[TOareaFan]

Ha ha - I noticed that too. You can't win.

Aren't the TTC and the city involved in the same sort of "reasoning" though? On the one hand opposing the extension of Yonge because it is too expensive and, given the densities, won't generate new riders while, on the other hand, saying that if you must extend Yonge you need to spend a couple of additional Billion dollars to make Yonge/Bloor capable of handling all of the additional riders that the extension will bring?

People are still looking at maps with lines. It should be obvious to anyone that ending the Yonge subway at Finch is entirely abstract so let's agree, for the sake of argument, it's natural terminus is further north.

Steeles is just as abstract. There is no difference between Willowdale and Thornhill aside from the municipal boundary. Now, just a few Km to the north, RHC is a provinically-designated with growth node AND a transit terminal serving the 407 Transitway, GO, Viva, YRT...so why on earth would you not extend the subway to there? Why would you have buses still running along Yonge south of 7? So people can take one form of transit to Hwy 7, another to Steeles and another to downtown?

Similarly on Spadina - no sane person can argue that Downsview is a natural terminus. And, again, once you've agreed it makes sense to take it York U and Steeles, why would you stop there with a major transit terminal and growth node 3 km away?

People need to stop looking at old maps and see the ENTIRE transit network. When Metrolinx is approving 3 different transit systems in the 7/407 corridor and people want to keep the subway at Finch or Steeles because it's what they're used to, it just sounds absurd.

I understand TTC is cash poor and I understand downtown is underserved but most of the anti-subway arguments just don't hold water - as seen by the mixed messages on this board about how:
a) There is no density to justify the stations
b) The new line will overload the system

Bang on....what confuses me, however, is that now that we have some people convinced that extending subways beyond the artificial barrier that is the city limit....why are we only considering doing it northward? Surely the lure of taking B-D west into Mississauga and to/near our airport must be tempting someone as a better option that taking two separate subways into York Region? Sure...if we can/could do it all they make sense but if we have a limited appetite at the transit buffet, should a westerly extension of B-D not take a bit of precedent over one of these northward extensions?

 

[MisterF]

I have seen the link before. And it makes a good point. LRT is much, much cheaper. Were to buy subways with our TC budget, Toronto would end up with about 20km of subway lines. That would be barely enough to finish Sheppard to the east and west and maybe have some spare capacity to finish the Yonge line extension. So although, TC has its flaws, it buys capacity and capability that this city could otherwise never attain. Let's face it, as long as other levels of government aren't committed to building the TTC (and there's no evidence Metrolinx is inclined to hand over new cash either) and Torontonians aren't willing to pay more in taxes to get there, subway construction will be an unaffordable pipe dream.

Well considering that the Downtown Core line alone is forecast to have as many riders all the on-street Transit City lines combined, I'd argue that Transit City doesn't buy more capacity and capability than subways at all.

As for an alternative to Transit City, I think we're creating an argument where there doesn't have to be one - nobody's proposing scrapping Transit City and replacing it with nothing but subways. Some routes need subways, some need light rail, and some need regional rail. That's what needs to be reflected in Transit City.

 

[jeicow]

Who pays for the subway? Vaughan? Richmond Hill? Missisauga?

One of the TTC's demands for actually constructing the subway is that they won't be responsible for the operating costs of the line, though they will collect the fares, operate it and decide on train frequency, service hours, etc. I believe it's a similar case with the the construction costs with York Region/the respective cities ponying up their 1/3 of the construction costs for their legs of the line. In no way is it a "free subway". If the TTC actually wanted a new subway line, they probably would have gotten funding for it by now through MO2020. The only "real" plans for the DRL are due to the actions of the regional transportation authority, not the city itself. And in regards to making the subway "regional infrastructure", I can imagine the city saying something along the lines of "from my cold, dead hands"

And I'm also not sure what Mississauga has to do with the subway extension since neither will get anywhere close to the city. If anything, Brampton will be impacted more but that's stretching it.

