Spadina Subway Extension

[nfitz]

This is why I'm saying "revenue could be boosted", it's an economic argument.

If you don't adjust the $2.70-$3 fare the TTC would collect on the transfer, making it payable through Presto reduces the inconvenience (known as a "transaction cost" in economic terms) to the user, which would encourage more riders to consider taking transit across the Mississauga-Toronto border (instead of driving).

If you set up a co-fare agreement where there is a discount for taking both the TTC and MiWay together (which would be the rational thing to do), this is very basic economic forces: reduced cost = increased demand. This means more riders contributing fare and boosting total revenue, making up for the lost revenue on each trip (if the price points were set correctly).

If anyone needs elaboration/clarification on these arguments just ask.

The convenience of Presto is coming whether it charges an extra $2.70 or just $1.00 when you transfer to TTC.

If the convenience of Presto increases ridership for people transferring, then TTC will have to add service. This costs an average of $3 per ride. So even with the current fare structure, someone would have to find the funding for people transferring.

And if the transfer cost become cheaper than the current $2.70, then may see a significant ridership increase. At $3 a ride ... is City of Mississauga willing to pay the cost?

[Gil]

There's been a bit of discussion with the announcement a few weeks ago that the project's completion date could get pushed back yet again.

The Globe and Mail: TTC head seeks to speed up construction of Spadina extension line

The Toronto Star: Spadina subway to York could be delayed — again and TTC got what it paid for on Spadina subway, says transit chair

CBC.ca: Spadina subway extension may miss 2016 completion date

National Post (which reported on this back in August!): Subway extension to Vaughan could be delayed as TTC sues contractor for missed deadlines

The Globe and Star reports suggest that the extension could be opened in phases with trains turning back at York University or bypassing the most delayed station, Pioneer Villlage (Steeles West). According to the project website map there are no provisions for trains to turn back at York University. Crossover structures are located at Finch West, Pioneer Village and Vaughan Metropolitan Centre. If the temporary terminus is to be York University, the trains could continue empty up to Pioneer Village and use the crossover there, or similarly at Hwy. 407 with trains continuing north to switch tracks.

Turing back at Finch West would probably be the easiest option as the track work has already been completed up to that station. It's just a matter of completing the stations at Finch West and Dowsnview Park. It also wouldn't result in drastic changes to the bus network which would overwhelm what's currently planned for the station (4 bus bays) as the most of the existing bus service to York University would remain mostly intact. The only possible casualty would be the 196 YORK UNIVERSITY ROCKET.

[Xtrazsteve]

There's been a bit of discussion with the announcement a few weeks ago that the project's completion date could get pushed back yet again.

The Globe and Mail: TTC head seeks to speed up construction of Spadina extension line

The Toronto Star: Spadina subway to York could be delayed — again and TTC got what it paid for on Spadina subway, says transit chair

CBC.ca: Spadina subway extension may miss 2016 completion date

National Post (which reported on this back in August!): Subway extension to Vaughan could be delayed as TTC sues contractor for missed deadlines

The Globe and Star reports suggest that the extension could be opened in phases with trains turning back at York University or bypassing the most delayed station, Pioneer Villlage (Steeles West). According to the project website map there are no provisions for trains to turn back at York University. Crossover structures are located at Finch West, Pioneer Village and Vaughan Metropolitan Centre. If the temporary terminus is to be York University, the trains could continue empty up to Pioneer Village and use the crossover there, or similarly at Hwy. 407 with trains continuing north to switch tracks.

Turing back at Finch West would probably be the easiest option as the track work has already been completed up to that station. It's just a matter of completing the stations at Finch West and Dowsnview Park. It also wouldn't result in drastic changes to the bus network which would overwhelm what's currently planned for the station (4 bus bays) as the most of the existing bus service to York University would remain mostly intact. The only possible casualty would be the 196 YORK UNIVERSITY ROCKET.

They should open it all the way to York U. Clearly you don't commute to York U to understand that no one wants to walk from Finch West Station to York U. That's a 20 minute walk that doesn't go well in cold nights. Sexual assault is quite a problem for young women in the area, so if they only open it up to Finch West, they still need to run a bus to York U. The 41 isn't able to handle the load from students which makes up 20000+ of the 23000 daily riders. They will still need 5-8 buses for a York U shuttle from Finch West Station.

