Toronto Ontario Line 3 | ?m | ?s

If the DRL takes King or Queen, they could modify that line into a proper LRT with fewer stops, faster and in its own ROW.
 
Forgotten said:
Your posts in this thread summed up:
We here in Vancouver know how to do things right. I'm smart enough to see the solution and it would only cost $2 billion but you people in Toronto are leeches and too dumb to figure this out. Rinse and repeat.
Click to expand...

Lets look at the past 30 years of transit. Toronto completed 2km of YUS extension and a 6km Sheppard line (and maybe the 6km of SRT - although this will soon be closed, maybe).

Vancouver went from 0 transit to over 65km of rapid transit.

By my math, they have built 8 times as much as Toronto. They also seem to know how to get thing done. In the 60's and 70's, the TTC built much of the system using cut-and-cover, in trenches, or at-grade - with tunnelling restricted to where it was needed (under the West Don River). These less expensive construction techniques enable Toronto to have a first class transit system.

So if it comes to listening to someone from Vancouver or Toronto, I would have to listen to Vancouver.
 
BurlOak said:
Lets look at the past 30 years of transit. Toronto completed 2km of YUS extension and a 6km Sheppard line (and maybe the 6km of SRT - although this will soon be closed, maybe).

Vancouver went from 0 transit to over 65km of rapid transit.

By my math, they have built 8 times as much as Toronto. They also seem to know how to get thing done. In the 60's and 70's, the TTC built much of the system using cut-and-cover, in trenches, or at-grade - with tunnelling restricted to where it was needed (under the West Don River). These less expensive construction techniques enable Toronto to have a first class transit system.

So if it comes to listening to someone from Vancouver or Toronto, I would have to listen to Vancouver.
Click to expand...

It's all fine and good to bash Toronto on transit (we deserve it, and more), but to compare it to Vancouver going form 0 to 63Km? seriously? That's a joke. We had that type of jump when we started the subway in the 60's (obviously) too! Also, last time I checked, the soil under VCR, isn't the same as TO. We have different tunnelling techniques because: A: we have different soil conditions. B: we're 3 times the size of Vancouver, we can't do cut and cover unless you're willing to hamper traffic in the worst congested city in North America even more.
 
BurlOak said:
They also seem to know how to get thing done. In the 60's and 70's, the TTC built much of the system using cut-and-cover, in trenches, or at-grade - with tunnelling restricted to where it was needed (under the West Don River). These less expensive construction techniques enable Toronto to have a first class transit system.

So if it comes to listening to someone from Vancouver or Toronto, I would have to listen to Vancouver.
Click to expand...

This is a good reason to listen to what Translink staff have to say and make sure they talk with Metrolinx/TTC staff regularly. Translink documents are also interesting to read as they sometimes give a different perspective.

This is not a reason to treat random residents of Vancouver as knowledgeable about the fiscal and political problems with building transit. Random Toronto residents also tend not to be knowledgeable on this subject.


All that said, Vancouver's model isn't really going to be tested until their elevated guideways begin requiring full rebuilds. At this point, most of Translinks existing funds will be tied up in maintenance; finding money for new projects while simultaneously feeding the growing maintenance budget of existing systems has been a challenge for nearly every city.
 
Last edited:
Vancouver's Skytrain network barely carries more riders than the TTC streetcar system, let alone the TTC subway. It's a totally different system, a totally different scale. Certainly, the TTC should have borrowed some ideas from Vancouver for how to build a light rapid transit line along Eglinton instead of building at-grade LRT down the middle of the street (seriously, Eglinton Crosstown LRT is the dumbest thing ever), but Vancovuer as a model for rapid transit expansion in general? That's absurd.
 
AlvinofDiaspar said:
This is exactly why I am saying that focusing on the relief aspects is a misnomer - the entire network in the inner core is saturated and the real point of the DRL isn't just to serve as a bypass for the Yonge line - but instead to provide tangible improvements of transit service in the core area (which has multiple, high intensity areas that are currently underserved) as well as providing relief to the Yonge line. Running GO trains wouldn't have done an iota to that.

AoD
Click to expand...

I agree that Toronto has poor downtown service for a city it's size and as I also stated that would certainly be one of the benefits of having a true Metro DRL as opposed to accessible GO.

