Whose vision of transit in Toronto do you support?

[nfitz]

And fyi nobody would ever use "subway" in that way. I bet if you looked it up it'd be "archaic" or "British" or something. You'll only see "subway" written in that context on old infrastructure.

Why do you say such fundamentally wrong statements?

Check out the Calgary LRT plans.

Southeast LRT
An alignment for Southeast LRT has been approved from the downtown to the new communities
and South Hospital planned south of Marquis of Lorne Tr. The line will be over 26 kilometres
long. LRT cars operating on this line will be low floor vehicles that will require minimal station
platforms and allow for better community integration. The downtown section of the route will be
located in a subway under 2nd Street SW.

And then there is their Downtown-8 Avenue Subway.

I'm perplexed at why you are making this stuff up?

 

[Dan416]

I'm making stuff up now? Saying "subway" when you mean a "tunnel" is like saying a "looking glass" when you mean "mirror" and then you act surprised that people look at you funny.

 

[CapitalSeven]

From Merriam-Webster:
Main Entry: sub·way
Pronunciation: \ˈsəb-ˌwā\
Function: noun
Date: 1825
: an underground way: as a : a passage under a street (as for pedestrians, power cables, or water or gas mains) b : a usually electric underground railway c : underpass

From Cambridge Online
subway noun ( RAILWAY ) /ˈsʌb.weɪ/ n [C]
mainly US a railway system in which electric trains travel along passages below ground

So, a subway is an underground electric railway. The middle 10 kms of Eglinton will be underground, electric and with trains on rails. And it's not a subway because?

 

[Woodbridge_Heights]

fun with symantics is brought to you by the letter y. Vowel or Consenant? You decide.

 

[ssiguy2]

^ that's a good one LOL.

I Have to agree with Fresh Start on everything he is saying. Eglinton warrants a subway not an underground LRT.
It seems like a obscene waste of money to build an underground LRT for several reasons.........................it will cost the same, can't be automated, will require longer stations to accomadate what smaller subway stations can do, the tracks only last 30 years until they have to be replaced, and per person the trains are about the same price but subway cars last longer. I do not know enough about the hills and LRT climbing capacity to comment on that so I will stay clear. Of course the biggest problem is what happens when the LRT leaves the underground. The trains will stop too often, have to wait for all lights and left hand turns, the trains will have to be much smaller in order to avoid a train taking up nearly an entire city block and they will be unreliable.
Why unreliable?.............because even a little traffic light failure, to say nothing of a full accident at the corner or anywhere along the route will bring the entire system to a screatching halt. Even the TTC's much vaunted Taj Mahal tunnel will be nothing more than a parking lot.
I think LRT could work along Finch or Sheppard but with half the number of stops they are proposing and underpasses whenever it meets a light and built into those underpasses could be U-Turn routes.
You build rapid rail transit to accomodate projected need for 100 years not 25. 25 years comes up faster than you think and your Eglinton LRT will become a white elephant aka SRT.

 

[Ansem]

False ... we are building a subway under Eglinton. It has much of the same extent as the first phase of the 1969 plan.

Subway= HRT from Jane to Don mills + LRT on both ends

A line that stops at red lights and have an underground section is not a subway...
By your definition the 510 and 509 streetcars are subways...

-They have an underground sections with 2 stations and stop at red lights the rest of the way...


Eglinton Lrt is a "glorified an overpriced" streetcar line

 

[Second_in_pie]

I think the main argument is that Eglinotn needs to be HRT outside of the central portion, no? The central portion may be subway quality, but it's the outer sections that are getting cut.

 

[Ansem]

Good grief ...

It's been demonstrated time and time again just how wrong you are on that issue. Demand is a bit over 5,000 decades from now. Capacity on that segment is pushing triple that.

You have absolutely no basis for that statement.

And as for being an anti-transit NIMBY ... come on ... you've demonstrated that very well with your Ford support. No candidate has ever been as anti-transit (or anti-intellectual) than he is ... well, perhaps Pol Pot was more anti-intellectual ...

Why are you defending so hard a study that contradicts DECADES of studies stating that Eglinton warranted HRT subways???
Using your own words...

Good grief, they even started digging the whole thing...

