Sheppard Line 4 Subway Extension (Proposed)

[11th]

Can you explain this line?

Yeah, I don't really understand the logic either. Maybe 11th is referring to the ability to go southbound from Finch and then eastbound or westbound on Sheppard, since the flow is generally towards downtown? That would add an extra transfer for most trips though, so I don't know if that logic really holds.

Exactly. A lot of unknown variables at play though.
1) how much of the ridership from the eastern end of Finch East is bounded for Yonge and not somewhere along Finch East.
2) how will line 1's extension affect the nodal terminus status of Finch station.
3) will enhancing N-S routes in Scarborough have an effect on Finch East's ridership?
If most passengers are headed for Line 1 and/or downtown, then the TTC should split up the Finch East route. They had done similar last time but failed, because diverting passengers to Don Mills provided negligible advantage.

 

[TRONto]

Correct they do overspend. Tunnelling 40m below Highland Ck, 50m below the Don, 20m below an unopened transportation corridor. All the while saying how we shouldn't tunnel under rivers and should use transportation corridors. Sheppard will definitely be announced, announced that it will be studied further. The term is called kicking the can down the road.

If you really want a subway across Sheppard (west and east), would be wise to advocate for a light subway.

Changing the transportation vehicle has been discussed and its likely a billions+ cost so that's not in the cards.
Sheppard extensions are overbuilds and overspends and at the same time likely to be in the next round of TTC upgrades.

 

[nfitz]

Changing the transportation vehicle has been discussed and its likely a billions+ cost so that's not in the cards.

Is there an official source for that? I think that estimate is from here.

We've also discussed that it could be possible to instead simply raise the track level through the stations, and issue an RFC for vehicles that would fit the dimensions of the station/tunnels, and potentially use both 3rd rail and catenary.

 

[TRONto]

Is there an official source for that? I think that estimate is from here.

We've also discussed that it could be possible to instead simply raise the track level through the stations, and issue an RFC for vehicles that would fit the dimensions of the station/tunnels, and potentially use both 3rd rail and catenary.

I have seen this discussed on Steve Munro's site years ago.

As stated in the quoted message, is there an official source for 'simply' raising the track level through the station? It's not that simple. The train won't simply just in grade at the station. The tunnels would need to be modified to meet the new modified station grade. To what end? Please correct me if I'm wrong here but the proposal is to run smaller trains in existing tunnels and then do further tunneling (smaller tunnels?) then eventually have elevated transit over Sheppard East?

Looking at the Eg West Crosstown extension, the current iteration ( mostly elevated) has an estimated cost of $4.7 billion, the mostly below grade cost was estimated to be around $5 billion (2019 dollars). Using this information (without including the required adaptions), I don't see a case for changing vehicles on Sheppard.

 

[ARG1]

Looking at the Eg West Crosstown extension, the current iteration ( mostly elevated) has an estimated cost of $4.7 billion, the mostly below grade cost was estimated to be around $5 billion (2019 dollars). Using this information (without including the required adaptions), I don't see a case for changing vehicles on Sheppard.

The current iteration is mostly below grade. The only elevated section is between Jane and Scarlett inclusively.

 

[denfromoakvillemilton]

Something on Sheppard can serve both Sheppard and Finch. Something on Finch can only serve Finch.
Maybe LRT on Finch for local service (replacing bus service), and whatever form of metro it is on Sheppard. Passenger count may not be ideal, but we still need a quick crosstown route in the north.

I think Sheppard has greater demand up until about Kennedy, but Finch East has the greater demand overall.

Since money is finite though, I would venture to say that doing dedicated transit lanes on both Finch East and Sheppard East would serve a greater good than only building LRT on Sheppard (or on Finch East).

Both of these should be done.

Even if the subway is built the 39 is still one of the busiest routes in the city. Local Transit will still matter. Also, it's an opportunity to provide something to the far east and get people out of their cars hopefully.

 

[syn]

Or on Sheppard to meet the Eglinton East LRT - though once they lay the track, they could operate either way (or both) I suppose.

Gosh, can you image what type of LRT network we could have built if we weren't building $5-billion tunnelled extensions in Scarborough and especially on Eglinton West.

We can't do that. I've heard LRTs are not proper rapid transit.

 

[Undead]

Gosh, can you image what type of LRT network we could have built if we weren't building $5-billion tunnelled extensions in Scarborough and especially on Eglinton West.

