinx’ precious Air Rail Link?
As for developments overwhelming a LRT, it is hard to predict, but some of the planned developments along Sheppard are very large, the 401 is already very congested in morning rush hour and there would likely be significant bus feeder traffic. Plus there will be a large induced demand effect, i.e. building a LRT or subway line will encourage people to move further from work. Given that the only east west methods of travel in the GTA right now are the Bloor-Danforth line (overcrowded), Gardiner (congested), the 401 (congested), a number of arterial roads and bus routes along them (congested) and the 407 (which increases its tolls annually to prohibitively expensive levels so that it never becomes congested), I think that any LRT line built in Toronto will be very popular. I would expect that if the Sheppard LRT were to become overcrowded in rush hour, it would be most evident in the Don Mills to Victoria Park section.
Steve: I note that you don’t mention the Eglinton line which will be operating in roughly the same timeframe as a Sheppard subway, and you pin your concerns entirely on the short segment from Don Mills to Vic Park. That’s hardly a reason for building a subway line across all of Sheppard.
LikeLike
I have a number of ideas that would expand transit and would reduce congestion
1.) convert the sheppard line subway into an LRT, extended to Donsview stn and Durham Region
2.) Have an LRT at Finch that stretches from Pearson Airport to Morningview (at Old Finch)
3.) Introduce a LRT at steels, York Mills and Wilson
4.) the remaining new LRT routes from the original Transit City except the Don Mills LRT
5.) Have TTC negotiate with GO transit and other transits in the GTA for fare integration
6.) Have GO transit build a station between dupont and summerhill, and let TTC introduce a subway shuttle that stretches from the new station to Union Station
that runs along Bay St.
7.) DRL in order relive overcrowded people from the B-D line (from Don mills Stn to Dundas west Stn)
8.) Have TTC subways extended beyond the city limits
9.) Have TTC also negotiate with GO transit to build additional stations in the city of Toronto
10.) Have TTC stop at certain stations on peak hours like NYC subways have, and classify the stations whether its a peak hours stop, midday, or full
11.) have the LRT and subways divided into branches for example,
Sheppard Line LRT Branch A: Downsview stn- Durham Region
Sheppard Line LRT Branch B: Downsview stn- Scarborough Town Centre
12.) have TTC subways to have express routes like they also have in NYC
These would be possible if the city would toll all the highways in the city of Toronto
LikeLike
I’m not sure it matters. While the built form of the 905 does leave a lot to be desired, the regular grid layout of its roads does provide ample opportunity to build a high-frequency network along arterials. With some relatively cheap investments (signal prioritization, queue jump lanes, etc.), and well-designed transfer points, there’s no reason I shouldn’t be able to get between two points on major roads in somewhere like Mississauga in a time-efficient manner.
Los Angeles of all places (comparable density to Mississauga) is making some pretty significant strides towards building such a network, with a focus on a grid network of limited stop routes running every 15 minutes or better.
Steve: There is no question that a grid of routes can provide mobility, but a headway much, much better than every 15 minutes is required to make even a tiny dent in traffic congestion. By definition, a congested street has a backlog of demand, and simply running a transit service won’t make that congestion disappear. Even with frequent service, the question of built form remains. If major traffic generators don’t face onto that grid of arterials, commuters face long walks.
LikeLike
Andrew states:
Gosh, you mean I can no longer take the GO train from Aldershot to Oshawa? GO buses no longer run between all these nodes such as STC and York University that absolutely must on all accounts be connected by a subway? Wait ’til Metrolinx hears about this!
LikeLike
I apologize for being unclear. Infrequent GO trains/buses are not really a viable method of transportation for most people, and I lumped the 407 GO buses in with the 407. My point is, there are not many east west transportation corridors in this city (the Bloor-Danforth line and the 407, including the GO buses on the 407, are the only two reliable ones; hourly Lakeshore trains and rush hour only Milton/Georgetown do not count; all other east west transportation corridors are congested and buses running along those routes get stuck in traffic and are generally overcrowded) so in my opinion any LRT on Eglinton, Sheppard, Finch etc. will be very popular and could become overcrowded.
LikeLike
Tazjon:
I have a couple comments on your post:
1) I totally agree with fare intergration with the TTC. But to take it one step further, let’s have a transfer that is time based like in other major cities (Vancouver, Edmonton, Mississauga, etc.) where one fare allows you to go anywhere, in any direction, for two hours.
2) A GO station on the CP mainline makes sense. A believe CP is the problem here. Otherwise, it would allow Milton trains to go there for a start – and some trains from the Lakeshore West line could also go there via the Canpa Subdivision (which connects the CN/GO Oakville Subdivision with the CP at Kipling station.) I doubt another subway on Bay would necessarily be practical to place, but it if it also headed north of the CP mainline may help.
3) DRL is right on – we need it.
4) I don’t know about having the subways operating outside of the city proper. To me, the only way it should work is if Metrolinx took over the subway system or if the other cities/regions have to fork out the costs of building (along with the province) and operating the portion(s) of the subway in their jurisdictions. It’s not fair for Toronto to be proving transit to other regions.
