News   Apr 23, 2024
Madison Resubmits Midtown Proposals with Viñoly-Designed Towers
 1.4K     4 
News   Apr 23, 2024
Avontuura's Wanderer Guides Designed For Architecture Buffs to Geek-out in Toronto, and Worldwide
 511     0 
News   Apr 23, 2024
Queen's Cross Food Hall Brings Global Flavours to Toronto Eaton Centre
 1.2K     0 

Danforth Line 2 Scarborough Subway Extension

How does one cave on Eglinton at this point? They've already selected the bidder, and are finalizing the contract. That ship has sailed.
 
denfromoakvillemilton said:
So if the scaborough caucus on city council and queens park want sheppard east too and eglinton to be a subway Tory will cave on that too? Paperweight.
Click to expand...

The province pretty much canned anything on Sheppard and Eglinton is under-construction. That's your answer. Besides, at some point too much resources on Scarborough will probably gets you less votes elsewhere.

AoD
 
AlvinofDiaspar said:
The province pretty much canned anything on Sheppard and Eglinton is under-construction. That's your answer. Besides, at some point too much resources on Scarborough will probably gets you less votes elsewhere.

AoD
Click to expand...
FYI it was the scaborough mpps who started the sheppard east drumbeat again and not city council like some believe. Duguid and them have enough votes to start trouble. They also got the SELRT stuck in development hell.
 
TheTigerMaster said:
Since the approval of the SLRT almost a decade ago the situation has changed quite drastically. We will now have the need to fit both a double tracked regional rail and the LRT on the same corridor. Assuming that's even possible, that would take a new round of design work, correct?
Click to expand...

The railway corridor is more than wide enough for 2 tracks, and was never going to be encroached on by the RT corridor. What makes you think that any engineering at all needs to be revisited?

Dan
Toronto, Ont.
 
TheTigerMaster said:
6.2 km was the section south of Steeles, since north of Steeles usage is unknown.

I don't know what time would have to do with it. You're the one who said we don't want high ridership near the end of the line. Why would we measure distance from the end of the line in time?
Click to expand...

I'm not really sure what you guys are discussing, but I was glancing at at this older TTC report for info on Sheppard West and it may have some numbers that are useful to this discussion. Obviously they're older and don't include the Prov's fanciful Big Move P2G UGC VMC yadda yadda. But on p. 35 it claims that by 2021 Downsview-Steeles would see 3,800 peak, and 81,762 boardings. Downsview to VCC would see 4,400peak and 106,878 ridership. So subtracting one from the other, the section north of Steeles to VMC would see 600peak and 25,000 riders. I believe this is without a Hwy 407 station though (which I doubt would add that much), but I think TTC deemed the whole thing a non-priority at the time.
 
44 North said:
So subtracting one from the other, the section north of Steeles to VMC would see 600peak and 25,000 riders
Click to expand...
That assumes that 100% of the riders that would use the Steeles to Downsview, would also not be taking transit (or driving) from north of Steeles.

Also, if you look at the Big Move modelling for 2031 done in 2008, they forecast at the 7,200 peak point (and 11,000 total boardings in the peak hour, implying there is some significant reverse travel and/or trips that stop short of Downsview). http://www.metrolinx.com/thebigmove/Docs/big_move/RTP_Backgrounder_Modelling.pdf
 
44 North said:
I don't really get what you're saying here. What was abandoned? The SLRT plan was to be elevated, all the elevated track in TO uses emergency walkways, as does Skytrain in Vancouver. And I highly doubt a steel catwalk or slightly wider deck would really inflate costs all that much - particularly when compared to a wider tunnel somewhere below the surface. Regardless, "open air" doesn't have to mean an EL. It means a train run in the open air (e.g trenched, on the surface, or along a railway/hydro corridor).
Click to expand...

Sorry, I think I was half-asleep when I wrote it. :oops: :(

My point I was getting at was that elevated lines (EL) and open-air concepts where talked about as options for the SLRT/SRT rebuild, but safety requirements of having catwalks and noise from steel wheels is what killed both ideas instantly. As for steel catwalks, I doubt they would use steel, it would only add to the costs of maintenance on making sure they aren't rusting away over time.
 
nfitz said:
That assumes that 100% of the riders that would use the Steeles to Downsview, would also not be taking transit (or driving) from north of Steeles.

