Neptis' Review of Metrolinx's Big Move

[TJ O'Pootertoot]

I can agree with this. I feel that part of the reason the subway is being demanded is because they knew well all those condos would put more people on the road then Yonge between Steels and 7 could handle. I feel like the TTC is being backed into a corner because of this.

No, you've got the history all backwards. Really, someone else can write a history of Langstaff if they want. But, in short: It was ID'd as a regional node more than 20 years ago, it was listed as an urban growth centre in Places to Grow and then an anchor mobility hub in the Big Move. The subway was announced in 2007. It is BECAUSE of all that that they are putting the density there, not the other way around. Given how small the piece of land is, and the road capacity constraints, I doubt they can make enough money on it without the density, but that's the new normal all over south York Region and other burbs too. As I said, they did NOT look at the road network and then figure out what transit could handle, they STARTED with the assumption that all this transit would handle most of the transpo needs and the roads would pick up some slack, which is precisely the inverse of these things usually work. Without all those other factors, there is no way someone would have dreamed of putting condos there and when someone like Peter Calthorpe is amazed at the convergence of transit, I think it's worth taking note.

(As for the interim train stations; Langstaff won't be empty because thousands who now drive to Finch will park there AND it's the point of highest density in Langstaff; up to 50 storeys is the zoning there, so fear not. Clark won't be at that level, obviously, but there will be buses feeding in and definitely more intensification along Yonge. They already cut out Royal Orchard, which was the wise move.)

As for TTC being backed into the corner, I would concur to the extent that it is a "regional" priority rather than a "local" one (or at least a "Toronto") one but then the debate over Scarborough and the DRL and, even still, Finch and Sheppard, suggests to me that Toronto doesn't have the firmest grasp on their own priorities anyway. And, ironically, it was only because of the EA for the Yonge extension that the TTC went, "Oh, I guess we really do need this DRL thing..." That doesn't mean it's a bad idea at all; I can understand why TTC doesn't give a crap what goes on across Steeles but all this local/regional stuff comes back to The Big Move and the evaluations of it and why Metrolinx is needed in the first place.

So, pardon me if I'm being vociferous but, as you can see, there are something like 20,000 housing units that are DIRECTLY contingent on the subway (and its integration with a bunch of other transit projects) and if people want to argue for keeping it at Finch or Steeles, or saying TO taxpayers shouldn't fund it or whatever, they should understand what's at stake. We should be rewarding Markham for something like this instead of driving a line into Scarborough hoping their planning will catch up to the subway they ostensibly "deserve."

I don't think "Toronto taxpayers" should have to pay the costs; there should be (as I said earlier) a totally new Metrolinx board, a totally new fare system and a totally new and equitable means of funding transit projects in Toronto and the region. This one should be at the top of the list and if it's not, all these plans we've been discussing aren't worth the paper they're printed on.

In my humble opinion.

 

[MrsNesbitt]

Look, I can understand the need for good transit serving areas where density is planned. In my time on this site so far I've made more than a few posts ranting about boneheaded sprawling development eating up precious farmland. I applaud York Region for planning some serious density along Yonge Street through Richmond Hill and at VMC, and I recognize that those developments deserve good, regionally-focused transit service also.

That being said, I still don't agree with you that Line 1 subway extensions are the right mode to serve them. The documents you've produced and quoted go on at length about multi-modal transit hubs, and yes, they do mention the subway, but those thousands of units won't disappear if it is not TTC subway which serves them. I don't think anybody here seriously thinks that dense development of that scale should be starved of transit. I for one just don't think that the subway needs to feed them.

For one, you're really stretching the limits of a lengthy ride with subways heading all the way up to Highway 7 or beyond. Those passengers aren't heading to every Glencairn and Summerhill along the subway line, they're (in largest numbers) heading downtown to the CBD. So why load thousands more passengers onto Line 1, especially the Richmond Hill extension which will feed into the already sardine-like Yonge side, when all-day two-way electrified frequent GO service can ferry those passengers downtown faster? For those that don't work downtown it's not as though there won't be a subway to take them to North York or wherever it is they may work - it would still end at Finch (or maybe Steeles, who's to say) and will be both served by good BRT (maybe even LRT) connections and also slightly roomier from all the York Regioners heading downtown using fare-integrated GO instead of squeezing into packed TTC trains.

