News   Nov 12, 2019
 1.5K     11 
News   Nov 12, 2019
 974     4 
News   Nov 12, 2019
 1.4K     4 

YRT/Viva Construction Thread (Rapidways, Terminals)

smallspy

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Nov 27, 2009
Messages
3,780
Reaction score
2,698
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.
I'm not even sure that the average citizen thinks that rail-based transit is superior. There are a lot of people who take the streetcars begrudgingly. A lot of auto drivers certainly curse the streetcars when they get caught behind them. They cost a lot more to buy and maintain than buses.

(Now, if you claimed that the average rider would think that rail-based transit is superior, I might be more inclined to agree with you, although there are certainly some that feel otherwise.)

But you know what's not superior? Waiting an hour between cars. It doesn't matter how nice the equipment is.

No matter what way you try to frame it, frequency is an important part of the equation. There's a reason why 70%-plus percent of the people on the TTC any given day use it despite having a car. A lot of it is convenience - the buses arrive pretty frequently, the trains arrive pretty frequently. Compare this with the suburbs - if you have a car, you're not likely to take transit.

Going back to the North Yonge Railways, the line was never going to stick around no matter what. It was too long, too inefficient, too infrequent. It would have cost too much to bring it up to downtown standards. To claim that it it was usable as LRT infrastructure is laughably inaccurate. There's a reason why the streetcar lines in the core have stuck around and still exist (for the most part), while the lines in the suburbs have all been removed.

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.
The line was never going to be able to maintained. It's only been in the past 30 years or so that ridership has been high enough along that corridor to justify a rail line. What happens in the intervening 40 years?

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.
That's only possible however where the ridership allows it. It could be argued that the Yonge Subway is the modernization of the original Yonge streetcar line - and in which case, yes, we took something which was maybe "low grade" and antiquated, and made it better.

But there are a lot of places where the ridership stagnated for too long and the lines were not able to continue operation in the face of that. To continue your Pittsburgh Light Rail example, while two lines remain, check out how many lines they lost since the 1950s. Philadelphia is another.

Dan
 
Last edited:

TJ O'Pootertoot

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Jun 20, 2007
Messages
2,726
Reaction score
656
Going back to the North Yonge Railways, the line was never going to stick around no matter what. It was too long, too inefficient, too infrequent. It would have cost too much to bring it up to downtown standards. To claim that it it was usable as LRT infrastructure is laughably inaccurate. There's a reason why the streetcar lines in the core have stuck around and still exist (for the most part), while the lines in the suburbs have all been removed.
Getting hung up on the mode misses the point. Richmond Hill was connected by transit, along the Yonge corridor, 100 years ago. Today that's even more true. We could have had something more efficient for moving people than the current system (infrequent busses + GO, which only offers direct-to-downtown service) if we'd maintained and updated that corridor. Obviously that line could not literally have been upgraded to LRT but there are still options - even if the ROW had been maintained as a bus lane, for example. But there was no regional planning to make that happen, even if it was viable (or not viable at the time but held for future use).

And you're right there was arguably a gap between the travel pattern of 100 years ago and what's emerged in the past 30 years and it's a bit simplistic to suggest the radial line could have "evolved' into the current subway. I'd just say we'd have been better off, and perhaps developed better land use patterns, if we'd maintained that transit corridor instead of giving it over to the car. Yonge Street was always the region's prime corridor and we should never have let it become what it's become.

Anyway, it's academic at this point and what's done is done. Looking around North America, we could have done a lot worse.
 

smallspy

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Nov 27, 2009
Messages
3,780
Reaction score
2,698
Getting hung up on the mode misses the point. Richmond Hill was connected by transit, along the Yonge corridor, 100 years ago. Today that's even more true. We could have had something more efficient for moving people than the current system (infrequent busses + GO, which only offers direct-to-downtown service) if we'd maintained and updated that corridor. Obviously that line could not literally have been upgraded to LRT but there are still options - even if the ROW had been maintained as a bus lane, for example. But there was no regional planning to make that happen, even if it was viable (or not viable at the time but held for future use).
While I don't disagree, consider this: Did we know 70 years ago - when the streetcar/radial line was abandoned - that the corridor would be as important as it became?

It's easy to look back today with the benefit of hindsight and say "Yeah, they should have done this". But the fact of the matter is that did we know then what we know now? The answer is almost certainly "More than likely no, we didn't." Otherwise, a lot of decisions that were made then wouldn't have been made in the way that they were.

Keeping the line to use from then to now - assuming all else being equal - would have required scarce funds. Would those funds been in place to keep the line as-is? (I would argue that no, because they abandoned the line because of the costs it incurred versus the revenues it created.)

For the record, the ROW still exists - largely as the northbound and southbound lanes of Yonge Street. The tracks were laid on the east and west sides of a then 2-lane Yonge Street.

