Revised December 29 at 12:15 am: The section on the Finch LRT has been moved to the end and expanded to clarify an alternate proposal for the underground connection between the Yonge subway and the LRT station.
In the two previous articles in this series on the Eglinton and other LRT lines, I mentioned that the TTC would receive an update at its December 16 meeting on the status of the projects. Seasonal festivities and other matters have diverted my attention, and I’ve been remiss in not reporting on the news, such as it is.
The discussion was intriguing as much for its political as its technical content. Two factors, related to some extent, will force decisions that, to date, have been avoided about priorities and about the mechanism of project delivery.
- With the award of the 2015 Pan Am Games to the GTA, there is a desire to have everything up and ready to go with time to spare before the event itself. This affects both the SRT and the proposed Scarborough-Malvern LRT.
- Although Queen’s Park, through Infrastructure Ontario, is enamoured of “alternative procurement” (code for private sector development of public infrastructure), actually launching a project on such a basis is now acknowledged to add about one year to the delivery time. This affects both the SRT and the Finch West LRT which were to be delivered in this manner.
Under the original project schedule, the SRT would still be under reconstruction as an LRT line when the Games took place in 2015. If this is to be avoided, the start date for the project must be advanced to 2011 or delayed until after the games. The latter option is dubious considering that the SRT is, technically speaking, on its last legs and keeping it running reliably into the Games period may be challenging. TTC staff will report on these issue in January, and another round of public meetings is expected in the same timeframe.
Of course, staff will also finally have to produce a design that shows an LRT conversion, rather than an ICTS-centric scheme. They will have to modify the connection at Sheppard both as an interim terminal (the northern section to Malvern is not yet funded), and to provide a track connection to the Sheppard LRT so that Scarborough LRT trains can use Sheppard carhouse.
The Kennedy Station redesign is also affected by the LRT conversion as the SRT will no longer be a separate entity from the Eglinton LRT lines.
When the Games were announced, there was much talk of accelerating construction of the Scarborough Malvern LRT running east from Kennedy via Eglinton, then north via Kingston Road and Morningside to UofT’s Scarborough Campus (UTSC). What has not been examined in detail, probably because people still think of the “SRT” as an “ICTS” line, is the early construction of the northern 2km of the Malvern line from UTSC north to Sheppard.
I suspect that the running time from Kennedy to UTSC via Eglinton, or via a temporarily extended SRT via Sheppard could be comparable, and for a short-term operation would make much more sense. The UTSC site could be served by trains on the S(L)RT from Kennedy and by trains on the Sheppard LRT from Don Mills giving good access not just for people using the BD subway to reach Kennedy. Longer term, this option would provide service to UTSC long before the planned date for the Scarborough-Malvern line.
Metrolinx is considering this option, but the TTC and City are plumping for funding of the full Malvern LRT line.
The “alternative financing procurement” (AFP) issue arises because the contract with the private developer imposes an extra layer of complexity, preparation and management that does not for a project delivered in the “traditional” manner by the inhouse TTC project. Any private arrangement must have a defined product along with a mechanism to ensure compliance, and design must reach a detailed enough stage that a bidder can make a concrete proposal. This pushes back the start date for any project using alternative procurement by about a year.
In the case of the SRT, it would likely not be possible to make the target date for completion, according to preliminary comments at the TTC meeting, if the new line was to be up and running by the winter of 2014/15, well in advance of the Games.
In the case of the Finch West line, the delayed start triggers a political problem because there is so much focus on Scarborough. Why should Downsview and Rexdale have to wait behind reordered priorities that could complete the Scarborough LRT network all in the name of serving the Games?
For all of Transit City, the TTC will deliver the projects on Metrolinx’ behalf, but we don’t yet know how the next layer down will work for the AFP projects. However, regardless of how the new lines are built, the TTC will operate and mainten them.
Project Co-ordination and Standardization
The TTC will have a program manager within their Transit City department responsible for the projects. In theory, this should provide one-stop shopping for a number activities that were at times disorganized on the St. Clair project. The TTC and City will co-ordinate all construction activities, including those of utilities, to avoid scheduling problems, minimize effects on neighbourhoods, and to simply keep everyone informed of what is happening.
Detailed information will be maintained on the project websites, services such as Facebook, and other media. The real issues here will be timeliness, accuracy and completeness, all weak points in TTC web-based information sources.
An important change from the St. Clair project will be an attempt to bundle utility work into the main LRT construction contracts rather than having each part of the work proceed separately under different contracts. This will ensure good planning and co-ordination because the same company will do all of the work in a section of the route. Better scheduling should also be possible so that affected parties and neighbourhoods can know when to expect work to affect them and to be completed.
One troubling aspect is the development of a standard 36m street cross-section for the LRT lines. This is all well and good where 36m is available, but in some cases this is not true.
On Finch from Yonge to Bathurst, the City plans to widen the street to 36m based on a long-standing part of plans for the area. Other parts of the Transit City network are not so simply to address, and as I have discussed here before, parts of the TTC are still in denial about the difficulties of placing a reserved lane (regardless of the vehicle technology) on a narrow street.
