Danforth Line 2 Scarborough Subway Extension

[CodeMonkey]

And a subway line and a commuter train line.

Except the idea behind the Scarborough LRT option was to avoid making Kenndy Station a transfer hub for Scarborough residence. Hence why the Scarborough LRT connected directly to the Crosstown LRT.

 

[micheal_can]

I find it funny that this very argument is being done in Surrey as well. They want an LRT, but the cost will be the same as Skytrain.

I also find it ironic that what is good for one is also god for the other.

I will never think LRT is the solution. It should not be the main way to get somewhere major.

 

[OneCity]

Except the idea behind the Scarborough LRT option was to avoid making Kenndy Station a transfer hub for Scarborough residence. Hence why the Scarborough LRT connected directly to the Crosstown LRT.

Cant say the opposition wasn't given an opportunity to compromise with a reasonable LRT solution to fix the problem. I do think the train has long left the station on this proposal with the large subway support at all levels and requesting to go back to this plan would be an admittance by the Opposition that they now support the Ford plan. Oh well. They can complain all they want now but I highly doubt going back on either of the LRT plans to SCC would even be seriously considered at this juncture.

 

[BurlOak]

A network with a mandatory transfer at Kennedy was too unpopular to be accepted. However, there have been some proposals that could result in a satisfactory network without the subway extension.

One such proposal is so-called SmartSpur; a branch of RER/SmartTrack taking over the elevated section of SRT and reaching Scarborough Centre. I don't know if the width of the corridor or the noise those large trains produce would block the idea. In any case, much more investment would have to be made in the rail corridor leading to Union (Uxbridge sub plus Scarborough Junction plus Lakeshore East) than Metrolinx and the City are currently willing to make. The whole proposal was never officially studied.

Another possibility is a continuous SRT-Eglinton light rail line. IMO, it would be viable only in combination with the Relief Line. The Relief line would have to be quickly built from downtown all the way to Eglinton East. Without that, Eglinton LRT would receive too many riders from Scarborough and get close to being overwhelmed right after opening.

I don't expect either of the above two proposals to be adopted. The ship has sailed.

The SRT-Eglinton connected was a very good plan.
Using that as a starting point, I just continued the SRT all the way downtown. I don't care about the technology, either LRT, SkyTrain, or other mini-metro.

• Centennial, to STC to Don Valley to Throncliffe to Lower Don Valley, across Wellington/Front, to King West.
• Branches at East to Malvern and UTSC, and at West to The Ex and St. Joseph Hospital.
• 26km elevated, 4km underground. Branches are about 8km East and 6km West.
• Say $150M/km elevated, and $400M/km for cut-and-cover. That's about $5.5B. (with end branches, add $2B).
• Compare to the SSE at $3.5B and Eglinton East LRT at $1.6B, which is $5.1B - within 10% of each other.
• Even without the branches, much more people are served with this.
• (just to make Etobicoke happy, I added the ~$2.5B grade-separated ECLRT-West to Pearson, and a 1.5km extension to the B-D to Honeydale (427). This also gets us the 1 stop B-D extension that John Tory campaigned on ).
• (I also assumed everything started now is completed).
• (My colours are a bit unusual, but I want to reserve the greens for the GO network and reserve the Reds for TTC streetcar and bus routes).

 

[Rainforest]

The SRT-Eglinton connected was a very good plan.
Using that as a starting point, I just continued the SRT all the way downtown. I don't care about the technology, either LRT, SkyTrain, or other mini-metro.

• Centennial, to STC to Don Valley to Throncliffe to Lower Don Valley, across Wellington/Front, to King West.
• Branches at East to Malvern and UTSC, and at West to The Ex and St. Joseph Hospital.
• 26km elevated, 4km underground. Branches are about 8km East and 6km West.
• Say $150M/km elevated, and $400M/km for cut-and-cover. That's about $5.5B. (with end branches, add $2B).
• Compare to the SSE at $3.5B and Eglinton East LRT at $1.6B, which is $5.1B - within 10% of each other.
• Even without the branches, much more people are served with this.
• (just to make Etobicoke happy, I added the ~$2.5B grade-separated ECLRT-West to Pearson, and a 1.5km extension to the B-D to Honeydale (427). This also gets us the 1 stop B-D extension that John Tory campaigned on ).
• (I also assumed everything started now is completed).
• (My colours are a bit unusual, but I want to reserve the greens for the GO network and reserve the Reds for TTC streetcar and bus routes).

View attachment 103684

This is a very interesting concept; but ..

1) You are doing 4 km cut-and-cover through downtown. If we can't even dare to propose cut-and-cover along McCowan in Scarborough, how likely is that to be accepted in downtown?

