Cobra said:
It's a priority only because the RT is on life support. If the city and TTC kept maintaining it, we wouldn't be wasting our time rehashing the same arguments over and over again
Click to expand...

The only reason we are still arguing is because council voted to throw out the fully-funded light rail replacement entirely because of political reasons. Otherwise we would have moved on to bigger and better things.
 
salsa said:
The only reason we are still arguing is because council voted to throw out the fully-funded light rail replacement entirely because of political reasons. Otherwise we would have moved on to bigger and better things.
Click to expand...

The only reason we are still arguing is because council opted to shamefully neglect the SRT to the point that according to the TTC, the system is currently on life support. Proper maintenance would have made possible a less costly refurbishment of the SRT and the purchase of more modern trains.

The money being spent today could have been easily used to address the Kennedy station brain cramp which would have most architects shake their heads in disbelief. Also, we'd be talking extensions to Malvern and new trains.

Someone then decided that LRT on the SRT was a better idea than refurbishment and replacing the trains...hmm politics anyone? I'm sorry but an LRT on the SRT corridor is fu**** retarded and reeks of politics and legacy building.

See what I did there? Yes this file is polluted with politics but this council didn't start it, not even Ford. It started way before then. So you want to point fingers? Point them at all the parties involved, not just those who's plan you happen to not like. I criticize the one stop subway to but I make sure to include those who neglected it and felt that putting LRTs in 100% grade separated route made any kind of sense
 
How can any politician with a modicum of good sense support tearing up a perfectly serviceable transit line, the SRT, and forego building multiple, well-needed transit lines, for the sake of a one stop subway? There is no justification.
 
Euphoria said:
How can any politician with a modicum of good sense support tearing up a perfectly serviceable transit line, the SRT, and forego building multiple, well-needed transit lines, for the sake of a one stop subway? There is no justification.
Click to expand...
Well said.
 
ADRM said:
Tory, at a "fund the RL now, province and feds" press conference just now: "The Yonge line won't move an inch toward Richmond Hill until we have shovels in the ground on RL."
Click to expand...

Well, I am with Tory on this matter.

It may be un-nice to block Richmond Hill Centre's progress, but we aren't going to commit a transit-capacity suicide in order to help them move forward.
 
It's not about helping "them" move forward. Whether or not YRNS was an extension to York Region, it would be dumb to move forward with such capacity constraints.
 
Cobra said:
The only reason we are still arguing is because council opted to shamefully neglect the SRT to the point that according to the TTC, the system is currently on life support. Proper maintenance would have made possible a less costly refurbishment of the SRT and the purchase of more modern trains.
Click to expand...

No, that's not the "only reason". Neglect or not, the RT tech was nearing the end of its design life and needed a major overhaul to begin with. You may disagree with the decision, but the eventual agreed-upon solution at the time was to replace it with LRT. As soon as it got funding from the province, had a signed agreement and was ready to begin construction...at that point this should have been the end of it. In any normal city this would have been a done deal. Instead we're still here, and that is primarily because of politics.


The money being spent today could have been easily used to address the Kennedy station brain cramp which would have most architects shake their heads in disbelief. Also, we'd be talking extensions to Malvern and new trains.

Someone then decided that LRT on the SRT was a better idea than refurbishment and replacing the trains...hmm politics anyone? I'm sorry but an LRT on the SRT corridor is fu**** retarded and reeks of politics and legacy building.
Click to expand...

