News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 02, 2020
 8.5K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
 39K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
 4.7K     0 

As a side note for others, you may wonder how to calculate the distance required for gradient (to climb to a certain height).

The answer is to use a calculator for that purpose, and insert the estimated height climb required, and max. slope and it will give you back the distance.


For reference, most of the TTC subway is set to a max. grade of 3.5%; the Ontario line will be 4.5%

1682293194433.png


In the above example, I have inserted a grade of 3.5 and a vertical distance of 20 (I was thinking Meters, but it doesn't matter, in that as long as you read
the distance in height and length as the same unit, your good.

Note then, that if you ascend 20M, at 3.5% you require 571M

Obviously, in this case the depth of a not yet built station isn't knowable, but 20M is a fairly reasonable assumption. Sheppard's stations range from 13M-18M deep, but the tunnels were all done cut-and-cover, and as such are closer to the surface than is likely for most new construction.

Note that any grade change from below ground to sufficiently elevated to clear railway or highway will be greater than this.
 
Last edited:
However, I still find our insistence on shoving subways everywhere to be a highly questionable piece of policy. And, presumably, one would want a station at STC, so that would inflate the costs.

Absolutely, subways have an extreme cost both for construction and maintenance, and should be reserved for high-ridership situations when there is no other option.

Tunnels for those subways are cheap but building stations underground is crazy expensive.

6.3 meter TBMs are a perfectly reasonable way to build a high-capacity sewer though; they don't have stations, emergency exits, or fire management components.
 
Last edited:
As a side note for others, you may wonder how to calculate the distance require for gradient (to climb to a certain height).

The answer is to use a calculator for that purpose, and insert the estimated height climb required, and max. slope and it will give you back the distance.


For reference, most of the TTC subway is set to a max. grade of 3.5%; the Ontario line will be 4.5%

View attachment 471531

In the above example, I have inserted a grade of 3.5 and a distance of 20 (I was thinking Meters, but it doesn't matter, in that as long as read
the distance in height and length as the same unit, your good.

Note then, that ascend 20M, at 3.5% you require 571M

Obviously, in this case the depth of a not yet built station isn't knowable, but 20M is a fairly reasonable assumption. Sheppard's stations range from 13M-18M deep, but the tunnels were all done cut-and-cover, and as such are closer to the surface that is likely for most new construction.

Not that any grade change from below ground to sufficiently elevated to clear railway or highway will be greater than this.
Good post as it shows what the distance is needed to get to x height using various types of grade. The rule of thumb for me has been 100 feet per 1 feet in height equal 1%.

You need more distance added to the slope and the height to do the transition from grade to slop that various on the slope %. This applies at both ends for what you want to climb that you will see curb areas for that transition..
 
If you mean the existence of such plans.......they already are.......if one is paying attention, LOL

Not sure the pols would be thrilled, but good news for them, the media is usually asleep and Jack hasn't found my post on it yet, LOL

One of the planners/engineers on the project is on the City's Design Review panel and made the comment he was working on this in response to his fellow panel members comments about the developer presentation for the Malvern Town Centre plans.

Said plans show an LRT stop.

The Panel's meetings are streamed and available via You Tube, here:


This project (MTC) was the third and final for the day.

The project discussion starts roughly here, about 3hrs 5M in:


The LRT mention is in the panel discussion section following the proponent presentation.

If you mean renders and such, I expect the first of those will come with 10% design so late this year or early next; assuming anyone wants any renders released that is......
Unless I am missing something here, the "Neilson LRT" you are referring to is just the Malvern spur of the Eglinton East LRT. This has been the alignment for several years at this point. The "advance to 10% design" is just a reference to the EELRT TPAP... as per the City's website: "Currently, the City is advancing 10 per cent Design and Transit Project Assessment Process (TPAP) work on the EELRT."

There's no top-secret transit project in the works, sorry to say...
 
Unless I am missing something here, the "Neilson LRT" you are referring to is just the Malvern spur of the Eglinton East LRT. This has been the alignment for several years at this point. The "advance to 10% design" is just a reference to the EELRT TPAP... as per the City's website: "Currently, the City is advancing 10 per cent Design and Transit Project Assessment Process (TPAP) work on the EELRT."

There's no top-secret transit project in the works, sorry to say...

I did not suggest there was; and did suggest that it may be associated to the EELRT. I was merely noting that the extent of this work at this location was not widely known.

Questions nonetheless remain about details of this aspect of the project, including whether any of it will (or should) go forward as conceived and those choices will (or should) relate to the Sheppard subway alignment.
 