Acquisition of Carhouse Properties
City Council has approved acquisition of properties for maintenance facilities on the Eglinton and Finch West lines. The Eglinton property is at the old Kodak lands in Weston, while the Finch property is between York Gate and Norfinch.
Sheppard East LRT
Construction of the Sheppard East line is now underway with two preparatory projects:
- Sewer and watermain replacement on Sheppard.
- GO Agincourt grade separation. This would have occurred eventually for improved GO service on the Uxbidge Sudivision, but construction of the LRT line provided the trigger to get this done now. The detour road is under construction, and the actual grade separation work will occur in 2010.
Two LRT and road contracts will be let in 2010, and the target opening date is September 2013.
Scarborough RT
This project originally included an extension of the RT to Malvern Centre, but the funding provided will only take the line to Sheppard as a first stage. This is now an LRT conversion project, not an ICTS project, and its scope is therefore greater than a replacement of Mark I with Mark II ICTS technology.
A few years ago, a study of the SRT’s future was clearly headed to a recommendation that the line be converted to LRT, but this was before Transit City was announced. Somewhere between the public meetings (which were clearly pro-LRT) and the final staff report to the Commission, the idea of an LRT conversion was downplayed because:
- Both the ICTS and LRT options cost roughly the same for the existing section of the route from McCowan to Kennedy. Now that the line will be both extended and will be part of a larger LRT network, the ICTS option does not make sense economically or operationally.
- The shutdown time for an LRT conversion was projected to be quite long relative to Mark II ICTS. Since then, the changes needed for the ICTS option have turned out to be greater than originally expected, although still not enough to make the shutdown times equal. The TTC should produce a project plan that maximizes the amount of work that can be done before a shutdown is required.
The original construction start was projected as 2012 with revenue service in 2016. However, as noted above, this conflicts with the Pan Am Games in 2015 when all services should be operating. We will learn in January what sort of construction schedule the Games will require.
Eglinton LRT
The TTC is now developing a schedule for the project, and is designing the at-grade sections of the line. Construction of the at-grade portion from Jane west to Commerce Blvd. will start in mid 2010.
The tunnel boring machines (TBMs) will be tendered in spring 2010, and the tunnelling launch site (east of Black Creek) will be tendered in the fall. These jobs are timed so that the launch site for the TBMs will be ready when they are delivered in late 2011.
The opening dates for each section remain 2016 (Renforth to Eglinton West), 2018 (Eglinton West to Kennedy) and 2020 (Renforth to Airport).
Finch West LRT
The EA for this line was also on the agenda for this meeting, and it was approved for transmittal to Council where it will be discussed in late January 2010. Panels from the last round of public meetings are available on the project website.
Geotechnical studies as well as structural analysis of bridges on the route is underway, and a draft feasibility study of an extension to Woodbine Live! and Pearson Airport is complete. This material has not yet been released and, no doubt, suffers from the same uncertainty about routing through the airport as the Eglinton LRT line.
Construction start is planned for 2011 with revenue service in 2015. These dates may be revised depending on the outcome of discussions about procurement and project management (see above).
An illustration in the Commission presentation (not available online) was slightly different from that in the panels linked above.
Finch-Yonge station’s connection between the two lines is very roundabout. The more recent illustration shows the arrangement in a 3D view rather than only in profile. In a masterpiece of understatement, a note on this drawing says that “refinement of concept to enhance passenger transfer convenience will be conducted during preliminary design”. That’s putting it mildly. The proposed arrangement requires passengers to descend two levels from the LRT station and then arise onto the subway’s centre platform from below.
The problem arises because of the relative elevations of the station components and the placement of the LRT station. In the existing station, the subway is two “levels” below grade while the mezzanine linking to the various entrances and to the bus loop is one below. The LRT station would also be one below and would fit between the roof of the subway structure and Finch Avenue.
The LRT station is centre platform and cannot, therefore, directly connect to the existing mezzanine. If the LRT were a side-platform station, then it could operate something like the Sheppard-Yonge connection with at least the north (westbound) platform having direct access to the subway mezzanine. A link from a centre platform or an eastbound-only platform would go under the LRT structure and then back up into the mezzanine. It is ironic that a surface LRT station would make the simplest transfer connection to the subway, structurally, although it would completely foul up access to the bus loop and traffic on Finch Avenue.
The proposed LRT station is directly under the Finch/Yonge intersection straddling the subway. If the LRT station were further east, the lateral connection described above would connect into the mezzanine level passageway between the main part of the subway station and the bus loop east of Yonge, and there would be no need to dig down below the existing subway structure.
Steve Munro 
So, gazing into the Munro Crystal Ball, how much of Transit City do you think will be up-and-running for the games? I suppose there is no way of enticing the building of a DRL that could be done in time either.
