Danforth Line 2 Scarborough Subway Extension

[BurlOak]

The TTC isn't responsible for making decisions about building transit. However City Planning is very interested in the Relief Line, which looks to be the single project that will have the biggest impact on commute times. They recently received funding to get the Relief Line between Sheppard and Dundas West to shovel ready status. The extension to Sheppard should be shovel ready in three to four years. We just need funding to materialize to actually build it.

Extending Sheppard (and inerlining) with YUS is a key project.

For the cost of 4km of tunnel (say $1.5B), you convert a 5.5km stub into a 14km East-West line from Don Mills to Vaughan, and a 36km long line from Don Mills to Downtown (and back up to Finch). Do the math, that's 39km (14-5.5 + 36-5.5) of subway line extension for the cost of $1.5B - $38M/km.

Another thing it does, it eliminates talk of connecting the loop at STC. It is difficult to argue that adding 9km to the YUS make it difficult to operate. But it is easier to argue that adding the 7km of extension and 26 km of B-D subway to a single line would make the 69km difficult to operate. So the priorities are:

1. Extension of Sheppard Subway West to make Don Mills, which is accessible to NW Scarborough more useful.
2. Improve transit for NE Scarborough with rapid transit to the core. Marlvern to Centennial to STC and then connect to either downtown or Y-E + Pearson. This line is ether connected to a grade-separated Eglinton Line (for connection to Yonge, University, and Pearson), or make it its own line going to downtown.
3. Improve transit for NW Scarborough with rapid transit to the core. But instead of down VicPark, make it down Don Mills from Seneca to Fairview to Downtown.
4. Now the Sheppard East LRT are the Morningside LRT become local transit that go from Don Mills (with connections to DRL and interlined Sheppard subway) to Agincourt GO (with connection to RER/SmartTrack) to Marlvern (with connection to the grade-separated line there) to UTSC (major node) to Kennedy (with connection to RER/SmartTrack, B-D subway, and ECLRT).
5. (I would actually like a B-D extension along Eglinton to Kingston Road. B-D would connect to LSE RER/SmartTrack and it would allow the Sheppard/Morningside LRT to continue along Kingston Road).
6. For the time being, I don't think this entire LRT is as high of a priority, so for the time being, it could be BRT Lite.

The good thing is that the keys are subway that help all of Toronto, not just Scarborough; the Sheppard West Subway, the DRL Long and a grade-separated Scarborough Line of some sorts. Unfortunately, people became fixated on the B-D extension instead of good transit.

 

[44 North]

There's zero point to conversion regardless if the majority of the line is going to be grade-separated anyway. Downsview to Yonge has to be grade-separated (Sheppard's too narrow through this stretch to accommodate surface tracks and then there's the West Don bridge to contend with). Between Don Mills and Victoria Park has to be below-grade due to the Hwy 404 crossing. East of Kennedy, if dipping down to the Town Centre, it could easy well follow it's own elevated guideway there. To swing back up to Sheppard @Progress it can follow an EL as well (same as the proposed SLRT alignment).

This only leaves the 4 km segment between Vic Park and Kennedy as a conceivable surface ROW. They can't find $1 billion or so somewhere to tunnel this short segment? This is how it should be gone about if the people in charge are serious about Sheppard expansion, not a Fraken-LRT line from Humber College to Morningside that'd take hours to traverse from end to end.

I'd like to see this costed and presented as an option. At the very least from Don Mills to SCC. I think people would be very supportive of it. We'll have the abandoned guideway/Ellesmere corridor just sitting there, so it makes a lot of sense to use it for a possible Line 4 extension. What needs to be done IMO is more outside the box thinking by the City, TTC, and Prov. Let's look at alternative rolling stock that can use the guideway, and/or spec the extension to 100m max vs the 150m standard. In other words the train lengths would be no different than the 4-car we see today on Sheppard which has over 20k capacity.

I've posted about it in the SRT thread, but I'm almost certain we can acquire standard subway rolling stock that can use the SRT guideway as-is (i.e no need for a costly rebuild of the track and stations). The Movia family of Bombardier vehicles from which the Toronto Rocket originates is broad, and the C20 used by Stockholm (and newer C30 they purchased) has tight turning ability not unlike the MkI Line 3 fleet. Weight probably wouldn't be an issue either since it's conventional lightweight subway rolling stock (i.e not a bulky LRV designed for street-running).

If we can acquire vehicles with 2.5m width, and tack on an extra 50cm to Line 4's platform width, I really don't see why a Sheppard Subway extension couldn't be an affordable project that won't break the bank. Over $1bn would be saved vs the previous expansion plan, and two of these C20/C30 vehicles making a 100m train would be more than sufficient to carry whatever load is required. This type of higher-capacity / higher-reliability / affordable subway expansion is arguably more forward-thinking than a tram-style LRT that bypasses SCC or a perpetually unfunded 6-car deep bore project.

