News   Oct 06, 2022
 314     0 
News   Oct 06, 2022
 492     0 
News   Oct 05, 2022
 1K     3 

Transit City Plan

Which transit plan do you prefer?

  • Transit City

    Votes: 87 81.3%
  • Ford City

    Votes: 20 18.7%

  • Total voters
    107

taal

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
May 19, 2007
Messages
6,703
Reaction score
183
Location
NYCC
But let's not forget there is supposed demand even in the Spadina extension 30 years down the line. They're building preemptively.

Regarding the DRL, as I posted in the other thread it's the city / TTC's fault that they didn't push for that first less their other transit city lines. Instead we get the Jane LRT and the like ...

Again, if the DRL is needed to accommodate both expansions - then it should get built.
 

Brandon716

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
May 12, 2007
Messages
1,428
Reaction score
0
Location
Niagara Region
Instead of making such large discussions I like to sum it up in a few words.

*In order for many of the Transit City LRT lines to be successful they cannot be standard LRT that is cheaper to build, it'll have to have significant platform increases vs. a lot of these American LRT systems that don't have pre-paid fare platforms, among other things.

*Because of the need for a higher quality system, I believe it will cost significantly more than these estimates currently being given.

*In lieu of this, a study needs to be done to figure out the cost benefit of building a higher quality LRT system vs. just building a subway on key routes like Eglinton, the DRL, and finishing Sheppard appropriately.

*Despite what the report finds, I believe Sheppard should be completed as a subway to Scarborough and the Spadina subway line. The line is already mostly built as it stands, and it would be a waste to make people transfer from a Sheppard LRT to the Sheppard subway for no reason.

These are my core concerns about Transit City. On other routes, like Don Mills or St. Clair, or any number of other ides, standard LRT sounds fine.

But key routes need to be better. Eglinton is obviously a major concern...
 

Anth

Active Member
Member Bio
Joined
Apr 22, 2007
Messages
398
Reaction score
1
This disinformation campaign that Toronto's residents only pitch in 15% is getting tiresome. First off, you conveniently ignore the contribution of business taxes and the fact that a good portion of the businesses in Toronto are sustained by Toronto's residents. Next you ignore the fact that the vast majority of the TTC's patrons are Toronto residents. So your assertion that Toronto residents only pitch in 15% of the TTC's funding is ludicrous at best. And an insulting attempt at discounting the support that the TTC gets from the residents of Toronto.

This is like the lead singer of a band taking all the credit for the collective and inseparable contributions of the whole.
 

kEiThZ

Superstar
Member Bio
Joined
Jul 31, 2008
Messages
11,373
Reaction score
6,453
There may be two small subdivisions on the south side of Sheppard around Meadowvale, across the street from ward 42, but even if we add these pockets of people to "Malvern," you end up with a small population receiving billions of dollars of infrastructure, none of which is especially warranted or viable based on what the rest of the city needs.

Hey, you’re the one who pointed out that it’s all one ward. Anyone you are still ignoring the fact that a good portion of each of these lines does not serve Malvern. How come you’re not slagging Agincourt for getting LRT? Or Kingston for getting LRT? Or the half of the RT that’s not in Malvern?


The RT was never extended and when the time came to replace it, the belief that it needed to go Malvern trumped the common sense and economic sense option to extend the subway (a move that would improve transit for Malvern riders). Instead, the rest of Scarborough suffers so that money can spent on Malvern. Keeping the RT helps fewer people and costs more to do so, but some people see it as better for Malvern, so it was recommended.

I have said this before and I’ll say it again….let’s wait and see what happens. Malvernites don’t want ART Mk IIs in their neighbourhoods any more than you do. The city says on their website that conversion to LRT is being considered. So maybe we’ll get the BD line (that I support as well) and the LRT to Malvern (that I prefer).

It's blatantly obvious that UTSC is best approached from the west, meaning a line along Ellesmere. If it is routed along Sheppard, that'll be overlapping lines in Malvern. The Eglinton line should be ran over to Kingston.

