On February 15, 2012, the Star’s Royson James wrote about a TTC report prepared in March 2011 for Mayor Rob Ford on the Sheppard Subway. The article included a photo of the report’s summary.
Royson James graciously provided me with a copy of the document, and it is available here for those who want to see the whole thing. I suspect that it is only part of an even larger report because this material only covers one big question: why are the assumptions from the Network 2011 study done back in 1986 no longer valid? There is no discussion of construction costs, project financing, or any comparison of alternative schemes.
2011.03 Transit Technology Summary and Background
2011.03 Transit Technology Table
Note: These files were prepared by scanning the copy I received, which itself was a previous generation copy including a lot of marginalia. The text was imported into and formatted as a new Word document with approximately the same layout (and typography) as the original. This allowed it to be “printed” in PDF format (the files linked above) rather than a much larger set of images of the scanned sheets.
The report contains a few rather intriguing comments that won’t sound new to regular readers of this site, but which raise questions about the planning assumptions underneath decades of work by the TTC, City Planning and other agencies.
Planners and politicians make grand statements about how policies, official plans and zoning will focus development in locations and patterns of their choice. In practice, this does not actually happen because the best intentions are inevitably diluted by political reality. Developers build where there is a real market, not where a plan tells them they should build. Jobs move around in complete ignorance of city, regional and provincial goals. Do you own some land that doesn’t fit the plan? Just sit on it until a friendly government comes to power and get a brand new, as-of-right zoning upgrade.
The idea that transit will shape development is demonstrably false because so many parts of the city with subway stations have not, in fact, developed at all. This may be due to neighbourhood pressure, or to a policy of preserving the “old” parts of the city because that character has a value greater than massive redevelopment. A neighbourhood may simply not be ready for development, or may have the wrong character.
This is particularly striking for residential development where local amenities and the “feel” of a neighbourhood are more important than with an industrial/commercial/office development. People may work in office towers surrounded by pedestrian-hostile roads and parking, but they want to go home to something friendlier.
Because the market for commercial real estate and the jobs it brings has shifted to the 905, much of the development in nodes originally intended for employment has been residential. This completely changes the transit demand pattern. Instead of many commuters travelling “in” to a few nodes, we have residential areas that spawn outward trips all over the GTAH. Subway plans presumed the concentrated trip making that nodes full of employees would create, and these have not materialized.
We are now seeing this pattern even in downtown Toronto with the growth of the condo market. Many residents live and work downtown, but a considerable number are “reverse commutes” out to the 905, trips for which both the local and regional systems are very badly equipped.
The idea of “downtown North York” or “downtown Scarborough” has simply not materialized in the form expected three decades ago. Actual employment levels at these two centres are about 1/3 (North York) or 1/5 (Scarborough) of the 1986 projections. This should be a lesson for today’s planners and politicians who think they can forecast and direct future growth patterns with the aid of a few maps and regulations.
The employment growth projected back in 1986 for “Metropolitan Toronto” (now the City of Toronto) was a rise from 1.23-million to 1.9m. In fact, employment grew only to 1.30m by 2011 with the lion’s share of the jobs going instead to the 905. With the absence of strong nodes for new jobs, there was little chance of improving the modal split to whatever commercial development did occur. Combining lower than predicted growth and a failure to achieve the projected transit modal split leaves us with demand projections that are completely meaningless.
Far too often, there is a political imperative to make the future look better than it might be, or at least to do a proper sensitivity analysis, a “what if” scenario for conditions that don’t match what we would like to see. Any subway financing scheme that depends on future ridership must answer basic questions: will those riders actually arrive, and will land development occur in a manner that will generate trips the subway will serve?
We have already seen development in the Sheppard corridor, but it is unclear whether this attracts buyers because it is near the 401 and DVP (and thus to a wide set of GTA destinations), or because it is near the subway. That development is generating many car trips because, for most destinations, auto travel is the only real option. The market share for transit at the North York and Scarborough centres is barely half what was projected in 1986, and the compound effect of much lower employment means that transit demand to these centres is a trivial fraction of what Network 2011 was intended to serve.
One item caught my eye in the section of “Public’s travel patterns and behaviour”. Not only were the employment and mode share values used to model demand considerably above what actually happened, assumptions were made about the way the Sheppard subway would get its passengers. Regional and local bus services would be gerrymandered to force riders onto the Sheppard line (at least in the model), but riders actually preferred to go to Finch Station where there was a chance of getting a comfortable spot on a train.
Another assumption in the demand model was that the cost of driving would rise substantially both through higher gas prices and the cost of parking. Neither of these materialized, although based on typical motoring behaviour, without a very good network of transit alternatives, the pricing of auto trips does not discourage much travel.
This begs a vital question for all regional planning — can we trust the models? What assumptions went into the model for our new transit network, and have these been tested against actual patterns of development and of the regional economy?
The projected demands on new transit lines made back in 1986 were substantially higher than today’s expectations:
- The Sheppard subway was expected to have 15,400 peak riders by 2011, but the actual number on the existing line is 4,500. The projected peak demand for the full line in 2011 is now 6-10,000.
- The Eglinton subway was expected to have 17,600 peak riders by 2011, but the LRT projection is now reduced to 5,200 (based on having the central section underground).
- The Downtown Relief line was projected to have 11,700 peak riders by 2011, and the demand projection today is 12,000. This is no surprise given that the DRL would serve a demand that actually existed 25 years ago, rather than a notional demand in a regional plan.
In previous articles, I have discussed the matter of the TTC’s Capital Budget and the mounting cost of simply keeping the subway system running. Nothing lasts forever, and many systems are wearing out. We are now on the third major generation of vehicles, there are problems everywhere with station finishes and equipment, water penetration and damage is an ongoing headache, and the signal system must be completely replaced. Contrary to statements by some subway advocates, subways do not last for 100 years without major investments in rehabilitation.
