News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 02, 2020
A Message to Our Readers
 8.8K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
EarthCam Time-Lapse Documents Rafael Viñoly-Designed New Stanford Hospital Construction
 40K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
Resort Town
 5.1K     0 

Cobra said:
That makes no sense...The ridership at Scarborough Centre is projected to be around the same as Kipling. I don't see the TTC short turning trains at Islington
Click to expand...

Because the distance between Scarborough Centre and Kennedy is around 6 km, while the distance between Islington and Kipling is only 1 km. The TTC could probably save between 4 to 6 trains by short turning half of them at Kennedy. That's significant impact, since the Line 2 only uses about 28 trains per hour.
 
darth_freeman said:
Not to mention, the extension to Kipling happened in 1980, almost 40 years ago!! The ridership was probably what, like 2,000 pphd back then?

I guess that was a time when politicians and planners actually looked towards the future.
Click to expand...

The extension to Kipling cost several millions of dollars, not $2.5 Billion. The Scarborough Subway is literally orders of magnitude more expensive than the Kipling extension.
 
TheTigerMaster said:
The extension to Kipling cost several millions of dollars, not $2.5 Billion. The Scarborough Subway is literally orders of magnitude more expensive than the Kipling extension.
Click to expand...

I don't disagree with that. That's a lot for a 1 stop subway. The 3 stop made more sense.
 
Hey!!! I have a great idea for building subway for everyone.

All transit routes that carry 35,000 riders a day should be subway.

Just think of the Billion dollars that will not only be needed to build these lines, but to operate them. Then, how many decades of construction will we see before riding them??

Right off the bat, you got Dufferin, King, Queen, Don Mills, Finch, Lawrence ..............
 
Cobra said:
The old MOU merging Eglinton to Scarborough was truly the best option.
Click to expand...

We cancelled it for a good reason - to defeat Ford. Never mind that Metrolinx withheld their June 2012 report that said the combined line was best, the province knew they had to manipulate the players to achieve their goal.

Council managed to move left after that decision and virtually eliminate Ford from the transit file in early 2012.

The Province, fearing a conservative stronghold in Toronto won a by-election and then a majority and got their cousins elected Federally.

Who cares about $2B or $4B when this served an important political purpose.
 
I'd much rather have Line 2 extended north in the RT corridor and Eglinton Line extended east, than have Eglinton Line turn north, introducing a forced transfer for the Crosstown East.
 
BurlOak said:
We cancelled it for a good reason - to defeat Ford. Never mind that Metrolinx withheld their June 2012 report that said the combined line was best, the province knew they had to manipulate the players to achieve their goal.

Council managed to move left after that decision and virtually eliminate Ford from the transit file in early 2012.

The Province, fearing a conservative stronghold in Toronto won a by-election and then a majority and got their cousins elected Federally.

Who cares about $2B or $4B when this served an important political purpose.
Click to expand...

What annoyed me particularly about the Eglinton East debacle is that the line went from in-median specs to multi-billion dollar deep bore specs, with seemingly no costing or mention about affordable grade-separation. Eg East is a massive highway-like road with virtually no NIMBYs fronting onto it. What better location to test the flexibility of light rail. Trench, cut-cover, elevated... there's a reason why cities the world over embrace light rail: the flexibility it offers.

Something similar happened with the portion near Leslie. There's a massive valley, but instead of looking at things like a new structure or side-of-the-road Metrolinx costed/presented the two extremes: in-median and deep bore tunneling. With the DRL they're clearly not averse to presenting outside the box plans, so why couldn't we have seen that with Eglinton East?
 
44 North said:
What annoyed me particularly about the Eglinton East debacle is that the line went from in-median specs to multi-billion dollar deep bore specs, with seemingly no costing or mention about affordable grade-separation. Eg East is a massive highway-like road with virtually no NIMBYs fronting onto it. What better location to test the flexibility of light rail. Trench, cut-cover, elevated... there's a reason why cities the world over embrace light rail: the flexibility it offers.

Something similar happened with the portion near Leslie. There's a massive valley, but instead of looking at things like a new structure or side-of-the-road Metrolinx costed/presented the two extremes: in-median and deep bore tunneling. With the DRL they're clearly not averse to presenting outside the box plans, so why couldn't we have seen that with Eglinton East?
Click to expand...

