News   Mar 28, 2024
 165     0 
News   Mar 27, 2024
 1.8K     1 
News   Mar 27, 2024
 1.2K     2 

Danforth Line 2 Scarborough Subway Extension

Was there really no better option than a 400m walk between the station and the mall..? Thats not a negligible distance. Thats close to the distance between stations downtown!

There was a much better plan, the plan that we had worked on and studied for years, that would have had a station right where the existing one is now, with a rapid transit line that would have extended much further into Scarborough, and not put political and financial road blocks in the way of other lines in Scarborough.
 
While it's true that a 31 mile (50km) subway line is a little absurd for Toronto, the fact still remains that New York has a subway system that is 170% the size of Toronto's when compared with population (in other words, per unit of population, the NYC subway is 70% larger than Toronto's, and of course, about 1/3 of their system is aboveground, which is something Toronto should really look at). It should also be noted that Toronto is still growing. While the existing enhancements (Crosstown (underground), SSE, DRL) will close that gap significantly, you would have to also build the Yonge North subway extension, RLN, and RLW in order to be fully on par with New York in terms of subway length/population. It should also be noted that New York's subway trains are significantly larger than ours, so total capacity is actually much larger in New York than it is here. Finally, when you consider the fact that "route miles" does not include the presence of express lines, the length of the New York city subway increases by about 50%. If we are ever to catch up in terms of capacity here, we would need to build a full Sheppard line, subways further into Mississauga, another relief line on Dundas, Relief Line Northwest, and Quad track the Yonge line.

Also, almost no one in the suburbs of New York City (Bronx, Brooklyn, Queens) uses the LIRR or MNRR to get to and from work -- everyone takes the subway. Having the subway extend to the middle of Scarborough and Etobicoke (in the long term anyways) is not far fetched, especially for a growing city of our size.

A better city to compare transit to is Chicago, which 2.25* the size of our system in population/km metrics. While the vast majority of their system is aboveground, it shows what rapid transit can look like in a city relative to our size.

Queens (Population Density: 8,324/km2)

view-of-flushing-chinatown-554305727-592d8ffc3df78cbe7e176f92.jpg


Brooklyn (Population Density: 14,404.2/km2)

BN-PI572_NYSPAC_8H_20160810151413.jpg


Scarborough (Population Density: 3,367.6/km2)

scarborough-town-centre-condos.jpg


Scarborough cannot be compared to Queens and Brooklyn, both of which are dense, urban environments unto themselves. Subways work in those boroughs because of the concentration of business & residents, the built form and the local transit culture, critical ingredients all missing in Scarborough.

Subways in Queens and Brooklyn aren't just underground routes from bedroom suburbs to keep roads clear.

A better comparison with Scarborough would be White Plains, a suburban municipality of about the same density. It's connected to Manhattan via commuter rail.
 
Last edited:
Queens (Population Density: 8,324/km2)

view-of-flushing-chinatown-554305727-592d8ffc3df78cbe7e176f92.jpg


Brooklyn (Population Density: 14,404.2/km2)

BN-PI572_NYSPAC_8H_20160810151413.jpg


Scarborough (Population Density: 3,367.6/km2)

scarborough-town-centre-condos.jpg


Scarborough cannot be compared to Queens and Brooklyn, both of which are dense, urban environments unto themselves. Subways work in those boroughs because of the concentration of business, residents , built form and the local transit culture, critical ingredients all missing in Scarborough.

Subways in Queens and Brooklyn aren't just underground routes from bedroom suburbs to keep roads clear.

A better comparison with Scarborough would be White Plains, a suburban municipality of about the same density. It's connected to Manhattan via commuter rail.

Again, population density isn't everything, especially over such a large area like Scarborough. Many areas exceed the population densities of all three averages for the boroughs. Scarborough has 3 subway stations, each of the boroughs (except SI) has at least 50. I'd say that's pretty disproportionate.

Also, Scarborough has a far better bus network than anywhere in NYC. It makes sense for an area like Scarborough to have a trunk line where people can transfer from buses to subway. This is how transit in Toronto works.
 
Queens (Population Density: 8,324/km2)

view-of-flushing-chinatown-554305727-592d8ffc3df78cbe7e176f92.jpg


Brooklyn (Population Density: 14,404.2/km2)

BN-PI572_NYSPAC_8H_20160810151413.jpg


Scarborough (Population Density: 3,367.6/km2)

scarborough-town-centre-condos.jpg


Scarborough cannot be compared to Queens and Brooklyn, both of which are dense, urban environments unto themselves. Subways work in those boroughs because of the concentration of business, residents , built form and the local transit culture, critical ingredients all missing in Scarborough.

Subways in Queens and Brooklyn aren't just underground routes from bedroom suburbs to keep roads clear.

A better comparison with Scarborough would be White Plains, a suburban municipality of about the same density. It's connected to Manhattan via commuter rail.


Great comparison.
White Plains (58,241) is a large bedroom community that is served by a major commuter Metro North line that goes to Grand Central. It is the third-busiest commuter railroad in North America in terms of annual ridership. Downtown White Plains is built around the transit terminal like Scarborough City Centre. It is not far from office buildings and condos making it very convenient to commuters. White Plains station handles 2.8 million passengers per year.

