News   May 09, 2024
 497     0 
News   May 09, 2024
 813     1 
News   May 09, 2024
 547     0 

Metrolinx: Sheppard East LRT (In Design)

The 400 series of highway had traffic lights. So did the QEW, along with level railway crossings and even cross streets with stop signs. Congestion led to the removal of traffic signals, and level crossings, and bridging of cross streets.

Well, you can correct me if I'm wrong, Lis, but I don't believe the 401 ever had signaled crossings anywhere inside Metro, which is where the 48,000 design forecast was made. I wouldn't be surprised if some stretches further west and east did, at least provisionally, but probably where the traffic flow wasn't expected to be heavy for years to come. I do know that the 427 had a couple of lights on it into the 90s; I was fairly well-acquainted with the one at Morning Star... and I know there were a lot of wacky, unbelievable (by today's expectations) arrangements on the QE well into the 60s (and beyond... I still remember the crazy interchange there used to be at Southdown Road)... but that you can put down to learning experience. No one really knew in the 1930s the realities of what a superhighway should be like because the concept was new. By the 50s, when they were building the 401, things had gelled a lot.

Anyway, my point is, regardless of what anticipations there were for the 401 starting out, it's quite clearly beyond its design capacity for free-flowing, 65 m.p.h. traffic, and has been for longer than I've had my license. And that's a while now.
 
Last edited:
A magnitude increase from the current $1.40 a litre would be $14/litre. Seems pretty unlikely that would happen, but when gas hit 20 ¢/L, who thought we'd see it at $1.40?

That's true, but I mean, look at the result. A seven-fold increase in the cost, and yet, more cars than ever on the road. I remember gas hitting a dollar a gallon around the time I was ten (there was a gas station outside my bedroom window). We were in the process of metrification then (yeah, no kidding, huh?), with both prices quoted, so that would have been around the time gas was roughly a quarter a litre. By the time I got my license, it was in the neighbourhood of the mid-40s a litre. It hit 80¢ a litre around the time I got my previous car, which was early in 2005. Swore I wouldn't fill the tank till it got back to something sensible... still tend to do it in $20 increments... smaller all the time. :)

The point I'm getting at here is that while prices have increased, so have wages. I would imagine gas takes a bigger percentage chunk of that than it used to, but probably not all that much. I'm amazed to still see SUVs and vans on the roads, but apparently some people are just fine with paying that premium for utility. I think there'd have to be a real sudden, hard shock--not so much in price, but actual AVAILABILITY of gasoline--before people would really start to abandon their cars. And let's face it, we don't seem anywhere near that as far as I can tell and yet we're already seeing hybrid vehicles and real stabs at electric cars. The price of gas might be a whole lot less relevant by 2031 than it is right now.

I've done transit, and I've done driving. I tend to pick whichever is more practical. If I worked downtown, me personally, there's no way I'd drive it. But other people brave it. Since I moved, and my job's location changed just afterward, I actually live right beside a bus route that would take me within a ten minute walk to work... but I don't use the bus anymore. I can tell you why. The biggest one is, the drive is short enough that it's cheaper for me to drive than buying the monthly TTC pass was. Factoring in wait times, driving it also takes less time, probably by a factor of half, or more. It means I'm not trudging out and standing around a for a quarter of an hour in rain and freezing cold. It means I'm not facing that walk the bus doesn't cover at the other end. It means I can go run a local errand at lunch time, or stop and easily pick something up on the way home without incurring that second wait. There are simply a lot of things a car lets you do that transit makes a lot more onerous or impractical. Those are realities that aren't going to change just because rail gets faster or more available. When I worked on Yonge Street, it made sense to leave the car and take the TTC and just manage the rest other times. But now it makes less sense. There's no one-size-fits-all solution and we need to be open to all the options and give people a choice.

the entire 401 in rush-hour, only carries a bit more than what an LRT could handle, and far less than a single subway line.

I suppose it's possible the passenger trips are something like equivalent; I know the TTC moves a lot of people in a year. But the reason people are on the 401 and not the TTC is that the TTC isn't meeting some aspect of their needs, either in access to location or the utility of what they're doing with a car. And while I'm all in favour of building them, it seems unlikely to me that adding another rail line or two that hardwire where you get on and where you can go isn't going to meet the needs of all, or even most, of those people. There will probably always be a lot of people who need to use the roads.

It's amazing how much of our resources and landscape we devote to these masssive, expensive structures, compared to something more efficient, like the Sheppard East LRT.

It is. As to efficiency, you can see my point on why I'm driving again. There's also no way the TTC is going to get fresh vegetables from distribution to your local store. We have to make allowances for different purposes in transit and the different means they require.
 
Last edited:
A Don Mills subway is needed from Union to Don Mills/Finch or Leslie/Highway 7 to relieve the Yonge subway but also to reduce congestion on DVP/404.

