Undead
Senior Member
Shh and repeat after me: elevated rail is what we need in the suburbs...
|
|
|
Finch West Line 6 LRT
- Thread starter Monarch Butterfly
- Start date
urbanclient
Active Member
At the risk of derailing this thread, I'll address the subway issue you have brought up. I firmly believe the issue is we have NOT invested enough in subways historically. Bear in mind, I actually do not think any part of Finch deserves a subway right now or shovels in ground for the next 10 years. The density is just too low. As an aside, Finch LRT was executed mediocrely with travel times likely above the advertised 34 minutes.
I will compare Toronto and its subway to cities/urban areas/metropolitan areas that are similar in land area and population density. To make things fair, I will exclude China and compare to near peer developed nations. *Subways = Metro, short for metropolitan railway which can be elevated, on or under the ground, as long as it's grade separated.
Data from Stats Canada July 1, 2024 estimates.
3.3million 630 sqkm: Toronto city proper
7.1 million 5900 sqkm: Toronto CMA
7.7 million 7123 sqkm: Greater Toronto Area (GTA)
8.3 million 8244 sqkm: Greater Toronto and Hamilton Area (GTHA)
Toronto: 70.1 km of subway
Vienna: 83.9 km of subway;
2 million 414 sqkm, smaller, less dense city proper, metro area much smaller and less dense
Busan: 116.5 km subway;
3.3 million 770 sqkm, less dense city proper, metro less dense
Madrid: 296.6 km subway;
3.3 million 604 sqkm, slightly denser city proper
7 million 8028 sqkm, smaller and less dense Community of Madrid
Chicago: 165.4km 'L';
2.7 million 607 sqkm, smaller, less dense city proper, similar density urban area?
"Urban area" is cherry picked heavily making comparison difficult: https://censusreporter.org/profiles/40000US16264-chicago-il-in-urban-area/
Randstad: 145.8km subway;
7.15 million 6296 sqkm, similar density constituent cities, urban areas, and wider "conurbation" area
Athens: 91.7km subway;
3.05 million 412 sqkm, denser urban area,
3.7 million 2928 sqkm, less dense metropolitan area
It's fair to say, Toronto is lacking in subway network length compared to peer cities. The fact that Toronto currently has less subway than Vancouver and Montreal and will have less or equal subway for the foreseeable future is absolutely pitiful. Roughly speaking, Montreal is 2/3rds the size and Vancouver is 1/3rd the size of Toronto.
Thaboss
Active Member
Let me be the first to say that i love the technology used on the REM. However, if you're going to compare toronto transit to montreal transit while excluding regional rail in the gta but including regional montreal rail in the REM. (Yes, the rem is regional rail essentially). We're not really having a conversation here.
Frankly montreal regional transit taken as a whole, lags torontos regional transit right now, even when factoring for rem exstentions opening next year, and especially when considering montreals post REM plans which are downright aweful.
At this rate, in 10-15 years, it won't even be close between the two regions. However, there's no doubt that downtown montreal will have much better subway connections than dt toronto.
Last edited:
urbanclient
Active Member
Relative to population of the wider region, and the transit needs of the downtown core, Montreal does a much better job than Toronto for rapid and regional transit when you consider it is only 2/3rds the size at most. Higher ridership per capita should be your first hint.
I'm not even going to factor in streetcars because their capacity and ridership is little different from buses.
rdaner
Senior Member
^Thanks! I assume the 70.1km of rail is pre-Finch/Eglinton?
Thaboss
Active Member
I agree, montreals rappid transit is better. I did a stealth edit to mention this. However, regional transit in montreal is exceptionally subpar, such that I think things tip in torontos favor.
For ex. Its hard for me to overstate how much better torontos bus network is vs montreals.
I also think montreals post rem plans are terrible, especially when compared to Torontos regional expansion. I include hurnotario LRT in this btw.
It will take sometime but I firmly believe the debate of toronto transit vs montreal transit will be over in 10 years and decidedly in torontos favour.
A 6264
Active Member
At the risk of being told, "you're crazy" (go ahead and say it, I probably am anyway 
), what if, 40 years from now, Toronto decides that it wants to run subway trains where the Eglinton and Ontario lines are now? We've already got tunnels and elevated sections for much of the lines, we might have to replace tracks and rebuild platforms, but it may be really cheap to convert. Today's half measures could be tomorrow's foresight.
), what if, 40 years from now, Toronto decides that it wants to run subway trains where the Eglinton and Ontario lines are now? We've already got tunnels and elevated sections for much of the lines, we might have to replace tracks and rebuild platforms, but it may be really cheap to convert. Today's half measures could be tomorrow's foresight.urbanclient
Active Member
Yes, current subway network length is 70.1 km. Line 6 Finch West certainly does not qualify to be called subway or metro.
Line 5 Eglinton is a stretch, one could argue ~11km of it is fully grade separated, but its realistic capacity and reliability of service is unclear.
