Above Ground Subways?

[denfromoakvillemilton]

Would above ground subway work? Would they be cheaper? Would it be Cheaper to do Sheppard and Finch West as above ground subway? What about Kipling to Dixe or Square one?

 

[leopetr]

Would above ground subway work? Would they be cheaper? Would it be Cheaper to do Sheppard and Finch West as above ground subway? What about Kipling to Dixe or Square one?

Are you proposing bulldozing a right of way through buildings parallel to Sheppard or building a subway down the middle of Sheppard?

Third rail at ground level is generally a bad idea as people will kill themselves. You'll need a ridiculous amount of fencing. If you are doing overhead power, then what's distinguishing this from LRT? High floor cars? Crossing arms at intersections?

 

[denfromoakvillemilton]

Are you proposing bulldozing a right of way through buildings parallel to Sheppard or building a subway down the middle of Sheppard?

Third rail at ground level is generally a bad idea as people will kill themselves. You'll need a ridiculous amount of fencing. If you are doing overhead power, then what's distinguishing this from LRT? High floor cars? Crossing arms at intersections?

I guess so. I didn't think of those things at all.

It works in Northwest Indiana though.

 

[Electrify]

Are you proposing bulldozing a right of way through buildings parallel to Sheppard or building a subway down the middle of Sheppard?

Third rail at ground level is generally a bad idea as people will kill themselves. You'll need a ridiculous amount of fencing. If you are doing overhead power, then what's distinguishing this from LRT? High floor cars? Crossing arms at intersections?

The power source does not make a difference on whether a system is light or heavy rail. Many LRTs use third rails, while many metros use overhead wiring. The real difference is in terms of capacity and train width, but even that is becoming more and more of a grey area...

On topic, if any extension should be done on Sheppard, I think it should be elevated above the ground. Unfortunately, els don't get along too well with NIMBYs and are an even bigger political hot potato than surface light rail. This is a shame, since els are a great way to expand rapid transit at an affordable cost. At some point this century, when it comes to full rapid transit expansion, we are going to face a dilemma: are we going to continue to build underground at an exponential cost, or are we going to go above ground and face the wrath of NIMBYs who feel they are ugly?

 

[Hipster Duck]

On topic, if any extension should be done on Sheppard, I think it should be elevated above the ground. Unfortunately, els don't get along too well with NIMBYs and are an even bigger political hot potato than surface light rail. This is a shame, since els are a great way to expand rapid transit at an affordable cost. At some point this century, when it comes to full rapid transit expansion, we are going to face a dilemma: are we going to continue to build underground at an exponential cost, or are we going to go above ground and face the wrath of NIMBYs who feel they are ugly?

The jury is still out on whether NIMBYs find elevated rail lines offensive in Toronto because we have never built any.

In suburban Vancouver, where people are probably even more property rights obsessed than Toronto, they don't seem to generate a lot of controversy.

 

[denfromoakvillemilton]

Something like what they have in Chicago or New York would be nice.

 

[nfitz]

The jury is still out on whether NIMBYs find elevated rail lines offensive in Toronto because we have never built any.

There are a number of examples of elevated rail in Toronto.

In suburban Vancouver, where people are probably even more property rights obsessed than Toronto, they don't seem to generate a lot of controversy.

This isn't a proposal to build elevated rail in a suburban area, but in downtown. Vancouver was in an uproar when they were discussing the possibility of extending the Millenium line west to UBC as elevated rail.

 

[Hipster Duck]

There are a number of examples of elevated rail in Toronto.

Apart from the RT near Scarborough Town Centre, there is the short stretch of the Bloor Danforth west of High Park and east Keele stations. In both cases, there has not been any community uproar over this, nor has it depressed property values.

This isn't a proposal to build elevated rail in a suburban area, but in downtown. Vancouver was in an uproar when they were discussing the possibility of extending the Millenium line west to UBC as elevated rail.

There is nothing in this thread prior to my post to suggest that an elevated line would be built downtown.

The east end of Vancouver near Commercial Drive is far more urban than anywhere along Sheppard or any of the places suggested in this thread, and the residents seem to be okay with it.

 

[denfromoakvillemilton]

both the suburbs and downtown. Elevated on Finch West and Sheppard and a Elevated DRL.

 

[nfitz]

Apart from the RT near Scarborough Town Centre, there is the short stretch of the Bloor Danforth west of High Park and east Keele stations. In both cases, there has not been any community uproar over this, nor has it depressed property values.

Ther's also pieces of the Spadina line, and the main railway line through Union Station.

There is nothing in this thread prior to my post to suggest that an elevated line would be built downtown.

My apologies ... I've confused the schemes we are discussing here today.

The east end of Vancouver near Commercial Drive is far more urban than anywhere along Sheppard or any of the places suggested in this thread, and the residents seem to be okay with it.

There may be places where elevated rail makes sense. Eglinton between Victoria Park and Kennedy, as well as between the Airport and Jane comes to mind.

Is it worth it though ... what's the cost of the tunnel itself? $40-$50 million a kilometre? How much would the elevated structure cost per kilometre?

So maybe you save $300 million ... and some more on stations. Is it worth it?

