syn
Senior Member
Did you actually read the 2006 report?
|
|
|
Did you actually read the 2006 report?
BurlOak
Senior Member
I can't quote it verbatim - but it did show that conversion to Mark II (or III) was the best option. I saved a copy because I suspected that it would eventually be removed from public view.
If that were built I am sure that connection to Eglinton, or extension downtown, would have been much more likely.
Streety McCarface
Senior Member
Except it's not, the most logical solution is to fix the curve at Ellesmere and buy new Mark III vehicles. Extending the light rail is and has always been the least logical solution:
1. It costs more and requires far more work (new stations, new track gauge, new electrification system, new signalling system, etc).
2. It reduces service frequency (Crosstown splits at Kennedy between SRT line and Eglinton East LRT. There'll likely be turnbacks at Science Centre, so at best you'll get a train every 6-7-minutes, compared to the 4-5 today).
3. It reduces reliability (the line is longer, and is not entirely grade-separated, therefore it'll be prone to delays)
4. It'll take longer (lower top speed on LRVs and increased dwell times from low-floor platforms)
5. It'll use more energy (LRVs are heavier, and carry fewer passengers. A Mark I can carry 5.5 passengers/ton, a Mark III can carry 6.3, and an LFLRV can carry 3.5 at crush load or 2.7 for the TTC's defined max passengers)
6. MRT can be automated in the future, Light rail cannot be.
7. It reduces the capacity of the line
Among so many other negatives.[/QUOTE][/QUOTE]
Rainforest
Senior Member
Hard to tell. I'd like to see the subway built, but can't predict the actions of the current government.
Provincial Transit Plans Leave More Questions Than Answers
As many of you have heard, Premier Doug Ford announced a new transit plan last week. As the map below shows, the dotted blue lines represent 5 new lines or extensions. While there is merit to aspects of the Premier's proposal, there are more questions thanjoshmatlow.ca
This pair of maps fails to mention the following facts:
- For the large number of riders transfering from buses at STC, the subway option will result in faster trips.
- It is possible to build the subway to STC, and then a light rail line that connects STC to Malvern Centre, resulting in travel times from Malvern Centre that aren't worse than with the SLRT option.
amnesiajune
Senior Member
The map also assumes it’ll be built the way it’s drawn, and nobody has faith in that. That’s the real driving force behind the subway extension’s public support. More lines & more stops means more opportunities to create a “second phase” that inevitably gets cancelled (see: intermediate stops on Yonge between Eglinton & Finch, the network of SRT-like lines across the city, the Sheppard subway east of Don Mills, the Eglinton LRT west of Black Creek, the Finch LRT east of Keele).
syn
Senior Member
It was the 'best' option in terms of cost, minimizing disruption and leaving funds available for other projects (the Ford plan you keep praising would've done the opposite).
LRT was not considered a bad option - it just wasn't the cheapest. In terms of long term viability and expansion, it was considered the best option.
That's why the city and TTC decided to go with LRT technology. It made sense.
Last edited:
robmausser
Senior Member
[/QUOTE]
[/QUOTE]
Yep, the ttc did a study in 2006 and found that refurbishing the RT was the best option
Wayback Machine
web.archive.org
jje1000
Senior Member
I don't mind a rehaul either, just thinking about politics and the transfer, which seems to be brought up a lot in terms of arguments. Regardless of the details, I think we'd both agree that reutilizing the existing right of way is ultimately more cost-and-time-efficient than building a new subway stub to the STC. It bugs me that we're abandoning a perfectly fine piece of infrastructure and throwing effort into creating a very expensive piece of infrastructure to essentially duplicate service (with some dubious claims to benefits).
In fact, if we had to spend the money, I would rather renegotiate with the governments and dump the money into extending the Sheppard subway, as even that would expand service.
BurlOak
Senior Member
That's why the Ford Memorandum of Understanding allowed for elevated portions in:
The Don Valley and Kennedy vicinity accounts for well over half the length of the Scarborough portion.
Combine this with the other ideas that were floated;
The compromise is SkyTrain: Toronto should be pursuing this technology and not LRT on Eglinton
Elevated trains: Metrolinx offers subway alternative
And the fact that Ford wanted as much savings as possible on Eglinton, to use on Sheppard.
