Rainforest
Senior Member
Surprisingly, you guessed that I was pointing at you. You are a bit less stupid than otherwise thought. Keep improving.
|
|
|
Debate on the merits of the Scarborough Subway Extension
- Thread starter kEiThZ
- Start date
Surprisingly, you guessed that I was pointing at you. You are a bit less stupid than otherwise thought. Keep improving.
DB9
New Member
This is the frustrating part of this whole subway debate. There is no active political voice in Scarborough fighting for RER, even though it's the best solution for Scarborough that works.
The subway debate is pointless if RER doesn't get implemented properly - Scarberians will be stuck with subpar transit without RER.
syn
Senior Member
Not when it comes to building subways - which is what you're conveniently ignoring.
The best solution for reaching the most riders in a large, low density area isn't a one stop subway...nor was a three stop subway the best solution, for that matter.
Based on your reasoning, the RT in place now fulfills that mandate quite well.
BurlOak
Senior Member
The best solution for Scarborough is definitely not a 1 stop subway. It is likely a continuous line that puts as many people as possible within easy reach of a rapid transit line to the downtown. Instead of trying to find this best solution, the whole exercise has been about political posturing by those trying to preserve the David Miller legacy and those trying to retain power for the Provincial Liberals.
Hopkins123
Senior Member
One stop is fine for now, so long as they make provisions for future infill stations at Brimley-Eglinton and McCowan-Lawrence. A BD extension with Yonge North level stop spacing is perfectly acceptable.
Doing nothing or taking the risk of building something that 30 from now will need to be upgraded to subway anyhow (as if we've learned nothing from the SRT ICTS fiasco) solves nothing.
Hopkins123
Senior Member
It's despicable how subway advocates get beat up on in this forum, eh?
sixrings
Senior Member
I may typically vote liberal and I may have voted for Miller. However the way you write it would seem i have a life size painting of him in my living room. Perhaps people simply just see the merits of the LRT plan? personally it is objectively the best plan with the understanding that no plan is perfect. I could argue that some here are simply trying to keep the Ford legacy alive. I have no idea if that is true or not. Instead I simply think people tend to vote in a way that meets their best interest. In this case the advocates on this forum largely for a Scarborough subway are from Scarborough.
jcam
Active Member
If the ridership case for one-stop at STC is shaky at best, then there is absolutely no way to justify protecting for future stations. And there's nothing wrong with upgrading to higher order transit one or two asset lifecycles later....they didn't NOT put streetcars on Yonge because they were waiting for a subway.
A single kid coming out of university doesn't buy a 4 bedroom house and a minivan when they get their first job. Why? Because they can't afford it and they don't need it. How is this any different?
mdrejhon
Senior Member
This, AGREE.
It is stupendously expensive for a single stop, and would have preferred a different solution that benefits a bigger number of people.
This, DISAGREE.
Once the stupendously expensive extension is built -- then incrementals need to be measured against not doing the incremental. Spent capital is spent capital.
This, AGREE.
Totally agreed, a subway can come later when ridership warrants, too.
This, DISAGREE.
The way it used to work decades ago:
1. You buy a starter one-bedroom home
2. When you make a family, build additions to expand the house.
This is how it often worked before the 1960s (before laws making additions more difficult). Infill stations are just like cheap additions to a starter home.
Certainly, a subway line is no starter home. Just because the family splurged on a 2-bedroom starter instead of a 1-bedroom starter, doesn't automatically mean house additions make no sense, they build a third bedroom (years later) and rent it out to pay for their stupendously expensive starter house, and maybe even pay college costs of their own kids.
The extra stations can lower subsidy cost of an otherwise unaffordable line to a less-unaffordable number, thanks to extra riders. Just like the family is underwater, but the extra revenue (of renting out part of a house, or extra riders in infill station) can lead to being less underwater, and closer to pulling out of the water.
