[MrsNesbitt]

IMO, spending $670 million to convert the subway to LRT is not justifiable.



Through-run Finch West and Finch East LRT will work even better.

What is not justifiable is continuing to subsidize the abysmal ridership of the Sheppard Subway to the tune of $8 per rider in perpetuity. I agree personally that Finch would've been a better route from the get-go, but we're stuck with the subway (or its tunnel at least) now. Might as well bite the bullet, convert it, and at least our northern crosstown line will have a grade-separated tunnelled section to enjoy.

Well said. It is absolutely disgusting (but not too shocking, this is Toronto after all, the city where transit goes to die) that there is no crosstown route at the top end of the city. ECLRT will help but it is still too far south.

We all know that conversion of the stubway to LRT, and extending that LRT east (at least for the time being, perhaps a western extension in 25 years) is the answer that will provide such a crosstown route.

Are there any examples where this has been successfully implemented (and welcomed by the community) at a reasonable cost?

To be honest I can't think of any examples, but I also can't think of any examples of cities being as harebrained as Toronto to build stubways like Sheppard. I shall research this a bit.

 

[nfitz]

What is not justifiable is continuing to subsidize the abysmal ridership of the Sheppard Subway to the tune of $17 per rider in perpetuity.

What's the basis of that number, and how much of it is related to the station maintenance which won't change no matter what technology is used in the tunnels. There's only 8 operators working at any one time, which is far less than the number of operators there used to be before the subway - I recall standing at the corner of Don Mills and Sheppard, looking down the hill, and being able to see about 8 buses in view running east and west in AM rush hour in the 1980s.

Even if the trains were replaced by LRT on a one-to-one basis, the savings is only 4 positions - say 12 employees - say $1.5 milliion/year. With about 15 million riders a year, that saves $0.10 per ride. Where is the other $16.90?

Let's take it from another direction. With about 15 million riders a year, at a subsidy of $17 per rider, that means the subsidy is over $250 million per year (and operating cost even more presuming that there is any revenue collected!)

The operating cost for the entire system is only about $1.5 billion as far as I recall. However, Sheppard consists of only 4 of the 95 subway trains in service at peak (about 5% - ignoring length). And is only 5 of the 70 or so platforms/stations (7%). But takes 16% of the budget?

Even if the cost of running buses, the SRT, and streetcars was $0, and the entire TTC subsidy was used for running the subway (which I don't believe is the case), the $17 cost doesn't make sense. What is the source for this? It looks very cooked to me.

 

[ksun]

I'm all for LRT on Sheppard, but in all seriousness, they could eliminate quite a number of stops along the route.

me too. 22 stops in 12 km? I recommend 15 stops and you still have a comfortable 750m spacing.

 

[M II A II R II K]

Maybe they could put ICTS trains in the tunnel and make it a skytrain to Rouge Hill.

 

[MrsNesbitt]

What's the basis of that number, and how much of it is related to the station maintenance which won't change no matter what technology is used in the tunnels. There's only 8 operators working at any one time, which is far less than the number of operators there used to be before the subway - I recall standing at the corner of Don Mills and Sheppard, looking down the hill, and being able to see about 8 buses in view running east and west in AM rush hour in the 1980s.

My numbers are wrong: turns out the subsidy is $8 per rider (I don't remember where I was pulling $17 from). But regardless, while the tunnel and station maintenance costs will still exist with a through-run LRT (unfortunately made worse since the Sheppard stations are hugely overbuilt), upticks in ridership resulting from the utility of a northern crosstown route will help cover more of that cost. The line will always need to be subsidized, but if it can be less so as LRT, as well as he of greater usefulness to riders as a through route, it's worth doing now. $670 million is worth spending on that, compared to the costs of other pet transit projects in this city.

 

[nfitz]

My numbers are wrong: turns out the subsidy is $8 per rider (I don't remember where I was pulling $17 from).

That still seems high. With the 15 million riders per year I mentioned earlier that's a cost of $120 million, or about 8% of the entire TTC budget. How can the the newest line (presumably with the least maintenance), smallest platforms (less cleaning), and least passengers (less cleaning), with just centre platforms (less cleaning) take a disproportionately high percentage of the operating cost.

