[kEiThZ]

There's no need for grade separation east of McCowan (with the exception of a tunnel from Milner to Sheppard). This is all a hold-over from when they planned to use ART Mk IIs the whole way. It's a waste of money and a waste of opportunity to actually provide more connections that matter to residents along this corridor. No stops at Markham (one of the busiest bus routes in Scarborough) and Milner (a decently dense node with lots of potential and one of the busiest bus routes out of Malvern) is a terrible waste. It's ridiculous that they are planning stop spacing of well over a kilomtre (Bellamy to Centennial college is nearly 1.2 km) on this line east of McCowan. Even with Markham and Milner in there, stop spacing east of McCowan would still be a little under what you'll see on the Eglinton line in the tunnelled portion (at around 700m).

 

[Dan416]

I think the whole planned SRT extension should just be cancelled but that's just me.

 

[andomano]

The new panels are up from the current set of meetings:
http://www.toronto.ca/involved/projects/scarborough_rapid_transit/index.htm

Somethings of note are:

- Running 3-car LRT sets, (95 m instead of current 60 m)
- Existing stations have to be expanded to accommodate the longer trains
- Bellamy Station and Bellamy Yard put on hold
- Closure of McCowan Yard, and connection made with Sheppard LRT for use of Conlins Carhouse

 

[EnviroTO]

The disadvantage of LRT is that if you decide to run it like a subway (= underground, fully grade-separated) then it costs as much if not MORE than a subway.

I'm not fully convinced that is true. The tunnel itself would be a similar cost but there is no way an underground streetcar platform like Queens Quay station costs the same as a subway station. The cost of the station is related to the vehicle capacity. If you have LRT vehicles of identical capacity to subway cars running underground then I would agree that the cost would be higher simply because the vehicle costs would be higher... but one would assume that a decision to use LRT means lower capacity which in turn means lower station costs.

 

[DavidH]

The new panels are up from the current set of meetings:
Somethings of note are:

A few more:
- SRT will *loop* underground at Kennedy, while the other LRT lines will just reverse.
- temporary bus service between SRT and Kennedy, with some existing routes extended directly to Kennedy.

 

[DavidH]

I'm not fully convinced that is true. The tunnel itself would be a similar cost but there is no way an underground streetcar platform like Queens Quay station costs the same as a subway station. The cost of the station is related to the vehicle capacity. If you have LRT vehicles of identical capacity to subway cars running underground then I would agree that the cost would be higher simply because the vehicle costs would be higher... but one would assume that a decision to use LRT means lower capacity which in turn means lower station costs.

A lot of this comes down to decisions made. Eglinton underground stations will be much simpler than many current subway stations, but there is no reason why we couldn't construct a new subway with the same sort of station design. The technology and the elaborateness of stations are independent choices.

 

[andomano]

A few more:
- SRT will *loop* underground at Kennedy, with the other LRT lines will just reverse.
- temporary bus service between SRT and Kennedy, with some existing routes extended directly to Kennedy.

I'm unsure as the why the SRT will have the loop. As stated before, the other LRT lines will just turn back, and so will the SRT at Sheppard..!

One other thing of note is that the map shows the Eglinton Crosstown line extending North along the SRT corridor, possibly suggesting interlining

 

[DavidH]

I'm unsure as the why the SRT will have the loop.

It's also worth noting that the SRT will have only one platform, so that B-D riders can just come upstairs to the mezzazine level and walk across to the SRT. A second platform would not be possible in that configuration.

The loop may be intended to facilitate this operation, since turn-back operation would require the operator to walk the length of the train (assuming it doesn't end up fully automated) and with only one platform, that could affect headway management. It wouldn't be an issue at Sheppard.

One other thing of note is that the map shows the Eglinton Crosstown line extending North along the SRT corridor, possibly suggesting interlining

Good catch; I hadn't noticed that. Interesting. I wonder if that means a final decision on whether to interline hasn't been made, and so they are allowing for both possibilities. Interlining might involve having some trains run Sheppard to Kennedy only while other trains run through onto Eglinton and therefore use the Eglinton platforms at Kennedy (ie. directly underneath the new SRT platform).

