At the risk of re-igniting the Scarborough subway debate, I am moving some comments that are becoming a thread in their own right out of the “Stop Spacing” article over here to keep the two conversations separated.
In response to the most recent entry in the thread, I wrote:
Steve: Probably the most annoying feature of “pro Scarborough subway” (as opposed to “pro Scarborough”) pitches is the disconnect with the travel demands within Scarborough. These are known from the every five year detailed survey of travel in the GTHA, and a point that sticks out is that many people, a sizeable minority if not a majority, of those who live in Scarborough are not commuting to downtown. Instead they are travelling within Scarborough, to York Region or to locations along the 401. Many of these trips, even internal to Scarborough, are badly served by transit. One might argue that the lower proportion of downtown trips is a chicken-and-egg situation — it is the absence of a fast route to downtown combined with the impracticality of driving that discourages travel there. That’s a fair point, but one I have often argued would be better served with the express services possible on the rail corridors were it not for the GO fare structure that penalizes inside-416 travel.
We now have three subways — one to Vaughan, one to Richmond Hill and one to Scarborough — in various stages of planning and construction in part because GO (and by extension Queen’s Park) did not recognize the benefit of providing much better service to the core from the outer 416 and near 905 at a fare that riders would consider “reasonable” relative to what they pay today. I would love to see service on the CPR line that runs diagonally through Scarborough, out through Malvern into North Pickering. This route has been fouled up in debates for years about restitution of service to Peterborough, a much grander, more expensive and less likely proposition with added layers of rivalry between federal Tory and provincial Liberal interests. Fitting something like that into the CPR is tricky enough without politicians scoring points off of each other.
The most common rejoinder I hear to proposals that GO could be a form of “subway relief” is that the service is too infrequent and too expensive. What is the capital cost of subway construction into the 905 plus the ongoing operating cost once lines open versus the cost of better service and lower fares on a much improved GO network? Nobody has ever worked this out because GO and subway advocates within the planning community work in silos, and the two options are never presented as one package.
With the RER studies, this may finally change, and thanks to the issues with the Yonge corridor, we may finally see numbers comparing the effects of improved service in all available corridors and modes serving traffic from York Region to the core. I would love to see a comparable study for Scarborough.
Meanwhile, we need to know more about “inside Scarborough” demand including to major centres such as academic sites that are not touched by the subway plan.
I will promote comments here that contribute to the conversation in a civil manner. As for the trolls (and you know who you are), don’t bother. Your “contributions” only make the Scarborough position much less palatable, and I won’t subject my readers to your drivel.
Steve Munro 
What the planners did not foresee was Rob Ford. This reminds me of Hari Seldon in the Foundation series by Asimov not foreseeing the Mule, who messed up his carefully-made psycohistorical plans.
It was not an upwelling of public criticism that caused any of the changes in Transit City; instead it was Rob Ford’s obstinate insistence, on December 1, 2010, that Transit City was cancelled, and the acquiescence of the rest of Council to that incredibly stupid pronouncement made during his “honeymoon” phase immediately after the election.
It’s not even reasonable to argue that Rob Ford’s election was a mandate to change Transit City; instead, the field was weak and he managed to attract a lot of protest votes, including from some quite reasonable people who come 2014 would not consider voting for him, having come to know more about him.
LikeLike
Actually Steve, the proposed launch site was to be in the north parking lot of the Science Centre (at the southwest corner of the Eglinton-Don Mills intersection).
This would have had no impact on the approach to the DVP and would have had no impact on any existing roads other than the increased truck traffic to service the launch site.
Sadly, Metrolinx caved to Leslie condo special interests and got caught in their own lie about the Brentcliffe launch site being impossible – the site they are now in the process of constructing.
Also, in my opinion not having the south-side alignment between Brentcliffe portal and Don Mills will turn out to be one of the dumbest moves in Toronto transit history. I hope I am proved wrong.
LikeLike
This is the ignorant & predjudiced type of comment that makes my blood boil. The majority of Scarborough is not low income whatsoever. Although it will continue to head that route if we provide it with a lower forms of services including transit.
Over 50% of my neighbours work downtown & don’t work in strip malls. It’s a frustrating commute whether you drive or take public transit. Downtown is the where the money & better jobs reside & we should have fair TTC access considering are paying our share.
