Transit Fantasy Maps

[JSF-1]

Name me a covered system that is elevated. They don't exist.

Part of the Namboku Line on the Sapporo Subway is elevated and completely enclosed. However this is a very special situation where a rubber-tire metro is operating out in the open in an city prone to heavy snow fall. (there is a reason the Montreal Metro is entirely underground). That said it isn't what I would call an elegant solution, although I also think you are over blowing the severity of our winters and how infrequent winter based stoppages are on the subway network outside of the SRT.

 

[micheal_can]

Part of the Namboku Line on the Sapporo Subway is elevated and completely enclosed. However this is a very special situation where a rubber-tire metro is operating out in the open in an city prone to heavy snow fall. (there is a reason the Montreal Metro is entirely underground). That said it isn't what I would call an elegant solution, although I also think you are over blowing the severity of our winters and how infrequent winter based stoppages are on the subway network outside of the SRT.

View attachment 371526View attachment 371527

Weather should not stop a transit line. Just like cost should not be the primary reason to pick a method of construction.

 

[DirectionNorth]

Weather should not stop a transit line. Just like cost should not be the primary reason to pick a method of construction.

Please explain. What if we use the saved money to restore the Northlander, which I know you want?

We don't live in fantasy land, so cost is definitely a factor.

 

[sche]

Weather should not stop a transit line. Just like cost should not be the primary reason to pick a method of construction.

Seriously, stop. Weather is *not* some kind of thing that makes above ground rail unviable like you suggest. SRT winter problems are due to LIM tech plus the ancient trains which can’t be replaced easily due to the sharp curve at Kennedy, which is completely irrelevant to the conversation. Line 1 runs fine on Allen Rd in winter, GO runs fine, Helsinki Metro runs fine. Weather is *absolutely* not an argument for burying subways, it is only an argument for heated track switches, cold rated wayside equipment, etc.

 

[Rainforest]

Line 1 (Spadina side) runs on surface for much of the Allen Road stretch, and elevated over the Allen / 401 interchange. The Yonge side is on surface in places between Bloor and Davisville. Not that it can't be done.

 

[Rainforest]

So I went about making my own fantasy Sheppard East alignment, but went a bit overboard, and made 11...
Lemme know which you like best and what you'd change
Also realized stations are only on the legend in the last on oops
View attachment 371426View attachment 371427View attachment 371428View attachment 371429View attachment 371430View attachment 371431View attachment 371432View attachment 371433View attachment 371434View attachment 371435View attachment 371437

All routing options have some merits; my favorites are:

#10: Straightforward, supports transit-oriented development on Sheppard, and can save money east of McCowan by having LRT there. LRT in street-median is cheaper than elevated light metro or elevated subway.

#11: Similar to #10, more expensive, but Line 4 serves STC directly and that's a bonus. I would extend Line 4 a bit further east to Cenntennial Progress campus, and have the LRT on Sheppard stretch from Morningside to Kennedy and connect to both Line 2 and Line 4.

#4, 5, 7, 8: all provide for Line 4 reaching UTSC and that connection has its benefits. I'd like it to go even further and link to the LSE GO line at Port Union. That would create a connection from the LSE corridor to much of Scarborough and North York, completely bypassing Union Station.

 

[micheal_can]

Please explain. What if we use the saved money to restore the Northlander, which I know you want?

We don't live in fantasy land, so cost is definitely a factor.

I'd still say it is a bad idea. Besides, if it takes till the Sheppard Line is extended to get the Northlander back, then that will be at least 20 years. Very bad idea.

Seriously, stop. Weather is *not* some kind of thing that makes above ground rail unviable like you suggest. SRT winter problems are due to LIM tech plus the ancient trains which can’t be replaced easily due to the sharp curve at Kennedy, which is completely irrelevant to the conversation. Line 1 runs fine on Allen Rd in winter, GO runs fine, Helsinki Metro runs fine. Weather is *absolutely* not an argument for burying subways, it is only an argument for heated track switches, cold rated wayside equipment, etc.

It isn't just the running of them. How wonderful is it to wait for a subway at Davisville? I am also not saying they shut down, but the do have running issues.

Line 1 (Spadina side) runs on surface for much of the Allen Road stretch, and elevated over the Allen / 401 interchange. The Yonge side is on surface in places between Bloor and Davisville. Not that it can't be done.

I am not saying it cannot be done, but I am asking besides cost savings, why do it, especially where it is not going to run through an empty area, like the east end of Line 2.

 

[DirectionNorth]

I'd still say it is a bad idea. Besides, if it takes till the Sheppard Line is extended to get the Northlander back, then that will be at least 20 years. Very bad idea.

I was giving a hypothetical example. Not meant to be taken literally.

It isn't just the running of them. How wonderful is it to wait for a subway at Davisville? I am also not saying they shut down, but the do have running issues.

I gave a solution.

I am not saying it cannot be done, but I am asking besides cost savings, why do it, especially where it is not going to run through an empty area, like the east end of Line 2.

You still have not given an advantage to spending more money for the exact same thing.

