Sheppard Line 4 Subway Extension (Proposed)

[DirectionNorth]

I don't really get why me desagring with you is such a problem.

I'm not saying the disagreement is a problem, I'm saying that you're not presenting anything to back your argument up in this theoretical discussion.

If you said "it would increase cost by $10 million annually" or "it would provide increased convenience to only 5,000 passengers daily (based on some TTC data and reports)" or something, it would be easier to take your argument seriously. Just like how you complain there's been no transparency on the Gardiner when it's been on the front-page for years.

I don't really get this whole not making multiple transfers is a problem for people.

Because it increases time spent waiting (up to 10 minutes, at 5 minute frequencies), and decreases transit usage?

There are people who make them all the time either changing lines or changing to a bus or streetcar.

With two linear transfers within two stations?

I honestly wouldn't be surprised if there are people who get on at Woodbine or Victoria park and then get off at main Street station to take the go train downtown. I just don't understand why it's so important for one group of people to be able to have a better connection then others.

I don't see the negatives of this project. Your response is "other people don't have it, so why do we prioritize these people?" We enter transit expansion with this attitude in Toronto, and we end up with our s***ty network.

I get that different systems are built differently but I don't see why we have to copy what everyone else does maybe something works in one city but it doesn't work in another.

Nobody's advocating for copy-pasting, but if you're not willing to learn from others did, you will never progress.

Honestly, it seems that your attitude is "why should we do this?" I've never seen any actual points coming out of your side on this debate, nor any refutation (other than "it's fantasy" and "why should we learn from other cities" and "it can't be done). Which I guess is the spirit of this city.

 

[EastYorkTTCFan]

I'm not saying the disagreement is a problem, I'm saying that you're not presenting anything to back your argument up in this theoretical discussion.

If you said "it would increase cost by $10 million annually" or "it would provide increased convenience to only 5,000 passengers daily (based on some TTC data and reports)" or something, it would be easier to take your argument seriously. Just like how you complain there's been no transparency on the Gardiner when it's been on the front-page for years.

Because it increases time spent waiting (up to 10 minutes, at 5 minute frequencies), and decreases transit usage?

With two linear transfers within two stations?

I don't see the negatives of this project. Your response is "other people don't have it, so why do we prioritize these people?" We enter transit expansion with this attitude in Toronto, and we end up with our s***ty network.

Nobody's advocating for copy-pasting, but if you're not willing to learn from others did, you will never progress.

Honestly, it seems that your attitude is "why should we do this?" I've never seen any actual points coming out of your side on this debate, nor any refutation (other than "it's fantasy" and "why should we learn from other cities" and "it can't be done). Which I guess is the spirit of this city.

I don't even understand what you're actually argument is even about you seem to think that there is some sort of demand for people who are going west on Sheppard to only get north to either take a go train or go to York university or Vaughan. So to solve this problem you want to add extra trains onto a line but that doesn't do anything for people who want to go south from Sheppard west but I suppose they don't matter in your plans because they aren't using an "underserved" section of the line. You're argument has failed in so many ways. You have not presented anything that actually suggests that it is necessary at all.

 

[EnviroTO]

Everywhere I have ever seen interlining work in an urban context has the following be true:

1. Majority of trips on branch go to shared corridor.
2. Capacity of shared corridor is not exceeded when all trains on the branches use the shared corridor.

For number 1, I think the majority of trips on Sheppard are going to Yonge and Sheppard... trains with a light load proceeding to York University is wasted capacity.

For number 2, if all trains on Line 1 and Line 4 go to York University then the line capacity is exceeded. In order for there to be capacity for Line 4 to get to York University you need to short turn Line 1 trains before they reach the shared corridor and if you short turn a train then everyone on the train that wanted to go to York University is inconvenienced.

Then there is the station performance. When a platform is fully cleared every time a train pulls in the operating efficiency of the station is higher than a platform filled with people mulling around for a particular train.

To make up for all these detractors the inconvenience to Sheppard passengers going to York U would need to be high but it isn't. Transferring from a less frequent line with lesser load numbers to a frequent service is not a serious inconvenience. It also isn't a net improvement as it causes a more frequent service with higher load numbers to need to short turn and kicking people off the train for the sake of Line 4 passengers.

 

[DirectionNorth]

Everywhere I have ever seen interlining work in an urban context has the following be true:

1. Majority of trips on branch go to shared corridor.
2. Capacity of shared corridor is not exceeded when all trains on the branches use the shared corridor.

The majority on Sheppard or Y-U are never going to TYSSE.

For number 1, I think the majority of trips on Sheppard are going to Yonge and Sheppard... trains with a light load proceeding to York University is wasted capacity.
For number 2, if all trains on Line 1 and Line 4 go to York University then the line capacity is exceeded. In order for there to be capacity for Line 4 to get to York University you need to short turn Line 1 trains before they reach the shared corridor and if you short turn a train then everyone on the train that wanted to go to York University is inconvenienced.

Given how different the modes of operation are, I would, like with the ol' B-D, run a 6 month trial of each, analyzing passenger flow, ridership, station crowding, train loads, etc. and with a survey at the end, determine which one is better.

