Toronto has elected a new mayor, John Tory, who will formally take office in December 2014. The ancien régime may be on its way out the door, but this is not the time for dancing in the streets with bonfires and blazing effigies.
Part of me secretly yearns for the first of many speeches in which a Tory administration bemoans the Ford legacy, just as Ford bemoaned the Miller years, but that leaves us focussed on retribution, not on progress. Toronto’s job now is to look forward and to undo the damage that four years of narrow-minded, simplistic policies brought us.
The very first question we — and I say “we” because the responsibility of citizens does not end the moment they cast a ballot — must answer is “what should Toronto be”. In this article, I will address only transit issues and their general political context and will leave other portfolios to commentators and activists in their respective fields. However, the question is the same for all.
The Importance of Listening
Throughout the campaign, Toronto heard endlessly about Tory’s plan. Right up to the last debate at CITY-TV where I was a member of the “expert panel”, Tory’s response to criticism was to cite his confidence in Toronto and belief that his plan would work. Wonderful sentiments, but one cannot dismiss alternate viewpoints with a wave of the hand and a Pollyanna-like belief in a bright future.
At some point in the campaign, Tory allowed that he must learn to “listen more”. That’s not just a question of being polite so that a speaker can make their point, but of recognizing the validity of alternate outlooks and absorbing the best of them into a broad-based policy. Tory wants a collegial atmosphere at City Hall, and that requires more than everyone singing his tunes and hanging a SmartTrack map in every office.
A vital first step lies in the creation of a new Executive and Standing Committees, and in the selection of new members for the TTC Board. Will Tory take the same route as Ford in favouring only the sycophants, the Councillors looking to share a new mayor’s power, or will the boards and committees represent the whole city geographically and politically?
The condition of transit requires serious debates about service quality, maintenance and the future role of the TTC network. These are not simple issues, and Council needs to be given honest advice and a broad menu of options, not simply a “stand pat” budget that pretends we can get by with flat-lined subsidies.
In August, the TTC Board passed a motion directing staff to include provision for various improvements as options in the 2015 budget. Does John Tory want to hear what it will cost to improve the TTC, or does he want that muzzled so his SmartTrack will stand alone as the only topic worthy of debate and funding?
Budget Committee meetings of the Ford era treated those who might ask “please, sir, we want some more” to open contempt — the sense that people who made time to come to City Hall for their paltry 3 minutes were slackers who should be out working. City Council owes Toronto a collective apology for this treatment and a commitment to do better. Yes, deputations are tedious to listen through, and a Council less dismissive of alternative voices might find a way to actually hear them.
If we begin from an attitude that people who want better services are somehow undeserving of attention, that they are special interest groups, and most importantly that they are somehow not representative of “taxpayers”, then the new administration will be no better than the old.
The Importance of Transit Service
“City Hall doesn’t listen to us” is a common complaint both downtown and in the far reaches of Etobicoke or Scarborough. When “downtowners” complain of poor transit service, they make common cause with riders all over the city. Yes, we have subways downtown, but much of the “old city” depends on surface routes for transport. There will never be a subway under Dufferin or St. Clair any more than there will ever be a subway under Lawrence or Islington.
Technology battles use up a lot of ink and web space, but regardless of who “wins”, much of the transit system remains unchanged.
Tory’s campaign was all about SmartTrack to the exclusion of almost all other transit issues. The gaping hole in his platform was any real mention of better service on the existing system, and he dismissed out of hand the TTC’s August suggestions (and rather conservative ones at that) of potential improvements. That’s a position of someone who has a blinkered view of city life and of the real needs, today, that should be addressed.
What we know so far is that Tory would look at express buses to solve some “squeaky wheel” problems like transit from Liberty Village, but duplicating existing services this way won’t make much difference for the vast majority of travellers. First off, most routes into downtown are already crowded with traffic, and an “express” bus would still make a slow, expensive journey. Second, many trips are not headed to the core area in the peak period, and these trips require better service on the grid of routes we already have.
Third, needless to say, is that the TTC claims to be unable to run more service until at best 2018-19. In other words, we might see more service just when the next election campaign heats up. That position was useful to Tory in downplaying Olivia Chow’s credibility, but it undermines his own. Any municipal agency’s job is to provide advice on what can be done and how to do it. If the city says “build me a subway”, then that’s the TTC’s job. If the city says “run better service”, it is not the TTC’s job to say “that’s impossible” especially when the statement is a flat out lie. Challenging, yes, but not impossible if the city will provide the resources.
A mayor’s job is to lead, to set goals for the city and, indeed, that’s what the whole SmartTrack campaign, flawed though it might be, is about. Tory stuck with his plan, but now is the time to see how transit overall can be made even better, how it can provide more than superficial improvements in the short term.
This will require using all of the resources the TTC has available today, and accelerating capital purchases that now languish in future years of the budget.
For more about what we can do to improve transit today, see my previous article on the subject.
The Simplistic Proposal for a Fare Freeze
Every politician, especially every new mayor, loves to give the voters something as a reward: a tax cut here, a free service there. Tory (like his two opponents) wants to freeze TTC fares. That would be a terrible decision, and could set the TTC back even further than it has been under the Ford years.
Fare freezes do nothing to improve service, and in fact they hobble service growth unless the freeze is matched by increased subsidy. Roughly speaking, such a move would cost at least $25-million, and that is revenue that is lost not just this year, but every future year because today’s fare becomes the base against which future increases grow.
It’s easy to say “people pay enough already”, but in fact many riders are quite capable of and willing to pay more if only their bus would show up with space for them to board. Yes, there are lower-income riders who deserve a break, but they should get one directly as a targeted subsidy.
