On November 18, 2014, I spoke as part of a panel on this subject at the University of Toronto. Other speakers were Leslie Woo from Metrolinx and Stephen Buckley from the City of Toronto.
The text linked here was my originally prepared text from which I departed somewhat in spots either due to comments made by other speakers, or time pressures.
Steve Munro 
The East Bayfront LRT is going to go down as one of those examples that show why & how Toronto cannot clearly identify and stick to its priorities and plan effectively.
I was at Waterfront Toronto a week ago and asked for a comment on why the “Transit First” plan had turned into “Transit Later…maybe” … The response was polite but expressed a great deal of frustration with the missed opportunity to get these major waterfront transit projects done.
People often blame developers and the OMB for the development without infrastructure but really, the responsibility for these issues are in other hands.
Cheers, Moaz
LikeLike
Kevin’s comment:
It is my opinion that there is plenty of congestion downtown. This opinion appear to be shared by the Ministry of Transportation. See Toronto Sun.
There are, of course, proven effective ways of eliminating traffic congestion. Here is a before-and-after video of how one city did so. They did it. We can too.
Steve: Well, that’s a nearly five-year old article reporting on a 2008 study. MTO did not have an “opinion” on the matter, but was merely reporting what it found. As for the rest of the article, we hear about intelligent traffic systems and the Front Street Extension. I am getting tired of reading how simply by tweaking our traffic signals we might somehow eliminate congestion downtown. Yes, there are locations where intersection operations can be improved, but in some locations and times, there simply is more traffic than will fit. This is another example of how road users are in denial about the need to ration road capacity among various types of users with motorists almost certainly coming out worse off than they are today.
On the flip side, we are not going to see central Toronto converted into a cyclist’s paradise.
LikeLike
Congestion is on Bayview Avenue from Moore Avenue to Major McKenzie during morning rush hour. Single occupant cars all heading south (and in some areas north bound). If the numbers have not changed over the years then the system is maxed out. A number of other NS streets can be added to the list along with an equal number of EW streets. If I want to go anywhere is the morning I have to leave home at 6:30 am (it used to be 7:30 am). Tweaking traffic signals, LRV’s, street bound LRT’s or 60 more buses will not accomplish anything.
Steve: My comment about unchanged traffic volumes applies to downtown. Basically the routes into the core maxed out years ago and the peak volumes are unchanged. What has changed is that the periods between the peaks have filled in and there is much more all-day, off-peak congestion than before. This will not be fixed by tinkering with peak and shoulder-peak controls.
LikeLike
Well, a proper LRT in median with good signal priority, that actually went to where the load was bound would make a huge difference. The issue transit has had in Toronto, is that we have tried too hard to build on a grand scale, and thus built nothing. A Vaughan LRT would have achieved what the subway extension will, been in operation now, and cost a lot less to build and operate. If it had been done as subway to Finch and LRT beyond, it would have left enough money to do a huge chunk of LRT west from that station as well, and provided an opportunity to get good transit into the airport area.
I come back to the question of how many people are we trying to move really. Finch West, as a single car could move much more than the buses can now, and would relieve the pressure on the bus, improve rides dramatically, increased speed, and provide a real connection. If the Sheppard subway had been built as LRT with a short section of underground, it could have been built out for many more miles, and would now likely extend well east of Kennedy, likely already to Morningside.
I have a hard time seeing a 3 car LRT actually being full on many of the routes that are currently overwhelmed, even though it would be much faster than bus, and would likely attract a lot more current drivers to transit, just because the scope of capacity that would be on offer. A 2 car LRT even at 3 minutes comfortably provides for 6000 rides per hour per direction (50% more than the Scarborough RT), that is like 110 buses per hour. Make sure we can handle 4 cars, and we are talking about allowing for 401 capacity every route we add. The issue in Toronto, is where people want to go.
Look at the bands of dense employment, and how many scattered along and close to the Finch West LRT, the Crosstown, and Scarborough LRT. These LRT would make a substantial difference in the areas they are proposed for, although would not yet justify 4 car LRT (or even soon).
Steve’s point, that congestion has gotten no worse in the core, while it gets worse everywhere else, is very important. Core and core bound roads can carry no more people, and yet core employment continues to grow very quickly, as there has been capacity in transit, and the transit share has grown. Where transit can serve reasonably dense employment areas, and gets an exclusive right of way, it can also make a huge difference (as it becomes extremely attractive).
SmartTrack, (RER) is a good idea, if properly implemented. RER in UPX, connected to some higher level routes, should provide a good way for people to and around the airport area. Extend LRT on Finch and on Eglinton, as well as the Mississauga Busway, these would provide good connection into the area, bus around the area, should be able to provide good distribution. This would go a long way to not sitting in the parking lot that is Finch West in the afternoon, or not having to be on the 401/427 for those getting to and away from the area. Oh and it would also provide a good connection to the core.
Scarborough has a similar situation, and if Davis had left well enough alone, well, the Scarborough RT would have been LRT, and would have run well past the STC, and would have even perhaps encouraged a more transit centric development of the area. Regardless, now LRT would provide a multiple of the capacity required, actually go through the priority neighbourhoods, and pass through the areas of employment and especially connect to Sheppard LRT all the way to UTSC likely provide real access. That is access for Scarborough to Scarborough transit needs, which represent most demand in the area, as well as to core and from the balance of the region.
RER to the core, that connected to these LRTs and I think you are actually looking at the beginnings of a network that would support a the nature of Toronto and region transit requirements. These LRTs need to provide connection to the employment and other destination concentrations away from the core.
Transit works to the core, because it goes to the centre of employment. People will opt for transit, when it is frequent, nearly fast as driving, and goes to where they want. The LRT projects, would have fit that bill, and provided ample capacity. Yes we need more capacity to the core, but that is only part of the problem, and one that RER can solve as long as it can be well connected (read to LRT). To build a network that works for the region means connecting all these locations, and doing so in the smartest way. The network will need to reach the centres of employment and education in the core and the rest of the 416 and 905. This will mean RER, LRT and BRT, and perhaps eventually 1 additional subway link.
