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 
Richmond Hill RER definitely can absorb Sheppard Subway riders travelling toward west to get in to the Yonge line. These riders coming from east side of North York and west side of Scarborough can get in to Richmond Hill RER at Leslie station. Richmond Hill RER needs to have more stations in locations such as Eglinton Ave , Lawrence East Ave, Pape, Queen, etc.
The Capacity and layout of Union station is also very important. Can one station handle all these loads coming from different RER lines? Most likely many of these riders need to travel north a few stations in both Yonge and Spadina lines. Northbound of these lines between Union and Bloor street might get overloaded.
Steve: I doubt that Sheppard subway riders, having just transferred onto their train westbound at Don Mills are likely to get off one stop later to board a much less frequent service at Oriole Station, even if it is shifted north to make this a simple connection. If the Sheppard line is extended to the east, then most riders will encounter the service at Agincourt first, and may be more attracted by it than a transfer at Oriole.
As for additional stations on the RER, there is a huge problem at Eglinton because there is a very large vertical separation between Eglinton Avenue and the rail corridor in the valley. Similarly, the connection at Lawrence is in the valley underneath the west side of the DVP cloverleaf. The Richmond Hill line DOES NOT CONNECT to anything at Pape because by the valley and the rail corridor swing west south of Thorncliffe Park. As for Queen, placement of a station is a challenge because of the curve out of the river valley into the Union Station Rail Corridor, but in any event this is unlikely to attract riders off of the Queen and King cars who can just as easily stay where they are for their short remaining trip downtown.
You appear to be either unsure of your rail corridor geography, or you are confusing other corridors for the Richmond Hill line.
LikeLike
Regarding Richmond Hill RER, even one intersection with Sheppard subway with more frequent services would attract many travellers. Why does some one who lives at Sheppard and Don Mills and his work in the downtown core need to travel to Yonge and Sheppard and then south bond which takes almost 50 minutes when with Richmond Hill RER it takes 30 minutes?
Is providing more frequent services that expensive compared to building new LRT or subways? During the peak time a large number of travellers from Sheppard line add to Yonge line which mostly travel all the way to downtown.
The main issue is how to design TTC/ RER fares to attract TTC riders.
Steve: Well, on a 15 minute headway (which is what is actually proposed), the transfer connection between the subway and RER will make the RT/subway transfer at Kennedy look like a walk in the park. Also, as you say, the combined fare will be critical to attracting riders, and more frequent RER service is also essential. Without it, the penalty for using subway+RER will be considerable, and the attractiveness of this route limited.
Your comment about capital vs operating costs is at the heart of many discussions. Both Toronto and (especially) Queen’s Park love to pour money into big capital projects, but they never look at the comparative effect on the operating budget nor on the pressure a new route might bring to other existing parts of the network. In theory, this is what is supposed to happen with Metrolinx’ much-trumpeted “business case analysis”. However, their methodology is deeply flawed (it rewards expensive projects for the economic activity they create even though the money might be better spent elsewhere), and they often ignore network configurations that don’t fit their desired plan (claiming that modelling more options costs too much). This is what passes for planning, and we have all been badly served by it for most of the past decade.
LikeLike
This is one of the issues I have with the current proposal is that this will be the headway. One of the reasons I have a hard time getting past the notion of this should be converted to a rapid transit corridor. I find I have a knee jerk (I know this is wrong) to the idea of LRT, so we can get around the freight issue north of the CN main line, and run headway in the 5 minute range instead (& a TTC fare). This would make it a more attractive proposal for transfers from the services it crosses.
This of course would mean that you would need completely new rails and a new station and likely a tunnel at the south end-Valley to core- as well as new tracks at the north end to not share track with freight. Of course the cars would need to be a much faster than the LRT ones being proposed for the current Metrolinx lines, all of which would make it quite expensive, and possibly an orphan car set in Toronto. That is unless we went out of our way to use the same cars on other lines (hmm, can I find an excuse for Stouffville??) I have to admit there is something attractive about the new cars that Ottawa has selected, 49 metres, and 100+ km/h top speed (these appear to be sexy beasts).
However, sorry back to reality, if we could find a reasonable way of running this line with a TTC fare and a rapid transit headway, and a high speed, it might have the possibility of attracting more core bound ridership from the Steeles, & Finch buses, and perhaps even the Sheppard lines (with a relocation of the GO station-damn I wish Sheppard was LRT ) as well as Richmond Hill and Thornhill.
However, I agree, RER as proposed (@15 minutes headway), once you are well in TTC territory and getting close to Yonge, does not make as attractive a transfer. Although, as you say it would still depend on relative trip time, cost, and comfort. If it was a 5 minute headway it would be much more attractive. This would also be true in York Region though. It seems hard to fill a service on the 1/2 hour, I wonder if it would be easier to fill one on the 5 minutes even if it had considerably more capacity. However, making this possible, might actually not be worth the costs, and still may not attract enough ridership as it will connect with little between Sheppard and the core.
I would be interested to see it modeled with this sort of fantastical set-up, however this does not really mirror any of the serious proposals.
