[LAz]

(I was being sarcastic; I think that the government actually doing something is a grand idea.)

(pst, me too, about the sarcasm. Ya know, it makes me laugh out of control when I write that crap that I wrote about the dark side - and what is creepy is that some (in fact many) believe that sad b.s....)






Aww shit, now we will not see someone say "I AGREE". There are such folks out there... as scary as that sounds it's so.

 

[rbt]

There are a number of problems with this mode of thought. First of all, the cost difference of building the metro versus the tram tunnel is quite small. If it is such a small difference, why go for the smaller thing?

I'm not going for the smaller thing. The TRAM in this case, in the tunnel, is similar to Metro capacity capable (equal to Yonge line when initially built).

I am strongly in favour of reducing the number of transfers required when practical, which is the case here.

I am also strongly in favour of dedicated long distance routes and would gladly pledge $10B toward a cross-town GO route a few blocks south of Eglinton.

It's like saying we can eliminate cancer from 50 people for 60 dollars, but for 65 dollars we could do it for 200 people...

Not really. It's like paying $60 to eliminate cancer from 50 people; but having the opportunity to pay $65 to do it for 51 people. There simply are not more people in line.

...hence I do not understand where this fear of extra capacity comes from. Further, there is another more important issue. That is coordinating land use planning with transit planning. Do that and you can have well over 30,000 - though this number is too big, for starters.

Where are these people going? They're NOT transferring to the Spadina, Bloor, or Yonge line and heading downtown because those routes do not have the capacity.

The DRL, if built to Eglinton/Don Mills will keep actual Eglinton loads well below 30,000pphpd because a large number of people will be diverted from that line; just as we intend to use it for Bloor line (take people off Bloor). A DRL will actually reduce Eglinton ridership at any central point.

There is no case for Eglinton carrying that kind of load within 50 years. Yonge and Spadina restrictions will prevent Eglinton from coming close.

DRL or not, crosstown or not, land use plan change or not; it isn't in the cards to reach volumes on Eglinton higher than what the Yonge currently carries.


The only real HRT argument is rolling stock cost. Everything else is pretty easy to see through.

 

[Second_in_pie]

So basically, we shouldn't build good transit because too many people will come? Now there's an interesting argument

 

[nfitz]

The tram is not rapid transit.

Wrong ... rapid transit isn't a function of the vehicle, it's a function of the infrastructure. The SRT was originally supposed to be run on CLRVs, which have plenty of acceleration and velocity ... and would have provided a very similar service to the Skytrain equipment they finally ended up with. No one would argue that the current SRT wasn't rapid transit, so if they had used the CLRV trams, it would have been rapid transit.

 

[LAz]

DRL or not, crosstown or not, land use plan change or not; it isn't in the cards to reach volumes on Eglinton higher than what the Yonge currently carries.

We are not in any way aiming for what the younge currently carries. If anything we should aim to get rapid transit and development that coordinates with it.

I am strongly in favour of reducing the number of transfers required when practical, which is the case here.

Then kill transit city completely.

Not really. It's like paying $60 to eliminate cancer from 50 people; but having the opportunity to pay $65 to do it for 51 people. There simply are not more people in line.

But there is capacity to make that 51 into 100.








We have to stop looking at the subway construction criteria based on overstated ridership demands. If we used only that then more than half of all subways lines in the world would not have been built. We need subways simply because they are rapid transit. We need a real alternative to the car, and for that we need both different transportation availability, different landuse, and most importantly planning - coordinating development with our rapid transit.



I have had enough of going for something that is so much lower in quality. I look at stockholm's system with 50% more km's, and stations per km, yet with 50% less people. It's a slap in our faces.



We need to move sheppard west to downsview asap. We need a metro on eglinton. And we need the DRL. This is needed simply in order to keep up with other cities from which we were ahead of in the late 1970s. As I said, if your criteria were applied elsewhere, subway kms in the world would be half of what they are. In stockholm they might have 20-30 instead of 100. it's not far sighted development, and that is what drives me bonkers. Who on earth has ever heard of converting a tram tunnel into a metro tunnel? That's just absurd.



edit/add - if one is so bent on not having a tram-subway transfer on eglinton, then the ideal solution would be to not have the tram at all, but to have the subway. We need it. That's not just me saying it, it's our planners from the 1970s and 1980s - when there was still some sanity left.

 

[Second_in_pie]

What we need to do is stop holding our RT lines up against those within the TTC. Sheppard, which is a failure for Toronto, has a higher ridership and has already attracted more development than transit lines twice as long as it. Even if Sheppard East had 1/3 of the ridership of the current Stubway, it'd still be a very viable line for tonnes of other cities.

 

[LAz]

This is precisely why it is simply wrong to want to have that high ridership before it gets built. Nothing would get built if that were the case. That will come with time, as long as development is coordinated with transit.

Unquantifiable benefits such as speed are vital here. But people turn a blind eye to those.





At any rate, TC has already been shopped up, so we really need to look at serious alternatives. I think that smithdude's plan is quite good, because it wants to connect sheppard to downsview. A little bit here, a little bit there, we can get it done. But we must not stop.



edit/add...
http://www.torontosun.com/comment/columnists/2010/06/14/14388516.html

 

[Rainforest]

The DRL, if built to Eglinton/Don Mills will keep actual Eglinton loads well below 30,000pphpd because a large number of people will be diverted from that line; just as we intend to use it for Bloor line (take people off Bloor). A DRL will actually reduce Eglinton ridership at any central point.

That takes care of East; but the concern with Eglinton West ridership remains.

I am also strongly in favour of dedicated long distance routes and would gladly pledge $10B toward a cross-town GO route a few blocks south of Eglinton.

