[nfitz]

Zero homes should need to be expropriated for a surface subway extension. The subway would run on the west side of the rail corridor, which is lined exclusively by parkland and a dozen or so industrial businesses, nearly all of whom use the land for parking.

That alignment has already been eliminated, and would be much more expensive than other surface alignments, such as up Midland or McCowan. If they went back to that alignment, then it would either cost way too much to move Kennedy station, or by the time they'd looped back to it near Lawrence, and curved away from it well south of Ellesmere, there wouldn't be much actually on the surface, and the cost savings would be minimal to non-existant. The only positive is getting to keep the existing Lawrence East station.

Yes, it would be a good proposal IF the existing guideway and stations can be recycled. If everything has to be demolished, including the elevated right-of-way, then that prohibitively adds to the costs.

I thought demolishing the existing guideway was required for subway, between the weight, width, and grade issues.

 

[DonValleyRainbow]

Zero homes should need to be expropriated for a surface subway extension. The subway would run on the west side of the rail corridor, which is lined exclusively by parkland and a dozen or so industrial businesses, nearly all of whom use the land for parking.

If they decide on an SRT corridor. All we know at this point is that the Bellamy corridor has been eliminated (as per council motion), and it seems like there's a strong hint that McCowan would be the preferred corridor. If it is in fact McCowan, there are lots of houses and businesses in the way of an at-grade subway.

Also, can anyone elaborate on the definition of "at-grade" in this context? Like at-grade with roads, or in an uncovered trench, or just ducking under/over roads?

 

[TheTigerMaster]

If they decide on an SRT corridor. All we know at this point is that the Bellamy corridor has been eliminated (as per council motion), and it seems like there's a strong hint that McCowan would be the preferred corridor. If it is in fact McCowan, there are lots of houses and businesses in the way of an at-grade subway.

Also, can anyone elaborate on the definition of "at-grade" in this context? Like at-grade with roads, or in an uncovered trench, or just ducking under/over roads?

There isn't any proposal to bring the subway at-grade at McCowan (as far as I'm aware). The proposal being examined by City staff is to extend the Line 2 subway north on the existing SRT corridor to Scarborough Centre, with potential extensions northeast to Malvern, using the corridor earmarked in the Transit City Scarborough LRT plan. The line would roughly look like this:

Pictured below is a rough design of Kennedy Station component of this proposal, with a "loop-back" to get on the SRT corridor. The loop-back shown below are of 100m and 150m radii, requiring roughly 500 m and 700 m of tunnelling respectively. A 100 metre radius is tighter than any turn in the system, should be able to be achieved if we switch Line 2 from 25 metre cars, to 17 metre cars. This is a reasonable proposal, since the Line 2 cars are up for retirement soon. A 150 metre curve radius, the same as the curve east of Union Station, can be achieved with our current 25 metre cars, but speed restrictions would need to be in place through the curve.

The TTC previously came back with much larger curves, requiring several kilometres of tunnelling, but that was because they didn't want speed restrictions. Council has directed them to reexamine the options, and I expect them to come back with options include tighter radii, with less tunnelling, but with speed restrictions in place.

Between Eglinton and Lawrence, there's more than enough right-of-way to fit a subway track here:

Between Lawrence and Ellesmere generally looks like this. A few metres of a dozen or so properties would need to be expropriated. Almost all the properties are using the needed space for parking, as can be seen here. Expropriation should be achievable here.

 

[coffey1]

Yes, it would be a good proposal IF the existing guideway and stations can be recycled. If everything has to be demolished, including the elevated right-of-way, then that prohibitively adds to the costs.

The LRT was not without many similar construction costs.. Just the savings in the rail corridor alone could be quite beneficial. Im not a fan of the alignment whatsoever & if an actually stop were going to be implemented at Lawrence, the McCowan/Bellamy corridor would serve the greater area more effectively

But if we're looking at 2 stop's around STC & running the subway up to Malvern without the transfer at Kennedy I would say get this designed & running ASAP.

 

[coffey1]

Yes, it would be a good proposal IF the existing guideway and stations can be recycled. If everything has to be demolished, including the elevated right-of-way, then that prohibitively adds to the costs.

The issue TheTigerMaster mentioned with possible land expropriation likely ends this design in its tracks. But the LRT was not without many similar construction costs & if somehow possible to use this rail corridor the cost savings alone could be quite beneficial. Im not a fan of the alignment whatsoever & if an actually stop were going to be implemented at Lawrence, the McCowan/Bellamy corridor would serve the greater area more effectively

But if we're looking at 2 stop's around STC & running the subway up to Malvern without the transfer at Kennedy I would say get this designed & running ASAP

 

[TheTigerMaster]

The issue TheTigerMaster mentioned with possible land expropriation likely ends this design in its tracks

People keep talking about the expropriation as if it's some kind of insurmountable feat. The expropriation lands would literally be, in nearly all cases, patches of grass and a few parking spaces. Worse case scenario is that we'd have to demolish one or two of the buildings along the corridor, which is something we've done dozens of times over for the Crosstown. We're not going to let a building and some parking spaces get in the way of a subway line, are we?

