News   Apr 20, 2021
 65     0 
News   Apr 20, 2021
 275     0 
News   Apr 20, 2021
 535     0 

TTC: Sheppard Subway Extension (Proposed)

Palma

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Nov 13, 2009
Messages
2,346
Reaction score
187
Hear me on this:


About 2 years ago, the city council decided that the Sheppard East corridor would get LRT and not subway. Then the province said they would not start until 2017. Now, it's after the election. But what if the new city council reopens the sheppard debate, and the decides on the Subway. I think Tory would cave, but what about Chow or Soknancki? A very tiny part of me thinks that after the election city council will want to go back to the Sheppard subway, especially those Councillors out east. It will go from now we have one subway, to why don't we have two like North York? Another issue is if this happens, what does Hudak, or Wynne do then? How do we pay for it?


Discuss.

Ell I doubt Tory would cae for Sheppard as he has said he will not open the Scarborough subway debate so why would he open the Sheppard LRT debate. If you open one the other will also be opened up. The next election after that will be in 2018 so councillors won;t be worried about reelection, especially if the LRT is up and running/
 

BurlOak

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Dec 7, 2011
Messages
6,063
Reaction score
1,643
But that's just it--LRT in place of a subway extension makes little sense, whereas an LRT on a brand new corridor makes a lot of sense. I'm all for the Eglinton line because it makes sense to have it tunneled in the central portion and above ground for the rest (although we'll see how well it will run in the at-grade portion).

I thought I heard that the Eglinton LRT is the most expensive LRT line in the world. Not because it is the longest, but becuase a huge percentage of it is underground. Every other city would have built it as subway. As I understand it, subway is less expensive than underground LRT so the cost premium is not much at all.

Extending the Sheppard line is a little more difficult to argue, so I'd just leave it as is for now, or extend it west for now. Zone the section from the eastern terminus to STC for high density commercial and residential to encourage more usage of the line. And then finish it.

That sound like the best strategy.

At this point, I'm honestly inclined to believe that Eglinton will be the only LRT built in Toronto this decade. It wouldn't surprise me in the least if, after the next municipal and provincial election, the bulk of the funds from the Sheppard and Finch LRTs are transferred to the DRL and/or the Yonge extension inside of Toronto, save a little bit to implement improved bus service on both those corridors.

I agree with this - it should have been done 3 years ago, but everyone was saying that the DRL is the number one priority, so they all deferred the DRL and pushed forward with the LRT's. I also question that when Eglinton finally opens, the public will be so upset with the "streetcar" blocking their commute that another LRT will not be built for some time.
 

11th

Active Member
Member Bio
Joined
Oct 21, 2011
Messages
873
Reaction score
324
Don't get me wrong - I am not beating up on Scarborough. I just do not want to switch again. I would support the Sheppard Subway if the cost was not so high.
Except it's not going to get any cheaper in the future, especially with the intensification of the street with/without the LRT as a catalyst. Then by the time the numbers do support for a conversion of the LRT to subway, let say 50 years down the road, it'll become another Gardiner and SRT dilemma. Cost will be even more astronomical, and the disruption of traffic with the LRT being ripped out during construction.
I don't suggest it having the priority over bigger project like DRL though.
 

denfromoakvillemilton

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Apr 30, 2008
Messages
6,758
Reaction score
785
Location
Former City of York, Ontario, Canada
Except it's not going to get any cheaper in the future, especially with the intensification of the street with/without the LRT as a catalyst. Then by the time the numbers do support for a conversion of the LRT to subway, let say 50 years down the road, it'll become another Gardiner and SRT dilemma. Cost will be even more astronomical, and the disruption of traffic with the LRT being ripped out during construction.
I don't suggest it having the priority over bigger project like DRL though.
Fair enough - which is why I think if Tory gets in, he will allow it to go through. This is not an indictment against him at all, rather the system and the people.
 

BurlOak

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Dec 7, 2011
Messages
6,063
Reaction score
1,643
Don't get me wrong - I am not beating up on Scarborough. I just do not want to switch again. I would support the Sheppard Subway if the cost was not so high.