Downtown has grown because of significant public & private investment & Scarborough has deteriorated for lack there of. It’s time to start righting the wrong & build Scarborough effectively for the future. This narrative of low class Scarborough needs to stop.
Steve: “Low class Scarborough” is a narrative that is used by pols from time to time in a construct roughly like this: “Scarborough gets the short end of the stick in Toronto, and this shows bias against the poor and racialized communities.” I don’t agree with that statement, but it pops up too often including the not to subtle implication that transit spending policies are not only classist, but also racist. That’s an argument where the debate quickly changes from one of bad planning and a misunderstood part of Toronto, to one of deliberate neglect based on social lines. Positions quickly harden, and the debate hits a brick wall.
LikeLike
Personally, I’ve felt that it should also be part of a street level LRT replacement for the 43 bus south of Sheppard or Ellesmere. Basically a restoration of the link between the Crosstown and Sheppard East while resolving the limitations of once every 15 minute SmartTrack service.
LikeLike
Your statement leads us to believe that the significant levels of socio-economic polarization evident in the city of Toronto could not be used as a metric to gauge the potential for increased volatility within the political system.
Steve: The distinction is not just the polarization, but its exploitation to justify actions for which the mayor had no authority, and a dubious “mandate”.
LikeLike
I do not gainsay that somehow funding is found for popular projects, and not perforce from transit. However, there is a limited pot of money or rather resources on which to draw. I am quite sure, that when people become increasingly aware of how much money the Vaughan Subway is costing to operate it will lose its lustre. Having said that while we can raise taxes to build more transit, we can only do it by so much. Also the federal and provincial governments will also have a harder time raising taxes to support Toronto transit on a national or provincial basis. Here Toronto, while it will get a share, it will at some point be limited. Toronto can chose to raise more itself, but that has other impacts. Ultimately the total is limited (and yes the transit share could certainly be pushed higher, however, there are limits).
Projects that appear wasteful, make it harder to increase that share and public support elsewhere. Subway, to carry lower loads than Calgary LRT make it harder to justify spending my the federal government next time. Only in the GTA, is Scarborough seen as its own beast, this is not so in the balance of the province, let alone country. Remember the city is only funding a small portion of the capital costs even in Scarborough. The rumor of empty subway in Vaughan will make the next harder to fund. I suspect the Sheppard subway is one of the reasons that it took forever for the other levels of government to come back to the table.
LikeLike
Perhaps.
The reader must ask themselves the following when considering your comment. Is it more efficient and effective to direct our efforts at building a prosperous equitable society, or should our efforts be directed a stamping down free expression of thought out of fear that it may have political ramifications that some may find unpalatable?
Steve: That is a straw man argument. First off, the term “equitable society” means different things to different people, and this quickly gets us into the debate about whether Scarborough’s demographics should enter into the equation, or if it is just a matter of travel demand and distances. Just what is the “inequity” we are redressing, and is a subway the only/best way to achieve the goal?
“Free expression” has nothing to do with this debate. Many people, including you, argue for a subway. I don’t agree with you, but subject to your remaining civil, your comments get through. Those who impute that I and other LRT advocates are part of some nefarious plot to deny Scarborough its place in the sun (a broad paraphrase of some of the more scurrilous comments that I have suppressed), well, if they want to “freely express” their views, they can go elsewhere and see how many people pay them any attention.
LikeLike
Inconceivable. Although I agree the south-side alignment has a lot to recommend it, there is no way that having it in the middle of the road is a billion-dollar mistake like the Scarborough Subway, or a hard-to-quantify-but-clearly-enormous mistake like building the SRT as weird one-off technology instead of just building an LRT line as originally planned. Keep in mind there is only a single location where the right-of-way will be crossed by non-LRT traffic, at the intersection with Leslie St.
LikeLike
I think we give too little airplay to the Sheppard Subway, or the other one, the Vaughan Extension. Of course there is the one that may yet trounce both of these should it come to pass the Yonge Extension to Richmond Hill without the DRL in place. This last one would have the benefit of recommendation, of effectively cutting off the entire eastern end of the BDL from the core (at least without riding through to Spadina) and most riders south of Sheppard for hours on end. I believe this last would be the worst, and without a DRL the most undeserving of being built at this time. The others are simple mistakes that cost billions to built and waste 10 of millions to operate. The Yonge extension however, would draw into question the value of the rest of the subway, as it would come apart at the seems.
