Debate on the merits of the Scarborough Subway Extension

[syn]

What'd you expect from a "stubway"? Despite that, people are standing during rush hour and the trains are packed.

Toronto has a priority problem, granted, doesn't mean a subway isn't needed on Sheppard or in Scarborough

Unlike the other lines, which are crowded consistently throughout the day and night.

The RT is essentially deserted outside of rush hour. So is the Sheppard Line.

The numbers very clearly indicate that these areas were not and are not suitable for subway infrastructure.

 

[Hopkins123]

Only in Toronto do we complain about expanding the real rapid transit network. Kipling sees like 55,000 daily alightings and Kennedy: 75,000. Yet somehow they are failures because they are allowing for passengers to be able to get on the train further inwards on the line?

I guess Syn wants a Bloor-Danforth Relief Line built too to intercept passengers prior to them getting south of the 401... Maybe across Sheppard Avenue... Oh wait!!

 

[syn]

Only in Toronto do we complain about expanding the real rapid transit network. Kipling sees like 55,000 daily alightings and Kennedy: 75,000. Yet somehow they are failures because they are allowing for passengers to be able to get on the train further inwards on the line?

I guess Syn wants a Bloor-Danforth Relief Line built too to intercept passengers prior to them getting south of the 401... Maybe across Sheppard Avenue... Oh wait!!

Who said anything of the sort?

 

[jaybe]

Bessarion is still the least used station in the system - lower than Summerhill according to 2015 stats.
If anything the Sheppard Line (along with other terminal stations like Kipling and Kennedy) are excellent examples that 'build it and they will come' is a terrible subway planning strategy.

I agree that the SSE is not a good investment. That said, there must be some vision included when building public infrastructure. The Bloor viaduct is a great local example of over-engineering a piece of infrastructure in order to meet anticipated future demand.

Prior to the subway, Sheppard East was one of the busiest bus routes in the City. The Sheppard line is incomplete so understandably usage rates are lower than anticipated.

 

[Streety McCarface]

Bessarion is still the least used station in the system - lower than Summerhill according to 2015 stats.

Sheppard's ridership is still quite awful, about 15 years after it opened. Bayview and Leslie also have poor ridership.

If anything the Sheppard Line (along with other terminal stations like Kipling and Kennedy) are excellent examples that 'build it and they will come' is a terrible subway planning strategy.

This is why the SSE is moving foward - politics. It's the same reason the Sheppard Extension was approved. It's not rooted any sort of sensible planning rationale.

Instead of Sheppard they should've built the DRL. An LRT would've been great for Sheppard, just as it will be for Eglinton, and as it would be for Scarborough.

Should the Sheppard subway have been built at that time? No. Is the ridership pathetic for Toronto? Yes, but that doesn't mean it's internationally pathetic. Bayview averages about 10,000 people per day, which isn't that terrible. Leslie has 7,000 people per day. Not the greatest, but again, not terrible. There are a bunch more stations with far worse ridership, or ridership nearing it for both these stations. (See RT, Chester, Summerhill, Rosedale, Glencairn, Museum, Castle Frank, Greenwood, and soon to include Downsview Park, HWY 407, and VMC etc). Don Mills makes up for other station shortfalls quite a bit. Bessarion was built for the future and had it not been built, Leslie and Bayview station ridership would be higher. Concord Park Place is just now moving west of IKEA, and seeing how Leslie's ridership went from about 5,500 to nearly 7,000 in 2 years with only 2 new buildings, Bessarion has hope.

I'm not arguing that the DRL shouldn't have been built first, I'm not even arguing that we should expand Sheppard, or that we should have even built sheppard then. I'm arguing that ridership counts are quite impressive compared to other systems and that the expectations of Torontonians are a little convoluted. It was a mistake, but we have to live with that so change the building codes around the stations and stop succumbing to NIMBYISM. Also, the corridor nearly tripled existing bus ridership along the corridor.

With regards to crowding, the trains, despite being 4 cars, are huge. They can carry around 800 people and the trains come more often than even New York City. Just because the trains don't look as busy as other lines, doesn't mean that the line isn't busy. Ridership will take another 10 years to materialize, and the line provides a link for the future DRL long, it will be less pathetic in the future, especially if there's an extension west (Not arguing for it, simply stating usefulness with that particular extension. Ridership wouldn't justify it currently), and a SELRT built.

 

[Hopkins123]

Who said anything of the sort?

You, more or less.

You can't complain about overcrowding at the core stations necessitating the need for a DRL in the same breath as criticizing a lack of density at the outskirts as an excuse not to further extend those lines when the feeder traffic into the terminals is huge by any measure.

 

[pman]

The arguments against SSE are that:

1. Feeder traffic would not be nearly huge enough to justify the enormous capital cost;
2. The density follows subway construction argument is demonstrably false in Toronto; and
3. With a limited capital budget, and a growing mobility crisis in the GTA, it’s insane not to direct our scarce investment dollars to projects that will pass a cost-benefit analysis. With regard to SSE, our Mayor and Council have rejected such an analysis, presumably because they know it would probably determine the project is a terrible use of our collective tax dollars.

It’s entirely consistent to highlight the terrible peak period overcrowding at Yonge-Bloor as a reason to invest in ameliorating the problem, while asserting that lack of density is a reason not to build the most expensive form of transit. In both cases, the argument is that capital spending should be demand-driven. “Only in Toronto” would that even be a contestable position.

 

[sixrings]

Well it is good that more people are moving downtown creating a larger majority. Too often I hear people complain why dont they move companies to where people actually live. When in fact what they mean is where they actually live. The numbers are pointing more and more people are living downtown so people will eventually get with the program since the numbers are going to be so lopsided. More people need more transit. It is pretty simple.

 

[Juan_Lennon416]

Well it is good that more people are moving downtown creating a larger majority. Too often I hear people complain why dont they move companies to where people actually live. When in fact what they mean is where they actually live. The numbers are pointing more and more people are living downtown so people will eventually get with the program since the numbers are going to be so lopsided. More people need more transit. It is pretty simple.

Talk about the Scarborough Subway, not downtown

 

[Leo_Chan]

Talk about the Scarborough Subway, not downtown

But without downtown, the SSE is useless. If you look at the SSE without Downtown Toronto, then you'll see that connecting STC to Kennedy almost useless. There might as well be a Sheppard, McCowan, and Eglinton LRTS, but since the whole reason for the SSE is a "one-stop ride" to downtown, then you'll have to take everything into consideration. Whether or NOT the SSE is useful in terms of just for Scarborough, some discussion of the rest of the City of Toronto's transit has to have some weight in the decision making.

 

[syn]

You, more or less.

You can't complain about overcrowding at the core stations necessitating the need for a DRL in the same breath as criticizing a lack of density at the outskirts as an excuse not to further extend those lines when the feeder traffic into the terminals is huge by any measure.

Please read more carefully.

I wrote that building subways and hoping for density to improve (which is a rationale cited for building the SSE) as a result has proven to be a terrible planning strategy. This is why, historically, subways have been built where there's density available to support them.

Warden was completed in the 60s. Kennedy and Warden in the early 80s. Despite this, density in the surrounding areas have remained low, and development relatively stagnant (Kipling is finally seeing legitimate highrise construction decades after they were built). That's why the RT is still generally quite suitable for the area.

As far as feeder stations go, the SSE doesn't compare to any that currently exist either (something pointed out numerous times in this thread). It's a 6km extension that will see only about 64,000 riders a day. Here are the ridership totals from some 6km stretches of subway across the city:

In addition, the Kennedy and Kipling extensions didn't cost $5 billion dollars. They didn't cost $4 billion either. For that matter, they didn't cost $3 billion each, $2 billion each or $1 billion each.

The total cost for both was $110 million (I believe that's 1970 dollars). The cost for Kipling was only $38.6 million. In 2017 dollars, that's approximately $681 million for both and $223 million for the Kipling portion. They weren't 6km from the nearest station either. From financial and geographic perspectives, you could find at least some sort of justification for them, even if they weren't being built in high density areas.

No such justification exists for the SSE.

 

[OneCity]

Please read more carefully.

I wrote that building subways and hoping for density to improve (which is a rationale cited for building the SSE) as a result has proven to be a terrible planning strategy. This is why, historically, subways have been built where there's density available to support them.

Warden was completed in the 60s. Kennedy and Warden in the early 80s. Despite this, density in the surrounding areas have remained low, and development relatively stagnant (Kipling is finally seeing legitimate highrise construction decades after they were built). That's why the RT is still generally quite suitable for the area.

As far as feeder stations go, the SSE doesn't compare to any that currently exist either (something pointed out numerous times in this thread). It's a 6km extension that will see only about 64,000 riders a day. Here are the ridership totals from some 6km stretches of subway across the city:

In addition, the Kennedy and Kipling extensions didn't cost $5 billion dollars. They didn't cost $4 billion either. For that matter, they didn't cost $3 billion each, $2 billion each or $1 billion each.

The total cost for both was $110 million (I believe that's 1970 dollars). The cost for Kipling was only $38.6 million. In 2017 dollars, that's approximately $681 million for both and $223 million for the Kipling portion. They weren't 6km from the nearest station either. From financial and geographic perspectives, you could find at least some sort of justification for them, even if they weren't being built in high density areas.

No such justification exists for the SSE.

Aside from it being one stop at the moment it is fully justified at this stage given the severe polarization of our council, the amount of subway(s) built in North York, the subway built to little Vaughan, the amount of time and money already wasted and the need to move on for both Scarborough and to other City projects.

There could have been, and was reasonable alternatives proposed to this corridor with both seamless LRT or subway technologies. But too much wasted time with a band aid transfer line before SCC and transfer before the Sheppard stub otherwise we could have had a properly connected LRT or a subway on a cheaper corridor. This transfer laden plan got called out and people here overwhelmingly support a better plan. Certainly there were reasonable non transfer cheaper options to the McCowan corridor, but I have zero confidence going back will find significant savings for any respectful solution and zero confidence council can work to find respectful compromise.

