SkyscraperCity banner
1 - 20 of 44 Posts

·
Banned
Joined
·
8,602 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·



New LRT lines will head east

Transit City light rail network to boost service to east part of city

Jun 04, 2008 04:30 AM
Tess Kalinowski
Transportation Reporter





Transit planners hear it from residents. They hear it from the Scarborough councillors on the Toronto Transit Commission. Their end of the city is underserved, especially when it comes to transit.

Now, TTC officials say Scarborough is setting the stage for the kind of integrated transit plan that will give suburbanites the efficient streetcar service usually associated with downtown.

Two of the first three planned Transit City streetcar (light rail) lines – Sheppard East and Eglinton-Crosstown, from Pearson airport to Kennedy station – will serve Scarborough directly.

Add to that the extension and renovation of the Scarborough Rapid Transit line, and the TTC is more than meeting the requests set out two years ago by Scarborough councillors, says Mitch Stambler, manager of service planning.

The trade-off is that extending the Sheppard subway line moves down on the priority list – a fact that Councillor Raymond Cho (Scarborough-Rouge River) believes to be short-sighted.

Rising gas prices and growing environmental concerns would prod more people out of their cars if they had the convenience of a subway.

"The city has to show leadership, not just (build) LRT because it's cheap," he said.

Cho has been pushing the TTC to extend the SRT north at least to Malvern Town Centre from Kennedy Station, which is set to become a unique transit hub.

"We're doing a fairly detailed design study of Kennedy station because of the lousy transfer that exists today between the SRT and the subway. We are committed to make that a far more passenger-friendly station," Stambler said.

"Kennedy becomes the Union Station of the east end, with the Bloor-Danforth line coming in. You have the Scarborough-Malvern line feeding (in) people, you have Eglinton feeding people in both directions. I don't think there's another station in the system that has four modes," said TTC chair Adam Giambrone. He predicts similar connectivity for North York and Etobicoke as Transit City moves to completion around 2021.

Plans for Scarborough also extend beyond Toronto with potential links to York and Durham regions.

Transit City light rail, including Sheppard Ave., will run on its own right-of-way, with a priority green at signals. That will make it swifter and more reliable than streetcar lines that run in mixed traffic.





--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Facts and figures on two planned routes
SHEPPARD EAST LRT

Original plan
: LRT running 14 km down the middle of Sheppard from the Don Mills subway station to Morningside Ave. Requires a grade separation near the Agincourt GO station, about 320 metres between Reidmount and Lamont Aves.

Complication
: LRT will connect to the subway at Don Mills station, but there's no decision yet whether the streetcar would dip into a tunnel below Highway 404, just past Consumers Rd., or whether it would make sense to extend the Sheppard subway out to the LRT, given that tunnelling would be needed anyway.

Cost
: $555 million for construction and streetcars. That will rise somewhat because an underground section at the 404 was not factored into the original cost.

Potential extension
: To the Toronto Zoo at Meadowvale Rd., 1.4 km north of Sheppard. There's the potential of shared parking with the zoo, said TTC chair Adam Giambrone. But it's not clear if that's a feasible park-and-ride solution.

"We don't know if people would park and ride on an LRT. It's a long way to go if you're coming downtown. Maybe you should get on GO. But these are all the things that are being looked at," Giambrone said.

Potential spur
: LRT could loop down to Scarborough Town Centre.

"It's clear that ridership does not justify us ending the Sheppard LRT line at the Scarborough Centre. But it may justify one in three cars (going there)," said Giambrone.

Potential regional connection
: Durham

How many riders: Early projections are for up to 1,700 riders per hour, per direction, by 2031, a volume similar to the King streetcar.

Where it's at
: Environmental assessment goes before the planning and growth committee and city council in July. That would mean shovels in the ground next year, with service expected to begin about three years after that.

Why not a subway
: Projected ridership doesn't justify the capacity and expense, according to TTC manager of service planning Mitch Stambler.



SCARBOROUGH RAPID TRANSIT

The plan
: Run a refurbished SRT to Sheppard; study feasibility of extending it to Malvern Town Centre.

Proposed stations
: At Markham and Centennial; Sheppard and Malvern; with others potentially between those areas.

Potential regional connection
: York Region

How many riders
: Preliminary forecast 10,000 riders per morning rush hour by 2031.

Where it's at
: Scheduled for completion in 2014. Environmental assessment likely to go to city council in November.

Complication
: Service disruption could last eight months, with buses substituted.

Cost
: $1.2 billion, including extension to Malvern but not vehicles

Why not subway or at-grade LRT
: Ridership isn't there. The 10,000 per hour predicted for 2031 falls short of ridership of 29,000 per hour now on the Yonge subway and 19,000 per hour in the peak on the University-Spadina subway.



Community "open houses" on both projects will be held 6:30-9 p.m. tonight at Malvern Community Centre Gym, 30 Sewells Rd.

There will be a second open house on the Scarborough RT tomorrow at 4:30-7 p.m., in the Scarborough Centre Station mezzanine at Scarborough Town Centre, 300 Borough Dr.


http://www.thestar.com/News/GTA/article/436558

RELATED NEWS:
http://www.yrng.com/News/Regional News/article/74784
http://www.transitcity.ca/index.php...ask=view&id=14&Itemid=28&limit=1&limitstart=4

Sheppard East LRT Line
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sheppard_East_LRT_(TTC)

http://www.mikecolle.com/PDF/Eglinton Crosstown LRT backgrounder and survey - COLOUR.pdf

• New Rapid Transit Proposal on Eglinton Avenue from Kennedy Station to the Pearson International Airport •

• The Eglinton Crosstown corridor has been chosen for a major transit development
• The Toronto Area is one of the fastest growing regions in North America, and it is Canada’s most
congested urban area.
• Growing by approximately 100,000 people – and 50,000 cars – a year, the GTA’s traffic congestion
proble ms are only getting worse.
• Commuting in the GTA currently takes 32 per cent longer than it would in free-flowing conditions.
By 2031, it will take 40 per cent longer.
Congestion costs the GTA over $2 billion each year in lost time, fuel costs and untold tonnes of carbon dioxide are
released into our communities every day of the year, 24/7.
 

·
Welcome to the Rail World
Joined
·
4,671 Posts
Two of the first three planned Transit City streetcar (light rail) lines – Sheppard East and Eglinton-Crosstown, from Pearson airport to Kennedy station – will serve Scarborough directly.
Eglinton-crosstown only goes to Kennedy, that's not very deep into Scarborough, nor is it "new" service at Kennedy since there is a subway there already. The Morningside LRT will do a lot more for Scarborough than the Eglinton line, but the two should run through-service on each other anyway.

Rising gas prices and growing environmental concerns would prod more people out of their cars if they had the convenience of a subway.
Not along Sheppard.

"The city has to show leadership, not just (build) LRT because it's cheap," he said.
Sheppard would only hit 5000ppdph. If you want to argue Eglinton to be a subway, that's fine, I could agree with that argument. Sheppard? No way.


"Kennedy becomes the Union Station of the east end, with the Bloor-Danforth line coming in. You have the Scarborough-Malvern line feeding (in) people, you have Eglinton feeding people in both directions. I don't think there's another station in the system that has four modes," said TTC chair Adam Giambrone.
Depends, if the SRT is NOT converted to LRT, then Kennedy is 5 modes, not 4. If the SRT is upgraded to LRT, then it would be 4 and would have the same number of modes as Kipling on the opposite end of the line.
Kennedy; LRT (3 lines), GO Train, Bus, Subway
Kipling; LRT (1 line), GO Train, Bus (at least 3 providers), Subway

How many riders: Early projections are for up to 1,700 riders per hour, per direction, by 2031, a volume similar to the King streetcar.
Huh? The King car has almost twice that, 3000+ ppdph!
SCARBOROUGH RAPID TRANSIT

The plan[/b]: Run a refurbished SRT to Sheppard; study feasibility of extending it to Malvern Town Centre.
Not listed here but a potential outcome of the EA may have the existing SRT converted to LRT.

How many riders[/b]: Preliminary forecast 10,000 riders per morning rush hour by 2031.
Per morning rush? Wait, for the whole line? This isn't a recognized metric, what gives? They need to provide a figure in ppdph.

