A Win-Win Transit Solution for TorontoCherise Burda and Graham

HainesFebruary 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

Recommended Compromise Plan

1. Finch West Express: New surface LRT line  

2. Eglinton Crosstown: New hybrid surface and underground LRT line

3. Scarborough Subway: Extension of the Bloor-Danforth subway  to replace the current SRT

4. 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

Finch Transit Options

Speed

km/h

Capacity

Projected RidershipRush hour riders

2031

Cost/km

$2010 Billions

Bus Rapid Transit (BRT)

~ 20 2700 4500 0.4

Light Rail Transit (LRT)

~25 8400 – 25,200

*

4500 0.9

*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 DriveCost: $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

Proposed transit line

Projected peak ridership 2031

Eglinton Crosstown 7,800

Scarborough RT 6,400* - 7,600**

Finch West 4,500

Sheppard East 3,100* – 5,300**

* 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

optionCost of Scarborough LRT: $1.8 BillionCost 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 EASTA 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

optionSheppard 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

SHEPPARD EAST: Options in perspective

Sheppard East options

LRT (Phase

1)

Subway Hybrid Line

Length (km) 12 8 12

Cost ($2010 billions)

$1.0 $2.9 $1.3

Cost per km ($2010 millions)

$85 $360 $113

Traffic lanes removed (km)

1.5 0 0

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

Proposed Subway

Extension

4 LRT Priority Projects Phase 1

Compromise Solution

Length (km) 18 52 50

Cost ($2010) $6.2 billion $8.7 billion $9.6 billion

Cost/km $344 million $167 million $192 million

Torontonians served *

185,000 460,000 440,000

Low Income population served

11,000 33,000 32,000

Cars out of gridlock

60,000-80,000 80,000-110,000 90,000-120,000

GHGs removed

75,000 132,000 143,000 *within 500 m of a transit stop

Line Length

(km)

Cost ($2010-

B)

Cost/km ($2010-

M)

Torontonians served*

Low-income

population reached

Scarborough (SRT) LRT (Phase 1)

9.9 1.8 184 100,000 5,900

Scarborough (SRT) Subway to Sheppard

8 2.4 300 82,000 4,800

Scarborough (SRT) Subway to SCC

6 1.8 300 61,200 3,600

Sheppard W. Subway (Yonge to Downsview)

4 1.5 375 45,000 2,800

Sheppard E. Subway(Don Mills to SCC)

8 2.9 363 82,000 4,800

Sheppard LRT (Phase 1)

12 1.0 85 122,400 7,200

Finch LRT (Phase 1)

11 0.9 85 78,100 7,600

Finch BRT (Phase 1)

11 0.4 40 78,100 7,600

Eglinton Crosstown(Phase 1)

19 4.9 258 155,800 12,000

Eglinton Crosstown – underground section only

11 3.3 300 90,200 7,000

Appendix 2: Line comparison – cost and service