Last edited:
OneCity
Senior Member
If the McCowan corridor goes ahead there is much greater value long term just building a stop(s) now then just boring a 6km tunnel. More than half the of the current existing subway system stops could be considered "shaky" at best in terms of ridership. The Lawrence stop near McCowan would provide far better access to the eastern stretch between Kingston road and McCowan which is dense and full of lower income families. You have the hospital access. At the end of the day if we are digging a 6km tunnel lets give people better access, this corridor is the best "if" we are providing access.
I would say Scarborough already bought its starter home. It was an overpriced, poorly maintained, poorly designed, (stops) located in a questionable area, and isolated. Its time to invest in something for a better long term future. The one stop certainly isn't that, but either is the LRT. Since the one stop and Smarttrack seem to have the best chance of moving forward and any other plan will cause chaos, be costly, and cause further delay... I can only hope they add this Lawrence stop in. Costly like any other plan will be now but will provide a solid foundation for the future. Unfortunate they sold on a lemon starter home and we had to start over.
The Eglinton stop Is a lost cause in this climate and elevated cost, while it would be in optimal location serving an areas of need in the City, It should hopefully be served by the LRT in the near future and will be well connected to Kennedy Station. At this stage I don't think it'll even be on the radar again.
Last edited:
BurlOak
Senior Member
I think it is hard to make provisions for a future station at Lawrence, when you have committed to a deep tunnel under Highland Creek. It would have been like trying to provide for a future York Mills Station.
It is either done now, or never. It is only done now if the costs are low enough. The costs are only low enough if they do a solution with the train under the McCowan bridge when crossing Highland Creek.
TheTigerMaster
Superstar
TTC has already said making provisions for a station would cost nearly as much as completely building the station.
There are no provisions to be made. You either built it now, or pay the exorbitant costs to do it in the future. Or just don’t ever do it.
There are no provisions to be made. You either built it now, or pay the exorbitant costs to do it in the future. Or just don’t ever do it.
jcam
Active Member
Maybe I should refine my points mdrehjon:
1. We agree one-stop subway is wouldn't pass muster for any legitimate, properly assumption-ed, business case options analysis between different modes for ridership and growth needs in Scarborough, EVEN if you managed to quantify the benefit of eliminating a transfer and use it in the comparison.
2. Disagree with your logic. If we agree on 1., then IF the project is going forward, we should at least be minimizing the costs to be incurred on it, which includes all allocations to allow for future stations. Their costs should be fully approved and funded on their own merits in the future, and weighed against other projects at that time.
3. Agree, always can renovate.
4. Maybe I should play with this analogy. First, infill stations can work...North York Centre is an example, but it was a shallow cut-and-cover line to begin with, under a wide ROW. The alignment of SSE is not quite so easy.
Now, don't get me wrong, ideal state, if you can afford to protect for the future, do it. It was great forward thinking that the Prince Edward Viaduct could hold subway. My wife and I bought an old 5 bedroom house in Weston before any kids, because we could and we knew we would stay long term. Now we have 1 kid and will continue to grow into it. But the difference was we could afford to, and we didn't have any other competing interests for that money.
But the reality is that because we as the TTC, City, country even, have racked up such an infrastructure deficit over the last 30 years, we don't (or shouldn't) have the luxury of spending our constrained funds to overbuild or future-proof one project to the detriment of other expansions with higher benefits/$, let alone to bring the infra deficit up to speed. That's why I get so frustrated with the analogy that "well we have stations already that have low ridership, so why shouldn't we add another". Since when do we have to doom ourselves to repeat mistakes? People wouldn't do that with their own money.
The lack of money will be a major discussion on Council next summer when they come back with a firmer pricetag at 30% design on SSE. I think they'll have to Value Engineer the hell out of this thing, or justify to constituents why something that serves so few, compared to other options on a $$/person basis, should tie up the City's debt load when we have such a looooooooong unfunded list already: waterfront transit, Eglinton East and West, Line 2 modernization, DRL, DRL long, DRL west, not to mention the TCHC backlog, or that of the TDSB.