I still fail to see how this targets Malvern. So they aren’t approaching UTSC from the East. How is that Malvern’s fault? The TTC decided that it’s better to connect UTSC with Kennedy Station while serving Kingston and West Hill along the way. Yet, that’s somehow all the fault of those dastardly Malvernites. I am fine with the line not coming to Malvern. But I strongly agree with the rationale that UTSC should be connected by higher order transit to major node like every other university campus in this city. And I strongly agree with the city that Kingston is ripe for avenueization.

Relegated? They'll have three TTC lines to choose from.

That’s kind of how nodes work. Lines tend to meet up at one. In this case, the node happens to lie in Malvern.

I'm including subways - all transit lines - in what each area's getting. Malvern is getting three lines, all of which will require massive subsidies due to the low ridership they'll see.

My point to be made again and again and again and again. THE LINES DO NOT SOLELY SERVE MALVERN. If there’s low ridership on these lines then Kingston, West Hill, eastern portions of Scarborough Centre, Dean Park, the Zoo and most of Sheppard East are all equally responsible in not generating enough riders.

In the future, there will be fare integration - spending billions of dollars to build parallel transit systems instead of spending millions of dollars on an integrated fare system is obscene, but it's what you're suggesting we do. Peak service is the only service that really matters and since demand is highest then, it dictates what gets built.

I disagree that peak service is all that matters. If that was the case, let’s take this viewpoint to its logical conclusion and only offer only peak service to all of Toronto’s inner suburbs. Like any other neighbourhood in Toronto, residents along these lines (again…NOT JUST MALVERN) will use these lines all day long.

It's not conspiracy theory, it's the truth. The city clearly has no interest in doing things cheaply or they wouldn't have proposed so many billions of dollars of projects, none of which have gone through even the slightest streamlining process to keep costs under control.

Your opinion. I for one, appreciate that something is going to get built and that we won’t be left with a stubway and a hole in the ground like in the 90s. I strongly suspect that the TTC is weary of it’s experience in the 90s and has opted to find a cheaper way to build a network. I applaud them for it. There are many who will bray about MO2020. I ask them what would have happened if Toronto’s subway bill equaled as much as that being spent in rest of the GTHA? What would the political response have been if we asked for 20-30 billion worth of subway lines. I applaud the TTC for deftly navigating the political realities, working within those constraints to come up with a plan that while not the 100% solution has a reasonable chance at success.
 

kEiThZ

Superstar
Member Bio
Joined
Jul 31, 2008
Messages
11,373
Reaction score
6,453
Well, first off, it's not a "disinformation campaign", it's an argument. It's made here. You're free to rebut it. That's the point here. But deep breaths, okay?

The usual tag-line is about how Toronto residents are paying taxes to the TTC, and 905ers are not, so 905ers are free-riding. Well, that's just not true. Toronto residential property-holders, which is about as close as it comes, are contributing about 13% in taxes. Technically, if you are renting your dwelling then you are not contributing any property tax at all although, just like everyone else, your farebox revenues and your economic activities that supports businesses that do pay taxes, are indirect contributions.

I am not "ignoring" business taxation. In fact, I trumpet it constantly. Every 905er who makes an informed choice and takes the subway to a Toronto job, is contributing to the business taxes that go to paying for the subway. The entire GO train system is a massive infrastructure set up to ensure that employers in and around the Financial District can continue to draw in people who live in other municipalities, and can continue to pay taxes to the TTC. It is an enormous boon to Toronto. The idea that 905 salarymen working in Toronto are somehow free-riders on Toronto is just silly.

I have not proposed that 905ers are free-riders merely that their contribution is far less than you portray it to be. First off that 13% is already more than any 905er pitches in. Next, are you serious in comparing 2 subway tokens and lunch money to the contribution of someone who lives here, shops here, works here and pay taxes here?

And you bring up one of my counter-arguments. The outer suburbs are adequately served by GO transit. And with the advent of all day express service, the need to extend subways into the 905 is far less pressing. Also the fact that GO exists to largely serve the 905 bolsters my argument that the TTC should not be competing with another provider to service the same set of commuters. Duplication of efforts.

