Update: Council’s action on this report has been added at the end of the article.
As I write this article on April 17, 2019, it has been three weeks since Toronto learned that Premier Doug Ford’s love for rewriting transit plans would turn Toronto’s future upside down. Ford’s special advisor Michael Lindsay wrote to Toronto’s City Manager Chris Murray first on March 22, and then in an attempt to paper over obvious problems with the provincial position, on March 25.
Just over two weeks later, Ford announced his transit plan for Toronto, and this was followed by the 2019 provincial budget.
A hallmark of the process has been a distinct lack of details about design issues, funding and the future responsibility for an “uploaded” subway system. In parallel with these events, city and TTC staff have met from time to time with Lindsay and his team to flesh out details and to explain to provincial planners the scope of TTC’s needs, the complex planning and considerable financial resources required just to keep the trains running.
On April 9, Toronto’s Executive Committee directed Murray to report directly to Council on the effect of provincial announcements, but his report did not arrive on Councillors’ desks until early afternoon April 16 with the Council meeting already underway.
The report reveals a gaping hole in the city’s knowledge of provincial plans with a “preliminary” list of 61 technical questions for the province. So much for the idea that discussions to date have yielded much information. Click on any image below to open this as a gallery.
To these I would add a critical factor that always affects provincial projects: cost inflation. It is rare to see a provincial project with an “as spent” estimate of costs. Instead, an estimate is quoted for some base year (often omitted from announcements) with a possible, although not ironclad, “commitment” to pay actual costs as the work progresses. This puts Ontario politicians of all parties in the enviable position of promising something based on a low, current or even past-year dollar estimate, while insulating themselves from overruns which can be dismissed as “inflation”. The City of Toronto, by contrast, must quote projects including inflation because it is the actual spending that must be financed, not a hypothetical, years out of date estimate from the project approval stage.
That problem is particularly knotty when governments will change, and “commitments” can evaporate at the whim of a new Premier. If the city is expected to help pay for these projects, will the demand on their funds be capped (as often happens when the federal or provincial governments fund municipal projects), or will the city face an open-ended demand for its share with no control over project spending?
Unlike the city, the province has many ways to compel its “partner” to pay up by the simple expedient of clawing back contributions to other programs, or by making support of one project be a pre-requisite for funding many others. Presto was forced on Toronto by the threat to withdraw provincial funding for other transit programs if the city did not comply. Resistance was and is futile.
How widely will answers to these questions be known? The province imposed a gag order on discussions with the city claiming that information about the subway plans and upload were “confidential”. Even if answers are provided at the staff level, there is no guarantee the public will ever know the details.
At Council on April 16, the City Manager advised that there would be a technical briefing by the province on the “Ontario Line” (the rebranded Downtown Relief Line) within the next week. That may check some questions off of the list, or simply raise a whole new batch of issues depending on the quality of paper and crayons used so far in producing the provincial plan. It is simply not credible that there is a fully worked-out plan with design taken to the level normally expected of major projects, and if one does exist, how has it been produced in secret entirely without consultation? The province claims it wants to be “transparent”, but to date they are far away from that principle.
The Question of Throwaway Costs
Toronto has already spent close to $200 million on design work, primarily for the Line 2 East Extension (formerly known as the Scarborough Subway Extension, or SSE). The province claims that much of this work will be recycled into their revised design, and this was echoed by TTC management at a media briefing. However, with changes in both alignment, scope and technology looming, it is hard to believe that this work will all be directly applicable to the province’s schemes.
The city plans to continue work on these lines at an ongoing cost of $11-14 million per month, but will concentrate on elements that are likely to be required for either the city’s original plan or for the provincial version. The need to reconcile plans has been clear for some time:
In order to minimize throw-away costs associated with the Line 2 East Extension and the Relief Line South, the City and TTC will be seeking the Province’s support to undertake an expedited assessment of the implications of a change at this stage in the project lifecycle. The City and TTC have been requesting the Province to provide further details on their proposals since last year, including more recently through ongoing correspondence and meetings under the Terms of Reference for the Realignment of Transit Responsibilities. [p 4]
The city/TTC may have asked “since last year”, but Queen’s Park chose not to answer.
The city would like to be reimbursed for monies spent, but this is complicated by the fact that some of that design was funded by others.
Provincial Gas Tax
As an example of the mechanisms available to the province to ensure city co-operation, the Ford government will not proceed with the planned doubling of gas tax transfers to municipalities. This has an immediate effect of removing $585 million in allocated funding in the next decade from projects in the TTC’s capital program, and a further $515 million from potential projects in the 15 year Capital Investment Plan.
