Automation Gallery
Superstar
Subways are to expensive and would take forever to build, SRTs are inconsistent and ugly. And all of a sudden you have the 3rd best, cheapest, and most mediocre system, Tram/Streetcar as King and the best for Toronto.
|
|
|
Fate of the SRT
- Thread starter Dan416
- Start date
Eug
Senior Member
LRT with dedicated right-of-way is definitely not the same thing as existing streetcars.Subways are to expensive and would take forever to build, SRTs are inconsistent and ugly. And all of a sudden you have the 3rd best, cheapest, and most mediocre system, Tram/Streetcar as King and the best for Toronto.
kettal
Banned
CodeMonkey
Active Member
Its seems more of a metro than a LRT. It gets its power from a third rail, and its automated like a ICTS/ART. In my opinion i would just call more of a "mini-metro" than a LRT.
CapitalSeven
Senior Member
Is it my imagination, or does the newly released presentation (June 2) on the SRT represent the worst bit of transit planning in recent memory? If transit line extensions didn't have clear beginnings and endings, one would hardly know where do start listing things that are wrong with this one.
To be fair, it starts of more or less well, by keeping the existing McCowan station instead of building a new one 100 meters away as they had actually considered at one point. But the Bellamy station proposed is more than a quarter mile from nearly all of the high-density development on Progress. Of course, there is a lot of under-used land around it that could be redeveloped, but they've stuck a massive maintenance yard on 600,000 square feet of it, with multiple curves and loops wasting a lot what would otherwise be valuable property, steps from a rapid transit stop.
At Progress and Markham theres no stop, despite developments on three corners and potential for more. The Centennial stop is on the west side of Progress, forcing its hundreds of users all to cross the street, but conveniently situated for easy pedestrian access to the 401 on-ramp. A new bridge shoots over the 401 and shoots millions of dollars at the same time, despite the existing Progress bridge having been built wide enough for a transit line to be added to it. Oh well, the Premier's paying, and we love redundant, overbuilt concrete structures in Ontario, don't we, the more the merrier.
Across the 401, they proceed to close a road and limit access to an existing development, and then true idiocy blossoms. Aside from a number of office buildings and a medium-density residential development, there are at least 750,000 square feet of parking lots and unused land at Progress and Milner, and the line tunnels under a parking lot right in the middle of all this. Yet for reasons known only to the planners, there is no station. This ought to be the easiest rapid transit station to build anywhere in the city. Widen the trench by 15 feet on either side for platforms, construct the station entrance at grade, and you're finished. Surely whoever owns the land would be happy to have an RT station in their basement; they'd probably agree to build the station for free, given the value it would add to the property. But no, not even under consideration.
Next is a one-mile, completely covered tunnel dug under empty land consisting of a rail corridor long set aside for transit use. The economics of that speak for themselves. One presumes that there are no utilities in the corridor and that the tunnel could be dug as a shallow trench and then covered over, but there is a problem where it crosses Highland Creek, and so page 25 of the presentation shows the top of the tunnel 10 meters below grade and 5 below the creek. It nearly beggars belief, but yes, it seems very possible that they will build a barely-justifiable light rail line under an empty rail corridor 30 metres wide using tunnel-boring machines.
The Sheppard station looks economical and convenient to use, but the terminus they're calling "Malvern Town Centre" merits a major prize for bafflingness. While the documents from last summer proposed alternatives on Neilson Road, now the station is at McLevin and Tapscott. Presumably this saves a few million dollars because it shortens the route by up to a third of a mile. Too bad it also renders the station nearly useless. Around McLevin and Tapscott are a couple of schools with a large playfield, some mall parking lot, some wooded greenspace, and a few dozen houses. Yet along and around Neilson are several high- and medium-rise buildings housing hundreds or thousands of people, most of whom will be more than a quarter-mile from the station.
The presentation shows a future extension of the line curving north up Neilson towards the railway tracks, meaning the densest bit of Malvern will never be properly served by this line. It's not that it couldn't be. The line could run south of the shopping centre, curve through the parking lot and around the west end of the mall, ending in a station just north along Neilson, or through the wooded area to a station in roughly the same place. A convenient feature of both of the vehicle options is that they have a small turning radius, so a station could be fairly close to Neilson, in the north parking lot, and still swing north in the center of the road. But the conceptual extension instead shows a wide curve across some empty land, with the first likely station in the vicinity of the railway, at least a third of a mile from the dense area around Sewells and Neilson.
