News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 02, 2020
 8.3K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
 39K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
 4.5K     0 

We aren't being very intentional about where we locate our major centres with respect to regional rapid transit. If we're looking to build new regional centres out of what is essentially a greenfield/barren suburban area, why not do it somewhere with better regional connectivity, namely a GO Line. The majority of our suburban centres are failures in this regard: STC, NYCC, Mississauga (too far from Cooksville), VMC. Etobicoke sort of fits the bill at Kipling station.

I absolutely think Kennedy Station would be a more logical node in Scarborough with both Line 2 and GO present and Eglinton being a major road.

Regrettably, the Eaton family owned a ton of land up at the 401 and McCowan and lobbied for what they wanted, now succeeded by Oxford, its development driven by convenience to builders, not planners.

I would have argued as well, that to have a vital, hopping, mini-downtown, you want young people in droves, and jobs; and that co-locating universities and colleges in such centres would make enormous sense.

NYCC is at least centred on Yonge Street and near the 401 and along Line 1, so there is a certain sense to it.

Scaborough is the most obvious outlier within the current City of Toronto.

MCC likewise was poorly cited. Imagine MCC having been built immediately north of Port Credit, centred on Hurontario, next to GO Lakeshore, then having co-located UTM and Sheridan there?

SCC at Kennedy Station, co-located with Centennial and UTSC.

Makes so much sense, but 'water under the bridge'.
 
Don’t worry. VMC STC NYCC Richmond Hill Centre will all have subways. They can get people to the Go trains.

The danforth extension should not stop at sheppard. It needs to get to woodside square to connect with the future crosstown finch lrt.
This is foolishly expensive and adds a transfer. Why not locate the density at the regional transit?
 
We aren't being very intentional about where we locate our major centres with respect to regional rapid transit. If we're looking to build new regional centres out of what is essentially a greenfield/barren suburban area, why not do it somewhere with better regional connectivity, namely a GO Line. The majority of our suburban centres are failures in this regard: STC, NYCC, Mississauga (too far from Cooksville), VMC. Etobicoke sort of fits the bill at Kipling station.
I like that we can have a broader network with many hubs now. Stouffville GO connecting to a Line 4 station at Agincourt (with fare integration) and then the Line 2, McCowan BRT and Eglinton East LRT connection at McCowan is great network building for this part of the GTA. As Northern Light mentioned, we really need connections on both sides of the 401. South of the 401, STC will still have Ellesmere BRT and GO buses and Kennedy of course has line 2, line 5, and GO.

The McCowan BRT north to Markville in Markham (a local centre that will see significant density) is a useful local connection alternative to Centennial GO (which will only have 30 minute service as part of GO expansion) and would allow VIVA BRT service from the Cornell Terminal once the rapidways are extended east, making the eastern end of the VIVA network far more useful (in addition to the existing connection to Unionville GO and its eventual frequent service downtown).
 
I absolutely think Kennedy Station would be a more logical node in Scarborough with both Line 2 and GO present and Eglinton being a major road.

Regrettably, the Eaton family owned a ton of land up at the 401 and McCowan and lobbied for what they wanted, now succeeded by Oxford, its development driven by convenience to builders, not planners.

I would have argued as well, that to have a vital, hopping, mini-downtown, you want young people in droves, and jobs; and that co-locating universities and colleges in such centres would make enormous sense.

NYCC is at least centred on Yonge Street and near the 401 and along Line 1, so there is a certain sense to it.

Scaborough is the most obvious outlier within the current City of Toronto.

MCC likewise was poorly cited. Imagine MCC having been built immediately north of Port Credit, centred on Hurontario, next to GO Lakeshore, then having co-located UTM and Sheridan there?

SCC at Kennedy Station, co-located with Centennial and UTSC.

Makes so much sense, but 'water under the bridge'.
If Mississauga city centre was built just north of port credit nothing would be built. There are nimbys there in droves. It’s the opposite problem of Kennedy station where there is no opposition but the city basically said no to any development there and encouraged development at Scarborough town center. Both cites are wrong with this planning. In one we catered to NIMBYs. In another we catered to a rich family who owned land. Both were wrong but I find Kennedy station more egregious because there was no NIMBYs there. It was the cities choice simply to ignore it.
 
I absolutely think Kennedy Station would be a more logical node in Scarborough with both Line 2 and GO present and Eglinton being a major road.

Regrettably, the Eaton family owned a ton of land up at the 401 and McCowan and lobbied for what they wanted, now succeeded by Oxford, its development driven by convenience to builders, not planners.

I would have argued as well, that to have a vital, hopping, mini-downtown, you want young people in droves, and jobs; and that co-locating universities and colleges in such centres would make enormous sense.

NYCC is at least centred on Yonge Street and near the 401 and along Line 1, so there is a certain sense to it.

Scaborough is the most obvious outlier within the current City of Toronto.

MCC likewise was poorly cited. Imagine MCC having been built immediately north of Port Credit, centred on Hurontario, next to GO Lakeshore, then having co-located UTM and Sheridan there?

SCC at Kennedy Station, co-located with Centennial and UTSC.

Makes so much sense, but 'water under the bridge'.
I think the cancellation of the Scarborough Expressway may have also played a roll in the STC being where it is today. Like it or not Highway access is something businesses like and the current location of STC is right on the 401. While it may not have made all the difference I think had the Scarborough Expressway been built there would have been a stronger case for putting the town centre along Eglinton.

It's also worth remembering that while there is no rail line around STC today, there used to be one that passed near McCowan and Ellesmere back in the day. It was foolishly developed over though.
 
Last edited:
I absolutely think Kennedy Station would be a more logical node in Scarborough with both Line 2 and GO present and Eglinton being a major road.

