Sheppard Line 4 Subway Extension (Proposed)

[adys123]

The success or failure of the Finch LRT will dictate what happens in Scarborough. Scarborough residents will be able to get downtown with 6 subway and 6 go train stops once fair integration happens. Scarborough in 20 years won’t look like the Scarborough we have today, Politicians need to design a system that will connect future population hubs, schools, hospitals and shopping centers with these Subway and go train stops.

The mention of politicians and "designing the system" is very much part of the problem that we should not be repeating.

 

[T3G]

What I'm saying is rather than building two shitty projects, build one good one.

Assertion that the projects are shitty. There are reasons to be wary of the final form the LRT projects in the pipeline will take, but those issues can be dealt with a hell of a lot cheaper than building a subway, instead. And different communities may feel differently. I venture that if you live out in a suburban hell with unreliable buses that take forever to get anywhere, as in Rexdale, Mississauga, or Brampton, an LRT that shows up frequently and with some degree of reliability will be quite welcome, even if they are subject to inane safety regulations. (N.B. I have seen no evidence as yet that the Hurontario line will be, as the TTC is entirely excluded from this project, but I am open to being corrected).

Just because you consider building LRTs 'more transit' doesn't mean it actually reasonably improves transit or people's commutes.

And your evidence for this is...? Does swapping out mixed traffic buses for trams that operate in fixed lanes not in and of itself MASSIVELY improve transit prospects?

They are slow,

Subjective, and also, the problem can be dealt with (see my reply to quote 1). It's easy to cherry pick examples to fit your narrative; if I wanted to discredit the subway, I could point out that subways don't have to be very fast at all, either. Ever had a chance to look at a speedometer on a train operating on the 1 downtown? From Bloor to Eglinton West they spend more time coasting in neutral than they do under power.

not grade separated,

Who cares? Grade separation is not the be-all, end-all of transit.

stop at stop lights,

A problem, yes, but this problem can be dealt with (see my reply to quote 1).

and have stop distances less than our Express buses.

What kind of a comparison point is this?! Is there some Metrolinx publicity material that advertised LRTs as replacements for express buses I have missed? LRTs are supposed to be a higher order form of local transit.

You may have noticed that our express buses have local lines running parallel to them. If you had an LRT stop every 2 km, how do you imagine people with mobility challenges would get to their stop? You'd have to run a parallel local bus service, and then you'd be crying foul about all the money we've wasted, and how the line should have still been a subway (ignoring that the existence of a subway still doesn't negate the need for a parallel local bus service, because mobility challenges do not cease to be so if you choose a different form of transit).

P.S. By this parameter, much of line 1 south of Bloor, and much of line 2 is also an abject failure.

What can multi-billion dollar LRTs do that painting a bus lane red or having a bus lane on a medium can't achieve when it comes to speed/reliability?

You can couple multiple LRT cars together, and greatly increase capacity (especially coupled with high frequencies), which you can't do with buses.

 

[81-717]

P.S. By this parameter, much of line 1 south of Bloor, and much of line 2 is also an abject failure.

North* of Bloor, where many stops are 2 km apart. South of Bloor, every 0.5 km or so.

 

[T3G]

North* of Bloor, where many stops are 2 km apart. South of Bloor, every 0.5 km or so.

The argument said "and have stop distances less than our Express buses." Much of the line south of Bloor also has stops much closely together than many express buses do.

 

[81-717]

The argument said "and have stop distances less than our Express buses." Much of the line south of Bloor also has stops much closely together than many express buses do.

Oh I thought you meant the line was a failure in the context of this:

If you had an LRT stop every 2 km, how do you imagine people with mobility challenges would get to their stop? You'd have to run a parallel local bus service, and then you'd be crying foul about all the money we've wasted, and how the line should have still been a subway (ignoring that the existence of a subway still doesn't negate the need for a parallel local bus service, because mobility challenges do not cease to be so if you choose a different form of transit).

