Debate on the merits of the Scarborough Subway Extension

[Streety McCarface]

What does them being above ground have to do with anything?

Are you seriously arguing that transit in the suburbs is more cost effective than it is in high density environments???

You do realize the Sheppard Line still runs at a deficit, right?

Do you honestly think the SSE is an efficient project??

Let's see the stats that demonstrate Warden, Kennedy and their associated routes have the lowest operational costs.

The argument was that running the subway in the suburbs (especially where the line runs above ground) was much more cost effective than in slightly dense areas because a higher number of stations on a section of line leads to higher operating costs. Underground operation leads to higher operating costs as well. If you cannot understand that, then there’s no point arguing with you.

We don’t actually know the true operating costs of the sheppard line, and we don’t know the operating costs for any of the subway lines. We do however know that the sheppard line brings in less revenue than both other main subway lines, however, if you factor in riders transferring, the bloor danforth line brings in a similar revenue per kilometre as the Sheppard Line. (I will add that much of The BD line is built above ground, but I will also note that the line is 3* as old and therefore requires much more mantainance). With this sentiment, I truly cannot give you an exact answer to this question. There are too many variables to identify.

The current alignment? Of course not. It runs underground in an area it probably shouldn’t. However, given the political nature of the project, it is the cheapest option in terms of funding for the city. 800 million dollars, since the province and federal government are funding the rest. The LRT? Or the ICTS? Since they’re using the Stoffville sub, no funding from the province and likely none from the federal government. Therefore, the city of Toronto has to foot the entire bill. There are far more factors to consider other than cost alone.

I already showed them; same ridership and same distance as the area from broadview to Main Street station. Broadview to Main Street; let’s assume each station has an operating cost of 10,000$ a day. Let’s assume the other 3 stations have an operating cost of 20,000$ a day. As a result, the BV-M has a station cost of 80,000$ a day, vs the Suburban 60,000$ a day. Let’s also consider track. Let’s assume the BV-M section has an operating cost of 10,000$ a day in operating costs, the suburban section, 5,000$. That comes to 50,000$ and 25,000$ respectively. In total, that comes to 130,000$ daily for the BV-M section, and 85,000$ a day for the VP-Kennedy section. I haven’t even considered station dwell time, but I can guarantee that it will make the BV-M section even more expensive.

 

[syn]

The argument was that running the subway in the suburbs (especially where the line runs above ground) was much more cost effective than in slightly dense areas because a higher number of stations on a section of line leads to higher operating costs. Underground operation leads to higher operating costs as well. If you cannot understand that, then there’s no point arguing with you.

The argument is flawed.

We are not comparing the suburbs to 'slightly' dense areas, we are comparing them to far denser areas. Density in the Old City of Toronto is 8,214 per sq/km. In Scarborough it's just 3,368 per sq/km. Old Toronto's density (which includes less dense older city 'suburbs') would make it the 3rd densest city in NA.

Furthermore, only a portion of the distance between Main and Victoria Park (about 162m) is above ground. Only a short portion of the distance between Warden and Kennedy (about 320m) is above ground (with over 2km underground). To describe these stations as connected by 'above-ground' rail is very inaccurate.

Running lines above ground also introduces it's own set of operational/maintenance challenges. Suburban mega-stations have their own operational costs that likely exceed those of smaller city stations by quite a wide margin.

As a public service (and a publicly funded service) the cost to the rider is also a huge factor. How many riders can simply walk to Pape or take a short bus ride, as opposed to having to drive to the station or have a long bus ride? This is exactly why subways were designed for dense urban environments - they offer the kind of accessibility necessary to make such an investment viable.

Dufferin station handles slightly more riders (200 more based on 2015 numbers) than Warden. It's fed by just one bus - the 29 Dufferin. How many buses does Warden handle? Eight. It also has a very large commuter parking lot. It's essentially the opposite of efficient and cost effective.

You may not be aware of this, but at one point in it's history, the TTC was self sufficient. It's only after the government mandated they had to service suburban areas of the city that they started to receive upper level government subsidies. Why? Suburbs are not designed for cost effective transit solutions - if the TTC was expected to service them without a subsidy they would've run into serious financial trouble. The government, even all those decades ago, was aware of this reality.

If you really think suburban transit is more efficient, then you should give YRT and MiWay a call and let them know they should actually be cheaper than the TTC - I'm sure they'd enjoy the laugh.

 

[Streety McCarface]

The argument is flawed.

We are not comparing the suburbs to 'slightly' dense areas, we are comparing them to far denser areas. Density in the Old City of Toronto is 8,214 per sq/km. In Scarborough it's just 3,368 per sq/km. Old Toronto's density (which includes less dense older city 'suburbs') would make it the 3rd densest city in NA.

Furthermore, only a portion of the distance between Main and Victoria Park (about 162m) is above ground. Only a short portion of the distance between Warden and Kennedy (about 320m) is above ground (with over 2km underground). To describe these stations as connected by 'above-ground' rail is very inaccurate.

