Metrolinx: Sheppard East LRT (In Design)

[44 North]

TigerMaster does make some good points. This discussion often comes up, but no question Toronto is pretty unique for its Centres. London, a city of +8M, has two Centres. Yet we have many. But since we got the ball rolling, should we stop there? I wonder if there'd be any benefit of identifying a new CBD/Centre/UGC in Toronto. Specifically the Central-East waterfront area made up of EBF, West/Lower Don Lands, Keating, East Harbour, and maybe Lower Yonge.

Yes this area mostly falls within the existing UGC of Downtown Toronto. But an area the size of Downtown is pretty large to be considered as if it were one single unit. Example: many regard Yonge-Bloor as being a general 'uptown' separate from "downtown" - which makes sense considering the distance from King/Queen and that both areas are fairly unique clusters of residential/retail/office.

So would there actually be a benefit of detaching the Central-East waterfront from Downtown Toronto and have it become its own Centre? Maybe we could also do the same for Yonge-Bloor too. We already have an obscene amount of downtowns/Centres here and in the outer suburbs (which kinda renders the terms "downtown" or "centre" somewhat useless), so why not add more to the mix? Does it really make a difference? I do know that the East Bayfront LRT was never in the Big Move, surprisingly. Maybe changing how the area is ID'd would thus change the regional priority status for projects that fill in it.

 

[OneCity]

The other alternative is the various campuses that are being built in the suburbs. Look at Mississauga Rd & 401 near us or anywhere in Silicon Valley.

Each alternative fosters and encourages a different type of innovation and a companies culture...and both are needed. For Toronto we can only focus on CBD since we are constrained with land.

Since land price is a small component of a commercial build the companies that want a CBD will most likely be in the financial core. However, many people would like a shorter commute and having the 3 other nodes for commercial development (NYCC, ECC, SCC) should be encouraged by city planning. Just like the UK and the overspill cities from the late 40's to the 70's the only way to encourage commercial growth was to create incentives to grow these. The UK use to do this via development corps. We use to do this with lower property taxes offered by North York, Scarborough and Etobicoke. But now that's gone. So how do we encourage commercial growth here again? Or do we wave the white flag and have a vacuum of offices other than downtown? (which will lead to longer and longer commutes)

I personally believe we should be keeping the commercial designation and give property tax incentives or something similar to grow these areas.

Don't forget that Oakland and San Francisco both have professional sports teams:

•In baseball, San Francisco has the Giants and Oakland has the Athletics
•In American football, San Francisco has the 49ers (though they moved to Santa Clara, but kept the San Francisco name) and Oakland has the Raiders (though they briefly moved to Los Angeles)

However, in soccer, San Francisco has the Earthquakes, and in basketball, Oakland has the Golden State Warriors. In hockey, San Jose, which has a larger population than either San Francisco or Oakland, has the Sharks. San Jose is at the southern end of the Bay Area.

Although unlikely.. I always thought Scarborough Centre would be a great location for a cricket stadium. The demographics and demand is strong here and growing throughout the City. I remember some shady businessman was fishing to build one in Pickering a couple years back. But given the subway connection to Downtown, and the 401 access it would be a great location and inject a bit of life to the area in the future.

 

[Johnny Au]

Although unlikely.. I always thought Scarborough Centre would be a great location for a cricket stadium. The demographics and demand is strong here and growing throughout the City. I remember some shady businessman was fishing to build one in Pickering a couple years back. But given the subway connection to Downtown, and the 401 access it would be a great location and inject a bit of life to the area in the future.

Scarborough has numerous cricket grounds such as the L'Amoreaux Park Cricket Grounds. Scarborough deserves a proper cricket stadium.

Even the former City of York (with a smaller population) has two cricket grounds (one in Fergy Brown Park and one in Cedarvale Park).

