Sheppard Line 4 Subway Extension (Proposed)

[Streety McCarface]

It's only an apples to oranges comparison in that they're different classes of transit. That's exactly the point though.

Spadina has comparable ridership despite:
- being a lower capacity, above ground line (streetcar)
- less than 800m from the University subway line

Spadina functions much like the subway does for most riders. The biggest pickups and dropoffs, by far, are at major intersections (College, Queen, etc.). The vast majority of those heading north are going to Spadina station.

Sheppard has no 'competition' in that it's the only rapid transit option in the area - and it's basically used as an express line between Don Mills and Yonge, with very little activity in between. This hasn't changed in nearly 20 years.

Density and usage matter, comparing a line of 4 stops to one that's 20% longer and has 19 stops means that you cannot compare the two. Spadina exists to shuttle people from Spadina and Union Station along the waterfront and down Spadina Avenue. Remove it, and people will just walk from Line 1. Remove Line 4, and users will either stop taking transit, or will take the sheppard east bus. I love the 510, but it's largely a local service version of Line 1. If it's really that important to users, one would think that its ridership would be higher than a measly 40K PPD, especially in an area of the city which has 5* the density of Sheppard, and 10* the employment density of Sheppard. You can look at things optimistically, realistically, or with a confirmation bias. Yes, Sheppard has lower than expected ridership. No, it does not have awful ridership, and it does have the potential to be better used.

They are completely different and should not be used to compare. A better comparison would be the Spadina subway, the TYSSE, or anyone of the long-distance suburban subway sections in the system. Line one along Allen road and the Entire TYSSE have the same ridership/km levels as the Sheppard subway, but no one is calling either of those sections failures.

If we're going to argue costs, in terms of vehicle operation only, the Sheppard subway almost certainly cheaper to operate than the 510 since vehicles come every 3 minutes on the 510, and the route requires at least 15 operators to service the route, while the Sheppard subway only requires 6. Vehicles have to stop much less so energy costs are likely about the same for both. There are the same number of vehicles required to fully run each route (16 + spares), so maintenance is also about the same. Costs to run the line generally arise from station upkeep and maintenance, so switching the line over to Light rail will not save money overall.

There are numbers from 2015, 2016 and 2018 available. The 2018 numbers show a clear drop off from those previous years.

They aren't going to improve dramatically anytime soon as the area remains decidedly suburban in nature.

For some context, The Well on Spadina is going to add 8,000 jobs and 3,000 residents. City reports from 2017 indicate there were just under 16,000 jobs on the Sheppard subway corridor. That means The Well is adding half of the employment on the entire Sheppard subway corridor. That's just one project.

Spadina is already well ahead of the Sheppard subway corridor and continues to grow at a faster rate.

I am well aware of the presence of statistics: here's a screenshot of them:

If you'll take note of Sheppard Yonge's ridership, you'll notice that it hasn't changed over the 4 years of surveying. If this isn't enough for you to question the numbers provided then I don't know what is. Sampling data is taken from one day of sampling. It's not a good measure of actual ridership, because ridership on this line fluctuates significantly from day to day. For general people, it's much easier to understand and criticize numbers when they see day to day ridership, but annual entrances are a far more useful measure of ridership when trying to determine who's using a station.

Even so, if we plot the data and check their r^2 values, it becomes apparent that the only data points that have valid trends are the ridership levels of Bessarion and Leslie, which have R^2 values of 0.54 and 0.43 respectively. The trendline for both stations is showing stagnant ridership, not decreasing ridership. This makes sense because much of Concord Park place still isn't open, and the parts that are only opened in 2018, likely after the sampling for both stations was completed. It's worth noting that there is no data for 2017, and it is likely that data from 2018 was taken from 2017 given the TTC's past practices (they did the same in I believe 2008-2009). There is not enough data, the data is just too close, and important sampling context is missing; you cannot make a trend conclusion with this data.

Also, ridership between 2015 to 2018 dropped accross the entire network, so pointing fingers at 3 stations is silly.

