Cobra said:
shhh... you're going to anger the LRT supporters who claims that LRT at grade is still rapid transit. I gave up arguing on that front. :D

But to be fair:
  • Stop pacing is supposed to be way higher than 300m
  • Priority signals is supposed to be part of the line (wishful thinking)
  • Rail crossing like in LA would have made sense, but Transit City supporters will say that L.A are idiots and that we know best...as usual. Even Metrolinx doesn't think so, hence grade separating stops on Crosstown West to speed it up.
Until we're proven otherwise (I guarantee we will), it counts as rapid transit.
Click to expand...

Stop spacing is "way higher than 300m" only in certain parts. I understand closely spaced stations in rapid transit at Dundas and Queen for example, but not in the most suburban parts of the city. I'm overall skeptical of surface routes in Toronto because they are very vulnerable to be derailed by the public pressure for adding more and more stops to keep people from complaining, as building the stops themselves aren't costly.

As for "priority signals" I'm really hoping it won't be another Spadina Streetcar.

I don't think we need to wait to be proven otherwise, how things are in this city is pretty obvious.
 
Regarding Relief Line West and why I picked Keele instead of Dundas West:

Dufferin makes more sense to relieve that corridor but I'm starting to see why Keele via Parkside is very likely to be picked.
I doubt the city will open up Roncevalles or Dufferin. Parkside could be done cut and cover on the west side since it's park land. Easier and cheaper while providing another station to High Park.

Who am I kidding? They deep bore under high Park regardless knowing the TTC. I'm curious how they would solve the creation of another crazy transfer point at Keele station...
 
TheTigerMaster said:
Note that this is only a population density map. It doesn't show employment density, which is arguably more relevant for public transit discussions.
Click to expand...

Exactly it. The map is misleading in this thread context.

Rainforest said:
A Don Mills line will have good ridership, no doubts about that.

Generally speaking, local density shouldn't be discounted, but the modern way of transit planing places too much emphasis on local density and sometimes that has negative impact on the transit network as a whole. IMO, the balance should be restored.

First of all, the majority of subway riders use local feeder routes for a part of their trip, and this situation will persist. Interests of the majority should be taken into account.
Click to expand...

That's exactly the problem with the downtown line. There are few major destinations downtown along Queen outside of the Yonge and University corridors and the rest of it the city has declared a no-go neighbourhood zone or heritage zone where mainstreet character must be maintained.

Virtually all commuting and off hour destinations will require a 600-700m walk south from Queen or a connecting north to south bus with 0% chance of enclosed stations to transfer from. (Works great if you're a fat cat working at 100 Queen Street West) Nobody else needs this crappy waste of time last mile BS from city hall on top of the hour long bus ride at the other end when the problems for the majority could be solved if the planners weren't trying to protect ScamTrack's ridership. "The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few" is what I've been saying all along.

Speaking of ScamTrack where are the peeps who were trolling around earlier saying ScamTrack would serve exactly the same destinations along the King corridor making a subway there redundant? Now that the new station analysis is out in the clear, aside from the Spadina station (for 1 line not included with ScamTrack), there will be no magic stations, only long walks or multiple transfers or both for everybody to get to work or play. (unless you're a councillor)
 
Cobra said:
Regarding Relief Line West and why I picked Keele instead of Dundas West:

Dufferin makes more sense to relieve that corridor but I'm starting to see why Keele via Parkside is very likely to be picked.
I doubt the city will open up Roncevalles or Dufferin. Parkside could be done cut and cover on the west side since it's park land. Easier and cheaper while providing another station to High Park.

Who am I kidding? They deep bore under high Park regardless knowing the TTC. I'm curious how they would solve the creation of another crazy transfer point at Keele station...
Click to expand...
It should be keele, you have it right. They can't do dundas west now that upx is already there. Keele is the cheapest option and provides a direct shot to Mt dennis. In the future, take the Eglinton LRT to Mt Dennis, transfer to the DRL, and you're downtown with touching line 1.
 
