daily menu » rate the banner | guess the city | one on oneforums map | privacy policy | DMCA | news magazine | posting guidelines

Go Back   SkyscraperCity > Infrastructure and Mobility Forums > Subways and Urban Transport

Subways and Urban Transport Metros, subways, light rail, trams, buses and other local transport systems



Global Announcement

As a general reminder, please respect others and respect copyrights. Go here to familiarize yourself with our posting policy.


Reply

 
Thread Tools
Old November 15th, 2007, 01:58 PM   #501
TRZ
Welcome to the Rail World
 
TRZ's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Toronto
Posts: 4,671
Likes (Received): 4

Quote:
Originally Posted by hkskyline View Post
What's the cost going to be like to build such an alignment?
Excluding the DRL components (although space could reserved for it in the design), and including the conversion of the current Union into a small yard, I'm guessing around 350 million.
__________________
Pssst... your balls are showing...

EXTREEEEEEEEEEEME transit geek
TRZ no está en línea   Reply With Quote

Sponsored Links
Old November 15th, 2007, 04:47 PM   #502
hkskyline
Hong Kong
 
hkskyline's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Posts: 86,913
Likes (Received): 18176

City looking for private partner for Union Station
Shopping mall proposed for under train tracks

15 November 2007
National Post

Standing on the cracked marble in the soaring great hall of Union Station yesterday, Mayor David Miller announced a grand plan to transform the station by excavating a shopping mall underneath the train tracks, to be operated by a private real estate company the city has not yet found.

The City of Toronto, which has owned Union Station since 2000, also wants to turn over all the station's office and retail space to a private operator, and use the proceeds to fix up the 80-year-old landmark.

"This is the most important transportation hub in Canada," the Mayor said. "Unfortunately, Union Station economically is not sustainable. Now we have a made-in-Toronto approach to revitalizing Union Station."

Close to 200,000 commuters use the station every day, most of them GO train passengers.

The city wants to put the underground mall south of the station, connecting it to the condominium community now growing around the Air Canada Centre.

J.C. Williams, a retail consultant hired by the city, calculates that the retail will generate enough rent to keep the train station in good repair, said George Wheeler, project director of the Union Station Revitalization.

However, he also confirmed that a sewer the Toronto Transit Commission is rerouting under Front Street -- which has left much of the station's plaza torn up all year -- will have to moved again to make the new scheme work.

Toronto has $85-million in its capital budget to fix Union Station over the next five years. The city says truly restoring the station will cost $176-million over 20 years.

That total does not include the cost of the massive excavation project. Yesterday, no one at the city would put a price on building the underground mall or say how long that job would take.

The city also doesn't know who would run the mall; city staff have talked with a few big pension funds.

"We want to deal with the top tier, the companies with billions of dollars in assets," said Jodie Parmar, the city's director of business and strategic innovation.

The plan involves lowering the floor of the station's east and west concourses, putting them at the same level as the subway station under Front Street. To the south of the concourse, the new mall would spread under the stairs that now lead up to the trains.

Union Station is also becoming a node of the city's underground PATH network, linking the business district to condos and offices south of Front Street.

The station has huge untapped potential. For example, on the station's west wing are 135,000 square feet of office space on four floors, now vacant. Mr. Parmar said they would make a perfect head office for GO Transit, the station's main user; the words "Railway Offices" are cut into the limestone above the entrance. But he said GO so far has not expressed interest.

Already, the city has begun the repair job. In the past week, workers put back the hands on the west face of the clock that stands in the station's centre. The Post had published a picture of the broken clock two weeks ago.

"Apparently, city staff read the National Post," Mr. Miller said.

Yesterday, train buffs, Via Rail employees and commuters crowded around as the Mayor made his announcement, and stuck around to listen and comment and study a series of boards set up with drawings of the plans. The city invites the public to comment by e-mailing [email protected]. Tony Turritin of Transport 2000 said he loves the new plan. "It keeps the elegance of the heritage building and at the same time increases the functionality for GO Transit," he said.

But Catherine Naismith, a heritage building advocate, worried about the logistics of the job. Anybody who has ever lowered their basement knows how complicated excavation can be under existing structures.

"It's very expensive space to create because there is a huge amount of underpinning to do," she said. "I mean, you've got trains overhead."

And she asked, "Why are they sending everybody underground? You should be able to flow through these grand public spaces."

Frank Consiglio, who works at customer service for Via Rail, added that, "retail has taken a priority over transportation."
__________________
Hong Kong Photo Gallery - Click Here for the Hong Kong Galleries

World Photo Gallery - | St. Petersburg, Russia | Pyongyang | Tokyo | Istanbul | Dubai | Shanghai | Mumbai | Bangkok | Sydney

New York, London, Prague, Iceland, Rocky Mountains, Angkor Wat, Sri Lanka, Poland, Myanmar, and much more!
hkskyline no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old November 15th, 2007, 11:37 PM   #503
noob(but not really)
BANNED
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Toronto
Posts: 1,572
Likes (Received): 2

Quote:
Originally Posted by TRZ View Post
You did not cover the most noteworthy issue. You sited traffic, not ridership, and that is the big difference. Traffic added insult to injury, true, but the main reason was the fact that the multi-unit PCCs would simply be unable to cope with the demand, far more serious than just "an increase in traffic", and you did not identify this issue. You did not identify the fact that Bloor had more or less turned into a Yonge, and this is the most noteworthy issue, which you completely missed.
I did cover ridership under traffic - they needed to increase headways to 45 secs, so that would be streetcar traffic.



