Updated October 2, 2013 at 12:30 pm:
Metrolinx has released a transcript of a press conference held earlier today regarding their letter to the City Manager about the Scarborough subway.
In related news, Metrolinx advises (through a separate email) that they are “approximately 3 months away from making [a] formal recommendation on Sheppard and Finch” LRT lines, and the possible acceleration of these projects.
Also, regarding Eglinton-Yonge Station, they “hope to have a final concept that Metrolinx, City and TTC agree on in the coming weeks and will present in the public session of the Metrolinx December Board meeting”.
Updated October 2, 2013 at 10:30 am:
Metrolinx has sent a letter to Toronto’s City Manager regarding the proposed Scarborough subway. Unlike some pronouncements from Queen’s Park, this takes a more conciliatory tone for discussions between Ontario and the City of Toronto. Notable points include:
- Metrolinx continues to believe that LRT “would provide an effective rapid transit solution to the transportation challenges in this area” within the available funding, but bows to the desire by all three levels of government to build a subway.
- Metrolinx is not dictating that a specific route be chosen, but wants a proper alternatives analysis as part of the Environmental Assessment. This contradicts earlier statements by the government implying that only one route was to be funded. It also implies that the shorter “Transit Project Assessment” process (which does not include the potentially embarrassing need to review alternatives) will not be used.
- The Province is sticking with a figure of $1.48-billion in available funding, from which must be deducted the $85m in sunk costs for the Scarborough LRT project and unspecified costs of scaling down the LRT car order from Bombardier.
- Although the $320m reserved for the Kennedy Station reconstruction with both the Eglinton and Scarborough LRT lines may not all be required, additional costs are expected at the Yonge-Eglinton interchange beyond the current project budget. Savings from Kennedy may be redirected to Yonge-Eglinton. If there is anything left of the $320m between the two projects, then it could be directed to the Scarborough subway.
- The Scarborough subway will be entirely a City/TTC project contrary to previous schemes for the LRT that would have seen provincial ownership and a PPP arrangement similar to that proposed for the Eglinton line. This begs a question regarding the accounting for the provincial funding contribution: if you don’t own the line, you can’t book the asset as an offset to the money spent on it. Does this mark a shift away from the creative accounting used to justify taking Toronto’s transit projects away from the TTC in the first place?
- Provincial funding will begin to flow in the 2018/19 fiscal year implying that no serious construction will be underway until then. The City and/or Federal government will have to front end the project with funding for the EA and preliminary engineering. All risk for project cost overruns will be to the City’s account.
- Infrastructure Ontario remains available to participate in this project, but this is no longer a requirement of the Province for funding. The decision on whether to use IO or to proceed with a conventional procurement (as on the Spadina extension) is up to the City of Toronto.
Not included in the letter, but reported through Twitter by John Michael McGrath, is a comment from Metrolinx that they are reviewing the timing of the Sheppard and Finch LRT projects.
This letter provides a more balanced response to Scarborough subway issue than some recent statements by Ontario Transportation Minister Glen Murray, and it is good to see Metrolinx acting as a reasonable broker rather than simply as a rubber stamp for ministerial musings. The next major step will be Council’s discussion of the matter at the October 8-9 meeting.
Updated September 25, 2013 at 10:30 pm:
Today’s TTC Board meeting was a procedural shambles when the time came to discuss the Scarborough Subway. The contentious name-calling and parochialism of some past debates lives on for at least one Commissioner, Glenn De Baeremaeker, who is so busy puffing up the importance of his own subway that he overstates his case. At one point, Councillor Josh Matlow spoke of the subway proposal as vote buying. De Baeremaeker did not take umbrage but Chair Karen Stintz did and asked Matlow to withdraw the remark. He refused and left the meeting as did another visitor, Councillor Carroll. Smug and over-confident do not begin to describe De Baeremaeker’s attitude which focuses on getting “what Scarborough deserves” above all other considerations.
Three sets of motions were proposed:
- The original recommendations of the staff report which asks that the Commission endorse the McCowan alignment for a subway extension from Kennedy Station to Sheppard.
- A set of motions by Chair Stintz:
- that the Commission continues to support LRT implementation on Eglinton, Sheppard East and Finch as per the master agreement with Metrolinx,
- asking that Metrolinx confirm their support for these projects, and
- asking that Metrolinx confirm that the Downtown Relief Line is the next priority for a subway project after the Scarborough extension.
- A motion by Commission Alan Heisey seeking a meeting between the TTC and Metrolinx boards to arrive at a mutually agreeable plan for future transit in Toronto.
- Commissioner Parker proposed an amendment that would have supported the original LRT proposal.
Some members of the Commission were uneasy with the large exposure for the City in future debt and the tax increases needed to finance the City share for the project. The “citizen” (non-Council) members of the Commission appear uneasy about the fact that they have never been asked to vote on the subway alternative until now, and as articulated by Commissioner Heisey, it would appear that their counterparts at Metrolinx have similarly been excluded from the debate.
When it came time for the vote the Stintz and Heisey motions passed easily, but Parker’s motion failed on a 2-9 vote. However, things came unglued on the main motion. Five Commissioners voted in favour, five against, and one, Nick Di Donato, wanted to abstain because he did not feel he had enough information to make a commitment to the subway line at this time. In this situation, the motion would have lost on a tie vote. Di Donato had not left the table, and so technically abstaining was not an option.
At this point, realizing what might happen, Chair Stintz called the vote again and Commissioner John Parker, who had voted in the negative, left the room to ensure that the motion supporting the McCowan alignment would pass unless Di Donato voted “no”. In the end, the vote was 6-4 in favour with Parker abstaining. This shows how divided the Commission is and how poorly support for the McCowan option was organized by the Chair before the meeting started.
In related news, some members of Council are swallowing hard to accept the level of taxation that may be required to finance the City’s share of the project. Some money will come from Development Charges, but the lion’s share, about 80%, will have to come from general tax revenue.
Meanwhile a Forum Research Poll shows general support for the subway, but splits along regional lines and relative to past mayoral support. There is some support for the LRT option, but the poll question specified a level of tax support for the subway considerably lower than what is actually required to finance it. Support for the subway is higher among non-transit users than transit riders.
The whole matter will be debated at Council’s October 8 meeting.
Updated September 23, 2013 at 8:20 pm:
Today federal Finance Minister Jim Flaherty announced that Ottawa would provide $660-million in funding for McCowan alignment of the subway as proposed by City Council, and reaffirmed funding of $333-million for the Sheppard LRT. This simply quantified the amounts available from yesterday’s announcement by the Prime Minister.
Also today, the TTC released a report comparing the Murray subway alignment via the existing RT corridor with the Stintz alignment via Eglinton and McCowan. Unsurprisingly, the TTC report endorses the McCowan alignment, although it does not go into much detail in critiquing the RT alignment.
A fundamental issue is that the provincial funding of $1.4b is inadequate for either proposal:
Neither the Provincial (RT corridor alignment) nor TTC (McCowan corridor alignment) subway option to Sheppard Avenue estimated at $2.9 billion and $2.5 billion ($2010) respectively, are achievable within the current Provincial funding envelope. Even when the options are truncated at Scarborough City Centre both Provincial and TTC options estimated at $1.7 – $1.9 billion and $1.9 billion ($2010) respectively require additional funding. [Page 1]
Much of the history of these proposals and related correspondence has already been reported here. The TTC notes that there is an outstanding request for information from Metrolinx regarding:
- Ridership projections for both Provincial options;
- Average operating speed and trip time for both subway options;
- Location of the bus terminal;
- Walking distance from the TTC bus terminal and GO station to the subway platform; and
- Any other advantage of this proposal over the TTC proposal. [Page 4]
Minister Murray has claimed ridership for his proposal equal to the number cited by the City and TTC for their scheme, but the latter depended on the route going all the way to Sheppard. As with other claims for his proposal, Murray selectively quoted full-line benefits for his truncated subway scheme ending at STC.
