Wednesday saw a long debate at Toronto Council on the Yonge Subway Richmond Hill extension. As I write this (January 29, just after midnight), I do not have all of the details of Council’s final decision.
However, this much I know:
- Council has requested a study of the Downtown Relief Line.
- Some Councillors used the debate as a springboard for attacks on the TTC’s project management costs and proposals for private sector participation.
- Council agreed that Transit City is the top priority for transit spending.
I find myself in the unusual position of being part of a wave of advocacy for the DRL, a line that will almost certainly be a conventional subway. If this seems odd, my reasoning is that we must look at how the network operates as a whole. The core of the network needs more capacity, and jamming more people into the existing Yonge line (getting more out of existing infrastructure as the TTC so delicately puts it) is irresponsible and possibly reckless.
If the studies that really need to be done emerge, we will look at both TTC and Metrolinx plans, and question what will work best for the core area, the outer 416 and the 905. Both agencies have much to answer for in their shortsighted, misleading planning and their inadequate evaluation of alternatives to network structure and staging.
As details emerge, I will add to the information here.
Steve Munro 
Really, today’s council meeting, with regards to Executive Committee Item EX28.1, “Yonge Subway Extension – Environmental Assessment Submission and Project Update Presentation Item (Ward: All)” was a complete joke. Council members just keep talking about outsourcing the construction of the extension (something which the TTC already does); how the TTC pays a 20% premium on (I believe it was) capital projects like subway construction and streetcar ROWs; should the TTC hire in or hire out consultants; about extending the Sheppard line to Downsview; the planned locations for the original Spadina extension (St. George to Wilson- how it might have ran under Dufferin or Bathurst); wanting to add projects to Metrolinx’s 2015 project list (something which has been finalized); the endless debate of LRT vs Subway; and Denzil Minnan-Wong wanting the “Downtown Rapid Transit Line” to be named something more in line with neighbourhoods it would serve. This is just off the top of my head- if I made an error, or left something out, correct me.
So it left me wondering- where is the 20% figure from? What is included in that 20% figure? Also, why are some councilors so keen on PPPs, even though the will in the end cost the City more than they would save? Why are they still obsessed with building subways? Anthony Perruzza kept saying how it would be cheaper to build a subway when there are only fields around (or something to that effect), and how subways have so much growth potential (people/services wanting to be near a subway line), ignoring the facts that 2 Transit City lines will run through his ward; how reliable, frequent public transit, not just subways, have massive growth potential; and that if you build subway lines were nothing exists except farmland is as sensible as burning your own money.
Steve: The TTC’s project management often comes up for criticism, including by me, because there are times one hand doesn’t know what the other one is doing. The St. Clair right-of-way project is a good example, although many of the problems were not of the TTC’s making. Foot-dragging by other City agencies and arbitrary changes in timing of work by others didn’t exactly speed the project along. If anything, what is needed is good project management at the City level to knock heads together and work for quick implementations with minimal disruption rather than neighbourhoods littered with half-finished construction.
At my “local” project, the reconstruction of Broadview Station, I watched while work started and stopped and the scope of work crept along. Why did this happen? Simple — budgets. The TTC is always under pressure to control the amount of capital it spends each year even though large projects run for two years or more. At Broadview, the scope was cut back to “save money” in one budget year, then expanded in future years to pick up the slack. This made for very inefficient use of the contractor’s time.
One important point to remember is that the TTC carries the cost of a resident group of planners and engineers who handle ongoing work that is too small to outsource as well as the many requests for studies and small projects. Some of this is on spec, and very hard to contract out. One important gain with in house staff is the accumulated knowledge of the system that doesn’t have to be written down in a spec and contract, and doesn’t require management overhead to ensure that the external contractor doesn’t screw up.
Sure, the TTC could engage an outside consultant on a retainer basis, but the effect would be the same — a standing organization responding to ad hoc requests while adding its overheads and markups.
An outside agency hired on a project basis (like several retained for Transit City) can staff up and down as needed in response to a defined project. The TTC may have spent years just bringing this to funding approval, and when this happens, the accumulated internal costs are transferred to the project and appear as part of “project management”.
Just one more thing that is bugging me- why did the TTC not raise fares this year? Sure, the offical reason was the economic situation and the global recession, but from what I’ve heard from bus operators, the TTC is short on buses, especially after the post-Nov. 23 service increases. That’s not to mention the need to replace many buses, and as of recently, the many problems the TTC seems to be facing with the seemingly constant closures of its Subway and RT infrastructure- today alone the RT was closed down because of the weather. And yet the TTC has only ordered for 130 buses for this year, and a 120 for the next year. This disregards the fact the TTC has 273 buses it has to replace by 2010, plus fill in service for any of the Orion VII which will undergo battery replacement or the New Looks undergoing life-extensions, and the projected increases in transit usage in the city. Is this a lack of common sense? Or is it the TTC is afraid to order something from outside of Ontario, such as New Flyer’s and NovaBus’ products (both of which have articulated vehicles which could help ease crowding [better than 40′ buses could] on the 25, 32, 34, 35, 36, 85, and 196 until Transit City/York Spadina extension are up and running)?
Steve: The decision to freeze fares was a political one taken by the Mayor. I’m of two minds about this. If Council provides adequate funding to actually support the system through 2009 and beyond, then this move continues the ongoing push to lower the cost recovery rate back to the 68% level of the early 1970s. If Council’s purse is empty, then all of the fine words about transit’s importance to the city are empty too.
On the fleet side, there is supposed to be a report in April reviewing the fleet plans for all modes, and the TTC knows it has been caught short. This ties in with a general problem in TTC capital planning where future costs are understated for budgetary reasons — making the backlog of spending look not quite as pressing — or through simple oversight.
The recent service increases were hit by two problems. One was vehicle availability thanks to the debacle with the batteries in hybrid buses and the other was a shortage of operators. The TTC owes the public an explanation of why it was unable to have enough operators available to provide service increases that were planned almost a year earlier. Did they have more resignations and retirements than expected, or did they under-recruit to save on operating costs?
LikeLike
Question I’d like your opinion on, Steve
Is it better to build a DRL as a full-fledged subway, even if that means a transfer for those coming off the Don Mills LRT, or to double-track an LRT subway on the route so that the Don Mills LRT would continue to Union, as would a fresh LRT line that starts at Danforth Av.