Unless you are a multi-billionaire, the government will have to back such pledge. And I feel that this one will be very hard to get. It is not even in the Metrolinx's plans (Peterborough to Summerhill service is there, but it is only a few trains per day and will not make any difference for intra-416 travel patterns).

If anything, the most realistic way to relief Eglinton LRT will be Lawrence LRT. But those 2 LRT lines will cost more than 1 Eglinton subway.

 

[Second_in_pie]

And a Lawrence LRT would still not provide proper service to the Eglinton corridor through a true RT route. RT is needed throughout the city to create a backbone for people to take LRT and busses to.

 

[rbt]

That takes care of East; but the concern with Eglinton West ridership remains.

I had intended to include DRL to Jane/Eglinton as well.

Fact remains, that 30,000pphpd on the western segment could not occur either if the DRL was NOT built to Jane. Spadina and Yonge cannot handle anywhere close to this many additional passengers; they would back up at the station with multi-hour long lineups trying to make this transfer.

There are very few trips which would take place exclusively on Eglinton and only a small percentage are going to go north on Spadina or Yonge. Eglinton, with that kind of ridership would create two additional St. George and Bloor/Yonge transfer points.

Yonge line would be well beyond the capacity that 90 second headways, 7th car, and open gangways can offer. Any relief for Yonge or Spadina, like a DRL on Jane or Don Mills, also relieves capacity stress on Eglinton.

Unless you are a multi-billionaire, the government will have to back such pledge. And I feel that this one will be very hard to get. It is not even in the Metrolinx's plans (Peterborough to Summerhill service is there, but it is only a few trains per day and will not make any difference for intra-416 travel patterns).

Agreed. There have been discussions around this; moving CP traffic to the north end of the city. The catch, of course, is CP would need to move one of their main storage yards to accomplish this and that would be expensive. Second to this is linking that crosstown track into the more useful corridors (LakeShore East/West). I see this as something to be tackled in 50 years; long after LakeShore and Georgetown are electrified.

The model is more difficult to picture, but a LakeShore East/Georgetown combination may offer many of the same benefits to a crosstown Eglinton traveller (SCC to Pearson for example) if both of these routes are brought up to frequent service levels.

It will be interesting to see what happens to service levels when the new signal system is installed around Union; since that seems to be a primary constraint at the moment.

If anything, the most realistic way to relief Eglinton LRT will be Lawrence LRT. But those 2 LRT lines will cost more than 1 Eglinton subway.

Strongly in favour of this technique too. Multiple medium-capacity lines offer far more network stability than a single high-capacity line.

 

[LAz]

Wrong ... rapid transit isn't a function of the vehicle, it's a function of the infrastructure.

Dunno where I missed this.

At any rate, trams are not rapid transit. Trams go at grade level with the cars. They stop at red lights, they stop at intersections, and so forth... Take the route along sheppard... does the tram really save much time? No.

If anything, the most realistic way to relief Eglinton LRT will be Lawrence LRT. But those 2 LRT lines will cost more than 1 Eglinton subway.

And have less capacity than the metro too.

I had intended to include DRL to Jane/Eglinton as well.

[lrt fanatic]WWWAAAAAaaaAAAaaaa, the current and past ridership does not justify this endeavor.[/quote]

 

[ssiguy2]

I just wrote a small thesis on the "transitcity was progress" thread which I am loath to write again here so if you are interested go there and check it out, In a nutshell I state that by cancelling Finch, Shep, and transfering SRT to LRT but not extension past McCowen Toronto could have true affordable mass/rapid transit using the TC idea. Essential Kingston to Pearson and Don Mills to DRL via Pape.

 

[LAz]

I just wrote a small thesis on the "transitcity was progress" thread which I am loath to write again here so if you are interested go there and check it out, In a nutshell I state that by cancelling Finch, Shep, and transfering SRT to LRT but not extension past McCowen Toronto could have true affordable mass/rapid transit using the TC idea. Essential Kingston to Pearson and Don Mills to DRL via Pape.

It looks a bit silly/dumb imho.

Further, I would not call a few paragraphs a thesis. A thesis is a major project that one does to conclude a degree.

 

[EnviroTO]

I'm guna write a PhD on subway be in better than LRT cause they are in need and such. It will be better then the DRL masters thesis I wroted, and my projects during undergrad in transit stuff.

 

[Rainforest]

There have been discussions around this; moving CP traffic to the north end of the city. The catch, of course, is CP would need to move one of their main storage yards to accomplish this and that would be expensive. Second to this is linking that crosstown track into the more useful corridors (LakeShore East/West). I see this as something to be tackled in 50 years; long after LakeShore and Georgetown are electrified.

Cross-midtown GO would be great, no doubts. In the west, one branch could run to Pearson, the other into Mississauga along the Milton line, and divert via Sq One. In the east, it would be good, after reaching Hwy 401 near Warden, to continue (new tracks) along or over Hwy 401, get to SCC, add another station in the east end of Scarborough, and then merge into Lakeshore East GO. That would be a great mobility enhancement for GTA.

Unfortunately, this is all in fantasy land. The issues include cost; CP business as you mentioned; complaints from residents about the noice level; and the space might be tight in some sections. Although in 50 years, maybe ...

In contrast, funding for Eglinton is already on the table, and the crosstown subway could be built much sooner than in 50 years.

The model is more difficult to picture, but a LakeShore East/Georgetown combination may offer many of the same benefits to a crosstown Eglinton traveller (SCC to Pearson for example) if both of these routes are brought up to frequent service levels.

I think Lakeshore East is way too far south from SCC, and the is no good rapid route from SCC to any Lakeshore East station. Although, some riders from Scarborough can reach Lakeshore East directly, not going via SCC.

But anyway, Lakeshore is a separate corridor, and another one via midtown is highly desirable.