Debate on the merits of the Scarborough Subway Extension

[WislaHD]

From one of UT's front page articles in the past few days.

Why are we not trying to build downtown Scarborough here? The entire Eglinton corridor could be densely intensified all the way from Victoria Park to Kingston Road along a central artery, much like Yonge Street.

 

[Hopkins123]

From one of UT's front page articles in the past few days.

Why are we not trying to build downtown Scarborough here? The entire Eglinton corridor could be densely intensified all the way from Victoria Park to Kingston Road along a central artery, much like Yonge Street.

Then why not propose an elevated or tunneled Crosstown Line through the Golden Mile and Scarborough Village?

I took flak for my "Yonge street of Scarborough" comment in reference to McCowan in spite of the existing developments near and around the 401; but the densities you seek to bring to the Eglinton corridor will surely quickly surpass what surface transit in the road median alone can sustain.

 

[WislaHD]

Then why not propose an elevated or tunneled Crosstown Line through the Golden Mile and Scarborough Village?

I took flak for my "Yonge street of Scarborough" comment in reference to McCowan in spite of the existing developments near and around the 401; but the densities you seek to bring to the Eglinton corridor will surely quickly surpass what surface transit in the road median alone can sustain.

I've been a long proponent of interlining both the Scarborough LRT and Crosstown East LRT with a fully grade-separated LRT between Laird and Kennedy.

We'd need a Relief Line to reach Eglinton, at a minimum.

 

[TheTigerMaster]

Then why not propose an elevated or tunneled Crosstown Line through the Golden Mile and Scarborough Village

It's under construction. The debate would be moot.

The surface section has a capacity of 15,000 pphpd. It'll be fine for the densities, especially considering that the DRL is nearby, and considering that residential developments doesn't generate a huge amount of transit ridership.

 

[11th]

It's under construction. The debate would be moot.

The surface section has a capacity of 15,000 pphpd. It'll be fine for the densities, especially considering that the DRL is nearby, and considering that residential developments doesn't generate a huge amount of transit ridership.

If they are building a proper downtown I doubt they want majority residential developments.

 

[TheTigerMaster]

If they are building a proper downtown I doubt they want majority residential developments.

That may not be what they want, but it's what they're going to get. Outside of downtown, just about all highrise development is residential.

 

[WislaHD]

Yes, by downtown, we mean the equivalent of North York City Centre.

Which is what I assume everyone else has been using as definition of any sort of downtown Scarborough hopes to build. (Or, I dearly hope so, anyway)

 

[Rainforest]

Why are we not trying to build downtown Scarborough here? The entire Eglinton corridor could be densely intensified all the way from Victoria Park to Kingston Road along a central artery, much like Yonge Street.

Very good point.

But, the door isn't closed for that corridor. It should be close to the top of the pack when the next round of transit funding happens.

 

[OneCity]

Yes, by downtown, we mean the equivalent of North York City Centre.

Which is what I assume everyone else has been using as definition of any sort of downtown Scarborough hopes to build. (Or, I dearly hope so, anyway)

Also similar areas like what Vaughan MC (will be), and Mississauga don't have the tax issues Toronto's suburbs face, and have the benefit of a fully focused municipal government to continually plan and grow these central nodes. It likely wont happen as the City has shown the inability to focus on fine details across the entire collectively but business tax breaks should also be provided and the Municipal land transfer to fall in line with the 905 City Centres or foreign investment and other business will continue to pile up in the 905. Toronto needs to continually do better to keep focus on all growth nodes.

 

[OneCity]

From one of UT's front page articles in the past few days.

Why are we not trying to build downtown Scarborough here? The entire Eglinton corridor could be densely intensified all the way from Victoria Park to Kingston Road along a central artery, much like Yonge Street.

"Downtown" is a out of place term here. But Eglinton will be pretty cool as well. Furthermore Kennedy and Eglinton should develop into something special as well once restrictions are revisited for high density. The rest of Eglinton will be "Avenues" and will really help transform certain areas which we are already seeing with the recent Vic Park proposals and heading east.

 

[44 North]

Then why not propose an elevated or tunneled Crosstown Line through the Golden Mile and Scarborough Village?

I took flak for my "Yonge street of Scarborough" comment in reference to McCowan in spite of the existing developments near and around the 401; but the densities you seek to bring to the Eglinton corridor will surely quickly surpass what surface transit in the road median alone can sustain.

It's under construction. The debate would be moot.

The surface section has a capacity of 15,000 pphpd. It'll be fine for the densities, especially considering that the DRL is nearby, and considering that residential developments doesn't generate a huge amount of transit ridership.

I have a lot of trouble believing the 15k peak hour direction numbers for the surface portion. In absolute best case scenario yeah it's achievable. But 1) I believe the Freedom capacity numbers are lower than claimed (like the Outlooks); 2) the ability to reliably maintain those kinds of frequencies in order to keep capacity at that level over such a long distance (Kennedy to E of Laird) will be very difficult; 3) we don't know how many more midblock traffic signals will be added with each new massive development, and it's clear that any addition over the status quo will affect this portion of the line's capacity.

The grade-separated portion of Crosstown between Laird and Mt Dennis no question it can easily top 15kpphpd, but I have considerable doubts that we'd even get close to that with the tram-style portions.

 

[TheTigerMaster]

I have a lot of trouble believing the 15k peak hour direction numbers for the surface portion. In absolute best case scenario yeah it's achievable. But 1) I believe the Freedom capacity numbers are lower than claimed (like the Outlooks); 2) the ability to reliably maintain those kinds of frequencies in order to keep capacity at that level over such a long distance (Kennedy to E of Laird) will be very difficult; 3) we don't know how many more midblock traffic signals will be added with each new massive development, and it's clear that any addition over the status quo will affect this portion of the line's capacity.

The grade-separated portion of Crosstown between Laird and Mt Dennis no question it can easily top 15kpphpd, but I have considerable doubts that we'd even get close to that with the tram-style portions.

Regardless of what the actual capacity is, no developments in this area are going to saturate the capacity of the ECLRT. Not even the Portlands redevelopment, which is far larger in scale than any possible redevelopment of Eglinton corridor, would saturate the capacity of the ECLRT.

 

[syn]

I have a lot of trouble believing the 15k peak hour direction numbers for the surface portion. In absolute best case scenario yeah it's achievable. But 1) I believe the Freedom capacity numbers are lower than claimed (like the Outlooks); 2) the ability to reliably maintain those kinds of frequencies in order to keep capacity at that level over such a long distance (Kennedy to E of Laird) will be very difficult; 3) we don't know how many more midblock traffic signals will be added with each new massive development, and it's clear that any addition over the status quo will affect this portion of the line's capacity.

The grade-separated portion of Crosstown between Laird and Mt Dennis no question it can easily top 15kpphpd, but I have considerable doubts that we'd even get close to that with the tram-style portions.

I think some common sense needs to be applied here (though it doesn't seem welcome in this thread most of the time )

What kind of numbers does the 504 King generate? I'm willing to bet they're far higher than what we'd see along this portion of Eglinton, even after this proposed development. Increasing density in this corridor in no way, shape or form calls for putting the LRT underground (or elevating it).

If Queen and King can get by with streetcars (that don't even have a ROW), an above ground LRT is fine for this section. As much complaining as there's been, an LRT here is a lot better than what riders on Queen and King get.

We should really be looking at underground routes for those lines, that are already busy, have proven demand, with surrounding density that's only getting higher.

 

[OneCity]

I think some common sense needs to be applied here (though it doesn't seem welcome in this thread most of the time )

What kind of numbers does the 504 King generate? I'm willing to bet they're far higher than what we'd see along this portion of Eglinton, even after this proposed development. Increasing density in this corridor in no way, shape or form calls for putting the LRT underground (or elevating it).

If Queen and King can get by with streetcars (that don't even have a ROW), an above ground LRT is fine for this section. As much complaining as there's been, an LRT here is a lot better than what riders on Queen and King get.

We should really be looking at underground routes for those lines, that are already busy, have proven demand, with surrounding density that's only getting higher.

Link to Crosstown thread

 

[Hopkins123]

I think some common sense needs to be applied here (though it doesn't seem welcome in this thread most of the time )

What kind of numbers does the 504 King generate? I'm willing to bet they're far higher than what we'd see along this portion of Eglinton, even after this proposed development. Increasing density in this corridor in no way, shape or form calls for putting the LRT underground (or elevating it).

If Queen and King can get by with streetcars (that don't even have a ROW), an above ground LRT is fine for this section. As much complaining as there's been, an LRT here is a lot better than what riders on Queen and King get.

We should really be looking at underground routes for those lines, that are already busy, have proven demand, with surrounding density that's only getting higher.

You'd wish a service like the 504 King on Eglinton?