Danforth Line 2 Scarborough Subway Extension

[Steve X]

Even if the second crew change isn't at Kennedy, you're going to have to have one somewhere. A trip to Kennedy from Mt Dennis will take at least 50 minutes, probably an hour (we don't know how traffic control will affect travel times, or how much the TTC will pad the schedules). From there to Morningside, you can throw on another 40 minutes to an hour. Factor in terminal padding and the return trip, and you're looking at a 3-4 hr run.

I really don't understand why TTC would even operate EELRT as part of line 5. The line is way too long and is prone to creating large gaps on the "subway" portion. Furthermore, the ridership east of Kennedy would be much greater than west of it. Most people would transfer at Kennedy. They'll still need to design a short turn for both directions approaching Kennedy.

This would also require all stops to be built for 3-car consists instead of the 2-car consists defined in the EA.

 

[slapped_chicken]

Okay, based on both rainforest's' and reeces' responses I think I can conclude that, even today, the best and most sensible option IMO would be to refurbish the SRT with new trains and implement a system that prevents the issue of frozen LIM rails. This is much cheaper than either the LRT or the subway plan. Even if the SSE got cancelled today and replaced with a refurbishment/upgrade, it would be finished faster and cheaper.

The second question is conceptual rather than technical, and the opinions are obviously split. IMO, the subway extension makes sense even though it is more expensive than the SRT refurb. The subway extension will result in a subway network spread somewhat evenly across the 416. On the contrary, forever ending the subway at Kennedy would result in a situation where most of the city is within a reasonably short distance from at least one subway station, but a large triangle in the east (much of Scarborough) is far from any subway. A brief glance at the 416 map with TTC subways can illustrate that.

IMO, I don't really like to take the approach of spreading a subway network evenly across the city just for the sake of bringing subway to all corners of the city. Different rapid transit options can be assessed for different corridors across the city, not just subway. And at the same time, I don't like boxing in the subway system either to just the 416 We should look at where transit works best without respect for borders - for example, subway extension on Yonge North to RH centre is more lucrative in ridership than an equivalent-cost subway extension on Sheppard east, even though Yonge North veers out of the city significantly !

Anyways, SSE is getting built and that's that - it doesn't seem likely anything otherwise will happen. I do have criticisms about this project - the station on Sheppard should be removed, and instead a station near the Eglinton-Brimley-Danforth triangle should be implemented. Sheppard doesn't need a subway station, lol, the intersection has nothing of significance nor is a destination - STC is. Eglinton-Brimley-Danforth station offers a more reasonable stop spacing on this line, has a fair amount of density in its vicinity and potential for redevelopment.

If these changes are made, I'd prefer it a bit over the LRT proposal. Currently, I kinda hate both proposals equally lol, but I'm glad to see transit built nonetheless.

Denzil Minnan-Wong reveals motion "Feasibility of roadway on Scarborough RT Corridor"

lol we really went from "everyone deserves subways" to "everyone deserves their own gardiner expressway". Upgrades, people, upgrades

 

[north-of-anything]

If only city councillors were saying "everyone deserves a safe place to live".

 

[EnviroTO]

1) LRT is not slower than a bus because it’s got a high top speed is a silly argument, that’s like arguing that bikes are faster than most road traffic because going down a hill in perfect aero you can hit some crazy speed.

I didn't say an LRT has a higher top speed than a bus. Buses go down the freeway much faster than 70-80 km/h. That isn't the argument at all. The argument is that the limiting speed of LRT isn't the vehicles at all. The vehicles determine the carrying capacity and are a factor in the cost, but don't determine the speed at all.

LRTs that we are building are limited to traffic speeds, and because we (surprise to no one) won’t give good priority, they will sometimes be slower than buses because they will be caught behind turning cars etc.

All vehicles types are limited to the constraints of their environment. Buses in traffic go traffic speeds. The LRTs are in their own ROW so they are not limited to traffic speeds because they aren't running in traffic. Nowhere on the line is there a car in the same lane as the LRT so it can't be stuck behind a turning car unless the gridlock is so bad that when all the lights for cars are red the cars still have no way to exit the intersection. That just isn't the reality at these suburban intersections and if it was it would justify the need to have the LRT duck under the intersection like it does at Don Mills.