A few LRT in median, however, are ultimately a big part of the solution, to make RER work for the region, both as collectors for transit to the core, and to serve the other areas of employment along the LRT routes. The loads are distributed enough that subway will be far too costly and cannot serve, and there are no proximate rail routes actually reasonably available.
LikeLike
Longer term this is likely to be a huge issue. Properly delivered the Waterfront East LRT to the area would have made transit better for the new development, and even for the existing ridership. Now, limited transit will be overwhelmed, bogged down, and will clogged. Worse, it will encourage additional auto use, and make a very bad situation worse. King Street west is a disaster, which compared will be a walk in the park, even with larger cars.
LikeLike
Having lived in a number of areas, including downtown and in Richmond Hill near Bayview, I would say that congestion is worse in the 905 than downtown. I have seen Richmond Hill grow from 30,000 to some 200,000, yet the bus service along Bayview has not improved by more than a factor of 2 in those thirty years. The sheer volume of 905 traffic is quite frightening. On the other hand, downtown could be greatly improved by greater restriction, or elimination, of parking along streets like Bloor, Queen and King. Many shops do not open until 11 a.m., so I don’t see why parking on the inbound sides is allowed as early as 9 or 9.30 a.m. Parking on those streets could be entirely eliminated with some more off-street parking, without hurting small businesses. Eastward of Bathurst, I think that the conversion of whole traffic lanes to separated bikeways on Richmond and Adelaide should permit the restriction of bikes on Queen and King. (And please add curbside pushbuttons for cyclists and motorcyclists on the lesser streets which cross King, Queen and Bloor! With decent prompt-response logic!)
On top of that, the prohibition of stepping off the curb after the flashing red begins should be enforced. It is also unfortunate that people have become used to the way scramble crossings work in Toronto, with parallel crossing allowed as before and a scramble phase thrown in. I grew up with scramble lights which had no parallel crossing allowed while traffic was moving. Right turns on red could be much improved, with fewer left turns permitted.
While these ideas are no panacea, I think they could improve movement for all downtown.
LikeLike
LOGIC? you want logic in a Toronto traffic signal? It might interfere with the smooth flow of CARS all for a mere pedestrian or cyclist. Some of the side roads in Halton have a bike painted on them at traffic signals. If you stop you bike on it then it will change the light instead of forcing you to get off the bike and run 15 m to the push button. I liked the fact that in Europe, well at least in the Netherlands and France, there were bike sized and high signals on the bike lanes. MTO would probably require double huge signals 5 m above ground level where they would confuse poor dumb motorist like the ones on Spadina do.
LikeLike
It was refreshing to hear Leslie Woo’s optimism about SmartTrack and RER working together. She is hopeful that we will end up with a hybrid of the two, and we will move forward with one plan. I share that optimism. With recent debate framed as LRT vs. Subway, I can understand why Steve worries about having two plans compete (i.e. SmartTrack vs. RER). However, Tory has emphasized working together as one city and being a partner with other levels of government. When you work together as a partner, you need to compromise, and I share the optimism that Tory will compromise with Metrolinx to move forward on one hybrid SmartTrack-RER system.
LikeLike
Oddly enough, I would argue that some of the issues that you are talking about in the core, are because of what you are saying here. Once you get into the car, you are much more likely to drive the entire route. Too many people are driving into the core, and now irked by the lack of road space. Clearly part of the solution is to improve service in the 905, to get people to use transit and stay on it.
LikeLike
Personally, I really like the new bike lanes on Adelaide and wish they would extend it east of Simcoe all the way to Parliament. StefanM, how does restricting bikes on Queen and King accomplish anything? Get rid of parked cars and free up the road.
LikeLike
I’d be interested in the city taking a more holistic approach to where and when there are constraints on the system.
A first start would be public data in a useful form (realtime website) for the following:
– Historical throughput of all major intersections, on/offramps and roads by time of day (on a daily basis where possible, or using historical road count data going back to the beginning of such records) – this would be # of cars through an intersection per hour or similar – this data exists in some form currently on the openData site, but not on a daily basis.
– Theoretical maximums (or practical maximums) from the above data.
– Whether there is a plan to improve or change those theoretical maximums (and any previous history on changes to the intersection) for each intersection/onramp – and when these might be implemented (or cost – and when/if it’s been funded).
– Intersections should be categorized by the amount of time they spend at or around the theoretical maximum.
– The website should also show where current transit routes are, and show how much % of the theoretical maximum is coming from transit, vehicles, pedestrians and bikes.
– Where warranted (for example, on streets -multiple intersections- with high utilization) there should be specific plans developed to increase the theoretical maximums.
– For all streets there should be specific generic items that could be implemented and it would show what that would do to the theoretical maximums (for example, remove all on street parking – 10% theoretical maximum improvement).
– All routes that are running on roads that are at high utilization should be shown and there should be specific 5 year plans for service (i.e., in 2 years we will be adding 3 buses).
In a lot of these cases, I doubt that something like SmartTrak will solve all our problems … but I think running more buses and creating more express service would likely improve things – especially on routes that are already saturated.
LikeLike
Yes, I have a roundabout in my neighborhood, and I am amazed at how long it has taken people to get used to the rules, and how many still do not know what the rules are. The city finally put up signs to yield to those in the roundabout, and some still appear to think that the regular rules of yield to the right apply (even though there is a yield sign directly beside them while they are getting bent out of shape).