Quote:
No, I did not propose a way that the CURRENT Kennedy Station can turn into the SRT's alignment, there is no way, to do it would require a new Kennedy Station to be built, but that is not practical at all unless an Eglinton Line is available to take over the existing B-D station. Nothing was proposed for the Ellesmere curve either - I challenged you to solve it.

A New Kennedy:
Of course Eglinton would interchange here, so the current station would still be used either way. As for Ellesmere, I said a new curve would be built. It would curve under the Ellesmere/Midland intersection, with a new station there.



Quote:
No, it wouldn't solve it all, the green line in this large image would be your only feasable option, and it does absolutely nothing to address the curve. Not mentioned in the last reply to you, but mentioned in a reply to Gil and illustrated rather clearly in the above linked image, your triple track idea also does not have enough space as the new south track is more or less already at the foundations of Union Station's Great Hall which you simply cannot possibly carve a platform into (Union Station would fail structurally).
Ok.



Quote:
Well, wasn't too concerned about what alignment you want, East Teamway station's alignment is so close to the same apprach it is compatible. I can tell you right now though that you cannot turn from the West Teamway station onto Front, I'd suggest using the rail corridor until Spadina, at which point you can easily slide onto Front. The main concern is Yonge-Uni, and that's what I was focused on in the idea. In anycase, glad you like it, I'm surprised you actually agree
Yeah it's really a great idea. I think it's your best so far. That area is growing like crazy, and Union is just going to keep handling more and more passengers. Something like this would be a good permanent fix.



Quote:
What you are talking about is entirely dependent on the time of day.
Ok, but how silly is it to have that loop. Hardly anyone uses it, and the phenomenon I described does happen quite a bit.
noob(but not really) no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old November 16th, 2007, 09:48 AM   #504
allurban
All Urban
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Toronto, Kuala Lumpur
Posts: 4,348
Likes (Received): 6

Quote:
Originally Posted by TRZ View Post
Excluding the DRL components (although space could reserved for it in the design), and including the conversion of the current Union into a small yard, I'm guessing around 350 million.
Would the DRL be located above/below the Yonge line in the same structural arrangement that gave us St. George and Bay?

If so I hope they do something to reduce noise and vibration....

actually, I wish they could do that for St. George (and Bay) as well.

I suppose that if the TTC really wanted to do it, they could...but it would mean a serious disruption of St. George for many weeks or months at a time....

Cheers, m
allurban no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old November 16th, 2007, 10:23 AM   #505
hkskyline
Hong Kong
 
hkskyline's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Posts: 86,913
Likes (Received): 18176

City explores cellphone use in subways
Wiring System
In trains, stations or both? TTC chairman asks

14 November 2007
National Post

The TTC is exploring wiring its subways for cellphone use.

The idea emerged yesterday as the commission updated reporters on a five-year plan to install customer-service technology that is already standard in major public transit systems around the world.

Councillor Adam Giambrone, chairman of the TTC, said commission staff is working on a report for early next year looking at whether and how the public transit authority could take the cellphone network underground.

The TTC would have to consult the public before going ahead, he said, because while the idea might thrill cellphone addicts, it risks disturbing subway riders seeking a quiet trip.

"The question will be, of course, when we say rolling [cellphone use] out in the subways, what do we mean?" Mr. Giambrone said. "That's why we have to look at it. Do we mean on the trains or in the stations? … The question is do you want to sit next to somebody talking on their cellphone?"

New York City recently decided to wire its 277 underground subway stations -- but not its trains or tunnels -- for cellphone use.

It contracted a third-party company to build and pay for the system. The company, Transit Wireless, will charge cellphone carriers a fee to use its signal.

Gary Webster, the TTC's chief general manager, said Toronto's transit authority would also look to a private company, possibly a cellphone carrier, to foot the bill for installing underground cellphone service here.

The cellphone idea, however, is a long way off when compared to some of the high-tech projects the commission touted yesterday.

Beginning on Monday, the TTC will post service interruption alerts on the electronic screens on its subway platforms and on its Web site.

Once that $1.1-million project is evaluated, the transit authority will explore sending such alerts to cellphones and BlackBerrys.

The TTC plans to spend $5.5-milion installing electronic signs and back-up equipment to tell bus and subway passengers when the next vehicle will arrive.

The commission will begin testing the idea on subway platforms -- using existing electronic screens --next summer. A bus and streetcar pilot project is expected to launch in November, 2008, the commission said.

The TTC will unveil a $375,000 makeover to its 10-year-old Web site in the spring, but transit riders will still have to wait until July, 2009, to plot their transit trips over the Internet and buy all their transit passes online.

Those two projects will cost a combined $3.5-million.

Mr. Giambrone conceded that the TTC is behind the times when it comes to offering basic services like an Internet trip planner, which would allow customers to plug locations into the TTC's Web site and learn the best combination of bus, streetcar and subway routes to get to their destinations.