At issue for Toronto, as flagged in the questions above, is the degree to which this lost revenue will be offset by the province taking responsibility for capital maintenance in the upload process. Over half of the planned and potential capital projects relate to existing subway infrastructure, but it is not clear whether the province understands the level of spending they must undertake to support their ownership of the subway lines.
Public Transit Infrastructure Fund (PTIF)
City management recommends that Council commit much of the $4.897 billion in pending federal infrastructure subsidies from PTIF phase 2 to provincial projects:
- $0.660 billion for the Province’s proposed three-stop Line 2 East Extension project instead of the one-stop Line 2 East Extension project; and
- $3.151 billion for the Province’s proposed ‘Ontario Line’ as described in the 2019 Ontario Budget, instead of the Relief Line South. [p 3]
This is subject to an assessment of just what is supposed to happen both with proposed new rapid transit lines and the existing system in the provincial scheme.
Mayor Tory has proposed an amendment to the report’s recommendations to clarify the trigger for the city’s agreeing to allocation of its PTIF funds to the provincial plan, so that “endorsing” the plan is changed to “consider endorsing”. Reports would come back from the City Manager to Council on the budget changes and uploading process for approval that could lead to the city releasing its PTIF funds to the province.
The Status of SmartTrack
Part of the city’s PTIF funding, $585 million, is earmarked for the six new stations to be built on the Weston, Lake Shore East and Stouffville corridors. The future of these stations is cloudy for various reasons:
- The Finch East station on the Stouffville corridor is in a residential neighbourhood where there is considerable opposition to its establishment, and grade separation, let alone a station structure, will be quite intrusive.
- The Lawrence East station on the Stouffville corridor would be of dubious value if the L2EE includes a station at McCowan and Lawrence. Indeed, that station was removed from the city plans specifically to avoid drawing demand away from SmartTrack.
- There is no plan for a TTC level fare on GO Transit/SmartTrack, and the discount now offered is available only to riders who pay single fares (the equivalent of tokens) via Presto, not to riders who have monthly passes.
- Provincial plans for service at SmartTrack stations is unclear. Originally, and as still claimed in city reports, SmartTrack stations would see 6-10 trains/hour. However, in February 2018, Metrolinx announced a new service design for its GO expansion program using a mix of local and express trains. This would reduce the local stops, including most SmartTrack locations, to 3 or 4 trains/hour. I sought clarification of the conflict between the two plans from Metrolinx most recently on April 3, 2019 and they are still “working on my request” two weeks later.
Some of the SmartTrack stations will be very costly because of the constrained space on corridors where they will be built. The impetus for Council to spend on stations would be substantially reduced if train service will be infrequent, and the cost to ride will be much higher than simply transferring to and from TTC routes. Both the Mayor and the province owe Council an explanation of just what they would be buying into, although that could be difficult as cancelling or scaling back the SmartTrack stations project would eliminate the last vestige of John Tory’s signature transit policy.
The Line 2 East Extension
The City Manager reports that the alignment of the provincial version of the three-stop subway is not yet confirmed, nor are the location of planned stations. Shifting the terminus north to Sheppard and McCowan and possibly shifting the station at Scarborough Town Centre will completely invalidate the existing design work for STC. This is an example of potential throwaway work costs the city faces.
The design at Sheppard/McCowan will depend on whether the intent is to through-route service from Line 2 onto Line 4, or to provide an interchange station where both lines would terminate. The L2EE would have to operate as a terminal station for a time, in any event, because provincial plans call for the Line 4 extension to follow the L2EE’s completion.
An amended Transit Project Assessment (TPAP) will be needed for the L2EE, and this cannot even begin without more details of the proposed design.
The Ontario Line
Although this line is expected to follow the already approved route of the Relief Line between Pape and Osgoode Stations, the map in the provincial budget is vague about the stations showing different names and possibly a different alignment. This could be a case of bad map-making, or it could represent a real change from city/TTC plans to the provincial version.
A TPAP will definitely be required for the extended portions of the line west of Osgoode and north of Pape. A pending technical briefing may answer some issues raised by the city/TTC including details of just where the line would go and what technology will be used, but the degree of secrecy to date on this proposal does not bode well for a fully worked-out plan.
Council Decision
The item was approved at Council with several amendments whose effects overall were:
- The City Manager and TTC CEO are to work with the province:
- to determine the effects of the provincial announcement,
- to negotiate principles for cost sharing including ongoing maintenance and funding arrangements, and
- to seek replacement of funding that had been anticipated through increased gas tax transfers to the city.
