[Rainforest]

If they had simply asked Scarborough residents what they wanted with all the money planned on trams in Scarborough, they would have said two things:

Priority 1: Extend the Bloor-Danforth subway to STC
Priority 2: Take Sheppard as far east as possible.

But by far, you would find that most residents support priority 1.

If I had to choose between these two options, I'd rather extend the Sheppard line, and live with SLRT and transfer at Kennedy.

Extending Sheppard brings rapid transit closer to areas that have none at present (save for the infrequent Stouffville GO). The number of riders who benefit from such extension may be smaller than from Danforth extension. But the benefit can be large, shaving 15 or even 20 min from their commute each way when they switch from Vic Park, Warden, Kennedy, Finch East buses, and maybe Ellesmere.

The number of riders who benefit from Danforth extension could be larger, but the benefit for each rider will be very small, in the range of 3-5 min each way due to the elimination of transfer.

 

[Rainforest]

Has there been any information on the timeframe of getting extra Mark I cars from Vancouver?

I don't know.

The whole idea seems a little odd. SkyTrain Expo line opened just a few months later than SRT; does Vancouver actually have newer Mk-I cars that can last beyond 2015 without rebuilding?

 

[nfitz]

Can you point out where in the Metrolinx BCA they studied a Bloor-Danforth extension? I'd like to see the equivalent figure for comparison.

As we've discussed before, they didn't. Feel free to do the math.

 

[nfitz]

The whole idea seems a little odd. SkyTrain Expo line opened just a few months later than SRT; does Vancouver actually have newer Mk-I cars that can last beyond 2015 without rebuilding?

Isn't the current plan simply to delay the LRT conversion until after 2015? So essentially they are just looking to increase capacity until that time.

 

[unimaginative2]

As we've discussed before, they didn't. Feel free to do the math.

Obviously they didn't because it's blindingly obvious that any kind of serious study would demonstrate than an orphan line and an extension to nowhere provide fewer benefits than replacing that orphan line with a subway extension.

 

[nfitz]

Obviously they didn't because it's blindingly obvious that any kind of serious study would demonstrate than an orphan line and an extension to nowhere provide fewer benefits than replacing that orphan line with a subway extension.

Your kidding right? Surely it's blindingly obvious that any kind of serious study would demonstrate that the subway wouldn't add much more additional benefit - and may even cause a loss with the removal of the Lawrence East station (and to a lesser extend the other 3 stations) - and yet be exceedingly expensive.

Remember they only carried forward the options that passed the earlier screenings.

I'd point to some of the other studies ... but what's the point, you've already made it clear that if the study demonstrate you are wrong, then you'll simply dismiss it as being rigged.

 

[LowerBay]

In all the ways that count, the RT *IS* a subway. ICTS with 6-car Mark II trains on 90 second headways can move over 20,000 people per hour. My prediction is that after 2015, we'll see a policy shift and the line will be upgraded and not converted to LRT. By then, all this LRT hysteria will have passed. There's absolutely nothing wrong with LRT, but it really makes no sense to spend more money switching technologies on an existing line when the current system is just as good as LRT if not better.

Having said that, a subway to STC will never happen. Yes, there's that inconvenient transfer at Kennedy, but so what? There's a transfer at St. George that wasn't originally there but I don't see people complaining about that.

 

[nfitz]

There's absolutely nothing wrong with LRT, but it really makes no sense to spend more money switching technologies on an existing line when the current system is just as good as LRT if not better.

I'm fine with ICTS - if they can solve the winter problems.

But the benefits-case study showed that converting the whole thing to LRT and extending to Malvern was only $1.4-billion while converting the ICTS to Mark II and extending to Malvern was $1.6-billion.

Incidentally it also shows that just converting to Mark II was $450-million - so the ICTS extension alone to Malvern would be $1.15-billion.

 

[scarberiankhatru]

In terms of the various number of *years* of closure and bustitution with each option,

The inconvenience to passengers and the effect this might have on ridership has not been factored into the ridership analysis.

They're also assuming ridership east of McCowan will quintuple, from 8,000 to 40,000. This is impossible even if you force all the 130-series bus riders to take the line by terminating their route there.

