[andrewpmk]

Steve Munro posted a link to the TTC report prepared in March 2011, TTC report

A few interesting details (p.5): the 1986 projected (2011) ridership for

entire Sheppard Line was 15,4K pphpd
Eglinton Subway 17,6K -/-
DRL 11.7K

The 2011 corrected/adjusted numbers are:

Sheppard Line 6K-10k
Eglinton LRT (with underground section) 5.2K
DRL 12K

Looks like Sheppard does not meet the 30K "TTC golden standard", but so are Eglinton and DRL... Should we abandon plans to build DRL considering its marginal advantage over other lines and falling way behind meeting 30K demand?

30K is the absolute maximum capacity of a subway, I think it is perfectly reasonable to justify a subway if projected ridership is above 7500 or do. The maximum capacity of above ground LRT is way lower, around 5000-7500 above which it experiences severe crowding problems, and signal priority must be disabled because headways less than 5 minutes are needed.

Also I strongly suspect that the Miller administration deliberately underestimated ridership to make the case for LRT. I find it incredibly difficult to believe that a subway running parallel to an extremely busy and congested highway which many people will want to bypass by taking the subway, will experience low ridership.

 

[vz64]

... I think it is perfectly reasonable to justify a subway if projected ridership is above 7500 or do. ...

agreed! So, we need to build DRL, Eglinton, and complete Sheppard (at least connect Y-S with Downsview) in that order. And we need to implement Chong recommendations (all of them!!!)to finance buidling new subways and LRT lines.

 

[doady]

Would you care to elaborate? I am pro-mixed transportation, not from Subway-Only or LRTsta camps...

Speaking of false assumptions, Justin1000's comments reminds me of the way all those right-wing anti-abortion activists mislabel all pro-choice people as "pro-abortion." There is no middle ground, only black and white.

 

[Paleo]

agreed! So, we need to build DRL, Eglinton, and complete Sheppard (at least connect Y-S with Downsview) in that order. And we need to implement Chong recommendations (all of them!!!)to finance buidling new subways and LRT lines.

The peak point at Eglinton is already in its own tunnel, same for Sheppard.

 

[Rainforest]

Steve Munro posted a link to the TTC report prepared in March 2011, TTC report

A few interesting details (p.5): the 1986 projected (2011) ridership for

entire Sheppard Line was 15,4K pphpd
Eglinton Subway 17,6K -/-
DRL 11.7K

The 2011 corrected/adjusted numbers are:

Sheppard Line 6K-10k
Eglinton LRT (with underground section) 5.2K
DRL 12K

Looks like Sheppard does not meet the 30K "TTC golden standard", but so are Eglinton and DRL... Should we abandon plans to build DRL considering its marginal advantage over other lines and falling way behind meeting 30K demand?

1) TTC's own threshold for subway is 10K, not 30K. Perhaps even 10K is a bit too high, but that's another matter.

2) A study performed by Metrolinx a few years ago predicted 17K at peak for DRL, not 12K. So, DRL is in the subway category by any standards.

 

[andrewpmk]

Speaking of false assumptions, Justin1000's comments reminds me of the way all those right-wing anti-abortion activists mislabel all pro-choice people as "pro-abortion." There is no middle ground, only black and white.

Exactly. I am perfectly willing to support light rail in cases where the projected demand is unquestionably well below the maximum capacity of LRT. Kitchener LRT, Hamilton LRT and Waterfront West obviously fall in that category (in the latter case, it runs parallel to Lakeshore West GO, so it does not need high capacity). Hurontario LRT probably falls within that category as well, but might get overwhelmed were MCC to see a lot of development. The trouble with Sheppard and Eglinton is that they run parallel to the extremely busy 401; they serve the high density Yonge/Eglinton and NYCC areas, large sections of the corridors they serve are fairly dense, and in the case of Eglinton I think it is necessary to build grade separated through Golden Mile to connect the very busy Scarborough RT with the very busy Eglinton underground section. Similarly I think Don Mills should have a subway (a northern extension of the downtown relief line) not a LRT because it will serve as a Yonge line relief line, plus it will relieve the DVP/404, the #25 bus and serve some fairly high density residential and employment areas.

