[Rainforest]

The polls are based entirely on the preference between the subway vs LRT.

The election was about myriad issues, one of which was transit.

While that's true, don't forget that: a) Elections involve hundreds of thousands, while the polls are limited to 1,000 - 2,000 respondents. There is always a risk of an error in sampling; b) During elections, politicians with competing views have weeks or months to promote their plans and try to win the voter's minds. Polling normally involves a phone call to a responded who might not have thought much about the issue at hand, and he/she has just a few seconds to choose the best answer.

As I said before, both the polls (if conducted professionally) an the election results provide some insight into the voters' preferences. But neither gives an "ironclad proof" that you try to demand.

Ford lied about the nature of LRTs (calling them streetcars that would clog the road), and the nature of funding ('it will be paid for by the private sector and inefficiencies), among other things. People voted for Ford based on lies, so it's essentially the exact opposite of an accurate gauge on what people want, based on the actual facts.

This is why using election results as proof of approval for subways is incredibly foolish.

I wouldn't give much credit to the 2010 election results alone, for two reasons, a) RoFo indeed mislead many voters, and b) they were more about taxes than transit.

However, the 2014 municipal elections point in the same direction: pro-subway candidates did much better in Scarborough than pro-LRT (Chow's support plummeted from 38% at the start to 25% on the election day). I know that the elections were about multiple issues; I don't believe transit issues weren't a significant contributor though.

Plus, there were a few by-elections; remember Mitzie Hunter?

It is incredibly foolish to pretend that all those multiple elections results still mean nothing in transit planning.

That local politicians want a subway doesn't really mean a thing. It's political.

If you showed Torontonians a map of London's subway system, and asked if they want something similar in Toronto, I'm pretty sure 100% of the city would say yes. Ask them when you outline the cost, usage, maintenance, etc. and the answer would be much different.

That example isn't really relevant, as the answer (in support of SSE) has been given by the City Council while the said costs were already outlined.

It's amazing how far this 'debate' has devolved.

No, I think this debate is useful; as long as the participants remain polite and focus on the issues at hand rather than on personalities.

 

[44 North]

This SRT was intended to go a lot deeper into Scarborough, but because of political interference from the Province, TTC was forced to use more expensive ICTS technology, which could only bring the RT as far as McCowan.

I don't think ICTS/Innovia was the right answer, but I believe it's likely TTC's plan would've met a similar fate as a result of higher than originally-estimated costs. At first they wanted to have some at-grade crossings, but in the end their line would've used an elevated guideway not unlike the one we have today. Whether that was to compete with the Prov's plan or truly due to higher than anticipated ridership #s remains to be seen. But either way that would've upped the project cost.

Also with the line fully grade-separated one should naturally question the merit of using CLRVs in a coupled train configuration. These are vehicles built for street-running, but wouldn't be running along/across any street. Though the same question could be said of the Transit City era Line 3 upgrade plan, and the MOU Eglinton-Scarboro Subway. If the line is to have subway/metro standards, why not use subway/metro vehicles.

 

[TheTigerMaster]

Also with the line fully grade-separated one should naturally question the merit of using CLRVs in a coupled train configuration. These are vehicles built for street-running, but wouldn't be running along/across any street. Though the same question could be said of the Transit City era upgrade plan, and the MOU Eglinton-Scarboro Subway. The line already has subway/metro standards, so why not use subway/metro vehicles.

The exact same reason why the Eglinton Crosstown and Queen Subway are/were planned to use streetcars: To allow for street running at branchs.

 

[BurlOak]

I wouldn't give much credit to the 2010 election results alone, for two reasons, a) RoFo indeed mislead many voters, and b) they were more about taxes than transit.

Your forgetting that Smitherman also wanted to cancel the SLRT and have a subway to STC. That's over 85% support for a non-LRT candidate.

 

[sixrings]

At this point no one is convincing the other side. People have made their decisions and this forum is just a place for people to repeat the same things over and over.

 

[Leo_Chan]

Just curious, can electrons include a poll on the ballot?

 

[Hopkins123]

There was no plan to extend the subway to STC in the 80s - it made no sense. 30 years later it still makes no sense as there isn't the density to support it.

