26 Comments »

1. SHEPPARD:  Finish the subway.  It’s not the most important subway corridor in the GTA by any means, but over time will prove to be an important crosstown route (somewhat providing an alternative to the 401).  Permanently stunting the subway at Don Mills makes little sense.  A Shappeard subway though from SCC to Downsview would add significantly to the “network” in ways that maybe can’t be measured using traditional “cost analysis” means.  I also think the TTC’s cost-effective analysis findings are generally a little low as the Sheppard line would already be considered a success already in most other cities.

   SCARBOROUGH RT:  Finish the B-D line to Scarborough Town Centre and then build lght rail fanning out to various points of Scarborough from there.  Kennedy is an arbitrary and non-sensible place for a subway line to end and gives people in a car-centric area another transfer and another reason to take that car.  This line is close to subway capacity already and Scarborough Centre is slowly gaining the critical mass of residence needed to support heavy rail service.

   MISSISSAUGA LRT:  Perhaps a combination of moving the terminal slightly to the east and having the LRT divert slightly to the west would be best compromise (however, there could be some issues as MCC continues to develop areas on Square One’s periphery).

   Comment by Jason Paris — March 6, 2009 @ 7:42 am

2. If we were smart, we would build a Finch East LRT and leave Sheppard alone for a while. The demand is higher on Finch.

   Planning the LRT along Sheppard artificially increases the urgency of doing something to the corridor. Doing anything at all makes us want to do expensive things like a full subway that really won’t be justified for a long time.

   As for the SRT replacement, I think LRT really is the best choice. It will show off the strengths of the LRT mode, provided great service further afield, and build a good network backbone. The subway can still be extended later as it would follow a different route than the existing SRT. The LRT track can then be modified — perhaps as a core for a future Lawrence East LRT.

   Skytrain is a terrible choice for Toronto. It’s a proprietary, single-vendor technology with less capacity than a subway and less reliability than LRT. Snow paralyzes Mark II Skytrain cars in Vancouver just as much as it paralyzes Mark I SRT cars in Toronto — Vancouver just gets less snow. I’m not sure why it’s even on the table, given SRT’s terrible performance and rider experience.

   Comment by Leo Petr — March 6, 2009 @ 8:53 am

3. @ Jason

   I think this leads us to the question “How can we quantify subjective criteria like customer convenience and experience in a planning environment that is primary oriented around objective criteria like ridership, capacity and cost?”

   Discuss with examples.

   Comment by Andrae Griffith — March 6, 2009 @ 1:42 pm

4. SHEPPARD: Should have been LRT from the start.
   Scarborough RT: Convert to LRT and continue west along Eglinton and east. Money would be saved in the future going this way
   Mississauga City Centre: The Hurontario LRT should not divert. Any terminal should be closer to Hurontario.

   Comment by W. K. Lis — March 6, 2009 @ 5:25 pm

5. Andrae said … “Is eliminating a transfer enough of a justification for the construction of a subway when a less expensive option will accommodate the demand?”

   Yes, it is – the TTC system is saddled with too many transfers already.  Someone coming in from Scarborough today has to take 3 trains to reach downtown:  RT, B-D, Y-U-S.  Compare this to an extended B-D subway to STC that utilized the Bloor-University wye — one train would get that same Scarberian downtown.

   The transfer at Don Mills makes no sense either — we should either convert the subway to LRT, or extend the subway.  The current proposal is garbage.  However, if both the Sheppard and B-D subways were extended to STC, then the Sheppard subway could operate as an extension of B-D.

   Good transit planning and a good network does not boil down to numbers, ridership estimates, etc.  That’s robotic thinking, and it’s a trap that our transit “experts” have fallen into.

   Comment by M. Briganti — March 6, 2009 @ 6:08 pm

6. I see what you’re saying, but I’m not sure if using hard numbers is a bad way to plan. We still have a limited pot and we have to make sure that we can account for our public spending.

   Passion is a great if you’re building an Italian sports car, but should it have a place in the spending of our tax money? Discuss with examples.

   Comment by Andrae Griffith — March 6, 2009 @ 6:17 pm

7. Andrae — yes.

   My favorite example is the Bloor-Danforth subway.  It sent the TTC from a string of operating surpluses into a huge defecit.  Based on today’s “hard numbers” mentality, it simply would not have been built or extended (the extensions to Islington and Warden lost even larger sums of money well into the 70s).

