facepalming_brooklynite said:
To create redundancy in the system? To create a more direct North-South route in the West that doesn't force people to detour through chokepoints at St.George or Union? And how do you know that people traveling from Barrie don't want to go to points along the Western part of the Bloor line?
This all seems obvious to me from a transit system perspective.
Click to expand...
I'd agree, but there are 2 main issues I see:

1) The Kitchener Line is... right there, and will have 4 tracks. This leaves room to have as many infill stations as you want while still being able to run express/super express services if the province wished, and could easily act as the "North South Connector" of the area, at least until Weston.

2) The Barrie Line isn't quad tracked, so every additional station will necessarily impact the travel time of the entire line (this is why according to the auditor general, adding stations like Kirby will result in a net negative riders on the line). While electrification, (and later on EMUs will help) will improve travel times, and one could argue that that's enough to offset the additional travel times caused by stations, its still important that the Barrie Line is 101km long, with potential to extend it further (Collingwood, and potentially Orillia/Washago if we can find a new ROW) - every extra bit of time and speed is valuable.

Now should there be some infill stations along the corridor? Sure, and I don't disagree that Bloor (at least with the current state of Toronto Transit) would be a pretty good place to put one. But long term I'm not sure how important it would actually be. I honestly imagine stations like Caledonia and Concord (if built right at least) would be more valuable in the long term for regional connectivity and letting people transfer to where they need to go. Plus, if we ever get the midtown line up and running, that would absolutely be more useful.
 
The objective should be getting more people on Transit. If that means 25,000 boardings at Bloor-Lansdowne slowing down the trip of 2,500 boardings at Waterfront Allandale, so be it. Although IIRC electrification leaves travel times unchanged for the most part with added stations.
 
Jaye101 said:
The objective should be getting more people on Transit. If that means 25,000 boardings at Bloor-Lansdowne slowing down the trip of 2,500 boardings at Waterfront Allandale, so be it. Although IIRC electrification leaves travel times unchanged for the most part with added stations.
Click to expand...
there are differences though - electirfication reduces the travel time penalty of stops, but more stops also prevent travel time savings from electrification which could increase ridership further up the line..

We also have to think about the value of a trip - is it better to have 1,000 50 kilometre trips converted to transit or 10,000 5 kilometre trips converted to transit?
 
Canadian from below!
IMG_5474.jpeg
IMG_5475.jpeg


Apparently there will be a big storm pipe to help with area drainage going underneath the linear park here:
IMG_5453.jpeg
 
Jaye101 said:
The objective should be getting more people on Transit. If that means 25,000 boardings at Bloor-Lansdowne slowing down the trip of 2,500 boardings at Waterfront Allandale, so be it. Although IIRC electrification leaves travel times unchanged for the most part with added stations.
Click to expand...
Assuming your numbers are correct (which I doubt), this is still a false equivalency. We're not talking about all of the boardings at Allandale Waterfront, but also all of the boardings at Barrie South, and Bradford, and Newmarket, and Maple, and every other station along the Barrie Line.
 
Jaye101 said:
The objective should be getting more people on Transit. If that means 25,000 boardings at Bloor-Lansdowne slowing down the trip of 2,500 boardings at Waterfront Allandale, so be it. Although IIRC electrification leaves travel times unchanged for the most part with added stations.
Click to expand...

I would argue the reverse. There is only one corridor available for the regional/intercity service, but any number of options to add higher order transit in the central city. Sacrificing the intercity/regional connectivity for local transit is actually wasteful.
#MountRoyalTunnel

- Paul
 
innsertnamehere said:
there are differences though - electirfication reduces the travel time penalty of stops, but more stops also prevent travel time savings from electrification which could increase ridership further up the line..

We also have to think about the value of a trip - is it better to have 1,000 50 kilometre trips converted to transit or 10,000 5 kilometre trips converted to transit?
Click to expand...
From a revenue perspective 10,000 5 km trips.

We also don't know how many new riders would be attracted by the idea of being able to travel to/from Bloor-Lansdowne to Barrie South, and Bradford, and Newmarket, and Maple.
 
valvenis said:
From a revenue perspective 10,000 5 km trips.

We also don't know how many new riders would be attracted by the idea of being able to travel to/from Bloor-Lansdowne to Barrie South, and Bradford, and Newmarket, and Maple.
Click to expand...
if your goal is simply to maximize transit fare revenue, perhaps.. but remember that a rider from Barrie also pays roughly 3x the fare..

There are a lot more goals in the provision of public transit than just generating fare revenue though - in terms of traffic removal, mobility, etc.

And yea - it's a complex equation which Metrolinx tries to figure out in their business cases. Generally I would expect the travel time savings for the relatively few people getting off at Lansdowne to not be offset by the penalty for the far larger amount of people going through to Union, though.. But again, it's a complex calculation with some complex formulas to figure it all out.
 
innsertnamehere said:
if your goal is simply to maximize transit fare revenue, perhaps.. but remember that a rider from Barrie also pays roughly 3x the fare..

There are a lot more goals in the provision of public transit than just generating fare revenue though - in terms of traffic removal, mobility, etc.

And yea - it's a complex equation which Metrolinx tries to figure out in their business cases. Generally I would expect the travel time savings for the relatively few people getting off at Lansdowne to not be offset by the penalty for the far larger amount of people going through to Union, though.. But again, it's a complex calculation with some complex formulas to figure it all out.
Click to expand...

It's not just a formula - it is the values behind the formula (the latter is just math; the former is why you chose a particular methodology).

AoD
 
June 3
Finally after a year not seeing the site, I ended up shooting the sit. More up on my site, I been on my due list the last year along with a backlog of other site and being saying I will do it this week that have come on gone time over.

They are installing boring panels on the face of the bearer wall with only a few in place. Lots of cables hanging below the guideway with a substation north of Wallace. Wallace road stills needs the track remove as well grading it. Its the only place the existing tracks remains other than the crossing.

Taggers have done a number on the eastside of the bridge, but yet to do the westside
52946772602_695df83c6a_b.jpg

52946772612_b9758936d8_b.jpg

52947831248_64fcb0663b_b.jpg

52946772847_f2233819a5_b.jpg

52947831518_97e492b34e_b.jpg
 
Boomer7 said:
Has there been any more updates as to when? No action has been taken so far wondering if still being done. Thank you
Click to expand...
CP will do it when they think it should be done or have the manpower to do it. They need a window with no traffic to do it and that is usually on a holiday/weekend with July 1st being the next window.

Until it happens, sit back and wait till it happens while enjoying the click e clack of the trains crossing the 140 year crossing.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top