[syn]

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.

Thanks for the thoughtful answer. The answer lies in poor planning, not 'we don't have a subway'. Pouring $5 billion into another poor planning solution is not going to magically transform Scarborough.

 

[JSF-1]

I do believe Sheppard could have played a role in the area, however I still believe that even with those Subways or LRT's that entire area is just flawed at its most fundamental levels. No amount of Subways will change the fact the area is just planned badly and getting around it with out a car (and even with a car) is an absolute nightmare. I don't want to go around knocking the urban planners of the time, but we all know what was given top priority when they were designing that the area and it wasn't pedestrians and public transit. It's just now all these years later that we see that car-centric planning does not translate into a thriving urban environment. You really can't turn a "Car suburb" into a "Transit city"; The damage has been done.

 

[OneCity]

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.

It is rather silly, but the RT was also rather silly in many more ways sub par alignment/stop locations, walkability, visibility and transfer. Plans that were less expensive and not silly like a connected Crosstown LRT to SCC or subway on RT corridor that were rejected. What can you do but move forward? Outside of the missing Lawrence stop Its really not a bad overall plan of Smarttrack, SSE, DRL, and EELRT. its just going to be more expensive now than it had to be.

 

[OneCity]

I do believe Sheppard could have played a role in the area, however I still believe that even with those Subways or LRT's that entire area is just flawed at its most fundamental levels. No amount of Subways will change the fact the area is just planned badly and getting around it with out a car (and even with a car) is an absolute nightmare. I don't want to go around knocking the urban planners of the time, but we all know what was given top priority when they were designing that the area and it wasn't pedestrians and public transit. It's just now all these years later that we see that car-centric planning does not translate into a thriving urban environment. You really can't turn a "Car suburb" into a "Transit city"; The damage has been done.

We need to revitalize the Centre into a well connected urban growth node that cars, buses and all other form of transit can access easily. A proper "Transit City" should consider all modes for a "car orientated suburb" which is not damaged in anyway, its just time to revitalize/evolve and this needs to be done differently than a Metro Downtown. Both the subway(s) & Durham BRT, in conjunction with a Master plan to revitalize the area into an urban node will do exactly whats needed and then some for the future. The seamless connection to Downtown is a big deal and the area will help it thrive. LRT/BRT and improved bus routes in other areas are a complete separate item which needs to evolve in a detailed manner. It shouldn't be just urban planning principles. We need urban-suburban planning who understand migrating these areas to evolve better

 

[JSF-1]

By "Transit City" I mean an area that you don't need a Car to live comfortably in. Downtown is a Transit City because You can, walk, cycle, bus, streetcar, subway, and take the GO Train wherever you need, it is all at your doorstep. To do this we must adress the most fundamental flaw in that area, and it is the roads. The whole area is nothing but "car-centric" planning and the area needs to instead be "pedestrian friendly" This to me means eliminating the current road network and replacing it with a much denser one. This isn't a matter of building a subway and waiting for development, its a matter of building the area around that subway. Basically step away from "car-centric" planning and go back to what made all the great cities in the world what they are today. Those cities were built out from a train station and built around it in a fashion that promotes density since back then the train is all you ever had, so you had to live and work near it. Old Toronto is no different. This must be replicated at STC, the Subway is the hub from which the entire City Centre will build out of and around.

 

[OneCity]

By "Transit City" I mean an area that you don't need a Car to live comfortably in. Downtown is a Transit City because You can, walk, cycle, bus, streetcar, subway, and take the GO Train wherever you need, it is all at your doorstep. To do this we must adress the most fundamental flaw in that area, and it is the roads. The whole area is nothing but "car-centric" planning and the area needs to instead be "pedestrian friendly" This to me means eliminating the current road network and replacing it with a much denser one. This isn't a matter of building a subway and waiting for development, its a matter of building the area around that subway. Basically step away from "car-centric" planning and go back to what made all the great cities in the world what they are today. Those cities were built out from a train station and built around it in a fashion that promotes density Old Toronto is no different. This must be replicated at STC, the Subway is the hub from which the entire City Centre will build out of and around.

Agreed. Its certainly not just about the subway that's connecting Core to Core seamlessly. That only one major plus. A big issue many Scarborough residents have is the lack attention to details in many facets or plan to revitalize in many areas thru-out this suburb since amalgamation and thankfully now we are finally seeing positive signs. To a major extent the Ford-subway era was symbolic of residents basically asking for the City to pay better attention here in all areas, not just the subways but it became out politically directly thru the subway. The City is currently working on a plan to make it an urban node and yes 100% the roads absolutely need to be addressed around the Centre. Given the recent development proposal by the owners at Yorkdale I would safely assume they are on board to work with the City and do similar for SCC. Ugly politics we just went thru but I see a very solid future here.

