At the February TTC Board meeting, Chief Planner Jennifer Keesmaat took the Board through the road show presentation she and her staff have been taking around Toronto with the proposed new Toronto transit plan. This issue was held over to the March Board meeting because, for procedural reasons, there were limited questions in February.
One major issue here is that the body actually charged with setting transit policy, the TTC Board, was being briefed on a plan they had not seen before, and to which they had given no input or direction. This is only partly explainable by the fact that any long-term transportation plan would form part of the city’s Official Plan, and the Planning Department “owns” that document. However, one would hope that members of the TTC Board would have at least a passing familiarity with what was in the works. This situation is complicated by the presence of “citizen” members who are not also Councillors and are not part of the information flow, such as it is, at City Hall.
The plan and supporting reports will go to City Council a week after the TTC meeting.
A major problem, of course, is that “planning” in Toronto consists of catering to the whims of the Mayor, influential Councillors, the Minister of Transportation (and his government), and senior members of the government caucus. To describe planning in this context as unbiased and purely “evidence based” is something of a stretch.
That said, the situation is better today than in recent years because, at least, all of the proposals are on the table at once, and it is more difficult to dress up a bad proposal when it must compete for attention and analysis with many others at the same time. This does not prevent Councillors from making the attempt at advancing their pet projects, but some degree of comparative evaluation might keep them in check.
I have written on the new plan before, and this article is intended only to review the major questions that need asking now. In a few months, a “final” decision will be before Council and the plan will have an air of inevitability.
SmartTrack and Fare Integration
The heart of our current transit debates is SmartTrack both because it is the Mayor’s signature project, and because it interacts with other network proposals in terms of demand flow and potential relief of subway congestion. During the election campaign, ST was sold as the one project that would solve every problem, and I mean every problem the city could imagine. Claims for ST have been walked back, and there is now a recognition that multiple projects will be required to address a variety of travel demands. Moreover, ST as proposed is now clearly unworkable except at immense expense and disruption.
SmartTrack is now little more than a campaign slogan and possibly a scheme to add a few stations for GO services that were already planned, but with nothing additional.
The other important factor, but one that has never been debated by the TTC or Council to the point of passing a definitive policy statement, is the matter of “regional fare integration” and just how this might affect fares on the TTC. As I have written previously, the Metrolinx proposal is clearly heading to a situation where the subway and possibly the new LRT lines would be hived off into a separate fare structure from the rest of the TTC system, fares would be distance-based, and the cost of travelling on the TTC would go up for most riders in the name of regional fairness.
The TTC passed a motion saying that further study of fare-by-distance would not be the subject of further study “at this time”, but the Board has not explicitly ruled out this option. TTC management are evasive about just what they might have committed to on inter-agency working committees, or what Metrolinx might be trying to steamroller Toronto into regardless of what the TTC or Council might think.
Both SmartTrack and Fare Integration are key to the transit plan because:
- Demand modelling for the network shows that SmartTrack’s attractiveness is strongly influenced by the frequency of service and by integration with the basic TTC fare structure.
- The actual service to be provided by SmartTrack will not be as frequent as in the most successful of three modelled scenarios, especially in Scarborough.
- The attractiveness of SmartTrack and of the proposed Scarborough Subway depend on station locations, but the model runs to date do not reflect the proposed configurations.
- There has been no modelling of an alternate fare structure beyond GO Transit pricing which is strongly biased against inside-416 travel.
A vital first step is to stop talking about a SmartTrack train every 5 minutes stopping at stations a few kilometres apart and with a convenient free transfer to and from TTC feeder services. That is not anywhere near what is planned, and touting the benefits of the overall “plan” on this basis is, as they say in parliamentary circles, misleading.
The Relief Line Study
This has effects beyond the comparison of benefits for the Scarborough Subway and SmartTrack.
If SmartTrack does not have as frequent service as originally hoped, and if it does not stop at as many stations, then its attractiveness will also change in the Souffville, Lake Shore and Weston corridors. This affects the relative benefits of ST and the proposed Relief Line.
The Relief Line deserves better comparative information. Because the terms of reference for the Relief Line study specified a geographic boundary at Danforth Avenue, the possible extension northward to Eglinton and beyond has not been considered in detail, nor has it been modelled.
All claims made to date for the relative benefits of ST over an RL are based on better ST service than will actually be operated, and on an RL shorter than what is already known to be needed for true “relief”. Metrolinx estimated an RL to Sheppard would lop about 1/3 off of the peak demand on the Yonge line south of Bloor, and moreover would have benefits further north. However, the extended RL project remains on the back burner with the claim that various pending subway improvements plus SmartTrack will suffice. That is a dangerous assumption. The TTC, Council and the city as a whole should understand what is possible with the extended version of the Relief Line.
Finally, the Relief Line has been touted in the past as possibly serving both the Great Gulf Unilever site at the Don River and a possible satellite Union Station station at Front & Spadina. Neither of these is supported by the “Pape via Queen” alignment that appears to be dominant in the City’s considerations. What is the effect of placing the RL along Queen, especially in the absence of a frequent SmartTrack service in the rail corridor?
