[BurlOak]

Better than Kathleen Wynne's radio silence on Scarborough, she's forsaken them. Too busy pandering to the few guaranteed ridings downtown she has left, I suppose.

Wynne and the Liberal strategy is to never tell the public what they will do. She is trying to do as little as possible, but still work slowly towards the Sheppard Subway - just as the Liberals worked the Councillors to kill the Ford connected Eglinton-Scarborough LRT and switch to the Subway Extension.

 

[syn]

Are you even proofreading the things you post before you hit submit? Lol!

Bloor-Yonge and St George, have going for them interchanges with the two busiest subway lines. Finch is an interregional hub with GO and regional express buses (VIVA). Scarborough should be so lucky.

The East End is only asking for parity with those hubs. East of Ionview the Crosstown will be underground anyway in order to enter Kenendy Stn, so what's the point of your photo? Vic Park/Sheppard is ripe for redevelopment a subway extension would trigger. There's even discussion of extending the DRL to Vic Park/Sheppard, so again what's the point of your photo? Growth cannot and will not be limited to just downtown.

Bloor-Yonge connects with the Yonge Line.

Kennedy will connect with the Eglinton Crosstown, the Sheppard Line and RER/GO.

Sheppard has nowhere near the density to support a subway extension, and Kennedy station simply doesn't need that many transit connections. It's a complete an utter waste of money to build this kind of infrastructure in these areas.

https://www.google.com/maps/place/Toronto+Public+Library+-+Kennedy/Eglinton+Library/@43.7318597,-79.269906,3a,60y,86.87h,78t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sB7sKzX2_aTXSLsJgO00SmQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656!4m5!3m4!1s0x89d4ce179ff42151:0xc8f0e8793bd6b689!8m2!3d43.7323267!4d-79.2703805

https://www.google.com/maps/@43.775...4!1sIc5JDVGiEmhuNt7nYcstpg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656

DRL requires big bucks, bigger than what's being offered, so if the budget calls for just $5 billion in additional spending, you had better believe spending it where we can complete a whole line for a generation is the better use of funds. Because even post-DRL there'll still be a need for the Sheppard Subway. Downtown at least has 17 subway stations, a high concentration of streetcar routes and GO connections going for it now. Scarborough has infrequent bus service and a rickshaw toy tram.

DRL is needed, desperately. There is no need whatsoever for a Sheppard extension. Low density suburbs don't have the ridership necessary to justify this kind of infrastructure investment. The current Sheppard subway line already demonstrates this.

There are subway stations downtown because it has an employment and population density orders of magnitude greater than what the suburbs offer:

Old City of Toronto - 8,210.4/km2 (21,265/sq mi)

Scarborough - 3,367.6/km2 (8,722/sq mi)

 

[Streety McCarface]

There are subway stations downtown because it has an employment and population density orders of magnitude greater than what the suburbs offer:

Old City of Toronto - 8,210.4/km2 (21,265/sq mi)

Scarborough - 3,367.6/km2 (8,722/sq mi)

Old Toronto is arguably the suburbs, and we've already mentioned how it's usually not the density around stations that spurs ridership, rather, it's ability to connect with other means of transit, whether it's TTC buses, TTC streetcars, GO trains, GO Buses, Transit from Other Cities (Ie YRT at Finch and along the TYSSE, or Don Mills, MiWay at Islington, etc), bikes (Bike Parking and rideshare) or even regular parking (with cars, but this is moreso a GO transit thing and really shouldn't be perpetuated in the realm of transit, especially close to the city and outside of areas where development is impossible).

It costs significantly less to run trains in tunnels with few stations than to have them stop at many stations along the way because stations are expensive to build/maintain, the traction power required to stop and start the train at a station is quite significant (especially if it happens almost 1000 times a day), and the dwell time costs also play a significant factor. The subway should have a bunch of stops where it makes sense (like with the DRL downtown) and should be present in the suburbs given fair distances between stations (usually between 1 and 2 km), or you risk low ridership. The BD line in old Toronto fails this because it has simply too many stations, with many stations having around or less than 10K riders/day (or 5K commuters/day). Despite the subway line's high ridership, the line fails with shortfalls in cost to maintain it and its stations. Of course, planners of back then couldn't have foreseen the huge increase in operational costs for such a line.

