Danforth Line 2 Scarborough Subway Extension

[sixrings]

You mean elevate our subway trains that much of a distance? I'm for elevated rail in the windswept Scarberian landscape, but our HRT trains are too bloody big for that. It'd be noisy, large, imposing...the people wouldn't want it.

Regarding 'anything better than Skytrain to LRT', what's so wrong with that? LRT's versatility proves itself as being the winner. The initial cost is large, but the adaptability of light rail allows for potential through-routing transition to street level in-median. You can't achieve that with our subways or the 'ICTS' vehicles on other systems.

To be promoting elevated transit in the 'burbs, it'd be a wrong move to do so as part of our subway system IMO. Separate systems are the only way. As for replacement vehicles, LRT is the right choice. The first mistake with SRT/Go Urban was not following through on the plan to use LRT, the second mistake would be to continue using non-LRT vehicles.

The LRT isn't as versatile as it should be. It is but it isn't. Here's my explanation. If it was versatile enough then the SRT/LRT would interline with the Eglinton LRT. However it apparently wont happen because the frequency of the SRT/LRT line will be larger and the surface sections of the Eglinton LRT will slow it down. If that is true, wouldn't it come to reason that any extension of the SRT/LRT would have to remain grade separated as well since having surface LRT would slow it down? If that's true is it really as versatile as its being advertised? Sure it can be used under and above ground on the same route like Eglinton but it appears on other routes that wont be a option. SO in essence its versatile, SOMETIMES!

 

[nfitz]

The Sherway Gardens extension should not require a TBM. The entire thing could be built at-grade/trenched.

At-grade along the railway line... but exactly where do you put it? West mall and the CP tracks? At-grade, sure. West Mall and Dundas? Might as well tunnel. South of the Queensway? Might as well tunnel, unless you can keep it all in the hydro right-of-way. Putting it in a trench doesn't do anything for long-term development.

 

[dunkalunk]

You can keep the Subway ROW to the north of the CP ROW until the 427, it would then cross under the CP Tracks and run in a trench through the big-box hell that exists today. Tunnels and TBMs are expensive. You can always deck-over a trench later if you want to redevelop, but it is important to have the transit utility there first.

 

[nfitz]

Tunnels and TBMs are expensive. You can always deck-over a trench later if you want to redevelop, but it is important to have the transit utility there first.

Tunnels aren't that expensive compared to trenches. With tunnels coming in about about $50-million/km and probably less than 500 metres from the CP tracks to the station box, then I'm not sure that a trench makes much sense - what's the maximum savings ... a mere $20 million? - though I guess it depends on the alignment. Big question I suppose is where do you send the line in the long term? Pearson? Square One? Down Bloor? Down Dundas? Down Queensway? Terminate permanently at Sheridan? Terminate permanently at Long Branch (now that would be a great link to the Lakeshore line!). The details of how you build the line would come second ...

Not sure why we are discussing this in this thread ...

 

[gweed123]

The Sherway Gardens extension should not require a TBM. The entire thing could be built at-grade/trenched.

That's what I was thinking too. If it does require any tunnelling, it could be done with cut and cover.

And with respect to the elevated B-D extension, I don't think that's a good idea, at least south of Ellesmere. Unlike Eglinton East or West where there's suburban retail or a ready-made corridor, McCowan is a relatively residential-oriented arterial.

I can see it maybe going elevated from Ellesmere to Sheppard, but south of there, nope.

 

[ssiguy2]

I love how the TTC complains about operational costs and then when it has the chance to be build grade sepaprated automated lines it balks at the idea.

Buy the new MK111 trains improve the line and the money saved could be used to elevate the DM to Kennedy section and Bob's your uncle. Even the fact that Eglinton and Scar LRT can't interline due to Eglinton lower speeds and lower reliability along the street running section proves that Eglinton's capacity and speed will not be high enough and needs grade separation.

