Alternatives to Transit City, the Spadina Extension, Yonge Extension, Etc.

[golodhendil]

Lure over the head of the Hong Kong MTR or Transport for London or some similar organization to take over the board of Metrolinx.

Give him/her carte blanche.

We'll see how the rest goes.

I know you're kidding (kind of). But both the CEO and the chairman of MTR got upwards of $2 million CAD in salary+bonuses during the past fiscal year. In addition to their post at MTR, they are also respectively the director of the fourth and third largest bank in HK, as well as each holding a number of government-appointed public posts. Unless we can match these conditions, I don't see what will lure them over here.

 

[Amphibius]

Railfanism in transportation planning is a big no-no. This is why Steve Munro has zero credibility in my book when it comes to being objective and impartial wrt mode (bus, lrt, subway). Don't make the same mistake. The streetcars either stay or go for other reasons, not because they're "charming".

Besides, our streetcars don't attract tourists -- San Fran's cable cars do, but ours don't.

I know eh? "Tourists" must really lurve taking 55 minutes to get from Mimico to Yonge St.

 

[golodhendil]

Railfanism in transportation planning is a big no-no. This is why Steve Munro has zero credibility in my book when it comes to being objective and impartial wrt mode (bus, lrt, subway). Don't make the same mistake. The streetcars either stay or go for other reasons, not because they're "charming".

Besides, our streetcars don't attract tourists -- San Fran's cable cars do, but ours don't.

Actually, I have seen a number of tourist guides (written by non-Torontonians/non-Canadians) that list the streetcars as one of our attractions. And even while it may not be advertised as much as the SF cable cars, tourists to Toronto that I know are usually much delighted by the streetcars.

Also, railfanism / nostalgia saved HK's tramway in the 70s when the MTR was built right underneath it. Today it remains profitable and is one of the territory's top tourist attractions. Of course we'll need more detailed analyses, but just from the surface I don't see why the DRL / third E-W subway can't be built under Richmond/Adelaide, thus keeping the streetcars while providing a rapid shuttle through the same corridor.

 

[unimaginative2]

Lure over the head of the Hong Kong MTR or Transport for London or some similar organization to take over the board of Metrolinx.

Give him/her carte blanche.

We'll see how the rest goes.

Good idea, though TfL is just about the last organization I'd try to recruit from. MTR would be a good choice, or pretty much anywhere in continental Europe and Japan. Madrid might be a good choice, considering their construction talents. Obviously this doesn't mean you have to recruit the most senior executive at those organizations.

Since this is supposed to be a fantasy about different spending priorities for the pot of money allocated for the City of Toronto, currently all dedicated to Transit City, I'll focus only on projects within the city. As I've said elsewhere, I think a more regional focus is important, and rapid transit on the existing GO corridors would serve a lot of intra-Toronto needs. I also won't include projects like the Yonge and Spadina subway extensions, since they're really York Region projects and are funded separately from Transit City.

Unlike some people, I'm not inherently hostile to light rail. In fact, I'm very supportive in certain contexts (i.e. Waterloo Region). The key is that it must be designed as real light rail, not the streetcars surrounded by concrete curbs stopping at every traffic light that the TTC wants to build. If they use new technologies, like GPS and traffic management software, there's no reason why they shouldn't be able to ensure that a streetcar almost never has to stop at a red light. There are a whole bunch of other things that the TTC would need to do, and I and other people have gone into some of them in other posts. Without hesitation, I'd keep the Finch LRT, though it would be worthwhile to do an actual serious study on whether the hydro corridor or Finch Ave itself is the best route. Much of the development is actually as close or closer to the hydro corridor than to the street. Eglinton, if done right, could also be well-suited to real LRT. It's essential that it be built on the Calgary rather than Toronto model, though, with ROWs outside the middle of the street where possible and real transit priority.

The people who've been talking about a rapid bus network are definitely on the right track. Whether it's limited stop service on existing routes or Rocket buses that take people from outlying neighbourhoods to major hubs (i.e. Neilson express on the 401 to Scarborough Centre), they're a fantastically economical way to really improve transit for large numbers of people. The capital cost would be minuscule. Maybe a few bus lanes here and there.

As the guy who's been pushing it for years, I'd obviously build the DRL from Dundas West and Bloor, through downtown to Pape Station and up Don Mills, elevated where possible, to Finch. It would become a new backbone of the Toronto transit system, serving a densely-developed corridor, relieving Yonge so that it serve new development and be extended north, and dramatically speeding transit for the eastern part of the city.