EDIT: I wonder if the provision of a bus terminal at Sheppard Station will result in a design change to the STC bus platform to provide more room for regional buses (GO and possible DRT). It seems likely that TTC will need less space for buses than currently are there.

 

[EnviroTO]

A lot of this comes down to decisions made. Eglinton underground stations will be much simpler than many current subway stations, but there is no reason why we couldn't construct a new subway with the same sort of station design.

Stations need to be designed to handle two trains emptying all their passengers at the same time in an emergency situation. Two subways dumping all their passengers into Queens Quay station would result in bottleneck and people not escaping the fire, gas, or other emergency. Bessarion station is as basic as a subway station can be built using current building codes, two unspectacular exit buildings with the required platform, stairway, and hallway widths to evacuate two full (designed for six cars) subway trains. The only way they could save money on Bessarion would be to build the station closer to the surface, get rid of the wall tile (which would increase cleaning costs), and make the ceiling fully exposed instead of partially exposed.

 

[BMO]

A few more:
- SRT will *loop* underground at Kennedy, while the other LRT lines will just reverse.
- temporary bus service between SRT and Kennedy, with some existing routes extended directly to Kennedy.

I think the loop may have to do with not enough room for a cross-track section built east of Keneddy station, especially with the sharp curve so close to the station, it was probably simpler to just have the SRT make a full loop. Also notice how the Eglinton line connects with the SRT track. I wonder why they don't just make it part of the Eglinton cross-town if they are going to do this, it would save money by reducing the need for a separate SRT station at Kennedy, plus it would reduce the need for an SRT loop, and it might also reduce the need for a car-house on the SRT, although don't quote me, I am not certain.

 

[DavidH]

I think the loop may have to do with not enough room for a cross-track section built east of Keneddy station, especially with the sharp curve so close to the station, it was probably simpler to just have the SRT make a full loop. Also notice how the Eglinton line connects with the SRT track. I wonder why they don't just make it part of the Eglinton cross-town if they are going to do this, it would save money by reducing the need for a separate SRT station at Kennedy, plus it would reduce the need for an SRT loop, and it might also reduce the need for a car-house on the SRT, although don't quote me, I am not certain.

Who knows what their reasons are, but one problem is that Eglinton is already going to be a very long line. Service management will be a challenge. Given the utterly critical role of the SRT, keeping it separate will make it much easier to ensure reliable service on the SRT - and those people transferring between Eglinton and SRT will have an easy transfer at Kennedy (just go up/down the stairs).

 

[EnviroTO]

A loop allows the vehicle to leave the station quicker since the driver doesn't need to switch ends. A loop also only requires a single platform which makes the design simpler where as the delay caused by switching ends and switching tracks means a second platform is required to keep things moving smoothly. I think the layout makes a lot of sense with the Malvern tracks lined up in a way to easily punch through a tunnel under the GO line for through service on Eglinton. I'm not sure there will actually be Eglinton trains continuing onto the SRT but they have probably designed to allow it to meet Metrolinx requirements and for flexibility.

 

[fanoftoronto]

I doubt the SRT will be interlined with the ECT. Two reasons:
1) Already mentioned, ECT will become an incredibly loooong line which will result in unreliable service.
2) If done, then the SRT cannot be classified as completely seperate ROW since the ECT is normal ROW. They will have to remove the SRT from the maps and will reduce the length of the Toronto "Subway" system.

 

[299 bloor call control.]

I'm curious why they don't combine Scarborough-Malvern with the Eglinton Crosstown. They have two separate stations for both lines at Kennedy, and running ECT through to SM would eliminate the need for this extra station. Perhaps its because Eglinton is being built with subway conversion in mind? Seems rather wasteful though to separate them now, instead of later.

 

[EnviroTO]

Remember that Scarborough-Malvern isn't funded yet so basically they are simply reserving land to be used for the Scarborough-Malvern approach to Kennedy station and stating it will run at the same level as the Eglinton LRT and line up with the Eglinton LRT.