Where Should Subways Go?
Over on my blog, I talked about Stephen Harper suddenly discovering public transit in Toronto and Vaughan, and David asked me, “Do you think it’s the right place to invest public transit dollars or would the money be better spent on infrastructure closer to the core?” Mark later pointed out that the TTC should be deciding where our transit dollars go rather than Ontario and Canada. I agree, except that over the years the TTC has lowered their expectations in the futile hope that Ontario will once again fund it properly. If they ask for little, maybe they’ll at least get that.
Except for the truncated Sheppard line, no subway line has been planned, funded, and built since the 1980s. During a boom time, when real estate values soared and people indulged in conspicuous consumption, and after Bill Davis stepped down as Premier, the Ontario government stopped building a mile of track every year. A decade later, during a terrible recession, Bob Rae’s NDP government bravely set out their four-subway-line plan and put it into motion. That’s the last time things happened in Toronto beyond the yak-yak stage. Knowing that effective swift public transit in Toronto was good for Ontario, the NDP soon had construction crews digging along Eglinton and Sheppard. Then the Harris Tories swept into power because the Labour movement was pissed at Bob Rae. Talk about a jealous spiteful nose — Labour at the NDP, and Tories at Toronto. Only Mel Lastman was able to salvage a part of the Sheppard line.
Because those four lines were cancelled and Eglinton patched up to a tune of $90 million dollars — who says Conservatives are the only fiscally responsible party — total myth — but I digress. As I was saying…there has been no real subway expansion in over 20 years. The TTC has studied the matter and put out a document showing the best density for a subway line. The only place that meets their high density calculations is Queen Street, from the Beaches to the west end. Instead we have an overpacked, slow streetcar on that road. Plus being the only east-west subway line means that the Bloor-Danforth line is heavily used even in non-peak hours, and the Yonge platform — that the TTC said would be expanded after the Bloor platform was — is getting dangerously crowded.
Meanwhile, the SRT is dying a painful death. We hear talk about busways and LRTs, but I find it incredibly illogical to stick on the end of a subway line, a variation on a subway line, instead of extending it. This political nonsense results in commuters having to make an unnecessary change in order to get into Scarborough proper. Scarborough is a huge part of Toronto, yet is served only by buses and the inadequate SRT. With politicians talking about infilling and increasing Toronto’s densities, Scarborough is a prime area for that, not just downtown Toronto, and a proper subway line would help with that long-term plan.
York Univeristy really does need a subway. It’s beyond friggin’ waiting for a bus there, and women need a safer way to get to and from the university than long walks and bus changes. (A side note, with our increasingly extreme weather of blizzard to sauna, sometimes the only efficient and reliable way to get from a to b is by subway.) York also has a population of 65,000, which being mostly students would have a higher proportion of public transit users than the general population. I’m assuming here, but I think it’s pretty logical. I’m not sure building the line up into Vaughan is the right place to invest subway line dollars. On the one hand, it may be the incentive needed to get 905 commuters out of their cars; on the other, who will pay for the maintenance of the Spadina Line? Vaughan is chipping in for the capital costs, but are they for the operating costs? Furthermore, the density up there is so low, shouldn’t they be building up to frequent bus service first, as Toronto did eons ago, before constructing a subway line?
Toronto is one of the few major cities without a subway line into the airport. Politicians like to boast about Toronto being world class, but unless we build our infrastructure to meet the needs of commuters and travellers so that less time is spent on the road and more time building our economy and allowing for a good quality of life, it’s just an empty slogan.
And lastly, I assume the Eglinton West line was planned and enacted because the congestion along that stretch of road is huge and because there is good potential for increasing densities there. Also Eglinton is a non-highway way of getting into the airport. Thus, that could become the subway line into Pearson.
That’s a lot of lines. And a billion dollars towards the Spadina Line extension seems like huge bucks, never mind the cost for building other lines. But don’t forget Ontario has not funded a subway for over 20 years. When you don’t pay for a necessary item at the time it’s needed, you pay more and have to do more down the road in order to play catch-up. And if you don’t do that, then when the situation is dire, you pay through the nose not only for the infrastructure, but also for the hit on the economy, people’s ability to work, and quality of life. We’re close to the dire situation. Based on about 2 billion bucks total for the planned (I’ll believe it when I see it though) line and based on the fact that it’ll take 7 years and based on the fact that we have wasted three times that with talking not building subways, the federal and provincial governments ought to add on another 6 billion dollars for a Queen subway line, an Eglinton West line from the Spadina line out to the airpot, and replacing the dinky SRT with a proper subway line. Then both governments, like the US and Québec governments, should chip in stable annual funding for operating costs plus ongoing capital funding for such things as accessibility and improving surface service. We are far too large a city and in far too much need of reducing our commuting times and congestion and of increasing our densities, to be fiddling with busways and streetcars as on-ground LRTs on narrow roads, a concept more suited for smaller cities like Ottawa where they work well. Buses ought to complement our subways like they do in London and New York, not be a substitute for them. You’ll never get the needed number of Torontonians out of their cars and onto public transit that way, especially since the TTC is more and more the obnoxious way and one wants to get out of there fast. But that’s for a later post.
