I think people forget, for example, that we have to rebuild the LRT in 25 or 30 years, just like we have to with the Scarborough RT. With a subway we won’t have to do that. The Yonge Street subway just celebrated its 60th anniversary and it’s still in good shape.
[John Tory in an interview for Metro News, April 7, 2014, courtesy of Matt Elliott]
The false comparison of long-lasting subway with a comparatively short-lived LRT is the sort of comment I expect to hear from (former TTC Chair and Mayoral candidate) Karen Stintz, or from the subway-loving Brothers Ford. The number “100” is often bandied about as the longevity of a subway investment by analogy to the much older networks found in cities like New York, London and Paris.
I have written before about this and won’t belabour the details here, but now that a major candidate for the office of Mayor has taken up the line, it’s worth revisiting the topic.
“We have to rebuild the LRT in 25 or 30 years …”
There is no way to say this nicely: that statement is not true and John Tory should know better.
The seemingly unending reconstruction of the streetcar network in Toronto has annoyed transit riders and motorists alike, but what we have been through is a combination of the “100 year rebuild” and an unusually high failure rate of the previous generation of infrastructure thanks to shoddy construction by the TTC.
With the completion of the Harbourfront line this summer, all of the “main line” tangent (straight) track on the system will be at the new standard completing a process begun two decades ago. The new standard for intersections is more recent, and almost all of the construction work for 2014 is for the “special work” there and at carhouses.
Track, regardless of the vehicles running on it, has to be replaced every 25 years, more often in areas of high wear. The roadbed lasts much longer be it in the subway, on an open right-of-way such as the middle of an expressway, or on a streetcar line.
Vehicles last about 30 years. “Under the covers” there is not much difference between a subway car and a streetcar. They have similar propulsion systems, although these will be optimised for the environments where the cars run. The Yonge subway is now on its third generation of trains, not the original red “Gloucester” cars, and the Bloor subway is on its second.
“… just like we have to with the Scarborough RT …”
No, we don’t “have to” with the SRT either. It’s worn out, but it does not need to be rebuilt from scratch. What would be needed to keep it running in its present form are new cars, and a new signal system. The original SRT control system is far less reliable than the old signal system on the subway, and that’s why the latter has worked tolerably well for at least five decades while the SRT routinely encounters problems.
The cars are overdue for retirement (the line has its original fleet from 1985), but the TTC plans to keep them running for almost a decade while we await the opening of a new Scarborough subway. The big problem is that we don’t have enough of them, a direct result of their very high cost. When they were new, one RT car cost more than a subway car does today.
The SRT structures would not have to be rebuilt if the line were going to operate with compatible vehicles, but it won’t. If it remained an “RT” line with vehicles such as Vancouver’s Mark II Skytrain cars, the tunnel between Ellesmere and Midland Stations would have to be rebuilt so that they would fit.
This small tunnel is a direct legacy of the forced implementation of the RT technology by Queen’s Park years ago. They wanted to ensure that only their trains would fit, and they forced the TTC to downsize the tunnel.
The station at Kennedy complete with its multi-level transfer would also be rebuilt both to eliminate the tight curve and to simplify the connection. This is a correction of a bad original design, not an inherent requirement of RT or LRT technology.
The power distribution system for the SRT is a non-standard voltage, and it uses side-running rails that have major problems with snow and ice. This system must be replaced by conventional power distribution and made compatible with standard transit vehicles if the line is converted to LRT. That standardization would allow the “SRT” to share its fleet and maintenance facilities with other lines rather than being an orphan line.
In summary, much of the work of upgrading the SRT flows from the poor choice of technology three decades ago when the Queen’s Park cared more about a showcase than about building good transit for Scarborough.
“The Yonge Street subway just celebrated its 60th anniversary and it’s still in good shape.”
If a line runs in a tunnel, it does not matter what type of vehicle is on the tracks because the infrastructure requirements — signals, power distribution, ventillation, drainage, lighting, escalators, elevators — are identical. An escalator does not attain magical long-life by having a subway car rather than an LRV serving the passengers. All of these subsystems require ongoing maintenence and replacement, and the tunnels themself must constantly be repaired to deal with leaks and other structural problems such as the “out of round” condition on the Yonge line north of Eglinton.
The big difference for LRT is that it does not have to be underground all of the time. Proportionately, the things that “only” last three decades make up more of an LRT line’s infrastructure because LRT does not require the much more heroic construction, cost and longevity of an underground structure. Certainly, some parts will need to be rebuilt within three decades. However, the requirement would be the same even if the line were underground, and we would have spent a pot load more money to put it there.
Subways much older than Toronto’s are still in “good shape” although they show their age, but keeping them in that condition has an ongoing cost. When we build a subway, we are not just committing the capital dollars and the debt service that will result, we are committing to unending maintenance of the infrastructure whether we actually needed it or not.
A Businesslike Approach to Transit?
John Tory likes to present himself as a responsible, experienced businessman, someone who will bring his experience at large corporations to City Hall.
Good business includes having the good sense to be well-informed and to make decisions based on reliable data, not on the shifting winds of political favour.
There are three possibilities here. One is that Tory is genuinely misinformed, in which case one wonders how he chose his advisors, and how long he will take to change his position. One is that Tory genuinely believes that bilge about the comparative lifespans of subways and LRT, in which case I wish him well as reality intrudes on his budget-making. The most cynical option is that Tory simply tells people what they want to hear — that the subway decision is beyond reconsideration and that somehow it will not waste a fortune that could be put to better use elsewhere on the transit system, even within Scarborough.
