So I have a question, why can NYC subways be long-distance, while Toronto subways can't? If you remember, the NYC express subways have about the same spacing as one concession in Toronto, and if you remember the subway map, the Yonge line north of Eglinton only stops at concessions, save North York Centre station. Also, the Sheppard line has the same kind of stop spacing, save Bessarion station.
NYC subway may not be a very ideal route to take, though. That doesn't mean that I think that subways aren't required on the argued corridors, like Munro et al, but feel that there needs to be a development of express (GO) and local (LRT) forms of transportation as well.
Subway is supposed to be a part local, part regional method of travel. It has significantly higher speeds than busses and LRTs, and it has the capacity to provide a local service while maintaining that speed. Subway is supposed to go in high density corridors, in areas that people may come to it to get to destinations further away.
Subways could be used as a regional route, but when GO alternatives exist, it may not make sense. However on a corridor like Eglinton or Shepard, subway will be required, along with some regional crosstown line(s*).
Umm Crosstown Go lines, or Crosstown Subways? I can agree that many people will switch to Go from subway, but that still leaves a lot of holes in the system. For instance, an Eglinton subway would provide a local service along the high density and fairly redevelopable route that is Eglinton, as well as a longer distance service to Pearson, which can be quite a major trip generator.
Of course. Holes will exist, but if we're looking at the GTA and Goldenhorseshoe as a whole, the majority are living outside the dense city. There's some 6 millon in the GGH outside of Toronto and that'll be a significant source of riders.
]Wait a sec, I'm confused. Is this in the argument against a subway on Sheppard or Eglinton, or for it?
I am not necessarily argueing against either. However, if we're dealing with long range transit, GO is definitely the more ideal form of transporation. I feel that a multiple modes of transpotation with have to be developed in order to serve a variety of populations.
It's obvious that the "low" ridership figures on Sheppard are blasted is founded. Truth is, the figures ought to be viewed as impressive, because the line hasn't been extended to Downsview, nor has it been extended past Kennedy, where the majority of ridership is present.
The line operating at this level isn't that surprising, because it isn't a complete line at all. Most transit development overseas have suggested that if frequency and connectivity is present, riders will use it. That is quite clear even in similar density cities such as Berlin, for example.
Yes, people drive in the suburbs. No surprise. If you want them to get out of their cars, give them rapid transit. I'm sure some will come out for LRT, but a corridor like Eglinton could catch hundreds of thousands of riders, and the service and connectivity is uncomparable to LRT.
The LRTs are part of an overall strategy to maximize the city's taxbase. That is, enhance its very high income population. Developing attractive, green-conscious, where the vast majority use PT is going to be the aim.
LRTs don't have a very high catchment area. That is why we're not seeing bus bays being built in LRT stations that are located in low-density areas. Ironically, the majority living in Toronto are actually low and very low income and will likely be concentrated in those sprawls.
Having said that, subways can certainly do the same, as we see on Sheppard, but LRTs are cheaper and can be placed in numerous locations. That is why it is being built in undesirable areas within Toronto. I think if discussions focused more on aims, the overall objectives will make a lot more sense.
But would the connectivity between Sheppard and the DRL be worth it? I'm sure there's tonnes of ridership that could be milked out of such a line. Don Mills is one of the densest roads in the city, and having a conection with Eglinton to the south and Sheppard to the north could make it's transit usage soar, again, in a way that LRT never could. I think the best reason to extend the DRL north is that, among all these things of density, it could connect with Seneca college, which would make quite an anchor for the line.
I agree. The potential development could result to the establishment of secondary sectors, not just low-level commercial, but research and high level fabrication and production as well. Connecting city centers to downtown and intensifying at downtown levels would result to immense returns.
In addition, subways would connect the local majority to employment generators. It significantly increase its catchment range allowing affordable areas to be served within its range. The bus-feeder system is the reason why Toronto's aggreggate and per capita ridership is much greater than Melbourne despite having a much smaller rail and tram network.