Toronto/Chicago comparisons

[denfromoakvillemilton]

If you use enough trips in a month that a Metropass is cheaper than using tokens (or Presto), it's a bargain.

Not sure how saving money is a rip-off.

I use presto. 2.70 per day. Fare is 3.00+ now.

 

[doady]

Annual Boardings, 2011

Mississauga Transit - 49.3 million
PACE Suburban Bus - 37.3 million

 

[nfitz]

I use presto. 2.70 per day. Fare is 3.00+ now.

I'm still paying $115.50 per month with annual TTC metropass subscription (it will rise to $117.75 in June for me). After the 15% federal tax credit that's $98.18 a month (increasing to $100.09). I averaged about 62 TTC trips a month with the pass last year - that's $1.86 a trip (increasing to $1.90).

Seems a bargain to me compared to $2.65 with token or Presto (though I guess with Presto, it would be $2.25 a trip if you ride enough to trigger the tax credit).

 

[Ladies Mile]

As mentioned before, Toronto is on track to have a rapid transit system of just under 200 km within the next 10-15 years.



I would lose all faith in Toronto if that was built. It's an embarrassment.

We already have something somewhat like that. It's called the Gardiner Expressway.

In any case, unwieldy as the El may be, the pictures of it do carry a sense of urban frisson that is quite stirring, even to a confirmed realist such as myself. The top picture is a stunning array of metropolitan grandeur and the bottom one suggests a Constructivist fantasy.

 

[bleu]

If you use enough trips in a month that a Metropass is cheaper than using tokens (or Presto), it's a bargain.

Not sure how saving money is a rip-off.

It is a rip-off if you look at London's Oyster card, which allows to you pay bulk purchase price per trip subject to a monthly cap (beyond which no more charges).
It gives one the flexibility of not having to buy a monthly pass but enjoying the benefit of it in case you end up making a lot more trips than you expect. That's what I call a nicely designed system FOR its customers, not to reap as much profit as possible.

 

[TOareaFan]

It is a rip-off if you look at London's Oyster card, which allows to you pay bulk purchase price per trip subject to a monthly cap (beyond which no more charges).
It gives one the flexibility of not having to buy a monthly pass but enjoying the benefit of it in case you end up making a lot more trips than you expect. That's what I call a nicely designed system FOR its customers, not to reap as much profit as possible.

Not sure how the TTC is implementing it but isn't that how Presto works on GO.....isn't there a point when every trip is free?

Wouldn't that also be possible on the TTC?

 

[TheTigerMaster]

We already have something somewhat like that. It's called the Gardiner Expressway.

Gosh. I can't wait for them to strap dynamite to that thing and blow it to pieces in a few years. That will be a good day for Toronto.

 

[Jaye101]

A lot of you say you wouldn't want Elevated lines above streets. And I understand that, looking at Chicago and NYC.. But there must be a aesthetically pleasing way to do elevated transit without blocking out the sunlight to the street below all day for the entire route.

We're in the process of making that decision on Eglinton East, whether we should do it at grade or elevated, and it seems like the majority seem to want it elevated. So looking at Eglinton East through North York and Scarborough, how would you do it? Would you run it down the middle of the street? Narrow the street to four lanes in each direction and run the guideway to the north or south?

Toronto should look at ways to create transit comfortably and efficiently... Because our stations are comfortable, yes. But some of them are overbuilt and overcomplicated (ie. Wilson).

 

[nfitz]

It is a rip-off if you look at London's Oyster card, which allows to you pay bulk purchase price per trip subject to a monthly cap (beyond which no more charges).

Oyster doesn't have monthly capping as far as I know. You have to pre-purchase a 7-day or monthly travelcard to put on your Oyster card. At least you did last time I purchased a travelcard.

It gives one the flexibility of not having to buy a monthly pass but enjoying the benefit of it in case you end up making a lot more trips than you expect. That's what I call a nicely designed system FOR its customers, not to reap as much profit as possible.

I don't see the difference of prepurchasing a TTC Metropass compared to prepurchasing a TFL travelcard on Oyster.

 

[Riverdale Rink Rat]

A lot of you say you wouldn't want Elevated lines above streets. And I understand that, looking at Chicago and NYC.. But there must be a aesthetically pleasing way to do elevated transit without blocking out the sunlight to the street below all day for the entire route.

We're in the process of making that decision on Eglinton East, whether we should do it at grade or elevated, and it seems like the majority seem to want it elevated. So looking at Eglinton East through North York and Scarborough, how would you do it? Would you run it down the middle of the street? Narrow the street to four lanes in each direction and run the guideway to the north or south?

Toronto should look at ways to create transit comfortably and efficiently... Because our stations are comfortable, yes. But some of them are overbuilt and overcomplicated (ie. Wilson).

Seriously, NO ONE who is arguing for elevated transit wants anything more than the LRT out of the way of their car. Elevated anything blocks views and creates dead space underneath (e.g. Gardiner, flyovers, Chicago El, Paris elevated lines, etc.). The subway advocates have reluctantly realized the subway is too expensive and yet transit is going to be built, and are flailing. Elevated is a fallback and a terrible idea.