There would be a professional cricket league in Canada and the United States in the next few decades (though expedited if cricket makes it to the Olympics). Cricket would be a great alternative to baseball (and I'm interested in both). However, to compete with baseball, cricket matches would have to be much shorter (more likely using the Twenty20 format); the Olympics would very likely use the Twenty20 format (just like how Rugby Sevens became played in the Olympics).

 

[Rainforest]

Sheppard Advanced Light Rail? After the Relief line and Yonge North ...

Thin red line: in the street median. Thick dimmed line: underground or on the bridge.

Phase 1: STC to Downsview.

East of Don Mills:
- Underground to just east of Victoria Park. Stations at Consummers and Vic Park.
- In the street median to just west of Kennedy. Stations at Pharmacy, Warden, Birchmount, Allanford
- Underground to STC. Stations at Kennedy Ave, Agincourt GO/RER station, Brimley&Progress, and STC.

West of Yonge:
- Underground up to West Don.
- New bridge over West Don, then another short underground section with a station at Bathurst.
- In the street median from just west of Bathurst to just west of Wilson Heights. Stations at Faywood / Wilmngton and at Wilson Heights.
- Short underground section leading to the Downsview station.

Vehicles: high-floor LRT that can easily fit in the Sheppard Subway tunnel. It will pose a bit of a challenge to design six surface stations as accessible. Either they should have raised platforms, or the vehicles should have low-floor sections. All stations should support trains up to 3-car length.

Maintenance facility: near Downsview, some unused parcels of land are still there.

Phase 2: from STC to Malvern via Centennial Progress campus.

Phase 3: west from Downsview towards Pearson.

Phase 4 (??): a branch from Centennial Progress campus to UofT Scarborough and then to the Rouge Hill GO station.

 

[wilson_wu]

I just got back from Amsterdam where they had a cool hybrid subway-light rail line.

In Amsterdam, they have conventional subway lines and they also have conventional low-floor light rail lines.

However, one line (M51) was an anomaly in that the trains operated on the same tracks/tunnels as subway trains and then came outside and joined light rail trains on the same tracks. These hybrid trains use pantograph outdoors and when underground they use third rail. There are also platform extenders under the doors to account for the wider spaces when it is in the subway.

Could something like this be the solution to a transferless Sheppard light rail line from Yonge to Malvern?

I always assumed third rail vehicles could never operate in environments near other traffic/pedestrians. Amsterdam shows a train could emerge out of the Sheppard subway and then operate in a dedicated ROW down Sheppard.

Light rail operation

Subway operation -> Transition -> Light rail operation

 

[drum118]

I just got back from Amsterdam where they had a cool hybrid subway-light rail line.

In Amsterdam, they have conventional subway lines and they also have conventional low-floor light rail lines.

However, one line (M51) was an anomaly in that the trains operated on the same tracks/tunnels as subway trains and then came outside and joined light rail trains on the same tracks. These hybrid trains use pantograph outdoors and when underground they use third rail. There are also platform extenders under the doors to account for the wider spaces when it is in the subway.

Could something like this be the solution to a transferless Sheppard light rail line from Yonge to Malvern?

I always assumed third rail vehicles could never operate in environments near other traffic/pedestrians. Amsterdam shows a train could emerge out of the Sheppard subway and then operate in a dedicated ROW down Sheppard.

I rode that line in 2012

The first issue is will the line every be built?

The second is you are dealing with 2 different systems and gauge. You have TTC on one end and Metrolinx on the other using standard gauge. Unless you convince Metrolinx or TTC to change gauge can't do it.

Using the 3rd rail has been raised a number of times and works find on many systems around the world.

Having a gap filler is common on many systems for platforms regardless high or low. The issues will be the ramp for accessibility and that will push the platform further back from the street being high compare to being low.

At this time, I have lost hope for this line, considering it was to be the first line in operation for 2014.

 

[Rainforest]

I just got back from Amsterdam where they had a cool hybrid subway-light rail line.

