Transit City: Sheppard East Debate

[urbanboom]

EDIT: Just to clarify I think CANCELING the Sheppard East LRT is HIGHER PRIORITY than DRL advocacy. Yes I think it's that important.

You just lost my support.

 

[Second_in_pie]

The thing is that prolonging building the DRL will be just that, prolonged construction of the DRL. Sure, it's needed, but we can survive another couple years without it.

Building the SE LRT, on the other hand, will mean decades of poor, fragmented transit service in the northern 416 and between NYCC and STC that can't just be built like the DRL could. I absolutely agree with Coruscanti that I'd promote cancelling the SE LRT (and replacing it with subway) than the DRL.

 

[Whoaccio]

Yeah, because if an economics theory says something, it must be right...

It's not even really "economic theory," it is just an unavoidable conclusion that it makes no sense whatsoever to intentionally over design something.

In the real world, and even for every non-subway project in Toronto, as well as everywhere else in the world, lines do not need to have projected riderships over a mode's maximum theoretical capacity for the project to be considered worth building. A capacity that shrinks over time, too. Transit ceases to function properly if it does not have "excess" capacity (which is a poor and loaded term).

Look, what is the current demand on Sheppard? Trains run every 5-6m, and each train has 650 seats. Assuming that one hundred percent of seats are occupied 100% of the time, that implies 6,500-7,800 pph/pd. The surface part of Sheppard is projected to have demand of something like 3,000 pph/pd. Let's be clear that I think that is a respectable demand level. What isn't reasonable is that we are serving these corridors with systems which have peak capacity in the 45,000 pph/pd band. Fine, we shouldn't design things to operate at capacity within 2 years, but at what point does overcapacity stop being "forward looking" and become a white elephant? Operating at 20% of theoretical capacity? 15% of capacity? 5% of capacity?

If we say the Sheppard Line has peak demand of something like 8,000 pph/pd, a reasonable system would operate in the 10,000-12,000 pph/pd range to ensure a degree of future proofing and surplus capacity. The problem with Sheppard isn't that it is perpetually overcrowded. The problem is we paid for capacity we clearly didn't need and now we have to graft something that stops and red lights on to lower average costs at the expense of drastically slower travel speeds.

Contrary to what you state, most transit operators have moved away from juvenile logic of constantly opting for the most elaborate and overbuilt system and are focusing on more conventional cost-benefit analysis. In Hong Kong they are designing their newest line to operate with a peak capacity roughly half their conventional system (~20 pph/pd) due to prohibitive costs of full fledged metro. Singapore is adopting similar logic by designing future projects to operate with "medium capacity trains." In London, the DLR has been expanding almost continuously while the heavy rail tube has remained stagnant. Even Dubai, whom thought it prudent to carry out any number of wasteful projects, decided a full blown metro system was over the top.

1) Is it possible to buy the vehicles and infrastructure off the shelf, so they can use the existing Sheppard tunnel with minor modifications only?

I can't say for sure, but I believe most transit rolling stock is designed to be easily modifiable with respect to height, gauge and the placement of the collector shoes which should just about cover all the necessary modifications. I think it would be prudent to install ATO compliant electronics, but that wouldn't be neccesary. The displaced T1s could replace some of the older trains on Bloor which could mitigate some of the new rolling stock costs.

2) What would the extension cost? If it is mostly tunneled and is marginally cheaper than the subway extension, then it is more logical to extend the subway ...

Once again I can't say. It would depend on what we wanted to do. I would bring the line above ground onto a viaduct as soon as possible and run it to STC. Prefabricated tensioned concrete box girders are very cheap, there is a competitive market which should help control costs and they are very quick to assemble. The total cost to replace the SRT fleet and extend it 7.2km works out to about 200m/km, and that includes both idiotic LIMs and a bunch of improvements to the original sections as well as the new trains. So, in light of this, it should be achievable to have costs in the area of 150-175m/km.

 

[scarberiankhatru]

It's not even really "economic theory," it is just an unavoidable conclusion that it makes no sense whatsoever to intentionally over design something.

Look, what is the current demand on Sheppard? Trains run every 5-6m, and each train has 650 seats. Assuming that one hundred percent of seats are occupied 100% of the time, that implies 6,500-7,800 pph/pd. The surface part of Sheppard is projected to have demand of something like 3,000 pph/pd. Let's be clear that I think that is a respectable demand level. What isn't reasonable is that we are serving these corridors with systems which have peak capacity in the 45,000 pph/pd band. Fine, we shouldn't design things to operate at capacity within 2 years, but at what point does overcapacity stop being "forward looking" and become a white elephant? Operating at 20% of theoretical capacity? 15% of capacity? 5% of capacity?