Steve: A number of comments about the Games focus on the West Don Lands as a place needing transit. However, this area will be a closed site for the atheletes’ village and a practice area, and there will not be any public competitions there. The downtown locations such as the Dome and the CNE grounds are already served by transit. Other venues are in Hamilton, Richmond Hill and eastern Scarborough. See the Bid Book for details of the venues (warning 42MB download).
The DRL has absolutely nothing to do with serving the Games venues.
LikeLike
Waterloo began looking into rapid transit in their region back in 2005. Other Ontario municipalities seem to be also slow in getting shovels into the ground, compared with Toronto. While Transit City does seem slow to get going to us, it is at least having something visible than just paperwork for the other cities. Lets hope that 2010 will show physical movement in all the cities in Ontario for better public transit, not just Toronto.
LikeLike
You say that:
“The Kennedy Station redesign is also affected by the LRT conversion as the SRT will no longer be a separate entity from the Eglinton LRT lines.”
Does this mean that Eglinton LRT could run right through to Scarborough Town Center? That would be quite nice actually.
Steve: That would, in theory, be possible. However, no transit system can have one-seat rides and through service between every point. The level of demand on the RT is expected to be considerably higher than on the Eglinton line, and the SRT trains would probably be longer than the TTC would otherwise run on Eglinton. Such details need to get worked out closer to the actual opening of the lines, but the important thing now is to not preclude such operation with a revamped Kennedy Station that doesn’t allow it. Don’t forget also that some may prefer a through service east-west on Eglinton once the Scarborough-Malvern line exists.
LikeLike
The Finch/Yonge interchange is tricky because unlike Sheppard/Yonge, there are plans to extend the Finch LRT east of Yonge, at least as far as Don Mills. This means that the interchange design has to provide convenient access to both eastbound and westbound platforms. A Sheppard/Yonge-style interchange would be problematic since although traffic to the westbound platform would have a direct connection to the subway, there is no way to connect the eastbound platforms directly to the subway platform because it is located too far north of Finch. Consequently, transfer traffic to and from the eastbound platforms would have to take a very roundabout route. The proposed connection to Finch/Yonge isn’t ideal, but the only other alternative is a surface platform in the middle of Finch Avenue which simply wouldn’t provide enough capacity.
Steve: In a roundabout way, that’s more or less what I was saying. There’s no ideal configuration.
LikeLike
On page 27 of 52 of the December Display Boards the consultants and other transit gurus said that it was to be a side platform station. The track map, which I cannot seem to find, showed side platforms with a crossover to the west of the station and three tail tracks to the east. Has the TTC changed their mind from their proposal at the November or December meetings? A centre platform stations would make for easier passenger transfer as there would be no need for train platform loading signs. Please say that AFP or P cubed is only a brief nightmare that will go away when I wake up.
Happy new year.
Steve: If you look at the drawing of Finch-Yonge station I linked, it is clearly a centre-platform station. This surprised me as it did you, but a centre platform layout saves on escalators and elevators. Of course, the side platform arrangement I have described elsewhere would be even simpler.
As for AFP/PPP, yes I hope it goes away. However, there is a whole Ministry dedicated to this sort of thing, and a bunch of true believers who need projects to prove that they know what they are doing. Do you remember GO Urban? Natural Gas Buses? Once a government agency has a mandate, no matter how doctrinaire or inappropriate, the agency will find a way to show it is being productive.
LikeLike
I spy with my little eye a typo:
” advanced to 2011 or delayed until after the ganes. The latter ”
Two: I am sorry Downsview and Rexdale but you both can go to hell. Downsview already has a subway station, DOWNSVIEW STATION. You will also have Sheppard West, Finch West, York U and Steeles West within your community/near your community (I don’t know the exact boundaries for downsview). Rexdale
…
You are part of Etobicoke, You have 4 stations (Old Mill to Kipling). Finally Scarborough will get what we have been needing for a long long time. The fact that the Sheppard stubway finished 5 minutes from the border is insulting.
Victoria Park is a mess and it will be a mess for a while, technically that station is both in Toronto and Scarborough, Warden…well there is the bus bay which is not accessible and no heat whatsoever and that rat and oh yeah the dirtiest washrooms ever. Kennedy is not a subway station, is a mess of a station.
Three: To Downsview and Rexdale, Pray that the Finch West LRT does not go through the hell that St. Clair West went through, Scarborough might go through that for 3 LRT lines (Sheppard, Eggie, Scarborough-Malvern).
Steve: Do you seriously think the Athletes will be using the S(L)RT/Scarborough-Malvern/Sheppard East LRT? All the 2015 Pan Am Games athletes/staff/sponsors will be moving around in private shuttles. All the local media and foreign media will have their own vans/cars … All that will add such a congestion. So what is really the point of thinking any Transit City will help the 2010 Pan Am Games?
Steve: Thanks for pointing out the typo. I will fix it.
As for Etobicoke and Downsview, the Finch West line serves a very different travel pattern than the BD subway (which is nowhere nearby) or the Spadina extension. I have a big problem with an event of a few weeks being used to gerrymander project priorities and, in the process, underminding city-wide support for the network.
