[micheal_can]

Could it also be that the Copenhagen Metro opened in 2002? Their nightly maintenance may not be as intensive as Toronto's are.

 

[felix123]

Could it also be that the Copenhagen Metro opened in 2002? Their nightly maintenance may not be as intensive as Toronto's are.

Subway, possibly. Crosstown, obviously not. Perhaps by devoting the entire operations team to one subway track, enough work can be completed to last 2 nights instead of 1.

 

[micheal_can]

Subway, possibly. Crosstown, obviously not. Perhaps by devoting the entire operations team to one subway track, enough work can be completed to last 2 nights instead of 1.

That assumes that the work can only be done to one track at a time.

 

[Translude15]

I have ridden the L several times and wouldn't kid myself by saying the TTC's system (I assume you mean subway only) is better than the L. TTC subway is more frequent on less trackage and I notice that L seems to primarily be a way of transporting the poor and suffering, while most of those with money don't consider it as a serious option. I've seen bad things on the TTC subway, but nothing like what goes on on the L.

Besides that, the L provides better coverage and has stations at 2 airports, has express and local sections, and blue/red lines run 24 hours/day. As far as I can tell, the TTC subway, which again is a nicer riding experience, has trouble staying open more than 5 days/week, nevermind 24 hours/day.

I would still pick coverage and 24 hour service as the winner though.

The L may have a more extensive network but isn't as efficient as it could be. All L-related travel is routed through the Loop/Downtown as opposed to having proper crosstown links within the system. The only exception is the Red Line which more or less traverses the entirety of Chicago's lakefront area but even that takes a somewhat circuitous route through downtown. Most transfer stations are pretty impractical as well except for those within the actual Loop.

The TTC may not have as extensive a network but Bloor-Danforth and the eventual Eglinton Crosstown do more in terms of promoting E-W travel patterns within Toronto. Where Chicago absolutely has us beat is their Metra rail commuter service which is far larger than GO and serves many more passengers.

 

[robmausser]

The L may have a more extensive network but isn't as efficient as it could be. All L-related travel is routed through the Loop/Downtown as opposed to having proper crosstown links within the system. The only exception is the Red Line which more or less traverses the entirety of Chicago's lakefront area but even that takes a somewhat circuitous route through downtown. Most transfer stations are pretty impractical as well except for those within the actual Loop.

The TTC may not have as extensive a network but Bloor-Danforth and the eventual Eglinton Crosstown do more in terms of promoting E-W travel patterns within Toronto. Where Chicago absolutely has us beat is their Metra rail commuter service which is far larger than GO and serves many more passengers.

Metra again, beats GO in size, but their trains are ancient, falling apart, and slow. Almost every line is shared with freight.

The service again, is not as good. There have been a ton of derailments and even deaths due to shoddy maintenance and terrible practices at Metra.

It is not a system anyone should try to emulate.

 

[torontocolin]

I've always wondered why on the subway and in the future Crosstown LRT that they close the entire line for 6-8 hours a night. Only a small portion of a line would be under maintenance on any given night. Why not use shuttles for that small portion of the line and continue to use trains on the remainder?

A few reasons:

1. They need to get work cars from the yards to and from wherever they're working, and having the line clear helps speed that up
2. They may not know way in advance where the work will be needed each night, and that's a lot of logistical work to organize on short notice
3. At night, the higher capacity of the trains isn't needed, and the streets are far less busy so the grade separation is less important. Meanwhile, forcing customers to wait 20 minutes for a train or forcing them to transfer twice (train to shuttle bus to train) is often going to end up a worse experience than simply having shuttle buses the entire route.

We'll see what options are opened by the new signal system, but at the moment I think the TTC would be far better off investing in improving blue night service (improving frequencies, maintaining headways, and communicating issues all spring to mind) than running partial train service.

 

[innsertnamehere]

Metra isn't that much larger than GO. I don't believe Metrolinx has released its 2017 ridership numbers, but I expect it to be around 70 million passengers. Metra was 78 million in 2017. Mind you historically Metra has been far larger, but its ridership is in decline while GO has seen some rather extreme growth in the last decade.

I wouldn't be surprised if GO overtakes Metra in the next 2-3 years.

 

[felix123]

Metra again, beats GO in size, but their trains are ancient, falling apart, and slow. Almost every line is shared with freight.

The service again, is not as good. There have been a ton of derailments and even deaths due to shoddy maintenance and terrible practices at Metra.

It is not a system anyone should try to emulate.

Again, I have to disagree. Not knocking on the strides that GO has certainly been making from its recent role as mostly peak-hour, peak-direction commuter service, but Metra is again, so much larger, with so many more stations (242 Metra vs 66 GO) and already has an electrified line with 3 branches. Metra has also long offered some form of 2WAD, similar to Montreal's Deux-Montagnes line in frequency, across several of its lines for many years.

While I don't think GO should aspire to be Metra - it should instead focus on leapfrogging commuter rail service and fully commit to extensive RER upgrades - it is sorely lacking in number of stations, and will still be lacking long after the handful of infill stations are completed around 2025 (hopefully!)

I looked at the wiki for rolling stock - there's a mix of old and fairly new, and of course, EMUs! Also, high platforms in part of the network.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metra#Metra_electric_fleet

 

[Streety McCarface]

Metra isn't that much larger than GO. I don't believe Metrolinx has released its 2017 ridership numbers, but I expect it to be around 70 million passengers. Metra was 78 million in 2017. Mind you historically Metra has been far larger, but its ridership is in decline while GO has seen some rather extreme growth in the last decade.

