TTC: Sheppard Subway Expansion (Speculative)

[rbt]

Some correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought the CBM for Eglinton were LRT-sized and could not be reused for Sheppard without relining the existing section to make it not worth the savings?

Spadina TBMs are much closer in size to the original Sheppard ones and will be available in a couple of years.

As for Yard Space, 4-car consists are easier to store, but they still have to have extra area compared to present

Kinda. As I understand it the Davisville Yard will be mostly empty since many of its track bits cannot store Toronto Rocket trains (too short).

Certainly, it's a short-term thing but P3 design/build tends to go with short-term planning to cut costs. I predict that tying Sheppard to 4-car trains (pending major upgrade) will be one of them.

 

[nfitz]

Sheppard should be slightly cheaper than normal because:
1) we will have spare TBMs

Okay, so we save $40-million on a $6-billion project by reusing the Spadina TBMs.

2) EA process is shorter due to the other EAs done on this stretch

Perhaps, though the timeframe tends to be built into the process. If they can get away with a Class EA then perhaps. But if the result of the EA is to recommend subway other LRT, I'd expect that someone would challenge it, as the conclusion would be quite different than the previous EA, and there would be an appeal to the Minister seeking an Individual EA ... which might make it even slower, as you'd then do both.

3) there will be gobs of T1 trains available as extras so no rolling stock to buy.

Maybe ... there are some spare T1s. Though given they are planning a new yard for the line, I wouldn't assume this. By the time the line starts in 2020, the oldest T1s will be 25-years old. In 2012 we will be replacing H6s that are only 23-26 years old.

4) Ditto for Yard space. Short-trains (4-car) are easier to store.

Though if they build a new yard, any savings are lost, and there would extra cost for connecting track.

5) We can build for 4-car train station boxes. 4-car trains at 90 second headways is significantly more capacity than we run on Sheppard today, likely enough for 30 years. A second $2B expansion project can be made in 30 years to extend to 6-car trains.

Well, there'd be a small savings to do this. I doubt very much that they would make the station boxes smaller than the existing stations.

 

[Thoughtless Miscreant]

This actually does kind of make sense. You roll the property value increases into the funding for the next transit line. Assuming that every line you build generates a property value increase, you can continually roll increases from the previous project into paying for the next one.

This happens all across the development industry. The developer will place their most profitable units in Phase 1, and when those sell, they use some of the profits in order to help finanace Phase 2. Profits from Phase 2 help finance Phase 3, etc etc etc.

Uh but that sentence says they're taking tax revenues from Eglinton AND Sheppard, not just Eglinton. So the project that comes next can't use the Sheppard money because that's already tied up in the Sheppard subway.

 

[gweed123]

Uh but that sentence says they're taking tax revenues from Eglinton AND Sheppard, not just Eglinton. So the project that comes next can't use the Sheppard money because that's already tied up in the Sheppard subway.

Yeah that's true. I didn't quite think of that. I guess I was assuming that by the time the next transit project was underway, they would have raised enough money from TIFs to free up that TIF money for the next project.

 

[lafard]

Hey, the Canada Line trains currently have just over a third if the capacity of a short Shepard Line train. Don't knock it.

And they're full, with basically no ability to expand - platforms too short, and the south end of the line goes down to a single track almost a km from the end of the line and has little ability to run trains closer together.. Considering the disastrous construction along Cambie and the rising NIMBYism about densification along Cambie, the P3 is becoming more and more obviously a gigantic mistake.

Canada line is a good example of what not to do. Toronto should pay attention.

 

[accura407]

And they're full, with basically no ability to expand - platforms too short, and the south end of the line goes down to a single track almost a km from the end of the line and has little ability to run trains closer together.. Considering the disastrous construction along Cambie and the rising NIMBYism about densification along Cambie, the P3 is becoming more and more obviously a gigantic mistake.

Canada line is a good example of what not to do. Toronto should pay attention.

I don't understand what the problem here is? I rode the entire line and i don't see what is so bad about it? Platforms are not Mega Toronto size! True...but really, i think we are the only city with such large platforms...

If you have an automated-grade seperated-system that can run trains at very short frequencies, what is the big deal if the platforms are not 120cm in length!

I bet nobody on Cambie is complaining now, with all the economic benefits the line is bringing to the corridor...NIMBYism on Cambie? I think that is completely unrelated to the Canada Line...i don't even see the connection between the two...but if so...since the line does not have massive capacity, why push for development anyway? This isn't the Sheppard Line.

P3's are not always perfect (Eg. Hwy 407) but i think the Canada Line is the best and most successful example of such in Canada. If they can figure out how to build 18km of rapid transit mostly underground + a cable stayed bridge over Fraser River + Rolling Stock + New Yard all for $2.4 Billion...Then Toronto's Construction Mafia is sucking money out of us all...

Sheppard Subway Extension:
A) Focus on Don Mills to SCC, which is quoted as "$3.2 B" in Toronto Dollars
B) Cut Platform Lengths from 120cm into whatever it is that makes up 4-car trains
C) Make Stations as simple and cost-efficient as the ones on the Canada Line.
D) Build the line as a Cut & Cover, Sheppard is a WIDE Suburban Ave with a WIDE ROW and has absolutely no trouble shifting its 4 lanes around for subway construction.
E) Elevate the Line from Agincourt GO towards SCC with a final transition to Underground for SCC Station

I believe if all 5 of these recommendations are put into place, we will be looking at a $1.5-2B Extension in total. I do not think TIF alone can pay for it but i think if costs can be cut in half, such a project can proceed without much debate.

 

[nfitz]

Platforms are not Mega Toronto size! True...but really, i think we are the only city with such large platforms...

