R
roch5220
Guest
Same setiment as the politicians. They probably won't be in power when it opens so why invest for the future, vs. short term spending and short term benefits.
|
|
|
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Same setiment as the politicians. They probably won't be in power when it opens so why invest for the future, vs. short term spending and short term benefits.
A
Antiloop33rpm
Guest
My mind has been stuck thinking about SRT for the past few days. Im not sure why. I wish it would go away. I suppose it is because I really am not sure what would work best. Here is where my thinking currently at.
1 - SRT needs to be replaced. Using the current fleet is really not an option which means alternatives must be explored.
2 - The first option most people head to is extending the Bloor-Danforth line from Kennedy through what would roughly be the existing alignment and maybe even further. This seems to make sense. You eliminate the transfer between the two systems and increase efficiency.
3 - This would be a fine solution where it not for one major factor. Cost. Subways are not cheap, and at a time when money for new transit projects is still somewhat scarce this absolutely has to be a factor. Is the Billion dollar plus price tag worth the cost?
4 - One of the best ways to determine whether it would be worth the cost is to look at ridership numbers and try to estimate how many passengers this line might attract and how much revenue it will create. This is somewhat subjective and because it requires a certain amount of guess work it can be innacurate. There are valid arguments made by both those who think there is the ridership level and for those who dont believe the area could support. (Personally I am somewhat skeptical about whether there are enough riders to support the subway line but that isnt even all that important).
5 - With the subway being questionable in terms of best use of a scarce resource (and perhaps overkill in transit service) the other viable option is an LRT. This is by far more cost effective in comparison to a subway, and, could also handle the projected ridership of the line. This option has one huge drawback. It requires that dreaded transfer and does not capture the gains made my having a single line.
6 - And this is where the circular thinking begins. Because the line ideally needs to offer the most efficient movement of people (ie fewer transfers) it needs to be a single line, and thus, we go back to #2 and the idea of extending the BD line.
And that is where I am stuck on this issue. Both proposals have their advantages and drawbacks and neither one is really better than the other and neither one is really all that desireable in my own mind. Yet something needs to be done to address transit in the area.
So here is my question. Should the answer just be picking one of these two proposals and go forward without thinking anymore about it and cross our fingers that it doesnt turn into a boondoggle? Or should other options be explored?
1 - SRT needs to be replaced. Using the current fleet is really not an option which means alternatives must be explored.
2 - The first option most people head to is extending the Bloor-Danforth line from Kennedy through what would roughly be the existing alignment and maybe even further. This seems to make sense. You eliminate the transfer between the two systems and increase efficiency.
3 - This would be a fine solution where it not for one major factor. Cost. Subways are not cheap, and at a time when money for new transit projects is still somewhat scarce this absolutely has to be a factor. Is the Billion dollar plus price tag worth the cost?
4 - One of the best ways to determine whether it would be worth the cost is to look at ridership numbers and try to estimate how many passengers this line might attract and how much revenue it will create. This is somewhat subjective and because it requires a certain amount of guess work it can be innacurate. There are valid arguments made by both those who think there is the ridership level and for those who dont believe the area could support. (Personally I am somewhat skeptical about whether there are enough riders to support the subway line but that isnt even all that important).
5 - With the subway being questionable in terms of best use of a scarce resource (and perhaps overkill in transit service) the other viable option is an LRT. This is by far more cost effective in comparison to a subway, and, could also handle the projected ridership of the line. This option has one huge drawback. It requires that dreaded transfer and does not capture the gains made my having a single line.
6 - And this is where the circular thinking begins. Because the line ideally needs to offer the most efficient movement of people (ie fewer transfers) it needs to be a single line, and thus, we go back to #2 and the idea of extending the BD line.
And that is where I am stuck on this issue. Both proposals have their advantages and drawbacks and neither one is really better than the other and neither one is really all that desireable in my own mind. Yet something needs to be done to address transit in the area.
So here is my question. Should the answer just be picking one of these two proposals and go forward without thinking anymore about it and cross our fingers that it doesnt turn into a boondoggle? Or should other options be explored?
U
unimaginative2
Guest
Same setiment as the politicians. They probably won't be in power when it opens so why invest for the future, vs. short term spending and short term benefits.
What the hell?! Haven't we just been discussing how all the councillors support the subway?
I think the point best made in the thread was that it makes no sense to have a subway to NYCC from STC and something with lower capacity to get to downtown. Clearly the latter will always have higher demand.
