SRT Shutdown: How do we deal with it?

[Coruscanti Cognoscente]

Good analysis. I too ultimately favour a B-D extension to STC, but I know that right now both the political climate and the SRT lifespan are not working in its favour.

The difference between the SRT revamp and the subway option is about $500 million, so presumably if the City really wanted to it could finance that difference itself.

The biggest question would then be how quickly can a plan be put together, and can the SRT last that long.

If the line has to be converted anyway, why not convert it to subway since Kennedy would have to be redone for LRT conversion anyway?

Personally I'd prefer a new subway alignment, but if that's too expensive surely converting the line to subway would be cheaper and wouldn't require longer to do than the LRT conversion is already taking.

[gweed123]

If the line has to be converted anyway, why not convert it to subway since Kennedy would have to be redone for LRT conversion anyway?

Personally I'd prefer a new subway alignment, but if that's too expensive surely converting the line to subway would be cheaper and wouldn't require longer to do than the LRT conversion is already taking.

The LRT conversion doesn't require shutting down the B-D Kennedy platform, whereas converting it to subway would, because the platform would need to be re-aligned.

I agree with you that it would be cheaper than a new alignment, but let's not pretend that changing Kennedy to accommodate LRT and changing Kennedy to accommodate a subway extension along the SRT alignment are equal. Converting Kennedy for the latter would be much more expensive, not to mention much more disruptive for subway operations.

[BurlOak]

If you attended the meetings where Mr. Soberman spoke to the public and at TTC meetings, he change his mind between them both for this line as well the Sheppard line.

In fact, it has been said that both reports were political change from what was really written by Mr. Soberman to what was change by TTC staff to reflect the current out come.

I supported the BD extension to STC back then and still so today, regardless of the cost.

The 8 month out of service to convert Mark I to Mark II is under estimated since the tunnel still has to be rebuilt regardless if it was for Mark II or LRT. Since Mr. Soberman was the salesmen for the Mark I system in the first place, he knew that the tunnel was built to stop all other types of vehicles from using this line if the Mark I fail to sell world wide. I have heard him say this first hand.

There is a way of using the existing SRT route for subway, but would require a new Kennedy Station, as well taking it off line for 9 months or less to make the new connection.

Is is not strange that TTC releases a comprehensive report that strongly favours Mark II, and then switches to LRT without any detailed justification. I would think that a report carries much more weight than comments at a public information session.

Does anyone have a link to a TTC report that refutes this one (http://www.toronto.ca/srtstudy/pdf/s...lan-report.pdf) and states that LRT is the best choice for this route and not Mark II?

Running the SRT through with the Eglinton Crosstown would have been much less expensive than extending the B-D to STC and provided a one transfer ride to downtown (either onto the YUS or DRL). Extension of SRT to Malvern was grade-separated anyways so their is no problem there to extend with Mark II. The central part of Eglinton was burried, so again no problem. What options were considered for Eglinton East (Don Mills to Kennedy). If only median was considered, then that drove the LRT decision. If underground was considered, the too favoured LRT because of the high cost of tunnelling. Was elevated considered and rejected by focus groups or residents or local business groups?

I also found some odd words in the report "Both the Mark II and IIA vehicles are slightly wider than the existing Mark I vehicles. As a result, there may be a need to provide for widening of the safety walkway along side the existing track and to make track modifications within the Ellesmere tunnel". For engineers, there is a world of difference between may and must (or similarly between should and shall). "May" is slang for "does not meet the current recommended values, but still will physically work". (I would also say that over half of Toronto bridges "may" need to be replaced since they do not meet the current shoulder or sidewalk widths, or railing requirements).

[Paleo]

Why the sudden concern about moving away from the MII rolling stock? No more orphan technology in the system. Good riddance to it. It was the right call.

[nfitz]

Vancouver's 18km Millenium line from the word it was announced to the day it opened took 22 months including the enviornmental reviews.

I don't for one second believe this. For comparison, Translink is now pushing ahead with next MkII line after the Millennium Line, and that's the Evergreen Line. The planning has been going on for over a decade, and construction is scheduled to start this summer, with an opening 4 years later. This sounds quite comparable to Toronto. And I expect the Millennium line was if you found the dates.

