[TOareaFan]

The line is incomplete, what do you expect would happen?

I am not going to debate Sheppard......I am just pointing out why 1) he likely used it in his study and 2) why it is silly to blame the Star for this.

 

[TheTigerMaster]

I doubt we'll see the Star rerunning this kind of article for the DRL as it didn't for the buried portion of Eglinton...
We get it Star, you hate Sheppard and SSE

Using Sheppard makes sense, because it's the most recent extension using the most up to date construction techniques.

 

[Cobra]

If you have nothing to say other than to bash the media for reporting a study, then find something better to do. Since you brought up Eglinton and DRL - I'll just point out that one of them is above ground as much as possible and replaces a lot of bus traffic, the other adds significant transit capacity in the core that will fill up with tons of new riders. Now tell me how SSE is anything even close to doing any of that.

Bashing? Nope, just stating the obvious, they do hate those 2 lines. No need to read more into it than that, I didn't call them liars. I'm just "speculating" that the same study comes out on the DRL and I dare say that they don't publish it the same article. It's obviously and editorial choice. The emoticons was me bringing some humour!

It's also grossly overbuilt for the amount of ridership it will ever get in the foreseeable future.

In my opinion, build the line as envisioned or don't build it at all. Building a stub was a mistake. Montreal built the blue line in phases in the mid 80s and stuck to it.

• St-Michel to De Castelnau (1986)
• Parc (1987)
• Outremont to Snowdon (January 1988)
• Acadie (March 1988)

Same should have happened with Sheppard. No one is calling the Blue line a failure in Montreal and its getting its extension to Anjou, which I could compare to STC (STC is way bigger and more populous than the Anjou hub). Anjou has some office and condo towers and one of Montreal's main shopping malls (Galeries d'Anjou) right by highway 40 (The 401 of Montreal). LRT was studied for the extension and was rejected as they felt that 2 different mode of transit in the same corridor made no sense.

Also, calling the stub a failure because it didn't reach the projections of fully completed line is a big "DUH"! Its ridership for such a short line is actually not as terrible as people makes it to be. It's full during rush hours. However, the TTC is poorly managing it. Off peak it should be every 10 minutes with early closures at midnight or less. Montreal Blue Line used to ran every 10-12 minutes off peak with 3 train sets and closed at 11h15pm. They progressively improved the service as ridership grew. The TTC operates the Sheppard line very incompetently in comparison.

Almost identical context, yet 2 very different approaches. That's why I'm pro finishing Sheppard as I grew up with the Blue line and seeing the potential if that was done on Sheppard. Saying that doing this is crazy is also saying the City of Montreal are just as crazy or plain insane and have no clue what they are doing, yet, they are often praised around the world for their subways.

 

[APTA-2048]

The Sheppard Subway is a nice-to-have at this point. There are many projects, including the DRL and even a BD extension to STC, that need to be the focus before completing Sheppard.

 

[nfitz]

Montreal built the blue line in phases in the mid 80s and stuck to it.

• St-Michel to De Castelnau (1986)
• Parc (1987)
• Outremont to Snowdon (January 1988)
• Acadie (March 1988)

• They didn't build it in stages. They opened it in stages. They never envisioned just having part of it open. Construction started in the 1970s. Heck 1975 for the Snowdon interchange station (the platforms for Line 4 were 100% ready when I first started using Snowdon station in 1981).

And Acadie was in the middle - it opened late because it was ... late.

Same should have happened with Sheppard.

It was the same with Sheppard. Only Phase 1 of the Blue Line was opened. What about Snowdon to LaSalle? Or St-Michel to Montreal-Nord? (though they later changed that to Anjou, with the plan to take Line 7 to Montreal-Nord insteade ... before cancelling Line 7).

Toronto, like Montreal, only opened the centre of the line.

No one is calling the Blue line a failure in Montreal

Not 30 years later. But surely you recall the media reports in the late 1980s, and early 1990s, with the low ridership, and when they used to run the short 6-car trains instead of the usual 9..

And what about the budget cut at the Vincent-D'Indy station? They cancelled the deep platforms to transfer to CN.

Almost identical context, yet 2 very different approaches.

Identical approaches ... you seem to be applying the grass is always greener theory - which is a failure really.

 

[crs1026]

One factor underlying the professor's greenhouse gas calculation is.... pouring concrete. Huge amounts of Carbon Dioxide are released when you pour concrete.

Does this mean building transit is bad? Heck, no. If we decide to ration the amount of concrete poured in our city building, we have choices. Seems to me that transit is still about priority two, with hospitals being priority one.

Yes, above ground transit uses significantly less concrete..... but one or two other civic frivolities (a new Skydome or Opera House, for instance) might wipe out that CO2 saving. Let's control those first.

I though that study reported valid facts with a serious lack of context. Curtail transit as a way of Rationing concrete pouring to cut greenhouse gas? Sorry, there are other places to make the cut. Like forcing greedy developers to adhere to Official Plan height limits on new condo towers. Sorry, boys, the OMB can't help you now.....you only get x m3 of concrete. Six stories' worth is all the concrete you get.

- Paul

 

[amnesiajune]

It's a stupid article.

In total, Saxe estimated that Line 4’s eight-year construction generated almost 168,000 metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent.

That's 168,000,000 kilograms, which is about the same as the emissions caused by 14 million pounds of beef. If the average Toronto resident cut two Big Macs per year out of their diet since the subway was opened, the reduced emissions would've already offset all the emissions from the Sheppard subway's concrete.