Steve: Double track anything takes up a lot of space to provide capacity that is used only a few hours a day. As I have written before, the “LRT” line north to at least the Don Valley crossing will have to be underground anyhow due to constrained road space and the difficulty of a surface interchange with the Danforth subway. There’s a chance the Leaside bridge won’t be a suitable crossing for an LRT line and this would mean a new crossing for whatever technology is chosen. By now, we’re at Thorncliffe Park, and the question of an alignment to Eglinton comes up. We don’t have to follow the 25 Don Mills bus route, and this opens a lot of alternatives for an LRT or subway alignment. There will be an interchange where the subway ends somewhere, and we should at least study the option of going to Eglinton.
LikeLike
For poor project management of what ought to have been a routine project one only has to look at the aborted Church Street streetcar track replacement last year. The TTC had already installed new poles on most of Church and had started to weld long lengths of rail on Front Street. The City had announced that these would be stored on Church below King and had brought a supply of plastic safety cones to warn people and the TTC had said the 502 would not use Church. Then it all stopped because Toronto Water had not yet finished (or started!) replacing lead water pipes under Church.
The welding on Front stopped, the already welded lengths were put below the Gardiner at Yonge, the safety cones were, eventually, removed and the 502 returned to normal.
As far as I know, Toronto Water have not yet started the lead pipe replacement work and the TTC has said that the track on Church (which needed repairs over the winter) will be replaced in 2009. We shall see, or not.
Clearly all this cost the TTC money but they actually seemed to be all set to go. As you say, Steve, what is needed in Toronto is someone to ‘bang heads together’ and get City Departments and Agencies working together! (The Spadina transit priority is, of course, another thing this Supremo could work on; your question on this of 4-5 years ago is, apparently, to be answered at the April TTC meeting.)
Steve: That date has been put back before, but small miracles do occur.
LikeLike
Nick,
A four-track LRT line strikes me as an odd mixture of “heavy” and “light” (not that that necessarily makes it a bad thing). But in any case, there might be other ways to reduce the inconvenience of a transfer from the Don Mills LRT to a DRL subway. In particular, I’m thinking of a cross-platform interchange between the two lines — that’s about as seamless as a transfer can be, and seems like the next best thing to a through service.
LikeLike
As someone who is convinced that LRT implementations are the most cost effective way to improve transit, I can easily support a DRL as a full subway implementation.
My opposition to most subway plans is not because they are subway, but because they are “radial expansion” of the subway system – i.e.: a few kilometres to the end of an existing line. A pre-metro LRT implementation is by far a better alternative as it can reach further or wider for the same amount of money.
I am all for subway projects where the numbers warrant it and the project is “network enhancing” – i.e.: a new line that connects to the existing subway network in multiple places. A DRL, connecting with the Yonge line somewhere downtown and possibly the University line and with the Bloor-Danforth line, fits that description. Aside from increasing capacity to the core and diverting some of the current loading, enhancing the network means there are alternate paths to take when a problem occurs somewhere in the network.
I would also add that it makes sense to me to at least explore the idea of having a DRL go all the way to Don Mills and Eglinton, even though this portion is more of a “radial extension”. As mentioned already, much of this will have to be underground and likely on its own bridge, so the cost gap between LRT and full subway is much less than usual. A full subway that goes all the way downtown will draw Eglinton LRT riders heading to Yonge off that line far better than another LRT line would, even if that LRT line went all the way downtown. This would make the “Relief” in DRL even more effective than a DRL to Danforth would.
LikeLike
Too bad they couldn’t just dust off the old Queen Street Subway (actually LRT, not HRT) plans and use that as a starting point. Building standards, rules, and regulations had changed too much since the 1940’s to use them.
At least now the TTC has turned their eyes towards the Downtown Relief Line, Queen Subway, or whatever name they will give it.
LikeLike
A challenge: produce one official TTC document where they refer to the needs of those who have come from the 905.
LikeLike
Tom,
Why would they have to? I live in Toronto and part of my property taxes are used to fund/subsidize the TTC. I also have to pay a fare to use the service. People who live in the 905 only have to pay a fare, and their local municipal governments are not on the hook for any subsidies. So the TTC is, in fact, a Toronto system which, although it is used by many 905ers, is geared more for those living and working in the 416. Once York Region and Peel region start helping Toronto City Council pay the TTC’s bills, we’ll talk about the needs of those living in the 905.
LikeLike
Regarding the above comment.
Let’s not forget the DRL was proposed as a solution to enable the Yonge expansion to go ahead.
So the TTC in that sense is very much considering the needs of riders from the 905.
The point is, why spend millions if not billions in the way of Yonge line capacity improvements when they’re at the very best a temporary measure (or possibly something needed way out into the future i.e. 50+ years). The DRL would prevent the need for a lot of the capacity improvement measures.
Also, don’t forget the DRL is on the list of projects to go in the 30 year mark … meaning the capacity improvements are temporary even by metrolink’s standards.
This project should be phased with the eastern half getting priority. Once it’s finished the Yonge extension can also open. The west half of the DRL could possibly be deferred (or kept as is) in the 30 year plan.
The needs of the entire GTA are served by the DRL even if there is no apparent direct benefit to you as a 905er.
LikeLike
This should be a much higher priority than the Yonge and Spadina subway extensions, because the capacity of a subway is actually needed here. If the Yonge extension and the Spadina extension north of York University were downgraded to LRT, there would be enough money left over to build a large part of, if not all, the Downtown Relief Line. Subways belong downtown and only downtown because that’s the only place where there is sufficient density to justify the cost.
LikeLike
As I’ve commented before, Metrolinx, the TTC, the City and others need to do a lot of thinking about the actual route before they proceed.
I think a downtown relief line is long overdue, but the actual route between the eastern Bloor – Danforth subway and downtown Toronto rigidly adheres to plans for a Queen subway that have been around since, at least, the 1940s.
Moreover, if we’re building a line underground, why do we have to stick to the street grid?
It seems to me that the ghosts of long-abandoned continue to haunt the choice of the lines route. Steve, in an earlier post, you revealed that Metro chose Pape Avenue as the route for an early version of the relief line because it intended to use technology similar to the Scarborough RT for the line. The only place it could find for a storage yard for the vehicles would have been at Pape and Eastern, so Pape was the choice for the route, probably for that reason alone.
