TTC: Scarborough Subway Extension (formerly LRT replacement) (City of Toronto, Design Phase)

[TheTigerMaster]

I see where you're coming from. The problem is that Metrolinx is supposed to be a somewhat arms length government agency that implements transit plans based on transit needs. It's become a PR agency for the Ministry of Transportation.

"Fake News?" Certainly debatable. I'd say the "News" below is certainly questionable.

The upside of Ontario Line’s upside – How Metrolinx experts are looking to design a Toronto subway that isn’t just confined to dark tunnels

The Ontario Line subway project involves complex engineering options. In this feature, we want to explore options to build above and below ground.

blog.metrolinx.com

They really might as well be rolled back into the Ministry of Transport given that MX doesn't have any political independence.

 

[syn]

I think an article titled "the upside of" makes it pretty clear that there are "downsides" not being talked about


It is supposed to be that, and to the extent it can be that it tries which is why they do business case analysis. I can't fault Metrolinx for what it can't control.

"The earlier Relief Line South proposal featured very deep tunnels — 38 metres below ground — in order to get under the Don River to the vicinity of East Harbour, adding four and a half minutes of escalator time to each transfer. That’s more than enough time to miss your connection. Studies have projected this would have reduced ridership by 15 per cent."

Based on what? Which studies?

Were these considerations in deciding to completely bury the SSE and EWLRT?

 

[KhalilHeron]

As much as this is just pr fluff i am happy they're going to one TBM now. Potential road closures next to a hospital do not sound like a good idea, and Kennedy station really does need a bit of a breather lol

 

[Northern Light]

I'm not sure I have the same expectations. I expect Metrolinx to be transparent about what they are doing and personally I think they are good at that... they have many town halls, significant public participation, and they seem to approach business case analysis in sound ways, they respond to feedback and consider alternatives. Personally I think we are pretty fortunate in Toronto to have agencies like Metrolinx and Waterfront Toronto as they are because without that transparency it would be much harder to see the political meddling. However, the reality is that there are directives from the government that take decisions out of their hands. Those decisions aren't "Metrolinx" decisions so I'm not sure that I expect them to answer for those decisions. Metrolinx Blog isn't the Ministry of Transportation news or the news from the Premiers office. To try to answer for those decisions would be to bite the hand that feeds it and in the end serves no purpose once the decisions are already made. It is much better for the Metrolinx team to do the best they can in the mandate they are given and recognize that anything that improves transit for people is an improvement to the nothing that would have happened without that hand that feeds them.

WaterfronToronto, yes. They do have a high degree of independence; they generally play well with others; they offer real public engagement; and actually listen and act upon it where merited.

Metrolinx; irrespective of decisions specific to this project is extremely political.

They are not at all transparent.

I know what they are doing to a high degree, but I'm not the general public; and even I find them opaque and dodgy at times.

 

[Northern Light]

It is supposed to be that, and to the extent it can be that it tries which is why they do business case analysis.

Those BCAs are far from objectively thoughtful processes.

I would argue they are political documents.

The weighting given to different things is entirely subjective and in some cases absurd (the number of constructions jobs is considered a positive)

There's also the matter of questionable data input into some of them.

 

[ARG1]

"The earlier Relief Line South proposal featured very deep tunnels — 38 metres below ground — in order to get under the Don River to the vicinity of East Harbour, adding four and a half minutes of escalator time to each transfer. That’s more than enough time to miss your connection. Studies have projected this would have reduced ridership by 15 per cent."

Based on what? Which studies?

Were these considerations in deciding to completely bury the SSE and EWLRT?

I find it funny that urbanists that are pro LRT will claim that one of the many benefits of LRT especially at grade median LRT is that the fact that its in the middle of the road and not in large stations makes them more accessible and thus more attractive to use (since you don't have to crawl through a large station and you only have to cross a street), however all of a sudden when Metrolinx is working on an above ground subway they don't like that reduces station sizes and allows for faster transfers, all of a sudden you start asking "where did they the fact that longer transfer means its less attractive to use". Either you believe ease of access is a benefit, or you don't. You can't argue for both.

 

[TheTigerMaster]

"The earlier Relief Line South proposal featured very deep tunnels — 38 metres below ground — in order to get under the Don River to the vicinity of East Harbour, adding four and a half minutes of escalator time to each transfer. That’s more than enough time to miss your connection. Studies have projected this would have reduced ridership by 15 per cent."

Based on what? Which studies?

Were these considerations in deciding to completely bury the SSE and EWLRT?

Back in the day MX would happily release their internal studies and reports on various projects and options. Now they're all shrouded in secrecy.

 

[asher__jo]

"The earlier Relief Line South proposal featured very deep tunnels — 38 metres below ground — in order to get under the Don River to the vicinity of East Harbour, adding four and a half minutes of escalator time to each transfer. That’s more than enough time to miss your connection. Studies have projected this would have reduced ridership by 15 per cent."

Based on what? Which studies?

Were these considerations in deciding to completely bury the SSE and EWLRT?

These studies sound fraught. There are many cities with deep stations.

 

[KhalilHeron]

These studies sound fraught. There are many cities with deep stations.

yes but it's definitely not ideal. Crazy deep stations should be avoided if possible

 

[TheTigerMaster]

"The earlier Relief Line South proposal featured very deep tunnels — 38 metres below ground — in order to get under the Don River to the vicinity of East Harbour, adding four and a half minutes of escalator time to each transfer. That’s more than enough time to miss your connection. Studies have projected this would have reduced ridership by 15 per cent."

Based on what? Which studies?

Were these considerations in deciding to completely bury the SSE and EWLRT?

These studies sound fraught. There are many cities with deep stations.

Intuitively, I'd agree that deep stations are problematic for ridership. The TYSSE stations take a substantial amount of time to navigate by foot, and the RL South stations were planned to be even deeper, if I recall correctly.

 

[W. K. Lis]

Intuitively, I'd agree that deep stations are problematic for ridership. The TYSSE stations take a substantial amount of time to navigate by foot, and the RL South stations were planned to be even deeper, if I recall correctly.

The Ontario Line stations at Yonge & Queen and University & Queen (Osgoode) will be deep to get under the existing utilities and Line 1 stations.

 

[asher__jo]

Intuitively, I'd agree that deep stations are problematic for ridership. The TYSSE stations take a substantial amount of time to navigate by foot, and the RL South stations were planned to be even deeper, if I recall correctly.

In this situation I'm sure this is true. However if the goal is not merely to get to the surface but transfer to other platforms or the PATH network then depth is less an issue.

 

[ARG1]

In this situation I'm sure this is true. However if the goal is not merely to get to the surface but transfer to other platforms or the PATH network then depth is less an issue.

However these deep stations in particular are East Harbour and Carlaw, and a major use for them would be to connect to the GO Train or streetcars (PATH does not go that far east) so the goal is quite literally to get to the surface to transfer.

 

[denfromoakvillemilton]

The eastern loop was a major selling point to his campaign, and it was also a strong point to Rob Ford's campaign as well. Its also important to note that Scarborough consistently votes pro subway politicians. Once is an outlier, twice is a coincidence. After that its a pattern.

And nobody is making that argument. Eglinton East is still being planned, we have the Scarborough-Durham BRT being procured by Metrolinx, and the Sheppard Subway is still in the plans. A lot is being built that will help feed into the subway, and its not just a subway with nothing else.

Sure, but it wasn't supposed to end up like this with a 7-year delay. Before the Fords, the subway wasn't the biggest issue either tbh, the transfer was.

And the pandemic may change his fortunes.

Indeed!