330 likes | 536 Views
A Win-Win Transit Solution for Toronto. Cherise Burda and Graham Haines February 17, 2011. A transit solution for Toronto. TTC and Metrolinx are developing a new transit plan for Toronto: a compromise between subway extensions and more cost-effective light-rail transit.
E N D
A Win-Win Transit Solution for Toronto Cherise Burda and Graham Haines February 17, 2011
A transit solution for Toronto • TTC and Metrolinx are developing a new transit plan for Toronto: a compromise between subway extensions and more cost-effective light-rail transit. • This is the Pembina Institute’s analysis of the options on the table and our recommended best compromise transit plan for Toronto.
A win-win transit solution: • Serves four corners of the city • Offers an appropriate mix of subway, LRT, surface and underground • Is fiscally responsible — matches ridership with required capacity • Prioritizes projects that can begin construction now • Is cost effective — aims for highest ridership per dollar invested • Minimizes car lane loss to transit lines
Funds are limited • A transit plan should aim to bring rapid transit to the doorsteps of as many Torontonians as possible. • Dollars spent unwisely in one area means less money for the rest of the system.
Recommended Compromise Plan • Finch West Express: New surface LRT line • Eglinton Crosstown: New hybrid surface and underground LRT line • Scarborough Subway: Extension of the Bloor-Danforth subway to replace the current SRT • Sheppard East: A hybrid line that includes: • Underground subway or LRT on Sheppard from Don Mills to Pharmacy • Surface LRT between Pharmacy and Meadowvale
1. FINCH WEST EXPRESS 11 km of new surface LRT rapid transit line on Finch Cost: $0.9 billion
FINCH: Relief for a crowded bus Finch West 36 is currently the busiest bus route in Toronto and will only get busier. • Current bus service cannot support the demand • Finch needs rapid transit with greater capacity and frequency
FINCH: Rapid transit to those who need it most Finch is the highest and fastest-growing population of low-income, immigrant, single-parent and youth populations in the city. • Many of these residents cannot afford vehicles and have to travel further to find employment. • Currently are the most underserved by rapid transit • Lack of transit access is a main cause of increasing poverty in these areas. • Providing rapid transit would help to reverse this trend.
FINCH: Cost effective The Finch surface LRT is the most cost effective transit line on the table. • Finch is an 11 km “bargain” for less than $1 billion • Compare this to 8 km of Sheppard subway at $3 billion
FINCH: Cost-effective options Right-of-way bus rapid transit (BRT) • Half the cost • Can be implemented quickly, and replaced by LRT over time • However….Would not provide the needed capacity: • Projected ridership: 4,500 people per hour per direction • BRT maximum capacity: 3,000. • LRT capacity: Over 8,400 • Speed and ‘attractiveness’ of LRT brings in more new riders than a BRT • Therefore, LRT for Finch is recommended in this compromise plan
Comparison: Transit options for Finch *8400 for one-vehicle trains; 25,200 for three-vehicle trains operating at crush load (280 passengers per vehicle)
FINCH: It makes sense • The most cost-effective transit line on the table • Serves the largest low-income population that needs transit • Right-of-way rapid transit line would not take away lanes of traffic away from vehicles • (Except for 300 metres at the CPR bridge)
2. EGLINTON CROSSTOWN Surface LRT between Kennedy station and Jane St; underground currently between Laird and Black Creek Drive Cost: $4.9 billion
EGLINTON: Time to build, not debate • Eglinton has broad support as a priority line • Groundwork has been done, including time-consuming environmental assessments • Boring machines have been bought and paid for and construction can begin now on the underground section • Phase One of the Crosstown is fully funded by Metrolinx
EGLINTON: Highest projected ridership * peak ridership for LRT ** peak ridership for subway
EGLINTON: Linking the City • Eglinton Crosstown creates a complete link across the city. • Begin with the 11 km underground section, and consider how best to complete the additional 8 km of phase one • Phase 2 (not included in this plan) would eventually connect the “Crosstown” line to Pearson airport
3. SCARBOROUGH SUBWAY • 8 km extension of Bloor-Danforth subway to replace aging SRT • New routing, runs from Kennedy Station to Sheppard Ave E (connects with Sheppard E LRT) Cost: $2.4 billion
SCARBOROUGH SUBWAY: Minimizing surface disruption • SRT is aging, running at overcapacity and needs to be replaced. • A Scarborough LRT (proposed under Transit City) would upgrade the current SRT; a Bloor-Danforth Subway extension would build along a new route. • Therefore a subway would minimize disruption for riders, because current SRT could continue to function while the subway is being constructed.
