Scarborough hatred and segregation? Don't be so Fording absurd.
With the new even lower subway estimates the LRT is both cheaper and has more riders. Also, the majority in Scarborough are travelling within Scarborough.
Surely, the Scarborough hatred and segregation (if such a silly concept existed) would be shown by those that want to burden it with a subway that fails to stop, rather than a better used LRT!
Part of Coffey's point though (I think) is that the subway without stops
is silly. Lawrence East is one of our busiest surface corridors, so it really makes one wonder why a station is omitted. Shortening the line 2km south of Sheppard is debatable as to its 'silliness'. It's also one of our busiest surface corridors, but it's not like we're bypassing it - merely not extending it as far.
Another thing I think Coffey is showing as silly is giving 2km RT-like stop spacing for a commuter rail line, in quintessential suburbia, but at the same time giving an RT line commuter rail-like stop spacing (6km). It's backwards, and there's no way a subway should/could proceed without an inline station at Lawrence.
Another thing that's silly is using a flat TTC fare for GO. It's messing with the modeling for SSE and the DRL. Why didn't we see this with TYSSE and YNSE? Both those lines showed no fare integration in place. One of them is unbuilt, so let's see the numbers showing what fare integration (or fares on par with a subway) can do.
Also, do we have a ridership estimate that includes a Lawrence station (both w/ and w/out GO+RER and its varying scales of fares)?
If you look at both Kipling and Kennedy, the assumption of LRT was already there when those stations were designed. My recollection is that virtually no one foresaw further subway extensions. The Province came along with this dream of creating a transit manufacturing industry in Ontario and needed a flagship implementation of ITCS technology. That overrode the LRT idea.
The other factor that mattered in the early 80's is that borrowing rates were through the roof. Governments were running in the red already. Adding a subway expense just wasn't on.
- Paul
Going to hijack part of your post. Although it's no question that the Prov used TO as a guinea pig for its new technology, I don't think it's as bad as some make it out to be (when viewed in retrospect). When looking at the original (pre-ICTS) TTC plan, what it ended up evolving in terms of service was not unlike what the Prov concocted. At first the line was to be LRT (i.e coupled CLRVs), with one or two at-grade crossings. Later studies revealed that ridership warranted this line to be fully grade-separated. So in other words it would shift away from conventional "LRT" and delve into light metro/subway territory - albeit using hefty and overbuilt vehicles designed with standards for operation in roadways. If the line is to be fully grade-separated, in a way it no longer would require LRVs or CLRVs and it begs the question as to whether there are vehicles that are more optimal.
The Prov IMO got things right, but also arguably got them wrong. I think using a fully grade-separated line was the right move from the outset (as the TTC's studies later concluded); and that using vehicles that are literally lighter, faster, and with higher capacity than conventional LRVs was also the right move. These would look, behave, and feel like subways...but just smaller. Where they got it wrong was using proprietary tech and propulsion. I'm by no means a mechanical engineer, but I do understand the basics of LIM...and it's actually a pretty wicked concept that really does work (when it works). But obviously it was unconventional and problematic - particularly since we were the first city that had it.
So in a way I'd say both the TTC and Prov were both right and wrong in the early 80s. I think this is really important in this debate 35 years later, and shares almost uncanny similarities. If the SRT/SLRT will be fully grade-separated, why the hell are we using hefty/overbuilt Flexity vehicles designed specifically for roadway operation? Almost every article and UTer argues about how optimal and fiscally conscious the conversion from ICTS to LRT is, but is it really? Perhaps compared with a subway, yes. But compared to simply converting the line to simple and (somewhat) standard 21st C 'light metro' rolling stock this doesn't sound very optimal/fiscally wise. One costs ~$1bn, will have lower speed, lower capacity, requires a 3yr shutdown, and uses vehicles designed for operation in roadways. The other costs a fraction, has higher speed, higher capacity, and has a shutdown of a matter of months. Clearly if anything is more optimal and a better use of funds, it'd be the original pre-Transit City plan for the SRT. So why aren't more people speaking about that?
