Sheppard Line 4 Subway Extension (Proposed)

[gweed123]

Around the current stations on the Sheppard line a forest of condos has arisen, and yet the line still sees abysmally poor ridership. Why? I think that this effect speaks to a fundamental problem with envisioning the Sheppard line as a 401 alternative.

Really, no Sheppard Subway cannot convince people to get off of the 401 that it parallels.

Bang on. A subway is not a valid alternative for the majority of the trips on the 401. The only true competition for highways is GO lines. The stop spacing is just too close together to come anywhere close to highway speeds. The Lakeshore West line acts as an effective reliever for the QEW because the time it takes to get from Burlington (my point of reference, because that's where I am most) to downtown TO isn't that much more by GO than it is using the QEW/Gardiner combo.

Even if the Sheppard Subway went from Port Union to Pearson, it would easily be double or triple the time it would take to travel that same distance using the 401. The Sheppard Subway cannot be, and should not be perceived to be, a reliever for the 401.

 

[ehlow]

Thank you

It's for these reasons that I don't like suburban subways - they're far too expensive for the kind of travel patterns that they're used for. Some sort of major east-west route in northern Metro is a must eventually, but I think BRT or LRT will work better as a sort of upgrade from milk-run bus service.

For longer-distance travel it disappoints me that we have no northern east-west GO line that could help move 905'ers who would otherwise take the 401 or 407 close to major employment areas like Markham, North York, or the airport region. Out here in Durham I know a lot of people who work in York Region, and if a GO line could link them to fare-integrated TTC and YRT rapid transit across the northern part of the GTA, I'd be willing to bet many would ditch the daily traffic jams for a more pleasant commute.

Long distance suburb-to-suburb trips are really difficult for transit, especially things like subways to serve well and compete with cars & highways. Many highway trips consist of those trips, but often the driver doesn't live very close to the highway, and the destination isn't necessarily near the highway.

I think that there are some GO buses that serve that kind of commute, but you need good local services in addition to regional to get you from the regional stop to your final destination.

Maybe if the highways had bus lanes with buses that left the highway once in a while and dropped people off at bus terminals, then people could take a local ride to their destination they can serve longer range and dispersed trips better.

Subways & LRT tend to excel at high concentrations of origin & destinations along an urban corridor like Yonge or Bloor or Queen.

 

[ehlow]

Bang on. A subway is not a valid alternative for the majority of the trips on the 401. The only true competition for highways is GO lines. The stop spacing is just too close together to come anywhere close to highway speeds. The Lakeshore West line acts as an effective reliever for the QEW because the time it takes to get from Burlington (my point of reference, because that's where I am most) to downtown TO isn't that much more by GO than it is using the QEW/Gardiner combo.

Even if the Sheppard Subway went from Port Union to Pearson, it would easily be double or triple the time it would take to travel that same distance using the 401. The Sheppard Subway cannot be, and should not be perceived to be, a reliever for the 401.

Exactly, even with tons of traffic there's no way a subway will be faster than driving on the 401 if you're really going a long distance. Maybe only when there's a major accident on the highway would transit be competitive for really long distance travel.

Subways aren't the right tool for that, regional transit like GO seems more appropriate for competing with car & highway.

 

[MrsNesbitt]

Exactly, even with tons of traffic there's no way a subway will be faster than driving on the 401 if you're really going a long distance. Maybe only when there's a major accident on the highway would transit be competitive for really long distance travel.

Subways aren't the right tool for that, regional transit like GO seems more appropriate for competing with car & highway.

I agree wholeheartedly. In a larger sense this is what really irks me about the fact that the TTC and GO are so artificially separated, and not even Metrolinx can really coordinate them as it should. The former Metropolitan Toronto is a big place, and the fact that transit which crosses into it suffers from a jurisdictional struggle between the GO, which thinks regionally, and the TTC, which has only subways as the "heavy weapon" of its arsenal, is probably a big part of why highways seem so much more attractive of a commuting option than transit for so many people. The system is fragmented between completely segregated transit providers which often make no provision to connect to one another, and trips which should by rights be served by some kind of GO service are shoehorned into TTC issues resolved with slow subways by the artificial boundaries drawn over a century ago.

 

[denfromoakvillemilton]

Your logic is correct and your map is quite good.