The Finch West Station bus bays are originally designed for 40ft buses. If they plan to keep artics on the 36, they will need to make an modification for two artic bays instead of 3 standard bus bays. I don't think TTC announced any route changes with the Spadina Extension. The bus terminal wasn't design for the 36 as it is suppose to be replaced by the LRT. Since the LRT won't extend east, one bay would be reserved for the 36 EB. The 36 WB would need a temporary bus bay while the LRT gets built. The 41 needs 2 bays for NB and SB. Also the 36D/F would probably be converted to it's own route that might get a bus bay there. Alternatively, Milvan and Fenmar could be served by a branch of 165 but I don't think rider want to go down Weston Rd. It's a mess as too many routes need the terminal temporary. I don't know what's going to happen to the 107. It might be renamed for a local service between Downsview (Sheppard West) and Finch West.

The 36 might as well pickup and drop off riders at the intersection as it will take as much time collecting fares as to going north a block to enter the terminal. The 36D/F could stay intact for the while being.

[Gil]

They should open it all the way to York U. Clearly you don't commute to York U to understand that no one wants to walk from Finch West Station to York U. That's a 20 minute walk that doesn't go well in cold nights. Sexual assault is quite a problem for young women in the area, so if they only open it up to Finch West, they still need to run a bus to York U. The 41 isn't able to handle the load from students which makes up 20000+ of the 23000 daily riders. They will still need 5-8 buses for a York U shuttle from Finch West Station.

The Finch West Station bus bays are originally designed for 40ft buses. If they plan to keep artics on the 36, they will need to make an modification for two artic bays instead of 3 standard bus bays. I don't think TTC announced any route changes with the Spadina Extension. The bus terminal wasn't design for the 36 as it is suppose to be replaced by the LRT. Since the LRT won't extend east, one bay would be reserved for the 36 EB. The 36 WB would need a temporary bus bay while the LRT gets built. The 41 needs 2 bays for NB and SB. Also the 36D/F would probably be converted to it's own route that might get a bus bay there. Alternatively, Milvan and Fenmar could be served by a branch of 165 but I don't think rider want to go down Weston Rd. It's a mess as too many routes need the terminal temporary. I don't know what's going to happen to the 107. It might be renamed for a local service between Downsview (Sheppard West) and Finch West.

The 36 might as well pickup and drop off riders at the intersection as it will take as much time collecting fares as to going north a block to enter the terminal. The 36D/F could stay intact for the while being.

I understand how important the stop at York University is, but unless installing a cross-over at that station won't slow down the progress of that station which is also behind schedule the only segment to open on schedule is the section up to Finch West. I'm not advocating that people walk from Finch West to get to York University. As I had mentioned, the existing bus services should be maintained until the stations open as planned and the changes to the route networks can be properly implemented. You could route the 196 into Finch West to supplement the 41 north to York University,

Otherwise, if they can't make up the lost time and they want to open the line all at once, then they'll be forced to push the open date once again. The optics aren't exactly flattering for all of the parties involved. York University wants the buses moved off site (what do the students feel about this move?) and will probably have to put up with the buses until the project is fully completed.

[shambala]

The optics aren't exactly flattering for all of the parties involved. York University wants the buses moved off site (what do the students feel about this move?) and will probably have to put up with the buses until the project is fully completed.

Granted, but York U wanted buses off it's property for 10 years now, so that's old news. Students? Who cares how they feel, it's not about them anymore anyway. There are bigger issues here at play and even bigger egos at stake. York will suck it up for the time being and allow the parties to sort this mess out amicably or not because they know the end result will guarantee them a subway stop, which is the only thing they have demanded and coveted.

[smallspy]

Turing back at Finch West would probably be the easiest option as the track work has already been completed up to that station. It's just a matter of completing the stations at Finch West and Dowsnview Park. It also wouldn't result in drastic changes to the bus network which would overwhelm what's currently planned for the station (4 bus bays) as the most of the existing bus service to York University would remain mostly intact. The only possible casualty would be the 196 YORK UNIVERSITY ROCKET.

You do realize that the actual rails are but a small component in the overall project, right? Just because they are complete doesn't necessarily mean that the other required systems - life safety, track power, wayside power, radio, signals, etc. are anywhere close to being ready. In fact, it may not be that easy for all of those additional systems to be installed on just the section to Finch West, as they have all been tendered as complete packages for the whole extension. There may be additional costs involved to get them broken up to be completed in two sections - and who's going to pay for that?

They should open it all the way to York U. Clearly you don't commute to York U to understand that no one wants to walk from Finch West Station to York U. That's a 20 minute walk that doesn't go well in cold nights. Sexual assault is quite a problem for young women in the area, so if they only open it up to Finch West, they still need to run a bus to York U. The 41 isn't able to handle the load from students which makes up 20000+ of the 23000 daily riders. They will still need 5-8 buses for a York U shuttle from Finch West Station.

