Scarborough-Malvern LRT

[Voltz]

Maybe there should be.

On the other hand, there isn't any left-turn lanes from Kingston Road to Lawrence in either direction - or really much need for them. They could simply restrict left-turns, and let the LRVs pass through on the existing phase, with little impact to traffic. I'd think the left turns from Kingston Road eastbound to Morningside would be a bigger issue actually.

I was surprised when I saw that intersection on the list. It's true, the traffic does back up there in PM rush - but what went through my mind - "that's the worst we have?" I've seen so many far worse examples in Mississauga and Richmond Hill/Markham!

The SMLRT EA showed eliminating left turns at Kingston and Morningside, and adding left turns at Kingston and Lawrence. I think the turns at Morningside were eliminated because there is to much through traffic to allow for left turn phases.

https://swanboatsteve.files.wordpress.com/2016/01/r5_section_2c.pdf

This may seem like a big issue for car traffic, but I don't think making those left turns elsewhere should be a big issue.

 

[nfitz]

Getting rid of the turn lanes at Morningside might actually speed up the traffic, it makes the traffic on Kingston Road turn right on Lawrence then left on Morningside, meaning the (mostly) through traffic on Kingston Road moves better.

Though, really if you want to improve congestion here - it's Lawrence you want to tunnel under Kingston and the LRT tracks. I don't think the LRT will make it worse (maybe even better if it pushes some modal shift, and gets many of the buses out of the way).

 

[BurlOak]

So, what yard will Scarborough-Malvern LRT use to store its vehicles?

If the SRT is interlined with SMLRT, I always thought there space in/near Jack Goodlad Park at SRT/Gatineau hydro corridor

 

[nfitz]

If the SRT is interlined with SMLRT, I always thought there space in/near Jack Goodlad Park at SRT/Gatineau hydro corridor

? SRT is gone under this plan.

I just can't even begin to fathom what happens if you run lots of tracks and wires underneath a high voltage line. Have you ever stood underneath one of those lines with a metal pole, and run your hand along it? It was quite disturbing using a 5-metre aluminum rod on a survey crew underneath. I switched to a wooden rod! (even though the wires must have been well over 20 metres up).

 

[BurlOak]

? SRT is gone under this plan.

I just can't even begin to fathom what happens if you run lots of tracks and wires underneath a high voltage line. Have you ever stood underneath one of those lines with a metal pole, and run your hand along it? It was quite disturbing using a 5-metre aluminum rod on a survey crew underneath. I switched to a wooden rod! (even though the wires must have been well over 20 metres up).

If SMLRT is interlined with a grade-separated ECLRT, then the next step could be killing the Scarborough Subway. It is too big a shock to kill the subway now.

The SRT currently goes under the hydro lines and manages. The storage barn would be just beside and I imagine a metal roof would insulate the contents of the building.

 

[nfitz]

If SMLRT is interlined with a grade-separated ECLRT, then the next step could be killing the Scarborough Subway. It is too big a shock to kill the subway now.

Presumably the question was, where would the yard for Scarborough-Malvern go with the current proposal. Not a future one.

The SRT currently goes under the hydro lines and manages. The storage barn would be just beside and I imagine a metal roof would insulate the contents of the building.

Surely there's a huge difference between a perpendicular crossing and multiple parallel rails. I'd be concerned about electromagnetic induction - even with the excellent insulative qualities of a metal roof!

Though if you are beside the lines, and not under, I'm not sure where this land is. The park is to the south of the alignment, and to the north is a very large transformer station.

 

[Rainforest]

^ A greater problem may be not the location of the yard or cost of building the connection, but the cost of the yard itself. AFAIK, the yard can cost about $500 million, and that amount is not in the budget if they are building SMLRT with the funds saved from shortening SSE.

They might have to operate SMLRT, or the combined Eglinton - SMLRT line off the Black Creek yard initially, even though it will take a full hour to travel from the yard to the eastern terminus of SMLRT. Perhaps a few trains can be stored at the eastern terminus to reduce deadheading in the morning / evening.

In the future, should the LRT network in the east get expanded, they might extend the line to the Conlins property and build the yard there.

 

[nfitz]

It's budgeted for in the Sheppard East LRT money.

 

[Rainforest]

It's budgeted for in the Sheppard East LRT money.