R
rbtaylor
Guest
The subway may well be the cheapest of the 3 options if you consider it over a 30 year period.This would be a fine solution where it not for one major factor. Cost. Subways are not cheap, and at a time when money for new transit projects is still somewhat scarce this absolutely has to be a factor. Is the Billion dollar plus price tag worth the cost?
1) Operations of the two station subway extension is about 1/2 the price of operating the LRT as a direct result of decreased platform count and operators required. The difference (on the graph) appeared to be about $125M over an unknown period of time (20 years?).
2) In 30 years you will need to build a subway as the ridership of 10 to 15k passengers per hour is getting close to LRT limits. Subway construction has traditionally outpaced inflation. Borrowing at a 4% interest rate or deferring construction amount to the same end cost. Deferring subway construction AND borrowing $500M today for the LRT is going to cost more than just building the subway.
3) The possibility of no network downtime for construction. This wasn't taken into account, but running buses for 3 years while LRT is being built could be very costly both in operating and opportunity costs.
I went into the meeting thinking the LRT option would be better, but have since changed my mind. If the "unknowns" about the subway can become "known" (funding, timing, etc.) then I think the choice is straight forward just from the perspective of minimizing service interruptions.
The region will need a heavy backbone at some point and I don't see any advantages in deferring the subway into the future.
R
roch5220
Guest
What the hell?! Haven't we just been discussing how all the councillors support the subway?
Yes, but the real power comes from those who have the resources to funded it, ie. sr levels of gov't. Which was who this reference was referred to.
R
roch5220
Guest
2) In 30 years you will need to build a subway as the ridership of 10 to 15k passengers per hour is getting close to LRT limits.
Thats a $700MM gamble. Sure plan for the future, but there is no concrete evidence either way that ridership will grow to this level.
G
GregWTravels
Guest
2) In 30 years you will need to build a subway as the ridership of 10 to 15k passengers per hour is getting close to LRT limits. Subway construction has traditionally outpaced inflation. Borrowing at a 4% interest rate or deferring construction amount to the same end cost. Deferring subway construction AND borrowing $500M today for the LRT is going to cost more than just building the subway.
If you have multiple transit options heading east-west into different points of the city (downtown via GO, Yonge-Bloor via the connection to the BD subway, midtown via Eglinton or GO Summerhill, A line along Lawerence to the Don Mills RT, uptown to the Sheppard subway, cross-town to Etobicoke and Mississauga via the GO through Summerhill and a line in the North of the City to get people to Vaughan and Brampton) then can spread those people out on different lines, and potentially better serve where they want to go.
3) The possibility of no network downtime for construction. This wasn't taken into account, but running buses for 3 years while LRT is being built could be very costly both in operating and opportunity costs.
While not presented as an option, an LRT doesn't need to be on the same line as the current SRT. You could build it at grade along any path you choose, really. The City didn't present that as an option, but it could be one.
Greg
S
Suicidal Gingerbread Man
Guest
People should consider as well that the proximity of a subway system increases property value, and ultimately the property taxes that will be collected by the city and (one would hope) eventually find its way back into the TTC's budget.
The city stands to make a LOT of money in property taxes on the stretch between Downsview and Steeles when the subway opens.
The city stands to make a LOT of money in property taxes on the stretch between Downsview and Steeles when the subway opens.
D
dashingdan
Guest
I find it funny that people are saying ridership isn't there for a Scarborough subway. If it isn't there, where is it? Vaughan? If Vaughan gets a subway and Scarborough doesn't, something is seriously wrong. Subways should be built on need, not politics. It's the height of idiocy to build a subway up to Vaughan Corporate Centre, in my opinion, and not to somewhere where ridership already exisits, such as Scarborough. At least to York University/Steeles it made some sense. A B-D extension to Scarborough Town Centre makes the most sense right.
R
roch5220
Guest
I doubt anyone who questions the SRT subway replacement is in full agreement with VCC either. If anything, I think most people here would prefer the money to be used for the SRT replacement than VCC. But its a dead issue since the VCC seems to be in the bag.
A
ahrvojic
Guest
People should consider as well that the proximity of a subway system increases property value, and ultimately the property taxes that will be collected by the city and (one would hope) eventually find its way back into the TTC's budget.
Good point. It's hardly fair to only use current ridership figures to lobby against something that won't be done for at least a decade and that has huge nonlinear region-wide effects in terms of ridership, development, and economic growth.
What I find so frustrating has nothing to do with the options; it's that we never seem to have money for anything. Does Toronto really have to reach a crisis point before it gets the real powers it needs?
