Network 2011

[GraphicMatt]

None of these plans really seem all that different - they all propose routes in similar places. That Transit City turned the focus to LRT and away from Subway was the only radical thing about it. And that, I think, was driven by a pretty rational belief that big subway plans had been going nowhere for over three decades.

I wish the DRL had been included but politically I think the route to the DRL involves holding fast against the Richmond Hill extension. Building TC lines that overwhelm the line further will probably be a good motivator, too. The province isn't likely to touch this until either their urge to build into Richmond Hill overwhelms them or the subway gets so overcrowded that people begin to revolt.

 

[TrickyRicky]

With respect to these transit plans I wonder how things have evolved politically? Factors being:

-The relative influence of the province and the city in dictating Toronto and GTA transit planning
-The relative influence of the GTA as a proportion of influence provincially
-The necessity for transit investment outside the GTA

I recall historically cancelling transit was always used as a hammer for the opposition to bash Toronto to score points in other provincial regions. Would this be true again in the event of a provincial Liberal defeat?

I actually don't think so. I think we've reached a tipping point where we may debate the form and schedule of implementation of transit but transit has become a fairly non-partisan issue. This is a significant change. I think it is significant that Rob Ford not only did not campaign against transit, transit is a significant issue on his agenda. Perhaps the underlying motivation is to purge Transit city but he has already publicly stated he wants to build subways. There is a subtle difference here, he did not say cancel Transit City and "we'll see". He has already set up the expectation for which he will be politically held accountable that transit will be built in lieu of Transit City.

 

[gweed123]

None of these plans really seem all that different - they all propose routes in similar places. That Transit City turned the focus to LRT and away from Subway was the only radical thing about it. And that, I think, was driven by a pretty rational belief that big subway plans had been going nowhere for over three decades.

I wish the DRL had been included but politically I think the route to the DRL involves holding fast against the Richmond Hill extension. Building TC lines that overwhelm the line further will probably be a good motivator, too. The province isn't likely to touch this until either their urge to build into Richmond Hill overwhelms them or the subway gets so overcrowded that people begin to revolt.

The ironic part is, it appears that Transit City will get just about as much done as all the subway plans that came before it. What doomed them all was not funding, it was politics. We can debate technology choice all we want, but as long as the plans are subject to the same political whims, they will all suffer the exact same fate.

 

[Asterix]

There is a subtle difference here, he did not say cancel Transit City and "we'll see".

I think that's a pretty tough argument to make.

The very first thing he did on his very first day on the job, without consulting either council or his TTC chair, was meet with the TTC GM and tell him Transit City is dead.

I presume everyone here will acknowledge that a subway plan is not something written on the back of a napkin, but something that takes quite a long time (years?) of planning and design, to say nothing of the negotiations to obtain the funding and buy-in from all the relevant stakeholders. Surely no one is going to claim that all of that has already been done for Ford's Scarborough subway plans.

The only obvious conclusion is that he did say cancel Transit City and "we'll see" about whether any of his subway ideas make sense physically, functionally and economically. Given his claims about building 12km of new subway track and up to 10 new stations for only $3 billion by 2015 or that replacing packed ARLVs on Queen with 'clean' buses will reduce traffic congestion, many are finding a lack of sound substance to his plan.

 

[GraphicMatt]

The worst part is that there doesn't seem to be any cohesive strategy on transit from the Ford administration. Ford's saying Transit City is dead while his TTC chair is saying that it's just being tweaked a bit. Who's right? Does Ford really care?

 

[SimonP]

With respect to these transit plans I wonder how things have evolved politically? Factors being:

-The relative influence of the province and the city in dictating Toronto and GTA transit planning
-The relative influence of the GTA as a proportion of influence provincially
-The necessity for transit investment outside the GTA

The real turning point came when Peterson decided that we needed to do all transit planning with a GTA perspective. Previously whatever the city had proposed, the province had agreed to pay for 75% of. It's true that transit is a regional matter, but it also meant far more competition for transit money. When Toronto proposed Network 2011, York region said that if Toronto is going to get more subways we want the 407.

The good news is that the 905 has changed over the last 25 years. Congestion is worse, density is higher, and it's become more urban. Now the 905 doesn't want new highways, it wants transit. The TTC is still the backbone of GTA transit, and that has made new projects possible.

 

[gweed123]

The worst part is that there doesn't seem to be any cohesive strategy on transit from the Ford administration. Ford's saying Transit City is dead while his TTC chair is saying that it's just being tweaked a bit. Who's right? Does Ford really care?