Of course the issue here, is in the name of “fairness” those north of Toronto will duly make the argument that their taxes are also paying for subway, through the provincial taxes so they too should be connected, and they are being denied their fair access.
This in my mind is the issue with fairness, it can be so easily twisted. Choose to live in Mississauga or Brampton, you know you will have less expensive housing but no access. Live in the core, in a small condo, and pay large taxes on a small space, and well you too have made a choice. Live in the outer reaches of the 416, get your much larger space, for the same taxes as that condo, and well why can I not also have my subway. Fairness is an term that can be twisted it should be used very sparingly, service quality, access, cost of service provision should. Because if I live on say Pine Hill Road (just north of Rosedale Valley Road off Park) and can walk 3 minutes to 2 subway stops, I could reasonably claim I only used 4-5 km of subway going to work in the core (return trip) whereas that greedy guy in North York or Scarborough, or Western Etobicoke, is using 20-30km plus a bus trip, and I am paying the same fare and much much more taxes, how is that fair. Or the people in Parkdale or Riverside, who likely chose to use nothing but Streetcar, and only 5-8km, they are not being greedy, how is it fair that they have to pay so much? Or why does the Sheppard subway rider get to have sitting space when the Riverside, Parkdale or Liberty Village resident can barely board their streetcar.
Fair is a very dangerous concept, that in my own experience is usually being used for purposes of advocating for a narrow group, not the entire network or region.
LikeLike
There are now six lanes under the railway bridge. The LRT takes two.
There are six lanes under the DVP. The LRT takes two.
Easterly going traffic on Eglinton is taking left turns at Leslie. And southerly going traffic on Leslie is taking left trains at Eglinton while LRT’s are trying to maintain 10 minute headways.
The same condition exists at the DVP. Southerly going DVP traffic exits on to Eglinton and some will do left turns onto Eglinton across the LRT. Northerly going DVP traffic exits at Eglinton and some will do left turns onto Eglinton across the LRT.
Before the TBM entrance tunnel was started traffic in this area could get snarled, on a regular basis, from west of Brentcliffe to Bermondsey.
Cars are not going to go away for a long time.
The St. Clair streetcar line problem at Keele will look like kid’s stuff.
Steve: The discussion was of the route between Leaside and Don Mills Road with a south side vs a centre of road alignment. The DVP is east of Don Mills and is not part of this issue although points about intersection design are valid there too. However, unlike Leslie, the DVP is not a “T” intersection.
LikeLike
The question that you should ask is why Scarbourough’s demographics have changed so radically post-NAFTA and is there a causal relationship between this change and the failure to upgrade infrastructure to meet the modern demands placed on the region. If you answer it you will find that travel demands, distances, and demographics are inextricably linked.
As you know well, it has been established that there are critical flaws with the methodology being used to evaluate transit planning. The current system fails to account for numerous externality costs and inadequately handles social and economic issues. At its heart the current system of analysis is fundamentally regressive, and unable to meet the needs of a modern world.
What I find particularly concerning is that somehow we are to believe that the political volatility we have witnessed in the city came out of nowhere, and does not represent some real underlying structural problem within our society. What we have witnessed in the political theater is democracy’s way of highlighting the issues that I have raised above. We may have personal issues with the clumsiness of what we have seen, but at the very heart of the matter the system faithfully, and accurately flagged critical issues that must be addressed.
LikeLike
The issue has less to do with transit technology and more to do with aligning the region’s competitive strategy with the macroeconomic forces that will shape it in the future. The potential growth industries that the region will likely have a competitive advantage in are likely those that require a flexible labour market. These industries can only succeed if the transit system can mitigate the negative externalities caused by labour market volatility. The current transit development proposals for the TTC are insufficient to meet the demands the economy and society will place on it. This is why a very large portion of society objects to the current transit proposal.
LikeLike
At the risk of this discussion being derailed by engineering choices for the crosstown, I think that everyone should review this this video to show that according to Jarrett Walker, International transportation planner, that “transit will never be perceived as fair”. Each of the former boroughs will never perceive transit to be fair, and there is no point in trying to make it fair for everyone. What he says about “fairness” is what happened during the Rob Ford era. Relevant parts starts at around the 17 minute mark.
As for what to do in the mean time? We had a perfectly good transit improvement plan in August that was endorsed by management and the union. What we need is the endorsement of the Commission and city council. Smart Track is a long time coming and people want action now.