LRTs are successfully in use around the world, in areas with greater density than Scarborough too. It's a proven and very effective technology.

Stop with the deception. The subway was supposed to be extended via Brimley-Lawrence through an abandoned rail corridor that ran diagonally from Kennedy Stn to the Town Centre. We're paying a heavy price now for not pursuing that plan when opportunity struck.

No one is discounting that LRT works in other jurisdictions and for other needs. I'm pointing out though that stopping the Bloor-Danforth short of Scarborough Town Centre, a natural major destination for the subway to reach is equivalent to the Yonge Line stopping at Dundas and not going all the way to Union.

Since we live in a city where the subway already exists and most people travelling on the SRT now are destined for the subway, or STC in the reverse, it makes absolutely no sense to impose an LRT transfer of any sort in this corridor.

 

[Hopkins123]

Just curious, can electrons include a poll on the ballot?

Why even have elections? We all know the unelected so-called experts in the backroom are going to do whatever they want anyway irrespective of what the public actually wants. That includes gumming up the works with multi-year assessments and consultations that most likely lead to populist plans not surviving into the next term.

 

[TheTigerMaster]

Stop with the deception. The subway was supposed to be extended via Brimley-Lawrence through an abandoned rail corridor that ran diagonally from Kennedy Stn to the Town Centre. We're paying a heavy price now for not pursuing that plan when opportunity struck.

There were never any plans to extend the subway to Scarborough Town Centre; you've misinterpreted one of the TTCs many historical plans. The plan you're referring to is the 1969 Concept for Integrated Rapid Transit and Commuter Rail Systems in Metropolitan Toronto. This plan proposed that Line 2 Bloor-Danforth would terminate at Warden Station. At this station would be the beginning of a new and separate rapid transit line: an intermediate capacity rapid transit line (such as LRT), which would've continued north east from Warden Station to Malvern Town Centre via Scarborough Town Centre and the abandoned rail corridor that you mentioned in your post. This was the conceptual precursor to the later Scarborough LRT proposal, which I've expanded on below.

The original Metro Toronto plan for the east of Line 2 was for it to permanently terminate at Warden and St Clair, and for an intermediate capacity rapid transit solution to be built between Warden Station and Malvern via Scarborough Centre. Scarborough politicians wanted the Line 2 subway to continue north east to Scarborough Town Centre, but because the the line would be very expensive (2.5x more than LRT), Metro Toronto proposed an alternative plan: Line 2 would continue northeast, with only one stop, to Eglinton and Kennedy; from Kennedy Station, a high speed light rail line, in a fully exclusive corridor, would be built to Malvern Town Centre, via Scarborough Town Centre. At the same time, Etobicoke politicians were complaining about being left out of subway extension plans, so they got a one-stop subway extension to Kipling.

This new high speed LRT line was to eventually become the convergence point of several LRT branches, each of which would serve different routes around northeastern Scarborough.

The service concept for the Scarborough LRT line was conceptually similar to the Queen Street Subway Line the TTC was pushing in the years prior to the Scarborough proposal: The central portion of the Queen Subway was to run underground along Queen, from Spadina to Sherborne. At both the east and western terminals of the underground Queen Subway, there'd be portals to connect the subway to the existing Queen Street streetcar services, where the streetcars could potentially branch to serve an extended area of southern Toronto.

Due to various factors (largely the provincial government's insistence that we use untested and expensive ICTS technology), the proposal was cut back to a McCowan terminal, and much of the potential of the Scarborough LRT proposal was lost. If the plan had been fully built out, serving Malvern and beyond with LRT, as was originally planned by the TTC, it's highly unlikely that we'd be discussing the Scarborough LRT replacement today. In fact, we'd likely be discussing the construction of additional Scarborough LRT branches on exclusive corridors throughout the borough, continuing to increase the number of Scarborough residents with access to Rapid Transit (as the planners had originally envisioned). The Scarborough LRT, along with the Eglinton Rapid Transit proposal of the day, were good plans that would've delivered rapid transit to huge areas of Scarborough, and not just the Town Centre.

