Rocket Talk: Can Sunday Subway Service Start Sooner?
Newsstand: November 19, 2009
Gender Studies Coming to a High School Near You
Please Insert Station and Try Again
The Art of Not Knowing
Dreaming up ways to improve the TTC is a popular pastime in Toronto. And while most of us just daydream about additional stations and routes, Dieter Janssen, a professor of architecture at the University of Toronto, is turning ideas into possible blueprints for the future. Janssen hopes that his fantasy map (above), which he developed while doing research for the urban infrastructure and design class that he teaches, will invite debate over the future of Toronto's transit system. "It’s painfully obvious that infrastructure, at least in the GTA, has to be much more developed than anything that they’re proposing," Janssen told Torontoist. "The TTC needs to properly address its future…people actually rely on the system and that needs to be properly respected."
Janssen’s map introduces four new subway lines and extends all of the pre-existing ones; some of the new stops on the map include Pearson International Airport, York University, the Ontario Science Centre, and the Toronto Zoo. Although the map includes the much-sought-after downtown relief line, the biggest additions are to the city's edges. "Without creating a system that just favoured the downtown core—which definitely needs more service than just streetcars—I wanted to create something that was more comprehensive for the GTA," explained Janssen. "Places like Scarborough, Downsview, and Willowdale…they’re incredibly isolated, and unless you own a car, it’s going to take forever to get anywhere…That just doesn’t work." The map also incorporates some of the TTC’s Transit City plans, but ignores other projects, like the Spadina extension, which, according to Janssen, is just another band-aid that fails to take into account long-term geographic considerations.
To pay for his proposed expansion, or any other large-scale developments, Janssen believes that the TTC should raise fares and reinstate fare zones. "If people truly value a system like this, they’re going to have to understand that it costs money and they’re going to have to pay for it. There’s one way of doing it which is by fares, and another way which is by taxes. I think fares just seem like a more honest way of doing it." (Though, he admits, a fare hike probably wouldn't come close to covering the costs.)
"I realize asking for the 2030 date is asking for a heck of a lot," concluded Janssen. "At the very minimum I think the downtown relief line, in its current form, needs to be revisited and started as soon as possible."
add to stumble upon
add to reddit
tweet this
post to facebook
"Fair."
I'm not even going to mention "St Catherines", because that's too common to bother anymore, but honestly. Fair is something you go south of Hamilton to attend.
Guh?
The full-sized image says "fair rates".
The full-size map says "Fair [sic] Zone A" etc.
Otherwise this is awesome but "wouldn't come close" is an understatement. Google can tell you the per-kilometre cost of new subway in Toronto (don't use e.g. Madrid figures; labour standards are way too low); measure the lines on this map and multiply. Compare with John Baird's theatrics over a request for a measly $1.2 billion for some streetcars.
According to Janssen: "'Fair' is deliberate, as in reasonable fare rates for reasonable service."
That is a horrible pun (perhaps I should say horrible deliberate misuse?), but fair enough.
I agree that $2 in 2009 dollars for York Centre to STC is reasonable, but unfortunately I don't see that happening.
Someday I'll finish my own crazy TTC future map, which includes a station on Centre Island, and three lines going through Union.
Alright, I've finished my crazy TTC future map.
how there currently is not a fare zone, i have no idea....
the downtown core should be $1.50. north of the danforth and south of lawrence, east of ossington and west of vic park = $2.50. anything beyond that should be $4.
There used to be two zones. I'm against it, personally, but it seems almost certain that a more complicated fare structure will be introduced when Presto (or whatever it becomes) is eventually rolled out.
It's a good thing he acknowledges that fare increases can't possibly cover the billions of dollars it would cost to build this dream system -- a $5/ride fare probably wouldn't even cover the added operating costs until population and ridership growth catch up with what would initially be massive over-capacity. The problem with using user-pay to fund (more) of public transit is that much of the value in public transit comes not from the convenience/utility to riders but in savings to non-riders. Riders value transit, non-riders don't, but all benefit. It's a public good, and letting non-riders free ride (ha!) is no more "honest" than the alternative.
...and once again I'll point out that MTR Corp. in Hong Kong makes most of its money from managing properties above, in and around its transit stations:
http://www.mtr.com.hk/eng/investrelation/images/finhighlight_operatingprofi.gif
...whereas the TTC historically hasn't bothered to build even multi-level parking garages on its lots to increase income.