Why do we have to stick with this route when, frankly I’m not sure it makes a lot of sense. (I admit my prejudice: the map that the National Post uses today to show the route would result in a project that would probably eliminate or significantly affect my home!)
The proposed route west of the downtown uses the railway corridor to reach Dundas West. The proposed route east of downtown uses much of the railway corridor to leave downtown, then uses Eastern Avenue and Pape to reach Pape Station. Why not use the railway corridor entirely and join the Bloor – Danforth further east — perhaps even somewhere between Victoria Park and Main Stations, where the railway isn’t that far south of Danforth?
(True: this makes a connecting line northward along Don Mills to Eglinton or even Sheppard less likely, but it may result in a more useful transit point at Vic Park.)
Various maps including the one today in the National Post have indicated subway stations at the corner of Gerrard and Pape and Queen and Pape. Neither one of these stops make as much sense as stops further west because Pape is not wide enough to accommodate connecting north-south transit.
Looking at Gerrard Street in particular, just moving the stop two blocks west to Gerrard and Carlaw would be a much more successful location because not only would subway passengers be able to connect with the 506 Carlton cars, they also could transfer to and from 72 Pape buses. A route using the railway corridor, rather than Pape Avenue, with a station at Carlaw and Gerrard, rather than Pape and Gerrard would work better in providing a network and connectivity. Carlaw / Gerrard would also suit a future GO station.
Hey I’m a transit nerd — always excited about new projects to improve transit service in Toronto. If push came to shove and it turned out that my house had to go to improve that, well, I’d deal with it… But, despite my personal bias, I’m still not convinced a straight line south along Pape from Danforth will ever be the better way.
Steve: Back in 2007, I wrote about The Tyranny of Old Plans, the way that maps drawn decades earlier dominate thinking about planning. Even when the city and region in which they were conceived no longer exist, when hare-brained technologies like Maglev are consigned to the scrap-heap, when car-dominated planning has run its course in congested suburbs, plans formulated in these contexts haunt current thinking.
LikeLike
See Andrew, that’s the kind of logic that scares (threatens) 905ers away and it leads to the feelings displayed by Tom West.
The fact is Metrolink believes there is demand (whether it be completely based on facts or only partly with the rest a little bit of politics thrown in) for the Yonge line to be expanded. That’s not up for debate at all, money from the province is ear marked for that *specific* project.
If the attitude we use to promote the DRL is … “We do not need the Yonge line, spend the money here instead” … it will not be built unless Toronto is willing to cancel some of their own transit city projects and funnel money from that source.
Instead, as I pointed out, this should be billed as a solution to ENABLE the Yonge line to be built without the need for very costly *temporary* capacity improvements.
LikeLike
It is amusing/distressing to watch discussions from South of Bloor. The Weston community has been advocating for a number of years that the Air-Rail Link from Union to Pearson be a subway/public transit with ten stops between Pearson and Union Station. Your blog on 16 April 2008 recognized the integration of the DRL and access to the airport:
“As for the DRL, the original proposal was simply for a line from Flemingdon/Thorncliffe to downtown. Subway fitted with existing technology in the area, and nobody was taking LRT seriously as a “light subway”. We have more options today including a through connection to a line in the Weston Subdivision (as described in the Post article) up to at least Dundas West Station. It doesn’t take a genius to see how this fits into Transit City and a service to the airport.” (A Grand Plan, GO Transit, Subways, Transit)
Meanwhile, the Toronto Star today has an article about Weston and Mike Sullivan fighting to get the Air-Rail link to at least be electric! Maybe if it was framed as an extension to the DRL the Weston proposal would gain more traction?
Steve: I am not convinced that the DRL east and west legs should be the same line, or that both should even be the same technology. However, given the amount of space GO plans to take up in the Weston corridor, the discussion could be moot.
LikeLike
I’m really quite pleased with this news, and am in great agreement with the comment of Andrew, as our traditions have recently been subways to sprawl and big roads in the core – the opposite of what we should do.
A DRL has good odds of using Front St. for transit, and it also uses a good part of the Weston rail line for effective public transit, not private mobility that soaks many of us, and could remove the corridor for transit uses.
(I don’t know if the GO/Boo22 expansion plans here are on the south/west side of the existing tracks or on the north/east – but if it’s the former I fear the potential of the corridor will be lost).
Liberty Village should be aligned with this study/plan as some plans put a connection/stop with the Ex GO station.
In the meanwhile, though, what about a smaller Relief line with LRT that goes from Queen St. and the Weston corridor, to Front St., along Front crossing over the Don somehow to Eastern, and then along Eastern to the Beach providing a near-express or at least expedited service to the core from both Parkdale and the Beach?
Steve: I am really getting tired of proposals to fix every ill of the transit system with yet another express line. The biggest problem with service on Queen in particular is that it is erratic and infrequent just when people want to travel. The unpredictable wait contributes a lot to frustration with the service. Running express over the comparatively short distance from say Dufferin and Queen to downtown is something of a joke compared to the commute times for people travelling much longer distances.
Also, for the umpteenth time, Front Street is not available as a transit route through downtown as it will become an almost pedestrian mall in front of Union Station.
LikeLike
The Spadina Extension to York U is one thing. Currently, the 196 is one of the busiest routes for the TTC, with 27,700 users, so service is warranted. However, any service north of Steeles West Station is not, as it is all based on POTENTIAL growth- not current use. This is also part of what makes the Yonge Extension flawed- Steeles Station is built for more capicity than it would see (except of course if the close the Finch Regional Bus Terminal).
As for the DRL, it’s a good idea, but the question is: will it draw enough people away from Bloor-Yonge Station to make it cost effective from opening day? And what role will GO in all of this? If they made service from Kennedy Station cost as much as a TTC fare, or better yet, offer free transfers from the TTC at Kennedy, it could ease much of the current congestion. But that’s overly wishful thinking on my part.
Hamdi: The TTC would be considering the DRL even without the Yonge extension because of overcrowding at Bloor-Yonge Station. Even if they build the DRL, the TTC might still have to modify/rebuild Bloor-Yonge. Personally, I think they should spilt up Yonge Station (B-D) in they way the TTC plans for Union Station- Eastbound trains on a new platform, Westbound on the old. This way all the B-D transfers don’t bunch up at the north end of Bloor Station, but are spread out more evenly along the platform’s length. This doesn’t solve capacity issues on the Y-U-S, which is why they should do this in addition to the DRL.
