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 
Re: lack of storage space for trains on Bloor-Danforth subway line
How feasible would it be to extend the Kipling tail tracks to accomodate at least one 6-car train? I took a quick look on Google Maps Satellite and it looks promising. Yes I realize that it would infringe on a commuter parking lot, but you can’t make an omelet without breaking eggs.
Steve: A third track is to be added at Kipling Station to hold a few trains using the spare portal north of the station.
LikeLike
Steve: “You can extend your vacation. I don’t think the final decision will be made for some time yet.”
A final decision has been made. Subway is coming deep into the north eastern reaches of Scarborough (McCowan and Sheppard).
LikeLike
Congrats on 200 comments. You know you have a contentious issue when the post about it has more comments than any other on this site.
Speaking of comments is there any way to limit the amount of comments that show up on mobile devices much like they are limited on the desktop version? Right now all 199 comments show up when I go to view them and well.. Quite frankly it’s crashing safari.
Steve: The WPtouch plugin that handles ipods, among other things, does not have a control to limit the number of comments displayed with a post the way that the standard Word Press display does.
LikeLike
In this city, a “final decision” is not made until the tunnels are complete and vehicles are on trailers on the 401. Which is fortunate, because it means there are still several potential opportunities to head off this travesty.
LikeLike
Steve, you may have already noticed this, and it’s not really new information as such, but check out the outright Ford lie near the bottom of this Sun article:
As everybody who has been paying attention knows, the trip in question really would involve a flat transfer at Don Mills (not quite “cross-platform” as such, as I understand it, but pretty close), then probably a single flight of stairs to get on the Scarborough LRT. I assume he’s talking about going to STC.
And then there are those people East of STC for whom the subway version is
Steve: Doug Ford is, as usual, hopelessly misinformed as several people in the comment thread on that article have noted. Yes, it is a shame that Don Peat repeated that quote without challenging its content.
LikeLike
There’s more Scarborough east of McCowan than west of McCowan. You could call it “central Scarborough” but it’s nothing like deep NE Scarborough. There’s basically the equivalent of Etobicoke to the east of McCowan.
Where are the Etobicoke subways? Oh, the Fords probably don’t want subway construction obstructing their driving (and they take Etobicoke for granted).
Mind you, the proposed “Etobicoke” subway, an extension to Sherway, is one of the less useful extensions I can think of. And the advocates that think that it would be easy to extend the subway west via the railway right-of-way haven’t visited the area. Not to mention that, except for Sherway and the local minor condominium development, it’s all low-density industrial and big-box stores. Subway advocates mention a stop on East Mall … a road that, south of Dundas, has no TTC service whatsoever except for a southern segment that has service by every other Shorncliffe 123 bus.
LikeLike
Strategically speaking, they certainly should work on expanding the role of GO within 416. I guess the problem is that they do not have much spare capacity in the peak direction. At present, any substantial shift of the TTC riders onto GO would totally swarm the latter system. In order to make such a shift tenable, the capacity of GO needs to be expanded dramatically, and that includes resolving the Union bottleneck.
I hope that the LRT network is built, including the Sheppard East and the Eglinton – Kingston – Morningside lines in Scarborough. However, BRT may be the right solution for the STC – UofT Scarborough – Durham corridor, in order to integrate it with the Durham’s Hwy 2 service. Obviously, Durham is not ready for LRT.
If the Durham Pulse buses remain too infrequent for the TTC service standards, then TTC can run supplementary buses, only up to the 416 border, that fill the gaps in Pulse service.
Steve: What is extremely frustrating in some transit debates is the selective use of trips and origin-destination patterns to “justify” a design. For example, Murray claims that the majority of students at UTSC and Centennial come from Durham. This may be true, but he does not discuss where else they might like to travel, and what other demand patterns might exist in northeastern Scarborough.
It is worth noting that the BRT will not serve the Centennial Progress campus where the LRT would have a station. Riders heading for that campus would have to double back from STC.
