News   Jan 10, 2025
Hearn Generating Station Proposed for 30 Acre Mixed-Use Redevelopment
 1K     2 
News   Jan 10, 2025
46-Storey Tower Proposed at Finch Station
 1.1K     0 
News   Jan 10, 2025
News Roundup for January 10, 2025
 571     0 

TTC: Bloor Danforth Line 2 West Extension(s)

Northern Light said:
Except for being entirely wrong, its a fine comment, LOL

Reece sometimes needs to exercise a bit more self-restraint.
Click to expand...
Northern Light said:
There's nothing wrong w/discussing expansion, and nothing wrong w/discussing Line 2 western expansion which is in current plans, at least on paper, albeit about 20 years from now.

What's wrong is misrepresenting entirely the ease of construction and the form the line would take. He has clearly given the matter virtually no research or in depth attention, that can be found right here on UT or via a number of other online resources.
I have argued for a one-stop extension to Cloverdale as being a sound, cost-effective extension to consider in the near term. (points beyond that are harder to justify in the light of other priorities). But even that short extension cannot be entirely, or perhaps even mainly on the surface.

Its irritating to see falsehoods like that put out to a mass audience.
Click to expand...

I am not sure what is entirely wrong or a falsehood about this, suggesting I am spreading misinformation kind of implies this is obvious.
At the same time, after being actively engaged in the transit community here in Toronto for like ten years I find it frankly insulting that you'd suggest I have given the matter no research or attention and just spout off randomly. (Edit: Is the assumption here that I am unfamiliar with constraints because of the existing railway or development, is above ground being mistaken for "at grade"?!)

Perhaps what you are suggesting is a political barrier to such an extension or a bureaucratic, because looking at the ROW and what has been done in non-Toronto places it seems entirely conceivable to me that this could be done on the surface.

I think you could flyover the GO tracks but if that presents a great challenge than I think a flyunder could also be done without the extension not being considered "entirely above ground".

Anyways, what is the reason that this is impossible?
 
Last edited:
Reecemartin said:
I am not sure what is entirely wrong or a falsehood about this, suggesting I am spreading misinformation kind of implies this is obvious.
Click to expand...

I am confident in my assertion that you are incorrect in your statement. I did not mean to imply that you were telling any lies or willfully misrepresenting the truth. I apologize if it came across that way.

However, I don't think its helpful tell people how easy it would be to build this extension when I don't think that's an accurate assessment. Most people who follow you will not have the necessary knowledge to make that assessment for themselves and will take your word for it. For that reason, I initially said, I wish you had used further restraint.

Your an enthusiastic advocate for transit, something we share in common. I appreciate your general point of view, and much of the work you do to share more about transit, particularly in the GTA with a wider audience.

I have actively applauded, and promoted some of your posts in the past. I just found this one to be a substantive over-reach. But in responding to that, perhaps I myself used stronger language than was warranted.

Reecemartin said:
At the same time, after being actively engaged in the transit community here in Toronto for like ten years I find it frankly insulting that you'd suggest I have given the matter no research or attention and just spout off randomly.
Click to expand...

I've already expressed my regret for causing offense; but likewise I must say, I don't think you went back and read the original EA for this project. I don't think you considered property ownership; or the way Kipling and its tail tracks are set up.

There has been extensive discussion on that here at UT, in this very thread. I don't think you're foolish, I do think the statement you made is not supportable with evidence.

Reecemartin said:
Perhaps what you are suggesting is a political barrier to such an extension or a bureaucratic, because looking at the ROW and what has been done in non-Toronto places it seems entirely conceivable to me that this could be done on the surface.
Click to expand...

I don't want to make this particular post pages long.

But I do want to try to answer your query.

1) The E.A. for this project did not contemplate an all-surface alignment.

2) Cadillac Fairview has set aside land a Sherway for a future TTC Station, which they envision as underground with towers over the top.

3) The CP/GO Milton ROW is constrained by a hydro corridor on the south side, with insufficient space on the north side to allow for two additional tracks without significant land taking, that's before factoring in the need for stations.

This is a shot of the ROW at Shorncliffe:

1672870021865.png


The pink lines are the property limits.

There are other probable and expensive land takings. (note that Shorcliffe is not a proposed station site, so one must displace a building merely to widen the ROW)

Reecemartin said:
Anyways, what is the reason that this is impossible?
Click to expand...

