Quote:
Originally Posted by ssiguy
^^ Don't say that! You don't build rapid transit so people can go somewhere fast when they can get up earlier so they can spend twice as much time on their commute and take in the lovely Walmarts and McDonalds.
TC has a lot of good benefits but speed isn't one of them...........this is not rapid transit in any sense of the word. One only to look at the number of stops, lights. intersections, and transfers to see that.
That's another thing that gets me about TC..........why all the separate lines?
Why the hell do you have to transfer at Kennedy from one TC line just to keep going the same direction? Why isn't Finch/Sheppard made one route and ending at STC or atleast every other train. Why no STC TC station?
Why does the Jane line end at Bloor instead of heading further south to Waterfront. Why doesn't Toronto interline suchas Miminco line to downtown every 4 minutes and Miminco to Jane LRT northbound every 4 minutes as opposed to transferring.
If you look at a TC map it is a bunch of disjointed and disconnected streetcar routes and much of it will be regretted 30 years from now.
|
You outlined a great example of why Sheppard LRT is being planned so poorly: no connection at SCC, transfer at Don Mills to get on the Subway (and yet another one at Sheppard-Yonge of course to get on the Yonge subway to downtown).
Someone told me one of the other lines isn't bidirectional down the street its planned on, so one direction will go up several blocks away, while it goes in the other direction on the street it supposed to be on.
Transit City has some major problems in my mind, but Eglinton LRT is one line I think can be a success. Its the major backbone of the system, and with a 10km central tunnel it can be highly, highly successful if they do it right.
Another problem I forsee in Transit City in regards to Eglinton LRT is that they should use the higher quality Flexity Swift vehicles with the better coupler system and more modular design and they also travel at higher speeds.
Bombardier has two versions of its light rail vehicles, one is more of a modular LRV than a simple tram, its called the Swift:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flexity_Swift
http://www.bombardier.com/en/transpo...01260d800126b8
^I notice someone took it upon themselves to edit the Wikipedia article to call the Swift a 'tram' because of discussions found on other forums. LOL
The lower quality, slower vehicles that are being purchased to replace the old TTC Streetcar network are the Flexity Outlook vehicles:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flexity_Outlook
http://www.bombardier.com/en/transpo...01260d8001269c
While these vehicles are fine, they aren't as customizable, are slower, and are slightly smaller in size (although the Transit City and TTC administrators haven't revealed how big car sizes are for the order for the TTC Streetcar network).
The net benefits if they use the same, less modular, and slower Outlook trams for the TC order is that they will probably have lower maintenance costs and can manufacture them more quickly as the factory in Thunder Bay won't need to be retooled.
All theoreticals of course, but I strongly advocate the purchase of the higher quality Swift series trains for Transit City. Having the right technology goes a long way toward a better system, and Swift vehicles are simply faster and more modular.
BUT, something new has popped up:
http://www.bombardier.com/en/transpo...01260d800a0a9b
The "Flexity 2" Trams appear to be a mix of both train technologies. We'll see if that's the technology that is being used here with the new Streetcar order and the new Transit City order.
BTW: for those who are unfamiliar with Toronto and the difference between the TTC Streetcar network and Transit City, Toronto has the largest traditional Streetcar network in North America. They are using older cars now and just secured replacement of them with the Bombardier Flexity Outlook vehicle.
Prev
Linear Mode
