[unimaginative2]

What makes Network 2011 any more noble than Transit City? Were all alternatives given equal consideration for Sheppard then?

Alternatives? Like technological alternatives? Absolutely. They looked at BRT, LRT and subway and they recommended subway. They also looked at different alignments, like Finch and Finch hydro corridor. Interestingly enough, they didn't recommend a subway for Eglinton West; they preferred BRT. If you've ever had a chance to take a look at the studies for Network 2011, you'll see that they're just vastly more comprehensive than what we've seen for Transit City.

 

[Eug]

I think that Scarborough Centre makes perfect sense simply because, whether downtown councillors like it or not, it's the hub of activity, particularly public transit, in Scarborough. Most buses from northern and eastern Scarborough funnel into the centre, it's a provincially- and locally-designated growth centre, and it's easily the biggest trip generator in Scarborough. It just makes sense to maintain the existing hub there rather than trying to build another elsewhere.

I agree.

That's one beef I have with the Eglinton X-town line. Since they're revamping the SRT anyway, they could have theoretically just extended the LRT line all the way out there to the Scarborough Town Centre, keeping existing routes. However, as designed (or at least how I understand it), they will remain independent LRT routes.

 

[kEiThZ]

^ However, it's ridiculous to service a hub and designated growth centre with LRT. Scarborough Centre will be the only urban growth centre in the 416 without a subway connection and that's in large part because of compromises such as the one you are proposing. Yes, it would be great to hook up the SRT and the Eglinton LRT. Far better would be junking the current SRT altogether, extending the subway to STC, and having LRT branch out from there (Progress, McCowan North, Ellesmere, etc.).

 

[Eug]

^ However, it's ridiculous to service a hub and designated growth centre with LRT. Scarborough Centre will be the only urban growth centre in the 416 without a subway connection and that's in large part because of compromises such as the one you are proposing. Yes, it would be great to hook up the SRT and the Eglinton LRT. Far better would be junking the current SRT altogether, extending the subway to STC, and having LRT branch out from there (Progress, McCowan North, Ellesmere, etc.).

Some may think I'm being foolish here, but my undereducated belief is still that the tunneled portion of the Eglinton Crosstown line could be built to subway standards, with 500 foot long tunnels. If 30 years from now, the re-projected ridership for the future after that were to justify converting to subway and extending that tunnel further east and west, they they could start it then. I am just not convinced it's truly justified at this point.

P.S. I guess I'm also in the minority that doesn't quite understand the point of the Sheppard subway. If I had a choice for TC2, I'd actually rather change the Sheppard into a Crosstown LRT, and would consider extending the Bloor-Danforth subway line to Scarborough Town Centre and scrapping the Scarborough RT (although I'm pretty sure the subway extension won't happen).

EDIT:

Oops. I guess unimaginative2 already said that.

Sure. That's not a bad idea at all since there's a fair bit of stuff around McCowan there. It might make more sense, though, to have the BD go directly to SC and serve that area with the Eglinton RT/LRT.

 

[Eug]

P.S. I guess I'm also in the minority that doesn't quite understand the point of the Sheppard subway. If I had a choice for TC2, I'd actually rather change the Sheppard into a Crosstown LRT

Actually to be truthful, not really. It's already there as subway so you may as well just leave it there as subway. It's just that I don't quite understand why it was built in the first place.

 

[golodhendil]

Some may think I'm being foolish here, but my undereducated belief is still that the tunneled portion of the Eglinton Crosstown line could be built to subway standards, with 500 foot long tunnels. If 30 years from now, the re-projected ridership for the future after that were to justify converting to subway and extending that tunnel further east and west, they they could start it then. I am just not convinced it's truly justified at this point.