LikeLike
Ford’s mandate to cancel Transit City is similar to Tory’s mandate for SmartTrack. Until we have referenda on all issues, the mandate achieved from an election is all we have to go by. The Ford mandate was also to not have transit interfere with traffic (and vice versa).
It thus becomes apparent that all the previous studies undervalued the importance of a transfer free line, of rapid transit, and of distance travel (versus local transit). I have read a number of proposals on this thread on how to satisfy Scarborough for a cost that is probably 3 or 4 times the cost of the B-D extension. If someone can propose a compromise that is less costly than the B-D extension – that satisfies its main benefits – then it would have a chance of being accepted. Those that propose a disconnected SRT/LRT are essentially proposing nothing useful at all, and are actually contributing to the spending of the extra $1.5B on the subway extension.
LikeLike
The issue I would have with this is 2 fold.
1. Since it is constantly changing actually understanding the appropriate routes and focus of a transit system would become harder.
2. Since the micro-economic behaviour of entrants into new industries must be considered, the locations would also change. Frankly one would reasonably expect that new industries will be dominated initially by relatively new companies, and more importantly have lower initial investments as they will not be mature enough (even as parts of older companies) to merit the larger capital bets involved with central locations and higher costs buildings.
This would then perforce mean that a transit system designed with this as a primary consideration should retain as much flexibility as possible, and reduce its exposure to ultra high capacity, single route focused technologies. Hence in this model the LRT would be the heaviest investment that should be entertained, and likely a leaning toward BRT would be more appropriate, to support a much more dispersed location of employment scattered among many more new entrant businesses.
However, it is the case that the large segment of society that objects appears to be saying double down on the heaviest least flexible modes of transit. It could be they have seen this, or they would prefer to lock in the current order, and how they understand it, or perhaps, that they simply do not understand the implications of the various models, but are very comfortable with subway, as it is a technology clearly in evidence in the city in which they live.
LikeLike
I know it’s been glanced on in comments, but a question that comes back to my mind often on this matter is: if the subway extention is a done deal, then is there usefulness in ensuring the SRT guideway is preserved for a future LRT running as well, seeing as the alignments are different and therefore serve different places along the way? (the LRT obviously with more stops) Unless the guideway structure itself is in poor shape (my understanding is that it’s primarily the track that needs refurbishment/replacement), it would seem a shame to scrap it “just because” if it has real potential for future use…
LikeLike
That’s true.
However, it is quite possible that 97% of riders who use a given subway station will either travel during the peak hours only, or if they travel off-peak, will take a major-arterial bus route. For those 97%, it does not matter if a minor street bus route runs off-peak every 10 min, every 20 min, or does not run at all.
Perhaps this is not nice, but the majority will vote for a better subway in such situation, rather than for better bus service.
LikeLike
IMO, it will be good to preserve the guideway, or a least the corridor if the guideway structure is too old and needs to be replaced.
Much depends on how far the subway is extended (Sheppard / McCowan, or only STC), and what comes out of the Sheppard LRT project. Potentially, the east-west section of SRT can be replaced with a useful branch of Sheppard LRT.
LikeLike
This is right. However, Scarborough Subway will not look too bad. Its ridership counts will be similar to the west end of BD (Kipling / Islington), or the present north end of Spadina subway (Downsview / Wilson).
Honestly, I hope for the outcome opposite to what you expect. An example of successfully expanding transit using a property tax surcharge might make it easier to propose similar surcharges for the future transit projects.
LikeLike
Let’s not kid ourselves. The battle around the Scarborough subway was never about what option is best for transit riders. The vast majority of Ford Nation voters don’t take transit and never will, regardless of what transit options they are given. Many of them are only interested in subways because they take buses and other surface transit vehicles off the street – and out of the way of their cars.
When seen in that light, the route, stop spacing, and alternate routes are irrelevant. Ford Nation doesn’t care. They just see a bus or streetcar in front of them and start frothing at the mouth.
LikeLike
My concern with this is that if the use really was going to be the 14k per hour peak, I would agree with you. However, it is important to remember as Steve has said, and I have read elsewhere since his first comment, the land use model that came up with that forecast was “adjusted” which seems to mean that planners were told the desire outcome.