Alright, I guess it's not even worth discussing if we can't agree on a single shared reality. I personally think transfers are an inconvenience that we should avoid when we can, but maybe I'm wrong!

You're not wrong. If we're going to encourage people to leave their cars behind and take transit, we have to reduce transfers. I wish I could find it, years ago I read a study that shows the more transfers you put up on a route, the more likely people are just going to opt to drive instead.
 
On the subject of transfers, I'm content to endorse the notion that fewer would be better; but do we actually have the origin/destination numbers to support where those transfers are projected to happen in any given alignment?

I get the thought that STC is more of a destination than McCowan/Sheppard. But that strikes me as an incomplete thought. For instance, Malvern is a large population node proximal to STC, how do we feel about the forced transfer from a non-subway medium to the subway in the first place; then, if those people are wanting to go further west, you'll make them subway south first and transfer again for that purpose.

The argument may be made (and is perhaps valid) that more people from points west will want to go STC; and that more people originating in STC would be more likely to head west than north.

But I really wonder how many STC residents will be heading north-west.

I'm very data-driven in these things and would really like to see the origin-destination data that exists today and future modelling to consider which options may be most attractive.
 
Last edited:
On the subject of transfers, I'm content to endorse the notion that fewer would be better; but do we actually have the origin/destination numbers to support where those transfers are projected to happen in any given alignment?

I get the thought that STC is more of a destination than McCowan/Sheppard. But that strikes me as an incomplete thought. For instance, Malvern is a large population node proximal to STC, how do we feel about the forced transfer from a non-subway medium to the subway in the first place; then, if those people are wanting to go further east, you'll make them subway south first and transfer again for that purpose.

The argument may be made (and is perhaps valid) that more people from points west will want to go STC; and that more people originating in STC would be more likely to head west than north.

But I really wonder how many STC residents will be heading north-west.

I'm very data-driven in these things and would really like to see the origin-destination data that exists today and future modelling to consider which options may be most attractive.
It's not just people originating at STC. It is also a major mobility hub, with the Ellesmere BRT and GO bus. It is a major destination and natural transfer point. Sheppard McCowan is literally a Canadian Tire and SFHs. There is nothing there is make it an obvious major interchange station. Even the scale of readily redevelopable land is much less than STC. The EELRT extension connecting to Sheppard McCowan provides connectivity to Malvern such that an eastward extension of Line 4 on Sheppard is very unlikely for many decades. If we're concerned about undue transfers to continue westward on Line 4 in the event it is routed to STC, the EELRT could continue to Agincourt.
 
If Sheppard and McCowan is not a destination, for what possible reason are the illuminated, high minded thinkers of Metrolinx extending the subway there?

What if we saved a ton of money by terminating line 2 at STC and only running the Sheppard extension to STC? That would make much more sense... as much as is possible within the context of running subways into suburbs, anyway.
 
It's not just people originating at STC. It is also a major mobility hub, with the Ellesmere BRT and GO bus. It is a major destination and natural transfer point. Sheppard McCowan is literally a Canadian Tire and SFHs.

They're going. I've already reported that CT is looking at redeveloping their property; and there's a lot more in play there.

Also important to think of Malvern.

There is nothing there is make it an obvious major interchange station. Even the scale of readily redevelopable land is much less than STC.

Right, but I'm still going to comeback to the idea of where is the traffic interchanging to/from.

If the evidence shows that the majority of those using Ellesmere BRT are then connecting to/from the SSE to the south, the point is moot, and Sheppard is irrelevant to their travel pattern.

I'm not saying that's the case, I'm saying lets get the data on the table.

The EELRT extension connecting to Sheppard McCowan provides connectivity to Malvern such that an eastward extension of Line 4 on Sheppard is very unlikely for many decades. If we're concerned about undue transfers to continue westward on Line 4 in the event it is routed to STC, the EELRT could continue to Agincourt.

First, the EELRT is going nowhere fast. That's important to say, even as design on a portion of the line makes advances. Studies show its a very poor performing route as currently conceived.

Second, we again need to come back to train storage. IF an east end subway yard is built at the CP Toronto Yard (roughly Markham north of Sheppard) then tracks to that location will have to be built. Which in turn may carry substantial cost implications in diverting the mainline away from that.

We just don't know. I wish everyone wasn't in such a hurry to speculate without hard information/data on the table.,
 
If Sheppard and McCowan is not a destination, for what possible reason are the illuminated, high minded thinkers of Metrolinx extending the subway there?

