TORONTO | Public Transport

[degnaw]

Originally Posted by Homer J. Simpson

^Immagine if you will high tention hydro lines with developement on either sides. That is a hydro corridor, just power lines that cut accross the land.

The problem with placing PT and ajacent facilities on them is the same as placing them over other ROWs, that is that people do not like to walk into the hinterlands to use them unless there is some sort of development around the stations.

Thanks, i was thinking of water pipes when i first saw the words "hydro corridor"...

although im still confused about the problem thing, the commuter lots take up the entire width of the corridor so wouldnt it be surrounded by development?

[elkram]

Originally Posted by Skybean

Toronto stations rarely have this type of overcrowding.

That's not how I remember that network -- twice as frequent service than here, twice as many people, twice as large cars -- I'd swear its the busiest network I've been on out of a couple of dozen I've ridden -- the number of passengers in the shot doesn't surprise me, rush hours.

Cheers,
Chris

[Jaye101]

This is a hydro corridor in Brampton, the one's in Toronto aren't this wide.

[monkeyronin]

[harsh1802]

Lovely.

[Derryn-Hinch]

The whole subway system looks like a relic from the 50s.It's blandness matches the Toronto skyline.

[p5archit]

We refer to Hydro as electricity- probably because we get about 5-10% of our energy from there..makes sense doesn't it (sarcastic).

That said, there have been quite a few ideas about running transit down those so-called corridors and they are and possibly will be of more benifit later, that is when the corridors towers come down and we bury the lines- then we can talk transit and development.

p5

[thryve]

Originally Posted by Derryn-Hinch

The whole subway system looks like a relic from the 50s.It's blandness matches the Toronto skyline.

Thank God... it's called timelessness.

[samsonyuen]

I don't agree with it being a relic. What you see as bland, I see as a dependable and reliable service that trades flashiness for functionality.

[salvius]

Originally Posted by Derryn-Hinch

The whole subway system looks like a relic from the 50s.It's blandness matches the Toronto skyline.

Oh brother... That's two posts where I've found you spewing nonsense. I guess we can be like Melbourne and not have one.

[degnaw]

Originally Posted by p5archit

We refer to Hydro as electricity- probably because we get about 5-10% of our energy from there..makes sense doesn't it (sarcastic).

um... its actually 70%...

Back on topic, the hydro corridors have elevated power lines anyways, so is there anything hindering a rail line through it? or are people afraid of getting shocked? of course, the southernmost hydro corridor in toronto proper runs along finch, which is probably too north for a subway line, but the corridor continues to Mississauga city center, so it has some potential.

[Gil]

Originally Posted by p5archit

We refer to Hydro as electricity- probably because we get about 5-10% of our energy from there..makes sense doesn't it (sarcastic).

That said, there have been quite a few ideas about running transit down those so-called corridors and they are and possibly will be of more benifit later, that is when the corridors towers come down and we bury the lines- then we can talk transit and development.

p5

Degnaw, hydro as a term for electricity is a Canadianism, Americans refer to them (hydro lines) as power lines.

These high-voltage hydro corridors are in open areas for obvious safety reason (you wouldn't want kids climbing them, or things such as tree branches getting caught in them), aw well as some uncertain safety reasons, namely the electro-magnetic field the lines generate. There are camps on both sides of the debate on whether or not the EMF's are a health hazard. As no clear concensus can be reached the status quo of limiting development within the corridors remains. The concern also stretches to placing surface transit in these corridors as the vehicle operators would face prolonged exposure.

As for burying the lines, the issue of the EMF's comes up again. Since the effects are uncertain, how deep is safe enough to mitigate any possible effects? That aside, the insulation required to bury high-voltage lines, the heat generated from the lines, and the cost of essentially duplicating the network (as these lines need to remain active while their underground replacements are being built) are quite prohibitive. In some instances, the land beneath these corridors is already occupied by natural gas lines, further complicating issues.

Underground corridors of this magnitude do exist, but they are located in largely rural areas or underwater. We're talking about doing this in an urban environment. The only feasible means of burying high-voltage lines is for the voltage to be stepped down or reduced to a safe level. This however would require that there be several times as many lines all carrying lower voltage. Some of these corridors carry dozens of lines, each one requiring itself dozens of lines of reduced voltage to replace it. Soon you'll be faced with burying hundreds of these lines. Which all of a sudden doesn't seem quite as feasible.

[elkram]

Originally Posted by samsonyuen

functionality.

Dependable? Depends on how you regard functionality. Do your ears function well enough after riding that city's metro? How's the whiplash to your neck at stops? Are you the type to become embaressed from being thrown into the nearby passenger when the train halts? Not a pleasant legacy, Toronto.

Wheels squealing daftly even on the slightest of bends, noisiness ricocheting off no ballast underground; nothing learnt about how to quiet the squealing brakes when it came to freshly-commissioned trains a few years ago, the overall objective being to lurch the whole friggin unit into an abrupt stop.

I wish that city would just wake up -- with all that din of a tumbling you'd think it would've by now . . . .

For me functionality was first triumphed by London's Circle Line C stock fleet manufactured in the late 1960s. Its errr pleasant functionality outmatched even our fleets' here.

