Neptis' Review of Metrolinx's Big Move

[Hipster Duck]

Awfully defensive, and some of his replies are disingenuous

One example:

"Marshall says I ignore local needs when I suggest stations at Oakwood, Chaplin, Avenue and Laird should not be built. I think there must be a tradeoff: these stations will cost $200 million each, yet will only attract a few hundred new riders. Construction will devastate local businesses. "

With any construction project, there will be impacts on local business, and there are ways to help businesses during construction. What's interesting is that Mr. Schabas is so concerned about Oakwood, but says nothing about Dufferin Station.
How will construction of his automated light metro line impact business?

To be fair to Mr. Schabas, I don't think the construction inconvenience to local businesses is his major concern. I think his major beef with stations like Oakwood, Avenue Rd. and Chaplin is that they cost a lot of money to construct, but will not attract a lot of riders. These are also stations that are in established neighbourhoods and will probably not see a lot of redevelopment, either. While stations like Chester and Summerhill are certainly nice if you live there, I don't know if we can justify those kinds of costs anymore. I think the cost of building (and operating) those stations far outweighs the costs of running a parallel Eglinton bus to cover local service at a fairly frequent level from now until eternity.

 

[Johnny Au]

The Laird Station might impact the (worst-managed) Canadian Tire and maybe a strip plaza with a Second Cup and a Mac's. Big whoop. The Chaplin Station might take out a Mr. Lube. Cry me a river.

...and the Oakwood station might take out a Pizza Pizza and a Popeye's. Waaaa...

However, I am in favour of Oakwood station. I live near there.

 

[JayBeeGooner]

If I recall correctly, Metrolinx was thinking of removing the station and resident fought to keep it. I remember Josh Colle tweeting that Oakwood would be built.

 

[Hipster Duck]

If I recall correctly, Metrolinx was thinking of removing the station and resident fought to keep it. I remember Josh Colle tweeting that Oakwood would be built.

That's the thing! This whole line (Eglinton-Crosstown) has seemingly been designed by NIMBYs. If it weren't for local residents complaining and only seeing the line from their narrow, local PoV, we'd have a line that skips Oakwood, skips Ferrand, and is tunneled all the way to Don Mills without a Leslie stop.

It would be faster, more efficient, more effective and probably cheaper too. If someone ever writes a book about the planning process of the Eglinton-Crosstown it should begin with a sentence like "Metrolinx needs to grow a spine..."

 

[salsa]

...and the Oakwood station might take out a Pizza Pizza and a Popeye's. Waaaa...

However, I am in favour of Oakwood station. I live near there.

And I'm in favour of a station at my doorstep, since I live there.

 

[ShonTron]

That's the thing! This whole line (Eglinton-Crosstown) has seemingly been designed by NIMBYs. If it weren't for local residents complaining and only seeing the line from their narrow, local PoV, we'd have a line that skips Oakwood, skips Ferrand, and is tunneled all the way to Don Mills without a Leslie stop.

It would be faster, more efficient, more effective and probably cheaper too. If someone ever writes a book about the planning process of the Eglinton-Crosstown it should begin with a sentence like "Metrolinx needs to grow a spine..."

I don't live anywhere near Oakwood, but I see the utility of it - station spacing for Eglinton's underground section will be equivalent to that of the Bloor-Danforth Line. This is also an area that really could use the boost and has potential. I totally agree about the Leslie-Don Mills-Ferrand SNAFU, though.

 

[JayBeeGooner]

That's the thing! This whole line (Eglinton-Crosstown) has seemingly been designed by NIMBYs. If it weren't for local residents complaining and only seeing the line from their narrow, local PoV, we'd have a line that skips Oakwood, skips Ferrand, and is tunneled all the way to Don Mills without a Leslie stop.

It would be faster, more efficient, more effective and probably cheaper too. If someone ever writes a book about the planning process of the Eglinton-Crosstown it should begin with a sentence like "Metrolinx needs to grow a spine..."

NIMBY's usually fight against change. Residents wanted a stop because they feel the stop will benefit their neighbourhood. I welcome this sort of participation.

I am a proponent of accessibility, not speed, and as a former resident of little Jamaica, I know the area will benefit greatly from an Oakwood stop.