2) If you’re building an LRT on Don Mills good luck justifying a subway anytime soon...

If there was a need, there would be justification. The presence of cars didn't rule out the need for a bus, the current bus doesn't rule out the need for more. The streetcars going from downtown to Broadview station and Main station haven't eliminated the need for a relief line. The reality is that if you can say an LRT would make a subway unjustifiable then that is an admittance that the subway is not needed but rather you would like one because you think they are cooler.

Ok ok, these posts are getting out of hand but there’s definitely an unhealthy romanticism for transit city.

Romanticism is about what the heart wants. My heart wants subways all over this city like London, Paris, and New York. But I can accept that at this time in Toronto's development it isn't want Toronto needs. Toronto needs smart investments in transit. Goal oriented fiscally responsible decisions based on cost benefit.

 

[TRONto]

See I feel like you've made the case for me here "The streets still need to widened, property needs to be purchased and utilities relocated" yes, so why not get your moneys worth and go elevated. The cost differential is less than 2x but the capacity increase is greater than 2x, plus you have better reliability because no auto interactions (which wreak a ton of havoc in Toronto even in the downtown where most trips are not necessarily in cars). Plus grade separation gets you better average speeds, so all else equal you attract more riders.

I think that's where the difference in geography and budget comes in. Is the 2x capacity required? They are looking at a maximum hourly ridership of 2250. It could be better value for the money in that sense but if the capacity isn't utilized then the value is not there. For example, if the extra cost is 1 billion dollars, would it be worth it on Finch to spend the extra billion? Even if it's 300 million, it's still a lot of money.

I think the interaction with cars is overstated. Streetcars in mixed traffic has the issue for sure. The comparison should be with St Clair and Spadina streetcar routes that have their own right of way. I travel Spadina the most between those and can't recall a single time an automobile stopped the streetcar.

I just checked the Finch line. The LRT is supposed to take 28 minutes to cover the whole line. By car, at this COVID non rush hour time, google says 30 minutes. An express bus wouldn't beat car time. I would assume the majority of ridership would be in the 15-20 minute range, if that is the case is it worth spending another minute or so going up to an elevated station and coming down?

IIRC, much of what the Canada Line runs through when elevated is industrial. The Finch line is mostly residential and there would be a strong push to put the entire line underground which I imagine would eliminate the cost (and value) advantages against a surface line. You would probably know better though.

I'm not saying it's necessarily one or the other, there are pros and cons with both. What I'm saying is that we can't say 100% ICTS is vastly superior because we haven't done it here recently so we don't know the Toronto cost of doing it. At the same time, Toronto is doing a number of transit projects at the same time so it's important to conserve funds. It might be easier to make the case for doing ICTS on Finch if that was the only project we were doing. Personally I would prefer an automated ICTS line on Finch even if it might be an overbuild but the decision should still fall under infrastructure capacity + geography (+budget).

 

[Voltz]

I- because a new fleet, new systems and maybe a relocation of the Kennedy platform is a lot less expensive than all of that plus entire new tracks, catenaries, rebuilding of many parts of all the stations... The lrt was estimated to cost 1.8 billion (2013 dollars I believe) vs 190 million (2006 dollars). Both of those seem like low estimates but there is absolutely no argument for the lrt being the cheapest option.

That was the cost of refurbishing the SRT without an extension, as was a very preliminary estimate,

I have been saying that Eglinton (pre covid) would be over-capacity from day one, and that was with running 3-car trains

So Eglinton is going to go from 10 metre buses to 90 metre underground trains and be full from day one, sure.

 

[KhalilHeron]

That was the cost of refurbishing the SRT without an extension, as was a very preliminary estimate,

So Eglinton is going to go from 10 metre buses to 90 metre underground trains and be full from day one, sure.

Of course! I said they were both low estimates, but it would have still been vastly cheaper than the lrt, whos price was also a low estimate

 

[Voltz]

Of course! I said they were both low estimates, but it would have still been vastly cheaper than the lrt, whos price was also a low estimate

Did you not read where I said the cost did not include the extension, where the majority of the work would take place? And the planning went forward as an LIM line far beyond 2006, there were renderings of LIM trains at the station planned beside the Malvern Town Center, it was only decided to switch to LRT vehicles later. And do you really think they picked the several times more expensive option without so much as a peep from the Toronto Sun?

