Early in 2022, CodeRedTO was approached by a provincial political party for our advice on selected transit topics. As a non-partisan advocacy group, our advice is available to all, and our responses can be found below.

The growth and operation of our public transit systems across Ontario depends quite heavily on the provincial government’s choices and priorities. Those priorities frequently change as is shown below, leading to delayed improvements, increased congestion, and increased emissions.

Promises

As a review, here are the new transit promises and changes to existing plans in the winning party’s platform in each of the last four elections. Changes announced outside of election campaigns are excluded.

2007:

• Yonge North Subway expansion to Highway 7
• Increasing speed and reducing emissions by electrifying the GO Lakeshore line and expanding capacity on all GO lines
• Expanded express bus service across Highway 407
• Two rapid transit lines across Hamilton
• Toronto’s full seven-line Transit City LRT network

2011:

• full-day two-way GO service on all corridors
• GO refund for delays of 15 minutes (in service)

2014:

• Expansion of GO all-day, two-way service, including regional express service every 15 minutes, and electrification on all lines starting with the UnionPearson Express (some elements under construction)
• Expansion of GO service to Kitchener-Waterloo and Guelph (in service)
• Brampton Queen Street Rapid Transit (in planning)
• Dundas Street Bus Rapid Transit (in planning)
• Durham-Scarborough Bus Rapid Transit (in planning)
• Hamilton Rapid Transit (funded, in planning)
• Hurontario-Main LRT (under construction)
• East Bayfront LRT (unfunded)
• Relief line (rebranded Ontario Line by later government, funded, begins construction in 2022)
• Yonge North Subway expansion to York Region (in planning)

2018:

• Line 4 Sheppard extension
• All expansions to Crosstown will be underground only

Questions

Below are the questions provided to CodeRedTO, and our responses. We hope this information is helpful for all candidates.

What priorities do you want to see the next provincial government implement when it comes to transit for the Greater Toronto and Hamilton Area?

1. We must move away from a car-first orientation.
2. We must move away from short-term budgeting.
3. Repairing the damage of COVID-19 cannot wait.

“The Greater Toronto Area (GTA) is projected to be the fastest growing region, with its population increasing by 2.9 million, or 40.9 per cent, from 7.1 million in 2020 to almost 10.0 million by 2046.” – Ontario.ca

It is vital to recognize that there is no room for more cars. Simple geometry tells us that a 40% increase in the number of cars on the road is not tenable. Therefore the first priority must be a massive change in the transportation mode share, moving trips from personal vehicles into shared vehicles, mass transit, and active transportation. There is no room for any policy which even just maintains the existing structure of subsidies for car drivers.

This shift is not a gentle one. Significant changes to driver costs and incentives are required, and significant changes to the transportation network itself. This will include fewer car lanes and more protected bike lanes,, more restrictions on and higher costs for car travel, including reductions in space for parking, lower costs for transit, and eventually closing entire sections of urban centres to private vehicles so that emergency vehicles and active transportation have enough space to move smoothly.

A second key priority is improved and predictable operations funding to provide more frequent and reliable transit service Historically, provincial priorities have focused on network expansion, leaving cities to fund operations. But as residents move across city boundaries for school and work, this creates a mismatch between the tax base and the required transit network for future goals. This is visible as an example in the high quality construction of York Region’s Viva Bus Rapid Transit, which even during afternoon peak at Highway 7 & Highway 404 has a schedule of only five buses per direction per hour, or fewer than 800 riders per hour.

Public transit is not a directly profitable endeavour. Transit is a service which enables economic activity, investment, and education, and operates at a loss in many parts of the network, but removing transit from low-ridership areas would create negative impacts due to increased private vehicle congestion and household costs.

Annually, transit agencies and municipal councils must assemble sufficient funding to address the shortfall between desired transit service and cost recovery from fares and advertising. This annual scramble impacts transit service levels, which can decrease attractiveness of transit and therefore reduce ridership, again leading to congestion and higher household costs. These in turn impact economic growth such as the location of new retail and office employment.

