Hopkins123
Senior Member
Gee, one would think hearing that preliminary tests are being conducted to start construction as soon as possible would be cause for celebration.
|
|
|
Voltz
Senior Member
Metrolinx did the same test drilling for the underground section of Eglinton East that never happened, and was later changed back to surface.
denfromoakvillemilton
Senior Member
Beyond disappointed in some of the behavior here as of late. Do better U of T.
BurlOak
Senior Member
This thread is one of the largest, because it is obvious that the right things are not being done. The problems go back 4 years when the city had a choice in finding an alternative to the Ford-McGuinty fully underground Eglinton-Scarborough LRT plan.
The choices were a compromise or a return to the hated Transit City LRT plan with transfer. The subway ($4B), and SmartTrack ($8B) are both attributable to the decision that was made almost 4 years ago. At the time, we said that Ford must be defeated at all costs. Now is the time to pay those costs.
The choices were a compromise or a return to the hated Transit City LRT plan with transfer. The subway ($4B), and SmartTrack ($8B) are both attributable to the decision that was made almost 4 years ago. At the time, we said that Ford must be defeated at all costs. Now is the time to pay those costs.
kEiThZ
Superstar
Gotta say. This is a tad unfair. Apparently, posting about where to get beer is contributing to the debate? How about repeating the same criticisms of the SSE AD nauseam?
I usually appreciate your modding. Sincerely, I do. But this strikes me as a little unfair.
kEiThZ
Superstar
Well put. The SRT and that transfer at Kennedy has soured public opinion on LRT. Politicians can either try ramming something down the public's throat or find a reasonable compromise. An LRT plan that eliminates transfers would be one such compromise.
Instead, we'll get either an expensive subway or an LRT plan that a lot of people are unhappy with.
Johnny Au
Senior Member
Oh, and Scarborough doesn't have an Apple Store.
Apparently Apple works in conjunction with the major brewers, downtown hipsters, suburban prohibitionists, and the Wynne government in one extremely unlikely alliance.
nfitz
Superstar
The problems go back to late 2006 when they decided to ditch the $190 million plan to lengthen the stations and upgrade the line to handle newer rolling stock in favour of various pipe dreams. And the thread goes back to 2005 when the started talking about that plan.
coffey1
Active Member
"It's not just what you're saying. How you're saying it matters too."?
I normally don't mind sarcasm as long as I can throw it back. But when I'm singled out & put on blast by the MODS's for actually voicing what i feel is a serious opinion & I read these types of posts above repetitively from multiple posters that goes without warning I have to question the bias & what is truly considered "adding to the discussion"?
Again I do apologize for repeating my point of view too often. Ill certainly refrain from engaging with specific gang of posters who respond with suburban sarcasm, sarcastic picture meme's etc...as I agree it does little to move the discussion.
I just think it should be "stickied" if only suburban stereotypes, Politician bashing, memes & sarcasm is allowed here because ive never seen it addressed once. If that's the case ill just leave the clubhouse on my own.
LNahid2000
Senior Member
I thought you were done posting here for the year. Guess not.
nfitz
Superstar
Maybe I missed mention of this yesterday, during the unnecessary bickering ...
The Star has been reporting on the argument between Matlow and the planning department over the 9,500 vs 14,000 - http://www.thestar.com/news/city_ha...chief-planner-over-flawed-subway-numbers.html
Included in it, is an October letter to Matlow that discusses the issues and numbers. http://www.scribd.com/doc/293446043/Letter-from-Jennifer-Keesmaat
In the letter is a useful table, that shows the different numbers, and assumptions.
And you start to see why there is a difference between the two numbers.
The Star has been reporting on the argument between Matlow and the planning department over the 9,500 vs 14,000 - http://www.thestar.com/news/city_ha...chief-planner-over-flawed-subway-numbers.html
Included in it, is an October letter to Matlow that discusses the issues and numbers. http://www.scribd.com/doc/293446043/Letter-from-Jennifer-Keesmaat
In the letter is a useful table, that shows the different numbers, and assumptions.
And you start to see why there is a difference between the two numbers.
- One would be the revision of the demographical information for 2031 (with both higher population and employment - and presumably a different distribution)
- Another would be that the 9,500 is for a subway to Scarborough Centre, while the 14,000 is for a longer subway that crosses the 401 to Sheppard
- The 9,500 assumes that the Sheppard subway would also be extended to Scarborough Centre; however the 14,000 assumes that the Sheppard (and Eglinton) LRTs are constructed
Attachments
44 North
Senior Member
I wonder how the general public would react to a Scarboro Subway if it was a Miller/McGuinty proposal, and Ford was the one that proposed an SRT extension/conversion. I think the tone of this debate would be very different, and many wouldn't question the subway then. I also wonder if some of the projects and prioritization of the Big Move would be questioned more if it was a PC government that presented them.
And one problem I noticed with the Eglinton East debate is that the Ford-McGuinty compromise seemed to be costed to the most expensive option right off the bat. They didn't need to do that, and Mlinx knows full well the average per km costs of using elevated infrastructure. And it's not even just for that compromise, but even for their addendum to tunnel between Brentcliffe and Don Mills. They went from in-median, to all-underground, and back to in-median. Why not unexplored options in between, like side-of-the-road or a new structure to cross the valley and trenched/cut-cover between Leslie and Don Mills? That would've given us full grade-separation to Don Mills and a Leslie station.
People could argue that ideas such as these are 'non-starters', and that's why they weren't started. But we know that's bunk, particularly when looking at Mlinx's commitment to a 3-track bridge over Davenport. That's way more ballsy than a 2-track light rail line across a valley or through the big box Golden Mile.
Seems right, and I only skimmed the article. But I thought the biggest shift in modelling data came from adding in the DRL.
Attachments
nfitz
Superstar
The DRL doesn't seem to be part of either estimate. And offhand, I can't think of where there are estimates for the Danforth subway extension that include the DRL.
44 North
Senior Member
Okay, yeah I reread it and you're right that the DRL didn't seem to be included in the SSE's modeling. Seems surprising, because I would've thought having a phase 1 DRL bisecting Pape would result in much higher usage of a Line 2 extension - so it being included would be a big checkmark in SSE's favour.
Rainforest
Senior Member
Thanks for finding and posting this table nfitz.
From this table, it appears that the 14,000 peak demand forecast given in the year-2013 model is believable.
Of course, that model did not include SmartTrack; some ridership may shift from SSE to SmartTrack, and we do not know yet just how much.
It will be interesting to look at the forecasts from the latest model, that is due early 2016 and will include SmartTrack.