2) This must be a light rail line (narrow body cars and able to handle sharp turns) in order to make the outer sections reasonably cheap. But, if the light rail line takes over the downtown corridor where we'd like to see the Relief line, then we are not gaining nearly as much into-downtown capacity as we can with a full-fledged subway. In theory, this can be addressed by building a quad-track tunnel, two tracks for the new "Scarborough super-LRT" and two other tracks for the Relief subway line; but of course that would add to the cost.

 

[CodeMonkey]

I find it funny that this very argument is being done in Surrey as well. They want an LRT, but the cost will be the same as Skytrain.

It depends on what's being factored into the cost of the LRT construction. The TTC "savings" comes from using existing roadway to run the LRT, using bus shelters instead of full fledged stations where possible, etc. In Surrey case, the Skytrain would be more preferable, since building a LRT would require hiring operates to run it, where the Skytrain is automated.

 

[kEiThZ]

but call for a Markham stop that would probably be about as useful as Midland.

Are you serious? If you think Markham would have less ridership than Midland, you don't know the area. That's all I'll say.

You fret about how those stops are slowing down everybody else, but want the RT to have no grade separation past McCowan.

Yes. There's more ridership west/south of STC, than east of it. That's why speed leaving STC is more important than arriving at it. You want a gauge of riderhsip east of STC? Just look at the Progress bus. Does it justify replacement with grade separated LRT?

You've complained many times about how the transit city lines have too many stops that are too close together, while your Markham station would be less than 400 metres from Centennial. You think it's ridiculous that the RT extension parallels an existing bus route, as if that's unusual for a new transit line.

This is exactly what I mean about people not understanding context. And you clearly don't. Take a drive/bus/walk of the area. You'll understand why Markham needs a stop distinct from Centennial. But since they decided to grade-separate, they had to throw one of the stop under the bus. And chose Centennial. Great for students who attend for two years. Sucks for people who will use transit the rest of the time.

And no, I don't think it's ridiculous for an LRT to replace a bus line. I think it's ridiculous to waste money on grade separation east of SC to sort of provide a poor man's subway west of SC. All this serves nobody well. Commuters are slowed down to the west. And riders along Markham who want to transfer will be bitching about it for years to come.

I think it's safe to say that there will never be a consensus on whats the best way to fix Scarborough transit. Even after more than 800 pages and 12 (!) years of debate, everyone here still has wildly differing opinions.

I think it's safe to say that people who have never even laid eyes on these places won't contribute much to informed discussion. Honestly, when was the last time you have taken the SRT and the 134 Progress?

 

[salsa]

Are you serious? If you think Markham would have less ridership than Midland, you don't know the area. That's all I'll say.

Thank's for your snide response. Yes I'm well aware of that. I'm also aware that the Ellesmere bus gets similar ridership as Markham, so the fact that Ellesmere station performs to poorly shows that high bus ridership is meaningless if only a tiny percentage of its riders actually wish to transfer. That percentage is what really matters.

The station locations were "based on existing conditions, travel demand forecasts, transit network connection needs and space availability". Given that there are provisions for future stations at Brimley and Bellamy, but not Markham, probably says something about it's potential. Maybe that's because it's not even necessary, since Markham Rd buses already connect to Centennial via route 102A. With the RT extension, the TTC was planning to increase service on that branch or have all the buses stop at Centennial. So lets not pretend that Markham bus riders are being completely screwed here. They will still be able to transfer.

Yes. There's more ridership west/south of STC, than east of it. That's why speed leaving STC is more important than arriving at it. You want a gauge of riderhsip east of STC? Just look at the Progress bus. Does it justify replacement with grade separated LRT?

From the EA:

You want a gauge of riderhsip east of STC? Just look at the Progress bus.

The Progress bus alone is not entirely indicative of the line's ridership. You do realize that the Progress bus is one of several routes between STC and northeast Scarborough? And that there was a 7-bay bus terminal planned at the terminus of the RT extension? In transit network analysis, this concept called "feeder routes", which (among other factors) means that the line's ridership does not necessarily = the bus it replaces.

 

[BurlOak]

This is a very interesting concept; but ..

1) You are doing 4 km cut-and-cover through downtown. If we can't even dare to propose cut-and-cover along McCowan in Scarborough, how likely is that to be accepted in downtown?

2) This must be a light rail line (narrow body cars and able to handle sharp turns) in order to make the outer sections reasonably cheap. But, if the light rail line takes over the downtown corridor where we'd like to see the Relief line, then we are not gaining nearly as much into-downtown capacity as we can with a full-fledged subway. In theory, this can be addressed by building a quad-track tunnel, two tracks for the new "Scarborough super-LRT" and two other tracks for the Relief subway line; but of course that would add to the cost.

