Scarborough-Malvern LRT

[Palma]

It's better if it's 1 continuous line

i do not agree. I cannot imagine that availability of the next train coming depends on what is happening in the Malvern area. Its too long of a line with 17 out there , 22 along eglinton ( 10 not underground). Much too long

 

[BurlOak]

It's better if it's 1 continuous line

To be continuous, it would have to be grade-separated from Kennedy to Don Mills.

Once its grade-separated, then maybe the "Scarborough Subway" (i..e. B-D extension) could be reverted back to the LRT and continued on this grade-separated portion - interlined with SMLRT.

Would it work to have 20 SRT trains per hour peak and 10 SMLRT trains at peak? That means trains on SRT alternating 2 and 4 minute frequencies and SMLRT trains at 6 minutes.

 

[nfitz]

To be continuous, it would have to be grade-separated from Kennedy to Don Mills.

No it wouldn't. Look at the forecast ridership It's almost double from Kennedy to Scarborough GO, than it is from Kennedy to Don Mills.

 

[salsa]

i do not agree. I cannot imagine that availability of the next train coming depends on what is happening in the Malvern area. Its too long of a line with 17 out there , 22 along eglinton ( 10 not underground). Much too long

I have the same concern with the YUS line. It's quite long to begin with, but the Spadina and Yonge subway extensions (over 15km combined) could make the service even more unreliable than it already is.

 

[andrewpmk]

Almost certainly if this gets built it will be 2 separate lines. Partly this is for reliability purposes, and partly the Eglinton LRT will have much higher demand than the Scarborough-Malvern LRT so the former will have 3 car trains and the latter probably will only have 1 or 2 car trains.

Removing the Lawrence station on the Scarborough subway is a bad idea. Removing the Sheppard station saves a lot more money, and makes more sense (there is nothing there except a Canadian Tire and a CP railway yard).

 

[Anonymous2000]

I appreciate your feedback TigerMaster.
There are problems with this proposal both logic and political.

Logical
The distance between Kennedy station and Scarborough is just too long to at 6.8km. By eliminating Sheppard East station, you have created a huge bottle neck north of the 401 as too many bus routes such as 85 Sheppard East, 129 Mc Cowan North, 169 Huntingwood, 130 Middlefield, 131 Nugget, 199 Finch Rocket, etc.
As much as I like the Smart track, I'm not fully convinced the section north of Kennedy Station will see the light of day when it comes to funding (at least in short term) . From my understanding yesterday, it would be just the portion between Mount Dennis and and Kennedy that will be funded in the short term.

Political
I understand that Tory wants to bring the best transit for Scarborough and I admire him for it. However that being said, I am concerned that he is setting himself up for defeat in the 2018 Municipal Election and thus his plan being dead. We have seen this before a few years ago with Miller's Transit City. Wasn't Transit City about getting the best transit across Toronto with less money? A lot of people especially in suburban Toronto are against LRTs. I know this as I live in North Scarborough and I've talked to many people about this. We know what happened in the 2010 Municipal Election with Ford winning all of the suburban ridings and cancelling Transit City on the first day he took office. Now. 4 years later in 2014 Tory wins. However, he only wins much of the Old City, eastern half of North York, southern half of Etobicoke and the Scarborough Bluffs, whereas Ford won much of Etobicoke, much of Scarborough (including my ward 39) and western half of North York. The point I am trying to make is that many people in Scarborough remain very distrustful of Tory and justifiably so. If Tory wants to gain the trust of Scarborough and given a second chance in 2018 municipal election which I'm sure he does, he should tread carefully.

Which is why I think, instead of jumping the gun by eliminating 2 out the current 3 station plan, we should look very closely at this alternative plan written by Richard Gilbert who is well-respected transportation consultant and former city Councillor of Old Toronto from 1976-91. His plan explores the R+P model (don't confuse it with Ford's understanding), the Gatineau-Hydro Corridor calls for 5 stations with potential to build development around them. We should use this model with as many transit projects across out city as possible. I posted the link in my previous post, but I will kindly post it again in case any needs a refresher. http://www.thestar.com/opinion/comm...-better-route-for-the-scarborough-subway.html

When I look at an issue, I look at it with both logic and politics around it.

 

[W. K. Lis]

They don't have to run the Scarborough-Malvern LRT as a continuation of the Crosstown LRT, at all times. Could run continuous in the evenings and weekends, separately during day. Could do short turns at Kennedy, Don Mills, Mt. Dennis, or other stations. Depends upon who flexible route management will be in the future and how the Kennedy station will be configured.

 

[W. K. Lis]

 

[W. K. Lis]

Kingston and Lawrence is one of the most congested intersections in Toronto, at the moment.

There is to be a stop at that intersection. I think they'll definitely have to trench or cut-n-cover under that intersection, so as to avoid or add to the congestion.

 

[crs1026]

Hopefully the platforms and trackage at Kennedy will permit through and/or separate operation. Similar to 501 at humber, there are pros and cons to both modes and it could change by time of day or as experience unfolds.
Having different numbers of trams per train would lead to a very irregular service level, so if ridership is that different in different segments to compell that, it is likely better to have the lines separate.

- Paul

 

[nfitz]

Kingston and Lawrence is one of the most congested intersections in Toronto, at the moment.

There is to be a stop at that intersection. I think they'll definitely have to trench or cut-n-cover under that intersection, so as to avoid or add to the congestion.

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!

 

[Hopkins123]

Kingston and Lawrence is one of the most congested intersections in Toronto, at the moment.

There is to be a stop at that intersection. I think they'll definitely have to trench or cut-n-cover under that intersection, so as to avoid or add to the congestion.

In that case, they should build a mega-station in the Lawrence/Kingston/Morningside triangle complete with bus bays for the 54, 86 and 116 buses (DRT as well perhaps).

 

[Anonymous2000]

They don't have to run the Scarborough-Malvern LRT as a continuation of the Crosstown LRT, at all times. Could run continuous in the evenings and weekends, separately during day. Could do short turns at Kennedy, Don Mills, Mt. Dennis, or other stations. Depends upon who flexible route management will be in the future and how the Kennedy station will be configured.

When you say configuration, do you mean they will have to shutdown Kennedy station and rebuild it in a different alignment?
If so, this is my concern. Because Kennedy is the terminus for the Line 2 and because so many bus routes terminate there as well, it is just too important of a station to shut down.
Trains would have to be short-turned at Warden station, and Warden station is poorly designed for such event.

 

[leopetr]

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

I think the original plan was to use Sheppard LRT's yard which is in a different budget punted far into the future.

Deadheading all the vehicles to and from Eglinton LRT's yard seems inefficient. However, I expect there to be space in the Eglinton LRT yard as I think it was designed to also hold vehicles for Jane LRT.

 

[nfitz]

I'd assume they'd continue to use Conlins. If they don't extend the Sheppard LRT down to UT, then they'd want to continue the Morningside LRT up to Sheppard - which put's you a stone's throw from Conlins. I also expect they just don't want to discuss this right now, to avoid it stirring things up.