 

[KhalilHeron]

Did you not read where I said the cost did not include the extension, where the majority of the work would take place? And the planning went forward as an LIM line far beyond 2006, there were renderings of LIM trains at the station planned beside the Malvern Town Center, it was only decided to switch to LRT vehicles later. And do you really think they picked the several times more expensive option without so much as a peep from the Toronto Sun?

That's kind of what the of course was about but okay. The lrt would have to have lottts of work done at all of the stations to retrofit the platforms to fit lrt trains, to add catenaries, and more. Do you think a complete overhaul of the existing system, with all-new tracks, completely overhauled stations, and new trains would be cheaper than just new trains and maybe an overhaul of one station? Lrt maybe made sense if it was integrated with line 5 but otherwise it's even more cramped trains, for more money. Upgrading and extending the rt as is would have still been cheaper than the lrt (by a smaller margin mind you).

 

[Voltz]

That's kind of what the of course was about but okay. The lrt would have to have lottts of work done at all of the stations to retrofit the platforms to fit lrt trains, to add catenaries, and more. Do you think a complete overhaul of the existing system, with all-new tracks, completely overhauled stations, and new trains would be cheaper than just new trains and maybe an overhaul of one station? Lrt maybe made sense if it was integrated with line 5 but otherwise it's even more cramped trains, for more money. Upgrading and extending the rt as is would have still been cheaper than the lrt (by a smaller margin mind you).

No I don't think that, you're assumptions about what needed to be done to keep a LIM system are incorrect,

 

[Reecemartin]

I didn't say an LRT has a higher top speed than a bus. Buses go down the freeway much faster than 70-80 km/h. That isn't the argument at all. The argument is that the limiting speed of LRT isn't the vehicles at all. The vehicles determine the carrying capacity and are a factor in the cost, but don't determine the speed at all.

All vehicles types are limited to the constraints of their environment. Buses in traffic go traffic speeds. The LRTs are in their own ROW so they are not limited to traffic speeds because they aren't running in traffic. Nowhere on the line is there a car in the same lane as the LRT so it can't be stuck behind a turning car unless the gridlock is so bad that when all the lights for cars are red the cars still have no way to exit the intersection. That just isn't the reality at these suburban intersections and if it was it would justify the need to have the LRT duck under the intersection like it does at Don Mills.

If there was a need, there would be justification. The presence of cars didn't rule out the need for a bus, the current bus doesn't rule out the need for more. The streetcars going from downtown to Broadview station and Main station haven't eliminated the need for a relief line. The reality is that if you can say an LRT would make a subway unjustifiable then that is an admittance that the subway is not needed but rather you would like one because you think they are cooler.

Romanticism is about what the heart wants. My heart wants subways all over this city like London, Paris, and New York. But I can accept that at this time in Toronto's development it isn't want Toronto needs. Toronto needs smart investments in transit. Goal oriented fiscally responsible decisions based on cost benefit.

The point is with LRT you can get creep, all you need is a politician who doesn't want to give it priority - which we have seen in this city many times. They do determine the speed too, you can't realistically run a subway down the middle of a street but, you can an LRT.

LRT's in their own ROW still go traffic speeds when adjacent to traffic, which the vast majority of ours are.

Also you don't need to have a car in your lane to be blocked behind it turning - go visit the Spadina Streetcar, cars get advanced greens and this delays trains - that is what people are referring to when talking about turning cars.

My preference for mode has 0 to do with what I think is "cool", if we build an LRT somewhere do you really think you are going to get suburban councilors and provincial leadership to do a subway on the same corridor? There is clearly justification and has long been for a subway along this route - which is part of what made transit city so silly.

And this is ultimately the problem, you say you'd want subways if we could have them - but if we build them like Madrid or Vancouver we could. Very few cities pay as much for tunneled transit as Toronto, largely because there is this insistence that you NEED to use TTC Subway trains if you build a subway, which is clearly ridiculous.

Re. Cost Benefit, it tends to be bad for LRT projects - you have slower transit trips due to forced transfers, and in many cases you take away road space which also hurts the CBR. In Toronto we pay almost as much for LRT as Montreal and Toronto are doing REM and SkyTrain but since its a tram we get far less benefit - which drives a poor CBR.

