Danforth Line 2 Scarborough Subway Extension

[BurlOak]

And it must never be forgotten, as much as Tory "spearheaded" this, he has only one vote on Council. And the majority of Council not only voted for it, a clear majority refused a motion to examine the reports behind it.

Lots of blame to go around...

"spearheaded" ?

• (as an FYI - Council proudly announces that they are taking the transit file away from Rob Ford and abandoning the continuous SRT/ECLRT plan in favour of the transfer LRT - February 2012.)
• Glenn Murray (publicly) opened the door for the switch to the Scarborough subway in May 2013.
• Mitzi Hunter and the Liberals ran as the subway champions in August 2013.
• Murray released his subway route in September 2013.
• Toronto Council voted in favour of the SSE in October 2013.

Tory did not become mayor until December 2014. He entered the Mayor's race in December 2014.

There was a good series about this by John Lorinc.

Following his February, 2013, appointment as transportation minister in Wynne’s new cabinet, Murray quietly orchestrated a stunning and costly policy reversal, with the full support of the premier.

Between February and August 2013, in fact, Wynne’s Liberal government meticulously worked to effectively gut that contract with an eye to gaining political advantage in a summer by-election campaign in a Scarborough riding. Ironically, she authorized this shift while condemning her predecessor, Dalton McGuinty, for cancelling a pair of gas plants, at great public cost, to protect four Liberal seats.

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

Let's not minimize JT's (who BTW entered officially in Jan 2014, and the election was in October 2014) role in this - he has ample opportunity both as candidate and as mayor to dismiss the switch - he doubled down both as candidate and as mayor - and was the architect of the current arrangement.

AoD

 

[BurlOak]

Let's not minimize JT's (who BTW entered officially in Jan 2014, and the election was in October 2014) role in this - he has ample opportunity both as candidate and as mayor to dismiss the switch - he doubled down both as candidate and as mayor - and was the architect of the current arrangement.

AoD

Yes, Tory could have cancelled this.

But that's where my comment came from. The SSE was a major policy of the Provincial Liberals from late 2012 until Council voted for the SSE in October 2013. The Liberals then won a majority in June of 2014. Nobody could have gone against this wave and won as mayor, and if they did win, they would have received no positive working relationship with the provincial government. Tory realistically had no choice.

The Liberals winning a majority in 2014 was the final nail in the coffin of the LRT. Anyone who voted Liberal in 2014 knows this.

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

Yes, Tory could have cancelled this.

But that's where my comment came from. The SSE was a major policy of the Provincial Liberals from late 2012 until Council voted for the SSE in October 2013. The Liberals then won a majority in June of 2014. Nobody could have gone against this wave and won as mayor, and if they did win, they would have received no positive working relationship with the provincial government. Tory realistically had no choice.

The Liberals winning a majority in 2014 was the final nail in the coffin of the LRT. Anyone who voted Liberal in 2014 knows this.

Anyone voted any party (perhaps with the exception of NDP at the time, which is wishy-washy - they quickly learned not to be) knows that it is the final nail in the coffin of the LRT. It isn't like the PCs are LRT friendly - Hudak was explicitly all about subway in Scarborough leading up the election 2014. In other words, the rabbit is already out of the hat - everyone are just trying to be the first to suck up all the oxygen in the room before their competitor can breathe.

AoD

 

[Rainforest]

Let's assume we want to start from scratch and design a Kennedy Stn - Scarborough Centre transit line. That line needs to satisfy a number of requirements:

A. It needs to handle the projected demand, and be reasonably future-proof. With the projected peak demand of at least 7,000 pphpd, the line needs to be designed for 10,000 at minimum, and preferably for 15,000.

This requirement is a must, although the minimal spare capacity can be debated.

B. Not having to use the Uxbridge Sub corridor for anything but GO RER / SmartTrack. This is not an absolute must, but seems to be highly preferred by Metrolinx.

C. Not require a transfer at Kennedy for the downtown-bound commuters. This is not an absolute must, but appears to be much preferred by the locals and their councilors / MPPs / MPs.

The current subway plan satisfies all 3 requirements.

The previous SLRT plan satisfies (A), but fails on (B) and (C). Ditto for the simple RT upgrade.

The "Ford - McGuinty compromise" satisfied (A), and sort of satisfied (C), but failed on B.

What else? A subway with cut-n-cover / elevated sections to cut the costs? A spur of SmartTrack to STC?

I don't see any light rail option that can satisfy (A) and (B) at the same time; not even mentioning (C).

 

[BurlOak]

Let's assume we want to start from scratch and design a Kennedy Stn - Scarborough Centre transit line. That line needs to satisfy a number of requirements:

A. It needs to handle the projected demand, and be reasonably future-proof. With the projected peak demand of at least 7,000 pphpd, the line needs to be designed for 10,000 at minimum, and preferably for 15,000.