 

[KhalilHeron]

All routing options have some merits; my favorites are:

#10: Straightforward, supports transit-oriented development on Sheppard, and can save money east of McCowan by having LRT there. LRT in street-median is cheaper than elevated light metro or elevated subway.

#11: Similar to #10, more expensive, but Line 4 serves STC directly and that's a bonus. I would extend Line 4 a bit further east to Cenntennial Progress campus, and have the LRT on Sheppard stretch from Morningside to Kennedy and connect to both Line 2 and Line 4.

#4, 5, 7, 8: all provide for Line 4 reaching UTSC and that connection has its benefits. I'd like it to go even further and link to the LSE GO line at Port Union. That would create a connection from the LSE corridor to much of Scarborough and North York, completely bypassing Union Station.

Hadn't even thought of the benefits for people in Durham to have a subway connection to LSE. Anywhere in Durham to anywhere east of yonge would be made considerably easier

 

[micheal_can]

I was giving a hypothetical example. Not meant to be taken literally.

So, Everything is hypothetical that you have been posting?

I gave a solution.

You did, and we all agreed that it is an ugly solution to a problem that does not need to be created.

You still have not given an advantage to spending more money for the exact same thing.

Scroll up and you will see I have pointed out multiple reasons open air is not a good idea. Doing things as cheap as possible is not the best answer, ever. That is why I am pressing for good reasons not to sped a bit more. I know that money won't be spent on things people may think I want, so, why not do it right?

Didn't they end up covering parts near Davisville station after it was opened?

 

[TheTigerMaster]

Converting to low-floor LRT is a bad idea. But converting to OL-type light metro, or high-floor LRT, should not be too difficult.

My gut is that retaining the same wide-body subway technology is OK if we expect this line to never get extended past STC (or McCowan) in the east, and past Sheppard West (Allen Rd) in the west.

But if we want it to reach Pearson in the west, and perhaps connect to the Lakeshore East RER line at Port Union, then it will be cheaper and easier overall to convert to OL rolling stock before building any extensions.

Personally, I would flat out oppose any extension of Line 4 that didn't see it converted to light metro. As you said, the wide-body subways are not conducive to any extensions west of Yonge or east of STC. Why continue to invest in and build with technology that we know will not be viable in the long term?

 

[TheTigerMaster]

I must say that while I am not a fan of all aspects of the Ontario Line, I do appreciate it for making elevated rail politically viable in Toronto. A decade ago I couldn't have imagined any serious discussion on building elevated rail in Scarborough or elsewhere in Toronto.

 

[TheTigerMaster]

Converting to low-floor LRT is a bad idea. But converting to OL-type light metro, or high-floor LRT, should not be too difficult.
My gut is that retaining the same wide-body subway technology is OK if we expect this line to never get extended past STC (or McCowan) in the east, and past Sheppard West (Allen Rd) in the west.
But if we want it to reach Pearson in the west, and perhaps connect to the Lakeshore East RER line at Port Union.

I don't know if it has been discussed yet, but connecting Line 4 to Lakeshore RER is a brilliant idea. It would essentially turn Line 4 into an extension of the RER network spanning the north of Toronto.

Broadly speaking, westbound Lakeshore RER commuters would transfer at Port Union and then use Line 4 to access any destinations in Toronto roughly north of Eglinton. For example, a commuter from Durham travelling to Lawrence Station would use Line 4.

The ridership potential is high.

In this scenario, it would also make sense to extend Line 4 to at least Downsview Station, to let those RER commuters access the Spadina Line.

This would dramatically alter travel patterns in Durham Region and northern areas of Toronto. It would suddenly becomes viable for Durham residents to access areas like UTSC, Scarborough Town Centre, North York Center, York University, etc via transit.

This would also function as a "Union Station Relief Line". Metrolinx has been looking for ways to reduce crowding at Union Station, and this Line 4 extension could divert a meaningful amount of passenger crowding away from Union Station.

However, the Ontario Line would obviously have to be extended north to Sheppard prior to extending Line 4, otherwise we'd overcrowd the Yonge Line even further.

 

[TheTigerMaster]

This would also function as a "Union Station Relief Line". Metrolinx has been looking for ways to reduce crowding at Union Station, and this Line 4 extension could divert a meaningful amount of passenger crowding away from Union Station.

Metrolinx reported 17,600 daily boardings on Lakeshore East between Oshawa and Rouge Hill Station. Lets assume that most of those riders are in the AM rush hour (the GO network sees low off-peak usage). Line 4 would divert several thousand of those riders away from Union Station at peak hour.

Further, Line 4's ridership would increase substantially once RER is operating. RER is expected to double GO's ridership.

 

[micheal_can]

View attachment 371689

Metrolinx reported 17,600 daily boardings on Lakeshore East between Oshawa and Rouge Hill Station. Lets assume that most of those riders are in the AM rush hour (the GO network sees low off-peak usage). Line 4 would divert several thousand of those riders away from Union Station at peak hour.

Further, Line 4's ridership would increase substantially once RER is operating. RER is expected to double GO's ridership.

Where are those riders going though? If they are staying downtown, a subway/LRT/Light metro would not serve them well.