Stable, predictable, and increased operations funding allows transit providers to provide attractive and high-performance routes to build ridership and reduce car usage across the region. It also allows long-term strategies to be implemented without fear of damaging budget cuts negating previous work.

One of the most confounding challenges we face in implementing these priorities is the damage of COVID-19. It goes without saying that foremost is the damage to individuals, families, and the health system. The economic damage both to the private sector and the government’s budgets, and the public transit damage due to shifting work patterns and shifting mode share cannot be ignored.

Early-pandemic fears of public transit as an especially-dangerous space have proven unfounded. In fact, due to the modern ventilation systems and strong filtration, and its frequent air- and rider-exchange, public transit vehicles are in some ways safer than other indoor spaces. Public health protections such as properly-worn masks and avoiding large crowds remain appropriate as in all indoor spaces, and the vital role of mass transit in enabling our mobility also remains.

However, many riders have adjusted travel patterns and spending choices to avoid public transit. The sunk cost of car ownership, estimated at well over $10,000 per year (compared to an annual TTC pass at $1,700), and the perceived immediate gratification of instant access and custom travel paths, can easily drive personal decision-making away from more efficient and lower-emission public transit. Not everyone can make this choice, but the choices create more congestion and damage mobility for everyone across the region.

As we (hopefully) move out of COVID-19’s largest impacts, the repair of this mode shift is urgent. If public transit remains infrequent, crowded, and unreliable, riders will stay away. This will reduce transit revenue, increase congestion, and reduce economic recovery in a damaging negative-feedback loop. The only path to a positive-feedback loop is public transit which is attractive due to accessibility, affordability, frequency, and comfort. In short, more transit options for more residents sooner.

Do you have a priority list when it comes to new transit projects?

• Projects which could have the greatest impact on ridership and network resiliency will aid us in catching up to the unmet ridership needs across the GTHA. Previously-studied projects with completed Environmental Assessments can be launched and completed on a shorter timeframe.

The best prioritization comes from transparent evaluation of costs and benefits by an independent organization not beholden to voters nor to a single jurisdiction. Elected MPPs have different incentives when considering transit projects as compared to transit planners and transportation engineers.

Historically, transit projects in Ontario have often been selected, modified, or canceled to serve political goals rather than regional mobility and development goals, or despite seemingly lower-priority ridership projections. Controversial decisions, each of which has positives and negatives, include:

• Relief Line removed from 1985 plan in 1990
• Eglinton West Line cancelled mid-construction in 1995
• Vaughan Metropolitan Centre added to Toronto-York Spadina Subway Extension in 2006
• Kirby and Lawrence East GO stations planned in 2016
• Scarborough Centre LRT from Kennedy to Malvern approved in 2007, 2008, 2010, and 2012, and cancelled in 2010 and 2013
• Scarborough Subway Extension approved in 2013, and expanded in 2018
• Eglinton Crosstown West LRT modified in 2018 to be fully-underground
• Ontario Line replacement for former Relief Line proposed in 2018 as partly above-ground

There will always be public pressure and political concerns around selecting projects. Our history of advancing one project at a time by definition pits regional neighbours against one another, but transit must be considered as a network that requires advancement region-wide.

Projects which could have a large impact on ridership and network resiliency could include:

• More buses, in dedicated lanes, everywhere, now. More transit riders use buses than use rail both in Toronto and across the GTHA, and improved bus service is a fast and affordable way to improve mobility for the largest number of people.

• Waterfront East rapid transit, to support existing development in progress. This project completed its Environmental Assessment in 2010, but remains unfunded while new buildings continue to appear along its studied alignment.
• Ontario Line (a.k.a. Relief Line) to Eglinton or farther, to reduce pressure on overcrowded segments of Line 1 and the Bloor-Yonge interchange.
• GO Expansion (a.k.a. Regional Express Rail) across the GTHA, and new non-Union Station service, to increase network resiliency and travel speed for regional travel and reduce average travel distance on local services and subways.

What are your recommendations for the relationship between the Province of Ontario, Metrolinx, and local transit agencies?