In Amsterdam, they have conventional subway lines and they also have conventional low-floor light rail lines.

However, one line (M51) was an anomaly in that the trains operated on the same tracks/tunnels as subway trains and then came outside and joined light rail trains on the same tracks. These hybrid trains use pantograph outdoors and when underground they use third rail. There are also platform extenders under the doors to account for the wider spaces when it is in the subway.

Could something like this be the solution to a transferless Sheppard light rail line from Yonge to Malvern?

I always assumed third rail vehicles could never operate in environments near other traffic/pedestrians. Amsterdam shows a train could emerge out of the Sheppard subway and then operate in a dedicated ROW down Sheppard.

This is possible. Some thoughts (although I am not an expert) :

1) Amsterdam's M51 is operated with high-floor vehicles; otherwise they wouldn't be able to share the common "subway" stations with three other high-floor routes. Because of that, the on-street section of M51 has high platforms. Furthermore, part of that section is shared with a low-floor streetcar route #5, and therefore has combined platforms (half low and the other half high).

Building such platforms on Sheppard is possible, but will take some engineering as well as convincing the public.

The alternative to that is conversion of the Sheppard tunnel and stations to low-floor; that would be very expensive and therefore has been rejected so far.

2) Retractable extenders are only necessary if the tunnel section has to serve both wide subway trains and narrower LRT trains. If Sheppard Subway is fully converted, then it shouldn't be difficult to just extend the platforms permanently.

3) Changing the track gauge from TTC to standard shouldn't be expensive.

4) In addition to technology, we should take into account the speed / stop spacing and the connectivity. Both pose some challenges.

It is impossible to design a long 20+ km transit line that is good at both handling the long cross-town trips and at providing local service with closely spaced stops. Either one goal or the other has to be sacrificed. I would be inclined to give the Sheppard line more of the cross-town role, and that means wider stop spacing and the need of parallel bus service. Some other LRT lines, Finch East in particular, can be designed for a more local role.

Since the BD subway extension has been cut back from Sheppard to STC, an LRT line that stays entirely on Sheppard will miss the connection to subway. Therefore, a case can be made for that line to veer south and reach STC, before turning north-east and heading to Malvern.

 

[BurlOak]

Sheppard Advanced Light Rail? After the Relief line and Yonge North ...

View attachment 101718

Thin red line: in the street median. Thick dimmed line: underground or on the bridge.

Phase 1: STC to Downsview.

East of Don Mills:
- Underground to just east of Victoria Park. Stations at Consummers and Vic Park.
- In the street median to just west of Kennedy. Stations at Pharmacy, Warden, Birchmount, Allanford
- Underground to STC. Stations at Kennedy Ave, Agincourt GO/RER station, Brimley&Progress, and STC.

The biggest obstacles are highway 404 and 401. You are tunneling under these anyway. So you have a 2.5km section that will be built at-grade. Let's say at grade costs about $75M/km, so $200M. Add $15M per stop, plus $25M per portal, and you get $300M.
Build as subway, cut-and-cover of course, it would be about $200M/km, plust $100M for stations at Birchmount and Warden. That's about $700M.

West of Yonge:
- Underground up to West Don.
- New bridge over West Don, then another short underground section with a station at Bathurst.
- In the street median from just west of Bathurst to just west of Wilson Heights. Stations at Faywood / Wilmngton and at Wilson Heights.
- Short underground section leading to the Downsview station.

Yonge to Bathurst is a no brainer and there is no alternative but to build cut-and-cover to Don Valley, and then span the river on a bridge.
Bathurst (or just west of Bathurst where a portal would be) to Downsview (or just east of it where the portal would be) is about 1.5km. At grade, this would cost maybe $100M, plus each portal has a cost - $25M each, plus a couple of stops at $10M each. That's $175M total.

Now cut-and-cover this section and it would cost maybe $300M ($200M per km). This would have the same underground stations at Bathurst and Downsview - so those costs are identical.

