[nfitz]

Where do you come up with these numbers??? Using insertnamehere's route it's 3-3.5km from Pape Station to downtown (King Station). Even if the DRL only averaged 20km/h due to ridiculously tight stop spacing (esp given the paucity of N/S stations between Pape Station and Queen/Eastern), that's 10minutes.

Why use 20 km/hr? Why not used the numbers in the TTC study - http://www.ttc.ca/PDF/About_the_TTC/DRTES_Final_Report_-_September_2012.pdf

There were:

34 km/h from Pape Station to Sherbourne / King
25 km/h from Sherbourne / King to Spadina
34 km/h from Spadina to Dundas West Station

With a distance of Pape station to King/Sherbourne of 4.9 km and King/Sherbourne to Yonge of 0.8 km, I get 11 minutes from Pape station to King station. (those are the distances I measured from Google when the report came out last year).

This compares to the TTC's published travel time of 7 minutes from Pape to Bloor/Yonge and 6 minutes from Bloor/Yonge to King. Assuming that one spends the same time transferring at Bloor/Yonge as Pape, that's 11 minutes of travel time compared to 13.

To a great extent, choice would be governed by which station is more convenient. If you work at King/Bay then you'd likely be closer to the DRL platform than the Yonge platform. If you worked at Dundas/Yonge it's a no brainer that you take Yonge.

You've missed the time taken for the customer to make the transfer and exit the station at the other end.

Fair enough, but if your comparing route A to route B, which both have 1 transfer, you can neglect those, as they are constant ... except as I noted above for the location of the downtown destination.

 

[diminutive]

Why use 20 km/hr? Why not used the numbers in the TTC study - http://www.ttc.ca/PDF/About_the_TTC/DRTES_Final_Report_-_September_2012.pdf.

Because rbt is basing his route on some kind of bizarre <500m station spacing which would ostensibly render the DRL completely unsuitable for relieving the Yonge line. Where that route comes from, I've got no idea. I suspect it's a straw man of sorts on his part to suggest "a compromise DRL will do neither job well" by moving the goalposts of 'express' and 'local' to extremes nobody's ever considered. In my opinion, a the biggest difference you would see between a 'local' and 'express' DRL would be one or two stations.

To a great extent, choice would be governed by which station is more convenient. If you work at King/Bay then you'd likely be closer to the DRL platform than the Yonge platform. If you worked at Dundas/Yonge it's a no brainer that you take Yonge.

Yea, I agree. There are limits to how much relief a DRL could provide given its basic routing. Even if the DRL to downtown was, for the sake of argument, 7 minutes to downtown (King) vs. 14 on Yonge, passengers heading for Yonge & Dundas or even maybe Queen would still be better off taking Yonge just to avoid transfering for a second time (King north bound...). Marginally, the relief impact of speeding up the DRL relative to Yonge wouldn't be very high.

Westbound Bloor Danforth-> southbound Yonge passengers only make 1/5th-1/4 of Yonge's capacity south of Bloor anyhow (9k/38k). Obviously that's a big chunk (I think the biggest single chunk). The basic DRL should poach just under half of those riders anyways. Of the remaining 5k transfers, surely a good portion will never be enticed to take the DRL regardless of how fast it was simply because they're bound for areas the DRL doesn't intersect and don't want to transfer twice.

If you reduced travel time on the DRL substantially from 11minutes through removing stations between Pape and King, how many marginal transfers would realistically be induced? The number can't be terribly large and would almost certainly be lower than the number of potential passengers lost from removing stations.

 

[nfitz]

If you reduced travel time on the DRL substantially from 11minutes through removing stations between Pape and King, how many marginal transfers would realistically be induced? The number can't be terribly large and would almost certainly be lower than the number of potential passengers lost from removing stations.

Looking at the report, the only station that possibly could be removed is either Queen/River or King/Sherbourne. So what's the savings ... 1 minute?

The way to do this is very careful, detailed, modelling on what travel times, station configurations, and locations minimize the southbound AM peak passenger flow between Bloor and Wellesley station.

Sooner or later though (30 years? 50 years? 100 years) they are going to have to do something to significantly increase capacity on Yonge beyond the current plans. But that's an issue for another generation.

 

[BurlOak]

To a great extent, choice would be governed by which station is more convenient. If you work at King/Bay then you'd likely be closer to the DRL platform than the Yonge platform. If you worked at Dundas/Yonge it's a no brainer that you take Yonge.

Fair enough, but if your comparing route A to route B, which both have 1 transfer, you can neglect those, as they are constant ... except as I noted above for the location of the downtown destination.

Nobody will transfer twice. I agree that the more convenient station will win, so the DRL needs to pick a reasonable east-west route.