It was frustrating to hear that the TTC didn't want elevation on Eglinton East due to the "Noise"... Some of them should travel a bit more. I think elevating Eglinton East and the SRT merged to it as an LRT would have saved money for the Crosstown East (aka Malvern LRT)

Elevated Eglinton East + SRT merged to it as an LRT= Superior choice, making extending that line deeper into Scarborough way more cheaper for the future.

Our politicians are a joke. Despite the many flaws that the City of Montreal has, politics interfering with transit planning isn't one of them.
 
Cobra said:
It was frustrating to hear that the TTC didn't want elevation on Eglinton East due to the "Noise"... Some of them should travel a bit more. I think elevating Eglinton East and the SRT merged to it as an LRT would have saved money for the Crosstown East (aka Malvern LRT)

Elevated Eglinton East + SRT merged to it as an LRT= Superior choice, making extending that line deeper into Scarborough way more cheaper for the future.

Our politicians are a joke. Despite the many flaws that the City of Montreal has, politics interfering with transit planning isn't one of them.
Click to expand...

Honestly that sounds like a terrible idea. Pretty much worse than the standard LRT plan in every possible way (cost, noise, accessibility).
 
TheTigerMaster said:
I'd much rather have Line 2 extended north in the RT corridor and Eglinton Line extended east, than have Eglinton Line turn north, introducing a forced transfer for the Crosstown East.
Click to expand...

Announcing the Eglinton X-town LRT extension actually gave hope into building a reasonable transit plan in Scarborough. At the same time the one-stop subway revision just may have opened up the gates to Political transit hell once again.

We are either on the cusp of building something useful in Scarborough if Tory can make a few more changes with Smartrack & get the subway under control. Otherwise the SSE gets derailed by the outside Politicians & transit building Politics will go to a whole new level of insanity for next election.

*The Eglinton LRT & extension to UTSC is the only well designed LRT line ever proposed in Scarborough.

*The Sheppard LRT on its own is nonsense with the transfer to the stubway. The only way it becomes useful is part of a broader local LRT loop

*The SLRT carried on thru an existing poorly designed route & forced transfer with the selling feature of adding a couple key stops. The surface subway would eliminate one of these issues of the transfer & connecting STC to the City's main transit trunk. The 3- Stop SSE on the McCowan make sense if the surface is not available.

*Smartrack stops needs to disappear off the Scarborough map after Kennedy
 
Last edited:
TheTigerMaster said:
I'd much rather have Line 2 extended north in the RT corridor and Eglinton Line extended east, than have Eglinton Line turn north, introducing a forced transfer for the Crosstown East.
Click to expand...

Both would be continuous lines, of course that would be better.
Problem is the the Transit City option was 0 continuous lines. When the Ford plan was defeated, they again went back to the 0 continuous line option. Even at the last election, all those who wanted to cancel the SSE wanted to revert to this same "everyone transfers" plan.

I wonder if it would be cheaper though to have the BD (line 2) continue on Eglinton and the ECLRT to merge with the SRT.

The combined ECLRT - SRT would also work well with a DRL to Eglinton. I think most people who didn't want the ECLRT grade-separated through Scarborough were also those opposed to the DRL.
 
BurlOak said:
Both would be continuous lines, of course that would be better.
Problem is the the Transit City option was 0 continuous lines. When the Ford plan was defeated, they again went back to the 0 continuous line option. Even at the last election, all those who wanted to cancel the SSE wanted to revert to this same "everyone transfers" plan.

I wonder if it would be cheaper though to have the BD (line 2) continue on Eglinton and the ECLRT to merge with the SRT.

The combined ECLRT - SRT would also work well with a DRL to Eglinton. I think most people who didn't want the ECLRT grade-separated through Scarborough were also those opposed to the DRL.
Click to expand...

I could never see a subway built out to UTSC. The other problem with ECLRT is that the transfer from STC should be for Midtown trips and downtown trips being the seamless ride would be much more effective.

The best option (if approved) is a surface subway to Markham/Milner & the Eglinton LRT extension to UTSC
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top