Debate on the merits of the Scarborough Subway Extension

[cplchanb]

There's decades of research on the effect of transfers on rapid transit usage. This isn't a phenomena that was made up yesterday.



Whether or not it detracts from the ridership depends on what transfer situation the planners assumed when modelling the line. Keesmaat herself has talked extensively about the impacts that walkability/ease of transfers/station death can have on transit usage.

Furthermore, it should be emphasized that there are no captives to transit. People can take another route, drive, carpool, get family to drive them or simply deny a job offer, if they deem transit to be too inconvenient for them.



And how do you know that? Do you have an alternate universe where a more continent transfer exists?

So long as those lines in Taipei and Hk have the capacity to accept additional riders, the line ridership would certainly go up if the transfers were more convenient. That's what decades of research indicates.

Fine, if the difference between lines is hundreds of meters or several minutes, but were talking about tens of seconds here.... Surely there are better topics to discuss here than a mere 15 seconds of "inconvenience". At that point I'd
be more inclined to debate the laziness and shallowness of the common rider to be detracted from convenient transit that is a few tens of meters past their bubble.

Also please link to examples of said studies. I am genially interested in seeing what arguments they have to present

 

[TheTigerMaster]

First of all, it really should go without saying that seconds matter when building transit. The entire premise for infrasturuce upgrades is that it'll save commuters a few minutes. Well guess what: seconds quickly turn into minutes. A politician might proclaim that a new subway line will save commuters 5 minutes. But when you consider that headways for this project might be 2 minutes less frequent than what it replaced, then you consider that commuters will have to spend 60 seconds on escalators both when entering and leaving a station, and then consider that they might have to spend another 45 seconds navigating the concourse levels, that 5 minute in savings is now a meagre 15 seconds.

This was one of the many fatal flaws of the SmartTrack plan, for example. Yes, the in-vehicle times were significantly faster. But once waiting times, walking times and burdonsome transfers were considered, the proposed plan was, in many cases, only nominally faster than what existed today.

Seconds matter.

Fine, if the difference between lines is hundreds of meters or several minutes, but were talking about tens of seconds here.... Surely there are better topics to discuss here than a mere 15 seconds of "inconvenience".

The magnitude of the difference depends on what we're comparing to.

If we're comparing to the LRT plan, we're probably talking a difference around 15 seconds. Which was precisely my point. We're spending somewhere in excess of $3.5 Billion to give people a transfer that is no better than the LRT plan (or perhaps even the existing SRT transfer), while decreasing rapid transit coverage across Scarborough and lengthening commute times due to the loss of several rapid transit stations. This feels like one step forward, two steps back.

If we're comparing Scarborough Centre Station to the "idealized" Toronto transfer - one with a short walk and short vertical elevations - the difference is likely on the order of several minutes.

Also please link to examples of said studies. I am genially interested in seeing what arguments they have to present

Here are two free papers on the matter:
https://dspace.mit.edu/bitstream/handle/1721.1/66798/52971233-MIT.pdf?sequence=2
http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.592.1822&rep=rep1&type=pdf

From the second paper:
"Given that travelers tend to consider out-of-vehicle travel time (walking, waiting, transferring, etc.) to be substantially more burdensome than in-vehicle travel time, attracting travelers to public transit in significant numbers requires transit agencies to focus increasingly on improving transit users’ experience outside of their vehicles – walking, waiting, and transferring."

As an example, lets say someone has two possible routes to take to their trip: One takes 15 minutes with no transfer, and the other takes 11 minutes with one transfer. In this case, the person would be more likely to take the 15 minute trip over the 11 minute trip, because they perceive that transfer to take longer than it really is.

