News   Jul 16, 2024
News Roundup for July 16, 2024
 399     0 
News   Jul 16, 2024
The Urban Jungle
 513     2 
News   Jul 15, 2024
Sculptural Pre-Cast Panels Now Adorning ANX Near Dupont Station
 1.3K     3 

TTC: Other Items (catch all)

then based on what can you say the 192 doesn't qualify as rapid public transportation? It is rapid, public and transports people. There are not many stops in between because more stops are simply not justified.
Click to expand...
salsa said:
I think his point is that if the subway line qualifies as "rapid transit", then why shouldn't the speedier airport bus be considered rapid transit.
Click to expand...

I agree that it is rapid transit. I don't mind having it on the map at all.

But I still think comparing it to the Bloor-Danforth is silly, as they are both very different routes.
 
Very simple reason to argue for its' exclusion - it's a low-ridership, niche service that clutters up a space-limited map. And yes, as if we need someone jamming their luggage on overpacked trains already.

AoD
 
It really should be on the map. It's how the subway intersects with a major international airport. It's the kind of information that people who actually need to look at the map (tourists) would want to know. It may have changed now with construction but I remember it being pretty clear in Berlin that there was an express "X Bus" from Schönefeld Airport to the end of one of the U-Bahn lines (U7). If you google you can also see example maps showing the buses to Tegel.
 
this is the more or less accepted definition of rapid transit "Rapid transit is a type of high-capacity public transport generally found in urban areas. Unlike buses, trams or light rail, rapid transit systems are electric railways that operate on an exclusive right-of-way, which cannot be accessed by pedestrians or other vehicles of any sort, and which is often grade separated in tunnels or on elevated railways."

Capacity, electric and lack of ROW is why the 192 rocket shouldn't be construed as "rapid transit".

Funny that the definition doesn't say anything about rapid as if speed doesn't matter, but I guess it is somewhat implied by having "exclusive right of way". However, Toronto seems to have the knack of disqualifying an otherwise rapid transit by deliberately making it slow moving despite having all the traits rapid transit should have. Case in point is the 510 and 512 - high capacity, check, ROW, check, electric, check, rapid? On the contrary.
 
I wouldn't mind seeing all of the Rocket bus routes highlighted on the rapid transit maps. Could be fun to label all of the TTC's rapid transit as "Rocket (Transit)," like Zum, Viva, and Dart.

Perhaps even go all out and paint buses which operate on these routes of a similar scheme (grey to match our subway trains?), and implement TVMs at their stops to encourage prepayment before boarding.
 
AlvinofDiaspar said:
Very simple reason to argue for its' exclusion - it's a low-ridership, niche service that clutters up a space-limited map. And yes, as if we need someone jamming their luggage on overpacked trains already.

AoD
Click to expand...

There isn't much up there in the north-west part of the city subway-wise, so it's only taking up empty space. Although I guess that's changing with the Vaughn extension.

I have mixed feelings about it being there though. On one hand, it's good to know that it actually is possible to get to the airport by TTC, and it reminds people that the service exists. On the other hand, I think there are services that deserve to be on the map more (like Spadina and St. Clair), and that we obviously can't fit every bus route on the above-door map, even if the destination is important. For consistency, we would have to include the York/UTSC shuttles as well, or the other express services.
 
aquateam said:
I have mixed feelings about it being there though. On one hand, it's good to know that it actually is possible to get to the airport by TTC, and it reminds people that the service exists. On the other hand, I think there are services that deserve to be on the map more (like Spadina and St. Clair), and that we obviously can't fit every bus route on the above-door map, even if the destination is important. For consistency, we would have to include the York/UTSC shuttles as well, or the other express services.
Click to expand...
I disagree with putting Spadina/St. Clair on the map since they have average speeds of something like 12-15km/h.
 
aquateam said:
There isn't much up there in the north-west part of the city subway-wise, so it's only taking up empty space. Although I guess that's changing with the Vaughn extension.
Click to expand...

our rapid transit is embarrassingly empty with two lines and two short spurs with 4/5 stops. There is no worry about space being clogged up for a long time even when all the current projects are completed.
Only 3 stations of the Spadina extension are located in Toronto, so there is minimal change in northwest part of the map - which means still largely empty.
 
LNahid2000 said:
I disagree with putting Spadina/St. Clair on the map since they have average speeds of something like 12-15km/h.
Click to expand...

LOL, definitely not "rapid". These two are potential rapid transit opportunity botched like a regular slow bus service. I don't know if there are any other trams in the world where spacing is that short.
Wonder if these two are really faster than 506?
 
AlvinofDiaspar said:
Very simple reason to argue for its' exclusion - it's a low-ridership, niche service that clutters up a space-limited map. And yes, as if we need someone jamming their luggage on overpacked trains already.

AoD
Click to expand...

I wouldn't put the route on the subway map, but the map should prominently display the transfer points to the airport bus and UPX. The map may be the first thing visitors look at when thinking about their route to and from the airport. Also, Torontonians will be more likely to remember them when heading to Pearson if they see them mentioned somewhere every day.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top