TTC: Other Items (catch all)

[salsa]

What's to wow about? The TTC does not wow anyone.

and comparing Tonronto to KC, which has 460k people on 830km sq, is? We have 2.8 million on 630km sq.

KC transit serves the metropolitan area which is 2.4 million people. And toronto is not 2.8, it's 2.6. This comparison was not about being wowed by the TTC, but by the patheticness of KC transit. How about we compare KC to a much smaller city: London Ontario. Guess what, even London has higher transit ridership than KC. Let that sink in.

 

[salsa]

 

[ksun]

It appears you are quire unaware about Kansas City and it's history. Like many American cities, it's divided into many small political units. However, Kansas City Area Transportation Authority that carries only about 50,000 passengers a day serves multiple political units, closer to 2 million. The 460,000 you quote is just for one city in Missouri. The agency itself serves 7 counties in two different states.

Also, you seem to have forgotten the history here. Back in the 1940s Kansas City rivalled Toronto, with hundreds of streetcars and 25 streetcar lines. They still had streetcar lines that carried over 40,000 a day on a single route in the 1950s. And now the entire system only carried 50,000? It's absolutely shocking for what was a quite comparable 70 years ago.

You should know the metro or CSA population is meaningless, as they cover a humongous large piece of land. The metro is over 20,000 sq km, compared with 7000 for Toronto's 6 million. To say that system serves 2 million people is silly.

The point is, comparing to KC is basically meaningless. It's like comparing GDP per capita with a subsahara country. You compare with Chicago, Boston or Berlin, Madrid if at all.

 

[ksun]

KC transit serves the metropolitan area which is 2.4 million people. And toronto is not 2.8, it's 2.6. This comparison was not about being wowed by the TTC, but by the patheticness of KC transit. How about we compare KC to a much smaller city: London Ontario. Guess what, even London has higher transit ridership than KC. Let that sink in.

Toronto has 2.6 million? You live in 2010, I guess?
And there is no point in showing how bad KC's transit is specifically (though I don't think that was your original intention, you were more impressed by King car's ridership). There are plenty of American cities worse than that. Phoenix?

Also it boggles my mind that with the 504 ridership that high, we spend money on Finch LRT, Scarborough subway or whatever makes the burbs happier. They should be happy with buses before the ridership exceeded 501 and 504.

 

[nfitz]

You should know the metro or CSA population is meaningless, as they cover a humongous large piece of land. The metro is over 20,000 sq km, compared with 7000 for Toronto's 6 million. To say that system serves 2 million people is silly.

The point is, comparing to KC is basically meaningless. It's like comparing GDP per capita with a subsahara country. You compare with Chicago, Boston or Berlin, Madrid if at all.

I really have no comprehension how this responds to my comment.

My comment was that Kansas City's transit ridership was similar to Toronto in the 1940s. As late as the 1950s they had over 20 streeetcar lines, the busiest of which was over 40,000 a day, a bit less than King now.

Kansas City hasn't shrunk since then. That ridership in the city is less than 50,000 a day now is absolutely shocking. It used to be closer to 500,000 a day, similar to TTC at the time.

 

[salsa]

There is no point in showing how bad KC's transit is specifically (though I don't think that was your original intention, you were more impressed by King car's ridership).

No, that is not true, and I have no intention to continue this old discussion from last week. You know, I find it interesting that you criticize me for talking about KC, when you yourself make absurd comparisons between Toronto and Asian cities on a regular basis.

 

[TheTigerMaster]

When ATO is available, shouldn't it be possible to run the subway 24/7 without interfering with maintenance too much? I figure that when maintenance is being done the maintenance crews could work on one side of the tracks while subway service continues on the other side.

So lets say that there was track work being done at Summerhill Station. Crews could work on the east side tracks, while northbound trains (that would've usually used the east side tracks) would instead utilize the west side track (which normally are used for southbound service) between Bloor Station and Eglinton Station. While a northbound train is occupying the west side track no southbound train will be able to travel through the section. Southbound trains will continue once the northbound train passed through.

