TTC: Sheppard Subway Expansion (Speculative)

[11th]

Sure, but we didn't. Transit City got funded and is a reasonable improvement; so should have been built.

The only parts of the original plan that got funded at the end were a shortened Finch West, shortened Eglinton (to the airport?), and Sheppard LRT. Plus I believe a BRT on Sheppard can also provide similar level of service to LRT with more flexibility? There's no point for a plan if we're not commited to it (expansions); and if some already want to commit to a stripped-down Transit City plan, why not commit to something better?

 

[nfitz]

The only parts of the original plan that got funded at the end were a shortened Finch West, shortened Eglinton (to the airport?), and Sheppard LRT.

Eglinton was funded from Jane to Kennedy, the piece of that from Jane to the Airport, and the piece of Finch eastwards from Finch West station were deferred to post-2020, but not cancelled outright. Also funded was the 5.5 SRT conversion and 3 km SRT extension to Sheppard/Markham (with another 2 km extension to Malvern Centre deferred to post-2020). The extension of the SRT east of McCowan has also been completely cancelled.

 

[rbt]

The only parts of the original plan that got funded at the end were a shortened Finch West, shortened Eglinton (to the airport?), and Sheppard LRT. Plus I believe a BRT on Sheppard can also provide similar level of service to LRT with more flexibility? There's no point for a plan if we're not commited to it (expansions); and if some already want to commit to a stripped-down Transit City plan, why not commit to something better?

Here's the point. Change and deferral is expensive. Delaying by 10 years can cost you 50% of your budget due to construction cost escalation. I.e. what would have built 4km of subway will now build 2km of subway.


Ford's kibitzing in transit city plans will cost directly $69M and indirectly about $250M due to delaying the start of construction (we get $250M less stuff than we would have).

Money has a time value and for construction projects in Ontario it's actually a very high value.


In short, the province gave us $10 and we opted to spend 50 cents figuring out what to do and have $9.50 to spend. Thankfully we kept Eglinton otherwise that 50 cents burned would have been much higher.

If we decided to perform a full EA of a different project (DRL + Bloor extensions for example) and cancel Eglinton; that $10 becomes $7 worth of actual infrastructure with $2 given to inflation. Sitting on that much money is very expensive.

 

[current]

According to this article the Sheppard LRT may still happen - 680News online article:

...However, Matlow said "it's not been decided by council yet that Transit City is indeed dead."

"Even in the memorandum of understanding between the province and the mayor, the Sheppard line will have to be debated and voted on at both the Ontario legislature and Toronto city council, so it's not been determined what the plan will be for rapid transit for Toronto in the coming years," he added.

Read More: http://www.680news.com/news/local/article/310073--cost-of-nixing-transit-city-could-hit-65-million

 

[11th]

Eglinton was funded from Jane to Kennedy, the piece of that from Jane to the Airport, and the piece of Finch eastwards from Finch West station were deferred to post-2020, but not cancelled outright. Also funded was the 5.5 SRT conversion and 3 km SRT extension to Sheppard/Markham (with another 2 km extension to Malvern Centre deferred to post-2020). The extension of the SRT east of McCowan has also been completely cancelled.

Sadly, anything deferred to post-2020 practically means 'cancelled". We all know how governments (not) keep their promises.

 

[11th]

Here's the point. Change and deferral is expensive. Delaying by 10 years can cost you 50% of your budget due to construction cost escalation. I.e. what would have built 4km of subway will now build 2km of subway.


Ford's kibitzing in transit city plans will cost directly $69M and indirectly about $250M due to delaying the start of construction (we get $250M less stuff than we would have).

Money has a time value and for construction projects in Ontario it's actually a very high value.


In short, the province gave us $10 and we opted to spend 50 cents figuring out what to do and have $9.50 to spend. Thankfully we kept Eglinton otherwise that 50 cents burned would have been much higher.

If we decided to perform a full EA of a different project (DRL + Bloor extensions for example) and cancel Eglinton; that $10 becomes $7 worth of actual infrastructure with $2 given to inflation. Sitting on that much money is very expensive.

I get your point, but I guess it's just different sides of the coin.