Nothing is impossible with an unlimited budget; with the possible exception of those things that breach the laws of physics; however, an all-surface alignment to Sherway is exceedingly improbable.

****

To conclude, note that I am a support of extending Line 2 to Cloverdale, a case for which I think the evidence is in place.

I simply don't believe it will be entirely on the surface even over that short distance.

Moreover, in a world of finite resources and competing priorities, I don't think any further extension on to Sherway makes near-term sense.

That said, I again apologize if in expressing the above, I came across as unduly harsh.

As someone who been an advocate of Transit in this city for the last 30 years, not the last 10, I've been involved in these discussions both personally and professionally a few times, on occasion.
my impatience with hearing a statement I've heard before, for which I don't feel there is good evidence, may get the better of me.
 
Routing, the options for any westerly extension of Line 2 were originally the subject of an EA in 1993. But a more recent report gave the once over to several options in 2001:


From the above:

1672871184271.png


Note the significant departure from the CPR alignment, and also that it has been planned almost entirely as underground.
 
Last edited:
I've already expressed my regret for causing offense; but likewise I must say, I don't think you went back and read the original EA for this project. I don't think you considered property ownership; or the way Kipling and its tail tracks are set up.

There has been extensive discussion on that here at UT, in this very thread. I don't think you're foolish, I do think the statement you made is not supportable with evidence.
Click to expand...

I think as per what Jonathan English suggested in the reply to the Tweet that taking property is something which we probably don't consider enough and probably also expect to be more complicated than necessary. An elevated structure should also be able to significantly reduce the property impacts, you can see this used in Vancouver a lot where rear alleys and sometimes even small bits of similar buildings are clipped off by a new SkyTrain alignment - but everything else can stay put.

I don't want to make this particular post pages long.

But I do want to try to answer your query.

1) The E.A. for this project did not contemplate an all-surface alignment.

2) Cadillac Fairview has set aside land a Sherway for a future TTC Station, which they envision as underground with towers over the top.

3) The CP/GO Milton ROW is constrained by a hydro corridor on the south side, with insufficient space on the north side to allow for two additional tracks without significant land taking, that's before factoring in the need for stations.

This is a shot of the ROW at Shorncliffe:

View attachment 448507

The pink lines are the property limits.

There are other probable and expensive land takings. (note that Shorcliffe is not a proposed station site, so one must displace a building merely to widen the ROW)



Nothing is impossible with an unlimited budget; with the possible exception of those things that breach the laws of physics; however, an all-surface alignment to Sherway is exceedingly improbable.
Click to expand...

1) I am not overly interested in what the EA looked at, I have seen enough highly questionable transit planning documents that I think its worth looking at the on the ground condition and making a basic assessment. Even back when the TTC was still good at building subways they made some questionable moves.

2) CF can set their land aside, but surely they cannot demand how a subway is built (or we should not let them - especially as they are a major beneficiary). Even still, an underground station box with a short ramp to a surface corridor is something which has been done lots.

3) The CP tracks *can* be shifted, not a lot - but it can help pretty significantly reduce impact. At the same time - taking property, especially industrial and warehouses is fine - look at all the takes MX made for OL, and perhaps even smart if the land can be TOC'd as the government seems to be doing left and right. Building a subway under this kind of development would be nonsensical, but I wouldn't propose going under.

I appreciate the apology for the harshness, its mainly just the "it cannot be done" that I take issue with - I think what can and cannot be done is a matter of debate for sure, but in this case I would argue that with an eye to getting a transit extension built you could get this done with minimal friction and without doing a bunch of tunneling. I think entering with the assumption that there are hard lines on all of these properties, and on what CF is willing to do is sort of problematic. Soon there will be a hard line about what transit we can build because we've been tunneling everything, and I think working out land deals and easements plus a little more creative ROW design is what we need. Maybe me thinking this is possible is naïve but, I've seen stranger things happen.
 
Since I think it would be interesting for viewers here, this was JUST done in Vancouver for the new Broadway Subway extension, also happening elevated along heavy rail tracks. Pics are from a Vancouver forum (a Gazebo is also involved):

1672872097334.png

1672872118987.png


So maybe being from Vancouver biases the way I see things, but technically speaking this all seems possible to me.
 
Reecemartin said:
1) I am not overly interested in what the EA looked at......
Click to expand...

I'm fine w/questioning the original EA. However, if you do that, you're going to have to have a brand new EA, and your process just got pushed back by at least 18 months, as that itself is a very large undertaking.