What is the source of your $8 per ride number? I'd have a hard time swallowing any more than $4 per ride. Of $0.10 is for the operators, what is the rest of the $7.90?

 

[WislaHD]

My numbers are wrong: turns out the subsidy is $8 per rider (I don't remember where I was pulling $17 from). But regardless, while the tunnel and station maintenance costs will still exist with a through-run LRT (unfortunately made worse since the Sheppard stations are hugely overbuilt), upticks in ridership resulting from the utility of a northern crosstown route will help cover more of that cost. The line will always need to be subsidized, but if it can be less so as LRT, as well as he of greater usefulness to riders as a through route, it's worth doing now. $670 million is worth spending on that, compared to the costs of other pet transit projects in this city.

$17 is the commonly cited number on here. I would've continued using the same if nfitz hadn't posted.

 

[CDL.TO]

Why have we completely written off the prospect of running the LRT through the current Sheppard Subway tunnel in order to eliminate the transfer? Sure, it's not feasible if we assume the the current stations would have to rebuilt for low platforms and catenary. But shouldn't we at least be considering high-platform dual-mode LRTs?

For example, 3 of the 5 "metro" lines in Rotterdam are much like light rail (lines A, B, and E on this map). They run on 3rd rail in the tunnels and everywhere else the system is fully grade separated, then put up a pantograph to run on the surface with level crossings. Here's a streetview of a surface segment. Here's a video of vehicles changing between third rail and pantograph.

The same solution is also used in Amsterdam on "fast tram" line 51. For a heavy rail example, Boston uses this solution on the Blue line.

Yes, it would make the vehicles on Sheppard incompatible with the other new LRT lines and the stops on line line would need a bit more space to "ramp up" to the platform. But it's a solution that has worked for decades in other cities and it's something we should at least consider.

If the Scarborough LRT goes through, it could also use high platform vehicles, reducing the costs associated with rebuilding the existing stations.

 

[MrsNesbitt]

That still seems high. With the 15 million riders per year I mentioned earlier that's a cost of $120 million, or about 8% of the entire TTC budget. How can the the newest line (presumably with the least maintenance), smallest platforms (less cleaning), and least passengers (less cleaning), with just centre platforms (less cleaning) take a disproportionately high percentage of the operating cost.

What is the source of your $8 per ride number? I'd have a hard time swallowing any more than $4 per ride. Of $0.10 is for the operators, what is the rest of the $7.90?

$17 is the commonly cited number on here. I would've continued using the same if nfitz hadn't posted.

Interestingly enough I remember $17 from previous discussions here, but upon searching for numbers I've come up with both $8 and $17 from sources from recent years.

In either event, those are high numbers. I'll try to get a conclusive figure from the TTC budget.

 

[nfitz]

Interestingly enough I remember $17 from previous discussions here, but upon searching for numbers I've come up with both $8 and $17 from sources from recent years.

In either event, those are high numbers. I'll try to get a conclusive figure from the TTC budget.

I didn't realise how high they were until I started doing some math.

I think ultimately, it may come from a stray comment Adam Giambrone made back in 2008 or so, which may or may not have been accurate.

 

[W. K. Lis]

Why have we completely written off the prospect of running the LRT through the current Sheppard Subway tunnel in order to eliminate the transfer? Sure, it's not feasible if we assume the the current stations would have to rebuilt for low platforms and catenary. But shouldn't we at least be considering high-platform dual-mode LRTs?

For example, three of the 5 "metro" lines in Rotterdam are actually closer to light rail (lines A, B, and E on this map. They run on 3rd rail in the tunnels and everywhere else the system is fully grade separated, then put up a pantograph to run on the surface with level crossings. Here's a streetview of a surface segment. Here's a video of vehicles changing between third rail and pantograph.

The same solution is also used in Amsterdam on "fast tram" line 51. For a heavy rail example, Boston uses this solution on the Blue line.

Yes, it would make the vehicles on Sheppard incompatible with the other new LRT lines and the stops on line line would need a bit more space to "ramp up" to the platform. But it's a solution that has worked for decades in other cities and it's something we should at least consider.