It’s not me that claims that the various LRT lines in Scarborough are needed for the games, it’s the TTC and the City through the Mayor’s office. The atheletes and Pooh-Bahs will get around in private transport, but the spectators have to get to and from the games. The bid book makes a big deal about how we will move everyone around by transit.
I believe that trying to kickstart the Scarborough-Malvern line with the games is a mistake, and that the northern connection to Sheppard will do just as well and will provide a major improvement in accessibility for UTSC without the full cost of the SMLRT.
LikeLike
Would it be feasible/desirable to build the LRT station at Finch with one direction of tracks stacked above the other (one at -1 and one and -3) with both platforms on the north side?
Steve: It’s probably feasible, but I’m not sure how much it would cost. Given that the TTC proposal goes down to “-3” to get under the Yonge line’s centre platform it should also be possible to take one of the LRT tunnels down that far too. However, this would complicate trackage for turnbacks.
Conversely, a side platform station would require only a tunnel at -2 (the same level as the existing subway) to link the south (eastbound) platform to the subway mezzanine. This should be less complex than digging under the subway station.
LikeLike
“The DRL has absolutely nothing to do with serving the Games venues.”
Not directly, no. But could it not be argued that building it will alleviate a lot of crowd problems associated with people traveling to/from the games? What i’m suggesting is that it could be sold as an idea for helping get people around during the games rather than as the (more legitimate) idea of relieving stress on the lower portions of the Y-U-S. The cynic in me says that if you tie it to the Games, it may get noticed more, and therefore may get built.
Just sayin…
Steve: I will repeat this. The DRL does not serve the areas where there are major venues for the Games, and we should not be committing a few billions to build it only for such a short requirement anyhow.
The biggest challenge will be getting people out to Hamilton and up to Richmond Hill. This will strain road systems and transit, but leave downtown Toronto blissfully alone.
LikeLike
Maybe I’ve been out of the loop or something but what I’m wondering right now is if leaving the present Scarborough line as ALRT is completely off the table now.
Steve: Yes, it is, and for a few reasons. First, the existing technology is worn out and needs to be replaced soon. Also, in the context of a network of LRT lines in Scarborough (Eglinton, Sheppard, Scarborough-Malvern), having one remaining ICTS (ALRT) line doen’t make sense. Finally, the economics of keeping ICTS only ever worked if the line was never extended. The further north it goes (some plans show it running up to Steeles or further), the more expensive it would be relative to LRT.
LikeLike
I’m wondering about Finch/Yonge, is there actually space to make the road 36m wide? That corner is pretty jammed right now, you need to be west of Beecroft before it would be possible to go to a wider street. Then again they could start to dive into tunnels west of Beecroft and simply let the street narrow there.
Steve: If you look at the plan on the project website (the most recent display panels) at page 27, you will see that the portal is a few blocks west of Yonge.
LikeLike
The SRT bugs me. The ICTS technology is only half the legacy. The current alignment is the other half. Even today you couldn’t plan a route that intercepts less population. This legacy is now influencing the design of transit city. There are much more efficient network designs then the one we are presented. For example, extending BD east on Eglinton is as easy digging as it gets. The road is 7 lanes wide there! The BD and Eglinton LRT interchange could then happen at a station just west of Brimley. Both in the middle of the street, center platform to center platform. The Kennedy station I would not change at all. I would run the Eglinton LRT to Kingston Rd but only to Guildwood.
Steve: The SRT was routed up the Uxbridge Subdivision to avoid going through a tight right-of-way on a northeast alignment behind people’s homes (on an old, but narrow rail corridor).
Back to BD. Not so easy digging up Danforth Rd brings you to McCowan and Lawrence. That’s where the Scarborough-Malvern LRT should connect. A Lawrence-Morningside route for this line would serve a lot more people and there is potential westward expansion. From this intersection its 2km to STC.
Running the Sheppard LRT south on Morningside makes sense to me. I think this should be the permanent routing rather than going to the zoo. Has the location of the Sheppard carhouse been decided yet? The wasteland at the SE corner of 401 and Morningside looks like an option.
Steve: The carhouse will be near Conlins Road on property already owned by the Ministry of Transportation.
LikeLike
I think having a rapid transit link with the airport would benefit Toronto’s economy the best, not only for the games but afterward as well. I lived most of my life in Vancouver and Translink now has a rapid transit link to Vancouver’s airport in Richmond in time for the olympics. This helps tourism greatly, and tourism dollars are part of any city’s economy. I hope they push the two LRT as a priority- both the Eglinton Crosstown with an airport link as well as the Finch West LRT with an airport link as well.
I live in Scarborough, not near the Malvern Town Center area but was hoping the SRT conversion to LRT would be extended to Malvern TC. I have some TTC literature that has artists renderings of the different stations along this route and the Malvern Town Center station, which would be just west of the present Malvern TC, it had a large bus bay that would accomodate a lot of different bus routes that service this heavily used transit area of the city. I don’t think that the Sheppard Station could have room for all the bus bays that would need this link. I suppose all the present buses would continue to use Scarborough Town Center as the rapid transit link. This is unfortunate because this extension that ends at Sheppard won’t help the transit users at Malvern much.
