[Cobra]

now stop repeating ancient history endlessly.

That's mature

 

[coopEng]

Exactly, can you imagine the worst-case scenario!

I don't know where you are getting this. Read my comments further back in the thread. I advocated both for less stops, and extending the subway to Victoria Park. It seems to me you've come into this without a full awareness of what has been discussed in this thread.

I believe that's taken into allowance in the figure. At this point though, I'll re-iterate what I said only last decade and that we should be able to find a vehicle that can both operate on the surface LRT section, and in the existing subway tunnel, without having to do massive modifications.

The arguments against this have always been the platform heights and tunnel size. The problem, as I see it, is the choice for the low floor LRTs to match the rest of the system. Yes a new vehicle type, only used in one location, blah blah - but we could build platforms on the at-grade portion of the route. I'd have to look back at the many pages to see what was "studied" but this type of conversion would (edit: could) work.

I think we shouldn't kid ourselves here though - there is a clear push for subway only regardless for how wastefull and unwarranted it is. All in the name of "equality", right.

 

[Rainforest]

I think we shouldn't kid ourselves here though - there is a clear push for subway only regardless for how wastefull and unwarranted it is. All in the name of "equality", right.

There is a strong push for SSE; that project has evolved from a transit issue into a matter of equality and minicipal solidarity.

None of that on Sheppard. Proposals are being made, sure, but nowhere near the same level of pressure.

The best option would be to take a pause on Sheppard corridor (except some enhanced bus service), build more urgent projects, then revisit Sheppard in 15-20 years. And, probably choose a vehicle type that can fit in the existing tunnel as well as run on surface.

Though, I would not mind if they build the planned LRT, as long as it connects to the SSE terminus.

 

[sixrings]

There is a strong push for SSE; that project has evolved from a transit issue into a matter of equality and minicipal solidarity.

None of that on Sheppard. Proposals are being made, sure, but nowhere near the same level of pressure.

The best option would be to take a pause on Sheppard corridor (except some enhanced bus service), build more urgent projects, then revisit Sheppard in 15-20 years. And, probably choose a vehicle type that can fit in the existing tunnel as well as run on surface.

Though, I would not mind if they build the planned LRT, as long as it connects to the SSE terminus.

Wouldnt a straight Sheppard line make more sense and instead the SSE make it to Sheppard for its final stop. At least I would prefer that option if I was living near sheppard. Or perhaps a sheppard lrt with some lrts diverting to STC while others continue on sheppard. I dont know but Id much prefer throwing big money at the SSE getting extended to Sheppard than I am doing anything on Sheppard itself.

 

[Cobra]

The best option would be to take a pause on Sheppard corridor (except some enhanced bus service), build more urgent projects, then revisit Sheppard in 15-20 years.

I'd rather build that thing to open after the Relief Line than "revisit" in 15 years and learn that building costs have double and tripled while the infrastructure program will have ended.

 

[BMO]

And yet it is faster than the bus. And even faster than instead extending the subway.

Note that this is AM peak, using 40-minutes from Morningside to Don Mills of 40 minutes. It's scheduled as 49 minutes at PM peak - if it's on time.

View attachment 100020

I love how the transfer time magically becomes 2 minutes with their preferred option. Seems fishy considering transfer time is dictated by the subway frequency regardless of how frequent the LRT is. You could have an LRT come every minute and you're still going to have the same average waiting time for the subway. But, you know, who cares about math.

 

[Cobra]

I love how the transfer time magically becomes 2 minutes with their preferred option. Seems fishy considering transfer time is dictated by the subway frequency regardless of how frequent the LRT is. You could have an LRT come every minute and you're still going to have the same average waiting time for the subway. But, you know, who cares about math.

Excellent point.

 

[denfromoakvillemilton]

The arguments against this have always been the platform heights and tunnel size. The problem, as I see it, is the choice for the low floor LRTs to match the rest of the system. Yes a new vehicle type, only used in one location, blah blah - but we could build platforms on the at-grade portion of the route. I'd have to look back at the many pages to see what was "studied" but this type of conversion would (edit: could) work.

I think we shouldn't kid ourselves here though - there is a clear push for subway only regardless for how wastefull and unwarranted it is. All in the name of "equality", right.

There is a strong push for SSE; that project has evolved from a transit issue into a matter of equality and minicipal solidarity.

None of that on Sheppard. Proposals are being made, sure, but nowhere near the same level of pressure.

The best option would be to take a pause on Sheppard corridor (except some enhanced bus service), build more urgent projects, then revisit Sheppard in 15-20 years. And, probably choose a vehicle type that can fit in the existing tunnel as well as run on surface.

Though, I would not mind if they build the planned LRT, as long as it connects to the SSE terminus.

There is pressure, but it's different. Sheppard is to complete the subway loop and interline with the Vaughan extension at Wilson to provide redundancy.

I'd rather build that thing to open after the Relief Line than "revisit" in 15 years and learn that building costs have double and tripled while the infrastructure program will have ended.

Agreed. No pauses. Get it over with and get to the DRL already. Enough of this already.

 

[rbt]

I love how the transfer time magically becomes 2 minutes with their preferred option.

Seems reasonable to me. Don Mills (and Warden would too) have a 2 minute walk from the bus platform down to the subway platform. The LRT didn't have that problem; it's closer to a 15 second walk off the LRV to the subway (no stairs, no escalators, no long hallways).

You might want the the bus to terminate at subway level too. That's certainly doable but adds $600M (or more depending on ventilation/tunnel size requirements) to the cost of that option. Similarly, you could run LRT into the bus loop and chop $600M off the cost of that option.