Also, if you look at the Big Move modelling for 2031 done in 2008, they forecast at the 7,200 peak point (and 11,000 total boardings in the peak hour, implying there is some significant reverse travel and/or trips that stop short of Downsview). http://www.metrolinx.com/thebigmove/Docs/big_move/RTP_Backgrounder_Modelling.pdf
Click to expand...

Ah, this might be more reliable...or is it. Personally I've gotten to the point where I can't fully trust Metrolinx's (and by extension the Prov's) numbers from this time. There were many assumptions made around the mid-00s about UGCs - and that growth plans, density requirements, and urbanization outside the 416 would go swimmingly. But certain UGCs like VMC and RHC/LG lack many of the components that make a successful centre (e.g shopping malls, city halls, major anchors, etc). And with Vaughan's recent overwhelming support for an unstudied expansion of their urban boundary onto protected greenbelt/ORM land for more subdivisions, and the numerous amendments and appeals we've seen across the GTHA and GGH since P2G came into effect, I think it's apparent many of the prov's postulations made a decade ago are turning out to be off the mark. By most accounts, TYSSE was to open this year. But if you stood at the corner of Jane/Hwy 7, a subway there would seem like the last thing required for the area.

Also, I think in the first few pages of the rtp backgrounder it mentions that the modeling used 2001 pop data, which may've been the same data used in the 2002 ttc report I cited on the prev page. I'm not sure if this would affect the reliability of Metrolinx's numbers, but IMO using 2001 data to calculate 2031 projections is a tad unreliable.

CodeMonkey said:
Sorry, I think I was half-asleep when I wrote it. :oops: :(

My point I was getting at was that elevated lines (EL) and open-air concepts where talked about as options for the SLRT/SRT rebuild, but safety requirements of having catwalks and noise from steel wheels is what killed both ideas instantly. As for steel catwalks, I doubt they would use steel, it would only add to the costs of maintenance on making sure they aren't rusting away over time.
Click to expand...

I still don't understand. Are you saying the SLRT was to be tunneled from Midland to Malvern? Because that would be news to me if it was true.
 
44 North said:
Ah, this might be more reliable...or is it. Personally I've gotten to the point where I can't fully trust Metrolinx's (and by extension the Prov's) numbers from this time.
Click to expand...
It's probably more reliable, given that it assumes that the subway actually goes all the way to Highway 7! I don't think there was much basis for the 2002 numbers.

Is it perfect ... no. But it's probably the best we've got. Somewhere more than Sheppard, but less than the Danforth extension. Which sounds reasonable.

There's over 50,000 students alone at the main York University campus - and that doesn't include staff and faculty! If only 10% take the subway, that's over 5,000 boardings a day right there. And some will have two boardings, if they are travelling from Vaughan to York U. And that doesn't even start to include those commuting south to downtown who use that extension!

Quite frankly, I think the project is too low. Only 11,000 boardings a day - but the current ridership on the York U 196 Rocket alone is 22,000? There's not that many that only use the Yonge to Downsview segment.

Surely the 196 Rocket alone is 10,000 boardings a day! And the 196 York University Rocket is by far not the only bus you see full of students at the York U bus loop.
 
Last edited:
I only really flipped through the 2002 TTC report. But they did in fact give 2021 projections for a one stop extension to VCC (i.e Hwy 7). As for the basis of their numbers, on the maps they provided the area around Jane/Hwy 7 is highlighted to experience growth. So I believe future development was included in the TTC's 2021 ridership numbers between Steeles and Hwy 7 (tho they were substantially lower than the 2031 UGC numbers given by Metrolinx).

The section between Downsview and York U I have few qualms with, and believe the projections given. It's a major university campus...RT should've been built there 20yrs ago. I would've preferred if an unstudied idea like a light metro was explored as an extension from Downsview (similar to what was studied for an extension from Kipling to YYZ, and like what was built from Kennedy to STC with the SRT). My skepticism concerning ridership of TYSSE is mostly centred between Pioneer Village and VMC.
 
There's numbers to Steeles in the EA for the TYSSE which would postdate the 2002 report, but predate the Big Move report.
 
Oh right. I believe at several points in time I've tried to access that EA but only came across dead links. Some transit reports are too hard to find, and basically lost in cyberspace until they're stumbled upon by happenstance. It'd be nice if there was a database where these reports could be easily retrieved, and perhaps over time people could add older reports they've scanned from the reference library.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top