News   Apr 19, 2024
 287     1 
News   Apr 19, 2024
 588     3 
News   Apr 19, 2024
 711     1 

Danforth Line 2 Scarborough Subway Extension

Long Island also has the busiest commuter railroad in the world
In the US. There's many metros far busier. You can start with Japan and Hong Kong...
with third rail electrified grade separated rapid transit -- the general equivalent of a subway. The usage of the LIRR is so great that it surpasses the subway ridership of half of all American systems. Also, with that logic, explain Relief Line North and Relief Line West?
Maybe the regions *beyond Scarborough*! What is it about Scarberians that the world has to revolve around them?

And the Relief Lines should also be RER in my book, and serve the "regions" to the north instead of subways. Just like a lot of grown up cities do.

And then there's Connecticut and New Jersey feeding passengers into NYC, and in fact share rolling stock and costs in Conn's case. And "East Side Access". Hint, it isn't subway.

https://www.railway-technology.com/features/featurethe-worlds-top-10-busiest-metros-4433827/
 
Last edited:
And yet Brooklyn has a bunch of subway lines that do not exceed 100K passengers per day (the New Lots Avenue Line, the Nostrand Avenue Line, the Jamaica Line, the Myrtle Avenue Line, the Franklin Avenue Line, the Sea Beach line, the West End Line, the Crosstown Line, and the Culver Line)

The Vast majority of stations in New York city see less than 6 thousand passengers per day, which, in it of itself, is considered super low for TTC standards. Asking for a station that should see 50K passengers per day, and potentially 2 more that will see around 10K each is not a big request.

But those are today's numbers right? I imagine that when built way back when, passenger numbers must have been high enough for a profit.
 
Huh?
Gee. maybe the regions *beyond Scarborough*!

I meant to say North America, but even then, I wouldn't consider any S-Bahn, overground, or RER system to be "Commuter Rail"

I don't understand the second part. Could you please clarify?

But those are today's numbers right? I imagine that when built way back when, passenger numbers must have been high enough for a profit.

Profit has no place in the realm of public transit. And the IND was never profitable, it was city owned.

Also, NYC transit ridership is some of the highest it's ever been. If there was ever a time for the lines to be busy, it's now. The densities of most neighborhoods haven't really changed, so we can assume that the vast majority of stations were built with this type of ridership in mind.
 
I wouldn't consider any S-Bahn, overground, or RER system to be "Commuter Rail"
I'm sorry?
Profit has no place in the realm of public transit.
Ummm...I really think you should read the history as to how commuter railroads, subways and regional transit systems, let alone city transit systems were built.

It's only when they failed that government had to step in to continue running them. And to this day, GO and the TTC have to make a *business case* to get capital funding, and they have a farebox recovery ratio as the highest and second highest in North America.

There are some transit systems in the World, gov't owned that show profits. Making wild claims only does further disservice to the case for running subways to STC, let alone subways to Timbuktu.

Every Torontonian is paying a tax surcharge for your toy train.

And this is timely for Scarberians not to get confused between "RER" and "Commuter":
Transport unions in the greater Paris region of Ile-de-France are planning to scrap the name "RER" from the city's commuter train service.

The current RER services link Paris to its suburbs via various lines: RER A, RER B, RER C, RER D and RER E.

But in future the name RER, which stands for Réseau express Regional, will not longer be present in stations, on signage or on maps.

From July 1st transport chiefs instead plan to replace it by a simple word... "train".

The aim is to make it less confusing for travellers, especially those who are not from Paris, who might not know what RER stands for.

The Union of Transports in Ile-de-France (STIF) believes just putting the word "train" on all signage and maps will make it clear what the RER actually is.

The change shouldn't be too complicated.

As well as the existing RER the Ile-de-France region already has commuter train services that are named by letter: H,J,K,L,N, P, R and U.

So authorities can keep the letters of the current RER trains, A,B,C, D and E.

