Updated May 19:
The question of turnback points and storage tracks on the Sheppard East LRT has come up in the comment thread on this post, and I have now received some details from the TTC.
There will be a crossover at “regular intervals” along the line for turnbacks. As for storage tracks, there are two potential locations that were shown in the preliminary designs at public meetings. Neither of these is confirmed yet, and their inclusion will be subject to detailed design and costing.
- Don Mills Station (third track)
- Malvern Garage (spur)
No three-track section on Sheppard itself is planned.
Details of the Don Mills Station configuration will be included in a report on the TTC agenda for May 28.
Original post from May 15:
Today at a joint press conference at TTC Hillcrest Yards, Prime Minister Harper and Premier McGuinty announced funding for the Sheppard East line with construction to start in July (Harper) or in the fall (McGuinty).
Included in the announcement was a statement that the route would be served by Bombardier vehicles, and this more or less settles the question about any add-on contract to the “legacy” streetcar order.
A reporter from Radio Canada (the French network) asked about funding for the new streetcar fleet, and this question was later repeated by a reporter from CBC Radio. Harper emphasized in both French and English that the primary concern of the Canadian government today was with short term economic stimulus. In his English answer, Harper said that there would be plenty of time for discussions about the new streetcars.
McGuinty speaking in French said that he was optimistic about assisting Toronto in the purchase of new streetcars, and his tone was much more concilliatory than previous emanations from Queen’s Park. By contrast, to the repeat question in English, we first asked whether the reporter was “working for Miller”, and then complained that Toronto just had one announcement out the door. He settled down to talk briefly about Toronto and Queen’s Park meeting to discuss priorities overall, but seemed testier in the English response.
All in all, I think the funding for streetcars will come, and there is the June 27 deadline for bid validity.
Steve Munro 
I have just finished reading the entire report. (I don’t have a life today) and have noted the following:
1. The Sheppard line cars are to operate at 750 VDC. Has the TTC decided to change their operating voltage for ever electric line? –or–
2. Will the Transit city lines be a different voltage than the rest of the system? –or–
3. Did someone not tell URS what voltage the TTC operates at and did they assume that it was 750 like most new systems?
A change in operating voltage changes the minimum spacing for sub stations but I think that at 9 for a 14 km line they have enough at either voltage.
The proposed layout of the road does not show any crossovers or centre tracks for short turns and holding cars. I assume that they will have some on this line. A 14 km long line with nowhere to push a disabled car will cause real problems. A TTC operations person at the WWLRT meeting said that they missed having Hillside Wye as there was nowhere to stick a disabled car for a while to let delayed cars past. With double ended cars and no loops the TTC will actually end up pulling disabled cars as well as pushing them.
On page 3 of appendix 7B there appears to be one centre platform station east of Washburn Way and west of Neilson Road. Perhaps they could also put one at station with the Stouffeville GO train. There is already a widening of the right of way for a centre platform so this would be one location for a centre track.
I love their rationale for operating a 2 car train every 5 minutes instead of a single car every 2.5 minutes as it eliminates bunching. I am certain that the patrons will appreciate that when 2 trains bunch and the headway goes from 5 top 10 instead of 2.5 to 5 minutes. Did they stop and think that with a train only every 5 minutes this line is going to look unused to a lot of motorist who will scream that it is being under used and they should be allowed to drive on it. I hope that they will only have one operator per train.
I noticed that they haven’t decided on centre poles or span wires as this has to be discussed with Fire and EMS. I was told by some one at the WWLRT meeting the Toronto Fire wants to get much wider vehicles than they have now (3 m vs 2.6 m) and this is why they do not want centre poles. Does anyone know if this is correct?
I also learned at the WWLRT line that there will be an express service from Kipling and Lakeshore to Union Station starting this September. It will be an extra fare service.
Steve: Yes, I believe that the TC network will be a different, higher voltage. This has intriguing implications for the proposal to link the 512 St. Clair line with the Jane LRT. I will have to investigate this further. Your point about the detailed plans including turnbacks and storage tracks is also important because that may not have been factored into property requirements for the line.
The business about headways and bunching is the latest piece of bafflegab in the TTC’s arsenal. It relates to headways on the King car where the traffic light cycle is close to the headway and causes cars to be marshalled into groups based on the cycle time. A 5 minute headway is wide enough that this should not happen. Of course, the whole argument falls apart if you actually believe that the TC lines will get true signal priority and won’t be as rigourously limited by signal cycle times as a route downtown. Or maybe I wasn’t supposed to point out that fallacy in their argument.
More to the point, for two car trains (60m long!) will they be one-man or two-man trains? At least if they are one-man they won’t be able to pull the standard trick they used on Queen when it ran MU of breaking the train so that they could short-turn half of it.
LikeLike
“Sheppard has a great connection to Yonge subway, while a connection right at Yonge / 401 would be very difficult to build.”
It would actually be impossible considering the steep slope and bored tunnel structure.
Steve: The whole idea of a rapid transit line in the 401 corridor is such a laughable piece of junk, it shows just how little highway planners know about transit. Just because a corridor has a lot of cars on it does not make it a good candidate for transit. The stations, to begin with, will be a huge pain in the butt because (a) they will be hard to get to and (b) far away from any sources of demand like buildings.
