Should Transit City be cancelled? A re-prioritization of how to allocate the funding.

[scarberiankhatru]

Yes; there has never been any disagreement there. What I did say, though, was that I thought it was a good near-term substitute for extending the DRL north of Eglinton.

By substituting a longer DRL for an LRT-ized RH line, you're also substituting a line on Don Mills for nothing. That's the point...a longer DRL = a Don Mills line, too. LRT-izing the RH GO line won't be cheap and once you add the cost of an LRT line on Don Mills back in (which could easily still happen, especially if York Region clamours for a link up Leslie to Beaver Creek), it's not like you're saving any money by halting the Don Mills line at Eglinton (which it should only stop at if that's Phase I).

 

[nfitz]

This coming from the the guy who labeled 73% of UT members as "out of touch with reality."

Given that was referring to the majority of Urban Toronto that is pushing to cancel the Sheppard LRT I think it's a fair comment; it's not personal.

 

[nfitz]

What I meant by that is we cannot honestly expect to appease everyone, everywhere. Some people unfortunately may be left behind, but the TTC's measly projected figure of 1300 walks-in/transferees off the 3 bus at Royal Orchard ...

Yes, clearly shouldn't be a station - I'm surprised TTC doesn't veto it ... I can't imagine a TTC design would have ever have come up with it.

But that has nothing to do with what I was talking about ... which was simply that I doubt that Richmond Hill GO will do much to relieve Yonge; I think it attact passengers; but I don't think it would have anywhere near the impact on the Yonge line that a DRL would have ... as it's putting people into the wrong place ... Union station ... so won't tempt them off the Yonge line.

 

[scarberiankhatru]

Royal Orchard clearly should not be skipped.

 

[kEiThZ]

I find it amazing that the Yonge extension is defensible because of the large ridership at RHC yet the same argument is considered invalid for STC.

 

[nfitz]

I find it amazing that the Yonge extension is defensible because of the large ridership at RHC yet the same argument is considered invalid for STC.

? Because one is much bigger than the other?

 

[Darwinkgo]

I find it amazing that the Yonge extension is defensible because of the large ridership at RHC yet the same argument is considered invalid for STC.

STC already has high level transit, that is being upgraded and expanded in both length and frequency.

 

[kEiThZ]

? Because one is much bigger than the other?

Not by much. Especially when you consider the bus routings and how close Ellesmere, Midland and McCowan are to STC. If you split RHC's ridership between 4 stops (within 2km or less of each other), it wouldn't seem all that impressive either.

STC already has high level transit, that is being upgraded and expanded in both length and frequency.

Yet, the riders are still being forced to transfer at Kennedy.

The argument for an extension to RHC is that this would capture a lot of riders who are now bound for Finch anyway. Again, why should that argument not apply to STC-Kennedy. The bulk of the ridership is bound for Kennedy from the STC environs. Why is it so unfair to apply to same logic in Scarborough?

 

[Paleo]

There is no difference between building a 50 bay bus terminal and building a subway to Finch simply to fill some undefined need for "relief." Both are wastes of money in that they provide unneeded capacity.

No kidding. There's a lot of advocacy on here for that type of thing. Building out Sheppard to SCC would probably mean a 10-cent (or more) fare hike across the system. Why are poll questions never framed like that? Take a guess.

TYSSE will mean a 10-cent system wide fare hike but hey, it's connected to a growth centre! It will be useful at some nebulous point in the very distant future!

Nevermind most of the capacity will be unused for decades to come much like the bus bays at Steeles.

 

[leopetr]

Royal Orchard clearly should not be skipped.

Why clearly? Ridership is low, redevelopment potential is low, and the 97 Yonge bus would likely be extended parallel to the subway should this extension be built.

 

[kEiThZ]

No kidding. There's a lot of advocacy on here for that type of thing. Building out Sheppard to SCC would probably mean a 10-cent (or more) fare hike across the system. Why are poll questions never framed like that? Take a guess.

TYSSE will mean a 10-cent system wide fare hike but hey, it's connected to a growth centre! It will be useful at some nebulous point in the very distant future!

Nevermind most of the capacity will be unused for decades to come much like the bus bays at Steeles.

It's not just about capacity. Transit should be about connectivity as well. Otherwise, what's the point of having a transit system? If the system is not fast, people will drive it's that simple.

As for a 10 cent hike from TYSSE or a 10 cent hike from a Sheppard to SCC connection....yes, we might have to pay more for fast, effective transit. Gasp! What a concept. If you want to limit the impact of those hikes, implement zoned fares and let Scarborough and North York residents pay for the operations of the Sheppard subway. Avoiding any subway expansion because of a fear of a 10 cent fair hike is ridiculous. If that's going to be the rule, the DRL won't get built either. After all, how many new riders is that going to generate?

 

[scarberiankhatru]

Yeah, fares won't go up because of lines like Eglinton, and don't go up because surface routes like Queen and Steeles are absolute black holes of funding. Yeah, right.

Why clearly? Ridership is low, redevelopment potential is low, and the 97 Yonge bus would likely be extended parallel to the subway should this extension be built.

Why on earth would you skip a station with 7000 projected daily riders, most of them walk-ins, creating a gap of well over 2km? Because other stations are projected to be redeveloped with hyper-density that may never materialize (yet will still generate fewer walk-in riders than Royal Orchard)? Why not skip Clark, too? Why not not extend the subway at all and just run a 97 bus up Yonge every ten seconds?

Why not target the over $1B to be spent on property, engineering, and "other costs" if savings are desired? Or the construction methods? Oh, that's right, then we'd be using common sense, and then the internet would implode.

 

[DavidH]

As for a 10 cent hike from TYSSE or a 10 cent hike from a Sheppard to SCC connection....yes, we might have to pay more for fast, effective transit. Gasp! What a concept. If you want to limit the impact of those hikes, implement zoned fares and let Scarborough and North York residents pay for the operations of the Sheppard subway. Avoiding any subway expansion because of a fear of a 10 cent fair hike is ridiculous. If that's going to be the rule, the DRL won't get built either. After all, how many new riders is that going to generate?

Playing devil's advocate here, if it's about fares, let's shut down the worst performing 50% of all bus routes and gut the system. I'll bet that we can get fares down to $1.50!

Personally, I've always found the fare cost argument to be a straw man. Except for the shortest trips, transit trips almost always cost less than the same trip by car when gas, insurance, maintenance, etc are factored in. The reason that people complain about fares is not that the fares are too high, it's that they don't perceive the service quality is good enough to justify the cost when compared to the "perfectly individualized" service a car can provide.

 

[leopetr]

Why not not extend the subway at all and just run a 97 bus up Yonge every ten seconds?

I would agree with that. Viva Blue provides excellent, frequent service in the Yonge corridor. There's no immediate need to extend the subway past Steeles.

 

[scarberiankhatru]

I would agree with that. Viva Blue provides excellent, frequent service in the Yonge corridor. There's no immediate need to extend the subway past Steeles.

There's no immediate need to ever improve transit.