TTC Rediscovers the Downtown Relief Line (Update 4)

Update 4 October 21, 2012 at 8:30 pm:

It’s intriguing to look back at coverage of the DRL the last time this was a major issue.  Mike Filey passed along a clipping from the Star from December 2, 1982 that makes interesting reading.  My comments are at the end in Postscript 2.

Update 3 October 20, 2012 at 3:20 pm:

A postscript has been added discussing the various demand simulations as a group rather than individually.  Charts of total demand southbound from Bloor Station as well as pedestrian activity at Bloor-Yonge are provided to consolidate information from several exhibits in the background paper.

Update 2 October 19, 2012 at 11:00 am:

This article has been reformatted to merge additional information from the background study as well as illustrations into the text.

At its meeting on October 24, 2012, the TTC will consider a report on the Downtown Rapid Transit Expansion Study.  The full background paper is also available on the TTC’s website.

A study by the City of Toronto and TTC, including consultations with Metrolinx, concludes that transit demand to the core by 2031 will grow at a rate that exceeds the capacity of all of the current and planned transit facilities.  Ridership will be 51% higher than today.  The residential population south of College from Bathurst to Parliament will grow by 83%, and employment by 28%.

Capacity is an issue today as Table A-1 in the background paper shows.  Several corridors into downtown are already operating over their design capacity.  This is particularly the case on GO where the target is to have few standees, and there is more room for additional passengers in the design capacity than on the TTC subway services.

Table A-2 shows the projections for 2031.  All of the shortfalls are on GO, but the TTC lines are close to saturation.  This presumes a considerable increase in the capacity of various lines.  For example, the YUS goes from a design capacity of 26,000 to 38,000 passengers per hour (pphpd), an increase of 46% which may not actually be achievable.  Similarly, the BD line goes to 33,000 pphpd, an increase of 27%.

Exhibit 1-10 shows the components of projected capacity increase including 36% from running trains closer together.  As discussed at some length on this site previously, the constraints on headways arise at terminal stations.  A 36% increase in trains/hour implies a headway of about 100 seconds as compared with 140 today.  This cannot be achieved with existing terminal track geometry, not to mention the leisurely crew practices at terminals.

On the GO lines, the projected capacity on Lakeshore West doubles, and smaller increases are seen on other routes.  It is worth noting that the projected capacity of the north-south corridors to Stouffville, Richmond Hill and Barrie are nowhere near the level of service implied by The Big Move, probably because these lines are not targets for early electrification.  This contributes to the capacity shortfall in the northern sector.  Recommendation 1 of the study includes encouragement that Metrolinx review the possibility of increased capacity in those three corridors.

The full list of lines included in the modelled network can be found in the background study at section 1.2.1.

The streetcar system (plus sidewalks and bike lanes) will absorb the growth in short-distance travel to and from the core.  This has implications for the future of the streetcar fleet once the new LFLRVs come into service — the immediate retirement of older equipment may have to wait while the backlog of growing demand is addressed.  Cycling, pedestrians and transit will require dedication of an increased amount of road space including transit priorities and aggressive controls on abuse by motorists and delivery vehicles.  With growth numbers like those, the idea that people will breeze through a congestion-free downtown by car is laughable.

Exhibit 1-8 in the background study gives a revealing breakdown of trips arriving in the core area during the AM peak.  GO has 88% of the trips from Peel Region,  95% of the trips from Durham (on a much smaller base than Peel), but only 55% of the trips from York Region.  This shows the degree to which GO has not picked up demand from the north, and this demand is now filling up the Toronto subway system.

This problem persists in the 2031 projections in Exhibit 1-9.  The TTC’s share of trips from York Region to downtown falls only from 45% to 41%.  GO may be adding capacity, but only slightly faster than what is needed to handle greater demand, not as an incentive to shift riding from the TTC network.

Also revealing is the breakdown of trips within the 416.  Of the trips from east and west of downtown entering the core, the surface routes carry about 30%.  The outside-416 trips swamp the local 416 trips, and surface trips only make up 8% of the overall total.  However, the surface system is an important part of local travel within the city, and this role should increase as the population south of Bloor rises.

Exhibit 1-9 implies a fall in the absolute number of trips handled by the surface network outside the core area boundaries.  The percentage share for surface routes falls from 30% to 23% while the total number of trips does not rise much.  This implies a diversion of trips to other modes without the addition of any east-west subway capacity other than better service on the BD line.  I am not sure whether this represents a real shift or if it is an artifact of the modelling process.

Table 1-5 gives comparative streetcar capacity figures for the downtown routes with three sets of figures: existing, the effect of a 1-for-1 replacement by new LFLRVs, and the capacity of a nominal 3-minute headway.  What is not shown is any indication of the latent demand on streetcar routes whose service has been frozen for years, nor of the effect of current and planned development that will increase demand along the streetcar lines.

Elsewhere in the report, the TTC claims that 2,600 is the practical capacity of a streetcar line based on a 3-minute headway of LFLRVs.  This statement must be challenged on two counts.  First, it is already agreed that more road space and time must be given to transit, not less.  Second, if we presume that 2,600 is the upper bound for a surface line in mixed traffic, we face huge costs for demands that are far below those where subway operation is affordable.

The subway network’s function will be to handle medium-distance trips, although “medium” is a bit of a stretch when the subway will eventually extend into territory once the preserve of GO transit’s rail and bus network.  Indeed, one reason for crowding on the subway is the limited growth of GO thanks to constraints at Queen’s Park.  Metrolinx talks a good game, but it’s always “subject to funding”, and little of that materializes.

Other recommendations in the background study include:

  • Do not proceed with the Yonge Subway Extension in advance of the provision of additional rapid transit capacity into the downtown.
  • TTC and the City of Toronto undertake the studies and actions needed to protect for a possible future expansion of Bloor-Yonge station and develop a plan for improvements that will be needed in the future.
  • City of Toronto continue to study means of reducing congestion in the downtown area via the optimization of existing infrastructure in its ongoing “Downtown Transportation Operations Study.”
  • Maintain, and where possible enhance policies in the City’s Official Plan that will help to minimise the need for future investments in rapid transit facilities.
  • TTC conduct further investigation into the future demands and transfers expected at subway stations in the downtown and identify those stations that should be given priority in TTC’s station modernization program. King Station in particular will see high passenger demand and operational issues regardless of the presence of a DRL.

These recommendations emphasize that the DRL is not something about which decisions can be made in a vacuum.  It is a pre-requisite for expansion of the existing Yonge line, and other parts of the network, both transit and roads, will have to adapt to provide greater capacity in the system.  This is not a matter of drawing one line on a map, finding some money, and building it.

Two families of network improvements are included in the TTC study:

  • The Downtown Relief Line (DRL) and variations
  • A Lakeshore Subway (or equivalent) in the GO corridor

Because more pressure on network capacity lies east of Yonge, each group of options includes an “east only” version as well as an “east + west” option.  The DRL options include versions ending at Pape Station or extending north to Don Mills and Eglinton.  This gives six configurations.

[Note: The TTC study shows the DRL going under King and up Roncesvalles, but the alignment is only for the purpose of illustration.  Commenters should note that I will not entertain yet another battle among competing alignments here.  We have done this issue to death already.  What is clear is that a “DRL” cannot hit everyone’s pet project on its way across downtown, and Toronto needs to decide just what function that line would provide.]

An east-only DRL ending at Pape Station or at Eglinton:

An east-west DRL from Dundas West Station to Pape Station or to Eglinton:

A east Lakeshore line from Union to Rouge Hill

An east-west Lakeshore line from Long Branch to Rouge Hill

Leaving aside the choice of inside-416 stations for the termini of a Lakeshore route, the basic problem it has is that it competes with the Bloor-Danforth line but does not shift much riding off of Yonge-University.  Attention, therefore, focuses on the DRL options.

The TTC notes that some benefits could be obtained by improvements to GO’s north-south services, but these are outside the scope of their study.  Some work has already been done looking at a network adapted from the one used in the electrification study.  This is precisely the sort of detail that should be made public to inform discussion of options rather than remaining hidden within Metrolinx.  Any debate about future funding streams needs to know what is possible and how soon we might see it.

What we are now seeing is the cumulative effect of decades of deferred investment in transit across the region at a time when transit demand is taking off.  A few more trains here or there, and a subway extension every few decades, and piles of glossy reports just are not enough.

The background study contains a short history of the evolution of downtown rapid transit plans (section 1.1).  This includes an odd remark about the retention of streetcars, now celebrating its 40th anniversary:

a citizen’s group in support of streetcars lobbied to retain the streetcar lines in favour of a new subway, [the Queen line]

Well, no, actually.  What was happening was that the TTC planned to gradually eliminate streetcars and replace them with inferior service, and with no guarantee that a Queen subway (which would not have served large areas of the streetcar network anyhow) would ever be built.  A tiny bit of revisionist history.

