[BurlOak]

That's really bizarre paranoia. It's all about the legacy of Lastman? I don't think anyone really gives a toss about his legacy.

Surely it's merely that there is no where near the demand for subways, and that the subway costs 6 times more to build than LRT.

Even if we were building subways (and hopefully there are more built soon), why would one prioritize 4,500 riders per hour on Sheppard East over much higher numbers on Yonge north of Finch, or the DRL?

the Sheppard subway is very conservatively estimated at about $400M per km and the SELRT is about $100M - so four times is more realistic. But BRT is one third the cost of LRT, and articulated busses are less expensive still. People would have been happier with nothing compared to the SELRT.

 

[rbt]

the Sheppard subway is very conservatively estimated at about $400M per km and the SELRT is about $100M - so four times is more realistic. But BRT is one third the cost of LRT, and articulated busses are less expensive still. People would have been happier with nothing compared to the SELRT.

A tunnel for manually steered diesel fueled vehicles from Consumers to Don Mills isn't going to make the line any cheaper.

Of course, you could drop 1/3rd of the price of the project if you put the LRT fully above ground too.

 

[nfitz]

the Sheppard subway is very conservatively estimated at about $400M per km and the SELRT is about $100M - so four times is more realistic.

??? The document clearly shows the LRT at 1.0 billion for 13.6 km ($73.5M per km) compared to $3.5 billion for the 8-km subway ($438M per km) which is 5.95 times. How can you be discussing a document, and so misrepresent what it says?

BRT is not one third of the cost of LRT ... the EA estimated that it would only save $20 million/km, that's over two/third, not one third. Unless you merely want Don Mills Road style BRT ...

 

[M II A II R II K]

The latest study doesn't entertain the idea of having the LRT run through the existing tunnels as just one route.

 

[11th]

I believe they studied that option, did the math, and concluded that it would actually inconvenience more riders than it would help. But I realize that the numbers in environmental assessments often seem cooked.

I wonder if Fairview Mall or 25 Don Mills bus are really that big of destinations for those coming in from east of Victoria Park. If the subway is extended to Victoria Park, the LRT-subway transfer can be made simple by having ramps leading from the in-median platforms to the mezzanine level - the walk will take like less than 2 min if the layout is done right.

 

[Voltz]

I wonder if Fairview Mall or 25 Don Mills bus are really that big of destinations for those coming in from east of Victoria Park. If the subway is extended to Victoria Park, the LRT-subway transfer can be made simple by having ramps leading from the in-median platforms to the mezzanine level - the walk will take like less than 2 min if the layout is done right.

Or things could be left as they are now planned and have the LRT platforms on the same platform as the subway and not spend an extra few hundred million to create a worse transfer.

 

[BurlOak]

??? The document clearly shows the LRT at 1.0 billion for 13.6 km ($73.5M per km) compared to $3.5 billion for the 8-km subway ($438M per km) which is 5.95 times. How can you be discussing a document, and so misrepresent what it says?...

I was going by memory and not looking at the report. Sorry.

 

[Voltz]

As it stands now, it seems like we are going to end up with an underground LRT to Don Mills Station while retaining parallel (and slower) surface routes on Sheppard into the Don Mills bus terminal, namely: 24A Victoria Park, 167 Pharmacy North, 169 Huntingwood, 190 Scarborough Rocket, and 224 Victoria Park North. That's a waste of scare operating budget dollars, year after year.

If any, or all, of these bus routes end up being truncated to Victoria Park and Sheppard, well, that's going to create an ongoing bad customer experience. Get off of the bus, get on the LRT for one stop, and then transfer to the subway. Repeat daily for, oh, about fifty years or so.

The bus routes are gong to continue to Don Mills and I can't imagine the cost of doing so would out weigh the cost of extending and operating the Subway to Victoria Park.

 

[11th]

Or things could be left as they are now planned and have the LRT platforms on the same platform as the subway and not spend an extra few hundred million to create a worse transfer.

