Debate on the merits of the Scarborough Subway Extension

[44 North]

Which examples?

Excluding high-level bridges (Rosedale Valley and Bloor Viaduct):

-East Don (east of Leslie stn using a very low bridge, enclosed and designed to be submerged with high water level)
-West Don (south of York Mills stn designed subaqueous, but not deep and literally within the riverbed - this the costly compromise vs bridge)
-Humber (@ Old Mill stn using a viaduct, and a station actually on the bridge)

But, I think there's other things that can be considered as well, maybe similar to what was done with early parts of Spadina extn (well Spadina Expwy at the time). And that'd be undergrounding the river, but much more mildly in this case. Say, put the branch of Highland in a concrete tunnel a couple hundred metres upstream/downstream of McCowan, and have it underpinned for a station. This would be the costly solution, but the station wouldn't have to be 100ft deep so there's that.

 

[TheTigerMaster]

Malvern residents left without rapid transit options despite promised improvements

https://www.thestar.com/news/city_h...it-options-despite-promised-improvements.html

I really don’t understand the point of bringing the EELRT to Malvern. It’s not any faster for trips to STC or Kennedy. I doubt it would have significant ridership. This proposal just feels like a consolation prize for Malvern not getting rapid transit.

 

[Voltz]

I really don’t understand the point of bringing the EELRT to Malvern. It’s not any faster for trips to STC or Kennedy. I doubt it would have significant ridership. This proposal just feels like a consolation prize for Malvern not getting rapid transit.

That's exactly what is is. those who were tripping over themselves to screw Malvern by pushing the SSE, later realised oops, and fumbled something to appear to make up for it.

 

[TheTigerMaster]

I think it's more than possible, using past engineering examples in this very city, that we could see SSE's cost/complexity come down. And with enough funds leftover to build a station at Lawrence. The current project design doesn't make sense. 100ft deep to cross two tiny valleys? C'mon. If that's the case then RL will make SSE look like childsplay (going to Don Mills/Sheppard has four very large valley crossings).

Whether there'll be enough within the funding envelope for EELRT/SMLRT remains to be seen. Not really because I think SSE will increase more than estimated (how can it), but because even tram-style LRT can be more expensive than estimated. Laying rail is one thing, but with the nines of capital roadway works (burying hydro, sewer realignment, utilities, bridge stuff, streetscaping, etc) there's always unforeseen increases too. Then EA amendments for a grade-separation or two and we may as well call it quits since we'd be back to square one. But yeah with SSE I think the window is still wide open for cost/complexity decreases.

Which examples?

Excluding high-level bridges (Rosedale Valley and Bloor Viaduct):

-East Don (east of Leslie stn using a very low bridge, enclosed and designed to be submerged with high water level)
-West Don (south of York Mills stn designed subaqueous, but not deep and literally within the riverbed - this the costly compromise vs bridge)
-Humber (@ Old Mill stn using a viaduct, and a station actually on the bridge)

But, I think there's other things that can be considered as well, maybe similar to what was done with early parts of Spadina extn (well Spadina Expwy at the time). And that'd be undergrounding the river, but much more mildly in this case. Say, put the branch of Highland in a concrete tunnel a couple hundred metres upstream/downstream of McCowan, and have it underpinned for a station. This would be the costly solution, but the station wouldn't have to be 100ft deep so there's that.

Council ordered value engineering to be conducted by a third party on the SSE project. I have no idea what the result of that was, but since we're still on the same track with this project, I doubt they identified any major savings. It pains me to say it, but at some point we do have to admit that these engineers have gotten the costs down to as low as it can possibly be, within the parameters set by Council, while still adhering to safety and legal standards. I doubt that there's anything that we could possibly suggest that the engineers haven't already ruled out.

If we want to get the costs down, we'll probably have to look at regulatory and legal changes (including the TTC's own subway design standards), or have Council fundamentally modify the project concept (eg, running the extension on the surface).

 

[Rainforest]

It spawned it, as that was the only way the one-stop plan would get approval. Then it immediately ate up those funds. What syn said was not incorrect.

In my opinion, that was materially incorrect. If you promise to give someone 50 dollars for free, then change your mind and don't give anything, that's very different from robbing that person of 50 dollars.

