[smallspy]

Then lets never build another subway line again. Now, lets put the ridership of Yonge onto an LRT. King and Queen streetcars show you what high ridership is like.. Some routes should be streetcar/LRT. Some should be Subway. Cost is important, but moving people efficiently should be a high priority.

As a taxpayer, I would like the most efficient use of resources to move those people.

Just because you have decreed that it should be a subway rather than a mode that is cheaper but still capable of carrying everyone who wants to travel does not fit that bill.

Dan

 

[Rainforest]

Yep. Consider a Sheppard crosstown rapid transit with 1-3 km stop spacing and grade separated (including the existing tunnelled portion) that crosses much of the northern portion of the Toronto and into the urbanized 905 at either ends. Then consider the Finch crosstown LRT which provides local service, and is only 2 km to the north for most of the route (although this may change as we go further west or further east outside of Toronto). So there's the parallel service, only 2 km away, a 20 minute walk or 5 minute bus ride away . Steeles and Lawrence (West) may get some form of BRT in the future, which sets them up for a potential LRT in the year 3000 AD.

With a Sheppard line, it could be possible to add local stops over time if needed in high density areas, much like how the current subway has reduced stop spacing in the core.

If we get around to turning Sheppard subway into a crosstown line at some point, then I would consider non-uniform stop spacing to maximize the total ridership.

No problem having mostly ~ 1 km spacing between Weston Rd in the west and Kennedy in the east, maybe even McCowan in the east, to support local density as well as longer trips. There will be some 2-km gaps, like Leslie to Don Mills, and Sheppard West to Wilson if the line flips to Wilson, but the rest of gaps could be ~ 1 km, even ~ 800 m to make sure most of the riders living on the street can just walk into the station.

Then at both ends, there could be very large distances, up to 5-6 km, between the stations. That will make important connections, like Pearson or Brampton in the west (or both? two branches?), and Centennial College / UTSC / Lakeshore East RER in the east. The outer sections only can be viable if they are build on surface, using the 401 corridor, hydro corridors etc. Nobody wants the cost of a 6-km long tunnel with no intermediate stations in the outskirts of the city.

Non-uniform stops spacing will look a bit clumsy on the map, but if it works to boost the total ridership, then why not ..

But in any case, Sheppard should be handled in the longer term. Near-term, Finch LRT crosstown is a better bet being more affordable.

 

[adrianaliu]

i think sheppard should go west even if it isnt dense. lots of logistical benefits to linking up the line to wilson yard, and if the line interlines with line 1 from sheppard west to finch west u have a transfer to the barrie line at downsview park and a transfer to line 6 so the crosstown journey isnt so cumbersome. enables many trips especially if it is eventually extended east

 

[slapped_chicken]

No problem having mostly ~ 1 km spacing between Weston Rd in the west and Kennedy in the east, maybe even McCowan in the east, to support local density as well as longer trips. There will be some 2-km gaps, like Leslie to Don Mills, and Sheppard West to Wilson if the line flips to Wilson, but the rest of gaps could be ~ 1 km, even ~ 800 m to make sure most of the riders living on the street can just walk into the station.

Then at both ends, there could be very large distances, up to 5-6 km, between the stations. That will make important connections, like Pearson or Brampton in the west (or both? two branches?), and Centennial College / UTSC / Lakeshore East RER in the east. The outer sections only can be viable if they are build on surface, using the 401 corridor, hydro corridors etc. Nobody wants the cost of a 6-km long tunnel with no intermediate stations in the outskirts of the city.

