[ehlow]

Im really hoping that by some miracle we get a Sheppard subway instead of an LRT.

Getting from Downsview to anywhere East of Don Mills is a chore. You have to take a bus to Yonge/Sheppard then transfer to the Sheppard line where upon arrival at Don Mills you have to catch another bus.

We could manage with an LRT but the city will outgrow it in 50 years and it does not attract large developments.

So the LRT is sufficient for 50 years? That's great news! I guess we shouldn't build a subway then, since an LRT can handle ridership for 50 years, and if we built a subway now, it would be underused until the mid 2060's.

In the year 2064, when the Leafs finally win a Stanley Cup, ending a 200 year drought, and Augustus Ford, ancestor of Rob Ford is caught by a miniature surveillance drone swarm smoking crack, we can build a subway to replace the LRT. Similar to how both Yonge and Bloor had streetcars replaced by subways when the streetcar lines were over capacity.

But what am I thinking, by then we'll have aerial drones to take us everywhere, we won't need public transit.

 

[nfitz]

Im really hoping that by some miracle we get a Sheppard subway instead of an LRT.

Getting from Downsview to anywhere East of Don Mills is a chore. You have to take a bus to Yonge/Sheppard then transfer to the Sheppard line where upon arrival at Don Mills you have to catch another bus.

We could manage with an LRT but the city will outgrow it in 50 years and it does not attract large developments.

And where does the money come from? For $1 billion we get an LRT to go 12 km to Morningside. A subway there instead would be over $4 billion, but with very little ridership compared to the existing Sheppard subway.

 

[denfromoakvillemilton]

LRT will bring more development. Both track-for-track, and overall (because the line is longer). Think about it. Any railed transit allows for upzoning to higher density, whether it's a heavy rail underground subway, or a trolley. An LRT would have more stops, meaning more linear development along the line. A subway has fewer stops, and therefore more nodal development along the line.

The current Sheppard line runs near a highway and what was once swaths of warehouses and greyfield/brownfield. In other words, prime for mammoth development. But don't let the recent high density development along the line fool you into believing the same thing will happen east of Don Mills, because it wouldn't. Current residents wouldn't allow for that level of rezoning, and other than a section between Vic Park and the 404, the neighbourhoods of stable residential/commercial have a street and lot layout that is incongruous to that type of development.

I'm not a big fan of the SELRT, but realistically it would be adequate for well over 50 years. Although Toronto's population is roughly where it was expected 40 years ago, NIMBYism and lack of private interest in Scarborough and North York have pushed that population growth elsewhere across the city (downtown, predominantly). It's a bit flawed to project high growth/employment around North York City Centre and Scarb Town Centre when the last thirty years have shown that not to be the case. There'd be development, but not anything that couldn't arise anywhere else across TO that's rezoned as such.

The need to rezone large swaths of western Scarborough for the subway to work. They could ram it through council if they vote for the subway. Attach the issues.

And where does the money come from? For $1 billion we get an LRT to go 12 km to Morningside. A subway there instead would be over $4 billion, but with very little ridership compared to the existing Sheppard subway.

They'll probably just introduce new taxes if council votes for a sheppard subway. Payroll tax, parking tax, bring back the car registration tax.


Do you think a sales tax would be a good idea? It would hit everybody.

 

[gweed123]

Im really hoping that by some miracle we get a Sheppard subway instead of an LRT.

Getting from Downsview to anywhere East of Don Mills is a chore. You have to take a bus to Yonge/Sheppard then transfer to the Sheppard line where upon arrival at Don Mills you have to catch another bus.

We could manage with an LRT but the city will outgrow it in 50 years and it does not attract large developments.

Of course, you could accomplish that same thing by building the LRT and the converting the Sheppard Subway to run LRT trains. It's way under the max capacity for a subway right now, and it's even not at it's full original design capacity (it's running 4 car trains when it was designed for 6). 3 car LRT trains like the ones being proposed for Eglinton would be the perfect solution. You end up with a northern crosstown line that still has all the continuity of a completed Sheppard Subway, but without the massive capital price tag and on-going massive operational deficits that would accompany it.

The conversion option may seem unpopular now, but once the Eglinton LRT opens and people see how smoothly the line transitions from tunnelled to surface, tunes will change, and people will be wanting the same thing on Sheppard.