An important fare change under discussion (and likely to be forced by the move to Presto) is the implementation of time-based fares as a replacement for transfers. The TTC estimates the cost of a 2-hour fare at $20m annually, but such a change will make travel cheaper for many riders who now make separate, short hop trips, but not with sufficient frequency to warrant buying a monthly pass.
Such a fare will also make regional integration much simpler because boundaries could disappear. Two hours’ riding is two hours’ worth regardless of the colour of the bus.
Why don’t we discuss this sort of forward looking fare structure but instead simply say “freeze the fares” as if it will solve everyone’s problems? The discussion and the subsidy debate will be right back on the table in 2016 and every year after that.
There is basic math in the TTC budget large and complex as some of its details may be. The cost of running service is driven by two factors:
- Increases in the cost of labour and materials, and
- Increases in the amount of service provided.
There are “efficiencies” here and there such as a move to larger vehicles, but these are one-time savings once they are rolled into the system. If both service and the cost of providing it go up, so must the subsidy unless the difference comes from the farebox.
For as long as I can remember, the TTC has been saying “we should have regular, small increases in fares” because experience shows that at this scale, riders stay on the system. What we do not need is an artificial freeze followed by big changes when the budget pressure at the City becomes overwhelming. Toronto has been through this before, and it worked against the larger goal of getting more people onto the transit system.
Is there a Mayor, a Council, with the backbone to argue that short-term cuts and freezes don’t benefit the city and its transit riders in the long term?
The Technology Wars
Regular readers here will know that there are long discussions about what transit technology Toronto should embrace and where various lines might be built. I am not going to repeat that debate.
However, there are three hangovers from the election campaign:
- A decision has been made to build a subway in Scarborough, and there is strong pressure for more subways elsewhere.
- The regional rail network, call it GO RER or SmartTrack, will feature more prominently in transit planning that it has for decades.
- We might, maybe, someday, see progress on a Downtown Relief Line (whatever it is called).
In all three cases, major studies will be needed to finalize basic details such as alignments, engineering challenges, station locations and cost. These studies should not be short-circuited with political rhetoric, nor should they reach “directed” conclusions to support a favoured result.
Toronto needs to understand the costs, benefits and limitations of various options so that Council and our friends at Queen’s Park can see how everything might fit together. This is not a matter of nay-saying, or delay for its own sake, as Tory’s campaign would argue, but of really knowing what we might do, how much it will cost, and how well any projects will improve the network.
There is far more to planning and building a network than printing hundreds of thousands of campaign handouts with a map of one route on them.
What Is SmartTrack?
As the campaign wore on and challenges to SmartTrack grew, it became obvious that the original proposal needed work, and this was only grudgingly conceded late in the game. The line was not worked out for its engineering challenges even on a rough basis, and its designers even made the fundamental mistake of not visiting potential sites. When someone like me does this, the epithet is “armchair railfan” or “wannabe engineer” if not worse. When a campaign does it, then it’s “a professional opinion” carved on stone tablets (although sandstone may be the actual medium).
I won’t belabour that debate as the challenges in SmartTrack have been addressed elsewhere, but now is the time for many questions to be answered. Just a few:
- Is SmartTrack really a separate service, or is this simply a rebranded version of something GO was planning to run anyhow?
- Why the insistence on veering west on Eglinton with a difficult route under Mount Dennis when (a) SmartTrack could continue northwest on the rail corridor and (b) the Eglinton-Crosstown line could continue west as originally planned?
- At the proposed level of service, can SmartTrack actually benefit would-be riders at the “in town” stations proposed for this line, or would trains be full (just as GO is today) when they arrive?
- How will a Relief Line eventually fit into this mix?
Toronto is being asked to believe that one line on a map can solve almost every problem, and that is simply not credible. We need to move beyond the campaign and talk about how GO’s RER, Smart Track and other parts of the TTC will co-exist and what role each part will play.
Waterfront Transit
I cannot end this article without mentioning the waterfront. Two major transportation issues face Council on waterfront developments in the coming term:
- On the western waterfront, what will expansion of demand at the Island Airport do to the waterfront neighbourhoods, to the road and the transit systems serving that facility?
- On the eastern waterfront, we are about to build a small city of 50,000 residents and at least as many workers and students over the next two decades. This was supposed to be a “transit first” undertaking, but what is actually happening is that transit comes up last. We risk building on a scale that could dwarf Liberty Village but without good transit to move people in and out of the new developments.
Yes, the waterfront is “downtown”, that place so vilified in recent political discourse, but it is a signature project for Toronto, something with which we show the world how well we can build our new city. Failure here will be front and centre, part of the picture post card of Toronto. Our new mayor cannot allow this to founder.
Conclusion
After four years of cutbacks and budgets that strangle the TTC’s ability to grow, it is time for real improvement in Toronto’s transit system. Some of this will come with the usual megaprojects, but attention must be paid to the day-to-day work of providing better transit. That means more service, a commitment to maintenance and fleet expansion that will allow the TTC to attract more riders, not simply keep the minimum possible service on the streets.
John Tory has a chance to show what he can do for transit and for Toronto, to show real improvement before he stands for re-election in 2018. Please let his record be something more than cleaner stations and a pile of discarded maps.
Steve Munro 
I think John Tory is smart enough to realize that the exact transit plans are not written in stone, but the underlying reason for coming up with them is.
