Miller will not be running for Mayor, How will this affect Public Transit?

[GraphicMatt]

Haha, right. Likely scenario: According to the head of the International Olympics Committee, Toronto would have surely won their bid had their transit system gone "about 5 kilometres per hour faster" in the northern suburbs.

I really don't mind conversation about alterations within the current plan. What I dislike is people who can't exercise a little bit in pragmatism in the spirit of actually getting something accomplished in the next decade.

I swear, you guys would have torpedoed the Yonge Subway line north of Bloor because the plan didn't call for express tracks.

 

[Ansem]

Haha, right. Likely scenario: According to the head of the International Olympics Committee, Toronto would have surely won their bid had their transit system gone "about 5 kilometres per hour faster" in the northern suburbs.

I really don't mind conversation about alterations within the current plan. What I dislike is people who can't exercise a little bit in pragmatism in the spirit of actually getting something accomplished in the next decade.

I swear, you guys would have torpedoed the Yonge Subway line north of Bloor because the plan didn't call for express tracks.

That's what I've just said.
TC should have been faster and not 22kph. Did I talked about cancelling the whole thing?

By the way, Public transit is more severely judge than you think. I was just saying that my main problem was a lack of rapid transit. In paris, their LRT are not 22kph. Much faster...Why not here?

 

[GraphicMatt]

In paris, their LRT are not 22kph. Much faster...Why not here?

Good question - why not? Could they be? Is the TTC low-balling average speed estimates because this is the first TC line and they'd rather overachieve than underachieve? Are there things that can be done to an at-grade LRT line to make it 5km per hour faster that don't call for ditching the entire plan and building a subway? Wouldn't it be kind of crazy to assume that there isn't?

 

[nfitz]

If at least eglinton, sheppard ect. were going fast enough to be RAPID transit, but that's not the case is it...

The aborted 4.0 km long Eglinton West subway would have had 5 stations, that had a subway train running about once every 5-6 minutes, with an operating speed of 30 km/hr.

The current plan on Eglinton has a 9.7-km long stretch with 12 underground station, with vehicles running every 3-4 minutes, with an operating speed of 30 km/hr

Surely, if the previous 5-station proposal was RAPID transport, then so is the underground portion of the current proposal.

 

[unimaginative2]

Sheppard only has such low ridership because it wasn't finished as planned.

Good points, Keithz, but don't give in to this stuff. It's simply rubbish that Sheppard has low ridership. Until recently, the short little Sheppard stubway had more total riders than the entire L train in New York--a route more than three times the length.

 

[kEiThZ]

Good question - why not? Could they be? Is the TTC low-balling average speed estimates because this is the first TC line and they'd rather overachieve than underachieve? Are there things that can be done to an at-grade LRT line to make it 5km per hour faster that don't call for ditching the entire plan and building a subway? Wouldn't it be kind of crazy to assume that there isn't?

Don't count on them low balling squat. Given that the subway achieves 30 kph, there is no way that a LRT with half the stop spacing and slower top speed could exceed that. I think the 26 kph in the tunnel (where the LRT would also face increased spacing compared to HRT) and the 22-23 kph are perfectly fair estimates of average speed. If anything they are optimistic.

There's only one way to make the LRT faster by 5 kph and that's to increase your stop spacing to over 800m. That's from the Sheppard East EA. And that yields a 27 kph average speed....still slower than the subway.

 

[Ansem]

The aborted 4.0 km long Eglinton West subway would have had 5 stations, that had a subway train running about once every 5-6 minutes, with an operating speed of 30 km/hr.

The current plan on Eglinton has a 9.7-km long stretch with 12 underground station, with vehicles running every 3-4 minutes, with an operating speed of 30 km/hr

Surely, if the previous 5-station proposal was RAPID transport, then so is the underground portion of the current proposal.

And what's wrong about having the WHOLE line being RAPID? There wouldn't be as much opposition if they ...I don't know did it right?

You would have thought that after all those billions, they wouldn't operate at 22kph...maybe not as fast as the subway but they could have done better than 22...

 

[kEiThZ]

The aborted 4.0 km long Eglinton West subway would have had 5 stations, that had a subway train running about once every 5-6 minutes, with an operating speed of 30 km/hr.

The current plan on Eglinton has a 9.7-km long stretch with 12 underground station, with vehicles running every 3-4 minutes, with an operating speed of 30 km/hr

Surely, if the previous 5-station proposal was RAPID transport, then so is the underground portion of the current proposal.

Who's to say it could not have been built upon (referring to the old plan)? Obviously, subway lines are built to be extended. We never build them with the intention of leaving them as stubs (ignore cough sheppard cough). Had that line been in service, today we'd be talking about taking it all the way to Yonge or even Kennedy. That's vision.

Building a transit network should be like building a cathedral. It should take more than a lifetime and should be built to serve the next generation, not just the current one. Transit City is far from anything that will meet our needs for generations to come. Decades from now people are going to be wondering why we didn't build on the subway network when it cost 300M/km and why they have to do it at 500M/km. They are going to wonder why we didn't leave the LRTs to them (at say 100M/km) instead of the HRTs. I bet they'll appreciate Miller then.

As for the Eglinton tunnel. You're right, it's fast but not as fast as you imply. Why are you intentionally misleading in your post about speed? It's only 30 kph in the tunnel is LRT. And it's 22 kph on the surface. Overall the line is still at 26 kph. And that's important to all of us not using the line in the tunneled portion. Of course, none of that addresses the risk to reliability that comes from combining two distinct on-street portions with the grade separated portion. And for this line it's not the speed so much that's the problem it's the operational risks being undertaken, that's bothersome. This line runs the risk of being far less reliable than any subway. Is that acceptable for a vital cross-town route?

 

[nfitz]

Who's to say it could not have been built upon (referring to the old plan)? Obviously, subway lines are built to be extended. We never build them with the intention of leaving them as stubs (ignore cough sheppard cough). Had that line been in service, today we'd be talking about taking it all the way to Yonge or even Kennedy.

If they had have built it, we'd have been debating here whether or not the Eglinton stubway should be converted to LRT, or if the LRT should simply terminate at the 2 ends of the subway (and debating the eastern terminus).

As for the Eglinton tunnel. You're right, it's fast but not as fast as you imply. Why are you intentionally misleading in your post about speed? It's only 30 kph in the tunnel is LRT.

I was only discussing the tunelled portion - and only to point out that you have to consider it rapid transit. I wasn't making any opinion on the surface section. It would be nice to have that rapid transit as well ... but with the $ required, that's a job for another day ... or even generation!