Leo_Chan
Senior Member
Nah, let's get to the UK, then it can be a Province of Canada!
- Thread starter 299 bloor call control.
- Start date
TransitBart
Senior Member
You guys are goofy.
TJ O'Pootertoot
Senior Member
You know Wonderland is literally next door to Vaughan Mills, right?
But, sure, why not! For 3 months a year dozens of people will use it every day!
But, no, I do enjoy the notion that anything north of Steeles is regarded as functionally the same as Barrie or apparently the UK. I don't think they need our subways there. We can ask them, though...steveintoronto
Superstar
Sarcasm aside, even if one does make a case for subways to the northern hinterlands (I lied on the sarcasm), why make them so expensive by burying them? That approach is so incredibly dated by World City standards.You know Wonderland is literally next door to Vaughan Mills, right?
But, sure, why not! For 3 months a year dozens of people will use it every day!
True, many subway lines in older, established transit intense cities were reclaimed railway lines that were then buried in the core, but the trend is moving away from 'digging' or 'tunneling' subways, and back towards surface lines.
Not the best reference, but rushed at moment, this does illustrate the trend:
http://www.londonreconnections.com/2011/stretching-the-line-why-we-do-and-dont-extend-tube-lines/
Quick addendum:
"Given the efficiency of modern tunnel boring machines and the fact that the size (bore) of the tunnel is no longer a critical fact in the cost, the pendulum is swinging in favour of building totally new lines capable of taking full size trains rather than tube extensions. And once you have started boring, you might as well keep going so megaprojects such as Crossrail are now seen as the cost-effective way to spend money."
Which raises the question on poorly allocated finances for the TYSSE:
For the same cost *, could that effort have paid off with vastly greater results if it had gone towards an RER tunnel under Queen St from Parkdale to Don River and perhaps beyond, alleviating the Union crush, and distributing load and service along the east-west of the core, allowing RER to provide more of a DRL function, and allowing more frequent and efficient service to the very region the TYSSE is now accessing?
*: This brings us back to the need for a *regional* agency for planning, executing, owning and running this level of transit.
My apologies to those of the 'northern hinterlands'....but a subway to that area....really? Far more could have been had putting that into GO Transit.....
Last edited:
steveintoronto
Superstar
Rather than a further addendum to prior post, The Economist has an excellent article on the point of surface lines v buried ones that I'll make a separate post:
Article is three years old, and London is indeed acquiring the feeder lines into it, the Southern Railway in the process of being assimilated into The Overground, the intent at this time to acquire *all* commuter lines into the GLA. This is what Paris, NYC and many other great cities have done for obvious reasons.
Those same reasons apply to Toronto. More on TfL later.
http://www.economist.com/news/brita...t-network-it-could-given-its-constraints-time
Article is three years old, and London is indeed acquiring the feeder lines into it, the Southern Railway in the process of being assimilated into The Overground, the intent at this time to acquire *all* commuter lines into the GLA. This is what Paris, NYC and many other great cities have done for obvious reasons.
Those same reasons apply to Toronto. More on TfL later.
TOareaFan
Superstar
I think all the jesting/joking (it was, right? ) about how far to take subways just points out that there is...at some point....a line of demarcation where you need to transition down the tiers of transit.....building too high an order of transit in any given location may bring as many (albeit different) problems as not building a high enough order does.
What we need to get over (IMO) is this recent phenomenon of "subways subways subways" where, I think, "subways" is just a proxy for "I want the best there is for me and, certainly, I don't want less than that other guy has or is getting". What that chant/mantra/attitude creates is an unwillingness from politicians to look rationally at a situation and select what is appropriate rather than fight for "the best". They live in fear if they are seen as accepting less for their constituents than some other politician "got" for theirs then they face an angry electorate the next time there is a vote.....when there may be reasons (built form, density, etc) that they need/warrant a lower tier of transit...not less transit, just delivered differently.
I feel, for example, for the poor Councillors in London who made the perfectly rational decision to opt for BRT over LRT......all indicators pointed to BRT as the appropriate transit solution for their situation. I have seen them mocked, I have seen them criticized because municipality "X" is getting LRT but I have not seen many congratulatory comments/articles saying they did the right thing.
Clearly, the old method of demarcation (ie. municipal boundaries ) is somewhat archaic, arbitrary and not fitting for a region like the GTA and we have to figure out what we will use instead....but if we don't figure it out, I fear that the joking subway extensions noted in the last page or so will creep in and become real suggestions (perhaps not here...but elsewhere, where it matters).
