The City of Toronto’s consultations about transportation plans and financing continued on the evening of March 4, 2013, with a panel discussion at the St. Lawrence Centre. The 500-seat Jane Mallett Theatre was packed for the event, and had been sold out for several days in advance.
The participants were:
- Matt Galloway, host of CBC’s “Metro Morning”, as moderator
- Jennifer Keesmaat, Chief Planner of Toronto
- Larry Beasley, retired Chief Planner for Vancouver, keynote speaker
- Carol Wilding, president and CEO of the Toronto Board of Trade
- Councillor Peter Milczyn, chair of Toronto’s Planning & Growth Management Committee and member of the Toronto Transit Commission
- Councillor Michael Thompson, chair of Toronto’s Economic Development Committee
- John Howe, Vice-President, Investment Strategy and Project Evaluation at Metrolinx
The most newsworthy comments of the evening were a clear break by the two Councillors, both members of Mayor Ford’s Executive Committee, with the Mayor’s position on financing transit. Michael Thompson stated that getting rid of the Vehicle Registration Tax was “a mistake”, and Peter Milczyn stated that Council (by implication with or without the Mayor) would approve “a suite” of tools to generate the needed revenue.
The message that “the people are ahead of the politicians” on transit financing, first raised by Carol Wilding, was a consistent theme.
Updated Mar. 5, 2013 at 11:10 am:
Although Larry Beasley’s thesis was that Moscow was trapped in an inescapable hole caused by decades of inaction on transit investment, this information appears to be out of date. As one commenter here has noted, since the arrival of a new mayor and the availability of petrodollars, a lot has been happening. This can also be seen by a cursory trip around the internet looking at the Moscow system.
Yes, the hole they have to dig out of was very deep, but they’re trying. Toronto has not yet really acknowledged the effort needed not just to arrest the decline, but to make up for decades when transit wasn’t “important enough” beyond fighting over a vanity subway line or two.
Introduction
Jennifer Keesmaat led off with an introductory talk about the City’s review of its Official Plan and the critical issue of how to finance transit. As already reported here in a previous article, Phase 1 of the process runs to the end of March when staff will recommend to Council the tools that should be endorsed as part of the regional Metrolinx Investment Strategy. Phase 2 will follow with identification of priority projects and refinement of policies. Phase 3 will produce the recommended project list and link reduction of congestion to funding tools. All of this will take place, in theory, by the beginning of 2014.
Keesmaat is still touting the standard argument that reduction of congestion is the goal, but we have known ever since The Big Move was published by Metrolinx that the best we can hope for is to manage congestion and the effects of growth, not eliminate it. She also raised the question of goods movement and the role of the road network.
This is an undercurrent in many discussions, and could be a Trojan horse used by advocates of car-oriented projects. What is still missing is a recognition that the balance between roads, transit, cycling and pedestrians varies across the city, and the presence of a 16-lane expressway in one part of town does not imply that entire city should be bulldozed in the name of faster trucking. Indeed, the trucking needs vary from one area to another, and the densely developed residential and commercial areas do not have the same needs as an industrial park.
Keesmaat noted that Toronto has been successful in directing growth to areas identified in the Official Plan. That’s good as far as it goes, but this misses two key points. First, many of those areas would have grown anyhow whether the OP flagged them or not. Second, the OP may have identified transit corridors and hoped to sustain growth with new routes, but in fact Toronto has built little to support the premise that transit will be integral to the City’s growth. The most flagrant example is on the waterfront, but we also risk increased density on major corridors without a commitment to increased transit service or infrastructure. This inactivity feeds directly into public skepticism about new transit plans.
Keesmaat noted that growth should be directed, and land use should be organized to reduce the need for movement — be it commuting for work and education, or to leisure activities. However, changing existing land use and travel patterns on that scale takes a generation or more, and the established city is self-reinforcing. Downtown is and will remain downtown. Universities will not move to new locations to suit the convenience of transit planners or the aspirations of every municipality. Industrial uses will remain where they have good transportation, almost certainly road-oriented.
The Feeling Congested website has had over 10,000 hits and there have been 6,000 responses to its questionnaire. (The hit count seems rather low considering that a site like mine goes through that many in less than a week. The number may actually refer to unique visitors.) Keesmaat reported that feedback from consultations shows that people want a clear link between new revenue and actual building, and that improvement of the travel experience (for which read quality and quantity of service) must improve. The site remains open for responses until March 15.
Keesmaat concluded by saying that there is an “enormous appetite for tangible outcomes”, and that people want “more pleasure” in their everyday lives.
Keynote
Larry Beasley echoed the mood of the evening in saying that it’s about time we have this conversation, and then launched into a defense of land use planning as the best way to plan transit. Proximity is the best solution with diversity in choices of modes for movement. People will choose their travel mode trip by trip, but policies should encourage and support movement by walking, cycling, transit, goods movement and last by automobile. There will be less space for cars, but they won’t disappear. He lauded what Toronto has already done with its directed growth (see above), increased densities, strong transit ridership and high cost recovery (which Beasley sees as a mark of a health transit system, not of a skinflint collection of funding partners).
Toronto has a very different transportation problem than other North American cities, one that is harder to cope with, and Beasley calls this “the Moscow syndrome”. Beasley has worked in that city in its attempt to come to grips with rising transit demand and strangling congestion, but Moscow faces the result of 20 years during which nothing was invested in the system after the fall of the Soviet system. The transit network has very high daily ridership, the urban structure encourages walking and transit trips, but things are coming apart at the seams. A trip to the airport takes three hours in traffic, and crowd control measures are needed on the transit system. There is not enough money for any projects, and governments have been in a collective denial about the scope of the problem.
There are universal truths — transportation needs cannot be sustained just on automobiles. Auto investment leads to increased use, and in Moscow’s economic climate, to exponential growth. Failure to invest leads to a decline in transit’s attractiveness and falling riding, and the longer this persists, the harder it is to catch up. Moscow planners have no idea how to get control of the situation. The dysfunctional network makes the city less competitive and economic development incentives don’t work because they cannot overcome fundamental transportation problems.
Moscow offers a lesson to Toronto. We are not as far down this path, but the symptoms are there for anyone to see. Moscow’s experience confirms that this is not about choosing one funding source, but all that are available. The debate will be over timing and ordering of new revenues (some are easier to implement both organizationally and politically), what Beasley called a “choreography of spending”.
There are basic consumer trends that must be recognized:
- People have a high expectation of what they will consume, that they have a good experience, and that service (in this case) transit must be there. Who provides it is secondary to its actually existing.
- People are fed up with government’s loss of control.
- People will avoid what they don’t have to pay for, but will pay for what they want.
- People will pay up front if they have a guarantee of delivery at the promised quality.
- People will always compare new costs with what they face now and will regard new transit spending (at a presumed $600/person/year) as “not that big a deal”.
- People want to be involved in the decisions.
Beasley had a set of recommendations for Toronto:
- We must go further to get integrated planning across the region and across transportation modes.
- Citizens must be involved for widespread understanding and acceptance of plans.
- There must be an air tight guarantee of directed spending, and a citizens’ “bill of rights” for mobility.
- Key decisions should be made directly by the electorate. Direct democracy is messy and should be saved for fundamental issues. There needs to be advocacy for new plans including information on the effect of doing nothing or of various approaches to balance between modes. Trust in the wisdom of the people and engage them in the debate.
Beasley noted that extra charges could be used to discourage unwanted practices, while discounts could be used as incentives for desired behaviours. He then undercut his own thesis by proposing that the wealthy could buy the right to park and this revenue could be used to subsidize transit for the needy. Density bonusing could be formally on sale with extra revenues going to fund transit investment.
Well, no. If parking is bad, it does not matter whether you can buy your way to paradise. As for density, if your Official Plan says that an area should grow at a certain density, then buying your way out of that constraint makes the “planning” irrelevant. Moreover, fast turnover of land near new transit lines is not guaranteed as we have seen in Toronto. This is not just a question of bad planning by Toronto (look at the long-dormant “Etobicoke Centre” at the six points, or the lack of development around the Spadina subway), but of the basic fact that “the market” builds where there is a demand and a profit to be made.