   Would the Spadina subway have been built with the current ridership thresholds? … nope.  Would the University subway have been built … nope.  Now, can you imagine our transit system with just the Yonge subway from Union to Finch and nothing else?  … and that’s exactly what it would have been if today’s thinking was used back then.

   Comment by M. Briganti — March 6, 2009 @ 6:46 pm

8. @ M. Briganti

   But that goes back to the spirit of my very first question:

   Are society’s priorities set in stone, or can they change over time?

   I would argue that yes, then can and have to change over time. So, I’m not sure that it is valid to apply today’s criteria to decisions 30 years in the past.

   Comment by Andrae Griffith — March 6, 2009 @ 6:51 pm

9. M. Briganti

   When the Toronto Transit Commission was given Metro wide control over transit in 1954, there were 4 fare zones. See http://transit.toronto.on.ca/archives/maps/guide1954f.gif for the gif.

   In 1954, the old city was one zone, so at Dundas and Runnymede, you had to pay another fare as you transferred from the Dundas streetcar to the Westmount bus. As the Westmount followed the current 79 Scarlett Road route north, you had to pay another fare where Scarlett Road crosses the Humber River. The Westmount bus stayed on Scarlett Road and Dixon Road until Islington Avenue, where you had to pay another fare if you wanted to continue up Islington on the same bus until Rexdale Blvd.

   The fare zones were elimated over the years. Zone fares were eliminated in 1973. However, 1970 was the last year in which fare revenue meet TTC’s operating expenses.

   Comment by W. K. Lis — March 6, 2009 @ 8:36 pm

10. SHEPPARD SUBWAY
    Fact:  The Sheppard LRT is widely expected to be recieving provincial funding in Queen’s Park’s upcoming budget, among other Transit City projects.  No funding is expected for a Sheppard Subway.
    Fact:  The Sheppard LRT’s EA is complete, and detailed design is well underway.  Groundbreaking is scheduled to happen this year.  While the Sheppard Subway has a completed EA sitting around, it is no longer a priority project, no detailed design has taken place, and no groundbreaking is scheduled.
    Fact:  As per the last Transit City update presentation, the TTC is going to great lengths with the design of Don Mills station to allow interlined operations between Sheppard and Don Mills LRT, and possibly with a future extension of the Finch West LRT along Finch East to Don Mills.
    Fact:  The Sheppard Subway currently loses 10 million dollars a year because it has poor ridership.
    Fact:  Based on the projected ridership figures, an extended Sheppard Subway would lose more money than it already does today, which means more money would become needed for operations expenses, which leaves less money every year for other more important transit services.  Cost per rider (and the subsidy per rider) goes up as a result of extending the Sheppard Subway.
    Fact:  The subway is not compatible with objectives of the Avenues vision of the City of Toronto’s Official Plan.

    Fact:  Sheppard Subway extention would act as a feeder for the Yonge Subway, putting too much stress on Yonge and risks the system being incapable of meeting demand.  While the Sheppard LRT would also act as a feeder, the LRT will be carrying lower volumes of passengers because “it isn’t as attractive as a subway.”  Should such a measure become necessary, interlining Sheppard down along Don Mills is an available option that could divert some rides, which a subway extension would never be able to offer.

    Fact:  The successful subways in Toronto had streetcars as predecessors, the unsuccessful subways didn’t.
    Fact:  Previous studies have suggested that subway to Scarborough Centre is excessive.
    SCARBOROUGH RT
    Fact:  1/3rd of the SRT’s ridership comes from the Malvern area
    Fact:  A continuous SRT route from Kennedy to Malvern is planned
    Fact:  1/3d of transfers at STC would be eliminated by the Malvern extension, seeing a dramatic reduction in transfer traffic (and overall boardings) at STC.  Many other transfers could also happen at points other than STC, potentially pushing the number of diverted STC transfers from 1/3rd to as high as 1/2.
    Fact:  Previous studies have suggested that subway to Scarborough Centre is excessive.

    Fact:  No matter what solution is chosen, capacity of the line will jump by a huge margin simply because Kennedy will have at least two tracks compared to the current SRT station’s one.

    Fact:  LRT version of the SRT has significant operational cost benefits such as shared carhouses, shared maintenance crews, etc., although these were curiously neglected in the BCA.

