salsa
Senior Member
To be fair, the Scarborough LRT view is ugly like hell. I won't miss it.
|
|
|
Sheppard Line 4 Subway Extension (Proposed)
- Thread starter denfromoakvillemilton
- Start date
To be fair, the Scarborough LRT view is ugly like hell. I won't miss it.
ehlow
Senior Member
Very true, but I do like when there's glimpses of the outside world during a transit ride, even if it's raining, or during a snow storm, I like being able to see the outside and have some sense of progress during the trip.
Other examples besides Yonge: Bloor over the viaduct and the High Park area. I just find it adds something to the daily ride rather than being in a tunnel 100% of the time.
44 North
Senior Member
This is one of the things I like most about a DRL line if it were to use the Don Branch of the Belleville Sub. Metrolinx now owns it, but it's very obscure to those who otherwise don't know of its possibilities. South of Leaside - particularly over the 'Half-Mile Bridge' span - the view would be phenomenal. It would probably be better than the Viaduct in its openness, duration, and better lines of sight. From another thread and a great contributor to Toronto aerial photography:
from Evergreen Brick Yards
Another:
Attachments
Last edited:
BurlOak
Senior Member
Option 1 for Sheppard is to complete the West portion to Downsview and connect it to the Spadina line. This would give anyone on Sheppard access to Vaughan, York U, Yorkdale, UofT, Hospital Row and City Hall. Also, 1 transfer gets you onto the ECLRT or any other west-bound bus. It also keeps maybe 1/3 of the downtown-bound people off the Yonge line. Although there would be calls to extend the subway to STC, I have put in the SELRT. The cost of this is about $2.5B (5km x $300M/km plus the $1B for SELRT).
Option 2 is to convert Sheppard to SkyTrain and elevate the East and West parts. This create a line from Malvern to Downsview, via STC. Of course, the Eglinton line would also have to become SkyTrain - but this probably makes sense to reduce the closure time and save conversion costs. This way the Sheppard line could share the Jack Goodlad Maintenance Yard, just south of the hydro corridor. The cost of this is about $2.0B ($200M Sheppard conversion + (4+9) km x $140M/km).
Option 3 is to use on-street LRT. This creates a continuous line from Morningside to Downsview (probably more frequent service in the Don Mills to Yonge stretch. The cost of this is about $2.0B ($700M Sheppard conversion + $1B SELRT + 4 km x $60M/km + 2 portals x $25M).
Attachments
Last edited:
rbt
Senior Member
The straight bits are pretty simple. Challenges will be in the special trackwork such as cross-over switches.
drum118
Superstar
Not really if I remember correctly.
The current rails are bolted down to the floating slabs and you would remove them and drill new ones for the standard gauge ones.
The issue will be is the centre of balance doing the conversion to standard gauge on the slabs in the stations since you will be off set compare to the tunnel tracks.
If the off set in the stations have an impact on the current ones, new ones will have to be built. Crossover shouldn't have any impact on centre of balance if they are on slab. If on wooden ties, some ties may have to be replace, if at all.
I would go with option 3, but would take it over to Keele as phase 1 and then to Weston Rd as phase 2. The next phase would be to the airport.
rbt
Senior Member
If London has shown us nothing else, it's that a single team can do several km of this kind of thing over a weekend closure, including removal/re-installation of signalling and power. Obviously if it was wood ties in gravel it would be much easier.
The more complicated trackwork sections (curves seem to be okay but switches are challenging) however, seem to take them a weekend alone just for that short segment and often get schedule on 3-day weekends (3 day closure).
Last edited:
drum118
Superstar
Talking apple and oranges here. You can do the apple thing in London, but only get oranges here the way TTC/Toronto does things. It still oranges here regardless where things are done in the world.
The boys in Australia try to point out that they rebuilt an intersection over the weekend that had switches compare to the way TTC does it. Another apple and orange thing as the weather is different along with a number of other things.
