That's because LRT is apparently 'EuroStyle' and anything Euro-anything is hands down SUPERIOR IN EVERY CONCEIVABLE WAY to anything that is not seen to be 'EuroStyle'. Of course, who were the first people to have subways? Irrelevent apparently. Because, now all thse EURO countries are building LRT, of course, no one at TTC is looking at their subway maps. That doesn't matter, LRT is EuroStyle
EuroStyleEuroStyleEuroStyleEuroStyleEuroStyleEuroStyleEuroStyleEuroStyleEuroStyleEuroStyleEuroStyleEuroStyleEuroStyleEuroStyleEuroStyleEuroStyleEuroStyleEuroStyleEuroStyleEuroStyleEuroStyleEuroStyleEuroStyleEuroStyleEuroStyleEuroStyleEuroStyleEuroStyleEuroStyleEuroStyleEuroStyleEuroStyle
Isn't that one of the laws of transport planning in Toronto? The Montpellier Principle: The desirability(
x) of a given transit system is equal to the system's euro-ness(
z) to the fourth power divided by the inverse of the system's ability to spawn street level cafes(
y) less transit speed (
p). So,
x=[
z^4/(1/
y)]-
p
I love express tracks, and would recommend using New York as a model. Due to the large geographic area the suburbs occupy, we might eventually build 10 or 12 subway lines throughout the suburbs. As the lines approach downtown, the spacing between them naturally decreases. Eventually, two lines meet, at which point they merge into a 4-track cross section with one of the two lines switching to express and the other staying local.
NYC is a bit anomalous though. For starters, while excessive interlining looks great on a map, it can lead to rather long wait times outside of the core segments. NYC has also paid off the capital costs of construction. It would make relatively little sense for us to build a line from scratch only to run limited service on it due to the high capital costs of rapid transit. I think it should be a given that for a RT line to be worth building, it should be able to support frequent service.
The reason I suggested a pseudo express/local for a DRL is twofold. First, I believe that the current systems are usually under capacity. If you look at the busiest segments of the busiest lines during the busiest hours, then maybe the system is appropriate. Outside of those hours though, demand is usually far lower than capacity. Instead of building lines tailored to peak and unrepresentative demand levels, we should try to better represent actual transit patterns. In the case of the DRL, I think it is fair to assume that a large portion of the routes potential ridership would consist of peak hour passengers heading strait to the CBD. Instead of building a huge subway system to handle this peak glut, we could simply build a limited stop unidirectional express service. That would allow us to downgrade the system to something RAV in size and cost. With the express track bypassing most stations, additional costs should be minimal. There should never be significant counter flow traffic on the line, so the second express train becomes redundant.
Second is the conflicted goal of the DRL to begin with about local service or Yonge/Bloor diversion. By operating an express train, the regular DRL service could operate as a closely spaced local RT system serving relevant communities while the express train functions as an attractive detour to Bloor and, hopefully in the future, bus/lrt traffic bound to Eglinton Station. We wouldn't have to compromise with stop spacing or whether we are building a GO train or streetcar replacement. Once again the additional costs shouldn't be massive considering all it would be is adding a third track and two or three triple tracked stations. It may be possible to charge a higher fare, but I wouldn't. A fourth track for a counter flow express train would seem redundant considering the nature of traffic.
EDIT: That said, I don't think it is necessarily a bad idea to add spur lines here and there. So long as those spurs can maintain service levels under 10m most of the time, it should be okay.
