Danforth Line 2 Scarborough Subway Extension

[datamouse]

Another day, another study against the subway.
http://www.thestar.com/news/gta/transportation/2015/06/02/new-data-finds-scarborough-subway-routes-run-through-extremely-low-density-areas.html

Two things at the end stand out for me though:

$2 billion: The minimum increase in cost to build a subway over the LRT. The city must also pay the subway’s operating costs and potential overruns.

I thought additional funding was $910m from the city and $660m from Ottawa. That's noticeably less than $2 billion.

8 years: The extra time it will take to build a subway instead of an LRT, which was slated to be done this year, before council changed direction.

Correct me if I'm wrong but since when was the RT retrofit supposed to open this year? I thought the plan was to keep it open till after the Pam Am Games and then shut it down to convert to LRT.

 

[Eug]

Someone will correct me if I'm wrong, but as far as I know, Council never approved a specific alignment for the project.

This is the specific wording:

http://app.toronto.ca/tmmis/viewAgendaItemHistory.do?item=2013.CC39.5

City Council reconfirm its support for a Scarborough Subway, extending the Bloor-Danforth line along the McCowan Road corridor to Sheppard Avenue East (the "McCowan Corridor Subway"), subject to approval of the final alignment through an Environmental Assessment, to Part A.3. below, and to reaching agreements under Parts A.1. and A.2. below, and...

 

[bobbob911]

The SSE needs to go the Sheppard. The reason why is that a large percentage of SSE's ridership is because of people from Markham using the subway. If you terminate the line at STC, people from Markam will have less insensitive to use the line, making the extension even less viable.

I meant there should be no stops between Kennedy and STC. North of STC I am agnostic.

 

[nfitz]

I meant there should be no stops between Kennedy and STC.

You'd run 5.5 km non-stop from Kennedy, under a major node (the Scarborough General Hospital) without stopping?

 

[bobbob911]

Why not? By the way it wouldn't necessarily run under the hospital, or indeed be underground the whole way at all. The criteria would simply be to run existing subway trains from Kennedy to STC direct using the cheapest, easiest route.

 

[nfitz]

Why not? By the way it wouldn't necessarily run under the hospital, or indeed be underground the whole way at all. The criteria would simply be to run existing subway trains from Kennedy to STC direct using the cheapest, easiest route.

Well for one it's double the maximum distance between stations. For another, Lawrence is a major artery with significant demand.

The most direct route does go past the hospital. And if you have no stations in between, the tunnel isn't going to be much cheaper than elevated.

And finally ... what do you save ... $150 million? A lot less if you are on the surface.

 

[bobbob911]

Why is there a maximum distance between stations? And there will be a Lawrence smart track stop - covered.

Of course if the savings are minimal then there's no value - but its certainly possible that releasing all constraints except for a termination point at STC could capture significant cost savings.

 

[nfitz]

Why is there a maximum distance between stations?

Uh ... because the distance between any station isn't infinite? How can there not be!?!?

And there will be a Lawrence smart track stop - covered.

LOL ... if they ever build it ... then it would get service every 15 minutes - to a station 3 km from the hospital!

Of course if the savings are minimal then there's no value - but its certainly possible that releasing all constraints except for a termination point at STC could capture significant cost savings.

If you want to significantly save money, then go back to the original TTC plan of simply renovating the existing SRT and buying new trains, for a total of $360 million. Covered.

 

[bobbob911]

Uh ... because the distance between any station isn't infinite? How can there not be!?!?

You said that 5.5km is more than double the maximum distance between stations - what do you mean by that? What difference does it make if there are no stops for 5.5km? I don't see the problem.

LOL ... if they ever build it ... then it would get service every 15 minutes - to a station 3 km from the hospital!

This conversation presumes that SmartTrack is getting built. Service to the hospital is nice to have, not need to have (it doesn't exist today). You suggested the Lawrence artery has significant demand, and I responded that SmartTrack will have a lawrence stop.

If you want to significantly save money, then go back to the original TTC plan of simply renovating the existing SRT and buying new trains, for a total of $360 million. Covered.

