[nfitz]

Although I hate to reopen the idea, I think that planners made a mistake in not extending the subway to Victoria Park. The Consumers Road area could absorb a lot of new growth with very little NIMBYism, and the 24 Victoria Park is a pretty busy route.

Yeah, I agree with you. If your going to keep the existing Sheppard subway, just extend it to Victoria Park, and build the interchange terminal there. But right now, I just wish they'd start building something.

 

[innsertnamehere]

Although I hate to reopen the idea, I think that planners made a mistake in not extending the subway to Victoria Park. The Consumers Road area could absorb a lot of new growth with very little NIMBYism, and the 24 Victoria Park is a pretty busy route.

Of course, such a move would also invite any opportunistic politician to cry foul at the idea that the subway stops just shy of the Scarborough border, and that for "just a little more" we could extend the subway to SCC. Of course, "just a little more" is probably 3 billion dollars, and would probably set the DRL back by 20 years.

I used to think this, and they actually seriously looked at extending it to Consumers and building the terminus there. What it really came down to was determining whether more SELRT users were going to Fairview mall or if more Subway users were going to Consumers. I think they determined it would be the former, and it would be cheaper anyway, so they did it that way. They actually don't need to build a new Don Mills station, just reno the current one so that the trains pull into the currently unused south platform.

 

[ehlow]

Yeah, I agree with you. If your going to keep the existing Sheppard subway, just extend it to Victoria Park, and build the interchange terminal there. But right now, I just wish they'd start building something.

I think I could be convinced to support extending the Sheppard subway rather than the LRT... but mainly because there's already a subway there. However, I'm worried about lack of ridership. Will it become an even bigger failure? Or will the length make the line more useful? Also, it would suck that they would have to do all the EA work and everything again and it would be years away from construction.

I still fully support LRT on Eglinton and Finch, if that needs to be said though.

 

[JayBeeGooner]

Extending the Sheppard Subway to Vic Park will just push the transfer point further east. The SELRT tunnel will be cheaper than a subway to Vic Park, and at least Consumer's Road area would be served.

 

[TheTigerMaster]

Extending the Sheppard Subway to Vic Park will just push the transfer point further east. The SELRT tunnel will be cheaper than a subway to Vic Park, and at least Consumer's Road area would be served.

Not so sure about this. If I remember correctly, LRT tunnels are generally more expensive than subway tunnels since the LRTs need wider tunnels to accommodate the pantograph.

 

[Johnny Au]

24D Victoria Park is absurdly long (goes between Victoria Park station (near Danforth) and Major Mackenzie). If the Sheppard line were to be extended to Victoria Park, then Route 24 can end there, while route 224 can serve Victoria Park north of Sheppard.

Likewise, 68B Warden goes between Warden station (at St. Clair) and Major Mackenzie, which is also very long.

 

[Voltz]

Not so sure about this. If I remember correctly, LRT tunnels are generally more expensive than subway tunnels since the LRTs need wider tunnels to accommodate the pantograph.

The difference in extra cost for the slightly larger tunnels would be negligible for this short of a stretch, extending the subway to VP would require a much longer tunnel and another underground station or two, the cost is much higher and would not result in a better transfer set up than is currently planned,

never mind that any changes in this project now will guarantee the cancellation of the entire line, nothing will get built again thanks to yet even more calls for just another subway station,

 

[JayBeeGooner]

Not so sure about this. If I remember correctly, LRT tunnels are generally more expensive than subway tunnels since the LRTs need wider tunnels to accommodate the pantograph.

The SELRT tunnels are going to surface just before Consumer Road. It'll be a shorter tunnel than a subway, and you won't have the added cost of a subway station.

 

[nfitz]

Extending the Sheppard Subway to Vic Park will just push the transfer point further east. The SELRT tunnel will be cheaper than a subway to Vic Park, and at least Consumer's Road area would be served.

The existing EA to extend the subway to Victoria Park included a subway station at Consumer's Road.

