saveoursubways (SOS)

[kEiThZ]

+1

I could compare this debate to a very Bush-esque "you're with us or against us."

That's only in your head. We've maintained from the beginning that the goal is not to target Steve Munro. It's to target the general public. Just because we vehmently disagree with Steve, does not mean that any of us don't wish him well or respect his broader advocacy on transit.

That some (like juan_lennon for example) have sought confrontation between SOS and Steve, does not necessarily mean that we see feel threatened by Steve or in competition with Steve.

 

[kEiThZ]

All we did was follow the RTES, a plan which the TTC themselves drafted, as a guideline. And it would be very likely that parts I and II of Phase I will be built in tandum, particularly the section of the Eglinton line from Jane to Pearson.

And speaking for myself for a moment, it was not my first priority to build two subways to STC. The fact of the matter is, the idea that SELRT should be built first is what forced our hand. It's too late to cancel all or part of the project and replace it with nothing. Something has to be done there now, so we're doing something. Same with the Bloor-Danforth extension. If the SRT wasn't due to be replaced, it wouldn't be at the top of the list either. But it is due to be replaced, so it needs to be dealt with first.

In an ideal world, I would have preferred the DRL and Eglinton first, and then B-D to STC, then Sheppard to STC. But we're not in an ideal world.

I would add that it's unfortunate that we can't share the debates we had inside the group but events have forced our hand. How do you present a competing vision that you know will be watered down in the end? If we went with half LRT in the plan, by the time it got watered down, we'd get Transit City. The goal was to show an alternative to Transit City. We fully understand and accept that not all of our plan will be accepted or implemented. We think that's reasonable and even acceptable.

For example, for Scarborough, I fully recognize that the SELRT is unlikely to be fully reversed. Fair enough. Personally, I'd like to see the BD line extended to STC and Sheppard extended to Agincourt. Then you can run LRTs on Progress and Sheppard East into Malvern. It's fairly good idea on price and a fairly reasonable compromise that respects the intent of TC and the service we envision. And that's something we would be willing to discuss with decision makers. However, I just don't believe you can start with a compromise and keep bidding lower. You have to start with a wholistic vision before you take a hatchet to it.

And I agree with gweed that the DRL should have been priority. Unfortunately, now that something's coming on Sheppard, we can't promise to axe ith with no other idea in place. It still blows my mind that Sheppard East is considered the city's foremost transit priority right now.

 

[nfitz]

All we did was follow the RTES, a plan which the TTC themselves drafted, as a guideline

I'd be interested to see that then ... all that has been presented is a summary document. Do you have a figure that is consisten with Exhibit ES-24 on page 38?

And it would be very likely that parts I and II of Phase I will be built in tandum, particularly the section of the Eglinton line from Jane to Pearson.

There are a lot of complaints that the $8-billion currently being spent is excessive. You'd need another $6.5-billion to build part II ... and you'd still not have a DRL. Given the current economic environment, why do you think this extra funding is very likely.

If you had simply replaced the SRT with a BD extension to Scarborough Centre, with one additional stop at Sheppard, and used the remaining money elsewhere (perhaps for a start of the DRL), then it would be a lot more believable.

My earlier comment on the $1.59-billion for the DRL Centre costing being very low in comparison with everything else hasn't been addressed, BTW. (and as I noted, the remaining costing all appears to be quite realistic).

 

[kEiThZ]

I think that when their study came out showing that what they were going to do with the currently committed funding (Phase I Part I) was to cancel the Finch West LRT, Sheppard East LRT, Eglinton LRT from Jane to Pearson, Eglinton LRT from Don Mills to Kennedy, and the SRT extension to Sheppard ... and simply replace it with not one, but two subway extensions to Scarborough Centre.

SOS isn't about subways ... it's about subways to Scarborough Town Centre ... anything else is just window dressing. If they would instead take that money and build a DRL I could see a point ... but to spend the money on two unnecessary subway extensions is just astounding ... and exposes them.

Perhaps we'll see if their plan improves any when they finalize it.

Oh what BS. Could please try harder to misrepresent our position?

Maybe you missed the part about the DRL or subway on Eglinton or the Hwy 27 BRT showpiece?

And how come you don't make the same critique of Transit City which sends 3 LRTs to Malvern? If Scarborough Town Centre is so bad, what do you call a plan which sends 1 LRT to a small suburban mall and 2 LRTs to an intersection containing an Esso, a Mr. Sub, a pool hall and the backyards of several single family homes? Even Malvernites are scracthing their head on that one.

 

[gweed123]

I'd be interested to see that then ... all that has been presented is a summary document. Do you have a figure that is consisten with Exhibit ES-24 on page 38?

There are a lot of complaints that the $8-billion currently being spent is excessive. You'd need another $6.5-billion to build part II ... and you'd still not have a DRL. Given the current economic environment, why do you think this extra funding is very likely.

If you had simply replaced the SRT with a BD extension to Scarborough Centre, with one additional stop at Sheppard, and used the remaining money elsewhere (perhaps for a start of the DRL), then it would be a lot more believable.

