[diminutive]

For the DRL, I'm pretty confident that within 20 years of construction both the Yonge line and DRL will be in the 45,000 pphpd range at peak periods.

Where are you getting these numbers from? Both are pretty big departures from published TTC materials. 2031 demand for Yonge is about 36,000 pphpd while DRL predictions are well under 20,000. Considering it will have taken Yonge nearly a century to get to this point, you're assuming a lot of induced demand.

You've criticized others for making up numbers, yet your basing things off of demand statistics which are clearly overstated

 

[andrewpmk]

Where are you getting these numbers from? Both are pretty big departures from published TTC materials. 2031 demand for Yonge is about 36,000 pphpd while DRL predictions are well under 20,000. Considering it will have taken Yonge nearly a century to get to this point, you're assuming a lot of induced demand.

You've criticized others for making up numbers, yet your basing things off of demand statistics which are clearly overstated

Low capacity subway for the downtown relief line? This is a crazy idea, this line could potentially exceed Yonge Line ridership in the future, especially if it runs further north along Don Mills to Finch as I have proposed.

Skimping on capacity to save money in general is a bad idea. For the same reason I am skeptical of the idea of building low capacity light rail on Eglinton/Sheppard. Infrastructure built now needs to have the capacity to serve demand 50-100 years in the future.

 

[rbt]

Where are you getting these numbers from? Both are pretty big departures from published TTC materials. 2031 demand for Yonge is about 36,000 pphpd while DRL predictions are well under 20,000. Considering it will have taken Yonge nearly a century to get to this point, you're assuming a lot of induced demand.

TTC has numbers right for 2030. My estimate was for closer to 2045 (opening day + 20 years). I do not believe DRL will be funded even for engineering work before the next provincial election.


Many GTA office managers are already torn on where to expand because of the difficulty in getting employees to any location in the GTA. GO trains are full, TTC is full, highways are full both in the suburbs and downtown. Downtown wins because everybody is punished equally and employees like it. Based on what is under construction today, this situation will be much worse in 2020; not better.


Any new transportation corridor (highway, train, whatever) will spur significant commercial growth around it simply because workers will be able to get to that location. Downtown especially if it's still the popular place to be.

DRL East opening day + 2 years of nice subway commutes + 2 years to decide on an office expansion + 5 years to lease, design and build a new tower. After 3 cycles of office development (~18 years) the DRL and Yonge will both be approaching capacity UNLESS additional significant transportation corridors are also created in the GTA.


Our recent history and continued funding issues make it unlikely to see significant gains in transportation aside from a DRL and minimal GO service bumps by 2045 so many new downtown workers will be arriving by subway. GO will continue to boost service after it's shown to be necessary, just as they have for the last several decades.

You've criticized others for making up numbers...

Yup. Didn't mean to imply it was anything but pure speculation. I expressed personal confidence in a number I put forward. I did not imply it was of equal or better weighting than anybody else's speculative statement or that the numbers another agency produced were incorrect (I'm not aware of recent TTC/Metrolinx numbers past 2031).

Also, it's so far to the future I don't see how anyone could act financially on my opinion so I didn't add a disclaimer; although I have no intention to buy or sell real-estate in downtown Toronto over the next 3 months.


Also, to be specific, I've criticized others for making up numbers that directly conflict official information. The real issue is that 2 years later those same people are presenting the same arguments which a number of others have shown to be faulty. I wouldn't mind so much if they were new arguments or even just reworked with the information that they had been provided.


TTC compared their work with Madrid's in great detail. You can take issue with specific portions of that report but the time for jumping up and down about Madrid being cheaper and TTC not explaining why is done.

 

[diminutive]

Any new transportation corridor (highway, train, whatever) will immediately spur 20 years of commercial growth around it simply because workers will be able to get to that location.

How? Nowhere along the DRL could or would accomodate that kind of development. Downtown financial core is already built out for the most part and certainly will be by 2030. King/Queen East is not zoned, and I imagine won't be zoned, for major commercial development. Ditto for King/Queen West if it ever went there. Ditto Leslieville and Pape.

Arguably the area around Don Mills/Eglinton could be substantially redeveloped for commercial functions (big lots, good transport links, low NIMBY potential). If that ever happened though it wouldn't really impact peak demand on a DRL which is AM Southbound. It would balance out loads and add to AM Northbound, which I'd imagine is well below 15k pphpd in 2030 (otomh, don't have numbers in front of me).

