When the DRL-long opens we will all be 6 feet under.

RER is the real game changer here. It can offer high speeds, huge coverage, and connect the GTA together as opposed to just small parts of Toronto. If RER were to become an effective subway system with standard local fares then the system ridership levels would explode to the current TTC subway levels or more. If RER was presented as a massive subway expansion program then people would be excited at the prospect but it wasn`t but rather as a glorified GO system which to most people infers a commuter system with fares that are simply too expensive to consider. Metrolinx`s only rail line to date has been the UPX which , by any metric, has been a complete failure...........$500 million to move a stellar 0.3% of all GTA riders.
 
I think that the overlaying of RER onto TTC subway maps (displaying them in all TTC stations too) -- and free transfers between GO+TTC -- will make quite a substantial difference.

We're already headed in this direction -- in 2019, the price of 416 GO trips is cut to $3 and the transfer is already cut halfway ($1.50).

By 2025+ it probably will be free transfers between TTC and GO within the 416 area code.

As long as all the infill stations are built (including with DRL, and stations like Park Lawn) -- and improved transfer stations are built -- easier to transfer between TTC and GO just like treating them as separate subway routes.

The frequency of RER (15-min-or-better 2-way) is more frequent than many Boston metro routes at offpeak.

People who never took GO, now face the prospect of seeing suddenly miraculously seeing several "surface subway routes" overlaid on the TTC maps inside Toronto's subways and at TTC stations, so people in 15 years from now will think of TTC+GO as one system at least within the 416 area code.

So I think by ~2031, it'll "feel" like roughly a 3x+ expansion of Toronto's subway network when everything opens (DRL, RER, Crosstown, etc).

Replace "RER" with whatever brand name you prefer ("SmartTrack") if you wish.

But it still all essentially means the same concept of converting infrequent GO trains into a frequent 2-way electrified metro system.

It's still not enough -- but most UrbanToronto'ers would see this as a major catapult forward.
 
MBTA Subway: 126 km
MBTA Commuter Rail: 541 km
Wrong. You're including the green line (which is not a subway) and the shitty silver line BRT I mentioned as part of the 126km calculation. The MBTA actually only has 61km of heavy rail subway.

The green line has portions like this which are no different than TTC streetcar routes. The silver line includes portions like this which are no different than an express bus running in an HOV lane. So if you're going to refer to these as 'MBTA Subway', you need to include streetcars and express buses that run in HOV lanes as part of your TTC Subway calculations.
 
Wrong. You're including the green line (which is not a subway) and the shitty silver line BRT I mentioned as part of the 126km calculation. The MBTA actually only has 61km of heavy rail subway.

The green line has portions like this which are no different than TTC streetcar routes. The silver line includes portions like this which are no different than an express bus running in an HOV lane. So if you're going to refer to these as 'MBTA Subway', you need to include streetcars and express buses that run in HOV lanes as part of your TTC Subway calculations.

You did notice that I did not separate the TTC streetcar lines into grade separated and street running either? Well, That is because that is how those agencies label them. It is just like how the naive people of Toronto think the EC will be an RT.
 
Wrong. You're including the green line (which is not a subway) and the shitty silver line BRT I mentioned as part of the 126km calculation. The MBTA actually only has 61km of heavy rail subway.

The green line has portions like this which are no different than TTC streetcar routes. The silver line includes portions like this which are no different than an express bus running in an HOV lane. So if you're going to refer to these as 'MBTA Subway', you need to include streetcars and express buses that run in HOV lanes as part of your TTC Subway calculations.

Guys... this is the UP Express thread not the Boston Transit thread, RER thread or a TTC thread. Can we please keep this on topic?
 
You did notice that I did not separate the TTC streetcar lines into grade separated and street running either? Well, That is because that is how those agencies label them. It is just like how the naive people of Toronto think the EC will be an RT.
So just to confirm, you think the Silver Line BRT is a subway?
 
I just took the 14:45 train. 75% of the seats on a three-car consist were full from Union. Balls to posters about half-empty trains.
The problem with UPX now is that all trains aren't 3 car because they went from too expensive to too cheap in a single bound.
 
EC will be an RT.
It is designed to be.

And not naive, unless the planned top-of-the-line (in Canada) traffic priority signalling systems is dumbed down. Surface sections is far more dedicated lane than even Spadina and St. Clair, and faster than Boston Green Line.

It may become crowded though. But based on similar systems elswehere worldwide, and its plans, the surface sections will perform faster at all hours than the downtown section of Toronto Subway, albiet slower than the suburban sections (e.g. subway north of Bloor).

See this image that explains why Crosstown is rapid transit. The shape is more important than the existance of a few level crossings. The stops are much wider distance than even King trial. There's curbed separation, there's much wider stop distances, and much fewer crossable level crossings, and it has plans to use top notch transit priority.

