News   Mar 28, 2024
 120     0 
News   Mar 27, 2024
 1.6K     1 
News   Mar 27, 2024
 1.2K     2 

Metrolinx: Sheppard East LRT (In Design)

To add to that, Sheppard and Eglinton in Scarborough will be exactly like St.Clair.
Nothing like St. Clair. Much wider stop spacing. Far fewer traffic lights. Much faster speeds.

Why? Because it won't be Rapid Transit.
BRT (Bus rapid transit) is rapid transit, but LRT at the same speed isn't? Nice try.
 
To call them "quite popular" is a gross understatement. They created the same corridors that exist today throughout old Toronto. And it's convenient that streets that have lost their light rail connections have also lost their vitality. (see Dupont, & Rogers Rd)

The question is: did those streets decline because the streetcar was removed, or did the streetcar get removed because the streets declined and the ridership dropped?

Not every section of every street that retained the streetcar is particularly vital, either. Apart of Spadina and St Clair, we have some lively sections of Queen West, King, College, and Queens Quay. But most of Queen, King, Dundas, College / Carlton is quite ordinary.

You can compare Bathurst and Dufferin south of Bloor: the former has a streetcar line and the latter does not, but the street characters are pretty similar.

Different forms of transit operate differently in different contexts. Even if this line was built identical to St. Clair, it would operate much differently because the blocks are so much further apart. You guys are arguing about mere seconds when it comes to the extra stations. You propose grade separation when there is no case to do so in the suburban context.

Nope, that ship has sailed and the full grade separation (aka subway) is not happening on Sheppard East.

The current round of discussion started from the proposal to reduce the number of Sheppard LRT stops to make it run faster. This is still worth debating, but is not about full grade separation.

And you undermine the intensification potential of light rail which has been proven through our own history.

No, I don't believe that "intensification potential of light rail" is a universal phenomenon. It can take place in the right environment; I don't see such environment on Sheppard east of Kennedy.

I do not imply that Sheppard LRT is totally useless. It will be an improvement for the existing transit riders who live near Sheppard. But it will not trigger a major transformation of the whole neighborhood, as you suggested.
 
The question is: did those streets decline because the streetcar was removed, or did the streetcar get removed because the streets declined and the ridership dropped?

Was the streetcar abandonment program initiated because of ignorance towards the effects of single occupancy vehicles becoming the norm, or because, you know, we didn't need them anymore.

Remember the plan was to completely abandon Light Rail technology across the city, not just certain routes. I'd assume the routes that were abandoned had lesser ridership, however that does not mean they did not support now abandoned retail store fronts.

Not every section of every street that retained the streetcar is particularly vital, either. Apart of Spadina and St Clair, we have some lively sections of Queen West, King, College, and Queens Quay. But most of Queen, King, Dundas, College / Carlton is quite ordinary.

You can compare Bathurst and Dufferin south of Bloor: the former has a streetcar line and the latter does not, but the street characters are pretty similar.

The density along Bathurst is significantly higher than density along Dufferin south of Bloor and it always has been historically because of it's closer proximity to Downtown and it's location on a Light Rail line. Retail store front are not the only thing that distinguish routes with LRT on them, although in Toronto's context this is often true.

Nope, that ship has sailed and the full grade separation (aka subway) is not happening on Sheppard East.

The current round of discussion started from the proposal to reduce the number of Sheppard LRT stops to make it run faster. This is still worth debating, but is not about full grade separation.

How much time do you expect to save? 2 minutes one way? Is that worth the capital to maintain parallel bus service along the same route? And if so, won't dwell times increase at stops due to a lesser number of stops? And if this is true, will it even make a difference with full signal priority? Seems to me like you want $5 fares for saving two minutes on your trip... Which if you even lived along Sheppard, you'd spend more time than that walking to a stop, anyways.

It really makes no sense. These aren't diesel trains.


No, I don't believe that "intensification potential of light rail" is a universal phenomenon. It can take place in the right environment; I don't see such environment on Sheppard east of Kennedy.

I do not imply that Sheppard LRT is totally useless. It will be an improvement for the existing transit riders who live near Sheppard. But it will not trigger a major transformation of the whole neighborhood, as you suggested.

What seems to allude a lot of you on this site is that everyone does not work downtown, or use this route to head to Don Mills station. Most of the traffic on Sheppard is local. What people also seem to ignore is the fact that it is mostly CAPACITY & RELIABILITY that influences transit use not speed. A person will be more likely to take transit on Sheppard with more stops because it will most likely stop closer to their destination, they do not care about the two minutes you wish to save, or the increase in capital costs and fares that it will incur.
 
Last edited:
I deliberately get use and get off the Weston bus to use the St. Clair streetcar to get to and from downtown. Unfortunately, the Weston bus is slow, especially as it nears Rogers Road and Black Creek Drive because of the congestion.

I wish the St. Clair streetcar went to Jane Street or Scarlett Road, but it doesn't. If it did, I would use it from Jane Street.

