Sheppard Subway - Development Impacts

[AnarchoSocialist]

Antiloop, my first choice pet project was the billion dollar GO funding, which is on its way. Waiting for the first election cycle after MoveOntario is finished and the YUS line has been losing riders due to crowds for a few years will guarantee that the DRL (or some equivalent) won't be built before a full half century has passed since it was proposed...maybe we can afford to wait that long, maybe we can't - I'd rather not take the risk. I'm always amused by how often people on this forum say we need new transit infrastructure downtown such as, for example, a tunneled streetcar on King, but a DRL is out of the question.

I can see why a lot of people are pesimistic about transit in North American cities since it has been largely ignored over the past several decades. But attitudes have changed a lot even just in the past few years. Ottawa is a good example. After the LRT project was cancelled people thought that would be it and it would be a decade before anything happened again. That has not been the case and instead the project may be 3 or 4 years behind schedule, but, it is being revised (even if it is in a largely inferior manner) and something is going to be done.

Same is true of transit in downtown Toronto. The problem exists today and will be even larger in 5 years and assuming the MoveOntario plan goes forward and this batch of projects move ahead it is almost certain that focus will shift to the downtown area just because there isn't much of a choice unless you want the system to develop a massive bottleneck. My only reservation is that when people talk about transit downtown that instead of being concerned with the infamous DRL or this or that it is actually examined from what is built today, and will be built in the next 5 years, and what makes sense today. There are actually some rather simple solutions that would drastically improve transit in the downtown area it is just a matter of people being able to have a proper discussion about them, which can sometimes be hard, but at least the environment for that to happen is a bit more positive now.

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

If the Transit City documents equate streetcars with LRT, I will, too.

The Transit City report clearly states that there is an understanding of what streetcar is meant:

Using tried-and-true principles developed on this continent before the Second World War – and improved in Europe afterward – the streetcar has evolved into a modern, efficient and cost-effective transit mode. It is increasingly filling the intermediate-capacity niche between buses and heavy rail technologies.

The adoption of transit-oriented land use policies and guidelines is paramount in realizing the full benefits of modern streetcar service. Although intermediate in cost and capacity within the family of transit modes, modern streetcar systems are still higher-order transit solutions. They involve substantial investment and require substantial numbers of riders to justify their capital and service investment costs.

(Toronto Transit City, 2007, p. 8)

To perversely equate the fact that it uses to term to your interpretation to what it stand for is deliberate misinformation.

Most of Finch West, Jane, Don Mills, and Morningside aren't "Avenues" and continued population growth in the suburbs is far from a sure thing. I never said buses could solve all our problems, but there's a lot they can do with buses that can make a significant difference in a very short time and for almost no money.

Err, if you look at the land use maps and current data pertaining to densification and location of projects, you will find 1. the lines you have mentioned does have Avenue components to them, while linking existing and future nodes (e.g Emery Village node on Finch, Avenues along Jane, Eglinton and Kingston Road Portion of the Morningside line); 2. lines are located where development activity is happening in spite of not being considered to be an Avenue (e.g. Don Mills) and 3. a good chunk of these streets already have a fairly high bus frequency, and are already experiencing bunching at peak.

You're suggesting that we build subways (DRL, Sheppard East) and then flip around and say continued growth in suburbs isn't a sure thing and we should have buses instead? I really don't know about your priorities...

AoD

 

[unimaginative2]

Alright, as the resident DRL guy, I'll wade in.

Let's look at the cost of the most critical portion, from Pape to Spadina, which is incidentally the segment examined in the original DRT study. The total distance is about 7.5 kilometres, of which about 4.5 kilometres would be tunneled. According to the Vaughan subway EA, the cost of tunneling is $100 million per kilometre. I consider that to be quite inflated, but let's go with it. That means $450 million for the tunneling. Then, let's add in the surface section. That would literally just require the additional of tracks and ties, since the right-of-way on the rail corridor is already available, graded, and owned by the province. Let's estimate $20 million per kilometre, which is rather high for what is basically just a track replacement project. There's $600 million. Then there are the stations. Let's estimate $50 million per standard underground station (based on past TTC costs). That would include Spadina, Convention Centre, Queen East, Pape/Gerard, and Pape. That's $250 million plus I'll allow $100 million for Union recognizing its added complexity, even though the current extra platform will cost $58 million. The surface stations should be quite simple structures, about $10 million each at Sherbourne/Jarvis and Cherry. There we have $880 million in total, so let's throw in a generous $100 million for contingency and any ancillary costs. Then we have a $980 million figure which can be compared with the costs of other possible subway alignments.