Unfortunately motorist have lived far too sheltered an existence to date, and actually have not been forced to adapt. I can remember having a very amusing experience many moons ago cycling in Kingston (I was a student at Queen’s at the time), where I was told by motorist to keep my bike on the sidewalk, fortunately there was both a sign and a police officer standing right there and a discussion ensued. The police officer nicely and firmly informed the motorist as per the signage bikes were not permitted on the sidewalk, and were vehicles, required to be on the roadway, and cars were obligated to make space for them. Unfortunately there are still (even now 30 years later) too many motorist who behave as though they are oblivious to this last bit.
I support bike lanes and space for safe cycling, but just as important motorist need to be forced to adapt to a wider variety of options, and be reminded in no uncertain terms that roads are to move people and goods not cars. The combination of bikes and transit, could be very powerful in the GTA. Cars may be required in our society, but there is no hope that their can be the road space in order to maintain the current modal mix.
LikeLike
Robert Wightman, I wanted to ask your opinion about the potential of SmartTrack to render a DRL unnecessary. It’s obvious that a DRL would become completely unnecessary once SmartTrack is up and running.
Steve: Well you can ask Robert who will no doubt reply in due course, but my answer is that at best SmartTrack will delay the need for a DRL not eliminate it. Among the major misrepresentations of SmartTrack is the claimed 200k/day ridership. If you read the background study this comes from (an article on the subject is pending here), you will find that it requires vastly more service than is planned for the SmartTrack (or RER) route. When the Tory camp cannot even quote their own source material properly from their so-called “experts”, it shows just how slapdash their campaign was. A flashy name, and a few flashy handouts, but very weak on technical substance.
LikeLike
Amen, there is no panacea. I think that RER can play an important role, in providing capacity on for outer 416 core bound, and to some degree shortening bus rides, and thereby also providing some empty seats on those longer routes. However, to really make transit work, it is one layer of many required. Also the idea that running at 15 minutes will be enough medium term is painful. I hope that we are really talking about finding a way to run at 10 minutes at peak medium term and 5-6 long term.
Every route needs its own plan, and a look at where people are coming from and going to. To really get things moving Toronto needs to add a couple of layers to its transit. RER, at reasonably high frequencies and LRT & BRT to provide more local rapid transit. Adding these layers may actually permit a re-orientation of Toronto’s bus network.
LikeLike
My biggest problem is the continued adherence to the status quo with regard to traffic. I totally agree that the congestion we are seeing has spilled, not only over the old peak (rush hours), but has also spread well out into the inner and outer ring suburbs at the same time.
The solution is quite manageable: we need to prioritize high throughput traffic (subways, streetcars, LRT and buses) both capitally (building the network) and operationally (maintaining its use), and maximize usage of efficient non-transit road space traffic (pedestrians, cyclists and motorized two wheel cycles), while removing obvious blockages (left turning vehicles on streetcar tracks, curb lane right turning vehicles waiting for a horde of pedestrians to cross, on street blockages from commercial vehicles), on street parking in transit corridors from morning peak start to evening peak end.
Our biggest issue is still our over-reliance on the least efficient means of conveyance – the single user car/truck/SUV – and the congestion concomitant with its overuse.
My proposal:
– Removal of all on-street parking/standing on bus and streetcar lines from 6-7AM to 7-8PM (flexible by route as necessary), with creation of lay-bys into sidewalks in areas with commercial property on the street, combined with increased parking (multi-level garages) in existing parking lots (e.g. Green P).
– Prohibition of left turns on all streetcar tracks – while creating islands for passenger loading unloading at existing intersections, to prevent dwelling transit needlessly impeding bicycle/motor traffic.
– Prohibition/enforcement of streetcar track lanes for streetcars, buses and taxis only. Combined with towing of illegally parked vehicles (instead of ticketing).
– Removal of pedestrian crossing with the flow of traffic – so as not to impede turning vehicles, which in turn blocks all traffic in the lane behind it – while adding an additional scramble pedestrian phase. Essentially providing a means for right-turns to be improved. Left-turns should only be allowed where space and current infrastructure exists.
– Creation of proper cycling network throughout the city – with proper curb separation of bike lanes on transit routes and high streets, including separated wrong-way lane on one-way streets.
There are a number of other good ideas – increase usage of bike share and car share services, coupled with parking lots at transit hubs – improved transit/traffic signal priority and transit operator behaviour (headway maintenance) that can go along with these changes as well.
LikeLike
@Pete
There are some good ideas in there, but there simply is no way to generalize solutions to all or even parts of the city. For example, there might very well be places where pedestrians hold up traffic trying to turn right, but I don’t think I’ve ever encountered such a thing on my routes.
My point is that just like there’s no magic plan that will “solve” traffic, there isn’t any compilation of tasks that will solve it either. Ideally, the city has a competent team of city planners. The best thing they could do is tally up a list of the most problematic streets and highways in the city, assign a team to each and let them develop a tailored plan that works for that particular area.
There needs to be a level of consistency to the approaches across the city. However, I doubt that a solution that is ideal for King St. West will be identical to a solution for Queen St. West, for example, even with the many similarities these two highly congested roads share.
The realities of fixing our traffic problems are detailed, hard work and would be difficult to fit into a quick soundbite for a politician to use.
Steve: The work I did for the TTC and City re King Street has not yet been published, and so I won’t go into details here. However, what showed up consistently was that there is no one simple fix like extending peak periods that will “work” to fix every problem. Many issues are not even on the shoulders or during the peaks, but evenings and weekends. Others are ad hoc construction projects for which no provision is made in transit or traffic management. Still others are places where transit signal priority for turns would make a big difference (especially for short turns and diversions). Every route needs to be studied block by block, interval by interval, to find the locations where the most improvement is possible.
LikeLike
Steve 1st amen to the capacity issue – talked about a train every 15 minutes, and 200K riders, these are clearly not compatible, unless it is very evenly spread out as that is equivalent of capacity for something like 12 hours. At 6 trains per hours, well it is not as bad….
