News   Dec 05, 2019
 240     1 
News   Dec 05, 2019
 326     0 
News   Dec 05, 2019
 530     8 

YRT/Viva Construction Thread (Rapidways, Terminals)

TossYourJacket

Active Member
Member Bio
Joined
Feb 22, 2018
Messages
136
Reaction score
183
While I'd agree a train is certainly seen as a higher form of transit, just because it's perceived as a downgrade, doesn't mean it necessarily is one in terms of functionality.
 

cplchanb

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Apr 15, 2010
Messages
1,776
Reaction score
768
While I'd agree a train is certainly seen as a higher form of transit, just because it's perceived as a downgrade, doesn't mean it necessarily is one in terms of functionality.
I'm just trying to put it out there in a normal non fanboy/enthusiast/SME just a normal passerby perspective. Had they kept the food infrastructure like japan/Europe did with their railways we would be in a much better place than today
 

smallspy

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Nov 27, 2009
Messages
3,813
Reaction score
2,773
I would invite you to ask any normal passerby what they think about this exact thing. I'd bet the majority of them would agree that replacing a train with a bus is a downgrade
Are you going to put it your terms, or in the actual terms of how people see the service?

Because I can tell you the answers pretty easily in both cases.

Dan
 

amnesiajune

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Jul 28, 2016
Messages
2,059
Reaction score
965
I would invite you to ask any normal passerby what they think about this exact thing. I'd bet the majority of them would agree that replacing a train with a bus is a downgrade
I'm not sure who would think that 6 trains per week is an upgrade over several buses per day. Make sure to ask people in North York, Vaughan, Barrie and Orillia, all fairly important stops that the train did not make.

The train was comfortable, yeah. The bus is faster, more reliable, more frequent, serves more people, and doesn't need obscene subsidies. Comfort is nice, but on its own it's not deserving of subsidies to the tune of hundreds of dollars per passenger.
 

cplchanb

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Apr 15, 2010
Messages
1,776
Reaction score
768
I'm not sure who would think that 6 trains per week is an upgrade over several buses per day. Make sure to ask people in North York, Vaughan, Barrie and Orillia, all fairly important stops that the train did not make.

The train was comfortable, yeah. The bus is faster, more reliable, more frequent, serves more people, and doesn't need obscene subsidies. Comfort is nice, but on its own it's not deserving of subsidies to the tune of hundreds of dollars per passenger.
I was referring to the mode not the frequency. The soft items like frequency can easily be varied to suit, but the hard items like the infrastructure was what I was referring to. When people look back and realise that what is now York region had a sophisticated electrified rail network 100 years ago only to be replaced by diesel buses they would wonder what happened, and why did they downgrade? We wouldnt be squabbling over tax money to build new LRTs and subway extension if we didnt rip up the tracks to replace with roads and cars.
 

micheal_can

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Dec 24, 2016
Messages
1,483
Reaction score
775
I have taken the train and the bus. A bus is a big downgrade. The train had a dining car with meals sold on board. The ride was reasonably smooth.
 

smallspy

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Nov 27, 2009
Messages
3,813
Reaction score
2,773
I was referring to the mode not the frequency. The soft items like frequency can easily be varied to suit, but the hard items like the infrastructure was what I was referring to. When people look back and realise that what is now York region had a sophisticated electrified rail network 100 years ago only to be replaced by diesel buses they would wonder what happened, and why did they downgrade? We wouldnt be squabbling over tax money to build new LRTs and subway extension if we didnt rip up the tracks to replace with roads and cars.
...."Sophisticated"....

This is a laughable comment that proves that you really don't understand much about either the original North Yonge Railways or any of its subsequent incarnations dating to its end in 1948, and who's vision of transit is pretty grossly skewed by some pretty rose-coloured glasses.

There was nothing sophisticated about it sitting on rattan and wood slat seats next to a coal stove. There is nothing sophisticated about plopping a nickel into a farebox and receiving a transfer. There is nothing sophisticated about waiting at the side of the road with no shelter in the gravel or mud for an hour in the driving rain waiting for a car to roll up.

Please tell me how any of the above is an improvement over waiting in a glass shelter for at most 15 minutes, pre-paying for your trip, and plopping down on a padded seat of a vehicle - rubber-tired as it may be - that provides both heat AND air conditioning as the conditions require?

The streetcars on Yonge were never meant to be a high-capacity system. It was sized, and operated, as a bare-bones commuter run feeding into the City, with only as much service as they needed. It was built on the cheap, run on the cheap, and was cheap to maintain. And it showed.

If you somehow think that is better than the buses that exist there today, well, maybe you should get to work on building that time machine then.

Dan
 

cplchanb

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Apr 15, 2010
Messages
1,776
Reaction score
768
...."Sophisticated"....

This is a laughable comment that proves that you really don't understand much about either the original North Yonge Railways or any of its subsequent incarnations dating to its end in 1948, and who's vision of transit is pretty grossly skewed by some pretty rose-coloured glasses.

There was nothing sophisticated about it sitting on rattan and wood slat seats next to a coal stove. There is nothing sophisticated about plopping a nickel into a farebox and receiving a transfer. There is nothing sophisticated about waiting at the side of the road with no shelter in the gravel or mud for an hour in the driving rain waiting for a car to roll up.

