TransitBart
Senior Member
How true.
|
|
|
TTC: Streetcar Network
- Thread starter wolfewood
- Start date
11th
Senior Member
EELRT - an LRT sold as rapid transit, (to be) built as a tram line. However, they will tell you it is rapid transit by calling it line 5, and putting the line and labelling every stops of it on the rail network map.
Johnny Au
Senior Member
What about rolling stock shortage emergencies?
Don't forget when the Toronto Rocket was used on Line 2 on a temporary basis.
I would not be surprised if Boston were to use a different line's rolling stock during shortage emergencies.
smallspy
Senior Member
"Rapid Transit" is a relative term, not a literal one.
In its current potential configuration it going to be faster than the existing buses? Absolutely. Is it going to make taking public transit far better for the vast, vast majority of the population in its service area? Undoubtedly.
Will a system that only has stops at major intersections such as the express bus do those same things? The first one is a resounding yes, but the second one is more up for debate. There are lot of people who live between those major roads which will find it much harder to access rapid transit, either by greatly increasing the length of their walk to a stop where they can board, or by requiring an additional transfer to access it. That's the trade-off.
In this case, I think that they've achieved a good balance of speed and accessibility. And by the sounds of the comments from the people who've attended the meetings, they think so too.
Dan
lead82
Senior Member
That’s all fine and good. I’m all for solid rail based transit. However, I would disagree that we could call this LRT rapid transit. I think the general population would consider subways and GO rail transit as rapid. Buses and streetcars are not considered rapid. I believe that rapid in most people’s mind is semi-express service to cross long distances. This is how the LRTs are sold. The politicians sell this as a rapid transit for Scarborough. This is why the subway proponents disparage LRT as a glorified streetcar service - because realistically that’s what Toronto is building. It’s a glorified version of St Clair ROW. St. Clair has good service but rapid it is not.
I’m not saying it’s not worth the investment but what I’m saying is that we should be realistic with the intent of this service - provide good and reliable local transit for Scarborough.
I’m not saying it’s not worth the investment but what I’m saying is that we should be realistic with the intent of this service - provide good and reliable local transit for Scarborough.
smallspy
Senior Member
Is the busway in Ottawa not "rapid transit"? They sell it as such, and yet it uses nothing but lowly buses....
There are a lot of other cities around the world that have no issues using LRTs in very similar contexts to how Toronto is planning on using them and calling it rapid transit. And they've been selling the various LRT projects in Toronto as "rapid transit" not in comparison to what other modes are out there in a general sense, but how the lines will be better than what the residents currently are used to. And I think that's the important factor here. At any of the meetings for the Transit City lines, very, very seldom did people from the community state that they categorically wanted a "faster line" than what was being offered. What they wanted was a faster and more reliable method of getting around than what was and is being offered - and using this "brand" of LRT is one way of doing that.
Any rapid transit system or mode can mean many things to many people depending on how its packaged. There are RER and rapid rail systems with average speeds down around subways. There are subways with average speeds approaching rapid rail systems. There are LRTs with average speeds higher than both. Does that mean that any of those systems on the extremes are not doing what they are supposed to do? Of course not - they are designed to do what they need to do within in the context of their area.
On that, I will agree.
Dan
W. K. Lis
Superstar
lead82
Senior Member
I would consider Ottawa BRT as rapid as the stops are far enough apart and it runs on a dedicated ROW and not in the middle of the street for the most part. The problem in Toronto is that the LRTs we are building will be more or less just like what Torontians see on Spadina, St. Clair and Queens Quay. They will he bogged down by traffic lights and will have the same operational problems as the other lines mentioned - that being frequent stops and the problem of stopping before a red light and then after for the stop.
I attended the FWLRT sessions, most people there were seniors. They of course want closer stops because it would be convenient for them. However, we need to consider that most riders on that route are lower income folks and students. Most of whom have long trips across the top part of the city. FW is an interesting project because it was one of the few lines in Transit City that had fairly reasonable stop spacing for the most part. Part of that was due to the nature of the area being serviced which had big blocks between streets.
W. K. Lis
Superstar
The Crosstown LRT will have station spacing similar to Line 2. We are promised to see that the transit signals will REALLY be transit priority, which we will have to see.
The TTC is trying to remove the frequent stops for both streetcars and buses, if it wasn't for the NIMBYs and Councillors interfering with improving the outcome. We saw the NIMBY interference with both Spadina and St. Clair.
Last edited:
nfitz
Superstar
Most of it is wider than Line 2. Coxwell station lines up with Science Centre station. There are only four stops between Science Centre and Yonge on Line 5 compared with seven stops on Line 2. In the west, Mount Dennis lines up with High Park. There are eight stops on Line 5 between Yonge and Mount Dennis compared to ten on Line 2! That's five less stops!
The spacing is really only comparable, when you compare the 9 surface stops between Science Centre and Kennedy to the downtown section of Line 2.
Rainforest
Senior Member
It is understandable that TTC want to avoid running light rail and buses in parallel, wherever possible. Express + local bus route pairs are cheaper to operate, because most of express buses run during the peak only. But if the route has express light rail plus a local bus, then both services have to be run for most of the day, resulting in higher operating costs.
However, sometimes the local bus may be needed anyway. Currently, bus # 116 running in the Eglinton East corridor serves Guildwood Parkway, and the section of Morningside Avenue from the lake to Lawrence. The LRT will not directly serve that route, therefore the bus will remain in some form.
The question is, where will that bus terminate in the west. There are 3 reasonable options: (A) Remain on Eglinton East, running alongside the light rail to Kennedy Stn; (B) Go down Kingston Road, and then use St Clair to reach Warden Stn; (C) Do not run to any subway station, terminate at a major EE LRT stop such as Eglinton GO Stn.
Not sure which option will be selected, but if it is (A), then potentially it allows to eliminate minor EE LRT stops between Kennedy and the Kingston / Guildwood intersection.
However, sometimes the local bus may be needed anyway. Currently, bus # 116 running in the Eglinton East corridor serves Guildwood Parkway, and the section of Morningside Avenue from the lake to Lawrence. The LRT will not directly serve that route, therefore the bus will remain in some form.
The question is, where will that bus terminate in the west. There are 3 reasonable options: (A) Remain on Eglinton East, running alongside the light rail to Kennedy Stn; (B) Go down Kingston Road, and then use St Clair to reach Warden Stn; (C) Do not run to any subway station, terminate at a major EE LRT stop such as Eglinton GO Stn.
Not sure which option will be selected, but if it is (A), then potentially it allows to eliminate minor EE LRT stops between Kennedy and the Kingston / Guildwood intersection.
smallspy
Senior Member
The stop spacing on any of the LRT lines proposed to be built or currently under construction is far greater on average than any of those streetcar lines you listed.
As for being bogged down with traffic lights - those are also far fewer of those out in the suburbs. But there is the concern about Transportation Services and how they will operate the traffic signals.
That certainly wasn't the case for the Eglinton sessions. There were a lot of single professionals and young families who attended the drop-ins.
Dan
thettctransitfanatic
Senior Member
Are you sure about that? For years, 400m spacing or less ( at one point, a stop on 501 downtown was less than 100m apart! ) for stops on the surface network was common.
nfitz
Superstar
Where are you getting 400 metres from? 200 metres is more common.
thettctransitfanatic
Senior Member
Oh, I see. But, I personally think stops should be spaced out a bit more then what they are currently during, maybe build "stations" for the surface network, like with the VIVA Rapidway stops