General Transit Discussions

[Electrify]

Originally Posted by kettal

You are forgetting the real problem: it is proprietary technology. When Bombardier decides they want to stop building compatible vehicles (and they did), guess what? We're screwed.

Not to mention extending the line is expensive and it has a lower capacity than LRT. In Toronto's system it has absolutely no advantage over LRT at all, it's just more expensive.

Well, there is one "advantage," and that is that it would ensure grade separated transit through low density areas, which was probably the "best" reason why they chose ICTS over standard LRT.

But from a non-political/infrastructure point of view, there are about a zillion things they could do to make that line more usable and friendly for riders.

[TRZ]

Originally Posted by Electrify

Well, there is one "advantage," and that is that it would ensure grade separated transit through low density areas, which was probably the "best" reason why they chose ICTS over standard LRT.

Except that was never necessary in the first place. If you look at a map, only Brimley has no station at its intersection (I'm assigning Borough Dr. to STC station). ALL other intersections with the line have a station right at it, meaning that there is no advantage to be gained with the grade-separated setup. In fact, it is because of the grade-separation that it has such user-unfriendliness. If it wasn't grade-separated, you could just walk directly onto the platform from the sidewalk that the line has a level-grade-crossing with and jump right on the streetcar. It would have worked fabulously, far superior to what we have today, and would be soooooo cheeeeeap.

[kettal]

They "chose" ICTS because they were expecting it to be futuristic levitating trains floating across the Scarborough sky like UFOs, driver-less and automated. ;D

[TRZ]

Originally Posted by kettal

They "chose" ICTS because they were expecting it to be futuristic levitating trains floating across the Scarborough sky like UFOs, driver-less and automated. ;D

That's why the province chose it :P

The TTC chose it because it was virtually free.

[PeiWhatYouCan]

Music made using sounds from the TTC:

http://www.cdbaby.com/amtunes2

[kettal]

Originally Posted by PeiWhatYouCan

Music made using sounds from the TTC:

http://www.cdbaby.com/amtunes2

related globe & mail article

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servl...echnology/home

[Sixrings]

why take out the midland and mccowen stations... that doesnt make sense... at that point u miswell get rid of the system completly and just make one subway stop at scarborough town..

[TRZ]

Originally Posted by Sixrings

why take out the midland and mccowen stations... that doesnt make sense... at that point u miswell get rid of the system completly and just make one subway stop at scarborough town..

The only thing that doesn't make sense is you. You can't have a system with one station :P

[Sixrings]

It wouldnt be one system it would be the bloor line making one extra stop to kennedy... Someone here suggested the LRT get rid of the useless midland and mcowen stops... Thats 40% of the Lrt stops.. That would mean you have a LRT system going 3 stops... Which is to me doesnt make sense (It seems like you are in agreement to that you cant have a system for such little stops)... It would force ppl to Transfer so that they cn go an extra three stops.. Ideally I would like the bloor line to stop once at LAwrence and brimley and then at scarborough town... In the future It could continue to go to sheppard and connect east with the sheppard line at Don Mills...

[TRZ]

Originally Posted by Sixrings

It wouldnt be one system it would be the bloor line making one extra stop to kennedy... Someone here suggested the LRT get rid of the useless midland and mcowen stops... Thats 40% of the Lrt stops.. That would mean you have a LRT system going 3 stops... Which is to me doesnt make sense (It seems like you are in agreement to that you cant have a system for such little stops)... It would force ppl to Transfer so that they cn go an extra three stops.. Ideally I would like the bloor line to stop once at LAwrence and brimley and then at scarborough town... In the future It could continue to go to sheppard and connect east with the sheppard line at Don Mills...

4 stops, including Kennedy, is a short line, but so is Sheppard (5 stops). As long as it is more than one, it counts, in the most basic and lowest-qualifying sense, as a system.
The thing with Midland and Ellesmere is that they are a rare occurance where two stations are too close together. Another example of this also exists in the city; Bay and Yonge stations, but these are an exception since the high traffic concentration at Yonge gives Bay a valid purpose. Other pairs along the southern-most part of the Yonge Line may also be additional valid examples, however, the exceptionally high use they are recieving makes that all too practical. In suburbia, where the SRT runs, that kind of station spacing is not practical. That is why Ellesmere and Midland should be dropped from the network, as they are not really doing anything important and slow the system.
Another thing to also keep in mind is that the line in question already stops at almost every intersecting street with the corridor already. The corridor is rare in that it has so few intersections along its run. In order to have proper "standard" access to a station along the line, it needs to be at an intersecting street, unless they are prepared to get creative.