LikeLike
Steve said: “The whole idea of a rapid transit line in the 401 corridor is such a laughable piece of junk … The stations, to begin with, will be a huge pain in the butt because (a) they will be hard to get to and (b) far away from any sources of demand like buildings.”
Let’s look at the GO train stations within 416. They are kind of friendly for walk-in passengers, but most of them do not serve any significant building clusters or any other major trip generators, and have very poor connection to TTC transit routes.
Yet, you regard the future enhanced GO train lines as the main utility for long-distance trips within GTA. Obviously, in that capacity they will rely on feeder services much more than on walk-in passengers.
If so, then why not 401 Express Rail with feeder services? I guess the main rationale for 401 corridor is not the amount of cars it serves, but that it is an open strip of land that crosses GTA from east to west. Hence, the rail line could run elevated over 416 lanes, rather than tunneled, reducing the construction costs.
Steve: The GO Transit routes, as I have written before, have a major problem in that they have depended primarily on parking for their source of traffic and this cannot be sustained. Indeed, the reason GO underwrites low combined fares for local services feeding its network is that it is cheaper for GO to pay Oakville Transit, say, to bring customers to the station than to build parking.
However, this model does not scale up to the level of riding foreseen in the Metrolinx and GO plans, and the amount of local transit needed to sustain the rail corridors will be quite substantial. Meanwhile, opportunities for developing many of the stations are limited by their location. Despite all of Metrolinx blather about “mobility hubs”, they are still stations at a parking lot in an industrial backwater in many cases. The same sort of problem would apply to the 401 corridor.
LikeLike
Why is there all this talk about Sheppard being dead? I thought the long-term plan was conversion to LRT.
Frankly, if we are going to truly be pro-transit, I don’t see why we cannot, eventually, have LRT along all the major east-west routes. Sheppard East and Finch West can lead to Sheppard West and Finch East. Eglinton can be complemented by Lawrence, and even York Mills – Wilson could work.
LikeLike
In response to Steve’s objection to a 401 route, look at the real goal of the line again. Presumably this would end up at Pearson in the west and Pickering in the East and leave the 401 at Scarborough centre to link up with the SRT and buses. That doesn’t really leave too many highway centre stations for a regionally oriented line , and none of them would exactly be major trip generators. This would not be a local transit line but a revival of the GO ALRT concept for an area (central GTA, between the lake and the 407, IMO the CP line is far enough south that its essentially still downtown oriented) with no mainline rail suitable for service. All in all it would be the sort of thing that would be better served by the cost savings of the highway route than the better stations of a subway. The fact we don’t need it in a 25 year timeframe does not suggest that we will never need it, or even that we shouldn’t be considering it now.
Finally, I haven’t seen the plans that recently, is there still supposed to be a surface level track connection to Don Mills whatever station configuration is planned?
Steve: See my response to a previous comment re GO lines and the 401. As for Don Mills, the original scheme called for a surface connection, but I suspect that will be reworked given the planned interchange with the Finch Don Mills line. I am awaiting word on this from the TTC.
LikeLike
About voltages, its worth remembering that there have been cases (on interubans particularly) where unmodified vehicles have been able to run across multiple voltages (obviously less problematic for high equipment to run on low, but I THINK both have been done). Now I wouldn’t want to speculate on whether its possible with modern electronics, but the point stands that multi voltage operation isn’t neccesarily that complicated.
LikeLike
Ned Carlson Says:
May 17th, 2009 at 9:01 pm
“About voltages, it is worth remembering that there have been cases (on interubans particularly) where unmodified vehicles have been able to run across multiple voltages (obviously less problematic for high equipment to run on low, but I THINK both have been done). Now I wouldn’t want to speculate on whether it is possible with modern electronics, but the point stands that multi voltage operation isn’t necessarily that complicated.”
The early interurbans, including the Toronto Suburban to Guelph and I believe the Grand River/Lake Erie and Northern ran 1500 volts in the interurban and 600 volts in the city. They did this by having a big switch which the motorman had to throw that connected the two trucks in series to operate on the high voltage line and in parallel to operate on the city lines. The lights and auxiliaries were also divided into two groups of approximate equal loads as well. In the city the equipment ran on 600 V instead of 750 V so the lights were a little dim and the cars did not run as fast but who wants a car running down the main street of Galt at 75 mph?
I do not know how the modern electronics would adapt at these voltages and the currents required. I know that squirrel cage motors in air conditioners that operate under brown out conditions are subject to burning out. The electronic controllers might be able to correct for the lower voltage like switching power supplies for modern electronics do. DC motors that operate at less than design voltage seem to have no problems except for low speed as anyone who ever road the Rogers Rd. car to the end of the line on a late winter afternoon will remember. The interior lights were a very dull yellow as the voltage dropped way below 500 V if two cars tried to accelerate at the same time. I would hate to run an CLRV or an ALRV on 750 V though.