1. Separate voter oversight from project competition
2. Mandate project and policy decision transparency

Metrolinx was formed to create a regional governing body for public transit. It was reformed years later to reducethe involvement of elected municipal officials in decisions. However, the decisions themselves simply moved to the provincial cabinet table. Recent announcements on transit initiatives owned by Metrolinx have been issued directly from the Ministry of Transportation or the Premier’s office, rather than the ostensibly-independent agency. This undermines trust in transit planning decisions, and reduces transit’s effectiveness by privileging popular projects over effective ones.

If a new water main is required, political parties don’t argue over it during an election. When engineers describe the type of pipe required for that new water main, the government doesn’t override the requirements and place a larger pipe in a different location instead. But transit planning and decision-making is not treated the same way.

Voter oversight over public funds is important. Elected representatives are best placed to determine overarching goals and funding structures on the advice of staff, while professional engineers and planners are best placed to recommend the area and technology, and to prioritize projects within limited funding envelopes.

Hand-in-hand with independent advice is transparency in decision-making. Any and all staff guidance, inputs, weighting, conflicts, ministerial mandates, and outputs must be public.

Hidden deals, thumbs-on-scales, and a lack of a full cost/benefit analysis of all possible options damage public trust. Decisions contrary to professional advice due to a preference for a certain style of train, or for a certain end-point within a different riding for political purposes, reduce public support for vital transit funding and growth if we are to grow as a region and meet emissions objectives.

It’s well known that governments are eager to fund (parts of) projects but pay less attention to programs and policies. What should a new government’s most important non-project priority be?

1. Sufficient capital and operations funding for strategic planning to build network capacity and ridership
2. Reliable and frequent local service linking residents to rail and rapid transit throughout the region
3. Improved integration of regional network by removing “double fares” when crossing boundaries

Having stable, predictable, long-term operating & capital funding gives professional planners and municipalities the ability to make strategic changes to build transit network capacity and popularity. Improved operations funding must be prioritized, urgently, as this enables significant economic and educational mobility, housing accessibility, and decreased emissions.

Secondly, an enabler of transportation mode-share shifting is improved local “last mile” service in the GO service area. As the 905 municipalities continue to grow and expand their urban cores, regional congestion from private vehicles will also grow. It is vital that all residents have flexible and frequent transit within their local area, not only parking garages beside GO stations. When building highways we build on- and off-ramps; regional transit needs the same thing. A shiny new station with only a parking lot does nothing to build for the future of that community, especially in urbanizing areas.

Finally, the other widely-known tool for building regional transit strength is fare integration which simplifies and rationalizes transit choices for riders without inadvertently punishing any transit agency due to the reduced farebox revenue. Transit may be a reasonable choice for a larger group of riders through gentler fare escalation enabling more or faster travel options.

Example: travel from Ellesmere & Morningside to Queen’s Park

• TTC + GO + TTC: $9.13, 57 minutes
• TTC alone: $3.25, 80 minutes

Conclusion

It must become and remain well-understood across the political spectrum and across jurisdictions that car-first transportation is not sustainable, and only mass transit and active transportation can unlock our shared economic, social, and climate goals. The status quo is not an option.

CodeRedTO is available to any political party, agency, or organization seeking non-partisan information and discussion of public transit topics. Email info@CodeRedTO.com any time.

CodeRedTO takes your questions and finds answers! Today’s question, from Richard on Facebook: The population of Toronto will double in the coming decades. Therefore, those currently less dense areas of Toronto will become more dense over time. Therefore,wouldn’t subways be preferable for the smarter long-term investment??

Hi Richard –

You’re right that population is growing fast, but city planners are seeing it grow at different rates in different areas, and they account for that in population and density projections. For example, the Sheppard subway was built based on very high projections that turned out to be way too high, so they’ve learned from that experience to make better projections. Also, the downtown core is growing far faster now than other areas, which is different from in the 1980’s when they first decided on the Sheppard subway.