Why not subway or at-grade LRT[/b]: Ridership isn't there. The 10,000 per hour predicted for 2031 falls short of ridership of 29,000 per hour now on the Yonge subway and 19,000 per hour in the peak on the University-Spadina subway.
OK, first off, LRT is cheaper than the SRT, and LRT has the higher capacity between the two, and 10,000ppdph is the minimum threshold for a subway anyway, so this argument is flat-out false.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,545 Posts
All GTA excluding City of Toronto is allowed to post topics in the Ontario section, hence a development thread for Mississauga.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
687 Posts
Eglinton-crosstown only goes to Kennedy, that's not very deep into Scarborough, nor is it "new" service at Kennedy since there is a subway there already. The Morningside LRT will do a lot more for Scarborough than the Eglinton line, but the two should run through-service on each other anyway.
The intention IS to make it a through-service. Scarborough-Malvern effectively would be a branch service of the main line, whereby it's only every second LRT tirp that goes east beyond Kennedy Station. Turnbacks would keep headway frequencies of every 3 minutes west of Kennedy Stn, every 6 minutes east. Extending a subway to as far east as UTSC should be an optimal long-term goal.

Not along Sheppard.
Yes and no. Sheppard cannot support a subway line. It was the insipidness of Mel Lastman that got us saddled with a patchwork line and no manner of extending it will ever change that. But before we spend another :2cents: on it, we instead look towards converting whats already there to LRT and continuing with that technology eastwards. Having the line run as far as Agincourt only then veer south, limits communities along the rest of Sheppard East from accessing a rapid transit mode. Taking the line to least Neilson Road ensures the vast majority of Malvern is within proximity of a quick, effortless commute. It is only under such circumstances that more and more people will forego their cars, to park 'n' ride instead.

Sheppard would only hit 5000ppdph. If you want to argue Eglinton to be a subway, that's fine, I could agree with that argument. Sheppard? No way.
That's why we get rid of even the "stubway". No point keeping it alive just to say "I-told-you-so" to all Sheppard subway critics. The condo developments will still there if and when the conversion done. There's nothing to suggest that Sheppard will implode without its subway. Besides for crying over 6kms of lost "stubway", we'd be missing out on getting an additonal 18+ kms of new LRT that'd feed right into Yonge Subway without a transfer.

Depends, if the SRT is NOT converted to LRT, then Kennedy is 5 modes, not 4. If the SRT is upgraded to LRT, then it would be 4 and would have the same number of modes as Kipling on the opposite end of the line.
Kennedy; LRT (3 lines), GO Train, Bus, Subway
Kipling; LRT (1 line), GO Train, Bus (at least 3 providers), Subway
Kennedy is destined to become a mega-terminus. There's so many ways to link up various lines here:

Eglinton-Crosstown could continue northeastwards along the path of the SRT via elevating right onto Upper Kennedy's platform level. Eglinton subway could just as well be a through line @ Kennedy making for one continuous trek from Pearson to UTSC.

The BD line could continue eastwards following Eglinton/Kingston/Morningside to UTSC. It just as well could veer up Danforth-McCowan to approach SCC from the southeast.

The SRT could be extended southwards via Scarborough GO to Kingston Rd. Even a potential Queen Line could be interlined into this location, effortlessly taking commuters from Scarbourough right into the heart of the city (no more need for Bloor-Yonge as an interchange).

Huh? The King car has almost twice that, 3000+ ppdph!
Not listed here but a potential outcome of the EA may have the existing SRT converted to LRT.
Fixating on the technology isn't all that significant. If vehicles are designed only to be compatible with one particular line, then efforts should be made to maintain that compatibility NOT instead taking the more drastic approach of dismantling an entire line's trackbed (plus the whole elevated portion would have to be demolished and redone).

[And this reflects the implications of preserving an unique mode of transit on what would be a stand-alone line and NOT generic T1s on Sheppard, so please no mind games]

Per morning rush? Wait, for the whole line? This isn't a recognized metric, what gives? They need to provide a figure in ppdph.

OK, first off, LRT is cheaper than the SRT, and LRT has the higher capacity between the two, and 10,000ppdph is the minimum threshold for a subway anyway, so this argument is flat-out false.
But that drastically pales in comparison to YUS or BD. Even brand new lines along Eglinton and Queen would outpreform that figure on their opening days. This is why I'm overjoyed extending the Sheppard Line seems all but dead at this point. The last nail in the coffin will be when 4-car T1s no longer arrive at Sheppard-Yonge Stn.

LRT is more than enough to handle this type of modest, medium-sized commuter demands such as this. And with it's potential to merge into the SRT at Malvern Town Centre, commuters would actually be getting a better-than-subway level of service, since any subway built out to Malvern would most likely consist of kilometre apart spacing that's of no benefit to hardly anyone without waiting to board a feeder bus first.
 

·
Welcome to the Rail World
Joined
·
4,671 Posts
The intention IS to make it a through-service. Scarborough-Malvern effectively would be a branch service of the main line, whereby it's only every second LRT tirp that goes east beyond Kennedy Station. Turnbacks would keep headway frequencies of every 3 minutes west of Kennedy Stn, every 6 minutes east. Extending a subway to as far east as UTSC should be an optimal long-term goal.
I hope it is something like that with through-service, but nobody knows yet; what bothers me is based on what I've been hearing from people that are watching it closely is that the TTC is rather focused on making Kennedy a big transfer point.

As mentioned earlier though, UTSC by subway is a non-starter. Too much parklands along the way, and will make over-crowding worse, too.


Yes and no. Sheppard cannot support a subway line. It was the insipidness of Mel Lastman that got us saddled with a patchwork line and no manner of extending it will ever change that. But before we spend another :2cents: on it, we instead look towards converting whats already there to LRT and continuing with that technology eastwards. Having the line run as far as Agincourt only then veer south, limits communities along the rest of Sheppard East from accessing a rapid transit mode.
If the Sheppard Line doesn't integrate into a downtown-bound line, like the northern end of a downtown releif loop, then that's true; but if it does go downtown from the VP/401 area, then it becomes a viable line that can alleviate Yonge as well as BD.
Taking the line to least Neilson Road ensures the vast majority of Malvern is within proximity of a quick, effortless commute. It is only under such circumstances that more and more people will forego their cars, to park 'n' ride instead.
The goal should be to get people to use feeder buses rather than Park'n'ride, since parking lots poison communities and make station value a lot less than it should be.



That's why we get rid of even the "stubway". No point keeping it alive just to say "I-told-you-so" to all Sheppard subway critics. The condo developments will still there if and when the conversion done. There's nothing to suggest that Sheppard will implode without its subway. Besides for crying over 6kms of lost "stubway", we'd be missing out on getting an additonal 18+ kms of new LRT that'd feed right into Yonge Subway without a transfer.
There's a valid argument for it, except the politics I don't think will ever agree with it; nor will existing TTC policy that prohibis service reductions; even though service would actually increase, the politics will still work against that to make sure it looks like a downgrading of service. The politics matter a lot because the commission is made up of politicians.


Kennedy is destined to become a mega-terminus. There's so many ways to link up various lines here:

Eglinton-Crosstown could continue northeastwards along the path of the SRT via elevating right onto Upper Kennedy's platform level. Eglinton subway could just as well be a through line @ Kennedy making for one continuous trek from Pearson to UTSC.

The BD line could continue eastwards following Eglinton/Kingston/Morningside to UTSC. It just as well could veer up Danforth-McCowan to approach SCC from the southeast.
The Danforth-McCowan alignment is problematic since only one stop is viable between Kennedy and STC. The farthest it can go is Scar. Village, with one stop inbetween it and Kennedy located smack between McCowan-Eglinton GO. There is far too little demand along Kignston/Morningside.

As for Kennedy becoming a mega-terminus, part of the problem is that it already is that; it is way too high in traffic right now. Some people like Steve Munro thinks that this is a good place to end the line; I disagree with this, it should go at least one stop further to Eglinton GO to allow large alleviation at Kennedy.

As a subway, it is quite complicated to route Eglinton in a way that would allow both a stop at Kennedy and at the same time accomodating the turning radius to get along the STC alignment. There is a way to do this; I will post the image for you, because I already have it on line, but before I do that, what is your plan for making the Eglinton subway do such a sharp turn?