I appreciate that you sincerely want to see these developments served by sufficient transit so that they can succeed and prosper, but their fate is not directly tied to whether or not there is a TTC-emblazoned subway under their feet. Serve them with the transit modes that will serve their purpose even more effectively (at least as effectively) and that transit share will remain high. Plus you get the added bonus of not spending billions of dollars tunnelling and establishing precedents for extending the subway ad infinitum.

 

[TJ O'Pootertoot]

That being said, I still don't agree with you that Line 1 subway extensions are the right mode to serve them. The documents you've produced and quoted go on at length about multi-modal transit hubs, and yes, they do mention the subway, but those thousands of units won't disappear if it is not TTC subway which serves them. I don't think anybody here seriously thinks that dense development of that scale should be starved of transit. I for one just don't think that the subway needs to feed them.
.

I appreciate what you're saying. I guess I'd counter:
1) Obviously they can achieve SOME density without the subway but it would equally obviously be less density.
2) If there is going to be a big convergence of E/W transit along that corridor (and there is) the logic of bringing the subway those few km instead of introducing a transfer to LRT or BRT also makes sense.
3) A lot of the people getting on at Finch at rush hour are already coming from north of Steeles. In the short term, you're not creating a huge influx of new riders but just bringing the existing transit closer to where the density already is. There are obvious benefits to getting all those buses and cars off the road that now go to Finch.
4) I still think Yonge Street is Yonge Street and while obviously at some point driving a subway north becomes silly, I don't think Highway 7 (where there is existing and planned density and a major multi-modal hub) is that point. It's just too easy of a win to ignore.
5) I think that if one is evaluating The Big Move, they have to take all this into account. Munro is basically a gearhead who knows way too much about rolling stock and capacity and whatnot. He doesn't know as much about transit-oriented devleopment or the underlying premises of all these documents. We've gone off into specifics but that's my larger point, really.

Also - tell the truth: Do you work for TTC or do you just love the new branding cuz I haven't seen anyone actually say, "Line 1" in conversation yet?

 

[diminutive]

Maybe it would be useful to repost what the Neptis report actually said about the YSE:

Yonge Line to Richmond Hill

The Yonge Subway is Toronto’s most intensively used transit line, carrying more than 700,000 passengers per day. While it is now operating near to capacity south of Bloor, the diversion of passengers from east and west on to GO services, as we have already suggested, would release capacity for more passengers to travel into the downtown on the Yonge Subway. This will allow further extension of the line. Our analysis indicates that the scheme is worthwhile with benefits well in excess of costs. Net benefits can be increased further and costs to the taxpayer reduced by deferring construction of most of the intermediate stations, unless developers make substantial contributions to costs. As with the Vaughan extension, revenues and ridership can be increased by using smart pricing.

There is now continuous development beyond Richmond Hill. There are also intensive bus and BRT routes on intersecting east-west streets, with many routes turning south to connect with the subway at Finch. Extension of the subway 6.8 km to Richmond Hill Centre seems an obvious next step.

Metrolinx has prepared a Benefits Case Analysis for this extension, and it contains most of the information we need to evaluate the scheme. TTC has also provided some relevant data. TTC has estimated costs of $2.4 billion (in 2008 dollars), including six new stations and the renovation of the Finch station.[2] Incremental rolling stock and operating and maintenance costs would be about 80% as much as for the Vaughan extension, which is 8.6 km. It would significantly reduce travel times, and support transit-oriented development in the corridor.

We believe that costs can be reduced about $800 million by deferring construction of stations at Cummer, Clark, Royal Orchard, and Langstaff/Longbridge. At about $200 million each, the cost of these stations will far exceed the incremental riders and benefits, perhaps 90% of which would be captured with an extension to a single terminal at Richmond Hill Centre, perhaps with one intermediate station at Steeles Avenue. The other stations should be added over time in partnership with developers: Vancouver and London have shown how local developers can be persuaded to pay for intermediate stations.[3] Deferring stations will also reduce incremental rolling stock and O&M costs

Ridership might be 25% higher than on the Vaughan extension, reflecting the higher density of development. TTC suggests ridership at Finch might grow by 8,400 in the peak hour or perhaps 80,000 per day by 2031.[4] Obviously much of this growth would happen even if the subway is not extended. We assume a daily incremental ridership of 150,000 with six stations, of which 50,000 are new riders. Ridership would be reduced 10% if there are only two new stations. Incremental ridership could increase about 50% to 2033 with complementary policies, somewhat less than on the Vaughan extension because the traffic will be starting at a higher base.