My earlier comment on the $1.59-billion for the DRL Centre costing being very low in comparison with everything else hasn't been addressed, BTW. (and as I noted, the remaining costing all appears to be quite realistic).

Again, you don't start with a watered-down plan, you usually just end up with one.

And as for the DRL, the initial cost estimate was using the rail corridor for the majority, it hadn't been changed to reflect the tunnelling from Queen and Broadview to Spadina. It should be in the neighbourhood of $2.16 billion. That section of the DRL doesn't count to the comparative cost to TC though, because the DRL from Pape to Spadina is not included in TC, nor is there any line resembling it that could be replaced. In otherwords, even if TC was built as planned, the DRL would have needed to be funded independently anyway. The full DRL from Spadina to the Science Centre should be $3.51 billion, with $1.35 billion of it from Danforth to SC, as was mentioned in the report.

 

[gweed123]

It should also be noted that with our cost estimates, we are trying to steer away from the trend of low-balling the construction costs until the project has been approved (à la nearly every TC line that has received funding thus far), and then jack up the price to a more realistic estimate after it has been approved. Strange that many of the costs have gone up by multiples of what they originally were, yet only 1 project has barely put a shovel in the ground.

 

[nfitz]

Maybe you missed the part about the DRL or subway on Eglinton or the Hwy 27 BRT showpiece?

I was discussing the $8-billion in funding that was available. The DRL isn't in that. And the remaining piece of Eglinton is in both your plan and Transit Cities ... well I guess they will be one traffic light at Leslie in their plan, but other than that, it's very similiar. Your's would have more expensive stations, more expensive signalling, and be less frequent ... but they are relatively comparable in cost.

And how come you don't make the same critique of Transit City which sends 3 LRTs to Malvern?

There is an east-west line on Sheppard, and two north-south lines that terminate at Sheppard. Would you prefer that they simply stop south of the 401?

 

[nfitz]

Again, you don't start with a watered-down plan, you usually just end up with one.

And if you end up with an over-cooked plan, you get nothing.

And as for the DRL, the initial cost estimate was using the rail corridor for the majority, it hadn't been changed to reflect the tunnelling from Queen and Broadview to Spadina. It should be in the neighbourhood of $2.16 billion.

That's about the same cost as building subways in the subways. Surely excavation costs downtown - particularily from Church to Spadina - are going to be much higher. And also won't the 3 interchange stations be expensive?

That section of the DRL doesn't count to the comparative cost to TC though, because the DRL from Pape to Spadina is not included in TC, nor is there any line resembling it that could be replaced.

No ... but surely this is what should be built first (with the centre of Eglinton) ... it has much more utility than either of the subways to Scarborough Centre.

 

[kEiThZ]

Hey,

At least we're not saying it's all or nothing (the deal that Scarborough councillors were offered for TC). If somebody doesn't like the order that our routes are being built, the routing or even the route proposal itself, they can change it. We aren't saying that Sheppard going first is absolutely vital to the plan. I'd be fine if they scrapped all of TC and simply advanced the DRL.

 

[gweed123]

And if you end up with an over-cooked plan, you get nothing.

Most plans do start off as being overcooked though. After seeing the Metrolinx RTP, I would be impressed if they manage to get even 1/2 of it built. It seems to be the going pattern in this city: plan for x number of lines, get half or 1/3 of them.

That's about the same cost as building subways in the subways. Surely excavation costs downtown - particularily from Church to Spadina - are going to be much higher. And also won't the 3 interchange stations be expensive?

I'm not an engineer, so I can't really say. I don't know to what degree it would be more expensive. So I think that in that case, assuming the standard $300 million/km is the best course. I think one of the cost-savings that could be implemented compared to suburban construction is the actual footprint of the stations. Urban stations can't really afford to be Cadillac stations, because there isn't enough room for them. The majority of them will likely be similar to the current downtown stations, with 4 connections to the 4 corners of the intersection, a small concourse (likely 2 though), and platform level. No grand hall for a concourse, no cathedral-like ceilings.

No ... but surely this is what should be built first (with the centre of Eglinton) ... it has much more utility than either of the subways to Scarborough Centre.

In an ideal world, I wouldn't disagree with you. If the SRT wasn't about to crap out on us, I would leave it until later on. If Sheppard wasn't about to be turned into a huge mistake, I would leave it until further on. In an ideal world, the DRL and Eglinton would be built at the same time, opening around the same time. These two lines alone would give a significant network improvement.

 

[SteveMunro]

Just a comment on which lines have shovels in the ground and why:

Sheppard was easy to start because there was some watermain work needed anyhow, and the grade separation at Agincourt has to happen for GO service expansion, LRT line or no. That's what is happening so far.

Eglinton is at the stage of a tender call on construction of the launch site shaft for the tunnel boring machines. The intent is to built this in fall 2010. The TBMs themself won't even arrive until 2011. There is a possibility that as an experiment one of the intersections on Eglinton West in the Richview corridor might be reconfigured with the new style left turns later this year to see whether this is actually practical. I myself have problems with the treatment of this part of the line, but with likely a different design response than SOS. The opportunity to incorporate the Richview Expressway lands into a redesigned Eglinton was lost here. In any event, I would prefer to see whether the proposed turn arrangements will actually work before we build a bunch of them.