Back in 1986, the TTC had not yet reached the point where the subway had started to wear out. The oldest line (Yonge from Eglinton to Union) was only 32 years old, and much of its first generation equipment was still functional. The TTC now knows that the subway system has an ongoing cost of $230m operating (routine maintenance) and $275m capital (major systems replacement) every year. Looked at another way, simply maintaining the subway system consumes about 1/6 of the annual operating budget, and a substantial slice of the non-expansion related capital budget.
There is a large backlog of needed capital repairs with a shortfall of $2.3-billion in the 10-year capital budget thanks to provincial cutbacks in capital funding. Building more subway lines will only add to this set of maintenance costs a few decades in the future.
Finally, we have a bit of creative history writing. Why, the TTC asks, was LRT not embraced as an option back in 1986? They claim that at the time it was a poorly understood mode with only limited use, particularly in North America. What we now think of as “modern” LRT had not yet evolved. This statement ignores the LRT renaissance in Europe and suggests that despite new LRT systems in North America (notably Edmonton’s and Calgary’s), it was too soon for the TTC to embrace the mode.
I will not dwell on the fact that the Scarborough ICTS system was brand new, and the idea that an “intermediate capacity” system between buses and subways already might exist was simply not in accord with provincial policy.
In fact, the TTC’s love for LRT is a very recent phenomenon. When the Ridership Growth Strategy was first proposed in 2003 for “short term” service improvements, TTC subway planners were terrified that their pet projects had fallen off of the map. The RGS was hastily amended to include a commitment to the Spadina and Sheppard extensions, and this move has been cited ever since as “proof” that the TTC supports the Sheppard line. It would be another four years before the Transit City scheme was launched.
LRT was well-established around the world before the Transit City plan was announced, but it took a major rethink of Toronto’s transit network at the political level, combined with the economic constraints against subway building, for LRT to get the consideration it deserved. Transit City was not perfect, but it got Toronto thinking about what might be built.
This report is a year old, and its existence shows that the pro-subway forces in Toronto, notably in the Mayor’s office, did not want an informed, public discussion of subway plans to occur. Observations about the changing growth patterns in Toronto raise important questions about the future role of transit, indeed of the ability of transit to serve the region as we have actually built it. Far too much effort is concentrated on the subway-vs-LRT battle in a few corridors when the real challenge lies “out there” in the growing and very car-oriented 905.
Steve Munro 
Steve, Why isn’t this front page material for all of our major newspapers (except the Sun … oh, to have the Tely back!)?
Steve: Well, Royson’s columns are usually given prominent space in the Star. The Post and the Globe are unlikely to report on something that was an exclusive to the Star, especially when there was so much else competing for space. Saying that the Sheppard subway is a bad idea is almost old news these days. Talking about the implications of flawed planning 25 years ago, and the way that plans once launched are almost impossible to stop, these are esoteric subjects the dailies don’t have time for.
LikeLike
Now that the “secret” is out that subways don’t drive the kind of development needed to fund their construction or operation, how will our all knowing “Mayor” respond?
Anyone take odds on “People want subways, that’s the bottom line folks”?
LikeLike
Hmm, as an LRT advocate, I’m rather disappointed by the report’s conclusions. All I got from the report is that in order to justify selecting a cheaper lower-capacity mode (LRT), growth has to be low and dispersed, density has to be low, and jobs have to largely stay outside of Toronto. I consider all of these conditions to be undesirable, and it’s depressing that these “failures” are the prerequisites for embracing LRT.
Steve: You are confusing cause and effect. The combination of high job growth and transit mode share, to a level only achieved in the heart of downtown, was a bad original assumption.
Regardless of what the report says, I still believe that surface LRT can still handle optimistic projections in job growth within Metro-Toronto (with the help of regional rail network upgrades). It’s just a matter of what kind of network to set up, and I’m surprised that the report discusses very little about the network assumptions.
Steve: As I said in the post, I suspect that this document is part of a larger report, but in any event it seems only to be addressing the “why don’t we like subways any more” question. It does not even talk about construction costs and options.
Also, subway advocates would claim two things:
1) that the assumption that parallel transit riders (eg. from Finch) would switch to the Sheppard subway is valid had the subway been completed to STC as planned, and
2) Employment growth would have been much higher in Metro Toronto had we just kept building all the subways we want. This also assumes that there would have been comparatively less growth in the outer GTA.
Steve: The development industry will tell you that the subways have very little to do with the location of jobs out in the burbs because almost everyone drives to work. It’s a question of land prices and taxes. When I worked at Scarborough City Hall, I would say that less than 10% of the staff came by TTC for the simple reason that they lived all over the GTA (many in the 905) and the TTC was not an option. It’s an outward commute from the core of the system, and for longer-distance travellers, GO was not an option. By the time someone would be heading outbound from Union, the service has fallen off because it will be the end of the rush hour by the time the trains return westbound. When they get to a station in Scarborough, the connecting buses are running on midday headways, and not very frequently. STC already has a rapid transit line (the SRT) and so the Sheppard Subway would not be as big a change as building a subway to virgin rapid transit territory.
LikeLike
I have the feeling it doesn’t matter how many studies and reports there are that say any subways are a bad idea will have any influence on the mayors Ford. The reports won’t matter, unless they happen to support the mayors’ opinion. They perceive themselves as having a “mandate” from the people for subways, although to my recollection that wasn’t much of an issue during the election; his supporters really wanted him to find the mythical gravy so their taxes would be lowered.
What I have to wonder about in all of this, given the Fords’ behaviour towards council and towards Gary Webster, is just what kind of a football coach Rob Ford is. Just what kind of values is he teaching his players?
LikeLike
Steve: This is an absolutely brilliant piece. Quite remarkable — and utterly devastating to the machinations and spin emanating from the Mayor’s office. Your institutional memory is truly invaluable. Good work!
