Danforth Line 2 Scarborough Subway Extension

[dowlingm]

My goodness. They first approved LRT, then subway first 4 stops, then 3, and then 1 and now surface subway. Is this surface subway not really LRT? Although I guess if its an extension from Danforth it needs to remain subway so we never have to heard that dreaded word - transfer. I am glad thats for sure that it is not underground.

A goddamned dogs breakfast is what this surface subway notion is. On Twitter, Steve Munro noted that subway cars are wider than SRT (as is uptown flavour LRT) but the EA drawings for coexistence between GO and TTC tracks north of Kennedy assume SRT allowances.

 

[dowlingm]

We all need to pay for equality. Its the transits HAVES of the City who want more and don't want to integrate the neglected areas of TAX paying Toronto in a fair manner.

You seem nice, and so reasonable.

 

[APTA-2048]

For the most part Ford campaigned on listening to the voters out here & referendum aside Im pretty sure the message was clear.

No. He lied and mislead voters.

 

[Dan416]

Too bad there was no vote to study above-ground alignments on the extension to Vaughan :-/

I can certainly see why Scarborough feels like it always get the short end of the stick.

 

[TheTigerMaster]

Too bad there was no vote to study above-ground alignments on the extension to Vaughan :-/

I can certainly see why Scarborough feels like it always get the short end of the stick.

Why the heck would anybody care if it's above ground? It's not like they're building a new rail corridor through neighbourhoods. It's an upgrade of what already exists. I struggle to think of any logical reason to oppose this, assuming ROW allowances are in place.

 

[Dan416]

Why the heck would anybody care if it's above ground? It's not like they're building a new rail corridor through neighbourhoods. It's an upgrade of what already exists. I struggle to think of any logical reason to oppose this, assuming ROW allowances are in place.

The point is they're looking for ways to save money on this extension (first by cutting all the stops but one, now by putting it above ground) whereas this kind of cost cutting wasn't even considered for the TYSSE.

 

[nfitz]

Why the heck would anybody care if it's above ground? It's not like they're building a new rail corridor through neighbourhoods. It's an upgrade of what already exists. I struggle to think of any logical reason to oppose this, assuming ROW allowances are in place.

Because it's more expensive. You can't use the existing alignment without spending more money rebuilding Kennedy station, than the extra tunelling would cost. And that's without considering the tunnel you'd need at the Ellesmere curve.

 

[TheTigerMaster]

Because it's more expensive. You can't use the existing alignment without spending more money rebuilding Kennedy station, than the extra tunelling would cost. And that's without considering the tunnel you'd need at the Ellesmere curve.

Continuing east from Kennedy and looping back to to SRT corridor is something the TTC is considering. That would not require a Kennedy rebuilt 1.5 km of that line would be above ground. The question right now is how large that curve radius would need to be, and how much tunnelling it would require.

 

[TheTigerMaster]

TTC says their hesitation for the loop-back option is because they traditionally don't tunnel under homes, because of noise-isolation issues, and because they don't like building tight curves. But there's nothing technical stopping them from building a loop-back. A radius of 230 metres, which is about what is used at Union, could work, with primary impacts being slower service speed, more wear on rails and wheels.

 

[TheTigerMaster]

The point is they're looking for ways to save money on this extension (first by cutting all the stops but one, now by putting it above ground) whereas this kind of cost cutting wasn't even considered for the TYSSE.

Oh well. Just because we wasted money in the past doesn't mean we have to waste money in the present. Relief Line stops have been cut too because of cost constraints.

 

[Dan416]

Oh well. Just because we wasted money in the past doesn't mean we have to waste money in the present. Relief Line stops have been cut too because of cost constraints.

I wasn't aware there was any finalized station list or alignment for the DRL...

 

[TheTigerMaster]

I wasn't aware there was any finalized station list or alignment for the DRL...

Okay? Nor are there finalized stations lists or alignments for the Scarborough Subway. Both have preliminary recommendations from Toronto City Planning, both of which Council is near-certain to approve. Preliminary recommendations from TCP have cut stations from both projects due to cost optimizations. That's why there isn't a Carlaw stop on the RL.

 

[TheTigerMaster]

TTC says their hesitation for the loop-back option is because they traditionally don't tunnel under homes, because of noise-isolation issues, and because they don't like building tight curves. But there's nothing technical stopping them from building a loop-back. A radius of 230 metres, which is about what is used at Union, could work, with primary impacts being slower service speed, more wear on rails and wheels.

Also, I believe curve radius is a function of the car length and speed (I'm definitely not a railway engineer though, so this might not be accurate). Moving from 6 to 8 car trainsets on Line 2 BD would allow for shorter cars. 8 car trainsets would be 17 metres in length, compared to the current 23 metre T1 car length, and 13 metre ICTS Mk. 1 length. This would allow for significantly shorter curve radii.

I'm not going to guess how much shorter it could be, but the curve radius at Kennedy for the 13 metre ICTS cars is only 25 metres. This is compared to 150 metres for the 23 metre T1 cars at Union. Clearly that 10 metres can make a huge difference in possible curve radii. Moving down to 17 metre cars may very well allow us to minimize the length of the loop-back at Kennedy, and allow us to have a shorter Ellesmere tunnel.

The T1s are up for replacement next decade anyways, so it's timed nicely for the SSE.

 

[Palma]

The point is they're looking for ways to save money on this extension (first by cutting all the stops but one, now by putting it above ground) whereas this kind of cost cutting wasn't even considered for the TYSSE.

this is so true. Even though i do not support below surface subway I can see how unfair it is when you look over at Vaughan and they are not even part of Toronto compared to Scarborough and if anything it could have been above ground into Vaughan. of course Sobarra was never going to have any of that

 

[TheTigerMaster]

So I just looked at some information for the London Underground. Their Central Line's tightest curve is 61 metres between Shepherd's Bush and White City, using 16 metre trains, running at about 25 kph (including acceleration/deceleration into stations. This tight a curve would dramatically reduce the amount of tunnelling. Not saying it nececessairly has to be that tight, but it is something that should be considered. Especially since the savings, and the east-west alignment into Scarborough Centre might allow us to extend the subway northeast into Centennial College and Malvern, as was planned for the SRT back in the Transit City days. This might even allow us to retain Ellesmere, Lawrence East stations, depending on ROW availability.