Running lines above ground also introduces it's own set of operational/maintenance challenges. Suburban mega-stations have their own operational costs that likely exceed those of smaller city stations by quite a wide margin.

As a public service (and a publicly funded service) the cost to the rider is also a huge factor. How many riders can simply walk to Pape or take a short bus ride, as opposed to having to drive to the station or have a long bus ride? This is exactly why subways were designed for dense urban environments - they offer the kind of accessibility necessary to make such an investment viable.

Dufferin station handles slightly more riders (200 more based on 2015 numbers) than Warden. It's fed by just one bus - the 29 Dufferin. How many buses does Warden handle? Eight. It also has a very large commuter parking lot. It's essentially the opposite of efficient and cost effective.

You may not be aware of this, but at one point in it's history, the TTC was self sufficient. It's only after the government mandated they had to service suburban areas of the city that they started to receive upper level government subsidies. Why? Suburbs are not designed for cost effective transit solutions - if the TTC was expected to service them without a subsidy they would've run into serious financial trouble. The government, even all those decades ago, was aware of this reality.

If you really think suburban transit is more efficient, then you should give YRT and MiWay a call and let them know they should actually be cheaper than the TTC - I'm sure they'd enjoy the laugh.

Thank you for actually understanding the argument I was making initially : P Now to refutations

Clarification: The section between Main St and Vic Park was not included because Vic park is the border of Scarborough, the topic of discussion here. That isn't main St.

There's no doubt that above ground operations possess their own operation challenges, that's why I included station costs as twice as much for the aboveground Vic Park, Warden, and Underground Kennedy. They simply have larger facilities. Although the lines themselves have different challenges, operations are undoubtedly more expensive underground. Also, I realize my mistake with that section of about 2 kms of underground line. the CNR runs over the subway so it looks like the subway is still running aboveground on ArcGIS.

As you can see I missed this gap, however, this section of track is only 2/5ths of the line, and the large section of aboveground track still makes the line cost effective.

Although true, not all individuals are walking to a station, and many don't have such short bus rides. You mention Dufferin, but there's a bit of a catch there; The 29 dufferin bus travels all the way up to Wilson; it covers a huge area, from Downtown to Downsview. That's a much larger area to service than say, the 73 along St Clair (because the other half of the route serves Coxwell Station. You mention shorter bus rides, but a majority of riders won't take the bus as long as you really think they will. Also, consider this: instead riders transferring from the 102 Markham Rd Bus at Warden to the subway, they have to take the bus further into the city to access the subway. I don't know about you, but that in itself is going to cost significantly more to operate assuming busses from all of scarborough (not just Scarborough, but north york, Etobicoke, and the surrounding cities). That makes less sense on a cost-benefit analysis.

I can say for a fact that the statement regarding your claim that there are far more buses that serve the 5 km Scarborough area of track is completely false. Number of bus routes serving a station is an unfair metric when a route like the 504 can have the equivalent of 258 streetcars servicing a station, while a suburban route like the 135 at Warden can only see the station 56 times. Remeber, Broadview station has the 504 and 505 serving it. The section of Old Toronto line also has 8 stations, when compared to the Scarborough line's portion of 3. Attached below is a spreadsheet of a count of service vehicles that are scheduled to depart from each surface station. Let it be known that the number is the equivalent of 40' buses and as a result, streetcars are counted 3 times to accurately represent the data. Based on these numbers, we find that the Broadview-Main section of the line has a total of 4,310 40' buses serving its 8 stations and the Vic Park-Kennedy section of the line has the equivalent of 2,722 40' buses. That's a difference of about 1,600 or about 58% fewer buses for the Vic Park-Kennedy section. Parking accounts for less than probably 3% of Warden's usage, and I guarantee that there are plenty of people using the old town section that get rides to the subway stations. People also pay for parking and although it's probably partially subsidized, it's an insignificant factor affecting station ridership.

The expansion of the subways into the suburbs DID NOT lead to the TTC having a deficit, that changed was the strengthening of unions, inflation, the car, the president that people had to drive (the introduction of the car), higher electricity costs, higher costs for materials, taxes, the loss of streetcars, and most importantly, declining ridership overall. That is what prevented the TTC from being self-sufficient, not the expansion into the suburbs, because almost all cities are not self-sufficient, but I guarantee you that they were all sufficient back then. Why? They were all private companies of course! The TTC was running a deficit far before the Spadina line was built, so it's a little unfair to say that everything was sunshine and rainbows when it only served downtown.

Don't get me started on YRT or MiWay...but let it be known, the only profitable surface route is run by Miway, but the big difference between these two and the TTC is that both of them don't have a transit spine to serve them. Without the subway, I can guarantee without a doubt that all the suburban routes, from Lawrence to Finch, Sheppard to Steels, Don Mills to Dufferin (some of the highest surface routes in the city) would have ridership just as bad as the routes in these other cities had it not been for the subway extensions into the suburbs.