Steve: Thank you. Oddly enough, I am “conservative” in my own way in that I don’t like to see billions wasted on projects needlessly. For decades we have been told that good transit is too expensive and we must make do with less, but when it comes to subway building, the sky’s the limit. “Waste” shows up as gargantuan construction projects that keep the consulting engineers and construction companies in small change.
LikeLike
Here’s a radical idea. Instead of building a subway line where politicians would like development to occur or where they think development might occur some time in the future, why don’t they build rapid transit to where people already live and work?
A subway on Sheppard never made sense to me. The 39 Finch East is much busier than the 85 Sheppard East.
How will Webster’s dismissal affect the current LRT projects? Hopefully Eglinton and Finch West will still get built. I’m also hoping the “expert” panel will recommend LRT for Sheppard East.
Steve: The Star reports that the LRT plans are going ahead, and that the Fords will concentrate on long-term goals for subways. They will be relegated to doing so from their cottage before any of those get built, and there’s little chance that Metrolinx will include major new subway lines (except for the DRL) in “The Big Move 2.0”.
LikeLike
Hmm,
I usually find myself in broad agreement with you Steve, but here I may veer off just a bit.
Municipalities and the province can indeed control or strongly influence what will be developed where.
Due to vagueries in the economy the pace of said growth may not be exactly as envisioned; and of course, in the fullness of time, some details will change (as they always have and will)
But, the provincial greenbelt policies, along with “The Kings”; and a city policy favourable to conversion of older office and industrial buildings to residential have done exactly what one would expect, and produced the effect of a residentially intensifying core.
Steve: I think that “The Kings” was a policy that caught the early wave of a desire to move back downtown together with a demand for cheaper commercial space in the core. If we had zoned a field in North York the same way, nothing would have happened. It is very important not to presume causality for only one of many factors.
Of course the exact amount and nature of such development could never be precisely predicted. However the absence of the forgoing policies would surely have seen far less development in the core and more in suburbia.
Steve: As for the Greenbelt, well, the moment the Tories get in, it will be more blue than green, even if the Liberals don’t carve big holes in it for their friends. There’s also a problem of development hopping over the belt as we can already see.
Similarly, had the province really wanted to see further intensification in both North and Scarborough, and the City had too, these things would have happened, at least in greater measure. Scarborough chose to allow a cluster of offices at Markham and the 401. These are generally full, and only 1.5km from Scarborough Centre; had Scarborough said no, its likely these same towers would have been built in McCowan/401 (or downtown Scarborough) node. Equally, part of the reason those towers went where they did was the talk of the SRT going to Markham & Sheppard as far back as the early 80’s at least (with much of the ROW still in tact for just said project).
Steve: Scarborough deliberately downzoned Kennedy and Eglinton even though it is an obvious transit hub to avoid competition with their precious “Town Centre”.
North York faced stiff competition from burgeoning office complexes in Markham, the province could easily have said ‘No’. Most of those towers would then have shifted to the nearest place they were permitted.
For that matter, all the province need have done was not fund the 407.
Said highway, having been built largely through what was supposed to be the first ‘greenbelt’ around Toronto.
That’s not to say that all those projections would have worked out precisely, but I think, in fairness, it was incomplete and inconsistent planning that threw those numbers as far off as they went.
Also, cutting Sheppard’s Willowdale station and its eastern arm to Vic. Park surely weekended the development case, at least in those areas and has had the effect of slowing down development that might otherwise have boosted ridership figures.
That’s not an argument for pursuing Sheppard (now or then); just an attempt to show fairness, that projections were not necessarily unrealistic (at least to the degree that might appear to be the case).
Steve: When the projections for the new suburban subway lines and related employment are off by such large factors, one has to look to more than some bad planning. The underlying assumptions puffed up the suburban councillors’ view of what their cities would become. Even a lot of the new office space in downtown North York is now vacant once the original leases with signing incentives expired.
LikeLike
Transit planning is a specialty requiring facts and knowledge, and can not be developed by “the man on the street”, or through casual discussions. Much of the journalism is sensational in nature and politically motivated. The debate over Transit City versus subway expansion is a surrogate for a vote of confidence or no-confidence in our mayor. City governance is different than transit planning.
I feel that transit planning is also beyond the competence of local politicians as well. The very nature of their election to serve their wards creates a conflict of vision. If you take 9 out of 45 councillors and expect them to think city-wide rather than about their local ward issues, you put them in an inherent conflict. The Scarborough councillors are currently being put on a hot-seat. If they disagree with Ford, they are going to be painted as ignoring the needs of Scarborough. (I happen to live in Scarborough by the way.)
Transit needs go beyond the borders of Toronto, but funding of deficits is laid on the citizens of Toronto. We can not expect Toronto councillors to plan for the regional needs of the GTA in any fashion other than Toronto-centric.
The current governance model is at the root of the disasterous failure to deliver transit expansion. Ford, Stintz and Webster are the current players in this ongoing drama, but until we change the model, this will play out into the future with no improvement.
LikeLike
The main reason that North York Centre and Scarborough Centre have underperformed in terms of employment growth is that taxes are too high now. If taxes were lowered then these areas would take a lot of employment growth away from Markham, Richmond Hill and Vaughan.
However I still believe that subways are needed in this corridor because doing nothing, or building a low capacity tram line along Sheppard that forces excessive numbers of transfers, will not solve the problem of the 401 being extremely congested and having no good transit alternatives. This may explain part of the lack of growth in NYCC and STC; employers prefer proximity to the fast tolled 407 over the severely congested 401 and no decent east west transit.
Steve: I am really tired of hearing about the transfers on Sheppard. Anyone who lives east of Kennedy/Sheppard station will have to get to the new subway via a feeder bus rather than via the Sheppard LRT. There will be a transfer no matter what. To the west, presuming a Downsview extension, there will be a transfer at Downsview either to continue west on the bus, or to travel north-south on the subway. A comparatively small proportion of travel in the Sheppard corridor will net out with fewer transfers than they have today.
LikeLike
Facts? We don’t need facts!
Sorry, but even Hazel McCallion does not do what the Ford brothers are doing.