The TTC notes that curves on the Murray line would impose speed restrictions that would add to travel times (not to mention fleet and operator costs) and potentially be a source of wheel squeal that could annoy neighbouring residents. The tight curves would also lead to faster rail and wheel wear. However, the TTC’s estimate of fleet requirements for the two proposals appears to be based only on the length of each option, not on any speed restrictions.
What the TTC does not address is the fact that the Metrolinx consultants claim to have used TTC specifications in their design. Either this was done erroneously, or less than ideal specs were used in good faith for the proposed design. The TTC needs to set out specifications that anyone (Metrolinx, say) should use in designing any future subway lines. This is not a trivial issue given the likely wandering nature of a new Downtown Relief Line (or whatever it is called).
The TTC is concerned about the design of the new Kennedy terminal and how transfer moves between buses and GO passengers and the subway would be affected. This is a valid question especially if the importance of Kennedy as a hub increases. Although RT trips will be diverted onto the subway, much of the bus traffic will continue to arrive on existing routes and the convenience of their transfer connection is important. Equally, if GO improves service on the Stouffville corridor, this connection also should be a convenient one.
Other effects of the project both during construction and under operation include:
- A three-year shutdown of the SRT for the construction project, plus an unknown shutdown of the east end of the subway during the cutover from old Kennedy Station to the new one.
- A more intrusive elevated structure for subway trains which are wider and which require longer platforms at stations.
- The combination of open-air track and steep grades could lead to problems during bad weather, notably icing, and also have issues with wheel slip due to leaves. This is true to a point, but the system already has a comparable area north of Rosedale Station. This can be a problem for TTC operations, but only under the worst of circumstances, and far less often than the annual SRT shutdowns thanks to power and reaction rail icing. It is worth noting that the same problems would have affected an LRT line in the same corridor, but the TTC was silent on these issues.
Cost comparisons are provided for both the RT and McCowan alignments for Kennedy-to-STC and Kennedy-to-Sheppard options. As previously reported here, the Metrolinx study omits several key items such as vehicles to operate the line, and the total value of these is estimated at roughly half a billion dollars. All costs here are only order-of-magnitude given the lack of detailed study, and a variation of $100-million (roughly 5% on the total project) is considered a wash.
If the line runs only to STC, then the RT alignment is slightly cheaper than the McCowan alignment, subject to detailed review. However, for the line continued through to Sheppard, the RT alignment is more expensive because it is longer and has more stations.
Kennedy to Kennedy to
STC Sheppard
Via RT $1.8b $2.9b
Via McCowan $1.9b $2.5b
Source: Table on page 24 of pdf, page 12 of slide deck.
It should be noted that the RT alignment pays the considerable penalty of replacing Kennedy Station, and the costs would be quite different without this factor.
For either alignment, construction will not start until 2019, no matter what Minister Flaherty said at today’s press briefing.
The main report is followed by a slide deck that will be used at the TTC Board meeting on September 25. This deck includes information and raises issues not included in the main report. It acknowledges that the RT alignment has well-sited stations, is beneficial to Centennial College and improves opportunities for a mobility hub at Kennedy, but warns that these factors are offset by the design issues and service shutdown requirements detailed above.
The table cited above also includes an estimate of the number of trains that would be required. For the TTC’s option, the count is 7, and this is in line with previous estimates I have given here that only half of the service would run through to Sheppard. (A 15.2km round trip at 30km/h is about half an hour’s worth of trains. On a 2’20” headway, this would require about 13 trains. Therefore, the TTC may be planning to run only half the service beyond Kennedy Station.)
However, if only 7 more trains would be used compared to existing service, these can be accommodated within existing storage facilities and the allowance of about $200m on that account is not required. It is unclear whether the number of trains is relative to the existing service level or to the existing T1 fleet of which the TTC has a surplus. This is an important distinction that will affect the project cost and scope.
Finally, a question for the McCowan alignment is the location of the new STC station. As shown on the maps, it is actually at McCowan, not in the STC itself. The TTC should examine alternate alignments veering west so that the station could be better connected with existing and future development at STC. Although the details would be something for an EA/TPA study, the issue should be openly acknowledged as part of TTC and Council debates.
We now await word from Queen’s Park on whether they are firmly resolved to build on the RT alignment, a posture that would guarantee a head-on collision with Ottawa and City Council, or if the province will return to making its funding available to a generic “Scarborough subway” project. A related issue is the amount of the holdback for the Kennedy Station adaptation for the LRT project(s). Now that the LRT-via-RT line is not part of the design, the projected $320m cost for the combined Eglinton/Scarborough LRT station at Kennedy should be reduced, and this should release additional provincial funding. This is a question that must be answered as part of whatever provincial response will come to today’s announcement.
Updated September 22, 2013 at 9:45 pm:
Today Prime Minister Stephen Harper announced that the federal government would provide funding in an unspecified amount to the proposed Scarborough Subway. At the announcement, a map clearly showed the McCowan alignment with stations at Lawrence, STC and Sheppard. Needless to say, Mayor Ford is ecstatic.
Further details will come in a press conference to be held tomorrow by Finance Minister Jim Flaherty, and there will also be comments from Premier Kathleen Wynne.
A few observations at this point:
- Toronto Council’s motion clearly set September 30, 2013, as a deadline for a response from other governments on funding the proposed McCowan alignment. Ottawa has met that date with a week to spare.
- Ontario Transportation Minister Glen Murray’s ham-fisted “I’ll do it my way” announcement of a subway via the existing SRT corridor was guaranteed to provoke a response from other potential funding partners. Rather than showing how Ontario might built a transit network in Scarborough, Murray chose to focus on one line, and a truncated version of it at that. Even if Ottawa had been delaying in offering funds for the McCowan alignment, Murray’s action and political rhetoric guaranteed a tit-for-tat response.
- Queen’s Park is now in a position of backing and funding only one version of a subway line, and rejecting out of hand any idea that the $1.4b previous available for a Scarborough project might go to the McCowan scheme. Now, they are left not only with a subway proposal that cannot be built for the price claimed, but are potential deal-breakers for the McCowan alignment.
- Prominent at today’s announcement was a map showing the Sheppard East LRT line, a route that Mayor Ford would love to convert to a subway. That this happened at a federally organized press conference and with Rob Ford standing right beside the sign (see CTV news coverage) suggests that the LRT scheme isn’t dead yet. Ford no doubt awaits the election of a Tory government at Queen’s Park to deliver the coup de grâce. It will be interesting to see whether Metrolinx puts this project on ice, and what position Toronto council takes on LRT for Sheppard at its October 2013 meeting.
Toronto Council needs to contemplate several important factors if it opts for the McCowan alignment:
- Are any stations to be added, or at least protected for, notably one near the turn north onto McCowan?
- How close to the centre of STC should the subway pass? Should the station be under McCowan on the eastern edge of the site, or should the line swing west to a more central location?
