[Bojaxs]

I do not think, in this era of inflation and general purse tightening, that running a parallel bus is a good idea. And how frequently would you run this bus? Is this going to become a 97 Yonge situation, where those not fortunate enough to live within walking distance of a station have to wait 15-30 minutes for a bus, while the subway rumbles past every 2 minutes not 6 feet below them?

I can easily turn that argument around and say in this era of "purse tightening" we should be constructing lines with fewer stations and opting for buses instead.

Is it cheaper to construct a line with more stations and fewer buses, or fewer stations and more buses?

 

[T3G]

I can easily turn that argument around and say in this era of "purse tightening" we should be constructing lines with fewer stations and opting for buses instead.

You could, but it doesn't answer the question. Keep in mind that these "stations" you refer to are surface stops, scarcely more than a concrete platform and a shelter. We aren't talking about underground stations.

So, keeping that in mind, how exactly does constructing lines with fewer stations, and running buses instead, which requires more employees, make more fiscal sense?

Is it cheaper to construct a line with more stations and fewer buses, or fewer stations and more buses?

I don't know, is it cheaper to nix a couple of stops to save 1-3 minutes of travel time, or is it cheaper to have a parallel bus service running a 37 km round trip and averaging 17-18 km/h in mixed traffic, because "new urbanist" transit buffs don't care about the usability of a rapid transit line, only its speed?

 

[adys123]

I do not think, in this era of inflation and general purse tightening, that running a parallel bus is a good idea. And how frequently would you run this bus? Is this going to become a 97 Yonge situation, where those not fortunate enough to live within walking distance of a station have to wait 15-30 minutes for a bus, while the subway rumbles past every 2 minutes not 6 feet below them?

The problem is that for most of the route, a parallel bus service will already be running.

 

[T3G]

The problem is that for most of the route, a parallel bus service will already be running.

Yes, which is a fault in the design of the line. But the more stops you cut, the more people you exclude from the line's catchment area, and the more frequently you will have to run the parallel bus.

 

[adys123]

Yes, which is a fault in the design of the line. But the more stops you cut, the more people you exclude from the line's catchment area, and the more frequently you will have to run the parallel bus.

It depends on the function that you want the line to serve.

 

[T3G]

I want the line to be able to serve many people, and not just those who are privileged enough to live within walking distance of whatever major concession road we decided is worthy of having a transit stop, or along a bus line along the same type of street. For the people who suggest a wider stop spacing fail to consider that not everyone lives right on the street that the transit line serves, so they would first have to walk to that street, and then to whatever stop is near. Not everyone is physically capable of walking such long distances. Then add in inclement weather, and anyone who has alternative options will tell you exactly what you can do with your super speedy chauvinistic transit line.

And to anyone who will point out the fact of the alternative bus service: what evidence do you have that the new service will run at a usable frequency? The 85 Sheppard Yonge - Don Mills never runs better than every 16 minutes (much of the time running every 20-25 minute frequencies), while the 97 usually boasts a spectacular 25-30 minute frequency.

This is not acceptable quality transit service, so if you are telling people to use the parallel bus service, you must think that, for reasons not clear, this bus will run much more frequently than other parallel bus services. And if the parallel buses run so frequently they are competitive to the LRT, you are wasting a ton of money on parallel buses just to avoid inconveniencing the rail passengers with a couple minutes extra travel time, which feels circular and self defeating, because if there's enough demand to justify running parallel buses frequently, why not just have those stops on the rail line?

And all this inconvenience for what? Shaving a couple of minutes off the travel time? Please.

 

[ARG1]

Well, let's see.

Pharmacy to Hakimi Lebovic is about 500 m, which is not dissimilar to the stop spacing on the successful Bloor-Danforth subway.

First, Bloor-Danfroth has roughly 667m on most of the route, which means this is still shorter than typical BD station run.
Second, Hakimi Lebovic to Warden is about 300m, which is incredibly short.

For a suburban LRT in what is stripmall central, 800m stop spacing isn't unreasonable especially since we KNOW that TTC will be running a parallel bus service.

So... which stop, exactly, would you cut?

Let's also not forget Aga Khan which serves virtually nothing. I think Aga Khan, Hakimi-Lebovic, and maybe Ionview have a pretty good reason to be cut.

The downtown streetcars have stops MUCH closer than the Crosstown.