Please tell me how any of the above is an improvement over waiting in a glass shelter for at most 15 minutes, pre-paying for your trip, and plopping down on a padded seat of a vehicle - rubber-tired as it may be - that provides both heat AND air conditioning as the conditions require?

The streetcars on Yonge were never meant to be a high-capacity system. It was sized, and operated, as a bare-bones commuter run feeding into the City, with only as much service as they needed. It was built on the cheap, run on the cheap, and was cheap to maintain. And it showed.

If you somehow think that is better than the buses that exist there today, well, maybe you should get to work on building that time machine then.

Dan
once again you fail to put on the shoes of the average citizen who has no understanding of frequencies, technologies and what not which is what I am framing my point in. To them they see rail > bus regardless of frequency or what the amenities are inside. Besides I was never arguing about schedules or shelters or coal stoves. Scheduling and the shelter/ train amenities are soft aspects that are easily replaceable. Its the rail infrastructure that is the difference and frankly is regrettable that has been removed in place of cars. We are essentially trying to replicate the what is essentially LRT rail infrastructure that we had 100 years ago but torn down. We couldve developed Yonge st around the rail corridor back then but chose to abandon it for cars.
 

Transportfan

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
May 4, 2007
Messages
1,554
Reaction score
307
^^ You need to remember that the Yonge interurban ran in the days before car ownership levels (and comfortable buses) were so high. Once that increased, the system was rendered obsolete in such a low-density corridor.
 

micheal_can

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Dec 24, 2016
Messages
1,483
Reaction score
775
...."Sophisticated"....

This is a laughable comment that proves that you really don't understand much about either the original North Yonge Railways or any of its subsequent incarnations dating to its end in 1948, and who's vision of transit is pretty grossly skewed by some pretty rose-coloured glasses.

There was nothing sophisticated about it sitting on rattan and wood slat seats next to a coal stove. There is nothing sophisticated about plopping a nickel into a farebox and receiving a transfer. There is nothing sophisticated about waiting at the side of the road with no shelter in the gravel or mud for an hour in the driving rain waiting for a car to roll up.

Please tell me how any of the above is an improvement over waiting in a glass shelter for at most 15 minutes, pre-paying for your trip, and plopping down on a padded seat of a vehicle - rubber-tired as it may be - that provides both heat AND air conditioning as the conditions require?

The streetcars on Yonge were never meant to be a high-capacity system. It was sized, and operated, as a bare-bones commuter run feeding into the City, with only as much service as they needed. It was built on the cheap, run on the cheap, and was cheap to maintain. And it showed.

If you somehow think that is better than the buses that exist there today, well, maybe you should get to work on building that time machine then.

Dan
If the line had been maintained, those cars would have disappeared like the PCCs have on the Streetcar lines. You would instead be riding a somewhat modern train with many of the features you desire.... or wait, it would be like GO.
 

Neutrino

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Dec 4, 2017
Messages
1,207
Reaction score
877
Well, we kinda sorta did build a train on Yonge later on...
 

TJ O'Pootertoot

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Jun 20, 2007
Messages
2,730
Reaction score
659
^^ You need to remember that the Yonge interurban ran in the days before car ownership levels (and comfortable buses) were so high. Once that increased, the system was rendered obsolete in such a low-density corridor.
This isn't incorrect, but it kind of dodges around how our travel patterns have changed. We went "all in" on cars and abandoned transit and that's how we're in our current mess. Am I the only one who saw WHO FRAMED ROGER RABBIT?

Yes, it's simplistic to point out people took trains from downtown all the way to Oak Ridges in the 1920s and here we are, in 2019, questioning the need for a subway connecting up to Highway 7. But it's not wrong either.

It's less that the line was "obsolete"and more that we were so enamoured, as a culture, with cars, that we thought we didn't need the rail line anymore. History shows, rather clearly, we were wrong there (though obviously not in the radial line's previous form). Toronto made this mistake at a far smaller scale than many American cities - which is why our downtown has thrived and why we still have some streetcar routes - but to be clear: cars didn't make the need for interurban rail obsolete, they merely fooled a generation into adjusting its priorities too far in the wrong direction.
 

Bureaucromancer

Active Member
Member Bio
Joined
Feb 7, 2010
Messages
246
Reaction score
183
It's less that the line was "obsolete"and more that we were so enamoured, as a culture, with cars, that we thought we didn't need the rail line anymore. History shows, rather clearly, we were wrong there (though obviously not in the radial line's previous form). Toronto made this mistake at a far smaller scale than many American cities - which is why our downtown has thrived and why we still have some streetcar routes - but to be clear: cars didn't make the need for interurban rail obsolete, they merely fooled a generation into adjusting its priorities too far in the wrong direction.
I'd also add that the mantra I've bee hearing of late, that the legacy systems were hopelessly low grade infrastructure, has a truth to it, but like the ones above misses the mark. Compare the North Yonge Railways to, say, Pittsburgh's light rail, and you see the core of something viable. If we had wanted to there was every ability to maintain private right of ways where they existed and upgrade incrementally in a fashion that would have resulted in full rapid transit eventually, and avoided 80 odd years of nothing better than a local bus.
 

Top