Updated February 8, 2012 at 7:40am: I have often described a suspicion that there is a fifth column within Metrolinx working against the TTC and LRT plans. Royson James in the Star gives us a view into that organization in which we clearly see how it suits some at Metrolinx to misrepresent what the Toronto of David Miller and the TTC were doing. This problem goes back years, and was evident during preparation of “The Big Move”, but the Metrolinx love for secrecy, for holding all of the substantive discussions behind closed doors, kept this out of sight. Now Metrolinx may be faced with a vote at City Council that could run directly opposite to the scheme some at Metrolinx secretly have supported for years. Will Metrolinx and Queen’s Park listen?
Original post from February 7 below:
On Monday February 6, Metrolinx held a press conference to outline its position on the current subway vs LRT controversy. This article is a summary of the presentation (which is now available online) and a commentary on it.
I have taken a breather from the Chong report because of its size, the fact that it is now available online, and my desire to review Metrolinx position first. That agency has somewhat more credibility than and “Toronto Transit Infrastructure Limited”.
Purpose
The presentation is intended to “provide information” on the Eglinton line as outlined in the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with Mayor Ford, and to restate the principles embraced by Queen’s Park and Metrolinx.
Principles
- Sound Regional Transit Planning. Any projects must “achieve sound transportation objectives for the City and the region” and be in tune with the regional plan, The Big Move.
- Budget and Cost. The maximum budget available from Queen’s Park remains $8.4-billion (2010$). Any plan must remain within the overall total as well as projected yearly cash flows. Additional costs must be paid by the City or some other partner.
- Penalties. Queen’s Park will not pay any penalties resulting from changes sought by the City, and the penalty costs and losses from the MOU (the Ford document) remain the City’s responsibility.
- Cost of Delay. Further delay is unacceptable to Metrolinx, and any costs this triggers must be paid by the City.
- Traffic. “Any plan should minimize adverse impacts on traffic to the extent reasonably possible.”
Point 3 begs an obvious question of how the Province can hold Toronto responsible for costs incurred because they were foolish enough to proceed on Mayor Ford’s say-so without ensuring Council’s approval. As we know from the recent legal opinion, the Mayor cannot bind the City to a contract without Council’s consent.
Point 5 is unclear about whether this refers to traffic problems during construction or after a line has opened. During construction is of interest because this affects both cost and elapsed times for big projects like Eglinton. The TTC’s construction schedule for an all-underground version is extended out to 2022 because they don’t want to dig up every station location at the same time. If this were allowed, say as part of a sweetened deal with a private partner, the cost would come down.
Status
The west/central portion of the Eglinton project is common to both versions of the plan, and it is “making good progress”. Metrolinx and the TTC are working to allow an alternative procurement strategy (putting more responsibility in the hands of a private partner), but certainty is needed on what exactly will be built in the eastern portion.
Current Plan
This is shown as a map with the following components and costs:
- Metrolinx Crosstown Project: $8.18-billion
- Sheppard East Subway Project: $2.75b
- Sheppard West Subway Project: $1.48b
- Sheppard Subway Yard: $0.5b
It is worth noting that the total here for Sheppard is $4.73-billion. This is the “TTC” estimate for Sheppard, not the lower so-called “Metrolinx” estimate cited in the Chong report. Is there something about the cost of Sheppard Metrolinx knows that they did not share with Gordon Chong and KPMG (who wrote the section of Chong’s paper where this appears)?
Benefits of the Current Crosstown Plan
Just the title of this section is intriguing because, of course, Council has never approved this plan and strictly speaking, it’s not “current”.
Metrolinx claims that there will be a reduction of travel times from Kennedy to Black Creek by 25% as the line will operate at 30-32km/h overall. Of course, the subway-surfrace variant would operate at this speed too, and the only question is the speed over the section from Leaside to Kennedy. Part of this section will be grade separated (around Don Mills Station) although the extent is not yet confirmed. The total distance from Brentcliffe to Kennedy is about 8km. From Black Creek to Brentcliffe is a bit over 10km. In other words, the section where any improvement in time can possibly occur is 8/18 or about 45% of the line.
To achieve a 25% increase overall, the speed improvement east of Brentcliffe would have to be 55%. We know that the speed used for underground operation is 30-32, and this means that the presumed speed for surface operation would be only about 20km/h. This is lower than the figure actually used by the TTC in the Eglinton line’s published description (22-25km/h) and it also ignores the change in access time to the more widely-spaced stations on an underground alignment. The difference is between a 15 minute trip (at 32km/h) and a 24 minute trip (at 20km/h). If the higher TTC speed (25km/h) is used, the surface trip falls to 19 minutes. Much will depend on the degree of surface transit priority afforded to the LRT.
Metrolinx cites reliability because an underground line would be completely separated from traffic. Conversely, a surface line would have to interact with traffic and pedestrians at intersections, and there would be some effect on left turns and signal cycle times.
