Sheppard East LRT - Cancel or Continue?

[gweed123]

That should be seen as an opportunity not an obstacle. Using the Eglinton-Danforth-McCowan alignment, facilitated by the E-W orientation of the BD subway at Kennedy for a subway extension, allows the RT to stay in operation right through the construction period. This alignment would not interfere with the SRT except at the teminii (and barely at that).

Hydro corridors are probably the cheapest pieces of land to build on. They require no grade separation (except where roads cross the corridor, which along this corridor is only major streets, certainly not like Yonge north of Bloor). Only the short stretch along McCowan into STC and the extension northeast from Kennedy would need to be tunnelled. The costs of this would be only slightly more than ripping out all the SRT tracks to upgrade them for the new trains, and having the extension from STC to Malvern being at-grade reduces costs. Spend a little bit more on section A, spend less on section B, it comes out to about the same. For those going to/from Malvern, you aren't gaining or losing a transfer, you're just changing where it is. For those only going to STC, you have a transferless ride.

Doing it this way also opens up the possibility of interlining the Sheppard East LRT with the SLRT extension (assuming the Sheppard subway is extended to STC). Instead of having the SELRT terminate at Agincourt, have it terminate at STC along with the SLRT. Grade separate that short stretch from Sheppard to STC if you really need that extra capacity, because guaranteed it'll still be cheaper than building 1 line to STC and 1 line to Agincourt.

 

[Rainforest]

Would you care to explain why the section leading to Malvern has to be fully grade separated?

I don't think it "has" to be fully grade separated. The point is that TTC is planning to make it fully grade separated:

http://www.toronto.ca/involved/projects/scarborough_rapid_transit/pdf/2009-06-02_display_boards.pdf

Why is that - I can only guess. Maybe they think that long 3-car trains (that will be needed on the heavily travelled Kennedy - STC section) will be difficult to operate in the street median, and difficult to turn (Progress to Sheppard, Sheppard to Neilson).

The above mentioned Display Panels, although not committing to ART or LRT, seem tailored to ART. They might reconsider the routing if the switch to LRT is confirmed, but until then - that's what on the table.

 

[Rainforest]

That should be seen as an opportunity not an obstacle. Using the Eglinton-Danforth-McCowan alignment, facilitated by the E-W orientation of the BD subway at Kennedy for a subway extension, allows the RT to stay in operation right through the construction period. This alignment would not interfere with the SRT except at the teminii (and barely at that).

Good point - but timing is a problem now. The life of Mk-I vehicles technically ends in 2015 and TTC has nothing to replace them even temporarily. Perhaps they can extend their lifetime using a combination of repairs and regulatory tricks, but I don't know for how long.

Meanwhile, the Danforth subway extension, even if approved in principle, is unlikely to be in service before 2020. It is the end of 2009 already, and no single sheet of design exists.

 

[kettal]

I don't think it "has" to be fully grade separated. The point is that TTC is planning to make it fully grade separated:

http://www.toronto.ca/involved/projects/scarborough_rapid_transit/pdf/2009-06-02_display_boards.pdf

Why is that - I can only guess. Maybe they think that long 3-car trains (that will be needed on the heavily travelled Kennedy - STC section) will be difficult to operate in the street median, and difficult to turn (Progress to Sheppard, Sheppard to Neilson).

It could be cheaper to run the LRT through the abandoned rail corridor than to reconstruct streets for it. What makes you think using street would be any cheaper?

In the end, once LRT is chosen, it can be built much cheaper, without the need for tunnels or elevation. And the turning problems and problems operating in a street median will be irrelevant, since it will be mainly not running in street median.

 

[Second_in_pie]

^^ They could always take a trick off TC and run a 2 month cost/benifits analysis and a 6 month EA. They could have construction started by 2011. And with 5 kilometers of building track along a hydro corridor, 2015 could easily be accomplished if they really tried. Even if it comes down to replacing the SRT with busses for 2 years while the subway gets extended, it won't be any worse than what's currently on the table

 

[kEiThZ]

Hydro corridors are probably the cheapest pieces of land to build on. They require no grade separation (except where roads cross the corridor, which along this corridor is only major streets, certainly not like Yonge north of Bloor). Only the short stretch along McCowan into STC and the extension northeast from Kennedy would need to be tunnelled. The costs of this would be only slightly more than ripping out all the SRT tracks to upgrade them for the new trains, and having the extension from STC to Malvern being at-grade reduces costs. Spend a little bit more on section A, spend less on section B, it comes out to about the same. For those going to/from Malvern, you aren't gaining or losing a transfer, you're just changing where it is. For those only going to STC, you have a transferless ride.