Related posts:
It’s actually very logical. West of Kennedy, ridership increases on the Bloor-Danforth line, such that the trunk route is what is needed to serve the load. East of Kennedy, however, the trip generators become a lot more diffuse. Now, it’s true that the Scarborough RT’s two busiest stations are Kennedy and Scarborough Centre, suggesting that most passengers want to go from the subway to the STC, suggesting that a subway extension is the best, but not if you look at where people go from the STC.
Truthfully, people heading east to Kennedy want to go several different places in Scarborough. North on Kennedy Avenue, for instance. East on Eglinton. Northeast to Malvern. The fact that the TTC has routed several different bus routes to the STC has skewed ridership patterns. If the bus terminal were at McCowan station instead of the STC, McCowan would be the second most heavily used station on the line.
So what is needed is a bunch of routes fanning out from Kennedy station, each serving its own pocket of Scarborough with infrastructure that’s more closely in tune with ridership demand. And this was what the Scarborough RT was originally supposed to be: a trunk line for streetcars on private right-of-way, that would have branched out at several points along the route to serve several different areas of Scarborough.
The York University extension is funded, now, so there’s not much we can do about that. And we can say that York University is a natural terminus for the Spadina line. But while the line will serve 100,000 riders per day, which isn’t small, it’s serving it with infrastructure that can carry 30,000 passengers per HOUR. That’s far in excess of what’s needed, and it’s slurping up capital funds that could be better spent providing cheaper rapid transit to both York University and other parts of the city.
_Without reiterating my previous TTC/subway thoughts, I think that the extension of the Spadina route BEYOND the municipal boundary is the real story here, rather than simply a long campaigned stop for York University.
_This might signify a greater change in the region’s planning which has to-date witnessed a drastic separation of ‘the 416′ from the growing ‘905′ ring.
You could be right Classic. Only time will tell what the long-term ramifications of extending the subway into Vaughan will be. It could start the end of the car culture and car-dependent development in the 905.
The problem with buses James is they take forever, and they’re particularly uncomfortable during rush hour. If we want to entice people out of their cars, buses won’t do it. They’re much slower and much more repellant. Subways, on the other hand, may be considered sexy by the pundits in the Star, but what they really are are fast. (I don’t know what commuter thinks a garbage-strewn headphone-pounding subway car is sexy.) Using the SRT as a way to fan out streetcar lines sounds like it was a good idea. Why not complete it? This is far different than using Kennedy as a terminus, for the simple reason that the bus ride from there vs. McCowan or the STC would be a lot longer.
Commuting times are a serious issue, and we need to reduce them. If I had a car, I’d use it to get to certain destinations instead of the TTC as it exists now. Because there are too few subway lines that don’t service enough of the city, and because buses are slow in our increasingly heavy traffic, it takes me twice as long by TTC as by car. That’s not good, and that’s not ever going to get people out of their cars and using public transit. You really notice the inadequacy of the TTC when in London or New York or even Rome. When we talk dollars and cents, what I want to know is what does it currently cost the economy, productivity, quality of life to think small when it comes to the TTC? What is the real cost of not building subways? That’s capital and operating costs on one side of the ledger; productivity loss, lateness, long commuting times, reduced quality of life as commuting takes up family time, etc. costs on the other side of the ledger.
I’m inclined to agree that TTC development in the core, whether it’s more light rail in Scarborough and along Eglinton or a new train line along Queen, is more consistent with infilling and gentrification. Despite the lip service paid to controlling sprawl, there’s nothing in the feds’ announcement that doesn’t touch Peel, York, or Durham regions in some way. Property values along the subway lines will continue to rise and the bus-averse will continue to flea to the hinterland with its enhanced access to the core.
There is a danger here that 905ers will read and say typical Toronto doesn’t want us to have anything. 905 DOES need public transport upgrades and this subway will not give them all the improvements they could have - it will suck all the money away from those they should have.
For the Sorbara Extension beyond York, you could have multiple new low-floor tram lines which run closer to where people live - not old 18m TTC streetcars like in downtown but new 40m trams as in Paris or London or Dublin - running off-street into York Region and the rest of the GTA, integrated into VIVA perhaps with the same next car displays and pre-payment system.
You could fund improvements to GO Transit infrastructure, making it more independent of CN and CP.
