Danforth Line 2 Scarborough Subway Extension

[TheTigerMaster]

I would say the problems with this project reflect problems at every level - federal, provincial and municipal.

That said, a return to a Metro form of municipal government and less provincial interference in planning would yield better results.

We wisely have a separation of church and state - there should also be some level of separation between transit planning and state.

When Metro initially opted to build an LRT over the surface subway to connect STC to Kennedy, it was due to cost savings. Personally I would have favoured the more expensive surface subway, but the LRT plan was justifiable. It did save some money and the route wouldn't have generated necessarily generated subway-level usage.

However, once the Province forced the City to use ICTS, costs shot up so much that it would've been more economical to have just built the full blown surface subway in the first place. We thus ended up with the most expensive and least optimal (forced transfer) plan.

This just speaks to how the municipal and Provincial government interfering with each other make it impossible to generate and implement any kind of comprehensive and holistic transit plan. We just end up with bits and pieces of whatever the government of the day managed to implement.

We see a similar fiasco today with the Eglinton Crosstown and the Crosstown West extension: Light rail vehicles make perfect sense for the Crosstown if the route operates on the surface for a significant portion of its route. That was the initial vision with the Crosstown LRT. But due to various levels of government yet again changing their minds (Crosstown West is now underground), we end up stuck with the sub-optimal, yet very expensive implementation of running relatively low capacity LRVs, designed for street usage, that'll remain underground for nearly the entire route. It makes no sense.

Building a transit network takes time, care and commitment. It's a multi-decade process that requires sticking to the vision in order to implement an optimal solution. The lack of care and commitment we've seen the City and Province results in us being stuck with suboptimal Frankenstein-like creations, such as the Eglinton Crosstown and the SRT.

@syn I agree that a return to the Metro government would be best. However this would have to be coupled with Metro having the revenue tools necessary to implement their plans.

Regarding political interference: There's been a substantial shift in how civil servants in the Toronto municipal government approach transit planning, in response to increasing political interference. In the past, transit planning was largely politician-driven. For example, City Council might request the TTC or City Planning generate a plan for some new initiative, and there'd be a lot of back and forth between Planning/TTC and Council about the details.

The new approach by the TTC and City Planning has been to just present City Council with a package of options designed by Planning/TTC. City Council can pick from option A, B or C, but they don't get the opportunity to nitpick about the details. Essentially, this insulates Councillors from the planning process and reduces them to providing final sign off. This has resulted in far quicker and more effective decision making. Some recent projects that were approved this way:

• King Street transit priority
• The Toronto transit network. The Province blew that plan up, however City Planning was able to get the plan approved by Council without any controversy, which was remarkable in and of itself.
• Yonge Street redesign
• TTC bus priority lanes

I believe that this approach to designing transit along with a return to Metro governance and control over transit development (including the appropriate revenue tools) would yield far better results than whatever it is we're doing today.

 

[innsertnamehere]

@syn I agree that a return to the Metro government would be best. However this would have to be coupled with Metro having the revenue tools necessary to implement their plans.

Regarding political interference: There's been a substantial shift in how civil servants in the Toronto municipal government approach transit planning, in response to increasing political interference. In the past, transit planning was largely politician-driven. For example, City Council might request the TTC or City Planning generate a plan for some new initiative, and there'd be a lot of back and forth between Planning/TTC and Council about the details.

The new approach by the TTC and City Planning has been to just present City Council with a package of options designed by Planning/TTC. City Council can pick from option A, B or C, but they don't get the opportunity to nitpick about the details. Essentially, this insulates Councillors from the planning process and reduces them to providing final sign off. This has resulted in far quicker and more effective decision making. Some recent projects that were approved this way:

• King Street transit priority
• The Toronto transit network. The Province blew that plan up, however City Planning was able to get the plan approved by Council without any controversy, which was remarkable in and of itself.
• Yonge Street redesign
• TTC bus priority lanes

I believe that this approach to designing transit along with a return to Metro governance and control over transit development (including the appropriate revenue tools) would yield far better results than whatever it is we're doing today.

At the end of the day each of those proposals has had support from Tory. But yes, they were mostly bureaucrat led, with Tory coming on board, not Tory taking the lead on it.

If you look through Toronto planning history it's always been a mix of bureaucrat let and politician led projects though. The Spadina subway was led by bureaucrats along with the politically cancelled expressway plan. The expressway plan was in itself heavily inspired by the work of Robert Moses in NYC, possibly the most powerful bureaucrat in modern history. The Sheppard Subway was pure politics, led by a push for growth to occur in the suburbs by downtown councillors and Mel Lastman's desire for a suburban subway line. Bureaucrats wanted to cut the streetcars and replace with buses, but politicians had them stay. Bureaucrats wanted the SRT to be run with streetcars, Politicians wanted to instead bet on an experimental ICTS technology, etc.

