Second in a two-part series on the subway-vs.-light rail debate.

If the Sheppard Stub-way is the poster child for how not to build a subway in Toronto, then the St. Clair right-of-way is Exhibit A in the case against light rail lines.

Each is used to bolster arguments in the subway-versus-light rail debate. Neither is an ideal example of underground or above ground travel because their negatives have little to do with the mode of transportation. Still, the two projects are cautionary tales on the challenges of planning and delivering effective, useful transit in a dynamic city.

St. Clair was saddled with too many on-street demands that added to the cost and construction time, two factors that often frame the debate. It looks too much like the standard streetcar and not like the “fast” service promised on the proposed lines along Sheppard East. And the TTC must improve its relations with abutting businesses and residents.

The Sheppard Subway doesn’t extend far enough to attract enough riders. It was built on ridership and development estimates that have been proved delusional. Land use planning policies have not delivered a population that’s transit-dependent or -oriented. And, so, it languishes with a peak-hour ridership rate of just 4,500.

The TTC estimates it would cost $800 million to convert the Yonge to Don Mills stub to LRT. So, let’s say it’s $1 billion. Why bother? And why do that when more than 20 highrise condos are going up between the little-used Bessarian and Leslie stations? Maybe it needs time, which we have. And more aggressive and targeted zoning and land use policies, to increase densities — which neighbourhoods routinely oppose.

Advocates of light rail believe it is far superior to subways in the Toronto context. We don’t have the money or the huge densities to create a Barcelona or London or New York kind of subway network, with tentacles sprinting off in every direction.

They make some good points.

We are told subways can handle an enormous number of people, funneling up to 30,000 through a particular point during a peak hour. Light rail, as envisioned in Transit City, peaks at 10,000 to 12,000 people passing through a single point per hour. Buses, in their own right-of-ways, theoretically max out at 7,000. The best performing bus routes carry 1,700; and the King 504 streeetcar carries 1,800 in mixed traffic.

What kind of Transit City ridership is anticipated along Sheppard East, Eglinton or Finch West? Planning forecasts to 2031 project that none of the lines will approach 10,000 peak-hour riders. Eglinton is expected to reach 5,400. Sheppard East and Finch West? Just 3,000 each. So, the Transit City LRT can handle as many passengers as imagined for the foreseeable future.

“LRT is the appropriate mode,” says Mitch Stambler, chief planning officer for ht TTC. “There’s no need, from a capacity perspective, to build subways.”

The current streetcar lumbers down the middle of the road and stops frequently, even along St. Clair. Transit City routes will move faster and stop less often. Sheppard East is expected to reach average speeds of 23 km/h, up from the 12 km/h of current mix-traffic streetcar routes. Subway speeds average 31 km/h.

These arguments notwithstanding, Toronto has a nascent desire for subways above all else. It is cold here from November to April. Subways don’t impinge on preciously scarce road space in a town that is not building any more roads. And for decades the TTC and city planners told us that subways are a catalyst for development and growth.

In several opinion polls done before the municipal election, the yearning was clear. Nearly two-thirds of those polled in one Angus Reid survey last September said subways should be a high priority for the TTC. Only one in four saw streetcars as a priority.

Turning around public opinion will be difficult.

There are too many LRT proponents whose agenda is to punish the car, to wean the public off the automobile. And too many anti-LRT types are motivated by a “get the streetcar out of my way so I can drive unimpeded” attitude.

There are important environmental reasons to favour transit over the automobile. But, until our dependence on oil becomes exorbitantly expensive — or transit evolves into now-inconceivable convenience and comfort, the car is here to stay.

Loading... Loading... Loading... Loading... Loading... Loading...

And co-existing will be a prickly give-and-take proposition.

Royson James usually appears Tuesday, Thursday and Saturday. Email: rjames@thestar.ca