News   May 06, 2024
Looks All-But Finished, Isn't
 146     0 
News   May 03, 2024
Assembly's Blueprint for Sustainable Urban Living in the GTHA
 1.1K     1 
News   May 03, 2024
RAD's State of the Market 2024 to Feature Talks on AI and Real Estate
 704     0 

Danforth Line 2 Scarborough Subway Extension

The thing with elevated heavy rail is exactly that..........it's heavy.

This means that any supporting columns need to be substantially larger and more of them. This adds to the cost but also effects the visual impact as well as being more expensive and disruptive to build. LRT columns are basically the same as SkyTrain but then you have to have the overhead wires which increases cost and can be quite unattractive.

None of the outer sections, east r west, have even got a shovel in the ground and no track has been laid in the tunnels so it is not too late. It make the system far more reliable, faster, and cheaper to maintain due to automation and SkyTrain having lower electrical consumption than either heavy rail or LRT. Also 70 meter SkyTrain stations with SkyTrain would still have far higher capacity than 90 meter LRT stations on an at-grade system due to running at far higher frequencies.
 
aquateam said:
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.
Click to expand...

Granted I didn't read the link, just going by the image and what I understand about other systems. But it doesn't seem like LIM is making the train's dimensions and tunnel diameter smaller... rather the smaller trains. I'm a supporter of smaller trains, but not of LIM. We can take those same smaller trains and attach a shoe to one side and it won't make the train's dimensions 20% bigger. We can even take street-running LRV vehicles and reverse engineer them to use 3rd rail (like DLR).

ssiguy2 said:
The thing with elevated heavy rail is exactly that..........it's heavy.
Click to expand...

Not sure about that. I did the math a few weeks ago and it seems pretty clear that standard LRVs are significantly heavier than "heavy rail" systems...by about 200kg per sq metre vs conventional subways or light metro vehicles. They're built like tanks because they drive in traffic, subway/metro vehicles don't so they're naturally lighter.
 
Hopkins123 said:
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?
Click to expand...

44 North said:
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.
Click to expand...

WislaHD said:
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.



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.
Click to expand...

aquateam said:
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.
Click to expand...

ssiguy2 said:
The thing with elevated heavy rail is exactly that..........it's heavy.

This means that any supporting columns need to be substantially larger and more of them. This adds to the cost but also effects the visual impact as well as being more expensive and disruptive to build. LRT columns are basically the same as SkyTrain but then you have to have the overhead wires which increases cost and can be quite unattractive.

None of the outer sections, east r west, have even got a shovel in the ground and no track has been laid in the tunnels so it is not too late. It make the system far more reliable, faster, and cheaper to maintain due to automation and SkyTrain having lower electrical consumption than either heavy rail or LRT. Also 70 meter SkyTrain stations with SkyTrain would still have far higher capacity than 90 meter LRT stations on an at-grade system due to running at far higher frequencies.
Click to expand...
44 North said:
Granted I didn't read the link, just going by the image and what I understand about other systems. But it doesn't seem like LIM is making the train's dimensions and tunnel diameter smaller... rather the smaller trains. I'm a supporter of smaller trains, but not of LIM. We can take those same smaller trains and attach a shoe to one side and it won't make the train's dimensions 20% bigger. We can even take street-running LRV vehicles and reverse engineer them to use 3rd rail (like DLR).



Not sure about that. I did the math a few weeks ago and it seems pretty clear that standard LRVs are significantly heavier than "heavy rail" systems...by about 200kg per sq metre vs conventional subways or light metro vehicles. They're built like tanks because they drive in traffic, subway/metro vehicles don't so they're naturally lighter.
Click to expand...

Interesting...


So what would that look like?


Choose any or all options

1) Heavy Rail from Pearson to Kennedy, Crosstown East, Bloor Subway to STC
2)Heavy Rail from Pearson to STC, Crosstown East
3)Heavy Rail from Pearson to to UTSC - Morningside and Sheppard, Bloor Subway to STC.