I don't know about that. Let's be generous and say each extension was $3 billion cheaper. That gives us $6 billion which is enough to build maybe two Finch West LRTs? A nice addition, but not game changing.

Now, I don't support deep subways in the suburbs. I'd be happy to have an elevated heavy rail/medium metro on my arterial.

But LRTs/light metro/whatever have been subject to the exact same cost problems.

 

[nfitz]

I have seen this discussed on Steve Munro's site years ago.

So not official ...

The train won't simply just in grade at the station. The tunnels would need to be modified to meet the new modified station grade.

.The current Line 4 platforms are full-length subway platforms of 150 metres. But they only run trains that are 92-metres. That easily leaves 30-metres at each end of a platform for a grade change - plus whatever distance is available as the station box normally exceeds 150 metres for equipment.

To what end? Please correct me if I'm wrong here but the proposal is to run smaller trains in existing tunnels and then do further tunneling (smaller tunnels?)

Slightly narrower trains perhaps - the Line 4 Sheppard trains are about the same length as a 3-car Line 5 Eglinton train, or a 2-car Line 6 Finch West train.

Though if you are going to do an RFC for equipment that can run on both, you can have the equipment and new surface LRT track use the current 3.14 metre subway car width instead of the 2.65-metre wide Line 5 and Line 6 cars. Toronto subway cars are very wide for a subway car compared to most other systems. Compare to the 2.51-metre wide cars in Montreal, 2.63-metre wide cars on the London Jubilee line or the 2.77-metre wide cars on the London Elizabeth line (Crossrail).

New tunnels wouldn't be smaller. The tunnel diameter for Line 5 is actually bigger than the Line 4 tunnels - so nothing precludes being used for subway in the future (presuming you build any new underground stations with appropriate heights so as to raise the platforms in the far future - which is relatively minor).

 

[W. K. Lis]

So not official ...

.The current Line 4 platforms are full-length subway platforms of 150 metres. But they only run trains that are 92-metres. That easily leaves 30-metres at each end of a platform for a grade change - plus whatever distance is available as the station box normally exceeds 150 metres for equipment.

Slightly narrower trains perhaps - the Line 4 Sheppard trains are about the same length as a 3-car Line 5 Eglinton train, or a 2-car Line 6 Finch West train.

Though if you are going to do an RFC for equipment that can run on both, you can have the equipment and new surface LRT track use the current 3.14 metre subway car width instead of the 2.65-metre wide Line 5 and Line 6 cars. Toronto subway cars are very wide for a subway car compared to most other systems. Compare to the 2.51-metre wide cars in Montreal, 2.63-metre wide cars on the London Jubilee line or the 2.77-metre wide cars on the London Elizabeth line (Crossrail).

New tunnels wouldn't be smaller. The tunnel diameter for Line 5 is actually bigger than the Line 4 tunnels - so nothing precludes being used for subway in the future (presuming you build any new underground stations with appropriate heights so as to raise the platforms in the far future - which is relatively minor).

They have vehicles that are able to switch back and forth between third rail and overhead catenary. And different voltages.

 

[Carlodangez]

Here are some more train widths that are greater than three metres.

Seoul 3.1 m
New York (many lines) 3 m
Bangkok (Siemens) 3.1 m
Wash DC (Alstom) 3.1 m

Probably many, many more in Asia.

Hyundai Rotem makes trains for a bunch of systems that use trains that are wider than three metres. For these systems that are being built from scratch the extra width seems like a prudent decision.

 

[W. K. Lis]

Here are some more train widths that are greater than three metres.

Seoul 3.1 m
New York (many lines) 3 m
Bangkok (Siemens) 3.1 m
Wash DC (Alstom) 3.1 m

Probably many, many more in Asia.

Hyundai Rotem makes trains for a bunch of systems that use trains that are wider than three metres. For these systems that are being built from scratch the extra width seems like a prudent decision.

The wider the vehicle, the wider the turning radius would be needed for the vehicle.

 

[nfitz]

The wider the vehicle, the wider the turning radius would be needed for the vehicle.

Something to keep in mind with all the curves on Sheppard.

 

[W. K. Lis]

Something to keep in mind with all the curves on Sheppard.

If they want to extend it to Scarborough Town Centre, for example. (Especially with the current hassle with the Line 1 extension at its north end.)

 

[Streety McCarface]

The wider the vehicle, the wider the turning radius would be needed for the vehicle.

The longer the vehicle*

Width affects loading gauge (or tunnel size)