I think it will be easier for both of us if you avoid trying to read my mind or divine my intentions. I also think it would be grand if the City of Toronto decided that, as a matter of policy, the TTC -- which, to this day, is entirely a City of Toronto service and only ventures outside it when someone else picks up the tab (I do not, obviously, have a problem with this) -- was something whose operational costs they were going to pay more than 24% of, all res/bus muni taxes in. But there's for them, and you as a voter, to decide, I guess.

Again, going back to the genesis of this argument. I have not argued against the extensions at all. I support them. What I have argued is that the conditions set out by Miller should be applauded as a fair deal for the Toronto taxpayer. And the likes of Karen Stintz should not be getting the support that she is. Thus far, York has only committed to construction costs. I have argued that the Mayor is bang on, when he says that the costs of the extension are far more than constructing a concrete tube to RHC. The province and York need to recognize that there are costs that will be borne out by the wider TTC network which if not addressed would be passed on to the Toronto ratepayer. That’s something I find unfair and unacceptable.


Right. Well, I am also willing to bet money that a whole bunch of those are students, many of whom live in suburban areas in the 416, and in suburban areas in the 905, and in urban areas in either. But we are getting off topic here, no? What does high non-peak ridership have to do with demonstrating that my taking issue with portraying 905ers as free-riders is secretly an attempt to insult Toronto the Good?

I was trying to demonstrate the point that the TTC has far more ridership throughout the day that starts/ends in the 416. And for this reason, they should be committed to meeting the 416 needs first.

But I hope you won't mind if folks dare to debate these policies. Even those aren't among the 2.5 million who live in the 416. Even those who think that the Toronto we want and need and already live in does not correspond to the magical 416-905 boundary, and that we need better regional coordination and planning and service delivery in order to better align our infrastructures and services with our lives and social networks.



I'm afraid you've lost me again.

First, this business about the 905 wanting the TTC to become a regional service is a bit hyperbolic, isn't it? If I live, say, a kilometre north of Steeles, and I take the family out for a bite on Steeles -- just for fun, I will not tell you whether on the north or south side -- or want to use the Goodlife at Finch station (yes, it is a whole 4 kilometres away from me), is that regional? How 'bout when I am at North York Centre? Maybe when I nip down to visit my brother at the Minto and Eglinton, am I "regional" then (and if so, do I get to ride a GO train to Eglinton?)? When you talk about the 905 needing to be a distant second and everything that happens to move between the two as being "regional" then, I'm very sorry, but to me this is the kind of thinking that does not good urban planning or placemaking make.

Second, what kind of costing are you talking about? Reading the above, I have no idea what you are railing against. Most of us are for a fair apportionment of costs, I think. Are you? If so, what is it? If 10 people get on at Steeles (ooh! border!) and 10 at Langstaff and 10 at North York Centre, are you saying you don't cost operating responsibilities at half Toronto and half York Region?

Like, is what you want to do to measure how far each of those people goes, so that if the Langstaffer heads to Union and the North York Centrer heads up to Clark and the Steeleser goes to Eglinton, you'd kind of want to count how many stops (or km, or whatever) each one goes, call that a cost-of-transit, and apportion the costs to the origin point accordingly? Because, yeah, I guess that could work (we'd have to move to a DC style fare system, mind you) but you're still stuck with what you do with return trips, and defining (for that matter) which is a return trip. Maybe all pre-noon trips get charged to the origin point, and all post-noon trips charged to the destination point? It all sounds very complicated to me -- but I'd be curious to know what it is you have in mind.

The issue here though is not the boundary. The riders from the 905 who ride buses to Finch now will simply get displaced to Steeles if the line was to be extended only that far. The problem with the Yonge extension is that it will now induce new ridership as the subway goes well beyond Steeles. And as the Mayor pointed out, this new ridership will diminish the quality of service. And that is what I am opposed to as a 416er. I have no problem with extending the line. But I don’t feel a Yonge/Eg resident should loose out because all the funds went to extending the line and not to accommodate the growth in ridership. I would feel the same way for a rider getting on at Bessarion who could not get a seat if the Sheppard line was extended all the way to Markham.

