[scarberiankhatru]

Detroit's people mover doesn't even function as a transit system or register in the minds of the overwhelming majority of people living in Detroit (in distant suburbs), so Detroit can be entirely dismissed from the RT replacement argument.

 

[nfitz]

Why would anyone count the Detroit people mover as a transit system? It's just a small downtown loop in a city with very little transit. It's got more similarities to the Toronto airport people mover in terms of scope - or perhaps the Seattle monorail would be a better example.

Surely, if you want to compare the Scarborough RT to something, you compare it to the Vancouver Skytrain, which also uses virtually the same vehicles.

 

[scarberiankhatru]

...which is why Northern Light ignored Detroit in the first place.

 

[nfitz]

Ah - the biggest problem I had with the Detroit post is context! Somehow I missed this one.

Ok, first the on-topic thought!

THE RT must go!

Why?

1) Its orphan technology. Used in only 1 other City in North America that I'm aware of (Vancouver), and even there, not with the same rolling stock, or operating procedures.

Well, if you use that argument, then also you'd have to eliminate new Vancouver subway (Canada line), and also Toronto's CLRV streetcars. Though as others have pointed out; Detroit also uses the technology (uses it badly - but they use it). As does New York City on a new line constructed in 2003. So that's 4 major North American cities. It's also used in Malaysia - where the system is being extended.[/QUOTE]

Further, the TTC has no serious intentions of adding more of the this technology on a large-scale; and there would significant cost-benefits to rationalizing the fleet (1 less yard, 1 less vehicle type, fewer parts to order etc. etc.)

A better argument. I can see that there may be benefits replacing it with the new LRT equipment that TTC is obtaining.

2) The RT needs a rebuild anyway, as it the current equipment and track is at the end of its useful life. So there is mandatory opportunity.

Agreed

3) By Building a subway along an alternate alignment, you need not close the RT till the new subway opens. The Current RT - refurb proposal means a minimum 18-month, probably 3-year closure and shuttle bus replacement.

Can the RT survive without a re-build until 2020 or so when a subway would be completed. Also cost of a subway is almost 4-times the cost of rehabbing the existing system. TTC estimated that service disruption would be 8 months, not 18 months. If subway is extended, there would still likely be a period of subway service removal between Warden and Kennedy.

4) The Current RT is at capacity, even with Mark II cars, it will only add 20-30% more capacity vs. what the combined RT and supplementary bus service have now.

There is no room for demand growth.

Where do you get this? The planning document showed the existing capacity at about 4,500 passengers per hour in each direction; with the improved RT being about 14,500 - that's over 300% not 20-30%. I think your forgetting that they can still signficantly increase the frequency (if they get new vehicles). Is there a change to the planning assumptions?

 

[scarberiankhatru]

A subway extension will be cheaper than the RT reno + extension (and you cannot ignore that cost!) and will not require shutting down the line east of Warden (why would it? There's a crossover in front of Kennedy and the station wouldn't be rebuilt). If they started the subway today, it'd be done by like 2015, and that's including all kinds of time lost by keeping every road open 24/7 during cut & cover and by reinventing the wheel during the EA process. There's absolutely no benefits from keeping the RT...none.

 

[nfitz]

A subway extension will be cheaper than the RT reno + extension

A subway extension would cheaper that building a nuclear reactor on Toronto Island airport as well. But that would also be comparing apples to oranges.

Either compare the cost of converting the current system to subway versus rehabilitating the current system (though even that would lose service to the stations other than Kennedy and STC). Or compare the cost of rehabbing the current system and extending to Sheppard to a subway from Kennedy to Sheppard/Markham. Or the cost of converting to subway, and providing another transit solution from STC to Sheppard.

 

[scarberiankhatru]

They're both apples for reasons already stated...but if you read those posts like you read Northern Light's post, well, you probably didn't read them at all - go back and have a look. They're both apples because they have the same function (of course, you consider something like moving people or travel times or number of people served or reliability or ease of use or impact on development to be completely irrelevant to the RT debate). All you care about is ratios like $/km - you can't see the orchard for the apples.

The subway extension is an apple that's been freshly picked from the orchard since it moves more people in less time for less money. By comparison, the RT is a rotten apple.

You do realize that anyone who places *any* weight at all on the "loss" of stations deserves to be laughed at, right? Only 900 people a day use Ellesmere, most of whom either park'n'ride or get dropped off. Midland is also entirely expendable - those that connect to it by the Midland bus can just stay on the 57 and get to Kennedy in 10 minutes (which is often faster than the RT), and those that get dropped off by cars can do so elsewhere. Midland and Ellesmere stations combined probably see no more than 500 walk-ins a day (so, a max of 1000 trips). If Lawrence East is moved eastward, a majority of its patrons will benefit because they won't have as far to go on the 54 to get there.

 

[nfitz]

They're both apples for reasons already stated.

Your previous statements made no sense.

From an engineering perspective, if you evaluate using technology A or B to go from X to Y. You use both to go from X to Y. You don't say - oh, let's use B, because it costs about the same - and will get you at least half-way to Y.

The evaluation to use one over the other is cost to go from Kennedy to STC. That is how the decision will be made. If you think otherwise, you'll in for a surprise.

You do realize that anyone who places *any* weight at all on the "loss" of stations deserves to be laughed at...

... which is why I put little weight on them (though oddly, the only station I've used is Ellesmere!)

 

[scarberiankhatru]

The evaluation is to go from a home in NE Scarborough to Kennedy station...and since the 100,000 people in Malvern are worth more than people elsewhere in Scarborough, the RT will be extended at the expense of the 300,000 people in the RT's catchment area that aren't in Malvern.

