Jump to content

Miscellaneous TTC Discussion & Questions


Orion V

Recommended Posts

That is not sufficient to need the AODA requirements. The requirements specifically states that the visual (as well as verbal) announcements must be done so through electronic means, which translates to a display screen of some sort.

Even if they install the standard orange LED screens at each end of the car (which people in the centre of the car may have trouble reading) that would satisfy the requirement.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That is not sufficient to need the AODA requirements. The requirements specifically states that the visual (as well as verbal) announcements must be done so through electronic means, which translates to a display screen of some sort.

The accessibility standards are laid out in Ontario Regulation 191/11 - http://www.e-laws.gov.on.ca/html/regs/english/elaws_regs_110191_e.htm

It notes in section 52 (2) ( B) that "Every conventional transportation service provider shall ensure that all destination points or available route stops are legibly and visually displayed through electronic means" It then goes on to note in 52 (3) that" For the purposes of clause (2) ( B), visual displays of destination points or stop information shall satisfy the requirements set out in section 58. O. Reg. 191/11, s. 52 (3)."

How the existing subway map on each car for decdes isn't "visual displays of destination points or stop information" I don't know.

Ignoring the semantics of the regulations; can someone identify what group for which visual next station announcements are of benefit, who simply can't look out the window a the stop? The benefit of the audio announcements is obvious. I don't see the benefit of the visual ones on a well lit subway train with well lit stations.

I'm curious how GO is going to meet this - I don't recall seeing any electronic signage, even on the newest cars.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh, so it will be like that. I really hope this works for everyone. It would suck spending billions on a brand-spanking new line only to have it inundated with delays and packed trains after one year.

Why would there be no ridership? This is one thing I've never understood about this whole endeavour. There are currently packed buses along both sides of the Sheppard subway, and if an LRT is going to be built on the east, there's definitely some ridership that's going to have to transfer to the Sheppard subway -- otherwise, the LRT will also be underused and will also be "a waste of money" as many people seem to make the subway sound. So this will make the whole line really busy, especially if it can take people to two subways that go directly downtown, one of which goes to both main university campuses.

I just really hope that they don't build the Sheppard LRT and find out in 10 years that it is absolutely packed and that they should have built it as a full length subway. That's really the only reason I'm against the LRT in this situation -- you already have a subway in place for part of the route, and you want to extend it with a slower, lower capacity LRT. Now if it works great, that's great! But planning shouldn't always be about cost -- it should be about the long-term as well. Vancouver made the mistake with the Canada Line and now has to pass a plebiscite just to get funding to increase capacity on it. They built on cost only, and not on long-term stating that "oh, no one will ride it in Richmond since too many people drive their cars." I was at one meeting during the planning stages of the Canada Line where one of the workers said it was being built primarily for the Airport, and that Richmond City Council complained enough saying that it would be packed on day one and the workers insisted it would be empty on the whole part. Lol. The Airport trains run 1/4 full (even during the Olympics) and the Richmond trains are sardine cans.

When you are building new routes, you have to be sure of ridership levels first, by looking at corresponding bus service and possible future growth. Cost means nothing if there is an adequate funding source (property taxes, PST hike, road user fees, etc.). Besides, governments have the ability to borrow money if it is required for projects.

Also, what will happen when the shift happens with even more millennials are taking transit and the infrastructure is not there? Spend another $3 billion in 15-20 years to convert the LRT to a subway??? It would be much cheaper to build the whole thing as a subway even if the ridership is low at this point. If it never rises, well every system has a low ridership route somewhere. Montreal's blue line is apparently very dead (but in the midst of being extended "to stimulate ridership") and I know New York has one or two lines that have extremely low ridership. Not to mention all the others in the world...

To be honest, I couldn't see the LED signs on the TRs when I was there when the train was packed, so I don't personally think it will make a difference. What have the hearing impaired people done for the past 100 years on public transit? I totally understand vision impaired, however, but having a relative that is deaf who's used public transit for as long as I can remember makes me wonder why this depth is needed. She is always alert, and knows which stations/stops are directly before the one she wants in order to ensure she is prepared when her stop comes up.

Putting the LEDs on new trains makes sense only because it's easier to do it when the trains are being built, but still kind of unnecessary.

There is no major potential growth in ridership along Sheppard. It's no Canada Line connect two major destination, downtown and the airport. Unless jobs start booming in North York Centre and Scarboorugh Centre or along Sheppard, it won't end up like the Canada Line. Also, that Canada Line has zero chances of being expanded. Sheppard LRT will start with one LRV and eventually double to 2 LRVs with a closer headway. Sheppard East is actually fine with artic buses on it's own dedicated lane. LRT is already overkill in the east end. Subway? Forget it.