PS. For clarification, when I say new tracks at the north end, I mean it would likely require a whole new right of way north of the CN main line to run at 5 minutes. When I say new rails and tunnel in the south, I mean it would require a tunnel from the valley to core, to allow a completely separate right way in the south, that was apart from the Union Station Rail Corridor.
Thus this would be an expensive option.
LikeLike
While I personally would like to see the Sheppard subway extended east to McCowan, it should be at least extended to Agincourt GO station. The Sheppard subway should also be extended west to Downsview (in that case perhaps YUS trains can continue to terminate at Downsview and the Sheppard Line go to Vaughan instead of short turning half the YUS trains at Downsview since the frequency on Sheppard Line is already lower and avoids or at least reduces short turning which is more annoying than an actual transfer).
The vertical separation at Eglinton (Richmond Hill Line) is not that large and a GO station there to connect to the LRT would be good for transit but I wouldn’t want to see one in order to protect the few remaining green spaces in Toronto. I would want to see the Oriole station moved north to the south side of Sheppard to provide a convenient accessible connection to the Sheppard subway. I would like to see 15 minute all day 2 way fully electric service on all GO lines including the Richmond Hill Line and I would like to see the Richmond Hill line double tracked and extended northwards.
LikeLike
@ Mr Edwin Sheppard west subway is not a matter of if. It is a matter of when. This is a hole in our transit which must be filled. We can’t just look at short time forecasts. Subway is designed for 50-100 years not for 5 years. I truly believe that Sheppard subway must be extended toward Agincourt as well. Sheppard is already facing condo booming. What if in 15 years the proposed LRT reaches it’s capacity? Are we gonna remove LRT and dig for subway extension?! Or are we gonna think about Sheppard Relief line?!!
I’m not suggesting that we build subways in every corner of the city but some subways do make sense. Toronto is one of the fast growing cities in the world. Although LRT is good for some areas such as Scarborough, we can’t just rely on it in our future infrastructure plans. I believe:
1- Sheppard subway must be extended to both Agincourt and Downsview.
2- RER lines must provide double track frequent services every 10 minutes peak in GTA
3- Finch West LRT and Malvern LRT must be built
4- Eglinton LRT must be extended further west.
5- Scarborough subway is redundant in parallel with RER and must be converted to LRT or even BRT. We don’t need two subways for one area!
LikeLike
The on-going legacy of Mr. Lastman’s requirement that this be subway continues to haunt Toronto, and good transit planning today, and likely decades into the future. There should be a monument of shame, with an updating cost clock, of the extra millions in operating costs, and the constant stream of decisions that this has forced since then. If this had been built as LRT initially, then this extension would make sense. It would have made sense to have the denser portions near Yonge in tunnel, then LRT would reasonably have stretched out from there.
Having said that, Toronto, needs to get beyond this issue. It would make considerably more sense, to have subway and LRT overlap one stop, so that LRT stretched all the way to the Oriole station, thereby not forcing a transfer, and have it go all the way to the foot of Morningside. However, building $3billion worth of subway, to avoid a transfer, to carry 6000 riders peak hour makes no sense (Metrolinx forecast is considerably lower than that). Even the TTC forecast for subway all the way to STC only has 7800 riders peak hour peak point.
Steve: Taking the LRT over to Oriole would be a huge problem. It has to be underground to cross the DVP because there is no surface capacity to handle the insertion of an LRT right-of-way. Also, very bluntly, I don’t think there is much demand for a connection at Oriole for passengers who originate on Sheppard East. I may be proved wrong, but would like to see a demand model rather than just drawing lines on a map because they look nice. That, sadly, is the approach Metrolinx took with its “mobility nodes” picking out every place two lines crossed whether these locations made sense for intensification or as major transfer points, or not.
LikeLike
P.S. Steve, note on the TTC tables specifically says that this allows for 30+ years of growth. That is even if you allow for 50 years, it does not bring you to subway volumes, at least in terms of the city growth forecasts.
I would also note that building subway later, even if we were surprised by growth would mean it was being done with something closer to the required ridership in place, and an increased tax base to pay for it. The other thing is, the further out you go, the less you can know, and committing yourself now, means spending a lot of money you may need elsewhere.
Steve: Yes, I tire of people who argue for the most capital intensive solutions to “their” pet projects on the grounds that eventually there will be enough demand to justify the investment. Meanwhile, the DRL for which a demonstrable demand exists, is treated as overkill, a needless waste to placate downtowners.
LikeLike
Sorry Steve, I was not actually suggesting extending the LRT one stop west, just that this made more sense than building subway. However, note to self, poor choice of phrase, perhaps the better wording would be -“not as bad” as building subway. Unless we are prepared to make the RER such a short headway and TTC fare that it will meaningfully compete, there is not a lot of point in worrying about it. Even then, start with the easy and cheap, move the platform to allow a transfer with the existing subway.
This could be a meaningful node, if the service design for Richmond Hill was there, but that in itself is a very large commitment (especially given the limits at Union, and the shared line at the north end), and this discussion, and design transfers should follow that one. If Richmond Hill merits rapid transit, come back and look at this, otherwise well. Even at this I suspect it would be less unreasonable to convert the Don Mills Stations to LRT, and run LRT to Leslie, than to build a huge length of subway. However, yes I agree, the operative phrase would need to be “less unreasonable”, unless and until there is a plan for a very high service density and competitive fare in the Richmond Hill ROW (ie a service that would actually get riders to the core with a similar wait, a shorter ride and a TTC fare).