Although in the grand scheme of things, the transfers at Yonge and Pape are constant, but the reality is that it will be difficult to convert a minor staion like Pape to a major interchange. Yonge-Bloor will have better passenger flow since it was designed that way from the start, and not shoe-horned in later. But Yonge will always be busier, so it maybe cancels out.

 

[rbt]

Because rbt is basing his route on some kind of bizarre <500m station spacing which would ostensibly render the DRL completely unsuitable for relieving the Yonge line. Where that route comes from, I've got no idea.

The assertion was that we can replace the King Streetcar with a subway. This has serious political ramifications, particularly since City Council, Metrolinx, and TTC frequently cave to local protest.

I'm using the route that locals losing their door-front streetcar will demand and most likely receive.

Look at the make up of the neighbourhoods involved. Co-operatives, recently and soon to be retired (house rich, hate walking), and bits of social housing; they have time, and are used to working together. They like small scale, they're very invested in their location (many having lived here for 40+ years), and have actually rejected a subway in the past. This is the area that at one point gave Toronto strict height limits purposefully to restrict growth. You may have met a few at the Waterfront Toronto meetings for West Donlands and East Bayfront.

UPG through Weston was a cakewalk compared to this proposal; and Weston won numerous concessions.


What is technically right/best/cheapest doesn't matter. Transit in Toronto is defined largely by politics; and in that area they still play by the Layton/Crombie rulebook.


West of downtown? Sure, not a problem. East of downtown is going to be one heck of a fight, and the local residents will win as they almost always have over the last 40 years.

 

[innsertnamehere]

No they won't. Stop using hypotheticals as the base of your argument. Nobody seems to be screaming for 300m stop spacing on Eglinton to replace the Bus service. They get angry when a station is proposed to be cut and leaving 2km without service, sure, but none of them complained about the service with 700-1000m stop spacing that is being built. Nobody in their right minds is going to demand a station at sherbourne when there is one at Jarvis and Parliament. Another example is when Ford changed transit city around and stuck the LRT underground. A lot of stops got eliminated, (lebovic, ionview, etc) and nobody said a peep. 600-700m has been proven to be a suitable replacement service, and that is what I am proposing, at least along king street. I stretched the spacing out along Roncasvalles for a couple of reasons;

1. Residents of Roncasvalles are going to be opposed to a subway even if it 150 meter stop spacing.. they like the small feel of the street and wouldn't want to lose it.
2. I know that I can't eliminate the streetcar because of that want to have a small town feel, so I stuck a single station in and just had it tunnel the rest of the distance.

as for wider stop spacing on the eastern portion east of the Don, it had more to do with the fact that there are only really 2 useful stops on the line without introducing 300m stop spacing, which for obvious reasons is undesirable.

 

[diminutive]

The assertion was that we can replace the King Streetcar with a subway. This has serious political ramifications, particularly since City Council, Metrolinx, and TTC frequently cave to local protest.

I'm using the route that locals losing their door-front streetcar will demand and most likely receive.

This is a ridiculous hypothetical. There's not a single case where local residents have complained about the kind of spacing most of us are talking about.

If anything, local residents would be far more hostile to your proposal which would barely stop at all so that Scarberians can save a minute or two en route to downtown.

Look at the make up of the neighbourhoods involved. Co-operatives, recent retirees (house rich, left leaning, hate walking), and bits of social housing. Many have commutted downtown via King for 30+ years and rather nostalgic for the old days. You may have met a few at the Waterfront Toronto meetings for West Donlands.

That's not even true. These areas have way more residents in the 18-30 age range than city averages, and the new condos that are being built tend to skew towards younger single types (the empty-nest phenomenon hasn't really happened).

Sure, there are crotchety old people who will complain. That's a constant for any proposal.

What is technically right/best/cheapest doesn't matter. Transit in Toronto is defined largely by politics.

Transit everywhere is political. That's hardly a novel observation, and it doesn't preclude 700m station spacing.

Want a real political stinker? A subway which costs billions of dollars, would require massive construction (delays) across downtown, yet has no stations downtown, and would only end up saving Scarborough commuters a couple minutes. All the new condo owners downtown will be apoplectic when they find out they'll have to deal with years of construction delays without getting alternatives to a streetcar network which by then will probably travel at walking speeds throughout daylight hours.

It's really ironic you mention Weston since you're proposing more or less the same thing with some kind of express subway downtown. Had ARL/UPX/Blue22 just put in a station around Eglinton from the get go, odds are we would have had the stupid trains by now. Likewise, people will complain if they find out a subway's getting built under their feet which wont do them any good.

 

[rbt]

That's not even true. These areas have way more residents in the 18-30 age range than city averages, and the new condos that are being built tend to skew towards younger single types (the empty-nest phenomenon hasn't really happened).