 

[Ansem]

Ha ha - I noticed that too. You can't win. And, as you rightly point out, Toronto is not Montreal in terms of physical geography or overall transit/road network. Was the new Montreal line part of an overall regional transit plan with new LRT, BRT and other rapid transit? I don't think it was..

I'm not against the project. I'm against its priority rank and the fact that the suburbs are not paying their share to maintain it.

DRL should be #1
It's ''density'' justify its construction way more than expansion beyond Steeles.

The new line in Laval is connect to the commuter train that is connected to the Blue line and the future Parc LRT and with all the BRT that foes to that station by the way

People are still looking at maps with lines. It should be obvious to anyone that ending the Yonge subway at Finch is entirely abstract so let's agree, for the sake of argument, it's natural terminus is further north....

Agree, both to steeles for now

Steeles is just as abstract. There is no difference between Willowdale and Thornhill aside from the municipal boundary. Now, just a few Km to the north, RHC is a provinically-designated with growth node AND a transit terminal serving the 407 Transitway, GO, Viva, YRT...so why on earth would you not extend the subway to there? Why would you have buses still running along Yonge south of 7? So people can take one form of transit to Hwy 7, another to Steeles and another to downtown?

Because they are no contributing to the TTC as taxpayers and its unfair to those living in Scarborough, Eglington and Etobicoke who pay taxes and have no subway?

Similarly on Spadina - no sane person can argue that Downsview is a natural terminus. And, again, once you've agreed it makes sense to take it York U and Steeles, why would you stop there with a major transit terminal and growth node 3 km away?

Because they are no contributing to the TTC as taxpayers and its unfair to those living in Scarborough, Eglington and Etobicoke who pay taxes and have no subway?

People need to stop looking at old maps and see the ENTIRE transit network. When Metrolinx is approving 3 different transit systems in the 7/407 corridor and people want to keep the subway at Finch or Steeles because it's what they're used to, it just sounds absurd.

Well their taxes being use to give subway service to another city is one thing is you have a COMPLETE subway network but having your taxes use to acommodate another city while you dont have a station because you live in a part of town that don't have it is wrong espacially when your paying taxes for it.

I understand TTC is cash poor and I understand downtown is underserved but most of the anti-subway arguments just don't hold water - as seen by the mixed messages on this board about how:
a) There is no density to justify the stations
b) The new line will overload the system..

No you don't understand. The TTC is one of the very few systems who get no subvention from the government.

While the B argument about overloading the line was to make you realise that DRL is mandatory for the York extension to be succesful

The C argument is that York wont pay to maintain the system which will be an extra cost for the TTC and Toronto tax payer to absorbs which is unfair.

I can't say enough times on this board how obviously shortsighted city/TTC is. If I can give a non-transit example of this mentality: Everyone who drives on Steeles Avenue knows what a mess it is - it tops that "Worst Road" poll every year. It is 100% Toronto's road but they don't want to pay to fix it because, obviously, people from York Region drive on it too. So it gets worse and worse, year after year, because Toronto wants someone else to pay their "fare share." So they fix their internal roads and leave Steeles to rot. Toronto cares about Toronto first and has little regard for the degree to which they are part of a larger region but there IS a larger region and it's time to wake up to that.

I hate those kind of stupid fight as much as you do. Fighting over a street is dumb I agree.

But the larger region mentality goes both ways. Why should Toronto ''tax payer and the TTC'' absorb the extra cost alone. If your sincere with the regional mentality, York region should share the cost.

Then...I will be a 100% for the project if builf after or at the same time as the DRL

 

[jeicow]

Surely the lure of taking B-D west into Mississauga and to/near our airport must be tempting someone as a better option that taking two separate subways into York Region? Sure...if we can/could do it all they make sense but if we have a limited appetite at the transit buffet, should a westerly extension of B-D not take a bit of precedent over one of these northward extensions?

