The Toronto Star reports that Queen’s Park is contemplating an alternative route to Toronto’s proposed Scarborough subway extension via Eglinton and McCowan to Sheppard East.
The key paragraphs in the article are:
“In the next couple of weeks we should have an announcement on what the routing will be, what the design will be and what the cost will be,” he told reporters on the way into a cabinet meeting Wednesday.
…
Queen’s Park wants to have the subway run on a similar route to the light rail transit plan to “maximize the impact of this line and get it connected to as many people (as possible),” said [Transportation Minister] Murray.
Murray seeks to find out how much could be built with the $1.4b already committed to a subway project. Using an existing corridor could reduce the cost compared to the McCowan alignment.
This raises questions debated in other threads here of how the subway would be extended via the existing SRT alignment including the configuration of Kennedy Station and whether a route from Ellesmere Station eastward would be elevated or underground.
Recycling some or all of the existing corridor will require a period of shutdown for the RT with parallel bus service, an issue that weighed heavily against the LRT scheme in recent debates. Will the promise of a subway quell objections to this shutdown?
Murray will meet with Lisa Raitt, the federal Minister of Transport, to discuss funding, but he is already throwing cold water on hopes for assistance from Ottawa for a “416” project. Even if the feds bring money to the table, the next questions will be whether the original McCowan scheme or an SRT alignment for the subway are the best use of available cash, and how either subway would fit into a larger network.
The debate comes back to Toronto Council in October preceded by Murray’s announcement likely in mid-September. Backers of the subway like TTC Chair Karen Stintz and recently-elected MPP “Subway Champion” Mitzie Hunter have stressed that their support for a Sheppard LRT was for a different line in different circumstances. A Scarborough subway, wherever it goes, will leave large parts of eastern Toronto far from rapid transit.
The LRT debate is not over. Will Stintz and Hunter become “LRT champions” for other parts of the network?
Steve Munro 
Nicely done rhetorical flourish to end the article, Steve!
Who would have believed, back in 1995 or 2005, how the transit story would play out? More twists and turns than [insert your favourite twist-and-turn author’s twistiest work here].
In the absence of actual transit being built, this could at least be the source material for one of those 450-page “reality-documentary” kind of books. Given how long it’s likely to drag on, the potential author of it is still probably in high school.
LikeLike
How much subway does $1.4 billion buy you? Do you have a rough guess? How far could you get on either alignment with that amount? Could you even reach STC?
Steve: Going up the SRT alignment means there are no utility relocation costs at least to Ellesmere, but Kennedy Station must be completely replaced with a new structure in the diagonal of the hydro corridor northwest of the existing station. Beyond Ellesmere, there is the question of elevated vs underground construction. Underground could be messy because of Highland Creek which parallels the RT, and the need for a completely new structure. If the elevated through STC can be recycled, money can be saved there.
With luck, the cost might be on the order of $200m/km. There is no equipment cost for this line (either way) because the TTC will have a surplus of T1 subway cars by the time it opens.
It is 4km to Ellesmere and another 2km to STC. As the subway would operate from Greenwood Yard, there is not much point in continuing to McCowan that has a station only because the RT yard is there. Kennedy to STC is probably doable on the RT alignment.
Going via Eglinton and McCowan requires tunnelling which will easily be $300m/km or more, and it is unclear how or if such a line would actually serve STC because there is no easy north-south corridor through the complex. $1.4b would get you to somewhere north of Lawrence on the McCowan alignment.
There is also the question of how quickly each route can be built given the relative ease of above-ground construction.
LikeLike
With political dramas being all the rage now, and political stories a big part of some soap operas, I’m wondering how long it will be before the Scarborough Subway saga becomes immortalized on ‘film’ … or perhaps I’ll see a movie about the Scarborough Subway at TIFF … but will it be a political movie, documentary or tragi-comedy?
Based on the Scarborough Subway debate, the strange ideas Glen Murray has been promoting and the recent by-election campaign (not forgetting the pot-smoking thing that is the popular question of the day), I’m also wondering how long it will be before there is an official portfolio of ‘Subway Champion’ in the Ontario Liberal cabinet.
Cheers, Moaz
Steve: Hmmm … documentary? … political drama? … no … I have visions of the cast of “Young Frankenstein” poised over a model train set with maglev cars waiting for a bolt of lightning to bring them to life.
LikeLike
I sincerely wish that both subway and LRT boosters would visit the area east of Kennedy Stn. towards STC and get a heavy dose of reality check.
The Danforth rd. has a ravine about 300m north of Eglinton followed by steep hill followed by yet another hill down towards Lawrence (the route goes thru the name change from Danforth Rd. to McGowan rd.) The ravine north of Lawrence to Meldazy Dr., which is crossed-over by McGowan, is quite deep. How would subway be built along McGowan/Danforth Rds.? With a double-decker bridge just north of Lawrence – top level for cars,lower level for subway? I do not think that TTC would be too keen to cross-over that ravine below the surface given the energy usage requirements and vehicle/brakes depreciation.