Basically, after the March 2011 announcement of the combined line, everyone Toronto was expecting TTC and Metrolinx to work together. I was expecting in late 2011 or 2012, they would announce some type of mostly elevated line through Scarborough. Unfortunately, Ford left it to TTC and Metrolinx. The former was influenced by Council, and a leader who had mayoralty ambitions. The latter was run by the Provincial Liberals. Between them, they decided the best course of action was to sabotage the Ford plan - in order to hurt Ford. Shortly thereafter, they realized that reverting back to the transfer LRT plan would be political suicide, so they opted for the more expensive subway. The plan didn't quite work out for Karen Stintz, but the Liberals did get another majority from it. At the end of the day, Toronto signed on to the idea that defeating Ford at any cost was worthwhile. And it was obvious that the Ford plan was actually the most cost effective.
syn
Senior Member
What you're describing is not reality. Again, this seems like another example of citing a source and not reading it:
"Initially, a compromise of running the Eglinton LRT on the surface through the wide, suburban stretch of Eglinton east of the Don Valley, while extending the Sheppard line one or two stops to Victoria Park was put forward by Stintz and other councilors opposed to the Ford plan. This was rejected by Ford and allies, leading to yesterday’s meeting."
Nobody sabotaged the plan. It had no chance of going through. It ate up the entire budget for transit, and that's before even factoring in cost overruns. Ford wanted to cancel everything else in favour of his plan, and was unwilling to compromise. His 'plan' was to have the private sector pay, which was clearly never going to happen.
It's pretty clear that the only person sabotaging Ford was himself. I'm not sure why you keep creating these alternate realities that make him some sort of transit hero.
Hopkins123
Senior Member
Well, all the good that opposing Ford really accomplished. All these years later and all Council has to show for their obstructionism is the Eglinton Crosstown, built in the worse way imaginable east of Brentcliffe. We owe Stintz, Parker, Matlow and the like a huge debt of gratitude.
nfitz
Superstar
Finch West is also under construction. East and west extensions of both Eglinton and Finch are being considered.
Surely stopping Rob Ford's plan to open another Sheppard suwbay station between Bayview and Bessarion was a good thing - who'd support such idiocy?
At least Eglinton as LRT is only worse, but not worst!
Let's put this in perspective ... here is Rob Ford's plan. While some here might want to pretend it involved putting more of Line 5 underground - the reality was, it cancelled Line 5. And Line 6. The sheer lunacy of this plan was shocking. Completely cancelling the Eglinton line? No transit to Malvern. No relief line. No additional subway capacity downtown. Removing streetcars from downtown streets?
For some reason though, it involved extending Line 2 from Main Street to Kennedy. Congratulations Rob Ford - you succeeded!
Last edited:
syn
Senior Member
Was Ford a dictator? Were people obligated to do whatever he said? Him and his followers seem to think that's how things work.
Council did their job - they questioned a plan that canceled everything else in favour of burying the Crosstown. They even suggested an alternative, which was rejected.
City Council is not to blame for Ford's inability to do his job.
JSF-1
Active Member
If I am reading that map right was he suggesting we bury the Subway between Vic Park and Kennedy? If he was that is peak lunacy, and its amazing anyone could look at that and say "Yea that's a good plan". If anything we should be finding ways to build more of our Subway/LRT network at grade or above since its cheaper and faster to build. I like how that plan also still shows stops at Ellesmere and Midland.... on a Subway once again proving that man and his supporters had no idea what they were talking about and were and still are best ignored.
nfitz
Superstar
My theory was that Ford was just completely incompetent, didn't even know what existed, and was likely non-functioning because of his substance abuse ... but many of the good folks at Urban Toronto didn't like that. Now they try and pretend that Ford was trying to bury Line 5 ... despite never mentioning it in his campaign ... and too busy drinking himself to death, taking every drug under the sun, and offering up his wife for people to have sex with, to actually formulate any plan - which came did not come from him.
I think we can quickly dismiss those here trying to claim that Ford was involved with the plans of trying to bury the line - there's no indication he heard about that plan, before we did! I'm not sure why we don't simply ban those that are willing to revise the history of such an incompetent, unworthy, mayor!