Dan416
Senior Member
Actually he was asked that and he said it has to be subway. I can't remember which article quoted him on that. Think it was the one about elevated.
|
|
|
- Thread starter Brans89
- Start date
Actually he was asked that and he said it has to be subway. I can't remember which article quoted him on that. Think it was the one about elevated.
k10ery
Senior Member
Here's ford's quote of december 20 (taken from CBC.ca):
"I don't object to LRT [light rail transit] as long as everything is underground. I'm not taking away roads. I want traffic to flow in this city and that what's going to happen."
Dude, ask your friends to explain about this wonderful new service called "google".
"I don't object to LRT [light rail transit] as long as everything is underground. I'm not taking away roads. I want traffic to flow in this city and that what's going to happen."
Dude, ask your friends to explain about this wonderful new service called "google".
EnviroTO
Senior Member
I will have what he is drinking. Subway to Scarborough means traffic will flow? Wow, this guy must actually think the traffic jams are people trying to go to Scarborough Town Centre.
W. K. Lis
Superstar
All Rob Ford cares about is when his car is in traffic and his precious automobile. Most of his comments about transit concerns him being able to drive in his car. He wants the public transit users to get out of his way, not the other way around. Even if the vehicle they are in are carrying more than his vehicle.
EnviroTO
Senior Member
^ Obviously. In almost every interview that he discusses transit, despite not being asked about cars, he can't help but bring them up. If you talk to someone serious about transit they will talk about stations, routes, vehicles, transfers, fares, etc. If you are serious about transit you aren't talking about cars, even if you have a plan which avoids impact with cars you will not mention cars.
Dan416
Senior Member
Personally as a driver I'm all for separating transit and cars. They shouldn't get in each other's way.
nfitz
Superstar
Ah, so you support the view of Ford's staff to eliminate TTC's bus service.
This is good news. Hopefully Metrolinx will also tell him that they'd rather have a B-D connection to STC than a Sheppard connection. It's pretty clear that if Eglinton is staying in the picture, it's one or the other, not both (there just simply isn't enough money to fund both). An Eglinton LRT tunnel and a B-D connection to STC is a perfectly acceptable outcome in my books.
He may want it, but I don't think he's going to get it. I actually agree with the LRT guys on this one, there isn't much point in making it a subway, as long as it's grade-separated though (and that's the real key, in order for the LRT to be effective, it needs to be 100% grade separated). In order for Eglinton to reach subway-level demand, there would need to be at least 5 N-S rapid transit connections to it (currently there would be 3, DRL East and West are needed). Otherwise, all you're doing is the same thing Transit City was designed to do: dump passengers onto an already over-crowded YUS. If YUS has a surplus capacity of only 5,000pphpd at Eglinton, does it really matter that the line has a capacity of 20,000pphpd? Unless 75% of the passengers AREN'T transferring onto YUS (which is extremely unlikely), then the answer is no. The ridership on Eglinton will ultimately be determined by the ridership on the bisecting N-S routes. As long as Eglinton is able to shuttle those riders freely without interference from cars from 1 N-S line to another, then it will do its job.
Having said that, hopefully Metrolinx uses the money from Finch West to grade-separate Eglinton east and west outside of the tunnel.
Also, having it as LRT opens up the option to interline both the Jane and Don Mills LRTs with the Eglinton line north of Eglinton, for a 1 seat ride to YUS from either of those two lines.
Fixed it for you. I'm assuming that's what you meant anyways, haha.
nfitz
Superstar
I wouldn't be surprised if Metrolinx is pushing the Eglinton connection to STC rather than a Danforth extension.
Through service from STC (or Sheppard/Markham) to Eglinton/Yonge (and Eglinton/Weston). There's only about 5.5 km on the entire route to the western end of the Eglinton tunnel that wouldn't be grade-separated, and I'm starting to wonder if the big compromise would be to grade separate the Eglinton line from Don Mills Road to Kennedy (plus through the Leslie intersection); it adds about 5.5 km of grade separation. Mind you it would add over $1 billion to the cost ... maybe Finch West gets sacrificed for this. This seems to be more in line with what Metrolinx was pushing a couple of years ago. I wonder if they'd push to resurrect Mark 2.0 ICTS as well ...
Last edited:
quicksilver
Active Member
I have to agree that a seamless subway connection, i.e. HRT, connection from STC to Bloor Danforth makes oodles more sense than extending Sheppard as a subway. Sheppard only makes sense as surface LRT in a RoW. Building a subway on that stretch is like throwing hundreds of millions of dollars into Lake Ontario...unless you sell tunnel boring machines. A subway replacement for the SRT by contrast improves on a line that already has the required demand. Looking west from Scarborough, as I do, I have to say I'd rather have a real subway connection to downtown than North York; no offense to North York. Build the subway in time to retire the SRT.
Two Transit City lines, on Sheppard and replacing the SRT, make the most sense for Scarborough and would serve a broader population. If Ford is successful in derailing that vision, a subway replacement for the SRT with a possible extension to Markham Rd and Sheppard Ave, is the next best option.
k10ery
Senior Member
How does ICTS ultimately get to the Mississauga Transitway and the airport?
I wouldn't mind that, because it does create a grade-separated corridor from Jane to STC, and it does dump Scarborough-origined passengers off at Eglinton-Yonge instead of Bloor-Yonge. That would provide some temporary (and I stress temporary) relief of B-Y station until the DRL is built. However, the SRT corridor is still a pretty sterile corridor from a TOD perspective. Doing a subway extension via Danforth-McCowan would not only hit larger existing pockets on-route, but would also create opportunities for new ones. Ultimately, I'd prefer to see the Eglinton LRT continue east to Kingston Rd, meeting up with the KRBRT.
Theoretically through the Richview corridor. I wouldn't mind this option at all, because ICTS virtually ensures 100% grade-separation. However, it does eliminate any reasonable possibilities of interlining Eglinton with other lines (either subway or LRT). In my opinion, in order for Eglinton to be truly effective, it has to interline with some other N-S lines. If subway is chosen, interline with the DRL East and West to create E-W to N-S 1 seat rides into downtown. If LRT is chosen, interline with the Jane and Don Mills LRTs to provide 1-seat rides to YUS. ICTS accomplishes neither of those, as the DRL is not going to be built as ICTS, and the Jane and Don Mills lines are not going to be built as ICTS.
nfitz
Superstar
Where would stations go on a BD extension to STC? I'd guess 2 inbetween stations; one at Eglinton/Brimely/Danforth and another at Lawrence/McCowan. Would the passenger demand from these stations exceed what is lost at the existing Lawrence East, Ellesmere, and Midland stations, not to mention the proposed SRT stations at Brimley, Bellamy, Centennial College, Sheppard, and Malvern.
In theory, ultimately, it could do both. There is no reason not to have branches. However if the Eglinton LRT get's extended to STC, there is always the option (ultimately) of extending the BD line east with stations at Eglinton/Brimley/Danforth, Bellamy (Eglinton GO), and perhaps even Kingston Road. Though presumably at some point in the far future.