Danforth Line 2 Scarborough Subway Extension

[44 North]

Is it? I don't even recall the ICTS proposal, or the streetar subway from the 1960s. If TTC was looking at a streetcar subway in 1966, it was quickly abandoned, given their 1968 subway plan.

Sure it is, if it was presented publicly, and other plans were never publicly presented, but merely dismissed with reports buried in the archives completely forgotten other than to provide troll bait.

IMO Ed Levy’s book is the most comprehensive analysis of the numerous rapid transit plans over the years. Better than TransitToronto, Unbuilt Toronto, Steve Munro, Wikipedia, etc combined.

And you want to talk about “troll bait� I’ve quoted sources, provided official maps, and guided you to where this info can easily be found. What have you provided for falsely claiming the DRL was always to be a heavy rail all-underground subway line? Mistaken memories, hunches, and fabrications? Vague and meaningless phrases like what I bolded? Okay then.

 

[TheTigerMaster]

It is interesting that the per-km costs (for both subways and LRTs) vary a lot from one city to another; even for cities ithin the same region (say, Europe) where the labour wages and the cost of materials are not vastly different.

Obviously, many factors affect the cost. It would be interesting if someone quantified those factors.

Local conditions, including soil, is a factor.

Safety is another factor. For example, here in Ontario, we require tunnels to be a certain diameter, which drives up construction costs. I recall reading that in Japan, they were able to reduce costs by 20% by using smaller diamete tunnels. Of course, installing sufficient emergency escapes and constuction methods will also affect costs.

 

[aquateam]

It’s a bit disingenuous to say "it was a subway" for all of the 60s and 70s, or that other proposals were "quickly forgotten". There were a multitude of plans, with ICTS and a streetcar subway on Queen being quite prominent in the 60s and 70s. Ed Levy’s book gives a pretty solid chronological breakdown. From a quick skim, we have:
-1966 TTC plan (which resurrected a 1946 plan) for underground streetcars along Queen

Is it? I don't even recall the ICTS proposal, or the streetar subway from the 1960s. If TTC was looking at a streetcar subway in 1966, it was quickly abandoned, given their 1968 subway plan.

IMO Ed Levy’s book is the most comprehensive analysis of the numerous rapid transit plans over the years. Better than TransitToronto, Unbuilt Toronto, Steve Munro, Wikipedia, etc combined.

According to Ed Levy's book, the 1966 and 1968 plans show a subway along Queen, not a streetcar subway. This would be consistent with their streetcar abandonment policy, which wasn't officially ended until 1972.

 

[nfitz]

And you want to talk about “troll bait� I’ve quoted sources, provided official maps, and guided you to where this info can easily be found. What have you provided for falsely claiming the DRL was always to be a heavy rail all-underground subway line? Mistaken memories, hunches, and fabrications? Vague and meaningless phrases like what I bolded? Okay then.

Personally I'd take my mistaken memory over your "references" most days.

What is the source for your 1966 streetcar subway? As it's apparently not Levy ...

According to Ed Levy's book, the 1966 and 1968 plans show a subway along Queen, not a streetcar subway. This would be consistent with their streetcar abandonment policy, which wasn't officially ended until 1972.

That's sound's more like what I remember.

 

[44 North]

According to Ed Levy's book, the 1966 and 1968 plans show a subway along Queen, not a streetcar subway. This would be consistent with their streetcar abandonment policy, which wasn't officially ended until 1972.

Yes, but it was also a plan in 1966:

[A Plan, Profile and Cross Sections prepared by the Toronto Transit Commission in 1966 show what amounts to a short underpass for the Queen streetcar service through the heart of the city centre, extending from a point between George and Sherbourne streets in the east to a point between Soho Street and Spadina Avenue in the west.
...
The second station would have provided an interchange with the University Avenue subway (opened in 1963) at Osgoode station.
Platforms for both stations were to be 152 metres (500 feet) long; that is, the same as at all of the other Yonge Street subway stations, even though only single, dual/coupled, or articulated streetcars were to be used on the line.]

http://levyrapidtransit.ca/7-3-the-...-subway-the-1946-plan-revisited/#.VRnCMo6bEWc

And then in 1969:

...the TTC, in a long-term planning exercise, issued its concept for integrated rapid transit, intermediate-capacity transit (such as LRT), and commuter rail services. That 1969 initiative and its 1973 revision, discussed in Chapter 9, included both the Eglinton and Queen subways...
...
...during the late 1960s and early 1970s, the provincial government, not surprisingly, chose to await the findings of the exhaustive Metropolitan Toronto Transportation Plan Review (MTTPR) then under way. The MTTPR had been charged with studying the full range of transportation modes and facilities, both existing and proposed, within the Toronto conurbation, and its findings, published in 1975, turned out to be not particularly bullish with respect to the near-term need for a full subway initiative in the Queen corridor, but rather, recommended consideration of a combination of enhanced GO Transit service and “underground streetcars

http://levyrapidtransit.ca/7-3-the-...-subway-the-1946-plan-revisited/#.VRnCMo6bEWc

And also between 1959 and early-to-mid 60s there were considerations for streetcars:

At the end of 1964, the Metropolitan Toronto Planning Board produced a major report on the “Metropolitan Toronto Transportation Plan†detailing the findings of several studies based on questions raised by the 1959 “Draft Official Plan for Metropolitan Torontoâ€. ...The report concluded:

“There is little doubt, that full-scale subway originally proposed for Queen Street is not warranted. However, while the projected transit volumes in the Queen corridor could be handled by surface transit, serious congestion would result in slow speeds making it desirable to provide an improved transit service. It is suggested that the most suitable facility would be an improved tram line on its own right-of-way, underground between Spadina and Jarvis and on the surface between Spadina and the Humber Loop, and between Jarvis and Broadview or Pape.

Such a facility already exists for the 2 miles from Roncesvalles to Spadina (2.5 miles) and from Jarvis to Broadview or Pape (2 miles) run through areas in which extensive redevelopment can be anticipated, and it would be possible to provide for a transit right-of-way in the course of such redevelopment. In fact, provision of an improved transit service might well be useful in stimulating desirable redevelopment. The tunnel through downtown would be a little over a mile in length, and provision has already been made for such a tunnel under the Yonge and University subways

http://levyrapidtransit.ca/wp-content/uploads/queen-chapter5.pdf


But the point is, streetcars and ICTS were more than 'buried troll bait' or some rubbish. They were heavily considered in the 60s and 70s, just as subways were considered in the 60s and 70s. And frankly, if I had to say which was more "abandoned" or "buried" during those twenty years - streetcars/ICTS or subways - I'd go with subways.

 

[44 North]

As well, Steve Munro has an okay article re a 1968 proposal for streetcars under Queen: http://stevemunro.ca/2007/07/16/from-the-archives-the-queen-street-streetcar-subway/
with info from this report: https://swanboatsteve.files.wordpress.com/2007/07/qsubrept.pdf

Back in 1968, a few years after the original Keele-Woodbine section of the Bloor-Danforth subway had opened, the TTC was thinking about the Queen Street subway. One proposal floated through the Commission for streetcar subway through downtown operation.
...
There were three options for a Queen subway all of which involved streetcar operation. I have scanned the map for the all-subway option, and the others are not much different. Note that this map dates from the early 1970s by which time the Queen Street subway scheme ran up into Don Mills. The initial phase for each version was:

1. A full subway under Queen initially from Roncesvalles to nearly Leslie, turning north alongside Greenwood Yard , up Donlands to O’Connor [later proposed to go north across the Don Valley to Don Mills and Eglinton]. Streetcars would terminate at Sunnyside in the west, and near Leslie in the east.
2. A full subway under Queen from University to Leslie, then turning north as described in the first option. Streetcars would continue on the surface over the entire Queen route.
3. The same subway as described in (2), but with through “Queen†service running across the city via King Street.

 

[AnarchoSocialist]

"Subway versus LRT" in such comparisons pretty much meaningless. It's like "road built for a sedan versus road built for a minivan".

Clearly, far more important is the design of the right-of-way and stations. Underground? Elevated? In mixed traffic? In a dedicated lane? Reusing a former railway right-of-way? Sophisticated stations? Simple stops?

This is an LRT station:
View attachment 43426

And this is a metro station:
View attachment 43427

Which one do you think is cheaper?

So your saying that not all LRTs are built the same and not all Metros look a like? Can that really be?

Studies like that can be interesting but really don't offer much that can be applied on a general basis. Like you said, there are so many factors which can affect the cost and design of an LRT or metro. It's probably true that an LRT is going to be some degree cheaper then a Metro but that's about all you can say.

I know you've been trying to drill in the idea that when it comes to LRT design you can really do whatever you want. That it isn't limited to just a few options. In fact that there are probably hundreds of different combinations of vehicles, right of way types, above/at grade/below ground combinations, technology types and design levels that you could come up when it comes to LRT design. It just all depends on budget and local needs and available or unavailability of land. I don't think you need to reinvent the concept of public transit each time but a bit of creativity would go a long way. Toronto has some great ideas and great plans for transit that I'm really excited about but sometimes it makes me scratch my head when debates like what to do about the RT take place. I just don't get it. How can so many people just keep missing the solution? It's baffling.

 

[jcam]

http://theagenda.tvo.org/blog/agenda-blogs/steve-paikin-will-john-tory-scrap-scarborough-subway-line

One can only hope Steve's right.

 

[TheTigerMaster]

Steve's article lacks much substance. He could have gone into details about the issues that will plague SSE, including low usage due to SmartTrack/RER and the municipal debt limit.

 

[TheTigerMaster]

http://theagenda.tvo.org/blog/agenda-blogs/steve-paikin-will-john-tory-scrap-scarborough-subway-line

One can only hope Steve's right.

The Impossible Dream:

[video=youtube;RfHnzYEHAow]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RfHnzYEHAow[/video]

Yea, I stole the joke

 

[Rainforest]

http://theagenda.tvo.org/blog/agenda-blogs/steve-paikin-will-john-tory-scrap-scarborough-subway-line

One can only hope Steve's right.

It is sad to see that transit observers, many self-styled "progressives", declare a subway "not justified" because it will not result in much intensification along the route. Apparently, they think that convenience of the existing transit riders does not matter, and are only willing to serve future residents.

 

[Rainforest]

Anyway, John Tory will not cancel Scarborough Subway, because the original SLRT plan might conflict with his SmartTrack plan.

While the subway plan might compete with SmartTrack for riders, the SLRT plan will compete with SmartTrack for space n the Uxbridge sub corridor. John Tory can't know in advance if there is enough space for both; some engineering studies are needed to decide that.

Thus, if he cancelled Scarborough Subway, he would have to either take a risk that there isn't enough space; or, come up with a third plan. The latter would surely invite another set of political battles, no matter what that plan might be.

It is not a surprise at all that Tory prefers to retain all 3 major transit projects he inherited (Scarborough Subway, Finch LRT, and Sheppard LRT).

 

[TheTigerMaster]

The SSE has maxed out Toronto's debt limit. For ST to be built, toronto will need to take on more debt. There'll be a funding conflict. Not sure how they'll solve that.

ST will divert riders from SSE. Given that this years Council is identical to last year's Council, and that SSE was two votes from being defeated in 2013, ridership projections that are any lower could kill the SSE on Council floor.

 

[TheTigerMaster]

It is sad to see that transit observers, many self-styled "progressives", declare a subway "not justified" because it will not result in much intensification along the route. Apparently, they think that convenience of the existing transit riders does not matter, and are only willing to serve future residents.

SSE is not justified because:
1. It has very low usage
2. They're are more fiscally conservative, workable options

Given that ridership on SSE is so low, intensification is important.

It's for the same reasons that TYSSE, Line 4, Eglinton West Line and, up until recently, Yonge North and DRL have not been justified

 

[Palma]

http://theagenda.tvo.org/blog/agenda-blogs/steve-paikin-will-john-tory-scrap-scarborough-subway-line

One can only hope Steve's right.

The problem is that John Tory has stated his support for the Scarborough subway. If he had never done so, it would be a lot easier for him to cancel it and get on with building the LRT immediately. But if he cancels, he will be doing what he has accused politicians of doing in the past - undoing what was proposed. He has to somehow get the Scarborough subway integrated into SmartTrack and then build the LRT and market that Scarborough is getting all this transit and so many stops