nfitz
Superstar
Changing from subways to LRT is bad, but changing from subway to buses is okay?
|
|
|
Sheppard Line 4 Subway Extension (Proposed)
- Thread starter denfromoakvillemilton
- Start date
micheal_can
Senior Member
I am wondering if they are wanting to make sure they build what is appropriate and not by some armchair thinking,but by what ever metrics they use. Since nothing has been announced as approved, this may be just them covering their bases. Correct me if I am wrong bat the EELRT was planned before the subway extension was started being built. If that is the case, then this round of public meetings makes more sense.
Sunnyside
Active Member
Well... I found the general area where it was being discussed (and what incited me to start replying around this point), but the member has joined us:
As for this (1), way ahead of ya...
1) Read your PMs, LOL
2) If you were only looking at Sheppard as it is today, and/or based on known, approved proposals.................the case would be to go to Kennedy/Stouffville GO. The huge intensification of the Agincourt Mall site is a bit driver there, but so is the fact that everything south to the 401 on the east side of Kennedy is going as well. Plus you would have passengers wanting to transfer to/from the GO line.
3) Subways in Toronto are not built, for the most part, to serve what's there.........they're built to serve what could be there.........
That being the case, one may wish to examine both existing demand drivers, but also potential drivers..........to ascertain where one may wish to send the subway.
Final thought, linear thinking can be important........but so can thinking outside the straight line.
I generally thought what you're saying in 2) made more sense than a 1-3 stop extension.
As for 3) not so sure. In theory, this is true, in practice, we don't consider building subways till they're needed on a network level- then we begin to prioritize development as a requirement for it to happen... this is usually paralleled by a need for more housing, especially in recent times, but that alone should have gotten a few subways going a lot sooner in our history than they have.
For everything else, I'm keeping an open mind
I am now going to catch up in the thread.
ARG1
Senior Member
Busses don't involve billions of dollars in infrastructure.
Undead
Senior Member
I believe there's some very preliminary planning on a Neilson RT solution. @Northern Light am I remembering that correctly?
Northern Light
Superstar
Yes, it will be at 10% design by year's end.
nfitz
Superstar
Less than LRT, but LRT is still 3 or 4 times cheaper than subway. For the cost of extending the subway to Meawdowvale underground, we could instead build LRT to past Bowmanville. It's also a lot faster - as we've seen on Finch West compared to the subway under Eglinton.
Undead
Senior Member
They really should make it elevated the further east it goes.
Coolibop
Active Member
Utilize the CP corridor past McCowan to Malvern seems to make sense if I were to go there.
mossynukes
Active Member
those were my thoughts exactly when "outside the straight line" was mentioned, lol. In the east it could certainly go to centennial or even UTSC to south or of course malvern to the north. In the west it could continue through downsview to pearson. But my personal opinion, is that Doug Ford got annoyed of the endless complaining in this thread about the line not terminating at STC, and decided to offer a solution.
Coolibop
Active Member
I truly wanted to Photoshop Douggys head to give him the hook if he did that...
ARG1
Senior Member
3 or 4 times cheaper than a fully bored subway with 3/4 story deep stations? Ye sure. If we build it cut and cover/elevated with reasonable designs? Absolutely not. And the cost will go to a line that won't be slower than just painting some bus lanes.
81-717
New Member
I'm not one of them (though sometimes I do entertain the idea of a hypothetical alternate reality where lines 1 & 2 would use BMT/IND trains, while line 4 would use smaller IRT trains).
Unfortunately, rail vehicles can't simply be driven from anywhere to anywhere like buses can (otherwise, we'd have subway trains driving on the streets along the OL route yesterday), which makes it all the more ironic how much significance rail transport carries when it is in fact the most limited & constrained in terms of where/how it can move. Ironic (in a sad way) that the largest, highest-capacity vehicles are also the most limited in their range of motion, and that such limitations (a fixed 1D guideway) is precisely what allows such high-capacity vehicles to move in a controlled manner.
Then again, one could argue that buses & cars ostensibly require many more billions of dollars in infrastructure in the form of streets, roads & highways, and it's just inherently advantageous for them that said infrastructure is already in place.
Last edited:
drum118
Superstar
Gee!!......it happen in the US and in Europe that you have to transfer from one system to another. There are places in Europe where you transfer from an S-Bahn/U-Bahn/LRT to buses.
I transfer from bus to subway to streetcar or the SRT when it ran and no big issue for me as it gets me to where I want to go. Single seats riders are the most expensive operation cost as well the cost to build it
The Sheppard line was a Mel thing as Mike Harris said in 1995 you have $1 Billion to spend on one of the 2 subways being built at the time with Mel twisting enough arms to get his line built. Yes it will cost around $500 million or so to convert the subway to an LRT with a number of years being out of service to convert it.
TTC prefer a subway west of Yonge to the Wilson yard as it will be faster to get work cars to the Yonge line in place of the loop.
allengeorge
Senior Member
I’m thinking North to Malvern after Progress and Sheppard?
That would reduce the cost of the EELRT (push the need for it way down the future) and allow the city to fund WELRT?