[Paleo]

Currently, STC to downtown is a two transfer ride.

I think Scarborough would be happy with a one transfer ride, which could be achieved with much less cost with an through routed SRT and elevated Eglinton LRT through Scarborough to the DRL at Don Mills/Eglinton.

People will have to accept that the further they are from their destination, the more transfers they will have to make.

 

[M II A II R II K]

They could just make a Bay Street line and have it veer off and connect at Sherbourne. Run it just during peak periods to save on operating costs too.

 

[gweed123]

They could just make a Bay Street line and have it veer off and connect at Sherbourne. Run it just during peak periods to save on operating costs too.

If they were to do that, I would rather see it continue up under Avenue to Eglinton, and then branch back in with the Yonge line, because north of Eglinton it's pretty much an express line anyway.

 

[unimaginative2]

Dwell time is obviously a serious issue at both Bloor and some of the Financial District stations during peak periods. The easiest way to solve dwell time issues is to add doors. Has the TTC ever considered adding an additional door to the side of each car? They could also widen the doors.

 

[rbt]

They could also widen the doors.

Wider doors may not work. There were a few trains in Tokyo which had doors wide enough for 3 people to use simultaneously. What they found is people still tended to walk single-file through the middle and that the wider doors took longer to open/close.

Wider doors helped TTC because with 2 people, possibly one with a cart, standing in the doorway (one against each wall) there is now enough room to get through the middle of them.


A 5th/6th door per car (skinny doors near the joint) would help BUT at some stations like King there is a backup from the platform exits (stair/escalator) onto the train making it difficult for people to get off. It really needs a wider platform or exit modifications (double up the escalators and widen the stairs).

Dundas, which carries nearly as many people, seems to work better due to the main exit being set back from the platform. People can funnel into it without blocking at the platform itself.

 

[gweed123]

Wider doors may not work. There were a few trains in Tokyo which had doors wide enough for 3 people to use simultaneously. What they found is people still tended to walk single-file through the middle and that the wider doors took longer to open/close.

Wider doors helped TTC because with 2 people, possibly one with a cart, standing in the doorway (one against each wall) there is now enough room to get through the middle of them.


A 5th/6th door per car (skinny doors near the joint) would help BUT at some stations like King there is a backup from the platform exits (stair/escalator) onto the train making it difficult for people to get off. It really needs a wider platform or exit modifications (double up the escalators and widen the stairs).

Dundas, which carries nearly as many people, seems to work better due to the main exit being set back from the platform. People can funnel into it without blocking at the platform itself.

IMO, all new interchange stations should be triple platform stations (platform - track - exit platform - track - platform). It's quite clear that these are going to be busy stations down the road, so might as well build in the extra capacity potential now.

That's also what they should be doing at Eglinton now. Use the current centre platform as an exit platform, and build 2 new ones on the outside.

 

[Northern Magus]

Open the Big Move website and check them yourself. If either of you think I'm wrong, do the 45-seconds of digging necessary to demonstrate it. . . . I haven't looked at the numbers in over a year

We're not your research bureau.

This isn't being rude, it's what's required of you by the burden of proof, which you're unfortunately trying to shift. (If it truly takes the "45 seconds" you've stated, then any excuse you give will sound pretty lame)

I'm always happy to respond to any factually accurate points.

But I find it difficult to respond to internet claims made by anyone who won't substantiate them and clearly admits that they could very well be wrong.

 

[nfitz]

We're not your research bureau. This isn't being rude, it's what's required of you by the burden of proof.

Apparently you've mistaken this for a court of law

And if it truly takes the "45 seconds" you've stated, then you've offered a pretty sorry excuse.

I was offline when I wrote that, out-of-town, without access to the documents in question. I was trying to provide a quicker way for you to find the answer than I could provide. The question that seems to have caused so much pain, was Gweed123's: "Were the ridership numbers actually lower, or just the ridership vs capacity ratio?"

Metrolinx's December 2008 Big Move modelling for 2031 shows that the YUSprojected ridership for the peak point, peak hour, is only 25,400 passengers, presumably on the Yonge line, somewhere south of Bloor. This compares to the TTC's December 2008 estimate that ridership south of Bloor was 27-28,000 per hour. (also of note the same TTC report indicates, without the DRL, ridership was forecast to grow to 65,000 to 70,000 by 2031 assuming that the Yonge line was extended to Richmond Hill, Transit City was completed, etc. - really shocking, and quite impossible to carry).

So the answer is that the both ridership and especially the capacity ratio are lower (as capacity has increased over this time, with the TR trains, ATC, and possibly the 7th car and Bloor station improvements).

I fnd it difficult to respond to an internet claim made by someone who won't substantiate it and clearly admits that it could very well be wrong.

I didn't admit that it could very well be wrong; simply that I didn't memorize the numbers. We've previously discussed this very issue here in this forum - not sure why something we've discussed historically here, is an internet claim. Steve Munro has also discussed the issue at length - http://stevemunro.ca/?p=1738

Not only did I not say I wouldn't substantiate it, I pointed to the report that contained the information (the 25,400 number is also posted earlier in this thread, if you read through it).

Sorry, if I realised that people were waiting for me to dig this out, I'd have done so sometime on the weekend.

 

[gweed123]

I was offline when I wrote that, out-of-town, without access to the documents in question. I was trying to provide a quicker way for you to find the answer than I could provide. The question that seems to have caused so much pain, was Gweed123's: "Were the ridership numbers actually lower, or just the ridership vs capacity ratio?"

