[salsa]

https://www.thestar.com/news/gta/2016/06/16/putting-scarborough-subway-claims-to-the-test.html

A perfect article from The Star that explains Tory and Jennifer Keesmaat's BS facts. Tory and Keesmaat pulled such a stupid move by saying the Scarborough Subway justifies cause Kipling to Islington has only 7,300 riders in peak direction. The article does a good job saying it's only 1km oppose to a 6km route that cost very low. Kipling to Islington can be built for $100m today while this extension cost 30 times as much to carry the same amount of riders. That number will rise when Miway moves to Kipling, a fact Tory, Keesmaat and the article missed. Plus Kipling to Islington is technically not a subway cause it's on the surface.

Tory says Scarborough is the only place in the city that doesn't have a subway. This clown clear doesn't know TO well. There are many place with city boundary that doesn't have subway and STC has the SRT. This article clearly illustrates how Tory and Keesmaat are totally bias.

For me the most amazing piece of information is this 2013 quote of Jennifer Keesmaat singing a completely different tune. Un-freakin believable.

“Based on the criteria that we have for great city building, looking at economic development, supporting healthy neighbourhoods, affordability, choice in the system, the LRT option, in fact, is more desirable. The LRT route would put nearly twice as many people within walking distance of a stop."​

 

[TheTigerMaster]

It's quite entertaining to see the mental gymnastics City Planning has gone through to justify this thing. The bullshit is so damn transparent; I hope they didn't anticipate people actually believing this stuff.

 

[Steve X]

Does anyone understand why in the 1980s they chose not to extend Line 2 north on the surface in the SRT corridor to Scarborough Centre? Kennedy Station was still being designed back then, and to me it seem like it would have been as cheap or cheaper than the proposed LRT back in the day.

TTC always claims the ridership doesn't not justified. In a study done in the 90s for the SRT replacement says it doesn't justify. Fast forward 50 years and the projection ridership still doesn't justified. The TTC never wanted an extension until Karen Stintz and RoFo came along. In the late 70s the TTC deem subways were too expensive to built and they should look at a newer alternative hence the idea of a streetcar on a private ROW was born. A LRT on the private ROW was and is always the right choice. Anyways, carry on.

For me the most amazing piece of information is this 2013 quote of Jennifer Keesmaat singing a completely different tune. Un-freakin believable.

“Based on the criteria that we have for great city building, looking at economic development, supporting healthy neighbourhoods, affordability, choice in the system, the LRT option, in fact, is more desirable. The LRT route would put nearly twice as many people within walking distance of a stop."​

This woman should just plan downtown and leave Scarborough alone. She's an urban planner not a transit network master. The King Street makeover is a great idea, the one stop Scarborough subway isn't so hot.

It's quite entertaining to see the mental gymnastics City Planning has gone through to justify this thing. The bullshit is so damn transparent; I hope they didn't anticipate people actually believing this stuff.

Did they even do an analysis on tunnel maintenance? The financial burden for this one stop subway in the net 30 years far exceeds the benefits. AND if we just get the LRT, The Liberals would had pay for a full 30 years of maintenance like the Eglinton Crosstown. Bet they didn't even know about it.

 

[coffey1]

https://www.thestar.com/news/gta/2016/06/16/putting-scarborough-subway-claims-to-the-test.html

A perfect article from The Star that explains Tory and Jennifer Keesmaat's BS facts. Tory and Keesmaat pulled such a stupid move by saying the Scarborough Subway justifies cause Kipling to Islington has only 7,300 riders in peak direction. The article does a good job saying it's only 1km oppose to a 6km route that cost very low. Kipling to Islington can be built for $100m today while this extension cost 30 times as much to carry the same amount of riders. That number will rise when Miway moves to Kipling, a fact Tory, Keesmaat and the article missed. Plus Kipling to Islington is technically not a subway cause it's on the surface.

Tory says Scarborough is the only place in the city that doesn't have a subway. This clown clear doesn't know TO well. There are many place with city boundary that doesn't have subway and STC has the SRT. This article clearly illustrates how Tory and Keesmaat are totally bias.

