Many background presentations informed the Expert Panel’s review of options for the Sheppard corridor. This article is the first of two summarizing and commenting on this information.
There are six groups of documents:
- Professor Eric Miller’s comments
- Metrolinx presentations and reports
- TTC presentations and reports
- Toronto Transit Infrsatructure Ltd. (TTIL) presentations and reports
- City of Toronto presentations and reports
- Third Party reports
TTIL is the TTC subsidiary through which Dr. Chong’s pro-subway work reported. Given the amount of material, I will deal with reports from TTIL, the City and Third Parties in the fourth and final article in this series.
Professor Miller begins by observing that the technology choice for Sheppard does not fix forever and for all possible corridors the choice between subway and LRT. In the context of this study, that is true because there is already a planned LRT network to which the Sheppard route would be added just as there is already an existing subway which could be extended. The panel’s decision would have been much more complex without the earlier vote by Council confirming LRT for Eglinton, Finch and the SRT conversion.
Demand projections by both the TTC and by Metrolinx do not support the investment required to sustain a subway extension. These projections rest on current land use plus reasonable projections of future growth in the GTA. It is worth noting that growth is non-uniform and some areas actually lose population and/or jobs rather than growing. This is demonstrated in maps later in the presentation.
We hear a lot about travel speed from subway advocates, but this misses a basic fact. There are many components to a trip including:
- Access time to and from a line
- Access time to and from a station
- Wait time
- In vehicle time
For a subway, access time to the line may be greater than for LRT because the stops are further apart. This depends on implementation details for specific proposals. It could also be affected by LRT and subway proposals taking different routes.
For a subway (or an underground LRT), access time at the station is a function of station design. Some of Toronto’s subway stations have a fairly short path from the surface entrance (or bus/streetcar loop) down to the platform while others are notoriously roundabout. This component can particularly affect those with mobility challenges because escalators/elevators may not be placed in ideal locations or may be out of service.
Wait time is a function of the level of service (headway). In Toronto, people love subways because there is a policy headway of about 5 minutes on most routes whether the demand justifies it or not. This is not the case in many other cities where headways well over 10 minutes during off-peak periods may be encountered. If the TTC had a maximum policy headway for key surface routes, it is unlikely that this would be as short as 5 minutes (10 was proposed in the “Transit City Bus Plan”). Riders in the York University area will benefit from the subway-based headway standard once the Spadina extension opens, but they would never have enjoyed this level of service on any form of surface transit unless the demand justified it.
Passengers typically “feel” access time as more onerous than time spend riding because it is less productive. A rider is not really “on the way” until they board a vehicle.
In vehicle time is a function of acceleration and speed. During the AM peak, the SRT operates on a higher performance setting than at other times so that trains can make slightly faster round trips and squeeze more capacity out of the available fleet. This contributes to the SRT’s ranking as the fastest of the rapid transit lines. The TTC could operate the subway at a higher performance rate, but chooses not to for a variety of technical, maintenance and institutional reasons. An LRT line will not operate at the same speed as a subway unless it has comparable characteristics — more widely spaced stations and unimpeded running between them — and the most likely sources of delay will be intersection design (including signals) and stop dwell time.
Toronto streetcars mostly use pay-as-you-enter fare collection and this forces all loading to take place through one set of doors (unless the operator uses the rear doors with or without the assistance of a TTC loader) . Moreover, the streetcars are high-floor cars and the need for passengers to climb into the cars adds to boarding time. Subways run with level platforms and all-door loading, an arrangement that will apply eventually to the streetcar system and to all of the new LRT lines as these will use low-floor cars with platforms matched to floor height.
Miller concludes this section with a basic observation:
… people use transit when it is accessible (within easy walking distance), frequent and reliable, and takes them where and when they need to go in reasonable time.
The section on connectivity draws on information from the travel database maintained by UofT on behalf of many planning and operating agencies in the GTA. The overwhelming majority of travel in Scarborough is not oriented westward across Victoria Park, but is local either within Scarborough or headed to points north and east. Of those who do travel to the west, the majority are headed downtown, not to Yonge-Eglinton or Yonge-Sheppard. This is easy to understand given the relative numbers of jobs downtown compared to other locations. Places like Yonge-Eglinton will always be nodes surrounded by residential neighbourhoods unlike downtown with block after block of office towers and a local toleration for high density development. The LRT proposal, by providing a spine across Scarborough, is much better suited to the actual demand patterns and the need to link with north-south routes than the subway proposal.
To illustrate the concept of an integrated network, Miller includes the diagrammatic map of Munich’s transit rail system. This map does not include the tram or bus services. Although services in Munich may be provided by multiple agencies, they are operated as one network with an integrated fare system.
In a series of population density maps, Miller shows how different Scarborough (and for that matter all of the suburbs) is from downtown. This is not just a question of density around a few stations, but along entire corridors. Population gains and losses are interesting because they show that this is not a uniform pattern across the city. There are small pockets of population loss between 2006-2011 (the demolition of parts of Regent Park shows up particularly strongly), and a major area of growth lies in northeastern Scarborough, the last undeveloped suburban land in the City. This area is completely ignored by the subway proposal.
Metrolinx Presentations & Reports
This presentation begins with a statement of the”five principles” imposed by Queen’s Park on any plan that Toronto might come up with.
- Projects must support regional planning goals. By implication, vanity projects do not qualify, but I suspect this depends on who is primping in the mirror.
- The total cost must remain within the Provincial commitment of $8.4b (2010), be spread out to match (unspecified) cash flow requirements to 2020, and produce assets that the Province can own and depreciate (this is an accounting dodge to make the related Provincial debt vanish off of the books).
- Any penalties from changes in previous plans are at the City’s cost. As we are now back to the point we left off at in late 2010, this point is now moot.
- Any cost due to further delay will be charged to the City.
- “Any plan should minimize adverse impacts on traffic to the extent reasonably
possible”. That could mean just about anything.
Metrolinx goes on to review the Sheppard line’s design in the regional plan, The Big Move, and notes that it was intended to operate largely on the surface.
Next we come to the Benefits Case Analysis of options for the Sheppard corridor of which a version with a continuous Finch-Don Mills-Sheppard line ranked highest. This happens because there is a high demand on existing bus service on Finch west of Don Mills that would be subsumed into a Finch East LRT, but the proposal ignores the difficulty of LRT construction on the narrow, low-density residential portion of Finch east from Yonge Street. This scheme never got off the ground, but remains in the plans as a future extension.
The original 5-in-10 plan is summarized both as to cost and schedule.
- York Viva BRT: $1.4b 2009-2019
- Sheppard East LRT: $1.0b 2009-2014
- Finch LRT: $0.94b 2015-2019
- Scarborough RT: $1.8b 2015-2020
- Eglinton-Crosstown LRT: $5.0b 2010-2020
The Toronto projects here total $8.74b. Net of the Federal commitment of $333m to Sheppard East, this gives a Provincial total of $8.4b.
