[RyanM12]

We don't need a political flip-flop to LRT. We just need to say, the debate is too polarized to do anything drastic (such as spending billions on a one stop subway or ripping up the whole line to lay LRT tracks), so we should just put a hold on the whole issue. Therefore, refurbish the RT, maybe extend it and/or rebuild the Kennedy connection, and revisit the issue in 10 to 15 years.

In 10 to 15 years, the debate will have cooled down, there will be new people in government, Smartrack/RER will be running (so there's an alternative to taking the RT), Crosstown will be running (so people can actually see what LRT means), and with some minor improvements maybe people won't hate the RT as much. Only after doing all we can to improve the line should we bring up the idea of tearing down and replacing it.

 

[Cobra]

We don't need a political flip-flop to LRT. We just need to say, the debate is too polarized to do anything drastic (such as spending billions on a one stop subway or ripping up the whole line to lay LRT tracks), so we should just put a hold on the whole issue. Therefore, refurbish the RT, maybe extend it and/or rebuild the Kennedy connection, and revisit the issue in 10 to 15 years.

In 10 to 15 years, the debate will have cooled down, there will be new people in government, Smartrack/RER will be running (so there's an alternative to taking the RT), Crosstown will be running (so people can actually see what LRT means), and with some minor improvements maybe people won't hate the RT as much. Only after doing all we can to improve the line should we bring up the idea of tearing down and replacing it.

What you're proposing is actually a flip-flop

 

[TheTigerMaster]

The MOU had it right. LRT was going to Scarborough with 7 stops while being merged to Eglinton Crosstown. It eliminated the horrible transfer at Kennedy and would have ended this pointless debate.

Which was the right thing to do. That plan would've moved less people for more money, while leaving riders of the over capacity Finch West bus stuck with no better options.

(Quick break to remind everyone that the Finch West bus moves more people than the Scarborough RT, and nearly as many people as the Sheppard Line. Finch West is not to be ignored in the name of pandering to Scarborough)

 

[LNahid2000]

Blah blah blah...Scarborough vs. Downtown...blah blah blah...left vs. right...blah blah blah...polarizing

Not even going to bother with your essay.

 

[Palma]

The polls you speak of are not only skewed, they are just an extension of your favorite Municipal Political Party. Take them for what they are.

The disaster will be next election when the divide shows its ugly head again since there have been no attempt to compromise & the media and polls have continued to run a narrative that likely doesn't resonate with the majority. .

you are kidding. The majority in Toronto want the scarborough 1 stop subway? They do not even want it if there were 2 stops. There will be no disaster in the next election. Then we can't believe the numbers for anything else then

 

[Palma]

The thing is, Doug Ford finished second to Tory in the Mayor election, and he too has pro-subway.
Four years earlier, Smitherman finished second to Rob Ford and he supported a B-D subway extension to STC.

So even though R. Ford and Tory did not recieve 50% of the vote, the pro-subway (or anti-LRT) vote was much higher

but the message was all skewed. people hear subways and think they are all getting a stop no matter where in the city they live

 

[RyanM12]

1) Wait until Smartrack/GO RER are running, so that people will have other rapid transit options, and we can see how it affects the current service.
2) Wait until the Crosstown line is running, so that people will know exactly what LRT means.
3) In 10 to 15 years, there will new people in government, and the debate will have cooled down, so that rational decisions can be made.
4) With smart, fast, and cost-effective improvements on the RT, maybe people won't hate it so much after all. Only after we've done all we can to improve the existing line should we tear it up and build a new one.

 

[Palma]

Transit was a HUGE issue in the last election. But you are right many people voted out of fear. Fear of the Polarization caused by the lack of acknowledgement of a major problem in this City with suburban voices being drowned out on their own issues and even have mud slung by the media using the most polarizing arguments against them to fit an agenda

transit was a huge issue but torontonians did not vote for tory to give scarborough an unnecessary stop. They know that the issue would be debated over and over again as transit always is

 

[crs1026]

https://www.thestar.com/opinion/com...orough-deserves-respect-fairness-hepburn.html

On Ford and 2010 election
On the subway
On everything else
On identity and perception

Outside of the debate on public transit, the city has done a poor job for Scarborough over the years. The subway issues is the lightning rod for an accumulation of frustration.

Thanks - There are a lot of valid points in that article. (Sure seems like the downtown liberal media gets it after all, eh?)