Incidentally I read that part of the subway deal is that buses will not serve the stop at the centre of campus, so now people will be forced to use the subway even if not living on the subway line, which if true will cause aggravation to those who used to have a 0-change journey. All this no doubt so the executives at the top of York U can park their cars without waiting behind those east-west buses that should run direct even after the Downsview-Vaughan service opens.
Talk Talk, you misunderstood my point. You were saying that the SRT was illogical because it was an obvious appendage of the subway, and the subway should have been extended instead. And it’s true, in its current form it amounts to little else but an appendage adding 10 minutes of travel time to any commute.
But my point is that the actual trip-destination studies in Scarborough show that the arrangement of the buses is skewing ridership patterns. Because the TTC is funnelling so many routes into Scarborough Centre, then of course it looks like the demand of the SRT is just between Scarborough Centre and Kennedy.
Really, the need for transit in Scarborough are a bunch of fast streetcar lines, on private rights-of-way, fanning out from the Kennedy terminus. These would use the Scarborough RT as the trunk route and would branch off, up Kennedy (or the Stouffville line to Steeles), east along Ellesmere, or northeast to Malvern. This would significantly improve transit for all Scarborough residents. They’d still have to transfer from streetcar to subway at Kennedy, but they would no longer have to transfer from bus to RT at Scarborough Centre, since the fast streetcars would be going closer to their door. This would significantly reduce their commuting time.
Yes James but you’d have to trust that TTC streetcars would in fact be fast - remember high rate subway trains? At least YRT seems to know what the R in BRT means.
Your counterproposal still maintains a backbone route along the SRT ROW which means the last few stops would still be packed if people are getting on at Ellesmere that used to get on at STC. The effect that would have on the BD would be calamitous in the morning peak UNLESS capacity and reasonable fare transfer could be arranged on GO at peak between Kennedy and Union between such that people would choose it over packing the BD.
I see no reason why they wouldn’t be, assuming there’s political will to hold the TTC’s feet to the fire. Making use of the SRT’s right-of-way as the main trunk route would give these streetcars straight and level track with absolutely no possibility of interference from private automobiles. The stations would be two kilometres apart, so the streetcars would be capable of achieving at least 70 kph — which is what the CLRVs were designed for, back in the day when it was thought that these would be what would run on the SRT right-of-way.
I don’t see how this arrangement, of fanning-out LRT lines making use of the SRT trunk and terminating at Kennedy, would hammer the Bloor-Danforth subway, since this would be no more than taking the loads of people that currently run on the SRT, on 43 Kennedy and 116 Morningside, adding a few more due to the desirability of the service, and funnelling it into a piece of infrastructure which is capable of handling the SRT’s current daily loads in the span of 90 minutes.
Certainly it would be good if we could renovate Kennedy’s station layout, so that commuters wouldn’t have to use four flights of stairs to get from the LRT to the subway, but the subway at Kennedy certainly has sufficient capacity to handle what the new Scarborough LRT network could throw at it.
David, just to clarify, are you saying the subway into Vaughan will increase sprawl as people move, looking for cheaper car-friendly housing further out?
Mark, absolutely 905 needs better public transit, but it needs to be commensurate with population density, just like for Toronto in the last 100 years. They can’t live in car-friendly pedestrian-unfriendly places, yet expect to have the same type of public transit as the 416 area. I like the VIVA system, and your idea of expanding it with trams is a good one. GO is a whole other story. The complete idiocy of putting it on freight lines has always escaped me.
If that’s true about the subway deal, then it speaks to my point about this being all about votes.
James, I have to admit I’m not familiar with the commuting patterns of the SRT, but from what users have said and written about their daily commute, and my own experience, I see two big issues: speed and capacity.
When I use the TTC, I build in 10 minutes for every change I have to make, 5 if I’m feeling lucky. The subway-SRT interchange can’t be much different in the time it takes to go from one to the other. Not extending the subway maintains that current change from Bloor-Danforth to SRT, with its attendant time loss and headache of battling the increasingly obnoxious and filty crowds to get on the blasted train, or worse, bus. And I travel OUTSIDE of rush hour. I can’t imagine what that interchange is like DURING rush hour.
Those streetcars would have to be subway length to handle the commuter traffic, current and future. We could not use the current model of streetcars, as they’re just not big enough, which means again having an orphaned vehicle type used only in one part of the system. More types of vehicles means higher maintenance and capital costs vis a vis the rules of volume purchasing. Part of the problem of the SRT is that nowhere else on the TTC are those vehicles used.
The Bloor-Danforth line is getting too packed. We really really need another east-west line (and it’s interesting that Star readers reiterated that plus my other points, see http://www.thestar.com/article/189191). If this line was to be extended, no-one past the outer stations will ever get a seat during morning rush hour, but at least Scarberians wouldn’t have to wage war to get on a train at the end of the line.