Work is already underway on the underpass at Agincourt Station, and some site preparation as been completed at the proposed Conlins Road yard.
Also included in the Metrolinx documents are a May 2010 report on the 5-in-10 plan, The Big Move itself, and a report on a January 2008 study tour to Madrid.
The study tour report goes into some detail about the differences between the Madrid and Toronto environments for planning, design and construction of a rapid transit system. Ongoing, large-scale commitments allow for efficiencies of scale in construction, even without taking account of factors such as favourable soil conditions. Those who argue that Toronto can’t build anything without wasting a fortune would do well to consider the scale of transit commitment needed to achieve a comparable level of cost effectiveness.
One cannot help noticing that Madrid had a powerful, popular Mayor who pushed through a large-scale transit program with massive funding support from senior governments. When the same thing happened in Toronto, this was decried as an example of high-handedness. One clear difference is that the transit program in all its detail was an integral part of the Mayoral campaign platform in Madrid, and there was no doubt of the “mandate” to proceed with its construction.
(Additional information comparing Madrid and Toronto experiences appears in one of the TTC reports below.)
TTC Presentations
This presentation was prepared for the earlier Council meeting where the Rob Ford “MOU” with Queen’s Park was dismissed by Council and replaced with an endorsement of the original 5-in-10 plan except for the Sheppard corridor. This meeting also created the Expert Panel.
The presentation contrasts the original agreement Council had approved with Metrolinx to the MOU version of March 2011 and concludes that the 5-in-10 version is the better plan.
Projected passenger volumes through Kennedy Station in 2031 are shown with and without a through-routed service from the SRT to Eglinton. Where in past (and largely unpublished) reports, Metrolinx had trumpeted the higher volume possible on Eglinton as a reason to put that line entirely underground, the TTC points out that the riding is simply shifted from the BD subway which is then underutilized.
A series of maps shows the gradually disappearing Transit City LRT network as parts are hacked off thanks to funding constraints and political deal-making, and the presentation concludes with a table we have seen elsewhere showing the additional network coverage possible if the $2b that would put Eglinton underground goes instead to the Sheppard and Finch LRT lines.
begins with a set of maps building up from the TTC rapid transit network (the subject of so much current debate) to the full regional network, and puts the Sheppard question in a broader context — what exactly does it do for the region?
An overview of transit rider demographics follows together with maps showing targets for service improvements and accessibility under the Miller regime.
Next we have a short lecture in planning followed by maps of various older plans. Much of what is on these maps is not new, and there are only limited places for new rapid transit lines. “Intermediate Capacity Transit” in the 1975 refers to the Skytrain technology known here on the SRT. Very little of that proposed network was actually built.
By the time we reach Network 2011 (1986), much has falled off of the map leaving only the Sheppard subway, the DRL and Eglinton West. Note that the Downsview and STC extensions of a Sheppard line are priority 4 behind the DRL and part of Eglinton.
One important point to remember is that the idea of a Sheppard connection to Downsview goes back to a scheme to loop the Yonge and Spadina subways and, thereby, avoid terminal congestion problems that limit headways on this route. However, what was once low-density North York quickly filled with new development, and by 1990 the “loop” had been pushed out to Steeles Avenue at which point the “loop” ceased to have credibility.
An historic footnote: Many years ago I asked the TTC why the Spadina extension’s EA did not consider LRT as an alternative as a jumping off point for a northern LRT network. The TTC used the “loop” scheme as a demonstration of why LRT could not work — it would interrupt the loop — even though this scheme was impractical from the day it was proposed. The TTC’s hands are not clean in the suppression of debate about LRT much as they would have us believe “modern” LRT is a recent, widely accepted transit mode.
Next we see a rather sad set of maps showing the minimal growth of rapid transit in Toronto and the large areas still remove from the subway network.
A graph on page 31 shows the transit modal share and density at all stations in the network. This is arranged from lowest to highest density. This chart continues the old TTC myth that density = demand when so many of their stations, especially in the suburbs, depend on bus feeders for their customers. Kennedy has a low transit share for trips originating near the station, but we would hardly call this stop a failure. Conversely Dupont has a higher modal share even though its density sits right next to Kennedy and its usage (a variable not included in the chart) is unquestionably much lower. This is a nice chart, but it only tells part of the story.
Next we turn to the policy shifts of the Miller era and the new Official Plan. Although there were designated centres at North York and Scarborough, these were not the great successes planners in the 1980s had hoped for. Sadly, it was a bit early to write about the emperor’s new clothes, and planning continued on the myth that somehow these centres would become major hubs within the city.
The chart on page 37 claims that Light Rail Technology was “unproven” when the earlier plans were done. I am not sure how I and many others managed to ride on LRT systems elsewhere in the world (including Canada’s first in Edmonton) so long ago if this technology was “unproven”. This is either an outright lie, or a very creative retelling of history just as the TTC takes credit for “saving” its streetcar system, a feat achieved by citizen activism and Council direction, not by enlightened policy at the TTC.
By 2003, the TTC was looking at surface transit improvements, mainly bus-based, although including the St. Clair line from Yonge to Lansdowne. Almost none of this proposal was implemented.
Then came Transit City’s LRT and Bus plans. The latter never got off of the ground due to budget wrangling between the TTC and City (this in the Miller/Giambrone era), but the idea was to guarantee 10-minute service on a grid of bus routes. There are some odd exceptions notably all of the future LRT corridors even though they might not see LRT service for a decade. The streetcars were assumed to already be at 10-minutes or better although there are a few exceptions. The plan is a good idea, but poorly drafted and it needs revision if it surface again in a more enlightened Commission.
In a table of daily ridership figures, we see that several bus routes compete with the streetcar network for supremacy. This is not the way such stats should be presented because it assumes that demand characteristics are uniform across all routes. This is not true. One simple example — the length of a route will affect how many people it carries presuming similar spatial and temporary patterns of demand. One simply cannot compare numbers for the short 510 Spadina with the much longer 504 King or the combined 32/34 Eglinton West/East services spanning much of the city.
Page 45 shows a breakdown of riding on the Sheppard subway, the bus service on Sheppard East and the 190 Rocket to STC. Note the comparatively high ratio of all day demand on the subway to peak hour demand, although neither number is impressive, as against figures on the bus routes. A great deal of the bus demand does not show up in the peak hour, peak point counts because it does not fit the core-oriented commuter pattern underlying this type of analysis. Clearly, large numbers of riders use the Sheppard bus, but they don’t do so at times and places caught by core-oriented planning.
This is a fundamental issue with the Transit City network — it considers a variety of demands, not just the most obvious one flowing into a subway terminal. Whether Rob Ford likes it or not, “Transit City” is very much alive.
The next section traces the evolution of the Sheppard proposals in the context of the last decades evolving plans. Ridership for a Sheppard LRT is lower than for the proposed subway, but this does not address the underlying questions of which land use and demand pattern will actually evolve over the decades. Much of the new “subway” riding comes from proposed intensification around STC, and the subway itself does not serve many of the riders who might otherwise be on the LRT line.
