Danforth Line 2 Scarborough Subway Extension

[BurlOak]

yet you arent causing a big fuss about it or the lack of cut and cover.Are you writing your politicians... as long as you get a version of a subway it doesnt seem to matter how much it costs because you arent paying for it.

Talk is that the West Highland Creek is a major impediment to a cut-and-cover line - But that may not be actually true.

• Here, at McCowan, the bridge has a span of about 30m. How deep below the road surface is the creek bed? Let's say the wingwalls are 5m long each - making the structure 40m long. With 2:1 embankment slopes, this would mean 10m from road surface to bottom of river bed. (2:1 is the typical embankment above water level, but flatter under water - so the 10m is quite a conservative value).
• Thus, the cut-and-cover tunnel would be about 11m to 16m depth (assuming 4m tunnel height, 0.5m top and bottom slab thickness, and 1m natural stream bed). The top of this tunnel would have a concrete apron which extends up and downstream a few metres (10 to 20m) to ensure that there is no scour below (or against) the tunnel even in extreme flow conditions.
• The tunnel would have be to built just beside McCowan (I will assume West) to avoid piles which are likely used on this bridge. Sheet piles would be place parallel to McCowan to allow excavation immediately beside the bridge. Sheet piles would be placed down the centre of the creek (actually, probably immediately next to the bank). This would allow one side of the sheet pile to be excavated while the temporary water flow went through the other side.
• When this is finished, the water would be sent above the freshly built tunnel while the other half of the tunnel is constructed.
• The result is a tunnel under the creek with a depth of station of 15m at Lawrence. As you go north and south on Lawrence, the tunnel would be somewhat shallower.

The best route is likely the straightest one (I am going against the Midland to Gatineau to McCowan to STC route that I considered before). Thus, I think cut-and-cover along Eglinton, following the natural curve to McCowan up to STC. If extended to Sheppard, I would expect that the STC to Sheppard (or CPR yard) stretch would have to be TBM.

You have 2 choices.

1. Either have closures and disruption along Eglinton and McCowan, or
2. use the Murray routing and have disruption of the SRT.

 

[Forgotten]

It's time to bite the bullet and go with the Murray plan. It will end up cheaper and better for future extensions to Malvern. The option should never have been pulled off the table. I'm sick of bureaucrats burying discussion about viable options because they and they alone decided what disruption is too much before anybody can talk about it. The same bureaucrats who decided we're not going to look at building on top of the SRT because of disruption said the same bull about not wanting to dig under King because it's too disruptive.

 

[BurlOak]

Would this alignment be tunnelled or on the surface? I believe the original plan was tunnelled, but can tunnelled be done without major service disruption to the SRT until the station reconstruction takes place?

The Murray plan had the Eglinton station underground, and then the line rising to the surface just after entering the GO corridor. It would stay at grade until Ellesmere where it would elevate all the way to Centennial, over 401, and then dive to be underground at Sheppard.
The key is the Kennedy area, and the Sheppard area, are shallow enough to be built with cut-and-cover.
If the GO corridor is tight for space, they could likely build the subway cut-and-cover in the corridor, with new GO service on top. It would be buried very nominally, so emergency exits would be horizontal shafts.

And here's the kicker. Notice how nobody is offering more stops with the LRT than what they originally did. There is still nobody saying, "For $3 billion we will bring back the Malvern Terminus as promised and build Eglinton East for Scarborough."

This is a really good point. The LRT supporters are so stubborn they refused to budge one inch from the previous plan.

 

[OneCity]

It's time to bite the bullet and go with the Murray plan. It will end up cheaper and better for future extensions to Malvern. The option should never have been pulled off the table. I'm sick of bureaucrats burying discussion about viable options because they and they alone decided what disruption is too much before anybody can talk about it. The same bureaucrats who decided we're not going to look at building on top of the SRT because of disruption said the same bull about not wanting to dig under King because it's too disruptive.

Agreed.

And that makes the comparison of 1 stop subway vs. the 7 stop LRT so ridiculous. We saw in the latest report there was a high consideration to the RT being shutdown. So those with power to make loud noise have been and are still debating technologies within seperate criteria.

