[Streety McCarface]

Regional rail would be more than just the Stouffville GO corridor. If you have 15 min service with RER on every GO corridor through Scarborough, you don't go to STC if you're heading downtown. You go to the nearest GO station.

And with RER, you will have a faster ride. Even with 1/3 the frequencies of the subway, regional rail would be faster. Compare travel times from Kennedy station via GO or subway.

GO: 20 mins
Subway: 40 mins

So even if you were to wait 15 mins for another train (because you just missed the last one), you'd still get there faster than the subway.

Now extend this scenario to every GO station in Scarborough.

Notice how I mentioned people commuting to anywhere south of King. Anywhere else will be slower. Currently, the trip between Kennedy and downtown is 19 minutes. When you throw in 2+ more stations along the line, then the time will probably increase to around 25 minutes of travel time. Compare this to the subway, which currently, from Kennedy, is 36-38 minutes depending on construction and the time required to transfer at Bloor Yonge.

Now that seems fine, but note: this is only for Union Station. What happens when you need to go anywhere other than Union? What about Queens Park for Uni Students, or the Eaton Centre for shoppers?

Queens Park by Subway: 35 minutes
Queen's Park by GO and Subway: 40-45 minutes depending on transfers (Google maps states that there is no transfer time between GO and the TTC, but we all know that it's at least 5-10 minutes with the 3-5 minutes to get off the train and get to the concourse, the 2-4 minute walk, and the 1-3 minute wait for a train.

Now: frequency times -- Since RER stations will have frequencies of up to 15 minutes (compared to the subway's 5 during off-peak hours), we'll assume people will have to wait twice to three times as long for a train. With this, you can add 5 minutes to the journey, and the subway journeys will get a 2.5-minute addition. At this point, RER is looking much less attractive.

I'm not against RER, I really want it to succeed, but people are vastly overstating its benefits. The subway gives you the ability to get to more destinations than RER (depending on how many stations are built). The vast majority of people will still want to take the subway because their destination does not lie within a kilometer of Union Station. People what will take is convenient for them. As a result, I believe it's important to advocate for both excellent RER and excellent subway service.

 

[micheal_can]

Notice how I mentioned people commuting to anywhere south of King. Anywhere else will be slower. Currently, the trip between Kennedy and downtown is 19 minutes. When you throw in 2+ more stations along the line, then the time will probably increase to around 25 minutes of travel time. Compare this to the subway, which currently, from Kennedy, is 36-38 minutes depending on construction and the time required to transfer at Bloor Yonge.
View attachment 142092
Now that seems fine, but note: this is only for Union Station. What happens when you need to go anywhere other than Union? What about Queens Park for Uni Students, or the Eaton Centre for shoppers?

Queens Park by Subway: 35 minutes
Queen's Park by GO and Subway: 40-45 minutes depending on transfers (Google maps states that there is no transfer time between GO and the TTC, but we all know that it's at least 5-10 minutes with the 3-5 minutes to get off the train and get to the concourse, the 2-4 minute walk, and the 1-3 minute wait for a train.

Now: frequency times -- Since RER stations will have frequencies of up to 15 minutes (compared to the subway's 5 during off-peak hours), we'll assume people will have to wait twice to three times as long for a train. With this, you can add 5 minutes to the journey, and the subway journeys will get a 2.5-minute addition. At this point, RER is looking much less attractive.

I'm not against RER, I really want it to succeed, but people are vastly overstating its benefits. The subway gives you the ability to get to more destinations than RER (depending on how many stations are built). The vast majority of people will still want to take the subway because their destination does not lie within a kilometer of Union Station. People what will take is convenient for them. As a result, I believe it's important to advocate for both excellent RER and excellent subway service.

Sometimes it is not just about speed, but the ability to sit down.

 

[Streety McCarface]

Sometimes it is not just about speed, but the ability to sit down.

If you're at the end of the line, you'll be able to sit down, especially on a 6 car train. You're actually probably going to be less likely to sit down on a RER vehicle since they'll likely be single deck EMUs with 2-4 cars per train. With so many people taking it, all cars will most certainly be filled.

 

[micheal_can]

If you're at the end of the line, you'll be able to sit down, especially on a 6 car train. You're actually probably going to be less likely to sit down on a RER vehicle since they'll likely be single deck EMUs with 2-4 cars per train. With so many people taking it, all cars will most certainly be filled.

Not when you make the switch at B-Y.

 

[Streety McCarface]

Not when you make the switch at B-Y.