TTT - I actually agree with you. 905 does not need 416 scale transit - it does need 905 appropriate transit which is both developmentally responsible and environmentally sustaining. Running subways into the 905 will be a disaster because they will be money losing and all future transit projects will face a jaundiced viewpoint from politicians - look how the Sheppard East line has turned even some 416ers against any subways even when the city is crying out for a Downtown Relief rapid transit line of some kind.
James - we are to assume surely that LRT fans will increase demand due to a 0-change to Kennedy rather than 1-change (at STC)? At peak I frequently have to let trains go at Coxwell and at Bloor because the cars are too full to board. Not every day, not all day, but if ridership increases… This is why we need alternatives to BD such as Don Mills/DRL/etc.
Oh, and don’t we all love how the Hwy 404/407/7 expansions sneaked into the “transit” announcement? Imagine the media reaction if it was announced on a separate day.
Nice bit of chicanery that, the 407 announcement, especially since it’s supposed to go through that so-called Greenbelt.
I hear you about watching subways go by Mark! I absolutely hate, HATE, the Yonge-Bloor interchange. Between the claustrophobic crowds, the way-too-small Yonge platform, and the garbage, I feel like I need a valium every time I have to change there. Why on earth does the lesser-used Spadina line have two stations one can change at, but the Yonge line has only one? Why is Lower Bay not being pressed into service if they’re not going to upgrade the Yonge platform? And finally since the TTC did have a report way back when about building a relief line from Pape to Union and one along Queen, why are they not resurrecting them?
Good point about the effect Sheppard East has had on people’s desire to build new subways, and that’s an astute observation about how the new line will affect politicians’ viewpoint.
No. The Scarborough RT carries roughly 35000 passengers per day, with a projected peak hour demand of roughly 8000. If we take as an example MU CLRVs, forty scheduled trains could handle that load with ease.
You have an inaccurate impression of what the SRT is doing because the line is actually not operating at its operational capacity. Yes, the line is overcrowded, but that’s because the line is currently capable of handling four car trains (with each car capable of carrying only 75 passengers), and there are only 32 cars in the fleet. With the TTC only capable of running 7 ICTS trains at a time, that means that the closest they’re able to schedule the line is roughly 3 minutes, 30 seconds. The line is currently capable of scheduling trains at 90 second intervals, but there isn’t the cars available to do that.
One 4-car ICTS train is the equivalent of a 3-car CLRV train. Therefore, if we were to run 2-car CLRV trains at 90 second intervals (or 40 trains per hour), we would be able to carry exactly 3000 passengers per hour more than the SRT is now.
Even being able to buy new Mark I cars, or used cars from Vancouver, would address the capacity issues. The problem with the Scarborough RT is that those cars aren’t available new anymore, the used cars are getting too old to use, and all the other issues you raise about orphan technology.
If we convert the SRT to be able to operate using the same technology as the new streetcars we hope to build, we would solve the orphan technology problem, and we would have sufficient capacity to handle the current and projected capacity.
This is exactly what the report on the future of the Scarborough RT detailed. Converting the SRT to use the new Mark II technology costs only $350 million. Converting the SRT into an LRT would cost about $450 million. Extending the subway would cost $1.2 billion.
Only the LRT option allows us the option to extend LRTs or any other rapid transit further into Scarborough. That’s why this is the right choice.
Well, first of all, we’re getting new streetcars, and they’ll likely be longer than the current ALRVs (I have mixed feelings about that), and if we convert the Scarborough RT to use these streetcars, that means we can purchase more streetcars at decent discounts, addressing the maintenance cost issues you’ve alluded to. More than that, streetcars can operate as multiple-unit trains, so streetcars certainly have the capability of doing the SRT’s job better than the SRT itself.
I agree with you. Which is why I argue against extending the Bloor-Danforth subway, which for some reason you seem to support over replacing the SRT with an LRT. The subway extension might be nice, but it’s way to expensive; such that it precludes the possibility of a major LRT route down Don Mills and following the DRL to Union station.
I think such an LRT might be in the offing, given that the Don Mills LRT is specifically a priority in the City of Toronto, and the Portlands people are wondering how to get a Cherry Street streetcar up to the Bloor-Danforth subway (a possible solution, running up the Don Valley along the Bayview extension, links up to where the Don Mills LRT would likely go). An LRT running on private, grade-separated private right-of-way would help relieve the Bloor-Danforth and Yonge lines.
“No. The Scarborough RT carries roughly 35000 passengers per day, with a projected peak hour demand of roughly 8000. If we take as an example MU CLRVs, forty scheduled trains could handle that load with ease.”
