Finch West Line 6 LRT

[salsa]

The one and only reason for building the Sheppard West Subway is to connect Yonge to Wilson Yard. But even building a new yard on Yonge in York Region is a superior solution.

Over a billion dollars just to have a connection to the Wilson Yard. Definitely doesn't sound like a worthy investment, therefore some councillors like James Pasternack will support it.

 

[denfromoakvillemilton]

Wouldn't it be better to skip the Sheppard lrt for a finch EAST lrt? That way you have a continuous crosstown route from Humber college to morningside. Bring the Scarborough subway one more stop to finch. Finch east is actually one of the busiest bus routes, busier than finch west. Then we can avoid having another stubway.

With Sheppard east and finch west lrt's, you'd have to transfer five times to get from northern Scarborough to northern Etobicoke.

That's what should have been proposed. No one would have opposed that. Plus a Finch LRT would have been much busier then Sheppard.

 

[gweed123]

I've long thought that, If we could go back before the Sheppard subway was built, it would be better simply to use Finch as the northern crosstown route - further north, greater density (excluding the density which has developed between Yonge and Don Mills due to the subway), and Finch continues further west than Sheppard does anyways. This all being said, since there already exists a tunnel along Sheppard, I'm still more of a fan of turning the FWLRT southbound east of the Spadina line and then linking up with the Sheppard tunnel. The Sheppard subway will never be extended, and rightfully so, so rather than keeping it an orphaned stub we could use it as part of a fuller crosstown line.

Further north, outside of Toronto itself, the 407 Transitway will provide an even better northern crosstown solution, whenever that may get built. I've also often wondered if Steeles would be a good candidate for LRT.

Agreed completely. The Sheppard Subway gums up the possibility of an all-Finch Crosstown line, but we have to work with what we have. In terms of swinging the LRT down from Finch to Sheppard, I think that Dufferin is the logical choice. It's already the right width, considering it has BRT lanes already, and it's west of where Finch really starts to narrow. It also integrates nicely into a potential connection at Downsview. Keele is tough because the connection at Finch West is already being built (much like how swinging the SELRT south at Don Mills doesn't really work), and Bathurst is a bit of a technical challenge.

In terms of the larger picture though, I think the GTA would be best served with 4 local and 3 express Crosstown lines. I know that sounds like a lot, but most of that is already in place or will be in place in the coming few years. Locally, the crosstown lines from South to North would be Queen, Bloor-Danforth, Eglinton, Sheppard-Finch, and Highway 7. Express, they would be Lakeshore, Midtown, and Highway 407. These, coupled with the subway U for the central spine and GO REX lines forming wider U's, form a pretty effective transit grid.

 

[smallspy]

This all being said, since there already exists a tunnel along Sheppard, I'm still more of a fan of turning the FWLRT southbound east of the Spadina line and then linking up with the Sheppard tunnel. The Sheppard subway will never be extended, and rightfully so, so rather than keeping it an orphaned stub we could use it as part of a fuller crosstown line.

Except that it has been pointed out time and time and time and time again that the Sheppard line tunnels are incapable of handling LRT cars.

Dan
Toronto, Ont.

 

[TheTigerMaster]

Well they could, but only if they were retrofitted with third rail power collection, correct?

 

[CDL.TO]

Except that it has been pointed out time and time and time and time again that the Sheppard line tunnels are incapable of handling LRT cars

People might keep repeating that it's incapable, but that doesn't make it true. It seems clear to me that a more accurate statement would be "the TTC isn't willing to consider purchasing LRT cars that are compatible with the existing Sheppard line".

It's bass akwards to pick a type of rolling stock then declare that it's incompatible with an existing piece of infrastructure rather than procuring a vehicle with specifications that conform to existing infrastructure.

 

[rbt]

People might keep repeating that it's incapable, but that doesn't make it true. It seems clear to me that a more accurate statement would be "the TTC isn't willing to consider purchasing LRT cars that are compatible with the existing Sheppard line".

Indeed. Many of London's older subway lines (like Piccadilly) aren't capable of taking an off-the-shelf vehicle either. That doesn't seem to prevent London from running numerous custom-built cars through them. It also hasn't prevented Toronto from getting LRTs for downtown either.

Incidentally, does anyone know the height of the Queens Quay tunnel? It seems shorter than Spadina's.

 

[salsa]

People might keep repeating that it's incapable, but that doesn't make it true. It seems clear to me that a more accurate statement would be "the TTC isn't willing to consider purchasing LRT cars that are compatible with the existing Sheppard line".

It's bass akwards to pick a type of rolling stock then declare that it's incompatible with an existing piece of infrastructure rather than procuring a vehicle with specifications that conform to existing infrastructure.

Ok expert, maybe you're right. There exists a rolling stock that fits within the existing infrastructure, which I'm not aware of. Because last time I checked, all you need is hundreds of millions of dollars to raise the roof of the cut-and-cover tunnels, lower the platforms, and extend the escalators, elevators and stairs.

