by

Ed Levy Writes About Rapid Transit in Toronto

Being around long enough to see the way things really work is a huge advantage both for a blogger like me, and for professionals who have a long, if somewhat jaundiced, view of the evolution of transit plans in Toronto.

Ed Levy has just released “Rapid Transit in Toronto”, a webbook tracing the history of a century of transit schemes for our city.  This was produced with the support of the Neptis Foundation.

The online version of the book covers a wide range of topics and is filled with maps, history and observations about the evolution of transit plans (much more so than actual construction) in Toronto.  The book is downloadable in chapters sized either for email circulation or full resolution (see the PDF page).

I have only quickly browsed the chapter outlines so far, but there is a lot of material here, and it is so good, finally to see all of this in one place.  If nothing else, it will save those of us with shelves full of studies having to actually pull out the hard copies whenever we need to check something!

Congratulations to Ed, a fellow advocate for better public transit, on publishing such a major overview of our history.

16 thoughts on “Ed Levy Writes About Rapid Transit in Toronto”

  1. How timely and brilliant! This could be the most important material published regarding transit development in this region in living memory. Kudos to Ed, a learned expert and no-BS kind of guy. Love the double U concept.

    Like

  3. Do you agree with the optimism he expressed in The Star that the DRL will finally get built?

    Steve: Provided that it is seen as a regional asset, and provided that Metrolinx/Ontario approach new revenue tools as sources of financing, including for future debt service, we might actually see the line built. If, however, Ontario only implements bare-bone levies, and if the capital program is staged on a pay-as-you-play basis, all we will ever see is more (cheap) busways, modest expansion of GO, but “big ticket” projects will always be somehow deferred.

    Like

  4. It’s a good read so far, but I am astounded Mr. Levy thinks there has been a great transit modal shift in York Region, and that will be improved with the busways. The service along Yonge and Hwy 7 may be somewhat decent, but the rest of the network is awful. I do not see the point of 15 minute service along Yonge and Hwy 7., when the connecting service is 30 minute and greater.

    Steve: And, moreover, any service at 15 minutes is not going to attract people out of cars if that is a reasonable option. Just the access time (walk + wait) to transit would equal the time needed for a good chunk of many auto trips. As for capacity, one bus every 15 minutes is not going to compete with an arterial road network, let alone one every 30.

    Like

  5. So people were thinking of a DRL in 1944. Got to hand it to Metrolinx, they are only 100 or so years behind the times.

    Steve: To be fair to Metrolinx, their focus was on “regional” travel and it was not until they saw how the TTC system simply could not absorb the “regional” demand they hope to add to it that they embraced the DRL. That was the kind of thinking we were seeing from the city and the TTC too because the entire focus, professional and political, was on serving the 905. However, Metrolinx should have recognized the need for the DRL in its studies leading up to The Big Move, but as their modelling was not capacity constrained, they just rolled along with the accepted view of the world.

    Like

  6. Steve –

    Originally, Metrolinx just adopted Miller’s Transit City plan for Toronto.

    It’s not obvious they really did any research on their own within the Toronto city limits. Shame on them for that but it’s Miller’s bad that DRL wasn’t #1 priority on Toronto’s wish list.

    Steve: Transit City was deliberately an all-LRT plan with the hope of delivering a network of lines quickly. The only underground component was the central part of the Eglinton line, and the Sheppard LRT connection into Don Mills Station.

    I argued strongly against the proposed surface alignment of the Don Mills LRT, but Transit City wasn’t “my” plan, it was the work of many people.

    If the DRL had been in the list, it would have doubled the total pricetag and would not have addressed the primary goal of serving the suburban “priority neighbourhoods”.

    As for Metrolinx, they were too busy trying to serve the 905 to see the value of the DRL, and the TTC was claiming that they could fit everyone on the existing subway, eventually.

    Like

  7. Worked with Ed Levy on the Save the 501 Streetcar public meetings in 1996/7 (IIRC) and he was a great speaker, a personable & helpful transit advocate, and a real wealth of information on TTC design decisions & history.