It's been pointed out that the renderings show the Mark II vehicles rather than LRT cars. That may be because the city did officially opt for conversion to the Mark II a couple of years back, and although it's under review, that decision has not been formally unmade. It's worth pointing out that if LRT were chosen, it could be probably be serviced from the carhouse planned for the Sheppard east area, possibly with the present RT yard converted as a secondary facility. This would eliminate the need for the big yard at Bellamy that squanders that land's potential.
With a few exceptions, which I hope I've been fair about mentioning, the current plan seems to have been designed to both spend all of the money and to serve its supposed users as poorly as possible. They've cut corners in ways that seriously damage the line's usefulness, while at the same time over-engineering other parts to head off squawking about the construction and operational nuisance factors. Clearly the planning was driven by NIMBY-related concerns rather than transportation needs. The planners deserve some sympathy, because dealing with the public and politicians always entails some compromises that fly in the face of logic, but this plan isn't just damaged, it's an utter train wreck. I would say that they can't possibly intend to build something this poor, but I'm afraid they can and afraid they will.
To be fair, it starts of more or less well, by keeping the existing McCowan station instead of building a new one 100 meters away as they had actually considered at one point. But the Bellamy station proposed is more than a quarter mile from nearly all of the high-density development on Progress. Of course, there is a lot of under-used land around it that could be redeveloped, but they've stuck a massive maintenance yard on 600,000 square feet of it, with multiple curves and loops wasting a lot what would otherwise be valuable property, steps from a rapid transit stop.
At Progress and Markham theres no stop, despite developments on three corners and potential for more. The Centennial stop is on the west side of Progress, forcing its hundreds of users all to cross the street, but conveniently situated for easy pedestrian access to the 401 on-ramp. A new bridge shoots over the 401 and shoots millions of dollars at the same time, despite the existing Progress bridge having been built wide enough for a transit line to be added to it. Oh well, the Premier's paying, and we love redundant, overbuilt concrete structures in Ontario, don't we, the more the merrier.
Across the 401, they proceed to close a road and limit access to an existing development, and then true idiocy blossoms. Aside from a number of office buildings and a medium-density residential development, there are at least 750,000 square feet of parking lots and unused land at Progress and Milner, and the line tunnels under a parking lot right in the middle of all this. Yet for reasons known only to the planners, there is no station. This ought to be the easiest rapid transit station to build anywhere in the city. Widen the trench by 15 feet on either side for platforms, construct the station entrance at grade, and you're finished. Surely whoever owns the land would be happy to have an RT station in their basement; they'd probably agree to build the station for free, given the value it would add to the property. But no, not even under consideration.
Next is a one-mile, completely covered tunnel dug under empty land consisting of a rail corridor long set aside for transit use. The economics of that speak for themselves. One presumes that there are no utilities in the corridor and that the tunnel could be dug as a shallow trench and then covered over, but there is a problem where it crosses Highland Creek, and so page 25 of the presentation shows the top of the tunnel 10 meters below grade and 5 below the creek. It nearly beggars belief, but yes, it seems very possible that they will build a barely-justifiable light rail line under an empty rail corridor 30 metres wide using tunnel-boring machines.
The Sheppard station looks economical and convenient to use, but the terminus they're calling "Malvern Town Centre" merits a major prize for bafflingness. While the documents from last summer proposed alternatives on Neilson Road, now the station is at McLevin and Tapscott. Presumably this saves a few million dollars because it shortens the route by up to a third of a mile. Too bad it also renders the station nearly useless. Around McLevin and Tapscott are a couple of schools with a large playfield, some mall parking lot, some wooded greenspace, and a few dozen houses. Yet along and around Neilson are several high- and medium-rise buildings housing hundreds or thousands of people, most of whom will be more than a quarter-mile from the station.
The presentation shows a future extension of the line curving north up Neilson towards the railway tracks, meaning the densest bit of Malvern will never be properly served by this line. It's not that it couldn't be. The line could run south of the shopping centre, curve through the parking lot and around the west end of the mall, ending in a station just north along Neilson, or through the wooded area to a station in roughly the same place. A convenient feature of both of the vehicle options is that they have a small turning radius, so a station could be fairly close to Neilson, in the north parking lot, and still swing north in the center of the road. But the conceptual extension instead shows a wide curve across some empty land, with the first likely station in the vicinity of the railway, at least a third of a mile from the dense area around Sewells and Neilson.
