[RussianCyclist]

Not sure if this has been posted yet, but those complaining of how Transit City is a complete waste, how about making it a real form of rapid transit by removing the stop lights at intersections and instead make a level crossing at intersections with lowering arms that can stop traffic like at a real railway level crossing?

http://maps.google.ca/maps?f=q&sour...=fnBpUvtFGHrEh6YRY4jysg&cbp=12,143.89,,0,6.81

It has been done in Calgary on their C-train system, and it can be done here in Toronto. Opinions?

 

[fanoftoronto]

In those time frames it will be easier to have airbusses to not have to deal with traffic, roads, subways, tracks, or tunnels and be done with it.

Funny, if London had a thought like that in the early 1900's, they'd never have built a 408 km subway system. And guess what, it's the same timeframe and we're still using subways. Oh, and I guess China's wasting Trillions of dollars right now by investing in public infrastructure projects that are based on the ground and not using airbusses.

 

[fanoftoronto]

Not sure if this has been posted yet, but those complaining of how Transit City is a complete waste, how about making it a real form of rapid transit by removing the stop lights at intersections and instead make a level crossing at intersections with lowering arms that can stop traffic like at a real railway level crossing?

http://maps.google.ca/maps?f=q&sour...=fnBpUvtFGHrEh6YRY4jysg&cbp=12,143.89,,0,6.81

It has been done in Calgary on their C-train system, and it can be done here in Toronto. Opinions?

That might work in Calgary, but I wouldn't hold my breath in Toronto, seeing TTC can't even get signal priority for it's streetcar ROWs and such a system requires a lot of coordination between the transit system and intersection signals.

 

[SlickFranky]

That might work in Calgary, but I wouldn't hold my breath in Toronto, seeing TTC can't even get signal priority for it's streetcar ROWs and such a system requires a lot of coordination between the transit system and intersection signals.

The implementation of such a system should be fairly simple, except that the TC routes run down busy arterials that are part of our street grid. It has more to do with the number of level crossings and the frequency of the service, than with complexity or TTC incompetence.

 

[lead82]

This is why cheap measures like signal priority don't do much in Toronto. We're a fairly dense city with lots of intersections and cross-traffic. The only true solution to create good rapid transit is complete grade separated ROW's. TC may improve service quality but will do nothing for speed, and last time I checked speed is a hugely important factor in getting around this congested city, yet the TTC utterly fails to understand this and ignores the fact that people are turned off by surface transit due to it's perceived slow speed. TC doesn't help because the stops are too bloody close to make them 'accessible' to all, while at same time making many people's trips a lot slower in process.

 

[EnviroTO]

TC isn't running on streets in the dense parts of the city with lots of intersections. St.Clair is but it isn't TC.

 

[Dan416]

TC isn't running on streets in the dense parts of the city with lots of intersections. St.Clair is but it isn't TC.

No St Clair isn't TC but it was billed as proto-TC. I do think TC will be better than what we got on St Clair though, since the ROWs are wider.

 

[nfitz]

I do think TC will be better than what we got on St Clair though, since the ROWs are wider.

Surely the more likely reason is that traffic lights are much further apart and there are fewer stops, resulting in design speeds in rush hour of 23 km/hr compared to only 15 km/hr for St. Clair. So a 10 km trip on TC would take 26 minutes compared to 40 minutes on St. Clair (if it were that long) and 20 minutes on a 30 km/hr subway (19 minutes on a 32 km/hr subway).

 

[EnviroTO]

No St Clair isn't TC but it was billed as proto-TC.

St.Clair was a project before Transit City was even conceived. St.Clair is proto-Spadina streetcar / proto-Queens Quay, which is definitely an improvement over the other streetcar lines. It is hard to market St.Clair as proto-TC if TC doesn't exist yet. What actually has happened is that people who don't like TC have billed it as proto-St.Clair.

 

[Dan416]

St.Clair was a project before Transit City was even conceived. St.Clair is proto-Spadina streetcar / proto-Queens Quay, which is definitely an improvement over the other streetcar lines. It is hard to market St.Clair as proto-TC if TC doesn't exist yet. What actually has happened is that people who don't like TC have billed it as proto-St.Clair.

Hmm I think you're misunderstanding the prefix "proto"...

 

[M II A II R II K]

Don't suppose they can make underground stations at major intersections for TC, and cut off the minor roads with it's routes.

 

[Fresh Start]

St.Clair was a project before Transit City was even conceived. St.Clair is proto-Spadina streetcar / proto-Queens Quay, which is definitely an improvement over the other streetcar lines. It is hard to market St.Clair as proto-TC if TC doesn't exist yet. What actually has happened is that people who don't like TC have billed it as proto-St.Clair.

You understand what proto- means right? Proto precedes something, a prototype. Since both the Queens Quay West and Spadina ROWs were built prior to St Clair's dedicated transit-only ROW; they were actually proto-St Clair. And since St Clair comes before Transit City, it's proto-Transit City, the public's clearest indicator of what the TTC has in store for us once it starts constructing it's new lines. At any rate, it's a waste of time to try to define different types of rail transit. There are too many exceptions or hybrids to have a rule. The Boston green line, for example, has a lengthy underground segment, a very long, completely grade separated segment with speeds up to 55mph and distant stops (D), center median running sections with stops every block (B and C) and street running sections that unload directly onto a travel lane (E).

Streetcar, trolley, tram, light rail....who cares? The original plan was to convert a significant portion of it to heavy rail anyway. Humans have a tendency to try to group things, but in the real world, everything is a continuous spectrum. There's no point trying to draw a line because no line exists. Bottom line, I think--stop spacing is important, but so is the exclusivity--more accurately, they go hand in hand. It's pointless to run a mixed traffic service that stops infrequently (for passengers), but still has to contend with stoplights (this is one reason express busses typically run on highways--otherwise, they might as well stop and pick up passengers and run as a local). Likewise, it's usually a waste of money to build grade-separated routes which pick up passengers every couple of blocks.

 

[Fresh Start]

Don't suppose they can make underground stations at major intersections for TC, and cut off the minor roads with it's routes.

I've suggested as much but my concerns fall on deaf ears. Instead of lessening the number of mitigating lights/intersections/stops, Transit City aims to create even more with plans to build stops at Mulham Pl, Ferrand (neither of which connect directly to Eglinton today) and both of which has adjacent bus service (#73/405 and 100/403). Not to mention confusing and pricy Michigan-left U-turn intersections where trenching through the Richview and Cherrywood corridors is a palatable option. You can't claim to be able to sustain subwaylike speeds the whole length of route if your stop spacings aim to slow travel times down to 22 kph along Eglinton East.

 

[W. K. Lis]

You understand what proto- means right? Proto precedes something, a prototype. Since both the Queens Quay West and Spadina ROWs were built prior to St Clair's dedicated transit-only ROW; they were actually proto-St Clair. And since St Clair comes before Transit City, it's proto-Transit City, the public's clearest indicator of what the TTC has in store for us once it starts constructing it's new lines.

What about The Queensway right-of-way for the 501 Queen, which pre-dates all the other right-of-ways (1957)? Except for the South Kingsway stop and the portion east of Parkside Drive, the right-of-way has most of what Transit City could be. Except, again, missing true transit priority at the traffic signals.

 

[nfitz]

Don't suppose they can make underground stations at major intersections for TC, and cut off the minor roads with it's routes.

Well they can; and that's what they are planning with the Eglinton line at Don Mills Road.