News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 02, 2020
 8.9K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
 40K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
 5.1K     0 

We have to be realistic in what's in the best interests of the region in a cost-effective solution to the regional transportation problems. You're just talking about your own fantasy map that isn't a good solution for the region.

kEiThZ's fantasy map is the one shared by virtually everyone in Scarborough. It's the fact that it could be achieved for less money that the recommended alternatives and help, literally, several times as many people get where they need to go, as well as support the city's growth, that is so outrageous. Realistic cost, realistic goals, realistic outcomes...all get thrown out the window when a few politicians and the horde of walking calculators they employ get bad ideas stuck in their minds. All of these studies use extremely and intentionally narrow sets of constraints and inputs to arrive at predetermined conclusions. That's just the way it is.
 
I'm not surprise at this and McGuinty needs to take the heat as this is his baby. It has been known for months there was a change coming to the point the whole thing could be brought back in house.

Without teeth and powers to do this right, we are getting a wish list of projects, not what is really needed in the first place.

McGuinty has fail to understand what the real cost is going to be to put in a real transit system to service everyone, not a few.

I said in 2003 when he first talked about transit that he needed to get a checkbook out and write a check of $3B per years for the next 20 years.

It is now up to $7B/year. The first report on cost was close to $100B and was told to cut it.

Because of Metrolinx trying to please McGuinty, they are being blown out of the water by projects that need to be rethink with a better vision as to what should get built first based on needs as well get away from the wish list. New cost are been added and were is the money to add them in.

The RTP is in the right direction, but some projects needs to be down graded and push back. Some beed to be upgraded.

Between York and TTC, they have suck all the money up leaving nothing for other areas. At the same time, TTC keeps coming up if things that need up front money that should not be part of the current funding process as it what TTC has to do in the first place to improve the existing system in the first place just for the 416 let alone 905.

McGuinty is hell bent to get these projects underway as it will be a plank in his reelection campaign in 2011. This also applies to the others on the broad for their election in 2010.

I said during the bill process that various private sectors members needed to be on this board as well representation from the public.

Doing things in a rush will leave to over run cost as well poor lines on the map.

Why do you think MacIsaac's has move on as he saw the writing on the wall and a good time to bail out. There is and has been a power struggle on the board from day one with a lot of arm twisting behind close doors.

I know my views on various project run against the thinking of some, but I look at things from both a transit adovate as well a business operator knowing full well transit will not make a profit. How we use that money is based on the big bang for the buck.

Subway, LRT and BRT all have their place and you need to put them in were and when they are needed first.

I love to see a subway to MCC, but an LRT will have to go in first to help redeveloping Dundas St first to generate ridership to support a subway at the end of the day. The same applies for both York subway. I would extend the Danforth line to STC and to Sheppard as well extending the Bloor line tp Colverdale. Building the DRL needs to happen before extending the Yonye line north of Steeles.

Until there is real power to tax as well using P3 tp build transit line, it going to take more time.

Give up hope for funding from the Fed's as they have provident regardless who is in power, transit is a low level item to them.
 
Do people believe this will lead to a re-evaluation of the RTP? In some ways, I hope so. I can't tell you how terribly disappointed I was, reading it. It was just a bundle of okay but suboptimal projects, each considered in isolation and patched into a network. However, a new RTP would delay the whole process by years. I suppose at this point, the York U subway can proceed, as well as the first TC line, and some GO improvements. Maybe it won't be so bad after all to reconsider the RTP and develop a true, holistic plan.
 
kEiThZ's fantasy map is the one shared by virtually everyone in Scarborough. It's the fact that it could be achieved for less money that the recommended alternatives and help, literally, several times as many people get where they need to go, as well as support the city's growth, that is so outrageous. Realistic cost, realistic goals, realistic outcomes...all get thrown out the window when a few politicians and the horde of walking calculators they employ get bad ideas stuck in their minds. All of these studies use extremely and intentionally narrow sets of constraints and inputs to arrive at predetermined conclusions. That's just the way it is.

