News   Sep 24, 2021
 1.2K     1 
News   Sep 24, 2021
 1.8K     3 
News   Sep 24, 2021
 1.8K     0 

TTC: Scarborough Subway Extension (formerly LRT replacement) (City of Toronto, Design Phase)

ARG1

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
May 28, 2020
Messages
1,243
Reaction score
3,241
Location
North Toronto
Part of me wishes that we just refurbished the SRT and left it a unreliable mess. Then used the money to just extend sheppard which I could have lived with. Either way in the end it’s easy to imagine people would complain that now they had to travel down busy Yonge and would demand that the SRT be converted to subway.
What we really should've done is refurbished the SRT and extended it west along Eglinton instead of building the Eglinton Crosstown.
The same transfer, connection to other LRT lines, worse, than current line,

There was no plan to interline with the Crosstown,
commas, hard to see point, when randomly placed, commas are

"There was no plan to throughrun with the crosstown". I honestly find that hard to believe. Transit City was an extension plan for the Toronto Streetcar system, where all lines would run on the at the time planned Flexity Outlook streetcars. The 7 proposed lines were less isolated lines and more brand new corridors to expand the network into. This is why stuff like Eglinton Crosstown were shown separately from Scarborough Malvern - unless you seriously want to tell me that they genuinely believed that continuing east of Kennedy, people would have to take a linear transfer from one Streetcar to Another (which honestly wouldn't surprise me one bit, but would still be hilariously stupid).

"Connection to other LRT lines". Are you suggesting that a benefit of the SLRT was other LRT lines being built? We are discussing the line's merits on its own, Eglinton Crosstown could've been built regardless of if its an SLRT or SRT, this point is moot, especially if "there was no plan to interline with the crosstown".

Come on, you can make an argument with complete sentences, its not that hard.
 

NoahB

Active Member
Member Bio
Joined
Jun 10, 2019
Messages
417
Reaction score
1,267
You've been on my ignore list for a while, with your alternate reality ramblings, still check out some of your posts for amusement.
The same transfer, connection to other LRT lines, worse, than current line,

There was no plan to interline with the Crosstown,
I do agree that have an interesting way of using commas. You also do not seem to be adding any data or conjecture to the conversation. Moving on...


And for people who are saying there was no plans to potentially convert the SRT to a streetcar here you go:
In order to achieve economies of scale in vehicle manufacturing and allow for integrated operation with other streetcar and possibly new LRT services, cost estimates are based on the acquisition of light rail vehicles (LRVs) that are similar, in most respects, to articulated replacement streetcars now being considered by the TTC. p45
The TTC was thinking that if they convert to LRT, it might as well be what they will be ordering for the wider streetcar network. They were even thinking of limiting the train size to 2-car tarins to accommodate possible street running portions outside the SRT corridor. (infer: future extensions)
Dimensions, aside from length, are approximately equivalent to the articulated streetcars now used by the TTC. In length they are assumed to be 28 metres in contrast to the 23 metre length of the TTC’s current ALRVs. Although estimates have been prepared both for 2-car and 3-car LRT trains, for operation “on-street” in mixed traffic or in segregated LRT lanes beyond the present Scarborough RT corridor, probably only the 2-car trains should be considered. p45
An interesting tidbit that the document theorized that it is possible to reduce the SRT/Subway transfer by rebuilding the LRT plan as well as the refurbishment plan at Kenedy to be at ground level or underground.
Relocation of the Kennedy Station to provide a double track, centre platform terminal also offers potential for improving the transfer between the subway and the RT by eliminating at least one (if the new terminal is constructed on the surface) or two levels (if the new terminal is constructed below grade and connects directly with the Kennedy Station platform of the Bloor-Danforth subway). The latter option requires study and analysis that is beyond the scope of this stud. p43
from the TTC's Scarborough RT Strategic Plan – Study Report FINAL REPORT August 2006
 

NoahB

Active Member
Member Bio
Joined
Jun 10, 2019
Messages
417
Reaction score
1,267
Again no numbers or sources but I see what you did there. Very original.
While ARG1 should have brought the docs to improve their case, most of what they said is available online to look up. For example, Translink studied BRT, LRT, and Skytrain for the Fraser Highway route and found the LRT/BRT would take 29min to travel it, while it would take 22min by Skytrain. Also, they found that the BRT/Skytrain hybrid would bring the most ridership and new riders.

Here's the doc for your convenience:
Surrey Rapid Transit Study Finding
 

Voltz

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Jan 26, 2008
Messages
1,672
Reaction score
523
While ARG1 should have brought the docs to improve their case, most of what they said is available online to look up. For example, Translink studied BRT, LRT, and Skytrain for the Fraser Highway route and found the LRT/BRT would take 29min to travel it, while it would take 22min by Skytrain. Also, they found that the BRT/Skytrain hybrid would bring the most ridership and new riders.

Here's the doc for your convenience:
Surrey Rapid Transit Study Finding
So I haven't looked at their proposals in detail, but how would that apply here? LRT or SRT here were identical routes, no difference in travel times,
 

sixrings

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Aug 19, 2009
Messages
4,768
Reaction score
2,001
While ARG1 should have brought the docs to improve their case, most of what they said is available online to look up. For example, Translink studied BRT, LRT, and Skytrain for the Fraser Highway route and found the LRT/BRT would take 29min to travel it, while it would take 22min by Skytrain. Also, they found that the BRT/Skytrain hybrid would bring the most ridership and new riders.

