Danforth Line 2 Scarborough Subway Extension

[Rainforest]

IMO, endorsing the 4-stop SRT corrior is the only way Tory can win this debate, and finally put this subway/LRT debate to rest. This option also happens to be the best option from a network bundling standpoint.

From the network standpoint, I would still prefer the previous 3-stop McCowan subway plan. It would serve the hospital, and it would reach north of 401.

But if the above is no longer a possibility, I would not rule out the surface option.

Some thoughts on the technicalities:

1) The greatest concern is the competition for space between the subway and RER / SmartTrack; especially, for the station space. Perhaps that can be addressed by not having both of them stop at the same location, except at the Kennedy hub. The subway can have an inexpensive surface stop at Lawrence East, replacing the RT stop. SmartTrack does not have to stop there.

At Ellesmere, a subway stop is problematic anyway, as the subway has to submerge and start a gentle eastward curve. Perhaps the subway should not stop there at all, while SmartTrack can stop at Ellesmere if the ridership warrants such stop.

2) Once the subway crosses under the Uxbridge sub, should it emerge just west of Midland, and continue towards STC using a widened and strengthened guideway? Or, should it remain underground all the way to STC? The distance in question is merely 1.5 km, thus the cost of extra tunneling may be offset by not having to build a portal.

3) There are a few ways to mitigate the transit gridlock during the SRT shutdown, should the surface subway be selected. First of all, it would be quite handy to build "Eglinton East" LRT before shutting down SRT. Combined with some thoughtful bus re-routing, that LRT could probably divert 20% to 30% of riders who would otherwise require a shuttle bus between STC and Kennedy.

In addition, perhaps it is useful to build the subway in stages. The first stage would include the new Kennedy station (underground but shallow), new Lawrence East station (surface), and some length of surface rail north of Lawrence to serve as tail track. Once the Kennedy and Lawrence stations are in operation, feeder buses can be distributed between them, reducing the load on each street. The more complex underground subway curve, and the section connecting to STC, can be completed 1 or 2 years later.

 

[BurlOak]

That conversion assessment may actually be ongoing....

If they convert the SRT to Mark III, the transfer will not be acceptable.
They would have to convert the ECLRT to Mark III as well to run continuous service.
It would also mean the Eglinton East LRT would become Mark III and be a branch of the Eglinton with 1/3 the service taking this east route.
This means it would be entire line would be grade-separated through Scarborough (from UTSC) to Laird.
And the cheapest way to grade-separate is by elevation.

Add in the costs of modifying the already constructed portal near Brentcliffe, elevating the line to Kennedy and then to UTSC, change fees to contractor and suppliers, extending the line to Malvern, and the necessity for a DRL that goes to Eglinton (probably needed either way, but this opens the option of using Mark III on the DRL along with some resulting savings). Then offset the savings from the subway no longer being required.
It probably is still the cheaper solution, but too many people would have to backtrack on previous decisions to have it as a viable solution.

 

[TheTigerMaster]

1) The greatest concern is the competition for space between the subway and RER / SmartTrack; especially, for the station space. Perhaps that can be addressed by not having both of them stop at the same location, except at the Kennedy hub. The subway can have an inexpensive surface stop at Lawrence East, replacing the RT stop. SmartTrack does not have to stop there.

The Metrolinx report says that there's more than enough space for subway and double-tracked RER on the same corridor.

At Ellesmere, a subway stop is problematic anyway, as the subway has to submerge and start a gentle eastward curve. Perhaps the subway should not stop there at all, while SmartTrack can stop at Ellesmere if the ridership warrants such stop.

Metrolinx recommend removal of the Ellesmere stop, if the Line 2 extension were to be built on the SRT corridor.

2) Once the subway crosses under the Uxbridge sub, should it emerge just west of Midland, and continue towards STC using a widened and strengthened guideway? Or, should it remain underground all the way to STC? The distance in question is merely 1.5 km, thus the cost of extra tunneling may be offset by not having to build a portal.

The subway will cross to the east side of the GO rail corridor underground about 300 metres north of Eglinton Avenue. It'll continue north alongside the GO corridor until it passes Midland. From there it will go elevated and turn east.

