Voltz
Senior Member
Your right, they have likely not done any speed simulations for the eglinton line yet, so they are just using the figures from sheppard.
|
|
|
Your right, they have likely not done any speed simulations for the eglinton line yet, so they are just using the figures from sheppard.
nfitz
Superstar
But that's the Sheppard number for 400-metre spacing, and the entire thing on the surface. You'd have though they would have at least used the Sheppard number for 800-metre spacing - 26-27 km/hr. And then you should get more gains for no traffic lights between Laird and Dufferin (or wherever).
RedRocket191
Senior Member
When I woke up saturday morning, I was excited about this article. I expected to see a two page spread with pictures and diagrams and everything. "Why else would they run a teaser?" I thought.
The length and depth of the article disappointed me, but this isn't the right place to complain about the star (Toronto issues?).
I can't wait for the open house, as my concern is that 850 metre station spacing in the most dense parts of the corridor with 500 metre spacing at the least dense parts of the corridor will not be a very easy sell to the general public. Of course, I'm deliberately ignoring transit & development planning principles and speaking from a strictly PR point-of-view.
The length and depth of the article disappointed me, but this isn't the right place to complain about the star (Toronto issues?).
I can't wait for the open house, as my concern is that 850 metre station spacing in the most dense parts of the corridor with 500 metre spacing at the least dense parts of the corridor will not be a very easy sell to the general public. Of course, I'm deliberately ignoring transit & development planning principles and speaking from a strictly PR point-of-view.
CDL.TO
Moderator
If 800m spacing is acceptable on tunnelled sections, then why isn't it acceptable on open-air sections?
Le Gique
Active Member
-hold on there -- maybe some folks don't object to schlepping 0.85km to a stop, but there are a lot of people whose access to good transit would be significantly diminished with such wide spacing
-stop spacing is a trade-off --somebody always loses -- but you ought not risk seriously hurting local ridership by ignoring those who can't/won't walk so far
-i was being full of facetiousness in my mention of the old ladies -- the intermediate stops that would be lost (if transit service went underground) are less important than the major, but are not insignificant --and much more so on Eglinton than Sheppard, IMO
-by no means does this suggest that underground stations be built closer together -- at about $100m each, ~800m spacing is "acceptable" because the cost of extra stations is unacceptable
- but instead that the TTC continue decent surface service above underground portions (FS <10min)
-this raises a problem for planning a new line however -- as mentioned before, decent auxiliary surface service can actually bleed off ridership >> a big problem when trying to justify overbuilt/overplanned lines
--there's a "danger" that enuf riders vote with their butts and stick to the auxiliary service cuz they're only going a short hop, or it means less walking, etc.
-- then you look dumb for designing a massively swank line while a noticeable number of lazy, lame plebes insist on riding buses up top (*sarcastic again*)
--so you make damn sure the resulting surface service is crap when the underground opens (Sheppard East bus to Yonge) >> no one rides it and you look vindicated
[okay. so no one ever sat in a meeting and said let's screw the people at these minor stops -- but ignoring them could have the same effect]
>then there's another city planning trade-off: pedestrian traffic may alter after undergrounding with business dropping at intermediate stops and growing near new stations
>dislocation comes with such change, but there are people's livelihoods to keep in mind
>that's why DRL works for me if it does not parallel or remove any streetcar lines: I agree with the idea that Queen St.'s intricate urbanity would be dramatically affected were the 501 replaced by subway stops .85 klicks apart
doady
Senior Member
It depends on what the open-air sections are like though.
If the service is just on-street, 800m spacing is not acceptable. Unless there are other measures to make it more like a true rapid transit line (grade-separation, fare-paid boarding zones, etc.), then I don't see the point in rapid transit-like stop spacing.
The reason is that, unless some other measures are taken to make the line faster, then it is purely a local transit line with little regional significance and therefore the stops should be closer together to make it as accessible to the local population as possible.
In my opinion, unless the above-ground sections of the Eglinton LRT are as fast as the Bloor-Danforth subway, then it shouldn't have the same stop/station spacing as the Bloor-Danforth subway.
Rainforest
Senior Member
Rainforest
IMHO, wide stop spacing in the tunnel section combined with a decent surface bus is the best solution. There is no risk that the surface bus will cut into the LRT's ridership. Many passengers will board at major intersections and other LRT stops. Some will transfer from / to N-S routes, at major intersections. Some will live at a distance from an LRT stop, but will prefer to walk to it since they need to travel long way. And finally, many will travel from / to the outer sections of the line where the stops are spaced more closely. All four categories will prefer LRT over the bus.
