lafard
Active Member
No Canada line?
|
|
|
Transit problems getting out of hand across the country.
- Thread starter denfromoakvillemilton
- Start date
nfitz
Superstar
Many lines missing in many cities. And why an express train that runs every 15 minutes even mid-day wouldn't be rapid I don't know ...
TrickyRicky
Senior Member
Another question I have about such maps is who defines what qualifies as mass rail other than those who designate it? Coming back from London our subways seem massive, like underground freight trains by comparison. I recall riding the T in Boston and one of their lines runs trams like the articulated streetcars that ply Queen Street here.
The maps are cool but a real comparison in transit system size to me would be ridership numbers. And a real comparison of transit system effectiveness would be commuter times (a metric which apparently shows our system is a failure).
The maps are cool but a real comparison in transit system size to me would be ridership numbers. And a real comparison of transit system effectiveness would be commuter times (a metric which apparently shows our system is a failure).
erikyow
New Member
Those maps were done a few years ago, before the Canada Line was finished. That's why it's not represented.
I'd say another metric for success is not just the size of the network or ridership, but the density (which generally is both a cause and effect of ridership). For instance, look at Paris' network compared to Atlanta. MARTA's system in terms of area served is quite large yet only carries about 250,000 a day on a few lines spread out to the far corners of Atlanta. The Paris Metro has 14 lines packed into a relatively small area and carries over 4 million a day. Of course, I recognize that a system like Paris' could never work in the low-density, car-focused environment that Atlanta has built for itself. Given the lack of regional transit in the Atlanta area, the subway there has to act as both a way to get around the city and as a commuter system for people coming in from the suburbs. But it is interesting that you can effectively look at these maps and get a sense of the density and scale of a city by looking at how dense its transit system is.
Also, it's true that the Green Line in Boston is a light rail line using vehicles akin to the ALRV that runs along Queen. However, unlike the 501, it runs coupled in a standard 2-car set and 3-car sets during rush hour and carries over 200,000 people a day - the busiest line in the city. So, to not include that would be like not including the Eglinton line on a similar map when it's finished. Furthermore, it's worth mentioning that the map doesn't include all the branches of the the Green Line, only the D (Riverside) branch since it's the only one to run on a dedicated ROW (a former rail line that was converted for use by the MBTA) with spaced out stops, versus down a central median of a major thoroughfare with stops every few hundred metres. I can attest that, having had to take that line for most of my years in high school, the D line is pretty comparable to any heavy rail line in terms of its speed. If they were to include the other branches which run on central medians, the MBTA map would be a bit denser, but I would agree that it wouldn't be a fair representation since those are not rapid transit lines.
I'd say another metric for success is not just the size of the network or ridership, but the density (which generally is both a cause and effect of ridership). For instance, look at Paris' network compared to Atlanta. MARTA's system in terms of area served is quite large yet only carries about 250,000 a day on a few lines spread out to the far corners of Atlanta. The Paris Metro has 14 lines packed into a relatively small area and carries over 4 million a day. Of course, I recognize that a system like Paris' could never work in the low-density, car-focused environment that Atlanta has built for itself. Given the lack of regional transit in the Atlanta area, the subway there has to act as both a way to get around the city and as a commuter system for people coming in from the suburbs. But it is interesting that you can effectively look at these maps and get a sense of the density and scale of a city by looking at how dense its transit system is.
Also, it's true that the Green Line in Boston is a light rail line using vehicles akin to the ALRV that runs along Queen. However, unlike the 501, it runs coupled in a standard 2-car set and 3-car sets during rush hour and carries over 200,000 people a day - the busiest line in the city. So, to not include that would be like not including the Eglinton line on a similar map when it's finished. Furthermore, it's worth mentioning that the map doesn't include all the branches of the the Green Line, only the D (Riverside) branch since it's the only one to run on a dedicated ROW (a former rail line that was converted for use by the MBTA) with spaced out stops, versus down a central median of a major thoroughfare with stops every few hundred metres. I can attest that, having had to take that line for most of my years in high school, the D line is pretty comparable to any heavy rail line in terms of its speed. If they were to include the other branches which run on central medians, the MBTA map would be a bit denser, but I would agree that it wouldn't be a fair representation since those are not rapid transit lines.
ssiguy2
Senior Member
Most cities would give their left nut to have the rail system Toronto has. The problem is that Toronto uses so little of it.
