TTC: Other Items (catch all)

[44 North]

Actually, with TYSSE and the underground portion of ECLRT / Line 5, that would vault us back to #1. But the point is that we should be miles ahead and we're not. Bring on the Relief Line. And then let's set some priorities after that.

I don't want to diminish how great the Crosstown is (something like it should've been built in TO half a century ago), but it wouldn't fall into most or all technical definitions of subway/metro considering it will be running in the street. What's included in Burloak's list is pretty standard in terms of classification of subway/metro.

But doesn't the Montreal REM share more characteristics with RER than subway rapid transit? Average stop spacing on the REM is 2.5 km, and it uses existing land rail line. Train frequency specified looks to be quite similar to RER as well (looking at frequency of the branches).

I guess Mtl's REM is still very preliminary, but everything I've gleaned says it's to differ from Ontario's RER vision considerably. And this goes beyond mere station spacing or a branch's frequency. For a local comparison I'd equate it more to Davis' GO-ALRT plan. But tangible worldwide examples would be things like BART, or many contemporary subway expansions with a commuter focus (e.g Washington Metro). That is: very high frequency metro vehicles (aka not mainline railway), maybe with portions run along (but not mixed with) existing rail corridors, and 100% separated from both road and other rail.

From what I can tell the vehicles are to be subway/metro, designed to be run separate from road and rail. So they'll probably have lower crash standards, be lighter weight, and should have decent acceleration. In other words not mainline heavy rail, nor typical street-running LRVs. Any new structures will probably be spec'd to these non-mainline metro vehicles - with tighter turns and steeper gradients than would be built for a conventional diesel or electric commuter train.

If REM's fares are as high as GO's vis-a-vis TTC, then yeah maybe REM should be considered more like RER. But all the reports about it basically lay out that it's to be a subway/metro-class rapid transit system, albeit of the 'lighter' or med capacity variety. *fwiw this is something I'd love to see across the GTA, and imo was very much a missed opportunity with UPX.

Our RER plans however are conventional mainline rail vehicles, using existing corridors, not separated from other rail, with many level crossings, bilevel, bathrooms aboard, etc. And it logically will be priced as a higher tier service or slightly premium compared with conventional public transit, considering that's what it effectively is.

 

[Steve X]

Forget about numbers. It's just a figure to look good and that's all.

The Skytrains have capacity problem. They aren't fully metro unlike TO and Montreal. Only Canada Line counts as Metro and the heck they only have 2 car trains that's unexpandable. Although LRT isn't really true metro, it should be fast and actually carries people like a subway. People keep complaining that LRT is slow and subway is faster. That's not so true if you consider the downtown U or the Paris Metro. Stations are so close together making them slow.

Toronto also have the UPX and soon a RER network. What will Vancouver have in a decade? Just the overcapacity Skytrains.

 

[mrgrieves]

The south Wilson Lot will see 2 development for it like the one that there now. There is a large development plan for Downsview.

There been plans floating around long before Ford became Mayor to convert these lots into Development site.

One only has to look at Victoria Park to see land set aside for a development when it surface that will pay for rebuilding a station that was falling apart. It also meets ODA standards where the old one would require 11 elevators to meet ODA standard. The same thing is to happen to Warren Station and was to happen a few years ago, but lack of funds is holding it back. TTC has another 6 years to start on it if its to meet the 2025 deadline.

Nice to see these lots go since they don't pay for themselves these days. Yorkdale will be only a drop in the bucket for space.

Subways don't pay for themselves either, should we see them go too? I sincerely appreciate your reply, but just trying to make a point that parking lots encourage transit use in the city's suburbs where bus service can be lacking. If you remove too many parking spots, then that's more people driving downtown or wherever to get to work since the subway would no longer make sense for them.

The parking lot that closed last week at Wilson Station will be developed into a strip mall. Doesn't seem like a great use of this space.