You cannot get a subway for less than the cost of converted LRT and get the same level of service. BD to STC, according to previous studies, would only have one stop between the two on a completely different alignment, which means the TTC has to keep the SRT because of existing policies that prohibit downgrading existing corridor service. It also will not help several times as many people get to where they need to go, the number of people helped between either solution is about the same, but subway costs more, and serves less stops (given, Midland and Ellesmere have pathetic ridership, but it comes back to existing TTC policy that forces them to keep it).

The growth of Scarborough won't really see much difference from a subway extension to STC because STC is already a Rapid Transit station and has been developing as one with such service. Previous studies by people like Dr. Soberman have shown that a subway is overkill (especially with both Sheppard and BD, now that is really an outrageous waste of funds).

If you want to service many times more people, an LRT network fanning out across all of Scarborough is the way to do it. One of the beauty parts is that if properly operated (which may be wishful thinking, but anyway), such a LRT network can greatly enhance travel within Scarborough. What you don't realize is that a common complaint of TTC service in Scarborough is that it is too focused on just getting to the subway and is very poor at providing good intra-Scarborough travel. The LRT network can help a great deal with that, and requires the SRT portion being converted to LRT to make it happen.

That will support the city's growth better than a single subway line that only serves two additional stops, one of which is already a major hub without the subway, and will continue to grow without a subway. The LRT network allows the city to grow in a far wider scope and in a more distributed and continuous manner, instead of just a node along Progress between Brimley and McCowan (that's not growth, that's a placebo).

There are problems with the BCAs. That's absolutely true. However, there's more than enough proof to support the idea that an extension of the subway to STC is inferior to building an LRT network. This "subway or nothing" mentality is so self-destructive and a key reason why nothing ever gets built in this city's transit infrastructure.

Subways need to built in places like the DRL... not STC (on either Danforth or Sheppard). And as drum correctly pointed out, Dundas needs LRT before it will ever see a subway roll through Mississauga, although the East Mall extension is valid. BTW, that's not just from 20 years ago CC, that was re-studied in... 2006, I think?
 
Last edited:
I don't want to threadjack so this will be my last post on the SRT. We should keep that discussion in the Fate of the SRT forum. I'll sum up what most of us are thinking on here for Railization:

1) Yes it will cost more but not as much at the TTC says to extend the subway. At best the cost differential would be about 500-600 million. And a good chunk of that would be recouped by raised land values along the subway corridor. It's amazing how they fudge numbers though. In 2006, LRT was pooh-pooh'd in favour of an ART Mk II

2) Given that Scarborough Town Centre has higher ridership than the half the subway stations in this town, it's pretty spurious for the TTC to argue that an extension is not warranted based on ridership. Moreover, since most of the ridership along that line is really traffic to/from STC to Kennedy, this is an investment that would markedly improve the lives of pretty much every Scarberian. And that's why most Scarborough residents support an extension. They understand this implicitly. You will find zero support for forcing 12000 riders a day to change over at Kennedy just to support the TTC's ideology.

3) None of this removes the need to expand BRT and LRT corridors in Scarborough. However, most of us believe that a subway extension to STC supports that network best. I envision a subway at STC connecting to the various Metrolinx 416-905 projected lines and Transit City lines including a Sheppard East LRT continuing from STC to the zoo, a LRT to Malvern, an LRT along Ellesmere to UTSC, etc. Indeed, if the TTC is sincere in its intention to extend the LRT/RT north into Markham at some point in the future, I'd like them to explain how they plan on doing that while ensuring that there will still be seats left for riders west of Markham Rd without a subway. But wait, when you attend the PIC, that's where TTC planners tell you that after the current refurb/replacement (somewhere around the 2031) extending the subway is a realistic prospect. So why not do it now?