S
scarberiankhatru
Guest
"Not everybody is going downtown!"
I'd say a majority are headed for the subway at Kennedy. Even for those that aren't going downtown, the subway would help many of them get around Scarborough quicker. Even if they built umpteen more GO lines and LRT lines, STC to Yonge & Bloor by a direct subway line would still be a very competitive 25-30 minutes.
"The region will need a heavy backbone at some point and I don't see any advantages in deferring the subway into the future."
Exactly, as if the LRT option is really cheaper, anyway - half a billion seems to exclude an extension to Malvern and any links to the existing streetcar network downtown (since LRT here seems to mean nothing else but "streetcar in ROW"). Extend both B/D and Sheppard to STC and that's all the subways Scarborough needs for a very long time. I've said before that ridership would easily exceed 70,000 immediately since the corridor is at 60,000 rides daily right now when you include the 6 million lost rides per year. Is the Vaughan line forecasted to have that many in 50 years even? Councillor Thompson said 26,000 more people will live in the area in the next little while, and I bet that doesn't count the people that will move into developments triggered by the subway - and STC has tons of room for condos. The money and the "ridership" is there for the sinkhole extension - there's no reason why it can't be here for this extension.
"While not presented as an option, an LRT doesn't need to be on the same line as the current SRT. You could build it at grade along any path you choose, really. The City didn't present that as an option, but it could be one."
Are any streets in the area wide enough?
I'd say a majority are headed for the subway at Kennedy. Even for those that aren't going downtown, the subway would help many of them get around Scarborough quicker. Even if they built umpteen more GO lines and LRT lines, STC to Yonge & Bloor by a direct subway line would still be a very competitive 25-30 minutes.
"The region will need a heavy backbone at some point and I don't see any advantages in deferring the subway into the future."
Exactly, as if the LRT option is really cheaper, anyway - half a billion seems to exclude an extension to Malvern and any links to the existing streetcar network downtown (since LRT here seems to mean nothing else but "streetcar in ROW"). Extend both B/D and Sheppard to STC and that's all the subways Scarborough needs for a very long time. I've said before that ridership would easily exceed 70,000 immediately since the corridor is at 60,000 rides daily right now when you include the 6 million lost rides per year. Is the Vaughan line forecasted to have that many in 50 years even? Councillor Thompson said 26,000 more people will live in the area in the next little while, and I bet that doesn't count the people that will move into developments triggered by the subway - and STC has tons of room for condos. The money and the "ridership" is there for the sinkhole extension - there's no reason why it can't be here for this extension.
"While not presented as an option, an LRT doesn't need to be on the same line as the current SRT. You could build it at grade along any path you choose, really. The City didn't present that as an option, but it could be one."
Are any streets in the area wide enough?
G
GregWTravels
Guest
LRT doesn't need to run in streets. It can run just as well through hydro corridors or along train lines. You could close smaller streets to car traffic and run those as transit only, or main streets with low rise on them can be redeveloped to be wider to incorporate the LRT trains.
D
doady
Guest
People should consider as well that the proximity of a subway system increases property value, and ultimately the property taxes that will be collected by the city and (one would hope) eventually find its way back into the TTC's budget.
The city stands to make a LOT of money in property taxes on the stretch between Downsview and Steeles when the subway opens.
Higher property values also means that industry will move out, and make a lot of land available for development and intensification.
S
scarberiankhatru
Guest
^ And there's a fair bit of land in the area that might become available, not even including the hydro corridors. If they decided to bury the hydro lines, they'd have room for something the size of CityPlace, although if they haven't done this north of Finch station, I wonder if it'll be considered here at all.
"LRT doesn't need to run in streets. It can run just as well through hydro corridors or along train lines. You could close smaller streets to car traffic and run those as transit only, or main streets with low rise on them can be redeveloped to be wider to incorporate the LRT trains."
The SRT already goes through the hydro corridor and there is no rail corridor. If for any of its length it's run through a hydro corridor or alongside train lines, it would be following the SRT's existing route. Would you close Midland or Brimley or McCowan? Demolish the houses that line them so they can be widened?
"LRT doesn't need to run in streets. It can run just as well through hydro corridors or along train lines. You could close smaller streets to car traffic and run those as transit only, or main streets with low rise on them can be redeveloped to be wider to incorporate the LRT trains."
The SRT already goes through the hydro corridor and there is no rail corridor. If for any of its length it's run through a hydro corridor or alongside train lines, it would be following the SRT's existing route. Would you close Midland or Brimley or McCowan? Demolish the houses that line them so they can be widened?