Scarborough subway was brought in to eliminate the transfer at Kennedy. If experts can find another way to achieve that goal, I would guess that Mr. Tory would be open to it. My suggestion would be to elevate Eglinton LRT and connect it to the SRT/LRT. This eliminates the transfer, serves STC better, serves Malvern, has more separation between lines at Sheppard, and provides the option for all these travellers to transfer to the SmartTrack. It also saves about $1B over the subway option and it follows and EA approved route (small modifications to EA needed, as were sought at Black Creek and Leslie) so it could be completed within the same timeframe as the ECLRT. If the transit planners at Metrolinx and TTC work with Mr. Tory’s basic desires (and not his specific plans), then they may even come up with another means of eliminating the transfer at Kennedy and saving money. With Ford, it was obvious that the province and city decided it was better to delay by 3 years rather than work with Ford.
In the West, a similar thing is occurring. Mr. Tory has the desire for a grade-separated connection from the Airport to downtown. His initial plan is SmartTrack, but again there are other ways of achieving this. He could elevate the Eglinton LRT through Etobicoke and create the grade-separated connection to the Airport Corporate centre and the airport itself. This would allow SmartTrack to continue to Brampton (or Bramalea). Again, this solution is less expensive than Mr. Tory’s plan, but it achieves his goals and would probably be accepted. Further, as with Scarborough, the EA is done for the ECLRT West, so it could be completed much faster. SmartTrack stays in the rail corridor so it could also be completed faster. Maybe there is another way of providing a grade-separate connection to this employment area, and I hope it is explored.
The two things that are needed are for transit planners (at Metrolinx and TTC) to work with Mr. Tory to suggest less expensive, more effective, more “shovel ready” solutions to the overall Tory promises (as opposed to rigidly following the exact Tory route), AND, for Mr. Tory and Councillors to have an open enough mind to realize that they are trying to achieve goals, not specific routes. I think most people on this website realize this, and if money can be saved, all the better.
LikeLike
Kevin’s comment:
On the day of Rob Ford’s inauguration as mayor, his hand-picked guest speaker called me a “pinko” and a “kook.” Instead of repudiating these remarks, Rob Ford applauded them.
I call that personal offense.
Steve: I heartily agree. Throughout their reign, Ford and his supporters were openly contemptuous of those who were not part of their group with a quite clear attitude that we were not worthy to be commenting on civic affairs, participating in dialogues or asking for better services.
LikeLike
Tory talks so fast it looks like he’s on Adderall. There is simply no way a guy his age can function with that kind of energy on Tim Horton’s and five hours of sleep at night (which is what he brags is all he needs). I heard he pops out of bed at 5AM every day like a jack-in-the-box. So what’s his secret? — modern sleep medicine wants to know. He is so revved up he could probably build SmartTrack himself.
LikeLike
With respect to LRT in the suburbs, the story isn’t as clear as it could be. The new mayor of Hamilton’s support for LRT can be best described as tepid … but I suppose that he’s not against it or stonewalling, which is a step forward.
In Brampton, it will be interesting to see what message the new Mayor and council come up with. I highly doubt that the province (which from what I heard was ready to announce funding after the municipal election … before the Brampton Council decision) is going to entertain any change to the route of the LRT, so I expect it will terminate at the Brampton Gateway terminal at Steeles & Hurontario in the first phase (if it gets into Brampton at all).
In Mississauga, both the front runners were pro-LRT but they had vastly different timelines for getting the LRT built. Crombie claims it can be built in 3 years, while Mahoney was saying it would be between 8-12 years. I personally believe that a segment could be built from the proposed yard (just south of the 407 and Hurontario) down to the Mississauga City Centre and opened in time for the next election but that’s about it. Both candidates also both supported SmartTrack and wanted to connect their transit plans to it. As if that wasn’t bad enough, both also proposed northern LRT connections across Mississauga … Crombie along Derry Road and Mahoney along the 401 … which is where I really stopped listening. What’s worse is that they talk about connecting transit via Kipling but neither made it a priority to get the Kipling Gateway and Renforth Gateway completed by 2018. Ideally Kipling should be given priority given the problems at Islington Station and the reconstruction of the Six Points “interchange” to a more urban street layout.
I think that in Waterloo LRT has managed to gain further support and defeat any naysayers … a powerful step forward for LRT in general and the Provincial Government in particular, which will soon be happily pointing out (correctly or not) that Waterloo got their LRT built sooner because they committed money to it (as compared to Toronto and Hamilton and Mississauga).
Oh and I have noted that the Minister of Transport has already indicated to Mayor-elect Tory that he is ready to discuss the similarities and commonalities between SmartTrack and the existing Metrolinx proposals. So it looks like things are going to move forward and the original SmartTrack proposal will end up subsumed into the RER network, with route and design changes as appropriate. Of course I’d be very confident in this if the province announced that they would accelerate the construction of Phase 2 of the Eglinton Crosstown.
Cheers, Moaz
LikeLike
Not having been a personal target, nor having paid a great deal of attention to his early antics, I did not provide myself opportunity to develop that distaste, and yet, on transit alone, he managed to deeply offend my sense of good governance. This, for me, led me to watch more closely, and then take exception to his other behaviour as well. However, I managed to take exception, initially, solely based on the way he approached transit. I cannot imagine, how I would feel with that type of ignorance aimed squarely at me.
LikeLike
Steve, would it make sense to immediately deal with a position for Olivia Chow, and appoint her as liaison to the TTC, and chair of a Toronto Police, Traffic, and Transit joint committee, while making her a champion for service improvement. This was clearly a major issue for her, where she made a major (and what seemed personal) commitment. If she could maintain this as a regular push and provide high level attention on service levels and route management improvements along with much improved service metrics and reporting, it might go a long way to, providing him credibility, her a real purpose, and the city a powerful champion for immediate transit improvement. It would still require his personal and regular attention, but with his clear and regular support I suspect this would make a great position for her.
Steve: I suspect that if Chow gets anything, it will be in the social service area which better aligns with her real interests. Tory has staked out transit as his own portfolio.
