At the Empire Club today, Mayoral candidate Rocco Rossi proposed that all of Transit City, except for the Sheppard East line, be put on hold pending a financial review.
Rossi may not be familiar with local issues, but he should at least know that Queen’s Park (and, for Sheppard, Ottawa) is paying for these lines, not the City of Toronto.
There are issues with Transit City about which I will write in coming days, but stopping the projects is hardly the correct approach. It smacks of simplistic anti-Miller campaigning — whatever David Miller did must be wrong and so we’ll stop, or at least slow down, the plan.
I will be generous and assume that the candidate may be badly advised, but this is the second gaffe of Rossi’s platform (the first is the proposal to sell Toronto Hydro), and I can’t help thinking he’s headed for an electoral graveyard.
Updated 11:30 pm: I am advised that Rossi is aware of funding from other levels of government, but is concerned about future operating costs. He might start by looking at the extension to Vaughan which is expected to increase net TTC operating costs after any incremental fare revenue by well over $10-million annually when it opens. The projected riding north of Steeles Avenue is lower than on the Eglinton LRT.
I don’t see anything wrong with the TTC insisting on full grade separation with a Scarborough RT conversion. Where is it written that light rail has to be semi? Once upon a time, ICTS was considered light rail, and now it’s not?
Steve: I too have no problem with the RT being completely grade separated, but just wanted to point out that the alternative had been on the table. I suspect that if this had been an LRT project from the outset, they would have come at the alignment differently and would not have simply pasted an LRT implementation onto the already decided ICTS scheme.
Granted we seem to have $15 billion. That isn’t a lot of money these days, especially when you want a network of shiny new subways. If we had $100 billion, and had it in our bank account, not in some far off political announcement, we could build all the subways we want. But we don’t and thus can’t afford this kind of pie-in-the-sky fanciful planning.
We could look at mode separation rather than full grade sep., like the C-Train.
As for “we can’t afford this” – if we can “afford” the Steeles-Highway 7 subway, we can “afford” a lot more subway.
The problem is… we couldn’t “afford” that extension, but we’re building it anyway.
Keith L wrote,
I agree with this, though my previous comments only dealt with the right of way north of the 401. At grade operation along or near Progress is a good idea, especially given that the buildings near the intersection of Bellamy and Progress are a good source of riders. This could extend until it has to cross the 401, though I suspect that the cost of elevating it from Markham road would not be out of the question given the area.
My comments about the alignment north of the 401 are that it should remain separate from roads, except for railway-style level crossings. The long tunnelled section could be eliminated, thought there are some benefits to a grade separated connection at Sheppard, even if connecting tracks still have to be at grade. North of Sheppard, a stretch runs along parkland where it can be placed at grade without the need for fencing. Grade crossings at the few road crossings between there and Malvern Town Centre instead of any elevated portion would substantially reduce the cost of construction.
I still strongly suspect that the money committed could take the line all the way to Malvern Town Centre if these ICTS-necessary frills are removed from the project.
Steve wrote,
This is precisely why this Richmond Hill resident is opposed to the “Richmond Hill nonsense” (credit to OgtheDim for that!). Living between Major Mac and Elgin Mills along with many others who are further north than the proposed subway will extend to, I cannot see the benefit of having to take a bus to a new subway station where I have to funnel into at least two sets of stairs or escalators (if they are working) to get down to a subway for a one-seat ride from Highway 7 to downtown. For the same money, we could hop on an LRT much closer to my home that could take me to a same-platform change to a subway train at Steeles. Except for anyone living within a two minute walk from a proposed subway station north of Steeles, the LRT alternative will provide a faster trip downtown for everyone else.
Steve: Alas, that town north of the 416 has subway envy in a very bad way, especially as someone else will pay most of the cost of building, and all of the cost of operating it.
Jonathon said:
Surely we don’t have $100 billion, but a reasonable expansion of the subway network can be achieved for much less.
How about this:
1) Extend Sheppard subway to Kennedy, and build LRT east of Kennedy. Extra cost compared to just Sheppard LRT – about $1 billion.
2) Replace Eglinton LRT with subway from Yonge to Pearson (and defer the eastern section). That can be done for $4.6 billion already allocated for Eglinton, no extra cost.
3) Proceed with Finch West LRT as planned.
4) Proceed with SRT-to-LRT conversion and extension, as planned. (The transfer at Kennedy may be a nuisance, but SLRT will have good speed and sufficient capacity, so let’s not pay for a new subway tunnel.)
