Transit City: Sheppard East Debate

[Fresh Start]

Maybe she meant the part along Eglinton east of Kennedy? I can envision a line running to Guildwood GO eventually. The Sheppard subway could actually substitute for a SRT extension to Malvern by following the same alignment it would've (SCC--> Bellamy--> Markham--> Progress Campus--> Sheppard East--> Malvern Town Ctr)

 

[MisterF]

But how do you improve average speed? The EA stated that achieving 26 kph would require stop spacing of 800m. That's useless as stop spacing (since it would require a parallel bus service) and that's still slower than a subway. It is obvious that the SELRT is running up against the inherent limitations of at-grade operations.

It's not though, there's lots that can be done to improve average speed without grade separation. Most important is to give it complete crossing priority - never being subjected to red lights and car traffic stopping to let LRT trains pass. Calgary and Edmonton treat their LRTs like this and they're both mostly at surface. Calgary's average speed is 30 km/h including the slow downtown section. Edmonton, with a downtown tunnel that has very short station spacing, averages 37.

 

[Whoaccio]

^
The problem w/ Calgary and Edmonton is that they are designed for speed. Urbanistically, they are just about as attractive as a highway. Calgary made its' goals very clear from the beginning; low cost, high speed, rapid transit. The TTC seems much more intent on the grab bag ideal of "local service" which prioritizes public realm improvements. Take for instance this segment of the C-Train. The line goes into an underpass through a pseudo highway interchange and onto a the median of a pseudo highway. Calgary has no intention on transforming the surrounding area into some kind of Potemkin Euro city.

I think Calgary has a better implementation of LRT, but it is disingenuous to equate anything the TTC is planning to what Calgary and Edmonton have achieved. They are apples and oranges.

EDIT: There is a big difference between "LRT" and "LRT" in general. It is such a vague term that just about anything that has any sort of level crossing is considered "LRT," which ignores the rather large differences between the systems. The Hiawatha line or the C-Train are both quite efficient systems that have low costs, high speed (the C-Train's average speed is only 2kmh less than most of our subways) and fairly high capacities. They do that by running in more or less desolate ROWs that minimize the amount of crossings necessary (i.e. industrial lands, disused freight railways, highway medians, parks...). The TTC's obsession with St. Clair style "LRTs" is fundamentally incompatible with these other, more efficient, systems.

 

[Second_in_pie]

Maybe she meant the part along Eglinton east of Kennedy? I can envision a line running to Guildwood GO eventually. The Sheppard subway could actually substitute for a SRT extension to Malvern by following the same alignment it would've (SCC--> Bellamy--> Markham--> Progress Campus--> Sheppard East--> Malvern Town Ctr)

I agree with the Eglinton part. There's a bunch of density along there, so it'd just be a logical extension of the subway.

As for STC-Malvern, I really don't see any need for subway. I'd do it as a Progress LRT or BRT, which would also provide good local service to and through STC as well as a link with Malvern. In the long term, Malvern would really do best with Regional rail, like the Go Midtown line, to get people long distances.

But the SRT replacement needs to be an extension of the B-D line, and Sheppard needs to be finished to STC.

It's not though, there's lots that can be done to improve average speed without grade separation. Most important is to give it complete crossing priority - never being subjected to red lights and car traffic stopping to let LRT trains pass. Calgary and Edmonton treat their LRTs like this and they're both mostly at surface. Calgary's average speed is 30 km/h including the slow downtown section. Edmonton, with a downtown tunnel that has very short station spacing, averages 37.

And Calgary's LRTs have even worse stop spacing than 800m. If we do build LRTs, we should learn from how Calgary and Edmonton do their signal priority and separation. But you can't automatically say "Calgary and Edmonton are examples of LRT working very well. The truth is that Calgary and Edmonton are barely LRT, and more like Metros that occasionally cross a road.

In Edmonton, the LRT basically is a metro using Pantographs. It crosses a road like three times, and goes underground through downtown. Most of the route, it runs in a totally separated ROW which allows the LRTs to reach their top speed quickly. The stop spacing outside downtown averages around one and a half kilometers, which is almost twice that of 800 km.

In Calgary, the LRT is similar to Edmonton. The difference is that there are more portions where it runs in a street ROW, and it doesn't go underground through Downtown. But downtown, there are LRT-only streets that I believe duck underground at road crossings. The stop spacing of this is similar to that of Edmonton.

