[Northern Light]

Also the other question this whole document raises is where exactly are they putting the station at Kennedy?

Kennedy to Agincourt GO is 300m, meanwhile a full length subway platform is 150m. I really hope they don't just plop the station east of Kennedy, and require people to walk 150m to reach Agincourt.

A station at Agincourt meanwhile would allow for far better transfers, and I don't think diverting the Kennedy busses 300m east to reach it would be the end of the world. The only big issue I see is no direct subway connection to Agincourt Mall, but I think a direct connection to the Stouffville Line should be a higher priority.

In all options the station will be on the west side of Kennedy. A transfer from mode to mode is contemplated here. That can be seen on the maps.

The exact nature of the connection will depend on what grade we're looking at, but if, for argument's sake, the train were underground at this location, given that its depth would have to be sufficient not to disturb the rail corridor above, and that it would have go under the water table here as well, you can traverse quite a distance just going up escalators off the end of a platform.

For rough purposes, the escalator horizontal distance will be double the height it must traverse.

 

[Rainforest]

At first I was surprised that they present 4 options, when logically there are 6. The missing options are:
- Going to STC in the East, no extension in the West
- Going to Morningside & Sheppard in the East, and going to Sheppard West in the West

After a bit of thinking, I feel they probably based their options on the funding considerations. If so, then it makes sense:

Concept 1 = going with the minimal funding. Then they prioritize the East because it can bring more new riders. And, since a line to STC would be a bit longer and cost a bit more than a line to Sheppard & McCowan, they only consider the latter.

Concept 2 = we decide to fund both East and West. With more funding overall, they can afford to spend a bit more on the line to STC. Thus, they offer both options: Sheppard & McCowan or STC.

Concept 3 = we want to go past McCowan in the East. In that case, they feel they can't afford the western extension at this time. Furthermore, a longer eastern leg gives access to some potential sites for the new subway yard, and that makes the western connection less critical from the operational standpoint.

 

[christiesplits]

Happy to see a Consumers station proposed. I always worried they'd skip Consumers for cost-savings.

There's a decently sized office park and some residential towers which make station worthwhile.

 

[ARG1]

In all options the station will be on the west side of Kennedy. A transfer from mode to mode is contemplated here. That can be seen on the maps.

The exact nature of the connection will depend on what grade we're looking at, but if, for argument's sake, the train were underground at this location, given that its depth would have to be sufficient not to disturb the rail corridor above, and that it would have go under the water table here as well, you can traverse quite a distance just going up escalators off the end of a platform.

For rough purposes, the escalator horizontal distance will be double the height it must traverse.

That... is a genuine yikes.

 

[Rainforest]

However, still suprised that they placed the terminus at Sheppard & Morningside in Concept 3.

Shouldn't it be at Sheppard & Neilson instead? A bit cheaper to build, and better integrated with the proposed EE LRT (the latter would be routed from Malvern Centre via Neilson - Sheppard - Morningside to UTSC, and then to Kennedy Stn).

 

[Coolibop]

Perhaps things have changed in the years since I posted that. Do they have a usable website for staff reports?

You have too much faith...

 

[kEiThZ]

Not sure I agree with this. I think UTSC is a better extension target than Sheppard / Morningside is. A far better one.

Plus any such extension could likely run at grade on the side of the 401.

It's a bunch of plazas and a gas station at Sheppard/Morningside. That place has a ton of densification potential. UTSC on other hand can't be developed much.

Just go with 2B. Of course this happened smh. Going out to morningside will force the Eglinton East LRT to Pickering Town Centre.


Also, who is going to explain to the residents of Sheppard/McCowan that condos will be coming in full force to justify the density if 2B was built?

Sheppard/McCowan is already going to densify substantially with the Line 2 extension. What exactly would be different with a Sheppard extension?

 

[christiesplits]

At first I was surprised that they present 4 options, when logically there are 6. The missing options are:
- Going to STC in the East, no extension in the West
- Going to Morningside & Sheppard in the East, and going to Sheppard West in the West

After a bit of thinking, I feel they probably based their options on the funding considerations. If so, then it makes sense:

Concept 1 = going with the minimal funding. Then they prioritize the East because it can bring more new riders. And, since a line to STC would be a bit longer and cost a bit more than a line to Sheppard & McCowan, they only consider the latter.

Concept 2 = we decide to fund both East and West. With more funding overall, they can afford to spend a bit more on the line to STC. Thus, they offer both options:
At first I was surprised that they present 4 options, when logically there are 6. The missing options are:
- Going to STC in the East, no extension in the West
- Going to Morningside & Sheppard in the East, and going to Sheppard West in the West

After a bit of thinking, I feel they probably based their options on the funding considerations. If so, then it makes sense:

Concept 1 = going with the minimal funding. Then they prioritize the East because it can bring more new riders. And, since a line to STC would be a bit longer and cost a bit more than a line to Sheppard & McCowan, they only consider the latter.

Concept 2 = we decide to fund both East and West. With more funding overall, they can afford to spend a bit more on the line to STC. Thus, they offer both options: Sheppard & McCowan or STC.