Also given how far out to the ends of the bus routes that SmartTrack would run, would it actually have enough of an effect on Yonge north of Bloor, even if it were to manage to work its ridership magic. I understand that Yonge anywhere south of Sheppard will be an issue within a decade or so, can something in Stouffville actually relieve that. Will not something in Richmond Hill be required in order to purchase significant time, and even at that require significant tie into the TTC bus system in order to divert traffic from Yonge? Also, would that at best not likely perhaps buy an extra decade or so?
Steve: I don’t want to pre-empt the article I will write, but it is clear from a year-old paper that what became Smart Track was conceived (a) as a way to string together developable properties with a new rail line, and (b) with a much more frequent service and higher capacity than foreseen in Tory’s proposal. Claims made by Tory apply to the original scheme, not to the modified version he actually ran on.
LikeLike
I think this is one of the best arguments for an online site of some sort with upcoming construction listed, all the plans mapped and times specified along with throughputs etc … even to the extent of there is construction planned for King/Spadina – this will entail changing the timing of the lights at (King and Spadina to xxx, Spadina and Front to xxx, etc.) – all of this should be detailed similar to the Toronto Council Meeting system … and comments could be submitted before hand to the Transportation planning department. This would help them see conflicts before hand and be more pro-active – for example it would allow us to see that despite construction on an offramp, there is no increase in GO Service for that period and that total throughput is going to decrease … and then we (the public) could then go and send nasty emails to GO Transit asking for improved service during that period.
There is no way a group of 100 transit planners or however many are employed will ever catch every edge case and ridiculous situation that shows up … so let the mob help.
LikeLike
This is true, but this behaviour is helped by some behaviours of some cyclists. It is with much frequency that one can observe a cyclist operating in vehicle mode suddenly and without warning make use of a pedestrian crossing without dismounting to walk the bike over the crossing. Slightly less frequent is the occurrence of cyclists that will shift to the sidewalk where it is physically possible, thus reinforcing the misconception that bicycles are not “real” vehicles.
Roads are for bicycles and motorists need to be reminded of this often. By the same token, sidewalks and pedestrian crossings are not for bicycles, and cyclists need to be reminded of this just as often.
Steve: As a pedestrian, what I find extremely frustrating is the attitude among some cyclists that they have to ignore the rules because the street isn’t safe for them. However, in the process, they may be endangering pedestrians and even motorists by behaving in unpredictable (or at least inappropriate) ways. If the street isn’t safe, work to change the design.
LikeLike
Thank you Steve, I look forward to reading this article. When I look at the proposal and its suggested impact to me, even assuming this was built with rail capacity somehow magically either linking around Lakeshore East, or enough additional tracks in Lakeshore it would still require a couple of additional fast links (BRT in Finch and Steeles east of Bayview or Leslie?) on top of LRT in Sheppard to draw much more core bound ridership east to Stouffville, or a basic shift in the origin pattern of new ridership to the core. Would such a new ridership pattern not also require a significant improvement in transit in the 905 feeding Stouffville RER (?), and a near subway frequency in the RER line (i.e. headway at 10 minutes, with a steady drift towards 5)? I really do wish the Yonge relief study, and a complete network analysis had been completed first.
I fear that as it stands while this may provide a much improved route into the core for much of the city and region, it will not actually provide the type of capacity for enough of the system to actually permit maintaining the transit share, let alone getting the growth in transit share I believe is required to make Toronto work. Toronto needs to find a way of getting the equivalent of essentially all growth to transit, cycle or walk, plus about 5% of the current auto load (likely 7-8% in some of the worst areas). To my mind Transit City, plus a Don Mills subway, offered at least Toronto proper that kind of prospect, by speeding up medium and longer transit rides, and permitting a rejigging of bus routes to improve rides away from these routes. I hope that a proper modeling is actually done, and then followed. Again Steve, I look forward to your article, and perhaps even a revisit (again) of a Grand Plan, adjusted to take into account the likely realities that will be in a post SmartTrack Toronto. What will be required in order to achieve this type of transformation? I suspect it will be SmartTrack (as we are going to get it anyway) plus Transit City, plus a Don Mills Subway. While RER is a required layer, I think SmartTrack is rewriting priorities, in a way that it is inverting the build priorities because it is a political tool, not the next leg required. I also think even in terms of RER, it is pressing to put these out of order. The questions that need to be asked and answered is: Where are people coming from? Where are they then going to? I am not under the impression that was at the core of SmartTrack as a plan. Steve I look forward to seeing your commentary, and perhaps even a revisit of an adjusted Grand Plan, which I know will be based on these most basic of questions.
LikeLike
Absolutely, and here again, the Ford attitude was very destructive. Many many, bikes can move very safely in a relatively small amount of space. However, this requires the creation and enforcement of the space that is so allotted. This means that where there are lanes dedicated to bikes, or bikes and transit, they need to be enforced. They cannot be used for cars stopping, or driving in them. One of the things I liked about some of the sketches I had seen for LRT routes, was that they included space for dedicated bike lanes.
Getting people out of their cars is what is important in terms of making Toronto work, whether that be, to walk, bike or ride transit. The issue with cars is that they simply require too much space to now be functional. Cyclists need to respect the space allotted to pedestrians, and where they must share space be aware that because they are moving so much faster, they must also accept a higher responsibility. Also the police need to treat them as vehicles, and deal with motorists who abuse their space with enforcement, and do the same with cyclists when they abuse the sidewalks.
LikeLike
@JF
Yeah, a lot of the points I made were targeted for the old city where most of the streetcar service is. It’s where I live and those are items that I think would would work here. I didn’t even talk about the outdated parking, turning rules that turn the downtown into one giant gridlock on weekends (which is at its worst when the Gardiner is closed).
Of course, not all intersections need a pedestrian scramble cycle, nor will restricting left turns at Kipling and Eglinton (e.g.) do anything beneficial. Most of the congestion in the inner and outer suburbs is due to sheer volume of vehicles.
