The Great Canadian Transit Thread

[Innsertnamehere]

The crosstown will be capable of up to 40tph. Demand just isn't there - so initial frequency will be 20tph.

[SkahHigh]

Originally Posted by Innsertnamehere

The crosstown will be capable of up to 40tph. Demand just isn't there - so initial frequency will be 20tph.

The REM will be similar with 24tph, which is enough. They could still bring that up with 90 sec frequency but I think CDPQ Infra doesn't see the system reaching that for a while.

[Mister F]

Originally Posted by SkahHigh

Oppressive elevated rail is oppressive elevated rail wherever you place it. There's plenty of it in outer areas of Chicago:

And in Evanston:

https://www.google.ca/maps/@42.0584622,-...b2fI9CmnzDz8SAK2WUrpw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656
https://www.google.ca/maps/@42.061546,-8...itch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i13312!8i6656

I think it's interesting to compare the two. Others here think the same.

As others have pointed out, modern elevated transit lines look much less oppressive than the pictures you've shown. They look more sleek and unobtrusive while the El looks practically like a relic from the Iron Age. Even the Scarborough RT, which is 30+ years old, is less oppressive. Besides, the places where these things could be developed in Toronto tend to be on wide suburban roads with even less on them than the pictures you showed. Even something like the El wouldn't make much difference in an area like this.

The elevated lines in Vancouver and Kuala Lumpur tell us a lot more about how it could look in Toronto. Sure, Chicago is interesting as a comparison. But irrelevant.

[Nouvellecosse]

Originally Posted by Innsertnamehere

The crosstown will be capable of up to 40tph. Demand just isn't there - so initial frequency will be 20tph.

If that's the case, then 90m platforms also seems excessive, doesn't it?

[SkahHigh]

Originally Posted by Mister F

The elevated lines in Vancouver and Kuala Lumpur tell us a lot more about how it could look in Toronto. Sure, Chicago is interesting as a comparison. But irrelevant.

Honestly, you commenting on this whole Chicago thing is a lot more irrelevant than the comparison itself.

[Metro-One]

Originally Posted by SkahHigh

Honestly, you commenting on this whole Chicago thing is a lot more irrelevant than the comparison itself.

Umm, sorry, but he is right. Nobody has built elevated rail in the form found in Chicago, which you keep using for your argument against elevated rail, for many decades.

[WhipperSnapper]

Originally Posted by Mister F

As others have pointed out, modern elevated transit lines look much less oppressive than the pictures you've shown. They look more sleek and unobtrusive while the El looks practically like a relic from the Iron Age. Even the Scarborough RT, which is 30+ years old, is less oppressive. Besides, the places where these things could be developed in Toronto tend to be on wide suburban roads with even less on them than the pictures you showed. Even something like the El wouldn't make much difference in an area like this.

The elevated lines in Vancouver and Kuala Lumpur tell us a lot more about how it could look in Toronto. Sure, Chicago is interesting as a comparison. But irrelevant.

It's true. Neither the EL or Skytrain would make much of a difference to the look of Eglinton here. However, plans are being drawn up to urbanize that section of Eglinton, in which case, both would create a physical barrier synonymous with the Gardiner Expressway. Toronto takes a different route to planning. Vancouver tends to developed urban, mixed use in and around these multi-nodal transportation corridors while Toronto attempts to soften them into neighbourhood main streets.

[SkahHigh]

Originally Posted by Metro-One

Umm, sorry, but he is right. Nobody has built elevated rail in the form found in Chicago, which you keep using for your argument against elevated rail, for many decades.

When did I speak against elevated rail? I was just pointing out how it can be badly implemented and be a nuisance to an urban context. I think it's a great solution in outer areas.

Sorry for contributing to the conversation guys

[1overcosc]

Originally Posted by WhipperSnapper

It's true. Neither the EL or Skytrain would make much of a difference to the look of Eglinton here. However, plans are being drawn up to urbanize that section of Eglinton, in which case, both would create a physical barrier synonymous with the Gardiner Expressway. Toronto takes a different route to planning. Vancouver tends to developed urban, mixed use in and around these multi-nodal transportation corridors while Toronto attempts to soften them into neighbourhood main streets.

This is a very good point. Compared to Vancouver or Montreal, Toronto is very "street-oriented".

[Mister F]

Originally Posted by SkahHigh

When did I speak against elevated rail? I was just pointing out how it can be badly implemented and be a nuisance to an urban context. I think it's a great solution in outer areas.

Sorry for contributing to the conversation guys

I agree and it really should have been how the outer portions of some of the lines in Toronto should have been designed instead of on-street trains that stop at red lights.

Still, the El just isn't relevant as an example of a new elevated line being badly implemented. Modern elevated rail lines don't look anything like it. They look like this and this.

[SkahHigh]

Originally Posted by Mister F

I agree and it really should have been how the outer portions of some of the lines in Toronto should have been designed instead of on-street trains that stop at red lights.

Still, the El just isn't relevant as an example of a new elevated line being badly implemented. Modern elevated rail lines don't look anything like it. They look like this and this.