The currently exiting SRT travels on the west side of the GO rail corridor and crosses to the east after Midland.

 

[TheTigerMaster]

From the network standpoint, I would still prefer the previous 3-stop McCowan subway plan. It would serve the hospital, and it would reach north of 401.

Conversely, the surface subway in the RT corridor would also reach north of the 401, connect to Centennial, which I suspect is a bigger destination than the hospital, and is the only option serving Malvern. And we do have data showing that the subway in the RT corridor would bring more destinations and people closer to rapid transit. The RT corridor would also be trivially and inexpensively extended north to Finch, Steeles and beyond.

 

[CapitalSeven]

What about the GO tracks in the middle, and the subway tracks on either side? Shared platforms southbound and northbound, for transfers, at Lawrence, and then side platforms for the subway only at Ellesmere. In-bound subway uses the tunnel curve, outbound rises directly from the station.

I've never understood why they determined the elevated guideway needed to be completely demolished. It's wider than the elevated section in the west end.

 

[BurlOak]

Since GO and TTC tracks are being added and adjusted, can the Ellesmere bridge over the GO tracks be converted to a "subway" (i.e. Ellesmere going under the railway). Generally, a good amount of the bridge cost is relocating tracks, which is happening here anyway. A road going over rail requires 7.2m vertical clearance, while the rail over road requries 5.0m. The make the grade change to cross the tracks less. Pedestrians and bike would be built with an even lower clearance (i.e. elevated from the road surface), making the grade change even less. These subways are generally preferred compared to the overhead bridge that exists there now.

With this, the track can elevate well south of Ellesmere before curving above the GO lines (also with a smoother radius). No station at Ellesemere though.

 

[CapitalSeven]

I won't "show my work" here, but I think I know why the low, new ridership estimates are fine with city hall. Multiply the number of seats on a train by the number of trains on line 2 per hour.... Voila, everyone at Scarborough Centre gets a seat, and no one else does.

 

[crs1026]

The Metrolinx report says that there's more than enough space for subway and double-tracked RER on the same corridor.

Voila, everyone at Scarborough Centre gets a seat, and no one else does.

There isn't a need for both Smarttrack and subway in the same corridor, but if ST is terminated at Kennedy, with only a 15 min headway, I wonder how many people will get off and transfer, versus retaining that seat and contributing to the crush on Line 2.

Eventually ST will need closer headway, and that means a conflict with RER, and that means more than two tracks.

- Paul

 

[bobbob911]

When the projected ridership was 14,000 pphpd, subway was justified for that corridor. It was the best of 2 worlds
-No SRT shutdown while subway being built
-Ridership justified the upgrade and the cost of building it

at 7,300 pphpd, I agree, it's bad but if you look at the data closer
-Smarttrack is the reason why the ridership went down. It's slitting the ridership between 2 north-south line in half.

All I'm saying is that the subway will get built, nut there's still time to ensure it's not a white elephant. Cancelling the Smarttrack stations south of the 401 and bringing back Lawrence East Station would get the ridership right where it's supposed to be

Smarttrack cannibalizing SSE is completely dependant on fare structure. All indications are that it will not be fare-parity with the subway.

Also, if you look at the graph that Jen Keesmaat tweeted out, it shows 7,300 pphpd at STC, and about the same amount at Kennedy. So it seems to me that after only two stops there is very good usage.

None of this suggests it's particularly good value for the money, but for people to make claims that this extension will be underutilized I think is disingenuous.

I won't "show my work" here, but I think I know why the low, new ridership estimates are fine with city hall. Multiply the number of seats on a train by the number of trains on line 2 per hour.... Voila, everyone at Scarborough Centre gets a seat, and no one else does.

Case in point. Its not necessarily a good thing to have extremely high ridership associated with the end of the line station - it means the trains will already be full before they get closer to downtown.

 

[TheTigerMaster]

There isn't a need for both Smarttrack and subway in the same corridor, but if ST is terminated at Kennedy, with only a 15 min headway, I wonder how many people will get off and transfer, versus retaining that seat and contributing to the crush on Line 2.

Eventually ST will need closer headway, and that means a conflict with RER, and that means more than two tracks.