Steve: Metrolinx is supposed to be coming out with a service design for the RER network early in 2015. This would include service levels and, possibly, staging proposals for the gradual buildup of RER service on various corridors. Once we see what Metrolinx is actually proposing, all of the debates about the role of each GO corridor will have a context.
LikeLike
I’ve said it before and I’ll probably say it again: No, we’ll build parallel LRTs on Finch and Wilson/York Mills/Ellesmere, both stretching all the way across the City and probably for less money than your stubway extension.
LikeLike
@isaac
Your proposed plan is really ridiculous. All streets of town have LRT running on them!
Steve: Actually, no it is not ridiculous. All through the debates about the Sheppard LRT, one frequent question was “why not Finch?” The reason is, of course, that the subway is already on Sheppard, and that Finch for a few km east of Yonge bears little resemblance to how it looks (scale of development, etc) from the DVP eastward. That’s a leftover of Mel Lastman’s protecting his “old North York” community from redevelopment. That said, Finch East is a very busy bus route, and the street is a logical place for rapid transit of some kind.
The whole point of LRT is that we don’t have to put every dollar we have into one corridor, but if there really is enough demand in a broader area, we can have two lines for less than the cost of one subway. All of this is somewhat moot because the “what do we do when Sheppard grows beyond LRT” argument has a built-in assumption that not only is this inevitable, but that it will happen within at most a few decades.
LikeLike
And it’s like there is no car and traffic in these streets! I wonder which city of world is your model? Is any modern City in the world comparable with Toronto is filling it’s major roads with LRT?
Steve: Finch has room for LRT expansion within its available right of way east of the DVP.
LikeLike
I said this a few weeks ago: They didn’t put a subway line under Yonge in 1834. At any rate, I’d doubt we’d see anything approaching subway-level demand on Sheppard within my lifetime.
If it ever does happen 50 years from now, you could dig a tunnel while the existing service continued to operate. It’s not hard.
Not many cities build underground metro lines for suburb to suburb travel.
LikeLike
As an addendum to my last post, there are plenty of examples of cities putting down rails on major roads for LRT use. Just look south of the border in the US. Some of those places even pass new taxes to pay for them!
LikeLike
@L. Wall
If you consider North York and Scarborough “suburbs” you probably still live in 1834.
I suggest that you take a short trip to Sheppard and Yonge, Sheppard and Bayview all the way to East and see the booming around Sheppard Ave. which is much bigger than Midtown.
LikeLike
John: I will get beyond that if that money wasting, almost empty subway is shut down and if it is not, then Toronto needs to get beyond the Scarborough subway issue which will have far more riders than the money wasting completely unjustifiable Sheppard subway that you want to continue to operate for no other reason than that it runs through some high heeled latte-sipping areas.
LikeLike
Reza G said.
“And it’s like there is no car and traffic in these streets! I wonder which city of world is your model? Is any modern City in the world comparable with Toronto is filling it’s major roads with LRT?”
I would point out to you that many cities have serious dense and growing LRT/Tram networks.
Paris
Berlin
San Fran has 6 LRT lines “Muni Metro”
Also a line on Finch and a line on Sheppard would not represent an LRT on every street. However, I would note, that other than a couple of narrow sections in both streets, they can be widened in order to not remove lanes of traffic.
A single LRT car every 3 minutes reasonably carries 3000 passengers, that would be what 3 lanes of cars – when signals are considered. Push that so that you can actually squeeze have a single car LRT every 2 minutes and you are looking at 4500, and well stretch that to 2 cars – 9000. That is 5+ expressway lanes in a single direction? If we need more we could reasonably add a car or even two.
If you want to make the city work, you need to actually spread the transit close to where people are coming from and want to go, and not worry quite so much about not the capacity for development 50 years hence. Build the appropriate capacity, if the demand is really on Sheppard, and really does get above 15k, over a substantial part of the line, well sure we need then to look at subway. Look at where the load is coming from and going to and how it is growing when we get to 12k. If the demand is coming from and/or going to Finch, well, maybe capacity there is better. I would suggest to you that I would be surprised if demand on Sheppard actually exceeded 8k prior to 2040.
However, despite the fact that Sheppard is unlikely to exceed LRT capacity, it is likely that Finch East should at some point not too far in the future have LRT or at least BRT in order to improve service there. I would also like to see more out of traffic transit generally. If transit achieves the degree of penetration it has in the downtown, then I would expect that more LRT will be desired. These can also be to walk to lines, and in a transit oriented area, services easy walks from transit. This type of transit and development will support continued intensification, in a way cars and large parking lots cannot hope to. The dense neighborhoods, and walkable areas of downtown, formed around transit, and this was before it had the capacity of subway. Also frankly an LRT is nicer to ride than subway (you actually get to see the neighborhoods you pass through).
Toronto, cannot reasonably increase the capacity of its roads to allow a 30-50% increase in its population with current mode split. Transit will be required, and out of traffic transit spread far and wide will be required to get people out of their cars. Ideally the bus rides should be short, and for many rapid transit should even be a walkable. This is simply not affordable with subway.