None of this makes for good business, although there are plenty of examples of misguided companies that foundered thanks to the blinkered views of their CEOs. Toronto does not need four more years of that, even without the Ford circus.
If Tory or any other candidate really believes that the extra investment in a subway for Scarborough has a worth based on development prospects, on improving the economic and social environment of Scarborough, then make that argument. Lies and misrepresentation about transit options serve nobody, except possibly the candidates.
Steve Munro 
Good article Steve. Both Tory and Stintz have zero knowledge when it comes to transit.
Steve: Stintz’ ideas about transit — sell Hydro to pay for the DRL, create a transportation mega-agency when we can’t figure out how to properly govern the ones we have already — show that she is trying to be independent, to have ideas that set her apart. Unfortunately, they also mark her as someone who wants the publicity more than presenting reasonable policy alternatives. At this point, her poll numbers don’t look good, and I don’t want to get into major articles about ideas that will sink with her candidacy.
LikeLike
Your defense of LRT/streetcar reliability glosses over the fact that surface rail maintenance is incredibly disruptive both to transit service and the streetscape, whereas subway maintenance is mostly invisible and done at night or on weekends. In 60 years, has there ever been a need to shut an entire subway line for an extended period for routine maintenance?
Steve: First off, the only streetcar line we have closed down completely for extended maintenance is Harbourfront, and that’s because the entire street is being redesigned. St. Clair was a similar situation, although that was staged because turnback loops were available for interim services. All other works involve diversions and/or bus substitutions on outer ends of lines where diversions are not an option.
Second, in case you have not noticed, the subway shuts down early almost every night to allow for vital repairs to the tunnels north of Eglinton. This work is taking forever because it has to be done a little bit at a time. Imagine how long streetcar track work would take if lines had to re-open for business every morning. There is also the small matter of the new signal system and the Union Station project, both of which cause weekend-long shutdowns of a sizeable chunk of the YUS. Bloor-Danforth has had two “diversions” around work at St. George that were possible only because the wye exists. There have been weekend shutdowns on various parts of BD and Spadina for track work that, like other projects, takes multiple shutdowns to complete because the line must reopen for business for Monday morning.
You may have read that the track between Muir Portal (north of St. Clair) and Berwick Portal (south of Eglinton) is in such bad shape that the TTC considered shutting down the line for a few months to rebuild it. However, they don’t have enough buses or operators to do this and are working on an alternative that won’t be as long term a repair, but will almost certainly involve many weekend shutdowns.
Depending on how an LRT line is built, reconstruction may or may not be a huge issue. The streetcar tracks are in pavement which must be demolished, unlike open track such as we would see on a Scarborough LRT (and see today on the SRT). This work has been particularly onerous because the TTC has been rebuilding right down to the foundation (which does not even exist in many cases). The bottom two bottom concrete layers — foundation, then steel ties — are designed to outlast the track by at least one, probably more repair cycles so that only the top layer of concrete must be removed the next time around.
I am not going to pretend that surface track is without its issues, especially if on an LRT line we insist on paving it in concrete so that emergency vehicles can drive on it (e.g. Spadina or St. Clair). If it were open track such as on The Queensway, maintenance would be much simpler.
The fundamental point here is that we can pay billions to put a line underground, and that’s both a capital and an operating investment (all that underground infrastructure does not maintain itself). This must be weighed against the comparatively infrequent disruption of tearing up a street to replace the track.
LikeLike
If there’s one certainty here, it’s that Tory will find a way to change his mind yet again as he’s a “flexible” decision maker. Either way it’s deplorable. But then so is his attempt to accuse Chow of “not supporting” the DRL, even though it’s evident that every candidate “supports” it, her actual point being that “support” is not a substitute for a plan to fund and build the thing.
The time for Tory to run would have been 2010, and I think at this point he’s lost his chance. Chow isn’t perfect (of course, Ford would never claim he was!), but I predict she’ll gradually build support over the campaign and coalesce the anti-Ford vote around her.
LikeLike
Steve, Other than you passing comment on it, has anybody honestly raised the impact of debt service in this debate and do you think they have been heard? If we say that an LRT costs as 1/2 as much as a subway. Take the savings and avoid the interest. The difference pays for a complete rebuild of the LRT at interest rates 2% over inflation, assuming that the subway and LRT require similar maintenance in the meantime, and the LRT is completely replaced in 35 years and the subway spends not a dime at that time. Allowing for the cost (or benefit) of compound interest on the difference in investment should completely eliminate any notion of long term subway savings, even while ignoring that the subway needs maintenance as well.
Steve: This is rarely discussed even at City Hall because so much of the capital side is financed with other people’s money (e.g. Queen’s Park). However, occasionally, the City CFO will point out that a large chunk of the City debt is actually money that was borrowed for TTC capital projects. All that said, life cycle costing rarely gets a mention in part because it would make the business case for subways untenable, and that’s not the sort of message the pols want to hear.
LikeLike
Regarding the promise of development, Christopher Hume had the following lines in an article in today’s “Toronto Star”:
Steve: The Danforth, and its west end equivalent, Bloor, are textbook examples of how subways do not necessarily require development at stations in order to be successful. It is the feeder bus network that drives the subway, not just people living beside the stations. The Danforth subway is, comparatively speaking, near the bottom of the funnel and benefits from (if “benefit” is the word) all those riders from Scarborough and East York. By comparison, another line further south, say on Queen, would not have such a feeder system and would carry much less traffic.