Yes but this isn't Downtown Toronto. As the density of a location decreases, the need for faster travel times inversely increases, and so does the demand for larger station spacing.

This is before I mention that A) BD's stop spacing isn't exactly uncontroversial, you can find many who would suggest that its stop spacing is a bit too tight, and B) Present day land use on Eglinton is nothing like BD. It may be in the future, but as it currently stands BD is far more dense than anywhere on Eglinton East. A more comparable line to Eglinton East would be Viva Blue in Richmond Hill which has a stop every 1-2km, which makes sense for the land use.

I do not think, in this era of inflation and general purse tightening, that running a parallel bus is a good idea. And how frequently would you run this bus? Is this going to become a 97 Yonge situation, where those not fortunate enough to live within walking distance of a station have to wait 15-30 minutes for a bus, while the subway rumbles past every 2 minutes not 6 feet below them?

Fact of the matter is it will. Ever since the disastrous launch of Eglinton East RapidTO where they had ton of local push back from them cutting even the most minor of bus stops, the city has gone into full panic mode and vowed to not cut any bus stops for any reason. This is likely the reason why the RapidTO program slowed to a crawl, and it was soon after this controversy that the TTC announced they won't be cutting 34 bus service between Don Mills and Kennedy.

 

[ARG1]

I want the line to be able to serve many people, and not just those who are privileged enough to live within walking distance of whatever major concession road we decided is worthy of having a transit stop, or along a bus line along the same type of street. For the people who suggest a wider stop spacing fail to consider that not everyone lives right on the street that the transit line serves, so they would first have to walk to that street, and then to whatever stop is near. Not everyone is physically capable of walking such long distances. Then add in inclement weather, and anyone who has alternative options will tell you exactly what you can do with your super speedy chauvinistic transit line.

And to anyone who will point out the fact of the alternative bus service: what evidence do you have that the new service will run at a usable frequency? The 85 Sheppard Yonge - Don Mills never runs better than every 16 minutes (much of the time running every 20-25 minute frequencies), while the 97 usually boasts a spectacular 25-30 minute frequency.

This is not acceptable quality transit service, so if you are telling people to use the parallel bus service, you must think that, for reasons not clear, this bus will run much more frequently than other parallel bus services. And if the parallel buses run so frequently they are competitive to the LRT, you are wasting a ton of money on parallel buses just to avoid inconveniencing the rail passengers with a couple minutes extra travel time, which feels circular and self defeating, because if there's enough demand to justify running parallel buses frequently, why not just have those stops on the rail line?

And all this inconvenience for what? Shaving a couple of minutes off the travel time? Please.

I used to live in Richmond Hill not that far away from Viva Blue, so I can speak from personal experience here. And yes, I did live midblock right between 2 stations that were 1km apart, and yes I did need to use the service daily. I can tell you this right now:

1) Yes, it would've been convenient if there was a stop at my street so that I would walk less.
2) No I wouldn't ever push to add more midblock stops. Sure I had to walk an extra 5m to reach the bus stop, but the amount of time saved not needing to make small pointless stops more than made up for it. Every stop can take up to 30s-1m off the schedule, and over the period of a journey those small stops very much do add up. This is before we mention the fact that yes, most of the ridership generated will come from major arterial stops such as Warden or Kennedy, so cutting stops very much benefits the plurality of riders. To suggest that they should add a midblock stop just so that I'd personally have to walk 5m less would be incredibly selfish.

 

[T3G]

First, Bloor-Danfroth has roughly 667m on most of the route, which means this is still shorter than typical BD station run.

I said it was not dissimilar to the BD, not exactly the same.

At any rate, at that level of stop spacing, ~150 m hardly makes much of a difference. Particularly on a subway train, which is 137 m long, and if you enter at one end of a station, you need not travel that full distance to the other end.

For a suburban LRT in what is stripmall central, 800m stop spacing isn't unreasonable especially since we KNOW that TTC will be running a parallel bus service.

It is also not reasonable, given the TTC's history of parallel bus services for rapid transit lines, to assume it will run at a usable frequency. Thus, the Scarborough stop spacing is reasonable, and the underground section spacing mostly isn't.

Let's also not forget Aga Khan which serves virtually nothing. I think Aga Khan, Hakimi-Lebovic, and maybe Ionview have a pretty good reason to be cut.

