Transit City Plan

[Asterix]

With the stops north of Eglinton, there is at least a number of people getting off the train to make room for new passengers. At the secondary stops south of Eglinton (Davisville, Summerhill, and Rosedale) this is not the case.

The fundamental point is that short turning trains at Eglinton reduces capacity north of Eglinton while doing nothing to change the capacity south of Eglinton.

Unlike the Spadina line north of St Clair, there simply is not the spare capacity north of Eglinton on the Yonge line for any kind of cut.

 

[gweed123]

The fundamental point is that short turning trains at Eglinton reduces capacity north of Eglinton while doing nothing to change the capacity south of Eglinton.

Unlike the Spadina line north of St Clair, there simply is not the spare capacity north of Eglinton on the Yonge line for any kind of cut.

I agree. The constricting factor on the capacity of the Yonge line is the section south of Eglinton, not north of Eglinton. The closer stop spacing (and more stops) mean trains have to stop more frequently, and don't get to reach higher speeds. If the situation was reversed, and the stop spacing was wider on the south side than it is on the north side, then that suggestion may work.

One thing they may be able to do to mitigate this problem is encourage people to transfer at Eglinton West instead of Eglinton-Yonge. There is much less of this now, because the Eglinton bus route is split at Yonge, and in a lot of cases requires you to physically change buses in order to continue onto the other side of Yonge. Having a thru-line will help with this for sure. Also, the overcrowding on the Yonge line may regulate itself, especially if people discover that it's actually shorter to take the Eglinton LRT a few extra stops to Eglinton West, as opposed to waiting for 3 trains to go by before they can pack themselves onto a Yonge line train.

 

[officedweller]

I'm pretty sure the private sector is all about making a profit. How do you justify saying they will build it for less than 4.1 billion (including an expensive crossing of the Don River) while also adding in a new carhouse and fleet? If they are going to operate it as they choose, where is their profit incentive (ie how much should the city be on the hook for to subsidize the line to ensure they get their profit and don't walk away from the deal)?

Just a note that the Canada Line included new vehicles (abeit 2 car trains), new maintenance and storage yard, and 3 water crossings (two bridges over the Fraser River and a tunnel under False Creek).
Can the crossing of the Don River be a bridge instead of a tunnel (maybe even a covered bridge like on the Bloor Line west of the Prince Edward Viaduct)?
Those are the types of decisions where the private sector is more likely to be more innovative than the TTC.

 

[Asterix]

Can the crossing of the Don River be a bridge instead of a tunnel (maybe even a covered bridge like on the Bloor Line west of the Prince Edward Viaduct)?

Have a look at the actual geography to see whether they is room adjacent to the road for such a structure (given there are buildings on either side of the bridge).

There is also not room under the bridge to run the subway, so the only real alternative is to go further down - ie underground.

 

[Woodbridge_Heights]

They've simplified the design to give some additional capacity and move people down the platform automatically (by putting the stairwells there).

The link provided by jeffreym is where I got my information. No reason to believe a Union Station type addition would cost much more than the Union Station platform expansion project itself.

Yeah thanks, I saw the plans literally minutes later on Steve Munro's site. I didn't mean to challenge you just hadn't heard of that proposal before.

I wonder if the stairwells and escalators could be set up perpendicular to Bloor rather than running parallel as they do now. Even one stairwell would deliver riders further South on the Yonge platform and would serve to separate the passenger flows even more...

 

[Solid Snake]

National Post's debate about Ford plan (around 6:45)
http://news.nationalpost.com/2011/02/17/podcast-on-subways-statues-and-super-power-mayors/

Press Play.

 

[LAz]

National Post's debate about Ford plan (around 6:45)
http://news.nationalpost.com/2011/02/17/podcast-on-subways-statues-and-super-power-mayors/

Press Play.

When I heard the guy saying that Chicago is a much nicer city than Toronto I almost vomited and didn't want to listen any further. What kind of moron can say such an insane thing? Chicago's a shithole people... it's a city which is one third ghetto and another third poor. The city's miserable. Not to forget to mention the extreme segregation and downright dilapidation left and right.

But Ford says he doesn't like public housing! They're icky!

