TJ O'Pootertoot said:
Except GO is only good for 'express' trips to Union Station. It's useless for any other riders.

It might seem arbitrary, but it's not. It's based on node-based plans dating back to the early 90s and even if new areas can develop, organically or otherwise, the ones that were designated have special planning designations the municipalities have to work with.
Click to expand...

Valid points. Re: GO Richmond Hill, I guess I should’ve made it a point that in my scenario RH would theoretically be run as an S.Bahn DRL from Lawrence into downtown. Either as Gweed’s idea of using the formal DRL alignment through Pape/Donlands, or along the Don Branch through Leaside. Otherwise, you’re right. It’s a Union-express south of Sheppard, and not very useful in its current form. With a useful RH in place, any benefits of extending Yonge to Langstaff would be greatly reduced.

Re VMC. I know it's too late, but it just seems more logical to have a mobility hub at/around Jane and Steeles than Jane and Hwy 7. I was looking at a map (possibly from the 407 Transitway report) that seemed to show the transitway dipping south at Jane - and there’s enough vacant land in the vicinity to allow this to happen. Although there’s little opportunity for development centred around that site, it appears to make a better mobility hub than VMC (which is almost 2km north of any Transitway connection).

And when I said a “York Region transit solution” I didn’t fully mean it in a political sense, but rather how the land is vastly suburban – even when factoring in future high-density development. In twenty years I’d expect Yonge through Thornhill to be more York Mills-esque than Yonge around Sheppard or Finch. Golf courses, a large highway, bungalows, potential for NIMBYism... It’s very suburban up there; and running a 6-car heavy rail underground mass transit system seems a costly urban solution for what amounts to a suburban obstacle. My stance is similar for B/D extensions along McCowan or west into Sauga. A dedicated light RT system seems way more adaptive to the suburban realm.

As for Places to Grow - or the general expectation of nodal growth; it just seems things don’t always turn out as expected. NIMBYism, unforeseen desirability elsewhere, newly rezoned land coming online... there are always changes occurring. Population targets can easily be met across the GTA, but it's not so easy to direct where residents and employment will be located. What was expected to be high density nodal development centred around stations may very well evolve into medium density linear development spread farther along an arterial. Had the more affordable option been chosen right from the start, all future extensions to sites outside the original catchment would naturally be more achievable. Costs and planning are realistic enough to be borne locally, and decade-long DBF timeframes can be cut in half.
____
Not directed to anyone at UT, but it seems when I mention my opposition to piecemeal extensions of the subway (and being in favour of a different mode) I get labelled: cheap, not forward-thinking, and opposed to rapid transit. It’s actually the opposite. I am fully in favour of rapid transit, and more of it. For the ~$4bn pricetag of extending the subway north of Steeles along Jane and Yonge, an extensive light system can be built in its place. Such is the case for other areas across the GTA. Yes, an inevitable PITA transfer will present itself, but this transfer is going to happen somewhere regardless. Whether it’s at Finch or at Langstaff, people will be transferring between modes. On a more basic level: a multitude of long RT lines drawn across the suburbs looks way more appealing than small extensions of a sparse subway system. To me at least.
 
44 North said:
Re VMC. I know it's too late, but it just seems more logical to have a mobility hub at/around Jane and Steeles than Jane and Hwy 7. I was looking at a map (possibly from the 407 Transitway report) that seemed to show the transitway dipping south at Jane - and there’s enough vacant land in the vicinity to allow this to happen. Although there’s little opportunity for development centred around that site, it appears to make a better mobility hub than VMC (which is almost 2km north of any Transitway connection).
Click to expand...

It's a little frustrating, the layout there, but it's just the way the 407 alignment ended up being, as well as where Black Creek is. If things had been planned differently, maybe there could have been something more urban growing north from York U but that's not going to happen. Yonge has the advantage of 407 and 7 running directly alongside each other, however.

And when I said a “York Region transit solution” I didn’t fully mean it in a political sense, but rather how the land is vastly suburban – even when factoring in future high-density development. In twenty years I’d expect Yonge through Thornhill to be more York Mills-esque than Yonge around Sheppard or Finch. Golf courses, a large highway, bungalows, potential for NIMBYism...
Click to expand...