[Electrify]

Originally Posted by Sixrings

why take out the midland and mccowen stations... that doesnt make sense... at that point u miswell get rid of the system completly and just make one subway stop at scarborough town..

Midland: It is within walking distance of Ellesmere (you can actually see it FROM Ellesmere), though there is barely enough density to support one station, let alone two. And let's not forget that recycling plant that offers wondrous odors...

McCowan: It is within walking distance of STC, and is pretty much in the middle of nowhere. It also makes getting on the SRT more of a hassle since STC is the spiritual terminal for the line, but the train does not stop there for an extended period like it should, because of McCowan.

[Sixrings]

But to bring up the sheppard subway system which has 4 stops doesnt help your point since thats the sheppards lines biggest criticism (which I believe should be expanded wast to scar town and west to downsview) ... I think the LRT might justify itself if it went out to centenial at markham and 401 area.. However overall I think the whole LRT system is a joke since the majority of the ppl simply get off at scar town... If my thoughts are accurate why not scrap the LRT, dig, and make the bloor line end with one or two extra stops past Kennedy at Scarborough town.. Then again I also believe it would be benefitial for the kipling side to connect to square one.. IF these are major city hubs they should be accessable easily within the TTC subway system... I know Sauga isnt part of Toronto but there are deff parts of it that are closer to downtown then Scarborough and they already have plans to build out to Vaughn..

[TRZ]

Originally Posted by Sixrings

But to bring up the sheppard subway system which has 4 stops doesnt help your point since thats the sheppards lines biggest criticism (which I believe should be expanded wast to scar town and west to downsview) ... I think the LRT might justify itself if it went out to centenial at markham and 401 area.. However overall I think the whole LRT system is a joke since the majority of the ppl simply get off at scar town... If my thoughts are accurate why not scrap the LRT, dig, and make the bloor line end with one or two extra stops past Kennedy at Scarborough town.. Then again I also believe it would be benefitial for the kipling side to connect to square one.. IF these are major city hubs they should be accessable easily within the TTC subway system... I know Sauga isnt part of Toronto but there are deff parts of it that are closer to downtown then Scarborough and they already have plans to build out to Vaughn..

Sheppard's biggest criticism is that it is a subway when it should've been a streetcar. The only way to salvage Sheppard IMO, is to through it south onto Vic Park as a DRL into the core. However, it is all politics. Politics are keeping the SRT from being replaced by anything, LRT or HRT, as Bombardier has Queen's Park in their pocket. Politics are keeping the subway out of Mississauga as Hazel is simply not interested, although the TTC is interested. I described in detail a possible alignment that could service the MCC area. It'd serve Cooksville GO as well, but not Hurontario and Dundas. As for Vaughan, here's the funny part - the TTC doesn't want it. According to newspaper articles, senior TTC staff have a specific piece of engineering terminology to describe the 905 portion of the subway extension: Horseshit! This one is all politics as well - the province wants it, not the TTC. If the province wants that though, they should be paying for the operating loss it is guaranteed to run up. Then there's the Yonge Line extension. This one's even more interesting. The province wants it... the TTC would want it... problem is there's no capacity to allow it to happen - it is impossible without first adding capacity to Yonge or relieving the Yonge with a DRL... which brings me back to my Sheppard idea.

[Electrify]

Originally Posted by TRZ

4 stops, including Kennedy, is a short line, but so is Sheppard (5 stops). As long as it is more than one, it counts, in the most basic and lowest-qualifying sense, as a system.
The thing with Midland and Ellesmere is that they are a rare occurance where two stations are too close together. Another example of this also exists in the city; Bay and Yonge stations, but these are an exception since the high traffic concentration at Yonge gives Bay a valid purpose. Other pairs along the southern-most part of the Yonge Line may also be additional valid examples, however, the exceptionally high use they are recieving makes that all too practical. In suburbia, where the SRT runs, that kind of station spacing is not practical. That is why Ellesmere and Midland should be dropped from the network, as they are not really doing anything important and slow the system.
Another thing to also keep in mind is that the line in question already stops at almost every intersecting street with the corridor already. The corridor is rare in that it has so few intersections along its run. In order to have proper "standard" access to a station along the line, it needs to be at an intersecting street, unless they are prepared to get creative.