1. I would expect that extending the (grey) Eglinton LRT (or SkyTrain) up to Malvern is less costly and less disruptive than sending the (green) B-D subway up there.
2. The Neptis report did not provide any numbers, but I wonder if it is less expensive to convert the (purple) Sheppard subway to SkyTrain and extend it with smaller stations or elevated, compared to extension with subway.
3. Does the Sheppard/hwy 400 area warrant higher order transit? Aren't there a few golf courses out there?
4. Would the DRL be possible as SkyTrain instead of subway - longer stations than Sheppard though. It would require smaller tunnels and could handle curves better. I might move the alignment north a bit - but close enough.

That's what I was thinking. Skytrain might be the perfect compromise.

 

[dowlingm]

Sheppard line: If you convert to ICTS/Skytrain, you have an immediate cost to retrofit the existing line with the necessary reaction rails, regauge the running track, remove the link to the YUS. Before a single meter of additional track is laid and assuming door height above rail is the same so allowing zero for platform height work.

At least with a subway extension the existing setup doesn't need anything spent beyond any signalling work to tie the tail tracks into the new running line.

An elevated line would also intercept the GO Stouffville Line grade separation unless there was a super deep tunnel under the already depressed road, or the elevated went >20 feet above the GO track.

I think there's a bit of ICTS love going on here for the sake of it. We need to sling it out the door with a less than fond farewell and concentrate on the THREE urban rail technologies (streetcar 1495mm, LRT 1435mm, subway) remaining within the TTC.

 

[gweed123]

Sheppard line: If you convert to ICTS/Skytrain, you have an immediate cost to retrofit the existing line with the necessary reaction rails, regauge the running track, remove the link to the YUS. Before a single meter of additional track is laid and assuming door height above rail is the same so allowing zero for platform height work.

At least with a subway extension the existing setup doesn't need anything spent beyond any signalling work to tie the tail tracks into the new running line.

An elevated line would also intercept the GO Stouffville Line grade separation unless there was a super deep tunnel under the already depressed road, or the elevated went >20 feet above the GO track.

I think there's a bit of ICTS love going on here for the sake of it. We need to sling it out the door with a less than fond farewell and concentrate on the THREE urban rail technologies (streetcar 1495mm, LRT 1435mm, subway) remaining within the TTC.

It may not be as pronounced with ICTS as it is with LRT, but those "setup costs" you speak of as a major barrier decrease with every KM that the line is extended as ICTS or LRT vs if it was built as a subway. Even assuming $150M/km for ICTS extensions and $75 M/km for at-grade LRT extensions, you're still $200M/km and $275M/km less than if you were building those extensions as a subway (@ $350M/km).

The most recent number for conversion of the Sheppard Subway to LRT was $600 million, which we can reasonably assume would be about $750 million today (I believe the number was from 2010 or somewhere around there). That means that an ICTS conversion + extension of 3.75km or more is cost-neutral with the subway extension option, and an at-grade LRT conversion + extension of 2.75km or more is cost-neutral. Anything longer than that, and the conversion option is actually more cost efficient than the subway option.

Obviously you can vary the numbers a little bit to end up with a different "break even" length, but the basic principle is the same. For every KM you extend as LRT or ICTS, the more cost efficient the conversion + extension option becomes.

 

[robmausser]

Sheppard line: If you convert to ICTS/Skytrain, you have an immediate cost to retrofit the existing line with the necessary reaction rails, regauge the running track, remove the link to the YUS. Before a single meter of additional track is laid and assuming door height above rail is the same so allowing zero for platform height work.

At least with a subway extension the existing setup doesn't need anything spent beyond any signalling work to tie the tail tracks into the new running line.

An elevated line would also intercept the GO Stouffville Line grade separation unless there was a super deep tunnel under the already depressed road, or the elevated went >20 feet above the GO track.

I think there's a bit of ICTS love going on here for the sake of it. We need to sling it out the door with a less than fond farewell and concentrate on the THREE urban rail technologies (streetcar 1495mm, LRT 1435mm, subway) remaining within the TTC.

Why does the elevated line need to be ICTS technology?

Tons of transit systems use elevated lines with traditional subway technology (Chicago/New York)

Why can't the current Sheppard Line subway technology be on an elevated line after Don Mills?