Financial Considerations
Recent changes to the transit plan have attempted a “zero sum” game where funding “commitments” and the scope of projects are shuffled around so that, at the end of the day, the total cost of a plan stays the same. This is the logic behind the new Scarborough transit plan in which a shorter subway with only one station saves money that is ploughed into the Crosstown East LRT line.
To the west, the estimated cost of getting SmartTrack as a heavy rail corridor from Mount Dennis to the Airport Corporate Centre was so outrageously high that anything else is credible as an alternative. This brought back the Crosstown West LRT.
SmartTrack was priced at about $8 billion, and on this basis the Harper government “committed” $2.6b (about 1/3). That estimate was derived on the back of a very small envelope where the total length of SmartTrack from Unionville to the Airport was multiplied by a notional price/kilometre (itself adapted from projects in London and Berlin). There was no detailed engineering, only a ballpark price. (Queen’s Park never committed any real money to ST claiming that their contribution would be the corridor upgrades to enable the GO/RER services.)
We now know that “SmartTrack” will consist of little more than a few extra stations on the GO corridor, possibly some form of fare subsidy, and maybe the odd sticker here and there preserving the Mayor’s campaign colours in a world that is otherwise all GO all the time. There should be a lot of change left over from that $8b considering how little SmartTrack will build in its own name.
This begs two questions. First, is the money from Ottawa “real” and could it be applied to other projects. Second, does the City actually have to reserve its own $2.6b to pay for a “SmartTrack” that by now is much less expensive? Can this funding be redirected to other projects? (Crosstown West will consume some, but nowhere near all of the combined $5.2b. Crosstown East is to be funded with reallocated Scarborough Subway money.) We don’t have a definitive estimate for whatever the SmartTrack budget will end up funding, but knowing how much is left over is essential to planning and staging the network’s expansion.
Finally, the money behind SmartTrack (whatever it might be) was supposed to be based on Tax Increment Financing. However, this presumes that there actually is a distinct ST service and its effects on land values and development can be determined separate from other changes, notably to GO/RER. As ST becomes only a shadow of the original proposal, the basis for collecting marginal new tax revenue also fades.
Effects of a New Fare System
Without retracing all of my previous arguments, there are a few key points that should be answered by City and TTC staff:
- What, at least on a preliminary basis, do the fare scenarios contemplated by Metrolinx look like, and how do they affect the fares of various groups of riders (location, trip length, etc.)?
- Is the intent to meet GO “halfway” on fares for “rapid transit” within the City of Toronto? What are the implications for the relative attractiveness of and demand on GO and on the TTC subway?
- What is the effect on suburban riders from the outer 416 and the inner 905? Would the new fare structure negate the benefit of a single TTC fare currently expected by 905 residents once the subway pierces the 416 boundary?
- If SmartTrack is nothing more than GO trains stopping at a few extra Toronto stations, this begs the question of why a lower, integrated fare should be offered on only two GO corridors rather than at all stations within Toronto. What is the difference between the Stouffville corridor and the Lake Shore or Richmond Hill corridors? Should “fare integration” really be a study of all GO service within Toronto, not just the two SmartTrack corridors?
- The TTC Board has voted to make no further analysis “at this time” on fare by distance, zones, and a time-limited transfer. How can the Board and Council evaluate potential fare changes without background information on the effects? What conditions would trigger further analysis?
Any new fare system has opportunities for much chest-beating and photo ops for simplification and lowering of fares, but equally for the “torches and pitchforks” scenario where a much-displeased 416 populace learns that their fares will go up to placate voters in the 905.
Subway Capacity
An essential foundation of any debate about the transit network is a clear understanding of subway capacity, the constraints and the options for improvement. Much has been made of the Automatic Train Control system that will go into operation in 2019 over the full YUS (Line 1), but this is only one part of a larger problem.
The full benefit of ATC cannot be achieved without a substantial reduction in “dwell times” (train stop to train start) at key stations such as Bloor, Union and St. George. Even with ATC, there is a limit to the number of trains/hour that can be pushed through these pinch points if trains take too long to serve passengers due to crowding on platforms and on board.
A further constraint lies at terminals. If all of the service runs through to the terminal (Finch, say), the track geometry, train size and terminal service time combine to limit the throughput. Although possible in theory, the target headway (time between trains) that the TTC seeks would challenge operations at Finch in all but absolutely ideal conditions.
This brings us to various projects such as platform doors, new terminal layouts, and expanded platforms at interchanges. The degree to which each of these will contribute to solving the capacity problem is not fully understood, and some of them are not “quick fixes”.
On the Bloor-Danforth line (Line 2), the Scarborough extension will trigger the need for an ATC-capable fleet sooner than the TTC has planned, and other projects such as resignalling the full line will likely be advanced. There is also a plan for a new yard at the west end of Line 2 to handle an expanding fleet. The capital budget as it stands is not in sync with the level of spending implied by the timing of various Line 2 projects.
Any new project such as the Relief Line would compete for funding with expansion requirements on the existing subway which, ironically, the RL might make obsolete or at least enable deferral well into the future.