No one in the west is advocating for a subway extension in that direction, like York Region did. The City of Mississauga, for the most part, sees a subway extension as a money pit. Outside of the downtown core and terminal stations, most of the subway line isn't all that profitable and the city doesn't really want to spend the money subsidizing something that expensive. As for the airport, B-D would need to take a huge turn to get that far north and there isn't much along the way through that part of Etobicoke. If anything, an Eglinton line would serve it better, like as planned with the LRT for the avenue. How long that trip will actually take from the subway though is another question completely.

 

[kEiThZ]

You guys are missing the point. It's a simple matter of money and customer service. Even if Steeles did not exist as a municipal boundary, the question posed by Miller would be a valid one. Does it make sense to extend the line, overburden it and drastically downgrade service for many loyal customers who use the line today? I for one agree that it makes sense to extend the line. And I also agree that the density to bring in ridership will be there if the line is extended. However, it makes no sense to start serving new customers and simultaneously screw the ones you serve right now. The province needs to understand that the line needs additional capacity, particularly for Yonge/Bloor if it is to be extended. And there should be an equitable settlement for the cost of those upgrades. I think the Mayor is spot on with that very reasonable argument.

And the same goes for extending the line into 'sauga....though that's arguably easier because it might not necessarily overload the BD line.

 

[kEiThZ]

Does anyone know when the next EA will be done after Sheppard?

Also, since they're starting construction from the east, anybody got details on where the first hole in the ground will be?

 

[ShonTron]

The first hole in the ground is for the Uxbridge Sub grade separation at Agincourt GO. That will likely be as much as they start for this year, and since this is a needed infrastructure project anyway, it doesn't preclude changes or cancellation of TC either.

The next EA to finish will be Finch West, one TC line that I don't have much of a problem with. It will likely be complete within the next few months. Eglinton is also part of this batch.

 

[TJ O'Pootertoot]

I'm not against the project. I'm against its priority rank and the fact that the suburbs are not paying their share to maintain it.

DRL should be #1
It's ''density'' justify its construction way more than expansion beyond Steeles.

It's a legit argument - and yet neither the TTC nor Metrolinx think it's a #1 priority. If Toronto had lobbied for it, it would be higher on the regional list. It still goes to my argument that TTC has no long term vision beyond "Light rail everywhere!"

Because they are no contributing to the TTC as taxpayers and its unfair to those living in Scarborough, Eglington and Etobicoke who pay taxes and have no subway?

That's no reason at all. Firstly, the tax argument has been debunked here - taxpayers account for something like 13% of TTC's budget. In the meantime, everyone north of Steeles is paying double fares even if they are 1km north of the border so, they are paying a fare share.

Stopping at Steeles ignores the reality of how people move from A to B and, anyway, it's only a matter of time until Metrolinx comes up with a regional funding plan. It will happen before these extensions open, rendering the argument moot.

Your talk of Richmond Hill/Vaughan being "another city" also misses the point. The train isn't travelling through vast fields to reach some outlying area. There is plenty of CITY north of Finch. All that changes is the government and that's no more reason for stopping the subway than ending the 404 or Yonge Street or anything else at Steeles.

I'm well aware of, and totally sympathize with TTC's lack of public funding. But you're off base when you say it's unfair York Region won't pay to operate the subway line - TTC WANTS to operate it 100% and they will also keep 100% of the fares and parking fees.

York Region is sharing the cost of BUILDING the line, and has done all the design work on Yonge Street so, all due respect, I think they are certainly doing their fare share on all counts.

Again, if Toronto advocated for a DRL the way York Region advocated for their lines, it would be on the table. That, I argue, is further proof TTC has no clue how to build a system that serves the GTA, to say nothing of 416 which is what this really comes down to. If you want to see improved overall transit in the GTA you have to be concerned about how the biggest, single component of that (ie TTC) is handling their side of things.

 

[rbt]

One of the TTC's demands for actually constructing the subway is that they won't be responsible for the operating costs of the line, though they will collect the fares, operate it and decide on train frequency, service hours, etc.