The discussion was about east of Victoria Park, so I intentionally did not mention anything west of there.

It is tempting to cut Hakimi Lebovic, but there are many trip generators there, from people working the retail plaza there.

There are loads of highrises within walking distance of Ionview, so I cannot fathom what benefit there would be to axing that one.

A) BD's stop spacing isn't exactly uncontroversial, you can find many who would suggest that its stop spacing is a bit too tight

I definitely do not think this. Many? Perhaps a few. But I'm pretty sure if you went into most forums that concern themselves with Toronto affairs and suggested nixing every other stop along the line, you would be tarred and feathered. And while the BD line perhaps could not be fully called "uncontroversial", it is nonetheless a) pretty objectively successful, and b) the most democratic subway line. There are vast swathes of Yonge Street north of St. Clair which suffer from infinitely shittier service than they had in the days of the Yonge Streetcar (the Thornhill and Richmond Hill interurbans were operating in 1928 at 10-15 minute frequencies in the daytime, which is better than the 97!)

Fact of the matter is it will.

I know it will. If there was any doubt left that we are a deeply unserious banana republic that doesn't know anything about transit, this should do it.

Running bus services parallel to a rapid transit line makes sense in places like Manhattan, where there are SO many people, and SO many destinations on every block. Unfortunately, Toronto bears no resemblance to Manhattan, least of all Scarborough, where the Eglinton line will essentially function as a local streetcar would. The stop spacing selected on the above ground section is one of the very few aspects of the project they got completely right.

2) No I wouldn't ever push to add more midblock stops. Sure I had to walk an extra 5m to reach the bus stop, but the amount of time saved not needing to make small pointless stops more than made up for it. Every stop can take up to 30s-1m off the schedule, and over the period of a journey those small stops very much do add up. This is before we mention the fact that yes, most of the ridership generated will come from major arterial stops such as Warden or Kennedy, so cutting stops very much benefits the plurality of riders. To suggest that they should add a midblock stop just so that I'd personally have to walk 5m less would be incredibly selfish.

It was no problem for you to walk an extra 5 minutes. This a) presumes that, in all instances of stops being cut, it would only add a trivial 5 minutes, and b) that everyone is capable of walking extra distance. You want to talk about saving time and selfishness? Having a few extra stops along the Scarborough portion of the line will probably add a total of less than 5 minutes extra travel time to your journey. What about someone who doesn't live near a major arterial stop?

Let's consider a traveller with mobility challenges coming from Ionview and Landseer, which is about a 5 minute walk (ideal) from the Ionview stop along Ionview Road. He has a few options here. He can walk south to the Ionview stop.

Or, he can walk east to Kennedy Road and wait for a 43 bus, which will then take him into Kennedy station. According to Google Maps, this can take around 15 minutes, and that presumes he has no wait time! It is about 7 minutes, ideal (more if you have mobility challenges) to the stop at Kennedy and Landseer, 4 minutes to get to Kennedy station, and then you have to find your way around the station until you reach the Eglinton loading platform, which could take 3-5 minutes. And then he has to wait for the next train.

Under your proposed plan, he would either have to backtrack to Kennedy as indicated above, or wait at the Ionview local bus stop like an idiot from a Soviet satire while trams rush past him every 5 minutes. If he's missed his local bus, he could have anywhere from a 15 to a 30 minute waiting time, depending on what service plan the TTC has selected. If he were able bodied, it would be little hardship for him to walk to Birchmount, if annoying or even deeply unpleasant depending on the weather conditions. Someone with mobility challenges might not be up for walking even further, so they either have to wait, or, if they are lucky, they will take the car and eschew the train altogether. Even someone fully able bodied would take about 8 minutes to make the trek from Ionview to Birchmount. You want to talk about saving time? Why is it more important that you shave 30 seconds off your commute, rather than that someone else shaves 8 minutes off of theirs?

The nature of public transit is inherently such that its users have to make sacrifices. We do it all the time. We accept low floor buses, with their lesser ride quality (in the case of GO Transit's double decker buses, biblically bad ride quality) and their more cramped floor plan, even though a majority of transit riders are able bodied and have zero valid reasons to complain about stairs, because of the fact that those who are disabled, suffer from mobility challenges, or have a stroller are entitled to the same rights and freedoms as those who are able bodied. We accept the delays that come with deploying a ramp or lift to accomodate these customers, which can take a plurality of minutes if the vehicle is cramped, or has a mid vehicle ramp as on the low floor streetcars. We accept shuttle buses due to trackwork, because future people's rights not to be maimed or killed in a derailment are more important than your right to have the fastest possible commute on any given day. So why draw the line at stop spacing? Why are some riders entitled to have a slightly (and most importantly of all: trivially) quicker commute at the expense of those who would have a much longer commute?