"Clearly this is something we should have done in the past," Mr. Giambrone said of the trip planner. "There's really no excuse for that. The commission directed this last year and now, I think if you talk to other transit authorities that have rolled out trip planners, it is a two-year process."
__________________
Hong Kong Photo Gallery - Click Here for the Hong Kong Galleries

World Photo Gallery - | St. Petersburg, Russia | Pyongyang | Tokyo | Istanbul | Dubai | Shanghai | Mumbai | Bangkok | Sydney

New York, London, Prague, Iceland, Rocky Mountains, Angkor Wat, Sri Lanka, Poland, Myanmar, and much more!
hkskyline no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old November 17th, 2007, 11:57 AM   #506
TRZ
Welcome to the Rail World
 
TRZ's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Toronto
Posts: 4,671
Likes (Received): 4

Quote:
Originally Posted by noob(but not really) View Post
I did cover ridership under traffic - they needed to increase headways to 45 secs, so that would be streetcar traffic.
You did not specifically refer to ridership in the orginal post, and that is exactly my point. You are focusing entirely on vehicular traffic, not ridership. If 45 second headways can satisfy the demand, then there's not as much of a problem, but even at that, the demand was projected to overpower that arrangement in the near-future if the growth pattern observed for the last while were to continue, which indicators would support would happen.





Quote:
Originally Posted by noob(but not really) View Post
Of course Eglinton would interchange here, so the current station would still be used either way.
No, you said that the only reason B-D has not been extended is because the SRT is in the way, you did not cite the missing existence of an Eglinton Subway line to take over the existing station.
Quote:
Originally Posted by noob(but not really) View Post
As for Ellesmere, I said a new curve would be built. It would curve under the Ellesmere/Midland intersection, with a new station there.
Except you can't curve under the intersection like that. Too much expropriation. There is a way to do it without expropriating, however you think expropriation is simple and popular.

Quote:
Originally Posted by noob(but not really) View Post
Ok, but how silly is it to have that loop. Hardly anyone uses it, and the phenomenon I described does happen quite a bit.
Well, it is designed to serve a specific purpose, and it still is a much needed purpose today - alleviating Yonge south of Bloor. That's its principal function. The phenomenon you cite is not really a "problem". It is not designed to act as a loop and doesn't need to have people ride continuously through the loop. This is not a loop line - what I've propsed elsewhere is a loop line .
__________________
Pssst... your balls are showing...

EXTREEEEEEEEEEEME transit geek
TRZ no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old November 17th, 2007, 12:12 PM   #507
TRZ
Welcome to the Rail World
 
TRZ's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Toronto
Posts: 4,671
Likes (Received): 4

Quote:
Originally Posted by allurban View Post
Would the DRL be located above/below the Yonge line in the same structural arrangement that gave us St. George and Bay?
No. I've been thinking about how to do the East Teamway layout. It is an interesting location and position with a lot of popular potential in various directions from the platform. As such, a very unconventional staggered/split-level arrangement of platforms and tracks is what I would propose for the East Teamways station. It is hard to describe and I may provide a sketch. This would provide good noise control and vibration isolation design opportunities.

However, after reading up on some of the Union Redevelopment proposals, I am having second thoughts about the naming, and just leaving it as Union for East Teamways Station (as it shares the existing LRT loop anyway, combined with the GO Bus terminal, it is much more appropriate this way), and making the West Teamways Station to "York (Bremner)" instead. This is more conventional and what the system is used to. Uni-Spadina would become the York Line (York(Bremner) to York Uni)

Quote:
Originally Posted by allurban View Post
If so I hope they do something to reduce noise and vibration....

actually, I wish they could do that for St. George (and Bay) as well.

I suppose that if the TTC really wanted to do it, they could...but it would mean a serious disruption of St. George for many weeks or months at a time....

Cheers, m
Actually, the amount of isolators in question that would be required might not be practical since they could theorhetically require a change in track levels. I cannot think of a way they could do it without shutting the service down for a while.
__________________
Pssst... your balls are showing...

EXTREEEEEEEEEEEME transit geek
TRZ no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old November 18th, 2007, 02:18 AM   #508
noob(but not really)
BANNED
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Toronto
Posts: 1,572
Likes (Received): 2

Quote:
Originally Posted by TRZ View Post
You did not specifically refer to ridership in the orginal post, and that is exactly my point. You are focusing entirely on vehicular traffic, not ridership. If 45 second headways can satisfy the demand, then there's not as much of a problem, but even at that, the demand was projected to overpower that arrangement in the near-future if the growth pattern observed for the last while were to continue, which indicators would support would happen.
I just wanted to point out that both vehicular AND streetcar traffic was increasing, and ridership would be included in the latter. We both know this, so there's no point in arguing.



Quote:
No, you said that the only reason B-D has not been extended is because the SRT is in the way, you did not cite the missing existence of an Eglinton Subway line to take over the existing station.
If there was no SRT, they would extend it in no time.



Quote:
Except you can't curve under the intersection like that. Too much expropriation. There is a way to do it without expropriating, however you think expropriation is simple and popular.
Opposition to this type of expropriation is nothing short of NIMBYism. But do tell us, what is this "way to do it w/o expropriation"?



Quote:
Well, it is designed to serve a specific purpose, and it still is a much needed purpose today - alleviating Yonge south of Bloor. That's its principal function. The phenomenon you cite is not really a "problem". It is not designed to act as a loop and doesn't need to have people ride continuously through the loop. This is not a loop line - what I've propsed elsewhere is a loop line .
Wait, it's needed because people riding Yonge south need to take University to relieve Yonge?