LikeLike
Perhaps transit doesn’t shape development near as much as those of us who like would like to think but you just can’t convince me that it NEVER does. Surely it at least has some influence. Maybe there should be a study to find out why some parts of Toronto beside the subway haven’t redeveloped whereas other parts did. I’ve read many a story about developments which went up either when a rail transit line was in the planning or construction stages or after the line opened. From what I’ve read over the years, some developers have done and do projects because of a rail line.
Steve: It can happen, but this tends to be the case where the rail line supports an existing desire for development. Also, looking at areas where the apartment blocks of the 60s and 70s went up (such as the one I live in), it is important to remember that the land assemblies for a lot of these took place when property values were much lower and some of the areas were a bit run down. That sort of development and rezoning simply does not happen today. The towers downtown are going up on old commercial lots and parking sites, not on tree-lined streets full of vintage housing.
It’s worth comparing the Church/Yonge/Bay condo corridor (a subway line) with what is happening on King and Queen West (streetcar territory). The location is attractive because it is in walking/cycling (and even transit, when it runs) distance of downtown and in very desirable neighbourhoods. It’s not just the subway.
LikeLike
I couldn’t agree more. It seems to me that what is really needed is a smarter GO network, where not all tracks lead to Union Station. How about a route that roughly parallels the 401, maybe with suburban branches into the 407 corridor? If it had only a few stops at crucial intersections (say once each in places like Brampton, Mississauga, Markham etc., plus at Pearson, at the Spadina (Yorkdale) and Yonge subways, and maybe at future Jane or Don Mills LRTs), it could cross the GTA relatively quickly (like the RER in Paris). With frequent service, it could provide a real alternative to cars for a wide range of trips — people commuting from the 416 to work in Brampton or Mississauga, students from the 905 going to York University, travelers going to Pearson from Ajax or Scarborough, for example. None of these people need to go to Union Station, but the current system forces them to go through there, or, more likely, to drive instead.
Steve: I agree in principle, but the problem will be how to build it. Full railway style corridors require land. Unless GO/Metrolinx start thinking in terms of free-standing routes that are more in the form of regional “subways” or high grade “LRT”, we are stuck with the essentially radial nature of the rail network.
LikeLike
After the extensions to Kipling and Kennedy opened in 1980, the TTC was officially done with subways. I remember that. They only reverted back to subways after ICTS “failed”. Surface fully segregated light rail (ICTS, GO ALRT) was their direction from 1981 – 1986.
LRT *was* well understood in the 80s, and as far back as the 60s. Yes, folks, the Spadina subway was even conceptualized as a light rail line with PCC trainsets. Wanna see the date on that report? … 1960.
Even the GO ALRT trains were shown as high-floor light rail vehicles with pantographs. The only thing that didn’t exist in the 80s was a low-floor LRT vehicle.
There is some truth to the Fordites claims that all of these reports are biased. If the employment and travel demand patterns have changed to the point where transit can no longer serve them, then why are we even investing in transit?
Steve: More accurately, I think the issue is that these patterns have been changing for some time, but nobody wanted to address the fact because it suited politicians to think of their suburbs as future growth centres that would have their very own subway lines. Many generations of emperors have passed on an increasingly tattered set of robes.
LikeLike
It’s fascinating for anyone interested in urban planning and city building, to look at Toronto’s transit experience as a clear example that “if you build it, they will come” (or should I say, “If you build it, they will ride” instead?) doesn’t always work.
I take two things from this report … maybe it reinforces opinions (biases?) that I already have, but as I see it:
First, public transport is at its most successful when it grows gradually and naturally, rather than in leaps & bounds. Witness the successful Yonge line and the comparatively successful Bloor-Danforth line (serving corridors already saturated by public transit) in comparison to the Sheppard line (subway to replace a busy bus service) and the Scarborough RT (ICTS in a corridor not served by transit)
Sadly, the “public” seems to think that it makes more sense to build the subway now but pay the capital costs over time or later (through “private financing”) … even if that subway may not be needed (now or ever) and they have no idea how the operating costs will be paid now.
Second, building public transit for the sake of comfort (subway stations are apparently warmer than LRT stops) or convenience (keeping streets available for cars, or subways being more reliable than LRT) sounds great, but it doesn’t work in practice.
Sadly, the “public” seems to think that subways can be built without having to raise taxes to pay for it.
Obviously there’s much more to it than that … but it really raises the question about how effective our transit planning & urban planning has been over the past 30 years (ironically, that’s around the time the political interference started).
Not only that., but it is amazing that Toronto has managed to court so much development and growth over the past decade. It may not have gone according to plan, but it is still impressive, and makes me wonder how amazing Toronto would be today, if the planning had gone right, starting 30 years ago.
Cheers, Moaz
LikeLike
I think the underlying causes of employment growth in the 905 and the other factors mentioned, have to be taken into account.
The lack of a METRO government which all of the GTA including the 905 was a big reason for the loss of employment in METRO and the growth in the 905.
METRO had a proud legacy of directing employment along rapid transit lines. In fact until the 1990’s, 90% of all office buildings in the metropolitan area were built along TTC rapid transit lines.
This all came undone when the 905 boomed, and used lower taxes to lure business out of Toronto. Again a METRO government could have concentrated this growth into nodes, just like METRO did in the 416.
Toronto’s suburban transit usage to office complexes are still better than almost anywhere else you will fine. And places like NYCC and other suburban office districts, still attract as much as 20-30% of workers to take transit to work. NYCC might be slightly higher.
There is no doubt that given equitable tax rates and an end to the stupid American style competition between city and suburbs, that Toronto would see suburban employment in places like NYCC and Scarborough City Centre grow again.
One only need look to Sydney, Australia, to see that the plan that Metro had can work. Sydney has a number of suburban high density office districts located next to rail stations in suburban downtowns. And they continue to build at these sites.