The Sheppard Subway, even at its peak point, barely reaches 8k/hour just east of Yonge Street by 2031. This lies within LRT’s capability, but I am not sure that a retrofit would be cost-effective (I will turn to that question in a separate article).
Page 68 compares the 510 Spadina car with the proposed Sheppard LRT. It’s worth noting that the TTC claims the Spadina car has signal priority when, in fact, this exists at only a few locations on the route, and the “priority” can do as much to slow transit as it helps with the service. It would actually make more sense in this context for the TTC so say there is “no” or “little” priority to reinforce known problems with running speeds.
This presentation begins with a series of photos of LRT in major cities. Although many of the shots are attractive, they do not appear to have been selected to illustrate comparable conditions to what would be built on Sheppard. However, the photos do illustrate that LRT is alive and well in many “world class” cities.
Next comes a discussion of subway construction in Madrid and specifically of the MetroSur. A chart plots results from a US Federal Transportation Administration study of construction. The points are arrange from lowest to highest cost/km. Many, notably the MetroSur, fall below the average while others lie above it including projects in Hong Kong and London (the Jubilee Line extension). TTC projects at an average of $290m/km lie slightly above the international average of $275m/km (2010). The most expensive of the TTC’s projects is the Yonge Subway extension from Eglinton to Finch that came in at over $350m/km in 2010$. The “Finch LRT” is included in this chart at about $300m/km, but I must assume that this would be for a subway alternative as the estimated cost of the LRT itself is only $1b.
The TTC lists several cost drivers affecting underground construction costs including:
- the frequency/km and length of stations
- the number of major interchange stations
- the rate of advance of tunneling depending on conditions
- the effect of a high water table especially as it may affect settlement of properties above the tunnel work
- the complexity of underground utilities
- international competition for tunneling expertise and construction crews
The TTC presents a chart of construction times for projects and claims to be faster than the international average. However, the values do not appear to be scaled to the length of the projects, and a few outliers from Washington DC skew the average above that of TTC. This chart is not a meaningful presentation of the information because it tells us nothing about the characteristics of each project nor the source of major delays (or unusually fast construction) that might affect each project.
This is not to say that the TTC is bad at what it does, and peer reviews through the American Public Transit Association (APTA) have validated TTC processes. One important point the TTC does not mention is that a project’s timing can be affected by non-technical factors some of which apply to the Transit City network:
- To minimize disruption over a wide area, construction schedules may be extended. This applies to the Eglinton line where Metrolinx does not want to have every station under construction more or less simultaneously with the resulting massive disruption across the corridor.
- To manage financing requirements, projects may be artificially stretched out so that spending does not peak in certain years.
- Projects may be ready to build, but not have committed funding.
Next, the TTC turns to the MetroSur in Madrid and contrasts it with the Sheppard subway, the most recent large, completed project in Toronto.
Aside from the advantage of being a larger project with economies of scale, the MetroSur was part of an ongoing construction program pursued by the Mayor of Madrid over many years. The administrative environment including aspects of design (no “EA” process or site permit requirements), ease of property acquisition (the city has strata ownership of land 10 metres below grade), and a simpler project change management environment all contributed to lower costs.
Construction of the MetroSur took place in a very different corridor from Sheppard Avenue:
- A great deal of the corridor was greenfield with little or no utilities or traffic disruption to worry about.
- 30% of the line was cut-and-cover as compared to almost 100% tunnel for Sheppard between stations.
- Soil conditions allowed the tunnel boring to progress in Madrid at over twice the rate on Sheppard.
- Greenfield construction meant that surface settlement above the tunnel work in Madrid could be accepted.
- Fire code for Madrid is less restrictive than in North America allowing the use of a single tunnel without escape shafts between stations.
- Stations on the MetroSur are 130m long versus 200m for Sheppard.
- Track construction in the tunnel in Madrid does not include the vibration isolation used on all newer Toronto projects beginning with the Spadina subway.
When these factors are taken into account, the cost of the Sheppard subway is still 17% higher than the MetroSur, but not as wildly different as portrayed in other reports, notably those by Dr. Chong and TTIL.
The TTC concludes with a review of changes in conditions since the “Network 2011” plan of 1986. This covers much of the same ground as in other reports, but wraps up with a major change in the TTC’s outlook — subways do not always generate development contrary to the standard wisdom of past decades. Any new line is proposed in a complex environment of the GTA development industry and competes with many other locations as an attractive market for new buildings.
Steve Munro 
For Finch LRT at $300M/km, I suspect they meant TYSSE (as it happens to clock $300M/km).
LikeLike
Great article Steve. A couple of questions about future LRT routes.
Dr. Miller mentioned Munich, which I like because a number of German cities funnel outlying tram lines into a central tunnel. I believe you mentioned using the proposed Don Mills line as a branch of Eglinton, could it be through routed with Jane?
Steve: Conceivably, but not necessarily. It may make sense for “Don Mills” trains to end WB at Yonge and Jane trains to end EB at Eglinton West. If there is a DRL to Eglinton, I think the appetite for a Don Mills to Yonge service would evaporate. Overall there are too many variables in the future to be planning detailed route layouts today.
Also as the Sheppard LRT is being built what future provision is there for the Don Mills LRT, if any? Just wondering if you had heard anything.
Steve: At one time, there were plans for a surface connection from Consumer’s Road to Don Mills so that Don Mills trains could reach Conlins Road carhouse. This is still technically possible, but way off in the future.
Do you or anyone commenting here see any benefit through routing Sheppard down Don Mills to meet the DRL at Eglinton?
Steve: No. Provision for this would require a major redesign of the connection at Don Mills Station so that Sheppard LRT trains could return to the surface and link into the Don Mills line.
Finally I’m sure we would all like to know what you think of Andy Byford’s comments regarding the DRL and how we need to talk about it “now”.
Steve: It is refreshing to hear someone talk about the DRL honestly rather than using the crowding on the YUS to “justify” billions in capacity improvements that are of dubious benefit. Yes, we need a new signal system. That’s basic maintenance. Platform doors and attempts to run trains every 105 seconds run headlong into many physical constraints the TTC simply refused to acknowledge until quite recently.
LikeLike
I have some problems figuring out the February 17, 2102 Sheppard East Ridership Forecast on page 57. The LRT option shows a peak demand of 3000 per hour east of Don Mills and 6000 at Yonge Street. The Subway option shows peak demands of 4200 per hour east of Don Mills and 7800 at Yonge Street. Where did the extra 600 passengers per hour come from at Yonge Street if there are only 1200 extra east of Don Mills? Is the timing of the two peaks so different so as to explain this? Perhaps it is the gravitational effect of so many new people from the east that it attracts even more riders to the old section of the stubway.
You mention in a reply to one writer that the extra trips generated by the subway come from redevelopment around STC. Would this redevelopment occur if the Subway does not go to STC? I find it difficult to see why this rider ship would be generated. It does not seem to be in an existing major OD pair. Would an improved RT system not attract this development as well or doesn’t the TTC know how to model this type of service?