Finch is in 2010 in the TTC's budget, but 2011 in Metrolinx due to "cash flow problems" with Queen's Park. The TTC is trying to get some preliminary work (bridge widening) done in 2010. Status uncertain today.

The SRT wasn't supposed to start for a few years, but may be pushed up due to the Pan Am Games.

You have to start somewhere, and Sheppard was the easiest location. This is not a question of top priority for one line, but that four projects are all aiming at 2015/6 timeframes.

PS: As some of you may know, I have been advocating that the Sheppard East line include the top end of the Malvern line down to UTSC to give a direct connection to that campus from Don Mills Station which, frankly, I think is a lot better than coming from Kennedy via Eglinton. Indeed, if this link were built, I doubt you would ever see the "Morningside LRT".

PPS: As some of you may also know, the Malvern line is highly unlikely to be built north of Sheppard because the SRT is supposed to go up there (this wasn't on the books when TC was originally announced), and even the SRT extension is on hold. Short term, all that will go to Malvern is bus routes. People who talk about three routes going to Malvern need to stay in touch with the way the TC proposals are actually evolving.

 

[gweed123]

Eglinton is at the stage of a tender call on construction of the launch site shaft for the tunnel boring machines. The intent is to built this in fall 2010. The TBMs themself won't even arrive until 2011. There is a possibility that as an experiment one of the intersections on Eglinton West in the Richview corridor might be reconfigured with the new style left turns later this year to see whether this is actually practical. I myself have problems with the treatment of this part of the line, but with likely a different design response than SOS. The opportunity to incorporate the Richview Expressway lands into a redesigned Eglinton was lost here. In any event, I would prefer to see whether the proposed turn arrangements will actually work before we build a bunch of them.

SOS has actually proposed using the Richview corridor along Eglinton for either cut-and-cover, trenching, or possibly even elevated (the latter being highly unlikely, as every TTC comment I have read on that subject has been just a step short of "no way in hell".). The main issue that I have with Eglinton is not so much subway vs LRT, it is the grade separation (or lack theirof in the western portion). I would be perfectly satisfied with a grade-separated LRT along the Eglinton corridor, and SOS is exploring that as part of our 'alternative options' section, to be released later.

The argument then becomes, if it is grade-separated already, and the tunnel is being built to subway specs, why not just make it a subway? My personal preference for the Richview corridor is a combination of cut-and-cover and trenched, similar to the Yonge line between Bloor and Eglinton.

 

[scarberiankhatru]

I would like to hear a response to scarberian's point that our current streetcar lines have a higher operating cost (and similar ridership) to many bus routes. I find this troubling. If I had to guess, it's because those figures take into account maintenance costs on our old and falling apart fleet of LRVs and possibly that more supervisors are required on the downtown lines to manage the schedule.

There could also be some questionable accounting going on. I don't know how accurate those numbers are. The ridership figures are updated sporadically...perhaps the other columns are, too. Queen runs 530 hours of service a day and costs $87000, while King runs 540 hours of service a day and costs $96000. What's going on here...are drivers getting paid differently at different times of the day? If it's maintenance, do certain streetcars ply only certain routes? If the numbers are wrong or misleading, why publish them without explanation?

If we're talking about routes like Finch East, where there's a near-comical abundance of buses on the road, yeah, we could theoretically start saving some money on operations via reduced labour. Oh, that's right, we've skipped Finch East's 60 peak buses, and Lawrence East's 41 peak buses, and Steeles East's 39 peak buses, and Wilson/Weston's 51.

Eglinton West runs 52 peak buses, and there's no question that the tunnelled LRT will be able to move more riders using less drivers, but the operational savings may not be the slam dunk some people are assuming. It's not like the new LRT lines won't need supervisors, especially if the promised signal/headway improvements are going to materialize. Where stations are built, how many collectors and janitors and security guards and so on will be needed? If, say, 26 drivers are 'saved,' but another 26 employees are added, that won't save much, especially since they'll probably be shifted to other routes. As for how many riders are added...we'll see.

What is ridiculous is the notion that only subway lines add to operating costs/subsidies. All of these LRT lines or bus improvements are going to 'lose money,' vast amounts in some cases. Since the Sheppard subway opened, how much money has the Steeles East bus lost? In the Spadina extension's first 5 years of operation, how much money will the Queen or King streetcar lose?

+1

I could compare this debate to a very Bush-esque "you're with us or against us."

-1

It's more about people falling for childish troll-bait. You've dragged Bush into it...why not reference the Nazis and offer up the thread's coup de grace?

People who talk about three routes going to Malvern need to stay in touch with the way the TC proposals are actually evolving.

You're forgetting that had other projects been proposed, what actually gets funded/built would have played out differently. Three routes to Malvern may not end up getting built, but it doesn't change the fact that three were proposed.

 

[RedRocket191]

Funny.

But I'd rather just move on thanks.

 

[scarberiankhatru]

Move on after taking a cheap shot, of course.