4) As for the loss of stations. That's TTC ideology. Does not make it right. Every casual observer who rides the RT always ask the same question: why is there a stop at Midland? We could stand to get rid of a few stops. With a subway, Lawrence would simply be moved east. Midland would be gone and not missed by anyone save the paper recycling plant workers. Ellesmere users would simply bus into Town Centre....and with the exception of the few condos beside the station most of those folks bus into Ellesmere station anyway, so it's merely a 2 min extension of their bus ride...and then too only for those from the west. And all those folks would save time by having one less transfer. Even a Malvernite like myself from further out would benefit from one less transfer at Kennedy.

5) I will ask this again. If Metrolinx is soooo impartial and objective why was there no option 5 (subway + Malvern LRT) in the BCA? It would have been a neglibile cost in consultant's fees to run that through the BCA's metrics. Heck, many of us here would gladly donate money to pay for that extra study. Just because there's apparently evidence to shoot down the idea does not mean it should not be included in an objective study of the corridor. Would anybody tolerate this kind of work for BCAs on any other corridor in Toronto?
 
Do people believe this will lead to a re-evaluation of the RTP? In some ways, I hope so. I can't tell you how terribly disappointed I was, reading it. It was just a bundle of okay but suboptimal projects, each considered in isolation and patched into a network. However, a new RTP would delay the whole process by years. I suppose at this point, the York U subway can proceed, as well as the first TC line, and some GO improvements. Maybe it won't be so bad after all to reconsider the RTP and develop a true, holistic plan.

It might not get the whole RTP changed but it might add some improvements. How about a Sheppard extension to Downsview? How about an unbiased study of the RT corridor? Or the need for BRT/LRT on Ellesmere in Scarborough? Or the priority of the DRL? All those would have been addressed much better without a board filled with politicans.

On a board like Metrolinx there needs to be a balance of technocrats and municipal reps. It's not that I want to see the municipal politicans chopped completely from the decision-making process. But there needs to be sufficiently knowledgeable folks added to the board. I'd like to see some TfL type qualifications added.

If all Metrolinx is going to do is rubberstamp every TTC, YRT, BT, MT, etc. project than why do we need to waste money on Metrolinx. The province can hand out the checks directly and our MPPs can get much better photo ops. If they are going to their job as the chamber of sober second thought for GTA transit and transport planning than they are going to need more qualified bodies other than a room full of municipal politicians who have already made up their minds about what they want.
 
ON THE CHOPPING BLOCK

Premiere Dalton McGuinty is tired of the red tape surrounding Metrolinx's Big Move project and promises to take action.

DAVID MILLER

Mayor, City of Toronto: Miller is an employment and immigration lawyer who entered city politics in 1994 by winning a seat on the old Metro Council in 1994. He became a councillor in the new City of Toronto and was elected Mayor in 2006.

HAZEL McCALLION

Mayor, City of Mississauga: McCallion is a political icon and the GTA's longest serving mayor. She has been in municipal politics since 1967, is a former President of the Association of Municipalities of Ontario and is a Member of the Order of Canada.

ADAM GIABRONE

Toronto City Councillor and Chair, TTC: Giambrone represents Ward 18, Davenport. He heads the city's transit commission, is the youngest member of council and a former National President of the federal NDP.

GARY CARR

Halton Regional Chair: Is a former Conservative MP for Halton and MPP for Oakville and Speaker of the Legislative Assembly of Ontario. Carr was also a pro hockey goalie drafted by the Boston Bruins.

ROGER ANDERSON

Chair, Durham Region: Anderson is a long-time Durham politician and past president of the Association of Municipalities (AMO). He's also served as chair of the region's transit commission and as a director on the GO Transit board.

NORM KELLY

Councillor, City of Toronto: Kelly is councillor for Scarborough Agincourt and a member of several city committees, including Executive Committee. He is a former MP in Pierre Trudeau's government and real estate businessman and Metro councillor.

BILL FISCH

Chairman and Chief Executive Officer Regional Municipality of York Region: Fisch is a former Markham councilor, a law grad, chairs the region's rapid transit public-private partnership steering committee and past GO Transit board member.

FRED EISENBERGER

Mayor, City of Hamilton: Eisenberger was elected to Hamilton council 1991 and following an unsuccessful bid in 2000, won the mayor's job in 2006. He headed up Hamilton's port authority and efforts to redevelop the port area.