I'll take 5 minutes standing up on the yonge line if it means avoiding a packed GO train with uncomfortable seats or the convoluted transfer at Union Station.

 

[syn]

There is no solution which is going to provide optimal travel times from Scarborough to anywhere downtown. That's a completely unrealistic expectation.

The RER in conjunction with the DRL should provide plenty of efficient options for downtown travel, making a $5 billion dollar investment in a one stop subway extension rather silly.

 

[syn]

even if scarborough was covered in LRT, it would still be a suburb through and through. then again, the 1 additional subway stop at Scarborough town centre has the potential to transform the immediate area unlike kennedy and victoria park since it's already home to a lively shopping centre. anyways that's what i believe. with a strong connection to the backbone of transportation, it can do wonders to entice use of public transportation lol. I mean really, considering the weather in toronto, RT/LRT is kind of shitty to use for most of the year. but subway is not dependent on weather at all, it's good all year around unless you built it above ground then yea...

As it's been pointed out, STC has a direct, RT connection to the Bloor/Danforth line yet there hasn't been much growth.

How did Mississauga, without the benefit of any kind of downtown Toronto connection (no subway nor RT) develop it's own city centre? This was true in the late 90s as well, when Mississauga and Scarborough were both their own cities.

Even assuming the subway does result in massive growth, how will people get around Scarborough without any kind of rapid transit?

$5 billion on an LRT network would be the smart investment.

 

[Streety McCarface]

As it's been pointed out, STC has a direct, RT connection to the Bloor/Danforth line yet there hasn't been much growth.

How did Mississauga, without the benefit of any kind of downtown Toronto connection (no subway nor RT) develop it's own city centre? This was true in the late 90s as well, when Mississauga and Scarborough were both their own cities.

Even assuming the subway does result in massive growth, how will people get around Scarborough without any kind of rapid transit?

$5 billion on an LRT network would be the smart investment.

But the STC gets significantly more riders than Port Credit does. Again, it has to do with surface route connections. Metrolinx really needs to consider this because if they don't there's a good chance a lot of people will not use RER.

 

[JSF-1]

On the topic of why the STC isn't as successful as Mississauga Centre to me has to come down to a couple of factors. The urban planning (or rather suburban planning) around STC is atrocious and in no way says "Pedestrian friendly, transit oriented" whereas MCC is a lot more compact (albeit still a bit suburban for my tastes). I think another factor is in the grand scheme of things STC is in the middle of nowhere. NYC (North York) is on Yonge Street as is Toronto, and the Etobicoke City Centre will be centered on Bloor. The major street in Scarborough is Eglinton but the City Centre is nowhere near it. In retrospect the Scarborough City Centre would be far more succesful had it been built on Eglinton at either Kennedy or McCowan since this would put it around a GO Station; and history has proven that Cities which build out of Train stations are far more successful than those that don't. This also leads back into MCC since it also has the benefit of being close to Cooksville GO Station (and I think the Hurontario LRT will only strengthen the connection between the two).

EDIT* Just going to expand a little further:

The reason STC failed (or stagnated) is because it failed at everything that makes a good "Downtown". Its sparse because you have condo's at the Town Centre, but than you also have condos over on Corporate and given the areas atrocious road network you may as well drive because walking could easily be a 20 minute to half hour endevour. This also causes local transit in the are to be the shits because the roads network is terrible and the area is to spread out. It's just taking all of the negatives of suburban planning and transplanting it into an urban environment. Finally it's all about location, location, location. "If you build it they will come", however before you build it you need to know where to put it. If you look at Toronto's 2 successful Centre's (Toronto and North York) you'll see they all meet these requirements. Both are dense and compact, both have good road networks and access to local transit, and both are located on a major thoroughfare (Yonge Street). Toronto also has the benifit of building out from Union station which adds to my earlier train station point. The Etobicoke City Centre also has great potential since it will have a good location on Bloor, however what remains to be seen is whether or not the urban and local transit planning matches.

 

[sixrings]

On the topic of why the STC isn't as successful as Mississauga Centre to me has to come down to a couple of factors. The urban planning (or rather suburban planning) around STC is atrocious and in no way says "Pedestrian friendly, transit oriented" whereas MCC is a lot more compact (albeit still a bit suburban for my tastes). I think another factor is in the grand scheme of things STC is in the middle of nowhere. NYC (North York) is on Yonge Street as is Toronto, and the Etobicoke City Centre will be centered on Bloor. The major street in Scarborough is Eglinton but the City Centre is nowhere near it. In retrospect the Scarborough City Centre would be far more succesful had it been built on Eglinton at either Kennedy or McCowan since this would put it around a GO Station; and history has proven that Cities which build out of Train stations are far more successful than those that don't. This also leads back into MCC since it also has the benefit of being close to Cooksville GO Station (and I think the Hurontario LRT will only strengthen the connection between the two).

interesting since STC could have a LRT which would connect it to a GO train as well as a Subway... Yet this plan isn't good enough for Scarborough yet enough for Mississauga to flourish.