So for example those looking to change onto the RER B at Gare du Nord in future will just look for the sign for "Train B".

The name change will also be accompanied by a change in the colour codes of the lines.
https://www.thelocal.fr/20170612/paris-commuter-trains-to-no-longer-called-rer
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: syn
I'm sorry?

Commuter rail usually implies that the vast majority of train traffic is directed into and out of the cities during peak times. With lines like the Yamanote and Keihin tohoku lines in Japan or the German/Austrian S-Bahn, while a good portion of the usage occurs during peak times, like a subway, a significant portion is also utilized (at least 30-40%) during the off-peak hours. You don't really see this on GO Transit, Metro North, LIRR, NJT, SEPTA RER, Metra, etc. You might get some off peak service, but never enough that a significant portion of the population is using it at any given time.
 
Profit has no place in the realm of public transit. And the IND was never profitable, it was city owned.

Also, NYC transit ridership is some of the highest it's ever been. If there was ever a time for the lines to be busy, it's now. The densities of most neighborhoods haven't really changed, so we can assume that the vast majority of stations were built with this type of ridership in mind.

Yes, but a lot of those lines you listed started as privately-owned BMT & IRT lines. Some of them must have also been intended parts of plans that were never built out, or separate lines that were mashed together once the IND took over. And you're probably right that the IND lines that you listed were never meant to produce a profit, but to provide service where the private lines refused to do so.

I would say that much of New York's boroughs are also likely less uniformly dense than they once were when these lines were built, in terms of employment and inhabitation- and that the means of transportation/areas of employment have also diversified and diffused, meaning an ill-fit for a system largely designed to get people into Manhattan, or between the Manhattan-bound lines/into the industrial zones of Brooklyn & Queens. That's probably why some lines are bursting at the seams while others that you've listed remain underused- the patterns of travel must have shifted.
 
Last edited:
Commuter rail usually implies that the vast majority of train traffic is directed into and out of the cities during peak times. With lines like the Yamanote and Keihin tohoku lines in Japan or the German/Austrian S-Bahn, while a good portion of the usage occurs during peak times, like a subway, a significant portion is also utilized (at least 30-40%) during the off-peak hours. You don't really see this on GO Transit, Metro North, LIRR, NJT, SEPTA RER, Metra, etc. You might get some off peak service, but never enough that a significant portion of the population is using it at any given time.
For some odd reason, I tend towards the known and established definitions, like these:
[...]
S-bahn[edit]
In Germany the S-Bahn is regarded as a train category of its own, and exists in many large cities and in some other areas, but there are differing service and technical standards from city to city. Most S-bahns typically behave like commuter rail with most trackage not separated from other trains, and long lines with trains running between cities and suburbs rather than within a city. The distances between stations however, are usually short. In larger systems there is usually a high frequency metro-like central corridor in the city center where all the lines converge into. Typical examples of large city S-Bahns include Munich and Frankfurt. S-Bahns do also exist in some mid-size cities like Rostock and Magdeburg but behave more like typical commuter rail with lower frequencies and very little exclusive trackage. In Berlin, the S-Bahn systems arguably fulfill all considerations of a true metro system (despite the existence of U-Bahns as well) – the trains run on tracks that are entirely separated from other trains, short distances between stations, high frequency and uses tunnels but do run a bit further out from the city centre, compared with U-Bahn. A similar network exists in Copenhagen called the S-tog. (where a metro system also exists). In Hamburg and Copenhagen, other, diesel driven trains, do continue where the S-Bahn ends ("A-Bahn" in Hamburg area, and "L-tog" in Copenhagen).

Regional rail[edit]
Regional rail usually provides rail services between towns and cities, rather than purely linking major population hubs in the way inter-city rail does. Regional rail operates outside major cities. Unlike Inter-city, it stops at most or all stations between cities. It provides a service between smaller communities along the line, and also connections with long-distance services at interchange stations located at junctions or at larger towns along the line. Alternative names are "local train" or "stopping train". Examples include the former BR's Regional Railways, France's TER (Transport express régional), Germany's DB Regio and South Korea's Tonggeun services.