A subway extension was not studied, just dismissed a priori.

 

[LowerBay]

I'm fine with ICTS - if they can solve the winter problems.

But the benefits-case study showed that converting the whole thing to LRT and extending to Malvern was only $1.4-billion while converting the ICTS to Mark II and extending to Malvern was $1.6-billion.

Incidentally it also shows that just converting to Mark II was $450-million - so the ICTS extension alone to Malvern would be $1.15-billion.

The winter problem is pretty easy to fix if the reaction rail is heated to prevent ice from forming on it between trains. As I understand it, when a train passes over, snow accumulations melt slightly and then re-freeze before the next train passes. This process continues until the ice accumulation builds up to a point where the reaction rail can no longer propel the train. Those numbers can't be right -- with an LRT conversion the tracks have to be pulled apart slightly, the reaction rail has to removed, overhead has to be installed along with poles, plus major changes to station platforms ... how can this be cheaper than an ICTS upgrade which would require minimal changes to the existing line? LRT or ICTS, the route to Malvern is exclusive. It just doesn't add up.

 

[Rainforest]

Those numbers can't be right -- with an LRT conversion the tracks have to be pulled apart slightly, the reaction rail has to removed, overhead has to be installed along with poles, plus major changes to station platforms ... how can this be cheaper than an ICTS upgrade which would require minimal changes to the existing line? LRT or ICTS, the route to Malvern is exclusive. It just doesn't add up.

Richard Soberman's 2006 report quoted the upgrade to ICTS Mark-II at 390 million, and conversion to LRT at 500 million. That report considered only the existing SRT route, without any extension.

Regarding the extended route to Malvern, TTC's total quotes for ICTS and fully-exclusive LRT options came very close, in the range of 1.65 - 1.7 billion each (including both conversion and extension).

1.4 billion is the amount currently allocated to SLRT, but it will only extend to the Sheppard / Progress station for that. Extension to Malvern Centre is deferred.

If the subway extension won't happen, I think it is better to convert to LRT, rather than convert to ICTS Mark-II (which requires rebuilding some curves and the Kennedy terminus) and still be stuck with an orphan technology.

 

[nfitz]

... how can this be cheaper than an ICTS upgrade which would require minimal changes to the existing line? LRT or ICTS, the route to Malvern is exclusive. It just doesn't add up.

Not sure ... just guessing - but if they went to LRT, they could simply eliminate the existing carhouse, rather than upgrade it ... and the vehicles would be cheaper. Presumably some of the electrification installation is simpler and cheaper for LRT ... but it is hard to think where they would save $300-million.

 

[unimaginative2]

Your kidding right? Surely it's blindingly obvious that any kind of serious study would demonstrate that the subway wouldn't add much more additional benefit - and may even cause a loss with the removal of the Lawrence East station (and to a lesser extend the other 3 stations) - and yet be exceedingly expensive.

Remember they only carried forward the options that passed the earlier screenings.

I'd point to some of the other studies ... but what's the point, you've already made it clear that if the study demonstrate you are wrong, then you'll simply dismiss it as being rigged.

Lawrence East would remain and as you have said yourself, the other stations aren't particularly important.

Look...a few years ago they studied the Sheppard corridor and determined that subway was the only way to go. Then they studied the same thing post-Transit City and then determined that, lo and behold, LRT is the only way to go. Circumstances haven't changed. Obviously those studies were designed to produce that result. Everybody knows that: Transit City was publicly announced as an LRT plan before any of these studies began. Do you seriously believe that a study was going to say "Surprise! We should actually be building subway here?"

 

[nfitz]

Lawrence East would remain and as you have said yourself, the other stations aren't particularly important.

How would Lawrence East remain? The tail tracks out of Kennedy head down Eglinton. You'd have to rip up the entire Kennedy station to result in a Lawrence West station in the Kennedy/Midland area.

 

[kEiThZ]

As we've discussed before, they didn't. Feel free to do the math.

I'd rather they show me their math. Seriously. If it was screened out, that's means they studied it. Why are they so scared to give up their data? By the way, I have written to Metrolinx and asked for the data. They refuse to share.