[zang]

If you are disabled and have mobility challenges, we have something for that its called wheel-trans, and I'm perfectly fine with giving it more funding.

I'd like to point out that Wheel Trans exists almost exclusively because the TTC has been cash strapped for decades and has been forced to be pound wise, penny foolish and make short-term decisions that cost vastly more in the long run. Wheel Trans is a highly expensive stopgap that makes/made up for the lack of accessibility concessions, and a lack of coverage.

Wheel-Trans door-to-door trips are expensive for the agency: the TTC subsidizes each ride by $30, versus $1 for each trip on conventional transit. Wheel-Trans’ gross operating budget was over $133 million in 2022, about 6 percent of the TTC’s operating budget. -

Pulled Off Wheel-Trans and Forced onto the Subway | The Local

Cost-cutting measures are pushing thousands of paratransit users onto the TTC, with disabled and elderly riders forced into gruelling bus and subway trips.

thelocal.to

https://thelocal.to/wheel-trans-accessibility-cuts-ttc/

While spending 6% of your operating budget is a lot, it's far less than the billions in capital required over the years to get the system fully usable for those with disabilities. And the TTC has been painfully slow in the meantime:

The bus network wasn't even fully accessible until 2011 with the retirement of the last GM New Look buses.

The streetcar network wasn't until 2019 with the retirement of the last CLRV.

The one system that always had level boarding—the subway—still isn't even fully accessible.

 

[DirectionNorth]

All of these travel times were provided by Google Maps.

All of these points would have some weight to them if the stop spacing was comparable to what we see on local buses and streetcars today. Many of these are separated only by 150-200 m. But that's not what is happening here, and, as I note for what feels like the millionth time, the changes you are railing for would deliver trivial time savings of only 2-3 minutes. Please address this exact point - in what universe is having a trip take 2-3 minutes more time than it otherwise would the end of the world?

Not the end of the world. This sort of thing adds up though - a few minutes here for unreliability, a few minutes there for TSP, an extra stop or four, and you've just missed your local bus at Kennedy and need to wait an extra 10 minutes.

That happens enough times, then riders get frustrated.

No offense, but when you're arguing to nix stops so that those people who don't live by your decided-on major stops end up having a much longer journey, just so that the main transit line can shave 2-3 minutes off a trip, I find this to be a shockingly hollow argument.

Why is it more important that you shave 2-3 minutes off your trip, rather than that someone else gets to shave 10-15+ (if again, as I've noted, you have mobility challenges and you have to use the parallel bus, it could be even more than this) minutes off theirs?

Is your time more important? Please explain at length your sociological theory.

I'm not @ARG1, but this is a case of cost/benefit analysis.

More people are seeing 2-3 minutes (potentially more, potentially less) shorter travel times, versus a smaller number of people who are taking local transit.

Also, a 300 metre walk is not 10-15 minutes for most people.

I'm not sure why you are clouding the issue with a line from another city, you can just as easily point at any GO train line and achieve the same argument. "To put things in perspective, GO Transit's Milton line runs from Union to Kipling, taking only 17 minutes, while the same journey by subway takes 53 minutes, therefore the subway is a failure and we should change it."

This is about the types of trips we serve.

Eglinton was, and is, intended to be rapid transit. Which typically means fast. Parallel buses are for local transit. Which means local transit access.

The ridership of each should determine what gets built, and what. There is high ridership connecting to N-S buses and to dense areas on Bloor-Danforth, the ridership suits the subway and its stop spacing (which is, I think, still a little too close).

I would like to see the methodology that was used to reach these conclusions.

View attachment 539127

All of these catastrophic results because of ONE station that would cause a ONE minute increase in travel times? Either some NIMBY cooked the numbers to make sure the station didn't get built, or otherwise southern Ontarians are, by a considerable margin, the most spoiled and maladjusted population in the entire world. These do not seem like decisions any rational adult would make over ONE additional station.

Metrolinx procedures are about as transparent as a brick wall, but 57,000 annual trips is 200 trips/weekday (weekends not counted), or 100 people. Which does seem high, but speed is more important for longer journeys like on GO.