The purpose of transit is not to build stuff for the lowest price, it's to move people. Of course, this is how it should be, not necessarily what it is in reality. In reality, there's people like you in charge who care only for numbers and have no interest in what these numbers mean for people.

 

[nfitz]

The evaluation is to go from a home in NE Scarborough to Kennedy station...and since the 100,000 people in Malvern are worth more than people elsewhere in Scarborough, the RT will be extended at the expense of the 300,000 people in the RT's catchment area that aren't in Malvern.

I really don't see the logic in why you believe the people in Malvern are more important. But following your theory, then the price of modernising and extending the LRT needs to be compared to the price of building a subway and _________ to Malvern. In your line of thinking - what fills in the blank?

The purpose of transit is not to build stuff for the lowest price, it's to move people.

Agreed! What moves the most people, given the available resources.

In reality, there's people like you in charge who care only for numbers and have no interest in what these numbers mean for people.

WTF??? Why the personal attacks? If you can't debate this in a civilised manner, without resorting to personal attacks, you shouldn't be here. Where are the moderators? Trust me - if I were in charge, things would be quite different. If people like me were in charge, things would be quite different. But I'll never be in charge - I have no patience for bureaucracy or union BS - I wouldn't last 10 minutes.

 

[ShonTron]

In terms of "personal attacks" that was relatively tame. But since you asked, I'll give out a "tsk, tsk" to Scarberian, who I guess could have phrased that in a nicer way.

As for the blank, I'll suggest express buses. The worst part of the bus service to Malvern is you either get caught on winding routes, or a scenic route via Centenary Hospital. The 133 should have an all-day express route variation via Neilson and the 401 to the Scarborough Centre subway station. That's how you get the subway. It wouldn't cost much - perhaps some asphalt for bus by-pass shoulders on the 401 and maybe some fancier shelters for the route in Malvern.

Apart from a few rush-hour E routes and the 190, 191, 192 and 196, the TTC hasn't figured out how to use limited-stop buses properly. Each of the 190-series routes I mentioned is a huge success.

 

[DENTROBATE54]

... which is why I put little weight on them (though oddly, the only station I've used is Ellesmere!)

Both stations are useless and their daily usage could easily be handled by a new stop on the Sheppard extension within the vinicity.

Apart from a few rush-hour E routes and the 190, 191, 192 and 196, the TTC hasn't figured out how to use limited-stop buses properly. Each of the 190-series routes I mentioned is a huge success.

What?! 191-2 yes, the others not so much. It shouldn't take a half-hour to go from STC to Fairview especially when paralleling a highway the entire way. 196 would be better if it ran through the Finch Hydro Corridor.

The evaluation is to go from a home in NE Scarborough to Kennedy station...and since the 100,000 people in Malvern are worth more than people elsewhere in Scarborough, the RT will be extended at the expense of the 300,000 people in the RT's catchment area that aren't in Malvern.

If not ITCS, then at least TC should penetrate Malvern somehow.

 

[scarberiankhatru]

*I* don't think people in Malvern are worth more, but the city does, which is why the RT's getting reno'd and extended at a higher cost than a subway extension that would benefit several times as many people.

Contrary to popular belief, people in Malvern don't even make up a majority of RT riders, let alone enough to warrant anything more substantial than buses...why are the hundreds of thousands of other people in the area always ignored? The subway would move a lot more people - it's impossible to deny this!

Nielson buses can run along the 401, which is virtually never gridlocked around there, and even if there is a bit of traffic, it'll still save plenty of time compared to trundling through Centenary hospital. If they ever extend McNicoll over to Morningside Heights, it'd also be a perfect place to run buses that could then take a road like Middlefield or Brimley and get to STC in 20 minutes instead of 45.

And this is excluding rocket routes, which could and should be added to almost any busy/long bus route - Morningside, Finch, and Sheppard are all obvious choices. Rocket buses or even an LRT on Lawrence, coupled with a subway extension, would slash travel times for people on the 54.

The TTC hasn't tried rocket routes anywhere else. This is where someone will point to the Finch express to Don Mills station as a failure, but that makes every local stop between Nielson and the 404 before dropping people off at the stubway...it's useful as overflow for the regular Finch bus or taking people to Fairview, but there's absolutely nothing "express" about it. Other E routes are the same - they run express for a concession or two then make local stops for the next 6 concessions, saving people one or two minutes. Meanwhile, the 190 saves you almost one minute per kilometre (or maybe more; that's just my estimate). Rocket routes cost almost nothing to implement, but slash travel times, boost route capacity, improve reliability, etc. As long as a street isn't hopelessly gridlocked (like Finch West, which is one reason why LRT is appropriate there) they'd work great.

Oh, and yes, Dentrobate, the 190 is a massive success. This is undeniable. It saves a huge amount of time. It never takes over 30 minutes, though. If it ran on the 401, it'd be useless, not highly used, because its purpose is to serve people along Sheppard, not shuttle people directly to STC.

 

[ShonTron]

The 96E is the best of the E routes for being an effective limited-stop service, but should run at more times of the day. It stops only at Wilson Station, Dufferin, Dubray (for two high schools), Keele, Jane, Weston, Islington and local from there to Humber College. The Steeles East and West are hardly "express", as they only skip stops on Yonge (at least the Steeles East runs express to Vic Park, not so bad).

The 196 will get the busway segment. And it's so successful, it's getting a subway replacement.

 

[scarberiankhatru]

Steeles East express saves a few minutes running over to VP, but since it's "express," people mob it at the station, making it impossible to get a seat and overcrowding the bus to the point that you're guaranteed to stop at every stop east of VP. It's always funny to get on the regular 53 right behind it at the station, then watch the express zoom away, only to catch up to it later because no one's on the regular 53, allowing it to trundle along without stopping.