The paragraph goes on to note that the Queen subway was cancelled to concentrate efforts in the suburbs.

Band-aid efforts on the existing network are not enough either, although the demand projections include the high end of the TTC’s projected capacity range on YUS.  Only one month ago, in its 2013 Capital Budget report, the TTC downplayed the need for an additional rapid transit line into downtown to relieve the Yonge-University subway:

… all of these projects could conceivably improve carry capacity on that line by 40% or more over time. Funding and completing them could put off the need for the $10 billion or so Downtown Relief Subway Line by 10 or 20 years at a fraction of the cost.

The projects in question include:

  • Automatic Train Control
  • Fleet expansion to allow ATC
  • A shift to 500-foot long trains (essentially replacing the TRs which have not all been delivered yet so that they, in turn, would replace the T1s in the Bloor-Danforth line) together with carhouse and storage expansion for the larger fleet (in length and numbers of trains)
  • Installation of platform doors (not funded, and described in private conversation by Andy Byford as not necessarily a viable solution)
  • Capacity expansion at Bloor-Yonge Station

The TTC has not provided a consolidated costing of these improvements nor have they indicated which of them might not be required if a DRL were implemented.  Almost all of the list above is not funded, and cost estimates, such as they exist, are scattered through multiple projects in the Capital Budget.  The comment cited above uses a DRL cost ($10b) which is larger than the price quoted even for a full DRL from Dundas West to Eglinton ($8.3b).  At this point, the TTC is only talking about a $3.2b route from downtown to Pape Station.  One wonders just how deliberately misleading the anti-DRL statements from TTC management are and have been for past decades.

A further problem is that the TTC mixes improvements that actually provide net new capacity with those intended to improve reliability.  If, for example, there are fewer track fires because of platform doors, this improves reliability, but it does not increase capacity unless we assume that such fires are so common that they will always interrupt peak service.  Fires and suicides are not the only source of service delays, and an external review of the TTC has already reported that until they can get their reliability in much better shape, achieving much higher capacity is impossible.

Pape is not the place to stop, and the line should go north to Eglinton.  This will intercept more traffic and will eliminate some of the need for passenger transfer capacity at Pape and Danforth.  Such a line would provide much improved transit to major neighbourhoods at Thorncliffe and Flemingdon Parks, and would be more than a diversionary route for traffic on the Danforth subway.

Exhibit 1-11 gives an overview of existing and projected transfer movements at Bloor-Yonge.  These will increase substantially by 2031, and the station as now configured cannot handle the added pedestrian activity.  The TTC has a separate study underway of capacity at Bloor-Yonge, but this has not yet been published.  The question then will be whether the proposed improvement to station capacity is physically possible, affordable and acceptable to nearby landowners who may be affected.  If we cannot handle more transfer movements at Bloor-Yonge, a discussion of increase line capacity runs aground fairly quickly.

Detailed projections for the DRL show that it will have considerable effects in reducing demand at Bloor-Yonge.  When this is combined with the possible benefit of increase north-south capacity on GO, heroic work at Bloor-Yonge to accommodate new transfer capacity may not be required.  The TTC, however, seems to have the attitude that it is needed no matter what.  The validity of this position should be challenged as the relative benefit, costs and effects of various combinations of options are reviewed.

Exhibits 1-12 and 1-13 examine projected increase in station demands on the downtown “U” and shows very large changes in passengers entering the subway from Queen Street south.  Most affected is Union where boardings would triple from 5,700 to 17,300.  Other stations have comparable ratios (3X) but many fewer passengers.  The effect of higher subway ridership shows up in all stations’ departure numbers.  The combined effect of these changes shows the need for more station capacity along the Yonge-University line, not just at the two key stations.

The diagrams below are only those showing overall changes in demand flow for each option.  Many more details are available in section 4 of the background paper.

DRL east to Danforth:  The projected peak demand westbound to Yonge is 11,700 although fewer riders are diverted from the Danforth (5,600), Yonge (4,700) and University (1,000) subways.  The model presumes a GO connection at Gerrard that would attract about 3,000 transferees per hour at peak.  The number of boardings at Pape is 9,400, considerably larger than the number of trips diverted from the Danforth subway, and this likely shows the volume of traffic attracted from the north (something the study’s authors appear to have missed).  This option also reduces the west-to-south transfer demand at Bloor-Yonge to below 2001 levels.

DRL from Dundas West to Danforth:  When the western leg of the DRL is added, demand at the peak point east of Yonge goes up to 13,600 because destinations west of University have been added as options for riders using the DRL.  Anyone who has seen the substantial counterpeak demand on the King car going to offices west of downtown will understand this pattern.  The biggest change, understandably, is on the Bloor line west of St. George from which traffic would divert to the DRL west, and on the University line.  Projected peak demand on the DRL west is 12,900, but this depends on substantial transfer traffic at Queen and Dufferin.

DRL with Eglinton Option:  The Eglinton option does not have much effect on the peak point projected demand for the DRL east or for transfer traffic at Bloor-Yonge as compared with a line ending at Pape Station.  This implies that the model is not finding much “new” demand to assign to the corridor with a faster trip between Eglinton and Danforth than on the existing bus routes.

The Lakeshore options primarily affect the BD subway by diverting east-west trips away from it.  The effect on the Yonge line and on Bloor-Yonge station is considerably less than with the DRL options.  A Lakeshore service also adds even more demand to Union Station which will be straining to handle growth in GO Transit and waterfront-based trips.

As a general observation, the demand model appears to be “force feeding” the DRL by assumed GO-to-DRL transfers that require additional stops in locations where they may not be physically or operationally practical as well as the station capacity to handle the passenger movements.  Whether riders would actually make these transfer moves requires more detailed analysis.  This behaviour may be particularly hard to obtain in the PM peak where passengers would be trying to get on outbound GO trains already packed with riders from Union Station.

This report begs a much more complex question — there is a pressing need for a detailed analysis of the transit system, all of it, not just the parts each agency cherry-picks for its own purposes.  GO Transit must stop treating travel inside the 416 as something that is not its job.  Transit studies need to look at surface route growth, not just at subways.  The whole debate about LRT will remain a sideshow while the Ford brothers have influence in Toronto, but the larger problem of surface capacity on bus and streetcar routes will not go away.

Some bus routes logically will transform to LRT, some to BRT, some to simply a mix of local and express buses.  Road space for auto users will come under attack, and subways cannot possibly fulfill the needs in every corridor.  All of our transit lines will need more money for fleet growth, garaging, operations and maintenance.  In the 905, we need to know the implications of greatly improved GO service on local transit networks, especially for off peak and counterpeak travel.

With this report, the TTC has seized the initiative in the political debate about transit expansion and could leave Metrolinx in the dust thanks to that agency’s dependence on Queen’s Park to make policy.  The focus is on a subway line, something that will keep the Fords happy, but the continued importance of the streetcar system for “in town” trips is part of the overall plan.

At long last, we have the TTC openly talking about the need for much-increased rapid transit capacity downtown, a debate that was sidelined decades ago when a proposed DRL was dumped in favour of the Sheppard Subway.

Postscript (October 20, 2012)

A comment on this article sent me looking at the information from the many simulations in the background study to see how the component flows changed, or not, for each configuration of the network.  The information is much more easily digested in this consolidated format rather than flipping back between many pages in the source document.

Charts of Demand at Bloor Yonge

Table of Demand At Bloor Yonge

The “charts” file linked above contains three pages.  The first shows the modelled demand at Bloor-Yonge under various scenarios.  Note that “walk in” traffic at Bloor-Yonge is not included in the published data, and this may be important as we will see later.

  • The leftmost column shows the current demand and its source from the three legs of the subway.
  • The next two columns show the projected demand in 2031 without and with the Yonge Subway Extension to Richmond Hill.
  • The next six columns show the projected demand in 2031 with the YSE and with each of the six alternatives studied as a “relief” line.

The most notable aspect of this chart is that the demand from the north in 2031 with the YSE added in equals all of the existing demand.  Growth and new ridership attracted by the extension completely replace the capacity now used by transfer traffic from the BD subway.

Various relief schemes reduce the BD transfer demand, but the total travel south from Bloor remains well above current levels in all cases.

The second chart shows the various forms of activity on the Bloor southbound platform.  This includes passengers leaving the station from southbound trains, transfers from southbound trains to each direction of the BD line, and transfers from the BD line onto the southbound service.  There is a very substantial rise in total activity for 2031, but this arises from various sources:

  • There are many more transfers from the eastern leg of the subway to southbound service, and a smaller increase from the western leg.
  • There are many more transfers from the northern leg of the subway to westbound service.
  • There are many more passengers arriving from the north and leaving the station.