Reecemartin said:
2) CF can set their land aside, but surely they cannot demand how a subway is built (or we should not let them - especially as they are a major beneficiary).
Click to expand...

No, they can't, except, the City hasn't purchased those lands yet, if things go on course, there will soon be very expensive buildings worth hundreds of millions of dollars sitting where one might place a station. So if you would prefer a surface station here, first you will need to site it (where exactly is it going), then you will have to protect for it in the Official Plan and the Zoning by-law, and you will likely have to expropriate it. At this point, the land will likely be valued based on its potential to support soaring towers, so its not going to be cheap.

Reecemartin said:
Even still, an underground station box with a short ramp to a surface corridor is something which has been done lots.
Click to expand...

The existing trains on Line 2 are quite long and require reasonable gradient to climb or descend, again, entirely possible, but the land will have to be set aside, utility conflicts addressed, its not a simple process.

Reecemartin said:
3) The CP tracks *can* be shifted, not a lot - but it can help pretty significantly reduce impact. At the same time - taking property, especially industrial and warehouses is fine - look at all the takes MX made for OL, and perhaps even smart if the land can be TOC'd as the government seems to be doing left and right. Building a subway under this kind of development would be nonsensical, but I wouldn't propose going under.
Click to expand...

Shifting the CP tracks where? (serious question, not snarky). If you mean within the existing ROW, that might work, I'm not going to get out the measuring software just at the moment, but if you mean encroaching on HONI's ROW......It took 4 years to get permission to do a bike trail in one of their corridors....... just sayin.

Reecemartin said:
I think entering with the assumption that there are hard lines on all of these properties, and on what CF is willing to do is sort of problematic.
Click to expand...

Its not a matter of 'hard lines'; its more to me that you implied this could be done relatively easily, quickly and cheaply, at least that's what I took from your statement.

Taking land, via expropriation takes awhile and costs quite a bit, potentially.

That doesn't mean it can't, won't or shouldn't be done; simply that this is not a ready-to-go, off-the-shelf, shovel-ready idea, and not particularly cheap either.

That might be justified on the basis of transforming some employment land into TOC or may not, one would have to weigh the pros and cons on these particular sites. (as example, Metro supermarket owns multiple large parcels next to the ROW and has just built at considerable cost brand new refrigerated and frozen warehouses, with more to come. Removing that functionality and compensating Metro for moving its brand new facilities elsewhere would be quite expensive. )

Reecemartin said:
Soon there will be a hard line about what transit we can build because we've been tunneling everything, and I think working out land deals and easements plus a little more creative ROW design is what we need. Maybe me thinking this is possible is naïve but, I've seen stranger things happen.
Click to expand...

I don't think you are naive at all. I do think what you're suggesting is more complex and costly than your statement suggested, and by virtue of requiring a new EA and different and substantive land takings and negotiations with HONI and CP would not happen particularly quickly. The simple matter of how large an area is required to shift a train from standard tunnel depth to at-grade is a big stumbling block when you over lay that on a potential route. Its not that it can't be done; its that its unlikely, and if it were to happen, its many years into the future.
 
Last edited:
Northern Light said:
I'm fine w/questioning the original EA. However, if you do that, you're going to have to have a brand new EA, and your process just got pushed back by at least 18 months, as that itself is a very large undertaking.



No, they can't, except, the City hasn't purchased those lands yet, if things go on course, there will soon be very expensive buildings worth hundreds of millions of dollars sitting where one might place a station. So if you would prefer a surface station here, first you will need to site it (where exactly is it going), then you will have to protect for it in the Official Plan and the Zoning by-law, and you will likely have to expropriate it. At this point, the land will likely be valued based on its potential to support soaring towers, so its not going to be cheap.



The existing trains on Line 2 are quite long and require reasonable gradient to climb or descend, again, entirely possible, but the land will have to set aside, utility conflicts addressed, its not a simple process.



Shifting the CP tracks where? (serious question, not snarky). If you mean within the existing ROW, that might work, I'm not going to get out the measuring software just at the moment, but if you mean encroaching on HONI's ROW......It took 4 years to get permission to do a bike trail in one of their corridors....... just sayin.



Its not a matter of 'hard lines'; its more to me that you implied this could be done relatively easily, quickly and cheaply, at least that's what I took from your statement.

Taking land, via expropriation takes awhile and costs quite a bit, potentially.

