[sixrings]

Of course, and thats a debate we can have - but a transfer is an option. It was suggested that you could either (and only) have slow with stops everywhere, or fast and seemingly bypassing anyone in between. Of course we all know that there is a third and probably more options.

Running two systems is going to cost more. How much do you want to sink into finch.

 

[Northern Light]

I also do not, and I think putting on the map as one is a bad move.

Fair point. If one views the line as a primarily local service, with out particularly good speed, even if the line is justified in terms of its current design, the case for including it in the 'subway/metro' map is probably suspect.

I question whether it was a good way to spend ~2 billion in the first place

Also fair. Though I think something probably was needed here, given the passenger volumes, and it wasn't on to deliver a subway/metro which does leave one wondering, other than some minor design tweaks what the better alternative may have been.

- with marginal speed improvements, and no more local buses (as well as a reduction in frequency which is oft forgotten).

I did note, that I find the proposed average speed unacceptably slow, even with the current stop spacing, and that issue requires revisiting to assess how to do better. Frequency should still be reasonable, and will improve if ridership merits.

 

[T3G]

So you get on a bus

A bus which only runs every 25 minutes at its absolute peak. This is not good transit.

(or just walk ~almost a kilometer!~ which is 10-15 minutes),

Yet again - this is not an option for those with mobility challenges.

And frankly, it's a pretty dismissive thing to say at any rate. Imagine I'm going to the airport with suitcases. Why should I have an excessively long walk with my burden so you can shave minutes off your commute? With comments like this, transit advocates don't really do anything to try to understand the other side, or try to bring people who would otherwise be inclined to drive into the fold. We got our zoomy train, God damn it, and that's enough!

"Bad enough" and yet the Yonge Subway is Canada's most successful transit line and one of the most successful in the Americas! It being "zoomy" is why its popular! The idea that we need super tight station spacings does not at all align with the global best practice which has closed in around ~1km station spacings for metro.

Where are you getting your information from, that the Yonge line is successful because it's very fast? Do you have any studies or documents which prove that less people would ride the line if stops were even closer together?

BTW, the stops along the northern Yonge line are 2 km apart, so even if we subscribe to the idea that the "global best practise" for stop spacing is 1 km, the Yonge line is more than double that.

 

[sixrings]

And the service level could be increased? Theres nothing inherent that says the bus can't run at a reasonable frequency.



What a weird comment, not all options will work for all people - thats not dismissive, if I have a heavy bag I will catch the bus too, and because some people will always prefer local transit we shouldn't run it on horrible 25 minute headways. I mentioned having a bus for people who cannot walk, but many people in many scenarios can walk or cycle!

If you are going to the airport (which with bags is not a common trip for most people), then you could:

1) Take the bus
2) Walk with your bags (which may or may not be practical)
3) And there are more options to!



Not sure where I said anything was "enough". But if you are trying to make the case that the train should be slower, talking about how there are no alternatives (except for walking and buses - which can certainly be frequent), and how it might be inconvenient for you when you go on a trip to the airport (nevermind people who want to get to work on time) - even though you could very well take a bus, is not making that case.



I mean theres a massive amount of transportation engineering literature, and travel demand literature which discusses this stuff, there are entire academic papers talking about optimizing stop spacing - again theres a reason why certain standards have been settled on globally.

How about you focus your energy on getting sheppard to be your northern eastern western subway. You can take it all the way from Weston to Scarborough town centre. The train has left the station on Finch.

 

[sixrings]

"Those that fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it."

You can change history on sheppard. Finch is a done deal. Unless you just want to rant.

 

[T3G]

And the service level could be increased? Theres nothing inherent that says the bus can't run at a reasonable frequency.

While true, there is nothing in the entire history of TTC run parallel bus services that shows that this would be something we can reasonably expect. So I am arguing by real world parameters, and not pie in the sky fantasies.

The most frequent of these is the 85, which runs every 16 minutes. This in itself is not an attractive frequency, and would certainly not incentive me to ditch the car.

It is also highly questionable whether it's the best use of funds in this era of inflation and purse stright tightening, to have a parallel bus service when those drivers could be delivering more valuable service elsewhere, all because we don't want local transit to behave like it's local transit.