I'd like to point out that Wheel Trans exists almost exclusively because the TTC has been cash strapped for decades and has been forced to be pound wise, penny foolish and make short-term decisions that cost vastly more in the long run. Wheel Trans is a highly expensive stopgap that makes/made up for the lack of accessibility concessions, and a lack of coverage.

https://thelocal.to/wheel-trans-accessibility-cuts-ttc/

While spending 6% of your operating budget is a lot, it's far less than the billions in capital required over the years to get the system fully usable for those with disabilities. And the TTC has been painfully slow in the meantime:

The bus network wasn't even fully accessible until 2011 with the retirement of the last GM New Look buses.

The streetcar network wasn't until 2019 with the retirement of the last CLRV.

The one system that always had level boarding—the subway—still isn't even fully accessible.

You mean penny wise, pound foolish?

That's the story of this city.

For the record, I am in support of spending more capex on improved accessibility on the TTC.

 

[just east of the creek]

Impressive - 1,600 pages of posts on this singular topic is about to be reached, and yet, no functioning service. Anyone care to speculate on the number of pages we may reach before the line comes into service?

 

[Coolstar]

Impressive - 1,600 pages of posts on this singular topic is about to be reached, and yet, no functioning service. Anyone care to speculate on the number of pages we may reach before the line comes into service?

Page 1650. Just a random guess.

 

[Northern Light]

Impressive - 1,600 pages of posts on this singular topic is about to be reached, and yet, no functioning service. Anyone care to speculate on the number of pages we may reach before the line comes into service?

Recently, we've been averaging a bit over a page a day. That might slow down a bit. But at a page a day, if we're up and running in September (one can hope); then you've got about 200 days to go. So I'll put in for 6,200, LOL

 

[Rainforest]

For Eglinton East in particular, I do not suggest cutting any stops. For a pragmatic reason: those stops have been printed on all maps, people expect them, perhaps some moved into the area because they want to live near an LRT stop.

If we cut any stops at the last moment, the locals will get angry. Riders who pass by will benefit, but they will only save 2-3 min per trip, and won't really notice.

Conversely if we keep all stops, then the locals are happy, and the riders who pass by are happy too because they see a massive improvement over the mixed-traffic bus. They won't think that they could save another 2 or 3 min had the stop spacing been wider. Everyone is happy, and the new line is received well.

 

[Rainforest]

But generally, speaking of new transit planning, I disagree with the notion that every transit line has to be optimized for the locals, while people who want faster rides are somehow "selfish".

Let's consider the Yonge subway line. The majority of riders using that line neither live on Yonge near a subway station, nor live on Yonge between the subway stations. The majority live far enough from Yonge that they need to take a bus first, and then they transfer to Yonge subway. That majority doesn't benefit at all from the midblock stops.

How much time would those riders lose if we added more stops? That depends on the number of such stops. If we just want to split every existing 2-km gap in half, that's at most 3 additional stations between Eglinton and Sheppard, and one more between Finch and Steeles. So, the riders that travel from Steeles to south of Eglinton, would lose no more than 3-4 min. I believe that's reasonable.

But, what if the line was designed for a closer stop spacing from the onset? For the every 700m stop pattern, we would need to add 8 stations between St Clair and Steeles. For the every 500 m stop pattern, we would need 17 more stations between Bloor and Steeles. That's no longer a 3-4 min difference in travel time, we are looking at 10-15 min added for each trip. I don't believe that would be a good idea.

What about people with mobility issues? Let's say, person A has mobility issues, lives near Yonge 600 m from the closest subway station, and would be within 100m if another station was added.

Person B has mobility issues, lives far from Yonge in the middle of the block 600 m from the closest bus stop on a major E-W street, and wouldn't benefit at all if another subway station on Yonge was added. Person B is already in a worse situation than Person A. Person B has to make those 600 m to the bus, then endure a ride on the bus that is often crowded and has uneven headways, and then transfer to the subway.

Now, Person A demands an extra subway station, which will make Person B's trip even longer. Person B does not want that. Who is being selfish in that situation? In my opinion, that's Person A.

