[syn]

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.

Yes. Exactly.

Do you honestly think all the people who live a short walk from Yonge and Bloor don't find it convenient?

How far apart are Rosedale and Summerhill? What's the business concentation in the area like? What's the ridership like at St Clair and Yonge-Bloor? Answer these questions and it's quite obvious why the ridership is lower - and it's not because everyone in the area is rich and don't want to take the subway lol.

Is the new STC subway station going to be convenient to get to? Not at all. In fact, it's going to be a lot less convenient than it is now.

 

[syn]

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.

Can't speak for anyone else, but the ridership projections for something like the SSE make it quite clear a subway wouldn't be necessary for a long, long time. Factor in cost and access, and it's clearly not a wise investment given other major transit needs.

Same goes for the Sheppard extension.

 

[Streety McCarface]

Yes. Exactly.

Do you honestly think all the people who live a short walk from Yonge and Bloor don't find it convenient?

How far apart are Rosedale and Summerhill? What's the business concentation in the area like? What's the ridership like at St Clair and Yonge-Bloor? Answer these questions and it's quite obvious why the ridership is lower - and it's not because everyone in the area is rich and don't want to take the subway lol.

Is the new STC subway station going to be convenient to get to? Not at all. In fact, it's going to be a lot less convenient than it is now.

Your initial argument was for Housing density, not job density. Everyone agrees that job density is what drives ridership at stations, and I'm arguing that housing density has little effect on ridership, rather, convenient surface connections have a strong effect on ridership.

Yonge and Bloor can't be analyzed because 95% of people using that station are transferring between the Bloor and Yonge lines. It would be better to measure ridership at another downtown station like King.

St. Clair's ridership is really good because it has connections to the St Clair streetcar, and sees up to 800 bus equivalents daily, compared to Rosedale and Summerhill which each see less than 100 and 50 respectively.

 

[Streety McCarface]

Can't speak for anyone else, but the ridership projections for something like the SSE make it quite clear a subway wouldn't be necessary for a long, long time. Factor in cost and access, and it's clearly not a wise investment given other major transit needs.

Same goes for the Sheppard extension.

Again, we have really high expectations for subway performance in this city. To say that we shouldn't build any lines beyond what is absolutely necessary is silly because it will eventually become overwhelmed if a network is not established. These two extensions help establish the network we so desperately need, however, they fail in terms of priorities, which are, in the case of TTC, overcrowding on the Yonge and Danforth lines.

 

[syn]

Your initial argument was for Housing density, not job density. Everyone agrees that job density is what drives ridership at stations, and I'm arguing that housing density has little effect on ridership, rather, convenient surface connections have a strong effect on ridership.

Yonge and Bloor can't be analyzed because 95% of people using that station are transferring between the Bloor and Yonge lines. It would be better to measure ridership at another downtown station like King.

St. Clair's ridership is really good because it has connections to the St Clair streetcar, and sees up to 800 bus equivalents daily, compared to Rosedale and Summerhill which each see less than 100 and 50 respectively.

I mentioned population and employment density a few pages ago, and more than once in this thread.

The two are linked. Areas of high density population generally have a much higher employment density.

These are the environments subways were created for. Dense environments that offer easy access in more than one way. Downtown stations don't just have high ridership because there are people traveling to specific destinations, but also because there are people who live in those areas traveling to other destinations, often within that high density area. For some reason, this is being ignored; high density areas have far more 'destinations' than lower density areas.

Scarborough lacks both population density and employment density - take a ride along Sheppard, or even the TTC after Victoria Park and this is painfully obvious. STC is not really a 'destination', except for people in Scarborough. Kind of like Square One is essentially a destination for people in Mississauga.

 

[Streety McCarface]

I mentioned population and employment density a few pages ago, and more than once in this thread.

The two are linked. Areas of high density population generally have a much higher employment density.

These are the environments subways were created for. Dense environments that offer easy access in more than one way. Downtown stations don't just have high ridership because there are people traveling to specific destinations, but also because there are people who live in those areas traveling to other destinations, often within that high density area. For some reason, this is being ignored; high density areas have far more 'destinations' than lower density areas.

Scarborough lacks both population density and employment density - take a ride along Sheppard, or even the TTC after Victoria Park and this is painfully obvious. STC is not really a 'destination', except for people in Scarborough. Kind of like Square One is essentially a destination for people in Mississauga.