The SRT could be extended southwards via Scarborough GO to Kingston Rd. Even a potential Queen Line could be interlined into this location, effortlessly taking commuters from Scarbourough right into the heart of the city (no more need for Bloor-Yonge as an interchange).
Unless you are going to route the Queen Line along Kingston Rd. from Coxwell, you will not be able to get it to Scarborough GO.

However, I do agree with the idea of extending the SRT (as is, not as a subway) to Scarborough GO.



Fixating on the technology isn't all that significant. If vehicles are designed only to be compatible with one particular line, then efforts should be made to maintain that compatibility NOT instead taking the more drastic approach of dismantling an entire line's trackbed (plus the whole elevated portion would have to be demolished and redone).

[And this reflects the implications of preserving an unique mode of transit on what would be a stand-alone line and NOT generic T1s on Sheppard, so please no mind games]
Except you are ignoring the benefits of system optimization through efficient fleet management by reducing the variety of technologies that the system must look after. It is way cheaper if standard HRVs and LRVs are all the rail division has to look after; this is arguably a problem with Transit City in that it is adding a new LRV model to the fleet; but there is a very good argument for it at the same time, so this is justifiable, but the SRT technology isn't because the LRVs are actually superior and cheaper.

But that drastically pales in comparison to YUS or BD. Even brand new lines along Eglinton and Queen would outpreform that figure on their opening days. This is why I'm overjoyed extending the Sheppard Line seems all but dead at this point. The last nail in the coffin will be when 4-car T1s no longer arrive at Sheppard-Yonge Stn.
That's an low benchmark though, because it is a minimum threshold.

LRT is more than enough to handle this type of modest, medium-sized commuter demands such as this. And with it's potential to merge into the SRT at Malvern Town Centre, commuters would actually be getting a better-than-subway level of service, since any subway built out to Malvern would most likely consist of kilometre apart spacing that's of no benefit to hardly anyone without waiting to board a feeder bus first.
If you are suggesting the SRT should be converted to LRT, then we agree, but LRT needs a network in the northern end and longer trains between STC and Kennedy; possibly with some express services, but this requires some passing tracks to be added to the existing line at stations. If there's only one LRT through to northeast Scarborough from Kennedy, then there is going to a problem eventually; this is why the Morningside LRT becomes important.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,641 Posts
Is SRT slower than a subway?....no.
The reason people hate it is because of the transfer required at Kennedy. It's a pain in the ass as people hate to transfer.
Sheppard will be nothing but a series of transfers, I for one would rather just get on one semi-express line like Vancouver's BLine all the way from Malvern to Jane than transfering every 5 minutes. You don't want TTC to stand for Toronto Transfer Comission.

I still say not to extend the subway but transfer the whole subway over to LRT and then extend the LRT all the way to Jane to make it a true east/west rapid transit to make it a true alternative to the car. It could be done in 2 or three phases.

Yes, it would have an expense but could be done relativly fast and be done by the time the Sheppard West LRT. When you consider that even extending the Sheppard line just one KM will cost about $200-250 million and take atleast three years it will be just as cheap if not cheaper to transfer the subway to LRT and probably could be done faster.
It will also be one-third the price to extend the line west to the Jane LRT as LRT than subway which would cost a small fortune which means it won't be built for ages.
 

·
Welcome to the Rail World
Joined
·
4,671 Posts
Is SRT slower than a subway?....no.
The reason people hate it is because of the transfer required at Kennedy. It's a pain in the ass as people hate to transfer.
Is SRT faster than subway or LRT if using the same alignment (except turns in the subway's case, since they're impossible)? No.
The transfer is a big problem, but it is not the biggest flaw of the SRT; it is a joke because it is a dinky train with no capacity, and poor headways due to its terminal design. It also loathed by TTC for the extra costs it stresses the system with.
Sheppard will be nothing but a series of transfers, I for one would rather just get on one semi-express line like Vancouver's BLine all the way from Malvern to Jane than transfering every 5 minutes. You don't want TTC to stand for Toronto Transfer Comission.
True, but at the same time you have to think about the financial investment made already and whether or not it can serve a purpose; by swinging it south at Vic Park, it can become the northern end of the DRL. Most people are not going to be travelling from Sheppard and Markham to Sheppard and Keele (or Jane, or Dufferin, doesn't matter, you get my point). They are going to transfer to a subway or possibly the Don Mills Line. For those that are travelling within the Sheppard corridor (with their final destination and point of origin both on or near Sheppard Ave.), those trips will be local rather than long distance.
As for cross-town travel, I would suggest running it into the Finch Line at 404. That gives the exact same effect you are talking about and BETTER; it will take you from Malvern to Humber College North Campus or possibly the airport (I don't know if that's really a good idea though, I'd rather see Finch LRT go to Bramalea City Centre).

I still say not to extend the subway but transfer the whole subway over to LRT and then extend the LRT all the way to Jane to make it a true east/west rapid transit to make it a true alternative to the car. It could be done in 2 or three phases.
Finch is a lot simpler because no conversion is required and delivers the same results; all that is needed is that trackage on the east side of the 404 where space already exists; it can also have a stop along it at Van Horne.

Yes, it would have an expense but could be done relativly fast and be done by the time the Sheppard West LRT. When you consider that even extending the Sheppard line just one KM will cost about $200-250 million and take atleast three years it will be just as cheap if not cheaper to transfer the subway to LRT and probably could be done faster.
It will also be one-third the price to extend the line west to the Jane LRT as LRT than subway which would cost a small fortune which means it won't be built for ages.
The price of extending the subway and creating the underground transfer at Don Mills is identical in terms of tunneling; the station at Consumers would be more expensive as a subway but that's the only difference between the two. So the subway conversion is only an additional cost, not a savings, because there will definately be a tunnel under the 404 no matter what happens. I prefer that tunnel be a subway to allow the LRT to swing north along the east side of the 404 to meet Finch LRT and form a cross-town.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
687 Posts
I hope it is something like that with through-service, but nobody knows yet; what bothers me is based on what I've been hearing from people that are watching it closely is that the TTC is rather focused on making Kennedy a big transfer point.
Kennedy already is a big transfer. Eglinton-Crosstown is the final touch it needs. However I have to believe the E-C/S-M split is only in name only, given they'd be sharing the same ROW and vehicles. Much like the 34 bus split at Kennedy today, 34C turns back west after Kennedy while the 34A routes less frequently out to Kingston Rd.

As mentioned earlier though, UTSC by subway is a non-starter. Too much parklands along the way, and will make over-crowding worse, too.
Too much parkland? Morningside Park only occupies one-half of the land area between Ellesmere and Lawrence on Morningside, and this is occuring at a drop in elevation from road level. Routing directly underneath the roadway the subway can jut out at the Morningside Ave. bridge and veer northeast directly into campus grounds (as it'd be a terminii station).

UTSC as the easternmost stop in the whole system has interregional potential with Durham via Hwy 2 (Kingston Rd). What's more around 13, 000 students (UTSC and Centennial College Ellesmere Campus combined) are concentrated in this area; Centenary, Malvern, Morningside Hts and the Zoo would be a short bus ride away. Furthermore, en route the line would also hit two major points of interest: West Hill- major commercial/residential area fed by the 54 bus and Guildwood- re-aligned 116 bus plus GO/VIA trains, major transit hub.

If the Sheppard Line doesn't integrate into a downtown-bound line, like the northern end of a downtown releif loop, then that's true; but if it does go downtown from the VP/401 area, then it becomes a viable line that can alleviate Yonge as well as BD.
So you're suggesting a subway run down Victoria Park then? Seems my proposal to veer a Queen subway up VP doesn't sound too far-fetched afterall :yes:.

The goal should be to get people to use feeder buses rather than Park'n'ride, since parking lots poison communities and make station value a lot less than it should be.
Malvern has five routes running through it- 39/139, 131, 132, 133, 134. That doesn't ignore the fact that the north lot of the Malvern Town Centre (adjacent McLevin and the rail corridor) is still rolling pastures where about 200 spaces could be created. Remember balance is key, some customers will demand park 'n' ride services no matter what.

Preferrably I'd recommend an underground station at Malvern, to allot easier access to the rail corridor ROW and to eliminate eyesore NIMBY complaints between Sheppard/Progress and Neilson/McLevin.

