[nfitz]

I fail to understand why we are spending almost a $billion to make the subway stations accessible, and yet we put only one elevator for each platform - particularly for important interchange stations.

If accessibility is important, there should be 2 elevators. If it isn't important, don't spend the $$$.

 

[accura407]

Yes, it will be. And I believe that the expectation is that Presto will be the primary method of fare collection on this line by the time it opens. It was never intended to have ticket collectors in any of the stations on the Crosstown and I think that still remains the intention now that the whole line is underground. Not sure whether actual fare gates will be there on opening day or whether they will be added later if needed (a la Sky Train).

And this "Vancouver Model" (Also found in Calgary, Edmonton, [Future] Ottawa, Many US Cities) should be precisely what we should follow for all new expansions...

But i say "Vancouver Model" because the complete automation of the trains itself is also equally necessary. If a whole skytrain network can be run without a single human being then we in Toronto should AT LEAST start off by doing this on ONE brand new grade seperated line!

 

[gweed123]

I fail to understand why we are spending almost a $billion to make the subway stations accessible, and yet we put only one elevator for each platform - particularly for important interchange stations.

If accessibility is important, there should be 2 elevators. If it isn't important, don't spend the $$$.

I think there's a difference between new stations designed with accessibility in mind, and older stations. I can sort of understand why upgrading older stations with two elevators would be even more of an expense, especially when a lot of stations have none. I'd rather have all stations with at least one, than some with two and some with none.

Do the stations on the Sheppard line have 1 elevator or two?

 

[Justin10000]

Wow, that's a pretty weak argument for surface stations. Hey, you know when surface stations are inaccessible to people in wheelchairs? When it's a snowstorm, and the plow on the cross street just went by and left a mountain of snow in front of the entrance to the platform. I guess we should stop building surface stations too...

I have seen mountains of snow in front of subway entrances. Your argument is pretty weak too.

Surface stations ARE easier to be accessible then subway stations. No elevator, or escalator required to reach the platform, just cross a few lanes.

 

[gweed123]

I have seen mountains of snow in front of subway entrances. Your argument is pretty weak too.

Surface stations ARE easier to be accessible then subway stations. No elevator, or escalator required to reach the platform, just cross a few lanes.

I was simply showing that barriers to accessibility can pop up anywhere. I was trying to rebuttle the implication that we shouldn't build underground stations because the elevators might break down.

 

[sixrings]

I would think shovelling snow on surface platforms would be cheaper and easier then installing elevators for either elevated rail and underground rail. This was one of the biggest pro for TC. The cost Vs underground or elevated and the maintenance. The stop spacing could have been changed to appear a little more rapid but the actual design istself minus the Sheppard transfer seemed pretty good. I hope TC gets ressurected with tweeks.

 

[nfitz]

Do the stations on the Sheppard line have 1 elevator or two?

One I believe ... as with Spadina. Perhaps there are stations that are exceptions ...

 

[accura407]

I would think shovelling snow on surface platforms would be cheaper and easier then installing elevators for either elevated rail and underground rail. This was one of the biggest pro for TC. The cost Vs underground or elevated and the maintenance. The stop spacing could have been changed to appear a little more rapid but the actual design istself minus the Sheppard transfer seemed pretty good. I hope TC gets ressurected with tweeks.

I would only support Transit City if it was built "Calgary Style" with a large median, crossing arms, actual 'stations', and suburban subway distances (850m+). Refer to 36 St NE in Calgary for a template.

TTC's version of transit city is a complete joke and is just an upgraded fancy streetcar. If anything, TTC abuses a perfectly amazing transportation mode, LRT, and uses 1/15th of it with no benefit.

Luckily, 905 systems like the Hurontario LRT will be more similar to true LRT systems in use in North America...

 

[gweed123]

I would only support Transit City if it was built "Calgary Style" with a large median, crossing arms, actual 'stations', and suburban subway distances (850m+). Refer to 36 St NE in Calgary for a template.

TTC's version of transit city is a complete joke and is just an upgraded fancy streetcar. If anything, TTC abuses a perfectly amazing transportation mode, LRT, and uses 1/15th of it with no benefit.