- The city will consider dedication of its PTIF funding for the Line 2 extension and for the Relief Line to Ontario’s projects subject to this review.
- The city requests “confirmation that the provincial transit plans will not result in an unreasonable delay” to various transit projects including the Relief line, the one-stop L2EE, SmartTrack Stations, Eglinton and Waterfront LRT lines.
- Discussions with the province should also include:
- those lines that were not in the provincial announcement,
- compensation for sunk design costs,
- phasing options to bring priority segments of the Relief Line in-service as early as possible,
- city policy objectives such as development at stations, and
- public participation on the provincial plans.
- The City Manager is to investigate the acceleration of preliminary design and engineering on the Waterfront and Eglinton East LRT using city monies saved from costs assumed by the province.
- The City Manager is to report back to Council at its June 2019 meeting.
Former TTC Chair Mike Colle moved:
That City Council direct that, if there are any Provincial transit costs passed on to the City of Toronto as a result of the 17.3 billion dollar gap in the Province’s transit expansion plans, these costs should be itemized on any future property tax bills as “The Provincial Transit Plan Tax Levy”.
This was passed by a margin of 18 to 8 with Mayor Tory in support.
Steve Munro 
Pardon my not commenting on the actual details and minutiae, but I’m struck with how ‘Monty Python’ this all becomes.
“No, no answers for you”
Why not?
“Because we don’t have to. Now go away…”
It would be funny, except it’s more a comment on the dire condition of the Third World.
Steve: Metrolinx has been dodging this question ever since their CEO, Phil Verster, announced the new service plan with express and local trains at the Toronto Region Board of Trade. He took great umbrage at having the inconsistency with reports on SmartTrack service that had been used to “sell” the idea of ST to Council and to voters.
LikeLike
But Doug has a plan for public transit in the Greater Toronto Area.
What is his plan?
It is a great plan.
Do you have details on his plan?
It’s a great plan which will help to solve transit in Toronto.
So tell us the plan?
Sorry, that has to be redacted until a later date. You have not the brains to understand his plan.
(GROAN!)
Steve: There has to be some Gilbert & Sullivan in there somewhere, although that is far too subtle for the Ford crowd.
LikeLike
I remember that awkward moment when His Eminence as much as dismissed the audacity of the Hoi Polloi to be asking such ‘glib’ questions, as from the likes of yourself.
I don’t want to stray too far from referencing and quoting exactly, but the Verster quoted when he first burst onto the scene (especially by the two excellent Urban Toronto interviews with him)
Here and here.
seem to show an entirely different persona stating facts which now appear to be nebulous.
I have to leave that for now, it can be itemized later if I’m challenged.
But most recently, Verster’s comments on the QP announcement has Verster claiming that the ‘Ontario Line’ at least is “funded fully”…which sticks with me as the words are inverted from “fully funded”.
Not the case at all. Here’s the point: Verster seems to be getting swallowed by ‘The Law of Diminishing Reality’…apologies to “Utility”…
Just who is good for factual statements from or on behalf of QP at this time? Anyone?
Steve: I trust nobody.
LikeLike
61 may seem like a lot, but I actually read them all quickly. They are all short, to the point, and important. A great illustration of the degree to which almost nothing concrete is known about the provincial government’s transit plan.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Question #62) How many billions of dollars did the Liberals waste in their 15 years of misrule that could have been better spent on building and improving transit?
Steve: Nowhere near as much as Ford and the Conservatives claim to be willing to spend. If anything, the Liberals were long on promises but rather shorter on delivery. The one element in common is the Scarborough Subway, the holy grail for all politicians, and Ford is prepared to spend much more than Wynne ever was to build a memorial to his late brother.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Councilor Matlow’s recent motion made me think of an interesting question that must have been discussed at some point. If council is determined that the extension HAS to be a subway, why does it have to be tunneled? Could the existing Scarborough RT alignment not be retrofitted as an extension of line 2? Obviously its not an ideal plan, and would be more expensive than the LRT proposal, but it seems to make more sense than the current 3 stop plan. You’ll have to forgive my ignorance on this one, but what am I missing?
