TTC: Other Items (catch all)

[Steve X]

Interestingly, the 40 is one of only three former trolley bus routes that weren't changed significantly since the wires came down (routes 6, 47, 61, 63/63F, 74/103 were extended and/or merged with other routes, while routes 4, 40, 89 remain as is, despite the 4 Annette being renamed 26 Dupont). It really should have been reviewed in the mid 1990s after the route was dieselized.

I generally like the changes, though the 189's routing is a bit weird. I guess there's not enough room at the Keele Station loop.

No one really lived near the Stockyards nor was St Clair a major destination back then. The junction was more of an abandoned place and it didn't make to extend the 40 at all back in the mid 90s. The 79B along St Clair didn't even exist back then. Changes made in the mid 90s were beyond the trolley bus routes. The 41 was rerouted in Keele while they created the 168. 63F turn into 161 and was extended over the old 48 Humber Blvd bus route. It just didn't make sense to touch the 40.

 

[thettctransitfanatic]

Interestingly, the 40 is one of only three former trolley bus routes that weren't changed significantly since the wires came down (routes 6, 47, 61, 63/63F, 74/103 were extended and/or merged with other routes, while routes 4, 40, 89 remain as is, despite the 4 Annette being renamed 26 Dupont). It really should have been reviewed in the mid 1990s after the route was dieselized.

I generally like the changes, though the 189's routing is a bit weird. I guess there's not enough room at the Keele Station loop.

I am okay with the routings of 40 and 30, but I really don't think the 189 will see many riders. If you just take a look at the routing, you'll see what I mean.

 

[muller877]

I am okay with the routings of 40 and 30, but I really don't think the 189 will see many riders. If you just take a look at the routing, you'll see what I mean.

189 will go by:
- Rona/Home Depot/Cdn Tire/Best Buy plaza(s)
- Stockyards (including Nations Food)
- Walmart + plaza
- new plaza just west of Walmart (under construction)
- new commercial/industrial plaza where Danier Leather was
- Woolner St apartment complex

That's a lot of trip generators (both for minimum/low wage workers in these locations plus shoppers).

Right now the only transit west of Runnymede is the 79B bus which is only every 30 min (15 at rush). To get people out of their cars to go shopping or get to work that won't cut it.

 

[W. K. Lis]

No one really lived near the Stockyards nor was St Clair a major destination back then. The junction was more of an abandoned place and it didn't make to extend the 40 at all back in the mid 90s. The 79B along St Clair didn't even exist back then. Changes made in the mid 90s were beyond the trolley bus routes. The 41 was rerouted in Keele while they created the 168. 63F turn into 161 and was extended over the old 48 Humber Blvd bus route. It just didn't make sense to touch the 40.

The 79 SCARLETT ROAD (see link) was created in 1966, replacing the southern portion of the 93 WOODBRIDGE (see link) bus.

 

[steveintoronto]

Current studies indicate the RL and B-Y station expansion are both required to meet demand by 2031.

http://www.metrolinx.com/en/docs/pdf/board_agenda/20150625/2015-06-25_Yonge_Relief_Network_Study.pdf

And here's what has to be revisited:

The study was based on far too weak a model. My point stands: Put the massive amounts of money needed for a Y-B station expansion into circumventing the need for not only now, but for the future. There's very little more capacity for the *entire line* to be squeezed out. That holds true for Line 1 and 2.

I repeat: "It's like squeezing a third row of seats into the family sedan". Unless you increase capacity to many other stations, you end up with the same problem time and again. And the massive inconvenience of closing the line for a year (and good luck on that claim) to do it.

Build a new line, don't make it orthodox subway, make it at least metro size, and start thinking outside the box instead of forever trying to expand it. Circumvent the need, like other cities are doing.

 

[Northern Light]

View attachment 171962
View attachment 171963
http://www.metrolinx.com/en/docs/pdf/board_agenda/20150625/2015-06-25_Yonge_Relief_Network_Study.pdf

That very same presentation shows that the net effect of Relief Line SHORT, is to subtract 6000 riders from the base case Yonge North extension numbers. (consult page 20)

The result of which still leaves the line at capacity, no improvement from today.

Its the Relief Line LONG that shows the more substantial result. (-11 600) which allows for that comment in the slides.

