Urban Toronto - Powered by vBulletin
UrbanToronto News - the latest headlines
Engineering Greener Development: Bioswales to Bioretention
ALSO
Page 212 of 218 FirstFirst ... 112162202210211212213214 ... LastLast
Results 3,166 to 3,180 of 3265

Thread: Transit Fantasy Maps

  1. Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Hipster Duck View Post
    I'm still not sold on building the DRL as a GO-REX. There is still a lot of intermediate-level need in a dense, urban city that subways are very good at serving but S-bahn type services are not. For example, stations like Ossington, Christie, Broadview and Lansdowne always get a healthy amount of demand, but they would be difficult to build as S-bahn stations. For one, somebody coming in from Milton doesn't want to stop every 600 meters in the old City of Toronto, even though demand for those stations is probably warranted. Secondly, the cost of building an underground S-bahn station is immense - dwarfing even that of building a subway station. If you've ever been to a Parisian RER station, you'll notice they're built to accommodate 9 or 10 car double decker mainline railway trains, so they're about 200 meters long and have a platform that's wider than what you'll find at Downsview.
    It's hard to make general statements for all possible permutations of DRL layouts, but in this case I don't think there would be a huge tradeoff.

    It's about 6-7 km from Dundas West to the CBD. Current GO trains are scheduled to take 13-15 mins. If we assume a metro-ish subway would travel at 24km/h, that would take about 17-18. Those kinds of time spreads really wont deter many riders. The time savings for riders which would come from serving micro-destinations (e.g. Westcore) would clearly outweigh the time penalties for more frequent service.

    Of course, over an entire line, frequent stations will lead to slow service, so that always needs to be balanced. A of blended line with "urban" 800m spacing south of Bloor and more "regional" spacing (1-2km) elsewhere would provide a good balance. It won't be useful for commuters from the outer edges of the GO network. The YUS line, despite frequent stopping in the 'core,' still seems popular out to Hwy 7. It may even popular because it stops fairly frequently in the core, with stations like College and Dundas accounting for a fair number of destinations.

    Also, stations wouldn't necessarily need to be RER-scale. You rarely see bilevel cars in Japan, despite demand. I don't see why stations would need be appreciably different in scale than current subway standards. Why would demand necessitate a huge capacity increase?
    Last edited by diminutive; 2014-Mar-08 at 21:10.


  2. #3167
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Ottawa (formerly Downtown Toronto)
    Posts
    5,190

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Hipster Duck View Post
    I'm still not sold on building the DRL as a GO-REX. There is still a lot of intermediate-level need in a dense, urban city that subways are very good at serving but S-bahn type services are not. For example, stations like Ossington, Christie, Broadview and Lansdowne always get a healthy amount of demand, but they would be difficult to build as S-bahn stations. For one, somebody coming in from Milton doesn't want to stop every 600 meters in the old City of Toronto, even though demand for those stations is probably warranted. Secondly, the cost of building an underground S-bahn station is immense - dwarfing even that of building a subway station. If you've ever been to a Parisian RER station, you'll notice they're built to accommodate 9 or 10 car double decker mainline railway trains, so they're about 200 meters long and have a platform that's wider than what you'll find at Downsview.
    The flip side of the longer platforms though is that you need fewer stations to have the same amount of coverage. For example, yes there wouldn't be a Christie or a Lansdowne station on a GO REX DRL, but with longer platforms you get more coverage than you would with subway platforms. And the stations could be built in such a way to place entrances even beyond the ends of the platforms, to maximize walking radii even further.

    I do definitely see the argument for more local demand though. But I think that part of the reason why surface transit (particularly streetcar routes) are so crowded is because of the number of long-haul riders on them. Take for example someone getting on at Park Lawn (501) and off at Bay. With the Lakeshore Toronto GO REX, that's probably 1 less person clogging up a streetcar along Queen. That frees up a spot for someone making the trip from Dufferin to Bathurst or Ossington to Spadina.
    Currently looking for a Junior Urban Planner position in the GTA. Please message me if you know any firms or individuals who may be interested!

