Danforth Line 2 Scarborough Subway Extension

[Rainforest]

Maybe as a supplement its fine, but ultimately unless you absolutely need it, it isn't necessary. To quote Jonathan English, if you think you need light rail, you could probably do with more frequent bus service. You don't have to spend billions of dollars on an LRT.

Not sure about that. I've seen roads so badly congested, in particular Eglinton and Finch West, that dedicated lanes will automatically improve the speed big time.

Speaking of Waterloo, it quite unfortunate that they didn't consider robust speed limits and smooth curves as part of the design reqs.

 

[ARG1]

Where exactly are all the curves of the previous sheppard and eglinton east LRT plans? You’re making it out like the majority of the route wouldn’t be straight lines.

and the SRT conversion would have been in its own right of way so that’s not debatable even though Ford couldn’t comprehend that.

I've explained to you the issues of the SRT conversion plenty of times before, and how the issues with that project were completely different from the rest of the Transit City project (well some of the issues were common but in general its an isolated incident). As a recap, the issue with the SLRT plan was that it was just a downgrade of the refurbishment plan, and in many ways the SLRT was a downgrade from the existing SRT. It would take an existing Light Metro Line and kneecap it with worse capacity per m of train, connection to other LRT lines would significantly reduce its maximum potential frequency, all while sticking with the exact same problematic transfer and allignment the current SRT has.

As for Sheppard and Eglinton, yes you are right the problem iON has with curves isn't present, but that's not the only problems LRT have compared to busses as I have brought up, which include lower acceleration, deceleration, and reduced top speeds. As I have showed you, when Vancouver studied the Surrey LRT, they found that it only increased travel times on average by a minute, and that was a straight corridor without any curves. This was done as a proper assessment in order to figure out what to build in the region, and not what Transit City was which was politicians choosing LRT as their mode from the outset, and trying to justify their choice afterwards in the succeeding reviews and studies. They realized that aside from redevelopment, LRT was not suitable as an actual rapid transit mode if the goal is to quickly transport people, so they favoured a SkyTrain extension which would bring more development, AND serve more people with actually rapid transit.

 

[ARG1]

Not sure about that. I've seen roads so badly congested, in particular Eglinton and Finch West, that dedicated lanes will automatically improve the speed big time.

Speaking of Waterloo, it quite unfortunate that they didn't consider robust speed limits and smooth curves as part of the design reqs.

If you need dedicated lanes, get some dedicated lanes. Just do what we did on Eglinton East and paint a lane with red paint or add rush hour only HOV lanes to speed up busses during congested times. We don't need to spend billions of dollars on an LRT.

 

[afransen]

Well I’ll enjoy hurontario and finch while Scarborough continues to bury its head in the sand demanding transit they can’t afford and some parking garages too.

Take the money you would spend on a network for LRTs (or three stop subway extension) and spend it on much cheaper grid of BRT for coverage and a grid of elevated metro for speed/longer distance travel.

 

[sixrings]

I've explained to you the issues of the SRT conversion plenty of times before, and how the issues with that project were completely different from the rest of the Transit City project (well some of the issues were common but in general its an isolated incident). As a recap, the issue with the SLRT plan was that it was just a downgrade of the refurbishment plan, and in many ways the SLRT was a downgrade from the existing SRT. It would take an existing Light Metro Line and kneecap it with worse capacity per m of train, connection to other LRT lines would significantly reduce its maximum potential frequency, all while sticking with the exact same problematic transfer and allignment the current SRT has.

As for Sheppard and Eglinton, yes you are right the problem iON has with curves isn't present, but that's not the only problems LRT have compared to busses as I have brought up, which include lower acceleration, deceleration, and reduced top speeds. As I have showed you, when Vancouver studied the Surrey LRT, they found that it only increased travel times on average by a minute, and that was a straight corridor without any curves. This was done as a proper assessment in order to figure out what to build in the region, and not what Transit City was which was politicians choosing LRT as their mode from the outset, and trying to justify their choice afterwards in the succeeding reviews and studies. They realized that aside from redevelopment, LRT was not suitable as an actual rapid transit mode if the goal is to quickly transport people, so they favoured a SkyTrain extension which would bring more development, AND serve more people with actually rapid transit.

You have mentioned the Surrey lrt situation. But you did not cite any sources leading me to choose if I believe said source exists and that it’s accurate. Based on your pro subway everywhere stance I’ll wait for actual detailed reports and then I would still need to compare it to what was planned on eglinton east and sheppard to see if the contexts are similar.

 

[Rainforest]

Didn't Vancouver only decide to cancel the LRT and build Skytrain once the new mayor of Surrey was elected on an anti-LRT platform? The LRT was already selected as the preferred technology, but the residents of Surrey voted to spend an hour commuting into Vancouver instead of developing their own downtown into a distinct business district.

