[TheTigerMaster]

I'm confused. I thought the reason SRT needed to be replaced was that it was coming to the end of its useful life. If the trains can be refurbished wouldn't it be cheaper and faster to rehabilitate the current system than build yet another under-capacity subway line?

The refurbishment will only extend the life by a few years.

 

[Duck]

The refurbishment will only extend the life by a few years.

Vancouver says hi.

 

[rbt]

The refurbishment will only extend the life by a few years.

Vancouver says hi.

Vancouver is expecting to add 15 years (from 2013) to their Mark 1's for $312k per car. They were originally built between '84-86.

The TTC's $132M is for both capital to renew the cars and 10 years worth of SRT operations, so I'm not sure what the per-car renewal cost is. Extended life-expectancy is about 10 years from 2015 for cars built between '82-83.

So, TTC's Mark 1 oldest frames will be ~43 years old at expected end of life. Vancouver's Mark 1 frames will be ~44 years old at expected end of life.

Looks like we're getting pretty much the same result.

Also, Vancouver did say "hi" when TTC proposed doing the upgrade and they went in together on the parts orders.

 

[TheTigerMaster]

Vancouver says hi.

Nice. Tell them I said hi back.

 

[M II A II R II K]

It's too bad the TTC didn't implement ICTS to it's proper potential by having it as a long range express type route through lower density areas, instead of a pointless linear stub route.

 

[salsa]

It's too bad the TTC didn't implement ICTS to it's proper potential by having it as a long range express type route through lower density areas, instead of a pointless linear stub route.

Or, they could have implemented the original 1970's LRT plan instead of needlessly paying double price for ICTS. But alas, history is repeating itself again, where we rejected a perfectly adequate LRT line in order to get a subway with fewer stops for over double the cost. And just like with ICTS, the subway will never be expanded to other areas of Scarborough due to the prohibitively high cost, and we can once again thank Queens Park for meddling with Scarborough transit.

 

[Rainforest]

Or, they could have implemented the original 1970's LRT plan instead of needlessly paying double price for ICTS.

It is interesting how the system would evolve in that case. The original LRT plan was with on-street alignment, and a single line would not be able to handle today's demand between Scarborough Centre and Kennedy Stn.

Either there would be multiple LRT lines veering off Kennedy in order to spread out the load; or, the subway would be extended anyway.

And just like with ICTS, the subway will never be expanded to other areas of Scarborough due to the prohibitively high cost, and we can once again thank Queens Park for meddling with Scarborough transit.

That is not the same situation; ICTS involves a mode change at Kennedy, and that makes another mode change further north unappealing.

The subway is an extension of the existing line; whether you switch to LRT or buses at Kennedy or at the Sheppard terminus, it will be only one mode change.

Of course the subway will not be extended beyond the Sheppard terminus; both for the cost reasons and due to reliability concerns. But nothing prevents LRT and / or BRT lines feeding into that terminus. You can have a Malvern Centre link, a Zoo link, a Markham line, and perhaps Finch East LRT converging at that terminus.

 

[smallspy]

You can have a Malvern Centre link, a Zoo link, a Markham line, and perhaps Finch East LRT converging at that terminus.

And once the Scarborough Subway has been constructed, with what money?

The Scarborough Subway has the potential to tie up another generation's worth of funding in its construction. If it gets built, don't expect too much more higher-order transit built for a long, long time.

Dan
Toronto, Ont.

 

[EastYorkTTCFan]

And once the Scarborough Subway has been constructed, with what money?

The Scarborough Subway has the potential to tie up another generation's worth of funding in its construction. If it gets built, don't expect too much more higher-order transit built for a long, long time.

Dan
Toronto, Ont.

yeah I think city council is still feeling the burn from the situation with the YUS expansion to seriously do anything with scarbrough right no. Plus there's the mess that Tory calls smart track they have to sort out. I think we may see another change in plans before a single tunnel is dug.

 

[Rainforest]

And once the Scarborough Subway has been constructed, with what money?