1. We agree one-stop subway is wouldn't pass muster for any legitimate, properly assumption-ed, business case options analysis between different modes for ridership and growth needs in Scarborough, EVEN if you managed to quantify the benefit of eliminating a transfer and use it in the comparison.
2. Disagree with your logic. If we agree on 1., then IF the project is going forward, we should at least be minimizing the costs to be incurred on it, which includes all allocations to allow for future stations. Their costs should be fully approved and funded on their own merits in the future, and weighed against other projects at that time.
3. Agree, always can renovate.
4. Maybe I should play with this analogy. First, infill stations can work...North York Centre is an example, but it was a shallow cut-and-cover line to begin with, under a wide ROW. The alignment of SSE is not quite so easy.
Now, don't get me wrong, ideal state, if you can afford to protect for the future, do it. It was great forward thinking that the Prince Edward Viaduct could hold subway. My wife and I bought an old 5 bedroom house in Weston before any kids, because we could and we knew we would stay long term. Now we have 1 kid and will continue to grow into it. But the difference was we could afford to, and we didn't have any other competing interests for that money.
But the reality is that because we as the TTC, City, country even, have racked up such an infrastructure deficit over the last 30 years, we don't (or shouldn't) have the luxury of spending our constrained funds to overbuild or future-proof one project to the detriment of other expansions with higher benefits/$, let alone to bring the infra deficit up to speed. That's why I get so frustrated with the analogy that "well we have stations already that have low ridership, so why shouldn't we add another". Since when do we have to doom ourselves to repeat mistakes? People wouldn't do that with their own money.
The lack of money will be a major discussion on Council next summer when they come back with a firmer pricetag at 30% design on SSE. I think they'll have to Value Engineer the hell out of this thing, or justify to constituents why something that serves so few, compared to other options on a $$/person basis, should tie up the City's debt load when we have such a looooooooong unfunded list already: waterfront transit, Eglinton East and West, Line 2 modernization, DRL, DRL long, DRL west, not to mention the TCHC backlog, or that of the TDSB.
OneCity
Senior Member
At this stage we're not saving much $$ in the bigger picture changing back to LRT if it was even possible or moving the subway to the RT corridor. The loss in time due to the fact we need to reset and design again will cost us, inflation will have increased negating much of said "savings", and further cost to extend the RT if possible . And this is in the perfect world that doesn't account for the reality of further studies, nastier politics, and new plans. The LRT is not even a reality to begin with here but if it was I don't agree there is this great value reverting back
At this point the cries for LRT have more to do with hurt political egos, than trying to help Scarborough residents given the stage we are at. The LRT could have been connected to Eglinton East and unfortunately was rejected as a solid comprise, but the politics were firm. The best case is the Lawrence stop is added. And then we can move on to the roughly 20 plus billion $$$ in other capital projects on books (plus ones that are not like Sheppard subway, and Jane LRT, etc), rather than keep trying to shave off the Scarborough extension for what that is even worth now. Inevitably ill take moving forward at this stage, hopefully with an extra stop.
Last edited:
syn
Senior Member
A silly assumption. There have been countless facts presented as to why this is such a bad idea - ridership numbers, cost vs benefit analysis, etc. yet all of it is ignored in favour of identity politics.
I don't care if David Miller's plan isn't used - if they can devise something better I'm all for it. It was, however, light years ahead of the current boondoggle.
This whole exercise has been about political posturing - getting Scarborough a subway extension, no matter how much it cost, no matter little sense it makes, all to ensure political support in the next municipal election. If this was based on reasonable planning then it would've never been proposed.
A subway connection downtown isn't a right. Scarborough already has a GO connection direct to Union (no question GO service could be expanded), and an RT line. Yes it requires a transfer - kind of like buses and streetcars do.
I also disagree that transit planning in Scarborough should be based on getting people downtown without a transfer - only 6% of trips that begin in Scarborough end downtown. Nearly half of all transit trips that begin in Scarborough end in Scarborough.
That's why the $5+ billion that will be spent on this stop (one that can't have any stops added inbetween in the future) would be much better spent on an LRT network that provides effective transit to a much larger percentage of the population.