[rbt]

Remember that the Sheppard stations are roughed in for 6-car Subway trains, but finished for only 4-car trains. They could start lowering the platforms for the unused parts of the stations, to shorten the time for reconstruction from high-floor platforms to low-floor platforms.

They could run 2-car trains at 2 to 2.5 minute frequencies (higher capacity than they run today) and convert the other half of the current station size.

The most difficult items to convert are actually the escalators and elevators. Both may be left with a ramp up to them.

I personally don't think we should attempt to convert the stations. The transfer planned at Don Mills will not be much of a burden (no grade change, short walk, fairly short average wait)

 

[a0th]

They could run 2-car trains at 2 to 2.5 minute frequencies (higher capacity than they run today) and convert the other half of the current station size.

you would need twice as many employees then

 

[gweed123]

It is really the only option, it must be a subway or Sheppard will become so disconnected that people will avoid it.

I agree completely. Having LRT - Subway - LRT all on one corridor would be the height of stupidity. Also, a Sheppard West extension would make the existing subway look like much less of a stubway.

 

[rbt]

you would need twice as many employees then

Yes.

The unused sections of Sheppard are unfinished and will probably cost a few million to finish. A few years salary for ~10 extra train staff (all shifts) would be less.

 

[EnviroTO]

I agree completely. Having LRT - Subway - LRT all on one corridor would be the height of stupidity.

Why? It is foolish to think that the capacity of a subway would be required to a point in the corridor and then drop off to nothing immediately.

 

[Rainforest]

Why? It is foolish to think that the capacity of a subway would be required to a point in the corridor and then drop off to nothing immediately.

But in this particular case, a westward rail expansion would have to be partly underground even if it is LRT; Sheppard between Yonge and the West Don river is too narrow for surface LRT.

Therefore, it makes more sense to extend the subway to Downsview, and get a non-revenue connection between the Wilson Yard and Yonge line as a bonus.

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

re: Sheppard W - agreed it'd have to be tunneled, considering the ROW available. If one is going to build it as a subway extension, how are the stations going to be sized? Full blow 6 train platform length or leave it at 4? I think someone need to really sit down and work out the pros/cons of conversion of the existing Sheppard to LRT.

AoD

 

[Palma]

Therefore, it makes more sense to extend the subway to Downsview, and get a non-revenue connection between the Wilson Yard and Yonge line as a bonus.

Boy, Scarbarians are really going to love that - not enough passengers to warrant the subway extended east yet somehow it is warranted going west of yonge. i don't know the east end at all but know that Sheppard west of Yonge certainly does not warrant a subway

 

[Rainforest]

Boy, Scarbarians are really going to love that - not enough passengers to warrant the subway extended east yet somehow it is warranted going west of yonge. i don't know the east end at all but know that Sheppard west of Yonge certainly does not warrant a subway

The rationale for the westward extension is network connectivity.

Passenger counts is an important factor, but you cannot cancel every piece of the network that does not make a threshold. Or, you will end up cancelling SELRT east of McCowan, where it will probably carry 1/4 or less of capacity, and replacing it with buses and introducing one more transfer on the route.

For the east, my preferred solution would be a subway extension to Agincourt, followed by LRT or BRT (dependent on the ridership projections) for the rest of Sheppard. But the council decided otherwise, and the point is moot now.

 

[nfitz]

But in this particular case, a westward rail expansion would have to be partly underground even if it is LRT; Sheppard between Yonge and the West Don river is too narrow for surface LRT.

The current Sheppard subway already goes as far west as the edge of the station box at Senlac. So if it was LRT, you'd build the Senlac station underground, and by the time you then started to surface and get to a Portal you'd be pretty much at the edge of the West Don.

 

[gweed123]

The current Sheppard subway already goes as far west as the edge of the station box at Senlac. So if it was LRT, you'd build the Senlac station underground, and by the time you then started to surface and get to a Portal you'd be pretty much at the edge of the West Don.

And building a short LRT that would be mostly underground anyway would be the height of stupidity. It would cost just as much to extend the subway line.

 

[nfitz]

And building a short LRT that would be mostly underground anyway would be the height of stupidity. It would cost just as much to extend the subway line.

Agreed - unless someone comes up with a magical way of running LRT in the existing tunnel without massive amount of modifications. (I'm not convinced that anyone has really thought about it enough ... a combination of Primove technology, and vehicle modifications to reduce the required tunnel diameter should be able to come up with a cheaper solution, but not necessarily using the Flexity equipment.

 

[gweed123]

Agreed - unless someone comes up with a magical way of running LRT in the existing tunnel without massive amount of modifications. (I'm not convinced that anyone has really thought about it enough ... a combination of Primove technology, and vehicle modifications to reduce the required tunnel diameter should be able to come up with a cheaper solution, but not necessarily using the Flexity equipment.

Well, they could have built the SELRT using high floor LRT technology that uses overhead power outside of the tunnel and then a 3rd rail in it. But that would have meant yet another orphaned technology that would have been incompatible with the rest of the system.

 

[nfitz]

Well, they could have built the SELRT using high floor LRT technology that uses overhead power outside of the tunnel and then a 3rd rail in it. But that would have meant yet another orphaned technology that would have been incompatible with the rest of the system.

So? Many cities in the world have no problem having dedicated equipment for each line. Heck, the number of LRT vehicles on on such a Sheppard LRT line (over 25 km from Downsview station to the Zoo) would exceed the LRT fleet of some cities. If Metrolinx anticipated 35 vehicles for a 12-km line, then it's easy to imagine 70 vehicles for a 25-km line (probably more given the heavier loads west of Don Mills station). The entire 48-km Baltimore light rail system only has about 50 30-metre long LRT cars.

There's many issues, but I don't see that orphaned technology really is an issue.

And yes, I think the ship has already sailed on this.

 

[BurlOak]

So? Many cities in the world have no problem having dedicated equipment for each line. Heck, the number of LRT vehicles on on such a Sheppard LRT line (over 25 km from Downsview station to the Zoo) would exceed the LRT fleet of some cities. If Metrolinx anticipated 35 vehicles for a 12-km line, then it's easy to imagine 70 vehicles for a 25-km line (probably more given the heavier loads west of Don Mills station). The entire 48-km Baltimore light rail system only has about 50 30-metre long LRT cars.

There's many issues, but I don't see that orphaned technology really is an issue.

And yes, I think the ship has already sailed on this.

I made a similar arguement on the SRT. A separate vehicle for a 6km line is much different than a separate vehicle for a 30km+ line.