However, that line will not be in place in 2031. (or 2029, subject to Mr. Tory's acceleration).

 

[steveintoronto]

However, that line will not be in place in 2031. (or 2029, subject to Mr. Tory's acceleration).

You've based it on Toronto think. The subway upload will force a complete rethink of this.

And when is the B-Y station predicted to be finished? Let alone started? And how are you going to deal with the closing of the station while it is ongoing?

That study is being questioned on a number of points, and for good reason. Many of the assumed figures and parameters are now proving suspect. I'll add more later when I can supply more specific reference to how those figures...how a *lot of Metrolinx figures* were massaged to fit a politically desired answer.

 

[DSC]

TTC plans to hire dozens of fare inspectors to deter people from skipping out on paying

See: https://www.thestar.com/news/gta/20...deter-people-from-skipping-out-on-paying.html

 

[Northern Light]

You've based it on Toronto think. The subway upload will force a complete rethink of this.

And when is the B-Y station predicted to be finished? Let alone started? And how are you going to deal with the closing of the station while it is ongoing?

That study is being questioned on a number of points, and for good reason. Many of the assumptions are now proving suspect. I'll add more later when I can supply more specific reference to how those figures...how a *lot of Metrolinx figures* were massaged to fit a politically desired answer.

Steve.......I have based my statement on the facts; some of which are public, some of which are not.

I don't appreciated your condescending tone.

I was even kind enough to give you a hint in a private message, which you haven't read, and I would appreciate your not disclosing even if it is necessarily vague.

 

[steveintoronto]

Steve.......I have based my statement on the facts; some of which are public, some of which are not.

I don't appreciated your condescending tone.

I was even kind enough to give you a hint in a private message, which you haven't read, and I would appreciate your not disclosing even if it is necessarily vague.

I stand behind my claim. Do it big, or go home. It's not condescending at all. One only has to look at how other cities have faced up to the need for a metro or heavier to do the needed lifting. Let's flip this over for the sake of argument: What other city is building a subway to handle the load this needs? Toronto is pretending that an orthodox "four car train to start" subway will do it. No wonder Toronto keeps ending up at the same place.

 

[Northern Light]

I stand behind my claim. Do it big, or go home. It's not condescending at all. One only has to look at how other cities have faced up to the need for a metro or heavier to do the needed lifting. Let's flip this over for the sake of argument: What other city is building a subway to handle the load this needs? Toronto is pretending that an orthodox "four car train to start" subway will do it. No wonder Toronto keeps ending up at the same place.

Where are you getting the four-car to start from?

The stations are all designed for six-car trains with 500ft platforms, the only statement in reference to shorter trains is that cars per train will be determined by later work. (ie. detailed modelling)

But the initial frequency plan contemplates peak service at roughly 3'15 intervals on opening day regardless; with the system built for 90s intervals and six-car trains.

 

[Northern Light]

Relief Line North hasn't even finalized the alignment (publicly) yet.

Design is a good 2 years behind the RL Short. (minimum)

RL North to Eglinton (and beyond) will happen. But not quickly enough to address Y/B issues in the medium term.

 

[steveintoronto]

Where are you getting the four-car to start from?

Copied from an earlier UT post:

Here's one instance:

[...]

http://www.toronto.ca/legdocs/mmis/2016/ex/bgrd/backgroundfile-94624.pdf

Here's another:
Using the more frequent service, the Relief Line would require 11 4-car trains for service plus spares, and the study presumes that they would be stored at Greenwood Yard. This is not possible without the construction of a new subway yard, currently planned for property near Kipling Station. That is an added cost that will be triggered by various subway options including the RL and some service configurations of the extended BD/Scarborough subway.
https://stevemunro.ca/2016/06/27/torontos-network-plan-2031-part-iv-relief-line/

https://urbantoronto.ca/forum/threads/ttc-relief-line-south-in-design.6155/page-575

I do see some claims for 9 4 car trains, other claims for 11 4 car trains.