The flip side of this view can be seen on the King car which does depend substantially on locally generated traffic and a variety of origins and destinations along the line. These are served by fine-grained stops that avoid the situation we see on north Yonge or Sheppard where there are transit wastelands. That granularity is important not just for King itself, but for the streets that feed into King.
LikeLike
Steve’s response was pretty thorough, but I can’t help but add my bit: Your defense of subway technology glosses over the fact that tunnel construction is incredibly disruptive both to City finances and its ability to obtain funding for other projects, whereas LRT construction is mostly affordable and done with more reasonable levels of funding.
LikeLike
Steve and Isaac, thanks for the responses. I certainly agree that subways are disruptive to construct (as is LRT) and expensive (unlike LRT), and I support converting the RT to LRT. But it’s a plain fact that road-level LRT, as proposed on Eglinton East, Finch, and Sheppard, is far more disruptive than subway in terms of routine maintenance.
You point to the Queensway and the RT replacement to make it seem sound like it need not be so — yet it is the norm worldwide to encase road-level tramway tracks in concrete*, which makes them necessarily difficult to replace. Not to mention, even if the work itself is brief, the city has the annoying habit of storing rails and equipment at the curb for weeks at a time, which is unsightly and restricts traffic. Having seen several lengthy streetcar shutdowns in this city, evening and weekend shutdowns that inconvenience relatively few riders and have little surface disruption are not somehow a point against subways.
This difference in disruption is why the “100-year-subway” talking point resonates with the public, so let’s not pretend the discrepancy doesn’t exist.
*I’ve seen lots of tram systems and I can’t think of one Queensway-style open-track tram that shares the road with cars; I’d be happy to be corrected, but I suspect it would be (correctly) seen as a safety hazard.
Steve: The point as always is whether the extra cost of the subway, capital and operating, is worth saving the inconvenience of a major road disruption every few decades. You can see Queensway type construction in Boston on the Green Line (one of many possible examples is here or here. Also, many systems have concrete blocks or cobblestones that can easily be removed from the right-of-way for track maintenance. These are pedestrian friendly, but don’t cost a fortune or take weeks to rip up when repairs are needed.
That said, the “100 year subway” or the comment that the LRT “has to be replaced” are lines that are not qualified to refer only to the track, but to the entire system as is made clear to the 60-year reference to the Yonge subway. This is flat out wrong and misrepresents, probably deliberately, the actual situation.
LikeLike
Tory also favours keeping all the Gardiner expressway up just as it is, regardless of extra long term cost and even to appease the 1 or 2 per cent who use the easternmost section faced with a longer commute.
LikeLike
One of the other costs not mentioned is “opportunity costs”.
We need to look at the entire problem and required network while remembering that we have say 40 billion to fix it all. While subways proposed would likely consume virtually all that money, they will not come close to a comprehensive system. Building subway where it is not required will cost us the opportunity to solve the essential problem. We need to start treating the money as a very scarce resource and allocate it wisely for maximum effect.
LikeLike
Also, due to the double ended design of the LRT’s, the separate right of way, and the signalling system planned; wouldn’t it be possible to go with single track operation when a section of the line is up for replacement by either building crossovers at regular intervals or installing temporary crossovers during the construction?
Steve: Yes, that would be possible although it might limit the level of service that can be provided.
LikeLike
I apologize if you’ve already answered this elsewhere, but would a Scarborough LRT become an extension of the Crosstown LRT or would people have to change lines?
If the latter, then why?
Steve: At one point, yes, they were going to be one through line so that you could ride from northeastern Scarborough to a destination on Eglinton. However, the TTC didn’t want to operate it that way because the demand on the Scarborough leg will be higher than the Eglinton leg, and they didn’t want to try running, in effect, a “short turn” inbound at Kennedy.
Also, running the lines separately would allow longer trains to be used on the Scarborough portion of the line to bump capacity without adding to crewing costs.
In any event, the ability to run straight through was designed out of the Kennedy interchange before the conversion to subway was on the table. It could be restored, but with some difficulty particularly if construction gets started before the decision on a final configuration is made.
LikeLike
One problem when comparing the life spans of the various technologies is that they were built at different times.
It can be said that LRT (or at least streetcars) were built using older methods in the 1980’s and prior, and the new method is expected to produce longer life spans.
However, the same can be said about subways. The subways built in the 1950’s and 60’s may not last 100 years without major maintenance, but presumably the construction methods for subways have also improved.
Thus, the same arguments that say that LRT last more than 25 years can be used to argue that subways can last much longer than is currently achieved.
Steve: But the bottom line is that many subsystems within that “better built” subway will still wear out long before 50 years, never mind 100, and there will always be the issue of general maintenance for something that need not have been built in the first place.
LikeLike
I saw a number of systems in Europe where the surface layer between and beside the tracks was preformed concrete slabs that could be lowered into place and raised for track work. The surface was not as smooth as poured concrete but smooth enough for emergency vehicles and for pedestrians to cross.
In a number of cities with frost where I saw track construction they are doing it essentially the same as the TTC with a 3 layers of concrete though some did use the preformed slabs for the surface. One even used paving stones laid on a layer of finely crushed stone. There are other ways of doing the top layer without needing to pour a new slab of concrete.
LikeLike
Steve will the structural issue with regards to the bus deck at Lawrence be able to be addressed without an extended Yonge line shutdown? Can the structural issues with regards to out of round etc be addressed without an eventual extended shutdown? If so how much more will it costing to do so?