Globe & Mail: Toronto’s density plan is working

If we had unlimited funding, then building subways would allow us to handle whatever growth arrived, but unfortunately we don’t – voters keep demanding tax cuts! Subways are a huge cash drain: for example, the Scarborough subway extension (just 3 stops in a low-density part of the city) is going to cost far more than $3 billion to construct, and will lose money each day (as most low-density transit systems do).

Human Transit Blog: Transit and profitability

Transit is an investment in helping our city be more efficient and productive, but typically we want investments that make money, not lose money. Since we know that they lose money in operations cost, and that they cost huge amounts ($350 million per kilometre (often more) just to build), and that we won’t need that capacity in Etobicoke or Scarborough for several decades, building subways exclusively is not what CodeRedTO considers a smart investment. You need high density population and employment to make the system worth it now, and we only see that in certain parts of the GTHA.

Even the Sheppard subway, opened over 12 years ago, still loses money every day. The new Spadina subway extension to York University is also projected to cost over $14 million per year in extra subsidies for operations costs. That doesn’t make them bad, but we have to “invest” with our eyes open.

Human Transit: Density is not Destiny

Luckily we have other options. Over 80 cities worldwide use modern light rail lines like are planned for Toronto, with more being built all the time. And since light rail can be elevated, underground, and at the surface, depending on what you need, it’s more flexible than subways and far more affordable, even though it can handle pretty high capacity of ridership – not the same as an all-tunnel subway of course, but we don’t need that capacity in every single neighbourhood.

Remember that all major world-class cities use light rail in addition to subways – Hong Kong, Paris, London, NYC (in New Jersey, not in Manhattan), Tokyo – they all benefit from having options, and Toronto is one of the only places that hasn’t figured that out. We are being left behind after being ahead on transit in the 20th century.

CodeRedTO wants subways AND light rail AND buses AND streetcars, in the right places, and proper funding to make them run properly too.

Early on May 26, a new advocacy group named the Sheppard Subway Action Coalition, represented by the founder of a group called “Real Torontonians Build Subways”, Patricia Sinclair, handed out false and misleading information to commuters to influence election results in their area. The only information provided as to their group’s membership and funding is as follows:

“The SSAC is comprised of several groups of concerned ratepayers and businesses who are concerned about the negative impact of an LRT and who support the completion of the Sheppard subway.”

CodeRedTO does not condone misleading voters and we have evaluated their claims below. Of the SSAC’s over two dozen claims, at least six were false, and at least twelve were either too vague or subjective to evaluate, or were presented in a misleading way. Three alleged benefits of subways over light rail in fact apply equally to both modes.

Please contact us with any updates, corrections, or questions at any time.

In a website section titled “Why Subway?”, the SSAC lists ten bullet points (shown below in red), with zero supporting context, links, or evidence. Our comments follow each claim.