They also cite “convenience” because the Eglinton and SRT routes are linked. Note that this arrangement is not peculiar to the underground proposal, and nothing prevents the TTC from doing this for a subway-surface version of the line. The TTC’s concern is that demand north of Kennedy is higher than on Eglinton, and they don’t want to operate a very frequent “SRT” service with short turns at Kennedy to accommodate a smaller demand west on Eglinton. This is an issue of operational convenience rather than necessity.
Metrolinx cites higher ridership, especially in the peak, on an underground Crosstown line as compared to the subway-surface route. This is a direct effect of their demand model which is very sensitive to running times, and which redirects a considerable amount of traffic from the Danforth subway to the Eglinton line. Whether this is desirable is quite another matter given concerns about the capacity at Eglinton/Yonge station. A related question is the potential benefit of a Downtown Relief Line intercepting demand on Eglinton at Don Mills.
Overall, Metrolinx states that a fully grade-separated line doubles the capacity of the project. This is true in the sense that more and longer trains can be operated if the line is all grade-separated, but it also begs the question of the effect on overall cost of providing a fleet and yard sufficient for that capacity and whether LRVs are appropriate for a route that never runs on the surface. The presentation returns to this issue later.
Light Rail Vehicles
About $76m of $770m of the contract for 182 Bombardier LRVs has been spent to date. The “current plan” reduced this number to 135 by the elimination of the Finch and Sheppard routes, but these vehicles are suitable for “other LRT applications around the region and province”. The strongest endorsement of LRT comes here:
“Metrolinx remains confident that LRVs are a good choice given their flexibility to operate at surface, in tunnels and on elevated guideways, with a low floor and high capacity”
Metrolinx notes that the LRVs were intended to operate partly in tunnels in the original plan. They cite other examples of Los Angeles, Seattle and San Francisco. Closer to home, one can look at Edmonton, Philadelphia and Boston (where streetcars have run underground for over a century). The important point about all of these is that the LRVs do not stay underground when there is no reason for them to do so.
LRVs are low floor vehicles which, in the Metrolinx implementation, will load level with the platform (unlike the surface streetcars which must use a ramp because they operate in mixed traffic). The low floor aspect of the cars is a “small component” of the overall vehicle cost and project.
Metrolinx notes that:
“Having a low floor provides flexibility for the vehicle to be used in a surface application, when the line is extended west towards Pearson airport or north and east further into Scarborough”
Vehicle Capacity
Metrolinx cites capacities for three-car trainsets ranging from just under 10k/hour at a 3 minute headway (20 trains/hour) to just under 20k/hour at a 1.5 minute headway. This can accommodate projected ridership beyond 2051. Surface operations in a median are limited to 8-9k/hour because frequent trains and high pedestrian volumes would interfere too much with road traffic.
Results
What was once a $6.5b project is now an $8.2b project and limited funds are available for other routes. There will be fewer stations because of their higher cost underground. Metrolinx states that although this version costs more, it “delivers greater benefits”. Whether this calculation is offset by the benefits lost through not building other routes is unclear.
Going Forward
Metrolinx and Queen’s Park seek a single position from the City. They “remain committed” to partnering with Toronto, but “clarity is required”. Any City position will be evaluated against the principles stated earlier.
I cannot help pointing out that there already is an accepted Memorandum of Agreement dating from 2009 between all of the parties and especially City Council. It would be difficult for Metrolinx to claim now that the network the MOA contemplates (the 5-in-10 Metrolinx plan for Eglinton, SRT, Sheppard and Finch) would now fail this test. Tinkering with the plan by Council could re-open the question of what is an “acceptable” request.
The next installment in this drama lies with Council, and political concerns will dominate although this will be disguised by concerns for technical matters. We may learn again why Canadian winters are too cold for surface operation and other tidbits from Ford’s fountain of transit knowledge.
Steve Munro 
I’ve noticed Metrolinx’s remarks in the media that the underground version is faster than the surface version.
The real question is for whom it is faster for. Outside commuters who don’t even live and work along Eglinton itself would love it. The locals living along the corridor will experience longer walking times, plus negligible or worse time savings (except for those privileged of living and working close to any of the proposed stations).
Metrolinx is rather dishonest about whom the line would benefit.
Steve: Metrolinx is also selective in that it presumes trips start and end on the segment from Kennedy west when in fact they are part of a larger network of trips. The fact that the SRT would not go north of Sheppard in the Ford plan imposes extra travel time on riders from northeastern Scarborough, but we never hear about that part of any analysis.
LikeLike
I’m confused as to why Metrolinx now appears to be highlighting the benefits of the Crosstown plan. Given they were in large part responsible for coming up with the 5 in 10, what’s behind this shift? I had interpreted the letter sent to council as a clever way of Metrolinx forcing a return to the 5 in 10 plan once they were made aware of support on council. But if they’re in favour of 5 in 10, why now release a deck outlining benefits of Crosstown? And if they were happy with Crosstown, why push for a resolution from council? Why not just start digging? Something doesn’t add up.
Steve: I have always believed that there is a fifth column in Metrolinx that wants an underground line on Eglinton and is fighting against LRT plans generally. This sort of “shift” (I would use a somewhat earthier word) undermines Metrolinx’ credibility.