What if we saved a ton of money by terminating line 2 at STC and only running the Sheppard extension to STC? That would make much more sense... as much as is possible within the context of running subways into suburbs, anyway.

That horse has left the barn, there's a giant hole in the ground at Sheppard/McCowan now with a tunnel boring machine having been launched from there.
 
  • Sad
Reactions: T3G
If Sheppard and McCowan is not a destination, for what possible reason are the illuminated, high minded thinkers of Metrolinx extending the subway there?

What if we saved a ton of money by terminating line 2 at STC and only running the Sheppard extension to STC? That would make much more sense... as much as is possible within the context of running subways into suburbs, anyway.
In the context the Sheppard East extension, its unfortunately a major problem of "Choosing the least worst option". No matter whether you extend Line 4 to STC or Shep-McCowan, there are major drawbacks and upsides. While @afransen is correct that STC is a major transit hub with many services connecting to it, McCowan is also in general a much more natural terminus for other services, namely McCowan busses coming from York Region, and services on Sheppard travelling east of McCowan such as towards the Zoo or Malvern. Fact of the matter is, we were always going to have rapid transit service along most of Sheppard regardless of the mode. Before the Sheppard East Subway, we had the Sheppard East LRT, and now we also (might eventually) have the Eglinton East LRT lopping back to Sheppard/McCowan. As such, even if the SSE might not make sense right now, it will be a huge hub in the medium to long term (Build a BRT along McCowan north to Markham, build a BRT/LRT east to Malvern/Pickering, and its a hub that rivals STC). Now we could just build an extension to STC, and build the extension to Sheppard later, but that's just gonna be more expensive as we're going to have later build another hole, launch another TBM, and overall doing such a piecemeal approach will be much more expensive than just digging it now, and developing the lands surrounding Sheppard immediately.

I've shown this image many times before, but this is the reason why the line terminates at Sheppard:
1677371920463-png.458538
 
In the context the Sheppard East extension, its unfortunately a major problem of "Choosing the least worst option". No matter whether you extend Line 4 to STC or Shep-McCowan, there are major drawbacks and upsides. While @afransen is correct that STC is a major transit hub with many services connecting to it, McCowan is also in general a much more natural terminus for other services, namely McCowan busses coming from York Region, and services on Sheppard travelling east of McCowan such as towards the Zoo or Malvern. Fact of the matter is, we were always going to have rapid transit service along most of Sheppard regardless of the mode. Before the Sheppard East Subway, we had the Sheppard East LRT, and now we also (might eventually) have the Eglinton East LRT lopping back to Sheppard/McCowan. As such, even if the SSE might not make sense right now, it will be a huge hub in the medium to long term (Build a BRT along McCowan north to Markham, build a BRT/LRT east to Malvern/Pickering, and its a hub that rivals STC). Now we could just build an extension to STC, and build the extension to Sheppard later, but that's just gonna be more expensive as we're going to have later build another hole, launch another TBM, and overall doing such a piecemeal approach will be much more expensive than just digging it now, and developing the lands surrounding Sheppard immediately.

I've shown this image many times before, but this is the reason why the line terminates at Sheppard:
1677371920463-png.458538

I concur w/the above but would add just this.

There are considerable hassles for pedestrians, cyclists and buses anytime one looks at crossing the 401. It can be unpleasant/unsafe in the former cases, and just irksomely slow in the latter.

There is an argument for getting subway/GO train etc one stop past any substantive barrier to movement, both to benefit the transit user, but also reduce congestion for the highway user as this removes many of those pesky buses, LOL
 
We aren't being very intentional about where we locate our major centres with respect to regional rapid transit. If we're looking to build new regional centres out of what is essentially a greenfield/barren suburban area, why not do it somewhere with better regional connectivity, namely a GO Line. The majority of our suburban centres are failures in this regard: STC, NYCC, Mississauga (too far from Cooksville), VMC. Etobicoke sort of fits the bill at Kipling station.
 
We aren't being very intentional about where we locate our major centres with respect to regional rapid transit. If we're looking to build new regional centres out of what is essentially a greenfield/barren suburban area, why not do it somewhere with better regional connectivity, namely a GO Line. The majority of our suburban centres are failures in this regard: STC, NYCC, Mississauga (too far from Cooksville), VMC. Etobicoke sort of fits the bill at Kipling station.
Don’t worry. VMC STC NYCC Richmond Hill Centre will all have subways. They can get people to the Go trains.

The danforth extension should not stop at sheppard. It needs to get to woodside square to connect with the future crosstown finch lrt.
 

Back
Top