Steve: In all of this, an important factor we have ignored is the highway network. Back when much of the suburban development went in, the highways were comparatively uncongested, fast ways to get around both the 416 and the 905. Everyone had a car in the burbs (it was more or less a necessity), and the development formed around the road system. We built a highway network, not a transit network, and a road-oriented development pattern is the natural result.
LikeLike
Thanks for your response to my concerns, Steve. The idea of accepting Toronto becoming a bedroom community to the 905 (a great exaggeration of the actual situation of course) as a justification for embracing LRT over subways has been bugging me a while.
Speaking of conservatives, I can totally imagine Doug Holyday being a useful force in reigning in the Fords – any time now.
LikeLike
Thanks for sharing this, Steve. I’d like to make a few observations:
I am assuming that there has been some shift to Sheppard from other routes, since the currently stated peak point demand (4,500 pphpd) would equate to a bus headway of less than one minute.
It may still be valid that there has been less of a shift than modeled in the 90s. However, I don’t think the rationale tells the whole story (i.e., riders prefer to go to Finch to get a seat on the Yonge subway). For one thing, this rationale only works in one direction. But more so, the problem is the short distance. If I’m on the Finch bus and bound for the Yonge subway, I can either stay on the Finch bus and go to Finch station, or I can transfer at Finch and Don Mills, and transfer again at Don Mills station. Either I get 6 km bus / 2 km subway with no transfers, or 2 km bus / 6 km subway with 2 transfers. At a difference of only 4 km, I would suspect that the faster travel time on the subway would be outweighed by the walking and waiting at the two additional transfers (I sound like a TTC staff report!).
YUS and BD ridership is supported significantly by transfers from surface routes. But there is little reason for transfers west of Don Mills. The north-south lines have relatively low frequency and ridership, and those stations are too close to Yonge to dramatically change travel patterns the way that we saw on YUS and BD. On top of this, the area north of the 401 is generally less dense west of Don Mills than east of Don Mills.
(I know this sounds like a series of arguments for extending the stubway east to who knows where, which is not necessarily my intent.)
The report mentions parking pricing, and you state that “the pricing of auto trips does not discourage much travel.” A couple of years back I looked into this through the Transportation Tomorrow Survey database. Respondents are asked (amongst other things) where they work, what travel mode they use to get to work, and whether they have free parking at work. Everywhere across the GTA, there is an observable difference in modal split between people that have free parking at work vs. those that do not. The main issue is that paid parking is less common outside downtown and the main centres (primarily the Yonge corridor), although there are some islands (often major institutions like hospitals or universities / colleges).
I also looked at the TTS database to review modal splits for residents and employees in the North York Centre area, and other major centres (outside the central area). In general, transit use as a percentage tends to be higher for residents than for employees:
(1) People tend to make the choice to drive or take transit (TTC or GO) based on the environment of their destination, not the environment where they live, unless there are severe restrictions in their place of residence limiting car ownership. (As you note, with the downtown condo boom we are seeing increased traffic heading out of downtown in the morning on the Gardiner and 427 to Mississauga, Brampton and Vaughan, and on the DVP and 404 to Markham and Richmond Hill.)
(2) People generally have more flexibility in where they live than where they work. People choose to live in NYCC condos because of the proximity of the subway that will take them to work downtown or elsewhere along the subway; the subway is a major factor in their location. People “choose” to work in NYCC or STC because that’s where their employer is located, and they then need to find a way to work. And unlike resident trips (get everyone on the subway or GO train downtown), employee trips are dispersed all across the GTA, most of which will be either unserved or uncompetitive by transit, particularly given (1) above. You will get Markham residents commuting downtown on the GO rather than fight the DVP and downtown parking, but traffic and parking aren’t bad enough for Markham residents to commute to STC.
LikeLike
How can it possibly be asserted that the Sheppard subway line has far fewer riders than “expected”, or that the Scarborough and North York “downtowns” have far fewer cross-town commutes between them than “expected”, without noting that these expectations were based on a Sheppard subway line that connected the planned Scarborough and North York “downtowns”? I’m sorry, but this all sounds like spin. The Sheppard subway line may, indeed, be a bad idea. BRT rather than LRT in order to avoid kneecapping a Sheppard subway for the future may also be a bad idea. But this game of citing expectations for a much more extensive line, and comparing it to the results of a stubway, do not do much honour to that debate.
LikeLike
Serge you do bring up a good point.
Downtown Toronto saw stagnate office growth for about 15 years, and has now only recovered.
However some of this stagnation can actually be seen to be caused by political forces, which stopped the building of rapid transit expansion into the downtown core, to stop office development. With the idea that downtown development should be pushed out to the suburbs, so people can live in single family neighbourhoods in the heart of the city.
So you are right, if you don’t provide the capacity, then how is a place supposed to grow?
Taxes are a big issue, as well as the aggressive marketing done by the 905 to lure business out of Toronto.
However now the tide has shifted, and business want back into Toronto and a report just came out that for the first time in 20 years, business are skipping the 905 entirely and want to be downtown.
NYCC and STC there is no doubt can grow. But it needs political will which sadly has been lacking.
In terms of transit usage, it is a well known fact that in the western world, transit usage is very heavily tied to downtown employment levels. If you don’t have a strong downtown, your ridership will suffer.
LikeLike
In today’s Globe and Mail, Mayor Ford has a guest column on the need for subways in Toronto, curiously titled “A better way to retool Toronto ailing TTC”.
Ah, the cure for the TTC is building subways, funded by magic fairy dust…
Steve: The article is extremely superficial and spends half its length on background, not on new information or arguing for the current proposal. The idea that somehow a parking tax generating $90-million annually is all we need for a subway plan is laughable considering that the same mayor cancelled a vehicle registration tax that brought in around $64-million. The myth that somehow the private sector might chip in is still with us even though the proposed funding of the Sheppard subway line is very heavily weighted to taxes and funds from senior governments. Those taxes, by the way, would scoop all of the future development revenue from far more than the Sheppard corridor, a necessity because Sheppard on its own cannot pay for itself. How we would fund further expansion of the network is unclear, but Ford has never been long on details.