Forgotten said:
That's exactly the problem with the downtown line. There are few major destinations downtown along Queen outside of the Yonge and University corridors and the rest of it the city has declared a no-go neighbourhood zone or heritage zone where mainstreet character must be maintained.

Virtually all commuting and off hour destinations will require a 600-700m walk south from Queen or a connecting north to south bus with 0% chance of enclosed stations to transfer from. (Works great if you're a fat cat working at 100 Queen Street West) Nobody else needs this crappy waste of time last mile BS from city hall on top of the hour long bus ride at the other end when the problems for the majority could be solved if the planners weren't trying to protect ScamTrack's ridership. "The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few" is what I've been saying all along.

Speaking of ScamTrack where are the peeps who were trolling around earlier saying ScamTrack would serve exactly the same destinations along the King corridor making a subway there redundant? Now that the new station analysis is out in the clear, aside from the Spadina station (for 1 line not included with ScamTrack), there will be no magic stations, only long walks or multiple transfers or both for everybody to get to work or play. (unless you're a councillor)
Click to expand...

While I agree that King (or King - Wellington - King) would make a better route for the Relief line, local service will be a challenge no matter which route is selected. We cannot expect the Relief stations to be as closely spaced as stations on the sentral section of BD line; that would be way too expensive these days.

It is best to accept that the Relief line stations will be 1 to 2 km apart, and retain the streetcars both on King and Queen in order to provide the local service.
 
Cobra said:
Since I had free time at work, I took a look at this list and sorted the chart by “system length” to compare ourselves with the rest of the world.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_metro_systems
I wanted to see where we were today and how fast we would climb the ladder if everything went according to plan by 2031.

(The Federal budget will be very enlightening in that regard)

*Ranking is approximate

Today - Toronto Subway and RT
  • 68.3 km with 69 stations
  • 58th position, right behind Montreal at 57th
  • Notable networks we beat: Rome (60km), Buenos Aires (61.3km), Kiev 67.6 (km)
2017 York-Spadina Extension
  • 8.6 km and 6 extra stations
  • Toronto Subway will have 76.9km and 75 stations
  • 54th position, edging Montreal by 7.7km
  • Notable networks we beat: Bucarest (69.3km), Dubai (74.6km)
2021 Line 5 Eglinton Crosstown
  • 19 km and 25 stations
  • Toronto Subway will have 95.9km and around 100 stations
  • 40th position, passing Vancouver and becoming Canada’s largest network
  • Notable networks we beat: Sao Paulo (78.4km)
2021 Finch West
  • 11km and 19 stations
  • Toronto Subway will have 106.9km and around 119 stations
  • 37th position
  • Notable networks we beat: Milan (101km), Santiago (103km), Stockholm (105.7km), Munich (103.1km)
2023 as of July 2016 Crosstown West
  • Approximately (12.2 km)
  • Toronto Subway would have approximately 118km
  • 32nd position
  • Notable networks we beat: Saint-Petersburg (113.2km)
2026 Scarborough extension
  • With the replacement of the RT (6.4km and 6 stations)with a tunnel (6.2 km and 1 station), we lose 0.2km
  • Toronto Subway would have approximately 117km
  • Retains 32nd position
2031 Relief Line Long
  • Potentially 27 km if the termini station is Keele
  • Toronto Subway would have approximately 144km
  • Climbing to 29th position
  • Notable networks we beat: Kuala Lumpur (123.1 km), Taipei Metro (131.1km), Teheran Metro with (135km)
Planned
  • Crosstown East - Unfunded
  • Waterfront LRT- Unfunded
  • Jane LRT- Unfunded
  • Richmond Hill Extension- Unfunded
Proposed/being studied
  • Sheppard Subway Extension – Sheppard Corridor
  • Bloor-Danforth extension past Kipling

Like we say in French: "Quand on se regarde, on se désole, quand on se compare, on se console"
-It's upsetting to look at ourselves but it's comforting to compare ourselves to others
Click to expand...
I took a look at that list on Wikipedia. For many of the cities listed it doesn't include the LRT systems. It doesn't include Calgary, Edmonton, Los Angeles' LRT lines, etc. Seeing that most of Toronto's expansion would be LRT you can't compare Toronto's future rapid transit system with this list. So we will still be way behind many cities as this list only seems to take into account mostly heavy rail, subway, metro and light metro with a few light rail systems. Many cities with LRT systems are not on this list.
 
