[Solid Snake]

Maybe they've realized it makes no sense to use LRVs if the entire line is underground. Just get Bombardier to switch out the LRVs with TRs.

That's exactly what I was thinking, why on earth would Bombardier mind a change of trainset but the problem lies with the SRT elevated section.

 

[adeel]

strictly hypothetically, what would be the cost addition to the 8.2B to get the SRT also done underground? If I recall correctly, on certain alignments is that section not the only part that has the usage that supports heavy rail?

 

[Hipster Duck]

I no longer live in Toronto, and this fiasco has tempted me to "wash my hands" of following transit planning in this city. If I were McGuinty I would seriously ask for my $8 billion back and delay transit expansion by another generation...until Toronto has the maturity to vote in competent politicians and hand over its transit planning to actual experts who know and care about actual outcomes. Of course, Toronto is my hometown, so I still give a shit about what happens there, but, on the transit front, I watch it increasingly distantly and shake my head like some Iranian exile, or former Detroiter watching their city/country spiral down the drain.

Whatever outcome we get: LRT at grade, fully underground, etc. is all a wasted opportunity - it's just how great a wasted opportunity it represents. My personal opinion is that the Transit City proposal was a mediocre option and Rob Ford's tunneled LRT is a horrendous option. Transit City was mediocre enough because it had too many stops, and uses low floor vehicles and platforms. An at-grade LRT using high floor vehicles and less frequent station spacing would have been my preferred choice, but that wasn't even on the table. Rob Ford's "plan", which he hatched out of a 5 second sound bite, takes the worst aspects of Transit City: the low floor LRVs and frequent stop spacing...and puts them underground at immense cost! Why don't we just build a solid gold colossus of Rub and Tug? It'll probably cost less and have the same use as a $250M cut and cover station at "Bermondsey"!

Finally, unimaginative makes a very good point that has largely gone ignored. Other cities, including Munich - a first world city with high labour costs and social democratic safety concerns - can build a subway for a comparable cost to surface LRT in Toronto. What gives?

/rant over.

 

[denfromoakvillemilton]

I no longer live in Toronto, and this fiasco has tempted me to "wash my hands" of following transit planning in this city. If I were McGuinty I would seriously ask for my $8 billion back and delay transit expansion by another generation...until Toronto has the maturity to vote in competent politicians and hand over its transit planning to actual experts who know and care about actual outcomes. Of course, Toronto is my hometown, so I still give a shit about what happens there, but, on the transit front, I watch it increasingly distantly and shake my head like some Iranian exile, or former Detroiter watching their city/country spiral down the drain.

Whatever outcome we get: LRT at grade, fully underground, etc. is all a wasted opportunity - it's just how great a wasted opportunity it represents. My personal opinion is that the Transit City proposal was a mediocre option and Rob Ford's tunneled LRT is a horrendous option. Transit City was mediocre enough because it had too many stops, and uses low floor vehicles and platforms. An at-grade LRT using high floor vehicles and less frequent station spacing would have been my preferred choice, but that wasn't even on the table. Rob Ford's "plan", which he hatched out of a 5 second sound bite, takes the worst aspects of Transit City: the low floor LRVs and frequent stop spacing...and puts them underground at immense cost! Why don't we just build a solid gold colossus of Rub and Tug? It'll probably cost less and have the same use as a $250M cut and cover station at "Bermondsey"!

Finally, unimaginative makes a very good point that has largely gone ignored. Other cities, including Munich - a first world city with high labour costs and social democratic safety concerns - can build a subway for a comparable cost to surface LRT in Toronto. What gives?

/rant over.

This is why people run off to New York City and Los angeles when they graduate!

 

[gweed123]

If I were McGuinty I would seriously ask for my $8 billion back and delay transit expansion by another generation...until Toronto has the maturity to vote in competent politicians and hand over its transit planning to actual experts who know and care about actual outcomes.

I would think the biggest slap in the face would be taking that $8.2 billion and giving it to 905 transit projects. Build the Yonge extension to RHC, build the Hurontario LRT, build the Dundas BRT, build the LRTs in Hamilton, or electrify GO (I know all those can't be done with $8.2 billion, but pick and choose). Basically say "fine, if you can't get your ducks in a row, we'll give the money to municipalities who do". You can bet that Toronto would be even more pissed off at Ford than they already are, and it would be a great political move for the Liberals to pump so much transit money into those 905 swing ridings.

