TTC: Sheppard Subway Expansion (Speculative)

[vz64]

Perhaps I'm blind, but I don't see answers to any of the assumptions I raised. What is the DRL routing - is it the 1986 routing (if so, no wonder it's lower). What is their assumption regarding the construction of the Don Mills LRT and the Jane LRT?

They did not mention exact DRL routing; it is just a brief document that focused on upgrading projected ridership of 2011 from older 1986 to more recent, 2011. I would assume the same routing applied if they wanted to compare them on equal footing. I don't have much trust in that report as it is too brief and missing detail. My point was that this very report was used by many proponents of TC+DRL to use it as a justification to scrap the Sheppard Line extension, even though this report shows that projected ridership of DRL is not very different from projected ridership of completed Sheppard Line. I agree that it might underestimate DRL numbers.

 

[Rainforest]

Re "TTC Golden Rule" ... re their justification basis for building subway, which is 30K pphr pick load--a bit arbitrary criterion.

Do you have any reference to prove the existence of that "TTC Golden Rule"?

I do not claim that you made it up, it can be a honest mistake. But you are definitely mistaken. If you followed any transit debate in the past few years, you should know that their criterion is 10K pphpd, not 30K.

30K is almost impossible to reach in any corridor. BD subway has not yet reached that level at any point. Yonge subway surpasses that level in its southern section (it is somewhere between 34K and 38K), but only because it has a huge number of feeder routes including BD subway; and it is sardine-packed.

If you anticipate 30K in a new subway corridor from the onset, then you have to either quad-track it, or use extra long trains to account for future growth.

 

[Justin10000]

I am afraid I have to agree with doady's description of you... you are throwing accusations without substantiating them, which is characteristic of extreme-right, uneducated crowd. How are you different from Rob Ford Sun's readers if you are using exactly same tactics?? You make a lot of assumptions, such as those in the quoted text above... I never mentioned phrase "Rapid Transit" in my posts, I never supported RF (voted Smitherman), and I am advocating a mixed plan that includes both subways and LRT lines and agree that we need to use new ways to fund our public transportation. Re "TTC Golden Rule"--educate yourself re their justification basis for building subway, which is 30K pphr pick load--a bit arbitrary criterion. So, if there is any BS, it is in your empty comments.

Looks like Sheppard does not meet the 30K "TTC golden standard", but so are Eglinton and DRL... Should we abandon plans to build DRL considering its marginal advantage over other lines and falling way behind meeting 30K demand?

Explain why you said the TTC has a 30K Golden standard, and why the DRL has a marginal advantage over a suburban subway line based on that number you clearly came up with.

Made up a number just like Ford and his supporters.

Take your time.

 

[Paleo]

30K/hour is the maximum, not the golden standard. The threshold I've seen in press is always around the magic 10K/hour number.

25.5 trains per hour/1000 passengers per T1 train = 25,500 pph

The Yonge line south of Bloor is running at close to 28,500 pph at peak.

The Bloor line approaching the University subway is close to 25,500 pph as is the Danforth line approaching Yonge.

Metrolinx's 2031 forecast peak point for the DRL Danforth-downtown segment is 17,500.

Sheppard doesn't come close.

 

[vz64]

Do you have any reference to prove the existence of that "TTC Golden Rule"?

I do not claim that you made it up, it can be a honest mistake. But you are definitely mistaken. If you followed any transit debate in the past few years, you should know that their criterion is 10K pphpd, not 30K.

30K is almost impossible to reach in any corridor. BD subway has not yet reached that level at any point. Yonge subway surpasses that level in its southern section (it is somewhere between 34K and 38K), but only because it has a huge number of feeder routes including BD subway; and it is sardine-packed.

If you anticipate 30K in a new subway corridor from the onset, then you have to either quad-track it, or use extra long trains to account for future growth.

My mistake, it is indeed 10k (30K is a capacity as defined in the same TTC document). Well, even 10K sounds a bit arbitrary (why not 12K or 7.5K...), so I was just joking calling it a "Golden Rule". At the same time, it does not change the main premise of the 2011 report--that the projected ridership of DRL (12K) is not very different from projected ridership of Sheppard Line (6k-10k). This same report was used often to discredit plans for Sheppard extension, (using findings that the employment numbers for NYCC and SCC did not materialized) and nobody questioned its validity. Now, when I pointed out to ridership information from the same report, I hear plenty of critical remarks regarding its accuracy.

