Toronto Crosstown LRT | ?m | ?s | Metrolinx | Arcadis

[sixrings]

I thought there was an unspoken rule about traditional transit maps which was that lines shown must be grade-separated. Or at least almost entirely grade-separate. I don't think Sheppard East or Eglinton East should be shown. And if they are, they should be shown as a line with significantly smaller width and no stations.

Didn't we have a short period where we showed Harbourfront, and public opinion forced its removal?

I don't like this rule you speak of. It will just encourage more so the subways subways subways crowd and will make LRT seem even more inferior. Bad idea for a city which needs more transit not more debates.

 

[nfitz]

I thought there was an unspoken rule about traditional transit maps which was that lines shown must be grade-separated.

There's lots of unspoken you've broken in your whimsical DRL proposals ... so why start now?

Toronto's current subway map already shows non-grade separated lines.

The London Tube map shows the London Overground line (and has shown variants of it on and off for decades), which still isn't entirely grade-separated.

Didn't we have a short period where we showed Harbourfront, and public opinion forced its removal?

Public opinion forced it's removal? Where do you get this stuff? Are you pulling it out of your imagination?

 

[44 North]

There's lots of unspoken you've broken in your whimsical DRL proposals ... so why start now?

Toronto's current subway map already shows non-grade separated lines.

The London Tube map shows the London Overground line (and has shown variants of it on and off for decades), which still isn't entirely grade-separated.



Public opinion forced it's removal? Where do you get this stuff? Are you pulling it out of your imagination?

Whimsical? Oh right, a bridge and short elevated section...what a crazy concept!!! For a supposed transit aficionado, you're quite closed-minded when it comes to transportation infrastructure. And what does that have to do with this discussion? Or are you merely trolling again?

There are a few variations of London's official transit map. But regardless, if you had the patience to actually read my post you'd see I wrote "at least almost entirely grade-separate". But patience is a virtue - one in which you recently admitted are lacking. I'd concur.

 

[44 North]

From TransitToronto:
http://transit.toronto.on.ca/streetcar/4107.shtml

When the Harbourfront line opened, the TTC attempted to market it as a rapid transit route, displaying it on their maps as if it were a subway route (the orange line) and giving it a rapid transit route number (604 -- the TTC formerly used 601 to officially designate the Yonge-University-Spadina subway, 602 for the Bloor-Danforth subway and 603 for the Scarborough RT).

If anyone has a map of this, definitely share it. I can't see one on the Transit Toronto website.

Edit: This article has a bit more info on this subject: http://www.blogto.com/city/2012/03/how_the_ttc_sullied_the_reputation_of_lrt_part_i/

Here's a map, but not a standard transit map w/ black background

 

[wopchop]

The system map that they display on the subway doesn't display enough of the network. It does nothing to help people understand what sort of connections they can make from the subway (except to other subways, or the Airport Rocket). IMO, they should show the entire streetcar/frequent service network in relation to the subway (in a way similar to this) but with a thinner lineweight. The system map should help people understand where they are in the system and how to get where they are going in the system, and not worry too much about arbitrary separating of "types" of transit.

Obviously you couldn't as easily do this in the spot above the doors, and would need to either make an effort to put the maps on the platforms or on the advertising boards on the walls of the trains themselves.

 

[nfitz]

Whimsical? Oh right, a bridge and short elevated section...what a crazy concept!!! For a supposed transit aficionado, you're quite closed-minded when it comes to transportation infrastructure. And what does that have to do with this discussion? Or are you merely trolling again?

You supported to the death a DRL so poorly conceived that the ONLY station that it bothered to cross the Don for, was the existing Broadview station. Surely missing everything east of the Don south of Danforth AND everything east of the Don north of Danforth is itself the ultimate troll. For that's what it must be, because in my endless effort to see good in people, I really can't think of another explanation.

There are a few variations of London's official transit map

There are endless variations. But point one to a single official example from this decade that has all the tube lines and doesn't include the London Overground!

 

[jeffreym]

Key words. "rapid transit map". Spadina isn't rapid. Nor is St. Clair which now has a slower scheduled time than it did before they started the conversion. The airport bus on the other hand is rapid, with a higher average speed of any of the subway lines.

Who says it has to be a "Rapid Transit map" (whatever that means)? It's really a "things that the TTC want's to highlight to riders" map.

 

[44 North]

You supported to the death a DRL so poorly conceived that the ONLY station that it bothered to cross the Don for, was the existing Broadview station. Surely missing everything east of the Don south of Danforth AND everything east of the Don north of Danforth is itself the ultimate troll. For that's what it must be, because in my endless effort to see good in people, I really can't think of another explanation.

There are endless variations. But point one to a single official example from this decade that has all the tube lines and doesn't include the London Overground!

