Search results

FWIW I'm not advocating for reusing TBMs for "Future Use", but rather pointing out that if you are building a ton of subway lines one after another continuously. Obviously this doesn't make sense in Toronto where we build projects at erratic intervals, and when we do they use various different...

That seems incredibly easy to loophole. Easy Example: You now hire to an arms length shell firm who acts as a contracting company, and is led by a puppet leader who has a meager salary. And I don't think there is a way to fix this without completely neutering the business of many genuine...

And let me ask you why Ontario Line is getting an Exhibition Stop? Hint: No its not to get people to and from Exhibition Quickly, at least not fully. Its to relieve Union Station, to allow people to get off at a shoulder station and use that to reach where they need to go without needing to deal...

Very much not. In fact when you're a city that spends a lot of time building subways like its a factory line production with a consistent design and rolling stock (looks at Moscow for no particular reason), you can get away with just constantly reusing them to your hearts content. TBM done one...

Yes, and as I explained I think I have reasonable grounds to suspect such a thing.

What he provided was an interesting idea, and for what its worth there is merit. One of the biggest problems with Rapid Transit on Jane is how close it reaches Mt. Dennis without actually serving it, which is extremely annoying considering how useful of a transfer that would be. That being...

Is it a reluctance when most of the arguments have been whether to spend billions extending the subway, or to be austere and build a linear transfer to an LRT because "That's what the demand justifies".

My point is entirely centered around Sheppard. An Eglinton West Subway would've been a twin of Sheppard except would've had even worse performance and ridership, and if extending Sheppard has been such a headache, you can imagine what trying to extend Eglinton would've looked like given the...

1) Why not, long term it might actually be simpler this way. Even then if you really want, you can separate the divisions to have local operational control. What matters is to have a more unified form of branding. 2) I don't understand why we would need to amalgamate the networks, instead of...

The GTA is a unified economic and cultural hub. Yes, having a unified transit agency for all of Southern Ontario is crazy (nobody is asking to unify the TTC with GRT or Kingston Transit), but after GO Expansion you'll be able to travel from Union Station to Vaughan on the Barrie Line in just...

This has nothing to do with foamer fantasy (if anything foamers like things to stay the way they are, and love to preserve existing/venerate old branding). Do you seriously think there are no benefits to such a change? Do you seriously not see the benefit in having a unified regional network...

This is unironically a pretty good idea, and something we should be aiming for long term. The only argument I could possibly see in favour of sticking with the status quo is simply the sheer number of bus routes there are, and the amount of bus numbers we would need to avoid duplicates, but this...

I mean they do technically share numbers, but I'm more referring to the branding. Nobody calls the 36 Finch West bus "Line 36", with a unique colour and circular logo.

Pls no, I have a hard time stomaching giving LRTs the same numbering system as Subways, and now we want to add BRTs to them? Why not just give LRTs and BRTs their own independent Numbering or even Lettering system? Why should it matter that they're separate cities? Its a single metro region...

Eh? Its not that simple. This is only true if A) The subway is shallow (I have a feeling Brampton won't be), and B) The line is fully grade separated for a long stretch of the line. While the former might still be somewhat true (hopefully its not the TYSSE), the latter isn't true. The best way...

Its not that it couldn't, but rather that there were no plans to, and thus acting as if it would've happened is just stepping into Fantasy Land.

Which I shouldn't have to say, isn't ideal. Also I thought that Hurontario was planning to get full TSP, so that's the standard I'm operating under.

Reading Comprehension

This is why I brought up the 10m number. ~5m headways are about as low as you can get if you want to maintain any semblance of reasonable TSP on the route.

The issue I have is what that would mean for headways. I mentioned this a few pages ago but at the start Hurontario will only have 7m headways. This means that if you introduce a special service that bypasses S1, then that will only run every 14m, or at most every 10m which is... fine? But...