The City of Toronto Planning Department will hold four public meetings regarding their Regional Relief study now in progress.
The meetings will be held between 7:00 and 9:00 pm:
- Tuesday, March 3, 2015 at Calvary Church, 746 Pape Avenue (Pape Station)
- Thursday, March 5, 2015 at Riverdale Collegiate, 1094 Gerrard Street East at Jones (506 Carlton car of 83 Jones bus)
- Monday, March 9, 2015 at St. Lawrence Hall, 157 King Street East at Jarvis (504 King car)
- Thursday, March 12, 2015 at Christ Church Deer Park, 1570 Yonge Street (St. Clair Station)
The focus of the meetings will be station locations and evaluation criteria.
Steve Munro 
Any station would require elevators and escalators. Both of which are subject to being out-of-service. Making them inaccessible. Any station location for the relief line should be looked at as an express service. Leaving local service to the streetcars and buses.
Steve: This is one of the challenges for SmartTrack which is trying to be all things in one line, including a replacement DRL. If it is going to achieve its regional purpose, then it cannot stop at every lamp post along the way.
If a subway is supposed to replace all surface transit, why does Manhattan have surface routes?
Steve: Granularity, and serving travel patterns/destinations not directly addressed by the subway network.
LikeLike
If it’s Regional Relief, then why are all meetings being held in the Greater Downtown Area? Why are there no meetings in the Don Mills / Eglinton, Flemingdon Park, Thorncliffe, etc areas that are frequently touted by Steve and others as justification to build the Downtown Relief Line (conveniently disguised as Toronto Regional Relief Line here)? Why are there no meetings in Scarborough that the Downtown Relief Line is alleged to help most?
Steve: Because the meetings are to talk about stations, and the study (incorrectly as I have often said) is stuck in a rut looking only at the portion of the DRL from Union to Danforth, not beyond. Some potential locations would be affected by a choice of, say, the Donlands alignment rather than Pape, but this doesn’t seem to be on the table.
LikeLike
Will routes and corridors be presented or will this just be identifying stations (with future plans to thread a line in between them)?
Cheers, Moaz
Steve: I have no idea. There isn’t much info in the meeting notice.
LikeLike
Is there that much to talk about? A diversion line between Danforth and Union [not thinking big enough] should hit the major routes and/or employment areas only. Unlike the actual Bloor line, King has nothing of truly major significance between Yonge and Sherbourne that wouldn’t be better served by walking to the stations. On the Carlaw-or-Pape-or-Jones? section, it must stop where it can interface with routes (Gerrard, Queen, King), it *could* (but shouldn’t) stop on Dundas but only if Stephen Harper will pay for the station out of his own pocket.
Presuming an alignment on King or Queen and Pape, Carlaw or Jones
1. [Yonge interface]
2. Sherbourne at King [George Brown & 504 and 75]
Parliament? (not essential, minor interface with 65, 504, QQ East service)
3. Broadview at Queen (or further south) [501/504]
Another stop on Queen? (Riverdale is still best served by 501/walkability)
Dundas? (There is no connecting service, but there is a bit of density on Carlaw)
4. Gerrard at the Square, at Pape or at Carlaw [506/72/172 & Employment/Shopping]
5. [Danforth interface]
If the line is further south than King (i.e. Front street), locating stations along a twinned Bloor-Danforth path (at Sherbourne, at Parliament) might not make sense, however connecting with major employment centres/travel destinations, and surface routes (the all important feeders) is still essential. If the North/South alignment goes as far south as Eastern/Front Street there are opportunities for new stations (and new routes to feed the subway) in high density housing and to-be communities.
Ok. I guess there is something to talk about. Still, my comment includes more words than the original post/announcement.
Steve: Another issue with an alignment further south is that the line would serve the Lever/Great Gulf site which is being planned as a major employment centre. There is a possibility this will be served also by SmartTrack, but if the DRL takes an Eastern-Front-Wellington aligmnent into the core, this location has to be included.
LikeLike
Couple of things here. Of course I agree with Steve on the fact that we are being goofy not extending the line immediately to Eglinton. After the completion of the Crosstown, and presuming anything along Sheppard that would improve access, the Yonge line is likely to be overloaded further north, to Eglinton (at least) by the mid 2020s.