 

[TheTigerMaster]

Seriously, NO ONE who is arguing for elevated transit wants anything more than the LRT out of the way of their car. Elevated anything blocks views and creates dead space underneath (e.g. Gardiner, flyovers, Chicago El, Paris elevated lines, etc.). The subway advocates have reluctantly realized the subway is too expensive and yet transit is going to be built, and are flailing. Elevated is a fallback and a terrible idea.

You are wrong on so many levels.

There are plenty of people who support elevated rail for reasons other than it may not take away driving lanes. I say may not because depending on how the structure is built, it can take away more traffic lanes than a ROW.

Anyways there are plenty of reasons to support evelvated rail. In the case of the Eglinton Crosstown, if the eastern portion were elevated it would allow the trains to be run closer together and with automatic train control. 4 minutes be shaved off travel times. And by far the biggest benefit is that the LRT would not have to interact with vehicles. What this means is that cars will not be able to stop or slow down the LRTs which will reduce delays on the line.

 

[diminutive]

Seriously, NO ONE who is arguing for elevated transit wants anything more than the LRT out of the way of their car. Elevated anything blocks views and creates dead space underneath (e.g. Gardiner, flyovers, Chicago El, Paris elevated lines, etc.). The subway advocates have reluctantly realized the subway is too expensive and yet transit is going to be built, and are flailing. Elevated is a fallback and a terrible idea.

Most rail transit in the world is above ground... Even in Toronto the main rail corridors are mostly elevated through downtown without creating this "dead space" hell. Even the Gardiner, despite it's apparent 'deadness,' has been surrounded by some of the most substantial redevelopment Toronto's seen in 50 years. Vancouver has seen some of the most extensive suburban redevelopment and intensification in North America surrounding its mostly elevated network. Even with the most maligned piece of infrastructure in Toronto, the SRT, it's completely asinine to pretend as though this section of Midland is blighted while this section of Bellamy, untouched by the 'deadspace' of the SRT's viaduct, is any different.

I don't think many people would argue that a viaduct is intrinsically beautiful, but there is certainly a much larger urban design context than simply "elevated anything blocks views and creates dead space underneath." As a simple comparison of SRT "blighted" locations of Scarborough with any other part of Scarborough will tell you, the presence of an elevated guideway is hardly a relevant determinant of anything beyond transit accessibility.

OMG! DEAD SPACE! DEADSPPPPACE!!! EVERYTHING IS DYING!!!

 

[RC8]

Elevated lines usually work when you build the city around them. Putting them on a built-out area without causing at least some damage is very difficult, however.

Vancouver's is pretty good because it goes underground downtown and doesn't loom over arterials elsewhere.

 

[diminutive]

Elevated lines usually work when you build the city around them. Putting them on a built-out area without causing at least some damage is very difficult, however.

Cities grow over time and, to some extent, grow to incorporate infrastructure. Scarborough was mostly built when the SRT went in, as was Vancouver with its network.

There are limits obviously, which is why nobody is proposing building 8 late elevated highways everywhere. As far as infrastructure goes though, modern transit guideways are pretty easy to integrate into urban designs.

Vancouver's is pretty good because it goes underground downtown and doesn't loom over arterials elsewhere.

In cases like Eglinton East, street width from storefront to storefront typically exceeds 200ft, assuming a storefront even exists as opposed to a parking lot. A guideway would typically be just over 1/10th of that, which makes 'loom' an odd choice of words.

Take this stretch of the Canada Line. Is it honestly such a terrible built environment compared to a hypothetical LRT-ized Eglinton East? Can you quantify the loss?

EDIT: And in so far as this is a Toronto-Chicago thread, I think adma's point re-streetcars is quite appropriate in several ways. Like he mentioned, the L systems are hardy seen as a blight in Chicago, but almost something of a civic symbol. Beyond this though, while it's true that nobody is proposing almost decking over a street like Queen with a wooden guideway, it's also true that *VERY* few people are proposing building networks like Toronto's legacy streetcars (Portland's unimportant circulator aside). In a sense, comparing Chicago's elevated lines to a contemporary elevated guideway is just as asinine as comparing the 501 to a more contemporary LRT project. Just like no one is proposing building either Toronto's legacy streetcar network or Chicago's L, very many people are proposing building elevated rail guideways (many of which, coincidently, bill themselves as LRT).

 

[TOareaFan]

Cities grow over time and, to some extent, grow to incorporate infrastructure. Scarborough was mostly built when the SRT went in, as was Vancouver with its network.

There are limits obviously, which is why nobody is proposing building 8 late elevated highways everywhere. As far as infrastructure goes though, modern transit guideways are pretty easy to integrate into urban designs.



In cases like Eglinton East, street width from storefront to storefront typically exceeds 200ft, assuming a storefront even exists as opposed to a parking lot. A guideway would typically be just over 1/10th of that, which makes 'loom' an odd choice of words.

Take this stretch of the Canada Line. Is it honestly such a terrible built environment compared to a hypothetical LRT-ized Eglinton East? Can you quantify the loss?

Just how are people supposed to get from the Canadian Tire to the Adult Video store with that barrier there....see, elevated transit looms over every day life!