  3. Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Hipster Duck View Post
    I'm still not sold on building the DRL as a GO-REX. There is still a lot of intermediate-level need in a dense, urban city that subways are very good at serving but S-bahn type services are not. For example, stations like Ossington, Christie, Broadview and Lansdowne always get a healthy amount of demand, but they would be difficult to build as S-bahn stations. For one, somebody coming in from Milton doesn't want to stop every 600 meters in the old City of Toronto, even though demand for those stations is probably warranted. Secondly, the cost of building an underground S-bahn station is immense - dwarfing even that of building a subway station. If you've ever been to a Parisian RER station, you'll notice they're built to accommodate 9 or 10 car double decker mainline railway trains, so they're about 200 meters long and have a platform that's wider than what you'll find at Downsview.
    Definitely. The demand is probably going to keep rising as more people shop and live in the urban west end between Bathurst and the Humber River. There's a need for local rapid transit in this part of the city, and it can't be delivered by regional trains or streetcars.

  4. Default

    Quote Originally Posted by junctionist View Post
    Definitely. The demand is probably going to keep rising as more people shop and live in the urban west end between Bathurst and the Humber River. There's a need for local rapid transit in this part of the city, and it can't be delivered by regional trains or streetcars.
    It's more difficult to build "local" rapid transit nowadays, unfortunately. On short trips, access times become a big deal. The TTC faresystem is also highly biased against local trips, unless you have a metropass.

    Odds are any new subway through downtown will be tunnelled pretty far down, which means lots of escalators and such, which can add a fairly large amount of time to a short trip.

    Though I'm keenly aware that the status quo doesn't exactly work well, either. I spent 40minutes going from Bay to Bathurst yesterday on the 504! That's literally slower than walking.

    I maintain that an EW rapid transit line with ~800m spacing downtown would provide good service to both local and regional travellers, but no line will ever be perfect for everyone.

    The DRL "U" also has an advantage in that the north-south ends of the U would seem to have pretty infrequent stations by nature. For both the East and West end, there'd really only be one station between Bloor/Danforth and Queen.

    P.S. Despite how frequently terms like "local" vs. "regional" get thrown about, I'm not sure anyone could formally define either trip type. Given that routes like Yonge are useful for both local and regional riders, it's worth not playing up the antagonism between the two too much.
    Last edited by diminutive; 2014-Mar-09 at 14:35.

  5. #3170
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    Yonge & Eglinton
    Posts
    1,024

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by diminutive View Post
    It's more difficult to build "local" rapid transit nowadays, unfortunately. On short trips, access times become a big deal. The TTC faresystem is also highly biased against local trips, unless you have a metropass.

    Odds are any new subway through downtown will be tunnelled pretty far down, which means lots of escalators and such, which can add a fairly large amount of time to a short trip.

    Though I'm keenly aware that the status quo doesn't exactly work well, either. I spent 40minutes going from Bay to Bathurst yesterday on the 504! That's literally slower than walking.

    I maintain that an EW rapid transit line with ~800m spacing downtown would provide good service to both local and regional travellers, but no line will ever be perfect for everyone.

    The DRL "U" also has an advantage in that the north-south ends of the U would seem to have pretty infrequent stations by nature. For both the East and West end, there'd really only be one station between Bloor/Danforth and Queen.

    P.S. Despite how frequently terms like "local" vs. "regional" get thrown about, I'm not sure anyone could formally define either trip type. Given that routes like Yonge are useful for both local and regional riders, it's worth not playing up the antagonism between the two too much.
    Exactly, local & regional travel aren't mutually exclusive. Both subway lines are pretty much used now for both short & longer distances. I would say anything between 600m to 2km stop spacing like Bloor or Yonge, with most between 800m to 1km, are viable for a wide variety of trips, from Finch to Union to only one or two stops. Closer stop spacing downtown with larger stop spacing in the suburbs works well in my opinion (like the Yonge line).

    Unfortunately, as your long streetcar trip shows, E-W travel downtown can and should be faster than the current streetcars. Any grade-separated transit line with 600m to 1km stop spacing would cut down significantly on many people's commutes, since most people take either the subway or GO trains downtown, and then take the streetcar to their final destination.

  6. #3171
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Ottawa (formerly Downtown Toronto)
    Posts
    5,190

    Default

    So there was a discussion in the GO Construction thread about transferring some of the mid-regional travel (to Kingston and London for example) from Via to a quasi-GO service. This got me thinking, so I updated my GO REX map to include this type of service. I've called it SOGO (Southern Ontario GO). Large white stations are GO REX stations, small grey stations are SOGO stations, and large grey stations are transfer stations between the two. The end result is that you have trains that run local way further out, but as they reach the edge of GO REX territory, they run express or semi-express into Union.