Conclusion
Yes, the TTC Board certainly needs to have a robust discussion of policy options, and to date too much has been presented as a fait accompli. There is nothing wrong with the premise that professional staff go away and contemplate plans based on expert, unbiased evidence. Sadly, while the 2016 plan may be better than those of past years, it is still heavily coloured by political considerations.
Oddly enough, the TTC has just cancelled a special meeting planned for early April where it would discuss broad policy issues. The new transportation plan is precisely the type of issue that deserves to break out of the formal debating structure of regular meetings, but who knows whether this will ever happen.
Steve Munro 
I’m guessing that platform doors is an unnecessary expense… in the eyes of non-transit users. Haven’t seen anything about them.
Steve: The TTC is inconsistent in talking about their benefit. In some cases, they talk of marshalling passengers at busy stations, ergo they are only really needed at such locations. In other cases they talk about keeping garbage off of the tracks and preventing suicides. That means doors everywhere. However, the larger question is whether the frequency of those events is high enough that prevention justifies the cost, versus focus/spending elsewhere in the network.
LikeLike
For the Relief Line, at what point does the analysis / EA for “Phase 2” (north of Danforth) start?
I can perhaps understand having Phase 1 move forward a bit before starting Phase 2, but I think most reasonable people paying attention to reality know that the northern stretch is really needed to reduce load one Line 1. Have there been any whisperings of when the process will be initiated?
Steve: The northern EA has not even been whispered about, and there seems to be a deliberate attempt by some to downplay the importance of the RL while hyping the benefits of SmartTrack.
LikeLike
While we’re talking about funding from other levels of government, what has happened to the $333M promised by the feds for the Sheppard LRT back in 2009? It’s bizarre to me that the political calculus of the Wynne Liberals has led them to forego this huge pot of money — or to not even ask that it be reallocated to other projects (Finch, or even Crosstown East). Back when the $660M pot was announced for the Scarborough LRT, I remember Council and the feds being explicit that it wasn’t meant to be a reallocation of the federal money for Sheppard.
And speaking of reallocating — can the city really just change the scope of the Scarborough Subway and reallocate federal dollars to another project? Or cut out their own contribution so they can spend their own money on the Crosstown LRT? I would imagine that there was some kind of signed agreement between the governments.
Steve: Actually a lot of “signing” hasn’t happened and the reallocations have been done simply by various governments nodding agreement pending a final configuration of the projects. We still don’t have a replacement agreement for the original Scarborough LRT contract, but that’s not worth the paper it’s printed on with everyone trying to be a “subway champion”. I believe that the Fed’s Sheppard money was rolled into the SSE project, but have really lost track of the shell game.
LikeLike
No serious attempt to analyze fare systems… by anyone… not good.
I’m all for a completely reformed fare system such as London’s zone system (introduced in 1983), but that was very carefully analyzed and thought through. London had the advantage that it was a replacement for a system of point-to-point fares where no two fares were the same and there were no day passes or anything similar.
The initial London system design had some very specific and intentional design features. Fares were based on the number of zones travelled, with a surcharge for Zone 1.
From more expensive to less expensive:
Zone 1 + 2 + 3
Zone 1 + 2
Zone 2 + 3
Zone 1 only
Zone 2 only or Zone 3 only
This was designed to alleviate overcrowding in Zone 1, and fill half-empty buses in the outer zones, by encouraging people who could take circumferential trips around Zone 1 to do so — it appears to have worked. Of course they had point-to-point fares before so nobody was defending their ticket price.
There were major gyrations due to politics, with the initial introduction featuring large price drops with increased subsidy, followed by huge price increases due to a court case, followed by another price drop….from what I can tell people who actually lived and worked in Zone 1 saw ticket prices roughly equal to what they had before. (Though they probably walked most of the time.)
It then took another six years to get the “rail” services to join the fare system.
Anyway, my point was that the system structure was designed with very intentional features for specific purposes: it was biased against outer-suburb to downtown commutes, while being cheaper for “all downtown” and “all surburban” trips, with the specific intent of rebalancing ridership. And it had quite a lot of analysis figured into it. It wasn’t a half-assed political job. It looks like nobody in power has even decided what they’re trying to do with the fare system in Toronto, let alone attempted to analyze how to do it.
Steve: Thanks for this background. One of the big problems with any planning work is the temptation to copy something used elsewhere without looking at the context, or of understanding just what goal a change might seek to achieve.
LikeLike
The Yonge subway line is already ‘too big to fail’. If it does fail, riders going to/from the west have some alternatives of varying effectiveness in the Spadina line, Bathurst bus, and Dufferin bus. But riders going to/from the east have….pretty much nothing. The Don Mills bus is fairly slow in the south end due to the indirectness of the route. The next real through route connecting with the Bloor-Danforth is Victoria Park.
So, if the capacity of Yonge is to be notionally increased (so a relief line is ‘not necessary’), I’d also like to hear how the TTC is going to guarantee 100% uptime. No signal issues, passenger emergency alarms, fires at track level, security incidents, etc. etc. If the TTC can’t guarantee this, then it’s time to build the relief line to Eglinton at least.