800px-Train_Station_in_the_City_of_White_Plains_closeup.jpg

White Plains station

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_Plains_station
 
Last edited:
Again, population density isn't everything, especially over such a large area like Scarborough. Many areas exceed the population densities of all three averages for the boroughs. Scarborough has 3 subway stations, each of the boroughs (except SI) has at least 50. I'd say that's pretty disproportionate.

Also, Scarborough has a far better bus network than anywhere in NYC. It makes sense for an area like Scarborough to have a trunk line where people can transfer from buses to subway. This is how transit in Toronto works.

When it comes to subways, density (commercial and residential) is the key factor in all of this.

That's exactly why New York bouroughs can accommodate so many stations.

Brooklyn on it's own has almost the same population as the entire City of Toronto and a population density that's about 75% higher. It's not a bedroom suburb with people just trying to get downtown - Brooklyn is a destination unto itself, a place where people live and work.

This is why more subway stations in Scarborough doesn't make sense - it's not anywhere near being a Brooklyn (or Queens for that matter).
 
There was a much better plan, the plan that we had worked on and studied for years, that would have had a station right where the existing one is now, with a rapid transit line that would have extended much further into Scarborough, and not put political and financial road blocks in the way of other lines in Scarborough.

SSE doesn't put any road blocks in the way of other lines, either.
 
Subway will work in Scarborough. A few complainers here will keep whining, while tens of thousands of riders will travel by subway every day.
 
While it's true that a 31 mile (50km) subway line is a little absurd for Toronto, the fact still remains that New York has a subway system that is 170% the size of Toronto's when compared with population (in other words, per unit of population, the NYC subway is 70% larger than Toronto's, and of course, about 1/3 of their system is aboveground, which is something Toronto should really look at). It should also be noted that Toronto is still growing. While the existing enhancements (Crosstown (underground), SSE, DRL) will close that gap significantly, you would have to also build the Yonge North subway extension, RLN, and RLW in order to be fully on par with New York in terms of subway length/population. It should also be noted that New York's subway trains are significantly larger than ours, so total capacity is actually much larger in New York than it is here. Finally, when you consider the fact that "route miles" does not include the presence of express lines, the length of the New York city subway increases by about 50%. If we are ever to catch up in terms of capacity here, we would need to build a full Sheppard line, subways further into Mississauga, another relief line on Dundas, Relief Line Northwest, and Quad track the Yonge line.

Also, almost no one in the suburbs of New York City (Bronx, Brooklyn, Queens) uses the LIRR or MNRR to get to and from work -- everyone takes the subway. Having the subway extend to the middle of Scarborough and Etobicoke (in the long term anyways) is not far fetched, especially for a growing city of our size.

A better city to compare transit to is Chicago, which 2.25* the size of our system in population/km metrics. While the vast majority of their system is aboveground, it shows what rapid transit can look like in a city relative to our size.
But that's just the point I was trying to make. The NYC subway is what it is because it doesn't go to NYC's equivalents of Mississauga and Scarborough. It serves only the densest, most pedestrian oriented parts of the urban region, leaving the rest for commuter and light rail. If Toronto were to build subways like New York, it would build a dense web of lines south of Eglinton.

Not that Toronto should completely emulate NYC. We have the luxury of an existing rail system that's well suited for RER. With a freight bypass, that includes the line through the heart of Mississauga. That system will serve auto-oriented suburbs more effectively and affordably than subways ever could, and unlike NYC, it will also serve much of the inner city. So most of our new subways can go where they're really needed: dense, central areas that can't be served by mainline rail.

Again, population density isn't everything, especially over such a large area like Scarborough. Many areas exceed the population densities of all three averages for the boroughs. Scarborough has 3 subway stations, each of the boroughs (except SI) has at least 50. I'd say that's pretty disproportionate.

Also, Scarborough has a far better bus network than anywhere in NYC. It makes sense for an area like Scarborough to have a trunk line where people can transfer from buses to subway. This is how transit in Toronto works.
He also talked about built form, which is critical. The built form of Scarborough is nothing like the Bronx or Queens. And you don't plan subways by dividing the population by the number of stations. The Long Island suburbs have 2.6 million people and zero subway stations.

Subway will work in Scarborough. A few complainers here will keep whining, while tens of thousands of riders will travel by subway every day.
Tens of thousands would also use cheaper, more effective solutions.
 
While I don’t have a problem with extending the subway into Scarborough as far as the STC, it’s important that we have common agreement about where it stops - once and for a generation, at least - for the very reasons stated. There will always be some booster arguing for it to go another couple km’s. Why stop at MCC? How about Pickering?
I would like to see Line 2 not looped onto Sheppard, but built as a crossover to whatever happens on Sheppard. That enables one more extension towards Steeles, and enables extending Sheppard to Malvern. But it has to stop somewhere.
I am also disappointed that STC is apparently being designed with the same grandiosity as TYSSE. Something more modest is sufficient. It should be pretty, but we need to push the pendulum back. Now that we have them, can’t say that all the extra money on those TYSSE stations is giving us much added quality of life. STC should reflect that lesson learned.