A “relief” line will only address the first of these three groups.  The effect can be seen in the lower platform activity for various configurations notably those with a full DRL from Dundas West that intercepts traffic from both directions, not just from the east.

The “walk out” traffic is interesting because of the big jump compared to current figures.  This is shown on the third chart where the projected number of passengers for whom Bloor-Yonge is a destination (i.e. where they will leave the system) will more than triple by 2031.  This begs two questions.

First, where are they going?  New construction at Bloor-Yonge is overwhelmingly residential, not commercial, and yet a massive rise in “walk out” traffic implies a growth in destinations like offices or schools.  Is the land-use information in the demand model valid?

Second, if these numbers are accurate, the pedestrian flows through the station exits will also increase substantially.  Can the station actually handle this level of activity?

The published figures do not include “walk ins”, something that should grow substantially given the amount of residential construction planned for the Yonge-Bloor area.

The crucial missing part of the study is the “out of scope” examination of how much demand from the north can be diverted onto GO Transit.  Considering the cost of handling the much higher demand on Yonge south, the absence of this information is a glaring omission, and shows the problem inherent with the TTC studying only the “inside 416” effects.  It would be nice to say this should be Metrolinx’ job, but that agency is notorious for doing very little in public where the work can be examined and debated.

When we are looking at multi-billion dollar options for subway expansion we need to be sure we are not ignoring possible alternatives.  For decades, the TTC has downplayed the importance of the DRL as a potential relief valve or the Yonge-University subway.  The possible contribution of GO should not be ignored as part of an integrated, dare I say, regional solution.

Postscript 2 (October 21, 2012)

Back on December 2, 1982, the Star ran an article by Rick Brennan.  I am not reproducing it in total in respect of copyright, but here are the main points.

TTC Chief General Manager warned that downtown could grind to a halt in as little as seven years without a DRL.  “With the office development that is coming online in seven to ten years, we can’t service it, period,” Savage said.  “We can’t do it with the existing system”

The forecast for new jobs in the core was 40,000 in the the decade to come, and as many as 90,000 by the year 2000.  As we know, the world did not end.  What happened?

First, the lion’s share of the growth was handled not by in-town trips on the subway, but by the expansion of GO Transit and the rise of commuting from what would become the “905”.  Also, actual growth over the two decades did not match predictions due to a severe recession in the early 90s.  Ridership fell by 20%, and the TTC obtained unexpected “relief” for its capacity problems.  Toronto has now passed its old record ridership set before that crash, but the subway’s capacity has not grown to match.

In 1982, the line would have run from Donlands to Union and was predicted to cost $400-million, rather less than the $3.2-billion foreseen for a line from Pape to St. Andrew.

Savage noted that surface transit options could not help the problem because of traffic downtown.  Nothing much has changed on that count, but more to the point, this is not just a question of drawing lines on a map.  If riders are not originating where a surface line can help them, then they won’t divert from their current travel pattern.

Another important difference over the two decades is that “downtown” and the residential community serving it are “fatter” than they used to be.  At one time, a Queen West subway would have primarily served residential areas to the north and feeder routes from the west.  Only a small pocket of high-density development around King and Jameson was well south of the Queen Street corridor.  Similarly, a subway to the east would not even consider development south of Queen to the lake.

Today, development is pushing south into former industrial lands both east and west of downtown, and the dense area which will be too far for convenient subway service is becoming much “wider”, further away for walking access.  At the same time, the job market downtown is spreading away from the core at Bay and King both to the south, and east-west.  No new rapid transit line can serve all of the growth areas, especially those south of the rail corridor.

As they are today, Bloor-Yonge and Wellesley Stations were the hot spots of problems for the subway in 1982.  Savage the “relief” subway as a decade at most away, but as the Star noted:

“Ironically, the biggest opponent to the relief line has been the City of Toronto.”

This was the “old” pre-amalgamation City which was attempting to throttle development downtown by choking off expanded transportation routes.  Politically, this put Toronto in the odd position of supporting new subways that would replace pressure on downtown with suburban job growth.  Little new suburban rapid transit was built, and the sprawl of homes and jobs through the outer 416 and 905 developed around auto travel.

There is an important lesson here for the Official Plan review now in progress.  Whatever form we hope to see Toronto take, we must be prepared to see it through with a transportation system that will support the plan rather than sabotage it.  Decades of inaction leave us with the need to simultaneously catch up with growth we ignored and to build for growth happening now and in the future.  This will not be cheap, and we won’t be able to afford everything we might like to see.  The missing DRL is a reminder of what happens when planning ideology trumps actual experience on the ground.

95 thoughts on “TTC Rediscovers the Downtown Relief Line (Update 4)

  1. I say this time and time again, the TTCs biggest downfall by far and large is the woeful line management (next to the lack of funding), which leads to what I presume is the worse bunching in North America … granted I’m taking into account the TTC probably has many surface lines that rank as the busiest in North America … no excuse …

    With the new management, is there a push to address this ??

    While the longer streetcars should make this easier I have a terrible feeling it’ll just be worse and now these larger streetcars will still bunch and the headways between them will be huge.

    Steve: Andy Byford talks about improving line management, but I’m not sure he will be able to cut through decades of entrenched “TTC culture”.

    Like

  2. Interesting report. I have to say I was shocked almost to read that transit travel would increase by 51% into the downtown core. This is pretty good, considering the stagnant business growth downtown over the past two decades, and the continued decentralization of the region.

    Steve: Current projections show employment in the core rising by over 20% by 2031. A good chunk of this is south of the traditional “core area” in the railway lands and waterfront.

    I personally think this report is much too short and does not really address the whole scope of transit improvements which could increase transit capacity into downtown.

    There is no doubt that express bus service using HOV lanes on the DVP could have a significant effect in reducing the number of subway riders coming from the east. But the TTC and planners are silent on this, as usual.

    Steve: Actually, there is a project underway to add HOV lanes to the DVP, but I don’t know if this has progressed to the point of a construction schedule. There are a few basic problems, however. At the approach to downtown, one reaches a point where widening the roadway is impossible, and even the shoulders are tight because of the topography. Also, there is no extra space on the elevated section in the interchange at Richmond/Adelaide. This section has slightly less traffic than the DVP north of Bloor because some demand peels off at the interchanges at Eglinton, Don Mills and Bloor/Bayview. However, the road is hardly empty, and losing a lane would not sit well with motorists.

    Once the buses reach regular streets downtown, presumably Richmond and Adelaide, those buses take road space, not to mention sidewalk space for loading and unloading zones. This places an upper bound on the capacity of service one can operate on the HOV lane because somehow all of those buses must unload (am peak) and load (pm peak) on streets with mixed traffic.

    If anything, I would like to see a report taking a hard look at the capabilities and the limitations of this type of bus service because, frankly, I think its potential contribution to capacity problems is less than many people think.

    While a different study all together. I think the TTC needs to really come up with a CBD transit strategy for current service, as well as for improved capacity using the services we have now.

    Sydney, Brisbane, and other cities have completed such studies, which have led to improvements such as:

    -Dedicated bus/streetcar lanes downtown
    -Limited stop superstops downtown, instead of having buses and streetcars stop every block
    -Pre paid boarding, where passengers pay before boarding buses/streetcars in the CBD

    These are ideas the TTC should be looking at too, and yet nothing is done.

    Steve: There was a proposal for dedicated transit lanes on King Street (really dedicated, not the farce we now have where it is impossible for motorists to stay off of the tracks because of the clouds of taxis and delivery vans in the curb lane). The proposal did not sit well with some local businesses, and the idea of making King a permanent transitway with physical barriers runs aground when one considers the less than frequent service outside peak periods. If the TTC had concurrent proposed substantial service increases, this scheme might have been better received.

    Pre-paid boarding will come to the streetcar system with the introduction of the new cars and all-door loading. There will be fare machines at major stops as well as on-board equipment, and Presto will likely handle the lion’s share of the transactions. Superstops really don’t make sense without this so that the high demand can be handled through every available door on vehicles.

    Another example. The TTC has thousands of riders on north-south routes in the east end, like Greenwood, Coxwell, Woodbine, etc. These riders I am sure would be more than happy to stay on one bus and ride right downtown, if these buses continued downtown via Lakeshore Blvd. Instead, many riders much travel north to the Bloor line and then into downtown, or use crowded slow east west streetcar service.

    I bet even for Bloor-Yorkville destined trips, many north-south bus riders would have no problem riding into downtown via Lakeshore Blvd, and then transferring onto less crowded northbound subway trains to head to Bloor.

    But none of these ideas is ever looked at.