This is less of an issue for Bloor-Danforth, since to the north the Eglinton line will provide good relief, while further to the south there are streetcar lines that can carry the distributed load of the subway.
Needless to say, SmartTrack would be laughably incapable of acting as an alternative if the Yonge line is down.
LikeLike
I would guess that while the city cannot freely use those money for any transit project it wants, it can expect a favorable response if it asks Ottawa to re-purpose part of the funds for a project of comparable scale and visibiliy. The Relief Line is probably eligible.
Steve: The problem with the RL is that this project is too far in the future to qualify as a “stimulus” in the next few years. Also, there is a question of whether the money would come out of the larger capital funding pot that Ottawa is creating, thereby “stealing” funds that might have been applied to other worthwhile projects such as the Don regeneration or TCHC repairs.
LikeLike
I’d like to re-enforce
By making the Scarborough Subway Extension (SSE) a one stop line, there will be over 33 bus routes crowded into Scarborough Town Centre. No one understands that the extended LRT only adds passengers to the Bloor subway line. The shortfall of frequency on the Stouffville line means bad service for all of Scarborough for the next 3 generations.
I feel a major failure is Metrolinx, not understanding current City of Toronto transit problems. If they would incorporate TTC gauge equipment (subway and streetcar) they could truly enhance public transit in the city because of their Stouffville and UPX properties.
I have analyzed the problem and much blame is the provincial power but lack of knowledge of Toronto’s transit needs.
LikeLike
Zero plans for a GO Midtown train line? Not everyone wants to go downtown, some want to bypass it.
Steve: That is CPR’s mainline across Toronto and they are not going to give that up for commuter rail use unless provided with an alternative. Such a scheme is part of the “missing link” proposal to reroute CP traffic in Peel and free up the Milton corridor (which becomes the North Toronto line at West Toronto), but that is (a) difficult and (b) decades away.
LikeLike
I’ve heard quiet suggestions from folks at Metrolinx that they have this on their planning horizon. Certainly not near term, but not fully off the table either. (For the record, this arose in response to a discussion about the Davenport grade separation, when I was also told that Metrolinx wants to get rid of the diamond even just for its own plans, even if they could make the CP freight disappear tomorrow.)
Steve: I am not surprised that Metrolinx is considering this long term. However, given the challenges involved in actually getting hold of this corridor, it is not the sort of the thing that belongs in a medium term plan as if it would happen in the next decade (something for which physical work would be required even sooner). It would be a lovely route to have, but I’m not holding my breath for an opening day ride.
LikeLike
I think denying the notion of a longer relief line fails to appreciate the limits of ST, even with full access to the tracks. There is a limit to capacity at Union, in the USRC, and the location of the corridor also creates real limits – assuming you had full control. However, even if you ignore that:
If we just continue with 2% growth – 31k becomes 46k in 20 years (or GO in 37k=>55k). 2% is likely low, 31K is capacity capped. Therefore it likely should be 2.5% with a real starting point (where you would jump to with capacity nearly immediately) of 34 or 35 – which means more like 55K in 20 years (or more realistically again including GO 66k). So if you achieve 36k on Yonge the Stouffville line works perfectly, and you run a train every 5 minutes you are still out of capacity in 20 years with Stouffville running 12 trains per hour, and them being past full. It will likely take 15 years to build a DRL as far north as Eglinton, another 5-10 to get to Sheppard, assuming we start pushing now.
GTA regional transit needs a plan that allows transit to fill the gaps and take the load, not permit it into cars. Best plan would be to take as much growth in Toronto itself as reasonably possible, with a roll-out that reduced parking, and created much more rapid transit. If we are going to improve bus service, build an LRT network, etc, one big investment is required – and that is a DRL to act as a link for more service.
LikeLike
Headways of 5 minutes are not even satisfactory today. All of the north of Scarborough, from Warden to the Zoo would travel east/west to hook up with the Stouffville line (Steeles, Finch, Sheppard), except for headways, Union Station not a great destination and extra fare upcharge. The Sheppard LRT would also be a great transfer, if ever it comes.
The Stouffville line would best be subway with headways of 3 minutes, symmetric to the Vaughan/Spadina subway.
LikeLike
A solution to the North Toronto line has existed for decades. It isn’t a ultra long term solution either, it can be done relatively quickly freeing it up for GO to use all day long. It just takes money.
When the CNR built its Bypass line across the top of Toronto to reach its new freight Hump Yard in Maple/Concord/Vaughan (Hwy 7 and Keele) this allowed GO to start up between Oakville and Pickering since Mimico, Bathurst and Danforth Yards were all redundant except for a small amount of local industry.
The CPR looked at using this Bypass between Milton and Agincourt to bypass North Toronto to reach their slightly older freight Hump yard at Sheppard & Markham Rd. It would eliminate a lengthy grade westward as well as a shorter one eastward between Leaside and Agincourt and a good part of the northward grade from the Junction to Bolton. Big savings in operating costs.
