The Great Canadian Transit Thread

[lrt's friend]

Originally Posted by SkahHigh

Apart from the DRL coverage area, are there that many places left in Toronto where the density justifies a subway line?

Won't GO RER provide the coverage and the level of service needed to serve the lower density and more suburban parts of Toronto?

Besides that, a gradual build out of the DRL will have a major impact on coverage as well.

[MalcolmTucker]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

Is a subway practical along the waterfront? Isn't all the land below Front Street reclaimed from Lake Ontario? I am not sure what the implications of building a tunnel under these conditions, building a tunnel through fill and below the water table.

Money solves everything!


There is no where in Toronto where building a tunnel is easy.

[scryer]

Originally Posted by MalcolmTucker

There is no where in Toronto where building a tunnel is easy.

Go elevated then .

That Toronto map confuses the hell out of me. And I'm someone who likes a complicated transit map. To me, the relief line looks like a short term solution. Like why not extend the west leg up to the crosstown line to provide extra relief?

I will say that so far that Montreal has the best looking future in terms of transit. I use to believe it was Vancouver but Vancouver is seriously sipping this LRT Kool-Aid nonsense that I have my doubts.

[White Pine]

Originally Posted by SkahHigh

Apart from the DRL coverage area, are there that many places left in Toronto where the density justifies a subway line?

Parts of the DRL are sort of dense, but the main draw is relief of the other lines. Besides that, I think King St. has enough density for a subway. The DRL dips down a bit and provides a little relief to the King streetcar, we'll see what happens on the west side.

[Doady]

I don't understand the point of upgrading so many adjacent transit lines so close together. If Toronto is not dense enough for multi-billion subway lines spaced 4km apart, it's dense enough for such a high density of BRTs and LRTs?

When you spend billions of dollars upgrading in bus line to rail, whether subway or light rail, it needs to become a trunk line, not remain a feeder line. The line needs to draw riders from adjacent corridors. Spending billions on feeder lines that do not reshape people's travel patterns is a total waste of money.

DRL will draw riders away from Yonge, it will draw riders of Bloor. That's the whole point of it. It will be a trunk line. That Finch West LRT? Pure feeder line. Sheppard East LRT? Pure feeder line.

If DRL can draw riders from Yonge and Bloor corridors, why can't it draw riders away from the Victoria Park corridor? Will they need enhanced service along Victoria Park? Will they need enhanced service along Finch and Steeles if Sheppard Subway was complete?

Toronto transit expansion needs to concentrate more on the Avenues Plan. What the most prominent suburban corridors in the Avenues Plan? They are Sheppard, Wilson, Lawrence East, and Kingston, not Jane, Finch, and Morningside. Urban planner Jennifer Keesmaat should know better.

[Nouvellecosse]

Originally Posted by Doady

I don't understand the point of upgrading so many adjacent transit lines so close together. If Toronto is not dense enough for multi-billion subway lines spaced 4km apart, it's dense enough for such a high density of BRTs and LRTs?

When you spend billions of dollars upgrading in bus line to rail, whether subway or light rail, it needs to become a trunk line, not remain a feeder line. The line needs to draw riders from adjacent corridors. Spending billions on feeder lines that do not reshape people's travel patterns is a total waste of money.

DRL will draw riders away from Yonge, it will draw riders of Bloor. That's the whole point of it. It will be a trunk line. That Finch West LRT? Pure feeder line. Sheppard East LRT? Pure feeder line.

If DRL can draw riders from Yonge and Bloor corridors, why can't it draw riders away from the Victoria Park corridor? Will they need enhanced service along Victoria Park? Will they need enhanced service along Finch and Steeles if Sheppard Subway was complete?

Toronto transit expansion needs to concentrate more on the Avenues Plan. What the most prominent suburban corridors in the Avenues Plan? They are Sheppard, Wilson, Lawrence East, and Kingston, not Jane, Finch, and Morningside. Urban planner Jennifer Keesmaat should know better.

Keesmat does know better than to think the only important routes deserving of any enhancement are those going to/from downtown. A good, complete transit system needs to be more like a grid than a hub/spoke set up, and a commuter-centric system that assumes everyone is going to/from downtown isn't good enough. Having the highest capacity lines with large catchment areas directing riders to and from the city center certainly helps solve capacity issues since a centralized city will have the highest demand on such routes. But in order for a city to have really good overall transit, a person needs the option to move around the entire city in any direction with reasonable ease. Enhanced, intermediate cost/capacity service can connect other areas of the city so that someone going from say, Victoria Park and Ellesmere to Danforth East could have the option to head directly south on a reasonably fast route rather than choosing between a fast route several km in another direction or a slow, frustrating local bus route.