There's a valid argument for it, except the politics I don't think will ever agree with it; nor will existing TTC policy that prohibis service reductions; even though service would actually increase, the politics will still work against that to make sure it looks like a downgrading of service. The politics matter a lot because the commission is made up of politicians.
Why do you think Mike Harris filled in the Eglinton West excavation? To prove a point. Nothing stays in stasis, new gov'ts can reprimand and reform the follies of past ones. The "stubway" should be one of them.

I live in Brampton and whenever I need to head into Scarborough I can't seem to do it via the Sheppard Line. It's faster and more convenient for me to use YRT VIVA BRT service all the way across Hwy 7 to McCowan then head south. And that takes 2 hours! That's just to show you how useless it is. It offers no relief to long-distance commuters or even Sheppard local where walk-in patronage is next to zilch (thank goodness for Fairview Mall). If this is the precedent the TTC wants to set for its customer base, they should be prepared for a drop in ridership.

The Danforth-McCowan alignment is problematic since only one stop is viable between Kennedy and STC. The farthest it can go is Scar. Village, with one stop inbetween it and Kennedy located smack between McCowan-Eglinton GO. There is far too little demand along Kignston/Morningside.
If BD extends to SCC it'd follow the Danforth-McCowan alignment (tracks already are facing eastwards). Scarborough General Hosp. would get a stop and the new SCC station would likely be a lot further southeast than it is today (nullifying McCowan SRT and creating a better transfer point with the 95 bus).

Eglinton subway east of Kennedy would be: Midland (provided that Kennedy-Eglinton Stn is located directly at Ken/Eg NOT the rail corridor), Brimley-Danforth, Bellamy/Eg GO, Markham, Scar.Golf Club, Guildwood, Galloway, Kingston/Morningside, UTSC.

Expendible- Midland, Galloway ONLY, although both stops would have a walk-in base numbering in the thousands daily and get 57/12/20 passengers access to a subway line in less time. SGC and Guildwood would have decent traffic from the GO/VIA/116 services and large walk-in base from the Guildwood community (condos, townhouses, high rise apts). Morningside would have only one station on itself, but it'd be centric to all of the West Hill triangle (Morningside/Kingston/Lawrence East). With high rises, malls and a retail strip, this location is destined to take off. Furthermore, the very high-capacity 54 Lawrence East and 86 Scarborough buses would feed directly into this stop, minimizing the distance 54ers have to travel to reach a subway.

As for Kennedy becoming a mega-terminus, part of the problem is that it already is that; it is way too high in traffic right now. Some people like Steve Munro thinks that this is a good place to end the line; I disagree with this, it should go at least one stop further to Eglinton GO to allow large alleviation at Kennedy.
Kennedy<-->Bellamy is a monster gap between stops. Spacing gaps like these should not be emulated. The number of Scarberians boarding/extiing at Kennedy will decrease once the Eglinton Subway's built. This is how the BD line is relieved, as more customers will opt to stay on the Eglinton Line onwards to Yonge Street rather than interchnge here. It's a faster commute for them as it's continuous and uninterrupted. I believe many of the present routes through Kennedy will be rerouted or eliminated once EC/SM is complete.

As a subway, it is quite complicated to route Eglinton in a way that would allow both a stop at Kennedy and at the same time accomodating the turning radius to get along the STC alignment. There is a way to do this; I will post the image for you, because I already have it on line, but before I do that, what is your plan for making the Eglinton subway do such a sharp turn?
Sure post it, knowledge should be shared :yes:. Because Upper Kennedy's already aligned east-west, I was thinking to start the climb of Eglinton-Crosstown's guideway from Birchmount Road such that by the SRT station the trackbed's completely level with what's already in place. The turning radii would mirror today's SRT, maybe less screechy.

Of course that's just if we aligned Eglinton subway with the current SRT and had BD running east on Eglinton thereafter to UTSC. Otherwise Kennedy-Eglinton would just be another stop along the line with a interchange, ownards east to UTSC for Eglinton subway.

Unless you are going to route the Queen Line along Kingston Rd. from Coxwell, you will not be able to get it to Scarborough GO.
That can be arranged. As I've stated before, Coxwell-Queen is the last major station that need be in that alignment. The subway could veer northwards or northeastwards from that point. It's only out of convenience to Beaches residents that I'd extend the line east along Queen to Blantyre then veer up towards Victoria Park Stn and beyond.

Where Queen ends however it is possible to veer the line at a 60° angle, through the Toronto Hunt Club, to merge it with the Kingston Rd alignment just before reaching Warden Ave. That alignment may prove even more valuable then veering up VP (since as you've said it be quite a jog for pedestrians to access Danforth GO from a Gerrard Stn). So overlooking that Lakeshore East GO connection, we do the next best thing and place a stop directly at Scarborough GO. En route only a few stops: Warden/Kingston, Birchmount, Cliffside (just north of Danforth), [email protected], and Scarborough GO. Hence the Kingston Rd corridor and dense Cliffside/crest areas gain subway access leading directly into the downtown, while also creating a real side-by-side link between GO and subway at the GO stn.

However, I do agree with the idea of extending the SRT (as is, not as a subway) to Scarborough GO.
Yes that whole southwestern area of Scarborough seems so remote with its milieu of limited-service routes- 9, 12b, 20, 69, 113, 135. Extending the SRT just might kick-start some redevelopments there.

Except you are ignoring the benefits of system optimization through efficient fleet management by reducing the variety of technologies that the system must look after. It is way cheaper if standard HRVs and LRVs are all the rail division has to look after; this is arguably a problem with Transit City in that it is adding a new LRV model to the fleet; but there is a very good argument for it at the same time, so this is justifiable, but the SRT technology isn't because the LRVs are actually superior and cheaper.
Hey I'm no ITCS fan, contrary to what you might think. I just think after 23 years of use, measures should be implemented to extend its utility. Much like your advocacy for LRVs. To convert to subway would take too long (36-48 months). Commuters would be stuck on overcrowded feeder buses. The justification for a subway just isn't there yet and when I realized that in addition to upgrading the line, it'd also be extended into Malvern, there's no way I could object to keeping ITCS around. If it was just a reno to the existing infrastructure I'd advocate a subway extension instead.

That's an low benchmark though, because it is a minimum threshold.
But still there's far more deserving corridors that have yet to recieve subway lines. When places like Lakeshore-Queen-Kingston and Eglinton-Crosstown can amass 200,000 ppd or around 20,000 pphpd, then it's corridors like that we invest in. The "stubway" even if built out to its full original parameters (Downsview-Scarborough Centre) still neglects more than half of the Sheppard corridor (Weston to Port Union/Kingston) and is still useless for cross-city travel without a series of transfers before and after riding the "stub". Kicking the Finch/Finch Hydro LRT into high gear, clear across the city (Humber College-Metro Zoo) would benefit far more people than keeping the "stub" alive.

If you are suggesting the SRT should be converted to LRT, then we agree, but LRT needs a network in the northern end and longer trains between STC and Kennedy; possibly with some express services, but this requires some passing tracks to be added to the existing line at stations. If there's only one LRT through to northeast Scarborough from Kennedy, then there is going to a problem eventually; this is why the Morningside LRT becomes important.
Morningside LRT would be incorporated into the Eglinton subway to UTSC. North of UTSC, new express routes could feed into Malvern in addition to existing services. You can't have a streetcar ROW along the median of Morningside, the roadway's too narrow and experiences several grade changes.

The SRT will eventually have to be replaced, especially if (and I hope they do) they incorporate the Sheppard East LRT with the SRT at Malvern Town Centre. That'd complete a massive LRT loop from NYCC to Kennedy/Eglinton, becoming a "subway" in it's own right. But for now, keeping it as is means the money they'd spend refitting the SRT ROW for new LRT vehicles is instead being spent to get us a 10km extension out to Bellamy, Progress Campus, Milner, Sheppard/Washburn and Malvern Town Centre, with even an infill at Brimley Rd. The brand new sections will be designed to accomodate LRT vehicles in the future such that it's only the original SRT line that needs refurbishing. Hence the pros far outweigh the cons in my book :eek:kay:!
 