LikeLike
I really find it funny how people are so concerned about people having to walk to a subway station, and act like it is going to make people’s trips worse.
Transit planning studies no matter where done, have always shown people are willing to walk further to a subway stop, because the service is faster and of higher quality.
To be honest, if we thought like most people are thinking now concerning transit and this obsession with local service, we would have no subways in Toronto.
Seriously, you all act like subway stations are going to be a half hour walk away. Even under the widest station spacing possible for Eglinton, most people would still be within a 500 meter walk of a station. Hardly far at all.
Europe would be down right scary to most Toronto transit advocates, where local bus stops are often spaced at 500 meters (more than double local spacing in Toronto).
Steve: It’s a question of what people are used to. A walk is a walk, especially when it’s not on level ground, and unless one lives right on the transit street, that walk includes the access distance out from one’s origin to the street itself. I am amused by the idea that this sort of delay in accessing transit is considered trivial by some, but I get blistering comments about the need for a transfer from the SRT to the subway (or Eglinton line as originally proposed) at Kennedy Station. That’s a walk too, and it is even indoors, as well as, possibly, a wait.
Typical walking speed of 5 km/h translates a 500 metre access to 6 minutes. Longer for seniors and the disabled, shorter for young folk in a hurry.
LikeLike
Steve,
Sorry if i missed this, but would there still be provision for future conversion to subway in both Ford’s (lunatic) plan and the one that may be revived? I would imagine it would be tougher to convert the revived proposal to subway than Ford’s plan.
Steve: Conversion of any tunnel built for low-floor LRVs will be a challenge because a “subway” would have high platforms and wider cars. This does not affect just the platform, but also mechanical equipment like escalators and elevators, as well as the ceiling height that would have to be sufficient for the reduced headroom of a high platform. There are also issues with track geometry, grades, etc. I would hate to paint Metrolinx as a faultless authority, but even they say that the potential capacity of LRVs running in a protected environment at 90 second headways is well above the projected demand on Eglinton in 2051. There is a point where “building for the future” is an option cited only to “justify” the subway scheme.
LikeLike
It’s funny to see how liberals who have control over Metrolinx are trying to thwart the efforts to bring back LRT agenda to Toronto. And at the same time, Stinz from the Blue Party is fighting for this. That is why it is always usefull to hear and listen before making this or that decision. The lack of these skills among some of Torontonians, however, was the way for Ford to take over the city.
LikeLike
The underground version would clearly be faster for long distance travellers because it would not stop at traffic lights and there would be no transfer at Kennedy. A few local riders might have to walk further to a stop, but I think that this is not very important because these minor stops on Eglinton East would generate very little traffic, because most of the traffic on this line will come from bus transfers (long term redevelopment of the area might change this). The primary benefit of grade separation would be to speed up trips by commuters in the eastern suburbs to the Eglinton/DVP, Eglinton/Yonge and Pearson Airport areas, making the travel time by transit more competitive with driving in heavy rush hour traffic on 401 & DVP. I strongly prefer elevated to cut costs because I am skeptical of the viability of redeveloping the Golden Mile area in the near term, but I am concerned that light rail will (a) have too little capacity and (b) be too slow to compete with driving, and Highway 401 in particular carries far more cars than the number of passengers that at grade LRT can handle. After all, the Scarborough RT is very heavily used (at grade LRT would not work there) even though it travels through industrial areas that generate little traffic between Kennedy and Scarborough Centre.
LikeLike
You made mention of this earlier, but I think more noise needs to be made about the far northeastern and especially northwestern corners of the city who would be losing out on their chance for higher-order transit for the foreseeable future and maybe forever. Mr. Mammoliti seems to think Finch West could be getting a subway linking the present system (whether at the new Finch West or Finch stations) to the airport. How realistic is that? And doesn’t Finch West need a significant transit upgrade now?
People seem to be forgetting as well that these LRT lines weren’t supposed to be long-distance commuter transit, but more focused on local departures and destinations. Maybe I’m missing something but I don’t see how one completely buried LRT addressees all of these concerns better than the network of surface routes.
Steve: Yes, it’s odd to hear that after Ford traded away the Finch LRT for “improved bus service”, we now have a pledge to give them a subway. Talk about overkill!
LikeLike
The big question is, will Chong’s report still have any relevance after tomorrow?
Steve: There are arguments in the Chong report that will surface (pardon the pun, I could not resist) again in other contexts, and this sort of thing needs to be whacked on the head. It will be useful also in case Chong’s report is waved around as documentation on how Council made the “wrong” decision.
LikeLike
Maybe there is demand for redevelopment along Eglinton East.
1640 condo units at Eglinton & Pharmacy. I am surprised to see a development proposal for something this big in this area, but if we see more of these projects, the case for subway becomes stronger.
Steve: There are other parts of the city with multi-tower developments that are served by modes other than subway. This sort of thing is taken into account in future demand projections. Also worth noting is that there is no station at Pharmacy in the underground version of Eglinton.
