Danforth Line 2 Scarborough Subway Extension

[Rainforest]

I didn't like the one stop subway but I considered it a compromise and was ok with it. The costs balloon again I really don't care if it's cancelled and all Scarborough gets is brt. Hey brt works in Ottawa. Why not Scarborough. Are they more important than the country's capital?

BRT won't be able to handle the demand between Kennedy and STC, and therefore is out of question. In case SSE dies (and I hope it doesn't die), SRT will be refurbished or modified in some way. The required capacity will be provided by rail transit, but the transfer at Kennedy will persist.

Ottawa is replacing its BRT with a light rail backbone. Their light rail runs through right through their downtown, and that reduces the total number of transfers. Mostly, bus -> LRT -> downtown, in some cases bus -> bus -> LRT -> downtown, but not bus -> SRT -> subway 2 -> subway 1 -> downtown like in today's Scarborough.

 

[Johnny Au]

And the subways subways subways crowd will always fall for such cheap political pandering.

Scarborough's getting a Maglev!

Very few cities in the world have such state-of-the-art rail technology.

To be fair, it will be in the Toronto Zoo.

 

[Steve X]

I didn't like the one stop subway but I considered it a compromise and was ok with it. The costs balloon again I really don't care if it's cancelled and all Scarborough gets is brt. Hey brt works in Ottawa. Why not Scarborough. Are they more important than the country's capital?

I'm liking this comment not because I think they should downgrade to BRT but BRT solves their connection problem. If we could run the BRT completely grade separated on the current SRT alignment, Most of the busiest routes could enter the BRT at Scarborough Centre and continue on to Kennedy. This would be an interim solution till they can get the subway built.

 

[TheTigerMaster]

SSE is certainly needed, and it is not in any way "toxic" (except with a few haters that do not represent any sizeable segment of voters), but the political football around it doesn't look good.

The SSE is toxic, because politicians have learned that it's far more useful as a political tool, than it is as an operating piece of infrastructure that needs to be paid for. We've now had four elections where building the SSE was a major commitment, and thus far not even the most rudimentary of details about what this extension might look like.

 

[OneCity]

I'm liking this comment not because I think they should downgrade to BRT but BRT solves their connection problem. If we could run the BRT completely grade separated on the current SRT alignment, Most of the busiest routes could enter the BRT at Scarborough Centre and continue on to Kennedy. This would be an interim solution till they can get the subway built.

And the BRT can then become a permanent solution as a cross City Centre to Malvern subway feeder.

In case SSE dies (and I hope it doesn't die), SRT will be refurbished or modified in some way.

It wont die. lol

This idea only lives in the hearts of a few here on UT and has been propelled by very ugly Downtown municipal politics which has now been completely removed from the decision making process. The line is actually far safer today then ever before and will continue to be as its fixed. From local municipal up to local federal the political support is beyond unanimous from every party in this massive suburb. But the fear mongering from the usual bunch will likely continue until the line is fixed and built.

 

[TheTigerMaster]

The SSE is toxic, because politicians have learned that it's far more useful as a political tool, than it is as an operating piece of infrastructure that needs to be paid for. We've now had four elections where building the SSE was a major commitment, and thus far not even the most rudimentary of details about what this extension might look like.

The biggest challenge with building transit in North America is that transit is used as a political tool, rather than as a way to move people around. Elsewhere in the world these debates aren't anywhere near as politically charged, and building a transit line is little more controversial than announcing a road repair program.

Metrolinx was supposed to de-politicize the whole thing, but with power in the Government of Ontario being as centralized and secretive as it is, Metrolinx was quickly co-opted as a PR mouthpiece of the Government of Ontario, rather than doing anything genuinely useful to get transit built in the GTHA, that couldn't have been accomplished without its existence.

I think de-centralizing Metrolinx might be a wise move. That means removing the Government of Ontario from the business of building transit, and turning Metrolinx into an independent non-profit corporation with taxation authority. It would be accountable to GTHA municipalities through its board of directors. That would put an end to the days of Metrolinx being PR fodder for the provincial government of the day. And with individual municipalities and governments being unable to control Metrolinx's agenda, the agency would be able to build transit, despite cries from its constituent municipalities or the provincial government.