The alternative would be to build subway stations from Eglinton to Meldazy Dr. quite deeply under the surface. Even if that route would be proposed, the Scarborough General Hospital administration would strongly object to years of noisy construction in their vicinity. In short – if a subway, then anything east of Brimley may not be feasible.
As for re-using the SRT ramp – how much weight can this ramp carry? Current situation is such, that quite light SRT vehicles can run on that structure most probably for many years to come. However with much heavier subway cars TTC/City could reach a point of elevated structure destruction or re-construction much sooner than anticipated.
The LRT scenario is not out of the woods either. Its vehicles are much heavier than current SRT ones and they are also wider; therefore there is no guarantee, that they could negotiate the curve and tunnel under CN track just north of Ellesmere either without major modifications.
I think that all proposals/alternatives need lots of evaluation and lots of reality check even before TTC/Metrolinx can start to talk about routing, costs, scheduling, EAs, proposing construction contracts and such.
Steve: It has been well known by advocates of any technology that the tunnel at Ellesmere is too small for any new mode, even for Mark II ICTS cars. As for the existing elevated structure, the question will be whether it can be reused or must be replaced on the same alignment. It was definitely overbuilt for ICTS trains and there has never been any suggestion that LRT would require a new structure beyond station modifications for low-floor cars and longer platforms. As for subway trains, the width may be an issue, but until I hear something definitive on this proposal from the technical viewpoint, we will just have to wait and see.
LikeLike
Converting the existing SRT to a subway would require a new Kennedy station be built on a 45 degree angle along the hydro corridor. It looks like a fairly sharp curve would be needed to connect the new Kennedy station to the existing SRT alignment, would this require that some houses on Treverton Drive be expropriated? Also I presume this means reusing the existing subway platforms for the Eglinton line, and abandoning the existing SRT platforms, am I correct?
Steve: The new station would probably lie along the south side of the hydro corridor, and there is enough room between the north side of Eglinton and the SRT line for both the station and a reasonable curve. As for the Eglinton line, the question will be where to put it relative to the subway (which it would now cross rather than lying beside) and the mezzanine level linking them with a bus loop, wherever that ends up, not to mention the GO station.
The Eglinton line could not use the existing subway platforms because this would require a level crossing with the extended subway. The SRT level will be abandoned no matter what happens.
LikeLike
Maybe this is a misunderstanding on my part, so I’m hoping you can clear it up.
The approved LRT RT-replacement would have required shutting down the RT for a few years during construction. Kennedy Station would continue operating as a subway/bus interchange during the rebuild, with a much-improved transfer arrangement ready for the opening. Shuttle buses would run from Kennedy Station to STC (presumably with stops near the RT stations along the way).
This new “plan” for a subway RT-replacement along the RT right-of-way would require shutting down the RT for a few years during construction AND shutting down Kennedy Station for a complete reconfiguration of the subway portion of the station. It would therefore seem that shuttle buses would need to run from Warden Station to STC, which would drastically increase the time taken for the trip and number of vehicles/drivers required.
That’s a pretty big inconvenience…
Steve: The new subway station would be built north of the existing one in the hydro corridor on a north-east alignment. This should only require a comparatively short subway shutdown for demolition of the existing north wall of the subway and installation of track to connect the existing line (west of the curve and crossover) to the new station.
LikeLike
Now that Murray has said that federal funding is unlikely, will there be new calls to divert the funding for the Finch West and Sheppard LRTs into a Scarborough subway?
Steve: That will be interesting given that Murray seems to be planning to build the subway on the RT alignment within the provincial allocation for the SRT replacement project. If so, money from the other LRT lines should not be affected. At Council, the motion authorizing the subway was clear that the Sheppard and Finch projects should not be touched (including the Federal money for Sheppard), and it will be interesting to see if there is a move to revisit that position at the October council meeting. That was one of the conditions that brought some LRT supporters over to the subway side originally, and support for the subway may dwindle if it threatens other parts of the proposed network.
Murray seems to be annoying the Feds with talk of an anti-Toronto subsidy stance by them, but at the same time he is proposing a subway line that could be much cheaper to build and not require subsidy from them anyhow. If Ottawa does come to the table, their money might be better spent elsewhere.
LikeLike
Where do the suggestions that an alternative alignments are being considered come from – particularly up the SRT corridor?
The article notes that the province will have an announcement on what the routing, cost, and design will be.
I’d think this has a lot more to do with where you build the Scarborough Centre station (on McCowan? further west nearer the existing station) and if you extend to Sheppard or not.
Have there been unpublished whisperings?
Steve: Did you read the article? It explicitly says “Queen’s Park wants to have the subway run on a similar route to the light rail transit plan”. When it’s published in the Star, that’s hardly “whispering”. In a previous reply, I already said that for the money available, I thought a subway could get to STC. Further is another matter completely especially considering that this would be net new structure and right-of-way, not the recycled SRT.