·
Welcome to the Rail World
Joined
·
4,671 Posts
Kennedy already is a big transfer. Eglinton-Crosstown is the final touch it needs. However I have to believe the E-C/S-M split is only in name only, given they'd be sharing the same ROW and vehicles. Much like the 34 bus split at Kennedy today, 34C turns back west after Kennedy while the 34A routes less frequently out to Kingston Rd.
The fact that they chose Kennedy as the split point is what makes me suspicious that it might not be in name only, since Guildwood GO arguably is a better fit since it could also act as the terminus of the Kingston Rd. car which is going to start construction soon on its extension to Scar. Village. Eglinton Crosstown at the start is going to have an interesting relationship at Kennedy because it is going to act as a terminus for that line; Eglinton is going to be completed and opened for service before Morningside, that's decided already by the funding arrangements and evaluations made so far. This may make Kennedy more of a mess than it already is. The point is, which I think you might have missed, is that big transfer points are bad; high levels of demand are good only to a point, if they go above a certain level, and Kennedy's is among the highest in the system (it is about equivalent to Yonge-Eglinton station and close to Union Subway's level as well), then it will cause problems. This is why it would help if an extension to take some of the feeders to another location.



Too much parkland? Morningside Park only occupies one-half of the land area between Ellesmere and Lawrence on Morningside, and this is occuring at a drop in elevation from road level. Routing directly underneath the roadway the subway can jut out at the Morningside Ave. bridge and veer northeast directly into campus grounds (as it'd be a terminii station).
You are not understanding what I am getting at; take a look at a map, you are talking about servicing a corridor that is sandwhiched between Highland Creek and the Lake, with an extremely small number of roads crossing Highland Creek. This is an extremely poor candidate for subway by geography alone. Besides, this area already enjoys GO Train service all day everyday and will be getting SuperGO in addition to LRT service. LRT is far better suited for this kind of geography and the demand levels that this geography will create. LRT will probably integrate better with the GO Train while being much easier to construct.

UTSC as the easternmost stop in the whole system has interregional potential with Durham via Hwy 2 (Kingston Rd). What's more around 13, 000 students (UTSC and Centennial College Ellesmere Campus combined) are concentrated in this area; Centenary, Malvern, Morningside Hts and the Zoo would be a short bus ride away. Furthermore, en route the line would also hit two major points of interest: West Hill- major commercial/residential area fed by the 54 bus and Guildwood- re-aligned 116 bus plus GO/VIA trains, major transit hub.
VIA is an extremely small fish for the TTC, it isn't really something that would be on their radar.
Some of the ridership sources you are citing are seasonal, most notably the Zoo, not a stable source of rides. The biggest factor here though is, like I said before, the geography. You could probably get enough feeders in this part of town, but there are other issues that make it grossly impractical.



So you're suggesting a subway run down Victoria Park then? Seems my proposal to veer a Queen subway up VP doesn't sound too far-fetched afterall :yes:.
No, you weren't reading anything I said, I said as part of a downtown relief loop; that means that it turns off VP at Eglinton and swings via OSC and Pape Ave., Kingston Sub before it touches Queen. You were talking about a separate 3-stop dinky subway terminating at VP/Danforth and VP/Queen with an intermediate stop at Gerrard. You said you were going to make it a transfer before, too, since we have both agreed that you cannot veer a subway up VP since the turn required is impossible.



Malvern has five routes running through it- 39/139, 131, 132, 133, 134. That doesn't ignore the fact that the north lot of the Malvern Town Centre (adjacent McLevin and the rail corridor) is still rolling pastures where about 200 spaces could be created. Remember balance is key, some customers will demand park 'n' ride services no matter what.
Wait until the price of gas doubles again from today's levels next summer. Park'n'ride will be as dead as the dodo.

Preferrably I'd recommend an underground station at Malvern, to allot easier access to the rail corridor ROW and to eliminate eyesore NIMBY complaints between Sheppard/Progress and Neilson/McLevin.
I thought you didn't care about NIMBY's, why the change of heart? :poke:



Why do you think Mike Harris filled in the Eglinton West excavation? To prove a point. Nothing stays in stasis, new gov'ts can reprimand and reform the follies of past ones. The "stubway" should be one of them.
:sleepy: These kinds of statements really don't put you in the kindest light; first off, the policy in question was enacted post-Harris, after Sheppard was done, and secondly, the Eglinton was buried before it opened, and that is the BIG factor here that you are not taking into consideration. The stubway is open and operational. That makes it an entirely different ballgame, the fact of the matter is you are not making valid comparison because it is not the same situation at all, it completely misses the argument altogether.

I live in Brampton and whenever I need to head into Scarborough I can't seem to do it via the Sheppard Line. It's faster and more convenient for me to use YRT VIVA BRT service all the way across Hwy 7 to McCowan then head south. And that takes 2 hours! That's just to show you how useless it is. It offers no relief to long-distance commuters or even Sheppard local where walk-in patronage is next to zilch (thank goodness for Fairview Mall). If this is the precedent the TTC wants to set for its customer base, they should be prepared for a drop in ridership.
The TTC is not designed to get people from suburb to suburb, the TTC is designed for getting you around from within Toronto to somewhere else within Toronto. If you want to go from suburb to suburb, maybe the 407 GO service is worth considering, or if you are coming from Brampton perhaps the York Mills bus via 401 and then Oshawa Hwy2 bus to SCC? GO is designed for navigating the suburbs. VIVA isn't either, but if coming from Brampton it is well situated if your destination is north-east Metro.



Eglinton subway east of Kennedy would be: Midland (provided that Kennedy-Eglinton Stn is located directly at Ken/Eg NOT the rail corridor), Brimley-Danforth, Bellamy/Eg GO, Markham, Scar.Golf Club, Guildwood, Galloway, Kingston/Morningside, UTSC.
This is too tight for a subway. If you want spacings that tight, LRT is better suited for it.

Expendible- Midland, Galloway ONLY, although both stops would have a walk-in base numbering in the thousands daily and get 57/12/20 passengers access to a subway line in less time. SGC and Guildwood would have decent traffic from the GO/VIA/116 services and large walk-in base from the Guildwood community (condos, townhouses, high rise apts).
Guildwood, maybe, but SGC? What makes you want to put a station there? Of all non-sensical places, this one is pretty shocking. Again, you have to stop treating VIA like it is going to be some big source of riders; it won't be. GO will already have been connected to at Eglinton GO; and this is part of the reason why LRT will be plenty for the Kingston Road portion; there isn't much point for the subway to duplicate GO to this degree. The DRL works because GO only connects with it once on route. You are now connecting to two consequetive GO Stations on the same line with the same subway. This creates a conflict. GO would raise a huge stink over this, and Metrolinx might be tempted to scoff at it as well.
I'd consider a lot more of the stations expendible; you have to get off of this idea that Kennedy isn't located at Kennedy/Eglinton; it is just as much as Kipling is located at Kipling/Dundas. You can't put a tight station spacing in an area with such low concentrated demand. Whatever the station this far out, it is going to be feeder-sustained. This is why LRT is a lot better for this part of town.
Kennedy<-->Bellamy is a monster gap between stops. Spacing gaps like these should not be emulated.
You can't justify the costs of super tight station spacing in Scarborough. This is very purpose driven, it goes to one of the higher conentrations of build-up along the this part of the corridor (Danfroth/McCowan), and creates a great connection to GO Train along with a great alternate point for a significant number of the feeders currently overloading Kennedy. Also, don't put words in my mouth please, I never said Bellamy, the GO Station would be accessed by a second exit in a station at McCowan, not Bellamy (Bellamy has no business getting a subway station).
I believe many of the present routes through Kennedy will be rerouted or eliminated once EC/SM is complete.
That depends on how the relationships between bus and TC lines are handled. Unfortunately information on this hasn't really been provided.



Sure post it, knowledge should be shared :yes:. Because Upper Kennedy's already aligned east-west, I was thinking to start the climb of Eglinton-Crosstown's guideway from Birchmount Road such that by the SRT station the trackbed's completely level with what's already in place. The turning radii would mirror today's SRT, maybe less screechy.
You should know by now that you cannot possibly run a subway through the SRT's Kennedy curve, even the MkII cars can't negotiate it.:eek:hno: Besides, this is one of the most hated transfers in the network; why would anybody ever argue to preserve this transfer?:hm:

Here's how Eglinton can interline with B-D to allow B-D to go up to SCC while Eglinton continues along Eglinton. These turning radii should be realistic, but it is still on the tight side.



