Debate on the merits of the Scarborough Subway Extension

[OneCity]

Not when you have a limited budget and other areas have larger needs today.

A budget does not exist.

Scarboroughs transit and integration is not the problem preventing other "priority" plans from being funded. And this mindset of shaking down Scarborough against overwhelming support clearly hasn't produced good results politically or financially. Unfortunately we will now spend far more to connect Scarborough seamlessly to the main infrastructure that exists than we should have,with less stops. At this point this is solely because few Opposition politicians still think this is still a great tactic to force a plan that was voted down and refuse to participate in constructive discussion. Atleast we now have a Mayor aggressively going after the right people who can actually do something to address the issues throughout the entire City.

 

[syn]

A subway was the next logical step, even if it was was under capacity. There's more to transit than existing ridership. I don't understand why some people refuse to accept that. Transit is about planning for the future and connecting people. A subway line that's well under capacity still makes sense to build if it'll be justified 15 years later, like the Yonge Subway and its extension would be, or if the subway connects one part of the city to the rest of the city, like the SSE will do.

That's exactly why the Yonge Subway Line made perfect sense - ridership quickly escalated due to the placement of the line, growth and the environment:

"The Yonge subway, however, was an overnight success. Riders flocked to try out the line, and commuters continued to use it long after the novelty wore off. Two-car Gloucester trains that were supposed to operate during periods of low ridership became very uncommon. Four-car trains became the minimum, and six-car trains standard in service. Eventually, ridership increased to the point where eight-car Gloucester trains operated from Monday through Saturday from the early morning to the early evening. Likewise, when the longer Montreal Locomotive Works and Hawker Siddeley cars arrived on the subway, Sunday service occasionally saw two-car Hawker trains at first, although four-car trains became the minimum and, after the 1990s, six-car trains became standard during all hours of operation." - http://transit.toronto.on.ca/subway/5102.shtml

The SSE doesn't have the projected ridership to justify it's existence 15 years from now, let alone today...and it won't for years.

The Yonge Streetcar Line operated for nearly a century before the subway was built.

An LRT or upgraded SRT would serve as a valuable connection to STC for many decades.

We should build subways where they're most needed.

 

[amnesiajune]

Not when you have a limited budget and other areas have larger needs today.

"A limited budget" is political speak for "a lack of willingness to pay for infrastructure". The city's $910 million SSE commitment is being funded with a tax of 0.0024%. That's $2/month on a home worth $1 million. We have the money to build the SSE, and Relief Line, and Yonge North, and all the other projects that are overdue. We just don't have a city council that's willing to make people sacrifice something for the projects that Toronto needs to grow out of the 20th century.

 

[Tuck]

The SSE doesn't have the projected ridership to justify it's existence 15 years from now, let alone today...and it won't for years.

For a real world example of the above concept, please refer to the Sheppard subway.

 

[Edward Skira]

"A limited budget" is political speak for "a lack of willingness to pay for infrastructure". The city's $910 million SSE commitment is being funded with a tax of 0.0024%. That's $2/month on a home worth $1 million. We have the money to build the SSE, and Relief Line, and Yonge North, and all the other projects that are overdue. We just don't have a city council that's willing to make people sacrifice something for the projects that Toronto needs to grow out of the 20th century.

That's true. In the meanwhile if you only have $910 million to spend then how about spending on the transit project(s) that will do the most to solve the city's transit issues in order of most useful first, and not the one that brings in much needed votes for the Mayor.

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

"A limited budget" is political speak for "a lack of willingness to pay for infrastructure". The city's $910 million SSE commitment is being funded with a tax of 0.0024%. That's $2/month on a home worth $1 million. We have the money to build the SSE, and Relief Line, and Yonge North, and all the other projects that are overdue. We just don't have a city council that's willing to make people sacrifice something for the projects that Toronto needs to grow out of the 20th century.

Sure, and from which wards are the councillors least willing to vote to pay for the tax increases needed for transit improvements?

AoD

 

[OneCity]

Sure, and from which wards are the councillors least willing to vote to pay for the tax increases needed for transit improvements?

AoD

As @Edward Skira explains the money will be fought to be a priority in areas outside these inner suburbs and without a funding plan we are incapable of building similar quality in unison. Not hard to see why inner suburbs are shy on taxes when their concerns are being ignored and fought against.

The Province and Fed need a clear funding plan and should wear the brunt of the DRL given they are huge beneficiaries. Toronto needs to have a tax for all other projects similar to the SSE. Until then compromise is needed in an amalgamated City or it can get worse and we need to prepare better in the future.

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

As @Edward Skira explains the money will be fought to be a priority in areas outside these inner suburbs and without a funding plan we are incapable of building similar quality in unison. Not hard to see why inner suburbs are shy on taxes when their concerns are being ignored and fought against.

But the Province and Fed need a clear funding plan and Toronto needs to have a tax for the DRL similar to the SSE. And prepare better in the future.

If you will excuse my cynicism, so far the only place that is getting transit built through dedicated tax levy is in the inner suburbs.

AoD

 

[OneCity]

If you will excuse my cynicism, so far the only place that is getting transit built through dedicated tax levy is in the inner suburbs.

AoD

Your cynicism is more than warranted but that's a very good sign it can be done.

Realistically It will take decades to mend the damage we now have from not having a funding plan at any Government level. If we can get the current projects all funded the City will have a much more connected feel in 20 years and the polarization will certainly dissipate and give confidence to voters on all ends that we are building a connected City, dealing with growth and can build together. There is minimal confidence currently all around. Local taxes will be hard fought until voters share more common ground and "Priority" politics comes to an end. That will never work in an amalgamated City. Never. Any Politician still engaging in these politics is asking for complete disaster.