I hope he does not do what Chicago is doing. They flush out the poor out into the suburbs. Chicago pushed some 180,000 blacks out of the city between 2000 and 2010. Rotten free market logic.

 

[Dan416]

Say what you will about Chicago, but they have two subway lines that are 24 hours.

 

[smarches]

I have been following what I can on the thread here and in the news. I get that Eglinton (including Kennedy to STC extension) will most likely be a complete underground LRT. The province wins, and the mayor gets points for making it go all underground. I see Ford trying to make the Sheppard Line to STC happen within the parameters he has spoken about. My thoughts are, would it not give Ford some points to say that the westward expansion to Downsview includes a plan to extend the line up and long Finch in the west? Transit City was based with lines that had "potential", why not here? In this case most areas are covered with the plan. We don't get the DRL, but from what I read it didn't sound like a project that has any financial backing.

 

[rbt]

When I heard the guy saying that Chicago is a much nicer city than Toronto I almost vomited and didn't want to listen any further. What kind of moron can say such an insane thing? Chicago's a shithole people... it's a city which is one third ghetto and another third poor. The city's miserable. Not to forget to mention the extreme segregation and downright dilapidation left and right.

Most visitors to Chicago do not leave the loop/Michigan ave areas. It is very easy to miss the other areas if you go for a weekend.

 

[nfitz]

Say what you will about Chicago, but they have two subway lines that are 24 hours.

However, last time I was there, the locals warned me not to take some of the subway lines past a certain point, even in daytime. Can you even begin to imagine such a situation in Toronto?

I don't see that it matters how many hours per day the subway runs if people are too terrified to use it.

 

[MisterF]

Making King, Queen, and Dundas transit only streets between Broadview and Dufferin would also likely have a substantial impact in ridership and huge decreases in travel time.


We want the DRL because we are not willing to take lanes away from cars (for better or worse -- this is certainly the expensive approach).


I do believe we should build the DRL. I do not think we should fool ourselves about the fact we would be building 6 lanes of roadway at a cost of $6B or more.

You could make that argument for any transit project in the city - the Eglinton line is a waste of money when we could just make it a transit only street, right? The reality is that rapid transit is needed east-west through downtown, and it's way more necessary than Eglinton or any other Transit City line. You can't satisfy that demand by just improving streetcars. Only high capacity rapid transit is good enough, and that can't be accomodated at street level in a dense urban setting. Ottawa has found that out the hard way and Calgary is finding out the same thing. It has nothing to do with not wanting to take car lanes away - let's not oppose proper rapid transit just to oppose Rob Ford. Any form of at grade transit stopped being adequate for the DRL corridor a long time ago.

We don't get the DRL, but from what I read it didn't sound like a project that has any financial backing.

The DRL is the perfect candidate for a public-private partnership. Much more likely to succeed than Sheppard.

 

[rbt]

You could make that argument for any transit project in the city - the Eglinton line is a waste of money when we could just make it a transit only street, right?

That is the difference between necessity and a want.

You need to eat. We need to move larger numbers of people for economic reasons.

We want a steak with with mushrooms on it and not oatmeal with a small bit of chard sliced into it.

We want to maintain existing space for cars while expanding transit. We want transit to be in a tunnel we don't *need* it to be.


We have chosen to spend $7B on Eglinton to increase capacity of the corridor without removing space from low capacity private vehicles. Should we do this? Yes. Is it necessary that we do this? No. It is a choice. It is a want. It is not a necessity to accomplishing the goal of increasing carrying capacity of the street.

We can easily build a surface route on Eglinton using gate arms at all intersections which would be able to carry 45000 persons per hour if we chose to take that approach. Are there consequences of doing that? You betcha! We choose to spend more to avoid the consequences. It's a choice, not a necessity.

 

[GraphicMatt]

The DRL is the perfect candidate for a public-private partnership. Much more likely to succeed than Sheppard.

I was thinking about this and I'm not sure it is - the areas the DRL would run through on the East and West sides of downtown are already built up, and proposals to redevelop established neighbourhoods with dense towers aren't likely to fly.

 

[Dan416]

I think someone else mentioned that Eglinton is actually a better option (than Sheppard) to build through a P3, and I think they're right.