[Northern Light]

If you say so

No, not if I say so; if all the traffic impact studies submitted with the associated development along the Golden Mile say so, which they do, and those have been published here, along with the Golden Mile Transportation Masterplan.

Red is over capacity, in the preferred build-out scenario:
(two variations)

Source: https://www.toronto.ca/wp-content/uploads/2019/11/97a2-CityPlanning_GoldenMile_TMPDraft_Part3.pdf


Further, from the above:

* before you say...... but we can have shorter headways.............. Nope, we can't, because the service has to interleave w/the short-turning service.

Ah, but you say, we can run ALL the service out to Kennedy. Nope, can't do that either as this would reduce the headway in the central section of the line.

****

Same thing I have had to say to a lot of posters today. I don't guess much. Its not a hunch, its not an intuition. I do my homework. If I'm guessing, I'll say so.

 

[afransen]

Line 5 is radically under-sized vs the development already proposed/approved along the east end of the route; we've going to have to go back and bury it.

It is a bit nauseating to consider that we may end up tunneling the rest of Line 4. We will be stuck with an entirely grade-separated low-floor LRV line. A far worse result for far greater expense than if we had done it properly to begin with. And we won't even have an automated line with PSDs.

 

[Northern Light]

It is a bit nauseating to consider that we may end up tunneling the rest of Line 4. We will be stuck with an entirely grade-separated low-floor LRV line. A far worse result for far greater expense than if we had done it properly to begin with. And we won't even have an automated line with PSDs.

Agreed.

There are alternatives, but as I've said elsewhere, they are all trade-offs.

You can just cap density in the Golden Mile and/or apply the 'H' or holding by-law to any development requiring they demonstrate sufficient transit capacity to support their development.

We could, bolster transit-priority, vs what is currently being contemplated, but with the admonition, that the N-S routes also show as over-capacity and these would be in conflict.

A further option would be more limited scope intervention, as example, grade-separating just 2 stops along the route that would create the greatest benefit, for argument's sake, Victoria Park and Warden.

The challenge there, is that the line would have to be completely shut down to construct this for a minimum of 2 years, and the resulting ramps eat up some of the time savings and may result in real challenges in say, serving a Pharmacy Avenue stop.
A final option would be eliminating a couple of the mid-block stops that would not be stations in an underground version of the line. (examples Lebovic and Ionview). The problem w/that, is that the time savings are limited unless you close the intersections or provide full transit priority; that the approved development pattern is predicated on those stops existing, and that the remaining stops have insufficient platform capacity to absorb the overflow.

 

[T3G]

A few months ago, someone did the maths on this:

Post in thread 'Toronto | 1 Eglinton Square | 158.8m | 46s | KingSett Capital | BDP Quadrangle'
https://urbantoronto.ca/forum/threa...ett-capital-bdp-quadrangle.26165/post-2043387

are these figures no longer accurate? 6000 pphdp for a line with an hourly capacity of 15000 pphpd (source: https://web.archive.org/web/2020080...ca/the-project/fact-sheets/eglinton-crosstown) seems to be well within tolerances. If the plan has changed and more than doubled the hourly demand that is to be placed on the line, that is truly repulsive and whoever put the plan together should be fired. Scarborough is not Manhattan! (Though it would be better for all concerned if it was).

 

[Northern Light]

A few months ago, someone did the maths on this:

Post in thread 'Toronto | 1 Eglinton Square | 158.8m | 46s | KingSett Capital | BDP Quadrangle'
https://urbantoronto.ca/forum/threa...ett-capital-bdp-quadrangle.26165/post-2043387

are these figures no longer accurate? 6000 pphdp

@Undead is awesome, but his figures were guesses in terms of demand and do not align w/the projections and modelling we're seeing take shape.

There are lots of reasons his modelling isn't correct. For one it fails to account for existing corridor demand on the Eglinton Bus as base load, we're not starting from zero. All the Golden Mile development has to be added on top of that.

Second, there is an anticipated increase in transfers at Eglinton vs today from those who on the N-S routes, both in using the line to get to Line 1, the Ontario Line and to Kennedy.

Third, there is demand growth occurring in the corridors that feed the N-S routes or are otherwise just beyond the reach of the Golden Mile Plan.

For instance:

1400 Victoria Park | 89.3m | 25s | Leader Lane | Core Architects

New to the AIC is this application for 1400-1410 Victoria Park Avenue, which is currently a supermarket, auto garage, and strip plaza on Victoria Park Avenue, west side, running south from Sunrise. For context, this is a few hundred meters south of Eglinton. Proposed are 1 34s tower at the...

urbantoronto.ca

And this:

3 Swift Drive | 118.05m | 36s | Republic | Arcadis

3 SWIFT DR Ward 16: Don Valley East Development Applications Project description: Zoning By-law Amendment Application for a 39-storey residential building having a gross floor area of 58,686 square metres. 824 residential units are proposed, of which, 61 are rental replacement units. This...

urbantoronto.ca

***********

Now, all of that said, perhaps we could wind the subject here back to the Line 4 extension, rather than the ECLRT which has its own thread; as does the Golden Mile Secondary Plan.

 

[Bureaucromancer]

If you say so. Honestly, it is hard to visualize that situation. Even in its present state with the surface section in the east, Line 5 will have capacity in the range of 13,000 per hour, in each of the 2 directions. In the morning rush, not every riders needs to go west towards the OL or Yonge. Some might prefer to go east to Kennedy and transfer to Line 2 or to Stouffville GO.

Furthermore, frequent bus routes on Vic Park, Warden, Birchmount aren't going to disappear when Line 5 opens. Those buses can take some of the area's riders.