In the meantime to keep the damage manageable Politicians will hopefully start compromising. Tory's subway plan sucks and is a bi product of the current division but his plan of attack on funding is stepping in the right direction so hopefully this never happen again. Atleast to this extent.

 

[Hopkins123]

For a real world example of the above concept, please refer to the Sheppard subway.

The more probable real world example is the TYSSE which will only see 2,700 pphpd by 2031, yet it seems to be immune from criticism on UT despite one-third of it not even being within Toronto's boundaries but Toronto alone will bear its operating costs.

At least, Sheppard and SSE serve the function of replacing some surface routes including the embedded 39,000 daily passengers of the SRT primarily traveling back and forth from Kennedy to the Town Centre, which the subway extension is replicating.

 

[Hopkins123]

"A limited budget" is political speak for "a lack of willingness to pay for infrastructure". The city's $910 million SSE commitment is being funded with a tax of 0.0024%. That's $2/month on a home worth $1 million. We have the money to build the SSE, and Relief Line, and Yonge North, and all the other projects that are overdue. We just don't have a city council that's willing to make people sacrifice something for the projects that Toronto needs to grow out of the 20th century.

How Toronto goes about cap in hand hoping that the government of the day will throw us scraps to fund transit expansion is ridiculous. Other jurisdictions seem to have their act together far more than we do. How about using a combination of the HST, income and payroll tax revenues in addition to the gas tax. Or for something radical that'd truly get everything on the books built fast and with cash to spare, toll the freakin' Hwy 401 from the 403/410 to Brock Road in Pickering. Imagine the billion$ per year such a move would generate in revenue. And it wouldn't have to be permanent either, just until the grade-separated transit network is complete.

Even if a Party is too scared to make that their campaign message during an election, at least move in that direction once in power. I'm still waiting on so-called "subway champion" Mitzie Hunter to do what she was elected to do. Stop thinking about just holding onto power and actually something with it!

 

[syn]

The more probable real world example is the TYSSE which will only see 2,700 pphpd by 2031, yet it seems to be immune from criticism on UT despite one-third of it not even being within Toronto's boundaries but Toronto alone will bear its operating costs.

At least, Sheppard and SSE serve the function of replacing some surface routes including the embedded 39,000 daily passengers of the SRT primarily traveling back and forth from Kennedy to the Town Centre, which the subway extension is replicating.

That isn't true.

I'd say that a lot of people are very much against it - the difference is that there are very few arguments that it's 'deserved', that the lack of a subway is an 'original sin', nor the other kinds of absurd statements you see in this thread.

Scarborough also has an efficient, direct connection to STC that hasn't really been used to it's advantage, and can be upgraded to service more riders.

I'm sure as that extension moves to the forefront there'll be more discussion.

 

[Steve X]

The more probable real world example is the TYSSE which will only see 2,700 pphpd by 2031, yet it seems to be immune from criticism on UT despite one-third of it not even being within Toronto's boundaries but Toronto alone will bear its operating costs.

At least, Sheppard and SSE serve the function of replacing some surface routes including the embedded 39,000 daily passengers of the SRT primarily traveling back and forth from Kennedy to the Town Centre, which the subway extension is replicating.

Who said they support it. TTC will have to cut service in Toronto to make up for the extra service in Vaughan. It shouldn't been built past Steeles. The project only cost Toronto 1/3 of the 6.2km in Toronto oppose to 70% of the entire alignment in Scarborough.

On the plus side, TYSSE has stations spaced out correctly unlike Scarbrbough.

The Sheppard subway has lost ridership. It's daily count is closer to 47,000 than the 50,000 in the opening years. Sheppard is forever screwed. The long walking distance at Don Mills bus terminal to the platform plus not getting a seat at Sheppard-Yonge has doomed that line. The rich condos haven't even contributed any ridership while benefiting from the prime land growth. A relief line to Sheppard via Don Mills won't bring much ridership either. Terrible subway planning in this city. If they build Eglinton West instead of Sheppard back in the day, ridership would be much higher.

 

[amnesiajune]

The project only cost Toronto 1/3 of the 6.2km in Toronto oppose to 70% of the entire alignment in Scarborough.

Not true - Toronto only has to cover around $900 million of the SSE's cost right now.

The Sheppard subway has lost ridership. It's daily count is closer to 47,000 than the 50,000 in the opening years.

That's also not true. It's ridership wasn't 50,000 until 2012, it's ridership in 2015 (the last year with those stats published) was 49,000, and it's in line with the general trend for the TTC - Bloor-Danforth's ridership dropped 2% in those three years, and Yonge-University's increased by just 0.3%.

 

[nfitz]

The Sheppard subway has lost ridership. It's daily count is closer to 47,000 than the 50,000 in the opening years.

I'm not sure where you are pulling this from. The most recent 2015 count of the Sheppard-Yonge Line 4 platforms alone were 45,746. TTC puts the full line at 49,070 for the same period.

Going back to 2009-10 the same report says it was 47,700.

Back in 2007-08 it was 45,860. And back in 2005-06 it was 41,290 - which as we've discussed here previously is about 10% higher than the previous count, which may have been tainted by SARS. The first count in Spring 2003 was only 34,700.

There's been discussion here for years on how Sheppard ridership has increased, though has become flatter in recent years (with fluctuation due to error now making it difficult to see trends without looking at more than just a couple of years of data).

So what, is it, in contradiction of common knowledge, previous discussion, and raw data, is the basis for your claim of 50,000 ridership in the opening years, and it losing ridership?

Do you have a link?