Im not a fan of the alignment whatsoever & if an actually stop were going to be implemented at Lawrence, the McCowan/Bellamy corridor would serve the greater area more effectively

Doesn't really matter anymore. There's no proposal for an underground Lawrence station. This new proposal is the last shot at getting a new stop somewhere on Lawrence.

 

[coffey1]

People keep talking about the expropriation as if it's some kind of insurmountable feat. The expropriation lands would literally be, in nearly all cases, patches of grass and a few parking spaces. Worse case scenario is that we'd have to demolish one or two of the buildings along the corridor, which is something we've done dozens of times over for the Crosstown. We're not going to let a building and some parking spaces get in the way of a subway line, are we?



Doesn't really matter anymore. There's no proposal for an underground Lawrence station. This new proposal is the last shot at getting a new stop somewhere on Lawrence.

Good point & certainly in terms of the time it will take to design & build the extension, the land it question could easily be acquired.

Semi-agree on the Lawrence topic. Possible stops were still to be reviewed had the McCowan alignment moved forward & Scarborough Councillors would certainly wait for an opportune time to put it back on the table. And we all know the latest proposal is just that & far from concrete. What I do agree with is that RT alignment could alleviate the majority of the issues that would certainly cause further drawn out, nagging debates from either side down the road.

 

[DonValleyRainbow]

Semi-agree on the Lawrence topic. Possible stops were still to be reviewed had the McCowan alignment moved forward & Scarborough Councillors would certainly wait for an opportune time to put it back on the table. And we all know the latest proposal is just that & far from concrete.

Remember, we're also just talking about stations for opening day. Nothing is preventing infilling them later.

 

[coffey1]

Remember, we're also just talking about stations for opening day. Nothing is preventing infilling them later.

We should all know what the wording "later" means in a Political plan. It's either getting built now or it's not

 

[salsa]

Your alignment passes right underneath a highrise building. The tunnel would not be very deep here to begin with, how do you know that it won't affect the foundation or hit the parking garage?

 

[Hopkins123]

I thought demolishing the existing guideway was required for subway, between the weight, width, and grade issues.

That's my point. It may not actually be cheaper to use the SRT corridor as the right-of-way after all. At least the McCowan corridor brings mass transit to developable lands further east.

 

[TheTigerMaster]

Your alignment passes right underneath a highrise building. The tunnel would not be very deep here to begin with, how do you know that it won't affect the foundation or hit the parking garage?

View attachment 71889

We don't know. That's why it's being evaluated.

Maybe the tunnels to the east of Kennedy Station can be dug deeper to avoid hitting the foundation.

If we did need to avoid those buildings entirely, the worst case scenario is that we might have to build the curve 100 to 150 metres east. That might actually end up being cheaper since it wouldn't require demolition and rebuilding of the Kennedy tail tracks.

 

[crs1026]

If we did need to avoid those buildings entirely, the worst case scenario is that we might have to build the curve 100 to 150 metres east. That might actually end up being cheaper since it wouldn't require demolition and rebuilding of the Kennedy tail tracks.

And might allow for gentler curves.

- Paul

 

[TheTigerMaster]

That's my point. It may not actually be cheaper to use the SRT corridor as the right-of-way after all. At least the McCowan corridor brings mass transit to developable lands further east.

Demolishing the SRT guideway and replacing it with an at-grade extension Line 2 will certainly be cheaper than tunnelling on McCowan. Remember, whether or not Line 2 is extended underground via McCowan, or at grade via SRT corridor, the SRT guideway must be demolished. That demolition cost applies to all options. Because the subway would be built at grade, the construction of the new subway corridor would run only $30 to $40 Million per km + the SRT demolition cost, vs. $150 Million/km tunnelling cost + SRT demolition cost + underground station cost for the subway on McCowan.

 

[DonValleyRainbow]

Demolishing the SRT guideway and replacing it with an at-grade extension Line 2 will certainly be cheaper than tunnelling on McCowan. Remember, whether or not Line 2 is extended underground via McCowan, or at grade via SRT corridor, the SRT guideway must be demolished. That demolition cost applies to all options. Because the subway would be built at grade, the construction of the new subway corridor would run only $30 to $40 Million per km + the SRT demolition cost, vs. $150 Million/km tunnelling cost + SRT demolition cost + underground station cost for the subway on McCowan.

But then it goes back to whether it is the best served route. The problem I have with the SRT and the LRT option from day one is the land use surrounding it up until Scarborough City Centre. Lots of back-facing, low density residential, industrial and commercial, save for the patch of medium-high residential at Lawrence East station.

The opportunity with the subway extension is to put it along a street and promote some intensification that would help generate ridership for infill stations. Actually create a vibrant mixed-use street.