Danforth Line 2 Scarborough Subway Extension

[Rainforest]

When it was lrt and fully funded it wasn't too late to debate but now that this thing has ballooned it is too late to debate? Sure sounds more like once the momentum turned to subway which you advocate for you coincidentally are too tired of debating and the show must go on no matter the cost.

Yes. Too late to debate, the show must go on.

If you are eager to debate, then you can turn your ire to Eglinton West (http://www.metrolinx.com/en/regionalplanning/projectevaluation/benefitscases/2020-02-28_ECWE_IBC.PDF). Twice as many grade-separated stations, for a decidedly lower peak ridership. Less than 4,000 pphpd in each direction west of Jane.

 

[Steve X]

Yes. Too late to debate, the show must go on.

If you are eager to debate, then you can turn your ire to Eglinton West (http://www.metrolinx.com/en/regionalplanning/projectevaluation/benefitscases/2020-02-28_ECWE_IBC.PDF). Twice as many grade-separated stations, for a decidedly lower peak ridership. Less than 4,000 pphpd in each direction west of Jane.

Comparing to Toronto numbers, 4,000 pphpd would be terrible. Considering half the tunneled Crosstown section would be around 6,000-6.500 pphpd, it's not that bad. The Canada Line over in Vancouver where they are proud of all that ridership only carries 5,500 ppdph.

It also seem like each of the 4 project selected are in different parts of TO, west (Eg West), downtown (OL), north (Yonge North) and east (SSE). So everyone gets a subway!

 

[sixrings]

Yes. Too late to debate, the show must go on.

If you are eager to debate, then you can turn your ire to Eglinton West (http://www.metrolinx.com/en/regionalplanning/projectevaluation/benefitscases/2020-02-28_ECWE_IBC.PDF). Twice as many grade-separated stations, for a decidedly lower peak ridership. Less than 4,000 pphpd in each direction west of Jane.

So your argument is that the SSE is going to produce shitty results but Eglinton west is even shittier therefore build the SSE? Where exactly do you live again?

 

[BurlOak]

I don't know about any of this. That width doesn't seem right. And I wouldn't have thought width would be a deal breaker when it comes to building bridges regardless. W. Highland actually seems quite similar to Mimico Ck. I don't think anyone worries about the subway getting washed out there.

And I see lots of birds under bridges. They make it a habitat.

If done, the road profile of McCowan would be raised for 200m or more, not just in the vicinity of the hospital. You'd have to spend a few million re-configuring the entrance to the hospital, but for a chance to save 100's of millions, on subway construction, it's worth it.
Leslie is perhaps a better example where Leslie station is in the valley floor, the East Don River is even closer to the intersection, and yet they still found a way of going over the river. This was in an era when they cared about costs.

 

[Streety McCarface]

So your argument is that the SSE is going to produce shitty results but Eglinton west is even shittier therefore build the SSE? Where exactly do you live again?

The argument is that perceived "crappy" results after initial construction should not justify the shelving or cancellation of a project. Some people in this city have absurdly high standards for justifying subway construction, and even for LRT construction. We should have been building Light rail on bus routes that see peak ridership levels of over 3K PPHPD (The King streetcar gets 4K PPHPD, and the other streetcar lines get around 2K PPHPD). We should not be building light rail for corridors seeing over 10K PPHPD or even 8K PPHPD. Conversion to rail (especially grade-separated rail) generally doubles ridership on a corridor (Sheppard went from about 26K PPD to 50K PPD, the TYSSE went from 40K on the York University busway to 90K (with still room to grow), and the crosstown is expected to go from 70K PPD on the 2 Eglinton buses to around 150K PPD).

Look at Ottawa — They built a grade-separated light rail system (What is proposed for the Scarborough LRT) on a corridor twice as long and with rolling stock twice as long as what is being proposed here, yet projected passenger usage rates are both at least 10K PPHPD, approaching 15K PPHPD. Running a new line with crowding levels as high as theirs has caused a large number of problems. Many of the outcomes (lost ridership comes to mind) will be irreversible for years.

A subway line also has a 60+ year initial lifecycle before significant rehabilitation measures are required, so it's got 2 generations to grow ridership.

Do you want to know why systems elsewhere are so large and sustainable? Because they were built out before development came. New York City was building elevated lines in the middle of farmers' fields initially, and that investment has paid itself off hundreds of times over today. Look at VMC, it was built in little more than a field, but gets a solid 15K riders per day with barely any of the planned development complete.

 

[syn]

The argument is that perceived "crappy" results after initial construction should not justify the shelving or cancellation of a project.

