[getsmart-l] Re: getsmart-l Digest, Vol 29, Issue 17

[John O'Gorman]

What we need, John, is a matrix - a mix of modes, fuels and methods - of transportation.

For your longer distance - trains of course. A REAL network of trains by speed and size as they offer in Europe and we might have built here if Mullroney hadn't killed/abandoned rail.

Surface routes do have the benefits that you suggest BUT wider streets become less pedestrian friendly and tend to lose human-scale and human appeal.

Trolley busses are completely ignored but they are better for the air and are a compromise between light rail and bus.

Even sidewalks, cleared sidewalks, are required to get people to and from the primary vehicle networks - a fact often overlooked in the 'burbs for the political reason of "Not on my side of the street" as well as cost avoidance.

Scooters are popular in France and Italy as I have seen. Are they popular in Scandinavia and Russia where it is cold and snowy as here?

Thanks for the discussion points. Dialogue will bring out all the values.

  From: ECommGroup at aol.com 
  To: getsmart-l at list.web.net 
  Sent: Friday, March 23, 2007 12:49 PM
  Subject: [getsmart-l] Re: getsmart-l Digest, Vol 29, Issue 17


  Hi.  John Stillich here.  Perhaps this is publishable?...



  Keep Streetcars off Arterials

   

  As we all know, the city of Toronto floated its dream LRT/streetcar transit plan recently - 122 km of dedicated rights-of-way at a cost of $6 billion, fully operational by 2021.  Fortunately, the funding does not exist to implement this plan.

   

  I say this because I've never been a fan of streetcar lines on arterial roadways.  I believe that one of the most critical considerations when dealing with Toronto's traffic congestion is that transit must be able to quickly transport not just local travelers, but longer distance commuters as well, because it is the longer distance driver that creates most of the traffic problems in the city, and because most growth in the future will generate longer distance trips. 



  These commuters will not be well served by the proposed rail-based plan.  Because streetcars/LRTs will be stopping at every arterial intersection and likely at several stops between each arterial, the service will simply be too slow compared to driving by car (especially when transit transfers are considered).  Because of this, I think the expectation of 75 million new TTC users (about 250,000 per business day) is highly optimistic.

   

  Importantly, it’s not possible for a streetcar track to accommodate both an express and a local service on the same right-of-way, even though express services – especially suburb-to-suburb – are even now a huge unmet demand. Another problem with rail-based services is that if there is a problem that delays one streetcar, it backs up the service behind it.  Although dedicated rights-of-way will reduce this problem somewhat, it will still exist.  

   

  I believe it would be far better to implement a network of bus-only road lanes, if the roadbed is constructed of superior smoothness and durability, and with transit services provided by a variety of high-quality, comfortable buses (not the bargain-basement clunkers TTC patrons are forced to put up with).  Importantly, bus-only lanes can accommodate both express and local services, as well as Wheeltrans and community shuttle services and, of course, if there is a problem with one vehicle, others can maneuver around it.  There is also the possibility of emergency vehicles using these lanes if other lanes are congested.

   

  Assuming the 122-kilometre length of the TTC plan, I estimate that a bus-based service would cost half as much as the streetcar/LRT plan, and can be implemented much more quickly.

   

  Even with some significant amendments to the routes proposed by the city, a bus-based plan would be less expensive than $6 billion.  For instance, if the Finch Avenue route were extended eastward all the way to Meadowvale Boulevard, if the Lakeshore route were extended eastward to Kingston Road and Eglinton Avenue, if an Albion/Wilson/Ellesmere-to-Port Union route were added, if a Victoria Park route from Steeles to Queen were added, and if an Islington route from Steeles to Lakeshore were also added, the total cost of a bus-based plan would still be only $5.3 billion -- or less, if there are expenditure offsets in the normal road rehabilitation budget.

   

  (This cost estimate was based on 230 km at $20 million per kilometer for roadbed construction, 500 new vehicles at $600,000 each, and $400 million in accessory costs.)

   

  There is an assumption by many that only more streetcars and subways can attract the number of riders needed to reduce traffic congestion, but I believe that that is merely a reflection of the poor quality of bus services that exist today.  More frequent services, more express services (inter- and intra-municipal), service integration with neighbouring municipalities, much more comfortable vehicles, bus trains, transit shelters at every stop, signal priority, and enforcement of bus-only laws (think cameras on buses photo-ticketing vehicles ahead of them) can be just as effective, at much less cost.

   

  Interestingly, there is another unmet need in the GTA – a cross-GTA rapid transit line.  A 58-km line from Liverpool Rd in Pickering through Toronto to Hurontario Street in Mississauga would cost $5.8 billion and carry up to 150m new passengers per year – an average of $39 per passenger.  In contrast, the new LRT/Streetcar plan works out to $6.0 billion / 74m = $82.  If the bus-lane concept carried 74 million new passengers per year, that would average out to about $42 (based on $3.15b for 122km). 



------------------------------------------------------------------------------


  _______________________________________________
  getsmart-l mailing list
  getsmart-l at list.web.net
  http://list.web.net/lists/listinfo/getsmart-l
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://list.web.net/archives/getsmart-l/attachments/20070326/26f595cc/attachment.htm