We're the only city with such large platforms? While I agree that they aren't necessary for Sheppard, our 150-metre long subway platforms aren't particularly long. They are the same length as Montreal. Similar, perhaps slightly longer than London. In New York City, platforms can be up to about 200 metres long, far longer than ours.

Not sure why you'd want to spend extra money to make Sheppard cut-and-cover rather than tunnelled!

 

[accura407]

Not sure why you'd want to spend extra money to make Sheppard cut-and-cover rather than tunnelled!

Well obviously if it costs more than don't do it but i am 99% sure it is cheaper to do cut-and-cover because it is closer to the surface and results in cheaper station costs. No need for a mezzanine and a fare booth and all the fancy stuff. Simply stations with POP system, side platforms with elevators on both sides. Its time we abandon the massive fare zone area's that are being built... Look @ Vancouver, Calgary, Edmonton. We even have a great example in Toronto known as "Queens-Quay Station" which is as bare-bones as it gets!

I am confident that if Toronto REALLY REALLY wanted to, they could build the most bare-bones no-frills subway on Sheppard that costs a fraction of the quoted $3.2 Billion.

When it comes to building an elegant line with all the features and style, put the effort into the DRL...but when it comes to building a suburban cross-town line like Sheppard...go as basic as possible

 

[SlickFranky]

Are we going to cut and cover through the 404? That should be interesting.

 

[Asterix]

but when it comes to building a suburban cross-town line like Sheppard...go as basic as possible

As basic as possible? You mean like a surface LRT in it's median ROW?

 

[gweed123]

As basic as possible? You mean like a surface LRT in it's median ROW?

No. Like buses with queue jump lanes and signal priority.

 

[EnviroTO]

I don't understand what the problem here is? I rode the entire line and i don't see what is so bad about it? Platforms are not Mega Toronto size! True...but really, i think we are the only city with such large platforms...

Toronto's subways are high capacity. Vancouver's Canada Line is not. Of course Toronto could build a cheaper subway... it could be like an underground airport people mover. While the cost per km would be much lower, the cost per passenger unit of capacity would be higher. The big argument against building a subway on Sheppard is that the need for such capacity isn't there. Design a much lower capacity yet still underground solution and you can obviously do it much more cheaply. With ATC if the capacity to be supported is low you don't need to have two tunnels most of the length. The whole second exit, wide platform, high cost design employed by Toronto is due to designing for 6-car long large subway cars with a potential 2-5 minute headway and below ground to protect from elements and reduce noise impacts on neighbourhoods. Throw out those requirements and the price goes down.

 

[reaperexpress]

Some correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought the TBM for Eglinton were LRT-sized and could not be reused for Sheppard without relining the existing section to make it not worth the savings?
As for Yard Space, 4-car consists are easier to store, but they still have to have extra area compared to present and it makes sense to preserve area to expand it to 6-car lengths, unless they plan for a new maintenence/storage yard in 25-30 years.

Using the Eglinton TBMs would be possible but would be more expensive than using the Spadina TBMs, which are smaller.

There is already a fairly severe shortage of yard space for the subway, so any new fleet of trains (4-car or otherwise) will require yard construction. That said, there's plenty of land available north of Wilson Yard, so I don't think space is an issue. All it means is that the Sheppard West extension needs to be built before Sheppard East, to allow access to the yard.

Well obviously if it costs more than don't do it but i am 99% sure it is cheaper to do cut-and-cover because it is closer to the surface and results in cheaper station costs. No need for a mezzanine and a fare booth and all the fancy stuff. Simply stations with POP system, side platforms with elevators on both sides. Its time we abandon the massive fare zone area's that are being built... Look @ Vancouver, Calgary, Edmonton. We even have a great example in Toronto known as "Queens-Quay Station" which is as bare-bones as it gets!

I am confident that if Toronto REALLY REALLY wanted to, they could build the most bare-bones no-frills subway on Sheppard that costs a fraction of the quoted $3.2 Billion.

I think you have a good point about cut and cover. There's absolutely no doubt it would be cheaper. We also know it's practical because there's easy access from above (digging up the road), and that's how we built the original Yonge line. I'm guessing the reason they're going for tunnel-bored is that it's less disruptive. Many people have the "car is king" attitude, and would get very angry about the disruption caused to traffic during cut and cover construction.

 

[SlickFranky]

I'll say it again....404. There's nothing easy or cheap or practical about doing cut and cover across a massive, hugely busy freeway. If any Sheppard extension is going to happen, crossing the 404 will be job one, and once the TBM's are chugging east from there they might as well just keep right on going.

All that aside though, if we actually can come up with x-billion dollars through whatever means you prefer, there's no way in hell a subway on this corridor should come before a DRL. Anything beyond Vic Park on Sheppard should be like phase 6 or 7 of an ongoing expansion scheme, so none of this really matters.

 

[gweed123]

I'll say it again....404. There's nothing easy or cheap or practical about doing cut and cover across a massive, hugely busy freeway. If any Sheppard extension is going to happen, crossing the 404 will be job one, and once the TBM's are chugging east from there they might as well just keep right on going.

All that aside though, if we actually can come up with x-billion dollars through whatever means you prefer, there's no way in hell a subway on this corridor should come before a DRL. Anything beyond Vic Park on Sheppard should be like phase 6 or 7 of an ongoing expansion scheme, so none of this really matters.

Agreed. At this point I'd support a small extension to Vic Park, but that's about it on Sheppard. After the Eglinton/Scarbourough LRT, and the Spadina extension are complete, the next subway projects should be the small extension to Vic Park and the DRL. Any other transit improvements should be done in the form of queue jump lanes, or the occasional bus-only lane to make the surface routes more effective and efficient.