LikeLike
I’m perplexed as to why the subway option using the SRT corridor would require a rebuild of Kennedy Station. Could we not tunnel approx 50m east towards Midland, then curve north-west around the condos back to the SRT alignment? The only issue I see is that the tunnel would end up underneath some backyards and homes on Lord Roberts Dr, and the u-shaped turn itself would add a few hundred metres of tunelling. However, by rejoining the SRT corridor at Lord Roberts, we would save quite a lot on tunelling costs for a subway compared to the Eglinton/Danforth/McCowan route. I still think the LRT option is best for this part of the city, but if we are going to extend the subway, it’s only logical to try to use as much of the existing SRT corridor as possible.
Steve: The tunnelling you suggest would almost certainly have to be cut-and-cover and this would have more of an upheaval than digging through a few back yards. It would also require a much tighter turn for the subway than using the hydro corridor. Don’t forget that the subway west of Kennedy is already on a northeasterly alignment in that corridor before turning parallel to Eglinton just west of the crossover.
Why go through this (and the expense) when a new station could be built beside the existing one at Kennedy while it remains in operation? That would use even more of the existing corridor than your proposal?
LikeLike
There was an excellent commentary published in the Star on 27th of August 2013 by then TTC chair Michael Warren about the ICTS/SRT disaster of 25 years ago although he does not go deeply into the technical problems associated with ICTS decision. Current nowhere-leading battles of pro-subway and pro-LRT supporters can be viewed as an echo of those decisions and are symptomatic of post-SRT days where people simply do not trust TTC/Metrolinx nor do they trust their techno-speak of the day.
Steve: At the time, the TTC extolled the virtues of the SRT, and consistently talked down the benefits of LRT. This attitude continued until comparatively recently, and I cannot help thinking that some parts of the TTC were quite happy to avoid building a “streetcar line” in Scarborough. That decision set back suburban transit in the GTA by three decades, and we’re still not talking positively about LRT as a major part of our transit system.
LikeLike
The funny thing here is Andy Byford (TTC CEO) and Joe Panachetti (City Manager) clearly said that the subway would have to go up to McCowan and Sheppard. I believe that council approved the subway based on that recommendation (all well as those complicated motions requiring 1.8 billion from the province and matching funds from the Federal Government).
So would that then mean that this alternative proposal from Glen Murray would require *another* council meeting in which this would be debated?
Steve: A lot depends on the parameters for the subway project. First off, if you accept that the SRT will be shut down for a few years, then that alignment is back on the table. The next problem is dealing with the curves at Kennedy and at Ellesmere, but the land needed for gentler curver is already in the public realm. Then comes the route from Ellesmere east through STC. This is more complex as a tunnel than as an elevated structure. Finally there is the decision about whether to go to Sheppard.
The way all of those question were answered for the “Toronto” proposal more-or-less dictates the McCowan alignment. If Murray is going to build a subway on the RT alignment for $1.4b, then he has answered other questions differently too. That should provoke an interesting debate at Council.
Quick, someone tell Mitzie Hunter that as Minister for Subway Champion(ing) if she plays her cards right she could have the Bloor-Danforth extension to STC (via the SRT alignment) *and* a Scarborough branch line running east along Eglinton that would actually serve Scarborough-Guildwood!
No, wait, wouldn’t the line to Scarborough-Guildwood be the main line and the section to STC be the branch? Oh who cares. The Subway Champion will build them both *and* encourage kids to take their vitamins.
Seriously, stop this gravy train, I want to get off!
Cheers, Moaz
LikeLike
I guess I didn’t focus on the last sentence as much. It didn’t cross my mind that might be a reference to trying to use the existing SRT alignment … though I suppose it could imply that. The existing SRT alignment hardly will “connect it to as many people”. Is this perhaps a reference to Centennial College?
By the time we have a partial quote from Murray, the rest filled in by The Star, and given his tendency to speak off the cuff – who knows what they are thinking.
Okay, I see where you’re coming from. Hard to imagine what they are thinking, if they think it could be cheaper than expected, and connected to as many people. I’d guess though that Murray was talking generalities, rather than implying a switch to the SRT alignment.
Steve: Well, the article does say a “similar route” and we can then debate how much of the existing alignment has to survive to be “similar”. There are only a few ways to get to STC from Kennedy Station, and the SRT route is a major contender. I don’t think the project could be done as cheaply any other way.
LikeLike
Assuming a subway extension can be done for the money on the SRT alignment, in addition to actually providing a station at STC, it also puts the alignment in such a position to badly cripple the calls to connect it to the Sheppard subway.
It won’t eliminate the factions that still believe Sheppard should be extended east, but with the McCowan proposal to Sheppard, we have already heard the voices calling for having this turn west at Sheppard. An SRT alignment would make a harder sell for that.