If the LRT replacement of the RT leaves out the Ellesmere Station and does not put in any new stops between STC and Kennedy would this not become the fastest segment in the system? I fail to comprehend the projected ridership for the Subway options.
Steve: I too have problems with claims made for the subway. However, it is possible that with the subway serving STC, new demand that is not bound for Yonge Street (say to the Don Mills bus) may be generated on the leg east of Don Mills station. Don’t make the mistake of forgetting that everyone is not going downtown (or at least to North York Centre).
LikeLike
What’s driving the huge ridership of bus routes on Finch East? Higher-order transit is going to be needed there done there sooner than later, I suspect. (Though the same is true of Dufferin, Jane, Don Mills, etc.)
LikeLike
Thanks again, Steve, for this very detailed commentary.
I am comparing and contrasting the infographics on page 10 of the February 8 TTC presentation with Norm Kelly’s handout (available here). While they are superficially similar, the differences are… illuminating.
LikeLike
The difference in ridership estimates is simple — a full Sheppard subway is a trunk route, fed by N-S buses, whereas a Sheppard LRT is local, and unlikely to attract riders from Finch, Steeles, etc.
In any event, it was refreshing to hear that Byford is pro-subway, full stop (irrespective of funding). Yes, he did say that the day after the vote.
As for Byford’s comments on the Bloor-Yonge situation, the TTC really needs to encourage more riders to transfer at St. George between 8-9, or, send 1/4 of the Bloor trains through the wye from 8-9am only in place of the AM St. Clair W. short turns. Encourage those riders to ride around Union and use the spare northbound capacity on Yonge to reach their stops. This rush hour interlining was actually on the table in 1995, but shelved, for some reason. Even if the interlined trains are 1 in 4 at best, that could potentially reduce the transfer moves at B-Y by 15%. That would be enough for the next 10 years. A DRL is not going to be built before then anyway.
Steve: No, the Sheppard subway does not intercept many of the north-south routes that would otherwise feed into the LRT.
As for the St. Clair West trains: there are plans to extend the short turn further north because trains are getting crowded north of St. Clair. Removing these trains from the Spadina service is not an option.
Also, in a few years, we will have the problem that BD trains won’t have ATO gear on them and will not be able to fully interoperate as YUS trains.
LikeLike
Steve, on the issue of speed, do you know if the 22-25 km/hr cited in the EA’s is the average speed expected over the entire surface segment, or from station to station (given variances in station spacing and dwell times)?
Steve: Over the section.
LikeLike
Hi Steve,
I was wondering whether the lrt stops are still subject to change, or will they be proceeding with what is represented in the Metrolinx Sheppard lrt presentation? There the stops seem inefficiently close together, many of them a mere 200 meters apart, especially the length between Vic Park and Kennedy.
Steve: The location of the stops between the major roads (Pharmacy, Warden, Birchmount, Kennedy) is dictated by the local street pattern. The intent is to place the stop somewhere it will be useful to people walking to and from Sheppard Avenue, and at a location where a traffic signal will provide protection for people walking to and from the platforms. A midblock stop might be “centred” between the main streets, but it would not fit as well for access and traffic effects.
LikeLike
Joe Drew asked
Destination wise, local traffic, Seneca College and people wanting to go to Fairview Mall in the North York part. Local traffic for the Scarborough section. As for the 199, its really a 39E with a different end point. Not that many people board to go to STC until you get to Kennedy. The option is nice and all for us who live near Finch if we happen to be going there. But, STC is not that big a draw when Fairview is so close. Nor are that many people along Finch west of Warden going somewhere else in Scarborough that they need to go to the STC bus hub.
It would be interesting to see what the LRT will do for the McCowan bus.
LikeLike
Also, an interesting observation while riding the streetcars and subways:
The shortest possible dwell times for our existing subways is around 10 seconds, whereas the existing streetcars can take as little as 5-7 seconds. I suppose this is because for streetcar stops with very few boarders and alighters, the driver can quickly pop open the front door and can see quite clearly if there are other passengers wanting to get on and off. And of course, the door chimes take time, something that is not needed for front-door loading during off-peak hours.
A move to all-door-loading would definitely shorten dwell times during peak hours, where front-door-boarding is definitely more time-consuming. However, I would expect dwell-times to increase during off-peak hours, since drivers have to be extra careful to not leave any passengers stuck inside or outside.
LikeLike
The only way the Sheppard LRT may be “o.k.” is if the the LRT has the following.
– Stations spaced as far apart as the planned subway would. Generally 1 km spacing.
– Full signal priority at grade crossings, with rail crossing arms, and trains never having to wait for a red light (like Calgary).
– A barrier between road traffic and the LRT, usually a concrete wall like the kind you see in Calgary or on highways.
– Trains allowed to travel above the speed limit on Sheppard. Trains would have to be allowed to do 80-100 km/h between stops.
– The LRT would have be rerouted to Scarborough Centre Station, and not Meadowvale.
This would still not address the stupid transfer at Don Mills. But it would maybe give the LRT a chance to actually attract transit ridership, and help people actually spend more time doing things they like, rather than traveling.
Steve: The EA for the Sheppard LRT considered the option of having stations every 800m on average rather than every 400m, and concluded that the added access time on foot to stations would offset the benefit of the faster trip. As for 80km/h, even the subway does not run that fast. Top speed on the subway is about 72 km/h (45m/h).
From the EA:
A 13 km trip from Morningside to Don Mills would take half an hour with the wider stop spacing, or 35 minutes with the shorter spacing. I should note that comparable time savings were used to ridicule the St. Clair project. The issue is the best service for the greatest number of riders and neighbourhoods, not an express service for the handful who will benefit the most.
Taking the LRT to STC is even more of an “insult to Scarborough” because it ignores so much of that part of the city. For the shorter route, the time saving of the “faster” subway would be even smaller.
LikeLike
Michael says
This point speaks to a fundamental difference in understanding of what rapid transit is about.
If transit is about getting people out of their cars when taking a trip to STC then, yes, a subway going that fast would make more sense physically (still not financially).
If transit is, however, about getting people who are already taking Sheppard transit to where they want to go faster, then LRT makes more sense, as it goes where people who are taking transit want to go.
The desire for subways I believe is driven by people who drive and/or want to reduce car congestion. Congestion is bad. Transit helps with that. They see the LRT adding to congestion (it doesn’t). Thus the “People want subways or nothing” cry and the oft heard “Scarborough deserves subways” line. A subway in Scarborough would reduce the amount of people out on the road (in theory).
Which is why when you discuss the DRL with them, most subway supporters just give you blank stares – the DRL doesn’t help them (they think).
LRT is designed for what transit riders actually do. It reduces congestion growth (which is all we can really hope for) and moves people along. People who drive don’t get that. Heck, most people who take transit don’t get that.