As I have pointed out in the other TC thread, given that in its 100+ year of history not a single light rail premetro line in either Europe or America has ever been successfully converted to a full heavy rail metro, I highly doubt that TTC will do any better in ever converting an Eglinton LRT to a full subway. 30 or 50 years from now, all we'll get is a very congested, partially underground LRT line that will probably have other routes funnelling into it at either ends. We will get an expansive midtown LRT network with a central tunnel that is completely over capacity.
*Edit: Either that, or we may finally get some sense into our head and build a crosstown GO/REX line, and perhaps even a full crosstown Sheppard/Finch subway, that will partially alleviate the load.

Re: unimaginative2
Just a few bones to pick in an otherwise very well reasoned two posts.

Actually, for most major cities that I can think of off the top of my head, their metro systems do follow the streets above/below them (or existing rail corridors) fairly strictly, or for significant portion of it in the urban core: Boston, Vancouver, Hong Kong, Taipei, Singapore, Tokyo, Seoul, even the older systems of London, Paris and Berlin. The main difference is that most of those cities don't have a regular street grid like Toronto or Manhattan, so they have a bit more liberty in routing the metro through many different streets. As long as the network is dense enough (a big and unmet condition), I don't think the "grid-line" approach is necessarily a big problem.

As for REX, it's definitely a good and crucial idea, though if busier North American systems like Metro North and LIRR can't even run every 15 min at off-peak hours, I'm not sure if Toronto's ridership can justify that. However, while I don't have the data, I do think much of the area within the City of Toronto and the immediately neighbouring suburbs (Missisauga, southern Markham) covered by GO has a higher pop density than the general area served by the NYC system (which mainly serves deep into the exurbs/suburbs). I think it is still possible to have trains that short-turn and not carry the service frequency all the way to eg Barrie or Stouffville, and increase the number of tracks in the "urban" sections while increasing stations so that the "suburban" trains can still get downtown quickly. This way the system can probably induce a higher ridership than currently exists. However, such a use of the GO network will definitely require a drastic change in the attitude and thinking of Toronto's transit planners.

 

[CDL.TO]

Actually to be truthful, not really. It's already there as subway so you may as well just leave it there as subway. It's just that I don't quite understand why it was built in the first place.

It's easy to understand when you understand the history and the plans for Metro Toronto. Plans for a Sheppard subway long predate Mel Lastman's political meddling.

Metro's growth plans in the 70s and 80s called for intensification and jobs growth to occur in the centres of the inner suburbs (North York Centre, Scarborough Centre, etc...), and not in the central area (former City of Toronto) where the local politicians opposed major intensification.

As such, the question was "where is the best place in the inner suburbs to build a new subway?". Also, the need for a new crosstown route was clear. Sheppard was an extremely busy route for buses and it is easy to understand why.

Sheppard, from Dufferin to Scarborough Centre serves:
- The two largest inner suburban "centres"
- 5 shopping malls (which like it or not, are the "main streets" of postwar development)
- 3 major employment zones
- A major hospital
- Numerous tower blocks

If Sheppard is not the most densely populated corridor in the inner suburbs, it's definitely in the top 3.

So that's where they identified the optimal location for a crosstown route. No other potential corridor could compare in terms the combination of jobs, ridership, population, destinations, crosstown-ness, and growth potential.

People often talk about Eglinton being a superior choice, but as unimaginative pointed out, studies at the time didn't even suggest a subway for Eglinton as ridership wasn't high enough. An Eglinton crosstown subway would definitely help a lot of people get around (including me), but frankly it has no major trip generators between Yonge and the Airport. It's just an urban street which happens to go across the entire city, through each former borough, right in the middle. Between Yonge and Markham Rd fares a bit better for trip generators but has even lower ridership than Eglinton West because people are drawn south to the Danforth line, as well as low-density Don river parkland and big-box retail along the route.

We need to remember that the Sheppard subway moved an average of 45,860 people over its 5.5km length (8338 passengers per km) last year. The only surface routes that come close to the total number of riders are the 504 King (12.8km, 3742 passengers per km) and the 29 Dufferin (12.2km, 3574 passengers per km). And as Scarberian would point out, these routes are bisected by subways making them more like 2 routes. Current ridership per km for Eglinton West is around 1000 passengers per km.