 

[JSF-1]

I think you also need to factor in the fact that Cooksville GO Station is much closer to MCC than Kennedy is to STC. The distance from Kennedy GO to STC "as the Crow flies" is about 4.5 - 5Km. whereas Cooksville GO Station to MCC is only about 1.5 - 2 km. So Cooksville GO has a more immediate desirability impact on the MCC.

 

[Leo_Chan]

I think you also need to factor in the fact that Cooksville GO Station is much closer to MCC than Kennedy is to STC. The distance from Kennedy GO to STC "as the Crow flies" is about 4.5 - 5Km. whereas Cooksville GO Station to MCC is only about 1.5 - 2 km. So Cooksville GO has a more immediate desirability impact on the MCC.

Actually, if there is a Ellesmere GO or Progress GO, then STC would be 2 km away from a GO station while Square One is 2.6 km away from Cooksville GO. Also Scarborough would have the SRT as a rapid transit connection to a GO station while Mississauga only has a bus.

 

[JSF-1]

Sure if there was a GO Station at Ellesmere or Progress than yes STC would be much closer to the GO Train. Problem is that there isn't a GO train at those locations, and there won't be. So regardless on the case of GO connections MCC will always be closer than STC will.

 

[Streety McCarface]

Actually, if there is a Ellesmere GO or Progress GO, then STC would be 2 km away from a GO station while Square One is 2.6 km away from Cooksville GO. Also Scarborough would have the SRT as a rapid transit connection to a GO station while Mississauga only has a bus.

It's also worth noting that Cooksville GO is home to 1,500 parking spaces...

 

[44 North]

On the topic of why the STC isn't as successful as Mississauga Centre to me has to come down to a couple of factors. The urban planning (or rather suburban planning) around STC is atrocious and in no way says "Pedestrian friendly, transit oriented" whereas MCC is a lot more compact (albeit still a bit suburban for my tastes). I think another factor is in the grand scheme of things STC is in the middle of nowhere. NYC (North York) is on Yonge Street as is Toronto, and the Etobicoke City Centre will be centered on Bloor. The major street in Scarborough is Eglinton but the City Centre is nowhere near it. In retrospect the Scarborough City Centre would be far more succesful had it been built on Eglinton at either Kennedy or McCowan since this would put it around a GO Station; and history has proven that Cities which build out of Train stations are far more successful than those that don't. This also leads back into MCC since it also has the benefit of being close to Cooksville GO Station (and I think the Hurontario LRT will only strengthen the connection between the two).

EDIT* Just going to expand a little further:

The reason STC failed (or stagnated) is because it failed at everything that makes a good "Downtown". Its sparse because you have condo's at the Town Centre, but than you also have condos over on Corporate and given the areas atrocious road network you may as well drive because walking could easily be a 20 minute to half hour endevour. This also causes local transit in the are to be the shits because the roads network is terrible and the area is to spread out. It's just taking all of the negatives of suburban planning and transplanting it into an urban environment. Finally it's all about location, location, location. "If you build it they will come", however before you build it you need to know where to put it. If you look at Toronto's 2 successful Centre's (Toronto and North York) you'll see they all meet these requirements. Both are dense and compact, both have good road networks and access to local transit, and both are located on a major thoroughfare (Yonge Street). Toronto also has the benifit of building out from Union station which adds to my earlier train station point. The Etobicoke City Centre also has great potential since it will have a good location on Bloor, however what remains to be seen is whether or not the urban and local transit planning matches.

I think something that should be considered in SC's growth is the lack of Sheppard Subway, which was to come into the centre from the NW. Certainly not saying that only subways bring development or some rubbish. However for ~20yrs (mid 80s-mid 00s) it was officially one of the top priorities for Toronto. This got changed to an LRT (which seemingly had no direct SC connection), then back to a subway, now nothing. Developers holding onto a chunk of land within the district likely want some kind of officialization of a transit project (e.g funding or shovels in the ground) before planning a condo. And not just for upping property values, but perhaps knowing things like station/platform locations or the line's ROW. Could be subway, LRT, light metro; not indecision which probably isn't the greatest for investors.