This requirement is a must, although the minimal spare capacity can be debated.

B. Not having to use the Uxbridge Sub corridor for anything but GO RER / SmartTrack. This is not an absolute must, but seems to be highly preferred by Metrolinx.

C. Not require a transfer at Kennedy for the downtown-bound commuters. This is not an absolute must, but appears to be much preferred by the locals and their councilors / MPPs / MPs.

The current subway plan satisfies all 3 requirements.

The previous SLRT plan satisfies (A), but fails on (B) and (C). Ditto for the simple RT upgrade.

The "Ford - McGuinty compromise" satisfied (A), and sort of satisfied (C), but failed on B.

What else? A subway with cut-n-cover / elevated sections to cut the costs? A spur of SmartTrack to STC?

I don't see any light rail option that can satisfy (A) and (B) at the same time; not even mentioning (C).

According to the combined SRT/ECLRT report, the ridership from McCowan to Kennedy is 12,500 ppdph. If it were extended to Centennial or Malvern, it would be higher. I imagine a B-D to Sheppard/McCowan or even Finch/McCowan would be closer to 15k. Then add some spare capacity on top of that.

Maybe the compromise could have been elevated over the rail corridor, or over Midland, which is factory on the West side.

 

[Leo_Chan]

Let's assume we want to start from scratch and design a Kennedy Stn - Scarborough Centre transit line. That line needs to satisfy a number of requirements:

A. It needs to handle the projected demand, and be reasonably future-proof. With the projected peak demand of at least 7,000 pphpd, the line needs to be designed for 10,000 at minimum, and preferably for 15,000.

This requirement is a must, although the minimal spare capacity can be debated.

B. Not having to use the Uxbridge Sub corridor for anything but GO RER / SmartTrack. This is not an absolute must, but seems to be highly preferred by Metrolinx.

C. Not require a transfer at Kennedy for the downtown-bound commuters. This is not an absolute must, but appears to be much preferred by the locals and their councilors / MPPs / MPs.

The current subway plan satisfies all 3 requirements.

The previous SLRT plan satisfies (A), but fails on (B) and (C). Ditto for the simple RT upgrade.

The "Ford - McGuinty compromise" satisfied (A), and sort of satisfied (C), but failed on B.

What else? A subway with cut-n-cover / elevated sections to cut the costs? A spur of SmartTrack to STC?

I don't see any light rail option that can satisfy (A) and (B) at the same time; not even mentioning (C).

Before the rail corridor was developed with houses, Line 2 could be extended to Malvern, rather than just to Kennedy.
This is the result:

 

[micheal_can]

Let's assume we want to start from scratch and design a Kennedy Stn - Scarborough Centre transit line. That line needs to satisfy a number of requirements:

A. It needs to handle the projected demand, and be reasonably future-proof. With the projected peak demand of at least 7,000 pphpd, the line needs to be designed for 10,000 at minimum, and preferably for 15,000.

This requirement is a must, although the minimal spare capacity can be debated.

B. Not having to use the Uxbridge Sub corridor for anything but GO RER / SmartTrack. This is not an absolute must, but seems to be highly preferred by Metrolinx.

C. Not require a transfer at Kennedy for the downtown-bound commuters. This is not an absolute must, but appears to be much preferred by the locals and their councilors / MPPs / MPs.

The current subway plan satisfies all 3 requirements.

The previous SLRT plan satisfies (A), but fails on (B) and (C). Ditto for the simple RT upgrade.

The "Ford - McGuinty compromise" satisfied (A), and sort of satisfied (C), but failed on B.

What else? A subway with cut-n-cover / elevated sections to cut the costs? A spur of SmartTrack to STC?

I don't see any light rail option that can satisfy (A) and (B) at the same time; not even mentioning (C).

The one stop plan really doesn't match those completely. The 3 stop plan does.

 

[pman]

Let's assume we want to start from scratch and design a Kennedy Stn - Scarborough Centre transit line. That line needs to satisfy a number of requirements:

A. It needs to handle the projected demand, and be reasonably future-proof. With the projected peak demand of at least 7,000 pphpd, the line needs to be designed for 10,000 at minimum, and preferably for 15,000.

This requirement is a must, although the minimal spare capacity can be debated.

B. Not having to use the Uxbridge Sub corridor for anything but GO RER / SmartTrack. This is not an absolute must, but seems to be highly preferred by Metrolinx.

C. Not require a transfer at Kennedy for the downtown-bound commuters. This is not an absolute must, but appears to be much preferred by the locals and their councilors / MPPs / MPs.

The current subway plan satisfies all 3 requirements.

The previous SLRT plan satisfies (A), but fails on (B) and (C). Ditto for the simple RT upgrade.