What kind of delay would be involved should Lawrence get so bad that it needs to be rebuilt immediately for safety reasons?
Steve: Re Lawrence, we don’t know definitively yet. I suspect that the quick fix would simply be to ban buses from the station to eliminate the load on the slab above the subway trains.
Re the “round” tunnels, the problem was caught in time, but is taking longer to fix than expected because the extent of the problem is greater than originally thought.
Is it not easier to plan surface LRT repairs because it is easier to lay crossovers and diversions to allow repairs, while only limiting LRT use (need space for trains in 2 directions to pass each other) not eliminating it through affected areas?
Also given how much more LRT can be planned, would it not have a larger affect on the costs of operating the balance of the network, by reducing the required number of buses and drivers that will have to be added to the system over time to provide the same level of service?
Steve: Yes, the LRT lines would drop the cost of the bus network, although I am not sure that, all in, there would be a huge saving. This is more a case of avoiding future cost increases by handling greater loads with LRT than with a bus route.
LikeLike
I think that the Downtown Relief Line will be best if built via Main St where it can also connect to GO Transit in addition the Main subway station. Density around Pape/Broadview is very low plus the DRL will no longer be going north of Danforth to the high density communities like Thorncliffe and Leaside and so a subway under Pape/Broadview cannot be justified under any circumstances. Pape and Broadview are already served by very good bus and streetcar services.
Steve: Says who that the DRL will no longer be going north of Danforth? The Eglinton leg is still in the plans as a second phase (although I think it should come hot on the heels of the first one to avoid the need for a massive transfer station at Danforth). Main is too far east.
Pape and Broadview are served by bus and streetcar services, but more capacity for through trips from north of Danforth to downtown is needed.
LikeLike
I assume by “shares the road with cars” he refer to have traffic-light controlled intersections at-grade with cars without railway crossing arms.
Oslo, Rotterdam, Frankfurt, Tallin (Estonia), New Orleans, and I am pretty sure San Fransisco have sections of “streetcar” or “tram” systems that have open non-encased tracks that run down the middle of roads. Los Angeles and San Diego have LRT lines with open track with railway crossings gates. Baltimore’s subway has open track with railway crossings at a few roads.
LikeLike
Further to Kevin’s examples of Queensway-style open track, there is also parts of Cleveland and Buenos Aires. The southern end of the Blue Line in Dallas has open track on a wide median that uses regular traffic lights at intersections. There are , and even a few parts of the system in Melbourne like this as well.
I will mention Oslo, which Kevin mentioned to provide images.
Steve: I was too busy to bother looking up many links when this comment came in. I get despondent and angry at times when people claim to have “seen the world” and make statements that are so transparently wrong, but I rightly assumed that my readers would supply all sorts of examples. Thanks.
LikeLike
This claim is probably true, because the Scarborough LRT is dependent on the Sheppard LRT, a proposal that makes no sense anyway because there is already a subway on Sheppard, and track embedded in concrete is probably going to need to be replaced after 30 years, which means that the Scarborough LRT will have to be shut down around 2050 or so even if the grade separated part of the Scarborough LRT is conventional track which is easier to maintain. It would have made far more sense to just rebuild using the existing ICTS technology, shortening the shutdown period, given that the portion of the Scarborough RT replacement used in revenue service would be fully grade separated anyway, to avoid the high cost of the subway and the bizarre layout of the LRT. Expect this to be a problem for Eglinton as well, again it would have made far more sense to just build a conventional subway between Black Creek and Don Mills (cancelling the eastern section which runs through a low density area) which can carry twice as many people as LRT but this would be far too simple for Toronto city council to ever approve.
LikeLike
Does this approach not paint the DRL into a corner?
I would note, that when iinitially built Yonge was not going north of Eglinton and there was no discussion of a Spadina line. Even if phase 2 were not already in the plans, would we not need to make some allowance for there to be extension in the future? Based on current forecasts, and a realistic appraisal of Yonge capacity, will it not need relief further north than Danforth eventually (perhaps before the southern portion is completed)?
LikeLike
Steve, “Main is too far east.” There is no such thing as too far east as that’s where the ridership is. Main and Victoria Park around Danforth are high density plus the GO Trains’ Lakeshore East Line has a station at Main and a future Markham-Stouffville Line at Main is also in the works and so a DRL through Main makes most sense. Of course, it’s “too far east” if you live “too far west” but it will help tens of thousands of other riders. “too far east” is not an argument but just a vague comment perhaps inspire by one’s own residence being “too far west”. The density just isn’t there around Pape/Broadview and the DRL can still go to Don Mills and Eglinton via Main station in the second phase although I think that that’s just a false promise to increase support for the first phase.
Steve: The whole purpose of the DRL is NOT to intercept people from the east end of the Danforth subway nor from GO, but to serve riders coming from the northeast into downtown. That’s why the line was originally designed, 50 years ago, to run north to Eglinton.
I have no personal interest in where the DRL intercepts the subway because I’m at Broadview, west of any new north-south link, and am just as likely to go downtown on the streetcar lines here than on the subway.
“Too far east” comes not from a personal preference, but from a view of the network that recognizes the need for an eastern equivalent of the Spadina subway going up somewhere in the Don Mills corridor eventually. A line to Main Station does not do that.
