[11th]

Interlining is worth consideration though I don't think absolutely necessary. But that's a bit different than building whole new tunnels further west.

Rapid transit to Malvern is important but I'm not convinced a Line 2 or Line 4 extension is the most appropriate. I would study these options along with various LRT modes (at-grade or elevated) and routes.

I view the top two priorities for Sheppard as Line 4 extensions to Sheppard West for better network connectivity and to Vic. Park to serve the Consumers Road business area. While I prefer at-grade LRT east of Vic. Park, I'm not against looking at incremental subway extensions to a) Agincourt GO station, and b) McCowan/Line 2 - provided there are comprehensive land use and transportation plans around these MTSAs.

If they do decide to extend line 4 eastward, it should go right to Agincourt in the first phase. No point launching in TBM for < 2 km.

 

[OneCity]

Anything to the west beyond Sheppard West Stn and to the east beyond McCowan would be pure fantasy.

As much as i feel strongly about it getting to Markham & Milner in the 1st phase I'd have to agree that it would be a feat to see even the Provincial politicians get the line past McCowan.

But it will be interesting as there will be a massive uproar in the Malvern community so i doubt it goes unnoticed. They been waiting for the subway for decades so there will be noise and I know from living there and having friends still there that it is still expected. When i moved to Malvern I was shocked to see how many people talked about it and I never heard a peep from the media. Never.

 

[drum118]

Express buses were one of the first things to be cut when transit sank and will be brought back as ridership demands for it increase.

If you want interlining service, you better hope TTC has learn from the fail one for line 1 & 2 back in the 60's. Base on the current connection from 1 to 4, interlining is DOA. Even if you try to go west and connect to the Spadina Line, it DOA without total rebuilt as well at Yonge.

Based on current ridership of 4 as well 85, an BRT is only needed to get the the far east, but want to see the plan LRT as well to Malvern.

If wasn't for the Ford's the Shepard LRT would be in service today as plan, but would lack the cars on opening date thanks to BBD and we would still see the old fleet still in service until 2022 when the last cars show up.

 

[jys]

Out of curiosity, would it be feasible to have a Calgary/Edmonton style full-priority high-floor LRT running along Sheppard at the surface, or is that unrealistic? Also would building cut and cover significantly reduce costs on this corridor?

 

[CapitalSeven]

Out of curiosity, would it be feasible to have a Calgary/Edmonton style full-priority high-floor LRT running along Sheppard at the surface, or is that unrealistic? Also would building cut and cover significantly reduce costs on this corridor?

You've just described big stretches of the LA system which works really well for the most part.

 

[Bureaucromancer]

Short answer, yes. Long answer, the size of the platforms makes it harder to design and build, with poorer urban form in the end, than low floor. Given everything involved, if we're talking a primarily surface median ROW I'd be inclined to cut down the platforms in any conversion. The question is, ultimately, what you gain by creating a new and distinct fleet with more difficult infrastructure?

My inclination is that high floor trains of some sort could make sense IF we went back to the SRT and were building something like the Scarborough Y, but given the Scarborough Extension we probably have more to gain by cutting down the Sheppard line platforms. Whatever else Ottawa has done, they've shown that light metro level of service can be achieved with low floor equipment.

 

[ARG1]

Short answer, yes. Long answer, the size of the platforms makes it harder to design and build, with poorer urban form in the end, than low floor. Given everything involved, if we're talking a primarily surface median ROW I'd be inclined to cut down the platforms in any conversion. The question is, ultimately, what you gain by creating a new and distinct fleet with more difficult infrastructure?

My inclination is that high floor trains of some sort could make sense IF we went back to the SRT and were building something like the Scarborough Y, but given the Scarborough Extension we probably have more to gain by cutting down the Sheppard line platforms. Whatever else Ottawa has done, they've shown that light metro level of service can be achieved with low floor equipment.

Just because its possible doesn't mean its practical. Yes Ottawa does run on Low Floor vehicles, but at a massive cost, that being future capacity. Simply put, by running on low floor vehicles, Ottawa now has less capacity in their trains for no apparent reason. As for the Sheppard Line, there is a good reason of using high floor, even in a median setting, which is the existing subway. Your two options are either A) Have 2 services running along Sheppard, a subway from Yonge to Don Mills, then an LRT from Don Mills out East which not only is it messy, but is extremely inconvenient for passengers travelling to North York Centre. Your other option is to modify the existing subway to LRT which if done using low floor technology, would require changing the height of the platforms which is expensive and frankly unnecessary. Given these scenerios, if we had to make Sheppard East an LRT, the best solution would be to run High Floor LRTs using the existing subway segment.

