unimaginative2
Senior Member
They're comparing it with 2005 figures, not 1997.
|
|
|
- Thread starter unimaginative2
- Start date
They're comparing it with 2005 figures, not 1997.
adma
Superstar
Yeah, delays on both the Spadina and the King lines, yet...
EnviroTO
Senior Member
I don't have any faith that the TTC will fix a travel time related issue after the implementation of Transit City. I am a big supporter of the LRT idea... but travel time needs to be the most important measure and if it is made the most important measure ridership will surely follow as the biggest obstacle to ridership is inconvenience caused by travel times. I will agree that the inner suburbs where the bulk of the Transit City routes are proposed are different to Spadina and St.Clair based on spacing of stoplights. But those routes are also different to Spadina and St.Clair in the amount congestion is a factor in their travel times. Unlike downtown streets which get complete gridlock, the streets of the inner suburbs don't get complete gridlock despite the streets being very busy. Travel time on those bus routes is slowed more by frequent bus stops and passenger volumes increasing wait times at those stops. If the LRT on Sheppard East is built with 15 stops to get to Kennedy from Don Mills what tangible benefit has it provided? Ridership may increase slightly due to the visibility of the transit (much like it did with VIVA marketing itself as improved transit when it replaced the GO Yonge bus), but for existing riders it will be the same service on fancier vehicles with the same transfers required and possibly less frequency because of the larger vehicles. Infrastructure itself is not enough if improved trip times and convenience are not what the infrastructure is being designed for.
Queens Quay is a joke. For example the lights at Rees have priority treatment for streetcars but it is timed so that the streetcar always gets a green 2 seconds after stopping. It isn't rocket science that having it trigger a green 5 seconds earlier would make a world of difference but the City doesn't get it, so on all the Queens Quay intersections streetcars have a 90% chance of pausing at the light and then needing to stop at the stop just beyond the light. The only times a streetcar continues through the light on a green is when a streetcar going the opposite direction has triggered the light for them.
The SRT is near capacity and in need of replacement but the city didn't prioritize its upgrade to a subway so they completely missed the boat on funding and the subway system which makes up one of the top expenses for the Toronto taxpayer is now having two extentions into the 905. A field on highway seven got higher priority than a necessary replacement on an existing line to one of Toronto's four "centres". A transfer could have been eliminated at Kennedy and travel times reduced to SCC but travel times, existing riders, and convenience don't weigh high on the TTC evalutation criteria the way new riders do, wherever they come from and no matter how slow they end up travelling.
Then there is Toronto's lack of effort to fight for improved GO services to stations inside the Toronto city limits. The bulk of the GO stations inside the city only see GO train service during rush hour but no GO busses off-peak like all the GO stations outside the city limits do. This means the convenience of GO during rush hour becomes the serious inconvenience when you miss the last train on the way home or if you need to head home early. We pay no less taxes towards GO than other municipalities. Why doesn't the city do anything about it? If you ask them they tell you that you can take the TTC when the GO trains stop. Well that is true but a 905 rider could also take the TTC to the city limits and then transfer to a 905 transit... but those jurisdictions realize that it would be less convenient. But the city doesn't really care.
This is my beef with the city and the TTC. They show little competence in improving the system. They say they can't improve the system due to lack of money but it costs very little to yank out stops, improve the payment collection system to reduce boarding times, and time a light 5 seconds earlier. Yanking out stops could be done of every bus route in the city and the end result would be decreased trip times... decreased trip times mean less busses required to serve the same frequency... freed up busses means new routes or increased frequency on existing routes. In some cities they mark every bus stop on the city map... if they did that in Toronto you wouldn't be able to see the routes through all the stops.
Queens Quay is a joke. For example the lights at Rees have priority treatment for streetcars but it is timed so that the streetcar always gets a green 2 seconds after stopping. It isn't rocket science that having it trigger a green 5 seconds earlier would make a world of difference but the City doesn't get it, so on all the Queens Quay intersections streetcars have a 90% chance of pausing at the light and then needing to stop at the stop just beyond the light. The only times a streetcar continues through the light on a green is when a streetcar going the opposite direction has triggered the light for them.
The SRT is near capacity and in need of replacement but the city didn't prioritize its upgrade to a subway so they completely missed the boat on funding and the subway system which makes up one of the top expenses for the Toronto taxpayer is now having two extentions into the 905. A field on highway seven got higher priority than a necessary replacement on an existing line to one of Toronto's four "centres". A transfer could have been eliminated at Kennedy and travel times reduced to SCC but travel times, existing riders, and convenience don't weigh high on the TTC evalutation criteria the way new riders do, wherever they come from and no matter how slow they end up travelling.