Doing it this way also opens up the possibility of interlining the Sheppard East LRT with the SLRT extension (assuming the Sheppard subway is extended to STC). Instead of having the SELRT terminate at Agincourt, have it terminate at STC along with the SLRT. Grade separate that short stretch from Sheppard to STC if you really need that extra capacity, because guaranteed it'll still be cheaper than building 1 line to STC and 1 line to Agincourt.

The alignment is not relevant per se. Any of the alignments for a BD extension will have the two most important stations: Lawrence East and STC. What is important is their concept of operations. They have decided to apply socialist principles to transit planning. Instead of giving the bulk of riders faster service, they are compromising their service in order to provide vastly improved service at the fringe far beyond whatever capacity is needed. This makes no sense in the real world. The situation is the same on Sheppard where the bulk of riders who originate and terminate west of Agincourt have to suffer so that largely empty LRTs could be run out to Meadowvale.

Good point - but timing is a problem now. The life of Mk-I vehicles technically ends in 2015 and TTC has nothing to replace them even temporarily. Perhaps they can extend their lifetime using a combination of repairs and regulatory tricks, but I don't know for how long.

Meanwhile, the Danforth subway extension, even if approved in principle, is unlikely to be in service before 2020. It is the end of 2009 already, and no single sheet of design exists.

I am fairly sure the system can be life-extended for a few years. It just might just prove to be a tad expensive. As somebody in the air force I know all about the challenges of sourcing obsolete parts. But then completely shutting down the system during conversion to LRT or ART Mk IIs, would incur very high costs too to run buses for a replacement service. And there is a very high risk of demand destruction when you decide to shut down the SRT for anywhere from 8 months to 2 years. Far better in my opinion to start working on the subway extension and run with a SRT with reduced reliability for a few years.

It could be cheaper to run the LRT through the abandoned rail corridor than to reconstruct streets for it. What makes you think using street would be any cheaper?

In the end, once LRT is chosen, it can be built much cheaper, without the need for tunnels or elevation. And the turning problems and problems operating in a street median will be irrelevant, since it will be mainly not running in street median.

Except if you go to the open houses and flip through the presentations, you'll see that the TTC has absolutely no intention of building the thing at grade. I've asked. So have many residents who don't particularly prefer to have riders peering into their backyards. To me this is a massive waste of resources that could have gone into extending the subway. And it degrades service as well. The Milner bus is one of the busiest buses from Malvern but will not be given a chance to off-load it's riders onto the SRT/SLRT. Ditto for Markham. These are all issues that arise from the boneheaded decision to deploy one solution for every transit problem in the city. In the case of the SRT they refuse to undertake any serious analysis (beyond the order of magnitude assumptions about ridership diversion from STC to Malvern) that splits the current corridor and the future extension.

 

[kettal]

These are all issues that arise from the boneheaded decision to deploy one solution for every transit problem in the city.

Linear induction ART?

 

[unimaginative2]

Linear induction ART?

Are you actually trying to suggest that we deployed linear induction ART as one solution for every transit problem in the city?

Pursuant to an earlier discussion...I really think you should take a look at the studies done for the Network 2011 plan. It would give you an idea of what a serious study of different modes and the needs of a corridor (not just one street) actually are. They're very informative and incredibly detailed. That's why I take such issue with the planning approach we're pursuing today (draw lines on a map, pick a technology, change the legislation so that other modes don't have to be studied, and then hastily churn out studies to justify the decision that has already been made while construction has already begun).

Those studies actually seriously studied all of the different mode options and made a recommendation based on real cost/benefit analysis. It wasn't as sophisticated as some of the studies we've seen in Europe recently, but it's still quite impressive. For example, on Eglinton subway, BRT, and LRT were all studied. A subway was deemed to be unnecessary in that corridor and BRT was recommended, with provision for upgrade to LRT. That's right--LRT. It doesn't really jive with the anti-LRT conspiracy history of planning in Toronto, but it's right there in black and white (and red, curiously) if you read the study.

 

[Second_in_pie]

^^ I believe that the Eglinton study said that BRT would be acceptable as long as it was separated in the Richview corridor. Did they actually have an alternative answer to the stretch between Eglinton West and the Richview Corridor than subway?

 

[kettal]

Are you actually trying to suggest that we deployed linear induction ART as one solution for every transit problem in the city?

Pursuant to an earlier discussion...I really think you should take a look at the studies done for the Network 2011 plan. It would give you an idea of what a serious study of different modes and the needs of a corridor (not just one street) actually are. They're very informative and incredibly detailed. That's why I take such issue with the planning approach we're pursuing today (draw lines on a map, pick a technology, change the legislation so that other modes don't have to be studied, and then hastily churn out studies to justify the decision that has already been made while construction has already begun).