Vehicles: high-floor LRT that can easily fit in the Sheppard Subway tunnel. It will pose a bit of a challenge to design six surface stations as accessible. Either they should have raised platforms, or the vehicles should have low-floor sections. All stations should support trains up to 3-car length.

Maintenance facility: near Downsview, some unused parcels of land are still there.

I recall a cost of $700M to convert the tunnel to LRT. That is likely $1B now. That was to convert to low floor, so high floor would not work, but I think the catinery does not fit in sections, so there is likely tunnel modification that is required. Just spitballing, I will put it at $300M.
Subway needs a yard expansion, while LRT needs an entire yard. Subway cannot be more expensive, but I will call the costs the same.

Phase 2: from STC to Malvern via Centennial Progress campus.
Phase 3: west from Downsview towards Pearson.
Phase 4 (??): a branch from Centennial Progress campus to UofT Scarborough and then to the Rouge Hill GO station.

We will all be long dead before this would ever be extended beyond STC or Downsview, so I will not consider this.

Thus, the total difference between LRT between STC and Downsview vs. subway would be about $200M. I didn't add up the cost of the portions that are common, but I will assume the entire project would be $5B. Thus, $200M represents 4%.

With LRT, you get 3 extra stops (Wilson Heights, Faywood, Pharmacy). With subway, you get faster, more reliable, service that can be run automatically. Ask almost anyone, and they would prefer the subway.

 

[Hopkins123]

Sheppard Advanced Light Rail? After the Relief line and Yonge North ...

View attachment 101718

Thin red line: in the street median. Thick dimmed line: underground or on the bridge.

Phase 1: STC to Downsview.

East of Don Mills:
- Underground to just east of Victoria Park. Stations at Consummers and Vic Park.
- In the street median to just west of Kennedy. Stations at Pharmacy, Warden, Birchmount, Allanford
- Underground to STC. Stations at Kennedy Ave, Agincourt GO/RER station, Brimley&Progress, and STC.

West of Yonge:
- Underground up to West Don.
- New bridge over West Don, then another short underground section with a station at Bathurst.
- In the street median from just west of Bathurst to just west of Wilson Heights. Stations at Faywood / Wilmngton and at Wilson Heights.
- Short underground section leading to the Downsview station.

Vehicles: high-floor LRT that can easily fit in the Sheppard Subway tunnel. It will pose a bit of a challenge to design six surface stations as accessible. Either they should have raised platforms, or the vehicles should have low-floor sections. All stations should support trains up to 3-car length.

Maintenance facility: near Downsview, some unused parcels of land are still there.

Phase 2: from STC to Malvern via Centennial Progress campus.

Phase 3: west from Downsview towards Pearson.

Phase 4 (??): a branch from Centennial Progress campus to UofT Scarborough and then to the Rouge Hill GO station.

For the tunneled section, if you're going to do that anyway, you may as well add in stations at Senlac and Willowdale.

Both Faywood and Wilson Heights do not need stations, just consolidate the stop in-between both intersections. I also question having the line go at-grade through such a narrow road width stretch of Sheppard. It'd only be a 2 km tunnel with one intermediate station if grade-separated.

The at-grade section between Victoria Park and Kennedy could be elevated with just two intermediate stops at Warden and Birchmount. Allenford would be easy walking distance of the Kennedy stop. Otherwise not bad. We need more creative proposals like this.

 

[M II A II R II K]

Maybe more haphazard transit planning can take place, by having the Finch LRT extended east to Don Mills, where it would head south and connect with Don Mills station and then head further east on Sheppard and act as the Sheppard LRT too. So you can avoid a transfer to the Sheppard subway by just going over it on the same LRT.

 

[BurlOak]

For the tunneled section, if you're going to do that anyway, you may as well add in stations at Senlac and Willowdale.