They aren't perceived. They're legitimately bad. Even Metrolinx admits it's not worth the money.

 

[Streety McCarface]

They aren't perceived. They're legitimately bad. Even Metrolinx admits it's not worth the money.

Metrolinx also stated that the existing crosstown had a Cost-Benefit recovery ratio of 0.2, so all these projects technically do better than that. If I recall correctly, the original relief line according to their methodology had a CBRR of 0.8-0.9 — absurd for a necessary and guaranteed high-use line.

As pointed out before, Metrolinx is still being extremely conservative with this business case. They don't account for any development benefits (Which are huge enough), TTC running efficiency benefits, economic gains (which are also huge), access to transit benefits, CO_2 emissions for buses, knock-on benefits for existing lines (ie resignalling line 2), etc. If you don't include any of these, no rapid transit makes sense.

However, all the bus proposals scored high, mainly because the buses are already packed full, incremental improvements are cheap as hell, and road infrastructure is not included in the bill.

 

[urbanyimby]

19-149 - DBF - Advance Tunnel for Scarborough Subway Extension

DESCRIPTION
The Scarborough Subway Extension project (“SSE”) project is a fully underground extension of Toronto’s ‘Bloor-Danforth’ subway Line 2, from the existing terminal at Kennedy Station northeast to Sheppard Avenue and McCowan Road, spanning approximately 7.8 kilometres. The SSE will include three new stations at Lawrence Avenue and McCowan Road, Scarborough Centre and Sheppard Avenue and McCowan Road. The SSE will also include modifications to Kennedy Station and supporting/ancillary works. The SSE will replace the existing Line 3 (Scarborough Rapid Transit, or “SRT”) and serve as the local rapid transit option in Scarborough.

The SSE has an estimated cost of approximately $CAD 5.5B and a target delivery date of 2029-2030. The SSE will be delivered by way of an advance tunnel contract (the “Advance Tunnel Contract”, or the “Project”), followed by a subsequent contract to construct the stations and other facilities, fit-out the tunnel, and install and commission the systems (referred to as the “Stations, Rail and Systems”) (the “SRS Contract”). The Advance Tunnel Contract and the SRS Contract will both be delivered as P3 projects. Specifically, the delivery model for the Advance Tunnel Contract will be design-build-finance and the delivery model for the SRS Contract will be design-build-finance-maintain (with maintenance for only a portion of the scope).

Background Information Documents are available in a secure document e-room (Accellion) the “E-Room”.
Each Applicant shall submit an executed confidentiality agreement in the form attached as Schedule 4 to this RFQ to gain access to certain Background Information Documents in the E-Room. The executed confidentiality agreement must be submitted by email in PDF format to the Contact Person, identifying the name of the Applicant, phone number of the applicable contact person for the Applicant, and the email address that will access the Background Information Documents.
Upon receipt of such executed confidentiality agreement, the Sponsors will provide each Applicant with instructions regarding how to access the Background Information Documents in the E-Room.

 

[sixrings]

The argument is that perceived "crappy" results after initial construction should not justify the shelving or cancellation of a project. Some people in this city have absurdly high standards for justifying subway construction, and even for LRT construction. We should have been building Light rail on bus routes that see peak ridership levels of over 3K PPHPD (The King streetcar gets 4K PPHPD, and the other streetcar lines get around 2K PPHPD). We should not be building light rail for corridors seeing over 10K PPHPD or even 8K PPHPD. Conversion to rail (especially grade-separated rail) generally doubles ridership on a corridor (Sheppard went from about 26K PPD to 50K PPD, the TYSSE went from 40K on the York University busway to 90K (with still room to grow), and the crosstown is expected to go from 70K PPD on the 2 Eglinton buses to around 150K PPD).

Look at Ottawa — They built a grade-separated light rail system (What is proposed for the Scarborough LRT) on a corridor twice as long and with rolling stock twice as long as what is being proposed here, yet projected passenger usage rates are both at least 10K PPHPD, approaching 15K PPHPD. Running a new line with crowding levels as high as theirs has caused a large number of problems. Many of the outcomes (lost ridership comes to mind) will be irreversible for years.

A subway line also has a 60+ year initial lifecycle before significant rehabilitation measures are required, so it's got 2 generations to grow ridership.

Do you want to know why systems elsewhere are so large and sustainable? Because they were built out before development came. New York City was building elevated lines in the middle of farmers' fields initially, and that investment has paid itself off hundreds of times over today. Look at VMC, it was built in little more than a field, but gets a solid 15K riders per day with barely any of the planned development complete.