LikeLike
In my opinion, Toronto will pay for the folly of city council, whether it is John Tory, Olivia Chow or Doug Ford as mayor. These were the same band of idiots that voted against finding 2 billion in funding for the Big Move, and who are so empowered by the word “subway” that they can use that as an excuse to build it everywhere despite the fact that we are now below the state of good repair (9 billion in maintenance and infrastructure renewal). Heck, these same band of idiots couldn’t even find funding to build McNicoll garage, let alone a subway maintenance yard. These idiots don’t care because they never had to take to bus or streetcar to work or the doctor’s office. Stintz, De Baeremaeker, Bernadetti all live in a ward where there is a subway and never had the need to think about missing the late evening bus back home when the the subway runs to 1 am. The TTC is built upon buses, streetcars and subways, and underinvestment in any one means that disruption and delays for everyone (see what happens when the subway has to shut down and there are not enough buses available to ferry those passengers around town).
If John Tory is smart about implementing Smart Track, the first thing to be done is to create a co-fare agreement with Metrolinx such that metropass users, with premium fare get to use the GO in Toronto. You want to model the demand to see if the TTC fare is reasonable to fund this new line, and not find out that additional subsidy is needed to run Smart Track, like the UPX and Sheppard subway is now. Infrastructure is permanent and the costs only go up once it is built.
LikeLike
In regards to the Waterloo LRT, it was a go because the iExpress (limited stop service) became too successful and they are starting to run more buses (every 10 min 6am to 6pm) than what King St. can handle (makes for an easy argument to commit funding to it). It is likely to be a successful LRT as the demand is there and the model fits the reality of the situation. You build from the ground up: build the demand then build the technology, not build the technology and hope there will be enough demand to justify it.
LikeLike
While I do not think Chow will be bad as social services, I think that someone with real political weight has to have this in the short term as their only charge. This would allow him to keep it as a prime focus, but still have a bulldog on it, even when other issues arise. I do agree however, that he needs to sit in on the committee meetings, at least until the message is clearly and firmly sent that we need this fixed, and that means we expect active management to improve whatever can be. Tell me what you can do, show me what you can fix, and a constant push for improved service management, including much improved headway management and a strong drive to reduced crowding. It will need his strong involved voice, but also somebody who can remain laser focus on this agenda, and hold the agencies in question’s feet to the fire. This would mean a person with real political weight to be available to regular pursue the TTC, Toronto Traffic and the Police service.
Steve: The Chair of the TTC has to be a Council member, and so this rules out Chow. She could be Vice-Chair as one of the “citizen” members, but that would create a delicate situation relative to the actual Chair. Some members, including the Chair, of the Police Services Board, are appointed by Queen’s Park while others are Council appointments. Again, I am not sure that I see Chow as a standin for Tory, and in any event, the Mayor normally appoints a member of Council to that role, not a “civilian”. As for Toronto Traffic, that’s a department which reports through the Public Works & Infrastructure Committee to Council.
LikeLike
Steve,
I know that the elections are over but I’m curious as to what did you think of Ari Goldkind’s transit plan. It seems that everybody who wants to make an impact these days when it comes to transit planning simply draws more lines on a map, however what impressed me was the work put into to describe funding at least from the city’s perspective.
Steve: I withheld comment on Goldkind’s plan because I saw one early version (and one that may not have been the final version, but a lot closer) before he released it. I didn’t agree with some of his technology choices in the early version, but it was not given to me for public comment, and so I kept quiet. As later versions appeared, the question then became why did it change.
On a more general note, the idea of putting together such an immense plan with an enormous price tag really misses the point of our current problems with transit: the fact that all the spaces “in between” the rapid transit lines do not have enough service or reliable service. Drawing a map like that gives the impression that all we need to do is embark on a huge construction project and all our problems will go away. I do not agree, and have said so here repeatedly.
And finally, notably absent from his map is the GO network which is an essential part of any regional system.
Having done reviews of the transit plans of the three major candidates, I didn’t feel that a full-bore review of Goldkind’s map was really in order. Sorry, but I am not one of those folks who subscribes to the idea that every candidate, even the minor ones, deserves coverage, especially when I am doing all of this for free. It was a stretch even to write about Doug Ford, but as the second-place candidate with a shot at the mayoralty, his plan just had to be reviewed on the off chance he might get a shot at implementing it.
Yes, it’s easy to draw maps. Early in this blog’s life, back in March 2006, I wrote an article called A Grand Plan simply to answer that oft-posed question we transit advocates get “so what would you do”. In retrospect I would change a few things, but the basic ideas were and are sound. I really didn’t want to draw “my map” because then the arguments inevitably turn on “why isn’t my line on your map”, or “your line is in the wrong place”. The real debate and issue is what transit should be doing, and the map flows from that. It should not dictate that a line drawn decades ago in a musty, pre-internet plan should still determine transit projects in the 21st century.
So when I see someone who has gone overboard with his map, I can’t help saying “you’re starting at the wrong end of the problem”. But am I going to write a critique, no, because the basic premise, that we can “plan” on such a scale, is unrealistic.
LikeLike
I voted for Tory and even though his Smart Track Plan has controversial elements and needs some modification, I believe his leadership, willingness to develop and maintain solid working relationships with key stakeholders and ability to bring a positive professional approach to City Hall is essential for Toronto to actually get things done b/c for the past 1.5 year of the Ford Administration was a far less productive.
I was amazed during the campaign how there was very little discussion about the Toronto-York Spadina Subway Extension Project and how long it took, challenges that continue to happen. It is a perfect example of what subway construction results looks like and the reality that development has already occurred. Improving transit needs to focus on the ridership who takes it frequently, not for those people who take it as an option and not a necessity.