LikeLike
Michael says:
March 25, 2012 at 9:59 am
This would make the line less appealing to many users and actually increase their travel time as most would have farther to walk to get to a station.
Signal priority is good but crossing gates. I have not been to Calgary in a long time but I do not remember crossing gate for in street median operations like on 7th Ave. I do remember crossing gates on the McLeod Trail line where it ran on a rail road right of way.
Again I don’t remember a concrete wall on 7th Ave. but I have not seen the new lines. My comment would be that it would be a barrier to pedestrians trying to cross the street. Wayward motorists would find a way to crash through or over almost any barrier you try to put in front of them.
Since they are not travelling in the traffic lanes I have no problem with this except for the problem it would cause to pedestrians.
Why would you do this? It would destroy the grid system, force another unnecessary transfer on riders from east of Brimley/McCowan and be generally unproductive. Where would the Maintenance Storage Facility be? This would make the line impossible to run but then that is your whole intent. STC is not a holy site that all transit line within 5 km must visit. Rather it is an artificial node created by cutting the SRT line short of Malvern.
Steve: And by the fact that Eaton’s owned the land that became STC. This was never a natural “centre” of anything.
Granted you would still have that stupid transfer, thank Mel Lastman and Mike Harris for that, but it would not impose a second stupid transfer on anyone from north east Scarborough. I suggest that you read Jarrett Walker’s book, “Human Transit, How Clear Thinking About Public Transit Can Enrich Our Communities And Lives” or at least visit his website.
Toronto has a very good grid system of roads thanks to the Royal Navy or Royal Army Engineers and the TTC has chosen to follow it. This system forces most riders to make at least one transfer but it also provides a higher frequency headway on each route than would result from a system that had direct connections between most nodes. Studies have show that systems that force a higher than average number of transfers actually have higher levels of service, higher patronage and lower travel times than system that are all one ride.
Your requirements maybe the only way the LRT is “o.k.” for you, but it is not the way that would be best for most riders. Perhaps it is time for you to look at this from the point of view of someone living in the Sheppard Corridor who lives east of Brimley/McCowan.
LikeLike
My wife’s travel time to work is:
Elapsed time = 55 to 65 minutes
If the subway is travelling at 33% faster (not possible) she saves 10 minutes
Now at the same time I was watching a documentary on the Japanese Bullet train in which they bumped up the speed of the train to save some 5 to 10 minutes of travel time between Tokyo and Nagota.
The interviewer asked the Tokyo Rail manager was it worth it.
The answer was : YES.
LikeLike
I hope that the express bus between STC and the Don Mills station will be retained, so the riders do not have to make two transfers on the way from STC to Yonge / Sheppard.
If Sheppard with LRT is no longer deemed suitable for bus 190, then the bus can be rerouted via Ellesmere / York Mills and Don Mills, serving stops at major intersections along that route.
LikeLike
I have a few comments regarding Miller’s views on stop spacing. First, while access time is longer with grade separated transit as you have to navigate the stations to get to the platforms, when transit is underground it tends to be in densely congested areas. Thus even with the extra time required to get to the transit vehicle, you are still doing better than the cars stuck in traffic. Personally, getting to a subway train at Don Mills feels more wasteful of time than getting to one from Bloor-Yonge because a surface line from the former could move quickly in the lower density environment.
As for the stop spacing itself, I wonder what the psychological effect of tighter stop spacing could do to potential passengers. Seeing a “rapid transit” line (and according to the last few debates, it is clear that it is supposed to be one according to its supporters on council) stop at local side streets may have people perceive it as slower than it actually is.
The EA to base the decision on closer stop spacing does beg a few questions. For one, it claims the increased boarding time of longer stop spacing will [not?] slow it down too much to make a difference. But if you compare the time between a loading/unloading a Viva bus versus a subway, they are both fairly similar. With rapid boarding, it is more dependent on how many doors are available on the vehicles rather than how many people are using that specific station.
OgtheDim says that it is suppose to meet the needs of transit riders and not drivers, but that is the problem. You can’t ignore the competition, the automobile, and live in a bubble and expect to develop an efficient transit system. Otherwise you end up with a “second class” system that people will drop for a car at the first chance they get. If we want to create a metropolitan region which is not dependent on a car for travel, we need to create a transit system which is fast to move throughout the region. Yes, GO has an obligation to do this, but it doesn’t excuse the TTC from its responsibility to move people in a timely manner.
This doesn’t mean that we should be building LRTs which stop once every few miles and reach highway speeds (subways don’t even travel that fast, even on the Yonge line through North Toronto), but there does need to be a balance. Many planners feel that a 1km stopping distance, or every collector and artery, provides a balance between local accessibility and higher speeds.
I guess the conclusion I am getting at is that stop spacing should be used with grade accessibility to improve travel times, not in place of it.
LikeLike
A response to anyone proposing wide stop spacing in the name of skipping through neighbourhoods as fast as possible:
Self-ish pigs
There. I said it.
LikeLike
I think I’m going to save or bookmark Eric Miller’s presentation, if only for the map on page 17 of the PDF (and perhaps also pp. 20-22) showing 2012 population density by census tract. I will then pull that out every time that someone complains that the Bloor–Danforth subway is wasted because there aren’t high-rises at every station. This map clearly shows two Torontos: much of Toronto and York (and part of East York) consists of broad swaths of moderately high densities of transit-supportive development, whereas most of Etobicoke, North York and Scarborough consists of low-density development with high-rises contributing to high densities along certain major corridors. Bloor and Danforth achieve fairly high densities without resorting to high-rises, but more importantly, the transit-supportive densities also extend at least 3 km or so on either side (within good feeder bus distance!) rather than dropping off dramatically after 500 metres or so.
LikeLike
a couple ideas:
If the Scarborough RT will be upgraded to use the same LRT trains as the other lines, why not combine it and the Eglinton into one continuous route?
Steve: That’s the idea, although there is some debate about how exactly the TTC will operate this given that the demand north of Kennedy Station is higher than west of it because many riders will use the BD subway rather than Eglinton.
Secondly, if a decent # of riders travel from eastern Scarborough to downtown (I think Miller’s data showed 19% during peak), does it make sense to have the Scarb LRT continue along the Sheppard LRT ROW to the eastern terminus (ie. Morningside)? If and when the Scarb LRT is expanded into Malvern, it can be a spur line.
Steve: This gets back to the problem of trying to give everyone a transfer-free ride. Also, for riders on the outer bounds of Scarborough heading downtown, this is really territory that should be addressed by GO if only they would run service through this area and adopt a reasonable fare structure for riders within the 416. This won’t serve everyone, but for long-haul trips there’s a point where the TTC should not be gerrymandered for every possible one-seat ride.
