[Rainforest]

Oh yes. What's a few billion for a "one-seat ride" from a mall to Kennedy at the cost of numerous other projects to serve more people in more areas of Scarborough and throughout the city.

Which "numerous other projects"?

Plus, the cheapest possible alternative to SSE would cost at least 2 billion.

 

[Rainforest]

Council has also voted not to allow a value for money audit of SSE. Which makes sense - the project would be unlikely to survive rigorous scrutiny.

Value for money is a recommendation, not a rule. The public pays for the construction, and has full authority to decide what gets built.

 

[syn]

Again, the argument was that something was built. Nothing particularly useful for the majority of people at the time being, but something. It's better than the money being spent in other cities (if I remember correctly, there was a lot of provincial funding), or the money going to freeways, which it likely would have.

Side note, if the city ends up opting for LRT, the city will have to foot the bill; the federal and provincial governments will likely not pay a dime if we revert to LRT (this is because the provincial government needs the corridor to upgrade the Stouffville corridor to RER, and this can't happen with an LRT running down the corridor without massive expropriations (which will probably cost more than tunnelling for the SSE). The LRT will likely cost at least 1.4 billion as is, but if costs rise (like with the subway, they likely will), the city will have to foot the entirety of that bill. 1.4 billion + inflation + capital cost increase. I estimate that it will cost around 2 billion dollars if it's actually built (for viaduct rehabilitation, rebuilding tracks, rebuilding of power and signal systems, rebuilding of all 7 stations, the extension of the line etc). Think about that for a second, the city is currently footing $800,000,000 of the $3.56 billion. It's much less than the 1.4-2 billion dollars required for the Scarborough LRT. Unfortunately, this is a no-win situation for everyone. The city is trying to make the best out of a bad situation by building the subway to the STC (where a lot of the buses in Scarborough terminate), building the EELRT to densify Eglinton and to promote mobility through scarborough, and by adding additional RER stops in scarborough to promote development and quicker travel to downtown (Note: taking the subway to yonge and Bloor or Yonge and queen would be faster than going to an RER station, heading into Union, walking the even longer transfer to the subway at union, then taking the subway to the downtown workplace. It's only useful to scarberians if you're travelling to Union, or anything south of King).

I don't really get the point of of such a statement in the context of this discussion.

No one is calling for the Sheppard Line to be shut down. You freely admit it's not very useful - so why spend billions on other projects that are not useful? What's the point in continuing to make mistakes?

I don't agree that an LRT would get no funding from other levels of government. If it's decided that they must return to an LRT, they can simply find a different alignment or alter the LRT that's part of the current plan - the Crosstown East extension.

Any level of government that would balk on funding such a project would be committing political suicide.

It's also worth noting that the LRT plan before was FULLY FUNDED by the provincial government, and had far more stops. This new plan for an additional $800,000,000 in city cash and billions more in taxpayer dollars is a worse solution. Not only that, but it's already at nearly $4 billion and counting - city staff have made it clear that the cost will very possibly reach $5 billion. No transit experts support this plan, and Byford and Keesmatt, now that they're no longer employed by the city (or won't be very soon) have spoken out against it too.

I'll say it again - building transit to promote increased density is doing things backward (the Sheppard Line is the perfect example). You build transit where the demand already exists. An LRT network would serve Scarborough well for generations, while we have transit projects like the DRL on the backburner that should've been built at least a generation ago.

 

[syn]

Value for money is a recommendation, not a rule. The public pays for the construction, and has full authority to decide what gets built.

Unfortunately the public is being lied to. A value-for-money-audit is in the best interest of the public.

 

[Rainforest]

Unfortunately the public is being lied to. A value-for-money-audit is in the best interest of the public.

Sour grapes. Opponents of SSE had plenty of chances to communicate their views to the public, and got rejected.

 

[Rainforest]

I don't agree that an LRT would get no funding from other levels of government. If it's decided that they must return to an LRT, they can simply find a different alignment or alter the LRT that's part of the current plan - the Crosstown East extension.

There is no different alignment. If the demand that exists between STC and Kennedy Stn is to be handled by LRT, then it must either run in the Uxbridge sub corridor, or be tunneled.

 

[syn]

Sour grapes. Opponents of SSE had plenty of chances to communicate their views to the public, and got rejected.

Sour grapes? Right.

So your position is that the public shouldn't be informed, and that councilors shouldn't make decisions based on all the information available.

Is this what passes for intelligent decision making in Scarborough?

 

[BurlOak]

Unfortunately the public is being lied to. A value-for-money-audit is in the best interest of the public.

The problem with the "value for money" audit (or at least the vote) is that it already narrowed the choice of options down to 2 - both of which had problems. True value Engineering means that you try to solve the main project goal in the most efficient way.
For Scarborough, I would say the goal is to get passengers from STC to downtown as efficiently as possible.
If the vote (and question) posed to council on the value for money audit was fair and balanced - it may have got some support. Instead it was just a political exercise.