Still doesn't seem like a good reason to spend billions on something that is the symptom and not the cause. Parks not as good? Fix them. No Luminato festival? Fix that. No credit for restaurants? A few good reviews and a few street festivals will fix that. (Those unsung great restaurants? They are NOT at the STC. Subway won't get them more customers)

The question for transit is - where do people in Scarboro need to go? That drives one back to the data, and the data says the STC destnation is the tail and not the dog.

It says something if even Scarboro residents actually just wanted to go downtown, as opposed to other destinations in and around Scarboro. But not that many do, proportionately.

- Paul

 

[W. K. Lis]

If the 905 and GO can live with discounts on fares between the two, the TTC and GO has to do better with fare discounts between the two. (The Main/Danforth transfer is a failed experiment.) Scarborough (North York and Etobicoke as well) residents should be able to use their TTC fares to get to GO, board GO (at a discount), and maybe even continue on the TTC at the GO destination.

 

[Cobra]

Which was the right thing to do. That plan would've moved less people for more money, while using riders of the over capacity Finch West bus stuck with no better options.

(Quick break to remind everyone that the Finch West bus moves more people than the Scarborough RT, and nearly as many people as the Sheppard Line. Finch West is not to be ignored in the name of pandering to Scarborough)

1-The ridership for the combined line of Scarborough and Eglinton met exclusive right of way threshold.

Observe page 8 to 10
http://www.toronto.ca/legdocs/mmis/2012/cc/bgrd/CC20_1_app3_8.pdf

Eliminating the transfer at Kennedy and merging the lines brought almost double the ridership to bring it to 11,900 passengers per hours between STC and Yonge by 2031, well within subway/fully grade separated threshold. The right move would have been to debate HOW to fully grade separate the line at the lowest cost (elevated, at-grade with intersection bybass etc) not killing the whole thing just because people hate Rob Ford. Having the line at grade with intersection bypass or elevated would have been victory enough over him.

2-Finch LRT is well within BRT threshold in term of ridership by 2031

Observe
http://www.metrolinx.com/en/projectsandprograms/transitexpansionprojects/finch_west.aspx

High Capacity

The projected ridership of the Finch West LRT corridor is 2,800 passengers per hour in the peak direction by 2031. The capacity of an LRT is 15,000 passengers per hour per direction. LRT cars can be removed or added easily, thus providing the flexibility to accommodate ridership demands.

That's half the maximum of BRT by 2031. So explain to me why BRT could not be implemented so that we could build LRTs later?

We're happy to say that subway is overkill for Scarborough, yet no one wants to admit that LRT is overkill for Finch West. 2,800 for a line that can accommodate 15,000, which won't be met for a generation? C'mon!!!

3-Lack of foresight from the city

• The Scarborough-Eglinton Crosstown was FULLY FUNDED. (including tunnels from Laird to Kennedy)
• BRT was more than adequate for Finch West as per the ridership projection from Metrolinx
• The Scarborough Subway vs LRT would have ended for good

Now, regardless of LRT or Subway, the city is on the hook for at least $1B.

With the city revenue tools and the new Federal program paying 50% of all transit construction costs:

• The City could have successfully get Crosstown East with the Feds paying half and the province investing
• The City could have successfully get Finch upgrated to LRT or Extend the Crosstown to Sheppard Avenue East

So yes sir, that plan was indeed the best

 

[TheTigerMaster]

That's half the maximum of BRT by 2031. So explain to me why BRT could not be implemented so that we could build LRTs later?

We're happy to say that subway is overkill for Scarborough, yet no one wants to admit that LRT is overkill for Finch West. 2,800 for a line that can accommodate 15,000, which won't be met for a generation? C'mon!!!

"BRT" is a broad term that widely varies in implementation. BRT could be referring to simple curb-side bus lanes, a partially-exclusive ROW in median, HOV lanes on a highway, or 100% dedicated Transitways, like the York University line. These varieties of BRT all have different capacity capacities. The BRT that would have been on Finch West would be on the lower end of that capacity spectrum.

The Finch West Line is anticipated to move 2,800 persons at peak hour and peak direction. One articulated bus has a capacity of 77 people. To service the 2,800 people, we'd need bus headways of 1 min 40 seconds (approximately), and those busses would be running at crush loads. Dwell times at stations would be long, and bunching would be an issue across the service. Operating the BRT would be far more expensive than the LRT, as we need to pay for more operators, a larger vehicle fleet, more renewals of that larger fleet (the lifespan of a bus is half that of rail vehicles), and more maintenance. This line would be essentially impossible to run and manage at those headways, and provides zero room for future growth.