- What will the demand be for the new line, and to what extent is this a function of regional commuters choosing to travel by subway to downtown? If GO transit service is improved in the Stouffville corridor, how would this affect projected subway demand?
- What service plan will be operated on the subway? Will all trains run through to Sheppard or will some turn back at Kennedy? This affects the fleet and yard requirements for the extension.
- How does additional demand on the Danforth subway fit into transfer problems at Bloor-Yonge?
- What is the likely cost of the project, net, to Toronto and how will this affect proposed property taxes to finance it?
If Council simply yells “hurrah we got a subway” and then buries its collective head in the sand, they will be in for a big surprise. More likely, Council will put money in the 2014 budget for detailed studies and punt a real decision beyond the next municipal and provincial elections.
As for the Scarborough LRT, it is a dead issue, a victim of crass politics and misrepresentation, not to mention a rogue Minister.
Updated September 13, 2013: A review of the letter from Metrolinx Chair Rob Prichard to TTC Chair Karen Stintz has been added after the break.
Updated September 12, 2013: A review of the Metrolinx feasibility study has been added.
The Metrolinx feasibility study of a Scarborough Subway via the SRT right-of-way is now available on the Metrolinx website.
I will comment on it at a later time, but am putting up the link so readers can peruse the document.
Updated September 11, 2013:
Further details of the provincial position and Toronto’s responsibility for costs are in a letter from Rob Prichard, Metrolinx Chair, to Karen Stintz, TTC Chair.
My analysis of the political background and of the misapplication of the feasibility study to a truncated Scarborough subway is on the Torontoist website.
On September 10, 2013, following the Metrolinx board meeting, Chair Rob Prichard wrote to TTC Chair Karen Stintz setting out the provincial position on the various subway and LRT plans.
Among other things, this letter states:
We undertook a preliminary feasibility study. It suggests the route using the SRT alignment announced by Minister Murray has a number of advantages: it has greater opportunities for economic growth and employment along its length, relative to the route earlier proposed by the city and the TTC; it takes advantage of an existing transportation corridor instead of incurring the cost of building a new one; our preliminary analysis suggests that it could potentially delivered at a lower capital cost as it requires much less tunnelling; and assuming rapid transit is subsequently extended to Sheppard Avenue East, it serves more priority neighbourhoods and double the population within walking distance. In addition, preliminary work suggests that the subway from Kennedy to Scarborough Town Centre could be delivered close to the existing provincial funding commitment of $1.48 billion. [Page 1]
Let us take these statements in turn.
- Economic growth and employment. Little in the feasibility study supports claims for growth and employment especially along the truncated version of the subway announced by the Minister.
- Avoiding building a new corridor. This is rather like renovating a house by retaining the bird feeder in the garden. The line will require a new Kennedy Station, completely rebuilt trackage, new stations at Lawrence East and at STC, a new power distribution and signal system, and new elevated structures east of what is now Ellesmere Station.
- Lower capital cost. The feasibility study’s estimate comes in at roughly the same price for an SRT to Sheppard alignment as the City’s McCowan alignment, but the Metrolinx estimate omits several key items, notably a fleet to actually provide service.
- Better coverage. Prichard’s letter is explicit in stating that this claim depends on the line continuing to Sheppard, but that is not what the Minister announced when he claimed better coverage for his scheme. The feasibility study is silent on this issue in part because it was not intended as a comparative study of the proposals.
- The line to STC can be delivered within available provincial funding. Again, because significant items are not included in the cost estimate, this is not true.
Prichard goes on to clarify the funding available.
- $1.48-billion 2010$ are available from Queen’s Park, and this money will flow no sooner than 2018/19.
- Toronto is responsible for the sunk costs ($85m) related to the already-agreed LRT plan, as well as for any penalties involved in reducing the size of the LRV order to Bombardier.
- Toronto will be responsible for the project including any cost overruns plus any future operating and maintenance.
- Queen’s Park would like to see a role for Infrastructure Ontario in delivering this project.
The letter is silent on the money earmarked for reconstruction of Kennedy Station as part of the Eglinton-Crosstown plan. If we are to get a totally new station, then it is not credible that the ECLRT’s share will be on the order of the $300m reserved for this purpose.
Prichard goes on to talk about Durham’s Pulse system and the extension of BRT to the Scarborough Town Centre. Oddly, although the feasibility study and some of its conclusions depend on a subway to Sheppard, this portion of the route is dismissed as unnecessary by the Minister. Prichard’s press scrum differed from Murray’s position in that Prichard was still open to an LRT spur south from Sheppard to link with STC while Murray dismisses the need for anything beyond the Pulse service at Centennial College.
Our interest is in moving forward with the Scarborough rapid transit project as quickly as possible based on a strong partnership with the TTC and the City of Toronto. [Page 3]
Minister Murray made a unilateral announcement over a month before the known deadline (September 30) when various conditions affecting Toronto’s position would kick in. There was no “partnership” and, indeed, there was considerable acrimony caused by political grandstanding.
For his part, Rob Prichard repeats the message he is told to deliver, and in the process makes statements that are at best inaccurate and at worst untrue. How can anyone trust Metrolinx for unbiased, professional advice?
The Metrolinx Feasibility Study
This study was conducted for Metrolinx by 4Transit, a joint venture of major engineering consultants (Delcan, MMM, Hatch Mott MacDonald) who regularly work in the Toronto area. The purpose was to determine whether a subway extension could be built from Kennedy Station north and east to Sheppard via the proposed LRT replacement route for the Scarborough RT.
Such schemes have been discussed in the comment threads on this site many times. Whether readers will agree with conclusions of the study, there is now a public document that includes details of design constraints rather than the abstract supposition that has dominated the debate.
The proposed subway infrastructure would include:
- A relocated Kennedy Station aligned to make the turn north onto the RT corridor possible.
- Stations would be located at Lawrence East, Scarborough Town Centre, Centennial College and Sheppard East.
- Shifting the GO Transit rail corridor west to the current position of the RT tracks.
- At grade operation of the new subway from north of Kennedy Station to Ellesmere.
- Elevated operation on a new guideway from northeast of Ellesmere Station through Scarborough Town Centre to roughly the location of McCowan RT Yard.
- A short at grade section east from McCowan Yard leading to an elevated structure that would run from west of Bellamy east and north across Highway 401.
- Underground operation at Sheppard East station including the south approach and tail tracks to the north.
Turnback facilities would be provided only at Kennedy (a new crossover west of the relocated station) and Sheppard East, although a crossover at STC is also possible (but not included). There are no pocket tracks planned that would be used for partial turnback of service and the operational plan is that all trains would run through to Sheppard East. The study contains no estimate of additional rolling stock requirements, nor of the yard space required to service the added trains.
Although there has been talk of making provision for additional stations (notably from Minister Glen Murray when challenged on the subject), the vertical alignment of the subway includes many grades (shown in detail on the alignment drawings) that would make insertion of the level sections needed to provide for future stations difficult.
By analogy, the North York Centre Station was allowed for in the original subway design, but this was not a hilly section of the route. Adding a level section to a long grade requires that grades on either side of the station are steeper than they would be otherwise. The implications of such provisions are not included in the study.
Kennedy Station
Two designs for Kennedy Station were considered.
- The first option continues the subway on the same path it follows northeast from Warden Station diagonally under the Hydro corridor.
- The second option places the new station further south to avoid conflict with the Hydro towers.
Kennedy Station to Ellesmere
Two separate alignments for the new north-south section were considered.
