ION Stage I: what would you do differently?

[danbrotherston]

I really must ask what you folks think grade separation would achieve? Who benefits. What does this investment gain us.

The Courtland and Wilson examples are the most stark. The ONLY benefit drivers, and have zero benefit for LRT riders.

I'm used to money being spent on drivers, what especially bugs me, is that this money would be labeled "transit"...but it isn't being spent on transit.

The single grade separated station (not even the right of way, just the station) that I support, I do so because I believe it would improve the rider experience significantly to be worth the cost both financially and also to the experience of the users of that particular station.

I know I've heard the claims that going underground in DTK would improve the speed, but it doesn't. Going down KING improves the speed, that doesn't require going underground. I've also heard, not waiting for lights, but again, waiting at lights is a choice we've made, not a requirement of at grade operation (pretty clearly since the trains don't wait at all intersections).

[Bjays93]

I really must ask what you folks think grade separation would achieve? Who benefits. What does this investment gain us.

The Courtland and Wilson examples are the most stark. The ONLY benefit drivers, and have zero benefit for LRT riders.

I'm used to money being spent on drivers, what especially bugs me, is that this money would be labeled "transit"...but it isn't being spent on transit.

The single grade separated station (not even the right of way, just the station) that I support, I do so because I believe it would improve the rider experience significantly to be worth the cost both financially and also to the experience of the users of that particular station.

I know I've heard the claims that going underground in DTK would improve the speed, but it doesn't. Going down KING improves the speed, that doesn't require going underground. I've also heard, not waiting for lights, but again, waiting at lights is a choice we've made, not a requirement of at grade operation (pretty clearly since the trains don't wait at all intersections).

Lights should be programmed to give lrt priority. That's fixable without grade separation but grade separation does a few other things. 

First off, in the downtown it improves the pedestrian experience, particularly when it comes to the way the stations are currently organized. 

Secondly grade separation would reduce accidents, which there have been quite a few of since the lrt got up and running and can be quite costly. 

And thirdly, yes it does in fact benefit cars at the aforementioned intersections. Having an eco friendly city does not mean making driving unfeasible to the point that people only choose transit, it means incentivizing transit to make it the better mode of transportation. 

Livability and maneuverability are huge measures of an attractive city, and in rush hour around the fairview park area it can be absolutely horrific. 

I'd rather money be spent to ensure that Fairway rd can continue to keep up with the existing demand, than i would see millions get spent on widening the 401 for future demand

[danbrotherston]

I really must ask what you folks think grade separation would achieve? Who benefits. What does this investment gain us.

The Courtland and Wilson examples are the most stark. The ONLY benefit drivers, and have zero benefit for LRT riders.

I'm used to money being spent on drivers, what especially bugs me, is that this money would be labeled "transit"...but it isn't being spent on transit.

The single grade separated station (not even the right of way, just the station) that I support, I do so because I believe it would improve the rider experience significantly to be worth the cost both financially and also to the experience of the users of that particular station.

I know I've heard the claims that going underground in DTK would improve the speed, but it doesn't. Going down KING improves the speed, that doesn't require going underground. I've also heard, not waiting for lights, but again, waiting at lights is a choice we've made, not a requirement of at grade operation (pretty clearly since the trains don't wait at all intersections).

Lights should be programmed to give lrt priority. That's fixable without grade separation but grade separation does a few other things. 

First off, in the downtown it improves the pedestrian experience, particularly when it comes to the way the stations are currently organized. 

Secondly grade separation would reduce accidents, which there have been quite a few of since the lrt got up and running and can be quite costly. 

And thirdly, yes it does in fact benefit cars at the aforementioned intersections. Having an eco friendly city does not mean making driving unfeasible to the point that people only choose transit, it means incentivizing transit to make it the better mode of transportation. 

Livability and maneuverability are huge measures of an attractive city, and in rush hour around the fairview park area it can be absolutely horrific. 

I'd rather money be spent to ensure that Fairway rd can continue to keep up with the existing demand, than i would see millions get spent on widening the 401 for future demand

You have to explain this? Are you referring to the split stations? That would be improved by the LRT going down King, which again, does not require grade separation. I actually think running the LRT down King would improve the pedestrian experience, a transit mall is vastly more pleasant than the car dominated road we have most of the time today.  It *would* disrupt the King festivals...we might have to take over another parallel street for festivals....

Grade separation would reduce collisions, there have been a few in the sections you are proposing, but others still occur in other sections. But their cost is tiny compared with the cost of running underground and at the rate they are happening now, will not ever pay even a small fraction of the cost of tunnelling. Adding in the cost of delays for users...you might get a little closer.

I disagree, driving must be disincentivised...especially given the current level of subsidy, and especially given that a driving friendly city is NECESSARILY oppressive to transit and walking. But that's a philosophical question. But even if you are not against cars, which I am not in practice, the relevant point here is that these costs here would be blamed on transit, we must correctly ascribe these costs to drivers, and explain clearly that drivers are the beneficiaries of these investments. This is just one more way in which drivers are subsidized and pretend that they are not.