Steve: Splitting up the traffic at Yonge Station is part of the TTC’s scheme, and you can get some sense of this from the 1988 study I published on this site.
There are major problems with creating access to any new platform from the existing station, not to mention problems of conflicts with existing buildings.
LikeLike
Should a DRL be considered, then the TTC should also consider building crossovers tracks at Pape and Dundas West stations. That way, if there is trouble on the Bloor-Danforth subway, people would still be able to transfer to the DRL to continue their trip to downtown.
In fact, any important transfer station on the subway line (or future LRT) should have crossovers to be used as an option to allow short-turns.
LikeLike
Steve: I don’t know if this is pertinent to the subject.
Back in the early 60s I remember there were 3 rough plans for a new subway, called the U, the V and the T. The T is what we got, while the U was a line along Bloor and Danforth at the outer ends with North-South lines down to Queen and along Queen through the downtown core. The V was a line that ignored streets and existing transit lines.
Do you have any documentation on this? I’d be interested to know what was actually proposed. I read that the U line would have killed steetcars on Bloor because it would have left 3 stub lines that wouldn’t have had the traffic.
Steve: I will have to dig around in the archives for this.
LikeLike
I’m very happy to see how, in a matter of days, this line has begun to re-enter the imaginations of Toronto’s council and, more importantly, the general public. I think it’s among the more worthwhile transit expansion projects in the GTA, and it is in my view a necessary link if Transit City and other proposed subway extensions are to be at all successful.
Now, I nervously await the start of the real fighting that will no doubt take place over this line and its merit, funding, technology, builder, and operator. I sincerely hope that this will be one of those rare projects where a good plan can be worked out with the agreement and commitment of most (if not all) of the major players.
So call me crazy, but I’m praying that I can ride the DRL by 2015.
LikeLike
Wouldn’t any downtown relief line going to Union also require a complete rethink of the TTCs plans for rebuilding that station? How on earth are they going to build a new tunnel anywhere near Front Street without massive disruption of the existing Yonge-University-Spadina line, the PATH, and the services buried down there? That’s not even getting into the challenge of access between the platforms and making the new pedestrian traffic flows work.
Steve: That’s precisely why the DRL won’t go to Union, but across some street further north. There has been a lot of speculative writing in the press and on other blogs about a DRL alignment and stations, and some of it is in complete absence of a sense of how the city has changed since the detailed proposals of 20 and 40 years ago.
LikeLike
Some comments:
“As for the DRL, it’s a good idea, but the question is: will it draw enough people away from Bloor-Yonge Station to make it cost effective from opening day? And what role will GO in all of this? If they made service from Kennedy Station cost as much as a TTC fare, or better yet, offer free transfers from the TTC at Kennedy, it could ease much of the current congestion. But that’s overly wishful thinking on my part.”
Using GO to relieve the Bloor-Danforth via Kennedy is something to consider, as is using GO to relieve the Yonge via Richmond Hill. But as for getting the DRL to work so that it draws riders off of Bloor and Yonge, it offers a number of advantages that the current arrangement doesn’t have:
1. Fewer stations. Someone travelling from Greenwood to Osgoode today faces thirteen station stops and a transfer at St. George. Via the DRL, they face only eight, with two transfers (at Donlands and Union), which offers up a time savings. Depending on where they are going downtown and where the DRL transfer stations are, the benefit of the DRL increases or decreases. For instance, if the transfer stations are at Union and the destination is at Union, then the number of transfers drops to one.
2. The DRL opens up more of the downtown, giving more of it closer access to rapid transit. So, if a person’s destination is near the St. Lawrence Market, or at the Convention Centre or near Front and Spadina, the incentive to use the DRL increases, especially if the user is coming in from Scarborough (the first phase of the DRL, as identified in Network 2011 ran from Donlands to Union and continued on two stops to Spadina and Front). This is something GO Transit cannot offer as easily, since their ridership is focused on Union, and the likelihood of a St. Lawrence stop is small.
3. Regardless of whether or not the DRL draws passengers away from Yonge on Day One (and ridership patterns can be hard to change), if congestion increases on the Yonge line, the DRL will be used, as a safety valve as opposed to something pre-emptive. The DRL gives commuters a route downtown other than Yonge Street, and if Yonge Street gets too unpleasant to use, then the alternative will see use.
“Wouldn’t any downtown relief line going to Union also require a complete rethink of the TTCs plans for rebuilding that station? How on earth are they going to build a new tunnel anywhere near Front Street without massive disruption of the existing Yonge-University-Spadina line, the PATH, and the services buried down there?”
It will be complicated, to be sure, but back in 1985, the TTC saw this and addressed it by not having the DRL enter downtown via the railway lands. Instead, it headed in on Front to Church, and then followed Wellington. The Union station stop won’t be beneath the current Union station, but north of it. And it might not even be there. It might make more sense to connect to the Yonge-University-Spadina lines via King and St. Andrew stations instead, with long walkways connecting to Union, producing a massive five-station hub.
Or, are long walkways within the fare paid zone even needed? Just put the stations where they’ll fit and let passengers use the Underground City to transfer. After all, by then we’ll have a smart card system and a proof of payment structure that won’t require us to have large fare paid zones to connect people between various routes, right?
Steve: I’m with you right up to the “let them walk” comment. We have this little issue called “accessibility”. A Wellington/Yonge station would not be far south of King Station which ends between Melinda and Wellington. This would be an easy connection. Over at University, the spacing is wider, I believe, but manageable.
The real problem lies in transfers from regional services at Union to the DRL, but a one stop subway ride from Union to King isn’t the end of the world.
LikeLike
Tom West Says:
“A challenge: produce one official TTC document where they refer to the needs of those who have come from the 905.”
Tom,… maybe you should visit the Urbans Affair libary at Metro Hall, where they keep lots of TTC documents/reports.
To save you a trip just visit the TTC website: “Spadina Subway Extension: The Toronto – York Spadina Subway Extension is a 8.6km extension from Downsview Station north west through York University within the City of Toronto and north to the Vaughan Corporate Centre in the The Regional Municipality of York.” Last time I checked Vaughan Costco Centre was still in 905.
http://www3.ttc.ca/About_the_TTC/Projects_and_initiatives/Spadina_subway_extension/index.jsp
Notice the estimated cost of $2.6 Billion and who is funding what share this Spadina subway extension: “Province of Ontario has provided $870 million”, “Government of Canada has committed $697 million”, “The City of Toronto and The Regional Municipality of York have committed to fund one-third of total project costs. Toronto will contribute $526 million and York Region will contribute $352 million.” That’s right, York Region (ie 905) will be paying the smallest share,… even though they’ll benefit the most. Toronto is paying more than York Region.