My point is that before huge amounts of time, money, and effort are put towards a DRL {assuming they will ever get the money}, why not explore all potential options first? A 6 month trial period would cost the City relatively little but could save a king's ransom over the long term. If it doesn't prove popular or basically makes no difference from any of the GO trains in the City itself then fine, people have saved money for 6 months. If it does prove to be a success then that has saved a lot of money from the potential cost of a DRL and could begin operation immediately gradually improving with higher frequency and electrification of the lines. Also before any DRL decisions are made, the City should wait till at least one of the King or Queen streetcar lines is using the new streetcars to see their effect on transit times, traffic, public acceptance, and of course ridership. If the DRL may not be needed they could always give Queen and/or King streetcar ROW to increase speed and reliability.

I'm not at all saying the DRL isn't needed but rather spend maybe $50 million for 6 months to give Torontonians an idea of how a system could work. If they like the new service then great, keep it. If they don't like it or instead want a DRL then fine, no harm done. Atleast by doing this Torontonians will be able to make a more informed decision about their own transit system and not feel like their views are irrelevant from the masters at the TTC, Metrolinx, or City Hall.
 
Downtown Toronto needs another north-south rapid transit line east of Yonge to provide relief to the Yonge line. No amount of GO Trains are going to provide that relief, simple as that. In fact, more GO service will only result in more people using the Yonge subway, thus making the problem worse.
 
If they find that out then fine, no harm done but isn't that worth knowing BEFORE you spend $6 billion and years worth of construction? Isn't it better to find that out now than after the fact?

Even if they decide that it doesn't have the capacity over the long term then so what? They could always just use the GO system as standard TTC fare until the DRL is opened which won't be till at least 2025-30, if ever. In the mean time it certainly would help relieve some traffic at Yong/Bloor and would offer Torontonians far superior service than they are getting now.
 
doady said:
Vancouver's Skytrain network barely carries more riders than the TTC streetcar system, let alone the TTC subway. It's a totally different system, a totally different scale...Vancovuer as a model for rapid transit expansion in general? That's absurd.
Click to expand...

No, what's absurd is taking a meaningless statistic like 'absolute ridership numbers' completely out of context.

Toronto is twice as old and three times the size of Vancouver. Toronto probably has five times the number of people employed in its downtown core. Vancouver's pre-war population was the same as what London, Ontario is today. More people live within a 25km radius of the CN tower than in the entire province of British Columbia. Of course Vancouver is going to have lower ridership numbers. By your logic, Mumbai must be an example of rapid transit leadership because they have individual rail lines that carry three times the passengers of the entire TTC system.

Here's what matters: Vancouver built 70km of rapid transit during a time when Toronto built 7. It did so under roughly the same conditions as Toronto did: it had to fight a dominant car culture, high construction costs, a culture of political interference, and the same apathetic Federal government. We have more to learn from Vancouver than any other city. Sure, places like Hong Kong, Singapore, Beijing or Madrid built much more but the context is so incomparable to those cities that we risk learning nothing. We don't have millions of people living in neighbourhoods that have population densities of 25,000 people/km2; we don't have gas prices of $2.50/L; we don't have a central government that can expropriate, demolish and build at will. Vancouver might not be the best model for rapid transit expansion but, frankly, it's the best model we have.
 
Hipster Duck said:
No, what's absurd is taking a meaningless statistic like 'absolute ridership numbers' completely out of context.

Toronto is twice as old and three times the size of Vancouver. Toronto probably has five times the number of people employed in its downtown core. Vancouver's pre-war population was the same as what London, Ontario is today. More people live within a 25km radius of the CN tower than in the entire province of British Columbia. Of course Vancouver is going to have lower ridership numbers. By your logic, Mumbai must be an example of rapid transit leadership because they have individual rail lines that carry three times the passengers of the entire TTC system.

Here's what matters: Vancouver built 70km of rapid transit during a time when Toronto built 7. It did so under roughly the same conditions as Toronto did: it had to fight a dominant car culture, high construction costs, a culture of political interference, and the same apathetic Federal government. We have more to learn from Vancouver than any other city. Sure, places like Hong Kong, Singapore, Beijing or Madrid built much more but the context is so incomparable to those cities that we risk learning nothing. We don't have millions of people living in neighbourhoods that have population densities of 25,000 people/km2; we don't have gas prices of $2.50/L; we don't have a central government that can expropriate, demolish and build at will. Vancouver might not be the best model for rapid transit expansion but, frankly, it's the best model we have.
Click to expand...