LikeLike
If they’re going to go this far with a mostly underground line, wouldn’t it have made more sense to go with a full subway? I know there’s a huge difference in cost, but to my mind it seems if they’re committing to underground routes, why not commit to something where the various lines can exchange subway cars and yards? Would it take a lot of effort to retrofit this crosstown route to actual subways later on (that is if any level of government actually sits up and really gets interested in funding transit here someday)?
Steve: I agree with the premise that if all underground, then why LRT. However, we are not talking about all underground when it comes to future extensions of the line as Metrolinx points out in their presentation. The argument is over which part of the line should stay underground and how much of a premium we are willing to pay for this.
LikeLike
Metrolinx is posting crush loads in their presentation on slide 17 as the passenger capacity per LRV – as we know, this is quite different from the loading standard and should not be used for planning purposes. This, fortunately, is not the figure they used in their capacity calculation. However, working backwards, Metrolinx is using a capacity of 163 per LRV; this is about the capacity of a subway car (167), but the material posted previously for these cars had the capacity at 130.
Steve: We will probably have to get a real car here to see how many will actually fit on it (there are times I doubt the figures cited for subway cars too), but this shows how slippery the whole business of demand and capacity projections can be. Advocates seem to pluck numbers out of the air to suit their argument.
LikeLike
The entire transit file is a mess. After a year of bickering we’re maybe back to square one, sort of. The Sheppard East LRT will not open in 2013 as originally planned and the SRT will not be extended the Markham and Sheppard. What a waste of time and money.
LikeLike
I think I’m misunderstanding something, Steve. Metrolinx is saying that an at-grade LRT operating in the median can carry a maximum of 8,000-9,000 riders per hour. Yet the Transit Capacity and Quality Service Manual puts that maximum for three-car train sets at just under 14,000 rider per hour (given a 60-second signal cycle length). Is this 5,000-6,000 riders/hour difference attributable to the assumed person-capacity of the train cars themselves or some other factor(s)?
Steve: I do not think it is possible to operate 14k/hour in a median as we use the term. This level could be achieved in, say, an expressway median where access to stations was grade separated (by overpasses, for example), but this would be with extremely infrequent traffic signals, if any. In effect, the LRT would be operating more like HRT. The problem with median as we think of it (e.g. the Sheppard proposal) is that the pedestrian traffic must get to and from the islands at stations. For a simple example of pedestrian behaviour, just look at Spadina, St. Clair or Queen’s Quay. Unless physically prevented, they will walk anywhere. If they are constrained to use the end of the platform to exit to a crosswalk, the demand at busy stops could easily outstrip the capacity of the access point to/from the platform. The relative proportion of transfer traffic versus through rides would be an important consideration.
By comparison, the Bloor-Danforth streetcar provided a capacity approaching 8,000 will very well-loaded trains of PCCs using front door loading with an operator on each car. Other traffic didn’t have a chance at stops, and there was a protected connection to the subway at Bloor-Yonge with separate unloading and loading bays in each direction. If the intention is to preserve reasonably free flowing traffic on the suburban roads like Sheppard, then the effect of pedestrian access must be included as a limiting factor.
The manual does state that no Light Rail line in North America except for the Muni Metro in San Francisco approaches the 10,000 pphpd mark. That says something about the limits of real world as opposed to theoretical operations.
LikeLike
Metrolinx really should get over its prejudice against multiple / short branches. The Eglinton – Scarborough route has segments with very different demand expectations.
Jane – Don Mills and Kennedy – STC are two sections shared between multiple passenger streams, and they will certainly see much higher demand than sections between Don Mills and Kennedy, or between STC and Malvern Centre. Therefore, running all trains through is inherently inefficient: either they will be sardine-packed in the busiest sections, or underused in lower-demand sections.
If YUS subway trains are being short-turned during the AM peak to get more service on the busiest section, why can’t LRT trains?
LikeLike
I wonder if any experts are invited to the Council Meeting tomorrow or it is going to be purely political battle?! Not sure if it is okay to ask this today, but just in case: Steve, did anybody contact you to share your professional opinion?
Steve: All they need to do is to read my blog, but I’m not a “professional”, just a well-informed amateur.
LikeLike
Just to make it fun, someone should ask Metrolinx what steps they are going to take to ensure that, whatever plan comes out of the next few weeks of wrangling at City Hall, it fits in with Metrolinx’s plans to upgrade GO service as quickly as possible.
You know, that plan to build a strong combination of all-day GO rail services on existing lines, expand service on new GO lines, and introduce better and faster GO bus services on the smaller corridors, to help move people over those long distance trips – the ones that GO is supposed to be covering.
I figure, it’s nice for Metrolinx to talk about Toronto City Hall’s shortcomings when they don’t have fingers pointing back at them about the status of GO Transit projects.
Cheers, Moaz
Steve: Not to mention that some of those GO projects address the same demand patterns people agonize over as justification for future long-haul subway services. GO/Metrolinx is way behind on the expansion of their system. They are good at drawing maps, but not at figuring out how to pack that many trains onto the tracks or into the Union Station corridor.