Also, if transit capacity is the main limitation on commercial development why haven't we seen more development around the University subway? Even by 2030 it's expected to have quite a bit of spare capacity during peak hours, and the areas it serves are already zoned for commercial/institutional. Other parts of the Yonge subway (NYCC) have quite a bit of spare transit capacity and likewise haven't seen huge interest for commercial real estate.

I guess I'm just skeptical that a DRL, in any configuration, would induce such huge demand that peak ridership would triple in 15 years (2030-> 2045). It will have taken Yonge nearly a century to reach those levels, and University isn't predicted to get there ever.

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

dimunitive:

Downtown financial core is already built out for the most part and certainly will be by 2030.

Except that historically the boundaries for the financial core isn't set in stone - and these things have a tendency to extend outward, concentrically.

Depending on the alignment and station positions - South Riverdale/Eastern; Pape+Gerrard is ripe for development. Plus one shouldn't forget the opportunity to route extant streetcar lines towards DRL stations. Not to mention, the Yonge line isn't saturated because of development along it per se, but that combined with the effect of feeder routes into the line. DRL can serve the same purpose for densification not immediately along the route, but accessible by feeders (not to mention the impact of any northward extension of the line).

AoD

 

[rbt]

How? Nowhere along the DRL could or would accomodate that kind of development. Downtown financial core is already built out for the most part and certainly will be by 2030.

Any building within 1.5 km of Union, the DRL, and Yonge lines + St. Andrew which is under 15 floors is going to be fair game for redevelopment and upzoning.

Also, if transit capacity is the main limitation on commercial development why haven't we seen more development around the University subway?

We kinda are. 151 Front, the Convention center proposal, etc. are on the University side of town.

Walking distance from both GO Transit (Union Station) and the subway are extremely important.


I don't forsee office development along the length of the DRL; just 5 or 6 (FCP sized) buildings in area where DRL + Yonge + GO walking distances intersect.

Anything under 20 floors is going to be up for redevelopment unless we step up historical preservation requirements.


In effect, the DRL is creating an area similar to the Loop in Chicago but with a much smaller land area.

The whole Wellington/York/University block, Hotel Victoria and surrounding buildings, Southeast King/Yonge, The Bay (Queen & Yonge; far north but has a single owner), everything between Sheppard St. and Bay Street, etc.

I guess I'm just skeptical

As you should be.

that a DRL, in any configuration, would induce such huge demand that peak ridership would triple in 15 years (2030-> 2045). It will have taken Yonge nearly a century to reach those levels, and University isn't predicted to get there ever.

One thing worth noting is that growth is not linear and alternatives available are important. I'm making the assumption there will be no new highway growth (Yonge competed against Don Valley and Gardiner improvements); and GO will continue to put in the minimum effort.

 

[M II A II R II K]

And instead of the developers taking advantage of new transit and making all the profits and income for themselves the TTC budget should get a piece of that pie. Owning the land under new development to receive perpetual lease payments perhaps, or levying some kind of Crossrail tax on properties already along the route that would take advantage of the new transit. Maybe even have the TTC do some development along it's routes itself.

 

[andrewpmk]

dimunitive:



Except that historically the boundaries for the financial core isn't set in stone - and these things have a tendency to extend outward, concentrically.

Depending on the alignment and station positions - South Riverdale/Eastern; Pape+Gerrard is ripe for development. Plus one shouldn't forget the opportunity to route extant streetcar lines towards DRL stations. Not to mention, the Yonge line isn't saturated because of development along it per se, but that combined with the effect of feeder routes into the line. DRL can serve the same purpose for densification not immediately along the route, but accessible by feeders (not to mention the impact of any northward extension of the line).

AoD

Why won't Yonge/Eglinton & Yonge/Sheppard see substantial office development, once all available land within walking distance of Union is used up? This would make lines along Eglinton and Sheppard crowded (making LRT a bad choice for these routes). These two locations are much more desirable than Pape & Gerrard or Riverdale. Portlands I could see having substantial office development, maybe the area north of Exhibition GO as well, Pape/Gerrard seems unlikely (it's a fairly lower-middle class neighbourhood). Dundas West/Bloor ditto (this is a poor neighbourhood).

