TTC: Sheppard Subway Expansion (Speculative)

[Dan416]

It's too bad our subways don't follow a hub and spoke pattern.

It's also too bad our GO lines are so under-utilized. If they were electric, we could add more stations for better coverage where need be an people could zip across the city quite quickly, especially if we got that Midtown GO line.

 

[Palma]

It is a DRL, but not a Bloor-Yonge-RL.

The DRL should run along front street since they are now so many neighbourhoods around there. It makes no sense along Queen St.

 

[44 North]

It's too bad our subways don't follow a hub and spoke pattern.

My sentiments exactly.

The DRL should run along front street since they are now so many neighbourhoods around there. It makes no sense along Queen St.

I think it would be important for a DRL to intercept the financial core area (maybe around King). Although I agree that southcore and CityPlace should receive service as well. Perhaps the eastern leg should hit Yonge, with the line then veering SW and not connecting with U/S.

I wonder if Metrolinx had any basic alignment options before the study was shelved.

 

[Chuck]

Interesting to see so many comparisons to international subway systems. Using New York, London, and Paris as examples, I have a few comments to add as well:

- None of these cities say 'subway must serve this role, commuter rail must serve that role'. Their subway operates deep into the suburbs, and commuter rail lines are often extremely integrated with inner city transit.

- Subway lines need not travel under single roads for their entire route, and it would be very appropriate for certain subway lines to connect the dots instead. The DRL should run diagonally northwest, and have stops in Chinatown, Little Italy, East Don Lands, etc.

- The subways in Paris, New York, and London each consist of two fully independent systems with non interchangeable rolling stock. Don't stress over the fact that Eglinton and maybe all future underground transit lines will use LRT vehicles.

- All of these cities have multiple transit hubs, i.e. not just a single hub like our Union Station is. Let's open up the CP line to GO and/or TTC traffic.

- Especially for the DRL which might meander through tight urban corridors, the TTC should be flexible and allow the track to gently curve through certain stations.

- Lastly, wherever it makes, sense, the TTC should designate certain staircases and passageways as one way. This would be particularly useful at Union Station during construction of the second platform.

 

[agoraflaneur]

Am i the only one that just saw you contradict yourself within your same post?

"Those entitled suburbanites taking out subway seats...grr" - "We could use a subway extension to mississauga"

You must not be very adept at detecting sarcasm. The mississauga quip was merely pointing out that miss is much larger than markham, yet we only talk about markham.

I support no further subway extensions to the suburbs while transit in the city languishes or is canceled.

Not to mention the fact that there's still tens of thousands of 416 riders who live north of Finch station. How many come in on Steeles' buses?

I don't really care about those who live in the far reaches of the city but want subways to whisk them anywhere they want. Subways are not for commuting, they are also for creating livable cities with density spread reasonably in a smaller more efficient area, which will never happen in the north.

I live right downtown, and I am not affected by the loss of seats to the far suburbs, but I think those who live at Y & E - or Sheppard for that matter - should not have no space because of those who don't even pay for the city and live in markham.

Again, GO trains at that distance are the most efficient way. If you simply want to get downtown, a subway of that distance is inefficient for riders in the far north as well.

 

[uptownto]

I don't really care about those who live in the far reaches of the city but want subways to whisk them anywhere they want. Subways are not for commuting, they are also for creating livable cities with density spread reasonably in a smaller more efficient area, which will never happen in the north.

I live right downtown, and I am not affected by the loss of seats to the far suburbs, but I think those who live at Y & E - or Sheppard for that matter - should not have no space because of those who don't even pay for the city and live in markham.

Again, GO trains at that distance are the most efficient way. If you simply want to get downtown, a subway of that distance is inefficient for riders in the far north as well.

I agree with a lot of this sentiment. But the way the system has evolved, realistically, the subway has become a regional infrastructure instead of an inter-nerighbourhood link. It acts almost like a GO train, except with a flat fare structure. I seriously believe that a lot of the political issues surrounding where subways get built is because of this flat pricing model. $2.50 takes you from Eglinton West to Union, or Vaughn Centre to Union (when it opens). That's probably an extra 30km of bad congestion right there. So it offers better value to those that want to use the system as a commuter line and poor value to those that really want to use it as an inter-neighbourhood transport. That's a ton of extra value capture for living near a "far out" subway station.

Also the demand on the Yonge line is the demand at the current price. Obviously we wouldn't need a DRL if TTC fares were $15.00 instead of $2.50. Now I'm sure social justice advocates are going to want to jump on me, but if we really wanted to keep the subway as an inter-neighbourhood transport, a pay by distance strategy would be needed. Something like you enter a subway station (don't matter if it was by foot, ttc bus transfer, go train, etc), pay an entrance fee, like $1.00 which gets you something like 5 stations of travel in any direction, and then any station travelled above that would be subject to a higher rate. Sort of like a zone system, except without stupid arbitrary boundaries.

I wonder how such a system would change the current dynamics of where people want subways vs GO, and how the demand would be affected.

 

[M II A II R II K]

The DRL can be on Queen St, and the GO corridor can service the waterfront with extra stations up to Bathurst with frequent enough service of course.

 

[gweed123]

The DRL can be on Queen St, and the GO corridor can service the waterfront with extra stations up to Bathurst with frequent enough service of course.

I would be good with a DRL on Queen if (and only if) the following other conditions are met:

1) The GO Train service is electrified and running maximum 15 minute frequencies.
2) Stations are added at Liberty Village (Queen/King West), Spadina, and West Donlands.
3) The downtown portion of the WWLRT is built to adequately service CityPlace and the condos around there.
4) The East Bayfront LRT is built.

Without those, putting the DRL under Queen would be at the expense of the Waterfront communities, which I don't think is fair, given the difference in service the two have.

 

[Chuck]

I don't really care about those who live in the far reaches of the city but want subways to whisk them anywhere they want. Subways are not for commuting, they are also for creating livable cities with density spread reasonably in a smaller more efficient area, which will never happen in the north.

Subways can be whatever we make them to be, and cities like New York and London have opted to operate their subway network as a hybrid inner city/long distance commuter system. If our subway was geographically equivalent to theirs, the Yonge line would end in Oak Ridges, about 15 km farther north than where it ends today. Some stations on the ends of the line would be over 5 km apart, as is often done in London.

The choice of whether to extend the subway or rely on improved GO service should depend both on commuting patterns and proximity to existing heavy rail infrastructure, recognizing of course that the subway would run above ground and with stations farther apart outside of the city.

Back to Toronto, existing commuting patterns suggest that a subway extension north along Yonge would be far more useful than all GO service. The same is not at all true of the communities in Durham Region which have grown up around the GO train. Back to York Region, Markham's downtown is so well served by GO that a subway extension would be ridiculous. In Vaughan however, it makes perfect sense to extend the subway north since it's already reaching York University.

 

[44 North]

The choice of whether to extend the subway or rely on improved GO service should depend both on commuting patterns and proximity to existing heavy rail infrastructure,

The choice should also be dependent on whether capacity issues and priority projects in the city have been tackled first. No point in worrying about commuting patterns for a few tens of thousands when a million others are stuck on a broken system.

In Vaughan however, it makes perfect sense to extend the subway north since it's already reaching York University.

It doesn't make perfect sense. The line isn't being extended to under-developed areas; it's to undeveloped areas. Literally, they are fields.

 

[kkgg7]

I agree with a lot of this sentiment. But the way the system has evolved, realistically, the subway has become a regional infrastructure instead of an inter-nerighbourhood link. It acts almost like a GO train, except with a flat fare structure. I seriously believe that a lot of the political issues surrounding where subways get built is because of this flat pricing model. $2.50 takes you from Eglinton West to Union, or Vaughn Centre to Union (when it opens). That's probably an extra 30km of bad congestion right there. So it offers better value to those that want to use the system as a commuter line and poor value to those that really want to use it as an inter-neighbourhood transport. That's a ton of extra value capture for living near a "far out" subway station.

Also the demand on the Yonge line is the demand at the current price. Obviously we wouldn't need a DRL if TTC fares were $15.00 instead of $2.50. Now I'm sure social justice advocates are going to want to jump on me, but if we really wanted to keep the subway as an inter-neighbourhood transport, a pay by distance strategy would be needed. Something like you enter a subway station (don't matter if it was by foot, ttc bus transfer, go train, etc), pay an entrance fee, like $1.00 which gets you something like 5 stations of travel in any direction, and then any station travelled above that would be subject to a higher rate. Sort of like a zone system, except without stupid arbitrary boundaries.

I wonder how such a system would change the current dynamics of where people want subways vs GO, and how the demand would be affected.

True. the flat fare system is indeed stupid and unfair. We could adopt the "fare zone" concept in London, Paris and Vancouver. For example,

Zone one: downtown: within Union, Bathurst, Sherbourne ($1.5/$2 Cash)
Zone two: Highpark, Woodbine, Eglington, Eglington West ($2.5/$3)
Zone three: Further away ($3.5/$4)
Anything outside Toronto (in the future) - ($4.5/$5)

In Seattle, taking public transit is free within downtown. That is an excellent way to encourage transit in stead of driving. I am sure Toronto will never be generous enough to to that. It actually is the best way, especially considering downtown area is very small. Walking from union to Bloor is a matter of 30 minutes.

Metropass should be priced on this as well.

I am sure TTC will see increased revenue. the suburbs will definitely complain, but they have no ground since it is fair to pay more when you use more resources.

 

[nfitz]

In Seattle, taking public transit is free within downtown. That is an excellent way to encourage transit in stead of driving.

And yet, I've never been as tightly packed on a vehicle in Seattle as tightly as I frequently am in Toronto - except after a Sounders game.

In Seattle, the free fares only apply to buses, and not their LRT in downtown - even when you are going between the same stations. It also only applies in daytime, not in the evening (that's an odd one ...). And it's only for an 8x20 block area - people within this area would likely not bother driving in the first place; I don't think this policy really would reduce car usage; it simply uses excess capacity, and also smooths out operation of their variable pay-on-entry/pay-on-exit system.

In my experience, even with the free rides, most of the people on the bus, are crossing the fare boundary, and are having to pay.

 

[Justin10000]

I am sure TTC will see increased revenue. the suburbs will definitely complain, but they have no ground since it is fair to pay more when you use more resources.

So.. you think it's fair to ding people who are unfortunate to live outside the core with crappy service? You know the suburbanite who can afford to drive will just drive, right? Or its just easier to ding the poor, so people with great transit service and alternatives pay less?

 

[uptownto]

True. the flat fare system is indeed stupid and unfair. We could adopt the "fare zone" concept in London, Paris and Vancouver. For example,

Zone one: downtown: within Union, Bathurst, Sherbourne ($1.5/$2 Cash)
Zone two: Highpark, Woodbine, Eglington, Eglington West ($2.5/$3)
Zone three: Further away ($3.5/$4)
Anything outside Toronto (in the future) - ($4.5/$5)

I personally disagree with zones that are based on street/station boundaries as it will unfairly punish people on the boundaries. Someone going from Lawrence to Eglinton shouldn't get dinged more than anyone else travelling one stop on the system. Zones could be created, but based on where your trip originated from and number of stations or kms travelled. I also think the rates should reflect time of use and demand. I'm sure current technology exists to make this feasible, obviously it would have to be a completely electronic system, but I haven't thought about the implementation much or if it is something PRESTO could easily be converted to.

There's another thread on here about pricing congestion on the roads which I thought was a great read, and think a lot of the ideas could be applied to the subway system which itself seems to be a scarce resource (particularly certain segments) and capacity seems really hard to add.

I don't have problems with subway in the suburbs. There are plenty of major office clusters north of Eglinton. If someone from Richmond Hill Centre wants to use the subway to get to their job at Finch, then go ahead by all means. However if they want to use it to get to their job at the Financial District and not use the GO service (because it is currently more expensive), then I have a problem with that. The subway for long haul distances should be priced HIGHER than GO because of the all day frequent service and destination possibilities it provides you. It is a premium service, and its price should reflect that.

In Seattle, taking public transit is free within downtown. That is an excellent way to encourage transit in stead of driving. I am sure Toronto will never be generous enough to to that. It actually is the best way, especially considering downtown area is very small. Walking from union to Bloor is a matter of 30 minutes.

The problem with making things free is that people will attach a zero value to the good or service and basically abuse it, treat it like junk, etc. Also given that our subways are packed, especially downtown, I don't think we need any more incentives. I think another good outcome of the pay-by-distance method I outlined is that people might be motivated to get off a few stops earlier than they would have done before, and walk in the PATH or outside on a nice day to save a bit of money and free up some capacity on the trains.

 

[kkgg7]

So.. you think it's fair to ding people who are unfortunate to live outside the core with crappy service? You know the suburbanite who can afford to drive will just drive, right? Or its just easier to ding the poor, so people with great transit service and alternatives pay less?

I think it is fair that you pay more for longer distances you travel. If you think it is not fair, do you consider it fair for someone to pay equal amount of money to travel from Scarborough towncenter to Pearson Airport as someone to travel from King station to Bloor?
Staged fare system are adopted everywhere, so it is not fair in London, Paris etc?