But things like a bike network, and (enforced) bus priority lanes would be beneficial for a lot of the city, and would allow for transit to be a better option, so that people don’t feel they have to drive – or at least – give priority based on density of passengers, which should act as a disincentive for driving.
LikeLike
In 2007, the TTC said that the new signalling system would enter service in 2012, then they changed it to 2016, then 2018, and now they are saying that it would “likely be complete by 2020”. It is time for John Tory to replace TTC CEO Andy Byford as well as appoint a new TTC Chair. Byford wasted no time in hastily changing line names to line numbers and to install new inconsistent signs depicting the switch to numbers but when it comes to crucial changes like the signal system, elevator installations, elevator and escalator repairs, and other important stuff all we get is DELAY DELAY DELAY. Frankly for one of the best paid government officials in Canada, Byford should have done much better and it is time for replacement. Byford does indeed have a good track record in London, England but he has failed in Toronto, Canada and it’s time for a replacement.
Steve: Byford spent much of his first years here on superficial changes and has begun digging into the real meat of the organization later in the game than he should have. The signalling project was inherited from the Webster era, but it’s been Byford’s long enough that he has to “own” it. His new Deputy, Mike Palmer, has a strong background in signals. This will help from a managerial point of view including much needed understanding of complexities, but some things just take time. One major problem with this project was that it was under-scoped at the outset, but freighted with being an important part of increasing capacity. That’s how the TTC got the funding for what, otherwise, would have been considered a purely maintenance project.
LikeLike
I do not know how you came up with the conclusion that the “DRL would become completely unnecessary once SmartTrack is up and running.” Look at where the DRL line is east of Kennedy Road and where most of the people who the DRL would, hopefully, bleed off Yonge and the east end of the Bloor Danforth lines are located. Being generous we might say that everyone in west Scarborough would ride east to the Stouffville line to get down town though in reality they probably wouldn’t. This still leaves a lot of people in North York and East York, not to mention west Markham who would still get on the Yonge subway somewhere. It is in the wrong service area to replace the DRL.
Its projected headway of every 15 minutes, say every 10 is too small to carry many people. There is already a 30 minute headway so it would only add 2 to 4 trains per hour in the peak which would add 4,000 to 6,000 passengers per hour capacity. This would not make much of an impact if the rest of the system continues to grow at its present rate.
To be useful as a DRL line it needs to be closer to Yonge Street and go at least as far north as Eglinton. It would be great if there were a surface right of way it could use to get up into Markham and don’t even mention the Leaside Spur. It is NOT available. By going into Markham it would get rid of the pressure to extend the Yonge Subway north of Steeles. It does not have the ability to absorb all the riding that would come down from York region. Toronto has to state that the Yonge subway will not be extended into York as it will never have the capacity to absorb the ridership from York and allow the people of Toronto, who pay for it, to get on. Despite the TTC’s claims about the ability of ATC, they will not get a 20% capacity increase on the line. There are too many other limiting factors.
I believe that Tory got his idea from an SRRA study from last year. It appears to be done by or for developers who want to tie their assets together with high speed transit. They at least recognize that it needs much higher frequency, at least every 5 minutes to start, than GO or RER can provide, more subway like equipment though capable of speeds of 160 km/h with an average station spacing of 2.5 km. This would require an average acceleration rate of 0.8 m/s/s for 1.25 km then a deceleration rate of 0.8 m/s/s for the same distance. The power consumption would be outstanding.
They also realize that Union cannot handle the traffic and it would need a subway under Wellington street eventually. Even if the line could be built immediately at the future capacity that they claim, it still would be in the wrong place to eliminate the need for a DRL.
Robert Wightman
LikeLike
Exactly, the relative speed of the non-auto options needs to not be subject to the issues surrounding auto. Why would I want to sit on a bus, when I can sit in my much more comfortable car? It is critical that transit be the fastest and most reliable option. Do the best we can to get the vehicles out of traffic, on as many busy routes as reasonably possible. I should know when the bus (or whatever) will get there, and how long it will take me within a very narrow window. If transit is much more reliable and time consistent than driving, it can even afford to be a little slower, and still be preferred. Truly separated lanes or even roadways is better still, but transit needs to move better than anything else.
LikeLike
This is a side issue to the discussion, but I’m a little unclear on why this is so objectionable. The only instance where I would use a pedestrian crossing would be to make a left turn in two stages at a major intersection like King and Spadina. If the expectation is that, rather than using the crossing in two stages, one should always use the left turn lane, this is incredibly unrealistic. I doubt that anyone objecting to this practice has ever tried to make a left turn on a bike in this manner. I used to do it, and I had to give up. Here’s what happens: you stand in the middle of the turn lane, unable to make the turn safely in the time that a car would be able to (because you accelerate much, much more slowly), while you hold up angry drivers behind you who honk, yell, and eventually drive around you. Usually, you won’t make the left turn anyway because of all the oncoming traffic speeding through the orange light, and then all you’ve accomplished is to inconvenience the drivers behind you, some of whom would otherwise have made the left turn if you hadn’t been so set on obeying the rules. Crucially, one or more of those drivers you’ve just pissed off will be a homicidal maniac. So perhaps some haven’t realized that this practice is based on staying the hell out of the way of cars, both out of consideration (because I drive too and of course I get mad when bikes hold me up for no good reason) and for self-preservation, which is why I’m a bit confused when drivers complain about riders using crossings and riding in the gutter.
Is the issue that some bike riders aren’t careful to stay out of the way of pedestrians using the crossing? Well, there are plenty of assholes on bikes. But that’s a separate issue. I have more dangerous encounters on the road with other bike riders than I do with motorists, and I don’t know what can be done about that. (Licensing is often proposed as a solution, but that doesn’t seem to cut down on the number of reckless drivers so I don’t see why it would cut down on reckless bike riding. Right now, cops won’t even bother to stop anyone who blatantly goes through a red light unless they’re specifically assigned to hand out tickets to bikers, so how are you going to get them to devote the significant resources that would be required to enforce bike licensing laws?)