Having mayors in Metrolinx sounding like an honorary award, not that they may actually do work there. We need people who actually want and use public transit. When was the last time that Major McCallion actually used Mississauga Transit, for example?

We should have people like Steve Munro or James Bow on the Metrolinx board, and not as honorary roles.
 
Giambrone is a regular TTC rider.

McCallion has given up driving, too (apparently age is taking its toll on her driving skills).
 
What I don't get is why the Mayors are on there? Why not just have a rep (or chair) for each transit service?
 
There are problems with the BCAs. That's absolutely true. However, there's more than enough proof to support the idea that an extension of the subway to STC is inferior to building an LRT network. This "subway or nothing" mentality is so self-destructive and a key reason why nothing ever gets built in this city's transit infrastructure.

When someone that you're arguing with here actually exhibits a subway or nothing mentality, then you'll have something to rail against. Until then, you're just piling red herrings into the discussion. Where did anyone propose a 5-6km subway extension to STC and/or nothing else? People were clearly just noting that subways have intentionally not been given a fair chance - or even thrown into the mix of options - in studies like the SRT corridor, both before and, more importantly in this thread, after Metrolinx.

What you don't realize is that my primary goal for STC has been to kill the SRT (LRT branching out has always been preferable to keeping the SRT, although extending the subway would be even more preferable and does not preclude extending LRT lines beyond STC...there's quite a few posts on the subject lying around the forum). Routes like McCowan and Lawrence are ideal for properly implemented (as in not Spadina streetcar) light rail...I've always thought so.

What you also don't realize is that I (and probably kEiThZ, too) would *of course* choose a vast network of properly built light rail lines instead of one 5-6km subway extension. That's not a real option that we're being presented with, though. At this point, LRT fanning across Scarborough is little more than a fantasy map proposal...2 of the 3 LRT lines proposed for Scarborough are poorly planned potential disasters, likely offering no significant improvements over the buses they're replacing at exhorbitant cost and not serving anywhere close to the busiest parts of Scarborough.
 
Last edited:
Let's broaden the discussion beyond Scarborough...where's Metrolinx's leadership on fare integration. Presto is going to take how many years again? And that's integration of payment only. Where's Metrolinx's leadership on fund raising? Oh that's right, we can only have that discussion once the RTP runs out of cash circa 2016 when the current crop of politicians have had their pet projects built and they've retired. But oh wait, municipal politicians are by far the best and most objective of our political class don't you know. They'll lead us to transit nirvana!
 
Let's broaden the discussion beyond Scarborough...where's Metrolinx's leadership on fare integration. Presto is going to take how many years again? And that's integration of payment only. Where's Metrolinx's leadership on fund raising? Oh that's right, we can only have that discussion once the RTP runs out of cash circa 2016 when the current crop of politicians have had their pet projects built and they've retired. But oh wait, municipal politicians are by far the best and most objective of our political class don't you know. They'll lead us to transit nirvana!

On fare integration:

They had identified that it's a policy decision (not dependent on Presto) and have been working on getting a pilot going on Burnhamthope and on VIVA Orange since last year. But, the TTC put a stop to that.

On fund raising:

The report on new funding tools is due late this year or early next year. They dropped the 2016 before the RTP was even passed.

We need a regional agency to make these broad decisions, and there have been great ideas to come out of the agency but what's the point when the status quo can overrule it? I don't see it as Metrolinx's fault. The overarching political culture is to blame.
 
Last edited:
On fare integration:

They had identified that it's a policy decision (not dependent on Presto) and have been working on getting a pilot going on Burnhamthope and on VIVA Orange since last year. But, the TTC put a stop to that.

That's my point. Where's the leadership? How could the province create a board which can be bullied around by the TTC like that and expect to get anywhere?

On fund raising:

The report on new funding tools is due late this year or early next year. They dropped the 2016 before the RTP was even passed.