For the western segment, we're looking at 0.6 kilometres of tunnel from Front to Bathurst, then 2.1 kilometres in the Front Street Extension alignment to Dufferin, then 0.9 kilometres tunneled up Dufferin to Queen where it would meet the rail corridor, then about 2.4 kilometres again in the rail corridor up to Bloor. This is one of the alignments examined in the original study, the other being further west along the rail corridor and north on Roncesvalles. The latter could actually prove even cheaper, since a light rail line will be built along the entire rail corridor segment anyway as part of Transit City. There is no reason why that surface section couldn't be built as subway for minimal extra cost. So for the tunneled segments, we have a cost of $150 million. Since the Weston corridor is somewhat more challenging than the TTR east of Union, let's go with the wildly generous figure of $50 million per kilometre for the rail corridor and Front Street Extension segments. That's $225 million. The stations at Bathurst, Dufferin, Bloor, Queen and near College could all be on the surface. That's $50 million, plus I'll add an extra $10 million each for Bloor and Queen assuming added complexity, for a total of $70 million. There we have $445 million. Let's throw in another $100 million for ancillary costs and we're up to $545 million for the western section.

 

[AnarchoSocialist]

Here is just my two cents and a quick map I threw together of what in my own opinion seems like a reasonable solution. The first map shows what will basically exist in the more central part of Toronto if Transit City begins (so the new lines on the map will probably be completed, under construction, or close to it in 5 years time). It is pretty obvious that it leaves a big hole downtown that cannot be ignored.

Below is a map with two more lines that would seem to make sense (I should note that the alignments are rough and not meant to be exact but rather just too give a pretty general idea of what could be done).

The first line, the red line, would be a tunnel through the downtown area that the Jane and Don Mills LRT would run in (and could also accomodate other LRT lines too). As soon as the line goes underground you build stations roughly the same distance apart as you would on a subway line. It would also have the effect of making Jane and Don Mills far more useful lines since the suburban lines would continue downtown and do so in an efficient and fast manner once they got into the central area.

The other line (the blue line) is a Queen subway. This really seems totally obvious since that alignment would intersect with all the GO train lines (indicated by the dots with green inside them) as well Spadina LRT, Spadina and Yonge lines and lots of other important streets and routes. For commuters coming in by GO train they would have an option of getting off before Union and getting downtown via a Queen subway (there is the issue of adding one more stop to GO lines and the time it would add to those trips but with the improvments being made to GO this should not be a huge problem too overcome).

The box around the general Union Station area also indicates another area where even more efficient gains could be made. If the Jane and Don Mills LRT are extended downtown then a project could be undertaken to streamline the Waterfront and Spadina lines as well into a single, more efficient LRT station. But that would only be if planners got really ambitous and is not entirely necessary.

I know this is supposed to be about Sheppard so I won't say much more other than downtown will have to be dealt with sooner rather than later and that hopefully when it is, that solutions will actually reflect current or near future conditions and not just dusting off old plans.

Edit: I would also add that this is why I don't think it is bad that downtown is not being dealt with today. While all the other plans are getting underway people can actually take the time to develop something useful and efficient for the central part of the city. It is always enough to draw lines on a map but when it comes to real planning there are going to be hundreds of issues to deal with and especially in a dense urban area this is going to take a bit of time to work through and deal with properly.

 

[scarberiankhatru]

For someone who doesn't want to dust off old plans, your streetcar subway sure is similar to the DRL.

 

[AnarchoSocialist]

For someone who doesn't want to dust off old plans, your streetcar subway sure is similar to the DRL.

I don't even remember where the DRL was supposed to go (I haven't seen a map of the proposal in a long time). If something like the DRL still works then that is fine. There are lots of other scenarios for downtown besides that one too. That one just seem the most apparent since it basically involved playing connect the dots. Aside from the Queen subway line that wouldn't be how I would plan it but lots of people will have lots of ideas which hopefuly will all be heard.

 

[scarberiankhatru]

There are lots of other scenarios for downtown besides that one too.

Such as dusting off old plans for a Queen subway.

 

[unimaginative2]

anarchosocialist, read my article on Transit Toronto. It should tell you about as much information as is available about the DRL.

 

[AnarchoSocialist]

Such as dusting off old plans for a Queen subway.

