News   Jun 24, 2024
 61     0 
News   Jun 21, 2024
 4.9K     6 
News   Jun 21, 2024
 1.9K     3 

FIXING Transit City

try being at Jane/Falstaff or Jane/Finch at 9PM. Now the tunnel problem could be solved by making Jane terminate on Eglinton and add local service south of Eglinton making the new 35 frequency about 10 minutes apart until the souther ridership is strong and the majority of the people are tired of transfering at Eglinton. Also, current TC projects is phase one of transit city and Future projects is TC phase 2 http://www3.ttc.ca/About_the_TTC/Projects_and_initiatives/Transit_city/Current_Projects/index.jsp
 
try being at Jane/Falstaff or Jane/Finch at 9PM. Now the tunnel problem could be solved by making Jane terminate on Eglinton and add local service south of Eglinton making the new 35 frequency about 10 minutes apart until the souther ridership is strong and the majority of the people are tired of transfering at Eglinton. Also, current TC projects is phase one of transit city and Future projects is TC phase 2 http://www3.ttc.ca/About_the_TTC/Projects_and_initiatives/Transit_city/Current_Projects/index.jsp

So, you're saying don't build the Jane LRT. I agree, don't build it. There won't ever be strong ridership at the south end. That's just the way things go. There's nothing down there that anyone would be travelling to or from and so people along most of Jane will naturally gravitate towards something like the Spadina line if they're going downtown, especially once intervening lines are built (Jane & Finch at 9pm today does not have these lines yet). There is no budget for future phases. Even if work *starts* on Jane, there's no guarantee it'll be built until it's built. Phase 2 might as well not exist, but calling it such is an attempt to keep the floundering plan alive.

Even without a tunnel south of Eglinton, it'll still cost almost a billion dollars.
 
Even without a tunnel south of Eglinton, it'll still cost almost a billion dollars.

Really? A Jane LRT from Steeles station to Don Mills/Eglinton would have been interesting and I believe quite useful (lived on Driftwood during college).
 
Tearing down the SRT just to put up another form of rapid transit is a truly offensive waste of time and especially money to say nothing of the incredible disruption it would have on service while the line is being built.
Extending the B-D to STC is a no win proposition.
Toronto already has a pathetically small rapid transit system to begin with so it doesn't have the money to be throwing around with the end result being not one inch of rapid transit expansion.
I get tired of people bitching about the ICTS. The SRT is nothing like the Vancouver SkyTrain. The new trains are fantastic. SkyTrain has proven itself to be fast, comfortable, safe, quiet and, due to automation, very cheap to run.
The SRT is a failure due to the TTC and Queen's Park NOT because of the technology. From the bizzare connection at Kennedy, having too many stations, not enough trains and using the oldest ever made, ugly stations which are poorly maintained, being too cheap to buy the rail heating mechanisms, and the TTC union demanding they be driver operated which meant a redo of all the cars for non-automated operation.....................the TTC couldn't run the SRT worse if it tried.
Vancouver wanted their SkyTrain to be an excellent rapid/mass transit system and the TTC wanted the SRT to fail and has let it rot praying that someday they can get Queen's Park will build them a new line and hence let the riders suffer.............................both cities got exactly what they wanted.
Also, please don't hit me with the "it doesn't work in the snow" shit. Last year Vancouver got 60cm of snow in just 4 days..................even by Toronto standards a good hammering but the SkyTrain didn't stop for 5 minutes despite the fact that it doesn't even have the heating mechanisms. All they did was run one of the Mark1 cars {not trains} every 10 minutes along the track overnight which is only 5 hours. It's automated so it cost next to nothing. That wouldn't have at all been needed if the trains tracks were heated.
Would I build a ICTS system if I didn't already have one?...............no, I would build a monorail but that doesn't change the fact that SkyTrain has been a stellar success. Comparing the new SkyTrain MK11 cars to the crates you run is like comparing the PCC to the new LRT cars that have been ordered. They run on tracks but similarities end there.
I would also like to know how many at the TTC . Metrolinx, and City Hall are getting their palms greased over the costs they presented for an SRT revamp and extension to Sheppard. How is it that Translink is going to be building a new 11km SkyTrain line, thru a very hilly part of the city and will include a one km tunnel for $1.4 but somehow Toronto 2km extension to Sheppard and some upgrades to the route to allow for MK11 trains is going to becoming in at $2 billion?
I guess it's that TTC math again like where TC was suppose to cost $6 billion but within 18 short months went to $9 billion. Pretty funny how City Hall and the TTC didn't provide their updated figures until AFTER Queen's Park agreed to pay for it.
TransitCity is dead but Toronto mass/rapid transit expansion in any areas that are not in the original City will go no where until someone stands up and bluntly states that any new line with 100% grade separation will be elevated or use rail ROW and tunneling will only be used in very rare occasions. Transit expansion in Toronto will go no where and . quite frankly, if Toronto is determined to tunnel in the burbs then that is exactly where it should go.
 