LikeLike
@Michael
Be sure to tell the residents near Eglinton and Pharmacy that their trip to Kennedy Station will take 4 minutes longer by subway than by surface LRT (Hint: Walking distance).
LikeLike
Regarding traffic, even if the number of lanes is unchanged through road widening, that can still contribute to more congestion. More left-turns would be concentrated at fewer left-turn locations, resulting in longer queues.
On the flipside, motorists will no longer have to compete with buses in the kerb lane, increasing the kerb lane’s capacity.
Also, we should expect a small number of motorists to make the switch to transit.
What is needed is a full-blown traffic study that takes all these factors into account.
Steve: This should also include an examination of current conditions and the backlog of demand for roadspace, not simply look at the effect of adding an LRT line. Expanding a road can produce the counter-intuitive effect of worsening congestion by attracting more traffic from other roads.
LikeLike
The decision to go back to the TC design would seem to hinge on the forecasted demand for 2031 — surface/semi-RoW LRT won’t satisfy Metrolinx’s projection. How did they get this number anyway?
Metrolinx’s argument starts to fall apart when they say an underground route is needed because of forecast, but then state that LRVs should be used in case we ever extend to Pearson on the surface in a semi-RoW.
Why don’t they just come out and say that subway trains can’t use the SRT? While Mark IIIs and the new LRVs are pretty much evenly matched capacity-wise, aren’t the LRVs more expensive because they’re built stronger (to withstand collisions with automobiles)?
Steve: This inconsistency in the Metrolinx report reveals the “fifth column” effect I have described elsewhere. They have wanted a Skytrain line since the days before The Big Move was published, and a “subway” decision would retain the option of converting the project. This would also work into a P3 scheme that would be handed to Bombardier as an “extension” of the SRT.
LikeLike
Why would there be a station at Pharmacy, when Victoria Park is literally a 2 minute walk from Pharmacy? You could even have a exit onto Pharmacy from a Victoria Park station. Even under bus stop spacing you would get rid of a Pharmacy stop, if you are running a limited stop bus service.
I really think the station spacing issue is being blown out of proportion. If people don’t want to walk they will just do what has made the TTC a success. They will hop on a feeder bus to the subway station.
How do people on Bloor-Danforth survive with subway service? Under the assumptions here, people are facing major transit hardships on Danforth. But the fact is they are not. The same would be for Eglinton.
And if Sheppard is any indication, the station spacing is not an issue. As even the neighbourhoods surrounding the Sheppard subway saw their transit usage rates skyrocket after the subway opened.
LikeLike
Michael said:
To be honest, if we thought like most people are thinking now concerning transit and this obsession with local service, we would have no subways in Toronto.
You might want to have a look at the station spacing of the opening segments of the Bloor-Danforth, Yonge and University lines and compare it to the spacing of the stops that you are complaining about.
LikeLike
I hope Transit City can still be saved. Since these LRV trains would be using the honour fare system, there would still only be a need for one operator to drive and operate the doors (unlike the Bloor Danforth and Queen MU streetcars). I’m sure these MU LRV trains could run in even longer consists in the future if necessary with still one operator.
The suburban areas of this megacity have the luxury of having more open space what with the throughfares being substantially wider, leaving more than enough room for longer, wider platforms. Surface level service is a perfect fool proof arrangement for the disabled who would never have to contend with elevator service disruptions. Many of these suburban throughfares could also be turned into grand avenues like what was done to Spadina, with trees lining the sides of the right of way and sidewalks, with extra room to spare for bike lanes. Those who complain about the road space being taken away fail to see that that space would result in a greater volume of people moved throughout the existing corridors. And all that extra space still leaves the luxury for other potential compromise options like extra fly unders at intersections if necessary, or other places like the west end of Eglinton where there is so much open space that the Crosstown line could easily be run on a land embankment. I’m sorry if I sound like I’m rambling a little too much..
Giving light rail to suburban Metro Toronto would still give them top notch mass transit service within a shorter period of time for less money. Many other cities around the world are faced with the same trouble of not having enough money to build more subways, so now in cities like Paris, mass transit expansion by light rail is becoming a more realistic option. A majority of our city councillors appear to be in support of defending the future of Transit City. They are not only showing their support for good transit planning, but also for the future welfare of this megacity, and beyond.. : )
LikeLike
If grade separation all the way from Jane to STC is a priority for both Ford and Metrolinx have other options than going underground between Laird and Kennedy have been considered? I don’t know of any cities that that put rails underground unless they really have to. Much denser cities than Toronto such the outer boroughs of NYC, Tokyo and Singapore come to mind.
Steve, how much can be saved if:
– Eglinton East is elevated instead of buried with stop spacing remaining the same?
– Eglinton East is built by cut and cover instead of a TBM?
– The rails are built in a trench in the middle of the road with passengers walking under Eglinton to reach their stops (similarly to Allen subway)?
I am sure each of the options has its drawbacks (just like any transit plan).
