[Rainforest]

For Eglinton East in particular, I do not suggest cutting any stops. For a pragmatic reason: those stops have been printed on all maps, people expect them, perhaps some moved into the area because they want to live near an LRT stop.

If we cut any stops at the last moment, the locals will get angry. Riders who pass by will benefit, but they will only save 2-3 min per trip, and won't really notice.

Conversely if we keep all stops, then the locals are happy, and the riders who pass by are happy too because they see a massive improvement over the mixed-traffic bus. They won't think that they could save another 2 or 3 min had the stop spacing been wider. Everyone is happy, and the new line is received well.

 

[Rainforest]

But generally, speaking of new transit planning, I disagree with the notion that every transit line has to be optimized for the locals, while people who want faster rides are somehow "selfish".

Let's consider the Yonge subway line. The majority of riders using that line neither live on Yonge near a subway station, nor live on Yonge between the subway stations. The majority live far enough from Yonge that they need to take a bus first, and then they transfer to Yonge subway. That majority doesn't benefit at all from the midblock stops.

How much time would those riders lose if we added more stops? That depends on the number of such stops. If we just want to split every existing 2-km gap in half, that's at most 3 additional stations between Eglinton and Sheppard, and one more between Finch and Steeles. So, the riders that travel from Steeles to south of Eglinton, would lose no more than 3-4 min. I believe that's reasonable.

But, what if the line was designed for a closer stop spacing from the onset? For the every 700m stop pattern, we would need to add 8 stations between St Clair and Steeles. For the every 500 m stop pattern, we would need 17 more stations between Bloor and Steeles. That's no longer a 3-4 min difference in travel time, we are looking at 10-15 min added for each trip. I don't believe that would be a good idea.

What about people with mobility issues? Let's say, person A has mobility issues, lives near Yonge 600 m from the closest subway station, and would be within 100m if another station was added.

Person B has mobility issues, lives far from Yonge in the middle of the block 600 m from the closest bus stop on a major E-W street, and wouldn't benefit at all if another subway station on Yonge was added. Person B is already in a worse situation than Person A. Person B has to make those 600 m to the bus, then endure a ride on the bus that is often crowded and has uneven headways, and then transfer to the subway.

Now, Person A demands an extra subway station, which will make Person B's trip even longer. Person B does not want that. Who is being selfish in that situation? In my opinion, that's Person A.

 

[nfitz]

According to the Auditor General, building Kirby GO on the Barrie Line would've reduced the Barrie Line's annual ridership by 57000, adding 40k km of car driving, and lost GO $900k in fare revenue in the year of 2031 alone by simply existing, and adding the 1 minute end to end travel time.

It adds only one minute? That's very unusual. How slow does it currently travel through that station?

 

[T3G]

Who is being selfish in that situation? In my opinion, that's Person A.

I think this is an absolutely ludicrous assertion. Person B, at this point, is already on the subway, they need to take no further action, they just have to be there and exist as a person. They will lose less than a minute of their life if person A's life is made easier, too.

Crabs in a bucket mentality.

As for stop spacing on Yonge in general, this is one of the many reasons why not planning the line with separate express and local tracks was a huge mistake. We have always known better than our brethren in New York.

 

[Rainforest]

It adds only one minute? That's very unusual. How slow does it currently travel through that station?

I believe that's about right. York Mills to Eglinton (4 km, 1 stop in between) takes 5-6 min. Eglinton to Bloor (same 4 km, but 4 stops in between) takes 8-9 min.

Each trip may be different, but 1 min per each extra stop is a reasonable rule for the estimates.

 

[Rainforest]

I think this is an absolutely ludicrous assertion. Person B, at this point, is already on the subway, they need to take no further action, they just have to be there and exist as a person. They will lose less than a minute of their life if person A's life is made easier, too.

Crabs in a bucket mentality.

I disagree here. Just one extra stop, sure does not make a difference for Person B. But what if that's 10 extra stops, since the whole line is optimized for local travel. Time lost by Person B may be equal or greater than time lost by Person A had the design been optimized for longer trips.

Furthermore, the percentage of people with mobility issues is approximately the same in all areas. If the majority of all riders transfer to subway from the buses, then the majority of people with mobility issues likely transfer to subway from the buses as well. So, the number of people in Person B's situation is greater than the number of people in Person A's situation.

As for stop spacing on Yonge in general, this is one of the many reasons why not planning the line with separate express and local tracks was a huge mistake. We have always known better than our brethren in New York.

That's definitely true. It would be great to have separate express and local tracks, particularly on the Yonge subway. Resulting in both faster trips for long-range riders, and higher overall capacity.

 

[Voltz]

We don't know about the LRT yet, as it hasn't opened, and the schedules not known, but on the subway....

45 seconds. Each stop on average costs a train 45 seconds versus going through at full speed.

Which is hardly significant of course, those who think getting rid of two or three stops will make the line into a crosstown express service that draws riders from the entire GTA are out to lunch. And lets not forget that there are already two other rapid transit lines from Kennedy Station that go in the same general direction, those riders already have fast options.

 

[zang]

You mean penny wise, pound foolish?