"The fairway area can be horrific"...you and I have very different definitions of the word "horrific"...there's some limited congestion for a short time...having driven through Toronto, and even London...in my experience, it's pretty minimal.

It is oppressively busy, noisy, and polluted...as all car dependent places are...further subsidizing and easing car travel will only make that aspect worse, not better.

[ijmorlan]

First off, in the downtown it improves the pedestrian experience, particularly when it comes to the way the stations are currently organized. 

How would having to take stairs or an elevator to get to the platform improve the pedestrian experience?

I do agree that enclosed stations would improve the pedestrian experience, but those can be done at grade for much less expense than burying the entire station.

Livability and maneuverability are huge measures of an attractive city, and in rush hour around the fairview park area it can be absolutely horrific. 

I'd rather money be spent to ensure that Fairway rd can continue to keep up with the existing demand, than i would see millions get spent on widening the 401 for future demand

Ummm, as someone who has driven in a number of cities on several occasions, I can assure you that the traffic around Fairvew Park is never “horrific”. Fairway Rd. is already 4 lanes plus ubiquitous turn lanes. Any additional capacity expansion should be in the form of transit lanes to ensure that public transit isn’t slowed down at busy times by inefficient transportation, or possibly in the form of entirely self-funding toll lanes (not sure how that works in practice, but the point is we have better things to spend our tax money on than yet more free-to-use general traffic lanes).

[ac3r]

I really must ask what you folks think grade separation would achieve? Who benefits. What does this investment gain us.

The Courtland and Wilson examples are the most stark. The ONLY benefit drivers, and have zero benefit for LRT riders.

I'm used to money being spent on drivers, what especially bugs me, is that this money would be labeled "transit"...but it isn't being spent on transit.

The single grade separated station (not even the right of way, just the station) that I support, I do so because I believe it would improve the rider experience significantly to be worth the cost both financially and also to the experience of the users of that particular station.

I know I've heard the claims that going underground in DTK would improve the speed, but it doesn't. Going down KING improves the speed, that doesn't require going underground. I've also heard, not waiting for lights, but again, waiting at lights is a choice we've made, not a requirement of at grade operation (pretty clearly since the trains don't wait at all intersections).

Speed and capacity. If the LRT doesn't have to worry about traffic, it can move faster, which means it'll be easier to improve headways as time goes on. Also, with the LRT as it is, there is no expanding Line 1 after they run double LRVs. You ask what grade separation investment would have got us. By the time 2040 rolls around and we hit our forecasted 800'000+ population (which I believe will be much higher - we hit 600'000 well before we were projected to hit that) - with a good chunk of them living along the LRT line - the LRT might easily end up over capacity which is going to be a challenge to improve at this point. The platforms aren't big enough for any more than 2 LRVs, including a few of them which have no room to be expanded to accommodate more than 2. If it was tunneled, you could run 2, 3 or more LRVs which can carry a lot of people, while also having really fast headways...think 5 minutes in rush hour. Of course I am looking at the long term here, so most of this is moot right now since we don't yet need it, but in 30-40 years I am sure Waterloo Region will have at least 1 million people which is a lot, and with the density they're aiming for, rapid transit is going to become a necessity.

It will also never go much faster than it manages to do already. Perhaps they can speed it up in some places with a few tweaks, but it won't be by a lot. And that will do nothing to help us in the future. Even if we could fit 3 or 4 LRVs in a row, there's no way we can have such long trains crossing all these intersections every 10-15 minutes (or even less as we change headways...I believe the initial plan was to have a 7 minute rush hour headway). Try to think just how long 3 or more LRVs would take to make those awkward 90 degree turns in the core, or those at Hayward or Northfield? It would cause drivers to go livid. I'm all for reducing car usage, but in this country people have the freedom to drive if they want to. We can't make their trips hell just because cars are inherently bad in so many ways. You piss off car drivers too much, you lose public support for transit investment. Signal changes could also improve LRT speed so it doesn't have to stop for lights/traffic, but you'd still never manage to get that thing to take tight corners any faster than it already does...so those 10 seconds it might speed up by not stopping at lights would be so insignificant.

They could have run it down King Street as you said and I actually think that would have been a decent idea and it would have kept the northbound and southbound stations together rather than blocks apart. In the past I have wondered whether or not they could have done that and kept King Street semi-pedestrian only from say Water Street to Queen Street. I am unsure what the safety considerations would have to be for that to happen if there were more pedestrians walking around, but I imagine with proper signals, crossing and fences if they could have done it in a way that would have let the LRT maintain a higher speed without causing much danger to pedestrians or cyclists. Lots of European cities have LRT/tram systems that operate with much denser pedestrian numbers than we have and it seems to work.

Ultimately, if the goal is to reduce car usage and get people to take an environmentally friendly rapid transit system, it needs to go fast and be frequent. The faster, more convenient and passenger friendly it is to use, the more people are going to use it. If density is also a goal, you require the same things. Time is a finite resource in our lives.