Those studies actually seriously studied all of the different mode options and made a recommendation based on real cost/benefit analysis. It wasn't as sophisticated as some of the studies we've seen in Europe recently, but it's still quite impressive. For example, on Eglinton subway, BRT, and LRT were all studied. A subway was deemed to be unnecessary in that corridor and BRT was recommended, with provision for upgrade to LRT. That's right--LRT. It doesn't really jive with the anti-LRT conspiracy history of planning in Toronto, but it's right there in black and white (and red, curiously) if you read the study.

That's nice.

But in the context of Keith's post, all the problems he mentioned, such as the requirement of grade separation, is specific to ART. At least that's how I interpreted it.

 

[kEiThZ]

That's nice.

But in the context of Keith's post, all the problems he mentioned, such as the requirement of grade separation, is specific to ART. At least that's how I interpreted it.

As long as you realize it's your interpretation not the TTC's which keeps emphasizing the need for grade separation to keep speeds up east of McCowan.

 

[gweed123]

This is what the Save Our Subways group has come up with:

1) B-D subway completed using the rail corridor to STC.
2) Sheppard Subway completed to STC.
3) SELRT running from Agincourt to Meadowvale (truncated version of the TC proposal)
4) Eglinton LRT (up for debate, however) extended to Eglinton and Kingston.
5) Scarborough Malvern downgraded to BRT, from Kennedy to Meadowvale.
6) Progress-Malvern LRT (formerly the SRT), downgraded to at-grade LRT, from STC to Malvern Centre.

 

[Woodbridge_Heights]

This is what the Save Our Subways group has come up with:

1) B-D subway completed using the rail corridor to STC.
2) Sheppard Subway completed to STC.
3) SELRT running from Agincourt to Meadowvale (truncated version of the TC proposal)
4) Eglinton LRT (up for debate, however) extended to Eglinton and Kingston.
5) Scarborough Malvern downgraded to BRT, from Kennedy to Meadowvale.
6) Progress-Malvern LRT (formerly the SRT), downgraded to at-grade LRT, from STC to Malvern Centre.

Sorry for not contributing to this proposal, didn't even realize the group had gotten this far! Do we have cost projections for this?

 

[nfitz]

This is what the Save Our Subways group has come up with:

1) B-D subway completed using the rail corridor to STC.
2) Sheppard Subway completed to STC.
3) SELRT running from Agincourt to Meadowvale (truncated version of the TC proposal)
4) Eglinton LRT (up for debate, however) extended to Eglinton and Kingston.
5) Scarborough Malvern downgraded to BRT, from Kennedy to Meadowvale.
6) Progress-Malvern LRT (formerly the SRT), downgraded to at-grade LRT, from STC to Malvern Centre.

Hmm, interesting ... is there a cost-estimate ... or at least a km estimate for each mode?

Two questions:
A) Does it make sense to run both BRT and LRT along Eglinton from Kennedy to Kingston Road (perhaps the BRT can instead continue instead along the proposed BRT from Kingston/Eglinton to Victoria Park station).

B) How do you plan to go up the rail corridor from B-D to STC? The one that appears to be shown in the figure (from Kennedy to the hydro easement) was built on years ago, so you'd have to tunnel under back yards, and even demolish some housing near Midland. Lots of property aquisition would be necessary. (there's a similiar question for the subway between Agincourt and STC ... , there's a lot of houses in the way on the map; perhaps that is not what is intended though).

 

[gweed123]

Hmm, interesting ... is there a cost-estimate ... or at least a km estimate for each mode?

Two questions:
A) Does it make sense to run both BRT and LRT along Eglinton from Kennedy to Kingston Road (perhaps the BRT can instead continue instead along the proposed BRT from Kingston/Eglinton to Victoria Park station).

B) How do you plan to go up the rail corridor from B-D to STC? The one that appears to be shown in the figure (from Kennedy to the hydro easement) was built on years ago, so you'd have to tunnel under back yards, and even demolish some housing near Midland. Lots of property aquisition would be necessary.

For your first question regarding cost estimates, we have another member of the group working on those right now.

As for the BRT/LRT question: it doesn't cost anything extra (other than operating) to run a bus in an LRT exclusive ROW. The BRT was extended to Kennedy and Meadowvale (using the Eglinton LRT and SELRT corridors for part of it) mainly to avoid a transfer (that's one of our big selling points: no un-necessary transfers). Just because it is an LRT lane does not make it 'more holy than thou' and too good for buses to use. It's just a measure to increase the length of the line and to avoid transfers.

Having said that, there is the possibility of it being extended down Kingston in the future. But for the time being, the option with no additional infrastructure costs seems like the best option, and the one that is most politically palitable.

With regards to the B-D extension, we haven't examined in detail how to get from Kennedy to the hydro corridor, or what steps we will need with regards to expropriation. This map is more of a concept plan than a 'to the letter' plan at this stage.