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

andrewpmk:

I didn't say it won't - what I am saying that historically the pattern of large office developments tend to be concentric, unless there are significant forces to locate it elsewhere (e.g. Paris - La Defense) or where there is such an overwhelming large node that would create agglomeration effects (e.g. Midtown Manhattan). And sorry, the projected ridership of Eglinton and Sheppard is so low vis-a-vis DRL that would make intensifying it pointless for the foreseeable future (and besides where it matters, both lines are already underground - it precludes nothing). Don't forget that the DRL is there to serve an existing purpose (i.e. the problem with the Yonge line) and not a hypothetical one, with a level of demand that far surpasses even the most optimistic projection for Eglinton or Sheppard.

AoD

 

[diminutive]

Except that historically the boundaries for the financial core isn't set in stone - and these things have a tendency to extend outward, concentrically.

But the number of DRL stations is inherently finite. The 'core' will only host a few stations. Notionally, we're talking about stations at Spadina/John, Univerity/York, Yonge and Sherbourne. By 2030, these areas are expected to have accommodated an extra 60,000 residents and 90,000 jobs (which would produce peak DRL demand >15k/pphpd, assuming Dundas West-Eglinton, see exhibit 4-10). Most empty lots have already been condo-fied, and by 2030 it's hard to imagine much open space left. What is left will be held dearly by heritage activists (see Mirvish-Gehry).

Now, rbt was assuming that by 2045 demand could reach ~45k/pphpd. That's growth of 30k/pphpd in 15 years! Between 2030 and 2045 there is simply no way enough new jobs and residences will be created along the DRL route, even including feeders, to produce this. The only area that could even fit the kind of growth this would imply (well over 100k new jobs, probably 200k) would be a kind of Canary Wharf new downtown around Don Mills/Eglinton, which wouldn't impact AM southbound demand much anyways.

This is simply 'if-you-build-it-they-will-come-ism' of the kind that lead us to believe Sheppard and Yonge would be an employment mecca. People on this board are hugely overestimating demand for the DRL. Look through the exhibits in section 4 of the DTRES study; the basic Pape-St.Andrew route is only expected to draw 11k/pphpd in 2030. That does not justify 500m$/km subway. Period. No plausible scenario will see this number going above 20k/pphpd by 2050.

The perverse result of this overzealousnessness is that the DRL is made more expensive than need be and significantly less likely to materialize.

 

[andrewpmk]

The trouble with putting all office space downtown is that (a) rent for prime office space near Union Station is high (b) the available space within walking distance of Union is largely being used up by condo developments. Once all the prime land within walking distance of Union Station is built up (will probably happen within ten years), new office space will be forced to go north, east and west. This pattern can be seen in many other major cities.

Toronto has got to be the only major city in the world where politicians are actively opposed to building subways, other than one short section of subway in downtown Toronto. This type of thinking is short-sighted. We need to be building subways to handle demand 50 years from now.

 

[nfitz]

Toronto has got to be the only major city in the world where politicians are actively opposed to building subways, other than one short section of subway in downtown Toronto. This type of thinking is short-sighted. We need to be building subways to handle demand 50 years from now.

I'm not seeing politicians actively opposed to building subways. Most of them agreed to the Spadina extension. Most will likely agree to the Yonge extension (assuming Phase 1 of the DRL is built). Most seemed to agree to the Eglinton line. There's even consideration still floating around for extending the Sheppard line to Downsview. Not to mention the DRL, which if constructed as discussed, is hardly a short section - at 6.3 km it's longer than the Sheppard line, and almost as long as the original Yonge line. With all 3 phases from Dundas West to Eglinton/Don Mills, it would be about 19 km long - that's longer than Finch to Union.

The most optimistic estimates for Sheppard East past Victoria Park were at a level, where BRT could likely handle the load. I don't see anything wrong with councillors - the guardians of our $ - opposing expensive tunnelling in places where demand isn't there, and won't be there for decades.

 

[11th]

Toronto has got to be the only major city in the world where politicians are actively opposed to building subways, other than one short section of subway in downtown Toronto. This type of thinking is short-sighted. We need to be building subways to handle demand 50 years from now.