The current Scarborough subway fails because the stations are too far apart, which means that bussing times are significantly increased and therefore many surface connections are not feasible at many locations where they otherwise would have been (Lawrence East), and the costs are prohibitively high for the immediate return of investment.

 

[denfromoakvillemilton]

Bloor-Yonge connects with the Yonge Line.

Kennedy will connect with the Eglinton Crosstown, the Sheppard Line and RER/GO.

Sheppard has nowhere near the density to support a subway extension, and Kennedy station simply doesn't need that many transit connections. It's a complete an utter waste of money to build this kind of infrastructure in these areas.

https://www.google.com/maps/place/Toronto+Public+Library+-+Kennedy/Eglinton+Library/@43.7318597,-79.269906,3a,60y,86.87h,78t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sB7sKzX2_aTXSLsJgO00SmQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656!4m5!3m4!1s0x89d4ce179ff42151:0xc8f0e8793bd6b689!8m2!3d43.7323267!4d-79.2703805

https://www.google.com/maps/@43.775...4!1sIc5JDVGiEmhuNt7nYcstpg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656



DRL is needed, desperately. There is no need whatsoever for a Sheppard extension. Low density suburbs don't have the ridership necessary to justify this kind of infrastructure investment. The current Sheppard subway line already demonstrates this.

There are subway stations downtown because it has an employment and population density orders of magnitude greater than what the suburbs offer:

Old City of Toronto - 8,210.4/km2 (21,265/sq mi)

Scarborough - 3,367.6/km2 (8,722/sq mi)

Old Toronto is arguably the suburbs, and we've already mentioned how it's usually not the density around stations that spurs ridership, rather, it's ability to connect with other means of transit, whether it's TTC buses, TTC streetcars, GO trains, GO Buses, Transit from Other Cities (Ie YRT at Finch and along the TYSSE, or Don Mills, MiWay at Islington, etc), bikes (Bike Parking and rideshare) or even regular parking (with cars, but this is moreso a GO transit thing and really shouldn't be perpetuated in the realm of transit, especially close to the city and outside of areas where development is impossible).

It costs significantly less to run trains in tunnels with few stations than to have them stop at many stations along the way because stations are expensive to build/maintain, the traction power required to stop and start the train at a station is quite significant (especially if it happens almost 1000 times a day), and the dwell time costs also play a significant factor. The subway should have a bunch of stops where it makes sense (like with the DRL downtown) and should be present in the suburbs given fair distances between stations (usually between 1 and 2 km), or you risk low ridership. The BD line in old Toronto fails this because it has simply too many stations, with many stations having around or less than 10K riders/day (or 5K commuters/day). Despite the subway line's high ridership, the line fails with shortfalls in cost to maintain it and its stations. Of course, planners of back then couldn't have foreseen the huge increase in operational costs for such a line.

The current Scarborough subway fails because the stations are too far apart, which means that bussing times are significantly increased and therefore many surface connections are not feasible at many locations where they otherwise would have been (Lawrence East), and the costs are prohibitively high for the immediate return of investment.

I think the people outside of her see the map, and think the purple line should be finished. So we are getting sheppard east if Ford gets in. My issue is that the TTC and some in city transportation have more appetite for this then the DRL, given how they are dragging their feet on this. The real battle will be the rezoneing that will happen to up the density on Sheppard East. The people that need the subway most might end up living in Durham or Barrie by the time it's built.

 

[Streety McCarface]

Bloor-Yonge connects with the Yonge Line.

Kennedy will connect with the Eglinton Crosstown, the Sheppard Line and RER/GO.

Sheppard has nowhere near the density to support a subway extension, and Kennedy station simply doesn't need that many transit connections. It's a complete an utter waste of money to build this kind of infrastructure in these areas.