The article is almost certainly written by one of his staff, and it’s a puff piece, not a serious argument. Later in this thread, I have a comment in moderation that I may not publish (still debating) that is clearly the work of a Ford troll who talks about the “excellent article” in the Globe. I might be more inclined to engage in debate if the letter didn’t feel like the kind of work Ford and his flunkies expect from city staff these days.
LikeLike
It’s been mentioned a little bit, but the 1990s recession really put a damper on employment in Toronto for quite a while, both in manufacturing and in commercial office space. With the exception of a few buildings, there didn’t seem to be much commercial office building construction after 1992 anywhere in Toronto, and by the time the economy picked up, the rush to build suburban office parks (e.g. along Highway 404, Airport Corporate Centre) near highways was in full swing, bypassing the city and the old Metro plans of decentralizing office space from downtown Toronto to NYCC and STC. In a way the plan “succeeded”, but the decentralization went right out to the outer suburbs instead of staying within Toronto.
Steve: Within any 25 year planning period, at least one major economic upheaval is to be expected. We had the first oil price shock in 1980, and that informed planning leading to Network 2011 that foresaw a big jump in gas prices. What it didn’t take into account was the technology evolution that reduced gas consumption, and the way that people have traded down to more fuel efficient vehicles rather than not driving. Then there was the 90s recession, and finally the global crash of the 2000s. No 25-year plan should be allowed to sit without proper review and updating to track whether its goals and assumptions still hold true. The changes that led to lower growth at NYCC and STC happened years ago, and the plan could have been updated, if only the politicians would accept that their dreams of “downtowns” in the suburbs needed rethinking.
LikeLike
Brent says, “If I’m on the Finch bus and bound for the Yonge subway, I can either stay on the Finch bus and go to Finch station, or I can transfer at Finch and Don Mills, and transfer again at Don Mills station. Either I get 6 km bus / 2 km subway with no transfers, or 2 km bus / 6 km subway with 2 transfers. At a difference of only 4 km, I would suspect that the faster travel time on the subway would be outweighed by the walking and waiting at the two additional transfers (I sound like a TTC staff report!).”
Yes, but the Finch/Don Mills 139 (which along Finch, then express to Don Mills station) is a total failure in my experience. True, it’s one additional transfer compared to the 39 to Yonge, but you are certain to get the seat of your choice, unlike on Finch East buses.
Mind you, the 199 Finch East express between STC and Finch station has been criticised, and my (very limited) experience is that the leg down to STC has almost no ridership, compared to the hordes actually travelling across Finch. Actually, that would argue against the need for STC to be connected to the Yonge subway via some higher-order transit, it seems.
Serge asks, “How can it possibly be asserted that the Sheppard subway line has far fewer riders than “expected”, or that the Scarborough and North York “downtowns” have far fewer cross-town commutes between them than “expected”, without noting that these expectations were based on a Sheppard subway line that connected the planned Scarborough and North York “downtowns”?”
I don’t understand why someone in “Downtown North York” would want to take the subway to “Downtown Scarborough” or vice-versa, should one exist. What’s the attraction? Let alone using the subway to travel between, say, Vaughan Corporate Centre and Scarborough Town Centre? If you’re at one, what is your motivation to spend time travelling to the other?
Steve: Yes! Those “downtowns” act mainly as transit nodes, not as destinations and origins in their own right. Anyone travelling between points in Scarborough and North York will not necessarily be well served by a subway from Sheppard and Yonge to STC.
LikeLike
How terrified should I be that our interm CGM is qouted in the G&M referring to how he will give “impartial advice” on the “subway vs streetcar debate” Again the “subway vs streetcar debate”. What debate is that? I thought we were talking about subway vs LRT, thoughts Steve? Perhaps a misquote by Elizabeth Church? I am freaking out a little right now.
Steve: I suspect it’s a misquote/misstatement because the intent is clearly “LRT”. There is no subway-vs-streetcar debate.
LikeLike
Going back to overhaul of the Commission you’ve talked about before, I’m just trying to do the math: we need 30 councillors on board (2/3 vote). Assumimg the Stintz 25 are on board, plus Gloria Lindsay Lube, makes 26 for sure. Perhaps Peter Milczyn? Who else might be on the fence from the Ford camp?
Either way, it would be quite the feat to make it to 30.
Steve: No, we don’t need 30, although that would be good to ensure that Council can override any procedural delays. The report from Executive will be on a regular agenda, and its recommendations can be amended by a simple majority. A 2/3 majority is only needed to introduce new business without notice.
LikeLike
I should mention this is an excellent article Steve. It’s unfortunate that emotion and ideology seem to dominate decision making. The “elephant in the room” that no ones seems to fully acknowledge is that the urban form we’ve (collectively) built for the past fifty years has largely been low-density suburban sprawl which is car-dependent and not able to support high transit use.
In the Ford’s article in today’s G&M to which I referred, he does mention the long commute times and traffic congestion (worse than LA) and but then states we need subways as the fix. No where is anyone really addressing fully changing land use. Traffic congestion has caused some of the increase in travel time, but I suspect as much or more is also the fact that commuters are travelling much longer distances, something that building or extending subways (or GO trains) will not fix.
The Liberal government did create the “green belt” but as you point out that has not stopped leap-frog development (all car-dependent) from being built farther out. Alas, there is no political will at any level of government to tackle that, at least yet. And that will make it much harder to provide choice for commuters so they are not always left with one choice (the car).
Phil
LikeLike
Ed says:
As someone who uses the 199 occasionally and the Sheppard subway line now almost daily, I can tell you there are only three reasons to take that trip without transferring on:
a) To use the biggest non-reference library we have in the city @ North York Centre
b) To use the North York Centre for the Arts
c) to go to an office in either place
A fourth reason will be added in a year or two when a new version of an exclusive food emporium opens up @ Sheppard and Yonge – alas, I suspect most people will get their organic goods by driving there. Everything else at those two hubs can be found in other parts of the city, often along the Sheppard or Finch East lines.
