Danforth Line 2 Scarborough Subway Extension

[kettal]

I'd rather see them push for 3-stop extension of the Bloor-Danforth via Eglinton-Danforth-McCowan by 2015. Actual work time could be as little as 30 months if ran efficiently on schedule. And seeing as that's the year the SRT's shelf life ends, there'd be minimal disruption if any to commuters travelling to the Scarborough Centre in the meantime. And at roughly 6 kms for $300 million/km it'd only be slightly more expensive than the SRT expansion. I'd then propose a busway along roughly the same alignment as the SRT extension which'll cost far less.

Why would it even be $300 million per km?? They could just expropriate some industrial lands and build the subway in a trench.

 

[Rainforest]

^ How would replacing perfectly good infrastructure at considerable cost be logical and rational?

Replacing that infrastructure is necessary: SRT Mk-I vehicles are approaching their end of life in a few years (technically, in 2015). Options are:

1) Rebuild parts of SRT guideway to handle bigger Mk-II vehicles (Mk-I are no longer manufactured).

2) Rebuild all of SRT guideway to handle Transit City light-rail vehicles.

3) Replace SRT with an extension of Danforth subway.

Cost: (1) and (2) about same; (3) is probably more expensive.

Shutdown duration: (1) is probably shorter than (2); (3) is unknown as design does not exist.

Vehicle compatibility, interoperability, cost of future extensions, performance during snowfalls: (1) is the worst.

Overall, I think that (1)-ICTS should be ruled out. (2)-LRT versus (3)-subway is debatable. S.O.S. coalition wants (3), not surprisingly.

 

[Darwinkgo]

Why should ICTS be ruled out? Low operational cost if can get guards off the trains, and rolling stock is off the shelf.

 

[kettal]

Why should ICTS be ruled out? Low operational cost if can get guards off the trains, and rolling stock is off the shelf.

1. It's a third system type, which means we need a maintenance department, spare parts, and a car house for vehicles which will run on only one line. If it is LRT or subway, we can use the same vehicles the rest of the city uses, with interchangeable parts, vehicles, and car houses.

2. if Bombardier decides they don't want to make compatible trains again, we're screwed. How many times does this have to happen before we learn?

 

[scarberiankhatru]

The SRT's infrastructure may already exist but that doesn't mean there's anything perfectly good about it. The conversion alone is one cost, but there's other costs that help make the infrastructure far from perfectly good: getting the Kennedy platform closer to the subway, adding bus facilities at Ellesmere, replacing Scarborough Centre's entire roof, widening Scarborough Centre's far-too-narrow platforms, etc. And this doesn't include the expensive extension which is being forced upon the line and has been deemed a requirement. A subway extension would be cheaper and would provide a faster ride for far, far more people. Too bad an allergy to common sense is becoming more widespread than allergies to peanuts these days.

 

[kettal]

Also, there's nothing special about ICTS having automatic train control. Any subway or LRT in a segregated guideway can have an autopilot just as easy.

 

[Rainforest]

Why should ICTS be ruled out? Low operational cost if can get guards off the trains, and rolling stock is off the shelf.

But they still use human drivers rather than ATO.

Downside of retaining ICTS (compared to standardizing the LRT fleet):

1) Malfunctions more often during snowfalls - Ice builds up on the reaction rail.

2) Need of separate yard.

3) Cannot reuse spare parts and maintenance equipment.

4) Cannot interline.

5) An extension beyond Malvern, if it ever happens, would be more expensive with ICTS. LRT does not need a fully isolated guideway, ICTS does.

 

[Rainforest]

A subway extension would be cheaper and would provide a faster ride for far, far more people.

May be cheaper, but only if they build a new N-S subway platform at Kennedy (the existing one is E-W) and reuse the existing SRT alignment to run the subway at grade to Ellesmere, then curve to STC.

If the chose alignment via Lawrence / Brimley, or via Danforth-McCowan, it will be more expensive: 250 - 300 M per km, x 6 km, 1.5 - 1.8 B.

The current allocation for SRT is 1.4 B.

 

[scarberiankhatru]

May be cheaper, but only if they build a new N-S subway platform at Kennedy (the existing one is E-W) and reuse the existing SRT alignment to run the subway at grade to Ellesmere, then curve to STC.

If the chose alignment via Lawrence / Brimley, or via Danforth-McCowan, it will be more expensive: 250 - 300 M per km, x 6 km, 1.5 - 1.8 B.

The current allocation for SRT is 1.4 B.