What continues to disappoint me is that transit plans in Toronto don’t look at the existing system and find ways to improve the current fleet. The Scarborough subway is nice to have, but really is not necessary for the growth of Scarborough. It won’t impact those people near Port Union, Malvern, Markham and Lawrence, Agincourt areas. It will only be a 10-15 min travel time of uninterrupted service that will still force people to take a bus (interrupted service) to their final destination.
Toronto has a problem of not committing to transit projects for whatever reason (Political, Budgetary). Sure Miller administration had a Transit Plan called Transit City, but as his unpopularity increased, he quit on our City for his decision for not running for re-election. I will never forget that. He wanted to spend more time with family, but he was teaching urban issues in different cities / now CEO of WWF-Canada.
We can only look forward and having the DRL, Smart Track, or new LRT, as long as there is a PLAN to follow. Also, those leaders who build the plan shouldn’t quit and at least build majority consensus to ensure that council can stand by.
Hopefully Tory can learn from prior transit failures and we actually get results down and not continued state of no progress.
Steve: I think that Miller was beaten down by the CUPE strike which everyone remembers as the “garbage strike”, a foolish action by the union that cost them a great deal of public and political support, and was responsible for handing the anti-Miller crowd a perfect cudgel with which to beat him. All of the planning that went into Transit City assumed there would be a third Miller term to get those projects well underway, but that strike took the fire out of his belly. Even worse, the moment he announced that he was retiring, he lost all meaningful influence at City Hall.
LikeLike
The point I was trying to get across is that if the RT fell apart tomorrow, you could have some level of SmartTrack service in about 2+ years from then with possibly a few months shaved off depending on GO transit’s involvement. In contrast, would we have even had the groundbreaking ceremony on the BD extension by that point?
Steve: No, it would be still in detailed design. It’s also worth noting that if the RT does fall apart, then the dreaded bus shuttle that was one of the major arguments against the LRT would happen anyhow. Someone might then well ask the TTC why they claimed it could be kept operating for another 8 years when they were shilling for the subway option.
LikeLike
Tory is facing a lot of pressure from right wing council members like Norm Kelly to cancel the Sheppard and/or Finch LRT. I tend to think that the former is a horrible idea and should be a subway mostly because there is already a subway there, and sort of semi-support the latter. I suspect these two have a high probability of being cancelled (especially Sheppard) because Tory will give into pressure from his inner circle of right wing councillors and has a much better chance of winning the vote because unlike Ford he can remove councillors from the executive committee if they don’t vote a certain way.
Eglinton obviously should have been a subway but it is too late now. Tory’s idea of having GO trains on the west end of Eglinton is bizarre and obviously has to be changed; some sort of partially elevated subway like the Vancouver Canada Line (with longer platforms) along all of Eglinton would have made far more sense.
The ship has obviously sailed for the Scarborough subway (even left wing councillors like Matlow are flip flopping on this issue, probably to get executive committee positions).
Finch is the only one of the 4 Transit City lines that seem normal to me (similar to many other lines in the world) and the other 3 seem really bizarre and radically different from the vast majority of other LRT lines in the world. The whole point of LRT is that is built above ground because it is much cheaper than subway but extremely expensive tunneling (Eglinton) defeats the purpose of this. Building LRT along roads with half-built subway lines (Sheppard) or along LRT lines (the SRT) that were converted to ICTS then back again is very unusual.
Steve: Remember that when Eglinton was proposed, it would have been surface LRT all the way from the Airport to Kingston Road with only the central section underground. The ratio looks odd now because the outer pieces were lopped off. That design was based on the “keep it on the surface” premise that underlies much of LRT, and we would certainly never have built the same extent of a system as subway.
LikeLike
Joe M said: Well considering these projects take 50 years to get off the ground demand projections are a joke. Durham growth is going to explode in the next 25-50 years. Would be nice to be proactive for once.
Also projections will change based on what we build today & creating a divide between East & West will not end up well as you see in Toronto today. Metro Toronto would not be populated to the extent it is today without the transit infrastructure that was built years ago.
The regional inequality ideology has to stop.
Steve: Durham has a much more basic problem in that it is at the east end of the GTHA while Peel Region sits in the middle if you include everything through to eastern Hamilton. The GTHA has naturally grown to the west because of the road and rail system giving it ready access to central North America.
As for building for Durham’s 50-year growth, well, I would like to see us build for anything’s 10 or 20 year growth, not to mention the stuff we have built already without good transit support. It is easy to say of any project “build it for the future”, but Durham is only one of many areas where that claim could be made. I could equally advance a case for the DRL and Don Mills subway, or major upgrading of the GO network way beyond the tepid 15-minute service we are offered with RER. Remember when The Big Move promised 5-6 minute headways?
LikeLike
That is why when Ford becomes Premier in four years later in 2018, he will rip apart the LRT and replace it back with the very successful bus service. Or better yet, bury the entire line or build it as a subway.
Steve: Ford is just pig headed enough to contemplate something like that. But Premier in 2018? What are you smoking?
LikeLike
I think the problem in all this is that it takes a decade to put a plan in place, mayor and council elections are every 4 years, so very little ever gets built, before the next set of political candidates have new ideas. Case in point, if we had started building on Transit city, 4 years ago, then we would be seeing some of those routes coming on stream in the next year or two.
Steve: See my earlier remark about the lack of a third Miller term and the loss of momentum.
LikeLike
I’m going to strike an optimistic note and hope that over the next four years all the elected official will consult and cooperate. I think John Tory is the type that would be open to changes if you went to him and said Smart Track is great however the engineering studies/environmental studies/traffic studies/finance studies suggest changing a few small things. Maybe also over the next four year people will try out the new streetcars in Toronto so that next election populist politicians will be yelling, “THE PEOPLE WANT STREETCARS, STREETCARS, STREETCARS!!!”
LikeLike
Steve: “I think that Miller was beaten down by the CUPE strike which everyone remembers as the “garbage strike”, a foolish action by the union that cost them a great deal of public and political support, and was responsible for handing the anti-Miller crowd a perfect cudgel with which to beat him. All of the planning that went into Transit City assumed there would be a third Miller term to get those projects well underway, but that strike took the fire out of his belly. Even worse, the moment he announced that he was retiring, he lost all meaningful influence at City Hall.”
Okay, so if both David Miller and Olivia Chow were running, who would you have voted for? You know what both of those people stand for and so which one do you like more?
Steve: If Miller were running, Chow would not be on the ballot, and so the question is moot. But, to answer you, in the event that the left were stupid enough to run two candidates like that, I would vote for Miller without hesitation.
LikeLike
Well, they are “smart” enough to run two parties but to let you in on a secret that will devastate many lefties, the NDP was started by the right precisely for the purpose of dividing the left vote as without that there could NEVER be a right wing government in a country as left as Canada.
Steve: The NDP was founded as a socialist alternative to the Liberals and Tories who, for many, are indistinguishable. Later, the Green party that was started by fiscal conservatives who liked “green” ideas, but didn’t want the left wing baggage. Their primary effect has been to siphon votes off from the left.
Oh oh, there goes your big appointment / post / position should Olivia Chow ever become mayor or minister of transportation or another big position like that.
Steve: A good mayor is more important than whether I get a sinecure in some agency. That may sound disgustingly altruistic, but unlike many politicians and “advisors”, I don’t tweak my opinion to suit a future payback.
Steve: “I think that Miller was beaten down by the CUPE strike which everyone remembers as the “garbage strike”, a foolish action by the union that cost them a great deal of public and political support, and was responsible for handing the anti-Miller crowd a perfect cudgel with which to beat him.”
Miller was beaten down by FORD period. Miller had no chance of winning with a Ford on a ballot (Rob, Doug, Randy, or Mike) and to avoid embarrassing himself with a major defeat, he decided to not run.
LikeLike
Sorry Steve, I was actually suggesting another position, and a joint committee TTC, TPS and Toronto Traffic together, that would have the representatives from all three, preferably the heads and an operations person from each, that would be responsible for making the flow in the city work. This person would work more as the Mayor’s bulldog on getting things moving, especially transit. So the TTC would be held to account for their issues, and the head of city traffic would also be regularly involved in making the city transit system work, and would hear about it from the highest level, as would the police. I believe that part of the issue in Toronto has become the management in silos which gives the TTC excuses, and keeps the others unaware of the import of their role.
Steve: I come back to the fact that this would be a very technical area, and that is not Chow’s strong suit.
LikeLike
I think the issue is where do we need to make an allowance. Do not build 50 years into the future, but make sure you left yourself somewhere you could. The concept of 5-6 minute headways and a plan to get there still needs to be in the cards. You may not need it yet, but it should be there. When you add tracks, make sure you also have signalling systems that will support that sort of thing. “Surface subway” is only really surface subway if it can support the frequency. So if you use EMU for RER, make sure that you could, if you had to, support LRT like headway. You will not get double decker trains down to a 30 second dwell time at terminus (Union) or like load stations however, it would be good to look to the future, and think how to get to a 5-6 minute headway (even at 2k per train that is only 20-24 k per hour, which is not unimaginable in 20 years).
LikeLike
Steve,
With regards to Smart Track, I am a bit confused about why we need 2+ years of design work to get the service running…
I guess I am thinking about when we started running off-peak trains on LSW & LSE.. Did we need an EA/detailed Eng assessment for that?
Could not phase 1 of SmartTrack just be to run 30 minute service (or less) on existing tracks… Maybe Dundas West Station to Kennedy? That really would only require some operating funding as most trains sit idly in the Union Yards throughout the day?
I know that I am definitely/probably overly simplifying, but I feel like that could be a way to get some short term relief… and isn’t it the outer ends of ST that are so contentious?
Steve: Half hourly service is hardly the alternative transportation system people in Scarborough have been promised. With the complaints about the long and open-air connection at Kennedy, I can imagine how people would feel about being dropped off to wait in the cold for a train that won’t come for 20 minutes. There is already an EA in progress for double tracking the Uxbridge Sub, but the scope ends north of Scarborough Junction. The question then becomes how much added service can be operated through that junction and along LSE to Union with no modifications.
LikeLike
RE: Project Acceleration/early-KO
I’ve been thinking a bit about how the city, if they reaffirm their commitment to the updated Master Agreement, might be able to force the hand of the Province to start on FinchW & ShepE sooner, and/or accelerate existing projects. The build-out times seem absurd to me.
My gut tells me that Wynne is holding back funding until they can show some progress on deficit reduction/elimination. My concern is always about the point of no return for a project and if we start the 2 LRTs in 2017-19, then we could be in a situation where not enough work has been done and a possible PC win would stop work on these entirely.
So, what could the city do in order to push the province to start sooner? I guess I’m curious if Toronto was to short term loan the province money, or put $100M (arbitrarily) into the game, could we accelerate the KO of these projects (with my above comment in mind).
Similarly, could we accelerate the building of the X-town? There is nothing stopping the above-ground stations from being built, and similarly, once the TBMs have passed a station site (by some distance), why couldn’t the station construction start now, instead of the plan which seems to complete tunneling entirely and then start station construction.