The other thing, is that really this is about sustaining access for all into the core. Presumably, that would make these after work meetings. My question is not why are they in the greater downtown, but why not until 7:00 pm. The people most affected will likely be out of work (or could be) by say 5:30 or 6:00, why not have a meeting starting at 6 or 6:30 (at the latest). This means for those coming from beyond who may also be interested in station location (for instance close to their destination or good transfer for them) would not have to choose between heading back into the core, or hanging out for potentially a couple of hours. It also exposes those who would use GO to being in a bit of a schedule pickle.
LikeLike
There is no doubt we need more transit. But by focussing only on a small part of a decades-old idea when the City was maybe a tenth the size with population and 1/20 geographic size, we seem to be failing to think of other broader-serving options yes, like the Smart Track or some other option from Main/Danforth, which I once was thinking was too far out, but it’s not really. So it seems like the official lines of thought are mired in decades old thinking and what about doing busways on the Don Valley, and something sooner with greater reach for far less money?
LikeLike
To what (if any) degree is this study referencing/coordinating with the SmartTrack & RER studies?
Steve: They are all co-ordinated because there are many permutations of potential lines and effects on each other.
LikeLike
To provide the capacity required the Smart Track line will need TC exclusion. I also think myself it is too far east to really relieve capacity issues on Yonge if there is significant infill construction.
The problem I would have with a busway on the Don Valley, is once you are south of say the Don Mills exit where are you going? You quickly run out of ways to get into the core do you not? If you run to the Bayview / Bloor exit you are in trouble (Bayview south to where, how do you get west?), run to the Eastern ave exit, and you would need to dedicate a lane there, so we take which route to the core? Stay on the DVP beyond that well, there is no space, as it is only 2 lanes.
Now if we say we are headed to Don Mills and Eglinton, well sure, take 1 lane that far, and restrict the DVP to 2 lanes each way. The magic of Don Mills and Eglinton, is the manner in which the city was being built changed and road allowances became more generous decades ago. North of Eglinton east of Leslie (so really Don Mills) you are looking mostly at 2 chain road allowances, south and west, you are looking mostly at 1 chain road allowances. I agree the idea of a subway to Don Mills and Eglinton is decades old, and anchored in planning that is ancient, however, they changed the way they planned roadways at that time, and this may even have been one of the underlying reasons at the time they would know… beyond here be wide roads.
LikeLike
I’m pleased to hear they’ll be coordinating. The question ends up being “to what degree will the outcome of this planning moderate/influence JT’s pet project?”
Steve: There are differing interests at play among various parties, in particular Metrolinx who cannot afford to have SmartTrack screw things up for RER. Meanwhile TTC and City Planning have always taken the position that the DRL will be needed sooner or later, and the only effect from either ST or RER would be to delay things a while. The big question is how long “a while” would be.
LikeLike
Any inkling why that last one is at Yonge and St Clair? It’s nowhere near any of the possible station locations. Just facility availability?
Steve: I have no idea why various locations were chosen. It does seem rather odd, although it could be argued that Yonge Subway riders living in the vicinity will certainly be interested in anything that takes pressure off of their line.
LikeLike
Kevin’s comment:
Mid 2020s? Have you been on the Yonge line recently in that area during peak hours? I’ve spent a lot of time there in conditions that look like this.
LikeLike
In the past week, there was a report that Metrolinx had tendered for double-tracking of the GO Stouffville line between Agincourt and Milliken, and with the intention of double-tracking soon enough a further distance for a total of 11 kilometers.
Now, looking at Tory’s plan, Smart Track envisions a new stop between Agincourt and Milliken, another new stop between Milliken and Unionville, and two new stops between Kennedy and Agincourt, for a total of four new stops in this stretch.
What became obvious by its absence was any mention of this in the report of tendering for new track. It appears that the new work is going on ahead regardless of the possibility of new stops and any other infrastructure changes required due to Smart Track.
I do not comprehend how these public meetings can have it both ways – to limit discussion of the DRL to exclude that section between Danforth and Eglinton (and whether the route would follow Pape, Donlands, or elsewhere and how it connects to the B-D subway), yet to open up the permutations presented by Metrolinx’s RER and Tory’s Smart Track.
All the permutations need to have realistic cost and ridership estimates.