When the Eglinton Crosstown opens to Jane Street, I would be one of several actual transit users to use it from its terminal in the west end. Especially, to bypass the congestion on Weston Road.

Don't use that route today. You will find yourself in an ocean of Portuguese flags. You will not be amused.
 
How much time do you expect to save? 2 minutes one way? Is that worth the capital to maintain parallel bus service along the same route? And if so, won't dwell times increase at stops due to a lesser number of stops? And if this is true, will it even make a difference with full signal priority? Seems to me like you want $5 fares for saving two minutes on your trip... Which if you even lived along Sheppard, you'd spend more time than that walking to a stop, anyways.

That's the subject of debate. If 2 min is all you can save, or even 5 min, then it is not worth cutting the stops. If you can slash 10 or 15 min (and still serve all major stops), then it might be worth doing.

What seems to allude a lot of you on this site is that everyone does not work downtown, or use this route to head to Don Mills station.

It is true that everyone does not work downtown. But how many of those work and live on the same street, or even in the same part of the city? If they have to travel from Scarborough to a far-away place, they still need faster transit.

Most of the traffic on Sheppard is local.

Is it? I do not have the counts, but have seen reports that a lot of Sheppard East bus riders stay on it till it reaches Don Mills Stn.

What people also seem to ignore is the fact that it is mostly CAPACITY & RELIABILITY that influences transit use not speed.

What makes you think that speed is not important? If you have to be at work till 5 pm, your childcare closes at 6, and you can't reliably get there by public transit in 1 hour, how can you rely on transit?

Are you designing transit system only for people who have plenty of leisure time?
 
^^ You're a funny guy. Did you think that a LRT in a right of way over a bus sitting in traffic is going to result in longer travel times? Or is it the amount of stops that would not reduce the travel time significantly that bothers you? Capacity and Reliability should be the primary focus of any urban transport system. These two factors combined will reduce the amount of time traveled on transit more than a ten minute walk to a LRT stop.
 
^^ You're a funny guy. Did you think that a LRT in a right of way over a bus sitting in traffic is going to result in longer travel times? Or is it the amount of stops that would not reduce the travel time significantly that bothers you? Capacity and Reliability should be the primary focus of any urban transport system. These two factors combined will reduce the amount of time traveled on transit more than a ten minute walk to a LRT stop.

Funny guy jaye ... the vast majority of riders will be in LRT in a right of way. The bus is a supplement, only for those few riders who prefer to board at a local stop rather than walk a few hundred meters to the LRT stop. Is it that hard to grasp?

How do you know that the travel time cannot be reduced significantly; do you have any estimates at hand?

Travel time is just as important as capacity and reliability. Real people need to reach their destination in a reasonable time; not sit forever in a reliable but slow vehicle, simply in order to satisfy your skewed transit vision.
 
Funny guy jaye ... the vast majority of riders will be in LRT in a right of way. The bus is a supplement, only for those few riders who prefer to board at a local stop rather than walk a few hundred meters to the LRT stop. Is it that hard to grasp?

How do you know that the travel time cannot be reduced significantly; do you have any estimates at hand?

Travel time is just as important as capacity and reliability. Real people need to reach their destination in a reasonable time; not sit forever in a reliable but slow vehicle, simply in order to satisfy your skewed transit vision.



Average time to cross a corridor for a person, not a vehicle, is a result of reliability and capacity management. Stop spacing is an issue of accessibility, which would fall under reliability. Because, the further a station is from your home, the less reliable you will perceive it to be. Especially during winter times.

Time from point A to point B is a result of time to get to a station/platform, how long the vehicle will take to arrive, how long the vehicle will take to get to a destination, and how long it will take you to get from where the vehicle leaves you to your destination.

This bus you propose, because it is along a mostly suburban route with an LRT running parallel, will be less frequent than the time it will take to walk to the nearest LRT platform, making it impossible to maintain reliable service especially during rush hour. This would leave those who are unable to walk, waiting longer times forcing them to have inferior and unreliable bus service. Possibly even having to walk a few minutes or wait for parallel bus service after getting off the LRT, again increasing that individuals travel time. Making the line less attractive for local riders, which make up the majority of Sheppard's riders.

Let me ask you this. When the new streetcars arrive in Toronto in 2014, the TTC is going to convert one line at a time. Because these new streetcars have a higher capacity, they will run less frequently than they do today. The TTC has to decide whether to run the new lrvs on headways rather than set schedules. The benefit of running the legacy network on headways rather than set schedules would mean more reliable service, less bunching. But it would also mean longer travel times for vehicles.

This doesn't mean a longer travel time for people, because with more reliable service their average travel time is lower even if the travel time of the vehicle is longer.

With the bus service that you propose, the average time to travel along the corridor will actually rise.

Because the ridership along the route would be distributed between the bus and lrt, the service will be less than if the route was served by one mode of transport alone. Resulting in longer travel times along the route, even if the vehicles are traveling along the corridor faster.

