[ssiguy2]

Queen's Park made a big mistake giving Toronto any transit funding. Any transit expansion money should have come as a percentage of total costs with the city [or fed money if they can get it} making up the difference. Queen's Park should turn to Toronto and tell them you get the $8.2 billion but only if you cough up, as an example 25% on top of that bringing the total to about $11 billion. I know this is what Ford wanted to finish Sheppard but Dalton should tell Toronto that it gets no money until they contribute their portion.

Thing is, I remember way back when Miller first announced TransitCity and said the City would contribute a third and wanted Queen's Park and Ottawa to do the same. At the time that was just $2 billion until the price somehow soared 50% in 18 months to come in at $9 billion. Where exactly was Miller planning on getting this money and why isn't it being raised now?

I know we have gone over Toronto's complete abrogation of responsibility for paying for some of it's own infrastructure so I don't want to hijack this thread. I'll get back on topic and again ask.........Is Eg/Scar/Cross now just an Eglinton route and will not be one continous route? If that is so then what in god's name are they using as an excuse for not just keeping the SRT and buying new trains with slight upgrades and saving themselves a small fortune and having to shut the line down for years?

 

[Red October]

Which is still horribly inadequate, given that we have spent basically 0 on transit expansion in the last 30 years except for half a Sheppard subway and Downsview station, and we have some of the worst traffic congestion in North America as a result. We need a budget of more like $50 billion dollars, to upgrade the proposed light rail lines to subways, get started with upgrading the GO train system to high frequency all day service, and improve the terribly inadequate bus systems in the 905 suburbs.

One of the worst mistakes ever made concerning transit in Toronto was filling in the partially dug Eglinton subway in the mid 90's. Ugh.

 

[innsertnamehere]

The eglinton subway that was under construction at the time was shorter than the sheppard subway. It would have barely helped.

 

[Tulse]

One of the worst mistakes ever made concerning transit in Toronto was filling in the partially dug Eglinton subway in the mid 90's. Ugh.

Do you mean cancelling the project, or literally filling in the dig? As I understand it, the part that was excavated (and re-filled) wasn't even the main tunnel.

 

[M II A II R II K]

And how many Kennedy LRT stations would there be, just one for both lines or 2 separate platforms where you have to go up or down stairs or something...

 

[BurlOak]

What does this mean? Could you rephrase?

I would guess this means that the TTC are uncertain of the ability of a median LRT to run on a reasonably accurate schedule needed to run through with the SRT - with the SRT having every second train turning back at Kennedy and every second train coming through to Eglinton. If this is a concern, the same problem will occur where it enters the tunnel at/near Laird.

 

[Markster]

I would guess this means that the TTC are uncertain of the ability of a median LRT to run on a reasonably accurate schedule needed to run through with the SRT - with the SRT having every second train turning back at Kennedy and every second train coming through to Eglinton. If this is a concern, the same problem will occur where it enters the tunnel at/near Laird.

Pardon the lack of clarification, but yes, that's what I am referring to.
They should be building the facility to allow through routing, (with sensible transfters,) even if they have no intention of doing it now.

 

[SlickFranky]

Pardon the lack of clarification, but yes, that's what I am referring to.
They should be building the facility to allow through routing, (with sensible transfters,) even if they have no intention of doing it now.

The Kennedy Station concepts I've seen were done pre-Ford, but since we're supposed to be back to that plan now I'll assume they still stand.

http://www.toronto.ca/involved/projects/scarborough_rapid_transit/pdf/2010-03-04_pic4_3_of_4.pdf
see slides 53 and 54

That design looks like it could easily be converted for through-service for either SRT+Eglinton or Scarborough-Malvern+Eglinton if needed. Considering there are 3 LRTs, a subway, and some buses, the transfers are VERY sensible. Much, MUCH nicer than the current transfers.

 

[BurlOak]

The Kennedy Station concepts I've seen were done pre-Ford, but since we're supposed to be back to that plan now I'll assume they still stand.

http://www.toronto.ca/involved/projects/scarborough_rapid_transit/pdf/2010-03-04_pic4_3_of_4.pdf
see slides 53 and 54

That design looks like it could easily be converted for through-service for either SRT+Eglinton or Scarborough-Malvern+Eglinton if needed. Considering there are 3 LRTs, a subway, and some buses, the transfers are VERY sensible. Much, MUCH nicer than the current transfers.

According to Steve Munro's blog from April 2012 (http://stevemunro.ca/?p=6204), the original plan for through service from the SRT to the Eglinton line has been dropped.

"The TTC operating preference is to revert back to the old plan by separating the two lines at Kennedy station. The SRT will remain automated, and the Eglinton Crosstown LRT will have an operator. There will be a non-revenue connection at Kennedy, but its purpose is more for shuttling trains between heavy and light maintenance facilities and the maintenance-of-way."

 

[M II A II R II K]

The union will still insist the SRT have an operator for the sake of giving them a job, and they'll be sitting at the front with their obligatory bowl of soup as always.

 

[rbt]

The union will still insist the SRT have an operator for the sake of giving them a job, and they'll be sitting at the front with their obligatory bowl of soup as always.

There are good reasons for having someone in the vehicle just to respond to emergencies (real and false) quickly and get the train moving again quickly. The cost of the staff is minor compared to the cost of an idle line.

I would prefer to see that person roaming the train answering questions, giving directions, etc. but I do see a place for staff on every single in-service train.

See the recent addition of medics to certain stations within the system. 99% of the time they're waiting but that 1% of actual benefit makes them worth while having.

If every emergency cord pull required waiting 20 minutes for someone to drive to the station to investigate it would seriously impact service.

 

[ssiguy2]

So if the SRT/Eglinton will no longer be one continous line {if I'm reading this right} then please don't tell me they still want to convert the SRT to LRT.

 

[Palma]

The union will still insist the SRT have an operator for the sake of giving them a job, and they'll be sitting at the front with their obligatory bowl of soup as always.

I doubt I would want to ride a vehicle that has no operator.

 

[car4041]

So if the SRT/Eglinton will no longer be one continous line {if I'm reading this right} then please don't tell me they still want to convert the SRT to LRT.

The Metrolinx document that Rainforest linked to earlier in the thread showed that converting the line to LRT and extending it ("Option 3") has a slightly lower cost than upgrading it to ICTS Mark II and extending it ("Option 1") (see page 23). The capacity is the same (page 2). The user benefits are the same (page 18). The operating costs are the same (page 20). The travel time and ridership are the same (page 21).

So the benefits of converting to LRT are (1) a lower construction cost, (2) fleet/carhouse commonality with the Eglinton and Sheppard lines, and (3) the possibility of through-routing at Kennedy, even if it's not happening on day 1.

The only drawback that I can see is that construction will take longer.

 

[Palma]

The eglinton subway that was under construction at the time was shorter than the sheppard subway. It would have barely helped.

An you don't think that after it went from Eglinton West out to Weston Rd that it would then not have expanded east from Eglinton West station to Yonge? And Eglinton would have been way more used than the line further north. How can a subway be built to run east west (north of the 401) when the density south of there (Eglinton) is so much greater