I think there is room for Ellesmere, but not Midland. Ellesmere is a fairly major road (certainly more major than Midland), and the Ellesmere/York Mills bus is an excellent alternative to the STC Rocket/Sheppard subway and the GO bus. There is also no reason why the Midland bus could make a short detour to near Ellesmere station.

If there was more development around Ellesmere and Midland, I could see keeping both stations running. But the fact that they are separated by pretty much a field, and the lovely smell courtesy of that well placed recycling plant, really makes Midland's existence of a station quite questionable.

[Electrify]

Originally Posted by TRZ

Except that was never necessary in the first place. If you look at a map, only Brimley has no station at its intersection (I'm assigning Borough Dr. to STC station). ALL other intersections with the line have a station right at it, meaning that there is no advantage to be gained with the grade-separated setup. In fact, it is because of the grade-separation that it has such user-unfriendliness. If it wasn't grade-separated, you could just walk directly onto the platform from the sidewalk that the line has a level-grade-crossing with and jump right on the streetcar. It would have worked fabulously, far superior to what we have today, and would be soooooo cheeeeeap.

While grade separation is one factor, I hardly think it is the defining factor. Lawrence East station, when connecting from the southbound SRT to the buses, is arguably the most graded station in the entire network. The entire subway network is grade separated, and I would hardly call 'the entire network' user unfriendly.

The grade separation would not be so bad if there was better access to it, such as plenty of escalators all kept at high priority maintenance (meaning they would not be out of service for extended periods). To me at least, it comes down to uncomfortable seating, smelly trains (in part due to Midland), depressing scenery and stations along the route, and grade separation WITH poor access to the platforms.

[TRZ]

Originally Posted by Electrify

While grade separation is one factor, I hardly think it is the defining factor. Lawrence East station, when connecting from the southbound SRT to the buses, is arguably the most graded station in the entire network. The entire subway network is grade separated, and I would hardly call 'the entire network' user unfriendly.

Streetcars are friendlier than subways partly because they don't have the vertical transportation issues subways do. Another part is due to their frequent stop nature. This partly depends on the demographic of riders you're targeting, but the resulting development streetcars corridors undergo sees that these become factors of some importance.

Originally Posted by Electrify

The grade separation would not be so bad if there was better access to it, such as plenty of escalators all kept at high priority maintenance (meaning they would not be out of service for extended periods). To me at least, it comes down to uncomfortable seating, smelly trains (in part due to Midland), depressing scenery and stations along the route, and grade separation WITH poor access to the platforms.

There is a simpler approach to the escalators issue: Ramps. Now, I know what you're thinking, "how can you go down that distance by ramp!?".
Subway platforms for a 6-car train are (at least) 145m long (maybe 150m, I'm not quite sure). A slope of 1/16 is pretty comfortable for most people - ideally, it'd be 1/20, and 1/12 is the minimum according to accessibility standards and building codes, so 1/16 is a middleground in the truest sense of the word. By this, a 3m descent can be accomplished in 48m - 1/3rd of the subway platform's length. That would be all Rosedale or Weseley would need, for example. These ramps should be 1.2m-1.5m wide, with a landing half-way that is 1.6-2.2m wide (preferably this would not protrude into the platform area, but sometimes this is not avoidable). This not only makes escalators and elevators obsolete, it also eliminates stairs. These should be possible to accomodate. Island platforms are problematic with this, but for traditional side-platform boarding, there is no excuse for not using ramps. This makes stations user-friendly to all. The only issue is an increasing complexity with regards to multiple exits and related space constraints, and stations that are more than 2 storeys (~7m) deep.

[TRZ]

Originally Posted by Electrify

I think there is room for Ellesmere, but not Midland. Ellesmere is a fairly major road (certainly more major than Midland), and the Ellesmere/York Mills bus is an excellent alternative to the STC Rocket/Sheppard subway and the GO bus. There is also no reason why the Midland bus could make a short detour to near Ellesmere station.

