Sheppard Line 4 Subway Extension (Proposed)

[syn]

Needn't pick and choose different cities in different countries when we have a good 1:1 case here. Eglinton West. Projected to have greater ridership as a surface LRT than the grade-separated ("subway") option. Your hyperbole that LRT "absolutely fails" is out the window since we see 20% more riders, and at 20% the cost to boot. .

We've reached a point where everything has flipped. Previously you used lower capacity forms of transit in low density environments. Subways were for high density environments.

Now it's subways for the suburbs (to get people out of their cars) and LRTs for high density environments.

Hopefully we can get back to building the way we used to.

 

[ARG1]

We've reached a point where everything has flipped. Previously you used lower capacity forms of transit in low density environments. Subways were for high density environments.

Now it's subways for the suburbs (to get people out of their cars) and LRTs for high density environments.

Hopefully we can get back to building the way we used to.

That's not how things worked previously, subways in lower density areas and trams in heavy populated areas has been the motto for almost a century now across basically the entire world. This is how things worked since the early days of the London Underground (London's Metropolitan Railway literally operated this way, bringing people from the suburbs to the city). Sometimes you would have small shuttle lines within a city like the Waterloo and City Line, but in general Metros have always operated sort of like Commuter lines that allowed commuters to travel directly to their destination by avoiding surface traffick. Downtowns having multiple lines was an extension of that, radial lines all meeting at a single area, each with their own track and ROW under the streets of the city. Meanwhile, trams have almost always been limited to the dense parts of the cities. The only exception to this would be A) Smaller more sprawling cities that can't afford subways (does not apply to modern Toronto), and more importantly B) Tram trains (This is not what Transit City was about, nor is it what we're building here).

The idea that we should be building LRT in lower density suburbs is for the most part a brand new thing in the grand scheme of transit planning - and even then its mostly an American thing. You don't see European or Asian cities doing this...

 

[44 North]

Surface LRVs are not bad for local transit, but it fails as rapid transit.

And? Not arguing semantics of what "rapid transit" constitutes. Unlike Arg's poor examples I gave a relevant, local, up-to-date, side by side comparison of ridership between a tram-style LRT and grade-separated rapid transit. In suburban Toronto. Which is the topic from the previous two pages. And keep in mind I was an ardent supporter of light subways along Eglinton since the early 2010s. But we're well past that. It's an LRT, the roadway section has long been completed.

What I think is a good example of something that fails as rapid transit is shoehorning costly heavy infrastructure 20m deep next to a vacant transportation ROW, resulting in the world's costliest LRT, then having less ridership than the roadway option. Oops. It also falls short of its planned destination (Pearson) resulting in a third phase sometime whenever (for what was to be a single project). Similar is happening to Sheppard since it seems few are following. It's become a ~75yr project. Conceptualized in the 70s, seriously considered in the 80s, won't be complete until 2041 (since things slide, easily 2050).

That's not how things worked previously, subways in lower density areas and trams in heavy populated areas has been the motto for almost a century now across basically the entire world. This is how things worked since the early days of the London Underground (London's Metropolitan Railway literally operated this way, bringing people from the suburbs to the city). Sometimes you would have small shuttle lines within a city like the Waterloo and City Line, but in general Metros have always operated sort of like Commuter lines that allowed commuters to travel directly to their destination by avoiding surface traffick. Downtowns having multiple lines was an extension of that, radial lines all meeting at a single area, each with their own track and ROW under the streets of the city. Meanwhile, trams have almost always been limited to the dense parts of the cities. The only exception to this would be A) Smaller more sprawling cities that can't afford subways (does not apply to modern Toronto), and more importantly B) Tram trains (This is not what Transit City was about, nor is it what we're building here).

The idea that we should be building LRT in lower density suburbs is for the most part a brand new thing in the grand scheme of transit planning - and even then its mostly an American thing. You don't see European or Asian cities doing this...

What's considered to be the oldest subway in the world is an LRT - travels the surface and roadway in the suburbs, then underground downtown. And in Europe they have quite a few stadtbahns, again on the surface and roadway in the suburbs; underground downtown. This is sort of the opposite of what you're saying.