LikeLike
Even if $3 billion were to magically appear today, the DRL will not be built in a short time. Toronto needs rail transit as soon as possible. We need to find something that can built relatively quickly. The Sao Paulo Metro (Line 15) was built at a rate much higher than metro. Bombardier was quoted saying that 3 km were built per year.
Even though the Innovia Monorail carsets are smaller than metro vehicles, with the CityFlo 650 controller, it can manage 48000 passengers per direction per hour. If we build the DRL as a monorail using the Innovia product, we can have the DRL up and running much more quickly. Instead of digging big holes in the ground for metro constructions, support columns for monorails are much easier to build. The slender nature of those vehicles will also means smaller stations.
Since it is difficult to put a station near Union Station, the best alternative would be build the terminal near Queen Street. For passengers bound for Union Station, an Advance People Mover can be used to run a relay service to Union.
There is nothing wrong with introducing another fleet into the TTC. Right now, cost is more important than parts commonality. Look at Air Canada. Even though they have a relatively young Airbus A320 fleet, they still went ahead to purchase the Boeing 737Max. Yes, it will require a new maintenance depot, pilot training and certification, but they deem it to be worthwhile.
Steve: In your dreams. You are talking about building an elevated structure through some residential neighbourhoods and into the heart of the city. You may not care about the effects, but many others will. As for stations, their bulk is less a function of the train width than of the space needed to store and circulate passengers, not to mention that the vertical elements must deposit people on sidewalks that in many of the affected areas are not too wide now. A people mover from Queen to Union? No, I don’t think so.
LikeLike
I wonder, myself. I think making fundamental change, requires first getting real handle on what is happening, and the lay of the land. Much of what is really required will mean changing both the environment within and beyond the TTC itself. The advocacy and proposals the TTC has come out with more recently, and the attitude of ATU in its report both indicate a cultural shift in the approach of the management and line staff of the TTC.
I would hope that he has nearly completed his metrics, but much more importantly, I hope he is doing the very important coaching role required to get the TTC to adopt a new culture in the face of on-going cuts, while doing damage control. The organizational shift in thinking needs to be largely completed. If it is going to stick, it cannot be something imposed from on high. I think the tone set at city hall has made this very much harder. This, however, I think this is the real thing that Byford needs to accomplish.
How seriously the TTC takes any new metrics, and which ones they choose to measure themselves by will be a major reflection on the degree to which Byford is succeeding. I hope that they are very careful, to create a set of metrics, that they both own and control the outcomes of. They do not control the run time on surface routes, however, they do control dispatch, they do not control their budget. To the extent service is restricted due to budget, the amount of service they run. They do control the specifics of the schedule, and how they choose to operate their system.
I suspect that Byford was probably planning on having a little time to really understand the system before he was placed in charge, and chose to take that time anyway, to both understand and get the entire team behind whatever direction he is taking. I hope that means a better long term direction, and a gradual shift to a culture of service delivery. However, what he can accomplish is still greatly limited by the scope of the budget he is granted, and whether it represents opportunities to add service and reliability or whether the culture will be dominated by fear due to ongoing cuts.
Kick anybody often enough, and they frankly just won’t care, now try to motivate those people as a manager.
LikeLike
I’m pretty sure that in 2007 the scope of the project (that was to be completed by 2012) was only re-signalling the Union-Eglinton portion of the line. Only later did the scope grow to the entire Y-U-S, and became part of the project to switch to ATC.
So if we assume that Union-Eglinton is half of the work (including project setup), then the time frame also approximately doubles. At that point, the new date is 3 years behind schedule on a 10-year project, which isn’t great, but not unreasonable.
LikeLike
Yes, and as you say in essence is a piece of marketing fluff. Robert, I would have thought your opinion on this would have been stronger and clearer.
To relieve the pressure on Yonge, the route people will use as an alternative, actually has to serve their ride. Richmond Hill is not going that way, and that is where too much of the 905 load threatening Yonge is to come from.
I would argue that we need to redirect inside 416 ridership growth of about about 1k hourly riders per year away from Yonge (ie every year adds about 1k extra to the overload or pent up demand inside 416). Assuming that SmartTrack works, and here Robert is absolutely right it is too small and in the wrong place, 4k additional capacity, means about 4 years, except most of that capacity will be filled by 905 ridership. Even if it that capacity were to be only used by 416 load, it would full 3 years before it could be built.
We need Richmond Hill ROW for Richmond Hill to the core with really good service to keep these riders away from Yonge, and this might even help inside 416 a little. However, that might be perhaps maybe 2-4k worth of help, (I would fully expect the vast majority of a 4-6 trains per hour capacity to be filled before the service entered the 416) or buying at best a couple of years. Toronto needs projects to support a shift in mode. LRT on Sheppard, Finch West, Eglinton, Don Mills, Morningside and for Scarborough RT were all meant to allow huge ridership growth in the outer 416, and support a much larger transit share. In order to support growth the TTCs core arteries need to be able to carry the load. Yonge is hopelessly clogged, and SmartTrack is not the major stint required.
TTC and GO need to essentially support a doubling of their ridership in the next couple of decades, not add a small increment. RER in Stouffville, is really important, and a great way for many Scarborough and Markham riders to get to the core, but not a solution to overload on Yonge. For GO providing service similar to that currently in Lakeshore (6 trains/hour not 4) would perhaps just satisfy growth in Markham/Stouffville, and Richmond Hill. That leaves nothing in terms of capacity for 416.