5) Build DRL subway from King/Spadina to Eglinton/Don Mills. This will be expensive, perhaps $3 billion or more, but is required by all accounts – even if the rest of Transit City is built as per the original plan.
Steve: Actually, the eastern side of the Eglinton line probably has more demand that the western side, but the latter always got the attention because (a) it was cheaper to build especially if it started from Eglinton West Station, and (b) the lure of the airport connection.
Going to go a bit off topic … considering this thread has turned into a Subway vs LRT debate:
I’m looking forward to seeing the new design scheme for the S(L)RT. IF the line going to share the same carhouse with Sheppard, does this mean there will no longer be a grade seperation when the SLRT and the Sheppard LRT meet. The plan shown back in June illustrated that the Scarborough RT would pass under Sheppard with with a station at that point. Now that we know the technology will be LRT, will there still be an underground station or would the Scarborough LRT just stay on surface and turn onto the Sheppard tracks?
If the latter is the answer, the TTC has alot of explaining to do. Back in June they stated that one of the reasons why they chose the more expensive tunnel options was to make sure no green space was lost, like the park that resides in the old rail corridor.
Steve: Yes, the TTC has a lot of explaining to do. They ran a public participation process where, allegedly, both technologies were on the table, but all ofthe drawings were clearly oriented to having two separate technologies with ICTS on the SRT. Anyone could see that the designs would be different for an LRT line, but the TTC was too busy stacking the deck. Now that they have officially changed their minds, they owe everyone an updated design. The online versions are out of date, and there is no planned public meeting to look at an alternative.
Just as side note after reading all the comment on the thread, I think it’s only appropriate that we respect each other’s views. I certainly don’t agree with all of Steve’s views on transit. That being said, to call people brainwashed or idiots “I’m talking about both lrt and subway advocates” is a bit childish. It’s great that we’re all passionate about transit, and having these intense debates just shows how much we care about our city and how we want it to grow in the future, but let’s not get carried away.
Steve: This item has been slightly edited by inserting paragraph breaks for clarity, to tidy up the spelling and to create a hotlink.
Rossi is right in one regard, recall Transit City. That someone else is footing the bill for it is not a good enough excuse to waste allocated transit dollars that truly stems from the taxpayer’s pocket. It is really our money being spent, and the voice of the citizenry needs to be heard out. On-of-touch bureaucrats in Ottawa and Queen’s Park whom do not ride transit daily, do not know in great detail what areas of Toronto are heavy congested; where needs alleviations and the depths of the relief needed. They can only go by what the TTC tells them, which is colored by their own political biases.
Only in a world where the current TTC brass thinks that building new stations to this level of magnitude is warranted that the notion of expanding out the subway in parts of the city that are already densely populated can seem unreasonable.
Light-rail is not a substitute for corridors which easily could handle over 10,000 pphpd were routes coordinated to serve the requisite stations and neighbourhoods where traffic would be high. A $7 billion light-rail project around a major artery like Eglinton is a disservice. A subway line built in phases offers up a real opportunity for sustainable growth and TOD intensification around the station sites. People are not going to leave their cars at home in droves for that, to stand at exposed island platforms to take over an hour to get across the city. No way. This may actually force more residents back into their cars due to mass construction on the surface of major arteries for years on end; affecting local businesses and commerce, and affecting residents’ transit options.
Why does Transit City not include a single provision for improving the transit services through central downtown east-to-west? Why is Miller only waiting until the end of his term in office to suggest we build a DRL? Why did the TTC cancel the $3-$5 million EA report on DRL feasibility yet has the money available to puke up grotesque monstrosities like the $130 million “artsy”, “futuristic” Steeles West Stn design above? Why is all the money going towards projects the majority of the city’s population will never have a need to ride on daily?
Sorry if that sounds like a regionalist perspective but corridors like Eglinton and the DRL are of far more public worth to the entire region and the money should be going towards ways to improve higher-order transit services in the CORE first, PERIPHERY secondary. It doesn’t matter how direct your commute from suburbia to downtown was if it’s far less convenient to get across the core once off the subway. Why is it that 3 suburban urban centres (Vaughan, Richmond Hill and Mississauga) are located within a few kilometres of major preexisting commuter railways which feed into downtown Toronto; yet zero efforts are being made to better integrate these lines to their urban developments?
