TheTigerMaster
Superstar
SmartTrack was never about getting people moving; it's about getting Tory reelected and making Torontonians feel better about our situation. John Tory isn't serious about transit.
|
|
|
- Thread starter aquateam
- Start date
AlvinofDiaspar
Moderator
I wouldn't be that uncharitable - he might have some good intentions, but it was never that serious a proposal for what he claimed it was supposed to address. Access to the shoulder areas by the network (which is oddly enough, spoken up for by commercial interests), sure - full blown mass transit? That one always have a believability problem - and if the papers couldn't do the legwork to figure that out on their own, their research capability is seriously out of whack.
AoD
TheTigerMaster
Superstar
Maybe during the campaign SmartTrack was a wholistic initiative, and Tory genuinely believed that the hoards of experts telling him this proposal would never work were just being "Debbie downer" for the sake of it. But it should be clear to everyone now that SmartTrack has evolved into something merely designed to allow Tory to save face, and he's going to cost taxpayers $1 Billion to bankroll it.
ssiguy2
Senior Member
Cool pics of those GO trains, thanks.
I see that even the EMUs are double-decker and that would be very ill advised.
At first glance they look like they would have far higher capacity than the single level trains but they have consistently shown that it is not the case. Double-decker trains are great for standard commuter rail but not for systems that will have more frequent stops and less distance between the stations. Essentially people are just going to one main station such as Union so there is little on/off traffic between the stations on commuter rail.
RER/ST however is a completely different system. It will essentially be built as a subway with fewer stops. It will also be all day, each way, be much more frequent, and run late night so it is geared towards subway-type users. That means it will have vastly more on/off traffic and this is the scenario where double-decker trains are very problematic. Due to accessibility issues, the disable, elderly, people with luggage/strollers/groceries cannot access the stairs so the use the "accessible" areas at the doors. Unfortunately there are fewer door and people who are only going a couple stops also congregate near the doors {just as they will often stand on subways if only going a short distance} which means the doors are hell for un/loading. This also means that the system has a harder time keeping to schedules which is why Sydney's are on-time reliability record is rather poor.
In short, the station dwell times are much longer than one-level trains. Melbourne and Sydney {which both run what is essentially an extensive RER system} have both found this out. Melbourne use to use double-decker EMUs but got rid of all of them because they were so much slower than their now standard one-level, Metro like trains. They are faster, can be more frequent, and more accessible which will become even more of an issue as society ages. Sydney kept the double-decker trains but have now started to order single level trains to speed up service and make it more reliable.
This is also European RER system are overwhelmingly single-level. Double-decker trains look great on paper but in reality they are too problematic for RER systems.
I see that even the EMUs are double-decker and that would be very ill advised.
At first glance they look like they would have far higher capacity than the single level trains but they have consistently shown that it is not the case. Double-decker trains are great for standard commuter rail but not for systems that will have more frequent stops and less distance between the stations. Essentially people are just going to one main station such as Union so there is little on/off traffic between the stations on commuter rail.
RER/ST however is a completely different system. It will essentially be built as a subway with fewer stops. It will also be all day, each way, be much more frequent, and run late night so it is geared towards subway-type users. That means it will have vastly more on/off traffic and this is the scenario where double-decker trains are very problematic. Due to accessibility issues, the disable, elderly, people with luggage/strollers/groceries cannot access the stairs so the use the "accessible" areas at the doors. Unfortunately there are fewer door and people who are only going a couple stops also congregate near the doors {just as they will often stand on subways if only going a short distance} which means the doors are hell for un/loading. This also means that the system has a harder time keeping to schedules which is why Sydney's are on-time reliability record is rather poor.
In short, the station dwell times are much longer than one-level trains. Melbourne and Sydney {which both run what is essentially an extensive RER system} have both found this out. Melbourne use to use double-decker EMUs but got rid of all of them because they were so much slower than their now standard one-level, Metro like trains. They are faster, can be more frequent, and more accessible which will become even more of an issue as society ages. Sydney kept the double-decker trains but have now started to order single level trains to speed up service and make it more reliable.
This is also European RER system are overwhelmingly single-level. Double-decker trains look great on paper but in reality they are too problematic for RER systems.
AlvinofDiaspar
Moderator
I don't buy that either - considering the SSRA report and the who's and who's behind it (and the who's and who's tasked with modelling it immediately after). Tory isn't some disconnected fool - he is at the thick of the powers that are in the city.
AoD
crs1026
Superstar
I'm trying to understand how a GO station gets so expensive that we have reached $1B in cost. (Actually, I believe the number being quoted is only $700M, but nothing gets cheaper - so close enough.) A few trainsets, some very basic platforms, a standard Presto machine......nothing fancier than the Humber Loop is needed.
- Paul
TheTigerMaster
Superstar
I don't even know. And this doesn't even include the operational subsidies, which will undoubtedly be enormous if this is to have TTC fare, or something similarly low.
AlvinofDiaspar
Moderator
If you look at the very very preliminary renderings of the Unilever station over Don River, $1B would be cheap. I am sure the developers would have to foot part of that bill as well.
