Officially Unofficial Metrolinx Regional Transportation Plan Thread

[dowlingm]

Insert chill pill here

 

[nfitz]

If you want to pursue this exercise, why not try costing one of the actual proposed networks that people have posted in this thread, rather than a straw man of your own creation?

Wow, your accusing me of making straw men? When I comment something will cost $6 billion, and you attack me for saying it will cost $60 billion?

For example, DRL on Queen Street?

Who said DRL on Queen Street? I didn't say DRL on Queen Street - this is an example of a straw man argument. In an earlier post, I detailed how it went along the CN alignment, and Front Street.

You've not taken into account any of the suggestions made for cost savings (less Taj Mahaly stations, examination of single-bore tunnels, etc.)[/QUOTE]As far as I understand the geology, single-bore tunnels aren't a great option, given the extra-wide Toronto subway trains, compared to many cities (London, Paris, Montreal, Vancouver). Less Taj Mahaly stations? Taj Mahaly stations in Toronto? Where? Make them any less Taj Mahaly, and they'll look like mine tunnels

Likewise, a Don Mills subway would be elevated.

Leaving aside that an elevated Don Mills subway would by definition not be a subway ... would one really want to start building an elevated line using existing TTC technology? Would'nt SRT technology be more suitable?

Most of the Transit City lines that you propose as subway would be built on the surface, as well.

The only Transit City lines I've seen mentioned as subway are Pape south of O'Conner, the bottom of Jane, and parts of Eglinton between Black Creek (or thereabouts) to Laird.

 

[nfitz]

Nobody is proposing a Jane subway or a Kingston subway or a Morningside subway or a waterfront subway, etc.

Of course they aren't - it would be silly. But people are proposing to kill Transity City entirely for the sake of just building subway lines in North York and Scarborough.

When your *entire* justification behind claiming Transfer City is perfect as is and subways are unaffordable

Are you a moron? Why do you make such stupid comments that fail to reflect what has been said? I've suggested where other subways be built. I've suggested that a certain Transit City route may make more sense being partially subway. I've suggested that any new subways for streetcars be constructed to be convertible. Why are you so hostile to someone simply because they don't 100% believe in what you say.

You are a troll.

 

[DENTROBATE54]

nfitz: my distances are correct for the most commonly agreed upon alignments, but you are free to pore over various fantasy maps for lengthier alignments to add bulk to your straw man.
Nobody is proposing a Jane subway or a Kingston subway or a Morningside subway or a waterfront subway, etc. When your *entire* justification behind claiming Transfer City is perfect as is and subways are unaffordable and unnecessary rests on an exact length of subways vs an exact length of LRT, why fudge the math?

Frankly, you're BOTH wrong !

Nfitz- while I feel your skepticism about subway expansion your calculations aren't remotely based in reality. You can't just take the cost per kilometre of LRT then multiply it by 200 million. A stronger case for pro-LRT (and BRT) over pro-subway is to note the lengthy time between planning stage and completion stage of subways, getting sponsorship and governmental funding, questioning whether change of gov't equates change of transit priorities, EA of planned routes and seeing if alternative technologies are more fiscally responsible options, taking note of lack of node intensification around planned subways, etc. I'd rather see no new subways than to see it go into places that 80% of the 416 won't use on a daily basis, but you won't convince a soul of that if you don't sound intelligent. Fight for your POV, but do so articulately !

Scarberian- Comparing the value of subways vs. LRT/BRT is apples and oranges. What makes you think spending 90 mins on a subway line stopping in excess of 40 times (MCC-SCC), I don't know when obviously express buses via highways could do the job in half. You can't simply market a Torontonian subway to the entire GTA region. And if that is your intention what is the rest of the 416 not within the BD, YUS, "stubway" catchment? Chopped liver?

A city-wide network needs to be implemented like last week. Subways obviously can't do it so why not let LRT/BRT take over? Western Canada got into the mass transit game late and forwent building subways altogether. Now Calgary, Edmonton and Vancouver have some of the best transit infrastructures in the country. Even YRT/VIVA is doing a better job than Toronto at the moment and they're doing it irregardless of running half-empty buses. The sTTingy C's method of providing less for more has got to stop, because at the end of the day the trend shift away from transit is primarily due to inadequate scheduling moreso than whether it's a bus, train, streetcar, swanboat running past your house!

The difference in cost between a tunneled Eglinton LRT and a full subway (that would run on the surface in the Richview corridor and much of Scarborough) would most certainly not be multiplied by 5-10 times. The "subway fans" you're arguing with don't even all agree that an Eglinton subway should be built, anyway.