Under Miller, the main purpose of transit planning was to serve needy neighbourhoods.
The past four year, the main purpose of transit planning was to go against Ford.

Hopefully now that Ford will be defeated we can find a Mayor who thinks the purpose of transit is to get people out of their cars and onto transit - to actually move people.

I am not sure how much it would save (probably more on Sheppard West than East), but the proposal for cut-and-cover should be tabled. Currently, it seems we ask the public if they prefer on-street LRT for +/-$70M/km or tunneled subway for $350M/km. If the tunneled subway is ruled too expensive, then the cut-and-cover option need be explored. There are always ways to reduce cost - we just need someone to propose them.

Look at the people complaining about Eglinton. I hazard to guess that cut-and-cover would not be much worse, and could potentially save big money. Cut-and-cover would be shallower construction, so even though the construction occupies a continuous length and not just at station and launch/extraction locations, the construction duration would be less for the critical intersection locations.
 

rbt

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Apr 25, 2007
Messages
6,758
Reaction score
2,460
Except it's not going to get any cheaper in the future,

We don't really know that. Large chunks of building subways has gotten cheaper and further advancement in materials science/automation could continue to improve those items.

The main driver of construction costs escalation has been almost entirely safety standards (much bigger tunnels, larger platforms, worker safety, improved waste disposal/cleaning) and accommodation of disabilities (elevators, escalators, ...). We went from Wellesley being a minimal station (thin platforms, couple of small staircases) to something larger than Bessarian being a minimal station.

It's possible a robot based fire suppression system (mobile, self-initiating giving a faster response, etc.) could allow some of our over-building for emergencies to be reduced. A guaranteed and effective fire-response within 30 seconds would radically reduce design requirements in the same way automated trains allow for the same capacity with a shorter train (Eglinton versus original Yonge line capacity).


It's also possible subways become outmoded and replaced by a cheaper more flexible mechanism. Quadcopters can carry a 2kg package 20km for about 30 cents (includes capital, and assumes frequent workload) with costs continuing to drop (down about 80% over the last 10 years). Imagine if that could be scaled up and made safe to carry a single human across the city for $4 (including capital) with dynamic routing for fewer interruptions in service and higher potential capacity.

We recently went through an information revolution. The way we move physical objects is likely to radically change in the next 30 years as a result of being able to know exactly where everything is and where it wants to be at any given time within an entire city.


Building for for the requirements of the next 2 decades is appropriate, trying to speculate on travel patterns or costs beyond that is nearly impossible.
 
Last edited:

howl

Active Member
Member Bio
Joined
Apr 17, 2009
Messages
583
Reaction score
44
It's sort of shows what sort of crazy political populist world we live in where the conservative politicians want the most expensive option and the liberal politicians want the more cost-effective solution.

If money were no object we would have subways under every major street in the City. The problem is subways are expensive to build; take a long time to plan, design and build; and are more expensive to operate. Therefore there has to be a logical cost-benefit analysis to determine which routes get the more-expensive/higher-capacity subways and which get the less-expesive/lower-capacity LRTs. One would think the Tory's would be pushing for the lower-cost option where the benefit could be seen within a short time frame, and not for the more expensive option that will take many years to implement. Conversely, since transit generally benefits the middle and working class you would expect the liberal and socialist candidates to be saying spend the money on subways.

Quite simply the conservatives are pandering to the working class vote and the liberals are pandering to the fiscally-responsible vote.
 

M II A II R II K

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Apr 24, 2007
Messages
3,733
Reaction score
724
Have the line leave Sheppard and make it an express like Uptown line that parallels the 401 and diverges to places like UofT and the zoo, and replace the Finch West LRT as well.
 

ehlow

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Mar 2, 2013
Messages
3,496
Reaction score
144
Location
Yonge & Eglinton
I thought I heard that the Eglinton LRT is the most expensive LRT line in the world. Not because it is the longest, but becuase a huge percentage of it is underground. Every other city would have built it as subway. As I understand it, subway is less expensive than underground LRT so the cost premium is not much at all.