Then there is the station performance. When a platform is fully cleared every time a train pulls in the operating efficiency of the station is higher than a platform filled with people mulling around for a particular train.

Currently, platform efficiency does not need to be high on TYSSE - it's a low ridership corridor.

To make up for all these detractors the inconvenience to Sheppard passengers going to York U would need to be high but it isn't. Transferring from a less frequent line with lesser load numbers to a frequent service is not a serious inconvenience. It also isn't a net improvement as it causes a more frequent service with higher load numbers to need to short turn and kicking people off the train for the sake of Line 4 passengers.

It's more about E-W transfers from Finch West to Sheppard. If we could build quad track from Sheppard West to Finch West or York U, I would be fine with it (notwithstanding the likely-enormous cost of such an endeavor).

 

[Bureaucromancer]

It's more about E-W transfers from Finch West to Sheppard.

And Hwy 7 Viva, 407 GO, Barrie GO, whatever sort of rapid transit might land on Jane and Steeles, let along the surface routes it intercepts. We're not talking about a small number of connections here so much as a bundle of extremely powerful ones with genuine regional importance. My view of the thing is that interlining Sheppard West extension would, in combination with a 407 Transitway, be functionally equivalent to extending Sheppard itself all the way to Renforth, Pearson or Woodbine.

I'd re-iterate the point about the six month trial as well. Building in this capability really isn't that far off from the type of junction we'd be looking at on any Sheppard extension.

 

[EnviroTO]

The majority on Sheppard or Y-U are never going to TYSSE.

Correct, which makes it odd if both routes need to go to a place that most people do not go.

Given how different the modes of operation are, I would, like with the ol' B-D, run a 6 month trial of each, analyzing passenger flow, ridership, station crowding, train loads, etc. and with a survey at the end, determine which one is better.

I don't think you need a study after the line opens. For B-D it actually made more sense than this and it failed. On B-D most people wanted to go downtown so the benefit of that if successful would have been much greater. Condition 1: Majority of trips go to shared corridor = PASS. Condition 2: All trains fit in the shared corridor = PASS. Yet even under the conditions where interlining has shown most successful it was not chosen... perhaps due to challenges with people lingering in stations waiting for specific trains.

Currently, platform efficiency does not need to be high on TYSSE - it's a low ridership corridor.

But the trains on Line 1 that go to York University come from downtown which is not a low ridership corridor. So downtown there would need to be a sign that says "this train ends at Sheppard West" and "this train ends a Vaughan" and people wanting to go to Vaughan would be congregating on the platform at Union waiting for their train.

It's more about E-W transfers from Finch West to Sheppard. If we could build quad track from Sheppard West to Finch West or York U, I would be fine with it (notwithstanding the likely-enormous cost of such an endeavor).

What ridership counts do you think the Sheppard West to York U would have to justify the investment?

 

[Bureaucromancer]

What ridership counts do you think the Sheppard West to York U would have to justify the investment?

That would depend on both the actual cost differential wouldn't it? Although I'd argue based on regional strategic purpose there's also more to it than pure numbers, a large portion of it's ridership being likely to be travel patterns that would otherwise not be realistically feasible on transit.

 

[EnviroTO]

It's more about E-W transfers from Finch West to Sheppard.

If it is really only about transfers to Finch West then I agree the fact the network was not planned as a network (i.e. pick Sheppard or Finch vs east as Sheppard and west as Finch) is a bit of an issue. However, I'm not sure diverting the highest order of transit makes sense to remediate that. It would be better to interline the LRT.

 

[DirectionNorth]

If it is really only about transfers to Finch West then I agree the fact the network was not planned as a network (i.e. pick Sheppard or Finch vs east as Sheppard and west as Finch) is a bit of an issue. However, I'm not sure diverting the highest order of transit makes sense to remediate that. It would be better to interline the LRT.

The train has left the station on that - we'd need to delay Finch W/close it for years to build the connection. The logic is that once you've gone to Finch W with the Sheppard Line, might as well go to York U to eliminate a one station linear transfer for North York originating students, and it's only 3 stations to Vaughan Metropolitan Center.

The only downside to this plan is that Sheppard cannot be extended further west, but given the low(er) density of Sheppard west of there and the presence of the Finch West LRT, there's really not any chance of it.

View attachment 348976

Correct, which makes it odd if both routes need to go to a place that most people do not go.

The idea is that TYSSE is a low-ridership corridor, but that it is roughly diagonal, placing it on two transit axes.

I don't think you need a study after the line opens. For B-D it actually made more sense than this and it failed. On B-D most people wanted to go downtown so the benefit of that if successful would have been much greater. Condition 1: Majority of trips go to shared corridor = PASS. Condition 2: All trains fit in the shared corridor = PASS. Yet even under the conditions where interlining has shown most successful it was not chosen... perhaps due to challenges with people lingering in stations waiting for specific trains.

B-D was abandoned due to operational complexity and issues at Bay Station.

But the trains on Line 1 that go to York University come from downtown which is not a low ridership corridor.

It's not only about ridership; it's about serving a new market which we've mostly ignored: the suburb-suburb market.

I don't have any studies, unfortunately. This debate would be easier with numbers. But given that total ridership on Sheppard is 50,000 today (much more with SSE and SSW), and TYSSE ridership is only 90,000 today, I think that the numbers are enough to try it.

So downtown there would need to be a sign that says "this train ends at Sheppard West" and "this train ends a Vaughan" and people wanting to go to Vaughan would be congregating on the platform at Union waiting for their train.

Only during rush hour; see below.

What ridership counts do you think the Sheppard West to York U would have to justify the investment?

I don't know, nor do I have actual numbers. I would prefer that we turn trains back at Yorkdale and use the extra track capacity from that. Infuriatingly, I have no TTC timetables, but trains are turned at peak, and off-peak, frequencies are no higher than 4 minutes. We can run trains through that, honestly.

 

[EnviroTO]

It's not only about ridership; it's about serving a new market which we've mostly ignored: the suburb-suburb market.

The Finch LRT and Sheppard Line are a suburb-suburb market wherever they go. Sending multiple lines to trace the same route doesn't increase the number of points served in the suburb-suburb market.

Only during rush hour; see below.

Unfortunately at rush hour is when the downtown core stations need to be running as optimally as possible.

 

[DirectionNorth]

The Finch LRT and Sheppard Line are a suburb-suburb market wherever they go. Sending multiple lines to trace the same route doesn't increase the number of points served in the suburb-suburb market.

It's not increasing the number points, it's decreasing number of transfers.

Unfortunately at rush hour is when the downtown core stations need to be running as optimally as possible.

It was a practice that (while I cannot find schedules, apparently) was already done by the TTC.

Of course, the larger issue is afternoon peak hour trains, but those could be turned at Sheppard West.

(Total number of trains to TYSSE in afternoon rush = 120, people taking those trains: less than 40,000.)

 

[EnviroTO]

It's not increasing the number points, it's decreasing number of transfers.

Only the transfers on an already well served set of destinations from Line 4. It is clear that you are in love with the idea of interlining to York U and a big fan of Sheppard East, because the alternatives to interlining are the benefits of many others. The people on Line 1 on a short turned train that could have gone to Vaughan are inconvenienced, the people in the new locations a westerly extension of Line 4 could have gone are inconvenienced, the people who accidentally get on to a Sheppard train that end up at Bathurst North and need to go back a station and transfer are inconvenienced. All this for the travel pattern of Yonge-Sheppard to York U.

You would think if this was a core demographic that the TTC would run a direct Sheppard-Yonge to York U bus like they run the 985B Fairview to Scarborough Centre Express. That route was created on the path of a potential subway extension with limited stops. I wonder how it's ridership numbers look.

 

[ARG1]

Correct, which makes it odd if both routes need to go to a place that most people do not go.

But since its routes that most people do not go, that would make it easier to have some trains double back and do this interlining no?

I don't think you need a study after the line opens. For B-D it actually made more sense than this and it failed. On B-D most people wanted to go downtown so the benefit of that if successful would have been much greater. Condition 1: Majority of trips go to shared corridor = PASS. Condition 2: All trains fit in the shared corridor = PASS. Yet even under the conditions where interlining has shown most successful it was not chosen... perhaps due to challenges with people lingering in stations waiting for specific trains.

See my above argument on why this is a false comparison. In short the circumstances of the 3 line plan's failure is mostly a product of its time.

But the trains on Line 1 that go to York University come from downtown which is not a low ridership corridor. So downtown there would need to be a sign that says "this train ends at Sheppard West" and "this train ends a Vaughan" and people wanting to go to Vaughan would be congregating on the platform at Union waiting for their train.

Maybe not, if people are concerned about being on a crowded platform, they can just take the train to Sheppard West and wait for the next train there. Idly waiting for a train on a crowded platform isn't any faster for the passenger.

What ridership counts do you think the Sheppard West to York U would have to justify the investment?

The "investment" in this case is an expanded Junction Box, which isn't all that pricy especially when you're almost certainly going to have a connection South on Line 1 as well.

 

[denfromoakvillemilton]

Huh. Interesting. In this TTC report I see the following:

"
Line 4 Sheppard East Extension
As part of their 2019 announcement, the Province indicated that they would consider an
eastward extension of Line 4 Sheppard, from Don Mills Station to connect with the
proposed station on the Line 2 extension at Sheppard Avenue and McCowan Road.
Metrolinx has indicated that planning work on this extension has commenced and will
be reported back in due course.
"

Well this is interesting. Let's see where this goes.

 

[Bureaucromancer]

Maybe not, if people are concerned about being on a crowded platform, they can just take the train to Sheppard West and wait for the next train there. Idly waiting for a train on a crowded platform isn't any faster for the passenger.

If this is well run and signed we could do even better than that.

The up-side of a simple design at Sheppard West is that the lines would be independent of each other to that point. It would be entirely feasible, barring congestion entering/existing Wilson, to run the short turns to Sheppard with good next train signage for the minimum possible waiting times all around.