I happen to look at Detroit new LRT line under construction this weekend and a very labour involved project compare to TTC. Track construction has been very debatable as which method is the better one. Detroit is using dirt base 18" deep with support bars about 10' apart setting on level adjustment bolts for the rails. Rebar framing is used to support the centre section along with the outside between the rail and road. A round PVC tube is used to create the grove beside the rail that have rubber molding like TTC. This method is different from other I have seen. Using the same T rail as TTC. When it comes time to replace the rail regardless why before it life cycle is up, will be a bitch and very costly. Have to go with TTC version at this time.
44 North
Senior Member
Option 1 supposes that a Sheppard West will serve as a Yonge relief. IIRC that's been debunked. Nobody will travel from east of Yonge to Dufferin/Allen Rd, only to double-back and end up near Yonge. Or vice versa; that's 7km extra. If anything, it will add to Yonge's crush by siphoning more riders from the west. At least that's my take. And is $300M/km realistic? The West Don valley is a 100ft-deep gorge, which will undoubtedly complicate ($$) things by requiring a bridge, slope stabilization, wealthy NIMBY uproar. Or a tunnel with mammoth cavernous stations on either side.
As for any stations between Bathurst and Yonge (i.e Senlac)...would residents even allow one? Maybe it was something I read here, but it had to do with Willowdale residents actually opposing a Sheppard West line because they didn't want a station with the added congestion, noise, and riffraff.
Either way, it seems like any Sheppard West would have only one station between Downsview and Yonge (Bathurst); and that any development will be strictly between Bathurst and Downsvew (which is already happening with the medium-rise stuff we’re seeing now).
Option 2 seems good, but I can’t picture an elevated route on the west section. It’s a narrow 4-lane road with a narrow or nonexistent boulevard/roadway allowance. Not to mention wealthy NIMBYs. Basically Option 2 would require a tunnel and costly valley crossing just like option 1.
Option 3 we’ll find out soon enough. I don’t think it’ll happen. After the latest news it seems that even progressive transit advocates would rather nothing over in-median it seems. And honestly, I don’t blame them. 10km is a long ass route for in-median. There would be a lot of people pissed that they can’t make left turn from their driveway.
Sheppard was built with the wrong technology, and at the wrong time. It was originally meant to serve as a northern crosstown, but disregarded realistic light technology or routing choices like a Finch hydro corridor. And somehow Eglinton has now officially taken the role of crosstown, while a Midtown GO line is still a very realistic possibility in the future.
Because of our hub/spoke system layout, it just doesn’t seem logical to pour that kind of money into a third (or fourth with a GO Midtown) Toronto-specific crosstown transit line... particularly when it’s a very expensive local-service underground subway. Chicago doesn’t have any crosstowns, particularly any suburban ones. Out of 25 lines, NYC only has one; as does Moscow. And London’s is U/C but travels through the city centre. We should be building more spokes, not wheels. It may sound a bit assholish, but commuters can travel to Eglinton if they want to get across the city. Or try to convince the Prov to look at using the Midtown line, Finch hydro corridor, or maybe 407 right of way to build a crosstown commuter line.
Looking at a subway map with an extended Sheppard + Eglinton looks like a game of Jenga, with only one block on the bottom holding up an unbalanced tower on the verge of toppling over.
BurlOak
Senior Member
Every second train on Sheppard east of Yonge will go downtown. Would you rather stay on the Sheppard train (with a seat or at least a comfortable location), or would you rather get off, transfer to Yonge, and be lucky to get a spot, let alone a seat. Google seems to tell me that the travel time from Downsview to King is 1 minute more than Yonge/Sheppard to King). So essentially, at 40 km/hr, it would take 6 minutes to go from Yonge/Sheppard to Downsview. A transfer is commonly estimated to take 5 minutes. So to save 2 minutes, would anyone transfer to Yonge rather than stay on the same train all the way downtown? Will someone at Don Mills actually wait the extra 4 minutes (plus the 2 minutes) to get on a Spadina bound train rather than make the transfer to Yonge? For anyone going to City Hall, Hospital Row, Queens Park, U of T, it would be an even more obvious choice.