I get your point.

Originally Posted by 1overcosc

This is a very good point. Compared to Vancouver or Montreal, Toronto is very "street-oriented".

For some reason, Montreal seems to have given up on the tram/LRT (which isn't a tragedy in itself IMO). Toronto on the other hand seems to use LRT as a revitalization/urbanisation tool like many U.S cities are trying to do with the streetcar.

Then Toronto builds underground rapid transit to it's suburban areas.

[Doady]

The Eglinton corridor in Toronto should be more like King George Blvd in Surrey? Seriously?

Maybe that's an ideal streetscape to you, but maybe you can forgive people of Toronto if they have other ideas. As someone in Mississauga, I will be fine with Hurontario LRT also.

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by Doady

The Eglinton corridor in Toronto should be more like King George Blvd in Surrey? Seriously?

Maybe that's an ideal streetscape to you, but maybe you can forgive people of Toronto if they have other ideas. As someone in Mississauga, I will be fine with Hurontario LRT also.

The problem in Toronto is that the city is so starved for rail transit that the citizens will take anything.

Why is it that Toronto still only has 2 subway lines? Montreal has 4, Vancouver has 3.

[SkahHigh]

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

The problem in Toronto is that the city is so starved for rail transit that the citizens will take anything.

Why is it that Toronto still only has 2 subway lines? Montreal has 4, Vancouver has 3.

Toronto has 3 subway lines. It's also counting the Crosstown as it's 4th.

Thing is, Toronto has seen it's share of bad investments with transit.

Take the money that funds the York extension past York U station and the one being spent for the Scarborough extension and I bet you could fund half of the Relief Line.

[WhipperSnapper]

Unlikely. There's a huge cost difference for something like the relief line in an urban setting versus suburban expansion which is why it kept getting deferred over suburban expansion.

Number of lines. Amazing criteria for comparison.

[gunnar777]

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

The problem in Toronto is that the city is so starved for rail transit that the citizens will take anything.

Why is it that Toronto still only has 2 subway lines? Montreal has 4, Vancouver has 3.

I think the Sheppard stubway and outgoing RT count as like .5 of a line, as does the ligne jaune in Montreal, so it's more like 3.5 to 2.5. Both cities are quite starved for rail transit, especially as large metropolises, but Toronto stands out for having so few stations within walking distance, even compared to Montreal, which does a bit better in that regard. As the biggest city in the country, it's a shame that most transit-taking Torontonians feel it's normal to catch feeder buses to the subway. The subway network should be omnipresent within the city.

[SkahHigh]

Originally Posted by WhipperSnapper

Unlikely. There's a huge cost difference for something like the relief line in an urban setting versus suburban expansion which is why it kept getting deferred over suburban expansion.

Number of lines. Amazing criteria for comparison.

Well, I don't know, the Scarborough extension is $3.5B by itself. Isn't the Relief Line expected to cost something like $7B?

The fact that Toronto keeps pushing projects that feed off the Yonge Line also shows there's a dichotomy between urban and suburban and a constant fight between subway and LRT.

[Mister F]

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

The problem in Toronto is that the city is so starved for rail transit that the citizens will take anything.

Why is it that Toronto still only has 2 subway lines? Montreal has 4, Vancouver has 3.

To be fair, if Vancouver has 3 subway lines then Toronto has 4. You can't count one city's ICTS lines as "subway" and not another's. But I think the answer to your question is that transit planning in Toronto is simply disfunctional. I don't know what the answer is but the entire system needs an overhaul. Creating Metrolinx was a start but it didn't go far enough.

[WhipperSnapper]

Originally Posted by SkahHigh

Well, I don't know, the Scarborough extension is $3.5B by itself. Isn't the Relief Line expected to cost something like $7B?

The fact that Toronto keeps pushing projects that feed off the Yonge Line also shows there's a dichotomy between urban and suburban and a constant fight between subway and LRT.

It's depends on the routing of the relief line. I recall an urban subway opposed to one that runs along side the rail corridor was considerable more than 7B.

[WhipperSnapper]

Originally Posted by gunnar777

I think the Sheppard stubway and outgoing RT count as like .5 of a line, as does the ligne jaune in Montreal, so it's more like 3.5 to 2.5. Both cities are quite starved for rail transit, especially as large metropolises, but Toronto stands out for having so few stations within walking distance, even compared to Montreal, which does a bit better in that regard. As the biggest city in the country, it's a shame that most transit-taking Torontonians feel it's normal to catch feeder buses to the subway. The subway network should be omnipresent within the city.

What city isn't starved for stations within walking distance? Canada is full of modern, hybrid commuter based lines with station distances suited for feeder buses or park and ride.

I understand they are slow and unreliable but, you can't simply ignore the streetcar network when talking about Toronto's subway system. The choice was made to keep them long ago. If not, some sort of rapid rail system would surely have been built in the streetcar system coverage area. Coverage would still suck in the suburban areas of the northern 416 but, not much different elsewhere. (Vancouver may be the exception)