Inclusion of Line 5 would make an apples to apples comparison difficult because many European cities have stadtbahn, sometimes called u-bahn despite running tram/LRT rolling stock, tram-train, as well as fast tram systems partially grade separated. By that vague standard, there may be many more cities that have longer networks than Toronto, but their ridership and capacity is lower, which makes it unfair to rag on Toronto more than I already have.
urbanclient
Active Member
There are examples of this already in China, where ridership blew past estimates, or eventually grew to exceed the design capacity of a line. There is little more the transit authority could do beyond maybe extending platform length and adding cars to each train set. The rolling stock could not be changed due to tunnel loading gauge. Given the very, very generous budgets the Chinese are working with, you would think they could do something more. To avoid making the same mistake, virtually all new subway lines in large cities are built for the widest and longest rolling stock, i.e. Type A, 3 metre wide, 8 car trains, even when older lines with more demand are stuck with Type B, 2.8 metre wide, 6 car trains.At the risk of being told, "you're crazy" (go ahead and say it, I probably am anyway
Further reading on lines stuck with 2.6 metre wide Type C trains:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shanghai_Metro#Class_C_cars
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Line_6_(Shanghai_Metro)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Line_8_(Shanghai_Metro)
I suspect even Ontario line platform length extensions beyond 100 metres would be financially impractical for us. I fail to see how a Line 5 conversion to subway rolling stock would be remotely financially feasible. Probably cheaper to build a fully new line along another east-west corridor.
canucks2030
New Member
The REM is acting like a subway and not regional rail with trains every few mins all day long. The closest to the REM in Toronto will be the future Ontario Line but REM a much bigger project. Furthermore a lot of the stations are not regional rail with most stations on Montreal island and a few around downtown like Gare Centrale and Mcgill. We cannot compare the REM with GO. With the REM you do not need to look at the schedule, with GO you still need to plan your trip. Toronto win over Montreal with regional rail, but Montreal win to provide fast subway service. It’s mind boggling Toronto have not open a new subway like in decades. If they did I would be much less critical of Finch West. Toronto deserved more frequent and grade separated transit.
yurt2022
New Member
When I used the 512 replacement shuttle when it was shut down a few months back it was significantly faster than the actual St. Clair streetcar that has its own ROW. I have similar experiences on most downtown shuttles and way faster service on routes like the 503, especially in the east end.
The subway slow zones are again a result of the TTC's overzealous approach to "safety."
Also, the SRT could've have solved its snowfall operation issues, as the TTC wanted to instal heated tracks and reaction rails back in the day amongst other modifications. However, the province refused to cover the costs of these retrofits.
Thaboss
Active Member
Acting like a subway? Yes. But frequency doesn't preclude transit from being a regional connector. The generous station spacing and the fact that most stations are far outside the urban core make it clear that the REM is a regional transit/subway hybrid. Need more proof? A large portion of the REM’s ROW and stations were converted over from Exo, Montreal’s heavy rail provider. It is essentially a modern interpretation of regional rail, similar to what is seen in Southeast Asia.
Station location is a function of network design, not form. For example, there are roughly 19 GO stations within Toronto proper (more than the REM!) and some corridors see sub-10-minute frequency (Kitchener/UPX). Yet exactly zero people would call the GO Train anything but regional rail, even if that frequency were to be extended throughmuch of the network in the future (which it will).
With that being said, while the REM is fantastic, its coverage falls well short of what GO Transit currently offers and will offer in the future. This is true even with Metrolinx descoping network expansion, and especially true after the cancellation of the REM de l'Est.
To reiterate, based on the transit plans we know are being worked on in both regions, I would not place montreals regional plans on the same plane as those in toronto..outside of the rem, theres just nothing else of the same scale happning in montreal. I suggest you look through these threads some more to get a better sense of where transit in the region is going. Both in terms of planned and funded extension.
Last edited:
smallspy
Senior Member
And what are the ridership numbers per kilometer of route for each of those cities?
And what is the budget to maintain them?
It's easy to yell "SUBWAYS SUBWAYS SUBWAYS" without having the foggiest notion of what it costs to run them. Building them is one thing. Keeping them running after is another.
About 20 years ago, the TTC estimated that it cost $7mil per kilometer just to maintain the subway each year. That was to maintain the rails, power supply, lighting, signals, equipment, structure, life safety, etc. If we assume that it's increased with inflation, that means that the TTC is spending over $700mil per year on maintaining it today - a quarter of their operating budget.
Yes, the subway is the backbone of the TTC's network. Yes, it costs a lot, but it also handles the largest part of the ridership. But that's also because it has been built in places that (for the most part) can justify putting it there. Building subways willy-nilly is going to cause an operational spiral where costs increase, and ridership and revenue won't keep up. Nevermind the fact that, as T3G correctly pointed out further up, that the capital budget isn't an open purse, either.
Dan
Monarch Butterfly
Superstar
With no cash fare box on the on the vehicles, we can expect confusion with some potential riders. Mostly low income, immigrants, some seniors (I'm a senior, but used PRESTO from day one). I remember seeing a someone try to insert a TTC ticket on a new Flexity Outlook streetcar, at the time, in the key hole of the operator cab. Can expect to see some uneducated people try to pay with cash inside the Flexity Freedom light rail vehicle.
KhalilHeron
Active Member
Checking apple maps, it looks like the 36 already runs only every 10 minutes after 10:20pm anyways. How would keeping the current frequencies be disastrous?