Regional rail does not exist in this sense in the United States, so the term "regional rail" has become synonymous with commuter rail there, although the two are more clearly defined in Europe. [...]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commuter_rail
 
Quick question- is the three station option still on the menu, or is Tory pushing ahead with the Scarborough Town Centre Express?
 
Yes, but a lot of those lines you listed started as privately-owned BMT & IRT lines. Some of them must have also been intended parts of plans that were never built out, or separate lines that were mashed together once the IND took over. And you're probably right that the IND lines that you listed were never meant to produce a profit, but to provide service where the private lines refused to do so.

I would say that much of New York's boroughs are also likely less uniformly dense than they once were when these lines were built, in terms of employment and inhabitation- and that the means of transportation/areas of employment have also diversified and diffused, meaning an ill-fit for a system largely designed to get people into Manhattan, or between the Manhattan-bound lines/into the industrial zones of Brooklyn & Queens. That's probably why some lines are bursting at the seams while others that you've listed remain underused- the patterns of travel must have shifted.

Exactly.

Comparing Scarborough to Brooklyn as a justification for the SSE has absolutely no merit.
 
Quick question- is the three station option still on the menu, or is Tory pushing ahead with the Scarborough Town Centre Express?

Tory support has been to keep moving forward but he has little say now that the subway network is about to be elevated to the Province and he also voted in favour of Lawrence being designed in after he agreed to support our City "expert" Planners proposal to skin the subway clean, blame others and run for Mayor. So I would expect he'll support the revision for added stops.

Doug will need to clarify his 3 stop plan shortly. Oddly enough there was an update in July discussing an ongoing TTC open contract for design work on the Sheppard stop. Although some of the funds were being taken to pay the design team more money on the STC stop. But the line items still exists. Well hear shortly if there are some amendments coming out
 
Last edited:
And yet Brooklyn has a bunch of subway lines that do not exceed 100K passengers per day (the New Lots Avenue Line, the Nostrand Avenue Line, the Jamaica Line, the Myrtle Avenue Line, the Franklin Avenue Line, the Sea Beach line, the West End Line, the Crosstown Line, and the Culver Line)

The Vast majority of stations in New York city see less than 6 thousand passengers per day, which, in it of itself, is considered super low for TTC standards. Asking for a station that should see 50K passengers per day, and potentially 2 more that will see around 10K each is not a big request.
The low ridership stations in New York City look like this:

Morrison_Avenue_-_SW_Street_Entrance.jpg


The low ridership stations in Toronto look like this:
the-highway-407-station-indoors-details-the-new-ttc-station-at-the-picture-id950225122


I'd be fine with building more subways in suburban Toronto if they were built cheaply like the old MTA stations.
 
While you quote Scarborough, as a whole, to have a population density of around 3K People/km^2, the actual population density of the STC is somewhere around 6400 People/km^2

I don't get it - when relevant density numbers are posted the response is typically 'density isn't everything'...except when it is, apparently. :p

The population of the SCC is just over 16,400. Not only is the density still significantly lower than Old Toronto, but the total population you're referring to is relatively small.

What about the surrounding neighborhoods?

Bendale - 3,409/km2

Morningside - 4,112/km2

Woburn - 3,636/km2

Agincourt - 3,580/km2

Dorset Park - 3,331/km2

Not only is the SCC's Scarborough-high density level not enough to justify a subway, it's surrounded by much lower density neighborhoods that are right in line with the low Scarborough average.

What about commercial/employment density? Again, very low.

Of course the built form of the STC is different from New York, but that doesn't disqualify it from some enhanced subway service.