    Like

  8. Steve:

    To be fair to Metrolinx, their focus was on “regional” travel and it was not until they saw how the TTC system simply could not absorb the “regional” demand they hope to add to it that they embraced the DRL. That was the kind of thinking we were seeing from the city and the TTC too because the entire focus, professional and political, was on serving the 905.

    IF Metrolinx and Minister Murray have had their epiphany perhaps they will accelerate the development of a “DRL-West Equivalent” with frequent all-day service from Union to at least Malton (with new stations at Woodbine-Hwy 27 and Eglinton), Union to Kipling, along with better Union to Richmond Hill service (which may be coming soon).

    These three lines would do a lot to intercept longer-distance trips and direct them away from the Subway and onto the GO system where they belong.

    I am also pleased to note that both yourself and Ed Levy see the need to emphasize the DRL serving the “middle east” of Toronto and running up to Eglinton … and that this has also found its way into the Metrolinx proposal.

    Perhaps the Ontario government, City of Toronto, TTC and Metrolinx can work out a plan where the Province pays the TTC to build and operate the DRL and GO operates added “City Service” on the “416+Inner-905 portions of the Kitchener, Milton, and Richmond Hill (and maybe Lincolnville line as well). And hopefully the City can facilitate the construction of more GO stations in the 416 and pay for the costs of those “city service” trains.

    Cheers, Moaz

    Like

  9. I’ve worked with Ed in the past — truly, the “Platinum Standard” in transportation engineering. I’ll read his latest work with interest; it will be fascinating to watch Metrolinx reaction to his qualified professional analyses and opinion.

    Like

  10. “If the DRL had been in the list, it would have doubled the total pricetag and would not have addressed the primary goal of serving the suburban “priority neighbourhoods”.”

    Well it’s comforting to know that Eglinton will take up the bulk of our current $8.4 billion gift from Queen’s Park, and that the priority neighbourhoods of Forest Hill, Yonge& Eglinton, and Leaside will be well-served.

    Criticisms of Rob Ford’s transit policies are well-deserved, but David Miller and Adam Giambrone have been let off the hook for the most part. Obsessing over Sheppard and committing so much to Eglinton while ignoring a much more needed DRL during a rare funding windfall will, I believe, haunt Toronto for years.

    Looking forward to sinking into Ed Levy’s book in detail when I have more time.

    Steve: You forget that Transit City included lines on Jane, Don Mills, the Waterfront West, Eglinton all the way to the airport and east to Morningside, then north to Malvern, Finch West to the airport from Yonge, and a few other odds and ends. The fact that Queen’s Park chose to sink so much cash into the most expensive part of the line tells us about their priorities.

    There was no funding “windfall”. Metrolinx (originally the GTTA) was created in 2006, but didn’t really get underway until 2007. Transit City was proposed in March 2007, and MoveOntario 2020 came three months later in June. A “quick wins” set of projects totalled barely $100m, what one might get from a small gust, not a sustained wind. Metrolinx didn’t even start releasing discussion papers until December 2007.

    Like

  11. Steve: You forget that Transit City included lines on Jane, Don Mills, the Waterfront West, Eglinton all the way to the airport and east to Morningside, then north to Malvern, Finch West to the airport from Yonge, and a few other odds and ends. The fact that Queen’s Park chose to sink so much cash into the most expensive part of the line tells us about their priorities.

    One thing I’ve been curious about is how and why the Transit City Bus Plan became second best … and then quickly disappeared off the political radar … like it never really had a chance.

    It seems to me the only part of the TCBP that appeared to be approved (or at least moved forward) was the purchase of artic buses, but there are no hints about transit (bus) priority or transit (bus) friendly infrastructure.