What scarborough lacks in housing density it makes up for with surface transit, allowing dense corridors of commuters heading downtown, and it's clear there's at least a case for a (only 1 at the moment) subway line in Scarborough to funnel commuters to the rest of the system. This would all be supported if costs for such a line weren't so outrageously high.

Although there is a lot of housing density downtown, the vast majority of people living downtown will walk, bike, or use the streetcar network to get around, especially since up until very recently, you'd be more likely to find housing units on the outskirts of downtown (ie Corktown). For this reason, aside with building the DRL, the city really needs to expand the downtown streetcar network because it's so imperative to mobility (like the buses are in the suburbs).

Sheppard is confusing because population density along the subway corridor at the stations is relatively high (with the exception of Leslie station) and is growing because of all the development there. However, it's so close to the 401 that many people choose to drive everywhere since it's fairly convenient if you're not going downtown. If you had the choice of taking the subway and bus to Yorkdale or driving the 22 lane freeway there, you're more likely to drive.

 

[syn]

What scarborough lacks in housing density it makes up for with surface transit, allowing dense corridors of commuters heading downtown, and it's clear there's at least a case for a (only 1 at the moment) subway line in Scarborough to funnel commuters to the rest of the system. This would all be supported if costs for such a line weren't so outrageously high.

Only 23% of all transit trips beginning in Scarborough are heading downtown. The solution is regional rail. If only the city was planning regional rail expansion...perhaps it could run more frequently. Something like Regional Rail, but faster...like a Regional Express Rail?

Although there is a lot of housing density downtown, the vast majority of people living downtown will walk, bike, or use the streetcar network to get around, especially since up until very recently, you'd be more likely to find housing units on the outskirts of downtown (ie Corktown). For this reason, aside with building the DRL, the city really needs to expand the downtown streetcar network because it's so imperative to mobility (like the buses are in the suburbs).

There are about 250,000 people living downtown, and almost 800,000 living in the Old City of Toronto (pre-amalgamation boundaries). What about the other 550,000? Are they all just walking and cycling too?

Furthermore, there are residents downtown who don't actually work downtown, who will take a combination of transit to arrive at their destination. The downtown portions of the subway are busy almost continuously now - it isn't strictly a rush hour phenomenon.

This all goes back to my original point - areas with a high density of both population and employment are best suited for subway infrastructure.

If the problem for people in Scarborough is getting downtown, then what needs to be addressed is the regional rail situation. Spending $5 billion on a subway extension that cripples local transit and does little to improve a trip downtown is a foolish idea.

Sheppard is confusing because population density along the subway corridor at the stations is relatively high (with the exception of Leslie station) and is growing because of all the development there. However, it's so close to the 401 that many people choose to drive everywhere since it's fairly convenient if you're not going downtown. If you had the choice of taking the subway and bus to Yorkdale or driving the 22 lane freeway there, you're more likely to drive.

Why would someone living on the Sheppard Line want to drive to Yorkdale? They could just wait a few stops and get to Yonge.

The Sheppard corridor doesn't have great population density - and it isn't much of an employment destination either.

East of Fairview is even worse.

Here is Victoria Park & Sheppard:

https://www.google.com/maps/place/Victoria+Park+Ave+&+Sheppard+Ave+E,+Toronto,+ON/@43.7751968,-79.3230738,3a,75y,349.31h,105.61t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sIc5JDVGiEmhuNt7nYcstpg!2e0!6s//geo3.ggpht.com/cbk?panoid=Ic5JDVGiEmhuNt7nYcstpg&output=thumbnail&cb_client=search.TACTILE.gps&thumb=2&w=392&h=106&yaw=341.88342&pitch=0&thumbfov=100!7i13312!8i6656!4m5!3m4!1s0x89d4d245472c1403:0xc071f82bc4cacfc4!8m2!3d43.7752313!4d-79.32308

Why are we considering putting a subway here? Are Pizza Pizza, Eggsmart and Shoppers major destinations?

