Steve X said:
Except YRT barely operates anything.
Click to expand...
There's a reason why I said "on paper". Also YRT not operating on their Viva routes isn't unique, the frequency of the 99 is identical to the frequency of the 88 Bathurst. As a result at the very least we should be comparing service with the rest of the system.
Steve X said:
Speed wise, VIVA operates just like the Finch West LRT.
Click to expand...
Somehow I doubt that. With the exception of the Highway 7 segment between Yonge and Highway 404, Viva routes have stations every km, meanwhile Finch West with some exceptions have stops as close as 300m, which is the crux of my argument.
Steve X said:
The best in both worlds option is the most economical operating options. On weak local demand corridors like Highway 7 or Eg West, >75% would prefer the faster option leaving a small amount of riders choosing the more local option. This leaves them with a very infrequent service which would drive them to either drive, forgo the trip or walk further to the faster option. This leaves the local option very unstainable and on the elimination list.

This really depends on how we want to shape transit. Do we just build for the majority and screw the minority or do we try to balance everything by adding a few minutes to everyone's trips? The recent RapidTO bus lane experiment has proven that ripping out stops from the minority had pissed a lot of people and forced the TTC to put some of those back in.
Click to expand...

What RapidTO proved was exactly what I'm saying. RapidTO tried to make a compromise between Express and Local services and ended upsetting both. Finch West will do the exact same thing. The stops on Finch West aren't as frequent as the regular bus service, however the stop spacing is still way too short for good longer distance travel. The people that complained about removing stops on RapidTO will still complain about Finch West, and I will complain about having too many stops. This is why a "one size fits all" model that Toronto is trying to do with their Transit City corridors aren't good.
 
ARG1 said:
With the exception of the Highway 7 segment between Yonge and Highway 404, Viva routes have stations every km, meanwhile Finch West with some exceptions have stops as close as 300m, which is the crux of my argument.
Click to expand...

The average stop spacing on Finch West will be ~ 650 m. That's 11 km total length divided by 17 intervals between the stops.

With that spacing, I expect Finch West to work reasonably well for both local and longer-range, and so could Eglinton West. Of course, Eglinton West will have more distant stops now as it is going to be tunneled, and therefore will need local bus service.

Not all corridors are made same, though. The Finch West model would be less appealing on Sheppard East, because the built form there demands more frequent local stops. The 800 m major cross-street pattern requires the stops to be either 800 m apart (too far to walk) or 400 m apart (too close for longer-range trips).

VIVA was built in a completely different environment, with a very light local bus usage except between a few major destinations. It made a perfect sense to strengthen the service between those destinations, and brand it as something more desirable than "just a bus". Had YRT opted for investing in the more frequent local service instead, they would get empty local buses running more frequently, and no ridership boost.
 
Last edited:
Rainforest said:
The average stop spacing on Finch West will be ~ 650 m. That's 11 km total length divided by 17 intervals between the stops.

With that spacing, I expect Finch West to work reasonably well for both local and longer-range, and so could Eglinton West. Of course, Eglinton West will have more distant stops now as it is going to be tunneled, and therefore will need local bus service.

Not all corridors are made same, though. The Finch West model would be less appealing on Sheppard East, because the built form there demands more frequent local stops. The 800 m major cross-street pattern requires the stops to be either 800 m apart (too far to walk) or 400 m apart (too close for longer-range trips).

VIVA was built in a completely different environment, with a very light local bus usage except between a few major destinations. It made a perfect sense to strengthen the service between those destinations, and brand it as something more desirable than "just a bus". Had YRT opted for investing in the more frequent local service instead, they would get empty local buses running more frequently, and no ridership boost.
Click to expand...
That stop spacing is incredibly misleading and doesn't tell the whole story. Part of the reason the numbers look so big is because the line runs through valleys and other areas where there simply aren't stops to put, specifically in sections like between Mount Olive and Rowntree Mills. On the other hand you have stops like Stevenson and Driftwood which really have absolutely no reason to exist at all. Seriously, why does Stevenson need to exist? Including it the line will have 3 STOPS AROUND A SINGLE MALL. That is ridiculous. Driftwood is located a block east of Jane and Finch, why not just have the station at Jane and Finch instead of both? Duncanwoods and Pearldale, do we seriously need both of them?

As for Sheppard East, the built up form of the corridor demands something higher order than LRT. LRT works best for short distances and to serve existing downtown areas. The Sheppard Line is an arterial line that connects 2 disparate city centres, a job that is far better accomplished by a metro. This is why the Eglinton Crosstown being LRT is complete idiocy because the last thing a major crosstown line should be is a bloody LRT. When you have an LRT line that's planned to run from one end of the city to another, you should really reconsider your choice of technology.
 
ARG1 said:
That stop spacing is incredibly misleading and doesn't tell the whole story. Part of the reason the numbers look so big is because the line runs through valleys and other areas where there simply aren't stops to put, specifically in sections like between Mount Olive and Rowntree Mills. On the other hand you have stops like Stevenson and Driftwood which really have absolutely no reason to exist at all. Seriously, why does Stevenson need to exist? Including it the line will have 3 STOPS AROUND A SINGLE MALL. That is ridiculous. Driftwood is located a block east of Jane and Finch, why not just have the station at Jane and Finch instead of both? Duncanwoods and Pearldale, do we seriously need both of them?

