Toronto's Transit Network Plan

[AlvinofDiaspar]

Then wouldn't it make more sense to serve the areas that have already developed as opposed to the areas that might if a subway was put there? "Oh you've already densified? Ok, we'll put the subway over here then" doesn't really make much sense. Bloor-Danforth also has tonnes of densification opportunities since it's mostly low-rise mixed use. Maybe we should put a subway there?

Not necessarily - we aren't talking about building a subway in greenfield - redevelopment along Queen is pretty much a given given the proposals in the pipeline. I wouldn't be surprised if any of the proposed downtown alignments aren't all that different past Don River. Better to focus on where to put the stations I think.

AoD

 

[TheTigerMaster]

Not necessarily. An RER line can be just as effective for short trips as a subway. Let's assume that RER has frequent service and integrated fares. Then if it and the subway follow up the same route, someone travelling across downtown will be just as likely to take RER/Smarttrack as the subway. You end up with two lines that duplicate each other. By making the two lines serve different areas, you get better rapid transit coverage and the line people take will depend on where people are going.

With the SmartTrack options under consideration, I don't see how the service can be just as effective for short trips across downtown. The only possible short trip I see is Unilever to Union.

 

[salsa]

^^Smarttrack may be a back-of-the-napkin election promise, but RER isn't. It's something Metrolinx has been working towards a long time, even if the plan became more ambitious later on. That's why Smarttrack seems to be more and more likely to be rolled into the RER system (same with UPX actually). Building a subway near a rail corridor on the off chance that that rail corridor will never be upgraded to RER seems like a pretty poor way to plan transit. Besides, fare integration and frequent RER service is more likely than the DRL at this point anyway. It's easier to upgrade existing infrastructure than to build a whole new line.

RER is not a duplication for the relief line, and it does not eliminate the purpose of a subway station at Unilever. RER and subway serve different markets. At Unilever, the RER lines go as far as Markham, Oshawa, Brampton and Hamilton. The relief line goes through densely populated neighbourhoods in downtown and up Don Mills road in the inner suburbs. Subways run very frequent, have many stations and are effective for short or medium distance trips. RER is designed for long distance commuters, the fares are more expensive, the stations are far apart, the trains not as frequent, the transfer points to the subway (whether at Union, Main St or elsewhere) are long-winded, inefficient and time consuming. About that last point, what a hassle it would be if the only way to get to Unilever is to go through Union station to catch a GO train. Either that or take a streetcar from Broadview station or to walk at least 10 minutes from Queen & Broadview. I'm not against walking, but the magnitude of Unilever is being compared to Canarf Wharf and yet this is what our planners think is acceptable?

An RER line can be just as effective for short trips as a subway. Let's assume that RER has frequent service and integrated fares.

That is a big assumption when we don't know what the fare structure will be in the future. Five minute service is already dead in the water, and Metrolinx has also shown lack of desire to add more than a just tiny handful of new stations within Toronto (even in Scarborough where the new subway plan was based on the expectation that there will be stops at Lawrence, Ellesmere and Finch).

 

[gweed123]

Not necessarily - we aren't talking about building a subway in greenfield - redevelopment along Queen is pretty much a given given the proposals in the pipeline. I wouldn't be surprised if any of the proposed downtown alignments aren't all that different past Don River. Better to focus on where to put the stations I think.

AoD

I'm just saying that planners all too often jump to putting infrastructure in certain locations because it may "spur development", while ignoring the areas where that same type of development they aim to produce with that infrastructure has already taken place. Should areas that were pro-active in densifying be ignored in favour of areas that didn't in anticipation that that infrastructure might one day arrive?

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

I'm just saying that planners all too often jump to putting infrastructure in certain locations because it may "spur development", while ignoring the areas where that development they aim to produce with that infrastructure has already taken place. Should areas that were pro-active in densifying be ignored in favour of areas that didn't in anticipation that that infrastructure might one day arrive?

That's how I would prioritize it - proven history of densification. Anyone can come up with a plan that shows redevelopment - not every can practice it. Planners may have good intention, but the electorate and the politicians definitely doesn't.

AoD

 

[gweed123]

That's how I would prioritize it - proven history of densification. Anyone can come up with a plan that shows redevelopment - not every can practice it. Planners may have good intention, but the electorate and the politicians definitely doesn't.

