News   Jul 04, 2024
 267     0 
News   Jul 04, 2024
 441     0 
News   Jul 04, 2024
 530     1 

Transit City: Sheppard East Debate

This just goes to show how grotesquely expensive a Sheppard Subway extension would've been if a primarily surface LRT line lacking ROW exclusivity is somehow now exceeding well over a billion dollars.

Although not cheaper than the SE LRT, the shorter subway till STC would have been a reasonable cost, removed a transfer and provided a subway connection to the only provincially designated urban growth centre in the 416 without one. It also would have attracted vastly higher ridership than the LRT.
 
I'm with Keith - Amphibius, I don't see how this proves how expensive a subway would have been. What it shows is that they have to tunnel that section anyway and raises the question of how practical it would have been to just use the same technology from end to end instead of doing this modal switcheroo. It's that many fewer LRT cars to buy right off the top.

If TTC did an actual cost-benefit analysis of what they are doing vs. a subway I'd be SHOCKED (and I'd like to see it).

Obviously a subway would be MORE expensive but how much more and what's the trade-off? Did they even check? Isn't that the real question here in the Transfer City house of cards?
 
Really, why are we spending that much to build transit that's not even in a fully-separated ROW? And if you're gonna build a tunnel, why not build that tunnel as a subway and start the LRT later? It's just completely nonsensical the way the TTC is going about this.
 
Those costs for the LRT tunnel was known before hand as one of the options. It was no surprise. It is still cheaper than the subway extension option. The cheapest would have been surface LRT all the way to Don Mills, but there would have been problems with access and transfers.
 
Really, why are we spending that much to build transit that's not even in a fully-separated ROW? And if you're gonna build a tunnel, why not build that tunnel as a subway and start the LRT later? It's just completely nonsensical the way the TTC is going about this.
And what is a less nonsensical transfer point than Don Mills station? Consumers Rd?
 
^ That's why I have suggested an overlap before. Extend the subway to consumers and then keep the LRT on the surface to Don Mills.
 
I'm with Keith - Amphibius, I don't see how this proves how expensive a subway would have been. What it shows is that they have to tunnel that section anyway and raises the question of how practical it would have been to just use the same technology from end to end instead of doing this modal switcheroo. It's that many fewer LRT cars to buy right off the top.

If TTC did an actual cost-benefit analysis of what they are doing vs. a subway I'd be SHOCKED (and I'd like to see it).

Obviously a subway would be MORE expensive but how much more and what's the trade-off? Did they even check? Isn't that the real question here in the Transfer City house of cards?

It's messed up no matter how you slice it. Back in 2003, the TTC stated a 8.6 kilometre subway extension could've been undertaken for $1.75 billion. In today's dollars that's $2.13 billion. However David Miller himself said the 6 km Yonge subway extension to Highway 7 could cost as much as $4-5 billion and the TTC itself's quoted as stating $300 million/kilometre. Using that stat as a template, $300 million/km x 8.6kms= $2.58 billion. My point about the subway extension though stems from all the hidden costs to the taxpayer that'd come out of the woodwork after the political backing's in place, just as is turning out to be the case here.

Honestly, even without SE LRT getting greenlit the earliest we could've anticipated a Sheppard subway extension to SCC is 2035, by which time inflation may make it a fiscal impossibility to construct. Also by that time we could see a Bloor-Danforth subway extension to SCC, a premetro quality level of service across the Eglinton corridor and various bus rapid transit options. With these viable higher-order options in place, Scarborough residents largely won't feel the affects of not having this link~ at least not in the form of a subway full-length~ unless they're really in a hurry to get to NYCC.
 
And what is a less nonsensical transfer point than Don Mills station? Consumers Rd?

The least nonsensical thing to do would be to, I dunno, finish what you started? Is that a life lesson the TTC hasn't learned yet?
 
However David Miller himself said the 6 km Yonge subway extension to Highway 7 could cost as much as $4-5 billion and the TTC itself's quoted as stating $300 million/kilometre.

This price included a lot of extras, including adding secondary entrances to a number of downtown stations, rebuilding Bloor, signal work, etc.

All of that crap needs to be done anyway but the city is trying to get the Province and York Region to foot part of the bill. It's good politics actually for the Mayor to be reminding the general public that more riders at the North end of the line means reduced capacity for people getting on at the South end.
 
This price included a lot of extras, including adding secondary entrances to a number of downtown stations, rebuilding Bloor, signal work, etc.