So, no, BRT could not provide adequate capacity for the demand on the Finch West corridor. LRT was the only realistic option to move those passenger loads.

Canceling the FWLRT would leave Finch West customers with inadequate transit in the name of appeasing Scarborough.

 

[cplchanb]

The Finch West Line is anticipated to move 2,800 persons at peak hour and peak direction. One articulated bus has a capacity of 77 people. To service the 2,800 people, we'd need bus headways of 1 min 40 seconds (approximately), and those busses would be running at crush loads. Dwell times at stations would be long, and bunching would be an issue across the service. Operating the BRT would be far more expensive than the LRT, as we need to pay for more operators, a larger vehicle fleet, more renewals of that larger fleet (the lifespan of a bus is half that of rail vehicles), and more maintenance. This line would be essentially impossible to run and manage at those headways, and provides zero room for future growth.

So, no, BRT could not provide adequate capacity for the demand on the Finch West corridor. LRT is the only realistic option to move those passenger loads.

Canceling the FWLRT would leave Finch West customers with inadequate transit in the name of appeasing Scarborough.

Please provide the source of the 77 capacity. It is true that the legal articulated buses in Canada have less capacity than LRVs but 77 is a very low estimate. Official numbers from Nova list avg capacities to be 62 seated and 60 standing. That means it would be 120 +/- crush load. If you then factor that in, that would equate to around 1 bus every 2.6 mins which can be doable with segregated lanes. That being said, regardless of whether the 2800 capacities can be managed, I think in the near to medium term BRT with ROW lanes is the way to go. It is much cheaper and faster to build and capacities won't be reached for years, and that too is based on guessing and speculation. (We all know how optimistic they were when they fudged the growth numbers for Line 4) That way when the time does come for conversion, the base infrastructure is there and we wont need to pay for ROWs at inflated prices, nor do we have to witness a crosstown level traffic apocalypse for 5 years. A good reference is VIVA. Their stations are large with ROWs all over. Even though now, their numbers are quite low at times, they have essentially future proofed the line. When it comes time for them to convert to rail, the costs and time will be much less.

However, whats done is done. Please avoid another Scarborough cockup and just get the damn thing built!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[TheTigerMaster]

Please provide the source of the 77 capacity. It is true that the legal articulated buses in Canada have less capacity than LRVs but 77 is a very low estimate.

https://www.ttc.ca/About_the_TTC/Projects/New_Vehicles/Articulated_Buses/index.jsp

Official numbers from Nova list avg capacities to be 62 seated and 60 standing

Note that vehicle manufacturers use crush loads to define capacity. They essentially look at the volume of the bus, and the volume of the average person, and calculate how many people they can physically squeeze into the bus. These are not real-world operating conditions, unless you're Japanese. For example, with our LFLRV's, Bombardier's quotes capacity (crush) is about 1.5x the TTC's planning capacity. The TTC's planned capacity for our arctic busses is 77 people.

Furthermore, discussion of capacity alone ignores the dwell time implications of operating a service at capacity. Dwell time has a parabolic relationship with capacity: an empty bus can load 15 people far faster than a full bus can load 10 people. The consequences of designing Finch West transit to be at capacity is that the vehicle will be spending a lot of time at each stop, slowing down travel speeds. This also amplifies bunching issues (and they'll be plenty of bunching issues at 1 min 40 sec headways)

That being said, regardless of whether the 2800 capacities can be managed, I think in the near to medium term BRT with ROW lanes is the way to go. It is much cheaper and faster to build and capacities won't be reached for years

BRT becomes ineffective at about 2,000 pphpd. Finch West should already be above those loads. If it isn't, it will be within years of opening. You'd be building a BRT to essentially close it down years later to replace with LRT, just like we are now with the SRT.

 

[cplchanb]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bus_rapid_transit

scroll down to section the section on riderships around the world. Please elaborate on the claim that more that 2000/ph is ineffective. Sure buses will be pretty packed together anf system speeds wont be as optimal, but if Guangzhou can do it with 1 MILLION daily riders on a single line, 2800 people during peak hours is nothing. Its all down to traffic management and ROWs. I'm not trying to dismiss the merits of LRT but please dont dismiss the merits of BRT by shaping your facts and figures against it. And BTW, contrary to TTC, alot of those substandard and "ineffective" BRTs actually MAKE money for the system.