Further to that there is the issue of another reasonably high frequency service 2km to the west that will offer a more direct route to the core. This will likely bleed away 5-8k per peak hour of that potential ridership, especially if it is TTC fare, and well integrated into the bus network, as it is well within what would be the collection area for the subway. If you take from this that some of the ridership growth above what would be on RT will be divided, you might reasonably conclude daily ridership in the 60-70k range. This would not represent a real success, it would be less of an issue that the Sheppard Subway, but nevertheless a very expensive chunk of subway.
Also since it runs only towards the core, it does not serve the most trips, and leaves many without the reasonable choice of using transit, or greatly distorts their rides. If we are to make a conversion to a transit oriented city, so that mobility can reasonably achieved for most of our trips without resorting to the car too often, then we must effective serve more origins and destinations with frequent service, without an excessive number of painful transfers (transfers between 2 minute headway services do not count).
I would agree with those that make the case that full shelter areas on the SRT need to be built on conversion, to make these more passenger friendly. However, the more important factor in my mind would be to get service reliably into that 2-minute range on peak, with considerable excess capacity. Also the province and city need to take an oath to not build Kennedy like transfers ever again.
Remember that Kipling (53,930) and Islington (40,230) between attract a similar number to the combination of Kennedy (71,050) & Warden (26,220), {94,160 vs 97,270} and Kipling does not have the benefit of a RT extending its collection network. So it would be surprising given that the western end is already similarly loaded to the eastern one. {Downsview – Wilson, this was a much much shorter and largely above ground so much much less costly extension} It is far more likely that Kennedy will drop 30k riders to look like Warden, and perhaps 10k more riders will board at STC than do today, or with the RER in place perhaps exactly what it does today.
I do not have a problem with the basic idea of extension, it needs to be based on an unskewed land use model, that factors in other network additions. The network needs to be built to serve ridership demand not political ones. Right now this extension appears to be driven by the same pure politics that brought us the original RT, and the Sheppard subway. Also should it actually meet projections (which would be good) it will require that a way of getting the resultant passenger load to the core where many of them are going, whether that be dramatically increased capacity on Yonge (seems fanciful) or a DRL.
I can see large political problems surrounding the DRL as many of the Scarborough advocates are holding this hostage now. It will likely become a bone of contention later, as those it supposedly benefits (downtown elite) get fed up with being blamed for all that ills the city. Remember that those supposed beneficiaries (who will not use the DRL much and it is a very capital intense project) get very little in the way of road, and are using an immensely crowded transit that requires little subsidy, so their taxes (and fares) are being used to subsidize others.
When all is said and done by 2035, I would expect that Scarborough extension will see a lower ridership than the King Car, which will by then be serving the Unilever site as well without an LRT being built. I would hope I am wrong but I would not be surprised if the King car was serving a 30% larger ridership (because of political not ridership realities, downtown service will likely continue to be the neglected step child of the system. Downtown roads are both sparse (per resident) and used by many outer 416 and 905 residents, and have little availability for downtown residents, and the transit on a per user basis receives much less attention and resources. Those subways that serve the “downtown elite” are largely full by the time they reach the core of non downtown residents, and of little use to the shoulder area residents who make up a very large portion of downtown residents.
By this time the downtown residents may have no interest in supporting any project that does not address their needs, and frankly I would be not the least surprised if the potential routes for the East Bayfront and anything headed west are effectively closed off through poor planning, and downtown being a political whipping boy. Toronto as a desirable location is being very negatively affected, and the Golden Goose killed due to planning by election.
LikeLike
Personally, would have readily supported more LRT if there was a real suburban rail service operating in Scarborough. But we get a politician that proposes a solid suburban rail line and everyone jumps all over him for it.
The way I see it, the big gap in the 416, isn’t subways or LRTs, it’s the lack of a proper suburban rail service, the likes of which, so many other large cities have. If we had that, we wouldn’t be squabbling as much over LRTs vs. subways. We’d have a more mature starting point for a discussion. Since we don’t have real suburban rail, you have many residents convinced that subways are faster and that’s why they want them.
Shame on the powers that be for ignoring this very real need.
Steve: The problem with SmartTrack is that the research paper behind it talks about very frequent service with high capacity and ridership, while the actual Tory campaign talked about 15 minute all day service, the same as the Metrolinx RER plan. There is a huge difference in the benefit within the network depending on the service level. Also, Tory would happily commit $2.7-billion of city money to a line that, were it an LRT proposal, would be trashed by everyone as hopelessly inadequate to (a) demand and (b) the manifest destiny of Scarborough.