Metrolinx's December 2008 Big Move modelling for 2031 shows that the YUSprojected ridership for the peak point, peak hour, is only 25,400 passengers, presumably on the Yonge line, somewhere south of Bloor. This compares to the TTC's December 2008 estimate that ridership south of Bloor was 27-28,000 per hour. (also of note the same TTC report indicates, without the DRL, ridership was forecast to grow to 65,000 to 70,000 by 2031 assuming that the Yonge line was extended to Richmond Hill, Transit City was completed, etc. - really shocking, and quite impossible to carry).

So the answer is that the both ridership and capacity ratio are lower (as capacity has increased over this time, with the TR trains, ATC, and possibly the 7th car and Bloor station improvements).

Thanks for finding that, haha. To me it really is shocking that there can be such a disparity between the future of the Yonge line with the DRL and Transit City+Yonge Extension vs the future of the Yonge line with Transit City+Yonge Extension but without the DRL.

What's even scarier is that, unless I'm reading this wrong, those forecasts also include significant improvements to GO. If those don't materialize, holy crap.

It's stuff like this that really makes me think that building Transit City before the DRL was a mistake. Building $8B worth of LRTs in order to make it more efficient to reach a cluster**k is an exercise in futility. It's like spending all your money on a new kitchen countertop when the pipes under your sink are about to burst. Yes, your countertop may be ugly and in need of an upgrade, but that won't do very much good if there's a giant puddle forming on your kitchen floor.

 

[nfitz]

I think it shocked a lot of people! That was the report that suddenly lead to council asking for the DRL studies to begin, and to vote to ask Metrolinx to prioritize is above the Yonge extension. All that fuss back in January 2009.

Gosh, over 3 years ago ... and we still haven't seen anything on it.

 

[rbt]

It's stuff like this that really makes me think that building Transit City before the DRL was a mistake. Building $8B worth of LRTs in order to make it more efficient to reach a cluster**k is an exercise in futility. It's like spending all your money on a new kitchen countertop when the pipes under your sink are about to burst. Yes, your countertop may be ugly and in need of an upgrade, but that won't do very much good if there's a giant puddle forming on your kitchen floor.

$300M/year surplusses from Land Transfer Tax plugged into the capital budget could go a very long way if the province & feds kick in 2/3rds of a DRL cost. If the City comes up with 1/3rd then GO will too (for Union Station relief efforts). Flaherty could be talked into it because it enables a Yonge extension which the federal conservatives do want.

Even if you assume LTT revenue will dip immediately, it's normal for something like this to be covered over a 30 year period.

I guess my point is, the DRL is affordable for a 2025 opening day if we start working on it from a political standpoint now.

If it takes a different Mayor to start the politicing process then it could be quite a bit later.

 

[Paleo]

The figure of 65,000 to 70,000 is for the entire peak period. Peak hour would be considerably less, is in the range of 35,000 to 40,000 but still well above what can feasibly be operated on Yonge.

Despite what the TTC says I don't think 90 second headways and all that other nice stuff would be able to increase practical capacity.

 

[GenerationW]

The big problem is that the DRL cannot be built in one shot from downtown to Eglinton. The Pape to Eglinton would have to be the second phase

Sure it could! All we'd need to build that (and possibly up the other way to Dundas West as well) would be a once-in-a-generation offering of $8.4 billion from the Province to spend however we want on local transit.......wait, you're right -- it can't be done.

I think it shocked a lot of people! That was the report that suddenly lead to council asking for the DRL studies to begin, and to vote to ask Metrolinx to prioritize is above the Yonge extension. All that fuss back in January 2009.

Gosh, over 3 years ago ... and we still haven't seen anything on it.

The motivating factor that led to Council asking for that DRL study in Jan. 09 clearly was the mounting fear that Yonge was on the verge of getting funding. And that likely would have been happened if not for the recession and the resulting Provincial budget cuts to transit announced in early 2010. I'm guessing at that point this study was effectively shelved, even if it was never officially announced.

 

[unimaginative2]

Remember that the Canada Line is longer than the DRL up to Eglinton and, while not directly comparable, was built for $2 billion. The DRL would be somewhat different, most importantly in the length of stations, but double the budget of the Canada Line should be more than sufficient.

Toronto does a very good job of running its subways and they have a very high capacity for 6-car trains. The TTC has always talked about 34,000 passengers per hour, per direction as the maximum theoretical capacity of the line. Given the constraints of the system (mainly dwell time at Bloor), I think that's a pretty optimistic figure. Yonge has been bumping up against its realistic capacity for 30 years. A new parallel line is long overdue, and it would have the added benefit of dramatically improving transit service to a big swathe of central Toronto.

To give an idea of how busy the Toronto system is, it's important to know that our lines are in an entirely different league from every North American system save New York. Even then, we more than hold our own. For example, Finch is nearly twice as busy as the busiest station in all of the outer boroughs; that includes station complexes with a half-dozen lines. Yonge station on the Sheppard line is as busy as the busiest station in the outer boroughs, and it would be among the top 20 busiest stations in the entire city. Again, that includes station complexes with an array of lines. The short little Sheppard line moves as many people as the entire J/Z corridor. Most astounding of all, Yonge-Bloor is busier than the Times Square complex, which is the busiest station in the city. We are long, long overdue for major rapid transit infrastructure development.

New York Stations by Average Weekday Ridership
Toronto Stations by Average Weekday Ridership

 

[nfitz]

Oh really? You published on the internet whilst offline? That's a neat trick. Was one asleep at the time too?

? I was using a blackberry. I can access this forum easily enough from a BB, but searching for large PDF documents and viewing them doesn't work ... not easily at least. Yes, I need a new blackberry ...

Not sure the issue here. The construction of the DRL providing huge relief on the Yonge line is something people have been talking about for a quarter-century. The reports in question are what triggered this whole DRL revival back in 2008/2009. And we discussed the contents of these reports here in early 2009, which ultimately lead to this thread being created. It's not like I'm sitting on any secrets here.

Gweed, was there something else you were looking for?