News   Nov 12, 2024
16 Storey Tower Proposal South of Warden Station Grows to 27 Storeys
 478     0 
News   Nov 12, 2024
News Roundup for November 12, 2024
 464     0 
News   Nov 12, 2024
Financial Core Nightlights
 533     0 

Danforth Line 2 Scarborough Subway Extension

Enough already with the former municipal boundaries. This is Toronto. This whole notion that Scarb is "getting the short end of the stick" just because it has less subway stops than the inner city is absurd. There comes a point when long subway rides from the suburbs becomes too inefficient, so that's what commuter rail is for. I don't understand why subway supporters want a crowded subway ride that stops at every Castle Frank, Chester and Greenwood station, instead of enjoying a fast comfortable ride to downtown in just 25 minutes or less. I wish I could do that in North York.

So excluding the SRT - and prior to the SSE debate - Scarb had the lowest existing/planned level of subways per capita - even lower than a combined Vaughan + Markham. Per area it was still behind Etobicoke (but ahead of Vaughan + Markham). However including SSE, Scarb will have the third most subway coverage per area and pop - behind North York, but way ahead of Etobicoke. This was put together slapdash, so if anyone sees any errors don't hesitate to point them out.
Click to expand...

According to your graph, we ought to build subways in Etobicoke North so that it's more fair. Please graph rapid transit length. Subways are not the only measure of good transit.
 
Last edited:
It's a chart for subways, not all rapid transit. The only thing that should be included is the SRT or SLRT, since by definition they're subway/metro systems (tho IMO the SRT's planned closure makes its inclusion up for debate). I'm not including all "rapid transit" because, again, it's a chart showing subways. And I wasn't really agreeing or disagreeing with the "short end of the stick" notion, but making it easier for one to gauge for themselves whether Scarb has (or hasn't) been hard done by.

And although I agree commuter rail should be used more for med/long-haul transit trips instead of subways (as I've written in the TYSSE and Yonge North threads), I don't think GO, SmartTrack, or RER would fit most definitions of "rapid transit" (probably due to lower frequencies and wider stop spacing). I posted this Pembina image a couple weeks ago showing the modes that constitute RT, and as is evident only the first two can be considered in the subway/metro category (and which is what my graph includes).

Pembina-rapid-transit-modes.jpg
 

Attachments

  • Pembina-rapid-transit-modes.jpg
    Pembina-rapid-transit-modes.jpg
    87 KB · Views: 526
It's times like these I wish they went with the ICTS Mk III option, not because it's technology, but the fact we could have something up and running in Scarborough at this point in time. This thread started ten years ago with the title "Scarborough transit on its last wheels". Ten years later, and it's still running on it's last wheel, and we still finding ourselves divided between LRT and Subways. I say rebuild the ICTS as punishment for ten years of constant fighting between the two factions, that way neither side wins, and both sides lose.
 
salsa said:
According to your graph, we ought to build subways in Etobicoke North so that it's more fair. Please graph rapid transit length. Subways are not the only measure of good transit.
Click to expand...

It makes no sense to parse out the subway mileage that is physically in any one borough. Etobicoke benefits from the Bloor line within the old City of Toronto, just as North York benefits from the part of the Yonge line that is south of Glen Echo. And Scarboro benefits from the Danforth line. All of these lines were pushed out to the ends of the city in recognition of the ridership that is heading for downtown, or at least beyond the old suburban boundaries. Arguably, all the ridership that crosses the old City Limits could be attributed to the respective former suburbs. That would be a more meaningful analysis than miles of line.

It would be interesting to split the North York line into two - one for Yonge, and one for Sheppard. The Sheppard line is a white elephant. If it's X % of the total, does Scarboro really insist on having the same % of unneeded subway just to feel equal?

Seems to me that a more useful metric would consider the number of riders using fixed-track vehicles (of any type) as a % of total ridership in that part of the city. Or ridership-miles, or $ spent, or whatever.

- Paul
 
crs1026 said:
Seems to me that a more useful metric would consider the number of riders using fixed-track vehicles (of any type) as a % of total ridership in that part of the city. Or ridership-miles, or $ spent, or whatever.
Click to expand...

I've been mulling over a better metric, and I think $ spent could be a good one for showing 'fairness', or whether one area "got the short end of the stick". What led me to think it could be better than length is because of the significant difference in per km costs of a subway/metro and SRT-style light metro, but indistinguishable service offered.

If a fully underground subway through Vaughan and Markham costs $600M/km, but an elevated SLRT through Scarb costs $150M/km (while offering the exact same service as its costly underground counterpart), money spent on subway/metro infrastructure is probably a better indicator of whether an area will feel slighted than the length of what's built.
 
How would that accurately take into account the increasing cost of construction over the decades?

Even adjusted for inflation, projects built decades ago would be unrealistically cheap.
 
TheTigerMaster said:
How would that accurately take into account the increasing cost of construction over the decades?

Even adjusted for inflation, projects built decades ago would be unrealistically cheap.
Click to expand...

Good point. I guess such a chart would have to exclude older projects. And it isn't even just the inflation and astronomical increase in infrastructure costs, but how things were built decades ago. Seems to me we stopped building affordable subways in the open air in the early 90s (Wilson to Downsview was the last section). I'd love for the TTC to offer more open air sections of subways as a solution, but I think Metro's swaying to nimbyism for the crossing of Hogg's Hollow at York Mills is a good indicator that few if any subway projects will ever be built affordably anymore (except in Scarboro).
 
44 North said:
Good point. I guess such a chart would have to exclude older projects. And it isn't even just the inflation and astronomical increase in infrastructure costs, but how things were built decades ago. Seems to me we stopped building affordable subways in the open air in the early 90s (Wilson to Downsview was the last section). I'd love for the TTC to offer more open air sections of subways as a solution, but I think Metro's swaying to nimbyism for the crossing of Hogg's Hollow at York Mills is a good indicator that few if any subway projects will ever be built affordably anymore (except in Scarboro).
Click to expand...

I do recall there was talk of making the LRT and ICTS systems elevated like the Canada Line in Vancouver, but safety regulations in Ontario require enough space (eg walkway) on the whole elevated length for emergency personnel and people to evacuate that added to the costs and subsequently abandon. I don't even think they allow inflatable emergency slides as a option.
 
CodeMonkey said:
I do recall there was talk of making the LRT and ICTS systems elevated like the Canada Line in Vancouver, but safety regulations in Ontario require enough space (eg walkway) on the whole elevated length for emergency personnel and people to evacuate that added to the costs and subsequently abandon. I don't even think they allow inflatable emergency slides as a option.
Click to expand...

I don't really get what you're saying here. What was abandoned? The SLRT plan was to be elevated, all the elevated track in TO uses emergency walkways, as does Skytrain in Vancouver. And I highly doubt a steel catwalk or slightly wider deck would really inflate costs all that much - particularly when compared to a wider tunnel somewhere below the surface. Regardless, "open air" doesn't have to mean an EL. It means a train run in the open air (e.g trenched, on the surface, or along a railway/hydro corridor).
 
In the likely event that SSE were canceled, what would be our next steps?

Since the approval of the SLRT almost a decade ago the situation has changed quite drastically. We will now have the need to fit both a double tracked regional rail and the LRT on the same corridor. Assuming that's even possible, that would take a new round of design work, correct?

The master agreement between us and the province still calls for the LRT to be built in the corridor, so that might allow for any LRT plans to supersede RER plans.

The usage projections for SLRT didn't take into account RER. I suppose it would be prudent to have an updated ridership projection, to see if rapid transit along the SRT corridor is still viable, and if there are any better alignment options.

There's also the sunk costs on the SRT life extension that will no longer be needed and on the preliminary SSE design work done by TTC
 
It's not going to be cancelled within the next election cycle (both for Tory or Wynne).

Depending on who gets elected, it'll most likely not get cancelled, again. Aside from the UT echo chamber, the public supports further subway expansion.
 
Yup, agree with that assessment. It might not be ideal, but I don't see why one should subject this project for further delays. I am much more interested in extracting the maximum amount of benefit from it instead in terms of routing.

AoD
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top