I also strongly support finishing Sheppard and Bloor-Danforth to STC. I'd try to build both routes as economically as possible. I'd run the Sheppard line elevated east of Kennedy and Sheppard, using the Scarborough RT right of way east of Midland. The latter would, of course, be unused because of the Bloor-Danforth subway extension.

You might notice that Malvern seems excluded, but it would be well served by two rapid transit routes along the rail corridors through the neighbourhood. They'd give a much faster and more comfortable trip to most of the city, and trips to Scarborough Town Centre would be served by rapid buses.

I haven't included the Jane LRT project, since it's a pretty complicated project and the TTC hasn't worked out how they're going to handle the section south of Eglinton. Once they do, I would look at that more closely.

The B-D extension to East Mall is obvious since a surface right of way is already available and a developer has offered free land for a station.

The most important thing is that all the projects be seriously studied, with all alternatives evaluated. While I may have read mountains of TTC studies over the years, I certainly don't have the benefit of a planning staff. I'd like to really see the cost/benefit of LRT, Skytrain/ICTS, subway, or do nothing on Eglinton, for example.

As has been mentioned, accurate cost estimates are obviously challenging without a large professional staff carrying out extensive analyses, but the figures I've included are fairly conservative based on the costs of various projects in Canada and around the world. These aren't optimistic Madrid figures.

• DRL from Dundas West station to Don Mills and Finch (~$4 billion)
• Eglinton LRT (~$2.5 billion)
• Sheppard from Downsview to STC (~$1.5 billion)
• Finch West LRT (~$700 million)
• Rapid Bus Network (~$250 million)
• Waterfront West LRT from junction with the DRL at Exhibition or Queen and Roncesvalles (~$100 million)
• Downtown streetcar network upgrades (~$200 million)
• Bloor-Danforth to East Mall (~$250 million)
• New fare system (~$500 million)

 

[jwill]

2 points:

1. Combining King and Queen into a pair of one way routes will not work. They are much too far apart for that. I doubt anyone from Liberty Village wants to save 10 minutes riding from downtown, just to end up a 5 minute walk north of King St.

2. About the character of Queen and other streets. It may not be a valid consideration for transportation planning, but there are other concerns here. Removing streetcars from Queen, or other routes, will have a significant impact on the quality of the street. They may not work well for transit, but they really add uniqueness and vibrancy to a lot of streets (admittedly, not all of them). These things need to be considered. Would Queen west really be the same without streetcars, cars, cyclists, and pedestrians all jockeying for space? I hardly think so.

My suggestion for $10 billion. Use it to make waterfront lands (much of it owned by the city) much more valuable and attractive for development.

1. Extend Yonge-University subway south, for a stop at Queens Quay. Relieves overcrowding at Union by having two stops there (one to the east, one to the west) and leaves the existing station available for a future DRL. All waterfront streetcars/LRTs and ferries now end up at a Queens Quay/Bay station.

2. Add a station south of the west donlands for GO trains. About the same distance out as Exhibition GO, but opens up a lot of potential for office space in the donlands and portlands, especially if GO ever electrifies and starts running routes through Union station (like on the Lakeshore line)

3. Throw a lot of money at Union Station. Do whatever needs to be done to fix it properly. Make sure it has capacity for more people than GO thinks it will ever carry, some kind of airport train, and high speed rail. Include things like airport check-in, US customs pre-clearance for trains to the states, and a new intercity bus terminal.

4. If there's any cash leftover, build the DRL as far up as you can.

5. Oh yeah, build waterfront west and east LRTs out to Long Branch, and through the portlands. why not.

 

[autopilot]

big dreams

In no particular order...

GO
-electrification of all GO lines
-2 way all day service
-hourly overnight service

Subways
-Spadina and Yonge as planned
-Mimico GO to Danforth GO/Main Stn. via Queen Street
-DRL from the peanut to Eglinton at Black Creek (pape, rail alignment)
-Eglinton from Guildwood GO to Pearson
-Sheppard from the Zoo to Pearson via albion and Humber College
-Bloor to STC, UTM
-Hurontario PC to Brampton
-major Wilson yard expansion, Black Creek Yard, Richview Yard, Richmond hill Yard

BRT
-build ROW Bus lanes on every major N-S and E-W street (essentially concrete curbs - super cheap)
-triple bus fleet

Highways
-tolls within GTA for cars only
-bury gardiner

Cars
-develop license plate rotation that says who can drive and who can't on week days

Density
-every replacement development must be able to accommodate 3x as many ppl as the structure before

Suburbia
-start destroying and replacing with dense grid development from the outside in, and inside out.

