News   Jun 14, 2024
 1.9K     1 
News   Jun 14, 2024
 1.4K     1 
News   Jun 14, 2024
 765     0 

Transit City Plan

Which transit plan do you prefer?

  • Transit City

    Votes: 95 79.2%
  • Ford City

    Votes: 25 20.8%

  • Total voters
    120
Can someone explain why a DRL just never seems to get any traction from the politicos?

It's expensive and not immediately necessary.

Bloor rebuild is now slated to be about $200M (Union Station type upgrade to the lower level).

Signals, this $500M happens anyway. They tricked the province into paying for it for expansion, that doesn't make it optional if you don't expand.

Capacity (trains) happens with both DRL or Yonge boost.



There are good reasons to build the DRL but saving money versus fixing Yonge isn't one of them. The best argument for building the DRL is the capital funds argument.
 
http://www.thestar.com/news/transpo...doubt-cast-on-ford-s-hopes-for-subway-partner


From the Toronto Star...

Doubt cast on Ford’s hopes for subway partner

Tess Kalinowski
Transportation Reporter
More about
Transportation»
Taxpayers who want a subway on Sheppard Ave, should be careful what they wish for — if it takes a public-private partnership to get it built, as Mayor Rob Ford has suggested.

Residents may not even recognize their neighbourhood if developers turn Sheppard into a condo cavern to make back their money, warned Councillor Shelley Carroll (Don Valley East).

Ford was vague Thursday about the public/private finance-design-build proposal his office has made to Metrolinx, which would pay for the subway extension with a combination of development charges and tax increment financing.

“We haven’t got any detailed info right now. We’re just working with a number of people, a number of groups,” Ford told reporters. “There’s a number of issues that we’re putting together. Things are going very well. I’m very, very sure that we’re going to get to building Sheppard underground and building Eglinton underground.”

The proposal, if accepted by the province, would replace the old Toronto-Metrolinx plan to build light rail on along Sheppard, Finch and Eglinton and the old Scarborough RT route. That would free up the $8.15 billion the province has pledged for transit to put the Eglinton light rail line entirely underground from about Jane St. to Kennedy Station.

The SRT would be converted to either light rail or subway and the Finch LRT would be replaced with an express bus.

Tax increment financing (TIF) was introduced by finance minister Greg Sorbara in 2006 as a way to pay for the Spadina subway extension. It enables municipalities to borrow against future property tax revenues from land whose value shoots up after the subway is built.

Developers are enticed to build in the target area with grants that reduce the annual taxes they would normally have to pay. Over a period of years, those grants are phased out, resulting in much higher tax revenues to the city.

Toronto could also use private-sector partners to develop the subway station properties, explained MPP David Caplan, former public infrastructure renewal minister. A company could buy or lease a property, build an office, a mall or condos on top of the station, or develop a retail concourse and operate a concession there for 25 or 30 years, said Caplan, architect of the Liberal government’s strategy for building public infrastructure with private money.

“Tax increment financing has been used in Europe to build transit. The public-private station development has been used in Asia. These aren’t wild, risky ideas,” Caplan said. “They’re proven.”

But Sheppard Ave. doesn’t have anything like the population densities that typically support Asian-style development of this sort, and experts couldn’t cite a single instance where a Canadian project on the scale of the $4 billion Sheppard subway has been paid for exclusively with a combination of TIF and development charges.

Without a government financing guarantee, something the city and province might not be in a position to provide, Sheppard “is just fraught with immense risks,” said Joseph D’Cruz of the Rotman School of Management at the University of Toronto.

The mayor is proposing higher development fees and will raise taxes in that corridor.

“Those are very political promises and the risk is he may not be able to deliver on those promises. That means the revenue stream which is dedicated to paying back the developer is very uncertain,” he said.

Although private partnerships have a reputation for bringing projects in on time and on budget — with penalties applied if the targets aren’t met — that can add to the investor’s risk, said D’Cruz.

“When you do a project this large it’s very difficult to estimate the costs in advance and it’s almost impossible to anticipate all the problems you’ll encounter. So it’s very hard to put a number on what it’s going to cost,” he said.

“We’re talking about someone who’d be willing to take on a lot of risk in exchange for right of first refusal on building,” said Carroll, former city budget chief. “This can be gold rush time for developers, because (building highrises) is the only way to fill the (subway) with riders and grow (the tax) assessment,” she said.

Some experts have suggested that the Eglinton light rail project could be more attractive to private investment, because the ridership supports it and the operation could be automated, like Vancouver’s SkyTrain with its driverless vehicles.

A Sheppard subway wouldn’t carry more than 7,000 or 8,000 people per hour, but breaking even on subway operations takes at least 15,000 riders per hour.

The existing Sheppard line loses millions annually in operating costs, said Councillor and former TTC vice chair Joe Mihevc.


http://www.thestar.com/news/transpo...doubt-cast-on-ford-s-hopes-for-subway-partner
 
If it takes 50, 60, and 70s towers to financially support the Sheppards subway, then I welcome that, it’s not like we’re putting them in the middle of Guildwood, Rosedale or Forest Hill. Toronto needs to GROW UP literally more towers along Sheppards would be a welcome addition. “add a little urban flavour to a rather suburban waste land”

Assuming demand does exist...is this really the best spot to be putting all these towers? As long as the DT core is still the primary employment center, all those people will be funnelled onto the already overcrowded Yonge line (not to mention the DVP).
 
Wanted. Necessary means something different.

^ The stuffed streetcars on Queen and King and the crowded Yonge+Bloor station beg to differ.