LikeLike
For what it’s worth – two way all day GO service in the east half of the network without it – i.e.. Barrie, Richmond Hill, Stouffville – is moving forward in earnest. My brother is an electrician for that catchment and he indicates there are ongoing meetings for projects to double facilities at stations to accommodate two way traffic.
To me, this improvement – while not addressing the local Scarborough transit needs – will provide some relief to the Yonge line, especially to commuters who are currently heading from Richmond Hill, and better service from NW Scarborough to the core. More importantly it will provide the baby steps to proper RER/Smarttrack in the eyes of commuters.
That still leave a wide swath of NE Scarborough, which I’d hope can be initially improved with the mayor’s recent comments about increased bus service, and ideally in the medium term with LRT/BRT along the corridors where it’s best suited.
Should we end up with an extension of the Eglinton LRT up to Malvern, Line 2/LRT to STC, and an extension of Line 4/Sheppard LRT to Durham region. I’d say you’ve got the makings of an good network for most local needs – and hopefully – a major shift in the public’s view of what surface transit can accomplish if the LRT network is built.
What Toronto, and Scarborough as part of the 416, really needs is strong political leadership that can get the network built and not the same old rube strumming to get elected we’ve been seeing of late.
LikeLike
I think that the Bloor Danforth subway extension to Scarborough will be the backbone of transit progress in Toronto and I am glad to have a mayor who is devoted to building the same ASAP. Once the Scarborough subway is complete, we should be looking to connect Sheppard subway with the Bloor Danforth subway extension. I think that those are two of the most urgent transit needs in Toronto as a whole. This is not about Scarborough vs the Downtown Elite or any region vs any other but how to improve transit in Toronto as a whole and those are two of the most urgent projects that are needed.
LikeLike
Amen Steve, from an access perspective, obviously it is easier to coordinate with a service with a headway of 2 minutes than 15, and therefore it is also more useful stop to stop (ie as a ride linking to bus routes). Also in terms of being able to direct other routes there, clearly if you have a line capacity of 20k, you have little fear of running many bus routes to it, and being able to increase the zonings on those routes, as opposed to being instantly conscious of the possibility of overloading it.
In terms of capacity, 8 k/hour in Stouffville, will likely help a great deal, with today’s load. However, if it is to be transformational (as sold) it would take little to overwhelm this. This will help core bound loads now, but I suspect that the headway will need be much lower than 15 minutes in very few years. This should be a better way to the core, and I agree that RER is a required project, with service in 416, and Lakeshore as well please. Properly integrated, these services, might just address the needs of most core bound Scarborough (and southern Etobicoke) residents.
LikeLike
I am 65 years old. The male life expectancy as per the CIA is 79 years and because I am a little overweight I imagine that mine might by a little lower) (say 75) plus the last few years of being too frail to travel I would say that I can only take public transit until about I am 72 which would be in 7 years in 2021. Do you think that is there any chance that I would be able to ever ride the DRL? I hope to do so but if not, then I don’t want to have my taxes increased to help pay for the same.
LikeLike
Yes, however, you are in essense proposing to extend as subway, on Sheppard, something that even the most favourable estimates, do not come even vaguely close to justifying. I believe ridership for such a Sheppard extension would remain well below 10k at peak. This would absolutely mean you were creating a situation of hurting everyone to help a handful of riders. There is not the demand here, and if it did surface, it is not clear where it would actually be able to go. The size of destinations acting as anchors on either end or along the middle of this subway line would not attract the type of ridership to support it. A very large percentage of these riders would almost perforce be headed south on Yonge and would represent a disaster for the subway line and transit in Toronto in general.
Sequencing of transit construction in this case would be important even (especially?) if you could actually justify a Sheppard subway line. I think the first thing we need to ask is where are these people actually going, and how many of them are there. Right now there are simply too many people going to the Yonge subway to head to the core.
LikeLike
A true transit lover will not oppose taxes to pay for the transit s/he loves. Steve and Robert Wightman are about the same age as you but they never oppose tax increases for a much needed DRL even though by the time that it is built, they would likely no longer be around to use it (the line they would via tax increases pay to build and spent their lives advocating the building thereof). I think that the only major new transit that you will see in your life (assuming that you are 65 as you state you are) are the Spadina Subway Extension, Eglinton LRT, SmartTrack/RER, and the Scarborough subway (unless you move from Toronto).