Scarborough an the rest of the burbs aren't dense like downtown. Subways are great but stations are too wide and there is just too many transfers to make them useful. Scarborough is much better of with a network of faster LRT than 1 or 2 underutilized subways. With the same amount of money for the Sheppard Subway Extensions, they can build a Sheppard East LRT, Finch East LRT and possibly the Malvern LRT. They can have LRT on McCowan and Kennedy if they want. With subways, they can have Sheppard only for the next 20-30 years.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I should also add to the fact that subways do not last 100 years, as some council members or our previous mayor thinks. Tunnels have to be maintained every 20-30 years, signals, tracks, subway cars, etc. all have to be maintained around the same timeframe.

The Canada Line connects downtown with the suburbs. The Sheppard Subway + LRT connects...an industrial area with some commercial and a car-oriented secondary hub. Apples and oranges. That in alone negates the whole Canada Line/Sheppard comparison.

As for packed sides on both ends of the Sheppard subway...last time I checked, neither Sheppard East or Sheppard West are anywhere in the top 10 TTC busiest routes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As for packed sides on both ends of the Sheppard subway...last time I checked, neither Sheppard East or Sheppard West are anywhere in the top 10 TTC busiest routes.

For Sheppard East though, you need to include 190 as well. And from Don MIlls to Victoria Park there is also several other routes. Personally I'd have extended subway to Victoria Park and then started the LRT there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For Sheppard West East though, you need to include 190 as well. And from Don MIlls to Victoria Park there is also several other routes. Personally I'd have extended subway to Victoria Park and then started the LRT there.

FTFY

I would include the 190 (or maybe even the 196 west of S-Y), but the other routes I'm not too concerned as they're all relatively low ridership.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

FTFY

I would include the 190 (or maybe even the 196 west of S-Y), but the other routes I'm not too concerned as they're all relatively low ridership.

I'm not sure 196 carries that many east of Downsview.

In most recent (2012) numbers Sheppard East is about 27k. 190 is 10k, Difficult to quantify 24/224, but runs 9 times an hour at peak. We're in the 40,000 range (which is interesting, as only 30,000 a day use Don Mill station).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In most recent (2012) numbers Sheppard East is about 27k. 190 is 10k, Difficult to quantify 24/224, but runs 9 times an hour at peak. We're in the 40,000 range (which is interesting, as only 30,000 a day use Don Mill station).

I would imagine a significant number of passengers transfer to the 25 + are destined for the mall.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The fact that the Sheppard Line uses a train set that's 4 cars long instead of the usual 6 and there's still plenty of room on board even during rush hour with provision for a 6-car train set in the future if demand dictates tells me that LRT should be able to handle Sheppard East. And like the subway, they can be coupled if demand necessitates to handle the crowds. The line needs to run underground due to the DVP immediately east of the station, so why not make it a cross-platform transfer similar to the Lionel-Groulx station in Montreal or several transfer stations in the London Underground network?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The fact that the Sheppard Line uses a train set that's 4 cars long instead of the usual 6 and there's still plenty of room on board even during rush hour with provision for a 6-car train set in the future if demand dictates tells me that LRT should be able to handle Sheppard East. And like the subway, they can be coupled if demand necessitates to handle the crowds. The line needs to run underground due to the DVP immediately east of the station, so why not make it a cross-platform transfer similar to the Lionel-Groulx station in Montreal or several transfer stations in the London Underground network?

What's wrong with the cross-platform transfer they are planning for Don Mills station? If they push it further east, it would either make the transfer outdoors, or add an expensive underground station.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What's wrong with the cross-platform transfer they are planning for Don Mills station? If they push it further east, it would either make the transfer outdoors, or add an expensive underground station.

They talked about a shallow station at Consumer and make the transfer there. The concluded that they want to connect to the future Don Mills LRT so it would be wise to build the LRT to Don Mills instead.

Unless they build a Don Mills Subway too. lawl

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What's wrong with the cross-platform transfer they are planning for Don Mills station? If they push it further east, it would either make the transfer outdoors, or add an expensive underground station.

They should go with the cross-platform transfer. Trying to get a surface line over the DVP on Sheppard would be a disaster. If you really wanted to you could extend the subway as far as Consumers or Victoria Park, but then you'd be left with an overbuilt Don Mills station as all the feeder routes would shift.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Metrolinx/TTC should have just built the Sheppard LRT as a high floor LRT route and convert the Sheppard subway to LRT so you have one seat ride across Sheppard Ave E.