Concept 3 = we want to go past McCowan in the East. In that case, they feel they can't afford the western extension at this time. Furthermore, a longer eastern leg gives access to some potential sites for the new subway yard, and that makes the western connection less critical from the operational standpoint.
or STC.

Concept 3 = we want to go past McCowan in the East. In that case, they feel they can't afford the western extension at this time. Furthermore, a longer eastern leg gives access to some potential sites for the new subway yard, and that makes the western connection less critical from the operational standpoint.

One more option, might be controversial:

- Subway from Sheppard West to Bayview
- LRT from Bayview to Sheppard & McCowan

This would effectively add one new subway stop at Bathurst & Sheppard, while building a more affordable LRT extension east Bayview.

 

[Northern Light]

One more option, might be controversial:

- Subway from Sheppard West to Bayview
- LRT from Bayview to Sheppard & McCowan

This would effectively add one new subway stop at Bathurst & Sheppard, while building a more affordable LRT extension east Bayview.

Rather than controversial, I will simply say, uncharacteristically unrealistic coming from you.

Zero chance.

 

[Northern Light]

At first I was surprised that they present 4 options, when logically there are 6. The missing options are:
- Going to STC in the East, no extension in the West
- Going to Morningside & Sheppard in the East, and going to Sheppard West in the West

After a bit of thinking, I feel they probably based their options on the funding considerations. If so, then it makes sense:

Concept 1 = going with the minimal funding. Then they prioritize the East because it can bring more new riders. And, since a line to STC would be a bit longer and cost a bit more than a line to Sheppard & McCowan, they only consider the latter.

Concept 2 = we decide to fund both East and West. With more funding overall, they can afford to spend a bit more on the line to STC. Thus, they offer both options: Sheppard & McCowan or STC.

Concept 3 = we want to go past McCowan in the East. In that case, they feel they can't afford the western extension at this time. Furthermore, a longer eastern leg gives access to some potential sites for the new subway yard, and that makes the western connection less critical from the operational standpoint.

There will be not ' All East Option' without a dedicated MSF in the east end, which is not shown in the concepts. That's all I'm saying about that.

 

[kEiThZ]

However, still suprised that they placed the terminus at Sheppard & Morningside in Concept 3.

Shouldn't it be at Sheppard & Neilson instead? A bit cheaper to build, and better integrated with the proposed EE LRT (the latter would be routed from Malvern Centre via Neilson - Sheppard - Morningside to UTSC, and then to Kennedy Stn).

Sheppard and Morningside works just fine to meet EELRT. Also, running EELRT on Sheppard and up Neilson is complicated and operationally risky. You know what is the same distance and has a lot less traffic conflicts? McLevin-Sewells-Tapscott.

That said, EELRT is not the best way to serve Malvern Town Centre. Ideally, I would say subway from Downsview to McCowan and LRT from McCowan to the zoo with a branch to Malvern. Terminate EELRT at Morningside/Sheppard or take it up to Finch.

 

[Northern Light]

Happy to see a Consumers station proposed. I always worried they'd skip Consumers for cost-savings.

There's a decently sized office park and some residential towers which make station worthwhile.

The survey is online now, and they are asking people's preferences for individual station locations.

Survey link here: https://www.metrolinx.com/en/projec...ts/sheppard-extension-consultations-june-2024

The list includes stations which do not appear in any of the concepts.

Brimley station which appears in some concepts is the most likely to be dropped. Consumers is less likely, but nothing is final.

As for stations they solicit feedback on that are not on the concept maps:

Pharmacy - not happening
Palmdale - not happening
Bay Mills/Aragon - not happening
Birchmount - not happening
Midland - not at all likely, as it would dictate that the box for Kennedy be on the east side, which is not what is envisioned.
Brownspring - not happening

This is throw people a 'we care/are listening bone' There is some potential to shift the exact location of some station boxes such that some of these streets could be made quite close to the proposed stations, but not at them.

 

[kEiThZ]

One more option, might be controversial:

- Subway from Sheppard West to Bayview
- LRT from Bayview to Sheppard & McCowan

This would effectively add one new subway stop at Bathurst & Sheppard, while building a more affordable LRT extension east Bayview.

Y'all have learned nothing from the Scarborough subway debates apparently.

 

[denfromoakvillemilton]

It's a bunch of plazas and a gas station at Sheppard/Morningside. That place has a ton of densification potential. UTSC on other hand can't be developed much.



Sheppard/McCowan is already going to densify substantially with the Line 2 extension. What exactly would be different with a Sheppard extension?

Less riders. If the subway goes straight to STC, then the station needs more development in my mind.

 

[T3G]

There will be not ' All East Option' without a dedicated MSF in the east end, which is not shown in the concepts. That's all I'm saying about that.

What is the envisioned maximum capacity for Wilson yard under the maximum length option?

Looking at the satellite views, it doesn't look like there's a lot of excess space available for building more tracks without encroaching on the Downsview Airport space. And that's before you account for Yonge North...

are they planning on building some underground NYC style layup facilities somewhere along Sheppard too?