I hear what you're saying about expectations vs. reality and about Thornhill...My general theory is that there will be an increased desire to live near transit, closer to the city which makes places like North York and Thornhill prime destinations. Getting jobs in those areas, a real mix of uses, is the challenge. I have more confidence about Thornhill intensification than VMC, even, because I think Vaughan could have been more aggressive there. I don't have trouble buying into the Viva renderings that make VMC look like Yonge/Empress; but it's a question of how long that will take. It took, what, 25 years for North York Centre to happen?

I would expect that what you see now marching north from North York Centre will continue, through Thornhill, up to the heritage district...roughly to Clark, give or take. World on Yonge is already there, there are high-rise proposals just south of there, eventually the car dealerships on the Vaughan side will go too. Yes, the valley is an obvious 'firewall' but much less so than Hogg's Hollow, for example.

That said, I think Richmond Hill Centre will develop just fine and the Langstaff/Markham side is dependent on the transit (subway, GO and 407 Transitway). (Also, NIMBYism should be almost non-existent in the Langstaff growth centre and VMC and much of the Yonge stretch. There is residential as you go in a block or two but the new zoning is already in place there and anyone who is opposed to high-rises but living a block from Yonge-Steeles is in for a rude awakening. As for other growth centres, they will vary.)

Not directed to anyone at UT, but it seems when I mention my opposition to piecemeal extensions of the subway (and being in favour of a different mode) I get labelled: cheap, not forward-thinking, and opposed to rapid transit. It’s actually the opposite. I am fully in favour of rapid transit, and more of it. For the ~$4bn pricetag of extending the subway north of Steeles along Jane and Yonge, an extensive light system can be built in its place. Such is the case for other areas across the GTA. Yes, an inevitable PITA transfer will present itself, but this transfer is going to happen somewhere regardless. Whether it’s at Finch or at Langstaff, people will be transferring between modes. On a more basic level: a multitude of long RT lines drawn across the suburbs looks way more appealing than small extensions of a sparse subway system. To me at least.
Click to expand...

I hear ya. But if the transfer is going to happen regardless, why wouldn't you put it where GO, Viva, YRT and the Transitway are already converging? Isn't it like if the subway looped north at Queen instead of going right into Union?? I guess you can debate, to a point, about what a "natural" terminal is but I think you have to start by looking at where transit is converging and where people are going. Finch is not a natural terminus and neither is Steeles in that context. The Spadina line is harder to pin down because of its weird routing but the designation of VMC made it a natural terminus. Without that, York U would have made sense.

Overall, the important thing is to do a genuine analysis of the best mode. I never thought there was NO argument to be made for a Scarborough subway, for example, but given the funding and the projected ridership, LRT seemed far more sensible....to everyone except Rob Ford and council. The analyses of Yonge north show it's well above the BRT threshhold, well into LRT and will soon meet subway; it's probably the richest, untapped corridor in the GTA. (The DRL is also crucial, but that's not so much about a corridor, as much as relieving the existing one). I think, even if it's subconscious, the municipal border at Steeles throws people and if you look at a map without lines on it, you see why having both the Spadina and Yonge lines, interlining with GO, VIVA, YRT and the Transitway makes sense. A "seamless" system is one of Metrolinx's key mandates and asking someone to get off the subway at Finch to transfer to an LRT for 3 km (and then to a BRT further north or another mode to go E/W) seems short-sighted to me.

It's easier to be dreamy and idealistic when there's actually regular money flowing to transit so we'll see if that ever happens. If it doesn't, none of this will much matter.
 
I prefer that the Spadina extension should open to York University first (and have a crossover just before York University), then to VMC when Pioneer Village station is complete. This way, Pioneer Village station would not hold back the opening of the entire extension.
 
Johnny Au said:
I prefer that the Spadina extension should open to York University first (and have a crossover just before York University), then to VMC when Pioneer Village station is complete. This way, Pioneer Village station would not hold back the opening of the entire extension.
Click to expand...