It must be emphasized that the only plan for further subway extension into Scarborough at this time (and up to the 2010s) was an extension of the Eglinton Line ICTS east of Kennedy Station, and this likely would've been a surface LRT like Crosstown East.

 

[44 North]

The exact same reason why the Eglinton Crosstown and Queen Subway are/were planned to use streetcars: To allow for street running at branchs.

No doubt. And basically the #1 reason to go with LRVs in many instances. But there are still drawbacks that could see more dialogue. Like the general lower capacity vs a subway vehicle of the same dimensions. This resulting from the nature of a both low-floor/low-platform design (e.g Outlook, Freedom) or the older high-floor/low-platform design (e.g CLRV, PCC). Also probably lose a bit due to the rounded shape of the front or placement of the driver's cab - the latter being compounded 2x with double-ended. Not sure if the TTC ever considered modern high-floor LRVs, but it's safe to say if squared against a typical subway train of the same width/length that 6 CLRVs or 3 Freedoms would have lower capacities. There are other points too like energy efficiencies and politics of perception.

And specific to Line 3 it became apparent that there were serious problems with the high costs of converting for LRVs. Namely that the line got cut short to the point that there was no difference in system length. It simply became a 1:1 replacement, but with us +$2.5bn out of pocket. That's not all that great.

But yeah I still very much agree with the benefits of the LRT plans past and present. However I think it'd be helpful to see more dialogue that states the benefits of subways built 'light', both relative to projects like SSE but also for those like S(L)RT. Granted it's hard to do that considering it's never presented in any official plans.

 

[TheTigerMaster]

There were never any plans to extend the subway to Scarborough Town Centre; you've misinterpreted one of the TTCs many historical plans. The plan you're referring to is the 1969 Concept for Integrated Rapid Transit and Commuter Rail Systems in Metropolitan Toronto. This plan proposed that Line 2 Bloor-Danforth would terminate at Warden Station. At this station would be the beginning of a new and separate rapid transit line: an intermediate capacity rapid transit line (such as LRT), which would've continued north east from Warden Station to Malvern Town Centre via Scarborough Town Centre and the abandoned rail corridor that you mentioned in your post. This was the conceptual precursor to the later Scarborough LRT proposal, which I've expanded on below.

The original Metro Toronto plan for the east of Line 2 was for it to permanently terminate at Warden and St Clair, and for an intermediate capacity rapid transit solution to be built between Warden Station and Malvern via Scarborough Centre. Scarborough politicians wanted the Line 2 subway to continue north east to Scarborough Town Centre, but because the the line would be very expensive (2.5x more than LRT), Metro Toronto proposed an alternative plan: Line 2 would continue northeast, with one-stop, to Eglinton and Kennedy; from Kennedy, a high speed light rail line, in a fully exclusive corridor, would be built to Malvern Town Centre, via Scarborough Town Centre. At the same time, Etobicoke politicians were complaining about being left out of subway extension plans, so they got a one-stop subway extension to Kipling.

This new high speed LRT line was to eventually become the convergence point of several LRT branches, each of which would serve different routes around northeastern Scarborough.

The service concept for the Scarborough LRT line was conceptually similar to the Queen Street Subway Line the TTC was pushing in the years prior to the Scarborough proposal: The central portion of the Queen Subway was to run underground along Queen, from Spadina to Sherborne. At both the east and western terminals of the underground Queen Subway, there'd be portals to connect the subway to the existing Queen Street streetcar services, where the streetcars could potentially branch to serve an extended area of southern Toronto.

Due to various factors (largely the provincial government's insistence that we use untested and expensive ICTS technology), the proposal was cut back to a McCowan terminal, and much of the potential of the Scarborough LRT proposal was lost. If the plan had been fully built out, serving Malvern and beyond with LRT, as was originally planned by the TTC, it's highly unlikely that we'd be discussing replacing the Scarborough LRT replacement today. In fact, we'd likely be discussing the construction of additional Scarborough LRT branches on exclusive corridors throughout the borough, continuing to increase the number of Scarborough residents with access to Rapid Transit (as the planners had originally envisioned). The Scarborough LRT, along with the Eglinton Rapid Transit proposal of the day, were good plans that would've delivered rapid transit to huge areas of Scarborough, and not just the Town Centre.