It's only out of convenience to Beaches residents that I'd extend the line east along Queen to Blantyre then veer up towards Victoria Park Stn and beyond.
The same Beaches residents that aren't worth streetcar service? :poke:

Where Queen ends however it is possible to veer the line at a 60° angle, through the Toronto Hunt Club, to merge it with the Kingston Rd alignment just before reaching Warden Ave. That alignment may prove even more valuable then veering up VP (since as you've said it be quite a jog for pedestrians to access Danforth GO from a Gerrard Stn).
Do you know where Danforth GO is located? Most likely you don't. I used to live right in front of it, I can assure you, it is directly across from Main Street Station, not Victoria Park. Please do your homework if you actually want to discuss these things intelligently.
Warden/Kingston, Birchmount, Cliffside (just north of Danforth), [email protected], and Scarborough GO. Hence the Kingston Rd corridor and dense Cliffside/crest areas gain subway access leading directly into the downtown, while also creating a real side-by-side link between GO and subway at the GO stn.
Only 23% of transit users in the Kingston Road corridor are heading downtown actually; more head for B-D and are not heading into the core but head north of B-D according to EA data for the Kingston Road streetcar extension to Scar. Village. Besdies, this corridor suffers from similar geography issues that Kingston Road suffers from between northeast of Markham Road; it's not apporpriate for a subway. LRT is coming here, and it will look after the corridor well since it will be a ROW.



Extending the SRT just might kick-start some redevelopments there.
Development around Midland and Danforth is actually pretty good already today, that's one of the things that justify it.



Hey I'm no ITCS fan, contrary to what you might think. I just think after 23 years of use, measures should be implemented to extend its utility.
You're saying you don't like ICTS, yet at the same time you say you think it should be used... you really sound like you can't get off the fence here.
Much like your advocacy for LRVs.
Contrary to what you might think, there's a lot more to LRVs than the fact that they've been here for over a century. This is why I suggest you do some research before you post.
To convert to subway would take too long (36-48 months).
Try a decade... since that's the story according to TTC engineers... don't take it personally if I decide to believe TTC engineers instead of you when it comes to how long it would take to convert the SRT to subway.
The justification for a subway just isn't there yet and when I realized that in addition to upgrading the line, it'd also be extended into Malvern, there's no way I could object to keeping ITCS around.
Except that as LRT it would actually be cheaper to extend it... including the costs to convert it to LRT; an 8-month project IIRC.
If it was just a reno to the existing infrastructure I'd advocate a subway extension instead.
Which isn't compatible with TTC policy on service reductions (assuming the Danforth-McCowan routing propsed a few years back).



But still there's far more deserving corridors that have yet to recieve subway lines. When places like Lakeshore-Queen-Kingston and Eglinton-Crosstown can amass 200,000 ppd or around 20,000 pphpd, then it's corridors like that we invest in.
200,000 ppd for the entire Lakeshore-Queen-Kingston run is pretty sad. What if King had a route that long and kept the same levels it does along King itself? It'd hit 200,000 too! Proof that the WWLRT is just what the doctor ordered. A subway of such a long length should be carrying at least 350,000. I'm projecting a little less than 300,000 for the DRL, but it is much shorter.
The "stubway" even if built out to its full original parameters (Downsview-Scarborough Centre) still neglects more than half of the Sheppard corridor (Weston to Port Union/Kingston) and is still useless for cross-city travel without a series of transfers before and after riding the "stub". Kicking the Finch/Finch Hydro LRT into high gear, clear across the city (Humber College-Metro Zoo) would benefit far more people than keeping the "stub" alive.
But it will be of far more beneift to the system as well as the people if it is integrated into what may become a Relief Loop.



You can't have a streetcar ROW along the median of Morningside, the roadway's too narrow and experiences several grade changes.
Grade changes are manageable. The street is not too narrow, that is one of the easiest roads to expand it is a joke to suggest otherwise.

The SRT will eventually have to be replaced, especially if (and I hope they do) they incorporate the Sheppard East LRT with the SRT at Malvern Town Centre. That'd complete a massive LRT loop from NYCC to Kennedy/Eglinton, becoming a "subway" in it's own right.
Except the TTC is dead set on converting it to MkII... not LRT :(
The brand new sections will be designed to accomodate LRT vehicles in the future such that it's only the original SRT line that needs refurbishing. Hence the pros far outweigh the cons in my book :eek:kay:!
Say what? Where did you hear that? SOURCE!!!
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
687 Posts
The fact that they chose Kennedy as the split point is what makes me suspicious that it might not be in name only, since Guildwood GO arguably is a better fit since it could also act as the terminus of the Kingston Rd. car which is going to start construction soon on its extension to Scar. Village. Eglinton Crosstown at the start is going to have an interesting relationship at Kennedy because it is going to act as a terminus for that line; Eglinton is going to be completed and opened for service before Morningside, that's decided already by the funding arrangements and evaluations made so far. This may make Kennedy more of a mess than it already is. The point is, which I think you might have missed, is that big transfer points are bad; high levels of demand are good only to a point, if they go above a certain level, and Kennedy's is among the highest in the system (it is about equivalent to Yonge-Eglinton station and close to Union Subway's level as well), then it will cause problems. This is why it would help if an extension to take some of the feeders to another location.
An extension east to UTSC would cover all that. Every new bus terminal en route guarantees an extreme reduction in bus traffic into Kennedy. 34, 86 and 116- the heaviest used- would be ousted for sure. That only leaves minor routes which could easily be fed into peripheral termii at Brimley-Danforth and Markham Stns.

Where we're getting our wires crossed is that you're looking at E-C/S-M as LRT lines, while I'm not but rather seeing the practicality of a subway there.

You are not understanding what I am getting at; take a look at a map, you are talking about servicing a corridor that is sandwhiched between Highland Creek and the Lake, with an extremely small number of roads crossing Highland Creek. This is an extremely poor candidate for subway by geography alone. Besides, this area already enjoys GO Train service all day everyday and will be getting SuperGO in addition to LRT service. LRT is far better suited for this kind of geography and the demand levels that this geography will create. LRT will probably integrate better with the GO Train while being much easier to construct.
I'd contrast a subway through this topography to Montreal's Blue Line which partially runs through Mont Royal's backdrop. Ironically a secluded university campus there is also accessible by subway. And I'm not knocking what you're saying about LRT either, the overlap of HRT/LRT services between Eglinton and Lawrence can be accomodated if necessary. The important thing is that a subway reach as far east as Morningside to counter-balance westernly expansion which literally brims Mississauga already. And if you're to go as far as West Hill, why not go one stop more to ensure an additional 10,000+ students/some Malvern-Moningside Hts/sizable Durham customers daily have a guaranteed, rain or shine way to and from the city?

VIA is an extremely small fish for the TTC, it isn't really something that would be on their radar.
Regardless, being the only VIA stop between Union and Oshawa should tell you something about Guildwood's importance and relevancy to the network.

Some of the ridership sources you are citing are seasonal, most notably the Zoo, not a stable source of rides. The biggest factor here though is, like I said before, the geography. You could probably get enough feeders in this part of town, but there are other issues that make it grossly impractical.
You're right, traffic would be marginal, but as you've said, Kennedy shouldn't become overcapacitated with a zillion plus one interchanges. Diverting off some of that load to terminii farther east, is a good thing :).

No, you weren't reading anything I said, I said as part of a downtown relief loop; that means that it turns off VP at Eglinton and swings via OSC and Pape Ave., Kingston Sub before it touches Queen. You were talking about a separate 3-stop dinky subway terminating at VP/Danforth and VP/Queen with an intermediate stop at Gerrard. You said you were going to make it a transfer before, too, since we have both agreed that you cannot veer a subway up VP since the turn required is impossible.
But the tracks would be pointing northwards at Victoria Park Stn (BD). This always can open the possibility of extending the line nothwards, with kilometre-apart spacing (Dawes-St Clair, Oconnor-Eglinton, Lawrence, Ellesmere, Sheppard). Suddenly my dinky would then look extravagant :cheers:!

I don't see why you'd route your take on the DRL line so haphazardly though? These wild zig-zags it makes would frustrate more commuters then it'd help. What I was doing resembled a backwards L straight down VP, then west along Queen.

Wait until the price of gas doubles again from today's levels next summer. Park'n'ride will be as dead as the dodo.
:lol: So about 85% of the world's commuters will cease to commute then, seeing that railed public transit is a drop in the bucket in the grand scheme of things?