You can fix Yonge station for $200M but a downtown East-West line is far overdue to relieve Queen and King. It's obvious there's a major demand there and the current streetcars can't handle it.
 
Express service on Finch west... I can see it now 36A B and E all together at Finch and Dufferin. Tbh I feel the express service might be somewhat a 32E duplicate where almost no time is saved going to and from Yonge Street
 
It's expensive and not immediately necessary.

Bloor rebuild is now slated to be about $200M (Union Station type upgrade to the lower level).

Signals, this $500M happens anyway. They tricked the province into paying for it for expansion, that doesn't make it optional if you don't expand.

Capacity (trains) happens with both DRL or Yonge boost.



There are good reasons to build the DRL but saving money versus fixing Yonge isn't one of them. The best argument for building the DRL is the capital funds argument.

What happened to the $1.3 billion Y-B project? Can you provide a link to this new cheaper project?
 
What happened to the $1.3 billion Y-B project? Can you provide a link to this new cheaper project?

They've simplified the design to give some additional capacity and move people down the platform automatically (by putting the stairwells there).

The link provided by jeffreym is where I got my information. No reason to believe a Union Station type addition would cost much more than the Union Station platform expansion project itself.
 
Last edited:
[
Some experts have suggested that the Eglinton light rail project could be more attractive to private investment, because the ridership supports it and the operation could be automated, like Vancouver’s SkyTrain with its driverless vehicles.

http://www.thestar.com/news/transpo...doubt-cast-on-ford-s-hopes-for-subway-partner

This is a bit of a no-brainer. You may not have to use tax increment financing, either.

For the Canada Line, tax increment financing is not used - the property taxing authority is the City of Vancouver whereas TransLink is the transit authority.

Payments are made by TransLink to the operator, and in the first few years, that'll be an operating subsidy til ridership builds.

In the case of Toronto, Metrolinx could own the infrastructure, the private operator would operate and own the vehicles, and the City/TTC could provide an operating subsidy (maybe raised through tax increment financing, since the City runs the TTC.)

On top of that, the private operator could design the system to optimize projected ridership and operating costs, including automation.

With the Sheppard Subway, the private operator would be handicapped by having to conform with the existing specifications of the Sheppard Line, as currently built (i.e. no automation, station capacity for 6 car trains that may never come, large diameter tunnels).
 
Last edited:
While the 5 stations of the existing sheppard subway may be 6-car length (although shortened to its current 4) what is there to stop the east and west extensions from being built as simpler 4 car stations?

I don't think the sheppard subway will EVER reach a ridership figure that warrants 6 car trains...

Secondly, in terms of automation...I've heard many times that the line is already ATC ready. If that is the case, how about the private operator just build a new carhouse and bring in its own fleet (with a ttc track guage) and operate the system as it chooses?

Would it be a good idea to just hand over the current 5.5km segment to the private operator to manage? Same idea as Canada Line right? Infrastructure owned by city, Vehicles/operation by the operator...

I rode the Canada Line in Aug 2010 and I am a huge fan of every aspect of it. Small, realistic station sizes. Simple design. Wide automated vehicles. Everything about that project is just perfect...and what a great bargain too! 2.4Billion!

I have a feeling the private sector will ensure the line costs much less than its projected 4.1 billion dollar price tag...

I am not too sure about this TIF model but if the price of the line is in the 2 billion range...then I think it would work...but a 4 billion line... I am in doubt
 
While the 5 stations of the existing sheppard subway may be 6-car length (although shortened to its current 4) what is there to stop the east and west extensions from being built as simpler 4 car stations?

People who demand that Scarborough/North York 'deserves' full subway?

Secondly, in terms of automation...I've heard many times that the line is already ATC ready. If that is the case, how about the private operator just build a new carhouse and bring in its own fleet (with a ttc track guage) and operate the system as it chooses?

Where would this new carhouse go? How much would that land cost? (Especially considering it couldn't be covered with high density property tax-paying development.) How much more would it cost to build the carhouse? How much would the new fleet cost?

I have a feeling the private sector will ensure the line costs much less than its projected 4.1 billion dollar price tag...

I'm pretty sure the private sector is all about making a profit. How do you justify saying they will build it for less than 4.1 billion (including an expensive crossing of the Don River) while also adding in a new carhouse and fleet? If they are going to operate it as they choose, where is their profit incentive (ie how much should the city be on the hook for to subsidize the line to ensure they get their profit and don't walk away from the deal)?

I am not too sure about this TIF model but if the price of the line is in the 2 billion range...then I think it would work...but a 4 billion line... I am in doubt

I am in doubt about your 4 billion claim, let alone 2 billion.
 
Can someone explain why a DRL just never seems to get any traction from the politicos?

You may have missed our brilliant andinsightful but off topic discussion of this in the MoveOntario 2020 thread. Starting with, of course,

New riders really are worth more than happier existing riders, but GTA transportation planning really seems skewed to valuing only new riders (or is it 905 voters).

Suppose that every rider on a DRL was an existing rider, and that on average they saved 3 minutes travel time compared to their old route. If we value their time at $20/hr (before taxes) then the DRL is worth $1 per rider in time saved benefits. But if a new rider is attracted to the system, we know the benefit is at least as high as the $2.50 he or she pays to ride instead of driving. These numbers are rough but about right: we should value transit improvements for existing riders at only about 30-40% per rider of how we value improvements that attract new riders.

But the TTC only seems to value increased capacity and increased ridership, not riders' experience. Naturally. With such high fare box recovery on the operating budget, the TTC has every incentive to act like a private business - increasing market share and increasing operating profit.

Exhibit A is "DRL: No thanks". Exhibit B is the bus service cuts.
 

Back
Top