That's like saying Keele St is overridden by transit because it basically has 3 subway stops on it, connects to GO RER, the UPX, and a bunch of streetcars. Last I checked, Eglinton-Kennedy was about 8 km from Sheppard-Kennedy and serve completely different areas, or that Yonge st has too much transit because it's served by 15 subway stations and connects to 3 others (Lines 2, 5, and 4)and a future LRT line (Line 6)

Kennedy is currently being served by Line 2 and has a ridership of about 70K PPD, which rivals that of Finch's ridership of 86K PPD DESPITE the fact that Kennedy is also served by a very busy GO Transit station. Despite the many similarities, there are advocations to extend the subway line north and build a Finch LRT line to the station. This isn't different to the proposals at Kennedy to build an LRT line connecting the station and extend the existing subway, the problem is how they are to extend the existing subway at Kennedy. Finch would be getting the same treatment as Kennedy if it were not for the fact that the Yonge subway is out of space.

 

[Streety McCarface]

I think the people outside of her see the map, and think the purple line should be finished. So we are getting sheppard east if Ford gets in. My issue is that the TTC and some in city transportation have more appetite for this then the DRL, given how they are dragging their feet on this. The real battle will be the rezoneing that will happen to up the density on Sheppard East. The people that need the subway most might end up living in Durham or Barrie by the time it's built.

I really support full Sheppard subway completion, but it shouldn't be a priority until the DRL long is complete (unless it's a short extension to Vic Park) since development catalysts should not be a priority over improving overcrowded transit.

If I were to pick a battle, they should rezone Sheppard from Yonge to Don-Mills first and allow development to continue to flourish there. They also need to improve bus and GO connections at Leslie station -- it has a wonderful bus terminal. Use it to its full potential.

 

[syn]

Old Toronto is arguably the suburbs, and we've already mentioned how it's usually not the density around stations that spurs ridership, rather, it's ability to connect with other means of transit, whether it's TTC buses, TTC streetcars, GO trains, GO Buses, Transit from Other Cities (Ie YRT at Finch and along the TYSSE, or Don Mills, MiWay at Islington, etc), bikes (Bike Parking and rideshare) or even regular parking (with cars, but this is moreso a GO transit thing and really shouldn't be perpetuated in the realm of transit, especially close to the city and outside of areas where development is impossible).

It costs significantly less to run trains in tunnels with few stations than to have them stop at many stations along the way because stations are expensive to build/maintain, the traction power required to stop and start the train at a station is quite significant (especially if it happens almost 1000 times a day), and the dwell time costs also play a significant factor. The subway should have a bunch of stops where it makes sense (like with the DRL downtown) and should be present in the suburbs given fair distances between stations (usually between 1 and 2 km), or you risk low ridership. The BD line in old Toronto fails this because it has simply too many stations, with many stations having around or less than 10K riders/day (or 5K commuters/day). Despite the subway line's high ridership, the line fails with shortfalls in cost to maintain it and its stations. Of course, planners of back then couldn't have foreseen the huge increase in operational costs for such a line.

The current Scarborough subway fails because the stations are too far apart, which means that bussing times are significantly increased and therefore many surface connections are not feasible at many locations where they otherwise would have been (Lawrence East), and the costs are prohibitively high for the immediate return of investment.

That's like saying Keele St is overridden by transit because it basically has 3 subway stops on it, connects to GO RER, the UPX, and a bunch of streetcars. Last I checked, Eglinton-Kennedy was about 8 km from Sheppard-Kennedy and serve completely different areas, or that Yonge st has too much transit because it's served by 15 subway stations and connects to 3 others (Lines 2, 5, and 4)and a future LRT line (Line 6)

Kennedy is currently being served by Line 2 and has a ridership of about 70K PPD, which rivals that of Finch's ridership of 86K PPD DESPITE the fact that Kennedy is also served by a very busy GO Transit station. Despite the many similarities, there are advocations to extend the subway line north and build a Finch LRT line to the station. This isn't different to the proposals at Kennedy to build an LRT line connecting the station and extend the existing subway, the problem is how they are to extend the existing subway at Kennedy. Finch would be getting the same treatment as Kennedy if it were not for the fact that the Yonge subway is out of space.