The 5-6 stop Murray Subway vs. the 7 Stop LRT would have been a reasonable debate and a fair poll question. If they dropped it because of the RT shutdown, knowing all the heat that was on from the opposition to revert to transfer LRT. That's shameful. This plan easily had solved the big issue at hand

 

[TheTigerMaster]

In 2020, halfway through construction, we'll discover this thing will end up costing $5 Billion+. Torontonians will get fed up, contruction will be haulted, and we'll end up buying new vehicles for the existing RT. This ridiculous Scarborough Subway saga deserves only the most ridiculous ending.

 

[OneCity]

In 2020, halfway through construction, we'll discover this thing will end up costing $5 Billion+. Torontonians will get fed up, contruction will be haulted, and we'll end up buying new vehicles for the existing RT. This ridiculous Scarborough Subway saga deserves only the most ridiculous ending.

This will likely be the closest project to the actual budget weve ever seen due to the scrutiny. But ya I wouldn't be shocked to see it hit 3.5 to 4 billion at this rate

I wonder what the DRL cost would balloon to in this instance? If that did happen their might also be 600,000 less residents helping to pay for the..

 

[Hopkins123]

The Murray plan went from STC to Centennial to Sheppard (West of Markham Road).

I looked it up and the Ellesmere Station was dropped for cost and lack of ridership. The curve starts about 20m south of Ellesmere, so the (provision for future) Station would be a little south (and on the east side) of the current one.

Okay, I'll try this again:



I actually like this alignment even more than McCowan for the direct connections to Centennial College and Malvern Town Centre.

Hopefully future stations at Ellesmere, Bellamy and Morningside Heights could be factored in if Murray's proposal were to be revisited and selected.

 

[sixrings]

The Murray route is a non starter because then while construction is happening scarborough residents would be forced to take shuttle busses for years.

 

[WislaHD]

I wonder what the DRL cost would balloon to in this instance? If that did happen their might also be 600,000 less residents helping to pay for the..

Those 600,000 residents would benefit the most from the DRL.

It is Etobicoke and especially South Etobicoke that I don't know how they haven't begun a revolt over these transit plans on the east side.

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

Those 600,000 residents would benefit the most from the DRL.
It is Etobicoke and especially South Etobicoke that I don't know hasn't begun revolting over these transit plans on the east side.

People seem to have forgotten the main ultimate beneficiaries of DRL, fully implemented as DRL long isn't mainly downtowners for intra-downtown trips, but riders starting from the mid-north east part of the city (and the ancillary effect of freeing up capacity for those on the Yonge axis). Like those Sheppard bus riders to Don Mills trying to get to downtown.

AoD

 

[denfromoakvillemilton]

The Murray plan is really the best option at this point. There is no need for suburban stations to bring about substantial redevelopment as their purpose is largely in connecting feeder bus routes. It is not like the one-stop 6km subway was going to bring about redevelopment along its 6km tunnel anywho.



More, but definitely less than the one-stop subway?

The big question mark is the SRT corridor. It sounds like from the latest reports that they found using the corridor as highly undesirable.

Would this alignment be tunnelled or on the surface? I believe the original plan was tunnelled, but can tunnelled be done without major service disruption to the SRT until the station reconstruction takes place?

Talk is that the West Highland Creek is a major impediment to a cut-and-cover line - But that may not be actually true.

