kEiThZ
Superstar
Scarborough is denser than Calgary though.
|
|
|
Scarborough is denser than Calgary though.
kEiThZ
Superstar
Far too much industrial development around Kennedy. That will change with time. As the rest of the city fills up.
I will split the difference. I don't think the RT helps home values as much as subway proximity does. But I don't think you can blame all the value differential on the RT.
AlvinofDiaspar
Moderator
No argument there - the main point being using dubious maps for broad strokes assertions for something like property value being directly driven down by RT.
AoD
salsa
Senior Member
This discussion doesn't even belong here in the first place. Those who wish to incessantly redebate this because I guess they have nothing better to do...should do so here: Debate on the merits of the Scarborough Subway Extension
syn
Senior Member
If this does go ahead, I hope they have the good sense to build it entirely above ground.
That would be far cheaper, wouldn't it? I'd also think it would make for a nicer ride - I'd prefer that to being stuck underground for 6km.
That would be far cheaper, wouldn't it? I'd also think it would make for a nicer ride - I'd prefer that to being stuck underground for 6km.
JGHali
Active Member
Why is it not relevant to compare Toronto's in-progress and proposed LRT network to a city which has a well established one? (and which has planned expansion)
In an apple to oranges comparison, perhaps that's true overall since Calgary has annexed areas and spread ever outward, but certainly older areas and the area south of downtown are intensifying. Scarborough certainly isn't so dense that a single additional subway stop on top of the existing two amounts to anything approaching adequate transit coverage.
Calgary's 2016 numbers:
• City 1,239,220
• Density 1,501.1/km2
• Urban 1,237,656
• Urban density 2,111.8/km2
• Metro 1,392,609 (4th)
• Metro density 272.5/km2
Scarborough's 2016 numbers:
• Total 632,098
• Density 3,367.6/km2 (8,722/sq mi)
But compare land area:
Calgary:
• Land 825.56 km2 (318.75 sq mi)
• Urban 586.08 km2 (226.29 sq mi)
• Metro 5,110.21 km2(1,973.06 sq mi)
Scarborough:
• Total 187.70 km2 (72.47 sq mi)
OneCity
Senior Member
nfitz
Superstar
TTC's website currently indicates there are 8 stops in Scarborough. This will be reduced to 4.
Hopkins123
Senior Member
Shame. We ought to be adding 8 more, all the way out to Morningside if possible.
OneCity
Senior Member
It is certainly a shame given how far behind we are and a shame we have to fix a generational mistake with the RT, and its a shame we can only think in one technology at a time and a shame that any detailed plan with higher $$ value in Scarborough has to be politically pitted against the "priority" of downtown in this City. Since this is the reality that is not going anywhere it will be subways first, local improvement second until the subway belt is built.
Last edited:
Transportfan
Senior Member
Why can't the Americans who run these sites modify their spelling for other countries? It's sad that in today's digital world front-line US influence lurks behind everything it seems.
amnesiajune
Senior Member
Calgary is a mostly unitary city. Its population is 90% of the metro area. Toronto's population is only 46% (which drops to 38% if you include Oshawa and Hamilton in the Metro Area)
Juan_Lennon416
Senior Member
Please keep 'the people of Scarborough are this' rant out of here too.
pstogios
Senior Member
If OneCity posts here, that will be impossible. Mods need to clamp down harder on this.
kEiThZ
Superstar
I'm glad we agree. It's sad that you couldn't concede and had to resort to moving goal posts.
What is annoying is this idea here that Scarborough is seen as some utterly suburban wasteland. First there was the constant comparison to the 905, and now apparently, we have to move the goalpost to compare to Calgary? Why resort to such hysterics to shout down the Scarborough subway? I can understand the merits of the proposal are debatable. The hyperbole resorted to (and not just on this forum) is what annoys and simply hardens attitudes on the other side.
These density comparisons are also somewhat pointless. Simply because transit has to be viewed as a system. And Scarborough has to be viewed in the context of being a borough inside the 416. It's not Pickering. And it's not a standalone city of 500k like say London. This insistence that transit must be planned on hard numerical cutoffs without considering the public's transit priorities and desires is what is leading to the gap between professional planners and the voting public (in these parts).
For example, if I commute only inside Scarborough and let's say I am along a route that would benefit from the LRT. If my commute goes from 30 mins to 20 mins, that's a huge improvement percentage wise. But really, it's not going to be perceived as a large improvement, because, "it's only 10 mins". If that same ten minutes is saved on a 1.5 hr commute, the perceived benefit is going to be even lower. The public really does not care about 10 mins here or there. They want to see large cuts to their commute time. And most of these are working class people, like say my own 60 something mother, who takes the TTC for 1.5-1.7 hrs each way from Morningside Heights to her office near Union. You'll have to convince people like that, there will be large savings on the LRT. It's why I remain convinced that the only way out of these debates is to shift a lot of the 416 downtown bound commuters to suburban rail.