- Paul
 
I am also disappointed that STC is apparently being designed with the same grandiosity as TYSSE. Something more modest is sufficient. It should be pretty, but we need to push the pendulum back. Now that we have them, can’t say that all the extra money on those TYSSE stations is giving us much added quality of life. STC should reflect that lesson learned.

- Paul

Yeah, I don't really understand the shift to enormous stations, given that smaller but still perfectly functional stations would easily handle the demand.
 
While I don’t have a problem with extending the subway into Scarborough as far as the STC, it’s important that we have common agreement about where it stops - once and for a generation, at least - for the very reasons stated. There will always be some booster arguing for it to go another couple km’s. Why stop at MCC? How about Pickering?
I would like to see Line 2 not looped onto Sheppard, but built as a crossover to whatever happens on Sheppard. That enables one more extension towards Steeles, and enables extending Sheppard to Malvern. But it has to stop somewhere.
I am also disappointed that STC is apparently being designed with the same grandiosity as TYSSE. Something more modest is sufficient. It should be pretty, but we need to push the pendulum back. Now that we have them, can’t say that all the extra money on those TYSSE stations is giving us much added quality of life. STC should reflect that lesson learned.

- Paul

Unfortunately, the SSE demonstrates we haven't learned a thing.
 
I am also disappointed that STC is apparently being designed with the same grandiosity as TYSSE. Something more modest is sufficient. It should be pretty, but we need to push the pendulum back. Now that we have them, can’t say that all the extra money on those TYSSE stations is giving us much added quality of life. STC should reflect that lesson learned.
It's almost like automakers selling different models on exactly the same pan, but available in 'all these fancy shapes and styles'. They rarely sell the vehicle on performance any more (save for a few utilitarian classics) and sell the bodies the way running shoes are sold. Both the TTC and GO do this, and frankly, compared to other cities, for similar cost, they look atrocious! Why not sell *performance* and forget whatever stupid style it's supposed to be. The purpose of the vehicle is to get you from A to B, B to A, and time and time again, without failing.

I look at the price tags for these 'Taj Mahals of Opulence' and think "that could have gone towards the By-Pass!". And in other cities, that's exactly the case. Cities known for their excellent transit.
But that's just the point I was trying to make. The NYC subway is what it is because it doesn't go to NYC's equivalents of Mississauga and Scarborough. It serves only the densest, most pedestrian oriented parts of the urban region, leaving the rest for commuter and light rail. If Toronto were to build subways like New York, it would build a dense web of lines south of Eglinton.

[...] The Long Island suburbs have 2.6 million people and zero subway stations. [...]Tens of thousands would also use cheaper, more effective solutions.
LIRR and MNR are effectively RER/Commuter surface rail running electric in tunnels in the core, exactly as Toronto should be doing. As London, Paris, Berlin, etc, etc do. Paris is into a new round of subway building, but only as an inner part of a massive regional system beyond the present even.
GLOBAL
Tying Paris Back Together
The French capital has embarked on the most ambitious new subway project in the Western world.

HENRY GRABARMARCH 2016 ISSUEhttps://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2016/03/tying-paris-back-together/426870/

For NYC, see: https://www.citylab.com/transportation/2018/04/why-new-york-city-stopped-building-subways/557567/

Excellent post @MisterF
 
But that's just the point I was trying to make. The NYC subway is what it is because it doesn't go to NYC's equivalents of Mississauga and Scarborough. It serves only the densest, most pedestrian oriented parts of the urban region, leaving the rest for commuter and light rail. If Toronto were to build subways like New York, it would build a dense web of lines south of Eglinton.

Not that Toronto should completely emulate NYC. We have the luxury of an existing rail system that's well suited for RER. With a freight bypass, that includes the line through the heart of Mississauga. That system will serve auto-oriented suburbs more effectively and affordably than subways ever could, and unlike NYC, it will also serve much of the inner city. So most of our new subways can go where they're really needed: dense, central areas that can't be served by mainline rail.


He also talked about built form, which is critical. The built form of Scarborough is nothing like the Bronx or Queens. And you don't plan subways by dividing the population by the number of stations. The Long Island suburbs have 2.6 million people and zero subway stations.


Tens of thousands would also use cheaper, more effective solutions.

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

It's like this in a lot of locations in Scarborough, with small pockets of density that justify a subway. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Toronto_neighbourhoods

Long Island also has the busiest commuter railroad in the world 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?

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

Quite frankly I'm all in favor of expanding the subway system downtown, I have always advocated for it, but I also see a need, based on how our system is built and operated, for an expansion of service a bit deeper into Scarborough.
 
When it comes to subways, density (commercial and residential) is the key factor in all of this.

That's exactly why New York bouroughs can accommodate so many stations.

Brooklyn on it's own has almost the same population as the entire City of Toronto and a population density that's about 75% higher. It's not a bedroom suburb with people just trying to get downtown - Brooklyn is a destination unto itself, a place where people live and work.

This is why more subway stations in Scarborough doesn't make sense - it's not anywhere near being a Brooklyn (or Queens for that matter).

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.
 

Back
Top