Talk:Line 4 Sheppard/Archive 1

Archive 1

Westward extension

Any idea why the westward extension is no longer a priority ? It would be so helpful if the subway was from Downsview to Scarborough Town Centre. Right now its barely used and seems a waste of $. sikander 16:33, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Because people in Scarborough have been screaming for better transit for ages. I'd say that extension eastwards is top priority, then westwards to Downsview and beyond. But you never know. Things might accelearte depending on the money we get. Writerchick

The Sheppard subway has been criticized on numerous occasions. Currently, the only westward "rapid transit" on the line is the 196B York University Rocket route. The route only operates M-F. Perhaps Saturday and/or Sunday express busses may be used as a temporary solution, similar to the proposed "busway" until the Spadina expansion.

I think that because of the Spadina Line Extension, this might get more proirity considering people need a faster bridge between the Yonge Side and Spadina side. (I'm just saying.) --Yllianos 17:12, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

"Barely used"? So standing-room-only during rush hour counts as "barely used"? Ground Zero | t 02:12, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't think the TTC thinks that the sheppard line is of any priority to expand now... they are focusing on more Light rail projects instead... like the sheppard east light rail project, I don't know of any westward expansion. Heights 20:55, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

But doesn't lightrail mean like street-cars? and are they doing to build it like the spadina one? that would be hell. Anyone seen Spadina during rush hour from Front Street to Spadina station? Knightshield 01:32, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

That tells you more about the TTC’s skill in implementation than what streetcars can actually do — with proper signal priority and other subtleties of design, they can sail right through. David Arthur 14:35, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

No Longer a Priority?

Toronto has made it seem that any extension of this line is no longer a priority with the Transit City plan, shouldn't this be added somewhere in the article? Anung Mwka 02:12, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Possibe Sheppard closure

I've removed this silly section. Just because Adam Gambione mused about the possibility in public, doesn't mean it should be here. He's clearly being dramatic for publicity. "On July 19th 2007 the TTC announced its intentions to implement large scale reductions in its services, including " 100% not true. The TTC did nothing of the kind; the chairman suggested some ways to save money - two weeks ago he floated the idea of a ferry between Etobicoke and Scarborough ... just because the Chairman muses something, doesn't make it a TTC announcement - just the musing of a single city councillor, best left unreported. Nfitz 01:25, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree. Political scare tactics are not encyclopedic until someone makes it official. --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 02:23, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Hm. I cleaned it up and sourced it before reading this. I think it does illustrate the commission's ambivalence to the Sheppard line, though. I suggest keeping it in to see how this plays out over the next couple of weeks. If it turns out to be just an offhand remark, then it should be removed. If the commission considers it seriously though, I think it should be kept. Ground Zero | t 02:26, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm removing again. If commmission votes on Friday to actually close it, then should be added. But I'd be surprised if it actually comes to a vote - it's just the annual "we're going to gut the system if we don't get money" garbage from the chairman. Nfitz 07:22, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

I certainly agree that it can be used as an example when discussing the TTC's view of the line. However, I do not think that it yet warrants its own section. We'll see how the meeting today goes before deciding how much article space to give the topic. --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 15:19, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

While I agree it is grandstanding, it is not "gossip" or the musings of a single councillor. The possible closure of the Sheppard line is the lead item in today's Globe and Mail, National Post, and Toronto Sun. It is the subheading to the lead item in the Toronto Star. The Toronto news media are clearly taking it seriously. You are entitled to your own opinion on the issue, but you cannot dismiss something that has obtained rare unanimity amongst the Toronto newspapers about the most important story of the day. Two registered editors are in favour of keeping, and two opposed. I won't engage in a revert war, but encourage other editors to post their opinions here about whether this should stay or go. Ground Zero | t 12:18, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Again, I reverted it. Adam Whatshislastname was on Global News this morning and specifically stated that they are considering shutting down the Subway line, and a decision is to be made this afternoon during the 1pm emergency meeting. Anung Mwka 12:40, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

• This story is less than 24 hours old. At this point the TTC is not considering closing the line, at they won't possibly be considering closing the line until that meeting is convened at 1 pm - at the moment this is simply the grandstanding of the chairman. To include this breaking information as soon as it comes out of Gambione's mouth is not appropriate, and is a violation of Wikipedia guidelines, specifically The fact that someone or something has been in the news for a brief period of time does not automatically justify an encyclopedia article.. If after today's TTC meeting, the issue is actually under consideration, then I would grant you that it is noteworthy However I can assure you that the chances that this line would be closed for this reason are about as likely as us waking up tomorrow morning to find a giant ape has climbed the CN Tower. I will delete again. Nfitz 13:43, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

So if a plane crashes, everyone should hold off for a day before they make an article about it, just because it hits the media first? Council is seriously considering shutting down the subway, and your whole position is to have your head in the clouds and acting like nothing is happening? No wonder this city is going to hell. Anung Mwka 14:32, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

You don't understand the process. Council hasn't even heard about this yet - council hasn't sat for over a week. Also I don't think council actually get's a say, it's the Commission that deals with this. Example doesn't work; no plane has crashed. To use your example, posting something yesterday was akin to posting about the plane crash after it took off, and had engine problems, but everyone thought it would land just fine. However, as you may have seen in the news, it hasn't landed fine ... it does appear to now have a problem. The commission sat today and although they have deferred this until the fall (at which time, the whole thing will likely die as they will have their funding one way or another), the closure does actually now appear to be an official idea - and as such, an entry in the article is now appropriate - I will not block it. Though I really don't know what the Commissioners think they are doing - they have clearly forgotten that the street is designated as an existing higher order transit corridor in the official plan, and even if the don't have to amend the official plan - and go through a 2-year environmental assessment process (which I think they need to); then they are still going to be rightfully sued by the adjacent developers, which will presumably cost them more than they will save! Nfitz 01:12, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Map

I don't really know how to edit the detailed map, but there is something missing on it. Between Leslie and Don Mills stations, there is a small enclosed bridge which spans the East Don River. The bridge is much closer to Leslie than Don Mills. I would add this to the map if I knew how to do it properly, so I'm asking someone who knows to help me out. Blackjays1 (talk) 14:04, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Added (though the template doesn’t really offer a way of showing that the bridge is enclosed). David Arthur (talk) 14:18, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. Blackjays1 (talk) 22:23, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

This is an unusual situation because the subway never comes above ground. I followed the logical description to find an icon that properly fits within the list atWikipedia:Route diagram template/Catalog of pictograms. The subway is in tunnel and yet enclosed in a structure elevated across water - adding up to utWBRÜCKE-ELEV -Secondarywaltz (talk) 22:49, 12 January 2008 (UTC)