 

[ARG1]

What's considered to be the oldest subway in the world is an LRT - travels the surface and roadway in the suburbs, then underground downtown. And in Europe they have quite a few stadtbahns, again on the surface and roadway in the suburbs; underground downtown. This is sort of the opposite of what you're saying.

I'm afraid I must ask you to specify what you're referring to.

Again, I'm making a distinction between tram trains and whatever the Toronto LRTs are. This is the fundamental problem when discussing LRT because all it takes is to highlight another "LRT" that doesn't match anything like the topic at hand to derail the discussion. Most small European cities that have their networks based on trams operate like "Tram Trains", where outside the city they operate on dedicated railway ROWs - travelling at high speeds, only slowing down when they arrive on street in the downtown core. An example of this in Canada would be the Calgary LRT system, DART, and to some extent waterloo iON. This isn't what Toronto is getting - the only thing that sort of resembled that was the Scarborough LRT but that's an entirely different can of worms that is separate from this discussion.

 

[Cobra]

LRT on Sheppard is dead. Not sure why people are desperate to see it done when most on the corridor don't want it

 

[nfitz]

LRT on Sheppard is dead. Not sure why people are desperate to see it done when most on the corridor don't want it

Why do you think that? At the TTC meeting 2 weeks ago, it was still on the books from Morningside to Nielsen, with an option of connecting to Line 2 at Sheppard at Sheppard East station, and a spur to Malvern.

Next report to City Council is in Spring 2022.

 

[ARG1]

Why do you think that? At the TTC meeting 2 weeks ago, it was still on the books from Morningside to Nielsen, with an option of connecting to Line 2 at Sheppard at Sheppard East station, and a spur to Malvern.

Next report to City Council is in Spring 2022.

He was referring to the Sheppard East LRT, what you're referring to is the Scarborough Malvern LRT - a completely different and mostly unrelated project.

 

[44 North]

I'm afraid I must ask you to specify what you're referring to.

Again, I'm making a distinction between tram trains and whatever the Toronto LRTs are. This is the fundamental problem when discussing LRT because all it takes is to highlight another "LRT" that doesn't match anything like the topic at hand to derail the discussion. Most small European cities that have their networks based on trams operate like "Tram Trains", where outside the city they operate on dedicated railway ROWs - travelling at high speeds, only slowing down when they arrive on street in the downtown core. An example of this in Canada would be the Calgary LRT system, DART, and to some extent waterloo iON. This isn't what Toronto is getting - the only thing that sort of resembled that was the Scarborough LRT but that's an entirely different can of worms that is separate from this discussion.

Boston. I guess that'd be the third oldest. But then we got Philadelphia. And stadtbahns. So we do in fact have really old N.Am examples, and more recent examples in Europe. Not talking about tram-trains although some lines/section/branches would have that. I'm saying tram-style in the suburbs, underground in the the city centre is a concept that very much exists.

LRT on Sheppard is dead. Not sure why people are desperate to see it done when most on the corridor don't want it

Pretty much dead. But since a subway as proposed is too expensive it's a bit of a stalemate.

 

[TRONto]

Pretty much dead. But since a subway as proposed is too expensive it's a bit of a stalemate.

With how much the PCs are overspending on transit, I doubt any transit is too expensive.

I'm half-expecting an election campaign promise to extend the Sheppard Subway east and west from the PCs.

 

[ARG1]

Boston. I guess that'd be the third oldest. But then we got Philadelphia. And stadtbahns. So we do in fact have really old N.Am examples, and more recent examples in Europe. Not talking about tram-trains although some lines/section/branches would have that. I'm saying tram-style in the suburbs, underground in the the city centre is a concept that very much exists.

I wasn't denying that part, although there is something to consider about these so called "streetcar suburbs". The first is that they were designed in an environment where people lived on, or right next to the street (see, most of eastern Toronto). 2) These work in cities that are much smaller than the cities of today, where you can get from your little streetcar suburb to the city center in 20-30 mins.