The point is to not kill off any future extension while also having the LRT. It's the middle ground. Who cares if the subway extension is 50 years down the road.

 

[W. K. Lis]

The point is to not kill off any future extension while also having the LRT. It's the middle ground. Who cares if the subway extension is 50 years down the road.

When the Toronto Civic Railway put streetcars on Danforth Avenue in 1913, they didn't expect to see it replaced by a subway in 1966 (53 years later). Which means that 2013 is the 100th year of rail service on the Danforth, of any kind.

 

[ssiguy2]

DM to STC subway never made any sense to me, I simply don't think it's needed. A BRT would work fine suchas Vancouver's BLine. POP, bus lanes, some pleasant stations, frequent service using artics and problem solved.

I have, however, always supported the Yonge to Spadina extension. Part of the reason the Stubway has never lived up to it's ridership potential is because it is exactly that........a Stubway. When the Spadina ext opens the entire Spadina to DM section will sell a very substantial increase in ridership and the line will connect 2 north/south subways and will get rid of an aggrevating transfer. For connectivity it makes far more sense than the much more expensive to build DM to STC section.

As I understand, and please correct me if I'm wrong, the route alsready goes several hundred meters west of Yonge station so there will be no disruption and the potentially most complicated and expensive station will not be an issue. The Spaina station is ready to be built and the new extension station was built with a Sheppard subway extension in mind and it would be cheaper to build it now than when the Spadina section is already built.

I'm not sure how much of the line could or should be elevated but considering it is in the burbs atleast the least hectic section could be built as cut n cover.

 

[11th]

DM to STC subway never made any sense to me, I simply don't think it's needed. A BRT would work fine suchas Vancouver's BLine. POP, bus lanes, some pleasant stations, frequent service using artics and problem solved.

I have, however, always supported the Yonge to Spadina extension. Part of the reason the Stubway has never lived up to it's ridership potential is because it is exactly that........a Stubway. When the Spadina ext opens the entire Spadina to DM section will sell a very substantial increase in ridership and the line will connect 2 north/south subways and will get rid of an aggrevating transfer. For connectivity it makes far more sense than the much more expensive to build DM to STC section.

As I understand, and please correct me if I'm wrong, the route alsready goes several hundred meters west of Yonge station so there will be no disruption and the potentially most complicated and expensive station will not be an issue. The Spaina station is ready to be built and the new extension station was built with a Sheppard subway extension in mind and it would be cheaper to build it now than when the Spadina section is already built.

I'm not sure how much of the line could or should be elevated but considering it is in the burbs atleast the least hectic section could be built as cut n cover.

Don't forget the West Don crossing. That is one of the biggest hurdles for the extension cost wise.

 

[nfitz]

Don't forget the West Don crossing. That is one of the biggest hurdles for the extension cost wise.

Has there actually been any evidence to back this up? If you keep the entire thing underground, I wouldn't think that it would make much difference, other than the depth of Bathurst station perhaps. And if you have to build a new bridge similar to what they did east on Sheppard of Leslie, then is it really any more expensive per metre than a subway tunnel? It's a factor, certainly. But we're not talking the Prince Edward Viaduct here ...

 

[11th]

Has there actually been any evidence to back this up? If you keep the entire thing underground, I wouldn't think that it would make much difference, other than the depth of Bathurst station perhaps. And if you have to build a new bridge similar to what they did east on Sheppard of Leslie, then is it really any more expensive per metre than a subway tunnel? It's a factor, certainly. But we're not talking the Prince Edward Viaduct here ...

Not sure about the actual cost, but it's been brought up numerous times as a reason. I did read somewhere the Sheppard/Leslie bridge and Sheppard-Yonge reconstruction used up a good part of the ~$900m. The bright side of building a bridge at West Don vs. Sheppard/Leslie is there won't be a need to build the "concrete casing" for flood protection.

 

[innsertnamehere]

important to remember that the tunnel already runs to welbeck, so there would actually only be 3.7km of new tunnel.