LikeLike
Thank you for your response, Robert. But what if instead of just all day 2 way service on Stouffville Line, it is done on Richmond Hill Line, Barrie Line, as well as the Stouffville Line? That would surely render a DRL unnecessary. Also the Stouffville line in the future will be able to pick passengers not just from Kennedy but also from Main/Danforth station (not currently possible as Stouffville trains don’t stop at the station).
Steve: The connection at Main & Danforth is a fantasy. Remember that you are talking about the same riders who feel that the connection from RT to subway at Kennedy is an excessive imposition, and you are asking them to transfer onto GO trains at the point where they will be most heavily loaded. There are many trips originating inside of Toronto that cannot be served by the GO corridors which will, at best, offload traffic that would otherwise pile up from growin 905-to-core demand.
A Union West and a Union East station might help or perhaps another level to Union station.
Steve: Union West has already been proposed and is workable. Union East is more of a problem. Another level at Union would be an engineering nightmare because it would be well below the water table, including any station.
LikeLike
This is the first time this has been clearly stated anywhere in the media, although the Star noted in an upbeat manner, that John Tory adopted connected commercial property developer, Iain Dobson’s, 2013 regional relief line, which was produced by his commercial property service. The source and the rationale for the project, which doesn’t fit with Tory’s numbers, should be big news. Unfortunately we’re in a honeymoon period with a Mayor supported strongly by all the majors.
Iain is also the lead author of a January 2013 report warning that 905 office parks will face the same stagnant conditions as the 416, unless politicians make two changes.
First, the study argues that because there is no market for underground or pay parking for suburban offices, the only way to improve densities and create walkable conditions, is to open up the zoning allowing new uses.
Second the study argues that a rapid transit link would lead to higher densities and presents the Washington Metro extension to Tyson’s Corner VA, as a “an excellent example of the success that can be had transforming a suburban office park..” Unfortunately TC’s new retail developments are one and two stories high, and surrounded by surface parking. The report later tempers its praise, “it is still to soon to be seen if Tyson’s Corner is a success or falls short..”
Despite this, the report recommends the Tyson’s Corner treatment for the Airport Corporate Centre. It might not add density or walkability, but it would raise property values, as retailers buy up available lots and space, making profits for commercial investors.
LikeLike
Sao Paulo has approved monorail technology for Line 16 and 17. They are being constructed now. Metro technology is great as long as someone is willing to pay for it. During its construction, people will be affected . Metros do not magically appear underground.
Monorails have changed a lot since the last century. The ones being built in Riyadh like Sao Paulo do not obstruct natural light. Traction is provided by rubber tires which means that there will be little noise pollution. Visually, it will be a lot better than the elevated trains in Chicago. Yes, it will make the view less natural. However, removing buses and cars off the road will make the air cleaner.
Station placement involves purchashing the affected properties and redeveloping it. This would be the same as metro stations. Bus loops, station exits all consume space. If redevelopment is to happen at station sites, they can be integrated into shopping malls and office buildings.
Toronto is choking in traffic right now. The 404 and 401 have heavy traffic even at 22:00. The time to choose is over, more transit is needed now. How can Canada competes when the BRIC nations have more roads, rail, high speed rail and reactors than us? Why are we debating technology when high speed rail will one day link Moscow and Beijing?
Steve, I think both our hearts are at improving the TTC. Refraining from a political discussion, I just want to discuss technicals and economics. We expect TTC to be political netural. If we need to move 10km in 5 minutes, we would need an average speed of 120 km/h. Factoring in acceleration and deceleration speeds, we would need to hit 200km/h to meet the target. Politicians can wrap it around national security and air pollution to sell it. But this is not a political forum. This is why I do not want to discuss it.
LikeLike
2 weeks ago was the 35th anniversary of the Mississauga train derailment. It was also an opportunity for Mississauga Mayor Hazel McCallion, and Mississauga & Toronto councilors, to present an argument against the quiet movement of CP freight trains carrying dangerous materials … and perhaps an argument in favor of running GO Trains on the CP rail track.
Unfortunately there was no such call.
Last week the City of Toronto announced their time lines for construction and reconstruction of the Six-Points interchange. One would think that this massive project (which has been planned for more than a decade) would provide impetus to the City of Toronto, City of Mississauga, TTC, MiWay and Metrolinx to accelerate the (long delayed) construction of the Kipling Gateway so that it would be open before construction/reconstruction of the Six Points interchange started.
But it seems that the stakeholders don’t see that as a priority.
Finally there is the example of waterfront transit construction. With a “Transit First” plan it would have made a fascinating amount of sense to align the funding & project work for the Union streetcar loop reconstruction, wye installation at Queen’s Quay & Bay, and possibly the excavation of the eastern portal, with the Queen’s Quay & Spadina reconstruction.
But that is clearly not what the priority is.
We often hear about how big plans & mega projects will be transformational, but these missed opportunities to implement small improvements, align projects, and plan and work ahead are the really transformational projects … because they change the way we think about finding solutions for our major transport infrastructure & network problems.
Cheers, Moaz
LikeLike
This Kevin’s comment:
The DRL in the east is planned to extend north to Eglinton. The first station on the Richmond Hill line after Union is Oriole, which is about 500 M south of Sheppard. They do not overlap.
Also, even at full build-out in 2031, the Richmond Hill GO line is planned to have 43 trains inbound and 41 trains outbound per day. That’s a lot, but it is nowhere near the capacity of the DRL.
Source is page 54 here.
The answer is that we need both. We need the all-day two-way Richmond Hill GO train to take passengers off the Yonge line originating in Richmond Hill and Thornhill.
We also need to move the Oriole GO station 500 M north up the line to co-locate it with the Leslie subway station. Then it can take traffic that would otherwise be headed to the Yonge line.
We also need the DRL to take traffic originating along Eglinton and points south. This becomes of critical importance once the Crosstown LRT opens along Eglinton. Otherwise Crosstown will provide a fast way of moving people to the Yonge line, which has zero spare capacity for them.
