Danforth Line 2 Scarborough Subway Extension

[robmausser]

Advantages
Compared to steel wheel on steel rail, the advantages of rubber-tyred metro systems are:

• Smoother rides (with little jostling around).

I've always felt this advantage to be complete BS.

If you've ever ridden on the Metro you know its a very jostly and bumpy ride.

 

[robmausser]

To the contrary, it was a terrible idea and has permanently hamstrung the potential expansion of their system.

They are now forced to build all extensions underground, with all of the associated costs that go along with that. And because of the cost of tunneling, the equipment is much smaller than it could have been otherwise.

Not only that but because of the tunneling method and size, they can never have Air Conditioning. There isn't the proper ventilation in the tunnels and the trains are too small to fit the equipment.

Gonna be a fun ride in the coming years with the warming of the climate.

 

[Cobra]

To the contrary, it was a terrible idea and has permanently hamstrung the potential expansion of their system.

Nothing stops them from using Skytrain or LRT technology to complement the Metro

They are now forced to build all extensions underground, with all of the associated costs that go along with that. And because of the cost of tunneling, the equipment is much smaller than it could have been otherwise.

There's no space on Jean-Talon for the blue line, or Decarie on the Orange line, or anywhere in that city. Montreal doesn't have as many large boulevards that Toronto does. Montreal is already very limited in places they could build at grade or elevated. Besides, the REM will serve the west Island. As for cost, yes it's more expensive underground but still way cheaper than Toronto as it's easier to build subways in Montreal than Toronto

Not even remotely close to true. The performance of the rubber-tired equipment is virtually identical to that of steel-wheeled equipment, including acceleration and deceleration.

You can't beat the better traction provided by rubber tires, this means it can handle greater slopes then it would with just steel wheels. Its fact that the Metro has a far better acceleration and breaking capacity than steel wheels and provides smoother and quieter rides.

 

[Cobra]

I've always felt this advantage to be complete BS.

If you've ever ridden on the Metro you know its a very jostly and bumpy ride.

Because the trains are OLD. over 50 years old on the MR-63. The new MPM-10 is radically different

 

[W. K. Lis]

Because the trains are OLD. over 50 years old on the MR-63. The new MPM-10 is radically different

The MPM-10 Metro trains are still not air-conditioned, though they are supposed to have better ventilation. OK for winter, but not so in summer.

 

[smallspy]

You can't beat the better traction provided by rubber tires, this means it can handle greater slopes then it would with just steel wheels. Its fact that the Metro has a far better acceleration and breaking capacity than steel wheels and provides smoother and quieter rides.

Except that it doesn't. The maximum grades capable are the same as Toronto's subway, for instance. The acceleration and deceleration rates are the same as any modern subway car.

And quieter? No. It's almost impossible to have a conversation on the Metro without yelling. Smoother? Perhaps in your eye, but I never found it to be. I have no problems standing still on a Toronto subway without holding anything - I've never been able to do that in Montréal.

Montréalers need to get over this complex that they have in thinking that their subway is superior because it's different, or unique, or Parisian. It's not. It's design and specifications were a mistake, and they will continue paying for it as long as they continue to blindly exclaim it to be.

Dan
Toronto, Ont

 

[Cobra]

The MPM-10 Metro trains are still not air-conditioned, though they are supposed to have better ventilation. OK for winter, but not so in summer.

The STM said that the stations are not designed to handle the extra heat generated by AC on subway trains. That's the "official" excuse

 

[nfitz]

If you've ever ridden on the Metro you know its a very jostly and bumpy ride.

I've never noticed that. Given when I used to live in Montreal, I often didn't hold on, because it was such a smooth ride - more so because of the automatic train control, than the wheels. You don't get the unexpected stops and starts, when the operator hits the break/accelerator.

Were you on the yellow line per chance, which is rather bumpy.

And if ATU is down, then it does indeed get rough (because they don't have automatic train control, and most operators never get much practice) - but that's rare. In fact, they might not even let them do that any more.

 

[salsa]

I'm amazed at how often this idea of "moving STC" to Kennedy comes up, as if it's a serious solution that's actually viable. What that really means is to disinvest in that area and give up on it entirely, for the sole purpose of cheaping out on t money by building less transit. I assume that plan includes demolishing the existing mall and other assets after it's "moved" somewhere else. This is not a solution.

Besides, how is there enough land at Kennedy station to fit a shopping mall? Is that even the best land use for a transit hub? What purpose would it serve when there's already a ton of retail that exists nearby in the Golden Mile area? How do you convince a privately owned mall to just pack up and leave from a successful location that they invested in for decades?

This idea makes no sense at all. How about we just pick a transit plan, stick to it for once, get the costs under control, find a way to pay for it and be done with it.

 

[Cobra]

Except that it doesn't. The maximum grades capable are the same as Toronto's subway, for instance. The acceleration and deceleration rates are the same as any modern subway car.

I have yet to see a TTC train accelerate as fast as Montreal trains, never seen it and the different is very obvious. As for deceleration/breaking, Montreal trains are almost dangerous if you're not holding on something when that thing breaks.

And quieter? No. It's almost impossible to have a conversation on the Metro without yelling.

That has more to do with those old trains being soundproof. MPM-10 address that.

Smoother? Perhaps in your eye, but I never found it to be. I have no problems standing still on a Toronto subway without holding anything - I've never been able to do that in Montréal.

The train were getting very old and their suspension getting worse overtime was getting obvious. MPM-10 address that and as for standing, the breaking power of those trains makes it a very bad idea not to hold on to something. I've seen people sent flying...literally

Montréalers need to get over this complex that they have in thinking that their subway is superior because it's different, or unique, or Parisian.

They aren't thinking that. But it's too late to switch now. However, the trains have been automated since (dare I say the 70s), stations are cleaner (although Byford did turned out around), and just looks better overall (try any website listing the best looking subways in the world and Montreal is mentioned way more often than Toronto). Montreal has it's flaws of course but it's a system praised worldwide.

 

[APTA-2048]

Like I said, you don't have to agree with the current location of the town centre but the highway IS an advantage. Its already a transit hub with the SRT, GO Buses and TTC, but it can be radically improved and made to be more desirable to capture more of 905 coming into the city and shop/play at STC or use the subway instead of them driving on the DVP. I hope I'm not shocking you by saying that 905ers aren't using the SRT.

Also, STC could be an option for young families pursuing the urban life who can't afford it downtown. Best for the city that they choose STC than Oshawa

I doubt you will attract many people from the 905 with the subway to STC. Often times the GO train and GO bus offer a faster and more direct trip downtown—as they are expected to. As for making STC a destination itself (making it more urban) that is never a bad thing of course.

 

[nfitz]

I'm amazed at how often this idea of "moving STC" to Kennedy comes up, as if it's a serious solution that's actually viable. What that really means is to disinvest in that area and give up on it entirely ...

Did I start this?

When I said move STC, I wasn't referring to the mall, but the development. And obviously everything existing near McCowan stays. Simply that you encourage and let major development occur at Eglinton/Kennedy - and I don't think that would include a large covered mall.

 

[Cobra]

Did I start this?

When I said move STC, I wasn't referring to the mall, but the development. And obviously everything existing near McCowan stays. Simply that you encourage and let major development occur at Eglinton/Kennedy - and I don't think that would include a large covered mall.

I see both node intensifying.

 

[salsa]

Did I start this?

No it was sixrings and irishmonk.

 

[sixrings]

Rezone the kennedy/eglinton area. Build new government buildings here. Shut down the government buildings at STC. Offer the ttc parking lots to the mall owners. Inform them you will not be building transit to STC, will be removing the go bus and will not be replacing the rt.

I'm amazed at how often this idea of "moving STC" to Kennedy comes up, as if it's a serious solution that's actually viable. What that really means is to disinvest in that area and give up on it entirely, for the sole purpose of cheaping out on t money by building less transit. I assume that plan includes demolishing the existing mall and other assets after it's "moved" somewhere else. This is not a solution.


View attachment 98786




Besides, how is there enough land at Kennedy station to fit a shopping mall? Is that even the best land use for a transit hub? What purpose would it serve when there's already a ton of retail that exists nearby in the Golden Mile area? How do you convince a privately owned mall to just pack up and leave from a successful location that they invested in for decades?

This idea makes no sense at all. How about we just pick a transit plan, stick to it for once, get the costs under control, find a way to pay for it and be done with it.