(Note: the R^2 values are in the order of the rows shown in the table above, not in the order of trendlines on the graph)

If the Spadina corridor is seeing so many jobs, why does the line have less ridership than the Sheppard subway? Again, you cannot compare these lines, they serve different purposes.

 

[Streety McCarface]

Side note: the actual likely daily ridership of the Sheppard subway in 2018 was closer to 52,700 passengers per day, not 50,150 passengers per day, assuming the same percentage of people were travelling to Sheppard Yonge. This would mean that the ridership of the line increased by 9.5% between 2016 and 2018.

The Sheppard Yonge Ridership/Sum line also shows that the data provided is extremely flawed because it is simply not possible for there to be more people entering and exiting Sheppard Yonge station than the rest of the line combined (unless fare evasion is considered).

 

[syn]

Density and usage matter, comparing a line of 4 stops to one that's 20% longer and has 19 stops means that you cannot compare the two. Spadina exists to shuttle people from Spadina and Union Station along the waterfront and down Spadina Avenue. Remove it, and people will just walk from Line 1. Remove Line 4, and users will either stop taking transit, or will take the sheppard east bus. I love the 510, but it's largely a local service version of Line 1. If it's really that important to users, one would think that its ridership would be higher than a measly 40K PPD, especially in an area of the city which has 5* the density of Sheppard, and 10* the employment density of Sheppard. You can look at things optimistically, realistically, or with a confirmation bias. Yes, Sheppard has lower than expected ridership. No, it does not have awful ridership, and it does have the potential to be better used.

Have you stopped to consider that you're the one that may have confirmation bias here?

Sheppard does not have lower than expected ridership. It has exactly the kind of ridership predicted by experts when it was built. It's a low density suburb. It's only reasonable that everything outside the terminal stations are poorly used.

Does it have awful ridership? Yes. When three of the least used stations in the entire system are what make up your non-terminal stops, I'd call that awful.

Why is it awful? It's a low density suburb that's nowhere close to requiring a subway, which you ably pointed out in the first bolded portion of your quoted post.

This has been demonstrated clearly for nearly two decades.

They are completely different and should not be used to compare. A better comparison would be the Spadina subway, the TYSSE, or anyone of the long-distance suburban subway sections in the system. Line one along Allen road and the Entire TYSSE have the same ridership/km levels as the Sheppard subway, but no one is calling either of those sections failures.

That's because no one is suggesting the TYSSE was a good idea. It's generally accepted it's a currently unnecessary and ridiculously overbuilt extension that will probably take lifetimes to justify it's existence. It was largely built do to politics, just like the Sheppard Line.

I'm not suggesting the Spadina Streetcar is great; that's besides the point. I'm pointing out it has comparable ridership to a full fledged subway of similar length, despite being far lower capacity, running parallel to a full subway line and perpendicular to other streetcar lines at all major intersections starting at College.

We can flip it around if you'd like. The University Line, from St. George to Union, dwarfs the Sheppard Line in ridership, despite being, at most 4km long, having another line running in parallel and a busy Spadina Streetcar to the west.

Why?

If you'll take note of Sheppard Yonge's ridership, you'll notice that it hasn't changed over the 4 years of surveying. If this isn't enough for you to question the numbers provided then I don't know what is. Sampling data is taken from one day of sampling. It's not a good measure of actual ridership, because ridership on this line fluctuates significantly from day to day. For general people, it's much easier to understand and criticize numbers when they see day to day ridership, but annual entrances are a far more useful measure of ridership when trying to determine who's using a station.

Maybe it is, but all the other numbers are updated.

There is little that would lead me to believe the station numbers are drastically higher than what's there. It's a lot like the RT - outside of rush hour it's quiet.

 

[Streety McCarface]

Have you stopped to consider that you're the one that may have confirmation bias here?

Sheppard does not have lower than expected ridership. It has exactly the kind of ridership predicted by experts when it was built. It's a low density suburb. It's only reasonable that everything outside the terminal stations are poorly used.

