How big a debacle is the Sheppard line?

[GregWTravels]

... because they are not extending the subway to York U to act as a relief line from the Yonge Line.

The York U line isn't relief for the Yonge subway. But it was chosen as an extension over extensions on Yonge to keep more people from getting on the Yonge line. Any subway extension will bring net new riders onto the system (people who won't take a bus, but will take the subway). The concern was extending north of Finch on Yonge would bring enough new riders onto the system heading south into downtown during the busy hour that the subway south of Bloor would be overcrowded.

If, instead, you can add those net new riders onto the University-Spadina line by extending it, you don't run up against the crowding issues, as University-Spadina has lower ridership than the Yonge line.

 

[roch5220]

The concern was extending north of Finch on Yonge would bring enough new riders onto the system heading south into downtown during the busy hour that the subway south of Bloor would be overcrowded.

I agree with that, but its eventually going to be extended to hwy 7. Now, whether or not they loop it at hwy 7, is another story

But it was chosen as an extension over extensions on Yonge to keep more people from getting on the Yonge line. Any subway extension will bring net new riders onto the system (people who won't take a bus, but will take the subway).

Thats not why it was primarily chosen. There has been a long movement towards the YorkU extension, there is viritual none towards extending to hwy 7 yet (other than the odd YRT plan, that hasn't gathered any strength yet). Don't forget that there hasn't been that much grumbling over overcrowding on the yonge line since the late 80s. Also, if those riders who won't take the bus but will take the subway, and benefit from the VCC (hence take the subway), they would never ride the Yonge line as they wouldn't take the bus to it.

 

[scarberiankhatru]

"Its like comparing ridership on a bus route to the SRT, vastly different."

The Dufferin bus has a higher ridership than the SRT, and Finch East has the same ridership as the SRT. But I thought you weren't talking about ridership?

"I don't know if you agree but I think it should follow one of the original propsals that also expands the line westward as a midtown line connecting the yonge and spadina lines."

I bring up the subject of extending Sheppard west to Downsview more than everyone else on this forum combined - I did so in the second response to this thread.

 

[roch5220]

"I bring up the subject of extending Sheppard west to Downsview more than everyone else on this forum combined - I did so in the second response to this thread. "

Oh, I was just rehashing the RTES plan.

"The Dufferin bus has a higher ridership than the SRT, and Finch East has the same ridership as the SRT. But I thought you weren't talking about ridership?"

If you are trying to confuse me, you've won. All I was saying is that can't deduct that the Sheppard line is successfull because its ridership is similar to that of the SRT (which is operating at/near its physically limits).

 

[maxy505]

I've made the assumption most people are destined for Yonge -- thus the total capacity of the line is the capacity at Sheppard/Yonge station. Double the length of the route with LRT and you have hit maximum capacity the LRT line offered pretty much on opening day.

Doubling the length wouldn't double ridership. Many of the people getting on at Fairview come from further past the end of the line anyways. Also, the further out you go, the fewer people are riding all the way in to Yonge. I think on Sheppard there would be a lot of shorter trips. Like you said, also, demand could be reduced by putting a parallel LRT line on Finch.

The Sheppard subway is overkill at this point and will be for a long time. A fast LRT extending to Malvern, at perhaps half the cost, would have far greater benefits while meeting capacity singlehandedly for at least 25 years, or even indefinitely if an extended BD to STC was handling the large volumes of people heading downtown.

Steve Munro says that Calgary's LRT is expandable to 19,000 pph, which sounds exaggerated a bit. Sheppard's current design capacity is 8,450 pph, expandable to maybe 30,000. What is it carrying now -- maybe 7000 at peak?

Anyways, to answer the question posed, the Sheppard line is a minor debacle. It is providing minor benefits, and certainly isn't hurting anybody, but a lot more could have been done for the money. Taken together with the Vaughan expansion it is a major debacle. The TTC has demonstrated that the minimum funding for a new project is over $1 billion dollars. We've set ourselves up for a very slowly expanding transit system.

As for its future -- it should be extended immediately to Vic Park. At that point you want to continue to Kennedy, but there's almost no point doing that without going all the way to STC, and right now that's almost as big a waste of money as going to Vaughan. In time it'll be worthwhile which makes this line the perfect candidate for an ongoing, 1-station-every-3-years expansion.

