JSF-1
Active Member
Yes I am aware, I just used it as an example, and also because while it is a subway it is served by a verity of Commuter services (Tobu, Tokyu, and Seibu).
|
|
|
MisterF
Senior Member
Most of that work is already happening for RER. That includes a new fleet of trains, grade separations, new tracks, and a massive reconfiguration of Union. So the merits of the current GO fleet aren't really relevant. I highly doubt that one more RER branch would require a tunnel under Union.
Atlanta was just an example. Your claim wasn't about Toronto specifically, it was that four trains an hour is not rapid transit. That claim is false.
RER in Toronto will provide service that approaches subway style service in Toronto and surpasses the subway in lots of cities. It doesn't have to be on the level of the very best transit cities in the world to do that.
44 North
Senior Member
Is it actually "false" though? I mean, there's no real definition of "rapid transit" so it's largely an academic discussion. And in Toronto with preexisting rapid transit services operating at very high frequencies, would a 15min service qualify as rapid transit? Doesn't seem like it. Relative to servicing SC, certainly not when weighed against a Line 3 upgrade or Line 2 extension. However since there's no actual definition I guess it *could* be, but imo once you pass ~7mins at peak that a service wouldn't qualify as rapid transit - again, relative to existing services in the GTA.
Then there's the fare thing. If we're completely excluding that from the discussion, would you have considered UPX @ $30 fares to be rapid transit? I'm pretty sure most would not. Fares and frequencies are a huge part of this. This is a key reason why it's hard to accept the conceptual aspects of RER, because it very much is largely conceptual.
MisterF
Senior Member
There are rapid transit lines that have fewer than 4 trains an hour so yes, it's false. Again, he made a broad statement, not anything specific to Toronto. And while I agree that the term "rapid transit" is used differently by different people, you're painting a conveniently specific picture of what it is.
But again, it doesn't really matter since there's no reason that a hypothetical RER branch to STC should be limited by the proposed RER frequency to Aurora or Oshawa.
rbt
Senior Member
I generally agree. However, there are some who compare metro maps with Toronto without adjusting the maps for lines with lower frequencies.
Excluding lines which run through Manhattan (and airport people-movers), there are only about 5 lines in the United States which hit 3 minute peak frequencies.
Also, selecting a cut-off that fits Canada (Vancouver/Montreal/Ottawa all hit similar or better peak frequencies) feels a bit like Chicago deciding to count skyscrapers as including empty spires but not spires with elevators and observation decks midway up (like CN Tower).
Anyway, if you have a rapid transit cut-off frequency of less than 15 minutes then you cannot compare officially published metro maps as peers as on this continent that seems to be the more common standard.
Last edited:
TheTigerMaster
Superstar
Yeah. Basic visual comparisons of metro maps have never provided useful discussion. It says nothing about the effectiveness of the systems.
That's a good observation. The metro systems in a lot of US cities, including Washington and Atlanta, aren't much more than glorified commuter rail services. Washington in particular has 3 to 4 km stop spacing, and train frequencies of 4 to 20 mins. The vehicles and stations look like a metro, but the service patterns are more in line with GO Rail than with any proper large city metro system from Canada, Europe or Asia.
Are you sure you're not trying to do the opposite? It seems to me that you're trying to expand the concept of rapid transit to include those low frequency services. If you look at any of the large European or Asian cities, I doubt you'll find very many metro systems running with four trains/hour. Those handful of American cities are outliers.
rbt
Senior Member
I don't care what definition is selected if it's consistent. I really dislike when definitions change depending on the subject matter though. Agreed that USA is an outlier and that after spending significant time in Moscow or even Mexico City I don't find TTC peak service particularly frequent (or crowded) BUT UT does love to post metro maps of Chicago when complaining about lack of TTC rapid transit expansion.
I'm not sure I could choose a definition of rapid transit; waiting 10 minutes for an express doesn't seem so bad for a long trip. I'd toss the HongKong to Ghangzhou helicopter services into the Rapid Transit category (albeit not for the local middle-class commuter) which costs about ~$200 for the trip with service every 10 to 15 minutes. Beats the crap out of the fast ferry (50mph) and trains that run every 90 seconds with infinity stops.
Last edited:
sixrings
Senior Member
A decade ago I went to university in Calgary where the rapid transit ran once every 15mins in weather sometimes -40. Torontonians are a bit spoiled that we want everything underground and running every couple minutes. That said we need a heck of a lot more transit.
Btw torontonians are also spoiled with extremely easy transfers versus what I have experienced in other cities including the mecca NYC. In new York to transfer sometimes you walk up dozens of stairs across whole blocks and then back down again. In toronto people use the esculators like they're amusement park rides.
Btw torontonians are also spoiled with extremely easy transfers versus what I have experienced in other cities including the mecca NYC. In new York to transfer sometimes you walk up dozens of stairs across whole blocks and then back down again. In toronto people use the esculators like they're amusement park rides.
ssiguy2
Senior Member
You have to remember that RER's promise of service each way/ all day is a MINIMUM service level. In other words that includes Sunday mornings at 9 AM. RER will run far more frequently than that during regular business days. Also this 15 minute figure is for the beginning of service in 2025 as ridership and hence frequencies will only increase after that. RER/ST, all depending on the fares from each direction, must be built {and expect to have} trains running into the downtown every single minute.
Think about it.............from the western section past Union in rush hour you will have RER from Brampton, Aurora, and Burlington arriving in approx. every 8 minutes each as well as VIA, the 15 minute UPX service, and GO commuter rail including Milton which will eventually get RER as well.
Think about it.............from the western section past Union in rush hour you will have RER from Brampton, Aurora, and Burlington arriving in approx. every 8 minutes each as well as VIA, the 15 minute UPX service, and GO commuter rail including Milton which will eventually get RER as well.
Sakraycore
Active Member
15 minutes per train even to start off is too much of a downgrade from the existing SRT.
Kyle Campbell
Active Member
Even when removing two transfers and a faster trip downtown?
Sakraycore
Active Member
With the 15 minutes wait time would it still come out ahead? How is the RER station going to look like?
JSF-1
Active Member
People tend to not notice how much time passes while sitting on a train (unless they aren't moving). However people do and will notice how long they are standing on a platform for a train. Its like riding a bus, unless you are in an absolute rush you're probably sitting on the bus doing what ever it is you do, oblivious to the minutes ticking by. However if your waiting at a bus stop for 20 minutes for a bus, I bet you're passing back and forth furious. That's the human side of it. As someone who rely's on the SRT the thought of waiting 15 minutes for a train (compared to the 5 now) is very unappealing.
Streety McCarface
Senior Member
If there's level boarding and adequate transit to the subway (which there won't be), then I can get on board with this idea. Otherwise, you're throwing on about 40K people onto the existing Stouffville line, which currently carries around 15K people...You're requiring a capacity increase of around 2.6. If we look at the existing RT, assuming crush loads every 5 minutes, it's transporting about 1200 passengers every 15 minutes. That's the equivalent of a 4 car crush-load GO Train (which is not comfortable, the train would have to probably be around 12 cars to accommodate everyone comfortably). That is not feasible for this corridor as a replacement.
M II A II R II K
Senior Member
Downtown RER would be a lot more frequent than 15 minutes since it’s a trunk route for all the lines, assuming you’re only traveling along the trunk route.