[tomh009]

We've discussed this a number of times already and I won't convince ac3r and I also don't expect to be convinced.

But I will point out that there (by my count) only 19 90-degree turns, once both directions are counted, or about 10 per direction. The total time lost to these stations is a relatively small portion of the total end-to-end travel time. And at least some of these turns could be improved in the future without going underground. The easiest way to reduce travel times, though, remains through an increase in speeds, a decrease in dwell times and the granting of signal priority, all of which would have rather low hard costs.

And, finally, grade-separated stations will always be less convenient for passengers, no matter how many elevators or escalators are put in.

[ac3r]

We've discussed this a number of times already and I won't convince ac3r and I also don't expect to be convinced.

And, finally, grade-separated stations will always be less convenient for passengers, no matter how many elevators or escalators are put in.

Correct, I won't haha.

I think less convenient for passengers is debatable. If I'm waiting 15 minutes for a train and it's pouring rain, extremely windy, -36 Celsius with frigid wind gusts or +36 with incredibly humidity, I'd rather be standing underground. I wouldn't say taking an escalator, elevator or the stairs is really that inconvenient.

[Bjays93]

Keep in mind grade separation does not have to mean underground. If u take a look at Ottawa's lrt (which is in fact a disaster yes) there are grade separted sections which are not underground. 

In terms of grade separation improving pedestrian experience. As a pedestrian it's not the nicest having a lrt driving right past u on the sidewalk, it's another thing to worry about when crossing the street, and again assuming long term many more people will be taking the train, walking down the sidewalk and having to walk past crowded stations with people filing on and off busy trains is not the greatest pedestrian experience. 

Again you can say these are small inconveniences, but in my opinion part of what separates good cities from great ones, are the cities that spend that little extra amount of money to make everything more streamlined and convenient

[danbrotherston]

We've discussed this a number of times already and I won't convince ac3r and I also don't expect to be convinced.

And, finally, grade-separated stations will always be less convenient for passengers, no matter how many elevators or escalators are put in.

Correct, I won't haha.

I think less convenient for passengers is debatable. If I'm waiting 15 minutes for a train and it's pouring rain, extremely windy, -36 Celsius with frigid wind gusts or +36 with incredibly humidity, I'd rather be standing underground. I wouldn't say taking an escalator, elevator or the stairs is really that inconvenient.

I'm at ground level right now, but I am neither hot nor cold, I am in a climate controlled room. You do not need to be under ground or elevated to have climate controlled transit shelters. And in fact, many elevated and some underground stations are neither heated nor cooled. If you've been in the NYC subway in the summer, it is stifling, and I remember more than a few days suffering in the hot sun on elevated platforms in California waiting for a BART train.

But taking the time and effort to climb stairs or wait for an elevator does make a transit system less convenient for me as a passenger, and that is fundamental to grade separation.

[plam]

Jennifer Keesmaat writes about the non-wisdom in spending $,$$$,$$$,$$$ to grade separate Eglinton West LRT:

https://twitter.com/jen_keesmaat/status/...3859835905

ION is probably more like St. Clair than Eglinton there, to be fair.

[ijmorlan]

Jennifer Keesmaat writes about the non-wisdom in spending $,$$$,$$$,$$$ to grade separate Eglinton West LRT:

https://twitter.com/jen_keesmaat/status/...3859835905

ION is probably more like St. Clair than Eglinton there, to be fair.

She should have been mayor. What a loss to the city that she is no longer in charge of the planning department!

Note that the amount of money being wasted on burying the western extension of the Eglinton line is enough to pay for an entire LRT line (Sheppard east, or one of the other LRTs in Scarborough; but of course the money being wasted on extending the Danforth line is also enough to build a couple of LRT lines). Or as she points out, a stunning amount of affordable housing, or any number of other projects that are way more worthy than burying the western extension of the Eglinton line.

[danbrotherston]

Jennifer Keesmaat writes about the non-wisdom in spending $,$$$,$$$,$$$ to grade separate Eglinton West LRT:

https://twitter.com/jen_keesmaat/status/...3859835905

ION is probably more like St. Clair than Eglinton there, to be fair.

She should have been mayor. What a loss to the city that she is no longer in charge of the planning department!

Note that the amount of money being wasted on burying the western extension of the Eglinton line is enough to pay for an entire LRT line (Sheppard east, or one of the other LRTs in Scarborough; but of course the money being wasted on extending the Danforth line is also enough to build a couple of LRT lines). Or as she points out, a stunning amount of affordable housing, or any number of other projects that are way more worthy than burying the western extension of the Eglinton line.

Yeah, it was a big loss to the city, but I don't think it would have changed that much. The mayor isn't dictator...she'd still have had to deal with the pathetic regressive council.

Honestly, Toronto has serious rot at this point.

[timio]

Burying Eglinton West is more on Dumpster Fire than Toronto Council. Sure, they could have put up a fuss, but Ford doesn't care about local wishes in Toronto.