If you understand the ingredients necessary to justify subway then you'd understand exactly why it disqualifies Scarborough:

Population Density - No
Commercial/Employment Density - No
Built Form - No, almost entirely mid-20th century suburban
Local Transit Culture - Suburban

I can't believe we have to explain why subways work in Brooklyn but don't make sense for Scarborough lol.
 
Last edited:
Quick question- is the three station option still on the menu, or is Tory pushing ahead with the Scarborough Town Centre Express?
Here's why there's no answer (translation: They don't want you to know the facts)
Lauren O'Neil
Posted 6 months ago

"We're getting on with building the Scarborough Subway Extension," tweeted Tory yesterday in response to The Star's report.

"Once staff have completed their report on the project - which includes design, construction schedules, & cost estimates - that will be made public," he said. "This is the staff-controlled process that was approved by Council."
https://www.blogto.com/city/2018/02/controversy-scarborough-subway-toronto/

But what would Tory know about Council approval when some posters in this very string keep incessantly nattering about it being "Keesmaat's decision"?

Same article linked above:
Should Toronto voters be told how much the long-disputed Scarborough subway extension is actually costing us before October's municipal election?

The city's former chief planner Jennifer Keesmaat thinks so, and she's far from alone this week as news spreads that updated figures will be available in September – but not to the public. Not until a few months after the election.

With overcrowding increasingly an issue elsewhere on the subway, people aren't happy about the presumed lack of transparency.

TTC officials told Mayor John Tory late last year that an updated price tag for the controversial, one-stop subway would be available well ahead of election day, according to an internal briefing obtained by The Toronto Star.

However, because there are no council meetings scheduled after July of this year, city staff say they won't reveal the number until January of 2019.

"The question is, do they have a duty – if they have that number available – do they have a duty to release it as a way of informing the election and the decision- making?" said Keesmat in a CBC radio interview Wednesday morning. "My opinion is, absolutely."
[...]
https://www.blogto.com/city/2018/02/controversy-scarborough-subway-toronto/

upload_2018-8-19_0-45-30.png

upload_2018-8-19_0-46-48.png

https://twitter.com/JohnTory/status/961270070067585025

The irony of David Rider's tweet doesn't go unnoticed as per "constitutionalist approach" re City Ward boundaries and numbers.
 

Attachments

  • upload_2018-8-19_0-45-30.png
    upload_2018-8-19_0-45-30.png
    86.1 KB · Views: 457
  • upload_2018-8-19_0-46-48.png
    upload_2018-8-19_0-46-48.png
    159.5 KB · Views: 462
Last edited:
Here's why there's no answer (translation: They don't want you to know the facts)

https://www.blogto.com/city/2018/02/controversy-scarborough-subway-toronto/

But what would Tory know about Council approval when some posters in this very string keep incessantly nattering about it being "Keesmaat's decision"?

Same article linked above:

https://www.blogto.com/city/2018/02/controversy-scarborough-subway-toronto/

View attachment 153830
View attachment 153831
https://twitter.com/JohnTory/status/961270070067585025

The irony of David Rider's tweet doesn't go unnoticed as per "constitutionalist approach" re City Ward boundaries and numbers.

Tory and Co. have wanted to keep the subway moving forward so it could be handed off to the Province this term (Liberals were also in discussions) and why he and the others even supported the absurd one stop subway proposal. They want to move the City forward with no further delays, as Ford already tried to compromise from the lackluster LRT plan and was roadblocked. So passing off the subway outside the City was really the only option to find peace in the land so the City can move forward. Would be interesting if Keesmaat camp and the Star plan to make noise as you infer above, moreso when it seems she may have been making very key decisions with this line for her own Political opportunism. Good luck seeing how well that resonates with all the people outside her fraction of Downtown base who all want to move forward.

Design experts and City planners made a mess of LRT with the poor design in Transit City and these planner and designers are making similar mistakes with the subway today. Couldn't be happier the Province is taking Scarborough transit away from the City.
.
 
Last edited:

Back
Top