AlvinofDiaspar
Moderator
Oh they will oppose it one way or another - and I don't doubt for one second the province will go for burial.
AoD
|
|
|
- Thread starter Le Gique
- Start date
Oh they will oppose it one way or another - and I don't doubt for one second the province will go for burial.
AoD
11th
Senior Member
They might have to launch a TBM anyways for the 404 crossing.
afransen
Senior Member
Yup, the grade is probably too much to have it surface ahead of the 404. But I guess if it is a matter of getting a TBM, maybe it makes sense to rebuild the existing terminus with cut and cover and surface before Dons Mills, and build an above grade station there.
afransen
Senior Member
It does, but I wonder if it if less overbearing if it doesn't sit astride the roadway. I guess from a shadowing standpoint, it is better to be on the south side of the street where it would be under the shadow of mid-rises on the south side, and cast a shadow on the roadway. It's not always practical, but in an ideal world that would tend to be more acceptable. There are elevated metros with active windows that switch to opaque at programmed points in the route to help maintain privacy when it comes close to buildings. On the other hand, on a wide road (3 lanes each way), it could be that the north sidewalk wouldn't be shadowed depending on how high the guideway is elevated.
Toronto_Boy
New Member
I agree very much so. Otherwise it makes no sense having to transfer (as a passenger) from one platform to other on the same direction of travelling. I hope designers & politicians take this point very seriously.
TossYourJacket
Senior Member
Might as well convert the line to Metrolinx's beloved mystery Ontario Line technology if that's supposedly so much better for a subway anyway. Or do only the suburbs get full subways cus downtown doesn't have enough swing voters?Cut and Cover tunnel
Also how would you route it above ground? Elevated LRT or Light Metro is reasonable, but is elevating a TR logical? I'd imagine it would be far noisier then something like the Ontario Line, and not as visually nice. Might be completely off course with the facts though.
Haydenpoon
Active Member
1. Build the Ontario Line to Sheppard (Don Mills Station), 20+years
2. Close the Sheppard Subway
3. Build a new Sheppard Subway from Sheppard West to McCowan with the Ontario Line technology, 30+years
2. Close the Sheppard Subway
3. Build a new Sheppard Subway from Sheppard West to McCowan with the Ontario Line technology, 30+years
Rainforest
Senior Member
Using the existing Sheppard tunnel between Yonge and Don Mills.
A lighter technology makes perfect sense, but abandoning the tunnel and building a parallel guideway wouldn't make any sense at all.
11th
Senior Member
Then they will run into the same problem the Scarborough RT had/has. The line will have to be closed for duration of the rebuilt.
Don Mills also seems to be on top of a hill; Sheppard slopes down east and west of the station, so the incline needed to surface the line would probably be steeper as well.
They really dug themselves into a hole by not tunneling all the way to Victoria Park back then.
north-of-anything
Active Member
I mean, I would have it surface on one side of Victoria Park, either after Consumers or before Warden. And honestly, maybe converting it to the eventual Ontario Line technology would be a really good idea, like without irony. Would make it easier to route it to STC and/or Malvern that way... maybe even using parts of the current Line 3 configuration!
afransen
Senior Member
I'm thinking you could minimize how long that would be. Build the new line east of Leslie and once it is close to operational, degrade the service on Sheppard somewhat by closing Don Mills and completing the connection east of Leslie to the new alignment. Maybe it would be practical to add crossover west of Leslie to allow the rest of the line to continue operating at existing frequency. Otherwise, service could continue with reduced frequency beyond Bayview using the Bayview crossover.
Perhaps the best place to surface would be just east of the Don River bridge. But, at some point it would be cheaper to launch a TBM to get under the 404. And maybe easier politically not to abandon so much of the existing tunnel, even if it is more expensive.
Streety McCarface
Senior Member
Ontario line tech is just subway tech that runs on standard gauge and with smaller car lengths (increased turning radius). There is absolutely no need for such a change on Sheppard given that it's a straight shot. You can very easily elevate TTC rolling stock and just build the stations as 4-car stations.
sche
Active Member
Wouldn't it also be possible just to get new trains that were essentially TRs with TTC gauge but shorter cars? That way you can get smaller turning radii (which could make a hypothetical STC or Malvern route easier) without reconstructing the existing Sheppard line. There's no reason to convert Sheppard to standard gauge, TTC gauge is literally like 6cm/2in wider.
north-of-anything
Active Member
That would be a great solution as well, given that the Sheppard trains right now are only 4 cars long. It also would not require the current line to ever be shut down.
From what I understand, the reason why an LRT was pushed for Sheppard east of Don Mills was that it could run on the street, which isn't strictly necessary - especially on a road that isn't known for its active streetscape. Perhaps an elevated structure in the median with nimbler, OL-style trains could do the trick.
afransen
Senior Member
The current system wouldn't have to be shut down to change the gauge. It might need reduced service in sections to enable sections of track to be worked on.