LikeLike
Sheppard is still a street full of big box and strip plazas with seas of parking. If you’re referring to the handful of condos that have popped up along the main street, I’m going to tell you it’s a bucket in the ocean. Even then you need to realize a 30 storey condo might only have 250-300 people in it so even a large cluster of them might only be a couple thousand people.
I have seen the street thank you very much. Have you? The last time I went to the Rona big box store on the site of the Willowdale station, itself also surrounded by strip malls and parking, I took a short walk through the surrounding areas. Not even 2 minutes walk from Sheppard I was already in a sea of single family homes on wide lots with huge yards and NO sidewalks. If that isn’t suburban, I don’t know what is.
Steve: Willowdale Station?
LikeLike
The reason that Sheppard subway has not reached its capacity is because it is remaining a stub subway line. Extend it and complete the loops and see how much riding will be added. By the way for those who claim that no one is using Sheppard subway now I suggest to use it during the peak time and see how difficult is even getting off the train. Please come and visit Sheppard and Yonge subway in the morning. I hope that Metrolinx would do a profound evaluation of all plans and see the long term interests of the city.
Steve: The Sheppard line operates on a 5’30” headway (10.9 trains/hour) with 4-car trains, a design capacity of about 7,300/hour. The TTC has spare trains and could improve service (but has not for years), with the only caveat being that this would further overload the Yonge line.
As for a Metrolinx study, what I would love to see is more info about where the Sheppard riders actually originate and where they are going. This is all part of the problem of “relief” for the Yonge line by provision of parallel capacity.
LikeLike
I think first “suburb” should not be seen, or used as an insult, it merely means there exist and area that has less than “urban” density, usually beyond an area that does have urban density. It is reasonable to want to have a lawn when you have kids etc.
The issues around midtown, while I agree the density around Eglinton and Yonge does not appear higher than Yonge and Sheppard, there is a lower density (as L Wall says), in the blocks beyond. Some of the employment and housing density along Eglinton, is not super high, but rather based small lawn tightly packed houses, low rise buildings etc, that continue through the blocks beyond the area immediately around Yonge. While I agree Sheppard has some areas of high density, there are also areas where the parking lots are huge relative to the store sizes etc. Sheppard is interesting that it is still mixed density, but even that does not extend very far beyond Sheppard itself. Sheppard is a work in progress, and will likely continue to intensify, however, even at that it is hard to see it achieving subway ridership levels.
Also when comparing Eglinton to Sheppard, it is important to remember that Eglinton is busier and more concentrated west of Yonge, and the Eglinton West bus is very heavily used (about twice that of Sheppard East), and this is the real reason for the need of an LRT along the roadway. This was where the original concept for a busway (before network 2011 plan) was to go, and the route has practically grown well beyond that being practical. Also it adds network connectivity (joins the lines-but does not now, nor will it anytime soon justify full blown subway). From Yonge to the Allen, Eglinton is also very busy section of road.
I do believe that Sheppard, and even some of the area beyond will continue to intensify, and will, like Eglinton, require much more capacity than a bus can offer, however, not to the level of a subway for decades to come.
@John (NO, NOT JOHN TORY)
While I believe the area beyond Kennedy in Scarborough does come closer to needing subway, it too does not make that level, and really requires more coverage, not massive capacity along a single line. The SRT as a right of way needs to be maintained and capacity greatly increased (doubled immediately, then grow to meet demand), and the transfer a proper one. The stations along it other than STC also need space for people to board at peak, and to be accessible (and to have some shelter), and the line needs to be extended. In this area, again, however, there needs to be capacity not just there but elsewhere, say extended along Kingston road, and the east end (Morningside) needs to be hooked in.
Scarborough has secured the money to build the entire loop, it would get better service for all riders, and long term development, if it would take a couple of years of pain, and jump to this higher level of service across a very broad area. However, the pressure needs to be constant to ensure the entire project is built, not some political half-baked sop. Getting around Scarborough, even if you are not headed to Kennedy or the STC, should be much easier-without a car.
Also this type of wide plan of access needs to apply not just in Scarborough, but also across the entire city.
LikeLike
Do you know of some plan to build tall office and condo complexes all along Sheppard that we don’t? Future capacity need studies don’t simply pull number out of the air (or anywhere else). Sure, things can change but do you really believe that the public sentiment of those living along Sheppard will change that much that this sort of change will occur that will make the capacity of an LRT line obsolete within 15 years? Or even 50 years?
Parallel LRT lines 2 to 4 km apart are a much better way to go for areas that are designed to be less dense places to live than putting all of our eggs in one basket, so to speak.
To take the “subway needed because we might exceed LRT capacity” argument to an extreme, why not ban multi-car households? If you really feel your family will grow and need more room than a single car, you should purchase a 12-seat van. The response to this was best said by Reza G. himself:
Except, Reza G. was saying this to the transit equivalent to a family purchasing a second vehicle when needed.
Steve: There is another important consideration about new construction along Sheppard (or other suburban locations). The development industry must find a market for whatever they might build. Buildings don’t just sprout because someone says “here is the centre of the universe”, for which Scarborough and North York centres are prime examples. There are some nodes on Sheppard where high density development is present or may happen, but not on a continuous basis from one end of the street to another. Moreover, whatever density does arise will be “thin” in the sense that it will not penetrate far from the arterial.