If you want something serving Scarborough, this should come from new and improved services on the GO Lake Shore and Stouffville corridors, not to mention the CPR line through Agincourt. Trying to intercept demand after it is already on the subway at Main misses the point that people in eastern and northern Scarborough should be able to get on a frequent service going downtown directly, not have to schlepp all the way to Main.
LikeLike
Politics is Politcs. John Tory, Stintz, Chow, Ford, Wynne, Hudak whoever they are all full of BS. Facts will never be important to a politician.
When you compare the 3-4 stop subway to a politically hacked up LRT network that poorly integrates with the current infratructure on Sheppard and the BDL I would much rather see a subway get built even if its truly all we get out here.
For those of us who live in Eastern Scarborough the subway will eliminate one full bus transfer out of the two I have to take & will avoid adding another transfer from building a hybrid LRT Network. Subway gets my vote and it’s not even close.
LikeLike
So in your mind we should extend Sheppard regardless of load? Better to leave it as bus and save the money!! Show me a reasonable forecast, that does not involve stealing load from somewhere else that shows ridership building enough to justify this. Why would we spend $4.5b where $1b will do the job? The province cannot and will not spend endless money on these projects, I have a hard time believing that financial and political logic will support it.
Because the TTC and city made a terrible mistake before we should double down on it?
LikeLike
The discussions about the approved Scarborough Subway and whether Sheppard East from Don Mills should be a subway are interesting. Five years ago when it seemed like the Liberal government and Metrolinx would be able to allocate a very substantial amount of money to transit building, it seemed to be good, liberal, progressive, environmentally-tuned policy to build subways in along these routes, even if ridership might only be 10,000 or 12,000 per hour at peak. The assumption was that it would get cars off the road, stimulate higher density development, create a more transit-oriented society, and likely generate a user demand and general public demand for those lines to be extended.
However, in the past 5 years the following has become clear: building tunnelled rapid transit has almost astronomical costs; residents (refer to numerous polls) in Toronto and the GTA and the province are not willing to even marginally pay higher taxes or any other fees to build new rapid transit lines; that most people will virtually always drive if they have a car and if it is half the travel time that transit will take for the trip.
It seems to be that the whole game has changed in last 5 years. Now, the reality has to be (should be) that we can only build tunnelled rapid transit where it is truly cost effective to do so; that is where we will not be making large subsidies per each rider in perpetuity.
It just seems like the Sheppard East line and the Scarborough line will never be cost-effective. So in those cases, and in others where a down-the middle of the road LRT is doable or an LRT in some utility or park or rail corridor can be done, the at-grade rail option has to be chosen. Only where there is no space for an at-grade LRT line (along Eglinton from Keele to Laird) or where an existing tunnelled rapid transit line is full to capacity and a new line is almost guaranteed to have a large enough ridership (downtown relief line), which won’t require large per rider subsidies in perpetuity, can we afford to allocate the monetary resources to build those tunnelled lines.
Where we do build a tunnelled rail line, it should be built to serve the most people possible and be the most cost effective. This relates to the argument over how far east the downtown relief line should run. Steve, and I guess most Metrolinx and TTC folks constantly speak about it going up Pape, largely because Pape is where the eventual Don Mills LRT line would come AND because if the subway was extended it could potentially go over the Leaside bridge or cross the Don near there somehow to go up to Eglinton and Don Mills, areas with substantial demand.
Steve: I will jump in here to point out that I have publicly favoured the Donlands route for an easier connection to Greenwood Yard, although there is an alternative way to handle this for a Pape alignment with a spur line under the rail corridor. What is to be avoided is the wholesale demolition of Danforth and Pape to build a full interchange between the DRL and Danforth lines, something the TTC has mentioned as a necessity for a yard link.
However, I agree with folks here who say “why not have the line go further east”. I always thought going up Woodbine, and then curving eastward to go up O’Connor and then Victoria Park made sense. By going along Queen as far as Woodbine, the Ashbridges Bay/Beaches tourist/recreation/cultural area would be served by the subway. That area is a nightmare from May to September for people to get to because everyone has to drive there and the parking is a nightmare. Also, all the people living in that area could use that subway line to get downtown to work instead of having to take the Queen and King Street cars and would likely stimulate a lot of drivers to switch to the subway instead of driving downtown. Having the subway go to this area would substantially increase the chance that the line would have enough riders to be cost-effective.
However, based on the fact the relief line should go up to Don Mills and Eglinton (if extended north of Danforth), I now believe the ideal east turn-north point is Coxwell – from there there is probably some way it could be constructed under or through the Taylor Creek and Don Valleys to get to Don Mills Avenue but it would still be close enought to the Beaches to have a large number of people switch to it instead of taking the King/Queen Streetcars all the way to Yonge or University. The Coxwell alignement would also allow a stop near the East York Civic Centre and East York Hospital. As far as getting people already on the Danforth line west of Coxell transferring to the relief line instead of taking the Danforth line and then transferring south on Yonge, the trip would likely be faster becasue this subway would have fewer stops than the Danforth line and the transfer at Yonge/Bloor would be eliminated.
Steve: What these schemes do is to pervert the purpose of the DRL in order to give a subway to The Beach which does not require one. There simply isn’t the population density out there. It is rather like saying that a Sheppard subway should serve UTSC and Guildwood by way of the Zoo.