Yep, I can see this closer spacing in Toronto. Density is one thing, but it is also notable to consider the amazing impact the TTC bus system has on feeding rail ridership. Even in low density areas, major intersecting N-S bus routes can feed a healthy ridership into the stations. The eastern half could stop at Vic Park, Warden, Kennedy(+Stouffville RER), McCowan(+Line 2), and then straight to UTSC (Finch LRT may serve Malvern centre, and UTSC as well). Further east to Durham it can truly become regional along the hydro corridor; running it along the 401 corridor competes with the LSE RER. The West end is much more interesting. I might even suggest 3 branches to YYZ, Mississauga and Brampton, might be popular! These regions are fairly populated already and have highly used transit systems to feed the branches as well as intersecting BRT/LRT/RER lines, yum. Time to start working on that fantasy map

i think sheppard should go west even if it isnt dense. lots of logistical benefits to linking up the line to wilson yard, and if the line interlines with line 1 from sheppard west to finch west u have a transfer to the barrie line at downsview park and a transfer to line 6 so the crosstown journey isnt so cumbersome. enables many trips especially if it is eventually extended east

Yep, this is probably the only Sheppard extension I would agree to if it was still using the existing thicc TR subway. It would probably double the line's ridership (maybe? maybe i'm exaggerating) in a short but worthy extension.

 

[anb]

Actually, I like that idea

But, in due time and with the right transit technology. Certainly that won't happen any time soon; the demand isn't there yet, but it will come one day as the GTA population grows.

And, Pickering can only happen with an agile medium-capacity subway technology. If we retain 3+m wide subway trains with recommended 300m turning radius for the Sheppard Subway, it will never ever cross McCowan.

Imagine a subway from pickering town centre to victoria park station via kingston road/hwy 2. That could really get some numbers and support behind it. The drt pulse can start from the town centre just like how viva blue will start at richmond hill instead when the yonge extension is finished and it feels environmentally better to just allow the subway to go to the suburbs compared to the other way around

 

[slapped_chicken]

Imagine a subway from pickering town centre to victoria park station via kingston road/hwy 2. That could really get some numbers and support behind it. The drt pulse can start from the town centre just like how viva blue will start at richmond hill instead when the yonge extension is finished and it feels environmentally better to just allow the subway to go to the suburbs compared to the other way around

I mean, we are getting a LSE RER with 5, 10, 15 minute headways from Pickering Town Centre within this decade hopefully it is well integrated with the Kingston Rd/Dundas St. BRT

 

[afransen]

Imagine a subway from pickering town centre to victoria park station via kingston road/hwy 2. That could really get some numbers and support behind it. The drt pulse can start from the town centre just like how viva blue will start at richmond hill instead when the yonge extension is finished and it feels environmentally better to just allow the subway to go to the suburbs compared to the other way around

It would never be 'subway'. It would have to be mostly at-grade or above-grade.

 

[micheal_can]

I wonder if for some of these crosstown lines where we don't have good rail ROWs for GO RER type service if it makes sense to add some passing sidings to enable express service to pass local trains. Some of these lines are going to be rather untenably long if you're riding from one end to the other. Would require ATC to coordinate effectively, I imagine.

If we are going to have an express service, Yonge would be the first place it should go. It should only stop at interchange stations.

I mean, it comes down to this. If the cost of converting the existing system to accommodate a new technology is lower than the cost difference by using the Toronto Rocket standard for the long term expansions, it is worth it. At some point, if this becomes a 25+ km crosstown line, it will be significantly cheaper in the long term to adapt to a new flexible medium capacity system akin to REM or Sydney Metro or Skytrain, instead of our famously thicc rocket trains with their big curves

If this had been built out more, there likely would be the ridership to support the Rocket.

As a taxpayer, I would like the most efficient use of resources to move those people.

Just because you have decreed that it should be a subway rather than a mode that is cheaper but still capable of carrying everyone who wants to travel does not fit that bill.

Dan

How many times do you want to replace a line? Remember, parts of Bloor and Yonge were streetcars. They were upgraded to subways. Imagine if we did that for everything? That would be a waste. Why not future proof the lines?

Yep, this is probably the only Sheppard extension I would agree to if it was still using the existing thicc TR subway. It would probably double the line's ridership (maybe? maybe i'm exaggerating) in a short but worthy extension.

Just that part would be a good addition. Extending it further would be a good idea, if there is demand for it.