LikeLike
Regarding the idea of converting the Sheppard subway to LRT: exactly why is it politically untenable? I was not in Ontario at the time, so I do not know the details of the whole project, but of course none of the current political leaders (Miller, McGuinty, Harper) were in power at the time, and I am assuming that they did not have much to do with the Sheppard subway? Metrolinx also of course did not exist at the time. So converting would not really make them look bad, eh?
Unless future forecasts of ridership demand a subway it just makes sense to convert it to LRT. It would save a transfer for many and seems like common sense. I mean, wasn’t there talk last year of closing down the Sheppard line because of budget issues? If it does not make enough money to support itself and needs to be subsidized to a great extent by the rest of the system, it is much better to convert.
How much would it possibly cost to convert anyway?
Steve: There is at least one generation of engineers, some of whom are still quite active in pushing other subway projects, who made their names on the Sheppard line. For the TTC as an organization to admit that they oversold the line would also be a bitter pill. The dust still has to settle until well after we get part of Transit City up and running when more and more people can ask the obvious question.
In the short term, the only benefit from running the LRT through the subway is to eliminate the transfer at Don Mills and simplify a westward extension to Downsview. That extension isn’t anywhere soon on the radar. Meanwhile, the upheaval of a conversion would probably account for far more cumulative “inconvenience” (to use a favourite TTC planning term) than the transfer-free ride would make back for several years in the future. The project would also consume capital that we could put to better use building new lines elsewhere.
LikeLike
I’m pretty sure the long term goal is to extend the subway eastward. The Lrt will help increase ridership on Sheppard so that in future a subway extension can be justified. Don’t get me wrong this probably won’t happen for another 30 yr or so.
For those that are wishing that the subway will be converted to lrt … I think they should [not?] hold their breath. Do you really think taxpayers are going to agree on scaling down a transit line just to reduce a transfer point. Such a plan would never gain legs especially in a city that’s in love with subways.
I’m a prime example of that — it took me a while to finally realize that lrt is the way to go, when talking about transit in suburban communities. Once ridership is built up on Sheppard then we can start taking about subway expansion.
LikeLike
Thanks for the reply Steve! And after considering what you wrote, I agree with you totally. I would not want a conversion at all costs, and yes, there do not seem to be very many short-term benefits. I was just under the impression that the only thing standing in the way of a conversion were political issues. And as someone who does not live near downtown, one of my major issues with transit in Toronto/GTA is the fact I have to transfer an average of three times on my daily commute, which is the case for many who do not live in or near downtown.
LikeLike
Steve said: “The GO Transit routes, as I have written before, have a major problem in that they have depended primarily on parking for their source of traffic … However, this model does not scale up to the level of riding foreseen in the Metrolinx and GO plans, and the amount of local transit needed to sustain the rail corridors will be quite substantial.”
I understand that point, and agree with it. However, fast long-range trip capacity across GTA is needed anyway, and GO train lines will be used for that purpose where feasible, as this is cheaper than building new fast, fully grade-separate lines. There exists a number of N-S rail lines converging to Union station, as well as Lakeshore line that goes E-W, and Midtown line that goes mostly E-W. However, no rail line runs across the northern half of 416 area (CN is too far north).
Hence, 401 Express Rail is a valid proposal, even if not a suitable investment within the 25-year plan. Regarding the connection to local transit, 401 Express Rail incorporating Sheppard subway would actually be in a better position than most of GO train lines. Indeed, it would have many stations with high local density and established local transit connections:
1. Scarborough Centre (diverging from 401 to serve it, as Ned Carlson noted)
2. Don Mills / Fairview
3. Yonge – Sheppard
4. Likely, Wilson or Downsview subway (dependent on the routing)
5. Pearson
6. Possibly, Square One in Mississauga
So, only a few stops within 416 would have platforms encased by Hwy 401 and be totally dependent on the feeder bus or LRT service. The list can look like: Jane, Weston Rd, Kipling; Vic Park, Kennedy, one or two stops east of STC.
Steve: The last time I looked, Yonge and Sheppard was quite a way distant from the 401, and relative to STC, the highway is way over on the northern edge. There is a big difference in the meaning of “near” for pedestrians and transit users as compared with motorists. Routing a line away from the 401 corridor to properly serve some of the areas you mention runs into serious problems with buildings and other structures getting in the way.
LikeLike
Nick J Boragine said: Frankly, if we are going to truly be pro-transit, I don’t see why we cannot, eventually, have LRT along all the major east-west routes. Sheppard East and Finch West can lead to Sheppard West and Finch East. Eglinton can be complemented by Lawrence, and even York Mills – Wilson could work.
Hmmm, high-capacity LRT connections to every station on the Yonge line north of St. Clair except Davisville and North York Centre… every station would certainly break 30K daily (all from St.Clair northward already break at least 20K daily today), even 40K. Could be a problem, unless GO’s interaction with the network changes dramatically.
LikeLike
All this talk about where exactly this terminus should be is the main reason why Sheppard East LRT should be constructed LAST. After considering all the options, I am of agreement that it is folly to leave the Sheppard Subway line at its present state. Surely, the creators of this line had bigger ambitions for the Stubway and right now this basically throws everything out the window. The idea of a Don Mills “hub” is great, but the Sheppard Subway line itself is so short that it would be a political embarassment to leave it in its present form.