I don't think there's money for that. They do have that LRT line planned for it, and it would address the same issues you're talking about here but at less cost. With the money you save, you might arguably either buy more trains for the same route, or even be able to build other LRT routes that are closer to the people they serve. The difference is you could spend that money over time. If you spend on it on subway route, you either have to spend it all and get it done, or wind up with another Eglinton abortion on your hands.

I like subways too. But this isn't your dad's Ontario anymore and we need to start living within our means, I think.
 
Some, sure. Hey, again, don't get me wrong. I'm for it. But I know from experience that people are on the roads to go in all different directions. SOME are going downtown. My folks had jobs in Brampton and Hamilton and where we lived split the difference. Neither was going downtown and both had to take the roads just to get where they were going. There's a lot of that going on out there. We need things like LRTs and GO REX to stay ahead of gridlock, there's no question of that. I just want to hold the line at presenting anything as a panacea.

No doubt that we need all of the above. I just see it like this: GO REX and the subway network are the backbone, and the LRT/BRT lines are the ribs. Having ribs doesn't do much good if you don't have a strong backbone to connect them to.

The reality is that most people are going to use more than 1 type of transit for their commute. The backbone of the network is the part of the system that carries the most people over the greatest distance. The way I'd like to see it is GO REX developed first, and then people have the option of either driving or taking the bus to the closest station. Not ideal, but using the car for only part of your commute is better than using it for the whole route.

Then you start building the LRT and BRT lines to act a) as feeder lines going to the primary network, and b) as lines to fill in the gaps left by the primary network. At that point people can hop on at the BRT or LRT station closest to them, and then take a 5-10 minute ride to the nearest GO REX station, cutting the car out completely.

But if the primary network can't handle the influx of passengers that these supplemental lines are going to dump onto them, what good is building the supplementary lines now? All you're doing is making it more efficient for people to reach a cluster**k. Build a suitable primary network first, and then develop the supplementary network afterwards.

Just my 2 cents on priorities.
 
I don't think there's money for that. They do have that LRT line planned for it, and it would address the same issues you're talking about here but at less cost. With the money you save, you might arguably either buy more trains for the same route, or even be able to build other LRT routes that are closer to the people they serve. The difference is you could spend that money over time. If you spend on it on subway route, you either have to spend it all and get it done, or wind up with another Eglinton abortion on your hands.

I like subways too. But this isn't your dad's Ontario anymore and we need to start living within our means, I think.
Exactly. Not to mention Yonge and Bloor had streetcars as well at one point.
 
The main reason that there has been little growth in 416 suburbs office space is high commercial tax rates, too much growth has gone to 905 office parks with little transit, but commercial tax rates are gradually becoming more competitive again, Rob Ford is pushing for a 3 year freeze on commercial tax rates (effectively a cut by the rate of inflation).

That's the thing, as you said "growth has gone to 905 office parks with little transit". Not all the 905 has poor transit, but yet those spots with better transit have completely failed to attract office employment. MCC has seen no new office development in 25 years or so, none of the Lakeshore GO train stations have any substantive office development around them, and Yonge Street through York Region has very few office buildings.

Offices have not just moved to the lower taxes of the 905, they have moved to greenfield sites which offer lots of parking, good highway access, and perhaps a decorative water feature. I suspect that subway access isn't a selling point in the 905.
 
Even at VCC where it's all parking lots and the emphasis is on the convenient access to it via the intersections of the 400 and 407.
 
That's the thing, as you said "growth has gone to 905 office parks with little transit". Not all the 905 has poor transit, but yet those spots with better transit have completely failed to attract office employment. MCC has seen no new office development in 25 years or so, none of the Lakeshore GO train stations have any substantive office development around them, and Yonge Street through York Region has very few office buildings.

Offices have not just moved to the lower taxes of the 905, they have moved to greenfield sites which offer lots of parking, good highway access, and perhaps a decorative water feature. I suspect that subway access isn't a selling point in the 905.
With all due repsect CDL, I am a big time LRT supporter but it does look bad IMO, the sheppard, which is in Toronto, is getting LRT and Yonge North will be getting the subway. An argument could be made why are we serving the residents of Richmond Hill and not Toronto?
 
With all due repsect CDL, I am a big time LRT supporter but it does look bad IMO, the sheppard, which is in Toronto, is getting LRT and Yonge North will be getting the subway. An argument could be made why are we serving the residents of Richmond Hill and not Toronto?

Carrot: Because good planning doesn't care about arbitrary political boundaries and there's good cause to believe, even with current trends, that demand is higher on Yonge in south York Region than along Sheppard.

Stick: Because bad planning is driven by political pressure and York Region (and its constituent municipalities) have consistently lobbied higher levels of government for a subway extension while Toronto has not.
.
 
Last edited:
With all due repsect CDL, I am a big time LRT supporter but it does look bad IMO, the sheppard, which is in Toronto, is getting LRT and Yonge North will be getting the subway. An argument could be made why are we serving the residents of Richmond Hill and not Toronto?