    Fact:  Subway cannot service all the same stops as the current SRT corridor, and this causes a conflict with TTC policy.
    Fact:  The Morningside LRT is proposed to terminate at Kennedy Station.

    Fact:  The Eglinton Crosstown Line is proposed to terminate at Kennedy Station, and although the technology isn’t confirmed, it is expected to be LRT given the costs and ridership figures involved, and the City’s goals with the Avenues.

    Fact:  Kennedy Station becomes operationally very flexible if Morningside, Eglinton, and the SRT corridor are all serviced by the same technology and meeting at an integrated terminal, leaving the door open for a potentially very substantial reduction in transfer traffic at Kennedy.
    Fact:  If Eglinton and the SRT through-route as Metrolinx envisions, it would be possible to get from Malvern to Downtown with just one transfer, vs. the current 3, whereas a subway to STC would still result in 2 transfers from Malvern to Downtown, meaning that subway extended to STC is in fact less effective at reducing the number of transfers.
    HURONTARIO LRT
    Fact:  The northern part of the MT terminal is recently renovated and expanded.  This is an investment that politicians wouldn’t want to see wasted.
    Fact:  GO Transit has recently poured some money into their terminal at Square One.  This is an investment that politicians wouldn’t want to see wasted.
    Fact:  The current terminal is well-located for connectivity with the Mississauga Transitway.
    Fact:  The existing terminal can likely be rebuilt about a block east of the current terminal without losing the newly expanded part of the terminal, and maintaining integration with GO Transit.
    Option:  If the LRT veered very briefly west to the easterly-shifted new terminal, from Rathburn in the north (which would likely be grade-separated by default given the current configuration) and Square One Dr. in the south, it’s a reasonable diversion with negligible impacts on travel time.

    Comment by Karl Junkin — March 6, 2009 @ 10:40 pm

11. Question: Does constructing a portion of the line justify finishing the original vision, or is it acceptable to change priorities in order to correct a perceived mistake of the past? Does eliminating a transfer of mode and increasing convenience justify building a line which will be much more expensive and have underused  25 years into the future?

    Possibly; certainly it justifies preserving the possibility.  While it is true that the corridor vision in our current official plan is more compatible with light rail, we also retain the multi centric model, which stongly suggests a fast nonstop option should be available to connect North York and Scarborough Centres.  What concerns me is that we may well be looking at a light rail design that more or less precludes a subway extension in future.  As much as the LRT will provide a better local service than a subway, it is not a regional service, and we do need some sort of northern crosstown service for long distance passengers; in my mind a Sheppard LRT fills the role of the Bloor Danforth subway, while a Sheppard subway is equivelent to the Lakeshore GO line. 

    For preference I’d shift current plans to a single light rail line from Humber or Pearson to Morningside via Finch, and plan to build a Sheppard subway somewhere on the 30-40 horizon; failing that lets at least not build something at Don Mills or Consumers that blocks in the subway.

    Question: Is eliminating a transfer enough of a justification for the construction of a subway when a less expensive option will accommodate the demand? Is building a perceived high-quality transit solution to Scaborough Town Centre only a better policy decision than building a perceived medium-quality transit solution to Scarborough Town Centre and beyond?

    In my view unquestionably yes (in this case, not in general).  This to me is a question of where transfers should be, and where corridors logically end.  There is no question that a subway beyond Kennedy is excessive in terms of capacity, but in terms of developing an effective and usable network I believe this is the single best thing we could do anywhere in the GTA. 

    However far we extend LRT or ICTS into Malvern most passengers will be taking a bus to their station in Scarborough.  My contention is recognizing this, we are better off building a subway extension to STC, and reorganizing Scarborough busses to feed into a major terminal there than trying to serve Malvern directly with rail.  This way a transfer can be eliminated (SRT to subway), rather than merely relocated (pushing bus to SRT farther out), and our focus can turn to making Scarborough centre an effective mobility hub (not a term I’m in love with, but certainly appropriate here).

    In the longer term, the Malvern hydro corridor that the SRT study has been looking at would fit a busway quite nicely, and it seems to me an Ottawa style system of many outer suburban routes feeding into a line to Scarborough Centre would work quite nicely. 

    Fundementally I agree with the Transit City vision, but I don’t agree with the line in the sand thats been drawn; further, I see that subways do have some uses beyond their capacity.  I would rather spend more money to develop a network with modal transitions where they work well than put them where we have transfers currently because it fits the budget. 