It's not just about how long a vehicle takes to get from Point A to Point B. The wait times have to be attractive, and the route must be accessible. If the route isn't accessible, what would be the point. I mean, it is at grade, you know, in the middle of the street.

What your proposing would be more expensive and actually have the opposite effect on the problem you wish to resolve.

The irony.
 
Last edited:
^ A decision to run an LRT line with wider stop spacing and supplement it with a local bus will, indeed, slightly inconvenience a small portion of the riders who board between the major stops.

But for the large majority of riders on the trunk route, it is a plus as they can reach their destination sooner. In particular, those who transfer to the LRT trunk from connecting routes at major intersections, are not affected at all by the removal of some minor stops.

The importance of speed depends on the distance that you need to travel. On short routes like Spadina or St Clair, most people reach their destination, or a transfer point, in 10-15 min or less. Then, speed is less critical as the absolute reduction in travel time will be small anyway.

However, for a line running through the remote north-eastern part of the city, many riders have to take very long trips. Speed is more important for them as the potential reduction in travel time is greater.

Regarding the extra costs of operating the parallel bus service: yes, it has to be taken into account. However:
- Like it or not, most of TTC routes and most of riders are subsidized.
- Local bus services running parallel to subway (or LRT) corridors are not the main money losers. The subsidy per ride is much greater for the routes that wander off the main arteries to serve cul-de-sac subdivisions.
- The cost of running a parallel local bus service must be divided by the large number of riders who use the main trunk route and benefit from its better speed.

If the residents of cul-de-sacs, many of whom are quite wealthy, deserve a subsidy to provide a service to their doorsteps; then you cannot deny a smaller per-ride subsidy to a much larger number of riders who have to travel long distances and must fit their job and family responsibilities into a tight schedule.
 
Last edited:
You're ignoring the fact that what you're proposing does not result in the ends you desire. You seem to be very caught up on how the vehicles travel along this route rather than how people will actually use the route. Travel along the 85 Sheppard East one day. You'll see that more riders get on at stops like Malvern Street than Markham Road.

What you're proposing doesn't make logical sense and this is why it will never come to light.
 
I agree with the above poster that what Metrolinx has in mind for the Sheppard LRT is really a streetcar line. There are way too many stops; my understanding is that they plan to use the Sheppard LRT to replace the buses.. but that is what streetcar lines do! To make this line effective and closer towards what a subway line would have done, they need to run the LRT like an express bus (i.e. follow the 190 Rocket route). While Metrolinx claims the station spacing is about 400m, this is not true. For example Palmdale to Warden is about 280 m, while Warden to Bay Mills is about 300 m.

Here are my ideal stations (17 stops):

- Don Mills
- Consumer Road
- Victoria Park
- Pharmacy
- Warden
- Birchmount
- Allanford (not a major intersection, but currently a stop on the 190 because of Agincourt Mall and a senior home, plus lots of condo development nearby)
- Kennedy
- Agincourt Go Station
- Midland
- Brimley
- McCowan
- Shorting Rd (not a major intersection, but has a lot of industrial buildings here, so lots of workers)
- Markham
- Progress (connect to Scarb LRT)
- Neilson
- Morningside

They then need to run local buses between Meadowvale to STC (via Sheppard and Brimley) around 12 mins during rush hour, and 20 mins during off-peak. A 2nd bus will run from STC up Brimley to Sheppard to Don Mills Station with a similar time schedule. This way, local stops are served, while the LRT can do its job as being an express route. Get a deal with UTSC so they can extend the tracks south on Morningside for 2 stops (Military Trail and UTSC) to get even higher ridership.

If we agree that most of the riders will be between Don Mills and Kennedy (or maybe Brimley), then your proposal has only 2 less stops than the currently approved proposal (those being Palmdale and Bay Mills). Thus, the speed on this portion will almost be the same. If there are a bunch of extra stops East of Brimley, it will not make much of a difference most of the people - only those few people will have the slower trip. With the transfer at Don Mills, Sheppard will never be thought of as rapid transit across the top of Toronto. Also, now that stops have been promised, it would be quite difficult to have them removed. Median LRT will never be ture rapid transit (without much wider ROW and crossing gates, etc) and this seems to be a reasonable speed local service.

The only caveat I could make is if Sheppard LRT hooks down to U of T, then possibly the slowness would be a factor to those riders.
 
Last edited:
I might be wrong but I think the Bay Mills/Aragon stop wasn't part of the original plan but was added afterwards after residents complained about the lack of a stop.
 
^^ TBH, most east-west main streets in Toronto can and should maintain LRT service.

Steeles, Finch, Sheppard, Wyme, Lawrence, Eglinton, St Clair... In a transit Utopia, all these lines could potentially feed the DRL at a eastern and western station along with their existing YUS counterparts. This would make for the most efficient transit model for Toronto.

Could you imagine? I think I just got a bit aroused.
 

Back
Top