Toronto must plot out a pro-active strategy and plan for growth or we will not stay as an “A-league city”. Toronto has to pay for what it needs. There may be some money in budgetary savings and “waste”, but this is nowhere near enough. New money is needed, and Toronto should borrow now against future revenue to deliver improvements quickly. Get on with the job, and flag anyone who stalls the process and the cost of delay.
The Panel Discussion
Matt Galloway directed a series of questions to the panel.
To Carol Wilding: What has the Board of Trade been doing? Public engagement has been ongoing for over a year, and the public, including the business community, is ahead of the politicians who may be unwilling to seize the issue. People are fed up with policy “zigzags”, constant changes of direction, and there is a real sophistication in understanding issues and costs. Galloway replied that polls show that huge numbers of people don’t know what is going on with planning. Wilding observed that there is a “range of understanding” but people are ready for decisions.
To John Howe: Nobody knows what The Big Move is. Metrolinx is a young agency, only five years old, but they have an integrated plan. What is needed is a better communications job, and a desire to think and act as a region. Galloway again: but many don’t know about this. Howe: we are building already and we need to sell what we are doing.
At this point I must offer an observation of my own. Metrolinx repeatedly trots out the $16-billion in projects now underway as an example that “things are happening”. The problem is that the majority of this money has not yet been spent and there is some concern whether the first tier of projects will all be built, or at least funded from general revenues as originally announced, thanks to ongoing deferral of actual spending by Queen’s Park. As for the individual projects, a great deal of this is out of sight to most people.
- The Spadina subway extension, a project launched before Metrolinx even existed, has major construction effects on the areas through which it passes, but is otherwise of little concern to most of the GTHA.
- The Eglinton LRT project has not progressed beyond construction of the access pit at Black Creek Drive.
- Construction at Union Station is a constant reminder for GO Transit riders and for people who work or travel near Front and Bay, but is unknown beyond there.
- Work on the Union Pearson Express affects those along the corridor, but few others.
- Work on busways in Mississauga and in York Region similarly affects the immediate vicinity of the works, but nobody else.
The GTHA is a big place, and if we were to draw a map showing where work is actually underway and visible, there would be a lot of white space.
To Jennifer Keesmaat: The same issue — a large number of people don’t know what’s going on. The City’s consultation rounds are intended to get the message out, and talk about the City’s role and its future. Movement must be refined around pedestrians, cycling and transit. Toronto is part of a regional framework, but this won’t necessarily mesh with the City’s plans. Toronto is already a large region on its own crushed under the weight of its amalgamation.
To Carol Wilding: What about a “Toronto first” outlook? Wilding’s definition is much broader than borders. She agrees with Keesmaat that there is a micro conversation about the City of Toronto and active transportation, but there are also discussions around the region.
To John Howe: How does Toronto thrive in this context? Howe feels that for the region to work, there must be a strong Toronto. However, there are 6.6m people in the region and travel across regional boundaries is common. This misses the whole point that we are supposed to be encouraging local demand, but recogizes that regional demand isn’t going away soon.
Jennifer Keesmaat observed that creating places to live in Hamilton while working in Toronto will cost a lot to support, and we will fail. We need local transit, closely spaced stations for easy access and neighbourhood hubs. A network designed around long-distance movement will not provide this.
Peter Milczyn felt that there is too much parochial talk about “fair shares” in any planning. He would like his constituents (in Etobicoke) to be able to move around the region into Brampton or Markham, say. Local land use should support good transit access and compact urban nodes. Toronto has done a bad job with nodes notably at subway stations. Metrolinx is a new agency — can/will they do better?
Michael Thompson wants to look at the region in its entirety. It takes someone three hours to get downtown from Malvern. We need to look at everyone’s needs and all of the transportation network. He remembers when the zone fare paid at Don Mills and Eglinton was eliminated, but also when stickers on transit vehicles proclaimed that they were funded by the Province of Ontario. How can we connect local neighbourhoods into the system. The public needs more say at both the local and regional levels.
Matt Galloway asked Thompson whether he would ask voters to support transit funding in the coming election. He replied that he is in favour of distance based fares, and that his constituents would pay this if only they can get service. What else beyond fares? A sales tax seems to be a very appropriate tool.
Peter Milczyn prevers a parking levy because this links bad land use to the cost of providing transportation.
Galloway: Is there the political will? Milczyn replied that the status quo isn’t working. How much of an obstruction is the Mayor? Milczyn calmly but forcefully replied that “Council will speak”. In the past administration [Miller], there was no linkage between new taxes (Land Transfer and Vehicle Registration taxes) and outcomes. Now that we are delivering on new transit investment, the debate will shift. Michael Thompson spoke of the need for leadership. This is not just about travel, but the loss of competitiveness in Toronto. The view that we can have affordable transit without paying for it no longer holds, but we must show people what they can have and make a realistic presentation of the options.
Galloway: How do you counter people who are opposed to the plans or the spending? Michael Thompson replied that at the end of the day, we have to look at the future of the city and make tough decisions. Does this mean something to people now? You can’t have it both ways — this is not realistic. Leadership requires that we let people know somebody has to pay for transit.
On the “choreography of spending”, Larry Beasley explained that some sources are easy to implement, some more painful. Road and bridge tolls faced stiff opposition in Vancouver. If you start with easier sources and build something, then there will be greater reception for additional revenue sources. We must be specific about phasing, project costs and the actual cost/person.
Carol Wilding agreed saying that the conversation is about the appetite for funding tools. Everybody has to sacrifice, and there are many examples of urban centres who have already done this.
Jennifer Keesmaat noted that bringing people into the conversation with good information and analysis yields benefits, builds trust and gives politicians information for discussions with their constituents. She reported a recent conversation with Mississauga Mayor Hazel McCallion who urged using the revenue tool cities already have — property taxes.
Matt Galloway asked John Howe about the issue of charging for parking at GO lots. Howe replied that Metrolinx must report by June 1 with a recommended set of tools for 25 years and beyond. We are one of the last urban regions without dedicated funding tools. Direct funding from governments doesn’t work any more as they are already “tapped out”. But what if parking charges drive people away from transit? People don’t want to feel that we are targeting just one segment for new revenue. A mix of user fees, “everybody pays” taxes such as sales tax, and beneficiary levies (such as development charges) are all needed. Moreover, we shouldn’t just build transit but also walking and parking for access.
Larry Beasley noted that good transit station integration with access to neighbourhoods are needed.
Peter Milczyn noted that when the TTC started to charge for parking, transit riding went up and parking use went down to the point that some property is now being redeveloped for housing right on the subway’s doorstep. If people don’t want to pay for parking, they won’t get anywhere fast by driving rather than by taking transit. What about pedestrians and cyclists? The city has a responsibility to provide infrastructure and space, and must also look after road improvements and maintenance.
What about the polarized conversation of roads versus transit? Michael Thompson felt that Toronto is “getting there” on this topic, but we will continue to be a car-friendly city for a long time. We rely on the auto industry for economic activity. Galloway: What does this have to do with getting around — if there are fewer cars there is more opportunity for better transit, cycling and public realm improvements. Thompson noted that autos won’t disappear overnight.
Larry Beasley pointed out that in 10 years, at most, automobiles will be “clean”, and the pollution argument will go away. The demand for personal mobility will continue to rise, and we need to manage cars more aggressively than ever. They are only one of the movement choices. Pedestrian and cycling facilities are too often “value engineered” out of projects, and these modes need to have a guaranteed source of funds. The focus is on transit because that’s where the big problem is seen.
John Howe noted that 25% of the proposed Next Wave revenue stream will go to local projects including active transportation. Jennifer Keesmaat replied that the challenge is where this 25% is used — for example there is no public realm budget for the Eglinton corridor — and that there is a gap between statements and the reality of what is planned. Who pays for what remains an issue (and by implication especially if Metrolinx downloads some aspects of transit projects into that local 25%). Keesmaat felt that money should be provided for a cross-city cycling track across Eglinton.