I feel like we're having the same discussion over and over, and from what I've seen on the old parts of these threads, some of you have been talking about this since 2007, but anyways:

Firstly, there are many examples of LRT where the central part is underground in a tunnel, outer part is on the street like Eglinton: Boston, San Francisco, Philadelphia for example.

Eglinton is about 50-55% underground. It will be about 1/3 underground if phase 2 is complete.

Comparing fully underground Eglinton to the current plan:
Finally, there was the fact that if the Eglinton LRT returned to the surface east of Brentcliffe Avenue, as much as $1.9 billion could be saved on construction costs
$1.9 billion difference, source: http://transit.toronto.on.ca/streetcar/4124.shtml
That's a big addition to the current cost of $4.9 billion, source: http://www.bigmove.ca/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/InProgress_EglintonCrosstown.pdf

The difference would be even greater if phase 2 is complete.

Someone else can clarify this but I doubt cut & cover is the magic bullet to building subways cheap. From what I read they started using TBM for all tunnels when labour costs went up. Cut & covering the whole line would mean the whole street is torn up rather than only at the stations, so it does seem much worse.
 

ehlow

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Mar 2, 2013
Messages
3,496
Reaction score
144
Location
Yonge & Eglinton
At this point, I'm honestly inclined to believe that Eglinton will be the only LRT built in Toronto this decade. It wouldn't surprise me in the least if, after the next municipal and provincial election, the bulk of the funds from the Sheppard and Finch LRTs are transferred to the DRL and/or the Yonge extension inside of Toronto, save a little bit to implement improved bus service on both those corridors.

That ~$2 billion from those two projects could go a fair way in funding either of those subway projects, and with far less resistance than either of them will face. As long as Scarborough is still getting the Bloor-Danforth extension, I think completing the Sheppard line drops down the priority list, even for subway advocates, because "Scarborough would have its subway".

I think that after the Eglinton LRT (and for that matter the Hurontario LRT) opens, and the sky doesn't fall, then Toronto can have a more rational debate about LRT. Until then, I think it's Eglinton and that's it.

If the money for Sheppard went to Eg Phase 2 or DRL, I'd be fine with that. Finch I'd prefer to see happen.

More than anything though I'd like to see more progress being made. I'm happy Eglinton and the Spadina extension are under construction, but on these other lines it's crazy to look back and see people discussing DRL in 2008, 6 years ago, and no progress has been made. The constant waste years of time cancelling & changing plans over and over is something I don't want to see continue.
 

W. K. Lis

Superstar
Member Bio
Joined
Dec 24, 2007
Messages
18,963
Reaction score
7,917
Location
Toronto, ON, CAN, Terra, Sol, Milky Way
We don't really know that. Large chunks of building subways has gotten cheaper and further advancement in materials science/automation could continue to improve those items.

The main driver of construction costs escalation has been almost entirely safety standards (much bigger tunnels, larger platforms, worker safety, improved waste disposal/cleaning) and accommodation of disabilities (elevators, escalators, ...). We went from Wellesley being a minimal station (thin platforms, couple of small staircases) to something larger than Bessarian being a minimal station.

It's possible a robot based fire suppression system (mobile, self-initiating giving a faster response, etc.) could allow some of our over-building for emergencies to be reduced. A guaranteed and effective fire-response within 30 seconds would radically reduce design requirements in the same way automated trains allow for the same capacity with a shorter train (Eglinton versus original Yonge line capacity).


It's also possible subways become outmoded and replaced by a cheaper more flexible mechanism. Quadcopters can carry a 2kg package 20km for about 30 cents (includes capital, and assumes frequent workload) with costs continuing to drop (down about 80% over the last 10 years). Imagine if that could be scaled up and made safe to carry a single human across the city for $4 (including capital) with dynamic routing for fewer interruptions in service and higher potential capacity.

We recently went through an information revolution. The way we move physical objects is likely to radically change in the next 30 years as a result of being able to know exactly where everything is and where it wants to be at any given time within an entire city.


Building for for the requirements of the next 2 decades is appropriate, trying to speculate on travel patterns or costs beyond that is nearly impossible.