There is no one silver bullet for relieving congestion on the Yonge line. We need the DRL and we also need all-day two-way service on the Richmond Hill GO train.
Steve: It’s also worth noting that there is a huge amount of developable land at Don Mills and Eglinton, as well as in Thorncliffe Park that would be served by a DRL.
LikeLike
Have you walked or driven across or ridden the Richmond Hill line? It runs in a valley for most of its length which makes transferring between it and a surface line difficult. It is 14 miles from the USRC to Cummer while if is only 10 miles or 11 miles up Yonge Street to the hydro corridor. The line has many curves which would preclude running at high speed down the valley. The GO trip takes 25 minutes and electrifying it would not make much difference because it has so few stops. The line would need straightening which would cost a lot of money.
The lack of an easy transfer to surface lines at York Mills, Lawrence, Eglinton, Leaside, Bloor-Danforth and other cross streets (lack of right of way width) would greatly reduce the usefulness of this line. It misses too many high traffic areas that the DRL would run through such as Thornecliffe Park, Flemingdon Park, Pape and Gerrard, Lever Brothers, the Don Lands to have a major impact on reducing demand on Yonge.
The Stouffville line is too far east to intercept a lot of passengers who now go to Yonge. The supposed transfer at Main is a non starter. Go out there and walk it in a snow storm. As Kevin Love and Steve have said the line is useless to reduce demand on Yonge in Toronto. That being said it should be developed to get York region passengers off the subway. That is were its use as a DRL line would be very significant.
The Barrie line is too far west to help Yonge much but it might remove some passengers from the extension to Vaughan.
Toronto needs the DRL not for the downtown elite but for the riders outside the core of the 416 and for some from the inner 905 can continue to get to their jobs in the downtown.
The problem with these stations is that they would probably be stub ended and not allow people to cross Yonge Street. This would especially be a problem for traffic coming in from the east as most of the passengers want to get west of Yonge.
I don’t know how much stronger you want than “It is in the wrong service area to replace the DRL.” would you like a couple of expletives or Ford brother quotes.
LikeLike
Sorry, I was being a little sarcastic, but the Ford brothers quotes would have been nice, along with a little human bowling to express the full extent of how you feel about it.
LikeLike
Unfortunately in too many cases we have missed these opportunities. The LRT projects are not that massive (don’t think of them individually as mega, unlike a subway), however they would also be transformational. At this juncture I would argue that even the inclusion of a couple of BRT, in some of the outer 416 areas could have a transformational effect. However, these should really have been considered at the time of development, not 3 and 4 decades later. Mississauga, is at the point that it has missed the boat on building routes in advance. However, the BRT to the airport, if met by Crosstown soon, and a BRT the subway and to Lakeshore GO RER would important, but nowhere near to the degree they would have been had the area been developed around transit, as opposed to trying to serve an area already developed around the car after the fact. The waterfront east, and west are required, the east still has the opportunity to define the nature of development, and needs to be built now.
Robert, I would argue that in some ways this is useful, in that it defines what the line can be used for. Speed wise some banking could be added (at considerable expense) to allow greater speed, however, Richmond Hill, in my mind can relieve northern 416, however only truly be effective by not making too many stops. In a perfect world it would somehow tie in with the DRL and Crosstown, however, it needs to have restricted stops in order to achieve the purpose of attracting core bound riders with a relatively short direct trip, and how (even if you wanted to) you could connect to the BDL is beyond me. The Don Mills subway line, provides a real linkage to the rest of the TTC system and is meant to provide real service into the system, not just go to the core.
While I have considered and argued for LRT for Richmond Hill line, (although the higher speed variety ie 100+K operations) and it would relieve some traffic from Yonge, it would not relieve the need for a Don Mills Subway. If you lightened the load of riders that were core bound from the Steeles, and Finch buses, and perhaps the Sheppard subway, you would still not remove the need for the DRL, and if you stop much more than that, and Richmond Hill riders are going to Yonge, and that is basically game over (business case for the extension to Richmond Hill has 24K riders boarding north of Finch). I have argued that high quality Richmond Hill service connect to a Don Mills Subway, but it cannot replace it, and Richmond Hill would still need to connect to core, as its next stop.
LikeLike
I look forward to Pete’s post on Wednesday when he buys his Tims at a TTC station (Pape perhaps), notes that the price has gone up, decides that the signage redesign is to blame and once again calls for Byford to be sacked (i.e. paid a massive severance in the manner of Gary Webster and then snapped up by another agency).
The fact that Metrolinx have made no move to relocate Oriole makes me wonder about their commitment to mobility hubs, especially when as noted upthread there are few other locations when GO Richmond Hill can connect to TTC services without overcoming significant geographic challenges.
LikeLike
Moaz: 12 years since the Sheppard line opened and counting … and 12 years since people have been saying that this ought to happen. Metrolinx has talked about it too in Big Move consultation and I’m sure it will show up in RER consultation as well.
Big question is, why hasn’t it happened yet? Is there a cost issue? Is there a service-related reason (perhaps GO prefers its current station location with parking lot space under the highway). Perhaps it is related to railway regulation?
Or maybe it’s just seen as one of those little “nice to have, maybe we’ll do it one day” projects that get little serious attention because of the overwhelming focus on megaprojects?
There is a plan to build ancillary GO station entrances on the west end of Hurontario St at Cooksville and Port Credit GO stations. This would go along with construction of the Hurontario-Main LRT to make it easier for passengers to make pedestrian & transit connections.
Essentially construction would involve a small building, stairs, and an elevator along with a short platform extension. Not much work (in theory) and one wonders why the work could not be started now (especially at Cooksville Station which needs better access to Hurontario St for bus connections and pedestrian movements) rather than waiting for the LRT to be built.
Cheers, Moaz
LikeLike