One other thing to consider is where the LRT will appear on the surface at Sheppard. The closer to Victoria Park the portal is, the more questions about why not construct the Subway to Victoria Park (where it was originally intended)?
To quote other posters here “fix the problem, don’t add to it”.
Steve: The LRT will emerge east of the DVP, just west of Consumer’s Road. See the preliminary design in the EA document. Going all the way to Victoria Park is one of those “just one more stop” problems we have discussed here before. At some point, subways have to give way to some less intensive form of transit.
As for the original intent, the subway was to go to STC, NOT to eastern Scarborough.
LikeLike
Robert Wightman wrote, “The proposed layout of the road does not show any crossovers or centre tracks for short turns and holding cars.”
I had been told back during the last round of open houses that the actual location of crossovers would be determined later, but would be in the ballpark of about 2 km apart. I don’t believe there will be any storage tracks along the route, though this could change.
Robert Wightman also wrote, “On page 3 of appendix 7B there appears to be one centre platform station east of Washburn Way and west of Neilson Road. Perhaps they could also put one at station with the Stouffeville GO train.”
I have also been advocating a centre platform at the GO station, and submitted my comments on it at the last round of open houses. A set of stairs with elevator could easily connect the LRT and GO platforms for a very convenient connection. Under the existing plan, anyone wishing to make this connection will have to use the LRT stop situated at the traffic lights to the entrance of the GO station, a couple of hundred metres to the west of the rail line. From there, it is a very significant walk to the station entrance.
LikeLike
I’m a little surprised that an underground LRT station isn’t being considered for the Yorkland Road area just east of the 404 as there seems to be significant high density development going on there.
Steve: At that point, the tunnel will be very deep and a station would cost a fortune. There was not going to be a subway station here if that had been extended further east either.
LikeLike
re the 401 transit line.
The 401 has 16 lanes at its widest point in the 416 area (18 past the airport) and given a capacity of 2000 vehicles per lane per hour and an average load of 1.2 vehicles that amounts to just under 40 000 people per hour capacity or 20 000 in each direction. A good LRT line with totally separated right of way can do that but, and it is a big but, many of the people who use it are not starting and/or ending their trip next to the highway and most of the transports cannot carry their load on a LRT, um, box motors. Because the expressway offers a significant speed advantage for the east-west part of their journey, motorists are willing to travel out of their way north or south to access it. Though it is not the shortest route by distance it may still be shortest by time. To try and get transit riders to use this corridor you would need, as Steve says, a giant, efficient feeder system to get people from their homes to the line and from the line to work.
Let’s take a look at expressways that have transit lanes in their median:
1. The Spadina line in Toronto only runs half the headway of Yonge in the morning because ridership is not high enough to warrant better service. They run all trains to the end in the afternoon because the dynamics of travel patterns is different and it would create major platform jams to run the short turn service. With a couple of exceptions there has not been a lot of high rise development around expressways. The major areas are between the 401 and Sheppard from Yonge to Don Mills and you can argue over what caused them, transit or expressway. I suspect the true answer is the combination of both.
Steve: To be fair here, I think that an important difference between Yonge and Spadina is that the former has always been a strong demand corridor. However, Spadina is completely dependent on feeder services to provide its traffic.
2. The expressways in Chicago that have transit in the middle of them:
a) Dan Ryan Expressway, Red Line south is every 3 to 7 minutes in the a.m. and every 3 to 8 in the p.m.. This line carries a good number but it was there before the expressway.
b) Blue Line every 4 to 8 minutes in a.m. rush and every 7 to 9 in p.m.
c) Green line runs every 8 to 9 minutes on the inner half and every 16 to 18 on the outer half, not exactly easy numbers to remember,
d) Orange line runs every 6 to 7 minutes in both rush hours.
e) Pink line runs every 10 minutes in the both rush hours with short trains.
f) Brown Line runs every 4 to 6 minutes in both rush hours.
I cannot remember which lines have part of their operation on expressways but I know that several do. The only line to run in a subway is the red line from Howard Avenue in South Evanston in the North to 95th and Dan Ryan in the south. The purple line runs express service from Wilmette in Evanston to the Loop along the red line except it stays on the el into the loop.
Remember that this service is operated with 6 or 8 car trains of PCC size vehicles with curves that approach those of the Toronto Streetcar system. One group wants to remove the rail lines from the median and turn them into express toll roads but as you can see from their website they might have a wee conflict of interest.
http://www.tollroadsnews.com/node/166
If we look at GO transit and see where there has been high density development it appears to be in old town downtowns that are on the line. Look at Port Credit, Cooksville and now downtown Brampton. These are in areas that have amenities that peoples can walk to as well as a GO station that they can walk to. I realize that we do not have a choice where the rail lines go but we can do something about the zoning to encourage redevelopment that encourages mixed use and maximizes the benefit of the GO train, while minimizing the need to drive to the station.