Where do you 905ers get this sense of entitlement? If anybody should have a sense of entitlement to the TTC, it’s the residents of Toronto, whose property tax financially support the TTC. The TTC can’t even provide adequate public transit to the residents of Toronto, yet you think the TTC should be picking you up from the end of your driveway of your 905 cookie cutter house.
Tom, here’s a challenge for you: How have 905ers been helping the residents of Toronto? During AM peak time, York Region YRT & Viva dumps around 5,000 905ers per hour at Finch Station and onto the Yonge Subway line. The Yonge Subway is already at full capacity and servicing 30,000 riders per hour at peak. Toronto residents who ride the Yonge subway line from midtown can’t even get on the subway train because everyone is already packed in like sardines by the time it get to their midtown station. And yes, dare I say it these Toronto tax payers are much more entitled to TTC service than 905ers! The challenge, get these 5,000 905ers off the Yonge Subway line and onto other north-south subway line, the Spadina Subway line which is operating at about 2/3 capacity servicing 20,000 riders per hour at peak. Downsview station is only 4km west and 2 km south of Finch station. Downsview station also has a Regional bus terminal that can service York Region’s YRT and Viva buses. If all the York Region buses went to Downsview Station instead of Finch, that would balance the Yonge-University-Spadina line,… and reduce all the delays on the Yonge line that domino to through the entire line.
Toronto city council should use the Toronto act (limiting where buses from other municipalities can pick up and drop off passengers) to force York Regions’s YRT & Viva to use the under-utilized regional bus terminal at Downsview Station on the under-utilized Spadina Subay line.
LikeLike
Robert Mackenzie Says:
“Moreover, if we’re building a line underground, why do we have to stick to the street grid?”
Some folks would be mighty pissed to find a new subway line going directly under their house.
“Why do we have to stick with this route when, frankly I’m not sure it makes a lot of sense. (I admit my prejudice: the map that the National Post uses today to show the route would result in a project that would probably eliminate or significantly affect my home!)”,… “The proposed route west of the downtown uses the railway corridor to reach Dundas West. The proposed route east of downtown uses much of the railway corridor to leave downtown, then uses Eastern Avenue and Pape to reach Pape Station. Why not use the railway corridor entirely and join the Bloor – Danforth further east — perhaps even somewhere between Victoria Park and Main Stations, where the railway isn’t that far south of Danforth?”
Currently there is no TTC proposed route for the DRL,… the National Post just used one that they found off the internet, so you shouldn’t put too much credibility in that one (sure it’s great to have a subway stop at Exhibition Place, but it’s only busy a few weeks a year).
The main problem with DRL heading too far east to Victoria Park or Main Station is at some point this DRL will in fact be running parallel to the existing Bloor-Danforth subway line. You don’t need parallel subway lines especially when they now cost about $300-$350 million per km. And if passengers have to head so far east,… that they have to go westbound on the Bloor-Danforth line to get to their destination,… you’ll have fewer riders on DRL and thus it’ll be useless.
Speaking of parallel lines,… it would be great if the west DRL and Blue22 (Union to Airport) were one and not two of the same.
Steve says:
“Back in 2007, I wrote about The Tyranny of Old Plans, the way that maps drawn decades earlier dominate thinking about planning. Even when the city and region in which they were conceived no longer exist, when hare-brained technologies like Maglev are consigned to the scrap-heap, when car-dominated planning has run its course in congested suburbs, plans formulated in these contexts haunt current thinking.”
Let’s keep in mind that this DRL is an entirely new subway line. It’s not an extension of the Yonge-University-Spadina or Bloor-Danforth subway lines,… and as such this DRL isn’t forced to use the same “hare-brained technologies”,… like the widest wide-ass subway cars in the world that requires twin tunnels,… that makes any future extension cost amongst the most expensive in the world on a per km basis,.. the more expensive it will be to maintain and to expand,… and thus the less likely it’ll ever get extended in the future.
This new DRL subway line should use regular off the shelf subway cars,… narrow enough to fit bi-directional subway trains into one tunnel (instead of requiring twin tunnel as the current YUS & BD lines). And track width for DRL subway cars should be same as Transit city LRT,.. so Transit City LRT lines can be converted to subways later.
LikeLike
To Steve and David Youngs: I believe that Transit Toronto’s site documents the “T” (the Bloor-University scheme), the “U” (also known as the “flying U”) and, although I don’t think it was from the 60s but much earlier, a “V” that also included a third line straight north (Terauley/Bay).
Steve: From the Transit Toronto website:
LikeLike
Other than the benefits of unclogging the Yonge line. Have there been any studies reflecting future developments around the proposed stations? I ask because Dundas West region would become a new transfer hub if the new line ends. A lot of development is happening in the area, any abandoned factory that has been standing for my lifetime (25) has been coming down with new projects beginning.
It seems to me that the DRL would bring a lot of new development and hilight the “New Toronto” that has developed since the T design was adopted for our subway system.
Steve: Much depends on where the stations were built. There has been a lot of speculation about routes and station locations in the past few days, almost to the point of irresponsibility in failure to distinguish decades-old proposals from current possibilities.
One thing we know for sure is that any new line won’t have stations as close together as we would have seen 40 years ago. Moreover, building a station is no guarantee of redevelopment as you can see at many locations on the TTC system.
LikeLike
James Bow wrote, “Regardless of whether or not the DRL draws passengers away from Yonge on Day One (and ridership patterns can be hard to change)”
A substantial number of people who can’t be bothered to change their pattern on Day One will change after the first time the DRL is the alternative to a shut-down Yonge line. Odds are, within a year of opening (dare I say 3-6 months?) there will be something that stops service between Union and Bloor, even if only for 20 minutes. While everyone now can still travel from Union to St. George, those heading east will likely take the DRL. Equally likely to happen during that time is a disruption somewhere between Pape and Yonge on the BD line, and the DRL will be the only way around it.
Raymond Jean quoted about the Spadina extension, “Toronto will contribute $526 million and York Region will contribute $352 million.”