I know what you mean, but my plan won't change its function as a relief line. Rather, it would solidify it, because it would also relieve Yonge to the east. Yonge would also be full coming into Union, instead of empty. So it's a better use of the system.
noob(but not really) no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old November 18th, 2007, 06:05 AM   #509
TRZ
Welcome to the Rail World
 
TRZ's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Toronto
Posts: 4,671
Likes (Received): 4

Quote:
Originally Posted by noob(but not really) View Post
I just wanted to point out that both vehicular AND streetcar traffic was increasing, and ridership would be included in the latter. We both know this, so there's no point in arguing.
No, you're making assumptions and trying to weasel out of your delivering misinformation. You should be a politician.

Vehiclar volume does give a measure of capacity supplied, but it does not give a measure of capacity demanded, and that is why yours was an erroneous and ill-informed statement. Capacity demanded can only be conveyed by ridership figures, not vehicluar headways. If you fail to understand this, that's your handicap.




Quote:
Originally Posted by noob(but not really) View Post
If there was no SRT, they would extend it in no time.
No, if there was no SRT, it'd be a streetcar line like originally planned - that's why the loop is useless for the SRT, it was designed for a streetcar's turning radius.




Quote:
Originally Posted by noob(but not really) View Post
Opposition to this type of expropriation is nothing short of NIMBYism. But do tell us, what is this "way to do it w/o expropriation"?
It's shocking that you can take expropriation so lightly. If you enjoy kicking people out of their homes and depriving them of their property that much, why don't you become a terrorist?

Here's an expropriation-free alternative:

Lawrence East Re-align:


Ellesmere-McCowan (North is Left, East is Up):


The single-line portion indicates an stretch where the two directions are one on top of the other rather than side-by-side. This is needed to maneuver some foundations of existing structures.



Quote:
Originally Posted by noob(but not really) View Post
Wait, it's needed because people riding Yonge south need to take University to relieve Yonge?
It's needed for diverting Bloor traffic from Yonge. Originally Bloor users wouldn't need Yonge at all to get downtown, that was the point of the design, as both directions on B-D would flow into University without transferring. It was a great design, but the TTC ****ed it up.

Quote:
Originally Posted by noob(but not really) View Post
I know what you mean, but my plan won't change its function as a relief line. Rather, it would solidify it, because it would also relieve Yonge to the east. Yonge would also be full coming into Union, instead of empty. So it's a better use of the system.
Yonge is not empty coming into Union, although many do get off at King. I see what your argument is though, and partially agree with it, the part where I disagree is that it doesn't do anything that the system is not already designed to do anyway - the TTC just doesn't use the Wye anymore, because they can't manage it.
__________________
Pssst... your balls are showing...

EXTREEEEEEEEEEEME transit geek
TRZ no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old November 18th, 2007, 06:54 AM   #510
noob(but not really)
BANNED
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Toronto
Posts: 1,572
Likes (Received): 2

Quote:
Originally Posted by TRZ View Post
No, you're making assumptions and trying to weasel out of your delivering misinformation. You should be a politician.

Vehiclar volume does give a measure of capacity supplied, but it does not give a measure of capacity demanded, and that is why yours was an erroneous and ill-informed statement. Capacity demanded can only be conveyed by ridership figures, not vehicluar headways. If you fail to understand this, that's your handicap.
We're arguing over breadcrumbs. I read that article on TT several times, so don't act like I don't know what I'm talking about.



Quote:
No, if there was no SRT, it'd be a streetcar line like originally planned - that's why the loop is useless for the SRT, it was designed for a streetcar's turning radius.
I'm not the noob you think I am.



Quote:
It's shocking that you can take expropriation so lightly. If you enjoy kicking people out of their homes and depriving them of their property that much, why don't you become a terrorist?

Here's an expropriation-free alternative:



The single-line portion indicates an stretch where the two directions are one on top of the other rather than side-by-side. This is needed to maneuver some foundations of existing structures.
That's nice and all, but if a station is going there, the houses would be going anyway. Think about it.



Quote:
It's needed for diverting Bloor traffic from Yonge. Originally Bloor users wouldn't need Yonge at all to get downtown, that was the point of the design, as both directions on B-D would flow into University without transferring. It was a great design, but the TTC ****ed it up.
Yes, University relieving Yonge from the west, doubling its capacity. BUT that's not what I was referring to. Go back and look at the post.



Quote:
Yonge is not empty coming into Union, although many do get off at King. I see what your argument is though, and partially agree with it, the part where I disagree is that it doesn't do anything that the system is not already designed to do anyway - the TTC just doesn't use the Wye anymore, because they can't manage it.
Ok, I'm glad you understand. Think about the setup... you have Yonge in the middle, with relief on either side(University-Spadina, Don Mills), then a western spur of Yonge going to Weston, sort of acting as additional relief for U-S. With this setup, both lines are used from each direction coming into downtown.
noob(but not really) no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old November 18th, 2007, 07:06 AM   #511
TRZ
Welcome to the Rail World
 
TRZ's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Toronto
Posts: 4,671
Likes (Received): 4

Quote:
Originally Posted by noob(but not really) View Post
We're arguing over breadcrumbs. I read that article on TT several times, so don't act like I don't know what I'm talking about.
Doesn't matter how many times you read it if you don't understand the information being conveyed. If you know what it is conveying, then accurately do so yourself. You did not accurately convey the right information, even if unintentional.