    Steve: Actually, a lot of the riders on those north-south lines are not destined for the Richmond-Adelaide corridor, and it is much easier for them to travel north to the Danforth subway. Thousands? I think not. Just look at the combined frequency of service on these routes.

    64 Main – 7.5 buses/hour
    92 Woodbine South – 6.7 buses/hour
    22 Coxwell – 7.5 buses/hour
    31 Greenwood – 5 buses/hour
    83 Jones – 5 buses/hour
    72 Pape – 8.5 buses/hour
    Total: 40 buses/hour

    At a service design capacity of 50/bus, that’s 2,000 passengers per hour. Although this is a tidy sum, it presumes that all of the capacity of these routes would be consumed by people traveling south and west to the core. Also, as I discussed above, there is only so much room on Richmond and Adelaide for these services, and some of that capacity is already consumed by existing Downtown Express routes. Taking all those buses through to downtown would require many extra vehicles that the TTC does not have, and using an expanded fleet to handle subway overflow from a comparatively small part of the city may not be the best use of resources.

    Like

  3. Regarding line management … assuming TTC culture cannot be easily changed to fix this, has the idea ever been floated to place a small handful gap-filler buses on alert around the city whose only purpose would be to fill gaps in service on regular bus or streetcar routes when they occur? Is the additional cost of running such buses the only barrier to doing something like this, or is it somehow impractical. Are big gaps in the system not common enough for this to work? Seems like it might even be worth cutting a bus or two off some routes with frequent service to pay for this.

    Steve: Actually there are “gap” buses scattered around the system in various locations as well as a few standby streetcars. The tradeoff is always that they are not generally needed on days when things go well, and on really bad days, the TTC would need far more standby vehicles to handle the myriad problems typical of bad weather. “A bus or two” doesn’t go very far on a system with peak service of about 1,750 surface vehicles.

    Like

  4. Sometimes I think that ideas to ‘force’ a merger between the TTC & GO (or a takeover by Metrolinx) are totally silly & unrealistic. Other times I wish the TTC could get into the “regional rail” business running trains in the 416 region, since it appears that for the moment GO won’t be bothered to run additional services. But how effective would that be?

    I know a merger would be massively complicated, but what other options are there? Cooperation & dialogue isn’t making things happen (although I sometimes wonder what would happen in the TTC & Metrolinx senior staff were shut in a hotel conference room with only water and a few snacks, and told that they couldn’t come out until they had a workable proposal for fare integration for the GTA and a plan for service improvements).

    The big question with respect to GO (assuming that expanded GO service is a workable solution to the problem) is track & train capacity. Are there enough spaces on the existing GO trains running from the north of the GTA to absorb more passengers? If not, then are we expecting GO to run more trains? If so, is there a need for track expansion? If there is such a need, how are we going to pay for it?

    In addition, can Union Station absorb those additional train services? If not then what are we going to do to expand service at Union Station or deliver service to places outside of Union Station?

    So what do we already know about the space & capacity on the Barrie, Lincolnville & Richmond Hill lines?

    Richmond Hill, more than any other, seems ‘primed’ for offering a ‘limited express’ service that ‘runs parallel’ with the Yonge line … the major limit here being the track capacity as well as the distance between the GO line and the Yonge subway, but the possibility of a connection to the Sheppard Line at Leslie (if the platforms at Oriole can be moved) and the Eglinton line (if possible) would be very helpful. If the DRL is built through Pape Station, can the Richmond Hill line work as an “express” service for both Yonge and the DRL, or is that asking too much?

    The Barrie line, on the other hand, offers service that comes reasonably close to the University-Spadina line (even though there isn’t any service between ‘York University’ station and Union Station there was a proposal for a station at Eglinton to link with the Eglinton LRT). It is also not constrained by being in the Don Valley … but I suppose there are constraints to track capacity here?

    The Lincolnville Line has potential to offer fast service into Toronto but there is so far only one connection to the TTC at Kennedy, before the train goes on to Union. The connection between Danforth GO & the TTC is outdoors, and a tunnel would be too costly. How about a covered walkway? Or a shuttlebus (or considering current demand, a golf cart or that ‘train’ from High Park) going back and forth between the stations? It seems to me that an expansion of the GO line between Kennedy & Agincourt or Milliken would be possible, but is there a constraint south of Kennedy?

    I hope that those who have the information about the 3 lines and their corridors can fill in the empty spaces here.

    Cheers, Moaz

    Steve: Considering that the marriage of Metrolinx and GO was hardly cordial, I would hate to think of the problems with the TTC. In any event, the real problems lie at the political level — it suits Queen’s Park for GO to stay out of the business of providing service in the 416 because, if it did, we would be into the whole question of fare integration and more subsidies. As long as GO can crow about its high farebox recovery of operating costs, we know that their goal is not to increase service or get into some sort of fare union with the TTC.

    As for the north-south corridors, I think the primary goal should be to attract riders in the 905 who would otherwise use the YUS to reach downtown. Attempting to connect with in-town lines fairly close to Union imposes a transfer at a point where changing trains imposes a time penalty, and for outbound riders, presents the unpalatable prospect of trying to board trains that are already full from Union Station. Inside-416 services need to be largely independent of the longer 905-to-416 services, and that’s why the dedication of new tracks and capacity to the Air Rail Link is so frustrating. Unfortunately, the Weston corridor is not located close enough to the YUS to make much difference in demand on the most congested parts of the subway system.

    Like

  5. I never really understood all the concerns over capacity at Bloor-Yonge. If they really needed the extra capacity, wouldn’t it be sufficient to expand the station with a third or fourth track (so that a train could come in and unload simultaneously with another train loading up and pulling away)? Obviously, this would be outrageously expensive to build, but the capacity problem doesn’t seem like an unsolvable problem. Am I missing something?

    Steve: Additional tracks must be either beside or above/below what is already there. However, existing developments are built right against the subway tunnel. The Yonge line runs very close to the Bell switching station on Asquith that handles calls for all of midtown Toronto, and the structure cannot be widened to provide a wider throat into Bloor Station. A new condo now under construction will lie just west of Bloor Station, and an office tower is already immediately to the east. As for the Bloor line, the Bay actually wraps around Yonge Station.

    The TTC had a scheme for adding a centre platform to Bloor Station, but the construction would have been extraordinarily complex and would have shut the station down for at least a year. This has now been replaced by a scheme to add a new eastbound platform to Yonge Station much as is now being done at Union. Even that is not simple, but at least most of the south side of Yonge Station isn’t under a building. The station lies on a diagonal from roughly the exit on Yonge to the corner of Bloor and Park Road (east end of The Bay) where it curves to run straight under Bloor over to Sherbourne Station — the turn at the east end of Yonge Station is that curve. Yonge is the lower level station, and you can imagine the depth of the excavation needed to put in a new platform and connecting passageways. This would only spread out the transfer traffic between the lines, not reduce its volume.

    Finally, remember that adding tracks at stations does not affect just the station box itself, but the approach tracks on either side where switches to route trains onto the “A” or “B” platform would be located.

    If we wanted three or four track stations, we should have built them that way.

    Like

  6. Interesting to read that the obstructionist’s of transit in the early 80’s were in the Old City of Toronto – that jives with the Jack Layton trade off with Mel of no expansion of streetcars in his ward for Jack’s support of the Sheppard subway.

    The idea that only right wingers hate increased transit in their wards is a a bit of a myth I suppose.

    Of course we now have such an extreme view anti-transit view being expressed by certain members of the right that its hard to see the left ever going back to the NIMBYism of the past.

    Steve: Jack Layton was opposed to the DRL and to the Spadina car because he believed, rightly or wrongly, that both of them were intended only to allow intensification of the railway lands for office development. The TTC for its part didn’t help things by wanting a semi-express operation of the Spadina car stressing the need to serve the as-yet undeveloped railways lands. The huge irony is that this area was eventually built up as residential and contributes to the high volume of walk-in commutes to downtown.

    Like

  7. What’s the logic in making the DRL follow city streets, thus forcing it into an entirely underground alignment and significantly driving up costs? Doesn’t it make much more sense to run at grade or elevated alongside the railway corridor excluding the transfer at Pape?

    Steve: If the line is to be useful, it must actually go “somewhere”. This is a big problem with the rail corridor, especially with the inability to transfer riders off of the Danforth subway. As I wrote recently, “downtown” is spreading out, and a line in the rail corridor may not offer destinations that will attract riders.

    Like

  8. Considering that the big five Canadian banks have profits of a few billion per quarter, I can’t help but wonder why they can’t chip in $600-$700MM each to get this line built. That amount is little more than a blip on their annual balance sheets, but the impact to the city in which they are headquartered would be enormous. I wouldn’t even care if we had to name stations after the banks – I’d rather have a Scotiabank Station than nothing at all.