When the province announced its third of the funding, it gave Toronto and York a deadline to agree on how they will split their third or else the provincial third would disappear. Neither Toronto nor York were happy with this 60/40 split. From Toronto’s point of view, half the extension is outside of Toronto so why should Toronto pay so much? From York’s point of view, how do you justify this sort of cost to ratepayers in Newmarket, Georgina, Sutton, and other areas far-far away from it? The whole project still needed one third from the federal government (which had NEVER been part of a project before, but somehow we now think this is the gold standard for big projects). Given at the time that the federal portion was a pipe dream, Toronto and York agreed to the 60/40 split at the last minute, probably hoping the federal money would never materialize and the whole thing could be changed later. Surprise, surprise, a year later the feds came up with their third and all were locked into the deal. Nobody seems to care if there is a better, more cost effective way to improve transit, so it looks like a done deal. Of course, if both Toronto and York residents convince their councils that BOTH of them are paying too much in this 60/40 deal, it could all fall apart. I know, that is the real pipe dream!
Raymond Jean also said about a very eastern DRL connection with BD, “And if passengers have to head so far east,… that they have to go westbound on the Bloor-Danforth line to get to their destination,… you’ll have fewer riders on DRL and thus it’ll be useless.”
This is an excellent point. Others keep talking like Union would be the panacea for the downtown transfer point on the DRL, and I believe that Raymond’s point about a connection too far east also applies to a connection too far south! Usage patterns would be far better if all the people destined for a stop between Bloor and Union didn’t have to funnel into the same train at Union.
LikeLike
This has to follow the train rights-of-way we already have, if it has a snowflake’s chance in hell: from Greenwood, through the Greenwood TTC yard, down to the mouth of the Don (which will facilitate intensification there!), past Union, Liberty Village, Parkdale, and Bloor GO (Dundas West). An option to extend to the Junction, or the airport (ha). They won’t have to dig: just get the rights of way. Some of these locations even have the benefit of empty space for the stations. Since using the rail lands is orders of magnitude cheaper than tunneling, there’s money to solve the issue of tying into Union. However, do not hold your breath for any relief line: the Leafs haven’t won in my life (39y), and transit’s hardly improved since my childhood.
Forget about a relief line under a city street. Can you possibly imagine tearing up city streets downtown with the traffic idiocy there now? Remember how long St. Clair was a mess? What about the length of time the Steeles line to nowhere took? The DRL may never happen, but a tunneled line ain’t ever going to happen.
Steve: There are big problems going through Union Station that I will address in a separate post about design issues for various DRL alternatives. As for the DRL west, that really is a pipedream. The real need is to the east where there is no equivalent of the University subway to intercept traffic.
LikeLike
One of the more interesting station proposals will probably be Cherry St., just because there’s so much development happening nearby already before this subway was considered at all realistic in expectations.
LikeLike
“Where do you 905ers get this sense of entitlement? If anybody should have a sense of entitlement to the TTC, it’s the residents of Toronto, whose property tax financially support the TTC. The TTC can’t even provide adequate public transit to the residents of Toronto, yet you think the TTC should be picking you up from the end of your driveway of your 905 cookie cutter house.”
And how many more fares is the TTC collecting from those dirty, annoying 905ers?
Whatever happened to thinking regionally?
Steve: Fares don’t pay the construction costs, and cover only about 70% of the operating costs.
LikeLike
CM Says:
“Whatever happened to thinking regionally?”
Regionally??? Really? Have the 905 municipalities start financially supporting the TTC with their 905 property tax money, instead of dumping all their 905ers at Finch station where they pay one TTC fare! Sure 905 municipalities want regional transit,… but they don’t want to pay for it! Heck, even the Province of Ontario (aka Metrolinx) wants regional transit,… but have they paid for it? The Province of Ontario stopped financially supporting the TTC in the mid-90’s,… leading to over a decade of transit decay in Toronto, where the TTC is now pimping it’s subway out to 905 region to collect “project management fee”.
Steve: Queen’s Park is back to supporting the TTC on both capital and operating budgets, but still not at the level of the 1970s, and still too linked with one-time, project-based announcements rather than an ongoing dedicated revenue stream. Yes, there’s gas tax, but it’s nowhere near enough.
If 905 municipalities and the Province want to “think regionally” then they should put their money where their mouth is and support regional transit, financially. And if these 905 municipalities and the Province thinks the TTC (TORONTO Transit Commission) should be delivering regional transit,… then they should put their money where their mouth is and support the TTC,.. FINANCIALLY!
Until that happens,… regional transit is the sole responsibility of GO (Government of Ontario) transit,.. whose mandate is to provide regional transit.
LikeLike
Since there has been a fair bit of discussion on how and if to extend the DRL north of the B-D subway, how’s this for an idea: build it in quadrants as part of an eventual Circle Line for ol’ TO, like the ones in London and Moscow. It works out especially well since the north end on the circle, running on Eglinton, would roughly correspond to the portion of the Eglinton LRT that is to be built underground. The service efficiencies of the line speak for themselves (and while it would break up continuous service along Eglinton, this would be no worse than the future situation on Sheppard). Plus, imagine being able to get on one subway in Leaside and ride to Parkdale without a single transfer! Anyway, probably a pipe dream but interesting food for thought!
LikeLike
There are, however, some problems with orbital lines; or at least London’s, which is very unreliable, and now it has been confirmed will soon become a sprial line rather than full circle:
http://londonconnections.blogspot.com/2008/07/death-of-circle-line-confirmed.html
LikeLike
One thing I hadn’t appreciated about the geography between Danforth and Eglinton until I was looking in Google Earth at likely accesses is that in order to serve Thorncliffe/Flemingdon and Don Mills using the same line, the ravine must be crossed not once but twice. The second time would be a narrower crossing but it adds to the gradient challenge or demands extremely deep stations, perhaps served by the sort of large capacity elevators one finds at Pearson terminals rather than the terminally unreliable TTC escalator fleet which makes the SRT look like clockwork.
Incidentally – since TTC commissioners will probably be getting TTC service alerts on their Blackberrys/Jesus Phones these days, what’s the betting the replacement of the RT with Mk2RT is going to be a harder sell next time it appears on the Commission’s agenda?
Steve: As I mentioned in another comment, Vancouver has had similar problems with their Mark II cars in this winters unusual snow. If anyone tries to claim that this is only a problem of Mark I technology, they are fibbing, or badly misinformed.