And there's no parallel local bus service running along the entirety of line 2 except the night bus, which doesn't run during the day. The 97 has also been messed up by being split up rather than going from one end of Yonge to the other.

 

[T3G]

That's because most of line 2 has stops which are very close together. Most stops are 500-700 m away from each other, which is far more reasonable than stops being 2 km apart.

But according to the argument, LRTs are a failure because of this. There is a bell curve in terms of stop spacing, and certainly having too many stops together (see also: 510 Spadina) can be harmful, but I'm not a fan of this chauvinistic, new urbanist line of transit thinking where transit lines have to have stops far apart from each other just so that they can shave a few minutes off their commute, while those left in the middle points along the line are left to suffer.

 

[NoahB]

And your evidence for this is...? Does swapping out mixed traffic buses for trams that operate in fixed lanes not in and of itself MASSIVELY improve transit prospects?

When St Claire was given it's own right of way the line actually got slower. When the Spadina bus got upgraded to "LRT," the line got slower. When the Flexities arrived in Toronto, the city reduced headways (because they had higher capacity) and slowed down the trains further. So now lines like Spadina and St Claire are both slower AND less frequent with the streetcars in their own line. Giving a streetcar its own lane isn't a magical speed boost. It improves reliability, sure (and I believe all the streetcar routes should have their own lanes). But things like operational procedures and stop spacing will affect actual service. Thankfully the contract signed for Finch LRT is for 5 minutes at peak, which is about the same as the 36A Bus currently. (Not counting the branches)

That's because most of line 2 has stops which are very close together. Most stops are 500-700 m away from each other, which is far more reasonable than stops being 2 km apart.

I agree that stations should be close enough together that it doesn't leave huge areas unserved in between. Being an LRT whose main purpose is to be a higher capacity bus, 500m is reasonable. But being closer to 800-700 is better If it is a subway. (and probably 1km spacing if it is meant to connect distant parts of the city together at a reasonable speed)

Nobody* complains that walking to locations in the central section of Line 2 is hard. The distance between Jane Station and Broadview (10.7km) is just slightly more than the same distance as between Finch West to Humber College (10.3km). Line 2 has 17 stations in that distance. Fench W has 18. Currently, the subway takes only 25min to cover that distance. Finch W is expected to take 36min. That is not just station spacing at play. The fact that the subway can go as fast as possible between stations without worrying about left-turning traffic or pedestrians is huge.

*other than the ones that want an express cross-town route who want to go from end to end.


I have walked the Finch W LRT route from end to end to check on the project. There is enough space to have built it as an elevated line. Cute tiny trains (like REM East or Canada Line) would have been enough to cover the capacity needed for this route. But it is true that it probably would have doubled the cost and also true that it wouldn't look like some cute euro tram urban fantasy that the city likes right now.

 

[sixrings]

When St Claire was given it's own right of way the line actually got slower. When the Spadina bus got upgraded to "LRT," the line got slower. When the Flexities arrived in Toronto, the city reduced headways (because they had higher capacity) and slowed down the trains further. So now lines like Spadina and St Claire are both slower AND less frequent with the streetcars in their own line. Giving a streetcar its own lane isn't a magical speed boost. It improves reliability, sure (and I believe all the streetcar routes should have their own lanes). But things like operational procedures and stop spacing will affect actual service. Thankfully the contract signed for Finch LRT is for 5 minutes at peak, which is about the same as the 36A Bus currently. (Not counting the branches)


I agree that stations should be close enough together that it doesn't leave huge areas unserved in between. Being an LRT whose main purpose is to be a higher capacity bus, 500m is reasonable. But being closer to 800-700 is better If it is a subway. (and probably 1km spacing if it is meant to connect distant parts of the city together at a reasonable speed)

Nobody* complains that walking to locations in the central section of Line 2 is hard. The distance between Jane Station and Broadview (10.7km) is just slightly more than the same distance as between Finch West to Humber College (10.3km). Line 2 has 17 stations in that distance. Fench W has 18. Currently, the subway takes only 25min to cover that distance. Finch W is expected to take 36min. That is not just station spacing at play. The fact that the subway can go as fast as possible between stations without worrying about left-turning traffic or pedestrians is huge.

