Transit City Plan

[kettal]

But that means that 5% of people living in the area taking Eglinton to get to work in the morning would cause some serious congestion problems with a LRT. And remember, we've shown that Eglinton has a very similar density to Bloor, being relatively equal even when the B-D is blown outta proportion by using the Downtown demographics for it's density. If you're trying to say that Eglinton's somehow going to get a fraction of what the B-D currently has, though maintaining a similar density as well and connecting the city to the airport, I don't think your logic can be trusted.

I can't see why the airport would have any effect. There is no rush hour for air travel. Folks who work in the ACC (which apparently is a new acronym for businesses near the airport) will be traveling in the COUNTER-PEAK direction, meaning no affect on the peak-direction capacity at all.

The flaw in your 5% calculation is that you are assuming this 5% are all starting at one periphery of the line and going in a single direction, which is absolutely not the case. The highest density stretch is that near the tunneled central section, and the peak-direction bound of these riders won't be going very far to get to their downtown-bound subway.

 

[kettal]

When I lived off Lansdowne during my teens I attended Western Tech and most often took the subway over to Runnymede to get to school on time, so don't act like similar non-work related reliance on Eglinton couldn't occur.

Oh it can occur, but the numbers of peak-direction peak-hour uses of this are negligible. Your school commute, for example, was not in the peak direction, so you had zero effect on the Bloor's peak capacity volume.

The irony of you ridiculing my findings is that I've at least provided a chain of evidence to illustrate how I arrived at my figures, which right or wrong, is far more than I've seen from the TTC in all my years of combing through their Transit City documentation.

I applaud you for your research, however it is not exempt from scrutiny.

 

[Second_in_pie]

I can't see why the airport would have any effect. There is no rush hour for air travel. Folks who work in the ACC (which apparently is a new acronym for businesses near the airport) will be traveling in the COUNTER-PEAK direction, meaning no affect on the peak-direction capacity at all.

The flaw in your 5% calculation is that you are assuming this 5% are all starting at one periphery of the line and going in a single direction, which is absolutely not the case. The highest density stretch is that near the tunneled central section, and the peak-direction bound of these riders won't be going very far to get to their downtown-bound subway.

You still seem to be denying the fact that Eglinton and Bloor are very similar in their densities. I'm sure you can agree that Bloor would be much worse off with a LRT rather than a subway along the entire corridor, no? Then what is the factor that means Eglinton will have such a fraction of the B-D's success?

 

[SlickFranky]

[Fingers in ears] LALALALALA SUBWAY SUBWAY LALALALALA [/fingers in ears]

The dense (Bloor-esque) portion of Eglinton will feature a high frequency, high capacity, high speed, tunneled transit service. The remainder of Eglinton is nowhere near dense enough to support this, but does demand a service upgrade. Running the same vehicles in both stretches eliminates unnecessary transfers. Why is this so hard to comprehend?

Trying to compare Eglinton to Bloor, and extrapolating demand figures is ludicrous. Adding up numbers from a map is even worse. If any professional used either of these methodologies they would be fired on the spot. The fact remains that they ran the numbers (using grown-up math) and found that LRT could handle the demand for years to come without breaking a sweat.

 

[nfitz]

And remember, we've shown that Eglinton has a very similar density to Bloor

.. um, no we haven't.

 

[Rainforest]

The dense (Bloor-esque) portion of Eglinton will feature a high frequency, high capacity, high speed, tunneled transit service. The remainder of Eglinton is nowhere near dense enough to support this, but does demand a service upgrade. Running the same vehicles in both stretches eliminates unnecessary transfers. Why is this so hard to comprehend?

By this logic, Bloor does not qualify for subway service, either. Most of Bloor / Danforth is nowhere near dense enough to support a subway, if there were no feeder buses.

Trying to compare Eglinton to Bloor, and extrapolating demand figures is ludicrous.

Why exactly is it ludicrous? Because you don't like the outcome?

If any professional used either of these methodologies they would be fired on the spot. The fact remains that they ran the numbers (using grown-up math) and found that LRT could handle the demand for years to come without breaking a sweat.

The fact remains that 10 - 15 years pass after the modeling is performed and untill the line is built, and additional 5 - 10 years before the demand reaches the projected level. By that time, the planners who did the forecast will be retired, or will be in senior management. Whether their forecast was right or wrong, they will not have to deal with consequences.

What exactly prevents TTC and Metrolinx from publishing the details of their models? This is not a national security issue.

 

[Rainforest]

.. um, no we haven't.

Yes, we did.

Somebody prefers not to recognize that, without providing any material counter-arguments though ...

 

[Rainforest]

Most stuff to/from the airport area for work purposes will be counterflow. Given the current number of people taking the Malton and 192; you can probably setup a bowling alley on the Eglinton LRT during that portion of their run.

If you are really concerned about LRT congestion to the airport, you might want to check your numbers again.

Currently, the transit modal share for both the air travellers and the employees of businesses located around the airport is very low. With faster and more frequent transit, be it LRT or subway, there is room to grow that share considerably.

If the ridership forecasts were based on the current patronage of 58 Malton and 192, then there would be no point to extend even the LRT to the airport.

 

[nfitz]

Yes, we did.

Somebody prefers not to recognize that, without providing any material counter-arguments though ...

Where did we demonstrate that? I've provided TTC references that document densities at locations on Eglinton clearly being below those on Bloor.

