|
|
|
Interesting idea using the river as a ROW. I proposed something similar, although it used the Dufferin bus lanes to make the connection between Finch and Sheppard. I figured routing it along Dufferin would serve some local connections too. Also, no road widening would be required, since you would just be shifting curb bus lanes to become median LRT lanes.
44 North
Senior Member
Although I love the idea of northerly crosstown light metro solution, and definitely believe something interesting could/should be done with the SRT's existing guideway, I'm more inclined to keep the current SELRT and FWLRT plans - but fix the central section and how the two meet. I think Gweed's idea is good in that it uses Dufferin, TTM's idea of using the valley/parkland to connect on a diagonal has merit as well, and I think Bathurst is worth a look too. But at the moment I like an idea I posted a couple months ago.
-Sheppard Stubway converted for LRT
-a 2.5km tunnel built under Beecroft paralleling one block west Yonge, with connecting stations through North York Centre
-a 6km surface alignment along the Finch Hydro Corridor, with subsurface stations at Dufferin and Bathurst
So basically everything would be very similar to the Eglinton Crosstown in that it's in-median tram-style in the outer areas. But between Keele and Don Mills we have full grade-separation and subway-like speed/reliability.
-Sheppard Stubway converted for LRT
-a 2.5km tunnel built under Beecroft paralleling one block west Yonge, with connecting stations through North York Centre
-a 6km surface alignment along the Finch Hydro Corridor, with subsurface stations at Dufferin and Bathurst
So basically everything would be very similar to the Eglinton Crosstown in that it's in-median tram-style in the outer areas. But between Keele and Don Mills we have full grade-separation and subway-like speed/reliability.
Attachments
dunkalunk
Senior Member
I do quite like this idea, but I don't see any particular reason why the line can't be run at-grade through North York Centre. I'd also shift the line up Yonge Street past North York Blvd in order to provide a better connection to Finch Subway Station and to add an additional station at Churchill.
kEiThZ
Superstar
The original Sheppard subway was supposed to the northern crosstown. We canned that. And then decided that we should build that crosstown south of the 401. Instead of all these crazy proposals, we can achieve most of the northern crosstown functionality by simply extending Sheppard west to Downsview and putting in the LRT to the zoo (or even Port Union). Anybody who needs to travel west of the TYSSE can always dog leg up to Finch. We can also convert it all to LRT and in-fill some stations. Allows for a surface westerly extension past Downsview and no transfers.
BurlOak
Senior Member
I like a subway extension from Yonge to Sheppard West, but interline it with the Spadina line both north and south. Riders coming across on Sheppard to get to Vaughan, York U, Finch West, Wilson, Yorkdale, etc. and continue from there. A long single line means no transfers for some, but 1 or 2 transfers for many. This interlined option would mean 1 transfer for most.
In the East (assuming DRL built to Sheppard), the SELRT and Finch East LRT (FELRT) would both meet at Fairview Mall.
In the East (assuming DRL built to Sheppard), the SELRT and Finch East LRT (FELRT) would both meet at Fairview Mall.
TheTigerMaster
Superstar
You're never going to be able to justify a $250/km subway extension that'll serve maybe 2,500 people at peak for the eastern extension, and ever fewer for the west.
The Sheppaed Subway was a big mistake. We could've build a seamless northern Scarborough-Etobickoe crosstown route on the cheap, that would've done the job just as well, as previously proposed by the TTC.
Sheppard came along and now it'll never be extended, without some serious roundabout measures to significantly reduce costs.
TheTigerMaster
Superstar
1) The costs of the 2.5 km tunnel paralleling Yonge would be too expensive. Since this line will have low ridership, it needs to be designed as inexpensive as possible.
2) Your plan is good is if our goal is to improve local travel. But if our goal is to facilitate crosstown travel, the Highway 401 surface subway alignment I propsed would be better.
Midtown Urbanist
Superstar
It will never justify the costs if your only criteria for justification is ridership.
There are some serious benefits to network connectivity and redundancy that a Sheppard West extension would provide. Ultimately, one of the goals of transit should be opening up as many commuting options to as many people as possible.
For this reason, I like the suggestion of extending the Sheppard line to Downsview, and then interlining it with the Spadina extension to Vaughan.
Voltz
Senior Member
If that is your goal, then you can do far more of it elsewhere with the same amount of money.
kEiThZ
Superstar
This is hardly fantasy. Didn't the TTC consider a subway extension west recently just to access the Wilson Yard?