There is also the small question of whether there would be full fare integration so that users of TTC routes would be able to ride the BRT at no extra cost within the 416.
LikeLike
I would not worry about this direction. The airport area is a relatively large employment hub, but it is still only 10-15% of Toronto’s downtown. Downtown gets by with 2 subway lines (Y and US) with a combined capacity of about 70,000 per hour, and GO service with a combined capacity of maybe 25,000 per hour. Employees of the airport hub come from all directions, not just from Eglinton, so it is unlikely that this particular stream will ever give Eglinton more than 5,000 per hour. Meanwhile, Eglinton LRT with 3-car trains can support about 10,000 per hour on 3-min headways.
Some concerns may be related to the downtown-bound traffic on Eglinton (that is, if too many riders switch from Bloor subway to Eglinton LRT), rather than Pearson-bound traffic.
LikeLike
That does not surprise me. In order to use SRT, people living in the Lawrence and McCowan area would have to board the 54 Lawrence bus, and then try to squeeze onto the SRT at Lawrence East station, where SRT is quite full during the AM peak.
It is probably easier for them to take the McCowan bus to Warden station, and transfer directly to the subway. The bus may be slower than SRT, but the riders taking that route will not be stacked trying to board full SRT trains. Those who live between McCowan and Brimley might also take the Brimley bus, or the 131 express, and get to the Kennedy station.
If the subway station is built at Lawrence and McCowan, then the locals will certainly use it, as well as the hospital patients/visitors, and riders transferring from the Lawrence bus. That station will probably end up somewhere in the middle of the TTC’s ridership list.
LikeLike
Current travel patterns will surely differ from future patterns if new (or faster) links are built. If, for example, UTSC were served by a subway (or LRT) from ‘downtown” then I bet more “downtowners” would go there. Considering the current transit links to UTSC it would probably be quite far down the list of desirable colleges for a downtowner.
LikeLike
Today Amsterdam:
Some of the new trams in Amsterdam are Siemens Combino and some are two truck 3 section short trams with high sections over the trucks and a low floor centre section. Last time I was in the Netherlands all trams had all door loading and POP fare system. Now both Rotterdam and Amsterdam have 2 person crews, motorman and conductor. Rotterdam has all door loading with a wandering conductor while Amsterdam has 2 loading doors and 3 exit doors; The conductor has a little booth by the fourth door. It reminds me of a Big Witt on Yonge Street. The Combino trams have shorter end sections than Rotterdam’s but more doors in the middle, single entrance, two double exit, double entrance and single exit.
The train service from Rotterdam to Amsterdam is very good but not cheap. Six trains between 8:00 and 9:00 a.m. Saturday but the round trips was 28.95 Euros for a 65 minute trip. They run trains on a better headway than most cities runs subways. Also every loop in Rotterdam and Amsterdam has room for at least 6 trams with a passing track and usually a run around track. On a 7.5 minute headway there are almost always 2 cars in the outer loop. This can make up for a lot of problems. Amsterdam has a mainly radial route system with 2 or 3 routes running along circular patterns to provide a circular grid system. Routes tend to overlap and run along many other routes for parts of their line. If you wait a some stops you have a choice of 3 routes to get to “Amsterdam Centraal.” Take which ever one comes first.
Tomorrow I will take theNET to Den Hague.
LikeLike
I am very confused about Councillor Parker’s actions at this meeting. He’d already voted against the main motion, but as soon as he learned that the motion was on the verge of defeat, he voluntarily left the room to let the final councillor make the final decision, yea or nay.
Why did he do this? How committed was he to his opposition? Or was he showing loyalty to Stintz and saving her from an embarrassing defeat?
What do you think his motivations were?
Steve: He didn’t want to be responsible for triggering the defeat of the subway proposal. Frankly, I think Stintz was out of order for calling for a second vote, and should have at least had to formally re-open the question. But this has nothing to do with proper procedure. She has been treating the Commissioners, especially the citizen members, like a rubber stamp ever since they arrived. And to think how people complained about Giambrone.