My point is if we can maintain speed and capacity and lower the price tag at the same time can the surplus funds be used to fund other projects (an at-grade extension to Malvern, Finch busways, Sheppard two-stop subway extension, whatever)?
Steve: Putting Eglinton on an elevated will mean that considerable space will be consumed underneath the structure especially at stations. It will be cheaper than a tunnel, but the visual effect will be substantial. Vancouver gets away with this sort of thing by building along rights-of-way that don’t run over streets, or by placing elevated sections in locations where the surrounding neighbourhood won’t be affected. Some locations such as Eglinton and Don Mills would probably have to remain underground because the intersection is very wide, and the station structure would be a major impediment (not to mention passengers going to and from it).
Eglinton could be built cut-and-cover but at a cost of substantial disruption to the areas through which it will pass. The station areas would be the same, but now the areas between stations would also be affected. Eglinton is a major utility corridor, and by tunnelling, the line can stay deep enough to avoid conflicts. There is also the matter of the valleys. Any line that is going to pass under a valley must approach it at a grade LRVs can handle, and this could put the line too deep for cut-and-cover work.
Finally, if in a trench, there are even bigger utility problems (because the trench by definition is almost at the surface), grade problems (the LRT may not be able to closely follow the road gradient) and station design which would require width for not just tracks but also for platforms, stairs, escalators, etc. This area could be decked over for traffic, but the passengers have to come up to the surface somewhere.
They are all do-able, but the issues are far more than saving money on the construction — whatever is built has to fit within the street.
LikeLike
Wasn’t the price for the Eglinton Crosstown 4.6 B in 2010, why is the same plan now 6.2 B.
What happened?
Steve: Please see page 3 of the Metrolinx report on the 5-in-10 plan approved on May 19, 2010. You will see that the SRT conversion was priced as a separate item at $1.4b (this includes conversion to LRT and extension to Sheppard). When this is added to the $4.6b for Eglinton, we get $6.0b. I suspect the additional $0.2b is due to comparatively minor revisions in the project design and estimates since then.
LikeLike
re: Metrolinx’s preferred subway:
The Royson James article also seems to suggest Metrolinx is unhappy with Ford’s lack of progress in moving their Eglinton all-underground agenda. Given its February 2012, Chong’s tainted report, no plans to even start a financing plan for Sheppard, and (barring something unforeseen) no Council support, I would imagine Metrolinx can’t continue to support the all-underground plan (either publicly or privately).
I just can’t see them supporting Ford’s Eglinton plan, without a credible plan for Sheppard…. it goes completely against their own mandate!
LikeLike
@jordan,
Who says we don’t have money? We do have money. It is all about priorities. If this government wanted to build a top notch transit network, we could have it tomorrow. We really have to stop this money talk like we are some poor country. We happen to be one of the richest countries in the world, and we can afford subways, LRT, suburban trains, and many other services if we are willing to pay for them. So the money is there.
As for the station spacing on Danforth and Yonge, etc. The spacing works on those segments. But the North Yonge service is more of how we should approach station spacing, and it works very well on North York to have the stations only at major intersections.
Paris’ LRT is different. They are building a local network into a very large subway system and suburban RER system. They are also planning massive expansion of grade separated transit in the suburbs, using elevated subway service. So Paris is not putting all their eggs in LRT.
And on the issue of wide streets. Suburban Toronto arterial streets are actually not that wide. In most cases the streets are 4 lanes wide. You need to visit American cities to actually see wide suburban streets, as Toronto pales in comparison.
LikeLike
Maybe the problem in Toronto is that we put too much emphasis on differentiating between transit technologies. According to this article, Paris is building 200 km of new Metro lines. This includes a mix of heavy rail Metro, light metro, ICTS and LRT’s.
Steve: And with a support for public transport that dwarfs what we get from Ottawa and Queen’s Park. There’s also something to be said for a region with high population and density and a modal split for non-auto trips that the TTC can only dream of. When we look at Paris (and other cities), we need to bemoan not just the TTC but also the lack of GO Transit service providing regional coverage.
LikeLike
I just had a chance to hear an interesting exchange Metro Morning host Matt Galloway had with two TTC commissioners, John Parker and Norm Kelly, each with opposing views on how to proceed.
What interesting is Kelly’s take that this is a Provincial project and is essentially based on Ford’s MOU. In the Star he actually states the if the council votes in favour of Stintz’s proposal, that the Province should ignore it and build the line as a “subway”. Parker rightly points to the MOA in 2009 .
My take is that if the line is built fully as a subway, would it make more sense to use “heavy rail” subway cars rather than low-floor LRVs. Or does Metrolinx want “to have its cake and eat it too” in going with what is an extended underground LRT line between Black Creek and Kennedy to leave open the provision that the line could be extended for surface travel beyond these points. In the original TC plan, there was to be an LRT running east along Eglinton and then northeast along Kingston Rd. Why do I have the impression all this is planning on the back of a serviette?
Phil
Steve: The problem with serviettes is often with the person holding the pen. I believe that no plan is complete without at least one good coffee stain. As for Norm Kelly, his contempt for the role of Council (now echoed by the Fords) is disgusting.
