[syn]

Now Scarborough's population is almost 3/4 of the population of what was Toronto in the 50's. It's almost 3 times what the population of Toronto was when the first subway was being built in Toronto. And the areas within Scarborough are we talking about providing subway stops have less "low density" than most of the existing stop outside the core currently. But you would never know reading some the crap posted in the media.

Its all Politics. Always has been. Although now the divide between the transit "haves" and the "have nots" has created extreme polarization so its a bit uglier. 50 years after these lines are built no one cares about the Politics.

You're making my point for me. 3/4's of what the old City of Toronto's population was 65 years ago, in an area almost twice as big. The population and employment density do not justify a subway, something current and projected ridership numbers have told us for years.

Toronto's population in 1941 was 675,754 - Scarborough's current population is clearly not three times that number.

I'm also curious - which areas within Scarborough slated for subway stops (there's only one) have higher density than the low density areas with subway stops outside the core?

 

[coffey1]

These are actually fact-based argument points that one can have a rational, adult conversation with.

You were doing pretty well there...



Until this. More of the same. "It's the media's fault."



And this. The paranoia is back.

Did a newspaper reporter and a politician from downtown torture and kill your dog or something?

At least I had factual points in my post in addition to an important discussion related to this topic that I & many others share. You just enjoy my words twisting them and throwing childish insults then going on to mention adult conversation. Again PLEASE be more respectful and debate but cut the personal attacks.

thx

 

[coffey1]

You're making my point for me. 3/4's of what the old City of Toronto's population was 65 years ago, in an area almost twice as big. The population and employment density do not justify a subway, something current and projected ridership numbers have told us for years.

Toronto's population in 1941 was 675,754 - Scarborough's current population is clearly not three times that number.

I'm also curious - which areas within Scarborough slated for subway stops (there's only one) have higher density than the low density areas with subway stops outside the core?

Yes hopefully it doesn't stay 1 stop for long because it would be hard to find locations for stops to compete with these:

Woodbine, Old, Mill, Chester, Castle Frank, Glencairn , Rosedale, Summerhill, High park etc.. All under 10K per day. And ill even leave out the others that are 10-15k.

Lawrence has over 7.5k on the RT that most just bypass because of the transfer or choose not to bother with at all

 

[LNahid2000]

Yes hopefully it doesn't stay 1 stop for long because it would be hard to find locations for stops to compete with these:

Woodbine, Old, Mill, Chester, Castle Frank, Glencairn , Rosedale, Summerhill, High park etc.. All under 10K per day. And ill even leave out the others that are 10-15k.

Lawrence has over 7.5k on the RT that most just bypass because of the transfer or choose not to bother with at all

It makes more sense to compare portions of a line than to compare single stops since the cost of a subway is primarily a function of distance. This will be the least used 6km stretch of subway by a long shot.

If we didn't have a single stop between Eglinton and Queen (which is essentially the distance we're talking about), Eglinton and Queen would be the busiest stops ever.

 

[kEiThZ]

It makes more sense to compare portions of a line than

Can you explain why this makes more sense? Arguments like these come across as shifting goalposts to me to be honest.

Least used? How do you determine that. Usage is a function of frequency running on those tracks. And if it's solely pax count, I'm curious why anybody would want to replicate Finch and have every train leaving Kennedy full.

 

[LNahid2000]

Can you explain why this makes more sense? Arguments like these come across as shifting goalposts to me to be honest.

I already did. The cost of a subway is primarily a function of distance.

 

[kEiThZ]

I already did. The cost of a subway is primarily a function of distance. Saying Rosedale and Summerhill are low ridership when they are very close to two very busy stations is not a fair comparison.

Not a fair comparison? Why? And I'm not being pedantic here. Look at the Sheppard subway. We left out a station because demand wasn't deemed sufficient. Yet, there's been no serious discussion of closing down low activity stations and speeding up service, something that impacts every user downstream.

 

[LNahid2000]

Not a fair comparison? Why? And I'm not being pedantic here. Look at the Sheppard subway. We left out a station because demand wasn't deemed sufficient. Yet, there's been no serious discussion of closing down low activity stations and speeding up service, something that impacts every user downstream.

coffey1 didn't mention any Sheppard Subway stations...

Closing stations like Rosedale and Summerhill on the Yonge line would be stupid, since the bottleneck is Bloor-Yonge anyway.

 

[salsa]

coffey1 didn't mention any Sheppard Subway stations...

Closing stations like Rosedale and Summerhill on the Yonge line would be stupid, since the bottleneck is Bloor-Yonge anyway.

It's amazing how some Scarborough subway supporters feel the need to defend its low ridership by calling for existing subway stations (after money was already spend to build them decades ago) to be shut down. Such an utterly stupid excuse for spending $3-4B on one single station that was never properly justified to begin with.