Ultimately, attraction is not why transit is needed. Transit is needed because we go where we want to go. Which is why the study of Finch West destinations is very instructive as it indicates we tend to develop non-work destinations along transit lines, but not enough trips to justify subways.
LikeLike
Steve said:
Richard Gilbert in the Globe is thinking along the same lines.
LikeLike
I couldn’t agree more with the comments re: parking prices above. As someone who uses a mix of walking/biking/transit/auto in his day-to-day, the price of parking is a major factor in my decision making. If I can bike or take the TTC to the mall in twenty minutes but drive there in ten and park for free, I won’t use the alternatives unless I have extra time or feel a particular yearning to. I think ending the era of free parking at commercial/employment destinations would do more to change minds about transit use than forking over hundreds of millions on a few more kilometres of subways. Ironically, Mr. Ford would probably interpret any subsequent bump in transit ridership as vindication for his subway scheme . . .
Is it just me or does Mr. Ford’s Globe column read as a “tax and spend” manifesto to justify an extravagant and unnecessary public works project? He (or his ghostwriter) actually states that “it’s not just another project” in the column – methinks he doth protest too much.
Dare I ask who is driving the gravy train now?
LikeLike
Steve, How can a Sheppard subway ever succeed? North America’s largest highway in most sections is 1/4 to 1/2 a mile (this will show my age) away. With the idea that people travel in all directions for work, well, highway 401 becomes that more inviting for these people rather than a subway!
LikeLike
Andrew says:
At 2 minute headways, a modern LRT line can transport 15,000 ppdph. I hardly call that low capacity. The ridership projections on Sheppard East fall well below 15,000 ppdph. Likewise, ridership of 15,000 ppdph is needed to justify a subway. When ridership increases to that level in the future, a subway line can be built on Sheppard. When the Yonge and Bloor streetcars reached capacity, they were replaced with subway lines.
The transfer at Don Mills station from LRT to the subway was designed to be quick easy unlike the marathon at Kennedy station when transferring from the subway to the RT.
Ed says:
How exactly is the 139 a total failure? The 39 and 199 are always crowded. The 39 used to frequently short turn while the 199 does not travel east of McCowan on Finch. When the 199 hit McCowan, the bus would empty out and proceed to STC practically empty. People would get off and wait for the 39.
Contrarily, the 139 almost always shows up on time and is not crowded at Don Mills station. It also rarely short turns. The only downside is that the service is infrequent and at rush hour only. Maybe it’s better waiting 20 minutes for the 139 than dealing with the crowds waiting for the 39 and 199.
LikeLike
Every time subway expansion is uttered, the DRL line is mentioned. According to this report, there was a demand for it (which still exists today) — despite inaccurate projections for job growth and other factors which might have decreased its demand. However, the DRL seems to get ignored every time. I’m perplexed as to why other lines have been built (and to be built) while the DRL remains on the sidelines. Maybe I missed something.
Steve: Back in the 80s, the political and planning fetish was to shift development away from downtown (a bad thing because it encouraged more long-haul commuting to an already congested area) and out to suburban nodes. This pleased the mayors of places like North York, Scarborough and Etobicoke with dreams of new development and the accompanying taxes. Etobicoke city centre (at the Six Points) never really got off of the ground, and developers “voted” for Bloor/Islington as the better site for new buildings. In time, the land around Kipling Station began to develop, but with condos, not office towers. By contrast the DRL would have served the hated downtown, and at a time when some city politicians actually thought that they could throttle development simply by not providing transit capacity. The planners forgot to allow for GO Transit which fuelled most of the downtown job growth that took place. One Mayor with dreams for his suburb was named Lastman, and one city councillor with delusions that he could actually stop downtown development was named Layton. It was a marriage of convenience with Layton supporting the Sheppard subway rather than new transit capacity into the core.
Since then, the TTC has adopted the attitude that we don’t need the DRL and more recently have concentrated on the mad scheme to pour all of the new riding into the existing subway using automatic train control, platform doors and other technology changes to squeeze more capacity out of the Yonge line. There is some indication recently that the folly of this course of action has dawned on the TTC folks, and that the DRL may get a new lease on life, but we still have not seen a fair-handed study of the DRL (including a segment all the way to Eglinton as originally proposed) from the TTC. They at least admit we need more capacity downtown, but think they can squeeze it out of the Yonge line. This is extremely foolhardy because it bets the subway’s future on changes that have not been proven, that will cost a very large amount of money, and that will create a single point of failure within what should be a network.
LikeLike
Naive question maybe but why are the Fords expending so much political capital on this policy issue? M’m sure there’s more than one reason: taking something of a neo-con tough guy stance for the benefit of their political base or perhaps their libidos really do swing to rolling stock, or are these apparently rigid thought patterns indicative of borderline personality disorder … I confess I lean towards wondering about backroom promises … the money for transit is going to be spent one way or another … is this current crisis and miserable waste of civic energy a question of specific financial expectations based on some other sort of guarantee than the commitment to “no cuts to services” … it’s hard I concede to follow funds that haven’t yet been dispersed …
Steve: My bet is that ego has a lot to do with this.
LikeLike
2/3rds is needed for new business without notice, but 2/3rds is also needed to waive referral to Executive Committee, where many a Member Motion that the Mayor of the day may not be too keen on gets sent to die – this applies to both former and current mayors’ respective Executive Committees.
Steve: That is true for a member motion introduced as part of the agenda. However, an amendment to a report already on the agenda only requires a simple majority to pass. This could show up simply as a motion (a) to rebalance the public/private mix of Commissioners from that proposed in the Executive report, and (b) to act now, without waiting until the mid-term shuffle, to appoint a new set of Commissioners. Yes, having 30 members onside would give extra heft so that nuisance attempts to halt or defer these events could be easily dismissed, but strictly speaking, the change can be implemented with a simple majority although it may take a bit longer.