 

[WislaHD]

If it was that easy then someone would've proposed it. It's not. Even if the current tunnels are big enough for the LRT trains, you'd probably have to rebuild or drastically renovate all of the stations so they can have lower platforms (including one station that needs to keep operating on the platform below the subway), rip out and replace all of the tracks in the tunnels (the LRTs have a different track gauge than the subway trains), and install an overhead wire and get rid of the third rail. That isn't gonna be cheap - I'd bet that it's cheaper to extend the Sheppard subway to STC and Downsview than to rebuild it as a light rail subway.

Hold on, why don't we just order a vehicle that is compatible with the Sheppard tunnel, for much cheaper?

It would be a separate rolling stock from the rest of our LRT network, but Sheppard is not connected to any other LRT network (aside from potentially EC-East at UTSC one day), and practically every city in the world has different rolling stocks.

 

[WislaHD]

In the west end, you can get from Islington/Royal York stations to Union in 40 to 60 minutes depending on the time of day. The time from the east is probably on average 50% more. It`s not even necessary to go as far as Scarborough. Try and get anywhere from Flemingdon Park in a time that leaves you a life with your kids or spouse, or just a life.

The DRL would have astronomical time savings for Flemingdon Park.

The ~50 minutes to an hour commute time downtown becomes 15 minutes.

 

[gweed123]

Toronto's turn-coat "conservative mayor" is so determined to get his lunatic, expensive ($1.5 BILLION for ONE subway stop which of course will cost $2 billion by the time it is done!!),

It was approved under conservative Mayor Rob Ford, with the support of the conservative faction of Council. The "liberal" faction of Council was strongly against it. And it's since climbed to over $3 billion, just as the "liberals" on Council said it would.

he's capitulated to the leftist, elitist, insular car-hating scum on Toronto Council and allowed for ROAD TOLLS!

Amazing that promoting a free-market based solution is somehow left wing. It's basic supply and demand. Conservatives would like everything the government does to be user pays, unless they happen to be a user. Then it should be paid for through taxes.

So once again, CAR DRIVERS get to pay for public transit.

The vast majority of the tolls will actually be going towards repairing the crumbling Gardiner which, except for the occasional GO bus, is used exclusively by drivers. Again, "user pays", quite a conservative concept, wouldn't you say?

Not only that, but it allows Toronto to "screen out" undesirables from the surrounding areas since the tolls are on the Don Valley Parkway and Gardiner Expressway, both arteries leading into Toronto. Which is what the bike-riding oddballs in Toronto have wanted for some time.

I'm too baffled by that one to even attempt a response.

Lastly, the whole transit expansion has devastated businesses along Eglinton Ave, which is what happened to St. Clair ave businesses when they put in the streetcar infrastructure there.

Newsflash: building new infrastructure (be it roads or transit) creates disruption. Do you think sewers and pavement just magically appear one day? Or don't need to be repaired? Also, the businesses along St. Clair recovered, and in many locations are actually doing better than they were before the project. Same with Spadina when the ROW was put in there.

 

[muller877]

In the west end, you can get from Islington/Royal York stations to Union in 40 to 60 minutes depending on the time of day. The time from the east is probably on average 50% more. It`s not even necessary to go as far as Scarborough. Try and get anywhere from Flemingdon Park in a time that leaves you a life with your kids or spouse, or just a life.

I think the greatest economic leveller for the city will prove to be higher order rapid transit and I hope we get on with it past what we have achieved thus far.

It's going to take some risk and a great deal of vision.

Comparing a subway stop to a bus route...not a good comparison. Look at Mt Dennis....it's the same distance and same time to get downtown via transit as Flemingdon Park.

And both will have a brand new LRT. So how is this a suggestion that the east end is not well served?

 

[44 North]

Hold on, why don't we just order a vehicle that is compatible with the Sheppard tunnel, for much cheaper?

It would be a separate rolling stock from the rest of our LRT network, but Sheppard is not connected to any other LRT network (aside from potentially EC-East at UTSC one day), and practically every city in the world has different rolling stocks.

Exactly. There's a serious case of myopic thinking in this city and it's coming at the expense of the greater good (transit expansion). People must be pretty closedminded if they think because the Flexity Freedom is low floor then every single LRV in the world is also low floor. Ditto with Line 3, or general subway expansion: the Mk1 isn't in production therefore no other vehicle works and 'we must tear down the tracks and stations', or because a 3-car LRV maxes out at 15kpphpd 'our only other option is a 6-car subway 50ft underground'. There are solution out there, and Line 4 is a great example of ignored options. A) Refit for high-platform LRVs with retractable pantos to create a seamless Crosstown-style LRT line; or B) expand the subway as a more realistic/affordable 4-car setup to create the northern subway line that has been on the books for decades. Both options would be more optimal than a perpetual stubway.

 

[gweed123]

Hold on, why don't we just order a vehicle that is compatible with the Sheppard tunnel, for much cheaper?

It would be a separate rolling stock from the rest of our LRT network, but Sheppard is not connected to any other LRT network (aside from potentially EC-East at UTSC one day), and practically every city in the world has different rolling stocks.