Steve: The double-tracking of the Stouffville line has been in the cards for some time — Metrolinx already has an approved EA for it. The tender is only for the section north of Ellesmere Station because whatever happens to GO/RER/ST further south will almost certainly affect the RT because of conflicts at station locations. Once a decision is taken on exactly what is being done with the rail/RT corridor, then work can be planned on the south half.
It is worth noting that the Metrolinx work does not include grade separations, something that will be essential for frequent service, but which will be paid for out of the RER/ST budget.
LikeLike
Yes, but that is only absolutely consistent south of Bloor, and every second train from Eglinton. I am suggesting that taking the TTC at their word – and using what the TTC considers overloaded. That is that we will see significant improvements in crewing practices, and tighter headway. Yes there are issues at least as far as Eglinton now – but, well, would the TTC call that overloaded, or merely crush load? (I believe Bombardier would consider that something like 1450 passengers per train).
I would guess a lot of the issue now in the am peak would start at Sheppard, with its uneven arrivals. However, to count as “overloaded”, this condition would need to persist on every train. What I am suggesting is that by some time in 2020s how people have to wait a couple of trains now to board at Bloor will also be true at Eglinton. I am also asserting (quite possibly falsely) that the new signals and better crewing and turning will notably improve the number of trains that can in fact be run, and greatly improve the actual number of trains per hour.
I would also suggest that if we allow Yonge to have an added station and much improved turn capacity, it will be still be overloaded to Eglinton (just a question of 2020 or 2029).
LikeLike
Steve, is it not much more expensive to do these as separate projects? Why would they not arrange for this to be done in a single pass, once they had arrived at a conclusion as to the frequency on the line?
Steve: I think that the impetus to “do something” within limited funds now available takes precedence over awaiting the outcome of studies.
LikeLike
Kevin’s comment:
We appear to have different standards. My standard is that walking, cycling or public transit is to be the fastest, easiest and most convenient way of safely travelling from A to B in Toronto.
The sort of overcrowding that is inconvenient and unpleasant has to be a rare to nonexistent event. Unfortunately, right now it is common on the Yonge line. This is not just unpleasant. The current overcrowding is frightening to women and children when the crowd presses up against them on the train. It also provides a happy hunting ground for sexual gropers. To me, that is unacceptable.
Take a look at the linked photo of an overcrowded subway car. Imagine yourself to be a child or woman who is less than 5 feet tall being pressed in against all those bodies of people much taller than yourself. Frightening, isn’t it?
LikeLike
This is all just a waste – No Downtown Relief Line will be built PERIOD.
LikeLike
I’m not sure what you mean here. Do you mean to ignore George Brown’s main campus and the St. Lawrence Market? (Both the market and future courthouse?) There certainly isn’t anything between Yonge and Sherbourne stations on the Bloor line.
Oddly you seem to think Gerrard Square is a major employment and shopping destination but then casually dismiss a Parliament stop as useless. The mall is a tiny one that might employ a few hundred people tops. Meanwhile at Parliament several hundred thousand square feet of office space has already been built or is under construction right now in the area. It’s also next door to a major event space and tourist destination.
There is heavy transfer traffic from the Yonge line to eastbound 504s and the stops at Jarvis, Sherbourne, Ontario, and Parliament are all heavily utilized by these people. This should tell you what things of significance there are in the area.
Steve: My understanding is that the owners of Gerrard Square would love to redevelop their property, a move that is of some concern in the neighbourhood because it could bring an unwanted level of density. This is the downside of rapid transit, and the phenomenon is just as strong on Sheppard where high rise, high density (even without a subway station) meets with local opposition. One advantage, if I can call it that, of subway lines with stops a few kilometres apart is that fewer neighbourhoods become targets for intensification.
LikeLike
The study needs to consider the downtown relief line going north as far as Finch or Highway 7 for future expansion purposes. This means that a new yard for this line (I assume this would be built in the Portlands, and that the DRL would use a modern fully automated technology incompatible with the rest of the system) needs to have enough space that the downtown relief line can eventually be extended to Highway 7 in the north, and Dundas West in the west. I realize that the cost of the full line would be enormous (maybe $15 billion) but I think that this whole line would have very high ridership comparable to the Yonge line.
Also I can’t see “SmartTrack” or any other GO expansion projects having any significant benefit to Yonge line overcrowding north of Bloor. The Stouffville line at Kennedy is too far east to relieve the Yonge line, and the Richmond Hill line takes such a winding route that it is also useless. We need the DRL to go up to at least Finch because the Yonge line is overcrowded as far as Finch.