Simply, with regards to the Sheppard subway:
- It made sense at the time it was planned due to Metro's official plan, it makes sense today due to Toronto's official plan.
- It made sense at the time it was planned due to existing ridership, and it makes sense today due to existing ridership.
- It made sense at the time due to the need for a rapid crosstown route in the north of the city, and Toronto still needs a a rapid crosstown route in the north of the city.
- It made sense at the time due to population and employment density, and it makes even more sense today due to population growth and employment.

 

[Eug]

Thanks for the Sheppard history lesson. My exposure to the Sheppard fiasco was not until the 90s.

Everyone talk about Eglinton being a superior choice, but as unimaginative pointed out, studies at the time didn't even suggest a subway for Eglinton as ridership wasn't high enough. An Eglinton crosstown subway would definitely help a lot of people get around (including me), but frankly it has no major trip generators between Yonge and the Airport. It's just an urban street which happens to go across the entire city, through each former borough. Between Yonge and Markham Rd fares a bit better but has even lower ridership than Eglinton West because people are drawn to the Danforth line.

We need to remember that the Sheppard subway moved an average of 45,860 people over its 5.5km length (8338 passengers per km). The only other routes that come close to these ridership levels are the 504 King (12.8km, 3742 passengers per km) and the 29 Dufferin (12.2km, 3574 passengers per km). And as Scarberian would point out, these routes are bisected by subways making them more like 2 routes. Current ridership per km for Eglinton West is around 1000 passengers per km.

Which is why I'm a little confused why some people are so adamant about tunneled subway along this entire line.

I still like the idea of extending the Bloor-Danforth line to Scarborough Town Centre, and going LRT along Eglinton.

 

[unimaginative2]

Actually, for most major cities that I can think of off the top of my head, their metro systems do follow the streets above/below them (or existing rail corridors) fairly strictly, or for significant portion of it in the urban core: Boston, Vancouver, Hong Kong, Taipei, Singapore, Tokyo, Seoul, even the older systems of London, Paris and Berlin. The main difference is that most of those cities don't have a regular street grid like Toronto or Manhattan, so they have a bit more liberty in routing the metro through many different streets. As long as the network is dense enough (a big and unmet condition), I don't think the "grid-line" approach is necessarily a big problem.

I agree that it's not a problem. I think most possible routes in Toronto make the most sense more-or-less following the grid. My only issue is with the belief that routes must follow the grid. For example, it makes perfect sense for the Sheppard line to run south to Scarborough Centre rather than continuing east to some random point at Meadowvale that's surrounded by forest. With more detailed origin/destination studies, planners could come up with some real outside-the-box plans that would actually serve where riders want to go. I just think that right now we do all our planning based on established corridors, rather than where people are actually travelling.

As for REX, it's definitely a good and crucial idea, though if busier North American systems like Metro North and LIRR can't even run every 15 min at off-peak hours, I'm not sure if Toronto's ridership can justify that. However, while I don't have the data, I do think much of the area within the City of Toronto and the immediately neighbouring suburbs (Missisauga, southern Markham) covered by GO has a higher pop density than the general area served by the NYC system (which mainly serves deep into the exurbs/suburbs). I think it is still possible to have trains that short-turn and not carry the service frequency all the way to eg Barrie or Stouffville, and increase the number of tracks in the "urban" sections while increasing stations so that the "suburban" trains can still get downtown quickly. This way the system can probably induce a higher ridership than currently exists. However, such a use of the GO network will definitely require a drastic change in the attitude and thinking of Toronto's transit planners.