 

[diminutive]

I don't live anywhere near Oakwood, but I see the utility of it - station spacing for Eglinton's underground section will be equivalent to that of the Bloor-Danforth Line. This is also an area that really could use the boost and has potential. I totally agree about the Leslie-Don Mills-Ferrand SNAFU, though.

Station spacing isn't supposed to be a predetermined value, though. Like any other part of designing transit, spacing should reflect existent and expected use for a given route.

I mean, this is something which Steve Munro stresses over and over and over, that places like Scarborough don't "need" a subway because Etobicoke has one.

Yet for Eglinton it's somehow reasonable that Oakwood, Avenue, Laird and the like deserve to exist not because of any existing or expected demand, but to maintain some totally arbitrary need, e.g. Bloor-Danforth style station spacing.

If Bloor-Danforth was built with 200 million dollar stations, you'd easily see 25% fewer stations. It wasn't so designers faced different choices than Eglinton-Crosstown.

Arguing that Oakwood deserves a station because the BD line has similar stations is exactly the same as saying Scarborough deserves a subway because Etobicoke has one.

 

[ShonTron]

Station spacing isn't supposed to be a predetermined value, though. Like any other part of designing transit, spacing should reflect existent and expected use for a given route.

I mean, this is something which Steve Munro stresses over and over and over, that places like Scarborough don't "need" a subway because Etobicoke has one.

Yet for Eglinton it's somehow reasonable that Oakwood, Avenue, Laird and the like deserve to exist not because of any existing or expected demand, but to maintain some totally arbitrary need, e.g. Bloor-Danforth style station spacing.

If Bloor-Danforth was built with 200 million dollar stations, you'd easily see 25% fewer stations. It wasn't so designers faced different choices than Eglinton-Crosstown.

Arguing that Oakwood deserves a station because the BD line has similar stations is exactly the same as saying Scarborough deserves a subway because Etobicoke has one.

I'd like to know more about you, diminutive. You know who I am, I'd like to know a bit more about you as you keep feeling that you have to argue with me.

I find your argument that "arguing that Oakwood deserves a station because the BD line has similar stations is exactly the same as saying Scarborough deserves a subway because Etobicoke has one" disingenuous. It's a major street with a major bus route. There's potential for infill growth. I mention the stop spacing because I feel it's worthwhile to compare the two routes as they are both east-west and are meant to fill similar needs, not that there MUST be similar stop spacing. Please don't give me that Etobicoke/Scarborough strawman.

Etobicoke and Scarborough, by the way, both have one subway each.

 

[ehlow]

NIMBY's usually fight against change. Residents wanted a stop because they feel the stop will benefit their neighbourhood. I welcome this sort of participation.

I am a proponent of accessibility, not speed, and as a former resident of little Jamaica, I know the area will benefit greatly from an Oakwood stop.

YIMBY: Yes (I want a station) In My Backyard. Can you blame people for wanting a station near their homes? I'm happy there will be one near mine. Stop spacing along the underground section is very reasonable already.

 

[diminutive]

I'd like to know more about you, diminutive. You know who I am, I'd like to know a bit more about you as you keep feeling that you have to argue with me. .

I'm sorry, I think you've taken my points a bit personally. I was arguing because I thought this a forum and you keep making the same arguments, which I obviously disagree with for reasons I've tried to advance. I'm sorry you feel this is me picking on you.

Without trying to provoke you, you still haven't justified the stations we're discussing without vague generalizations "major street with a major bus route" which, curiously, mirrors the other perpetual pro-subway-to-nowhere argument, that toronto is a "major city and major cities have subways." Affixing "major" to a bunch of things doesn't make anything self evident.

I'm really not trying to provoke you. If you want to justify the stations, base it on real things like demand.

 

[ShonTron]

I'm sorry, I think you've taken my points a bit personally. I was arguing because I thought this a forum and you keep making the same arguments, which I obviously disagree with for reasons I've tried to advance. I'm sorry you feel this is me picking on you.

Without trying to provoke you, you still haven't justified the stations we're discussing without vague generalizations "major street with a major bus route" which, curiously, mirrors the other perpetual pro-subway-to-nowhere argument, that toronto is a "major city and major cities have subways." Affixing "major" to a bunch of things doesn't make anything self evident.

I'm really not trying to provoke you. If you want to justify the stations, base it on real things like demand.