LikeLike
Michael said:
If I had a nickle for every time I heard someone bring up the weather as justification to not build an LRT line in Toronto, I could pay for the Sheppard subway myself. So why is it that when it comes to new subways, we shouldn’t bring up issues of rider comfort like the walk to a station?
By the way Steve, here’s the link to Stintz’s recommendations for today.
LikeLike
Another point about the increased walking distance is that the portion of Eglinton originally proposed to be above ground isn’t particularly pedestrian-friendly. An extra hundred meters or two of walking in the core is one thing, but along Eglinton east of the valley is something else entirely. I mean having six or seven lanes of traffic on one side and huge expanses of parking lot on the other does not lead to a pleasant stroll.
LikeLike
If the Eglinton line is built as full HRT what happens to the through routing with the SRT? I would love to see a TR train trying to make the curves on the existing line let alone think of what would happen at Kennedy. It would be near impossible to make the turn from Eglinton to the hydro ROW and stay within walking distance of the subway. The line would have to be run with the LRT equipment which has been ordered and for which $76 million has been spent in development fees if I read the report correctly or, god forbid, ICTS. If they do not use the LRT equipment which was ordered then who pays the $76 million.
LikeLike
I really wish the waterfront west LRT was still in the plans — the area that I’m in is such an absolute pain to get to the downtown core
LikeLike
@Michael
Holy crap! Your constant belittling of local concerns is amazing. You also seem to be unaware that the Official Plan calls for growth along the corridor, including between major intersections. There exist local transit users now, and there will be even more in the future, and arguably, that’s the market that will dominate ridership on Eglinton.
Long distance commuters only interested in skipping through these neighbourhoods as fast as possible can put that in their pipes.
LikeLike
Congratulations! It was a great day for Toronto. 26-17 voting is nothing but a huge defeat for Ford though.
LikeLike
So, Steve: were you there?
Steve: Yes. I will be blogging on the events of the day in due course.
LikeLike
I just want to ask this, perhaps just for the sake of asking … just how important is that one-seat trip to the TTC, Metrolinx, and TTC passengers?
Steve: The answer is different depending on who you talk to. Metrolinx is very commuter (e.g. car) oriented and thinks in terms of continuous trips even though most of their customers either drive to a station or ride a (highly subsidized bus route). The TTC actively encourages transfers because it cannot possibly give one-seat rides on its complex network.
I know that a lot of the objection to the Sheppard East LRT came from the idea that passengers traveling a reasonable distance along the Sheppard corridor would have to board an LRT, then transfer to the subway, then transfer to another LRT etc.
Similarly, one reason for an Eglinton-Crosstown LRT was that if TTC were to build an Eglinton subway line using “standard” subway equipment from, say, Laird to Black Creek (Jane would be better) it would have to be combined with a rapid bus or streetcar to effectively move people in the western and eastern segments – hence, an LRT which could make the entire trip would be a better option.
And then, one can look at the conversion of the Queen streetcar routes to a single 501 as an example of a 1-seat trip not working for all users.
I mean, let’s go back to 1954 when the Yonge line opened up to Eglinton and streetcars ran further north, or to 1966 when the Bloor-Danforth line opened. Were passengers who lived north of Eglinton, west of Keele, or east of Woodbine, incensed that they had to make a few transfers when using the TTC? Or were they happy to get the reliable service that they needed?
Cheers, Moaz
Steve: It was trolley coaches on Yonge from Eglinton north to Glen Echo in 1954, not streetcars.
LikeLike
I find it a little perplexing that only now Ford is riding subways to pitch his message to the populace. He would have gotten more credibility if he rode transit to work every day, but since this is the first time I have heard him riding the rails, it sounds more like a photo op to me.
As I said before, I am a Ford fan given his performance in other matters, but his attitudes to transit are astounding. Why attack something that you never really talked about in your election? If there was more debate from him about this subject before the election, then after he got elected, then he would have had more credibility, even after this defeat.
If Ford really wants to get the public on side on transit, I suggest he ditch his car and start taking transit every day from Etobicoke so he can look at all the issues surrounding the expansion plans. He had every right to choose his preferred form of transportation, but by doing so people would not understand what he was trying to accomplish.
I expect Ford’s defeat here does not leave him undeterred on other portfolios where his business acumen is more important there. At best, he should leave the transit file alone as many people especially Fordites believe that it has been bungled long enough.
LikeLike
@ Moaz, transfers are a very important issue. The TTC is a success because of its multi-modal transfer system. Transfers are a part of taking transit.
But where the issue comes in is forcing transfers where they should not be. Transferring from bus to subway is fine. But telling people in the same corridor they need to transfer halfway through their trip is stupid. And that is the kind of transfers which make people choose to drive, and makes transit unattractive.
The Sheppard issue is like telling people they have to transfer subway trains at Broadview.
The earlier Bloor-Danforth transfers were temporary until the subway was extended.
So not all transfers are bad. But forced transfers where they should not be are not good.
