[kettal]

Were you abandoned in a subway station as a child? Is this you every time you see the word 'subway' on the internet? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PbcctWbC8Q0

That's what I look like when I post on this forum.

 

[nfitz]

It's amazing how threatening you find anybody questioning the LRT fanboy consensus.

That's just plain rude. You don't agree with people and you start calling them silly names?

 

[Dan416]

That's just plain rude. You don't agree with people and you start calling them silly names?

It's only rude if it's not true. "Fanboy" isn't rude, it's descriptive.

Anyway. I thought of an even better name than RTES. SOS! Save Our Subway(s)! (i.e. save Eglinton from becoming LRT)

 

[gweed123]

May I ask how you came to the conclusion that Don Mills is a primary corridor and Finch is a secondary corridor?

Finch is just based on the fact that it is directly south of Steeles and north of Sheppard, both of which comparatively I feel are more major of routes than Finch.

 

[gweed123]

And please. The Canada LIne is not LRT. It's a automated light metro that has already reached capacity, and cannot be expanded without a huge cost. $2 Billion waste of money.

If it's better than what will be placed along Eglinton, what happens when Eglinton reaches capacity too? Because if it is built as an LRT, it will reach it's capacity very quickly.

 

[kettal]

Finch is just based on the fact that it is directly south of Steeles and north of Sheppard, both of which comparatively I feel are more major of routes than Finch.

Ok, I was just curious, as the Finch east & west buses are the two of highest ridership in the system.

 

[gweed123]

Ok, I was just curious, as the Finch east & west buses are the two of highest ridership in the system.

I would suspect this is because that is where the subway terminates, so naturally most of the TTC routes that operate in and around there terminate at Finch (I know the bus terminal there is very large and has a number of bus routes using it). I suspect that when the subway is extended north, those figures will change. Correct me if I'm wrong on this, but before the Sheppard subway was implemented, Sheppard East had relatively comparable bus usage to Finch.

However, I will agree that Finch is a very important corridor in the grand transit scheme, and deserves something more than what it has now.

And I classify Don Mills as a major corridor because it is the first major N-S transit corridor east of Yonge. Yes, Mt Pleasant and Bayview are big for cars, but not so much for transit (their car volume is because compared to Yonge, they are the fastest N-S routes east of Yonge out of downtown).

 

[Second_in_pie]

I think there's a very fine line between Primary and Secondary corridors.

I agree that Yonge, Eglinton, Don Mills, Bloor and Sheppard are Primary corridors. I think that Primary corridors are applied to corridors -simply from a transit point of view- that it'd make the most sense to transfer riders on to as a form of fast RT for the area/region.

A secondary corridor would be probably an equal amount of density, but most of the ridership would be coming locally, within a kilometer or two of the line. It's a combination of the corridor itself and the corridor after the system is implemented. Primary vs. secondary corridors is really a description of the logic behind a number of thoughts and facts. It's obvious that Eglinton, Sheppard and Don Mills are better primary corridors than Lawrence, Victoria Park and Finch, but that's because of a number of factors such as area within the region of service, destinations along the route, transfer points, and current ridership statistics.
So, it's really a description of what routes should get HRT vs LRT (Heavy Rapid Transit vs. Light Rapid Transit ) without actually saying "It's a HRT corridor." It's a HRT corridor, and "Primary Corridor" is the description as to why it should be HRT. There are a number of reasons that it's a "Primary Corridor" as well, and then we start to see the reasons for building HRT, which pretty much bridges over primary corridor, but I think it's an important distinction to make.

 

[nfitz]

If it's better than what will be placed along Eglinton, what happens when Eglinton reaches capacity too? Because if it is built as an LRT, it will reach it's capacity very quickly.

If passengers aren't as predicted, it won't reach capacity for a long time. Yonge is at capacity now ... look to that line for options. Longer trains, more frequent trains, relief lines.

Relief lines for Eglinton ... wouldn't that be great ... a Lawrence and St. Clair LRT. With a bit of creativity there could be service on Lawrence East through Bayview to eliminate the jog; and St. Clair service could go in a tunnel to increase capacity ... and east of Yonge ... perhaps it could cross the Don and join with Overlea or O'Connor and then St. Clair East in Scarborough.

Wouldn't that be a wonderful problem to have! And if Eglinton ridership exceeds expectations to the point that the line is overcapacity, that would certainly prove the naysayers wrong!

 

[Second_in_pie]

Wow, am I hearing this right? You're accusing others of "wanting to build subway everywhere" and are saying that we can't afford any subway.
But you're citing an undersigned Eglinton reaching capacity as being a good thing? And that is because we can spend likely billions more on other transit lines that would not be needed if the line was built properly in the first place.

That's got to be the most pathetic argument I've ever seen, assuming it wasn't sarcastic. And by what you've demonstrated in your recent posts, I don't think I could accept that as being sarcastic.