Now theoretically we could replicate this in our suburbs, create so called "15 minute cities", try to shift development along the arterials, and design cities where instead of having people commute downtown, people instead commute to their local city center. Sorry, never going to happen in our modern day world.

People want to go downtown to see the next Raptors game, or go watch a TSO performance, or whatever. Not to mention in our current car world, the car permits people to have the choice to go to many different stores to buy the products they want. They don't have a specific camera in North York? Just drive over to Oakville and pick it up. In order to have any chance to compete with cars, you must at the very least be able to match many of the use cases that a car would provide - which means a renewed focus on speed. Designing 15 minute cities could make LRTs work in our suburbs, but in practice it will just lead a lot of people to just keep using their car for general activities (and again it doesn't address the elephant in the room that we have fields of detached SFH that would be poorly served by an LRT on an arterial).

 

[gweed123]

Why do you think that? At the TTC meeting 2 weeks ago, it was still on the books from Morningside to Nielsen, with an option of connecting to Line 2 at Sheppard at Sheppard East station, and a spur to Malvern.

Next report to City Council is in Spring 2022.

Especially with the Line 2 extension now reaching McCowan & Sheppard, I don't think the Sheppard East corridor warrants LRT.

One of the main rationales for LRT was that you would have most people travelling westbound in the AM peak, and that the peak point ridership just east of Don Mills Station would be higher than what BRT could reasonably handle, and thus it warranted LRT. That assumption was based on their not really being very many transfer opportunities along that corridor, and that most people would ride all the way to Don Mills.

With the Line 2 extension at McCowan, as well as the Stouffville RER at Agincourt (RER wasn't really a thing when Transit City was being developed), there are enough N-S transfer opportunities now that a good chunk of the ridership will be transferring there, and not at Don Mills. I think that lowers the peak point ridership enough that the corridor fits comfortably into the range where the demand can be accommodated with BRT. You also have the advantage of now making the zoo the terminus of the line, since you're no longer restricted by the end of the guideway and the end of the route being the same location.

 

[nfitz]

He was referring to the Sheppard East LRT, what you're referring to is the Scarborough Malvern LRT - a completely different and mostly unrelated project.

One is an LRT from the end of Line 4 at Don Mills station to Conlins yard at Meadowvale. The other is a LRT from the end of Line 4 at Sheppard East station to Conlins yard at Meadowvale. Not so much SM now than Line 5 Eglinton East. And I'm sure there's still plenty to debate about it.

Especially with the Line 2 extension now reaching McCowan & Sheppard, I don't think the Sheppard East corridor warrants LRT.

If the Line 5 Eglinton East goes ahead, it's going to get some, so as to get to the yard, and service Malvern. An extra 3.5 km of surface track, to provide through service to Line 4 seems like a no-brainer. Especially for accessing UT Scarborough from North York.

One of the main rationales for LRT was that you would have most people travelling westbound in the AM peak, and that the peak point ridership just east of Don Mills Station would be higher than what BRT could reasonably handle, and thus it warranted LRT. That assumption was based on their not really being very many transfer opportunities along that corridor, and that most people would ride all the way to Don Mills.

 

[ARG1]

One is an LRT from the end of Line 4 at Don Mills station to Conlins yard at Meadowvale. The other is a LRT from the end of Line 4 at Sheppard East station to Conlins yard at Meadowvale. Not so much SM now than Line 5 Eglinton East. And I'm sure there's still plenty to debate about it.

Yes, but the point of discussion here is the section between Don Mills and Sheppard East - or more specifically what to do East of Line 4. Bringing up Eglinton East is just a massive "Uhm Actually" moment.

 

[nfitz]

Yes, but the point of discussion here is the section between Don Mills and Sheppard East - or more specifically what to do East of Line 4. Bringing up Eglinton East is just a massive "Uhm Actually" moment.

I was only referring to the LRT on Sheppard, east of Sheppard East station. The remainder is context. There was no indication in the post I replied to that they were only referring to the western portion of the LRT.

 

[ARG1]

There was no indication in the post I replied to that they were only referring to the western portion of the LRT.

There was - its called the 20+ posts above it that was discussing the Sheppard East LRT.