    Like

  9. Steve:

    Why no talk of plans to reintroduce interlining BD trains through the Wye during rush hour from the west, east or both to take some of the crowd pressure off Bloor & Yonge and St. George at least until the DRL line gets built which maybe 10-15 years away. Surely the new signal system on YUS line under development should be able to handle the logistics of interlining and bunch of trains during rush hour. This would be welcomed option for passengers who make this daily work week trip with no need to transfer.

    Steve: The problem is that even with the closer headways the new signalling can provide, the combined headway of trains from Danforth, Bloor and Spadina would exceed the capacity of the Yonge-University line. Any compromise results in one leg (probably Spadina) not getting enough service to handle existing, never mind future demand once its extension opens. It’s not a question of logistics, but of how many trains/hour can be pumped through the line.

    Like

  10. Steve-

    Thanks for your reply. Though you would think that given that some YUS trains are already short-turned at St. Clair West (just two stops north of St George) during rush hour that using some of these runs to interlined east or west on BD would not overload the head ways beyond capacity south of St. George.

    Steve: The TTC had already planned to extend the short turns to Glencairn, but held off on this due to budget pressures. When the extension to Vaughan opens, the short turn will be at Downsview. The capacity of these trains is needed for growing demand on Spadina and the track time they used cannot be repurposed for BD-Downtown trains.

    Like

  11. Leo Gonzalez wrote,

    “Considering that the big five Canadian banks have profits of a few billion per quarter, I can’t help but wonder why they can’t chip in $600-$700MM each to get this line built.”

    I am wondering if Leo Gonzalez wonders why don’t each and every one of us give up $100 per month from a pension and/or RRSP/RRIF in our retirement to get this line built? All that wonderful profit that the big five banks make isn’t simply placed in a pile where the board of directors can dive into it for fun. It is paid to shareholders, and some of the largest shareholders are pension funds or mutual funds that many of us hold shares of inside of an RRSP or RRIF.

    Whether the funding comes in big chunks from the profits of the five banks, or in small chunks through an increase in property taxes (or other taxes) across the population, it ultimately comes out of the same pockets. That said, Leo Gonzalez may be on to something in that it may be easier than implementing new taxes by getting enough transit-minded people together to purchase shares in the banks and go to their shareholders’ meetings to propose contributing some of the profit to transit infrastructure instead of their own dividends.

    Like

  12. Pumping more trains through Bloor-Yonge per hour will require an increase in platform, stairway, and escalator capacity there as well. Your article from 1982 doesn’t surprise me one bit.

    As for the interlining question from Gerry — for the last time, half of the old GRS routing coils were repurposed as ping pong paddles at one of Hillcrest’s many rec rooms. The other half? … as toilet seats. And, Giambrone used the last of the auto dispatcher film in his office cam. The content of that film was such that the punched holes were not a distraction.

    Like

  13. I wonder why all the DRL options always talk about the line starting southward from Pape. Why not have the line run eastward to Woodbine Ave and then turn northward? This would provide far transit service to the Beach, which is has extreme vehicular parking and congestion problems in the summer due to number of people that travel to the beaches there. The streetcars are slowed to a crawl along Queen east of Woodbine and it is one big stop zone. Queen East would be better able to intensify then. Why is the only focus on the people congestion at Yonge-Bloor rather than giving all people who live in the downtown south of Dundas better transit service? The line could turn north to intercept the BD at Woodbine, then go northeasterly on O’Connor and then go up Victoria Park.

    Why is the TTC studying stations that are generally over 1.2 or 1.3 km apart on the DRL? I would have thought they would like the stations a bit closer together, such as maybe a block west of Bathurst and then at Ossington rather than Strachan in the middle plus maybe a block east of Broadview in the east. In that way they could eliminate the streetcar lines on either Queen or King (whichever becomes the main route for the line) which would make a lot of cyclists happy. Obviously, that was done on the BD line, although I would not go down to the 700 or 800 metre spacing on the BD line as that would reduce the speed of the service and reduce the incentive to switch from the BD line to the DRL.

    Steve: I agree that some of the station locations are odd, but as the TTC emphasizes in bold face on several occasions, the route and stations are for discussion purposes only. I suspect that part of the choice was dictated by the granularity of the demand model.

    As for taking the DRL east to Woodbine and thence to Victoria Park, that means duplicating a lot more of the BD line for the east-west portion, and misses the busy Don Mills corridor and the neighbourhoods of Thorncliffe and Flemingdon Park.

    Each alignment has groups it serves or misses. The general debate for years has been on a Don Mills alignment, and that’s what the TTC studied.

    Like

  14. What do you mean by the rail corridor’s inability to transfer passengers off the Danforth Line? I wouldn’t think that East York and Scarborough passengers will particularly mind what route the line takes as long as it gets them downtown faster and more directly than slogging through Bloor/Yonge.

    As well, taking either alignment runs the line through chiefly residential area, so I fail to see why there would be a need to serve major destinations in that part of the city, considering there are none.

    Steve: A line in the rail corridor has to serve places people want to go, and for the most part that’s mainly Union Station. A line further north picks up major employment nodes and the entertainment district. If the DRL is seen only as something to bleed riding off of the Danforth subway during peak periods, it may wind up being empty the rest of the day.

    Like

  15. As far as I have been able to tell, the Expansion Study contains not a single word about operating and capital maintenance costs.

    These ongoing costs will dwarf any construction cost, whether it’s for subways for downtown or tinker-toys for Scarborough. It was only through an intellectually dishonest cover-up of operating and capital maintenance costs that the downtown councillors were able to foist tinker-toys onto the suburbs.

    I do hope that discussion of this proposal will provide estimates of ongoing costs for subways, preferably including comparisons with other modes, with competing estimates highlighted and explained – the same way that an actual business would examine operating and capital maintenance before spending $1-million, let alone $1-billion.

    It would be so nice to have an honest debate about transit in Toronto. But in this report, the word “maintenance” appears only as part of “maintenance yard” which, you guessed it, is discussed only in terms of its capital cost.

    Steve: If by “tinker toys” you mean LRT, well you’ve done in your argument before you start. I will be very blunt — cities around the world that use LRT cannot all be wrong, and dismissing this mode as something foisted on the suburbs is political theatre, but not a fair evaluation of alternatives.

    As for cost comparisons, yes, I would love to see a cost estimate for subway construction that included full capital and operating costs. Capital is far too often treated as something we get “free” because it arrives by way of subsidies and doesn’t have any effect on fares or our ability to fund service on the rest of the transit system.

    Like

  16. “The TTC notes that some benefits could be obtained by improvements to GO’s north-south services, but these are outside the scope of their study. Metrolinx really needs to get off of its butt to quantify the possibilities, benefits and costs of improvements on their network.”

    Has Metrolinx been requested to initiate such a study? Should we expect one before work on the DRL begins, or would a study just be seen as a delay?

    Steve: My understanding is that Metrolinx is dragging its feet here because the focus is on the Lakeshore and Georgetown corridors.

    Like

  17. Hi Steve,

    As we know, Metrolinx is considering a new GO station near Bathurst & Front, and wants DRL to serve it. In that context, could it make sense to decouple the University subway from Yonge, and connect DRL East to University?

    At first, I thought that such proposal is a non-starter, due to costs and engineering challenges as well as public opposition.

    But now I see an important advantage of the decoupling (provided that it is technically doable). It is very difficult to select a route for DRL that comes from the east, serves the central business district, and then swings south-west to reach the proposed Bathurst North GO station at Front. The area is pretty much built up, and any route that does not follow the street grid will have to deal with massive foundations.

    The decoupling can solve this problem.

    Option A: Yonge line still uses Union, then continues west under Front to reach the Bathurst North station. University line crosses under Front and the rail corridor, then turns east and north-east under Gardiner, and becomes DRL.

    Option B: University line still uses Union, then continues east under Front, then Queen, an becomes DRL. Yonge line continues south to Bremner or Lakeshore, then turns west and north-west, and eventually returns to Front near the Bathurst North station.

    I have to mention that both “decoupling” proposals are not mine. I read them on forums and wasn’t interested at first; but now I think that they might actually help.

    Steve: The biggest technical problems I foresee is how one would actually build this and keep the existing system in operation, the difficulty of the grades needed for one line to get under the other and under the rail corridor, and the soil conditions south of Front.

    For Option A, the University line, which is now at the same elevation as the Yonge line, must descend south of St. Andrew Station to be low enough to get under a “Front Street subway”. There is already a downgrade on the line, and there is not enough room in this distance to make the drop within the north-south distance at a reasonable grade. The new alignment could not be built while continuing to operate the University line, and I would be surprised if St. Andrew Station could remain in its current location. Getting under the rail corridor is also a challenge because of the depth of the Union Station foundations and the need to avoid undermining them.