Addendum:
Here's support for @Northern Light 's claim *eventually*:

[...]On opening day the Relief Line South will operate service frequency ranging between 2 minutes 45 seconds and 4 minutes in the AM peak, depending on the number of cars per train which will be determined through future work. By 2041, demand is forecasted to increase and the service will operate a frequency ranging between 2 minutes and 3 minutes in the AM peak depending on the number of cars per train. This will require approximately 48 to 54 cars in-service or between 56 and 63 total cars with a 15% operating spare ratio. The Relief Line South project will be designed to accommodate an ultimate service of a 1 minutes 30 seconds frequency with 6 car trains. This service frequency is estimated to be required when the Relief Line is extended north towards Sheppard Avenue. [...]

http://reliefline.ca/uploads/20180813_RLS EPR_Section 1 Introduction final to City.pdf
Pg 14

This is still Mickey Mouse. All this expense and vitriol to end up essentially pizzing through a straw. One of the shortcomings of REM as articulated by a number of astute observers is the inability to match present service levels through Mount Royal Tunnel using legacy full loading gauge AMT BBD electrics.

There's a very good reason London UK went for Crossrail: It was necessary to relieve the tube lines, which were/are maxed out and accepts 12 car mainline trains every 2.5 minutes with the ability to do it slightly under 2 min headway. Did it cost more than narrow straws? Yes, about twice the price, for a yield of many times more than twice the capacity and speed of service.

[...]
Allowing London to grow
The Elizabeth line will provide a 10 per cent increase in central London’s rail capacity, relieving congestion on many existing rail and Tube lines. It will bring 1.5 million more people across London within a 45 minute commute of the key business districts of the West End, City and Docklands.

Cutting journey times
As well as boosting capacity and improving connections, the Elizabeth line will cut journey times for the estimated 200 million people who will use it each year. For example, the journey from Heathrow to the West End will take about 30 minutes compared to about 50 minutes today.

Providing an economic legacy
The Elizabeth line will support regeneration across the capital by bringing people closer to jobs, providing new transport links and through significant new developments over stations. The new railway will add an estimated £42bn to the UK economy.
[...]

https://www.london.gov.uk/transport/rail-and-underground/crossrail-elizabeth-line

I do apologize however, for presuming that Toronto could get it right sometime. I lurch into fantasy too often on that point. Only other *world cities* can do it that way.

 

[W. K. Lis]

They won't since the Relief Line would not follow the entire length of Queen Street. For such a short distance, they won't tear up the tracks, especially for reconstruction, detours, service disruptions on the Relief Line itself, and short turns.

Where are you getting the four-car to start from?

The stations are all designed for six-car trains with 500ft platforms, the only statement in reference to shorter trains is that cars per train will be determined by later work. (ie. detailed modelling)

But the initial frequency plan contemplates peak service at roughly 3'15 intervals on opening day regardless; with the system built for 90s intervals and six-car trains.

Line 4 SHEPPARD started, key-word "started", as a four-car train, and remains to this day as a four-car train.

The Line 1 YONGE started as a two-car trains during the off-hours. That's two-car Gloucester trains, which were smaller.

From link.

The Yonge subway, however, was an overnight success. Riders flocked to try out the line, and commuters continued to use it long after the novelty wore off. Two-car Gloucester trains that were supposed to operate during periods of low ridership became very uncommon. Four-car trains became the minimum, and six-car trains standard in service. Eventually, ridership increased to the point where eight-car Gloucester trains operated from Monday through Saturday from the early morning to the early evening. Likewise, when the longer Montreal Locomotive Works and Hawker Siddeley cars arrived on the subway, Sunday service occasionally saw two-car Hawker trains at first, although four-car trains became the minimum and, after the 1990s, six-car trains became standard during all hours of operation.

 

[Northern Light]

Line 4 SHEPPARD started, key-word "started", as a four-car train, and remains to this day as a four-car train.

The Line 1 YONGE started as a two-car trains during the off-hours. That's two-car Gloucester trains, which were smaller.

From link.

Yes, but the limitation on Sheppard is that the full length of the platform is not complete (the box is six-car long) but is unfinished beyond the 4-car length.

Also there isn't the demand for longer trains there yet. In rush hour Line 4 is getting crowded, but that could be addressed by upping frequency for the forseeable future (there's room to more than double
rush-hour frequency before the issue of fitting out the full boxes comes up.

In the case of the RL, the full stations will be finished from Day One.