 

[toraerach]

Density
-every replacement development must be able to accommodate 3x as many ppl as the structure before

Suburbia
-start destroying and replacing with dense grid development from the outside in, and inside out.

The funny thing about density is you don't have to whip out the wrecking ball to increase it. Even when it comes to single family homes, density varies widely. The same house can be home to a 4 person family, a single couple, a large extended family, a large group of students, etc. in its life. In many cases, there really isn't an extremely small limit on how many people can fit in one house. How would you assess how many people can be accomodated in one structure? How could you make sure its replacement could accomodate three times as many?

As for destroying suburbia, it will happen (to a degree I guess) eventually on its own. With stricter and more expansive greenbelt legislation, the suburbs will be forced to transform organically, which I prefer much more to the go in and tear everything down approach. Transit projects will play a large role in deciding where this change will begin, as they have in the past. Rezoning must go hand in hand with transit development.

As for some people mentioning the burial of the Gardiner, I see that as a huge waste of funds right now. Transit in the GTA has been starved of funding for so long and a lot of catch-up work must be done. We can't use funds that could go to expanding transit capacity, reliability, and comfortability for what would essentially be a cosmetic project. If the burial could pay for itself through tolls, then go for it, but if it can't then that project will have to wait until more essential transit projects are completed. Instead of hiding the problem that is car dependence, we should first try and fix it.

 

[spider]

The concept of LRT scares me, shouldn't we wait until St. Clair is finished to see if it is worth while at all. It sure doesn't look good in it's current shortened form.

There are 3 times as many cars as required in the mid day period lollygagging along at a 20MPH clip. How do we know the service will be any more efficient or quicker when it is complete? The same TTC line management and Union disinterest in serving the customer will be extended to all the new projected LRT lines.

Yes I know the traffic light priority system is not being used, do we know it will be installed and used on future lines?

If the ten billion were mine I would build the DRL from Don Mills & Eglinton to Queen St then west to Roncesvalles and north on Dundas to a suitable location.

All the projected cross town lines dump riders on the Yonge subway, the more successful they are in attracting ridership the more they stress the already crowded Yonge subway.

Toronto is a big city now let's quit screwing around with trolley cars and build a system with a future.

 

[golodhendil]

Lure over the head of the Hong Kong MTR or Transport for London or some similar organization to take over the board of Metrolinx.

Give him/her carte blanche.

We'll see how the rest goes.

Actually, forgot to mention: MTR's network (and that of the suburban railway agency KCR before their merger) was actually not drafted or designed by the companies themselves, but by the planners in the Planning Department and Transport Department of the HK gov't, so if anything, recruiting those planners and bureaucrats would be more "appropriate" for your purpose. Of course, MTR talents are still worthwhile for their experience in planning and constructing transit, and for the business expertise. Alternatively, we can simply hire MTR as consultants, as they do provide professional consultancy services to many transit systems in Asia and Europe.

At the end, I don't think there is really a lack of talent in Toronto/Canada in planning good transit service. It's really more of an ideology problem / problem that people with the "good" plans don't have the power. If TTC/Metrolinx are willing to "open up", recruiting local talents should be largely sufficient before necessarily needing to recruit overseas.

 

[Epi]

Actually, forgot to mention: MTR's network (and that of the suburban railway agency KCR before their merger) was actually not drafted or designed by the companies themselves, but by the planners in the Planning Department and Transport Department of the HK gov't, so if anything, recruiting those planners and bureaucrats would be more "appropriate" for your purpose. Of course, MTR talents are still worthwhile for their experience in planning and constructing transit, and for the business expertise. Alternatively, we can simply hire MTR as consultants, as they do provide professional consultancy services to many transit systems in Asia and Europe.

At the end, I don't think there is really a lack of talent in Toronto/Canada in planning good transit service. It's really more of an ideology problem / problem that people with the "good" plans don't have the power. If TTC/Metrolinx are willing to "open up", recruiting local talents should be largely sufficient before necessarily needing to recruit overseas.

Adding to your excellent points, I do believe the biggest problem for the TTC is funding issues. The TTC is lothe to 'dream big' and have big plans because they have been disappointed so many times in the past with funding. As well, the power of the union also limits the types of changes that they could likely do in terms of service (i.e. if they used all automatic trains and farebooths, I don't think the union would let them get rid of those workers, and most of them probably wouldn't want to be bus drivers anyway). Thus the TTC is put into a very difficult position where it has to dream small to get it's funding, make plans that can easily be extended at little cost if more money becomes available and is also restricted in the types of service that it can accommodate due to staffing issues.

 

[unimaginative2]

Those are reasonable points, Epi, but I really don't think the TTC can be faulted for thinking small at this point. Transit City is a $10 billion+ plan. That's not small. It's enormous, and quite a bit bigger than any other transit plan in history. I have issues with how the money is being spent, but there's certainly no lack of spending.

I think part of the problems with cost escalation may be to do with inexperience in managing large construction projects. While the TTC may boast about its experience in building the subway network, the organization hasn't built a major subway line, other than Sheppard, since the 70s. Even Sheppard is over a decade ago and many of the senior people who worked on the project have likely retired.

 

[Epi]

Those are reasonable points, Epi, but I really don't think the TTC can be faulted for thinking small at this point. Transit City is a $10 billion+ plan. That's not small. It's enormous, and quite a bit bigger than any other transit plan in history. I have issues with how the money is being spent, but there's certainly no lack of spending.

I think part of the problems with cost escalation may be to do with inexperience in managing large construction projects. While the TTC may boast about its experience in building the subway network, the organization hasn't built a major subway line, other than Sheppard, since the 70s. Even Sheppard is over a decade ago and many of the senior people who worked on the project have likely retired.

It may be true that all of Transit City costs $10 billion, but individual lines are certainly cheaper than subway lines, at least how the TTC builds subways. Because of such, politically it's easier to sell. Our higher levels of governments love to make funding announcements. What's politically better for them? Announcing 2 lines (i.e. Finch and Sheppard) or just 1 line? Obvious it's the former rather than the latter.

TC also takes into the fact that previously, money had been promised for projects, which were then terminated (i.e. Eglinton subway) or were not what they had hoped it would be. As such, by building LRT which by it's surface nature can be relatively easily extended a few km at a time, it was a good 'bet'. Due to the nature of building subways, it's always harder to extend a subway line then it is to add a bit more ROW if funding becomes available.

Whether or not it was a good gamble by the TTC remains to be seen. We will never know how much we would have gotten if the TTC went the old 'all subways' route, nor do we know the final impact of Transit City on Toronto just yet.

 

[LowerBay]

Transit City will be a disaster. Construction will drag on, disruption to the surface will be severe, cars won't be able to cross the ROW between intersections, riders will complain of fewer stops and longer walks, and the new service won't be much faster than buses when you factor in the longer waits.

Then, all the pimple-faced LRT fundamentalists will say, "oh well they just didn't build it right". Start baking the coconut cream pies and practise your aim, because the Finch line is going to be St. Clair times 10.

In the end, they might even run Steve Munro out of town -- he planted the idea in Miller's head!

 

[Second_in_pie]

Transit City will be a disaster. Construction will drag on, disruption to the surface will be severe, cars won't be able to cross the ROW between intersections, riders will complain of fewer stops and longer walks, and the new service won't be much faster than buses when you factor in the longer waits.

Then, all the pimple-faced LRT fundamentalists will say, "oh well they just didn't build it right". Start baking the coconut cream pies and practise your aim, because the Finch line is going to be St. Clair times 10.

In the end, they might even run Steve Munro out of town -- he planted the idea in Miller's head!

I both agree and disagree with that. On some lines like Don Mills and Finch West, LRT will provide the Transit City service will be great, and that's just because those routes work well with LRT. On other routes like Eglinton, the density, the ridership, and they way the road's already laid out just doesn't work as well with LRT, and is much better suited as subway. Jane is doing well as it is with busses. Just make every other bus articulated, and add in HOV lanes. Sheppard East is arguably better as subway, as more people would use it if it was a subway straight from STC to NYCC, but I think that LRT would work fine, and a full route would be more convenient, either all LRT or Subway to STC. Scarborough-Malvern is so-so to me, but I think it would function well with just the Sheppard LRT and some rocket busses instead of LRT.

I don't hate LRT, just the way the TTC is calling LRT a cure-all that is the solution to all our problems. In fact, LRT is great, but we can't have LRT everywhere.

 

[kettal]

On other routes like Eglinton, the density, the ridership, and they way the road's already laid out just doesn't work as well with LRT, and is much better suited as subway.

Have you seen Eglinton west? It has 2 intersections per km, and there's plenty of road space. It's almost a perfect street for LRT.