Should we put these questions to the public? Peter Milczyn wondered whether we have the time or the leadership for such a campaign. Los Angeles had a mayor as leader of the transit tax referendum, but Milczyn was unsure that Toronto has this leadership. We know what the problem is, what the solutions are, and there is the political will to proceed. The 2014 election will be the plebiscite. Larry Beasley felt that this audience was “the converted”, and these policies need a deep constituency. It’s basic democracy and a stronger way to build support. Michael Thompson agreed that consultation with residents is needed, but many of his constituents say “just act”. Carol Wilding said that from a business perspective, there is a need to consult, but businesses don’t want more and just want politicians to get on with the job. Anyone who says “I don’t like that” must be challenged for an alternative. Saying “I won’t pay” is not acceptable any more. What more incentive do we need beyond the $6-billion annual cost of congestion?
As a wrap up question, Matt Galloway asked what sign people who are not at this meeting will have that action is here. John Howe: We are building already, and this is the launching pad for the next wave of tools. Carol Wilding: The Board of Trade will come out with a narrow set of tools and a shift in focus to specifics from the general discussion. Peter Milczyn noted that the city’s consultation on revenue tools will come to Council for a decision soon.
Jennifer Keesmaat felt that the conversation should be “unending but evolving”, and without it we will miss a deep understanding among the public. We must hold politicians accountable. The conversation is very different from three years ago and we are now talking about how to pay for transit. A charter is needed setting out what the City of Toronto will commit to with new revenue tools, and we must build trust with the public.
Michael Thompson reiterated the need for leadership. This is a time to act. Although there is a lot of work in progress, the public doesn’t know about it and we must demonstrate what is going on. Where will this leadership come from? From the people and from Council.
Larry Beasley argued that if in three months everybody adopted the same citizens’ bill of rights for mobility that would give a guarantee that we will deliver to a common commitment.
Questions From the Floor
Will electric vehicles (unspecified) be included as a transportation mode. From Thompson and Milczyn, “yes”, although it is unclear just what this means.
The elephant in the room is Rob Ford. What will Council do to get “Ford Nation” to open their eyes that the Mayor’s hope for private funding with no new taxes won’t work. Peter Milczyn replied that Council will approve a transportation plan and a funding plan — there will be a majority in support. Michael Thompson said that the fact we (the Councillors) are here should send a strong message about support for this direction. Milczyn said that we have had a lot of drama that is entertaining, annoying and frustrating, but not much is slowing down. Thompson observed that there has been no response from the private sector on funding and this is not a reality. Part of the process will be to change the dialogue to realistic options.
A student from York University (who took only one hour to get downtown from the campus!) spoke as a suburbanite wanting to keep what they have. Does user pricing mean that we will segregate populations by tolls and distance-based transit fares? Where does local funding come in? Jennifer Keesmaat replied that The Big Move is looking region-wide, but we don’t want to create unintended consequences. When we look at projects for Toronto, there may be a gap with what Metrolinx is doing, and planners need to work with Council on filling that gap for specific projects. We must avoid the consequences of selective application of revenue tools across the region. John Howe felt that regional benefits should be “equitable” without explaining just how this would be measured given that spending in one location may benefit residents elsewhere.
In the GTA, there are 15,000 condos built each year representing a $40b investment over 10 years. The transit investments proposed are much smaller, relatively, than we are making this out to be. If the problem is $6b in lost economic activity, how do you solve this with only $2b in annual investment? Who will stand up and say this is not enough, let’s spend $40b in the next 10 years. Carol Wilding replied that we need to get the money, and a different suite of tools is needed to get more. She noted that Los Angeles tried to accelerate its multi-decade program. Do we need to be more ambitious? John Howe replied that we need to manage expectations. We are not going to eliminate congestion, only manage it to a reasonable level.
Toronto is seeing corridor development, but it should use buses, not surface rail. Users should pay through fares, and there should be higher gas tax. Carol Wilding replied that through consultations, the Board of Trade concluded that a combination of tools is needed. One “user pay” mechanism won’t get us where we are going.
The “weak mayor” system guarantees poor leadership and candidates. How do we get a discussion of this? Peter Milczyn replied that Council has all the discretion they need about how to spend. We have state of good repair and expansion issues, and these are better addressed on a regional basis than by individual municipalities. Michael Thompson warned that we must be careful what we wish for, that the “wrong person” could wind up in power. The Council system works, it is collegial, and members work through challenges. Thompson is not supportive of a “strong mayor” system.
Twenty-five percent of the city is paved (roads, parking lots). Should there be a progressive gas tax to penalize cars? Jennifer Keesmat replied that it makes sense that users pay. Peter Milczyn noted that in some jurisdictions, a vehicle tax is based on engine size. John Howe cautioned that gas tax is not a robust revenue source as consumption is falling as people switch to more efficient vehicles. This is not necessarily a long term tool.
Do politicians have to go against the oil industry to increase taxes on cars? Most folks would hate a toll, but if it is just added to their fuel bill it would be easier. Larry Beasley replied that gas tax is “a damn good idea” for the near future because it causes costs to the user and can shift demand. However, we should not fall into “one source” funding and need a robust bundle of tools.
A Vancouver study showed that the public subsidy of cars amounts to about $2,700 per car per year. Is there the political will to address these cost, and what will Council do to reinstate the Vehicle Registration Tax? Michael Thompson replied that it was “an absolute mistake” to remove the VRT. Many of his residents didn’t really mind paying it, but if asked “should we get rid of it” were more than happy for the savings. How will people be confident that there won’t be a future rollback of transit revenues as a tax cut? Thompson replied that given the need for better transportation and funding tools, this is something we must not do. The mistake won’t be made again “at least not by me”.
Peter Milczyn argued that there will be a suite of new levies, but these will be dedicated to transportation. The old VRT went into general revenue, an error of “the previous administration”, and that a general tax generates general discontent. People will accept a specific tax. (I could not help thinking that if this is the fig leaf needed to get Ford supporters to embrace a Miller era tax, so be it.)
There is a lack of cycling infrastructure. One quarter of the new revenue stream will go to local projects, but what proportion within this goes to active transportation? Jennifer Keesmaat replied that this is essential, and Peter Milczyn confirmed that this will be part of the overall Official Plan, and should be included in a mobility bill of rights.
What will be the effects of the new tools on those with lower incomes, and what guarantee is there that businesses will pay too? Jennifer Keesmaat replied that on a regional basis the city has a high business assessment and this is a risk flagged by the commercial real estate industry. However, Toronto has very low property taxes and has more room on this side. Carol Wilding noted that this is an issue in addition to the ongoing migration of employment lands to residential use. Businesses are ready to pay their share, and the key is to avoid too much distortion in the market.
Twenty five years ago, the same issues were being discussed at public meetings. The greatest concentration of development is downtown. What is being done about more capacity and the ability to get around? The Moscow syndrome is here already. People won’t come downtown because of congestion. John Howe replied that The Big Move has advanced the “relief line” for more access to downtown, the UPX will provide a direct link to the airport by 2015, and the passenger concourse for GO at Union Station will be expanded to three times its current size.
There are workers in skilled trades all over the city working on transit projects. They are having the same discussion about how to fund future projects and jobs. An educated workforce will support the politicians, and workers understand that they need to contribute to future jobs. By analogy to Los Angeles, will large infrastructure projects be used for job creation in “at risk” communities? Michael Thompson talked about the City of Toronto’s strategy to bring young people into the trades through public projects.
There is a lot of asking (consultation), but not a lot of telling (education) people about what is going on. Does Metrolinx have a plan to bring the public onside? John Howe talked about consultations now in progress including a residents reference panel. A public campaign through advertising will begin soon. Larry Beasley urged that education should not get lost in consultation.
Conclusion
The need for real movement on network planning and funding is beyond question except, possibly, to those misguided politicians who hate taxes and who prefer to play to those voters who can be sold a something-for-nothing view of the future.
What is needed is for politicians at City Hall and at Queen’s Park to focus on getting new revenue tools and credible plans in place rather than working on each other’s defeat.
Steve Munro 
Sounds like just another ‘feel-good’ transit session for the converted. Just like similar meetings for the last 30 years. Long on talk , short on action. One wonders when the talking will end and something will be done. As you noted Steve, all of this Eglinton work and all they have done is dug the pit. Once again there is mention of a three-hour trip to the airport. This is not Ford’s fault or McGuinty’s fault. Malton was purposely built way out in the sticks in the 30’s or 40’s? That’s close to 80 years ago. Other than express buses to the subways, nothing has been done yet.