I don't think it's necessarily that LIRR and Metro North can't run every 15 minutes. It's simply that they don't. The area served by the S-Bahn in Munich is far less dense than the inner 905, but all its routes run every 20 minutes. The minimum service standard will result in an exponential increase in ridership because it becomes a reliable rapid transit service rather than a commuter service. You also alluded to the point that Mississauga, Brampton, Vaughan, and Markham are denser than Long Island and Westchester County. GO runs a little bit too far out, though. We definitely need an intermediate system like the RegioExpress in Germany or TER in France to serve places like Kitchener, Barrie, and Peterborough. Nobody wants to sit on a commuter train making all stops all the way out there.

 

[Whoaccio]

Which is why I'm a little confused why some people are so adamant about tunneled subway along this entire line[Eglinton]

I'm confused by the long pining for the mythical "Scarborough to Pearson" route to begin with. Has the TTC ever carried out studies of where the Eglinton bus riders are coming from and going? I commute through Eglinton station's bus terminal daily and, anecdotally, I rarely see anyone get off the 32 and onto the the 34 or vice versa. That is hardly authoritative, but I wonder.

I guess part of the Eglinton subway's appeal is that Eglinton, bisecting the middle of the city and nearly every borough, is symbolically important. Probably why it is the only TC route to get a sexy name, Crosstown, too. Practically I can see a certain amount of "why not" with an Eglinton subway. If the underground segment is more or less going to be subway, and there is an open ROW on the western leg, the incremental costs of subway vs. LRT are pretty minor.

My ideal solution would be to run a subway in the central section, an LRT or busway through the Richview corridor to Jane or wherever the western subway terminus would be, and just run better bus service along the Eastern segment. Thats not bloody likely, so I have more or less resigned myself to the current Crosstown proposal. If done right, a big if, it should be okay.

 

[golodhendil]

Which is why I'm a little confused why some people are so adamant about tunneled subway along this entire line.

I still like the idea of extending the Bloor-Danforth line to Scarborough Town Centre, and going LRT along Eglinton.

I don't think many people are advocating tunnelled subway all the way for Eglinton. Rather, the main iterations I have seen people want are either 1) HRT for the tunnelled section and separate LRT lines at the two ends with future extensions by the subway, or 2) a completely exclusive ROW (eg, using the Richview corridor) whether the final result be HRT or LRT. I think people just need to be honest and realistic that it is going to be HRT now or never; a conversion will almost certainly never happen.

U2: Agreed and agreed (though the multitiered railway system approach is probably decades away from the minds of our transit planners).

 

[CDL.TO]

As I have pointed out in the other TC thread, given that in its 100+ year of history not a single light rail premetro line in either Europe or America has ever been successfully converted to a full heavy rail metro

Not that I disagree with the point of your argument, but...
- Brussels
- Vienna
- Rio de Janiero

All converted premetros to true metros.

 

[CapitalSeven]

Rather quickly, this thread has devolved from ideas about a Transit City 2 to the same old wailing and gnashing of teeth about Transit City 1.

 

[scarberiankhatru]

Adding one more thing to "why a subway?" on Sheppard, an on-street ROW would not under any foreseeable circumstances be feasible on Sheppard East and something under the street was strongly desirable.

Rather quickly, this thread has devolved from ideas about a Transit City 2 to the same old wailing and gnashing of teeth about Transit City 1.

...with the same old complaints that add nothing to the thread.

 

[ShonTron]

As far as LRT goes, Albion-Wilson might have been a sleeper hit. Wilson's a busy route, provides a useful one-service ride. Wilson is crazy served by buses west of Wilson station as far as Weston Road, and the buses are jam-packed on weekends and evenings. Albion Road is quite underserved as well by a branch of the Royal York bus, and partial service by the 96C Wilson Thistletown branch. Especially when one considers a Sheppard subway makes no sense west past Downsview.

I wouldn't add York Mills as it is an awful corridor betwen Yonge and Leslie, and doesn't really have much in the way of riders except at Leslie and Don Mills (transfers and immediate walk-ups) and east of the DVP.

As far as trip generators and transfers go, it's not too shabby, especially when the MTO lands are intensified with the mega-hospital, the new coroner's/forensic complex.