LikeLike
I guess that the 3-D view CLEARLY shows a centre platform. It would be helpful if the LRV’s looked less like subway cars. It is amazing that at the November public meetings the designers were adamant that a centre platform was not technically possible or desirable. Do they still have the pocket track and temporary tail tracks to the east. I can easily envisage a need for heavier service to the west given the easterly alignment.
Steve: I’m planning on writing to the project folks to clarify this.
LikeLike
I’m one of about 15% – 20% of the current Finch West 36 bus riders that come from other buses coming into Finch. If that diagram is correct, we’re going to have to go down to the subway platform and back up to catch a ride on the Finch West LRT. Can’t be helped as the flow has to focus on the subway line. But the whining is going to be amazing.
Steve: That’s another excellent reason for connecting the LRT in at the mezzanine level under the bus loop.
LikeLike
~~
Miroslav Glavic says:
December 28, 2009 at 7:07 pm
I am sorry Downsview and Rexdale but you both can go to hell.
~~
I’m sorry Miroslav, but I have to pointedly disagree with you.
Scarborough has much better transit options than most of Etobicoke, more areas of Scarbourgh are covered by service, service in Scarbourgh has MUCH BETTER headways, and to really get technicial Scarbourgh has better accessibility.
Reasons for these comments are below:
1. Kipling station is the ONLY accessible station in Etobicoke, you folks out there in Scarbourgh have Kennedy, STC and Don Mills (5 minutes from the border as you stated).
[In my community of Maybelle-Dundas we live a 5 minute walk from a station, Islington, but most of us are disabled and therefore have to rely on garbage 30 minute headway daytime bus service to an accessible station.]
2. Scarbourgh has most areas within a decent frequency level of bus service and most areas are less than a 25 minute commute from a station, and that’s not even counting the fact that it’s also accessible. (I’ve actually gone out and researched this! My favourite point to do it from is Meadowvale and Sheppard, I have a good friend that lives at East Dean Park & Meadowvale.)
3. Most parts of Etobicoke (excluding Humber and York U. areas) have garbage bus service and some areas are as much as 45 minutes away from a Subway station.
4. There are still several large areas of Etobicoke not well covered by decent daytime bus service, also our most western North-South Blue Night route is Islington, the 300A does not count as it only services the airport north of Burnhamthorpe.
5. One other thing for you to know Miroslav, is that the Warden Station washrooms are NOT the worst, that dubious distinction goes to Kipling … the smell is nasty and can be smelled from the subway platform most times.
LikeLike
Remember when they split BD into two separate lines and you had to go through Museum to continue each direction for those weekends, and how the first weekend they had to use replacement buses, also the YUS line issue a few weeks ago. I haven’t used the SRT as much in the past couple of years and in two years the ridership can change in any section up or down.
At some point they will have to close the SRT to physically remove the rails and install the LRT tracks and the extension to Sheppard … Will they have enough buses to replace the SRT for those weeks or even months? I know the SRT got shut down after midnight (I think?) just a while ago … but when they replace the SRT to SLRT … I am assuming it won’t be a midnight-8am job … They will take buses from other routes, will there be enough buses to cover both rush hours each day?
Steve: The line will be shut down for about two years (depending on how the work is staged), and the bus replacements will be built into fleet plans. The important thing will be for the TTC to run LOTS of non-stop service from Kennedy to STC rather than the farting around of stopping at every station enroute done by many shuttle buses. This wastes a lot of time for the buses and the riders considering that only Lawrence East has any significant demand, and people can transfer to/from the 54 wherever the bus route crosses Lawrence East.
What will Happen to McCowan Yard? What will happen to the Kennedy Loop? I actually saw a train there when coming back from a TTC open house … technical issue.
Steve: It will be abandoned. I’m sure the TTC will find something to do with the property, or the City will sell it.
LikeLike
Why do there need to be separate connections from the Finch eastbound and westbound LRT tracks to the subway. I thought the whole point of LRT is that people can *walk across the tracks*. Put the LRT on the mezzanine level with a single direct connection, no?
Steve: Yes, that would be a nice idea, but at any point where there is a large volume of pedestrian traffic (transfers), it is preferable to separate the flows. Having said that, the TTC seems to have designed the most complicated, roundabout and expensive connection possible.
LikeLike
What was the update for the Finch LRT Connection at Finch station being moved for the alternate proposal?
Steve: Read the post. The text in the section on the Finch LRT did not clarify that the alternative required moving the LRT station east so that it was south of the bus loop and could connect directly into the mezzanine under that loop.
LikeLike
I put a post on Spacing today on the “lost” village of Agincourt and have a picture of the work done so far: basically the demolition of an old auto shop and some fencing in the Agincourt GO station, perhaps for a temporary diversion as the underpass is being constructed.