The difference in travel time for someone going downtown for a Coxwell, Donlands or Pape connection point is negligible — there is barely 5 minutes running time between Coxwell and Pape. It does not matter exactly where the link is provided that it diverts riders from Bloor-Yonge. To that end it must intercept two types of demand: riders originating on the outer end of the Danforth subway, and riders coming into the line from the north. A link at Coxwell only succeeds if the route goes all the way north, and even that would miss Thorncliffe Park which could be directly served by a line running up Donlands or Pape. (There would be a separate new crossing as the Leaside Bridge is not suitable for various reasons that have been discussed here before.)
One important point that comes up in these comments and elsewhere is that the DRL should not be seen as the only, or even the principal way for people from the outer 416 to get downtown. Folks in eastern and northern Scarborough, for example, would be better served by frequent service on the GO corridors, especially if GO used the CPR Belleville Sub through Agincourt and Malvern. The challenge is to get people off of the subway before they ever board, not to concoct schemes for them to transfer somewhere enroute. The DRL would address the next tier of riders in the inner suburbs to bleed demand off of the Yonge subway and provide an alternative route from downtown.
Metrolinx has finally acknowledged that GO has a role to play within the 416, and that the punitive fares and lack of a TTC co-fare create a situation where people demand “subways” for their long haul trips because there is no reasonable alternative.
LikeLike
You mention that the Crosstown and Scarb LRT are seperate lines because “the demand on the Scarborough leg will be higher than the Eglinton leg” yet Metrolinx’s own projections that you posted indicate the diffirence is nearly insignificant.
What gives?
Steve: What gives is that the TTC’s estimate is different from the Metrolinx one, and the TTC’s one prevailed. What is quite frustrating about the Metrolinx map is that it has no scale. I asked for the actual numbers at the time, but in the best Metrolinx tradition of secrecy, I never received anything.
LikeLike
Steve where will the GO Belleville sub take its riders. Are they go to Yonge? or down the valley to Union? (does this route not require a complete rebuild?) or to the DMRL?
Steve: To Union via the Don Sub, and yes it requires a complete rebuild, but it’s a lot cheaper than the Scarborough Subway.
Other than GO in CPR, what headroom are you expecting GO to have in the way of capacity? Do you think they will be able to operate well beyond the 6 trains per hour and 12,000 passengers? If not would have thought that by the time the DRL is built this capacity would be exhausted.
Steve: If we could get 12k passengers off of the subway and onto GO (or alternately, avoid adding 12k new passengers to the subway), that would be a huge improvement both for the subway and for giving those riders a fast trip to downtown. The point here is not to try to build the ultimate network to last until the year 3,000, but to find measures that collectively add to capacity as we go along.
A related problem is track time on the CPR’s mainline and other operational issues including getting through their yard in Agincourt. Metrolinx has included this route in their 25-year Big Move plan as if it is a real option, and if it’s not, well then it is time for both GO and CPR to get off the pot and say so. There is absolutely no point in having a line on the map that cannot be built, and yet which is counted in the demand model as part of the capacity available to move people.
If the line is really not available, then its inclusion in TBM verges on dishonesty, or just sheer incompetence.
I believe that the GO has a huge role to play in the region’s transit, however won’t most of this capacity be consumed in trips originating beyond the 416 by the time the DRL is built? Also will not virtually all the alternate capacity be essentially consumed by circa 2030? I was frankly expecting the DRL to be required to allow people to bump around between other routes, and to create any free capacity elsewhere in the east.
Steve: GO has a role in the outer 416 as well as in the 905. We cannot build enough subways to the fringes of Toronto and should not be trying to do so. Remember that Metrolinx claimed huge increases in capacity on their future lines, and all of that “32 minute” hot air we have heard about limiting the growth of travel times presumes that this entire network comes into existence. Personally, I think it has been oversold, and I suspect Metrolinx knows this too. The political problem is how to continue to get money for expansion when there are some fundamental flaws in the underlying claims?
In another comment, someone complained that I spend my time criticizing agencies and staff. This is a perfect example of why. There are days when the emperor really does have no clothes, and somebody has to say so.
Meanwhile, the poor downtrodden folk in outer Scarborough could be served by better GO service which is actually on the Metrolinx map, not some invention of a fevered railfan’s blog. How many billions will we waste on subways to move people to downtown who should be on GO at a much lower cost? Can GO actually carry them? These are vital questions for the network’s future.
When people lecture me claiming I don’t take growth and the future of Toronto into account just because I don’t like their precious subway, I despair.
LikeLike
One reason for the 100-year subway myth is that the floor of a subway tunnel is so sturdy, that any track maintenance can take place at nights or weekends without replacing any part of the floor. (Partial shutdowns on a week-end are better than shutting down sections of a surface line for several weeks including work days). I suspect that the surface subway section at Davisville lacks such a sturdy floor.
So could a sturdy floor be built for surface LRT lines so that they too can last “100 years”? If so, is Metrolinx considering such a floor or track base?
If emergency vehicles need to run on a dedicated surface ROW, could one simply add cobble stones or something easily removable to facilitate track maintenance so that any track repair could occur at night or on a weekend just like within a subway tunnel?
Steve: We have touched on this already earlier in this thread. Streetcar track is now built with three layers not unlike subway track, but with a different arrangement because it’s in a street. The bottom layer is the foundation slab, and that should last for a very, very long time. A lot of the track that has been rebuilt in the past two decades did not have such a slab under it, or certainly not as robust a one as the new track is receiving. The next layer contains steel ties which, together with Pandrol clips, hold the track in place. This layer too will last a very long time, and there have already been change outs of the rails in the top layer at some carstops (I illustrated one at Spadina & King and also at Queen & University last year). The top layer contains the track. In some systems, this layer is not concrete but rather is paving blocks fitted around the rails. This provides sufficient support for occasional use by emergency vehicles or pedestrians, but not by regular traffic.
