News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 02, 2020
A Message to Our Readers
 8.6K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
EarthCam Time-Lapse Documents Rafael Viñoly-Designed New Stanford Hospital Construction
 39K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
Resort Town
 4.9K     0 

JSF-1 said:
I can't really see that happening since this would introduce a new LRV fleet into the system and could end the possibility of the Sheppard LRT and EELRT sharing a yard. As well Ontario and Toronto have this belief that everything must be Low-Floor. The EC and FW LRT's didn't have to be Low-Floor but here we are. Hell I don't even think High-Level LRT's were ever considered an option for those lines.
Click to expand...

It would introduce a new high-floor LRV fleet, but that fleet could be partially compatible with the low-floor fleet (same gauge, voltage, some spare parts), and it could share the yard and they can even use each other's tracks for non-revenue trips to access the yard.

Whether there will be any appetite for that kind of complexity; I don't know and we shall see. IMO, it makes sense.
 
Rainforest said:
I think it is more realistic to aim for something "half-way between" a subway and an LRT on Sheppard. The demand in that corridor is lower than for SSE, thus the city is unlikely to pay for a subway extension on Sheppard.

On the other hand, the light rail plan in its current form is unpopular because it perpetuates the transfer at Don Mills.

Maybe, a viable solution is a high-floor LRT that can fit in the existing Sheppard tunnel easily, runs with 3-car trains for capacity, has relatively wide stop spacing, but still cuts the cost by running in the street median between Vic Park and Midland. And then, in a tunnel from Midland & Sheppard to STC.

That kind of line could be extended further east from STC (to Malvern?), and west of Yonge, for less than a full subway.
Click to expand...

Also 2 LRT's are possible:
#1 Connection of EELRT to Finch West
#2 STC City Centre, thru Centennial College and link up at Markham Milner

But this neglects some key areas of Sheppard from Vic Park to Agincourt so Id much prefer the Sheppard subway thru Agincourt to STC and a STC City Centre to Malvern LRT. This will likely garner the most Political support and already has to a large extent. I hold no hope Politicians can stick handle a high floor LRT conversion, but would be the best outcome
 
Last edited:
Rainforest said:
Maybe, a viable solution is a high-floor LRT that can fit in the existing Sheppard tunnel easily, runs with 3-car trains for capacity, has relatively wide stop spacing, but still cuts the cost by running in the street median between Vic Park and Midland. And then, in a tunnel from Midland & Sheppard to STC.
Click to expand...

In my eyes this is what should've been considered for Line 3 upgrade, and Sheppard. And possibly connecting the two into one line. For Line 3 it really made little sense to go with a low-floor vehicle. A) they're vehicles meant for street-running in a hyper-urban environment as a curbside hop-on/hop-off tram; and B) Line 3 already exists as a high-floor/high-platform line and by default is more commuter-focused and suburban. A low-floor vehicle just doesn't make sense. Factoring this, and that any Sheppard solution historically was supposed to run to SC, then we should've settled on a vehicle that is interoperable with a high-floor/high-platform Line 3. Ergo either a narrow-body subway/metro vehicle for full grade-separation, or a high-platform LRV (with little or no grade-separation).
 
Streety McCarface said:
Again, the STC get's more ridership than all other Scarborough stations combined. Why? It's convenient for people. The GO lines only go to Union and maybe Gerrard, but that's hardly the destination for the majority of people living in this city.
Click to expand...


It's obvious why that is. Because the buses feed STC. Now imagine the bus route network reconfigured to operate from the closest GO/RER station instead of STC. Would SC have the same ridership under this scenario?
 
  • Like
Reactions: syn
kEiThZ said:
It's obvious why that is. Because the buses feed STC. Now imagine the bus route network reconfigured to operate from the closest GO/RER station instead of STC. Would SC have the same ridership under this scenario?
Click to expand...
Then again, it makes sense for the buses to feed an actual destination instead of just a station with nothing of value there.
 
Sakraycore said:
Then again, it makes sense for the buses to feed an actual destination instead of just a station with nothing of value there.
Click to expand...