I'm not taking it (very) personally, I just want to know who I'm arguing with. It helps me know and understand where the other person is coming from. I do like good debate and a challenge to my thinking.

What do I take issue is this: I still don't like how you're inflating my arguing for the retention of a few, already funded local stations along an approved route with saying it's the same as "subways, subways, subways!" I see it as a strawman and it is provocative.

It's hard to predict usage, but Oakwood is on a major transit project already approved and under construction, not a stand-alone political pork project. It is at a logical location for a stop. There's precedent for a stop here based on what Toronto has built before in its rapid transit. The local population is supportive. The area has moderate development potential and is an area that already supports local transit. With the Allen Road dumping a lot of traffic in the area, it's very congested and even the limited-service local bus will still be quite slow in through here. It's not Bessarion Station.

 

[diminutive]

I'm not taking it (very) personally, I just want to know who I'm arguing with. It helps me know and understand where the other person is coming from.

I dunno, how am I supposed to answer this? I'm not 'coming' from anywhere. I live near Avenue n Eglinton and I like trains and public policy, hence my interest in the topic. I'm not inside any policy relevant group, if that's what you're asking. Most of my info comes from Steve Munro's website, whatever comes onto here and similar.

It's hard to predict usage, but Oakwood is on a major transit project already approved and under construction, not a stand-alone political pork project. It is at a logical location for a stop. There's precedent for a stop here based on what Toronto has built before in its rapid transit. The local population is supportive. The area has moderate development potential and is an area that already supports local transit. With the Allen Road dumping a lot of traffic in the area, it's very congested and even the limited-service local bus will still be quite slow in through here. It's not Bessarion Station.

I don't think it's very difficult to predict... at least, not within the context of a multi-billion dollar project like ECLRT. I'd agree there's precedent, but Toronto transit precedent can justify anything from running driverless trains with drivers to building subways to SmartCenters, so how far does that really get us? Yes, it's refreshing to see people asking for transit than fighting against it, but, again, that doesn't justify anything by itself.

Once you get into published numbers, the economics seem poor. Observe the ridership numbers in Table C-6. At the very least, if the City wants to maintain these stations as is, it should be explicit that there's no economic justification to do so and it's doing so for some non-ridership based reason. Some of these stations look worse than Bessarion...

What do I take issue is this: I still don't like how you're inflating my arguing for the retention of a few, already funded local stations along an approved route with saying it's the same as "subways, subways, subways!"

I'm not trying to inflate it. I've tried responding to your arguments directly. I'm not claiming you're supporting subways to nowhere or whatever, I'm saying you use the same logic that they use (again, you're basing transit design off of non-ridership concerns; apparently precedent, "modest" infill potential and local support are sufficient). And, as context, the only reason I even responded to you is because you wrote a criticism of someone else in a public newspaper. How can you not expect to be subject to criticism if you yourself are criticizing others on the same topic?

 

[sixrings]

The thing is that I believe despite being a established neighbourhood there will be less development fighting with nimbys on Eglinton versus parts of the bloor line. First of all a lot of the businesses around oakwood are struggling and I'm sure their owners wouldn't mind flipping the property to developers. Also there are a few small apartment buildings in the neighbourhood which might consider changing and that would be easy for a developer since they wouldn't need to acquire multiple properties. So I do think this area could see significant redevelopment if it has improved transit.

However an equally important reason to build oakwood station is that if it is built in theory it might result in one less bus going into Eglinton west station. The fewer busses going into Eglinton west means that the bus only lane from marlee to the station can be repurposed for cars to get onto the Allen. As much as I am an advocate for stopping the Allen at Lawrence with improved on and off ramps it looks like I am fighting a losing battle. For some reason people like a highway that abruptly ends at a t stop. Anyways this bus lane could become a second lane that would be for east north bound allen drivers. East of the Allen on Eglinton recently received an added turning lane and it has helped traffic flow. Similarly the west part of Eglinton needs relief equally or more so.

 

[rbt]

This whole line (Eglinton-Crosstown) has seemingly been designed by NIMBYs. If it weren't for local residents complaining ... we'd have a line that skips Oakwood, skips Ferrand, and is tunneled all the way to Don Mills without a Leslie stop.

Isn't that the opposite of a NIMBY?