I thought you didn't care about NIMBY's, why the change of heart? :poke:
I don't usually, but burying the line makes absolute sense in this case. The Seaton Subdivision runs open trench north of McLevin. To operate the LRT line out of that trench, the line has to be below-grade for some time, starting from Markham Rd onwards. To swing it back into the Progress Ave alignment, it's easiest to veer at a diagonal southwest from Malvern Town Centre, with a mid-stop around Sheppard and Washburn. Now I know a guideway at-grade or elevated could not accomplish that, it being a residential area and all ;).

The TTC is not designed to get people from suburb to suburb, the TTC is designed for getting you around from within Toronto to somewhere else within Toronto. If you want to go from suburb to suburb, maybe the 407 GO service is worth considering, or if you are coming from Brampton perhaps the York Mills bus via 401 and then Oshawa Hwy2 bus to SCC? GO is designed for navigating the suburbs. VIVA isn't either, but if coming from Brampton it is well situated if your destination is north-east Metro.
:hilarious Wow, all of the GTA plus Hamilton has fare integration between transit operators to make riding public transit more affordable over the price of gas and car maintenance, yet... let me get this straight... you expect me to fork out BT fare, $13.25 to GO one-way only to SCC, then on top of that pay for a heavily regulated TTC pop :nuts:? No thanks. Man talk about discrimination by postal code :lol:!

This is too tight for a subway. If you want spacings that tight, LRT is better suited for it.
The spacing gaps for these stations are near double those for BD. Make the gaps any wider and we're doomed to replicate the folly of the "stubway" where a line runs beneath them but no one can find access to it!

Guildwood, maybe, but SGC? What makes you want to put a station there? Of all non-sensical places, this one is pretty shocking.
:lol: When I say Scarborough Golf Club, what do you think I'm implying? The station would be centered on Guildcrest with exits facing SGC and the Guildwood Pkwy. GP is bound to be the first logical stop should the line veer onto Kingston Rd. Kingston Rd LRT could better feed into a station here than at Markham Rd, where turning up the roadway will create bottlenecks down the road. Much like at Spadina or St Clair West the streetcar ROW dips underground north of the intersection with Eglinton right into the subway station. This is how I meet you half-way with your LRT advocacy. With the 86 and 116 shortened route frequncy will improve, as will the duration it takes someone from deep Scarborough to reach the subway. We're literally bringing it to them :).

The subway stop directly serving Guildwood GO/VIA stn would be on the north side of the rail underpass, 4102 Kingston Rd @Celeste.

Again, you have to stop treating VIA like it is going to be some big source of riders; it won't be. GO will already have been connected to at Eglinton GO; and this is part of the reason why LRT will be plenty for the Kingston Road portion; there isn't much point for the subway to duplicate GO to this degree. The DRL works because GO only connects with it once on route. You are now connecting to two consequetive GO Stations on the same line with the same subway. This creates a conflict. GO would raise a huge stink over this, and Metrolinx might be tempted to scoff at it as well.
Guildwood is a VIA station, Eglinton is not. Eglinton GO cannot possibly accomodate the extra ROW/land area required to host multi-nodal commuter rail traffic, the way Guildwood does. This is why the subway MUST veer onto Kingston, there's just too much potential demand you're overlooking by ending the line at Markham. Every stop east of there will range 5000-10,000 walk-ins per day easily, while 2 of the five could blossom into mini mega-terminals in their own right. It's perhaps Eglinton GO that you should overlook, it's a small fish in a big pond when contrasted with Guildwood. To reduce GO travel times it'll probably eventually be closed down once the subway's built past Bellamy/Eglinton, making a Guildwood subway station more relevant than ever :banana:.

I'd consider a lot more of the stations expendible; you have to get off of this idea that Kennedy isn't located at Kennedy/Eglinton; it is just as much as Kipling is located at Kipling/Dundas. You can't put a tight station spacing in an area with such low concentrated demand. Whatever the station this far out, it is going to be feeder-sustained. This is why LRT is a lot better for this part of town.
Eglinton East is one of the most heavily trafficked transit corridors in the city, from start to finish. I look at Kingston north of Eglinton, as it's extension and feeder. Lawrence could handle LRT, as could Kingston. The the overlap is marginal. At most only four stops would occur in the Kingston corridor and offer an effortless way to head westbound via Eglinton over southbound via Kingston. You agree that the subway should route to Scarborough Village. Guildwood/West Hill/UTSC is not much further but the difference is they'd capture more riders from more varied and dense catchments.

You can't justify the costs of super tight station spacing in Scarborough. This is very purpose driven, it goes to one of the higher conentrations of build-up along the this part of the corridor (Danfroth/McCowan), and creates a great connection to GO Train along with a great alternate point for a significant number of the feeders currently overloading Kennedy. Also, don't put words in my mouth please, I never said Bellamy, the GO Station would be accessed by a second exit in a station at McCowan, not Bellamy (Bellamy has no business getting a subway station).
Eglinton GO station (and all its entrance points) is located directly at the intersection of Bellamy/Eglinton. There is no way to publically access the GO stn from Eglinton @McCowan as tracks face southwesternly, running at an 60° diagonal and also the station platform ends well in advance of McCowan anyway. Bellamy Stn's platforms couldn't possibly extend all the way back to McCowan, they'd end at 150m around Torrance Rd, across from the Home Depot. Furthermore of what use to anyone is a McCowan station, that retirement village condo? No use to GO customers, they'll want direct access to the existing station infrastructures and ticket counter that a Bellamy Stn would provide.

"Danfroth" (sic) would be at the easternly exit of the Brimley station, which just like Bellamy, would be reasonable walking distance to McCowan Rd from stations in those locations.

Super-tight? All I said was Midland, Brimley-Danforth and Bellamy. Beyond there Markham, SGC, Guildwood-Celeste, [Galloway], Morningside, UTSC. That's it, I'd cap off the tail-tracks myself at Military Trail to guarantee it. 8-9 new stations east of Kennedy is not unreasonable, given how far west by contrast the BD line goes. Morningside/Ellesmere is still a ways away from Durham, yet close enough, unlike Kennedy or even SCC or Malvern to route viable local/express routes to/from Pickering-Ajax out of this terminal. Weren't you the one who stressed the importance of networking :naughty:?

That depends on how the relationships between bus and TC lines are handled. Unfortunately information on this hasn't really been provided.
Hopefully Eglinton-Crosstown will be a subway through Scarborough and take the load off BD. After BD, I envision bus terminals at Brimley-Danforth, Markham Road, Morningside and UTSC. With them routes 12b, 21, 16, 102, 116, 133, 38, and 86 could all see reassignments.

You should know by now that you cannot possibly run a subway through the SRT's Kennedy curve, even the MkII cars can't negotiate it.:eek:hno: Besides, this is one of the most hated transfers in the network; why would anybody ever argue to preserve this transfer?:hm:
Apart of the SRT upgrade involves moving the interchange down to the mezzanine level of Kennedy Stn, one level up from the subway platform. This leaves things up in the air for usages of the abandoned Upper Kennedy. Perhaps a bus bay area for Kennedy's many routes :dunno:?

Here's how Eglinton can interline with B-D to allow B-D to go up to SCC while Eglinton continues along Eglinton. These turning radii should be realistic, but it is still on the tight side.

So not only have you failed to recognize the sprawling distance between the Kennedy/Eglinton intersection and the subway station, but instead of correcting that and have Kennedy Stn. on the Eglinton Line bridge the gap between the two points, you've decided to bypass the intersection altogether :|?

Using your image for reference though, 2380 Eglinton Ave E (the building on the southeast corner) would be the easternmost part of the Eglinton stop's platform. As you can see this is not far off from the westernmost end of Kennedy on the BD line. What I recommend is putting additional stairwells facing west at the end of BD's platform. At one level up, would be the same level as Eglinton's platform. This is why I suggested a Midland/Eglinton station which would allot just as adequate access to Kennedy Go as the current subway stop does.

The same Beaches residents that aren't worth streetcar service? :poke:
Can't we all just get along? I was just beginning to forget our little spat, and you bring this up? Remember I was always for a full subway line along Queen-Lakeshore replacing the streetcar service completely. It would act as a local service line with stops occuring at every bi- or tripartitie split of a concession, much like BD. I mentioned turning the 143 bus into a local service once the line's built out to Coxwell to ensure a steady, reliable feeder to Neville Park. I didn't think a streetcar ROW for a paisley two kilometres made much sense. I didn't think, as you've thought, that residents would object to a more frequently routed bus service. That was the mindset I had. You've shown me otherwise. Take solace in that, and lets move on shall we :cheers:!?!