Luckily, 905 systems like the Hurontario LRT will be more similar to true LRT systems in use in North America...

The more and more I think about it, the more I feel that municipal transit expansion at this point should take a back seat to the electrification of the GO network. The $950 million for the SELRT and the $1.4 billion for the FWLRT could have gone much further if it was put towards electrification. Electrified GO lines running 15 minute headways off peak and 5 minute headways on peak would do way more for Toronto (and the GTA as a whole), then a few supplementary LRT lines would.

The only LRT/BRT projects that should remain on the funding block for the next 10 years are the Eglinton-Scarborough LRT, the Hurontario LRT, the Mississauga Transitway, the Highway 2 Durham BRT, and the B-Line LRT in Hamilton.

Aside from those, all other capital transit funds should go to the electrification of the GO network. Once that is fully played out, we can see how much the dynamics have shifted away from local transit and onto express rail, and how much demand there still is for local transit. The trip patterns may change significantly, and as a result realignment of the other planned lines may be in order. For example, I think that if Union had all the electrifed GO lines feeding it, that having the DRL also go through Union may be a bit of overkill.

I do want to stress however that I don't think funding should be pulled from Eglinton in order to help facilitate the electrification of the GO network. That money belongs on Eglinton. I'm just talking about future funding here.

 

[sixrings]

Id like tc with a few tweeks like the sheppard transfer. Then electrify the richmond hill, the barrie, and the brampton line. By the way switch the richmond hill line with the cn line so there can be a easier access station at leslie and eglinton. Make all these lines 15 mins apart and add stations where ever each line connects with eglinton bloor or danforth. Then make the GO a added dollar if you have a metropass. That should make both a local and regional network.

 

[gweed123]

Id like tc with a few tweeks like the sheppard transfer. Then electrify the richmond hill, the barrie, and the brampton line. By the way switch the richmond hill line with the cn line so there can be a easier access station at leslie and eglinton. Make all these lines 15 mins apart and add stations where ever each line connects with eglinton bloor or danforth. Then make the GO a added dollar if you have a metropass. That should make both a local and regional network.

Why would you do almost every line BUT the Lakeshore line (aka the one with by far the highest ridership)?

I do agree with switching to using the CP line for part of the Richmond Hill line, and for placing new GO stations at strategic locations within Toronto.

 

[sixrings]

i guess i was looking at it from a toronto perspective. i thought the electrification could mean extra service and with a few extra stations GO could help toronto faster then a DRL. plus it would make the lines more cost effective for all day service. a DRL would be great but GO ciuld help in the interm.

electirfying all lines shiuld be a priority. however toronto should get some extra stations as well.

 

[gweed123]

i guess i was looking at it from a toronto perspective. i thought the electrification could mean extra service and with a few extra stations GO could help toronto faster then a DRL. plus it would make the lines more cost effective for all day service. a DRL would be great but GO ciuld help in the interm.

electirfying all lines shiuld be a priority. however toronto should get some extra stations as well.

Absolutely any electrification should include additional stations. With electrification the acceleration and decceleration of the vehicles is much faster, which allows you to place stops closer together. Infill stations could include:

Lakeshore: Roncesvalles, City Place (Spadina/Rogers Centre), Cherry, Queen/Dundas
Milton-Stouffville (I see them as being 1 through-line): Jane, Liberty Village, City Place, Cherry
Georgetown-Richmond Hill: Eglinton-Black Creek, St. Clair West, Liberty, City Place, Cherry, Milwood, Eglinton East, York Mills, Leslie-Sheppard (relocated Oriole)
Barrie: Wilson, Eglinton, Dupont, Liberty, City Place

 

[sixrings]

I think you have added too many GO stations but overall I agree. Exhibition there should be a stop for tho since a few lines pass it.

 

[Justin10000]

I was simply showing that barriers to accessibility can pop up anywhere. I was trying to rebuttle the implication that we shouldn't build underground stations because the elevators might break down.

I do not think he was saying not to build underground stations, but that barriers to accessiblity are more likely to pop at underground stations, which is true. More mechanisms to break down(elevator, escalator) in an underground station compared to a surface stop.