2018 Provincial Election Transit Promises

[Cobra]

“Trains are full at rush hour” is a completely meaningless statement. You could have a line that moves 900 pphpd with one train per hour and claim that “trains are full at rush hour”.

In the case of Sheppard Line, the trains are 33% smaller than elsewhere on the system, and trains come less than half as frequent. It’s no wonder that the trains are full at rush hour.

Anyways we have actual ridership data. The line moves 4,000 pphpd at peak. There is no reason to be using the fullness of trains as a proxy for actual ridership data, unless we’re trying to be misleading.

The line exist now so all we're doing is arguing for the sake of arguing. Can't undo the past now.

Toronto has a PRIORITY problem. Sheppard subway isn't a mistake, but building it ahead of a full DRL, full Eglinton was the major mistake.

All we can do is pressuring governments to have their priorities straight and push them to make up for almost half a century of pure neglect. We need all the lines, not pick and chose and for that, we need a mayor & council with the courage to implement revenue tools so that subways are always a work in progress with new stations opening at some point on a yearly basis.

There should be a term limit for Councillors and mayors. We can't advance when its the same dinosaurs repeating the mistakes of the past. Tory's Smarttrack, Ford anti-LRT policy, Miller LRT fantasy...all the same type of mistakes. We need a new culture where politics is taken out of transit.

 

[syn]

510 Spadina Line

Bloor-Yonge expansion

I see a trend.

 

[Leo_Chan]

I see a trend.

They’re all half assed solutions.

 

[Streety McCarface]

Please provide examples of transit infrastructure built in Toronto that have become inadequate in a short time period.

The 510, the 504 KSP, the Bloor-Yonge Expansion, The Union Station Platform widths, St George Station in general, and most certainly the Yonge North Subway extension if it's built, subway platform lengths (all), Kitchener GO line platform lengths, second exits all around the system, the UPX, Union Station "Improvements", and I'm even going to throw in the Eglinton Crosstown (More on that later). Going back to the original point, we've never had these problems before because we always built with the future in mind. All these issues have occurred recently. The Yonge subway initially ran 2-4 car Gloucester trains, which are about 30% shorter than T1 and TR cars.

a 2 car train can hold only ~250 passengers, less than a light rail line. Imagine if trains like these were used currently on the yonge line or if they went with light rail instead? We'd be nowhere better than totally f***ed. Imagine the bloor line like this, or if the DRL were built to these specifications. My point is that the city doesn't do enough when planning for the future. Growth can occur very quickly; Line's 1 and 2 have seen growth of about 45K PPD each over a 5 year period, and that's despite all the system's shortcomings in that same time period.

“Trains are full at rush hour” is a completely meaningless statement. You could have a line that moves 900 pphpd with one train per hour and claim that “trains are full at rush hour”.

In the case of Sheppard Line, the trains are 33% smaller than elsewhere on the system, and trains come less than half as frequent. It’s no wonder that the trains are full at rush hour.

Anyways we have actual ridership data. The line moves 4,000 PPHPD at peak. There is no reason to be using the fullness of trains as a proxy for actual ridership data, unless we’re trying to be misleading.

https://www.daniels.utoronto.ca/sites/daniels.utoronto.ca/files/old/transit_panel.pdf This report from 7 years ago states that ridership was at 4,500 PPHPD on average (and as we can see with the Yonge line, 500 extra people per hour can make a huge difference; another train being required), and ever since then, many housing developments have taken place. It sucks that the TTC isn't very open to providing more and more statistics to the public. We haven't had a ridership update since 2015.

Also, if I remember correctly, trains on Sheppard come on an average of every 5 minutes and 30 seconds. By way of comparison, the maximum for the Yonge line currently is ~2 minutes and 30 seconds. That's not more than twice as long, and this is only for the Yonge line. The Bloor line frequencies hover at around 3 minutes during the peak periods and all subway lines have frequencies of between 4-6 minutes during the off-peak hours. Ridership levels along most lines compared to the number of cars per train are pretty similar, the exception being the TYSSE (which has no stable ridership levels at the moment).