    For Option B, a similar problem exists with Yonge having to drop to a level that would clear a subway on Front at Yonge and to get under the rail corridor.

    All construction south of Front would be difficult because this is old lake bed, and everything is below the water table.

    Like

  18. To James above, have you ever seen the passenger loads on the Sheppard subway outside of the peak hours in the AM and PM? It has the same fixed costs as the other subway lines but no paying customers because there is nothing on or near Sheppard. That’s why it loses so much money. Sheppard is exhibit A. TYSSE will be exhibit B.

    Ongoing costs for surface rail are a fraction of underground rail. Full stop. To suggest otherwise would be intellectually dishonest. I think Steve has posted numbers here that suggests underground rail costs millions per kilometre per year in maintenance alone.

    An east-west downtown subway line would probably see similar utilization levels to the Yonge line because it would see heavier utilization throughout the entire day. As such it would likely require smaller subsidies than the Sheppard and Spadina lines.

    Like

  19. @ Calvin Henry-Cotnam,
     
    I probably should have been more clear – I would have no problem paying an extra few hundred dollars a year in property tax, an extra $10/month surcharge on my Metropass, and even a 1% municipal sales tax to fund initiatives such as the DRL. However, I think it’s reasonable to suggest that no government (municipal or provincial) will ever muster the courage/resolve to seriously consider these options, and certainly with our current mayor it’s a non-starter.

    The only time governments seem willing to fund transit expansion in the GTA is when there are political reasons to do so, and we end up with money-losing lines such as Sheppard and TYSSE. I do not see this changing anytime soon, certainly not for at least another generation, so why not approach the big five banks for funding?

    We’re talking about a line that directly benefits the area in which these banks are headquartered, and would represent about 10% of profits for one year. On the surface, 10% may sound like a lot, but in reality the impact to these banks would be minimal – far more has been written off in the past, yet the banks are all still here. The big five make a lot of money off Torontonians and Canadians, and while they do give back to the community at large with various sponsorships and programs, they could help us take out a huge chunk of our transportation mess for a relatively small (and benign) amount.

    Like

  20. It’s not realistic to expect the banks to voluntarily chip in hundreds of millions to build transit. The direct benefits to them would only be a fraction of that amount, so it’s an awfully hard sell to the board of directors and their shareholders.

    But this is exactly what taxes are for, including corporate taxes. It’s worth wondering whether it’s healthy for Canada’s corporate taxes to be so much lower than the United States, if it prevents investing in infrastructure and other programs that may have an even greater effect than tax rates on business competitiveness.

    Like

  21. Hi Steve and Kevin Plautz:-

    To add to the answer about station spacings on new subway lines; apparently the modern way that transit planners view subways and their distances between stations, is that the spacing that was built into the BD was a horrible and appalling blunder which should never ever be allowed to be repeated. The stations are too close together apparently. So don’t look to a ‘Better Way’ when it comes to subway line transit planning. Stations cost money so the fewer the better! Too, each stop consumes so much time as to hinder overall trip lengths. (Ideally there should be no inner city stops eh?) Serve the burbs, ignore the neighbourhoods that are disrupted where the lines have been constructed through. Who cares that the surface route that was once there had three stops between stations, for they’re getting better service now that the subway’s in. Yeah, right!!!!

    Sheesh, as a daily BD user who travels to Danforth destinations and an aging Boomer/Zoomer, they’re too d..n far apart. So much for the TTC’s mantra,”Respect and Dignity”. If the TTC could practice on the night buses and achieve keeping them on time and free from bunching on the supposedly 15 minute service, it could be a far better option for us ‘olders’ to have a surface choice. No time consuming stair, mezzanine and hallway mazes nor turnstiles to negotiate once a station is achieved, but easier, quicker one level across the intersection transfers and far more convenient stop spacings to the neighbourhoods that are passed through.

    As to the capacity on Yonge, maybe a return to those d..nedenable olde, 90 second apart, streetcars might give an alternative and would certainly add extra capacity to that route, at least from the lake to, say Eglinton. If the appropriate stretches of the southerly portion were a transit and pedestrian mall, then at least part of the surface stretch would be traffic free and two forms of agreeable commuting could be an appealing option to the overcrowding downstairs. Just throwing out some ‘green light thinking’ here!

    Dennis Rankin

    Like

  22. Thanks for the early response Steve. Regarding the DRL going further east to Woodbine instead of turning north at Pape, don’t you think the parking and congestion problems in the Beach need some kind of solution? We hear about it in the news quite a bit. It would be so nice to be able to take rapid transit to such a large summer destination and the area could support more higher density development then. What is the actual total current ridership on Don Mills versus Victoria Park? Also, the need for streetcars along Queen could be cut way back if the subway went to Woodbine with stations every 1 km or so.

    Steve: The Beach has its problems, but they don’t need a subway to solve them. The last time I looked, the waterfront and CNE grounds are not served by a subway, and they are rather deserted for large periods through the year. Also, as you may know, folks in The Beach have little use for higher density and fought, unsuccessfully, against a new six storey condo on the current site of Lick’s. Stations every 1km or so? Let’s see, that means Broadview, somewhere around Jones, Coxwell, Woodbine. Everyone in between can just walk. I am always amused at how people in one part of the city propose changes that benefit their travel desires, but screw up access for others.

    The biggest problem with the Queen car is that far too few of them make it to The Beach, and a Queen bus would get fouled up in the same traffic that jams Queen East on high days during the summer.

    Like

  23. The rediscovery of DRL doesn’t seem to be quelling the debate over subways vs. LRT. For my part, I like to think I’m more pragmatic than most subway jock, lrt jocks, BRT jocks, etc. Do I advocate LRT. Absolutely. Do I advocate Subways? Absolutely.

    Now if you ask me what subway should be built next, it absolutely, positively needs to be the DRL. Beyond that, I’m not at all sure where more subways should be built but I still see nothing wrong whatsoever with using LRT wherever it’s suited. About the only place I can think any more subway construction might be necessary depends on how crowded the Sheppard LRT and Eglinton LRT lines get. The latter’s going to seem so much like a subway anyway that it really wouldn’t surprise me if it gets overcrowded.

    What I really look forward to seeing is the amount of transfer traffic that results where the subway and LRT are going to meet on Sheppard. Don’t be surprised if a lot of criticism gets leveled about not having one mode serving that corridor.

    Like

  24. In the more detailed report, it mentioned a Maintenance Yard (New or Expansion) & Connection Structures (1500dtm) for 12 to 25 trains. Not mentioned was where.

    While the Wilson yard could be expanded, I feel it would be too far and complicated to reach. Especially, if there is an obstruction of some sort. Greenwood has very little room to expand. That leaves requiring a new yard for the DRL, maybe east of the Don River close to the Lake Shore or Portlands.

    That is if they go the heavy rail route.

    Like

  25. Kevin Plautz says: Regarding the DRL going further east to Woodbine instead of turning north at Pape, don’t you think the parking and congestion problems in the Beach need some kind of solution? We hear about it in the news quite a bit. It would be so nice to be able to take rapid transit to such a large summer destination and the area could support more higher density development then. What is the actual total current ridership on Don Mills versus Victoria Park?

    I wasn’t aware of parking and congestion problems in the Beaches that would require a subway to fix. I’ve walked in the area during early summer evenings and outside of major events, see no evidence of such on Queen Street.

    By the way here are the numbers for peak hour:
    24 and 67 northbound from Victoria Park station: 24 buses per hour.
    12 southbound from Victoria Park station: 9 buses per hour.

    25 and 81 northbound from Pape station: 31 buses per hour.
    100 northbound from Broadview station: 18 buses per hour.
    72 southbound from Pape station: 9 buses per hour.
    504 southbound from Broadview station: 24 cars per hour.

    Like

  26. “Regarding the DRL going further east to Woodbine instead of turning north at Pape, don’t you think the parking and congestion problems in the Beach need some kind of solution?

    A subway won’t solve parking nor, given the occasional nature of the streetcar service, congestion problems.

    The Beaches would have to make a much better argument as to why a subway should run through there, remembering that the Bloor-Danforth is only 2 km north, while there’s no ridership south of Queen save some fish and seagulls.

    “What is the actual total current ridership on Don Mills versus Victoria Park?”

    The TTC’s Service Planning Site has your answers:

    Route           Riders   AM Peak   PM Peak   Veh Hours   Veh Km     Cost
                    per day  Vehicles  Vehicles  per day     per day    per day
    25 Don Mills     40,800     34        29         450      8,900     $60,900 
    24 Victoria Pk
     and 224 VPk N   23,500     28        24         340      6,800     $46,700 
    

    Almost twice the ridership on Don Mills.