How mature. You do realize that the SRT was originally supposed to use LRT vehicles, right? The plan was merely to return the line to it's original design. Refurbishment or replacing it with LRT were both viable options, but you are overestimating the possible savings with the former. It wasn't just change for the sake of change.
  • From the EA: "In 2009 a life cycle cost analysis was performed which led to the decision to use LRT technology on the Scarborough RT"
  • The costs for maintaining the current system or upgrading it were so high, the TTC commissioned an engineering study in 2005 to assess its full range of options. Which concluded that "converted and extending the line to Malvern costs roughly the same as upgrading the current line using ICTS technology" (source: Transit Toronto)
  • An older report noted that the cost of replacing the line with LRT to Malvern would cost as much as extending the RT to Malvern using ICTS
  • ICTS technology is as expensive to operate as a subway, but with far less capacity. (source: Transit Toronto)
  • The tracks and systems are old and need replacement. But rebuilding it using ICTS tech is much more expensive than LRT. And the Ellesmere tunnel would need to be rebuilt since the turn is too sharp for newer vehicles.
  • Requires a separate maintenance facility with a dedicated staff and parts, whereas an LRT line would have a shared facility with the Sheppard LRT.
  • It would still remains an orphan technology that relies on a sole-source of many materials for maintenance and replacement.
    • The TTC can't just go to Detroit or Vancouver and borrow their spare parts. They have needed to build up a large spare parts inventory and maintenance knowledge. They need to purchase the rolling stock and many of the replacement parts from Bombardier and only Bombardier.
    • Converting to LRT would allow for a standardization of equipment and maintenance to the rest of the system, and allows the vehicles to be produced as part of the larger Transit City LRT purchase.


See what I did there? Yes this file is polluted with politics but this council didn't start it, not even Ford. It started way before then. So you want to point fingers? Point them at all the parties involved, not just those who's plan you happen to not like. I criticize the one stop subway to but I make sure to include those who neglected it and felt that putting LRTs in 100% grade separated route made any kind of sense.
Click to expand...

As if that's a bad thing. I'm sorry but you don't get to make that argument when you are on record for supporting the Rob Ford Crostown-SRT line, which you've called "the best solution...period". Which by the way, it was also 100% grade separated LRT. Except that plan was to be entirely underground on Eglinton for no good reason other than because the mayor hated streetcars. At a cost of $8.2 billions dollars (not including Pearson or Malvern extensions), it would have been the most expensive LRT line in the entire world, and would have fully defunded the Finch and Sheppard LRTs. Yet here you are complaining how the Miller plan was a waste of money? To you it's the Miller plan, not Ford's, that is "fu**** retarded and reeks of politics and legacy building"? Give me a break.

As for the other parties involved that you mention, I've given them criticism in some of my other posts. There's a lot of blame to go around.
 
Last edited:
salsa said:
No, that's not the "only reason". Neglect or not, the RT tech was nearing the end of its design life and needed a major overhaul to begin with. You may disagree with the decision, but the eventual agreed-upon solution at the time was to replace it with LRT. As soon as it got funding from the province, had a signed agreement and was ready to begin construction...at that point this should have been the end of it. In any normal city this would have been a done deal. Instead we're still here, and that is primarily because of politics.




How mature. You do realize that the SRT was originally supposed to use LRT vehicles, right? The plan was merely to return the line to it's original design. Refurbishment or replacing it with LRT were both viable options, but you are overestimating the possible savings with the former. It wasn't just change for the sake of change.
  • From the EA: "In 2009 a life cycle cost analysis was performed which led to the decision to use LRT technology on the Scarborough RT"
  • The costs for maintaining the current system or upgrading it were so high, the TTC commissioned an engineering study in 2005 to assess its full range of options. Which concluded that "converted and extending the line to Malvern costs roughly the same as upgrading the current line using ICTS technology" (source: Transit Toronto)
  • An older report noted that the cost of replacing the line with LRT to Malvern would cost as much as extending the RT to Malvern using ICTS
  • ICTS technology is as expensive to operate as a subway, but with far less capacity. (source: Transit Toronto)
  • The tracks and systems are old and need replacement. But rebuilding it using ICTS tech is much more expensive than LRT. And the Ellesmere tunnel would need to be rebuilt since the turn is too sharp for newer vehicles.
  • Requires a separate maintenance facility with a dedicated staff and parts, whereas an LRT line would have a shared facility with the Sheppard LRT.
  • It would still remains an orphan technology that relies on a sole-source of many materials for maintenance and replacement.
    • The TTC can't just go to Detroit or Vancouver and borrow their spare parts. They have needed to build up a large spare parts inventory and maintenance knowledge. They need to purchase the rolling stock and many of the replacement parts from Bombardier and only Bombardier.
    • Converting to LRT would allow for a standardization of equipment and maintenance to the rest of the system, and allows the vehicles to be produced as part of the larger Transit City LRT purchase.




