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

Which transit plan do you prefer?

  • Transit City

    Votes: 95 79.2%
  • Ford City

    Votes: 25 20.8%

  • Total voters
    120
Before New York built their subways starting in 1904, their city was already high density. No cars. People either walked or took an elevated railway around town. The subways were built to replace the elevated railway.

Some of New York's subway lines were also built through lower density areas and even empty fields in anticipation of future development. They weren't built underground, but still real extensions of lines that were fully grade-separated.
 
Transit City is being built to replace the buses that are currently running in lower density density areas of Toronto. With TC, the streets along they will be rezoned for medium density.

The RGS also noted that despite zoning changes transit oriented developments were not built to use the full potential of nearby subway stops. What's to stop the same thing from happening with LRT/TC?

We can't build transit to encourage higher transit use developments in a vacuum.
 
The RGS also noted that despite zoning changes transit oriented developments were not built to use the full potential of nearby subway stops. What's to stop the same thing from happening with LRT/TC?
What stops is that the government that builds subways is now the same government which does zoning. This wasn't the case in the past, with Metro building the subways, but the local governments doing zoning.

You'll notice that the City has been rezoning the new transit corridors as they approve all this.
 
Supernote, on this interesting density debate, that subway has been proven time and time (and time, and time) again to attract way more development than LRT. So if development is going to be a big thing making LRT worthwhile, isn't that just a massive point in favour of subway then?

EDIT: And in terms of the SRT, it's a perfect example of what TC will turn into. Billions of dollars down the drain to fix a stupid past mistake. The SRT extension is needed. Obviously it's done with a huge amount of regret for past decisions, but it's needed else we'll end up having a patchwork transit network.
 
Last edited:
Supernote, on this interesting density debate, that subway has been proven time and time (and time, and time) again to attract way more development than LRT.

Eh? It has?

Counter-example: Bloor-Danforth. Counter-example: Spadina subway north of Bloor.

I don't think it's been proven at all. The Transit Oriented Development and New Urbanism movements in the US right now are all about replicating the success of the Portland LRT.
 
It would be ... but it add about $1-billion to the cost in current dollars over what they are planning to spend to upgrade the existing RT and extend it to Sheppard and Markham. Is it the responsible thing for $1-billion where service demands can be met with LRT?

For $1-billion, maybe not. But I think that the difference would be smaller.

Metrolinx budgeted $2.45-billion for 10-km SLRT up to Sheppard / Progress. Additional $250-million would be needed in future to extend it to Malvern Centre, for the total of $2.7-billion.

On the other hand, subway extension from Kennedy Stn to Sheppard / McCowan (via STC) would be about 8-km long. It it could be built for $300-million / km, then it would fit entirely in the existing budget of $2.45-billion. And if a branch of SELRT up Neilson to Malvern centre (1.2 km) can be built for $100-million, it would actually result in a saving.

Maybe we have to pad that $300-million / km subway cost estimate for inflation. But even if it is $400-million per km, the total cost would be about $3.2-billion (750 million above SLRT Phase I). With the saving of $150 million on the Malvern branch, the difference would be down to $600-million.
 
km SLRT up to Sheppard / Progress. Additional $250-million would be needed in future to extend it to Malvern Centre, for the total of $2.7-billion.

On the other hand, subway extension from Kennedy Stn to Sheppard / McCowan (via STC) would be about 8-km long. It it could be built for $300-million / km, then it would fit entirely in the existing budget of $2.45-billion. And if a branch of SELRT up Neilson to Malvern centre (1.2 km) can be built for $100-million, it would actually result in a saving.
Hold it. You can't do the costs for one in escalated dollars ... with the average spending 8 years away, and then do the other in current dollars. That's not a fair comparison!
 
Uh ... we've done this, haven't we? Go back to the RGS. LRT was proposed because the predicted increase in traffic on suburban arteries will bring the city to gridlock, so we need to build a network of LRT and BRT on these arteries to keep the current transit system working.

This whole thing wasn't as much driven by the current situation, but what happens when you add 1-million people to Toronto.

So after adding a million people, subways become less feasible?

I can get why they were so concerned about arterial traffic. But all this has to be taken in context. How many people are being added to Sheppard, east of Agincourt?

Yes, I do use it ... it's a good stop if your heading to Sheridan Nurseries. The stop is the better used than Midland and Ellesmere, heck it's better used than Bessarion. But if one was to build a subway that stopped at SC, I certainly wouldn't advocate extending to McCowan.

What are you talking about? The current SRT alignment is not economically (or maybe even technically) feasible for a subway extension. That inevitably means that the subway will be going north on McCowan. The STC stop will be in the theatre parking lot and it'll serve both the current McCowan and STC catchment areas.

Ellesmere, Midland and McCowan are all glorified kiss n rides. And they are all ridiculously close to STC. Ridership from all those stations could easily be consolidated at STC. That's obvious to anyone who spends more than 5 mins in central parts of Scarborough.

I wouldn't have called McCowan station outer-416. Woudn't call it inner either. Besides, it already has rapid transit ...

So you come up with your own definiteions instead of using accepted conventions? STC is geographically closer to Pickering and Marham than it is to Yonge/Bloor. I am certain that makes the area, the outer 416.

As for it having rapid transit. So what? Does that mean we don't upgrade at all? Heck, York has BRT to Downsview now. Should we scrap the TYSSE?