Imagine a subway from pickering town centre to victoria park station via kingston road/hwy 2. That could really get some numbers and support behind it. The drt pulse can start from the town centre just like how viva blue will start at richmond hill instead when the yonge extension is finished and it feels environmentally better to just allow the subway to go to the suburbs compared to the other way around

It could happen, but first, lets get the city covered in subways and LRTs and Streetcars to fully service the city.

 

[slapped_chicken]

If this had been built out more, there likely would be the ridership to support the Rocket.

Just that part would be a good addition. Extending it further would be a good idea, if there is demand for it.

If an extension does happen to Sheppard-West, there is one scenario where I can see further extensions of Line 4 being feasible. If North York Centre manages to become a serious CBD #2 for Toronto with hundreds of thousands of workers and residents, it could justify an east-west subway line. There are 3 projects that would make NYCC more attractive as a CBD#2: Finch LRT east extension to or beyond Yonge, Yonge extension to RH and a Sheppard extension to Downsview could foster dense development to the immediate east, west and north. I think it would have potential being located in the general center of the core GTA.

The weakness is no commuter rail so 905ers for the most part would have to rely on Hwy401/407 (this kinda pushes the idea of converting the Line 4 to a light regional metro like REM as discussed above, tbh, as it can act as commuter-subway hybrid). You might be tempted to say the airport lands, with its massive employment, could justify the subway. However, remember that its a spread out area and transit unfriendly, the employment zone is really large. This is why a really dense employment zone at NYCC is more appealing to the case of Line 4 expansion (in my opinon) than the employment zone at YYZ, which would come second.

 

[afransen]

If we are going to have an express service, Yonge would be the first place it should go. It should only stop at interchange stations.

There are GO Lines that can act as express service for Yonge, but nothing that would work for E-W in the north end. It is one thing to build a new line with a view to enabling express service vs fundamentally rebuilding Yonge. I don't think you could run more trains on the existing line, so we're talking twinning Yonge, which would be a significant engineering challenge. Not saying it shouldn't be done. Just different orders of magnitude incremental investment.

It [subway to Pickering] could happen, but first, lets get the city covered in subways and LRTs and Streetcars to fully service the city.

Pigs will fly before we build a proper heavy rail subway to Pickering. As others have said, Pickering is getting GO RER. Only a largely at-grade or above grade solution would work for extending one of the more northerly lines that far.

How many times do you want to replace a line? Remember, parts of Bloor and Yonge were streetcars. They were upgraded to subways. Imagine if we did that for everything? That would be a waste. Why not future proof the lines?

Building something that costs 10x more 40 years before it is needed doesn't seem like a good investment. Wouldn't we be better off investing a given set of $ in infrastructure that covers more area, provides broader service and has reasonable utilization in the near future?

 

[Coolstar]

Think we should talk about it more in the Sheppard Subway extension thread? Getting off topic here.

 

[smallspy]

How many times do you want to replace a line? Remember, parts of Bloor and Yonge were streetcars. They were upgraded to subways. Imagine if we did that for everything? That would be a waste. Why not future proof the lines?

With what money?

If the ridership projection is never within any planning horizon likely to approach the required capacity for a subway, is it really "future proofing"?

You really don't seem to understand, there isn't an infinite amount of money that can be spent on transit projects. This isn't about "future proofing", this is about making sure that we get as much transit - subway, LRT, BRT, regular bus, whatever - to as much of the population as possible.

Because of that, the transit needs to be right-sized to the area serving it. Sure, it would be nice to put a subway underneath every single concession - but where will that money come from? Subways cost a humongous amount of money to build and operate, and because of that there really is only a small number of corridors in the City where they can be justified.

Dan

 

[Tuscani01]

With what money?

If the ridership projection is never within any planning horizon likely to approach the required capacity for a subway, is it really "future proofing"?

You really don't seem to understand, there isn't an infinite amount of money that can be spent on transit projects. This isn't about "future proofing", this is about making sure that we get as much transit - subway, LRT, BRT, regular bus, whatever - to as much of the population as possible.

Because of that, the transit needs to be right-sized to the area serving it. Sure, it would be nice to put a subway underneath every single concession - but where will that money come from? Subways cost a humongous amount of money to build and operate, and because of that there really is only a small number of corridors in the City where they can be justified.