Then there is Toronto's lack of effort to fight for improved GO services to stations inside the Toronto city limits. The bulk of the GO stations inside the city only see GO train service during rush hour but no GO busses off-peak like all the GO stations outside the city limits do. This means the convenience of GO during rush hour becomes the serious inconvenience when you miss the last train on the way home or if you need to head home early. We pay no less taxes towards GO than other municipalities. Why doesn't the city do anything about it? If you ask them they tell you that you can take the TTC when the GO trains stop. Well that is true but a 905 rider could also take the TTC to the city limits and then transfer to a 905 transit... but those jurisdictions realize that it would be less convenient. But the city doesn't really care.
This is my beef with the city and the TTC. They show little competence in improving the system. They say they can't improve the system due to lack of money but it costs very little to yank out stops, improve the payment collection system to reduce boarding times, and time a light 5 seconds earlier. Yanking out stops could be done of every bus route in the city and the end result would be decreased trip times... decreased trip times mean less busses required to serve the same frequency... freed up busses means new routes or increased frequency on existing routes. In some cities they mark every bus stop on the city map... if they did that in Toronto you wouldn't be able to see the routes through all the stops.
Jdot
Active Member
Yanking out stops may decrease trip time, but it will anger a lot of people who have to walk that much further to a stop.
ShonTron
Moderator
And that's where the bunching really gets bad. A car from Charlotte Loop pulls in behind a half-full car from Union, so the Union car, already with passengers wishing to disembark gets behind, with an empty car behind. And the drivers will sit and wait for all the old people to get on at Dundas while there's a back-up.
Extending the short-turn service to Queen's Quay might only need 2 or 3 more cars, and there's a Coffee Time there for the drivers.
Part of the problem is that the TTC forgot how to do something simple called line management. That's why you've got the problem with "soaking" (where one driver intentionally runs "hot" to do as little work as possible, or a bus doesn't leapfrog intentionally), bunching and terrible short-turn management.
Forget even signal priority - just have FT supervisors that would do line managment (one for sure at Dundas, would also manage crowds, hold customers back from crowding on the first of a bunch of cars) and allow paid customers through the back doors), perhaps another to manage the short-turns at King or QQ.
Removing the stop at Sussex (by far the stop that needs to go the most) would make POP a bit more justifable and easier to enforce.
fiendishlibrarian
Active Member
In the days before CIS, that's exactly what happened, stern line management by Inspectors responsible for major routes within a given division. And those Inspectors, at least based on what my dad told me, kicked some serious ass back in the day (c. mid '70s-mid '80s).
scarberiankhatru
Senior Member
Buses in the inner suburbs, including Sheppard East, do get caught in gridlock, and overall traffic has far more effect on travel times than you claim. Reducing stops can have a big impact, though - just look at the 190 Rocket vs the regular 85 Sheppard. The 190 still gets caught in gridlock, though. The Sheppard & VP area is notoriously bad.
I don't want to go off on an RT rant, but this can't be discussed in isolation from Transit City. A subway was rejected because it was too 'expensive,' too 'unpredictable,' and would actually provide capacity for the future instead of being crowded right off the bat. Yet...they now want to extend the RT, which will bring the cost of renovating the RT to about what the subway extension would cost. The extended bit will only serve some of the RT's riders in Malvern, while the subway would have served everyone living north of Eglinton and east of Kennedy. Both Sheppard and Morningside LRTs and a Midtown GO line will all now be run out to Malvern, too, so that over $2 billion will have been spent on the residents of one city ward in a questionable attempt to lure them out of their cars and solve an assortment of socio-economic problems. It's disgusting.
It doesn't need to make them angry. Typical stops that might be cut are only used by a small number of people, who may actually experience lower overall travel times by walking an extra minute or two due to the faster vehicles. Only a tiny amount of people would not receive a net benefit. This miniscule minority tends to be very vocal, though...