LikeLike
The important thing that you forget about all these LRT fantasies is that it is rejected by Torontonians two times. People even preferred some one like Ford to Chow! So better to accept some realities for future planing otherwise it goes no where.
Steve: It was not the “LRT fantasies” that got Ford elected. It was people (a) pissed off by the garbage strike and (b) Ford’s claim that subways could be built everywhere. As for Ford vs Chow, I would restate that as people preferred anyone other than a Ford by more than two to one.
LikeLike
And so we can cancel the Scarborough subway but ONLY IF both the Sheppard subway and the Vaughan subway are suspended indefinitely. There is no point running money losing empty trains along / in these places. If however the heavily unused Sheppard subway continues to operate and work continues to go on on the completely unnecessary and unjustifiable Vaughan subway, then it is only fair that we build the Scarborough subway which will have more ridership than both the Vaughan subway and the Sheppard subway combined.
LikeLike
I was talking just about Sheppard and the major roads close to it, but indeed, if it were up to me, no street would have more than one regular traffic lane in each direction until it first had an LRT installed on it. People need the ability to drive almost anywhere by car/truck, but as soon as volumes are high enough to justify more than one lane in the same direction in the same corridor, LRT is the more efficient way to carry most of the volume.
If a road with two traffic lanes and two LRT lanes starts to be too crowded, then in a few cases it might make sense to enhance it with more regular traffic lanes. In other cases, just run more LRT vehicles.
LikeLike
I would note a few things.
1. Politics in the last few years have been particularly distasteful.
2. I do not recall there being an actual honest-to-god vote on LRTs, using mayoral elections as a proxy is a very dangerous thing. There are other things at play, just like at federal and provincial elections. I always struggle as I am what Steve would call a Red Tory, for me the conservatives are too far right on social issues, too angry, and too ready to cut first look after. The liberals simply won’t stick to a plan, and actually govern but insist on playing politics – power plants (they were where they were for technical reasons), transit plans, provincially funded High Speed Rail??!!)
3. Even at that there has yet to be a real frank and informed discussion about LRT, implementation and real options.
4. I will just remind you that the vote at the city level is not the end of the story anyway, as the city does not propose to fund any of these projects. At the rate Toronto is pushing to have subway, it could well discover there is a provincial party dedicated solely to the idea of saying no to rapacious Toronto. Such a party would be easier to organize than one might suppose if Toronto actually got the subway that Ford was pushing for (From Brockville, Kingston, Smith’s Falls, Belleville, Bracebridge, Parry Sound, Woodstock, Sarnia … You closed my hospital to build that!!!)
LikeLike
The issue I have with this, is that frankly the big bucks already sailed. Also my experience with LRT vs Subway, has always been that LRT is actually a more pleasant ride. So we screwed up on Sheppard (although at the time I thought Lastman was being an ass), and then we managed to be just as stupid (maybe more) going to Vaughan. Do we collectively want to keep on making the same mistakes?
Sheppard and Vaughan are both travesties, why would we want to go down that road again. Are we basically saying we shot ourselves twice, third times the charm? The area beyond Downsview would have been better served building a couple of LRT, or perhaps extending subway as far as Finch in the west and stopping. LRT from there north (Vaughan) and west (airport area), and yes, maybe even east from Downsview (Yonge?). The building of the Vaughan extension was stupid, but the tunnel is done, as silly as it was.
I would suggest to all, that Scarborough would be better served, by saying, you all were stupid, we want our transit money, and yes all of it, to build LRT. Budget says it should get us Sheppard LRT, LRT to the bottom of Morningside, LRT in the the SRT, and LRT through Malvern, and LRT onto and along Kingston road. Used the line to be fair — the $3.8billion needs to be spent in Scarborough, and then get complete LRT. Keep the pressure on, and make sure everybody knows you know that subway is more likely to have cost overruns, and that pesky car house, well you can use the one they are already building for Eglinton, so don’t let that get baked in. As Joe M. suggest, insist they start in the east and work their way west, and push like mad to get it all.
Scarborough would be much better for it, and it would make North York look like the smacked asses they were for having to have subway and ending up with a stubway. This stubway will never pay for itself, and cause all of us to constantly think, they already got theirs, they shouldn’t come back and ask again.
After you actually have your whole LRT locked in, politically you might even consider helping downtown getting an LRT (that it so needs) running to the East Bayfront, so that the tax base and jobs there grow much more quickly, and will support further transit development. I would also suggest Waterfront West, as far as Liberty Village, would likely pay a nice little development bonus in terms of the tax base, and would therefore be in the interest of all. This would mean that there would actually be a tax base to get you your cake, and let you eat it too, as the taxes and fares here would be enough to pay for this project and help transit elsewhere too.
LikeLike
A comparison between Sheppard subway and Scarborough RT ridership 2012-2013 published by TTC:
Sheppard subway: 49440. SRT: 40290
Donmills station: 33140 STC:29610
Sheppard station@Sheppard:47930 Kennedy station @RT: 34300
Which one has more ridership? Sheppard subway or SRT?