That was operating shortfall. The Yonge extension is likely to make a profit in the long run but the first 10 to 15 years after built it will require subsidies.

Might be better than the buses but TTC didn't pay for YRT bus route subsidies. Anyway, they just want to be sure that York Region or the province will fund the shortfall just like they do any TTC bus routes that enter York Region.


This is a very sane thing to do. You wouldn't want a fare increase for downtown streetcars as a result of the Yonge subway line opening?

 

[kEiThZ]

Back to discussing Transit City....

We should use the other thread to scrap about the Yonge extension....

 

[scarberiankhatru]

http://lrt.daxack.ca/LRTvsHRT/CostCompare.html

Usually, 1km of subway can buy you about 6km of above ground LRT. But with both the Yonge and Spadina subway extensions both costing about $300-350 million per km. Whereas regular above ground LRT would cost about $40 million per km; the 1 km of subway would buy about 8-9km of LRT in Toronto.

In terms of Transit City,... 7 LRT lines,... with the most expensive Eglinton crosstown being about $2.2 billion because part of it is underground (the underground part is basically as expensive to build as an underground subway). Pick the average Transit City LRT line (can't be Eglinton!) and if you were to convert that one average Transit City LRT line to underground Subway, it would basically cost the same as the entire Transit City budget (well money they still need to get) for all 7 LRT lines.

Those numbers (and, in turn, that website) lie. Transfer City has already ballooned above $40M/km, to something closer to $70M/km. On the other hand, the Spadina and Yonge subway extensions have ballooned as well and will be overbuilt. If you and others are going to insist that LRT costs $40M/km and subways cost $350M/km, realize that both are these numbers are not set in stone and you're spreading blatant misinformation by falling back on them. For one thing, the LRTs won't all be above ground, and subways don't need to be 100% below ground. We can easily design LRT lines that are more expensive than subways, this city has just chosen not to.

When you're basing your opposition to subways/support of LRT *solely* on the erroneous ratio of the cost of them compared to how many coloured lines you get on a transit map, please, please, please, use real figures. By using the minumum of one and the maximum of the other and failing to acknowledge the reality in between, your argument is pathetically weak.

 

[sunnyraytoronto]

Originally Posted by sunnyraytoronto
http://lrt.daxack.ca/LRTvsHRT/CostCompare.html

Usually, 1km of subway can buy you about 6km of above ground LRT. But with both the Yonge and Spadina subway extensions both costing about $300-350 million per km. Whereas regular above ground LRT would cost about $40 million per km; the 1 km of subway would buy about 8-9km of LRT in Toronto.

In terms of Transit City,... 7 LRT lines,... with the most expensive Eglinton crosstown being about $2.2 billion because part of it is underground (the underground part is basically as expensive to build as an underground subway). Pick the average Transit City LRT line (can't be Eglinton!) and if you were to convert that one average Transit City LRT line to underground Subway, it would basically cost the same as the entire Transit City budget (well money they still need to get) for all 7 LRT lines.

Those numbers (and, in turn, that website) lie. Transfer City has already ballooned above $40M/km, to something closer to $70M/km. On the other hand, the Spadina and Yonge subway extensions have ballooned as well and will be overbuilt. If you and others are going to insist that LRT costs $40M/km and subways cost $350M/km, realize that both are these numbers are not set in stone and you're spreading blatant misinformation by falling back on them. For one thing, the LRTs won't all be above ground, and subways don't need to be 100% below ground. We can easily design LRT lines that are more expensive than subways, this city has just chosen not to.

When you're basing your opposition to subways/support of LRT *solely* on the erroneous ratio of the cost of them compared to how many coloured lines you get on a transit map, please, please, please, use real figures. By using the minumum of one and the maximum of the other and failing to acknowledge the reality in between, your argument is pathetically weak.