    Link to full image: https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/...20REX%20v6.jpg
    Currently looking for a Junior Urban Planner position in the GTA. Please message me if you know any firms or individuals who may be interested!

  7. Default

    ^Again, I think there really is a lot of merit in building intermediate level stations that cannot, and should not, be handled by regional rail.

    What sort of message are we sending if we have subway stations at places like Bessarion and Chaplin, but nothing at King and Bathurst? Or Broadview? Or anything in Parkdale between Dufferin and Roncessvalles? You can't get a lot of political support if you expect people in dense urban neighbourhoods to endure years of dirt, detours and delays and then basically run an express train underneath their feet to serve suburbanites.

    Why is there only one stop in the entire financial district for the DRL? Wouldn't that lead to huge dwell times as trains disgorge thousands of passengers?

    Like I said, I support regional rail, but it should stick to the established regional rail corridor (that is, the USRC). Many, if not most, of the trips on the DRL will probably be old City of Toronto residents traveling around the old, urban city, like from Ossington to St. Lawrence market (impossible in your map), or from Roncessvalles to Spadina, or Thorncliffe Park to Sherbourne (15 minute waits).

  8. #3173

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Hipster Duck View Post
    ^Again, I think there really is a lot of merit in building intermediate level stations that cannot, and should not, be handled by regional rail.

    What sort of message are we sending if we have subway stations at places like Bessarion and Chaplin, but nothing at King and Bathurst? Or Broadview? Or anything in Parkdale between Dufferin and Roncessvalles? You can't get a lot of political support if you expect people in dense urban neighbourhoods to endure years of dirt, detours and delays and then basically run an express train underneath their feet to serve suburbanites.

    Why is there only one stop in the entire financial district for the DRL? Wouldn't that lead to huge dwell times as trains disgorge thousands of passengers?

    Like I said, I support regional rail, but it should stick to the established regional rail corridor (that is, the USRC). Many, if not most, of the trips on the DRL will probably be old City of Toronto residents traveling around the old, urban city, like from Ossington to St. Lawrence market (impossible in your map), or from Roncessvalles to Spadina, or Thorncliffe Park to Sherbourne (15 minute waits).
    Absolutely. I like the idea of a central tunnel to serve GO REX, but I believe said tunnel should remain within the railway corridor and go underneath Union. Furthermore, frequent service, electrification, and then switching to EMU should be implemented first and foremost before any tunnelling begins.

    Again, the DRL should function as a dual commuter-local subway line as opposed to catering to one need more than the other. Not to mention the current timeframe for DRL construction seems far more feasible than tunnelling for regional rail.

  9. Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ehlow View Post
    Unfortunately, as your long streetcar trip shows, E-W travel downtown can and should be faster than the current streetcars. Any grade-separated transit line with 600m to 1km stop spacing would cut down significantly on many people's commutes, since most people take either the subway or GO trains downtown, and then take the streetcar to their final destination.
    It's a tricky question, how to improve "local" travel within downtown. As trips become shorter, variables like travel times become less sensitive to vehicle speed than to access times.

    For instance, let's assume a 2km trip from Yonge to Bathurst. A metro (24 km/h) should take 5 minutes, but a decent LRT (16 km/h?) should be about 7-8 minutes. The access times of getting from street to platform level alone would cancel that out.

    For trips under 5km, the most efficient solutions seem to be devoting more roadspace to bike lanes and surface transit.

  10. Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Hipster Duck View Post
    ^Again, I think there really is a lot of merit in building intermediate level stations that cannot, and should not, be handled by regional rail.
    The issue here is coming from establishing commuter/regional rail and local metro as separate categories. There's no reason why you can't have compact station spacing in the core and wider, more commuter friendly, spacing elsewhere.

    Part of me wants to make mention of Japan, where commuter lines regularly run through subway lines, but we could just as easily use the Yonge line, which serves all sorts of commute types.

    If a station has enough residential/employment density and/or connections to justify the ~100-200 million dollars it costs to build an underground station then it may as well be part of the "regional" transit network since obviously there's lots going on there.

    I don't know what situations exist where we could justify the cost of building a new station but not connecting those stations to regional transit networks. The only situations that come to mind are parochial stations like Bessarion.

  11. #3176

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by diminutive View Post
    For trips under 5km, the most efficient solutions seem to be devoting more roadspace to bike lanes and surface transit.
    Is the converse of this true? In the suburbs most trips are over 5km long and devoting roadspace to surface transit is NOT the most efficient solution.