 

[W. K. Lis]

The existing EA to extend the subway to Victoria Park included a subway station at Consumer's Road.

The EA only recommends. See link. From link.

Two options are being recommended for EA approval since the high cost and complexity of construction for both requires further comparison at a more detailed level of design:

1) Option 2b – LRT underground to subway platform level at Don Mills Station; and,

2) Option 3b – Shallow subway extension to Consumers Road with surface LRT (note that EA approval already exists for an easterly extension of the subway, but that earlier EA approval did not include a surface LRT connection)


8.6.1 Recommended Option 2b - Underground LRT Connection

Option 2b, with an underground LRT connection to the subway platform level at Don Mills Station (Figures 8-7 and 8-8), would require extending the subway platform to the east, with LRT tracks on either side. For customers east of Victoria Park and destined to the subway, the option is equally as favourable as a shallow subway extension, while the cost is lower and the tunnel construction would be designed to allow for a future subway extension. However, the separation between the subway and LRT is still under policy discussion; separation between vehicles could be between 100-125 metres.


8.6.2 Recommended Option 3b - Subway Extension

Option 3b, with a shallow subway extension to Consumers Road, would require an LRT “station†in the middle of Sheppard Avenue (east of Consumers Road) with direct passageways to the subway below (Figure 8-9). This option avoids the need for travellers from the Business Park to travel one stop and then transfer to the subway as per Option 2b (above). As such, Option 3b is a much more effective “catalyst†for denser, transit-oriented development in this development node. However, the cost is much higher for this alternative and more detailed design is necessary to determine if a “shallow†subway is achievable. More work is required on the depth needed to avoid inducing settlement of the Highway 404 bridge and to avoid the large, 6 metre deep sanitary sewer near Consumers Road.

It also shows why the Sheppard East LRT is still "not off the ground".

 

[nfitz]

The EA only recommends. See link. From link.

That's the EA for the LRT.

I was referring the existing EA for the Sheppard subway, prepared in the 1992. Which is sitting in the Toronto library, with a discussion of it's contents here - http://www.toronto.ca/legdocs/mmis/2012/ex/bgrd/backgroundfile-45062.pdf

You'll see that ALL 4 options included Consumers Drive station. The shortest line considered was Yonge to Victoria Park.

 

[Palma]

't understand why can they not use the existing EA that were done? What has changed?

 

[nfitz]

't understand why can they not use the existing EA that were done? What has changed?

What hasn't changed in over 20 years?

Minimum tunnel widths have changed. The Environmental Assessment act has changed. The list of endangered species has changed. Construction methods have changed. The predicted future employment numbers in North York and Scarborough have significantly changed. The whole requirement to do a full EA for transit projects has changed.

Presumably though, they'd simply do an amendment. The heavy lifting in terms of pre-construction investigation has been done.

 

[Palma]

What hasn't changed in over 20 years?

Minimum tunnel widths have changed. The Environmental Assessment act has changed. The list of endangered species has changed. Construction methods have changed. The predicted future employment numbers in North York and Scarborough have significantly changed. The whole requirement to do a full EA for transit projects has changed.

Presumably though, they'd simply do an amendment. The heavy lifting in terms of pre-construction investigation has been done.

Ok I get all that but really when I hear EA I assume they study the impact of putting something (subway or LRT) onto a route. Well lets see if its a subway, well does not take much to know that just may take cars of the street and have less congestion, less pollution. I mean I know its not as straight forward as perhaps what I am making it out to be but really how long can it take and what do they study?

 

[rbt]

Ok I get all that but really when I hear EA I assume they study the impact of putting something (subway or LRT) onto a route. Well lets see if its a subway, well does not take much to know that just may take cars of the street and have less congestion, less pollution. I mean I know its not as straight forward as perhaps what I am making it out to be but really how long can it take and what do they study?

FYI, traffic on Sheppard (Yonge to Don Mills) has gone up significantly since Sheppard Subway opened. An extended subway will not reduce congestion; it does provide for an alternative way for growth to occur.