You know the pro subway conspiracies believe that Miller managed to get the experts to fudge the numbers to justify the cost of LRT. Now with a conservative mayor and a conservative premier the people in power can't manage to fudge the numbers to justify the subway. That tells me how royally fd this project is. Even the people you pay, when they lie, their lies still can't justify this nonsense.

Unless your argument is that Tory and Ford are trustworthy and didn't influence the results. That take is laughable though.

 

[Hopkins123]

When it was lrt and fully funded it wasn't too late to debate but now that this thing has ballooned it is too late to debate? Sure sounds more like once the momentum turned to subway which you advocate for you coincidentally are too tired of debating and the show must go on no matter the cost.

The costs will only balloon ever more higher the longer we stop, stall and debate this. Why is this rationale so hard for the antisubway crowd to understand?

 

[Streety McCarface]

You know the pro subway conspiracies believe that Miller managed to get the experts to fudge the numbers to justify the cost of LRT. Now with a conservative mayor and a conservative premier the people in power can't manage to fudge the numbers to justify the subway. That tells me how royally fd this project is. Even the people you pay, when they lie, their lies still can't justify this nonsense.

Unless your argument is that Tory and Ford are trustworthy and didn't influence the results. That take is laughable though.

There are plenty of reasons to believe they did, but after reading the report, I can safely say that Metrolinx's methodology was flawed, not just for this project, but for every major infrastructure project. If we're justifying spending 2 billion for the Hamilton LRT, a billion for iON phases 1 & 2, and 1.5 billion for Finch West with the assumption that development and economic growth (increased number of jobs) was factored into the CBA, then these subway lines should be as well.

There are easy ways to figure out the numbers were fugged, but I'm honestly not sure how they fugged them, or what their motives/methodology was. For instance, revenue was quoted at ~800M. When you divide that by the number of rides per year (100,000*300 commuting days), you get 26$ in revenue per ride. That obviously doesn't make sense for one year, so how about the 50-year timeframe they mention? Revenue totals 53 cents there per ride, which still doesn't make sense, even in the context of a fare covering the bus ride, and the additional 10-20 km on other subway lines to one's destination. The Scarborough subway portion of their ride will probably account for 1/3 of their fare, maybe 1/4 (depending on their origin and destination), so of the 4$ (what the fare will likely be in 10-15 years), The revenue per passenger should be 1$ to 1.33$. This doesn't even factor in inflation over 50 years.

The relief line should have gotten a CBA score of at least 3, not 0.8. I fear this type of analysis will be forwarded to MTO and be used to justify freeway expansion.

 

[sixrings]

The costs will only balloon ever more higher the longer we stop, stall and debate this. Why is this rationale so hard for the antisubway crowd to understand?

You know the LRT crowd didn't need to use that argument to justify its construction. Hey build the LRT because if we wait the construction will cost more in the future. Everything is going to cost more in the future. That isn't an argument if you don't have the money or it's not money wisely spent. Hey honey I know we can't afford a Ferrari but a Ferrari is 300k today. But you know in 2040 you won't be able to buy a Ferrari for less than 500k. See honey it's a bargin to buy it now. What kind of twisted nonsense logic is that. If you want to build a damn subway build the DRL. But the DRL doesn't go to your door so forget that and steal every dollar to the burbs under ridiculous arguments.

 

[CityStay]

It's no wonder so little is ever accomplished on the transit front in this city. Fifteen years later and we STILL don't know wtf is happening with this and everyone is STILL arguing whether it should be this, that or some other thing.

Forget Hemmingway, Kafka should have taken up residency instead.

 

[rbt]

You know the LRT crowd didn't need to use that argument to justify its construction. Hey build the LRT because if we wait the construction will cost more in the future. Everything is going to cost more in the future. That isn't an argument if you don't have the money or it's not money wisely spent. Hey honey I know we can't afford a Ferrari but a Ferrari is 300k today. But you know in 2040 you won't be able to buy a Ferrari for less than 500k. See honey it's a bargin to buy it now. What kind of twisted nonsense logic is that. If you want to build a damn subway build the DRL. But the DRL doesn't go to your door so forget that and steal every dollar to the burbs under ridiculous arguments.

Right, if you can't afford the million dollar house today or in the future, perhaps you shouldn't have a million dollar house at all.

Particularly when those ~50 year major maintenance bills start to appear which cost nearly as much (inflation adjusted) as the original build.

 

[W. K. Lis]

It's no wonder so little is ever accomplished on the transit front in this city. Fifteen years later and we STILL don't know wtf is happening with this and everyone is STILL arguing whether it should be this, that or some other thing.

Forget Hemmingway, Kafka should have taken up residency instead.

From link.