[coffey1]

nfitz, Murray said the SRT corridor would only cost 1.8 billion. And coffey where is the proof Smarttrack would eat into the ridership and if so why build the subway at all? And don't respond because everyone else has one.

Cmon...The proof (if any) will come out possibly soon. as I believe they are currently studying this. Do you not think this is the reason TTC and Tory were pushing to review options further East is most likely because of the possible effect of ST?

If that is the case the LRT will never see the enough support unless a complete loop is funded and if they really want to try to sell it to residents design out the Sheppard transfer at any cost. If it's a mistake lets fix it and move forward. Otherwise it will be a tough sell to 2/3 rds of Sheppard area residents (as you see now) and anyone else you might use the line.

Also your comment about "every one else has one" was quite disrespectful and stereotypical. And although there is slight truth to others unjustly having subway lines there are many greater issues & reasons out there as to why a subway extension is preferred over to poorly integrated LRT lines

 

[denfromoakvillemilton]

I personally support higher taxes for the purposes of transportation. Trust me im 100% on board with taxes for transit. It's a necessary reality but one hell of a tough sell to anybody whether you live downtown, or outside the core, or whether your rich or poor no one wants to pay. Im of the opinion if your going to build something do it once and do it right. NOT CHEAP

Even the Liberals are too scared to introduce taxes even after multiple studies. The Cons wont even bother to discuss transit because its too easy watching the Liberals squirm and try to not fumble the hot tax potato. Should be interesting to see if and how they can actually pull it off.

Cmon...The proof (if any) will come out possibly soon. as I believe they are currently studying this. Do you not think this is the reason TTC and Tory were pushing to review options further East is most likely because of the possible effect of ST?

If that is the case the LRT will never see the enough support unless a complete loop is funded and if they really want to try to sell it to residents design out the Sheppard transfer at any cost. If it's a mistake lets fix it and move forward. Otherwise it will be a tough sell to 2/3 rds of Sheppard area residents (as you see now) and anyone else you might use the line.

Also your comment about "every one else has one" was quite disrespectful and stereotypical. And although there is slight truth to others unjustly having subway lines there are many greater issues & reasons out there as to why a subway extension is preferred over to poorly integrated LRT lines

Fair enough. I never meant to come off as disrespectful, I appreciate the viewpoint. If you support paying for it I see no reason to oppose this.

 

[nfitz]

nfitz, Murray said the SRT corridor would only cost 1.8 billion.

This was the report that trashed the Murray pricing. Murray made several assumptions about that corridor, and TTC shredded them.

However, even TTC said subway on the RT corridor had a bit higher ridership than the McCowan corridor - destroying the point of some that both McCowan is a better alignment for ridership AND that the report was cooked (because wouldn't you have cooked that too?).

 

[denfromoakvillemilton]

This was the report that trashed the Murray pricing. Murray made several assumptions about that corridor, and TTC shredded them.

However, even TTC said subway on the RT corridor had a bit higher ridership than the McCowan corridor - destroying the point of some that both McCowan is a better alignment for ridership AND that the report was cooked (because wouldn't you have cooked that too?).

Of course. But the sinister side of me was thinking that the ttc could do the Bloor Danforth line for 2 billion and fund the sheppard east subway for 3 billion (2 billion left over + SELRT cost). I don't really support either one as much as i was the debate to end sometime this century.

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

I don't really support either one as much as i was the debate to end sometime this century.

Amen to that one.

AoD

 

[nfitz]

I don't really support either one as much as i was the debate to end sometime this century.

100% agree. The subway option isn't terrible, and will have far better ridership than the Sheppard line, and even the University extension to Vaughan. The LRT option is good too. That's part of the problem. Both options are reasonable. Just build something ...

 

[TheTigerMaster]

100% agree. The subway option isn't terrible, and will have far better ridership than the Sheppard line, and even the University extension to Vaughan. The LRT option is good too. That's part of the problem. Both options are reasonable. Just build something ...

You use the word "even", as if the Vaughan extension has good ridership. At 7,000 pphpd, usage of the line is horrible low. It should have never been seriously considered, given the plethora of cheaper options for servicing that area.

 

[nfitz]

You use the word "even", as if the Vaughan extension has good ridership. At 7,000 pphpd, usage of the line is horrible low. It should have never been seriously considered, given the plethora of cheaper options for servicing that area.

I used even, because it's higher than Sheppard. Once the line got to Steeles, I'm not that bothered they crossed 407 to get to Highway 7. Between the CN tracks and the 407, there's relatively few road connections between the two, and I've certainly spent enough time trying to drive between 7 and Steeles in that area. It's for similar reasons, I'm in favour of extending the Sheppard subway east to Victoria Park past the 404; and he McCowan subway north of 401 to Sheppard.

