[Sunnyside]

Is it possible the reason why Line 4 doesn't see much use because it doesn't go anywhere? Suppose we extend it to STC as LRT, and ridership grows substantially. It may be better to overbuild in this case instead as subway with the same infrastructure already than to use what is better for current demand on Sheppard. The latent demand between the two hubs may in fact be substantial, but we never finished the subway to find out.

 

[afransen]

Is it possible the reason why Line 4 doesn't see much use because it doesn't go anywhere? Suppose we extend it to STC as LRT, and ridership grows substantially. It may be better to overbuild in this case instead as subway with the same infrastructure already than to use what is better for current demand on Sheppard. The latent demand between the two hubs may in fact be substantial, but we never finished the subway to find out.

The plan isn't to route Line 4 to STC. There is a linear transfer planned anyway.

 

[ARG1]

Is it possible the reason why Line 4 doesn't see much use because it doesn't go anywhere? Suppose we extend it to STC as LRT, and ridership grows substantially. It may be better to overbuild in this case instead as subway with the same infrastructure already than to use what is better for current demand on Sheppard. The latent demand between the two hubs may in fact be substantial, but we never finished the subway to find out.

That's exactly what happened, and its the same reason why a lot of the post war metros in the US failed. They were often built as a "stage 1" to a complete plan with the expectation that it would draw like 75% of the revenue that the study predicted, and get absolutely SHOCKED when that doesn't end up happening because they built a bunch of incomplete lines.

 

[nfitz]

The plan isn't to route Line 4 to STC. There is a linear transfer planned anyway.

It's not going to STC any more. Though that was certainly the plan back in the 1980s, when there was no talk of extending Line 2 to Sheppard.

Between Kennedy and McCowan it's going to serve a lot more people north of the 401, than south of it!

 

[11th]

A light metro across Scarbo was the OG. It goes back to the 60s! Then carries on for two more decades. There are dozens of maps that show this.

You' would have to dig up that plan for me. I don't think it's a wide 25km network of grade separated metro covering various parts of Scarborough, at least that's the impression I got from afrasen's post.

 

[Bureaucromancer]

You' would have to dig up that plan for me. I don't think it's a wide 25km network of grade separated metro covering various parts of Scarborough, at least that's the impression I got from afrasen's post.

You're looking for a combination of the early Scarborough RT stuff, which is really more light rail oriented (more Calgary than Transit City though) and GO-ALRT.

ICTS itself had a range of concepts, but never got all that specific beyond the RT we got, the Malvern extension and general concept of Finch/Sheppard, Eglinton and Downtown corridors.

 

[Deadpool X]

Is it possible the reason why Line 4 doesn't see much use because it doesn't go anywhere? Suppose we extend it to STC as LRT, and ridership grows substantially. It may be better to overbuild in this case instead as subway with the same infrastructure already than to use what is better for current demand on Sheppard. The latent demand between the two hubs may in fact be substantial, but we never finished the subway to find out.

I wouldn't say it goes anywhere. It connects directly with Yonge line and so many people change lines there in rush hours (I used to do that too). It would have been useless if it wasn't connected to any other line.

 

[44 North]

You' would have to dig up that plan for me. I don't think it's a wide 25km network of grade separated metro covering various parts of Scarborough, at least that's the impression I got from afrasen's post.

This is from 1969. There may be some from earlier, but basically the concept continues through the 70s and into the 80s. Eglinton appears sometimes. That would give about 25km.

 

[nfitz]

This is from 1969. There may be some from earlier, but basically the concept continues through the 70s and into the 80s. Eglinton appears sometimes. That would give about 25km.View attachment 397549

II'd assumed the 25 km thing was a reference to the late 2000s, not the 1960s. Particularly the 2008-2011 plan that Scarborough Council agreed to (and actively expanded) to:
a) Build a Sheppard East LRT from Don Mills to Meadowvale
b) Build an Eglinton LRT to Kennedy
c) build the "Scarborough-Malvern LRT from Kennedy to Malvern, via UTS
d) convert the SRT to LRT
c) extend the former SRT as LRT 4 further stations to Malvern (and perhaps even beyond).

 

[44 North]

II'd assumed the 25 km thing was a reference to the late 2000s, not the 1960s. Particularly the 2008-2011 plan that Scarborough Council agreed to (and actively expanded) to:
a) Build a Sheppard East LRT from Don Mills to Meadowvale
b) Build an Eglinton LRT to Kennedy
c) build the "Scarborough-Malvern LRT from Kennedy to Malvern, via UTS
d) convert the SRT to LRT
c) extend the former SRT as LRT 4 further stations to Malvern (and perhaps even beyond).

Possibly. But I think it was neither. If I was following the discussion I believe the 25km was more a reference to a future, unexplored subway alternative in lieu of a Sheppard extension. As in: 10ish km of heavy subway extension or 20ish km of lighter subway. The follow-up reply to this was that Sheppard reigned supreme throughout transit history as a always a heavy 6-car subway. Reality however is that a large network of intermediary subway-like system had in fact been considered prior. Not unlike the Eglinton or Queen corridors.

 

[Bureaucromancer]

Possibly. But I think it was neither. If I was following the discussion I believe the 25km was more a reference to a future, unexplored subway alternative in lieu of a Sheppard extension. As in: 10ish km of heavy subway extension or 20ish km of lighter subway. The follow-up reply to this was that Sheppard reigned supreme throughout transit history as a always a heavy 6-car subway. Reality however is that a large network of intermediary subway-like system had in fact been considered prior. Not unlike the Eglinton or Queen corridors.

Also bear in mind that if we’re talking about the OP level, those dashed lines are, with some realignment and updating for projects since the 60s, still there.

 

[11th]

Also bear in mind that if we’re talking about the OP level, those dashed lines are, with some realignment and updating for projects since the 60s, still there.

Line 4 sort of replaced (or was to replace) the eastern portion of that light metro line.

 

[Bureaucromancer]

Line 4 sort of replaced (or was to replace) the eastern portion of that light metro line.

Emphasis is on sort of.

The actual current OP is:

With 2020 being by far the biggest change since the 60s to that structurally.

The 2006 (and I don't believe there was a major interim update) was still:

 

[afransen]

Possibly. But I think it was neither. If I was following the discussion I believe the 25km was more a reference to a future, unexplored subway alternative in lieu of a Sheppard extension. As in: 10ish km of heavy subway extension or 20ish km of lighter subway. The follow-up reply to this was that Sheppard reigned supreme throughout transit history as a always a heavy 6-car subway. Reality however is that a large network of intermediary subway-like system had in fact been considered prior. Not unlike the Eglinton or Queen corridors.

This. More to emphasize the opportunity cost of building the Sheppard extension to McCowan.

 

[robmausser]

I still think this would have been an awesome BRT Transitway.