As for Sheppard East, the built up form of the corridor demands something higher order than LRT. LRT works best for short distances and to serve existing downtown areas. The Sheppard Line is an arterial line that connects 2 disparate city centres, a job that is far better accomplished by a metro. This is why the Eglinton Crosstown being LRT is complete idiocy because the last thing a major crosstown line should be is a bloody LRT. When you have an LRT line that's planned to run from one end of the city to another, you should really reconsider your choice of technology.
Click to expand...

Absolutely agree with this statement, LRT for Eglinton was a very poor choice.
 
ARG1 said:
That stop spacing is incredibly misleading and doesn't tell the whole story. Part of the reason the numbers look so big is because the line runs through valleys and other areas where there simply aren't stops to put, specifically in sections like between Mount Olive and Rowntree Mills. On the other hand you have stops like Stevenson and Driftwood which really have absolutely no reason to exist at all. Seriously, why does Stevenson need to exist? Including it the line will have 3 STOPS AROUND A SINGLE MALL. That is ridiculous. Driftwood is located a block east of Jane and Finch, why not just have the station at Jane and Finch instead of both? Duncanwoods and Pearldale, do we seriously need both of them?
Click to expand...

The average stop spacing cannot be "misleading", it is a mathematical fact that largely determines the average speed and the total travel time. If the valley sections increase the average spacing, then they improve the total travel time.

Those 3 or 4 questionable mid-block stops may irritate a transit-map purist, but the majority of riders will hardly notice them. Each additional stop may add ~ 1 min to the travel time. Will the riders complain about not saving additional 3-4 min on the trip that could be saved if some stops would not exist? Probably not. People start noticing when the difference is in the 10-15 min range.

ARG1 said:
As for Sheppard East, the built up form of the corridor demands something higher order than LRT. LRT works best for short distances and to serve existing downtown areas. The Sheppard Line is an arterial line that connects 2 disparate city centres, a job that is far better accomplished by a metro. This is why the Eglinton Crosstown being LRT is complete idiocy because the last thing a major crosstown line should be is a bloody LRT. When you have an LRT line that's planned to run from one end of the city to another, you should really reconsider your choice of technology.
Click to expand...

IMHO, Eglinton would be OK with the original design, tunneled in the centre and street-median in the west and east. That's a lot faster than the buses being replaced; probably 80% of the speed benefit would come from the much faster congestion-free central section plus somewhat faster west and east sections. You only get 20% extra speed from building a completely grade-separate line.

However, I see the drawbacks of the piecemeal solution currently on the books: eastern section as per Transit City, but an expensive fully tunneled section in the west. Knowing that the west will be grade-separate, I'd rather do the same in the east to maintain consistency.

Regarding Sheppard, I do not oppose it being a metro, but prefer the TTC to look at the light metro options to limit the expansion costs.
 
Rainforest said:
The average stop spacing cannot be "misleading", it is a mathematical fact that largely determines the average speed and the total travel time. If the valley sections increase the average spacing, then they improve the total travel time.

Those 3 or 4 questionable mid-block stops may irritate a transit-map purist, but the majority of riders will hardly notice them. Each additional stop may add ~ 1 min to the travel time. Will the riders complain about not saving additional 3-4 min on the trip that could be saved if some stops would not exist? Probably not. People start noticing when the difference is in the 10-15 min range.
Click to expand...

Just because its pure math doesn't make it not misleading, because any numbers can be modified under a lens to make it seem like various things. As I mentioned, there are a lot of areas on the line where there are basically no stops, which makes the average stop spacing look decently high. That doesn't mean the line isn't then oversaturated with stops, because once you get to nodes where there are stops, the stop spacing is far closer than that 700m average, which is what's important.
 
Northern Light said:
This has a lot to do with it.

I (and many others here) are very well read on these types of issues; in addition, in many cases to having some level of technical or professional expertise.

That allows a level of discussion (though as we prove here from time to time, does not guarantee same) in which most people cannot or will not engage.

The media is one critical element in synthesizing, summarizing and prioritizing information, ideally w/references and/or links for people to obtain greater detail.

Not everyone can or will be an expert in everything; so the above matters; but it should be said, we do need to foster greater interest, and greater critical thinking skills, particularly with a reference to 'civic's or public administration, to raise
the quality of public discourse.
Click to expand...

Meanwhile the Star covers all 20 times Josh Matlow has tried to bring back the Scarborough LRT

Reecemartin said:
Cross posting a video, this is another project where fare integration is critical, the TYSSE does not make me optimistic. Look at the number *driving* to subway stations:

Click to expand...

How is fare integration relevant to the Eglinton West LRT? Seriously curious . . .
 
superelevation said:
Meanwhile the Star covers all 20 times Josh Matlow has tried to bring back the Scarborough LRT
Click to expand...

Regurgitation may qualify as reporting; but taken in isolation, does not qualify as journalism, at least as I would define it.
 
1609560797530.png

Gotta love how "Eglinton West Elevated is a bad idea because the stairs would discourage riders"

Meanwhile, Caledonia only requires 11 flights of stairs!
 
superelevation said:
How is fare integration relevant to the Eglinton West LRT? Seriously curious . . .
Click to expand...

Because Line 5 at Renforth will border Mississauga and Renforth will connect with the Mississauga Transitway. Not to mention the Airport extension will actually be in Mississauga. Fare integration will be necessary to maximize ridership and make it more convenient for customers.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top