Steve: A few things. First, the existing Kennedy Station box is aligned east-west, not north-south. In order for a subway to go up the RT corridor, a new Kennedy Station is required. Next, the existing curve and tunnel at Ellesmere is far too small/tight for subway trains, and so a new structure is required here. This would probably push Ellesmere Station too far south to be any good, although I don’t think many would care about this. The elevated structure east to McCowan Station is not built for subway trains, and I believe that the platforms at the three stations are too close together for the extra width of the cars compared to the RT. Finally, the RT ends now at McCowan station facing east, whereas the 3 stop subway would go north to Sheppard.
LikeLike
In response to Josh, Steve himself admitted that “the Liberals were long on promises but rather short on delivery.” Well said Steve and STANDING OVATION to that one. Please remind everyone of your words during the next election.
Steve: In case you didn’t know, I vote NDP, not Liberal. But I will take the provincial Liberals over Ford and his cronies any day. There was a time when the “Progressive Conservative Party” included decent, civil politicians, but now it’s just a gang of thugs and toadies.
LikeLiked by 1 person
For the Ontario Line, trains the same height, length, and width as the SRT will suffice. Narrow tunnels, small stations, and shallow cut and cover tunnels will mean huge savings in costs and time.
Steve: The further north the Ontario line goes, the higher its peak demand will be. I would not be too sure about SRT-sized equipment. As for cut-and-cover, if that is chosen, then a street less important than Queen (say Richmond) should be used. I very much doubt the government is prepared to foist this level of upheaval on Toronto.
LikeLike
SRT: each train carries ~ 300 riders; the number of trains per hour is less than 20 (TTC doesn’t have enough cars for more frequent service). The capacity is about 5,000 per hour per direction.
Yonge subway: ~ 1,000 riders per train, ~ 30 trains per hour, total capacity 30,000 per hour per direction.
Ontario Line’s peak demand will be in the 15,000 – 20,000 range on the opening day, and likely will be higher than that a few years later. SRT sized is a non-starter. Ontario Line might use trains that are somewhat smaller than Yonge trains, perhaps 600 or 700 riders per train instead of 1,000. Then, Ontario Line needs to be very frequent, running 40 or 50 automated trains per hour, in order to meet the demand. Stairs and escalators have to be wide, so that the riders can quickly clear the station before the next train arrives.
It might be possible to achieve some saving on the Ontario Line if smaller trains are used. Not a huge saving though.
LikeLike
I’m finding this a constant source of beguilement, still not able to find written reference and breakdown of Metrolinx’ official figures as per passenger count/time/time.
Here’s the statement verbally from Verster.
He states: (gist) “400,000 persons per day on a work week day” for the Ontario Line.
This figure, for the route operating north to Eglinton, is bound to increase in multiples when and if the line is pushed, as I believe it should be, to Steeles and slightly north, perhaps sharing the present RH line north of Don Mills and then branching off into York Region. At the very least, it should meet the RH line at an interchange.
If you build to a narrower, lighter loading gauge, it costs very little more to do it to a full RER EMU type gauge.
There’s no shortage of comparisons to “London” by this present regime for this line, which is an odd comparator, since the DLR is the only ‘metro’ type of vehicle London uses, and its use starting thirty years ago was to accommodate limitations presented at that time.
That’s not how London is doing it now. The ‘state of the art tech’ is now to be found in mainline stock that can and does (the Class 717 for instance) run in tunnel smaller in bore diameter (4.9m for the Great Northern extant tunnels) than what the DRL was to be for the TTC model (5.4m). The Class 717 is a version of the Class 700 especially adapted for running in confined tunnels as opposed to the newer built ones like the Thameslink Canal Tunnels, or Crossrail ones (6.2m). This allows for evacuation of the rolling stock through side doors onto a gangway as opposed to through the ends of the train.
The Class 717, like all 700 series EMU, is a hybrid running on subway third rail in confined tunnel, and pantograph on overhead catenary as per GO’s projected electrification. The 717 has a top rated speed of 85 mph. The rest of the series for running in slightly larger tunnel and mainline is 100 mph, and sections of Thameslink are *already* running ATO through the core of London. That’s automatic operation.
BBD build a very similar vehicle, the Class 345 for Crossrail, albeit it’s run, like the Eglinton Crosstown, on catenary only, but mainline voltage and current. (25kV)
The ‘Ontario Line” is an opportunity to combine both RER and subway needs in ‘one fell swoop’ albeit the sell by QP of ‘many local stations’ in the southern tier presents a problem. Deep tunnel is far more apt for less stations and greater capacity and speed of travel, since stations cost multiples of surface ones for deep tunnel.