And you're right there was arguably a gap between the travel pattern of 100 years ago and what's emerged in the past 30 years and it's a bit simplistic to suggest the radial line could have "evolved' into the current subway. I'd just say we'd have been better off, and perhaps developed better land use patterns, if we'd maintained that transit corridor instead of giving it over to the car. Yonge Street was always the region's prime corridor and we should never have let it become what it's become.
Again, with hindsight it's easy to make that determination. The decision that was made at the time was made with the information and knowledge available then.

Anyway, it's academic at this point and what's done is done. Looking around North America, we could have done a lot worse.
I agree completely.

Dan
 

micheal_can

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Dec 24, 2016
Messages
1,437
Reaction score
734
The line was never going to be able to maintained. It's only been in the past 30 years or so that ridership has been high enough along that corridor to justify a rail line. What happens in the intervening 40 years?


Dan
Yes, because bus manufacturers knew that they had to make them unpleasant.
 

TJ O'Pootertoot

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Jun 20, 2007
Messages
2,726
Reaction score
656
While I don't disagree, consider this: Did we know 70 years ago - when the streetcar/radial line was abandoned - that the corridor would be as important as it became?
We didn't have an Official Plan or anything like that but I think it was pretty clear, even then, Yonge Street was the spine of the "GTA." Development wasn't contiguous the way it is today but you still had Toronto, North Toronto, North York, Thornhill, RH, Oak Ridges, Newmarket etc. going all the way up along its length. From the moment Simcoe made it, I think it was pretty clear how important it was.

But ,yeah, it's not I think people were shortsighted in not anticipating how the city and region have grown - you're right that that's not entirely fair because we have hindsight - but I do think it''s one of those things (like RC Harris being smart enough to make room for a subway under the Bloor Viaduct) where someone with real vision could have seen it. We've generally lacked that. So, yeah, I agree and I don't BLAME anyone, it's just one of those unfortunate things that happens over a city's history. Hardly the biggest missed opportunity or mistake either :)
 

ViveleCanada

New Member
Member Bio
Joined
May 3, 2019
Messages
75
Reaction score
102
It seems that the YRT has included a conceptual drawing of the Jane & Major Mackenzie bus terminal into its 2018 Performance Report on page 30 (across the street from the new Vaughan Hospital). It looks like they're aiming for it to open by the end of 2020 as suggested by their 2020 Transit Initiative. I find it a bit odd that the 20 will be serving 2 bus terminals in such close proximity to one another. I assume that the 20 relies heavily on connecting traffic.
 

TransitBart

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Mar 26, 2016
Messages
2,205
Reaction score
1,476
Location
Leslieville
It seems that the YRT has included a conceptual drawing of the Jane & Major Mackenzie bus terminal into its 2018 Performance Report on page 30 (across the street from the new Vaughan Hospital). It looks like they're aiming for it to open by the end of 2020 as suggested by their 2020 Transit Initiative. I find it a bit odd that the 20 will be serving 2 bus terminals in such close proximity to one another. I assume that the 20 relies heavily on connecting traffic.
Yes, but did they leave space for a northern terminus for the Jane LRT? Major Mackenzie/Wonderland... *wink* ...'nuther decade on...
 

Leo_Chan

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Nov 13, 2016
Messages
3,144
Reaction score
1,862
Location
Richmond Hill
It seems that the YRT has included a conceptual drawing of the Jane & Major Mackenzie bus terminal into its 2018 Performance Report on page 30 (across the street from the new Vaughan Hospital). It looks like they're aiming for it to open by the end of 2020 as suggested by their 2020 Transit Initiative. I find it a bit odd that the 20 will be serving 2 bus terminals in such close proximity to one another. I assume that the 20 relies heavily on connecting traffic.
If you look that the top right, it says "STAIR TO PEDESTRIAN UNDERPASS", which is the existing connection underneath Major Mackenzie Drive that will be converted to a pedestrian path to connect to the hospital. Having the bus terminal split between Amusement Drive does seem odd, unless they plan for GO Transit and other buses to use the west platforms and YRT to use the east. The new Passenger Pick Up and Drop Off thing on the left side may only be for bus passengers as it's much more efficient to use the existing loop on Jane as it's a shorter walk to the entrance (655m vs 333m). Also, it seems like Amusement Drive will no longer be a one-way road (enter only) so that's kind of odd since there will be no dedicated left turn lane and using the underpass on the west to loop around to the north side may be faster.
Vaughan Bus Terminal.png

Yes, but did they leave space for a northern terminus for the Jane LRT? Major Mackenzie/Wonderland... *wink* ...'nuther decade on...
Of course not. A full Viva Silver Rapidway is still unfunded and curbside service is still years away, and you want them to plan for LRT? :p
 

smallspy

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Nov 27, 2009
Messages
3,780
Reaction score
2,698
Couldn't they have double tracked it? They have doubled or even quadrupled tracked various lines.
There were a couple of sections that would have been quite expensive to do that, like the bridge at Hogg's Hollow. Much of the rest of the line would have been much easier and cheaper.

But why bother? The service was hourly, and scheduled to meet at the sidings.

Dan
 

Top