AoD

Exactly, so why is the densification on Queen being touted as a "pro" for that alignment (particularly Queen West), when King West pretty much already is a full build-out of the type of densification that would exist on Queen West? If you're basically doing a Copy+Paste of King West onto Queen West, why should the Paste get prioritized over the Copy?

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

Exactly, so why is the densification on Queen being touted as a "pro" for that alignment (particularly Queen West), when King West pretty much already is a full build-out of the type of densification that would exist on Queen West? If you're basically doing a Copy+Paste of King West onto Queen West, why should the Paste get prioritized over the Copy?

Except that it will cost less on a Queen alignment, supposedly (and I think the cost for DRL is an issue that is high on everyone's mind) - and anything that can accelerate further densification to areas that are just beginning to see it while keeping the overall cost lower can only be regarded as a pro.

So my take boils down to - a) it will cost less, b) ridership is not going to be that alignment sensitive and c) there are plenty of redevelopable lands (some government owned, at that).

AoD

 

[gweed123]

Except that it will cost less on a Queen alignment, supposedly (and I think the cost for DRL is an issue that is high on everyone's mind) - and anything that can accelerate further densification to areas that are just beginning to see it while keeping the overall cost lower can only be regarded as a pro.

AoD

The biggest pro with Queen I think is the easier crossing of the Don, but that can still be accomplished with a King alignment, considering it would cross the Don at Queen anyway.

But this still brings me back to my initial point: Why is future densification more important to serve than densification that has already taken place? It's like putting food on the plate of the kid that hasn't shown up for dinner yet, while ignoring the plate of the kid who's already sitting at the table.

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

The biggest pro with Queen I think is the easier crossing of the Don, but that can still be accomplished with a King alignment, considering it would cross the Don at Queen anyway.

But this still brings me back to my initial point: Why is future densification more important to serve than densification that has already taken place? It's like putting food on the plate of the kid that hasn't shown up for dinner yet, while ignoring the plate of the kid who's already sitting at the table.

Except I am of the opinion that the alignment aren't that fundamentally different (it's less than 500m - should alignment decisions be made on differences that minor?), and that there is financial benefit to be had for using Queen (just think - how much will Moss Park worth now?), which is the key point. We aren't talking about an extension to Vaughan - or even BD here.

AoD

 

[gweed123]

Except I am of the opinion that the alignment aren't that fundamentally different (it's less than 500m), and that there is financial benefit to be had for using Queen (just think - how much will Moss Park worth now?), which is the key point. We aren't talking about an extension to Vaughan - or even BD here.

AoD

It's true that they aren't fundamentally different, but if they're so close together, wouldn't the economic benefits for Queen also apply to King? I mean, if Queen is easily reachable for people living on King, then presumably King is equally as reachable for people living on Queen, no?

I'm just pointing out a trend that's become so accepted that nobody is really challenging it: that you target transit investments to places where you can spur growth. It's a good idea in theory, but it has the unfortunate consequence that it ignores places where that growth has already occurred. A prime example is South Etobicoke/Humber Bay.

The WWLRT would probably be the 3rd most used LRT out of all the original Transit City projects, likely handily beating Finch West and Sheppard East. Yet it was shoved to near the bottom of the list. Why? Because there's limited growth potential, because the growth has already taken place. Is it more important to bulldoze 50s strip malls in favour of the potential of mixed-use mid-rise than it is to serve existing high density?

If the Humber Bay high density cluster was a plan on a map like Richmond Hill or Vaughan "Metropolitan" Centre, you can bet that politicians (and planners) would be out in full force touting the redevelopment opportunities that the WWLRT could bring. But because it's already there, meh.

 

[MisterF]

With the SmartTrack options under consideration, I don't see how the service can be just as effective for short trips across downtown. The only possible short trip I see is Unilever to Union.

Unilever to Bloor, Gerrard-Carlaw to Liberty Village, Danforth to Union, St. Clair to Unilever, etc. There are tonnes of opportunities for travel through central Toronto. But much of the Queen corridor or downtown north of King wouldn't be well served by RER.