That doesn't mean it can't, won't or shouldn't be done; simply that this is not a ready-to-go, off-the-shelf, shovel-ready idea, and not particularly cheap either.

That might be justified on the basis of transforming some employment land into TOC or may not, one would have to weigh the pros and cons on these particular sites. (as example, Metro supermarket owns multiple large parcels next to the ROW and has just built at considerable cost brand new refrigerated and frozen warehouses, with more to come. Removing that functionality and compensating Metro for moving its brand new facilities elsewhere would be quite expensive. )



I don't think you are naive at all. I do think what you're suggesting is more complex and costly than your statement suggested, and by virtue of requiring a new EA and different and substantive land takings and negotiations with HONI and CP would not happen particularly quickly. The simple matter of how large an area is required to shift a train from standard tunnel depth to at-grade is a big stumbling block when you over lay that on a potential route. Its not that it can't be done; its that its unlikely, and if it were to happen, its many years into the future.
Click to expand...
I think that everything here is relative. Doing a new EA isn't ideal but its also not a bad idea if you can save billions on tunneling.

Re. the land I am sure that if CF is getting a subway they will be ok with working something out - the OL seems to be doing fine with various plots it will be using?

Even with the length of the L2 trains you can still do a pretty serious grade.

Shifting CP within the ROW, HONI will push back but again just a question of how serious we are about getting something built.

When I say something is simple or easy or inexpensive, of course that is never going to be in absolute terms - transit projects are big. That being said I don't think its inaccurate to say that in relative terms, flyover structures and property finagling have to happen for even some of our LRT projects. And many many surface subway extensions akin to this one have been built around the world before at low cost. Toronto currently has one of the highest transit price per km numbers in the world, we (almost) can only go down!
 
Reecemartin said:
Toronto currently has one of the highest transit price per km numbers in the world, we (almost) can only go down!
Click to expand...

Yes, though, considerably cheaper than NYC.

But that's not the comparison one wants to make.

****

I would argue the single leading reason for inflated costs is the P3 model in which the proponent does the borrowing, the difference in interest rates between a public borrower and a private one are significant and
add vastly to project costs.

The size of contracts in the P3 model are also a problem, in that very few bidders tend to emerge because of the risk-factor in such large contracts. This lack of competition, along with a risk premium in the pricing drives up costs.

In respect of the particulars of construction, if land were cheaper (as it once was) I would agree that surface building would make a good deal of sense and be cheaper. Where land may still be low cost, that remains worth exploring. But when it comes to construction itself, aside from serious project-management issues at Metrolinx and the TTC both...........I would argue that the propensity for ultra-deep, bored tunnels is a huge cost driver.

Shallower, cut and cover directly under major roads (or adjacent to them, as was done with Line 2) would be cheaper. But its also politically challenging due to the adverse impacts for those who live, work or own businesses on any section of street subject to that. Its quite disruptive.
But it would certainly be worth looking at anyway.

One could certainly consider the Vancouver model on completely new builds, as is being done for some portions of Eglinton West. However, its important to consider than Vancouver tends to build lower capacity lines than does Toronto, and
how the Vancouver model works if a station in particular ends up with much larger footprint.

Its worth observing at this juncture than the above-grade proposal in downtown Montreal was killed over strong opposition from a wide swath of interests.
 
Allandale25 said:
^ Does anyone remember how it scored on that assessment TO City Planning did back in the Keesmaat era?
Click to expand...
nfitz said:
Sherway scored very poorly - by far the lowest ridership of the many options they considered. The report is available here - https://transittoronto.ca/archives/reports/rtes2002.pdf

View attachment 448500

View attachment 448501
Click to expand...

Thanks. That's helpful but it went back further than I was thinking. I was wondering if the Line 2 (West) Extension was ranked as part of Keesmaat's "Feeling Congested?" reports to Council. Looks like it was (the "Feeling Congested?" site appears to have been taken over by someone other than the City and the original materials are no longer available. Someone would have to search TMMIS to find them).
No mention of a Line 2 (West) Extension in those 2014 and 2015 documents (that I can see).

I did some further searching and there was a 2016 City staff report as well and it doesn't look like the extension was covered.

Start article here and it has a map from a staff report (haven't had time to find the original):

www.thestar.com

Planners want public’s input on ‘motherlode’ of GTA transit

Transit planners are courting residents’ take on the mega-projects designed to transform the way Toronto moves.
www.thestar.com www.thestar.com

1672876826105.png
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top