EDIT:

EDIT: There is a big difference between "LRT" and "LRT" in general. It is such a vague term that just about anything that has any sort of level crossing is considered "LRT," which ignores the rather large differences between the systems. The Hiawatha line or the C-Train are both quite efficient systems that have low costs, high speed (the C-Train's average speed is only 2kmh less than most of our subways) and fairly high capacities. They do that by running in more or less desolate ROWs that minimize the amount of crossings necessary (i.e. industrial lands, disused freight railways, highway medians, parks...). The TTC's obsession with St. Clair style "LRTs" is fundamentally incompatible with these other, more efficient, systems.

It doesn't even have to have level crossings. The new LRT in Barcelona is going to be totally underground (though I assume this is going to be a feeder tunnel for Suburban LRT lines.) LRT could mean a bunch of things. As I said, the Edmonton and Calgary LRTs are really more like Metros than anything, and that's what I'd call them. But I guess because they have Pantographs and overhead wires, they're called LRT.

 

[waterloowarrior]

Transit City (with some exceptions) is not a rapid transit system. The trams of Europe that the TTC points to are generally not rapid transit systems, they are supplementary corridors to the metro and suburban rail systems and good for short to medium distances or as the main system for small cities like Grenoble. Some cities have trams using rail corridors and some put them underground, but the TTC is only doing this for a small portion of Transit City.

The real problem is that the TTC doesn't have a rapid transit plan, except for a few small subway extensions and a partial Eglinton line that should probably be automated LRT like the Canada Line or Skytrain rather than a half-subway half-convoluted turns/track crossovers/service road system. If Transit City was being done as part of a comprehensive rapid transit plan for the City including the core (Council motions about a DRL don't count), I think people would be a lot more satisfied. But it seems like there's this idea that subways are super-expensive and LRT is the future based on things like Sheppard (which would be a successful line in other cities for such a short line), over-building lines and stations, and building giant unneeded underground bus stations. Case studies from other cities like Madrid are immediately dismissed by advocates looking for all sort of excuses why we can't do things that way. The advocates don't mention that Transit City will cost several times its original estimates before construction has even started.

There are Transit City corridors that should be subway, Transit City corridors that are good as LRT, and Transit City corridors that should be buses, but there doesn't seem to be a real intent to rationalize these lines or analyse the plan but instead push it through. Things like PPP's that could reduce cost and risk are avoided ideologically, despite that private firms do much of the work already. There doesn't seem to be a willingness by Metrolinx to challenge the TTC on lines like Sheppard and Eglinton, although we've certainly heard rumblings.

Hundreds of millions are being spent to send Sheppard right past an urban growth centre (without serving it) out to backlotted single family homes, water towers, farm fields and Home Depot, despite clogged streetcars around the City core, despite that the people using the line out there will likely have increased transfers and only marginal speed increases meaning worse service than could be provided for by an improved bus system, and despite that these aren't "Avenues" but areas that are meant to be stable neighbourhoods and industrial parks.

These areas don't need light rail but are likely getting a line to justify the rest of the Sheppard East line so it doesn't become a tram-stub. If that's the case, why not just extend the subway to STC... It's been demonstrated on this forum multiple times by posters like Mike in TO, Ansem, and scarberiankhatru that the idea that Sheppard isn't attracting development is a myth, that Sheppard would be a successful short line elsewhere, and that service will be worse under the new plan.

Instead of calling it a "stubway," extend Sheppard to make it more useful, connect the urban growth centres and serve the "Avenue" part of the street. Northeast Toronto will be seeing billions of dollars in transit lines that will just increase transfers and waste money on areas that don't really need improvements or would be much better served by a different mode.

 

[taal]

I think it's pretty clear that everyone agrees that Sheppard should be a subway. Moreover, it would make sense to extend it to at least Downsview on the other end to have another cross town option. Eglinton can also benifit from such a scheme but I wonder if it's really worth it. While the central portions, the part that is currently planed to be underground merit a subway do the outer edges? They might if they're connected to adjoining suburbs but that's not the plan as of yet ... so I'm not convinced the city is completely backwards in regards to this line (although it might be short sited in the long run).

The other TC lines have merit to me, although one may argue the advantages of rail over bus (BRT) may not account for the cost different lines like finch and possibly the northern stretch of don mills have merit.