• TRAVEL TIME IS REDUCED Correct, underground tunnels do reduce travel time for any vehicle, regardless of technology. This is a major benefit of LRT: it can travel both in tunnels (like under Eglinton and on Sheppard under the 404), and on the surface. Subway trains cannot travel on the surface unless the entire right-of-way is closed off for safety, preventing any other travel options across the route.
• UNIMPEDED TRAFFIC FLOW PROVIDES GREATER RELIABILITY Correct, underground tunnels do prevent traffic from blocking the vehicle. Since the vast majority of traffic congestion is parallel to the traffic flow, LRT has this benefit for most of its right-of-way as well, since on Sheppard it will travel in an exclusive right-of-way separate from car traffic. This fact is not mentioned at SheppardSubway.com.
• RAPID, RELIABLE TRANSIT ATTRACTS PEOPLE TO PUBLIC TRANSIT Correct, but has nothing to do with subways. All effective, modern transit modes with reliable travel improve ridership and influence travel decisions.
• REDUCES GRIDLOCK False: Induced demand shows that traffic congestion cannot be reduced. There is always latent demand which will backfill any improvements. This is a well-studied issue and has been shown time and again in new highway development. The Big Move (which includes LRT, subway, bus, and regional train improvements) has been presented as a way to reduce the growth of congestion, not as a way to reduce it.
• UNDERGROUND TRANSIT = GREATER SAFETY, FEWER ACCIDENTS Correct.
• HIGHEST ECONOMIC INDICATORS, CREATION OF MORE JOBS Too vague a claim to evaluate. It is true that improved transit reliability and travel times do improve employment and residential development in various ways. However, a review of the Sheppard Subway shows that employment in that corridor has not grown, only residential, and much of that can be attributed to highway proximity. The vast majority of job growth within the GTHA is in the urban cores, not uniformly along subway lines.
• GREATEST IMPACT ON DEVELOPMENT Too vague a claim to evaluate. Some subway development areas experience rapid change (many condos on Sheppard), while others experience little change (Toronto’s ward 29, Toronto-Danforth, its lowest-density ward and has had subway service since the 1960’s). It should be noted that some SSAC members (incluing a shared executive member / webmaster) appear to be affiliated with a residents’ association currently protesting against development near an existing subway station.
• PROPERTY VALUES NEAR SUBWAY STATIONS AND LINES RISE Correct, but this is also true of light rail development, as shown in the Journal of Transport and Land Use which studied the Charlotte LRT from 1997-2008, and by the University of North Texas, which found value jumps of about 25% for properties along the Dallas DART LRT line.
• BETTER FOR ENVIRONMENT, REDUCES GREENHOUSE GASES False: the carbon emissions and greenhouse gases emitted to create an underground tunnel far outweigh those required for surface development, and the carbon emissions required to ventilate, heat and cool, clean, monitor for security, install escalators and elevators, and to maintain underground construction far outweigh that of surface stations. All transit is “better for environment” and “reduces greenhouse gases”, when compared to personal car traffic.
• HIGHER QUALITY OF LIFE Too vague to evaluate, but one important point is that quality of life must consider not only the car driver who refuses to ever see a transit vehicle, but also the youth or senior traveler who must travel farther to reach a transit station, usually by walking to a bus stop, then riding that bus in traffic jams, just to reach a distance subway station. LRT surface stations on Sheppard will be placed an average of 600-800m apart, while subway stops are typically twice the distance.

In a second section titled “Why No LRT?”, the SSAC lists eleven bullet points (shown below in red), again with zero supporting context, links, or evidence.

• 9 INTERSECTIONS IN SHEPPARD CORRIDOR AT CAPACITY IN 2008 This may be true, but no information about where this claim was found is provided. As discussed above, induced demand means this will not change regardless of transit technology (or even additional car lanes) being added.
• SHARING INTERSECTIONS IMPEDES TRAFFIC FLOW Correct, though this is true of all forms of transportation.
• INCREASED RATE OF ACCCIDENTS [sic] Without any data, impossible to evaluate this claim.
• TRAVEL TIME UNRELIABLE (weather, breakdowns, accidents) Exposure to the elements does have impact on surface travel, though LRT performs strongly in all weather types as evidenced by successful LRT systems in extreme-winter environments around the world, including Minneapolis, Calgary, and Edmonton. Breakdowns and accidents can occur, though since the Sheppard East LRT design includes dedicated advance-green signals for all vehicles crossing LRT tracks, this is a misleading claim.
• GREATER LENGTH OF TRAVEL TIME VERSUS SUBWAY OR EXPRESS BUS LRT does take slightly longer than subway to travel a similar distance, but since stops are farther apart the total travel time for LRT vs Subway is often far closer than claimed. Mapped and measured example (using proposed Sheppard East LRT design):

