Debate on the merits of the Scarborough Subway Extension

[APTA-2048]

Reality: The majority of Scarborough residents supported RoFo/DoFo during the last election cycle precisely because they were the only politicians sincere about actually building the subway and not leaving it vulnerable to these sorts of attacks.

Scincere is a really odd choice of words here. Just anecdotally: during the election, some friends and family from Scarborough considered voting for Ford because of the subway. But when asked how they would pay for it, they said by cutting waste as City Hall. Remember "efficiencies"? When asked why they preferred a subway, a couple of them said the Scarborough LRT would take up too much space on the road. And just read some comments from "Ford Nation", they're not all that different.

They even legislated a tax levy to fund the thing. Now you and your cohorts are threatening to take away the billions earmarked to be spent in Scarborough out of seeming pure ideology, when it's a known fact that millions more of commuters annually would ride a subway extension versus a revamped S(L)RT.

Easy solution. A more substantial dedicated transit tax. One to pay for the projects we have on the books.

But yeah, kick the gift horse in the teeth why don't you. Just don't expect Scarborough (or any suburban constituent for that matter) to be on side when you come a knocking for revenue for your own pet projects. The East Remembers!

Given some suburban councillors' attitudes before this mess, doesn't sound like anything new.

 

[sixrings]

We had defer spending on the TC LRT lines because the province didn't have the money and the city didn't want to contribute but then there are those who believe somehow we can afford Subways, Subways, subways.

 

[Voltz]

But really, like OneCity said, who in Scarborough is against SSE other than that one person in the ward next to the ECLRT?

I am against it, and so are many others I know in Scarborough,

 

[Sakraycore]

I am against it, and so are many others I know in Scarborough,

I meant Scarborough councillors.

 

[OneCity]

that's politics for you lol (promises don't always become reality). still better to vote for someone who will try to make it a reality rather than someone who is against it in the first place. But really, like OneCity said, who in Scarborough is against SSE other than that one person in the ward next to the ECLRT?

And to add the MPP of basically that same ward of the lonely councilor who opposes the SSE came in after as the "Subway Champion" to win that ward.

Yes, that is an unfortunately fact. Rob Ford simplified complex issues. Do you remember how he referred to the LRT as streetcars? He disregarded that the proposed Scarborough LRT would be completely grade separated. Many suggested that Rob didn't understand the difference. That is how he won the argument for Subways, Subways, Subways! in Scarborough. It was completely disingenuous or, at best, uninformed.

So here we are, years later, with the facts trickling out. The LRT is a viable option. The LRT is the best fit.

LOL. Ford didn't simplify it as much as it was really that simple and painfully obvious to Scarborough residents. The double standard and poor transfer placement just handn't been called out since Miler choose to ignore Scarborough councils initial request at the start of his first term. Transfers where there simple shouldn't be transfers. It was over immediately after it was called out. The Province knew the gig was up, and yet the opposition still thinks the cat isn't out of the bag and they can dictate over an overwhelming landslide of democracy in a massive City suburb. Complete disrespect.

Ford also compromised to integrate the LRT. Much more than the opposition has done for the people of Scarborough. Between the Opposition, Tory's Smarttrack and Keesmats final touches they have driven it to one stop. Which is the real shame.

I am against it, and so are many others I know in Scarborough,

I agree many people don't want the 1 stop. I don't want it as "the" subway plan. But you are in the deep minority that wants transfer LRT . Surely the Star will always tickle your hopes until the subway is built but any transfer plan before SCC is not even a remote reality, nor has it been since it was called out. Better to push for stops to the subway and move on. Guaranteed that's what most in Scarborough will vote for and guaranteed that's will be front and centre in DoFo's platform. Because simply that what the people want.

 

[Rainforest]

I have actually made it part of my priorities to eventually run for a ward position in Scarborough (currently on the board of directors for my condominium complex) mostly due to this topic lol. But yea, my current position is to proceed with SSE, but add infil station for Lawrence in the future.

I wish you to succeed if you decide to run.

At the same time, it might serve the greater good if some capable candidates with pro-LRT agenda run as well. Then we can evaluate the real preferences of the voters, based not just on who comes first but also on the vote % counts.

 

[Rainforest]

My guess is that North York Centre was a shallow station. I would guess that it is next to impossible to add an infill station for Lawrence later. You better be careful, or you be one of those politicians making unrealistic promises just to get elected. If you want Lawrence, find a way to put the line under the McCowan road bridge over Highland Creek - then Lawrence is a shallow station that can be built now for not much money.

Very true. If the line crosses under Lawrence in a deep tunnel, chances to add a station in the future are close to zero. It would be nice if the TTC engineers examined a few options of running in a shallow tunnel near that intersection, crossing over Highland Creek on a bridge.

Even if a surface station near the bridge can't be built because of the Hydro transmission lines, perhaps a shallow underground station can be placed 100 m south of Lawrence. Not an ideal connection, but better than no connection at all.

 

[Midtown Urbanist]

Why are we using council elections as de facto referendums on transit options? As if a persons voting decision can be dumbed down to a single-topic issue and is not highly dependent on a plurality of issues and/or the context of the vote? Example - If the Fords were for LRT and Tory was pro-subway, I would still vote Tory in a mayoral race despite being pro-LRT myself.