Or have the track level area of Pioneer Village station complete, leave the station closed and run trains though the station. Even a slow order in the station would be better than delaying the opening of the entire line if the other stations are complete. I don't know if this is feasible, however!
 
Johnny Au said:
I prefer that the Spadina extension should open to York University first (and have a crossover just before York University), then to VMC when Pioneer Village station is complete. This way, Pioneer Village station would not hold back the opening of the entire extension.
Click to expand...

PL1 said:
Or have the track level area of Pioneer Village station complete, leave the station closed and run trains though the station. Even a slow order in the station would be better than delaying the opening of the entire line if the other stations are complete. I don't know if this is feasible, however!
Click to expand...

The TTC is considering both of these options.

http://www.thestar.com/opinion/edit..._dont_bode_well_for_smarttrack_editorial.html
 
NYC Transit A and B Division Equipment Comparison...and the TTC Subway...

44 Norh said:
I know NYC's subway system has two distinct trains (A and B division) that are incompatible with one another. One can handle tighter curves over the other. And it seems Chicago manages tight turns quite well. But Toronto's trains are mammoth in comparison. At least it seems that way. I'm sure our trains don't have the same turning radius. Maybe I'm wrong.
Click to expand...

44N: NYC Transit Subway does have two distinct equipment uses and sizes:

A Division is the former IRT equipment - the numbered NYC Subway routes and the Times Square-Grand Central Shuttle...

B Division is the former IND/BMT which uses larger equipment -letter routes- for example the 75 foot long R46 car fleet...

A Division cars can run on B Division lines - the track gauge is the same standard 4 feet 8 1/2 inches -
but there would be larger gaps between the train and platform a good example...B Division cars can not
clear parts of tunnels and curves on the A Division numbered routes...

Many older NYC Transit work equipment consists of former IRT cars because they can run anywhere on any line...

I remember that the TTC's fleet can run on each Subway line which was a good move - I believe NYC Transit's
B Division fleet could be compatible to operate on the TTC Subway routes...

For added information see: www.nycsubway.org
They also have a Toronto section in the World area that contains Canada...

LI MIKE
 
Last edited:
Johnny Au said:
I prefer that the Spadina extension should open to York University first (and have a crossover just before York University)
Click to expand...

They can't just clap their hands and "have a crossover" there. There isn't one, and you'd need to travel back in time 3 years or so to get one.

I believe crossovers are south of VMC, Pioneer Village, and Finch West -- in other words, every second station, which is probably the densest crossover presence anywhere on the subway network. Tail tracks or pocket tracks are north of Finch and north of VMC.

I assume that means Finch West is a logical interim terminus if they wanted to do a phased opening. Let's bear in mind York University station is also behind schedule and assuming it would be ready to go in December 2016 might still be premature. If it is ready, there might be a vague sliver of a possibility it could be the northern terminus if either (a) the train frequency is low enough that they can get away with running on just a single track north of the Finch West pocket track, or (b), as suggested by PL1, Pioneer Village is made rudimentarily functional at track level so they could turn trains there.
 
if the rest of the line are ready, and that the tracks at Pioneer Village can be made functional, it might be easier to simply run through the Pioneer Village Station than to turn trains around. TTC has experience finishing up a station on a functioning line with the Union Station modifications.
 
Last edited:
UD2 said:
if the rest of the line are ready, and that the tracks at Pioneer Village can be made functional, it might be easier to simply run through the Pioneer Village Station than to turn trains around. TTC has experience finishing up a station on a functioning line with the Union Station modifications.
Click to expand...

...and even though I rode the line back before it opened, I can't quite remember how it all worked when they built North York Centre. Clearly they can run a line through a not-finished station; the difference is that Union and NYCC were planned that way and this one sounds like it will require some improvisation.
 
TheTigerMaster said:
Subway cars have side impact collision requirements?
Click to expand...

And roll-over as well. Just because the signal system is designed to prevent accidents doesn't mean that you have the ability to completely design them out of all of the other systems. Safety is still paramount.

This is why all those people who think that the hypothetical introduction of systems such as PTC on our heavy rail networks are delusional if they think that it means that they can automatically start running European rolling stock.

Dan
Toronto, Ont.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top