LikeLike
re: Michael’s comment on crossing gates in Calgary: this is correct. Their line that is closest to our proposed design is the northeast LRT that runs along Memorial Drive and 36 St. NE. This section does have gates and barriers. It’s also on a section of road that is more highway-like than Sheppard or Eglinton, and certainly wider. 36 St. NE is generally 36-40 metres or more, curb to curb, with 4 to 5 metres separation between the LRVs and traffic lanes. In other words, the pavement width, let alone sidewalk or boulevard, would not fit within Eglinton’s 36-metre right-of-way east of Vic Park to Kingston Road, as designated in the Official Plan. Other sections are wider; others are narrower. This has property implications, let alone urban design considerations. For this reason, I have never felt that the C-Train is a useful comparison to our proposed LRT lines.
7 Ave is a different kettle of fish in that it is generally a downtown transit mall — and again is not particularly relevant to the Toronto context.
Better examples might be sections in Portland or Salt Lake City, or sections of the LA Gold Line (YouTube references in my comment on this thread). I’d be interested in other examples, especially where video footage is available.
LikeLike
OgtheDim wrote,
The irony on Sheppard is that a subway under the road will not substantially reduce congestion, while an LRT line will. This is because with wider stop spacing that a subway will have, buses will still have to take up space on the road.
The LRT line will not take away any traffic lanes (at least east of Pharmacy) but will get rid of the buses that clog up the road. During rush hours, it is not unusual for two or three buses to be traveling close together on Sheppard and few bus stops have a lane long enough for more than a single bus, leaving other buses in the through lanes while waiting to service the stop.
LikeLike
Robert Wightman wrote,
When I read the comment by Michael about crossing gates for median operation, I though of the new southern extension along 111 Street in Edmonton. There is a substantially wide median on this street where the LRT runs and at intersections with cross streets, there are full crossing gates. To give you an idea of how wide the median is, one making a left turn does so on the right of vehicles making a left turn from the opposite direction as they get into the through-lane for the street they are turning onto at about the point they are starting to cross the tracks. The same goes for the vehicle making the left turn in the other direction. Compare this to a left turn at a standard intersection where the vehicle making a left turn from the other direction stays to your right as you both make your turns at the same time.
LikeLike
Ben Smith wrote:
Its not as much ignoring as recognising unfortunate land use and economic realities. Our region is so poorly laid out beyond the 416, and our workplace destinations so diffused across the whole, and our resources so limited, that a transit system that acts as an alternative to the car is impossible. The amount of people coming into the GTA yearly is larger then the amount of people who will have the opportunity to choose not to use a car. Congestion is destined to continue to rise.
Secondly, people don’t work where transit is going to be available. There is not a demand to run car alternative transit because far more people work where transit is not economically viable to provide. As for people dropping transit to use a car, yes, some people make that choice where transit is available. Far more people choose to drop transit because their job is in a place where transit is not going to be provided – the 400 highways are full of people doing that. At the same time even more of us deduce, through the economics of car ownership in this city, that we will never be able, or want, to own a car.
Attempting to create a region that is not car dependable is a laudable goal but that ship has sailed. Meanwhile, many of us do use the system and are quite happy to do so; but, we keep getting decisions made trying to chase the smaller number of people who can make that subtle decision to take transit over using a car (that said decisions also feed those who just want to get more people out of their way as they drive around goes unstated).
So, let’s create something that fits the people who are using the system now, rather then jury rigging a system to meet a need that is not as acute. For too long we have been making transit decisions while trying to mimic the car destinations of people when they are not going to work – thus the STC hub and the desire to gain speed over service quality by increasing stop distance. This has led to scarce resources being used in places that make little sense.
Time for that thinking to stop.
Steve: It is also fascinating that we seem to pursue to opposite goals. One is to intensity land use to produce the sort of residential and commercial areas necessary to justify more transit, while the other is to pursue the impossible dream of luring existing motorists onto a transit system that is decades behind actual travel patterns. The focus should be on handling how the city will grow.
LikeLike
@Brent,
Except densities mean almost nothing in the Toronto context when it comes to transit usage. This is the great success of Toronto. The TTC provides similar service levels across all density types and attracts high ridership because of this.
The day we start treating the outer areas of the city as not worthy of good transit, is the day we go backwards and fully against the TTC’s own planning that made it a success.
Transit usage in the lower density areas of the city is only 10% lower than in the inner city. 30% instead of 40% for work trips. None-work trips the difference is not even as great.
Someone needs to read “Transport for Suburbia”.
LikeLike
@Robert Wightman:
I don’t need to look at the view as someone who lives east of Brimley, because I am one of the them. In fact I think I am the only person commenting on this blog that actually lives out in eastern Scarborough and not downtown or in the inner city. I find most people comment about eastern Scarborough even though they have not been out there ever.
Steve: I would not be too quick to make that statement as I know for a fact that I have other readers east of Brimley. Your sense of self-righteous grievance does your argument no favours. Speak to the issues, not to some perception that you alone have received the true word for Scarborough.
The whole transfer issue is being taken out of context. Transferring from eastern Scarborough onto a Sheppard subway for a one seat ride to Yonge or wherever one wants to go on Sheppard is fine. That is how our subway and bus system works.
Asking people to switch modes halfway through a ride between LRT and subway (as in the LRT plan for Sheppard, and what happens right now at Kennedy) is a waste of time and deters people from taking transit. If we are building rapid transit, you don’t switch rapid transit lines halfway through. It would be like asking riders on the Yonge line to switch at York Mills to a different rapid transit mode.
I have read Jarret Walker’s book. In fact my education background is in planning and transit planning. I fully understand transit planning than most, which is why I am looking at this from which mode provides the best benefits to the corridor. Not what mode fits the planning ideology of the day (which happens to be LRT at the moment).
LikeLike
I have a “dumb” question on the LRT stops. Will the light rail vehicles be stopping at each and every stop? Or will they bypass stops where there are no humans waiting or no one aboard the train presses a “stop request” button? That is IF there will be a “stop request” button. If the LRT lines will have a 5± minute non-rush hour headway, I can see that happening on some of the more “quieter” stops, especially in the late evening.
Steve: Yes, the cars will have “stop request” buttons and there is no reason for them to stop if there is nobody waiting to board or alight. For a simpler example, might I offer St. Clair or Spadina, lowly streetcars though these may be.
LikeLike
Re Jacob’s comment: I was going to write something rude in response, but decided to keep things civilized.
If close stop spacing is so important, why are we widening the stops at all? Underground through midtown we have the “excuse” that it would be too expensive to build more stops, but what about surface parts of Transit City? Why should we expect people to walk an extra couple hundred metres to an LRT compared to a bus line?
More importantly, how come we don’t have a transit stop in front of every property in the city at all times? Why should I be expected to walk beyond my front door to a bus stop? It is so inconvenient having to walk a couple of minutes to the end of my street to catch the ‘once an hour’ local bus, let alone 20 minutes to catch the frequent Viva bus (which includes a 5 minute walk down Yonge, since the Viva doesn’t stop at this side street). Oh woe is me…
I’m sure someone will bring up people who are handicapped, but this is almost a strawman excuse. If this was such a concern for the TTC, we wouldn’t have built stations that were not wheelchair accessible into the mid-1980s, bought high floor buses into the mid-1990s, refused to speak stop names up until a few years ago, etc. And before people accuse me of being a heartless bastard, my younger brother has limited walking mobility among other issues, uses a wheelchair, and uses YRT Mobility Plus. And even he can walk to the local bus stop at the top of the street and beyond. What’s your excuse?