Have you visited any cities with recent new-line modern-build LRTs with good traffic priority crossings? You will find some of them perform faster than the downtown TTC.
 
Last edited:
It is designed to be.

And not naive, unless the planned top-of-the-line (in Canada) traffic priority signalling systems is dumbed down. Surface sections is far more dedicated lane than even Spadina and St. Clair, and faster than Boston Green Line.

It may become crowded though. But based on similar systems elswehere worldwide, and its plans, the surface sections will perform faster at all hours than the downtown section of Toronto Subway, albiet slower than the suburban sections (e.g. subway north of Bloor).

See this image that explains why Crosstown is rapid transit. The shape is more important than the existance of a few level crossings. The stops are much wider distance than even King trial. There's curbed separation, there's much wider stop distances, and much fewer crossable level crossings, and it has plans to use top notch transit priority.

Have you visited any cities with recent new-line modern-build LRTs with good traffic priority crossings? You will find some of them perform faster than the downtown TTC.

It can only be considered "rapid transit" if it's grade separated and high capacity. I'd argue 15K PPHPD max is fairly high capacity, but the underground and viaduct portions of the crosstown can be classified as RT, not the street-level portions since they're not grade separated.
 
micheal_can, notice how no one is liking your posts?

In a place of debate, its a pretty good sign that someone is wrong.
 
It can only be considered "rapid transit" if it's grade separated and high capacity. I'd argue 15K PPHPD max is fairly high capacity, but the underground and viaduct portions of the crosstown can be classified as RT, not the street-level portions since they're not grade separated.
Have you opened an urban dictionary lately?

The internationally agreed definition of rapid transit is based on speed rather than full grade separation.

Grade separations are strongly preferred, indeed, but let's consider Eglinton Crosstown's nature of clean-sheet rapid-transit-league surface crossings should not be judged by the book cover when such rapid transit systems exist.

There is often more than one kilometer between level crossings in some sections, and they are optimized near stops where you can have transit-priority-optimized farside stops.

There are some systems worldwide that have achieved rapid transit speed specifications despite a few surface crossings.

Again, clean sheet modern designs, not retrofits (Boston Green Line, King TtC, etc) that actually achieved internationally-recognized rapid transit dictionary definition and specifications achieved for real, despite having a few surface crossings.

Yes, yes, yes, dictionary usually say "common characteristic" includes level crossing, but it is not a mandatory characteristic -- LOOK AT THE DICTIONARY AGAIN FOR CHRISSAKES -- like railroad crossing gates are okay -- and some newer modern cleansheet well-traffic-priority-optimized stiplight intersections (that are almost as good at guaranteeing rail right of way as a crossing gate, using huge number of cleansheet modifications (without needing a crossing gatebar).

[Webster Dictionary] rapid transit - a system of public transportation in an urban area, using electric trains running along an unimpeded right of way

[Collins English Dictionary] rapid transit (adjective): relating to the rapid transportation of the public, usually within a particular, often urban, area

Unimpeded can include railroad crossing gates but nowadays includes proper modern traffic priority systems (the kind that is timed in advance & function as well as crossing gates, but using standard stoplights and no lowerable bars). Some dictionaries, especially older ones, do exclude surface routes, but most dictionaries now focus on the "rapidness" of the rapid transit.

For "rapid" -- the focus of rapid transit -- the speed specifications vary a lot from industry standard and country to country, and government standards, but the generally agreed definition is very similar to metro subway speeds -- minimum speed being a match to the slowest parts of the TTC subway which is fast compared to ordinary buses and ordinary mixed-traffic streetcars.

Some of these cleansheet rapid transit level crossings uses GPS to know approaching LRVs and hold green until whooshing past to a farside stop, so that such intersections, often run thru computer simulations, on a ROW from scratch, is rarely ever red or blocked for the LRT route,

There are indeed flaws in Crosstown, but some assumptions are being made in this thread about the presumed quality of clean-sheet-design rapid transit level crossings.

But you are judging books by the cover without trying modern clean sheet recentbuild rapid transit level crossings.

I have been on LRTs with newbuild level crossings, that are much faster than King TTC or Boston Green Line. Have YOU ridden a non-legacy rapid transit system.

Rapid transit is rapid transit -- if it achieves a rapid-transit speed average (including stopping time), it becomes rapid transit.

5CFA6738-3C2F-46C4-8DFC-FE5776DBBF36.jpeg


An LRT exactly like Crosstown,

With some Level crossings.

Actually with a faster speed than Torontos subway downtown section.

Yes! Level crossing LRT (including stopping time) can beat the average speed of the U part of Yonge Subway!!

For real, actually built!

Confirmed. Actually ridden. Plenty of anecdotes.

