[JSF-1]

Could have a seasonal shuttle bus from a Meadowvale & Ellesmere station that brings people to the zoo.

We tried a Zoo bus from STC and it didn't work, it only lasted like a year or something. The zoo is only really popular in summer so the suggestion of taking the subway to the Zoo is litterally suggesting we spend billions of dollars to build an extension and station that will only get used for at best 3 or 4 months out of the year. UTSC on the other hand is a year round trip generator and is closer to Durham so it would help connect them to the subway.

 

[asher__jo]

There is no reason you can't elevate the subway. There are plenty of sections exposed to the elements, so elevating it is not that much of a challenge. What I don't get is why you want to tack on the millions of dollars to convert it on top of an extension.

Mostly because if you use lighter rolling stock similar to Mark III or REM Alstom you will be able to use less expensive elevated support structures.

 

[afransen]

We tried a Zoo bus from STC and it didn't work, it only lasted like a year or something. The zoo is only really popular in summer so the suggestion of taking the subway to the Zoo is litterally suggesting we spend billions of dollars to build an extension and station that will only get used for at best 3 or 4 months out of the year. UTSC on the other hand is a year round trip generator and is closer to Durham so it would help connect them to the subway.

I tend to agree. But it could be provided more cost effectively from a metro stop on Ellesmere at Meadowvalue (maybe just one small bus shuttling back an forth and still providing decent frequency).

 

[micheal_can]

Mostly because if you use lighter rolling stock similar to Mark III or REM Alstom you will be able to use less expensive elevated support structures.

Is that cost difference enough to warrant the cost to change the line over?

 

[afransen]

Is that cost difference enough to warrant the cost to change the line over?

Depends on the length of the extension. And maybe public acceptance of the aesthetics of an elevated guideway. Lighter rolling stock ought to allow lighter profile guideway and less shadowing.

 

[micheal_can]

Depends on the length of the extension. And maybe public acceptance of the aesthetics of an elevated guideway. Lighter rolling stock ought to allow lighter profile guideway and less shadowing.

Let's say they plan on extending it to the STC. Would that be worth it?

 

[H4F33Z]

If you wanted to make the case for extending the Sheppard Line east past STC then it could look something like this. Obviously we should focus on getting the line to STC first but I believe STC and Ellesmere offer better expansion potential.
View attachment 291748

Hmm.. I don't think Ellesmere/Kingston will ever need a subway. The current proposal for a BRT on Ellesmere will be much better and efficient.

 

[Rainforest]

There is no reason you can't elevate the subway. There are plenty of sections exposed to the elements, so elevating it is not that much of a challenge. What I don't get is why you want to tack on the millions of dollars to convert it on top of an extension.

The total might be cheaper with the conversion, if the extensions are long enough.

That requires some calculations, of course.

 

[micheal_can]

The total might be cheaper with the conversion, if the extensions are long enough.

That requires some calculations, of course.

I wonder what the calculation is that shows what the shortest extension can be before it is worth the conversion.

 

[superelevation]

Their official website consistently calls it Light Rail. https://rem.info/en

Even at peak they are only scheduling trains every 10 minutes for the Dorval and West Island branches. That's 3,600 passengers an hour. No where near heavy rail territory. Ultimate capacity is 10 trains an hour. 7,200 passengers an hour for both Dorval and West Island. Still light rail capacity.

They officially call it LRT. It's on the low end of LRT capacity for 2 of the 3 branches.
View attachment 291077

And that's for the REM lines with the longer trains. For the new east-west line with the 40-metre trains, assuming they use the same vehicles, Ultimate capacity is 300 passengers per train with 20 trains an hour. That's 6,000 passengers an hour.

If they use the narrow vehicles like they use on most of the Skytrain lines in Vancouver, then that's 175 passengers per train and an ultimate capacity of 3,500 passengers per hour.

At the end of the day - light rail is a bad term that has too many meanings to people!

I've seen it as a function of capacity.
I've seen it as a function of vehicle type.
I've seen it as a function of grade separation.
I've seen it as a function of Google translate translating light metro/light train/tram as "light rail".
I've seen it as a function of the media calling anything that doesn't look like the aluminum subway trains in Toronto and NYC as light rail.
I've seen it as a function of branding.
I've seen it as a function of 'it's what we call everything else here'.
I've seen it as a function of 'it worked in Portland!'
I've seen it as a function of 'it's not a monorail, but not a subway, and not a diesel train, so I guess we call it light rail'.

Can we not just accept that these things don't have a standard definition that everyone agrees on? and that's it's highly contextual to the time/place/language it's being used within?

That's why its a lazy term for people to be using for REM (or any other project) which is by all accounts not LRT or even really light in a traditional sense

I assume that the TTC would not use the Sheppard line for carhouse movements between the branches of Line 1, if Sheppard is converted to light metro. Even if that's technically possible, the management will avoid that to reduce the risk of accidents.

But nevertheless, if the light-metro conversion allows for a much easier extension of the "stubway", then maybe it is worth to forfeit the yard shortcut ability.

Conversion removes the linear transfer. And it substantially reduces how much tunneling is required. Instead of tunneling all the way till McCowan, they just have to tunnel to cross the 404. The max might be a tunnel till Victoria Park (1.5 km). That means savings on the other 5.5 km from Victoria Park to McCowan.

Also, it's way too expensive to extend the subway past McCowan. Since LRT is a lot cheap, it also makes it feasible to extend another 10 km to the zoo.

Subway can be elevated folks

 

[afransen]

At the end of the day - light rail is a bad term that has too many meanings to people!



That's why its a lazy term for people to be using for REM (or any other project) which is by all accounts not LRT or even really light in a traditional sense




Subway can be elevated folks

Can be elevated, but would it be acceptable above a street? If we can elevate the Gardiner, surely we can elevate existing subway rolling stock. Not to say that people would be open to really intrusive elevated structures.

 

[superelevation]

Can be elevated, but would it be acceptable above a street? If we can elevate the Gardiner, surely we can elevate existing subway rolling stock. Not to say that people would be open to really intrusive elevated structures.

Comparing even a poorly done elevated line using modern technology with the Gardiner is why we can't have nice things

 

[afransen]

Comparing even a poorly done elevated line using modern technology with the Gardiner is why we can't have nice things

It is hyperbolic, but meant to illustrate the point.

 

[asher__jo]

It is hyperbolic, but meant to illustrate the point.

Apple's and oranges bro.

 

[micheal_can]

It is hyperbolic, but meant to illustrate the point.

The point you are trying to make is not lost on us, but let's be fair, the Gardnier is still a good thing. Without it, the downtown might be more congested.