 

[Streety McCarface]

Sorry, the spreadsheet wouldn't upload, but here are the tables

Numbers are not fabricated, and are from these sources

Bus Counts for each surface route (Kennedy has 73, and 41 buses cut off respectively)

Bus Routes (Kennedy has routes 21 (AC) and 131 (E))

I did this for a statistics project, it was painful.

 

[OneCity]

I’m not sure why SSE advocates are so adamant the project shouldn’t be properly analyzed. If the results were unfavourable, an outcome they seem to anticipate, they could still argue that the social justice benefits to Scarborough trump any purely economic considerations. But at least we’d be having an honest and informed conversation.

Moved here....

Not like it would even be considered outside of the usual opposition but you want Scarborough residents or any reasonable Politician to support further analysis at this a stage?:

• So we can achieve years of further delay?
• So we can be impacted even more by inflation/material cost increases?
• So we can fuel further debate?
• So we witness the fall out with upper levels of Government of all parties who are all at the table?
• So we can review a corridor that may not even be available?
• So the City's transit rich transfer LRT advocates can flex muscle a bit longer?
• So Scarborough can watch Richmond Hill Centre move closer to their subway and create deeper apathy?
• So we can see how much construction costs and inflation have risen in the already politically low balled estimates for Transit City?
• So the RT can receive some extra money for more duct tape?
• So we can create grounds for new plans for further analysis next decade to follow?

Hybrid social justice and economical options on the RT corridor were already offered and rejected. Really this was unfortunate for all. Big picture its been roughly estimated by some that we could be spending $200+ Billion (for now) in capital in the coming decades on transit infrastructure alone. While I get your concern that this wasn't the most cost effective solution, if stops are added back it is very much in line with exists in the current network and future. I don't share your vision that going back to study will do any good at this stage or provide significant savings on any reasonable plan. Analysis at this stage is further paralysis. Time to build has past long ago

 

[pman]

Moved here....

Not like it would even be considered outside of the usual opposition but you want Scarborough residents or any reasonable Politician to support further analysis at this a stage?:

• So we can achieve years of further delays?
• So we can be impacted even more by inflation/material cost increases?
• So we can fuel further debate?
• So we witness the fall out with upper levels of Government of all parties who are all at the table?
• So we can review a corridor that may not even be available?
• So the City's transit rich transfer LRT advocates can flex muscle a bit longer?
• So Scarborough can watch Richmond Hill Centre move closer to their subway and create deeper apathy?
• So we can see how much construction costs and inflation have risen in the already politically low balled estimates for Transit City?
• So the RT can get some more duct tape?
• So we can create grounds for further analysis next decade to follow?

Hybrid social justice and economical options on the RT corridor were already offered and rejected. Really this was unfortunate for all. Big picture its been roughly estimated by some that we could be spending $200+ Billion (for now) in capital in the coming decades on transit infrastructure alone. While I get your concern that this wasn't the most cost effective solution, if stops are added back it is very much in line with exists in the current network and future. I don't share your vision that going back to study will do any good at this stage or provide significant savings on any reasonable plan. Analysis at this stage is certainly paralysis. Time to build has past long ago.

So that once we have accurate construction cost numbers, an independent and unbiased consultant with expertise in the field can provide an objective assessment before $3 to $4 billion of tax dollars, the vast majority of which will be raised outside of Scarborough, will be spent. I’m surprised - if you’re so passionately committed to the project, why don’t you think it will bear proper scrutiny?

 

[Hopkins123]

So that once we have accurate construction cost numbers, an independent and unbiased consultant with expertise in the field can provide an objective assessment before $3 to $4 billion of tax dollars, the vast majority of which will be raised outside of Scarborough, will be spent. I’m surprised - if you’re so passionately committed to the project, why don’t you think it will bear proper scrutiny?

The only glaring flaw with SSE is the lack of intermediate stops. Add those back in and the project makes fiscal sense again. Curve it to the northeast after Scarborough Centre to head to Centennial and Malvern... then the opponents to SSE wouldn't have a leg to stand on.

 

[OneCity]

So that once we have accurate construction cost numbers, an independent and unbiased consultant with expertise in the field can provide an objective assessment before $3 to $4 billion of tax dollars, the vast majority of which will be raised outside of Scarborough, will be spent. I’m surprised - if you’re so passionately committed to the project, why don’t you think it will bear proper scrutiny?[/QUOTE]

.

I'm passionately committed to moving forward in the most reasonable manner at this stage and in this climate of overwhelming support from all political levels and overwhelming political butt-hurt from a small number of mainly transit rich council wards. I explained many reasons why its not worth analyzing further at this stage and is completely unreasonable.

Very unfortunate you were never so demanding of this "value" analysis when Miller trotted out his political LRT plan? Could have had 5-10 plans compared on multiple corridors, the transfers and multiple technologies at that time. Would have made far more sense then, especially after Scarborough councilors requested the subway in his first term. He took a big gamble against support and failed in the end when local residents were given a chance to vote their displeasure as main election item. And many more elections and bi elections that followed have consistently indicated residents want a more equitable overall plan. Far too late now. We do have enough time for deeper comparative analysis on Sheppard and can ensure sure we look closer at options with better connectivity against the SELRT.

