Danforth Line 2 Scarborough Subway Extension

[OneCity]

Since about 2012, the entire transit plan for Toronto has been to achieve the goal of defeating Ford. You can't expect to get the best when this is your goal.

btw, I wonder what happened to that "subway safety" poster.
I was hoping that after receiving that questionable time-out we could get more information about her ideas.

I think that poster may have been here simply for proof she met with Ford and to make that known in case his admin ever implements any of her ideas in the future. Based on the lack of details provided and the dogs breakfast marketing adds she is using to sell her plan its reasonable to be skeptical. Reading back on some of her previous posts she seems a bit jaded from the past where she feels her idea may have been used without compensation.

I would have liked to have heard the details of the plan if you could have continued your discussion, but not all that convinced she would have shared. Bottom line I have no doubt shes has put work into her ideas, nothing looks earth shattering on the surface, but if there is anything worthwhile in the plan she desperately needs a spokesperson or marketing assistant.

 

[BurlOak]

I think that poster may have been here simply for proof she met with Ford and to make that known in case his admin ever implements any of her ideas in the future. Based on the lack of details provided and the dogs breakfast marketing adds she is using to sell her plan its reasonable to be skeptical. Reading back on some of her previous posts she seems a bit jaded from the past where she feels her idea may have been used without compensation.

I would have liked to have heard the details of the plan if you could have continued your discussion, but not all that convinced she would have shared. Bottom line I have no doubt shes has put work into her ideas, nothing looks earth shattering on the surface, but if there is anything worthwhile in the plan she desperately needs a spokesperson or marketing assistant.

I viewed her as similar to the rest of us on UT - not a profession business person in the business of promoting transit. I think she puts herself into the second category. In the first category, many of us have made grade-school looking sketches and maps, and proposed ideas that were not fully thought through. The idea is that you understand what the persons plan is, you ask them some questions, and make some suggestions for improvement.

 

[OneCity]

I viewed her as similar to the rest of us on UT - not a profession business person in the business of promoting transit. I think she puts herself into the second category. In the first category, many of us have made grade-school looking sketches and maps, and proposed ideas that were not fully thought through. The idea is that you understand what the persons plan is, you ask them some questions, and make some suggestions for improvement.

I agree for the most part. But she is certainly not the average UT poster when claiming to be sharing her ideas in meetings with the most powerful politician in the Province. That alone (true or not) creates some separation. I do think she was open to reasonable discussion, but her approach to getting her message out in this specific type of online environment certainly didn't help either.

 

[44 North]

Thankfully we'll no longer have to question such an ill placed transfer before the planned Central Growth node. The other transfers you mention are completely different in purpose and pushing the subway transfer(s)to Scarborough Centre make far more sense. Transferring at SCC make far greater sense.

The LRT didn't need to have a transfer and the BDL could have used the old corridor if there was a willingness of some outside councillors to find improvements or compromise. While the transfer was then main problem with the line, its not like there werent other glaring issues as the alignment runs along a unpopulated rail corridor. Once the stops are added it will be more than a solid piece of infrastructure, it will be great. Unfortunate a few outside councillors choose not to care what many residents here thought about for the transfer placement or the dis-jointed, out of place line or the greater concerns on Sheppard. Improvements and compromise could have been found and was certainly offered. Transit City was a very flawed transit plan.

Fair enough re: your view on connected centres, tho think keeping Line 3 but extending Line 4 to SC could achieve similar goals of perceived 'connectedness'. Either that or Ford-McGuinty MOU. And yeah I'm certainly not a big fan of TC's SLRT. An overly drawn-out, costly, backward-thought solution to a relatively simple one: just upgrade/extend Line 3 like planned since the 90s.

 

[syn]

Fair enough re: your view on connected centres, tho think keeping Line 3 but extending Line 4 to SC could achieve similar goals of perceived 'connectedness'. Either that or Ford-McGuinty MOU. And yeah I'm certainly not a big fan of TC's SLRT. An overly drawn-out, costly, backward-thought solution to a relatively simple one: just upgrade/extend Line 3 like planned since the 90s.

I think the difficulty with that plan is that it didn't offer the potential for future expandability that a modern LRT does.

 

[syn]

Since about 2012, the entire transit plan for Toronto has been to achieve the goal of defeating Ford. You can't expect to get the best when this is your goal.

btw, I wonder what happened to that "subway safety" poster.
I was hoping that after receiving that questionable time-out we could get more information about her ideas.

Really?

And what was Ford's goal?

 

[BurlOak]

Really?

And what was Ford's goal?

Connect STC to the core.
Pretty reasonable demand considering connecting Vaughan to the core was already done.

 

[syn]

Connect STC to the core.
Pretty reasonable demand considering connecting Vaughan to the core was already done.

But that wasn't Ford's goal.

His goal was to end the "War on the Car".

For him transit was nothing more than a way to make things easier for drivers and a political tool to appeal to his base. It had nothing to do with actually expanding transit in a sensible and responsible way that was best for transit users.