LikeLike
The extension to Sherway is indeed one of the worst options for the TTC since it parallels the Milton GO line and ignores all of the land to be developed around Dundas St. as well as the growing development along the 427 corridor.
The old Honeydale Mall lands, the car dealerships north and south of Dundas,and the parking lots surrounding Cloverdale Mall are easily the size of Scarborough Town Centre and have greater development potential especially for businesses that want to be located closer to highways and the airport.
My crazy alignment for an Etobicoke “Subway” would follow the rail line to East Mall, cross over Dundas St. and loft itself into the middle of the 427 🙂 Then, on to Pearson Airport!
Such a line would have far more growth potential and serve far more people than Doug Holyday’s Sherway extension. But the Sherway extension has Holyday (and presumably ‘Ford Nation’) as advocates, while no downtown or suburban councillor (aside from Josh Matlow) wants to speak up for the Toronto RL yet.
Cheers, Moaz
LikeLike
Actually, one of the existing GO routes (51) serves STC, Centennial Progress campus, and UTSC before going to Pickering. If the Durham Pulse BRT can follow a similar route and serve both the Progress campus and UTSC, then the problem will be solved. Riders from Durham will have direct access to the Progress campus, and the latter will be connected to STC as well.
If the Pulse BRT cannot be routed via Progress campus (for example, due to the lack of space for separate bus lanes), then another option is to build an STC – Progress campus – Malvern line (LRT or BRT).
Steve: I am sure there is a way to handle this, but the important point here is that Minister Murray seems not to know that the Pulse BRT proposal doesn’t go to Centennial/Progress.
LikeLike
Support for subway expansion to Scarborough is very high not just in Scarbrough but Markham as well. Thank you Prime Minister Harper, Federal Finance Minister Jim Flaherty, and Toronto Mayor Rob Ford. Hopefully subway will come to Richmond Hill soon (Metrolinx says within 15 years). I hope the subway can soon come to Markham as well where it would connect with our world class BRT system (VIVA). Near McCowan and Highway 7 – we have a GO station, VIVA, shopping centre, apartment buildings, community centre, thousands of houses, etc and so Metrolinx can create a mobility hub by bringing a subway there. Doing so will also make York Region pitch in with the cost of subway expansion, maintenance, and operation. I am sure that 2 way all day GO Train services on all lines, new TTC signal system, new TTC trains with much higher capacities, new TTC streetcars with much higher capacities, etc can more than negate the need for any Downtown Relief Lines for the next 50 years.
Steve: Your argument stands up as a support for growth in York Region right up to the point it becomes clear you are trying to avoid spending on the Relief Line. No, what the TTC is doing will not eliminate the need for that line, nor will better GO service. The new streetcars and expanded (finally!) capacity downtown will be great for local traffic and for increased population in the old city, but they won’t touch the need for more capacity in the medium distance trips.
The Relief Line has been badly sold partly by its original “downtown” name and even by the sense that if we can find some other form of “relief”, we don’t need it. What the line really does is to connect inner suburbs such as Thorncliffe & Flemingdon Parks, a major potential redevelopment node at Don Mills and Eglinton, and the Don Mills corridor to downtown completely bypassing the existing subway.
As we know from the demand projections, there isn’t even enough room on the projected improved Yonge line to handle the demand that will come south from Richmond Hill, and that’s after billions in improvements separate from the extension itself.
So, please, boost Richmond Hill, Markham and any other part of the 905 you want to, but don’t pretend we can get by without more capacity in the 416. After all, if the 905 were such a great place, people “up there” wouldn’t be putting so much pressure on the transit system to commute “down here”.
LikeLike
I nearly lost coffee through my nostrils with that one.
Even after all the $ and improvements, VIVANext will be slower than some of the services it is replacing (e.g. GO ‘B’ Bus express coaches). World-class indeed.
VIVA is a low-end BRT, for lack of a better term. If the R in BRT is the criteria, ‘world-class’ BRTs are mostly or entirely grade separated and/or have their own roadways. I wish there was a different term for such BRTs, because it would be more informative and help reduce ignorance.
Same for LRTs. Scarborough LRT is circling the drain in part because some people (ahem, Mayor Ford) associate LRTs with median operation and at-grade crossings.
A curious property of LRT and BRT is that the technology and built form is merging such that users notice little difference. Whether or not the vehicles run on rails matters less to a user than if the line is reliable, frequent, suitably capacious and quick (grade-separated, runs on its own right-of-way, etc).
So instead of talking using terms like BRT or LRT that indicate whether rails are involved, we really need a nomenclature that reflects average speed.
So the Scarborough LRT could have been called the Scarborough WC-RT.
LikeLike
Why in hell should Toronto build any more subways to York Region when there are many regions in Toronto that need better service, namely Yonge south of Sheppard, and Bloor Danforth in the middle section. Toronto should run more service into the far nether regions of York so you can get a cheaper more convenient ride downtown while citizens of Toronto can’t even get on? I don’t think that will sell well to the average tax payer in Toronto. If York wants subways let York pay for them and their subsidy, right to Union. You get a $1.00 subsidy from Toronto taxpayers every time you enter the TTC. Start yelling at Metrolinx to improve your Stouffville line and pay for it.
Take a look at the current loading and the projections. Nothing except a DRL will improve access to downtown from the near suburbs, outer 416. Can you explain how the new streetcars help alleviate the need for the DRL? Are people going to get off at Main, Broadview, Spadina, Bathurst and Dundas West and ride a new Street Car Downtown? Until you are willing to have your taxes pay part of the deficit of the TTC stop trying to steal its services from those who actually pay taxes in Toronto. I live in Brampton and would love to have a west end DRL come up the Weston sub but I am not going to DEMAND it because Brampton is growing. Metrolinx should provide the service and should pay the subsidies required to get the cost down, not the citizens of Toronto.
If you think VIVA is world class then you haven’t seen much of the world.
Steve: I should mention that York Region refused to pay anything toward the operating cost of the Spadina extension to Vaughan. The TTC gets all the revenue and all the costs, including future capital maintenance. This effectively means that Toronto taxpayers who fund the lion’s share of the TTC’s budget will pay for a subway operating in Vaughan, and will give riders on it a TTC fare all the way to downtown in the bargain. I will start taking York Region “rapid transit” seriously when York Region starts funding substantial service increases, not cuts, on its bus networks, and stops freeloading on Toronto for its subway service.
Queen’s Park’s reaction to this issue is to talk about all the money they give Toronto. This is mainly project specific capital funds for new construction, not for maintenance. What’s left over is a minority of ongoing costs. Of the roughly $500m operating deficit the TTC has this year, less than 20% comes from the province.
LikeLike
Right on. York Region is already getting a subway to Vaughan. They shouldn’t get another until we here in Waterloo get the subway we deserve. Not sure where exactly ours should go but by golly we deserve one. The fact that Laurel Creek is about 2m below street level in Uptown won’t increase tunnelling costs too much, will it?
Steve: Swan boats will solve everything!
LikeLike
And yet the TTC agreed to make the subway north of Steeles a TTC fare zone. Perhaps they should re-consider, maybe having a second set of gates for people exiting the stations north of Steeles. They can pay their York Region Exit fare or YRT fare then go home or wherever it is they want to go. They could even have 2 exits, one for people who will use YRT, the other for people just exiting the subway.
Cheers, Moaz
Steve: I am sure that Presto will solve everything. 😉
LikeLike
Rather like having bridge tolls in only one direction, surely it should be simple to charge an extra fee when entering VMC station which would cover the extra costs of operation in both directions.
LikeLike
As many have mentioned, the additional burden of providing service to the outer reaches of the system should be carried by those that use it. Implement fare zones might a good way for a variety of reasons. The first being, make the users pay for the maintenance and cost of the equipment over the distance travelled. It also might indecently [I think you mean “incidentally”] transfer those users to a system that is designed to move people long distance (GO Transit Rail).