 

[gweed123]

The need to rezone large swaths of western Scarborough for the subway to work. They could ram it through council if they vote for the subway. Attach the issues.

They'll probably just introduce new taxes if council votes for a sheppard subway. Payroll tax, parking tax, bring back the car registration tax.

Do you think a sales tax would be a good idea? It would hit everybody.

I say ram through an amendment to any Sheppard Subway motion that binds Scarborough taxpayers to cover any operational deficits the subway may (nay, will) incur over it's lifespan. I'm fine with Scarborough getting a Sheppard Subway extension as long as they're the ones paying to keep it afloat. The rest of the city and the TTC in general shouldn't have to pay for Scarborough's vanity project.

 

[Filip]

I say ram through an amendment to any Sheppard Subway motion that binds Scarborough taxpayers to cover any operational deficits the subway may (nay, will) incur over it's lifespan. I'm fine with Scarborough getting a Sheppard Subway extension as long as they're the ones paying to keep it afloat. The rest of the city and the TTC in general shouldn't have to pay for Scarborough's vanity project.

That's a very slippery slope. I am tempted to say I shouldn't have to pay one iota in taxes given that not a single improvement has come to my community (at the expense of the welfare of myself and my neighbours). Meanwhile, we continue to bankroll development fees and taxes through an overbuilt condo clusterfuck at HBS.

That essentially means that my taxes shouldn't go to a single transit improvement currently in the works, because none will better my life/commute.

 

[gweed123]

That's a very slippery slope. I am tempted to say I shouldn't have to pay one iota in taxes given that not a single improvement has come to my community (at the expense of the welfare of myself and my neighbours). Meanwhile, we continue to bankroll development fees and taxes through an overbuilt condo clusterfuck at HBS.

That essentially means that my taxes shouldn't go to a single transit improvement currently in the works, because none will better my life/commute.

I'd stop the slippery slope by looking at the cost/benefit analysis of any proposed project. Projects like the Eglinton Crosstown or the DRL have pretty strong cases behind them. The Sheppard Subway would be way overblown (both in terms of cost and capacity) compared to what is actually needed.

For most rapid transit projects, especially if it's the introduction of a new line or something, they should come pretty close to breaking even operations wise, if not actually turning a profit. It's only when infrastructure is way overbuilt compared to what was actually needed do you get operational black holes. There was talk a couple pages ago about shifting SELRT funding to the WWLRT in the event the former gets canned. I can almost guarantee you that the WWLRT would not be an operations black hole, and in fact may actually turn a profit considering the number people who ride both the King and Queen streetcars.

So for most cases, your slippery slope wouldn't really be an issue. It's only really an issue when a community is screaming "we deserve subways!" when the facts clearly say the density and ridership don't support it.

 

[ehlow]

I'm tempted to say that for those saying "we want subways" you give them a choice:

1. LRT as planned with construction from 2017-2020
2. Subway when the ridership warrants it and after several other subway/transit projects, at least 20-30 years later.

Note that 2 is effectively nothing.

If they say they prefer nothing as some did in that article, then the funds can be re-distributed to more urgent matters. Those people can be happy that they might get a subway 20-30 years or even longer from now.

Although, the sad thing is the people saying they'd prefer nothing over an LRT are likely people who never use transit, and those who do use transit in Scarborough would be continuing to use slow & low capacity buses that get stuck in traffic.

 

[Filip]

I'd stop the slippery slope by looking at the cost/benefit analysis of any proposed project. Projects like the Eglinton Crosstown or the DRL have pretty strong cases behind them. The Sheppard Subway would be way overblown (both in terms of cost and capacity) compared to what is actually needed.

For most rapid transit projects, especially if it's the introduction of a new line or something, they should come pretty close to breaking even operations wise, if not actually turning a profit. It's only when infrastructure is way overbuilt compared to what was actually needed do you get operational black holes. There was talk a couple pages ago about shifting SELRT funding to the WWLRT in the event the former gets canned. I can almost guarantee you that the WWLRT would not be an operations black hole, and in fact may actually turn a profit considering the number people who ride both the King and Queen streetcars.

So for most cases, your slippery slope wouldn't really be an issue. It's only really an issue when a community is screaming "we deserve subways!" when the facts clearly say the density and ridership don't support it.

But I can turn it around and say "if Scarborough has to pay for their transit, then we shouldn't have to pay for any transit" given that no improvements are scheduled for the next 20 years in HBS.