It's not clear to me that Toronto's real estate situation is remotely comparable to that of Hong Kong. Which stations do you think would benefit from multi-level parking garages -- and how long would it take to recoup the additional tens of millions (or more?) in construction cost by selling parking? Some stations could use more and better parking, but that's not to say that they'd even pay their own way let alone fund transit operations. Witness the outcry over the pay-parking at existing TTC lots.
I have to admit that even if the property markets were comparable, I'm not qualified to compare them.
A good example is Tridel's Nuvo/Essex development at Kipling station. Compare the footprint with the North or South TTC lots at the same station. I realize we're in a temporary real estate market downturn, but certainly Tridel didn't break ground expecting to break even or lose money. With three towers' worth of units adding to the housing supply in that neighbourhood, perhaps the opportunity for the TTC to similarly redevelop its lots is now lost.
At Downsview, Hampton Place was recently completed just east of the station (and deemed Pugly). Liberty Development apparently thinks there is still demand for hundreds of units in the area.
You could even compare Bathurst station with one block of the Village development over the McCaul streetcar loop.
Again, I'm not suited to judge whether these would be worthwhile investments. What dismays me is that these—and other examples I have no doubt overlooked—are not even being studied, so the initiative (and revenue) automatically accrues to private developers.
To be clear, I used a parking garage as a simplest-case example. My point was that nothing, no matter how straightforward, has been considered.
Yes, because property values in Hong Kong are comparable with property values in Toronto.
If you include Peel and York Regions, then we have a fare zone system.
I note that among multiple pairs of stations with the same name (kind of inevitable with the grid if you intend to stick with naming stations after cross streets), there are two Morningside stations, on opposite ends of the city.
Also, what is the purpose of two lines traversing the entire city two kilometres apart?
Fare zones are an interesting idea, but higher fares? No way in hell people would go for that, especially since we've had what, two fare hikes in four years? (I think). It's a paradox: higher fares mean more money to improve service, but it's hard to justify higher fares without first improving the service.
Higher fares might be easier to swallow if transfers were more flexible, i.e., if a single fare payment meant you had 90 or 120 minutes to use the system in any direction, rather than then one-way only/no walking to connecting stops/transfer at operator's discretion ludicrousness we have now.
In 2030, there should only be one public transit system in the GTA.
Why is that? Cities like Osaka and Seoul have multiple systems, but they work together.
Rek:
Buses in Seoul are operated the Seoul Metropolitan Government. Subways are operated by three public companies: Korail, Seoul Metro and Seoul Metropolitan Rapid Transit Corporation. So you have a whopping four operators that appear to be owned by two government entities.
Granted, commuter & high speed rail in Osaka is largely a private sector affair. But subway and bus service is operated by the Osaka Municipal Transportation Bureau.
This is basically just rewarding sprawl. A bit more intensification in and around the downtown core is an easier and much cheaper way to dealing with a growing population. Not building subway lines to the suburbs.
The inner suburbs (scarbourough and etobicoke) are where we need to intensify and subways will help that. Subways combat sprawl.
Dieter Janssen I suspect is not an expert in "urban infrastructure and design". His website says "DJA is a design studio with projects in environment design, furniture, graphic design, photography and a variety of other related explorations." According to the university, he is a Lecturer and not a Professor.
http://www.daniels.utoronto.ca/people/faculty/bios/dieter_janssen
Add to that the illiterate use of "fair" (I do not accept the explanation that it was a pun), and the fact that I drew fantasy transit maps like this in Grade 10 Geography class, we should all disregard this fluff and try asking experts, and try to stop re-inventing the wheel.
As many have mentioned above, all of Toronto's transit issues have been successfully solved all over Asia and Europe.
And speaking of experts, why not try a source that is not only expert and comprehensive, but even Canadian!
http://www.vtpi.org/
Cheers,
TokyoTuds
Artists and writers are useful when engineers often fail in thinking outside of the box, but this example isn't particularly inspiring.
Bring on the experts!
It's a shame you've become an dry old fart who can't have some fun drawing a map like you did as a kid.
So what if he isn't qualified, it's not like the TTC hired him to draw up the plans for Transit City.
Hehehe ... Rek ... I never mentioned in my post the things I like to do now to have as much fun as I did when I was a kid. My Grade 10 project was for grades, not for fun. An ad hominem attack doesn't become you, and I recall that you and I have agreed on many things in the past and exchanged ideas: perhaps you meant calling me "an (sic) dry old fart" in light-hearted jest .... :-)
Dieter Janssen is presented as a professional in the field, although I will give some leeway in that this is presented as a "fantasy map". Todd Litman at the VTPI would have useful, expert things to say about Toronto's transit system.
