Two open houses for the conversion of the SRT to LRT and its extension to Malvern have been announced:
March 8, 2010 6:30pm – 9:00pm
Jean Vanier Catholic Secondary School, 959 Midland Avenue (north of Eglinton)
March 11, 2010 6:30pm – 9:00pm
Chinese Cultural Centre, 5183 Sheppard Avenue East (at Progress Ave)
These meetings will discuss the conversion and extension plans, as well as the Kennedy Station changes needed to accommodate all of the new LRT lines.
Steve Munro 
I hope they put all the lrt lines under kennedy station it would only make sense. Thats includes the Scarborough Malvern LRT. I think the current plan has it going over the bridge and then turning into the bus terminal.
I’m also really looking forward to seeing how there going to obtain an exclusive right of way while at the same time connect with sheppard, this should be interesting.
LikeLike
I so love how most open houses for transit city et al projects are not the most accesible places, where you have to walk a long long halways (indoors and outdoors), have to go down a flight of stairs or all the way around the building and so forth.
Just out of curiosity … how are they going to remove the rails, power rail on the side, and that flat rail (http://tinyurl.com/flatrail) with what seems like wires? I mean what will happen to that metal and how will they remove it to some dump site or sell it?
You should come to the one at the CCC, my first point will be noticed in that one.
Steve: The power rails will go for scrap just like all the rails that have been replaced as they wore out over the years. The reaction rail (what you call the flat rail) similarly is metal scrap. The wires you refer to are the antenna for the signalling and communication system. If you look closely, you will notice that they switch positions at regular intervals. The change in signal polarity is used by the train to keep track of where it is.
LikeLike
I hope that they keep the totally segregated right of way for as much of this line as possible. I think that it would be a good example of what can be done by the higher end of LRT. I am of the opinion that Kennedy stations should something like the prosed Union Station for LRT. It should be a loop and it should have two tracks on opposite sides of a common platform. This would allow for future interlining if it became desirable and it would speed up the operation through the Station. I cannot see three lines ending in a stub terminal working very effectively.
LikeLike
I agree with Robert that the SRT should keep a segregated ROW in order to show off the rapid capabilities of LRT. Unlike the ICTS/ART plan that requires a “totally” segregated ROW, LRT does not need to be fenced in which adds to the cost and an create “slicing in half” effect, as in, “the line will slice our neighbourhood in half.”
I still believe that the tunneled connection at Sheppard will provide the most convenient transfer method. Yes, connecting tracks are needed on the surface, but the length of this tunnel need not be anywhere near as long as what was proposed for an ICTS/ART system.
For Kennedy Station, some form of loop, or even a loop at each end of a common centre-platform, would be useful for both terminal and through-running services, but that could get rather expensive. Stub terminals can be designed so as not to create a substantial bottle neck. An efficient example is at Melbourne University where SEVEN routes terminate along with TWO through-running routes. Rush hours see tram head ways below 60 seconds at this location, made possible with multiple far-side pocket tracks. Also, multiple platform options are possible (a couple shown just above the Melbourne University example).
LikeLike
Will the S(L)RT be run using automation or will there be drivers? Hopefully, they will say something about that at the open houses.
Steve: It will be very difficult for the cars to get from the SLRT right of way to Conlins Road Carhouse without drivers. I suspect that, like Eglinton, the line will run automated on its own right-of-way, but manually when it is on street.
LikeLike
Calvin Henry-Contnam says
TTC would probably still fence it even though 3rd rail technology will not be used. The speed and frequency of the line may be a safety issue considering how close the line is to backyards where kids reside and play.
Plus I don’t see why they wouldn’t fence it just to ensure no obstruction gets in the way of operations. For example, if the line goes to Malvern, it would cut right next to the open field that is used by Lester Pearson High school. That being said, I don’t think a no fenced line would be a good idea in this area — the sprint track would be right next to the line.