But honestly, I don't even know that would work. There might not be a way to de-politicize this whole process. The political nature of this might just come down to cultural reasons. With North Americans being as individualistic as they are, I get the sense that people are more concerned with how transit benefits themselves personally, than with whether or not it benefits the city or region as a whole. If that's the case, then building transit will always be tremendously difficult; there are always winners and losers in this game of transit expansion.

 

[Bureaucromancer]

Metrolinx was supposed to de-politicize the whole thing, but with power in the Government of Ontario being as centralized and secretive as it is, Metrolinx was quickly co-opted as a PR mouthpiece of the Government of Ontario, rather than doing anything genuinely useful to get transit built in the GTHA, that couldn't have been accomplished without its existence.

Was it though? I never really saw that in the mandate, so much as centralization.

Agreed that a true independence would be the way forward, but the other big caveat is that the MTO, or at least it infrastructure within the service area, should probably be rolled into it. Even ignoring the benefits of an integrated planning approach, the agency as a whole becomes much less of a football if all transportation is within their purview. TBH I think there was something to the original GO organization being part of highways.

 

[WislaHD]

People in this thread are being too dismissive of the potential of BRT. They are not an inferior form of rapid transit. BRT when designed well can easily compete and exceed LRT in speed, capacity, passenger comfort, and affordability, and it does in many places worldwide. Comparing our dinky bus routes to a rail vehicle that exists in its own ROW is a complete apples-to-oranges comparison.

The problem is that we do things for cheap in Toronto, and the BRT that we would build would likely not meet international BRT best practices.

 

[pstogios]

And the BRT can then become a permanent solution as a cross City Centre to Malvern subway feeder.



It wont die. lol

This idea only lives in the hearts of a few here on UT and has been propelled by very ugly Downtown municipal politics which has now been completely removed from the decision making process. The line is actually far safer today then ever before and will continue to be as its fixed. From local municipal up to local federal the political support is beyond unanimous from every party in this massive suburb. But the fear mongering from the usual bunch will likely continue until the line is fixed and built.

Everyone is entitled to their own opinion but they aren’t entitled to their own facts. Leave it to coffey1 to pull complete bullshit out of his ass, again and again and again.

People like him that cannot, or purposely will not, see FACTS are a cancer on our democracy and provide fuel to the fire of populist demagogues that use base politics to appeal to idiotic voters. Then those people use bullshit smears like separating citizens in the same jurisdiction into “us” (Scarborough citizens) vs “them” (“Downtown elites”), or accuse those people interests in FACTS (I.e. Councillor Josh Matlow) as “fear mongers” or “in it just for political purposes”.

And then they make up this crazy paranoid delusion of a victim complex. “Everyone is out to get me”, “everyone hates Scarborough”, “Scarborough doesn’t they respect”, “subways subways subways”. It’s all such garbage. Read the goddamn manual of psychological disorders, this is Psychosis 101.

This is EXACTLY the modus operandi of Trump, Duterte, Bolsonaro, Putin, and yes, DOUG FORD.

And yes, it is EXACTLY the modus operandi of coffey1, the President Psychotic of this board, for years and years here, filling thousands of pages of this thread.

THE FACTS ARE that the SSE, either one stop or three stops or thirty stops, IS NOT justified according to current ridership patterns and established development in the pipeline, to justify the huge capital expenses (TAXPAYER DOLLARS).

THE FACTS ARE that other lines, like a SUBWAY Relief Line, have the clear established ridership and clear established development pipeline to justify the huge capita investment required.

THE FACTS ARE that all layers of government have limited resources available for capital expenditures like public transit lines, and so EVERY project CANNOT be simply a political exercise so a demigod politician get get votes. THEY MUST go through a rigorous, transparent, extensive and public business case analysis before their approval. The SSE, in ANY FORM, has NOT gone through a transparent and public analysis and instead has been co-opted purely for political purposes. That much is 100% clear.

Enough is enough is ENOUGH of the BULLSHIT!!

 

[Neutrino]

^Relax. The same points can be articulated much more rationally.

 

[Bureaucromancer]

BRT when designed well can easily compete and exceed LRT in speed, capacity, passenger comfort, and affordability, and it does in many places worldwide.

It absolutely doesn't have the ability to be better at all of those at the same time once you consider cost of labour in North America.

