Danforth Line 2 Scarborough Subway Extension

[Hopkins123]

Well then.

Do you guys think heavy rail from the airport to UTSC would have worked? Or the Eglinton Line heavy Rail from the Airport the Scarborough Center, where it links with Sheppard? Anyone want to take a wack at this?

Considering the pricetag for underground LRT section (~$400 million/km) and the fact the Etobicoke alignment will likely be grade separated, we probably did not save that much money going the light rail route over heavy rail and will face capacity issues if things like grade-separating the eastern section are not inevitably done.

The transitions from Kennedy Stn to Danforth Rd, Eglinton East to Kingston Rd, access to Guildwood GO Stn, Kingston Rd to Morningside, and access to UTSC campus should all be grade-separated ideally.

A fully grade-separated, 1000 riders per trip service is what we should have gotten with the minor stops (Ferrand, Pharmacy, Lebovic and Ionview) omitted. Big mistake what we are doing and if it weren't for cancelling contract fees I'd say we ought to push forward with a subway instead. Furthermore, it was always my understanding that this line would be designed to be upgradable to heavy rail if need permits.

If Crosstown as is costs $9.1 billion as is, add another $5-6 billion to the cost for full grade separation from Pearson to UTSC. $15 billion to never have to worry about capacity issues in the corridor again sounds reasonable to me.

So we can either act now while there's still time before the tracks and platforms are laid; or act later and risk shutting down an active line for over a two year period to do upgrades. But is the government even listening to transit advocates or are they still fantasizing over SmartTrack as some sort of DRL proxy?

 

[W. K. Lis]

The projections that even a DRL to Sheppard won't be enough to relieve the Yonge line and that by 2041 the Spadina line will be over-capacity too.

That is relatively new, being information released from studies this year. So that is fun. Sheppard Subway extension to STC anyone?

You're left out the SmartTrack stations in Scarborough.

Missing is the Sheppard East LRT.

 

[TheTigerMaster]

The projections that even a DRL to Sheppard won't be enough to relieve the Yonge line and that by 2041 the Spadina line will be over-capacity too.

I have the memo saved on my computer somewhere. I'm fairly positive the Cheif Planner said University Line will be over capacity long before 2041. I recall between 2020 and 2030.

 

[44 North]

Well then.

Do you guys think heavy rail from the airport to UTSC would have worked? Or the Eglinton Line heavy Rail from the Airport the Scarborough Center, where it links with Sheppard? Anyone want to take a wack at this?

Was always more than open to the idea of grade-separating the portion between Don Mills and Kennedy, albeit done affordably (most likely elevated). Unfortunately no planner-tician brought this up. With this, service speed/reliability would be identical to the McGuinty proposal... but it'd cost ~$2bn less.

And considering the nature of the line, where it runs, its ridership projections, and the fact that this would also use the SRT's alignment - I think neither LRVs or 6-car T1/TR rolling stock (aka 'heavy rail) would be optimal. Rather a subway/metro vehicle that was narrower and shorter. Other than a dip in capacity compared with conventional 150m 6-car subways everything else about the service would be the same as our existing heavy rail system. We could split hairs and call it a light metro, but either way it'd still be a full on subway/metro line. The west portion to Pearson could be built in a similar standard, and east of SC we could branch to serve both UTSC and Sheppard/Malvern.

If the DRL were to use the same rolling stock, and its stations were spec'd to handle trains of differing lengths, perhaps we could interline the Crosstown with the DRL. So instead of the majority of peak riders transferring at Mt Dennis or Don Mills/Eglinton, we could simply run a percentage Crosstown trains core-bound.

 

[ssiguy2]

Eglinton as LRT had nothing to do with good transit planning and everything to do with politics aka Miller.

Some of the lines as LRT made sense but Eglinton wasn't one of them. The problem, for Miller, was that total grade separation could also mean automation and he would never offend his union buddies. Just look at him allowing the garbage to pile up on the streets and his subsequent willingness to jeopardise public health so he would not have to come down on his union friends. Eglinton was also reflective of Miller's myopic view of transit expansion......LRT or nothing. Whether LRT, subway, SkyTrain, RER, or BRT made the most sense in one particular area was completely irrelevant to Miller.............you either supported LRT in every situation or you were labelled "anti-transit".

The tracks haven't been laid and the Western & Eastern sections haven't even started construction so it's not too late to elevate the remaining section using LRT, SkyTrain and interline with SRT, or smaller Metro trains to make the line a full Metro/subway. It would greatly increase capacity, speed, reliability, reduce operational costs, and not produce havoc on the roads like the LRT will east of DM or west of Jane. Fewer stations with elevation would probably be just as cheap to build and certainly much easier to along the side of Eglinton as opposed to in the middle and thru major intersections.

Build fewer stations {as the Eastern section of the Crosstown has at least twice as many as it should} and I would be surprised if it doesn't cost LESS than the LRT.

 

[44 North]

Eglinton as LRT had nothing to do with good transit planning and everything to do with politics aka Miller.

Some of the lines as LRT made sense but Eglinton wasn't one of them. The problem, for Miller, was that total grade separation could also mean automation and he would never offend his union buddies. Just look at him allowing the garbage to pile up on the streets and his subsequent willingness to jeopardise public health so he would not have to come down on his union friends. Eglinton was also reflective of Miller's myopic view of transit expansion......LRT or nothing. Whether LRT, subway, SkyTrain, RER, or BRT made the most sense in one particular area was completely irrelevant to Miller.............you either supported LRT in every situation or you were labelled "anti-transit".

