News   Nov 22, 2024
National Housing Day: City of Toronto and Riverdale Co-op Open Affordable Homes
 581     1 
News   Nov 22, 2024
Bauhaus Condos Rising in Toronto's Old Town
 1K     5 
News   Nov 22, 2024
49-Storey Waterfront Tower Proposed at Spadina and Queens Quay
 2.7K     8 

Danforth Line 2 Scarborough Subway Extension

NoahB said:
Disappointed in you...
Open the link. It showed the direct comparison in 2013 dollars. You can find the more current numbers by going to www dot google dot come on.
Click to expand...
Ok I see the numbers are relatively close. But the numbers were not close in comparing the lrt conversion of the rt to what we are paying for the subway. So I don’t know how it’s comparable. This is all subjective but I think a 10-15% cost difference is minimal. But that isn’t what was going on in Toronto.
 
NoahB said:
Disappointed in you...
Open the link. It showed the direct comparison in 2013 dollars. You can find the more current numbers by going to www dot google dot come on.
Click to expand...

Reports like that are good. Converting to MKIII was a winner. But for the newer posters that don't know, what can a report like that not tell you? The sentiment during those many years. A resounding refrain that oftentimes overrode and trumped debates was that of "orphan technology". It wasn't an LRT or Toronto subway, it was different. You could point to all the stats, numbers, costs, and current example (Mk II in Van)...didn't matter. I know many of those same posters are fine using something different for OL, but back then it pretty much was Toronto subway/LRT or bust.
 
44 North said:
Reports like that are good. Converting to MKIII was a winner. But for the newer posters that don't know, what can a report like that not tell you? The sentiment during those many years. A resounding refrain that oftentimes overrode and trumped debates was that of "orphan technology". It wasn't an LRT or Toronto subway, it was different. You could point to all the stats, numbers, costs, and current example (Mk II in Van)...didn't matter. I know many of those same posters are fine using something different for OL, but back then it pretty much was Toronto subway/LRT or bust.
Click to expand...
Another issue is the poor performance of the ICTS trains during the winter months. It's not ideal when an entire line can be knocked out due to snow and ice build up on the reaction rail, which unfortunately for us in Toronto, snow and ice is an annual occurrence. There aren't really any solutions for this issue either, beyond constructing some sort of heating/de-icing system on the line which has obvious long-term maintenance costs. Or burying the entire line which has an obvious high up-front cost and really isn't an option when you dealing with a corridor like the SRT's.
 
Last edited:
At the time I understood why LRT was chosen. It offered (and I believe this was the case in studies), greater future expansion possibilities and more than enough capacity for a long, long time.

The SRT upgrade would've been the best route to go, but I could understand why an LRT made sense too.
 
44 North said:
Reports like that are good. Converting to MKIII was a winner. But for the newer posters that don't know, what can a report like that not tell you? The sentiment during those many years. A resounding refrain that oftentimes overrode and trumped debates was that of "orphan technology". It wasn't an LRT or Toronto subway, it was different. You could point to all the stats, numbers, costs, and current example (Mk II in Van)...didn't matter. I know many of those same posters are fine using something different for OL, but back then it pretty much was Toronto subway/LRT or bust.
Click to expand...

I'd add that the debate really wasn't about technology at all. It was about 'respect for Scarborough', not being forced through the horror of making a transfer, etc.

An SRT upgrade would've not moved the needle in that regard.
 
44 North said:
Reports like that are good. Converting to MKIII was a winner. But for the newer posters that don't know, what can a report like that not tell you? The sentiment during those many years. A resounding refrain that oftentimes overrode and trumped debates was that of "orphan technology". It wasn't an LRT or Toronto subway, it was different. You could point to all the stats, numbers, costs, and current example (Mk II in Van)...didn't matter. I know many of those same posters are fine using something different for OL, but back then it pretty much was Toronto subway/LRT or bust.
Click to expand...
I agree. The report does note that there was less enthusiasm for the SRT because of its uniqueness and also wrote that procuring rolling stock for it would be more expensive because of the orphan status. The political climate today (transit-wise) in Toronto is basically unrecognizable from 15 years ago.
 
Voltz said:
So I haven't looked at their proposals in detail, but how would that apply here? LRT or SRT here were identical routes, no difference in travel times,
Click to expand...
If you're going to ignore the entire discussion why are you even here? The problem with the SLRT is that its just a lower capacity version of the SRT.
 
sixrings said:
That’s in your opinion. The data shows most Scarborough ttc rides start and end in Scarborough. If I was out there still I would much prefer a lrt network than spending all our money on one line. LRTs do have added benefits of busses from being in their own lane, being more comfortable to ride on(not weeving in and out of traffic) larger so better chance of a seat, and farther transit stop spacing. Not too far but not too close. But I get it. You guys don’t like not grade separated transit.
Click to expand...
Basically all of the benefits you suggest, could be achieved with buses at a much lower cost. Which is why suburban LRT is usually so silly.
sixrings said:
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.
Click to expand...

Light Metro costs less than 2x as much, is faster and more reliable than LRT, LRT is only slightly faster than BRT (without fully dedicated lanes mind you so BRT could match LRT). The City wanted to do LRT despite this because of vacuous claims that LRT creates a nice urban environment.
duffo said:
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.
Click to expand...
Selected despite being worse because the Conservative mayor of the time cared more about development than good transit service.
 
Voltz said:
Except for another benefit. which is capacity, one of the main reasons for the suburban LRT lines being proposed. Riders being left behind at stops don't care how much less the bus costs.
Click to expand...
By the time capacity becomes a major concern, you could probably already justify a light metro.
 
superelevation said:
Light Metro costs less than 2x as much, is faster and more reliable than LRT, LRT is only slightly faster than BRT (without fully dedicated lanes mind you so BRT could match LRT). The City wanted to do LRT despite this because of vacuous claims that LRT creates a nice urban environment.
Click to expand...
And can be fully automated, which is a huge benefit in my opinion.
 
ARG1 said:
Sure, but that doesn't really have the benefits that autonomy delivers such as tight headways. This is more about just saving on operations cost.
Click to expand...
It potentially could if eventually the system could be operated faster and at closer distances than human drivers.

If the system can detect obstructions/problems faster and better than a human, the speeds of the at-grade portions can be increased, within reason. Whatever is deemed reasonably safe.

Nothing helps at-grade systems more than fully dedicated transit priority though
 
Voltz said:
Except for another benefit. which is capacity, one of the main reasons for the suburban LRT lines being proposed. Riders being left behind at stops don't care how much less the bus costs.
Click to expand...
But we don't even exclusively run articulateds on most routes . . .
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top