(Related to this, I routinely get asked by people why we don’t, e.g. just close the Gardiner entirely for “2 months” and get the work done with, instead of doing it so slowly for 2+ years)
Thanks
Steve: Provincial spending on transit is done with borrowed money, and its only contribution to the deficit is in whatever interest the borrowing attracts, not the full dollar value. As for Toronto, teh city does not have spare cash sitting around to load to Queen’s Park. After all, we have just started to pay the Scarborough Subway tax to fund borrowing roughly $1b for our share of that project. If you want to borrow without pushing up the deficit, you have t either cut expenditures elsewhere, or (gasp!) find new revenues.
The tender process for the Crosstown stations is already underway, but because it is being handled as one big project, this is much more cumbersome than many separate station contracts.
LikeLike
I had been told it was 3 years … but either way, this is definitely one of those “under the radar” issues that is just not being talked about. If Metrolinx and the Provincial Government are keen to expand transit via the RER they are going to have to accelerate and expand the training of railway operators and they are going to have to start this within a year.
Cheers, Moaz
LikeLike
Moaz said: from what I have been told about and seen from politicians in Waterloo, they are really focused on agreeing with the plan and process, then supporting and upholding both rather than disagreeing with each other in ways that undermine the plan.
When Cambridge was concerned that the LRT would not travel south of the 401, plans were adjusted to ensure Cambridge would get aBRT and more iExpress service in the interim. Moreover there was no message given that LRT was of a higher class than BRT or iExpress … rather, the message was focused on capacity numbers in each corridor as well as the network as a whole.
So I am confident in saying that Waterloo will probably be upheld as a good example of how to build LRT, and I wouldn’t be surprised if the Provincial Government comes in with a “reward” and accelerates the construction of the 2nd phase into Cambridge.
Oh, by the way, Steve mentioned the Dundas BRT and the low service frequencies in the west end of Halton Region. It is also important to mention that Halton Region’s plans for BRT involve curbside BRT on Dundas and Trafalgar … not much more than aBRT or the quality bus service offered in Brampton. At this point I do not know what Peel Region or Mississauga Councillors would like to do for the Dundas BRT/Dundas Corridor in Mississauga. Both mayoral candidates were focused on the Hurontario LRT and paid little attention to the Dundas corridor, with the exception of Steve King who argued that Dundas should be LRT and Hurontario should be BRT.
Cheers, Moaz
LikeLike
It’s also worthwhile to note that the buses needed for that shuttle service would not be available because the Sheppard East LRT hasn’t been built and the McNicoll bus garage is still awaiting funds. This is why I’m hoping that someone is explaining to Tory the real probability of the RT failing before the subway opens so that he can target transit spending to help minimize the nightmare that would cause.
LikeLike
Fair enough, you are certainly right, the notion I am pushing as a chair of joint committee of TTC, TPS and Toronto Traffic and chief advocate for transit quality (for lack of a better description), would certainly be a detailed oriented and technical position. I suspect it would need to be, simply in order to cut through the BS, and get the agencies to actual concede the portion of responsibility that was theirs, and call an excuse exactly that.
LikeLike
Doug Ford may be down but he is not out. Doug Ford will rise again from the ashes and forever change this city for the better.
Question: Now that Robbie has been elected to the municipal legislature, what if he still acts like mayor? Can he be thrown out even though he was democratically elected?
Steve: He can lose his seat if he is convicted of a criminal act, although prosecution seems unlikely right now. There is also the possibility of further rulings on conflicts of interest. In his court case, he dodged losing his seat only because Council made the mistake of imposing a penalty for which it had no authority.
If he is disruptive during Council meetings, and in particular if he makes statements that are “unparliamentary” or became disruptive, he can be ordered out of the chamber by the Speaker. (This is similar to the process at the Provincial and Federal levels.) He would remain a member of Council, and could resume participation on the floor once he made amends, typically by way of an apology.
LikeLike
Not smoking anything, just drank some Kool-Aid.
Steve: You do realize the implication that your Kool-Aid reference has, yes? I would expect that your comments here would cease shortly if so.
LikeLike
As a compromise just go underneath or over intersections with middle of the street Eglinton LRT. The stations can still be at street level and so this won’t add much to the cost especially since going under intersections can be done with cut and cover and stations can still be on street level.
Steve: That would be an option, albeit not an easy one, if we had not already started to build the tunnel.
LikeLike
He never acted like a mayor. He barely even acts like a Councillor.
LikeLike
Kevin’s comment:
A truly loyal Ford support should be smoking the same substances as Rob Ford.
LikeLike
There are three problems:
1) Have you ever made the transfer connection at Dundas West? I did it for two years and it is not a quick convenient connection. You have to walk down to to Bloor Street and then walk 500 feet to the other station and then walk north to it. No one in their right mind would do it to connect to or from a 30 minute headway when they could ride to St. George for a much more convenient change. There is a similar problem at Kennedy but not as bad.
2) As has been said before there is a two year training period for railway engineers. You have to have worked for the railway for two years before you can train as an engineer, Transport Canada regulation. The only “training slots” available to Metrolinx/Bombardier to use are the “Customer Service Ambassadors.” This will mean that any increase in service levels will have to be done at a relatively slow and incremental rate. The only hope is if Metrolinx can get an agreement with the Teamsters to run one person crews in the locomotives. This would quickly double the number of qualified engineers available.
3) There is not the track capacity on the Weston Sub because Metrolinx is only triple tracking it and two of the tracks are for UPX. I know that it sounds as if a single track should be able to handle a 30 minute headway but you are dealing with railway operating rules not sane transit rules.
LikeLike
The polls were very clear in the 2010 election. David Miller, had he been running, would have beaten Rob Ford. While the poorly executed strike actions by CUPE leadership and membership gave Miller’s opponents some traction, he still would have won – had he the heart to go on. However, after suffering years of abuse for supposedly favouring the union workers (he didn’t really, just treated them fairly) CUPE turned on him and Miller threw in the towel and walked away.