The reason I'm replying though is to say that I don't believe Yorkdale parking is just a "drop in the bucket". It's 1,100 spots in addition to the 2,900 spots to be built as part of the line extension to Vaughan. I believe most of the commuters who park at Wilson and Downsview come from the 905 and beyond, and will soon be parking at these new stations.

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

Length is a meaningless metric other than as an ego boost - ridership, mode-share and trip duration is everything.

AoD

 

[amnesiajune]

The reason I'm replying though is to say that I don't believe Yorkdale parking is just a "drop in the bucket". It's 1,100 spots in addition to the 2,900 spots to be built as part of the line extension to Vaughan. I believe most of the commuters who park at Wilson and Downsview come from the 905 and beyond, and will soon be parking at these new stations.

The other thing with Yorkdale is that it's right off the 401, which is much easier for people going downtown from the north and west. As great as it is to have 3,000 spots at Finch or ~1,000 at Steeles West, it's much better to have them in a hassle-free area like Wilson or Yorkdale.

 

[aquateam]

Forget about numbers. It's just a figure to look good and that's all.

The Skytrains have capacity problem. They aren't fully metro unlike TO and Montreal. Only Canada Line counts as Metro and the heck they only have 2 car trains that's unexpandable. Although LRT isn't really true metro, it should be fast and actually carries people like a subway. People keep complaining that LRT is slow and subway is faster. That's not so true if you consider the downtown U or the Paris Metro. Stations are so close together making them slow.

Toronto also have the UPX and soon a RER network. What will Vancouver have in a decade? Just the overcapacity Skytrains.

What people on the ground care about is being able to get to where they want (i.e. system length) reliably (i.e. frequency). Vancouver's Skytrain system is longer than Toronto's and Montreal's metros, and more frequent. Do they really care that Toronto is able to cram more people into a single train than Vancouver is? The focus should be on extending coverage and building more lines when one reaches capacity, not building supersized infrastructure. Besides, by operating more frequently (since they are driverless) Skytrain is able to increase capacity, which is certainly preferably from a user perspective than increasing capacity with longer trains.

But doesn't the Montreal REM share more characteristics with RER than subway rapid transit? Average stop spacing on the REM is 2.5 km, and it uses existing land rail line. Train frequency specified looks to be quite similar to RER as well (looking at frequency of the branches).

Great map! But it's still theoretical at this point. We might as well also be posting the fantasy map of the new head of Projet Montreal (main opposition party)

 

[TheTigerMaster]

I'm skeptical of if Montreal's REM will ever materialize. Like SmartTrack, it appears to have a lot of technical flaws with the plan. In particular, the desire to use light rail vehicles for REM appears to leave it without the capacity to even handle today's ridership, let alone future ridership, according to transit blogs covering the proposal.

 

[amnesiajune]

It's riddled with problems. The two biggest ones are that it's going to be completely separate from the commuter rail and local transit systems, and that nobody really knows how it's going to be operated. The pension fund that wants to operate says that it'll operate at full cost recovery, but if it doesn't will the government subsidize a public transit operator that they don't control?

 

[cplchanb]

It's riddled with problems. The two biggest ones are that it's going to be completely separate from the commuter rail and local transit systems, and that nobody really knows how it's going to be operated. The pension fund that wants to operate says that it'll operate at full cost recovery, but if it doesn't will the government subsidize a public transit operator that they don't control?

In terms of operations, imo its mainly a political potato and semantics that requires just a head beating to sort out. I think the bigger issue relatively is the ability to expand for future growth.
LRT at this time is nothing wrong, as long as the infrastructure has buffers and expansion possibilities built in (ie line 4/viva stations). That being said, until we know exactly how they calculated potential growth and crunched their numbers, imo all comments from
non industry and official personnel in the forums are just hearsay and opinionated.