Not quite. Lawrence & Brimley is 5km, adding only 2 stations, one of which may be able to reuse some of the STC's bus terminal area.

If you rebuild Kennedy and run up the rail/hydro corridor, assuming this is even practical (it seems easy but may not be), you're also building a longer line with more stations than Lawrence & Brimley.

 

[Rainforest]

Btw, what is the growth potential of the Eglinton / Kennedy node, compared to STC?

STC is closer to 401, Durham transit, and Markham. But on the other hand, Eglinton / Kennedy has a GO line in addition to subway, and is closer to most of places within 416.

Perhaps instead of getting the Danforth subway to STC, we could concentrate condos and offices closer to Eglinton / Kennedy?

 

[kettal]

Btw, what is the growth potential of the Eglinton / Kennedy node, compared to STC?

STC is closer to 401, Durham transit, and Markham. But on the other hand, Eglinton / Kennedy has a GO line in addition to subway, and is closer to most of places within 416.

Perhaps instead of getting the Danforth subway to STC, we could concentrate condos and offices closer to Eglinton / Kennedy?

Building up at Kennedy is a good idea, but it will not change the fact that Scarborough RT is needed, in some form or another.

 

[Platform 27]

I happen to think that the poor SRT has been unfairly treated as a whipping child in the past---which, by Toronto transit activist standards, makes me a total deep-tongue lover of the thing---but in light of the circumstances Toronto is in even I think the business case for preserving or extending it is very weak.

Subway dreams from the above posters notwithstanding, conversion to LRT is going to happen. Robert Pritchard will not come galloping in on a white horse pledging to build a subway.

1. It's a third system type, which means we need a maintenance department, spare parts, and a car house for vehicles which will run on only one line. If it is LRT or subway, we can use the same vehicles the rest of the city uses, with interchangeable parts, vehicles, and car houses.

This. Transit boosters often get very adept at crunching rough x-million-per-km numbers but forget what a significant capital investment yard and maintenance facilities are, and what kind of constant operating costs are incurred by not having interchangeable parts and needing to train maintenance personnel on different systems.

Even if the line isn't extended an inch, keeping the SRT as a linear-induction light metro will necessitate a major expansion of the yard facilities, . Add to that the continuing costs of keeping a workforce fully trained to maintain the things.

2. if Bombardier decides they don't want to make compatible trains again, we're screwed. How many times does this have to happen before we learn?

In light of how linear-induction transit systems have been sprouting up in Asia lately and how Vancouver is committed to sticking with Bombardier ALRT technology for its next three expansions to the SkyTrain network, I think the likelihood of the technology getting totally orphaned is slim.

Had the SRT been converted to Mark II cars ten years ago, we probably wouldn't be having this conversation, as there are enough Mark II-using networks that I can't see access to compatible parts and so on as a long-term problem. Indeed, if the SRT had been a bigger line with a bigger fleet, it would probably have remained in Bombardier's interests to continue to support the Mark I trains.

 

[Rainforest]

Building up at Kennedy is a good idea, but it will not change the fact that Scarborough RT is needed, in some form or another.

Sure, retaining some form of rapid transit from Kennedy to STC is a must, and even going beyond it to serve Centennial College and the north-east of 416 is highly desirable.

I'm just thinking that if the focus of growth in Scarborough shifts from STC to Kennedy / Eglinton, then there will be less need to replace SRT with subway. So, S(L)RT might be good enough.

 

[kettal]

Sure, retaining some form of rapid transit from Kennedy to STC is a must, and even going beyond it to serve Centennial College and the north-east of 416 is highly desirable.

I'm just thinking that if the focus of growth in Scarborough shifts from STC to Kennedy / Eglinton, then there will be less need to replace SRT with subway. So, S(L)RT might be good enough.

Well the reason for a subway is not because an LRT will go over capacity (it won't), but for the convenience of no transfers. The only question is how much they will spend making an over-built LRT versus a trenched subway.

$1.4 billion for an LRT in an empty rail corridor? I would hope the rails are made of solid gold.

 

[Second_in_pie]

Sure, retaining some form of rapid transit from Kennedy to STC is a must, and even going beyond it to serve Centennial College and the north-east of 416 is highly desirable.

I'm just thinking that if the focus of growth in Scarborough shifts from STC to Kennedy / Eglinton, then there will be less need to replace SRT with subway. So, S(L)RT might be good enough.

So switch STC as the designated urban growth node, around which there are already numerous high density condos and office buildings, to the area around Kennedy station? And just because we're afraid of actually investing in subway infrastructure?