Old City of Toronto - 8,210.4/km2 (21,265/sq mi)

Scarborough - 3,367.6/km2 (8,722/sq mi)

The "Old City of Toronto" includes some lower density suburban areas - even so, overall population density dwarfs that of Scarborough.

What about employment density?

According to 2017 city stats, Downtown accounts for nearly 36% of all jobs in Toronto, in a relatively small area. Scarborough Centre accounts for just 1.5%. To be fair, that's greater than Yonge-Eglinton Centre (1.2%) - the difference is that Yonge-Eglinton Centre has the highest employment density in the city (over 31,000 per sq/km).

There aren't enough people nor jobs in these areas to justify spending billions upon billions on transit infrastructure. A Sheppard East subway is not necessary and won't be for many decades. An LRT will service that route for a long, long time. Neither is a Bloor/Danforth extension, nor burying Eglinton.

 

[Streety McCarface]

Old City of Toronto - 8,210.4/km2 (21,265/sq mi)

Scarborough - 3,367.6/km2 (8,722/sq mi)

The "Old City of Toronto" includes some lower density suburban areas - even so, overall population density dwarfs that of Scarborough.

What about employment density?

According to 2017 city stats, Downtown accounts for nearly 36% of all jobs in Toronto, in a relatively small area. Scarborough Centre accounts for just 1.5%. To be fair, that's greater than Yonge-Eglinton Centre (1.2%) - the difference is that Yonge-Eglinton Centre has the highest employment density in the city (over 31,000 per sq/km).

There aren't enough people nor jobs in these areas to justify spending billions upon billions on transit infrastructure. A Sheppard East subway is not necessary and won't be for many decades. An LRT will service that route for a long, long time. Neither is a Bloor/Danforth extension, nor burying Eglinton.

You have a point that EMPLOYMENT density has an effect on subway ridership at a station, but that's never the case for housing density. Ideally, people would live in mixed-use developments along transit corridors like Bloor, Sheppard, Eglinton, Yonge, and Spadina. However, most people would rather live in larger units where space is available. Scarborough isn't dense, yes, but neither is Etobicoke or really North York. Scarborough does, however, have a huge portion of the commuting population in Toronto. 660K people live there, and because density is so low, it needs to be supported by bus transit, but this is like almost every other suburb on the planet. The bus services feed into the subway service, which provide the rapid service to downtown. Because Scarborough is so large, it needs many of these lines to support the fast size of the city. RER covers less bus-dense areas, while the subway provides service to the STC, where the largest bus terminal in the city is being planned.

 

[JSF-1]

You have a point that EMPLOYMENT density has an effect on subway ridership at a station, but that's never the case for housing density. Ideally, people would live in mixed-use developments along transit corridors like Bloor, Sheppard, Eglinton, Yonge, and Spadina. However, most people would rather live in larger units where space is available. Scarborough isn't dense, yes, but neither is Etobicoke or really North York. Scarborough does, however, have a huge portion of the commuting population in Toronto. 660K people live there, and because density is so low, it needs to be supported by bus transit, but this is like almost every other suburb on the planet. The bus services feed into the subway service, which provide the rapid service to downtown. Because Scarborough is so large, it needs many of these lines to support the fast size of the city. RER covers less bus-dense areas, while the subway provides service to the STC, where the largest bus terminal in the city is being planned.

Might I add being planned horrendously. I seriously hope for my fellow Scarberians that the current proposed terminal plan is not the one that is built.

 

[denfromoakvillemilton]

I really support full Sheppard subway completion, but it shouldn't be a priority until the DRL long is complete (unless it's a short extension to Vic Park) since development catalysts should not be a priority over improving overcrowded transit.

If I were to pick a battle, they should rezone Sheppard from Yonge to Don-Mills first and allow development to continue to flourish there. They also need to improve bus and GO connections at Leslie station -- it has a wonderful bus terminal. Use it to its full potential.

