It is not, but it is a reminder that purely comparing km-length of rapid transit is not always the most appropriate measure of comparison.
We have non-rapid higher-order transit service that does more and carry more people on a daily basis than many of these so-called rapid transit lines.
(And note, this is not a vindication of our streetcar network, but probably a critique of other LRT networks in this continent)
I'm getting deja vu... I feel like we might have had this debate before
According to the
Pembina Institute's definition:
1. Separated from traffic
2. Priority signalling
3. All-day, two-way service
4. Maximum wait of 10 minutes during peak times
5. Maximum wait of 15 minutes during off-peak times
6. Optimal spacing of stops and stations
7. Network connectivity
8. Off-board fare collection and platform-level boarding
Pembina also uses some other measures of the network's effectiveness which are more useful:
-% of population within 1 km of rapid transit
-rides per capita
While I agree that King (or King - Wellington - King) would make a better route for the Relief line, local service will be a challenge no matter which route is selected. We cannot expect the Relief stations to be as closely spaced as stations on the sentral section of BD line; that would be way too expensive these days.
It is best to accept that the Relief line stations will be 1 to 2 km apart, and retain the streetcars both on King and Queen in order to provide the local service.
The quick and simple answer is that we are not building a service to shuttle people from their homes to the business district, we are building a service to connect people to destinations throughout downtown (including the business district).
The secondary answer is that we are replacing a local service (the streetcar) with rapid transit. It would defeat the purpose of building this subway if a significant portion of people still require a local service to get to their destinations, or are inconvenienced by having to walk to the King streetcar in order to reach their destination.
And just so we are clear, we are talking about Bloor-Danforth (or a tad wider) level of stop-spacing. This is not excessively local stop-spacing like a streetcar or a bus, wouldn't inconvenience people aiming to go end-to-end like Alvin mentioned above, and would actually be greater stop-spacing than most downtown subway lines throughout the world. (Which the norm is typically around 500m while B-D is 750-850m.)
In the interrim following Phase 1, or in the long run with the full-build out of the DRL?
The first phase of the DRL, which only goes under Queen for about 2 km, will definitely not replace the 501. The full downtown U would definitely replace the 501 downtown segments. Any time savings you get from being closer to your destination are lost by the additional travel and waiting time due to the fact that the streetcar will enter that transit death spiral of lower ridership -> reduced service -> lower ridership. The Bloor-Danforth line didn't just eliminate the Bloor streetcar, it also ended the Harbord and Dupont streetcar services north/south of it by absorbing the ridership.
It's also a waste of resources to run a parallel service directly on top... I picture that the 501 will either terminate at each end of the DRL for people to transfer, allowing the TTC to focus on improving headway management in the shorter segments, or it will go south to that fancy new transit mall on King.