If we say the Sheppard Line has peak demand of something like 8,000 pph/pd, a reasonable system would operate in the 10,000-12,000 pph/pd range to ensure a degree of future proofing and surplus capacity. The problem with Sheppard isn't that it is perpetually overcrowded. The problem is we paid for capacity we clearly didn't need and now we have to graft something that stops and red lights on to lower average costs at the expense of drastically slower travel speeds.

Contrary to what you state, most transit operators have moved away from juvenile logic of constantly opting for the most elaborate and overbuilt system and are focusing on more conventional cost-benefit analysis. In Hong Kong they are designing their newest line to operate with a peak capacity roughly half their conventional system (~20 pph/pd) due to prohibitive costs of full fledged metro. Singapore is adopting similar logic by designing future projects to operate with "medium capacity trains." In London, the DLR has been expanding almost continuously while the heavy rail tube has remained stagnant. Even Dubai, whom thought it prudent to carry out any number of wasteful projects, decided a full blown metro system was over the top.

How easy it is to ignore the fact that only a fraction of the Sheppard line was built when trying to shore up a flimsy argument. You know, people sometimes get left behind on the platform at Yonge...its current capacity needs to be increased. With the cutout walls, triple platform, Downsview extension, etc., it was *obviously* designed to be a much longer line serving more people, shifting riders over from other routes, luring people out of their cars, encouraging redevelopment, etc., and not a 5km line that doesn't complete the subway network, doesn't reach the huge concentration of people and jobs east of Don Mills, and won't be extended because Miller & friends chose to rewrite policies and plans and not extend it.

If there was no subway on Sheppard and the city sat down today and decided to build a 5km line that will never be extended, perhaps they would not have chosen to a build a subway. They would have chosen to keep the bus service. It's not at all realistic to apply a 45,000 person capacity to the Sheppard line. That number will not ever be reached. No transit line moves its theoretical capacity of riders, hence the word 'theoretical.' A line intentionally designed to move 5% of the theoretical capacity would be a white elephant, but you know that's not what happened with Sheppard.

As for other cities building medium capacity lines, there's more going on here than simple ratios. It's easy to match transit up with ridership when you have states dictating the exact population that will inhabit the newly developing areas these lines tend to run through...ridership in urban islands like Dubai, HK, or Singapore can be predicted with near certainty as population and employment can be controlled and there's no suburban fringe dumping in feeder bus riders. If the DLR was 100% underground, it would not be as long today (and it's not like temporarily closing Tube lines to build new tunnels branching off to serve the same area as the DLR is ever a realistic option). The DLR is also having its capacity increased, just as Sheppard would if extended. Adding capacity on Sheppard would be cheap because the tunnels and stations and tracks and signals and whatnot themselves already exist and are what cost so much. Sheppard could have been built to run trains carrying 5 people an hour and it would have cost pretty much the same thing due to it being underground. We're seeing this reality in action with Eglinton, and you know that.

 

[Ansem]

This is a bit of overstatement. Building the DRL is essential for the viability of the entire network, while any changes to Sheppard East plans will be relevant for that area only.

Besides, no politician will support canceling that LRT without replacing it with another transit option (such as subway extension). Moreover, very few (if any) TTC riders would sign a petition that highlight a cancellation of new transit, rather than replacing it with something better.

he does have a point.

maybe we chould change the petition and make it clear that we want to replace the LRT instead of cancelling and replacing.

The word cancel is counterproductive...

 

[Whoaccio]

Scarberian:

Instead of just issuing hyperbolic claims about how Sheppard will turn water into wine, why don't you actually look at demand projections along Sheppard? I did, and none of them ever go above 10,000. Ever. The TTC projected that, were a subway built along Sheppard East demand would peak at about 5,000 pph/pd and average demand of much, much less. I'm not making this up, or selectively ignoring the value of Sheppard as a northern connector. If you look at the data though there is absolutely nothing to give any indication that Sheppard will ever come close to utilizing even a fifth of a subway's potential capacity. It will barely use 11% of the a subway's capacity for two hours a day, and have single digit utilization for the rest. Jesus, if that isn't a white elephant what the hell is?