Do Ford's supporters really care? Let's face it, there were three types of people who voted for Rob Ford:

1) The crowd that was pissed off at the former mayoral team, and would vote for anyone who pledged 'change' (ie the people who don't care about municipal politics, and voted for the guy they would most like to have a beer with).
2) The hardcore Neo-Cons.
3) The people who have a vested interest in Ford (ie his cronies).

The #1 crowd doesn't even know what Transit City is (or has a vague understanding of it), and thus anything new proposed can be spun to them as a victory for Ford (even if it's just minor tweeks to TC). The #2 crowd thinks transit is evil and we should all be driving SUVs. There's no way of convincing them unless the transit plan involves a big middle finger to transit users and a thumbs up to drivers. The #3 crowd just want their interests protected by the Ford administration.

So really, doublespeak doesn't matter. The Fordites will only listen to what Ford says, while the rest of the city will listen to what council and the TTC says. Rob Ford could make some small changes to the Eglinton line to make the entire thing grade-separated, and then claim victory because he got a subway. Would it be incredibly disingenuous to do that? Absolutely. Does it matter? Hell no. His whole campaign was built on lies and half-truths, and people voted for him. Why should that change if he's in office? He's like Glenn Beck: he can say whatever he wants, and his supporters will eat up his every word, while the rest of the world goes about their business in a place called 'reality'.

 

[rbt]

The TTC is still the backbone of GTA transit, and that has made new projects possible.

This is the real problem here. TTC should not be the backbone of GTA transit. Cancelling transit city and throwing $8B at GO will have far more of an impact for everybody, including those who take the TTC on a daily basis, than transit city could ever have.

A wholly electrified GO with 2 way all day service at 10 minute or better headways would dramatically change the way we get around both Toronto and the GTA.

Of course, once you do that GOs ability to expand cheaply would also be max'd out and it would take another $8B for a downtown tunnel to get any additional capacity for them.

 

[The Mad Navigator]

This is the real problem here. TTC should not be the backbone of GTA transit. Cancelling transit city and throwing $8B at GO will have far more of an impact for everybody, including those who take the TTC on a daily basis, than transit city could ever have.

A wholly electrified GO with 2 way all day service at 10 minute or better headways would dramatically change the way we get around both Toronto and the GTA.

Of course, once you do that GOs ability to expand cheaply would also be max'd out and it would take another $8B for a downtown tunnel to get any additional capacity for them.

GO just isn't expanding it's service and network infrastructure nearly as fast as the TTC though (and the TTC is slowly expanding service and infrastructure) and that's saying a lot.

 

[rbt]

GO just isn't expanding it's service and network infrastructure nearly as fast as the TTC though (and the TTC is slowly expanding service and infrastructure) and that's saying a lot.

That was my point. TTC has been sucking up well over a billion dollars per year in capital funding (escalating to $3B per year if large portions of Transit city manage to go ahead) while GO has been making due with a couple hundred million, aside from special funding like purchasing track segments from CN rail and other land acquisitions.

Give GO a TTC type capital budget for 6 years (escalating from $250M to $2B) and they could:
1) have their entire network segregated from congestion (all major roads, rail-rail crossings, etc.)
2) have 2 to 3 dedicated tracks on all routes (dedicated to GO service, not mixed)
3) have their entire network electrified
4) reconfigure major transfer points with TTC
4) have enough rolling stock for 15 minute off-peak service and potentially much higher on-peak service as warranted

 

[reaperexpress]

GO just isn't expanding it's service and network infrastructure nearly as fast as the TTC though (and the TTC is slowly expanding service and infrastructure) and that's saying a lot.

I have been consistently impressed about how fast GO is expanding.

They have been working toward all day service on all lines (not a small task, considering many lines are single tracked), building tons of grade separations to support massively increased service.

The Lakeshore and Georgetown lines are also being prepared for massively increased service with more tracks being built.

They now own over 50% of the tracks they run on, compared to an extremely small fraction just 10 years ago.

What has the TTC done recently?

EDIT:

rbt is right, GO could get a lot more bang for the buck than the TTC. It's a lot cheaper to add a second track on the Richmond Hill line and run frequent service than it is to extend the Yonge line to Richmond Hill. Fix the fare structure to make GO more competitive with TTC's prices and ridership will skyrocket.

That said, GO is growing a bottleneck at Union, so a DRL is definitely justified to serve the commuter demand originating within Toronto.