Problem is CNR wanted CPR to pay for a third main track along their 2 track main line which would allow each road to benefit as they could utilize all 3 tracks based upon traffic at any given time. In other words CPR would not have been restricted to a one way at a time on one track. If CNR had no train on either of their 2 tracks CPR could use one or even two, thus all 3 at once! . If CPR had no trains, CNR could use all 3 tracks. Cheap P R said; No, we just want to pay for use your tracks when we need to. CNR said, Get lost.
Years later when CNR traffic had built up on their 2 tracks the CPR came along again and this time they offered to pay for a third track. CNR said, Screw off, you had your chance.
Now, if GO paid for a third track MAYBE the CNR and CPR could get along and commuters would benefit from all-day GO service across North Toronto to say Markham area with connection to TTC Spadina Line (NOT Yonge.)
Would not be cheap but far from the cost of a fresh start and possible to complete relatively quickly.
Steve: But this begs the question, given the buildup of CN traffic, of whether three tracks are sufficient between the two railways, or if CN would hold CP/GO hostage for a fourth track making a dedicated pair for each railway.
LikeLike
Do you guys really think Scarborough has the density for Crosstown East LRT? I think that BRT would be a better fit for Scarborough with the money saved going to speed up the construction of the Downtown Relief Line (DRL) which is what is going to help Scarborough commuters the most. A DRL is the number one priority for Scarborough residents working in Downtown.
LikeLike
CP does NOT have a hump Yard at Agincourt. Hunter Harrison had it removed when he took over CP. Check it out on Google Satellite maps and you will see it is gone. The CN Halton sub line is not doubled or triple track for much of its length. It is single track for a lot of its distance between Georgetown and Burlington. From Google Satellite it is single track from just west of the Humber river to just east of Islington. The Halton sub passes over the MacTier Sub west of Islington. I do not know the differences in elevation of the two subs but CP would need a connection between them if it were to run its freights across the CN by-pass. The connections between the west and north would be particularly difficult.
The York Sub is single track from just west of McCowan until it joins the CN main line at Liverpool Rd. It passes over the Havelock sub at Ninth Line (Donald Cousens Pkwy.) in Markham just north of Steeles and then it passes under the CP Belleville Sub South Of Plug Hat Rd. and west of Beare Rd.
The real problem comes between Bramalea where the Weston Sub Joins and Silver Junction where the Kitchener line (Guelph Sub) Splits off. There are only two tracks through Brampton and it is difficult to run GO, Via and CN through there without throwing in CP. Triple tracking through Brampton is very expensive, but possible.
So contrary to what you say the Halton and York Subs are not all double tracked; they have significant sections of single track. CP does not have a hump yard at Agincourt and hasn’t for some time. It is no longer possible to run CP freight on CN west of Bramalea. This is where the “Missing Link” would join up/ It would run from the CP line near Trafalgar along the 407 to join the Halton sub just east of the Weston sub. Unfortunately it would not alleviate the problems on the CP into Milton.
The chance of running CP on the CN by-pass between East Scarborough and Milton is no longer feasible and the cost of building the missing link as well as triple tracking the Halton and York Subs from Bramalea to Scarborough would be very significant and time consuming. Also CN and CP are federally incorporated railways and can ignore anything the province tries to get them to do.
LikeLike
Yes, Scarborough does have the density for an LRT line, but not a subway. Running a BRT would force another transfer on the users and we all know how they hate an extra transfer, but granted the SRT to subway one is awful.
Most of the transit riders in Scarborough are NOT going downtown so should they suffer for the minority who want to go downtown? So an LRT network would help more Scarborough riders. Yes, a DRL is needed, but don’t force the majority to pay for the benefit of a minority just so Scarborough councillors can have their subway.
LikeLike
I personally believe for a subway replacement – it is too far east, however, I was focused purely on capacity. I think you would find if it was subway at 3 minutes, you would run into the same issue. I was thinking in terms of 12 car trains at something like 162 per car so around 23+ K per hour plus a little standing, 20 trains at 1080 while more attractive, offers slightly less capacity. If you ran 30 trains – you would have huge problems/costs at Union (tunnels for dedicated platforms and totally segregated track etc), it would not offer as good a connection to the rest of the network. My basic point however, was capacity. The fact that it is not in the right place, does not cover enough alternate locations, will be hard to design flexible enough service without spending the type of money that would get a new subway line, all make this worse.
One new north south subway line could be built to be able to accommodate longer trains, and hence marginally more riders. We can move now to build stations most likely to have the greatest load in the future as 3 platform stations (or at least leave room to do so), as we have already seen the issues at Yonge. Such a line would provide a connection even for a large ridership on Eglinton, ( even a notional Lawrence LRT), and upgrades on and large ridership growth on the BDL, as well as a Sheppard LRT.
LikeLike
How do wider tracks equal enhanced public transit? It seems like the whole reason for defending TTC gauge in reverse (big cost, little benefit = better spent elsewhere).
Separating train traffic is needed regardless if it’s mixed or all passenger service. Of course if CP were to ever fold-up shop, Metrolinx would be there at the fire sale, but it’s highly unlikely unless we have a game-changing technology emerge (like a working Hyperloop system). I think the critical clue is their investment in upgrading intermodal yards (where they move freight from trains to trucks). If they are sinking money into a facility, they aren’t likely to be selling out in before 2030 or 2040.