 

[BurlOak]

The arguments against SSE are that:

1. Feeder traffic would not be nearly huge enough to justify the enormous capital cost;
2. The density follows subway construction argument is demonstrably false in Toronto; and
3. With a limited capital budget, and a growing mobility crisis in the GTA, it’s insane not to direct our scarce investment dollars to projects that will pass a cost-benefit analysis. With regard to SSE, our Mayor and Council have rejected such an analysis, presumably because they know it would probably determine the project is a terrible use of our collective tax dollars.

It’s entirely consistent to highlight the terrible peak period overcrowding at Yonge-Bloor as a reason to invest in ameliorating the problem, while asserting that lack of density is a reason not to build the most expensive form of transit. In both cases, the argument is that capital spending should be demand-driven. “Only in Toronto” would that even be a contestable position.

Crowding at Y-B is the worst arguement against the SSE that I have heard.
The only way more people will go to Y-B is if the SSE is so much more convenient that it attracts new riders. Otherwise, the same people from NE Scarborough will be heading downtown and have to travel through Y-B. The only difference being - the one added transfer. If, as LRT proponents say, the transfer is "no big deal", then there will be no effect on the Y-B transfers.

That is the main reason I thought an SRT connected to Eglinton LRT was the best option. It would have encouraged a DRL to Eglinton as well.
The next option I considered was to have an SRT that makes its own way downtown.
It is realizing that Y-B is too far north of downtown when one realizes the pitfalls of the B-D route to Yonge. Both SSE and transfer LRT rely on funneling people through Y-B. Or they force yet another transfer to the planned DRL that will only help those who work at City Hall, since nobody would do yet another transfer from DRL to YUS.

 

[syn]

Should the Sheppard subway have been built at that time? No. Is the ridership pathetic for Toronto? Yes, but that doesn't mean it's internationally pathetic. Bayview averages about 10,000 people per day, which isn't that terrible. Leslie has 7,000 people per day. Not the greatest, but again, not terrible. There are a bunch more stations with far worse ridership, or ridership nearing it for both these stations. (See RT, Chester, Summerhill, Rosedale, Glencairn, Museum, Castle Frank, Greenwood, and soon to include Downsview Park, HWY 407, and VMC etc). Don Mills makes up for other station shortfalls quite a bit. Bessarion was built for the future and had it not been built, Leslie and Bayview station ridership would be higher. Concord Park Place is just now moving west of IKEA, and seeing how Leslie's ridership went from about 5,500 to nearly 7,000 in 2 years with only 2 new buildings, Bessarion has hope.

I'm not arguing that the DRL shouldn't have been built first, I'm not even arguing that we should expand Sheppard, or that we should have even built sheppard then. I'm arguing that ridership counts are quite impressive compared to other systems and that the expectations of Torontonians are a little convoluted. It was a mistake, but we have to live with that so change the building codes around the stations and stop succumbing to NIMBYISM. Also, the corridor nearly tripled existing bus ridership along the corridor.

With regards to crowding, the trains, despite being 4 cars, are huge. They can carry around 800 people and the trains come more often than even New York City. Just because the trains don't look as busy as other lines, doesn't mean that the line isn't busy. Ridership will take another 10 years to materialize, and the line provides a link for the future DRL long, it will be less pathetic in the future, especially if there's an extension west (Not arguing for it, simply stating usefulness with that particular extension. Ridership wouldn't justify it currently), and a SELRT built.

This is completely untrue. Ridership for the Sheppard Line is poor by international subway standards.

Not only is it poor, such a subway line would never have been built while there are still major areas of density unserved/underserved by subway stations. If Toronto was a European or Asian city, I'm quite sure a DRL and a line along King or Queen (or perhaps both) would've been in the pipeline long before Sheppard.

The stops you mention completely ignore context too.

Chester had 7,700 riders a day in 2015, that's true. But what about the stations before and after?

Broadview - 33,460
Chester - 7,700
Pape - 28,710
Donlands - 11,500

TOTAL: 81,370 over 1.9km

According to the same 2015 TTC stats, the Sheppard Line handles just 49,070 riders on a 5.6 km line.

You can cherry pick specific stations on the Bloor Line that don't have high ridership, but you're missing the point entirely. The Sheppard Line has three stations with ridership below 9,000. The entire Bloor Line has the same number (four if you want to include those under 10,000).

The entire Sheppard Line is poorly used.

Continuing to make mistakes such as the Sheppard Line are quite indefensible when there are major needs to address. The SSE is a much, much larger mistake than the Sheppard Line - it's probably the worst proposed expansion in TTC history.

 

[epcjay]

Broadview has 6 bus routes that feed into it and Pape has 3. Chester we can say is probably all foot traffic. Donlands has 2 buses that feed into it.

Bayview and Leslie I would say is decent with 1 bus route each feeding it