Steve: The three-hour airport trip was in Moscow, but in general there seems to be a fetish for airport travel disproportionate to the value of what Metrolinx is actually building.
I don’t mind paying more for transit BUT I have no faith in council that the money will go to transit ONLY. I have less faith in Queen’s Park that my money will go to transit and even less faith in Ottawa politicians.
After their miserable track record how are we, the stupid public, going to trust these guys. Our Council can’t even ship an elephant out of town in a reasonable amount of time (and let’s not forget the huge problem of shark-fin bans.)
If every member of council voted some tough-love and put in a toll on the DVP I would begin to trust and reach onto my wallet immediately.
Get to the general tax later, Council should have the balls to hit actual auto users with a actual user-tax AND put all of the toll money towards transit! Let’s have some action please.
LikeLike
As a former resident of Moscow I can confirm what Larry Beasley said with one note: this information was relevant few years ago and I would say it is not the case today. Ironically, dictatorship sometimes allows to advance big projects and find investments a lot faster as no discussions needed and the project may get approvals easier if there is a stamp of dictator on them. That is the case of today’s Moscow which received a new mayor appointed by Putin in 2009. That said I still think this is not the right model from any point of view.
Since 2009 a lot have been done and priorities have changed. Local government renews bus and trolley bus fleet with low floor air conditioned vehicles pushing dedicated transit lanes all over the city (along major thoroughfares) – something that was unimaginable with previous mayor. The same happens with metro fleet being renewed intensively too.
New mayor managed to start a construction of dozens of metro stations which are supposed to link long “tree branches” coming out of the city centre and finally build the third ring that could help to ease congestion at transfer stations in the centre. During last 3-5 years Moscow has opened 3-4 metro stations annually. With all construction which is already underway the city is going to get 69 new metro stations 149 kilometers long by 2020. That is on top of its existing 188 stations and 313 kilometers.
New administration also renews tram fleet with articulated low floor cars and plans to construct 5 new light rail (or “rapid tram” is it called in Russia) lines. But the progress of this project is still uncertain as nothing has been done yet except for numerous presentations and extensive paperwork.
The new mayor restored tram operation on Lesnaya Street. The line was closed in the sake of new business centre constructed on its former loop. They came up with the solution to operate MUs with two reverse coupled streetcars. Another tram line will be restored late this year. Before that for decades they only closed tram lines. These restorations may not look as significant, however, they symbolize the change in priorities of the city government and its approach to resolving the problem of massive gridlock in Moscow.
I have to be honest – part of this success (besides the nature of political system) is a huge oil-rich budget of around $55 billion – that is $5.500 on per capita basis (compared to Toronto’s $3.600).
Long story short – the city transit system is undergoing major transformation these years.
Steve: Thanks for this update. After I finished the article, I had a look at what was going on in Moscow’s system, and Beasley’s account is a bit dated.
LikeLike
Toronto’s congestion is mild compared with other cities. The real congestion is on the highways and it will never go away. In 1948 people complained about congestion and they will too in the year 3000.The best plan is to provide great options for those who are smart enough to realize that driving is a waste of their time.
Larry must know things that we don’t and pollution is not the only impact that cars have on a society. Also his Moscow theory fails to mention that day to day infrastructure repair stopped for years as Soviet society tried to adjust to a free market society (they couldn’t). There were piles of loose cobble stones at corners where pedestrians tossed them as they came lose. I was there and frankly I don’t see the connection to Toronto.
Steve: He was talking about the effects of lack of spending and of growth that overtakes government’s willingness to invest. As a previous comment noted, his remarks also seem to be a bit out of date.
LikeLike
Michael Thompson:
Funny, Google Transit says it takes 1.5 hours or so.
Steve: Yes, it is common for suburban pols to overstate travel times, probably for an absolutely worst case scenario. People who drive tend to do the same thing — underestimate the driving time while overestimating the alternative.
On “local jobs”. I would dearly love to work close to where I live, and I imagine most people feel the same. However, certain types of skilled jobs are sufficiently rare that any region can only support one place of employment. Think about the high-end jobs at Toronto Children’s Hospital, bank head offices, etc. Those jobs will exist in one place in the GTA only, so those employees will be drawn from far and wide. The good news is that those jobs are generally highly paid, which is good for economy. There will always be long-distance commuters in the GTA. (The corollary is that McJob workers have short commmutes.)
$600/person/year * 6.6 million people = ~$4bn/year, not $2bn/year! (Not that I object to the higher figure, but it doesn’t match anything else)
Steve: There is a lot of unchallenged back-of-the-envelope math going around at these meetings. Add to this the confusion of a visitor who may be misquoting info he heard from a local.
A broader point: I feel there is growing public acceptance of the general idea of dedicated transit funding, but I’m certain any specific measure(s) will be less popular that the vague generality. Therefore, we need to get general support as high as possible, so the lower support for the specifics is still high enough.
If we *do* get $2bn/year in dedicated funding, then that will be a major game-changer… it’s enough to build two Sheppard East LRTs every year… or a Hurontario LRT or both Hamilton’s B-line *and* A-line every year. If the 25% ‘local’ all goes on operational support, it’s enough to run 1,000 extra buses every year – about a one third increase than at present. My one concern is ensuring municipalities don’t spend most of their 25% on road-only projects…
LikeLike
I’d like to catch on the term “credible plans”. The cross-over projects of StClairW and UPX are prime examples of how-not-to-do a transit project.
A transit project should include a zone which is at the beginning of the project about 200m on each side of the proposed line. Frm. councillor Joe Pantalone had to lobby to have reconstruction of Queen and Dufferin included in the UPX project (as far as I know). That should not happen – UPX should have analyzed the intersection and should have included its reconstruction as a matter of the fact.
The same thing should have happened further north, where UPX goes over StClairW. TTC in its zeal was rebuilding streetcar ROW, but no one cared about bridge bottleneck at Keele (I hope I have got facts right). Similarly, UPX is laying new tracks on the bridge,but no one cares about squeezed lanes below.
I have seen workers at Scrb. GO (near StClairE and Midland) and I just wonder if any switches there have been changed to high-speed ones (at least 80km/h to diverging route) or what has been done in general.
Metrolinx has recently quietly announced, that many (as many as 100) double-point switches were changed to higher speed. What does that mean on small scale? What does that mean for capacity of the system as whole? Why do eastbound GO trains depart from Union in a such manner, that speed is increasing only east of DVP?
SRT is a total failure as a “credible project”. Toronto media and transpo-lobbyists came to a conclusion, that it would not be wise to analyze its many failures, lest be hit with a lawsuit from the manufacturer. However a lesson could be learned – a transportation project should be robust, be universal and its life span should be longer than 20 years, unless the short life span is clearly understood.
Steve: The many failures of the SRT have been discussed here and elsewhere, and only those who cannot see the obvious cling to the technology. There are still a lot of people who invested a lot of their professional credibility in the SRT including fairly recent efforts by the TTC to justify retaining it rather than converting to LRT as part of a Scarborough network. The length of a shutdown was extended time and again both by the TTC and by Metrolinx in part to make the comparison with the subway option look as bad as possible.
Metrolinx now talks privately of doing the conversion with a shutdown of under 3 years, but is stuck with a spending timetable announced by the former McGuinty administration whose entire purpose was to stretch out spending as long as possible.
LikeLike
As for airports, in last 5 years they built rail links connecting all three of them with downtown core. No more nightmare.
The operator of airport rail service, Aeroexpress, has recently placed an order for delivery of new Stadler trains.
The existing trains look like this.
By the way, Bombardier has recently entered Russian rail market cooperating with a local producer Uralvagonzavod. So far they won the bid for supply of 120 light rail vehicles to Moscow by 2018. The cost of this contract is $280 million.
LikeLike
I’m surprised Michael Thompson is supportive of distance-based fares. Surely he realizes his Scarborough constituents will be impacted by an fare increase? For political reasons, I would be against distance based fares.
Steve: I am amazed at how out of touch Michael Thompson can be on an issue like this with major potential effects on his constituents.