- If the subway stays on the west side of the corridor where the RT tracks are today, then the new Kennedy Station must be positioned to minimize the curve turning north into the corridor. This alignment also requires replacement of the tunnel and curve at Ellesmere from the RT corridor onto the elevated structure west of Midland.
- If the subway is moved to the east side of the corridor where the GO tracks are today, the requirements for new Kennedy Station are relaxed because there is more room for the curve turning north. Moreover, an eastern alignment eliminates the need for a tunnel at Ellesmere and therefore reduces the height the subway must climb to reach the elevated structure.
The study did not address the implications of cutting off rail service to the existing freight spurs to industries on the east side of the corridor.
Ellesmere to McCowan
The existing elevated structure is not useable for subway trains because the distance between the tracks is closer than would permit subway car operation. Moreover, the structure is old and its alignment is not ideal for subway operating speeds. A totally new structure will be required.
At Scarborough Town Centre, a new station would be built with a centre platform that would share vertical access by stairs, escalators and elevators. A restructured bus terminal would be underneath the subway station. Because the study only considered a through route to Sheppard East, it did not examine alternative designs at this location based on different levels and numbers of feeder bus services required if STC remains a terminal.
McCowan to Sheppard East
The line would descend to grade east of McCowan (as the RT does today to enter McCowan Yard), but would rise again onto an elevated structure west of Brimley. This is required because the route follows the Highland Creek ravine until it crosses Progress Avenue east of Markham Road.
The Centennial College Station is located on the west side of Progress immediately south of Highway 401 which the station would partly overhang. North of the 401, the line drops into a tunnel for the approach to Sheppard East Station.
Curves
Several of the curves along this alignment would have a speed restriction of 55km/h and would require wheel lubricators to prevent squeal. On an elevated structure, this is a significant issue, one which has arisen at other locations on the subway system, notably west of Islington Station.
The study is silent on the issue of noise control and effects on existing or potential future development. Considering that noise along corridors is a major issue elsewhere in the Metrolinx universe (Weston corridor, for example), this is an amazing omission for a route that would largely operate in the open air.
Land Use and Potential Ridership
Much has been made of the claim that the RT alignment for a subway serves more priority neighbourhoods and walking-distance population. This was, in fact, a benefit of the proposed LRT service, and the only difference for the subway scheme is the absence of stations at Midland and Ellesmere which eliminates these as locations for future development. However, the lands there are industrial and unlikely to change in the near future.
The study is silent on the development potential of the RT alignment and makes no comparison with what might happen on the McCowan alignment.
Similarly, there is no reference to ridership in the study and the number claimed in the Minister’s announcement appears to simply have been copied from the McCowan alignment’s projection. This number is suspect because it may contain demand that properly belongs on an improved GO service in the same corridor, but was assigned to the subway by the demand model.
Moreover, if the subway ends at STC, then the demand forecast to Sheppard cannot be used because it presumes a fast, transfer-free trip eliminating changes in vehicles at both STC and at Kennedy.
Construction
Construction of the subway on this alignment would obviously have significant effects on current operations:
- Construction of the proposed new Kennedy Station would conflict with existing operations for a period during which subway service would terminate at Warden.
- Replacement of existing RT structures would require this line to shut down. The time required has been claimed to be roughly equal to that needed for the proposed LRT upgrade (3 years), and this is not credible considering the substantially larger scope of work for the subway scheme. (Alternately, the shutdown period cited for the LRT proposal has been overstated.)
- Temporary bus terminals would be required to accommodate construction and shutdowns.
Moreover, the project would likely delay the opening of the Eglinton-Crosstown line because Kennedy Station would not be available for the 2020 target date.
The proposed staging of the project is optimized around concurrent activities where possible, and a minimum shutdown period. By contrast, plans for the LRT scheme were saddled with the need to fit into provincial cash flow constraints, and construction of the LRT was artificially extended in the plans as a result.
Cost
The total cost of the project is $2.4-billion in 2011$. This includes provisions for property, professional services and contingency to a total of 60% over the basic estimate of $1.4b. The study claims that some of this may be saved through alternative procurement strategies, but there is little on which to base such a claim given our lack of experience with such schemes for large-scale transit construction by Metrolinx and Infrastructure Ontario.
Approximately 40% is due to the section east of STC making the announced Kennedy-to-STC section roughly a $1.4b project. This conveniently fits within the $1.48b the province has on the table.
An unanswered question is the status of the $320m carved out of the $1.8b LRT project for the original scheme to rebuild Kennedy Station for the LRT projects. Some or all of that money should be available for the new Kennedy Station, but it has not been included in the proposed funding for the subway project.
The cost estimate does not include replacement bus service, new trains, yard and maintenance facilities, new substations or HST. Any comparison with other proposals must include these items.
Although the TTC does have surplus T1 subway cars, by the time the line opens (2023) these will be close to retirement age. Moreover, if all service runs through to Sheppard, the extra cars are not sufficient to operate the line. Presuming a route length of 11km (same as the LRT proposal), or 22km for the round trip from Kennedy to Sheppard, at 30km/h average speed, this would represent 44 minutes of running time. On the current headway of 2’20”, this would require 19 trains plus spares, or about 22 in total.
At $15m per trainset, that is $330m worth of trains. If half of the service turns back at Kennedy, this would be roughly halved, but there is no provision in the study’s design for a scheduled Kennedy short turn.
Where a yard might be added is unclear. Greenwood is full and the once-proposed LRT yard site between McCowan and Bellamy may not be suitable for full-length subway trains. (The Murray/RT alignment shares this problem with the McCowan subway proposal.) The TTC prices a new yard and maintenance facility at $500m. If only storage is needed, and the number of trains is lower than would be found at a typical yard, this cost will be reduced, but it won’t be trivial.
Summary
The Metrolinx feasibility study achieves its purpose as far as it goes. There is a potentially viable route for a subway from Kennedy to Sheppard via the RT corridor, although this requires many details to be worked out that could add to costs and/or reduce the line’s attractiveness. The omission of major components in the total cost must be rectified to allow valid comparison to other proposals.
Steve Munro 
How Metrolinx / TTC doesn’t see significant real estate development opportunity at Kennedy station is beyond me. At Scarborough Town Centre too.
Steve: If you look at some of the Metrolinx “Mobility Hub” studies, that is precisely what they are doing. The feasibility study was only looking at whether the subway could run over the SRT alignment.
LikeLike
Steve, can you help me understand the “Order-of-magnitude Cost Estimate” on Page 22? Would I be right to think the report is saying that the cost of a subway to Sheppard would be around $2.4 billion in 2011 dollars? Is the $1.4 billion “Total” on the line above that related to the province’s $1.4 billion funding commitment at all or is that just a coincidence?
Steve: It is a co-incidence. It is the value before sundry contingencies and allowances are added. If you look at the items that are beyond McCowan and total their value, they come to a bit under $600m of the $1.4b, or about 40% of the total. If you take 60% of the $2.4b, you get roughly $1.4b for the cost, including allowances, of the portion from Kennedy to STC.
LikeLike
You know what’s ironic, figure 7 shows an LRT line.
LikeLike
Immediate reactions to the PDF:
Why couldn’t the existing Kennedy Station be re-purposed as the terminus for the ECLRT? It’d be a shame to just abandon all the existing infrastructure when that station box is already oriented east-west.
Steve: I have talked about this already. The basic problem is that the existing station is at the same elevation as the new subway, and the ECLRT would have to make a level crossing with the new subway to reach the old station.