 

[Streety McCarface]

I don't really get the point of of such a statement in the context of this discussion.

No one is calling for the Sheppard Line to be shut down. You freely admit it's not very useful - so why spend billions on other projects that are not useful? What's the point in continuing to make mistakes?

I don't agree that an LRT would get no funding from other levels of government. If it's decided that they must return to an LRT, they can simply find a different alignment or alter the LRT that's part of the current plan - the Crosstown East extension.

Any level of government that would balk on funding such a project would be committing political suicide.

It's also worth noting that the LRT plan before was FULLY FUNDED by the provincial government, and had far more stops. This new plan for an additional $800,000,000 in city cash and billions more in taxpayer dollars is a worse solution. Not only that, but it's already at nearly $4 billion and counting - city staff have made it clear that the cost will very possibly reach $5 billion. No transit experts support this plan, and Byford and Keesmatt, now that they're no longer employed by the city (or won't be very soon) have spoken out against it too.

I'll say it again - building transit to promote increased density is doing things backward (the Sheppard Line is the perfect example). You build transit where the demand already exists. An LRT network would serve Scarborough well for generations, while we have transit projects like the DRL on the backburner that should've been built at least a generation ago.

I'm not arguing for spending billions on other projects that are not useful. Sheppard is not useful unless you're going there or live there, as is with all subway stops. It's not useful as a thoroughfare but it brings ridership to the system. I'm not arguing for that.

Key word: "Was" It isn't now. The money is only allocated for the subway because of RER.

I'm not disagreeing with the sentiment of the DRL.

 

[syn]

The problem with the "value for money" audit (or at least the vote) is that it already narrowed the choice of options down to 2 - both of which had problems. True value Engineering means that you try to solve the main project goal in the most efficient way.
For Scarborough, I would say the goal is to get passengers from STC to downtown as efficiently as possible.
If the vote (and question) posed to council on the value for money audit was fair and balanced - it may have got some support. Instead it was just a political exercise.

All solutions will have drawbacks (some far worse than others) and the point of this expansion in the first place was not to simply connect STC downtown efficiently as possible. The point was to expand rapid transit in Scarborough.

An LRT network would provide greater Scarborough transit access and provide a transfer free link to the Yonge Line.

Considering the two options being considered by the TTC were the LRT and a subway, it was a perfectly fair question - especially considering an LRT was approved and fully paid for years ago.

If this was only about access to downtown then what would make sense is a GO expansion

Why did Scarborough put their 'town centre' where they did? This just goes to show how thoughtless planning has an impact decades into the future. Scarborough made an foolish decision when they were an independent municipality, and now the rest of us have to pay for it.

 

[syn]

I'm not arguing for spending billions on other projects that are not useful. Sheppard is not useful unless you're going there or live there, as is with all subway stops. It's not useful as a thoroughfare but it brings ridership to the system. I'm not arguing for that.

Key word: "Was" It isn't now. The money is only allocated for the subway because of RER.

I'm not disagreeing with the sentiment of the DRL.

Then simply come up with a different LRT solution.

Yet another benefit of an LRT is that it offers far more flexibility in terms of alignment and implementation.

Or, cancel the insane subway plan and build the Eglinton East LRT.

 

[Streety McCarface]

Then simply come up with a different LRT solution.

Yet another benefit of an LRT is that it offers far more flexibility in terms of alignment and implementation.

Or, cancel the insane subway plan and build the Eglinton East LRT.

Let it be known, I don't live in Scarborough, I don't even currently live in Toronto, therefore I hope my perspective is seen as unbiased as possible.
As I said before, an LRT going up McCowan would work in order to meet the needs of all parties, however, speeds would be greatly reduced because it is street running, and would disrupt the local neighborhood, meeting much opposition. Also, it would have to interline with the Eglinton Crosstown in order to meet the demands of transfer reduction. Other than that, there aren't many alternatives.

You cannot cancel the plan of serving the SCC. Far too many people travel there to rely only on buses for travel. 40,000 people as is; that's as much as the Eglinton buses, over a much shorter distance. As I've stated before numerous times, walkability has no effect on rapid transit ridership, especially in the suburbs; people live too far from lines so it's extremely ineffective to build an LRT with many stations without connecting rapid buses. Rail transit has to serve it. The EELRT will densify the corridor, and will become an attractive corridor, but won't meet the needs of everyone living farther than 500 meters from a stop, which isn't that many people considering that it's scarborough.

Side thought, if they extend the subway up to Sheppard, then you have room to build a new subway yard for the Bloor Danforth line, which will be needed in the coming years. I don't believe there's any viable room anywhere else on the line, with the exception of Kipling, but even then, I don't think the area at Kipling isn't large enough if the subway is extended into Mississauga.

