TOareaFan
Superstar
And, shockingly, they actually have trains throughout the day and on weekends running in both directions!
|
|
|
- Thread starter CITY_LOVER
- Start date
And, shockingly, they actually have trains throughout the day and on weekends running in both directions!
bleu
Banned
I am aware of that. I just don't think it should be considered "approved".
I mean we haven't decided a route and there is no money for it yet, right? Nothing is certain. We can't just take it as a fact and consider it a done deal and be completed in 20 years. The Eglinton line was under construction back in the days before it was cancelled and holes filled in. Transit City is another example.
It is nothing more than a plan. CTA also have a few plans of extension and new lines. If we include proposals, we should compare apple to apple.
denfromoakvillemilton
Senior Member
So do New York, Philly And Boston. Miami and LA, too.
RC8
Senior Member
I can't speak for the others, but the commuter train service in Miami is a useless and supremely inconvenient joke. Imagine if our downtown station was at Avenue Rd. and Eglinton, and every other station was a massive parking lot nestled in between highways and ghettos.
Lakeshore GO alone is infinitely better than anything Miami has in terms of commuter rail.
TOareaFan
Superstar
Which, I guess, would be relevant if the thread was a discussion about Toronto /Big US cities Comparisons....since it was limited to Chicago...I thought I would limit my point too
denfromoakvillemilton
Senior Member
I've heard. But the line runs through the swamp. They should relocate it.
I was just saying because having all day service on most of the line is not the standard at all. GO is going ahead to above standardWhich, I guess, would be relevant if the thread was a discussion about Toronto /Big US cities Comparisons....since it was limited to Chicago...I thought I would limit my point too
TOareaFan
Superstar
? I was comparing, favourably, Metra with GO.....all 11 Metra lines have off peak service that is as good as GO offers on one of its lines.
Like I said, I have not looked at other cities because this was a discussion about Chicago v Toronto....but if Chicago is the "standard" GO has a lot of work to get close. (in terms of commuter rail that is....having lived here most of my life, and having visited Chicago a lot....there is a lot of good to be said about both cities. What I find, generally, is if you like one you will like the other....in specific areas (in this case commuter rail) one may surpass the other but overall I think they are very comparable cities.
Monarch Butterfly
Superstar
GO is the LEAST subsidized transit agency in North America, the TTC is the second least subsidized. If GO (and the TTC) had the same subsidy as Chicago, they would both be better.
denfromoakvillemilton
Senior Member
I'm saying that most commuter rail lines don't have off peak service on all their lines. What Chicago does is above average there. And the east coast cities as well. Toronto is trying to do that as well saw in the big move, but they have almost no money as WK Lis pointed out. We don't even know when it will be complete IMO.
allabootmatt
Senior Member
I am by no means a Chicago expert, but do remember on a visit once being astonished by the (in)frequency of some of the El lines. Seemed like 15 minute waits off peak were commonplace--perhaps this has changed, but I do think that in general we Torontonians take for granted that the subway, limited though it is, is never more than a few minutes away. To say nothing of the admittedly theoretical 2 or 3 minute headways on the major steeetcar and bus routes, which are very tight by any standard.
nfitz
Superstar
This is true in many cities. I've personally seen subway frequencies in London, Seoul, and New York that are far less frequent than our most infrequent line, at the most infrequent time of day (barring service delays).
Our most infrequent subway is Sheppard, and off-peak it's still about 11 trains an hour (once every 5.5. minutes). The other 2 lines are always better than 12 trains an hour.
Look at the L train in New York (which doesn't even have any branches). In central Manhattan - at midnight with relatively busy platforms, I've waited 20 minutes for one (looking at the schedule, they've now improved it to a 10-minute frequency at that time - 6 trains per hour - 20 minute service starts later now). If you look at the timetable - http://www.mta.info/nyct/service/pdf/tlcur.pdf - they have 6-8 minute gaps mid-day and start the 10-minute service at 10:30 pm!
Check a busy London tube line, like the Picadilly line. Departures from Terminal 5 are only once every 9 minutes at 10 pm. It's only once every 10 minutes at 8 pm ... and that's a weekday!
The bus frequencies on many of our routes are amazing - even off-peak. I don't think a lot of people really appreciate what we do have, and only focus on what we don't have.
allabootmatt
Senior Member
I would quibble slightly with the London example--the central portions of virtually all Tube lines, where the various branches converge, typically offer very frequent service. New York can certainly be slow, however.
bleu
Banned
what you said is true. TTC's frequency is pretty good.
But having said that, most of people would still prefer 8 lines with 10 minute frequency over 3 lines with 4 minute frequency. If it is less frequent, you can check schedule and plan ahead to avoid waiting too long, but if there is not a line there, there is nothing you can do.
We do have some advantages as you mentioned but overall, but the higher frequency really doesn't come close to offsetting the disadvantage of a tiny size of our metro system. What we need is more coverage.
nfitz
Superstar
Agreed - it's the branches off-peak in Seoul and London where 10-minute frequencies aren't unusual - even in the early evening.
Though look at Montreal - they have no branching and 10-minute (or worse) off-peak frequencies. Heck, the orange line on a Sunday is never better than a 7-minute frequency, and as low as 11-minute.
nfitz
Superstar
And tiny? It's about 70 km - what's bigger in Canada/USA? New York, Boston, LA, Chicago, and Washington. Atlanta is bigger if you don't include the Spadina extension. If you including the Eglinton Crosstown and SRT extensions currently being tendered, we're bigger than Boston. Including Finch West and Sheppard East we're bigger than LA (though LA will surely have grown by then ... and yes I included LA's LRT that isn't grade-separated, so it's a fair comparison).
Undersized perhaps ... but I wouldn't say tiny. Glasgow is tiny, and hasn't been expanded in over a century.