Does it have awful ridership? Yes. When three of the least used stations in the entire system are what make up your non-terminal stops, I'd call that awful.

Why is it awful? It's a low density suburb that's nowhere close to requiring a subway, which you ably pointed out in the first bolded portion of your quoted post.

This has been demonstrated clearly for nearly two decades.


They are completely different and should not be used to compare. A better comparison would be the Spadina subway, the TYSSE, or anyone of the long-distance suburban subway sections in the system. Line one along Allen road and the Entire TYSSE have the same ridership/km levels as the Sheppard subway, but no one is calling either of those sections failures.

That's because no one is suggesting the TYSSE was a good idea. It's generally accepted it's a currently unnecessary and ridiculously overbuilt extension that will probably take lifetimes to justify it's existence. It was largely built do to politics, just like the Sheppard Line.

I'm not suggesting the Spadina Streetcar is great; that's besides the point. I'm pointing out it has comparable ridership to a full fledged subway of similar length, despite being far lower capacity, running parallel to a full subway line and perpendicular to other streetcar lines at all major intersections starting at College.

We can flip it around if you'd like. The University Line, from St. George to Union, dwarfs the Sheppard Line in ridership, despite being, at most 4km long, having another line running in parallel and a busy Spadina Streetcar to the west.

Why?



Maybe it is, but all the other numbers are updated.

There is little that would lead me to believe the station numbers are drastically higher than what's there. It's a lot like the RT - outside of rush hour it's quiet.
[/QUOTE]
I most certainly have a confirmation bias which is why you'd never see me managing a subway project in the city of Toronto. That doesn't mean I can't have an opinion on the matter, and can't look at data objectively. Sheppard is still relatively young, and through personal experience, I can guarantee that the ridership numbers presented by the TTC do not factor in surge demands or quiet days. That's why I'm saying you should take the data with a grain of salt.

Brad Ross himself stated that the line had lower than expected ridership, but ridership that wasn't unreasonable given its age. It was a very inexpensive line to construct and operate (compared to the other lines), so obviously, the demand is going to be lower than expected. My initial argument was that the line does not have abysmal ridership because of the niche it serves, the fact that it's a really young line, and the fact that the development that was promised with the line hasn't come to fruition just yet. Some other arguments:

Was it the most important line to built at the time? Absolutely not.
Is the line useful? To some people.
Should the line get an extension? Eventually, but we have about 4 higher priorities in the city.
Should the line switch to LRT? No, at least not now. It'd be a huge inconvenience and waste of money. Wait until RLL is built.
Should we treat the line as if it'll always have trashy ridership? No, much of the development that was promised hasn't come yet, but if you look at the UT map, it's certainly on its way.
Is ridership really as bad as the statistics say? Probably not given the really questionable context of those statistics.
Are the ridership levels of Bessarion, Bayview and Leslie declining? Possibly, but there's not enough data to confirm or deny this. The only station that might have an argument for declining ridership is Bayview, and that's likely due to riders just walking to Sheppard Yonge Station.

The TYSSE is actually outperforming expectations, so ridership is likely to increase. Should we have this prejudice that a subway in the suburbs has trashy ridership? Absolutely not.
And what about the Spadina Subway? That largely acts as a western relief line for the Yonge subway. Its ridership is fairly low compared to the Bloor and Yonge subways. The relief line will likely see ridership similar to that of the Spadina Subway. Should we judge the performance of the line because of its ridership isn't as large as the Yonge Line? No, that just gives NIMBYs an excuse to not build public transit.

