A more persuasive post would have been explaining why you agree with Steve Munro rather than just quoting him. I've often wondered why people take his word as gospel. There's nothing special about his opinion. Sure he's well informed, but at the end of the day he's just a guy with a blog.
Steve has earned a high degree of credibility and respect over the years. He also has insider connections with people city hall, TTC and Metrolinx. He is not always 100% right about everything, but look at his criticism of UP Express for example. Since the very beginning he has been raising issues with the fare structure, business model and assumptions. They didn't listen, so when the train inevitably failed Metrolinx had to make some major changes, most of which Steve was advocating for all along.
As to why I agree with him that the preferred DRL alignment has a lot to do with SmartTrack, this city has a long history of pursuing political transit projects and cocking up the numbers or planning rationale in order to justify it. SmartTrack is the latest politically driven pet project, so lets look at what it did to the Scarborough subway.
- There was concern that ST and the subway would cannibalize each other.
- Some of the most cockaiminie alignments were being seriously considered (such as Bellamy Rd) so that the subway would be farther away from ST.
- When that didn't work, they shortened the subway and eliminated all but one stop. A drastically different outcome as a result of ST.
- The mayor and chief planner have recently downplayed the importance of ridership in transit planning. Later the new numbers came out. Surprise surprise, the subway ridership is substantially lower than the numbers that council used to approve it in the first place.
- The planner is also now touting the "build it and they will come" ideology, saying that the subway will spur development and create jobs in Scarborough Centre. That didn't happen in other suburban centres and a number of other unsuccessful development areas, so what makes them expect a better outcome this time around? I believe that she knows better than this, but her hands are tied. She can't question the need for a subway in the first place (for obvious political reasons), so these arguments seem forced.
Therefore I would not at all be surprised if the same chief planner and city staff have also gerrymandered the relief line because of SmartTrack. The evaluation criteria said that the King alignment would have the highest ridership, the highest population and employment density, greatest development potential, greatest streetcar relief, and would best support city growth. That's pretty darn important, but King was rejected. I have some problems with a few of the excuses as to why Queen is preferred.
- It is cheaper.
- Social equity. Because it would serve Moss Park, Regent Park (sort of), has better access to community centres. But these neighbourhoods are not as densely populated.
- Opportunity to create a grand station in front of city hall. A nice little vanity project at the expense of user friendliness, unless you enjoy the long pedestrian tunnel at Spadina station.
- Serves more destinations (hospitals, universities, shopping), many of which are a considerable walk away from Queen and are already well served by Line 1. But this argument and its narrow focus on the small handful of city blocks in the downtown core ignores all the destinations that a King alignment would serve outside this area. What about the Entertainment District, Convention Centre, Roy Thompson Hall, Liberty Village, St Lawrence, or Distillery District for example? I would argue that there are more destinations along King rather than Queen, but the spokespeople at the public meeting are only looking at the downtown core when they say Queen would serve more destinations. Are they being disingenuous?
- More street life in the evening around Queen St compared to the financial district, which would supposedly boost evening ridership. I don't know why this is even a consideration. An interchange station will have high usage no matter where it goes. Meanwhile a station at Moss Park will certainly not be very busy in the evening compared to a station near St Lawrence.
I think the mayor and planners owe us an explanation as to the degree on influence that SmartTrack has had on the relief line.
In any case, not competing directly with RER (which is what Smarttrack is, let's face it) is exactly what a new subway line should be designed to do. Subways are supposed to be about serving highly dense parts of the city that can't be served by existing rail corridors, and that's what a Queen alignment does well.
If SmartTrack doesn't pan out as promised, if it won't have low fares, if it won't have frequency subway-like service, if it won't have as many stations as was promised, then this whole planning process in which the two lines must be kept away from each other will fall apart. The EA for the relief line will begin in only a few months and yet no one knows what SmartTrack will ultimately look like. We may not even get a subway station at the Unilever site because SmartTrack is assumed to be good enough. It's time that we get real and throw out the recycled election campaign literature.