Quote:
Originally Posted by noob(but not really) View Post
I'm not the noob you think I am.
You're the same noob that said if there was no SRT that a B-D extension to STC would have materialized, aren't you?





Quote:
Originally Posted by noob(but not really) View Post
That's nice and all, but if a station is going there, the houses would be going anyway. Think about it.
If there's a bus terminal, yeah, absolutely, but what station are you referring to? The alignment stays clear of subdivisions of detatched houses in general.





Quote:
Originally Posted by noob(but not really) View Post
Yes, University relieving Yonge from the west, doubling its capacity. BUT that's not what I was referring to. Go back and look at the post.
You were referring to the east, I know, and University was designed to take people from the east as well - it's called Lower Bay.




Quote:
Originally Posted by noob(but not really) View Post
Ok, I'm glad you understand. Think about the setup... you have Yonge in the middle, with relief on either side(University-Spadina, Don Mills), then a western spur of Yonge going to Weston, sort of acting as additional relief for U-S. With this setup, both lines are used from each direction coming into downtown.
U-S doesn't need a relief line, it already is a relief line in and of itself. That doesn't mean that more subway lines are bad, per se, but priorities must be set accordingly considering funding.
__________________
Pssst... your balls are showing...

EXTREEEEEEEEEEEME transit geek
TRZ no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old November 18th, 2007, 07:19 AM   #512
noob(but not really)
BANNED
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Toronto
Posts: 1,572
Likes (Received): 2

Quote:
Originally Posted by TRZ View Post
Doesn't matter how many times you read it if you don't understand the information being conveyed. If you know what it is conveying, then accurately do so yourself. You did not accurately convey the right information, even if unintentional.
I understand it perfectly, but I tried summarizing it in one sentence. Guess I wasn't precise enough for YOU, but Electrify seems fine with it.



Quote:
You're the same noob that said if there was no SRT that a B-D extension to STC would have materialized, aren't you?
Pretty much. A streetcar line would've been easier to replace, as it wouldn't have cost as much. And it's undeniable that more capacity is needed.



Quote:
If there's a bus terminal, yeah, absolutely, but what station are you referring to? The alignment stays clear of subdivisions of detatched houses in general.
I mean density.



Quote:
You were referring to the east, I know, and University was designed to take people from the east as well - it's called Lower Bay.
Didn't bring Lower Bay into this, I was saying that as you get past King, the subway is empty, then it takes almost the entire length of University, if ever, to fill up. This is worse during off peak times. If U-S became part of a different line(instead of an awkward appendage), then this would cease.



Quote:
U-S doesn't need a relief line, it already is a relief line in and of itself. That doesn't mean that more subway lines are bad, per se, but priorities must be set accordingly considering funding.
Wow, you are so nitpicky! Obviously it won't be a relief line, but it is an alternate route downtown, so I could see that some ppl would take it, and thus it could be a relief line. But it can get by on its own.
noob(but not really) no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old November 18th, 2007, 07:39 AM   #513
TRZ
Welcome to the Rail World
 
TRZ's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Toronto
Posts: 4,671
Likes (Received): 4

Quote:
Originally Posted by noob(but not really) View Post
I understand it perfectly, but I tried summarizing it in one sentence. Guess I wasn't precise enough for YOU, but Electrify seems fine with it.
Electrify wasn't the one who asked the question. The person who asked's opinion is irrelevant anyway, because they don't know, the opinion on the quality of your response of people that are familiar with the facts in detail do matter. If you're not clear and precise, why should you be taken seriously? The fact remains is that you mentioned everything but ridership specifically.





Quote:
Originally Posted by noob(but not really) View Post
Pretty much. A streetcar line would've been easier to replace, as it wouldn't have cost as much. And it's undeniable that more capacity is needed.
Whether it is a streetcar line or an ICTS being replaced, a subway replacing either is going to be the same cost since the same alignment can't be used regardless. The streetcar line would not be having this problem in the first place though, as LRT has a considerably higher capacity than the ICTS, and wouldn't need the subway replacement at all.





Quote:
Originally Posted by noob(but not really) View Post
I mean density.
That's considerably different, but you don't make the land available by expropriation for a transit corridor. Let the developers do their work.





Quote:
Originally Posted by noob(but not really) View Post
Didn't bring Lower Bay into this,
It's relevant.




Quote:
Originally Posted by noob(but not really) View Post
Wow, you are so nitpicky!
More like you aren't picky enough. Like I said before, if you are not clear and precise, why should you be taken seriously?
__________________
Pssst... your balls are showing...

EXTREEEEEEEEEEEME transit geek
TRZ no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old November 18th, 2007, 10:09 PM   #514
noob(but not really)
BANNED
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Toronto
Posts: 1,572
Likes (Received): 2

Quote:
Originally Posted by TRZ View Post
Electrify wasn't the one who asked the question.
No one asked the question, but Electrify wasn't clear enough, so I added to what he said.