"Physical aspects of transfer facilities can also affect walking time to travel between locations where people alight and board vehicles for transferring. Such aspects can also influence travelers’ experiences at facilities, and therefore their perceptions of waiting time, walking time, and transfer penalties. "

This point is particularly problematic for both the Relief Line and Scarborough Subway Extension (and even the Eglinton Crosstown), due to the incredible depths of those lines. Both projects will be at least 20 metres deep. Consider that it takes 73 seconds to travel a vertical elevation of 20 metres. Due to people's perception of time out of vehicle, they'd likely estimate this to take more than a minute and a half. And 73 seconds does not take into account time spent navigating the various concourse levels, time to get from the train to the escalator or time penalties due to rush hour congestion. Furthermore, not everyone is physically healthy, further deterring people from making the trip. This is particularly relevant with our aging population - I know my grandmother would (justifiably) balk at the idea of climbing a vertical elevation of 20 metres.

This is actually even more problematic for the Relief Line than the SSE. If all Relief Line Stations are 20 metres underground, commuters will be spending a whopping 146 seconds on escalators. This'll kill much of the utility of the Relief Line. If you don't believe me, you can look at some of the more recent Relief Line ridership reports. In those reports, you'll see how an added trip time of a minute or two caused usage of the line to drop by something like 20 to 30 percent (again, seconds matter). Assuming there is no safety issues, I'd much rather put these lines shallower; vibrations be damned.

 

[OneCity]

First of all, it really should go without saying that seconds matter when building transit. The entire premise for infrasturuce upgrades is that it'll save commuters a few minutes. Well guess what: seconds quickly turn into minutes. A politician might proclaim that a new subway line will save commuters 5 minutes. But when you consider that headways for this project might be 2 minutes less frequent than what it replaced, then you consider that commuters will have to spend 60 seconds on escalators both when entering and leaving a station, and then consider that they might have to spend another 45 seconds navigating the concourse levels, that 5 minute in savings is now a meagre 15 seconds.

This was one of the many fatal flaws of the SmartTrack plan, for example. Yes, the in-vehicle times were significantly faster. But once waiting times, walking times and burdonsome transfers were considered, the proposed plan was, in many cases, only nominally faster than what existed today.

Seconds matter.



The magnitude of the difference depends on what we're comparing to.

If we're comparing to the LRT plan, we're probably talking a difference around 15 seconds. Which was precisely my point. We're spending somewhere in excess of $3.5 Billion to give people a transfer that is no better than the LRT plan (or perhaps even the existing SRT transfer), while decreasing rapid transit coverage across Scarborough and lengthening commute times due to the loss of several rapid transit stations. This feels like one step forward, two steps back.

If we're comparing Scarborough Centre Station to the "idealized" Toronto transfer - one with a short walk and short vertical elevations - the difference is likely on the order of several minutes.



Here are two free papers on the matter:
https://dspace.mit.edu/bitstream/handle/1721.1/66798/52971233-MIT.pdf?sequence=2
http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.592.1822&rep=rep1&type=pdf

From the second paper:
"Given that travelers tend to consider out-of-vehicle travel time (walking, waiting, transferring, etc.) to be substantially more burdensome than in-vehicle travel time, attracting travelers to public transit in significant numbers requires transit agencies to focus increasingly on improving transit users’ experience outside of their vehicles – walking, waiting, and transferring."

As an example, lets say someone has two possible routes to take to their trip: One takes 15 minutes with no transfer, and the other takes 11 minutes with one transfer. In this case, the person would be more likely to take the 15 minute trip over the 11 minute trip, because they perceive that transfer to take longer than it really is.

"Physical aspects of transfer facilities can also affect walking time to travel between locations where people alight and board vehicles for transferring. Such aspects can also influence travelers’ experiences at facilities, and therefore their perceptions of waiting time, walking time, and transfer penalties. "

This point is particularly problematic for both the Relief Line and Scarborough Subway Extension (and even the Eglinton Crosstown), due to the incredible depths of those lines. Both projects will be at least 20 metres deep. Consider that it takes 73 seconds to travel a vertical elevation of 20 metres. Due to people's perception of time out of vehicle, they'd likely estimate this to take more than a minute and a half. And 73 seconds does not take into account time spent navigating the various concourse levels, time to get from the train to the escalator or time penalties due to rush hour congestion. Furthermore, not everyone is physically healthy, further deterring people from making the trip. This is particularly relevant with our aging population - I know my grandmother would (justifiably) balk at the idea of climbing a vertical elevation of 20 metres.