ShonTron
Moderator
Many of these stops that I'd see yanked would be at non-signalized intersections and mid-blocks. For example: Finch West
The stops should be at (bold = what a subway stop would go if using current subway spacing, italics if using B-D like standards)
- FINCH STATION
- Talbot
- Senlac
- Clarkhill
- Anacona
- Bathurst
- Virgilwood (Branson Hosp)
- Torresdale
- Wilmington
- Dufferin
- Alness
- Chesswood
- Tangiers
- Keele North Station
- Romfield
- Sentinel
- Tobormory
- Driftwood
- Jane
- York Gate
- Arrow/Signet
- Norfinch
- Weston
- Jayzel
- Milvan
- Duncanwoods
- Pearlwood/Aldwick
- Islington (East side)
- Kipling
- Silverstone (behind Albion Mall)
- Albion Road
- Kendleton
- Martin Grove
- John Garland
- Westmore (serving Hwy 27)
- Humber College
In 16.5 kilometres, there would be 35 intermediate stops - or a stop every 470 metres averaged. I also calculated how many stops would be cut - it would be 2.4 stops for every Transit City stop. This is assuming that basically the stops served would have a signal and/or crosswalk - high schools make for good stops. If only 3-4 more stops were added to appease seniors or others, it would be about 430 metres per stop. Almost no cut stop would be more than 125 metres away.
I think 400-500 metres average spacing is ideal.
The stops should be at (bold = what a subway stop would go if using current subway spacing, italics if using B-D like standards)
- FINCH STATION
- Talbot
- Senlac
- Clarkhill
- Anacona
- Bathurst
- Virgilwood (Branson Hosp)
- Torresdale
- Wilmington
- Dufferin
- Alness
- Chesswood
- Tangiers
- Keele North Station
- Romfield
- Sentinel
- Tobormory
- Driftwood
- Jane
- York Gate
- Arrow/Signet
- Norfinch
- Weston
- Jayzel
- Milvan
- Duncanwoods
- Pearlwood/Aldwick
- Islington (East side)
- Kipling
- Silverstone (behind Albion Mall)
- Albion Road
- Kendleton
- Martin Grove
- John Garland
- Westmore (serving Hwy 27)
- Humber College
In 16.5 kilometres, there would be 35 intermediate stops - or a stop every 470 metres averaged. I also calculated how many stops would be cut - it would be 2.4 stops for every Transit City stop. This is assuming that basically the stops served would have a signal and/or crosswalk - high schools make for good stops. If only 3-4 more stops were added to appease seniors or others, it would be about 430 metres per stop. Almost no cut stop would be more than 125 metres away.
I think 400-500 metres average spacing is ideal.
scarberiankhatru
Senior Member
I've checked many routes in the past and suburban routes average perhaps 250 or so metres per stop. Since people approach stops by cutting through various parks and crescents and parking lots, removing some stops may add no noticeable time to their walk and only a very tiny percentage of each route's riders will have to walk an extra 200-300 metres to get to a stop.
Twisted Son of Gumby
New Member
Thank you! I posted this scenario in an earlier thread, just in different wording. I don't think it would cost that much for said conversion, considering the tunnels and stations are already there.
However, I do have to admit that I didn't take into consideration the possibility that the Sheppard subway might actually have a significant increase in ridership from the future Don Mills and Sheppard LRT lines - if those lines have a significant amount of ridership.
scarberiankhatru
Senior Member
No, those LRT lines probably won't see significant ridership increases.
theman23
Active Member
This issue has been brought up before but what I don't get is the reason for streetcar stops on Spadina and St. Clair being located after the traffic light. Is there some sort of benefit for this set up as compared to placing the stop just before the traffic light? I guess what I'm asking is, what is the TTC's justification for this?
Degnaw
New Member
^that way they have room for left turn lanes.
marcus_a_j
Senior Member
I think the justification is also to ensure the streetcars get through the green lights. If the stop is before the light and passengers need to get on/off, the streetcar will stop and by the time everyone has boarded/departed, the light might have turned red delaying it even further. If the stop is after the light, the streetcar can travel through the intersection on a greenlight before letting people on/off. Once the passengers are on/off, it does not matter what colour the light is because it has already travelled through the intersection. I hope this makes some sense. In theory it would allow quicker travel times, but we all know that in reality, it does not work.
ShonTron
Moderator
When traffic engineers design and control transit ROWs.
---
I think the answer should be timing the left-turn cycles based upon the presence of a streetcar. If a streetcar is waiting for the red light, the left-turn phase should be after the straight-through/transit phase, like is done in some places. If there is no streetcar waiting, the left-turn phase should go first. I'm sure this may confuse or annoy some motorists (they could have a sign saying something like "left turn phase subject to delay by streetcar" and introduce all-arrow signal heads (red arrow, amber arrow, green arrow) to better show the phases.
It's not rocket science.