The alternative, which would sacrifice the win of a transit hub at DM+Eg. would be to run the DMLRT down Don Mills and over the Charles Hiscott bridge to an interface with a subway terminus at Thorncliffe Park Drive and Overlea.
Steve: Losing that connection at Eglinton reduces substantially the possibility of intercepting traffic westbound on Eglinton for the DRL. A double transfer in such a short space would be greeted with scorn that would make some folks comments about Transit City seem high praise.
@Scott R – first, it is to be hoped that a DRL, circular or not, will be built to learn from the experience of YUS and BD, specifically about doing it right the first time to avoid the costs of retrofitting capacity and safety upgrades later – ATO on Day 1, Platform doors on Day 1, 21st Century signalling on Day 1, 24hr operation capability on Day 1.
While we can guess about delays on an orbital line, we can be certain about the limitations termini impose on a system. Unlike the Circle line which has little dedicated track, a Toronto Eglinton-Don Mills-Queen-Keele subway would probably not be interlined and turning back trains at strategic pocket tracks or bay platforms should not require rocket science.
A E-DM-Q-K line would therefore be more like the Glasgow Subway which I have used myself while attending university there. It’s been a while since I’ve been on the Glasgow line but my recollection was that it was pretty satisfactory from a reliability perspective. I believe Moscow’s Koltsevaya Line orbital connector is similarly segregated – I doubt we’ll get those kind of stations though.
LikeLike
I’m glad there’s good discussion of this DRL.
Are the new tracks proposed for the Blue22/GO on the south side of the tracks and can the north side of these Weston tracks have two tracks for transit fitted into them?
Why do we have to have full-sized subway cars – would O-train 3-cars work?
Do we have to tunnel everywhere – it makes some sense in some places, but Front St. is wider than King or Queen; transit was on the surface once before, and Wellington is a short block north, if we have to split up a ROW for political purposes.
I favour avoiding the railtracks and getting up to Front St. at Bathurst, and the old Lands and Gardens trust on the south side is a railbed with a nice rise from Bathurst to Spadina.
The Front St. road project would have bolloxed up this DRL totally.
LikeLike
If Metrolinx has to be dragged into this begrudgingly, it would be an easier sell if it was cheaper. As for route choice, the least expensive to build, and thus in my opinion the most likely choice South of Bloor/Danforth, would be something following the railway corridor as much as possible. If Pape is still the preferred crossing at Danforth, running in a tunnel down to Pape / Gerrard Square and then following the railway fits. It would cross Queen between Broadview and Carlaw, then hit the new developments at the East Bayfront, St. Lawrence Market, and Union. From there proceed West just like the ‘Fanboy Map’ (which is really quite good, C. Livett, if you’re reading).
Regarding stop locations, particularly at Exhibition, @Raymond Jean: I’ve worked at Exhibition Place, and while it is insanely busy there during the Ex, I can tell you from experience that you are missing most of the transit demand in that location by dismissing it as ‘a few weeks a year’. The Direct Energy Centre is one of Canada’s largest exhibit halls, in fairly constant use from October to April, and often hosts crowds as large as you’d get from the Metro Convention Centre at a John street stop. Add to that the regular sold out crowds at BMO field for the Toronto FC soccer games and the Honda Indy and I’d say that a stop there has a solid case to exist. And that’s before any expansion at this actually still somewhat underused civic facility.
As an aside, Steve, previous plans for this route envisioned an elevated line North of the DVP. Is that still the best choice? One thing I’m wondering is if that would be more or less expensive than tunnelling (although I think we covered some of that ground before during my ‘elevated Queen line’ faze…)
LikeLike
The DRL has been needed for a good many years now and from where I sit, the apparently imminent Yonge subway extension is only compounding the sheer neccessity for the DRL. The best thing to do, as I see it, is to make the initial phase run from Union Station or wherever to Eglinton. it most definitely shouldn’t be any shorter than that.
LikeLike
Scott Watkins Says:
“Regarding stop locations, particularly at Exhibition, @Raymond Jean: I’ve worked at Exhibition Place, and while it is insanely busy there during the Ex, I can tell you from experience that you are missing most of the transit demand in that location by dismissing it as ‘a few weeks a year’. The Direct Energy Centre is one of Canada’s largest exhibit halls, in fairly constant use from October to April, and often hosts crowds as large as you’d get from the Metro Convention Centre at a John street stop. Add to that the regular sold out crowds at BMO field for the Toronto FC soccer games and the Honda Indy and I’d say that a stop there has a solid case to exist. And that’s before any expansion at this actually still somewhat underused civic facility.”
Yes, I agree that it’s insanely busy during the CNE. In fact the continuous lines of streetcars after streetcars from CNE up Bathurst to Bathurst Station and along Queen’s Quay to Union Station surely justify Bathurst and Queen Quay becoming subway lines,… if it wasn’t for the fact that this only happens “a few weeks a year”.
Given that the $2.8 Billion 8.6km Spadina subway extension and $2.4 Billion 6.8km Yonge subway extension will cost about $325-350 million per km,…. does stretching the potential DRL down to Exhibition Place at $325-350 million per km justify this convience that will only be realized “a few weeks a year” and perhaps a few weekends too. I’m not saying the TTC should NOT be servicing the Exhibition Place. Given that it’s NOT busy all the time, and quite often deserted, servicing it with $325-350 million per km subway may not be the best option,… a much cheaper $40 million per km LRT might be better, thou it’ll probably be the shortest LRT route connecting DRL to Exhibition Place.
I do agree with Steve, that having the DRL go under Union Station (Front Street) would be insane. In the financial core during the AM rush there’s a surge of humanity about 200,000 strong rushing north out of Union Station (both TTC and Union train station) along street level and the Path,… in the PM rush, its reverse,… same flood of humanity rushing south to Union Station. And if you’re going in the opposite direction, good luck! Thus, it’s strongly desirable to distribute this flow of people more evenly and away from Union Station. I think King Street would be idea for the DRL since it’ll hit both King Station and St.Andrew station with subway interchange,… whereas Wellington would only allow King Station to be interchange,… but most of the newer office developments are happening around St.Andrew station near Metro Hall. BTW, if DRL west does get built, you can bet it’ll either be King or Wellington since both borders Metro Hall.
