News   Jul 16, 2024
News Roundup for July 16, 2024
 444     0 
News   Jul 16, 2024
The Urban Jungle
 552     2 
News   Jul 15, 2024
Sculptural Pre-Cast Panels Now Adorning ANX Near Dupont Station
 1.4K     3 

Danforth Line 2 Scarborough Subway Extension

BurlOak said:
Would the Kennedy to Don Mills stretch be elevated or underground?
Click to expand...
Very good question. Do you think in-median ROW would not be able to serve LRT at say <7 minute frequency?

Perhaps trenched at stations/intersections would be the way to go?

@44North, I meant Toronto subway rolling stock, as the idea stems from a "what-if Harris never buried the Eglinton Subway?" scenario. I am of course open to different rolling stocks.
 
WislaHD said:
Very good question. Do you think in-median ROW would not be able to serve LRT at say <7 minute frequency
Click to expand...


That would mean 14 minute service to STC?
I think you would be looking at a need for 3 minute headway (maybe 4 max) to STC, so 90 to 120 seconds on Eglinton.
 
TheTigerMaster said:
Hindsight is 20/20, and your ignoring what was on the table back in 2010
Click to expand...

But hindsight was not needed. Everyone knew that the subway would be very expensive and ridership on the margins of subway capacity. They also knew that the transfer at Kennedy was widely despised and the 3 to 4 year closure unacceptable.

The solution was there for everyone to see, but all chose to ignore it.
 
BurlOak said:
That would mean 14 minute service to STC?
I think you would be looking at a need for 3 minute headway (maybe 4 max) to STC, so 90 to 120 seconds on Eglinton.
Click to expand...
I didn't realize the LRT would improve headways so much compared to the present SRT.

So what are other examples across the globe for handling high level frequencies with higher headways on in-median ROW? (Say at 120 seconds) Can it be done with synchronized lights?

I wonder how the costs compare between trenched at intersections (or all the way?) and elevated.
 
DonValleyRainbow said:
Wasn't there some technical consideration? Couldn't they not get the grades resolved?

It seems to me that extending the current Crosstown east into the Scarborough Malvern LRT makes more sense anyway.
Click to expand...

As a former Scarborough resident, few things have angered me more than the Miller administration's failure to build Scarborough Malvern LRT. This line was projected to move as many people as the Eglinton Crosstown LRT. It absolutely should have been built along with the Scarborough LRT, Sheppard East LRT and Eglinton Crosstown LRT.

It's something that has pissed me off every times I've been stuck in a bus on Eglinton/Kingston/Morningside. It's yet another example of political pandering screwing the residents of Scarborough.
 
WislaHD said:
My ideal scenario would have been upgrading Eglinton Crosstown into a subway, terminating it at Don Mills station in the east and at Pearson Airport in the west (elevated along Richview Corridor).

Then I would have the Scarborough-Malvern LRT routing with an interchange station at Don Mills-Eglinton, and have the SLRT interline with the S-M LRT at Kennedy and heading towards Don Mills.

This way we get high-capacity subway along Eglinton, and a high-frequency LRT in Scarborough, as both LRT spurs would interline and double the frequency along the most important stretch (Don Mills to Kennedy).
Click to expand...

This wouldn't have been technically possible.

Recall the reason that the Eglinton Scarborough Crosstown Light Rail Transit line was decoupled from the Scarborough Light Rail transit line was because the combined usage of ECLRT and SLRT would be well over the limit of in-median light rail transit immediately west of our Kennedy Station. For this scheme to work, the Eglinton Crosstown Light Rail Transit subway line would have have to be extended east to Kennedy station, completely underground.

Your scheme faces the same issue. The ridership on the Scarborough Malvern LRT was somewhere between 4,000 and 5,000 pphpd, iirc. ECLRT was already at 5,500 pphpd. AM peak point usage west of Kennedy would be approaching or exceeding the capacity for in median LRT. The only way to get around this issue would be to extend the Eglinton Crosstown LRT subway east to Kennedy.
 
BurlOak said:
But hindsight was not needed. Everyone knew that the subway would be very expensive and ridership on the margins of subway capacity. They also knew that the transfer at Kennedy was widely despised and the 3 to 4 year closure unacceptable.

The solution was there for everyone to see, but all chose to ignore it.
Click to expand...