LikeLike
I disagree that they need to keep the thing segregated or grade-separated east of McCowan. Metrolinx’s BCA is on-side with me on this one too. As planned, they are spending more than necessary and missing out on key stops like Markham and Milner. Stop spacing is greater than many subway stops in this town. This is not light rail to Malvern. This is, for all intents, a subway to Malvern.
If they wanted to show off LRTs capabilities, they could have done it by running it down Progress and adding a few stops. That would have shown how versatile LRT is, running fully segregated till McCowan and then in a partially segregated ROW. What’s they’ve planned now severely ignores a connection to a very busy bus route in Scarborough (Markham) and a decent high employment node with lots of potential to densify and one of the busiest bus routes in Malvern (Milner).
Worse still is that they’ll probably cancel the Progress bus or severely curtail frequencies once this comes into service, so people will be expected to walk 400-500m to a station. That’s more than any any other Transit City line (save Eglinton in the core).
LikeLike
Segregated ROWs don’t need to be employed just because there is a high frequency. In Bordeaux, the B-line tram (peak frequency of 2-3 minutes) cuts through an open green space that it shares with a pedestrian boardwalk and cycling path. The ROW is grass covered and completely unsegregated, and it is quite minimally invasive esthetically.
LikeLike
Calvin wrote:
Actually the tunnel will be about the same length. You can’t get around it. The line has to be tunnelled from Milner to Sheppard so that it can line up with the hydro corridor easily and get past the Chinese Cultural Centre. The question is whether it’ll be tunnelled or trenched north of Sheppard or whether they’ll just keep it at-grade and add the appropriate protection for the streets they cross and at the elementary and high school they will run close to. At the last meeting they were proposing trenched (residents didn’t like elevated because they didn’t want this thing towering over their backyards (privacy issues)).
Calvin wrote:
You really haven’t been to Malvern have you? The hydro corridor already cuts the neighbourhood in half. The only connections are the two streets (Mammoth Hall and Greenspire) that connect both sides of these neighbourhoods. Fences will absolutely be needed when the thing is running right beside an elementary school and a bunch of walking trails that kids use to get to school. It also runs beside a high school though, arguably there’s less of a concern there. If they don’t fence it in, they’ll likely have to restrict speeds quite a bit.
LikeLike
To Calvin Henry-Cotnam:
I am aware of the Melbourne system and the station at the university. I don’t think that this layout is feasible at Kennedy station though. I just think, and I don’t really know why, that this station would be better served by a two track loop that would allow for more possibilities in combining services without the problem created by changing ends. Kennedy Station is one where I think a loop would be more advantageous than a stub terminal, but who know?
Steve: Remember also that each of the pocket tracks must be long enough to hold a three-car train roughly 90m long. That’s a lot of tail track, using the Melbourne design with three pocket tracks as an example. Also, much if not all of this will be an underground structure with associated costs.
LikeLike
The tunnel doesn’t need to be anywhere near as long. A tunnel actually isn’t needed at all. There are plenty of ways around it if co-operation exists between the stakeholders (admittedly, that is certainly not always present). Although the Cultural Centre is relatively new, the only thing in the way of the LRT is parking, which can be re-tooled without being exorbitantly expensive. It’s way cheaper than any tunneled or elevated structure, that’s for sure, and there’s enough space to work with.
The frequency north and south of Sheppard should be different, since demand projections are different. While some greenery should exist between the LRT and the elementary school (and even the high school, too) to act as a “natural fence,” I don’t see a need for tunneling at all, although a relatively small recess isn’t a bad idea for addressing privacy concerns. It shouldn’t be too expensive to do.
If the TTC insists on grade-separated crossings for Mammoth Hall, there is a way to do that without tunneling, too. It’s a hassle, but feasible (due to the creek, Mammoth Hall has to go up, the LRT cannot go down… much. This impacts Gateforth Dr, which, if vehicles are to continue to be permitted to turn to Mammoth Hall, would have to go under Mammoth Hall and around). Greenspire is vastly simpler to take over the LRT than Mammoth Hall, but the question remains; is it necessary to grade-separate?
