[The first two of these have been split off from the post of the Star’s editorial.]  

Aman Hyer writes:

I thought I’d like to give my two cents on this issue.

I’m surprised this was not raised: why not simply convert the current RT track to a Subway Track, and link it to the Bloor-Danforth Line.  The people of Scarborough want a Subway but the cost to build one is enormous and it will take far too long to build.  Doing it this way the sunk cost of the Scarborough RT isn’t simply wasted, and you don’t need to spend more money demolishing the current track.

Steve:  Actually, very little of the current line could be recycled.  Unless we completely rebuild and realign Kennedy Station, the subway can’t go north from Eglinton on the existing right-of-way because the subway points east, not north.  Second, the stations would have to be rebuilt for the much wider cars.  Third, the tunnel at Ellesmere and the elevated will not hold subway trains.  Any new subway would take a completely separate route to the Town Centre.

There is obviously a reason Scarborough area councillors want a subway, I can understand the pain it would be switch trains; here, in Calgary in rush hour during the school year, a Dalhouise shows up at every line so that university students don’t need to switch trains in downtown.  It makes a lot of sense.

[A long paragraph with more details of an RT to subway conversion is omitted here.] 

Now as for the LRT Solution, I think we are all forgetting there is a major difference between Traditional Streetcars and the LRVs in Calgary.  Calgary’s LRVs were originally designed for German Metros; Calgary cannot build a proper subway because of our weak soil; even the tunnels we have right now are super expensive and need to be strongly enforced.  The same situation exists in Edmonton.  At the time the ALRT system [had not been] created, and the need for a high-speed metro; so the provincial government stumbled on this technology being put in place in some European Cities, and they simply expanded it.  So I don’t think Traditional Streetcars can perform the same function as Calgary’s LRT.

Steve:  For clarity, I am not proposing that we use “traditional streetcars” on LRT lines.  Any new lines would be engineered to run at least with two-car trains close to 60m long.

As for a LRT, it could work very well in downtown to travel some of the routes.  Toronto downtown is huge, and something better slightly better than Streetcars and Busses is needed but nothing the size of a Subway or Calgary’s LRT.

Earlier, Aman had also written:

Living in Calgary you realize how bad the LRT can get in downtown and some other parts of the city.  On 36th avenue, you cannot get around at all during the weekend.  Now why wasn’t it underground (unlike up north in Edmonton), it was not possible to make it underground because Calgary’s soil doesn’t allow us to build the train underground with ease; especially in the Northeast.

The biggest problem is that the city never planned it very well; they wanted to get a system built as fast as possible, and they made major mistakes on 36th avenue.  As well in Downtown it’s very annoying when you’re in a rush and you have to wait at a stoplight.  It can take 15 minutes to get across the network. 

This is really stupid because there is a tunnel ready for use under City Hall; all the tunnel needs are tracks and Stations, and a connection to the NE.  When you travelling down the South Line you can see the mouth of the tunnel.  All these problem could have been solved if they planned it properly.  In the North East they simply drew lines in the sand and now realized that was a bad idea.

Now for Toronto I don’t think it’s a complete solution for Toronto’s Subway Problems.  Remember the LRT isn’t just a bunch of Streetcars running around.  The LRT does use trains, which are the size of your Subway Cars. Yes it’s cheaper, but it would be pointless, to start expanding your Subway by building LRT tracks.  It would be annoying to switch trains all the time.  But some of the Streetcar lines where there is heavy usage, but not heavy enough to justify a Subway; it could be possible to add a LRT like that of Calgary, but with only 2 or 3 carriages max.

Calgary will one day go to five carriages for a LRT, again it’s like a subway; This is likely C-Train Future.

Steve:  Five car trains have no place in an LRT scheme running on street, and I think that Calgary is trying to put off building a tunnel parallel to the downtown transit mall for as long as possible.

And finally Aman writes:

I’m just trying to understand how it would work.  Would Toronto buy new cars, like Calgary’s Metro LRVs; or would Toronto use traditional Street cars, like the does now?

Steve:  New cars definitely, but low floor.  This avoids the need for high platforms when a line runs in the middle of a street (or as a streetcar).