AlvinofDiaspar said:
That assumes that a) those comparators aren't moving as well b) that they are necessarily rapidly growing at a rate like we are (Munich??). In any case, length makes less sense to brag about than utility.

AoD
Click to expand...
Toronto isn't doing so great in utility either. The first east-west subway was too far north, creating the transfer mess at Yonge-Bloor. Most of the city feeds into a single subway line, which is overloaded. Rapid transit coverage in central Toronto is hopelessly inadequate. Rail lines aren't being used to their full potential (to be fair, RER and fare integration will go a long way to fixing that if fully implemented). Different transit agencies operate in their own silos. The DRL downtown stations will be too far apart. Eglinton trains will have to stop at red lights on the surface portions. I'll stop there but you get the idea.
 
MisterF said:
Toronto isn't doing so great in utility either. The first east-west subway was too far north, creating the transfer mess at Yonge-Bloor. Most of the city feeds into a single subway line, which is overloaded. Rapid transit coverage in central Toronto is hopelessly inadequate. Rail lines aren't being used to their full potential (to be fair, RER and fare integration will go a long way to fixing that if fully implemented). Different transit agencies operate in their own silos. The DRL downtown stations will be too far apart. Eglinton trains will have to stop at red lights on the surface portions. I'll stop there but you get the idea.
Click to expand...

Oh totally agree - that's what a simple network length won't capture.

jje1000 said:
When can we expect the next update on the DRL to be?
Click to expand...

I think a report to Exec is due in Spring this year.

AoD
 
AlvinofDiaspar said:
Oh totally agree - that's what a simple network length won't capture.
Click to expand...
In fairness, our downtown streetcar and suburban bus network do a great deal of heavy-lifting that is apples and oranges comparison to other cities (at least on this continent).

Rainforest said:
We cannot expect the Relief stations to be as closely spaced as stations on the sentral section of BD line; that would be way too expensive these days.

It is best to accept that the Relief line stations will be 1 to 2 km apart, and retain the streetcars both on King and Queen in order to provide the local service.
Click to expand...

I hate that this is becoming reality. We don't need an express service, we need a Cadillac local service if we want a service that addresses everything we require a downtown line to accomplish.
 
But streetcars as used in downtown Toronto really isn't rapid transit - it's bus on rails.

It makes little sense to build stations 1 or 2 km apart in the core as a philosophy - independent of whether there is local demand. If you only want express service from point A (presumably somewhere out in the burbs) to B alone, you'd be better off with the GO model, not subways in the core. Besides I don't think anyone is contemplating a straight up replication of BD stop frequencies (not that frequent stops have prevented anyone from using Line 2 either).

AoD
 
JoEddie7677 said:
I took a look at that list on Wikipedia. For many of the cities listed it doesn't include the LRT systems. It doesn't include Calgary, Edmonton, Los Angeles' LRT lines, etc. Seeing that most of Toronto's expansion would be LRT you can't compare Toronto's future rapid transit system with this list. So we will still be way behind many cities as this list only seems to take into account mostly heavy rail, subway, metro and light metro with a few light rail systems. Many cities with LRT systems are not on this list.
Click to expand...

I know that, hence the disclaimer about ranking being an approximation. That list isn't an exact science. Take Los Angeles for example, Wiki says 28km but L.A themselves count their LRT lines as Rapid Transit bringing them at 105 miles of system length. That's why I counted Finch and all of Eglinton as rapid transit.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top