Couple all this with a DRL - stretching to the underground section of Ellington (with the northern portion being LRT as far north as the 905 is willing to fund it) and you have a comprehensive plan.

 

[nfitz]

I think it's pretty clear that everyone agrees that Sheppard should be a subway.

The Sheppard LRT is approximately 15 km from Don Mills Road to Morningside. The old subway plans were that the last stop north of the 401 was at Agincourt, about 5 km from Don Mills Road.

Most of the Sheppard LRT is east of here ... and I don't think that many people here think that most of the Sheppard LRT route should be subway.

I think ideally the Sheppard LRT would interesect with the SRT at Markham, the GO and subway at Agincourt. Subway at Victoria Park. One day the subway can be extended from Don Mills Road with stops simply at Victoria Park, Agincourt, and STC. Giving you LRT feeding the subway.

 

[kEiThZ]

^ That's basically something like what I would look for. I'd like to see the subway extended to STC and a Progress LRT (would need a Bloor-Danforth extension to STC as well) and SELRT from Agincourt built instead of a SRT extension. This way three LRT routes could be offered: Malvern to STC on Progress, Sheppard East to Agincourt GO and Sheppard East to STC.

If a McCowan North LRT was built in the future then the SELRT could be interlined with it instead of with the Progress LRT.

 

[Second_in_pie]

I completely agree with waterloowarrior's post, and my quotes are just elaborating on what I think of it.

Transit City (with some exceptions) is not a rapid transit system. The trams of Europe that the TTC points to are generally not rapid transit systems, they are supplementary corridors to the metro and suburban rail systems and good for short to medium distances or as the main system for small cities like Grenoble. Some cities have trams using rail corridors and some put them underground, but the TTC is only doing this for a small portion of Transit City.

This is true. In European cities, LRT basically acts as an upgraded bus service, giving local trips a faster and higher capacity way of feeding Subway and Regional Rail, or getting people around downtown. It's "rapid" transit in the sense that it's faster than a bus.
The TTC vision is that their style of LRT is a rapid transit system on it's own, which is totally untrue. There are certain corridors that need true rapid transit, and Transit City is totally ignoring that.

The real problem is that the TTC doesn't have a rapid transit plan, except for a few small subway extensions and a partial Eglinton line that should probably be automated LRT like the Canada Line or Skytrain rather than a half-subway half-convoluted turns/track crossovers/service road system. If Transit City was being done as part of a comprehensive rapid transit plan for the City including the core (Council motions about a DRL don't count), I think people would be a lot more satisfied. But it seems like there's this idea that subways are super-expensive and LRT is the future based on things like Sheppard (which would be a successful line in other cities for such a short line), over-building lines and stations, and building giant unneeded underground bus stations. Case studies from other cities like Madrid are immediately dismissed by advocates looking for all sort of excuses why we can't do things that way. The advocates don't mention that Transit City will cost several times its original estimates before construction has even started.

And if subway construction costs do actually inflate to bursting point, they will simply be getting close to the TTC's ludicrous prediction of $360 million/km for subways. If built right, a subway could be as low as $120 million per kilometer, that'd be trenched like Eglinton could be and like Bloor-St. Clair was, or in an elevated guideway. $200-250 million in the worst underground digging conditions, or if you factor in the TTC's stupidly overbuilt stations.

I'm pretty sure that the at-grade portions of Eglinton would have almost the exact same cost if they were trenched in the Richview corridor. When you think about it, it probably costs a lot to rip up a road like they do when building LRT. Ripping up a road vs. digging a trench, digging a trench is probably only marginally more expensive, and will end up giving a much, much better (and needed) service than stupid curb-separated LRT will.

Hundreds of millions are being spent to send Sheppard right past an urban growth centre (without serving it) out to backlotted single family homes, water towers, farm fields and Home Depot, despite clogged streetcars around the City core, despite that the people using the line out there will likely have increased transfers and only marginal speed increases meaning worse service than could be provided for by an improved bus system, and despite that these aren't "Avenues" but areas that are meant to be stable neighbourhoods and industrial parks.

And it will probably cost about the exact same to provide a true rapid transit service where it's actually needed. I doubt that a Don Mills-STC subway would be over $1.2 billion if built with the slightest bit of sense, and people in Malvern would still get a faster trip than with the LRT.