    Also, the need for streetcars along Queen could be cut way back if the subway went to Woodbine with stations every 1 km or so.

    Ha ha, might as well kill the streetcar entirely, you’ll be walking all the way to/from the station guaranteed.

    Like

  27. A number of comments suggest that those from York Region should be taking GO downtown instead of the subway. While I agree in theory, the reality is that GO service leaves much to be desired for much of this municipality.

    For example, I live in north-central Richmond Hill (please don’t critique me because of my location, returning to school meant moving back in with my parents and this is where they are located). Next week in my class we are going to for a field walk starting at Dundas and Yonge. According to Google’s transit directions, by VIVA and subway it will take 80-90 minutes. Meanwhile if I take the bus to the GO train to the subway it would take 90-95 minutes.

    Money wise, the YRT+GO+TTC would cost $8.24 (this includes a YRT-GO discount fare, GO student fare with Presto and a TTC Presto). Meanwhile the VIVA+TTC would only cost $5.40 (YRT adult Presto and TTC Presto).

    If the GO train was faster, perhaps coming from outer points such as Vaughan, Newmarket/Aurora or Markham, the GO would provide enough of a speed increase to justify its expense. But from the central corridor, it seems that local options like subway and bus is still the best mode – even 30km north of the city.

    Steve: What you are describing is the combined effect of inadequate service and bad fare integration. If we need billions to build new subway capacity into downtown, we should be able to spare some money to improve service and get rid of fares that discourage riding across multiple systems.

    Like

  28. Steve, a question about cost estimates for the DRL proposal, do you know if the cost estimates include an additional yard? If the full DRL were to be built would that not trigger an entirely new yard, if not before? A friend of mine told me that the TTC owned land adjacent to Kipling station for just that purpose, wondering about the veracity of that information or is it an urban myth?

    Steve: If you look at Appendix A of the full report, there is a detailed cost breakdown on page 110 of the PDF. This shows a full wye connection at Pape (with who knows what catastrophic effects on the neighbourhood) and, by implication the use of Greenwood Yard. For the St. Andrew to Danforth version of the line, there is no provision for new trains possibly because the TTC will have a surplus of T1 sets for some time to come (although they don’t provide ATC capability). The number of trainsets rises for longer versions of the line, and up to the point where the full line (Dundas West to Don Mills) is built, storage is handled along the line.

    As for Kipling, yes the TTC (actually the City on the TTC’s behalf) used to hold land near Kipling for a future yard, but the TTC was “convinced” to give this up so that the land could be used for the planned Six Points redevelopment. This has now produced a storage crisis on the BD line because the T1 fleet, once it is completely displaced from the YUS, won’t fit at Greenwood Yard. Vincent Yard (Keele Station) is to be reactivated, and a new storage track will be added in the third portal on the north side of Kipling Station. See pdf page 26 of the CEO’s report and the section about Rail Yard Accommodation.

    Like

  29. I will be very blunt — cities around the world that use LRT cannot all be wrong

    If all the transit bloggers in the world jumped off a cliff, would you join them?

    If cities around the world built low-density suburbs in which you needed a car just to get to the corner store, would you advocate … wait, sorry, we did that one in the ’60’s.

    Politicians are the same the world over. Capital is spent on shiny garbage affording as many photo-ops as possible, and future operating costs are ignored. How many of the politicians who approved the Scarborough SRT thirty years ago have any stake in explaining to their constituents why they have to go back to busses?

    As for cost comparisons, yes, I would love to see a cost estimate for subway construction that included full capital and operating costs.

    I strongly doubt that you’ll ever see one, as there is no demand for an honest debate.

    Look at this post, for instance. TTC Staff has prepared a proposal that’s a piece of garbage; you have spent a great deal of time preparing a 4,700 word post on the topic, and it’s going in front of the board. Not one person anywhere in the process has said: ‘This is garbage. Three-quarters of the total present value of the project has been ignored. Take it back, prepare a proposal that a second-year B-School student might consider adequate, and I’ll think about letting you keep your job”.

    Ongoing costs for surface rail are a fraction of underground rail. Full stop.

    This is the usual response. No numbers, just the same assertion repeated more emphatically.

    The sources of the numbers I provisionally accept (while hoping that someday they’ll be credibly challenged) are given in my letter to City Council. Council and its puppet-committee suppressed further discussion of the previously accepted rule-of-thumb that subways had higher initial costs and lower operating costs, with a break-even time of about 21 years.

    I think Steve has posted numbers here that suggests underground rail costs millions per kilometre per year in maintenance alone.

    Perhaps. A reference or two would be nice; as would a comparison to costs for other modes. But if you want to believe that track in a tunnel is more expensive to maintain than track on a road, subjected to the elements, winter salting and other traffic with or without considering soft costs like the expense of traffic disruption when maintenance is required, well then, I guess that’s what you want to believe.

    What did Steve say? Well, in a February, 2012, post he said:

    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.

    Think about it. Thirty years after opening, the Yonge Street line was still using original equipment; thirty years after opening, the Scarborough tinker-toy is a pile of condemned concrete and scrap metal.

    Does this and other operating and capital efficiencies make up for the higher initial cost of subways? I suspect so; but debate was suppressed.

    Steve: When I talk about the higher cost of track underground, it is not just the rails themself I refer to. There is the tunnel itself, signal systems (not required for on-street operation), ventilation, drainage, and the considerable cost of operating and maintaining the stations. Of course surface track is subject to elements the stuff underground does not see, but this is more than offset by the cost of providing and maintaining that isolated underground realm where tracks can last longer.

    As for the Scarborough RT, yes, it was a piece of crap the day it opened, cheaply built and it required a myriad of retrofits. You can thank the provincial government for that boondoggle which was supposed to showcase Ontario technology. If the line had been built as originally planned as LRT, the cars would have been more robust and the control systems much simpler.

    As for transit bloggers as lemmings, all I can say is that LRT systems don’t exist just because of transit bloggers, and the last time I looked, we collectively were not jumping off of cliffs. Financially, that’s more than I can say for the voodoo economics of the Sheppard Subway and its advocates like you.

    Like

  30. Given the phenomenal expense and disruption of fixing Bloor-Yonge, I won’t if it wouldn’t be cheaper to simply move it. Somewhere south of Rosedale and north of Wellesley, shift the tracks back to Yonge Street, and build 3 new platorms under Yonge, instead of where they are now. Construction interruption would be minimal – more on-line with how the interruption is for the new tunnel south of Downsview station – or when the Sheppard tunnels were joined to the Yonge line.

    If you wanted to go the full Monty, you could move the Bloor line as well, south to Bloor street – somewhere east of St. George, and joining the existing tunnel somewhere near Church. And build 3 platforms here as well. And a new Bay station as well.

    Sure, it would cost a $billion or so … but the disruption would be minimal compared to any plan to add a middle platform. I’m just brainstorming outside the box here … but it would be interesting to price it and compare it to more conventional options that have been floating around for the last few years.

    Steve: A billion or so is a mild understatement. Somewhere, I remember reading a study of this option, and it wasn’t pretty. For one thing, you would have to tear up a major intersection downtown for cut-and-cover construction for a few years. Any new structures have to get under the stuff that’s already there, notably your new Yonge line crossing under the Bloor line. Going over it isn’t an option because of various utilities and tunnels that are in the way.

    Shifting the Bloor line south would destroy the existing wye connection between the two lines (the geometry is tight enough with the line north of Bloor and would be impossible with the line relocated to the middle of the street). FYI the Bloor line is already under the middle of the street from Park Road (the east end of the Bay) onward in a deep bore tunnel.

    Your brainstorming is very, very seriously off of the mark.

    Like

  31. Michael Forest says

    “As we know, Metrolinx is considering a new GO station near Bathurst & Front”

    Metrolinx chose a poor name when they talked about building a station on the Bathurst Yard. The platforms would be a lot closer to Spadina than they would to Bathurst Street. I can see how you’d be able to access them directly from Spadina. I don’t think they’d be able to get them as far west as Bathurst.

    Steve: True, but the yard’s name is what it is.

    Like

  32. Kevin Plautz says

    “Regarding the DRL going further east to Woodbine instead of turning north at Pape, don’t you think the parking and congestion problems in the Beach need some kind of solution?”

    The solution for the Beaches is easy. The car traffic on Queen East in rush hour is unbelievable compared to many other arteries in the area, given it doesn’t actually go anywhere. Clearly too many local residents are driving rather than taking transit. Probably related to the demographics of those who can afford to buy in the area these days.

    The simple solution is to get the cars off Queen East, so that the streetcars can actually operate. Then you wouldn’t need as many cars either, as the transit would be more effective.