) about how far to take subways just points out that there is...at some point....a line of demarcation where you need to transition down the tiers of transit.....building too high an order of transit in any given location may bring as many (albeit different) problems as not building a high enough order does.What we need to get over (IMO) is this recent phenomenon of "subways subways subways" where, I think, "subways" is just a proxy for "I want the best there is for me and, certainly, I don't want less than that other guy has or is getting". What that chant/mantra/attitude creates is an unwillingness from politicians to look rationally at a situation and select what is appropriate rather than fight for "the best". They live in fear if they are seen as accepting less for their constituents than some other politician "got" for theirs then they face an angry electorate the next time there is a vote.....when there may be reasons (built form, density, etc) that they need/warrant a lower tier of transit...not less transit, just delivered differently.
I feel, for example, for the poor Councillors in London who made the perfectly rational decision to opt for BRT over LRT......all indicators pointed to BRT as the appropriate transit solution for their situation. I have seen them mocked, I have seen them criticized because municipality "X" is getting LRT but I have not seen many congratulatory comments/articles saying they did the right thing.
Clearly, the old method of demarcation (ie. municipal boundaries ) is somewhat archaic, arbitrary and not fitting for a region like the GTA and we have to figure out what we will use instead....but if we don't figure it out, I fear that the joking subway extensions noted in the last page or so will creep in and become real suggestions (perhaps not here...but elsewhere, where it matters).
Leo_Chan
Senior Member
Subway under Lake Ontario to Niagara Falls? Anyone?
But seriously, you make a good point that a subway extension to Vaughan Mills or the new Hospital are very likely to come into being some time in the future. And how we should be creating new lines at subway termini with LRT or BRT instead of just extending the subway. We can only tell if that the opinion on only subways will change with the Eglinton Crosstown, and hopefully see a BRT on Steeles to back that up.
amnesiajune
Senior Member
A lot of that belittling came from people here in Toronto. Just like there's a "subways, subways, subways" crowd, there also seems to be an "LRTs, LRTs, LRTs" crowd that thinks its a one-size-fits-all solution, and looks at the mere possibility of a BRT the same way Doug Ford looks at an LRT.
Anyone else remember this?
DonValleyRainbow
Senior Member
I just threw up a little in my mouth.
steveintoronto
Superstar
Some excellent, informed posts, but I have to temper this:
New York offers an excellent example:
Attributing influence on London Ont's decision to 'a lot of Torontonians' misses the point. Busways can and are built for later conversion to LRT, Ottawa being a prime example.
I suspect TO will take issue with that as that pertains to London Ont. London UK is embracing LRTs as well as other light rail transit (Docklands Light Railway is the largest system of its kind in the world):
https://tfl.gov.uk/modes/trams/the-future-of-trams
New York offers an excellent example:
https://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/16/nyregion/what-planners-of-brooklyn-queens-streetcar-line-can-learn-in-new-jersey.htmlEMMA G. FITZSIMMONS NYTimes
FEB. 15, 2016
HOBOKEN, N.J. — With Mayor Bill de Blasio proposing a streetcar line from Brooklyn to Queens, city planners do not have to search far for an example of a similar system to help guide them.
Just across the Hudson River, traveling from Bayonne through Jersey City and Hoboken to Weehawken, the thriving Hudson-Bergen Light Rail first opened more than a decade ago and now carries about 46,800 passengers each weekday. With views of the Manhattan skyline and sleek cars that glide over 18 miles, it has become increasingly popular and has spurred development in once-blighted areas of the New Jersey waterfront.
On a recent morning, Derrick Ladson, a 32-year-old dance teacher, took the line through Hoboken, looking out the window as snow fell outside.
“It’s so convenient; I love it,” Mr. Ladson said. “You get a nice view as you’re riding into work.”
After opening an initial seven-mile section in 2000, New Jersey Transit gradually extended the line, completing the most recent station, in Bayonne, in 2011. Despite its name, the system never reached Bergen County. Efforts to extend it farther north have stalled over a lack of funding.
The system offers a look at the benefits, and challenges, of creating a modern transit system that blends into the urban streetscape. On Tuesday morning, Mr. de Blasio plans to provide more details about his plans for the streetcar at a news conference in Red Hook, Brooklyn, one of the waterfront neighborhoods through which the route would travel.
New York City’s proposal, which is being called the Brooklyn Queens Connector, is part of a wave of attention-grabbing streetcar and light-rail projects across the country that seek to capitalize on both urban revitalization and nostalgia for trolleys. But several projects have faced major delays and cost overruns — most notably, a still-unopened streetcar system in Washington — and other plans have been scrapped.
The Brooklyn-to-Queens streetcar, which is expected to cost about $2.5 billion, and the Hudson-Bergen line address the same transit reality: Not everyone needs to travel to Manhattan.
The Hudson-Bergen Light Rail shows how a system like this can pay off, said Harris Schechtman, the national transit director for Sam Schwartz Engineering, who worked on a feasibility study for the city’s streetcar system.