No, I intentionally wrote the inverse. As the TTC/City will often throw small amounts of money at something without much thought, but balk at big costs that would make things so much better. Like getting groceries at Dollarama instead of Costco. So they end up spending more money in the long run on half-assed patches.

That's the story of this city.

For the record, I am in support of spending more capex on improved accessibility on the TTC.

I do too. But Wheel Trans isn’t a solution for most people with accessibility issues. We need full accessibility, more frequency and better coverage, and yes we need greater capital and more especially operational subsidy from the province and feds, for more than just happy-feels, photo-ops meant to sway voters.

 

[nfitz]

I believe that's about right. York Mills to Eglinton (4 km, 1 stop in between) takes 5-6 min. Eglinton to Bloor (same 4 km, but 4 stops in between) takes 8-9 min.

Each trip may be different, but 1 min per each extra stop is a reasonable rule for the estimates.

On the subway sure. But I was trying to reply to ARG1's comment about the Barrie line. I fixed my post to make the context clear.

 

[Rainforest]

On the subway sure. But I was trying to reply to ARG1's comment about the Barrie line. I fixed my post to make the context clear.

Got it now. The time cost of an extra GO station should be a lot more than 1 min. Those begemoth GO trains, with a single engine instead of self-propelling MUs, take a lot longer to accelerate or stop.

The 1 min ballpark only works for subway trains or LRT trains.

 

[AHK]

Got it now. The time cost of an extra GO station should be a lot more than 1 min. Those begemoth GO trains, with a single engine instead of self-propelling MUs, take a lot longer to accelerate or stop.

As has been mentioned previously, diesel versus electric has no bearing on stop times. The deceleration and stop times are the same, and are driven by passenger comfort considerations. The difference in time per stop is due only to the relative speeds of acceleration between relatively underpowered diesel trains versus an electric powered (electric locomotive or EMU) based service.

 

[Rainforest]

As has been mentioned previously, diesel versus electric has no bearing on stop times. The deceleration and stop times are the same, and are driven by passenger comfort considerations. The difference in time per stop is due only to the relative speeds of acceleration between relatively underpowered diesel trains versus an electric powered (electric locomotive or EMU) based service.

I wouldn't say passenger comfort is the blocker here, otherwise subway or LRT trains would not be able to stop / start quickly. Obviously, passenger comfort sets certain limits, but I am sure the technical limitations of the existing GO trains kick in well before the passenger comfort limits.

Diesel vs electric, probably doesn't matter much. A big difference comes from: a) The number of powered axles; an MU train gets accelerated by many powered wheels, while an engine-hauled one gets all acceleration from a much smaller number of engine's powered wheels; and b) The weight of cars; since GO train cars must adhere to the mainline collision strength requirements, they are heavier than subway cars of similar capacity.

 

[jje1000]

Has there been any reason to the measurement deviations?

TTC friend said one reason was because the concrete specifications were for summer, and then the pour was delayed to winter?

 

[smallspy]

Got it now. The time cost of an extra GO station should be a lot more than 1 min. Those begemoth GO trains, with a single engine instead of self-propelling MUs, take a lot longer to accelerate or stop.

It is. GO schedules about 2-and-a-bit to 3-and-a-bit minutes per stop, depending on the line's speed.

As has been mentioned previously, diesel versus electric has no bearing on stop times. The deceleration and stop times are the same, and are driven by passenger comfort considerations. The difference in time per stop is due only to the relative speeds of acceleration between relatively underpowered diesel trains versus an electric powered (electric locomotive or EMU) based service.

It's way more nuanced than that.

Below a certain speed, the type of power that the train is using - diesel or electric - is irrelevant and so any train so equipped will accelerate to the same speed. That speed is around 32mph. Above that speed you get into the regime where the diesel engine is no longer able to produce enough amps to supply the traction motors, but the overhead can - and so the acceleration rate of an electric powered train (be it multiple unit or locomotive) is now greater than a diesel. The problem is that at this point the train is already some distance down the track from the previous station and quickly approaching the next.

That rule applies pretty evenly regardless of whether we're talking about locomotive-hauled trains or multiple units.

What is important, however, is that any type of multiple unit-equipped train can accelerate more quickly up to that 32-ish mph faster than a loco-hauled train of the size that GO uses. Above that speed, there is again a change in the acceleration curve, and for the same reasons as above.

This is why in all scenarios simply swapping out electric locos for the diesels only results in minor time savings for local trains, but more major improvements for expresses. And why shortening the trains will allow for the much larger time savings wanted for the local trains without vastly changing the makeup of the fleet.

Dan

 

[jordanmkasla2009]

Has there been any reason to the measurement deviations?

TTC friend said one reason was because the concrete specifications were for summer, and then the pour was delayed to winter?

that reason is pretty negligible since a lot of the pours that happened in the winter were cured using heated tents that raised the ambient temperature to allow for proper curing of the concrete. Concrete shrinks as it cures and sometimes it will shrink more or less than anticipated which can can cause deviations in measurements. Some of those deviations are perfectly acceptable and others, like deviations in the concrete that secure the rails, can cause major issues over time or premature failures