Maps to come later.
 
The railyards in north Scarborough on Markham near Finch...are there any Metrolinx long-term plans to purchase it and make the long talked about cross-northern line to Seaton a reality? It would be a much needed help to Scarborough transit as well as a good transfer point from a possible station at McCowan and Sheppard on the Scarborough subway extension
 
ssiguy2 said:
The thing with elevated heavy rail is exactly that..........it's heavy.
Click to expand...
44 North said:
Not sure about that. I did the math a few weeks ago and it seems pretty clear that standard LRVs are significantly heavier than "heavy rail" systems...by about 200kg per sq metre vs conventional subways or light metro vehicles. They're built like tanks because they drive in traffic, subway/metro vehicles don't so they're naturally lighter.
Click to expand...

I think your both right. LRT is heavier, but Toronto style heavy rail subway is my bulkier (wider, longer).
Short, low, sleek trains are what's needed

 
For elevated rail, monorail is the superior choice but in this situation SkyTrain would be best because it could be an extension of the SRT. This would make Eglinton a true Metro, connect with STC, and save a couple billion to boot. This is what Metrolinx originally wanted to do until Miller's LRT-or-nothing idea came out.
 
denfromoakvillemilton said:
Interesting...


So what would that look like?


Choose any or all options

1) Heavy Rail from Pearson to Kennedy, Crosstown East, Bloor Subway to STC
2)Heavy Rail from Pearson to STC, Crosstown East
3)Heavy Rail from Pearson to to UTSC - Morningside and Sheppard, Bloor Subway to STC.

Maps to come later.
Click to expand...

I'd imagine something like this. It's probably a bit complicated to run two separate trunks that join together, but it's done in other cities (e.g London's Northern or NYC's N,Q,R). Stations would be as they are on the underground Crosstown (60m expandable to 90m, but with high platforms). So effectively a 'light' heavy rail system. The DRL section would be built to 150m tho, with its trains being longer.

rect3637.png


ssiguy2 said:
For elevated rail, monorail is the superior choice but in this situation SkyTrain would be best because it could be an extension of the SRT. This would make Eglinton a true Metro, connect with STC, and save a couple billion to boot. This is what Metrolinx originally wanted to do until Miller's LRT-or-nothing idea came out.
Click to expand...

But why does it have to be Skytrain though? Yeah Vancouver is proving the potential, but there are numerous companies and trains we can pick from. Why limit ourselves to one manufacturer, and a train with a proprietary propulsion system? Montreal uses trains with the same width as the Line 3 (2.5m), why not use a variant of that? Or Siemens Inspiro and Alstom Metropolis, both of which are very well known and used in numerous cities across the world. They're standard metro trains, but can be made to order - with varying lengths and widths. We can order the narrowest trains and run them in 2, 3, 4-car consists. No need for Skytrain.

And I wasn't aware of Metrolinx wanting to use Skytrain for a Line 3 upgrade/extension. Is there a link of this? I would've thought they'd want the LRV option so that we could bundle it with Flexity Freedom order.
 

Attachments

  • rect3637.png
    rect3637.png
    15.8 KB · Views: 676
I wouldn't use SkyTrain but due to the SRT already being there it would might a seamless route. Also, SkyTrain is not proprietary.

For elevated rail, monorail is the superior choice
 
aquateam said:
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.
Click to expand...

7612117438_b306d89f3c.jpg


This one on the Evergreen Extension cost $28M.

Two 80m platforms, 1 entrance/exit with provision of a second one on the other side, 1 emergency exit, 2 elevators, 4 escalators, 4 fare gates.

Cost breakdown: Federal $7M, city/mall/private developer of highrise buildings nearby $21M
 
Last edited:
I wonder why the cost of the 12 kilometre long Crosstown tunnel despite being over $400 million/km has never been put under so much scrutiny? The anti-subway technology bias reeks.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top