[crs1026]

A lot of the objections are based on "it won't look right on the subway map".

Well, there are more substantive objections than that.

No one sets out to design seams into transit pathways, the issue is at what cost do you make it seamless. And what does it get you if you eliminate a seam. In theory, a seamless trip beats a disjointed one, even if no one rides all the way from end to end.

There will be x riders who are impacted by the need to transfer - across platform or otherwise - and there will be y riders who don't use the service because the journey looks that much more inconvenient. (The latter may be influenced by the map, yes, although I agree the UT readership's angst with maps is a bit over the top). Unfortunately, the solutions are all expensive and disruptive.

Sheppard is a lost opportunity, but we have Mel Lastman to thank for that. At this point, the most prudent option is to suck it up and accept that Sheppard won't be a slick cross-town corridor. And vow never to make this kind of mistake again. Extending the Line 2 is enough money spent on subways out there.

- Paul

 

[44 North]

Sheppard is a lost opportunity, but we have Mel Lastman to thank for that. At this point, the most prudent option is to suck it up and accept that Sheppard won't be a slick cross-town corridor. And vow never to make this kind of mistake again. Extending the Line 2 is enough money spent on subways out there.

Pretty much. Sheppard was a terrible missed opportunity to build a proper pre-metro LRT like Eglinton. The Yonge to Don Mills tunnel could’ve still been a priority at the time, but it’s preposterous to think that it wasn’t designed for LRT in mind so that any future extension (either underground, in-median, elevated, trenched, branched, etc) could’ve been a simple debate. By being so gung ho about subways, and by grossly inflating the ridership projections so as to warrant heavy rail - previous planners/politicians sealed Sheppard’s fate as a perpetual stub unworthy of being extended as a subway line.

 

[M II A II R II K]

I take it that the Sheppard East bus will terminate at Don Mills station.

 

[11th]

By being so gung ho about subways, and by grossly inflating the ridership projections so as to warrant heavy rail - previous planners/politicians sealed Sheppard’s fate as a perpetual stub unworthy of being extended as a subway line.

The subway was probably too ahead of its time - think all-day service on Barrie, Richmond Hill and Stouffville lines; and those N-S feeder routes in Scarborough. I am sure the grossly inflated projections took account of those.

 

[CDL.TO]

Pretty much. Sheppard was a terrible missed opportunity to build a proper pre-metro LRT like Eglinton. The Yonge to Don Mills tunnel could’ve still been a priority at the time, but it’s preposterous to think that it wasn’t designed for LRT in mind so that any future extension (either underground, in-median, elevated, trenched, branched, etc) could’ve been a simple debate. By being so gung ho about subways, and by grossly inflating the ridership projections so as to warrant heavy rail - previous planners/politicians sealed Sheppard’s fate as a perpetual stub unworthy of being extended as a subway line.

To flip that around, some might say that it's preposterous that the Sheppard LRT wasn't designed with the existing Sheppard subway in mind so that the LRT could be a simple debate about an extension as surface LRT, rather than pre-supposing a design that necessitates operation as a separate line.

 

[44 North]

I don’t really know what you mean. Basically I meant that Sheppard should’ve been designed and operated as LRT right from the start. So Lastman still would’ve gotten his 5km subway, but run with high or low floor LRVs. Therefore any future extension east of Don Mills could be be brought to the surface similar to the Crosstown, or other pre-metros. Instead of the transfer proposed with the SELRT.

 

[TheTigerMaster]

I don’t really know what you mean. Basically I meant that Sheppard should’ve been designed and operated as LRT right from the start. So Lastman still would’ve gotten his 5km subway, but run with high or low floor LRVs. Therefore any future extension east of Don Mills could be be brought to the surface similar to the Crosstown, or other pre-metros. Instead of the transfer proposed with the SELRT.

You can't expect this level of forethought from persons who's justification for spending billions of infrastructure is "we deserve this".

 

[Rainforest]

Basically I meant that Sheppard should’ve been designed and operated as LRT right from the start. So Lastman still would’ve gotten his 5km subway, but run with high or low floor LRVs. Therefore any future extension east of Don Mills could be be brought to the surface similar to the Crosstown, or other pre-metros. Instead of the transfer proposed with the SELRT.

That would probably work.

 

[CDL.TO]

I don’t really know what you mean. Basically I meant that Sheppard should’ve been designed and operated as LRT right from the start. So Lastman still would’ve gotten his 5km subway, but run with high or low floor LRVs. Therefore any future extension east of Don Mills could be be brought to the surface similar to the Crosstown, or other pre-metros. Instead of the transfer proposed with the SELRT.

Yes, perhaps they should have designed the Sheppard subway to be operate high or low floor LRVs. But they didn't and now we're stuck with the Sheppard subway. But it's not impossible to extend the existing Sheppard Subway by bringing it up to the surface like the Crosstown or other premetros.

So I flipped your question around to ask: Why didn't they design the Sheppard East LRT to operate with LRVs that are compatible with the existing Sheppard Subway?

If the people who designed the Sheppard Subway in the 1990s were guilty of not having the foresight of designing the subway to be compatible with a potential LRT extension, then the people who designed the SELRT in the 2000s are guilty of not having the hindsight to design the SELRT to be compatible with the existing Sheppard Subway.

 

[BurlOak]

+1

 

[44 North]

So I flipped your question around to ask: Why didn't they design the Sheppard East LRT to operate with LRVs that are compatible with the existing Sheppard Subway?

Oh I see. There are probably many pages on the topic over the last 7yrs, but I thought it was generally accepted that few LRVs could fit in there. Or that the only way it could fit would be w/out a pantograph and using third rail (which would mean the LRV couldn’t operate in-median).

 

[TheTigerMaster]

The pantographs can be retracted. I'm sure we can find a way to retract the third rail as well. There's no reason for the third rail to prohibit use of the street ROW. The vehicle would just switch to pantograps on the street.

 

[CDL.TO]

Oh I see. There are probably many pages on the topic over the last 7yrs, but I thought it was generally accepted that few LRVs could fit in there. Or that the only way it could fit would be w/out a pantograph and using third rail (which would mean the LRV couldn’t operate in-median).

It is "generally accepted", which is the problem! It's simply not true!

The pantographs can be retracted. I'm sure we can find a way to retract the third rail as well. There's no reason for the third rail to prohibit use of the street ROW. The vehicle would just switch to pantograps on the street.

Exactly.

It's not even a new idea! The reason why I'm probably so obsessed with this right now is because I'm living in Amsterdam where the LRVs do exactly that. The LRVs run in the subway tunnel using third rail until it reaches a station where it puts up a pantograph and continues its route along a Transit City-style street median LRT line.

(So it really gets my goat when people on UT suggest that a LRV I ride every week is either non-existent or impossible.)

 

[WislaHD]

Why do we have to look to Amsterdam? We have examples of this done in North America.

[video=youtube;hTFORkPW_SQ]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hTFORkPW_SQ[/video]

Boston's Blue Line switches from third rail to pantograph too.

 

[W. K. Lis]

The above example uses a high platform. However, if with a low-floor light rail, they'll have to use use platform screen doors to prevent passengers from touching the third rail.

[video=youtube;LP3-IkBMpDE]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LP3-IkBMpDE[/video]

BTW. If it wasn't for the anti-transit pressures even during Miller's administration, we could have had a LRT already running on Sheppard East by now, 12km, 26 stops – Don Mills Station to Conlins Road. See link.