If past comments are any indication it will be a rehash of the pledge to hold the discussion till after most of the first tranche of cash has been spent. Again, that's not leadership. That's delayed decision making and passing the buck. I'll withold full judgement till we see the reports but I am not holding my breath.

Sadly, Metrolinx is all we've got. I guess we have to live with second-class transit policy and decision-making. It makes me feel hopeless at times.
 
I don't want to threadjack so this will be my last post on the SRT. We should keep that discussion in the Fate of the SRT forum. I'll sum up what most of us are thinking on here for Railization:

1) Yes it will cost more but not as much at the TTC says to extend the subway. At best the cost differential would be about 500-600 million. And a good chunk of that would be recouped by raised land values along the subway corridor. It's amazing how they fudge numbers though. In 2006, LRT was pooh-pooh'd in favour of an ART Mk II
You can blame Bombardier for the 2006 study, they were apparently throwing bribe money around like nobody's business (oh, I'm sorry, it wasn't bribery, they prefer to call it lobbying). The additional half-billion would not be re-couped by property value increases, as you are only talking about one station around which you'll see increasing property values. Kennedy and STC won't see any change because they already have hub status. A relocated Lawrence East is also going to have limited ability to increase values since it is in the Highland Creek area (protected).

2) Given that Scarborough Town Centre has higher ridership than the half the subway stations in this town, it's pretty spurious for the TTC to argue that an extension is not warranted based on ridership. Moreover, since most of the ridership along that line is really traffic to/from STC to Kennedy, this is an investment that would markedly improve the lives of pretty much every Scarberian. And that's why most Scarborough residents support an extension. They understand this implicitly. You will find zero support for forcing 12000 riders a day to change over at Kennedy just to support the TTC's ideology.
The extension isn't warranted because the transfers are avoidable transfers from an extension of the SRT as LRT to Malvern. See, this is why your arguments fall apart, you are thinking of STC in isolation from the rest of the network. It doesn't work that way. If the SRT is coverted to LRT and extended to Malvern, as is proposed, transfers will go down substantially. This is even more true if it runs through on Eglinton. So you see, you actually get a better result by making it LRT than subway. Also, to try and say that "this would improve the lives of EVERY Scarberian" is blatant hyperbole if not an outright lie. There are more people in Scarborough that don't go to STC than those that do. Kennedy is proof, check its ridership figure (it's almost 3 times that of STC's). Combine that with GO Train Lakeshore East ridership as well. Your argument there is a loaded argument, it holds no water.

It is pointless to say that there will far fewer transfers from an STC extension when you think about the context from an interlined LRT network perspective. Scarborough's coverage by LRT is going to be fantastic and will, at least in theory, allow any LRT service point in Scarborough to get to the subway without transferring. That subway may be Kennedy, or it may be Finch, or it may be Yonge-Eglinton, nobody knows yet because the network plan is still being tweaked, but the potential is obvious, and it is clearly superior to a subway extension that would accomplish little beyond moving the major transfer node to a different location.

3) None of this removes the need to expand BRT and LRT corridors in Scarborough. However, most of us believe that a subway extension to STC supports that network best. I envision a subway at STC connecting to the various Metrolinx 416-905 projected lines and Transit City lines including a Sheppard East LRT continuing from STC to the zoo, a LRT to Malvern, an LRT along Ellesmere to UTSC, etc. Indeed, if the TTC is sincere in its intention to extend the LRT/RT north into Markham at some point in the future, I'd like them to explain how they plan on doing that while ensuring that there will still be seats left for riders west of Markham Rd without a subway. But wait, when you attend the PIC, that's where TTC planners tell you that after the current refurb/replacement (somewhere around the 2031) extending the subway is a realistic prospect. So why not do it now?
The same reason that we should never have built Sheppard as a subway. Sheppard should have been LRT from day one. And it's the same story for Scarborough. The load is going to end up being divided and dispersed by the time all of the network is up and running, particularly with the Seaton GO line if it is actually implemented. You don't understand what the ridership capabilities are of each mode, nor do you understand what the network dynamics can actually lead to. Everything about Sheppard LRT to STC, LRT to UTSC, even LRT to almost the Zoo, all that is already coming. We don't need a subway to STC to make that happen, and there's no point in sucking a half-billion dollars of funds away from other projects to make a STC subway happen. It isn't worth it. Your property values argument is too weak (Scarborough isn't Forest Hill, and that means it can only generate so much money through property values).