Well no shit Sherlock. No one is suggesting that all of the buses would stop running if they opened the line just to Finch West.

Dan

[Gil]

You do realize that the actual rails are but a small component in the overall project, right? Just because they are complete doesn't necessarily mean that the other required systems - life safety, track power, wayside power, radio, signals, etc. are anywhere close to being ready. In fact, it may not be that easy for all of those additional systems to be installed on just the section to Finch West, as they have all been tendered as complete packages for the whole extension. There may be additional costs involved to get them broken up to be completed in two sections - and who's going to pay for that?

The delays being mentioned have to do with three of the stations and suggestions are being made to bypass them, so I was going on the premise that everything else is roughly on schedule with the rest of the project. I was basing my proposal on the premise that they can keep working as is, but if by the scheduled opening date in 2016 all that can be safely operated is the section as far as Finch West then leave it at that if they want to honour that date. If not, push the date and open the whole thing once everything is completed.

A staged opening is a possibility that was brought up, but the logistics of the way the extension was setup preclude running as far as York University without changes to the current plans. Again, whether or not they can be made within the funding and timing envelope left for the project remains to be seen. Do the benefits of incorporating them this late in the game outweigh the costs of incurring them?

[smallspy]

The delays being mentioned have to do with three of the stations and suggestions are being made to bypass them, so I was going on the premise that everything else is roughly on schedule with the rest of the project. I was basing my proposal on the premise that they can keep working as is, but if by the scheduled opening date in 2016 all that can be safely operated is the section as far as Finch West then leave it at that if they want to honour that date. If not, push the date and open the whole thing once everything is completed.

A staged opening is a possibility that was brought up, but the logistics of the way the extension was setup preclude running as far as York University without changes to the current plans. Again, whether or not they can be made within the funding and timing envelope left for the project remains to be seen. Do the benefits of incorporating them this late in the game outweigh the costs of incurring them?

A lot of the other contracts are on schedule, yes. But some of the others that have not yet been started may (or even are likely to) face delays as they come up to locations that are delayed themselves. You can't install the signals or power systems if the tracks aren't in place. And none of them matter if the life safety systems aren't ready, as you can't test anything until they are complete.

The staged opening is just one option that they are looking at. It is by no means the only, or even most likely.

Dan

[Antarctica]

Sorry to rehash or bump this topic, but here are the proposed route changes for the Spadina Extension as depicted on this map (although it has been released over less than two months ago, my apologies). Nevertheless, any feedback is welcomed.
https://www.ttc.ca/Spadina/About_the_Project/Bus_Route_Changes.jsp

 

[TDE]

Okay, I'll bite. 

108

*Hullmar should be separate from Jane. Maybe the 108A via Grandravine could service it so that 35 Jane will stay and focus on Jane only (aside from Steeles), unless the majority on Hullmar relies on service via Jane. If not, then 108A would be an idea. Maybe even it giving it its own route name and number. 103 Grandravine sounds reasonably close the other routes in the 100-series as well such as 101 and routes 104-108. The 74 Mt. Pleasant can just continue it's "temporary" routing from St. Clair to Doncliffe.

 

107

*North of Finch West Station, the 107 should service that next street south of where it already turns now off of Keele just to avoid this unnecessary duplication along the road. I feel like these industrial areas are usually deep to walk from the transit sometimes (usually 10+ minutes).
*South of Finch West Station, keep the initial detour routing of Toro and Tangiers until it meets with the 199B into the subway. Again, the Keele duplication, the 107 should be focused to the industrial areas while 41+ does Keele. Maybe Maybe name change to 107 Keele Industrial, 107 Petrolia or 107 St. Regis or something else along those lines.

 

186

*Renumber 186 Wilson Rocket to 196. More of a nitpick item, but hey since it's available....

 

60

*While I feel the 60E should stay the same as is now, pre-subway extension, by stopping at selected stops, I can't figure out why the change nor what to improve on. The majority of riders on the 60 is indeed east of Jane or even Keele. I am curious to know how the ridership pattern will change with two subway connections, probably similar to all the other horizontal routes to the south.

[drum118]

Mark your calender as open house is coming

TTC will have 1 or 2 stations open for May Toronto Open Door Event Weekend with Downsview Park being one.

October will see open house for all the stations with dates to come during the summer.

Grand Opening in December with no firm date at this time.

As of April 1st, tracks go live for testing of various system that will include ATO for the full expansion. May 1st, will see the gate between the existing system and the new open fully for the first time to allow trains to be tow to the end of the line to check clearance. May/June will see power train testing to get underway.