My original claim is that what's important is to ensure continuous subway service to STC (and politically, to "deliver more subway to scarborough"). Every other design feature seems to be a nice-to-have (particularly with SmartTrack covering the same territory)

 

[nfitz]

You said that 5.5km is more than double the maximum distance between stations - what do you mean by that?

I most certainly didn't say it was more than the maximum distance between stations. Just look at the maximum of distances between any station currently. Not sure why such a simple comment yields so many questions.

What difference does it make if there are no stops for 5.5km? I don't see the problem.

You might be the only one who thinks sending a subway past major arteries for over 5 km isn't a problem.

This conversation presumes that SmartTrack is getting built.

This 10-year old conversation presumes that the DumbTrack idea that Tory heard of only last year at his white-only golf club gets built? I don't think so ...

 

[bobbob911]

In post 5699 you said:

Well for one it's double the maximum distance between stations

What do you mean by this? What is meant by "maximum" in this statement?

 

[denfromoakvillemilton]

You might be the only one who thinks sending a subway past major arteries for over 5 km isn't a problem.

I don't agree with bob and no Lawrence East stop but I'm pretty sure council approved this subway without a Eglinton stop in the first place.

 

[wopchop]

What do you mean by this? What is meant by "maximum" in this statement?

I think what he means is that the gap of 5.5km between stations is double the current biggest gap (or, the maximum gap between 2 subsequent subway stations) in the entire network. Not that there is some sort of TTC rule that states the maximum gap is 2.25km.


Also, IMO, Building a no-stop subway extension to STC is a huge waste of money. If you want an express train, take the GO. If we are going to spend billions on a subway, we should be building a route that serves locations along the route. Or else why bother.

From Steve Munro's site;

The estimated unit costs for construction are $180m/km plus about $200m/station. These are 2015 dollars and are subject to inflation.
Station cost estimates for the original scheme vary considerably:
...
Lawrence at $160m. This is a line station that would have no provision for parking. No turnback crossover structure would be provided.
STC at $200m. This station would include parking and a crossover.
Sheppard at $500m. This station would not be just a terminal, but would have tail tracks and storage tracks to provide an overnight home for the expanded fleet. Note that this cost will apply to whatever station becomes the terminal because the storage facility has to go somewhere.

A one-stop extension to STC would turn that stop into a $500m stop. So, at most you save $360m by building a one-stop extension to STC, plus 2km of tunnel at $180m/km. So, roughly $720m in savings.

 

[nfitz]

What do you mean by this? What is meant by "maximum" in this statement?

Take a set of data and calculate the maximum value. If you have a set of values called "distance between stations" then "maximum distances between stations" would be the longest distance between any adjacent stations.

I don't agree with bob and no Lawrence East stop but I'm pretty sure council approved this subway without a Eglinton stop in the first place.

No, if you read the decision, it doesn't mention the number of stations - http://app.toronto.ca/tmmis/viewAgendaItemHistory.do?item=2013.CC39.5 - and notes the alignment is "subject to approval of the final alignment through an Environmental Assessment" (EA). I believe that during the council session that there were comments that the number and location of stations would be reviewed as part of the EA.

 

[bobbob911]

I think what he means is that the gap of 5.5km between stations is double the current biggest gap (or, the maximum gap between 2 subsequent subway stations) in the entire network. Not that there is some sort of TTC rule that states the maximum gap is 2.25km.

Well, okay, in that case I reiterate - so what? Why is that important? So now this becomes the biggest gap in the system. Big deal?

Also, IMO, Building a no-stop subway extension to STC is a huge waste of money. If you want an express train, take the GO.

Which GO train goes to STC? And you do realize the SmartTrack plan makes the GO substantially less express in this area right?

A one-stop extension to STC would turn that stop into a $500m stop. So, at most you save $360m by building a one-stop extension to STC, plus 2km of tunnel at $180m/km. So, roughly $720m in savings.

And how much eglinton east LRT extension could you buy with $720m? That's a ton of money. Plus, you are presuming that it would still be 100% tunneled - if you have no requirements for strategic stops along the way you can probably find a route that was substantially grade separated and/or elevated. I bet you could claw back $1B