44 North
Senior Member
Not quite.
Imagine if this is in the median.
- Just east of Victoria Park, the top of the subway breaks through the surface - it starts being in a trench.
- It stays in an ever decreasing depth trench until Pharmacy (about 300m away) when the top of rail is finally at/near street level. No through traffic can cross Sheppard in this distance because of the trench.
- 250m farther away, the top of rail would be about 4 to 4.5m above road. This distance would either be an embankment or a bridge structure (or combination), but traffic couldn't go under since there is not enough clearance.
- For the next 200m, the height of rail above road increases to about 7m. Counting the support system (rail, ties, balast, deck, supporting beams) the clearance is increasing from about 2.5m to 5.0m over this length. Enough for a car to pass under (barely), but not close to meeting the design requirements of 5.0m vertical clearance.
- Beyond this point (750m beyond Vic Park), the tracks are high enough that there is room below them for the support system (rail, ties, balast, deck, supporting beams) and clearance for traffic.
Thus, in this example, you would have to close Pharmacy, and have no through traffic on Pharmacy and no left turns onto Pharmacy.
There might be just enough space between Pharmacy and Warden, but it would still mean that all left turns from the businesses and side streets would have to be banned between Pharmacy and Warden.
What max gradients are you using, 3%? My opinion for Sheppard is that we should switch rolling stock to something else, and maybe something that could use Line 3's infrastructure/ROW. Still a subway, but one that's more nimble and could handle steeper grades with ease. Dipping underground then rising onto guideways above suburban arterials or expressways to bridge med/large distances is what a northerly crosstown naturally calls for, but not what the T1/TR "conventional" subway offers. Time to look at different trains.