When is enough transit infrastructure enough?

[Midtown Urbanist]

Thanks. I know, if only it were real. That way someone could live anywhere in the city proper and be within a couple kilometres of a mass transit stop.

Minus for South Etobicoke however, one of the densest parts of the city.

 

[robmausser]

Minus for South Etobicoke however, one of the densest parts of the city.

SE will have the grade separated Waterfront LRT AND the GO RER system, Including a station at Park Lawn. You guys will get plenty.

Dont be bitter just because its not a Subway, Rob Ford. This city has a subway fetish and we need to ween people off it. A combination of LRT and express electric trains is excellent, and perfect for the area of SE.

 

[muller877]

SE will have the grade separated Waterfront LRT AND the GO RER system, Including a station at Park Lawn. You guys will get plenty.

Dont be bitter just because its not a Subway, Rob Ford. This city has a subway fetish and we need to ween people off it. A combination of LRT and express electric trains is excellent, and perfect for the area of SE.

Waterfront West LRT will be a failure unless they can figure out the Bathurst St intersection (bury it) and create signal priority on QQW (there are no major road crossing...how can they be so inept?)
And a 30 minute frequency GO Transit stop is not high order transit.

I don't live there but I have many co-workers who do. There are rapid transit plans to derelict areas with the hope of density. While this already dense area is not prioritized. Maybe there is no cookie jar for people to dip their hands into? (allegedly)

 

[rbt]

And a 30 minute frequency GO Transit stop is not high order transit.

While that's the at-launch off-peak plan I don't think it'll last more than a few years in that format.

GO has actually gotten pretty good at responding to increased ridership levels when there isn't a large capital project preventing it. If South Etobicoke puts an average of 50 passengers on those off-peak trains (while Mimico has 5), GO will pretty quickly modify the other runs to also stop at there. Even the Niagara Express stops at Exhibition for a couple dozen people.

A free bus transfer + decent TTC feeder service to Park Land has potential to make it one of GOs top performing stations.

Politically, it's challenging for GO to reduce service so they seem to purposefully under-commit to ensure they don't get bad press from the reductions. At least, I assume that's why they do it; I find it quite frustrating.


TTC refusing to commit to bus service at RER stations and GO using low ridership numbers for planning RER (due to lack of TTC feeder service) is incredibly annoying. Both are doing it because they can't count on the other to follow through and don't want to be stuck with either the operating budget or the political hit to reverse those promises.

 

[robmausser]

Waterfront West LRT will be a failure unless they can figure out the Bathurst St intersection (bury it) and create signal priority on QQW (there are no major road crossing...how can they be so inept?)
And a 30 minute frequency GO Transit stop is not high order transit.

GO-RER, which what I was referring to, will be every 5 minutes to 15 minutes at the least.

So the Park Lawn will be every 10 minutes at peak service.

People keep getting caught up on what are the minimum service levels of GO-RER.

Every 30 minutes will be like 10pm on a sunday.

 

[Leo_Chan]

While that's the at-launch off-peak plan I don't think it'll last more than a few years in that format.

GO has actually gotten pretty good at responding to increased ridership levels when there isn't a large capital project preventing it. If South Etobicoke puts an average of 50 passengers on those off-peak trains (while Mimico has 5), GO will pretty quickly modify the other runs to also stop at there. Even the Niagara Express stops at Exhibition for a couple dozen people.

Politically, it's challenging for GO to reduce service so they seem to purposefully under-commit to ensure they don't get bad press from the reductions. At least, I assume that's why they do it; I find it quite frustrating.


TTC refusing to commit to bus service at RER stations and GO using low ridership numbers for planning RER (due to lack of TTC feeder service) is incredibly annoying. Both are doing it because they can't count on the other to follow through and don't want to be stuck with either the operating budget or the political hit to reverse those promises.

I just realized that almost all GO Stations outside Toronto have bus terminals, while almost all GO Stations in Toronto don't. Is this a operational, political, and/or budget choice, or is it just that there's not space? This also is the main difference between current GO stations in Toronto and the new SmartTrack stations.