Anyways, the Sheppard subway is what it is and it makes no sense to engage in a lengthy retrofit to accommodate LF LRVs. Moving forward though, it obviously seems desirable to have rapid transit along a corridor stretching roughly from STC to Downsview along Sheppard. It's impossible to look at demand studies of the corridor and conclude that peak point demand will ever exceed 10k pph/pd within our lifetime. On the other hand, it is impossible to ignore that transit which operates at bicycle speeds (like the SE LRT) will never be considered an alternative to driving. So the goals should be to accommodate projected demand with a contingency factor of 20-30% and while ensuring speeds of 35+km/h.

There are lots of ways that goal could be accommodated and I don't really have much of a technical preference. Certain high platform LRVs would work well, modified EMU's would probably be optimal. For reference purposes I would use the SRT, but I don't think the induction systems are such a great idea. Everything else about it is pretty much right though. If you back out the costs of upgrading the existing SRT from the costs of extending the SRT to Malvern, you get capital costs in the league of 200m dollars per km, which is about 60% of what the TTC claims is necessary to build subways. I would assume using a conventional EMU based system with similar route construction could lower costs a bit more, and the TTC seems to claim 80m stations are necessary whereas systems elsewhere make due with 40-60m.

 

[Ansem]

Scarberian:

Instead of just issuing hyperbolic claims about how Sheppard will turn water into wine, why don't you actually look at demand projections along Sheppard? I did, and none of them ever go above 10,000. Ever. The TTC projected that, were a subway built along Sheppard East demand would peak at about 5,000 pph/pd and average demand of much, much less. I'm not making this up, or selectively ignoring the value of Sheppard as a northern connector. If you look at the data though there is absolutely nothing to give any indication that Sheppard will ever come close to utilizing even a fifth of a subway's potential capacity. It will barely use 11% of the a subway's capacity for two hours a day, and have single digit utilization for the rest. Jesus, if that isn't a white elephant what the hell is?

Anyways, the Sheppard subway is what it is and it makes no sense to engage in a lengthy retrofit to accommodate LF LRVs. Moving forward though, it obviously seems desirable to have rapid transit along a corridor stretching roughly from STC to Downsview along Sheppard. It's impossible to look at demand studies of the corridor and conclude that peak point demand will ever exceed 10k pph/pd within our lifetime. On the other hand, it is impossible to ignore that transit which operates at bicycle speeds (like the SE LRT) will never be considered an alternative to driving. So the goals should be to accommodate projected demand with a contingency factor of 20-30% and while ensuring speeds of 35+km/h.

There are lots of ways that goal could be accommodated and I don't really have much of a technical preference. Certain high platform LRVs would work well, modified EMU's would probably be optimal. For reference purposes I would use the SRT, but I don't think the induction systems are such a great idea. Everything else about it is pretty much right though. If you back out the costs of upgrading the existing SRT from the costs of extending the SRT to Malvern, you get capital costs in the league of 200m dollars per km, which is about 60% of what the TTC claims is necessary to build subways. I would assume using a conventional EMU based system with similar route construction could lower costs a bit more, and the TTC seems to claim 80m stations are necessary whereas systems elsewhere make due with 40-60m.

I guess you get the network you wish for...

 

[scarberiankhatru]

Scarberian:

Instead of just issuing hyperbolic claims about how Sheppard will turn water into wine, why don't you actually look at demand projections along Sheppard? I did, and none of them ever go above 10,000. Ever. The TTC projected that, were a subway built along Sheppard East demand would peak at about 5,000 pph/pd and average demand of much, much less. I'm not making this up, or selectively ignoring the value of Sheppard as a northern connector. If you look at the data though there is absolutely nothing to give any indication that Sheppard will ever come close to utilizing even a fifth of a subway's potential capacity. It will barely use 11% of the a subway's capacity for two hours a day, and have single digit utilization for the rest. Jesus, if that isn't a white elephant what the hell is?

So now you've moved on to another argument. Please, tell me how quoting from a current EA that pertains to only the eastern part of the corridor and is aiming in part to prove that the subway should not be extended proves that Sheppard was intentionally overdesigned decades ago. It doesn't. Note that the EA says 5000 for both a subway extension and an LRT that runs at "subway speeds"...seems the witness for the prosecution may not be very reliable, unless the model simply ignores the existence of the transfer altogether and bases everything on vehicle speed, which is possible.