Steve: If you read the EA, you will see that they were balancing between a longer subway-style spacing and a closer version (but still wider than existing bus services) on the basis of overall convenience — the balance between operating speed and walking distances. It is not a question of shorter is always better, it is of finding a reasonable balance. By the way, this is a lot simpler a question for surface routes where stops are comparatively cheap to build than it is for a subway line.
LikeLike
Where did my 116B comment go so I can read the answer?
Steve: To the article about the service changes effective March 25 which is the appropriate thread for your question.
As for Sheppard – why must STC always be some self-designated hub? IF there was funding in place (and there likely never will be), why not have a Sheppard East subway extension run to Morningside instead of STC? Example of this STC stupidity is running the 199 Rocket to STC from Finch Station when there already was a 190 Rocket going there from Don Mills Station. They should’ve never changed the 39E to be the 199 except for just changing which stops are served. I originally liked the 39E most recent stop alignment between Kennedy and Yonge stopping only at major intersecting lines or specific points like Seneca and that mall at Warden – Bridletown Circle or whatever that other streetname is called.
LikeLike
Michael says:
But if they can get on the LRT line instead of the bus then the number of transfers is the same. You think that the transfer at Kennedy is a waste of time. Granted it is not well designed but should the subway have been sent up Kennedy or Midland and along to STC? This would have eliminated that transfer. Or maybe a branch should go out Eglinton so the 86 and 116 passengers wouldn’t need to transfer. Somewhere you have to stop one mode and start the next.The Sheppard Stubway was stupid from the start. Lengthening it would only compound the error.
If your background is in planning and transit planning then perhaps you have heard of the term, “NETWORK.” I will argue that the subway is not the best means of serving the corridor but let’s agree to disagree. I can not see how it is the best mode from a network point of view. It uses too much money for its return on investment.
To call LRT the “ideology of the day” is to do it a dis-service. It is the best mode for many areas because it does not require the heavy densities to make it work. The downtown relief line should be HRT and let’s please use the term HRT instead of Subway. There are too many examples in Toronto where the subway was buried so as not to offend the locals. I would hope the DRL could use existing rights of way above ground for part of its route to reduce costs to a more reasonable number.
Steve: An obvious location will be the crossing of the Don Valley between O’Connor and Thorncliffe Park. This would be a chance for a truly beautiful piece of transit infrastructure.
LikeLike
@Ben.
The stop spacing issue against subways or even limited stop services is just excuses.
The truth is study after study has shown people will not only walk further to a rapid transit stop, but they will also shun walking to a local stop near their homes, and walk further to a rapid transit stop.
This happened even with the very simple METROBUS system in Quebec, where they observed people deserting local bus routes to walk the extra distance to the METROBUS stops. Why? Because the METROBUS offered a faster ride, even when extra walking distance was factored in.
Further, even with 1km stop spacing as you will find in a subway or even more LRT networks. Most riders are still within 500 meters walking distance of a station. And the rest are still within the 800 meters distance which is considered walking distance for a rapid transit stop.
@OgtheDim.
I find your post about our region and transit use to be very defeatist.
The truth is that the Greater Toronto Region and particularly the old METRO while not perfect, still have better pro transit development and transit planning than almost anywhere else in North America.
This is the reason Toronto it tied with Montreal for the highest per capital metropolitan ridership numbers, and higher transit use to work market share in North America, outside of Metro New York.
Toronto did not back down from building a good transit network, when most other North American cities were abandoning transit. And our success came from building outstanding suburban transit services which got suburbanites to leave their cars at home for some trips, or even not buy that second car, etc.
And transit most certainly has to compete with the car. 80% of TTC’s ridership is choice riders who have a choice to drive or take transit.
Of this 80%, about 65% have a car available to them whenever they want, and the remainder choose to not own a car, even though they can.
20% of TTC riders are captives who are too poor to own a car, or can’t drive due to other reasons.
If you do not provide good transit service for the 80% that could leave tomorrow, then transit will be much worse off, and the captive riders will be stuck on at best, a bus system that runs every hour.
Transit’s goal is to move people about this city and compete with the car. Every other city in North America is finally understanding this. Toronto better not forget its history.
It really troubles me to see transit advocates forget out transit history, and what has made the TTC a success.
Steve: What transit advocates also remember is that when Toronto should have been undergoing major expansion of its transit system, politicians were fighting over which few kilometres of subway they could afford to build. At one point, we got the Downsview extension from Wilson because it was the only piece of subway we (a) could afford and (b) could agree on (it was common to both the York U and Sheppard West subway proposals at the time). Thanks to the fact we ignored LRT when we had a chance to build it (courtesy of the mad dreams at Queen’s Park for new transit technologies), we lost decades when we could have expanded rail transit into what was then undeveloped suburbs and really had something to draw motorists out of their cars.
LikeLike
@Ben Smith
I admit that my comment was rather rude and uncalled for, and I apologise for my lapse in judgement.
Ideally, we should have stops to serve as many people as possible. However, too many stops can increase round-trip times for operators dramatically, and more drivers would be needed to maintain the same capacity. Also, the much lower average speed may discourage some riders who rely on an reasonably fast local service.
As Steve said, it’s a fine balance between many factors including speed, access, etc.
LikeLike
Question: why the option of extending the subway to Vic Park would cost 2.22b while the full LRT option would only cost 1b? Both options would need a tunnel below 404. How come the slightly longer tunnel from Consumers to Vic Park would cost an extra 1b?
Steve: In the LRT option, the tunnel starts just west of Consumers, and there are no new underground stations. In the hybrid option, the tunnel starts a bit east of Victoria Park with underground stations there and at Consumers Road. Yes, a premium of $1b does seem a bit high, but the difference won’t be far off.
LikeLike
@Michael
I agree with the transfer, which is why it is frustrating to see so little thinking done outside the box. East of Don Mills, why not elevate it, or run dual-mode trains which can switch from third rail to overhead wires for street operation? Instead the whole debate came down to two plans which both were lackluster in design. I’ve drawn up a transit plan on Google Maps where Sheppard actually turns north and runs under the 404, so that the line actually goes somewhere.
I’m not saying that these ideas should be used, but it would have been nice to see some thought given to them.
Steve: The options that were under study were those the panel looked at. That was their mandate.
LikeLike
@OgtheDim
The layout of the region is definitely an obstacle, but I don’t think it is impossible to overcome. If it were, the Ontario government wouldn’t be spending billions of dollars on the MoveOntario 2020 transit plans, and instead would just use that money to figure out where to build the next superhighway.