The tracks haven't been laid and the Western & Eastern sections haven't even started construction so it's not too late to elevate the remaining section using LRT, SkyTrain and interline with SRT, or smaller Metro trains to make the line a full Metro/subway. It would greatly increase capacity, speed, reliability, reduce operational costs, and not produce havoc on the roads like the LRT will east of DM or west of Jane. Fewer stations with elevation would probably be just as cheap to build and certainly much easier to along the side of Eglinton as opposed to in the middle and thru major intersections.

Build fewer stations {as the Eastern section of the Crosstown has at least twice as many as it should} and I would be surprised if it doesn't cost LESS than the LRT.

Although I'm a hardcore supporter of affordable subway/metro expansion I'm not sure if automation was the problem Miller saw. It was probably more to do with a lack of funds and desire to see these relatively scarce funds spread evenly across the city. Even if the Crosstown won't carry riders as quickly/reliably as what's on paper, it's still pretty sweet. I could only dream of the day we get something half as good running through the core.

 

[syn]

You're left out the SmartTrack stations in Scarborough.

Missing is the Sheppard East LRT.

That's a remarkable diagram. The current RT still serves Scarborough relatively well - where are all the riders going to come from for both the Line 2 extension and Smart Track?!

 

[ssiguy2]

Why don't they just have a ST line that divides at Ellesmere with everyother one going North and the other going East to STC and beyond and save themselves $3 billion + on the Danforth extension. Scar would be better served by having a frequent thru journey from STC to Union or is this too logical?

 

[TheTigerMaster]

Because it wouldn't provide adequate frequency.

 

[Hopkins123]

Why don't they just have a ST line that divides at Ellesmere with everyother one going North and the other going East to STC and beyond and save themselves $3 billion + on the Danforth extension. Scar would be better served by having a frequent thru journey from STC to Union or is this too logical?

They just as well could build a brand new Kennedy subway station on the axis and have the Bloor-Danforth follow the SRT pathway to STC and beyond.

Just end the stupid, arbitrary transfer point at Kennedy once and for all.

 

[WislaHD]

If the DRL were to use the same rolling stock, and its stations were spec'd to handle trains of differing lengths, perhaps we could interline the Crosstown with the DRL. So instead of the majority of peak riders transferring at Mt Dennis or Don Mills/Eglinton, we could simply run a percentage Crosstown trains core-bound.

That is an intriguing idea! Sucks for the people looking to reach Yonge/Eglinton who might need to transfer if they are on the wrong subway, but it would be interesting to do the numbers and see how many people such an interlining would actually help.

With such a plan, you could build LRT on Don Mills cheaper than subway, bringing them to a transfer point at Eglinton.

Build fewer stations {as the Eastern section of the Crosstown has at least twice as many as it should} and I would be surprised if it doesn't cost LESS than the LRT.

Hell, you might be on to something. A substantial part of the capital costs comes from stations.

I wonder if we could elevate a part of the eastern section just by eliminating half of the stations not at major intersections, or aleast fund a substantial portion of it.

 

[aquateam]

Hell, you might be on to something. A substantial part of the capital costs comes from stations.

I wonder if we could elevate a part of the eastern section just by eliminating half of the stations not at major intersections, or aleast fund a substantial portion of it.

A substantial part of the cost comes from underground stations. The at-grade "stations" of the LRT (I actually think Metrolinx went with the nomenclature "Stop" for the aboveground stops) are fairly cheap. Above ground stations would be substantially more expensive because now you need to add elevators and stairs and the footprint becomes much more larger and the design more elabourate.

That being said, I think it's worth the extra cost for elevation, but you would do that with LIM not LRT.

Most of the cost savings from LIM over LRT is from the smaller diameter tunnels required, which reduces tunneling costs. More frequent service (from the grade separation) means that you can use smaller stations ((for additional cost savings) and increase capacity by increasing frequency much better than you would be able to with LRT (which is limited by the traffic lights and necessary manual operation). Because tunneling on Eglinton is already complete and they've been putting in the piling for the station boxes, you wouldn't be able to achieve most of the cost savingsif you switched from LRT to LIM.

 

[44 North]

That being said, I think it's worth the extra cost for elevation, but you would do that with LIM not LRT.

Most of the cost savings from LIM over LRT is from the smaller diameter tunnels required, which reduces tunneling costs. More frequent service (from the grade separation) means that you can use smaller stations ((for additional cost savings) and increase capacity by increasing frequency much better than you would be able to with LRT (which is limited by the traffic lights and necessary manual operation). Because tunneling on Eglinton is already complete and they've been putting in the piling for the station boxes, you wouldn't be able to achieve most of the cost savingsif you switched from LRT to LIM.

Not sure why these attributes are contingent or dependent on linear induction motors. Third rail can achieve the same results.

 

[aquateam]

Not sure why these attributes are contingent or dependent on linear induction motors. Third rail can achieve the same results.

The linear induction motors allow lower vehicle height over a traditional third rail system, allowing smaller tunnel diameter. A study in Osaka found a 20% cost savings of LIM over third rail. I'd assume the different between LIM and LRT to be even greater due to the catenary requiring even taller tunnels.

Edit: But since there is no longer an SRT to connect to, and since the tunnels already constructed are big enough, you would probably just switch to heavy rail and get the extra capacity from the bigger vehicles.

 

[smallspy]

The linear induction motors allow lower vehicle height over a traditional third rail system, allowing smaller tunnel diameter. A study in Osaka found a 20% cost savings of LIM over third rail. I'd assume the different between LIM and LRT to be even greater due to the catenary requiring even taller tunnels.

They claim that the "...estimated total construction cost was reduced by about 20%." They say nothing about the increased cost of equipment, or what the ongoing lifecycle costs are for like.

Dan
Toronto, Ont.