45,000 is purely theoretical, would require an enormous amount of money to approach, and is not sustainable for more than a few minutes, let alone an entire rush hour. You might as well up the figure to 55,000 due to the slimming effects of state-enforced dieting, or 65,000 by banning backpacks and purses and briefcases and winter coats and canes and strollers and wheelchairs. There is no magic % that makes everything run perfectly and there is no magic % that proves something is worth building or not worth building. If we're determining white elephant status based on the outermost stretches of transit lines in comparison to impractical and undesirable theoretical capacities, I'd say pretty much every transit line in the world is a white elephant. Sheppard's ridership would be higher if extended east and west as originally planned and will continue to rise over time...this was known when the line was first built, and it was built assuming it would be extended. I don't care when it's extended - it's not the main priority for this city and buses are capable of handling the corridor in the meantime (perhaps more capable than LRT) - but the only good long term solution is to extend it.

 

[Ansem]

Scarberian:

Instead of just issuing hyperbolic claims about how Sheppard will turn water into wine, why don't you actually look at demand projections along Sheppard? I did, and none of them ever go above 10,000. Ever. The TTC projected that, were a subway built along Sheppard East demand would peak at about 5,000 pph/pd and average demand of much, much less. I'm not making this up, or selectively ignoring the value of Sheppard as a northern connector. If you look at the data though there is absolutely nothing to give any indication that Sheppard will ever come close to utilizing even a fifth of a subway's potential capacity. It will barely use 11% of the a subway's capacity for two hours a day, and have single digit utilization for the rest. Jesus, if that isn't a white elephant what the hell is?

Anyways, the Sheppard subway is what it is and it makes no sense to engage in a lengthy retrofit to accommodate LF LRVs. Moving forward though, it obviously seems desirable to have rapid transit along a corridor stretching roughly from STC to Downsview along Sheppard. It's impossible to look at demand studies of the corridor and conclude that peak point demand will ever exceed 10k pph/pd within our lifetime. On the other hand, it is impossible to ignore that transit which operates at bicycle speeds (like the SE LRT) will never be considered an alternative to driving. So the goals should be to accommodate projected demand with a contingency factor of 20-30% and while ensuring speeds of 35+km/h.

There are lots of ways that goal could be accommodated and I don't really have much of a technical preference. Certain high platform LRVs would work well, modified EMU's would probably be optimal. For reference purposes I would use the SRT, but I don't think the induction systems are such a great idea. Everything else about it is pretty much right though. If you back out the costs of upgrading the existing SRT from the costs of extending the SRT to Malvern, you get capital costs in the league of 200m dollars per km, which is about 60% of what the TTC claims is necessary to build subways. I would assume using a conventional EMU based system with similar route construction could lower costs a bit more, and the TTC seems to claim 80m stations are necessary whereas systems elsewhere make due with 40-60m.

I've posted this in april***


That's TTC argument but let's compare...really

Toronto:2,503,281
Chicago:2,836,659

TORONTO
Daily ridership ***just to give us a rough idea**
2007-2008

Yonge-University-Spadina
672,390 (avg. weekday)
32 Stations and 30.2Km

Bloor-Danforth
484,000 (avg. weekday)
31 Stations and 26.2 Km

Sheppard
45,860 (avg. weekday)
5 Stations and 5.5 Km

Scarborough RT
43,770 (avg. weekday)
6 Stations and 6.4 Km


CHICAGO

Red Line
approx. 230,000 (avg. weekday boardings)
34 Stations
37.7 KM

Blue Line
approx. 147,000 (avg. weekday boardings)
33 Stations
55.7 KM

Brown Line
approx. 90,000 (avg. weekday boardings)
28 Stations
18.3 KM

Orange Line
approx. 59,000 (avg. weekday boardings)
17 stations
20.1 KM

Pink Line
approx. 26,000 (avg. weekday boardings)
22 Stations
18 KM

Purple Line
approx. 31,000 (avg. weekday boardings including Purple Express)
19 Stations
24 KM

Yellow Line
approx. 5,000 (avg. weekday boardings)
2 Stations
5.1 KM
*******************************************

Is it me or our useless low ridership Sheppard Subway has more ridership than Pink, purple and Yellow line?

Sheppard a 5 station and 5.5KM has more ridership than a
22 station line with 18 KM (Pink) or (Purple) 24 KM and 19 stations. Imagine a Complete Sheppard line.

May I add that the trains have similar capacity?

Not bad for a line:

-That Short
-Not Going downtown (All Chicago lines goes downtown)
-Questionable station emplacements

A complete Sheppard line would have more ridership than their orange line and close in on the top 3 of chicago busiest lines...easily

You want to believe an EA that has Miller written all over it, that's your business but I wont let a guy politically motivated to get reelected screw up the whole Sheppard East corridor just because he wants to show Scarborough and North York (who have no love for the guy) that he cares about them by showing off pictures of him at the construction site. Subway is more complicated and takes longer to built. He need to show that he did ....SOMETHING... for them.

