Disparishun
Active Member
This. Or connects with Sheppard.
And this.
And this.
Sometimes I wonder if a few simple maps, showing what this could look like, wouldn't wake people up to the missed opportunity here.
|
|
|
This. Or connects with Sheppard.
And this.
And this.
Sometimes I wonder if a few simple maps, showing what this could look like, wouldn't wake people up to the missed opportunity here.
kEiThZ
Superstar
Might not be a bad idea for somebody to do a brief write-up and a map and send it to Tess Kalinowski to see if The Star is willing to pitch it.
I'd pitch it to the political parties too. This one is a vote-getter, especially for the Liberals or Tories.
My pitch to Torontonians would be simple: fare integration with GO. Enough said. For example, I know tons of people who'd take the GO train from Agincourt in Scarborough, if only they didn't have to pay the TTC and GO fares.
Unfortunately, I can't photoshop or I would do up this map....
waltthizzney
New Member
The problem with the Skytrain is the technology cant handle snow... a couple CM shut it down last winter...
Rainforest
Senior Member
The enhanced GO network is a valid and desirable goal; I just doubt that it can be carried to the point of 5 min peak / 15 off-peak service on each line.
A substantial number of riders would get off before Union, but Union would still have to handle a huge number of tranfers in this network configuration, simply because so many lines converge there. Let's count:
YUS subway
Lakeshore
Milton - Richmond Hill
Georgetown - Stouffville
Airport
Kleinburg
Barrie
In total, that's up to 7 high-capacity lines passing through Union.
In contrast, only 3 lines would bypass Union: Bloor, Crosstown GO, and Eglinton LRT (4 if Sheppard subway is extended enough to count).
Furthermore, the frequent Crosstown GO service would be very useful for east-west trips, but it can do only so much for relieving Union. The CPR Crosstown corridor is not as wide as the Union corridor. Moreover, the Crosstown remains CPR's major freight line, unlike the Union corridor that sees little freight traffic these days. So, it might be possible to run one 5 / 15 service in the Crosstown corridor (for example, send every 2-nd Milton train and every 2-nd Airport train via Dupont, Summerhil, and Agincourt to Malvern), but no more than that.
Last edited:
Rainforest
Senior Member
They are adding a new concourse level, and will probably improve the connection to YUS subway I don't think they are doing anything with the stairwells.
EnviroTO
Senior Member
Yes they are building significantly more stairs, 6 to 8 stairs per platform (4 teamway stairs (York West, York East, Bay West, Bay East), 2 west concourse, and 2 east concourse) and 2 elevators per platform (one per concourse).
I did this map up a while ago to show what a GO-centric network could potentially look like.
http://www2.andrew.thejohnsonclan.ca/GTATransit_NTS.jpg
http://www2.andrew.thejohnsonclan.ca/GTATransit_NTS.jpg
Rainforest
Senior Member
I did not know; that certainly helps.
That should definitely help get people up to and down from the platform level much more quickly. Are they widening the platforms as well? Some of those platforms are very narrow.
sixrings
Senior Member
I checked out your map. I am going to assume that your jane donmills DRL is LRT technology since you have diverted alot of ppl to GO. If so I AGREE with your map BIG time. I wish that was metrolinx vision.
Yes, it's LRT technology running surface on Jane, Don Mills, and the east and west sections of the Queen/Lakeshore line. It's in a tunnel from Eglinton to Eglinton via Queen. My thinking was that because most of the Union-bound and express traffic would be served by GO, that would leave the DRL to serve a more local function.
Marko
Active Member
That's a very impressive map, gweed. Very thorough and very well thought out.
2 things...
1) Instead of having L3 and L4 overlap through the central portion of Queen, could one of the routes not loop south to service Lakeshore / Queen's Quay, or do you think more of it is needed through Queen?
2) I think it would make sense to extend L4 west from Long Branch into Port Credit to connect to the lower terminus of L5. Lakeshore through that stretch of Mississauga has some massive development opportunities.
2 things...
1) Instead of having L3 and L4 overlap through the central portion of Queen, could one of the routes not loop south to service Lakeshore / Queen's Quay, or do you think more of it is needed through Queen?
2) I think it would make sense to extend L4 west from Long Branch into Port Credit to connect to the lower terminus of L5. Lakeshore through that stretch of Mississauga has some massive development opportunities.
Thanks! It's been the process of several evolving changes.
I think that for the Lakeshore/Queen's Quay the Harbourfront streetcar is sufficient. My rationale with having the two routes overlap on Queen is that the central portion of Queen is going to see the highest ridership, so having the frequency roughly doubled along that stretch would be warranted. Think Green Line in Boston, where it runs in a tunnel through the downtown and then branches once it exits the areas adjacent to downtown.
PS: I applied the same concept to the Eglinton line. In the west, 1 branch goes to Pearson, the other to Mississauga. The combined frequencies along much of Eglinton would be doubled as a result. You don't need every train going to Pearson, but you need a much higher frequency than that through the central stretch. Overall I'm not a big fan of short turns, I'd rather have a line branch instead of short turn, as it reduces transfers.
Very good point. I was just going with what the TTC proposal was for that stretch of Lakeshore, but that certainly makes sense. One of the things I don't want though is the temptation to have the Hurontario LRT trains continue along the Lakeshore LRT. They should be separate lines.
kEiThZ
Superstar
You really should mail this one and maybe just a cleaned up version of your GO vision (with maybe the subways and LRT proposal on there only) alone to various politicians and maybe even The Star with a write-up.
I don't think there's much chance a lot of it would be built. After all, it works too well, is too simple, and not grandiose enough to allow a politician to leave a legacy, but hey, you never know, there might be somebody that cares enough about moving people and not using transit as neighbourhood stimulus.
I don't think there's much chance a lot of it would be built. After all, it works too well, is too simple, and not grandiose enough to allow a politician to leave a legacy, but hey, you never know, there might be somebody that cares enough about moving people and not using transit as neighbourhood stimulus.
Last edited:
It's always a tough debate deciding what you should and shouldn't show. If you're showing at-grade LRT, why not a dedicated grade-separated busway? Or even curbside BRT?
I agree that the map could be cleaned up to only show certain aspects, but the reality is when you're dealing with something as complex as a rapid transit system, leaving parts of it out show an incomplete picture. Someone may look at it and say "hey, my neighbourhood is getting nothing at all from this", when in reality there's a curbside BRT running right down their main arterial.
I could clean it up by removing the curbside BRT lines, but I think that the 407 Transitway and the Mississauga-Finch Transitway really need to be shown, because in reality they're almost as express as the E Lines are.
And yes, a bit more tidying up and a few changes and it might be able to be shared around. Right now though I don't think it's ready, there's a few areas that don't quite work for me just yet, and I haven't figured out how to solve them.