All of that crap needs to be done anyway but the city is trying to get the Province and York Region to foot part of the bill. It's good politics actually for the Mayor to be reminding the general public that more riders at the North end of the line means reduced capacity for people getting on at the South end.

Although I do agree that any upgrades to the subway should be paid for by the whole GTA, I question whether these upgrades are truly required. I think that the problems that the above solutions address are symptomatic of a much larger problem, which is that each subway line in the GTA serves too large a geographic area.

Given the small size of the Toronto subway, scarce funds must be spent primarily on system expansion. Although we could spend $2.5 billion upgrading the Yonge subway (not including extension to Richmond Hill), a better way of reducing crowding would be to use that money to build new subway lines from scratch.

The upgrades that the TTC is consdering for the Yonge line, such as 90 minute frequencies and super transfer stations, should only be on the table for a fully built out subway system. They are appropriate when the density in a corridor is so high that even parallel subway lines aren't enough to address crowding.

Having said that, I believe that the TTC is taking a quantum leap in its subway building philosophy. Rather than striving to build lots of normal subway lines with normal sized stations and normal frequencies of 2-3 minutes, it's going straight from quasi LRT to souped up existing subway lines with insane frequencies and cavernous stations that only a super dense city like New York would require.

Wellesley should be the model subway station. It's barely beneath street level, has a modest bus terminal, and the station air rights are developed. Summerhill is another good one - it's shallow, efficient, and the concourse area is smaller than my 1 bedroom apartment. If these are the types of stations the TTC built and at these tunnel depths (but preferably directly underneath the main street), the cost of subway construction may drop to not much more than $100 million per km including stations. The most important thing to learn from the Sheppard TC line is that you can build underground transit for around this price so long as you don't build stations with 30 underground bus platforms, 2 kms of passageways, and a football field sized concourse area 50 feet underground.
 
Last edited:
But Wellesley is not the model station in every aspect - it only has one entrance. College and Dundas, for instance, could use entrances no matter what happens anywhere else. College needs wider staircases and is quite comical around 5pm...the entire station grinds to a halt if, say, one person with a cane tries to use it. Yonge (Bloor line) platform would also warrant widening even if three DRLs were built (though it's probably impossible in practical terms to widen Yonge and not Bloor, not to mention expensive and disruptive).

Steeles station will likely cost over $300M even though acres of empty land surrounds the intersection...they're buying a whole bunch of houses to accommodate the three entry ramps but I guess no one thought of using these tens of millions of dollars of expropriated property to, you know, put the station on.
 
Having said that, I believe that the TTC is taking a quantum leap in its subway building philosophy. Rather than striving to build lots of normal subway lines with normal sized stations and normal frequencies of 2-3 minutes, it's going straight from quasi LRT to souped up existing subway lines with insane frequencies and cavernous stations that only a super dense city like New York would require.
Was there a touch of sarcasm there? I sure don't think that is a very healthy philosophy :eek:
 
But Wellesley is not the model station in every aspect - it only has one entrance.

And if one wants, another "not model" aspect is in *how* the air rights is handled, i.e. by piggybacking an ugly apartment building garage on top. (Though at least it didn't impair the form of the 1954 Parkin station below. The 80s retiling is another issue.)
 
Wellesley showcases with what is wrong with Toronto subway station design. It's either too small and cheap or too grand and expensive (as Steeles is proposed to be).

I think the ideal station in Toronto is something like the North York Centre station. It's well integrated with the surrounding buildings. The mezzanine is not too big, and it has several exits from the station.

Wellesley's platform width is super narrow, and it only has one stairwell and escalator from mezzanine to platform. That is not ideal at all. Stations need to be built for the potential demand on them. I'm okay with building larger stations and platforms downtown as they is higher ridership. In the suburbs, the airport terminal style stations have to go (a la Downsview). They're expensive and not very useful. Case in point, Downsview's design aesthetically is nice, but practically it's awful. The north entrance requires a long walk to the fare gate (since most users from that entrance are high-school students, they need to walk to other end).

Secondly, the parking lot is a long walk from the station entrance, even the closest spot.

These are the kinds of stations we want to avoid. I think what the Sheppard subway did get right is the width of the platform. I believe the Sheppard platform width is wider than the other subway stations. I would prefer that stations have more width since it makes it more comfortable waiting for a train. Some of the downtown stations are down-right scary in terms of how narrow the platforms are (Yonge station on Bloor line).
 

Back
Top