4) As for the loss of stations. That's TTC ideology. Does not make it right. Every casual observer who rides the RT always ask the same question: why is there a stop at Midland? We could stand to get rid of a few stops. With a subway, Lawrence would simply be moved east. Midland would be gone and not missed by anyone save the paper recycling plant workers. Ellesmere users would simply bus into Town Centre....and with the exception of the few condos beside the station most of those folks bus into Ellesmere station anyway, so it's merely a 2 min extension of their bus ride...and then too only for those from the west. And all those folks would save time by having one less transfer. Even a Malvernite like myself from further out would benefit from one less transfer at Kennedy.
You're still not getting it. Malvernites like you will avoid transferring at STC instead of Kennedy; That's the point! This is why I challenge you to think from a network perspective for once. The SRT as LRT will go all the way to Malvern and take you to Kennedy in one seat. You won't have to transfer at STC anymore. STC's ridership will plummet since it no longer needs to be a major transfer spot for all the Malvernites that use it currently (which is 1/3rd of the ridership). Other LRT lines could also interline, from say Sheppard/Meadowvale for example, to Kennedy in one seat as well.

While I agree that Midland and Ellesmere have low value, what I am acknowledging is that there are policies that have to be worked with, and you have to acknowledge that, too, because we don't have the power to change them, and frankly, we don't want them to change because we'd set a precedent which would see service reductions run rampant across the city as a result. The existing policy is good at protecting existing service, so we should look at its benefit instead of its negative tradeoffs. This actually isn't TTC corporate idealogy, this was a political decision by Councillors, and I agree with it, despite the above mentioned shortcoming. It does more good than harm.


5) I will ask this again. If Metrolinx is soooo impartial and objective why was there no option 5 (subway + Malvern LRT) in the BCA? It would have been a neglibile cost in consultant's fees to run that through the BCA's metrics. Heck, many of us here would gladly donate money to pay for that extra study. Just because there's apparently evidence to shoot down the idea does not mean it should not be included in an objective study of the corridor. Would anybody tolerate this kind of work for BCAs on any other corridor in Toronto?

The reason is the same as Transit City's reason; it falls short of the 10,000pphpd threshold. The demand is about the same as that expected for the Eglinton LRT, which is around 7,000 or so (the SRT's is 6,400). So the BCA actually wasn't supposed to consider subway, because there is no point as it fails the first test. The BCA has other flaws, but ignoring subway isn't one of them. The York Region subway BCAs were flawed in that they never considered LRT (it was just BRT or Subway, which is retarded since LRT has easily double the capacity of BRT (unless said BRT is a total pig on space (space that generally doesn't exist, except in Ottawa))). You can scream until you're blue in the face, but there is no good reason for a subway to STC at this time, as the alternatives are superior.
 
That's my point. Where's the leadership? How could the province create a board which can be bullied around by the TTC like that and expect to get anywhere?

AGREED

If past comments are any indication it will be a rehash of the pledge to hold the discussion till after most of the first tranche of cash has been spent. Again, that's not leadership. That's delayed decision making and passing the buck. I'll withold full judgement till we see the reports but I am not holding my breath.

I disagree. I've had the opportunity to sit amongst these decision makers and I feel that there is a real desire to act sooner, rather than later. I think it's a lack of confidence in the ability to sell new taxes. The California High Speed Rail Bond is evidence that people will pay more for transit down the line, but there's a bit of disbelief. "Why would people support new taxes now when they've opposed new taxes the last 9000 times?"

Perhaps this is where the grassroots need to come in. The government has to be able to show that these new taxes are going to transit and only transit, but the people have to show that we're fed up with congestion and are willing to roll up our sleeves and chip in.
 

Back
Top