Amare
Senior Member
The fact that they're still considering this moving walkway is embarrassing in itself. If they're considering a moving walkway here, why don't they consider converting the Sheppard Subway into a moving walkway as well.
|
|
|
superman
Active Member
I think the moving walkway is a great idea. Only 500M to cover - shorter than some examples from around the world at major interchange stations. I think also similar to the YYZ Terminal 1 international walkway?
It's definitely better than the cable car idea, which would require additional wait time. I think having a through service for the East/West LRT could have benefits too without the Union Loop bottleneck.
It's definitely better than the cable car idea, which would require additional wait time. I think having a through service for the East/West LRT could have benefits too without the Union Loop bottleneck.
W. K. Lis
Superstar
If they're considering moving walkways, why did they remove the moving walkway at Spadina Station?
If they do go with a moving walkway south of Union Station, they had better put in a new one at Spadina Station as well.
Last edited:
Megaton327
Senior Member
Interesting that Option A shows the "future bremner line" on the map, while options B and C seem to pretty much nullify the possibility.
I think the moving walkways are a fantastic way to make a terrible passenger experience for the LRTs, shift existing and potential future transit riders to cars instead, and just generally make things worse for everybody.
There are a lot of problems with the Union Loop expansion, but I think it's the best idea. How many of the LRT passengers will be through passengers rather than being destined for Union? 10%-20%, maybe? I think it makes far more sense to have the direct Union connection, those few people can always just get off at Queen's Quay station as a shortcut for the through connection. Or if there end up being lots of through riders, they can run half of the trains straight through, and the other half to Union.
Option C is interesting. It lets the LRTs take advantage of not having to make the jaunt up to Union, but still gives passengers a potentially somewhat fast and comfortable connection to/from Union--though added transfers are still bad.
Edit: to expand on my issues with the moving walkway, keep in mind a lot of people in they city are very anti-transit. They're looking for reasons to avoid taking transit, and those reasons stack up quickly. Yes, it's a fairly short distance--heck, I make the walk through the PATH to/from the RBC building on Queen's Quay frequently instead of taking the 509/510 one stop--but people won't see it that way; they'll see it as an existing stretch of an underground, fully separated streetcar line being removed, and being told they have to walk instead, regardless of the distance and any walkways installed. Mark my words, if they proceed with this, people won't be happy, ridership will plummet, and there will be a lot more cars on the road in the area. I really hope they're smart enough not to do this...
TransitBart
Senior Member
TransitBart
Senior Member
Hmm...epic short sightedness?If they're considering moving walkways, why did they remove the moving walkway at Spadina Station?
If they do, they had better put in a new one at Spadina Station as well.
muller877
Senior Member
Did you look at Option A? It means you are already walking an extra 100m+ to get to the streetcar. And even at that there will be a lineup out the door of people trying to go 1 or 2 stops (estimated 50-70% of the people).
Option C would mean that you would have another vehicle to wait for. I was initially interested in it (assuming it was circular cable...a gondola with 20+ cars) but their solution seems silly.
Option B also seems like it is destined to failure. Why only a uni-directional conveyor belt? Each tunnel is 3.0m and the conveyor belt is 1.2m. Why not at least a second belt (and a 3rd in case of failure)? Who thought of this?
They have also not thought about how to get people to the surface once they hit Union. The stairs are already jammed. How about the added people (but I guess with a conveyor belt the demand will be more spread out)
AlvinofDiaspar
Moderator
There are exits planned at the east side of the Bay teamway - which people already have to walk to in order to get to the GO Bus station and GO Platform is that's their destination. Besides, you'd have exactly the same problem as a pedestrian tunnel or funicular. On top of that, as EBF gets redeveloped, I wonder just how much of the ridership will get off at Queens Quay station as a portion of total.
And re: the tunnel - to put it into perspective, the 200M long YTZ tunnel is 10M wide - not 2x 500M worth of 3M.
AoD
Last edited:
ADRM
Senior Member
The fact that this is even being considered -- remember that this option includes a 5 football field-long non-assisted walk one way -- should be the source of great embarrassment for the planners at the helm (or at least whomever directed them to include it for consideration).
Planners are telling people with mobility issues to walk half a kilometre as part of their last mile? GTFO with that.
Red October
Senior Member
Making people walk 600m to make a transfer is so goddamn stupid I can barely comprehend it. It's the opposite of creating a cohesive network and the one-way moving sidewalk is a joke (not to mention it'll just be taken out like it was at Spadina Station).
muller877
Senior Member
Don't worry. The planners want this idea killed. They want their funicular. I wonder where the "conference" is for the supplier of funiculars?
The deliberately chose 1.2 meters width to have it too wide for the tunnel. A 1.2 meter walkway is 1.55m in width. So bidirectional would be 3.1m. 0.1 shy of the current tunnel width.
http://www.mitsubishielectric.com/e...oving_walks/a_moving_walks/pdf/catalog_hi.pdf
Although I expect there would be a supplier that could make a 1.1m product that would work.
goreckm
Active Member
You're still going to have that same problem lining up at Queen's Quay though, but after walking 500m+, and taking the stairs, or doing a detour to take the elevator through one of the buildings around the intersection.
Momo49
New Member
I think it is clear that cost is playing a part into why these alternative options are on the table. Option B is intriguing from the perspective of potential PATH expansion (although perhaps the existing tunnel is a bit too narrow) , which is a major reason why Downtown Toronto has become the business and financial capital of Canada (some may argue moreso than the role transit has played to date).
W. K. Lis
Superstar
Any chance of a moving walkway between the Exhibition Loop and western entrance to the Enercare Centre, or better still to the new and improved Ontario Place?
...not.
...not.
Forgotten
Active Member
Point being? It's fully enclosed, affects an order of magnitude less people, and a shorter walk than the hike from the proposed downtown subway to the major destinations in the shoulder areas, the latter matter nobody here seems to have a problem with so why would the moving walkway be a sticking point? Snowflakes