44 North
Senior Member
The Schabas plan is exactly the type of compromise plan that should have been pursued. IIRC, cost wise the "Scarborough Subway" was equivalent in cost to a Wye Proposal along with an elevated Eglinton line.
There were a few details I did not agree with.
- He had the line going above highway 404. Due to the depth of the Don Mills Station, the grade to highway 404, and the proximity, it had to go under 404 similar to the LRT and Subway extension plans.
- I would have continued the line elevated along Sheppard to Agincourt. From there is could curve south toward Midland Station. I guess you could keep 401 in your pocket in case there is resistance, but I am quite sure that residents along that stretch would quickly support an elevated line when they realized the option is a detour along 401 and not underground through their neighbourhood.
- I don't think Schabas had enough detail, but I sketched it out and I think the Agincourt Branch would not stop at Midland Station. The southerly branch could still stop at Midland, or it could be abandoned. I think I had an option of coming down Midland, or going along the Markham GO and West Highland Creek.
- I would extend the terminus to Morningside/Finch if a Crosstown GO ever becomes reality.
- I also considered a (future) branch from Centennial to UTSC.
- If the SRT stops at Kennedy and is not connected to the Eglinton line, it would be a bit over $1B to extend the subway along Eglinton to meet the LSE GO and future Kingston Road BRT.
Well there's no question for me that light metro technology can be extremely appropriate for certain post-war suburban environs, and that one of the reasons it was dreamt up was to fill the niche between streetcars and ungodly expensive heavy rail subways. But is it better than in-median LRT or heavy rail subways? All have merits, all have drawbacks.
One of the biggest issues with such a system is incompatibility or proprietary-ness. Though one recurring idea I've had is to use the Flexity LRV for this kind of system, but as a stripped-down version of its street-running counterpart. This could reduce weight, reduce vehicle costs, reduce operating costs, possibly allow for 3rd rail power - but still permit the vehicles to share parts/shops with the standard Flexity. I'm not a mechanical engineer or train guy, but I believe that if the Flexity underwent this kind of reverse-engineering then the SRT's elevated guideway would not have to rebuilt (which is probably one of the costliest components of its conversion for LRVs).
Obviously the vehicle would be 'orphan' when compared with the rest of TTC's future fleet, but considerably less orphan than if it were MkI or II, or some newly bought manufacturer's trains.
The choice is simple if you ask me. Should we be building transit lines that serve neighbourhoods?
Or transit lines that run next to highways and industrial parks?
This proposal represents one the worst aspects of the SRT that nobody likes (which is the alignment), and doubles down on it. Hardly anyone lives next to any the new stations, there are no city-building or streetscape improvement opportunities, it doesn't connect to the Stouffville line, and there are limited redevelopment opportunities. The only good thing that can be said is that it's a faster trip between Yonge & STC, but on the occasions when I have to make such a trip, the GO bus will always be the fastest option.
No doubt. And I don't agree really with Schab's idea of running it over the 401. I guess I wanted to gauge opinion from Kiethz and Coffey1 if Scarboro were willing to sacrifice optimal location of service that comes with a disjointed LRT plan for something that offers more integration and subway-like speed/reliability that comes with light metro technology. If hypothetically Toronto planners worked off this plan I think they'd inevitably support keeping the line on Sheppard between Don Mills and Kennedy (albeit with the added cost/headache of trying to push through a system designed to be most cost-effective when not underground).
Somewhat related, but I think all these plans seem to point to an overall underlying problem with Scarb transit planning. That is, trying to make the whole thing work (while keeping the SRT's original alignment and STC's oddball location). It's a real challenge - whether with subway or light rail. This I think speaks to the problems of servicing an inorganic centre. Whether it's with Sauga or SCC: if it was placed in a hard to reach location it should come as no surprise that it will be...hard to reach.
Explain to me something: Everybody always shits all over the rt because they complain that the route services nothing and goes through an industrial wasteland.
The route was picked long before the technology ever was. It would have been just as shitty if it was streetcars running along it.
So who picked the route? Why is it so bad? Did people bitch in 1985?
People most definitely did complain in 1985. I think one big problem was accessibility for those with mobility issues. On Steve Munro or TransitToronto there are some scanned articles about its inauguration, which I believe have comments from Scarboro residents/politicians about why they don't like the plan.
Prior to ICTS the TTC's CLRV alignment was identical I believe. Originally one or two road crossings were to be at-grade, but later studies found that elevated for the entire length was better.
Last edited: