[EFSF Jaburo]

Read the thread. I'm not the first person to state 9 seconds. The number was chosen partially to make fun of your silly idea.

Rosedale generates millions of rides per year. That's the whole point of the station. Removing Rosedale benefits nobody farther north (unless letting 905ers sleep in for another 9 seconds counts as a benefit) but hurts everybody near Rosedale.

Density is irrelevant...those "low density" houses generate more transit trips than do higher density houses farther from the core and inhabited by poorer people.

Ok you just cant agree even on your own posts. Just before, you were arguing the area was "medium density" - which by your logic justifies the station. Now you say density is irrelevant?

Furthermore, it's starting to sound like you're employed in one of those rosedale homes as a cleaner or something since you're so sure that those mansions generate lots of trips.

I happen to think that Rosedale could actually double its ridership were a second exit built into the southern end of the station (exiting onto Belmont). Had you scrolled down in your satelite photos you would have noticed high-rise office buildings running through this whole general area from Belmont to Davenport. So employees of those businesses instead of walking 10 minutes down to Bloor Station could opt instead to make use of this station (particularly with an entranceway is integrated into the building's sublevel, as could be possible for the SE corner of Belmont). Another thing to consider is that the line could be decked over through this section with condominiums placed on top. That alone would generate an increase.

As an aside, Blythwood Stn sounds like a good idea... back in the 90s. With all the added regulations and building requirements nowadays it's not worth the effort. Besides just operating the 97 bus on more frequent headways would resolve the problem.

Decking over the line was not such a great idea in the first place. What caused the subway to shut down few weeks ago? yeah
And what has actually been built over the decks so far? some tennis courts, some grassy field but nothing more.

 

[EFSF Jaburo]

In countries with PROPER transit systems, stations like Rosedale are local stops only. I won't get into the concept of express trains in this thread as it would blow the minds of some people who think Toronto = world.

 

[ShonTron]

Express trains are not all that common. Hong Kong doesn't have them (except the premium airport express), even most European systems. Only a few sections of the London Underground have a true local/express system.

Chicago has this, but only on one line (the Purple Line rush hour express), same with Philly (Broad Street subway). New York has this, but not everywhere. This isn't some "world class" thing. I would agree with S-Bahning our GO system though, with proper fare coordination, frequent service, that could handle the express operations our subway system was not intended for.

The original Yonge line went from Union to Eglinton. Of course it didn't need express tracks. The 1904 New York subway went from City Hall to Broadway/96th (and within two years up into the 160's). Huge difference.

 

[andomano]

In countries with PROPER transit systems, stations like Rosedale are local stops only. I won't get into the concept of express trains in this thread as it would blow the minds of some people who think Toronto = world.

Just close your eyes when the train leaves Summerhill, and open them when you get to Bloor. There's my advice for someone with a thorn in their side.

 

[EFSF Jaburo]

Hong Kong doesnt need express systems . Look at East / West rail and Tseung Kwan O Line. Their stations are spaced quite far apart and don't have unnecessary stations to speed things between. Good thing you mentioned this too. Even Hong Kong's island line doesn't have stations 600m apart and its much denser than any part of toronto
The other lines are too short to have express services. Now, arguably, yonge line is too short as well. But with the proposed extension, its a different matter. It will never happen though and I agree with you on the idea of making GO transit more of a RER style system - which is exactly why european cities like London/Paris/Berlin don't need an integrated express service.

New york has a good express subway system
I didn't know chicago or philadelphia did

Seoul has a few lines and any decent sized city in Japan has express service .

 

[EFSF Jaburo]

Just close your eyes when the train leaves Summerhill, and open them when you get to Bloor. There's my advice for someone with a thorn in their side.

no that wont work ... i can still feel the inertia from stopping

 

[adma]

I didn't say I disagreed with the consensus or anything but your overreaction makes you look like a nutjob

If I may say this: when it comes to this thread you started, pot, kettle, black. Especially when you're posting as much as three times consecutively, and your writing/posting skills are abysmal, and you seem to have this Asperger's-like galling obliviousness to the total Toronto-specific context at hand. Remember: just because a fringe political candidate advocates "world-class" urban solutions to Toronto's problems doesn't make him/her any less of a fringe political candidate.

I can see where this is going: either this thread's going to be closed, or EFSF Jaburo's going to be banned as a nuisance poster, or both...

 

[EFSF Jaburo]

^ say what you want after you find me a picture of rosedale station looking half full .

And while you're at it, take a look at this thread http://www.urbantoronto.ca/showthread.php?t=3273

 

[scarberiankhatru]

Ok you just cant agree even on your own posts. Just before, you were arguing the area was "medium density" - which by your logic justifies the station. Now you say density is irrelevant?

Furthermore, it's starting to sound like you're employed in one of those rosedale homes as a cleaner or something since you're so sure that those mansions generate lots of trips.

Yes, density is irrelevant. You don't seem to know what density is and how it relates to transit usage, so stop trying and failing to compare everything. Where's the density at Wilson or Warden? The total number of trips is important - the square footage of the houses and their backyards isn't. Stations are justified by usage, not by "density." Rosedale is "justified" by, gee, I don't know, how about existence?

Reality clearly isn't your forte, but it is a simple fact that those mansions generate lots of transit trips, which you would know if you'd ever been on the Rosedale bus. I know that satellite photos are all you're basing this on, but satellite photos don't tell you about bus routes. I suggest you actually become a bit more familiar with the city if you don't want to look foolish on this forum. Take the Yonge line during midday and you'll sometimes see nannies taking kids out for the afternoon via Rosedale...that means the nanny is taking 4 trips on transit that day.

Rosedale's 7600 rides a day would actually place it in the top half of New York's busiest subway stations, and not even in the bottom 50 in London. I won't embarrass cities like Washington or some of the more expansive European systems by noting where 7600 rides a day places there.

 

[adma]

If it were all about insistence upon "density", EFSF Jaburo style, then this would be an ideal site to put up a supertall

 

[EFSF Jaburo]

^ That picture, ladies and gentleman , is where a subway stop should go.
Not some neighbourhood full of large mansions and with little to none bus connections.

and btw, thanks for posting a completely irrelevant picture and failing to procure what I demanded on the previous post

Yes, density is irrelevant. You don't seem to know what density is and how it relates to transit usage, so stop trying and failing to compare everything. Where's the density at Wilson or Warden? The total number of trips is important - the square footage of the houses and their backyards isn't. Stations are justified by usage, not by "density." Rosedale is "justified" by, gee, I don't know, how about existence?

Reality clearly isn't your forte, but it is a simple fact that those mansions generate lots of transit trips, which you would know if you'd ever been on the Rosedale bus. I know that satellite photos are all you're basing this on, but satellite photos don't tell you about bus routes. I suggest you actually become a bit more familiar with the city if you don't want to look foolish on this forum. Take the Yonge line during midday and you'll sometimes see nannies taking kids out for the afternoon via Rosedale...that means the nanny is taking 4 trips on transit that day.

Rosedale's 7600 rides a day would actually place it in the top half of New York's busiest subway stations, and not even in the bottom 50 in London. I won't embarrass cities like Washington or some of the more expansive European systems by noting where 7600 rides a day places there.

The way ttc counts these 'rides' is different from the way other transit systems count ridership so it actually is a lot more than what it seems to be.

And believe me when I say density matters for Rosedale. It has that one bus route which circles around the neighbourhood which could easily be diverted to end at summerhill or Bloor. Most of its riders are therefore walk ins. Do you get it now? Stations like YM have numerous bus routes that feed into it so it sustains a much higher ridership even though Hoggs Hollows is more or less like Rosedale neighbourhood
And you STILL manage to fail at explaining why you contradict yourself by saying density does not matter.

I'm glad that all your transportation/ city development is limited to the virtual world only but as for me, different story

 

[EFSF Jaburo]

and yes, its wise to keep DC out of this- a system which manages to be three times as large as Toronto's whilst having almost 2million people than the GTA

 

[scarberiankhatru]

The way ttc counts these 'rides' is different from the way other transit systems count ridership so it actually is a lot more than what it seems to be.

And believe me when I say density matters for Rosedale. It has that one bus route which circles around the neighbourhood which could easily be diverted to end at summerhill or Bloor. Most of its riders are therefore walk ins. Do you get it now? Stations like YM have numerous bus routes that feed into it so it sustains a much higher ridership even though Hoggs Hollows is more or less like Rosedale neighbourhood
And you STILL manage to fail at explaining why you contradict yourself by saying density does not matter.

I'm glad that all your transportation/ city development is limited to the virtual world only but as for me, different story

Yes, the majority of Rosedale's users walk to the station, which proves why it needs to stay open. York Mills' buses can be routed elsewhere. Got it?

No matter how much you scrounge around looking for other definitions of "rider" and how much you misuse terms like 'density,' Rosedale would be an average station on pretty much every other subway system in the world except a couple of hyper-crowded systems like Tokyo or Moscow. That's the reality here.

 

[golodhendil]

Hong Kong doesnt need express systems . Look at East / West rail and Tseung Kwan O Line. Their stations are spaced quite far apart and don't have unnecessary stations to speed things between. Good thing you mentioned this too. Even Hong Kong's island line doesn't have stations 600m apart and its much denser than any part of toronto
The other lines are too short to have express services.

I hope by Tseung Kwan O line you mean Tung Chung line, because at 5-600 m the stations on the former aren't that far apart. And the reason ERL, WRL and TCL have such far apart stations are because they are basically regional rail services with extensive LRT and bus networks feeding into the stations, and much of the area between stations being quite literally countryside and farmland. And funny that you would say HK "doesn't need" express systems; adding express service on East Rail to allow trains from northern New Territories to bypass the Shatin area is actually one of the more hotly discussed topics among HK transit circles.

Island line have stations that seem slightly farther apart than usual because it already has a local service - a tram line with stops 1-200 m apart that runs almost exactly parallel on top of it, plus 10-20 bus routes that operate in the same parallel corridor. As well, stations in HK are long, and each have a sprawling underground network of walkways that lead to exits far away from the concourse, so that even on HK Island stations (from entrance to entrance) are usually no more than 300-400 m apart. In urban Kowloon, which doesn't have a tramway (but still has extensive parallel local buses), the stations are indeed only 4-600 m apart (2-400 m entrance-to-entrance).

 

[Platform 27]

The way ttc counts these 'rides' is different from the way other transit systems count ridership so it actually is a lot more than what it seems to be.

Ok. So first you say "I'd take those Wikipedia figures with a grain of salt."

And then I tell you said Wikipedia figures are directly from the TTC.

And then, out of nowhere, you suddenly emerge with this "fact" that the TTC is conspiratorily counting ridership differently than everyone else to inflate it's totals?

Most of the people in this thread can't agree on anything transit-related. (Seriously, if you want to really stir the pot, for your next thread outline how a truly "world class" city would build a segregated underground busway under Sheppard East from Don Mills to the zoo). Yet pretty much everyone is rapidly coming to the conclusion that you're quite possibly a whackjob. Seriously, my Gundammy friend, there's more to forming cogent opinions about transit planning than staring at maps of metro systems in Asia for a few hours.