 

[vz64]

1) TTC's own threshold for subway is 10K, not 30K. Perhaps even 10K is a bit too high, but that's another matter.

2) A study performed by Metrolinx a few years ago predicted 17K at peak for DRL, not 12K. So, DRL is in the subway category by any standards.

Perhaps Metrolinx did predict 17K for DRL a few years ago, but the TTC Report came only few months ago and it shows the latest projections, so it is not clear at this point which source is the most accurate... At the same time, many LRT/DRL proponents did refer to this TTC report to justify scrapping Sheppard Line and building DRL.

 

[Rainforest]

Perhaps Metrolinx did predict 17K for DRL a few years ago, but the TTC Report came only few months ago and it shows the latest projections, so it is not clear at this point which source is the most accurate... At the same time, many LRT/DRL proponents did refer to this TTC report to justify scrapping Sheppard Line and building DRL.

I think that just shows inherent uncertainties built into that kind of projections. I am sure that people who do the modeling are good at math and do not make mistakes in calculations. However, the input data must come from behavioral science which is much less precise than math. When there are multiple ways to get from A to B, which will the riders choose? A shorter trip on a slower vehicle, or a detour via a rapid line? Or, will they drive? Add uncertainties due to demographics / population density and the state of economy, and projections made with different sets of input assumptions can come significantly different.

 

[UD2]

I'm never really sure. When Mr.Ford and his suppoters say that he/they want subways.

Do they mean this?

or do they actually want this?

 

[Juan_Lennon416]

they want to eat Subway while riding the subway

 

[nfitz]

Perhaps Metrolinx did predict 17K for DRL a few years ago, but the TTC Report came only few months ago and it shows the latest projections, so it is not clear at this point which source is the most accurate...

It's all based on assumptions. Metrolinx's was for the entire 2031 Big Move completed network, and with a DRL going from Pape to Queen to Osgoode up to Dundas West, and meeting the Don Mills LRT at Pape.

If the TTC modelled the original 1986 plan, then this would have be from Pape to Union to an unknown point further west. I could easily imagine that going into Union instead of Pape would reduce riders who would be travelling south during the AM Peak - which is the peak-point. Also, what did this include north of Danforth? If it didn't include the Don Mills LRT, this would also reduce ridership.

So what were the recent TTC assumptions?

 

[vz64]

So what were the recent TTC assumptions?

It is in their 2011 report; I posted a link, check it here.

 

[Justin10000]

Speaking of false assumptions, Justin1000's comments reminds me of the way all those right-wing anti-abortion activists mislabel all pro-choice people as "pro-abortion." There is no middle ground, only black and white.

Says the guy whose does not like Transit City because it does fit his perceived definition of "Rapid Transit". Black and White indeed! Keep on pushing a subway in a corridor that does not need it. Like you'll use it anyways! The fact that vz64 made up a "TTC Golden Rule" to justify his BS, and you agree with him says a lot about you. Which I cannot say on this forum for obvious reasons.

 

[nfitz]

It is in their 2011 report; I posted a link, check it here.

Perhaps I'm blind, but I don't see answers to any of the assumptions I raised. What is the DRL routing - is it the 1986 routing (if so, no wonder it's lower). What is their assumption regarding the construction of the Don Mills LRT and the Jane LRT?

 

[vz64]

Says the guy whose does not like Transit City because it does fit his perceived definition of "Rapid Transit". Black and White indeed! Keep on pushing a subway in a corridor that does not need it. Like you'll use it anyways! The fact that vz64 made up a "TTC Golden Rule" to justify his BS, and you agree with him says a lot about you. Which I cannot say on this forum for obvious reasons.

I am afraid I have to agree with doady's description of you... you are throwing accusations without substantiating them, which is characteristic of extreme-right, uneducated crowd. How are you different from Rob Ford Sun's readers if you are using exactly same tactics?? You make a lot of assumptions, such as those in the quoted text above... I never mentioned phrase "Rapid Transit" in my posts, I never supported RF (voted Smitherman), and I am advocating a mixed plan that includes both subways and LRT lines and agree that we need to use new ways to fund our public transportation. Re "TTC Golden Rule"--educate yourself re their justification basis for building subway, which is 30K pphr pick load--a bit arbitrary criterion. So, if there is any BS, it is in your empty comments.