The line could go fairly straight along Sheppard and connect with the Scarborough Extension at McCowan. No tight turns that would negate using subway tech.

No cost converting the current Sheppard subway line.

Looking at the line west however, I think it would be a challenge finding space for an elevated subway along Sheppard. Especially because the subway tech is heavier/bigger than ICTS and needs larger concrete pillars.

The only thing I could see would be to remove two lanes of Sheppard on one side (the LRT would have taken them up as well so all is not lost) and then have that area underneath as dedicated bike lanes/walkway.

 

[ehlow]

LRTs can also be elevated, automated, and high floor . Probably better than re-introducing SkyTrain to Toronto since it can still share parts with the low floor LRTs on Eglinton.

Having said that, yeah let's do short subway trains on an elevated track. Why not?

 

[robmausser]

LRTs can also be elevated, automated, and high floor . Probably better than re-introducing SkyTrain to Toronto since it can still share parts with the low floor LRTs on Eglinton.

Having said that, yeah let's do short subway trains on an elevated track. Why not?

Advantage with short subway trains on elevated track is that no transfers needed and it uses the same technology as the current subway line, and then could even connect with the Scarborough subway

 

[gweed123]

Why does the elevated line need to be ICTS technology?

Tons of transit systems use elevated lines with traditional subway technology (Chicago/New York)

Why can't the current Sheppard Line subway technology be on an elevated line after Don Mills?

The line could go fairly straight along Sheppard and connect with the Scarborough Extension at McCowan. No tight turns that would negate using subway tech.

No cost converting the current Sheppard subway line.

Looking at the line west however, I think it would be a challenge finding space for an elevated subway along Sheppard. Especially because the subway tech is heavier/bigger than ICTS and needs larger concrete pillars.

The only thing I could see would be to remove two lanes of Sheppard on one side (the LRT would have taken them up as well so all is not lost) and then have that area underneath as dedicated bike lanes/walkway.

Elevated subway would also work, but it would require quite a few design considerations in order to make it palatable for a 21st century urban/suburban avenue. A few things to consider:

1) Bulk: Elevated structures in New York and Chicago are really bulky. Naturally construction techniques have evolved since they were built, but for a lot of people that imagery still remains when they think of elevated. There would need to be a lot of visuals (in the news, in media, on the street, etc) strung up everywhere to remove that perception.

2) Shadowing: Kind of related to the bulk thing, but kind of not. Sheppard is a pretty wide street, so if it's down the middle it shouldn't make too much of a difference for buildings on the north side, except for maybe during the winter months when the sun is really low on the horizon.

3) Sound: Let's face it, subways are loud. Even when it's in an open cut like at Rosedale, you can still hear the train going through. Being elevated would only exacerbate that, although still not as bad as a tunnel. What I propose is a glass archway overtop of the tracks in order to reduce noise proliferation. It may cost a bit extra, but I think it would reduce noise worries substantially.

4) Weather: Part of the objection to at-grade LRT is the fact that waiting out in the cold for a train, bus, or streetcar sucks. The glass canopy that I mentioned in #3 would also help here, because it would make the entire line climate controlled. That isn't to say it would be warm in the winter time, but it sure wouldn't be cold. It also prevents switches and power systems from freezing in the winter, or from being covered in snow. In order to reduce heat in the summer, I would build canopy in such a way that the panels on the side can open up (like blinds) in the summer to allow air through, but can be closed in the winter to keep heat in.

 

[ehlow]

Advantage with short subway trains on elevated track is that no transfers needed and it uses the same technology as the current subway line, and then could even connect with the Scarborough subway

The main problem is if anybody was to announce this there would immediately be immense political pressure to put the trains underground.

You would get the same arguments as against at-grade LRT:
- Why do WE get elevated while others get underground. We deserve underground, stop treating us like 2nd class citizens. For many it's not about grade-separating the transit, it's about inconveniencing their cars.
- Left turns blocked, road space taken up by concrete pillars for the elevated structure.

I'm also skeptical about the costs of elevated transit, it's difficult for me to believe that it's as cheap as many who promote it on this forum say it is. The closer the cost is to underground, you get even more pressure to put it underground.