    Extending the Sheppard subway is certainly a hard sell, but the Scarborough extension seems a much more clearcut example; with costs on the same order of magnitude we can have a transferless trip to STC or direct rail access to Malvern with a transfer at Kennedy.  Given the realities of travel and dwelling patterns in Scarborough I see developing a transit hub at STC as more beneficial than a longer rail line. 

    Finally, it is worth mentioning that the Soberman SRT report indicated that a subway extension to Scarborough Centre would likely receive higher ridership than even an extension to Malvern.  To me a line with higher ridership, similar cost and a transfer eliminated is a better investment even if it does mean fewer miles of track built.

    Comment by Edmund Carlson — March 7, 2009 @ 12:12 pm

12. Question: Does constructing a portion of the line justify finishing the original vision, or is it acceptable to change priorities in order to correct a perceived mistake of the past? Does eliminating a transfer of mode and increasing convenience justify building a line which will be much more expensive and have underused  25 years into the future?

    It is acceptable to change priorities to deal with current financial constraints, and agreements.   The reality is, there is no funding in place for a subway.  The funding for Sheppard LRT is secure,  and can be built by 2015.  Is building a subway so important, that we start over again, or do we  build the LRT, and make the transfer as convenient as possible?

    Comment by Justin Bernard — March 9, 2009 @ 1:50 pm

13. Sheppard Subway: Get rid of the transfer.  Change the line to LRT and add 3 more stations/stops.  Eliminating the transfer might not attain the much vaunted 5000 riders per hour of the subway option but it might do better than the 3000 riders.  Capacity issues along the existing corridor can be dealt with by short-turning some trains.  Sheppard can be real proof of the versatility of LRT.

    Scarbrough RT: Extend the Bloor-Danforth line to Scarborough Town Centre.  It makes no sense to end the line at Kennedy.  The designated urban growth centre is at Scarborough Town Centre yet the ‘mobility hub’ is at Kennedy.  The argument used by many is that Kennedy will sprout condos over time.  Hasn’t happened so far.  Let’s work towards supporting the ongoing growth at STC.  Even losing stations isn’t that big a deal.  Ellesmere has ridiculously low ridership.  Midland and McCowan are largely glorified kiss n ride’s for STC.  I doubt anybody in Scarborough would mind if they were shut down.  Heck, most of us are always wondering why those stations exist to begin with!  Extending the subway would also allow STC to support a larger LRT/streetcar network in Scarborough with line on McCowan, Lawrence, Ellesemere in addition to the line to Malvern on Progress. 

    Those who argue that transfers will be saved for Malvernites by converting and extending LRT to Malvern forget a few things. Most Malvernites will be riding a bus to catch the LRT so they won’t be saving any transfers.  Yet, for the rest of the riders along the SRT corridor they will have to continue transferring at Kennedy.  Picking LRT over subway extension also effectively negates the potential for a future LRT/streetcar network expansion in scarborough since the pipeline out will be LRT itself.

    Comment by kEiThZ — March 9, 2009 @ 7:45 pm

14. Metrolinx and TTC are talking about through-routing SRT and Eglinton.  So LRT from Kennedy to Malvern would in fact reduce transfers, because a transfer at Kennedy wouldn’t be necessary for those bound for Dowtown Yonge until Yonge St. (they wouldn’t have to use the Bloor-Danforth subway).  I don’t see how future LRT expansion is harmed by not extending the subway.  Scarborough is already planned to have the most service in Transit City the way plans are shaping up at the moment.

    Comment by Karl Junkin — March 9, 2009 @ 8:48 pm

15. I don’t know how valuable through-routing of the Eglinton LRT would be.  Who would take a LRT from Malvern Town Centre all the way to the Yonge Line?  Is it really necessary?  Is there that much ridership from Scarborough with destinations along Eglinton?  If it’s to be an alternative to the Bloor-Danforth line for riders from Scarborough than it’s utility would be marginal at best.  Who would want to spend an hour travelling from Kennedy to Yonge on the Eglinton LRT just so they could avoid a transfer at Kennedy?   The reality is that most riders save a few due to proceed along Eglinton will be transferring at Kennedy, an unecessary transfer, that’s being enforced on two-thirds of the riders from Northeastern Scarborough for the dubious benefit that some of the remaining one-third of the SRT’s riders might save a transfer (most will still be bussing to catch the LRT somewhere).

