Transit City Plan

[nfitz]

Ok, so then why don't we just replace the B-D with LRT? It'd work pretty well, wouldn't it?

Umm ... no. B-D ridership exceeds 12,000 per hour peak. Heck, the day it opened over 40 years ago it was already carrying about 10,000. It's well over the point where LRT would work now. I'm surprised you are not aware of this; you should ride this subway occasionally during rush hour!

 

[Second_in_pie]

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

So Eglinton could handle 20k pphpd with LRT, but Bloor needs subway at 12 pphpd? Epic double standard there.

 

[SlickFranky]

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.

Wow. Did a LRV touch you in your naughty place at summer camp or something? Or maybe a subway car did...and you loved it. Get over it dude, they're both just tin-cans in tubes.

The speed of this line has nothing to with which technology is chosen. Both accelerate and cruise at roughly the same speed, and both are artificially limited because of their sensitive human cargo. Speed is really all about stop spacing, and if Eglinton is so similar to Bloor then 1-2 km spacing is not the best way to serve that area.

But again, Eglinton is not Bloor. I don't care if you think the two areas are similar, the lines will work very differently. You can't just say they're 2:1...it's slightly more complicated than that. Subway is right for Bloor. LRT is adequate, arguably better, for Eglinton. In it's current stub-with-attached-SELRT, LRT probably would be better for Sheppard too, but it's not financially justifiable to 'downgrade' service there.

So far, even the craziest estimates that have come forward are comfortably within the capacity range of this LRT implementation. We've explained why 12k is ridiculous, but yes, LRT could easily handle that. Unless you can show that ridership will be too high for LRT, this is a stupid argument based solely on your weird vehicle fetish.

 

[nfitz]

So Eglinton could handle 20k pphpd with LRT, but Bloor needs subway at 12 pphpd? Epic double standard there.

What on earth are you talking about? If the forecast for Bloor in 20 years was only 12k pphpd it should be LRT. But it's well over 20 pphpd now, and was forecast to be over 20 pphpd when it was constructed.

I don't know why you are making up these really weird fantasy scenarios!

If Eglinton was forecast to be over 20k it should be heavy rail subway as well; however at just over 5,000 the light rail subway will more than suffice.

 

[Dan416]

It's pretty clear that TTC's estimates for ridership on any line are not to be believed. So I reject them all. It doesn't matter how much a consultant is paid when they're given the answer to find the question to. Now if we can't rely on TTC's estimates, what do we do? I don't know. But logically at the very least we should extend the subways that we have now.

 

[nfitz]

It's pretty clear that TTC's estimates for ridership on any line are not to be believed.

That's the most absurd comment I've heard here. Only a fool would outright dismiss ridership projections.

So I reject them all.

The arrogance of such a position is just astounding!

Clearly you have no interest in having a serious debate.

 

[Dan416]

That's the most absurd comment I've heard here. Only a fool would outright dismiss ridership projections.

The arrogance of such a position is just astounding!

Clearly you have no interest in having a serious debate.

If we accept projections as is, then we'd have to accept 3 different modes on Eglinton. And the Spadina line. Hell every single line. How do you figure out what is true and what isn't? Unless all the data was out there for us to judge. Which it conveniently is NOT.

 

[SlickFranky]

If we accept projections as is, then we'd have to accept 3 different modes on Eglinton. And the Spadina line. Hell every single line. How do you figure out what is true and what isn't? Unless all the data was out there for us to judge. Which it conveniently is NOT.

So given that TTC's numbers are garbage...what do we do? How can we proceed anywhere with no reliable data? Should we just build subways everywhere our gut says so, just in case TTC's numbers are off by more than 3X? How could we obtain higher level funding if all our numbers are useless? At some point you need to trust the experts. What would they have to gain by low-balling ridership? What would they gain from building completely inadequate services? Do they own stock in 'LRT inc.'?

If you can't believe the numbers, then you should be pushing for updated ridership projections, not subways. You can't just say 'they're too low', you need to show that they're off by so much that an extra $1,000,000,000 needs to spent to shorten the line. A BILLION DOLLARS...FOR LESS COVERAGE...BECAUSE YOU'RE PARANOID.