RER is not a duplication for the relief line, and it does not eliminate the purpose of a subway station at Unilever. RER and subway serve different markets. At Unilever, the RER lines go as far as Markham, Oshawa, Brampton and Hamilton. The relief line goes through densely populated neighbourhoods in downtown and up Don Mills road in the inner suburbs. Subways run very frequent, have many stations and are effective for short or medium distance trips. RER is designed for long distance commuters, the fares are more expensive, the stations are far apart, the trains not as frequent, the transfer points to the subway (whether at Union, Main St or elsewhere) are long-winded, inefficient and time consuming. About that last point, what a hassle it would be if the only way to get to Unilever is to go through Union station to catch a GO train. Either that or take a streetcar from Broadview station or to walk at least 10 minutes from Queen & Broadview. I'm not against walking, but the magnitude of Unilever is being compared to Canarf Wharf and yet this is what our planners think is acceptable?




That is a big assumption when we don't know what the fare structure will be in the future. Five minute service is already dead in the water, and Metrolinx has also shown lack of desire to add more than a just tiny handful of new stations within Toronto (even in Scarborough where the new subway plan was based on the expectation that there will be stops at Lawrence, Ellesmere and Finch).

If someone is going from Unilever to Liberty Village, the fact that one line goes to Markham and the other goes to Don Mills is irrelevant. Fare structure is an open question, but isn't building a new subway based on the assumption that fares won't be integrated a backwards way to plan? 5 minute frequencies as future upgrades aren't unrealistic if the demand is there. As I said, upgrading an existing line makes more sense than building a whole new one on the same route. Limiting the scope of RER to long distance travel is repeating the mistakes we've been making for decades.

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

It's true that they aren't fundamentally different, but if they're so close together, wouldn't the economic benefits for Queen also apply to King? I mean, if Queen is easily reachable for people living on King, then presumably King is equally as reachable for people living on Queen, no?

I'm just pointing out a trend that's become so accepted that nobody is really challenging it: that you target transit investments to places where you can spur growth. It's a good idea in theory, but it has the unfortunate consequence that it ignores places where that growth has already occurred. A prime example is South Etobicoke/Humber Bay.

The WWLRT would probably be the 3rd most used LRT out of all the original Transit City projects, likely handily beating Finch West and Sheppard East. Yet it was shoved to near the bottom of the list. Why? Because there's limited growth potential, because the growth has already taken place. Is it more important to bulldoze 50s strip malls in favour of the potential of mixed-use mid-rise than it is to serve existing high density?

If the Humber Bay high density cluster was a plan on a map like Richmond Hill or Vaughan "Metropolitan" Centre, you can bet that politicians (and planners) would be out in full force touting the redevelopment opportunities that the WWLRT could bring. But because it's already there, meh.

Oh I would agree with you on that global assessment. DRL is a bit of a special case anyways (given the distances involved, and the already present ridership). If I recall correct, wasn't new riders considered the only thing that really matters under the BCAs?

AoD

 

[gweed123]

Oh I would agree with you on that global assessment. DRL is a bit of a special case anyways (given the distances involved, and the already present ridership). If I recall correct, wasn't new riders considered the only thing that really matters under the BCAs?

AoD

Yes, I would agree that the DRL is a more special case than most, however I still object to that being used as a key metric in this case for one route vs another. And yes, it's unfortunate that with ridership, like development, the metric is so skewed to favour new over existing.

 

[Northern Light]

In discussion of Queen vs King aligment, I see what I think of as an omission.

Why not both?

No, I don't mean two different lines.

I mean who says a line must follow one road for its entire length?

I'm as much a fan, or more of 'grids' as the next person, but sometimes these become religion.

There's no real reason a line can move around a little to serve key trip generators.

The First Gulf site faces the 'river crossing' issue. I will therefore set that aside for now; and simply accept a 'Queen' crossing.

But as soon as you reach the west bank, you can curve south along King to better serve the distillery and the farmer's market, you can then curve upwards, particularly if you do so while certain parcels are still vacant (saves the cost of going extra deep) You can route up at Jarvis or some other point and use Adelaide or Richmond through the core, then dive south again to serve City Place and King west.

Or you can just setting for Queen in the east, and dive south at University or Spadina and then follow King to the western terminus of the line.

It need not be strictly one or the other. Have a look at Metro maps from around the world and you'll see plenty of 'curvy' routes.

 

[Northern Light]

On the subject of 'metrics'

I think its been discussed before, but in many of Metrolinx business analyses, one metric was 'construction jobs created'.

Which struck me as bizarre since implicit in that is , higher cost equals better.

There are many counter-intuitive metrics used to measure many projects.