    Comment by kEiThZ — March 9, 2009 @ 10:18 pm

16. I’m not sure it would be an hour from Kennedy to Yonge. Don’t forget that the only surface part of that proposal would be from Kennedy to Brentcliffe. Of all of the transit city proposals this section would be one of the speediest – it’s a fast-moving suburban artery. At 8 km long and an average speed of 25 km/h it would take about 20 minutes to reach the tunnel.

    Slower than the subway? Yes. An hour? No.

    Comment by Andrae Griffith — March 9, 2009 @ 10:40 pm

17. For the Sheppard Subway, I think downgrading the existing route is a net loss, given the positive long-term effects of the continued growth of high-density housing along that corridor.  No one is likely to argue with a straight face that the large quantity of condos going in between Bayview and Leslie would exist were it not for the subway’s presence.  The long term health and sustainability of the city will be tied to the ability to increase population density and ability to curtail car-centric sprawl.  High-density housing development will go where the subways are, so the biggest possible win for forward-looking thinking is to ensure that a viable network exists as the scaffolding upon which to build a modern city.

    There’s three aspects of transit planning that I think need to be considered:

    * Cost vs. ridership
    * Effects on growth and evolution of the city
    * Overall network improvement and flexibility

    Mostly I think people are focused on the first, which ignores that much of the current system wouldn’t have justified the funding based on contemporary density or ridership, but has grown to an extent that the volumes are inarguable.  We need to think about

    I don’t think the Sheppard Subway should extend east in the next 20 years, except to the high-density office parks at Consumers, where it can intersect with the LRT.  This bleeds off pressure from Don Mills, which is already pretty busy as a terminus of a subway and numerous bus routes (TTC and Viva).  Eliminating the transfer to a surface route will have a long term impact on the employees and the companies at Consumers, and will change how people get to work (indeed, Richmond Hill and North York start looking like great high-density places for workers to live and commute sanely).  The SCC expansion, if it coincides with B-D going to SCC, would be interesting in the 30-40 year timeline, but only if Scarborough becomes a major location for high-density living.

    That said, I think that usefulness to the overall network would make completion of the line to Downview worth considering.  It’s hard to predict overall shifts in behaviour on a long timescale, but even at the oft-quoted $160M/km figure for subway construction, we’re only talking about a few clicks past the existing tailback, plus a station at Bathhurst.  Now for $600M, assuming some bloat in numbers, you get the following benefits:

    * vastly improved connections to York U/Vaughn for North York, Scarborough, and north Toronto.
    * some bleed-off from Yonge line trips (would be _much_ faster and less crowded to come down the Spadina line in most cases) from Sheppard riders (and likely many of the condo residents at Sheppard/Yonge)

    * create more opportunity for high density development along Sheppard West and connect the growth near Downsview with North York City Centre
    * provides a viable and scalable solution to getting people around major delays on Y-U-S north of Bloor (either side)
    * avoids needing another yard for the Richmond Hill expansion (this was already put on the table), saving a few hundred million

    All of a sudden, it doesn’t look like a ridiculous idea, especially if it spurs a few billion in condo development and the associated spinoff benefits over the next 20 years…

    Comment by Mike — March 10, 2009 @ 2:37 am

18. Mississauag LRT: If the transit terminal were to move one block eastward, it would mess up the pedestrian connections. As it stands now, the mall connection is quite good, and it also links to the GO bus terminal. Moving it one block eastward would lenghten the walk to the GO bus terminal by a good 2-3 minutes, up from what is currently only 30 seconds AND push the walk to along Rathburn Road – which is chock-full of speeding traffic during rush hour.

    Considering the investment already made in the transit terminals, and the above reasons, I doubt that Mississauga would consider moving the terminal anywhere. 

    Although speed is cited as one of the reasons for trying not to divert the LRT, that only makes sense if your O-D pair is Downtown Brampton and Port Credit – which it is not. Heck, Port Credit is not even a designated intensification area (although it should be). The real link is Downtown Brampton to Mississauag City Centre.

    The complication is that the transit terminal at Square One is not located where the density is; the real density of ‘Downtown Mississauga’ is south of Burnhamthorpe, and slightly West of Hurontario. There are a few towers on the East side, but they are ‘tower-in-the-park’ configurations not well-suited to meeting a transit corridor. I suggest having the LRT cut through Kariya Drive to about Elm Dr, then across to Hurontario again (with an option to go down Duke of York, then across Burnhamthorpe to get to Kariya). This actually links a number of businesses and residences which actually face the street and would be well-suited to take advantage of the increased corridor capacity. A bonus is that it would link to Kariya Park, which in my opinion is one of the nicest parks in Mississauga.