 

[robmausser]

Elevated subway would also work, but it would require quite a few design considerations in order to make it palatable for a 21st century urban/suburban avenue. A few things to consider:

1) Bulk: Elevated structures in New York and Chicago are really bulky. Naturally construction techniques have evolved since they were built, but for a lot of people that imagery still remains when they think of elevated. There would need to be a lot of visuals (in the news, in media, on the street, etc) strung up everywhere to remove that perception.

2) Shadowing: Kind of related to the bulk thing, but kind of not. Sheppard is a pretty wide street, so if it's down the middle it shouldn't make too much of a difference for buildings on the north side, except for maybe during the winter months when the sun is really low on the horizon.

3) Sound: Let's face it, subways are loud. Even when it's in an open cut like at Rosedale, you can still hear the train going through. Being elevated would only exacerbate that, although still not as bad as a tunnel. What I propose is a glass archway overtop of the tracks in order to reduce noise proliferation. It may cost a bit extra, but I think it would reduce noise worries substantially.

4) Weather: Part of the objection to at-grade LRT is the fact that waiting out in the cold for a train, bus, or streetcar sucks. The glass canopy that I mentioned in #3 would also help here, because it would make the entire line climate controlled. That isn't to say it would be warm in the winter time, but it sure wouldn't be cold. It also prevents switches and power systems from freezing in the winter, or from being covered in snow. In order to reduce heat in the summer, I would build canopy in such a way that the panels on the side can open up (like blinds) in the summer to allow air through, but can be closed in the winter to keep heat in.

I like your solutions.

1) I agree, people don't realize how engineering has changed so that the size/design of pillars/supports can make an elevated structure look nice/clean/modern http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/97/Canada_Line_Skytrain_Cars-2008-04-22.JPG

3) Im a sound engineer. There are plenty of sound absorbing materials that can help limit sound. You could even stamp the concrete within the inside of the elevated structure itself to diffuse the sound. Pillars can have rubberized contacts to the above support structure that limit vibrations.

4) People think Underground = Warm. The fact is those underground stations are heated. You can build station stops above ground that are heated too.

 

[gweed123]

I like your solutions.

1) I agree, people don't realize how engineering has changed so that the size/design of pillars/supports can make an elevated structure look nice/clean/modern http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/97/Canada_Line_Skytrain_Cars-2008-04-22.JPG

3) Im a sound engineer. There are plenty of sound absorbing materials that can help limit sound. You could even stamp the concrete within the inside of the elevated structure itself to diffuse the sound. Pillars can have rubberized contacts to the above support structure that limit vibrations.

4) People think Underground = Warm. The fact is those underground stations are heated. You can build station stops above ground that are heated too.

That's true. There are many ways to limit sound, but the reality is you're going to need some kind of a vertical barrier extending up from track level to block sound, whether it be opaque, translucent (tinted glass), or transparent (clear glass). That piercing screech of the metal wheels would be audible from a fair distance away if it was emanating from an open-air elevated station. I simply proposed the canopy/archway because if you're going to be putting up vertical soundproofing, you might as well cover the tracks to get snow and ice protection, as well as a bigger degree of climate control as well.

And yes you can build heated elevated stations, but open air stations are much harder to heat, for obvious reasons. At least with canopied tracks and a covered elevated station, heating would be much easier.

 

[robmausser]

That's true. There are many ways to limit sound, but the reality is you're going to need some kind of a vertical barrier extending up from track level to block sound, whether it be opaque, translucent (tinted glass), or transparent (clear glass). That piercing screech of the metal wheels would be audible from a fair distance away if it was emanating from an open-air elevated station. I simply proposed the canopy/archway because if you're going to be putting up vertical soundproofing, you might as well cover the tracks to get snow and ice protection, as well as a bigger degree of climate control as well.

And yes you can build heated elevated stations, but open air stations are much harder to heat, for obvious reasons. At least with canopied tracks and a covered elevated station, heating would be much easier.

Screeching wheels can also be solved with special track and wheels on the trainsets. Although the stretch of track would be fairly straight in this area, I wouldnt foresee much screeching, which is much worse on tight turns.

These solutions cost money though. I would say however that after all of these solutions if the savings vs underground were not greater than 30% its not worth it.