It is interesting to note that many US systems consider the line to be successful if it can support a 10 to 12 minute headway in the rush hour. Given those criteria Toronto should be crisscrossed by rails. If you do a Google search of LRT vs expressway about 20% of the hits bring up Toronto.
LikeLike
I could see one use the 401 in terms of rail alignments:
A spur off the CP Belleville sub, starting from Ellesmere and rising through a re-designed crossing at Birchmount, where it veers off the existing line to hug the south side of the 401, elevated, until a couple hundred metres east of Midland where it can swing through as-of-yet undeveloped space and prow through the STC parking lot, probably elevated (unless it transitions from elevated to underground between Midland and Progress (re-designed crossing at Brimley)), and butting into the northwest corner of the existing Scarborough Centre station.
This could be used for that super-fast airport-STC line Metrolinx envisions. Metrolinx would need to improve its communication with CP though.
Steve: Karl, this is not a “401” line, but really a “Belleville/North Toronto Sub” line that just happens to use a short stretch of the 401. You are cheating by using a rail corridor rather than an expressway. The challenge is to find a way to make a “401 Express” line work, preferably as a 3P! Let the market decide whether this idea has any merit.
LikeLike
Since the conversation doesn’t seem to be ending I’ve drawn up a concept of what this line could look like. Again, I think its worth noting that most of the major destinations (really transfer points admittedly) are not actually on the highway.
I think the real problem with a 401 line at this point is that this would be so dependant on the routes proposed now that I suspect realistic demand modeling can’t be done until a lot of Transit City is operational. At this point I don’t think the line is much more than something worth keeping in mind when we talk about what to do with the Sheppard line, but I also think that will change, and change pretty quickly once we have light rail in place.
Aside from getting this out there I’d suggest we move this topic to a forum somewhere since this is hardly the ideal place for discussion and Steve is definitely not in favour of the line…
Steve: You noticed!
LikeLike
There is no way LRT can handle 20,000 per hour per direction. What are you guys smoking? That’s subway territory.
While it may seem stupid to put a transit line on the 401, the idea is to let other drivers see the trains go by while they’re stuck in traffic. Having said that, I still don’t think it would work.
Sheppard would have been the right crosstown subway in the north to do the 401’s job, but the TTC’s diabolical plan to start the LRT line where the subway’s tail tracks end forever condemns the subway to stubsville. Coincidence? … vs. putting it one level up or down and keeping all the options open?
Another thing, people always gripe about how subways cost so much … well, how about spending 950 mill on a 40,000 passenger per day LRT line — isn’t that just as much a waste of money as the subway? Ah, the double standard. 40,000 is nothing.
Steve: There’s a very good reason to put the LRT on the same level as the subway, and this was stated during the open houses in the EA. The LRT tunnel can be directly used for a subway extension because it will be at the correct level. Bring the line in at the mezzanine and you doom the network to having a transfer forever. The TTC is actually doing something to make a subway extension possible here, although some of the comments don’t seem to appreciate this.
I was actually surprised because I had expected they would make the connection to the Don Mills LRT at the mezzanine level. Possibly there will be an interchange track threaded through south of the mezzanine.
As for LRT at 20K, no that’s not LRT. A fundamental requirement of LRT that I have always stated to anyone who asks is that it must be capable of running without a 100% segregated right-of-way. If it can’t, then regardless of the vehicle, the implementation is not LRT.
The distinction comes if a line has a relatively lightly used outer section where trains could run on the surface with the frequent service confined to the exclusive r-o-w. Eglinton is an example of this, and I can easily imagine service feeding into the east-west tunnel both from Don Mills and Jane Street. Having said that, we’re not talking anywhere near 20K for that corridor.
It is important in these discussions to keep separate the hypothetical “my technology is bigger and better than yours” from the actual requirements of each corridor.
As for 40K in demand, well you could always spend a few billion to build a subway to Vaughan. Now THAT would have been the start of a great LRT network. As I have said elsewhere, the high cost of the Sheppard LRT is explained in part by the underground connection at Don Mills (easily $250M or more) which is also a “prebuild” of a subway extension. Part is the Sheppard line’s share of the new carhouse that will serve several routes.
LikeLike
Steve: “To be fair here, I think that an important difference between Yonge and Spadina is that the former has always been a strong demand corridor. However, Spadina is completely dependent on feeder services to provide its traffic.”
Which is my point. When you put a line in the middle of an expressway it is in a low demand corridor. It would have been better if it were built under Dufferin or even up the Weston rail corridor. Don’t build a line because it is cheap. Build it because it will provide a needed service. Also don’t build to to statisfy a megalomaniac politician.
LikeLike
With the Finch, the Eglinton, and the Sheppard East LRT line now seemingly greenlit, any word on whether there is now a push to build part of the Don Mills line to connect all three and then run it as a branch of either the Finch or Eglinton line until they figure out what to do south of Eglinton?
Steve: No. Finch East took everyone by surprise as it wasn’t in any of the plans until the Premier announced it. Don Mills is supposed to be in the second wave, and is complicated by decisions on the south end alignment and the relationship to any DRL project.