 

[W. K. Lis]

It's amazing how some Scarborough subway supporters feel the need to defend its low ridership by calling for existing subway stations (after money was already spend to build them decades ago) to be shut down.

Think that the Scarborough subway supporters would be fine with wanting three new stations in Scarborough and closing all the stations between Victoria Park and Bloor-Yonge, not including Victoria Park and Bloor-Yonge.

 

[dowlingm]

I've given some thought to the pros and cons of closing Rosedale and reconfiguring the space as a pocket track. But once ATC is on line along with the turnbacks at St Clair/College/King the need for it becomes less acute so probably not.

Don't think you'd get much support for closing Summerhill while passenger service on CP remains a (distant) possibility. In any event, as pointed out by Salsa, it's not like you get a refund or trade in when you close a station.

 

[kEiThZ]

Closing stations like Rosedale and Summerhill on the Yonge line would be stupid, since the bottleneck is Bloor-Yonge anyway.

Actually, by the logic on display here, closing Rosedale and Summerhill would make sense. After all, one of the arguments against the Scarborough extension cited by opponents is further congestion at Yonge-Bloor (amazing how something can apparently be low demand and induce further congestion at the same time).

Personally, don't agree with such arguments. But this should show why citing single station demand, especially at the terminus, is rather specious. If you want a seat (or standing room at peak) anywhere between Kennedy and Yonge, you shouldn't be insisting on high demand numbers at the terminus.

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

The issue is less the level of demand and more the capital cost for the single station extension - it would be prudent to explore a lower cost alignment that would achieve a similar level of service (and better yet, allow for additional stations). Extending the BD to STC is far more arguable than extending Sheppard as an underground subway to STC.

AoD

 

[syn]

Yes hopefully it doesn't stay 1 stop for long because it would be hard to find locations for stops to compete with these:

Woodbine, Old, Mill, Chester, Castle Frank, Glencairn , Rosedale, Summerhill, High park etc.. All under 10K per day. And ill even leave out the others that are 10-15k.

Lawrence has over 7.5k on the RT that most just bypass because of the transfer or choose not to bother with at all

I asked about density numbers, not ridership.

Summerhill is a poorly used station, but the overall density in terms of population and employment clearly justify a subway along that corridor.

Because strawman and red herring arguments constitute rational discussion?

Last I checked Scarborough is part of the City of Toronto. It’s residents pay taxes to the City of Toronto. And are represented by councillors on Toronto City Council. As such, their transportation and transit framework should generally be under the TTC umbrella. There is no such expectation for Mississauga. And this constant comparison to Mississauga only bolsters the subway proponents arguments that downtown elites don't think Scarborough is part of Toronto. So why bother with this line of argument?

What makes that transfer at Kennedy illogical is the fact that the bulk of riders are transiting between Kennedy and Lawrence or SC. Transfers in the same corridor for a bulk of riders are illogical. I'd argue the same for Eglinton (this is why I've argued in the past that Crosstown should be a through service at Kennedy, not terminating there), or at Finch (where bulk of riders are going north).

If we’re going to compare to a streetcar or Queen, heck, why even bother with LRT? Clearly streetcars are enough. We can save even more money. Of course, this is a red herring that completely ignores the distance and travel time involved.

I’ve said before that LRT made sense in the context of suburban rail expansion, specifically because suburban rail would ameliorate a lot of those travel time concerns, enough, so that transfers wouldn’t be as consequential. But feel free to keep thinking, it’s all about “subways, subways, subways”. Then you can watch it all go down again on Sheppard…..

No one has argued that Scarborough transit shouldn't be under the TTC umbrella.

The point of the Mississauga comparison is that they could clamour for a Mississauga Subway with a connection to the TTC. They're tax dollars are going to the Scarborough Extension too, and for all intents and purposes Mississauga is a large Toronto suburb. Square One and STC are almost the exact same distance from Union Station, and plenty of Mississauga residents work downtown. This obviously doesn't make much sense as the cost and ridership projections would not justify such an expansion - just like they don't justify a one-stop, 6km extension to STC.

It's about the most reasonable infrastructure for the area based on on actual numbers. I don't see SC and Lawrence as being in the same transit corridor as the Bloor-Danforth line. Lawrence East riders are getting screwed over here, as it's not really close to either Kennedy or STC.

A plan that provides the greatest access and coverage is a no-brainer to me, and this $4 billion one stop extension is clearly not the solution.

 

[Hopkins123]

It's amazing how some Scarborough subway supporters feel the need to defend its low ridership by calling for existing subway stations (after money was already spend to build them decades ago) to be shut down. Such an utterly stupid excuse for spending $3-4B on one single station that was never properly justified to begin with.

That one single station would handle 40,000 riders daily. And that's using today's figures. With future growth it could be upwards of ~50,000 riders boarding at STC - placing it in the Top Ten of most used stations.

So it is more than justified. Better that than trying to make the SRT corridor a thing. It has never met expectations and never will.