 

[Rainforest]

So that once we have accurate construction cost numbers, an independent and unbiased consultant with expertise in the field can provide an objective assessment before $3 to $4 billion of tax dollars, the vast majority of which will be raised outside of Scarborough, will be spent. I’m surprised - if you’re so passionately committed to the project, why don’t you think it will bear proper scrutiny?

I am in favor of doing every useful kind of assessment, and making the fundings public. No purpose is served by withholding the information from the public.

However, I am not sold on the modern cost-benefit ratio concept with respect to transit projects. That approach looks objective and "scientific" at the first glance, but if you analyze deeper, you will see some problems:

1) If only hard / monetized benefits are taken into account, then almost any transit project is cost-negative (unless the fares are increased dramatically).

2) To get around the above problem, analysts add implied benefits such as reduction in travel time, accessibility, street realm improvement etc. Those benefits are quantified by using some weight factors. However, since those benefits aren't really sold on any kind of free market, such weight coefficients are, to a large degree, subjective, and reflect the personal views of the individual or group who conducts the assessment.

Thus, we might end up with an outcome that really reflects some subjective views, but wrapped / disguised as "objective"scientific data.

3) Dealing with some constraints is cumbersome in the cost-benefit paradigm. In our case, what if Metrolinx is strongly inclined to keep the Uxbridge Sub corridor out of the city's hands, and makes that known to the Mayor / TTC Commission? It would be hard to quantify the loss of good will with Metrolinx should the City pursue a solution based on the Uxbridge Sub, and yet the said loss of good will would substantially affect other projects.

Therefore, my preference is to conduct the desired studies, but present the results in the natural form: if we choose A, then we pay X and gain benefits 1,2,3, but miss out on 4,5,6; etc. Then, the elected representatives can make a move and select the preferred option.

 

[pman]

I'm passionately committed to moving forward in the most reasonable manner at this stage an in this climate of overwhelming support from all political levels and overwhelming political butt-hurt from a small number of mainly transit rich council wards. I explained many reasons why its not worth analyzing further at this stage and is completely unreasonable.

Very unfortunate you were never so demanding of this "value" analysis when Miller trotted out his political LRT plan? Could have had 5-10 plans compared on multiple corridors, the transfers and multiple technologies at that time. Would have made far more sense then, especially after Scarborough councilors requested the subway in his first term. He took a big gamble against support and failed in the end when local residents were given a chance to vote their displeasure as main election item. And many more elections and bi elections that followed have consistently indicated residents want a more equitable overall plan. Far too late now. We do have enough time for deeper comparative analysis on Sheppard and can ensure sure we look closer at options with better connectivity against the SELRT.

First, why on earth do you use the sarcastic quotes for “value”?

Second, are you really sure I wasn’t demanding a “value” - only in Toronto transit planning would that come in quotes - analysis of Transit City? Can you prove it? I’m genuinely curious because I can’t remember back that far and I’m not going to attempt to check. Anyway, please provide either evidence or a retraction.

Third, it’s “by-elections” not “bi elections”.

But my main point is that every large public capital expenditure, not limited to SSE, should be subject to unbiased, data-driven, transparent and public analysis. That hasn’t happened with SSE. I understand your hysterical attempt to demonize SSE opponents as nefarious residents of transit rich wards. I live in Rosedale, so fulminate away. But scattershot ad hominem argument isn’t really a satisfactory justification for a project that seems pretty dubious based on the little information that’s been released.

 

[syn]

Although true, not all individuals are walking to a station, and many don't have such short bus rides. You mention Dufferin, but there's a bit of a catch there; The 29 dufferin bus travels all the way up to Wilson; it covers a huge area, from Downtown to Downsview. That's a much larger area to service than say, the 73 along St Clair (because the other half of the route serves Coxwell Station. You mention shorter bus rides, but a majority of riders won't take the bus as long as you really think they will. Also, consider this: instead riders transferring from the 102 Markham Rd Bus at Warden to the subway, they have to take the bus further into the city to access the subway. I don't know about you, but that in itself is going to cost significantly more to operate assuming busses from all of scarborough (not just Scarborough, but north york, Etobicoke, and the surrounding cities). That makes less sense on a cost-benefit analysis.

I can say for a fact that the statement regarding your claim that there are far more buses that serve the 5 km Scarborough area of track is completely false. Number of bus routes serving a station is an unfair metric when a route like the 504 can have the equivalent of 258 streetcars servicing a station, while a suburban route like the 135 at Warden can only see the station 56 times. Remeber, Broadview station has the 504 and 505 serving it. The section of Old Toronto line also has 8 stations, when compared to the Scarborough line's portion of 3. Attached below is a spreadsheet of a count of service vehicles that are scheduled to depart from each surface station. Let it be known that the number is the equivalent of 40' buses and as a result, streetcars are counted 3 times to accurately represent the data. Based on these numbers, we find that the Broadview-Main section of the line has a total of 4,310 40' buses serving its 8 stations and the Vic Park-Kennedy section of the line has the equivalent of 2,722 40' buses. That's a difference of about 1,600 or about 58% fewer buses for the Vic Park-Kennedy section. Parking accounts for less than probably 3% of Warden's usage, and I guarantee that there are plenty of people using the old town section that get rides to the subway stations. People also pay for parking and although it's probably partially subsidized, it's an insignificant factor affecting station ridership.