Ok. So that was probably a bad choice of words since most plans have been proposed at one point or another. I just meant that plans should be developed around the Toronto that exists today and not just taking plans that were first proposed decades ago and automaticaly assuming they are what will work today. It is probable that many of the ideas are still relevant, but, there also needs to be room for developing other ideas that may be more effective.

anarchosocialist, read my article on Transit Toronto. It should tell you about as much information as is available about the DRL.

Actually I am pretty sure it was that site where I first learned about the DRL (and the 2011 plan in general). Perhaps refreshing my memory might not hurt.

 

[scarberiankhatru]

To perversely equate the fact that it uses to term to your interpretation to what it stand for is deliberate misinformation.

St. Clair and Spadina are streetcar lines and are the inspiration for Transit City; I'm going to call them streetcars, not light rail vehicles or whatever else, and you're going to keep noting it in every post you make.

I just meant that plans should be developed around the Toronto that exists today and not just taking plans that were first proposed decades ago and automaticaly assuming they are what will work today.

You and others can imply I'm just drawing lines on a map or blindly agreeing with any subway proposal, but the Toronto of today isn't that far removed from the Toronto of 20 years ago - dense areas have gotten denser and the rest hasn't changed much at all. In the Toronto that exists today, Sheppard East has high ridership and is very highly developed with tons of new construction in the pipeline...that was also true 20 years ago. It's not like this is some absurd, hypothetical line, it got partially built and I'd just like to see it finished.

In the Toronto that exists today, transit downtown is a bloody mess; it has been a mess for a long time and will continue to be a mess for a long time since it has been completely passed over by MoveOntario, largely, if not entirely, because the city chooses to ignore it. Why does downtown have to be the only place with hopelessly awful transit before something's done? Suburban transit lines run through cornfields anticipating growth, but once downtown, the same people on those routes wait 20 minutes for a Queen streetcar or get crushed into the second or third Yonge subway that passes them waiting at Bloor. If nothing's done when MoveOntario 2032 is announced, will everyone here say "now they'll be really, really serious about proposing something for downtown *next* time!"

In the Toronto that exists today, we're obsessed with neighbourhoods like Jane & Finch and Malvern and think throwing money at the areas will solve problems. Two streetcar lines, a GO line, and the RT will all extend to the 100,000 people living in Malvern yet none of the four will actually go near the Neilson/Malvern TC area...if over $2 billion will be spent on these lines and none of them actually go to the heart of Malvern or even get close to the 'very important' new Morningside Heights subdivision, why are they there and who's really going to ride them all?

You're suggesting that we build subways (DRL, Sheppard East) and then flip around and say continued growth in suburbs isn't a sure thing and we should have buses instead?

Flipping? Sheppard East and some downtown routes don't need to be turned into Parisian boulevards for new transit lines to be successful - their development and ridership are both already there - but that will need to happen to Jane or Morningside for Transit City's lofty ridership goals to be reached and for any investment beyond buses to be justified. I've said all along that some streetcar routes could work well, like Finch West, but I do question the placement and timing of other routes.

I'm questioning the wisdom of spending billions on streetcars on roads like Morningside - where ridership is not particularly high, where development has reached the point of being built out, and where there's no hope of Avenueization for most of the way even should designations be made in the future - before something as simple and proven as Rocket buses are implemented. Why not subways for some routes, streetcars for others, buses for still others? (edit - heck, if the city insists on keeping the RT, why not even a Skytrain for a road like Don Mills?) Transit City suggests LRT is both one-size-fits-all and the best way to improve service.

 

[roch5220]

You and others can imply I'm just drawing lines on a map or blindly agreeing with any subway proposal, but the Toronto of today isn't that far removed from the Toronto of 20 years ago - dense areas have gotten denser and the rest hasn't changed much at all..

I'm way behind on this discussin (weekend, enough said), but any justification for a new DRL would depend on where you think that chart of employment over the last 2 decades on pg 9 (figure 1) is going to head.

http://www.toronto.ca/torontoplan/downtown_future.pdf

Office grow has rebounded since 88, and is much higher than 83, and their are new buildings coming in on line in the future, however, since downtown employment is now being fueled primarily by offices, you have to wonder about how much left over space their is for future offices (and future employment growth). Now, if your a believer that they will find space anywhere (ie, building over the railway tracks/or gardiner - which the first is definately plausable), then their is really vast opportuinity for continued downtown office growth. This would make the DRL a good investment for the future (which I do agree with in theory, but not within constrainted funding dollars).

On a sidenote, I think it actually is a good idea to change the alignment of the DRL to either queen, or even Dundas.