Or take some of that money and build the WWLRT out to Roncesvalles, and spend the rest in the 905. No reason to punish downtown for the mistake of the suburbs. The inner 416 went blue in the last municipal election (and also somewhat in the Provincial election). They voted for stupidity, they should get what they deserve: nothing.

 

[nfitz]

If I were McGuinty I would seriously ask for my $8 billion back and delay transit expansion by another generation...until Toronto has the maturity to vote in competent politicians

Toronto is the only reason McGuinty got elected. He took almost 80% of the seats in Toronto - that's over 1/3 of his caucus. Another 1/4 of his caucus are from ridings just around Toronto.

Surely McGuinty isn't going to say Toronto doesn't vote for competent politicians, given that they elected him.

 

[Palma]

I noticed that Dougie today mentioned {I'm paraphrasing} that any rapid transit.......LRT or subway, must be underground when referring to Eglinton.
That is the first time I have heard either Ford mention "subway" when discussing Eglinton.
If nothing else it seems that standard subway, as opposed to underground LRT, may be under consideration for the line which only makes sense as between the 4 tech available, subway, monorail, SkyTrain, or LRT, LRT tunnel and SRT conversion will be the most expensive of the 4 and yet have the lowest capacity.

But as it would cost more (so everyone says) to switch to "actual" subways although they are going below ground anyways, why would Doug Ford even mention subway? I would imagine they would want as much savings as possible for his sheppard subway that Rob Ford thinks that by catering to Scarborough and North York (north 401) will get him re-elected. He probably is confusing subway, LRT. streetcar because otherwise since the Fords keep saying Toronto wants subways why does no one mention to them that Eglinton is not getting "subways" and see what he says. If LRT is good enough for Eglinton then LRT is good enough for Sheppard. There is no way Sheppard should get a subway ahead of Eglinton.

 

[ssiguy2]

People constantly state that if the system is completely grade separated then technology doesn't matter but on the contrary is matters a great deal. The cost of an underground system for all the 4 possible technologies are about the same but LRT stations have to be larger to accomodate the same number of passengers as Metro, monorail, or SkyTrain.
Also, and this is a biggie, the SRT conversion to lightrail {and I actually called the Crosstown office to verify it} will be far and away the most expensive. Why?.............because unlike the other 3 technologies LRT requires a higher clearance due to the overhead catenary lines. This is one of the reasons why the SRT to LRT conversion is going to be both expensive and time consuming. The LRT will require the "raising of the roof" of all the stations which Metro, m0onorail would not wjile just continuing as
SkyTrain would be the most cost effective.
This is why I strongly against any total grade separation using LRT..........it is going to cost much more than the other options due to the massive station renovations that will be needed. That is why the conversation about technology matters a great deal.

 

[Palma]

Thats the problem when these transit constructions are going on and there is no consideration for the future. Like why build the LRT if in the future it will turn into a subway. I say will and not may (Eglinton here) because no one can predict the future. There are tons of residential streets intersecting Eginton and never-mind condos that for sure will be going up along the street. For they built the scarborough RT instead of a subway again is no thought for the future.

 

[GenerationW]

There is no way Sheppard should get a subway ahead of Eglinton.

It already did.

 

[Dan416]

But as it would cost more (so everyone says) to switch to "actual" subways although they are going below ground anyways, why would Doug Ford even mention subway? I would imagine they would want as much savings as possible for his sheppard subway that Rob Ford thinks that by catering to Scarborough and North York (north 401) will get him re-elected. He probably is confusing subway, LRT. streetcar because otherwise since the Fords keep saying Toronto wants subways why does no one mention to them that Eglinton is not getting "subways" and see what he says. If LRT is good enough for Eglinton then LRT is good enough for Sheppard. There is no way Sheppard should get a subway ahead of Eglinton.

Actually subway rolling stock is cheaper than trams.

If you're tunneling the whole thing anyway, using subway trains would be cheaper. The only advantage of LRVs is that you can use them at-grade on the street.