 

[WislaHD]

It absolutely doesn't have the ability to be better at all of those at the same time once you consider cost of labour in North America.

North America is poor with examples because we have long neglected public (and especially bus) transit. Would you care for the example of Brisbane, Australia then? I don't think Australia has 3rd world labour costs. They have a BRT system in Brisbane that currently knocks any LRT we are building in the GTA out of the water, and are actively upgrading it (because it has been so successful) to convert the system into something that could compete with HRT systems, let alone LRT.

Sad part is, the transit planners who built the initial system in Brisbane 25 years ago, were inspired from a visit to Ottawa...

 

[ViveleCanada]

BRT won't be able to handle the demand between Kennedy and STC, and therefore is out of question. In case SSE dies (and I hope it doesn't die), SRT will be refurbished or modified in some way. The required capacity will be provided by rail transit, but the transfer at Kennedy will persist.

Ottawa is replacing its BRT with a light rail backbone. Their light rail runs through right through their downtown, and that reduces the total number of transfers. Mostly, bus -> LRT -> downtown, in some cases bus -> bus -> LRT -> downtown, but not bus -> SRT -> subway 2 -> subway 1 -> downtown like in today's Scarborough.

I feel like the whole transfer issue was somewhat blown out of proportion. With GO RER coming to Kennedy on the Stouffville line, I would suspect a significant chuck of riders would start to transfer onto GO at Kennedy regardless of whether or not their changing from the SRT or the SSE. Assuming a worst case scenario of a 15 minute wait for a GO train, it still takes about the same time to get to Union by GO versus the subway with the benefit of not having to deal with Bloor-Yonge.

 

[Rainforest]

I feel like the whole transfer issue was somewhat blown out of proportion. With GO RER coming to Kennedy on the Stouffville line, I would suspect a significant chuck of riders would start to transfer onto GO at Kennedy regardless of whether or not their changing from the SRT or the SSE. Assuming a worst case scenario of a 15 minute wait for a GO train, it still takes about the same time to get to Union by GO versus the subway with the benefit of not having to deal with Bloor-Yonge.

That travel pattern will certainly take place, but I doubt the counts will be sufficient to justify cancelling the SSE.

 

[Rainforest]

I think de-centralizing Metrolinx might be a wise move. That means removing the Government of Ontario from the business of building transit, and turning Metrolinx into an independent non-profit corporation with taxation authority. It would be accountable to GTHA municipalities through its board of directors. That would put an end to the days of Metrolinx being PR fodder for the provincial government of the day. And with individual municipalities and governments being unable to control Metrolinx's agenda, the agency would be able to build transit, despite cries from its constituent municipalities or the provincial government.

But honestly, I don't even know that would work. There might not be a way to de-politicize this whole process. The political nature of this might just come down to cultural reasons. With North Americans being as individualistic as they are, I get the sense that people are more concerned with how transit benefits themselves personally, than with whether or not it benefits the city or region as a whole. If that's the case, then building transit will always be tremendously difficult; there are always winners and losers in this game of transit expansion.

People everywhere are individualistic. North Americans may be a bit more open about that, but aren't fundamentally different from other cultures. The trick is to build institutions that counter-balance that natural individualistic tendency, and promote cooperation.

I like the idea of Metrolinx being governed by a board of directors delegated by the GTHA municipalities, and even more so, of them having some taxation powers not directly controlled by the province. That could chart a steady course.

IMO, the main obstacle to transit expansion isn't political interference per se, but rather the short political cycles. Our typical 4-year cycles are acceptable for issues like taxation or social services, but are way too short for transit planning and construction. We undertake studies, work on early design, then abandon everything and commence work on a new solution, only to abandon that one as well a few years later. Had the cycle been longer, perhaps 10 or 12 years, the success rate would be much higher.

In that light, the Metrolinx governing body should be somewhat insulated from the 4-year tides. For example, the province could legislate that municipal councils appoint their representatives to the Metrolinx board of directors once in 4 years, and then can't recall them early unless a qualified majority of councilors (2/3) votes for such recall. That will create a certain stability of directions, while not making the directors completely unaccountable (they still can be recalled if they try to do something really out of whack). But normally, if the majority of the board votes for Project A today, 80% of those people will still be on board 4 years later, and they would look plain stupid if they cancelled their own project.