According to exhibits in an August 2001 report, two of the SRT stations are in appropriately dense areas for rapid transit (100 job/residents per ha is considered the threshold at which rapid transit is viable). Furthermore, in the next 14 years the areas around the last 4 stations will increase beyond that 100 level. Contrast that to Downsview, which is below the 100 level currently, and in 14 years time, continues to show lower density than around the SRT. The area around Steeles shows a strange density change in the next 14 years. In other words, the current densities along the north end of the Spadina line are lower than around the end of the SRT and although they project those densities to approach that of the SRT, they will still be lower. Yet that’s where the next subway is going. Can you blame Scarberians for being a bit ticked?
On a side note, when planning where to extend subways or LRTs or RTs, one needs to look further down the road than 14 years.
On another side note, I still maintain that a Queen subway to take the load off the BD line is our most pressing need. However, the SRT is dying, and the TTC claims we have 1 year to make a decision. And in fact, we are so far behind in subway building and system expansion that we really need to build several simultaneously, as the NDP proposed back in the 1990s.
“You have an inaccurate impression of what the SRT is doing because the line is actually not operating at its operational capacity.”
My impression is not off as the theoretical capacity of the SRT is a moot point. The only thing that matters is how it’s being operated right now. If the TTC was going to make theory a reality, it would’ve done it long ago. Furthermore, 3.5 minutes apart is about on par with the subway. 90 seconds is utopia land. I cannot imagine the TTC ever being capable of running trains, subway or SRT, at their theoretical intervals. They run trains in 3 packs during the rush hour, and during non-rush hour, they’re erratic. Sometimes 10 minutes, sometimes if you’re lucky under 5. I don’t know why the TTC is incapable of running trains during rush hour at regular intervals and frequently; they’ve had 50 years of experience at it, people have rushed doors for as long as I can remember, and there’s no traffic, none, for the trains to compete with as streetcars and buses do. The latter I can understand coming in 3 packs.
The fact is the SRT as the TTC is running it is not meeting demand, and the whole thing is irrelevant as the SRT is no longer viable due to its orphan technology. It’s just a matter of when the politicians will get their act together and do something: in a timely fashion (at this point, hardly) or when the whole thing is about to collapse. In the meantime, the increasing overcrowding and deterioration of the system will discourage people from using it. Those who can use cars will go back to them, if they haven’t already.
“If we convert the SRT to be able to operate using the same technology as the new streetcars we hope to build, we would solve the orphan technology problem, and we would have sufficient capacity to handle the current and projected capacity.”
From what Steve Munroe wrote, it sounds like the TTC is not interested in using LRTs, but in upgrading the SRT so that we will continue to have orphan technology. We will be held hostage to Bombardier for its exorbitant pricing as so few cities use this technology. Plus a system works more efficiently and meets people’s needs better when it’s an integrated whole, not a mish mash of technology.
“Converting the SRT to use the new Mark II technology costs only $350 million. Converting the SRT into an LRT would cost about $450 million. Extending the subway would cost $1.2 billion.”
As I said, the cost of which system to use isn’t just about capital costs, but also human costs. I forgot environmental costs. If, for example, we add up all those little extra 10 minutes, the time to change from the SRT to the subway, for every rider multiplied by 2 to include the ride home then by the number of working days in a year, that’s a heck of a hit in time lost to either work or home. That’s just one part of the human cost of the current system.
In our car culture, we will not get people onto public transit unless we make it attractive. I used the SRT very early on in its incarnation. It was different, kind of like a dinky toy compared to the robust subway, but OK. I used it a few years later, and it was unpleasant. Too small, too many people. It looked sad too. I stopped looking for jobs in that part of town because public transit was simply too long, too many changes, and too stressful. The environmental cost isn’t in subway v. LRT, but in public transit v. car, and in intensification and infill to allow for better public transit (then there’s Pickering’s mayor who is talking about extending the “lame duck” SRT into Pickering, Oshawa, Markham, and York Region). The city says it wants to increase population density. What happens when we plan for public transit as the city is now, then infilling happens, and suddenly we find we once again have another SRT boondoggle and spend even more dollars finally building that subway because now the population density warrants it? Without properly integrating it into the subway system, we will have once again wasted current dollars.
On a purely practical note, if the TTC doesn’t want LRTs, I highly doubt we’ll get them.
“Well, first of all, we’re getting new streetcars, and they’ll likely be longer than the current ALRVs (I have mixed feelings about that)”
Well then the TTC had better improve its customer service. As it stands now, God help you if you’re in the back of an articulated streetcar since the drivers won’t call out the stops and being so far back it’s difficult to tell where you are and impossible if the car is full. They’d better install that automated voice in every new streetcar. Lengthening the stops is a piece of cake compared to improving driver service.