The University Subway is largely busy because the majority of people using it are people coming in from the suburbs getting off to go to work/school. As you extend lines out, usage is concentrated on the core sections.
This is not at all a scientific way of looking at it, but it gets the point across:
The total number of people using the stations between Spadina and St. Andrew is 288,430K passengers per day (Union is removed because the majority of the users take the Yonge subway, and because it's a huge interchange with GO transit. It's presence just complicates things). However, when you consider that 121K passengers enter the subway through st George, it becomes apparent that the true ridership of the university-Spadina line is around 167K PPD. If we're only considering passengers living in the area that get on the subway that are heading to another station outside of the core, then we have to subtract the ridership from St. George again (because station counts include platform entrances and exits, and the passengers that entered the University subway from Line 2 are still being counted at other stations along the corridor). When this happens, there are only about 47K that are actually taken from people living along the corridor to another place in the city and back. It's probably closer to 60K trips, but it makes it apparent that suburban stations are just important to the network as the downtown ones, because they support the high ridership we see downtown. Without them, ridership downtown would be much lower than is today. Remove Line 4, and you lose close to 50K station uses downtown. Remove the Spadina subway, you lose another 200K. Remove the Danforth subway through Scarborough, there goes another 150K. The main difference? Sheppard is very young when compared with these other lines, and it is very short. It's going to be less used than other lines, but we can certainly hope for better ridership in the future.

Again, there are years where Sheppard-Yonge's ridership is greater than the sum of ridership from every other station on the line. That means that the surveys are not done on the same day and that any change in ridership is questionable at best. We don't know enough about how the surveys were completed to draw definite conclusions, and the R^2 values show this.

 

[BMO]

For some context, The Well on Spadina is going to add 8,000 jobs and 3,000 residents. City reports from 2017 indicate there were just under 16,000 jobs on the Sheppard subway corridor. That means The Well is adding half of the employment on the entire Sheppard subway corridor. That's just one project.

Spadina is already well ahead of the Sheppard subway corridor and continues to grow at a faster rate.

As someone who works directly on Spadina and lives on the Spadina Subway line, I will always go to King and take the King Streetcar rather than taking the Spadina streetcar. I'm convinced that the Spadina streetcar is my least favourite line in the city that doesn't particularly do anything well. It's overcrowded, slow, and has way too many stops. The parallel Bathurst Street streetcar that runs in mixed traffic goes faster despite having local stops. Without any data to back this up, I feel like Spadina's bread & butter is catching people from the Bloor-Danforth Line for destinations between Bloor and King, simply because most people don't want to double transfer to Line 1 then to the relevant E-W streetcar route.

 

[Hopkins123]

As someone who works directly on Spadina and lives on the Spadina Subway line, I will always go to King and take the King Streetcar rather than taking the Spadina streetcar. I'm convinced that the Spadina streetcar is my least favourite line in the city that doesn't particularly do anything well. It's overcrowded, slow, and has way too many stops. The parallel Bathurst Street streetcar that runs in mixed traffic goes faster despite having local stops. Without any data to back this up, I feel like Spadina's bread & butter is catching people from the Bloor-Danforth Line for destinations between Bloor and King, simply because most people don't want to double transfer to Line 1 then to the relevant E-W streetcar route.

Every stop along Spadina is essential though.

Sussex is important for those whom want Bloor but don't want to navigate flights of stairs at the station and there's local apartments there. Willcocks is essential for the campus. Nassau for Kensington Market. Sullivan for the Chinatown Centre. Richmond for the Fashion District and numerous office buildings. Bremner for CityPlace and a backdoor way to get to the Rogers Centre.

I don't foresee any feasible way to cut any of these without major backlash and public outcry and serving these stops probably only adds like 5 minutes to the total commute time regardless.

 

[Streety McCarface]

Every stop along Spadina is essential though.

Sussex is important for those whom want Bloor but don't want to navigate flights of stairs at the station and there's local apartments there. Willcocks is essential for the campus. Nassau for Kensington Market. Sullivan for the Chinatown Centre. Richmond for the Fashion District and numerous office buildings. Bremner for CityPlace and a backdoor way to get to the Rogers Centre.

I don't foresee any feasible way to cut any of these without major backlash and public outcry and serving these stops probably only adds like 5 minutes to the total commute time regardless.

It's a local route, it does what it's supposed to do. If you really want to transfer to the 5** lines, taking the subway is faster. (unless St George station is completely packed).