Truth be told, I support LRT in many applications where it makes sense and the system is built as rapid transit a la CTrain, DART, L.A. MetroRail, Seattle & Edmonton LRT etc but in Toronto's case no way. They are building Shep/Finch LRTs that will be no more reliable or fast than if they painted a lane of the roadway for bus-only and saved themselves a cool $1.5 billion. As for Eglinton they are building LRT at prices higher than most Metro lines.

LRT was brought back to NA because it offered an affordable and yet fast alternative to expensive and time comsuming schedules of subway NOT to create "complete streets"..............that's what local transit is for. Toronto is building the lowest capacity, lowest reliability, lowest speed system along Eglinton which will also be the most expensive to operate of it's alternative Metro, SkyTrain, or monorail. Toronto is getting the least possible bang for it's buck that they can muster.

The Eglinton LRT is the most expensive LRT line ever built on this planet and when it's finally completed a little fender-bender along the route can bring this Taj Majal system to a grinding halt.

There is absolutely, positively no logical reason why Eglinton should be either LRT or non-grade separated. LRT wasn't even considered for Eglinton until Miller's LRT wet dreams became the mantra of the day and Torontonians are going to regret this lack of vision for decades to come.

 

[44 North]

The LRT isn't as versatile as it should be.

I'll agree with your explanation. And it is a damn shame they're apparently unable to fulfill the promise of interlining Eglinton with the S(L)RT. But what about the potential for short-turning?

But even with this inability, LRT is the right choice. Tracks, yards, maintenance can all be shared and connected which brings down costs. And with KW, Hamilton and 'Sauga all apparently having this standard-gauge LRT, this may even bring down the costs further.

The SRT should've been LRT to begin with. IMO, any extension should ensure that original mistake is rectified by refitting for LRT.

 

[11th]

But even with this inability, LRT is the right choice. Tracks, yards, maintenance can all be shared and connected which brings down costs. And with KW, Hamilton and 'Sauga all apparently having this standard-gauge LRT, this may even bring down the costs further.

The infrastructures can be shared ONLY because Metrolinx/TTC created the need for that. Think if Eglinton isn't to run LRVs, the SRT is replaced with B-D extension, and SELRT ditched in favour of BRT (or combination of subway and BRT) .

 

[44 North]

But Eglinton IS going to run LRVs, that's a sure bet. The SELRT can be cancelled outright, but Eglinton - whether money is earmarked to elevate the eastern section or not - will still be built for LRT.

And whether the SELRT, FWLRT are canceled and downgraded to BRT, the door will always be open for upgrading to LRT. I'm not going to spout how LRT is the best mode because it's popular worldwide, but it is standard and common enough that it should be kept as a leading candidate for the modal choice between buses and subways. Keeping the SRT as some outlier ICTS thing just complicates matters and ensures that transit expansion in TO is relegated to piecemeal extensions of different systems.

 

[snowystar]

I'll agree with your explanation. And it is a damn shame they're apparently unable to fulfill the promise of interlining Eglinton with the S(L)RT. But what about the potential for short-turning?

Once a closed (grade separated) system interact with an open component (at-grade segment), there will be a degree of uncertainty added that will reduce the reliability of the closed system. What happen if the train coming in from the at-grade segment got delayed? Will it affect the headway of the underground segment? What if there is a bunch up of trains coming into the tunnel, would this also delay the short-turn trains trying to find a gap between the incoming train? Would this also create an excessive gap between trains before the bunch up, even in the underground segment, as the trains would only be running half as frequent?

When I was working at Burnaby (a suburb of Vancouver), one thing I like about the automated SkyTrain is that, I know for >95% of the time, there will be a train coming at exactly 6:11:24pm, and it is the train I want to take without even need to look at the destination sign (there are two possible routing for the train). If I take that train, it would arrive at my destination at exactly 6:28:40pm, and I have just enough time to make my 6:31pm bus connection. Yes, the schedule is accurate to the seconds! Now, if the uncertainty is added to the system, how much extra time should I add and how much earlier should I arrive at the station if I don't want to miss the 6:31pm bus?

