Palma said:
How? Did they have community meetings asking the public the preferred route
Click to expand...

Richmond/Adelaide doesn't alleviate the 501, offers the poorest interchange transfer connections and runs into alignment issues beyond Parliament and Bathurst.

If the bulk of transit planners and civil engineers way back in 1910 and ever since saw the infinite wisdom of building a subway underneath Queen Street, who are we to challenge their facts?
 
Palma said:
How? Did they have community meetings asking the public the preferred route
Click to expand...

Every member of the public would want the route to stop right in front of their house. The public should offer their opinions but the final decision should be left to experts who can best decide what route is best based on usage and cost.
 
Surely there would be huge savings, better integration with the transfers to the existing streetcar lines where DRL terminates, and faster implementation if the flexity cars were diverted underground. Couldn't chains of these cars handle most of the ridership? I agree about taking cues from past city builders. Platforms are roughed in under Queen and Osgoode stations for a streetcar DRL. That's a shortcut and cost savings. Why are we bent on having a station at City Hall? Those giant Toronto letters are pretty seductive.
 
Last edited:
Is this actually true?

Screen shot 2016-02-19 at 11.48.03 AM.png
 

Attachments

  • Screen shot 2016-02-19 at 11.48.03 AM.png
    Screen shot 2016-02-19 at 11.48.03 AM.png
    30.9 KB · Views: 641
EastYorkTTCFan said:
Does anyone think they might use LRTs on the relief line rather then make it a full heavy rail subway?
Click to expand...
I thought it should be SkyTrain to be able to handle the tight turns of downtown, and to be compatible with the Eglinton and SRT line.
Now it looks like they are thinking about TO subway compatible and nothing else.
 
LNahid2000 said:
It wouldn't surprise me. It's twice as busy as the busiest station in New York City (Times Square - 42nd St). Most other cities have multiple transfer points between lines (and more lines in general), so everyone isn't squeezed through one station.
Click to expand...

Bloor Yonge has 400,000 users go "through" the station every day. Transfers are counted twice in typical TTC fashion. A lot of these will just pass through and not even get on or off. Say 1/2 don't leave the train and then remove the counting of twice. Guessing 100,000 actually step a foot on the platform.

Central station in Hong Kong has 200,000 people "use" the station. Don't know what "use" means but I presume it means they actually get on or off (based on my personal comparison of Bloor Yonge vs Central)
 
Hopkins123 said:
Richmond/Adelaide doesn't alleviate the 501, offers the poorest interchange transfer connections and runs into alignment issues beyond Parliament and Bathurst.

If the bulk of transit planners and civil engineers way back in 1910 and ever since saw the infinite wisdom of building a subway underneath Queen Street, who are we to challenge their facts?
Click to expand...

Maybe things have changed since 1910. Crazy things. Like high-rises, automobiles, women having the right to vote, etc. But some things never change...I assume the plutocracy back then and the politicians now never actually rode transit other than for photo ops.
 
I've never heard that Bloor-Yonge is the busiest interchange station in the world before, but I wouldn't be overly surprised. Ontario has a habit if building infrastructure in a way that gives us a few massive pieces of infrastructure but poor overall coverage. Compare with Quebec for example. They have more freeways than Ontario and Montreal has more downtown train stations, more freeways, and a bigger subway system than Toronto (not that all of these are bad things). And it's not just Quebec, Alberta has more four lane highways than Ontario thanks to their extensive at grade expressway network.

Ontario has a bit of an "all or nothing" attitude when it comes to infrastructure. We have a barebones subway network but the lines have massive trains. Madrid, for example, is the complete opposite. We have a relatively small 4 lane highway network (by North American standards anyway) and hardly any at grade expressways, 2+1 highways, or super-2s...but at the same time we have the busiest highway in the world. We have very little redundancy in our systems, as the bridge failure in Nipigon showed and as we can see every day at Bloor-Yonge.

I don't know why Ontario is like this, but it's something I notice every time I travel.
 
MisterF said:
I've never heard that Bloor-Yonge is the busiest interchange station in the world before, but I wouldn't be overly surprised. Ontario has a habit if building infrastructure in a way that gives us a few massive pieces of infrastructure but poor overall coverage. Compare with Quebec for example. They have more freeways than Ontario and Montreal has more downtown train stations, more freeways, and a bigger subway system than Toronto (not that all of these are bad things). And it's not just Quebec, Alberta has more four lane highways than Ontario thanks to their extensive at grade expressway network.

Ontario has a bit of an "all or nothing" attitude when it comes to infrastructure. We have a barebones subway network but the lines have massive trains. Madrid, for example, is the complete opposite. We have a relatively small 4 lane highway network (by North American standards anyway) and hardly any at grade expressways, 2+1 highways, or super-2s...but at the same time we have the busiest highway in the world. We have very little redundancy in our systems, as the bridge failure in Nipigon showed and as we can see every day at Bloor-Yonge.

I don't know why Ontario is like this, but it's something I notice every time I travel.
Click to expand...

Planning here has been very much focuses on squeezing every last ounce of capacity out of our current infrastructure, rather than building new infrastructure.

For example, if a line is over capacity, rather than build new lines we'll
- upgrade signalling system
- longer trains or vehicles
- platform screen doors
- etc, etc

Places like Vancouver will build rapid transit along corridors with ridership so low that it wouldn't even be considered here in Toronto.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top