Quote:
The person who asked's opinion is irrelevant anyway, because they don't know, the opinion on the quality of your response of people that are familiar with the facts in detail do matter. If you're not clear and precise, why should you be taken seriously? The fact remains is that you mentioned everything but ridership specifically.
Ridership increase is implied if streetcar traffic is increasing.



Quote:
Whether it is a streetcar line or an ICTS being replaced, a subway replacing either is going to be the same cost since the same alignment can't be used regardless. The streetcar line would not be having this problem in the first place though, as LRT has a considerably higher capacity than the ICTS, and wouldn't need the subway replacement at all.
A streetcar line would not have cost so much time, nor money to build or operate. It would also be a much more attractive service, which would've increased ridership, putting it in the same position as the current ICTS. People would still complain about the Kennedy transfer.

For these reasons, I'm 100% sure that if the SRT was never built, we'd be taking B-D to STC by now.



Quote:
That's considerably different, but you don't make the land available by expropriation for a transit corridor. Let the developers do their work.
You'd partner with the developers for them to build on top.



Quote:
It's relevant.

More like you aren't picky enough. Like I said before, if you are not clear and precise, why should you be taken seriously?
Lower Bay hasn't been relevant since 1966. I may not have been precise enough for you a few times, but the same goes for you.

The rest of those two comments... flawless!
noob(but not really) no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old November 19th, 2007, 05:40 AM   #515
TRZ
Welcome to the Rail World
 
TRZ's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Toronto
Posts: 4,671
Likes (Received): 4

Quote:
Originally Posted by noob(but not really) View Post
No one asked the question, but Electrify wasn't clear enough, so I added to what he said.
Wrong, isaidso asked the question. Electrify wouldn't need to explain if the request for such information was not made.





Quote:
Originally Posted by noob(but not really) View Post
Ridership increase is implied if streetcar traffic is increasing.
It doesn't illustrate the strain on the system though, and that's the point. You did not point at all to the fact that Bloor was in a situation not unlike Yonge.





Quote:
Originally Posted by noob(but not really) View Post
A streetcar line would not have cost so much time, nor money to build or operate. It would also be a much more attractive service, which would've increased ridership, putting it in the same position as the current ICTS. People would still complain about the Kennedy transfer.
The cost to build would have been cheaper as a product, but it would have been much more expensive to the TTC. When the SRT was built, the province paid for a vast majority of it, saving huge sums of money for the TTC, making it much MUCH cheaper than building it as a streetcar line. However, while the Kennedy transfer would have been the same, that's true, even if the service was more popular (not necessarily, although I'd be inclined to agree better planning principles would probably have been applied as a streetcar line), it would have been far easier and cheaper to adjust the service as a streetcar line than the ICTS is capable of and would still not require a subway.

Quote:
Originally Posted by noob(but not really) View Post
For these reasons, I'm 100% sure that if the SRT was never built, we'd be taking B-D to STC by now.
You could 200% sure and you'd still be wrong.





Quote:
Originally Posted by noob(but not really) View Post
You'd partner with the developers for them to build on top.
Not without large protests. You don't understand that these types of opposition are in fact capable of killing a project - they did kill the Don Mills Busway, and they almost killed St.Clair West. You should worry about these kinds of problems because they can destroy your little schemes. It's an important part of the strategy, and a key point to why I am lightyears ahead of you in route planning.





Quote:
Originally Posted by noob(but not really) View Post
Lower Bay hasn't been relevant since 1966.
Try several months ago, genius, when they were doing structural repair work between Bay and St.George.

Lower Bay is relevant because it exists and is possible to restore to service if the TTC wants.
__________________
Pssst... your balls are showing...

EXTREEEEEEEEEEEME transit geek
TRZ no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old November 19th, 2007, 06:33 AM   #516
noob(but not really)
BANNED
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Toronto
Posts: 1,572
Likes (Received): 2

Quote:
Originally Posted by TRZ View Post
Wrong, isaidso asked the question. Electrify wouldn't need to explain if the request for such information was not made.
Isaidso didn't ask anything. If you actually read his posts, you'd know that. You should try it sometime - actually reading people's posts, instead of just believing certain ignoramus forumers who propose MCC extensions that put words in my mouth I didn't utter.



Quote:
It doesn't illustrate the strain on the system though, and that's the point. You did not point at all to the fact that Bloor was in a situation not unlike Yonge.
Face it, you're wrong. I do know what I'm talking about afterall. You're the only one complaining about this(apparently because I dislike your Jane subway )



Quote:
The cost to build would have been cheaper as a product, but it would have been much more expensive to the TTC. When the SRT was built, the province paid for a vast majority of it, saving huge sums of money for the TTC, making it much MUCH cheaper than building it as a streetcar line. However, while the Kennedy transfer would have been the same, that's true, even if the service was more popular (not necessarily, although I'd be inclined to agree better planning principles would probably have been applied as a streetcar line), it would have been far easier and cheaper to adjust the service as a streetcar line than the ICTS is capable of and would still not require a subway.

You could 200% sure and you'd still be wrong.
If the ridership were triple(which I think it would be), then a subway would be needed.



Quote:
Not without large protests. You don't understand that these types of opposition are in fact capable of killing a project - they did kill the Don Mills Busway, and they almost killed St.Clair West. You should worry about these kinds of problems because they can destroy your little schemes. It's an important part of the strategy, and a key point to why I am lightyears ahead of you in route planning.
You can't assume that. Knowing how long the public has been shortchanged, they'd be more inclined to welcome it than protest.