That isn't what I claimed.

I pointed out that Dufferin, with just one bus route, has the same ridership as Warden, served by 8 routes.

The 29 Dufferin is a very long route, that's true. It's also one of the busiest - according to 2014 stats it serves 42,000 riders each weekday.

However, the 8 routes servicing Warden handle 87,300 per weekday. Obviously a very fair argument can be made that not all riders on those routes are heading to Warden, but the same is true for the 29 Dufferin; plenty of those riders are not going to Dufferin station.

Which brings me back to my original point - Dufferin station is a great example of the kind of urban environment that subways were built for. It's dense and easily accessible via numerous modes of transportation, even walking. Serviced by just one route that has less than half the ridership of the routes serving Warden, it has serves slightly more passengers per day than Warden Station.

The expansion of the subways into the suburbs DID NOT lead to the TTC having a deficit, that changed was the strengthening of unions, inflation, the car, the president that people had to drive (the introduction of the car), higher electricity costs, higher costs for materials, taxes, the loss of streetcars, and most importantly, declining ridership overall. That is what prevented the TTC from being self-sufficient, not the expansion into the suburbs, because almost all cities are not self-sufficient, but I guarantee you that they were all sufficient back then. Why? They were all private companies of course! The TTC was running a deficit far before the Spadina line was built, so it's a little unfair to say that everything was sunshine and rainbows when it only served downtown.

https://transit.toronto.on.ca/spare/0012.shtml

"The TTC continued to make an operating profit until 1972 when, under political pressure from the suburban majority on council, the TTC eliminated its fare zone system which previously obliged suburban residents to pay an additional fare. By the late 1980s, the annual cost of keeping the TTC afloat was now up to a quarter of a billion dollars of taxpayers’ money, although at 32% of all revenues, this was the lowest subsidy required of any city in North America."

Don't get me started on YRT or MiWay...but let it be known, the only profitable surface route is run by Miway, but the big difference between these two and the TTC is that both of them don't have a transit spine to serve them. Without the subway, I can guarantee without a doubt that all the suburban routes, from Lawrence to Finch, Sheppard to Steels, Don Mills to Dufferin (some of the highest surface routes in the city) would have ridership just as bad as the routes in these other cities had it not been for the subway extensions into the suburbs.

I'm quite sure there are a few TTC routes that make a profit - if not more.

These YRT and MiWay cost more because they serve environments that are not efficiently designed for transit. Fortunately Mississauga is trying to remedy the situation.

Also, I realize my mistake with that section of about 2 kms of underground line. the CNR runs over the subway so it looks like the subway is still running aboveground on ArcGIS.
As you can see I missed this gap, however, this section of track is only 2/5ths of the line, and the large section of aboveground track still makes the line cost effective.

The fact that the vast majority of the track between Warden and Kennedy is underground throws your entire argument out the window. The underground portion, assuming the most direct and efficient route (which it's not) is 2.22km. That's a 2.22km portion between two stations.

Broadview to Greenwood is almost the exact length (2.33km) but encompasses 5 stations. That's efficient use of tunnel.

This of course brings us back to the absurd SSE extension - from Warden to STC you'll have over 8km of underground track with only one station in between. That's like traveling from Ossington to Greenwood with no stops in between (there are actually 12 stops in between). Or going from Broadview to Warden.

We're seriously considering building an extension that will make traveling from Warden to STC the same distance as traveling the rest of the Danforth section of the Bloor/Danforth line, with only one stop in between. Are you seriously going to argue this is 'efficient' infrastructure'?

It's complete insanity.

 

[syn]

The only glaring flaw with SSE is the lack of intermediate stops. Add those back in and the project makes fiscal sense again. Curve it to the northeast after Scarborough Centre to head to Centennial and Malvern... then the opponents to SSE wouldn't have a leg to stand on.

I have some disappointing news.

Adding 'stuff' costs money.

They aren't just going to drop new stops in without the cost going up substantially. That's why they got rid of them in the first place. The city estimate in 2016 was up to $4 billion. That's the cost of the current one stop solution they have now.

If it was cost effective they wouldn't have taken them out in the first place.

It's a little shocking that this far into the SSE debate/planning process adding stations and features is looked at as almost a magical process that either doesn't require money, or is irrelevant since there's a magic money tree somewhere in Scarborough that will cover any and all costs.

 

[Streety McCarface]

That isn't what I claimed.

I pointed out that Dufferin, with just one bus route, has the same ridership as Warden, served by 8 routes.

The 29 Dufferin is a very long route, that's true. It's also one of the busiest - according to 2014 stats it serves 42,000 riders each weekday.

