Sheppard Line 4 Subway Extension (Proposed)

[sche]

I don't know about that. Let's be generous and say each extension was $3 billion cheaper. That gives us $6 billion which is enough to build maybe two Finch West LRTs? A nice addition, but not game changing.

Now, I don't support deep subways in the suburbs. I'd be happy to have an elevated heavy rail/medium metro on my arterial.

But LRTs/light metro/whatever have been subject to the exact same cost problems.

Yeah, the fundamental reason why we're stuck with LRT is because we build completely at grade LRT for the same price Spain, Italy, Turkey, Finland, etc. builds fully underground heavy metro in good conditions.

When subways cost <100M USD/km, it starts making sense to put subways everywhere.

Even at ~200M USD/km (French or German costs), subways still make a lot of sense in a lot of places.

But when subways cost $400+ M USD/km and increasing, obviously building stuff becomes impossible. This crazy cost issue is the #1 problem with transit construction in North America and yet it seems nobody is trying to fix it.

And, since North America seemingly didn't know about automated elevated light metro which has been a thing in Europe since the 1990s, we end up with these slow, unreliable, cost-inefficient, high operating cost, and inferior capacity half-measures known as LRTs.

 

[APTA-2048]

And, since North America seemingly didn't know about automated elevated light metro which has been a thing in Europe since the 1990s, we end up with these slow, unreliable, cost-inefficient, high operating cost, and inferior capacity half-measures known as LRTs.

I think Vancouver, Edmonton, and Calgary would disagree with that.

 

[Northern Light]

I think Vancouver, Edmonton, and Calgary would disagree with that.

Agree on Vancouver; but I don't believe either of Edmonton or Calgary are driver-less, which is what I would take automated to imply.

 

[APTA-2048]

Agree on Vancouver; but I don't believe either of Edmonton or Calgary are driver-less, which is what I would take automated to imply.

I meant to show those as examples of LRT not being inherently inferior.

Really this seems like a Toronto problem, where we can only afford (or are not willing to spend) the absolute bare bones of many projects.

 

[Northern Light]

I meant to show those as examples of LRT not being inherently inferior.

Really this seems like a Toronto problem, where we can only afford (or are not willing to spend) the absolute bare bones of many projects.

I'm not sure money per se is the issue. Certainly there are places we should spend a bit more, to achieve a lot more, in any number of areas.

But when I look at LRT in Toronto, on-street, I see mostly deficiencies that could be addressed within existing budgets.

What's wrong w/Spadina?

Its that you stop at a traffic light, almost all of them, and then stop again immediately after for the far-side station.

Pick one. Either provide true transit priority, or near-side stops so there isn't a double-stopping problem.

That doesn't cost any material $$.

Its a choice by Toronto transportation, and a failure to talk to the designers of the LRT at the time to provide clear information on what would or would not be implemented.

Likewise, there are 2-3 extraneous stops that shouldn't be there. We could debate them, but when you look at Calgary and Edmonton, for the most part, you see stops with subway spacing.

Here we have stops with streetcar spacing. Eliminate Willcocks, and Sullivan and the service improves noticeably.

We also have platforms that are too narrow. That's a road space allocation choice; and a design issue, not cost. If the stops are on opposite sides of the intersection, if street parking is nixed and the car lanes are narrow,
you can add 1-2M each platform and make them much more spacious, you can also add snowmelt systems and full canopy coverage for weather protection etc.

****

On Eglinton Crosstown, the main flaws in evidence, if all other things were equal; would be failure to employ full transit priority on the surface section; and badly designed stations/stops.

Now, all other things are not equal, and we have a proposed density at Golden Mile that all but demands full grade separation in one fashion or another (underground or elevated); that of course isn't necessary
and the density now proposed at the Golden Mile is rather excessive. I'm pro-density, but that is more than what the infrastructure will support, and we ought to have done this differently.

***

All of which is say, money is a part of the problem for sure, but far from the only one.

 

[W. K. Lis]

I'm not sure money per se is the issue. Certainly there are places we should spend a bit more, to achieve a lot more, in any number of areas.

But when I look at LRT in Toronto, on-street, I see mostly deficiencies that could be addressed within existing budgets.

What's wrong w/Spadina?

Its that you stop at a traffic light, almost all of them, and then stop again immediately after for the far-side station.

Pick one. Either provide true transit priority, or near-side stops so there isn't a double-stopping problem.

That doesn't cost any material $$.

Its a choice by Toronto transportation, and a failure to talk to the designers of the LRT at the time to provide clear information on what would or would not be implemented.

Likewise, there are 2-3 extraneous stops that shouldn't be there. We could debate them, but when you look at Calgary and Edmonton, for the most part, you see stops with subway spacing.

Here we have stops with streetcar spacing. Eliminate Willcocks, and Sullivan and the service improves noticeably.

We also have platforms that are too narrow. That's a road space allocation choice; and a design issue, not cost. If the stops are on opposite sides of the intersection, if street parking is nixed and the car lanes are narrow,
you can add 1-2M each platform and make them much more spacious, you can also add snowmelt systems and full canopy coverage for weather protection etc.

****

On Eglinton Crosstown, the main flaws in evidence, if all other things were equal; would be failure to employ full transit priority on the surface section; and badly designed stations/stops.

Now, all other things are not equal, and we have a proposed density at Golden Mile that all but demands full grade separation in one fashion or another (underground or elevated); that of course isn't necessary
and the density now proposed at the Golden Mile is rather excessive. I'm pro-density, but that is more than what the infrastructure will support, and we ought to have done this differently.

***

All of which is say, money is a part of the problem for sure, but far from the only one.

The main problem with Toronto is that the powers-that-be make up rules for the benefit of the single-occupant automobile. Why should three single-occupant automobiles get priority making left turns, forcing the 100+ people onboard the streetcars/light rail vehicles to wait? They can wait for the transit vehicles, since the transit vehicles are carrying more people.

 

[CapitalSeven]

Spadina was built as a streetcar line, not LRT. There were early proposals to have the stops only at the intersecting major roads, but the other stops were added back in deliberately at the request of the people that were using the bus route it replaced. That doesn't excuse Toronto's terrible history with signal priority. Politicians have never stood up to the car-centric bureaucracy. Don't expect them to as long as John concrete-and-car-lover Tory moulders in office.

 

[11th]

The main problem with Toronto is that the powers-that-be make up rules for the benefit of the single-occupant automobile. Why should three single-occupant automobiles get priority making left turns, forcing the 100+ people onboard the streetcars/light rail vehicles to wait? They can wait for the transit vehicles, since the transit vehicles are carrying more people.

It is actually better for everyone, transit and non-transit traffic, if the left turn phase comes after the through phase - less interruption for through traffic, and left turn traffic waiting half a cycle instead of a full one.

 

[Carlodangez]

Maybe I'm misremembering but one of the choices being put forward comparing to a grade-separated option included signal priority for the on-street option. The time difference presented was minimal with signal priority. Though without signal priority the calculus changes completely. I assume the signal priority was never actually expected.

 

[W. K. Lis]

Maybe I'm misremembering but one of the choices being put forward comparing to a grade-separated option included signal priority for the on-street option. The time difference presented was minimal with signal priority. Though without signal priority the calculus changes completely. I assume the signal priority was never actually expected.

Worse are the left turn signals and there is nobody turning left. Equally worse are where pedestrians coming up to a traffic signal where the pedestrian signals don't turn on because the pedestrian did not consciously press a button. For autos, they just have to stand over the sensors in road to turn on the signals. No such sensors in Toronto (they are available in the rest of the world, not Canada it seems).

 

[turini2]

When I see things like this - architecture firm Aedas (now AHR) showing off their design for the Sheppard MSF - I do wonder just how close the LRT came to being a reality...

 

[nfitz]

When I see things like this - architecture firm Aedas (now AHR) showing off their design for the Sheppard MSF - I do wonder just how close the LRT came to being a reality...

It's still planned as part of the Eglinton East Line 5 extension. And presumably for Metrolinx's Sheppard East line from McCowan to Morningside.

Any indication what technology Metrolinx is looking at on McCowan from Sheppard to Steeles? Might end up be used or that as well.

 

[Allandale25]

Sheppard Subway mentioned in the budget (PDF here):

• Advancing planning work for the Sheppard Subway Extension that will connect the existing
  terminus at Don Mills Station (TTC’s Line 4) with the future Scarborough Subway Extension,
  delivering smarter, better and faster transit
• Extending the Sheppard Subway
  Ontario is advancing planning work for the Sheppard Subway Extension that would connect
  the existing terminus at Don Mills Station (TTC’s Line 4) with the future Scarborough Subway
  Extension. The Sheppard Subway Extension would deliver smarter, better and faster transit
  by connecting existing and future transit lines.
  
  
  

 

[TheTigerMaster]

Sheppard Subway mentioned in the budget (PDF here):

• Advancing planning work for the Sheppard Subway Extension that will connect the existing
  terminus at Don Mills Station (TTC’s Line 4) with the future Scarborough Subway Extension,
  delivering smarter, better and faster transit
• Extending the Sheppard Subway
  Ontario is advancing planning work for the Sheppard Subway Extension that would connect
  the existing terminus at Don Mills Station (TTC’s Line 4) with the future Scarborough Subway
  Extension. The Sheppard Subway Extension would deliver smarter, better and faster transit
  by connecting existing and future transit lines.
  
  View attachment 396526

I hope they'll look into the prospects of moving Line 4 to Ontario Line rolling stock. That would allow elevation, as well as more flexible routing options, which may make it economically viable for the subway to reach the eastern end of Scarbrough. Terminating this line at Sheppard still leaves the eastern half of Scarborough without any higher-order transit.

However, I don't know how wise it is to build this without extending the OL to Sheppard. As is, the Ontario Line still would leave the Yonge Line over capacity north of Eglinton.

 

[Aplus23]

Bringing the Sheppard line to Scarborough - finally transit in Scarborough is getting a little bit better