There are already plans for a fourth track on the Halton subdivision between Silver Junction and Halwest Junction to serve both GO RER/electrification and CN freight (generally the north two tracks would be CN). Part of this includes a potential rail-grade separation of Silver Junction where GO would pass from the north to south (this is very preliminary/conceptual future planning), so the putting CPR trains on the corridor would involve building out to 5 or 6 tracks, not 3 or 4, which of course would involve significant land-take.
LikeLike
When Raymond wrote about CN’s York and Halton Subdivisions:
Robert Wightman wrote:
This is true, but irrelavent to Raymond’s writing as they did have the yard at the time they looked into using the bypass.
LikeLike
1 – Not only does Scarborough have the density – but it would permit more dense development, and transit oriented neighborhoods.
2 – Unfortunately that particularly bad transfer, has created a perception and political situation, that hugely undermines good transit planning. Somehow, people have come to believe that any transfer for Scarborough will be as goofy as this one. As a city, we need to take the lesson that going forward, especially for Scarborough – ease of use, needs to be at the top of the list.
LikeLike
This is the main point to which I was referring and he also indicated that the Halton and York subs are double tracked and they most definitely have large single track section so the problem is a lot bigger than he indicated. Hunter Harrison became CEO of CP in June 2012 and the yard was closed in early 2013. So I do not think my comment is irrelevant as his is full of factual errors. Also read Mapleson’s answer above about the need for 5 or 6 tracks through Brampton.
The solution no longer exists without the “missing link” and a lot of MONEY.
LikeLike
The answer is that higher frequency addresses capacity.
Subway cars have proven performance on headway projections.
Transportation experts have told me, discussions of headways lead to high margins of error. You could plan for 5 minutes but in reality get 15 minutes.
Metrolinx is just shopping for their electrical equipment with no track record of performance. It’s a big unknown.
There truly is a north/south bottleneck in Scarborough, even for trips within Scarborough. City Transport has not provided any 5 or 6 lane north/south roads for buses to make good time. They really are part of the solution. A subway would help.
The LRT in Scarborough only adds passengers to the Bloor subway, as does the SSE. With $3.56 billion dollars we should be setting foundations for fixing Yonge/Bloor not adding to it.
LikeLike
And Scarborough would already have an LRT network if it was not for the politics of hatred and division of the previous mayor RoFo due to whom irreparable damage was done not only to Toronto but also Scarborough. Not only did RoFo not deliver the subway but he also cancelled all of the LRT lines in Scarborough.
<blockquote>Josh:
Do you guys really think Scarborough has the density for Crosstown East LRT? I think that BRT would be a better fit for Scarborough with the money saved going to speed up the construction of the Downtown Relief Line (DRL) which is what is going to help Scarborough commuters the most. A DRL is the number one priority for Scarborough residents working in Downtown.
I can’t believe that Steve Munro would allow a comment like that. I am sure that Steve would not tolerate any comments suggesting that the streetcar contract be cancelled and the saved money from the cancelled streetcar contract be spent on Scarborough, so why tolerate comments suggesting that projects in Scarborough be cancelled to fund Downtown projects? This Scarborough-Downtown divide is a direct result of the politics of hatred, division, and lies perpetrated by the former mayor Rob Ford. Of course, Steve might argue that cancelling the streetcar contract won’t save any money as Bombardier would sue but Bombardier has already broken every element of the contract from product quality to delivery time, again and again and again. Please note that I am NOT advocating for the cancellation of the streetcar contract but just noting that Bombardier has already repeatedly failed to meet it and so Toronto could theoretically walk away from it without a penny in penalty. I do however recommend that Bombardier be barred from bidding on any further public sector projects in Canada.
Steve: I only block comments that are insulting, denigrating, wildly inaccurate, threatening or obscene. Yes, I get that sort of thing, and no, I will not elaborate further.
Simply advocating something I don’t agree with, provided that you don’t state your case in ten comments a day, won’t get you banned. I like to think readers can sort the wheat from the chaff themselves, and we may not even agree which is which.
LikeLike
In tonight’s Metrolinx presentation, they said that GO has a fleet of 800 passenger cars. They will likely be looking at electrical locomotive equipment in their initial purchases rather than the preferred EMU cars. The EMU’s are preferred because they have shorter stop and start times (engines in every car). For economies, the locomotive equipment has longer stop and start times, good for 15 minute headways. There is the blending of two lines which gives 7.5 minute service.
That is the best GO is offering, no 5 minute headways.
Steve: Yes, that has been clear for some time in the material GO/Metrolinx has presented. I also think that the impossibility of five minutes on every major line all converging at Union has informed the planning, and Metrolinx is working within what they can reasonably fit there.
LikeLike
Yes, however, based on well established switching practices, 5 minutes is achievable – and would net 24k whereas a 3 minute headway based on subways trains like Yonge would only achieve 21k. This is not enough to do the job of being long term relief for Yonge. If you are going the subway route, it needs to have full isolation and for some something where you are talking the 2.5 minutes on Yonge today, or the sub 2 minute headway that is coming for Yonge. The idea of subway at 30+ trains per hour would offer the capacity – but it would still be in the wrong place, and would need to be removed from active rail service, so that there would be not possibility of other trains, a major issue. It would be easier to build an honest to god subway – in the right place.