This has been discussed many times here, and once again i'll point out to the fact that this cant be done. The diameter of the tunnels would not allow for the installation of various equipment that's need to run an LRT, regardless of the fact if its high-floor or low-floor.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

They talked about a shallow station at Consumer and make the transfer there. The concluded that they want to connect to the future Don Mills LRT so it would be wise to build the LRT to Don Mills instead.

The eliminated that option because the cost was significantly higher, not because of the Don Mills. They would still have built non-revenue track back to Don Mills if they did the Consumers transfer ... it's not that different than the non-revenue track in mixed traffic for the current design that they proposed from Don Mills road to he portal east of 404.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The eliminated that option because the cost was significantly higher, not because of the Don Mills. They would still have built non-revenue track back to Don Mills if they did the Consumers transfer ... it's not that different than the non-revenue track in mixed traffic for the current design that they proposed from Don Mills road to he portal east of 404.

It's not like any tracks will be laid on Don Mills any time soon. They just need to keep some space if they ever build those tracks in mixed traffic.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's not like any tracks will be laid on Don Mills any time soon. They just need to keep some space if they ever build those tracks in mixed traffic.

No ... though it's still in the Big Move 15-year plan ... so both 15 years from the 2008 Big Move, and 15 years from the 2013 Big Move :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I prefer the subway east of 404 option given that tunnel costs narrow the gap between subway and LRT cost in that segment anyway. The Consumers or Vic Park terminus could then be a 2 track same level terminus for both modes, albeit with crossovers before and buffer stops rather than tail tracks behind - ATC should help with terminal movement efficiency one would hope. With the possibility of DRL extending to Eglinton, I don't think we really know what's going to be on Don Mills north of there, and hacking up a Don Mills platform with all the disruption that will cause to protect for a Don Mills LRT connection seems dubious.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I prefer the subway east of 404 option given that tunnel costs narrow the gap between subway and LRT cost in that segment anyway. The Consumers or Vic Park terminus could then be a 2 track same level terminus for both modes, albeit with crossovers before and buffer stops rather than tail tracks behind - ATC should help with terminal movement efficiency one would hope. With the possibility of DRL extending to Eglinton, I don't think we really know what's going to be on Don Mills north of there, and hacking up a Don Mills platform with all the disruption that will cause to protect for a Don Mills LRT connection seems dubious.

That's what TTC considered back in 2009 when the chose the Don Mills option.

They noted that by 2021 that 8,500 would be transferring from subway to LRT at Don Mills station to travel to the Consumers Road area. However if they extended the subway to Consumers, then another 9,500 people who travel from points east to Don Mills road (but don't transfer to the subway) would then have to transfer to the subway. So on convenience, it was a bit of a wash.

But on cost, extending the subway to Consumers Road, added a cost of about 120 million (presumably in 2009 $).

And for that $120 million, you would have to climb stairs from an underground subway platform to the surface LRT platform. They didn't cost what an underground LRT platform would have cost, because that got tossed even earlier, because it would have been significantly more expensive because of the extra LRT tunnel and portal.

See http://www.ttc.ca/About_the_TTC/Commission_reports_and_information/Commission_meetings/2009/May_28_2009/Reports/Transit_City_Sheppar.pdf

So at least $120 million more and no benefits, and a much worse transfer. Or a heck of a lot more ($300 million? $400 million?) but still inconvenience more people than you benefit.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The difference is though that a Consumers station could be built with minimal disruption to existing Sheppard operation, whereas there will likely be significant disruption and closures at Don Mills station (as currently at Union) while the subway track and platform is converted to LRT height and spec, 750V DC overhead put in etc. As I said earlier, I think the demise of Transit City as a full plan means all assumptions made during it should be re-examined, especially since that Don Mills LRT is unlikely to be built as proposed at the south end. We'll have to agree to disagree I guess!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Good luck with door problems lol.

That's what the station supervisors/manager program is for. Why pay a person a $66000 base salary to operate the doors and be right there to respond to problems when you can pay a management person to hide in a room and take their sweet time walking to the delay a $100000+ base salary at every station?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What is your opinion about bringing animals (especially dogs) on any TTC vehicle?

I'm kinda opposed to it because I'm allergic to dogs.

When a dog is very close to me.. my eyes tend to get itchy and uncomfortable.

I believe there are many people who are allergic to dogs.. and getting scared in front of it.

I saw a dog barked inside the bus... and it was very uncomfortable.

Here's my opinion

I have to say no animals should be allowed on any TTC vehicle

except for any service dogs for people with special needs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...