If you think Dufferin is mostly highrises, you haven't seen it. A lot of single family houses front Dufferin.
Bathurst has a higher % of highrises ... but the #7 / #160 Bathurst ridership is lower than the ridership of #29 Dufferin. Presumably, many Bathurst residents take E-W bus routes and transfer to Yonge subway.
Together, those two streets give a very good illustration that local density is not the only factor that determines a transit line's ridership.
Bathurst only has some h rises north of Wilson. Go south, all the way to Bloor and what do you see? Houses and 2 or 3 level apartments/houses.
Not true. Bathurst is lined with highrise and midrise buildings as far south as Eglinton at the very least. Further south lowrise is more dominant, but there are a few more clusters of buildings such as St Clair & Bathurst.
Were they there when the subway was built? STC is more deserving than most stops today
As Steve Munro has noted, the Scarborough subway certainly isn't "deserving" based on forecast ridership. Coffey1, I honestly don't hate Scarborough or look down on its residents, but I am trying to understand the logical justification for spending so much of our limited capital budget on this project. You are obviously a passionate advocate for the Scarborough subway and a vigilant, high frequency rebutter of anyone who questions it here. Can you succinctly tell us why this is a good project in spite of its abysmally low ridership forecast? I think your argument is that equity demands a subway line in each of the former boroughs (Warden doesn't cut it and I guess East York just doesn't count). By extension, it appears that equity does not mean that we should allocate our scarce investment to get the maximum incremental ridership per dollar spent. But I'm starting to put words in your mouth, which is wrong. So, what's the rational and logical case?
But there is an idea that by making a LRT in Scarborough, the Elites (apparently the rest of the entire city), are treating Scarborough like a third world county. Mississauga is getting LRT and I do not necessarily think of poor people when I think of Mississauga. Nor do I when I think of Calgary or Ottawa. Yet somehow the narrative has become the rich vs the poor, which to some, equate subways vs LRT. What most of us are arguing is that we should be building based on ridership because everyone knows there is no money tree. It is unfortunate they did not build a subway to STC when they built the RT. That I can agree with. However we cannot change the past. It is also unfortunate that we could have built Sheppard as a LRT to begin with so we would not have to have this transfer. Again we cannot change the past. I was hoping that a DRL going to Sheppard would mean that less people would have to experience this unfortunate transfer. Although the more money we spend on this STC subway the less money we have to make a proper DRL which would have numbers to justify it.
I will admit I am too lazy but I believe it was you which started this narrative in this thread. You keep playing the poor Scarborough card and the idea that the elite are saving the good transit for themselves.Please cut the crap with the Elite BS and LRT vs. Subway nonsense.
I will admit I am too lazy but I believe it was you which started this narrative in this thread. You keep playing the poor Scarborough card and the idea that the elite are saving the good transit for themselves.
Lets name some places which do not have Subways in the city. Rexdale, Humber Bay. Mimico. Eglinton West. All of these areas though have LRT planned for them. Yes downtown has more subways. They also have more people to use the system. It is pretty much as simple as that. The trade off of living in the suburbs is less people and more space for the same dollar. It simply is next to impossible to have it both ways.
BTW I find it ironic that the troll is now calling those who are using numbers to determine what types of transit should go places as trolls.
I have taken shots at the Elite media & its blind followers who believe the narrative, or just keep spewing false facts about Scarborough here. Otherwise I try just to explain what the issue is and give my opinion on how it can be solved.
it simply doesn't make financial sense from a ridership perspective.