The solution was to embrace elevated transit between Don Mills and Kennedy. Everyone ignored that. Ford, Stintz, Metrolinx, our entire council...everyone. Had anyone (incl Ford and his goons) said "look, I found a way to connect the Crosstown to the SLRT - fully grade-separated - but for significantly less!", I think more people would've listened. They didn't. All the costing and wording was for underground. No mention of anything else. The price was obviously too steep, so the right decision was made to kill it. A tunnel through the Golden Mile is ludicrous.
 
44 North said:
The solution was to embrace elevated transit between Don Mills and Kennedy. Everyone ignored that. Ford, Stintz, Metrolinx, our entire council...everyone. Had anyone (incl Ford and his goons) said "look, I found a way to connect the Crosstown to the SLRT - fully grade-separated - but for significantly less!", I think more people would've listened. They didn't. All the costing and wording was for underground. No mention of anything else. The price was obviously too steep, so the right decision was made to kill it. A tunnel through the Golden Mile is ludicrous.
Click to expand...

It's not completely ludicrous, by Toronto's standards at least. The segment we're discussing would've had peak point usage of just over 10,000 pphpd at Don Mills Station. The proposal would've only gained a few hundred riders between Don Mills and Yonge. The usage at Don Mills and at Yonge would've both been higher than the peak point usage of the Eglinton Crosstown LRT (as approved), Toronto York Spadina Subway Extension, Sheppard Subway or Scarborough Subway Extension. The only two proposals that have higher usage are the Relief Line, which has between 10,800 pphpd and 19,200 pphpd usage, and the Yonge North Subway Extension, which moves 25,000 pphpd (actually higher than 2 BD Line peak point usage).

Of course, if you're of the opinion that TYSSE, Sheppard Subway and SSE are a waste of money then the 10,000 pphpd usage of this segment won't be of much comfort to you.

http://www.metrolinx.com/en/regiona...itscases/Benefits_Case-Eglinton_Crosstown.pdf
 
The ridership projections for the SMLRT are low enough that it falls into the "bus" category on the TTC's "Matching demand to technology" framework.

And, even then, much of the ridership for that line is from the part along Eglinton. If there was a ECLRT extension to Kingston Rd, the rest of the line would not even be close to being justified based upon the TTC's framework.
 
CDL.TO said:
The ridership projections for the SMLRT are low enough that it falls into the "bus" category on the TTC's "Matching demand to technology" framework.

And, even then, much of the ridership for that line is from the part along Eglinton. If there was a ECLRT extension to Kingston Rd, the rest of the line would not even be close to being justified based upon the TTC's framework.
Click to expand...

The original usage estimates for SMLRT was 3,900, which is well above usage of SELRT, FWLRT and is almost certainly above usage where busses would make sense. The revised and final estimate was 4,600 pphpd to 5,000 pphpd, which is about the same usage of the ECLRT (5,400) and higher than the Sheppard Subway (4,000) and the SRT (4,200)

I can't find the report you cited. But it doesn't make any sense to me that the TTC would recommend RT on the Finch West and Sheppard East corridor while not recommending RT for the SMLRT corridor, when usage on SMLRT was so much higher.

Edit: See page 16. http://lrt.daxack.ca/blog/presentations/2009-05-21_display_boards.pdf
 
Sorry, my info isn't in a public report. Feel free to ignore me if you think I'm just making things up. There's been a lot more forecasting work done since that presentation was made in 2009.

Besides, the idea that ridership would be higher on the SMLRT than on the Sheppard Subway or the SRT should set off anyone's bullshit alarms anyway.

I'd just say you shouldn't hold your breath about the SMLRT.
 
Last edited:
CDL.TO said:
Sorry, my info isn't in a public report. Feel free to ignore me if you think I'm just making things up. There's been a lot more forecasting work done since that presentation was made in 2009.

Besides, the idea that ridership would be higher on the SMLRT than on the Sheppard Subway or the SRT should set off anyone's bullshit alarms anyway.

I'd just say you shouldn't hold your breath about the SMLRT.
Click to expand...

Is there any way you could share a PDF of the report?

Its a little misleading of me to say SMLRT has higher usage than SRT. SRT demand in 2010 was 5,000 pphpd (equal or higher than SMLRT), but ridership was only 4,200 because the line is above its capacity of 3,800. In 2031 the SRT will have 10,000 demand, which is well above the SMLRT in 2031.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top