Connecting Yonge and TYSSE would do a ton for riders. Imagine a student from Scarborough going to York U. Today, they'd have to ride Bloor-Danforth. In the future, SELRT to Sheppard subway to Yonge North to Finch West bus. Or SELRT to Sheppard subway to TYSSE.
Connecting Yonge and TYSSE would do a ton for riders. Imagine a student from Scarborough going to York U. Today, they'd have to ride Bloor-Danforth. In the future, SELRT to Sheppard subway to Yonge North to Finch West bus. Or SELRT to Sheppard subway to TYSSE.
TheTigerMaster
Superstar
The are numerous ways to improve network connectivity, without spending billions on an extension that would be the least used in Toronto's history.
Connect the Finch West LRT to Sheppard-Yonge station, for example.
And no, ridership isn't the only criteria, which is why I'd be willing to stand behind a SheppRd Subway east extension, as long as it's on the surface. But the western expansion would be so little used that I can't reconcile spending that much money on it, especially when there are cheaper and equally effective options.
44 North
Senior Member
A station at Churchill is a good idea, and I'd consider adding it to future maps! But the reason I wouldn't want it to run on the surface (particularly on Yonge) through North York Centre are twofold:
1. I don't really see how we could make a portal from the existing Sheppard tunnel for the line to get up/onto Yonge without basically destroying much of the existing tunnel (and thereby compromising use of its tail tracks to the west, the Yonge-Sheppard interchange, and any potential future use of the tunnel). I'd like to keep the existing Sheppard tunnel/tail/station intact, which I think a small diversion track from Sheppard->Beecroft could do.
2. Although Yonge is definitely wide enough to handle an in-median setup, this type of tram-style operation in such a high traffic central area would very much lower the speed/reliability/capacity of the line. And for a route to go from in-median (Finch West) to grade-separated (Finch Hydro) back to in-median (Yonge) back to grade-separated (Shepp Stub tunnel) then back to in-median (Sheppard East)...it'd be an operational nightmare. So I think keeping the central section between Keele and Don Mills grade-separated is important. In other words it'd be similar to the Crosstown, or other pre-metro / stadtbahn type lines around the world.
I'd like to it to be cut/covered, which should have much lower per km costs when compared with deep bore. Not unlike other streetcar tunnels we currently have. But IMO the high cost of this 2.5km section of new underground infrastructure would be made up for by the inexpensive surface/trench grade-separation on Finch Hydro (6km), and conversion of Shepp Stub (5.5km). So the end result of a complete 14km grade-separated central section would justify the cost of the short Beecroft section.
True. This is basically a common gripe many had with TC, and what Schabas covered in that chapter I linked to. This is why I try to see the benefits of each proposal, fantasy, idea, etc. Should we have more stops and slower service (e.g in-median), or fewer stops and faster service that may or may not deviate from where people live or are going (e.g light metro or subway)? All are beneficial imo and worthy of consideration.
But yeah, I definitely support most of your idea. I just don't think heavy rail subway is the right mode - even if affordable attempts are made. I think the original ideas behind a northerly crosstown line got things right in that it was all in the mode (ALRT or ICTS...both variations of a similar medium-capacity adaptable 'light' system). It would do the things your line proposes, but more optimally. E.g elevating steeper gradients, tighter turns, running through greenspaces and highways, offering medium/long-haul commuter benefits (but also local/med-haul rapid transit benefits), etc. Standard light rail can do this too, but afaik because of street-running requirements the trains are heavier and more expensive. The standard Toronto subway rolling stock on the other hand is a hulking beast that lacks many of these benefits, and IMO should only really be used where absolutely necessary. This is why I believe the Sheppard Subway as heavy rail was a mistake, and why it never got extended further than it was planned.
Towered
Superstar
Finch should be LRT all the way across. So should Sheppard. This twisting and contorting going on to try to forcibly combine them into one line is misguided, I think.
TheTigerMaster
Superstar
Again, depends on what our goal is.
If we want to improve local transit, extending Finch and Shppard LRTs makes perfect sense.
If we want rapid crosstown travel, we have to bend over backwards to accommodate Mel Lastman's Billion Dollar Stubway.
If we want to improve local transit, extending Finch and Shppard LRTs makes perfect sense.
If we want rapid crosstown travel, we have to bend over backwards to accommodate Mel Lastman's Billion Dollar Stubway.