[p_xavier]

Originally Posted by Reecemartin

OOf final video Montreal~!

https://youtu.be/fjMPyKXYzck

FYI, for operational purposes the STM refused the loop idea for the Orange line. Exactly because if there's an issue the whole circle is down. If the metro is ever extended to Laval on the West branch, the line will be divided into two seperate lines at Bonaventure or Lucien L'Allier.

[Doady]

Originally Posted by Nouvellecosse

Keesmat does know better than to think the only important routes deserving of any enhancement are those going to/from downtown. A good, complete transit system needs to be more like a grid than a hub/spoke set up, and a commuter-centric system that assumes everyone is going to/from downtown isn't good enough. Having the highest capacity lines with large catchment areas directing riders to and from the city center certainly helps solve capacity issues since a centralized city will have the highest demand on such routes. But in order for a city to have really good overall transit, a person needs the option to move around the entire city in any direction with reasonable ease. Enhanced, intermediate cost/capacity service can connect other areas of the city so that someone going from say, Victoria Park and Ellesmere to Danforth East could have the option to head directly south on a reasonably fast route rather than choosing between a fast route several km in another direction or a slow, frustrating local bus route.

I just don't see Victoria Park being such a big priority if there will be a Pape/Don Mills subway line. I don't see why build a Relief line when it can't draw riders away from neighbouring parallel corridors. Toronto needs to think of the bigger picture, and Toronto needs to start thinking longer term, and that means looking at the Avenues Plan as well.

Yes, Toronto's system is not a hub-and-spoke, it's a grid network. That is why it's confusing that she wants to destroy the grid and truncate existing routes like Jane and Finch West into multiple smaller pieces.

It's sad that even years after the Adam Giambrone left politics, the map he drew still continues to dictate the direction of transit in Toronto. He is apparently such an expert on transit that urban planner Jennifer Keesmaat is reviving Transfer City - Finch West and Jane and Morningside LRTs and all - now with even more for transfers. Just nauseating.

Toronto seriously needs to stop letting politicians be wannabe transit planners. Other cities don't do that. What gets built and where in Toronto needs to be decided based on detailed studies and expert analysis involving many people, not decided entirely based what one politician thinks is the best.

[Reecemartin]

Originally Posted by scryer

Go elevated then .

That Toronto map confuses the hell out of me. And I'm someone who likes a complicated transit map. To me, the relief line looks like a short term solution. Like why not extend the west leg up to the crosstown line to provide extra relief?

I will say that so far that Montreal has the best looking future in terms of transit. I use to believe it was Vancouver but Vancouver is seriously sipping this LRT Kool-Aid nonsense that I have my doubts.

Surrey, not Vancouver . . . and I wouldn't call it Kool-Aid. It would be a big improvement over the current service.

Originally Posted by d_jeffrey

FYI, for operational purposes the STM refused the loop idea for the Orange line. Exactly because if there's an issue the whole circle is down. If the metro is ever extended to Laval on the West branch, the line will be divided into two seperate lines at Bonaventure or Lucien L'Allier.

This is factually incorrect operating as a loop divides the service into clockwise and counterclockwise meaning a delay in on direction doesn't need to affect the other as it currently does with trains turning around to go another way. There are certainly operational difficulties but this is not one of them.

[White Pine]

Originally Posted by Reecemartin

Surrey, not Vancouver . . . and I wouldn't call it Kool-Aid. It would be a big improvement over the current service.

I remember reading that the proposed LRT had less capacity than B-line service and was only one minute faster, though I can't prove it.

But you're right to make that distinction between Vancouver and Surrey. Vancouver's (underground) skytrain project is going to be great by any standard and much needed.

[MalcolmTucker]

Loops have problems because you don’t have a timing point to recover the schedule at without specifically building the system to have one exist.

[Nouvellecosse]

Originally Posted by Doady

I just don't see Victoria Park being such a big priority if there will be a Pape/Don Mills subway line. I don't see why build a Relief line when it can't draw riders away from neighbouring parallel corridors. Toronto needs to think of the bigger picture, and Toronto needs to start thinking longer term, and that means looking at the Avenues Plan as well.

Yes, Toronto's system is not a hub-and-spoke, it's a grid network. That is why it's confusing that she wants to destroy the grid and truncate existing routes like Jane and Finch West into multiple smaller pieces.

It's sad that even years after the Adam Giambrone left politics, the map he drew still continues to dictate the direction of transit in Toronto. He is apparently such an expert on transit that urban planner Jennifer Keesmaat is reviving Transfer City - Finch West and Jane and Morningside LRTs and all - now with even more for transfers. Just nauseating.

Toronto seriously needs to stop letting politicians be wannabe transit planners. Other cities don't do that. What gets built and where in Toronto needs to be decided based on detailed studies and expert analysis involving many people, not decided entirely based what one politician thinks is the best.

Let me get this straight; you're tired of seeing politicians in the role of wannabe transit planners, yet when an actual urban planner like Jennifer Keesmaat decides to run for a position of greater influence, you tear apart her expert plan as an armchair wannabe transit planner on SSP.