[Coruscanti Cognoscente]

Why the sudden concern about moving away from the MII rolling stock? No more orphan technology in the system. Good riddance to it. It was the right call.

I think the point is that the TTC's choice of technology is completely and 100% arbitrary.

[BurlOak]

Why the sudden concern about moving away from the MII rolling stock? No more orphan technology in the system. Good riddance to it. It was the right call.

The current 6km SRT is an orphan line. However, a 25km (Black Creek to STC) to 40km (YYZ to Malvern) line is about half the length of the current subway system. There would be enough vehicles on this line that the "orphan" arguement does not apply.

[Paleo]

The current 6km SRT is an orphan line. However, a 25km (Black Creek to STC) to 40km (YYZ to Malvern) line is about half the length of the current subway system. There would be enough vehicles on this line that the "orphan" arguement does not apply.

That would necessitate full grade separation and the associated cost.

[ssiguy2]

Very true but of course that Toronto could pay for total grade separation using SkyTrain by elevating the line from DM to Kennedy and the huge money saved by simply upgrading the SRT and not having to build a brand new LRT garage, maintenance, and control centre. Of course, that would offend the Millerites and company by having elevated rail down the "Golden Mile" and hence ruin the very bohemian enviornment of the local gas station, McDonald's and factories.
Toronto will not get anything near what it wants and needs until it faces the fact that it is going to have to help pay for it out of it's own money but thatof course is heresy.

[nfitz]

Interesting ideas ... but I don't see the point of getting into it again, especially in this thread, given that council has been on the course for it being at surface since last decade ... and reconfirmed this recently.

[BurlOak]

Interesting ideas ... but I don't see the point of getting into it again, especially in this thread, given that council has been on the course for it being at surface since last decade ... and reconfirmed this recently.

The reason I first brought it into this thread was that Mark II was the recommended option in 2006. When this was changed to LRT, there must have been some report that not only justified why the switch to LRT, but also addressed how the lengthy closure would be handled. Is there such a report or was the switch to LRT made at the political level with no thought of the implications?

[nfitz]

The reason I first brought it into this thread was that Mark II was the recommended option in 2006. When this was changed to LRT, there must have been some report that not only justified why the switch to LRT, but also addressed how the lengthy closure would be handled. Is there such a report or was the switch to LRT made at the political level with no thought of the implications?

Surely the SRT upgrade and extension studies would be the place to look for this - http://www.toronto.ca/involved/proje...nsit/index.htm

There's also the Metrolinx Benefits Case - http://www.metrolinx.com/en/regional..._SRT_Final.pdf where the Base case included upgrade to Mark II

[officedweller]

You would think that the reconstruction of the tunnel could be worked:

- if it's just a conversion to MKII, single track through the tunnel with longer trains and reconstruct one side of the tunnel at a time.

- if it's conversion to LRT, single track through the tunnel while the other side is being reconstructed so as to preserve as much SRT running time as possible before complete closure and temporary replacement by buses.

When the Millennium Line switches were installed to branch from the Expo Line, the mainline into Surrey was reduced to single line service through the construction zone for the duration of that project. There's no reason that couldn't be done of the SRT too (I suppose it also depends on the track map and location of switches)

[Voltz]

You would think that the reconstruction of the tunnel could be worked:

- if it's just a conversion to MKII, single track through the tunnel with longer trains and reconstruct one side of the tunnel at a time.

- if it's conversion to LRT, single track through the tunnel while the other side is being reconstructed so as to preserve as much SRT running time as possible before complete closure and temporary replacement by buses.

When the Millennium Line switches were installed to branch from the Expo Line, the mainline into Surrey was reduced to single line service through the construction zone for the duration of that project. There's no reason that couldn't be done of the SRT too (I suppose it also depends on the track map and location of switches)

That seems like it would be structurally difficult to do.

[officedweller]

The pic I've seen of the tunnel looks like two separate boxes, so one track seems independent of the other.