M II A II R II K said:
Once A.I. and robotic arm workers can reliably do construction, buildings new lines would be done at a fraction of the time when you don't have to depend on manual labour, literally building the stations by hand one tile at a time and stuff. And a machine that could tunnel faster would be great too.
Click to expand...

The problem with machines doing all the work is that people won't be able to make a living in the future.
 
A proven economic theory is that technological advancement does not kill jobs, but offsets them. People will get jobs maintaining the robots, for example. The new capital from the savings on robots can instead be spent elsewhere on new, human fronted ventures.
 
I was looking at TTC documents and apparently the DRL will actually only remove about 12% of the ridership on the Yonge line, (14% with the Eglinton extension) compared to the ATC that is coming online in 2016 that will add up to 35% capacity. I truly can't wait for 2016, the Yonge line will become a lot more enjoyable to ride then..
 
innsertnamehere said:
... compared to the ATC that is coming online in 2016 that will add up to 35% capacity. I truly can't wait for 2016, the Yonge line will become a lot more enjoyable to ride then..
Click to expand...

That's an optomistic number and reaching it requires a few sizable investments which are not yet funded.

Also, growth of ridership on the Yonge line will eat away on that theoretical 35% very shortly after it exists. You may not find it quite as comfortable as you may want.
 
rbt said:
That's an optomistic number and reaching it requires a few sizable investments which are not yet funded.

Also, growth of ridership on the Yonge line will eat away on that theoretical 35% very shortly after it exists. You may not find it quite as comfortable as you may want.
Click to expand...

+1.

DRL and ATC are very temporary solutions. Yonge will always be at or above capacity, especially as new "feeder" lines are built.
 
I'm not saying either will be used up, and agree that both are needed, but people often laud the DRL as the best solution to relieve the Yonge line. In reality I find that it is much more than that.. It brings rapid transit to most of downtown that is currently lacking it, improves transit times, and helps releive much of the downtown Traffic congestion we are currently experiencing.
 
TheTigerMaster said:
+1.

DRL and ATC are very temporary solutions. Yonge will always be at or above capacity, especially as new "feeder" lines are built.
Click to expand...

If GO could make transferring to or from the TTC better, instead of a chore and at double the fare. At the moment, the Union Station is the only "good" transfer point... to a point. And crowded as well.
 
W. K. Lis said:
If GO could make transferring to or from the TTC better, instead of a chore and at double the fare. At the moment, the Union Station is the only "good" transfer point... to a point. And crowded as well.
Click to expand...

The reason why the TTC/GO transfer is seamless is beyond me. Our rail corridors are such an asset that we completely ignore. But even with GO improvements + DRL + ATC, it will not be enough to relieve Yonge sufficiently.
 
W. K. Lis said:
If GO could make transferring to or from the TTC better, instead of a chore and at double the fare. At the moment, the Union Station is the only "good" transfer point... to a point. And crowded as well.
Click to expand...

The problem is you can't relieve one service that's over-capacity at peak by connecting it to another service that's over-capacity at peak.

GO integration only works as a relief valve to the TTC in the peaks if you dramatically scale up the number of rush hour GO trains to both (a) add the raw capacity that is needed and (b) make the headways short enough that subway-acclimatized Torontonians will switch. That means more tracks and more overpasses and more rolling stock and more battles with NIMBYs. It's a lot cheaper than a new subway, but it certainly isn't free, and it'll only work to a point until GO again hits a capacity ceiling at the post-reno Union.

That said, I'm willing to guess the real reason we haven't seen GO-TTC fare integration to date has to do with the costs on the operating side. Commuter rail setups (especially extreme hub and spoke systems like GO) are notorious for having usage patterns that permit extremely limited "recycling" of capacity compared to the on-off turnover you see on a bus or subway. Chances are when a Torontonian taking the GO train home from work in the evening from Union to Danforth vacates their seat, it doesn't get re-filled by a fresh fare all the way from there to Oshawa. That Torontonian's ride might have actually been 5 km long, but from a cost perspective to GO it might as well have been 50 km long. And if that train turns at the end of the line, and heads back mostly-empty in the counterpeak direction without attracting another bum to subsidize that seat, the effective length (and cost) of the trip that one fare was supposed to cover keeps climbing and climbing.

In contrast, if a Torontonian rides for 1 km on the Dufferin bus and gets off, there'll be another token in the farebox soon enough that will be speaking for that seat for the next 2 km, and then another, so on such that a 50-passenger bus at rush hour will bring in multiple times that in fares paid. (Ironically GO is the one with a partial fare-by-distance, while the TTC is flat).

GO's 5 km-worth-of-bum-per-50-km-worth-of-seat problem can be turned into a 5 km-worth-of-bum-per-20-km-worth-of-seat problem by splitting the route, and having some trains run all-stops and short-turn in the shallower suburbs, and the rest run express and go out to Hamilton, Barrie, Oshawa etc. But that eats into the frequency of useful departures on offer to the 416er, which eats into its effectiveness as a subway relief valve.

I'll agree that better integrating GO with the TTC in places like Mt. Dennis is a great idea, and it will help the situation somewhat by encouraging people to commute in the morning from Brampton and transfer to the Crosstown to get to their job elsewhere on the TTC network, and have their seats become available for Mt. Dennis to Union traffic. But those numbers are probably not huge gamechangers in the grand scheme of Yonge line relief.
 
innsertnamehere said:
I was looking at TTC documents and apparently the DRL will actually only remove about 12% of the ridership on the Yonge line, (14% with the Eglinton extension) compared to the ATC that is coming online in 2016 that will add up to 35% capacity. I truly can't wait for 2016, the Yonge line will become a lot more enjoyable to ride then..
Click to expand...

This. People don't realize it, but we'd achieve far more by taking the $7 billion that the DRL would cost and using it to install platform screens and ATC on the entire Yonge line, electrifying GO and fully integrating GO and TTC to enable 416 residents heading to the core to use GO.

You want relief for Yonge/Bloor? Forget the DRL. Put Scarborough residents on to GO trains at Agincourt and Kennedy at rush hour. That would accomplish a lot more, including substantially reducing vociferous demands for a Sheppard subway extension.
 
I think all people really need in order to shut up people complaining about transit is all day 2 way GO. You never really see Oakville or Pickering complain about lack of transit access because access to downtown in a quick and timely matter is always available. Once the Stouffville line gets all day 2 way GO like the lakeshore currently has I expect to see a lot less complaints about lack of transit access in the area.


as for the DRL, It is certainly not the best option in relieving the Yonge line, but that is not to say it is still not the best investment of 7 billion. as the Downtown population doubles in the coming years, and tens of thousands of jobs are added, more and more people will be needing to get around the Downtown core. While this is currently easily achieved in the north-south directions, East-West travel is slow at best on streetcars. It will also speed up the travel of passengers (though only by a small amount), and create a much more pleasurable travel experience. It is also a key part of building the future network, all of the current lines are being extended to the point of riding from one end to the downtown takes 40 minutes, while we continue to only have 4 lines entering the downtown. The DRL lays the base to be extended and add another 2, which can service the likes of Northern etobicoke, York, the airport, and even Markham eventually (read: 50+ years) Our current lines are the only access points to the downtown, and while we can continue to add feeder lines into them, they still must take all of the load in order to feed it into the downtown. with the DRL, it allows for 2 new lines (east and west) to feed riders into the downtown, releiving the congestion, and better opening the future for more growth in ridership as new destinations will be served as well..

TL;DR The DRL isn't the best way to relieve the Yonge line, but it is a still extremely desirable for it's other positive effects.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top