LikeLike
I just have to ask: why can’t the subway follow the current SRT line? It would save some money (less tunneling) but would likely need to start out underground (coming out of Kennedy) before heading along the ROW that is already there.
Steve: Yes, given the space available for a new Kennedy Station, it would turn north into the SRT right of way and then emerge on a ramp.
LikeLike
Would it be cheaper though to go up the SRT alignment? Perhaps if they ignore getting to Sheppard.
Compared to $300m/km for subway? In 2010$?
Tunnelling itself isn’t that expensive. About $50 million per kilometre? The first 6.2 km including station headwalls of the larger-diameter Eglinton line will cost only $51.6 million per kilometre in something like 2013 or 2014$. Stations are probably more expensive. But even a generous $200 million per station, with only 3 stations, gives a cost of about $85 million per km for the 7 km Kennedy-Sheppard extension. So that’s $135 million per kilometre. To save $100 million per kilometre, you have to reduce that $135 million per kilometre to $35 million per kilometre.
Steve: You are forgetting that for that $50m/km, you get ONLY a tunnel. No signals, no power supply, no ventillation, no nothing, including stations. I used $200m/km as a generous number as this will have to pay for things like new Kennedy Station, the new tunnel at Ellesmere and an expanded STC Station. Who knows whether Ellesmere and Midland stations will survive, but if so, I bet only one of them.
I don’t think that’s what the 2012 subway fleet plan that you reported on a few months ago said.
I think it indicates that there are only 8 spare sets, and anticipated Bloor-Danforth subway service increases will reduce this to 0 sets by 2023. Though it wouldn’t be the first time I’ve misinterpreted something! 🙂
Steve: The fleet plan assumes that the BD line can get down to a considerably shorter headway than it runs today, and as I have already written here, I do not think this is physically possible given the track layouts at terminals and the perormance character of the trains (which is limited by passenger comfort and safety). If the BD extension were fast tracked, it would simply soak up spare cars on the existing headway. The greater problem would be that an extension would probably be signalled with ATO, but the BD line isn’t scheduled for this until the early 2020s at best, probably to coincide with the retirement of the T1s and their replacement by a new fleet.
How many sets will be needed? A very simplified calculation is to just scale the fleet size by the increase in length of the line. A 7-km extension represents a 27% increase. Increasing the current fleet requirement of 50 trains by about 14 trains. This is probably a bit of an overestimate, because of the faster travel time if there are only 3 stations – but still, the 8 currently spare trains doesn’t seem enough, you’d need about 6 new sets, and even this provides no extra trains for growth.
The high level estimate that the city produced in July budgeted $125 million (2010$) for vehicles. At the $18 million or so per set they were ordering trains for in 2010, that would be 7 new sets – which doesn’t seem unreasonable – but doesn’t even begin to address the growth requirements which would be immediately required on the existing Danforth subway the day the extension opens.
Steve: For a 6km extension running at least at 30km/h (the SRT is scheduled for 28.5 with more stations and two terminals), the extension represents 12/30 or .4 hour of extra running time, 24 minutes. If every train goes through to STC, that’s 10 trains, but there’s a good chance only half will get past Kennedy at least in the short term, and so we need only 5, plus say one spare for 6 in total. The provision for new cars and storage in the July 2013 estimate does not address the question of where this storage would be provided. Also, $262m to store 7 trains is rather excessive, and this is probably a “step function” cost of starting a new carhouse and yard somewhere that would eventually house many more trains.
LikeLike
Why do I get the impression, Steve, that the cat has been put among the pigeons?
LikeLike
This really does have the making for a tragic-comedy. Act 1 would be The ‘Subway Subway Subway Mantra’. Act 2 could be ‘The 100 Year Lie’. We could start the casting now; let’s see, who could be Mayor. Then, when it shows at TIFF, our very own Steve could review it.
Replacing the RT with LRT meant service loss for up to 4 years. Replacing it with subway means loss of Kennedy subway station for some substantial period also. The original plan involved a replacement bus service comprising 70 vehicles if I remember correctly. This should easily double that – Warden is a little distance away.
The original Subway plan as demanded by the Subway Subway Subway mantra, was underground in tunnel. But now, since there is a right of way, the rational choice is on the surface. But of course we must ask the Mayor et al, how about a subway in the sunshine? Or should we spend more to bury it? Naturally we would have to find a way to convince him there would be no level crossings and traffic lights, but once that is done he may well ask himself ‘what then is the difference between this and LRT?’ Bravo!
If, on the other hand, it is the tunnel that they insist on, and the vehicle is not the issue, then again the light goes on, for what then is the difference between subway cars and LRTs, in tunnels?
So, a double dose of the Barber’s Elixir to all in Scarborough as now they must bear not only years of no RT, but the loss of the subway too.
LikeLike
I question whether it really makes sense to say there is no equipment cost. If the cars are not used for a Sheppard subway extension, they could be used for a Don Mills subway line or a Yonge extension. They could even be sold on to another transit service. Even if they’re just left parked until the other cars wear out, at that time an enormous amount of money will be saved by not buying some of the otherwise-needed replacements. So it seems to me the full cost of the cars should be charged to whatever line uses them.
I suppose it is true that no funding is needed for this, but from an accounting perspective it feels like the cars are part of the cost no matter what (well, unless little to no service is to be run. Ahem. Viva.). Politically, there should be a cost, because by saying the cars are free one is saying none of the other possible subway lines are worth getting some of the “free” cars.
How is it that we have extra subway cars, anyway? One would think subway cars are too expensive to just miscount. This isn’t like me and my wife both buying 4L of milk at the grocery store (well, it is, qualitatively, but not quantitatively). Or is it that we will have enough TRs to cover the entire Yonge line, leaving more T1s than needed for Sheppard and Bloor-Danforth?
Steve: Suppose that your children used to drink white milk, but then one of them developed a taste for chocolate. You can at least change your buying habits and buy 2L of each.
When the TTC did its fleet plan for the Spadina extension, they assumed they would be buying more cars like the T1s that come in married pairs, and that the line would be manually operated (as the T1s are). Therefore a mixed fleet of “new” cars, whatever they might be, with T1s could take advantage of the fact that there were more T1s than needed to run the BD subway. Fleet projections were made on the basis of one common car type across all lines.
With the decision to go to TRs and ATO, those “extra” T1s could no longer be counted for YUS. This forced the TTC to buy more TRs to run an all-TR, all-ATO fleet on YUS, and it also forced them to make provision for more storage on the BD line even if it couldn’t absorb all of the T1 fleet. Work is now in progress to reactivate Vincent Yard, to add storage capacity at Kipling and at Greenwood.
By the time the Richmond Hill or DRL lines opens, the T1 fleet will be nearing its 30th birthday (the first of them was delivered in 1995). Richmond Hill will be an extension of YUS and must run with TRs to be compatible with the signal system. The DRL as a new line would also have ATO.
As for the accounting, it is a question of timing. Why buy more cars now other than to keep Bombardier busy with more work? Yes, eventually we will need a bigger fleet, but not instantly.
LikeLike
If they wanted to get really cheap, they could do this …
Since half of the trains would be short turned at Kennedy anyway, they wouldn’t need to build a new Kennedy at all, at least not initially. They could simply insert just a wye where the tracks would diverge for the new station. Then, every other train would route into the existing Kennedy Stn. and terminate there, while the others would bypass Kennedy entirely. Doesn’t work if all trains need to go to the end of the line off peak, and the Eglinton LRT would have to make its connection at a station other than Kennedy.
The elevated portion of the RT cannot support the weight of a subway, so it is not reusable. If they want to get even cheaper, they should just revisit the Mark III system.
LikeLike
And as I previously pointed out, if Kennedy station gets rebuilt to allow use of the SRT right of way and the feelings towards transfers is universal in Scarborough, then the TTC is going to have to build an entirely new subway line to aid those who will suffer mightily by the greatly lengthened hike between the Kennedy bus terminal and the new subway platform.
Naturally, construction of said new line won’t be a problem since some smoking hot alternative funding will walk up in a mall and privately pay for it in an efficient manner at no cost to, out of respect for, the one taxpayer who goes by the name of Dave.
LikeLike
I hope they do not drop the STC-to-Sheppard section of the planned subway in order to cut the cost. A connection to the subway is a significant enhancement for the Sheppard LRT, and the LRT is a significant potential feeder for the subway.
LikeLike
Hey Steve,
If a subway did follow the SRT route, would it be possible to build LRT from the STC along the route that was proposed to get it to Malvern?
Chris Drew
Steve: Yes, although the STC station would have to be adapted to have an LRT station separate from the subway.
LikeLike
One could be forgiven for wondering if (subway booster) Murray was setting up a stark side by side comparison where LRT clearly outperforms.
Should the subway follow the LRT route it would open later and require a similar if not longer SRT shutdown along with additional interruptions of the Bloor/Danforth line at Kennedy. It would also have elevated stations & track similar to the LRT option.
The most obvious difference would be that the subway would likely end at STC (with 2 or 3 stations) while the LRT would continue to McCowan, Centennial College and Sheppard & Progress/ Malvern St.
Unfortunately I expect many Councillors will allow themselves to believe in the Fords’ ‘start digging and money will flow’ planning, betting the Feds will come forward eventually, while true believers will work to put the city on the hook for cost overruns.
Interestingly while dismissing the unreliable Feds the Province also neglected to include our Mayor’s much hyped ‘skin in the game.’
LikeLike
This plan actually has some possibilities. It provides service to the existing corridor, it does not require expensive tunnelling and hopefully it could be at grade or in a cut.
The problems are that it requires a major rebuild of Kennedy Station along with a shut down of the SRT. The other concern that all of these subway plans create is that there is no yard at the east end for the crosstown line. This will create a lot of dead head mileage and reduce the time available for maintenance in the subway portion. If this were a total TTC operation they could build an access track and store some cars at Eglinton Garage, but it isn’t.