Why is it Toronto butchering its own redevelopment potential (along Sheppard East, Eglinton, DRL path) for the sake of extending subways into other cities, by building excessively large station facilities which discourage on-site development potential with leasing of the air rights above stations? Something smells putrid here and let’s not kid ourselves in thinking that any of these transit projects are truly being built with the daily transit customer in mind.
Relocating the bus-to-train transfer station a few kilometres deeper into suburbia is a mockery of what local service metro subways were designed to do; cater to actual preexisting built up and densely populated areas. Since when has the subway replaced GO Transit for interregional travel? Are we going to wait until the trunk subway lines are so clogged up with commuters whom were funneled either by Transit City lines or meandering extensions to highway corridors, before we realize that gee, maybe another east-west subway was needed to siphon away some trips? Transfer City = FAIL!
Steve: I can sympathize with some of your statements, but there are a number of factual errors that must be corrected. First and foremost, the subway extensions into York Region are not Toronto’s doing, they are thanks to political machinations at Queen’s Park. Moreover, they are definitely not products of the Miller administration.
Transit City was deliberately not designed to serve high capacity, core oriented commuting trips. The whole idea is to beef up routes in the suburbs where transit demand is expected to exceed bus capacities in the coming decades, and to support intensification of suburban housing on major streets. The real market for a lot of this is not to get people out of their cars (especially those who are commuting long distances) but to give better service for existing riders and provide a real alternative for the many new residents who will come to the TC corridors. If any agency should be the target of your ire, it’s GO Transit which, starved for capital, has dragged its feet for decades on major service improvements. Even those will mainly serve core-oriented trips because that’s where the rail lines go.
The design of the new stations on the Spadina extension is dictated by a few important facts. First, Toronto has large trains, and the stations must be 500ft long to hold them. Second, the depth of the stations is dictated by bored tunnel construction which must be far enough down to avoid hitting varioud things like utilities, and to deal with the hills and dales of Toronto’s geography. Third, the need for dual exits, lots of escalators and elevators is driven both by the building code (fire safety) and by accessibility requirements. Making the stations actually look nice adds a small amount to the cost. If you want classic TTC bathroom stations, you may want to talk to all the politicians and residents who complain about how sterile our system looks.
The TTC recently called tenders for the DRL study. I know that the City tried to cut that study out of the budget, but as far as I know the study is going ahead. My real concern is that it be a fair study of options, not a whitewash for a “no DRL” position.
Steve said: “Actually, the eastern side of the Eglinton line probably has more demand that the western side…”
Yes – but this is because buses 54 Lawrence East, 51 Leslie, 100 Flemmington, 56 Leaside all use Eglinton East to get to Yonge subway.
If DRL subway reaches Eglinton / Don Mills, then 54, 51, and probably 56 will terminate at the DRL station, instead of running to Yonge.
Steve: Yes, although the 51 and 56 don’t contribute much. On the west side, the intercept point is Eglinton West Station. This is a good example of a more general concern I have with people hollering for subways everywhere. The larger the network is, the more spread out the demand will be. Eglinton will carry lots of people, but many of them won’t go a huge distance on it before transferring to something else. Also, better service stimulates off-peak riding and changes the ratio between all day and peak demand. This all makes projecting current riding patterns onto the future a bit tricky, especially when the network becomes more finely grained than the demand model.
You know, I wish people would stop blaming Richmond Hill for this – it was Thornhill (both the Markham and Vaughan side) who killed the Viva Rapidway development, and it was largely based on the residents and businesses on Yonge noting the (superficial?) similarity to what St Clair was being turned into, and imagining the disruption they’d have to deal with – and assuming subways would not disrupt them in the same way. (Yes, there are big holes in that “logic.”)
You’ll note which politician is most publicly attached to the Yonge North extension – Peter Kent – PC – federal member for Thornhill.
Richmond Hillers will still get the rapidway where it can be built (north of Elgin Mills, and south of Major Mack) which can be converted based on ridership into LRT. (At that point the Town will have to deal with trains taking lanes instead of buses in mixed traffic.) Completion is slated for 2013, but that’s only as far south as Highway 7.
