[Streety McCarface]

Every time I see this I get angry. I get angry because this could very well happen. We know the Scarborough Town Centre is the central hub for Scarborough, not withstanding the large mall and development planned, but STC is also home to the largest bus terminal in the TTC network, a GO Bus terminal, an Intercity Terminal, and is also the planned terminus of a BRT service to Durham. So this idea of the Sheppard Subway not going to STC, but instead a kilometre north to Sheppard is insane and is to me indicative of everything wrong with transit planning in Toronto. Is there development potential at Sheppard and McCowan? Yes of course, but development potential should never supersede transit connectivity and ease of use. Am I saying the subway shouldn't go to Sheppard? No, it can go to Miliken park for all I care, but the Sheppard Line must go to STC because that's the logical thing to do, it's were all the buses both local and intercity are, and is and has been since the 80's the core of Scarborough. There is nothing wrong with having the Sheppard Subway veer south towards STC after lets say Kennedy. Not to mention if you are intent on sending the Sheppard Line into Durham (not something I necessarily agree with) than Ellesmere is the better road to follow since you would hit UTSC on the way. East of McCowan there is nothing of note on Sheppard. You can still have the SSE go to Sheppard, but the Sheppard Subway should under no circumstances go anywhere but the Scarborough Town Centre.

Half of STCs buses are moving to sheppard. I don't see a problem with terminating Sheppard there, especially if half the bus connections are there. Yes, its an extra transfer for those south of the 401 or those living at STC, but it is still a 2 km trek. It won't be a (comparatively) short subway ride.

I'm not opposed to extending Sheppard, it should just be above ground as much as possible. We need to get off the insane treadmill of grossly overpriced tunnels under suburban arterials. And if it means we need to retrofit Line 4 to use lighter trains, so be it. TR are total overkill for a suburban line. We're not going to get the extensive transit in the suburbs people want at $1B per km.

You can very easily elevate TRs. It's done at Allen Road, and all over NYC. They're choosing a different rolling stock option for the ontario line because of the decreased turning radii. That's not an issue on Sheppard — it's a straight shot.

You'll end up spending a billion dollars retrofitting the Sheppard subway, increasing your rolling stock procurement costs, and decreasing your compatibility with the existing subway for nothing.

 

[afransen]

Half of STCs buses are moving to sheppard. I don't see a problem with terminating Sheppard there, especially if half the bus connections are there. Yes, its an extra transfer for those south of the 401 or those living at STC, but it is still a 2 km trek. It won't be a (comparatively) short subway ride.

You can very easily elevate TRs. It's done at Allen Road, and all over NYC. They're choosing a different rolling stock option for the ontario line because of the decreased turning radii. That's not an issue on Sheppard — it's a straight shot.

You'll end up spending a billion dollars retrofitting the Sheppard subway, increasing your rolling stock procurement costs, and decreasing your compatibility with the existing subway for nothing.

It's a straight shot down Sheppard, but what if it were to turn down to STC? Ending at McCowan is still kind of a subway to nowhere.

 

[ARG1]

It's a straight shot down Sheppard, but what if it were to turn down to STC? Ending at McCowan is still kind of a subway to nowhere.

I've heard some proposals in linking up the two lines at Sheppard-McCowan to create a through service. That way you could have a subway straight to STC, while leaving room for future expansion to Malvern.

 

[JSF-1]

It's a straight shot down Sheppard, but what if it were to turn down to STC? Ending at McCowan is still kind of a subway to nowhere.

It is a subway to nowhere. Sure some buses will move to Sheppard, but the GO Bus, and Intercity buses along with the proposed BRT to Durham are still all going to be at STC. On top of that you still have the fact STC is also planed to have a massive amount of development both residential and office, alongside the large commercial space in the mall itself. I cannot undertsand how some people believe having the sheppard subway skip STC is a good idea. The sheppard subway going to STC has been on the books since Network 2011; why? Because it's the correct thing to do. We have been talking about the idea of "Sub-Centres" in Toronto since the 70's and STC has been the sub-centre for Scarborough since then and that is not changing.

As for moving bus routes, looking at the TTC map today the only routes I see logically stopping at Sheppard would be the 129 McCowan North, 130 Middlefield, 131 Nugget, 169 Huntingwood, and the 85 Sheppard, (and maybe the 16 McCowan if they want to run a parallel bus service to fill the gap. They could also just extend the 129 south to STC). So 4 or 5 of the 13 or so buses that stop at STC. STC will still be the main bus terminal for scarborough.

Comparatively buses stopping at STC to me at least would be: 9 Bellamy, 16 McCowan, 21 Brimley, 38 Highland Creek, 43B Kennedy, 132 Milner, 133 Neilson, 134 Progress, 178 Brimorton (assuming it becomes a permanent route), and the 903 Kennedy-Scarborough Centre Express. As well as the aforementioned connections to GO, Intercity, and possible Durham buses.

 

[afransen]

More to the point, when it is elevated and thus cheaper, it will be a lot more reasonable to run it to STC and perhaps on to UTSC down Ellesmere, plus extending west to Sheppard West. If we can drop the cost to $200M/km, that could all be done for what the 7km extension would cost to get to McCowan using tunnels.