Yonge and Steeles is an odd-duck ... I suppose it's technically outer-416, but not particularily difficult to get to.

Amazing, how accessible places become when they have subways running to them.

I do have a problem seeing why this would be preferable to extending rapid transit to Sheppard/Markham.

...because as opposed to helping people solely at Markham Station, it'll help all of Scaroborough, and work particularly well to support STC's growth as a provincially designated urban growth centre and transit hub.

What's at Sheppard and Markham anyway? Markham station has a good weekend brunch, but does it really need a subway station? If you are going that far, you should be going to Malvern, where a bus terminal for Malvern can be built. Sheppard/Markham is a more random place to stop than even Don Mills was years ago.

By the way, even the proposed SRT extension does not run to Sheppard/Markham. It runs to Sheppard/Progress. Nor does it have a stop on Markham Road (one of my earlier criticisms of the plan)....apparently because the planners don't consider a fairly steep 300m hill as an obstacle to transferees from Markham, being forced to use the Centennial college station. So if you are concerned about serving Markham Road, you're supporting the wrong effort.

How have you managed to forget the other two LRT lines Scarborough has already been guaranteed? Eglinton from Victoria Park to Kennedy, and the SRT extension to Sheppard, and ultimately to Malvern Centre.

The first one isn't exclusive to Scarborough. The latter is pretty useless. It's an upgrade on bus service. Not going to help anybody but those who are within 500m of Sheppard. Does squat for you if you are on Finch or Ellesmere or Lawrence. Eglinton's at least, a lot more useful than that (that's why I am far less critical of that line).

Scarborough seems to have come out particularily well in this project. Heck, the only line NOT serving in Scarborough is the Finch West line. I think the other parts of the city have a lot more to complain about!

Colour me skeptical. The folks who gave Scarborough the SRT said the same thing too. "ART is the future!"
 
So after adding a million people, subways become less feasible?
The future estimates of ridership do take this into account. 700 riders might become 1,200. 4,000 riders might become 6,000. But most segments don't magically become greater than 20,000.

There's absolutely nothing to justify subway on most of these lines.
 
For $1-billion, maybe not. But I think that the difference would be smaller.

Metrolinx budgeted $2.45-billion for 10-km SLRT up to Sheppard / Progress. Additional $250-million would be needed in future to extend it to Malvern Centre, for the total of $2.7-billion.

On the other hand, subway extension from Kennedy Stn to Sheppard / McCowan (via STC) would be about 8-km long. It it could be built for $300-million / km, then it would fit entirely in the existing budget of $2.45-billion. And if a branch of SELRT up Neilson to Malvern centre (1.2 km) can be built for $100-million, it would actually result in a saving.

Maybe we have to pad that $300-million / km subway cost estimate for inflation. But even if it is $400-million per km, the total cost would be about $3.2-billion (750 million above SLRT Phase I). With the saving of $150 million on the Malvern branch, the difference would be down to $600-million.

Better than that...here's what they should do:

1) Subway to STC. Even at $320M/KM. That's $1920M.
2) Use the remaining $780 million to build LRT along McCowan from STC into Markham and a spur along the corridor from Sheppard/Progress to MTC. This would allow for a Don Mills-Malvern service, a Malvern-STC via McCowan service and improved service on McCowan itself, which is already a very busy corridor.
3) Bus hub at MTC. Or just extend the LRT further north, up Neilson to terminate at Morningside Heights.

That's all providing they keep the SELRT.

What's a waste is spending a ton of money to build grade-separated LRT east of McCowan when it's just not needed by any measure, wasting money there, while STC is seeing remarkable residential and commercial growth that's pushing it closer and closer into subway territory.
 
Eh? It has?

Counter-example: Bloor-Danforth. Counter-example: Spadina subway north of Bloor.

I don't think it's been proven at all. The Transit Oriented Development and New Urbanism movements in the US right now are all about replicating the success of the Portland LRT.

Examples from the Spadina subway would be Wilson and Downsview stations. (insert sound of crickets here)
 
They definitely should have asked people that. I think the responses would have been surprising.

People don't mind paying higher taxes. They just like to see more tangible benefits from their higher taxes.

Take the plate tax. Most people in the inner burbs saw that as a tax on an essential: their car. Since transit isn't to the point yet where its easy to forego a car, people were upset about the tax on the car. But they would have swallowed it, had they seen substantial transit improvement or much better roads. The latter has not happened. The former effort has not been substantial all around.

But I am willing to bet that you'd easily get residents who'd be willing to take a 3% hit for a subway expansion program.

On the other hand, it's just as easy to frame it as raising taxes to fund waste because a train that is 90% empty most of the day costs a lot more than a bus.
 
On the other hand, it's just as easy to frame it as raising taxes to fund waste because a train that is 90% empty most of the day costs a lot more than a bus.

:rolleyes:

I can't even see Rob Ford making that argument.

Even when they tried that argument with the Sheppard line it didn't work. The public has never said half empty subway lines are a waste....not that I think a subway line to STC would be "90% empty most of the day".

Buses are the easiest to cut back on. But streetcars and LRTs aren't all that far behind. Cut back on subway service though and people will be up in arms. And realistically, the only way to really save money from cutting subway service to close down stations. I can't see the public going for that.

What's more if rail bias as some Transit city proponents suggest, is real (I think people want the service that comes with rail transit, not the rail transit itself), then why would the public not have even more preference for subways over LRT?
 

Back
Top