The day that the DRL reaches Eglinton on both sides, your LRT will start to get overcrowded real fast
-Take all the bus routes north of Eglinton. Those working/going Downtown will use Eglinton to reach the DRL instead of continuing on the bus to Bloor or Danforth
-Have they taken that into consideration? No

 

[Ansem]

I think the main argument is that Eglinotn needs to be HRT outside of the central portion, no? The central portion may be subway quality, but it's the outer sections that are getting cut.

You're right. Subway needs to reach both the airport and Kennedy Station

 

[Asterix]

^ that's a good one LOL.
the tracks only last 30 years until they have to be replaced,

How often do subway tracks have to be replaced and why would there be a difference in the underground segment?

Even the TTC's much vaunted Taj Mahal tunnel will be nothing more than a parking lot.

What do you suppose the crossover tracks at the ends of the tunnel portion? The trains are bi-directional.

Where is it described that the tunnels (twin bore) is so elaborate as to be compared to the Taj Mahal?

 

[gweed123]

False. We are building a partially grade separated LRT line on Eglinton.

You're both semi-right. We're building an LRT subway central portion with at-grade outer portions. Unfortunately, the outer portions will ultimately dictate the headways and train lengths, as they capacity of a system is determined by its 'weakest' point(s). The tunnel is not the limiting factor here, the at-grade portions are.

 

[gweed123]

Good grief ...

It's been demonstrated time and time again just how wrong you are on that issue. Demand is a bit over 5,000 decades from now. Capacity on that segment is pushing triple that.

You have absolutely no basis for that statement.

And as for being an anti-transit NIMBY ... come on ... you've demonstrated that very well with your Ford support. No candidate has ever been as anti-transit (or anti-intellectual) than he is ... well, perhaps Pol Pot was more anti-intellectual ...

He posted a document from U of T claiming the numbers to be 6x what you have quoted. There was demand for HRT in the 70s. There was demand for HRT in the 90s. Heck, even Metrolinx wanted this line to be HRT, or at the very least ICTS. All of those studies point to significantly higher ridership. Yet you take 1 study from the TTC and hold it up as gospel, even though it flies directly in the face of all the other studies out there saying that 5000 pphpd is only a fraction of the ridership the line will be seeing.

 

[rbt]

Unfortunately, the outer portions will ultimately dictate the headways and train lengths, as they capacity of a system is determined by its 'weakest' point(s). The tunnel is not the limiting factor here, the at-grade portions are.

If they are restricted in this way it is because of a political choice and not a technical limitation. Turning back 2/3rds of the trains at the tunnel exits is both possible and practical. Multiple turnback points is done regularly with the subway today (St. Clair West) and is planned to be standard operation on the Spadina and Yonge extensions, should they both be built.

There is also a very high probability that the tunnel will be signalized via ATO. ATO is the cheapest option today for a new high-frequency signal system as the TTC will already have the expensive control room bits in place and it does not need as much in-tunnel gear and there is interest in having the tunnel signalized for safety reasons. That means these extra in-tunnel only trains could even run fully automated with drivers only on the ones which exit the tunnel, potentially even catching it at the tunnel exit.

 

[gweed123]

If they are restricted in this way it is because of a political choice and not a technical limitation. Turning back 2/3rds of the trains at the tunnel exits is both possible and practical. Multiple turnback points is done regularly with the subway today (St. Clair West) and is planned to be standard operation on the Spadina and Yonge extensions, should they both be built.

There is also a very high probability that the tunnel will be signalized via ATO. ATO is the cheapest option today for a new high-frequency signal system as the TTC will already have the expensive control room bits in place and it does not need as much in-tunnel gear and there is interest in having the tunnel signalized for safety reasons. That means these extra in-tunnel only trains could even run fully automated with drivers only on the ones which exit the tunnel, potentially even catching it at the tunnel exit.

That's one way to do it. Or you could not sell Toronto short and grade-separate the whole thing. The Richview corridor is there, USE IT! It's like saying "nah, I'd rather bushwhack" when there's a trail right beside you. It doesn't make any sense.

 

[nfitz]

He posted a document from U of T claiming the numbers to be 6x what you have quoted.

That study seems so bizarre that I didn't think it worth mentioning. It seems to be a student project from a couple of people in the Geography department of all places. The numbers are all over the place ... on one hand they estimate that subway ridership is a bit below the Sheppard line; and on the other they put out numbers that are actually higher than the Yonge extension! They seem to be both sucking and blowing, and both can't be true. I honestly don't think they know what they are doing ...