An Eglinton subway can definitely be built for the same amount of money as the LRT option. While the Golden Mile will have to be tunneled (unless you plan on using the vacated SRT terminal once BD's extended), the Richview expressway lands remain largely untouched and could alot at grade or elevated ROW for subway cars. Note too that the TTC's definition of subway cars need not apply to this line as it'll be independent of existing lines, hence new slimmer/slicker models.

Based on your posts, you're a fan of 1) disagreeing and 2) whatever the TTC or the city thinks should be built. The city/TTC says over $2 billion worth of transit should be built to Malvern (but not actually go to Malvern) instead of spending a shade over $1 billion on a subway extension and another $X hundred million on an LRT somewhere in Scarborough...this is in addition to improved GO lines, mind you. If you honestly agree with this, you've clearly never been to Scarborough and do not have a grasp of what's in the best interest of the city.

Sheppard East LRT should be built, the ROW up Morningside however should terminate at UTSC (I know, more of a transfer city if stopped at Ellesmere but bloody hell when will the have/have-not dichotomy subside and rationality of slashing bus trips in half begin?)

 

[unimaginative2]

Wow, your accusing me of making straw men? When I comment something will cost $6 billion, and you attack me for saying it will cost $60 billion?

What on Earth are you talking about? You posted your $60 billion subway plan just a couple posts ago. You've mentioned the $60 billion figure about a dozen times. Now you're trying to pretend that you never did?

Who said DRL on Queen Street? I didn't say DRL on Queen Street - this is an example of a straw man argument. In an earlier post, I detailed how it went along the CN alignment, and Front Street.

You did: "DRL from Pape, down to Queen, and across up to Jane"
Or is this one of those typos where I'm supposed to divine what you actually mean?

Less Taj Mahaly stations? Taj Mahaly stations in Toronto? Where? Make them any less Taj Mahaly, and they'll look like mine tunnels

Yup. As I've mentioned just about a hundred times, the TTC puts in completely redundant mezzanines, even at stations that would never see traffic congestion that would warrant it, and where land is easily available to handle all the fare collection on the surface.

Leaving aside that an elevated Don Mills subway would by definition not be a subway ... would one really want to start building an elevated line using existing TTC technology? Would'nt SRT technology be more suitable?

We're talking about subway technology. I can't think of another term to describe it. Do you really want me to say "subway technology" every time? SRT would not be more suitable, for capacity reasons, but mostly because it would then be discontinuous north and south of Danforth. The whole thing should be the same technology with no unnecessary transfers. Proven subway technology.

The only Transit City lines I've seen mentioned as subway are Pape south of O'Conner, the bottom of Jane, and parts of Eglinton between Black Creek (or thereabouts) to Laird.

Yes, yes, I am aware. I was talking about you imagining the Transit City lines all built as subways. If they were to use the subway technology, many of them would (or at least should) still be built on the surface.

Of course they aren't - it would be silly. But people are proposing to kill Transity City entirely for the sake of just building subway lines in North York and Scarborough.

This is amusing considering your shrill comments below. I don't know how many times it can be repeated to you: nobody is trying to kill Transit City in its entirety for a couple subway lines in North York and Scarborough. I know it would be a lot easier for you to criticize them if they were, but people are trying to build Sheppard East as a subway, from STC to North York Centre, and replace the unnecessary Morningside LRT and Scarborough RT extension with a subway to Town Centre. Very simple, much more useful, and only marginally more expensive.

Are you a moron? Why do you make such stupid comments that fail to reflect what has been said? I've suggested where other subways be built. I've suggested that a certain Transit City route may make more sense being partially subway. I've suggested that any new subways for streetcars be constructed to be convertible. Why are you so hostile to someone simply because they don't 100% believe in what you say.

You are a troll.

nfitz, I think you need to take a deep breath, calm down, and read what other people have written. Actually respond to what they've written.

 

[scarberiankhatru]

dentrobate: no one will force you to ride from Mississauga to Scarborough on the subway; I doubt it'll ever get built that far, anyway. As if I need to state yet again that spending a few billion on all-day both way GO service would be the most beneficial thing we can do in the short term.

Wow, your accusing me of making straw men? When I comment something will cost $6 billion, and you attack me for saying it will cost $60 billion?

$60 billion is your estimate for a subway plan that you think others want when, in fact, no one does.

Less Taj Mahaly stations? Taj Mahaly stations in Toronto? Where? Make them any less Taj Mahaly, and they'll look like mine tunnels.

Ever been on the Sheppard subway? The stations are genuinely palatial. So is Downsview. These stations, being the most recent built ones, will invariably inspire the design of future stations, resulting in plain old wasted money.

Leaving aside that an elevated Don Mills subway would by definition not be a subway ... would one really want to start building an elevated line using existing TTC technology? Would'nt SRT technology be more suitable?