As one person noted there is going to be pressure to extend it to Sheppard to eliminate an unnecessary transfer that would result if people had to transfer from Sheppard to the Malvern LRT and then to the subway. This transfer problem could probably take the line up to Uxbridge.
I could live with this plan if it does not increase construction costs. It will probably increase operating costs.
LikeLike
I can’t be the only one finding all this mind-changing, second-guessing, for the fourth time exhausting, one suspects rather expensive.
This may prove one of the great exercises in procrastination and public transport investment; and we’ve (Toronto) had our share!
***
As someone whose leaning was towards subway extension, not as fetish, nor believing its capacity was immediately (or in the 20-year time horizon needed) …
But rather, because the LRT shutdown posed a wholly unreasonable inconvenience on a large section of Toronto … (imagine shutting down the Bloor line for 3 years!) …
AND
Because I believe the route via Eglinton and McCowan is superior in hitting a key trip generator (Scarb. General Hospital) and the vast High-Rise corridor along Danforth.
I realize a recent study suggests the existing alignment might serve more people (call me suspicious of how lines are drawn as that looks counter-intuitive on a Google map … but never mind)
The rub being, with dollars and time invested and a decision taken, I was actually content to support the LRT option.
I can understand the arguments for it, even if I think it’s the ‘B’ choice.
But of all things, if we were to choose subway (which we ought to have done YEARS ago, if this was to be the choice) … we need to meet the 2 key reasons for doing so.
One, keeping the LRT open until its replacement is ready, Two, selecting a superior route.
It neither is being done the argument for a subway falls apart!
It becomes a case of ‘the capacity will be needed in 60 years)
Forgive the rant … the mind boggles.
LikeLike
Moaz: Not only that but the possibility of an extension to Scarborough-Guildwood is held open.
One challenge will the need for a passenger information system at all stations east of, say, Spadina that tells passengers where the next train will go. I don’t think anyone on Bloor-Danforth has looked at a rollsign for decades.
This is where the question of the Gatineau Hydro Corridor must be asked. If it is available then the issue of replacement of the elevated portion doesn’t have to be explored now.
A route following the hydro corridor would have Midland, then Lawrence/Brimley … then?
Cheers, Moaz
LikeLike
In theory, you could build it above the GO bus terminal at STC so that you would end up with an arrangement like what is going to be built at Don Mills station. Obviously it would work a lot better if no subway tail tracks are built their.
That said, has anyone seriously considered the difficulty of incorporating a subway crossover into the existing RT elevated section west of STC? I’m starting to think that Roger Brook is correct with what he said above about this all being a set up by Murray to sell an LRT conversion as a better option than building a subway now that the feds have all but rejected giving funds for extending the BD line.
Steve: At this point, I am going to wait until Murray makes whatever announcement he claims is coming “in a few weeks” to see just what he has in mind. It has been reported that he has already met with Mayor Ford to talk about this, and so some of the details are bound to start leaking out of City Hall or Queen’s Park. There are so many hypotheses about routes and structures that I really don’t want to entertain another of these “design a route on a napkin” threads here.
LikeLike
How many trips does a hospital generate? If it’s closer to a condo than an office building then I’d rather not have it shaping route planning.
LikeLike
Here’s a bizarre idea, but since there’s been a few of those over the years, here’s another one:
Isn’t the railway corridor that passes Kennedy Station the start of the alternative route for an proposed above ground Downtown Relief Line, which would gradually turn westbound and run along the lake to Union.
Would it not solve a number of problems to build one long above ground ‘subway’ line from Scarborough Centre through Union, since a DRL has to be built at some time somewhere anyway to alleviate overcrowding.?
Firstly the trains would not have to make the 90 degree turn that the RT does coming out of Kennedy. Secondly the problem of transferring at Kennedy could still be avoided depending on the destination. Finally, could there not be a considerable cost saving building one line instead of two and keeping tunneling to a minimum?
Steve: The Stouffville GO corridor is a separate service from any Scarborough Subway or a DRL. It deserves to be upgraded, but as a separate line. Trying to take a “subway” type operation into Union via the rail corridor brings many problems not the least of which is that a subway cannot interoperate with mainline rail services.
LikeLike
Suddenly, somewhere, Frank Gehry feels an unexplained chill running down his spine.
Cheers, Moaz
Steve: The difference with Gehry is that he crumples his napkins, and that’s the design concept. A bumpy ride for rapid transit planning.
LikeLike
Why not just keep the BD line and Scarborough Subway lines separate? That way, reconstructing the existing Kennedy Station isn’t strictly necessary, and Glenn DeBaeremaeker’s ward will get the 1st class transit, that is a subway, that Scarborough deserves at a cost much closer to the Scarborough LRT plan.