3,000 pphpd in 2031 vs 12,000 pphpd in 2031, that's why :p. Sheppard East barely even qualifies for LRT.
 
3,000 pphpd in 2031 vs 12,000 pphpd in 2031, that's why :p. Sheppard East barely even qualifies for LRT.

Is 3000pphpd projection for SELRT? I recall that the recent TTC projection (amended from previous projection for 2011) quoted between 6-10 pphpd for a complete Sheppard Line (Downsview to SSC). Besides its been too short to serve as a north crosstown, I think there is another reason for low ridership on Sheppard Line. The areas around Sheppard East are relatively upscale with residents preferring driving their cars to public transit. I think the demographic picture is changing east of Don Mills with more potential riders in those areas. Richmond Hill extension might fail for the same reason: folks north of Steeles might be even less willing to use a public transit than on Sheppard East.
 
Last edited:
Carrot: Because good planning doesn't care about arbitrary political boundaries and there's good cause to believe, even with current trends, that demand is higher on Yonge in south York Region than along Sheppard.

Stick: Because bad planning is driven by political pressure and York Region (and its constituent municipalities) have consistently lobbied higher levels of government for a subway extension while Toronto has not.
.

Yeah, I have to agree. I know I'm going to get beaten black and blue for saying so, but in my opinion the amalgamation in 1997 didn't go far enough. It accomplished only what we should have done around 1950. By now, the loose, no-strings-attached relationship of the GTA should have been formalized into a borough system like New York's. Steeles is just a line on a map someone drew in 1953, and it's pointless. I look across it from where I sit and I can't see any justification whatsoever for why I ought to pay a second fare just for crossing it (if that weren't the case, I might have spent a decade taking the bus to work instead of driving the 404).

There are a lot of services that should have long ago been centralized and amalgamated across the regions, but everyone's too suspicious of what themuns is up to over the next hill. I really wish the whole "let 'em all go to hell, except Cave 76" attitude could be rolled up.
 
Is 3000pphpd projection for SELRT? I recall that the recent TTC projection (amended from previous projection for 2011) quoted between 6-10 pphpd for a complete Sheppard Line (Downsview to SSC). Besides its been too short to serve as a north crosstown, I think there is another reason for low ridership on Sheppard Line. The areas around Sheppard East are relatively upscale with residents preferring driving their cars to public transit. I think the demographic picture is changing east of Don Mills with more potential riders in those areas. Richmond Hill extension might fail for the same reason: folks north of Steeles might be even less willing to use a public transit than in Sheppard East.

3,100 pphpd for the SELRT (Don Mills to Morningside), slightly higher than that for a Sheppard Subway to STC.

Which of course begs the question why aren't they building a spur line from Sheppard down to STC? Clearly the ROW can handle the extra ridership, seeing as how even the 2031 projection can even be handled by BRT.

Spending a billion dollars (well, $950 million) to serve 3,100 pphpd in 20 years is a joke. I could make a laundry list of projects where the dollars spent per projected passenger ratio would be way higher than what it is for the SELRT. The fact that this was the top priority for the TTC is an even bigger joke.

In fact, just for fun, here's the numbers:
The SELRT will carry 13.9 million riders per year. That's $68/passenger.
The DRL will carry 117.1 million per year, with an estimated cost of about $6 billion. That's $51/passenger.
Electrification of the Lakeshore line is estimated to be about $1.2 billion, with an annual ridership of 86.9 million. That's $13/passenger.
Electrification of the Georgetown line is about $880 million, with an annual ridership of 61.9 million. That's $14/passenger.
The Eglinton LRT is about $4.8 billion, with an annual ridership of 62.7 million. That's $76 million/passenger (actually worse than Sheppard).

Sources:
http://www.gotransit.com/estudy/en/current_study/Appendix Files/Appendix 8B.pdf
http://www.metrolinx.com/thebigmove/Docs/big_move/RTP_Backgrounder_Modelling.pdf
 
I thought the GO numbers in TBM were very rosy were they not?

...and just to kick the dead horse again:
Cost to complete Sheppard as subway today: $4,700,000,000
Assume annual ridership doubles from 16 million to 32 million immediately...
Using the same useless formula, that's $147 per "passenger".

Not that I agree with the usefulness of the given metric.
 
That's the thing, as you said "growth has gone to 905 office parks with little transit". Not all the 905 has poor transit, but yet those spots with better transit have completely failed to attract office employment. MCC has seen no new office development in 25 years or so, none of the Lakeshore GO train stations have any substantive office development around them, and Yonge Street through York Region has very few office buildings.

Offices have not just moved to the lower taxes of the 905, they have moved to greenfield sites which offer lots of parking, good highway access, and perhaps a decorative water feature. I suspect that subway access isn't a selling point in the 905.

There is a pretty large office building at Pickering GO now.
 

Back
Top