You could easily run buses on all of Avenue Road/University Avenue, Yonge Street, Church Street and Mount Pleasant Rd/Jarvis St. This still would only provide an increase of capacity of a few percent.
 
A frequent "local" bus would allow users to get on or off between stations, instead of at just stations. Especially between Eglinton and Finch (excluding North York Centre), where the stations are about 2 kilometres apart.
 
It would also need a new bus garage just to be able to increase frequency for Route 97 to once every 30 seconds or so.
 
I would be happy to see more frequent bus #97 between St Clair Stn and Finch where the subway stop spacing is fairly wide. It would be nice if the bus run every 10 min or 12 min for most of the day.

However, I would not view that as a meaningful capacity relief for the subway; only as an improved local service.
 
  • Like
Reactions: PL1
So I was dwelling on some of the numbers in Metrolinx's recent YRNS that didn't make sense, and it appears the runtime data on p.33 is misplaced - with the Surface Subway and LRT #s being switched with one another. It makes sense since the LRT wasn't supposed to terminate at St Andrew, but rather around Union. And when verifying each line's scoping on p.24 and 29, it's clear they're switched. I'm sure there are a few other numbers in that report that don't add up, but that one particularly stood out for me.

I also noticed the Short, Long, and U subways have an odd alignment in their downtown east portion - with the line doing a jog up to and along Dundas. Haven't seen this alignment anywhere in past Queen Subway/DRL plans, but perhaps there's logic behind it. Or that it might be something the TTC/City is looking at as well(?).

YRNS-Long-Subway.jpg

YRNS-Surface-Subway.jpg

YRNS-LRT.jpg

YRNS-runtime.png
 

Attachments

  • YRNS-Long-Subway.jpg
    YRNS-Long-Subway.jpg
    80.8 KB · Views: 1,268
  • YRNS-Surface-Subway.jpg
    YRNS-Surface-Subway.jpg
    85.6 KB · Views: 1,204
  • YRNS-LRT.jpg
    YRNS-LRT.jpg
    80.2 KB · Views: 1,218
  • YRNS-runtime.png
    YRNS-runtime.png
    102.9 KB · Views: 1,163
I think a better idea for Sheppard would be to extend it underground to STC, then extend it further east to Pickering in the middle of Highway 401. The Sheppard subway would be quite useful if it went all the way from the western edge of Toronto to the eastern edge, but a lot of it would have to be built in the middle of the 401 to reduce cost, it would be prohibitively expensive otherwise.
 
Extend Sheppard east to SC? For about 3,000 riders an hour at SC? 8 km? That's about $2.5 billion. Not a great use of money to provide service to SC which will already have service. Better surely to build it under Sheppard to Sheppard/McCowan where there's higher demand, and where one can transfer to Line 2 for a short trip to SC. Though hard to justify compared to cost of LRT, at least east of Victoria Park.

24 km from Don Mills to Pickering isn't happening.
 
You are pushing the price of the DRL up beyond the existing stratospheric level.

If the DRL Long is built (not a sure thing, in the medium term) then at some point (like 2035, maybe) the north end may reach the same dynamic as the Yonge line....there will be a desire to push it even further north to make the trip downtown for those in Vaughan seamless.

This seems like a next-generation project to me...there just won't be money to talk about these ideas for a while. And, the fate of transit on Sheppard is controversial enough (and pressing enough) without adding more costly subway construction to the debate.

A better option for the next 25 years might be to view a Sheppard/DRL junction as a good hub for LRT lines....one across Sheppard to the west (I'm still stuck on why there is no east-west tie up there), one to the east, and perhaps one to the north - which might provide sufficient capacity for a long time to come.

I rode a pretty cool train in the UK recently which runs on both third rail and pantograph (and switches en route) which makes me further convinced that the existing Sheppard subway is still a candidate for conversion to LRT with some sort of non-Flexity vehicle. A single LRT line across Sheppard is still what I'd be arguing for.