 

[syn]

I most certainly have a confirmation bias which is why you'd never see me managing a subway project in the city of Toronto. That doesn't mean I can't have an opinion on the matter, and can't look at data objectively. Sheppard is still relatively young, and through personal experience, I can guarantee that the ridership numbers presented by the TTC do not factor in surge demands or quiet days. That's why I'm saying you should take the data with a grain of salt.

If you have confirmation bias then you aren't looking at the data objectively.

Sheppard is nearly 20 years old. It started construction just 9 years after the RT opened.

The fact that it's so poorly used decades after it opened (during a major condo/commercial boom no less) speaks to the accuracy of expert predictions at the time.

Sheppard and the Spadina extensions are great reminders that subways should be built where they're actually needed, not used as tools to score political points with local voters.

The Yonge Line was built when the streetcar line was maxed. We already have a great model for subway placement/development - we should go back to it.

The TYSSE is actually outperforming expectations, so ridership is likely to increase. Should we have this prejudice that a subway in the suburbs has trashy ridership? Absolutely not.

It's not prejudice it's reality. It's about realizing that building subways and hoping ridership comes is a terrible idea, especially when there are far bigger priorities (as you pointed out).

It's about not making the same foolish mistakes over and over again.

 

[IRT_BMT_IND]

It's overcrowded, slow, and has way too many stops.

The traffic light timings are terrible on Spadina and are probably the biggest reason why the line is so slow, the city refuses to turn on transit priority signalling and almost every intersection has a protected left before the streetcar phase. It's especially bad at Richmond, Adelaide, Front, Bremner, and Lakeshore where it's clear the signals are timed to get cars onto the Gardiner rather than letting streetcars through. Having each streetcar come to a full stop at both sets of facing point switches at every intersection and then crawl over the special work at 10km/h because the TTC won't fix the switch control electronics is the second biggest problem.

 

[W. K. Lis]

The traffic light timings are terrible on Spadina and are probably the biggest reason why the line is so slow, the city refuses to turn on transit priority signalling and almost every intersection has a protected left before the streetcar phase. It's especially bad at Richmond, Adelaide, Front, Bremner, and Lakeshore where it's clear the signals are timed to get cars onto the Gardiner rather than letting streetcars through. Having each streetcar come to a full stop at both sets of facing point switches at every intersection and then crawl over the special work at 10km/h because the TTC won't fix the switch control electronics is the second biggest problem.

...and the penny-pinchers at city hall will not open the purse strings for the improvements. The same penny-pinchers who do not use public transit, except for photo ops.

 

[Streety McCarface]

If you have confirmation bias then you aren't looking at the data objectively.

Sheppard is nearly 20 years old. It started construction just 9 years after the RT opened.

The fact that it's so poorly used decades after it opened (during a major condo/commercial boom no less) speaks to the accuracy of expert predictions at the time.

Sheppard and the Spadina extensions are great reminders that subways should be built where they're actually needed, not used as tools to score political points with local voters.

The Yonge Line was built when the streetcar line was maxed. We already have a great model for subway placement/development - we should go back to it.



It's not prejudice it's reality. It's about realizing that building subways and hoping ridership comes is a terrible idea, especially when there are far bigger priorities (as you pointed out).

It's about not making the same foolish mistakes over and over again.

Everybody that has marginal knowledge in a topic will have a confirmation bias, the difference is made when engineers and other professionals acknowledge their own confirmation biases and look at data objectively and draw fair conclusions.

Arguing that ridership has the potential to increase with added density, a shift in transportation preferences, and fuel prices aren't that far fetched, they're based on deductive arguments. Arguing that the statistics provided by the TTC are flawed is an objective statement — It's easy to say that the data provided is 100% correct and accurate, when this data is, in fact, subject to both structural and interpretive biases.

You're using loaded language to drive the point that Line 4 has abysmal ridership, when, compared to other North American cities, ridership is at or above average. This is what I have a problem with, not the fact that the line is underused by TTC standards (which it most certainly is, but there are definitely benefits to underutilization, as there are consequences). This is the Sheppard Subway extension thread, for details regarding any potential future extension, with discussions about challenges a line faces and the benefits of the line, not an all-out shitfest in trashing a project. This is not how constructive debates are conducted.