However, the 8 routes servicing Warden handle 87,300 per weekday. Obviously a very fair argument can be made that not all riders on those routes are heading to Warden, but the same is true for the 29 Dufferin; plenty of those riders are not going to Dufferin station.

Which brings me back to my original point - Dufferin station is a great example of the kind of urban environment that subways were built for. It's dense and easily accessible via numerous modes of transportation, even walking. Serviced by just one route that has less than half the ridership of the routes serving Warden, it has serves slightly more passengers per day than Warden Station.






https://transit.toronto.on.ca/spare/0012.shtml

"The TTC continued to make an operating profit until 1972 when, under political pressure from the suburban majority on council, the TTC eliminated its fare zone system which previously obliged suburban residents to pay an additional fare. By the late 1980s, the annual cost of keeping the TTC afloat was now up to a quarter of a billion dollars of taxpayers’ money, although at 32% of all revenues, this was the lowest subsidy required of any city in North America."



I'm quite sure there are a few TTC routes that make a profit - if not more.

These YRT and MiWay cost more because they serve environments that are not efficiently designed for transit. Fortunately Mississauga is trying to remedy the situation.





The fact that the vast majority of the track between Warden and Kennedy is underground throws your entire argument out the window. The underground portion, assuming the most direct and efficient route (which it's not) is 2.22km. That's a 2.22km portion between two stations.

Broadview to Greenwood is almost the exact length (2.33km) but encompasses 5 stations. That's efficient use of tunnel.

This of course brings us back to the absurd SSE extension - from Warden to STC you'll have over 8km of underground track with only one station in between. That's like traveling from Ossington to Greenwood with no stops in between (there are actually 12 stops in between). Or going from Broadview to Warden.

We're seriously considering building an extension that will make traveling from Warden to STC the same distance as traveling the rest of the Danforth section of the Bloor/Danforth line, with only one stop in between. Are you seriously going to argue this is 'efficient' infrastructure'?

It's complete insanity.

It's interesting to note that 480 buses pass through Dufferin station and 920 buses pass through Warden, despite warden being served by 8* the number of routes. As I've stated before, the number of routes serving a station is a terrible metric for measuring ridership potential.

Considering the difference densities around the stations, the fact that subway counts are based on people going to the platforms and does not include people transferring at warden, the fact that it's so far out, the fact that Dufferin is pretty much downtown, I'd say that Warden does an excellent job for a subway station. Dufferin doesn't solely rely on people traveling by bus, but Warden does, and I can guarantee that a lot of people funnel through that station without going into the subway.

There is no denying that Dufferin has an excellent case for ridership, but that's because it's downtown and there are jobs around the station. Many people not only enter the station to get to work, but also exit the station because their work is around there and because there's so much entertainment around the station (ie dufferin mall, bloor street restaurants, etc). Take all that stuff away, and Dufferin would be like any other station east of Broadview or west of Dundas West (With the exceptions of Kipling, Islington, Vic Park, Warden and Kennedy).

I'd also like to mention that Warden Subway station doesn't just act as a subway station, but it's also a bus terminal. There are many people passing through the station between bus routes that aren't counted in station counts, but those people still use the TTC, right? Dufferin station doesn't have this. Factor in people transferring between buses at Warden and ridership levels will increase significantly.

When you mention the operation under a deficit, one must note that it was a tradeoff for a better-integrated network. The costs of operation didn't increase, but revenues were halved from suburban riders. Might I also mention that the subway already existed beyond the borders of the downtown fare zones at that time and if that subway line didn't exist, those suburban revenues would not exist within the system and therefore, the TTC likely wouldn't have been making any money prior to the abolishment of the fare zones. Unfortunately, we'll never know because we don't have the statistics from back then. It does, however, go to show that the importance of the suburban ridership was so important to the integrity of the TTC, that once fares were halved for the suburban riders, the operating income decreased by at least a quarter of a billion dollars (That's almost $1.5 billion in today's dollars). If a fare increase between zones was 20 cents, and 1/4 of a billion dollars were lost because of this change, then that means that there were 1.25 BILLION trips between the suburbs and downtown per year. That's 3,500,000 per day (of course, the operation of the spadina subway extension probably influenced these numbers, seeing as the population was much lower than 1.75 million within the suburbs of Toronto at the time. Nevertheless, half of that would still be 1,750,000 trips. Compare that to only downtown and you start to see how the presence of the subway in the suburbs seriously influences the ridership of the TTC downtown.

I might also mention, in that TT article, it states that ridership subsidies were the lowest in North America, which says something about the state of the TTC at the time. After that paragraph, it goes on to say: "In the 1970s and the 1980s, the Toronto Transit Commission was seen worldwide as a ‘transportation showcase’. From 1979 until 1990, it won awards after awards for safety and design." and this was very much after the abolishment of the fare zones.

I'm sure there are as well, however, that would assume that full fares are paid for a no-transfer journey (as they often are on Mi-Way). The TTC being so interconnected is what makes it quite an amazing system that allows the existence of such high capacity routes. I hope YRT and MiWay get better, and soon...