PS OK, it is neither 30K, nor 10K. Seems like the same TTC document (p. 7) suggests that the "Subway warranted at demand of 15,000 pphpd or greater", which suggests that none of proposed corridors justify building a subway, including DRL (projected numbers 12K).

 

[Rainforest]

My mistake, it is indeed 10k (30K is a capacity as defined in the same TTC document). Well, even 10K sounds a bit arbitrary (why not 12K or 7.5K...), so I was just joking calling it a "Golden Rule". At the same time, it does not change the main premise of the 2011 report--that the projected ridership of DRL (12K) is not very different from projected ridership of Sheppard Line (6k-10k).

I would say that the case for DRL is decidedly stronger than the case for Sheppard subway. Taking into account the previous model by Metrolinx, we have a range of 12-17K for DRL, vs only 6-10K for Sheppard.

It does not necessarily mean halting any work on Sheppard until DRL is built. It makes sense to use $1 billion or so already designated for Sheppard East to advance the subway on Sheppard, rather than have it sit in a bank account and wait for the rest of DRL funding to arrive. However, next chunk of funding should build DRL rather than complete Sheppard.

This same report was used often to discredit plans for Sheppard extension, (using findings that the employment numbers for NYCC and SCC did not materialized) and nobody questioned its validity. Now, when I pointed out to ridership information from the same report, I hear plenty of critical remarks regarding its accuracy.

PS OK, it is neither 30K, nor 10K. Seems like the same TTC document (p. 7) suggests that the "Subway warranted at demand of 15,000 pphpd or greater", which suggests that none of proposed corridors justify building a subway, including DRL (projected numbers 12K).

I've just read this report, and indeed some statements made there raise eyebrows. In particular, Page 9 states that "Life-cycle cost breakeven point for Sheppard Subway" is "Calculated to be 15,000 pphpd or higher. Below 15,000 pphpd, light rail is most cost-effective".

That statement does not make any sense. Street-median light rail may be cost-effective, but it cannot handle demands that approach 15,000 pphpd. It will max out at about 8,000. On the other hand, fully underground or elevated light rail can handle 15,000 pphpd or even more dependent on design, but it cannot be cost-effective (will cost about same as subway).

One can point out that Sheppard East LRT is not expected to reach anywhere near 15,000 pphpd. That is true; but does not change the fact that the aforementioned statement from the report is quite inaccurate.

 

[gweed123]

PS OK, it is neither 30K, nor 10K. Seems like the same TTC document (p. 7) suggests that the "Subway warranted at demand of 15,000 pphpd or greater", which suggests that none of proposed corridors justify building a subway, including DRL (projected numbers 12K).

This leads me to not trust the TTC's numbers. Metrolinx has projected the DRL to carry 17,500 pphpd. 12K to 17.5K is quite a variation. I wonder what assumptions they made in order to come up with that number. Are they planning on not letting people transfer from streetcars to the DRL?

 

[sixrings]

This leads me to not trust the TTC's numbers. Metrolinx has projected the DRL to carry 17,500 pphpd. 12K to 17.5K is quite a variation. I wonder what assumptions they made in order to come up with that number. Are they planning on not letting people transfer from streetcars to the DRL?

6-10k is a big difference in the Sheppard numbers as well.

 

[nfitz]

This leads me to not trust the TTC's numbers. Metrolinx has projected the DRL to carry 17,500 pphpd. 12K to 17.5K is quite a variation. I wonder what assumptions they made in order to come up with that number. Are they planning on not letting people transfer from streetcars to the DRL?

Metrolinx numbers are for the full built-out Big Move including the Don Mills LRT terminating at the end of the DRL. Metrolinx's DRL also went into Queen and Osgoode, while the original TTC design was a longer path to Union. It's not hard to see why the TTC peak-point numbers are lower, if they modelled the 1986 plan.