LikeLike
This may be around somewheres, but I really do wish there was a good picture of the origin and destinations of transit trips as I suspect that not all of the trips on transit actually go into the core though assuredly many do. This data could assist in truly figgering out what is best done, and that could include adding a new exit/entry from a busway on the DVP. The intent is doing things faster in all parts of the Caronto area in response to congestion/climate.
LikeLike
It’s surprising that all the meetings are weeknights between 7 and 9 pm, relatively close to downtown.
Immediately this disenfranchises anyone who works weeknights.
It also disenfranchises those who work downtown, but live further out in the city. Why nothing from 5 to 7? Why not something from 11 am to 2 pm right downtown?
LikeLike
I am applying the standards that appear to be the norm for TTC operations. If you look at a bus or train that would result in a fairly frequent basis as a normal expectation of actually achieving a 55 person bus load, that would expect to often see crush loads. The concerns on Yonge should be that this will not a frequent issue, but a constant situation. If something is not done Kevin, I would say even after added turn capacity, and they are actually running 33+ trains per hour you can expect this to persist on every train and on many platforms if something is not done, every train arriving at Bloor will look like that, and then even more people will actually force themselves on. Remember the system is not now considered overloaded north of Bloor, so it might be bad now, but even with the new signals it will get much worse, than now when that project is complete, and will only see very temporary relief (back to at least as bad as now) if we actually expand train turning capacity. Even people who can tolerate even enjoy the conditions in the picture will find no space on the subway.
LikeLike
The issue with relief in question here, however, is that portion of the system which is badly overloaded, that which is headed towards or into the core. There are many other trips that are not well served, however, serving those will not relieve the crisis into the core, except in that in may divert some of the growth.
Steve: Diverting growth and serving that growth by transit is a real challenge. The core has a huge advantage — it is already served from every possible direction and the problem is one of building more capacity, not of provided access. By contrast, a suburban area has no transit service to speak of, and any one line cannot tap all of the potential travel markets. For example, Vaughan Centre will only be served by a subway from the south. VIVA will provide some service from other directions, but not at the same level. Moreover, riders still have to access the “rapid transit” lines, whatever technology they may use. Within Toronto there are feeder bus routes, but the problem is more challenging in York region.
Then there is the basic issue of desirability as a development node. Sheppard & Yonge was supposed to be “downtown North York”, but it sure isn’t Bloor & Yonge. Even extending the Sheppard line to Downsview and to STC won’t make that so.
Downtown is a huge and growing node, and the amount of development required to make a dent in its role simply is not going to happen, especially not in a single suburban location with every politician demanding that their four corners, one horse town be transformed into the new centre of the universe.
LikeLike
Steve Said:
Then there is the basic issue of desirability as a development node. Sheppard & Yonge was supposed to be “downtown North York”, but it sure isn’t Bloor & Yonge. Even extending the Sheppard line to Downsview and to STC won’t make that so
Joe M:
I conjunction with short term downtown travel relief we need to limit growth downtown until a proper plan can be drawn up to relieve & divert growth. To believe we can only be a one trick pony & can’t divert growth is absurd. Sure it will take time & money to change the landscape. We need to lay the footprint, have patience & not be shortsighted. Downtown infrastructure didn’t grow from Gods green earth.
This unhealthy growth model being promoted by politicians & people invested heavily in downtown has added fuel the ongoing class warfare we are seeing today. Public funds should not be taken from other Ontario citizens to keep funneling into this hyper & flawed growth model.
No one is trying to create the next “Center of the Universe” in suburban” locations. It’s the beginning of reasonable transformations to alleviate the idea that downtown Toronto is the only place of growth. I agree we need to provide relief for downtown commuters until these areas grow & receive adequate public funding required to grow fairly. But at the same time slow growth downtown & provide incentives to private development elsewhere.
Steve: There have been a few attempts over my considerable period in transit politics to control growth downtown, and they have all failed miserably. The pattern is quite simple: a “reform” government that might actually do something is elected. Developers wait out the problems, or challenge constraints put on them in the courts. The reformers are defeated and a development friendly administration rolls in. They give the developers everything they want. Even if the buildings don’t go up right away, the zoning is in place, and a few precedent buildings establish a pattern to which all future applications appeal.