LikeLike
Exactly – to save money they will not do the massive expenditures at the south end. Adding a 4th track to the portion from Union to the Scarborough junction would be required to make this subway anyway, and this and platform space at Union is required either way. The subway notion also means removing track from service other commercial to be rapid transit – which means having lots of other issues. While I believe Stouffville is not the answer, it would be easier to achieve 5 minute headway as rail that 3 minute as subway – on these tracks. If you are building something else – well make it real subway.
I agree build subway – but as a DRL, that can act as a primary anchor for LRTS in the east.
LikeLike
You are confusing rolling stock with track and signals. The reliability of headways on the King Streetcar (for example) are not dependent on the use of rails separated by 1.435mm or 1.495mm. Rolling stock is relatively easy to replace (assuming it conforms to the standard system infrastructure for clearances), but tracks (and switches) and signals are what dictate what headways can be permitted.
It’s not a margin of error, it’s a maximum system capacity. A well managed, well designed line (a separated right-of-way is a must) should conform to the minimum headways if there is the political will and funding to do so.
Electrification won’t substantially improve headways, but will have a marginal impact on travel times. They are just using it for political coverage to remove other system limitations and neighbourhood objections.
The Crosstown East LRT would take the lost role of the Scarborough Expressway/Gardiner Extension. The SSE would also add passengers to the Bloor line, if maybe less. However, the LRT would definitely serve more intra-Scarborough travel. The key is to also build the DRL so that those in Scarborough going downtown can get their without passing through Bloor-Yonge.
Josh’s comment was about how to best serve Scarborough with the money available. It doesn’t matter on which side of the Don that the construction takes place.
The issue isn’t a penalty, it’s the cost of a replacement bid (in both money and time).
This is conflating cause and effect. The network can’t support 5 minute headways, thus faster-accelerating smaller trains don’t maximize system capacity. Once they resolve the bottlenecks then they can think about what makes the most sense after the fact.
LikeLike
My point was that Scarborough needs north/south transit service. North-west and north-east Scarborough are the areas most in need of rapid transit, intra-Scarborough. Mapleson only addresses southern Scarborough. Neither the SSE nor LRT help north Scarborough. There are enough 5 and 6 lane east/west roads that provide adequate east/west bus service.
By the way, the LRT takes Eglinton from a 7 lane road to a 4 lane road, which will have large vehicle circulation consequences. This is a major Metrolinx blunder.
LikeLike
Let’s get exact with our terms, you have Wards 39 and 40 in the western “North Section”, Wards 41 and 42 in the eastern “North Section”, you have Wards 35 and 37 in the eastern “Central Section” and Ward 38 in the central “Central Section”, and finally you have Ward 36 in the western “Waterfront Section” and Wards 43 and 44 in the eastern “Waterfront Section”.
What is your definition of “north” Scarborough? Above Ellesmere, the 401, Sheppard, Finch?
The 401 has been a pinch point, and works are underway now to widen the overpasses. Generally, there’s been resistance to wider roads in Scarborough to “protect the neighbourhood” or funnelling of transit to the SRT and subway.
I haven’t addressed anyone or anything. My preference would be for a griding of LRT (say Don Mills, Victoria Park, Midland, Markham, and Morningside for North-South and Steeles, Sheppard, Lawrence, Eglinton for East-West and Kingston Rd for good measure). However, that kind of money isn’t on the table and so it’s a matter of picking which combination available is preferable.
Metrolinx is just picking up the ball from the Scarborough Malvern LRT EA by the TTC and City.
Steve: And an important point in the old EAs is that the curb lanes of Eglinton are today full of buses feeding into Kennedy Station. They will vanish.
LikeLike
I would agree with this, and one of the reasons, that the subway as opposed to LRT network creates some real doubts for me. The political nature of transit funding, will make it hard for Scarborough to come back for additional north south rapid transit, that actually stretches north of the 401. While a couple of BRT would likely be enough today to address the demand today, I suspect that their existence would also trigger a fair amount of demand, and might well result in them being overloaded within a decade. If we are to make the STC a real center, it needs to have more than a end of the line connection. The current plan for a GO BRT helps a little, but well, a high frequency BRT that went up Markham or McCowan. LRT would be more desirable – but I think would be a tough sell given the current number of buses and ridership. McCowan would be easier to align with the STC – but has significantly lower ridership than Markham. However, a frequent rapid link to the STC and subway, would likely attract ridership core bound, as well as intra Scarborough ridership, especially if there were nice transfer points from east-west bus routes. Getting buses out of traffic, makes them much faster and more reliable, hence attractive, this will also help create a transit habit.