Steve: The question is which one has more potential ridership. We know that SRT has been constrained by its tiny fleet for decades, but the projected demand is still well within LRT territory.
LikeLike
@Reza G
It is much easier to achieve a higher ridership with higher capacity. It should be noted that SRT capacity is basically only 4k, i.e. a little less than a single car lrt @2 minutes. The fact that subway in Sheppard only carries slightly more makes the point that is not really required as subway. The SRT could likely greatly increase its current peak ridership, if it had twice the cars. As noted above runs with 28 cars small enough that a 4 car train is like a 2 car LRT, but only runs about every 5 minutes. If it had not been a new technology etc. with very high associated costs they likely would have sought a fleet of about 40 (10 trains not 7) now it should really be about 12 trains to bring it to the 7 capacity range, it needs at least 6k now. I suspect if it had this capacity it would run comfortably above 50k maybe even see 40k at STC. It would also actually leave room to board between STC and Kennedy. Steve I am sure has a better idea of the exact extent of the backlog.
Steve how much of the Kennedy, Brimley or McCowan bus ridership would otherwise be RT?
Steve: I don’t think you would see much of this bus traffic on the RT even if it had more capacity because there is no transfer connection from Kennedy or Brimley directly to the RT line. Obviously more/different stations and an alternative route structure could get around this, but you would be expecting people who are already on a bus to divert out of their way and add a transfer connection to their trips. Even at McCowan, it’s not as if the bus pulls in to a simple transfer station.
I would argue that if the routes were rebuilt to force feed the RT (even more than it is already) this would be even worse for travel within Scarborough than the current arrangement.
LikeLike
Joe M says:
Basically some Central & Western Toronto citizens look at Scarborough as the homeless man outside the subway station that is usually there but you just throw left over change and leftover lunch once in a while at him at an feel like you helped.
Unfortunately that only helps people who live for 50 years or so but ruins Cityies that need to last forever.
Steve: Oh please stop it with the “poor Scarborough” self-victimization. There have been plenty of voices within Scarborough who would prefer that money be spent on an extensive LRT network rather than one subway line. Even the pols who adopted a role of subway champions once were quite strongly pro-LRT, but changed their tune in a blatant pandering for votes.
LikeLike
Moaz: Do those data include the passengers who are bused directly between Scarborough Centre & Kennedy?
Cheers, Moaz
Steve: I am not sure, and more generally whether subway station usage counts include riders who don’t actually use the subway. I will inquire.
LikeLike
I am hoping that Scarborough is the visionary area of the city it really should be. It has a huge landmass, dynamic population, and a notable but widely spread transportation problem. I really do believe Scarborough needs, and should get all the monies that have been allocated to the Subway, in order to build a real transportation network, that will help with all trips. However, a network, not a single line.
This should reduce the degree to which the bus network is structured to only to push riders to the STC and Kennedy, while still allowing those who need to go the core to still get there much faster. North York’s Mayor Mel, did a huge disservice to the city and North York, by not allowing the Finch area to really develop, and insisting that Sheppard be subway (“real cities”, like Paris and Berlin are not “real cities”).
Scarborough has a chance to not continue to force a long bus ride to subway route structure, and encourage much more liveable and effective transit. The thing that is hard to understand is why people want to distort so many routes to conform to a subway subway subway model. Toronto has done this too long, and its roads are now too busy to require people to ride on bus in traffic for long rides in order to get to a subway. This is especially true in Scarborough, and especially bad as it does not allow for the other rides to be well supported, and encourage transit as a habit (creates 45 minute rides to really only go a few kilometres, but requires much longer distance when done on bus).
I hope that Scarborough will lead Toronto out of the subway, subway, subway approach, and into an age of where transit actually makes sense. Where transit is modelled on the idea of being sensitive to total trip time and convenience, not subway at all cost. This is the model that should have prevailed in North York, and to Vaughan, and needs to prevail in Rexdale and Mimico, and in the connection to Richmond Hill and Markham. Trip time, wait times, and sensible connections, not subway should be what transit is about.
LikeLike
An accident of any sort along the light rail corridor would be catastrophic for the service, particularly because the LRT tracks would run in the middle of the road. One accident at an intersection, whether the accident actually involves a train or not, could shut down both tracks of the system and the entire service for several hours, wrecking havoc on everyone’s schedules. Unlike buses, there would be no opportunity for the trains to swerve around the accident or choose alternative roads to travel on. This could be particularly devastating for the reliability of the system.
Above discussion is from an article posted on web.
Article ( A closer look at disadvantages of LRT is Surrey) added:Light rail supporters have been subjected to a rather glorious era these past few years, fueled by a backbone of political support, misconceptions, and the hiding of critical limitations of the technology.
Why doesn’t any one talk about these disadvantages?
I also want give you an analogy. Our reliable electric system in North America still owes to the over design of 70s. Had they wanted to design transmission lines capacity just by following the short sighted predictions at that time (with lower capital cost) we would have had a catastrophe now.
Steve: You are starting to scrape the bottom of the barrel here. There are LRT lines all over the world, and yes, they deal with problems of accidents that block the tracks. It comes with the territory. How many times are there major subway delays caused by equipment problems, ill passengers, suicides?