Well, what’s apparent is that your admitted lack of patience may have affected your reading ability. I’ve explained my line to you numerous times. I’ve also explained how I’ve explained it to you. The Don Sub very much exists. You got a problem with that line, talk to the engineers who designed it a hundred years ago. My routing merely diverts to intersect with the B/D line at the most logical point – which happens to be Broadview Stn. Even Metrolinx has recently acknowledged the potential of using the Don Branch as a relief line. As have a series of planners over the decades.

You’re incessant whining on this matter – particularly in the area pertaining to crossing the Don - doesn’t change the facts. It crosses the Don and West Don the same amt of times the regular DRL does. We've been through this many times. I’m sorry that I know this area significantly better than you, as we’ve made quite apparent in the DRL thread. But them’s the breaks.

As for London...I don’t really get what you’re whining about. I never brought up that city, nor did I bring up their Overground. If you want to be weird and argue your own arguments for the sake of arguing, do it with someone else.

 

[nfitz]

Well, what’s apparent is that your admitted lack of patience may have affected your reading ability. I’ve explained my line to you numerous times. I’ve also explained how I’ve explained it to you. The Don Sub very much exists. You got a problem with that line, talk to the engineers who designed it a hundred years ago. My routing merely diverts to intersect with the B/D line at the most logical point – which happens to be Broadview Stn. Even Metrolinx has recently acknowledged the potential of using the Don Branch as a relief line. As have a series of planners over the decades.

It doesn't really matter how many times you've explained your line. It doesn't change the fact that it's quite possibly the worst conceived relief line in the history of Toronto Transit! Well, at least since the 1940s. How can it not be a troll! In addition to the absurdity of missing everything south of Danforth AND north of Danforth, you then head to Thorncliffe Park and Flemingdon ... and miss both any residents in Thorncliffe Park, instead serving some near-abandoned warehouses beyond walking distance to Overlea ... and then incredibly manage to miss Flemingdon Park as well - other than the (then) existing Don Mills/Eglinton station. I'm surprised you didn't manage to run the line through the middle of the Ontario Science Centre ... oh hang on ... I think you might actually be building one of your two (three? four? five?) Don crossings over the Science Centre itself!

The line is so completely absurd that it's clear your trolling us with it. You really can't expect to us to believe that anyone is that grossly incompetent, immovable, or ignorant to actually seriously put forward such a farce! Well done sir, I must say ... it took me a week or two to realize just how genius your humour is!

As for London...I don’t really get what you’re whining about. I never brought up that city, nor did I bring up their Overground. If you want to be weird and argue your own arguments for the sake of arguing, do it with someone else.

You wrote in your recently conceived unwritten rule that transit maps didn't show lines that weren't grade separated. I simply pointed to two examples to the contrary that I was familiar with - London and Toronto. Perhaps you could find a reference for unwritten rule (and once again I must congratulate you on such subtle humour!).

Take a bow 44 North. Urban Toronto comedian of the year. I think you had most of us there for a while. Absolutely brilliant!

 

[aquateam]

It doesn't really matter how many times you've explained your line. It doesn't change the fact that it's quite possibly the worst conceived relief line in the history of Toronto Transit!

Okay, we get that you don't like his fantasy map DRL alignment but there's already a couple dozen pages of discussion about that in two other threads.

There are endless variations. But point one to a single official example from this decade that has all the tube lines and doesn't include the London Overground!

The London Overground is grade-separated transit for all practical purposes.

Toronto's current subway map already shows non-grade separated lines.

Until the airport rocket is added, which lines are these?

Key words. "rapid transit map". Spadina isn't rapid. Nor is St. Clair which now has a slower scheduled time than it did before they started the conversion. The airport bus on the other hand is rapid, with a higher average speed of any of the subway lines.

The term "rapid transit" doesn't mean just "public transit that is fast". It is transit that
1) doesn't have to deal with traffic in its own direction (no congestion, i.e. ROW)
2) is high capacity and frequent
3) doesn't have to deal with intersecting traffic (although that part is muddied by terms BRT and LRT, which have priority instead of full grade separation).

I think that there is a confusion here about basic definitions.

From the dictionary
Rapid transit: a system of rail transit within an urban area that has exclusive right of way either below, above, or on the ground and so is capable of relatively high operating speed.

From wikipedia:
Grade separation:Grade separation is the method of aligning a junction of two or more surface transport axes at different heights (grades) so that they will not disrupt the traffic flow on other transit routes when they cross each other.

 

[Platform 27]

The term "rapid transit" doesn't mean just "public transit that is fast". It is transit that
1) doesn't have to deal with traffic in its own direction (no congestion, i.e. ROW)
2) is high capacity and frequent
3) doesn't have to deal with intersecting traffic (although that part is muddied by terms BRT and LRT, which have priority instead of full grade separation).

I think that there is a confusion here about basic definitions.

From the dictionary
Rapid transit: a system of rail transit within an urban area that has exclusive right of way either below, above, or on the ground and so is capable of relatively high operating speed.