Tearing down the SRT just to put up another form of rapid transit is a truly offensive waste of time and especially money to say nothing of the incredible disruption it would have on service while the line is being built.
Extending the B-D to STC is a no win proposition.
Toronto already has a pathetically small rapid transit system to begin with so it doesn't have the money to be throwing around with the end result being not one inch of rapid transit expansion.
I get tired of people bitching about the ICTS. The SRT is nothing like the Vancouver SkyTrain. The new trains are fantastic. SkyTrain has proven itself to be fast, comfortable, safe, quiet and, due to automation, very cheap to run.
The SRT is a failure due to the TTC and Queen's Park NOT because of the technology. From the bizzare connection at Kennedy, having too many stations, not enough trains and using the oldest ever made, ugly stations which are poorly maintained, being too cheap to buy the rail heating mechanisms, and the TTC union demanding they be driver operated which meant a redo of all the cars for non-automated operation.....................the TTC couldn't run the SRT worse if it tried.
Vancouver wanted their SkyTrain to be an excellent rapid/mass transit system and the TTC wanted the SRT to fail and has let it rot praying that someday they can get Queen's Park will build them a new line and hence let the riders suffer.............................both cities got exactly what they wanted.
Also, please don't hit me with the "it doesn't work in the snow" shit. Last year Vancouver got 60cm of snow in just 4 days..................even by Toronto standards a good hammering but the SkyTrain didn't stop for 5 minutes despite the fact that it doesn't even have the heating mechanisms. All they did was run one of the Mark1 cars {not trains} every 10 minutes along the track overnight which is only 5 hours. It's automated so it cost next to nothing. That wouldn't have at all been needed if the trains tracks were heated.
Would I build a ICTS system if I didn't already have one?...............no, I would build a monorail but that doesn't change the fact that SkyTrain has been a stellar success. Comparing the new SkyTrain MK11 cars to the crates you run is like comparing the PCC to the new LRT cars that have been ordered. They run on tracks but similarities end there.
I would also like to know how many at the TTC . Metrolinx, and City Hall are getting their palms greased over the costs they presented for an SRT revamp and extension to Sheppard. How is it that Translink is going to be building a new 11km SkyTrain line, thru a very hilly part of the city and will include a one km tunnel for $1.4 but somehow Toronto 2km extension to Sheppard and some upgrades to the route to allow for MK11 trains is going to becoming in at $2 billion?
I guess it's that TTC math again like where TC was suppose to cost $6 billion but within 18 short months went to $9 billion. Pretty funny how City Hall and the TTC didn't provide their updated figures until AFTER Queen's Park agreed to pay for it.
TransitCity is dead but Toronto mass/rapid transit expansion in any areas that are not in the original City will go no where until someone stands up and bluntly states that any new line with 100% grade separation will be elevated or use rail ROW and tunneling will only be used in very rare occasions. Transit expansion in Toronto will go no where and . quite frankly, if Toronto is determined to tunnel in the burbs then that is exactly where it should go.
Well said.....................I couldn’t have said it better myself. I support subway expansion but when involves replacing one rapid transit for another and without any real expansion one really needs to question the project. I'm hoping Fords team realize how much cheaper it would be to revamp the existing line. And then use the left over money on another subway project like Eglinton or maybe Sheppard West.
 
The problem with keeping the SRT in any way is that it should never have been built in the first place. The SRT was a white elephant from the start, and it has almost always been the intention to extend the B-D since a few years after the SRT's construction. You could say "oh, well it's just a single transfer, what harm could that do?" Well what if you had an SRT starting at Eglinton on the Yonge line that went up to North York? Would you say that it's better to just keep the transfer that fragments the transit network and will provide a lasting inconvenience, or extend the subway instead? Especially since the SRT is needing to be replaced anyways, the extra cost of extending the subway to what it's terminus should be becomes a lot more trivial.

But really, the entire Transit city argument is grabbing the cash and running vs. taking time to invest in what we need. If we could spend all the TC money on a single transit line that'll last and be useful for a hundred years, is that better than maybe 3 that could be rendered inept in 30 years? Obviously, I myself would go with the former. The diehard TC supporters may say that Eglinton, Sheppard, and the B-D extension to STC are "well below subway capacity," but I'd question what "subway capacity" is. Is it that the new line has to have 1/2 of Yonge's ridership by day 1? If we judged all our subways like that, we would have no subway network at all, and I'd like to see transit within the city get by without the YUS or B-D. Just look the Sheppard stubway: in less than 10 years, it's ridership has exploded and it's attracted development all around it. Could the same thing not happen to Eglinton, which basically already has subway-level ridership around it's core?

If I were to "fix" transit city, I'd first cut off the long arm of Eglinton that's slated to be at-grade right now, keeping the Keele-Don Mills portion grade-separated transit, elevated east of Laird. Then, build the Finch West LRT and extend the B-D. With those funds, you demonstrate what LRT can and can't do on a safe route for testing LRT's capabilities (Finch, rather than a route that would be better slated for subway,) you give Eglinton the extra capacity it needs while proving elevated RT, and you fix Kennedy-STC transit.
 
