News   Jul 12, 2024
199 Church Showcases Heritage Facade and Artwork at Street Level
 862     0 
News   Jul 12, 2024
Six Points Plaza Redevelopment Advances With 36-Storey First Phase
 775     0 
News   Jul 12, 2024
Trading Spaces: Can Real Estate Conversion Help Boost Housing Supply?
 325     0 

MoveOntario 2020

Why stop there? Have a King subway, have a Queen subway, a Dundas subway, a College subway--why, you can replace all the streetcars with subways!

Can't wait 'til the Calvington subway comes about...
 
Don't forget that on the Queen Subway you must run three trains within two minutes of each other then follow up with a ten minute gap, meanwhile short turning two of those trains halfway to the end of the line. Oh, and on Spadina the trains have to stop below every intersection because running straight through would mess up the timing of all the other lines crossing it east-west. The three trains at a time rule applies here as well.

Don't even get me started on the debacle that will be the St. Clair subway. People will be complaining that their sewer rats will be irreparably affected by the utility relocation portion. SOSCS - Save Our St. Clair Subterrania.
 
What if the TTC built the subways this way...

Everyone: I remember reading somewhere comments that the two TTC backbone subway lines should have been designed as 3 or preferably 4 track lines. Imagine how the service would be with them in place! I agree about downtown subway lines to replace congested streetcar lines-my first pick would have been Queen Street. I recall reading with the TTC funding problems that the Sheppard Subway would be closed-Why was that line built in the firstplace in favor of another subway serving downtown which would have more then likely successful from the start? Topics to think about... LI MIKE
 
I'd rather have two additional lines than quadruple tracked B/D & Yonge lines...the benefits to the city would be staggeringly higher.

Sheppard is successful for what it is - partially completed and only a fraction of what it needs to be. Of course a complete Queen line would have been preferable to a very incomplete Sheppard line, but a Queen stubway (or an Eglinton stubway) would be equally [un/]successful.
 
Long Island Mike said:
I remember reading somewhere comments that the two TTC backbone subway lines should have been designed as 3 or preferably 4 track lines.
Click to expand...

The south end of Yonge could not have been 4 tracks unless you stacked them:

OO
OO

They're already close to building foundations that existed at that time (cracked every one of 'em during construction ;).

Besides, if they did that University never would have been built. Essentially the Yonge line south of Bloor is 4 tracks, with 2 separate sets of stations for shorter walking times.

I would rather see another line under Bay or Spadina or Church before quad tracking Yonge.

Ditto for Bloor/Danforth. Build Eglinton, Sheppard, and Queen before quad tracking Danforth.
 
TTC Subway line expansions...

Scarberian and RBT: I agree-adding more tracks to the Yonge line especially would be prohibitely expensive nowadays. Billions of dollars would have to be spent when entirely new lines can be built - Queen Street? I fully agree-a entire new line is better than a stubway to almost nowhere.
RBT: Stacking the tracks under the S end of Yonge would probably indeed be necessary-there is perhaps little room to expand. Stations would have to be built like the NYC Subway 4/5/6 Lexington Avenue Line on Manhattan's Upper East Side-Local above and Express one level below. What the TTC would have to do is build entirely new stations below the existing stations-making the project just too expensive and disruptive to existing operations. What I remember reading the writer was explaining if planners had thought back in the 50s and 60s into the future and looking at ridership 20 or 30 years later on how successful the Yonge line had become. The same can be said about the Bloor-Danforth line also. In closing I feel that the TTC Subway as a whole is a sort-of victim of its own success!! LI MIKE
 
That the city has not resurrected the DRL is completely bizarre to me, as we've discussed here before...and you have to wonder about what a disaster the Yonge line and Y-B interchange will be with Transit City lines feeding into an already overloaded skeletal system.

Some of the Transit City planning is truly weird--for example, the Don Mills LRT: does the TTC think that its commuter ridership is going to be in a huge hurry to get to the corner of Pape and Danforth, or is it heading downtown? Yet those folks will just be dumped onto packed B-D and then Yonge trains. A new downtown-to-suburbs subway line has to come sooner or later--there's just no other way.

And besides, SUBWAYS ARE PREFERABLE TO STREETCARS.

Oops. Heresy alert. Sorry.
 
It seems like only TTC planners are in love with streetcars. The general public prefers subways because they're faster and in their own ROW.
 
I think the TTC commissioners including Miller, Giambrone, and Moscoe can receive almost complete credit for the love of middle-of-the-street light-rail operations. The TTC planners (who by all evidence are very efficient and speedy operation oriented) certainly didn't all of a sudden change their minds one day after decades of plans and studies that included subway lines.
 
I find the current exclusive emphasis on LRT construction (except for subways to parking lots in sparsely populated suburbs, that is) to be very curious, especially given that the TTC routinely ignores the potential of extant rail corridors for running cheap subway-type services. When I sent a letter to the mayor's office asking about using rail corridors I was told that they are impractical because "the city turns its back on them," or some such, which is pretty silly as a justification since that's true everywhere except where, y'know, they happen to intersect major streets.

But hey, let's replicate the St Clair ROW up and down the city, and hope it works.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top