denfromoakvillemilton
Senior Member
fair enough
|
|
|
- Thread starter kEiThZ
- Start date
OneCity
Senior Member
Again, This thread is more appropriate to debate and discuss how we got here
The opposition continues to be oblivious to the fact there are more option than 2 plans and a "value analysis" could have been don't under the Miller admin, unfortunately no one cared back then until Scarborough residents were given a voice for their concerns over that plan.
Also a value analysis was done on a seamless LRT vs Millers LRT.
syn
Senior Member
You're absolutely right.
Ford's legacy is convincing people in the suburbs that they 'deserve' transit, when the environments they live in were never designed to be transit friendly in the first place.
It's now expected that the 'best' transit be built in these areas, without any demand that the built form and lifestyle changes required for this to happen are met.
BurlOak
Senior Member
If I understand it.
From 2006. Transfer SkyTrain (just Kennedy to STC) > Transfer LRT > B-D subway extension.
From 2012. Connected underground LRT (Mt. Dennis to STC) > Transfer LRT
From 2013 (from Neptis). Connected SkyTrain with elevated portions (Mt. Dennis to STC) > Connected underground LRT (Mt. Dennis to STC)
So basically, the Subway plan, and the Transfer LRT plan, are the 2 worst ideas that have been derived and studied in the past decade and those are the 2 City Councillor's are debating.
(and for those paying attention, Eglinton West 2016. Fully Grade-separated > partially grade-separated > on street LRT. Once again - we (City) are debating amongst the 2 worst options. )
Rainforest
Senior Member
Transit is supposed to serve the residents where they live now, not force them to move. Why would the taxpayers support transit construction that only benefits people who move into new high-density dwellings, and leaves everybody else behind?
The notion of adding density near new higher-order transit stations is valid and reasonable, but is secondary to serving the existing riders.
The notion of adding density near new higher-order transit stations is valid and reasonable, but is secondary to serving the existing riders.
TransitBart
Senior Member
They are [as important as downtown residents.] Said as a former Etobian. But I could always get to downtown from Royal York. But getting downtown from Scarborough has always been tougher.
What they do deserve - no ifs ands or buts - is a quality of life which does not disadvantage the former Scarborough. That has been badly expressed. But it’s not a crazy statement. Every one’s commute needs to be reasonable in the name of peace, order and good government. Some very Canadian things.
Flyer here. But so many of our discussions are linked in theme. Dad and Mom need to get home in time and with enough energy to take care of and interest in children. Maybe some will get to sports. That is a better outlet than being influenced by thugs. There is a crisis in some communities this summer where sports and thuggery look like the best opportunities in life.
Deserve is a loaded word. But we don’t debate whether universal healthcare levels the playing field any longer. Mobility is just as important a quality of opportunity metric in a large urban environment.
syn
Senior Member
Of course it's tougher. Look at where Royal York is located and then compare it to Scarborough and it's painfully obvious why it's more difficult.
Scarborough planners spent decades ignoring mobility and the needs of transit riders. It's not a large urban environment - it's a large suburban environment.
The idea that someone in Scarborough should have it just as easy as someone living in a dense urban environment when it comes to downtown travel is incredibly unrealistic.
OneCity
Senior Member
Basically yes.
The McCowan subway plan would still be the best option location wise if we're willing to bite the bullet upfront of the higher construction cost to build multiple build stations in unfavorable geological conditions. But understanding the short-sighted reality this Province faces of never having a proper funding plan in place to deal with the many immediate challenges across the GTA there were many better options to compromise. I don't really see the higher cost as an issue 50 years from now in the bigger picture. Anyway all other options made more sense than Transfer LRT.
If the goal was to go cheap, and keep the current transfer, on the current western and misplaced rail corridor alignment then SkyTrain made the most sense. The 2012/2013 plan offered to connected Scarborough Centre seamlessly which would have been a reasonable improvement and compromise for this line so we could deal with Sheppard. Also add-in the Murray BDL extension which would have saved atleast some funds and connected Downtown to SCC as a better option than the Transfer LRT. Now that all those plans are rejected, were approaching 30% design, GO RER is ramping up its use on the old rail corridor, and lets be honest there will be opposition to any plan if we debate further I really don't see much room left for compromise. Those few politicians still pushing for Transfer LRT are just playing protectionist politics for the old regime and really had no interest in ever helping with a reasonable solution. Its not Scarborough that deserves the current subway as much as these Politicians
Last edited:
Thorns_Embrace
Active Member
Can someone explain to me why the cost of the Scarborough Subway is so inflated? It somehow cost significantly more than the Spadina subway extension despite the fact that:
It is a shorter extension: 6.9 km vs 8.6 km
Has less stops: 1 stop vs 6 stops. having more stops would significantly increase the total cost of the line.
Yet the cost is projected to be 3.35 billion while the total cost of the Spadina subway extension was 3.2 billion. I have heard many times from the anti-subway crowd claiming that the subway will go overbudget despite the fact that the cost for the subway is a very high estimate?
I am assuming the reasoning for this this is at least in part due to inflation. However somehow when people discuss reverting to the LRT they compare the subway to the LRT which would have been projected using numbers from last decade!!!!!
It is a shorter extension: 6.9 km vs 8.6 km
Has less stops: 1 stop vs 6 stops. having more stops would significantly increase the total cost of the line.
Yet the cost is projected to be 3.35 billion while the total cost of the Spadina subway extension was 3.2 billion. I have heard many times from the anti-subway crowd claiming that the subway will go overbudget despite the fact that the cost for the subway is a very high estimate?
I am assuming the reasoning for this this is at least in part due to inflation. However somehow when people discuss reverting to the LRT they compare the subway to the LRT which would have been projected using numbers from last decade!!!!!
denfromoakvillemilton
Senior Member
Because Transit causes gentrification. It changes neighborhoods by default. When Sheppard East gets built you will see this. The people who advocated for it will be pushed out to Durham by exploding rents in housing prices.
FW36
Active Member
how come the RT tracks can't just be replaced with subway tracks.
BurlOak
Senior Member
What would run on them?
The TTC subways are wider and won't fit into stations or tunnel at Ellesmere, or even fit side-by-side on the track in general. I believe the subway is also heavier, so the elevated portion of track cannot support the extra weight.
FW36
Active Member
I meant the rt tracks should be replaced up to Lawrence east station from there it could go underground to the STC. It would mean less of the line would have to be tunneled so the cost may be less
Rainforest
Senior Member
That's a good proposal, it was discussed here a few times, but for some reason never considered by the planners.
A new Kennedy station would have to be built and that's an extra cost. But, the tracks could run on surface for about 3 km (from ~ 500 m north of Kennedy to ~ 500 m south of Ellesmere). And, the Lawrence East station could be built on surface reducing the costs.
From ~ 500 m south of Ellesmere, the line could dip underground, then gently curve east and reach an underground station at STC.
BurlOak
Senior Member
This sounds a bit like the Glen Murray alignment. Note on that I believe the Ellesmere to STC section was to be elevated - going over the Highland Creek. I'd have to dig up the link to confirm.