I wouldn't be surprised if GO overtakes Metra in the next 2-3 years.

We're only considering the Train system, not the GO bus system which makes up about 24% of the ridership.

 

[pman]

It’s fascinating to learn many facts about Chicago’s transit system and how it compares to GO, but I’m struggling to find the connection to the Crosstown LRT.

 

[felix123]

It’s fascinating to learn many facts about Chicago’s transit system and how it compares to GO, but I’m struggling to find the connection to the Crosstown LRT.

Um, they both... run on rails?
But you're right - I will stop posting about Metra now

 

[BurlOak]

Where are the east and west portals for the Kennedy Crosstown Station located?

West was to the west of Kennedy - in the median.
East is still under debate as far as I know.

 

[Leo_Chan]

Presumably the East, generally speaking, is also in the median, beyond the Stouffville corridor overpass, right?

That's almost a given, unless the EELRT plan gets changed to all tunneled.

 

[BurlOak]

Moved from Sheppard thread

At the same time I can say in this instance Elevated is more intelligent than Underground. Building underground is incredibly expensive and needs to be reserved for cases where it must be done. Eglinton Avenue after Don Mills is a very wide open area that has more than enough room for an elevated structure down the middle of the road. If the province is intent on grade separating the EC (and its extensions) than the fiscally conservative thing to do is Elevated except for when underground makes more sens (i.e Kennedy, Science Centre and Pearson). This in my opinion is a litmus test for the "fiscal cons" the PC's say they are, Elevated has all the benefits of Underground with the added bonus of costing half as much and taking half the time to build.

I understand that the geniuses who planned Transit City assumed that Don Mills would be an at-grade stop above the Eglinton line station. This means the current construction is no way anticipating an underground station for the transit line that will be on Don Mills. I wonder if this is foreshadowing that the DRL will not have a stop at Don Mills/Eglinton.

For Eglinton, I think the Don Mills station is just too deep in order for the line to become elevated before DVP. I thought this station should have been a bit shallower, and moved a bit farther west in order to get it to work. Everything cascades from here. If you can't elevate by DVP, then its hard to elevate before Swift since the terrain is also rising. Then every location from there eastward there is always just not enough space to transition from an underground to an elevated line (remember, it needs to go from track level being about 5m below ground to about 8m above ground - to account for the tunnel roof and the vertical clearance and the supporting bridge structure).

I think we are stuck with cut-and-cover. It stays underground through the DVP - it looks like the bridge could stay. Sort of Old Mill (mini Bloor Viaduct) style over Wynford and the GO line. Need a new bridge at Wynford ($40M) and GO ($100M). It's about 6km from Don Mills to Kennedy - which at $150M extra per km, plus the bridges, puts you at about $1B. From Brentcliffe to Don Mills also needs adjustment due to the poor original planning - maybe $300M. Round up to $1.5B.

 

[Hopkins123]

Moved from Sheppard thread

I understand that the geniuses who planned Transit City assumed that Don Mills would be an at-grade stop above the Eglinton line station. This means the current construction is no way anticipating an underground station for the transit line that will be on Don Mills. I wonder if this is foreshadowing that the DRL will not have a stop at Don Mills/Eglinton.

For Eglinton, I think the Don Mills station is just too deep in order for the line to become elevated before DVP. I thought this station should have been a bit shallower, and moved a bit farther west in order to get it to work. Everything cascades from here. If you can't elevate by DVP, then its hard to elevate before Swift since the terrain is also rising. Then every location from there eastward there is always just not enough space to transition from an underground to an elevated line (remember, it needs to go from track level being about 5m below ground to about 8m above ground - to account for the tunnel roof and the vertical clearance and the supporting bridge structure).

I think we are stuck with cut-and-cover. It stays underground through the DVP - it looks like the bridge could stay. Sort of Old Mill (mini Bloor Viaduct) style over Wynford and the GO line. Need a new bridge at Wynford ($40M) and GO ($100M). It's about 6km from Don Mills to Kennedy - which at $150M extra per km, plus the bridges, puts you at about $1B. From Brentcliffe to Don Mills also needs adjustment due to the poor original planning - maybe $300M. Round up to $1.5B.

Yes, this is the perfect, most opportune time to fix the "errors" of the Crosstown Line before any trackbeds are laid down the street median.

The Brentcliffe portal could transition the alignment to a south-of-roadway station at Leslie slightly above grade, which then leads down into the tunnel for the Science Centre Stn then elevates again to cross the DVP with the next station elevated over Wynford and remaining elevated the rest of the way to Jonesville, where it descends into a trench for the station at Vic Park. It then rises out of the trench for an elevated stop east of Pharmacy (serving both the Pharmacy and Lebovic areas), then elevated Golden Mile and Birchmount Stns, then dips underground for possible Ionview? and then Kennedy Stns.

For the eastern extension, to Danforth Rd is underground, then elevated with Torrance/Bellamy and Markham Rd above grade stops to east of Cedar Dr with underground stop at Scarborough Golf Club Rd, then elevated again over Guildwood GO parallel Kingston Rd until Lawrence where it dips underground for the next station and stays underground til it crosses Highland Creek elevated on a bridge to enter UTSC, underground stop then north of Ellesmere/Military Trail surfaces again for the terminus.