How about Warden & Sheppard:

https://www.google.com/maps/@43.7788931,-79.3077985,3a,75y,183.16h,88.4t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sZgC4iKANj7LPhSTlLPzZ_w!2e0!6s//geo0.ggpht.com/cbk?panoid=ZgC4iKANj7LPhSTlLPzZ_w&output=thumbnail&cb_client=maps_sv.tactile.gps&thumb=2&w=203&h=100&yaw=244.46985&pitch=0&thumbfov=100!7i13312!8i6656

Kennedy & Sheppard looks like the 'downtown' stop on the Sheppard Line

https://www.google.com/maps/@43.7833411,-79.2882619,3a,75y,321.02h,95.93t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1s7dUk7QArOVBQ9lNXpxwURg!2e0!6s//geo3.ggpht.com/cbk?panoid=7dUk7QArOVBQ9lNXpxwURg&output=thumbnail&cb_client=maps_sv.tactile.gps&thumb=2&w=203&h=100&yaw=104.512794&pitch=0&thumbfov=100!7i13312!8i6656

We need to stop wasting money.

 

[Juan_Lennon416]

Beyond the SSE....we need to stop wasting money on many fronts! For example, if a BRT works on a street, why build a more expensive LRT?

 

[sixrings]

After building all my pet projects then let's stop wasting money.

 

[OneCity]

Beyond the SSE....we need to stop wasting money on many fronts! For example, if a BRT works on a street, why build a more expensive LRT?

Subway relief, subway extensions, BRT, and express bus was all that was ever needed to build upon in Torontos current network. LRT can be sexy, but transfer creating, major artery vehicle lane removing, non grade separated LRT was a wasteful idea and to say we are paying for this hasty ideology, is an understatement.

 

[JSF-1]

There is nothing wrong with LRT though, BRT is fine until you confront the fact that it still can't move as many people as an LRT can. Once you reach about 3,000 pp/h a BRT starts having diminishing returns, but a Subway doesn't become warranted until around 15,000 pp/h. Are you honsetly suggesting that every city in the world that has LRT's wasted their money? Are you suggesting a city like Los Angeles which has what can be considered one of the best, if not the best LRT's in North America is wrong? Is Ottawa wrong for converting its BRT into an LRT? BRT is nothing but a stop gap solution that wares out its welcome really fast, while LRT like every other rail based transportation system lasts generations.

You also talk about"removing lanes" as a bad thing while ommiting the fact that BRT does the exact same thing (have you seen Highway 7?) Merely painting lines on the road isn't BRT, mixed traffic express buses are not BRT.

 

[denfromoakvillemilton]

Subway relief, subway extensions, BRT, and express bus was all that was ever needed to build upon in Torontos current network. LRT can be sexy, but transfer creating, major artery vehicle lane removing, non grade separated LRT was a wasteful idea and to say we are paying for this hasty ideology, is an understatement.

So anti LRT now? LRT costs less then subways. Especially for people from areas that complain about fiscal responsibility. You also don't dig up the ground. And it encourages people to drive less and lower greenhouse gases.

 

[Rainforest]

There is nothing wrong with LRT though, BRT is fine until you confront the fact that it still can't move as many people as an LRT can. Once you reach about 3,000 pp/h a BRT starts having diminishing returns, but a Subway doesn't become warranted until around 15,000 pp/h.

Based on this criteria, what technology are you going to select if your forecast demand doesn't reach 15,000, but exceeds 8,000 pp/h? (8,000 is the limit for on-street LRT.)

 

[BurlOak]

So anti LRT now? LRT costs less then subways. Especially for people from areas that complain about fiscal responsibility. You also don't dig up the ground. And it encourages people to drive less and lower greenhouse gases.

Based on this criteria, what technology are you going to select if your forecast demand doesn't reach 15,000, but exceeds 8,000 pp/h? (8,000 is the limit for on-street LRT.)

If the answer is underground LRT - then I think that costs more than subway*.

* - If we are are talking equivalent length subway cars vs. LRT since subway needs smaller diameter tunnel. It appears the only thing considered between 40' bus and 500' subway is the 80m LRT. If these are the choices - of course LRT wins in the intermediate demand range.

 

[Voltz]

Subway relief, subway extensions, BRT, and express bus was all that was ever needed to build upon in Torontos current network. LRT can be sexy, but transfer creating, major artery vehicle lane removing, non grade separated LRT was a wasteful idea and to say we are paying for this hasty ideology, is an understatement.

That's rediculous

The only ideology that we are paying for is subway ideology, it has set transit back, particularly in Scarborough, by another generation. Many transit projects didn't happen because of subways.