LikeLike
We need more serious connections north-south, like a second subway in the yonge st corridor (I’ve already expanded on where it will fit in numerous past posts)
As for sheppard – eventually it will be a subway from Downsview to Scarborough. Remember that time is not limited. Some people look 5 years down the road, or 10, or 20. Our current subway network started 60 years ago. 60 years from now I find it hard to believe we will not have the demand we need for a Sheppard subway, at which point we will be “prince edward viadict”ing the decision to over-build our network and thanking our past generations for their foresight.
Planning to build a full-fledged subway under every major road is just crazy, unless you are talking about 100 to 200 years in the future. Trying to say “in 2209 we will build this line” and then plan station locations is just crazytalk, because in 1809 our city was nothing, nothing at all like what it is today. Making sure new buildings, sewers, etc leave space for a subway line should it ever, ever need to be built – that is just smart.
LikeLike
Isn’t an elevated line effectively a line on a very long bridge? Bridges can be as expensive to build as tunnels are to dig, and the long term maintenance cost is higher. I think a rail line on the 401 would need to wait until you can reduce car traffic enough to remove 2 lanes of the highway and build a surface line down the middle, similar to the Spadina line running down the middle of Allen Road. Another issue is that it would need to be above the current bridges that are used to cross the 401 at many points.
Steve: If you are at road level, the stations require more than two lanes’ worth of space. Putting an el on the 401 has other problems too — all those overpasses where the 401 goes under other streets don’t have enough clearance. The el (and presumably the stations) would have to be high above the roadway. Drawing lines on maps is easy. Figuring out how to actually build and operate the thing is quite another.
LikeLike
Robert, Chicago has TWO rapid transit lines running in a downtown subway, not one. That line happens to be the Blue line.
LikeLike
I suspect the opposite is true — that is, that the LRT is aligned so that it can feed into a converted Sheppard LRT subway in the future.
But still … we spent $950M for a subway that carries 40K per day, and now we’re spending another $950M for a streetcar line that carries 40K per day. What’s the difference?
Even if we look at Spadina, we’re spending $2B there for an extension that will bring in an extra 100K per day, so about 50K per $1B … which is not that far off from the $/passenger ratio on the Sheppard LRT.
If you equate the lines like this, they’re ALL a waste of money. Spadina is no worse than Sheppard.
LikeLike
“Subway 401” will not work. Why?
Transfers – Most cars on the 401 did not come from the 401. They came from elsewhere and are going elsewhere. It is very rare for someone to hop on and right off the highway, usually there is driving on city roads for the start end end of the trip. This is similar to the subway, some people on the bloor subway, for example, are going to and coming from nowhere near bloor. How else would you, for example, go from Vic Park and St.Clair to Keele and St.Clair? In order for a Subway 401 to work, you would need transfer points, that means big bus bays, and the reality is that there is no space for big bus bays along the 401. A highway like the 403 in Mississauga or the 407 can do this because they have green space beside the highway. The 401 has been built out to the edge of its right-of-way.
Traffic Mode Share – just because people in cars find the 401 an easy route to travel does not mean people on the subway would as well. Remember, people are on the 401 because it is the 401. The 401 is mostly between sheppard and wilson. If the 401 had been built between finch and steeles, it would be just as crowded, and same if it had been built between eglinton and st.clair. The 401 is busy because of what it is, a major east-west highway. Compare the car traffic on Bloor to the subway traffic underneath it. Do the same with Eglinton and the bus routes. People take the subway because it is ‘there’. To build a subway (or el) under (or over) the 401 makes as much sense as saying we should tear up bloor st and replace it with a highway.
Demand – As Steve said in an earlier post, Yonge does better than Spadina because of demand. There are towers along Yonge, and fewer along the Allen. There is a link from the tower renewal blog that shows where many of the tallest residential towers are in relation to Transit City. Note that the 401 is not the greatest east-west demand point. Eglinton is. Even Lawrence, and Finch have many towers. North-South, notice Bathurst. Before we even think about a subway along the 401, we need to think about subways under streets like York Mills.
Lastly, Steve is right. Drawing lines on a map is easy. If you want your lines to be smart, you need to do as I do and actually go out there. If you think a subway station with bus bays will fit at location X, go to location X and see for yourself. Use Google Maps even. I’ve done this and it’s helped me refine my plans, but there is still quite a lot I don’t know. This is why I’ve decided to go back to uni for urban planning – I want to learn these things so that the next time I draw “lines on a map” it is in a TTC planning room.
LikeLike
M. Briganti asks”But still … we spent $950M for a subway that carries 40K per day, and now we’re spending another $950M for a streetcar line that carries 40K per day. What’s the difference?”
??? What ISN’T the difference? A decade of inflation (which is significantly higher for construction projects, that just the CPI – averaging 6.2% a year for the last 5-years in Toronto according to Stats Can). LRT price includes vehicles, subway doesn’t. It’s not quite clear yet, but LRT price may include a yard; subway doesn’t. And the biggest of all, the LRT price is for about 15-km of service (including over a kilometre of tunnel that can later be upgraded to subway); while the subway was for about 5-km.
Steve: My understanding is that the Sheppard project budget includes part of the cost of the yard that will be shared with other projects.