LikeLike
Which is why it seems so obvious to me that the ideal solution is to build the Crosstown East out Eglinton and then north to Morningside Heights (per the original Transit City plan, not the new version that stops south of the 401 at UTSC) AND re-build the SRT corridor as a grade-separated LRT to STC and on to Sheppard (I know there are concerns with space within the rail corridor with the SmartTrack expansion, I say this is more important in the short term for Scarborough). Combine this with BRT routes (for now) on Sheppard East and Markham Rd, and you have a legitimate grid serving Scarborough better than any combination of the SSE, SmartTrack, and Crosstown East do, doubly so if you can find a way to re-jig the transfer at Kennedy.
And on the subject of that transfer, the amount of hate that it gets is a little bit ridiculous. Has anyone complaining ever been somewhere with truly deep subways? And I’m not just talking of the extreme cases, but even stations on the Montreal Metro involve more escalator travel than the SRT-to-Subway transfer at Kennedy. I know it’s easy for me to say as someone who is (relatively) young and in good physical condition, but moving around Kennedy station is not that hard. The addition of a couple more elevator banks, and perhaps a direct escalator for peak direction transfers for SRT-to-Subway should alleviate any concerns people have.
LikeLike
I would say, that this is not as far beyond the pale as it is perceived to be. There needs to be a continued commitment in this country on more focused investment in the joining of making cities work and the environment. The LRT plans could help create more transit-walk-bike focused cities again. If we think of the fed supporting this notion, we can imagine seeing the vast majority of the growth of the GTA being achieved with intensification. This is really one of the few ways we can hope to create both improvements in lifestyle, economy and environment, where money to support 1 supports all. If this was in fact a major point of investment, we could fund the equivalent of two LRT lines at 20km per annum within the GTA quite reasonably. That would mean it was more a question of roll-out than anything else. If we think of starting today it would mean 4 billions in transit capital dollars per year for the GTA 2 from the fed 2 from the province. If the federal government were prepared to focus on this particular type of infrastructure, it would be huge.
Making highway space more reliable would hugely help the just in time deliveries of the auto sector, among other. A meaningful part of that is creating a lot more rapid transit, while also reducing automotive dependence, and the requirement for parking space, and the constant having to wade through that space for others. Part of reducing the cost of housing, is reducing the cost of other parts of structures- like parking. We should not automatically insist large amounts of parking for malls and apartment buildings, especially where there is a high frequency bus route nearby, and especially where there is an LRT in planning. There is lots of room for mixed use moderate height buildings along those roads, that would also in turn act as sound barriers for the fully detached housing behind. If we think in terms of say doubling the average density along the outer portion of those roads, it quickly becomes feasible to run enough service to be attractive, accommodate growth and hold or reduce congestion.
If we look at the idea, of say an LRT within the 401 corridor, that only stops for the crossing LRT and subway links, hoping from say Sheppard and Morningside to the airport corporate district would be fast enough, that as long as you were close to transit at the far end – you would not want to drive. This particular LRT would be extremely costly and would serve only as a longer distance link (not local service) but it is not that hard to imagine, how relatively small changes in spending priorities at the federal and provincial level make this sort of transformational change possible (a 12 billion budget at the federal level gets the GTA 2, assuming it is truly divided by pop, and Toronto should actually only be sharing this priority with large cities – so maybe 9 billion/annum). This sort of change should allow lower levels of government to do more with less, while reducing their impact on the environment, and further reducing the impact of their citizens. If we are making grand plans and promises about the environment, sustainability etc, it is in transit and city planning where the first big moves should be made.
LikeLike
Has there been any discussion on the fact that the rail line north of Eglinton to Milliken that SmartTrack is supposed to use is single track only and might be very difficult to double track? Also there are several level crossings between Lawrence and Steeles. Won’t these be an issue for a frequent “surface subway”?
Steve: GO Transit has already started work on double tracking the north end, and there is an EA finished for the southern part where construction awaits a decision on the future of the SRT corridor. As for the grade crossings, that’s a separate issue, but GO has begun the consultation process for Steeles Avenue. As for a “surface subway”, the combined headway of two services planned for this line is about 8 minutes (20 minutes express to the terminus plus 15 minute local to Unionville). Even so that’s a train every 4 minutes one way or the other and at Milliken they will all be stopping. A grade separation is definitely required.
LikeLike
Just a question that you may or may not feel like answering given it’s resemblance to an idle scribble, but Steve, what are your thought(s) on a realignment of a Sheppard LRT to the RT corridor assuming the current incarnation of the SSE?
I’m imagining a line on Sheppard proper to Kennedy, following either the Stoufville corridor or Highland creek to the existing guideway and on to Centennial and back to Sheppard as per the SRT extension plans.
This would also offer potential for the SRT Malvern extension, Malver via Sheppard and Neilson and an Ellesmere East branch to UTSC and maybe Pickering that seems a lot more reasonable than the vague indications of Sheppard extensions east of Meadowvale. For the record my favored version is Malvern as per SRT, but on a surface right of way and explicit protection for an Ellesmere extension but holding off on that until it can run to Pickering, with a TTC fare integrated Pulse extension to STC in the short to medium term.
Steve: I’m really bothered by the “black hole” effect of a location like STC that warps transit lines into its grasp and off of the grid. If anything, the problem is triggered by stopping the subway at STC rather than continuing north to intercept an east-west service on Sheppard.
LikeLike