Danforth Line 2 Scarborough Subway Extension

[BurlOak]

Not sure if this has been posted here yet but here's a great map my friend Ev Delen (twitter: @EvDelen) did of the various Scarborough LRT/subway proposals.

Here's an image of the map. Click on the link above for the full version and feel free to send Ev any feedback.

View attachment 17434

This would seem to suggest that it would be better for the subway to be extended on Eglinton to Kingston Road. I imagine that is what our forefathers had in mind when they located Kennedy Station on an East-West alignment. And besides, the tail tracks already go under the rail line. Even if we ignore this "priority neighbourhood" stuff and look at population density - it shows higher density along Eglinton.

The logical extension of this would be that the SRT should be combined with the Eglinton LRT - since both are on the West side of the rail tracks at Kennedy. (I would guess that if emplyment density was considered, then STC would fare well in needing transit - and this is evidenced by the current ridership numbers).

 

[GenerationW]

Politically speaking, absolutely brilliant move by Murray. And you gotta love how quickly Ford abandoned the Stintz-Scarborough alignment for the cheaper option.

-No property tax vote required with the SRT-alignment and a fully-funded subway? Sign me up!
-Up to 8 (?) years riding shuttles buses for Scarborough residents? Screw 'em, I got 'em a subway!

More twists and turns to come no doubt.

 

[datamouse]

It appears that Minister Murray was just joking about a 2 station extension. Maybe it will be 3 or 4.

http://news.nationalpost.com/2013/0...a-few-more-stops-on-that-proposed-subway-map/

I wonder how far they could have got on the "City" proposed subway route if they used cut-and-cover instead of tunnelled (TBM). If they could do $200M /km, that would basically make it to Sheppard.

The article reads like he could mean extra station within the 6.4km new route. I hope and assume that not what's meant but like all transit planning these days its seems that nothing is clear.

 

[superman]

To save costs and get to Sheppard, is feasible for the subway to branch off near the current Ellesmere station? One branch east to Scarborough Centre as funded in the provincial plan, and one branch north following the rail corridor to Sheppard-Kennedy? It would make no sense for the line not to reach the Sheppard for connectivity purposes.

 

[innsertnamehere]

your proposal would likely make even less sense. I hope if/when council votes on this they vote to use their taxes ford agreed to to fund the portion to Sheppard.

 

[TheTigerMaster]

[video=youtube;WpE_xMRiCLE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WpE_xMRiCLE[/video]

So relivant to our situation. Thank's for sharing. I'll be sure to revisit it once some idiot on Council demands that a subway be built on Finch or something (you know that's coming)

 

[superman]

If Metrolinx had only found a way originally to elevate the portion between Eglinton-Don Mills / Kennedy and to connect the SRT to the Eglinton line..... time machine?

http://news.nationalpost.com/2010/12/20/elevated-trains-metrolinx-offers-subway-alternative/

 

[gweed123]

To save costs and get to Sheppard, is feasible for the subway to branch off near the current Ellesmere station? One branch east to Scarborough Centre as funded in the provincial plan, and one branch north following the rail corridor to Sheppard-Kennedy? It would make no sense for the line not to reach the Sheppard for connectivity purposes.

From a hub perspective, a hub at Agincourt makes a lot more sense than a hub at Sheppard & McCowan. I wonder if STC would be sufficiently served with only every 2nd train going there though. Now having said that, a subway to Agincourt makes me weary, because then Markham will likely push for an extension of that to their downtown, in lieu of a GO REX proposal, which would be of far greater benefit.

Splitting it though would also make it a lot easier for the subway to eventually be extended to Centennial. It's still a less than ideal plan, but at least it tries to solve some of the problems this current plan has left us with.

 

[Johnny Au]

The TTC haven't tried branching off their subway lines since the interlining experiment in 1966 (excluding temporary diversions).

 

[gweed123]

The TTC haven't tried branching off their subway lines since the interlining experiment in 1966 (excluding temporary diversions).

That's true. It's common practice elsewhere in the world though, and if the construction cost is lower (ie elevated or at-grade), then branching may be something to consider. The service levels would be lower than what subway customers are accustomed to, but it may be worth it.