Quote:
Try several months ago, genius, when they were doing structural repair work between Bay and St.George.

Lower Bay is relevant because it exists and is possible to restore to service if the TTC wants.
Try revenue service without any structural work.

And I already told you I don't care for interlining.
noob(but not really) no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old November 19th, 2007, 01:46 PM   #517
TRZ
Welcome to the Rail World
 
TRZ's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Toronto
Posts: 4,671
Likes (Received): 4

Quote:
Originally Posted by noob(but not really) View Post
Isaidso didn't ask anything. If you actually read his posts, you'd know that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by isaidso View Post
Bloor should have a subway. I think what you are saying is that Queen should have gotten one first.
Not a question, true, but this statement is what effectively started the topic, and was what I was referring to. This was in response to Electrify stating Bloor shouldn't even have a subway at all. I put no words in your mouth, I only quote your own posts without re-writing them, unlike some people I debate with.



Quote:
Originally Posted by noob(but not really) View Post
Face it, you're wrong. I do know what I'm talking about afterall. You're the only one complaining about this(apparently because I dislike your Jane subway )
The Jane Subway debate is a separate thread (and I suggest we leave it there). I am correcting your misconveyance on the facts of history - because you did make a mistake. Just admit it and thank me for pointing out the error. I'm the only one pointing this out because not many people care about history (I used to be among such people at one time, they are indeed a majority too if you check statistics on how familiar Canadians are with their own history).





Quote:
Originally Posted by noob(but not really) View Post
If the ridership were triple(which I think it would be), then a subway would be needed.
I don't think it would be triple. Double, maybe, a bit optimistic but I wouldn't rule it out. Double though, would still be manageable by LRT (with the proper design).

With a multi-unit LRT vehicle, with the proper track and station design (which the TTC wasn't going to implement, FTR), can reach about 1/3 of the capacity a 6-car subway can with ATC (which none of the current system has except Sheppard, and Sheppard can't really take advantage of it due to lack of demand), 1/2 or more the capacity of a 6-car subway without ATC. The difference is coming from variations in the headway limitations and, directly related to that, signal system differences.





Quote:
Originally Posted by noob(but not really) View Post
You can't assume that. Knowing how long the public has been shortchanged, they'd be more inclined to welcome it than protest.
Didn't work for the ROWs (they went through anyway, yes, but not without a fight or in St.Clair's case, a court battle), and they didn't even require expropriation, so why would it work for your subway? Expropriating property is NOT popular, this is simply common sense. You should only be doing this if you have to, not because it's convenient. You have no sense of humanity.

You have to assume and prepare for the worst. Nothing goes without a hitch in these kinds of projects.





Quote:
Originally Posted by noob(but not really) View Post
Try revenue service without any structural work.

And I already told you I don't care for interlining.
You may not care for interlining, but the TTC has it in their system, which is what matters (the fact that it is there), it is also there for Sheppard I'll point out (has never been used for carrying passengers, but it used use for yard access), and the streetcar system is interlined like crazy - you think the streetcars should cease the interlining practice? You're crazy.
__________________
Pssst... your balls are showing...

EXTREEEEEEEEEEEME transit geek
TRZ no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old November 19th, 2007, 10:35 PM   #518
noob(but not really)
BANNED
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Toronto
Posts: 1,572
Likes (Received): 2

Quote:
Originally Posted by TRZ View Post
I put no words in your mouth
ScrapeTheSky did, in the St. Clair thread, and you believed him. But I already posted there, so we'll leave it at that.



Quote:
The Jane Subway debate is a separate thread (and I suggest we leave it there). I am correcting your misconveyance on the facts of history - because you did make a mistake. Just admit it and thank me for pointing out the error. I'm the only one pointing this out because not many people care about history (I used to be among such people at one time, they are indeed a majority too if you check statistics on how familiar Canadians are with their own history).
I will not admit to a mistake, because there wasn't one. The most I'll give you is not elaborating enough for your tastes.



Quote:
I don't think it would be triple. Double, maybe, a bit optimistic but I wouldn't rule it out. Double though, would still be manageable by LRT (with the proper design).
If it's between double and triple(or just double) I think it would be enough(but I still think ridership would be triple) to build a subway when you factor in that transfer, and that the situation wouldn't be as desperate with LRT.



Quote:
With a multi-unit LRT vehicle, with the proper track and station design (which the TTC wasn't going to implement, FTR), can reach about 1/3 of the capacity a 6-car subway can with ATC (which none of the current system has except Sheppard, and Sheppard can't really take advantage of it due to lack of demand), 1/2 or more the capacity of a 6-car subway without ATC. The difference is coming from variations in the headway limitations and, directly related to that, signal system differences.
Oh crap. My theory is looking more plausible now, because the TTC would'nt have went with this "proper design".



Quote:
Didn't work for the ROWs (they went through anyway, yes, but not without a fight or in St.Clair's case, a court battle), and they didn't even require expropriation, so why would it work for your subway? Expropriating property is NOT popular, this is simply common sense. You should only be doing this if you have to, not because it's convenient. You have no sense of humanity.
But it would happen anyway. Look at Sheppard. My plan just speeds up the process.