What a lot of the media get wrong is that the cost of the tunnelling itself isn’t the most expensive aspect of today’s deep tunnelled systems. It’s the stations. And if so much cost is in the stations, then build the platforms longer (Crossrail is built to 12 car mainline train length, Thameslink is similar, Great Northern, due to the century+ old tunnel, is 6 car), run longer trains if demand requires, and not only ‘relieve’ Line 1, but surpass it and more.
For those not served by a subway stop ‘at the end of the block’ … do what the rest of us have to do: Take a bus or streetcar to the nearest station. This isn’t to serve the Pape Entitlement. It’s to serve the Greater Need.
Meantime the present subway can do what it was originally intended to do: Serve Torontonians, and the many massive upgrades to make it otherwise will be saved. (Smaller tweaks will remain necessary, like added elevators, wider corridors/platforms, etc)
If Ford was made aware of this, God only knows what would drop off besides his jaw.
Steve: Regarding the “Pape Entitlement”, the real problem there is not people at Pape who feel entitled to a subway stop, but anti-streetcar folks who see the opportunity to slice demand off of the east-west streetcar lines by intercepting them enroute to downtown. Oddly enough, with fewer stations, there would be fewer neighbourhoods to upset with construction for which the station is the carrot dangling from a particularly menacing stick if the mess along Eglinton is any comparison.
LikeLike
Thanks for all the perspectives and info. A couple of other questions arise: Do the people that make decisions know what a million dollars is, or a billion? And – Do they have a single dime in the outcome, including operating costs?
And how to get good info and answers?
While it’s good news to have the thought of Relief going up to Eglinton to actually give value, even with the proposed extension to Ontario Place, it’s still only maybe half of the subway proposed in 1957 – sigh – and zero wonder the climate is changed and there should be some climate criminality assessed against us, or at least many of us, some far more than others.
As we are in the penny-wise, Ford-foolish era, we must ensure that we have a good value for the money and concrete, and yes, that does mean assessing what the technology is, but to go further, we also need more of a sub-regional/fast/express service, or services, and I’m glad to hear of that phrase of ‘Pape entitlement’ as that area is pretty close to the core by transit, bike or even walking, relatively. And the Danforth subway is pretty crowded well to the east of Pape, so it’s not really going to be that helpful for Relieving the Danforth vs Main/Danforth.
So part of me would be content to cut out even more of the plans to focus on Eglinton to the core via surface in the Don Valley – with some tunnellings or cut/cover in the core, and yes, I’ve been thinking not Queen, nor King, but maybe more Richmond or Adelaide with adjustments to the platforms of Line 1 as needed, and some are definitely needed like second exits??
I have a further worry about the malevolent nature of the Frod the People types – going a bit beyond bankrupting the system with the SSE, in order to f*x it. If it is a standalone distinct tech with no integration with the TTC, how much easier will it be to sell it off? Moreover, given the bad politricks of transit, will there be a stupid commitment or 2 to “relief” worth billions, but without the clauses that prohibit any sale, or flipping to private sector. That lack of will/smart and in the case of City, possible ability to say ‘NO’ given the mugging/Dougings, may let these Cons truly make a few billion from transit, but from other levels of taxpayer, and of course they will say the deficit HAD to be tamed, and selling it off was the Only Logical Thing To Do.
Backing off of the subway theft may be part of the strategy to outlast the federal Liberals, but also coax an unrestricted commitment from them since there’s a buy-election occurring.
It is a bit strange isn’t it – that we have a lot of hacking for relative nickels and dimes, while for some projects in Toronto, apparently no shortage, even though usually horrible value for $$$ and no sense of rationality either, at least if one has a goal of public good and worth for $$$.
LikeLike
When it comes to Public Transit the Mayor’s and Council’s decision making process is totally absent of evidence based data. They are displaying contemptuousness and chutzpah to ask questions 2, 8 and 9 when they have never asked such questions themselves.
2. Is Metrolinx preparing a business case analysis for each project in the new Ontario plan?
8. What are the ridership projections for each project for each of the following:
a. Peak point demand
b. Weekday demand
c. New riders
9. What input assumptions were used in the modelling work with respect to the
following:
a. Forecast year (e.g., 2031, 2041);
b. Population and employment growth;
c. Land use assumptions;
d. Service integration with TTC surface transit;
e. Proposed service plan(s);
f. Capacity of transit lines and proposed transfer stations;
g. Fares; and
h. Other planned network improvements (e.g., SmartTrack Stations Program, Waterfront Transit Network, Line 1 Capacity Improvements, Eglinton East LRT, GO Expansion, Durham-Scarborough BRT, etc.)
LikeLike