I will also give some leeway in that Mr. Janssen says he hopes that this will promote more discussion on the topic. That is what we are doing here, and I'd like to see your ideas explained or references given as I have done above. For example, you correctly point out above the successes of Osaka and Seoul with mixed systems.
Cheers,
Tuds
P.S. I think you and I are in the same camp, let's try and build on the ideas, and create success through collaboration.
It was light-hearted. Dry old fart? Who says that?
Thanks everyone for their commentary - it's very much appreciated.
Though there's been a good deal said about fare zones (I'll refrain from puns), the ambition of a system that promotes this kind of focus on development within Toronto is to prompt a viable density within the GTA borders. Sprawl and low density generally is currently the condition. Queen Street, for example, is a major east-west route yet it is defined by buildings that are far too small in terms of their F.A.R. to be effective contributors to the city. New construction that is single-use and limited in size is a waste, yet it continues.
TokyoTuds - I appreciate your comments as well and though I've been teaching in architecture programmes since 1996 and part of urban infrastructure projects in NYC, Portland OR and Berlin DE, that's not necessarily the focus of my practice.
The map has been created to begin a discussion since the Metrolinx plan, as developed as it is, seems not to have much focus on a rapid, mass transit option for the GTA. Streetcars, even LRT lines, are simply not good enough (and apparently subject to all manner of interruptions).
Posting this map here was intended to see how people might respond or react to rethinking the geography of the city if suddenly places were made accessible. How do you get to the “Junction” for example? If you found yourself living next to a subway stop, how would that effect where you might choose to live? Acting as a catalyst, what other expectations would this bring with it?
I think you're underestimating streetcars, especially their ability to provide cost-effective local service.
Let's consider what you've done with Roncesvalles. You're splashing out for three new underground stations, counting the one down at Queen, plus major new construction at Dundas West, to replace no fewer than a dozen streetcar stops. That's a serious reduction in convenience for local transit users.
Someone who uses it more frequently than I do can ring in on the accuracy of its estimates, but I asked MyTTC.ca to plan a trip from Dundas West station down to Roncesvalles and Queen. It figures that that would take (very roughly) ten minutes on the streetcar. But how long would it take if it were a three-stop subway ride? Well, Dundas West to Ossington is three stops and only a little farther, and it also seems to take about ten minutes.
Now, MyTTC.ca also thinks that a three stop ride in the other direction, to Runnymede, would take only three minutes, so I'm not so sure that any of these figures is entirely reliable. But since two kilometres of subway, including stations, would end up costing not an awful lot less than $500,000,000.00, can we really say that on-street light rail is "simply not good enough"? And with the money you'd have to spend on staffing those three new subway stations alone, couldn't you hire traffic cops to keep cars and trucks out of the streetcars' way, or service managers to make the TTC's surface operations more consistent?
"You're splashing out for three new underground stations, counting the one down at Queen, plus major new construction at Dundas West, to replace no fewer than a dozen streetcar stops."
That's a minor criticism in light of the fact a King West subway line with Dieter's proposed stops would make the Entertainment District, Liberty Village, Parkdale, the CNE (2 blocks south), and West Queen West (a block north) much easier (faster) to access from beyond Downtown, and serve as the much-talked-about Downtown Relief Line, meaning better service on the Bloor and Yonge/University lines in rush hour.
This map has inspired me to resume work on my own (it's nearly done!).
Shouldn't a DRL connect to the Danforth subway a lot more west than Victoria Park?
I see a second line at Broadview doing just that.
Yes, with an extra transfer.
"Extra" depends on where you're coming from and where you're going. For someone living in Vaughan but working near Liberty Village, it's one transfer. Living right at Coxwell station? Two transfers — same as it is now.
Dieter Janssen writes:
Streetcars, even LRT lines, are simply not good enough (and apparently subject to all manner of interruptions).
Your subway map does not even begin to approach anything having even a scintilla of realism about it. This map was created by someone who obviously has no knowledge of this city. Case in point: An Eglinton subway with no stop at Bayview? A subway along Broadview that completely misses Thorncliffe park? Let's not even go into some of the other obvious problems with the lines.
I'll take Steve Munro's 30 years of advocacy for light rail over these foolish subway dreams any day. He's done the *real* math and the real research and knows that this kind of bizarre fetish for subways is what has gotten us into the transit mess we've been in - the mess we're only now starting to dig ourselves out of with Transit City.
You should lighten up.
You should piss off.
Nah.