nfitz
Superstar
3-km without a stop? Wynford and Bermondsey, surely ...
Seem to have missed Royal York as well ... but otherwise, seems reasonable.
|
|
|
Seem to have missed Royal York as well ... but otherwise, seems reasonable.
kkgg7
Banned
I would say 1000m, which means you need to walk a maxium of 500 meters on Eglinton to get to any station. 500 meter! the distance between Dundas and Queen. I don't think that's too much to walk, even for a senior, even in winter.
500 meters spacing, have you every seen any subway in the world (outside the city core) running like this at all? I don't think so.
Voltz
Senior Member
I agree, and a third stop between Don Mills and Victoria Park at Swift Drive was already eliminated.
jeffreym
Active Member
Umm, no, that's wrong. The maximum is NOT 500m. That'd only be the maximum if everyone lived on the arterial road with the line.
I think that 2 stops/1km in places with 1km block widths (i.e. in Scarborough) or 3 stops/2km in places with 2km block widths is about optimal.
M II A II R II K
Senior Member
Another thing is how much more capacity will this have than the current RT to accommodate that crowded route combined with the extra frequency it would have than the RT to make that part of the route more convenient..
Danielinthecity
Active Member
Paris?
Not sure about what is considered the 'core' in Paris and what's considered 'outside' it as it all seems pretty wonderfully urban to me, but one of their 'transit' claims is that...
...no resident in Paris is less than 500 meters (1500 feet) away from a metro stop.
Not sure about what is considered the 'core' in Paris and what's considered 'outside' it as it all seems pretty wonderfully urban to me, but one of their 'transit' claims is that...
...no resident in Paris is less than 500 meters (1500 feet) away from a metro stop.
allabootmatt
Senior Member
That claim (I think you mean 'more than') is true largely by dint of the fact that the City of Paris is very, very small and many stops are even closer together than 500m. Given the distances involved that doesn't slow things down too much. In the broader Paris region, which is served by the hybrid metro/commuter RER, stops are much further apart.
Hipster Duck
Senior Member
It would be optimal in a dense, urban setting like Toronto south of Bloor street, or Paris where, as Daniel mentions, the city is famously known for placing a metro stop within 500m of everyone's house. Of course, the city of Paris has an average density that's higher than St. Jamestown and a street layout that's wonderfully suited for pedestrianization, with little warrens and mewses that jut off in every direction.
The residential side streets of Scarborough, however, are very suburban in nature, with single family detached homes on sidewalk-less cul de sacs and crescents. Moreover, these areas are filled with NIMBYs who are resistant to densification, and the price of property acquisition is too high and the demand for living in these areas too low for any reasonable developer to buy up these subdivisions at market value, demolish them and upzone them for higher density. Other than highrises at arterial intersections, the built form of suburbia isn't going anywhere.
And because of this, there is no reason to have intermediate stops on a rapid transit system through suburbia. There is no need to build a stop at Massie St. and Sheppard Avenue because the stop will generate as much ridership as a bus stop, and all of the ridership will come from the handful of people who live in the adjoining cul de sac who take public transit. What suburbanites need from their transit system - and above all, their rapid transit system - is speed. They need to travel through the miles of subdivisions and industrial parks at a speed that is competitive with the car. That's not to say that LRT can't do this. It can, and for those who doubt that on street LRT can't travel fast, I invite you to go to Seattle where you can travel from the southern edge of downtown to the Airport (a distance of over 20km) in about 22 minutes. But, what we can't have is a light rail line, or any form of rapid transit, that serves as a milk run.
Again, you can do this downtown or in Paris because the ridership generated at those stations every 500m is significant, and because the distance needed to travel to destinations is quite small. Additionally, consider that the frequent stop spacing of the Metro system led the regional government to create a secondary rapid transit network - the RER - for longer distance, regional rapid transit needs.