All 6 stations will not have fare collectors, only roaming customer service personal since all the stations will be fully Presto 100% using the next phase to be install this summer. You can buy your card or reload it with the new machines. Tokens will still be accepted and phased out starting 2018.

ATO will be fully in operation for the new extension and odd seeing no signals. All tracks are duel direction with the use of ATO. ATO boxes are located every 200 m in the tunnels and 6 in the stations.

Videos of the media tour today.

[Gil]

The countdown to the name changing on the western half of Line 1 is on starting May 7:

Downsview station to become Sheppard West next month

The option on the Star reader poll "Way to confuse people – now we'll have two stations named Sheppard" seemed odd.  Currently there are also two of Eglinton (for now), St. Clair and Dundas (does Queen and Queen's Park count? - there's a precedent there, but the two stations aren't adjacent to each other) with Finch added once the extension opens.  There are also three Lawrence stations.

The $80,000 software upgrade mentioned in the article (which the commenters are harping on) seems to be a system-wide upgrade and not something related specifically to the name changes.

I wonder if they'll subtitle Sheppard West with Downsview during or even after the transition?

I never understood the reasoning for renaming the Sheppard station Sheppard-Yonge on the Yonge line when the Sheppard line opened.  For the sake of uniformity of the station complex I guess, leaving Bloor and Yonge stations the only transfer point with two separate names.

[doug_oak]

Given that the Line 1 stop announcements now refer to "Bloor-Yonge" station, I would suspect that this anomaly will go away at some time over the next few years.

[skyfirenet]

8 hours ago, Gil said:

I never understood the reasoning for renaming the Sheppard station Sheppard-Yonge on the Yonge line when the Sheppard line opened.  For the sake of uniformity of the station complex I guess, leaving Bloor and Yonge stations the only transfer point with two separate names.

Actually, it was a simple case of what would you have used on the Sheppard line since you can't have two Yonge stations on the network. Going with Sheppard-Yonge was a simple solution to that problem.

[IRT_BMT_IND]

I understand that ATC will not be live on the entire line, I guess the trains will be cutting over at St. George (or Union)?

Are there still lineside signals for work cars, or is it 100% ATC?

 

[Xtrazsteve]

49 minutes ago, IRT_BMT_IND said:

I understand that ATC will not be live on the entire line, I guess the trains will be cutting over at St. George (or Union)?

Are there still lineside signals for work cars, or is it 100% ATC?

 

I believe the plan is for everything running on the line to be ATO only. T1's won't be able to run on the line once they decommission the wayside signals. I don't think that will happen anytime soon as in emergencies, T1's might have to fill in. That means TTC would likely be on a rush to retire the T1's early and procure an ATO fleet for line 2. Combined with Scarborough subway's ATO only system, I don't expect the T1's to stay by the late 2020s.

[Oc4526]

Found this tweet. 

 

Doors open times

[Transit geek]

On 4/7/2017 at 0:28 AM, Xtrazsteve said:

I believe the plan is for everything running on the line to be ATO only. T1's won't be able to run on the line once they decommission the wayside signals. I don't think that will happen anytime soon as in emergencies, T1's might have to fill in. That means TTC would likely be on a rush to retire the T1's early and procure an ATO fleet for line 2. Combined with Scarborough subway's ATO only system, I don't expect the T1's to stay by the late 2020s.

 

 

 

How interesting. Singapore is in a similar situation as us, upgrading their Westinghouse fixed-block signaling to moving-block with CBTC (using SelTrac, the same as SkyTrain and SRT). They've upgraded all of their existing fleet for the new system, and have also procured new trainsets to increase capacity, in conjunction with an extension to one of the lines (confirmed to open this June). The new sets, however, do not have the old Westinghouse system so can only run when all the other trains are using SelTrac. As I make this post, this is only happening on Sundays since April 17.

I have seen T1 cars with the same CBTC control unit as the TRs in the cabs; there's no apparent reason they can't be used in case of emergency.

[Turtle]

16 hours ago, Transit geek said:

I have seen T1 cars with the same CBTC control unit as the TRs in the cabs; there's no apparent reason they can't be used in case of emergency.

Are you sure what you saw wasn't the speed control box? T1s are not getting CBTC (ATC) equipment. When line 2 gets CBTC, the T1s will have to be retired unless they decide to equip them. My sources tell me that T1s will be retired at that time, and line 2 will get TRs or a newer version of them. They will not be able to use T1s in an emergency in service on line 1 when ATC starts to go live. ATC is scheduled to start to be phased in soon.

