[Conrad Black]

Subway traffic or car traffic above?

 

[BMO]

FYI, traffic on Sheppard (Yonge to Don Mills) has gone up significantly since Sheppard Subway opened. An extended subway will not reduce congestion; it does provide for an alternative way for growth to occur.

Chicken and egg really, traffic has gone up because condos were built on Sheppard because of the subway, but nobody in those condos actually use it except for going to Yonge because it really doesn't go anywhere. This would arguably change if the sheppard corridor as a whole was retrofitted with some form of integrated transit that goes across the city and that hits various trip generators and destinations. I think Sheppard is the exception when talking about ridership growth and deciding expansion based on those numbers. It's really hard to justify any expansion of the current subway with the current numbers, yet it's kind of a catch 22 because it really doesn't service anything other than the condos that were built since the line opened. Between Yonge and Fairview mall there is no notable trip generators other than North York General Hospital and Bayview village, which are arguably getting most of their customers and patients coming from other parts of the city that wouldn't be taking the subway from the west along Sheppard anyway. Compound this with the lack of a GO train connection at Oriole and this line was basically destined to fail since the beginning. Not only this, but many of the condos along this stretch have arguably easier access to the 401 than the subway stations (very little integration of the stations along the route with development, and so we really have a case study of an area that was poorly planned, and hopefully will serve as an example of what NOT to do for future rapid transit expansion. A lot of the issues aren't just a corridor choice issue, but also some flaws in the planning as well. I still think this corridor can become successful given the right planning tools are utilized and the subway is extended or connected well with the future SELRT.

So the fact that traffic congestion has gone up isn't really any significance of a failure subway, it's really a planning failure IMO where developments took advantage of a subway to build highway oriented high-rises.

 

[rbt]

Subway traffic or car traffic above?

Car traffic. You can find the same pattern on Yonge too; although the subway there was built a very very long time ago, car traffic is higher on all parts of Yonge than it was prior to the subway being built.

Obviously the %age of people carried by car is down but the total number of vehicles using Yonge has never been higher. I have no doubt you will find a similar pattern on Bloor as well. 2nd Ave in NY will be most interesting to see measurements in 20 to 30 years.

Subways (LRT, bus, etc.) provide an alternative mechanism for growth but they will not reduce congestion in any long-term sense. To reduce congestion driving needs to become more expensive or restricted in other ways (max 1 parking space per household, no grandfathering of existing spaces).

So the fact that traffic congestion has gone up isn't really any significance of a failure subway, it's really a planning failure IMO where developments took advantage of a subway to build highway oriented high-rises.

I'm not entirely certain of this. Obviously planning could be better and the ratio could be improved but I don't think you can stop drivers from filling the streets to capacity over time without directly changing the cost of driving. If even 10% of people in a dense neighbourhood drive (like those new developments along Charles St E), you've suddenly got a full streets. Charles St East was pretty damn quiet traffic-wise 15 years ago.

Bloor traffic is probably down due to lane removal. From appearances, congestion is about the same.

 

[BMO]

Car traffic. You can find the same pattern on Yonge too; although the subway there was built a very very long time ago, car traffic is higher on all parts of Yonge than it was prior to the subway being built.

Obviously the %age of people carried by car is down but the total number of vehicles using Yonge has never been higher. I have no doubt you will find a similar pattern on Bloor as well. 2nd Ave in NY will be most interesting to see measurements in 20 to 30 years.

Subways (LRT, bus, etc.) provide an alternative mechanism for growth but they will not reduce congestion in any long-term sense. To reduce congestion driving needs to become more expensive or restricted in other ways (max 1 parking space per household, no grandfathering of existing spaces).

It's like a belt. Just because you loosen your belt, doesn't mean you're not going to get fatter.

 

[W. K. Lis]

Car traffic. You can find the same pattern on Yonge too; although the subway there was built a very very long time ago, car traffic is higher on all parts of Yonge than it was prior to the subway being built.

...

Even with TTC paid parking at Fairview Mall and North York General Hospital paid parking ($4.75 per ½ hour?), people still take their cars. Its still free parking at Fairview Mall for customers (in theory). Don't know if visitors to the condos have to pay for parking, but I'm guessing its still free (maybe they sign in first).

 

[innsertnamehere]

Its free to park at Fairview even for TTC users after 9:30. $3.50 before 9:30.

Source: I park at Fairview to take the subway every once and a while

 

[Electrify]

These very long range trips like Scarborough to Airport aren't really well served by any transit in general, they wouldn't really be any better served by subways either. I mean, longer trips will be much faster using either LRT or subway compared to local buses, because the stop spacing is much greater, and some riders will do that as they do now on Bloor, but neither subways or LRT really gets you from Scarborough to Mississauga very fast compared to a car.

I think the Eglinton LRT will be similar to the Bloor subway, which will have similar stop spacing & speed and length, it will serve the same kind of trips.

