Solid Snake
Active Member
I 100% agree with you here
Last edited:
|
|
|
Transit City Plan
- Thread starter 299 bloor call control.
- Start date
I 100% agree with you here
jje1000
Senior Member
It's unfortunate that long-term subway + LRT planning wasn't made in this case, but with the project so far along, it's probably worth it more to continue along with at least portions of the existing plan.
Remember that LRT is still another rung on the transit ladder! It's not a dead-end!
Remember that LRT is still another rung on the transit ladder! It's not a dead-end!
Amy Rose
Active Member
If it goes private, Sheppard will be filled in with dirt and SRT will be upgraded to the cheapest extent and everyone gets nothing but more fare hikes, possibly steeper
Solid Snake
Active Member
Metrolinx planning is fine with me, no need to privatize
Dan416
Senior Member
Metrolinx doing the planning is good in theory. Too bad they didn't actually do any planning, they just accepted every municipal plan at face value, regardless of whether it was any good or made any sense or not. If I was a graphic artist, I would make a graphic of a "METROLINX" rubber stamp, because that's all it is in practice.
superman
Active Member
The Compromise
Here's my rationale as to why elevated light rail (like the converted Scarborough LRT) is the way to go for the Eglinton non-tunneled portions and the Sheppard line - which is also what I think Metrolinx is trying to lead the TTC to.
LRT advocates argue that subway is too costly, canceling Transit City would cause a cancellation in the LRV contract, and that there is not enough capacity to justify a subway.
Subway advocates argue that the Transit City lines (at grade portions) are not fast enough to be able to connect the city especially on the major thoroughfares like Eglinton and Sheppard, and in Ford's case - that LRTs take away road space.
I made a little diagram to explain my case.
An elevated LRT would appease the LRT crowd since it would use the same vehicles that was already ordered for Transit City, and would be lower capacity and lower cost that a subway.
It would also appease some of the Subway advocates by providing true rapid transit, and take away less road space than the LRT.
Of course, this isn't a perfecto solution to the pro-TC people and the anti-TC people, but I think it would be a good compromise between coverage of the city/cost (which TC provided) and speed (which the all-subway plan would provide).
Here's my rationale as to why elevated light rail (like the converted Scarborough LRT) is the way to go for the Eglinton non-tunneled portions and the Sheppard line - which is also what I think Metrolinx is trying to lead the TTC to.
LRT advocates argue that subway is too costly, canceling Transit City would cause a cancellation in the LRV contract, and that there is not enough capacity to justify a subway.
Subway advocates argue that the Transit City lines (at grade portions) are not fast enough to be able to connect the city especially on the major thoroughfares like Eglinton and Sheppard, and in Ford's case - that LRTs take away road space.
I made a little diagram to explain my case.
An elevated LRT would appease the LRT crowd since it would use the same vehicles that was already ordered for Transit City, and would be lower capacity and lower cost that a subway.
It would also appease some of the Subway advocates by providing true rapid transit, and take away less road space than the LRT.
Of course, this isn't a perfecto solution to the pro-TC people and the anti-TC people, but I think it would be a good compromise between coverage of the city/cost (which TC provided) and speed (which the all-subway plan would provide).
Asterix
Active Member
Can you explain how your fully separated bus BRT is supposed to have higher capacity than local subway?
Since the YUS his hitting upwards of 28,000/hr, your BRT would be needing at least 300 buses packed with almost 100 people each per hour. One every 12 seconds?
In theory I don't have huge objections to elevated LRT or subway, however I don't believe such construction would make it to first base past very vocal NIMBYs and the large chunks of the city advocating tearing down the Gardiner, unless you put it in out-of-the-way corridors, which kind of defeats the whole purpose of providing transit where people need and want it. As such it is a non-starter.
Rainforest
Senior Member
St. Clair line works pretty well for its design purpose (a short feeder route). Even if the trams bunch up, the wait time is rarely more than a few minutes. With no cars in the tram lanes, waiting at the stop is more pleasant as cars don't zoom by at high speed.
Obviously its speed would be way too low for a long crosstown line. Ironically, if Eglinton tunnel plans get postponed indefinitely, St. Clair will be left with better transit than Eglinton.
reaperexpress
Senior Member
Your diagram is a little off, but it more or less conveys the idea. Speed is not the same thing as Local vs Express. For example, express buses stuck in traffic serve no local demand, but still have a low average speed. Similarly, a subway with frequent stops can serve local demand fairly effectively while still maintaining a high average speed.
Viva BRT is most certainly not local in nature. Unlike Transit City, it has very long stop spacing.