One can also look at the current ridership on the Bloor bus, which is far below what the ridership on Bloor was pre-subway 50 years ago.

Further, if you go to page 11 of the document I already referenced, and examine Exhibit ES-5 you will see a density map of the city for 1995 and on the next page Exhibit ES-6 shows the 2021 forecast. On both you can clearly see the Bloor-Danforth corridor is denser.

One might argue that those maps are 10-years old, but remember we also have a thread here with similiar maps based on the most recent census, and they show similiar; while Eglinton does have some density at a few locations (Dufferin, Yonge, Don Mills), the density on Danforth is consistently high from High Park to Victoria Park - and much higher through Yonge.

I think it's clearly proven that Bloor has a higher density!

 

[Rainforest]

I think it's clearly proven that Bloor has a higher density!

But we are debating whether Eglinton has density similar to Bloor, not same.

From the map you inserted, I see that most of Bloor is surrounded by yellow-coloured areas (9,991 to 11,487) whereas most of Eglinton is two notches down (6,094 to 6,810).

Based on this, you can make a strong argument that Bloor will retain a lead over Eglinton even if the latter gets a full-fledged subway.

But the ratio is likely to be 2 or less, based on the above densities. If the forecasts were in that range, I would not question them. (But then, the case for Eglinton subway would not be without merit, given the already reached 24,000 pphpd peak on Bloor).

The 5,400 pphpd forecast for Eglinton means a much larger ratio, 4.5 (= 24,000 / 5,400) or even more if Bloor's ridership continues to grow. This is what I find hard to believe.

 

[nfitz]

But we are debating whether Eglinton has density similar to Bloor, not same.

And it has been clearly demonstrated that it is not similar. Even St. Clair west's density is higher.

 

[SlickFranky]

But we are debating whether Eglinton has density similar to Bloor, not same.

You're debating that. I certainly am not, because it's irrelevant. That's not how you estimate ridership.

From the map you inserted, I see that most of Bloor is surrounded by yellow-coloured areas (9,991 to 11,487) whereas most of Eglinton is two notches down (6,094 to 6,810).

Were I debating density similarity, I'd argue those are not at all similar. Is Michael Jordan (6'6") similar in height to Bao Xishun (7'9")? How about if we give Xishun 3' stilts (to bring him up to match Bloor), how similar are they then?

But the ratio is likely to be 2 or less, based on the above densities. If the forecasts were in that range, I would not question them. (But then, the case for Eglinton subway would not be without merit, given the already reached 24,000 pphpd peak on Bloor).

Even if density comparisons were relevant, the proposed LRT implementation can handle 12k.

I wish I didn't have to explain this, but one reason straight up 2:1 extrapolation is pointless is that the 2 lines will be fundamentally different in the way passenger flow is distributed. The much longer B-D funnels the entire base to one small area (St George - Yonge). The shorter ECLRT's transfer points are more spread out, and a large portion of the ridership will come from between those two points, distributing the load more evenly in both directions. For example, someone heading DT from Eglinton and Dufferin may have a preference to go west, but if the eastbound train pulls in first they can just turn 180° and hop on without seriously effecting their travel time. Travel direction will be a coin toss for thousands of riders, and a decision based on a dozen other factors for thousands more. This choice does not exist on B-D, where 15 stations worth of people cram in waiting for their DT transfer point.

If you can't grasp this, I'll throw together a visual representation.

 

[nfitz]

Even if density comparisons were relevant, the proposed LRT implementation can handle 12k.

With a frequency increase and perhaps even a 4th car one day, it should be able to handle 20k.

 

[SlickFranky]

With a frequency increase and perhaps even a 4th car one day, it should be able to handle 20k.

[Fingers in ears] LALALALALA SUBWAY SUBWAY LALALALALA [/fingers in ears]

 

[Second_in_pie]

With a frequency increase and perhaps even a 4th car one day, it should be able to handle 20k.

Ok, so then why don't we just replace the B-D with LRT? It'd work pretty well, wouldn't it? I mean, the peak ridership would all be in a tunnel between Dundas West and Castle Frank, so it'll be able to handle it! And while we're at it, let's tell almost every other city and transit operator in the world that they wasted all their money building subway, which has such obvious flaws when compared to LRT that they must've all had a worldwide brain hemorrhage to build subways instead of LRTs!

It would seem quite like you guys are the ones sticking your fingers in your ears. Grow up and look at the facts. You've got the silliest arguments: LRT can handle subway capacities (false even in the most extreme sense of 6-car underground LRT trains which would then be more expensive than a subway,) LRT moves as fast as a subway (using numbers for 30 year old cars vs. state of the art LRTs which even then are the most hopeful and impossible to achieve numbers,) we don't have the money (which is obviously why we're spending $6 billion on LRT, which could still get us 20 km of gold-plated subway,) these routes don't need subways (Eglinton has similar density to B-D now, definitely the B-D back when the subway first opened,) and the odd "it'll be good enough" argument that seems to imply that subway in fact does have advantages over LRT.
So what is it? Can LRT tough it out? Do Eglinton and Sheppard not require subway speeds and capacities? Are we too poor to afford subway? Not like we haven't gone over those subjects 100 times and shown that they are false arguments, but it'd be better than you two spitting out useless, annoying drabble that has no effective use in any real debate or constructive conversation regarding the Transit City plan and transit in Toronto.