• Here, at McCowan, the bridge has a span of about 30m. How deep below the road surface is the creek bed? Let's say the wingwalls are 5m long each - making the structure 40m long. With 2:1 embankment slopes, this would mean 10m from road surface to bottom of river bed. (2:1 is the typical embankment above water level, but flatter under water - so the 10m is quite a conservative value).
• Thus, the cut-and-cover tunnel would be about 11m to 16m depth (assuming 4m tunnel height, 0.5m top and bottom slab thickness, and 1m natural stream bed). The top of this tunnel would have a concrete apron which extends up and downstream a few metres (10 to 20m) to ensure that there is no scour below (or against) the tunnel even in extreme flow conditions.
• The tunnel would have be to built just beside McCowan (I will assume West) to avoid piles which are likely used on this bridge. Sheet piles would be place parallel to McCowan to allow excavation immediately beside the bridge. Sheet piles would be placed down the centre of the creek (actually, probably immediately next to the bank). This would allow one side of the sheet pile to be excavated while the temporary water flow went through the other side.
• When this is finished, the water would be sent above the freshly built tunnel while the other half of the tunnel is constructed.
• The result is a tunnel under the creek with a depth of station of 15m at Lawrence. As you go north and south on Lawrence, the tunnel would be somewhat shallower.

The best route is likely the straightest one (I am going against the Midland to Gatineau to McCowan to STC route that I considered before). Thus, I think cut-and-cover along Eglinton, following the natural curve to McCowan up to STC. If extended to Sheppard, I would expect that the STC to Sheppard (or CPR yard) stretch would have to be TBM.

You have 2 choices.

1. Either have closures and disruption along Eglinton and McCowan, or
2. use the Murray routing and have disruption of the SRT.

It's time to bite the bullet and go with the Murray plan. It will end up cheaper and better for future extensions to Malvern. The option should never have been pulled off the table. I'm sick of bureaucrats burying discussion about viable options because they and they alone decided what disruption is too much before anybody can talk about it. The same bureaucrats who decided we're not going to look at building on top of the SRT because of disruption said the same bull about not wanting to dig under King because it's too disruptive.

The Murray plan had the Eglinton station underground, and then the line rising to the surface just after entering the GO corridor. It would stay at grade until Ellesmere where it would elevate all the way to Centennial, over 401, and then dive to be underground at Sheppard.
The key is the Kennedy area, and the Sheppard area, are shallow enough to be built with cut-and-cover.
If the GO corridor is tight for space, they could likely build the subway cut-and-cover in the corridor, with new GO service on top. It would be buried very nominally, so emergency exits would be horizontal shafts.

This is a really good point. The LRT supporters are so stubborn they refused to budge one inch from the previous plan.

So we all agree the murray plan is the best, just as I thought. 1.8 billion in 2012, why didn't this happen? I feel like special interests wanted McCowan

Agreed.

And that makes the comparison of 1 stop subway vs. the 7 stop LRT so ridiculous. We saw in the latest report there was a high consideration to the RT being shutdown. So those with power to make loud noise have been and are still debating technologies within seperate criteria.

The 5-6 stop Murray Subway vs. the 7 Stop LRT would have been a reasonable debate and a fair poll question. If they dropped it because of the RT shutdown, knowing all the heat that was on from the opposition to revert to transfer LRT. That's shameful. This plan easily had solved the big issue at hand

The people wanted McCowan. There is nothing wrong with the SRT corridor except it doesn't serve McCowan, and even though homeowners on McCowan are complaining now.

Sure. People will move on. After a Doug Ford mayoralty.

I have no sympathy for the politicians involved in this or even the public. I was in high school in 1995 and hearing about the SRT being extended to Malvern. They did nothing for 20 years and now the subway has become a test of loyalty for just enough Scarborough residents to swing elections.

The politicians and public throughout the city absolutely deserve this. If we had suburban rail, we wouldn't have the same demand for subway. And if we had extended the SRT all those years back, the pitch to go with LRT would have been more palatable. Heck, this subway would have been a lot cheaper if we built this instead of the Sorbara Express.

It's going to get built because no provincial or federal candidate running in Scarborough wants to be part of the team that cut the subway.

And here's the kicker. Notice how nobody is offering more stops with the LRT than what they originally did. There is still nobody saying, "For $3 billion we will bring back the Malvern Terminus as promised and build Eglinton East for Scarborough."

Elect Doug Ford because the province pulls out? Then Toronto is done for. And it will be Patrick Browns fault choice, people in the 905 and other parts of the province won't put up with this for much longer.

And great post. I agree 100%.

 

[jaybe]

The Murray route is a non starter because then while construction is happening scarborough residents would be forced to take shuttle busses for years.