LikeLike
Those differences are just spin. What matters is the overall cost and the total number of passengers served.
LikeLike
I think it is a great investment! I used the TTC exlusively from age 5-22 as my family did not have a car. For 10 years I lived at VP and Sheppard and that was before the Sheppard Subway! I remember the transfer from the Shppard bus to Sheppard station. The whole subway issue is not worthy of the second guessing as we can not go back in time to correct it. I do think that once the first line is complete and if it is done right. People will be asking why we did not do this 10 years ago as for the idea of the run down under ground to Don Mills station it too is a good idea for future conversion. Even if it has to be closed temporaily for conversion they can still make use of the above ground service tracks to get riders to Don Mills station if need be. I do not think for 98% of the current riders and for all of the new riders that this will attract that the transfer at Don Mills will be an issue as the current transfer from the bus platform know is more demanding.
LikeLike
Steve made a comment about the Vaughan Subway: why are we throwing billions of dollars over there to build a subway to some unneeded tract of land anyway? Sheppard gets a (pardon the expression) a relatively dinky LRT line whereas Vaughan gets a subway. Sheppard can possibly serve more passengers on an LRT line than Vaughan can with a subway.
You have to admit, there is a slight issue about how Toronto’s transit requests routinely come up short against the 905.
And yes Steve, I am well aware that the Sheppard line was meant to go to STC. My point is that building the Sheppard East LRT now will forever stunt the growth of this stubway line, and would be nothing short of an embarassment for Toronto. As for original intent, the initial phase of the Sheppard line was meant to go to Victoria Park, they simply just cut it back to Don Mills for cost reasons.
Steve: Yes, to Vic Park but even that was a cutback from the original announcement of going all the way to STC. This is a sterling example of the effect of the high cost of subway construction — we couldn’t afford what was announced, let alone to extend it, and we wound up building far less to fit the available budget. This plays right into the hands of those who say transit is not an affordable option for the suburbs, and will we please just widen the 401, again.
LikeLike
Is there a map available of the tracks and other areas not generally accessible to the public under the Shepherd-Yonge intersection?
The configuration of the hole appeared as if it might include an extensive addition to the existing Yonge platform, along with quite a network of tracks to the west. The east to south curve appeared to be grade separated from the east-west tracks, joining the north track considerably west of the station.
Steve: To the west of the station is a tunnel section that reaches well west of Yonge. It includes crossover tracks and the lead to the east to south curve. That curve angles down to meet the southbound Yonge line in the middle of the crossover south of Sheppard Station. Similarly, the north to east curve starts in the middle of the northbound side of the crossover and angles up to meet the eastbound Sheppard track well east of the station (actually partway through the Sheppard line’s crossover.
The space for platform expansion to 500 ft is east of the existing station — that’s why the crossover is so far from the platform.
LikeLike
Once the first transit city line is built and fully operational, then maybe eyes will open and realize that subways aren’t the be all and end all of higher order transit modes!
LikeLike
If the LRT is to butt end to the subway tracks, what will happen to the existing tail tracks. Will they just terminate at the end of the subway platform?
Steve: Don’t forget that the LRT will run with low platform vehicles and the subway with high platform. If the platform is to be continuous, then the LRT tracks will have to be higher than the subway tracks to adjust for the difference in floor height from top of rail.
The Shepherd subway vs LRT discussion is based on an either/or situation. Is there a possibility of an intermediate solution where the existing tunnels are shared by the subway and LRT service?
With this scheme, after leaving the Don Mills station, the LRT vehicles would continue west non-stop to Yonge using the existing subway tracks. The LRT could then continue west of Yonge as one continuous run. Interference between subway and LRT vehicles would need to be programmed in to the schedule.
This would provide continuous LRT service without requiring modification to any intermediate Shepherd station. At Yonge, the subway would continue to use the south platform with the LRT using the north platform. Eastbound and westbound LRT vehicles would share use of the north platform using a crossover similar to the Exhibition platforms. Some portion of the existing center platform (unused) would need to be removed to provide space for 2 LRT tracks and associated crossovers.
LikeLike
Ahhh. Rogers Rd when it was extended to Yonge subway, and the rush hour cars would bunch up on the northern end of the route. With the feeder cables at Oakwood and St. Clair smoking and sometimes glowing red hot under the load!
LikeLike
Steve wrote, “Don’t forget that the LRT will run with low platform vehicles and the subway with high platform. If the platform is to be continuous, then the LRT tracks will have to be higher than the subway tracks to adjust for the difference in floor height from top of rail.”
This is what was done in London on the Croydon Tramlink at Wimbledon station. That station originally had just Underground and Overground trains, but one end of one platform was changed when the tram line was built (opened in May 2000). As it uses Bombardier Flexity Swift vehicles, its track level is higher than the track level of the other lines in order to use the same level platform, just as what is proposed for Don Mills. Take a look at http://lrt.daxack.ca/London/hires35.jpg to get a better idea.