5) The current subway system in Toronto was never designed like New York’s. That’s partly why we don’t get 24 hour service on the subway. It would be nice if we could do this, but I believe it would be virtually impossible to do so at this point.
6) Dividing up the subway/LRT system might help, but it also depends on where people are going to and from. But it is a thought.
LikeLike
Then perhaps we ought to increase the service frequency on those trains before spending untold billions on a new subway line?
As for congested intersections, the answer is roundabouts, not ramps. Roundabouts have higher traffic throughput and are safer for everybody, including pedestrians.
LikeLike
Andrew says,
Andrew, I think you’re being disingenuous.
Obviously GO trains and buses are a viable method of transportation for a lot of people — so many that Union Station is overcrowded during peak hours.
Hourly trains aren’t great, but I don’t think many people go from Oshawa to Aldershot, or even say Danforth to Port Credit, on a whim, or to pick up a litre of milk. Long cross-regional trips are likely to be routine trips to school or work, and one can adapt to hourly trains if it comes to that.
Of course, in peak periods — when the 401 congestion that you always mope about is at its worst — there’s much better than hourly service.
Furthermore, the only thing standing between better off-peak service on Lakeshore is the will to do it, and maybe agreements with the railroads. There is plenty of off-peak capacity at Union, and spare trainsets, for half-hour or twenty-minute service. How much demand there is for this service is an open question. It seems a waste to run ten-car bilevel trains but carrying only as many passengers as two or three Finch East buses.
LikeLike
Roundabouts? Given people in this town can’t for some reason handle a basic scramble intersection, I can imagine the issues a roundabout would create.
Roundabouts are not good in high pedestrian traffic areas (as anybody in KW can tell you as at least 2 high schools are fighting the implementation of one near them). They are as unpedestrian friendly as a 4 lane highway.
They work really well where nobody is expected to walk.
That is not Toronto.
LikeLike
Roundabouts also run into functionality issues, as well as safety issues for drivers, when there are more than 2 lanes of traffic (some will argue 3 lanes are OK; I disagree, but even those who support 3-lane roundabouts concede that 2 lanes flows better). Capacity requirements in question here rule roundabouts out, assuming space could be found for them in the first place.
LikeLike
@Karl Junkin
Strictly addressing congestion on Sheppard, it’s not clear that LRT would have been the only appropriate solution. Move the terminus of Sheppard eastward and you’ll both reduce the bus congestion and move it to a less congested area.
Just saying.
Steve: And if the only place we had to worry about congestion was the vicinity of Don Mills Station, I’m not sure we would be thinking of spending billions one way or another to “fix” the problem.
LikeLike
I’m curious how Transit City will help reduce congestion. I can’t see it.
It might help reduce bus congestion and slightly increase road capacity as a consequence, in some corridors. But reduce congestion overall? I can’t see it.
I do wonder if (in terms of reducing vehicular congestion) those funds would have been better deployed building a real suburban rail service out of GO. Fully electrified. All day service. 15 minute headways max. Crosstown line.
Steve: Claiming any transit project will reduce congestion is a big stretch given the backlog of demand and the known growth that will occur between the point where a project is proposed and when it actually opens. These claims seem to be more political — try to justify the spending to non-transit users — than practical, and they ignore the more important benefit of improve mobility through an enhanced network.
LikeLike
Hundreds of heavily-walked European cities have shown otherwise.
Steve: The much more basic questions is whether a location actually has the space to fit a roundabout within an existing intersection.
LikeLike
I think one frustrating reality about how Toronto has grown, at least in the north, is how we built along roads rather than rails. The Yonge-University-Spadina line is great at getting from the north suburbs into downtown, even running semi-express along some stretches, but is it the optimal way? To get from Union to Finch takes about 30 minutes, while by car along the DVP with smooth traffic (hey, it could happen…) you can be up at Stouffville Rd in the same amount of time, according to Google. By GO train, in 30 minutes you can be at Rutherford on the Barrie line. The time savings are not as great along the Richmond Hill line, since the line bends quite a bit limiting speed, but to get from Old Cummer/Finch to Langstaff/Hwy 7 takes 9 minutes compared to 25 minutes on the Viva in rush hour.
Imagine what it would look like if we had railway suburbs serviced by GO anchoring our northern sprawl rather than building these places along Yonge St? We could use mass transit to get from York Region into Toronto, and vice-versa, quickly and competitively with car travel. LRT/BRT and subways could be used along Yonge for local trips, as opposed to using these modes for extended commuter trips.
LikeLike
Last couple of weeks the Gardiner has been under the microscope thanks to pieces of it falling down.
Councillor Denzil Minnan-Wong spoke this morning, where he noted that the highway may need to be shutdown in sections until work is done….with the city manager then firing back that the highway is safe.
Wondering what your take on the entire Gardiner debate is right now, and it’s looming 10 year construction period…and what to do…
Sorry for the random post – but wasn’t sure where to send it!
Steve: The real shame is that for “temporary” shutdowns for construction, we will see the worst of life without the Gardiner, including those parts of it for which there is no serious proposal to take it down. We will not see how thinks looked and operated if part of the elevated (east from Jarvis Street) were removed and the roadways rearranged. The chaos will be used to justify never looking at a Gardiner teardown again.
LikeLike