$2.4 billion 6.8 km 6 station Yonge subway extension from Finch to Richmond Hill Centre ($352.9 million/km)
$2.8 billion 8.6 km 6 station Spadina Subway Extension from Downsview to Vaughan Corporate Centre ($325.6 million/km)
http://www.thestar.com/article/538111

Note: The entire Yonge Subway Extension is UNDERGROUND. Most of the Spadina Subway Extension is underground with the exception of a bridge over Hwy 407,.. BTW, that part north of Steeles to Hwy 7 will cost $1 Billion.

I'm wondering where you get your $70 million per Km for LRT line? Oh, that's right you're only looking at the most expensive line,... the $2.2 Billion 31 km Eglinton LRT crosstown that includes UNDERGROUND between Laird Drive in the east to Keele Street in the west ($71.0 million per km). And not all the others!

By using the most expensive of ONE LRT line and failing to acknowledge the OTHER LRT lines, your argument is pathetically weak!

The other Transit City LRT lines are still in the $40 million per km area, since they are above ground.

"In total, 120 km of service will be added over the entire city. By 2021, the new lines would carry 175 million riders per year. The estimated cost including vehicles is $6,100 million."
($50.8 million per km) This is the average of all LRT lines, both above ground and underground!
http://www.toronto.ca/involved/projects/transit_city/index.htm

BTW, subways are extremely expensive in Toronto because the TTC uses such wide cars,... most other subway systems uses much narrower subway cars,... and thus only have to dig one tunnel that can be used to lay down two sets of tracks going in both directions,... whereas the TTC needs to dig out two parallel tunnels, one for each direction. Since LRT are much narrower than the subways TTC uses, I'm sure they'll only be digging out one tunnel for the underground LRT instead of 2 parallel tunnels.

 

[Brandon716]

If anyone looked at my Pittsburgh T photos for the Willow station on the Overbrook line, the point was to show how large the platforms are. They can only fit two car trains on this system.

If Transit City goes ahead as planned, they need to build platforms on the Eglinton Crosstown line that can take at least double what our system allows.

My station here at Willow is a platform station that you have to pay before getting on the platform during rush hour, Toronto I doubt would work like that. It'd have to be entirely a system with pre-pay, which I assume is what all of Transit City would be like given what the marketing materials say.

And for those that skipped the video, here goes:

http://home.comcast.net/~b26pa/SSPX0038.wmv

Its probably hard to visualize with this crappy cell phone video, but the capacity on this LRT isn't enough for Toronto's ridership numbers.

 

[Whoaccio]

I could swear I have seen this exact conversation before.

Anywhoo, I find the argument thrown out by Milleristas and Giambronians about the need for implementing a DRL before a Yonge extension extremely disingenuous. Why? Miller et al have been in office for 7 odd years now. In those 7 years, they have proposed billions of dollars in LRT construction and approved billions more in subway and (hilariously) ICTS expansion. Not once have they even given the DRL the courtesy of drawing fictitious 'lines on maps' or implemented the vaguest of feasibility studies. The same goes for the Bloor/Yonge station upgrades.

Now, all of a sudden, Giambrone and Miller are left right and center going on about how those evil 905ers are taking precious seats from Y/Eg. (Ignore for the moment the environmental benefits of a 905er taking transit are greater than a closer 416er) and how unless the province agrees with their arbitrary 2.5b dollar grab bag of projects, the city will implode on itself. Nowhere does it mention that they themselves have prioritized billions of dollars in LRT construction to Malvern with seemingly no logic, which might as well be an honorary part of the 905, over what they imply are mortal challenges for Toronto.

I think just about everyone here, and indeed most Torontonians, agrees that a DRL of sorts is necessary and should have been built a long time ago. That doesn't somehow translate into a beggar-thy-neighbor approach to transit planning. In my mind, the Richmond Hill extension is clearly more beneficial to Toronto than the coming LRT fest in Malvern and the inscrutable Jane Line (where does it go? who does it carry?).