Incidentally, I’d doubt that the City would extend the subway to Steeles anyway without the subway going further north – Steeles to Finch could be rebuilt to properly accommodated bus and eventually LRT traffic…
Steve wrote,
Oddly enough, the SubwayNow group was spearheaded by Markham’s Jim Jones, with their Mayor Frank Scarpitti getting in the photos with his ‘thumbs up’. Richmond Hill’s mayor and council, along with York Region’s council were more of a “oh, yea, we’ll go along with that!” effort in the matter. Of course, now that the children have been shown the new shiny toy (translation: subway envy has taken root), replacing it with something else will be a difficult effort.
PSC said,
I’m not so sure about that. One aspect of increasing capacity on Yonge will involve running trains more frequently once the signalling system is upgraded, but the limiting factor will be the turn back at Finch. This can be alleviated by extending the line to Steeles and running only half the trains there when short headways are needed on the core of the line (similar to the St. Clair West turn backs that will be moving to Glencairn and eventually to Steeles West).
This ‘half-capacity’ extension will be a suitable replacement for the current load of buses on Yonge. That stretch of Yonge has 10 full time bus routes running along it (not counting various branches: TTC 53, 60, and 97; YRT 5, 23, 77, 88, 91, and 99; and Viva Blue) plus 5 rush hour routes (not counting ‘express’ versions of the all day routes: YRT 300, 301, 302, 303; Viva Pink). I am not counting TTC routes 42 and 125 as they would likely still use Finch as their terminus.
Though I am generally against the “another kilometre or two” subway extensions, this is a reasonable exception due to the high volume of buses involved currently. I would, however, prefer to see this extension without an intermediate station at Drewry/Cummer, as that is an unnecessary cost given that bus routes 42 and 125 would provide decent service to Finch station.
Steve: I concur that Cummer station is superfluous for bus feeders. The real question is whether the $100-million or so it would cost would be recouped in redevelopment at that corner. Is the low rise mall, for example, a site for development?
Actually, south of Steeles does meet the 10,000ppdph demand threshold that makes subways economically viable, while north of Steeles falls short of it, gradually falling farther and farther away the father north you go. At Steeles itself, there was a ~3,000ppdph jump in demand. The numbers for extending the subway to Steeles do support it. The numbers clearly don’t support it going north of Steeles, though, especially in the Metrolinx BCA where they are using 2021 figures instead of 2031 figures specifically to avoid GO Express Rail Richmond Hill service’s influence on the demand modelling, because they cite that demand will fall on the Richmond Hill subway below the low figures already projected in 2021 once GO Express Rail Richmond Hill service is implemented (that’s not the only thing that raises eyebrows in that BCA, either). The City has a strong incentive for extending the subway to Steeles without going further north; it’s called being consistent.
The station at Cummer/Drewry is pretty cheap. It would not have a bus terminal like other stations, not even a tiny terminal like Greenwood. There is some development already taking hold in this area without a subway, but furthermore, the subway should provide local service, not replicate a GO line (a mistake already made between Eglinton and Finch). On top of all that, the TTC wants to amalgamate the 42 and 125 into a single route, with one branch looping west of Yonge to have higher frequency on Cummer and less on Drewry. Having both buses continue as separate routes to Finch via Yonge increases the number of buses, vehicle-km, staff hours, and fuel consumption daily by a fair margin since Yonge is always heavily congested in this part of town. And lastly, if the TTC has 42 and 125 not going to Finch, all YRT services including Viva not coming south of Steeles, and Finch buses replaced by the Finch LRT to Don Mills, then the TTC can sell an extremely valuable piece of real estate that the current bus terminal sits on, and get some new ridership living almost directly above Finch Station.
M. Briganti said:
I wouldn’t be too quick to say what is and isn’t the logical termination point for the Bloor-Danforth line. For example, depending on how Metrolinx’s long term plans for the Lakeshore East line will impact Eglinton and Guildwood GO stations, it may be more logical to place the termination point somewhere between Kingston & Eglinton and Kingston & Morningside rather than Scarborough Town Centre.
You’ve talked before about Metrolinx failing to look at the network as a whole if not enough funding is granted to build all of Transit City.
Right now, Don Mills and Jane aren’t funded. I have a feeling that they’ll fall through the cracks after the current round of LRT construction is finished (10 years or so from now). Attention may turn to the DRL or the Yonge line (neither of which have currently received funding commitments), or there may be another recession.
Do you think the Province has chosen the “correct” lines to fund? If you had to cut two lines from Transit City b/c of funding constraints (or get the equivalent in cost savings somewhere else), what would they be and why?
Steve: Rather than answer the question here in detail, I am planning a separate post on “Transit City Revisited”. Stay tuned.