LikeLike
Tom West:
Couldn’t we just take Thompson at face value, and when he says it takes someone in Malvern 3 hours to get downtown, assume that he’s assuming they come home as well, and it is indeed a 3-hour round-trip.
Three hours of commuting every day is neither acceptable nor sustainable.
Steve: But it is an important difference. Yes, a 90 minute trip would still be unacceptable, and speaks to the way that GO (a) does not regard the 416 as its service area and (b) has yet to deal with offering service on the CPR through northeastern Scarborough. It’s not all about expanding the TTC.
LikeLike
Feeling congested is getting 10,000 (possibly unique) hits and has 6,000 online responses? That hardly seems like enough for a city with a population of more than 2 million (of which, let’s say there are 500,000 working adults… hey if councillors can guesstimate and exaggerate so can I).
The weird thing is that they (Keesmaat and Metrolinx) have set up these public consultations at the last minute … in that decision-making at the lower level needs to be done by the end of this month before a comprehensive funding plan is drawn up by Metrolinx and approved by the board… And that’s before the Ontario cabinet ultimately decides … and all of that is notwithstanding of the possibility of a spring election.
The Big Move represents actions that must be taken over the next 30 years to catch up on the catching up … which was supposed to restore transit quality to the level it was 30 years ago.
And yet for something this big, despite all the talk and the attention from the public, government and media, it can still be said that people don’t know anything about it.
Cheers, Moaz
LikeLike
Unfortunately, holders of McJobs are not always amongst the short commuters. There is also a “greater the desperation, the greater the travel” component, besides the poverty level wages that otherwise make travel difficult. Personally, I remain very sad and upset about our Mayor’s “victory” in throwing people out of work to privatise our garbage pickup staffed by people with inferior jobs. (Lower wages and much lower benefits as I understand it.) I got to talking with one of the new “private sector” employees. He commutes every day from Barrie to pick up my garbage at Shaw and King. Needless to say, that commute is not by Transit.
Bravo to Michael Thompson for noting that a strong Mayor could be the “wrong person”. It really does sound as though he has realised the same about the results from a subsequent election after the change to a moderately stronger Mayor that took place during David Miller’s term (Provincial legislation change).
The most important point in this long post – made by you Steve and also by a politician – is that we cannot get “stuff” for free. The fact that this “truth” is beginning to be understood by councillors on the “right” and middle is encouraging. It is probably true that the voters are ahead of the politicians on the transit file – but that is true only for the educated voters who understand the issues. However, in an election, voters who are completely uninformed have a vote too. I hope that during the campaign they can be made to understand that you cannot get anything for free. If we wish to improve our transportation infrastructure we need to pay for it.
Populism is always a powerful force. The idea that we can get “stuff” for free is pervasive. I am a social democrat, and I am disappointed that there is not a social democrat alternative at the provincial level. When those keen supporters of a certain populist party – who think I am a usual suspect – phone me, I always remind them that “Electricity is an expensive and polluting resource – grow up and pay for it.” Electricity and subways – neither are free and neither will miraculously appear from “private sector” generosity without cost.
LikeLike
It seems unfortunate that the UPX service does not act as an S-Bahn service providing frequent local service between Etobicoke North and Union at a fare equivalent to perhaps 2 TTC fares with a premium for using the airport station. This might to be a low-cost downtown relief line for the west-end.
Steve: What is “unfortunate” is that Queen’s Park got sucked into promoting this as a premium fare express service to downtown that would at least break even, rather than rethinking the line as a rapid transit corridor to the northwest.
LikeLike
It’s kind of you Steve to put soo much time into this longer account. Thanks.
I did feel lucky to get to the mike to ask a question, and then doubly lucky to focus on the two Councillor’s role in killing the VRT to begin with, and put them on the spot to be justifying ignoring it’s large revenue potential. And the response from Thompson was especially notable. Yes, if it needs a fig leaf, maybe let’s consider it. The CBC did edit out the $2,700 per car per year figure though, when they were kind enough to replay the ? and the responses this Tues. Metro Morning.
And by the way, it only costs $25,000 a km to repaint a street for a bike lane. So any expansion of the Bloor/Danforth subway with bike lanes to shed load would be about the same sum as the severance to Mr. Webster.
LikeLike
The mention of the trucks on the road.
Are there any intermodal yards inside Toronto? I know of Brampton and Milton; there may be one out east. While I was commuting, they built one at Parkdale and then dismantled it.
Are there any industries left in Toronto proper that could take direct truck service from the railway? What are they servicing — just retail?
Steve: There is some industry, but not a lot. The requirements for trucking in the central city are very different from elsewhere in the region, and we should not let the road lobby force through measures under the guise of supporting goods movement in areas where this is not appropriate or necessary.
LikeLike
Steve wrote:
How true. I have seen many e-mail alerts from GO telling people in the 416 to simply use the TTC, while outside the GTA gets a GO bus.
LikeLike
There is nothing quite like the usual suspects standing up and spewing forth complete reality-free nonsense.
And Mr. Beasley’s source for this reality-free nonsense would be… ?
What he calls “the pollution argument” has been analysed by Toronto’s Medical Officer of Health, Dr. David McKeown. Here are the effects upon the citizens of Toronto of the lethal poisons in car pollution:
For the horrific details of those poisoned, killed and injured by car drivers see the Toronto Medical Officer of Health report.
I must add that one of the people killed by being poisoned by car drivers was my father. And one of the people seriously injured by being poisoned by car drivers was myself. After three major surgeries I am fortunate to have survived being poisoned by car drivers. And three of the children seriously threatened by death or serious injury by being poisoned by car drivers are my three children.
Needless to say, I have zero tolerance of some violent, dangerous car driver launching a lethal attack upon myself and my children with poison or any other lethal weapon. There are many cities around the world that have been able to progressively eliminate car driving. They use extensive car-free zones and such severe restrictions upon cars in other locations that walking, cycling and public transit tend to be the fastest, easiest and most convenient way of getting from A to B.
Toronto can do the same. We already have North America’s largest car-free urban area on the Toronto Islands. Small wonder that there were 10 applicants for every space on a lengthy waiting list to live on the Islands the last time applicants were accepted in 2011.
Just like so many other cities around the world, Toronto also can progressively eliminate car use and save the lives of thousands of innocent children that will be killed and seriously injured by being the victims of lethal poison assaults by violent, dangerous car drivers.
All we need is the courage to stand up to these vicious child poisoners.
Steve: While I think Beasley may be optimistic in his view of technology progress on autos, there is a valid consideration that pollution per kilometre travelled has fallen over time (just think of what came out of cars and trucks four or five decades ago). This might be advanced by car advocates as a reason to be less draconian about car controls. This, of course, misses the fundamental point that the issue for transportation planning is not pollution but physical road space and congestion. In the context of this discussion, Beasley’s observation was if not a red herring, then a very dark pink one.
LikeLike
So Toronto city staff will write a report recommending a space based parking tax and a regional sales tax and maybe a congestion zone charge. It sounds as though council has an appetite to re-implement the VRT. York, Halton and Durham will support a parking sales tax and fare by distance for the TTC, and may support a congestion charge zone. Metrolinx is likely to recommend fare by distance for the TTC (i.e. increased fare recovery rates) and a regional sales and gas tax.
None of these measures (except VRT) the respective bodies has the statutory authority to implement.
This will therefore be dropped into the lap of a shattered legislature in the pink palace, which is likely to be gearing up for or engaged in a general election wherein we will be expecting political parties to be campaigning on implementing taxes. Also, depending on how the Casino vote goes, this will be an angry election.
good luck
LikeLike
Steve: A bit of rambling, so I apologize up front and will not be offended if you feel a need to edit out stuff….