The underground section actually doesn't. Going back to my original estimates of running the system, $80,000 for stations between Broadview and Main and $60,000 for stations between Vic Park and Kennedy. @ $10,000/day for underground tunnels and $5,000/day for aboveground tracks, BV-M comes in at around $50,000/day for tunnel operation. On the other hand, $5,000 for 3 km of aboveground between Vic Park and partway to Kennedy comes to $15,000 and the underground section at $20,000. That's a total of $35,000 and a difference of about $15,000/day in tunnels alone. In total, that's $130,000 BV-M and $95,000 VP-K. A difference of $35,000/day.

More stations isn't always a good thing. It's excellent in urban areas where people can walk to stations, but it's not so good for the suburbs, which need access to efficient rapid transit to get downtown (meaning one transfer between bus and subway, because that's the most cumbersome transfer). Running a subway line in the suburbs makes sense, but only if you run it properly. ~2km between stations is excellent distancing in the suburbs; Feeder bus routes have enough distance, it makes way for future development of the surrounding stations, and most importantly, it keeps people out of their cars. In urban areas, ~1km is best, since walking distances to the nearest subway station are about 500m, which is fair. Downtown, ~500m-750m is best because of the sheer number of people getting off. I am in agreement that 7km is far too distant to sensibly build a subway, especially without fare zones. Long distances between stations work extremely well in areas like DC and the Bay Area, where fare zones are used and there's room to build aboveground efficiently. They do not work well here in Toronto, especially remaining completely underground. I'll say this again, the Scarborough subway extension makes sense GRANTED it's built aboveground at least most of the way and has stations at Eglinton, Lawerence, Scarborough Centre, and Sheppard if that extension is included. Each of those stations need the following: excellent bus terminals, access to bike storage (which I find is the best way to commute; bike to a subway station. It works extremely well in Japan), Passenger Pick-Up and Drop-Off locations (these are actually great because not everyone in the suburbs works downtown and many can't give up their car, but they can share rides with people that need to be dropped off at subway stations. This makes their ride more efficient, less expensive in the deep suburbs, and eliminates the needs for parking lots), and more bus routes serving the stations.

 

[syn]

It's interesting to note that 480 buses pass through Dufferin station and 920 buses pass through Warden, despite warden being served by 8* the number of routes. As I've stated before, the number of routes serving a station is a terrible metric for measuring ridership potential.

Considering the difference densities around the stations, the fact that subway counts are based on people going to the platforms and does not include people transferring at warden, the fact that it's so far out, the fact that Dufferin is pretty much downtown, I'd say that Warden does an excellent job for a subway station. Dufferin doesn't solely rely on people traveling by bus, but Warden does, and I can guarantee that a lot of people funnel through that station without going into the subway.

How is this efficient and cost effective?

It handles less riders than Dufferin despite bus routes that handle a far greater number of riders along with a very long distance from other stations (over 2km from Victoria Park and over 2km from Kennedy).

There is no denying that Dufferin has an excellent case for ridership, but that's because it's downtown and there are jobs around the station. Many people not only enter the station to get to work, but also exit the station because their work is around there and because there's so much entertainment around the station (ie dufferin mall, bloor street restaurants, etc).

Yes. Density. Employment density and residential density. These are the kinds of areas subways were built to service.

Take all that stuff away, and Dufferin would be like any other station east of Broadview or west of Dundas West (With the exceptions of Kipling, Islington, Vic Park, Warden and Kennedy).

Like Pape? A station that handles nearly as many riders as Warden despite being less than 600m west of Donlands and only 635m east of Chester?

How about Runnymede and High Park? They're only 783m apart and they serve nearly the same number of riders (27,430) as Warden - and I believe this is with a smaller combined footprint too. A large portion of the track between Runnymede and High Park is above ground, so naturally it must be so much cheaper to operate.

I'd also like to mention that Warden Subway station doesn't just act as a subway station, but it's also a bus terminal. There are many people passing through the station between bus routes that aren't counted in station counts, but those people still use the TTC, right? Dufferin station doesn't have this. Factor in people transferring between buses at Warden and ridership levels will increase significantly.

And yet it still handles less subway riders per day than the relatively tiny Dufferin Station, which doesn't even have bus terminal - people just board the bus on the street in front of the station. It's also very close to Landsdowne to the west and Ossington to the east.

I'll say this again, the Scarborough subway extension makes sense GRANTED it's built aboveground at least most of the way and has stations at Eglinton, Lawerence, Scarborough Centre, and Sheppard if that extension is included. Each of those stations need the following: excellent bus terminals, access to bike storage (which I find is the best way to commute; bike to a subway station. It works extremely well in Japan), Passenger Pick-Up and Drop-Off locations (these are actually great because not everyone in the suburbs works downtown and many can't give up their car, but they can share rides with people that need to be dropped off at subway stations. This makes their ride more efficient, less expensive in the deep suburbs, and eliminates the needs for parking lots), and more bus routes serving the stations.

Finally we've gotten to the point.

So you agree this extension makes absolutely no sense. The plan is just for one station, with a 6km distance between it and Kennedy. It doesn't appear they want to build a significant portion above ground either. The current cost is nearly $4 billion and climbing.