Steve, transit has to think more like a car driver, or it will fail. Transit has to be competitive with the car. If it is not, people will not use it, and you are left with just a system of captive riders. 80% of the TTC’s ridership can walk off transit tomorrow and into a car if they want.
Steve: Well, no, actually, they cannot. “Want” and “afford” are not the same thing and they apply to private autos just as much as to subways.
Transit is not something that most people have to use. Transit has to attract and retain riders. So it has to be easy to use and not force transfers where they are not needed. We are starting to see this in the 905 where they have woken up to the fact that transit has to treat riders like customers and attract them.
LikeLike
Sorry if this sounds like I am going to ramble on but, I think this is fairly important to say and I hope to hear back from Steve about this.
When the original plans were drawn up by Metrolinx I am pretty sure that and correct me if I am wrong, but from what I remember was that when Sheppard was to be built and the extension and conversion of the SRT that they were both supposed to meet or connect somewhere with a future LRT line that would run through the Durham region. That to me sounds like people who are apparently being ignored in Scarborough are actually getting a lot more transit options then the Ford plan of running a subway or whatever he wants it to be along Eglinton to Scarborough Towne Centre.
As for what council voted on Wednesday, I am thankful that the transit is going to be improved in more areas of the city.
Also for those that don’t know what is going on in places like Edmonton and Calgary, right now Edmonton is building a new LRT line from downtown towards NAIT and they have plans for LRT lines to run across most of the city in the next 20 years. The plan is to attract thousands more riders per day on the LRT and then they plan to run most of the bus lines as feeders to the trains. The general plan is less buses to downtown then there is now and instead of having 10 or 12 routes from say the north to downtown they will have 1 route and the LRT. Other buses will feed the train. In Calgary when their West LRT opens they plan on changing the bus routes that all run in that area so none will go downtown but all will feed the trains and instead of cutting bus service they will re-allocate the service to other areas of the city where it is needed.
So my thought is the TTC can re-allocate buses on Finch west from Finch west Stn to Humber to other routes that may feed the Finch LRT as well as some routes that will feed the Vaughan subway extension. Also when the Eglinton line is built there will be no reason for the amount of buses on the 32 and 34 because the LRT will handle the capacity. I believe building more transit lines throughout Toronto is a good thing, because if there is an added capacity to a corridor more people may choose to take transit, especially if the network is built enough around it. My thought would have been from council to approve what they did but then also add to it more connecting North-South lines as soon as there is potential funding for it, even if they build part of a line to start then add more in 5 or 10 years and as long as the money is guaranteed for it. I know part of the original transit city had a waterfront LRT and a Jane and Don Mills lime too. Maybe instead of a downtown relief line they could build a Don Mills LRT that runs down to Lakeshore then over to Union, the exhibition and then up to Jane ending at York University or even Vaughn subway station. That could provide relief on the B-D line and the YUS line as well.
Again, I probably rambled but I think that now is the time we need to move on certain projects and improve the city for future growth and potential.
Steve: You are asking for a level of detailed planning we never see at Council, something that properly belongs with the TTC if only it truly embraced not just the technology of LRT but a philosophy of what could be done with the sort of network you describe.
LikeLike
Michael claims, “transit has to think more like a car driver, or it will fail. Transit has to be competitive with the car. “
Competitive how? On what criteria? Without specifying your criteria, that’s like saying “milk has to be competitive with beer”.
Your criteria appear to be speed and convenience. Well, I don’t believe that transit will ever really compete, except in some really narrow niches, with cars on speed and convenience. The “all transit must be rapid transit” and “PRT” crowds are, as far as I can tell, basically clueless optimists who don’t have a clue, but do have a lot of opinions. (And now you have heard my opinion.)
Of course, a car cannot compete with transit on cost, especially if you have to pay for parking, and you can’t read a book while driving (or, at least, it’s illegal to do so).
“Transit is not something that most people have to use. Transit has to attract and retain riders. So it has to be easy to use and not force transfers where they are not needed. “
You are assuming that the natural, default mode of transportation is the car. And that’s true today in a large swath of the suburbs. (When I discovered that my car was terminally rusty and unsafe to drive, and was sent off to be parted out, my sister asked “So how do you get to work now?” I said “Same as I always do. I don’t drive to work.” She lives in Mississauga. I live in Toronto.) The car wasn’t the default mode up to maybe sixty or seventy years ago, and it may not be the default mode again in the future. (I would argue that it already is not the default mode of many younger people living on the King and Queen streetcar lines that I see daily.)
Note that we spend way more money on making car travel easy and convenient that we are willing to pay to make transit easy and convenient.
Sure, if we decide to spend say five billion a year on transit construction, and to increase the TTC’s operating budget to run proper service, then let’s build subways everywhere. Since this is unlikely to happen, building one subway on a corridor that doesn’t really require one is a foolish waste of money.
And every time you assert that a subway along Sheppard would pull drivers off the 401, I roll my eyes. Let’s see your detailed analysis of how this would. Otherwise, you are just spouting talking points, and they are tedious and repetitious.
LikeLike