Sorry, to be clear, I was not referring to whether the numbers support the Yonge Extension to Steeles, but rather the political will. The costs for mobilization of the TBMs, construction of the necessary massive bus / LRT terminal at Steeles and demolition of the existing tail tracks without York Region participation is, in my opinion, not likely within the City of Toronto. This project was initiated and is being carried by the Region of York right now.
Building the subway only from Finch to Steeles is not “another kilometer or two” but rather a whole standalone project. You don’t get “another” kilometer until you have the first kilometer(s) already happening.
As for the GO RH all-day express rail service, I’ll believe GO is serious about that when I hear about the Doncaster Diamond grade separation and the twin track construction through the Don River valley. This project is likely to be more than $0.5B all on its own, and it does not eliminate the local / intermediate transit needs from Highway 7 to the subway end-of-line either… I’m looking forward to the TRCA, MOE and DFO responses to any plans for the required massive construction work and new bridges within the valley. But perhaps that discussion belongs in another thread…
That said, I would support any transit upgrade over buses in mixed traffic on Yonge.
Nick L said:
Really? So all the municipal, provincial and federal services, huge amounts of retail and a bunch of condos are going to be located at Kingston/Eglinton or Kingston/Morningside?
The logic of terminating at STC has a lot more to it than raw ridership stats. Even from Metrolinx’ point of view, with STC slated to be a big bus hub, why would the logical terminus be anywhere other than STC?
A distant second would be Kennedy. But of course, the city won’t allow rezoning to build another STC around the terminus of that subway line.
Steve says
Just to add to that, it would have been nice to see GO Transit evolve into a BART like system, where it acts like both a subway and commuter line; instead we got a downtown oriented lines that are shared its corridors with CN freight.
I’m pretty sure if our GO Transit lines were like BART, we wouldn’t be pushing the TTC to expand subways into the 905′s.
I have alot of issues with Metrolinx’ plan to create express Go service on some of their lines. To create such frequent head ways in isolated corridors that serve no immediate community is troubling to me.
Creating a BART like system maybe a bit more expensive but at least it wouldn’t be downtown oriented and it would take the pressure off the TTC to expand subway to places like Richmond Hill and Vaughan.
Karl Junkin wrote,
Does the TTC own the property of the regional bus terminal? For some reason, perhaps the name of the terminal, I thought that GO owned it. As for the TTC bus terminal, it could be sold, but here’s a wild idea…
Use it (or part of it) for the LRT station. Have the LRT alignment turn off of Finch coming from the west. When the line is extended east, at least to Don Mills, a right of way next to the hydro corridor would be better between Yonge and Don Mills (or even the Seneca campus) and could be easily accommodated by this jog. Of course, there’s that whole issue about Hydro One not wanting transit along their corridors.
The plans to combine 42 and 125 into a single route make sense, and a simple station might be a good idea, particularly if development charges in the area could pay for it. The one thing I missed saying, and surprisingly no one jumped on, is that the 97 would still provide local service on Yonge.
It does kind of make sense… ridership on Finch East between Yonge and Don Mills is light at best, mainly transfer volume. A route through the hydro corridor is ideal especially if that segment only exists as some sort of missing link, and it would also have better access to the eventual GO Express line at Old Cummer station. The bus terminal at Finch will still be needed, however, seeing as quite a large part of it exists to handle the 39 Finch East.
I’m not sure you could bend the LRT trains in and out of the sliver of land currently occupied by the bus terminal as it is entirely north-south oriented.
As for the GO Terminal, it is in the middle of the hydro corridor and if anything Hydro One would prefer the existing buildings to go away rather than accommodate any further construction.
View Larger Map
I see no advantage to having the LRT run north-south through the bus terminal, as it would probably still be underground anyway. The LRT can connect to the existing underground passageways between the bus terminal and subway from a perpendicular alignment under Finch Ave E.
As for running through the hydro corridor, I don’t see that as an efficient strategy because it would prevent the LRT from replacing the 39 route. It is extremely inefficient from a resource management and cost perspective to have two modes serving the same corridor needlessly, and that applies to the 97 Yonge as well. If the subway is designed as a local service between Finch and Steeles, as it should be, then the 97 Yonge could arguably terminate at Sheppard and only run between Sheppard and St.Clair. Let’s not burn a greater value of operating dollars in the long term to save a lesser value of capital dollars in the short term.