[smallspy]

21 minutes ago, Turtle said:

Are you sure what you saw wasn't the speed control box? T1s are not getting CBTC (ATC) equipment. When line 2 gets CBTC, the T1s will have to be retired unless they decide to equip them. My sources tell me that T1s will be retired at that time, and line 2 will get TRs or a newer version of them. They will not be able to use T1s in an emergency in service on line 1 when ATC starts to go live. ATC is scheduled to start to be phased in soon.

This agrees with the TTC's own reports and plans. They feel that the T1s are old enough and the process difficult enough to not warrant the installation of the ATO/ATC onboard equipment. Thus, they will be retired when the time comes to install ATC/ATO on the B-D line. (Of course, by the time those systems are installed, it will be time to replace the T1s anyways.)

 

This, in concert with the reconfiguration and simplifcation of the signalling contracts, is also why they reconfigured the TR contract to build the 6 4-car trainsets for Sheppard.

 

Dan

[Transit geek]

6 hours ago, Turtle said:

Are you sure what you saw wasn't the speed control box? T1s are not getting CBTC (ATC) equipment. When line 2 gets CBTC, the T1s will have to be retired unless they decide to equip them. My sources tell me that T1s will be retired at that time, and line 2 will get TRs or a newer version of them. They will not be able to use T1s in an emergency in service on line 1 when ATC starts to go live. ATC is scheduled to start to be phased in soon.

 

Do correct me if I'm mistaken, but I was referring to this box at the top right corner of this image snip of a TR cab. I saw the T1 equipped with the same box in use when it was still on Sheppard. It showed a green LED ring for the target speed and an amber LED ring inside for the current speed. And when the train was in a station, the 7-segmented display below showed the distance to the stopping position. I assumed that was the required console for CBTC operation, so I assumed that the T1 was already retrofitted with the technology.

[IRT_BMT_IND]

On 4/27/2017 at 5:19 PM, Transit geek said:

I have seen T1 cars with the same CBTC control unit as the TRs in the cabs; there's no apparent reason they can't be used in case of emergency.

You're seeing the display for the SCS system, it displays a speed limit based on fixed beacons between the rails, and I believe it calculates a braking curve, but it's not a CBTC system and has no interaction with the signalling system at all AFAIK.

[Xtrazsteve]

4 hours ago, Transit geek said:

Do correct me if I'm mistaken, but I was referring to this box at the top right corner of this image snip of a TR cab. I saw the T1 equipped with the same box in use when it was still on Sheppard. It showed a green LED ring for the target speed and an amber LED ring inside for the current speed. And when the train was in a station, the 7-segmented display below showed the distance to the stopping position. I assumed that was the required console for CBTC operation, so I assumed that the T1 was already retrofitted with the technology.

None of the subway currently operates with ATO. With manual operation, every train (T1 or TR) on all 3 lines still need SCS. It has nothing to do with ATO. T1's aren't getting ATO simply cause they'll have to spend hundred of millions figuring how and where to install on board computers and controls. It's simply not worth it for such an old fleet that will retire shortly after. If the government forced the TTC to convert line two to ATO within a year, maybe it would make some sense. Still, if that happened, TTC would just procure a new ATO ready fleet.

On the other hand, all maintenance vehicles would need ATO equipment to be able to run on ATO only tracks. TTC is also saying all the train stops (trip arms) will be decommissioned as ATO doesn't use them. Basically if a T1 goes onto ATO track, it will be blinded. Also, if the ATO fails, it would be much more difficult to move the trains manually (source: discussed in TTC's April board meeting).

[Turtle]

18 hours ago, Transit geek said:

Do correct me if I'm mistaken, but I was referring to this box at the top right corner of this image snip of a TR cab.

That's definitely SCS, nothing to do with CBTC.

[Transit geek]

Singapore will officially open its western extension of the East West MRT Line in two days' time. Today an open house event was held where people could take rides on the new section of the line, which as I've said before runs only using the SelTrac CBTC system. When the extension begins regular service, only every other train will continue on to the new terminus at Tuas Link, while other trains will terminate at the existing terminus, Joo Koon. I've learned from sources that trains that make the full journey to and from Tuas Link will be pausing at Pioneer station to change between signalling systems until the rest of the line is fully converted to SelTrac.

I wonder if the TTC's Spadina extension is in the same situation: if it does not have fixed-block signalling installed, and the signal upgrades on the rest of the line has not been completed yet, necessitating trains to pause at some station for longer than normal to make the switch between wayside signals and CBTC before continuing on? From this GIF from The Globe and Mail, it seems like the changeover would take place at Dupont for the time being.