This may not be a healthy growth model, but it is unlikely to be stopped, certainly not replaced by growth in the suburbs beyond what has already happened. It’s not a question of incentives to build, but of builders (and buyers or commercial tenants) wanting to locate in the new “growth” locations. Today, that location is downtown particular south of the rail corridor.
LikeLike
The problem is that the “Private Marketplace” has deemed the downtown as the “place to be” and no amount of planning and plans will change that, especially as the “Ontario (Street Railway and) Municipal Board exists. I believe that this is their original name. The private market and the money wants to go downtown. No matter how much you plan and control the market place, if they don’t want to go there, they won’t.
LikeLike
I think there is a need to make other areas more attractive. I also believe that a very large issue in Toronto is the excess dependence for growth on the Financial industry. Around the world it tends to create tight areas, and become very dominant in those areas (square mile in London). It might be very hard to move much of the growth that is centered on the core elsewhere. However, create real centres for the other headquarters of manufacturing companies, and smaller businesses, as well as back office operations for financial companies and this might add to growth in transit supported areas in the rest of the city. However, trying to break the financial business up with attempting to forcefully re-direct growth away from the core by not supporting it may cause it to both leave Toronto and likely the province.
I fully support building really attractive transit oriented business centres elsewhere in the 416, doing so by pulling support from the core, is not a healthy way of doing this. Toronto has under invested in transit, and what little it has created been too heavy for too long (Sheppard and Vaughan subway). Creating better support for wide transit in Scarborough, and Rexdale, will help those areas to attract other types of business. Toronto just needs to have a much wider network, of rapid transit that works. Do not slow the growth downtown, as it is mostly one sector, just encourage growth elsewhere with better support. The STC needs connection to areas beyond. Look at what business in general want and create it, a destination hub that has wide access, to a wide varied residential area. Ideally this would attract a different sector than finance and diversify Toronto’s overall economy. The problem in Toronto and 905 is these other businesses have been scattered to areas that have little or no transit support, making for worse access to employment, (or employees) and harder commutes and lower quality of life. Do not focus on diverting the trading portion of finance, but rather focusing all other growth (including back office) in transit supported concentrations, not the sprawl around the airport, or at Mississauga road and the 401 or a large number of other 905 sprawling office parks.
However killing access to the core for the trading portion of the financial industry is quite likely killing the goose that is laying golden eggs for the region and the province. However, build better support for other centres will take the portion of the financial industry that does not need to be in the core elsewhere, will make Toronto a healthier location for other industry to locate, and that will actually make the Toronto based Financial industry stronger. The city as a whole needs better transit to support the core, and the core, in the long term ideally needs the other centres need to be better supported, both to provide a better web for other industries, and access for its employees.
LikeLike
Joe M said:
It’s political greed & corruption that won’t allow proper planning to proceed & yes proper planning could change how growth occurs.
The “Private Market” will go where ever money can be made & allowed to be made. If the public is investing in areas outside of downtown to make them attractive & livable & incentives are provided to build they will go. Furthermore the government needs to restrict the growth of downtown to a sustainable levels to make them look elsewhere.
Do I actually think politicians are capable of sound long term planning & when easy money is floating around? Nope.
Steve: You sound like a flaming lefty with a great love of highly regimented development. Forty years ago, I heard people talk about developing the suburbs around transit and having multiple centres. But that’s not what we did. You talk as if huge parts of the GTHA are not already developed, but the region is not a blank slate.
LikeLike
Agreed. The crisis is that the system is increasingly overloaded as the downtown core is approached, regardless of the transportation mode. The growth trend points to ever increasing crush. This has nothing to do with providing better transit service to other areas of Toronto or the GTA. Neither is it an “us versus them” situation, though tax dollars allocation is a big issue.
Corporations and individuals make their own decisions where to invest. The Toronto area is growing all over, though some spots grow faster than others. Unless we establish a communist dictatorship or a caliphate here, the free economy will put ever more people working and living downtown. A subway takes about 10 years from starting planning to finish building. Therefore, action now is needed.
Was it not said that the GTHA loses $8 billion a year due to congestion?
These are not issues of fairness. Emotional demands ought not be made. Rather, intelligent problem solving is required.