But really, the entire Transit city argument is grabbing the cash and running vs. taking time to invest in what we need. If we could spend all the TC money on a single transit line that'll last and be useful for a hundred years, is that better than maybe 3 that could be rendered inept in 30 years? Obviously, I myself would go with the former. The diehard TC supporters may say that Eglinton, Sheppard, and the B-D extension to STC are "well below subway capacity," but I'd question what "subway capacity" is. Is it that the new line has to have 1/2 of Yonge's ridership by day 1? If we judged all our subways like that, we would have no subway network at all, and I'd like to see transit within the city get by without the YUS or B-D. Just look the Sheppard stubway: in less than 10 years, it's ridership has exploded and it's attracted development all around it. Could the same thing not happen to Eglinton, which basically already has subway-level ridership around it's core?

Does it really though? Aren't the forecast 2031 demand levels in the 5000 - 6000 per hour level? That's well within the range of the planned LRT, so I'd say your "rendered inept in 30 years" description is just a tad exaggerated.

If I were to "fix" transit city, I'd first cut off the long arm of Eglinton that's slated to be at-grade right now, keeping the Keele-Don Mills portion grade-separated transit, elevated east of Laird.

How would your elevated structure deal with the railway overpass just east of Leslie?

How would you access the LRV car house at Black Creek if you aren't doing an at-grade intersection or will you not extend the line that far?
 
Tearing down the SRT just to put up another form of rapid transit is a truly offensive waste of time and especially money to say nothing of the incredible disruption it would have on service while the line is being built.
Extending the B-D to STC is a no win proposition.

The TTC is looking at converting the line to LRT because the equipment is at the end of its designed lifespan. There is no rolling stock currently in production that could be bought and run on the line as is.
 
There is no rolling stock currently in production that could be bought and run on the line as is.
There is however existing Mark I rolling stock in Vancouver that TTC could try and purchase to relieve congestion for the next 10 years until the SRT is replaced (or 5 years until the upgrade begins).

And one could still issue a tender for Mark I compatible rolling stock. It was a special order 30 years ago, so no reason it couldn't be special order today.
 
There is however existing Mark I rolling stock in Vancouver that TTC could try and purchase to relieve congestion for the next 10 years until the SRT is replaced (or 5 years until the upgrade begins).

I believe Vancouver wanted Mark II replacements for any Mark I sold. Essentially, Toronto buys them brand new stuff (retail price) and we get their old used stuff.

They may say something different today, IIRC they asked when the original SRT report was being written which was 2005 (before Transit City was announced).
 
There is however existing Mark I rolling stock in Vancouver that TTC could try and purchase to relieve congestion for the next 10 years until the SRT is replaced (or 5 years until the upgrade begins).

An expensive short term solution if the line is going to need to go down for conversion to LRT, especially since the TTC's implementation of ART isn't even standard for ART so Vancouver's equipment can't simply be delivered and run.

And one could still issue a tender for Mark I compatible rolling stock. It was a special order 30 years ago, so no reason it couldn't be special order today.

You could do a special order but that perpetuates inflated purchase and maintenance costs for a system that even new wasn't as reliable as the streetcars or the subway.
 
How would you access the LRV car house at Black Creek if you aren't doing an at-grade intersection or will you not extend the line that far?

Can the line emerge from the portal just west of Keele, go elevated over Black Creek with the carhouse connection being elevated as well, and then dip into a portal again just before Weston?
 
Does it really though? Aren't the forecast 2031 demand levels in the 5000 - 6000 per hour level? That's well within the range of the planned LRT, so I'd say your "rendered inept in 30 years" description is just a tad exaggerated.
To be blunt, I don't trust the TTC's estimates. And again, conditions on Eglinton are basically the exact same (if not even better for transit,) as the B-D was at the time of its construction. And would you argue that transit in the city would be better if the B-D was LRT past Keele and Pape? I really doubt so. There is such a thing as investing in your future.

How would your elevated structure deal with the railway overpass just east of Leslie?

How would you access the LRV car house at Black Creek if you aren't doing an at-grade intersection or will you not extend the line that far?
1. Just drop it down to approximately street level. The intersection at Leslie is over 150 meters away from the underpass, which means less than a 5% gradient, which a subway should be able to handle.

2. Just don't have a carhouse at Black Creek? Or you could have the line terminate at Black Creek rather than Keele and just change the carhouse design.
 
To be blunt, I don't trust the TTC's estimates. And again, conditions on Eglinton are basically the exact same (if not even better for transit,) as the B-D was at the time of its construction. And would you argue that transit in the city would be better if the B-D was LRT past Keele and Pape? I really doubt so. There is such a thing as investing in your future.

Car ownership was much lower back then. If the Bloor-Danforth was initially built as LRT there might be subway service from Jane to Victoria Park and LRT service from Mississauga Centre to Jane and Victoria Park to Malvern which I don't think would be that bad. There is such a thing as investing in your future but investing in your future usually means working to buy a condo fresh out of university rather than buying a four bedroom house fresh out of university. You may eventually need the four bedroom house but having a condo first still makes more sense. The condo gives you value that can make getting the four bedroom house easier down the road.
 

Back
Top