As if that's a bad thing. I'm sorry but you don't get to make that argument when you are on record for supporting the Rob Ford Crostown-SRT line, which you've called "the best solution...period". Which by the way, it was also 100% grade separated LRT. Except that plan was to be entirely underground on Eglinton for no good reason other than because the mayor hated streetcars. At a cost of $8.2 billions dollars (not including Pearson or Malvern extensions), it would have been the most expensive LRT line in the entire world, and would have fully defunded the Finch and Sheppard LRTs. Yet here you are complaining how the Miller plan was a waste of money? To you it's the Miller plan, not Ford's, that is "fu**** retarded and reeks of politics and legacy building"? Give me a break.

As for the other parties involved that you mention, I've given them criticism in some of my other posts. There's a lot of blame to go around.
Click to expand...

Again, you're doing the exact thing that you're accusing everyone else of doing, siding with politicians and their decisions that fits their preferences. At least be big enough to admit it because I've done enough reports in my life to know that I can frame them to fit the desired outcome. As long as politics is part of transit planning, it's all BS. The article below is truly telling and goes back to what I said.

What has gone wrong since the ‘golden age’ of Toronto transit
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news...olden-age-of-toronto-transit/article34321708/

That so-called “golden age” also produced transit experts so revered, they got to travel the globe in return. For some, their views have been valued well past retirement age – though not so much in their hometown. Three of them – Richard Soberman, Ed Levy and David Crowley – recently gathered for lunch and a gab.
Current politicians are comfortable ignoring the people most likely to generate the best ideas. And the media, you guys, haven’t always helped. This subway-versus-LRT debate was simplistic and maddening. Scarborough deserves better transit, but the best options aren’t even being considered.” (Dr. Soberman would simply buy new rolling stock for the SRT and rebuild a bend to accommodate new vehicles.)
Click to expand...

Of course, you'll say that they are full of shit... whatever... I see you and you're biaised. Fine

Transit City was a political stunt and when the province is telling it has $12B to spend, you take the money and you build the Relief Line not Sheppard, Finch or Eglinton but the Relief Line under Queen and keep pushing for funds and start paying for transit yourself to push the relief line further north and start Eglinton. It's touching that you act like you care about Finch and Sheppard but I lived near both arteries (have you?) and for the longest time they didn't even have an express branch (Still doesn't I think) nor reserved lanes. Incremental measures were the right moves at a cheap price until it was their turns to get LRT. Any mayor capable of saying that Sheppard LRT is the #1 priority (Miller and Giambrone said that many time) CANNOT be taken seriously on anything else.

At least I attack all councils, you seem content to just focus on Ford and Tory. Have it your way
 
Going to be a fun one tomorrow night (unfortunately I can't be there!) I'm imagining the public meetings from Parks and Recreation given the unrealistic demands that the Pape homeowners seem to be making. Have there been any results released or previewed of the Carlaw alignment, or is it a big reveal at the meeting tomorrow night?
 
Geoff Olynyk said:
Going to be a fun one tomorrow night (unfortunately I can't be there!) I'm imagining the public meetings from Parks and Recreation given the unrealistic demands that the Pape homeowners seem to be making. Have there been any results released or previewed of the Carlaw alignment, or is it a big reveal at the meeting tomorrow night?
Click to expand...
Yes, someone correct me if I am wrong but they found that the Carlaw alignment was actually more desirable, despite the minor additional costs.
 
Geoff Olynyk said:
Going to be a fun one tomorrow night (unfortunately I can't be there!) I'm imagining the public meetings from Parks and Recreation given the unrealistic demands that the Pape homeowners seem to be making. Have there been any results released or previewed of the Carlaw alignment, or is it a big reveal at the meeting tomorrow night?
Click to expand...

A presentation with preliminary findings was posted by @raptor at the post below:

http://urbantoronto.ca/forum/threads/ttc-relief-line-proposal-drl.6155/page-541#post-1199314

AoD
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top