It must be emphasized that the only plan for further subway extension into Scarborough at this time (and up to the 2010s) was an extension of the Eglinton Line ICTS east of Kennedy Station, and this likely wouldve been on the surface like Crosstown East.

And here's a map to illustrate what was conceptualized to potentially happen, had the Scarborough LRT plan been built in the 80s. All of these corridors were identified as having potential to eventually host ICTS branches or lines, along with the Scarborough LRT. Precise station locations were never defined, but realistically we were looking at anywhere from 18 to 30 stations within Scarborough, had the concept been built out (I'm hesitant to use the word "plan" here, as this was merely the TTC and Metro planners realizing that there was tremendous opportunity to cover Scarborough in ICTS/LRT lines branching off the main Scarborough LRT; none of this was ever an official plan, like Transit City, Move2020 or The Big Move)

Obviously, there was the main LRT branch running from Warden Station in the west to Malvern Town Centre in the east via Scarborough Town Centre. There were plans for another intermediate capacity transit branch, which would've branched off from the main branch north of Ellesmere, continued up the Stouffville rail corridor, and then turn west either along Sheppard Avenue or Finch Avenue to connect to the rest of Metro Toronto. Another branch might have even continued further north on Souffville to serve Milliken and North Scarborough. Finally, the Eglinton ICTS (probably LRT) would have been extended east of Kennedy to Brimley to connect with the GO Station there. From there, there was potential for further eastern extensions to UTSC. This extension to from Brimley UTSC wasn't part of the official plan, but I've decided to highlight it anyways given the identical Crosstown East proposal.

Now compare this to what we actually got: one solitary subway station at the Town Centre. Think of how many Scarborough residents would be within a few minutes of rapid transit had we just listened to the planners back in the 1970s, and not allowed politicians to tinker with the plans. Today, we'd be talking about how Scarborough is a model for efficient mass transit within suburban areas, rather than whining about an inconvenient transfer. Scarborough could have had a mass transit network rivalling full fledged cities like Vancouver's Skytrain, or London's Docklands Light Railway. But the moment we let the politicians tinker with the plans in the 80s, all that potential went to shit. We went from all this potential, to a single subway station. Its a travesty what we've done with transit in Scarborough.

 

[adrianaliu]

there isnt actually much wrong with ICTS or LRT at all, the only issues with the RT imo are the forced transfer and the sharp turn between midland and ellesmere prevents us from upgrading the rolling stock to something with potential for higher capacity. I don't think people would mind the forced transfer if the RT went further into Scarborough as originally proposed because residents in the malvern area wouldnt need to transfer to a bus. Vancouver implemented the exact same technology in their city around the same time period, and they don't have proposals to redo it all because they kept improving it, take it in even their downtown is served by ICTS. Upgrading the existing RT guideway to support the mark iii trains, converting to LRT so it can be compatible with the rest of the LRT system or even using it as a branch of the stouffville RER service with small EMUs running straight to union along an upgraded guideway. Any of those options would be totally worth it and provide flexibility that the proposed one stop subway extension doesnt. If we could go back to the early 80s and redo this all, I would build the subway to Scarborough centre because its a more natural terminus, and then have some sort of intermediate capacity services (brt, lrt) branching out from there to serve the remote parts of Scarborough. But the existing subway proposal is equivalent to shitting on a pile of cash, especially when we have the option to upgrade the existing line.

 

[TheTigerMaster]

If we could go back to the early 80s and redo this all, I would build the subway to Scarborough centre because its a more natural terminus

I caution against using the business of the existing Scarborough Centre Station to make the claim that Scarborough Centre is a natural terminus for a subway line. The reason Scarborough Centre is so busy is because Scarborough has a partially radial bus network, which has more than a dozen bus routes terminating at Scarborough Centre. Had the Scarborough LRT network been fully built out as envisioned in the 70s, relatively few bus routes would be terminating at Scarborough Centre, and ridership at that station would be a fraction of what it is today.