Obviously, GO Transit / Metrolinx will have to step up to provide the service by electrification of the trains and providing all day 2 way service. Not sure when or how they are going to do that with all of the other competing projects for money.
LikeLike
An added entry fee might discourage passengers from entering the subway system, while an exit fee would catch them after already using the system … so they would feel that the fee is justified.
Anyways, it’s just a thought. It is wrong for TTC to be stuck with the operating cost to bring subway service to York Region and the surcharge is a reasonable act.
Cheers, Moaz
LikeLike
Exit fees are more complicated, because you have to deal with people who can’t pay it because they don’t have any means of payment on hand. Exit fees are not common in North America and could be a bit of a surprise to casual users and tourists, which is never good.
(Does PRESTO use exit swipes in the GTA?)
Steve: Only on GO which is fare by distance and must know where you get off.
A higher fee in any direction will cause some riders to choose another mode, but that isn’t necessarily bad. Given that a higher fee in Vaughan would make the level of subsidy more equal with Toronto, and reduce the economic distortion, it’s also more economically efficient.
LikeLike
Seem like most downtown residents or “fringe” downtowners who post here are more upset that there is no DRL funding as of yet than actually change to a proper extension into Scarborough.
I agree both lines are needed for the future of growth in this City. How bad are the Liberals lies when you get exposed by Rob Ford… At the very least he has bent the arm of the Libs into actually doing something useful with our money for the City and province.
LikeLike
Joe M
How is a Scarborough Subway Extension more useful than the SLRT?
– both are fully grade separated, run at nearly the same speed
– SLRT has more stations, serves more people, more easily serves STC and Malvern Centre in future
– Subway costs at least $1.5B more, perhaps $2B.
– Usually when you pay twice as much to get something less good, ‘useful’ is not the term used. In Toronto, I believe the popular phrase is ‘gravy train’.
I’m not a downtowner, surburbanite, or even exurbanite. Yet my tax dollars are getting wasted on this needless subway extension when there are better and cheaper alternatives. All Canadians should be outraged that the federal gov’t is wasting $660M that it doesn’t have to. If the feds are going to put $ into local transit, a dubious proposition in our federation, at least let it be put into something efficacious.
LikeLike
Absolutely true. The previously-announced provincial and federal (Sheppard) contributions are enough to build great transit in Scarborough. The additional money isn’t even enough to build the proposed worse transit.
What would be a positive, however, would be to re-activate the Scarborough Malvern LRT. According to Wikipedia, it was estimated to cost under $1.3 billion for an impressive number of kilometres of route (take a look on the map — it makes the subway extension look like a garden train). The federal government has just committed $0.66 billion for transit in Scarborough. If the City matches this funding, they will have enough to build Scarborough Malvern from Kennedy station across to Kingston Road and up Morningside Drive to Sheppard. This way, Scarborough would get 3 at-grade dedicated right-of-way LRT lines (Sheppard, Eglinton, Kingston/Morningside) and 1 fully grade-separated line (SRT replacement). Again, look at the map. This would bring high-quality transit to a huge number of Scarborough destinations, and would also create a large LRT track loop which would be good for situations like blocked roads.
As a non-Torontonian, I would be happy to have my federal tax dollars going to this effective use of federal money for an extensive LRT network.
LikeLike
I’m not sure if this has already been answered, but assuming the SRT is replaced by an extension of the B-D line following the preferred route (east on Eglinton, then along Danforth Rd and McCowan), exactly when would we see subway service to Sheppard and McCowan? I think I read somewhere that at soonest this would be 2023. So what are we to do for the next ten years while we wait for the subway we deserve?
Anyone building flying swan boats?
Phil
Steve: I am not sure whether it will take longer to build the subway, or to reroute Highland Creek so that we can provide direct Swan Boat service from STC to Kennedy Station.
LikeLike
Yes, they aren’t common. But for instance in Sydney, Australia there is usually a machine inside the paid fare zone so you can top up your card to cover any short fall. So while it might be a surprise, you can still cover the cost of the fare.