It seems to me that one very good proposal for a Relief Line was presented here on this blog by Steve. Another closely similar proposal came from Urban Toronto. I do not know if there is a connection between these two parties. It would be worth telling it again, for the sake of clarity and completeness.
Just as there are far-out proposals and emotional blame-gaming going on here on the blog, likewise I expect the same at these public meeting. Of course, many people have pet ideas, or they are quite uninformed.
Furthermore, how will the agenda and the terms of reference be set for these meetings?
And furthermore again, will politics divert attention away from cool reasoning? Will politics skew the project into an expensive dud, as what happened to the Scarborough RT?
Does the Relief Line have an elected politician as a champion?
LikeLike
I would put to you Peter that is the problem, all know it is essential, and that all others know it is essential, and hence it can be taken hostage. What people seem to forget, growth in the core or elsewhere, is not really the choice. It is growth in the core and elsewhere, or stagnation, and the loss of relevance for Toronto as a whole. Toronto can choke, and a growing core, will make growth elsewhere, as long as there is service there as well possible. However, this is like saying blood for the heart or the arms. If you cut off blood the the heart, well you are dead. The entire thing is a political game of chicken.
LikeLike
Touché, Malcolm! I posed that question because I could not think of even one politician, municipal or provincial, that championed the Relief Line. I thought that maybe I overlooked somebody.. Rather, as one infamous politician and “Honk if You Love Subways!” booster said something like “Downtown already has enough subways!” The Scarborough extension has its champions. Even a totally unwarranted Finch West subway has its champions. And Transit City completely ignored the route other than a Don Mills LRT extending from the Danforth to north of Steeles Avenue, thus providing no relief whatsoever.
Steve: As someone who had a hand in Transit City, I must point out that the purpose of this plan was to provide better local service within the suburbs through a network of higher-capacity lines, not to address subway capacity issues. You cannot blame TC for failing to achieve something it was never intended to do. This would be like complaining that express buses to suburban university campuses don’t address downtown congestion. Different purposes.
LikeLike
The root of what you are saying highlights critical flaws in the principles of the provinces “Places to Grow” strategy. The strategy has an implicit assumption that all areas are equally competitive, and that you can structure communities so that people can live and work in communities and still have them be competitive and equal. Both of these assumptions are critically flawed leading to a major misalignment between the province’s strategic objectives, the societies’ capabilities, and exogenous macroeconomic forces. If you actually what to have good public policy you need to ensure that the principles you base it on are aligned with sound social and economic principles.
LikeLike
The province is struggling to attract investment for productive endeavors. What they have instead is significant local and foreign investment in purely rent seeking activities. The condo boom downtown is a result of that. The problems you and Steve are addressing are the symptoms of an economy that is not competitive with its peers.
LikeLike
Josh Matlow has had the Relief Line featured prominently on his website for some time now. Interestingly, that one odd standout consultation, the one at Yonge and St. Clair, is in his ward.
LikeLike
To paraphrase what you have said in the past, people and businesses will invest where they can make the most money for an appropriate risk level. I would like to suggest that the best way to make communities more attractive is to better tie them to the core. The central principle that should guide transit policy is the reduction of aggregate internal costs borne by the social and economic system to allow people and business the ability to invest their financial and human capital optimally.
LikeLike
Steve I think we all understand this. The problem is that at some point, at a political level was that Transit City became to be seen as “the” solution to all that ailed us. I am sure you would say to anybody who actually proposed it – it’s not that simple. The problem is that politics can also see one issue at a time, and reduces things to the ludicrously simple. Yes, Transit City left holes, it was never meant to address, only one of these really needs to be addressed immediately – core to a Don Mills LRT that is actually buildable and logical (ie to Eglinton). Other than this singular hole, Transit City built in its whole (not picked at) represents a good answer for the city, with the obvious exception of the southern portion of Jane, and an eventual need to fill the gap that would leave (emphasis on eventual).
LikeLike
Part of this has been an excess of regulation compared to our peers, part of it has been until recently a dangerously over valued dollar, and part of it has been a massive lack in basic transportation infrastructure. Toronto in 2 decades has gone from having a huge lead over its American peers to being hugely behind.
LikeLike
Joe M:
Agreed. This is the exact political greed & lack of planning that has put us on economic thin-ice right now.
The Province will keep this construction “economy” afloat at any cost. Considering the number of companies which have headed south in the last couple years we don’t have many other vehicles or a proper plan to create jobs in this Province.