The initial argument was not that we should extend the Sheppard subway East, its that we shouldn't extend it now, and that we shouldn't convert the line. We should be focussing on the other priorities in the city, but we can still discuss the implications a future extension may have on the city, and how it fits into the network of tomorrow. Knowing what the future of other corridors may be can really help in the planning stages of other projects, potentially saving hundreds of millions of dollars by planning for the future. Think the Bloor Viaduct, The Finch West LRT knockout wall, the station box at North York Centre, and (potentially) a future Union Station loop.

 

[sixrings]

Everybody that has marginal knowledge in a topic will have a confirmation bias, the difference is made when engineers and other professionals acknowledge their own confirmation biases and look at data objectively and draw fair conclusions.

Arguing that ridership has the potential to increase with added density, a shift in transportation preferences, and fuel prices aren't that far fetched, they're based on deductive arguments. Arguing that the statistics provided by the TTC are flawed is an objective statement — It's easy to say that the data provided is 100% correct and accurate, when this data is, in fact, subject to both structural and interpretive biases.

You're using loaded language to drive the point that Line 4 has abysmal ridership, when, compared to other North American cities, ridership is at or above average. This is what I have a problem with, not the fact that the line is underused by TTC standards (which it most certainly is, but there are definitely benefits to underutilization, as there are consequences). This is the Sheppard Subway extension thread, for details regarding any potential future extension, with discussions about challenges a line faces and the benefits of the line, not an all-out shitfest in trashing a project. This is not how constructive debates are conducted.

The initial argument was not that we should extend the Sheppard subway East, its that we shouldn't extend it now, and that we shouldn't convert the line. We should be focussing on the other priorities in the city, but we can still discuss the implications a future extension may have on the city, and how it fits into the network of tomorrow. Knowing what the future of other corridors may be can really help in the planning stages of other projects, potentially saving hundreds of millions of dollars by planning for the future. Think the Bloor Viaduct, The Finch West LRT knockout wall, the station box at North York Centre, and (potentially) a future Union Station loop.

It has poor ridership in Toronto terms and when Toronto has limited funds and other places needing a line (drl) that is all that matters to say that this is not being built. Clearly drl and yonge are going to be priority one and two. Perhaps the Scarborough extension gets built and it's priority three. What year do we expect these three projects to be completed by? 2030? 2040? 2050? 2060? It's so far out there we don't know if something else will become a priority and Sheppard again gets pushed back. My guess and admitting it is not a optimistic guess is that drl west would need to happen before Sheppard. So really were talking 2060. I can't take anything seriously that may be that far away.

 

[Streety McCarface]

It has poor ridership in Toronto terms and when Toronto has limited funds and other places needing a line (drl) that is all that matters to say that this is not being built. Clearly drl and yonge are going to be priority one and two. Perhaps the Scarborough extension gets built and it's priority three. What year do we expect these three projects to be completed by? 2030? 2040? 2050? 2060? It's so far out there we don't know if something else will become a priority and Sheppard again gets pushed back. My guess and admitting it is not a optimistic guess is that drl west would need to happen before Sheppard. So really were talking 2060. I can't take anything seriously that may be that far away.

It was built 2 decades ago. I agree Eglinton was the preferable corridor, but we're stuck with what we have. Sheppard is going to play an important role in the design of Relief line north so it's certainly worth discussing. Again, I'm not arguing an eastern extension should occur now or even in the next 20-40 years.

In terms of planning, the general rule of thumb is that we are able to build 2 subway lines/extensions at once. During this decade, it was the Line 1 extension and Line 5. The next two lines will probably be the Ontario Line/Relief Line south (hopefully the latter) and the YNSE. These make sense as priorities, so this isn't really a big deal. This will be completed by the 2030s, maybe spill into 2033, but the bulk of the work will likely be done before the 202* are finished. The next wave of projects would probably be Relief Line North with Sheppard Subway adjustments (Whether it's built out to Victoria park, or an interline is built) and the SSE, completed in 2040. Something on sheppard will need to be done by 2040, but it's not in the scope of an 8km extension, maybe a 2 km one that's built with RLN. But the point is that these discussions are going to have to happen before 2030 (when plans for RLN should be finalized and construction beginning). It's not that far out there. A full-on extension is another beastie, and that wouldn't be completed until the 2050s, which is fine, because 30 years can do a lot to a corridor.