- Paul

Saying that the SRT subway alignment and SmartTrack would be in the same corridor is framing the discussion incorrectly.

Yes, the trains run in the same corridor, but only one station (Lawrence) would be in the same corridor. Station location is the only thing that matters; people don't care how the trains get to the station. So it's a fairly minor duplication of service.

And the consider the alternative: Building a 1-stop subway under McCowan with no Lawrence Station. That alignment would remove the duplication, but removes all subway stations on Lawrence (in Scarborough) as a consequence. So you'd have a net loss in transit coverage, and you'd actually be reducing total service.

Finally, consider the benefits of having a subway and RER interchange station on Lawrence. The Kennedy TTC to Kennedy GO transfer is fairly shitty, involving a long walk through a pedestrian tunnel. If both RER and Line 2 had a stop at Lawrence, the transfer could be more integrated, perhaps involving a short walk through an underground corridor.

 

[crs1026]

And the consider the alternative: Building a 1-stop subway under McCowan with no Lawrence Station. That alignment would remove the duplication, but removes all subway stations on Lawrence (in Scarborough) as a consequence. So you'd have a net loss in transit coverage, and you'd actually be reducing total service.

I wasn't arguing for that alternative. The one-stop idea is awful. I much prefer the SRT alignment for the subway. My point was - would this routing of the subway make ST redundant?

Finally, consider the benefits of the duplication. The Kennedy TTC to Kennedy GO transfer is fairly shitty, involving a long walk through a pedestrian tunnel. If both RER and Line 2 had a stop at Lawrence, the transfer could be more integrated, perhaps involving a short walk through an underground corridor.

I like that, except that I wouldn't want RER to stop twice so close together. Could this lead to elimination of the Kennedy GO/RER stop?

- Paul

 

[TheTigerMaster]

I wasn't arguing for that alternative. The one-stop idea is awful. I much prefer the SRT alignment for the subway. My point was - would this routing of the subway make ST redundant?

Oh, I don't think so. They serve different markets. SmartTrack most effectively serves people travelling directly to the vicinity of Union Station. The subway would handle everyone else.

I like that, except that I wouldn't want RER to stop twice so close together. Could this lead to elimination of the Kennedy GO/RER stop?

I wouldn't anticipate so. Kennedy would be needed to connect with Eglinton Line.

 

[Cobra]

Smarttrack cannibalizing SSE is completely dependant on fare structure. All indications are that it will not be fare-parity with the subway.

Also, if you look at the graph that Jen Keesmaat tweeted out, it shows 7,300 pphpd at STC, and about the same amount at Kennedy. So it seems to me that after only two stops there is very good usage.

None of this suggests it's particularly good value for the money, but for people to make claims that this extension will be underutilized I think is disingenuous.



Case in point. Its not necessarily a good thing to have extremely high ridership associated with the end of the line station - it means the trains will already be full before they get closer to downtown.

You make a good point. The graph on Line 1 station usage does put things in perspective.

One things for sure...I don't hear all this drama over Vaughan Station

 

[crs1026]

Oh, I don't think so. They serve different markets. SmartTrack most effectively serves people travelling directly to the vicinity of Union Station. The subway would handle everyone else.

That leads back to the premise that ST might one day (a Phase II for our grandkids) have its own tunnel that bypasses Union. Say, under King. Good reason for the DRL to avoid King.

I'm still thinking that ST/RER won't fit on two tracks through Scarboro, but the subway alignment along SRT is still compelling.

- Paul

 

[dowlingm]

What about the GO tracks in the middle, and the subway tracks on either side? Shared platforms southbound and northbound, for transfers, at Lawrence, and then side platforms for the subway only at Ellesmere. In-bound subway uses the tunnel curve, outbound rises directly from the station

Can't have subway up the east side without ripping out the freight spurs. Also, you lose more space for separation requirements subway-heavy-heavy-subway, I would think.

If the spurs could be done without, you could rip out all the SRT including the tunnel, run heavy rail up the west side and LRT the east, but apart from the rebuild to Lawrence and Ellesmere there's significant work at Kennedy too. But then the tunnel is gone forever. The SRT cars are 2.49m wide vs 2.65m wide for the Flexity Freedom so that probably had something to do with the guideway having to go?