It already did.

pwn'd!

 

[Monarch Butterfly]

Rob Ford thinks that condos will easily go up along Eglinton to help pay for the underground section east of Laid through development fees. (Mississauga kept its property tax down because of development fees, but is now running out of undeveloped land.) He must have a bad memory or was too young to remember the Quebec-Gothic battles over high-rise buildings in the High Park area of Bloor Street.

See this link. And this link, from which this quote is from:

High Park North is bounded on the south by Bloor Street, on the west by Runnymede Road, on the north by Annette Street, Quebec Avenue and Humberside Avenue, and on the east by the CNR/CPR railway tracks. It is located in the Parkdale-High Park provincial and federal ridings. The area east of Keele Street is also known as the "West Bend" neighbourhood informally.

High Park north is mainly residential, containing many semi-detached homes built in the early 20th century. North of High Park, the neighbourhood has several high-rise apartment buildings, built after the construction of the Bloor-Danforth subway. Bloor Street is the main east-west thoroughfare. It is a four-lane road and is commercial in with storefront-type businesses with residential second and third storeys. North-south roads include Keele Street and Dundas Street. Both are primarily residential within the neighbourhood.

High Park North falls entirely within the boundaries of the town of Toronto Junction, which was purchsed from the Keele estate in 1882 by Daniel Clendenan who subdivided the farm and racetrack for a residential district (now called High Park North) to serve the Junction commercial district. As Bloor Street was still an uneven and a mostly undeveloped street, early housing in the area was concentrated to the north and east, where it was easier to access the stores and industry along Dundas Street and High Park Ave in particular was the site of many early homes of the Junction wealthy, as was modern Evelyn Crescent; many of these houses are still standing. High Park North emerged as a neighbourhood once Bloor Street was widened and evened out following World War I, when most of the residential homes which still exist today were built.

In 1915, Bloor Street was the site of a major public works at the north-west corner of High Park. The street, west of High Park Avenue, was crossed by creeks that emptied into Grenadier Pond. The creek banks were steep, making the roadway treacherous and difficult for traffic. A rail trestle was built to cross the gap at a level of 60 feet. The rails were used for rail cars to dump soil around the trestle. The trestle was completely buried and the present Bloor Street roadway built on top. Existing north-south roadways connecting to Bloor Street were raised to meet the new level of Bloor Street and this facilitated the development of the neighbourhood.

In the 1960s, the area directly north of High Park was the site of 'block-busting' development. The residences on High Park Avenue, Quebec Avenue and Gothic Avenue were bought up by developers; razed and large apartment buildings were built. The area from north of the subway line to Glenlake Avenue is now almost entirely high-rise towers. At the time, the City government was very much pro-development, and there were no local ratepayer/community associations as is seen today. By the 1970s, local residents formed associations in harmony with new reform Council members, partly to fight the block-busting north of High Park.

Developers are continuing to operate in the neighbourhood. 'Block-busting' has continued with the current controversial slated development on the north side of Bloor one block east of High Park Avenue, between Pacific and Oakmount, where a block of Edwardian-era homes has been purchased by developers with the exception of one, well publicized 'hold out'; this would be the first block of older homes directly on Bloor Street to be demolished for apartment building.

Those people who want an underground rapid transit near them, beware what you wish for. Your own home or your neighbour or others could be bought or expropriated for a high-rise to help pay for putting it underground.

 

[GenerationW]

Maybe while he's at it, Mihevic can waste some more time and get a legal opinion of that epic "Quebec-Gothic battle".

 

[Dan416]

Those people who want an underground rapid transit near them, beware what you wish for. Your own home or your neighbour or others could be bought or expropriated for a high-rise to help pay for putting it underground.

Um that's good right?

 

[Monarch Butterfly]

Um that's good right?

The people in the High Park area did not have local ratepayer or community associations until the developers began to start to build the high-rises. After the high-rises, the local residents formed associations along with new reform members of Council, one of them was David Miller. In other words, in attempting to build high-rises along Eglinton (and Sheppard) will result in more reform or left-leaning councillors as high-rises sprout. That's why "be careful of what you wish for" Rob.