How difficult would it be to just create a bus loop for the 95 buses at Ellesmere Stn a la Lawrence East’s bus platforms, such that it can be included in the initial phase? Midland buses could also access this station perhaps as a branch or short turn, minimizing the loss of the Midland Station.
Steve: A station at Ellesmere would require an underground concourse to reach either side platforms (the southbound one at least) or a common centre platform. Also, the station would make the total structure’s width greater. No doubt it is possible, but how much will we spend on this? As for Midland, while I’m on the subject, it would be completely rebuilt because it is integral to the elevated structure and the platforms are too close together for the width of subway cars.
Scarborough Centre Station is in the perfect location and I wouldn’t change a thing. That was my biggest objection to the McCowan subway route which would’ve bypassed all the preexisting trip generation (the mall, civic centre, office towers, condos).
Glad to see McCowan Stn may still exist after all to further densify the Scarborough City Centre area, but where’s Bellamy Stn? No mention, not even for a future phase?
Centennial College Stn is too far from Markham Road and doesn’t even serve the campus well. Why build it so close to the 401? The station should span the area from Markham Road to Progress Ct adjacent Progress Avenue.
Disappointed there’s no Milner Stn nor a Sheppard Station situated in-between Milner and Sheppard such as to adequately serve both corridors. The SLRT plans also make this blunder.
Steve: I don’t think you will see a McCowan Station given that the structure crosses McCowan on a steep grade which is sustained to beyond the existing McCowan Yard. Similarly, Bellamy is crossed on a grade that could not have a station. This is an example of the superiority of LRT which can handle steeper grades and which does not require full-length stations (and associated flat sections of the line).
Similarly your comments about other stations proposed or omitted do not take into account the gradients of the area.
Not mentioned in the PDF, but if the line does extend into Malvern, the ideal location for a station should be Neilson and Sewells Road (not Tapscott and Washburn, where the abandoned rail corridor leads). This is the location of 12 apartment buildings, the community centre, a library and better access to the mall. From there continue underground until reaching the Seaton rail corridor and proceeding to a final stop at Finch and Morningside where a transit hub for the 39, 53, 116 and 131 buses can converge.
LikeLike
Steve said: “It is a co-incidence.”
It is a very remarkable co-incidence, I might add. The amount offered by the province, inherited from a project that uses a different technology: $1,400,000,000. The “order of magnitude” cost estimate for the new project: $1,399,802,950. The difference between the two numbers: 0.014%.
LikeLike
I am surprised that they mentioned a possible extension to Malvern.
The future section from STC to Sheppard probably makes sense even though the ridership counts would be rather low. But it would serve Centennial, and improve the network connectivity.
Continuing north of Sheppard with a subway technology does not make any sense, given that the ridership counts will be extremely low for a subway, and there isn’t much potential for the ridership growth due to wetlands / ravines bordering Malvern from the north and east. Either LRT along Neilson and Sheppard, or simply the existing buses, should be sufficient.
Steve: At this point, they are simply making up arguments as they go along. The job was to examine a subway option, and that’s what they did. This is a mirror image of the way that the Miller administration was attacked for looking at LRT no matter what. We want subways, even if we have to pay a fortune to get them.
LikeLike
I notice they cross the subway tunnel under the GO line at Kennedy station, avoiding the need for the curve near Ellesmere to handle the crossing. That’s actually pretty clever.
Of course they studiously avoid mentioning that the LRT conversion plan gives almost exactly the same for way less money, and significantly reduces the future cost of a Malvern extension north of Sheppard (and does not impinge on road traffic whatsoever!).
LikeLike
The Fed’s, Province & City have done a great job screwing over the people of Scarborough royally. This plan look like the start of a something decent finally & should have happened at-least 10 years ago at the latest.
Although even now too many questions remained unanswered as the plan lacks the proper # of stops & there is no discussion of how to integrate with the rest of Scarborough and 905 in the future.
If the Fed & City don’t step up with funding, this is going to become even more shameful.
Steve: Ah, but they are giving Scarborough a “first class” screwing over. Nothing second rate for our friends in the east.
LikeLike
Hopefully this report will open Council’s eyes that this ‘plan’ will not deliver any additional transit for Scarborough, if further funding is not forthcoming – as appears to be the case. The only thing it saves is the transfer at Kennedy, which would be much improved under the LRT scheme anyway.
If the shutdown period for the SRT is comparable under both the subway and the LRT options, and the subway option requires a further closure on the BD subway east of Warden, one has to be a complete bozo to approve this sham, just because some citizens have been bamboozled into thinking that fully grade-separated LRT = streetcars.
LikeLike
Hey Steve,
The somewhat snarky question I have is will the champions of “evidence-based” transit planning come out against the proposed extension of subway technology beyond STC to the populous epicentres of Centennial College and Progress/Sheppard? I personally think linking up to Sheppard was a great component of the lrt plan, not so much for the subway, and certainly not for a cool Billion.
Thanks.
Steve: The advocates of “evidence-based” planning, notably the Minister, seem to pick and choose the evidence to suit their goals while implying that any other opinion flies in the face of “evidence”.
LikeLike
You know, the worst thing about all this is I can’t help but shake the feeling that this is all a ploy to go back to Rob Ford’s buried Eglinton napkin plan. As bad as it was, it makes more sense than trying to shoehorn an extension of the BD line into the RT corridor.
And it’s nice to see that I was correct with my suspicions about the Kennedy bus terminal.
LikeLike
While we’re at it, what’s with Figure 6? Since when are conventional tracks laid on ties on ballast referred to as a “guideway”? Maybe it’s foreshadowing the next chapter in this insane gong show: Monorail!
(Apologies if I’m just not familiar with the terminology. When I hear “guideway” I think monorail, or, to a lesser extent because it’s mostly fictitious, PRT.)
LikeLike
I see in today’s Star that Metrolinx is now officially backing Glen Murray’s proposal to build a BD-extension along the RT ROW.
Quite something that this is being played out – we in Scarborough finally get the subways we deserve, are finally getting real transit to replace the toy trains we’ve been forced to ride. Woo hoo! How come does this look and feel like a “bait and switch” tactic? If this goes ahead as planned, we will see no net-new kilometres of transit lines and the SRT will still be shutdown for 4 or more years. And yet the money could have built a line 3 kilometres longer and which would have contributed to building a network.
There are interesting parallels with cycling infrastructure – the bike route on Sherbourne was upgraded from painted bike lanes to cycle tracks at great expense ($2.5 million ) but in the end added nothing in actual kilometres to the bike route network.
Phil
Steve: Please see my Torontoist piece for further info about the shortcomings in the Murray/Metrolinx proposal.
LikeLike
The one thing his study does show is that it is possible to build a rapid transit line next to GO tracks. Now if they could only do this along the Weston Sub and turn the Airport line into the western half of the DRL. It would need a different downtown alignment and terminal.
Steve: What the study shows is that it may fit. Whether anyone has looked at the safety issues and regulations is another matter. Also unknown is whether the freight spurs can be abandoned on the east side of the corridor. I suspect that if this were still a CN corridor, the safety regs would get a lot more attention.
LikeLike
I believe that this subway plan offers the best return on investment. The “Capacity to Dollar” ratio is the highest of all of the previous plans. In other words, it gives us the biggest bang for our buck.
The marginal increase in operational costs of Subway over LRT is offset by the expected increase in ridership. Additional development potential should lead to an increase in job opportunities, and corporate property tax revenue.