 

[rbt]

I just realized that almost all GO Stations outside Toronto have bus terminals, while almost all GO Stations in Toronto don't. Is this a operational, political, and/or budget choice, or is it just that there's not space?

Some of it is space (TTC stations were also some of the earliest ones) but it's mostly cost.

When those GO stations were built, for a 905 transit agency 50 riders at a GO station per day made it a very busy stop. Some agencies, like Barrie, didn't have hubs outside of downtown and GO stations were a natural location to make them.

For TTC, 50 riders per day is barely worth installing a pole definitely not worth modifying the route. TTC already centralized bus service around subway stations and customer demand for trips to GO stations is comparatively very low.

This also is the main difference between current GO stations in Toronto and the new SmartTrack stations.

Indeed. One of the more important parts to improving GO service is to make it just as useful (or more-so) as the subway for long trips; that means similar fares, connectivity options, etc.

 

[Leo_Chan]

Some of it is space (TTC stations were also some of the earliest ones) but it's mostly cost.

When those GO stations were built, for a 905 transit agency 50 riders at a GO station per day made it a very busy stop. Some agencies, like Barrie, didn't have hubs outside of downtown and GO stations were a natural location to make them.

For TTC, 50 riders per day is barely worth installing a pole definitely not worth modifying the route. TTC already centralized bus service around subway stations and customer demand for trips to GO stations is comparatively very low.



Indeed. One of the more important parts to improving GO service is to make it just as useful (or more-so) as the subway for long trips; that means similar fares, connectivity options, etc.

Since the whole Toronto GO system will be at $4.50 fares (GO+TTC), which will definitely relieve the subway system (not the 50 people example provided), would it be worth it to divert the routes now? Some people may believe that if it's not a fare-paid bus terminal in the TTC subway network, then it is not worth it. But I think it doesn't really matter since complete fare integration of fares is still a bit away.

 

[rbt]

Since the whole Toronto GO system will be at $4.50 fares (GO+TTC), which will definitely relieve the subway system (not the 50 people example provided), would it be worth it to divert the routes now?

Hmm.

Can TTC sell that service to council as a cost reduction exercise (new revenue will be higher than new expenses?) Not today, maybe after RER is in place (more churn per vehicle).

Can your councillor expect more votes with that added spending than something else like reducing taxes? Also no.

You might be able to sway the opinion of your councillor by writing letters though.

 

[Leo_Chan]

Can your councillor

Nope, not a Torontarian.

 

[ssiguy2]

GO-RER, which what I was referring to, will be every 5 minutes to 15 minutes at the least.

So the Park Lawn will be every 10 minutes at peak service.

People keep getting caught up on what are the minimum service levels of GO-RER.

Every 30 minutes will be like 10pm on a sunday.

Exactly.

People wouldn't get too excited if a subway was planned at every 12 minute minimum frequency but of course that 12 minutes includes early Sunday morning or late Sunday night. This is Metrolinx's fault and is why RER gets no acknowledgement as a true rapid transit service which it could very easily become. Instead of saying that RER will run every 15 minutes or better and were to rephrase that to running every 5 to 7 minutes all day then people would be far more excited. As we all know it's not what you say but how you say it but coming from Metrolinx this is hardly surprising as good communication and public relations definitely doesn't seem to be one of their strong points.

 

[aquateam]

I don't think just having 2 longs lines downtown will be enough. Is there any evidence that shorter lines (only in downtown, requiring a transfer to go to suburb) perform better or worse than lines that go Suburb > Downtown > Suburb?

People take transit because it takes them to where they want to go and they value their time. That means that, as long as there is room for them, they tend to take the route with the shortest travel time. Downtown circulators generally perform very poorly, because once you account for the waiting time, transfer time, etc., since they only travel a short distance (and they likely still have to walk from their final station) they don't end up saving that much time. Generally, people don't like travelling in circles.