Actually it illustrates the Star's bias in such an eloquent manner. Tory and Keesmat are taking the middle ground here. Your perfect article is full of hand picked "facts" to rile up there base od Scarborough hatred and hopes for a cheap segregated solution to transit building. But hey Scarborough doesn't have a Political media microphone to tell it's side. So you get a polarizing Mayor out of frustration.

Kipling to Islington was above ground & carefully selected to use in this article. Apples and Oranges.

 

[crs1026]

I wonder if this tips the balance towards the above-ground, SRT alignment instead of the tunnelled alignment.

- Paul

 

[DonValleyRainbow]

Mo' money... are we going to start closing libraries to pay for subways?

moore_oliver8:50am via Twitter Web Client
SCOOP -- projected cost of one-stop Scarborough subway extension jumping $900-million, to $2.9-billion.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news...ay-cost-rises-by-900-million/article30499113/

The price for the original version of the project – a three-stop subway proposal budgeted at $3.56-billion – jumped as well and is now thought to cost around $4.3-billion if it proceeded.

This thing just keeps delivering. It gets more and more ridiculous with time.

 

[JayBeeGooner]

I'll bet money will be diverted from ECLRT East to pay for this damn extension.

 

[nfitz]

Actually it illustrates the Star's bias in such an eloquent manner. Tory and Keesmat are taking the middle ground here. Your perfect article is full of hand picked "facts" to rile up there base od Scarborough hatred and hopes for a cheap segregated solution to transit building.

Scarborough hatred and segregation? Don't be so Fording absurd.

With the new even lower subway estimates the LRT is both cheaper and has more riders. Also, the majority in Scarborough are travelling within Scarborough.

Surely, the Scarborough hatred and segregation (if such a silly concept existed) would be shown by those that want to burden it with a subway that fails to stop, rather than a better used LRT!

 

[andrewpmk]

Scarborough hatred and segregation? Don't be so Fording absurd.

With the new even lower subway estimates the LRT is both cheaper and has more riders. Also, the majority in Scarborough are travelling within Scarborough.

Surely, the Scarborough hatred and segregation (if such a silly concept existed) would be shown by those that want to burden it with a subway that fails to stop, rather than a better used LRT!

Cost overruns are inevitable for this sort of project. The LRT also would inevitably have cost overruns.

 

[DonValleyRainbow]

I'll bet money will be diverted from ECLRT East to pay for this damn extension.

It would be totally in character with Tory's approach to things.

 

[DSC]

I wonder if this tips the balance towards the above-ground, SRT alignment instead of the tunnelled alignment.

- Paul

Dream on, of course it SHOULD lead to a rethink but I fear not. Stupid, stupid, stupid.

 

[andrewpmk]

It would be totally in character with Tory's approach to things.

The Globe and Mail article says that the Scarborough-Malvern LRT also has cost overruns.

Cost overruns affect all types of rail equally.

 

[LNahid2000]

Cost overruns affect all types of rail equally.

Not necessarily. The cost overruns for subways are likely greater in magnitude due to the complexities of subways.

 

[crs1026]

The Globe and Mail article says that the Scarborough-Malvern LRT also has cost overruns.

Cost overruns affect all types of rail equally.

Well, it depends. These aren't true overruns - they are more escalations in the cost projections which emerge as the design engineering is studied in greater detail. This is just due diligence in action - better we get this right beforehand than have surprises later.

Some cost escalation is common to all modes (such as changes to the price of steel or labour) but some is specific. The need for deeper tunnels is not equal across all options. There are more unknowns with the tunnelling idea so one expects that this will escalate more than the surface options.

- Paul

 

[crs1026]

Does anyone understand why in the 1980s they chose not to extend Line 2 north on the surface in the SRT corridor to Scarborough Centre? Kennedy Station was still being designed back then, and to me it seem like it would have been as cheap or cheaper than the proposed LRT back in the day.

If you look at both Kipling and Kennedy, the assumption of LRT was already there when those stations were designed. My recollection is that virtually no one foresaw further subway extensions. The Province came along with this dream of creating a transit manufacturing industry in Ontario and needed a flagship implementation of ITCS technology. That overrode the LRT idea.

The other factor that mattered in the early 80's is that borrowing rates were through the roof. Governments were running in the red already. Adding a subway expense just wasn't on.

- Paul