All of the modifications to the old SRT route are reasonable, affordable and improves the original design. The replacement of the elevated track is a bonus since it will last longer and will be better designed.
The new Kennedy station is superior to the original. It offers more efficient use of space and improves bus access. By blowing up the old station, and giving Metrolinx a blank canvas, they can design an optimal transfer to the Eglinton Cross-town. There will be one less LRT platform to fit into the design. An additional bonus is that by moving the Kennedy station west, it will free up land so that new development can be built over the original site.
The subway should continue to Sheppard to integrate with the Sheppard LRT.
Steve: The claimed development and increased ridership only occur if the line goes all the way to Sheppard, and that will cost another $1-billion, not to mention something on the order of $400-500m in costs that were left out of the estimate for the line (see table and notes on p age 22 of the study). You can get a great business proposition if you misstate both the costs and the benefits of a proposal, something Queen’s Park is quite good at.
LikeLike
Steve, in your Torontoist article you mention that the specifically excluded costs would add a fair bit more to the overall cost than his $1.48bn. But about those costs?
Interim bus service & infrastructure would be borne by the city, according to Prichard’s letter, since this would be a city led initiative rather than a Metrolinx one.
Steve: Dare I quote Rob Ford? There is only one taxpayer. The city bears some costs in other schemes as well, and if we are going to compare the three principal schemes (LRT to Sheppard, subway via McCowan to Sheppard, subway via SRT to STC), then it must be on an “all in” basis no matter who foots the bill. Even if the feds throw money at the project, that’s still tax revenue that is not available for other projects in the city.
Does the TTC need more rolling stock to run this extension? Didn’t they order more TR’s than necessary and will have a surplus of rolling stock in the from of TR’s and T1’s?
Steve: If they only run half the service to STC, then they don’t need more cars. However, this would require provision for a turnback at Kennedy that is not in the plans. If the line goes all the way to Sheppard, then definitely they need more cars, even with a short turn, and more storage space.
And for maintenance and storage, is one necessary or does Greenwood need more capacity?
Steve: Greenwood is full. The TTC is reactivating Vincent Yard (at Keele) and adding storage capacity in other locations just to handle the “extra” T1s displaced from Yonge.
Lastly how much would traction power substations cost for a line this length? I note their cost estimate for Murray’s half-subway comes out at just under $1.40bn while the project budge is $1.48bn. Could they be built for at or less than $80m?
Thanks
Steve: The TTC’s estimate for the McCowan alignment did not break out substations specifically. The cost for additional vehicles and storage comes to $387m in 2010$.
LikeLike
In section 5.2.1 it says:
Are they proposing to build a concrete base for the surface section and bolt the tracks to it like the current SRT? I would hate to think of the down time when the have to fix the slab.
Steve: By contrast, the TTC is on the verge of rebuilding the Yonge line from Muir Portal to Berwick Portal and will shut down the line for a few weeks next year. Slab or no slab, there are times when you have to tear the whole thing up, but, yes, a new slab needs time to cure and it’s not an overnight job.
LikeLike
What an interesting letter from Metrolinx to Ms. Stintz.
Back when this first came up, Metrolinx told Council that they will be on the hook for $85 million in sunk costs as well as whatever Bombardier wants for cancellation of a vehicle order, if the City decides to switch from LRT and that there is only $1.4 billion available for any SRT replacement project. Council then passed a complicated subway resolution including a clause that will return us to the approved LRT plan if unlikely demands were not met–Council was immediately informed that their demands would not be met. Council’s position at present is therefore a subway on the McCowan alignment, reverting to the approved LRT in October.
However, the Minister of Transportation made a unilateral decision that Metrolinx, the TTC and the City will be building a subway in the current SRT alignment, and Metrolinx’s board has adopted this new plan as given.
As this plan is contrary to Council’s current direction, what is Metrolinx’s justification for continuing to require that the City reimburse sunk costs, cancellation costs, etc.? Seems like everyone involved in this is determined to have their cake and eat it too.
Also the statement that “The Province is interested in building a role for Infrastructure Ontario to support the City’s and TTC’s efforts to deliver the project to its schedule and budget” fills me with unspeakable dread.
Steve: Yes, Queen’s Park seems to want it both ways. It’s a city project when they want to avoid cost overruns and claw back sunk costs that they would not be writing off if they stuck with the LRT plan. But when they want to pander to voters, it’s a provincial project.
I share your dread of IO who have yet to prove themselves competent to handle projects of this size and technical complexity.
LikeLike
I thought the creation of Metrolinx was suppose to take the politics out of transit planning. Guess you won’t be seeing that anytime soon…..
LikeLike
“Steve: Please see my Torontoist piece for …”
The link is actually to a Star article.
Steve: Fixed. Thanks.
LikeLike
Okay, another thing about the cost estimate. It seems to include $145m for the “New Kennedy Station (Underground, for LRT)” but I thought the province shifted the costs of the Kennedy LRT platform to the Eglinton Crosstown project. Isn’t that why we’re talking $1.4b instead of $1.8b? What’s going on here? Is the province counting this cost twice?
Steve: Probably. This is just another example of the poor work overall on Murray’s announcement.
LikeLike
*URGENT ACTION REQUIRED*
All we have to do to get the Eglinton-Crosstown to be ‘owned’ by the TTC is to convince them to use the 110m, already back-filled-in portion of the ’95-era Eglinton West subway tunnel. That way, according to the Prichard letter [page 3, para 2] it’s not a net-new property but an “extension of an existing TTC asset, …. , must be owned and operated by the TTC.” (page 3, paragraph 2)
I(L)Loopholes.
LikeLike
Steve, thank you for the link to the study. I have already read parts of it. They are talking about retaining the existing bus terminal at STC assuming the STC station is built there instead of at the location of the McCowan station.
I don’t understand what so beneficial about it as it is a horrible transfer between the existing SRT and the buses.
In that report, they are also talking about improving the transfer between the new Kennedy subway station and the GO station, however, don’t they realise that GO trains almost never stop at any stations in Toronto except Union station (i.e. GO trains are only there to serve the suburbs even though Torontonians help pay for GO Transit BIG TIME)? So, I think that any improved transfer or fare integration or scheduling integration between GO and TTC will be a waste of time and money.
Steve: The link at Kennedy will make more sense once the line is double-tracked and has all-day service. Yes, GO tends to ignore “in town” traffic, and sees that link as a destination for inbound passengers, not as a source.
LikeLike
One of the biggest problems of council’s Eglinton/Danforth/McCowan proposed subway alignment is integration with a future ECLRT extension east of Kennedy. If the subway ran along Eglinton before it turned northeast on Danforth, then would the ECLRT east extension run parallel to the subway for this distance? If not, then would passengers on Eglinton going from Kennedy to the Eglinton GO station have to get off the ECLRT at Kennedy, switch to the new subway, go 1 stop to Danforth, and switch to the Eglinton East LRT? That’s 2 transfers!
This is why I am in favour of the new subway following the SRT alignment.
The next goal for Rob Ford and the Subway Champions is to “close the loop”. Cancel the Sheppard LRT and extend the Sheppard subway to STC instead, forming a continuous Bloor/Danforth/Sheppard superline. No transfers will mean fast, fluid movement between Yonge/Sheppard, the STC, and downtown, and it will encourage huge growth along the Sheppard corridor.