    While this proposal doesn’t make it fast to get from Downtown Brampton to Port Credit, it would serve more people travelling less distance (to and from Square One) and would hopefully encourage commercial, retail, and residential development.

    Plus, LRT down Duke of York would look pretty cool.

    Just some thoughts from a Mississaugan!

    Comment by Peter Kucirek — March 10, 2009 @ 9:15 am

19. Building subway to STC only makes a tiny bit of sense if BOTH the Sheppard and the B-D lines were extended there, making a network enhancing connection. Such a connection would likely put both lines above the current expected figures (5000 on Sheppard and 6400 on the SRT), though not necessarily to the levels that justify full subway. That said, I am not in favour of doing this. I am definitely not in favour of building only one of these lines.

    The benefits of both of these lines being the same LRT technology will provide the most benefits to people in the area. Though they are conceived as two separate lines, I can see the day when traffic patterns will make it beneficial, at least during rush hours, to provide different interlined routes on both lines (e.g.: Kennedy to Malvern and Kennedy to Sheppard/Meadowvale on the SRT line, and/or Don Mills to Sheppard/Meadowvale and Don Mills to Malvern on the Sheppard line).

    Interlining either the SRT and/or the Morningside LRT lines with the Eglinton line has benefits that would be further multiplied if a Downtown Relief Line (the east leg, at least) were built and went as far north as Don Mills and Eglinton. The Don Mills LRT line will likely have to be underground from the valley down to the Danforth, so full subway is not such a great step up in price for that part of the line, and a subway alignment that makes use of the valley from Thorncliffe Park to just south of the Science Centre can reduce its cost a bit. The resulting DRL will not only off load B-D travelers from Yonge, but many potential riders heading to Yonge at Eglinton. Furthermore, it eliminates one transfer for riders from Malvern and points along the current SRT.

    Comment by Calvin Henry-Cotnam — March 10, 2009 @ 10:28 am

20. Andrae,
    Even assuming that the 3.2 km from Brentcliffe to Yonge is about as fast at the Bloor-Danforth subway (approx. 32 kph), that would still yield a travel time of at least 25 mins from Kennedy station to the Yonge line.  That might not sound so bad until we recognize that most Scarborough peak riders are heading for the core.  Dropping them off at Eglinton station places them nearly 10 mins from Yonge/Bloor with the transfer.  So really 35 mins to get to Yonge/Bloor from Kennedy vs. 25 mins on the Bloor-Danforth line.  The only riders who will benefit are those who are due for stops north of Yonge/Bloor and those who have destinations along Elginton requiring them to take the bus from Kennedy.  The rest of the riders will likely still be transferring to the Bloor-Danforth line.
    I recognize the need for an Eglinton LRT.  However, I think it’s quite sneaky on the part of Metrolinx and the TTC to use the potential of through-trains from Eglinton to sell LRT.  That’s quite a weak argument and the authorities know it.  There will be a limited set riders from Malvern and the current SRT corridor instead of using the Eglinton LRT.  Implementation of a continuous service could also affect the transfer problem.  How do you build a single platform transfer if the Scarborough L/RT is going to continue on Eglinton?  We’ll be left with a similar transfer as today, albeit, one floor less to ascend/descend, perhaps.
    And all this is still predicated on the flawed premise that we will save a transfer for one third of the riders of the SRT while not addressing the comfort and convenience of the other two-thirds.  Does that make any sense?  That we would plan for the smaller subset at the expense of the larger group?
    What bothers me the most, however, is the lack of recognition of Scarborough Centre as a potential hub.  We are seriously hampering our potential to have more LRT/streetcar spokes from Scarborough Centre along McCowan North, Ellesmre, Lawrence. Etc. that would feed into a subway pipeline terminus at Scarborough Centre.  Some, such as McCowan North would probably even have the potential to extend into York region as well.  Sure, these line are still possible but down the road we’ll end up with a similar capacity issue as today.  With no fat pipe out, our skinny pipes will be feeding into similar skinny pipes.