LikeLike
Don’t forget that Cleveland, the mistake by the lake, runs high platform and low platform vehicles on the same track and share a few stations if I remeber correctly. You have the high platform station followed by the low platrform station and you have to walk down a few steps to get to it though I don’t think there are more than two of those, 55th street and Cleveland Union Terminal. However all the Cleveland equipment runs with pantograph and to call a service of two 75 foot cars every 5 minutes heavy rapid transit is a stretch.
The Shaker lines run two car trains of 75 foot articulated cars while the Cleveland Rapid runs two car trains of 75 foot non articulated cars. They run on the same track through Cleveland Union Terminal though their platforms are at opposite ends of the station Each service runs two branches which run every 10 minutes in the rush hour giving a combine 2.5 minute service in the common running section. The platforms were originally main line passenger platforms and still carry their original numbers, something like 15, 22 and 27, I don’t remember the actual numbers but the station was huge and now sees no passenger trains that I can recall.
Cleveland’s waterfront LRT line runs every 15 minutes base and 10 minutes rush. They have station agents but they cannot sell you a ticket; you must use the machines so they will not be robbed. Aside from the “Rock and Roll Hall of Fame” their waterfront is a disaster.
LikeLike
Here’s an idea — since the subway only uses one track at Don Mills, why don’t those Einsteins at the TTC convert the other track to LRT for a quick-and-painless cross-platform transfer?
Steve: Because you would then limit both routes to a headway that could be handled by a stub-end terminal. See Kennedy Station for a related example.
LikeLike
Eric Chow: You have to admit, there is a slight issue about how Toronto’s transit requests routinely come up short against the 905.
I do not agree with the above statement. Public transit in York region has only started to take foot hold in the lat 10 years. Also, York region can potentially have greater density to support a subway in theory due to the size of the region. However, York region for the longest time has been promoting more jobs and business to move to the region. It could end up that the Spadina line long term could be a route for people leaving Toronto for work in the 905.
Steve: Only if there is a very substantial increase in local transit within the 905 to distribute people from the subway out to jobs scattered all over the region.
LikeLike
Steve: Because you would then limit both routes to a headway that could be handled by a stub-end terminal. See Kennedy Station for a related example.
This is a question that has been bugging me for some time. How does use of only a single track at the terminal impose a significant headway limitation? What is wrong with the following operating mode:
All incoming trains cross over before entering the station (rather than half entering first and crossing over on their way out). They stop just clear of the switch if the previous train is still in the station or just leaving. As soon as that train is gone, the points move to allow the incoming train into the station. New driver gets in the rear cab (will now be the front cab for the return journey), or alternatively has already been in that cab, having got in at the second-last station. Train stops for normal amount of time given number of boardings, no extra time. Train leaves.
The only real difference from a normal station stop that I see is that the train might have to stop a bit longer owing simply to everybody on the train having to get off. But instead what I see at terminals is trains sitting around long after the passenger change has occurred; sometimes there are two trains sitting around for a noticeable amount of time.
Steve: The problem is related to the geometry of a terminal, the length of the trains, the safety margin needed for the signal system to respond to new conditions, the reaction time of the crew (or automated system), the safe operating speed through the turnouts and the degree of congestion in unloading/loading the train.
At Kennedy RT Station, the crossover is quite short and close to the platform, and the signal system brings an incoming train partway up the ramp to the entrance curve if the station is occupied. When a train leaves, the switches line for an inbound move and the next train comes on to the platform quickly. RT trains are shorter than subway trains, and the length of time they occupy a crossover is therefore also shorter. By contrast, the crossover on the subway level is much longer to permit operation at a higher speed and to reduce rail wear at switches.
Even without the tight curve into the station, the speed entering and leaving is constrained by the lateral sway a standing passenger can tolerate as the train moves through the crossover (in whichever direction this happens). Obviously, leaving on the straightaway as you propose is the faster operation as an outbound train will not be constrained by the need to stop immediately after the crossover.
The time to turn over the load on a train at a terminal like Kennedy RT, where there is strong bidirectional demand and where some passengers must exist on the “entry” platform to access the elevator, is considerable. Congestion on the platform delays the operator in changing ends, and this is overcome during some peak periods by “drop back” crewing where the operator on inbound train “n” takes over train “n+1” for the outbound trip.
Finally, the running time allowed for trains tends to be a bit on the long side most of the time, and if there is only a single track at the terminal, passengers will be stuck waiting to get in for a considerable period. This happens already with two-track terminals, and is a major source of annoyance.
In an earlier post I wrote about the minimum headway possible through terminal stations on the subway network. With the current layout, a headway of less than 130 seconds would be challenging, and would quickly produce severe backlogs (moreso than we have today) on the approach to the station. That 130 second time is based on the observed behaviour of trains at Kennedy terminal and the times they require to move through the arrival and departure cycle.
LikeLike
M. Briganti Says: “Those differences are just spin. What matters is the overall cost and the total number of passengers served.”
And I used to be able to get a steak dinner for the same price of a Big Mac today, but the difference is just spin right? The overall cost provides a meal, regardless of the difference in quality and quantity…
To argue that 5 kms of over-capacity and over-spaced service is no different than 15 kms of right-sized capacity just because the non-inflation-adjusted cost is similar is disingenous at best.
LikeLike