The TTC is far more in the control of Torontonians than, in some ways, the provincial and federal governments are. Unlike the latter two, Torontonians own the TTC. Therefore, what the TTC wants with regards to LRTs is immaterial. The official plan of the City of Toronto calls for a network of LRTs throughout the city. That has a strong chance of happening, especially considering that an LRT costs 1/5th to 1/4 the cost of a new subway.
Simply put, the rule of thumb is as follows:
A bus operating in mixed traffic can carry up to 3000 passengers per direction per hour.
A streetcar operating in mixed traffic can carry up to 4500 passengers per direction per hour (thanks to capacity issues).
A bus operating on private right-of-way can carry up to 10000 passengers per direction per hour.
A streetcar operating on private right-of-way can carry up to 20000 passengers per direction per hour, and beyond.
A subway can carry up to 40000 passengers per hour, but is only really economically feasible with peak hour demands beyond 20000 passengers per hour.
All modes of transportation have their place in different parts of the city. But you waste money if you demand to build a subway where an LRT can carry the load. Even if subway loads are projected to come in 50 years, that’s way too much time to plan ahead, since you’re preventing cheaper rapid transit from being provided to other parts of the city right now.
Even the Scarborough RT report, which leans towards LRT conversion rather than new subway construction, notes that while subways may eventually be needed, it won’t be for another fifty years. Even if we’re looking at a new subway in thirty years time, that’s okay, because most infrastructure needs to be rebuilt after thirty years, anyway. Put the LRT in now. It can carry the loads quickly, and get people out of their cars for the next thirty years, and it leaves us money left over to take on other projects, like streetcars along the Waterfront, or even an LRT downtown relief line.
That should happen regardless of whatever capital choices we should make. This is a separate issue.
That’s coming, in all buses as well as all streetcars.
All this is true, but it’s irrelevant to the point I’m making. My point was that projected passenger loads for the next thirty years can be handled by a trunk LRT, and it would be a waste of money to put in a subway instead. I’ve further said that the York University subway extension isn’t needed, either, since a busway or an LRT can carry the loads, reduce commuter times and save us about a billion dollars.
Where do you get the fourteen years number? The SRT projections work for the next thirty years. And, frankly, certain classes of LRTs can provide near subway-level capacity, negating the need, in my opinion, for suburban subway extensions for more years to come.
Not true. The Scarborough RT question is really a perfect storm. Capacity issues presented themselves within the last five years. At the same time the TTC noted that additional Mark I vehicles weren’t available without considerable premium, that the cost of upgrading the line to handle Mark II cars was prohibitive, AND the design life of the SRT (defined mostly by the Mark I cars currently in operation) was fast approaching.
The fact that the TTC is bringing the Scarborough RT to our attention these past two years is a prime example of the TTC trying to make “theory into reality”.
Yes, that is true, but the TTC can be overruled by its commissioners. Indeed, that’s already happened in a bad way. Consider the recent permanent extension of the 29 Dufferin bus route to the soccer stadium in the CNE. The TTC staff assessment of the proposed extension noted that there wasn’t the ridership demand for the service, but the commissioners overruled the commission and the buses are now running.
Whether the TTC wants the SRT to use Mark II technology instead of converting the line to LRT is irrelevant. The commissioners can overrule the TTC. We simply have to convince the commissioners to overrule the TTC.
LRTs, if properly designed, can carry up to 20000 passengers per hour. Even if we get them up to 12000 passengers per hour (which our streetcars used to be capable of in mixed traffic when there was less traffic), we can build four LRT lines for the cost of a single subway line. Not only would the four LRT lines carry more passengers than the subway, they would provide better coverage of that area of redevelopment. LRTs at this point are a better investment in our transit future than a subway extension to York University.
While a grid network of subway lines would be nice, I don’t think we have the capability of raising the funds in the short term. Perhaps we could build something by committing to a mile of new subway construction a year, but it would take at least a couple of decades before this would start to make a real difference.
We could get an LRT network up and running now. It would make a difference now. Maybe even in an ideal world, it can provide us with the basic grid network that a mile-per-year subway network could replace. But advocating for subways first is getting the priorities reversed, and its a recipe for inaction.
Don’t take my word for it. History tells us this. We had a plan for a mile-a-year subway construction back in 1984. It was called the Network 2011 proposal, but the province refused to fund it because the price was too high. You are repeating the same mistakes we made in 1984.
“We had a plan for a mile-a-year subway construction back in 1984. It was called the Network 2011 proposal, but the province refused to fund it because the price was too high.”
That mile-a-year plan was the idea of the original subway architects over 50 years ago. It existed before 1984, as evidenced by the rapid expansion of the subway system in the 30 years prior to Network 2011, which came to an abrupt halt in 1980 with the completion of the BD line or, to include the SRT, after its completion in 1985. Small extensions here and there, culminating in the Sheppard line is all we’ve had since. Hardly what the original planners of our subways envisioned.