1) Take the bus
2) Walk with your bags (which may or may not be practical)
3) And there are more options to!

Yes, like driving, or taxi. Not what transit advocates want to promote more of, but if we're catering to selfish people who are well served by the current stop spacing, that's exactly what you will get.

(which with bags is not a common trip for most people),

You're right. Let's cancel the UP Express, then, as it's money being wasted on uncommon trip types. The only people we should be catering to are people going to work.

Not sure where I said anything was "enough".

In all your posts where you said that the Yonge corridor adequately serves the people who live along it?

evermind people who want to get to work on time)

Sorry, I do not find this to be at all impressive or valid. People who want to shave a couple of minutes off their train ride so they can get to work, the consequence of which would be that the people living in between stops have to walk 10, 20, 30 minutes extra just to get to the station, sounds like tyranny of the majority.

Do the people who have to walk 10-30 minutes extra not need to get to work on time? Under this proposed scheme, they'd have to get up probably an hour earlier than they would if they had a transit stop in a reasonable distance!

again theres a reason why certain standards have been settled on globally.

Hmm, and which global standards are those? It would seem to me that different towns have different standards that are dependent on their history, architecture types, and density.

Transit in New York is different to transit in Toronto is different to transit in London is different to transit in Marseille is different to transit in Moscow is different to transit in Beijing is different to transit in Sydney.

"Those that fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it."

Yeah, I sure would hate it if it the mistake of giving more people access to transit was repeated again!

 

[Allandale25]

Phil Verster's comments on Finch West LRT at today's board meeting (time-marked link):

Metrolinx Board of Directors Meeting - February 15th, 2024

www.youtube.com

Provided some contrast examples to the challenges on Crosstown.

 

[turbanplanner]

This gets my top comment award.

Debating spacing is fair game; but here, 18 stops over 10.2km gets average stop spacing of ~566m; some are doubtless closer and we may question those; but overall, that doesn't offend me for what this is designed to do; and to ask it to behave as a subway is to ask for something entirely different than what was built.

On the other hand, an average speed that seems to be under 20km/ph does bother me, and brings us back to transit priority, intersection design, intersection frequency and boarding practices. We should be able to do better w/the current stop spacing.

*****

To come back to what customers may expect; I think everyone should be asking for the shortest possible travel time commutes, understanding that we have to negotiate what is affordable and reasonable access, so it is not a subway to everyone's door.

But I think we should aim to give the vast majority a total commute not greater than 45M and an average commute under 30M. That's not a function of any one transit line, but each does contribute to the whole.

"But I think we should aim to give the vast majority a total commute not greater than 45M and an average commute under 30M"

Are you counting this as door to door? You sort of touched on this but if you reduce stop spacing you add to peoples walks and it can be really bad for some people on snow days like this (ex elderly) not sure what's the most "fair" way to come up with a balance.

 

[afransen]

Yes, like driving, or taxi. Not what transit advocates want to promote more of, but if we're catering to selfish people who are well served by the current stop spacing, that's exactly what you will get.

I'd say it's more important that we cater to high frequency travel needs, such as commuting, and less to infrequent travel needs, such as going to the airport. It's an acceptable trade-off to get more people to use transit for commuting at the expense of some people taking an Uber/taxi to the airport for occasional air travel. You could also just take an uber to the subway (it'd be a lot cheaper). Finch isn't even going to the airport--how many times will you have to transfer with your luggage?

 

[Ward8]

There is also the issue of whether light rail was ever going to be able to get the priority it seriously needs in this city given the state of the streetcars and the car fetish transportation services has - I really think there was an inherent risk there, and yet discussions often went "light rail can be so fast with signal priority" without seriously asking whether in Toronto strong priority was realistic.

This is a key point, Toronto will likely bungle this, but it's also a place for optimism. It's disheartening to know a 2 billion dollar line will be slower than it has to be for no real reason, but along the same lines the solutions are (more or less) free and only require political will to make a reality. Could it happen in Toronoto? Who knows. Chow could surprise us, and Rick Leary's days are numbered. If one looks at Calgary and Edmonton, places that are FAAAAARRR more car obsessed than Toronto, one can find much better signal priority including level crossing gates. I don't feel hopeless for improvement. Finch will evolve over time and will hopefully fulfill a "rapid transit" moniker in the not too distant future.

In the mean time, I'm not quite as critical as some are of this particular "LRT," as it will be orders of magnitude better than the status quo.

 

[T3G]

Finch isn't even going to the airport--how many times will you have to transfer with your luggage?

I wasn't referring specifically to Finch - there, I do not see using it to get to the airport as being remotely feasible - but to Yonge, where theoretically, you'd only have to transfer once.

 

[afransen]

I will remind folks that other LRT projects, such as Hurontario LRT, have stop spacings closer to 1km.

I wasn't referring specifically to Finch - there, I do not see using it to get to the airport as being remotely feasible - but to Yonge, where theoretically, you'd only have to transfer once.

If we were to increase the stop spacing from 500m to as much as 1000m, the maximum increase in walking distance is 250m (the further you would be to a stop being 500m vs 250m). 250m is about a 3 minute walk. Most riders would gain that time back with higher average speed if they are travelling further than 3 or 4 kilometers. And I don't think anyone was suggesting stop spacing even as large as 1km, and anyone riding from one end to the other (with no additional walk time) would save 8 or 9 minutes. Add to that that faster trip speed would allow more frequency with the same number of vehicles and operators. It seems to me you are being unreasonably argumentative.

 

[asey20]

I will remind folks that other LRT projects, such as Hurontario LRT, have stop spacings closer to 1km.

If we were to increase the stop spacing from 500m to as much as 1000m, the maximum increase in walking distance is 250m (the further you would be to a stop being 500m vs 250m). 250m is about a 3 minute walk. Most riders would gain that time back with higher average speed if they are travelling further than 3 or 4 kilometers. And I don't think anyone was suggesting stop spacing even as large as 1km, and anyone riding from one end to the other (with no additional walk time) would save 8 or 9 minutes. Add to that that faster trip speed would allow more frequency with the same number of vehicles and operators. It seems to me you are being unreasonably argumentative.

Except that is incorrect. The maximum increase in walking distance is 500m if you live exactly at the removed stop and that is only if you are located on the line (Finch Avenue West). This does not factor people who live on a NS street to where the stop would be removed which would be 500m + the previous distance to the removed stop.

 

[T3G]

I will remind folks that other LRT projects, such as Hurontario LRT, have stop spacings closer to 1km.

If we were to increase the stop spacing from 500m to as much as 1000m, the maximum increase in walking distance is 250m (the further you would be to a stop being 500m vs 250m). 250m is about a 3 minute walk. Most riders would gain that time back with higher average speed if they are travelling further than 3 or 4 kilometers. And I don't think anyone was suggesting stop spacing even as large as 1km, and anyone riding from one end to the other (with no additional walk time) would save 8 or 9 minutes. Add to that that faster trip speed would allow more frequency with the same number of vehicles and operators. It seems to me you are being unreasonably argumentative.

Of course, changing the stop spacing to 1000 m not being a big deal is predicated on the assumption that the person in question lives right on the street that the line runs on, and doesn't have to walk up a side street for whatever distance until they reach the main road. One might have to walk half a kilometre or even a kilometre before they even reach the main road!

Why do you think I am being unreasonably argumentative? It's a subject I feel strongly about, and I believe that having more stops, rather than less, is what is good for transit. As long as people keep arguing the contrary, do not expect me to sit down and accept it. Would it be fair if I turned around and said that people trying to turn local metro and train lines into the GO train are enemies of good cities and transit? This is a discussion of the arguments, not how you personally feel about my arguments.

 

[Rainforest]

For the Yonge line, ideally I would split the three 2-km gaps that exist between Eglinton and Sheppard. Would add midblock stations and thus reduce the gaps to 1 km.

Plus, would upgrade the bus service north of St Clair to 15 min (clockface) at all times.

Frequency higher than 15 min would obviously be even better, but kind of unfair to the riders of bus routes operating outside the main arterials, such as 104 or 78. They have a worse bus service, and would have to take a longer walk to the closest subway station, than those who live on Yonge between the stations.