Sometimes in hindsight the Bureaucrats option was better, sometimes it was the politicians.

In this case, it has to be remembered that the original LRT plan was politically led as well, being born out of the very political Transit City plan. Transit City was very much David Millers baby, pushed forward by transit advocates through the Mayors office, not out of the TTC or the planning department (though planning did like it as it supported their Avenues Plan, of the same vintage). The bureaucrats of the day were still thinking in subway terms only - planning an extension to Sherway Gardens and the Spadina Extension at the time before the focus shifted.

If Bureaucrats of the time had led the SRT replacement, it likely would have been either a modernization to modern ICTS technology or a subway replacement.

 

[kamira51]

RCCAO briefly covered the Scarborough rail corridor option in their Station to Station report, it's an amazing piece to read and I highly recommend it for others to read.

 

[ARG1]

I would say the problems with this project reflect problems at every level - federal, provincial and municipal.

That said, a return to a Metro form of municipal government and less provincial interference in planning would yield better results.

We wisely have a separation of church and state - there should also be some level of separation between transit planning and state.

I highly doubt that would give the results you want. Metro Toronto dates back to a period where Metro Toronto was all there was to the region, and everything outside was basically empty farmland. Unfortunately this isn't the world we live in anymore. The reason Metrolinx exists is because Toronto's Metropolitan area far exceeds the borders of the city itself. While returning project planning to Metro Toronto MIGHT improve transit within the city, We are now in a day and age where transit planning should stop be so inward focused and should consider how they effect the regional transit system as a whole.

 

[Rainforest]

I highly doubt that would give the results you want. Metro Toronto dates back to a period where Metro Toronto was all there was to the region, and everything outside was basically empty farmland. Unfortunately this isn't the world we live in anymore. The reason Metrolinx exists is because Toronto's Metropolitan area far exceeds the borders of the city itself. While returning project planning to Metro Toronto MIGHT improve transit within the city, We are now in a day and age where transit planning should stop be so inward focused and should consider how they effect the regional transit system as a whole.

Indeed, creating a greater wall between agencies serving the same region isn't desirable.

Instead, Metrolinx should be made less dependent on the provincial government. This day, MX is tightly controlled by Queens Park, since all funding is granted by Queens Park. It is arms-length in some technicalities only, such as the head of MX doesn't have to resign when the provincial government resigns. But then the remaining head of MX has to follow the orders of the new Premier, because the funding comes from there.

 

[syn]

To answer this question I believe it was because Scarborough didn't want to foot the bill for the extension (or at least the largest portion of the municipal portion of fudning) although I can't for certain say if that is true or not. I do believe though that Scarborough council as far back as 1973 looked at the Subway extension to the planned Scarborough Town Centre and decided LRT was better due to the lower cost involved. I would really like to see a funding breakdown of projects from back in the day because while I can't say for certain, I am under the impression that funding for the municipal portion of funding was spread across the 6 municipalities with the cities that benefit the most from a project incurring the heaviest burden. I only say this because why would Scarborough balk at the cost of a Subway extension unless they were going to bare the brunt of the funding since the extension existed entirely in Scarborough. I guess this would have also been a reason the Etobicoke RT became a thing since if that was part of the overall plan as well then Scarborough wouldn't be along in funding and Etobicoke would also be involved. This may also be why all plans form back then were part of some much larger multi-jurisdictional schemes sincie instead of focusing on one municpalitie at the time, why not instead spread the load equally across all 6 over a span of say 30 years i.e. Network 2011. I cannot say this is for certain though but the decision to go with an LRT (or High-Speed Streetcar) as it was known back then wasn't just a Metro decision; Scarborough Council agreed as well.

This is one of the reasons I hold all levels of government accountable for our transit situation.

Scarborough wasn't forced to use ICTS technology - they actually made a request to explore it's use. The government provided an added incentive to choose it, but ultimately Scarborough Council threw it's support behind the project.

I can't blame them for making the choice - at the time it was surrounded by great excitement and optimism.

We're making the same mistake yet again with the OL - choosing an approach and technology that doesn't help achieve the key objective (maximum capacity, as opposed to choosing unproven technology with the RT).

Hopefully we can figure it out sooner rather than later.

 

[syn]

@syn I agree that a return to the Metro government would be best. However this would have to be coupled with Metro having the revenue tools necessary to implement their plans.

Regarding political interference: There's been a substantial shift in how civil servants in the Toronto municipal government approach transit planning, in response to increasing political interference. In the past, transit planning was largely politician-driven. For example, City Council might request the TTC or City Planning generate a plan for some new initiative, and there'd be a lot of back and forth between Planning/TTC and Council about the details.

The new approach by the TTC and City Planning has been to just present City Council with a package of options designed by Planning/TTC. City Council can pick from option A, B or C, but they don't get the opportunity to nitpick about the details. Essentially, this insulates Councillors from the planning process and reduces them to providing final sign off. This has resulted in far quicker and more effective decision making. Some recent projects that were approved this way:

• King Street transit priority
• The Toronto transit network. The Province blew that plan up, however City Planning was able to get the plan approved by Council without any controversy, which was remarkable in and of itself.
• Yonge Street redesign
• TTC bus priority lanes

I believe that this approach to designing transit along with a return to Metro governance and control over transit development (including the appropriate revenue tools) would yield far better results than whatever it is we're doing today.

I completely agree.

The TTC and city did a good job of building transit in the 20th century. The current setup with the City and TTC would yield very effective results if the necessary funding was provided. That should be the extent of the province's contribution.

The DRL South is a decent example of this - it was a plan developed in cooperation with the local communities impacted, designed to achieve the most important outcome (maximizing capacity). Everyone was happy. All the province had to do was fund it.

 

[W. K. Lis]

From December, 2020...

 

[superelevation]

Since these are being built with P3s, a repeat of Mike Harris is practically impossible. Once the financial close for the tunneling happens later this year and the shovels hit the ground, cancelling it will be an absolutely nightmare even for the biggest fans of austerity. Not to mention, the tunneling will be much farther along by the time the next elections roll around than what we had with Eglinton West so if the next premier chooses to cancel the projects, the amount of backfilling that would be needed would be way more than what Harris did.

Is financial close actually at the end of year? Wow

 

[44 North]

In this case, it has to be remembered that the original LRT plan was politically led as well, being born out of the very political Transit City plan. Transit City was very much David Millers baby, pushed forward by transit advocates through the Mayors office, not out of the TTC or the planning department (though planning did like it as it supported their Avenues Plan, of the same vintage). The bureaucrats of the day were still thinking in subway terms only - planning an extension to Sherway Gardens and the Spadina Extension at the time before the focus shifted.

If Bureaucrats of the time had led the SRT replacement, it likely would have been either a modernization to modern ICTS technology or a subway replacement.

TTC was looking at expanding streetcar ROWs ("LRT") into the inner suburbs quite awhile before TC came to be, and which gave way to TC. So I wouldn't call it "very political". Bundling it under one package to use trains Made in Ontario alongside a premier wanting similar across the GTHA, sure that's "political". But I'm pretty sure TC was borne by way of TTC bureaucrats years prior.

 

[allengeorge]

I’m sure there are many components to the transit mess that exists in Toronto (changing plans, political interference at all levels, overbuilding, underbuilding...) but I think one that that’s overlooked is the current funding environment.

The lack of consistent capital/operational funding causes some really bizarre dynamics: expansion only happens in fits and starts, design experience is lost between projects, there’s huge political gamesmanship over each transit decision (a lot of announcements, no money), the TTC changes plans/sequencing because they don’t know what money will be available...

 

[Bureaucromancer]

TTC was looking at expanding streetcar ROWs ("LRT") into the inner suburbs quite awhile before TC came to be, and which gave way to TC. So I wouldn't call it "very political". Bundling it under one package to use trains Made in Ontario alongside a premier wanting similar across the GTHA, sure that's "political". But I'm pretty sure TC was borne by way of TTC bureaucrats years prior.

This is all true, as such, but also forget that the objectionable bits of TC were a combination of mixing modes on corridors originally envisioned as light rail, and politically motivated refusals to acknowledge that there just might be a need to make some mode decisions on a basis other than "but this matches the point capacity we need".

 

[Allandale25]

Recycling the SRT

The ink was barely dry on the TTC’s recent proposal that service on the SRT end in mid-2023 when the inevitable question was posed: what should be done with the infrastructure and right-of-wa…

stevemunro.ca

 

[44 North]

This is all true, as such, but also forget that the objectionable bits of TC were a combination of mixing modes on corridors originally envisioned as light rail, and politically motivated refusals to acknowledge that there just might be a need to make some mode decisions on a basis other than "but this matches the point capacity we need".

Definitely. On top of that a lot of rushed, ad hoc stuff in TC that clearly required a second thought.

 

[CapitalSeven]

Recycling the SRT

The ink was barely dry on the TTC’s recent proposal that service on the SRT end in mid-2023 when the inevitable question was posed: what should be done with the infrastructure and right-of-wa…

stevemunro.ca

Good discussion but I think it misses the possibility of refurbishing the SRT as guided busway, not just a bus roadway. Those have not been a huge hit, but there are a handful of functional ones. If you take a look at the ones in Australia and the UK, they look as though they would fit in the existing structure, with the possible exception of the tunnel, and could likely be laid down out of prefab elements.