 

[rbt]

Once a closed (grade separated) system interact with an open component (at-grade segment), there will be a degree of uncertainty added that will reduce the reliability of the closed system. What happen if the train coming in from the at-grade segment got delayed? Will it affect the headway of the underground segment? What if there is a bunch up of trains coming into the tunnel, would this also delay the short-turn trains trying to find a gap between the incoming train? Would this also create an excessive gap between trains before the bunch up, even in the underground segment, as the trains would only be running half as frequent?

It works the exact same way that trains work in Chicago using the Loop. Sometimes one train will need to wait for another (signal) but most of the time they just go when they arrive.

Not every train needs to leave the tunnel and it's entirely possible to have gap trains waiting at the portals to fill gaps in the sequence.

Every 3rd train leaves the portal (surface frequences of 6 minutes); tunnel maintains frequencies of 2 minutes.

If a train from the surface arrives, it goes into the tunnel immediately. If it is time for a train to depart and a surface train is not due soon, a train waiting at the tunnel portal is sent instead.

TTC is very familiar with the concept of gap trains as service often doesn't always go as planned even when fully grade separated. Service within the tunnel can be automated (as much as safety/unions/... will allow) and run on a very different schedule than the surface components.

What will be scheduled won't be known for many years and there are many ways that management can screw things up; but
there is no added technical restriction of the Eglinton tunnel segment by extending the line onto the surface.

Think of it as 2 separate lines which happen to interline for most of their length; one line runs from Keele to Kennedy and the other from Keele to Don Mills.

 

[44 North]

I guess the Eglinton Crosstown should have a turnaround at Don Mills where the line switches from underground to in-median?

Branches of Boston's Green Line are a great example of interlining and thru-routing between complete grade separation and in-median. It's actually leaps and bounds ahead of Toronto in that the 'E Branch' offers actual street-running. So just imagine if some of our streetcar lines were branches off both the SRT and Crosstown.

It seems to be an open and shut case to reconfigure the RT for LRV. The cost is large, but it's needed to pay for the mistake of opting for non-LRT 35 years ago.

 

[CapitalSeven]

I guess the Eglinton Crosstown should have a turnaround at Don Mills where the line switches from underground to in-median?

That seems to be the plan. The drawings released a month or two ago show a 3-track 2-platform station. Presumably the middle track would be used for turning back some of the trains.

 

[Dan416]

Buy the new MK111 trains improve the line and the money saved could be used to elevate the DM to Kennedy section and Bob's your uncle. Even the fact that Eglinton and Scar LRT can't interline due to Eglinton lower speeds and lower reliability along the street running section proves that Eglinton's capacity and speed will not be high enough and needs grade separation.

ssiguy2 fyi it's Mk III (three) not 111 (one-hundred eleven).

 

[ssiguy2]

The point here is that Toronto is building the most expensive LRT line on the planet and yet the line won't be grade separated. Toronto is getting an at grade system for grade separated prices. The bang for the buck here is incredibly poor.

For me isn't not whether LRT is good enough for Eglinton. Personally I don't think it is but the real issue is that Toronto is paying subway prices for it. Very few Metro lines on this planet come in at what Toronto is building a non-grade separated system for.

My god the Canada Line had a tunneled section as long as the Eglinton but also had to go under False Creek, thru downtown and build 2 bridges over the mighty Fraser and still came in at way less than half what Eglinton will. The stations are small but still will have higher capacity than Eglinton's much larger and more expensive to build stations and the Canada is faster, far more reliable, and cheaper to run than the Eglinton line will be.

A transit line is only as reliable as it's weakest link and Eglinton has 6 km of accidents waiting to happen and because of it's much lower reliability and frequency levels it can't even interline with STC which was ALWAYS preferred. That alone exemplifies that this line will not have the capacity or reliability needed for Eglinton.

Toronto has been given $8 and with all that money isn't getting one foot of grade separated transit.......heads should roll. For that kind of money Toronto could easily double it's Metro system and provide Torontonians the true rapid transit that they desperately need.