On an unrelated note (I didn't put this in the proper GO thread), but last year Milczyn asked City Planning and Metrolinx to table a report regarding adding a GO stop at Park Lawn. My favourite part was Metrolinx didn't even attend any of the meetings nor did they provide any feasibility studies on the topic. Great to know we're in safe hands.

I naively once thought dense, compact communities like mine were perfect candidates for higher order transit, but it seems I was wrong...

 

[gweed123]

But I can turn it around and say "if Scarborough has to pay for their transit, then we shouldn't have to pay for any transit" given that no improvements are scheduled for the next 20 years in HBS.

On an unrelated note (I didn't put this in the proper GO thread), but last year Milczyn asked City Planning and Metrolinx to table a report regarding adding a GO stop at Park Lawn. My favourite part was Metrolinx didn't even attend any of the meetings nor did they provide any feasibility studies on the topic. Great to know we're in safe hands.

I naively once thought dense, compact communities like mine were perfect candidates for higher order transit, but it seems I was wrong...

That's not the same argument though. You're basically saying "I shouldn't have to pay for my current local transit service because I won't be getting rapid transit service in the near future". Scarborough is saying "What we're supposed to be getting, we don't think it's good enough, so we're going to demand that the City spend 4-5x as much on capital to build the thing, and 4-5x as much on operations to run it". Two completely different arguments.

All I'm saying is that if you want your rapid transit service to be 4-5x what you actually need, then I think it's reasonable that other parts of the City don't have to pay for that. It would be like if downtown demanded that the DRL be 4-tracked with express and local service, and that the local service be at Downtown Yonge Subway-like spacing. That's clearly in excess of what is actually required, so it would be reasonable, IMO, to attach a stipulation that downtowners pay for that local service, and the operations deficit associated with it.

 

[Filip]

That's not the same argument though. You're basically saying "I shouldn't have to pay for my current local transit service because I won't be getting rapid transit service in the near future". Scarborough is saying "What we're supposed to be getting, we don't think it's good enough, so we're going to demand that the City spend 4-5x as much on capital to build the thing, and 4-5x as much on operations to run it". Two completely different arguments.

All I'm saying is that if you want your rapid transit service to be 4-5x what you actually need, then I think it's reasonable that other parts of the City don't have to pay for that. It would be like if downtown demanded that the DRL be 4-tracked with express and local service, and that the local service be at Downtown Yonge Subway-like spacing. That's clearly in excess of what is actually required, so it would be reasonable, IMO, to attach a stipulation that downtowners pay for that local service, and the operations deficit associated with it.

You misunderstood my point. What I'm saying is I shouldn't have to pay (through tax increases, special assessments, fees and whatnot) for new transit lines that don't come anywhere near my neighbourhood.

 

[kEiThZ]

Does anybody know where the reports are costs of conversion from subway to LRT?

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

I think that's the Sheppard East ECA

http://www.metrolinx.com/en/regiona...enefitscases/Benefits_Case-Sheppard-Finch.pdf

AoD

 

[M II A II R II K]

If the subway is mostly outside and has only express stops, then there would be less of a need to densify to justify the subway being there, and would at least provide commuter rail type service all the way to Rouge Hill going east. Local busses like Warden can just redirect to the closest station when they hit Sheppard.

 

[gweed123]

You misunderstood my point. What I'm saying is I shouldn't have to pay (through tax increases, special assessments, fees and whatnot) for new transit lines that don't come anywhere near my neighbourhood.

Gotcha. I guess my answer would be that because the costs of appropriately-scaled transit projects much be shared by everyone. It's only when the demand of the neighbourhood exceeds what is required that the neighbourhood itself should start paying extra.

It is definitely unfortunate though that you have areas like Humber Bay that have clearly done everything they were 'supposed to do' in terms of densification and TOD, but they're being left off the priority list in favour of what could potentially be two subways in suburbia. Heck, there are more condos in Humber Bay now than there are at STC. The WWLRT is probably the most pragmatic and easy to implement line in all of Transit City, and I have no idea why it's so low on the priority list. It even has the option to by scaled back east of the Ex by using the existing streetcar ROW instead of building a new ROW along Bremner. It's really a no-brainer, which is why if the SELRT does fall though that would probably be the first project that I would redirect that funding to.