M II A II R II K
Senior Member
So the land that the SRT is on in the Stoufville corridor could get used for more tracks for the Stouffville route.
|
|
|
Rainforest
Senior Member
Good question, but I don't know the definite answer. I think that option just felt through the cracks:
- Originally, they evaluated multiple routes (including Brimley) for the 3-stop subway. The McCowan option won because it had a station serving the Scarborough General Hospital.
- Once they downgraded the subway to 1-stop, the McCowan route lost its main advantage. But, nobody bothered to re-evaluate any of the previously rejected routes.
- By now, part of the design for McCowan tunnel has been completed. That's the reason for the reluctance to consider the Brimley option.
Hopkins123
Senior Member
The Mccowan alignment is also better because it affords the opportunity to have an infill station at Brimley-Eglinton.
Leo_Chan
Senior Member
Are they even building the second track and platforms with a third centre track in mind?
What about the Brimley stop on the Eglinton East LRT?
TheTigerMaster
Superstar
We can assume that whatever alignment is picked will be designed to benefit Doug Ford and his friends. Corruption and nepotism runs rampant in this government
JSF-1
Active Member
This is where I get off this train. There has never been and never will be any justification for burying the EC under a 6 lane Suburban Avenue, that is also mostly strip malls on one side. You could always make the argument for Elevated rail and I would but underground needs to be reserved for only the most extraneous of circumstances. I'm not even going to dignify the burial of the Finch Line; if putting the EC underground is stupid then putting the FW is a level or two beyond. Why would you even consider putting a line that isn't expected to break 2,500pph for decades (if ever) underground. Oh wait I know why, because the Fords put Cars on a pedestal and view transit users as mere plebeians.
Last edited:
syn
Senior Member
You're in luck - this train never left the station.
I agree with you, but you're using sound logic based on what we understand about transit. Unfortuantely, the Fords have convinced their supporters that the only transit that matters is underground.
Rainforest
Senior Member
That's right, as long as they actually build the Brimley-Eglinton station.
The two aren't mutually exclusive. It is possible to have a subway station at Brimley, and surface light rail stop at Midland and at Eglinton/Danforth.
The distance between the Brimley and Danforth intersections is about 100 m, thus the subway station and the Eglinton/Danforth LRT stop will be fairly close and can be easily connected.
Steve X
Senior Member
They could just have an exit on Brimley and a second exit on Danforth.
Rainforest
Senior Member
Sure. The main question was about the co-existence of a subway station and a light-rail stop in the Eglinton/Brimley area.
sixrings
Senior Member
I actually think the person understood that both stations could co exist. I think what they were suggesting is that building a subway station there for 400 million where a 50 million dollar lrt stop exists might not make the most sense. Maybe that's not what they meant but it's what I read and question myself.
Hopkins123
Senior Member
Only under the pretense that they'd build it in the most expensive manner possible would such a station with no bus terminal attached would cost anywhere near $400 million when the average cost to build non-terminii stations on Yonge North Extension were projected to be only around $65 million. Inflation hasn't gone up that much since that report and Eglinton East isn't the Yonge corridor.
A Brimley-Eglinton station should be measured in it's TOD potential and more importantly a way for far east Scarberians to hop aboard the subway 5 minutes sooner than what would occur otherwise.
Rainforest
Senior Member
^ Indeed, the Brimley station should not cost much. It would be a pretty basic station, and likely shallow, no need to go deep. It has good TOD potential, and will improve the connectivity as well; riders coming from the east of McCowan on the LRT and wishing to go north, will not have to go all the way to Kennedy and then backtrack.
For the people who feel that having both a subway station and a light rail stop at the same location is too much transit, I proposed to spread them out a bit. If the light rail stop is at the Eglinton/Danforth intersection, while the subway station is closer to Brimley, then together they will form a larger TOD-friendly area than a single station would form. And at the same time, the two stations can be connected by a short tunnel enabling an easy transfer.
For the people who feel that having both a subway station and a light rail stop at the same location is too much transit, I proposed to spread them out a bit. If the light rail stop is at the Eglinton/Danforth intersection, while the subway station is closer to Brimley, then together they will form a larger TOD-friendly area than a single station would form. And at the same time, the two stations can be connected by a short tunnel enabling an easy transfer.
syn
Senior Member
The average cost for the new stations is not $65 million. Only one station in that document is that low. The average is nearly $100 million for non-terminus stations and that doesn't include tunneling or other factors.
There is no way where adding an additional stop to this line is going to be anywhere near that cheap. The history of cost increases should make it clear that any additional stops are going to result in significant cost increases.
Could they reduce the cost by building it above ground? Sure. But there has been absolutely no indication from anyone that this line will be anything but an underground subway.
With an LRT stop nearby, a subway stop here makes no sense.
Rainforest
Senior Member
Some people really hate connectivity. Instead of letting the riders using the eastern EE LRT and the northern subway transfer at Brimley, they'd rather send the riders all the way to Kennedy and then expect them to backtrack.
The "average for non-terminus stations" is meaningless. Obviously, a station like Steeles with its massive bus terminal will cost more than a basic station with pedestrian access only. And yet, Steeles is a non-terminus station (the subway does not terminate there), which meaninglessly pushes up the average.
Even if the Brimley station does cost $100 million, it is certainly worth spending that amount to improve the transit access and connectivity.
It ironic that some people want to squeeze in a station at Willowdale, where the gap between the existing stations is only 2 km, and any TOD would face an uphill battle with the local nimbys. And yet, other people want to preclude the SSE station at Brimley, leaving a gap of 4 km between the stations (assuming Lawrence East is built) and forfeighting TOD in the location where it would face no local objections.
The "average for non-terminus stations" is meaningless. Obviously, a station like Steeles with its massive bus terminal will cost more than a basic station with pedestrian access only. And yet, Steeles is a non-terminus station (the subway does not terminate there), which meaninglessly pushes up the average.
Even if the Brimley station does cost $100 million, it is certainly worth spending that amount to improve the transit access and connectivity.
It ironic that some people want to squeeze in a station at Willowdale, where the gap between the existing stations is only 2 km, and any TOD would face an uphill battle with the local nimbys. And yet, other people want to preclude the SSE station at Brimley, leaving a gap of 4 km between the stations (assuming Lawrence East is built) and forfeighting TOD in the location where it would face no local objections.
Last edited: