Danforth Line 2 Scarborough Subway Extension

[44 North]

Because the transfer does make a difference despite what the ideologues say. The way to fix this (if we aren't willing to drop the transfer at Kennedy) is to move more traffic to lines that can built without transfers: ie. Eglinton and a reconstituted Sheppard corridor.

Or another idea would be to support similar S(L)RT-style proposals elsewhere in the city. That way the system wont be seen as a unique solution 'foisted' on Scarb. The logic behind the original SRT is sound, and at the time of the TTC's plans for a CLRV line from Kennedy they wanted to do the same at Kipling. Cities like London have embraced a similar mode with their DLR, and it's been continually expanded/branched since its opening. Naturally any potential ridership lost by those wanting to avoid a dreaded transfer could be made up for by a diversion to a longer-haul service like improved GO.

The problem is that outside of Scarb this type of system is completely ignored, even though we've had opportunities. And it oddly seems many who staunchly support the S(L)RT proposal will fight you tooth and nail that such a system can only be built in Scarb. Why is this? IMO Downsview would've been a great terminus and a fantastic opportunity to use a grade-separated light mode to York U and VMC. And ditto for Yonge North between Finch or Steeles and RHC. Some sections could be tunneled, some elevated, some trenched. With grade-separation the capacity is huge, and the line can carry well beyond the threshold of tram-style LRT operation.

But what do we get instead? No proposals for such systems outside of Scarb, but rather schemes for deep bore heavy rail extensions built below fields and 10-lane highways. Vaughan is already planning for an extension of the Spadina line to reach an even newer "centre" 4km north of VMC (Vaughan Mills Centre). And you can be sure the vote-happy Prov will support them on it.

IMO the solution of a subway terminus + transfer to a standalone grade-separate light RT line like the S(L)RT is a good one. But I think these systems are mostly frowned upon because we've already set the precedent of building Cadillac subway extensions elsewhere. Hypothetically if in light of costs/capacity issues the Prov/York Region decides to go back to the drawing board to plan a light metro solution for Yonge instead of a subway, I think the S(L)RT will be seen as much more palatable - to the point where we could cancel SSE and perhaps go back to the SLRT plan.

 

[BurlOak]

Of course that makes no sense, because that is not what I said.

I said that the refurbished ICTS solution is no cheaper than LRT, unless you want to drop the connection to Sheppard and only refurbish the existing line to McCowan Stn.

Both the ICTS and the LRT solutons are cheaper than subway.

The 2006 report said that Mark 2 was less expensive for the Kennedy to McCowan portion. The extension to Malvern is planned to be fully grade separated, so I agree that this part would be roughly the same cost. But when you add up the total cost of the line, Mark 2 is still cheaper

 

[nfitz]

Of course that makes no sense, because that is not what I said.

I said that the refurbished ICTS solution is no cheaper than LRT, unless you want to drop the connection to Sheppard and only refurbish the existing line to McCowan Stn.

Both the ICTS and the LRT solutons are cheaper than subway.

What does that have to do with my simple comment that the Ellesmere tunnel isn't the reason we can't simply upgrade the line to MKIII?

 

[BurlOak]

City Council has been pretty supportive of SmartTrack so far, and Tory has a huge amount of capital invested in it. If the City can release "SmartTrack 2.0", which includes the Scarborough Spur, I think it would win a lot of votes, especially if it can be accomplished within the existing budget. Many of the pro-LRT councillors were for the LRT because it fit within the established budget, and many of the pro-subway councillors just didn't want LRT, and didn't want a forced transfer at Kennedy. Proposing a 3rd option which is basically a surface subway (I hate that term, but politically it plays well) that fits within the existing budget allows both sides to change their vote but not appear like they're backtracking.

The key here is saving face. Scarborough city councillors have heavily committed to the BD extension. Wynne and the Scarborough Liberal MPPs are also heavily connected to the Scarborough subway. Tory is less committed to this subway, but is to SmartTrack.

As it has been for the past number of years, this is not about good transit, it is about trying to look good (or not bad) in public. My guess is that Tory is more open to compromise than the Liberals are.

 

[nfitz]

City Council has been pretty supportive of SmartTrack so far, and Tory has a huge amount of capital invested in it. If the City can release "SmartTrack 2.0", which includes the Scarborough Spur...

What SmartTrack Scarborough Spur ... what, finally do the sensible thing and run it out Lakeshore East, with a spur up to Agincourt? Seems kind of pointless, if it's only running every 15 minutes or so, the spur would be even less frequent. Wouldn't the RER plans be just as good (if not the same)?

 

[44 North]

On the issue of ridership / modes / priorities / promises, I stumbled on this 2008 Metrolinx RTP Backgrounder Modelling and on p27 it gives some interesting numbers compiled together. Might be useful for this debate, but also for region-wide transit in general.

Scarb RT: 6,400
TYSSE: 7,200
Eglinton: 7,800
Yonge North: 8,800
DRL: 17,500

And I also have trouble understanding why Tory and the Prov are so keen on Stouffville GO when its projected ridership is so low compared with other corridors.

Stouffville: 3,100
LSW: 23,000
LSE: 26,300
Kitchener: 19,800
Richmond Hill: 18,100
Milton: 17,000

Seems with transit projects (and their ensuing debates) the most important numbers to gauge a line's worth is average weekday ridership. This kinda makes sense, since with a line like Sheppard we all tend to quote how its ridership is on par with surface lines such as 504 King. In the 2008 Metrolinx Backgrounder it does provide us with annual ridership projections. I'm not certain, but I was under the impression that in order to get daily numbers from annual you simply count a weekend as one day (i.e - to get daily from annual you divide by 312 days). So if anyone wants to see how certain lines/extensions weigh up against one another in this manner, this could be handy. All I did was the annual->wkday math, so I can't speak to the validity of the numbers beyond simply pointing to their source.

 

[BurlOak]

I don't know exactly what SmartTrack is, but each branch (spur) would need 6 to 10 minutes frequency.

That would mean 2 to 3.5 min. frequency on LSE when the STC, Agincourt, and Pickering trains are all together

 

[nfitz]

I'm not sure the sudden interest with the 2008 modelling numbers that we've discussed widely and extensively on several occasions since they were released in 2008.

Where's the 312 coming from? Typically 300 is the rule of thumb ... though on a very weekday dominated system it's a bit lower, and on places with very high weekend traffic (i.e. TTC) it's bit higher.

 

[nfitz]

I don't know exactly what SmartTrack is, but each branch (spur) would need 6 to 10 minutes frequency.

That would mean 2 to 3.5 min. frequency on LSE when the STC, Agincourt, and Pickering trains are all together

Well that's not going to be happening is it! Not outside of peak!

 

[44 North]

I'm not sure the sudden interest with the 2008 modelling numbers that we've discussed widely and extensively on several occasions since they were released in 2008.

Where's the 312 coming from? Typically 300 is the rule of thumb ... though on a very weekday dominated system it's a bit lower, and on places with very high weekend traffic (i.e. TTC) it's bit higher.

I just thought it was interesting to have all the numbers compiled in one source. Many times when trying to find numbers for projects involves dead links, or individual reports for individual lines. The talk of Transit City and early Big Move made it seem relevant to the discussion of Scarb.

And I asked on the site how to get daily from annual at one point, no one responded. And I remember reading on Steve Munro once that a wknd counts as one day. So 52 weeks x 6 days = 312.

 

[nfitz]

Oh, I missed that. 300 is the old rule of thumb, and close enough. 312 might work better with TTC - less so on many systems though. Not much difference really in the greater scheme of things!

 

[BurlOak]

Peak frequency is what determines what is possible. Off peak is just what we want to pay for (although with ATC the extra marginal cost is not that high).

True, it's not going to happen, but not because it's not a viable solution, but because the only things being offered are the Transit City LRT or subway extension.

 

[Forgotten]

Keithz can't complain if this gets buried. A Tory hugger from the start. Arrogantly tells us M1Bers that Scarborough voted overwhelmingly for Smarttrack. How do you sleep at night?

Coffey and Burloak, this is the Scarborough subway thread. If you want to cover your bedroom walls with newspaper clippings and black & white telephotos of your Eglinton viaduct skytrains or little Mel's toy trains, go on ahead (and I'm assuming you two are already way ahead of the rest of the world there) but stop trying to derail this thread and its discussion of the M1B getting what it rightly deserves.

 

[BurlOak]

Coffey and Burloak, this is the Scarborough subway thread.

It's a Scarborough RT thread.

 

[WislaHD]

Seems with transit projects (and their ensuing debates) the most important numbers to gauge a line's worth is average weekday ridership. This kinda makes sense, since with a line like Sheppard we all tend to quote how its ridership is on par with surface lines such as 504 King. In the 2008 Metrolinx Backgrounder it does provide us with annual ridership projections. I'm not certain, but I was under the impression that in order to get daily numbers from annual you simply count a weekend as one day (i.e - to get daily from annual you divide by 312 days). So if anyone wants to see how certain lines/extensions weigh up against one another in this manner, this could be handy. All I did was the annual->wkday math, so I can't speak to the validity of the numbers beyond simply pointing to their source.

View attachment 60550

Interesting that Eglinton's avg weekday ridership is so high in comparison. Really shows how well used the Crosstown is going to be offpeak, which is believable considering day-time bus ridership on Eglinton.