And that is not even getting into the question over whether we should be deferring to the public for important transit planning decisions when it should clearly be in the hands of planners.

 

[TheTigerMaster]

My guess is that North York Centre was a shallow station. I would guess that it is next to impossible to add an infill station for Lawrence later. You better be careful, or you be one of those politicians making unrealistic promises just to get elected. If you want Lawrence, find a way to put the line under the McCowan road bridge over Highland Creek - then Lawrence is a shallow station that can be built now for not much money.

If this were the 1950s, we’d just bulldoze McCowan avenue and replace it with the subway. It would cost $42 Million and everyone would be happy; well everyone except the affected property owners (but because it’s 1952, we really don’t care about such things)

 

[Rainforest]

Why are we using council elections as de facto referendums on transit options? As if a persons voting decision can be dumbed down to a single-topic issue and is not highly dependent on a plurality of issues and/or the context of the vote? Example - If the Fords were for LRT and Tory was pro-subway, I would still vote Tory in a mayoral race despite being pro-LRT myself.

Even though elections aren't a perfect way to evaluate the public opinion on transit options, it is still the best bet. A plebiscite would be expensive and therefore hard to organize. Opinion polls tend to be affected by biases of the organizations that conduct them. They implicitly direct the respondents towards the answer they desire, by presenting it in a more favorable light than other options.

If the issue is prominent enough, then a large number of voters will make their choice based on that particular issue.

And that is not even getting into the question over whether we should be deferring to the public for important transit planning decisions when it should clearly be in the hands of planners.

I disagree; why would the public cede the right to make such decisions to a small group of planners? As a voter, I will not support a candidate or a party that attempts this kind of delegation.

IMO, the role of planners is to do preparatory work: select several alternatives, evaluate their benefits and costs, and then recommend one of them as the preferred choice. But the final decision must be up to the public. If the majority prefers a choice that is less than optimal according to the planners (but still doable) - so be it.

 

[TheTigerMaster]

It’s too bad that democracy doesn’t have any way of holding politicians to account for their misdirection and poor decisions. By time these transit decisions get implemented, all these politicians will be well on their way to retirement.

 

[Rainforest]

It’s too bad that democracy doesn’t have any way of holding politicians to account for their misdirection and poor decisions. By time these transit decisions get implemented, all these politicians will be well on their way to retirement.

Yes, democracy is imperfect.

And yet, alternatives are almost always worse in the long run.

 

[Midtown Urbanist]

Even though elections aren't a perfect way to evaluate the public opinion on transit options, it is still the best bet. A plebiscite would be expensive and therefore hard to organize. Opinion polls tend to be affected by biases of the organizations that conduct them. They implicitly direct the respondents towards the answer they desire, by presenting it in a more favorable light than other options.

If the issue is prominent enough, then a large number of voters will make their choice based on that particular issue.

Not necessarily. Opinion polls can be conducted in a neutral wording, with randomized order of question responses. I am sure it has been done, but I don't feel like going through the exact polling questions of every Scarborough transit poll conducted to prove this point.

I disagree; why would the public cede the right to make such decisions to a small group of planners? As a voter, I will not support a candidate or a party that attempts this kind of delegation.

IMO, the role of planners is to do preparatory work: select several alternatives, evaluate their benefits and costs, and then recommend one of them as the preferred choice. But the final decision must be up to the public. If the majority prefers a choice that is less than optimal according to the planners (but still doable) - so be it.

Neither would I want to cede planners the sole authority. I am aware of history, especially the Spadina Expressway.

You are not seeing the point though. BurlOak described it here:

The evidence is that with a better connection of Scarborough to Yonge, then fully grade-separated transit is required due to high passenger volumes. The choice of whether to achieve this with an SRT connected to ECLRT, a B-D extension, a SmartSpur branch, or any other grade-separated, connected transit option that has been proposed here - is part of the political debate and the quest for compromise.

The question is not about whether the public should cede sole authority to planners. They are clearly involved in setting the priority for building rapid transit in Scarborough, as opposed to say, a new expressway.

The issue though is that the debate on technology - LRT or subway - is not a public question. It is an academic/professional question. The public does not have the knowledge or formal education to make an informed decision on what type of technology to use. This is the point in the decision making process where we begin to defer to planners as to which option makes the most rational sense utilizing ridership data, travel time, transit coverage, connectivity, expansion opportunity, environmental impacts, city-building desires, and above all else - cost.

Not listening to planners gets us to $5 billion, 6km, 1-stop subways.

 

[BurlOak]

IMO, the role of planners is to do preparatory work: select several alternatives, evaluate their benefits and costs, and then recommend one of them as the preferred choice. But the final decision must be up to the public. If the majority prefers a choice that is less than optimal according to the planners (but still doable) - so be it.

I view it as having 1 more step. The politician (put in place by public) decides what areas need to be served and roughly to what degree (i.e. freeway or arterial, local or rapid transit, etc.). The planners come up with options based on that. The options are discussed and final decisions made by politicians (who represent public).

 

[syn]

If election results are being interpreted as an iron-clad judgement on subways vs LRTs, should we also assume Scarborough residents are in favour of bigotry and deceit?

The election said so, apparently.