allabootmatt
Senior Member
Here (in Oxford) it was about 5cm--enough to convince me to take the bus instead of my bike, but otherwise life went on...
Back to Transit City!
Back to Transit City!
|
|
|
Transit City Plan
- Thread starter 299 bloor call control.
- Start date
kEiThZ
Superstar
Let's not be too hard on the English. It's quite pointless to waste money being regularly prepared for a once in a decade or two occurrence. The comments about their snow handling capabilities are also quite hypocritical when one considers what impact a foot of snow would have on Vancouver or Toronto. It may not be life threatening in a Canadian city but it would not be business as usual either. If we got walloped proportionally, we'd probably call in the Army again.
The only place that does strike me as one that should have been better prepared is Heathrow. Airlines pay big bucks for snow and ice control (SNIC). They must seriously be peeved at Heathrow's services.
The only place that does strike me as one that should have been better prepared is Heathrow. Airlines pay big bucks for snow and ice control (SNIC). They must seriously be peeved at Heathrow's services.
kEiThZ
Superstar
Now that the DRL is back on the table, I wonder if Transit City will get modified or what the best way it can be changed to incorporate the DRL's added capabilities and capacities.
Whoaccio
Senior Member
Well, parts of the TC should definitely be reconsidered in light of a DRL (though i'm still suspicious the DRL is actually "back on the table") such as the Don Mills line. As Steve Munro has pointed out, the Don Mills line from a bit south of Eglinton to Pape will have to be subway grade LRT. It would make more sense to scrap the portion of the Don Mills LRT south of Eglinton and build it as subway.
From there, I can't help but feel the "subway grade LRT" portion of the Eglinton Line (Leaside-Weston) might as well be subway, for mostly the same reasons. Negligible cost differences and strong networking possibilities. And from there, the Jane LRT, through it's "subway grade LRT" segments, might as well be done as subway to Dundas West. The current plans have a 30km 'loop' of grade separated transit in these 4 projects. It makes no sense to have the two halves of the route as incompatible modes, and there should be no significant cost difference between building 30km of subway and 15km of subway and 15km of underground streetcar.
prosperegal
Senior Member
Could the DRL be an LRT? That way, the entire Don Mills line can go south towards downtown.
Dan416
Senior Member
I think even Steve Munro has said that the projected demand necessitates it be subway and not LRT.
ShonTron
Moderator
Member Bio
- Joined
- Apr 24, 2007
- Messages
- 12,536
- Reaction score
- 9,528
- Location
- Ward 13 - Toronto Centre
Yep, and that the DRL should go to Don Mills and Eglinton, shortening a Don Mills LRT route.
waterloowarrior
Senior Member
Whoaccio
Senior Member
^
In a nutshell, yes. I don't see how it could cost significantly more than what is currently on the table, and would provide better service.
In a nutshell, yes. I don't see how it could cost significantly more than what is currently on the table, and would provide better service.
allabootmatt
Senior Member
Believe me, I love the English; I wouldn't live here if I didn't. And yes, snow is unusual in this country. But the reaction to the storm was sadly typical of the national propensity to meekly accept astonishingly horrible performance from transportation providers at all levels. Massive disruptions to transport happen literally all the time here, and people just sort of shrug. The fact is that the UK is a small, very densely populated country that is also very, very rich, and there's really no excuse for not having better failsafes in place for all eventualities, snow included. Yet whenever things do go wrong, there are excuses, excuses, and more excuses--and the underlying problems never seem to get solved.
As for LHR specifically, I bet the good people at Fraport and Aeroports de Paris are laughing their heads off right now...
As for the topic at hand: I love the "loop" idea, although wouldn't it just involve swapping one transfer for another? I mean, aside from looking cool on a map, how many people are going to be taking journeys that makes sense via the loop?
cacruden
Senior Member
If it is a once in 20 year occurrence - why spend money on it at all? The cost will be more than it occurring once in 20 years. So planes can't land for a little while - big deal - it happens from time to time.
Of course if the "conveyor belt" current shuts off - then they would have to spend money on winter preparation
BMO
Senior Member
umm this may seem sort of stupid, but isn't the Queensway already pretty much LRT considering it is seperated from mixed traffic?, or am I wrong, and is the whole transit city thing about the queensway just point out that they want to connect the harbourfront line to it or what?
jks
Continuous Lurker
^Yes, the Queensway is probably th most LRT-like of any ROW in Toronto. However, that's only because there's only like 2 intersections along the way, and it generally isn't gridlocked. If only they turned the signal priority here, never mind Spadina, it would be real LRT, as much as it can without the POP and being accessible. Also, the stops aren't as closely spaced, because there just isn't as much people along the route.
EDIT: To add, just because a streetcar runs in its own lanes doesn't mean that it is LRT. I mean technically it is, but it is generally accepted as simply a streetcar in a ROW. For it to be genuine LRT, a transit line must have most of the following:
-Double-ended vehicles - no loops
-POP, or a ticket booth at the station
-Stops spaced farther apart
-Traffic signal priority
-Headway-based operation would also help immensely, with the "next vehicle signs"
-Obviously has its own lanes
-Preferably no left turns anywhere on the street it's running on, but there's a way around that (*cough cough* transit signal priority)
EDIT: To add, just because a streetcar runs in its own lanes doesn't mean that it is LRT. I mean technically it is, but it is generally accepted as simply a streetcar in a ROW. For it to be genuine LRT, a transit line must have most of the following:
-Double-ended vehicles - no loops
-POP, or a ticket booth at the station
-Stops spaced farther apart
-Traffic signal priority
-Headway-based operation would also help immensely, with the "next vehicle signs"
-Obviously has its own lanes
-Preferably no left turns anywhere on the street it's running on, but there's a way around that (*cough cough* transit signal priority)
Last edited:
BMO
Senior Member
wow I didn't even know this part of streetcar existed till like i was just checking it out on google maps cuz i read about the proposed queensway lrt expansion in transit city lol, but yea are the proposing to hook it up with the harbourfront line? and btw thanks for explaining what true LRT is. Honestly looking at the station distances on this queensway section it seems to me that it would be just as fast as a subway to get to union, this has really changed my view on LRT technology for Toronto, but yea it wud necesitate that signal priority was implemented cuz like JKS said there's only like 2 intersections along the queensway section.
RedRocket191
Senior Member
I agree with most of what you said, but I do have some thoughts:
Why does it have to be double-ended vehicles to make it LRT? I know the benefits but that doesn't seem to matter to the average customer.
Why does it have to be headway-based operation to make it LRT? What does it really matter so long as the trains run on schedule?
I really don't think it matters what's on the back-end that defines LRT vs Streetcar. I think it's the rider experience. Reliable schedules, higher frequencies and faster travel times are really what make the definition.