The subway also has three layers since the original Spadina line was built. The bottom layer is the slab on the floor of the tunnel. Then comes a floating layer of slabs that sit on large “hockey pucks” to provide mechanical isolation of the track from the tunnel and, thereby, to reduce vibration. The track is attached to these slabs.
The track in the open area on the original Yonge line does not have a foundation slab, only ballast. Only the track in Davisville Station itself is bolted to a slab (the station itself).
If Metrolinx actually wanted to, it could build “LRT” track on, say, Eglinton that could be quickly repaired because it would not have a solid concrete upper layer. Whether they will actually do this is quite another matter, but the whole point of this discussion is to talk about what good LRT technology can be, not about a worst case implementation.
LikeLike
Steve I would agree that we should not be trying to build subways to the outer reaches. However, even if Metrolinx has oversold GO, I do believe that LRT and BRT can fill the gap in most of the 416. Need to make sure these include ability to expand with growth.
Steve: With one proviso: “growth” can be handled by building more LRT/BRT in parallel corridors unless there is a single demand point that requires intensive service. The premise that we should prebuild every transit line to handle some mythical demand that might appear in the distant future is an approach that will guarantee we build almost nothing.
I would say if Toronto commits itself to as much subway as some people are arguing for, I do not think we will need to worry much about growth. The property taxes to support all the subway that is built with ridiculously low ridership (Sheppard, Vaughan, Yonge Ext, and Scarborough) should put a nice damper on growth. I would suggest that most appropriate transit best supports growth. Doing otherwise hurts growth, both through smaller than required networks and higher costs. There is a limit to what can be supported, along with a limit to available capital funds, and these limits need to be taken into account.
LikeLike
The 3 stop subway is politically hacked up as seen in the discussions at council as to where the stops should go. It also integrates poorly with the current infrastructure – people don’t go to those intersections naturally for anything. As for integration with the BDL, given current projections are that only half the BDL trains will go beyond Kennedy, we are not discussing integration here as much as we are discussing big waiting rooms – I’d be plugging for wireless in these stations if this goes through as its going to be 8 minutes to get on a train (4 if they build an LRT) at rush hour.
I also find it strange that people keep going on an on about having to transfer and take one escalator right now at STC (oh the horror!) when most of us who take a subway have to transfer once before we get into a station and then still walk over 100 metres and down 2-3 escalators or sets of stair stairs to get from our buses to a subway. Finch station feels like swimming with a school of fish. The idea that the extension of the BDL is going to magically change the transfer time for people in Scarborough is facetious.
LikeLike
We’re also being oversold on the importance of GO train service (mostly to Union) and how this will be a complete game changer and replacement for subways … at least for the Relief Line.
The promise of Regional Express service is a nice one but if trains aren’t running every 15 minutes along the entire network along with a massive change to the fare structure it won’t change people’s behaviour … and the current plan will not have regional express service on all corridors.
Also being left out is GO Bus service which can do a lot to move people on suburb-suburb trips where local transit agencies aren’t offering service … like Dundas St between Peel and Halton, or from Aldershot to Cambridge.
Cheers, Moaz
LikeLike
Off topic but a small reminder there’s the little matter of a trunk sewer line present approx 30-40 metres underneath Coxwell Avenue and it’s not going anywhere.
LikeLike
Steve, while I heartily agree with your point, I would like to expand on it. Even where we have or had proposed LRT, (Sheppard) if the in median design is good, and space is reserved for platform extension, expansion need only require being able to add cars and trains per hour. Sheppard had an early projected demand of 3k (Metrolinx) even we think that is low by 50% and call it 4.5k we could serve this demand and growth equal to twice or even three times that, before having to fundamentally redesign, only adding to platform and train length.
The only single point demand that I can currently see that justifies subway is one that the Don Mills subway is needed for. If a GO in CPR can or cannot serve build the Scarborough LRTs (yes more than one) including one to Malvern that has a proper in median design, build a Don Mills subway and adapt as required to meet load. We may get surprises to the high side on LRT demand, but unlikely so much that relatively minor changes will not be able to meet it.
LikeLike
A Downtown Relief Line through Main has the potential to turn Danforth and Main into a highly useful and convenient transportation hub. A Lakeshore East GO Train station (Danforth) is already there along with a Bloor Danforth subway station (Main). A Markham-Stouffville GO Train station is also in planning and has almost no cost to implement. Building a DRL through Pape, Broadview, Coxwell, or Woodbine will mean an opportunity lost – an opportunity we cannot afford to loose.
LikeLike
RE Queen open-track section (& other places it occurs): Just to be “that guy” – Calgary & Edmonton LRT’s run in the median in sections of both boulevards & freeways (in Calgary’s case) throughout both networks. In the case of the freeways, it runs like the YUS does in the middle of the Allen by Yorkdale. In the case of the signalled boulevards with semi-frequent level cross-streets, it operates at 80 kph with full signal priority (including bells & arms), so unimpeded like a… uhm… subway. (the boulevards traffic speeds are 60kph on the two I’m thinking of in Calgary, but the street/traffic & concrete bollards with fence on top provide a sufficient buffer between pedestrians/etc to be able to run at 80 kph).
LikeLike
You said in an earlier comment Steve that there needs to be fare integration with GO in the 416.