Elevated LRT is basically a solution to the biggest problem with Transit City: the lack of grade separation. In the design of the Eglinton line, apart from the central tunnel, only one intersection was grade separated: Don Mills. An elevated structure was proposed over Black Creek Drive, but was rejected. For some reason, they never considered Cut and Cover, Trenched or Side-Of-Road operation for the portion in the Richview Corridor.
Go back and select the grade-separated options and there would be much more support for the Eglinton LRT.
Dan416
Senior Member
A tunnelled/elevated Eglinton LRT would be fine. It doesn't work on Sheppard unless you elevate the subway trains once exiting the tunnel at some point and then veering off to STC.
Elevated would be fine for an SRT from STC north and east, but not to Kennedy; that portion needs to be upgraded to subway.
Elevated would be fine for an SRT from STC north and east, but not to Kennedy; that portion needs to be upgraded to subway.
Platform 27
Active Member
Um, why does it "need" to be upgraded to subway? The only need I can see is the "need" for certain Scarberians to demand HRT-based track-miles being added to the network on the eastern side of Victoria Park to soothe the bizarre chip on their shoulders.
It's not ridership: I'm quite certain Kennedy-to-STC ridership numbers crunch out lower than Eglinton Crosstown on the models. If fully-grade-separated rapid transit service using trains of LRVs meets all ridership demand on Eglinton out as far as the 40+ year zone where projections fuzz to uselessness---and I think all but but the most orthodox subwayphiles are on that page---then why should Kennedy-to-STC be any different? Particularly when there's very serviceable, fully-grade-separated transit infrastructure sitting on that route that needs a bit of sprucing up.
It's not speed: If you do indeed kick Eglinton Crosstown up to full grade-separation out to Kennedy and drop a few stops, then interline the trains onwards to STC via the SRT RoW, you have a transit option that stacks up very favourably versus an extended B-D to STC: Just as fast a two-seat ride from STC to the Toronto CBD, and a considerably shorter journey time if you're travelling from STC to anywhere west of Warden and north of St. Clair. (Yes, if you're specifically commuting between STC and somewhere that's close to B-D and not on Y-U-S then I suppose cutting the Kennedy transfer is a 2 minute time-saver, but I bet there aren't exactly hordes of folks doing the Donlands-to-STC haul every day.)
I don't agree with Sheppard subway boosterism but at least there's a distinct list of actual benefits that its proponents can point to coming from the extra $2ish billion. Yes, it means faster trips, yes it means slightly fewer impacts on road traffic, yes it means fewer transfers.
But the obsession with extending B-D to STC seems to me to be the epitome of vehicle girth envy.
Rainforest
Senior Member
^ The cost of SRT / SLRT has inflated to the point when it costs almost as much as the B-D subway extension to Scarborough Centre. If the two options are almost same in cost, then let's select the one most convenient for the majority of riders from Scarborough: subway extension that eliminates the transfer at Kennedy.
Rapid transit east and north of Scarborough Centre, to Centennial and Malvern, can probably be built for a modest extra cost. In-median LRT or BRT will be sufficient there.
The projections for Kennedy - STC are actually higher than for Eglinton, although still within the LRT range.
There are no plans for a fully grade separate Eglinton Crosstown from Kennedy to Don Mills. At best, it would be fully grade separate west of Don Mills. As a result, riders going from Scarborough to CBD will still transfer to subway at Kennedy.
Rapid transit east and north of Scarborough Centre, to Centennial and Malvern, can probably be built for a modest extra cost. In-median LRT or BRT will be sufficient there.
The projections for Kennedy - STC are actually higher than for Eglinton, although still within the LRT range.
There are no plans for a fully grade separate Eglinton Crosstown from Kennedy to Don Mills. At best, it would be fully grade separate west of Don Mills. As a result, riders going from Scarborough to CBD will still transfer to subway at Kennedy.
Last edited:
LowerBay
Active Member
Keep the transfer, and upgrade the SRT to Mark-II. Why spend billions extending the subway to STC when the RT already is a subway. Oh yeah, the transfer, I forgot ... well, big deal. There's a much more inconvenient transfer at St. George (that wasn't there originally) but nobody seems to complain about that.
Jeff
New Member
St. George's isn't inconvienient at all. If anything, its the most convinient one there is.
Maybe you're thinking Spadina?
Really? You're quoting Mr. "we can build LRT across the city in 4 years" Doucet as a valid reference??? Cancelling a flawed plan in favour of what it should have been in the first place is not a bad thing, even if it did cost $100 million.