[ehlow]

This "forced transfer" thing is way overblown. All you will have to do is walk across the platform (no stairs required). Running a subway through the LRT ROW is not gonna happen because of the electrified third rail, among other reasons. All places where subways run on the surface also have tall metal fences for that reason. How are pedestrians and cars supposed to cross the tracks?

To be honest, I wonder if some are mainly concerned about how things look on a subway map and don't like the idea of the purple line looking short.

Maybe that's why some love loops & "closing the loop" on subway maps. No transfers or lines ending ever, you just ride the subway in a circle forever!

 

[11th]

.. All places where subways run on the surface also have tall metal fences for that reason. How are pedestrians and cars supposed to cross the tracks?

CTA Brown line at-grade section as example.

 

[TheTigerMaster]

To be honest, I wonder if some are mainly concerned about how things look on a subway map and don't like the idea of the purple line looking short.

Maybe that's why some love loops & "closing the loop" on subway maps. No transfers or lines ending ever, you just ride the subway in a circle forever!

Yes. That's the only justification.

I see only one solution: Destroy the Sheppard Subway and erase it from the map. I'll bring the sledge hammers. Who's with me?

 

[TheTigerMaster]

This "forced transfer" thing is way overblown. All you will have to do is walk across the platform (no stairs required). Running a subway through the LRT ROW is not gonna happen because of the electrified third rail, among other reasons. All places where subways run on the surface also have tall metal fences for that reason. How are pedestrians and cars supposed to cross the tracks?

I've been making the far worse transfer at Kennedy for the past few months and never has it crossed my mind that we should spend billions of dollars to eliminate it. The transfer at both Kennedy at Don Mills aren't notable enough to even complain about in my opinion.

 

[W. K. Lis]

This "forced transfer" thing is way overblown. All you will have to do is walk across the platform (no stairs required). Running a subway through the LRT ROW is not gonna happen because of the electrified third rail, among other reasons. All places where subways run on the surface also have tall metal fences for that reason. How are pedestrians and cars supposed to cross the tracks?

During the non-rush hours, I don't expect much of a problem with the both set of trains servicing the same platform.

However, with the Sheppard Subway having a headway running every 5 minutes during the rush hours, I just wonder what the headways will be for the LRT? If the LRT has headways approaching 2 minutes, could the LRV trains enter the station, egress and enter passengers, driver transfer ends, and exit the station within 2 minutes? Likely, they'll have to have a transfer of drivers during rush hours to allow for a speedy departure.

 

[salsa]

CTA Brown line at-grade section as example.

I was only referring to Toronto, since the comment I replied to said "we have many areas in the city where subways run on the surface...". I'm aware of the Brown line, but doesn't run in the middle of the street like what pstogios is proposing, and its third rail has caused electrocutions before.

 

[WislaHD]

To be honest, I wonder if some are mainly concerned about how things look on a subway map and don't like the idea of the purple line looking short.

Maybe that's why some love loops & "closing the loop" on subway maps. No transfers or lines ending ever, you just ride the subway in a circle forever!

There is an argument to be had about improving connectivity. (Why our bus routes end at Yonge St. instead of continuing east-west, I will never know)

I'd like to see the Sheppard line (be it subway or LRT, preferably converted into LRT) connected to the Spadina line in the medium/distant future. After the DRL maybe.

 

[TheTigerMaster]

There is an argument to be had about improving connectivity. (Why our bus routes end at Yonge St. instead of continuing east-west, I will never know)

I'd like to see the Sheppard line (be it subway or LRT, preferably converted into LRT) connected to the Spadina line in the medium/distant future. After the DRL maybe.

All the connectivity in the word is useless if nobody uses it. [Almost] Nobody would use a Sheppard Subway extended west to Spadina.

The only justification for a Sheppard west extension is for a more direct connection from Yonge Line to Wilson Yard. But building a new yard on Richmond Hill would most likely be cheaper.

 

[WislaHD]

All the connectivity in the word is useless if nobody uses it. [Almost] Nobody would use a Sheppard Subway extended west to Spadina.

The only justification for a Sheppard west extension is for a more direct connection from Yonge Line to Wilson Yard. But building a new yard on Richmond Hill would most likely be cheaper.

Without any studies done, how do you know that is true?

York University, Yorkville/Fairview, NYCC are significant trip generators on their own and connecting Sheppard would allow a much greater portion of the city to access them feasibly by transit. All those York region, Scarborough and North York riders with destinations in the western part of our downtown core will also make the transfer onto the Spadina line for a quicker trip and to avoid the bottleneck and uncomfortably packed ride that is the Yonge line south of Finch, north of Queen.

Nobody uses Sheppard because it is a stub with only two destinations, Yonge and Fairview.

 

[nfitz]

Without any studies done, how do you know that is true?

Because multiple studies HAVE been done.

TTC eliminated this from consideration back in the 2001 RTES that lead to the prioritization of the Spadina extension, and the eastern extension of the Sheppard Line. This western extension however was so poor, it was eliminated from study, unlike better options like the Eglinton subway, the SRT extension, and the Bloor extension to Dixie.