The "Ford - McGuinty compromise" satisfied (A), and sort of satisfied (C), but failed on B.

What else? A subway with cut-n-cover / elevated sections to cut the costs? A spur of SmartTrack to STC?

I don't see any light rail option that can satisfy (A) and (B) at the same time; not even mentioning (C).

It’s striking that your list of criteria doesn’t include the requirement that any plan must deliver measurable benefits roughly equal to costs.

 

[Streety McCarface]

Let's assume we want to start from scratch and design a Kennedy Stn - Scarborough Centre transit line. That line needs to satisfy a number of requirements:

A. It needs to handle the projected demand, and be reasonably future-proof. With the projected peak demand of at least 7,000 pphpd, the line needs to be designed for 10,000 at minimum, and preferably for 15,000.

This requirement is a must, although the minimal spare capacity can be debated.

B. Not having to use the Uxbridge Sub corridor for anything but GO RER / SmartTrack. This is not an absolute must, but seems to be highly preferred by Metrolinx.

C. Not require a transfer at Kennedy for the downtown-bound commuters. This is not an absolute must, but appears to be much preferred by the locals and their councilors / MPPs / MPs.

The current subway plan satisfies all 3 requirements.

The previous SLRT plan satisfies (A), but fails on (B) and (C). Ditto for the simple RT upgrade.

The "Ford - McGuinty compromise" satisfied (A), and sort of satisfied (C), but failed on B.

What else? A subway with cut-n-cover / elevated sections to cut the costs? A spur of SmartTrack to STC?

I don't see any light rail option that can satisfy (A) and (B) at the same time; not even mentioning (C).

Let it be known, that with an interlined LRT plan, the capacity of the crosstown trunkline between Kennedy west stays at 15K passengers per day. If you split the LRT route at Kennedy (LRT North and Crosstown East), then the capacity drops to around 7K PPHPD per route (McCowan and Crosstown East). That's the at-capacity level for the McCowan Corridor and serves with no potential future growth. There are trade-offs in this situation, and the LRT can only take care of A, B, and C.

 

[Streety McCarface]

It’s striking that your list of criteria doesn’t include the requirement that any plan must deliver measurable benefits roughly equal to costs.

The subway cost may be astronomically high, but it's the only way we'll get provincial funding. As a result, we're on the hook for only 800 million, which is already funded by taxes (pending cost increases, which will very likely come in the near future).

 

[pman]

The subway cost may be astronomically high, but it's the only way we'll get provincial funding. As a result, we're on the hook for only 800 million, which is already funded by taxes (pending cost increases, which will very likely come in the near future).

Misguided on several counts. First, we also pay provincial and federal taxes, and we have an interest in seeing they’re wisely spent. Second, the amount of federal and provincial infrastructure funding is not unlimited. In fact, it’s quite limited. This means we can’t do everything and we have to make choices. Doing SSE means we won’t do a lot of other projects. We generally attempt to understand whether a given spending item is worthwhile by performing some kind of ROI calculation. Obviously there are limits - nobody is going to do a cost benefit analysis on buying a new laptop for the Parks Department. But surely a project of between $3 and $4 billion is costly enough in relation to our limited infrastructure budget to merit a dispassionate, quantitative review. Third, an $800 million spend by the City is big enough to warrant a value for money review, even if the rest of the funds come from Mars.

I’m not sure why SSE advocates are so adamant the project shouldn’t be properly analyzed. If the results were unfavourable, an outcome they seem to anticipate, they could still argue that the social justice benefits to Scarborough trump any purely economic considerations. But at least we’d be having an honest and informed conversation.

 

[Leo_Chan]

Guys guys guys, this thread is spilling over!

 

[robmausser]

Before the rail corridor was developed with houses, Line 2 could be extended to Malvern, rather than just to Kennedy.
This is the result:
View attachment 132327

Yep, its really unfortunate how short sighted our past city planners were.

HIGHWAYS HIGHWAYS HIGHWAYS! RAIL IS DEAD! LONG LIVE THE CAR!

 

[Johnny Au]

Yep, its really unfortunate how short sighted our past city planners were.

HIGHWAYS HIGHWAYS HIGHWAYS! RAIL IS DEAD! LONG LIVE THE CAR!

Proof:

On any given popular radio station, count how many rail commercials there are in a given hour. Now count the number of car commercials.

The same can be done with any given popular OTA or most cable television channels. Or on any given website with adblock off (and to prevent bias, use private/incognito browsing).

Walk along a major arterial road, preferably in a commercially zoned area, count the number of billboards depicting rail travel. Now count the number of billboards depicting cars.

Note that the Disney movie called Cars doesn't count.

For rail to have a fighting chance, there needs to be more rail ads.