True.

Although, Sheppard East LRT will have to be revisited in the new scheme. If the subway does not reach Sheppard, then the LRT either must have a branch reaching STC, or leave Sheppard entirely and go through STC.

But the Conlins yard should be possible, even if it requires a short section of tracks with low ridership.

 

[Steve X]

^ A greater problem may be not the location of the yard or cost of building the connection, but the cost of the yard itself. AFAIK, the yard can cost about $500 million, and that amount is not in the budget if they are building SMLRT with the funds saved from shortening SSE.

They might have to operate SMLRT, or the combined Eglinton - SMLRT line off the Black Creek yard initially, even though it will take a full hour to travel from the yard to the eastern terminus of SMLRT. Perhaps a few trains can be stored at the eastern terminus to reduce deadheading in the morning / evening.

In the future, should the LRT network in the east get expanded, they might extend the line to the Conlins property and build the yard there.

Ridership at 5am isn't that high. They can keep the night buses routes running slightly longer usually by having some buses start off as 334 night buses on Morningside till they hit Kennedy Station and interline it with another route. A few LRVs can be stored at Kennedy itself as well as Don Mills since it is enclosed. Unlike subway, workcars are trucks like the streetcar maintenance fleet thus storing them at Kennedy shouldn't be a problem.

If Sheppard was built, this wouldn't be a problem. I wonder if it would be better to have two separate lines than one through route. If the Eglinton Crosstown plan haven't changed, both LRTs are planned to terminate at Kennedy. It might to hard to change the design once construction starts. Also, there wouldn't be a lot of through traffic if SmartTrack is built. Most people will transfer to Kennedy as it it way faster to get downtown.

 

[Rainforest]

I wonder if it would be better to have two separate lines than one through route. If the Eglinton Crosstown plan haven't changed, both LRTs are planned to terminate at Kennedy. It might to hard to change the design once construction starts. Also, there wouldn't be a lot of through traffic if SmartTrack is built. Most people will transfer to Kennedy as it it way faster to get downtown.

Good question. I would think that there will be some demand for trips across Kennedy; for example, riders who come from the east on Lakeshore GO and wish to travel to points along Eglinton west of Kennedy.

But if the reliability of a long combined line is a concern, then it may be necessary to keep the two lines separate, even at the cost of inconvenience for some riders.

 

[Steve X]

Good question. I would think that there will be some demand for trips across Kennedy; for example, riders who come from the east on Lakeshore GO and wish to travel to points along Eglinton west of Kennedy.

But if the reliability of a long combined line is a concern, then it may be necessary to keep the two lines separate, even at the cost of inconvenience for some riders.

Right now, I believe TTC would short turn some LRVs at Don Mills during rush hours. Basically the ridership between Don Mills and Kennedy is much lower as we just have the 34 oppose to the 34, 51, 54, 56A and 100C. Headways would be different on different sides of Kennedy plus reliability problems. We all know how chaotic the subway/streetcars gets when something happens in the middle of the route. It makes more sense to keep both routes separate.

 

[denfromoakvillemilton]

That would be a dream come true. All that'd be missing now is a subway to Cooksville/Square One.

Well there is the GTAA's proposed extension of both the Eglinton LRT, Hurontario LRT (and Finch West LRT) to a hub at Pearson Airport.

Absoultely Hopkins. MCC to Kipling should have been built a long time ago. If that was in the plans as well it would be much easier to swallow the YR extension.

 

[Cobra]

Sheppard is the missing link now if this plan pass council.

Interesting that they are calling it "Sheppard Rapid Transit" instead of "Sheppard LRT".

Something is brewing here...

 

[drum118]

Absoultely Hopkins. MCC to Kipling should have been built a long time ago. If that was in the plans as well it would be much easier to swallow the YR extension.

The Mark I was proposed to run to Sq One from Kipling in the 80's, but the city turn it down.

If you think Sheppard is a white elephant, any subway to Sq One would 5 times or more worse. The only place a subway can be built for Mississauga is along Dundas to Hurontario in phases as that street gets redeveloped over the next 50-100 years so there is density to support it.

Best thing for Mississauga is an LRT as well a Tram-Train from the Milton line to Hurontario to service Sq One.

Having this line to rise from the dead let alone getting to Malvern is long over due as well the Sheppard extension.