 

[ssiguy2]

$300 million is more than worth when you have a mickey-mouse rapid transit system like Toronto. Toronto's system is embrassingly small for a city/metro it's size.
In Vancouver , far from tolerating elevated lines, they embrace them. All new condo towers go up right beside the SkyTrain and I mean close. Some new buildings are built a mere 10 metres from the station and elevated rail. They love the convience and the MK11s are very quiet. In Vancouver it's the opposite discussion as Toronto.................why AREN'T you elevating systems outside the downtown/inner city? In Vancouver there would be an uproar if Translink/province were to waste limited funds on buring transit lines in the burbs.
They tunnel where appropriate like in established, older areas but don't waste their money on suburban tunnels to not offend the Walmart shoppers. NONE of the Spadina ext should have been tunneled, not one foot. It would have saved atleast a cool billion and would be built in half the time.
This is why I have always been a monorail advocate.............by far the most cost effective, most esthetically pleasing, and easiest and fastest to build than any technology suchas as elevated Metro, SkyTrain, or LRT and are more pedestrian firendly as they are the quiest of all the systems and the support structures and rail track are much smaller and greenery can flourish around the support structure as the rail supports block out very little sun unlike the other three systems.
Toronto's {and Montreal's} refusal to even consider elevation is why their respective system have hardly expanded in the last 30 years while Vancouver has soared by 70km.

 

[sixrings]

I dont agree with SSIGUY that often but this is deffinately an example which I do support. In Manhatten the trains are underground but as soon as you get to queens its above ground. SUre it means the Queens isnt utopia but it does mean the Queens gets Rapid transit. I would also argue that streets like jane, or Finch dont have much of a streetscape to save if any. As a result these are areas where elevated makes sense. I too think its nuts that we are building the spadina extension below ground. Are you telling me that dufferin would become less of a desireable place to shop if it had an elevated LRT above it? Its NOT VERY desireable right now! How could an elevated line ruin it. One of the things about TC was that it would revitalize neighbourhoods. But whose kidding who Jane and Finch will remain the middle of nowhere for a long time coming. SO WHY NOT GO above ground. The residents of the area are concerned about their values dropping. Without any transit their values will simply continue to drop. PLus Not To sound CRAZY RUDE or anything but arent these the places which normally the government does what ever it wants and doesnt care about the actual residents and tax payers. Im not saying screw them. What I am saying is that their fears are illegitamate and when its all done they will realize they were wrong or if anything sell to someone at a higher value. My in Laws live 5 mins walk from square one. For the last 5 years They were going nuts at all the condo development and the new school downtown. FInally they are beginning to realize that the area is imporving and they are now grateful. However if the city would have listened to my inlaws 10 years ago they would simply be continuing to build detached mcmansions and everyone for then next 1000 years would need a CAR.

 

[Hipster Duck]

Is it worth it though ... what's the cost of the tunnel itself? $40-$50 million a kilometre? How much would the elevated structure cost per kilometre?

So maybe you save $300 million ... and some more on stations. Is it worth it?

I think the real cost savings are in the stations. You don't need a giant ventilation system, nor do you have to excavate an enormous station box. I don't have the cost figures, but I think you would save more than $300 million along the post-Ford underground sections of Eglinton if you were to go elevated.

 

[unimaginative2]

Of course we should look at elevating our new subway lines! Obviously there are some places where tunnels are more appropriate, but in the suburban areas where we're looking at building lines, expensive tunneling is often completely unnecessary.

Elevated lines often work best when they're not running along streets. That's why it would be perfect for routes like the Spadina-York-Vaughan extension and the Sheppard line from the point where it leaves Sheppard to STC. There's no reason why VCC couldn't have been planned around an elevated line, just like Scarborough Centre, Metrotown in Burnaby, and countless European suburban centres. It's ludicrous to be tunneling under the industrial parks along that line. Pretty much the only section where it would make sense to tunnel is through the York campus itself.

Even along suburban arterials, elevated lines can be built that aren't particularly destructive. Eglinton west of Jane, and Don Mills are perfect examples of places where this could be appropriate. In both cases, the neighbouring buildings already turn their back on the street so the visual impact is far less severe. Here's a picture of the Canada Line in Richmond that I found in a quick Google image search to give you some idea:

 

[denfromoakvillemilton]

Of course we should look at elevating our new subway lines! Obviously there are some places where tunnels are more appropriate, but in the suburban areas where we're looking at building lines, expensive tunneling is often completely unnecessary.

Elevated lines often work best when they're not running along streets. That's why it would be perfect for routes like the Spadina-York-Vaughan extension and the Sheppard line from the point where it leaves Sheppard to STC. There's no reason why VCC couldn't have been planned around an elevated line, just like Scarborough Centre, Metrotown in Burnaby, and countless European suburban centres. It's ludicrous to be tunneling under the industrial parks along that line. Pretty much the only section where it would make sense to tunnel is through the York campus itself.

Even along suburban arterials, elevated lines can be built that aren't particularly destructive. Eglinton west of Jane, and Don Mills are perfect examples of places where this could be appropriate. In both cases, the neighbouring buildings already turn their back on the street so the visual impact is far less severe. Here's a picture of the Canada Line in Richmond that I found in a quick Google image search to give you some idea:

Exactly what I am talking about. And it would cost less too.