It was eliminated for the following reasons, and I quote:

• As Downsview Station is already served by the Spadina Subway line, only one additional station is possible (Bathurst) and this station has only limited development potential.
• Demand for rapid transit is considerably higher east of Yonge Street in comparison to west of Yonge Street. The growth of the North York City Centre does not depend on a westerly extension of the Sheppard Subway line and consequently a westerly extension is considered lower priority in comparison to further easterly extensions.
• The high capital cost of such an extension is not matched by high ridership or re-development potential.
• Population and employment growth in the corridor is projected to be low.
• Densities in the area are projected to be below the threshold for implementation of rapid transit.
• The opportunities for feeder bus savings and commuter parking potential are considered to be low.

What has changed since then that would make it worth reconsidering? The Sheppard East extension ranked much better, and even this is too low for subway.

Nobody uses Sheppard because it is a stub with only two destinations, Yonge and Fairview.

If nobody uses it, why is the ridership per kilometre higher than almost every surface route the TTC has?

 

[denfromoakvillemilton]

To be honest, I wonder if some are mainly concerned about how things look on a subway map and don't like the idea of the purple line looking short.

Maybe that's why some love loops & "closing the loop" on subway maps. No transfers or lines ending ever, you just ride the subway in a circle forever!

Yes. That's the only justification.

I see only one solution: Destroy the Sheppard Subway and erase it from the map. I'll bring the sledge hammers. Who's with me?

That's a major part of it. Sheppard looks so ugly on the map

 

[robmausser]

This "forced transfer" thing is way overblown. All you will have to do is walk across the platform (no stairs required). Running a subway through the LRT ROW is not gonna happen because of the electrified third rail, among other reasons. All places where subways run on the surface also have tall metal fences for that reason. How are pedestrians and cars supposed to cross the tracks?

The only option for continuing the subway above ground would be as elevated rail.

This would still cost much more than LRT, but less than tunnelling. You could maybe get to McCowan Road with elevated rail but thats it (for the same cost as the LRT)

Also, people are against elevated rail nowadays, and especially Torontonians.

Another option is to convert the tunnels for LRT usage.

This could be done with Bombardiers Primove technology since pantographs wont quite fit in the tunnels, or so i'm told.

http://primove.bombardier.com/application/light-rail/

However this would be substantial cost as well, as you would need to lower the platforms.

This plan is also less favourable as people see LRT's as lesser technology, so it feels like you are "downgrading" from a subway to a tunneled LRT.


Either option is more expensive, and you get the argument "well if we are going to spend more money we might as well build a subway!"

 

[pstogios]

Because multiple studies HAVE been done.

TTC eliminated this from consideration back in the 2001 RTES that lead to the prioritization of the Spadina extension, and the eastern extension of the Sheppard Line.

At the risk of sounding Fordian, that RTES (thank you for that link, quite interesting) clearly shows the Sheppard East extension should be prioritized as it met the criteria laid out.

If the RTES ranked the eastern extension of the Sheppard Line as highly as the Spadina line extension, when and why was there a switch to intending to build LRT in this corridor?

Could the RTES have been proven wrong? And if so, perhaps the other corridors screened from consideration in that report actually warrant higher order transit after all? (but those are topics for other threads, of course)

 

[nfitz]

At the risk of sounding Fordian, that RTES (thank you for that link, quite interesting) clearly shows the Sheppard East extension should be prioritized as it met the criteria laid out.

Indeed it did; this was discussed in detail in the Sheppard East LRT thread.

If the RTES ranked the eastern extension of the Sheppard Line as highly as the Spadina line extension, when and why was there a switch to intending to build LRT in this corridor?

Because there was no consideration at the time of building LRT. It was a flaw in the original study that it wasn't considered. Look at the demand though - it's far below the 15,000 or so that is the line to switch from LRT to subway. Though as I keep saying, extending the subway to Victoria Park, isn't a terrible idea.

Could the RTES have been proven wrong? And if so, perhaps the other corridors screened from consideration in that report actually warrant higher order transit after all? (but those are topics for other threads, of course)

Most of the corridors are being considered for higher order transit. Eglinton is under construction now. Yonge north is planned. The SRT extension was approved at one point. Not sure what's "wrong" about the RTES - it's been quite comparable to later studies. The Spadina numbers aren't great, but this is the AM peak-hour southbound, and that ignores the significant northbound transit to York and significant off-peak (after 9 AM) travel, which eventually drove this. The numbers north of Steeles are pitiful - that was political thought.

 

[Rainforest]

Look at the demand though - it's far below the 15,000 or so that is the line to switch from LRT to subway.

Not that it matters much in the Sheppard corridor context where the projected demand is well below 15,000; but generally speaking, that 15,000 pphpd threshold is pretty useless.

Let's assume that the projected peak demand in Corridor X is 12,000; what are we going to build in that corridor? A subway does not meet our criteria, but a surface LRT cannot handle so much demand. Tunneled / elevated LRT? But it costs almost as much as a subway.

I think, the practical threshold to switch from LRT to subway (or mini-subway / RT) is about 10,000. Otherwise, we would have to conclude that demand in the 10,000 - 15,000 range is not suitable for any node, and must be ignored

Edit: a tunneled LRT section makes sense, when it is a part of a longer surface route, or a common section of multiple surface routes.