Big jobs go to big cities, that's the rule of modern civilization and can't be changed by the choice of transit. With LRT, they still would be commuting into Vancouver in the same numbers, but taking 75 min instead of 60 min. As they could get a branch of Skytrain, surely that was a better choice for them than an LRT with transfer.

Had the transfer been required in either case, that could have been a different situation and maybe LRT would come out as the best choice as it is easier to extend.

 

[Rainforest]

If you need dedicated lanes, get some dedicated lanes. Just do what we did on Eglinton East and paint a lane with red paint or add rush hour only HOV lanes to speed up busses during congested times. We don't need to spend billions of dollars on an LRT.

But light rail has more capacity. I would be inclined to do LRT on the busiest streets where capacity matters, and bus-only lanes on streets with more modest transit demand where LRT capacity is not required.

Eglinton East is pretty busy, and I've read a forecast of up to 5,000 pphpd at peak just east of Kennedy. Sounds more like the LRT scale than bus scale ..

 

[kamira51]

Its not an opinion. With slower acceleration, slower top speeds, and longer dwell times, a lot of that time balances out especially during the off peak. When Vancouver was studying the Surrey LRT, they found out that compared to the existing R1 bus service (BRT Lite), the LRT would've on average only saved 1 minute. As a result they instead reallocated the funds to building the first phase of the Langley Skytrain Extension. The benefits of LRTs are redevelopment potential and capacity, speed is nowhere near the top of its benefits lists. We don't even have to look far to see how minimal the speed benefits are. When the iON LRT opened, the increase in speed compared to previous iXpress is negligible and in many places travel times actually increased, to the point where many trips that parallel the route of LRT are still faster by busses than by the LRT. As an example if you want to reach Fairway (the terminus of iON) from uWaterloo, depending on where you are on campus, taking the 12 is outright faster because while the LRT does have dedicated lanes, the LRT has to operate far slower around curves, deal with reduced top speeds and speed limits, and have reduced acceleration and deceleration.

Shhhh.... enough with this satanic nonsense, how DARE YOU INSULT LRT, shame on u.
-LRT fanboy

 

[sixrings]

Shhhh.... enough with this satanic nonsense, how DARE YOU INSULT LRT, shame on u.
-LRT fanboy

I think most pro lrt people are more concerned that the right infrastructure gets built to suit the demand of the current route. Busses have a place. Street cars have a place. LRTs have a place. Subways have a place.

The fact is there are a lot of pro lrt people which think the Ontario line should be a full subway because it should have larger capacity. I guess you could go into conspiracy theories thinking those people are just anti pc government but I tend to think they just want the current infrastructure for the project.

Subways subways subways was an actual slogan and LRTs are just glorified street cars were it’s supporters talking points. But sure the LRT advocates are the fanboys despite city after city introducing them into their infrastructure.

I’ll still wait for cited sources thank you very much.

 

[ARG1]

But light rail has more capacity. I would be inclined to do LRT on the busiest streets where capacity matters, and bus-only lanes on streets with more modest transit demand where LRT capacity is not required.

Eglinton East is pretty busy, and I've read a forecast of up to 5,000 pphpd at peak just east of Kennedy. Sounds more like the LRT scale than bus scale ..

Correct, and perhaps Eglinton East is a corridor where LRT makes sense but even then I feel like a light metro is already justified on that route. As I have said many times, LRT isn't a bad idea on its own, and there are situations where it is the best option. Even though I completely trashed on iON earlier, I do think LRT was the right choice for the city. iON just suffers from a lot of design choices, and what seems to be a case of Urban Planner getting overconfident with their theories on urban design, for instance believing that splitting up lines is a good way to increase coverage (it really isn't). Even in Transit City, a plan I constantly trash, there were some plans in there that actually made sense, those being Scarborough Malvern, Waterfront West, and Finch West. This conversation however started from the idea that we should be building a "network of LRTs" throughout Scarborough which we shouldn't and there is no reason to spend so much money on a network where the amount of benefits for that cost is minimal.

 

[ARG1]

I think most pro lrt people are more concerned that the right infrastructure gets built to suit the demand of the current route. Busses have a place. Street cars have a place. LRTs have a place. Subways have a place.

The fact is there are a lot of pro lrt people which think the Ontario line should be a full subway because it should have larger capacity. I guess you could go into conspiracy theories thinking those people are just anti pc government but I tend to think they just want the current infrastructure for the project.

Subways subways subways was an actual slogan and LRTs are just glorified street cars were it’s supporters talking points. But sure the LRT advocates are the fanboys despite city after city introducing them into their infrastructure.