I think that's where the difference in geography and budget comes in. Is the 2x capacity required? They are looking at a maximum hourly ridership of 2250. It could be better value for the money in that sense but if the capacity isn't utilized then the value is not there. For example, if the extra cost is 1 billion dollars, would it be worth it on Finch to spend the extra billion? Even if it's 300 million, it's still a lot of money.

I think the interaction with cars is overstated. Streetcars in mixed traffic has the issue for sure. The comparison should be with St Clair and Spadina streetcar routes that have their own right of way. I travel Spadina the most between those and can't recall a single time an automobile stopped the streetcar.

I just checked the Finch line. The LRT is supposed to take 28 minutes to cover the whole line. By car, at this COVID non rush hour time, google says 30 minutes. An express bus wouldn't beat car time. I would assume the majority of ridership would be in the 15-20 minute range, if that is the case is it worth spending another minute or so going up to an elevated station and coming down?

IIRC, much of what the Canada Line runs through when elevated is industrial. The Finch line is mostly residential and there would be a strong push to put the entire line underground which I imagine would eliminate the cost (and value) advantages against a surface line. You would probably know better though.

I'm not saying it's necessarily one or the other, there are pros and cons with both. What I'm saying is that we can't say 100% ICTS is vastly superior because we haven't done it here recently so we don't know the Toronto cost of doing it. At the same time, Toronto is doing a number of transit projects at the same time so it's important to conserve funds. It might be easier to make the case for doing ICTS on Finch if that was the only project we were doing. Personally I would prefer an automated ICTS line on Finch even if it might be an overbuild but the decision should still fall under infrastructure capacity + geography (+budget).

I take issue with a lot of these claims, but I am just going to reply to the speed one.

You're suggesting that most trips are 15 to 20 minutes, but I am not sure that is the case - its not for a majority going to the Subway (significant numbers) . . . and I mean you sort of get confirmation bias with the LRT because it will discourage longer trips, 30 minutes for the Finch West LRT is not fast . . . the travel time for a similar distance on Line 2 is *14 minutes* less than half the time and Line 2 has a lot of stops for a subway!

 

[Streety McCarface]

So Eglinton is going to go from 10 metre buses to 90 metre underground trains and be full from day one, sure.

Length is irrelevant, what is relevant is passenger capacity.
Each Flexity can fit around 120 passengers before dwell times are affected (See the streetcar network)
Each 40' bus can fit around 40 passengers before dwell times are affected.

With 2 LRVs travelling down eglinton every 3 minutes, you're looking at a optimal capacity of 240 passengers every 4 minutes, or a capacity of 3,600 PPHPD, and that's assuming bunching isn't affecting your frequencies, or that people will evenly distribute themselves between trains shortturning at Laird and those going to Kennedy (spoilers: they won't).

Compare this to the existing capacities provided pre-COVID. I don't remember the exact frequencies but if I recall correctly it was somewhere close to a bus every 2 minutes on the west side, and a bus every 4 minutes on the east side. Assuming crush capacities of a 40' bus are 70 people, we're looking at 1,800 PPH West of Yonge, and 900 PPH East of Yonge. So far so good, but...

What about routes that parallel the Eglinton Bus for significant Portions of its route? In the East, you have the 54, 51, and 56, and not much in the west. So hell, say demand is the same east and west of Yonge, but that still leaves vehicles with room for another 1,800 PPHPD. That's plenty of room, right?

Sure, if one belives that ridership will stay the exact same once the line opens. Sheppard, the TYSSE, and King's ridership pretty much doubled when those corridors got improvements, and they're not nearly as significant as Eglinton is. It would be foolish to assume Eglinton's ridership wouldn't at least double given the insane number of bus connections that the route will be responsible for servicing. A good portion of people aren't going to bother going to Bloor when Eglinton is closer. You're looking at an at-capacity scenario on day one and that's a conservative assumption.

Eglinton has capacity to expand — it has crush capacity, it has room for an additional car, and can increase frequencies to every 3 minutes. All said, you could probably get capacities close to 11K PPHPD. Ottawa deals with similar capacities, but as one can see, running light rail service at those capacities has significant impacts on the line's level of service.