Pretending otherwise is revisionist nonsense.

 

[Rainforest]

Yeah but define greatly, because on the whole we're really just talking about the removal of a transfer here.

IMO, removing the transfer is pretty significant, if we consider the overall trips. If someone has to take a bus first, then transfer to SRT/LRT, then again to Line 2, and then yet again either to Line 1 to reach downtown or to a bus to reach some other destination - that's time-consuming and tedious.

Now I don't want to be lumped in with other posters, or pigeonholed into being some anti-Scarboro anti-subway person. Far from it. Line 2 or Line 4 extensions in Scarb are generally fine, however abandoning something like Line 3, its current stations, and a somewhat protected ROW for extension... not so much. IMO at least. That's solid infrastructure.

Transit building is always about trade-offs. Yes it is somewhat regrettable that the Line 3 ROW will be abandoned; and I wouldn't mind to place the subway inside that ROW rather than under McCowan.

On the other hand, space released in the Uxbridge Corridor with the Line 3 removal, might prove useful for enhancing the GO / RER service.

Regardless we are just talking about a transfer. Similar could be said of Sheppard/Yonge, St George, Bloor/Yonge, future RL transfer @ Pape,

When two lines intersect at nearly right angle, normally it will result in a transfer. Serving all 6 source-destination pairs with one-seat rides becomes impractical.

However in case of SSE, we are aiming at eliminating a "linear" transfer at Kennedy.

or if instead of TYSSE we put a line-to-line transfer at Downsview to another separate subway line (not unlike Line 2-Line 3). Had we done the latter in that list would it really "greatly" improve connectivity between NW North York + Vaughan, or just be a somewhat minor inconvenience? Likely the latter since it's just a transfer, and at the end of the day you still get a subway - one with more stations to boot.

That's a bit hypothetical, as the line is already built. I suppose a transfer-free connection is always more convenient than a transfer. I guess Finch West LRT would be less appealing if the riders heading towards the core had to transfer to one subway at Finch / Keele, and then transfer again at Sheppard.

 

[Rainforest]

Revisionist nonsense is the attempt to turn the debate about SSE into a debate about the two Fords. When all 3 major political parties support this subway extension, as so does the majority of local elected officials.

 

[Streety McCarface]

I think the difficulty with that plan is that it didn't offer the potential for future expandability that a modern LRT does.

The only difference in "expandability" between the ICTS and LFLRV technology is that ICTS has to be grade separated because of the presence of a third rail, and with both the LRT plan and the ICTS upgrade plan, the extension to Malvern was planned to be grade separated on a viaduct, so changing technologies makes absolutely no sense here.

I have said this before and I'll say it again, this corridor is not right for LRT. It can work for an ICTS upgrade or a subway extension, but "upgrading" to an LRT is expensive and solves nothing. I'd rather see a LFLRT be built on Lawrence, Steeles or Jane before the SRT is replaced with that, it doesn't make much sense for grade separated corridors. I've never really agreed with the argument that LFLRT is flexible, because on fully grade separated corridors (ie the Scarborough viaduct or the Eglinton tunnel), being a Low Floor vehicle is useless. You still need to use stairs or an elevator to get to the platform, so why sacrifice space and speed for compatibility, especially when all the parts necessary for running a successful line (the SRT) are already in place? I'll admit, for short tunnel sections (like the St Clair or Spadina tunnels), it's nice to have some grade separation on the streetcars and wouldn't mind it for any LRT line, including the Finch West LRT, but when you're basically building a subway like you are on Eglinton or MRT on the SRT line, why use Low floor vehicles?

 

[syn]

I see. So would you be comfortable with future transit expansion in Scarborough using ICTS vehicles?

 

[Bureaucromancer]

I see. So would you be comfortable with future transit expansion in Scarborough using ICTS vehicles?

Don't know about above psoter, but politics aside GO-ALRT (though not strictly ICTS) was a damned good program. I'd be very comfortable conceptually with ICTS so long as elevated is allowed and we aren't duplicating transit city 1 for 1.

 

[Streety McCarface]

I see. So would you be comfortable with future transit expansion in Scarborough using ICTS vehicles?

Along the existing SRT? Yes, since it pretty much guarantees grade separation and high floor platforms. Of course, my fiscally liberal preference is a subway, but I can settle for ICTS upgrades along Line 3. Eglinton East makes sense as an LRT because the crosstown is an LRT and no transfer is required.

 

[BurlOak]

Along the existing SRT? Yes, since it pretty much guarantees grade separation and high floor platforms. Of course, my fiscally liberal preference is a subway, but I can settle for ICTS upgrades along Line 3. Eglinton East makes sense as an LRT because the crosstown is an LRT and no transfer is required.

Do we even know if they are planning Eglinton continuous through Kennedy Station. I thought the circa 2010 plan was for Eglinton from the East, Eglinton from the West, and SRT from the north to all end at Kennedy Station?