[robmausser]

I still think either rebuilding the RT or converting to LRT was a far better idea at a cheaper cost than this. But we're too far down to go back. At least the 3 stop proposal is better than the 1 stop proposal.

Rebuilding, modernizing and extending the RT to Malvern TC was the best option, and was approved and outlined by the TTC way back in 2006. Oh well.

 

[Streety McCarface]

Ah because in Europe where these projects cost a fraction what they do here they don't have accessibility requirements, or fire codes . . .

They don't necessarily cost a fraction of what they cost here. For example, They're cheap in SOME European cities because you don't have to deal with deep building foundations, and your soils are oftentimes more optimal. Paris has almost no buildings above 10 stories for a city its size, meaning it's a lot easier building tunnels there than it is in London, where subway costs are about the same as North America, maybe even more expensive. Berlin, Vienna, Munich, Hannover, Madrid, among so many other European cities all follow this type of building design.

 

[CityStay]

You reach a point where you just don't care any more, just do SOMETHING!
It may suck, it may be way too expensive, it may not serve much of a useful purpose but, after 15 years (this thread) who cares?
Something finally happened!!
And then we can all boast on the internet that line 2 has been extended and Toronto has ___ kms of new subway woo hoo!
Forward thinking, transit oriented city.
Bravo!

 

[north-of-anything]

At least it has more than a single station on it.

 

[CapitalSeven]

I'm not going to stop hating this project, but I try to hold my tongue. Demolishing a viable, existing line, which can easily be adapted to carry the needed loads, to build a new tunnelled one requiring a huge amount of concrete to build and a lot more energy to run means that it will never have anything but a strongly negative impact on global warming, not to mention that it will never "pay for itself" in any way. There is no business case for it, just a political case.

 

[Streety McCarface]

I'm not going to stop hating this project, but I try to hold my tongue. Demolishing a viable, existing line, which can easily be adapted to carry the needed loads, to build a new tunnelled one requiring a huge amount of concrete to build and a lot more energy to run means that it will never have anything but a strongly negative impact on global warming, not to mention that it will never "pay for itself" in any way. There is no business case for it, just a political case.

100K people using it initially, to 130-150K people using it daily in 20 years is close to the number of cars that traverse the DVP daily. For context, an approximate amount of GHGs that are released from cars using the DVP daily is 130T of CO_2 per day or 40kT annually

For the tunnels, you're looking at 250K cubic meters of concrete, and for the stations, it's much harder to say, so I'll estimate 10K cubic meters per station (Some stations with crossovers require more, others require less). For the entire extension, you're looking at 280 cubic meters of concrete or 115kT of released CO_2 for the concrete over the subway's lifespan (100 years at least)

Obviously, construction equipment and other items will emit some GHGs, but in this context, underground subway construction is almost always more environmentally sustainable than driving or using the bus for that matter.

 

[CapitalSeven]

Sure, if the subway were replacing cars and buses. It's not. It's replacing an existing line that does not require lighting and ventilation, and whose vehicles do not run mostly empty.

 

[Rainforest]

The subway reaching Sheppard, is certainly replacing quite a few combined bus hours every day. Buses from the north of 401 will have shorter routes, and won't idle in the traffic jams on the 401 bridges / underpasses.

Some car trips will be replaced as well (easier to take a short bus ride and arrive to the subway terminus), and some other car trips will be shortened for the same reason as the bus trips.

 

[north-of-anything]

It's a bit of a shame they can't extend it into Malvern, but make Scarborough Centre the new western terminus or something like that. Waste of a corridor.

On the bright side, this might lead to more intensification around McCowan Road...

 

[pman]

To NOA’s second point above. It’s remarkable that so many people in Toronto support building staggeringly expensive high-capacity tunnelled heavy rail transit in low-density locations, while opposing building the same type of infrastructure in neighbourhoods that are already dense and nowhere near higher order transit. It seems like a misallocation of scarce resources, though on the bright side Toronto builds so little transit infrastructure that the waste is minimized.

 

[Rainforest]

To NOA’s second point above. It’s remarkable that so many people in Toronto support building staggeringly expensive high-capacity tunnelled heavy rail transit in low-density locations, while opposing building the same type of infrastructure in neighbourhoods that are already dense and nowhere near higher order transit. It seems like a misallocation of scarce resources, though on the bright side Toronto builds so little transit infrastructure that the waste is minimized.

Noone opposes building subways in the dense neighborhoods. If the government proposes a subway, it is normally supported by the locals.

What's really remarkable is the amount of attention subway opponents pay to the Scarborough project, running in the 3-rd busiest potential subway corridor in GTA (after the Relief Line and Yonge North). Yes, low-density, but it will have a huge catchment area and will gain decent total ridership thanks to the feeder buses.

In contrast, hardly anyone complains about the tunneled Eglinton West, and hardly anyone complained about the tunneled northern section of TYSSE. For both, the ridership is a fraction of SSE's ridership, and yet all the complains are directed to SSE.

 

[W. K. Lis]

Noone opposes building subways in the dense neighborhoods. If the government proposes a subway, it is normally supported by the locals.

What's really remarkable is the amount of attention subway opponents pay to the Scarborough project, running in the 3-rd busiest potential subway corridor in GTA (after the Relief Line and Yonge North). Yes, low-density, but it will have a huge catchment area and will gain decent total ridership thanks to the feeder buses.

In contrast, hardly anyone complains about the tunneled Eglinton West, and hardly anyone complained about the tunneled northern section of TYSSE. For both, the ridership is a fraction of SSE's ridership, and yet all the complains are directed to SSE.

Actually, there are people who question the NEED for tunnelling ALL of Eglinton Avenue West in Etobicoke. Having the stations grade separated (at the main intersections) is fine by most, but there is no NEED for it to be underground between Renforth Drive and Scarlett Road.

 

[Rainforest]

Actually, there are people who question the NEED for tunnelling ALL of Eglinton Avenue West in Etobicoke. Having the stations grade separated (at the main intersections) is fine by most, but there is no NEED for it to be underground between Renforth Drive and Scarlett Road.

I know that people are questioning the need for so much tunneling on Eglinton West. And actually I agree with those people; there exist a number of ways to build Eglinton West in a less expensive yet very effective way. For example, elevated at Jane and Scarlett, then at-grade at Royal York / Islington / Kipling, and then tunneled at Martin Grove and Renforth.

My point is that all the vitriol goes against the SSE project, while other tunnel projects with clearly much lower ridership receive a "not really needed, but whatever .." response.

 

[syn]

To NOA’s second point above. It’s remarkable that so many people in Toronto support building staggeringly expensive high-capacity tunnelled heavy rail transit in low-density locations, while opposing building the same type of infrastructure in neighbourhoods that are already dense and nowhere near higher order transit. It seems like a misallocation of scarce resources, though on the bright side Toronto builds so little transit infrastructure that the waste is minimized.

That's what you get with transit planning that appeals to ego and fosters division.

'Downtown has enough subways'

'Stop treating the people of Scarborough like second class citizens'

'Downtown elites don't care about Scarborough'

 

[Rainforest]

Looks like the opponents have a particular thing about SSE. In their minds it is firmly glued to the Fords, even though the Liberals are / were equally eager to build this project.