Now I realize some of you are probably thinking that that the Town Centre would still be the #1 trip generator in the borough, and would therefore make the subway connection justified, even if that particular station didn't host more than a dozen bus routes. Ideally that could have happened (especially as an extension on the surface), but we don't live in a world with unlimited transit funds. With the subway costing 2.5x more than the LRT proposal, the realistic outcome of having built the subway to the Town Centre in the 80s is that much of the original LRT plans from the 70s would've went unfunded, and transit coverage in Scarborough would be more limited because of it.

Finally, consider that the 70s LRT plan likely would've made Scarborough Centre a more attractive destination (destination =/= transfer point) than a subway. This is because the LRT network would have drawn commuters from all around Scarborough into the Town Centre, while the subway would largely function as an express line from Scarborough to Downtown and the rest of Metro Toronto.

But there are still drawbacks that could see more dialogue. Like the general lower capacity vs a subway vehicle of the same dimensions.

I'm not really concerned with capacity, since it would've been trivial to expand the capacity of the 1980s Scarborough LRT proposal, as all the stations were to be built on the surface. 15k pphpd easily couldve been expanded to 20k or 25k. For reference, the Bloor-Danforth Line ridership tops out at somewhere less than 25k pphpd, if my memory serves me correctly.

Vancouver implemented the exact same technology in their city around the same time period, and they don't have proposals to redo it all because they kept improving it, take it in even their downtown is served by ICTS.

You know, if we had stuck to the plan in the 70s, Scarborough and eastern North York would likely be well on its way to having a intermediate capacity transit system rivalling Vancouver's, with rapid transit on Eglinton, Kingston, Stouffville, Sheppard, Scarborough Centre and Malvern

 

[BurlOak]

That brings us back to the Neptis, Michael Schabas idea of a Scarborough Wye.

SRT extended to Malvern. Sheppard converted to be compatible and connected from Yonge to STC.
Eglinton (although not shown above) fully grade-separated to Kennedy, connected, and a few less stations.

If discussions centred around this plan, costs would have been much less and Scarborough served much better. (I don't think his Sheppard alignment is ideal, and I could consider another branch from either Centennial College to UTSC and/or Kennedy Station to Kingston Rd. and UTSC).

Important from the Neptis report:

The BCA [Business Cost Analysis] for the Eglinton Crosstown LRT was not released publicly until the author filed a request under the Freedom of Information Act, and after Metrolinx had awarded contracts to construct the tunnels.

I would also note that the report was withheld from spring 2012 until fall 2013 - during that crucial time when the Ford plan was cancelled, LRT reinstated, Stintz' One City subway, LRT, Subway, subway Champion, etc.
It made it clear that the Liberals, through Metrolinx, were in full control of the transit message and greatly influenced the decisions that were made.

 

[BurlOak]

In an almost teasing way, the Gordon Chong report, "Toronto transit back on track - Sheppard subway development and financial study", shows the plan and elevation of the Sheppard Subway from Consumers Station to STC (in the Appendix). However, 2 sets of drawings are missing, and these appear to be the Don Mill subway Station area, and the portion across Highway 404. Without these, I am just guessing, but based on what I have read, the Don Mills Station is very deep and it would be very difficult to elevate the line over highway 404 - even though Michael Schabas mentions it in his report. Subway could likely not accomplish the required grades.

I would guess that with Mark II or III, or LRT, it could handle steeper grades and it is likely possible for the transit line to surface just on the SW corner of Sheppard and 404 (there are no ramps there) and go over Highway 404 parallel to the road bridge and a bit south. Then the line would follow along the south side of Sheppard with Stations at Consumers, Vic Park, Warden, Birchmount, and Kennedy. It would then elevate above the GO and follow Highland Creek from just north of Progress to join in for Midland Station. Stations here would be GO (Markham and future crosstown) and the station from Midland Easterly.

If anyone has seen the drawings for Don Mills station and the route under 404, I would love it if it were posted, or a link provided. I could then figure out once and for all whether this elevation scheme is possible. I have stated before that if it is tunneled under 404, it would add much extra cost, and the process of switching from underground to elevated takes up a long length, which may not be feasible anywhere along Sheppard east of 404.