Incredibly selfish is trying to turn a local streetcar into a GO train.

 

[adys123]

I said it was not dissimilar to the BD, not exactly the same.

At any rate, at that level of stop spacing, ~150 m hardly makes much of a difference. Particularly on a subway train, which is 137 m long, and if you enter at one end of a station, you need not travel that full distance to the other end.


It is also not reasonable, given the TTC's history of parallel bus services for rapid transit lines, to assume it will run at a usable frequency. Thus, the Scarborough stop spacing is reasonable, and the underground section spacing mostly isn't.


The discussion was about east of Victoria Park, so I intentionally did not mention anything west of there.

It is tempting to cut Hakimi Lebovic, but there are many trip generators there, from people working the retail plaza there.

There are loads of highrises within walking distance of Ionview, so I cannot fathom what benefit there would be to axing that one.


I definitely do not think this. Many? Perhaps a few. But I'm pretty sure if you went into most forums that concern themselves with Toronto affairs and suggested nixing every other stop along the line, you would be tarred and feathered. And while the BD line perhaps could not be fully called "uncontroversial", it is nonetheless a) pretty objectively successful, and b) the most democratic subway line. There are vast swathes of Yonge Street north of St. Clair which suffer from infinitely shittier service than they had in the days of the Yonge Streetcar (the Thornhill and Richmond Hill interurbans were operating in 1928 at 10-15 minute frequencies in the daytime, which is better than the 97!)


I know it will. If there was any doubt left that we are a deeply unserious banana republic that doesn't know anything about transit, this should do it.

Running bus services parallel to a rapid transit line makes sense in places like Manhattan, where there are SO many people, and SO many destinations on every block. Unfortunately, Toronto bears no resemblance to Manhattan, least of all Scarborough, where the Eglinton line will essentially function as a local streetcar would. The stop spacing selected on the above ground section is one of the very few aspects of the project they got completely right.




It was no problem for you to walk an extra 5 minutes. This a) presumes that, in all instances of stops being cut, it would only add a trivial 5 minutes, and b) that everyone is capable of walking extra distance. You want to talk about saving time and selfishness? Having a few extra stops along the Scarborough portion of the line will probably add a total of less than 5 minutes extra travel time to your journey. What about someone who doesn't live near a major arterial stop?

Let's consider a traveller with mobility challenges coming from Ionview and Landseer, which is about a 5 minute walk (ideal) from the Ionview stop along Ionview Road. He has a few options here. He can walk south to the Ionview stop.

Or, he can walk east to Kennedy Road and wait for a 43 bus, which will then take him into Kennedy station. According to Google Maps, this can take around 15 minutes, and that presumes he has no wait time! It is about 7 minutes, ideal (more if you have mobility challenges) to the stop at Kennedy and Landseer, 4 minutes to get to Kennedy station, and then you have to find your way around the station until you reach the Eglinton loading platform, which could take 3-5 minutes. And then he has to wait for the next train.

Under your proposed plan, he would either have to backtrack to Kennedy as indicated above, or wait at the Ionview local bus stop like an idiot from a Soviet satire while trams rush past him every 5 minutes. If he's missed his local bus, he could have anywhere from a 15 to a 30 minute waiting time, depending on what service plan the TTC has selected. If he were able bodied, it would be little hardship for him to walk to Birchmount, if annoying or even deeply unpleasant depending on the weather conditions. Someone with mobility challenges might not be up for walking even further, so they either have to wait, or, if they are lucky, they will take the car and eschew the train altogether. Even someone fully able bodied would take about 8 minutes to make the trek from Ionview to Birchmount. You want to talk about saving time? Why is it more important that you shave 30 seconds off your commute, rather than that someone else shaves 8 minutes off of theirs?

The nature of public transit is inherently such that its users have to make sacrifices. We do it all the time. We accept low floor buses, with their lesser ride quality (in the case of GO Transit's double decker buses, biblically bad ride quality) and their more cramped floor plan, even though a majority of transit riders are able bodied and have zero valid reasons to complain about stairs, because of the fact that those who are disabled, suffer from mobility challenges, or have a stroller are entitled to the same rights and freedoms as those who are able bodied. We accept the delays that come with deploying a ramp or lift to accomodate these customers, which can take a plurality of minutes if the vehicle is cramped, or has a mid vehicle ramp as on the low floor streetcars. We accept shuttle buses due to trackwork, because future people's rights not to be maimed or killed in a derailment are more important than your right to have the fastest possible commute on any given day. So why draw the line at stop spacing? Why are some riders entitled to have a slightly (and most importantly of all: trivially) quicker commute at the expense of those who would have a much longer commute?

Incredibly selfish is trying to turn a local streetcar into a GO train.

The problem here on the stop spacing is more so that it is neither close enough to provide a local service, nor far enough to be used as a fast crosstown service. Transit accessibility is an inherent tradeoff between various factors including speed and access. Given the long travel times in this city and the region's auto-dominant land use, there has been much more a focus on speed as that is the best way to make transit attractive. Generally, this is a practice used in transit planning outside of North America as well; instead they focus on building their cities' to be more walkable and cyclable, reducing the burden of stop access.

While I can understand the goal of accessibility, it is inefficient to use modes of transportation that are more efficient at higher speeds and fewer stops to provide this accessibility because it will only result in a service that transit-dependent users will use if it is not competitive.

 

[ARG1]

I said it was not dissimilar to the BD, not exactly the same.

At any rate, at that level of stop spacing, ~150 m hardly makes much of a difference. Particularly on a subway train, which is 137 m long, and if you enter at one end of a station, you need not travel that full distance to the other end.

That's still a 25% decrease in run length which definitely adds up.

It is also not reasonable, given the TTC's history of parallel bus services for rapid transit lines, to assume it will run at a usable frequency. Thus, the Scarborough stop spacing is reasonable, and the underground section spacing mostly isn't.

15m is absolutely usable frequency.

The discussion was about east of Victoria Park, so I intentionally did not mention anything west of there.

I mean sure, but the overall point is the surface section as a whole.

It is tempting to cut Hakimi Lebovic, but there are many trip generators there, from people working the retail plaza there.

Eh? I mean sure but the same plaza also reaches Warden. Its All of the stores are well within walking distance of either warden or Pharmacy.

I definitely do not think this. Many? Perhaps a few. But I'm pretty sure if you went into most forums that concern themselves with Toronto affairs and suggested nixing every other stop along the line, you would be tarred and feathered. And while the BD line perhaps could not be fully called "uncontroversial", it is nonetheless a) pretty objectively successful, and b) the most democratic subway line. There are vast swathes of Yonge Street north of St. Clair which suffer from infinitely shittier service than they had in the days of the Yonge Streetcar (the Thornhill and Richmond Hill interurbans were operating in 1928 at 10-15 minute frequencies in the daytime, which is better than the 97!)

Obviously no one is suggesting that we go and close a few subway stations. What's built is built and closing perfectly fine stations is silly. However many will make the argument that if the line was being built the line today, we should consolidate some of the stations. My overall point is BD is by no means a great standard to compare your stop spacing with.

As a side note:
1) I object to your use of the word "democratic" to refer to Yonge Line stop spacing, and
2) I can definitely agree that maybe there should be infill stations at Blythwood and Melrose, but that would still put the stop spacing at a reasonable 1km; not 667m and definitely not 500m.

I know it will. If there was any doubt left that we are a deeply unserious banana republic that doesn't know anything about transit, this should do it.

Running bus services parallel to a rapid transit line makes sense in places like Manhattan, where there are SO many people, and SO many destinations on every block. Unfortunately, Toronto bears no resemblance to Manhattan, least of all Scarborough, where the Eglinton line will essentially function as a local streetcar would. The stop spacing selected on the above ground section is one of the very few aspects of the project they got completely right.

If that's the case then why do we have express busses in the first place? Why even bother with the 900 series busses? Fact of the matter is the time saving and economic benefits achieved with 900 series busses is real, and as "rapid transit" these lines should try be trying to replace those services.

It was no problem for you to walk an extra 5 minutes. This a) presumes that, in all instances of stops being cut, it would only add a trivial 5 minutes, and b) that everyone is capable of walking extra distance. You want to talk about saving time and selfishness? Having a few extra stops along the Scarborough portion of the line will probably add a total of less than 5 minutes extra travel time to your journey. What about someone who doesn't live near a major arterial stop?

A) They represent a minority, B) The 5 minutes is based off Google Maps walking speed which is typically very generous.

Let's consider a traveller with mobility challenges coming from Ionview and Landseer, which is about a 5 minute walk (ideal) from the Ionview stop along Ionview Road. He has a few options here. He can walk south to the Ionview stop.

Or, he can walk east to Kennedy Road and wait for a 43 bus, which will then take him into Kennedy station. According to Google Maps, this can take around 15 minutes, and that presumes he has no wait time! It is about 7 minutes, ideal (more if you have mobility challenges) to the stop at Kennedy and Landseer, 4 minutes to get to Kennedy station, and then you have to find your way around the station until you reach the Eglinton loading platform, which could take 3-5 minutes. And then he has to wait for the next train.

Under your proposed plan, he would either have to backtrack to Kennedy as indicated above, or wait at the Ionview local bus stop like an idiot from a Soviet satire while trams rush past him every 5 minutes. If he's missed his local bus, he could have anywhere from a 15 to a 30 minute waiting time, depending on what service plan the TTC has selected. If he were able bodied, it would be little hardship for him to walk to Birchmount, if annoying or even deeply unpleasant depending on the weather conditions. Someone with mobility challenges might not be up for walking even further, so they either have to wait, or, if they are lucky, they will take the car and eschew the train altogether. Even someone fully able bodied would take about 8 minutes to make the trek from Ionview to Birchmount. You want to talk about saving time? Why is it more important that you shave 30 seconds off your commute, rather than that someone else shaves 8 minutes off of theirs?

Because its not just me saving 30s off my commute, its me and the majority of people that got on at a major arterial through connecting bus services. Remember, this is "Rapid Transit", in contrast to the existing bus and which is also "supposed to be" different from the Streetcar network. The whole point is to be a major transit arterial that gets from 1 end of the city to the other quickly. I thought that's why its branded as "Line 5" and not the "534".

The nature of public transit is inherently such that its users have to make sacrifices. We do it all the time. We accept low floor buses, with their lesser ride quality (in the case of GO Transit's double decker buses, biblically bad ride quality) and their more cramped floor plan, even though a majority of transit riders are able bodied and have zero valid reasons to complain about stairs, because of the fact that those who are disabled, suffer from mobility challenges, or have a stroller are entitled to the same rights and freedoms as those who are able bodied. We accept the delays that come with deploying a ramp or lift to accomodate these customers, which can take a plurality of minutes if the vehicle is cramped, or has a mid vehicle ramp as on the low floor streetcars. We accept shuttle buses due to trackwork, because future people's rights not to be maimed or killed in a derailment are more important than your right to have the fastest possible commute on any given day. So why draw the line at stop spacing? Why are some riders entitled to have a slightly (and most importantly of all: trivially) quicker commute at the expense of those who would have a much longer commute?

Incredibly selfish is trying to turn a local streetcar into a GO train.

I'm not trying to turn a local streetcar into a GO train, I'm trying to turn a "Rapid Transit Light Rail Line" into "A Cost Effective Alternative to the Subway", which is how LRT is being marketed. Again, this is supposed to be "Line 5", not the "534 Streetcar", so there is very much an expectation that it should be an express crosstown service where speed and automobile competitiveness is a major factor. I agree, users need to make sacrifices, but that's the nature of an express route, especially one that's trying to be a crosstown Rapid Transit Line. There will be people en route that are not served well, but this is exactly where local busses, dedicated bike infrastructure, and local mobility plus/wheel-trans services are supposed to come into play.

 

[Voltz]

The problem here on the stop spacing is more so that it is neither close enough to provide a local service, nor far enough to be used as a fast crosstown service.

Based on what, just how much time is being lost with the stops you want to remove?

And just how will getting rid of a stop or two save that much time that the line becomes a magnet for crosstown trips?

 

[drum118]

When one says that stations are to be 1000+m apart to allow for faster speed, they forget how far riders who do not live on the line itself have to walk to get to a station. Between ring road, cul-de-sac and how blocks are layout, the walking distance can be 2-3 times the distance between stops. For some able body people, it's no problem while it is for others. Then there are the families with small children, people with canes, walkers, and the rest of the accessibility community. I have a 15 minute walk to a stop and don't support stops under 200m

Those long walks in pleasant weather are one thing, but in bitter winter with raw wind is not so great.

While talking to crews on the Hurontario LRT project these days, it has been said there have been several tunnels blow out and this could be related to water issues that have been noted in the past. Trains run slowly through these areas. I don't know how true this is.

 

[T3G]

15m is absolutely usable frequency.

I certainly do not think so. If I had an alternative option, I would never wait 15 minutes for a bus. For me, 12 is the absolute longest I'm willing to wait for local public transit.

GO is different, because one typically makes an appointment to be at the station for a certain departure. But in local transit settings, with a lot of people making spur of the moment ridership decisions, 15 minutes is a repulsively bad frequency.

This also ties into this comment you make later on:

If that's the case then why do we have express busses in the first place? Why even bother with the 900 series busses? Fact of the matter is the time saving and economic benefits achieved with 900 series busses is real, and as "rapid transit" these lines should try be trying to replace those services.

I am not aware of any line with an express service, where the local service runs every 15-30 minutes, with the one exception of the 45, which is supplemented by the 945 running local north of Belfield. The lines served by expresses have good local frequencies, as well. This would not be a case of local and express complementing each other, it would be a case of the express hogging all the resources and the local being thrown a half chewed bone just so that it can be said that it is not completely neglected.

However many will make the argument that if the line was being built the line today, we should consolidate some of the stations. My overall point is BD is by no means a great standard to compare your stop spacing with.

And which stations are those? Aside from possibly Chester.

1) I object to your use of the word "democratic" to refer to Yonge Line stop spacing

Why is that? If the Yonge line is only useful for the people who live close to its far apart stations, or those who live along a bus line that terminates at one of those stations, how could it be considered democratic? Big stretches of Yonge Street only have a bus that runs every 25-30 minutes. For them, the Yonge subway may as well not exist.

A) They represent a minority

Do they? I would think the stretches of Eglinton not within short distance of a major arterial are much more than the ones that are.

B) The 5 minutes is based off Google Maps walking speed which is typically very generous.

I wasn't referring to walking speed, I was referring to the added time that the extra stops would add to your trip. If you nixed the Ionview, Hakimi Lebovic, and Aga Khan stops, the time savings would be much less than 5 minutes.

If the average loading time at each of those 3 stops was 40 seconds (which is a generous estimate incorporating braking and acceleration speeds), that means that if those 3 stops were axed, you would save a whopping 2 minutes.

Remember, this is "Rapid Transit", in contrast to the existing bus and which is also "supposed to be" different from the Streetcar network. The whole point is to be a major transit arterial that gets from 1 end of the city to the other quickly.

If 2 minutes of extra travel time is the difference between a rapid transit line and a streetcar line, I think we have bigger problems here. And:

its me and the majority of people that got on at a major arterial through connecting bus services.

If the majority of people balk at having their trip take a couple of minutes extra, for the benefit of many other people, it is still a selfish view. Selfish and foolish views do not stop being so if the majority subscribe to them.

so there is very much an expectation that it should be an express crosstown service where speed and automobile competitiveness is a major factor.

If such an expectation does exist, I would say it betrays rather a misunderstanding about how transit is supposed to work. There are places where transit can be time competitive to the car, but it's usually in highly dense, high traffic urban environments such as Manhattan. In suburbia, or on crosstown trips, transit will almost never be competitive to the car, save for during rush hour, and that's only because so many people are out, so surface transit is bad.

As of this writing, to get from Kennedy to Kipling station by line 2 would take me 50 minutes, while the same trip would only take me 34 minutes by car. To get from Finch to Union would take me 40 minutes by line 1, or 29 minutes by car. Union station - Burlington GO right now is 40 minutes by car vs 1 hour 10 minutes by train. Union station - Milton GO is 42 minutes by car, or 1 hour 30 minutes by transit. If we were defining successful transit by its automobile competitiveness, we would only ever run it at rush hour.

Automobile competitiveness by sheer speed is not possible, and we should not be aiming for it, especially in this short sighted way of having ultra wide stop spacing so we can shave minutes off the travel time. If you want people to stop using the car, you need to make using the car uncomfortable, and make using transit comfortable.

When one says that stations are to be 1000+m apart to allow for faster speed, they forget how far riders who do not live on the line itself have to walk to get to a station. Between ring road, cul-de-sac and how blocks are layout, the walking distance can be 2-3 times the distance between stops.

This is also very true. This argument that 1 km + is an ideal stop spacing seems to presume that everyone lives right along the street that the line runs on. Some people might have a half a kilometre or even a kilometre journey from their residence just to reach the main road.

 

[drum118]

I certainly do not think so. If I had an alternative option, I would never wait 15 minutes for a bus. For me, 12 is the absolute longest I'm willing to wait for local public transit.

GO is different, because one typically makes an appointment to be at the station for a certain departure. But in local transit settings, with a lot of people making spur of the moment ridership decisions, 15 minutes is a repulsively bad frequency.

This also ties into this comment you make later on:


I am not aware of any line with an express service, where the local service runs every 15-30 minutes, with the one exception of the 45, which is supplemented by the 945 running local north of Belfield. The lines served by expresses have good local frequencies, as well. This would not be a case of local and express complementing each other, it would be a case of the express hogging all the resources and the local being thrown a half chewed bone just so that it can be said that it is not completely neglected.


And which stations are those? Aside from possibly Chester.


Why is that? If the Yonge line is only useful for the people who live close to its far apart stations, or those who live along a bus line that terminates at one of those stations, how could it be considered democratic? Big stretches of Yonge Street only have a bus that runs every 25-30 minutes. For them, the Yonge subway may as well not exist.


Do they? I would think the stretches of Eglinton not within short distance of a major arterial are much more than the ones that are.


I wasn't referring to walking speed, I was referring to the added time that the extra stops would add to your trip. If you nixed the Ionview, Hakimi Lebovic, and Aga Khan stops, the time savings would be much less than 5 minutes.

If the average loading time at each of those 3 stops was 40 seconds (which is a generous estimate incorporating braking and acceleration speeds), that means that if those 3 stops were axed, you would save a whopping 2 minutes.


If 2 minutes of extra travel time is the difference between a rapid transit line and a streetcar line, I think we have bigger problems here. And:

If the majority of people balk at having their trip take a couple of minutes extra, for the benefit of many other people, it is still a selfish view. Selfish and foolish views do not stop being so if the majority subscribe to them.


If such an expectation does exist, I would say it betrays rather a misunderstanding about how transit is supposed to work. There are places where transit can be time competitive to the car, but it's usually in highly dense, high traffic urban environments such as Manhattan. In suburbia, or on crosstown trips, transit will almost never be competitive to the car, save for during rush hour, and that's only because so many people are out, so surface transit is bad.

As of this writing, to get from Kennedy to Kipling station by line 2 would take me 50 minutes, while the same trip would only take me 34 minutes by car. To get from Finch to Union would take me 40 minutes by line 1, or 29 minutes by car. Union station - Burlington GO right now is 40 minutes by car vs 1 hour 10 minutes by train. Union station - Milton GO is 42 minutes by car, or 1 hour 30 minutes by transit. If we were defining successful transit by its automobile competitiveness, we would only ever run it at rush hour.

Automobile competitiveness by sheer speed is not possible, and we should not be aiming for it, especially in this short sighted way of having ultra wide stop spacing so we can shave minutes off the travel time. If you want people to stop using the car, you need to make using the car uncomfortable, and make using transit comfortable.


This is also very true. This argument that 1 km + is an ideal stop spacing seems to presume that everyone lives right along the street that the line runs on. Some people might have a half a kilometre or even a kilometre journey from their residence just to reach the main road.

I have no choice due to road layout and that time will increase another 3 minutes when the LRT starts service. My stop is being moved considering there is a bus cross route there now. That cross route will see a walking transfer to transfers from one route to another.

Whoa!! You want to remove those stops to save a few minutes of traveling time and forcing riders to walk long distances. I walked that long distance during the construction of the line while photographing it. Other than Aga Khan which I have question why there other than who it for, the other stops have bus service. Currently, those are exceptionally long blocks between those stops.

As for your 50 minutes to Kipling to Kennedey, it is a few minutes longer than the 45-minute trips I have done. As for a 34-minute car ride, that must be on a good day, and you will have a lot more bad days than good ones while putting yourself through a stressful trip. I would use transit in place of driving regardless of it being several minutes longer.