All this being said, I do support more regional integration and a zoned fare system. This would make it more equitable for all users....so that downtowners who travel less would pay less than inner suburbans who ride the TTC much further. It would also make it cheaper for those who use the TTC within their neighbourhoods. And with fare integration, perhaps reduce the double fare burden on 905ers.
 
Last edited:

Voltz

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Jan 26, 2008
Messages
1,734
Reaction score
645
For the record, Malvern is only from Markham road to Morningside, About 3.25km,

And there seems to be a good chance that the SRT extension will use LRT instead, this will be significantly less expensive and more appropriate, and share tracks with lines that are already planned

And with the Scarborough malvern line, if it does go to UTSC, then there is no point of not going further, as there is really nothing in the way, and it will need to connect with sheppard for access to a yard, and allow riders to switch between lines.
 

Glen

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Oct 12, 2007
Messages
1,305
Reaction score
0
Interesting thread. A couple of points, sorry if they have been addressed.

1. Why is the capital portion of TTC expenses, and who contributes, being ignored?

2. Complaining that 905'ers use free load on the TTC entails looking at ridership in isolation. Take for example the president of the University Health Network, rebutting claims that the 905 region does not get adequate hospital funding by claiming that half of there patients are from the 905. Seeing that 905'ers pay more these (higher property taxes + less provincial transfers) Torontonians might forgive there intrusion on their soil. Same goes for many Provincial agencies and the Courts.

3. Before crying discrimination re: the Jane line over the subway extension one would have to show that residents from that area are undeserved in getting to there destinations. Ridership patterns might show that in certain areas a sizable portion of commuters might be going away from the city into the 905 region. That's where the jobs are/were being created.

4. Pointing at off peak ridership in the context of making a C/B argument, ignores the fact that such ridership has extremely poor cost recovery and pressures the operating budget.
 

nfitz

Superstar
Member Bio
Joined
Nov 10, 2007
Messages
25,100
Reaction score
5,754
Location
Toronto
When it opened, the 6.4 km (including tail track) 5 station Sheppard subway line costed just under $1.0 billion in 2002 (factor in inflation and that works out to $1.1 billion in 2008 dollars & thus $171.9 million/km in 2008 dollars).
There are several issues in what you have calculated. You can't inflate just from 2002 to 2008; most of the money was spent well before 2002. You have to inflate from the year of expenditure - starting in 1995; the bulk of the spending was in the late 1990s.

You need to use an inflation rate appropriate to the activity. The inflation rate for construction in Toronto has been running about 6% for much of the last decade.
 

Disparishun

Active Member
Member Bio
Joined
Sep 12, 2007
Messages
600
Reaction score
44
1. Why is the capital portion of TTC expenses, and who contributes, being ignored?

This is a really good point. Myself, I have been ignoring it for two reasons.

First, I just do not know the answer; I had read some things about operational costs, so looked it up to find out more about those. Capital funding seems a bit opaque to me. A quick Google search turns up Steve Munro here. Can anyone figure out where that gets us? I think I have seen it in thirds (Toronto, province, federal), but that may be very wrong -- I just do not know.

Second, the complaint seemed to be that 905ers-from-north should stay on the roads and off the subway, or maybe north of Steeles and not venture south, or something, because they're taking up all the subway seats. (I'm joking a bit here. The real preference is always for 905ers to take GO, the provincially-funded mechanism for shuttling people in and out to participate in Toronto's economy without using any of its services.) So I figured that operational costs fairly reflected the marginal cost of adding another rider who shows up, for free, at the subway entrance door.

However, I'm more than willing to concede that the latter is not quite right. It applies to each individual rider in isolution, obviously, but with enough 905 riders showing at subway stations in the City of Toronto, it's no longer just operational; you need to spend capital costs to upgrade the system so that those 905ers can get to their employers, favourite stores, neighbours, gyms, whatever.
 

Disparishun

Active Member
Member Bio
Joined
Sep 12, 2007
Messages
600
Reaction score
44
First off that 13% is already more than any 905er pitches in. Next, are you serious in comparing 2 subway tokens and lunch money to the contribution of someone who lives here, shops here, works here and pay taxes here?