I read in Royson James’s column in this past Saturday’s _Toronto Star_ that Mayor Ford was recently ranting (on a radio show, I believe) about wanting to get rid of all those streetcars and cyclists that get in the way of his commute from Etobicoke…. Contrast this to the mention in the same column of Oakville Mayor Rob Burton who, all grown up and speaking like an adult, says that we actually need to have discussions sooner than later about how to address the transit/transportation elephant in the room (while not listening to the other elephant in the room). I heard Burton when he was interviewed by Matt Galloway on CBC’s Metro Morning show last Thursday and, agree with him or not about the details, he sounded like an intelligent, articulate man who didn’t just put his hands over his ears and stomp his foot saying, “No tax increases, no road tolls [to pay for transit].” (Read: And that’s the end of the discussion!) I hope that Council DOES wake up and think about the bigger picture regarding getting around in this city and comments by Michael Thompson and Peter Milczyn are promising in this regard….
I have always thought it would be an interesting exercise to have Mayor Ford and other councillors be dared to have to use public transit (in Ford’s case, that would be the 73 Royal York bus to the Bloor subway and down the Yonge subway to Queen Street and the underground PATH – look, no street cars needed!) for a couple of weeks to get an actual sense of what 2.6 million TTC riders have to deal with every day and maybe change their perspectives.
(Two, asides: I seem to remember that David Miller used to ride the subway around the city with the great unwashed – perhaps that further influenced his championing of the Transit City plan. And I always think about the irony when former TTC Chair Adam Giambrone had to explain having to take taxis in addition to using transit to get around because otherwise he wouldn’t make it to all his appointments!)
I laughed months back when Mayor Ford jumped onto the Scarborough RT to stand and gladhand with riders, trying to convince them that an LRT was second-class and he would give them the subways, subways, subways they wanted, wanted, wanted: I commented to my wife that that was probably the first time in years (if ever?) that Mr. Ford has been on the public transit system – and, poor him, he didn’t get to experience the whole thing “at its finest.” I _suppose_ he can be forgiven for growing up in suburban Etobicoke in an era when the car was king and it was the usual way of getting around, but closing your eyes, ears and mind to the daily reality that exists today and not walking the mile in many transit commuters’ shoes not only does a disservice to the citizenry but undercuts any “arguments” one may make against adquately funding transit in this city.
Always hopeful,
Dean
Steve: Yes, David Miller used to ride the subway as he lived near High Park Station. As for Adam Giambrone, TTC management had to put up with him sending emails wondering where his Dundas car was.
LikeLike
Of course this was just another feel good transit session for the converted, fair point. Not many minds were moved on this evening. At least there are enough of the ‘converted’ now to fill a hall that big though.
My view is that the decades neglect and lack of funding for transit in this region have brought us to more of an impending crisis that we seem to realize. Same could be said for infrastructure in general – watermains aren’t nearly as sexy as transit though…
In the 905 municipalities the BRT lines will be a game changer and I’m all in favour of them. But for Toronto, look at where the existing plan will get us by 2021: we’ll have a Spadina subway to Vaughan (of little use), a rail link to the airport (long overdue but doesn’t help the daily commute), an LRT on Eglinton (good but only feeding into overcrowded Yonge subway so will not reach its potential), a Finch west LRT (I guess that’s useful? never been up there in rush hour), a replacement of the Scarborough RT line and small extension (effectively neutral to slightly positive) and a Sheppard east LRT. If you gave me $9 billion I would have prioritized things a lot differently.
So by 2021 with the above investments complete and operational (if on time) where will we be? We’ll be a LOT more congested! The Yonge line will be a total disaster during rush hours – it already is. And the now (finally) highly touted Downtown Relief Line will still be years away from completion – who knows when that will be. These projects, particularly subways, take a long long time to get built – decades. If we want a vision for 20 years from now to have more than what’s on the table right now, if we want to add any other projects, then we have to be getting started now!
And worse still, the ‘Next Wave’ of projects, so-called by Metrolinx, include only the DRL and an extension of the Yonge subway to Richmond Hill. So we’ll be looking at 25 years plus before anything else gets delivered. Why are we not up in arms about this???
So I say this plan is not enough, not fast enough and not bold enough. Particularly within the City of Toronto, which has the greatest density in the region and the highest use of public transit and thus the highest need to keep up (which we haven’t). How can we be satisfied that in 10 years things will be better when the reality is it won’t be?
So there is a purpose to these feel good meetings, and that’s why I stood up and said $50 billion over the next 20 years is not enough. Now is the time to up the ante, people are talking transit in this region and we need to take advantage of it and be more bold.
As has been quoted the current plan will cost everyone in the region about the cost of a cup of coffee a day. Can we not afford a second cup a day? The question is, do we really want to make things better in the next 10-20 years or just try to hold back the tide?
I’m happy we’re finally making progress on transit infrastructure in this region. I just worry that we have fooled ourselves into a false sense of security that if we just implement the Big Move, everything will be good. Not so. The crisis will only get worse if we don’t make the Big Move a Much Bigger Move.
Peter Baugh
Steve: I agree that the benefits of The Big Move, while substantial, have been overstated. Considering that we are unlikely to even see all of that plan implemented, the gap between promise and delivery will be rather large.
LikeLike
I guess hoping the term “electric vehicles” to include trolley buses is somewhat unrealistic, but hope is all I got.
LikeLike
Beijing is a much better example than Moscow. For a very long time, it only had 2 subway lines, one running east west and one running in a circle (sort of like Toronto now), despite being much larger than Toronto. Its subway system has now been greatly expanded, as has the subway system of Shanghai (which didn’t have a subway until the 1990s) and other large Chinese cities.
LikeLike
On the subject of intermodal yards, most of the activity is in Brampton (near Queen and Airport, CN), Vaughan (Hwy 50 and Rutherford, CP), and at CP’s Hornby Expressway terminal (Trafalgar near Hwy 401).
Other yards in the area are marshaling/classification yards, not intermodal.
Modern freight railway practices have their intermodal terminals few and far between (several hundred kilometres apart). This is unfortunate as it limits the opportunity of road freight traffic to be economically intercepted by rail to very large urban centres only.
Freight does still provide some local traffic in the GTA, including some in Toronto proper, but this has been on the decline for some time.
LikeLike
Before someone claims that motorists will be the ones who’ll pay these new taxes (thereby justifying motorist-oriented transit planning), I’d point out that the new taxes will be paid by everyone, including existing core transit customers.
Therefore, using those new tax revenues to build local-service LRT to improve service for existing riders is totally justifiable, even if local-service LRT is useless to motorists.
Also, let’s not overstate the benefits of LRT for motorists. Sure, no car lanes will be lost with LRT, but motorists aren’t going to like the new physical medians and left-turn restrictions. And travelling long distances would still be faster by car than by transit. I expect very few motorists will actually make the switch to LRT, and those who switch are probably short distance travellers anyways.
LikeLike
Mikey says:
If you look at roads that have medians it actually speed up the road traffic by restricting the number of places where cars can turn left or make a left turn to get on to the road. These movements create conflicts and often the cars will pull out into the lanes and block traffic while trying to finish their turn. It may temporarily inconvenience those trying to turn left but it makes the traffic slow safer and smoother.
LikeLike
Jiri S. says:
Most of the switches on the Lakeshore lines are 45 mph ones. The one where the VIA train derailed was a 15 mph switch that ws normally use only by freights entering or exiting the yard there, VIA and GO normally used the high speed switch farther east. That day there was a crew working on the switches so the dispatcher moved them over using the freight switch. I would not doubt that the switch to the Uxbridge Sub is a low speed switch because the curve is so sharp.
The replaced switches allow the dispatcher to move the trains from any inbound track to any platform. This often sends the train through 2 close sets of double switches. If the train speeds up before the last car is clear it is very uncomfortable and causes excess rail wear. Because of the closeness of the switches they are usually low speed.
To use higher speed switches requires moving frogs which is another high maintenance item and is not warranted of a commuter service. To run faster service GO would need EMUs and a much better signal system. GO is using nineteenth century technology to run a twenty first century service. Unfortunately they need Transport Canada to update the rules.
LikeLike
I agree with the comments of the keynote speaker (Larry Beasley) that:
People will pay for what they want.
Citizens must be involved for widespread understanding and acceptance of plans.
People want a guarantee of directed spending.