Also some of the underused Danforth stations should be closed like Chester and Donlands, so commuters from the east can get downtown faster on the BD line. Stations should be no less than 1km apart. Riders are willing to walk 500m.
Steve: You are not going to get an interlined Sheppard and Scarborough subway unless someone has a huge pot of money to pay for it. Meanwhile, closing two stations on the Danforth line will save you, maybe, 90 seconds on your journey.
I am sick of puffed up Scarberians telling we poor downtrodden downtowners how far we have to walk to a subway station. If you want a 1km spacing, many more stations need to be dropped. It’s too bad your arterials are so far apart along with your stations. Such is life in the car-oriented suburbs. You should really be on GO Transit anyhow.
LikeLike
Every Stouffville train but one inbound stops at Kennedy and all outbound trains stop there, even if the service is peak-hours only. And it’s really only the Lakeshore East and West express trains that don’t stop in Toronto, hardly “almost never”. There is half-hourly service from the morning through to late evening on the Lakeshore lines, which other than Union, serve eight stations across the south end of the city, and midday service on the Kitchener line will return in the near future. Can the service be even better to be useful to people travelling within the city? Absolutely, with fare integration and all-day service on more lines, but it will improve over time. To keep saying that “GO trains almost never stop at the stations in Toronto” and that better integration is “a big waste of time and money” is an exaggeration. The improvement is painfully slow, but consider that it is heading in the right direction.
LikeLike
Steve: You should really be on GO Transit anyhow.
Sadly, that comment shows that you consider Scarberians to be second class citizens (despite your denials in previous posts) who are unworthy of being served by subways. It is this downtown centric view that explains why Toronto’s public transit has failed. We need to stop focusing on Front/Bay as the center of the transit universe. We need to encourage and grow alternate nodes like STC, Sherway, Pickering Town Centre, and Markham centre. We need a subway backbone (like the London Circle Line) complemented with LRT and BRT to feed into the backbone. And we need Metrolinx to take over TTC and GO so we have truly regional planning.
Steve: Your tone about Donlands and Chester Stations in your previous comment shows that you have only your own interest at heart, and possibly that of the Scarberians you purport to represent. My response to you was in the vein you deserved.
Many parts of Scarborough could benefit from new/improved service on existing rail corridors, and would do so at considerably less cost than one subway extension. Of course everyone isn’t going to Union Station, but many are travelling to that vicinity and could do so more quickly and conveniently if only (a) GO had better service and (b) GO’s fares did not so badly penalize people for travelling within the 416. That’s the fight you should be making. After all it’s you who wants to close existing stations so that you will have a faster trip into downtown.
A subway circle line will not achieve the benefits you claim (even if it were technically possible, which it isn’t) because the circle is too small. Years ago, the “circle” would have been the Yonge line to Sheppard, then west to the Spadina line at Downsview, then south back into the city. As subway service pushed further north, the loop expanded to Finch, and then Steeles before the idea finally collapsed under the weight of a long, lightly used east-west segment and the strong sense that the lines would continue to extend further north.
LikeLike
Realistically, how long will commuters have to take a shuttle bus if this plan goes through? Assuming the phases of this project are broken down into kennedy station and rt corridor, people will have to bus from STC to Warden when kennedy station is under construction, then STC to Kennedy (depending on which phase gets done first). Since this project is estimated to be completed by 2023 (to me, this seems like a best case scenario), and I’ve heard that the RT can last until 2015, we are potentially looking at a decade or more of shuttle buses. What are the economic costs associated with the construction?
LikeLike
I’m with PeterB on this one, SteveM. Metrolinx talks of Mobility Hubs and it talks to municipal planners. But unless you actively engage the private development community from the very start of the process, most of the potential value capture is lost and we end up with expensive standalone stations that repel development. It’s not just our subway stations, but we end up with potentially valuable GO stations surrounded by asphalt. Why go out of our way to make real return on public investment difficult. We’re talking Rail + Property 101, a concept that is feared in this town out of ignorance and ideology. Part of the problem is that we messed up when creating Build Toronto, leaving it no access to properties unless they are declared surplus.
Steve: The reason that there is no development at Kennedy is that Scarborough Council, in its infinite wisdom, wanted STC to be the hub of development, and they deliberately throttled Kennedy and Eglinton as a major node to ensure it would not compete. Much of the development near STC is car-oriented and the vast majority of workers there arrive by auto, not by transit. That’s not a TTC problem, that’s a municipal planning problem compounded by the development industry building what it thinks will sell.
As for GO stations, there are two problems. The first is that GO is only now looking at them as development sites after years of crowing about how much parking they would provide because that’s what their customers wanted. Given the less than stellar coverage and service levels on local transit over the decades GO has existed, that is not surprising. You can’t have a “transit” node if there is little transit actually serving it except for peak period, peak direction commutes. The second is that the rail corridors are not necessarily sitting in locations the municipalities want to develop. Some of the old towns are on the rail lines because they were built around them, but newer developments focus on the highways and arterial roads.
As for Build Toronto, how would you propose that it access land? Just take it for sale and/or development without Council’s approval? There are many parks that would look great converted to condos, and I am quite sure that if the Ford Brothers had anything to say about it, that’s exactly what would happen. Much public land is not owned by the City of Toronto, but by the provincial and federal governments, not to mention various agencies that are in part or whole independent from the City. Build Toronto has no jurisdiction over their lands.
We are not going to turn around the transit financing problem simply by treating the development industry like the Tooth Fairy and expecting that revenue will flow happily and plentifully from them to support transit. The huge irony of various subway proposals is that their stations are few and far apart thereby minimizing the locations available for any kind of development. Should we start planning subways (or LRT) based on the location of developable land in the public realm, or based on where there is at least some established demand?
Cart:horse
LikeLike
A Bloor/Danforth/Sheppard seamless circle line does work in London. It would excite and inspire voters and may be picked up by a politician like Rob Ford. To those that say it is unlikely, ANYTHING IS POSSIBLE in Toronto transit considering the events of the past few months.
Steve: And the only problem is that it is (a) not feasible because capacity on the University line is consumed for service to York U and beyond and (b) because the circle is too far away from many areas that badly need better transit service.
LikeLike
I don’t think that any existing stations should be closed but keeping future stations far will mean people are healthier as they will have to walk more (less obesity and less related health problems and less related healthcare expenditures). Also GO Transit does NOT really serve Torontonians (Scarberians included), so that’s not really a choice for us unless GO trains start stopping at all Toronto stops all the time.
Steve: I have already responded on this point. By the way, you did explicitly talk about closing existing stations. As for the role of GO, as I said before, it’s not today’s GO I am talking about, but what GO could be in the same timeframe that you might get one subway line.
The business about healthy people should be remembered the next time you want to coax some motorist out of their car onto transit. Just tell them that the long walk in place of their warm/air-conditioned car is just what the doctor ordered. You are making up arguments to prop up a threadbare case.
LikeLike
The unfortunate part is that the people of Scarborough will not have a rapid transportation system that connects people from Steeles, Morningside, Kingston Road, and Victoria Park boundaries.
People are forgetting that the issue isn’t where there is current rapid transit, the issue is where there isn’t. The city needs to work with community groups, local businesses, developers, and really examine what plan needs to be in place the next 15-20 years. Just building a subway doesn’t fix this.
I do not understand what the transit plan is for Scarborough. There needs to be a comprehensive plan and break it into phases so when there is funding they can expand.
LikeLike
It seems a new subway plans comes as often as the phasing of the moon. Here today, there tomorrow. Next week maybe we’ll build rocket ships to STC and all points east.
