[NodeGreen11]

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

Here is my quick analysis of the 11 options:

Option 1: Too many transitions between above-ground and below-ground segments
Option 2: It will be very difficult to transition from below to above at the Stouffville Line as there is the hwy 401 and west highland creek
Option 3: Ok
Option 4: Too many transitions between above-ground and below-ground segments + weird connection with Eglinton East LRT
Option 5: It will be very difficult to transition from below to above at the Stouffville Line as there is the hwy 401 and west highland creek + weird connection with Eglinton East LRT
Option 6: weird connection with Eglinton East LRT
Option 7: Too many transitions between above-ground and below-ground segments + weird connection with Eglinton East LRT
Option 8: It will be very difficult to transition from below to above at the Stouffville Line as there is the hwy 401 and west highland creek + Too many transitions between above-ground and below-ground segments
Option 9: Too many transitions between above-ground and below-ground segments
Option 10: Ok, but probably very expensive
Option 11: Lack of direct connection along Sheppard Ave

 

[Steve X]

I'll extend Line 2 to Malvern and Line 4 to UTSC via STC and Ellesmere.

Perhaps Line 2 can split at Sheppard/McCowan with another branch to Markham/York Region and Line 4 extend to Rouge Hill GO to connect to the future RER line.

 

[micheal_can]

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

In short, 2 or 8 seem like good ones to me. Mind you, I'd stay underground for all of them.

 

[Undead]

Stay on Sheppard but elevate it between Vic Park and McCowan.

 

[micheal_can]

Stay on Sheppard but elevate it between Vic Park and McCowan.

Besides a lower cost, what problem is solved by running above ground?

 

[Undead]

Besides a lower cost, what problem is solved by running above ground?

In Toronto, that is the key problem.

 

[micheal_can]

In Toronto, that is the key problem.

I know, and it leads to running issues in winter. So, if you can show another reason besides cost, then I can understand it.

 

[DirectionNorth]

I know, and it leads to running issues in winter. So, if you can show another reason besides cost, then I can understand it.

What other reason do you need?

It allows us to build more transit?

It's less (!) disruption because it's easier to build?

If snow is such an issue, what about a cover? Have you thought about it?

 

[KhalilHeron]

I know, and it leads to running issues in winter. So, if you can show another reason besides cost, then I can understand it.

Caused issues for some lines and some systems, but I've never heard of substantial weather issues on the above-grade sections of line 1 and 2. Could def be wrong there though

 

[KhalilHeron]

Stay on Sheppard but elevate it between Vic Park and McCowan.

The only issue is there's not a tonne of room for elevated track or even a station around the Stouffville corridor, as many of the buildings in the area are fairly historic and I'd like to see their demolition avoided

Here is my quick analysis of the 11 options:

Option 1: Too many transitions between above-ground and below-ground segments
Option 2: It will be very difficult to transition from below to above at the Stouffville Line as there is the hwy 401 and west highland creek
Option 3: Ok
Option 4: Too many transitions between above-ground and below-ground segments + weird connection with Eglinton East LRT
Option 5: It will be very difficult to transition from below to above at the Stouffville Line as there is the hwy 401 and west highland creek + weird connection with Eglinton East LRT
Option 6: weird connection with Eglinton East LRT
Option 7: Too many transitions between above-ground and below-ground segments + weird connection with Eglinton East LRT
Option 8: It will be very difficult to transition from below to above at the Stouffville Line as there is the hwy 401 and west highland creek + Too many transitions between above-ground and below-ground segments
Option 9: Too many transitions between above-ground and below-ground segments
Option 10: Ok, but probably very expensive
Option 11: Lack of direct connection along Sheppard Ave

Any issues with transitioning between above and underground too much really only pertain to using bored tunnels. It's perfectly feasible using cut and cover which I think should work in most places here.
The connection to the EELRT is weird for 4-6 mind you, it was really just shown that way to properly illustrate the connection. I made all these and the measurements based on some drawings I did on google earth and there the subway runs parallel to the lrt under military trail.
And yea the Stouffville corridor may be too narrow especially just north of the 401 to accommodate the subway portals and stations and everything that comes with grade changes there

 

[KhalilHeron]

I'll extend Line 2 to Malvern and Line 4 to UTSC via STC and Ellesmere.

Perhaps Line 2 can split at Sheppard/McCowan with another branch to Markham/York Region and Line 4 extend to Rouge Hill GO to connect to the future RER line.

I think personally there I would instead split line 4, with a branch to STC and UTSC (potential then to Rouge Hill but the demand in between is certainly not going to be there for a long time) and then the other branch going to Malvern via Sheppard-McCowan. If the demand is there I think then just extending line 2 directly north to Steeles or Markville would be a long term goal but I don't think line 2 should branch just because most other places I could think to branch it would be better serves by RER, Surface LRT, or light metro like the Ontario Line Potential going downtown Markham

 

[micheal_can]

What other reason do you need?

It allows us to build more transit?

It's less (!) disruption because it's easier to build?

If snow is such an issue, what about a cover? Have you thought about it?

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

 

[DirectionNorth]

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

That doesn't mean we can't do them. Let's make Toronto at transit innovator!

 

[micheal_can]

That doesn't mean we can't do them. Let's make Toronto at transit innovator!

You mean like the SRT of which they are tearing up 40 years later? Why not sped the right amount of money and do it right the first time?
I just don't see it being much of a cost savings over bored tunnel or cut and cover.

 

[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.