You could also try it at the point of entry. So those entering the system at the edge of the network pay the full cost. For instance, Chicago has added a surcharge recently for those boarding at the O’Hare airport. I personally think of it more of a way to screw people from out of town . I think the Sydney airport stop has its own special fare as well.
LikeLike
I made a similar argument earlier in the thread. The federal money would be better put toward the S-Malvern line, and would pay for half of it. The Tories may or may not be targeting those particular ridings, but they could champion the ‘3 lines instead of 1’ argument, which should appeal to virtually everyone in Scarborough, including some in ridings the Tories are likely targeting. So this doesn’t even make sense politically to me, except of course that LRTs have been made toxic.
The reason why I don’t like federal involvement in local transit in general is simply that – regardless of party – they are furthest from understanding local needs, their proclivities and seat distribution mean spending favours smaller, slower-growing provinces, and the provinces have the taxing power to do it themselves.
LikeLike
Reminds me of the Canada line in Vancouver at YVR.
But are out-of-towners really getting screwed? Why should they get subsidized by local taxpayers?
One of the things I like about electronic fare cards is that they can offer discounts based on where you pay your taxes. If TTC used PRESTO, and used exit tapping, not only could it return to zone fares, but discounts could be offered to City of Toronto residents, since they are more likely to have paid a fare subsidy through their property taxes or rent.
Steve: In Vancouver, if you are travelling on various types of farecard or a day pass (which can be purchased at YVR), you don’t pay the surcharge. However, this info is not exactly advertised to arriving passengers, and they are dinged for an extra $5 if they buy fares from the vending machines.
LikeLike
For those that don’t live in Scarborough and think we need the SLRT or any LRT Liberal BS you really don’t have a clue.
Many of us have lived in Scarborough long enough to know all those fancy Transit City lines would never have been built half way of there proposed route. Although I admit it looked nice on paper. But if they are not starting construction from East to west. Don’t bother.
Bottom line we need to get to work faster. So if we have to take a bus or two to a direct line (underground) downtown or uptown then great. If not we’ll continue to take our 3-5 transfers to commute daily on the TTC until a political party builds real transit with real money.
Ship these toy cars out to Waterloo. We don’t need them.
Steve: Well your political colours are sure showing there. You may want to visit cities like Paris and Berlin (Bombardier’s HQ these days), among many others, before you dismiss these as “toy cars”. In fact, the carhouse for the Sheppard and Scarborough lines is to go near Conlins and Sheppard, more or less forcing the outer end of the line to be built.
As for a party with real money for real transit, don’t hold your breath for the Tories to build anything.
LikeLike
Don’t passengers already have to pay an exit fare when they’re on a TTC bus north of Steeles when travelling in York Region? How is this any different or unfamiliar to the other routes that cross the boundary? Should hardly be any surprise there and no Presto necessary.
LikeLike
I didn’t know Rob Ford has stared to comment here. Sorry, couldn’t resist…
I suppose Scarberians who live in Malvern north of Sheppard would have to make do with the existing service indefinitely. Whereas the SLRT could have been extended as a grade-separated line all the way to Malvern Town Centre using the election goodie provided a few days ago by a ‘real party’. I suppose people in that party do not go much outside Canada that much – or to Alberta for that matter. Thus may explain why they find those ‘toy trains’ so repulsive.
Steve: Yes it is so odd that the bastion of Conservative thinking in Canada, Calgary, has an LRT network. There is also a smaller one in Edmonton, but we know they are all godless NDPers up north, so that doesn’t count I suppose.
LikeLike
I appreciate your response but you clearly don’t get what I’m saying. I actually agree with you in many aspects but disagree logistically between the benifits of an LRT and Subway in terms of helping Scarborough residents.
Both political parties are a joke at building anything & you are correct the Conservatives will deliver little in the way of capital. Saying that I do think the Cons led by the “everyday guy” puppet Ford have put the Liberals in a tough situation where they need to start walking the walk.