    Comment by kEiThZ — March 10, 2009 @ 1:38 pm

21. The Sheppard Subway was way out of line with our overall transit infrastructure spending.  Sure, I’d like to see it extended all the way to the STC, but we can build most of the Transit City LRT system for the same money, and benefit many more people .

    The current Sheppard Subway should be discountinued and the tunnels used to extend the Sheppard LRT right to Yonge.  Yes it will cost to change the platforms for LRT cars, but far, far less than it will cost to extend the subway out to the STC.

    The Kennedy to Scarborough Town Centre subway link is more important, I believe.  Scarborough Town Centre is a major transit hub, and the area is designated for urban intensification, so there will be a growing number of riders who will be able to walk to the subway.  (Imagine – in Scarborough!)

    However, I think it would be a mistake to just follow the existing LT line.  The intervening stops are too far from any destination to ever have any local use.  Instead the subway should be build up Kennedy and then angle over to connect with the existing LT from Ellesmere to the SCT.  Kennedy has a fair amount of mid-rise residential and commercial development that would be actually be served by stops that are on the street, not half a mile away under an overpass.  A relocated Kennedy station that alligned north-south under Kennedy with exits at Eglinton and Landseer would put it withincomfortable walking range of the shops and apartments on Kennedy, which can hardly be said of the current location.  The subway might become a way of getting around Scarborough, instead of just a way of getting in and out of it!  Furthermore, most of the new line could be built without disrupting the current service.    It will cost a lot more than using the railway corridor, but this kind of city-building project is worth doing right.

    Comment by Laurie Gordon — March 10, 2009 @ 4:13 pm

22. Mike said …

    “Mostly I think people are focused on the first, which ignores that much of the current system wouldn’t have justified the funding based on contemporary density or ridership, but has grown to an extent that the volumes are inarguable”

    Very true.  Earlier in this thread, and in response to one of my posts, Andrae said that maybe we shouldn’t be using the same set of rules now as we did in the past.  That is, the thinking that gave us the Bloor-Danforth-University system and the Spadina subway might no longer be valid.

    Well, that’s like saying the laws of “transit” physics were somehow different in the 60s/70s vs. now.  What’s different now is the whole “fashionista” image of light rail, which I’m sure will change in the next 10-15 years once TC is built and we realize it was not a good investment.

    Comment by M. Briganti — March 10, 2009 @ 6:37 pm

23. … or it could turn out to be the best thing we’ve ever done. Time will certainly tell.

    Comment by Andrae Griffith — March 10, 2009 @ 6:42 pm

24. Laurie said…

    “The current Sheppard Subway should be discountinued and the tunnels used to extend the Sheppard LRT right to Yonge.  Yes it will cost to change the platforms for LRT cars, but far, far less than it will cost to extend the subway out to the STC.”

    What’s the loading speed for 300 people (the oft-cited train load for peak on Sheppard, which might be an average for afternoon peak, but at 5:30 it’s often really full, clearly closer to the 650 person design capacity) into a two car LRT train?  What’s the unloading speed for a morning peak train?  I know that on paper, LRT can handle the volume per hour, but one of the ways our subways excel is on loading/unloading time.  I’ve seen five deep on the platform, end to end, on Sheppard.  And that loads in less time than it takes the driver to walk to the other end of the platform.  Watching Spadina cars load up at Spadina Station makes me dubious that LRT can hope to match that, or even come close.  Especially since you’re talking about four doors instead of sixteen, and a lot more seats than standing area.

    Comment by Mike — March 11, 2009 @ 5:43 am

25. Mike,

    If the subway was converted to LRT, vehicles with level boarding would be used.  The dwell time for LRT will not be significantly less then the subway.     Spadina is not a good example of LRT. It is NOT Light Rail. It’s a streetcar line, that uses 30 year old cars with steps, and does not utilize all door boarding. 
    New LRV’s have at least 4 wide doors, so assuming a 2 car train, you will have 8 doors. 3 cars, 12.

    Comment by Justin Bernard — March 11, 2009 @ 9:58 am

26. I don’t know if you’ve seen it yet, but the chief communications guy for the corporation planning the subway extensions into York Region has just created a blog. While I work for this company, I am also a York Region resident and deeply concerned about the increasing gridlock and need for enhanced transit.
     
    Go to vivanext.com/blog and tell him your thoughts or respond to his posts – and don’t forget to vote!

    Comment by Jordan — March 19, 2009 @ 11:32 am

RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URL

Leave a comment