I don't think Eglinton East was actually needed to get SSE approved. SSE was voted on multiple times before the addition of Eglinton East, and at least once again after the costs escalated and the changes to squeeze Eglinton East in became slim. SSE always passed, anyway. Most likely, Keesmaat decided it would be a good idea to add Eglinton East, and convinced Tory to get on board. If Tory simply put SSE for the vote, it would probably still pass.

My issue with statements like "SSE eat up EE LRT funding" is that they can easily mislead a new reader, or an occasional reader. You and me and all regular readers know the full history: that EE LRT had no its own funding, then SSE funding was committed, then at one point the Council decided to fund EE LRT by cutting two stops out of SSE, and then the cost escalated so much that even with one stop, there is no money left for EE LRT.

But an occasional reader will get the "short version", and think that EE LRT had its own dedicated funding originally, and the said funding got transferred to SSE.

 

[Rainforest]

I really don’t understand the point of bringing the EELRT to Malvern. It’s not any faster for trips to STC or Kennedy. I doubt it would have significant ridership. This proposal just feels like a consolation prize for Malvern not getting rapid transit.

Yes, that kind of extension wouldn't be very useful.

It would be much better to add a direct light rail line from STC to Malvern. Basically the eastern / northern half of SLRT.

 

[TheTigerMaster]

My issue with statements like "SSE eat up EE LRT funding" is that they can easily mislead a new reader, or an occasional reader. You and me and all regular readers know the full history: that EE LRT had no its own funding, then SSE funding was committed, then at one point the Council decided to fund EE LRT by cutting two stops out of SSE, and then the cost escalated so much that even with one stop, there is no money left for EE LRT.

Council didn't decide to fund EELRT by cutting two stops out of SSE. The SSE went out of its own budget, and two of three stops had to be cut for it to remain within that budget. Whatever funds that remained were dedicated to EELRT. Stops weren't cut because of EELRT; they were cut because they were out of the original budget.

 

[Rainforest]

Council didn't decide to fund EELRT by cutting two stops out of SSE. The SSE went out of its own budget, and two of three stops had to be cut for it to remain within that budget. Whatever funds that remained were dedicated to EELRT. Stops weren't cut because of EELRT; they were cut because they were out of the original budget.

Let it be so. I think my main point still stands.

 

[44 North]

I really don’t understand the point of bringing the EELRT to Malvern. It’s not any faster for trips to STC or Kennedy. I doubt it would have significant ridership. This proposal just feels like a consolation prize for Malvern not getting rapid transit.

I kind of want to write a write a post disagreeing, going on about how Malvern has a whopping 45k pop. and is one of Ontario's original planned communities. That it was supposed to have some kind of railed transit 30yrs ago. Or how for a suburban area it's actually quite high density with narrow house lots and med/highrise buildings - a prime example of 'smart', model suburban communities long before it became chic or we ran out of land so had no choice.

But have to agree that connecting Malvern with Crosstown East does seem a bit forced and disjointed. Majority want to go SW, but with this will be going due east, then straight south on a long route. Clearly the best way of getting rapid transit there was a Line 3 extn/SLRT. However if the Prov is serious about bringing GO rail to Seaton (they're not anymore lol), it should be easy to slot in a station right in Malvern's centre. Would connect with Crosston at Leslie, and provide core-bound commutes unbelievably fast. So perhaps that could be a better compromise.

I'm beginning to wonder if it might be better to just bring Crosstown east on Sheppard to the Zoo. This ~4km might not be used for much of the year, but at least tourists and families get a seamless trip to a major regional attraction. Which should have a bit more value weighting than normal commuters. The Zoo, Science Centre, Pearson all on one line. Not bad.

Council ordered value engineering to be conducted by a third party on the SSE project. I have no idea what the result of that was, but since we're still on the same track with this project, I doubt they identified any major savings. It pains me to say it, but at some point we do have to admit that these engineers have gotten the costs down to as low as it can possibly be, within the parameters set by Council, while still adhering to safety and legal standards. I doubt that there's anything that we could possibly suggest that the engineers haven't already ruled out.

If we want to get the costs down, we'll probably have to look at regulatory and legal changes (including the TTC's own subway design standards), or have Council fundamentally modify the project concept (eg, running the extension on the surface).