 

[roch5220]

St. Clair and Spadina are streetcar lines and are the inspiration for Transit City; I'm going to call them streetcars, not light rail vehicles or whatever else, and you're going to keep noting it in every post you make.
.

Isn't this just symatics? The TTC is buying new LRT vehicles, and most eurpoean cities that I have seen (Vienna, Prague, Brataslava, Budapest, etc.) where streetcar/LRT (street network) systems more previlant, they run old streetcars along the same tracks as new LRT. And even the TTC streetcars in their names like CLRV, have 'light rail' in them - so by calling something by its proper and correct name shouldn't be an issue.

 

[AnarchoSocialist]

You and others can imply I'm just drawing lines on a map

Actually that was reference was about myself. Im the only who has done that in this thread and it was just meant to clarify I know that planning is much more than creating a map with lines on it.

Sheppard East has high ridership and is very highly developed with tons of new construction in the pipeline...that was also true 20 years ago. It's not like this is some absurd, hypothetical line, it got partially built and I'd just like to see it finished.

Most people probably agree with you on that point. That is what I would say seems to be the best solution (the only other possible option is converting the existing subway line to connect with the LRT system but that has enough problems itself not to be the best idea). That is where the public consultation process is important because these are the kinds of views and arguments that can be raised when it comes time to evaluate the next phase of Sheppard.

In the Toronto that exists today, we're obsessed with neighbourhoods like Jane & Finch and Malvern and think throwing money at the areas will solve problems.

This is why there are EA's. To do the proper analysis of what are right now just proposals. It is entirely possible that an EA could find that it is not worth the money to serve Malvern with LRT (or RT or whatever they are proposing), or that maybe it should occur later, or in a different form. And again, public consultation is where concerns can be raised. If you found that a line really was an absurb project then putting your views on record and getting an article or two in the newspaper that showed it to be a genuine waste of money could be all that you would need to at least get people to rethink the idea. When there are legitimate concerns outlets are available to have your views and thoughts registered.

Isn't this just symatics? The TTC is buying new LRT vehicles, and most eurpoean cities that I have seen (Vienna, Prague, Brataslava, Budapest, etc.) where streetcar/LRT (street network) systems more previlant, they run old streetcars along the same tracks as new LRT. And even the TTC streetcars in their names like CLRV, have 'light rail' in them - so by calling something by its proper and correct name shouldn't be an issue.

I think you could argue either side. The differences are not huge between an LRT and streetcar. But there are enough differences that when you are doing technical reports or planning and designing a new route it should be specified which one you are talking about. But in general discussion I don't see the big deal in using them interchangably since it will all be the same network in the end.

 

[scarberiankhatru]

Isn't this just symatics?

Hey, I'm not the one who has issues with using them interchangably. As anarcho says, there may be technical differences, but those can exist on paper and vanish in practice...and I'd like to see some effort put into improving Spadina's operations so we don't simply copy & paste the same problems all over the city.

When there are legitimate concerns outlets are available to have your views and thoughts registered.

In my experience, they tend to not care about such comments. I've already written to Transit City a few times. I remember going to all of the RT replacement meetings, where almost everyone in attendance (and most locals not in attendance) supported a subway extension (one that would still leave money left over for LRT, mind you). Popular opinion ended up being a non-factor in the decision.

 

[MisterF]

Edit: I would also add that this is why I don't think it is bad that downtown is not being dealt with today. While all the other plans are getting underway people can actually take the time to develop something useful and efficient for the central part of the city. It is always enough to draw lines on a map but when it comes to real planning there are going to be hundreds of issues to deal with and especially in a dense urban area this is going to take a bit of time to work through and deal with properly.

That's exactly why it should start now. The lines that will take the most work to deal with properly should be started first, not last.

Office grow has rebounded since 88, and is much higher than 83, and their are new buildings coming in on line in the future, however, since downtown employment is now being fueled primarily by offices, you have to wonder about how much left over space their is for future offices (and future employment growth). Now, if your a believer that they will find space anywhere (ie, building over the railway tracks/or gardiner - which the first is definately plausable), then their is really vast opportuinity for continued downtown office growth. This would make the DRL a good investment for the future (which I do agree with in theory, but not within constrainted funding dollars).

You seriously think downtown is full, or close to it? If cities like London and Chicago can fit so many offices into their central cores, why can't Toronto? Even when all the surface parking lots are gone there will be lots of room. Downtown Toronto is so full of small 2 storey buildings that could be redeveloped that office employment could meet demand for a long time.