[Cobra]

I'd put Finch ahead of an SRT replacement.

Now you lost it. You truly don`t know what you're talking about. Finch barely qualifies for LRT while the SRT corridor is clearly above that as Skytrain.

Fine, let's assume they're all streetcars. Why is Paris building streetcars in it's suburbs, many of which are far denser than Scarborough?

Their suburbs also have subways my friend. Trams feeds the network. Transit City aimed to act as a band aid due to lack of willingness to get extra funding (tax, tolls, etc) and upper governments being absent at the table. Huge difference

 

[syn]

Now you lost it. You truly don`t know what you're talking about. Finch barely qualifies for LRT while the SRT corridor is clearly above that as Skytrain.

I was referring to the original Transit City plan that ran from Finch Station.

The SRT already exists.

Their suburbs also have subways my friend. Trams feeds the network. Transit City aimed to act as a band aid due to lack of willingness to get extra funding (tax, tolls, etc) and upper governments being absent at the table. Huge difference

As does Scarborough - Kennedy and Warden stations.

Transit City wasn't perfect, but plenty of the lines were well suited for their lower density routes.

The Crosstown East extension would provide a direct route from the Yonge Line and could be connected to other LRT lines in Scarborough.

There's no need for another subway stop.

 

[Rainforest]

The list of alternative syn-facts is growing.

They can't add the stops because just a one stop extension is going to cost $5 billion. In current cost estimates the city report makes it clear that the cost could go up by as much as 50% - and it will. There are still variables not accounted for.

Adding stops will likely push it into the $7 billion range

Source?

No answer. As expected.

 

[Hopkins123]

The list of alternative syn-facts is growing.

Source?

No answer. As expected.

I know, right. Since when would it add $2 billion to the total cost to include a Lawrence East station and maybe a stop at Brimley-Eglinton? Anything to discredit subway technology, I suppose.

 

[OneCity]

The list of alternative syn-facts is growing.



Source?

No answer. As expected.

Likely heard it from Matlow or Perks. I think they peg it at $10 billion these days as it seems to go up a billion every time they lose a vote. And the transfer LRT hasn't even budged from less than $2B and is still shovel ready supposedly.

 

[Rainforest]

Likely heard it from Matlow or Perks. I think they peg it at $10 billion these days as it seems to go up a billion every time they lose a vote. And the transfer LRT hasn't even budged from less than $2B and is still shovel ready supposedly.

While I disagree with Matlow's and Perks' position on SSE, I believe both of them are much more trustworthy than 'syn', and wouldn't say this kind of nonsense (that 1 or 2 infill stations would cost extra $2 billion, on top of the already exaggerated total price).

 

[rbt]

I know, right. Since when would it add $2 billion to the total cost to include a Lawrence East station and maybe a stop at Brimley-Eglinton? Anything to discredit subway technology, I suppose.

I have no idea what the cost would be, but adding a station (creating a level/straight section of track) would change the tunnel placement from start to finish and may well make other components, like emergency exits deeper than they might be otherwise and in different positions (perhaps more land expropriation)?

It's not as simple as just digging out a station box; otherwise we would have added a station between Lawrence and York Mills years ago.

 

[M II A II R II K]

If they have to tunnel they may as well tunnel under the RT tracks and follow the same route, and the new Lawrence East can be on the subway and not the GO with it’s issues.

 

[TheTigerMaster]

I have no idea what the cost would be, but adding a station (creating a level/straight section of track) would change the tunnel placement from start to finish and may well make other components, like emergency exits deeper than they might be otherwise and in different positions (perhaps more land expropriation)?

It's not as simple as just digging out a station box; otherwise we would have added a station between Lawrence and York Mills years ago.

Never mind that Lawrence East would be one of the most challenging underground stations on the network, due the geography in the area. $2 Billion is obviously hyperbolic nonsense, but given the concerns raised by TTC, Lawrence East would’ve been an unusually challenging and costly station to build.

 

[M II A II R II K]

Well then build it above ground or away from McCowan where it’s not inconvenient.

 

[BurlOak]

Never mind that Lawrence East would be one of the most challenging underground stations on the network, due the geography in the area. $2 Billion is obviously hyperbolic nonsense, but given the concerns raised by TTC, Lawrence East would’ve been an unusually challenging and costly station to build.

Remember when they proposed to change the ECLRT to tunnel all the way to Don Mills.

The Reason:

Why is this Change Needed?
The TBM launch site proposed in the approved EPR at Brentcliffe Rd is no longer suitable, due to:

• New property constraints: New development to the south of the Brentcliffe launch site would require temporary shoring to protect the building foundation for the duration of construction, and construction noise mitigation measures may be insufficient;
• Traffic impacts / detour requirements: Traffic disruption would occur over a 28-month period during the operation of the launch site;
• Slope stability: Issues north of Eglinton at the Brentcliffe portal could impact the ability to permanently maintain 4 lanes of traffic at this location; and
• Soil contamination issues: The preliminary design study identified contaminated soil at the Brentcliffe launch site that would have to be removed.

So this went from not being possible to being done with no cost premium - just because Metrolinx, and their Liberal masters, wanted to force the line on-street to piss off Ford.

Is it possible that there is a very economical solution to Lawrence East - but it is not being talked about?

 

[Rainforest]

Is it possible that there is a very economical solution to Lawrence East - but it is not being talked about?

That's the thought. Is it not possible to cross the Highland Creek on a bridge (instead of way below in a deep tunnel), and build a shallow station 100 m south of Lawrence to make room for the tracks to rise to the ground level before the bridge?

The Finch station of the Yonge line isn't actually straight at Finch, it is shifted north quite a bit.

 

[TheTigerMaster]

That's the thought. Is it not possible to cross the Highland Creek on a bridge (instead of way below in a deep tunnel), and build a shallow station 100 m south of Lawrence to make room for the tracks to rise to the ground level before the bridge?

The Finch station of the Yonge line isn't actually straight at Finch, it is shifted north quite a bit.

The tunnels approaching Lawrence are incredibly deep. IIRC, TTC doesn’t permit grades of more than 2% for stations and 5% for tunnels. So for an elevated structure, it would have to rise to the elevated level, and descend back to tunnel level, within those grading constraints. Furthermore, towards the south of Lawrence the tracks will be curved, which will limit how steep the grading can be (IIRC, trains don’t like elevation changes on curves)

Finally, there’s the creek to the north, which the tunnels will have to navigate while descending back down to tunnel level.

 

[TheTigerMaster]

Remember when they proposed to change the ECLRT to tunnel all the way to Don Mills.

The Reason:

So this went from not being possible to being done with no cost premium - just because Metrolinx, and their Liberal masters, wanted to force the line on-street to piss off Ford.

Is it possible that there is a very economical solution to Lawrence East - but it is not being talked about?

The economical solution would’ve been to put the subway in the surface

 

[WislaHD]

The economical solution would’ve been to put the subway in the surface

To this day, I question how re-doing the turn at Midland to accomodate subway vehicles is not cheaper than tunneling.

Surely, it is the kind of problem where if we "threw enough money at it" we would find an engineering solution? It would probably still be cheaper than a McCowan subway, and Lawrence East Station is back on the table.