Steve: The whole point of this exercise is to give Scarborough a one-seat ride, at least past Kennedy Station. If the new line is separate from BD, and it stays on the SRT alignment, well, that’s the RT to LRT upgrade plan that we started with.
LikeLike
Actually I think Murray is sold on subways (or MK2) and has only inadvertently set up a head to head comparison where the benefits of LRT are glaring.
I think Murray is trying to salvage a subway plan offering a (possibly) cheaper option because even supporters like Karen Stintz & Rob Ford have at times wavered saying the subway is DOA without the wished for $1.8 billion from the Province & Federal funding.
After campaigning (and winning) on Scarborough subways, providing a plan for how this can be done with the lower Provincial amount, even without the Feds, backs up the campaign rhetoric. As for those in the Party like Wynne who probably believe the subway option is wasteful, the choice is left in the hands of City Councillors who have been welcomed to restart the LRT at no extra charge.
LikeLike
They only gonged for the first six months when the line opened. It was a dumb system — the signs would show a hyphen up until the train was about to enter the station, so they only helped those who arrived at the platform just after the front of the train passed by. The ones at St. George and Bay were even worse. There were these signs with arrows that flashed sideways or down because of the dual platform arrangement. You had to keep your eyes glued on those arrows constantly, because the arrow would flash to the upper platform when you walked in (and we would all wait there) but then it would sometimes just suddenly change to flash to the lower platform at the last minute. Those who didn’t watch it the whole time got shafted and missed the next train.
LikeLike
If that was the whole point, then that’s what DeBaeremaeker and others would have preached. But all I hear from them is that the subway is speedier and first class technology that Scarborough deserves, but very little about getting rid of the transfer.
The whole point really is subways subways subways.
LikeLike
I agree, I would rather not use a napkin, or as we say in my neck of the woods, “serviette”. Nor would I even bother with an envelope. That is so ancient, this is the 21st century! Instead, can you recommend a free software app for drawing lines on maps? Seriously.
I would start by drawing a streetcar extension on Kingston Road to at least Lawrence and UofT Scarborough campus! Then another streetcar line from the western terminus of the Eglinton Crosstown LRT to Royal York & The Lakeshore with a short-cut via Scarlett Road and Edenbridge. One for each end of the city. For practice.
Steve: No doubt you intend to cut through central Etobicoke just to annoy Rob Ford.
LikeLike
Steve, you’ve oft mentioned how TTC terminal operations are a constraint against improved subway line capacity. Forgive me if this is dense, but what is the optimal terminal design?
Could the TTC make changes to the ops of their existing terminals to improve turnaround?
Short of terminal replacement, are there infrastructure improvements which would improve terminal ops?
Thanks . . .d
Steve: There is fundamental constraint because of the sequence of movements that must occur. This presumes a starting condition of both platforms occupied and a train on the approach to the station, a quite common situation at short headways.
1. Train A on platform 1 (ie the one that will have a straight run through the crossover) is dispatched. Doors close, train departs.
2. Train A clears crossover and signals align route for inbound train C to occupy platform 1.
3. Train C starts from a standing stop, runs through crossover to platform 1, stops, opens doors.
4. Signals align route for outbound train B on platform 2.
5. Train B is dispatched. Same sequence as in “1” above, but movement is through the crossover.
6. Train B clears crossover and signals align route for inbound train D to occupy platform 2.
7. Train D (which by now is waiting to enter) starts and enters platform 2, stops, opens doors.
8. Signals align route for outbound train C on platform 1.
And we are back to where we started. There are eight separate steps, four involving train movements, and four involving signalling. Only a few of them can occur at the same time because of route conflicts inherent with a crossover. Steps 6 and 8 can occur together as can steps 7 and 1.
In each case where a train starts from a stationary position, it must accelerate to a safe speed and clear either to the platform, or to the outbound track. The length of time this takes is determined by the length of the train, the length of the crossover (including any safety margin beyond the switches where they are considered to be “occupied”), the safe and comfortable operating speed depending on the track layout (maximum acceleration forces both to come to speed and limits on speed through switches). In these steps, cases where trains must cross over to the opposite track (3 and 5) will take slightly longer than cases with a straight run (1 and 7) because the path is slightly longer and it cannot be taken at full speed.
One cannot assume that an inbound train will hit the crossover with such perfect timing that it will not be held and forced to begin its entry from a standing start. As headways get shorter, the probability that a train would arrive in this manner gets very low. Also, if as in the TTC’s case, trains often have too much running time, there will always be a queue waiting to access the terminal.
The steps where the signal system must determine that the crossover is clear, that the switches can be realigned and a new route given to a train are constrained by safety margins in timing for the signals to be “sure” that the status is stable, as well as time for mechanical movements.
Short crossovers tend to serve tracks that are close together (think of Eglinton, or better yet Bloor). They take less time to clear, but cannot be taken at speed because of limits on lateral acceleration of passengers at the switches. Also, the transition from centre platform to adjacent tracks (e.g. Eglinton) creates curves that do not exist, for example, at Finch where the tunnels are already spaced at the same width as the platforms. Finch has a longer crossover and smoother transitions to switches.