Some other differences between the original 1 Yonge subway and the subway portion of the 5 Eglinton Crosstown are:

  • escalators in both directions to and from all levels (it was only an option on the 1 Yonge, and then only up on the 2 Bloor-Danforth).
  • elevators to all levels (zero on the 1 Yonge)
  • platform edges improvements (no yellow raised markers on the 1 Yonge)
  • closed circuit cameras and DWA
  • soil contamination was not even bothered with on the 1 Yonge and was basically ignored during digging
 

denfromoakvillemilton

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Apr 30, 2008
Messages
6,758
Reaction score
785
Location
Former City of York, Ontario, Canada
Under Miller, the main purpose of transit planning was to serve needy neighbourhoods.
The past four year, the main purpose of transit planning was to go against Ford.

Hopefully now that Ford will be defeated we can find a Mayor who thinks the purpose of transit is to get people out of their cars and onto transit - to actually move people.

I am not sure how much it would save (probably more on Sheppard West than East), but the proposal for cut-and-cover should be tabled. Currently, it seems we ask the public if they prefer on-street LRT for +/-$70M/km or tunneled subway for $350M/km. If the tunneled subway is ruled too expensive, then the cut-and-cover option need be explored. There are always ways to reduce cost - we just need someone to propose them.

Look at the people complaining about Eglinton. I hazard to guess that cut-and-cover would not be much worse, and could potentially save big money. Cut-and-cover would be shallower construction, so even though the construction occupies a continuous length and not just at station and launch/extraction locations, the construction duration would be less for the critical intersection locations.
Agreed. If sheppard is a go then they better tear it up. No six year wait
I feel like we're having the same discussion over and over, and from what I've seen on the old parts of these threads, some of you have been talking about this since 2007, but anyways:

Firstly, there are many examples of LRT where the central part is underground in a tunnel, outer part is on the street like Eglinton: Boston, San Francisco, Philadelphia for example.

Eglinton is about 50-55% underground. It will be about 1/3 underground if phase 2 is complete.

Comparing fully underground Eglinton to the current plan:

$1.9 billion difference, source: http://transit.toronto.on.ca/streetcar/4124.shtml
That's a big addition to the current cost of $4.9 billion, source: http://www.bigmove.ca/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/InProgress_EglintonCrosstown.pdf

The difference would be even greater if phase 2 is complete.

Someone else can clarify this but I doubt cut & cover is the magic bullet to building subways cheap. From what I read they started using TBM for all tunnels when labour costs went up. Cut & covering the whole line would mean the whole street is torn up rather than only at the stations, so it does seem much worse.
Chicago is building the red line extension for less then 2 billion. Diffference? It's all above ground. Sheppard above ground, cost would be half.
 

BurlOak

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Dec 7, 2011
Messages
6,063
Reaction score
1,643
Comparing fully underground Eglinton to the current plan:

$1.9 billion difference, source: http://transit.toronto.on.ca/streetcar/4124.shtml
That's a big addition to the current cost of $4.9 billion, source: http://www.bigmove.ca/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/InProgress_EglintonCrosstown.pdf

The difference would be even greater if phase 2 is complete.

Someone else can clarify this but I doubt cut & cover is the magic bullet to building subways cheap. From what I read they started using TBM for all tunnels when labour costs went up. Cut & covering the whole line would mean the whole street is torn up rather than only at the stations, so it does seem much worse.

The fully underground plan was an excellent idea to begin discussions on a connected SRT - Eglinton LRT. All that was needed was for someone to find some savings - which were very obvious.

Station platforms are 100m long, plus there are mechanical rooms so each station box is maybe 120m long. Then there are also cross-over tracks, pocket tracks, launch sites and extraction sites. I would guess that about 25% of the street will be dug up with a very deep excavation site. This 25% also occurs at the intersections - which are the most critical in terms of disruption. I do not know what the exact math is, but perhaps something like this:

TBM - no disruption for 75% of locations (all mid-block). 3 or 4 years of disruption for the remaining 25% of locations (all intersections).
Cut-and-Cover - 6 month disruption for 75% of locations (all mid-block). 1.5 to 2 years of disruption for the remaining 25% of locations (all intersections).

Cut-and-cover was used for Vancouver's Canada Line - so I think there is money to be saved using it.
 

Top