Sheppard Line 4 Subway Extension (Proposed)

[Streety McCarface]

As frequently mentioned, the Sheppard Subway looks busier than it is because trains are less frequent, meaning people have more time to crowd the platform.

The point is that it's being utilized, even during the midday. Does it need more trains? No, not until crowding reaches the point of leaving people behind. Remember, the largest cost for the operator is the number of trains that run. Having only 4 trains in service at a time with this level of crowding is fair, given that trains are standing room only but nowhere near crush load. It keeps costs low enough that an operational breakeven is reached. It doesn't need much more than that.

The photo isn't showing at the line at its busiest, and that's not the point. The line is utilized. Not as well as the other lines, and not worthy of extra service (the TRs were a huge upgrade as is), but it is adequately utilized. Increase the number of bus routes into Leslie station, develop a bessarion station bus route and the line will get better utilization, and when the line surpasses 15K PPKmPD, (daily usage of 80K PPD), then we can talk about increasing frequencies.

NOTE: The line saw about the same utilization yesterday at about the same time, possibly even greater utilization. Something worthy of noting is that Leslie station saw more ridership than Bayview Station (30 Passengers got on the train 4 times in a row and Bayview got 15. Bessarion was around 5-10)

 

[robmausser]

This is not crowded, this is people not spreading out along the platform. It is also showing people entering and exiting the train.

They are also using a shallow depth of field with their camera to squash everyone visually together, making it appear more busy.

 

[Cobra]

I use Sheppard every day and it's being used. People are left behind at Sheppard-Yonge during PM peak hours but as someone mentioned, that's due to the 5 minutes frequency.

I'm of the opinion that will all the construction going on in Sheppard, it should be extended to at the very least to Victoria Park and Sheppard West. Ideally all the way to McCowan

Of course, if we can't built everything at the same time, Sheppard comes after Relief Long

 

[JSF-1]

The point is that it's being utilized, even during the midday. Does it need more trains? No, not until crowding reaches the point of leaving people behind. Remember, the largest cost for the operator is the number of trains that run. Having only 4 trains in service at a time with this level of crowding is fair, given that trains are standing room only but nowhere near crush load. It keeps costs low enough that an operational breakeven is reached. It doesn't need much more than that.

The photo isn't showing at the line at its busiest, and that's not the point. The line is utilized. Not as well as the other lines, and not worthy of extra service (the TRs were a huge upgrade as is), but it is adequately utilized. Increase the number of bus routes into Leslie station, develop a bessarion station bus route and the line will get better utilization, and when the line surpasses 15K PPKmPD, (daily usage of 80K PPD), then we can talk about increasing frequencies.

NOTE: The line saw about the same utilization yesterday at about the same time, possibly even greater utilization. Something worthy of noting is that Leslie station saw more ridership than Bayview Station (30 Passengers got on the train 4 times in a row and Bayview got 15. Bessarion was around 5-10)

I wouldn't even say increase frequencies but just start running 6 car trains. You could probably just do that with minimal changes to the schedule. Before we increase the frequency we should first increase the size of the trains.

 

[pman]

Obviously it’s been overused.

 

[Amare]

I wouldn't even say increase frequencies but just start running 6 car trains. You could probably just do that with minimal changes to the schedule. Before we increase the frequency we should first increase the size of the trains.

Problem with that, is that running 6-car trains would be more costly in the short run compared to just increasing the frequency of service. If the TTC wanted to lengthen platforms, it would not just be a matter of just breaking down the knockdown wall. Among things that would have to be done that i've heard of include: signals relocations, storage rooms relocations, and a few other things that are not necessarily inexpensive.

 

[denfromoakvillemilton]

I use Sheppard every day and it's being used. People are left behind at Sheppard-Yonge during PM peak hours but as someone mentioned, that's due to the 5 minutes frequency.

I'm of the opinion that will all the construction going on in Sheppard, it should be extended to at the very least to Victoria Park and Sheppard West. Ideally all the way to McCowan

Of course, if we can't built everything at the same time, Sheppard comes after Relief Long

It's going to STC. That's what doug wants.

 

[kEiThZ]

Convert Sheppard to LRT. Yes it costs money. Solve the nonsense subway debate, which is largely coming from the fact that there's an existing subway there and people don't want to transfer. Let's be honest what this is about.

Convert the subway. Make it like Eglinton. Sheppard will even benefit from more frequent service with LRT. And it'll be easy to make branches. A branch to STC down McCowan. Another branch to Malvern through the Progress Hydro corridor. And another branch to the zoo. 6 min frequencies on all 3 branches and 2 min frequencies till McCowan. This would also theoretically enable a Malvern-STC and Zoo-STC service, in lieu of the SLRT extensions that were supposed to happen.

 

[JSF-1]

Problem with that, is that running 6-car trains would be more costly in the short run compared to just increasing the frequency of service. If the TTC wanted to lengthen platforms, it would not just be a matter of just breaking down the knockdown wall. Among things that would have to be done that i've heard of include: signals relocations, storage rooms relocations, and a few other things that are not necessarily inexpensive.

Was the Sheppard Subway really built to 4 car standard even when the long term goal was eventually 6 car? That seems like a hilariously stupid thing to do. As an aside is there any word on the Sheppard line being upgraded to ATC? I would assume that if the line is extended the extension would be built with ATC.

 

[Streety McCarface]

Convert Sheppard to LRT. Yes it costs money. Solve the nonsense subway debate, which is largely coming from the fact that there's an existing subway there and people don't want to transfer. Let's be honest what this is about.

Convert the subway. Make it like Eglinton. Sheppard will even benefit from more frequent service with LRT. And it'll be easy to make branches. A branch to STC down McCowan. Another branch to Malvern through the Progress Hydro corridor. And another branch to the zoo. 6 min frequencies on all 3 branches and 2 min frequencies till McCowan. This would also theoretically enable a Malvern-STC and Zoo-STC service, in lieu of the SLRT extensions that were supposed to happen.

Unless you plan on making dual-mode LRVs similar to those that are in use in Calgary (the U2 cars), then your proposal isn't really viable. Why downgrade service to low-level platforms when you already have a high capacity subway? We don't even know what we're going to do on Sheppard East yet so I'd keep things open for debate until RLN is in the construction phase. Remember, the tunnels are too narrow to run an LRT line with a pantograph, and low-level platforms are not an option for anyone.

It's also worth noting that LRVs are much heavier than subway trains, so operation costs are actually higher (they use more electricity).

In the meantime, I'm honestly fine with transferring, it's a very easy transfer that only takes about a minute, and the don mills bus terminal is quite nice. Sheppard should eventually be extended (just like the Crosstown should have been built as a subway), but not until the relief line in full is built, then we can talk about a westward extension and eventually an eastward extension beyond victoria park.

 

[Amare]

Was the Sheppard Subway really built to 4 car standard even when the long term goal was eventually 6 car? That seems like a hilariously stupid thing to do. As an aside is there any word on the Sheppard line being upgraded to ATC? I would assume that if the line is extended the extension would be built with ATC.

In Lehman's terms, yes but with the caveat of being capable of expansion to 6-car train operations if warranted. Essentially, there are no physical restrictions with the Sheppard line being expanded to accommodate 6 cars. We may (hopefully not) see the same happen with the DRL as well.

As for ATC, there are no plans in the foreseeable future with the Sheppard line. It would be pretty costly, and frankly useless to convert the signals at this time.

 

[JSF-1]

If the Province or whoever is hellbent on extending the Sheppard line than I think funding for ATC conversion also needs to be included in the project. Package both the extension and ATC work as a single project. That is of course if Doug and the Cons get elected and are actually not blowing hot air on the extension issue. It would be pretty stupid to have half the line as ATC and half the line not, given how short Sheppard is.

 

[kEiThZ]

Why downgrade service to low-level platforms when you already have a high capacity subway?

Keep that line of thinking up and watch as billions at thrown at a subway extension to McCowan.

My proposal recognizes the political reality of the situation. As long as there is a subway there, politicians will want to extend it. Convert the subway and you'll never have that pressure again.

Unless you plan on making dual-mode LRVs similar to those that are in use in Calgary (the U2 cars), then your proposal isn't really viable.

They've studied it before and said it was liable but costly if I recall. Still cheaper than an eventual subway extension in my books.

 

[Streety McCarface]

They've studied it before and said it was liable but costly if I recall. Still cheaper than an eventual subway extension in my books.

The real question: why can't politicians be patient and build what's needed more first?

Even then I'm not sure how the dual mode high-floor LRV option would be that expensive (I believe the quote was 1 billion dollars) when all you're doing is buying like 30 new LRVs. That should be, at most, 100 million maybe 120 million dollars total. Still, I believe keeping the line as is until RLN is built is the best way to go.

 

[Amare]

^That's a tricky proposition @JSF-1 , and in a sense we're seeing that exact same thing happening with the B-D extension right now. The proposed extension there will be using ATC, while the rest of the line isnt capable of using ATC right now. At the same time the old T1 cars are ageing and aren't capable of operating on ATC, so the entire fleet has to be replaced with new cars capable of running ATC before the extension opens. Then add to the fact the entire B-D line needs to have it's signal replaced with ATC before the new fleet and extension opens, and it makes for a very expensive and complex undertaking.

So when certain politicians (for example John Tory) come out and say they want to extend the subway as shortsighted as the proposal already is, it becomes even more shortsighted when they aren't aware of all the added costs and complications associated with the non-sensible proposals they come up with.