*other than the ones that want an express cross-town route who want to go from end to end.


I have walked the Finch W LRT route from end to end to check on the project. There is enough space to have built it as an elevated line. Cute tiny trains (like REM East or Canada Line) would have been enough to cover the capacity needed for this route. But it is true that it probably would have doubled the cost and also true that it wouldn't look like some cute euro tram urban fantasy that the city likes right now.

Once again people are NIMBYs and they don’t want elevated transit. If they did it would have been on the table. Also elevated costs soar which make it debatable why not just build a subway. Also st claire has seen significant development since it opened which has been great for the area.

The lrt was always about more than just moving people a to b. It was in a way that would encourage people to use transit and in a way which would encourage development.

 

[T3G]

When St Claire was given it's own right of way the line actually got slower. When the Spadina bus got upgraded to "LRT," the line got slower. When the Flexities arrived in Toronto, the city reduced headways (because they had higher capacity) and slowed down the trains further. So now lines like Spadina and St Claire are both slower AND less frequent with the streetcars in their own line. Giving a streetcar its own lane isn't a magical speed boost. It improves reliability, sure (and I believe all the streetcar routes should have their own lanes). But things like operational procedures and stop spacing will affect actual service. Thankfully the contract signed for Finch LRT is for 5 minutes at peak, which is about the same as the 36A Bus currently. (Not counting the branches)

That's true, but a big part of the problem with St. Clair and Spadina is the stop spacing. Even when there is no traffic light, you can scarcely get up to 20 before you have to slow down again for another stop.

Nobody* complains that walking to locations in the central section of Line 2 is hard. The distance between Jane Station and Broadview (10.7km) is just slightly more than the same distance as between Finch West to Humber College (10.3km). Line 2 has 17 stations in that distance. Fench W has 18. Currently, the subway takes only 25min to cover that distance. Finch W is expected to take 36min. That is not just station spacing at play. The fact that the subway can go as fast as possible between stations without worrying about left-turning traffic or pedestrians is huge.

Don't get me wrong, I am not 100% in favour of the way the Finch project appears to have been executed. The projected average speed is pretty bad, even when compared with grade integrated trams in European cities. But it would cost next to nothing to make the line speedier, and throwing out the entire concept of LRT projects so that Toronto can have its cake sooner, which suggestion started this discussion, screws over other cities and towns who could use the money saved by not building subways to build LRTs or BRTs.

 

[duty free]

If you think LRTs costs are marginally cheaper than underground subway construction I promise you above ground subway construction is going to be so close in cost people are going to say just put the thing underground. Besides there is no appetite from people to have above ground transit in their area. I know we all think politicians and planners are complete idiots here but surely they have done their studies to know that the NIMBYs will uproar. It’s why eglinton east is at grade lrt, eglinton west is underground and why some people for whatever random reason hated the sight of the RT.

sure there's always push back from NIMBY's, but who cares honestly.

the Eglinton West LRT is underground only because it was Ford's riding / backyard. otherwise the whole thing would have been and should have been elevated (not a street level). you can see with the Ontario Line that several portions are going to elevated because that was a pragmatic approach to building it all the way to the Science Centre and of course tunnelled in the core where that is the only option. it didn't matter what people in Flemingdon Park or Riverdale wanted. plenty of opposition to build any of it above ground because a community centre, a park and a mosque. guess what the project is moving forward regardless.

building elevated rail is significantly cheaper than building underground. they can build elevated rail for $250 million / km roughly. underground is closer to a billion now if not more. building LRT's is half the cost of building elevated, but without any of the benefits.

anyways expect more elevated rail to be built in the future. it's impossible to expand any metro network significantly without doing so. there's a reason why the London underground is mostly above ground despite it's name.