 

[syn]

By "Transit City" I mean an area that you don't need a Car to live comfortably in. Downtown is a Transit City because You can, walk, cycle, bus, streetcar, subway, and take the GO Train wherever you need, it is all at your doorstep. To do this we must adress the most fundamental flaw in that area, and it is the roads. The whole area is nothing but "car-centric" planning and the area needs to instead be "pedestrian friendly" This to me means eliminating the current road network and replacing it with a much denser one. This isn't a matter of building a subway and waiting for development, its a matter of building the area around that subway. Basically step away from "car-centric" planning and go back to what made all the great cities in the world what they are today. Those cities were built out from a train station and built around it in a fashion that promotes density since back then the train is all you ever had, so you had to live and work near it. Old Toronto is no different. This must be replicated at STC, the Subway is the hub from which the entire City Centre will build out of and around.

Will it be replicated? Why hasn't been done already?

There are plenty of examples of subways not leading to this kind of development. For all intents and purposes, STC has had a 'train' station for decades now.

 

[JSF-1]

It was done because the people who planned the Scarborough Centre back in the 70's/80's didn't care in the slightest about public transit and pedestrian friendliness. Hell the urban planners of Scarborough in general didn't care about public transit, it was all about the car. As I implied it can be replicated BUT it will require effectively taking a scorched earth approach to the planning of the area. Things like this only work if we want them to, and even then I have my doubts about whether Downtown Scarborough will ever truly succeed. The main reason we see many stations fail to attract development is because we don't allow them to (Danforth could be a dense road but we don't allow it because of our absurd zoning by-laws). Regardless of whether a Subway or LRT is built, Scarborough Centre can succeed if we insure that the area is planed in such a manor to allow it to.

 

[Rainforest]

Transit expansion must not be limited to serving high-density areas or building new high-density areas. Wide roads doesn't mean people living in the area do not want or do not need better public transit.

The main goal of SSE is to shorten the connecting bus trips from the north-eastern parts of Scarborough. If it will, in addition, support higher density in the STC "precinct", that's a bonus. But not the primary goal.

 

[JSF-1]

I mean I agree its not the primary goal, but then I look at the proposed design of the station at Scarborough Centre and I have to wonder if even the TTC and City understand that shortening commutes is part of the plan. I mean having the bus terminal something like a 5-10 minute walk from the Subway platform is definitely not conducive of "Connecting Bus Trips". It feels to me like they are planning the Subway around the neighborhood, not the neighborhood around the subway.

 

[Voltz]

The main goal of SSE is to shorten the connecting bus trips from the north-eastern parts of Scarborough. If it will, in addition, support higher density in the STC "precinct", that's a bonus. But not the primary goal.

Well the SSE lengthened bus trips from NE Scarborough, not shortened them. Those bus riders would have been getting on Rapid Transit much sooner if not for this subway.

 

[Streety McCarface]

Well the SSE lengthened bus trips from NE Scarborough, not shortened them. Those bus riders would have been getting on Rapid Transit much sooner if not for this subway.

But then you'd have to factor in the excess dwell time at each additional stop, lack of an efficient transfer at both stations, and lower speeds of the LRT and potential crush load delays. All in all, that adds 7 minutes in dwell time (7 stops, 1 minute each), 5 minutes in transfer delays (unless they fix the issue with the subway, then this delay is almost negligible). Even with only the 7 extra minutes in dwell time, total trip times are nearing that of the subway. Factor in a bad transfer at Kennedy and I really see no difference.

Of course, this all means that the STC needs to see development as a result of the subway and the corridor must support density, especially if infill stations come in.

 

[Voltz]

But then you'd have to factor in the excess dwell time at each additional stop, lack of an efficient transfer at both stations, and lower speeds of the LRT and potential crush load delays. All in all, that adds 7 minutes in dwell time (7 stops, 1 minute each), 5 minutes in transfer delays (unless they fix the issue with the subway, then this delay is almost negligible). Even with only the 7 extra minutes in dwell time, total trip times are nearing that of the subway. Factor in a bad transfer at Kennedy and I really see no difference.

Of course, this all means that the STC needs to see development as a result of the subway and the corridor must support density, especially if infill stations come in.

But the transfer at Kennedy was going to be improved, the platform would have been down at the mezzanine level so the transfer would be similar to St George. And with the planned deep station and very large bus terminal at STC the transfer there will be worse than today. You must also be underestimating the time it takes on bus from Malvern, especially with rush hour traffic jams.

This subway is not better for most riders, without even including the loss of the Sheppard and Eglinton East LRT's.

 

[Streety McCarface]

But the transfer at Kennedy was going to be improved, the platform would have been down at the mezzanine level so the transfer would be similar to St George. And with the planned deep station and very large bus terminal at STC the transfer there will be worse than today. You must also be underestimating the time it takes on bus from Malvern, especially with rush hour traffic jams.

This subway is not better for most riders, without even including the loss of the Sheppard and Eglinton East LRT's.

Eglinton east was not included in the original plan. Sheppard is another story entirely.

The STC bus terminal alignment really confuses me, but yes, in its current form, it voids all Kennedy benefits (Since you still have to wait for another train, which is a good 5 minutes with the LRT plan). The dwell time indicator is the biggest change. I must also ask, isn't McCowan slated for a BRT line that would significantly improve bus travel?

 

[JSF-1]

I haven't heard of anything about BRT on McCowan. The only BRT plan I am aware of is on Ellesmere between STC and UTSC.