What I don't get is: Transit City is supposed to use the limited resources to build a workable new transit system. The stripped down version of Transit City is not Transit City. So if the city cannot build the entire plan with the limited resources, and have the wait for future funding to complete it, what is the point of sticking with the LRT "plan" in the first place? Unless we really do not want subways, why shouldn't we use the same logic - "build part of it, then wait for more funding" - to justify building HRT over LRT route? (not speaking specifically regarding the Sheppard route, but overall)

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

Except you can't even get anything but 2/3s of one relatively uncomplicated line out of pretty much the entire TC funding envelope. If that money is going to DRL, it'd probably what, get you 1/3? Not a huge fan of the details of TC but that being said, it is apples and oranges when compared to the cost of subways.

AoD

 

[GenerationW]

What I don't get is: Transit City is supposed to use the limited resources to build a workable new transit system. The stripped down version of Transit City is not Transit City. So if the city cannot build the entire plan with the limited resources, and have the wait for future funding to complete it, what is the point of sticking with the LRT "plan" in the first place? Unless we really do not want subways, why shouldn't we use the same logic - "build part of it, then wait for more funding" - to justify building HRT over LRT route? (not speaking specifically regarding the Sheppard route, but overall)

It's really a question of timing. Even in its stripped down form, Transit City was the most recent plan on record that was both planned and funded, so it's only expected that some will fight for its revival after Ford killed it.

 

[11th]

Except you can't even get anything but 2/3s of one relatively uncomplicated line out of pretty much the entire TC funding envelope. If that money is going to DRL, it'd probably what, get you 1/3? Not a huge fan of the details of TC but that being said, it is apples and oranges when compared to the cost of subways.

AoD

(seems going off topic from the thread) But using that fact, doesn't it mean we will never see a DRL built? Because each time we get a sum of money, we will always throw it onto other less complicated projects?

And yes, subways do cost more, no debate needed on that.

 

[GenerationW]

But using that fact, doesn't it mean we will never see a DRL built?

Do you hear any of our politicians seriously pushing for it? It might be first on the list for most people on this forum, but it's just about last on the list (or not even on the list) for most Toronto councilors.

 

[11th]

Do you hear any of our politicians seriously pushing for it? It might be first on the list for most people on this forum, but it's just about last on the list (or not even on the list) for most Toronto councilors.

That's the sad truth of transit building in Toronto.

 

[BurlOak]

The main reason that Sheppard Subway Extension is promoted is because it is there. The proposal 20 years ago was for the subway to go to Scarborough Town Centre and it has not changed. It is understood by the public.

The DRL was proposed along the rail corridor (maybe Queen before) and after it was not built in the 1990's, the proposal died. Since then there has been only fantasy talk and no official route studies or preferred route chosen. Thus, if there is no route for people to visualize, and since even the locals do not agree on the route or need, it will be viewed as not as important. Even the Richmond Hill extension has been studies more than DRL so it will slowly take over the publics imagination for new subway construction.

To get DRL built, TTC must first view it as a priority, study a preferred route, and then recieve public and political support.

 

[Palma]

What is wrong with the TTC? I use to think it was politicians meddling into the TTC's affairs. But is it? Is it because more people can be employed with buses and streetcars and that includes all those managers than if you have subways?

I am sure I read somewhere that prior to the Bloor subway being built, politicians wanted the subway to be built along Queen but that TTC officials saw the Bloor streetcar line really busy and chose to build the subway along Bloor St. So it seemed at that time at least that TTC officials were able to make decisions on their own of where a subway should be. What has changed?

 

[Amy Rose]

What is wrong with the TTC? I use to think it was politicians meddling into the TTC's affairs. But is it? Is it because more people can be employed with buses and streetcars and that includes all those managers than if you have subways?

I am sure I read somewhere that prior to the Bloor subway being built, politicians wanted the subway to be built along Queen but that TTC officials saw the Bloor streetcar line really busy and chose to build the subway along Bloor St. So it seemed at that time at least that TTC officials were able to make decisions on their own of where a subway should be. What has changed?

Money. TTC at the time had the money to build the Yonge and Bloor subways, so they didn't have to hang on to the political contracts because of money problems. These days theres barely enough money to keep transit infrastruture afloat, let alone subway extensions

 

[CapitalSeven]

The DRL was proposed along the rail corridor (maybe Queen before) and after it was not built in the 1990's, the proposal died. Since then there has been only fantasy talk and no official route studies or preferred route chosen. Thus, if there is no route for people to visualize, and since even the locals do not agree on the route or need, it will be viewed as not as important. Even the Richmond Hill extension has been studies more than DRL so it will slowly take over the publics imagination for new subway construction.

You seem to have lost track of the fact that exactly such a study has been under way for about a year. Granted, there have been no public consultations and zero publicity about it.