LikeLike
Also, why some of the same people find it so hard to understand that the excessive cost means that a “subway subway subway” promise becomes at best a “subway” implementation. Whereas an “LRT LRT LRT” promise would have no problem becoming an “LRT LRT LRT” implementation if aggressively unthinking people would get out of the way.
LikeLike
Did they really? Let’s take a look at each of these two times:
First time: Ford’s campaign was 99% focused on cutting waste at city hall. His “stop the gravy train” catchphrase was so ubiquitous during the campaign that he spewed it every chance he got, and as often as possible. During interviews regarding subjects that had little to nothing to do with city hall spending, he would throw in that catchphrase, even if it was during the good-byes at the end of the interview. To be fair, that is excellent campaigning: repeat your message as often as possible. It worked! The point is, that message did not have the word ‘subway’ in it.
Ford did have a subway-based transit plan as part of his campaign. Most cannot recall just what it included, partly because the “stop the gravy train” mantra eclipsed it, and partly because he released it late one night as a poorly made YouTube video that got all of five minutes play in the media. It contained grand plans for the Crosstown line, as well as the Scarborough and Sheppard subway lines with very dubious costing figures. It also promised to build it all with the $10 billion coming from the province. Trouble was, about $1.2 billion of that provincial money was already earmarked for York Region.
How much of that does anyone recall BEFORE I mentioned it here?
Second time: Sure more people voted for [Doug] Ford than Chow, but more people voted for Tory than Ford. Tory’s platform included the construction of both the Sheppard and Finch LRT lines. By Reza G.’s logic, the people of Toronto voted in favour of these two LRT lines.
LikeLike
@ Calvin
You better go and check John Tory’s ST map Do you see any Finch or Sheppard LRT? The only LRT included was Eglinton in that map. Even Chow pointed out this issue in his published map. He mentioned several times that he is not a fan of LRT. You better get yourself familiarized with your mayor before writing naive analysis here and every one knows that last election was all about transit.
LikeLike
Oddly enough remembered most of if, I would also note that I do not believe people vote (or at least should not) for a single item on the platform. There will be many (I know a couple) that voted for Tory, despite his support of the Scarborough subway (did not believe in Chow) and well hoped that once in office he would come to his senses. You are voting for the person you believe will do the best job (at least you are supposed to be) and the candidates’ platforms have a wide array of items, so many who were against Scarborough subway, may have voted for Tory, some who even favored Ford may have liked him for other reasons (entertainment value perhaps or felt sorry for him) and still supported LRT, or disliked subway. You cannot infer from a vote for mayor a position on LRT. That would require a referendum, and even that in today’s world, would mean that people voted for/against what they were led to believe. This is why we are supposed to have a functioning representative democracy, and why politicians should be followers of advice not polls.
LikeLike
After showing you the real numbers of Sheppard subway ridership compare to Scarborough RT for those who actually believed that Sheppard subway was running empty, here I want to introduce a new actual study about Sheppard couridor:
Sheppard Subway Expert Advisory Panel Toronto City Council, 2012 study+
1992 Environmental Assessment: Capital and operating costs in perpetuity:
LRT less competitive per passenger carried (model – 15,000 pphpd)
LRT vehicles cost more than subway, and storage costs greater than subway
LRT annual operating costs greater than subway
LRT requires more property acquisition, and greater impact on municipal taxes
LRT capital costs only 15% less than subway at 15,000 pphpd
LRT other costs greater than subway – e.g. congestion, environment, social, land use, economic growth
Any scientific response other than screaming?
Also for those who claim that last election was not about transit I have a reminder:
Olivia Chow was ahead in polls just before Tory published his SmartTrack plan and all political analysts were agree that Tory won the election as a result of SmartTrack idea.
Steve: The 1992 study was looking at LRT as a replacement for the subway over its entire length, not for the portion east of Don Mills Station. Also, a comparison at 15k is at the upper end of LRT capacity where subway becomes competitive. You are making an apples to oranges comparison.
I could also comment that in 1992 the attitude to LRT was that it was not taken seriously as a future transit mode, and all efforts were on maximizing the attractiveness of the subway option.
SmartTrack will do nothing for the Sheppard corridor, and I should remind you that the estimated cost (if you believe the back of Tory’s campaign team’s envelope) is almost $9-billion. It is almost entirely focussed on getting people downtown, the very function that, for the DRL, drives some people crazy.
LikeLike
Yeah, just like they started Eglinton LRT in the east right? Since the Scarborough portion of the LRT is on surface, it could have been done 10 times faster than the underground portion in the richer areas to the west but no, Scarborough has to wait for all tunnelling, etc to be complete in the richer west even to get it’s third rate on surface LRT. The time savings that Metrolinx for the whole route are to be had entirely in the underground portion which does not serve Scarborough. Indeed the travel time for Scarborough people will increase since half of the trips will short-turn at Laird (just before the trains come out of the tunnel for on surface LRT to the east) and only half of the LRT vehicles that do go on to Scarborough will also have further time added to their trips due to drivers boarding at Laird while going east and drivers disembarking at Laird while going west (just consider how annoying it is when in the middle of the route you have driver changes) and so Scarborough folks will not only have their waiting times increased due to half the trains short turning at Laird (needless to say all this waiting will be done out in the cold since all Scarborough gets is cold weather exposed middle of the street LRT while richer folks to the west get straight of the art weather protected warm underground stations) but will their travel times increased also due to driver coming in / going out and not just that but for all this Scarborough folks also have to ensure years of construction headaches.