It only make sense if it is the actual trip destination for the majority of riders. What is being proposed right now is like Mississauga wanting to route all the buses through Square One - and then shove all the downtown heading traffic through that node.

AoD
 
AlvinofDiaspar said:
It only make sense if it is the actual trip destination for the majority of riders. What is being proposed right now is like Mississauga wanting to route all the buses through Square One - and then shove all the downtown heading traffic through that node.

AoD
Click to expand...
Their Square One isn't on the subway line though, unlike STC which is going to be. I'd connect a whole lot more of their buses to Square One if it's on the subway line terminus.
 
Sakraycore said:
Their Square One isn't on the subway line though, unlike STC which is going to be. I'd connect a whole lot more of their buses to Square One if it's on the subway line terminus.
Click to expand...

Except that it isn't the fastest or most efficient way to organize the network even if there is subway access to Square One - and Square One is more of an actual destination than STC even without subway access.

AoD
 
AlvinofDiaspar said:
Except that it isn't the fastest or most efficient way to organize the network even if there is subway access to Square One - and Square One is more of an actual destination than STC even without subway access.

AoD
Click to expand...
Well I mean like there must be a reason why all the buses are being routed to STC right now, it's not even a subway station yet. We have transportation planners who get paid to do their job.
 
Sakraycore said:
Then again, it makes sense for the buses to feed an actual destination instead of just a station with nothing of value there.
Click to expand...

According to this logic, all the subway stations with feeder services on the TTC are useless.

Sakraycore said:
Their Square One isn't on the subway line though, unlike STC which is going to be. I'd connect a whole lot more of their buses to Square One if it's on the subway line terminus.
Click to expand...

And if there were several RER stations in Scarborough, there would be no need for SC to be on the subway line. It would be just another node in the network.

But because of the subway extension, they now have to jam every bus through there, to justify it with ridership that should be diffused through several nodes. If you live at say McCowan and Steeles, what makes more sense:

1) Bus to STC to catch the subway from SC for a 50 min ride to Union, with a transfer; or,
2) Bus to Milliken with a 40 min ride to Union with no transfer.
 
Last edited:
kEiThZ said:
According to this logic, all the subway stations with feeder services on the TTC are useless.



And if there were several RER stations in Scarborough, there would be no need for SC to be on the subway line. It would be just another node in the network.

But because of the subway extension, they now have to jam every bus through there, to justify it with ridership that should be diffused through several nodes. If you live at say McCowan and Steeles, what makes more sense:

1) Bus to STC to catch the subway from SC for a 50 min ride to Union, with a transfer; or,
2) Bus to Milliken with a 40 min ride to Union with no transfer.
Click to expand...

Agreed. The STC is an artificially created node. Given other options, it wouldn't be as busy.
 
Sakraycore said:
Well I mean like there must be a reason why all the buses are being routed to STC right now, it's not even a subway station yet. We have transportation planners who get paid to do their job.
Click to expand...

Because right now we live in the situation where we don't have a suburban rail network that is integrated with feeder bus service.

This is exactly my fucking point. In most places, they don't come up with moronic solutions like insisting you travel 20 km with stops every km. If you are going that far, you're on a regional rail service with stops 3-5 km apart. Go to any major city in the developed world (outside North America) and that is what you'll have.

I don't get why it's hard to imagine a reconfiguration of the system. In a future where we have RER every 15 mins during rush and fare and service integration with the TTC, why should downtown bound passengers outside of the immediate catchment of STC be forced to travel through SC?
 
Last edited:
I have been critical of LRT. But I am equally critical of the subway plan. Neither addresses what people actually want in Scarborough: a shorter commute to the core. And both plans keep beating around the bush by tinkering with travel times on a portion of the commute.

"Shorten your bus ride with LRT!"

"Save time when you eliminate a transfer."

Why the hell can't planners and transit advocates push better integration with GO and full RER service that reduces commutes by 20-30 minutes? This is what people actually want and need. Saving 10 mins over the bus or transfer is a bandaid solution.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top