LikeLike
If we can’t prevent the Mayor from hiding valuable information, we can at least try to get Minnan-Wong, Di Giorgio, Kelly, Palacio, and Crisanti off the TTC board. Please sign and spread this petition.
LikeLike
I can not believe people are saying there is no demand or need for travel between NYCC and STC.
There are plenty of reasons to go to NYCC, including a pretty good food scene and authentic Korean restaurants, etc. NYCC is actually turning into a pretty cool uptown district.
Secondly the comments that there is nothing to commute to totally ignores the success of the 190 Sheppard Rocket.
You guys may not be into exploring the city or shopping. But the fact is Scarborough Town Centre is a large destination which attracts people in the Sheppard corridor, as well as the Finch corridor.
Seriously, I really question people’s knowledge of transit if they are actually saying we don’t need to connect one of the largest regional malls (STC) in the region to crosstown transit service along Finch and to Yonge Street.
Part of the success of the TTC has come from making malls major transportation destinations for transit.
The 190 Sheppard Rocket alone is carrying something like double the ridership the TTC projected.
The 199 Finch Rocket yes does have light loads to STC depending on the trip. Some trips will be empty, while others will be full. I would suspect that they maybe don’t need 2-4 minute service all the way to STC, and could maybe reduce it to every 10 minutes or less. There are other reasons for this light ridership Maybe riders in the Finch corridor use north south buses which also provide a direct ride to STC, etc.
But overall I just think a frequency adjustment is needed.
Steve: We do not build subways to serve a restaurant district. Yes, the 190 Rocket is well used — it was a common way for me to travel between the Scarborough and North York TDSB offices before I retired. I noticed that a lot of its business was an an express Sheppard bus to major stops, not as a Don Mills to STC shuttle. The most frequent service is the PM peak at 5’30”, or 11 buses per hour. That’s less than one 4-car train’s worth of passengers.
LikeLike
Steve says:
Who will stand up to end Mayor Ford’s war on the car? Doesn’t he understand that parking it a fundamental right given to car drivers by the Creator of All Things?
Steve: The Creator was recently sacked for telling Mayor Ford that motorists have rights too. According to recently promulgated Ford Bulls, the Creator has to respond to changes in earthly administration and ensure that His actions support the goals of the Administration.
LikeLike
When Rob Ford was just a Councillor, he would end up on the losing side, or even the lone opponent, on many council votes. What the public didn’t see very often was the why.
Now as Mayor, he takes center stage and shows the public why. His stubbornness to compromise will only lead to more defeats for him. It could change if his handlers can control him or direct him to do compromises.
Yet, there are those who still don’t see him except through rose-coloured glasses, or with blinders.
LikeLike
Michael writes:
There are plenty of reasons to go to NYCC, including a pretty good food scene and authentic Korean restaurants, etc. NYCC is actually turning into a pretty cool uptown district.
While I enjoy the Empress Walk movie theatres and the Second Cup downstairs, said Korean restaurants are mostly closer to Yonge and Finch, not NYCC. Certainly good if you want japchae at 2am, but it’s already served well by the Yonge line. Are you saying that someone is going to travel from STC for that? (notably after the subway stops running…)
You guys may not be into exploring the city or shopping. But the fact is Scarborough Town Centre is a large destination which attracts people in the Sheppard corridor, as well as the Finch corridor.
I’m sure that’s true of people in Scarborough. I bet I could count on my right hand the number of people at Yonge and Finch who consider STC a “destination” worth going to over, say, downtown and the Eaton Centre.
Seriously, I really question people’s knowledge of transit if they are actually saying we don’t need to connect one of the largest regional malls (STC) in the region to crosstown transit service along Finch and to Yonge Street.
I lived in Toronto for 11 years and go back for several weeks every year. I have lots of friends who live near NYCC. I’ve never been to STC or even close to it. I’ve never even considered going to it, for the same reason that I don’t bother going to Sherway Gardens, Square One, Markville, Hillcrest, or Woodbine Centre (admittedly the latter was a destination for my family as a Saturday-morning outing when I was small… can’t say there was anything else nearby warranting a subway then). What’s the point? Most malls are basically the same, so why would I take the subway OR drive to one on the other end of the city? To experience a different food court? If you live on the Yonge Line, you’re not taking the subway to Fairview, you’re going to go downtown to shop. Or you’ll take the bus to Centerpoint – surely it deserves a connection to STC too!! After all, there’s no Sears there, so STC would surely be the place to go to find one.
Part of the success of the TTC has come from making malls major transportation destinations for transit.
What “success” is that? Are you saying that building a subway station next to Yorkdale was part of this grand plan? (Granted, it’s nightmarish to park there on weekends.) Exactly what would anyone travel east to STC and fail to stop at either Bayview Village or Fairview or the IKEA at Leslie? Are you suggesting that IKEA needs to be connected to STC via subway? Or just Bayview Village? Surely most of the patrons of Bayview Village don’t have cars (ahem) and would have no alternative but to seek out Restoration Hardware or Il Fornello at STC, should there be either there?
Anyway, STC is already served by rapid transit, namely the RT. Your plan would leave Centerpoint with nothing but bus service.
LikeLike
You know how the service frequency on subway lines is virtually immune to service cuts (except for early maintenance-related closures), but buses/streetcars are constantly threatened with reductions? Maybe that’s why Ford wants subways subways subways everywhere, so that those newly-served-by-subway routes would be protected from service cuts too!
LikeLike
This report really is a confrmation of what I have been saying for a number of years. Unless the city gets serious about non residential development any and all transportation planning is ggoing to be misguided. While vested interests are turning this into a subway vs. LRT debate the more pragmatic choices may BRT or the status quo.
PS. Steve, have you seen this paper?
Steve: No, I have not, but will read it when I have a chance.
LikeLike