There are also things like minimum wage, worker safety standards, environmental regulations, passenger comfort for crush loads, etc. where again Vancouver is the most like Toronto.
 
And arguing over piddly extensions that's mostly covered already!

Global from 5:30 on Monday has a segment on the crappy transit planning that's been going on, so at least there's an acknowledgement that there's a problem.
 
BurlOak said:
Lets look at the past 30 years of transit. Toronto completed 2km of YUS extension and a 6km Sheppard line (and maybe the 6km of SRT - although this will soon be closed, maybe).

Vancouver went from 0 transit to over 65km of rapid transit.

By my math, they have built 8 times as much as Toronto. They also seem to know how to get thing done. In the 60's and 70's, the TTC built much of the system using cut-and-cover, in trenches, or at-grade - with tunnelling restricted to where it was needed (under the West Don River). These less expensive construction techniques enable Toronto to have a first class transit system.

So if it comes to listening to someone from Vancouver or Toronto, I would have to listen to Vancouver.
Click to expand...

Hipster Duck said:
No, what's absurd is taking a meaningless statistic like 'absolute ridership numbers' completely out of context.

Toronto is twice as old and three times the size of Vancouver. Toronto probably has five times the number of people employed in its downtown core. Vancouver's pre-war population was the same as what London, Ontario is today. More people live within a 25km radius of the CN tower than in the entire province of British Columbia. Of course Vancouver is going to have lower ridership numbers. By your logic, Mumbai must be an example of rapid transit leadership because they have individual rail lines that carry three times the passengers of the entire TTC system.

Here's what matters: Vancouver built 70km of rapid transit during a time when Toronto built 7. It did so under roughly the same conditions as Toronto did: it had to fight a dominant car culture, high construction costs, a culture of political interference, and the same apathetic Federal government. We have more to learn from Vancouver than any other city. Sure, places like Hong Kong, Singapore, Beijing or Madrid built much more but the context is so incomparable to those cities that we risk learning nothing. We don't have millions of people living in neighbourhoods that have population densities of 25,000 people/km2; we don't have gas prices of $2.50/L; we don't have a central government that can expropriate, demolish and build at will. Vancouver might not be the best model for rapid transit expansion but, frankly, it's the best model we have.
Click to expand...

BurlOak said:
There are also things like minimum wage, worker safety standards, environmental regulations, passenger comfort for crush loads, etc. where again Vancouver is the most like Toronto.
Click to expand...

Truthfully, what Toronto does not understand is the city is being held back. Toronto may be much better then Zurich, San Francisco, Chicago, Frankfort, but you'll never find out for yourself from our piddly transit system.
 
Then again the question is, why not GO service for TTC fares as an experiment? Although I guess the real question is why isn't someone starting a petition and contacting the media about pricely this?
 
Hipster Duck said:
No, what's absurd is taking a meaningless statistic like 'absolute ridership numbers' completely out of context.

Toronto is twice as old and three times the size of Vancouver. Toronto probably has five times the number of people employed in its downtown core. Vancouver's pre-war population was the same as what London, Ontario is today. More people live within a 25km radius of the CN tower than in the entire province of British Columbia. Of course Vancouver is going to have lower ridership numbers. By your logic, Mumbai must be an example of rapid transit leadership because they have individual rail lines that carry three times the passengers of the entire TTC system.

Here's what matters: Vancouver built 70km of rapid transit during a time when Toronto built 7. It did so under roughly the same conditions as Toronto did: it had to fight a dominant car culture, high construction costs, a culture of political interference, and the same apathetic Federal government. We have more to learn from Vancouver than any other city. Sure, places like Hong Kong, Singapore, Beijing or Madrid built much more but the context is so incomparable to those cities that we risk learning nothing. We don't have millions of people living in neighbourhoods that have population densities of 25,000 people/km2; we don't have gas prices of $2.50/L; we don't have a central government that can expropriate, demolish and build at will. Vancouver might not be the best model for rapid transit expansion but, frankly, it's the best model we have.
Click to expand...

Does Vancouver have a GO commuter rail equivalent?
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top