If there was more development around Ellesmere and Midland, I could see keeping both stations running. But the fact that they are separated by pretty much a field, and the lovely smell courtesy of that well placed recycling plant, really makes Midland's existence of a station quite questionable.

Ellesemere's ridership is lower than Midland's. However, I'd be inclined to say screw it to both of them - have a new station at the intersection proper between the two. With an LRT, this is pretty easy to accomplish.

[Electrify]

Meet Metrolinx: Regional transportation body adopts new name
Posted: December 04, 2007, 1:57 PM by Kelly Grant
Hall Monitor

The Greater Toronto Transportation Authority officially unveiled its new name, Metrolinx, at a press conference this morning. Plagued by public confusion about its acronym — the new regional transportation body was regularly mistaken for the GTAA (Greater Toronto Airports Authority) — the GTTA apparently trotted out several potential names to focus groups before selecting this one as a winner. Rob MacIsaac, the chairman of Metrolinx, declined to reveal the runners-up, saying he didn’t want to create a “competition” about the name. Over at Spacing, readers are gleefully trashing the new moniker and the new Metrolinx website. And even TTC Chairman Adam Giambrone, a member of Metrolinx board, doesn't sound too thrilled about the name: "It's fine. It does not inspire me, but I'm sure it will serve the same function the GTTA name served. ie/ it will identify the organization," he told me in an interview.

Along with the new name, Metrolinx also released the first in a series of seven “green papers” on transit issues. After consulting widely, Metrolinx staff will write white papers (the next rung up on the ladder of colourful reports, apparently) and then release a draft regional transportation plan in the spring. The first paper is pretty vague, and its most interesting tidbits are actually ideas to ease congestion that have worked for other cities. For instance, the Metrolinx discussion paper mentions:

i) An Interstate highway in San Diego, CA that allows solo drivers to pay to use the carpool lane. An electronic system adjusts the price of the toll lane based on congestion so it’s more expensive to drive in the lane at the peak of rush hour.

ii) High-speed rail service linking major centres of the region. Paris and New York City boast such systems.

iii) The “Oyster” smart fare card used in London, England. The transit pass is now used for 75% of the city’s underground, and has been franchised to become a credit/debit card, a library card and a discount card for restaurants, events and attractions.

Mr. MacIsaac was quick to caution that some of these ideas, particularly high-speed rail between Toronto and regional outposts like Hamilton or Barrie, are unlikely to happen in anytime soon in the GTA and Hamilton. The region needs to concentrate on the basics first, he said.

http://network.nationalpost.com/np/b...metrolinx.aspx

Main page: http://www.metrolinx.com/default.aspx

Discussion forum: http://metrolinx-consult.limehouse.com/portal

[Jaye101]

Originally Posted by TRZ

Ellesemere's ridership is lower than Midland's. However, I'd be inclined to say screw it to both of them - have a new station at the intersection proper between the two. With an LRT, this is pretty easy to accomplish.

If you are familiar with the area, you'll notice that the majority of residents that live in Scarborough city centre actually live closer to McCowan than Scarborough Centre. Both of the major HQ's such as Telus mobility, are located not even a block from McCowan. A shopping complex was built a year and a half ago, along with townhomes, and a condo tower going up less than 500m away. You've got the YMCA and all the condos that are east of McCowan along Progress that can also benefit from McCowan Station. It has potential, and as the area develops it's ridership will increase.

[ggaleazz]

Originally Posted by Electrify

http://network.nationalpost.com/np/b...metrolinx.aspx

Main page: http://www.metrolinx.com/default.aspx

Discussion forum: http://metrolinx-consult.limehouse.com/portal

Rob MacIsaac's quote bothers me:

"Mr. MacIsaac was quick to caution that some of these ideas, particularly high-speed rail between Toronto and regional outposts like Hamilton or Barrie, are unlikely to happen in anytime soon in the GTA and Hamilton. The region needs to concentrate on the basics first, he said."

How is moving people quickly and effectivly between major regional area not a basic of transportation. You know I'd love a European style rapid train corridor from Hamilton (even London) to Montreal. But that's a ways away. In the meantime why not provide the service (if VIA can't do it, find a company that will) and prove it's worthwilness.