 

[smallspy]

People might keep repeating that it's incapable, but that doesn't make it true. It seems clear to me that a more accurate statement would be "the TTC isn't willing to consider purchasing LRT cars that are compatible with the existing Sheppard line".

It's bass akwards to pick a type of rolling stock then declare that it's incompatible with an existing piece of infrastructure rather than procuring a vehicle with specifications that conform to existing infrastructure.

So, we should be repeating the SRT debacle all over again?

One of the major selling points of going to LRT was that we would never be tied into a single manufacturer/single point technology again - we have a technology that can handle a variety of different infrastructures and ridership levels, and for which there are a good variety of manufacturers capable of providing compatible rolling stock.

I don't like the Sheppard Line any more than most of you, but to buy LRT cars capable of running in it would be a bigger waste of money going forward than to keep it as it is.

Dan
Toronto, Ont.

 

[CDL.TO]

So, we should be repeating the SRT debacle all over again?

One of the major selling points of going to LRT was that we would never be tied into a single manufacturer/single point technology again - we have a technology that can handle a variety of different infrastructures and ridership levels, and for which there are a good variety of manufacturers capable of providing compatible rolling stock.

I don't like the Sheppard Line any more than most of you, but to buy LRT cars capable of running in it would be a bigger waste of money going forward than to keep it as it is.

I'm glad that you now agree that the Sheppard line isn't incapable of handling LRT cars!

The SRT issue was that it was proprietary technology owned by one company. "LRT with dual mode third rail and pantograph" has nothing proprietary about it. Personally, I've been on four different models of LRT rolling stock that meet those specs, built by four different manufacturers (Bombardier, Düwag, BN, and CAF), here in the Netherlands alone! So single manufacturer or single points shouldn't be an issue.

It's clear that it isn't a technological issue and that we could run LRT vehicles on the Sheppard subway, but you're right that it is a question about cost effectiveness. Basically, would the long-term costs of having an extra model of rolling stock to maintain (and of potentially having to make design changes to the planned LRT) outweigh the customer inconvenience of a transfer at Don Mills? That is a question which the TTC has never asked.

 

[TheTigerMaster]

]I don't like the Sheppard Line any more than most of you, but to buy LRT cars capable of running in it would be a bigger waste of money going forward than to keep it as it is.

Dan
Toronto, Ont.

How much would it cost to add third rail power collection to the Flexity Freedom? Or couldn't the TTC buy and LRV that is designed to use third rail collection (there are a few LRT systems with third rail power)? Of course the five stations would have to be retrofitted with platform doors, to prevent idiots from getting Darwined on the third rail.

 

[aquateam]

I'm glad that you now agree that the Sheppard line isn't incapable of handling LRT cars!

The SRT issue was that it was proprietary technology owned by one company. "LRT with dual mode third rail and pantograph" has nothing proprietary about it. Personally, I've been on four different models of LRT rolling stock that meet those specs, built by four different manufacturers (Bombardier, Düwag, BN, and CAF), here in the Netherlands alone! So single manufacturer or single points shouldn't be an issue.

It's clear that it isn't a technological issue and that we could run LRT vehicles on the Sheppard subway, but you're right that it is a question about cost effectiveness. Basically, would the long-term costs of having an extra model of rolling stock to maintain (and of potentially having to make design changes to the planned LRT) outweigh the customer inconvenience of a transfer at Don Mills? That is a question which the TTC has never asked.

I've never heard of high-floor LRT vehicles that can operate on third rail, but I can imagine that would complicate the on-street portion of the Sheppart East LRT. Although I'm sure it's possible to have raised-platform stations, I'm just having difficulty visualizing how that would interface with the street/road.

 

[ehlow]

I've never heard of high-floor LRT vehicles that can operate on third rail, but I can imagine that would complicate the on-street portion of the Sheppart East LRT. Although I'm sure it's possible to have raised-platform stations, I'm just having difficulty visualizing how that would interface with the street/road.

San Francisco Muni has LRVs that run as subways as well as on street, but it transforms from high-platform level boarding to low floor with stairs (like our current old streetcars). The stairs just mechanically move up to match the high platform.

It also runs in tunnels that don't seem particularly big or tall, using pantographs.

 

[CDL.TO]

I've never heard of high-floor LRT vehicles that can operate on third rail, but I can imagine that would complicate the on-street portion of the Sheppart East LRT. Although I'm sure it's possible to have raised-platform stations, I'm just having difficulty visualizing how that would interface with the street/road.

LRT in Calgary and Edmonton are all high-floor, in case you've been there, but those stations tend to be a bit more elaborate than what's planned for Toronto's lines.

Here are some more straightforward examples:
Los Angeles - Expo Line
Germany - Stuttgart
The Netherlands - Utrecht

 

[salsa]

LRT in Calgary and Edmonton are all high-floor, in case you've been there, but those stations tend to be a bit more elaborate than what's planned for Toronto's lines.

Here are some more straightforward examples:
Los Angeles - Expo Line
Germany - Stuttgart
The Netherlands - Utrecht

The comment you replied to was regarding hight-floor and third rail. Calgary and Edmonton don't have third rail.