Quote:
You have to assume and prepare for the worst. Nothing goes without a hitch in these kinds of projects.
Good idea. We can fall back on your plans if mine fail.



Quote:
You may not care for interlining, but the TTC has it in their system, which is what matters (the fact that it is there), it is also there for Sheppard I'll point out (has never been used for carrying passengers, but it used use for yard access), and the streetcar system is interlined like crazy - you think the streetcars should cease the interlining practice? You're crazy.
I meant an interlined service, not connecting lines to one another via tracking. And of course there is a wye for Sheppard, how else would the trains get stored at Davisville?
noob(but not really) no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old November 20th, 2007, 03:53 AM   #519
Epi
Registered User
 
Epi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Toronto
Posts: 3,120
Likes (Received): 77

Quote:
Originally Posted by noob(but not really) View Post
But it would happen anyway. Look at Sheppard. My plan just speeds up the process.
They built Sheppard under the road. They didn't take away people's homes for this.

I think they should just take away your home and build something on top of it, maybe then you will understand that expropriation kind of sucks.
Epi no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old November 20th, 2007, 06:02 AM   #520
TRZ
Welcome to the Rail World
 
TRZ's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Toronto
Posts: 4,671
Likes (Received): 4

Quote:
Originally Posted by noob(but not really) View Post
ScrapeTheSky did, in the St. Clair thread, and you believed him. But I already posted there, so we'll leave it at that.
Everybody believes him, and they're right - your poor communication skills had you make an ass of yourself, congratulations, suck it up and show a little humility and then everyone will forgive and forget about it.





Quote:
Originally Posted by noob(but not really) View Post
I will not admit to a mistake, because there wasn't one. The most I'll give you is not elaborating enough for your tastes.
Look, this isn't even the fault of your use of language, it is the fact that you managed to list everything but the most important point in the whole matter, and act like those were the main reasons. The fact is that Electrify was closer to the main issue than you ever were - Electrify referred directly to transit usage, a more relevant factor than vehicular traffic. Like I already said, vehicular traffic only shows the capacity supplied. If ridership on that line is stable and not near, at, or over capacity at the 45-second headways, then the situation may not have required a subway and the TTC would have been agreeable to the city's proposal. The key point was that ridership was already at capacity and forecasted to continue to increase. That's the single most important reason, and traffic on Bloor-Danforth does not illustrate this at all, nor do the future extensions and stuff that you mentioned matter compared to that either. Get over it, you messed up, just like in the St.Clair thread, now show a little humility and everyone will forgive and forget about it.

Everybody makes mistakes every so often. Myself included, I concede when I'm proven wrong - I not sure whether or not you've proven me wrong yet though, but other forumers have caught me slip up. It happens to everyone sometimes, accept it, shrug your shoulders, and carry on. You act like a child who is completely undisciplined and used to always getting his way with his parents. That's why I asked how old you are. Show some maturity here. We're supposed to be adults. I'm not interested in dealing with a 12 year-old.





Quote:
Originally Posted by noob(but not really) View Post
If it's between double and triple(or just double) I think it would be enough(but I still think ridership would be triple) to build a subway when you factor in that transfer, and that the situation wouldn't be as desperate with LRT.
The situation wouldn't be as desperate with LRT because LRT has the capacity to keep up.


Quote:
Originally Posted by noob(but not really) View Post
Oh crap. My theory is looking more plausible now, because the TTC would'nt have went with this "proper design".
Well, the original design can be modified at a later date for the most part, except for Kennedy, the most complicated part (that would be back to square one for that station... no MCC references :P). Kennedy's not cheap, but way cheaper than doing a new subway station and extension. Your theory is no more plausible now as a result of this. It would have been a much easier situation to work with than the reworking the RT is facing right now - and would be possible to keep the Streetcars in service with a small amount of temporary trackage since the infrastructure required for them can be minimal if needed - ICTS can't be as accomodating, and that's what would keep LRT going instead of replacing it with a subway. On what grounds do you think ridership would be triple, btw?





Quote:
Originally Posted by noob(but not really) View Post
But it would happen anyway. Look at Sheppard. My plan just speeds up the process.
You totally missed the point. Unbelievable. See Epi's post.





Quote:
Originally Posted by noob(but not really) View Post
Good idea. We can fall back on your plans if mine fail.
Why not save 10s of billions of dollars and over a decade of time and just skip your plan altogether, we know it will fail anyway.





Quote:
Originally Posted by noob(but not really) View Post
I meant an interlined service, not connecting lines to one another via tracking. And of course there is a wye for Sheppard, how else would the trains get stored at Davisville?
Streetcars? Hellooo? Do you oppose interlined streetcar routes?
__________________
Pssst... your balls are showing...

EXTREEEEEEEEEEEME transit geek
TRZ no está en línea   Reply With Quote


Reply

Tags
canada, ontario, toronto

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Related topics on SkyscraperCity


All times are GMT +2. The time now is 05:39 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11 Beta 4
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
Feedback Buttons provided by Advanced Post Thanks / Like (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2018 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.

vBulletin Optimisation provided by vB Optimise (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2018 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.

SkyscraperCity ☆ In Urbanity We trust ☆ about us | privacy policy | DMCA policy

tech management by Sysprosium