Might I add that although trains are only 4 cars, they can carry the equivalent of 6 G-series subway car trains, so the capacity expectations are greater than that of the original Yonge subway. It's a null argument considering the fact that the DRL is going to be built and operated with 4 car trains, and that the line itself is a stub. It's 5 km long. Line 1? 38. Line 2? 28. The longer the subway line, the more traffic it receives, and this is especially true for lines like Sheppard and the Bloor Danforth: everyone gets on as the train as it approaches a transfer station: Bloor Yonge, St George, or Sheppard yonge. That higher capacity is only really ever utilized the closer the trains are to the transfer stations themselves. If the sheppard line was built like an Eglinton style LRT/Subway, people east of don mills would have a greater incentive to use transit, and therefore, more people would ride the line. However, as you approach sheppard yonge, the train begins to approach its choke point: 9,000 PPHPD. If ridership even nears this value than the new line is a failure at addressing capacity issues. This is why I worry about Eglinton; The line is expected to see about 300K PPD a few years after its completion, but we all know based on experiences on the new streetcars that the capacities of 15K PPHPD is not going to happen; 9-10K PPHPD will be more likely its upper limit. With extensions, things will only get worse for the line, especially out west.

 

[MisterF]

The question is whether people will be willing to shift their commutes to use the DRL over the Yonge line is what might lead the DRL to fail. It will most certainly gain high ridership, however, it may not fully clear up space at bloor yonge and the yonge line. The TTC has to plan to include better surface connections at all stations on the DRL or it will fail to shift people from the yonge line to the DRL.

You have to ask yourself what is the goal here - just reliving Line 1; or serve as an additional route downtown that will capture and divert a portion of the existing users, free up the capacity for new users, provide some degree of network redundancy and improve connectivity? I'd say the first option alone is an inferior rationale for building transit.

As to your fear - so long as DRL make meaningful interchanges with the existing and proposed lines there is no way it isn't competitive.

AoD

Very true, Alvin. People tend to think of the DRL as existing solely to relieve one station, but it's so much more than that. One subway line can't solve all the transit ills in Toronto, but the DRL will solve more problems than any other line. I don't get when people talk about being "willing to shift their commutes" to the new line, as if it's out of the way or something. The new line will be far and away the fastest and most convenient option for vast swathes of the city. Pretty much nobody east of Bayview will need to take Line 1 anymore. The ridership models showed that Line 1 ridership will drop by a third with a DRL up to Fairview Mall, and if you look at travel patterns along the route that's not surprising at all.

Streety, to your point about Bloor-Yonge, that station will always be busy. That will in no way signify a failure of the DRL.

 

[Streety McCarface]

Streety, to your point about Bloor-Yonge, that station will always be busy. That will in no way signify a failure of the DRL.

Of course, it will always be a busy station as it is a significant transfer station. Just like Finch, Eglinton, Cedarvale (eventually), Sheppard Yonge, St George, Kennedy, Kipling, etc. I'm just arguing that the city needs to strengthen their surface network to make DRL long a viable alternative to the Yonge line. Sometimes the city has the tendency of removing services when new ones are introduced (ie, shifting local buses to express buses, increasing the crowd levels on local buses), and the path along the DRL itself must have destinations for offices, shops, etc. Otherwise, many people will still choose to endure waits and crowds on the Yonge line. People don't like transfers. If someone works at College, Dundas, or King (there are others), and takes a bus to the DRL over the Yonge line, they will have to make at least two transfers (3 if you live along the Danforth line) to get to the same destination over just 1 transfer. With the depth of the DRL being a concern in the DRL thread (making transfers cumbersome), it would be a hugely disenfranchise of riders if it's not built properly and if no surface transit/building development occurs along the corridor. Studies are studies, they can give us an idea of the future but they cannot predict the future.

 

[innsertnamehere]

Yonge always ran 6 car trains in rush hour, even opening day. Albeit they were the shorter Gloucester cars.. But they were quickly upgraded to 8 car trains, the length of todays trains. The 2 car trains ran in off peak hours only, and didn't last long.