The obvious limitation of this is that service headways would have to be reduced dramatically, perhaps to once every 10 minutes. But because it is late at night we wouldn't really need higher frequencies.

Track diagram

 

[rbt]

The obvious limitation of this is that service headways would have to be reduced dramatically, perhaps to once every 10 minutes. But because it is late at night we wouldn't really need higher frequencies.

Quite a bit more impact than that. I think the official estimates for over-night service were closer to 15 minute headways at best, and more likely 20 minutes to operate comfortably and still allow work-train movements.

 

[W. K. Lis]

Quite a bit more impact than that. I think the official estimates for over-night service were closer to 15 minute headways at best, and more likely 20 minutes to operate comfortably and still allow work-train movements.

Especially when some U.S. cities have subway/metro headways of 20 minutes. See Washington D.C., for example, at this link. Washington's "late night" could mean 15-18, or 20 minute headways after 9:30 PM.

BTW. Washington's Metro closes at 12 AM Sunday to Thursday, but closes at 3 AM Friday and Saturday. Opens at 5 AM weekdays, but opens at 7 AM weekends. See link.

 

[nfitz]

I've certainly waited a scheduled 20 minutes in Manhattan for a train at midnight (though I think that line is more frequent in the last 2-3 years at that hour). In Montreal, the metro doesn't quite run as late as in Toronto, and even the busiest line is scheduled only every 11 minutes by then, compared to never less than every 5 minutes in Toronto.

I wonder how feasible it would be to go to 24-hour operation from Friday to Sunday in Toronto, and spend more $ to get the maintenance into the other 5 evenings.

 

[kotsy]

I've certainly waited a scheduled 20 minutes in Manhattan for a train at midnight (though I think that line is more frequent in the last 2-3 years at that hour).

That's not bad at all. I've waited as long as 45 minutes at 3 or 4am on several occasions. Taking a train is obviously preferable over a bus or streetcar for its speed, size and station vs. bus stop but our worst blue night headways are 30 mins

 

[nfitz]

That's not bad at all. I've waited as long as 45 minutes at 3 or 4am on several occasions. Taking a train is obviously preferable over a bus or streetcar for its speed, size and station vs. bus stop but our worst blue night headways are 30 mins

Is it? After that 20 minute wait, I learned to take the more convenient and frequent bus over the same route at that time - at least if one is travelling within the same borough.

 

[TheTigerMaster]

Quite a bit more impact than that. I think the official estimates for over-night service were closer to 15 minute headways at best, and more likely 20 minutes to operate comfortably and still allow work-train movements.

There were official estimates? Did the TTC write a report on 24 hour subway service?

 

[kotsy]

Is it? After that 20 minute wait, I learned to take the more convenient and frequent bus over the same route at that time - at least if one is travelling within the same borough.

Allow me to rephrase - not bad compared to my waiting experiences

 

[rbt]

There were official estimates? Did the TTC write a report on 24 hour subway service?

Semi-official speculative thoughts in private chats with staff on how it might work, and a very long time ago (under Giambrone) when ATO was initially asking for funding. Official was the wrong word; technical limitations is probably a better description as nobody knows what funding might be available in 5 years let alone 15 years (2006 was when ATO hit the press).

Some of the bi-directional single-track operation maintenance gaps would be up to 4km in length and have a couple stops in between (St. Clair West to Lawrence West?). It gets far worse if they need to work on an area at one set of cross-over switches as the maintenance gap is a double-span then.

Anyway, either you set frequencies across the line to fit that maintenance gap, or you turnback all trains at both ends of the maintenance gap and have a single shuttle train going back/forth across the gap.

Of course, ATO alone doesn't achieve single-track bi-directional service. They'd also need another large chunk of cash to rewire the electrical to allow shutting down one track while keeping the other track powered.