    Cheers, Moaz

    Steve: The Transit City Bus Plan did not exist until some time after the Transit City LRT plan was already well underway. TCBP fell victim to a tug of war between the TTC and Council over who gets to approve projects that would push up the subsidy requirement in future budgets. Council eventually passed a bylaw requiring TTC to come to Council with any project that would affect future year subsidies. Then we had an election, and anything with the name “Transit City” or a whiff of the Miller/Giambrone era was consigned to the scrap heap. I am surprised Karen Stintz has not tried to resurrect it in some fashion, but it’s not “her” plan. A shame because it could have been an interesting part of “One City”.

    Like

  12. “Criticisms of Rob Ford’s transit policies are well-deserved, but David Miller and Adam Giambrone have been let off the hook for the most part. Obsessing over Sheppard and committing so much to Eglinton while ignoring a much more needed DRL during a rare funding windfall will, I believe, haunt Toronto for years.”

    That is one of the truest most well-stated paragraphs on this topic I have ever read.

    Like

  13. Now you’ve confused me. I know Queen’s Park downsized Eglinton, Finch, and Sheppard when the initial 2008/09 $12 billion of funding promised to Toronto (the windfall I was referring to) was reduced to $8B due to budget tightening, but choosing “to sink so much cash into the most expensive part of the line” makes it sound as if that line was imposed on Toronto against its will. I recall that Eglinton was, for all intents and purposes, the centrepiece of Transit City at the initial press conference and in media reports thereafter, and that Miller, Giambrone, the TTC, and most of Council were fully on board with Eglinton being one of the first lines to go ahead. And from what I understand, contractual arrangements were too far along for Ford to do much with Eglinton without risking large cancellation fees, so I’m not sure where the overbearing hand of Queen’s Park comes into play.

    One always expects a certain level of political maneuvering, but I have never heard Miller, Giambrone, or anyone else say that the $12B/$8B from Queen’s Park came with specific strings attached. Am I missing something?

    Steve: Metrolinx has always wanted to build a tunnel along Eglinton, but was cool to the rest of Transit City. When the schedule was stretched out to push Sheppard and Finch off to the second half of this decade, there was a real possibility they would never be built.

    Transit City was proposed before the “windfall” was announced. Initially, the schedule for the funding would have seen Sheppard and Finch opening before Eglinton, but when McGuinty changed all that unilaterally, David Miller was quite angry. The arrival of Rob Ford created a gap in which the Metrolinx plans further delayed Transit City.

    Depending on the evolving political situation in Toronto and at Queen’s Park, it is still quite possible we would never see any Transit City lines beyond Eglinton and the original “commitment” and associated windfall may bring a lot less than originally announced.

    Like

  15. Nick L. posted before I could…Mayor Ford is also calling for the Finch West LRT to run underground.

    Given that today Mayor Ford also expressed his concern about ‘losing’ the proposed casino to the suburbs (Vaughan has expressed interest) … I think I have the compromise solution:

    *Build the casino at Woodbine … so Toronto gets a casino but suburbanites need not drive downtown…and the Fords will be happy the jobs are coming to their corner of the universe;
    *include a clause that aside from hosting fees, the OLG must pay to put a portion of the Finch West LRT underground…maybe 100m at Finch West station and 1km from Humber College to the airport…since Ford will only ever see it on groundbreaking day (opening day is being generous);
    *Include a clause that Ford be hired by the OLG or one of the casinos as some kind of ‘manager’ … perhaps for a casino sponsored football foundation.

    Win, win, win.

    Cheers, Moaz

    Like

  16. Steve said: Focusing on the Scarborough Subway allows Ford to make Scarberians feel that those nasty downtown elites have trashed their dreams again. He’s still playing the “LRT is all you’re going to get” card.

    You know, it’s times like this when I wonder if Ford really is incompetent on the transit file or if he really does hate public transit. Simply put, demanding only the most expensive option for a route that cannot sustain it is a great way to stop any transit expansion from happening in the city. Add to that the fact that he is doing his best to ensure that Etobicoke doesn’t see any meaningful transit improvements leaves some very interesting questions unanswered.

    Like

Comments are closed.