Keep you argument with the 5000 number,

If you compare this line with chicago's network, that puny incomplete line would be succesful by their standards. A complete Sheppard line would challenge many busy line around the world.

May I remind you that the EA standards are not universal and they were use to stuff that ridiculous project down our throats. You can make number say anything you want them to say when you manipulate criterias.

There nothing stoping the TTC to keep the 4 train sets and increase them over time.

The montreal blue line started with a 3 train set closing at 11pm. Now its a success. It closes at 1am and have 6 train set.
By your logic that line would have NEVER been built...

CMON

 

[Whoaccio]

Why the hell is everyone so obtuse about this?

1.) The Sheppard subway is overbuilt and will be so for the forseeable future, regardless of possible extensions I'm not just pulling numbers out of my head on this. As it is Sheppard has a peak demand of something like 5k pph/pd. That is clearly below any reasonable utilization threshold. Even if you dragged the line out to STC, the line would still be far below capacity. The 2002 RTES concluded quite plainly that, even with the extension, peak demand on the subway never goes above 8.4k pph/pd. I'm not quite sure how many different EA's I have to cite before people stop just making ludicrous assumptions about how "if only" Sheppard was extended everything would change. It wouldn't and nobody ever thought it would. This is like trying to convince people that we did in fact land on the moon or 9/11 wasn't carried out by the Hamburgler, will any amount of studies and evidence even make a difference people who believe in the Sheppard "stab in the back?"

Here is an open challenge: Throw out what you think peak demand on Sheppard is. Make whatever assumptions you like. I would suggest using objective evidence, but that is the hobgoblin of little minds. Extend the line to Durham if you want, but throw out an actual demand figures. If anyone can come up with something that exceeds the numbers I've quoted here and not sound ridiculous I will be impressed.

2.) Peak demand figures are just that, peak. They are meant to represent the maximum plausible passenger volumes in a small, discrete, window of time. Not to represent continuous demand levels over a long period. Why do I say this? Because there is no point in panicking if one or two trains a day force some people to stand. Demand on primarily commuter routes, Sheppard among them, can drop to below 50% of peak levels during the rest of the day. Using the RTES' figures for a Yonge-STC subway and a design capacity of 35k, to be favorable, peak demand utilization would be a modest 24%. White. Elephant.

3.) I'm not sure people really have a grasp of project financing. That some claim transit capital is not finite (or, put another way, capital is infinite) should sound alarm bells as it is totally divorced from reality. It is typical to gloss over the nitty gritty with claims of making "investments" as opposed to expenses. The problem with that is that investments which yield minimal or even negative returns is simply a bad investment. Things just get worse when one considers that the public will be paying 5% interest on all of this for 30 years. Run that through excell if you want.

4.) Capacity isn't a limiting factor for Sheppard, speed is. Before the "stab in the back" crowd derailed this into yet another spiel on how "if only" Sheppard ran to STC..., I was trying to make the point that we spend an inordinate amount of time concerned with building the maximum possible capacity as opposed to focusing on speed, we will end up with a few routes that are perpetually under capacity and a remainder of the system that is starved for funding. The Sheppard subway is fast, but the SE LRT is slow, the SW bus is slower and having 3 transfers between the three of em is really slow. There are only so many ways to say this, but if you buy 4 of something and only use 1 you are wasting the other 3. We are just paying for capacity we will never use, the result is money just gets redirected from elsewhere to support this surplus capacity.

5.) I'm not sure how this got mixed up, but I do want rapid transit along Sheppard. My point has been that we have taken an uncritical view of technology where the only option we consider tends to be massively expensive 6/7 car subways built to transport many tens of thousands of people an hour. There are many, many alternatives which would allow us to enjoy equal travel speeds, creature comforts and reliability as a conventional subway at lower costs. The savings come from capacity, and given that we are quite clearly never going to need the capacity in question (see point 1), there is no disadvantage to the passengers.

 

[Ed Drass]

Advocacy perspective from 90s/early 2000s

Just for the record, many of the transit advocates I have known (albeit geezers 40+) had little love for Sheppard. While there was not a consensus, per se, many viewed it as Mel Lastman's folly -- cut short by budget short-sightedness. I'm talking about influential advocates, including those in the consulting biz. Granted, many disliked it because it is too short. For some, that was an argument for the corridor to have been LRT ROW from the beginning -- and gone all the way to the zoo for the same rough price.

Back in the day, Steve Munro argued (and it took me a long time to agree) that the money would have been better poured into Richmond Hill GO, for example, to bring it up to urban frequency and keep riders off the overcrowded Yonge line. As I understand it, Mel and the OMB focused on facilitating development at North York Centre and it was hard to tell how closely they really looked at transit ridership projections. Maybe James Bow has something to add to the historical record...

So that was then, a time when genuine network planning was a mere dream.

When the RTP was in progress, many of the existing advocates had become re-inspired. I recall senior transit consultants Richard Soberman and Ed Levy proposing a complete light rail line across Sheppard East, through the subway tunnel and onto Finch West. That surprised me a bit, but they have been much more in tune with the political and planning realities of the GTA for decades.

You'd have to confirm the proposal with them but I'd be curious how they view the end result on Sheppard, and what they think is the next priority. Any transit advocate who wants to get decent perspective should find a way to talk to the previous generation(s)... their experience is invaluable.

 

[lead82]

Whoaccio and Ed Drass both have very good points. I think the main concern that people have, hidden in all the arguments and rederict is that Toronto's proposed LRT system is too slow. The whole point of investing that kind of money on LRT is to build RAPID transit lines. The Transit City LRT lines are looking at an average speed of 23-26km/hr. A cyclist can match that speed, and even most buses, outside of rush house can match it.

Sure the LRT's will be more reliable during regular operations (but if an accident happens then the whole line gets disrupted), but the main issue is speed. The Sheppard LRT will be about 15 km, and it will take someone almost an hour to get from one end to another. If a subway was built, the speeds would be about 35km/hr, plus savings up to 5mins due to transfer time. This all adds up. I find that the issue is what are we trying to achieve on Sheppard E. Are we building a true rapid transit line, or simply putting in a local streetcar service on a suburban arterial road. If it's the former, then the TTC needs to look at doing something to increase the speed of the service from the proposed 23km/hr to something at least 30km/hr. If stops have to be removed, and implementing a system where the LRT's would almost always see green lights w/o delays, then implement it.

I and many others on this board fear that Transit City will be simply the latter, a slow streetcar service that will not be rapid at all, and will not attract many new riders, and thus be an awful investment of over $1.2B in capital.

The TTC and the city planners seem to lack an understanding that Toronto is not a compact and dense European city, but it is a huge and sprawling metropolis. Transit can be very successfully compete with the car, but it must be fast.

From personal experience, my average driving speed in the north suburbs(North York, Scarborough, Thornhill, Markham) is about 33-35km/hr (95% city driving, 5% highway). So far only the subway can compete with that speed. So unless driving becomes significantly slower, 40% reduction in average speed, the LRT's will not be able to convince drivers to switch.

 

[sixrings]

EASY solution ONLY have stops at Major intersections....

Vik Park.
Warden.
Birchmount.
Kennedy.
Midland.
Brimley
ETC...

BUT all the studies show if the stops are that far apart ppl would have to walk and be less inclined to use the service...

SO really we have only our lazy selves to blame...

If everyone in the study didnt insist on having a stop 100m from their house or work TC would have less stops and as a result move much faster.

 

[Ansem]

EASY solution ONLY have stops at Major intersections....

Vik Park.
Warden.
Birchmount.
Kennedy.
Midland.
Brimley
ETC...

BUT all the studies show if the stops are that far apart ppl would have to walk and be less inclined to use the service...

SO really we have only our lazy selves to blame...

If everyone in the study didnt insist on having a stop 100m from their house or work TC would have less stops and as a result move much faster.

The stops will be every 400m or so...

 

[nfitz]

Obviously derailing the Sheppard East LRT isn't going to happen at this stage. That boat has sailed ... and with signed committments from different levels of government, it could be the hardest to stop, the rest of Transit City being 100% paid by the province.

But perhaps fixing the subway/LRT connection, by advocating conversion of the existing subway to LRT. TTC is clearly opposed to the Finch East LRT, and this opposition could be used as leverage to find an alternate compromise that would keep all governments and Metrolinx happy.

The funding for Finch East could easily be used to pay for the conversion - and add a Willowdale Avenue station; perhaps even pay for a surface extension on Sheppard to Downsview ... and up the then-unused BRT to Finch to intersect the Finch West LRT. Yeah ... I know, I'm dreaming ...