This is actually even more problematic for the Relief Line than the SSE. If all Relief Line Stations are 20 metres underground, commuters will be spending a whopping 146 seconds on escalators. This'll kill much of the utility of the Relief Line. If you don't believe me, you can look at some of the more recent Relief Line ridership reports. In those reports, you'll see how an added trip time of a minute or two caused usage of the line to drop by something like 20 to 30 percent (again, seconds matter). Assuming there is no safety issues, I'd much rather put these lines shallower; vibrations be damned.

Unfortunate the BDL was not extended on the RT corridor after the LRT was quashed. It would have been one step forward from the LRT plan and aside from the down time of the RT it would have provided multiple stops, and far better station accessibility.

 

[44 North]

Most people in downtown Toronto scorn anyone north of St Clair, west of Bathurst and east of the Don River. Never will change.

They scorn? Gimme a break. I'd like to see a fact backing this, because I'd argue it's the complete opposite. You want to talk scorn, visit anywhere outside the 416 and hear their views about Toronto. Or within the outer 416 and hear their views about the downtown area you mentioned. You'll get a bit more than "scorn". And the whole framework of your argument is bs. If people support improving/expanding Line 3 how does that make them scornful, or opposed to transit-building, or opposed to high-density development? It doesn't. Really it's the other way 'round. We're building less transit with SSE vs Line 3 upgrade, serving fewer, providing lower development opportunities, and actually reducing our overall subway/metro coverage.

I always point out the STC area is the most popular part of the SRT and its adjacent to the elevated line.
The ECLRT was to be in median at black creek drive and residence pushed for elevated.

Barrie GO debate would have been so much smoother if a St. Claire stop was added. There is big money to be saved with elevation, so have stations every 1 km, compared to 2 km for underground. Still cheaper overall, less complaints and more access.

Agreed, tho I wouldn't bring Davenport Diamond into the 'elevated' mix. I'm a supporter of using elevated rapid transit along suburban highways with few fronting onto it, greenspaces, or general transportation corridors. Barrie GO is something I'd be hardcore opposed to if I lived nearby. Two-storey diesel trains overtop people's backyards? It's obviously a logical option, but that's a tough pill to swallow and IMO not comparable to an elevated subway or LRV through a suburban realm.

 

[OneCity]

They scorn? Gimme a break. I'd like to see a fact backing this, because I'd argue it's the complete opposite. You want to talk scorn, visit anywhere outside the 416 and hear their views about Toronto. Or within the outer 416 and hear their views about the downtown area you mentioned. You'll get a bit more than "scorn". And the whole framework of your argument is bs. If people support improving/expanding Line 3 how does that make them scornful, or opposed to transit-building, or opposed to high-density development? It doesn't. Really it's the other way 'round. We're building less transit SSE vs Line 3 upgrade, serving fewer, proving lower development opportunities, and actually reducing our overall subway/metro coverage.

I think there is unfortunately always going to be some ignorance from all areas. I've heard this crap from mostly isolated people on both sides who either are outside the core and don't come downtown much or inside the core and don't travel past the borders of the TTC streetcar and subway map. Certainly the exception to the norm but they do exist.

As far as the current plan goes every time an update arises many just want to discuss the same old rejected plan of the past. This certainly doesn't help change anything in the current plan which is for better or worse moving ahead. The RT upgrade, LRT, or my preference the subway on the RT corridor is not happening and at this critical stage and for many other reasons they are never coming back.