AoD
steveintoronto
Superstar
Excellent posts...I almost answered last night, and realized best others add their views first. Stats can and do tell truths and lie at the same time. Selective use of the figures by both extremes completely misses the *qualitative* argument, and on that point:
You had my interest for while there Tiger, but you blew it by being so incredibly self-serving in your claims. I don't dispute the figures you post. I dispute the context.
And so do *many* cities in the world that do this a hell of a lot better than Toronto, and have for generations. And we have to learn and adapt them, and utilizing extant infrastructure to build on is what many of them are doing right, and so should we. Tory is full of Bafflegab, and I'm the first to call him and Del Duca et al on it, but this is a "service concept" (if you must) that is right. And it's bog obvious. If the figures are skewed, then the problem isn't the concept, it's the implementation.
Put an idiot behind the wheel of a Ferrari, and you have an accident. Doesn't mean that Ferraris are bad cars. Is that a "service concept" by any chance?
lol! "Service concept". Care to explain that? I add that in with words like "Placemaker" and "Wayfinder". There's a litany of them, bureaucrats and those who write reports for a living eat them for breakfast, and poop them out to the public after, because if they talked straight English, we might understand them, then the game would be up!
You had my interest for while there Tiger, but you blew it by being so incredibly self-serving in your claims. I don't dispute the figures you post. I dispute the context.
And so do *many* cities in the world that do this a hell of a lot better than Toronto, and have for generations. And we have to learn and adapt them, and utilizing extant infrastructure to build on is what many of them are doing right, and so should we. Tory is full of Bafflegab, and I'm the first to call him and Del Duca et al on it, but this is a "service concept" (if you must) that is right. And it's bog obvious. If the figures are skewed, then the problem isn't the concept, it's the implementation.
Put an idiot behind the wheel of a Ferrari, and you have an accident. Doesn't mean that Ferraris are bad cars. Is that a "service concept" by any chance?
Euphoria
Active Member
You can call ST anything you like, but it shouldn't be called GO. GO is an expensive distance-based premium service. You may have to pay a bit more for ST than TTC because it will run more like an express service, but I hope it's fare structure more closely resembles TTC than GO. It's never been fair that a rider from Port Credit pays over $7.50 for a GO fare plus $3.25 for a TTC fare to get to the same midtown location as someone traveling from east Scarborough who has only paid a $3.25 TTC fare, even though the distances traveled are the same for both users.
If ST does end up costing a bit more than TTC, there must be a substantial transfer discount. The real key to transit and fare integration across the GTA is providing a universal transfer discount between any two systems: I transfer from GO train to TTC, I get a $2.25 discount on my TTC fare. I transfer from TTC to MiWay or VIVA, I get a $2.25 discount, and the same discount applies in reverse. This would make transferring between systems such as TTC and ST reasonable, because if ST costs $4.00 rather than $3.25 (TTC fare), the total cost of my trip after the transfer discount (say $2.25) is $5.00.
If ST does end up costing a bit more than TTC, there must be a substantial transfer discount. The real key to transit and fare integration across the GTA is providing a universal transfer discount between any two systems: I transfer from GO train to TTC, I get a $2.25 discount on my TTC fare. I transfer from TTC to MiWay or VIVA, I get a $2.25 discount, and the same discount applies in reverse. This would make transferring between systems such as TTC and ST reasonable, because if ST costs $4.00 rather than $3.25 (TTC fare), the total cost of my trip after the transfer discount (say $2.25) is $5.00.
TheTigerMaster
Superstar
If you're smart enough to write this lengthy response, you're smart enough to use your basics language skills to infer what "service concept" means.
TheTigerMaster
Superstar
What would be so costly about this particular station? Flood protection?
steveintoronto
Superstar
This is an absolutely crucial point, and one coming to a head.
The answer is for both GO's and the TTC's fare structures to change. And both must be in complete alignment or there's going to be skewing manifest. GO must eliminate the 'gate charge' and match the TTC also changing to becoming distance derived charge. Presto compounds in many obtuse ways unless the fares match, but Presto is also the catalyst to forcing this change.
The only difference between SmartTrack and GO is frequency and length of run. They must be integrated at every level, and I suggest operated by GO to reduce overlap and inefficiency.
The better service gets more riders, and thus a greater farebox recovery that can go towards further expansion.
The day of the "flat fare" has come and gone.
steveintoronto
Superstar
Hey, smart ass, I just spent a good ten minutes Googling on the term. YOU post what you think it is. It is not defined in the way you believe it to be. You're pretty damn quick to call out others, now define the term!
Edit to Add: I included the phrase with the term "Wayfinder" in my prior post along with "service concept" (which, btw, is far more specifically defined than "service concept"):
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Wayfinder
Last edited:
TheTigerMaster
Superstar
I figure that a large part of the costs would be flood protection, and reconfiguring the rails to allow for a station at those locations. Depending on the rail configurations, building a station isn't as easy as pouring some concrete; especially if not all trains will be stopping at those stations. Might need bypass tracks, etc...