JJ writes:

The connection between both subway and SRT systems at Kennedy is very poor and if a subway isn’t built the TTC can at least pull a Spadina and make a direct underground link to the subway (the mezzanine level of Kennedy is very grandiose and could more than support a LRT station).

The fate of upper Kennedy station?  As suggested an Eglinton LRT is desperately needed (80,000 customers trumps the York U’s forecasted ridership times four and outbeats every streetcar route in the downtown core) and since I could never fathom a streetcar line across one of the hilliest corridors in the city an elevated LRT is the only alternative.

Steve:  Actually, the proposal I and others have made would have the LRT in a tunnel through the areas with the steepest of the hills.  An elevated does not eliminate the hills because the line still follows the contours of the street below, and you get tha additional intrusion of the structure on a narrow street.  (Think Avenue Road to Dufferin, for example.)

The line could start in the Greater Pearson area (Renforth or Westwood Mall) across above grade through Kennedy up Kingston Rd then via its own ROW pass UTSC and the Zoo eventually heading into Pickering Town Centre.

If LRT is chosen as the eventual method of replacing the SRT could it not be possible to have multiple branches radiate out of the Scarborough Centre given that extending the line solely to Sheppard/Markham/Malvern neglects southeast Scarborough and vice versa?

Suppose three branches:
1. One connecting to the Sheppard Line which doesn’t have the ridership volumes to make it past Victoria Park
2. One southeast through University of Toronto Scarborough and Highland Creek to Rouge Hill GO
3. One north Malvern into Markham

This proposal would likely require a multi-platform at STC whereby the LRT train pulls into a particular platform depending on destination, I haven’t got it all figured out yet but the point is despite there being areas of low riderhsip in Scarborough some areas do justify far better than a smelly 30-y-o bus ran every 20-30 minutes.

Steve:  I think that we need to avoid getting too carried away and especially avoid attempts to recycle existing pieces of infrastructure if this doesn’t suit a new network.  I’m not going to publish every suggestion someone sends to me, but I did with this one because it shows the importance of flexibility and extensibility of an LRT network.

Dwight Peterson writes:

Has anyone ever discussed what will happen if VIVA goes ahead with an LRT line.  Will it be gauged as per TTC streetcar lines or will it have the standard guage as per most of North America?

What do you think they should do?  As for purchase decisions it gives viva wider variety of suppliers to choose from.  However you would never be able to intergrate with the rest of the TTC system.  If the GTTA get off the ground I guess we know what the answer will be.

Steve:  The whole question about a common gauge for a regional LRT network is a troubling one.  If I were to appeal to the TTC’s territorial instincts, I would argue that they should start building LRT as soon as possible to establish a de facto standard for interconnection.  One thing we do know is that any subways we build will be TTC gauge.

And later Dwight writes:

I was thinking about the Sheppard subway line.  If they were to extend it using LRT they could have the subway and LRT on the same level so as you would not have to go up stairs.  I would put the loop at the east end of the platform were the short tail track ends.  All you would have to do is walk east along the platform through a corridor.  When you emerge from the corridor you will find the LRT platform with the LRT cars running from north to south (the LRT cars would loop underground until it aligns east west.  It may be more expensive but the end result would still be cheaper than builing a subway and no stairs to climb.  I saw this concept in practice on some foreign film but I can not remember where. 

Steve:  The subway is very deep at Don Mills, and I’m not sure it’s a good idea to try to take the LRT down so far.  The line would need to be close to the surface to ramp up to a median right of way quickly east of Don Mills since the prevailing grade rises to the DVP crossing.  Also deep stations cost megabucks, and we’re trying to build a modest LRT line, not another megastation like Yonge-Sheppard.

Also, if there is ever a Don Mills LRT, the whole issue of the geometry of an interchange at Don Mills Station takes on a new flavour.

Matt writes:

How much would the use of aggressive signal priority, limited stops, and POP/all doors loading affect the competitiveness of median-running vs the existing RT corridor (say along Kennedy & Progress)?

The distinction with an RT replacement is that it will have widely space stops from Eglinton to Ellesmere.  If you’re not going to provide local service, taking over a lot of road space is a hard sell.  Why go down Kennedy and Progress other than to allow concurrent construction of the new line with operation of the old one?