 

[nfitz]

According to the Auditor General, building Kirby GO on the Barrie Line would've reduced the Barrie Line's annual ridership by 57000, adding 40k km of car driving, and lost GO $900k in fare revenue in the year of 2031 alone by simply existing, and adding the 1 minute end to end travel time.

It adds only one minute? That's very unusual. How slow does it currently travel through that station?

 

[T3G]

Who is being selfish in that situation? In my opinion, that's Person A.

I think this is an absolutely ludicrous assertion. Person B, at this point, is already on the subway, they need to take no further action, they just have to be there and exist as a person. They will lose less than a minute of their life if person A's life is made easier, too.

Crabs in a bucket mentality.

As for stop spacing on Yonge in general, this is one of the many reasons why not planning the line with separate express and local tracks was a huge mistake. We have always known better than our brethren in New York.

 

[Rainforest]

It adds only one minute? That's very unusual. How slow does it currently travel through that station?

I believe that's about right. York Mills to Eglinton (4 km, 1 stop in between) takes 5-6 min. Eglinton to Bloor (same 4 km, but 4 stops in between) takes 8-9 min.

Each trip may be different, but 1 min per each extra stop is a reasonable rule for the estimates.

 

[Rainforest]

I think this is an absolutely ludicrous assertion. Person B, at this point, is already on the subway, they need to take no further action, they just have to be there and exist as a person. They will lose less than a minute of their life if person A's life is made easier, too.

Crabs in a bucket mentality.

I disagree here. Just one extra stop, sure does not make a difference for Person B. But what if that's 10 extra stops, since the whole line is optimized for local travel. Time lost by Person B may be equal or greater than time lost by Person A had the design been optimized for longer trips.

Furthermore, the percentage of people with mobility issues is approximately the same in all areas. If the majority of all riders transfer to subway from the buses, then the majority of people with mobility issues likely transfer to subway from the buses as well. So, the number of people in Person B's situation is greater than the number of people in Person A's situation.

As for stop spacing on Yonge in general, this is one of the many reasons why not planning the line with separate express and local tracks was a huge mistake. We have always known better than our brethren in New York.

That's definitely true. It would be great to have separate express and local tracks, particularly on the Yonge subway. Resulting in both faster trips for long-range riders, and higher overall capacity.

 

[Voltz]

We don't know about the LRT yet, as it hasn't opened, and the schedules not known, but on the subway....

45 seconds. Each stop on average costs a train 45 seconds versus going through at full speed.

Which is hardly significant of course, those who think getting rid of two or three stops will make the line into a crosstown express service that draws riders from the entire GTA are out to lunch. And lets not forget that there are already two other rapid transit lines from Kennedy Station that go in the same general direction, those riders already have fast options.

 

[zang]

You mean penny wise, pound foolish?

No, I intentionally wrote the inverse. As the TTC/City will often throw small amounts of money at something without much thought, but balk at big costs that would make things so much better. Like getting groceries at Dollarama instead of Costco. So they end up spending more money in the long run on half-assed patches.

That's the story of this city.

For the record, I am in support of spending more capex on improved accessibility on the TTC.

I do too. But Wheel Trans isn’t a solution for most people with accessibility issues. We need full accessibility, more frequency and better coverage, and yes we need greater capital and more especially operational subsidy from the province and feds, for more than just happy-feels, photo-ops meant to sway voters.

 

[nfitz]

I believe that's about right. York Mills to Eglinton (4 km, 1 stop in between) takes 5-6 min. Eglinton to Bloor (same 4 km, but 4 stops in between) takes 8-9 min.

Each trip may be different, but 1 min per each extra stop is a reasonable rule for the estimates.

On the subway sure. But I was trying to reply to ARG1's comment about the Barrie line. I fixed my post to make the context clear.

 

[Rainforest]

On the subway sure. But I was trying to reply to ARG1's comment about the Barrie line. I fixed my post to make the context clear.

Got it now. The time cost of an extra GO station should be a lot more than 1 min. Those begemoth GO trains, with a single engine instead of self-propelling MUs, take a lot longer to accelerate or stop.

The 1 min ballpark only works for subway trains or LRT trains.