“Those who have any questions need to look across the river,” Mr. Schechtman said, citing the line’s popularity.
The New Jersey system cost about $2.2 billion and encountered plenty of obstacles along the way, stirring up opposition from some residents who worried it would harm their neighborhood’s appeal and produce unwanted noise.
The Brooklyn Queens Connector is likely to face similar resistance over the route and lost parking, said Mayor Steven M. Fulop of Jersey City.
“There was tremendous pushback from the community,” Mr. Fulop said of early hostility to the light rail’s route along Essex Street in Jersey City. “Today, I think the residents there would tell you it was a huge success.”
So far, criticism of Mr. de Blasio’s streetcar plan has focused on whether the idea was prompted by developers, not public demand, and whether it is the best use of time and money among the region’s many transit needs.
In New Jersey, Mr. Fulop and other leaders have called for the light rail to expand north, but officials have not been able to secure federal and state funding, he said. While it was originally supposed to run to Ridgefield, in Bergen County, it currently ends at Tonnelle Avenue in Hudson County.
The feasibility study for the Brooklyn-Queens streetcar route, which was paid for by a group that includes real estate interests, recommended what amounted to a hybrid streetcar and light-rail system.
A Hudson-Bergen Light Rail train crossing Marin Boulevard in Jersey City. Credit Bryan Anselm for The New York Times
Light rail generally has clear separation from streets and longer distances between stops, while streetcars fit in more seamlessly with city traffic. The plan under consideration calls for a streetcar with light-rail features, including more space between stations and a dedicated lane when possible. But the streetcar would move at slower speeds than light rail, at an average of 11.3 miles per hour, according to the mayor’s office.
Hudson-Bergen Light Rail trains can travel at 25 m.p.h. in sections where it merges with traffic and up to 60 m.p.h. in areas where it has an exclusive right of way. In an example of problems that can arise when trains and cars mix, a car backed out of a parking space in Jersey City last week and hit a light-rail vehicle, causing delays along the line. Collisions between trains and cars have raised concerns in other cities, like Houston and Salt Lake City.
[...]
Attributing influence on London Ont's decision to 'a lot of Torontonians' misses the point. Busways can and are built for later conversion to LRT, Ottawa being a prime example.
Last edited:
Leo_Chan
Senior Member
So the Sheppard West Extension...this has been proposed, but we'll more likely see Finch West LRT connect to Yonge-Finch (or Yonge-Sheppard) rather than Sheppard extension.
TJ O'Pootertoot
Senior Member
We do have a relatively well-defined urban edge. To the north, it's basically defined by the Oak Ridges Moraine, which is to say around Major Mac/Elgin Mills, depending how far east/west you are. I think Highway 7 has always made easily defensible sense because of the east-west transit connectivity (existing and planned). Because of things like the hospital and even RH's planned civic precinct, I think you can make the argument to Major Mac as a long-term blue-sky kind of thing. There is and will be contiguous urban development up to there.
But I can't imagine a subway ever ever ever going north of there and making any kind of sense whatsoever. (And that's putting aside that I don't think you could put a subway under the moraine even if you wanted to.)
But I can't imagine a subway ever ever ever going north of there and making any kind of sense whatsoever. (And that's putting aside that I don't think you could put a subway under the moraine even if you wanted to.)
steveintoronto
Superstar
"plausible"? Not fiscally. The cost entailed would show vastly more result in other places, like under Queen.
BurlOak
Senior Member
I don't remember the exact math that I described earlier, but it went something like this.
4km from Yonge to Downsview. That's $1.5B to $2.0B.
The result is an ~18km line from Don Mills to Vaughan, and a ~25km line* from Don Mills to Union (via Yorkdale). That works out to about $40M /km for fully grade-separate transit. (* - I did not include the ~16km from Union to Finch, even though it is actually part of the same line).
Attachments
wilson_wu
Active Member
Am I the only one who thinks the new Downsview Park station is god awful? I mean what were the designers thinking?
https://www.ttc.ca/Spadina/About_the_Project/Photo_Gallery/Photo_Gallery_Images/A25-1_DSC_0388.jpg
That shade of yellow is absolutely played out and looks straight out of the 1970s. I can name multiple stations off the top of my head with that ugly yellow. Main St, Christie, Castle Frank, Greenwood, Lawrence, Yonge, Spadina, Sheppard, Royal York. We didn't need an additional one.
https://www.ttc.ca/Spadina/About_the_Project/Photo_Gallery/Photo_Gallery_Images/A25-1_DSC_0388.jpg
That shade of yellow is absolutely played out and looks straight out of the 1970s. I can name multiple stations off the top of my head with that ugly yellow. Main St, Christie, Castle Frank, Greenwood, Lawrence, Yonge, Spadina, Sheppard, Royal York. We didn't need an additional one.