Subject:
|
Re: subway info?
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.trains
|
Date:
|
Tue, 6 Mar 2001 23:06:06 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1718 times
|
| |
|
|
"James Powell" <wx732@freenet.victoria.bc.ca> wrote in message
news:G9sGnC.HzM@lugnet.com...
> Either or (CLRV or ALRV) (I think of them as the same, even though they • are not
> quite). I would rather seen the streetcars, because it would have made it
> possible to get streetcars back into Scarborough, whereas ICTS is never
going
Why is it important to get streetcars into Scarborough? I think we need to
be moving ahead with transit, not backward.
> to get expanded. If it had been streetcars, at least the possiblity of • ground
> level streetcars in NE Scarborough would have existed. Now that • possiblity is
> faint at best. Streetcars are a good intermediate transport system, • better
> than buses but less than subway. On a dedicated ROW, I think streetcars • have
> an equal capacity to a subway system (probably more efficent too, because • you
> can merge in and out streetcars along surface non bolavard routes far • easier
> than a 6 car subway train.)
This is far from true, I'm afraid... consider how a 6-car T1 compliment
(holding ~1 900 people crush) running at the TTC's standard 2:21 rush
intervals... that equals roughly 48 500 people per hour per direction. To
get the same with an ALRV, let's assume an ALRV can comfortabally hold 200
people... and for the benefit of the challenged transit system we'll even
allow a separate off-load and load platform, to speed up the intervals...
So if we assume a 60 second dispatch interval from each station for each
ALRV compliment, we can get at best 12 000 people per hour per direction.
That's about 1/4 of what you can do with Subway, and the specs I've outlined
above for the ALRV's is probably far from what they actually are capable of
doing.
> I also think that the TTC should have been given _all_ of the transit • systems
> in the GTA at the last round of mergers. Having GO and TTC, along with • like
> Vaughn/Pickering/Missisagua ect to my mind is a waste of resorces, and • means
> that there are some artificial boundries within the commuter structure. • It
> would mean going to a zoned fare, which I would approve of to manage the
> simplification of the underlying structure.
*shrug*
Iain
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: subway info?
|
| (...) Either or (CLRV or ALRV) (I think of them as the same, even though they are not quite). I would rather seen the streetcars, because it would have made it possible to get streetcars back into Scarborough, whereas ICTS is never going to get (...) (24 years ago, 6-Mar-01, to lugnet.trains)
|
41 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