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

Of course, it will always be a busy station as it is a significant transfer station. Just like Finch, Eglinton, Cedarvale (eventually), Sheppard Yonge, St George, Kennedy, Kipling, etc. I'm just arguing that the city needs to strengthen their surface network to make DRL long a viable alternative to the Yonge line. Sometimes the city has the tendency of removing services when new ones are introduced (ie, shifting local buses to express buses, increasing the crowd levels on local buses), and the path along the DRL itself must have destinations for offices, shops, etc. Otherwise, many people will still choose to endure waits and crowds on the Yonge line. People don't like transfers. If someone works at College, Dundas, or King (there are others), and takes a bus to the DRL over the Yonge line, they will have to make at least two transfers (3 if you live along the Danforth line) to get to the same destination over just 1 transfer. With the depth of the DRL being a concern in the DRL thread (making transfers cumbersome), it would be a hugely disenfranchise of riders if it's not built properly and if no surface transit/building development occurs along the corridor. Studies are studies, they can give us an idea of the future but they cannot predict the future.

I think you are overly concerned - riders aren't all that sensitive to subway-subway transfers at all (in fact, I have a feeling they'd settle for an additional subway transfer than dealing with waiting on street level for a streetcar in the core), plus DRL intercepting riders from the exiting feeder bus/future Eglinton line before hitting Yonge by default meant it will be the chosen alternative (faster, less crowded, chance to avoid Y+B. etc) for the east end. I would stop worrying about this line "disenfranchising" riders - the current inaction is what disenfranchises them.

AoD

 

[Streety McCarface]

I think you are overly concerned - riders aren't all that sensitive to subway-subway transfers at all (in fact, I have a feeling they'd settle for an additional subway transfer than dealing with waiting on street level for a streetcar in the core), plus DRL intercepting riders from the exiting feeder bus/future Eglinton line before hitting Yonge by default meant it will be the chosen alternative (faster, less crowded, chance to avoid Y+B. etc) for the east end. I would stop worrying about this line "disenfranchising" riders - the current inaction is what disenfranchises them.

AoD

Even with something arguably simple like the line 2-line 3 transfer is considered a heavy burden for most commuters. It is very different, however, it should still be noted that transfers can disenfranchise them, especially if they're long and overly convoluted.

On another note, I hope they don't get rid of the Queen streetcar with the opening of DRL south regardless, at least not east of Sherbourne and west of Osgoode, and I hope they seamlessly allow for transfers at all stations, especially Sherbourne, Osgoode, Gerrard, Sumach, and Queen-Pape. Maybe borrow a piece from SEPTA and have the 504 and 501 run underground with the DRL when it runs on King and Queen?

 

[Rainforest]

If someone works at College, Dundas, or King (there are others), and takes a bus to the DRL over the Yonge line, they will have to make at least two transfers (3 if you live along the Danforth line) to get to the same destination over just 1 transfer.

Starting on a westbound Lawrence East, York Mills, Finch East bus and heading to a workplace near King or Dundas in downtown, most people would rather transfer to DRL at Don Mills and then just walk 400-500 m from Queen to Dundas or King. That's better than staying on the bus for 15 or 20 min while it travels from Don Mills to Yonge.

That effect may be less dominant for the riders of Sheppard subway, Eglinton LRT, and Danforth subway, as their trip from DRL to Yonge will be faster. And yet, there will be quite a few riders who shift to DRL because their destination is actually closer to a DRL station than to any Yonge station.

 

[yrt+viva=1system]

If there is one good outcome about a potential PC government it would be the end of all this hydrogen-fuelled-trains fan-boy BS.

 

[MisterF]

Of course, it will always be a busy station as it is a significant transfer station. Just like Finch, Eglinton, Cedarvale (eventually), Sheppard Yonge, St George, Kennedy, Kipling, etc. I'm just arguing that the city needs to strengthen their surface network to make DRL long a viable alternative to the Yonge line. Sometimes the city has the tendency of removing services when new ones are introduced (ie, shifting local buses to express buses, increasing the crowd levels on local buses), and the path along the DRL itself must have destinations for offices, shops, etc. Otherwise, many people will still choose to endure waits and crowds on the Yonge line. People don't like transfers. If someone works at College, Dundas, or King (there are others), and takes a bus to the DRL over the Yonge line, they will have to make at least two transfers (3 if you live along the Danforth line) to get to the same destination over just 1 transfer. With the depth of the DRL being a concern in the DRL thread (making transfers cumbersome), it would be a hugely disenfranchise of riders if it's not built properly and if no surface transit/building development occurs along the corridor. Studies are studies, they can give us an idea of the future but they cannot predict the future.