These areas don't need light rail but are likely getting a line to justify the rest of the Sheppard East line so it doesn't become a tram-stub. If that's the case, why not just extend the subway to STC... It's been demonstrated on this forum multiple times by posters like Mike in TO, Ansem, and scarberiankhatru that the idea that Sheppard isn't attracting development is a myth, that Sheppard would be a successful short line elsewhere, and that service will be worse under the new plan.

Well at least they're not proposing half stubway, half StubLRT! And of course the Sheppard line is attracting development. Not only that, but it's increasing transit ridership in leaps and bounds. It's only 7 years old, for crying out loud! And all that talk of making it a rush hour only route definitely didn't help. As people have said before, compared to other subways, Sheppard is doing pretty well. If you want to compare, Sheppard and LA's Red line are a similar age (though the Red line is about 5 years older.) The Red line goes pretty much straight through downtown LA and is over 4 times longer than Sheppard, with 3 times the number of stations. The Sheppard line half bisects a significantly smaller downtown which, all though growing quickly, is similar in size to that of a city at least 10 times smaller than LA. Despite the fact that Sheppard seems vastly inferior in almost every way, it's ridership is only over half of that of the Red line.

Extending it to STC would at least mirror the ridership. Similar to how people in North York would commute to NYCC, people in Scarborough would commute to STC. Since the density along the corridor is similar, extending it would at least double the ridership right off the bat, based off this assumption of a mirror around Consumer's or VP. Then, there's also the fact that it becomes a route that can be used to get from STC to NYCC, or from Scarborough to North York, and other routes that are neither mirrored nor carried out today. I think it's safe to say that if Sheppard was extended to STC, it's ridership would triple within two or three years, and continue to grow just like it is now.

EDIT:

^ That's basically something like what I would look for. I'd like to see the subway extended to STC and a Progress LRT (would need a Bloor-Danforth extension to STC as well) and SELRT from Agincourt built instead of a SRT extension. This way three LRT routes could be offered: Malvern to STC on Progress, Sheppard East to Agincourt GO and Sheppard East to STC.

If a McCowan North LRT was built in the future then the SELRT could be interlined with it instead of with the Progress LRT.

I agree with extending Sheppard and the B-D to STC, as well as a Progress LRT. What I don't agree with is a Sheppard East LRT past Agincourt. Really, there's nothing there! It's all either industry or nice suburbs with fenced backyard lots facing Sheppard. Nothing is there to warrant a LRT! Almost every arterial route in the city has an edge on Sheppard East of Kennedy.

 

[nfitz]

If built right, a subway could be as low as $120 million per kilometer

Look, if you can't be serious ... I'm not even going to read the post.

 

[Second_in_pie]

^^ If you don't think that an intelligently built trenched line could be built for $120 km in prime conditions, then I'd say the TTC's brainwashing is working.

 

[Voltz]

^^ If you don't think that an intelligently built trenched line could be built for $120 km in prime conditions, then I'd say the TTC's brainwashing is working.

This thread has been about sheppard, not the richview corridor, very few parts of a sheppard subway extension can be built anywhere but below ground.

 

[Second_in_pie]

This thread has been about sheppard, not the richview corridor, very few parts of a sheppard subway extension can be built anywhere but below ground.

Did you see me suggest that the Sheppard subway should be trenched? I was talking about subway building in general.

 

[nfitz]

Did you see me suggest that the Sheppard subway should be trenched? I was talking about subway building in general.

This thread is about the Sheppard LRT. What's the point of tossing out subway costs based on trenching on a line even you don't suggest should be trenched!

More to the point, the thread is about the Sheppard LRT. Surely discussion about some fantasy subway line should go elsewhere.

 

[Second_in_pie]

This thread is about the Sheppard LRT. What's the point of tossing out subway costs based on trenching on a line even you don't suggest should be trenched!

More to the point, the thread is about the Sheppard LRT. Surely discussion about some fantasy subway line should go elsewhere.

If you actually read my post, I was simply talking about subway costs and how the TTC's $360 million/km shouldn't be taken as true. Mentioning the fact that a subway could be built trenched for a big save in cost is totally relevant to what I was talking about. I dwelled on that topic for maybe half a sentence, why are you nitpicking about it and it's so-called irrelevance?