 

[Rainforest]

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

I agree that it can handle 12k, maybe even 15k.

The point is if the ridership reaches 12k, it is not far from the capacity limit. And we are going to build LRT with 15k capacity limit for 303 million/km, which is only marginally cheaper than subway.

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.

Your example works only if there exists another rapid link from Eglinton to DT west of Allen. That could be DRL West subway, or that could be a new GO station on the Weston sub with a very frequent (15-min or better) GO service, full fare integration, and a convenient passageway between the LRT station and the GO. Either possibility is not guaranteed at all.

Without that, the sole transfer point from the western leg of Eglinton to DT will be the Allen Rd station. This situation is not much different from Bloor.

 

[kettal]

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!.

I'm open to the idea that Bloor could be serviced by LRT that is tunneled from Royal York to Vic Park. But back in those days, LRT vehicles weren't as powerful and versatile as they are today. Not to mention the lack of ATC and signal priority tech in the 60s.

 

[kettal]

Your example works only if there exists another rapid link from Eglinton to DT west of Allen. That could be DRL West subway, or that could be a new GO station on the Weston sub with a very frequent (15-min or better) GO service, full fare integration, and a convenient passageway between the LRT station and the GO. Either possibility is not guaranteed at all.

Not too much of a stretch, given that GO trains already depart Bramalea 4 times in an hour during rush hour. Remember, capacity is only an issue during rush hour. Even the biggest speculator wouldn't be concerned that off-peak will surpass the lrt threshold.

 

[Rainforest]

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

"An" LRT line can handle 20k; but for the implementation the TTC wants on Eglinton, this will be problematic.

4-car trains will be hard to use in street-median. Running them in the fully grade-separate section only, which is Keele to Laird according to the current plan, will not do enough to relief the long-haul branch. The problem is that the short-turn branch will miss many major transfer points, including Jane and Don Mills.

Sticking to 3-car trains (175 passengers max for 1 car, 525 for train), you will need almost 40 trains per hour to reach 20k, or 1.5-min headways. Such a short headway requires ATO, but ATO cannot work in the street-median section. So, we would see 1.5-min headways between Keele and Laird only (more likely, Keele and Yonge), which again does not do enough to relief the long-haul branch.

 

[Rainforest]

Not too much of a stretch, given that GO trains already depart Bramalea 4 times in an hour during rush hour. Remember, capacity is only an issue during rush hour. Even the biggest speculator wouldn't be concerned that off-peak will surpass the lrt threshold.

That's true. However, we still need the station at Eglinton actually built, a convenient passageway added, and a really favorable fare integration scheme introduced. Even a $1 surcharge for traveling with GO versus subway can cause the majority of riders to choose subway, and so can a long walk from LRT to GO station (think Dundas West).

 

[Woodbridge_Heights]

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.

Suddenly LRT is so great that it makes backtracking an effecient mode of travel? If one want to head east why would they go west first.

 

[Woodbridge_Heights]

Wow. Did a LRV touch you in your naughty place at summer camp or something? Or maybe a subway car did...and you loved it. Get over it dude, they're both just tin-cans in tubes.

The speed of this line has nothing to with which technology is chosen. Both accelerate and cruise at roughly the same speed, and both are artificially limited because of their sensitive human cargo. Speed is really all about stop spacing, and if Eglinton is so similar to Bloor then 1-2 km spacing is not the best way to serve that area.

But again, Eglinton is not Bloor. I don't care if you think the two areas are similar, the lines will work very differently. You can't just say they're 2:1...it's slightly more complicated than that. Subway is right for Bloor. LRT is adequate, arguably better, for Eglinton. In it's current stub-with-attached-SELRT, LRT probably would be better for Sheppard too, but it's not financially justifiable to 'downgrade' service there.

So far, even the craziest estimates that have come forward are comfortably within the capacity range of this LRT implementation. We've explained why 12k is ridiculous, but yes, LRT could easily handle that. Unless you can show that ridership will be too high for LRT, this is a stupid argument based solely on your weird vehicle fetish.

Do me a favour and look up adequate and better in the dictionary. The two words have nothing in common.