Could also get real interesting later this year if oil take another plunge & the Canadian markets are affected by the increasing job losses out West. We may soon get to see just how strong our housing market is & our golden egg downtown may be forced into a breather for a few years. The latest interest rate reduction should be seen as a serious warning in this country. Although it should create a nice short term housing price run-up.
The Fed’s have most of their eggs in the oil patch, The Province has most of it’s eggs in foreign investor driven construction. Now if you are not slightly concerned right now I commend how you live life. 🙂 I’ll even leave the globally economic challenges out for now.
But I also believe an economic retreat may spur an infrastructure boom which the politicians will use to create jobs. This is when we may see some major transit dollars roll out over the next 15 years.
Until then it’s up up & away forever.
LikeLike
Steve, you’re right, of course! Looking at the Transit City map, there is not one subway, only LRT’s on one map and LRT plus BRT on another, dating from the David Miller era at City Hall. Not to be confused with One City, a $30 billion 30-year plan from councillors Karen Stintz and Glenn De Baeremaker from 2012 during the Rob Ford era at City Hall. One City indicates a more-or-less proper route for the Relief Line as well as the Scarborough subway extension.
Ironically, the Downsview subway extension was initiated in the Miller years, and the Eglinton Crosstown LRT in the Ford years!
LikeLike
I have an embarrassing question to ask that’s been bugging me for a while. South of Bloor, Yonge sort of functions as a light switch – east of it there is nothing, west of it there is everything. Of course it’s shades of grey instead of black and white, but it is hard not to notice a density increase west of Yonge on any street from Queens Quay to Bloor. I suspect this is a combination of the Don and the neighborhoods directly east/west of Yonge (Moss park and Regent park vs. U of T and the Discovery District). Further outside of the core I’d argue the trend continues, even continuing to the other boroughs where *apparently* Etobicoke is perfectly served by subways whereas Scarborough is a black hole of no transit at all. Again, these are only minor differences in shades of grey – but it seems that overall the west has a lot more density and therefore potential transit demand than the east. Why then is the first stage of the DRL, the critical one that everyone’s talking about, on the east end of the city from Pape ish down to union ish? I would be shocked to hear local demand along that route is higher than, say, a western route along Dufferin / King. That leads me to believe the overload is largely from commuters on the Danforth line coming from east of Pape? I could very well be wrong – the demand on the west might be served by the “west DRL” that is the YUS. But echoing others’ comments, I’m under the impression that relief at Bloor / Yonge isn’t really anymore the “current” issue of concern – demand at Eglington and even Sheppard is soon going to be over capacity as well if it isn’t already, which this will not address. (Express line? Anyone? Stops at Finch Sheppard Eglinton then local from Bloor onwards?)
Steve: Jumping in here — yes, the city developed to the west first because of the Don River. The industrial and residential areas in the old city west of downtown are considerably older than to the east. As for subway demand, the “west DRL” is called the “Spadina Subway”. There is already a relief valve, such as it is, at St. George, and the majority of transfer moves made at Bloor-Yonge are to/from the east. Density to the west? I’m not so sure about that. The folks in Scarborough and eastern North York might beg to differ.
But if commuter ridership to the core from east of Pape is really the problem, wouldn’t more effective integration with GO at Main be an ultimately easier solution? I lived at Main and Gerrard for the summer and know the walk from the GO station to the TTC is not a trivial issue to solve – it is a long distance, with a major set of condo towers in the way, entirely outside. There’s also tons of capacity and frequency/headway integration problems – no one wants to get off, walk 5 minutes outside, just to miss a train and wait another half hour. And it’s not like GO is sitting empty at rush hour. But the subway doesn’t make sense to me – similar to earlier statements made on connecting the Lakeshore east LRT with the Bloor line, I don’t think there is the local ridership to support heavy rail along the Carlaw/Pape/Donlands corridor, and I don’t think relieving peak commuter demand alone justifies an entirely new subway.
Steve: As I have said many times, and you note in the next paragraph, a northern extension changes things a lot, but the TTC has dragged its feet on any new line for decades, and always talked about only a limited route as far as the Danforth. They also cocked up studies of the proposed Don Mills LRT (part of Transit City) by insisting that the south end be completely on the surface, an impossibility given the road layout. Their hands are not exactly clean in the whole problem of planning for a Don Mills corridor transit service.