Do you know where Danforth GO is located? Most likely you don't. I used to live right in front of it, I can assure you, it is directly across from Main Street Station, not Victoria Park. Please do your homework if you actually want to discuss these things intelligently.
The GO station can be relocated. It's presently a 300m walk from the westernmost exit to the subway. Wow, convenient :eek:hno:! All this and you knock a sensible suggestion to create a subway station specifically catered to handle the GO interchange. Back to a earlier post, Gerrard station would be located around Musgrave, north of Gerrard to allot direct access to Shoppers World Danforth and Victoria Terrace (those malls you thought no one knew about!). Taking the easternmost limts of the present GO station as a marker, we begin the new station from that point extending eastwards til it almost hits VP. Thus your interchange capabilities are seamless.

Only 23% of transit users in the Kingston Road corridor are heading downtown actually; more head for B-D and are not heading into the core but head north of B-D according to EA data for the Kingston Road streetcar extension to Scar. Village. Besdies, this corridor suffers from similar geography issues that Kingston Road suffers from between northeast of Markham Road; it's not apporpriate for a subway. LRT is coming here, and it will look after the corridor well since it will be a ROW.
Kingston transit users wanting northwards and BD would be served mighty well by the Eglinton Line. Some of those people are probably forced to use BD against the flow of their desired commuter travel patterns due to the contrivances of bus routes through SW Scarborough (12 Kingston for instance, down VP, only goes as far as Midland, sometimes Brimley, then veers up and heads back west... route patternings like that deserve their very own :wtf:)

Development around Midland and Danforth is actually pretty good already today, that's one of the things that justify it.
And running the SRT adjacent to Stoufville GO would only see more condominioums and perhaps office clusters emerge within a decades time. :eek:kay:

You're saying you don't like ICTS, yet at the same time you say you think it should be used... you really sound like you can't get off the fence here. Contrary to what you might think, there's a lot more to LRVs than the fact that they've been here for over a century. This is why I suggest you do some research before you post.Try a decade... since that's the story according to TTC engineers... don't take it personally if I decide to believe TTC engineers instead of you when it comes to how long it would take to convert the SRT to subway. Except that as LRT it would actually be cheaper to extend it... including the costs to convert it to LRT; an 8-month project IIRC. Which isn't compatible with TTC policy on service reductions (assuming the Danforth-McCowan routing propsed a few years back).
Does it really matter who's guesstimate on the duration of time it'll take to refurbish the SRT comes closest? You've actually boostered the point I was trying to make. Thank you :D! This is why we don't convert to subway, not in the forseeable future anyhow. People need to get out of this resistance to LRT in Scarborough. Only Eglinton-Kingston North has the immediate density to handle subway traffic; but a lattice of interlocking LRT/BRT can improve overall waittimes for tens of 000s everyday in the far reaches of the former municipality.

The ITCS is outmoded I agree, however we're stuck with it, just like how we're stuck with a $3 billion Sheppard "stubway" which can't cover its own operation costs and worn down streetcar lanes that constantly need repairs. Forward thinking could of prevented all this, but it is what it is!

200,000 ppd for the entire Lakeshore-Queen-Kingston run is pretty sad. What if King had a route that long and kept the same levels it does along King itself? It'd hit 200,000 too! Proof that the WWLRT is just what the doctor ordered. A subway of such a long length should be carrying at least 350,000. I'm projecting a little less than 300,000 for the DRL, but it is much shorter.But it will be of far more beneift to the system as well as the people if it is integrated into what may become a Relief Loop.
I was being modest. In reality more people would ride the Queen-Lakeshore subway line then they do todays BD. So it'd be rivalling the Yonge Line for most used subway line. King and Queen share the same catchment area and if routed right a Queen subway line would be mutually beneficial to both corridors. All you're doing here is splitting hairs :yes:. WW LRT will not improve frequency west of Roncesvalles. By contrast the Queen Line would operate trains at intervals of every 2-3 minutes, and provides a more direct route into the downtown core. If people living along Lakeshore really wanted Union Stn as a destination that badly, they'd ride the GO from Port Credit, Long Branch or Mimico.

Grade changes are manageable. The street is not too narrow, that is one of the easiest roads to expand it is a joke to suggest otherwise.
How do you suppose we run a streetcar line down the median at Morningside Park bridge? Or up that steep, sharp incline just north of Ellesmere? Or over the 401? What happens to transit service south of Kingston Rd? Do you plan on splitting up the 116 into mutliple routes :eek:hno:?

Except the TTC is dead set on converting it to MkII... not LRT :(
I will only give up all hope that it can't be done, once the extension built and it's obvious to me that's there's no provisions for LRT. The SRT will become as usless as the "stubway" if limited to Mk IIs. It might take a few years off the grid to get the SRT corridor with the times but this is a worthwhile sacrifice. This is why we must push forward subway along Eglinton, LRT along Sheppard and BRT along Finch/Finch Hydro Corridor ASAP to fill the void that'd be created by an absense of the SRT for some time.

Say what? Where did you hear that? SOURCE!!!
If ever there is to be interlining between the SRT corridor and anything Transit City (the wave of the future) they'll make the new extension forwards compatible.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,147 Posts
just a quick question -

but are any of these transit plan actually under-construction - ie. in the bidding stage?

for example the sheppard extension or the eglinton streetcar?

Or is it all hot air? -
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,147 Posts
just a quick question -

but are any of these transit plan actually under-construction - ie. in the bidding stage?

for example the sheppard extension or the eglinton streetcar?

Or is it all hot air? -
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,147 Posts
... I like someone wasting a post to point out a double post. Lol - not really.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,514 Posts
^^ None. The Downsview-York U Busway is to start construction in July and be ready before the fall. We've apparently moved into the detailed design stage of the Sorbara Subway, but that's it.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
242 Posts
Plans for the Yonge BRT (Steeles - RHC) were complete but the porject was stalled after the government announced plans to build the Yonge Subway. So most likely, this and the Yonge North BRT project will be moving ahead soon (pending funding)

Plans for dedicated transit lanes on Highway 7 (VIVA)

Presentation
VIVAstation platform/canopy design 55 metres long (About a 1/3 of the length of a subway platform)
9-lane intersections Yikes 6 active traffic lanes+2 BRT lanes+1 left turn lane. Should be fun for pedestrians to cross

Traffic signal operations (Very much like the Spadina LRT)
Left/U-Turns

Sidewalks

IN-DEPTH MAPPING OF DEDICATED TRANSITWAY
Go to www.vivayork.com and go under Public Consultations
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
255 Posts
I hope the Yonge subway does get its extension, I think up to Steeles would suffice then York region could have an LRT and some bus routes feeding this station instead of Finch. This new Steeles station would have the 60, 53 and 97 TTC bus routes. The other bus routes could continue using the Finch station and the GO Finch buses as well. All the YRT, BRT and an LRT that continues north on Yonge could use the proposed Steeles station. Just a dream for transit here in T.O.(I have many and that is just one of them).
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
255 Posts
UTSC transit service

I have an idea for the University of Toronto Scarborough Campus and that would be to have a streetcar leave Scarbourough Town Center travel east on Ellesmere in a ROW and have it's eastern terminus at Scarborour campus. The #38 and 116 buses would be using this transit loop as well making it very well served by transit. The western terminus would be a bit trickier and expensive, but, many times cheaper then a subway extension to these two schools, UTSC and Centennial. The streetcar could travel on a ROW to the western enterence of STC, just east of Brimley, the streetcar would have to rise up on a ramp and travel north, to avoid Ellesmere car traffic, above the parking lot and the Streetcar could be loaded and off loaded at Scarborough Town Center at the Mezzanine level where the ticket agents are. This would keep the streetcars out of the way of the buses down below on ground level and one level below the SRT. The #95 bus would no longer travel east on Ellesmere, the #95 York Mills bus could go north on Brimley to STC. The passengers on the #95 who wish to continue travelling east on Ellesmere could just transfer to the new UTSC LRT.

The #38 and 133 buses that currently use Ellesmere to get to the SRT at STC could use the planned Malvern Town Center Extension as their connection to the SRT.
 
1 - 20 of 44 Posts
Top