Running at-grade also allows for additional stops as well, which was a criticism I had of the previous ICTS scheme. Far too much priority is placed on “rapid.” Given the lower demand in this area anyway, the higher number of stations would help increase the use of the line.
By the way, that isn’t a hydro corridor, it’s a preserved rail corridor, minus tracks.
LikeLike
Keith L wrote, “You really haven’t been to Malvern have you?”
Ah, not often since mid 2000, but for the 11 years prior to that, I lived near Ellesmere and Morningside and was very active with the Malvern Soccer Club (SNMSC) which had me all over the entire area of Malvern on several nights a week.
Keith L also wrote, “The line has to be tunnelled from Milner to Sheppard so that it can line up with the hydro corridor easily and get past the Chinese Cultural Centre.”
Correct me if I am wrong, but isn’t the CCC on the south east corner of Sheppard and Markham? The proposed alignment follows the old CNoR ROW (not a hydro corridor) that crosses Sheppard about 450 metres east of there. According to the display boards from the open house last June, the line would enter a tunnel on the east side of Progress just south of Milner and follow the CNoR alignment (which continues in the line of the jog on Progress just north of Milner) and would stay underground until it is due west of the track at Pearson (know to Keith L as “a high school”). That is about 1.6 km of tunnel.
As an LRT line with a grade separation at Sheppard as I suggest, the tunneling would only have to be from about 200-300 metres south of Sheppard to about another 200 metres north. Railway-type level crossings with Mammoth Hall and Greenspire are practical and though some portions can be built without any fencing, there will be some that will have to have fencing because of the proximity to schools and recreational facilities. LRT permits at-grade pedestrian and vehicle crossings, but it is necessary to prevent someone from accidently running out onto the ROW, which is a possibility with this situation.
However, I suspect that some of the fencing for this purpose may not need to be of the same nature as ICTC/ART would dictate. By this, I mean that it would not have to be the same height (10’+?) with barbed wire at the top.
LikeLike
For Kennedy station, I was thinking about what would be associated with building loops underground when I suggested multiple tail tracks, forgetting that their length might make that as involved as the loops.
Even so, I also suspect that loops might make for better flexibility in operations as well as passenger flow. Another idea may be to combine the two by having one or two stub/passing tracks in the platform area in addition to the through tracks.
LikeLike
Steve:
I believe that Eglinton LRT will have to be underground before Kennedy road to access the station; the S(L)RT will be coming down from the north and will also need to be underground before Eglinton the line coming fro the east on Eglinton will have to be underground before the Uxbridge sub. I can see no way that they can do this easily with a stub terminal. A two track loop, somewhat like what is planned for Union but using the fact the cars have doors on both sides so they can use a common platform, would seem to allow for more efficient transfers and turn backs. The pocket tracks would also need 15 to 20m for switch lead so it you could end up with 3 times 110m or 330m of pocket tracks. There really isn’t room for this.
If you look at Kennedy station with Google Earth you will see that it is about 410 m from the middle of Kennedy to the Uxbridge sub along the subway line. The station is about 60 to 80m south of Eglinton and there is a large parking lot west of the surface part of the station and vacant land or bus ways around the building north of the station. There should be plenty of room to put in a LARGE underground loop; we do not need another Spadina Station or Union Station LRT loop.
I looked up the specifications for the Blackpool tram and they a need 25 m turning radius in service, 20 m in car house and can handle a 60% grade, that what is says. I assume they mean that it can go up it; going down should be easy. Blackpool’s cars seat 74 and have 148 standees for 222 passengers. Their tare weight is 40.9 tonnes and loaded weight is 56.7 tonnes. This passenger load seems higher than the TTC’s designed loading. These cars should have plenty of room to use a loop at Kennedy. I would think a uni-directional loop would provide greatest flexibility and would allow for a storage track next to Eglinton.