Not one rapid transit line in Toronto actually takes advantage of the rail infastructure already in place.
Just look at the GO line to Georgetown and the AirLink. Why don't they just ad 4 or 5 new stations onto the route, run DMUs and voila............a new Metro line that everyone could use to get to the airport from Union and it could be extended east/north using the current rail lines to Pape and then hook up with the BD. Instaed of being an expensive little commuter service that few woill be able to afford it could be a true Metro line and at Etiboko north station the trains could split {a la Canada Line} with every other one going to Pearson and the other using an elevated track head north to Humber
A DRL east section for pennies on the dollar but within the standard TTC area with an extra $5 toll for those heading to Pearson. ALL rail lines in Toronto should be used as some form of transit for the TTC and GO only if possible.
.
Not one rapid transit line in Toronto actually takes advantage of the rail infastructure already in place.
Just look at the GO line to Georgetown and the AirLink. Why don't they just ad 4 or 5 new stations onto the route, run DMUs and voila............a new Metro line that everyone could use to get to the airport from Union and it could be extended east/north using the current rail lines to Pape and then hook up with the BD. Instaed of being an expensive little commuter service that few woill be able to afford it could be a true Metro line and at Etiboko north station the trains could split {a la Canada Line} with every other one going to Pearson and the other using an elevated track head north to Humber
A DRL east section for pennies on the dollar but within the standard TTC area with an extra $5 toll for those heading to Pearson. ALL rail lines in Toronto should be used as some form of transit for the TTC and GO only if possible.
.
Mapleson
Active Member
Toronto doesn't have a rail system. There is a rail network in Toronto, but it's not the City's.
Do you think if it was easy as "just adding 4 or 5 new stations" they would do it? First, there is precious little land available for new stations. Second, more stations means more headway issues getting into Union. Finally, the corridors are owned by CN/CP even after GO builds their own tracks in them. Finally, GO has a mandate to leave local transit to local transit authorities, so a DRL East is TTC's job, not Metrolinx, and TTC doesn't operate on CN/CP tracks at all.
nfitz
Superstar
That isn't how English is used.
If we followed what you said, we could also say:
Toronto doesn't have a hockey team. There is a hockey team in Toronto, but it's not the City's.
Toronto doesn't have an airport. There is an airport in Toronto, but it's not the City's.
Toronto doesn't have an Ikea. There is an Ikea in Toronto, but it's not the City's.
Toronto does have a rail network.
spider
Senior Member
The Hockey team, Airport and Ikea are each individual companies wholly owned and operated as separate entities witin the city of Toronto.
The Rail network within Toronto's borders is not owned and operated by the same Company as a monolithic entity nor are they wholly contained by the city, their operation is not entirely tailored to serve only the city but a much larger area. Toronto doesn't HAVE a Rail network but one runs through it.
SlickFranky
Active Member
is this urbantoronto or semanticssmackdown???...it's so hard to tell some days
Dan416
Senior Member
semantics smackdown ftw lol
Mapleson
Active Member
You could say all those things and be correct. Likewise, you could say "There is a power utility company in Toronto, that is partially owned by the City". I guess you missed my point of the Corporation of the City of Toronto does not have ownership of the rail cooridors, therefore they cannot just do with them as they please. Capital C city means the legal entity. Little C city means the town, area, etc.
nfitz
Superstar
I don't know how the capitalization you use of "City" in the later statement changes your false claim that Toronto doesn't have a rail system. You didn't say "The City of Toronto doesn't have a rail system".
I'm sure everyone here is well aware that the City doesn't own of the active rail corridors - that's a red herring.
I'm sure everyone here is well aware that the City doesn't own of the active rail corridors - that's a red herring.
Dan416
Senior Member
I'm starting to agree with nfitz far more than I'm comfortable with. He even seems, dare I say, reasonable sometimes.
Mapleson
Active Member
My statement regarding the City of Toronto not having a rail system directly related to ssiguy2's last statement. The TTC can't just "use" the rail lines because they are not City property. If you want to read into my statement more than that, I'll withdraw the contentious part. However, everyone here is obviously not aware that the City doesn't own the active rail cooridors, otherwise why was ssiguy suggesting they should be used by the TTC? GO pays for the privledge, the TTC go their own way.
W. K. Lis
Superstar
If you want to be picky, Toronto does have a street railway, aka streetcars. Of course, Hamilton still has a transit company called the Hamilton Street Railway, in name only since it does not have a street railway operating, yet.