 

[TheTigerMaster]

In terms of operations, imo its mainly a political potato and semantics that requires just a head beating to sort out. I think the bigger issue relatively is the ability to expand for future growth.
LRT at this time is nothing wrong, as long as the infrastructure has buffers and expansion possibilities built in (ie line 4/viva stations). That being said, until we know exactly how they calculated potential growth and crunched their numbers, imo all comments from
non industry and official personnel in the forums are just hearsay and opinionated.

Fairly comprehensive coverage of REM's issues here: http://www.cat-bus.com/2016/05/how-the-caisses-light-rail-system-will-crumble-under-its-own-weight/

 

[jje1000]

I have no doubt that it will be built in some form- there's so much provincial and municipal pride involved that it has to be delivered.

However, whether or not it's earns enough to cover its operating costs is another question. I think we'll need to wait and see to see if it ends up like a gigantic UP Express (never able to make a profit) or not.

 

[cplchanb]

that blog looks like just another pro metro blog so regardless of factual validity cant be taken as official fact.
Its just the same as the whole options for davenport site. Looks good with enticing facts.
Are there official sources and studies available from STM or Govt of Montreal/Quebec to back those claims?

 

[jje1000]

What people on the ground care about is being able to get to where they want (i.e. system length) reliably (i.e. frequency). Vancouver's Skytrain system is longer than Toronto's and Montreal's metros, and more frequent. Do they really care that Toronto is able to cram more people into a single train than Vancouver is? The focus should be on extending coverage and building more lines when one reaches capacity, not building supersized infrastructure. Besides, by operating more frequently (since they are driverless) Skytrain is able to increase capacity, which is certainly preferably from a user perspective than increasing capacity with longer trains.

My opinion as well- capacity can be solved to a certain extent by adding more lines where needed, and that will help coverage even more.

 

[44 North]

Forget about numbers. It's just a figure to look good and that's all.

The Skytrains have capacity problem. They aren't fully metro unlike TO and Montreal. Only Canada Line counts as Metro and the heck they only have 2 car trains that's unexpandable. Although LRT isn't really true metro, it should be fast and actually carries people like a subway. People keep complaining that LRT is slow and subway is faster. That's not so true if you consider the downtown U or the Paris Metro. Stations are so close together making them slow.

Toronto also have the UPX and soon a RER network. What will Vancouver have in a decade? Just the overcapacity Skytrains.

And Toronto doesn't have capacity problems? We have a huge subset of the population that has simply given up on our system for the sole reason of our crowding. It's downright dangerous. I'm also not sure how a 2-car Canada Line would be the 'only part of Vancouver's system that counts as a metro', but its 4-6 car trains don't. Just because Canada Line is 50cm wider shouldn't make a difference. The 2.5m trains share the same width as Montreal's system.

Also, I can't really see how UPX is a shining example in how it compares with Canada Line. Ignoring the general failure of UPX's premium fare premise: one line is 3.5m frequency (w/ 7min frequency to YVR) and has a capacity of 335; the other line is 15min frequency to YYZ and a capacity of 173. UPX's trains aren't even designed for standees and the infrastructure was set out to be a high-class low-use service. In other words UPX has lower capacity and lower frequency, and with its price reduction will likely have a much graver future than Canada Line ever will. No question CL should've been built with longer trains, but IMO it's much more forward-thinking and straphanger-friendly.

 

[TheTigerMaster]

Comparing the UPX and Canadian Line is quite silly. They're both targetign totally different travellers. I don't think the UPX would even qualify as a mass transit system?

Toronto also have the UPX and soon a RER network. What will Vancouver have in a decade? Just the overcapacity Skytrains.

What expansions does Vancouver have for the upcoming year. Off the top of my head, Toronto has RER, Spadina Extension, Crosstown, Crosstown West, Crosstown East, Finch West LRT, Relief Line and I suppose the Yonge North Extension and the northern and western extensions of the Relief Line. The latter three will be shovel ready in the upcoming years, although we've yet to see any other political commitment of any kind to them, beyond the $200 Million in funding to get them construction-ready.