I was looking at an e-book on transit planning which suggests a grid like network to best move people through the area. Fortunately the GTA’s grid like road network provides this background, and the TTC and others use it to their advantage. The problem we have is not the lack of transit, in fact you can get almost anywhere in the urban areas of the Greater Golden Horseshoe with public transit, but how long it takes to get to places. Sure you can get anywhere, but it takes 3 hours by transit compared to 45 minutes by car.
I am skeptical, but if the 400m stop spacing does provide a relatively fast ride across Sheppard, then by all means go for it. The fact of the matter is that such stop spacing in suburbia for a rapid LRT line has never been used, at least in North America. Most lines tend to have stops at least 800m, sometimes as much as 2km or more. I don’t expect it to be as fast as the 401, such service should be reserved for express routes, but it should be at least as fast as driving along Sheppard in moderate traffic.
LikeLike
The distance between stops is affected by traffic signal placement. The distance between stops along streetcar lines are closer than the LRT lines will be not because streetcars are serving a different market or are a different mode (technologically, the differences will be negligible once the new replacement fleet is in service), the difference is rooted predominantly in the urban form through which they operate. The city blocks are much larger is suburban 416 than the older pre-war parts of the city. That’s where the difference in stop spacing is really developed by. If blocks were the same size across all of the 416, things would be very different; but it’s not.
The other major factor at play is that many parts of these arterial LRT corridors have backyards lining the streets, and by extension have a divided relationship to the arterial corridor (which is compounded by the size of city blocks). This is in extremely stark contrast to Toronto’s existing streetcar corridors, where properties along them overwhelmingly face the street (and in cases where they don’t, it is usually a side yard facing the street, not a backyard), in addition to the smaller city blocks, resulting in high accessibility to these transit services.
LikeLike
Ben Smith says:
Since there will be 25 stations in 13 km the average spacing will be around 500 m. I used to live in Scarborough and ride Lawrence East a lot. If I remember correctly there were about s stops between most north south arterials. To eliminate all stops between arterials would make for long walks for many riders, especially ones that did not live near Sheppard. I believe that planned spacing is a good compromise. I read the site you linked to but could not find a definitive answer to stop spacing. It seemed to be: “It depends.”
Steve: “s” stops?
LikeLike
Since some here seem to feel that they are the only Scarberians commenting, let me butt in as a resident of eastern Scarborough. So far east, in fact, that even the SELRT won’t reach me (Sheppard & Kingston, that is, the terminus of Sheppard Ave East). It takes me 3 transfers and 1.25-1.75 hours to reach my workplace in the Port Lands and 2 transfers and about 1.25 hours to reach U of T’s downtown campus. I can take the Sheppard subway with an additional transfer to get downtown too, but it takes about the same amount of time and the Yonge subway is a sardine can compared with Bloor-Danforth in the peak hours.
The fact of the matter is that we are so far from the core that it is unreasonable to expect a one-seat rapid service directly to downtown, or any other place you might want to go, on the TTC. For those who are calling for LRTs to have features such as crossing arms, full signal priority and wide stop spacing to make trips like mine a bit faster (e.g. for me to get to Yonge in 30 minutes, the Sheppard LRT would not only have to reach Kingston Rd but travel at 46km/hr average – inconceivable unless it stops only a handful of times), the service you want already exists – it’s called the GO train. And for exactly that reason, instead of taking the Sheppard bus west to downtown, I take it east to the lakeshore and Rouge Hill GO station, which offers me a 30-minute one-seat ride to downtown.
For the outer suburbs, better integration of GO and TTC services and fare structures (it costs me $16 to go downtown and back on TTC+GO!) will be far more cost-effective in serving long-haul trips than trying to gerrymander local service or extend high-capacity trunk routes out beyond the density that supports them.
LikeLike
@Steve,
That is true about all the fighting going on over the years which has limited transit expansion.
It should be noted that the LRT network you mention from the 60s and 70s was a fully grade separated system. Not Transit city LRT.
Even the planner back then understood we needed true rapid transit in the suburbs.
Steve: Actually, the original plans for the SRT including the Malvern extension included street crossings at grade.
LikeLike
Many questions about LRT can be answered by looking at the reams of information available on the Santa Clara Valley Transit Authority. That’s Silicon Valley (centred on San Jose) for the uninitiated. I spent a week there a year or two ago, and used the LRT quite a bit. It’s about the size of Toronto’s subway system. It runs mainly on centre ROW, and probably is very similar to what Sheppard East and Eglinton East will look like. Stops are spaced at more than 1 km on average.
LikeLike
Now that the LRT along Sheppard is safely in the bag, can we take another look at cramming it into the Sheppard subway tunnel to eliminate the transfer? As I understand it, there are a couple issues:
– platforms – ok, so the LRV would be a high-platform version that would then require platforms when it emerged on the surface. No problem, many systems use high-platform LRVs. There is enough room on Sheppard to handle the high platforms with a ramp at the end.
Steve: The floor height of a subway car (and hence platform) is higher than the floor height of a LFLRV. The stations have to be modified to the lower floor height and this affects access at elevators and escalators. Be careful what you assume regarding ramps and the available space. Also, if Sheppard platforms are designed for high floor cars, then there is no likelihood of through-running onto, say, the SRT with low floor cars. If we are going to have to change the height of the subway platforms anyhow, why not change to the appropriate height for low floor cars?
– power – obviously can’t use the pantograph in the existing tunnel. Ok, so what? Could an LRV not be equipped with a third-rail shoe and lower the pantograph when entering the tunnel? It’s been done before — many Metro North trains run on third-rail in New York City then switch to overhead catenary in Connecticut. [See Wikipedia]
– height – the height of a high-platform LRV in Edmonton (with the pantograph down) is almost identical to a Toronto T-series subway car, so it should fit in the tunnels. Of course the above electrical issues will add bulk but there must be a way to figure this out in the given envelope. It’s not like length is an issue, so stretch the vehicle as needed.
Steve: There is also an issue at the maintenance facility with a mixture of high and low floor cars. One set is maintained from above, the other from below. Some redesign is needed.
Am I crazy here? Are we sure that Bombardier couldn’t whizbang up some sort of compact modified high-platform Flexity with a third rail shoe? Sure, it would be more expensive to have a customized vehicle but that cost would be well worth it if it turned Sheppard Subway-LRT into a functional clone of the Eglinton LRT. Then you one day hook up the Finch LRT over to Sheppard-Yonge (for a very reasonable cost running on the surface, maybe under the hydro ROW) and then bang, instant crosstown access across the entire top of the city in one seat. This must be worth a look, right?
Steve: If we had not just wasted a year and a half on Ford’s folly and reached general agreement, I might agree that another look could be worthwhile. However, as I noted above re station platforms, I think that if we’re going down that route it makes more sense to make the Sheppard “subway” truly low platform rather than trying to fit a batch of high floor LRVs into the system. You would be bringing in a car that required changes to the entire line rather than just part of it.
If what you seek is a continuous route, you might look at Finch as has been discussed elsewhere in this thread.
LikeLike