The 13% is the only portion of the system in which there is any inequality is what I have argued. (I have also argued that the 13% in question is at least partly, and likely more than that, going disproportionately to transit that serves largely or only 416ers, including lower-cost-recovery modes like buses and streetcars.)

Someone who spends 2 subway tokens, whether he lives on the north or on the south side of the Steeles, contributes less to the farebox than someone who uses a metropass -- and uses the system proportionately less, too. In other words, except for property tax, everyone's contribution to the system and use of the system is in direct proportion to their activity.

Someone who works for a tax-paying employer who has set up in a Toronto office building; who spends 2 tokens a day getting to and from a TTC point from which he undertakes further non-Toronto transit to leave the muni; spends lunch money on break from his employer; and otherwise never sets foot south of Steeles (do such people exist?), is someone who uses very few public transit services: just the subway, and shows up at the subway station. His cost recovery with respect to the TTC is very high.

Someone who spends and shops and works and rents an apartment in Toronto contributes more shopping money to Toronto merchants than his 905 counterpart. Other than that, I am not sure what the difference is -- especially when you consider that the 416er is also using Toronto services (parks, schools, libraries, and everything else that munis do and should do) which also need to paid for out of those taxes. The 905er, clearly, is not.

So, if your goal is to show that, apart from residential property taxes which we have beaten to death (I think?), 905ers who commute in daily to Toronto employers -- and spend a bit of money while there, but do not otherwise participate in the City of Toronto economy -- are a greater burden on the City of Toronto than those who do a similar commute but live on the other side of the 416/905 boundary, then I am not sure you have shown it. The only difference seems to be indirect contribution by spending money on City of Toronto businesses that pay corporate tax, on one side of the balance sheet, and by direct cost by consuming City of Toronto municipal services for which the 905 commuter is not eligible (and should not be), on the other hand. I doubt that there is a big difference there.

(I also doubt that very many of those 905ers who work in the 416 limit their participation in the 416 economy to their employment labour, to quite the degree that is described in the example.)

And you bring up one of my counter-arguments. The outer suburbs are adequately served by GO transit. And with the advent of all day express service, the need to extend subways into the 905 is far less pressing. Also the fact that GO exists to largely serve the 905 bolsters my argument that the TTC should not be competing with another provider to service the same set of commuters. Duplication of efforts.

Again, I really do not see what the 416/905 boundary has to do with that, but I certainly agree that express transit to commuting nodes, especially from suburban areas, makes a lot of sense. The RH line, and particularly its Langstaff, Old Cummer, and Oriole stations, could do a lot to take the load off the Yonge line, if only it were cheaper and faste and more frequent. Alas.

That said, it sounds like you are saying that, on the one hand, 905ers are adequately served by GO for getting where they want to, um, go, but that on the other hand, those darn 905ers are taking up our spots on the subway trains. Those are hard to reconcile, unless 905ers are just stupid. If there's a better way, why wouldn't they take it? Do you mean that, even if the existing subway network meets the needs of a commuter like, say, me (closer, faster, cheaper), I have a moral imperative to get myself to a GO station?
 

kEiThZ

Superstar
Member Bio
Joined
Jul 31, 2008
Messages
11,373
Reaction score
6,453
However, I'm more than willing to concede that the latter is not quite right. It applies to each individual rider in isolution, obviously, but with enough 905 riders showing at subway stations in the City of Toronto, it's no longer just operational; you need to spend capital costs to upgrade the system so that those 905ers can get to their employers, favourite stores, neighbours, gyms, whatever.

This is essentially what I was getting at. It's not the construction costs that matter. It's the additional capital costs for the entire network that arise from servicing riders that are further away from the core. That applies both inside and outside Toronto. The challenge is simply a little more acute when the rider is not a taxpayer in the 416. He/she needs and uses the TTC regularly but is not given the chance to contribute to its upkeep other than the drop in the fare box. I do believe that these extensions into the 905 are important. And if there are funds for it, I would certainly support an extension of the Bloor-Danforth line into Mississauga. But as long as Toronto residents alone have to shoulder the cost of maintaining or growing capacity, it will continue to be unfair to prioritize new riders over those already using the system. That's why I believe that the Mayor's comments making the extension conditional on additional funding for capacity growth is both reasonable and prudent.
 

scarberiankhatru

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Apr 23, 2007
Messages
5,274
Reaction score
6
Hey, you’re the one who pointed out that it’s all one ward. Anyone you are still ignoring the fact that a good portion of each of these lines does not serve Malvern. How come you’re not slagging Agincourt for getting LRT? Or Kingston for getting LRT? Or the half of the RT that’s not in Malvern?

