Second_in_pie
Senior Member
Those numbers include the CBD for Bloor though, do they not?
|
|
|
If I remember correctly from looking in the Eglinton EA document, the highest demand is west of Eglinton West station. It stands to figure that most of those people would take the stubway. But not all, which is why the longer route has 30% more riders than the stubway. But that still is only barely over 5,000. I don't see how this is counter-intuitive. This has been studied to death by people more qualified than both of us.4,200 for the short stubway between Eglinton West and Black Creek? Not surprising at all.
But going from that short stubway to the full crosstown route (be it a subway, or an LRT with near-subway speed) and increasing that number to just 5,400? This is ... very counter-intuitive, to put it mildly.
Your kidding right ... your basing density around the Eglinton line on population from Dupont to 401? What happened to the old 5-minute walking standard?From posts of SimonP in another thread ...
Those numbers include the CBD for Bloor though, do they not?
Your kidding right ... your basing density around the Eglinton line on population from Dupont to 401? What happened to the old 5-minute walking standard?
You folks question years of highly detailed demand modelling, and replace it with a simple analysis of population from Dupont to 401? And yet you question those who do the work professionally?
I'm just shocked at the gall!
This has been studied to death by people more qualified than both of us.
Even at St Clair there might be more incentive to travel counter-flow towards Eglinton than through flow traffic towards the Bloor-Danforth. It stands to reason that one-third to close to one-half of all present day north-of-Bloor N-S bus users would transfer at Eglinton in order to catch a seat on YUS prior to the bottlenecks at St George and Bloor-Yonge.
Corrupt TTC?You keep telling the civic engineers that volunteeringly donate their time to posting here that our figures are insubstantial because we're not under the employ of the biased and corrupt TTC, but tell us, how are their consultants arriving at the figure 5400 ppdph? Where's their chain of evidence, or are you a hypocrite?
What has math got to do with it? Hopefully they are qualified in other things.I believe that they are qualified in math.
What do you mean loose. Surely whatever is done would make sense, or one wouldn't be able to calibrate it.However, the output of any model depends greatly on the input assumptions. Rules for choosing those assumptions are quite loose.
Why do you think I have the details of the modelling? However the various models done over the years don't seem to differ significantly ... that's always the best test.Fresh Start has a good point here: if you put so much trust in that 5400 ppdph max figure, then you should disclose the details of the modeling.
Corrupt TTC?
Why the slander?
Well, that discredits anything you have, and ever will say!
BTW, what on earth is a civic engineer? ROTFLMAO!
Go stick the tin foil hat back on.
What? What on earth would that, even if true, have to do with corruption. Do you even know the meaning of the word?It's no secret that the TTC has a bias towards light-rail expansion. So if they tweak the numbers in that mode's favor, then yes they are being corrupt.
It wasn't clear at all. In all my years as a civil engineer I have never heard that before. So you are saying you have civil engineers who are posting here, saying the TTC numbers are wrong? Who are we talking about here; because as a civil engineer, I haven't seen anything to make me think they could be out by a power of 2.Oh, and if it wasn't abundantly clear that I meant civil but wrote civic my mistake, perhaps it is you that needs to take stock of your conspiracies.
Those numbers include the CBD for Bloor though, do they not?
But you have implied it, by using an obscure reference to justify the use of the word corrupt, that differs from any Canadian English definition. One might say that is corrupt!"corruptness: lack of integrity or honesty; use of a position of trust for dishonest gain"
wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn
I wouldn't go as far as suggesting bribery.