The DRL won't create any more transfers than the existing subways. Phase 1 will connect with major surface and/or rapid transit lines at every station, and phase 2 will probably be the same just like the other subway lines. A lot of people in large parts of the city are going pretty far out of their way to get to Yonge; those people will find the DRL to be more direct and convenient for their commute and will take a single transfer to get onto it just like Line 1. While the studies that you dismiss can be far from perfect, these kinds of issues are what they look at in detail when they calculate ridership estimates.

Your examples of Dundas and King are within easy walking distance of the DRL route, so most people going to those areas won't need to transfer at all. These streets are close to the new subway for much of their lengths, so if anything transfers will be reduced as rapid transit is introduced to parts of the central city that have lacked it for far too long. College is a bit farther, but most of that street isn't served by existing lines either so it's kind of a moot point. Most of the demand is farther south and that's what the DRL is meant for.

 

[Streety McCarface]

Starting on a westbound Lawrence East, York Mills, Finch East bus and heading to a workplace near King or Dundas in downtown, most people would rather transfer to DRL at Don Mills and then just walk 400-500 m from Queen to Dundas or King. That's better than staying on the bus for 15 or 20 min while it travels from Don Mills to Yonge.

That effect may be less dominant for the riders of Sheppard subway, Eglinton LRT, and Danforth subway, as their trip from DRL to Yonge will be faster. And yet, there will be quite a few riders who shift to DRL because their destination is actually closer to a DRL station than to any Yonge station.

Oh, for sure there will be little to no issue with people east of Don Mills, no question about that, but between Yonge and Don Mills? That's where a lot of the density is and where a lot of questions lie.

For those wondering why exactly I'm worried about ridership on DRL long, here's a chart I threw together considering surface ridership:

The total number of potential users of DRL long is listed as about 200K PPD assuming all potential connecting buses serve the subway and all passengers terminate at the DRL station. We all know this won't be the case, and since a vast majority of people will still choose the Yonge line or Bloor line, many people won't be going to the subway, and many and people will be transferring between buses at these stations, I think a fair estimation of potential ridership is half of what the total potential ridership is. A few things to note:

1. At most, 100K people are diverted from the yonge line. There's no denying that it's a lot, but when you consider that Yonge north will be built and will serve about 140K riders per day, any relief made by the line will be taken up again by the passengers using it. Also, 100K isn't really that much over an entire day, and considering that the line is already far over capacity

2. Ridership per kilometer is actually lower than what Sheppard currently is

3. A removal of 100K people from the yonge line is extremely liberal since the these main crosstown routes do not dump all their passengers into the yonge line; many passengers have other routes in mind.

 

[Streety McCarface]

The DRL won't create any more transfers than the existing subways. Phase 1 will connect with major surface and/or rapid transit lines at every station, and phase 2 will probably be the same just like the other subway lines. A lot of people in large parts of the city are going pretty far out of their way to get to Yonge; those people will find the DRL to be more direct and convenient for their commute and will take a single transfer to get onto it just like Line 1. While the studies that you dismiss can be far from perfect, these kinds of issues are what they look at in detail when they calculate ridership estimates.

Your examples of Dundas and King are within easy walking distance of the DRL route, so most people going to those areas won't need to transfer at all. These streets are close to the new subway for much of their lengths, so if anything transfers will be reduced as rapid transit is introduced to parts of the central city that have lacked it for far too long. College is a bit farther, but most of that street isn't served by existing lines either so it's kind of a moot point. Most of the demand is farther south and that's what the DRL is meant for.

I would argue the opposite. Anything south of Queen station is really RER territory since it's so close to Union Station, and the relief line is meant to cover people that will be covered by RER. Most people going to Dundas are going to the North end of the Eaton center or the square. It may be a short walk for us, but for many people coming from the suburbs, that's a trek, and they will not use the DRL if it requires backtracking.

College, Queens Park, and Wellesley have a combined ridership of around 120K PPD, meaning somewhere around 60K people will still choose to transfer at St george and Bloor Yonge.

I'm not arguing that the DRL is not needed, it's badly needed. I'm arguing that the way they plan on building it is ill thought out.

 

[44 North]

I'm not one to complain about things going off topic, but this is getting annoying. And your napkin maths for several pages seem kinda dumb.