Steve: I don’t know where you get your model of drivers boarding and disembarking at Laird. The underground section of the line includes modern signalling with automatic train control, but there will be operators on the trains.
As for construction staging, the west (underground) section of the line is the most complex to build with tunnels followed by stations. There is no point in building the surface part first and have it sit there unused.
While you’re complaining about trains short-turning, don’t forget that half of the Bloor-Danforth trains will short turn at Kennedy and only half of the service will run north to Sheppard. The amount of money in the subway budget pays for enough trains to run 50% of the service east and north of Kennedy, not all of it. As for the short turn location on Eglinton, Don Mills makes far more sense as this is the major division point in the level of demand on Eglinton East.
LikeLike
I am not saying that just because we made the mistakes of building completely unnecessary subways on Sheppard and in Vaughan, we should build other unnecessary subways but what I am saying is that IF we continue to make the mistakes of running wasteful empty subway trains on Sheppard and in Vaughan, then we should also go ahead with the Scarborough subway which will have more than twice the ridership of Sheppard and Vaughan combined. If we are willing to stop making the mistake of continuing to run a wasteful Shepard subway and if we immediately stop any further work on the subway in Vaughan, then and only then am I willing to accept LRT instead of the subway to replace the SRT. I am NOT saying that the Sheppard and Vaughan subways should be demolished but to NOT have any service to them for at least 10 years at which point ridership should be further evaluated to determine whether or not subway service there is warranted. If you want to continue to operate a wasteful Sheppard subway and to run trains (starting next year) on the wasteful Vaughan subway, then stop saying that the Scarborough subway will be a waste which will have more than twice the ridership of the Vaughan and Sheppard subways combined.
But what I am saying is that if we continue to shoot ourselves by operating completely unnecessary and wasteful Sheppard and Vaughan subways, then we should not mind shooting ourselves one more time to build the Scarborough subway which will have more than twice the ridership of the Sheppard and Vaughan subways combined. If we are willing to immediately suspend all subway service on Sheppard and immediately suspend all work on the subway in Vaughan, then I will be more than happy to drop all demands for the Scarborough subway which will have more than twice the ridership of Sheppard and Vaughan subways combined.
And could they not find a surface right of way in Vaughan? The subway in Vaughan runs underneath vast empty fields but yet nothing less than underground would do and yet on Eglinton Ave East in Scarborough (which does not have the luxury of running through empty fields) is forced upon with an on surface middle of the street LRT (destroying precious trees and other things to widen the road and bridges). The on-surface Eglinton LRT in Scarborough is nothing more than a road widening project and so I am surprised that Steve has not condemned it (perhaps because he will never use it).
Steve: There is a lot of “condemning” expected of me here (and in your next comment), not to mention assertions about what parts of any line I might actually use. The bridge in question is over the west branch of the Don and the trees that would be affected by its widening were severely damaged by last winter’s ice and wind storm. I know because I ride through there fairly regularly and saw the sad aftermath. That said, there are plenty of precedents for taking trees (these even in good shape were not particularly old or distinguished) and replacing them with new ones.
LikeLike
Steve: As for the short turn location on Eglinton, Don Mills makes far more sense as this is the major division point in the level of demand on Eglinton East.
Then it follows that it also makes far more sense to have the line completely buried until Don Mills. Why don’t you condemn the line surfacing just east of Laird?
Steve: Because there is nothing wrong with its running on the surface for that section.
LikeLike
That is true, but I was speaking about what he said about leaving the already-approved projects in place. Once he introduced his SmartTrack plan, surface rail became his whole focus, so much so that he repeated “SmartTrack” the same way Ford repeated “stop the gravy train” in the previous election. As for his map, while one might take the absence of the Finch West and Sheppard East LRT lines as fortelling his plan to drop them, I suspect the map was intended to show the connectivity of SmartTrack with existing and under construction lines.
I am quite familiar with Dave Barrow, but as a long time reader of this blog and its comments, you already knew that!
This is very true for the vast majority of voters. There are small factions of voters who focus on one or a small number of issues, but not a substantial number to make a significant difference.
A background point I was making was about some people love to attribute the election of a person or a party to the wholesale acceptance and approval of each and every point in their election platform. I would like to believe that a platform would provide a default position for issues where no general consensus (or even concern) exists within the constituency, but an elected official would be guided by the constituency where there was. That model lends itself well to a party system, where elected representatives are free to vote instead of following the party.
Since municipal governments do not (officially) have such a party structure, there tends to be a more rigid sticking to the election platform. To do otherwise tends to result in being called a flip-flopper, which will end up as fodder by their opponents come the next election. During the election, Tory was careful to be vague on issues he didn’t have a firm position on. It will be interesting how much his SmartTrack plan will change as there are some things about it that will force a significant change, but walking the line between sticking to one’s plans making the public believe that there were actual technical or political reasons for a change beyond one’s control can be tricky.
LikeLike