What’s most troubling is the lack of any media taking the officials to task. They are all complacent enough to regurgitate the garbage coming out of whomever happens to be drawing lines on a map. Has Toronto media really become this sterile and afraid?
This isn’t CNN, feel free to prod and ask some tough questions.
Even Matt Galloway in today’s CBC interview with Karen Stintz didn’t ask anything of her. And he tends to be the most provocative of them all!!!
In part I believe that’s what makes your commentary refreshing, it has a clear rationale to it and it comes at things from a unique skepticism. Given your presence and knowledge in the Toronto transit scene why the heck don’t some of the major outlets let you run the debate?
As always thanks for have a spine in all this.
Cheers,
Brandon Leal
Steve: You will find Royson James’ column in the Star about “transit bumblers” refreshing.
LikeLike
Kevin’s comment:
I agree 100%. If Glen Murray wants to make a real difference for little money, he can use the clout of the provincial government to override the bureaucratic barriers and improve the links between GO Transit and the TTC.
For example, the horrid transfer between the Leslie Subway Station and GO Oriole. This should be a quick and easy transfer to board the GO train. Instead, GO passengers get to wave at the TTC station that they GO RIGHT BY and cruise another 400 metres down the railway line. Then they get to trudge back those 400 metres with zero wayfaring telling them how to get there.
Same in the subway station: Zero signs telling passengers how to hike 400 metres to the GO train that just went right by.
Long Branch is another example of a horrible transfer. What should be simply getting out of the train and walking across the platform into a waiting streetcar is instead a huge trek. With the streetcar loop hidden behind a building, no wayfaring directing someone on how to get there, a curb blocking disabled access, and a TTC scheduling attitude that sees no need to actually have a streetcar available when the GO train arrives.
Although not sexy, fixing these problems delivers tremendous benefits at low cost. Right now, a huge number of people transfer from the Sheppard subway to the over-packed Yonge line. Frequent GO service between Union Station and Leslie Subway Station has the potential to divert a lot of those passengers onto the GO train and provide substantial relief to the Yonge line.
There are many more cheap, easy fixes to allow GO Transit to substantially improve its service for passengers in Toronto. Too bad they are not as sexy as blowing away $1.4 billion (plus the extra infra needed to make it work) for a two-station Scarborough subway extension.
LikeLike
Hi Steve — thanks for all these details. While I’m wary of delving too much into this particular plan/alignment as there’s no more reason to expect it to become reality than any of the other on-again, off-again Scarborough projects, I do have two questions that come to mind.
Remember back when LRT/ICTS were first proposed on the SRT route? I recall that the local bungalow-streets both west and east of the CN/Hydro route (north of Egl.) were adamant about not wanting more rail transit unless major noise abatement facilities were installed… yet I’m not hearing any talk of them or noise concerns from a high-capacity at-grade route plopped behind their homes. Have they just given up after decades of frequent ICTS or have they believed the mayor’s notion that subways only go underground and think it will be buried behind their homes too? Dunno, but I have to think at some point the noise factor is going to be raised as an impediment to the Minister’s solo plan.
Steve: Yes, they complained. The TTC regularly grinds the rail between Kennedy and Lawrence East Stations to minimize the noise from corrugation-induced wheel roar.
Second, there’s more work going into the GO line and more connection to B-D at Kennedy as far as I can tell… yet the “new Kennedy” would be considerably further away from the GO line & stop? Strange. Makes perfect sense for this subway alignment, but feels like it’s missed the bigger picture on connectivity. I also recall that back in the early 1980s Kennedy was positioned where it is now because of operational fears of electromagnetic interference from the hydro lines onto the crossover switches & signals (so the station box is further east to allow the track switches to be east and not underneath the hydro lines). Is old-school TTC Ops clear of that concern now and more willing to have the switches closer to the power lines? Or is it just a lesser concern when Kennedy is no longer the B-D terminus?
Steve: I don’t know, but will leave this for others to answer.
All in all, silly questions based on a questionable proposal that only has heft from a rather flippant MPP. My MPP, and the same MPP who attended a Corktown Resident’s Assoc. meeting this spring and told everyone there, out of the blue, that the Waterfront East line was back on the table. He likes to make up stuff as he goes, so I’ve kind of learned to just tune him out.
LikeLike
If Rob Ford is a ‘subway champion’, then I am Mother Theresa. If the previous comment was an irony, then I apologize for lacking a sense of humour. If in fact it wasn’t an irony, then it just shows that the saying “A lie told often enough becomes the truth” is perfectly applicable in this debate.
A subway to STC only replaces an existing service, so there is no overall expansion. There would still be a lengthy closure of the SRT, so there is no advantage over the LRT plan during construction either. Proposing to cancel the Sheppard East LRT in favour of a subway extension on Sheppard is basically saying that everybody who lives on Sheppard east of Kennedy can go to hell. Becuase those folks will not get any improved transit. Ever.
Last time I looked, eastern Scarborough is a large area, so why shouldn’t those folks get ‘first-class’ transit service, too? Maybe subway-champion Rob Ford should go to Malvern or Morningside and explain to those folks why he wants to cancel their LRT lines and give them nothing in return.
In any event, why various pols are busy drawing subway lines that would not open for at least ten more years, the current SRT is crumbling. The folks at McCowan carhouse are patching up the cars as best as they can, but almost daily they cannot make scheduled service. There are supposed to put out six trains on the line during rush hours, but this is becoming an increasingly difficult goal. I would be astounded if the equipment will last until 2015 in its current state, let alone 2018 or whenever construction of the subway is supposed to begin.
LikeLike
Karen Stintz has stated on Metro morning today that Murray’s subway plan basically means running heavy-rail subway train on a light rail line. Hmm….does that mean that she is contemplating a return to the previously approved MOU? Let’s hope so.
LikeLike
Theoretically, the new station could be built at a lower elevation than the current Kennedy Station. This would means the tie in to the Danforth subway and to the SRT corridor would have to be farther away – which means more cost and more disruption. There may be some overall savings in cost, but there is no desire to spend more on the Subway portion just to save some costs for the ECLRT portion. The re-used station would also result in a pretty bad transfer between Eglinton LRT and the subway – but there would not be as many people making that transfer as the current SRL to Kennedy transfer.
Steve: I don’t think dropping new Kennedy Station down one level is in the cards. It would require longer connection structures at both ends of the new station as you note, all for the purpose of “reusing” a station whose design is inappropriate for low-floor LRVs and which would make a difficult connection between the two lines. You seem to have talked yourself out of this proposal.
LikeLike
Could the old Kennedy station be repurposed for train storage?
Steve: Possibly, depending on how easily curves to the old station could be integrated with the crossover for the new one.
LikeLike
Your comment here Steve, how can GO be double tracked, if this space is now used for Murray’s Subway? Is this space not been evaporated and taken up with the Murray Move … which will later be referred to as one big Liberal Boo Boo? It seems to me that the Stouffville line is now limited to 1 track 4ever with the Murray Subway.
Steve: Please read the feasibility study. It includes double-tracking GO. There will be problems further north where there is a pinch point, but that’s nothing that an expropriation cannot solve. Some land taking is foreseen south of Ellesmere also, but the big question is whether the freight sidings can be abandoned as Murray’s scheme requires.
LikeLike
Why are we endlessly debating this subject? Nothing we say or suggest is going to make any difference.
LikeLike