Steve: I have hopes of a long life and a more enlightened attitude to the DRL.
LikeLike
I’d rather see a Drl/Don Mills line run up Don Mills to Finch, then across the hydro corridor to a terminus at Steeles & VP. Then Scarborough could eventually have LRT lines running across Steeles, Finch, Sheppard, Ellesmere, Lawrence, Eg, to connect to Don Mills.
LikeLike
Scarborough people pay taxes too and so please treat Scarborough fairly. And to that end either the people from outside of Scarborough should have NO SAY in Scarborough transit or the people of Scarborough should also have a say in Downtown Transit (including the right to determine the future or lack thereof of the streetcars in Toronto’s future). I am perfectly happy if Scarborough people are not allowed to have any say in Downtown transit but in that case people from outside of Scarborough should have ZERO say in Scarborough transit but if non-Scarborough folks are allowed to have their say in Scarborough transit, then Scarborough folks should also have a say in Downtown Transit (including but not limited to whether or not we should keep the streetcars and whether or not we should build the DRL). All I am asking is for fairness.
Steve: It is not a question of downtown or Scarborough or North York or Etobicoke, or of who gets to say what gets built where and counting up the spoils, but a question of what works best for the city overall. That could be a subway in Scarborough, or not, but I shouldn’t be disqualified from having an opinion just because I live west of Victoria Park.
LikeLike
If anything the subway extension will reduce the number of passengers at Kennedy to a level much closer to Warden as passenger demand will be split between (New) Lawrence East, Scarborough Centre and Sheppard East (assuming it is ever built).
I doubt that Scarborough Centre will have 50000 passengers though … unless development of the McCowan Precinct is more successful than anticipated and the Sheppard subway is extended only as far as Scarborough Centre
The introduction of frequent RER train service to downtown will certainly bleed of a lot of the projected demand.
Cheers, Moaz
LikeLike
Its not really “Poor Scarborough” as it branded here. It’s poor Jane/Finch, Malvern, Kingston Gallaway, Eglinton East, L’Amoreaux, Dorset Park, Lawrence Heights, Weston etc… And all the other surrounding areas in the Northwest, North East & South East.
All these areas have one thing in common. They all reside under the TTC umbrella but don’t share the same transit infrastructure as other areas of Toronto. And since the majority of good paying jobs are formed near major transit lines. These people face a much more difficult commute to access good paying jobs & clearly an unequal opportunity to succeed.
While many of you discuss & cringe over the thought of losing a streetcar stop to walk an extra block to get to career opportunities, events, home etc. Understandably the citizens of these areas can’t begin to share your pain.
Also some posters here think Rob Ford was a blip on the radar & only happened by chance. Doug Ford and John Tory shared 70% of the City’s vote. Both have similar platforms & policy (transit being a major part).
The inequality & neglect of large areas of Toronto can no longer continue to be overlooked. The whole City has transit needs & always will as it grows. But the areas which have been left behind are too big to be ignored & I truly hope some of you begin to understand this is what is happening & start working together to fix all our needs and integrate the City in a fair manner.
Steve: One could read the election results that almost 70% of the vote didn’t go to Doug Ford. Much depends on which “John Tory” one assumes we got — a right wing tax fighter, or a middle of the road fiscal conservative.
LikeLike
No one could ever accuse Transit Lover of being a Bridge Builder!
LikeLike
That is why we need to build a network of relatively inexpensive LRT lines and not soak up all the funding in an unneeded, very expensive subway scheme. The LRT lines could reach almost every currently-underserved neighbourhood, whereas a subway will only reach a lucky few locations, leaving the others out in the cold.
Sheesh. I would say more but everything needed has already been written several times over elsewhere on this site.
LikeLike
Steve I think that ‘transit lover’ made a error in his expectations anyway, the number from the CIA factbook is based on life expectancy at birth (male: 79.07 years), however, this includes the non trivial mortality of the child years and teenage years (which will have a large impact of averages due to being so far from it), also non trivial loss of life in the working years. A 65 year male in Ontario can reasonably expect to live another 18.7 years.
Of course being as socially oriented as you are, you might reasonably expect to live longer.