Steve: This is a good article, the first in a series about “lost villages” Sean has planned.
On another note, the comment about “Downsview and Rexdale can go to hell” bothered me. The author of that rather nasty note is correct that Downsview (which is actually centred on Wilson between Keele and Dufferin) is already served, but the hostility is troubling. One could make the same point about North Scarborough, saying that Scarborough already has a subway and a LRT under construction, and it can “go to hell”. The politics of pitting one neighbourhood against another, either at the amateur transit advocacy level or at city council, is counterproductive.
Cheers and Happy New Year!
LikeLike
Why is it that the SRT was designed with stations that couldn’t possibly serve pedestrians? Especially at Ellesmere, what if the station were rebuilt with a mezzanine sandwiched above the tracks and below the roadway, with stairs and entrances directly from Ellesmere itself, rather than the inhospitable, inaccessible badlands and sideroads underneath it, albeit in the middle of the bridge. Firstly, this would allow for extremely simple bus connections, and even some scant pedestrian traffic. Same could be said for Lawrence East station, which doesn’t really need a bus loop, rather a turnaround that would still exist in the new set-up.
Steve: When what became the SRT was designed, it was an LRT line and it crossed Lawrence and Ellesmere at grade. Later, when it morphed into ICTS and as part of the ongoing desire to grade separate major rail crossings, those two streets were lifted onto long bridges. Oddly enough, the crossing further north at Sheppard is only now being addressed. Lawrence got its roundabout bus loop, and Ellesmere got nothing, probably because it wasn’t thought to be an important stop back then.
LikeLike
Sean, I completely agree with you about the ‘Rexdale can go to hell’ comment.
I may live out here in Etobicoke, but I sometimes hate being all the way out here, it is a pain to get to downtown, and I travel all over, nearly everyday, I also go out to Scarbourgh on a regular basis..
I am really pushing and hoping for a speedier building of the Eglinton Crosstown LRT, as I would be using it a lot.
I’ve never liked the SRT, and always try to find a way around having to take it. I usually use the 21 or the 131 during rush hours.
The ICTS system was a failure from the start in my opinion, I hated the noisiness of it, I hate the unreliability and the futile efforts of those who support it, are lame to say the least.
LikeLike
I hope they have the sense to extend the 54E express buses to Kennedy Station when the closure happens… sorry for the semantics
LikeLike
As a Native Scarberian, let me apologize for the hostile comments about Rexdale and Downsview. We share a common concern – inner suburbs that are largely under served by our current transit options.
Arguing over project priority will make losers of us all. Instead, lets celebrate the recognition (finally) that a rapid transit network will be built in areas that need it the most.
LikeLike
If we’re going to say that eliminating the RT technology in Toronto makes sense from a carhouse/maintenance perspective, then we should be pushing for the suburban LRT system to be fully cross-compatible with the downtown network. If the two systems are going to operate on different track gauges and with vehicles that can’t navigate on both, aren’t we re-creating the same ICTS problem? Isn’t the goal to have one LRT system, not two?
Another point … interlining. We all know that the TTC will not revenue-integrate Eglinton and the SRT because they would have to run longer-than-necessary trains to and from Eglinton that could handle the larger SRT crowds (as they did on the 1966 crosstown/downtown flip-flop routing scheme). And I seriously doubt that SLRT trains would continue on Sheppard for the same reason … so, who are we kidding? When you take interlining out of the equation, the case for converting the SRT becomes very weak.
Steve: There are two major differences in the SRT’s position relative to LRT. First, the SRT is really an orphan line as compared with two networks each of which will have a few hundred vehicles, and the SRT would be an ICTS line surrounded by and connecting with the suburban LRT network. Second, keeping the ICTS technology only ever made sense economically in the context of the line remaining its current length. Even then it was a wash with the shorter upgrade time being the deciding factor.
As for interlining, I have never proposed such an operation except, possibly, for a short-term through service to UTSC from Kennedy for the Pan Am Games.
I believe that there is far too much emphasis on permanent infrastructure for such events that are very short-lived, and we risk gerrymandering spending priorities.
LikeLike
I noticed an article in today’s Star where an urban planner is suggesting overhead cable cars lines as a better option over Transit City, citing better speed and capacity that the proposed LRT lines. I must admit as I read the article I was intrigued but at the same time very skeptical over the claims. I do remember the cable cars that ran the length of the CNE, and a friend and I took the gondola car to the top of Mt Trembemt to explore the hiking trails at the top, but I find it hard to imaging hoping on one to get across town or to a subway station, and I’m sure anyone afraid of heights might not be too eager to use them. The article did also mention street-level cars pulled along by cable, as with those in SF – obviously that would elimitate the need for overhead wire and supporting poles but I can’t see any other advantages.
I just hope this doesn’t become a distraction that slows progress on TC.
Phil
Steve: See my comments elsewhere in this thread. I agree that this is a red herring, and it only got such exposure in the Star because there is nothing else to write about this week.