I think any notion of ATO is premature but if the TTC wants to keep that option open for the S(L)RT then it will need a totally segregated and fenced right of way. I still wonder about running through low platform stations with unmanned or even ATO operation. With LRT it is much easier to get to track level than it is in a subway, especially for children. I hope that the TTC has learned from its mistakes at Union and Spadina and builds a station that has room for future growth.
LikeLike
Keith L said:
I believe then mayor John Sewell wanted the line to go along Progress but was met with “This is not a streetcar, John,” from one of the Scarborough councillors.
So instead, the line went up a ramp north of Progress but parallel to it, over some of what were, I believe, pickle vats.
The SRT was always seen by transit advocates as THE missed opportunity for intoducing LRT to this city. It is a long time since I have been out that way so I don’t know what Progress Ave. is like today nor what it is zoned for but in principle at least I would love to see the Scarborough line include both high speed PRW as well as a partially segregated segment of street running. It might also be good for Progress Ave.
Steve: The original design emerged from the tunnel on the north side of the works yard and ran AT GRADE to McCowan Station. The TTC, who always like to claim they had nothing to do with the move to ICTS, cooked up an excuse for an elevated structure through STC — the LRT would sever property on the south side of the site ana make in inaccessible. As anyone who has been to STC knows, the south side is more or less a separate area anyhow.
However, this design change forced the LRT project to “eat” the bad publicity of an elevated (Scarborough Council wasn’t too happy about the idea), and set the stage for an ICTS conversion of the plan. The TTC’s hands are not as clean as they would have everyone believe.
LikeLike
I spent most of yesterday evening, when I wasn’t watching women’s hockey, reading the specifications for Bombardier’s various Flexity 2 cars. They have a great range of cars that all run under the same family name. Some have a minimum turning radius of 12 m while others are over 40 m. Some have all axles powered, up to 8 of 8 while others have from ½ to ¾ of their axles powered. The lengths vary from 27 m to nearly 50 m. Some have 2 double doors per suspended section with single doors at the end while others only have 2 doubles per side. This does seem to be a “Flexible” vehicle that is adaptable to many different systems. What impressed me the most was the fact that these cars run on true trucks while some of the earlier 100% low floor cars had end units that seemed to be more like old Birney cars with their long wheel based single “truck”.
You should look at the Flexity 2 web site and view all, or most of the specifications sheets that they have for different systems. Click on “references” and then use that funny little scroll bar near the right hand side to see all of the various option that you can get. I like the curved front end design that they have shown for the TTC legacy cars but I do not like their other design that seems to have a “Death Ray” above the destination sign. Bombardier seems to have designed a very nice vehicle, or family of vehicles.
Yes Steve, Bicks, I believe, had pickle vats on the north side of the line. They quickly fenced this in so that ICTS passengers could not see that they were turning the pickles over in the time honoured tradition, by walking on them in bare feet. I am sure that you have all seen the episode of Lucy where she is stomping on grapes, same idea.
Steve: Yes, I remember the pickle vats and the workers who did all sorts of unmentionable things to those pickles while we could still watch. Oddly enough, the vats are long gone, but the modesty fence remains. I suspect most of the locals don’t know what it’s for.
LikeLike
With some doctors urging a redesign of the hot dog, the current similar shape of the pickle (and bananas) may be one reason the pickle vats have moved on.
Steve: The pickle vats moved on because the property was bought for expansion of a nearby recycling firm. Now the modesty panels attempt to protect us from seeing newspapers in the raw.
LikeLike
I would really like to see the Eglinton and Scarborough-Malvern LRT lines connected as one. Scarborough already has lots of split routes where people must change busses to continue on in the same direction (i.e. McCowan 16 and McCowan North 129, Eglinton 34 and Scarborough 86). I fully support having flexibility and loops at Kennedy Station, and i recognize that sometimes busses/LRTs aren’t able to stay on schedule for whatever reason. I say, connect the Eglinton and Scarborough-Malvern LRT routes, and whenever needed, short turn at Kennedy station. This way at least SOME of the time, people would be able to go along Eglinton from point A (east of Kennedy) to point B (west of Kennedy) without having to switch vehicles.