Wow a bridge!! That will cost (very conservatively) about $7500 per square metre. The tracks would be 8m wide (including walkway) times a 300m long bridge, gives a bridge cost of $20M. I hardly think that will break the bank. It is actually significantly cheaper than if it would be underground. I do not think anyone would be stupid enough to try tunnelling under the Don River. Look at Leslie, they went over then, even though it was much more difficult because the station and Leslie were so close to the bridge.
I understood that the opposition was from the renters in the Willowdale area. They wanted to prevent development because if property values go up, their homes would turn into monster homes and be sold. The same thing may apply in the Senlac area.
I looked at elevated in the East, and it seemed very feasible. I agree that through this stretch is may be harder - but when compared to in-median, the public would most likely choose elevated.
Really, I am just spending the money that is allocated for Scarborough. Instead of spending an extra $1.5B on a B-D extension, I am spending an extra $500M to elevated Eglinton and connect it to the SRT/LRT. Then I am taking the $1B savings, adding it to the $1B from the SELRT and creating a continuous route. (True, with option 1 an extra $500M would be needed, but it is still in the same cost ballpark).
As with any proposal, the DRL would be added.
44 North
Senior Member
Sorry, I guess I didn't look closely at your Option 1 to see that the trains were routed onto Y/US. I've actually always liked the idea of the Vaughan extension being connected to Sheppard as a standalone line running the 4-car train set up. And your numbers sound about right for a Shep West ext; a 2009 report put it at $1.75bn ($2323M - $576M for Wilson Yard expansion).
I love the bridge idea and believe it would be the most logical solution. On other threads I've been calling for multi-km bridges and viaducts up and down our valleys...which are probably a bit fantastical. But $20M does seem a bit light. And I can't count out the NIMBY factor. A bridge issue got Miller elected, and it may very well get another Ford elected in a few years time.
And sorry, those last three paragraphs of mine weren't directed at you specifically. Just a general rant. I think realistically the best bet may be a combination of your options 1, 2, and 3. Underground west to Downsview, and some kind of light ext east into Scarboro...either as a single line or separate. But like you said a DRL or some kind of sweeping N/S line should be in place. OTOH I feel that with Eglinton completely grade-separate to STC (and beyond) - and maybe a Midtown GO in place - a Sheppard extension in any way may not be deemed as important to some as it is currently.
I love the bridge idea and believe it would be the most logical solution. On other threads I've been calling for multi-km bridges and viaducts up and down our valleys...which are probably a bit fantastical. But $20M does seem a bit light. And I can't count out the NIMBY factor. A bridge issue got Miller elected, and it may very well get another Ford elected in a few years time.
And sorry, those last three paragraphs of mine weren't directed at you specifically. Just a general rant. I think realistically the best bet may be a combination of your options 1, 2, and 3. Underground west to Downsview, and some kind of light ext east into Scarboro...either as a single line or separate. But like you said a DRL or some kind of sweeping N/S line should be in place. OTOH I feel that with Eglinton completely grade-separate to STC (and beyond) - and maybe a Midtown GO in place - a Sheppard extension in any way may not be deemed as important to some as it is currently.
BurlOak
Senior Member
I scaled the bridge at 300m in length. $20M is for the bridge alone, tracks, electrical, etc. would be extra. Also, maybe at 10% for design and 10% for construction admin.
It's a two edge sword. The bridge may be an issue, but if LRT is built on-street, that may be an even bigger issue.
Hopkins123
Senior Member
How 'bout a Sheppard SmartTrack?
What if the Sheppard subway could be extended as a majority elevated subway route utilizing the Seaton rail corridor partially for ROW all the way from Don Mills to the Zoo? Here only the dark purple segments would be underground. Just food for thought someone from the Tory camp can hopefully co-opt into their future plans for the Sheppard corridor.
What if the Sheppard subway could be extended as a majority elevated subway route utilizing the Seaton rail corridor partially for ROW all the way from Don Mills to the Zoo? Here only the dark purple segments would be underground. Just food for thought someone from the Tory camp can hopefully co-opt into their future plans for the Sheppard corridor.
kEiThZ
Superstar
If Tory is building the Scarborough subway, then LRT with spurs maybe the best thing. McCowan spur to STC, Progress spur to Malvern Town Centre, all off Sheppard.