LikeLike
Even a surface connection at Yonge and Finch won’t solve the problems you highlight. You’d need one in the hydro corridor, but diverting the LRT line that far north brings its own host of problems. Sadly, I’m not certain there is really a “better way” to make this connection, at least not at this point on time.
If/when we extend the Yonge line up to Steeles, the need for a bus bay at Finch (especially when you consider that the Finch West LRT will also head east) will be minimal. Only then can we make an “easy” connection with the subway.
Perhaps the optimal idea would be to steal from Montreal. Over there, subway trains enter the last station of the line, and empty of all passengers. They then go a little bit forward, beyond the tracks, and switch. There are no end of the line centre platforms, unloading and loading are done separately. Perhaps side platforms with this in mind would indeed work best.
LikeLike
Also, a quick comments about washrooms that was touched upon by others. As someone who uses all the TTC washrooms on an all-too-regular basis, I can say this.
Don Mills is, by far, the “best” washroom on the system. Even that, is horribly scuzzy. Sheppard Yonge, Finch, Kennedy, Kipling, Warden, are all about even. Wilson and Dowsview beat these stations out by just a touch. The worst washrooms, however, are on the Yonge line. Eglinton is terrible, and the only washroom in the entire country I will never, ever, use again is the one at Bloor-Yonge station. I, Literally, and I emphasize Literally, know someone from India who’s entire opinion of Canada changed the moment he walked into a TTC washroom on the Yonge line.
Steve: And the TTC is proud of the “improvements” they have made in their washrooms!
LikeLike
There is an article in today’s Star that advocates aerial cable cars as a more cost-effective alternative to LRT. The claim is that cable cars can carry up to 6000 people per hour per direction exceeding the projected 5000 for the Eglinton LRT. I am having a hard time believing the claim.
Steve: Not putting this very kindly, I believe that this whole business is so much hot air. Claims made on the website linked from that article do not hold water, and the author spends too much time mixing aerial and ground-based cable systems (including San Francisco’s cable cars).
I have already cut off a debate thread initiated by him on this site.
What really troubles me is that a potential cabinet minister, Glen Murray, once touted as a mayoral candidate, gives this scheme some credibility. The last thing we need is yet another diversion into an inappropriate technology that gives Queen’s Park a way to waste small amounts dithering on “industrial development” while spending little on what we actually need.
The claims about capacity are simply not credible.
LikeLike
So the two issues I see are:
1) Staging the work so that it does not affect the games … nothing would be worse than “the world” coming to Toronto and finding 3 or 4 major streets dug up, the RT in shambles and no transit options … whether or not they are finished won’t matter much as probably they won’t be used by any of the athletes or fans … but if the athletes get delayed because the road is torn up … well then …
2) Getting as many airport connections done as possible in the shortest amount of time as possible … if Toronto has a good downtown->airport connection and some other options from the north it will make the alternative (expanding the island airport) less politically feasible – as the main reason for the expansion is that getting to Pearson is a pain for the downtown crowd … it would almost be in Toronto’s interest to pay to get the lines done so as to not have to deal with expansion at the airport …
LikeLike
Well, according to the Toronto Star, and one or two readers of this blog, we should really think about replacing ALL new technology, not just ICTS, with this.
And I was accused of getting high on chocolate for proposing a heritage route. What was THIS guy on???
Steve: I have already discussed this ludicrous proposal to the extent I want to elsewhere in comments on this site. I believe that the proposal is deeply flawed, and it’s a shame it is getting so much exposure. Holidays are the time papers fill up space with fluff.
LikeLike
For the Finch LRT station at Yonge I believe the solution is to push the subway platforms to the south such that the two lines cross. We’re going to have the roof off the intersection anyway and while the Yonge line still terminates here this can be constructed without affecting service. My configuration would be side platforms for the subway and north side platforms for the LRT. Sounds like a megaproject I know, but like a house, new construction is often cheaper than renovation. The RHE plan includes downsizing the bus station so I think the station design should favour the subway-LRT transfer instead of the subway-bus transfer.
Steve: Moving the station south and converting to side platforms would be a huge job, vastly out of scale of what is needed to fix a simple problem. As I have already said, it is far easier to locate the LRT station east of Yonge where it can be directly connected into the mezzanine below the bus loop which ends just north of the street.
Of course the TTC may be playing games with an idea of eventually selling the bus loop following an RH extension. The block of land out to Yonge Street contains a lot of old buildings nobody will miss, and I’m sure the land would be worth a lot for a condo development. However, making a complex, expensive LRT to subway connection is a lot to pay.
LikeLike
I remember when those things used to run at the Ex! Cooky idea, but cable cars on the ground (or Bombardier’s PRIMOVE) would eliminate unsightly center poles and overhead entirely.
As for the SRT, an upgrade to Mark II would have increased the fleet size to 100+ … no? That’s not exactly an orphan line. My other problem with converting the line to LRT is that the TTC is going to insist on running the extension in an exclusive ROW anyway (so as not to compromise headway uniformity) … so again, the case for conversion is quite weak given that an ART upgrade is easier and faster construction-wise.
