Sheppard Stubway

[CodeMonkey]

So, should Sheppard have been LRT from the start?

Only if they where going to plan a 5 station stop.

But truthfully if the line was suppose to be extend to Downsview & STC as its original terminus i would think the line would have had more than enough riders to justify a subway.

 

[Voltz]

What they should have done was fairly evaluate all modes and consider the rest of the network, not ignore GO transit and try to funnel as much riders as possible into their pre determined line.

 

[unimaginative2]

They did that 20 years ago and determined that it should be a subway. Then they built the first phase of the subway. Unfortunately, Harris' elimination of funding delayed its completion, and then the city threw out all of its plans in favour of the back-of-envelope LRT plan that became Transit City.

 

[kEiThZ]

^ Despite what you would consider 'back of the envelope' considerations there are serious transit advocates like Steve who for better or for worse are advocating for Transit City. So how do you get answer his (and other advocates) challenges? Was the Sheppard subway to be largely a commuter service? In which case, I could see the logic of deploying LRT. Or would it have spurred more off-peak usage, making a subway more viable?

 

[Rainforest]

So, should Sheppard have been LRT from the start?

A comprehensive plan with complete funding is what was needed.

Either secure funds for a subway of reasonable length (say Yonge to STC, or Downsview to Kennedy), and build it.

Or, design it as LRT from the onset, tunneled in the central section (probably Downsview to Don Mills) and in a surface ROW at the edges.

 

[unimaginative2]

^ Despite what you would consider 'back of the envelope' considerations there are serious transit advocates like Steve who for better or for worse are advocating for Transit City. So how do you get answer his (and other advocates) challenges? Was the Sheppard subway to be largely a commuter service? In which case, I could see the logic of deploying LRT. Or would it have spurred more off-peak usage, making a subway more viable?

When I say back of the envelope, I'm simply saying that there were no studies beforehand to determine travel patterns and demand and select the various corridors.

I think the criticisms of the Sheppard subway are symptomatic of the frankly bizarre behaviour of transit advocates. You would never find a health care advocate attacking a government for overbuilding a hospital. It's just inconceivable. This competitive attitude of needing to slag some other project to promote one's own has made the transit lobby far less effective than others.

The idea that Sheppard is purely a commuter service is a myth, or certainly a myth in any sense beyond the fact that all of the TTC is to some extent a commuter system. Obviously it's busy in peak times, but it's well-used in off-peak periods as well. That's why a 6km half-line is busier than any surface route in the city. Ridership would increase markedly if only they would finish the route properly, with one technology and no transfer, between the city's two main suburban growth centres.

As I've said a million times, I'm not opposed to components of the Transit City plan. I also appreciate the attempt to provide a network that would serve the whole city. I simply have problems with the way that personal technology preferences seem to have clearly infected the planning process, with the political nature of the planning (a streetcar to every ward), and with the lack of any improvement in the downtown core at a time of unprecedented transit investment.

 

[kettal]

I simply have problems with the way that personal technology preferences seem to have clearly infected the planning process, with the political nature of the planning (a streetcar to every ward), and with the lack of any improvement in the downtown core at a time of unprecedented transit investment.

This is the problem we have from amalgamation. Any downtown focused transit investment will make a mayor unpopular, because the suburban voters will say "what good does this do to me when I can't even get on it from my house?"

 

[scarberiankhatru]

This is the problem we have from amalgamation. Any downtown focused transit investment will make a mayor unpopular, because the suburban voters will say "what good does this do to me when I can't even get on it from my house?"

No, they won't say that, because they're using the downtown lines.

 

[unimaginative2]

There's frankly no massive public demand for transit investment anywhere. Thousands of people came out to sign petitions and attend meetings to support a Scarborough subway. Then, when the councillors abruptly abandoned the plan, they all pretty much melted away. It's not like there'd be a mob out there protesting downtown investment. Besides, Transit City will probably wind up costing its political supporters more votes than it gains them. Rather few people will have their vote decided by a new light rail line in their neighbourhood, while a fair number might change their vote if they lose some of their property, or the neighbourhood trees are cut down, or they can no longer turn left onto their street.

 

[GenerationW]

In answer to the question:

So, should Sheppard have been LRT from the start?

The subway should have been completed as originally planned.

When Mel was mayor of North York, I remember he used to complain over and over again how Toronto got everything and North York/the suburbs got nothing. Once he got in charge of an amalgamated Toronto, the salesman couldn't fully deliver.

 

[gweed123]

That's why a 6km half-line is busier than any surface route in the city.

FALSE. Look at the ridership numbers, the King/Lakeshore (they're grouped together in the stats for some reason) Queen, and College streetcars EACH carry around the same or slightly more passengers per day than the Sheppard Subway, and they're at-grade shared lane routes. The only reason Dundas isn't in there too is because when the stats were taken the tracks were being rebuilt.

Think of how much more attractive these routes would be if they had dedicated lanes or dedicated ROWs (I know it'll never happen without tunelling, I'm just saying).

 

[doady]

FALSE. Look at the ridership numbers, the King/Lakeshore (they're grouped together in the stats for some reason) Queen, and College streetcars EACH carry around the same or slightly more passengers per day than the Sheppard Subway, and they're at-grade shared lane routes. The only reason Dundas isn't in there too is because when the stats were taken the tracks were being rebuilt.

King, Queen, and College streetcars all much longer than the Sheppard subway.

 

[gweed123]

They also have much lower capacity potentials, given that they are shared lane, shared ROW routes. Consider the fact that in the AM peak the Queen line has 29 streetcars servicing it. Sheppard has what, 4 trains (2 EB and 2 WB) on at any given point, 4 cars on each train, so thats 16 cars (approx the same capacity as 1 streetcar). So thats 55% of the absolute service on the Queen line, over maybe 20% of the length of the Queen line.

The Queen line is at capacity, Sheppard is nowhere close to it.

 

[scarberiankhatru]

FALSE. Look at the ridership numbers, the King/Lakeshore (they're grouped together in the stats for some reason) Queen, and College streetcars EACH carry around the same or slightly more passengers per day than the Sheppard Subway, and they're at-grade shared lane routes. The only reason Dundas isn't in there too is because when the stats were taken the tracks were being rebuilt.

Think of how much more attractive these routes would be if they had dedicated lanes or dedicated ROWs (I know it'll never happen without tunelling, I'm just saying).

Um, FALSE. The streetcar routes that you mentioned are split by subway lines, which slashes their peak ridership (the busyness metric that matters most) by quite a bit. Routes like Queen are also far longer than Sheppard and, therefore, see more turnover, again lowering their busyness. The only one that is comparable is Spadina, but even its numbers include many Harbourfront users.

If, say, Dundas had a ROW or ran in a tunnel, a huge portion of the ridership boost it'd get would merely be cannibalized from parallel routes. If Sheppard was as long as Queen, or even as long as Dundas, its ridership would go up and it'd start feeding off parallel routes, too.

They also have much lower capacity potentials, given that they are shared lane, shared ROW routes. Consider the fact that in the AM peak the Queen line has 29 streetcars servicing it. Sheppard has what, 4 trains (2 EB and 2 WB) on at any given point, 4 cars on each train, so thats 16 cars (approx the same capacity as 1 streetcar). So thats 55% of the absolute service on the Queen line, over maybe 20% of the length of the Queen line.

The Queen line is at capacity, Sheppard is nowhere close to it.

Queen is not at capacity...they can add more service (or just operate the current vehicles better).

 

[Epi]

King, Queen, and College streetcars all much longer than the Sheppard subway.

Most people who ride Sheppard get on/off at Yonge and on/off at Don Mills. A huge number of them are just getting off the Sheppard bus, walking down the Don Mills station, then finishing the ride to Yonge. I think if you're to seriously look at this subway, you need to look at it as part a longer Sheppard East bus/subway line.