"By definition not be a subway"...sure you don't want to rethink that one?

The RT has been a terrible failure...why would it be better to have more of it? A DRL would have ridership beyond what the RT could handle, anyway.

The only Transit City lines I've seen mentioned as subway are Pape south of O'Conner, the bottom of Jane, and parts of Eglinton between Black Creek (or thereabouts) to Laird.

That's not what he means. He means that if one were to build subways at Morningside & Sheppard or Jane & Finch, long stretches of them would be built at the surface, not tunneled, further reducing your 5-10 times multiplier.

Of course they aren't - it would be silly. But people are proposing to kill Transity City entirely for the sake of just building subway lines in North York and Scarborough.

Doady proposed to replace parts of Transfer City with equivalently priced subway projects that would "just" serve 2 million people in North York, Scarborough, and downtown. He did not propose to eat your children or spend $60 billion...no one did.

Are you a moron? Why do you make such stupid comments that fail to reflect what has been said? I've suggested where other subways be built. I've suggested that a certain Transit City route may make more sense being partially subway. I've suggested that any new subways for streetcars be constructed to be convertible. Why are you so hostile to someone simply because they don't 100% believe in what you say.

You are a troll.

Yes, yes, I'm a moronic, hostile troll, and you are a martyr of calm and reason. You win! Your prize is getting to ride the Morningside streetcar all the way downtown. Better bring a book.

 

[allabootmatt]

Hate to get in the middle of a good argument, but...

Once in a while we here at UT do try our hands at some real-world advocacy. The letter I sent to the Mayor and councillors regarding DRL last year did get a response, so that's something I guess, even if it was not exactly receptive. BUT, with the Metrolinx public consultation ongoing, I think we should be trying to get into the debate as much as possible. I submitted a lengthy comment on the RTP report discussing the need for an east-west or NE-E/W-NW rapid transit link south of Bloor, and will get in on the other stuff too.

But since we can (almost) all agree that the biggest flaw in Transit City is the lack of help for the city south of Bloor, let's try to get that viewpoint into the consultations as much as possible. Sound good?

 

[unimaginative2]

I agree, allabootmatt. I've already sent some letters. I also think that the Scarborough RT extension and renovation is deeply flawed, considering it will cost just as much as replacing the whole thing with a subway, and benefit far fewer people.

Ever been on the Sheppard subway? The stations are genuinely palatial. So is Downsview. These stations, being the most recent built ones, will invariably inspire the design of future stations, resulting in plain old wasted money.

I'd actually totally rather have Downsview than the Sheppard stations. Not only does it look 1,000 times better, but it also doesn't have a useless full-length mezzanine.

 

[RedRocket191]

Allaboutmatt

Thanks for reminding us of the whole reason why I started this thread.

Word on the street is that we'll see a concept transit map to go with the Metrolinx Green Paper on Transit in the next little while. Why don't we wait and see what that brings before we debate what should go where?

 

[scarberiankhatru]

I'd actually totally rather have Downsview than the Sheppard stations. Not only does it look 1,000 times better, but it also doesn't have a useless full-length mezzanine.

Downsview has a huge mezzanine.

 

[DENTROBATE54]

Wow, your accusing me of making straw men? When I comment something will cost $6 billion, and you attack me for saying it will cost $60 billion?

Who said DRL on Queen Street? I didn't say DRL on Queen Street - this is an example of a straw man argument. In an earlier post, I detailed how it went along the CN alignment, and Front Street.

Saying that doing over every line proposed in Transit City would cost ten times as much if done as subways instead of LRT isn't a straw man, more of a slippery slope. None of which matters anyway since for that much money you could route a subway all the way to Montreal.

Routing the DRL along Queen/King instead of the rail corridor benefits more people and makes the inner city more accessible.

Downsview has a huge mezzanine.

Indeed, a digusting waste of taxpayer's dollars.

 

[unimaginative2]

Downsview has a huge mezzanine.

Not full-length, covering the whole track and platform area. Moreover, it makes more sense since it was built to be a major interchange and terminal station. Bessarion's huge mezzanine is completely unnecessary. Why not just make the platform area double height? At least that would make it more attractive, something I wholeheartedly support. As it stands, these mezzanines are just vast, vacant space.

 

[scarberiankhatru]

I think Bessarion's mezzanine is smaller than Downsview's, but it's still bigger than it needs to be...this is indisputable. Leslie's platform should have been double height and super-airy, but Bessarion runs right under Sheppard, preventing such things as skylights. Don Mills station is also overbuilt.

 

[Dan416]

I have no problem with overbuilt subway stations. It's a one-time expense so it's not so bad. It might cost a bit more for heating/lighting, but that cost can't be more than marginal.