I’ve been to Paris and Berlin amongst many other Cities with great public transit. Although I strongly prefer the 3-4 stop subway I would accept the LRT network if it I was being forced as the “best choice”. My issues is it was never actually going to get built in full as per the Transit City map. It was a great marketing tool though.
I don’t expect you to agree or understand but I’ll try to explain. Why would a resident of Scarborough want to take a bus to Conlins, stop 3-4 times, get out at Markham Rd, stop 7 more times and get out at Kennedy to get on a subway to go downtown.
Or bus 5 minutes past Conlins to Mccowan. Mccowan 3-4 stops direct to downtown. It’s a no brainer. All underground, better in the winter and no impact on any roads.
If the main driver to build LRT’s is to spur development in priority neighborhoods that philosophy is flawed.
LikeLike
@Joe M: What is your take of the combined option: the Danforth subway goes to Sheppard & McCowan, and connects to Sheppard LRT there; Sheppard LRT extends west to Don Mills and east to Meadowvale, and helps the locals get onto the subway faster?
LikeLike
Prefer a subway loop.
The LRT has already been shortened and will not being going to Meadowvale anytime soon. I see no benefit from taking the LRT from the east end of Sheppard to the Mccowan Subway over a Bus.
IMO there should be increased bus service across Kingston Rd, King/Galloway, USTC, Centennial College, Malvern, Zoo, Guildwood which connects to an accessible subway. A BRT in these areas would be my preferred choice as the traffic would not be a major issues in these areas issue compared to an LRT eating up future road space on Sheppard east of Markham rd.
If they build the LRT on Sheppard, I’ll take it. It is rapid transit. Again its just not the right choice. Build it once & build it right.
LikeLike
Edit above: the road space eaten up by the LRT Sheppard West of Markham Rd not East.
West of Markham is a driving nightmare already. East of Markham Rd and around the Malven-Morningside loop is mostly single family home, sparse plazas & greenspace. Increased bus or BRT would suffice.
Steve: The plans for Sheppard involve very little loss of road space, and Metrolinx is contemplating road widening in the short section where this could preserve all road lanes. Note that with the LRT, the curb lane, now full of buses, will be available for motorists. If BRT is implemented, it will either require its own dedicated road lanes (actually slightly wider than LRT), or will take over the curb lanes with considerably more bus traffic than is now on the street.
LikeLike
McCuaig’s letter is interesting in its reference to the EA process:
Note that the statement only refers to the need to use an evidence-based approach in determining the preferred alignment and station locations. It makes no reference to selection of mode. Presumably in the context of an EA, that would be a consideration (other than limited cases, such as the closure of the Y-U-S loop considered in the 80s, where the mode is predetermined).
LikeLike
It seems like Joe M is saying that a subway’s political popularity will make it more likely to be funded and built then an LRT, despite its greater cost. He may have a point.
LikeLike
Road space is already bad now. Just because we preserve road space now doesn’t mean it’s good for the future.
I know it bothers people when Ford actually says something remotely intelligent but underground & less transfers is the best way. Like I said build for the future or don’t build at all. LRT’s grade separated or not have a use in some Cities as a show piece/transport node. Scarborough doesn’t need to be a show piece. We should be integrated fully with the City & we need to move commuters in the most effective way possible for today and the future. Yes it costs a lot of money but if we are going to cut corners on transportation we will pay for it in the end. I know you are a big LRT supporter Steve and I agree it would improve the landscape if we compare it to today. But it’s still not the most effective form of transit for Scarborough and the land beyond.
Ford may get the boot on his behavior but other politicians certainly have taken notice of the narrative. And the next mayor may just raise your taxes to do what’s right & so they should for the DRL as well. What a great City it would be…
Steve: LRT is not used as a “showpiece” but as an essential part of many transit networks. You harm your argument with throwaway lines like that implying, by extension, that what is planned with Transit City is not worth considering. I could equally argue that the Mayor’s subway fetish combined with shameless exploitation of the sense that the poor folk of Scarborough are victims of the nasty downtowners is showmanship and nothing more.
LikeLike