Certainly, but this is not the politically active group in the neighbourhood. They're largely just along for the ride.

It's really ironic you mention Weston since you're proposing more or less the same thing with some kind of express subway downtown. Had ARL/UPX/Blue22 just put in a station around Eglinton from the get go, odds are we would have had the stupid trains by now. Likewise, people will complain if they find out a subway's getting built under their feet which wont do them any good.

I've not proposed anything. I've simply stated we can't have our cake and eat it too. Obviously haven't convinced anyone here of that, nor has anyone here convinced me that we can.


If I was transit tsar, GO upgrades and fare integration of some type with TTC would already be underway. There would be no talk of any subway construction, including Eglinton, anywhere until after GO was running 10 minute frequencies across much of their network (rail and bus) within the GTA, starting with the Kennedy to Union leg.

Local bus service would be rearranged around GO lines much as it is currently arranged around TTC subway lines.

Of course, none of that seems to be politically feasible either. Municipalities will not stand for the loss in control and Metrolinx doesn't want the responsibility of being an essential service.

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

Although in the grand scheme of things, the transfers at Yonge and Pape are constant, but the reality is that it will be difficult to convert a minor staion like Pape to a major interchange. Yonge-Bloor will have better passenger flow since it was designed that way from the start, and not shoe-horned in later. But Yonge will always be busier, so it maybe cancels out.

I don't think so - the current Yonge-Bloor interchange is about as sub-optimal as it can get simply by the way of the location of the two stations (at one end). Let's not even get into the utter lack of crush space, the significant amount of crossflow from improperly configured directions of the staircases/escalators, etc.

And beyond that, I am fairly certain that building a much improved Pape interchange would - even in the worst case - be a far easier and cheaper task than reconfiguring Y-B in any significant (and in all likelihood, still inferior) way.

AoD

 

[rbt]

And beyond that, I am fairly certain that building a much improved Pape interchange would - even in the worst case - be a far easier and cheaper task than reconfiguring Y-B in any significant (and in all likelihood, still inferior) way.

The Sheppard interchange isn't much better with a fraction of the crowd.

Eglinton West already looks like a pain in the ass for Eastbound to Southbound travellers and it's not even built yet.

I do hope we invest serious thought and money into the Pape interchange. Toronto's history with add-on interchanges isn't very good; not horrible (London wins for that) but not great.

 

[diminutive]

I've not proposed anything. I've simply stated we can't have our cake and eat it too. Obviously haven't convinced anyone here of that, nor has anyone here convinced me that we can.

What's there to convince? ~700m spacing is widely accepted as appropriate for local service. At the same time, the distance between the Pape Station-King segment means that the potential time savings of widening spacing substantially would at most save a minute or two. I'm not sure why there is a need to convince anyone of anything here.

The real issue of contention here is that you seem to think adding a minute or two onto the DRL would denude it of its 'relief' function, which I think is overblown given reasons I've already gone over. That's where you're introducing this false choice between 'local' and 'express' service.

If I was transit tsar, GO upgrades and fare integration of some type with TTC would already be underway. There would be no talk of any subway construction, including Eglinton, anywhere until after GO was running 10 minute frequencies across much of their network (rail and bus) within the GTA, starting with the Kennedy to Union leg.

I wouldn't disagree, but neither here nor there.

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

rbt:

It's not encouraging, though on the bright(er) side it is nowhere as critical an interchange as the DRL-Bloor one.

AoD

 

[nfitz]

I don't think so - the current Yonge-Bloor interchange is about as sub-optimal as it can get simply by the way of the location of the two stations (at one end).

It certainly needs more stairs and platform space. But it's not that bad - I can think of far worse. Try changing from the yellow line to the orange line in Montreal (even the change from the Blue line to Orange line at Jean-Talon seems worse). Or check out some of the long walks you have to take to change trains in cities like London, Paris, New York, Seoul, and Tokyo.

 

[W. K. Lis]

It certainly needs more stairs and platform space. But it's not that bad - I can think of far worse. Try changing from the yellow line to the orange line in Montreal (even the change from the Blue line to Orange line at Jean-Talon seems worse). Or check out some of the long walks you have to take to change trains in cities like London, Paris, New York, Seoul, and Tokyo.

With long walks, each person will have their own "speed". Which means the crush may spread out with longer walks. That's one positive. Personally, I prefer a short walk since I'm getting older, like everyone else.

 

[Kitsune]

With long walks, each person will have their own "speed". Which means the crush may spread out with longer walks. That's one positive. Personally, I prefer a short walk since I'm getting older, like everyone else.

It doesnt really work like that - if the place is crowded, it'll tend to go as fast as the slowest walker.