Just thought I would point out that on the Suburban Railway (Hév) in Budapest any travel within the Budapest city limits is covered by a valid ticket or pass for the Budapest Transport Company (BKV). Even though the train runs to the Suburbs and neighboring towns like our GO train people still take it within Budapest as its frequent and fast.
Think of it as proof that fare integration works.
Steve: The only barrier to fare integration is that Queen’s Park does not want to pay for it. They are happy to give a co-fare to any system in the 905, but won’t do this for the TTC.
LikeLike
My transit plan is this: build the Scarborough subway that goes to Sheppard AND built the LRT plan. That way, the Scarbariens that want subway get their subway and the ones that want an LRT get their LRT. Problem solved.
PRESTO!! Trust me it will work.
LikeLike
Regarding the route of the DRL, documentation shared this past Saturday morning at the DRL public meeting showed interchanges with GO’s Richmond Hill line, roughly at River street and GO’s Markham and Lakeshore line, roughly at Gerrard Square. These connections will offload many downtown bound riders and will have some impact on the real bottleneck – Yonge and Bloor.
Regarding the subway extension vs LRT to Scarborough, there are 650,000 residents in Scarborough today. That is the same as the population of Toronto when the Yonge Subway was built. More than 300,000 of these residents live north of the 401. Scarborough residents are among the most poorly served transit consumers in our city and likely in North America. Consider, they have one highway and two subway stops to support them. Compare Scarberians’ transportation options with any other corner of our city. (Side note, tearing down the Gardiner will impact car commuters from Scarborough who are heading to the core via the DVP). There is a legitimate argument to be made that Scarborough is underserved and deserves better transit. The 650,000 residents of Scarborough pay city taxes and deserve an equivalent level of service.
The proposed Scarborough LRT will be within walking distance for 46,000 residents. I find that number hard to believe and at best, it addresses the needs of a minority of riders. Each one of those riders who are downtown bound will need to transfer thus increasing their travel time.
The argument that the Scarborough LRT is within walking distance of 46,000 riders is slightly misleading. The population of riders is clustered in Malvern, at the far east end of the line, or near the Scarborough Town Center, who will be serviced by the proposed Subway. Otherwise, much of the proposed route is through desolate territory. The existing SRT runs through a shabby industrial area with barely any nearby housing or businesses (except at Brimley). Few residents live along Progress, south of the 401.
The proposed subway with a stop at Sheppard and McCowan is a better option for almost all Scarborough residents north of the 401. (Remember, there are over 300,000 in Scarborough and Markham has another 330,000 residents). Considering that the Sheppard LRT runs very close to the heart of Malvern, with a Subway stop at Sheppard and McCowan, many Malvern riders who are commuting downtown will be well served. The real benefit is to residents of Scarborough who live north of the 401 and west of Malvern and would not be serviced by the proposed LRT. They will have a much better connection to the core and elsewhere in the city.
The proposed Subway intersects with an overlooked destination for many riders, Scarborough General Hospital. The SGH is one of the largest employers in Scarborough and will clearly be a destination for many transit users.
I understand the argument that the proposed Scarborough LRT is the most cost effective option for the immediate needs of riders in Scarborough. Considering how poorly served Scarborough is today that argument is not strong enough. Vision must be a part of the discussion. How many residents lived in Toronto when the Bloor viaduct was constructed? The need for vision applies here. There is already a significant nucleus of business, healthcare, residential and retail activity along McCowan near the 401, the proposed subway route. A subway will further urbanize the area.
Full disclosure, I am not a resident of Scarborough. I am earnest, not religious, in sharing these comments. I believe Scarborough needs to be better served by transit and the subway extension to Sheppard and McCowan is the best option for the majority of Scarborough’s residents.
Steve: What I take issue with in your analysis is the presumption that a comparable number of folks in Scarborough want to travel to downtown as made this trip in the old City of Toronto via Yonge Street (and parallel services on Bay, Church, etc.). The existing travel patterns in Scarborough are much more diverse and a large portion of the population either stays within Scarborough or commutes to other suburbs including those in the 905 (this is particularly true north of the 401). You have missed some significant demands including Centennial College on Progress, and the proposed extension of the Sheppard LRT south to UTSC campus.
LikeLike
I was just looking at some images from EglintonConnects. Track maintenance will likely not be an issue as they aren’t encasing the track in concrete, the images from Metrolinx clearly show grassed track! Also look at all those condos built out to the street! They have clearly decided that the traffic lanes on Eglinton won’t be preserved either – the images show only two traffic lanes in either direction and look at all those mature trees!
This sort of crap is what makes people skeptical – make an announcement with pictures that will likely bear little resemblance to reality when the line opens. Announcements and unrealistic graphics – Metrolinx’s substitute for achievement!
LikeLike
Um … is it big enough to run a tube train? Or even better, Toronto’s first underground Swan Boat* line?
Cheers, Moaz
*Steve, I’m surprised you didn’t point this out 🙂
Steve: Swans are too proud to be seen in a sewer tunnel.
LikeLike
Isn’t that essentially the current plan … build the Scarborough Subway extension under McCowan and the Sheppard East LRT Line on Sheppard? Or are you talking about building the Scarborough LRT *and* the Subway extension?
Cheers, Moaz
LikeLike
There certainly is such a thing as too far east. A transit network is, or at least should be, the structure that moves people around. Like a building structure where one replaces a wall with a beam capable of supporting more load in a concentrated space, the beam must be supported. How far apart those supports are really does make a difference, and placing one “too far east” is a real thing.
LikeLike