 

[sixrings]

sure there's always push back from NIMBY's, but who cares honestly.

the Eglinton West LRT is underground only because it was Ford's riding / backyard. otherwise the whole thing would have been and should have been elevated (not a street level). you can see with the Ontario Line that several portions are going to elevated because that was a pragmatic approach to building it all the way to the Science Centre and of course tunnelled in the core where that is the only option. it didn't matter what people in Flemingdon Park or Riverdale wanted. plenty of opposition to build any of it above ground because a community centre, a park and a mosque. guess what the project is moving forward regardless.

building elevated rail is significantly cheaper than building underground. they can build elevated rail for $250 million / km roughly. underground is closer to a billion now if not more. building LRT's is half the cost of building elevated, but without any of the benefits.

anyways expect more elevated rail to be built in the future. it's impossible to expand any metro network significantly without doing so. there's a reason why the London underground is mostly above ground despite it's name.

I don’t expect common sense to prevail. Politicians are in the business of being re-elected. If that means promising something they know won’t be built forever they will do that. If it means promising something that is over priced but doesn’t ruffle feathers they will do that. In hindsight David Miller was the one who was bold enough to stand up to the people and give them what was affordable. It also cost him his job.

 

[dowlingm]

I don’t expect common sense to prevail. Politicians are in the business of being re-elected. If that means promising something they know won’t be built forever they will do that. If it means promising something that is over priced but doesn’t ruffle feathers they will do that. In hindsight David Miller was the one who was bold enough to stand up to the people and give them what was affordable. It also cost him his job.

My recollection of that time was that stuff like the garbage strike and the “let it melt” approach to snow removal were far bigger problems for his re-election prospects than LRVs on Finch.

 

[sixrings]

My recollection of that time was that stuff like the garbage strike and the “let it melt” approach to snow removal were far bigger problems for his re-election prospects than LRVs on Finch.

Those were the death nails for sure. But transit city did get the subways subways subways crowd out in revolt. He pulled out when he knew he was going to lose.

 

[Voltz]

What I'm saying is rather than building two shitty projects, build one good one. At the end of the day, you didn't address a single point I made about LRTs, you haven't been able to justify your point at all. Just because you consider building LRTs 'more transit' doesn't mean it actually reasonably improves transit or people's commutes. How about you try reading my comment again and actually addressing what I asked. They are slow, not grade separated, stop at stop lights, and have stop distances less than our Express buses. How about you address these factual points when responding to me being for less LRTs if you are trying to make a logical point. What can multi-billion dollar LRTs do that painting a bus lane red or having a bus lane on a medium can't achieve when it comes to speed/reliability?

The surface LRT's were all planned for capacity reasons, your famed red bus lanes won't be useful to riders left at stops while full buses pass them by.

The stop spacing can be whatever they want. so can signal operations.

 

[ARG1]

The lrt can carry more people. It is more comfortable and smoother to ride on. People generally have a better image of rail transit than bus transit. It is harder to remove lrt lanes versus bus lanes which increases development in the area. It costs less to employee people to drive the lrt because you need less vehicles running.

I'd rather have a smaller bus that runs every 3m vs a larger tram that runs every 7, or in simpler terms, small vehicles running more frequently > large vehicles running less frequently, and paying more for that to happen is worth it.

I guess I’ll have to spend some time googling all the positives that people associated with lrts from transit city to remind people. Also the lrts are there to make commutes within neighbourhoods better. So for instance most Scarborough transit trips begin and end in Scarborough. It’s actually the exception that people are using transit to go all the way from the suburbs to downtown. As a result lrts help those neighbourhoods. You can not like LRTs but to call them Shitty is disingenuous. The only thing shitty is the bus. And the only real benefit of them is their cost.

Yes but when the Eglinton East LRT costs $4B whilst being slower than the RapidTO lanes that cost $4M, the context changes. We're talking about projects whose costs are different on orders of magnitude.