1. You are likely right, but this has 2 things. Scarborough gets not a single metre of underground transit - so it is setting the prescedent that we won't waste money. Also, this is bringing transit to area where not a single current plan is providing any. The alternative to killing this plan is no transit - not underground, TBM construction.
2. Like I said, it can be LRT, SkyTrain, or some type of mini-metro. I agree with you that it must be able to handle grades and curves, so narrower and shorter trains than TTC subway are required. Third rail (instead of overhead) is a little less visually intrusive for the elevated portions and requires a slightly smaller tunnel for the downtown portions, so I wouldn't say it has to be LRT. But maybe, as part of the compromise, this becomes LRT to make Matlow and Perks happy, and then have the single stop B-D extension (to Honeydale) to make Tory happy.
3. I considered a number of routes through the downtown, but switching from elevated to underground is always difficult and takes several hundred metres of blocking roads during the transition. In the end, the plan is to have this line go elevated parallel all the way down Bayview to Corktown. Make the curve there and go under Bayview and continue under Front and Wellington. At Blue Jays Way, it would go diagonally down to Front and would switch to back elevated somewhere between Spadina and Bathurst. I have heard no talk of GO wanting to tunnel under Wellington, so I am not taking away a transit corridor. This route is 500m south of the Keesmat DRL that runs along Queen. A bit close, but probably not by downtown standards.

 

[crs1026]

Our Chief Planner tweeted this map a day or two back. (she clarified that it needs updating) I thought it had an interesting connection to the subway extension.

The map shows where the City has, or is in the process of, doing Avenues Studies. Keesmaat's tweet was aimed at demonstrating that the City has lots of opportunity for intensification and these Avenues are where it is already set up to happen, on an "as of right" basis.

The conclusions that I would draw with respect to the Subway extension is
- the one-stop subway will do absolutely nothing to connect or enhance Avenue areas in Scarborough, nor does it bring people closer to the local employment areas
- in contrast, the Kingston Road LRT is a gamechanger and we could have a really wonderful redevelopment along Kingston Road if it is built quickly. KR, and not STC, is Scarborough's "best foot forward" for a renewed and more vibrant city...Sheppard being Plan B or Area B
- It won't be long before the battle intensifies to do something about transit on Sheppard, and it won't be above certain Councillors to say that without a subway up there Scarborough is once again getting screwed (I don't buy the latter, but the case for a seamless transit line from Downsview certainly is supported by the Avenues thrusts)
- Lawrence East is interesting. I could see the argument for ST with a Lawrence stop being clung to since the subway, even with a stop added at Lawrence, will be too far east to support development where it is contemplated on Lawrence (although this also would have been a good argument for the pro-LRT folks, and it didn't figurre in the recent debate)

- Paul

 

[jje1000]

Except the idea behind the Scarborough LRT option was to avoid making Kenndy Station a transfer hub for Scarborough residence. Hence why the Scarborough LRT connected directly to the Crosstown LRT.

Come to think of that, I think it would have been the better option.

If Scarborough HAD to get a subway extension, I would rather put the money into extending the Sheppard line to STC and save money by converting the SRT to the Eglinton LRT. It would cost some more, but at least you would be extending rapid transit coverage to more of the population and finishing two thorn-in-the-side projects.

Who proposed the stupid idea of extending the subway from Kennedy anyways?

 

[M II A II R II K]

They should say either accept an above ground extension or you're not getting any.

 

[BurlOak]

Come to think of that, I think it would have been the better option.

If Scarborough HAD to get a subway extension, I would rather put the money into extending the Sheppard line to STC and save money by converting the SRT to the Eglinton LRT. It would cost some more, but at least you would be extending rapid transit coverage to more of the population and finishing two thorn-in-the-side projects.

Who proposed the stupid idea of extending the subway from Kennedy anyways?

Stintz, GDB, Scarborough Liberal MPP's, MTO Minister Murray, Subway Champion Mitzi Hunter.

 

[Sakraycore]

STC subway station is not a stupid idea it could be the home to 2 different subway lines in the future and serve as Scarborough's hub for decades to come.

LRTs will follow without any doubts.

 

[salsa]

Who proposed the stupid idea of extending the subway from Kennedy anyways?

Karen Stintz and Glen De Baeremaeker.

http://torontoist.com/2016/10/a-brief-history-of-the-scarborough-subway/

They reopened the debate when they convinced the TTC board to study the subway. They claimed that the 3-stop subway would cost only $500M more than LRT (what a lie that turned out to be). Stintz of course planned to run for mayor and thought this would win Ford nation votes in Scarborough. Instead she dropped out only a few weeks later. She has no principles. Her positions on just about everything changed on a daily basis to suit her political needs.