If the Scarborough LRT goes through, it could also use high platform vehicles, reducing the costs associated with rebuilding the existing stations.

The current subway platforms in the Sheppard subway are high-floor hallow platforms. The current stations do not take up the entire station box. The station box is configured for a full six car train. They only actually use only a portion of the station box for a four car train.

They could lower the unused platform section now. They can lower a remaining section later, along with extending the stairs, elevators, and escalators to the lower platform when they do the full conversion from heavy rail to light rail. A light rail vehicle can use both overhead catenary, third rail, or even wireless (PRIMOVE) charging technology.

 

[TOareaFan]

$17 is the commonly cited number on here. I would've continued using the same if nfitz hadn't posted.

it is also the number the Golden panel were putting out at their public consultation meetings....they repeated it at least 3 times at the Mississauga meeting I attended.

 

[nfitz]

They could lower the unused platform section now. They can lower a remaining section later, along with extending the stairs, elevators, and escalators to the lower platform when they do the full conversion from heavy rail to light rail. A light rail vehicle can use both overhead catenary, third rail, or even wireless (PRIMOVE) charging technology.

If I recall the discussions on this years ago, the primary issue was the clearance for the catenary. Though having to remove the platforms isn't insubstantial cost of lowering the in-use platform - particularly the escalators and elevators.

Ideally, if they could use Primove and raise the trackbed through the station, that would be ideal, and might be a lot cheaper than previously estimated. I made the same comment a couple of times in the Sheppard East LRT thread years ago. Now that Primove is further advanced, perhaps the feasibility should be revisited.

 

[Rainforest]

But regardless, while the tunnel and station maintenance costs will still exist with a through-run LRT (unfortunately made worse since the Sheppard stations are hugely overbuilt), upticks in ridership resulting from the utility of a northern crosstown route will help cover more of that cost. The line will always need to be subsidized, but if it can be less so as LRT, as well as he of greater usefulness to riders as a through route, it's worth doing now. $670 million is worth spending on that, compared to the costs of other pet transit projects in this city.

You are assuming that the ridership of the through LRT line (after conversion) will be substantially higher than the ridership of a route with transfer (LRT east of Don Mills, subway west of it). But I doubt this assumption.

People who have to use the Sheppard corridor, will use it anyway. A same-platform transfer should not be a big deterrent.

People located at other corridors, will not go out of their way in order to use Sheppard LRT. It will not be fast enough to make such detour sensible. Sure, it will be faster than mixed-traffic buses, but the need to take a N-S bus and transfer will negate the saving.

$670 million can build half of Finch East LRT. Add a bit more, and we have both Finch E and Sheppard E.

 

[Rainforest]

Why have we completely written off the prospect of running the LRT through the current Sheppard Subway tunnel in order to eliminate the transfer? Sure, it's not feasible if we assume the the current stations would have to rebuilt for low platforms and catenary. But shouldn't we at least be considering high-platform dual-mode LRTs?

For example, three of the 5 "metro" lines in Rotterdam are actually closer to light rail (lines A, B, and E on this map. They run on 3rd rail in the tunnels and everywhere else the system is fully grade separated, then put up a pantograph to run on the surface with level crossings. Here's a streetview of a surface segment. Here's a video of vehicles changing between third rail and pantograph.

The same solution is also used in Amsterdam on "fast tram" line 51. For a heavy rail example, Boston uses this solution on the Blue line.

Yes, it would make the vehicles on Sheppard incompatible with the other new LRT lines and the stops on line line would need a bit more space to "ramp up" to the platform. But it's a solution that has worked for decades in other cities and it's something we should at least consider.

This option is worth looking at. If we can convert the subway to high-floor LRT for say $50 million, and build more elaborated surface LRT platforms (for accessibility) for $100 million on top of the already allocated funds; it is still much cheaper than $670 million for conversion to low-floor LRT. As a bonus, such design will nudge towards wider stop spacing and faster travel on Sheppard LRT.

Maybe they could put ICTS trains in the tunnel and make it a skytrain to Rouge Hill.

That option can become feasible in a long term (30+ years ?), but is not financially possible at this time. 18 km of new ICTS or mini-metro line will cost a lot, even if a bit cheaper than a full-fledged subway.