Forget I mentioned the YRT/Viva not going south of Steeles, you’re right that they use a separate terminal on land can’t be redeveloped in the hydro corridor.
If we want a long-haul service through the hydro corridor, let GO lay some tracks there and run their trains through it. TTC’s priority is not the long-haul market, it’s the short-to-medium-haul market. Always has been.
Jonathon wrote,
Yes, the 39 will still exist, but there is no reason why it could not share the same platform with the LRT.
PSC wrote,
Yonge Street is also north-south oriented, and one of the originally proposed connections had the LRT turning up Yonge Street to a centre-of-road platform down to the subway’s mezzanine. Besides, I suspect that “using the bus terminal” does not necessarily mean using the exact structure as it exists today. It would likely be torn down to be replaced with something better suited to LRT (and route 39) operations. This may or may not involve part of the property being freed for sale.
Keith L said:
For starters, there already exists a large amount of retail and high density housing around Markington Square and Morningside Mall with additional amounts of both scattered along Eglinton East and Kingston road which would be covered by such an extension. When you combine that with the lack of a major highway anywhere nearby, it’s far more likely residents along that route would use a subway line if provided with one.
As for the issue of municipal, provincial and federal services located at Scarborough Town Centre, how much do they actually contribute to ridership on the RT? If I’m not mistaken, the majority of traffic currently on the RT (and I’m sure Steve has the stats to prove or disprove this even though he will hate me for dragging him into this) is due to all the buses feeding into STC rather than people going to the mall or the government offices; a pattern which isn’t expected to change with extending the Bloor-Danforth line to STC. This is due to a lack of any other heavy rail (subway or ICTS) routes in the area where buses would concentrate to provide access to the rest of the city. If that were to change by say extending the Sheppard line to Kennedy for example, it wouldn’t surprise me that most routes north of the 401 would end up there rather than at STC.
Steve: When I worked in Scarborough City Hall for TDSB, it was quite disheartening how few people got there by transit. The problem was that they came from all over the GTA, and most of them drove because it was the only reasonable option. Indeed, a subway extension would have made little difference for most of them.
In addition, if the Bloor-Danforth line were to end up at Kingston/Morningside and if we’re talking about ditching Transit City for subways, you’ve forgotten about UofT Scarborough which would benefit more from a station at Morningside than at STC.
Steve: As you may have noticed, I prefer to build the northern 2km of Scarborough Malvern as part of the Sheppard project to give UTSC connectivity that way.
Keith L said:
It’s simple for Metrolinx. Eglinton and Guildwood Go stations will be seeing heavy rail traffic after the electrification of the Lakeshore line; with possibly additional traffic coming from VIA rail at Guildwood. A direct subway connection at either one or both Go stations would not only give people who commute in from Durham to work in the east end a viable alternative to driving, but also will draw traffic from the east end of the Bloor-Danforth line due to the shorter trip time offered through GO to downtown Toronto. Also, if buses are your thing, a subway stop at Morningside & Kingston would provide a more attractive location for a regional terminal due to the proximity to Highway 2A, which has room for the addition of bus only lanes, as well as provide a more convenient route to access Durham’s proposed LRT network.
As for the other benefits, simply read up on the Scarborough Malvern LRT proposal. After all, all I’ve been doing is suggesting that part of it should be built as a subway line since all other Transit City lines are apparently better off as subways.
And because I’m feeling snarky (sorry Steve):
Keith L said:
Isn’t that similar to some of the reasoning behind why we are building a subway to nowhere right now?
Steve: Building one subway with dubious justification does not make building one or two more the correct choice.
Karl Junkin said:
It should be noted that the section of Finch East between Yonge and Don Mills has low development potential (all low-rise residential). In addition, widening the street to accommodate the ROW will be harder than in other places. According to Toronto’s MapIt (map.toronto.ca), the gap between the buildings is 36 m or more (OK for LRT), but the gap between the property lines is mostly 29 – 32 m. So, massive expropriation would be required.
Finch East hydro corridor (unlike Finch West) touches some places of interest: mall at Cummer & Bayview and Old Cummer GO station. It could serve Seneca College from the north.
Hence, a case can be made for placing a portion of Finch East LRT in the hydro corridor. It is a small loss in the operational cost (as parallel bus service would be needed for that section of the street), but a probable gain in the construction cost and in the service speed.