If the usage is 7,000 at Vaughan, I'm not particularly bothered. You don't want 20,000 a the end of the line - you still need capacity further south. What's the Kipling to Islington ridership - I'd be surprised if it's much more than 7,000.

 

[innsertnamehere]

7,000 (IIRC actually 7,500) is when the train is approaching downsview.

 

[TheTigerMaster]

If the usage is 7,000 at Vaughan, I'm not particularly bothered. You don't want 20,000 a the end of the line - you still need capacity further south. What's the Kipling to Islington ridership - I'd be surprised if it's much more than 7,000.

6.2 km from terminus is nowhere near the end of the line.

Approximately 6.2 km west of the BD terminus is Dundas West Station. At morning rush hour the eastbound train from Dundas West is packed.

 

[nfitz]

7,000 (IIRC actually 7,500) is when the train is approaching downsview.

What's that source for that? The EA was initially only to Steeles. When they extended it to Vaughan, I never saw any ridership numbers, and a very brief EA amendment. Nothing like the detail that's been released for the Yonge extension.

6.2 km from terminus is nowhere near the end of the line.

I'm not sure what 6.2 km is in reference to. The extension from Downsview to Vaughan is about 8.5 km

Not even sure what distance has to do with anything. Surely it's all about time.

 

[innsertnamehere]

Again, IIRC, but the 7,500 number came from when the line only went to Steeles. The projection had 7,500 people on the line in the peak hour as the trains approached Downsview (or soon to be Sheppard West) in 2021. Projections were never updated for when the Vaughan portion got added, so I presume the extra length would raise that number a little bit, probably to somewhere in the 8,000's. Still lower than the Scarborough subway, especially considering that the trains will essentially run empty north of Steeles. Scarborough will likely be relatively busy right up until the terminus.

I wouldn't be surprised if Highway 407 and Vaughan Centre station see less than 10,000 people a day, while Sheppard - McCowan will likely remain relatively busy, with Scarborough Centre getting much busier from its current ~40,000 a day riders.

 

[TheTigerMaster]

What's that source for that? The EA was initially only to Steeles. When they extended it to Vaughan, I never saw any ridership numbers, and a very brief EA amendment. Nothing like the detail that's been released for the Yonge extension.

Wow. That was a very irresponsible move.

I'm not sure what 6.2 km is in reference to. The extension from Downsview to Vaughan is about 8.5 km

Not even sure what distance has to do with anything. Surely it's all about time.

6.2 km was the section south of Steeles, since north of Steeles usage is unknown.

I don't know what time would have to do with it. You're the one who said we don't want high ridership near the end of the line. Why would we measure distance from the end of the line in time?

 

[nfitz]

Why would we measure distance from the end of the line in time?

I'm not even sure why we are measuring it at all ...

 

[44 North]

Believe who you want. I certainly don't trust politically paid "professionals" as much as you do. Its all how you decide to interpret data and what "professional" reports & criteria you feel is important in the overall scheme.

End of the day the Province has always built infrastructure based on Political drivers with "professionals" as support to their narrative. Scarborough has been on the short end of the stick all to often. And you can clearly see once again the Politically motivated propaganda machine like the Toronto Star with a non-stop attack on the SSE trying to ensure that continues. Tough to fight a political media powerhouse who is trying to put the funding for their own gain.

You make some valid points re: Scarboro and subways. In my opinion I wouldn't exactly say Scarboro 'got the short end of the stick', but rather that other boroughs / cities got a longer end. Subways in Vaughan? That's gotta be the stupidest, most political, and most insulting transit decision in our history. It's way worse than Sheppard, or Eglinton West. If an attempt was made to make it an affordable extension (i.e surface, elevated, simple stations, standalone light metro line), I could maybe agree - provided that other priorities were dealt with first. But no. Fully-underground 6 or 7-car heavy rail, fanciful stations, commuter parking lots, rammed through quick, admission of porkbarreling...it's a non-priority luxury and IMO VMC will never be as dense or urban as, say, STC.

Anyway, having said that, I put together a couple of charts that paint the 'short end of the stick' Scarb situation. Basically it shows existing/planned subway coverage within former boroughs/York Region. It must be noted however that while the second chart includes the Scarb Subway, the first chart doesn't include the SRT. As much as people despise the SRT, it is in fact a subway/metro line. Why I didn't include it is because it's not connected to our standard subway system, and bc it's slated for closure. But IMO it still should be included as a "subway", and I feel I'm lying by saying it's not.

So excluding the SRT - and prior to the SSE debate - Scarb had the lowest existing/planned level of subways per capita - even lower than a combined Vaughan + Markham. Per area it was still behind Etobicoke (but ahead of Vaughan + Markham). However including SSE, Scarb will have the third most subway coverage per area and pop - behind North York, but way ahead of Etobicoke. This was put together slapdash, so if anyone sees any errors don't hesitate to point them out.