” Me….Furthermore, in the next 14 years the areas around the last 4 stations will increase beyond that 100 level. Contrast that to Downsview, which is below the 100 level currently, and in 14 years time, continues to show lower density than around the SRT. The area around Steeles shows a strange density change in the next 14 years. In other words, the current densities along the north end of the Spadina line are lower than around the end of the SRT and although they project those densities to approach that of the SRT, they will still be lower. Yet that’s where the next subway is going. Can you blame Scarberians for being a bit ticked?…..
…..On a side note, when planning where to extend subways or LRTs or RTs, one needs to look further down the road than 14 years.”
“Where do you get the fourteen years number?”
Um, read above. The TTC shows charts for 2021, that’s 14 years from now.
Regarding the 14 years number, I did see that in the TTC’s projections on your reports for 2021, after I posted. But my point was, we have projections for the Scarborough RT travel demand for the next thirty years or so — to as far as 2041, I believe. And demands do NOT rise to a sufficient level to demand a subway. A trunk line LRT fanning out to other portions of Scarborough is cheaper, benefits more people and would be more politically feasible if we could just pull some of our politicians’ heads out of their butts and see that there is as much political capital to be had in new LRT lines rather than new subway lines.
Actually, no. The subway network we have developed rather piecemeal from the beginning. Here’s a history:
1942 - first serious proposals that would result in Yonge subway floated, calling for streetcar-subways between Yonge-Bay from St. Clair to Front and Queen-Adelaide from Trinity Park to Logan. Streetcar routes would fan into these subways from the west, east and north. City rejects proposal, sends it back for revision.
1946 - revised plan calls for full subway beneath Yonge under present alignment from Union to Eglinton, and streetcar subway under Queen. Construction begins 1949, opens in 1954. Almost all paid for from farebox revenues. Lack of federal subsidy prevents Queen streetcar-subway from being built, and we’re left with just the roughed-in station beneath Queen.
1955 - proposals for full-fledged crosstown subway begins. Toronto favours route beneath Queen, but TTC essentially vetoes this, noting rising traffic levels on Bloor. Despite proposing a “Flying U” compromise aligning subway beneath Bloor and Queen streets, Toronto goes with TTC’s proposal in the end. Line to be built in 3 phases: University section, opening 1963, Danforth section (St. George to Greenwood), opening 1967, and Bloor West section (St George to Keele and Greenwood to Woodbine) opening 1969. Even on delayed schedule, Metro forced to kick in 5% capital subsidy.
1959 - Construction on University subway begins.
1963 - University extension opens. At around the same time, Metro ups subsidy, and provincial government gets involved, allowing the Keele-to-Woodbine section of the B-D subway to open at once in 1966.
Now here, we start to get into problems. The suburbs and the downtown are fighting over how to improve transit. Toronto still wants a Queen subway, but the suburbs are more interested in improved bus service and eliminating the two-zone fare system. To placate them, and to keep subway construction going, Metro Chairman Frederick Gardiner proposes extensions to the established lines into suburban territory, rather than the construction of new lines.
1968 - thanks to increased provincial subsidy, Bloor-Danforth subway extended to Islington and Warden. Farebox revenues barely pay for system operation. Most capital costs now paid for by Metro and the province.
1969 - Work begins on the North Yonge extension (the last extension placated Etobicoke and Scarborough, now it’s North York’s turn).
At this time, Metro is realigned. Population growth means that suburban municipalities now have more seats. The Spadina and Queen lines are now in competition with each other, with the City favouring Queen and the suburbs favouring Spadina.
1972 - Two-zone fare system ends. TTC makes its last operating profit. By this time, all capital expenses are now paid for by a 25/75 split between Metro and Province.
1973 - Last time Queen subway is officially in the books.
1974 - North Yonge extensions open. Spadina subway construction begins.
1975 - TTC and City planners note that subway construction has gotten prohibitively expensive, and they start looking at ways to provide rapid transit to the low density suburbs. The proposal: multiple-unit streetcars on private rights of way, is proposed. The Scarborough RT is formed, and then essentially vetoed by the province, favouring a high-tech solution that they can sell to the world.
1978 - Spadina subway opens.
1980 - Bloor-Danforth extension touted (TOUTED!) as the last subway extensions we’d see in a while.
1985 - Scarborough RT opens, a year late and $196 million over budget.
This is all off the top of my head, mind, and I may have made a mistake here and there. But a few consistent things come up in the history of subway development in this city.
1. It’s gotten progressively more expensive. In 1954, the TTC was able to pay for the Yonge subway’s construction from farebox revenues. Today, TTC’s farebox revenues only cover 78% of the cost of operating the system, and nothing of the cost of building or maintaining it.