However, if Line 5 does require a rebuild, then the rebuild period will turn into an absolute nighmare. If the rationale for the rebuild is that the LRT with 13,000 x 2 capacity can't handle the demand, then what will carry that demand during the years when the LRT isn't running at all, and the Eglinton general lanes are reduced for the new construction.

Add to that that EVEN IF there are severe issues from the capacity of the surface section, a Lawrence East branch also operating on the surface is preferable in every way to the issues that would come with grade separating the eastern section after the fact.

 

[goodcitywhenfinished]

I think the absolute best scenario for this extension would be converting to fully automated light metro and elevating the line all the way to McCowan.

 

[Rainforest]

I think the absolute best scenario for this extension would be converting to fully automated light metro and elevating the line all the way to McCowan.

I agree. However, an extension of the existing subway seems more likely.

Converting to light metro is really beneficial if we think long term, and take into account an eventual extension beyond McCowan in the east, and beyond Dufferin in the west.

If we only look at Phase 1, likely Sheppard West to McCowan, then the additional cost of converting the existing section will not be sufficiently offset by the cheaper new sections.

Nearly every government wants short-term benefits, that help them get re-elected. From that perspective, extending the existing subway is less disruptive/complex than the conversion.

 

[Undead]

Just to clarify, I was on the right track because even my conservative modelling suggested the surface section may become over capacity. Now, we have TMP studies telling us the situation will be even worse. My original sentiment was that I can understand concerns about the surface section being overcapacity. And now evidence is supporting my sentiment.

 

[DirectionNorth]

As with any project, there's lots of talk about development, and not enough discussion, I think, about the broader transport purpose of a Sheppard Subway.

There's always lots of talk about a crosstown corridor north of downtown, whether that's Midtown GO, or the Ontario Line Loop (which is silly), or the 407 Transitway. Yet those projects leave a hole for medium-to-medium-long distance transit between Bloor and the 407. This is my problem with Eglinton - it's a regional line, but it's also not at the same time. A frankentross, if you will. Anyways ...

Building this line as LRT would be an error. Sheppard is the only transit line we'll have, ever, that fills a relatively high-speed role in this gap (see: 401 traffic), and it also serves/will serve density at the Downsview site and on Sheppard East. We've already shot dead the other opportunity for fast crosstown transit, the kind that makes suburb <-> suburb trips competitive on transit; let's not do it again.

I don't think Sheppard will need six-car TRs with 24,000 PPHD in my lifetime, and I plan to live to a 12-million population GTA. Smaller trains would make lots of sense, but will we do the smart thing and build four-car platforms on the extensions to save costs? Given our track record ... /bleh

Also, LRT conversion on Line 4 Sheppard would have to tunnel east of the 404, at least to Consumers, which also requires a tunnel portal and interface with the existing line. At that point, a Sheppard LRT would be like the Crosstown. It's the worst of both worlds: higher costs, lower capacity, and mediocre speeds. Also, a conversion would have political problems. See below.

I am a staunch believer that we should slightly undersize transit whenever possible.

That way we can run more frequent service and point to full vehicles as proof of high transit demand.

An overcapacity Yonge Line didn't produce the DRL for 30+ years; full buses have failed to produce upgrades across this city.

I wouldn't hold my breath. Lawrence and York Mills/Wilson aren't coming soon; Finch East might happen by 2050, but as a local-oriented LRT.

I agree. However, an extension of the existing subway seems more likely.

Converting to light metro is really beneficial if we think long term, and take into account an eventual extension beyond McCowan in the east, and beyond Dufferin in the west.

If we only look at Phase 1, likely Sheppard West to McCowan, then the additional cost of converting the existing section will not be sufficiently offset by the cheaper new sections.

Nearly every government wants short-term benefits, that help them get re-elected. From that perspective, extending the existing subway is less disruptive/complex than the conversion.

The larger cost wouldn't be the price of conversion, it would be the disruption to riders.

If we shut down Sheppard for the minimum 1-2 years a conversion would take, one can only imagine the media outrage. The outrage would be lacking in substance, but any government wouldn't want that kind of headache.

(minorly edited, because Direction North is a grammar nut)

 

[MrGoose]

I think the absolute best scenario for this extension would be converting to fully automated light metro and elevating the line all the way to McCowan.

The problem with this is you have to totally redo all of the stations to account for the height difference between low floor trams and high floor trains.

Honestly the best situation might be to keep the eastern section closed and rebuild it grade separated.

 

[micheal_can]

I am a staunch believer that we should slightly undersize transit whenever possible.

That way we can run more frequent service and point to full vehicles as proof of high transit demand.

Undersize - as in less than what is actually needed at the time of opening. AKA Crush load. So, you want it built without room for growth?

Granted, the Sheppard line as built is undersized by a lot, but that is because it has not been extended to a length that would make sense. Extend it to where it would make sense and then it would be at a capacity that would have the room to grow, while not looking useless.

 

[CapitalSeven]

I can't imagine Sheppard being at capacity any time soon. After 20 years in service, headways were actually reduced, and the last ridership figure I saw was 3000 per hour, so a tenth of the nominal capacity of a subway line. Where are the other 27k coming from?

 

[denfromoakvillemilton]

I can't imagine Sheppard being at capacity any time soon. After 20 years in service, headways were actually reduced, and the last ridership figure I saw was 3000 per hour, so a tenth of the nominal capacity of a subway line. Where are the other 27k coming from?

Well, that's why it needs to be built in one shot, not east and west. Hopefully, the connection to Sheppard West/Wilson will generate more ridership. Plus Bringing the Scarborough subway to McCowan will help with the transfers. Not 27K but it should be 18-19K.

 

[nfitz]

Why do you think it will be so much higher than the modelling?

I doubt transfers from McCowan would do much for the peak load at Yonge. There would also be some now who use Line 4, then 1, then 2, who'd end up just going to McCowan to cut a transfer.