Rather, the risk is that the bus will be lightly used, and the TTC will be tempted to cut its frequency and use the vehicles to reinforce the major bus routes.
IMHO, wide stop spacing in the tunnel section combined with a decent surface bus is the best solution. There is no risk that the surface bus will cut into the LRT's ridership. Many passengers will board at major intersections and other LRT stops. Some will transfer from / to N-S routes, at major intersections. Some will live at a distance from an LRT stop, but will prefer to walk to it since they need to travel long way. And finally, many will travel from / to the outer sections of the line where the stops are spaced more closely. All four categories will prefer LRT over the bus.
Rather, the risk is that the bus will be lightly used, and the TTC will be tempted to cut its frequency and use the vehicles to reinforce the major bus routes.
scarberiankhatru
Senior Member
Why do people insist that riders would be forced to walk 850m? 850m stop spacing actually means every point along Eglinton is within 425m of a station, and under 400m if the stations have multiple exits. Also, most people are starting or ending their trips near major intersections, not in random mid-block spots. Most old ladies will not have a step farther to walk to a station, especially if they're already having to walk to Eglinton from three or four blocks north/south.
CDL.TO
Moderator
I humbly suggest that everyone should open up Google Maps or Google Earth, and measure how far from your house you have to walk down the street that you live on to go 400m. Now ask yourself if you would consider that to be too far to walk to a subway/LRT stop.
W. K. Lis
Superstar
And if the platforms will be 150 m in length, the required secondary entrance will most likely be around 100-150 m from the main entrance. The argument should be on which side of the main entrance will the secondary entrance be.
Le Gique
Active Member
-using Google maps walking directions (beta), Eglinton from Yonge to Redpath looks about 400m, to Mt. Pleasant is ~700m. (That's two blocks long on the north side, six on the south.)
-now we get to the nit and the grit: guesstimating how many people take transit less cuz the intermediate bus stops along Eg. are eliminated (not forgetting how many are gained overall because of the underground service), how many barely notice their walking distance being doubled, and how many elder or weak folks just stay at home
RedRocket191
Senior Member
And don't forget to guesstimate how mode will play into that. Will citizens be willing to walk further if it's an ART line or subway (which the perceive as being higher quality)?
scarberiankhatru
Senior Member
Yeah, Yonge to Mount Pleasant is 700m, but no one at Yonge is going to use Mount Pleasant station, and someone exactly halfway will have less than 350m to walk.
How many will take transit less? A trivial number. Practically everyone already walks some distance to their local bus stop and a great many people start and end their trips up to a full kilometre north or south of Eglinton and very few of these people, the ones who have to walk the farthest, will see a measurable difference. They could run a bus on Eglinton like the 97 but it'd be very lightly used.
Le Gique
Active Member
-the reference to walking directions was not meant to imply anyone would need to walk to Mt.P from Yonge, just to indicate the distance
-for the sake of those who won't be so limber in 2015, the only thing I'm asking is that no-one presume in advance the ridership will be trivial on an Eglinton auxiliary until you actually test it --
-run it FS from day one and don't cut back until ridership counts clearly show it merits 97 style service
(-by 2015 TTC should have good automatic passenger count technology, right?)
scarberiankhatru
Senior Member
Well, earlier you didn't imply, you stated that people would be walking 850m to a station. Does everyone who use the Redpath bus stop live right at Redpath? Of course not...for some people, removing it means they'll need to walk an equal distance, just towards Mount Pleasant.
Yes, we know ridership would be low by comparing it to Yonge, which has much larger gaps between stations, not to mention a fair number of elderly/unlimber people.
Does the TTC ever start running full service and then cut back? Even if buses are running empty, removing service will be construed by some as as great a problem as not picking up three old ladies at Eglinton & Banff (who are assumed, not real...it's easy for people to complain because the tunneled stations don't exist yet) or wherever the gaps will be (we don't know the full list yet). The TTC will run the bare minimum and only if people scream bloody murder or if buses leave people behind on the road will they consider adding more.
Yes, we know ridership would be low by comparing it to Yonge, which has much larger gaps between stations, not to mention a fair number of elderly/unlimber people.
Does the TTC ever start running full service and then cut back? Even if buses are running empty, removing service will be construed by some as as great a problem as not picking up three old ladies at Eglinton & Banff (who are assumed, not real...it's easy for people to complain because the tunneled stations don't exist yet) or wherever the gaps will be (we don't know the full list yet). The TTC will run the bare minimum and only if people scream bloody murder or if buses leave people behind on the road will they consider adding more.