I'm not ignoring anything...you're ignoring reality: Agincourt is not getting multiple lines (even though it's larger than Malvern, with worse traffic and busier bus routes). Same with southern Scarborough. Same with everywhere else in the entire GTA, other than Jane & Finch and Flemingdon Park (though at least those two sites are not unreasonable candidates for new transit lines).

I have said this before and I’ll say it again….let’s wait and see what happens. Malvernites don’t want ART Mk IIs in their neighbourhoods any more than you do. The city says on their website that conversion to LRT is being considered. So maybe we’ll get the BD line (that I support as well) and the LRT to Malvern (that I prefer).

It may happen, but by this point, the "must-run-to-Malvern" gambit will have already played out by preventing the subway extension on the grounds that it'll only go as far as STC (though it'll help far more people).

I still fail to see how this targets Malvern. So they aren’t approaching UTSC from the East. How is that Malvern’s fault? The TTC decided that it’s better to connect UTSC with Kennedy Station while serving Kingston and West Hill along the way. Yet, that’s somehow all the fault of those dastardly Malvernites. I am fine with the line not coming to Malvern. But I strongly agree with the rationale that UTSC should be connected by higher order transit to major node like every other university campus in this city. And I strongly agree with the city that Kingston is ripe for avenueization.

They're not running a line along Ellesmere to UTSC (the only route to UTSC that makes sense) so that they can run a line to Malvern. Even if they cut the line short somewhere before, the desire to fix social problems in Malvern by spending transit dollars will have already affected the choice of routes, preventing a line from getting built on Lawrence or Kipling or Wilson or any one of a dozen roads that actually need it.

Avenueization is triggered by rezoning, not by adding transit...this has already been proven.

That’s kind of how nodes work. Lines tend to meet up at one. In this case, the node happens to lie in Malvern.

Sheppard and Morningside is not a node, it's a Home Depot and some backyards. Transit lines need to terminate/intersect in proper places or the lines are abject failures.

My point to be made again and again and again and again. THE LINES DO NOT SOLELY SERVE MALVERN. If there’s low ridership on these lines then Kingston, West Hill, eastern portions of Scarborough Centre, Dean Park, the Zoo and most of Sheppard East are all equally responsible in not generating enough riders.

Only the NE is responsible for ridership on the outer half of these lines, and ridership will be low. Other parts of Scarborough will not see better service so that these lines can be run to Malvern, so it's true that ridership may suffer in other parts of Scarborough.

I disagree that peak service is all that matters. If that was the case, let’s take this viewpoint to its logical conclusion and only offer only peak service to all of Toronto’s inner suburbs. Like any other neighbourhood in Toronto, residents along these lines (again…NOT JUST MALVERN) will use these lines all day long.

Yes, peak service is what matters most. Peak service determines whether or not new infrastructure is viable, based on peak loads at peak times. This is not debatable. Peak ridership on the lines out in Malvern will be fantastically low...the small ridership base will be split up amongst multiple routes.

Your opinion. I for one, appreciate that something is going to get built and that we won’t be left with a stubway and a hole in the ground like in the 90s. I strongly suspect that the TTC is weary of it’s experience in the 90s and has opted to find a cheaper way to build a network. I applaud them for it. There are many who will bray about MO2020. I ask them what would have happened if Toronto’s subway bill equaled as much as that being spent in rest of the GTHA? What would the political response have been if we asked for 20-30 billion worth of subway lines. I applaud the TTC for deftly navigating the political realities, working within those constraints to come up with a plan that while not the 100% solution has a reasonable chance at success.

Transfer City has no inherently better chance of success than any other transit plan. A smaller chance, if anything, because of its extreme cost and because it's a half-baked plan. More than enough money was offered by the province and suggested by Metrolinx to build all the subways Toronto would ever need and all kinds of suitable LRT lines and better GO service, but much of the money has been hijacked by pet projects that don't have the best interest of the city in mind, so we have lines proposed that defy logic and basic planning principles. The political reality was a blank cheque. No one has ever suggested building tens of billions of dollars of subways, or 120km of subways, or whatever red herring of subways you'll mention next. Still, extending the Spadina subway to Vaughan was probably the key force behind the entire recent splurging on transit by upper levels of government - Transfer City would be unthinkable without the Sorbara line. Maybe that's a good thing, though, since it would have forced Toronto to consider a series of the highest value lines one at a time, and then we would be seeing improvements on the busiest and most congested routes instead of wherever Miller and friends want to dole out some ideological largesse.

For the record, Malvern is only from Markham road to Morningside, About 3.25km,

Malvern (like Agincourt) as a placeholder for individually named subdivisions is more than 3.25km. Ward 42 goes from McCowan to Meadowvale. At times I've referred to the entire NE quadrant of Scarborough as "Malvern," though quadrant is a misleading term because it's not even one quarter of Scarborough. I could be generous and talk about everything north and east of STC (the area served by the three overlapping lines) and it's still not many people, not nearly enough to support multiple transit lines.
 

kEiThZ

Superstar
Member Bio
Joined
Jul 31, 2008
Messages
11,373
Reaction score
6,453
*In order for many of the Transit City LRT lines to be successful they cannot be standard LRT that is cheaper to build, it'll have to have significant platform increases vs. a lot of these American LRT systems that don't have pre-paid fare platforms, among other things.

*Because of the need for a higher quality system, I believe it will cost significantly more than these estimates currently being given.

What do you mean by higher quality systems? Do you mean something akin to Ottawa retrofit of the Transitway with LRT? …essentially a poor man’s subway. Or do you just mean fancier platforms, etc. The best Transit City estimates at 70mil/km are still significantly cheaper (by half or more) than any subway line being built in this city.

*In lieu of this, a study needs to be done to figure out the cost benefit of building a higher quality LRT system vs. just building a subway on key routes like Eglinton, the DRL, and finishing Sheppard appropriately.

Numerous studies have been done. As the Sheppard East LRT EA points out, ridership will go from 3000/hr to 5000/hr if the line was a subway instead of LRT. However, the question I suspect is one of money. To build build the Eglinton, Sheppard and DRL corridors using subways would cost about half or more of MO2020’s budget. Where would this money come from? The last time we got the stubway and hole in the ground on Eglinton. This is why I suspect TC came along. It allows the TTC to progress without holding out for only subways.

For the record, Malvern is only from Markham road to Morningside, About 3.25km,

I was being generous to Scarberian. For him all of north-east Scarborough = Malvern.

And there seems to be a good chance that the SRT extension will use LRT instead, this will be significantly less expensive and more appropriate, and share tracks with lines that are already planned..

Would be ideal and my preferred solution. No sense running something approximating HRT by people’s backyards in that hydro corridor when that capacity is not needed.

And with the Scarborough malvern line, if it does go to UTSC, then there is no point of not going further, as there is really nothing in the way, and it will need to connect with sheppard for access to a yard, and allow riders to switch between lines.

Thank you. That’s exactly what I have said. The line was meant to serve Kingston and UTSC. It makes sense to at least extend North to Sheppard to complete the network. Yet, others think that it’s some grand conspiracy to serve Malvern.
 

scarberiankhatru

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Apr 23, 2007
Messages
5,274
Reaction score
6
I was being generous to Scarberian. For him all of north-east Scarborough = Malvern.

NE Scarborough is Malvern, yes. Even the city calls Sheppard east of McCowan "Malvern West." Only the highly defensive insist on singling out "Morningside Heights" and "Dean Park" and the like as distinct from Malvern. There's no point in me doing so since I'm referring to the area NE of STC.
 

Top