For what it's worth, the same thing could be applied in the west end, with a branch down to Sherway and a branch along Dundas. That would at least "even it out" on both sides of the line. One route goes Sherway-STC, the other goes Dundas-Sheppard.

The TTC will also be instituting permanent short-turns at Sheppard West and Finch once those extensions are open. While slightly operationally different, they are in essence the same thing (two routes, with only one continuing on past a certain point, with roughly half the frequency of the trunk of the line).

 

[Rainforest]

To save costs and get to Sheppard, is feasible for the subway to branch off near the current Ellesmere station? One branch east to Scarborough Centre as funded in the provincial plan, and one branch north following the rail corridor to Sheppard-Kennedy? It would make no sense for the line not to reach the Sheppard for connectivity purposes.

This is an interesting suggestion, it would improve connectivity. 1/2 the frequency would be sufficient for both branches.

There are two issues; not fatal, but significant. First, there is no extra space in the rail corridor between Progress and Sheppard. The Agincourt branch would have to go into a tunnel just north of Ellesmere; that increases the cost although the tunnel length will be less than 2 km. Second, the southbound tracks will have to merge somewhere south of Ellesmere; the southbound trains will likely have to come to a stop before the merge point, even though there will be no station.

 

[CityPlaceN1]

The paper this morning said it would take 5 years to plan this extension. World War II was 6 years. Why does it take so long?

 

[BurlOak]

That's true. It's common practice elsewhere in the world though, and if the construction cost is lower (ie elevated or at-grade), then branching may be something to consider. The service levels would be lower than what subway customers are accustomed to, but it may be worth it.

For what it's worth, the same thing could be applied in the west end, with a branch down to Sherway and a branch along Dundas. That would at least "even it out" on both sides of the line. One route goes Sherway-STC, the other goes Dundas-Sheppard.

The TTC will also be instituting permanent short-turns at Sheppard West and Finch once those extensions are open. While slightly operationally different, they are in essence the same thing (two routes, with only one continuing on past a certain point, with roughly half the frequency of the trunk of the line).

Will the short-turns be all day, or only in peak service? If it is peak service only, then the outlying areas will still get service every 4 minutes and the core every 2 minutes of so.
I do not see how it could be done all day. I imagine subway service must be at least every 5 or 6 minutes according to TTC policy, so the "core" portion of the line would see service every 3 minutes. I do not think you could extend the frequency beyond maybe 8 minutes.

I guess with branching, the off-peak service might be 8 minutes on the branches and 4 minutes on the "trunk". This give the branch barely acceptable service, while the "trunk" is overserved.

I also heard some talk about 2/3 of trains or even 3/4 of train short turning at Downsview. Is there any truth to that? If so few trains are needed beyond Downsview then why did we spend $350M/km on it?

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

gweed:

There is of course merit in having branch termini - that said, given the issue holding up transit has always been capital funding, building branch lines increases that initial commitment, which probably translates to less bang for the political buck.

re: question of alignment

How much of the existing infrastructure can they reuse? I'd imagine the elevated portion of the line will have to be abandoned.

BurlOak:

I guess with branching, the off-peak service might be 8 minutes on the branches and 4 minutes on the "trunk". This give the branch barely acceptable service, while the "trunk" is overserved.

7, 8 minutes wait isn't unheard of at really offpeak hours.

AoD

 

[nhui06]

Politically speaking, absolutely brilliant move by Murray. And you gotta love how quickly Ford abandoned the Stintz-Scarborough alignment for the cheaper option.

-No property tax vote required with the SRT-alignment and a fully-funded subway? Sign me up!
-Up to 8 (?) years riding shuttles buses for Scarborough residents? Screw 'em, I got 'em a subway!

More twists and turns to come no doubt.

I think the whole bus issue is a bit misleading. The projected end date for the RT is 2015. Maybe they can extend that for a year or 2, but the fact is that technology is too old and needs to be replaced. Had Transit City not been cancelled, maybe they could have gone without having to replace RTs with buses, but even if they did dig under McCowan instead of the current alignment, it will still take around 10 years to build (probably longer), hence the RT will be out of commission anyways.