Danielinthecity
Active Member
Seems to me that the 'real' problem is the 'form' of suburbia itself...low density development with car oriented design will 'always' cause us these problems...it's like were trying to fit a square peg into a round hole...we are the authors of our own misery by 'accepting' this form and then banging our 'transit planning' heads trying to accomodate it... 
js97
Senior Member
^^ Yes, the more you make it a local line, the less inclined local voters will accepted this - hence Ford's supporters opposing the line.
The idea that people will take the Eglinton or Shepperd LRT for 2 stops like those downtown, is a bit of a dream. The same argument of lacking densities for subways along shepperd should be applied for stop distances.
Scarborough will never support a 'local' line and the faster 'transit city' supporters understand, the faster a RAPID TRANSIT system can be built in the form of an LRT.
Anyone that's taken buses in NYC can tell you how far apart they are, if they can justify it in Manhattan, I'm sure torontonians can also.
p.s. I might see a justification for Wynford, but Not Bermondsey.
The idea that people will take the Eglinton or Shepperd LRT for 2 stops like those downtown, is a bit of a dream. The same argument of lacking densities for subways along shepperd should be applied for stop distances.
Scarborough will never support a 'local' line and the faster 'transit city' supporters understand, the faster a RAPID TRANSIT system can be built in the form of an LRT.
Anyone that's taken buses in NYC can tell you how far apart they are, if they can justify it in Manhattan, I'm sure torontonians can also.
p.s. I might see a justification for Wynford, but Not Bermondsey.
kkgg7
Banned
Precisely. The city of Paris has roughly the same population as the city of Toronto, on a land 1/6 of Toronto's. In fact, Paris is about the same size of the old City of Toronto (about 100km2), yet old Toronto has about 700k residents vs Paris 2.2 million. Of course Paris can afford and need to provide more frequent stops because the density jusifies it.
In suburban Toronto, it is a different story. those who live in the suburbs should not expect closely spaced subway stations in the first place. You live in low density area, you get less service coverage, simple as that. To have 500 meter spacing on Eglington, or on Sheppard East will be a stupid decision. Do we really want a whole car full of 800 people to stop so that 4 passengers get off at Sheppard and Pharmacy? These people can get off at the nearest major intersection (Victoria park) 450m away and save everyone a lot of time. Only by larger space can rapid transit be rapid. Otherwise, it is just a large bus where everyone stops to wait for 3 others to get on and off every 90 seconds. What's the point?
GraphicMatt
Looking forward to a FRESH START for Toronto
You guys are using fine logic and all, but the political reality tends to be that, as projects get into the design/consultation phase, residents demand more stops and/or overlapping bus service.
In any case, removing stops on an LRT line -- or not using them as peak times -- is not a big deal. Stop spacing was and is a ridiculous reason to oppose Transit City.
In any case, removing stops on an LRT line -- or not using them as peak times -- is not a big deal. Stop spacing was and is a ridiculous reason to oppose Transit City.
kkgg7
Banned
They can have something like the Bus 97 but it will be infrequent.
Last edited:
Woodbridge_Heights
Senior Member
Close stop spacing can be mitigated by operating the LRT like bus/streetcar routes rather than subway routes. Instead of stopping at every stop like the subway does, stop only at stops where passengers are waiting to board or on demand by riders. However I'm not sure if this operation is compatible with ATU operation.
Hipster Duck
Senior Member
Why? The whole philosophy of Transit City was to prioritize local accessibility and community building over improving capacity, speed and mobility. It was motivated more by urban design theories rather than meeting real transportation needs. My evidence for this is that Transit City was never supported by any serious travel demand survey and regional travel model. One fine day in 2006 I just opened the papers and here was this jolly good plan to build $8 billion worth of light rail on somewhat arbitrary roads (surely some other line would take precedence over a Scarborough-Malvern LRT, but I digress...).
This philosophy was supported in practice by placing the stops at the closest intervals of any light rail system proposed for a suburban environment. To me, the stop spacing was the primary reason to oppose Transit City. I have no qualms with the mode nor even with most of the routings, even if they were not empirically supported by any evidence of [transport] need.