Steve: Should I start making comments about headway uniformity on the existing RT and subway lines now?
LikeLike
I don’t know if this comment will make it through, but the cable car idea is one of the most ridiculous ideas I’ve heard in a very long time.
Cable drawn anything (gondolas, pearson style people movers) are only suited for short haul connections, for example, connecting the “far” side of Yorkdale mall to the subway, or connecting the under-used York University GO station to York University (the two are a distance apart at this time). Running a gondola line the length of the 401 is on the same level as “A Priest, A Reverend, and a Rabbi” joke.
LikeLike
….you mean swans AREN’T propelled by underwater cables?!? WOW!
Steve: Swans are propelled by very sophisticated paddles developed at a secret research centre. Due to the potential applications of Black Swan technology, I am not at liberty to discuss the matter further.
LikeLike
Do you expect any changes to the Transit City plan in 2010? I ask because with Metrolinx at the helm, I have a strange feeling in my stomach that something significant in their plans will change but I do not know what.
Steve: The issue for not just Transit City but for transit plans generally is one of funding. When Queen’s Park announce the “MoveOntario2020” plan, which eventually morphed into Metrolinx’ “The Big Move”, they had dreams of a financing scheme involving the private sector that would magically provide all sort of infrastructure and avoid having to pay for it for years into the future. In reality, every year’s transit spending has been subject to budgetary constraints, and the private sector is in full retreat after some of its own financial schemes ran aground.
The fundamental point is that if Ontario wants to build more than $50-billion worth of infrastructure, Ontario has to pay for it somehow. Either it’s pay-as-you-play capital, or public borrowing, or some kind of design-build-lease arrangement.
I would not be surprised to see changes in both plans particularly now that Rob MacIsaac is no longer running the show at Metrolinx. Some parts of TC need to be tweaked as I have written here already at length, and the Metrolinx plan needs to address questions of local transit integration with regional services. There’s also the small matters of the Airport link and GO electrification, not to mention expansion of GO services well beyond the “GTAH”.
There’s only so much money to go around, and some hard decisions about where it should be spent.
LikeLike
Actually the cable car could be the most cost effective way of getting from the foot of Bathurst to Billy Bishop International Airport. It is cheaper than a tunnel or a bridge; it would not allow vehicular traffic across; it only needs two stations, one at each end; it needs to climb quickly, cross a moderately wide channel then descend to the other terminal; it is relatively quiet and does not make much of a visual impact.
Since the western gap is not used by commercial freighter it would not need a two hundred foot (60 m) vertical clearance. Since I drive a power boat I don’t care about those sail boats with tall masts.
P. S. I don’t mean the original Billy Bishop airport in Owen Sound where he was born but the other one on The Islands. Actually building this would serve many benefits:
1) It would provide a much needed outlet for Glen Murray and others who like cable cars.
2) It probably is the ideal technology for this application and the ideal location for the technology.
Steve: However, I suspect the height of the cablecar structures would run afoul of regulations for interference with flight paths. Cable submarines may be the answer.
LikeLike
Steve: “However, I suspect the height of the cablecar structures would run afoul of regulations for interference with flight paths. Cable submarines may be the answer.”
None of the runway flight paths fly over the western gap. This is in case a freighter, which might need 200 foot vertical clearance uses it. They are supposed to use the Eastern Gap. Submarines, alas, do not have the depth to be passed over by deep draft vessels though this would make for an interesting ride. Happy New Year
R. Wightman
LikeLike
“Cable submarines may be the answer.”
Aha! The Black Swan Technology!
Loose lips, Steve. Loose lips!
Happy New Year, too.
LikeLike
Steve – I know you’re no fan of the AFP/P3 model though it never results in private ownership of these assets (the private interest is through the project agreement and potential penalties therein). As a precedent there is the Canada Line in Vancouver, a $2 billion transit line, built half underground, that was built in under 4 years and actually delivered ahead of schedule and on budget. The private consortium has a major incentive to achieve the timelines as they do not start receiving the “availability” payments until the line is “in service”. Traditional procurement does not provide this leverage. It’s not a panacea, but not some conspiracy to “privatize” public assets either.
Steve: A true P3 only works if the contract is written in a way that the private partner stands to lose money if they screw up, and the public gets some benefit from the risk that partner is expected to shoulder. Far too often, a P3 is seen as an accounting dodge by government, and as a gravy train by the would-be private partner. In a worst case situation (see London England), the private partner simply walks away from their failed investment, a scheme they got into by promissing what they could not deliver. When a public agency does that, it’s called a scandal. When a private company does it, it’s called a bailout.
LikeLike
I personally think once Smitherman, Mammoliti or even Tory or Thompson become mayor, a few ‘MAJOR’ changes (good or bad) will be floated around the table and might see the light of day.
Steve: The problem is that, of the list you have mentioned, only Thompson has any idea of how the transit system works and can hold an intelligent discussion about alternatives.
LikeLike