 

[afransen]

Just because its possible doesn't mean its practical. Yes Ottawa does run on Low Floor vehicles, but at a massive cost, that being future capacity. Simply put, by running on low floor vehicles, Ottawa now has less capacity in their trains for no apparent reason. As for the Sheppard Line, there is a good reason of using high floor, even in a median setting, which is the existing subway. Your two options are either A) Have 2 services running along Sheppard, a subway from Yonge to Don Mills, then an LRT from Don Mills out East which not only is it messy, but is extremely inconvenient for passengers travelling to North York Centre. Your other option is to modify the existing subway to LRT which if done using low floor technology, would require changing the height of the platforms which is expensive and frankly unnecessary. Given these scenerios, if we had to make Sheppard East an LRT, the best solution would be to run High Floor LRTs using the existing subway segment.

Third option is to use light metro tech Alstom Metropolis or like Ontario Line, re-use the tunnel sections and run any extensions elevated and at grade. It's not necessary to degrade the service all the way to low-floor LRT.

 

[ARG1]

Third option is to use light metro tech Alstom Metropolis or like Ontario Line, re-use the tunnel sections and run any extensions elevated and at grade. It's not necessary to degrade the service all the way to low-floor LRT.

Ye, and personally I think this might be the best solution. I'm just talking in the context of the original Sheppard LRT plan.

 

[afransen]

Got it. If we go the LRT route (cheap), I can't see retrofitting the existing tunneled portion.

 

[W. K. Lis]

Got it. If we go the LRT route (cheap), I can't see retrofitting the existing tunneled portion.

The station platforms are hollow. They can be lowered. The station box is built for 6 heavy-rail subway car trains, or the length of 5 light-rail car trains. It is partitioned for 4 heavy-rail cars, which means they can work behind the partition to lower the platform before lowering the platform for the remainder.

 

[jys]

Third option is to use light metro tech Alstom Metropolis or like Ontario Line, re-use the tunnel sections and run any extensions elevated and at grade. It's not necessary to degrade the service all the way to low-floor LRT.

Of course you're right. With this light metro option, would it be fully segregated from traffic (elevated or at-grade with fly over/under) or would it simply have full priority (railroad-crossing style) at intersections?

 

[gweed123]

I always felt that the Sheppard subway should interline with the YUS at Sheppard West and terminate at York University in the west. Direct connection to Finch LRT and a major trip generator.

In the east, I think either Line 2 or Line 4 should terminate at Malvern Town Centre.

Those don't exactly sound like fantasies to me.

I think it would make more sense to interline in such a way that goes south instead of north. Trains are being short-turned on the Spadina extension anyway, so why not have every 2nd train at Wilson head north to Vaughan, and the other head east along Sheppard? Passengers heading westbound east of Yonge would have the option to transfer to head downtown, or just stay on the train they're on.

 

[afransen]

Of course you're right. With this light metro option, would it be fully segregated from traffic (elevated or at-grade with fly over/under) or would it simply have full priority (railroad-crossing style) at intersections?

Full separation would make sense, still metro after all.

 

[Rainforest]

I think it would make more sense to interline in such a way that goes south instead of north. Trains are being short-turned on the Spadina extension anyway, so why not have every 2nd train at Wilson head north to Vaughan, and the other head east along Sheppard? Passengers heading westbound east of Yonge would have the option to transfer to head downtown, or just stay on the train they're on.

For the riders, interlining either way would make sense. Maybe, even both ways: one Sheppard train goes to York U and Vaughan, next Sheppard trains heads downtown.

Adding the engineering perspective, interlining south is the only option that won't be ridiculously expensive. Line 1 runs on surface between Sheppard and Wilson, with plenty of room for portals, the southbound trains from Sheppard can be grade-separated from the northbound trains to Vaughan.

Interlining north will require messing with the existing tunnel that has entered service just a few years ago.