- Paul
 
Last edited:
nfitz said:
Extend Sheppard east to SC? For about 3,000 riders an hour at SC? 8 km? That's about $2.5 billion. Not a great use of money to provide service to SC which will already have service. Better surely to build it under Sheppard to Sheppard/McCowan where there's higher demand, and where one can transfer to Line 2 for a short trip to SC. Though hard to justify compared to cost of LRT, at least east of Victoria Park.

24 km from Don Mills to Pickering isn't happening.
Click to expand...

I recall from the Sheppard corridor review that Scarborough Centre wasn't a particularly major destination in Scarborough. The only reason there's so much usage at that station is because the TTC has jerry rigged routes to terminate at SC. There really isn't any reason to bring the Sheppard Line down there.
 
Wow, that report is some seriously shoddy work.

Here's what's probably going to happen: having cooked the books in favour of this bizarre surface subway, it will be approved over the underground option that actually makes sense. Meanwhile, Leaside will throw a fit over the loss of of their trail and addition of noisy subway trains bisecting their neighbourhood. Council will vote to tunnel the Leaside section. In the Don Valley, major engineering will be required to flood-proof the new line, further raising the cost. Eventually, cost escalations will make the cost comparable to the full underground DRL and it will be shelved for another 30 years due to lack of funding.
 
crs1026 said:
I rode a pretty cool train in the UK recently which runs on both third rail and pantograph (and switches en route) which makes me further convinced that the existing Sheppard subway is still a candidate for conversion to LRT with some sort of non-Flexity vehicle. A single LRT line across Sheppard is still what I'd be arguing for.
Click to expand...

+1 for this. I say we install @TheTigerMaster as dictator and pursue this solution. :p
 
smably said:
Wow, that report is some seriously shoddy work.

Here's what's probably going to happen: having cooked the books in favour of this bizarre surface subway, it will be approved over the underground option that actually makes sense. Meanwhile, Leaside will throw a fit over the loss of of their trail and addition of noisy subway trains bisecting their neighbourhood. Council will vote to tunnel the Leaside section. In the Don Valley, major engineering will be required to flood-proof the new line, further raising the cost. Eventually, cost escalations will make the cost comparable to the full underground DRL and it will be shelved for another 30 years due to lack of funding.
Click to expand...

Ah, but you forgot one important step: once this line is 'approved', that should be enough to greenlight the shovel-ready $4.6bn Yonge North extension (which was originally promised to be in service sometime soon). I'd wager that's what's really important to the Prov/Metrolinx - as is evident from MoveOntario 2020, P2G, and the original Big Move. The DRL is just a costly nuisance that they'd rather do away with altogether. IMO they don't really care about relieving Yonge, relieving the downtown surface network, shoulder area development, network redundancy, or that extending Line 1 for its seventh time will do more harm than good without a relief line in place. I think winning votes in the 905 and making good on their decade-old promise to suburban landowners trumps actual smart planning.

It doesn't take a genius to see the problems associated with proposing a surface line adjacent to the volatile Lower Don River, or that a high-frequency 7-car surface subway through Don Mills won't go over well with area residents, or that Toronto planners will demand the addition of stations in Thorncliffe Park and Regent Park/WDL. All of these issues will undoubtedly increase the project's cost, scope, and schedule - not to mention increase the shelf-worthiness of the proposal.

Check out the tech advisory and steering committee for this YRNS report. TO's representation makes up the minority - with a collective Metrolinx, GO, MTO, and York Region making up the majority. For a line fully within Toronto and a century in the making, does that make sense? Now, there are certain aspects of this quick-fix proposal I can get behind (e.g intersecting Broadview, using some surface/elevated portions, building all at once instead of piecemeal etc); but the current proposal just isn't good enough. So unless they decide to fully work alongside the City of Toronto and be at our beck and call with regards to this line and what it should do, I think there will be a major schism in how it's approached and blatant attempts by the Prov to undercut its potential.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top