In Vancouver, it seems that utilizing elevated transit was the perfect solution to satisfy the people and provide rapid transit at a reasonable cost, yet it does not appear to have been mentioned at all. All Mayoralty candidates campaigned against something other than Transit City in its original form. It seems apparent that people are not getting what they want and that is why there is the reluctance to pay. Some compromise would have gone a long way toward gaining more public support for transit funding and expansion. Ford proposed connecting Eglinton and SRT and spending an additional $2B+ on top of the $6B that is currently being planned. The people’s voice should not have been ignored, and some options (such as elevated) should have been put on the table to show that the public concerns were considered. For Sheppard, it may have been preferable to put the project on hold (which essentially it was) and use the money for another more popular or more urgent project (i.e. DRL). Ford was the vehicle that the people used to voice there [sic] displeasure with the first wave of transit projects. Fords solution was, simplistic, crude and expensive, but that did not mean that the significant chunk of voters should all be ignored.
Steve: The voters never spoke on which option they might prefer on Eglinton. All they did was to give Ford a plurality in the election on the ground that he was going to reduce waste. Moreover, the only rapid transit line Ford promoted was Sheppard, and Eglinton was not even in his plan.
Rewriting history does not make your version true.
LikeLike
@Walter
Transit City proponents did compromise with subway advocates, by putting the Eglinton line underground part of the way. If it were up to me, it would be on surface because the ridership projections by themselves don’t justify grade separation anywhere.
LikeLike
All the ridership projections I have seen for Eglinton are gross underestimates. I have no idea why they are so low. There must be technical reasons or assumptions that I would quibble with if I could get under the hood and check them out. And I am certain they do not take into account increased development along a new Eglinton line, be it a subway or LRT. The City is encouraging density along Eglinton as it should, but the ridership projections do not account for it.
Steve: There has been a lot of to-and-fro criticism of ridership projections for Eglinton both ways. The City and TTC tend to estimate low based on their own experience and the lag between development that is hoped for versus development that actually arrives. Metrolinx tends to estimate high and their model force-feeds their network. I wish we could see new network numbers, especially for interim stages as various “waves” are built out, but Metrolinx has always resisted that sort of incremental modelling.
LikeLike
The LRT will make things more difficult for motorists no question with the left-turn restrictions. And I believe they are looking at signal priority as well for LRTs.
I think motorists, who are the majority in Toronto, should have a say in what option they choose and offer up opinions as to how they should fund this option. If you install LRT tracks in Toronto, no extra funding options than what is already earmarked will be needed but vehicular traffic will be slower on the road. If you go with subways instead, cars can move along faster on the road BUT extra funding will be needed (I think a parking levy would make the most sense. Electronic tolling is riddled with errors and the collection costs of tolls are like 1/3rd the revenue). Slower roads and slower public transit at no extra cost vs. Faster roads and faster public transit at higher cost?
Have a referendum on it. I just tabled a funding option for subways right now. A similar one to what one of his advisors tabled. Rob Ford is just too stubborn to table a funding plan for subways. That’s partially why City Council shot down the subways option. That said, this is such an important issue that it shouldn’t be left to City Council. Have a referendum. With a clear funding plan for subways detailed this time.
LikeLike
Chris said:
But going underground where the ridership doesn’t justify it ultimately makes it worse for some public transit riders. Riders between stations may face overall longer travel times if the stations are too far apart. Enough with the premise that underground is always better for everyone.
LikeLike
Someone made the point above about Vancouver having used elevated transit and another person just above spoke about a subway having less impact on drivers. Huge sections of the Vancouver Skytrain system are elevated, often right in the middle of major roads and often right between medium and higher density buildings. Other cities also have elevated rapid transit lines, Miami being one (its downtown Skytrain actually runs through a residential building at one point!), Seattle having an elevated rapid transit line, portions of the Calgary and Edmonton line and obviously Chicago and large sections of the New York subway system outside of Manhattan.
Why has Metrolinx and the TTC not studied the option of elevated rapid transit lines in more of its expansion plans?? The Scarborough RT is obviously elevated and the extension of it to Sheppard East will largely be elevated. As well, as everyone knows, large sections of the Yonge/Spadina and Bloor/Danforth subway lines are actually slightly above ground or run in pits beneath the ground. Despite all this, none of the other Big Move extensions now proposed had any assessment of elevated or slightly below grade (but not tunneled) routes studied as options.
No one in Toronto – not the councillors, not the TTC, not Metrolinx, not the newspaper columnists, talks about elevated rapid transit. It is totally crazy. This sort of routing would drastically cut costs while still providing the car-bike-pedestrian separation from transit that allows all those modes to move faster. The Eglinton LRT line could easily be elevated down the boulevard of Eglinton Ave all the way to Kennedy to reduce car/LRT interactions or could just be run down the boulevard with relatively short overpasses or underpasses at streets which need to cross the LRT line. This would provide much faster transit service.
One reason why above grade options have not been studied is the streamlined Transit Regulation EA process which allows transit projects to go through a much more narrowly defined environmental assessment and alternative assessment process than they would have to go through if an individual EA is required. Basically, the transit provider only has to provide to the public studies showing the impacts of the transit project they propose rather than assessing ALL the alternative methods and alternative to the undertaking that an individual EA would require. Essentially, the public cannot challenge the project that the transit provider (TTC or Metrolinx or York Region Transit in case of Yonge Subway north extension to Richmond Hill) has chosen in the streamlined EA process. They can only challenge or raise objections as to whether the impacts of the project will be significant and even then the environment is focused on only the natural or cultural heritage environments, not the social or economic environment.
Steve: There are many issues raised here and I will try to tackle all of them. Let’s start with slightly depressed subways.
Ever since the major upheavals on Yonge Street at and north of the interchange at Sheppard, there have been major political objections to cut-and-cover construction as opposed to bored tunnels. Pols want subways but not the upheaval that comes with building them. The Spadina extension in Vaughan was originally thought to be a good place for a depressed subway (in effect a continuation of the form on the Allen Road section), but the pols in Vaughan didn’t want the negative effect a subway trench would have on surrounding land.
Trench construction only works, of course, when a line does not follow a street and the trench can be built on open land, or on land acquired for the purpose (as on the original Yonge subway north of Bloor). Stations can be an issue depending on the depth of the trench because circulation space is needed for entrance level facilities. Sometimes this is one level “up” (see Summerhill and Rosedale), sometimes two depending on surroundings.
Elevated structures in the middle of roads require at least the equivalent of one road lane for the support columns. Some of the Vancouver system is build side-of-the-road to avoid the feeling that it “looms” over the street, but this is a very site specific sort of thing and few locations on Eglinton lend themselves to this type of construction. Next there is the problem of stations and vertical access. If a line runs down the middle of the road, the circulation system, including a fare control area, can take over the middle of the street. Where redevelopment opportunities present themselves, yes, stations can be incorporated in buildings, but this depends on an off-street alignment, not what we will be seeing on Eglinton. A lot of the Skytrain network in Vancouver used existing corridors separate from streets and took advantage of this for station siting.
Elevated structures in Chicago and New York date from an era when companies built railroads and transit lines without worrying about the “environmental impact”. Imagine steam locomotives running down the middle of a city street. Electrification overcame this problem, but the convention of building elevated structures was established. I cannot imagine the outrage in Chicago or Manhattan if someone proposed to create The Loop as a new 21st century structure, or the Second Avenue project as an El. The lawsuits for damage to building values alone would kill the project, and any politicians foolish enough to advocate it would soon find themselves out of work. The old elevated structures on comparatively narrow streets cannot be used as precedents for new construction in Toronto or anywhere else.
Calgary’s LRT runs on a city street that has been turned into a transit/pedestrian mall. Edmonton’s runs underground through downtown, but on the surface wherever possible elsewhere. Again, like Skytrain, its original line took advantage of an existing rail corridor.
Do you seriously propose an elevated system down Eglinton through Leaside, North Toronto, Forest Hill, York and Weston?
As for the outer parts of Eglinton where the line will run at grade, the question, as always is which type of alignment “fits” best with existing and proposed development, not to mention affordability.