They (most of them) aren't opposed to building subways. They are just given up on trying, since they cannot see the money for it coming anytime soon during their political lifetime.

 

[gweed123]

I'm not seeing politicians actively opposed to building subways. Most of them agreed to the Spadina extension. Most will likely agree to the Yonge extension (assuming Phase 1 of the DRL is built). Most seemed to agree to the Eglinton line. There's even consideration still floating around for extending the Sheppard line to Downsview. Not to mention the DRL, which if constructed as discussed, is hardly a short section - at 6.3 km it's longer than the Sheppard line, and almost as long as the original Yonge line. With all 3 phases from Dundas West to Eglinton/Don Mills, it would be about 19 km long - that's longer than Finch to Union.

The most optimistic estimates for Sheppard East past Victoria Park were at a level, where BRT could likely handle the load. I don't see anything wrong with councillors - the guardians of our $ - opposing expensive tunnelling in places where demand isn't there, and won't be there for decades.

I think the problem stems from a "one size fits all" mentality, on either side of the issue. The "subways everywhere" folk (commonly represented by the Fords) fail to take into account things like density, ridership projections, and funds when saying "there should be a subway here". The LRT folk commonly see it as the solution to almost everything, except when the ridership is so high that LRT wouldn't be able to handle it (ex: DRL).

And to be blunt, I don't think either side is right. Spending billions on a subway where it isn't needed is completely wasteful, both from a capital and from an operating perspective. But building LRTs where a less expensive option will have 80% of the benefit for 30% of the cost, and still be able to handle the projected demand, is wasteful as well. Sheppard East doesn't need to be LRT for the foreseeable future, Finch West doesn't need LRT for at least 20 years, and the SLRT has subway-level demand west of STC, and BRT-level demand east of it. The only corridor where LRT is truly the appropriate choice (and even that is debatable depending on the degree of grade separation with which it's built) is Eglinton. I'd throw the Waterfront West & East Bayfront LRTs into that bucket as well.

We need to stop overbuilding in some areas and starving other areas, just because the technology choice is in vogue, whatever that technology may be. Subways everywhere isn't the solution. LRTs everywhere isn't the solution either. BRTs everywhere isn't the solution either for that matter. Every technology choice does have its place though. The technology choice should be made at the END of the analysis, not the beginning.

 

[Solid Snake]

Scarborough subway line may have to wait: Toronto Mayor Rob Ford

http://www.torontosun.com/2012/10/22/scarborough-subway-line-may-have-to-wait-toronto-mayor-rob-ford

TORONTO - Mayor Rob Ford won’t push a Scarborough subway ahead of a downtown relief line if that goes against TTC staff advice.

Ford — who campaigned on building a subway to Scarborough — admitted Monday he’ll take TTC CEO Andy Byford’s advice when it comes to expanding the transit system despite the mayor’s promise.

But Ford again repeated his belief that more subways would be built in the city, including the Sheppard subway.

Byford has been voraciously advocating the need for a downtown relief line.

“I’m all in favour of subways,†Ford said. “I’m glad that people are thinking about subways.

“Now which one is a priority? That’s the one we’re going to have to sit down and talk about.â€

Despite council’s decision earlier this year to build the Eglinton LRT at street-level in Scarborough rather than below ground, Ford said he still wants the LRT to be buried in the city’s east end.

“And I want the Sheppard (subway extension) and eventually Finch (subway),†he said.

“Now if the relief line is more important, let’s get our priorities — what benefits the people of the city? That’s what we have to look at right now.â€

Asked if he’s open to the relief line being the city’s next transit priority, Ford said it is up to Byford.

“I’m open up to the idea that benefits the city, that benefits the users of the TTC,†he said.

“I campaigned on subways. We’re going to get subways — the relief line, the Sheppard line, Eglinton hopefully will go underground.

“Subways are coming to the city one way or another.â€

TTC chairman Karen Stintz said the issue isn’t the line but the funding to pay for it.

“That remains our ongoing challenge,†Stintz said.

She said transit commissioners on Wednesday will likely recommend further study of the downtown relief line.

“We already know we need it and the question remains how are we going to pay for it,†Stintz said. “We do need to get to the funding discussion, there is no question. And if we oly talk about lines on a map then we will only ever have lines on a map.

“We need to find a way to pay for them.â€