Guess I don't really know the technical stuff with value engineering. And hard to follow with so many other projects. But my opinion is that the City (not even going to incl TTC with that) basically chose single bore 100' deep option right off the bat, then stuck with it. And because that's effectively the only option, there's only so much VE it can receive. Like, did we get the steps where they show deep bore vs bridging a valley vs cut/cover? Or at least a paragraph acknowledging the benefits/drawbacks, both generally and specific to the area?

I know that sometimes things are accepted as nonstarters, or maybe politically demanded to be one way, so we might gloss over steps taken in the past. And I can understand not presenting elevated is the norm. But seems like major steps missing. And you wouldn't happen to know a recent SSE report that showed stuff like a 2D cross-section? Saw it a couple weeks ago but can't find it now. I guess it was the EPR, but for some reason it's not hosted anymore.

 

[OneCity]

I really don’t understand the point of bringing the EELRT to Malvern. It’s not any faster for trips to STC or Kennedy. I doubt it would have significant ridership. This proposal just feels like a consolation prize for Malvern not getting rapid transit.

It allows Malvern a direct connection to UTSC. Its very important. The second LRT connection to SCC will be redesigned following the Sheppard subway/LRT review. Its basically the least they can do as the fix the mess from the fall out the transfer plan.

 

[TheTigerMaster]

It allows Malvern a direct connection to UTSC.

I have a feeling that there aren't a significant amount of people in Malvern making that particular trip, especially when compared to those traveling to SCC.

Its very important. The second LRT connection to SCC will be redesigned following the Sheppard subway/LRT review.

You're probably going to be waiting another 40 years for that to materialize, if ever.

 

[OneCity]

I have a feeling that there aren't a significant amount of people in Malvern making that particular trip, especially when compared to those traveling to SCC.



You're probably going to be waiting another 40 years for that to materialize, if ever.

1. First, that's no reason to deny poorer people opportunity in one of the most neglected areas when the opportunity to provide this extension clearly exists right now. This is just the easiest bone to throw as the line is "nearing" construction as the City fixes the issues caused by Transit City.

2. Agreed. And it will be faster if people stop trying to push unwanted plans to prevent it. Its happening, people overwhelmingly support a better long term plan over a short term patch work solution.

 

[TheTigerMaster]

1. First, that's no reason to deny poorer people opportunity in one of the most neglected areas when the opportunity to provide this extension clearly exists right now. This is just the easiest bone to throw as the line is "nearing" construction as the City fixes the issues caused by Transit City.

If you want a bone to throw, save us all a couple hundred million dollars and visit Pet Smart.

We don’t build transit to throw bones, we build it to move people. I don’t care how impoverished the community is, if it’s not going to be an effective transit service that is of benefit to the community, I’m not going to support it. Bring the SELRT or SLRT to Malvern. Scrap the underused boondoggle that is the EELRT extension to Malvern.

 

[OneCity]

If you want a bone to throw, save us all a couple hundred million dollars and visit Pet Smart.

We don’t build transit to throw bones, we build it to move people. I don’t care how impoverished the community is, if it’s not going to be an effective transit service that is of benefit to the community, I’m not going to support it. Bring the SELRT or SLRT to Malvern. Scrap the underused boondoggle that is the EELRT extension to Malvern.

I agree we need to move people, disagree with sarcasm and more importantly I disagree this isn't a worthwhile extension. Keep fighting against the people and what could actually be built and well continue to build nothing. Sorry I don't consider that moving people.

This Malvern extension would be part of a bigger plan so why would you continue fight progress? It sucks that the SSE was done this way but other options were offered and the oppositions still refuse to acknowledge this or help move forward.

Most people in Scarborough don't want the SELRT or SLRT most people outside Scarborough do. We needed to find a solutions to compromise, and if you think continuing to try to force a transfer plan in Scarborough is a good idea that your choice I guess. I would look at it more like you might as well be holding a sign that says vote for Doug.

 

[TheTigerMaster]

I agree we need to move people, disagree with sarcasm and more importantly I disagree this isn't a worthwhile extension. Keep fighting against the people and what could actually be built and well continue to build nothing. I don't consider that moving people.

Are you supporting this EELRT extension just to make people in Malvern feel better about themselves?

This extension is part of a bigger plan so why would you fight progress

No, it's not part of a bigger plan. It's some nonsense a Councillor has been pushing.