This is my biggest concern regarding the LRT project – it currently looks like 2 separate lines (on the maps), and it would be such a shame when it could be built as one.
LikeLike
In my high-school and university days, I had a part time job on weekends at a company a few doors from where the Midland RT station now is. I started that job in 1979 before RT construction began and continued until after the RT was in operation.
The presence of Bicks made itself known on practically every hot summer night in a way that not even the Dad’s Cookie factory that was across the street from Bicks could overcome!
LikeLike
Alice says:
February 27, 2010 at 3:09 pm
The only problem with through routing is that you would be combining a 31 km long line with a 13 km one to create a 44 km monster. Long lines are difficult to manage, even if they are on totally segregated rights of way and this one would not be. I do agree with you that the design of Kennedy Station should allow for any possible through routing. I don’t think that there is enough room between Eglinton and the subway structure at Kennedy to put in three double track stub terminals, one for each line. This would also make it very difficult to through route anything as each train would have to reverse directions to get out of the station.
You could put a double track station under Eglinton with turn back tracks at either end but this would result in a long walk to the subway and bus platforms. I think that a unidirectional double track loop with a centre platform parallel and as close as possible to the subway and bus platforms would give the best flexibility.
LikeLike
I agree with the principle, but I doubt that all LRVs on the Eglinton-Crosstown will make the full 32.6km trip every time. I would expect and hope that the TTC runs two overlapping services from Etobicoke to Don Mills, and from Scarborough to Jane (or Keele, or Weston, or whatever ends up happening around Black Creek). It’s about 20km from Jane to Kennedy, and to Scarborough Centre is another roughly 6km or so, a comparable length to the BD Subway.
Not every train from Scarborough Centre needs to interline with Eglinton, and not every train from Eglinton needs to go east of Scarborough Centre. There’s more than one way to provide a service, if the provider is flexible.
LikeLike
Karl Junkin says:
February 28, 2010 at 6:04 pm
I believe that Alice was talking about through routing the line that runs east on Eglinton and up Morningside with the Eglinton cross town LRT line. From the discussion that I could manage with the TTC engineer about Eglinton was that they were looking into the possibility of running ATO in the subway portion so that they could superimpose a service that runs only in the subway on top of the service from end to end which would have to suffer intersection movements. This would allow them to maintain a centre section service even if they have problems at either end. While I can see the argument for this I agree with you that is easier to control two shorter lines that overlap in the middle than keep one really long line running with a shorter middle one on top.
The question then becomes does the TTC through route Eglinton with either or both of S(L)RT and Scarborough Malvern or does it provide a convenient interchange between the three lines and the subway and surface buses. I hope you have Jarrett’s paper on transfers and connection on “Human Transit”. It makes some interesting points about how a well designed interchange can save most passengers time over running routes from everywhere to everywhere. A two track loop with a centre platform would allow a convenient cross platform connection between the 3 LRT lines while still providing a short walk to the subway and surface buses. It will be interesting to see what the TTC does with the current bus routes into Kennedy. Will Midland, Brimley and McCowan still come into the station or will they force passengers who want the subway or another route to make a double transfer. I think that for the distances involved, 1to 2 km, it would be more advantageous to run them into Kennedy still even after Scarborough Malvern is built.
I hope that they come up with a loop somewhat similar to what they have designed for the Union Station LRT loop. They should have room for two platforms each of which could hold two 3 car LRT trains.
LikeLike
Regarding Calvin’s comment, the CCC is indeed not at the southeast corner of Sheppard and Markham, but rather Sheppard and Progress. You have probably been misled by Google Maps or the like. The third-party data that these online maps use is wrong for that part of Sheppard and the data provider still has not corrected this mistake. If you click on the satellite view in Google Maps, you will be able to see that there are no buildings at the SE corner of Sheppard and Markham.