This subway line has solved the one major issue that residents had and that's connectivity of SCC to the City's core. We can bag on the current details like the bus bay length and walk time and rightly so, but these issues don't interfere with this benefit of City connectivity being achieved and shouldn't have been an either or. This stop will be great for SCC but we still have a chance to add in atleast one intermediate stop before its too late.

And there seems to be an argument by some that even these questionable stops at Midland and Ellesmere were worth saving and yet the same opposition refuse to add a stop back in at Lawrence or even consider Danforth and Eglinton on the subway. The reality is this line is going ahead with or without stops. The ridership argument doesn't matter anymore because we are building with subway technology on this corridor, the cost of stops although escalated due to the deep bore will by minor 50 years from now and will make far greater sense than 5-6km of non-stop tunnel. I really think its a bigger mistake not to add the stops for the future and its sad some Polticos are so upset and stuck on old plans that they cant bother to advocate from improvements to the current one that is moving forward before its too late.

 

[lead82]

This will be the greatest white elephant in Torontos history. The bus station should be named after Ford and Tory as reminders.

 

[OneCity]

This will be the greatest white elephant in Torontos history. The bus station should be named after Ford and Tory as reminders.

Why not Stintz, Keesmat or GDB in addition to Tory? All of these far more responsible for this alignment and lack of stops than Ford. The lack of stops is on Keesmat, moreso Tory and his Smarttrack, and the anti subway, mainly outside opposition which is still upset that Millers blanket approach was shot down and they cant seem to move on after almost decade. Ford has little to this with this line other than he cancelled with transfer laden, blanket technology LRT plan with very solid support from the greater Scarborough voter. Council refused to work with his plan out of spite and the players mentioned above have taken it to where we are today.

Also wrong thread. Feel free to vent or debate over here

 

[Rainforest]

This will be the greatest white elephant in Torontos history. The bus station should be named after Ford and Tory as reminders.

Once the station is built, riders will just use it like they use all other subway stations on the system. A few years later, nobody will remember that opponents once called it a white elephant.

 

[sixrings]

Unfortunate the BDL was not extended on the RT corridor after the LRT was quashed. It would have been one step forward from the LRT plan and aside from the down time of the RT it would have provided multiple stops, and far better station accessibility.

I thought part of the reason they chose this route was because scarborough people were too good to ride a bus for however many years. I guess when you are scarborough, the largest part of toronto, you can have it both ways.

 

[TheTigerMaster]

Once the station is built, riders will just use it like they use all other subway stations on the system. A few years later, nobody will remember that opponents once called it a white elephant.

Sheppard Subway says hello.

 

[TheTigerMaster]

This subway line has solved the one major issue that residents had and that's connectivity of SCC to the City's core

Improves the connectivity of SCC while degrading the connectivity of Scarborough as a whole.

And there seems to be an argument by some that even these questionable stops at Midland and Ellesmere were worth saving and yet the same opposition refuse to add a stop back in at Lawrence or even consider Danforth and Eglinton on the subway. The reality is this line is going ahead with or without stops.

The cost to add a surface LRT station at Midland is magnitudes smaller than the cost to add an underground station at Lawrence.

 

[lead82]

Fair points above.

 

[TransitBart]

Can anyone explain - Coles Notes version - why such a design for the bus terminal was chosen over something more convenient?

 

[TheTigerMaster]

Can anyone explain - Coles Notes version - why such a design for the bus terminal was chosen over something more convenient?

To maximize the amount of space available for developers.

 

[lead82]

If you are going to built the extension then the only intermediate stop that makes sense is Lawrence. Neither Ellesmere and Midland are warranted as stops, even on the RT they had severely low ridership.

In all honesty, Fords plan to extend it to Sheppard with stops at Lawrence and SCC was better than the one stop and SmartTrack (is GO RER). In theory the compromise plan was supposed to include the LRT to UTSC but there won't be any money for that.