Dan

I mean, we would afford it if we defunded police, stopped funding military, eliminated oil subsidies, and increased taxes on the wealthiest - but the same people crying for subways everywhere are the same people against doing all of those things.

 

[micheal_can]

There are GO Lines that can act as express service for Yonge, but nothing that would work for E-W in the north end. It is one thing to build a new line with a view to enabling express service vs fundamentally rebuilding Yonge. I don't think you could run more trains on the existing line, so we're talking twinning Yonge, which would be a significant engineering challenge. Not saying it shouldn't be done. Just different orders of magnitude incremental investment.

I did not mean existing Subway lines. I mean building a new line to act as an express on the existing line. There are no GO lines that parallel it close enough to act as an express.

Pigs will fly before we build a proper heavy rail subway to Pickering. As others have said, Pickering is getting GO RER. Only a largely at-grade or above grade solution would work for extending one of the more northerly lines that far.

The same could have been said about extending it north to York Region or west to Mississauga. I feel that within 50 years, Mississauga and Pickering will have a subway to Toronto.

Building something that costs 10x more 40 years before it is needed doesn't seem like a good investment. Wouldn't we be better off investing a given set of $ in infrastructure that covers more area, provides broader service and has reasonable utilization in the near future?

Then don't build it. Build only routes that have the service, not, to win votes.

With what money?

If the ridership projection is never within any planning horizon likely to approach the required capacity for a subway, is it really "future proofing"?

You really don't seem to understand, there isn't an infinite amount of money that can be spent on transit projects. This isn't about "future proofing", this is about making sure that we get as much transit - subway, LRT, BRT, regular bus, whatever - to as much of the population as possible.

Because of that, the transit needs to be right-sized to the area serving it. Sure, it would be nice to put a subway underneath every single concession - but where will that money come from? Subways cost a humongous amount of money to build and operate, and because of that there really is only a small number of corridors in the City where they can be justified.

Dan

Then only build that with the most demand. That means that the SRT would remain as is, and the Sheppard line would not have been built.

I mean, we would afford it if we defunded police, stopped funding military, eliminated oil subsidies, and increased taxes on the wealthiest - but the same people crying for subways everywhere are the same people against doing all of those things.

I don't think subways are the answer, unless the demand is there. The bus routes with the highest service should be converted, but others, leave as is.

 

[Rainforest]

I mean, we would afford it if we defunded police, stopped funding military, eliminated oil subsidies, and increased taxes on the wealthiest - but the same people crying for subways everywhere are the same people against doing all of those things.

Defund the police = enable armed street gangs who will guard their area, collect "taxes" from the locals, and fight neighbouring street gangs. Who will disarm those gangs - police? Nope (defunded)

Defund the military = invite certain overseas dictators to land their troops and help themselves to some land. Canada has lots of land and they won't mind taking it. Maybe the Americans will move in and repeal the overseas invaders, they don't want them to set hold on the continent. But then the Americans will be in charge and they will make us pay as much as they feel like, even if they will kind of recognize our sovereignty on paper.

Oil brings $8B in government revenues annually, vs taking $3.3B in government subsidies. Presumably some of those subsidies are needed to keep the revenues flowing, while other subsidies may be political and not really necessary. Assume 1/2 of the subsidies ($1.7B) can be diverted to fund transit, and split between the provinces, Ontario would get maybe $450 million annually. Not bad, but not enough to solve all problems.

The wealthiest don't feel like paying more taxes, are well-equipped for legally reducing their taxes, and if you pressure them hard, many will leave the country and take their wealth with them. You won't squeeze much extra water from that sponge.

Instead of the fantasy ideas, we should introduce a dedicated transit tax, perhaps by increasing HST, paid by most of residents (the poorest will get a refund same way they are getting the HST refund). That will result in a predictable revenue stream and allow for planned transit construction. People are capable of making some sacrifices today for the sake of future benefits, when they have a clear vision of those future goals.