    Like

  33. The conversation surrounding the DRL has mostly been about its role during peak hours as a relief line for other lines. Little has been said about what it would do to the transit experience and service for the people living and working along the actual alignment of the line, or for those people during off-peak hours. This is probably because any proposal for the station locations and alignment is very preliminary at this stage, and it’s very difficult to predict the effect on local service and all-day demand.

    This is unlike Transit City, since Transit City played many functions simultaneously including increasing capacity along certain streets, encourage transit-oriented development along those streets, speed up travel times whilst maintaining reasonable walking distances, etc. Transit City wouldn’t have been solely a relief commuter service.

    Steve, do you foresee any other roles the DRL can fulfill aside from rush-hour relief?

    Steve: Much depends on the alignment and how much we build. A big reason for going to Eglinton and Don Mills is to pick up a major corridor now served by many bus routes, and neighbourhoods that have strong off-peak demand. The downtown section will be more lightly loaded in the offpeak, and there will be quite a debate about which route it should take to Dundas West (although frankly I don’t expect we will ever see that). The west of downtown demand in the King Street corridor is strong, but at streetcar levels. There is also the question of the proposed Bathurst North GO station and of somehow getting the DRL to serve it. The DRL cannot serve every demand in the west corridor.

    Like

  34. Financially, that’s more than I can say for the voodoo economics of the Sheppard Subway and its advocates like you.

    What economics? There haven’t been any economics. All discussion centred on the up-front price; any potential discussion of the actual economics of the various alternatives was suppressed.

    As I stated earlier, there is no demand for an honest discussion of costs; by which I mean all costs. This isn’t going to get any better soon, judging by the total absence of operating and capital maintenance estimates in the DRL report, and the almost total lack of concern regarding this glaring omission.

    Like

  35. Of course surface track is subject to elements the stuff underground does not see, but this is more than offset by the cost of providing and maintaining that isolated underground realm where tracks can last longer.

    Do you have any actual numbers to justify this statement, or is this just another example of repeating unfounded assertions more loudly?

    Steve: I will deal with this in more detail in a separate article once I have had a chance to cull through the capital budget papers, but the summary figures are available online.

    There are many, many projects related to maintenance and repair of subway infrastructure and relatively few for the surface network. As a very quick overview from the 2013-2022 Capital Budget report (which is only a summary of a much more detailed set of reports on each budget project), here are some comparative numbers. These are capital, not day-to-day operating, but they are for renewal of existing infrastructure, not new builds. They are as much an “operating cost” as cleaning trains and stations because these capital costs tend to occur in various parts of the system that are at different ages on an ongoing basis.

    The figures below are the 10-year totals for 2013 to 2022. I have used the consolidated figures to flatten out the effect of year-to-year variations in project timing.

    For track itself, costs will be $249-million for the subway and $322m for the surface network. The streetcar routes total roughly 1.5 times as much as the subway routes (about 90km for streetcars vs about 66km for subway and RT), and this does not include the track retained for diversions and short-turns. If the total cost is expressed per km, the cost for subway track is higher. Moreover, we still have two years left to rebuild the worst of the poorly built tangent track from the period before 1993, and it will be several years to catch up on badly built intersections. This inflates surface track costs above what they would look like for LRT lines built to current standards.

    Communications and Signals together amount to about $750m, and much of this cost is chargeable to the subway. Part of this is the cost of upgrading signals on the older part of the system, an activity with no equivalent on the surface system.

    Power Distribution is about $66m. Some of this includes projects to update the overhead system for pantographs on the new streetcars.

    Under Facilities, the TTC has a line for “Finishes” which applies mainly to subway stations totaling about $170m.

    Bridges and Tunnels, most of which are subway facilities, total $452m. Buildings and Structures, again mainly the subway, total $1.49-billion.

    These are real numbers, not something I invented. Yes, I am repeating assertions more loudly because I knew they were correct the first time. Unlike some politicians, I don’t make up numbers to suit my arguments.

    Like

  36. “The TTC notes that some benefits could be obtained by improvements to GO’s north-south services, but these are outside the scope of their study. Metrolinx really needs to get off of its butt to quantify the possibilities, benefits and costs of improvements on their network.”

    I really wonder if the TTC would be willing to pay for an expansion of rail service in the 416 area rail corridors to expand the network, rather than building that northwards subway extension.

    Metrolinx owns most of the tracks, and I think they would be willing to make track time available if the TTC were to pay for it. I’m even willing to be that they would be willing to paint some of their GO trains red and let some of their contracted Bombardier employees operate the trains.

    Why would Metrolinx be willing to do this? Simply so they do not have to deal with all that complicated stuff, like having that discussion about fare integration, or actually expanding GO service on those north-south corridors to provide the enhanced, quality service that people like Ben Smith are looking for.

    Karen Stintz talked about ‘using’ (I don’t know if that meant ‘taking over’ or ‘sharing’) the rail corridors in One City. There was that other proposal from the Councillor up in Markham (if I recall correctly). Has the TTC actually looked at the possibility of TTC trains offering ‘express’ service on the rail corridors, or are they going to leave it to Metrolinx to ignore?

    I remember once hearing (back when the Sheppard Line opened) that GO would build a better connection between Oriole Station and the Leslie Station so that people would be encouraged to transfer. But so far, no improved connection, and with the fare integration issue what difference would it make anyways?

    But what if the TTC decided to stop waiting. A guy can dream, can’t he?

    Cheers, Moaz

    Like

  37. Steve wrote

    “Your brainstorming is very, very seriously off of the mark.”

    That’s the trouble with brainstorming though, isn’t it. If they’ve looked at moving the Yonge line, and it’s significantly more than building a 3rd platform at the existing station, then so be it. As long as someone has thought about it properly. Though ironically if they have thought about it properly … then the brainstorming wasn’t that far off the mark 🙂

    Like

  38. But if you want to believe that track in a tunnel is more expensive to maintain than track on a road, subjected to the elements, winter salting and other traffic with or without considering soft costs like the expense of traffic disruption when maintenance is required.

    It’s a good thing that they will be in their own lanes instead of general traffic lanes! But really is this where the disconnect is? Tunnels and stations aren’t just dig and forget about them. There are enormous fixed costs to operating underground that simply do not exist for above ground rail and you’re hung up over slightly more frequent rail replacements?

    Just off the top of my head, the Yonge subway has been closing early for repairs for a very long time because the tunnel north of Eglinton is collapsing. This incurs all of the “soft costs” from the inconvenience to customers and extra bus service required. (Or do soft costs only apply to disruption to motorists?) Steve has mentioned the ongoing signal upgrade and replacement.

    There have been slow orders for extended periods of time for bridge rehabilitation near High Park and the Don Valley. Accidents at crossovers take days to clean up. Water infiltration damage is a big issue (worse than a bit of winter salt) at many stations and in the tunnels. Look out the front or rear window when traveling and see for yourself. When you get to the station, look at how many walls are ripped up. Bloor station is a prime example.

    Every station has to be staffed, cleaned and maintained. The platform, track, and tunnels have to be kept reasonably clear of debris. The big ventilation systems in the stations need to be kept in good shape, as do the elevators and escalators.

    There’s absolutely nothing cheap about building AND operating underground which is why it makes no sense to be building there unless the people moving capacity will actually be used.

    Like

  39. Kevin Plautz said:

    The line could turn north to intercept the BD at Woodbine, then go northeasterly on O’Connor and then go up Victoria Park.

    As someone who is very familiar with the area, avoiding the Thorncliffe Park area by heading up O’Connor would be a blunder of epic proportions.

    Thorncliffe Park is a high density residential area which is currently poorly serviced by transit. Combine that with the commercial redevelopment of the Leaside industrial area nearby and you have an existing source of transit riders combined with a destination for people living outside the area.

    When you contrast this with O’Connor, which is currently surrounded by light residential mixed with light industry, you quickly realize that it would take decades of redevelopment along O’Connor to just achieve the same number of transit users as you would get out of Thorncliffe Park on day one.

    Like

  40. Here’s my brainstorm idea.

    Why only one Downtown Relief Line? What about creating two lines, one from the northeast (plan DRL 2B) and one from the northwest (truncated DRL 3)?

    Maybe have the northwest DRL serve the south of Front Street to the West Don Lands or Port Lands. Maybe the northeast DRL serve Exhibition Place. Both could intersect at, say, Spadina Avenue to allow for transfers.

    Both could be heavy rail, both could be light rail, or one could be heavy rail and the other could be light rail, depending upon the numbers.

    Steve: Without getting into a detailed analysis, I have always felt that attempts to make both halves one line create huge problems for a compatible alignment through the core, and also force a selection of one technology where two might be appropriate. I believe that the Roncesvalles alignment is a non-starter, and the “DRL West” should be in the rail corridor in place of the ARL.

    Like

Comments are closed.