Love it

[scryer]

Originally Posted by Reecemartin

Surrey, not Vancouver . . . and I wouldn't call it Kool-Aid. It would be a big improvement over the current service.

You do realize that the entire region pays for Surrey's vanity project, right? Do your research, fool.

[Doady]

Originally Posted by Nouvellecosse

Let me get this straight; you're tired of seeing politicians in the role of wannabe transit planners, yet when an actual urban planner like Jennifer Keesmaat decides to run for a position of greater influence, you tear apart her expert plan as an armchair wannabe transit planner on SSP.

Love it

I was saying that transit plans shouldn't made by a single person. Learn to read.

But yeah anyone who proposes breaking up Toronto's grid is an idiot, especially if they are a professional planner. You highlight Toronto's grid and then praise someone who proposes to destroy it, you are the one who is laughable.

[Doady]

All this talk of improving Toronto's transit is pointless anyways since the only reason Toronto has high transit ridership is because it has a lot of immigrants.

[p_xavier]

Originally Posted by doady

all this talk of improving toronto's transit is pointless anyways since the only reason toronto has high transit ridership is because it has a lot of immigrants.

wtf?

[SkahHigh]

Originally Posted by d_jeffrey

wtf?

Go check the America Killed Transit thread in the City Discussions main forum.

[Nouvellecosse]

Originally Posted by Doady

I was saying that transit plans shouldn't made by a single person. Learn to read.

But yeah anyone who proposes breaking up Toronto's grid is an idiot, especially if they are a professional planner. You highlight Toronto's grid and then praise someone who proposes to destroy it, you are the one who is laughable.

You're the one assuming that Keesmaat who was chief planner for Toronto for five years is basing her proposed plan on nothing but her own whims. She had access to the input and analysis of the entire planning department over that period (not to mention the years of education and experience to qualify for that position in the first place) so a vote for her is a vote for exactly what you wanted. A plan involving detailed studies and expert analysis by many people.

And those familiar with transit planning policies know that having extremely long routes out of an irrational fear of transfers are often not desirable. They are less reliable since there are far more opportunities for them to be bogged down by delays, affecting service across the entire route, meaning that an issue like an accident or construction in one neighbourhood could cause delays in a totally different area 20km away. Also, it's rare that such a long route is going to have consistent needs for its entire length. The level of demand may vary significantly making the use of a single vehicle type and schedule inefficient which often cause agencies to introduce things like like complex turn back patterns that are worse for service that a clear, predictable and well facilitated transfer. In other words, if done properly, such transfers obviously don't "destroy the grid".

[Doady]

Originally Posted by Nouvellecosse

You're the one assuming that Keesmaat who was chief planner for Toronto for five years is basing her proposed plan on nothing but her own whims. She had access to the input and analysis of the entire planning department over that period (not to mention the years of education and experience to qualify for that position in the first place) so a vote for her is a vote for exactly what you wanted. A plan involving detailed studies and expert analysis by many people.

And those familiar with transit planning policies know that having extremely long routes out of an irrational fear of transfers are often not desirable. They are less reliable since there are far more opportunities for them to be bogged down by delays, affecting service across the entire route, meaning that an issue like an accident or construction in one neighbourhood could cause delays in a totally different area 20km away. Also, it's rare that such a long route is going to have consistent needs for its entire length. The level of demand may vary significantly making the use of a single vehicle type and schedule inefficient which often cause agencies to introduce things like like complex turn back patterns that are worse for service that a clear, predictable and well facilitated transfer. In other words, if done properly, such transfers obviously don't "destroy the grid".

Keesmaat is obviously more qualified but she needs to set the right example for others. If she draws her own plan as Adam Giambrone did, then other political candidates will too, and they will not be as qualified. It sets the wrong example about how things should be done and that will create problems beyond her term as mayor. Especially an expert like Jennifer Keesmaat should know better than to do things in a way that empowers political candidates and takes power away from experts like her.

The whole point of grid is one east-west route and one north-south routes takes someone wherever they want to go. Two routes maximum. When you break corridors into smaller pieces, it goes against the whole point of grid in the first place.

And the whole advantage of modern LRT over bus is the ability for longer lines. LRT can travel further distances without worry about scheduling problems (i.e. bunching). To build LRT to truncate existing routes makes no sense. You can unite the whole Finch corridor into one route with LRT and strengthen the grid. That's not possible with bus. But instead she is proposing LRT as a way to break up the Finch corridor even more. I think it's crazy.

[GlassCity]

Originally Posted by SkahHigh

Go check the America Killed Transit thread in the City Discussions main forum.

Why did you send me there...I've scrolled by it a few times in Today's Posts and just never felt like checking it out. Turns out it was indeed a very blissful ignorance.