 

[syn]

Let it be known, I don't live in Scarborough, I don't even currently live in Toronto, therefore I hope my perspective is seen as unbiased as possible.
As I said before, an LRT going up McCowan would work in order to meet the needs of all parties, however, speeds would be greatly reduced because it is street running, and would disrupt the local neighborhood, meeting much opposition. Also, it would have to interline with the Eglinton Crosstown in order to meet the demands of transfer reduction. Other than that, there aren't many alternatives.

Expecting subways everywhere is unrealistic, and the truth is an LRT on the street would provide far more access and coverage than a 6km, one stop extension that can't be expanded in the future.

This would be yet another major blunder as far as Scarborough planning goes, one the entire city (along with the province and feds) have to pay for.

You cannot cancel the plan of serving the SCC. Far too many people travel there to rely only on buses for travel. 40,000 people as is; that's as much as the Eglinton buses, over a much shorter distance. As I've stated before numerous times, walkability has no effect on rapid transit ridership, especially in the suburbs; people live too far from lines so it's extremely ineffective to build an LRT with many stations without connecting rapid buses. Rail transit has to serve it. The EELRT will densify the corridor, and will become an attractive corridor, but won't meet the needs of everyone living farther than 500 meters from a stop, which isn't that many people considering that it's scarborough.

Side thought, if they extend the subway up to Sheppard, then you have room to build a new subway yard for the Bloor Danforth line, which will be needed in the coming years. I don't believe there's any viable room anywhere else on the line, with the exception of Kipling, but even then, I don't think the area at Kipling isn't large enough if the subway is extended into Mississauga.

Yet again, this is the problem; the suburbs are not designed for subways.

Scarborough wants 'downtown' transit because they've been told they deserve it. What they haven't been told is that the built form of Scarborough is not suitable for a subway. They still can't get significant ridership at most of their RT stations.

Downtown infrastructure requires much higher densities. An LRT Network, especially with longer spaced stops is the perfect option for Scarborough right now and the future.

Scarborough has had subway access since the 60s, and they found it fit to do virtually nothing with two stations that have been there for decades.

 

[Streety McCarface]

Expecting subways everywhere is unrealistic, and the truth is an LRT on the street would provide far more access and coverage than a 6km, one stop extension that can't be expanded in the future.

This would be yet another major blunder as far as Scarborough planning goes, one the entire city (along with the province and feds) have to pay for.



Yet again, this is the problem; the suburbs are not designed for subways.

Scarborough wants 'downtown' transit because they've been told they deserve it. What they haven't been told is that the built form of Scarborough is not suitable for a subway. They still can't get significant ridership at most of their RT stations.

Downtown infrastructure requires much higher densities. An LRT Network, especially with longer spaced stops is the perfect option for Scarborough right now and the future.

Scarborough has had subway access since the 60s, and they found it fit to do virtually nothing with two stations that have been there for decades.

How do you think people get downtown? I guarantee you that if the Subway didn't extend beyond St Clair, the Yonge line would have the ridership levels per km of most world subway systems. Downtown is walkable, has streetcars, PATH, and large sidewalks and bike lanes. People living down there won't take the subway 2 stops when they can walk or bike; it's not cost-effective. Here's some numbers:

The Length of the Yonge Line Downtown

Bloor Line Length through Downtown

The numbers. If you subtract suburban ridership from downtown ridership, you get 220,390 passengers in the downtown area (assuming suburban riders have no choice but to use an automobile to get downtown, or use an express bus). Those counts also include transfers, but I didn't remove the SS and Line 3 to Line 2 transfers. They completely skew the results but you can still see that the ridership for 15 km of subway line is pathetic for Toronto. Don't ever give people shit claiming that the suburbs are not for subways, because the way this city is built, the subway in the suburbs is what keeps downtown alive.

With regards to your first comment, everyone here hates the current Scarborough subway extension, but the idea of a rapid transit extension, subway or LRT is having the merits discussed. Also, I proved earlier that large numbers of stops in suburban areas do nothing to help with rapid transit ridership, LRT or subway. What does is access to surface transit. This is why the Bloor Danforth line and Line 1 have such high ridership compared to other suburban-built cities (Unlike Montreal, New York, etc). There are reasons why the subways in Philadelphia, Boston, and Baltimore have relatively crappy ridership; there are no surface connections in the suburban portions, and the lines are only built to serve urban areas. LRT is great for moving people between suburbs, but not between downtown and the suburbs.

Also, what are you talking about with regards to Vic Park, Warden, and Kennedy? Those are the highest used stations on the BD line east of Broadview, and on top of it, they're aboveground.

 

[Leo_Chan]

Only if this happened instead of the SRT: