News   Dec 20, 2024
UrbanToronto Year-End Poll: Vote on the Best Buildings of 2024, presented by Sapphire Balconies
 3.7K     11 
News   Dec 20, 2024
UrbanToronto's Social Media Presence Skyrocketed in 2024
 1.3K     4 
News   Dec 20, 2024
Mattamy Homes Records A Year of Accomplishments
 2.1K     0 

TTC: Sheppard Subway Expansion (Speculative)

BurlOak said:
Its funny that if you look at the scoring grid (Table 15, page 41), and take away the financial indicators, the LRT still wins hands down.

I think these experts were a little too biased.
Click to expand...

That is because if you look they incorporated where the money saved would be spent (i.e. Finch West) into their analysis. So even when the fiscal indicators aren't directly being considered, they are indirectly considered because that money is building Finch West which serves more people, spurs more economic development, serves more riders, etc. That is why the analysis of LRT will always win as long as the study is not focused on a solving a capacity issue for over 10,000 people per hour, or focused on trip times above all other benefits. You multiply the non-financial benefits which will not be as good as a subway on a specific route by the number of routes you get to build for the same amount of money. You really never remove money from the equation.
 
Last edited:
Having read the report and most of the linked documents, I'd agree that there may be some bias towards LRT, but that pales in comparison to the pro-subway bias in the TTIL Summary. Good grief, I cannot remember seeing such a one-sided, incoherent, badly redacted, amateurish, and generally hopeless hack-job from a publicly funded entity. Just copy and paste "subway better" several times on every page and away you go. Good thing they ran out of money.
 
EnviroTO said:
That is because if you look they incorporated where the money saved would be spent (i.e. Finch West) into their analysis. So even when the fiscal indicators aren't directly being considered, they are indirectly considered because that money is building Finch East which serves more people, spurs more economic development, serves more riders, etc. That is why the analysis of LRT will always win as long as the study is not focused on a solving a capacity issue for over 10,000 people per hour, or focused on trip times above all other benefits. You multiply the non-financial benefits which will not be as good as a subway on a specific route by the number of routes you get to build for the same amount of money. You really never remove money from the equation.
Click to expand...

The cost of Finch West ($1.0 billion) is included with all three options on page 20; it does not vary between the options, and hence cannot account for the score difference.

It is possible that their scoring system incorporates an assumption that money not spent on Sheppard will be available for future transit projects; but I did not find any explicit confirmation of that in the document.
 
EnviroTO said:
That is because if you look they incorporated where the money saved would be spent (i.e. Finch West) into their analysis. So even when the fiscal indicators aren't directly being considered, they are indirectly considered because that money is building Finch East which serves more people, spurs more economic development, serves more riders, etc. That is why the analysis of LRT will always win as long as the study is not focused on a solving a capacity issue for over 10,000 people per hour, or focused on trip times above all other benefits. You multiply the non-financial benefits which will not be as good as a subway on a specific route by the number of routes you get to build for the same amount of money. You really never remove money from the equation.
Click to expand...

I did not read in the report that this was considered. If they wanted, they could have put a larger factor on the cost - since I believe this is the main reason. You may even be able to calculate a cost per km where subway would be better - but to argue that subway is worse, regarless of cost is plain false. I would guess this value to be in the $200-250M/km range (i.e. if the subway could be built for $1.5B to $2.0B range, it would be better).

Reports like this that completely exagerate the benfits of LRT just wind up hurting the credibility of the experts. Similarly, exagerating the costs of subway also harm the LRT cause - I believe the highest estimate I saw elsewhere was $4.7B for the DM to STC) subway.
 
BurlOak said:
You may even be able to calculate a cost per km where subway would be better - but to argue that subway is worse, regarless of cost is plain false.
...Similarly, exagerating the costs of subway also harm the LRT cause - I believe the highest estimate I saw elsewhere was $4.7B for the DM to STC) subway.
Click to expand...

Capital costs aside, subway would still be worse because of the steep operating losses not found with LRT - the capital side would only be the first major hurdle. And the $4.7B price tag is for Downsview to STC.
 
if I see one more instance of "streetcars running down the middle of our streets" or "st clair disaster" I'll lose it
 
The reality is that Sheppard is built and Toronto must do something to make a viable line.
Getting across Sheppard is a nightmare and adding a small LRT or subway extension will do nothing to correct the situation.
Should Sheppard been a subway?......no but it's there so Toronto is going to have to maake the best of it.
It would be ideal if the do the whole line from STC to Downsview but if not possible they should atleast either build the Downsview to Yonge section or the DM to STC section so it gets rid of a useless transfer just to go a few km.
Extending it just a couple km east to VP will probably save the average commuter only 5 minutes...........an obscene waste of $1 billion.
Even if the city demands and even gets LRT from DM to STC it still doesn't change the fact that that there is the Downsview to Yonge section.
 
ssiguy2 said:
Extending it just a couple km east to VP will probably save the average commuter only 5 minutes...........an obscene waste of $1 billion.
Even if the city demands and even gets LRT from DM to STC it still doesn't change the fact that that there is the Downsview to Yonge section.
Click to expand...

The people in scarborough will love that - no money to build the subway east but money to build it west
 
Brt

I am a bit surprised that this report did not compare BRT against LRT and subways. How would BRT have fared under the report's points system?
 
I'm usually very opinionated, but I'm not sure what the best option for Sheppard is. I like extending the subway because it seems like a waste of the existing line to switch to LRT, and because 50 years (comment above from drum118 that Sheppard can't support a subway for 50 years) isn't that far off considering how long it seems to take to build anything. But as I'm not an expert and various experts have come out in favour of LRT... I can at least agree that the whole line should have been LRT in the first place.

Anyway I see two good options for city:
1. Transit city including Sheppard LRT plus a combination of additional funding tools - income tax, property tax, parking tax, tolls, congestion charges, distance-based fare increases on the TTC - which would go to fund the downtown relief line and further LRT expansion.
2. The Sheppard Subway, Downtown Relief line and Finch LRT (etc) with the same funding as above, but somehow make the Sheppard subway contingent on zoning changes to Sheppard (as required) and development charges in order to urbanize the street.
 
The subway shouldn't have been built in the first place, but now that it's there it's a sunk cost. Unless the city is serious about urbanizing that stretch it doesn't make sense to throw more money at it. The extension to Downsview at least makes some kind of sense because of network connectivity, particularly in light of the extension to York University.

Maybe the best thing to do about Sheppard East is nothing. Do the westward extension, leave the east end alone for now (until the hypothetical urbanization is under way), and revisit the corridor in 10 years. If it's starting to look like an avenue and we actually see some employment growth then we can start the planning for an extension, and by the time it opens we'll be 20-25 years out (where the numbers might start to look a little more realistic)
 
Justin10000 said:
Why? BRT was ruled out on the original analysis.
Click to expand...

Which to me doesn't make much sense at all. They should have had 2 Hybrid options: Subway + LRT, and Subway + BRT. The fact that BRT never even entered the discussion shows me where their mindset is at.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top