 

[gweed123]

If passengers aren't as predicted, it won't reach capacity for a long trim. Yonge is at capacity now ... look to that line for options. Longer trains, more frequent trains, relief lines.

Relief lines for Eglinton ... wouldn't that be great ... a Lawrence and St. Clair LRT. With a bit of creativity there could be service on Lawrence East through Bayview to eliminate the jog; and St. Clair service could go in a tunnel to increase capacity ... and east of Yonge ... perhaps it could cross the Don and join with Overlea or O'Connor and then St. Clair East in Scarborough.

Wouldn't that be a wonderful problem to have! And if Eglinton ridership exceeds expectations to the point that the line is overcapacity, that would certainly prove the naysayers wrong!

"Let's underbuild it and then pat ourselves on the back when it exceeds design capacities!"... If it exceeds capacities within 20 years of opening, it was underbuilt. For all the money that would need to be spent on the "Lawrence LRT", we could have just built a subway in the first place and not needed the Lawrence LRT! In fact, it would have probably been cheaper to just built a subway instead of 2 LRTs.

 

[nfitz]

Wow, am I hearing this right? You're accusing others of "wanting to build subway everywhere" and are saying that we can't afford any subway.

Umm ... no ... not sure where that came from. Subway where warranted should be built. Spadina Extension, Yonge Extension, Downtown Relief line, the planned 10-km of subway along Eglinton. Much of the SRT extension is currently planned as subway ... though I'm a bit skeptical about the necessity of that north of Sheppard.

But you're citing an undersigned Eglinton reaching capacity as being a good thing?

It's designed to handle the predicted increase in traffic for at least a quarter-century ... probably longer; I've only seen numbers out to 2035. So it's not underdesigned. Much of the argument here is that people won't use the LRT, and it won't attract new riders; if true, then it won't have the predicted volumes. Yet here your using the argument that it will actually have more passengers than predicted. You can't argue at the same time that LRT is the wrong choice because it won't attract riders from other modes AND that it doesn't have enough capacity! That is my point.

That's got to be the most pathetic argument I've ever seen ...

I'm not the one who is arguing that it won't be used, and it will be over capacity at the same time!

 

[nfitz]

If it exceeds capacities within 20 years of opening, it was underbuilt..

Why do you think it would exceed capacity within 20 years? Peak load is predicted at 5,400 passengers per hour in 2031. LRT can easily handle up to 12,000 passengers per hour.

I can't imagine the scenario that would result in predicted ridership to triple! And if such an unexpected even WERE to occur ... there are still options ... that's all I'm saying. To design subway now when there likely would not be the demand for it even in 20 years is fiscally irresponsible ... and would create extra transfers.

 

[Fresh Start]

I believe their geology is more challenging because of the high water table. The line also included crossings of three major bodies of water.

That's right. The dimensions are the same.

The stations are much shorter. That's one of the sources of savings. They attempted to compensate for shorter trains with automation that allows for higher frequencies.

They also standardized the station design to reduce costs.

I definitely don't think that's a factor. Many requirements are federal.

Vancouver is a much higher cost city than Toronto.

Vancouver has a higher minimum wage and higher wage levels generally.

Most of the savings on this line came from creative approaches to design (stacked tunnels, shorter stations, cut-and-cover, elevated segments) and project management.

Thank you, well said. I think that the problem lies solely in the bureaucracy's lap and nowhere else. There is something fundamentally wrong with this administration that is not being experienced in other cities comparable to Toronto's size.

I stand firmly by my assertions to Rainforest. TYSSE is a lesson in grandiosity and excessiveness. The only place along the corridor that truly needs to be tunneled is through the university grounds. Everywhere can be done at-grade or above-grade. We've got $14 million contracts being doled out to artisans to give stations through suburbia 'character'. And why can't we bridge over the 407? I mean sheer lunacy. But afterall, its not like we, the City, are paying for it so lets go all out in our wacky demands to the Feds.

At any rate I believe I have demonstrated in my previous posts either one of two things:

- that Transit City cost estimates are completely bogus and hence calls into question the credibility of entire proposal and our rationality in blindly taking the TTC's word for it as canon while affordable options in subway technology, BRT lanes along major arteries, local 416 commuter-rail services (S-Bahn), etc. still exist;

- OR, that Eglinton can actually be built as a subway for the same amount of money as the Crosstown LRT line proposed and ergo should take precedence as a higher mode with ROW exclusivity; tighter headways; fewer intermediate stops prolonging commutes; and the ability to interline service straight into the downtown (thus nullifying the need for Pearson-Union AirLink) will attract more riders and alleviate several other transit corridors in the process.

 

[waterloowarrior]

Metrolinx numbers have Eglinton in line with Skytrain Expo line (plus/minus 200k passengers per day/30 KM length)... although Expo Line average speed is 45 km/hr, so it doesn't take 1 hr 18 minutes to go "Crosstown," it takes 39 minutes from end to end (if Eglinton is 33KM, that's the equivelant of 44 minutes from Kennedy to Pearson)