ben.thebean1
Active Member
They should colour it, like the roundels in London. Red for subway, green for GO, etc. Problem solved (although they won't do that)
|
|
|
EastYorkTTCFan
Senior Member
how about just get rid of it and forgetting about it from other wayfinding as it does absolutely nothing at all except have people wonder what the point of it is?
T3G
Senior Member
Yes, the whole thing seems rather to be a solution in search of a problem.
EastYorkTTCFan
Senior Member
Bojaxs
Active Member
It looks soo much like a subway station. Which begs the question, why did we even bother building an LRT along Eglinton instead of a subway? Save money and/or time on construction? I highly doubt either of those were achieved.
Crazy question, but if ridership spikes, what's the likelihood we can upgrade the Crosstown LRT to a subway system?
T3G
Senior Member
None whatsoever for many decades to come.
Bojaxs
Active Member
So dumb. This transit project is soo stupid. Can't believe we scrapped the Eglinton West subway for this nonsense. No logical reasoning for choosing an LRT over a subway. Now TTC has to build separate facilities to maintain and store LRT trains when they could have simply built a subway and used existing infrastructure to store the trains. So much of this line is underground. Including the westward extension. If you're going to build an underground LRT, then you may as well spend the extra money and build a subway. Someone please explain to me what's the benefit of having an underground LRT instead of a subway?
Golden mile could have been treated like the Sheppard line. Residential construction would eventually come and ridership would go up.
The only reason we even built an LRT along Eglinton is because of David Miller's legacy and his Transit City vision.
T3G
Senior Member
Well, no, because the existing infrastructure does not have boatloads of surplus space that could be used to store another full size rapid transit line's rolling stock. It was always going to be necessary to build completely new infrastructure.
As for the western extension, well, there was no reason for that to be put underground. It's all politics. Massively overbuilt for no good reason. But then, common sense is not part of the Toronto transit planner's handbook.
Bojaxs
Active Member
Regardless, the TTC now has a new rail stock they have to purchase and maintain. Not just subway trains, street cars, and buses, but LRT trains now too. Could have used existing subway trains on a Eglinton subway line.
Based on what I've seen from this short Oakwood station video provided by Metrolinx, the crosstown LRT is merely a subway line that operates with trains that'll carry fewer people. Incredible...
cplchanb
Senior Member
You're kidding right? EW when it was canceled was a shadow of the original plan. Guarantee it would've turned out to be a glorified line 4 because it was essentially another stub line to nowhere.
Besides transit city was created over 10 years after cancellation so there's no direct relationship between these 2....
T3G
Senior Member
I don't particularly care whether the line is a subway or an LRT, but if you're going to criticize the decisions that were made, you should get your facts in order.
First of all, TTC is the one doing the operations for the line only. The maintenance is being done by Alstom, while the stock itself is owned by Metrolinx. The TTC is contracted to provide operations, but the parts inventory and maintenance is none of their concern.
Second of all, there is no practical difference between "streetcar" and "LRT". It is a yuppie marketing term that exists to appeal to suburban NIMBYs who don't want dirty, slow downtown streetcars bespoiling their hellish suburban "paradise on earth". The rolling stock for the Crosstown is a version of the Flexity trams, another version of which operates on the downtown streetcar network. They are distinct only in the specifications the rolling stock was built to, no different than the Gloucester subway vs. TR subway.
Third of all, again, what existing subway trains? Do you think the TTC has 76 full length subway trains lying around that are not being used right now? If the line was a classic subway line built, owned, and operated by the TTC, they still would have had to purchase new cars and build a new maintenance facility.
Aplus23
Active Member
If the subway is extra money, well then there's your answer. But I still don't understand the problem and disgust ppl have between a subway and the LRT?? Does the subway hold more ppl? Can't you just add more cars to the LRT? And run service more efficiently...
Like you said, the majority of the line is underground, the west extension is still grade separated out of traffic, is it not a subway? This line & corridor will never be overcapacity
Bojaxs
Active Member
The EW could have been extended eastward towards the Yonge Line and then beyond when it would make sense.
I'm talking about the differences between an LRT and a subway train. This might shock you, but I'm not against streetcars. They serve their purpose in the downtown core. But a streetcar can't do what a subway train does. Regardless, I'm talking about the difference between a subway train and a LRT train.
Much like the Bloor line, TTC could have simply moved older stock to other lines. much like when they get newer trains and they put them on the University & Yonge lines first. They have staff that's already experienced in maintaining and operating the subway system.
In light of everything happening right now with the Crosstown LRT, can you still make this case? How much more money would a subway have costed?
Yes.
How many cars do you have to add to a LRT to equal a standard length (Toronto) subway train? Can the stations handle LRTs that long?
You say that now.
adys123
Active Member
The decision making and history of local politics here is very important. It is also a decision that was made 15 years ago, so I'm not sure what point you are trying to get now. It is a bit too late to change the decision now.
smallspy
Senior Member
Is it though?
It seems to me that humans are pretty adaptable and can figure things out quite easily if given the chance. So long as we have a reasonably consistent method of telling people where to find it, why do they need more information than that?
The current bus stop works well because it's easily visible from a distance, and easily identifies where the vehicle will stop. It does not identify what kind of vehicle stops there, that part is kind of irrelevant.
The Crosstown pylons are easily visible from a distance, and due to their locations by the entry doors, also allow people to easily find out where to access the system. They don't need to identify what kind of vehicle stops there because it doesn't need to - there is other signage elsewhere (and nearby, and in better locations) for that.
I think that part of the problem is that people view wayfinding as a be-all, end-all - one single piece must do everything. That's a great way to overload it and make it incomprehensible. There's no reason why there can't be a more simplified approach is used, with different pieces of wayfinding doing different - and appropriate - things.
Dan