Incremental revenues are about three times O&M costs. There could also be substantial benefits to TTC of having a yard at the north end of the line. Currently, TTC must run about 10 trains empty each morning and evening from Wilson to Finch, a distance of 30 km. These trains are apparently crewed with two employees, even though there are no passengers and no need to open or close the doors. The yard could be located under the hydro lines, immediately south and west of the Yonge-407 interchange. TTC could store trains there overnight, and some drivers could be assigned to sign on for work there.

Time savings to existing passengers will be similar to the Vaughan extension. Again, much of this benefit could be captured with smart pricing, reducing the net cost to the taxpayer. As on the Vaughan extension, fares might be $5 for travel from north of Steeles to downtown, $4 for passengers boarding at Steeles, but with a lower fare of perhaps $3 for passengers travelling from Richmond Hill, but all the way not to downtown Toronto (perhaps to York Mills). Smart pricing is possible with the PRESTO smartcard.

Road user benefits are likely to be similar to those for the Vaughan extension, about $5 per new rider, because trips will be relatively long and originating in the suburbs.

I think this is a good compromise solution, a line with only two stations at Steeles and RHC. I'm skeptical you could actually upgrade the RHC GO line to "metro-like" performance without spending close to what a subway extension would cost, especially given potential savings from cancelling the intermediate stations.

To upgrade the RHC corridor you'd need:

New Rolling stock
Double tracking
potential realignments (to avoid meandering)
electrification
Intermediate stations (Bloor? Lawrence? Eglinton? upgrades to Oriole & Cummer)

If you add them all up this will probably equal a significant chunk of the 2-3b it would cost to build the subway. And the resulting GO route wouldn't serve as many destinations as the Yonge Line, which is clearly the most intensively developed transit corridor in the country.

Normally I'm all in favour of GO-RER/REX/SBAHN or whatever but RHC GO is by far the weakest line. It competes too closely with the Yonge line and has the least direct route of any GO line. Moreover, ridership on RHC GO kind of falls off past Hwy 7. It's not like the the upgrades could be justified in terms of servicing Gormley, or wtv.

 

[MrsNesbitt]

I can I think concede to agree to disagree then on the Richmond Hill extension. It certainly has its benefits as well as its problems, and so long as it went hand in hand with GO REXifying elsewhere to recover some capacity on Yonge I can see it not being terrible - still not my ideal choice, but probably workable. On the other hand I maintain that were it possible to turn back the clock and prevent the TYSSE from heading to Vaughan (ending at Steeles West) I would

Also regarding "Line 1", nope not a TTC employee, I just use the term because I'm often posting from mobile and it's quicker to type than "Yonge-University-Spadina" while "YUS" looks odd to my eye.

 

[smallspy]

For one, you're really stretching the limits of a lengthy ride with subways heading all the way up to Highway 7 or beyond. Those passengers aren't heading to every Glencairn and Summerhill along the subway line, they're (in largest numbers) heading downtown to the CBD. So why load thousands more passengers onto Line 1, especially the Richmond Hill extension which will feed into the already sardine-like Yonge side, when all-day two-way electrified frequent GO service can ferry those passengers downtown faster? For those that don't work downtown it's not as though there won't be a subway to take them to North York or wherever it is they may work - it would still end at Finch (or maybe Steeles, who's to say) and will be both served by good BRT (maybe even LRT) connections and also slightly roomier from all the York Regioners heading downtown using fare-integrated GO instead of squeezing into packed TTC trains.

Once again....

While there will be some who will take the subway all the way downtown from Highway 7, it isn't aimed at or meant for them. That's what the GO train is for, and who it should be aimed at.

Rather, the subway will become handy for all of those people who are headed to Sheppard, and York Mills and Eglinton - places that are not easily accessible by GO, and for which an extended subway line will help make a transit trip competitive (in cost, time, convenience, whatever) with the car.

Dan
Toronto, Ont.

 

[TJ O'Pootertoot]

Once again....

While there will be some who will take the subway all the way downtown from Highway 7, it isn't aimed at or meant for them. That's what the GO train is for, and who it should be aimed at.

Rather, the subway will become handy for all of those people who are headed to Sheppard, and York Mills and Eglinton - places that are not easily accessible by GO, and for which an extended subway line will help make a transit trip competitive (in cost, time, convenience, whatever) with the car.

We can say it 20 more times, it still won't sway people who think suburbanites should be happy with GO and stop clamoring for access to Toronto's system.