 

[kEiThZ]

This is the real problem here. TTC should not be the backbone of GTA transit. Cancelling transit city and throwing $8B at GO will have far more of an impact for everybody, including those who take the TTC on a daily basis, than transit city could ever have.

A wholly electrified GO with 2 way all day service at 10 minute or better headways would dramatically change the way we get around both Toronto and the GTA.

Of course, once you do that GOs ability to expand cheaply would also be max'd out and it would take another $8B for a downtown tunnel to get any additional capacity for them.

+1

This is something I would wholeheartedly support. We should really be planning transit expansion more around GO, given the distances involved in the commutes of Torontonians. The DRL being the exception to that vision.

If that RTP had been a real regional vision, we would have seen more integration with GO. Too bad.

 

[T-Bor]

+1

This is something I would wholeheartedly support. We should really be planning transit expansion more around GO, given the distances involved in the commutes of Torontonians. The DRL being the exception to that vision.

If that RTP had been a real regional vision, we would have seen more integration with GO. Too bad.

Completely agree. My main beef with GO is that there are just far too few stations within the actual city of Toronto. Where I used to live (finch/don mills area) there was a GO station at Old Cummer that most people didn't even know WAS a go train station that went right downtown. But after that it goes directly from Finch to Union station with only one in between at the 401. Great if you're coming in from the burbs and want to get to Union, not so great if you live anywhere south of the 401 and wish you could do something other than a 50 minute one-way ttc commute. Even if existing lines added a station at Eglinton, it would probably entice a lot more people.

Stickin with the theme of integrating the TTC and GO, it was damn near impossible to get to these stations without a car. I'm not saying I have any solution, but it is a pain in the ass that while the GO train takes 20 minutes to union, it takes 35 minutes to get the 3K to the damn station because buses are so infrequent on that route.

 

[reaperexpress]

Completely agree. My main beef with GO is that there are just far too few stations within the actual city of Toronto. Where I used to live (finch/don mills area) there was a GO station at Old Cummer that most people didn't even know WAS a go train station that went right downtown. But after that it goes directly from Finch to Union station with only one in between at the 401. Great if you're coming in from the burbs and want to get to Union, not so great if you live anywhere south of the 401 and wish you could do something other than a 50 minute one-way ttc commute. Even if existing lines added a station at Eglinton, it would probably entice a lot more people.

Stickin with the theme of integrating the TTC and GO, it was damn near impossible to get to these stations without a car. I'm not saying I have any solution, but it is a pain in the ass that while the GO train takes 20 minutes to union, it takes 35 minutes to get the 3K to the damn station because buses are so infrequent on that route.

+1

I've run into many people who didn't know there was passenger service on the tracks at Richmond Hill Centre (Langstaff GO Station). The only way they knew to get downtown on transit was Viva + TTC Subway.

I think a way to improve integration is to have more TTC buses feeding into GO stations. But there's no point of feeding into a station during a period with no train service, so all day GO service would greatly help here.

 

[rbt]

Stickin with the theme of integrating the TTC and GO, it was damn near impossible to get to these stations without a car. I'm not saying I have any solution, but it is a pain in the ass that while the GO train takes 20 minutes to union, it takes 35 minutes to get the 3K to the damn station because buses are so infrequent on that route.

A one time cost of $30M would enable you to move Oriole directly on-top of Leslie with an okay connection no worse than the SRT and potentially quite a bit better.

Another $40M and you can have a station at Lawrence near DVP with a very small bus terminal (for Lawrence route only).

$700M to triple track (double GO + freight), electrify, and potentially remove a few kinks like following the DVP instead winding west then back east. An electric GO train has the potential to deal with the greater slope. $700M is likely larger than necessary based on Georgetown grade separation but Don Valley is tricky to deal with.

Anyway, for $1B, about half of the cost of the estimated Subway replacement for the SRT, you can have near subway level service with TTC connections at Leslie Station, Lawrence, Union, and potentially Queen/King at new West Donlands neighbourhood by widening the bridge by 4 lanes for a very large centre tram platform and staircases.

Charge $4 for a TTC/GO combination fare within zone 1. Trains could be turned back at Leslie to allow for 10 minute frequencies south of Leslie (4 trainsets?) and 20 minute frequencies to Richmond Hill (2 additional trainsets?).


Union becomes a problem but it will be a $5B problem within a decade if GO continues to grow at their current rate. I wonder if they've considered removing tracks at Union to allow for wider platforms or platform screen doors to allow people to be on the platform safely before the train arrives.