 

[denfromoakvillemilton]

I love how the transfer time magically becomes 2 minutes with their preferred option. Seems fishy considering transfer time is dictated by the subway frequency regardless of how frequent the LRT is. You could have an LRT come every minute and you're still going to have the same average waiting time for the subway. But, you know, who cares about math.

Excellent point.

Seems reasonable to me. Don Mills (and Warden would too) have a 2 minute walk from the bus platform down to the subway platform. The LRT didn't have that problem; it's closer to a 15 second walk off the LRV to the subway (no stairs, no escalators, no long hallways).

You might want the BRT to terminate at subway level too. That's certainly doable but adds $600M (or more depending on ventilation requirements) to the cost of that option.

Then terminate at agincourt or just stay on the bus to STC.

 

[nfitz]

I love how the transfer time magically becomes 2 minutes with their preferred option. Seems fishy considering transfer time is dictated by the subway frequency regardless of how frequent the LRT is. You could have an LRT come every minute and you're still going to have the same average waiting time for the subway. But, you know, who cares about math.

All you have to do is walk a few feet. If the subway comes every 4 minutes, then it's a 2 minute transfer. Might be slightly optimistic - but compare to the 4-minute transfer they use to get from the bus at Don Mills. That means they are giving you two minutes for a very long walk. Honestly, both numbers should be a minute or two higher really. I think you are cherry picking.

 

[BMO]

All you have to do is walk a few feet. If the subway comes every 4 minutes, then it's a 2 minute transfer. Might be slightly optimistic - but compare to the 4-minute transfer they use to get from the bus at Don Mills. That means they are giving you two minutes for a very long walk. Honestly, both numbers should be a minute or two higher really. I think you are cherry picking.

it's the fact that they recommend a solution based on decreased travel time which, if you were to adjust the transfer time to 4 minutes, the benefits would be, for all intents and purposes, negligible. It's not nitpicking it's putting it into perspective that it isn't inherently the LRT that is making this trip faster...it's the fact that the LRT will be at platform level. By that logic build a tunnel for the buses, which would be much cheaper and you'd shave off 2 minutes of travel time making the second option a mere 3 minutes longer than the preferred option without the need for a new LRV storage facility, intrusive road work on most of Sheppard, etc while still creating a sizable benefit to existing conditions.

 

[nfitz]

it's the fact that they recommend a solution based on decreased travel time which, if you were to adjust the transfer time to 4 minutes, the benefits would be, for all intents and purposes, negligible. It's not nitpicking it's putting it into perspective that it isn't inherently the LRT that is making this trip faster...it's the fact that the LRT will be at platform level. By that logic build a tunnel for the buses, which would be much cheaper and you'd shave off 2 minutes of travel time making the second option a mere 3 minutes longer than the preferred option without the need for a new LRV storage facility, intrusive road work, etc.

Would be quite the slope on the tunnel, to daylight before the 404.

However, if you did, it might work, for now, westbound in AM peak. But recall the whole basis of this is to deal with 2031. It's already 9 minutes longer eastbound in PM peak. And it's supposed to get worse.

 

[coopEng]

it's the fact that they recommend a solution based on decreased travel time which, if you were to adjust the transfer time to 4 minutes, the benefits would be, for all intents and purposes, negligible. It's not nitpicking it's putting it into perspective that it isn't inherently the LRT that is making this trip faster...it's the fact that the LRT will be at platform level. By that logic build a tunnel for the buses, which would be much cheaper and you'd shave off 2 minutes of travel time making the second option a mere 3 minutes longer than the preferred option without the need for a new LRV storage facility, intrusive road work on most of Sheppard, etc while still creating a sizable benefit to existing conditions.

I agree that comparing the transfer time isn't useful, but it is obvious that cross a platform transfer is a lot quicker than going from Subway to Bus (especially at this station). By "much cheaper" I assume you mean a more complicated and expensive bus tunnel to somehow bring buses to the platform level is much cheaper than the entire LRT? I would suggest that tunneling the last portion of the LRT is a large and complicated part of this design - but to say we can run buses down to the subway platform level as a way to discredit the transfer times is not apples to apples. Larger tunnel, more ventilation, and probably the most impossible part, a place for the buses to loop around. Even with BRT there is a lot of road work that would have to be completed.

The point of that chart is just if the LRT goes to track level you will save switching vehicles - I don't think that's why they recommended the option.

 

[BMO]

I agree that comparing the transfer time isn't useful, but it is obvious that cross a platform transfer is a lot quicker than going from Subway to Bus (especially at this station). By "much cheaper" I assume you mean a more complicated and expensive bus tunnel to somehow bring buses to the platform level is much cheaper than the entire LRT? I would suggest that tunneling the last portion of the LRT is a large and complicated part of this design - but to say we can run buses down to the subway platform level as a way to discredit the transfer times is not apples to apples. Larger tunnel, more ventilation, and probably the most impossible part, a place for the buses to loop around. Even with BRT there is a lot of road work that would have to be completed.

The point of that chart is just if the LRT goes to track level you will save switching vehicles - I don't think that's why they recommended the option.

Second option will have a new station at Warden, could be part of the design, doesn't even have to be an underground ramp but a more streamlined transfer from bus to subway without needing tunneling. Capital costs are one thing, then there are external costs that apply to the economy in terms of lost productivity and based off of impacts to throughput of a major arterial in Toronto. The point is the graphic was meant to drive home the fact that the LRT will shave 10 minutes of a person's commute, but when you realize that 20% of that time savings isn't even inherent with the LRT's operation but more with the transfer it puts it into perspective.