SCARBOROUGH SUBWAY: Capacity and cost • For cost-effectiveness, subways require minimum peak ridership of 10,000 to 15,000 people per hour per direction • Projected peak ridership of Scarborough is: 7600. However, ridership could increase by: • Linking with the Sheppard LRT would bring higher ridership (part of our proposal) • Linking with the Danforth-Bloor subway line
SCARBOROUGH SUBWAY: A costlier compromise option Cost of Scarborough LRT: $1.8 Billion Cost of Scarborough Subway extension: $2.4 Billion • Subway is more expensive but comes with benefits: • Service can continue on existing SRT during construction • Cost more comparable to underground LRT than a subway on Sheppard • Higher potential ridership on Scarborough Subway relative to cost • Link to Sheppard LRT link could increase ridership and further justify cost and capacity
4. SHEPPARD EAST A hybrid line that includes: • 2 km of subway or underground LRT from Don Mills to between Victoria Park and Pharmacy • Cost: $0.5 billion • 9 km above-ground LRT from Victoria Park/Pharmacy to Morningside • Cost: $0.8 billion
SHEPPARD EAST: Cost effectiveness • Subway will cost over four times as much per kilometre as LRT • Eight kilometres of Sheppard subway would consume 1/3 of the total available transit budget for the next ten years
SHEPPARD EAST: Capacity and fiscal responsibility • For cost-effectiveness, minimum peak ridership (people per hour per direction) • Subways: 10,000 to 15,000 • LRT: 3000 to 5300 • Projected peak ridership (Sheppard, 2031): 3,100 to 5,300 • Population is not sufficient to support a subway
SHEPPARD EAST: win-win solution for drivers and transit riders • A full Sheppard LRT would lose 1.5 km of traffic lanes east from Consumers Road • Therefore, extending the underground section from Don Mills to Pharmacy retains all traffic lanes • No traffic lanes will be needed to accommodate surface LRT from Pharmacy to Morningside
SHEPPARD EAST: A fiscally responsible option Sheppard Express “hybrid line” of 2 km underground (LRT or subway) and 10 km surface LRT • Removes no traffic lanes • One-third of the cost of the proposed subway • Serves 1.5 times more people than proposed subway
RECOMMENDED COMPROMISE PLAN: Overview • Balances mix of subway, LRT, underground and surface rapid transit • Serves all four corners of the city • Matches appropriate transit capacity with population density and projected demand • Fiscally responsible • Environmental assessments complete on Eglinton Crosstown, Sheppard East and Finch West Express — work can commence
RECOMMENDED COMPROMISE PLAN: By the Metric • Proposed lines bring rapid transit to the doorsteps of 440,000 Torontonians • Will bring rapid transit to 32,000 low-income people • Will remove between 90,000 and 120,000 cars out of gridlock • Will reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 143,000 tonnes
Meeting the budget • This compromise solution: $9.6* billion** • Most recent funded (LRT) plan on the table: $8.7* billion • Extra cost of compromise solution is due to added underground subway and subway yard (if needed) *2010 dollars non-accelerated **Additional $500 million may be required if a new rail yard is needed to service Bloor-Danforth extension (Scarborough Subway)
Meeting the budget • Additional funds are needed to ensure a balanced plan that services the city’s regions fairly and brings a compromise to subway and LRT supporters. • Shortfall could be financed by various levels of government: Federal, Provincial and/or Municipal. • Any private financing agreements via future development charges should be made for transit projects that match ridership with capacity and are low risk.
Appendix 1: Transit plans in perspective *within 500 m of a transit stop