I personally believe that the most important societal issue facing Canada is the preservation of middle class jobs – including CUPE jobs. The stupid actions of the CUPE leadership and membership during that unfortunate strike have to set a record for acting against one’s own self interest. It might have been fun to make citizens wait 15 minutes each to enter the temporary dump sites. It might have satisfied that human desire to be nasty to sing “Good bye David” on the steps of City Hall – but the end result was the elimination of many CUPE jobs (and even more temps) when garbage pick up was privatised.
I should have said that this was the record for acting against self interest up until that time. The subsequent embracing of the Ford Agenda by the less fortunate eclipsed the level set by CUPE.
LikeLike
Going under intersections with at grade stations is not an option unless you want the platforms to be several hundred metres away from the intersection you are “serving”.
LikeLike
Steve noted that the contract was still being tendered, but even if the tender process were complete there is a further problem.
It is necessary to remove the tunnel walls relatively early in the construction of the station. But the tunnels cannot be broken into until the TBMs have finished work on the section, as they are in constant use to remove the tunneled dirt and supply the TBMs.
For the Crosstown there are three sections : Black Creek to Eglinton West Station, Eglinton Station to Yonge Street, and Brentcliffe to Yonge Street. It was originally planned to be just two sections, but they decided they were too close to safely tunnel under the working subway. Therefore the machines will be extracted from the tunnel, move across the Spadina line and relaunched on the east side. Since this new stretch will be serviced from the launch site there, the first stretch will no longer be in use, and work could start on those stations.
As far as I can recall, the leap across the subway was scheduled to take place in November, and that seems possible, as the TBMs are currently at Marlee and Oakwood.
LikeLike
It is very nearly mind boggling, that the system is that limited when there is a track in each direction, and that Metrolinx is wasting this critical a rail space on an airport only service. I would think it would be better to run a people mover out to an easy rail sub, and then run a 6-8+ car train every 10-15 minutes out to Bramalea. Provides high frequency service to the airport, and coverage to all terminals and real commuter service in one go. Also means those precious engineers will actually be helping to move a real worthwhile load of passengers, and having an impact on congestion.
Also, is there not space in this ROW to add a fourth track, even if we insist on running a service to serve only the airport, instead of adding a service to the airport. I seem to recall that most cities systems provide service to the airport do so as a extension of existing service, not consuming an entire critical chunk to serve a demand that may only amount to a few thousand per hour. Even if all the traffic for all planes originated in Toronto, from one direction, all on rail, that would still be able to be served by a GO train every 10 minutes or so (a flight per minute at 200 passengers each is the same as a GO train every 10 with 2000 passengers, except GO could come from both directions). At best this service may attract 1/4 of all traffic to the airport, so would it not be nice to have the other 3/4 to move other commuters. Also the flow of traffic to the airport on this service is quite likely to be at least partially against the flow of general ridership, leaving additional space.
I understand that ultimately until we run space under Union etc., Union can handle a total maximum in all directions all tracks about 10 arrival/departures every 10 minutes, please let us use them wisely.
It sounds like a lot, but even in the medium term, we could use service like, say 2 in Lakeshore each way (one express 905, one 416) 1 in Stouffville, 1 in Richmond Hill, 1 in Barrie, 1 in Milton, 1 in Kitchener, and 1 in UPX(??). It kind of makes the one in UPX seem like a waste, if it could have been used to serve the inner/Bramalea leg as well/ instead, when it will be lucky to have 400 passengers to/from the airport, and the others are all carrying 1500-2000. Remember that the forecast is for another 100k people heading to the core in the next 15-20 years, and the service described above will likely be inadequate to serve demand.
When are we going to build underground to allow more, or move service out Union Station? Can we afford such a waste? What are we trying to fix? I believe that an airport service that connected to LRT and GO, and allowed passengers to go elsewhere as well would be better.
Of course to Robert’s point getting more of these tracks to transit rules as opposed to mainline railway rules as well would offer a huge increase in flexibility. If you took the line out of Union, and had Subway/LRT like switching gear, and quicker off load trains, and big platforms etc., it would be a bit less troubling to waste a train every 15 minutes, when you could run one every 2 or 3 .
LikeLike
I see the problem of “ducking under intersections” that you also have to duck under the utilities of the overhead road. This means the roof of the tunnel would be maybe 3m below grade and the tracks about 8m. At 4% grade, this means that 200m is needed on either side (plus about 100m for the station) to go under each intersection. If you go under only major intersection, it is still not grade-separated and 50% underground. If you go under all intersections, it would be 100% underground.
Elevated makes much more sense to avoid intersections.
Steve: A commom mistake many people make is to forget the depth (and ramp lengths) needed just to “duck under” anything. It is the reason that if you’re going underground, you stay there, or conversely that you avoid going underground unless it’s absolutely necessary. To you, the solution is an el, to me it’s surface operation where this is practical. We probably differ on the meaning of “practical”.
LikeLike
On the subject of operating rules and the capacity of a double track railway – I was recently in Barcelona, and caught a RENFE (equivalent of a Parisian RER) train from a station that served 3 RER lines and at least 2 “medium distance” lines. The station (not a terminal, obviously) had 2 tracks, and trains (EMU but not subway) stopping on 3 minute intervals. There’s no justification for not being able to interleave UPX and GO on a single pair of tracks. (Dumb, obsolete freight rail rules to the contrary notwithstanding.)
LikeLike
Then run it in a ditch in the middle of Eglinton (a ditch covered only at intersections and otherwise open).
LikeLike