As long as Toronto voters can realize what Pete said is true:
Torontonians needs to support transit that makes sense, that means to support the ridership that is likely. That is let the planners do the planning, and then stick to it. East Bayfront and Waterfront West, are both planned as LRT not subway, even though they are downtown, because that is what makes sense. Modest projects to serve large populations with high likely transit useage, and little roads either available or used. Big bang, lots of taxes, small bucks little load to the balance of the network. That is the way transit should be seen, providing much access for many for few dollars, and greatly reducing the costs of roadways otherwise required.
P.S. Sorry as long as Torontonians realize what Pete said is true, you should live to see a DRL.
LikeLike
Although I agree it has all been said, I noted that just above Ernie previously posted this link that deals with the ideas of general service quality in a video from Jarrett Walker. The essence of access and his reasoned discussion of “equity” applies. Access cannot be just via subway, and in Toronto we have created a false impression of what is required for service quality as a result of not being willing to seriously pursue good implementations of alternatives.
Building LRT (and BRT), and actually getting the city to deal with real transit priority at a level that it creates in Steve’s words “waves of green” for transit vehicles. LRT could provide service at subway levels of reliability and near subway speeds. An LRT, in my mind, should have dominance over even the largest arterial streets when it comes to signals. When there is a choice reward the socially responsible!!
LikeLike
Steve more on the basic idea of social connection and health.
I thought you might like to know that it likely increases the odds that you may one day actually see a DRL. Assuming of course that voters can realize in the end their interest are better served by politicians who serve the common interest.
LikeLike
I disagree on the grounds that your model does not harmonize the needs of the region’s competitive strategy with the realities of exogenous macroeconomic forces. There are two major trade agreements (NAFTA and CETA) that form, and will form a significant portion of the framework that will guide and shape the development of business activities in the region. This framework will expose Canadian business to highly specialized, very competitive exogenous market forces. The only way business will prosper is if they can achieve the necessary economies of scale, and a level of investment that will be able to attract and retain top talent. Contrary to what is necessary, your model of decentralized growth discourages companies from achieving the necessary scale to compete, and it limits their ability utilize the talent available to them. Your model encourages lower corporate profits and higher risk, and leads to a fundamental underutilization of both financial and human capital.
My recommendation is a centralized model in which business clusters are supported by transit, this model significantly reduces the negative externalities associated with labour market volatility and allows for a much more efficient and effective form of investment that is superior at attracting and retaining top talent, it allows for higher corporate returns, lower risk, and significantly supports equality of opportunity.
Steve: I think that there is a basic flaw here. I concur with the concept of concentration versus decentralization. We have seen what the latter produced in suburban Toronto and many other areas over past decades. However, concentration does not necessarily require the most intensive, high capacity form of transit to link labour with job locations. Indeed, multiple “intermediate capacity” links could do a better job of providing coverage over a wider area.
One irony of a move to centralization is that taken to its logical conclusion, one might say there is not enough economic activity/population in the 416 to justify six separate centres (one corresponding to each of the former cities and borough in “Metro”). The fact that there are only six is a result of an earlier amalgamation, and I await the rallying cry “fairness to Swansea”. In fairness, Scarborough has always been the same size although until the modern era, much of it was farmland unlike downtown Toronto, while Swansea was a small town nestled between Parkdale and Mimico.
Where this argument goes is that if we accept that centralization is an inherently good model, there is go guarantee that there will be a “centre” in every geographic area that thinks of itself as a separate entity. This may sound like a downtowner condemning the suburbs to a lower status forever, but honestly, is there (a) a market and (b) a desire for nodes on the scale of downtown Toronto throughout the 416 and the larger GTA? Building subways in Scarborough will provide faster connections to other parts of the city, but they will not guarantee the creation of a major employment node.
LikeLike
The problem with this, if you are really talking about major forces. Business hence employers are not conscious the truly big picture (macro) but aware of the forces on them and their own micro concerns and limits (ie capital, timelines). Bottom line, when you shift all the pieces as you suggest, and create new industries on the fly, no one really knows how it comes back together. Timelines to new construction in the core are much longer.
LikeLike
This perverse form of class consciousness has emerged because the existing transit system fails to sufficiently reduce the barriers to access the downtown. At its heart this class consciousness is artificial, there is no such thing as a downtowner. The point at which this “class consciousness” will be sufficiently reduces will occur when the transit system will allow a self respecting professional to commute downtown with public transit from their place of residence in the inner suburbs and be able to say that they enjoy a high quality of life.
LikeLike