On the SRT as extended, there is a very good reason the line will run on an El (regardless of technology) — part of it follows or crosses a valley system. This is not a case of building an El over an existing street, but of maintaining a level grade through difficult terrain. The Malvern extension was originally going to be partly trenched, partly at grade, partly elevated, but local political pressure to retain the parkland the line would follow ruled out all but an underground option. At least it won’t be too deep and can be built cut-and-cover if the line ever goes that far. At the airport, the line will be on an El because it has to, eventually, reach a high level in the parking garage where the internal shuttle trains go. This will also be the location of the UPX, and a substantial El is under construction between the CN mainline and the airport.
The Richmond Hill subway would also be deep bore tunnel except for the crossing of the Don River which will be on a double-deck bridge like the Prince Edward Viaduct. If you want to advocate some other construction technology, be my guest, but don’t expect to win any popularity contests.
Finally, regarding median underpasses, there are significant geometric constraints with this. The headroom needed for an underpass is at least 6m to leave room for utilities between the tunnel roof and the street. Grades into and out of the underpass should not be higher than 5%, and this makes the ramps 120m long plus the space needed for the curves top and bottom. Then there is the problem of where to put the station. If it is underground, it needs to be long enough to hold a train which on Eglinton means about 100m. This makes the entire structure over 340m long allowing for the width of the road the line is passing under. (If the station is at the surface, it would have to be about 140m away from the intersection it serves, and pedestrian access would occur at a difficult location for traffic interference.)
If stations are 500m apart, over half of the line will be below grade, and the whole thing might as well stay there. Median underpasses only work if they are used sparingly for major intersections such as Don Mills, not for every stop.
LikeLike
Mikey said:
Chris Hume is also saying that Eglinton should be 100% surface but between Black Creek and Laird (and around the Don Valley) Eglinton is very narrow, as little as 27m wide (or 5 lanes wide). How do you have an LRT and room for cars, parking and sidewalks?
There is also the matter of the hills from east of Black Creek over to the Don Valley. Sure the LRT can climb the hills easily but tunnelling allows them to build grades that allow the trains to run faster and safer.
I think that the current plan for Eglinton is about as good as it is going to get.
Cheers, Moaz
Steve: I have to agree with you, and Chris Hume is really off base on this one. A surface alignment between Black Creek and Leaside on the 5-lane stretch of Eglinton would require two lanes, with at least one more at intersections for platforms. Anyone who wants to know the furour this would cause need only visit St. Clair which is a wider street, and where the loss of road space was a matter of polarized debates that continue to this day. I won’t even talk to anyone who wants central Eglinton on the surface unless they are first prepared to accept that St. Clair was a good idea.
A related problem is the demand projection and transfer traffic at major locations. Already the St. Clair car makes off-street connections with the subway in two places. Locations such as Don Mills, Yonge and Allen Road will require a direct link between the LRT and the subway (now or future) given the amount of pedestrian traffic that would otherwise have to walk across traffic and use street entrances to the subway.
LikeLike
I’m suddenly thinking back to my first trip to Jakarta, Indonesia in 2007, where I rode the new TransJakarta BRT system. The BRT was modeled after TransSantiago and the TransMilenio system … it had 4 lines and operated with non-articulated, high floor buses and elevated platforms.
What struck me as interesting was:
First that the government was brave enough to take lanes away from cars on Jakarta’s notoriously crowded roads instead of building a monorail or elevated mini-metro like Kuala Lumpur or Bangkok. Indeed, the privately financed Jakarta monorail never got off the ground.
Second, that the infrastructure was amazingly simple and built quickly. The BRT right-of-way was separated from other traffic by yellow-painted long curb stones and identified by signage and red painted asphalt. The typical stations were simple boxes with sliding doors and high-level boarding, but I remember one unfinished station (Harmoni) that had a large temporary wood platform while the metal & glass station box was being built.
Finally I was impressed that drivers and motorcyclists were not jumping into the row in order to get past traffic.
Now, TransJakarta has had its problems but in 6 years they have built a network of more than 12 lines, and there are plans underway to convert the first line into an MRT (subway). They have also expanded the BRT concept to 7 other cities.
What they had was confidence in a concept that worked for their needs and the political [will] to see it through.
The focus was not on the technology or aesthetics but in building the network and providing reliable, frequent service as quickly as possible. If we really want to build effective transit and catch up the years of missed investment, we need to focus less on the technology and more on quickly building a “bare-bones” rapid transit network that is reliable, frequent and fast.
Cheers, Moaz
LikeLike
LRT can hardly be considered rapid transit with <500m stop spacing though (I believed the average proposed spacing was 460m on Sheppard). Just seperated right-of-way quasi-local transit. Why stop there? Why not go with <300m stop spacing like streetcars and buses and just replace local service then?
LikeLike
Moscow’s infrastructure deficit was due to a failure of the governmental systems at the time.
Toronto’s infrastructure deficit is arguably due to the same cause. A country where a majority votes against Harper and he gets a majority of Parliament… has an archaic election system, and it’s going to cause problems. The Ontario election system isn’t much better. (To be fair, both are better than anything in the US.) The City of Toronto level of government seems to be in the best shape of the three relevant governments, but of course it has the weakest taxing power. So.
LikeLike
@Chris: South of College, the Yonge-University subway has less than 500m between stations. It is considered rapid transit. Bloor-Danforth tends to fall in the 500-700m band for most station-to-station distances, except in Scarborough and Etobicoke. It, too, is rapid transit.
The Sheppard East LRT would replace the local bus service. Nothing prevents higher order transit modes from serving local needs. For best economics, rapid transit lines should be local, as that serves the largest practical array of trips.
LikeLike
Oh please. Rob Ford’s G&M editorial from last year cited KPMG stating that a modest parking levy would bring in $90 million a year from fees across the ENTIRE city. Over 30 years that’s $2.7 billion. That would probably cover the cost of putting the section between Don Mills and Kennedy underground.
It would not pay for the debt that would need to be taken on since you’re not getting all of the money upfront.
It would not pay for any section to the airport.
It would not pay for the cost of anything else (DRL, SRT extension, or even extending Sheppard in either direction).
It would not pay for the added maintenance and subsequent operating losses.
You’d be lucky if city-wide parking fees would cover even half of burying the eastern stretch of Eglinton.
What are you going to tell us next? That the private sector will build it for us at little to no cost?
This is so disingenuous. None of our subway heavy rail lines are rapid transit then? At least LRT aren’t blocking up the city like the buses and streetcars? Hah
LikeLike
@Moaz
I won’t fight the Transit City version of Eglinton, and I think burying the Eglinton line through Central Toronto is a reasonable compromise with motorists. But there’s no denying that this has more to do with appeasing motorists than improving transit service.
Steve: Well, no, it also has to do with leaving any room on the street for something other than transit. A surface right-of-way would not be saleable to the neighbourhoods and businesses along Eglinton which is narrower than St. Clair and does not have room for two traffic lanes each way including parking.
LikeLike
Don’t forget that the grades on Eglinton, especially where stops are to be placed, are not compatible with LRT in former York/North Toronto. Stops for LRT should be along a gentle gradient that does not exceed 2%. Three percent can be considered in complex and challenging areas, but normally should be avoided. This has to be sustained for the length of a 3-car LRV set. Easier said than done in some locations. I would encourage readers to review the design plates that show the profile of Eglinton Ave through its underground segment, and see for themselves. Between the valleys of Black Creek and Don River, Eglinton is like a mountain for a light rail installation. It’s far flatter through Etobicoke and Scarborough.
LikeLike
Another point is that 2 lanes reserved for LRT leaves the equivalent of 3 lanes to the rest of Eglinton. If people are willing to drop parking on one side of the street when you can still retain two through lanes for traffic. If people are even braver we could lose parking on both sides and have two through lanes and reserve one lane equivalent for a cycle superhighway.
Of course, those ideas won’t be popular in today’s Toronto … but even with 5 lanes made available by moving transit underground, there will be disagreement about what Eglinton should look like.
It’s funny though…I remember 21 years ago I went to a closing sale for a sports store on Eglinton west near Dufferin. The owner was shutting down because business had been bad for a while (there was a recession happening at the time) and he felt that subway construction would finish him.
Cheers, Moaz
LikeLike
Further off-topic, readers can also look at the diagrams for the Finch West station with the LRT platform. It should become clear why diving under intersections every 500m isn’t feasible. The ramps for the LRT extend east of Keele to Tangiers.
LikeLike