The cycle time would be longer if either of the tail tracks were occupied because, in these cases, the allowable speed for an entering train is much slower to avoid a runaway overshooting the platform and striking the train in the tail track. This type of event can disrupt the reliability of peak period headways today, never mind at a shorter headway. This can only be avoided by designing farside storage tracks with clearance so that an incoming train need not be slowed from its normal speed coming onto the platform.
Other constraints that are partly a function of manual as opposed to automatic operation include the time between an operator receiving a green signal and the doors being closed for the train to leave. This presumes that the crew is even ready to take the train out when the signal clears, something that can be fouled up by crew change practices and by the location of crew quarters on the platform relative to the driving and guard positions.
From observations at Kennedy, which is not the longest of the crossovers, I concluded that this entire sequence (now operated at a cycle time of 4’40”, or one train every 2’20”) might get down to 4’00”, but this would be challenging and would require hair-trigger reaction to route clearances at every opportunity. This might also require deliberately dispatching trains on slightly uneven headways to clear platforms as quickly as possible and make room for incoming trains. Headways would be smoothed at the next station or two with variations in dwell time.
What can be changed? Crewing practices must be improved so that crews are always, without fail, ready to take over their trains. This will require more crews so that they can be guaranteed to be in the correct place on the platform. There is also a “catch 22” in a move to one-man crews in that today, with each member staying at the “north” or “south” end of the train, they don’t have to walk the length of the platform to change ends or to take over another train. (This will also affect across the platform crew changes now performed enroute to get operators back on time.) It is self-evident that automatic operation eliminates this source of delay, but does not address the basic questions of terminal geometry.
If the terminal is redesigned for farside turnarounds, that is with a crossover and tail tracks beyond the station, then the act of turning the train is separated from passenger handling and the “terminal” operates like a line station with offloading on one side and loading on the other. This is not a trivial change to an existing line.
Another change would be to have split services with half of the trains ending at one place and half at another. For example, if a Richmond Hill service operates with alternate trains terminating at Finch and using the pocket track north of the station, and the others running through to the new terminal, then crossover operations are not as critically timed. However, movements to and from the pocket can become constrained if a strict alternation of southbound trains from Finch and Richmond Hill were enforced. (This is a small scale version of the problem at the wye with integrated service where a forced alternation led to delays.) Again there is a catch-22 because in the PM peak, the TTC tends to minimize short-turns and sends all trains through to the terminal. However, a standard crossover terminal might not be able to accept this much service.
The fundamental point is that at close headways, there is no room for any unusual event that could foul up the regular, timed sequence of arrivals and departures. There is absolutely no indication that the TTC is capable of operating trains like this, and any future capacity plans that would require such clockwork precision are doomed.
LikeLike
You know, just to repeat something that has been pointed out previously regarding the fate of the RT corridor, the TTC is really sending mixed signals regarding Ellesmere station with the establishment of the 95C rush hour route considering that the station is expected to close permanently in at least 2 years.
LikeLike
And since that 6 month period the TTC has made it clear that interchanges between lines are the way to go, rather than offering a 1-seat ride. And since Bloor-Danforth line trains are hardly ever short-turned, most subway supporters think each and every train will go all the way to STC.
I can already imagine the passenger surprise to learn that some trains will turn back at Kennedy. Now imagine their surprise to learn that they should have gotten on the ‘other’ train or gotten off at Warden to change trains.
Cheers, Moaz
LikeLike
Assume there are 12 Crosstown LRT’s, 12 Scarborough LRT’s, 30 Buses, and 12 newly created “subway-like” trains running “back and forth” between Miliken Go and Kennedy GO with one Agincourt GO stop in between (1 track – 2 tracks) minimal cost of say 300 to 400 Million – no digging. Would one perhaps have created the PERFECT TRANSFER HUB, and Downtown riders simply use Kennedy GO to travel to work in HALF THE TIME, while saving the cost of building a DRL, since there would be about 3,000 less y/b transfers every hour ? It’s kind of Toronto gets their LRT, Subway and DRL all at the same time.
Steve: You have left out a vital part: sending frequent service from Kennedy GO down to Union Station. Either all of the services feeding into Kennedy you list will be underused, or the combined additional volume you create will need substantial capacity on Lake Shore. This is not impossible, but not a small change and it has to fit in with other capacity constraints of the corridor and of Union Station.
LikeLike
Not really? Talk to planning. The turn-back at Ellesmere Stn is only because it was the easiest in the area. This was not a mission to connect to the the RT, it was a mission, long overdue, to extend the AM 95 short-turn branch.
95 buses have been running to VP since it opened in 1962. As the route extended TTC put in a separate rush hour branch (95A) in 1971 to VP. Hasn’t changed in the last 30 years. Rather than turn on-street at Kennedy Rd, why not use the RT for a while.
LikeLike