The Scarborough Subway has the potential to tie up another generation's worth of funding in its construction. If it gets built, don't expect too much more higher-order transit built for a long, long time.

Dan
Toronto, Ont.

With provincial, federal, and municipal funding, possibly generated with dedicated transit taxes.

The cost of Scarborough Subway is certainly not trivial but it is only a portion of transit investments GTA is going to work on in the coming few decades.

The funded portion of Eglinton LRT costs twice as much as Scarborough Subway, and the western section of Eglinton LRT is not even funded yet. Still, nobody seems to think that Eglinton LRT will tie up another generation's worth of transit funding (and it won't).

 

[Rainforest]

Btw, the Malvern Centre link and the Zoo link should be within a close reach. The trunk of Sheppard LRT is already funded, and that funding is independent on the subway.

You would need to get extra funding for a 1-km branch up Neilson to reach Malvern Centre, and about 3 km east of Conlins to reach the Zoo. Once the province comes up with the next wave of transit projects for GTA, and wants the investment to be somewhat spread across the area, those two short links can count as Scarborough portion.

 

[smallspy]

With provincial, federal, and municipal funding, possibly generated with dedicated transit taxes.

The cost of Scarborough Subway is certainly not trivial but it is only a portion of transit investments GTA is going to work on in the coming few decades.

The funded portion of Eglinton LRT costs twice as much as Scarborough Subway, and the western section of Eglinton LRT is not even funded yet. Still, nobody seems to think that Eglinton LRT will tie up another generation's worth of transit funding (and it won't).

The Scarborough Subway is also the only project where the City is being expected to pick up the majority of the funding. And which is going to push the City over its (self-imposed) debt limit potentially in 6 years.

Perhaps it's me being the pessimist, but I don't think that it's reasonable to expect that we will continue to rely on the higher levels of government to step up with funding until the end of time. All it takes is one change of government.

Dan
Toronto, Ont.

 

[Rainforest]

The Scarborough Subway is also the only project where the City is being expected to pick up the majority of the funding. And which is going to push the City over its (self-imposed) debt limit potentially in 6 years.

Perhaps it's me being the pessimist, but I don't think that it's reasonable to expect that we will continue to rely on the higher levels of government to step up with funding until the end of time. All it takes is one change of government.

Dan
Toronto, Ont.

AFAIK, that's 50% the city, 30% the province, and 20% the federal government. And the city's portion is not a plain debt, but is covered by a dedicated property surtax. The city has already started collecting that surtax, even though neither construction nor major design work has started.

The city will have to add yet another surtax if it wants to invest in another transit project; that's hard but not impossible.

 

[44 North]

It is interesting how the system would evolve in that case. The original LRT plan was with on-street alignment, and a single line would not be able to handle today's demand between Scarborough Centre and Kennedy Stn.

I had a copy of the old report, or at least parts of it. Can't recall the exact details. But I believe the original routing was to follow the current SRT route, with one or two roads (poss Midland and Brimley) using at-grade road crossings. It was once some higher ridership projections came in that subsequent reports called for the at-grade crossings to be dropped and the entire Kennedy-McCowan line to become grade-separated.

Personally, I don't think it was a bad idea for the Prov to push ICTS in this scenario. If the entire line was to be grade-separate, light metro technology is a logical choice. Sure ICTS cost more than promised, but that's not unreasonable for an brand new technology. And over that time we've learned that ICTS/ART does work well (as Vancouver has proved). But even as non-proprietery technology (e.g with no LIM), there are merits of smaller subways / light metros - which are used in other cities. The vehicles are literally lighter, cost less, we can use high platforms, and automation is possible. Though standard light rail is undoubtedly a good choice as well.

 

[Adjei]

The Scarborough Subway is also the only project where the City is being expected to pick up the majority of the funding. And which is going to push the City over its (self-imposed) debt limit potentially in 6 years.

Perhaps it's me being the pessimist, but I don't think that it's reasonable to expect that we will continue to rely on the higher levels of government to step up with funding until the end of time. All it takes is one change of government.

Dan
Toronto, Ont.

Isn't the province paying more compared to the city?