I agree and disagree with this comment.

I agree that with the way we tend to build transit, you are right. Most rapid transit projects in the GTA are designed for medium, intra-municipality distance trips. While possible, taking the subway and Viva from Newmarket to Union is not the best way to go.

However, I would not say that transit planning should avoid long distance trips. If this were the case, GO would not even exist. People need alternatives to driving for transversing this urban region. Speaking of GO, I am willing to bet that a sizable portion of its ridership has access to a car, far more than most local transit systems. This is because many people can already meet much of their local transport needs themselves. GO offers a service which allows people to travel long distances into downtown Toronto, thus avoiding crippling congestion over long distances.

Using the 401 corridor for example, while there may not be a single growth centre to make it worthwhile to operate 12 car GO trains to every 15 or 30 minutes, a regional BRT or even light metro could do wonders to control congestion and democratize regional transportation.

 

[ehlow]

I agree and disagree with this comment.

I agree that with the way we tend to build transit, you are right. Most rapid transit projects in the GTA are designed for medium, intra-municipality distance trips. While possible, taking the subway and Viva from Newmarket to Union is not the best way to go.

However, I would not say that transit planning should avoid long distance trips. If this were the case, GO would not even exist. People need alternatives to driving for transversing this urban region. Speaking of GO, I am willing to bet that a sizable portion of its ridership has access to a car, far more than most local transit systems. This is because many people can already meet much of their local transport needs themselves. GO offers a service which allows people to travel long distances into downtown Toronto, thus avoiding crippling congestion over long distances.

Using the 401 corridor for example, while there may not be a single growth centre to make it worthwhile to operate 12 car GO trains to every 15 or 30 minutes, a regional BRT or even light metro could do wonders to control congestion and democratize regional transportation.

I'm not saying that we should avoid creating long distance transit infrastructure, I'm saying that subways aren't necessarily the right tool for it. I totally support using the GO corridors more to make long distance transit more viable.

 

[ehlow]

Car traffic. You can find the same pattern on Yonge too; although the subway there was built a very very long time ago, car traffic is higher on all parts of Yonge than it was prior to the subway being built.

Obviously the %age of people carried by car is down but the total number of vehicles using Yonge has never been higher. I have no doubt you will find a similar pattern on Bloor as well. 2nd Ave in NY will be most interesting to see measurements in 20 to 30 years.

Subways (LRT, bus, etc.) provide an alternative mechanism for growth but they will not reduce congestion in any long-term sense. To reduce congestion driving needs to become more expensive or restricted in other ways (max 1 parking space per household, no grandfathering of existing spaces).



I'm not entirely certain of this. Obviously planning could be better and the ratio could be improved but I don't think you can stop drivers from filling the streets to capacity over time without directly changing the cost of driving. If even 10% of people in a dense neighbourhood drive (like those new developments along Charles St E), you've suddenly got a full streets. Charles St East was pretty damn quiet traffic-wise 15 years ago.

Bloor traffic is probably down due to lane removal. From appearances, congestion is about the same.

Yeah I'd expect Yonge to have more traffic now that 60 years ago when the first subway in Canada was built and this city had half the population and the 905 was farmland .

I personally think that the idea that building subways will suddenly make the 401 & DVP un-congested at rush hour a fantasy. Something like CityRail or GO REX would make a bigger impact on traffic in my opinion, but I'm still not holding my breath for traffic be "fixed" considering the rate the city is growing. Transit creates an alternative to traffic. Lots of people I know never worry about traffic because we don't drive during rush hour, we take transit & walk.

 

[Johnny Au]

Yeah I'd expect Yonge to have more traffic now that 60 years ago when the first subway in Canada was built and this city had half the population and the 905 was farmland .

...and back then, one would be paranoid to suggest that there would be a subway under Sheppard between Yonge and Don Mills half a century from then.

 

[TheTigerMaster]

Congestion will never get fixed. No matter how much transit we build, it only gets worse. The only thing that can "fix" congestion at this point is risign energy prices.

 

[Rainforest]

Maybe, a third option will work?

I am thinking of the following specs:
- High-floor LRT.
- Runs in street median where possible.
- Existing Sheppard subway gets converted to LRT. I assume it is much cheaper to do if the target vehicles are high-floor.
- Structures will have to be build at surface stops to meet the accessibility requirements. Simple surface stops will not be possible.
- Stop spacing is wide (stops are at major avenues only). That will improve speed, as well as limit the extra cost of building surface stations.
- Diversion south of Sheppard, to serve STC and Centennial Progress campus, can be considered.

Advantages:
1) Good speed. The estimate for the surface section is 27 kph (assuming wide stop spacing) according to the TTC Sheppard study. The average speed (taking into account the tunneled section) will be even better.
2) No transfer at Don Mills.
3) Cheaper per-km cost of LRT makes it possible to reach the eastern end of Scarborough, unlike the subway option that would end at STC.
4) If the future demand warrants it, the tunneled section can be easily converted back to subway, as the platforms and stairs will not have been modified too much.