 

[Brighter Hell]

I tend to disagree here. If it was LRT of the same format as the SRT or what they intend to install along St. Clair we would probably be looking to upgrade it pretty soon.

Keep in mind the $500M LRT option for the SRT can only carry about double the current Sheppard subway ridership number. Sheppard subway can, of course, carry about 4 to 6 times the current number.

I've made the assumption most people are destined for Yonge -- thus the total capacity of the line is the capacity at Sheppard/Yonge station. Double the length of the route with LRT and you have hit maximum capacity the LRT line offered pretty much on opening day.

A single LRT line with feeder buses isn't going to do it.


The question is would it have been better to have $3B of LRT along Lawrence East, York Mills, Sheppard, Finch, and Steeles OR $3B of subway on Sheppard with local bus routes feeding it. Much of the $3B comes from building underground LRT transfer points, which would be necessary with 2 car trains arriving every 2 to 3 minutes with up to 200 people unloading and maybe 100 loading.

a line with 4 car trains can carry 20,000 people per hour. that's far more than what the sheppard line is carrying. plus, if a don mills/DRL ever gets built it will take significant traffic off sheppard since a lot of those riders, if not most of them, are headed downtown. bottom line - a light rail line could have handled the capacity easily.

 

[rbtaylor]

a line with 4 car trains can carry 20,000 people per hour.

So much for cheap. You're not running that down the middle of a street with common intersections and skinny little platforms. Are you going elevated (Skytrain) or tunneled?

If you toss it in a tunnel, you're up to about 80% of the cost of Sheppard but with far less capacity.

In fact, you could have built for 2 car subway trains with the same capacity at a lower price than tunneled 4 car LRT trains.

 

[Oliver Tweed]

I was responding to this:

"This thing has become the poster boy for all that's wrong with Toronto transit"

Say it enough times and it'll be true...that's one thing that's wrong with Toronto in general.

You are blowing this out of proportion. I think defending something that isn't good just because it's home grown is an even worse affliction for the city.

For a local route, I guess it's fine, but it doesn't really appear to do anything for the bigger picture.

 

[GregWTravels]

I've seen multicar trains run at ground level without having to tunnel or elevate. You don't need to run them down the street. You can run them on their own ROWs separate from streets but still at ground level and with ground level crossing of streets. Much of the city outside of the downtown core has streets wide enough that you could add a couple lanes for trams. You don't have to protect people from the third rail, as the electricity is taken from overhead.

 

[rbtaylor]

I've seen multicar trains run at ground level without having to tunnel or elevate.

Indeed you can. GO Trains and Via trains are two examples in Toronto.

Calgary is about the only city that pulls it off even remotely well, and they really don't have much choice. Tunneling in their soil is very difficult.

You don't need to run them down the street.

Please draw a line on a map near the Sheppard corridor, where you will run a ground level OR trenched track that is not in the middle of Sheppard street.

Next, write down all of the political difficulties in making it happen.

I'll remind you that the Spadina line is largely considered a failure primarily due to access difficulties and lack of development near stations.

I'll also remind you that the recent Spadina extension wanted to expropriate about 4 old (but not heritage) properties, none of which were residential. The plans have since been changed due to political pressure against that option.

 

[cdl42]

As long as you're willing to sacrifice a centre traffic lane in each direction, there would be absolutely no problems with running 4-car trains in a median ROW on a suburban street like Sheppard. Space isn't as constrained as it is downtown.

The length of the train/vehicle isn't a big deal at all as long as it isn't blocking any intersections. That's one of the wonders of rail.

Here are a couple pics from Amsterdam, where 4-car trains run in the median of Beneluxbaan in a southern "suburb" of the city. It's even overbuilt compared to what we would require.
urbanrail.fotopic.net/p13111866.html
urbanrail.fotopic.net/p13111883.html

Here's a Google map of the same line:
maps.google.ca

 

[drum118]

2 cars LRT can carry 9,000 riders per hour every 2 minutes at peak load. The same 2 LRT can carry 13,500 at crush load. This is for a single point load factor or section.

2 minute headway is the lowest you can go doing a point to point switchback and no loops.

Even if you do a loop to loop, the best you are going to get is 90 seconds. You can get 90 seconds for point to point if you have high speed crossover and shorter block.

Running 4 cars LRT on Toronto Street is plain out stupid even in its own ROW.

Most city streets are not as wide as Amsterdam and to take 2 lanes of traffic away from the car folks will be met with very strong oppositions. Then again, it would be for the best to have less lanes of traffic.

If you are going to run 4 cars LRT's, they need to be elevated. This way, you don’t have to worry about traffic lights or ding a lings making improper turn in front of the LRT’s.

Except for 7th Ave in Calgary, the C-Train runs in the middle of highways or on existing Rail tracks. Keep in mind the feet people have to cross 2-4 lanes of traffic and stand in the middle of the road to get an LRT and that is not friendly.

The Sheppard Line needs to be built west of Yonge St first with a Y at Downsview to allow every other Spadina line train to service Sheppard. This will add about 5 minutes of extra travel time to get downtown and help to take the load off the Yonge Line. Once this is built, then the line is to be extended to Victoria with the rest of Sheppard being an LRT line until 2030-50 at the earliest before becoming a subway. If you are going to build it pass Victoria Ave, then it must go to Morningside Ave and putting a terminal on the south-east corner since there is a large lot there now.

TTC has already decided that every other train is to run to York north of Downsview at this time.

The most that a Mark II can carry is 15,000 at peak time and that is 3,000 less than a 4 car LRT set.

Is it worth the extra $500 million to build a subway to STC now?

Yes as it will prevent us revisiting the SRT-LRT issue again in 15-20 years and attract more riders compare to what the SRT chase away today.

But there must be a plan in place as how the STC is to be a real hub as well where the Sheppard and the B-D will end up in the next 25-50 years.

I still see the Sheppard Line going into Pickering bypass STC and the B-D ending up to 16th Ave. As to get to Highway 7 or 16th Ave. The line could north on McCowan Ave, Markham Rd or Neilson Rd.

Going up Neilson Rd and 9th line will finally offer service to Melvin that was supposed to be there in the 80’s. It could also provide service to YT Scarborough.

 

[cdl42]

If Houston if all places can run what is basically a 4-car operation, surely we can.

 

[Antiloop33rpm]

As long as you're willing to sacrifice a centre traffic lane in each direction, there would be absolutely no problems with running 4-car trains in a median ROW on a suburban street like Sheppard. Space isn't as constrained as it is downtown.

I dont get it.

Why would a city want to build an efficient, cost effective (in comparison to subways), and more appropriate method of transit when we all know subways are the end all, be all, only choice that Toronto should ever make?

Why would someone want to ride one of these 'silly' LRT's through the streets of Toronto and through the natural settings that Toronto has in comfort and with access to fresh air when riding in a dark, stale aired subway is a far more pleasureable experience?

And why would anyone even dare think of sacrificing our precious, valueable, roadway for such a silly thing as public transit? Dont people realize that our cities suffer from a severe lack of road capacity and that we must we do everything to ensure that none of that space is lost for the struggling car owner?

When will people learn. LRT is not what world class cities with sprawling populations build. Its subways, subways, and more subways! They are the only tens of billions of dollars solution that Toronto should even consider!

 

[rbtaylor]

If Houston if all places can run what is basically a 4-car operation, surely we can.

You guys are missing the point. It is technically possible to run a 400 car train down the middle of the street. The question is should it be done.

Consider the havoc that you get when a 5000 person/hour streetcar line has an accident and gets backed up. Now multiply that impact to a 20000 person/hour line.

It's damn near as bad as what you get when a subway goes out of service.

Now look at the reliabilty factors involved in running in a completely separate ROW versus one that is partially shared. One of them has more problems.


Are you really going to risk holding up 20000 people/hour once a week because some car made a left infront of a train at the wrong time?

The opportunity cost in the form of a perceived lack of reliability is higher than the capital cost savings from not having a fully separated ROW.

In Calgary the capital cost savings are significantly higher as a result of their soil conditions.

In Houston, they simply don't care. Nobody important (high $$$ value for their time) would consider using public transit in the first place. That and the line doesn't actually carry all that many people -- bussing around problem spots is actually viable.