What's inherently efficient about subways, or archaic about streetcars?
In any case the money is for tunneling vs more cost effective surface routes, not subways versus streetcars.
Doug Ford - Build in greenbelt
- Thread starter bigpoppa
- Start date
What's inherently efficient about subways, or archaic about streetcars?
In any case the money is for tunneling vs more cost effective surface routes, not subways versus streetcars.
Subways - no traffic. Consistent timing. Faster than driving. Fuel efficient.
Streetcars - slow, blocks 2 lane of traffic when stopped.
But we gotta keep those union jobs on the streetcars.
You're comparing tunnels to surface routes. Subways and streetcars use either one.
If you're trying to say tunnels are inherently superior to dedicated surface routes then why?
Last edited:
Mad Mike
Well-known member
I like street cars and LRTs. You can build the infrastructure quickly and it's much cheaper so for the same capx you get a much larger footprint.
Another thing I can't figure out is why the don't put go lines into the 40x highway grid. Land is there, it's flat and straight, it connects large centers and you have lots of space at exits for stations and parking.
The big limitation of GO train service isn't its reach but its frequency. That's why the Regional Express Rail (RER) project to add all-day two-way GO service was started under Wynne. It's such a huge improvement even John Tory stole the idea and relabeled it 'SmartTrack' for his election campaign in 2014 as if it was his idea.
That probably needs to be added to her legacy actually.
Last edited:
Mad Mike
Well-known member
Ha ha! You have to finish things -- legacy is what you left behind -- in this case for Wynne, the legacy is just a broken campaign promise.
Frequency isn't a tough issue -- that's simply a matter of scheduling. You can split a 10 car Go trains into 3 smaller trains. No different than how they do it with the bus/train mixed schedule today.
You can't serve more riders with the same number of rail cars, and you can't add frequency if the rail lines only have one track! Or if you can, that kind of advice would be worth billions to transit agencies so you should offer them your consulting services.
Mad Mike
Well-known member
I think stats might prove you wrong. While to overall capacity doesn't increase, schedule convenience, transfer and loading/unloading efficiencies plus the flexibility to match each train to demand which should attract more riders -- that increases the overall efficiency of a transit network.
I'd have parallel tracks.
You're talking about attracting more riders but not fitting more into each car. That can work off-peak but obviously you need more capacity for more riders at peak hours. And off-peak increases always cause peak hour increases. That's the point, people feel free to use the system when they want not just on a fixed work schedule.
Also, those parallel tracks of yours are part of what's being built right now.
Mad Mike
Well-known member
Isn't that exactly what were aiming for?
I don't know what 'that' you mean exactly.
The way I would describe the end goal is to reduce our dependence on automobiles by providing alternatives. In the case of regional transportation, that means rail service that can be relied on at most times of the day.
Mad Mike
Well-known member
In your point you suggest my approach would 1) attract more riders, 2) putting more people thru during PBH, 3) having people use it at when they want vs a fixed schedule.
I see all those as good things. They add up to more riders, scalable to demand which makes the system more cost effective to operate.
And... as expected... the meeting is off.
The fat kid won't bow down to the US... not now... and probably not ever.
Subways are also out of the weather, and can be put in high density places, without squeezing out pedestrians, cyclists, joggers, taxis, LRT, subway, cars, trucks, motorcycles etc.
The switches are less prone to freezing, you don't have to plow. If the LRT runs as efficiently as the Scarborough RT, we're doomed.
As far as putting something along the 401, that's fine, but how do you get all those people downtown, without making more of a mess of the Bloor to Yonge transfer?
I give up trying to make sense Baggsy. It's an upside down world we live in. What's wrong is now right & what's right is wrong. I need to take a leave of absence & live in the bush for 5 yrs to unwind.
All those differences you guys listed are the differences between tunnels and surface routes. The three types of trains are subways, LRTs, and streetcars, and any of them can run underground or above ground. Of course the topic won't make sense to you if you're thinking apples versus oranges when everyone else is talking clementines versus grapefruit. The difference between the three types of trains is simply their size.
The smaller trains are cheaper, more maneuverable, and slower. There's a place for each size of train in a complete transit network based on needs. Using the wrong size vehicle is going to be wasteful, either by not serving enough people if they're too small or by costing too much if they're too large. Sometimes trying to force the wrong solution in an area will cause both types of waste. That's what's happening with the Scarborough extension. There's not enough demand to justify a subway, and trying to make it work economically means it's down to just one station, which will then serve fewer people than the cheaper LRT option.
Unfortunately there also seems to be an ego component attached to subways. A lot of Scarborough subway supporters will say they 'deserve' subways, as if using the correct tool for the job is somehow degrading to them. I thought it was lefties who were supposed to be entitled. If anything's upside down, that is.
The smaller trains are cheaper, more maneuverable, and slower. There's a place for each size of train in a complete transit network based on needs. Using the wrong size vehicle is going to be wasteful, either by not serving enough people if they're too small or by costing too much if they're too large. Sometimes trying to force the wrong solution in an area will cause both types of waste. That's what's happening with the Scarborough extension. There's not enough demand to justify a subway, and trying to make it work economically means it's down to just one station, which will then serve fewer people than the cheaper LRT option.
Unfortunately there also seems to be an ego component attached to subways. A lot of Scarborough subway supporters will say they 'deserve' subways, as if using the correct tool for the job is somehow degrading to them. I thought it was lefties who were supposed to be entitled. If anything's upside down, that is.