Disadvantages:
1) Cost is higher than for low-floor LRT, due to the need of surface stations.
2) There may be no space for surface stations at some intersections; they would have to be either placed underground or offset from the intersection.
3) Wide stop spacing will necessitate a parallel bus route, hence somewhat higher operating costs.
4) No full compatibility with Eglinton and other low-floor LRT lines. Compatibility for carhouse movements (gauge, voltage) and maintenance (many common parts) may be retained, but revenue service will be possible only with vehicles tailored to each line.

Thoughts?

 

[Dan416]

I'd actually be fine with a high floor LRT operating in Sheppard since I imagine you wouldn't have to spend as much and it could be done faster.

 

[denfromoakvillemilton]

Maybe, a third option will work?

I am thinking of the following specs:
- High-floor LRT.
- Runs in street median where possible.
- Existing Sheppard subway gets converted to LRT. I assume it is much cheaper to do if the target vehicles are high-floor.
- Structures will have to be build at surface stops to meet the accessibility requirements. Simple surface stops will not be possible.
- Stop spacing is wide (stops are at major avenues only). That will improve speed, as well as limit the extra cost of building surface stations.
- Diversion south of Sheppard, to serve STC and Centennial Progress campus, can be considered.

Advantages:
1) Good speed. The estimate for the surface section is 27 kph (assuming wide stop spacing) according to the TTC Sheppard study. The average speed (taking into account the tunneled section) will be even better.
2) No transfer at Don Mills.
3) Cheaper per-km cost of LRT makes it possible to reach the eastern end of Scarborough, unlike the subway option that would end at STC.
4) If the future demand warrants it, the tunneled section can be easily converted back to subway, as the platforms and stairs will not have been modified too much.

Disadvantages:
1) Cost is higher than for low-floor LRT, due to the need of surface stations.
2) There may be no space for surface stations at some intersections; they would have to be either placed underground or offset from the intersection.
3) Wide stop spacing will necessitate a parallel bus route, hence somewhat higher operating costs.
4) No full compatibility with Eglinton and other low-floor LRT lines. Compatibility for carhouse movements (gauge, voltage) and maintenance (many common parts) may be retained, but revenue service will be possible only with vehicles tailored to each line.

Thoughts?

You can't call it LRT. Just call it new subway cars for sheppard. Anything to avoid the transfer. Anything to avoid backlash.

 

[ehlow]

Maybe, a third option will work?

I am thinking of the following specs:
- High-floor LRT.
- Runs in street median where possible.
- Existing Sheppard subway gets converted to LRT. I assume it is much cheaper to do if the target vehicles are high-floor.
- Structures will have to be build at surface stops to meet the accessibility requirements. Simple surface stops will not be possible.
- Stop spacing is wide (stops are at major avenues only). That will improve speed, as well as limit the extra cost of building surface stations.
- Diversion south of Sheppard, to serve STC and Centennial Progress campus, can be considered.

Advantages:
1) Good speed. The estimate for the surface section is 27 kph (assuming wide stop spacing) according to the TTC Sheppard study. The average speed (taking into account the tunneled section) will be even better.
2) No transfer at Don Mills.
3) Cheaper per-km cost of LRT makes it possible to reach the eastern end of Scarborough, unlike the subway option that would end at STC.
4) If the future demand warrants it, the tunneled section can be easily converted back to subway, as the platforms and stairs will not have been modified too much.

Disadvantages:
1) Cost is higher than for low-floor LRT, due to the need of surface stations.
2) There may be no space for surface stations at some intersections; they would have to be either placed underground or offset from the intersection.
3) Wide stop spacing will necessitate a parallel bus route, hence somewhat higher operating costs.
4) No full compatibility with Eglinton and other low-floor LRT lines. Compatibility for carhouse movements (gauge, voltage) and maintenance (many common parts) may be retained, but revenue service will be possible only with vehicles tailored to each line.

Thoughts?

It's an interesting idea that I've heard before, but would it be less of a hassle to lower the platforms at the existing Sheppard line stations than introduce a new LRV type?

Also, can the Sheppard tunnels fit an LRV?

It kind of sucks for the people who live along there to have to take buses for a few years in order to convert their subway into essentially a subway with narrower vehicles, but maybe if you package it along with the very long eastern extension it can be sold. It's still a really difficult sell though, similar to the SRT conversion.

I would like to see it done in the long term since the Sheppard East LRT will go much further east than any subway probably will within 20 years. However, how do you justify the cost of the conversion given that we need to fund many more transit lines? (DRL, Eg & Finch Phase 2) I'm assuming here that even high floor LRT conversion will be expensive. Maybe the conversion can happen after the SE LRT is done? Or maybe the SE LRT can simply run at grade over the subway (joking.. or am I?)