Richard White
Senior Member
Honestly though..
I wonder if the stations would have been well used. In those neighborhoods, the clientele is more affluent than most and are not the first people I would think of taking transit.
|
|
|
Honestly though..
I wonder if the stations would have been well used. In those neighborhoods, the clientele is more affluent than most and are not the first people I would think of taking transit.
JSF-1
Active Member
I imagine they could get Rosedale or Chester levels of ridership, certainly on the lower side but by no means terrible. Obviously its impossible to say how those two stations would have changed travel patterns in the area. The stop at Glen Echo certainly would have made my life easier when I worked at the Loblaws there; although who knows if that Loblaws would even exist if the station had been built since I believe that plot is where the station would have been built since it's the old Glen Echo Loop site.
beatle04
Active Member
I might be wrong but in theory, couldn't they add these as infill stations if they really wanted? I remember reading that even though the stations were dropped, they made sure the tracks were level in the spots where the stations would have been.
jmi22
Active Member
In theory, yes. But infill stations, particularly in areas with low likely ridership and very limited development potential just don't make it past first glances when considering the complexity and cost of the projects. The Line 1 shutdowns alone would likely make the TTC wince at any idea of these being built, even though they have gotten dreadfully comfortable with shutdowns for maintenance lately.
Rainforest
Senior Member
They did not want to remove stops, because they wanted to avoid the need to run parallel bus service.
Kind of makes sense, if they were able to operate at the advertized 22-23 kph average speed with all those stops.
In the present situation, the actual speed being in the 12-14 kph range, every option to make the LRTs run faster should be considered. Including the removal of all stops between the major arterials, and replacing those with a parallel bus running at a decent frequency.
After all, if the LRTs take almost twice the time to make a round trip, then you need almost twice as many drivers to maintain the desired frequency.
Speed up the LRTs, and you have several drivers available to run the parallel buses.
T3G
Senior Member
Bold of you to assume that they manage along North Yonge. In actuality, the current set up, without parallel express and local tracks, is an abject failure unless you live within reasonable walking distance of the stations. Or do you imagine that people with mobility challenges don't exist on that corridor?
Same old tired, subway fan argument. We built a subway one way 80 years ago and that means we shouldn't revisit our approach anywhere, under any circumstances, for whatever reason, going forward.
crs1026
Superstar
FWIW the experience with the 149 Bloor West bus is instructive. Its ridership consists almost exclusively of mobility limited passengers. There is virtually no use of the 149 by people who are avoiding the subway. Station spacing is somewhat better along Bloor West (except over the Humber) - but clearly, once the subway stations have had mobility improvements added, this thing is going to be cancelled.
There may be a minimum subway stop spacing where a bus becomes desirable, but having a surface route to augment limited-stop transit is clearly not an automatic.
- Paul
urbanclient
Active Member
I get the concern, but transit is designed so the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few. To say that the minority of people with mobility challenges should be catered towards over other performance criteria is why we're so backwards on transit. Especially in low density areas. I'm not saying it's an either/or situation, like we have to choose between fast travel times and looking after disadvantaged demographics. Improving accessibility and retrofitting elevators is enough.
Global best practices show that wider station spacing improves travel times and ridership across the entire corridor. Designing rapid transit around edge cases instead of core economic and operational principles is how you end up with slower, less effective, under-used systems. Stop spacing in China averages over 1.8 km between stations. Despite that wide gap, I don't see many people complaining about poor accessibility. All stations have elevators and all stations have staff to help less mobile passengers.
Ideally, the way you shorten the walking distance to rapid transit is not by cramming more stations on one line, but by building more lines.
Last edited:
ssiguy2
Senior Member
I'm curious, seeing Eg & Finch were both PPP, how much money did the private company {Mosaic?} have to put down for the privilege of running the route?
Bordercollie
Senior Member
Actually it's not surprising at all. It's supposed to serve all demographics of society so it's almost a mandatory requirementOh my...is that a NEW Payphone!!!! It was probably installed before cell phones....lol
(Photo from the Globe & Mail article)
View attachment 692146
A 6264
Active Member
You can count me among the demographics. When cell phones became a big thing, many of us were asking, why on earth would we want to carry a tracking device around with us? Supposing we were somehow being monitored by burglars and gangs, who would want to know when we're out of the house. (I am tech savvy, and I'm not paranoid nor ignorant of technology, but this was decades ago, when the system was not as secure. Did you know, we used to be able to hear unencoded cell phone traffic on scanners purchased from Radio Shack?) So I never got a cell phone, and still have (almost) no use for one.
About a year ago, I was out visiting in the west end. There was a big power failure that hit the west side, and took hours to clear. The Bloor subway shut down, power and street lights were out all the way from Bloor to the lake. I used a pay phone at Jane station to call and say I'd be late. That was after I walked past several pay phones that were broken, or being used by other people in the same situation. Pay phones are not museum exhibits yet.
nfitz
Superstar
Mosaic isn't running the route. They are doing maintenance. TTC is the operator.
Monarch Butterfly
Superstar
When landline phones first came on the scene, the first telephones were mostly shared "party lines". My parents had one in the 1950's. We could listen in to conversations people were having or other "parties" on the line. Police were able to "tap" telephone lines to listen in onto conversations. Sorry, for being off topic.
A 6264
Active Member
Gosh, you must be older than I am, I don't remember the 50s. But I do remember a friend had a party line at their house, and I was a bit shocked. Another apology for off topic.
ssiguy2
Senior Member
Then why is this considered a PPP? Why isn't the TTC doing the maintenance and for the vehicles, why not Alstom? This doesn't seem like a partnership but rather the province writing a private company a cheque which they instead could be writing to the TTC. This is probably why the Canada Line PPP worked, the company put hundreds of millions into the line's construction so had real skin in the game AND any cost overruns would be 100% at the expense of the company not the province/city. It did come in over budget but that was due to the City wanting an extra station and potential for infills but the line the PPP agreed to came in on-budget and..........wait for it............4 months early.
The whole point of a PPP is to be able to access to private capitol to help fund new infrastructure. These guys seem to have just gotten a maintenance contract.
What am I missing or misunderstanding because I'm lost.