Try the proper cleansheet new designs with intersections built from scratch on a totally new line. Not King. Not Boston Green line.

Please do not reply until you ride these proper cleansheet rapid transit level crossing systems that actually exist.

You rode King TTC Pilot? Not modern cleansheet rapid transit surface LRT design.
You rode Boston Green Line? Not modern cleansheet rapid transit surface LRT design.
They may be a "bit" faster than legacy streetcars, but not subway-speed like the Seattle transit-priority design.

Any preemptive categorical claim otherwise is simply guaranteed misinformation based on an assumption from legacy systems. Full stop.

Yes, I know it is Toronto. Yes, I know that the transit priority systems can be watered down. Yes, it can happen. But the diagrams are amazingly identical to the super fast level LRT systems... Have YOU compared the LRT diagrams? I have. The planning drawings of the intersections are quite amazingly similiar to the "rapid-speed-reached" surface crossing systems. They have lots of dedicated right-of-ways (just like Seattle or Crosstown) but with a few surface crossings (just like Seattle or Crosstown) with very optimized traffic priority systems (just like Seattle where trains almost never stop for red lights, and with minimal disruption to cars apparently -- they had a great transit-priority upgrade that delivered great results with trains only stopping at stations -- ).

I can honestly say I won't judge a book by the cover since the characteristics amplify efficiency of traffic priority far beyond Spadina/King -- even before adding the electronics/lights.

Also, don't forget there is -- in the drawings I am looking at on my screen -- Super long platformless sections on both sides of all surface crossings (so advance red-light safing of intersections, just like advance closing of railroad crossing gates....so whoosh thru green lights). and no left turns allowed for long kilometer stretches of Eglinton. They've all been blocked off with curbs - cant turn left into a plaza anymore. And there is no frogs/switches/etc -- just straight track that LRVs can whoosh 50kph (just like Seattle) straight thru a green light.

No skimpy hobbled "TTC transit priority system" that functions far more imperfectly. No need to slow long in advance of farside platform statons. That is not necessary to slow down if intersection is safed/secure (unlike Spadina) -- a special modern cleansheet traffic priority intersection like the Seattle ones (with a "LRT Train" logo next to red light, to tell drivers that it's a railroad crossing in progress; it helps drivers to be a bit patient a little longer, knowing it's a train causing a slightly-longer-than-usual red light) -- will go red to cars similarly in advance like a crossing gate, and sensors make sure cars are verified stopped.

Safed on time (with plenty of time for countdown crosswalks to finish) and the intersection is often red for several seconds before the "proceed" indication is given to LRV. And seconds later, WHOOOSH 50KPH LRV ZOOMS THE GREEN LIGHT (as videoed) at full momentum, treating the intersection like a crossing gate....... (except no gate needed to be lowered!) cuz approaching LRV that goes at predictable speeds over blocks much longer than those on Spadina, and the drawings show shape of the intersections is track speed optimized, unlike the Spadina crossings. There's no left turns to block LRV long before countdown crosswalks finish, many of them have clear unobstructed LRV-only-lanes (no left turns possible at all) that are straight lines for practically about roughly a full kilometer before the level-crossing intersections -- plenty of time for sensors to tell the countdown crosswalks to finish long before the LRV finally coasts through at full momentum. Making possible crossing-gate-quality intersection operation (without lowerable bars) actually ridden for real, like the Seattle one.

A well-timed transit priority system safes the intersection in advance (but not too long in advance like Edmonton crossing-gate bugs). Then once the priority system is done for a crossing LRV, there is often an unusually-long extended green for cars/pedestrians, clearing the cars quite well. This gives drivers compensation for the long red. Late-arriving cars then often don't notice there was a long-extended-red (from a gateless "crossing-gate-quality" transit-priority intersection). Minimizing disruptions to automobiles and pedestrians!

To mods: please move my posts and the other offtopic posts, to the correct ontopic thread.

Okay. Now that I've shut down the misinformation. Back on topic to Union Pearson Express.
 

Attachments

  • 5CFA6738-3C2F-46C4-8DFC-FE5776DBBF36.jpeg
    5CFA6738-3C2F-46C4-8DFC-FE5776DBBF36.jpeg
    193.7 KB · Views: 603
Last edited:

In other words, at least 11K per day (including weekends), 15.4K per weekday (while including weekend ridership) on the low end of the spectrum (assuming only 1 million). Assuming average values (1,125,000), 12.5K and 17.3K. Assuming high end values (1,250,000), 13.9K and 19.2K.

In other words, ridership better than the Richmond Hill, and on par with the Stouffville assuming the lowest possible weekday ridership numbers, and just as good as barrie and Kitchener lines if assuming average weekday values. I wonder how this line has affected the ridership on the Kitchener line, but it's safe to say that this is huge ridership.
 

Back
Top