LikeLike
Is their any possibility that the S/LRT could use the rails from the SRT ICTS trains, with the middle magnet removed, and just close it down when you need to add stations instead of doing it all at once?
Steve: I suspect the rails will all be replaced for a few reasons. First, they will likely be due for it anyhow, but more importantly the new LRVs will be wider than the SRT cars and there are probably clearance issues in some locations where the existing tracks are close together. At stations, the level of tracks relative to platform must be changed because the new trains will be low floor and the SRT is high floor. Finally, both a clearance and safety issue, there would not be room for the existing SRT power rails to stay in place once the line was operated with LRVs.
LikeLike
Ambrose wrote, “the CCC is indeed not at the southeast corner of Sheppard and Markham, but rather Sheppard and Progress.”
Thanks for the clarification. I had originally thought it was there, but when I looked at the labeling on Google’s map, I figured my memory was off. I should have taken a look at its street view as well, as this clearly shows what is where.
Still, a longer tunnel is not needed to “get past the CCC,” as Keith L had suggested. In fact, a fully surface connection can work perfectly fine here as it would run along the eastern edge of the parking lot for the CCC. I still believe that an underpass intersection with Sheppard for in-service operation would make for more convenient transfers for passengers, but this will require grade level connecting tracks. I am beginning to think that the lower costs of an at-grade crossing may outweigh the underpass option.
The connection, whether on two levels or completely at grade, will certainly serve the CCC well.
LikeLike
I went to the S(L)RT open house tonight and learned a few interesting facts:
1 ALL the transit city cars are to be equipped for ATO operation. I think that this would add an unnecessary expense to the cars for Finch. Sheppard, Scarborough-Malvern and other in street lines. It would make more sense to equip only the cars for Eglinton and S(LRT plus a few extras for ATO and save the cost.
2 A.J. will be glad to hear that they are going to use the existing right of way and track except through the tunnel for the RT. The clearances will accommodate the new cars. They will re-grind the rail as it is not that worn, change the mounting clips and install new rubber mounts. It is 55 kg/m or 110 lb/yd. The entire line will be in a segregated right of way to allow for full time ATO except for car house access along Sheppard.
3 They will drop the platforms at Lawrence and Ellesmere Stations to track level as this is easier than raising the roof. They will probably do the same at the elevated stations. The stations will be lengthened to 95 m from 60. They are also looking at putting stations on the Lawrence and Ellesmere bridges and having elevators and stairs to get to the S(L)RT. This would save the buses time needed to turn into the station. If they don’t do that then they will probably put in a bus station at Ellesmere like the one at Lawrence.
4 They are planning on running 3 car trains on a 2:30 headway. This will give a capacity of about 12 000 pphpd.
5 They are going to put in an underground loop for the S(L)RT. The track will curve along the Hydro right of way and then come in under the bus right of way on the north side of the station. The cars will exit by curving north back onto the right of way. This will put the passenger on the mezzanine level and they will only have to descend to the subway platform.
6 The Eglinton cross town line will come into a centre platform station under the mezzanine and the passengers will have to go up to the mezzanine and then onto the S(L)RT or up another level to the buses. They do not think that there will be a large number of people getting on to the subway.
7 The Scarborough Malvern line will end on the east side of the GO line in a centre platform station that will be in line and on the same level with the Eglinton line. Passengers will have to walk along a long underground corridor to get to the other services. There will not be a connection initially but it will be designed to allow for one.
8 The Eglinton line will connect into the S(L)RT line and it will be possible to through route the service if it proves desirable.
9 Land will be reserved on the north side of the right of way just east of McCowan for a future car barn but it will initially run out of the one for Sheppard. If they open the other barn then some of the Eglinton service may operate out of it.
There were a lot of people out at the meeting. Councillor Rob Ford was there handing out business cards and fridge magnets. Most of the people seemed in favour of the conversion even if it means no service during conversion. I think that they are looking forward to quieter cars.
LikeLike