 

[Streety McCarface]

How is this efficient and cost effective?

It handles less riders than Dufferin despite bus routes that handle a far greater number of riders along with a very long distance from other stations (over 2km from Victoria Park and over 2km from Kennedy).

You seem to be missing the point: Dufferin succeeds because a lot of people from the suburbs (Kipling, Islington, Dundas West, Royal York, Old Mill, etc etc etc) come to the station and exit. You take away that portion of the station's users, and the ridership would only be about as good as stations like Keele, High Park, and Runnymede.

And again, that longer distance is aboveground. between Vic Park and Warden, therefore operating costs are much less.

Yes. Density. Employment density and residential density. These are the kinds of areas subways were built to service.

Subways were not just built to move people around downtown but were built to bring people downtown. If you don't bring people to downtown, then they'll drive, and won't use the subway downtown, and the downtown subway fails. It's as simple as that.

Like Pape? A station that handles nearly as many riders as Warden despite being less than 600m west of Donlands and only 635m east of Chester?

How about Runnymede and High Park? They're only 783m apart and they serve nearly the same number of riders (27,430) as Warden - and I believe this is with a smaller combined footprint too. A large portion of the track between Runnymede and High Park is above ground, so naturally it must be so much cheaper to operate.

Pape is also surrounded by Chester, Donlands, and Greenwood, stations with arguably poor ridership (Greenwood and Chester have less ridership than Bayview). Again, more stations isn't always better. We've already established that the ridership along the Broadview-Main corridor and the Kennedy-Victoria Park corridor are the same, so why look at a smaller section of track within a larger section that really doesn't have as great of ridership.

High Park has fairly low ridership when compared to other stations. Sure, the ridership of the two stations is comparable, but at the same time, operating two stations costs more than operating one. Despite it being aboveground, the fact that two stations serve a suburban area that could only be served by one goes to show that it operates in a less cost-effective way than the Vic Park to Kennedy Corridor. Also, your statement that a lot of the section is aboveground is completely false, especially when you consider that the corridor must include half the tunnel west of Runnymede and half the tunnel east of High Park.

In general: The majority of the length is underground, there are two stations instead of one, and it serves less than Warden. Which one comes out as more cost-effective now?

And yet it still handles less subway riders per day than the relatively tiny Dufferin Station, which doesn't even have bus terminal - people just board the bus on the street in front of the station. It's also very close to Landsdowne to the west and Ossington to the east.

For the last time, Dufferin is downtown; people from the suburbs get off there. If it was a near-terminus station, ridership would half.

Finally we've gotten to the point.

So you agree this extension makes absolutely no sense. The plan is just for one station, with a 6km distance between it and Kennedy. It doesn't appear they want to build a significant portion above ground either. The current cost is nearly $4 billion and climbing.

1: 4 billion is an overstatement, but yes. The current proposal makes absolutely no sense.

2: This thread is about debating the MERITS of ANY subway extension in Scarborough. As a result of a previous comment made by someone on this thread claiming that the ridership along the existing subway in Scarborough does not justify costs, I argued that such a statement is complete and utter BS. Yes, I agree the current subway extension proposal sucks, but I do not agree with the idea that expanding the subway into the suburbs of Toronto (And that is emphasized) makes fiscal sense, so long as it is built properly. I even gave a set of premises that any subway extension should take.

3: This thread is not here to argue that subways are bad for everywhere except downtown, it is here to introduce factors that might influence city's reasoning for pushing for a subway despite the lower cost of an LRT. These being that an interlined LRT with Eglinton East will not meet the capacity requirements of Scarborough, particularly the Uxbridge sub-corridor, the LRT would not receive any funding from the province for political and RER expansion reasons, the validity of reducing transfers on the system, the fact that there is absolutely no development potential along the existing RT corridor, the fact that there are a lack of bus routes along the existing RT corridor.

I might also add that the true capacity of the LRT that they are currently citing (15K PPHPD). This is assuming 3 car trains carrying 250 passengers are used and trains will be running at intervals of every 3 minutes. I believe it's safe to say that this will never happen. The current order for LRVs is standing at 70. Knowing that the Crosstown would be 20 km, there needs to be a fair spare ratio (assume 10 are always out of service), and it will take about 45 minutes to traverse the corridor (assuming an average velocity of 26 km/h, and terminus dwell time). If only 60 cars are available, and intervals are every 3 minutes, then that means that 15 trains are travelling in each direction at any given time. A total of 30 trains are required, and those trains will only be 2 cars in length. If we consider the actual capacity of these trains (it's probably around 150 assuming people are carrying bags and stuff), then the capacity of the corridor become 6000 PPHPD. This is much lower than the actual needs of the Scarborough-Malvern LRT, and this isn't even factoring in interlining at Kennedy station. (Which, if a proportional number of cars are supplied to fill the gaps of new lines, the capacity of the LRT corridor will shrink to 3,000 PPHPD). Doesn't there seem to be something wrong there?