Cheers,
Chris

[degnaw]

Originally Posted by elkram

Dependable? Depends on how you regard functionality. Do your ears function well enough after riding that city's metro? How's the whiplash to your neck at stops? Are you the type to become embaressed from being thrown into the nearby passenger when the train halts? Not a pleasant legacy, Toronto.

Wheels squealing daftly even on the slightest of bends, noisiness ricocheting off no ballast underground; nothing learnt about how to quiet the squealing brakes when it came to freshly-commissioned trains a few years ago, the overall objective being to lurch the whole friggin unit into an abrupt stop.

um, when I last took the metro (which was about three years ago) I dont remember having any of the above "symptoms", and from watching some more recent videos of it, it dosent seem too particularly loud or jerky to me, although you're probably just comparing it to the rubber-tired montreal metro (which ive never seen)

[elkram]

One knows lousy service when riding it -- it's no rocket science.

It's like a couple of evenings on a long intra-suburban bus ride here a couple of evenings ago. Driver flailing the passengers all over the place inside the facsimile of a city bus here, often hitting 50MPH on an old 30MPH winding road with utility poles edging the roadway (made me friggin' shudder), yet still all the passengers both sheepishly thanked and bade the driver good evening (regional habit here for passenger to alight from the front door).

Cheers,
Chris

[kashyap3]

buddy, Toronto has the best subway in Canada, on the contrary to what you may think

Montreal's subway is worn down piece of blue crap running down the rusty, horriby planned underground tunnels

have you looked at the size to toronto, and how much of it the subway actually covers?
it covers very little of the city, yet it does such an effective job in reducing the major gridlock problem in the GTA

[York Transit]

Originally Posted by kashyap3

buddy, Toronto has the best subway in Canada, on the contrary to what you may think

Montreal's subway is worn down piece of blue crap running down the rusty, horriby planned underground tunnels

have you looked at the size to toronto, and how much of it the subway actually covers?
it covers very little of the city, yet it does such an effective job in reducing the major gridlock problem in the GTA

I just came back from a Montreal vacation. The metro is really loud and uncomfortable.

The suspensions on the old MR-63 trains, run on the green line, are seriously falling apart. The area near Lionel Groulx is the worst, I've never shaken/vibrated or seen some many people jiggle like jello on a train before. Go ride for yourself

The newer trains aren't that bad though, but they're still loud.

[elkram]

Originally Posted by York Transit

I just came back from a Montreal vacation. The metro is really loud and uncomfortable.

The suspensions on the old MR-63 trains, run on the green line, are seriously falling apart. The area near Lionel Groulx is the worst, I've never shaken/vibrated or seen some many people jiggle like jello on a train before. Go ride for yourself

The newer trains aren't that bad though, but they're still loud.

You mis-read me, for I was referring to current new fleets not being up-to-date, not ones respectively 40 and 30 years' old. For guys, our fleets aren't painful, whereas Toronto's hurts both genders -- I'm presuming our hilarious, rapid, bold jigglings might be painful for some females.

I often ride the eight tracks to or from Lionel-Groulx; 80 metres east of Viau station and the western half of Monk station are short tracking sections I'm suspicious of. No MR-63 here is seriously falling apart, or we'd have delays galore when the fact is the stark opposite. If anything, their seriousness is supposedly attributed to the spent costs at maintaining them in top form, plus neither fleet here spends time exposed to the elements. I find the older fleet's the stronger of our two fleets. Both fleets seem noisy due to the numerous open vents and grills in any car incessantly indoors, although its noisiness isn't painful. Toronto's noise levels are hazardous, its noisiness'd be hard to miss, whereas I must remember to be more alert on crowded platforms here coz that's when all that clothing around conceals the approach of one of our noisy trains.

[mrtfreak]

Originally Posted by monkeyronin

Just my two cents, but the Toronto subway has made me appreciate these steel like systems.

[Jaye101]

Originally Posted by elkram

Dependable? Depends on how you regard functionality. Do your ears function well enough after riding that city's metro? How's the whiplash to your neck at stops? Are you the type to become embaressed from being thrown into the nearby passenger when the train halts? Not a pleasant legacy, Toronto.

Wheels squealing daftly even on the slightest of bends, noisiness ricocheting off no ballast underground; nothing learnt about how to quiet the squealing brakes when it came to freshly-commissioned trains a few years ago, the overall objective being to lurch the whole friggin unit into an abrupt stop.

I wish that city would just wake up -- with all that din of a tumbling you'd think it would've by now . . . .

For me functionality was first triumphed by London's Circle Line C stock fleet manufactured in the late 1960s. Its errr pleasant functionality outmatched even our fleets' here.

Cheers,
Chris

The funny thing is I just got off of the subway, and I was reading your post. I was thinking what a horrible, horrible place you must be talking about. Then I saw it was Toronto and I laughed fairly hard.

Look at it this way. People in Toronto wouldn't be satisfied with a quiet "bus in a cave" (quoting a famous American comedian), we love the rumble beneath our feet as we walk down University, and we know to hold on tight when Union is the next station. It wouldn't be Toronto if it was quiet, and if the ride was as gentle as your Caravan--because that's not us. And us in the centre of the universe like ourselves alot.

If you asked a Torontonian which one they rather--the answer would be obvious.

or