The problem with the RH GO line in comparison to a lot of others is that it really goes nowhere. Two stops in North York, along the hydro corridor and 401, and then down into the Don Valley. It's not like, say, Lakeshore, which actually goes THROUGH places. Ergo, no matter how many trains you add, it will never be more than an express to Union Station (or, I don't know, North York General Hospital, I suppose). I can't even imagine what would be required to hook it up with the Sheppard line, much less the B-D subway line. People who think GO is the solution to all this need to bear that in mind.

Thanks Diminutive, for posting that. I read it way back when but haven't recently. It makes some good points but also some mistakes - some of which Munro even addresses, including that Schabas seems unaware they already did a study of rail yard locations. (Also, Schabas's suggestion for a yard location suggests he only knows a bit about the development plans and geography in the corridor.)

Given all the "controversy" about the line in some circles (like here) you'd be amazed to realize what a priority it is for the actual people involved in The Big Move and that "(Netpis's) analysis indicates that the scheme is worthwhile with benefits well in excess of costs .... It would significantly reduce travel times, and support transit-oriented development in the corridor ... Incremental revenues are about three times O&M costs." Yeah, obviously. Even though it's outside Toronto!

I think deferring Clark/Centre/Cummer is a viable interim compromise BUT you have to build Steeles and you can't defer Langstaff/Longbridge. A) It's where the parking lot will be. B) It's the point of highest density in the planned development. (You might expect it to be at the centre, over the GO line but the centre is also basically halfway between the Langstaff and RHC train stations). The planners specifically talked about the RHC and Langstaff stations as "diad," with one as the transit hub and the other as the walk-up/parking hub. There's lots of parking at RHC right now but that will go when they start building the subway and now you're nearest parking lot is Finch. So, it's ALMOST a good compromise

(Note that Schabas doesn't know Royal Orchard is already deferred, nor is there any evidence he's aware of the commuter parking at Langstaff/Longbridge.)

His point about fares is a good one.

I think he lowballs the road user benefits since it's something like 120 buses per hour (maybe more?) that go from 7 to Finch every HOUR now. If they magically disappeared tomorrow, that would be a substantial benefit.

 

[TJ O'Pootertoot]

Neptis (Schabas) responds to Munro and echoes a lot of the points I tried to make, both in terms of my own opinion and where I thought Munro was missing the point; namely that he is too entrenched in Toronto and its various flaws and unable to see a future where Metrolinx is reconstituted, fares are figured out etc.

If I were to sum up our differences, I would put it this way. Steve Munro looks at Toronto’s transit system and draws on his extensive knowledge of its history and institutions to explain why it is the way it is. Few people understand the city’s current system, with all its flaws, better than Steve, although his role as advisor on the Transit City proposals may have coloured his views somewhat.

I, however, look at what the transit system for the entire Toronto region could be, drawing on best practices in city-regions around the world, and ask: what will it take to get there? I use quantitative analysis, based on empirical evidence, to test alternatives and to see what will get the region as a whole the best transit system for the lowest cost.

http://www.neptis.org/nota-bene/news/review-big-move-continuing-conversation

 

[dowlingm]

So Schabas is apparently advising Glen Murray on high speed rail
https://twitter.com/swanboatsteve/status/462696111057018881

 

[TOareaFan]

So Schabas is apparently advising Glen Murray on high speed rail
https://twitter.com/swanboatsteve/status/462696111057018881

I think, to be fair, if you are going to post a link to a tweet where Steve Munro essentially accuses the MoT of contracting Neptis to write a report critical of Metrolinx...you need to complete it with Neptis and Murray replies:

Steve Munro ‏@SwanBoatSteve May 3

We now know @michaelschabas did the High Speed Rail plan for @Glen4ONT - was the @NeptisRegions critique of Big Move funded by govt too?

Neptis Foundation ‏@NeptisRegions May 3

.@SwanBoatSteve @michaelschabas @Glen4ONT Steve - Before going down this rabbit hole pls note Neptis is independent & has own endowment.

Neptis Foundation ‏@NeptisRegions

.@SwanBoatSteve @michaelschabas @Glen4ONT Steve - and since you ask, the answer is no!

Glen Murray

6:25 PM - 3 May 2014
Tweet text
Reply to @NeptisRegions @SwanBoatSteve @michaelschabas @Glen4ONT



Glen Murray ‏@Glen4ONT May 3

@NeptisRegions He & his NDP friends just like throwing mud. Say anything. Just put a? after it. Sorry to see that crap was directed at you.