Agree with Senlac. Willowdale is a completely separate project and can be done at any time. No sense adding it to the Sheppard West extension - it would just increase the cost of the project and increase the likelihood of it being cancelled.

Both Faywood and Wilson Heights do not need stations, just consolidate the stop in-between both intersections. I also question having the line go at-grade through such a narrow road width stretch of Sheppard. It'd only be a 2 km tunnel with one intermediate station if grade-separated.

I would put neither station in. The Dufferin station would be on the east side (to Banting). so it would be a 200m walk to Wilson Heights and 600m to Faywood. There would still be a bus on Faywood for those who can't walk. I want the station East of Dufferin, so that the entire area to the West can be used to interline with Spadina.

The at-grade section between Victoria Park and Kennedy could be elevated with just two intermediate stops at Warden and Birchmount. Allenford would be easy walking distance of the Kennedy stop. Otherwise not bad. We need more creative proposals like this.

I have concluded that elevated subway is not possible between 404 and STC, unless it becomes elevated over 404. Subway cannot achieve these grades, but SkyTrain and LRT likely could.

 

[Rainforest]

Thanks to everyone who responded.

I'll comment on some objections / change proposals.

1) If the line is more than 50% underground, does it make sense to have 2 km west of Bathurst and 3 km east of Vic Park at grade?

Based on SSE cost escalations, it looks like every km of tunnel is going to cost a lot more than $200 million. $3.35 billion, less say $300 million for the STC station and new bus terminal, divided by 6.5 km, gives $470 million per km. I do not know how much cheaper cut-and-cover might be, but if they are not doing cut-and-cover for SSE, then might not do it for Sheppard either.

5 km at grade versus tunneled can save as much as $2 billion in today's dollars.

In addition, extending LRT east and west is cheaper, even if it is high-floor LRT.


2) Some of the surface stop are pretty close, should we combine Faywood and Wilson Heights, drop Pharmacy etc?

The modern way of thinking is that any new major transit line has to promote transit-oriented development. Sometimes this is achieved at the expense of the existing users.

Anyway, the planning department and the urban scientists will not recommend a line that does not promote much TOD. One way of improving their perception is adding inexpensive surface stops in the areas where density exists or can be added easily.


3) Should more underground stations be added (Senlac, Midland)?

In order to compensate for the extra travel time through the slower surface secions, I tried to keep the number of underground stops to the minimum. As a bonus, that reduces the overall contration costs.

 

[Rainforest]

Maybe more haphazard transit planning can take place, by having the Finch LRT extended east to Don Mills, where it would head south and connect with Don Mills station and then head further east on Sheppard and act as the Sheppard LRT too. So you can avoid a transfer to the Sheppard subway by just going over it on the same LRT.

I used to like this idea, but then realized that crostown trips using a combined Sheppard - Finch route will take forever. It would be nice to have something faster for that purpose.

 

[micheal_can]

I am still confused why this is still a suggestion. Seriously, why leave the stubway as is? Why not extend it? How is LRT actually a better idea?

 

[nfitz]

I am still confused why this is still a suggestion. Seriously, why leave the stubway as is? Why not extend it? How is LRT actually a better idea?

Two factors. one is the huge cost of building it as subway compared to LRT. The other is that the they revised the projected ridership that was anticipated - it's much lower than they though it would be in the 1990s. Remember that LRT is good for up to about 15,000 - perhaps 20,000 per hour per direction if on a reserved right-of-way like the Line 3 conversion was supposed to be. Sheppard is currently in the 5,000 zone, and would increase to about 7,000 if they completed it (and that's westbound at Yonge in AM peak - it's closer to 2,500 westbound at Scarborough Centre ... and that was without the express subway from Kennedy to Scarborough Centre and the Eglinton line that might leach some of that 2,500).

There are so many other places where we need subway, that would have better ridership. Yonge North. Downtown Relief Line. Even the Kennedy to Scarborough Town Centre has higher ridership.