Exactly. Using high floor LRT on Sheppard wouldn't be the end of the world. You can still build in-median LRT with raised platforms. Heck, San Francisco's Muni Metro is entirely high floor, with all new stations being built with raised platforms. For example, here's the in-median platform at 4th & King. There is zero reason other than politics why this solution couldn't work to create a unified Sheppard LRT with an underground western portion.

 

[Euphoria]

The City needs to seriously look at your idea, a way to please both the subway and LRT crowds through a reasonable compromise with a bigger bang for the buck in terms of stop coverage.

 

[44 North]

Exactly. Using high floor LRT on Sheppard wouldn't be the end of the world. You can still build in-median LRT with raised platforms. Heck, San Francisco's Muni Metro is entirely high floor, with all new stations being built with raised platforms. For example, here's the in-median platform at 4th & King. There is zero reason other than politics why this solution couldn't work to create a unified Sheppard LRT with an underground western portion.

Yes the Muni is a prime example. There's a certain degree of permanence with the high-platform style, and it definitely makes things feel more subway/metro-like. This is how I feel about GO expansion as well. And with infrastructure in the middle of a roadway, particularly expwy-like suburban arterials, one no doubt would feel safer standing on a pedestal above roadway level.

From a service standpoint I believe this would be advantageous. With the low platform there's no question people will walk across it, and that vehicles will approach stops accordingly. "Oops, on the wrong side...I'll just walk across". We might not see a slow order like we have now on QQW's LRT-Sidewalk, but I doubt trains would blast into stations like they do with Lines 1-4. With high platforms though it's a substantial physical and mental barrier that people would be less inclined to hop off/across.

 

[TransitBart]

The DRL would have astronomical time savings for Flemingdon Park.

The ~50 minutes to an hour commute time downtown becomes 15 minutes.

Yes. That was documented specifically as a benefit for that neighbourhood in a City of Toronto study at a neighbourhood information session. From a stop somewhere in Flemington-Overlea to downtown in 17 minutes which is a third to a quarter of the present time. Trans-formative.

 

[gweed123]

Yes the Muni is a prime example. There's a certain degree of permanence with the high-platform style, and it definitely makes things feel more subway/metro-like. This is how I feel about GO expansion as well. And with infrastructure in the middle of a roadway, particularly expwy-like suburban arterials, one no doubt would feel safer standing on a pedestal above roadway level.

From a service standpoint I believe this would be advantageous. With the low platform there's no question people will walk across it, and that vehicles will approach stops accordingly. "Oops, on the wrong side...I'll just walk across". We might not see a slow order like we have now on QQW's LRT-Sidewalk, but I doubt trains would blast into stations like they do with Lines 1-4. With high platforms though it's a substantial physical and mental barrier that people would be less inclined to hop off/across.

Agreed. I also prefer island platforms for surface stops, as opposed to side platforms, for the exact reason you mentioned. I've actually stood on the platform at 4th & King that I linked to above, and I can say that it definitely felt more like a heavy rail stop that a surface streetcar stop. With surface stops like Spadina or St. Clair I always feel like I'm one runaway car away from being taken out, even if I'm in the shelter. On that raised platform, I felt a greater degree of physical separation from the arterial roadway I was standing in the middle of. Just intuitively it felt like a much more pleasant experience. It also felt less 'on the cheap', if that makes sense. It felt like a real station, and not just a glorified sidewalk.

Also, with that island type of design, there's the opportunity to put a 'glass box' on the streetside wall and above the tracks and platforms. That would go a long way in the winter towards blocking biting wind and drifting/falling snow. Yes, the ends would still be open, but you would have protection from the elements on two sides and the top.

The City needs to seriously look at your idea, a way to please both the subway and LRT crowds through a reasonable compromise with a bigger bang for the buck in terms of stop coverage.

I'm hoping that once the Eglinton Line opens people will see that yes, you can have a transit line run both on the surface and underground. With Sheppard on the backburner now, it at least gives time for a thorough re-evaluation of the project. I will keep pushing for the subway tunnel to be converted to LRT, one way or another. Choosing a rolling stock that works within the tunnel and existing stations would just make things easier.

 

[micheal_can]

Something I have wondered. Could this line be built so that it follows under Eglinton to Danforth and then up McCowan? Even if it had no other stations between Kennedy and STC, it would be lined up for future infill stations.
Would that make the subway to the STC more palatable?

 

[BurlOak]

Either I don't understand your suggestion, or you don't understand why the B-D extension is not palatable.

• The objection to the B-D extension is cost. A single stop, 5km+ subway extension is pegged at $3.5B or more. To add more stations to make it useful (i.e. McCowan/Eg, Lawrence, Sheppard), the cost would exceed $5B.
• The objection to the old SLRT proposal was that it continues to segregate Scarborough and maintains the forced transferat Kennedy Station.

From what I gather, you are proposing exactly what it currently being proposed - B-D extension along Eglinton to McCowan and then up McCowan to STC, with no intermediate stations. I don't think the route is 100% finalized, but the betting is this will be the recommended solution.

 

[Adjei]

Damn what happened to Scarborough number 1 champion, coffey? Haven't seen him in awhile in this thread.