 

[WislaHD]

It's a stupid article.


That's 168,000,000 kilograms, which is about the same as the emissions caused by 14 million pounds of beef. If the average Toronto resident cut two Big Macs per year out of their diet since the subway was opened, the reduced emissions would've already offset all the emissions from the Sheppard subway's concrete.

I think perhaps, the moral of the story is more about how negligible a difference the business case for reductions in emissions directly saved from transit projects actually are. Frankly, this was an impression I thought about while analyzing the Relief Line BCA too. These kind of numbers sell well to the public and politics however, warranting their inclusion and mentioning.

I am more concerned with the long-term environmental effects of investment in transportation infrastructure in regards to changing land uses and affecting urban sprawl then I am about the pure difference in emissions between say LRT vehicles and automobiles. Creating land uses and a built environment appropriate for transporting large numbers of people via public transportation, curbing urban sprawl, pollutants, run-off, emissions and environmental degradation derived from auto-centric lifestyle will do more than any debate contrasting how much different modes of transportation pollute.

 

[44 North]

The Star has a report on a U of T study that shows how transit construction can cause greenhouse gas emissions that take decades to offset. It doesn't mention Scarborough, instead focuses mostly on the Sheppard subway. The study concludes that it may take up to 33 years after its completion for its environmental benefits to offset the emissions generated to construct it. Producing the construction materials and generated significant pollution, as did the subway construction sites and the movement of people and materials to and from those locations. The author argues that cities won’t fully realize the environmental benefits of transit unless policy-makers pay closer attention to how it’s built.

https://www.thestar.com/news/gta/20...s-that-take-decades-to-offset-study-says.html


The study’s recommendations include cutting back on construction materials by designing smaller stations laying track above ground instead of in tunnels. Which needless to say, is not happening in Scarborough. What was originally a light rail line that would have mostly reused existing infrastructure, has turned into a lengthy tunnel with a single subway station attached to it that won't attract a substantial number of new transit users. Literally any way you look at it, this subway plan is appalling. We need to do better.

I don't really care for the thesis here, but the prof behind that article also writes some great pieces for Spacing. Transit, infrastructure, subsurface physiography... basically everything a UT Transportation reader could want.

 

[CapitalSeven]

I posted something about the environmental impact of building this tunnel back in November, and the only person to respond thought I was talking about disposing of the fill. It's a huge amount of expended energy and greenhouse gases. And it's not taking any buses out of circulation; it's taking an existing and viable electric transit line with more stops out of circulation to run bigger and emptier trains the same distance, through a lit and ventilated tunnel

 

[amnesiajune]

I posted something about the environmental impact of building this tunnel back in November, and the only person to respond thought I was talking about disposing of the fill. It's a huge amount of expended energy and greenhouse gases. And it's not taking any buses out of circulation; it's taking an existing and viable electric transit line with more stops out of circulation to run bigger and emptier trains the same distance, through a lit and ventilated tunnel

(A) Nobody has ever claimed, and nobody will ever claim, that the Scarborough Subway Extension should be built because of its environmental benefits

(B) The impact of all of the things you mentioned is negligible when you consider the environmental impact of everything that happens in Toronto.

 

[CapitalSeven]

That's the spirit. Mass transit and construction decisions should ignore environmental concerns. And because the environmental impact of every decision is small in and of itself, there is no reason ever to consider them.

 

[Rainforest]

I am more concerned with the long-term environmental effects of investment in transportation infrastructure in regards to changing land uses and affecting urban sprawl then I am about the pure difference in emissions between say LRT vehicles and automobiles. Creating land uses and a built environment appropriate for transporting large numbers of people via public transportation, curbing urban sprawl, pollutants, run-off, emissions and environmental degradation derived from auto-centric lifestyle will do more than any debate contrasting how much different modes of transportation pollute.

Though, this context will change substantially once electric cars become the new norm. Electric cars produce no on-the-spot emission. Standard-size electric cars probably use more energy per person than public transit vehicles, but smaller and lighter cars will be able to compete on that, too.

The only problem with electric cars is that they can't use the road space efficiently. Simply trading all gasoline cars for electric cars will leave the roads as jammed as they are today. Public transit is therefore needed, at least to transport people to/from the busiest areas.

 

[Rainforest]

That's the spirit. Mass transit and construction decisions should ignore environmental concerns. And because the environmental impact of every decision is small in and of itself, there is no reason ever to consider them.

Not all concerns; just the carbon dioxide emission. For reasons that are well understood; other urban activities produce so much more of carbon dioxide that the impact of transit construction is negligible.

 

[OneCity]

Problem is both Brenda and Neethan are correct here and except they are fighting two ideologies that are both required. There was a plan tabled that compromised to address both the broader City connectivity issue an the local network that was irresponsibly voted down and led us down a dark road of debating plans serving different needs. Ill support the subway because all our council has ever shown is that it knows how to oppose Scarborough transit plans and it certainly solves one of the two issues.


http://www.torontosun.com/2017/03/13/scarborough-subway-opponents-waging-war-mayor
...
At the time, Councillor Neethan Shan called it absurd that Scarborough commuters have to spend almost an hour trekking from their homes to downtown Toronto, and that the “money (for the Scarborough subway extension) is an investment for a large number of people who have been left out.”

But Brenda Thompson, who is affiliated with a riders advocacy group, has said Scarborough residents need a seven-stop LRT “so that they can get around” that area of the city.