2. The dense areas of the city that are best suited to subway development are, by and large, served, so it’s appropriate to look for other forms of rapid transit that are as rapid, but less costly to construct, and designed to handle fewer passengers (but more than a typical bus or streetcar route).
3. The political considerations around subway construction never seem to go away. However, politicians can be bent to the will of the people. Witness how the grassroots campaign against the Spadina expressway worked.
There was no coherent plan between 1942 and 1980 to build the network we have now. And the mile-a-year plan was becoming difficult to serve as early as the mid 1970s.
So, again, my point is: I agree with you that we need more rapid transit in this city, but it can only come, in my opinion, in the form of BRTs and LRTs. The Ridership Growth Strategy outlines the best way to spend scarce transit money. The priorities are as follows:
1. Maintain the system we got (replace buses, replace streetcars, replace subway cars, figure out what to do about the SRT)
2. Expand the surface network (more buses, more streetcars, reduced waiting times and more seats)
3. Give busy bus and streetcar routes transit priority.
4. THEN AND ONLY THEN more subways.
Do not attempt priority 4 until priorities 1-3 are firmly squared away.
“Almost all paid for from farebox revenues. Lack of federal subsidy prevents Queen streetcar-subway from being built, and we’re left with just the roughed-in station beneath Queen.”
Some things don’t change. Sigh.
The saddest thing about this situation is that we’re arguing over details, which type of RT is best, which term we should consider — short, medium, long — because Toronto’s public transit needs have been left to languish for too long, because the federal government has been missing in action, because the provincial government in a fit of Toronto jealousy slashed transit funding, and because senior-level politicians still did not consider the needs of Toronto commuters and TTC users in deciding where subway funding ought to go when they finally got religion this past week. They’ve reduced us Torontonians to a pack of starving wolves fighting over a bone.
The fact is we’re debating which RT is best precisely because we, and so many other fellow bloggers, care very much about the TTC and about Toronto. We want what’s best for Canada’s largest city. If only our politicians had the courage to care half as much, instead of thinking solely about the next election.
Hear, here.
I’m confident, though, because we do have a plan on the table, that makes significant changes for step that Toronto itself can afford, with some effort. The Ridership Growth Strategy, if we take it far enough, will increase surface transit to the point where we offer full service on all routes on the network. I think the goal of the commission should be that nowhere on the system should anybody have to wait longer than 20 minutes for a bus, 10 minutes for a streetcar and 5 minutes for a subway. That would significantly decrease waiting times at all stops, increase the likelihood that we get seats on the vehicles, and bring transit closer to our door.
It will cost a lot, but less than a subway extension. Maybe if we scrounge the funds together to make this happen, then the senior levels of government will join in. You never know. Once the shovels are going on the York U subway, they might start jonesing for another photo opportunity. More LRTs perhaps, or maybe finishing the Sheppard subway…
The fact is the entire GTA needs a lot of new subway lines. No one new line is more important than another. An Eglinton line is a good idea, a Queen line is a good idea, a Steeles line is a good idea, to the airport, to Vaughan, to RH, to Markham, to Ajax/Pickering/Oshawa, all good ideas. Building to Vaughan via Spadina/University line is the easiest right now.
Its amazing how some people adamantly oppose subway expansion in Scarborough to at least the STC, While making excuses for York and Downsview extensions. Scarborough even without the Subway has a higher density, if the Subway comes there will be a lot more people moving in and a lot more Condos, office towers and townhouses will be built, just because of the Subway. Does the city really want all those people to go live in Vaughn??? When someone talks about a Subway to Scarborough people start mentioning ‘costs’ and ‘LRT’ why is that??? Why do these factors come in when its the turn of Scarborough. Especially, when all the fundamentals are there for at least a Subway to STC, why isn’t the city pushing it. I hope its not what i think!!! many residents are ready to take their councillors to task on this one, since they were the one’s who behind closed doors agreed on a controversial street car expansion, instead of insisting on a Subway. No one mentions Scarborough(the largest borough) when there is talk of Subway expansion, its just not their priority, when more people actually take the transit there. Also, the LRT commute and change from the Subway is not rapid transit, i mean 20 more minutes a day thats a lot, especially when you are taking the bus later from the RT to get home, i would rather take the car TTC be damned. Liberal MPP’s are also going to have to start talking to their governemnt to make this a priority, it might become an election issue in October.
“Tickedoff” you’ve just proven my point about how the modes we use aren’t just about the capital costs but the human costs, and how the latter will drive people to their cars and/or keep them from using the TTC in the first place; and about the illogic of choosing to build a subway into Vaughan before building one into Scarborough, a more populated area and an area within the TTC’s purview.