GenerationW
Senior Member
You're right, that was crass. What I should have said was if Toronto keeps thinking York Region is just a grain of sand in Toronto's Rod Ford-sized aquarium, Toronto will be forced to accept a Yonge extension without a DRL.
|
|
|
Transit City Plan
- Thread starter 299 bloor call control.
- Start date
JoeParez
Transit Enthusiast
Toronto never puts up a fight to support a DRL -- I've never seen it discussed seriously by city council and the TTC aside from "studies". The only time I see the DRL being discussed seriously is on message forums. I would absolutely love it, as an advocate of transit, to see Toronto have the nuts to say "Hey listen, if we're expanding up to Richmond Hill, help us expand downtown; where we're starving for transit." But it will never happen.
Toronto/TTC won't be "forced" to accept the Yonge extension, they'll be elated that someone is giving them money to build a subway.
"Yonge extension? If you give us money, we'll build it!"
Please, I'm not trying to start a war here and maybe I've misinterpreted your quote (correct me if I'm wrong), but stop trying to pander Toronto's problems on York Region, it's getting very tiresome.
GenerationW
Senior Member
You're wrong, and your comments were dead on.
I have no beef with York Region. My complaint is with Toronto being reactive to York Region (or not reacting at all) instead of being proactive regarding the DRL/Yonge.
JoeParez
Transit Enthusiast
Woodbridge_Heights
Senior Member
Try this on for size ... might make you feel better about it. There's a relatively decent demand as far as Steeles West.
At the ends of the major subway lines (Kennedy, Kipling, Downsview ... not sure about Finch, always seems fine the rare occasion I'm there) the subway just crawls, waiting for trains at the end to clear back into service; always seems to take to ever to go to the last couple of stops. Wouldn't it be great if there was another couple of stops unused stations east of Kennedy, and west of Kipling, so that service to those Kennedy and Kipling was better? Well, now at Steeles West, that problems is solved.
Or you could loop the line (YUS) or the terminal (bubble), and not have the issues with trains leaving the station delaying those coming into the station
nfitz
Superstar
A circle line would make things better? Really? A circle line might well function well with 4, or maybe even 8 trains an hour. But the YUS line is already over 25 trains an hour, and they want to increase it to over 30.
Anyone who ever used the former Circle line in London was well aware how badly it functioned compared to the other tube lines. And I don't think it ever was scheduled for 30 trains an hour. After a half-century or so they finally gave up trying to make it run, and instead no longer run it as a loop, instead just a simple line with two terminals.
Certainly improving the terminal design would improve most of our terminals ... but I was trying to help find a silver lining, for those who can't see any positives.
EnviroTO
Senior Member
I don't think a loop at the end of the line or to link the ends of the lines is required. A tail track with three storage tracks plus ATO should provide plenty of time to turn around a train. I can't imagine why it would take more than 3 minutes to shut off one cab of an electric train, walk to the other end of the train, and activate that cab.
drum118
Superstar
Given the fact that both the guard/driver will be at each end of the new TR, if you can't have a train ready to move in the opposite direction within a minute, they need to be replace with crews who can and be relocated to the surface routes.
If you are wanting to give crews a break, then you do the stand down where the inbound crew is replace by the 1st or 2nd crew from the train in front of them. It can be done under a minute.
EnviroTO
Senior Member
I know. I don't understand the argument for loops to improve service at all. It doesn't take more than 1.5 minutes to switch a track and have a train clear the switch and the headway planned is 1.5 minutes. There is plenty of time without building a loop.
Mapleson
Active Member
I always got a chuckle out of the "Circle Line", but to be fair it was built by 1884 and was rebranded the Circle Line in 1949. It didn't have much exclusive track, so the headways between Circle trains were constrained by other trains inbetween. ATO signalling currently being installed will allow the track to handle 32 trains (combined Circle, Metro, and Hammersmith) per hour by 2018.
Paleo
Active Member
I was reading through the memorandum of understanding (MOU) and wondered about that. Just when will this have to go in front of council? Is it still possible for council to reverse this now since it has become apparent that Ford's private subway is nothing more than unicorns?
The tide seems to be turning at City Hall. Perhaps after the provincial election if the Liberals get back in, they'll put the screws to Ford?
Memorandum of Understanding said:
sixrings
Senior Member
I agree Id like TC reinstated. I was always hoping that at election time MCginty would "find" some extra money to promise the Eglinton Line make it all the way to the Airport and for Finch to make it all the way to Yonge. But at this point Id just like it started so somewhere down the line it could be finished. Starting a Subway though or extending one is just repeating the Sheppard Stub mistake since there wont be enough money in the future to significantly lengthen the line. Reinstate TC with further stop spacing.
ssiguy2
Senior Member
TC is officially dead and will NEVER get resurrected no matter who is in power at City Hall or Queen's Park.
Northern Magus
Active Member
Last edited:
EnviroTO
Senior Member
If you mean the name "Transit City" then sure. If you mean street level LRT I would imagine it will be back.