But they will build the scarborough part first imo. And then the decisions will come between condos and more condos. The part between wilson and yonge however, is higher density. This could casue massive gentrification and a displacement of Locals.

 

[syn]

but that's never the case for housing density

Really??

 

[Streety McCarface]

Really??

Based on this image, here is a lot of variability between station usage (2016) and density. If we were to graph the ratios, ridership vs density would look something like this:

It looks like there is a trend, but when your correlation coefficient is so low, you cannot make an association with housing density and actual station ridership.

Notice how some the stations with the largest ridership (Finch, Don Mills, Sheppard-Yonge, Sheppard West, Eglinton, Kennedy, Warden, A lot of the Spadina Line, Lawrence, York Mills, Broadview, Islington, Kipling) have some of the lower densities (In the case of Finch, Sheppard-Yonge, and Eglington, I can say their densities are low because their riderships are so high.

However, many stations with relatively high densities (Summerhill, Rosedale, Bayview, Bessarion, Spadina (University line), Woodbine, Greenwood, High Park, Castle Frank, Chester, Glencairn, Museum) have low ridership

The point is that you cannot make density == ridership associations because:
1. Not everyone takes the subway
2. Not everyone uses the subway daily
3. Many people have destinations along the subway

People will take the subway to destinations, not take the subway because it's close to them.

 

[syn]

View attachment 143331
Based on this image, here is a lot of variability between station usage (2016) and density. If we were to graph the ratios, ridership vs density would look something like this: View attachment 143332
It looks like there is a trend, but when your correlation coefficient is so low, you cannot make an association with housing density and actual station ridership.

Already addressed earlier in this thread.

For some reason you keep ignoring station spacing and context.

People will take the subway to destinations, not take the subway because it's close to them.

This is absurd.

 

[Streety McCarface]

Already addressed earlier in this thread.

For some reason you keep ignoring station spacing and context.

This is absurd.

You could never refute these points earlier.

Station spacing has nothing to do with it if you're only measuring density around the station. Think of it this way: A station has a certain pedestrian catchment area of around 800^2 (pi) meters^2 (In reality, it's a lot less than this because many stations don't have significant road access to a subway station). This is the same for every single station in the system because people will only walk about 800 meters to a subway station. The station spacing doesn't matter unless there's an overlap of this catchment area, which only really exists downtown (and we're not considering downtown for this analysis because downtown is the employment center). With this all in mind, each station's density is measured by the number of people living in this area and only this relatively constant area, it is not variable based on the distances between stations. Beyond 800 meters, people need to bus because it's not a feasible walking distance. Since the population densities:ridership ratio has so much variability between stations that no correlation can be drawn.

I am considering context, and that's where the conclusion that surface connectivity at a suburban station is a far better factor in determining station usage.

It's not absurd, If I lived at Don Mills and Sheppard and needed to travel to Eglinton and Don Mills, I would take the don mills bus instead of the Sheppard Subway and Yonge subway because it would be faster. I would only take the subway if my destination was along or had connections to the subway (ie Union Station, which is a destination in itself). If it's not convenient to take the subway, there's no need to take it. Convenience is key to users, and this helps explain why Summerhill and Rosedale have pathetic riderships: the Annex, Rosedale, and Summerhill neighborhoods have a lot of high-class people living there who would rather drive than take the subway to downtown, or have little to no need to go downtown.

 

[TransitBart]

For some reason you keep ignoring station spacing and context.

People will take the subway to destinations, not take the subway because it's close to them.

Actually the truth lies between the two. It is both. Which is what makes the by-the-book-numbers-say-this-ridership-will-never-grow-only-merits-lower-order planners here so irritating to me.

There are business cases. And there is human behavior. And economics. Busses can create more transit. Rails because of their permanency create incentives to invest. Or in my argument, change from the status quo.

Both of you are correct and it depends entirely on the context of the trip being contemplated. For example, we would plan a trip that was slightly inconvenient on a weekend - once - to a tourist destination; that we would never consider taking daily to work.

Not only is 'physical context' important, but the context and intent of the trip.