 

[kamira51]

What I think is just giving people options to taking one subway route over another is not justification to be building those subway, there has to be enough ridership to justify the cost.

Understandable, I was merely proposing the idea of giving riders more options for rapid transit.

I'm not opposed to extending Sheppard, it should just be above ground as much as possible.

I agree. Sheppard isn't a busy line and spending billions just to extend it underground isn't worth it.

If it could be built above ground that would make sense, but also I thought about using cut and cover method for the whole length, but what would be cheaper?

Elevated or cut and cover?

 

[afransen]

I imagine cut and cover would both cost more and be significantly more disruptive to the street. The stations are a big expense underground.

The Surrey-Langley Skytrain extension in Vancouver is $3.1B for 16.5km, around $200M/km and elevated. The Broadway subway extension is a third the length (some of that still above ground) and similar cost, but built with TBM. I really can't see cut-and-cover being cheaper than elevated except in very exceptional circumstances. The stations are a big expense in subway projects and often they are built cut-and-cover even with bored tunnel.

 

[ARG1]

I imagine cut and cover would both cost more and be significantly more disruptive to the street. The stations are a big expense underground.

The Surrey-Langley Skytrain extension in Vancouver is $3.1B for 16.5km, around $200M/km and elevated. The Broadway subway extension is a third the length (some of that still above ground) and similar cost, but built with TBM. I really can't see cut-and-cover being cheaper than elevated except in very exceptional circumstances. The stations are a big expense in subway projects and often they are built cut-and-cover even with bored tunnel.

Its important to note though that the Surrey-Langley Skytrain Extension is elevated in the middle of a highway, running in basically the middle of nowhere. Compare this to Sheppard Avenue where both sides of Sheppard Avenue are developed basically the entire length, you'll have to have an elevated guideway running down directly on top of Sheppard Avenue. Not that its necessarily a bad thing, but its important to mention that the two projects aren't even close to comparable.

 

[W. K. Lis]

Its important to note though that the Surrey-Langley Skytrain Extension is elevated in the middle of a highway, running in basically the middle of nowhere. Compare this to Sheppard Avenue where both sides of Sheppard Avenue are developed basically the entire length, you'll have to have an elevated guideway running down directly on top of Sheppard Avenue. Not that its necessarily a bad thing, but its important to mention that the two projects aren't even close to comparable.

Line 1 (Spadina) runs down the middle of Allen Road (was Allen Expressway) from Eglinton West Station (to be Cedarvale Station) to Wilson Station.

 

[ARG1]

Line 1 (Spadina) runs down the middle of Allen Road (was Allen Expressway) from Eglinton West Station (to be Cedarvale Station) to Wilson Station.

We're not talking about Line 1 are we? We're talking about a proposed rapid transit project following a major street. I'm just pointing out that the circumstances revolving around elevating Langley isn't even comparable to Sheppard.

 

[afransen]

You should look at the Fraser Highway in google earth. It is just an arterial much line Sheppard (a bit narrower, actually). There are some stretches where it runs through undeveloped areas (golf course, wooded areas), but otherwise, it looks a lot like many suburban arterials in Toronto. It is a highway in the sense that Hurontario is 'highway 10' in Mississauga.

 

[Bureaucromancer]

I've heard some proposals in linking up the two lines at Sheppard-McCowan to create a through service. That way you could have a subway straight to STC, while leaving room for future expansion to Malvern.

I 've really never seen the appeal of this option. You end up with an awkwardly long line, force the Sheppard section to accommodate the capacity requirements of the inner parts of Bloor Danforth and lose the possibility of extension to Centennial College, Centennary Hospital and UTSC that are (along with SRT guideway re-use), in my view, better arguments for deviating off Sheppard than STC itself.

 

[Haydenpoon]

How about both lines serving both stations at Sheppard and STC? That way, those who are heading east on Sheppard as far east as possible (McCowan), those who want to go to STC will not need to transfer, and the line can easily extend east on Ellesmere if needed. The potential for cross-platform transfers at both stations will also make transferring very convenient.

 

[denfromoakvillemilton]

I don't see the point of the Sheppard McCowan station, but might as well get going with this. Like I said before, it's time to move on from Scarborough.

 

[ARG1]

I don't see the point of the Sheppard McCowan station, but might as well get going with this. Like I said before, it's time to move on from Scarborough.

Well its inevitable that we will have a Sheppard Line of some sort in the future, the question really always how? First it was a subway, then it was an LRT, and now its shifting to being a subway again. Unfortunately under the old Liberal plans, what this meant was a Sheppard LRT that went all the way to Malvern, and a 1 stop Scarborough Extension that looked like a stub, and just begging to meet up with the Sheppard LRT. With an eastern extension of the Sheppard Subway, its extremely likely that long term, the next step would be a further extension East, so a transfer hub does make some modicum of sense there.

The liberal plan map for reference: https://media.blogto.com/uploads/20....jpg?cmd=resize&quality=70&w=1400&height=2500
(note, this was an extremely long term plan and nothing was really set in stone, but this was the general direction things were being taken)