If King or Wellington is choosen over Front Street, then in the West DRL, you’ll need to dip even lower to hit Exhibition place.
Scott Watkins Says:
“If Metrolinx has to be dragged into this begrudgingly, it would be an easier sell if it was cheaper. As for route choice, the least expensive to build, and thus in my opinion the most likely choice South of Bloor/Danforth, would be something following the railway corridor as much as possible.”
And given that both to the east and west of the downtown core we have railway corridor that eventually connect or come very close to the Bloor-Danforth line (Dundas West & Lansdown station in west and Pape & Donlands Station in east) these lines should be used. But will there be room to add subway tracks to these railway corridors? A better question might be, for the eastern and western parts of the DRL, would it be better to simply replace the existing GO tracks with subway tracks,… and have interchange stations at the west and east end of the DRL forcing these GO passengers to transfer to TTC DRL for the trip into the financial core? What about VIA train or CN/CP freight trains?
And while there is a GO train station at Exhibition place that can help justify a subway station there if it were to transfer regular commuters from GO onto TTC DRL into downtown on an everyday basis,… that GO station is not on the railway corridor that would eventually link up to Dundas West & Lansdown station.
LikeLike
Could somebody explain why Pape is preferred over Greenwood for the DRL, especially North of Danforth?
Steve: This is left over from the Don Mills corridor study that was bus-based/biased. The Don Mills bus goes to Pape Station, and so the replacement service does too. The idea of integrating the Don Mills LRT and the DRL, and taking neither of them to Pape, was never part of the equation at least in part because the DRL has only recently re-ermerged as an important project. None of the stations in that part of town (Pape, Donlands or Greenwood) has the capacity for a major new surface interchange, but that didn’t stop the planners from proposing massive increases in bus or LRT service on the surface.
LikeLike
Joshua H Says:
“Could somebody explain why Pape is preferred over Greenwood for the DRL, especially North of Danforth?”
Cheapest way to tunnel subway is under city streets and properties using tunnel boring machine for the tunnels and Cut and Cover at the subway stations.
Greenwood does have Greenwood subway yard south of Danforth,… but Greenwood Avenue is much too narrow. North of Danforth, Greenwood Avenue has only one lane north and one lane south. To do cut and cover for stations along Greenwood Avenue north of Danforth would require purchase of many properties especially when you consider each station is 500 feet long. Then add to that all those properties along Greenwood Avenue that would have subway tunnels right against their property lines,.. actually probably into their property.
Pape Avenue is a bit wider north of Danforth,… it’s has two lanes north and two lanes south,… add the sidewalks and you basically have the bare minimum required for cut and cover to build narrower subway stations with shared centre platforms,… probably not enough room for stations with 2 side platforms.
Since Donland Avenue is also similar width to Pape Avenue,.. both Donlands and Pape would be perferable over Greenwood Station for DRL.
BTW, for the same reason Greenwood Avenue north of Danforth wouldn’t be a good underground subway route,… Pape Avenue between Queen and Gerrard (as proposed in some DRL route) is also much too narrow since it’s has only one lane north and one lane south. Going under wider Carlaw Avenue south of Gerrard might be a better alternative in this part of town but railway corridor would be cheapest if possible.
LikeLike
Robert Mackenzie Says:
“Why do we have to stick with this route when, frankly I’m not sure it makes a lot of sense. (I admit my prejudice: the map that the National Post uses today to show the route would result in a project that would probably eliminate or significantly affect my home!)”,… “The proposed route west of the downtown uses the railway corridor to reach Dundas West. The proposed route east of downtown uses much of the railway corridor to leave downtown, then uses Eastern Avenue and Pape to reach Pape Station. Why not use the railway corridor entirely and join the Bloor – Danforth further east — perhaps even somewhere between Victoria Park and Main Stations, where the railway isn’t that far south of Danforth?”
While Victoria Park and Main station would be way too far east of Don Mills and the potential for the DRL to extend north of Danforth to Don Mills and Eglinton,… I think the DRL going up Coxwell Avenue would be much better than Pape Avenue or Donlands Avenue. This assumes that the East DRL would use the existing CN railway corridor as much as possible.
Since Donlands Avenue does not go south of Danforth, the route would need to detour a bit to the west down Jones Avenue and thus require purchase of properties. Also at the north-west corner where the railway corridor and Jones Avenue intersect, properties would also need to be purchase. Judging from those large curves near Union station, quite a bit of properties would be required.
The north-west corner of where Pape Avenue meets the railway corridor would also require properties be purchase under an existing plaza. Any DRL route up Pape Avenue or Donlands Avenue towards the Millwood Road bridge would require the subway route travel along the Don Valley towards Don Mills (just north of the DVP and river) along another set of railway corridor and taking up current parkland and bike path.
The main benefit of the Coxwell Avenue route is that the CN railway corridor is closer to Danforth at Coxwell then at Pape,.. thus requiring less tunnelling. And at the north-west corner where the railway corridor and Coxwell Avenue intersect, there’s a large atheletic field belonging to Monarch Park C.I.,… a Toronto high school,… so the city already owns this property! And this atheletic field probably have enough space for underground curves to connect the railway corridor and the tunnel under Coxwell Avenue. Coxwell station would become an interchange subway station, since the TTC already owns a bus yard at the south east corner of Coxwell and Danforth, property purchase would be minimum or none. Coxwell station already have facilities for subway operators on Bloor-Danforth line doing shift change and breaks, so those same facilities can be used by subway operators on DRL. North of Danforth, along Coxwell Avenue there will be slightly less tunnelling required as compared to Pape Avenue or Donlands Avenue. And along Coxwell Avenue once it gets into the Don Valley, you just head straight north and you’ll hit Don Mills Road,…on your way to a new transit hub at Don Mills and Eglinton.
I wonder if the new City of Toronto still uses the buildings at the old East York borough city hall,… right at Coxwell & Mortimer, north of Danforth and south of Cosburn. The reason I’m wondering is because in the old city of Toronto before amalgamation,… subway lines and extension seem to have been placed to join the various city halls of the 6 boroughs. IE Scarborough Civic Centre (Scarborough Town Centre) getting light rail transit line, York City Hall at Eglinton & Keele getting Eglinton Subway line, North York City Hall getting Sheppard line,..
LikeLike
People need to stop thinking that the DRL can be on the surface along the CN Kingston sub… not practical.
LikeLike