As for costs of all these things, I wish I knew how to cost out my proposal. As I've said before, I think the priorities are:

1. Get rid of the SRT and run the subway to STC.
2. Finish Sheppard Subway. You should always finish what you start.

After that I think it's less clear

e.g. should Eglinton be subway or underground LRT? My preference is subway, but some believe an LRT with a possible upgrade to subway is sufficient (but why not just make it subway now then?)

As for the DRL, I think it's a very important project, especially since I think downtown really needs more subway lines, and the Yonge and University lines could be bypassed (since Yonge is busier, build the Eastern DRL first).

Dundas and Hurontario subways in Mississauga really depend on Mississaugans willingness to pay for them, not really whether you Torontonians think they're deserved or not. As much as I might like to, I can't force subways on Mississauga, especially with a mayor not interested in running a subway that would be money-losing for a good while. We're already pursuing an LRT on Hurontario. If that proves to be very busy, I think we'll seriously be looking at putting a subway underneath when it becomes necessary. Just like Yonge used to have a streetcar, correct?

 

[nfitz]

You can't just take the cost per kilometre of LRT then multiply it by 200 million.

No, of course not. My position is simply that your not going to get subway tunnel for less than $200 million per kilometre. The Spadina extension is $232 million per kilometre in 2006 dollars

What on Earth are you talking about? You posted your $60 billion subway plan just a couple posts ago.

I posted that simply to counter the earlier comment that you can't mean $60 billion, that would mean over 200 km of subway - and I simply was demonstrating that 200 km of subway wasn't infeasible to actually put in. Totally unnecessary ... but not infeasible - I'd never suggest building it. If you actually read the post, that was clear.

You did: "DRL from Pape, down to Queen, and across up to Jane" Or is this one of those typos where I'm supposed to divine what you actually mean?

???? I have no idea why you interpret this as a Queen subway. The DRL proposal was Pape down to Queen, and then west, bending onto Eastern, the CNR, and Front. I simply was following the existing route. Obviously from Pape/Queen the alignment follows the DLR proposal, along Eastern, the CNR, and Front to Spadina - after which there wasn't a firm proposal for the later phase. I don't understand the need for such nit-picking and obtusity.

Yup. As I've mentioned just about a hundred times, the TTC puts in completely redundant mezzanines, even at stations that would never see traffic congestion that would warrant it, and where land is easily available to handle all the fare collection on the surface.

I haven't really seen those discussions. But compared to any other city I'm familiar with, I find TTC mezzanines miniscule, and under-sized. Most shocking is that you have multiple entrances to a station that lead to multiple entry points, resulting in patrons constantly arriving at a station and not being able to get through unmanned entrances. I've not really seen this in other systems, with larger mezzanines.

SRT would not be more suitable, for capacity reasons, but mostly because it would then be discontinuous north and south of Danforth. The whole thing should be the same technology with no unnecessary transfers.

I don't disagree - but where does it end. Sure you need subway from downtown to (say) Pape ... and perhaps even up to (say) Eglinton. But will the load north of Eglinton support subway anytime soon? Perhaps? North of Lawrence? Maybe. North of Sheppard? North of Steeles? Where does it end? Your not going to build a subway from Queen to Newmarket in one shot. Somewhere you need to transition the technology, so you don't end up with the bulk of the km, using some totally oversized system. SRT is nice, as it moves faster than subway - but it does seem a bit of waste of technology, and you'd likely have to transition again somewhere. LRT is easier - isn't such an issue when 20 or 40 years in the future someone tunnels subway beneath a few kilometres of it. Where does the subway transition to LRT? I don't know ... Pape? Eglinton? O'Connor?

nobody is trying to kill Transit City in its entirety for a couple subway lines in North York and Scarborough.

If so, I'll shut up - I thought I'd seen suggestions to that effect. The unnecessary "Transfer City" comments by some suggest otherwise.

... and replace the unnecessary Morningside LRT and Scarborough RT extension with a subway to Town Centre.

I'll stay out of Morningside - I'm the first to admit I don't know the area well enough - and if it makes more sense to spend the money on Kipling, Bathurst, or Dufferin then I'm all in favour. But building a subway to STC doesn't replace an RT extension. It replaces the RT - you still need something else to replace the extension. If your going to bother to build the subway all the way to STC, isn't one more stop to get away from your node a good thing?

Very simple, much more useful, and only marginally more expensive.

The subway to STC is not going to be marginally more expensive than upgrading the SRT from Kennedy to McCowan. The estimate (in 2006$) for upgrading the SRT ranged from $353 million to $527 million depending if you if you went for 4 or 6-car trains; and how Kennedy got reconstructed. The subway option was $1,220 million - 2.3 to 3.5 times more expensive. This isn't marginally more expensive. And you call my estimates into question?