Eglinton will get to those capacities sooner than people think — it's a corridor with an insane amount of development going on along it, there are an anticipated 2 extensions with each adding 50K PPD, it's taking a crap ton of riders away from line 2, and will focus most cross-town ridership along it (think someone from Scarborough heading to Downsview, Midtown, or anywhere in Etobicoke).

 

[W. K. Lis]

Length is irrelevant, what is relevant is passenger capacity.
Each Flexity can fit around 120 passengers before dwell times are affected (See the streetcar network)
Each 40' bus can fit around 40 passengers before dwell times are affected.

With 2 LRVs travelling down eglinton every 3 minutes, you're looking at a optimal capacity of 240 passengers every 4 minutes, or a capacity of 3,600 PPHPD, and that's assuming bunching isn't affecting your frequencies, or that people will evenly distribute themselves between trains shortturning at Laird and those going to Kennedy (spoilers: they won't).

Compare this to the existing capacities provided pre-COVID. I don't remember the exact frequencies but if I recall correctly it was somewhere close to a bus every 2 minutes on the west side, and a bus every 4 minutes on the east side. Assuming crush capacities of a 40' bus are 70 people, we're looking at 1,800 PPH West of Yonge, and 900 PPH East of Yonge. So far so good, but...

What about routes that parallel the Eglinton Bus for significant Portions of its route? In the East, you have the 54, 51, and 56, and not much in the west. So hell, say demand is the same east and west of Yonge, but that still leaves vehicles with room for another 1,800 PPHPD. That's plenty of room, right?

Sure, if one belives that ridership will stay the exact same once the line opens. Sheppard, the TYSSE, and King's ridership pretty much doubled when those corridors got improvements, and they're not nearly as significant as Eglinton is. It would be foolish to assume Eglinton's ridership wouldn't at least double given the insane number of bus connections that the route will be responsible for servicing. A good portion of people aren't going to bother going to Bloor when Eglinton is closer. You're looking at an at-capacity scenario on day one and that's a conservative assumption.

Eglinton has capacity to expand — it has crush capacity, it has room for an additional car, and can increase frequencies to every 3 minutes. All said, you could probably get capacities close to 11K PPHPD. Ottawa deals with similar capacities, but as one can see, running light rail service at those capacities has significant impacts on the line's level of service.

Eglinton will get to those capacities sooner than people think — it's a corridor with an insane amount of development going on along it, there are an anticipated 2 extensions with each adding 50K PPD, it's taking a crap ton of riders away from line 2, and will focus most cross-town ridership along it (think someone from Scarborough heading to Downsview, Midtown, or anywhere in Etobicoke).

Expect longer dwell times at Mt. Dennis, Cedarvale, Eglinton, Laird, Science Centre, and Kennedy Stations on the Eglinton Crosstown LRT.

 

[TRONto]

You're suggesting that most trips are 15 to 20 minutes, but I am not sure that is the case - its not for a majority going to the Subway (significant numbers) . . . and I mean you sort of get confirmation bias with the LRT because it will discourage longer trips, 30 minutes for the Finch West LRT is not fast . . . the travel time for a similar distance on Line 2 is *14 minutes* less than half the time and Line 2 has a lot of stops for a subway!

I'm not sure if we are talking about the same thing in the first part. A problem with communicating through text.

How did you do the speed calculation? I checked on google and the finch lrt route is about 10.5km which is supposed to be covered by the LRT in 28 minutes. Using google, I checked a similar distance on Line 2 (Islington to St George 10.6km) and it's 23 minutes. It's comparable.

I checked the fastest car time between the two ends of the line and it's 23 minutes (not taking finch). Which is still pretty comparable with both the subway and lrt times.

Anyhow, I know you are probably busy with your YouTube channel so I wanted to say great work on the videos. I think you are doing a great job. Just watched the O-train video and I didn't realize what a mess that was!

 

[Steve X]

Expect longer dwell times at Mt. Dennis, Cedarvale, Eglinton, Laird, Science Centre, and Kennedy Stations on the Eglinton Crosstown LRT.

Just wait till the TTC demand they program those LRV doors to close slowly just like the streetcars!