 

[dowlingm]

(In reply to post 310
It is difficult to reproduce tweet streams, especially ones which forked as this one did, in a forum. The additional tweets you posted above, some of which I hadn't seen, are enlightening though. Considering Munro vowed the ONDP would never get $ from him again (https://twitter.com/SwanBoatSteve/status/462257829412605953) Glen Murray should probably refrain from using his tweet-first-ask-questions-later style to push Munro back into their arms.

The detailed critiques Munro posted on his blog about Schabas' methodologies and predispositions towards certain technologies would certainly be a concern if assurances based on European rather than North American rail norms caused Murray to issue this barmy promise of 320km/h rail in the Kitchener corridor when what is badly needed is basic stuff like reducing the number of closely spaced grade crossings which force even 140km/h capable trains to slow to a crawl. A government which decided to kill the Northlander rather than look at basic ways to rework it will have eyebrows raised at it when it promises a multibillion dollar investment of a train faster than any on the continent including Acela to be operational in 8 years on a corridor it doesn't own and which currently has only two trains per direction per day over its entire length, albeit that purchase from Silver Jct to Kitchener is apparently imminent (http://gokw.org/?p=658).

Instead, Ontario could and should tender for construction of PRIIA Section 305 specification bilevels as ordered by the Midwest States and California:
http://www.highspeed-rail.org/Documents/PRIIA_Bi-Level_Spec_305-001_Approved_rev C.1.pdf
These would give a high capacity medium range coach capable of 200km/h operation and reasonably near-term introduction as the North Main Line corridor is improved to conditions where it could actually achieve 2/3 of that. In the event that going beyond 200km/h over a reasonable portion of the corridor length is feasible, desirable and affordable then they can be redeployed or sold into another low-platform 160km/h+ market. While the logical destination would be to redeploy to Kingston or London-Aldershot-Toronto, if this post (http://stevemunro.ca/?p=9470&cpage=2#comment-65713) is true VIA may be going high platform at Union which may preclude or at least complicate operation of low-platform bilevels on VIA service.

 

[diminutive]

^
Not to disagree with what you wrote, but he can be overly conspiratorial when it comes to anything remotely related to "ALRT," which for whatever reason makes him very upset.

Look at this post titled 'What's this photo doing on Metrolinx's website?' Obviously some Metrolinx person just found a random 'transit' image on shutterstock and posted it. Yet he basically reads it as clever, subliminal plot by the Metrolinx-Skytrain Illuminati to promote ALRT. It's almost on par with the conspiracy theorists who insist the 20$ US bill somehow hints at 9/11, or DIA has occult symbolism.

A totally disproportionate amount of SM's criticism of Schabas/Neptis comes from this obsession with ALRT and belief in hidden, clandestine plots on the part of Schabas, who's cast as some kind of bizarre transit oriented Blofeld.

 

[TheTigerMaster]

I don't think the criticism was unwarranted. His obsession with ALRT is utterly bizzare and his connections to UTDC and involvement in Vancouver's SkyTrain brings his objectivity RE technology selection into question.

 

[Wrenkin]

While the logical destination would be to redeploy to Kingston or London-Aldershot-Toronto, if this post (http://stevemunro.ca/?p=9470&cpage=2#comment-65713) is true VIA may be going high platform at Union which may preclude or at least complicate operation of low-platform bilevels on VIA service.

If the second-last track is removed, what track would the freight trains use? I thought that they used the southernmost track when travelling through the corridor at present. If there is a high-level platform 28/29 then there might not be enough clearance for cargo.

 

[mpd618]

A government which decided to kill the Northlander rather than look at basic ways to rework it will have eyebrows raised at it when it promises a multibillion dollar investment of a train faster than any on the continent including Acela to be operational in 8 years on a corridor it doesn't own and which currently has only two trains per direction per day over its entire length, albeit that purchase from Silver Jct to Kitchener is apparently imminent (http://gokw.org/?p=658).

I find any and all comparisons to the Northlander profoundly odd. I mean, I too have a sentimental attachment to trains - and certainly there is social service and tourism value to that route as well. But the Liberals have quite clearly been aiming all of the GO Transit (and more recently, high speed rail) talk and plans at economic growth at a big scale. You can get those kinds of effects with better transit, especially when roads are at capacity. You don't get those effects by running trains to distant, extremely low-density, low population areas in which you need a car to get anywhere.