Not much parallel bus service- although there is a bus on Finch East every 79 seconds I believe in the AM peak, at least half of those are express which only stop at transfer points, picking up transfer passengers who would just as easily be served by the relocated LRT. Actual local ridership on that portion is probably quite low (discounting transfers from Bayview, Leslie and Don Mills who don’t care if the service runs on Finch or just north of it). Old Cummer GO station is a valuable connection
@Michael Forest: Finch East is wide enough. This is the same issue that Finch West experiences east of Bathurst St., and that issue was manageable. The width is in the Official Plan even if it doesn’t already exist, and would merely accelerate existing long-term plans. It’s just under 2km between Bayview and Yonge, which is the stretch where expropriation would apply (it’s not an issue east of Bayview as properties no longer face Finch, except the odd commercial/institutional property), a distance less than that between Bathurst and Yonge which is over 2km. It’s really not “massive expropriation,” since we’re only talking about slivers of frontage. Weston/Eglinton is experiencing “massive expropriation” – big difference.
You don’t make your case with the examples you cited. The GO Station can easily shift its platform 100m to be conveniently accessible directly from Finch Ave (as it should be, not with the needless extra 100m walk that currently exists). With the LRT service available, GO can rid itself of the small parking lot who’s insignificant location is what the station is ill-advisably named after. You are not considering the expense of a LRT grade-separated crossing with the railway that does not exist at the hydro corridor, but does already exist at Finch. Expropriation is cheaper than that grade-separation.
You might also like to note that most of the buildings for Seneca (where students/faculty are ultimately bound for) are much closer to Finch Ave than they are to the hydro corridor. There is less incentive for both staff and faculty to use transit if transit is going to throw them into the hydro corridor, a location that is farther away than half the parking spaces, unlike Finch Ave, where a well-designed stop can provide sheltered access almost immediately upon disembarking. Crossing wide expanses of parking lots in the dreads of winter, as would be the case if running in the hydro corridor, is also a poor selling point. This is all, of course, assuming the LRT even reaches as far east as Seneca, which I believe it should, but it technically isn’t funded as far as I understand things.
Whatever you gain at Cummer/Bayview, you will probably lose more at Brahms/Linus/Finch. You also cut off those riders coming from Wilfred Ave and Estelle Ave, for whom 39 Finch is their main route. Cummer/Bayview has the 42 Cummer service, which is not the route the LRT is trying to replace or alleviate. It isn’t a “small loss in the operational cost.” Serving the same corridor with two modes is inefficient and over the longer term racks up significant added expense, which could damage the credibility of implementing LRT. It is best to do smart infrastructure design that serves the local needs effectively with the capacity to perform reliably than to do a cop-out and hide in the hydro corridor under the false pretense of saving costs.
Besides, there really is no significant speed advantage in the hydro corridor when you consider the probable reality that there’d be only two stops more on Finch than in the hydro corridor. Finch Ave is where the ridership is, and so that’s where the LRT should go.
Express services are there as a capacity management strategy, not an average speed increasing strategy.
Karl Junkin writes:
The funny thing is that the main entrances to Seneca face the parking lots to the north. There’s another building going up at the north end, which “create[s] a new main entrance – a front door if you will – to welcome everyone who visits Newnham Campus.” Yes, it faces the parking lots and hydro ROW to the north.
Anyone arriving or departing campus via an eastbound Finch East bus has to press the walk button of they won’t get a pedestrain signal to cross Finch at Seneca Hill!
Express service between Seneca’s campus and Finch Station is one possible reason to put in the Finch E LRT. Otherwise, heavy bus service will have to be maintained on Finch East.
The cost of the grade separation would be an issue on a hydrocorridor routing but could be made back in part by ease of construction. With no existing traffic to worry about in theory a hydrocorridor ROW should proceed much more quickly and therefore save both direct and indirect costs – among other things, you shouldn’t need a paid duty officer to supervise construction impacts to a field…
However, the crossing of the parkland west of the GO station might cause a problem at the EA stage. Also, if Finch West LRT crosses Yonge under Finch, how does Finch East LRT get to the hydro corridor?
As for Old Cummer itself, the grade separation itself could prove useful if Metrolinx considered putting in a western platform and track at Old Cummer in a 2-way all day scenario, since the overhead or subsurface structure could also carry intending passengers via a set of lifts either from the LRT to GO and vice versa or from the eastern carpark to the western one. Seems like a lot of trouble to go to though.