reaperexpress
Senior Member
As @smallspy alluded to, that is not a PM counter-peak train. That is an evening train after the peak-direction service has already ended.
As @smallspy alluded to, that is not a PM counter-peak train. That is an evening train after the peak-direction service has already ended.
The public should have saw something good with streetcars and demanded it everywhere then. Yet the lrts have had so much opposition. But that’s only one example.Absolutly agree. 99 percent of the time, when the public experiences something that good, it'll only be a matter of time before they say....well why not improve it here and here. Politics will shift priorities accordingly.
Right now 99.99 percent of the public couldn't even imagine what 2way electrification is nor could they tell you that it's in active planning.
This is partially why so many are against scope creep. You try to do everything so nothing gets done.
On a somwhat off-topic point. It's why I think ALTOS sucess hinges on completing a much shorter ottawa to montreal stretch, before working on the much longer ottawa toronto stretch.
Ppl need to see it to understand it and to believe it cause then they'll want it !
The LRTs had so much opposition BECAUSE the existing streetcar service is terrible, and those LRTs were designed like bigger version of Toronto's median ROW streetcar lines instead of following international best pratices for light rail (basically a metro with level crossings, see Edmonton's Capital Line for example) or even tram services (see basically every major European city).The public should have saw something good with streetcars and demanded it everywhere then. Yet the lrts have had so much opposition. But that’s only one example.
I thought street car suburbs were the rage and I never had any problem with row streetcars in Toronto.The LRTs had so much opposition BECAUSE the existing streetcar service is terrible, and those LRTs were designed like bigger version of Toronto's median ROW streetcar lines instead of following international best pratices for light rail (basically a metro with level crossings, see Edmonton's Capital Line for example) or even tram services (see basically every major European city).
If the City had upgraded the legacy streetcar network to be fast and reliable, there probably would have been support to expand it.
Streetcar suburbs were the rage in the early 1900s before cars got popular and created traffic congestion on the streetcar lines.I thought street car suburbs were the rage
According to the current TTC Service Summary, here are the average speeds of the three routes that operate entirely in their own dedicated ROW during the PM peak period:and I never had any problem with row streetcars in Toronto.
No, those are two completely different things. The C-train is an urban/suburban rapid transit system that never leaves the built-up area. GO is a regional rail system that travels to other cities in Southern Ontario. Toronto's LRT lines were pitched as rapid transit, which is what the C-train is. The furthest the C-train gets from downtown is 17 km, while three of the GO lines are over 100 km long.Go is torontos version of calgarys c train. It just has a terminal versus going down the Main Street like in Calgary.
"International best practices for light rail" is an outrageously nebulous statement. Much of the modern urban tram networks in Europe look much more like the Edmonton Valley line, not the Capital Line... tram trains in Europe look like the Capital Line, because they use old rail lines in suburban/exurban areas, which is exactly how the Capital line was built. If we had a time machine I'm sure we could preserve some gravel tracts with rail sleepers through downtown Toronto to build a "international best practice" tram line, but we have a city on top of that now, so we're left with an urban tram model.The LRTs had so much opposition BECAUSE the existing streetcar service is terrible, and those LRTs were designed like bigger version of Toronto's median ROW streetcar lines instead of following international best pratices for light rail (basically a metro with level crossings, see Edmonton's Capital Line for example) or even tram services (see basically every major European city).
If the City had upgraded the legacy streetcar network to be fast and reliable, there probably would have been support to expand it.
Streetcar suburbs were the rage in the early 1900s before cars got popular and created traffic congestion on the streetcar lines.
According to the current TTC Service Summary, here are the weekday average speeds of the three routes that operate entirely in their own dedicated ROW:
509 Harbourfront: 11.6 km/h (PM peak) to 16.0 km/h (evening)
510 Spadina: 9.2 km/h (PM peak) to 10.0 km/h (evening)
512 St. Clair: 12.4 km/h (AM/PM peak) to 14.0 km/h (evening).
That is slower than a local bus route should be, let alone a tram in a dedicated right of way. Spadina is especially egregious since 9 km/h is slow enough that in most cases you could actually walk to your destination faster than taking the streetcar.