• CENTRE STREET STOPS INCONVENIENT & UNCOMFORTABLE Subjective, but often false: surface stops are more accessible (no broken escalators and elevators as are common underground) and are faster to access (meaning fewer missed vehicles).
• BENEFITS OF CONTINUOUS TRANSIT LINE LOST Correct. The transfer from subway or bus to LRT at Don Mills Station will be convenient and quick with the LRT and subway vehicles sitting on the same level along the same platform, but the transfer does introduce a short time penalty.
• PROPERTY VALUES ALONG RIGHT-OF-WAY DECREASE False, as shown in the Journal of Transport and Land Use which studied the Charlotte LRT from 1997-2008, and by the University of North Texas, which found value jumps of about 25% for properties along the Dallas DART LRT line.
• ADVERSE HEALTH RISKS: HIGHER RATES OF CONGESTION AND NOISE False, as discussed above.
• REDUCES TRAFFIC LANES False. The Sheppard East LRT Environmental Assessment plan shows nearly no changes to the space allocated to mixed traffic. It is required that four car traffic lanes be maintained for the full length of the LRT line, which matches the current road space in all but one section of Sheppard near Consumers Road (where the LRT will enter its tunnel to connect to the existing subway line). In fact, cars will enjoy increased road space as the frequent Sheppard East buses will disappear from traffic.
• FOSTERS CAR INFILTRATION INTO STABLE NEIGHBOURHOODS Too vague to evaluate without links or evidence, though we agree car traffic does adapt to changing conditions, just as it does today for the disruptive tunnel construction along Eglinton.

The SSAC has produced a printable flyer that includes additional claims (shown below in red):

• Eliminate left-hand turns between major intersections. Correct, just as left-hand turns are not possible along University Avenue (above a subway), along Eglinton Avenue East in Scarborough (no subway or LRT), and along Markham Road near Sheppard East (no subway or LRT).
• Negative impact on reducing greenhouse gases. False. “Rail transportation produces far fewer greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions than road,” according to the Pembina Institute, but the carbon emissions and greenhouse gases emitted to create an underground tunnel far outweigh those required for surface development, and the carbon emissions required to ventilate, heat and cool, clean, monitor for security, install escalators and elevators, and to maintain underground construction far outweigh that of surface stations. All transit is “better for environment” and “reduces greenhouse gases”, when compared to personal car traffic.
• Limited economic development potential and uplift. Too vague to evaluate, though according to Cervero and Duncan in the Transportation Research Record, “substantial capitalization benefits were found, on the order of 23% for a typical commercial parcel near a light rail transit stop”.
• Highest operating costs per passenger mile. Impossible to evaluate without any links to source. However, the American Public Transportation Association says that “used appropriately, LRT enhances transit efficiency,” and that in six cities across the USA, LRT provided “22 percent of total system boardings and carrying 30 percent of systemwide passenger miles but consuming only 17 percent of the operating and maintenance costs.”
• Does not meet City’s Official Plan nor Provincial Growth Plan. Too vague to evaluate. The City of Toronto and the Ontario ministries each update official plans regularly (though sparingly), and both plans indicate support for public transit, for travel options, for improved development, and for increased use of solutions that work in other cities and provinces. Both subway and LRT are mentioned in the December 2010 City of Toronto Official Plan, and both subway and LRT are mentioned in the Places To Grow Act’s Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe.

It should also be noted that the SSAC does not use any of the following words or phrases on their website or in their printed materials:

• price
• dollars
• construction time
• construction cost

The only mention of this key aspect of transit development comes in the phrase “subways necessitate large upfront costs” – note the costs are usually double that of light rail – but there is no comparison of ridership (which would not double), travel time (which would not halve), or construction time (which would be longer by at least 1-2 years at minimum due to the EA and design process).

Since Sheppard East provides wide suburban roadways with room for both car lanes and LRT lanes, the same investment can create improved transit speed and options for a far greater portion of Scarborough – roughly double the distance can be built along Sheppard using LRT, at the same cost. A subway extension would help some riders to be sure, but it would also perhaps irreversibly damage transit improvement for all of Scarborough east of McCowan Road.

Subways and light rail are both great solutions for different situations. In the past, Toronto has only built subways, slowly and with great expense, meaning huge sections of our city are left without modern transit. Since light rail is being built and used in over 80 cities worldwide (and more every year), we have an opportunity to improve options for more of our city without incurring greater cost and more delays.

In the case of Sheppard East, CodeRedTO endorses the smart transit option: LRT.