Here's the doc for your convenience:
Surrey Rapid Transit Study Finding
But what was the cost difference to achieve that faster route?
 

ARG1

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
May 28, 2020
Messages
1,243
Reaction score
3,241
Location
North Toronto

NoahB

Active Member
Member Bio
Joined
Jun 10, 2019
Messages
417
Reaction score
1,267
But what was the cost difference to achieve that faster route?
Disappointed in you...
Open the link. It showed the direct comparison in 2013 dollars. You can find the more current numbers by going to www dot google dot come on.
 

sixrings

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Aug 19, 2009
Messages
4,768
Reaction score
2,001
Disappointed in you...
Open the link. It showed the direct comparison in 2013 dollars. You can find the more current numbers by going to www dot google dot come on.
Ok I see the numbers are relatively close. But the numbers were not close in comparing the lrt conversion of the rt to what we are paying for the subway. So I don’t know how it’s comparable. This is all subjective but I think a 10-15% cost difference is minimal. But that isn’t what was going on in Toronto.
 

44 North

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Feb 8, 2010
Messages
3,590
Reaction score
2,033
Location
Ward 28
Disappointed in you...
Open the link. It showed the direct comparison in 2013 dollars. You can find the more current numbers by going to www dot google dot come on.

Reports like that are good. Converting to MKIII was a winner. But for the newer posters that don't know, what can a report like that not tell you? The sentiment during those many years. A resounding refrain that oftentimes overrode and trumped debates was that of "orphan technology". It wasn't an LRT or Toronto subway, it was different. You could point to all the stats, numbers, costs, and current example (Mk II in Van)...didn't matter. I know many of those same posters are fine using something different for OL, but back then it pretty much was Toronto subway/LRT or bust.
 

JSF-1

Active Member
Member Bio
Joined
Feb 27, 2018
Messages
567
Reaction score
1,100
Location
Woburn
Reports like that are good. Converting to MKIII was a winner. But for the newer posters that don't know, what can a report like that not tell you? The sentiment during those many years. A resounding refrain that oftentimes overrode and trumped debates was that of "orphan technology". It wasn't an LRT or Toronto subway, it was different. You could point to all the stats, numbers, costs, and current example (Mk II in Van)...didn't matter. I know many of those same posters are fine using something different for OL, but back then it pretty much was Toronto subway/LRT or bust.
Another issue is the poor performance of the ICTS trains during the winter months. It's not ideal when an entire line can be knocked out due to snow and ice build up on the reaction rail, which unfortunately for us in Toronto, snow and ice is an annual occurrence. There aren't really any solutions for this issue either, beyond constructing some sort of heating/de-icing system on the line which has obvious long-term maintenance costs. Or burying the entire line which has an obvious high up-front cost and really isn't an option when you dealing with a corridor like the SRT's.
 
Last edited:

syn

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Apr 26, 2007
Messages
5,147
Reaction score
3,345
At the time I understood why LRT was chosen. It offered (and I believe this was the case in studies), greater future expansion possibilities and more than enough capacity for a long, long time.

The SRT upgrade would've been the best route to go, but I could understand why an LRT made sense too.
 

syn

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Apr 26, 2007
Messages
5,147
Reaction score
3,345
Reports like that are good. Converting to MKIII was a winner. But for the newer posters that don't know, what can a report like that not tell you? The sentiment during those many years. A resounding refrain that oftentimes overrode and trumped debates was that of "orphan technology". It wasn't an LRT or Toronto subway, it was different. You could point to all the stats, numbers, costs, and current example (Mk II in Van)...didn't matter. I know many of those same posters are fine using something different for OL, but back then it pretty much was Toronto subway/LRT or bust.

I'd add that the debate really wasn't about technology at all. It was about 'respect for Scarborough', not being forced through the horror of making a transfer, etc.

An SRT upgrade would've not moved the needle in that regard.
 

NoahB

Active Member
Member Bio
Joined
Jun 10, 2019
Messages
417
Reaction score
1,267
Reports like that are good. Converting to MKIII was a winner. But for the newer posters that don't know, what can a report like that not tell you? The sentiment during those many years. A resounding refrain that oftentimes overrode and trumped debates was that of "orphan technology". It wasn't an LRT or Toronto subway, it was different. You could point to all the stats, numbers, costs, and current example (Mk II in Van)...didn't matter. I know many of those same posters are fine using something different for OL, but back then it pretty much was Toronto subway/LRT or bust.
I agree. The report does note that there was less enthusiasm for the SRT because of its uniqueness and also wrote that procuring rolling stock for it would be more expensive because of the orphan status. The political climate today (transit-wise) in Toronto is basically unrecognizable from 15 years ago.
 

ARG1

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
May 28, 2020
Messages
1,243
Reaction score
3,241
Location
North Toronto
So I haven't looked at their proposals in detail, but how would that apply here? LRT or SRT here were identical routes, no difference in travel times,
If you're going to ignore the entire discussion why are you even here? The problem with the SLRT is that its just a lower capacity version of the SRT.
 

Top