Regrettably, the Eaton family owned a ton of land up at the 401 and McCowan and lobbied for what they wanted, now succeeded by Oxford, its development driven by convenience to builders, not planners.

I would have argued as well, that to have a vital, hopping, mini-downtown, you want young people in droves, and jobs; and that co-locating universities and colleges in such centres would make enormous sense.

NYCC is at least centred on Yonge Street and near the 401 and along Line 1, so there is a certain sense to it.

Scaborough is the most obvious outlier within the current City of Toronto.

MCC likewise was poorly cited. Imagine MCC having been built immediately north of Port Credit, centred on Hurontario, next to GO Lakeshore, then having co-located UTM and Sheridan there?

SCC at Kennedy Station, co-located with Centennial and UTSC.

Makes so much sense, but 'water under the bridge'.
OT but in my fantasy world Dundas W, Danforth, Kipling, Kennedy, and Pearson airport are Toronto's satellite downtown's.
 
Great thing about scarborough center, is that it is quite literally at the center of scarborough, perfect place for scarborough's main hub. Makes it easily acessible to almsot all of scarborough residents by public transit or car. Kennedy station is far south, and west, and would be quite difficult to get to for those in "deep" scarborough
 
What doesn't make sense to me is terminating it at STC. Terminating it at Sheppard n McCowan makes the entire line available to continue eastward to Markham or possibly even Morningside and actually impacting Scarborough transit needs
I don't think anyone is seriously suggesting running it down to STC these days - outside of the fantasy thread. That was the plan before they conceived of the Line 2 extension.
I'd be tempted though if they extended east of McCowan, to deflect it down to the 401 and Centennial College between McCowan and Nielsen - though that's also in fantasy territory.
 
Here is my new video on the Sheppard Line & its extension possibilities! I actually feel really strongly that this is an important project and the best solution for the Sheppard Line, and I've addressed most of the expected criticisms. Enjoy!


You really hit the nail on the head with how extending the subway eastward westward to Sheppard West would improve really network resiliency (at the 4:00 minute mark) if there was an issue, say, with an electrical fire on the Yonge portion of the line, hypothetically, around Bloor.

edit: d'oh!
 
Last edited:
You really hit the nail on the head with how extending the subway eastward westward to Sheppard West would improve really network resiliency (at the 4:00 minute mark) if there was an issue, say, with an electrical fire on the Yonge portion of the line, hypothetically, around Bloor.

If you extend the subway eastward to get to Sheppard West, you're really taking the long way. LOL
 
You really hit the nail on the head with how extending the subway eastward to Sheppard West would improve really network resiliency (at the 4:00 minute mark) if there was an issue, say, with an electrical fire on the Yonge portion of the line, hypothetically, around Bloor.

Unfortunately, it seems like many people here are of the mindset that spending the billions to finish the line is a waste for something like "resiliency" - how often is there a fire? But... we do get routine weekend and evening closures of the Yonge line, so...

I used to live at Yonge/Sheppard and man it'd be 1000% better if we could also take the subway on the other side without taking the bus.
 
Unfortunately, it seems like many people here are of the mindset that spending the billions to finish the line is a waste for something like "resiliency" - how often is there a fire? But... we do get routine weekend and evening closures of the Yonge line, so...

I used to live at Yonge/Sheppard and man it'd be 1000% better if we could also take the subway on the other side without taking the bus.

I don't think that's an entirely fair take.

I think many people here are concerned that with finite transit dollars to go around the money is spent to maximum effect.

I happen to support a westward extension of Sheppard; but I will also challenge people who tack it on a to-do list with another 50B in projects to find the funding source and ask them to similarly fund other priority items such as
Platform Edge Doors, ATC on Line 2, new rolling stock, and other high priority expansions.

That's not a knock on Sheppard West, its a suggestion that people ought not to be defensive, but be prepared to argue the case for why one project is more important than the next and show a practical means of delivery.
 
Last edited:
My gut feeling is that the benefits to making the subway system a network, such as resiliency/redundancy and benefits of scale, are underappreciated and underestimated. But it would be interesting to see some quantitative analysis or modelling done. For sure there are real opportunity costs involved with capital expenditure like that.

Are there rough estimates of the cost to complete a 4 km extension westward, adding one station at Bathurst?
 
Are there rough estimates of the cost to complete a 4 km extension westward, adding one station at Bathurst?

In 2011 there was a estimate of $1,308 million, using non-inflated dollars. If you started an EA/engineering today it would likely be closer to $4B with a potential 2026 construction start.

Given the relatively low ridership (compared to the subway service) of nearby bus routes an operations subsidy around $30M/year would be required.

In addition, all capital infrastructure requires maintenance. While its cheap upfront after 15 years those costs become noticeable. We've spent hundreds of millions on repairs and capital maintenance of the existing Sheppard subway. So add about 1% of the construction price per year for that: $40M/year.
 
My gut feeling is that the benefits to making the subway system a network, such as resiliency/redundancy and benefits of scale, are underappreciated and underestimated. But it would be interesting to see some quantitative analysis or modelling done. For sure there are real opportunity costs involved with capital expenditure like that.

Are there rough estimates of the cost to complete a 4 km extension westward, adding one station at Bathurst?

Excluding any operations or life-cycle maintenance often built into such contracts these days........

I would ball park the cost in the range of 850M per km + 300M for Bathurst Station + extra for the Don Valley crossing.

Let's say 4B in round figures sounds right'ish. I would, however, suggest you'd probably get station at Senlac too, so that might up your cost to 4.3B

Very approximately.

@rbt proving bright minds think alike, LOL
 

Back
Top