I wonder how previous generations managed to get by without street car availability while the Yonge Street Subway was being built?

The Murray route is by far the most sensible solution. It is a direct connection to downtown. It traverses the proposed Scarborough City Center from east to west with potentially multiple stops rather than a single stop on a north-south axis. It will service far more residents and can reach low income areas with very poor service today. It offers access to significantly more development (particularly in the Progress corridor parallel to the 401).

The service disruption is a relatively minor inconvenience to the potential upside that would be realized.

 

[crs1026]

I wonder how previous generations managed to get by without street car availability while the Yonge Street Subway was being built?

The service disruption is a relatively minor inconvenience to the potential upside that would be realized.

A bus shuttle isn't ideal, but compared to the disruption on Yonge St in the 1950's, it's not impossible. Suppose southbound Midland and northbound Kennedy were declared bus-only or at least a dedicated bus lane while SRT is shut down. Build a temporary bus quarter-cloverleaf around the Library at Midland and Ellesmere so that there is no need for a bus to turn left to come south on Midland. You have the potential for a pretty effective shuttle "loop" that connects to most of the SRT route.

However, I like the potential of the McCowan subway route if it were built cut and cover and included stops at Ellesmere and Lawrence. Pay for it by ditching Smarttrack - Scarborough gets ST or the subway, but not both. I think even Mr Tory could backtrack on ST given the price upheaval on the subway. I can't see the two creek crossings as more problemmatic than, say, Montgomery Road on the Bloor line ever was. IIRC a few houses got expropriated there, so why shouldn't Scarborough take the same small hits to make this affordable. The super deep tunnel may be the foolish part of the whole subway proposal.

I have been doing some (unrelated) research on an issue from the 1957-1960 period that involves reading a lot of old newspaper clippings. I have been enjoying reading all the to-ing and fro-ing from the original debate on the Line 2 subway. Many of the arguments - including concern about cost - seem awfully short sighted with the benefit of 60 years' hindsight. I'm coming to believe that we should be trying to get this right, not get it done via the cheapest possible outcome. The investment will pay for itself over time.

Here for pure irony is the Scarborough perspective on the Bloor-Danforth line, mid-1958. The subway was upheld at OMB, at which point Scarborough dropped its objection, although west enders continued to oppose it through the courts. Happily, they lost also.

- Paul

 

[OneCity]

Those 600,000 residents would benefit the most from the DRL.

It is Etobicoke and especially South Etobicoke that I don't know how they haven't begun a revolt over these transit plans on the east side.

This argument is completely unfair

By your logic Pickering would benefit from form the SSE and should be paying above the Municipal/Federal contribution? There is also a socio economic benefit that comes with subway. And that is part of the issue.

People seem to have forgotten the main ultimate beneficiaries of DRL, fully implemented as DRL long isn't mainly downtowners for intra-downtown trips, but riders starting from the mid-north east part of the city (and the ancillary effect of freeing up capacity for those on the Yonge axis). Like those Sheppard bus riders to Don Mills trying to get to downtown.

AoD

No one is arguing this benefit but its being overstated in its greatness for Scarborough. Certainly we all want it built. But against the will of Scarborough if connecting the SSE is too much from those downtown Politicians than its more than expected that Scarborough will choose to only contribute the necessary Provincial & Federal donation and chaos will ensue.

Dont get me wrong I dont want to see this and I support the DRL, but Im not fine with the double standard. And for the record I only support the one stop because its compare to transfer LRT which is a poor legacy for Scarborough. I was hopefully all along for a Murray type plan. But at this point we atleast solve one of the issues and delaying likely wont save much money from any route. If the debate stays at one stop vs LRT.... Ill plug my nose and vote.

 

[TheTigerMaster]

This argument is completely unfair

By your logic Pickering would benefit from form the SSE and should be paying above the Municipal/Federal contribution? There is also a socio economic benefit that comes with subway. And that is part of the issue.

I'm sure the people on Lawrence East are loving the socioeconomic benefits of the subway