If the DRL is extended up Don Mills to Eglinton/Sheppard, things change for sure. And I’m certainly not trying to enforce an opinion – more state my confusion, given my limited understanding. But examining a subway that runs *only* from Bloor/Carlaw-or-Pape-or-Donlands to Yonge/King-or-Wellington-or-Front on it’s on own, doesn’t add up to me … I would vote for a tunnel with moving walkways linking Main St (TTC) to Danforth (GO), and some magical fairy dust to make that work out logistically (which should not be as unreasonable as it currently is, and certainly easier to implement given the RER plans and/or smartrack than an entirely new subway tunnel!).
Slight topic shift towards the economic demand of the core, etc… Full disclosure in that I am a founder and employee of a (very early stage) tech startup, so my opinions are biased in that light. But I think the GTA has a very strong intellectual economy and punches well above it’s weight in those areas, despite some serious unavoidable drawbacks like how tiny Canada is relative to the US. To focus on foreign investment in real estate or resource based economies seems like a bad idea to me, as Calgary found out a few months ago when oil effectively halved it’s prices, and Vancouver is still trying to deal with as the city is slowly bought and priced out by foreign investment. Yes, the core is financial and legal in many ways, but that is not at all the only activity happening there – King and Bay is not the only reason people work or commute to downtown! As a city we seem to be learning more and more that an intellectual economy is the way to go and that the key to doing so is attracting world class talent / employees, to make the advancements that move our economy forward. I would argue that the King car is over-capacity not because of the financial sector, but because of the new development flanking the core on either end – which is largely filled with start-ups or small businesses in creative, health, sustainability, or tech sectors. The new developments along the eastern waterfront and the Lever site / port lands are also going to be aimed, as far as I can tell from the marketing, towards an economy like this.
If this is all true than no matter what happens, the core will continue to dominate, but in a less centralized fashion. The only advantage places outside the core/waterfront have are potentially reduced costs in terms of rent, etc … but these are becoming less and less important in running a business as talent takes over. It is entirely worth paying more to have a waterfront office close to the walkable, liveable core if that means you can attract even one more top-notch employee to help grow or run your business. So I think it will be very, very hard for new places that pop up on their own to rival the appeal of downtown. That being said, downtown can expand – i.e. the new growth on King east can expand to include East Bayfront, and then the Lever site, and so on. So to get away from the hub and spoke system I don’t think we need to create new centers of development, so much as expand the “core” to be a much larger, decentralized area. Current centers like Flemingdon, Thorncliffe, etc should not be ignored, but they shouldn’t be actively fueled either, at least not until the core reaches them. Trying to create multiple “downtown centers” like Sheppard and Yonge is a waste – we’re dividing and conquering ourselves. Let’s focus on the core, but let it grow and expand so that it can handle the population demand over a reasonable geographical area. I think it will be incredibly hard to push development east because of the Don Valley, especially north of Gerrard where the east/west links stop occurring every major block, but the Lever site / Portlands / East Bayfront etc will do a good job of starting the transition. Otherwise it looks like things will continue to grow to the west, and we shouldn’t neglect that in future planning.
LikeLike
So if we really want to do something quickly, what about putting rail transit on the DVP? Take out two lanes; and yes, some big money would be needed to ensure a set of connections to the core, somewhere. But since the car drivers don’t pay a cent for their use of the precious RofW, and it’s owned by the public – like the Gatineau Hydro corridor – let’s get “roadical”, and toss a potentially quick fix into the mix. I’ve been dreaming of using that Gatineau corridor for a surface transit route, starting with buses, beginning a second transit corridor that follows the angle of the lake, but “parallel” to the Danforth, and it cuts on the diagonal through a vast swath of the Scarborough sprawl, and links (kinda) to the Don Valley.
Please also remember that the car enjoys a large range of less-obvious subsidies eg. drains and police services and health care, so yes, it’ll cost big money, but now the car is costing us more, let alone climate issues. vtpi.org should have details.
LikeLike
Yes, but part of the risk and costs that businesses face is also getting employees and being able to be a desirable place to work, without having to pay much more than they would elsewhere. There thus needs to be a balance to distribute business across the city also tie districts/ business hubs to a wide variety of housing in appropriate and desirable housing.
LikeLike