I’ll still wait for cited sources thank you very much.

I think most pro subway people are more concerned that the right infrastructure gets built to suit the demand of the current route. Busses have a place. Street cars have a place. LRTs have a place. Subways have a place.

The fact is there are a lot of pro subway people who think that Finch West LRT was justified as an LRT because its a pure feeder corridor that solely serves as a way to feed other subway lines rather than trying to carry the load of being a major crosstown line, and the Portlands because the slow nature of LRTs perfectly suit a dense urban environment where the average travel distances are extremely short. I guess you could go into conspiracy theories thinking those people are just suburbanites who want all of the infrastructure for themselves but I tend to think they just want infrastructure that properly suits the sprawling suburban environment that Toronto has.

LRT advocates constantly talk highly about Transit City as if it was the savior of transit like they're in a cult, and pretend that anyone who disagrees with them are just car owners who don't want to see transit. But sure the metro advocates are the fanboys despite all of the cities that introduced LRTs have consistently produced worse ridership numbers and have provided weaker transit networks then their similar sized counterparts that built metros.

This isn't hard to do...

 

[sixrings]

I think most pro subway people are more concerned that the right infrastructure gets built to suit the demand of the current route. Busses have a place. Street cars have a place. LRTs have a place. Subways have a place.

The fact is there are a lot of pro subway people who think that Finch West LRT was justified as an LRT because its a pure feeder corridor that solely serves as a way to feed other subway lines rather than trying to carry the load of being a major crosstown line, and the Portlands because the slow nature of LRTs perfectly suit a dense urban environment where the average travel distances are extremely short. I guess you could go into conspiracy theories thinking those people are just suburbanites who want all of the infrastructure for themselves but I tend to think they just want infrastructure that properly suits the sprawling suburban environment that Toronto has.

LRT advocates constantly talk highly about Transit City as if it was the savior of transit like they're in a cult, and pretend that anyone who disagrees with them are just car owners who don't want to see transit. But sure the metro advocates are the fanboys despite all of the cities that introduced LRTs have consistently produced worse ridership numbers and have provided weaker transit networks then their similar sized counterparts that built metros.

This isn't hard to do...

Again no numbers or sources but I see what you did there. Very original.

 

[sixrings]

Big jobs go to big cities, that's the rule of modern civilization and can't be changed by the choice of transit. With LRT, they still would be commuting into Vancouver in the same numbers, but taking 75 min instead of 60 min. As they could get a branch of Skytrain, surely that was a better choice for them than an LRT with transfer.

Had the transfer been required in either case, that could have been a different situation and maybe LRT would come out as the best choice as it is easier to extend.

Well Vaughan is growing it’s office space considerably. And MCC exchange towers (8 towers total) have office components. So I don’t think we should just assume we can’t ever have businesses in the burbs.

 

[Rainforest]

Well Vaughan is growing it’s office space considerably. And MCC exchange towers (8 towers total) have office components. So I don’t think we should just assume we can’t ever have businesses in the burbs.

Definitely, some businesses set shop in the suburban clusters. Mississauga managed to get quite a few at MCC, even before getting any kind of rail transit there. So did Markham, at Hwy 7 & Leslie and at Allstate.

But I was responding to another poster, who suggested that Surrey residents would no longer need to commute to Vancouver if they got LRT and built a downtown around that LRT .. and that would be an oversimplification. From each individual's perspective, the chance that you find a job in your own borough is small. Even if your borrow has a cluster of offices, most likely you will go somewhere else for work, while other people will commute in the opposite direction and work in one of "your" offices.

 

[sixrings]

Definitely, some businesses set shop in the suburban clusters. Mississauga managed to get quite a few at MCC, even before getting any kind of rail transit there. So did Markham, at Hwy 7 & Leslie and at Allstate.

But I was responding to another poster, who suggested that Surrey residents would no longer need to commute to Vancouver if they got LRT and built a downtown around that LRT .. and that would be an oversimplification. From each individual's perspective, the chance that you find a job in your own borough is small. Even if your borrow has a cluster of offices, most likely you will go somewhere else for work, while other people will commute in the opposite direction and work in one of "your" offices.

I understand what your point is that once you are in the suburbs you have less job opportunities than downtown. Agreed. On the other hand if your downtown happens to be a place like mcc or the new Vaughan downtown it has more jobs than many other places in the country that people choose to live. For instance if you live in Stratford you likely have to find a job in Stratford. Same goes for Peterborough, brockville, Belleville. My point is others manage to find jobs in their own neighborhood and perhaps if a close commute is important to you than said person could at least have more opportunities if their own suburb attempts to attract businesses. It might not be perfect but it’s better than just being a bedroom community.