It's been pointed out that the renderings show the Mark II vehicles rather than LRT cars. That may be because the city did officially opt for conversion to the Mark II a couple of years back, and although it's under review, that decision has not been formally unmade. It's worth pointing out that if LRT were chosen, it could be probably be serviced from the carhouse planned for the Sheppard east area, possibly with the present RT yard converted as a secondary facility. This would eliminate the need for the big yard at Bellamy that squanders that land's potential.
With a few exceptions, which I hope I've been fair about mentioning, the current plan seems to have been designed to both spend all of the money and to serve its supposed users as poorly as possible. They've cut corners in ways that seriously damage the line's usefulness, while at the same time over-engineering other parts to head off squawking about the construction and operational nuisance factors. Clearly the planning was driven by NIMBY-related concerns rather than transportation needs. The planners deserve some sympathy, because dealing with the public and politicians always entails some compromises that fly in the face of logic, but this plan isn't just damaged, it's an utter train wreck. I would say that they can't possibly intend to build something this poor, but I'm afraid they can and afraid they will.
Last edited:
EnviroTO
Senior Member
My thoughts as well. I honestly see Mark II vehicles being the worst option of all for the SRT. Subway would be the best option to SCC with LRT continuing to Malvern in a fully isolated ROW. LRT the whole way in a fully isolated ROW would be the second best option. Mark II vehicles to Malvern is close to the worst choice, slightly better than a subway extension to future Lake Ontario wind farm.
scarberiankhatru
Senior Member
LRT going NE from STC wouldn't even need to be in a fully isolated ROW (acronyms FTW!). Compared to the current craptacular plan, which is obscene in every detail and not just in cost, LRT could run along Corporate Drive (actually coming close to the large blob of towers), loop in front of Centennial (actually serving the campus, which is key since perhaps 25% of the extension's riders will be using it to go from STC to Centennial), make an actual stop at Milner, and so on. It add a few minutes to the trip for some people but it'd save time for others.
They're really throwing everything south of Sheppard to the wolves. What good is a faster trip from the middle of Malvern to STC if no one benefits downstream? Buses from Malvern could take the 401 and be at STC in 10 minutes. 19 minutes from McLevin to Kennedy...if they add GO service to the corridor that runs to the exact same spot, 19 minutes would take people from McLevin to Summerhill, or to Don Mills & Eglinton in maybe 14.
It's astounding how few people will really benefit from this extension.
edit - Also, all 130 or so houses along the rail corridor could be bought for less than $50M, removing NIMBYs from the equation...
Last edited:
waterloowarrior
Senior Member
this is madness
Why is the city building subways underground on reserved ROWs and dedicated light rail lines to Home Depots/backlotted SF homes, with both types of lines located at the outer edge of the city, yet still having streetcars stuck in mixed traffic on dense streets like Queen, King, Dundas, etc that deserve subways or at least their own ROW.... ?!?!
Why is the city building subways underground on reserved ROWs and dedicated light rail lines to Home Depots/backlotted SF homes, with both types of lines located at the outer edge of the city, yet still having streetcars stuck in mixed traffic on dense streets like Queen, King, Dundas, etc that deserve subways or at least their own ROW.... ?!?!
scarberiankhatru
Senior Member
Blame gentrification? Not enough priority neighbourhoods in central areas! Must add transit to priority neighbourhoods to solve socio-economic problems and youth violence and unemployment! The more money the better! *slams fist onto table*
kettal
Banned
Mcguinty thought there were enough votes in Malvern to justify it, and I guess that's what really matters.
scarberiankhatru
Senior Member
As if the Liberals have problems winning Scarborough-Rouge River...
LowerBay
Active Member
The answer is simple ...
There is no way to improve transit on King, Queen, or Dundas unless a subway is built, and Miller and Giambrone are anti-subway. It's up to the downtowners to vote them out.
There is no way to improve transit on King, Queen, or Dundas unless a subway is built, and Miller and Giambrone are anti-subway. It's up to the downtowners to vote them out.
kettal
Banned
That's strange, they've both voted in favour of the downtown subway in question.
LowerBay
Active Member
Suburban streetcars are their first priority, not a DRL or Queen Street Subway. Besides, there are fears that a new downtown subway would decimate the existing streetcar network south of Bloor, and of course, we can't lose our charming and beloved streetcars -- mainly because railfans don't get off on subways.
CodeMonkey
Active Member
I get a feeling that there is another reason to build a ART MKII system for the SRT other than it's possible the Eglinton-Crosstown could be a ART MKII. Or that Bombardier is behind the push.