From wikipedia:
Grade separation:Grade separation is the method of aligning a junction of two or more surface transport axes at different heights (grades) so that they will not disrupt the traffic flow on other transit routes when they cross each other.

I am so sick of these pedantic terminological debates that go around and around and inevitably end in people posting photos of Chicago El-trains crossing streets.

You cite this thing called "the dictionary" (I wasn't aware there was only one). Great. It's absolutely clear that there is also a wider definition, and the wider definition is used almost universally by technical professionals that work in the industry. I think a lot of folks would take issue with the requirement that rapid transit by definition need to run on rails, for starters. Does the "exclusive right of way" in your preferred definition mean that absolute and total grade separation is a requirement, or C-Train/GO train style absolute priority crossing gates, or Transit City/Viva-style exclusive lanes with intersection overlap?

Here's the definition that is officially used in the regional transportation plan:

Rapid Transit: Transit service separated partially or completely from general vehicular traffic and therefore able to maintain higher levels of speed, reliability and vehicle productivity than can be achieved by transit vehicles operating in mixed traffic. - Source

Doesn't mean it's the only definition anyone is allowed to use, but worth bearing in mind.

 

[44 North]

It doesn't really matter how many times you've explained your line. It doesn't change the fact that it's quite possibly the worst conceived relief line in the history of Toronto Transit! Well, at least since the 1940s. How can it not be a troll!
...
The line is so completely absurd that it's clear your trolling us with it. You really can't expect to us to believe that anyone is that grossly incompetent, immovable, or ignorant to actually seriously put forward such a farce! Well done sir, I must say ... it took me a week or two to realize just how genius your humour is!

You wrote in your recently conceived unwritten rule that transit maps didn't show lines that weren't grade separated. I simply pointed to two examples to the contrary that I was familiar with - London and Toronto. Perhaps you could find a reference for unwritten rule (and once again I must congratulate you on such subtle humour!).

Take a bow 44 North. Urban Toronto comedian of the year. I think you had most of us there for a while. Absolutely brilliant!

I don’t think I’ve ever read such a puerile and petulant post. How does one even reply to something so bizarre and unhinged?

Regardless, for the third time: I wrote “at least almost entirely grade-separateâ€. How many more times are you going to pester me because you lack the patience to actually read a post? One more time: at least almost entirely grade-separate. Have you read it? Good.

Again, if you want to be weird and argue your own arguments for the sake of arguing, do it with someone else.

 

[aquateam]

You cite this thing called "the dictionary" (I wasn't aware there was only one). Great. It's absolutely clear that there is also a wider definition, and the wider definition is used almost universally by technical professionals that work in the industry.

True, there's more than one definition for words and technical jargon often has a different meaning for words than the common use. I'm just trying to point out that rapid transit doesn't necessarily mean the same thing as fast transit, since a bus going in wide surburban streets picking up few passengers can probably attain faster speeds than the subway stopping every 500 meters in the core.

I think a lot of folks would take issue with the requirement that rapid transit by definition need to run on rails, for starters.

Fair enough, I just copied and pasted, but rails is the by far most common solution for rapid transit. When you use buses you start running into capacity issues.

Does the "exclusive right of way" in your preferred definition mean that absolute and total grade separation is a requirement, or C-Train/GO train style absolute priority crossing gates, or Transit City/Viva-style exclusive lanes with intersection overlap?

When I was saying "right of way" (in 1) I meant no traffic in the longitudinal (same) direction as the vehicle, so not sharing lanes. The crossing part has to do with what I said about intersecting traffic (in 3). I thought I was pretty clear about that.

Here's the definition that is officially used in the regional transportation plan:

Rapid Transit: Transit service separated partially or completely from general vehicular traffic and therefore able to maintain higher levels of speed, reliability and vehicle productivity than can be achieved by transit vehicles operating in mixed traffic.

Doesn't mean it's the only definition anyone is allowed to use, but worth bearing in mind.

The Metrolinx big move plan has a stated goal of putting "80% of the GTA's population within 2 km of rapid transit", so it's understandable that their definition of rapid transit is a bit lax. The king streetcar, in theory, has reserved lanes but I wouldn't call it rapid transit.


I am not looking forward to the long semantic debate that is going to ensue, I just took issue with the idea that express buses in mixed traffic could be called rapid transit but streetcars operating in a ROW could not.

 

[DarnDirtyApe]

Hey 44 North, do you even live in Toronto? Your posts seem to indicate that your actual knowledge of the city is quite limited, and mostly based on maps and old Google streetview imagery. Does your screen name indicate that you live at the 44th parallel?

 

[aquateam]

Hey 44 North, do you even live in Toronto? Your posts seem to indicate that your actual knowledge of the city is quite limited, and mostly based on maps and old Google streetview imagery. Does your screen name indicate that you live at the 44th parallel?

Trying to change the subject from personal attacks on urbantoronto members...

What is happening to the Kodak lands at Mount Dennis station?

Tunnelling has reached Allen road