 

[gweed123]

Metrolinx numbers are for the full built-out Big Move including the Don Mills LRT terminating at the end of the DRL. Metrolinx's DRL also went into Queen and Osgoode, while the original TTC design was a longer path to Union. It's not hard to see why the TTC peak-point numbers are lower, if they modelled the 1986 plan.

That somewhat makes sense. What I don't particularly like though is using a sub-optimal alignment, and then claiming that the ridership isn't there to justify the line. The ridership IS there, you just didn't design the thing properly.

Same thing with the SELRT. They picked an alignment that didn't hit the largest trip generator in Eastern Toronto, and then said "oh look, the ridership isn't that high". No shit! I'm not saying that the subway to STC is justified at this point, but using a sub-optimal alignment in order to make the case for LRT is just as bad.

 

[nfitz]

That somewhat makes sense. What I don't particularly like though is using a sub-optimal alignment, and then claiming that the ridership isn't there to justify the line. The ridership IS there, you just didn't design the thing properly.

Is anyone in TTC doing that with the DRL? I thought it was merely an exercise in reproducing the 1986 work for an internal apples-to-apples comparison. Both TTC and Metrolinx have already modelled other DRL options recently.

 

[gweed123]

Is anyone in TTC doing that with the DRL? I thought it was merely an exercise in reproducing the 1986 work for an internal apples-to-apples comparison. Both TTC and Metrolinx have already modelled other DRL options recently.

To me the most valuable comparison would be between the optimal alignments for 2 different categories: highest ridership, and lowest engineering complexity (and by correlation cost). If they happen to be one and the same, or they are very close to each other, then you have your answer.

My hunch would be that the lowest cost option would be running the Pape-rail corridor alignment as was proposed in Network 2011. I think the reasons behind that are fairly obvious.

However, my hunch for the highest potential ridership would be a Wellington-Front-Parliament alignment. My rationale behind that is that no matter what alignment is chosen (aside from one that's from way out in left field), you're going to get the bypassing Bloor-Yonge crowd on board, and you're going to get the streetcar transfers on board. Those numbers aren't going to change very much, as many of those people will be transferring simply because the line exists. The streetcar transfers may be a bit more fussy because the location E-W wise may be a bit more of a factor. But for most B-D passengers, as long as the transfer point is east of Yonge, it serves them quite well.

That means that the only real variable to increase ridership is walk-ins, and walk-ins come from density. Not only does the Parliament corridor have the highest density out of any of the N-S links to B-D, it's really the only one that has significant opportunity to get even denser.

The area east of the Don may see some nodal densification around subway stations, but it will pale in comparison to what is going to be happening along Parliament in the next 20 years as the wall of condos pushes further east from Yonge St. In terms of walk-ins, both now and in the future, the Parliament corridor wins hands down.

Everyone is asking where the DRL should come into downtown, what E-W alignment in should take. Not enough people are talking about what the best N-S alignment is to connect to B-D. To me that question is just as important.

 

[Paleo]

That means that the only real variable to increase ridership is walk-ins, and walk-ins come from density. Not only does the Parliament corridor have the highest density out of any of the N-S links to B-D, it's really the only one that has significant opportunity to get even denser.

The area east of the Don may see some nodal densification around subway stations, but it will pale in comparison to what is going to be happening along Parliament in the next 20 years as the wall of condos pushes further east from Yonge St. In terms of walk-ins, both now and in the future, the Parliament corridor wins hands down.

Everyone is asking where the DRL should come into downtown, what E-W alignment in should take. Not enough people are talking about what the best N-S alignment is to connect to B-D. To me that question is just as important.

Commercial strips east of the Don River are on Queen and in East York are centered on Pape. There is nothing on Bloor at Parliament except for a high school.

Putting it at Castle Frank might be too far west to make for a well distributed network, it is one station away from the inbound peak point after all.

 

[sixrings]

Besides the drl needs to go up to eglinton to have a good impact on the yonge line. How can it do that if it went up parliament.

 

[vz64]

Ideally, to have a good impact on the Yonge line it should go up to Sheppard (or maybe even Finch). The rush hour situation there is probably as bad as on Eglinton; sometimes you need to wait 2-3 trains before you able to board the train.