Lines that go a longer distance in a direction are more useful because they accumulate more time savings. They also allow for more order/destination pairs to be served through a grid system. Transit that is fast (large travel times savings) is what we want, because it is in a non-overlapping and therefore complimentary role with walking and biking. Slow or short transit (e.g. ~2 km) just ends up cannibalizing trips from walking or biking, since those short trips aren't ideal for driving to begin with.

This shows up in ridership studies. For instance, Montreal was looking at a downtown circulator line. They created a bus route to mimic the route, and it performed very poorly. Sydney created a downtown circulator, and they eventually decommissioned it because ridership was so poor.

The goal of a new subway isn't just to "service" an area with a station, it is to expedite travel in a way that is useful for people.

 

[Leo_Chan]

People take transit because it takes them to where they want to go and they value their time. That means that, as long as there is room for them, they tend to take the route with the shortest travel time. Downtown circulators generally perform very poorly, because once you account for the waiting time, transfer time, etc., since they only travel a short distance (and they likely still have to walk from their final station) they don't end up saving that much time. Generally, people don't like travelling in circles.

Lines that go a longer distance in a direction are more useful because they accumulate more time savings. They also allow for more order/destination pairs to be served through a grid system. Transit that is fast (large travel times savings) is what we want, because it is in a non-overlapping and therefore complimentary role with walking and biking. Slow or short transit (e.g. ~2 km) just ends up cannibalizing trips from walking or biking, since those short trips aren't ideal for driving to begin with.

This shows up in ridership studies. For instance, Montreal was looking at a downtown circulator line. They created a bus route to mimic the route, and it performed very poorly. Sydney created a downtown circulator, and they eventually decommissioned it because ridership was so poor.

The goal of a new subway isn't just to "service" an area with a station, it is to expedite travel in a way that is useful for people.

Is this partially the reason why the Relief Line U (Dundas West-King-Pape) had very small increase in ridership projection compared the Relief Line Short (South)

 

[aquateam]

Is this partially the reason why the Relief Line U (Dundas West-King-Pape) had very small increase in ridership projection compared the Relief Line Short (South)

I'm not aware of a study comparing all-day ridership of DRL-south (little J) to DRL-downtown U. The DRTES looked at peak-point ridership, since it was focused on modeling overcrowding on various lines (Yonge line, Bloor-Yonge station, streetcars.) There isn't much of an increase in peak-point ridership from the western section because the western section has its peak flow in the opposite direction of the eastern section.

So from this, the ridership of the two legs is comparable (only ~5% more for the eastern leg), but the eastern leg has more of an impact of relieving Yonge-Bloor and the Yonge line.

The "downtown U" travels far enough in one direction (~9km from Pape to Roncesvalles) to avoid being a circle. Note that Montreal's orange line U also travels 6 km through downtown before heading up again.

 

[ssiguy2]

To follow up on my previous comment about how Metrolinx has diminished the RER system by stating it was `minimum 15 minute frequency`.................... Language matters and by Metrolinx referring to RER this way greatly reduces people`s expectations and hence support of the system.

How many of you consider Vancouver`s Canada Line as rapid transit? Well I would hazard a guess that all of you do with good reason as it`s an electrified, grade separated system, with high frequencies. and Vancouverites view it that way. I did however do a little fact checking and it was quite interesting.

Those of you that are familiar with the CL know that at Bridgeport Station the line divides in 2 with half the trains going to Richmond Centre and half heading to YVR. Well it turns out that early Sunday mornings and late Sunday evenings, the split service to both Richmond and YVR run every 20 minutes. That is less than what is promised by RER but you don`t hear them calling it RER. If, before the line was built, Richmond was told it wouldn`t get SkyTrain/Metro but rather a regional rail connection there would have been blood on the streets and Richmondites would have complained that they were not getting treated fairly by Translink with other populated areas getting SkyTrain. Sound familiar?

RER would get real excitement by the population if it were referred to as a Metro/subway. The entire Brampton and UPX line to Union and back up to Finch is already grade separated so why don`t they just call it a subway? If there were `subway construction` signs all over the place then Torontonians would be exstatic as opposed to indifferent.