 

[syn]

Arguing that ridership has the potential to increase with added density, a shift in transportation preferences, and fuel prices aren't that far fetched, they're based on deductive arguments. Arguing that the statistics provided by the TTC are flawed is an objective statement — It's easy to say that the data provided is 100% correct and accurate, when this data is, in fact, subject to both structural and interpretive biases.

No one is arguing that. The point is that it will take many, many decades. It isn't just a matter of adding a few condo towers. After two decades ridership is still very low and quite stagnant.

You're using loaded language to drive the point that Line 4 has abysmal ridership, when, compared to other North American cities, ridership is at or above average. This is what I have a problem with, not the fact that the line is underused by TTC standards (which it most certainly is, but there are definitely benefits to underutilization, as there are consequences). This is the Sheppard Subway extension thread, for details regarding any potential future extension, with discussions about challenges a line faces and the benefits of the line, not an all-out shitfest in trashing a project. This is not how constructive debates are conducted.

It isn't loaded language, it's the reality of the situation.

The line has three of the worst used stations in the system, one after another. That doesn't exist anywhere else on the subway system. The only other place you can duplicate that feat is on the RT.

Ridership is only better than average if you ignore the fact that it has no competition. It's an express line between Sheppard and Don Mills.

You want to discuss challenges and that's exactly what I'm doing.

The fact that Toronto has quite a few projects that are far bigger priorities is a challenge.

The lack of density is a challenge, a consistent problem for nearly 20 years.

The obsession with a Bloor-Danforth extension to STC is a challenge, as it removes any practical reason to extend Sheppard anytime soon.

Three levels of government keep shooting themselves (and each other) in the feet with politically motivated decisions that aren't in keeping with what's best for actual transit.

 

[sixrings]

It was built 2 decades ago. I agree Eglinton was the preferable corridor, but we're stuck with what we have. Sheppard is going to play an important role in the design of Relief line north so it's certainly worth discussing. Again, I'm not arguing an eastern extension should occur now or even in the next 20-40 years.

In terms of planning, the general rule of thumb is that we are able to build 2 subway lines/extensions at once. During this decade, it was the Line 1 extension and Line 5. The next two lines will probably be the Ontario Line/Relief Line south (hopefully the latter) and the YNSE. These make sense as priorities, so this isn't really a big deal. This will be completed by the 2030s, maybe spill into 2033, but the bulk of the work will likely be done before the 202* are finished. The next wave of projects would probably be Relief Line North with Sheppard Subway adjustments (Whether it's built out to Victoria park, or an interline is built) and the SSE, completed in 2040. Something on sheppard will need to be done by 2040, but it's not in the scope of an 8km extension, maybe a 2 km one that's built with RLN. But the point is that these discussions are going to have to happen before 2030 (when plans for RLN should be finalized and construction beginning). It's not that far out there. A full-on extension is another beastie, and that wouldn't be completed until the 2050s, which is fine, because 30 years can do a lot to a corridor.

See if you think both the drl long and the danforth extension will be done by 2035 I think that's where our conversation ends. You just see our transit timelines one way and I see them the polar opposite. Every 4 years we get a new mayor. In other years we get a new premier. And then in the other year we get a new PM. Basically one of those three are always changing. Yet it takes all three to agree for anything to get built. Even if all three agree by the time something starts a new government on one of those levels can come in and cancel and or delay a project. So I just don't think it's realistic to be that optimistic when we can't build on our own but are at the mercy of both the province and the feds. Even in transit city case where we had everyone agree, defered spending screwed everything up. Now we're talking about projects which are exponentially more expensive. Good luck.