Metrolinx: Sheppard East LRT (In Design)

[GenerationW]

You're back again I guess you're ready to see the last year transit battles until the 2022 election?

Those battles never end. For now, I'm ready to see 2020 just go away.

 

[M II A II R II K]

Perhaps the SELRT could be extended all the way to Yonge and keep the subway under it in conjunction with it.

 

[ARG1]

Perhaps the SELRT could be extended all the way to Yonge and keep the subway under it in conjunction with it.

That's the definition of a waste of money. Just have the extension be a subway, no reason to make Sheppard East an LRT.

 

[afransen]

Perhaps if Ontario Line is extended to Sheppard/Don Mills, it would make service interruptions on Line 4 more palatable. If it is not converted, it will likely always remain a stubway. You would think that retrofitting should not require extended shutdown of Line 4, at any rate.

 

[micheal_can]

Converting Sheppard is a political non-starter. When push came to shove, no one had the stomach to shut down the Scarborough RT for 2-3 years (probably closer to 5 in real time) for the construction of its LRT replacement. In the case of Sheppard, all three provincial parties more or less supported killing the SELRT. Even Shelley Carroll now supports extending the subway, something I thought I'd never see.

.. yes but this isn't Scarborough.....

The best Idea is to accept that anything along Sheppard will be subway, and work with that.

 

[11th]

Converting Sheppard is a political non-starter. When push came to shove, no one had the stomach to shut down the Scarborough RT for 2-3 years (probably closer to 5 in real time) for the construction of its LRT replacement. In the case of Sheppard, all three provincial parties more or less supported killing the SELRT. Even Shelley Carroll now supports extending the subway, something I thought I'd never see.

Fun fact: All stations on line 4, with the exception of Sheppard-Yonge, fall in Carroll's ward. (Bayview can be considered half if being technical).

 

[Rainforest]

Perhaps if Ontario Line is extended to Sheppard/Don Mills, it would make service interruptions on Line 4 more palatable. If it is not converted, it will likely always remain a stubway. You would think that retrofitting should not require extended shutdown of Line 4, at any rate.

That should depend on the type of conversion, too. Converting to low-floor LRT is a greater change, should be both expensive and lengthy.

Converting to a high-floor light metro, or to a high-floor LRT, should be both cheaper and faster. Everything has its trade-offs, light-metro or high-floor LRT will be more expensive to extend than low-floor LRT, but still may be best overall.

 

[afransen]

I wonder if Sheppard is converted to light metro rolling stock, and is eventually extended to Downsview, could it still be used to allow Line 1 trains to redeploy more readily. I guess that boils down to the width of the replacement rolling stock and platform clearance (it can't be much narrower or the platform gap is too large). I'm sure that there is a technical solution out there that doesn't cost billions.

 

[Rainforest]

I wonder if Sheppard is converted to light metro rolling stock, and is eventually extended to Downsview, could it still be used to allow Line 1 trains to redeploy more readily. I guess that boils down to the width of the replacement rolling stock and platform clearance (it can't be much narrower or the platform gap is too large). I'm sure that there is a technical solution out there that doesn't cost billions.

I assume that the TTC would not use the Sheppard line for carhouse movements between the branches of Line 1, if Sheppard is converted to light metro. Even if that's technically possible, the management will avoid that to reduce the risk of accidents.

But nevertheless, if the light-metro conversion allows for a much easier extension of the "stubway", then maybe it is worth to forfeit the yard shortcut ability.

 

[JSF-1]

I assume that the TTC would not use the Sheppard line for carhouse movements between the branches of Line 1, if Sheppard is converted to light metro. Even if that's technically possible, the management will avoid that to reduce the risk of accidents.

But nevertheless, if the light-metro conversion allows for a much easier extension of the "stubway", then maybe it is worth to forfeit the yard shortcut ability.

Don't think it would be much of a problem since if the Sheppard Line was converted it would free up Davisville again for Line 1. A new yard would need to be built for the Sheppard Line however since that line would be incompatible with Line 1 and with it Davisville Yard as well. Yard space would be an issue though since Downsview Airport is really the only place possible on the Sheppard Line for a yard to be built.

Ideally the new Yard could be a "Heavy Maintenance" centre for the Sheppard Line and OL Rolling stock but only if there is a physical link between the two lines (which there absolutely should be under this scenario). This would require the OL station at Don Mills (or where ever it is built) to be underground but as a said over in the OL thread, for the transfer to the Sheppard Line I think going underground is fine especially when compared to what is going to happen at Don Mills and Eglinton. This would be even more true if both lines used the same (or similar but compatible) rolling stock; why wouldn't you want the lines connected to eachother?

 

[ARG1]

I wonder if Sheppard is converted to light metro rolling stock, and is eventually extended to Downsview, could it still be used to allow Line 1 trains to redeploy more readily. I guess that boils down to the width of the replacement rolling stock and platform clearance (it can't be much narrower or the platform gap is too large). I'm sure that there is a technical solution out there that doesn't cost billions.

Unlikely, considering the light metro would likely use Standard Gauge as well as Catenary, making it incompatible with the TTC Gauge + 3rd Rail combo that the TRs use, unless you want to equip the tunnel and rail to handle both which would be so expensive that you might as well just make the Line 4 extension run on TRs.

 

[Steve X]

That should depend on the type of conversion, too. Converting to low-floor LRT is a greater change, should be both expensive and lengthy.

Converting to a high-floor light metro, or to a high-floor LRT, should be both cheaper and faster. Everything has its trade-offs, light-metro or high-floor LRT will be more expensive to extend than low-floor LRT, but still may be best overall.

Low floor conversion is just a waste of money. The LRVs are less reliable, have more moving parts than high floor metro cars making them more costly to maintain and cost more to procure in the first place. Unless the line is going to run on the street, it makes no sense to convert anything grade separated to low floor.

 

[Rainforest]

Don't think it would be much of a problem since if the Sheppard Line was converted it would free up Davisville again for Line 1. A new yard would need to be built for the Sheppard Line however since that line would be incompatible with Line 1 and with it Davisville Yard as well. Yard space would be an issue though since Downsview Airport is really the only place possible on the Sheppard Line for a yard to be built.

Either a part of the former Downsview Airport, or a parcel of empty land between Line 1 tracks and Alled Road, should be able to host a new yard for the Sheppard trains, in case Sheppard gets converted.

Ideally the new Yard could be a "Heavy Maintenance" centre for the Sheppard Line and OL Rolling stock but only if there is a physical link between the two lines (which there absolutely should be under this scenario). This would require the OL station at Don Mills (or where ever it is built) to be underground but as a said over in the OL thread, for the transfer to the Sheppard Line I think going underground is fine especially when compared to what is going to happen at Don Mills and Eglinton. This would be even more true if both lines used the same (or similar but compatible) rolling stock; why wouldn't you want the lines connected to eachother?

Surely the two lines should be connected, at least for the non-revenue movement.

 

[kEiThZ]

Even Shelley Carroll now supports extending the subway, something I thought I'd never see.

They are all learning how much people detest linear transfer. Gotta set them at a point where a lower amount of riders are impacted. McCowan and Sheppard will be it. Unless they can agree to a conversion.

 

[W. K. Lis]

They are all learning how much people detest linear transfer. Gotta set them at a point where a lower amount of riders are impacted. McCowan and Sheppard will be it. Unless they can agree to a conversion.

Worse would be the l-o-n-g w-a-l-k-i-n-g transfers. IE. The transfers between the Line 1 SPADINA and Line 2 SPADINA stations, where they "improved" the transfers by removing the moving sidewalk.

Before...

After,,,

From link.