The Valley Line - which was opened in 2023 in an existing built-up area - takes 27 minutes to cover 12.8 km from Churchill to Mill Woods. That's an average speed of 28 km/h, which is more than double the average speed of the fastest Toronto streetcar line."International best practices for light rail" is an outrageously nebulous statement. Much of the modern urban tram networks in Europe look much more like the Edmonton Valley line, not the Capital Line... tram trains in Europe look like the Capital Line, because they use old rail lines in suburban/exurban areas, which is exactly how the Capital line was built. If we had a time machine I'm sure we could preserve some gravel tracts with rail sleepers through downtown Toronto to build a "international best practice" tram line, but we have a city on top of that now, so we're left with an urban tram model.
Are you suggesting that all day 2way go transit will see limited support once completed on what is already the busiest regional rail in NA, outside of NYC?The public should have saw something good with streetcars and demanded it everywhere then. Yet the lrts have had so much opposition. But that’s only one example.
Where exactly do you want to put these lrt lines. Go has taken up the corridors that is where these lines would be.Streetcar suburbs were the rage in the early 1900s before cars got popular and created traffic congestion on the streetcar lines.
According to the current TTC Service Summary, here are the average speeds of the three routes that operate entirely in their own dedicated ROW during the PM peak period:
509 Harbourfront: 11.6 km/h
510 Spadina: 9.2 km/h
512 St. Clair: 12.4 km/h.
That is slower than a local bus route should be, let alone a tram in a dedicated right of way. Spadina is especially aggregious since 9 km/h is slow enough that in most cases you could actually walk to your destination faster than taking the streetcar.
No, those are two completely different things. The C-train is an urban/suburban rapid transit system that never leaves the built-up area. GO is a regional rail system that travels to other cities in Southern Ontario. Toronto's LRT lines were pitched as rapid transit, which is what the C-train is. The furthest the C-train gets from downtown is 17 km, while three of the GO lines are over 100 km long.
It takes 28 minutes to get 17 km from Calgary City Hall station to the southern terminus of Bridlewood, with 11 intermediate stops. That's an average speed of 36 km/h.
GO runs some services non-stop further than that, like the non-stop service from Union to Bramalea that takes 28 minutes to cover 25 km, which is an average speed of 53 km/h.
I'll play Devil's Advocate (I also think reaper is being a little misleading as you allude to by citing C-train and ETS, both of which use old rail lines for very discrete right-of-ways that Toronto doesn't have) and say that the remedy to TTC's streetcar problems have been known about forever, Toronto just doesn't want to nut up and fix them: much wider stop spacing so trams can get up to speed, stronger signal priority, institutional pushback against train-delaying customer service decisions (slow door closing drama), and modern switches that don't require crawling through an intersection. Toronto should do this at the bare minimum before we start worrying more about grade separation.Where exactly do you want to put these lrt lines. Go has taken up the corridors that is where these lines would be.
The only other way to get the speeds you’re suggesting is to be elevated.
The lack of noise wall made for a very nice riding experience where I got to see everything out the window. As you guys can imagine, when I landed back in Toronto earlier today and rode the UP Express to Union, it was a much different experience. The noise walls seem to do nothing more than invite taggers. Do these walls actually stop or reduce the noise?
The noise walls make for an awful riding experience where you look out the window and see nothing but blatant, rampant vandalism.
I'm just wondering if Metrolinx should just stop constructing noise walls and replace them with fences instead?
Well that, and that Metrolinx (and it's predecessors) can go decades without attempting to maintain/fix the fencing.The fences are subject to frequent vandalism as people seek to cross the ROW and it doesn't take a lot of skill or fancy tools to cut chain link.