    Quote Originally Posted by diminutive View Post
    The issue here is coming from establishing commuter/regional rail and local metro as separate categories. There's no reason why you can't have compact station spacing in the core and wider, more commuter friendly, spacing elsewhere.
    For Eglinton, I believe that the stations are actually farther through the core (Bayview to Mount Dennis) than they are in the burbs (Wynford to Kennedy).
    Last edited by BurlOak; 2014-Mar-09 at 21:01.

  12. Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BurlOak View Post
    For Eglinton, I believe that the stations are actually farther through the core (Bayview to Mount Dennis) than they are in the burbs (Wynford to Kennedy).
    Yes, though the "core" of Eglinton isn't exactly the "core" of the City. The residential and employment density along Eglinton, outside of Yonge/Eg, really isn't very high. We still see a couple stations with very low local demand (Avenue, Laird, Chaplin ect..) as a result. Those 3-4 stations really wont make life any worse for anyone, though.

    As a general rule, I'd say that a route with wide outer spacing and tight inner spacing is justified if the route passes through an area w/a high density of transit destinations, like a CBD. I'm not sure that's the case with Eglinton.

    Quote Originally Posted by BurlOak View Post
    Is the converse of this true? In the suburbs most trips are over 5km long and devoting roadspace to surface transit is NOT the most efficient solution.
    I'm not sure what the converse of my statement would be... Converse statements of true statements don't have to be true themselves (the converse of cats are mammals is mammals are cats...).

    Anyways, I feel like this is some kind of sideways comment that elevated transit is best. And I wouldn't even disagree, but, as I was talking about downtown, I was assuming elevated transit isn't possible and a simple binary between surface-subsurface transit.

  13. #3178
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Ottawa (formerly Downtown Toronto)
    Posts
    5,190

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Hipster Duck View Post
    ^Again, I think there really is a lot of merit in building intermediate level stations that cannot, and should not, be handled by regional rail.

    What sort of message are we sending if we have subway stations at places like Bessarion and Chaplin, but nothing at King and Bathurst? Or Broadview? Or anything in Parkdale between Dufferin and Roncessvalles? You can't get a lot of political support if you expect people in dense urban neighbourhoods to endure years of dirt, detours and delays and then basically run an express train underneath their feet to serve suburbanites.

    Why is there only one stop in the entire financial district for the DRL? Wouldn't that lead to huge dwell times as trains disgorge thousands of passengers?

    Like I said, I support regional rail, but it should stick to the established regional rail corridor (that is, the USRC). Many, if not most, of the trips on the DRL will probably be old City of Toronto residents traveling around the old, urban city, like from Ossington to St. Lawrence market (impossible in your map), or from Roncessvalles to Spadina, or Thorncliffe Park to Sherbourne (15 minute waits).
    I suppose a station could be added west of University. Perhaps from Spadina stretching eastward, Bathurst stretching westward, and then one centred on Shaw. That would provide a stop spacing that would be suitable to local demand.

    As for the one station in the Financial district, I would think that one larger station would be easier than two smaller stations. That way it can be built as a two-track, 3 platform station. The stop spacing on the east side is very similar to most "traditional" DRL proposals.

    I also chose Queen because then that way, if there is still demand, a TTC DRL can be built under King.
    Currently looking for a Junior Urban Planner position in the GTA. Please message me if you know any firms or individuals who may be interested!

  14. Default

    Fantasy Future streetcar network. Red means there's a ROW while pink means it is running in mixed traffic. I've left out subways an GO lines for clarity.


    Google Map here

    It features a Queensway LRT to Sherway Gardens, Lakeshore West and East LRTs, build out of the streetcars in the portlands. I'm not too sure how feasible some of the additional mixed-traffic streetcars would be. I know there is more than enough room for a streetcar on Shaw/Ossington, although I'm unsure whether terminating the route at Bloor would force too many transfers. As well, while an extension of the Broadview streetcar into East York along Cosburn makes a lot of sense from a network connectivity standpoint, I'm not sure if it would fit.

  15. #3180

    Default

    I'd be more inclined to further extend the Kingston streetcar further along Kingston rather than have it drop down to Queen. I don't know how possible that is anyway, that area is fairly hilly IIRC.
    check out my future toronto renders, complete with colour coding of the stages of construction!

    http://urbantoronto.ca/forum/showthr...ronto-3d-model

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •