LRT Speed versus Accessibility: Identifying the Ideal Goals of Toronto’s LRT plans

[Electrify]

For my 3rd year of Urban Studies, I was required to do a research project based on a question I had about the city and its citizens. One thing which I always did wonder about was how far people were people willing to walk to transit, especially in regards to Toronto's proposed light rail lines. We spend all this time on our keyboards debating on whether the standard 800-1000m is acceptable, or whether the proposed 400-500m is best, but what about the people who will actually use the service? Should they not have a say as to whether speed or accessibility should be the focus?

Now that I've had a month to relax from class, I wanted to share my paper with you. I will admit that it is not my best work (took longer than anticipated to get the results, lots of other projects happening meant much of this was done the night before, etc), but it has some very unique insight in how we should move forward...

Abstract

As Toronto continues to grow in population, alternative modes of transportation must be established to ensure economic and social sustainability. One key strategy the city is using is to invest in a light rail transit network, which while a step up from the established local transit network, has been positioned below the subway network in terms of speed and efficiency due to purpose design choices. These choices are based on the assumption that passengers would not choose to walk further to faster service, among other factors. This research project attempted to test these assumptions, and discovered they were highly flawed.

Introduction

The Greater Toronto Area in recent years has increasingly become characterized by its long commute times. According to Statistics Canada, Toronto has the longest commute times of any major metropolitan area in the nation at 33 minutes (Turcotte, 2011) to 41 minutes (Metrolinx, 2008, p.59) each way. Meanwhile the Toronto Board of Trade (2012, p.51) compared a round trip commute of 66 minutes with 22 cities around the world, and found that Toronto placed 15th overall.

These numbers are even more discouraging when comparing public transit to the private automobile. While unable to find an international comparison of commute times by mode, when looking at the 3 largest metropolitan areas in Canada, Toronto’s average was 49 minutes by transit compared to 29 minutes by car. In comparison, Montreal’s commute times were only 39 minutes by transit compared to 30 minutes by car (Turcotte, 2011), thus making transit a far more attractive alternative to driving.

Not only do these long commutes affect our quality of life, but also our economic prosperity. The government conducted a study to determine the effects of long commutes on our economy, and found that congestion cost the region $6 billion in current and potential economic opportunities (Metrolinx, 2010, p.1).

In an effort to control commute times and congestion in the Toronto region, the government is investing a considerable amount in public transit infrastructure expansion. The project entitled The Big Move calls for over 1200km of regional and rapid transit lines, and ensuring that over 80% of the population lives within 2km of said lines. Part of The Big Move’s rapid transit plans for Toronto calls for light rail transit (LRT) lines along a number of corridors, including Sheppard Avenue East, Finch Avenue West, and across Eglinton Avenue (Metrolinx, 2008, pp.58-60).

One point to be critical about however is what exactly the definition of “rapid transit†is. For The Big Move, Metrolinx has defined rapid transit as the following: “Transit service separated partially or completely from general vehicular traffic and therefore able to maintain higher levels of speed, reliability and vehicle productivity than can be achieved by transit vehicles operating in mixed trafficâ€. (Metrolinx, 2008, p.89)

However, other factors must come into play in evaluating the performance of rapid transit besides traffic segregation. One such factor, arguably even more important than traffic segregation, is stop spacing. Additional stops along a transit line decrease the average speed of the vehicle, thus increasing the amount of time needed to travel the length of the line (MacKechine, n.d.).

It should be noted that many of these terms used to define rail transit are more conceptual in meaning than definitive. For example, the American Public Transit Association (1994) defines that rapid transit cannot come into any contact with any other mode of transportation and that streetcars and light rail as the same thing. However their Streetcar and Heritage Trolley site (n.d.) does provide a clearer definition between streetcars and light rail, using features such as stop spacing to differentiate the two services. Likewise, some rapid transit systems do incorporate at-grade crossings, such as some of Chicago’s ‘L’ lines. In fact, these lines are no different than Edmonton’s LRT line, which also operates away from all traffic except for protected crossings (Figure 1 and 2). The point being made is that rail is rail, and that these terms define their operation rather than their technology.

Figure 1: Chicago ‘L’ at-grade crossing (Testagrose, 1970). Figure 2: Edmonton LRT at-grade crossing (Parsons, 2000).

For the light rail lines proposed for Toronto, a computer simulation was conducted to determine the most appropriate stop spacing. They determined that placing stops every 400m was best, as the speed would be 22-23km/h average versus 26-27km/h average at 800m due to longer loading times, increased walking distance, and red lights. For reference, the subway network’s average speed is 30km/h (City of Toronto, 2008).

It is of my opinion that the conclusions of this study have not been properly critiqued. To start, these LRT lines are to offer off board payment, therefore any extra time required to load more passengers should be minimum. Secondly, with proper signal priority red lights should be virtually non-existent. Because of these factors, I believe that 26-27km/h is a severe underestimate of these lines’ potential average speed.

These lines are being positioned as an intermediate transit solution between subways and buses, when the fact is most LRTs are designed to be in the same class as subways and rapid transit, simply with more flexable rolling stock and operation.

Finally, how much input was taken from the community about their opinion on the proposed stop spacing? As pointed out above, Toronto’s transit commuters have to endure the longest commutes in the country, on a far less competitive system compared to Montreal. Therefore the purpose of this research project is to determine if transit riders along future LRT corridors would prefer a faster service in favour of longer walks.

Literature Review

So what is the ideal walking distance, commute time, and distance between rapid transit stops? While it depends, much has been written and researched on the topic by planners, scholars, and government transportation agencies.

Transit planner Christopher MacKechnie (n.d.) suggests that stop spacing should be between 800-1600m, depending on whether the focus should be on speed or coverage. However he recommends a focus on the latter to promote better urban development and reduce the need for parallel bus service. Therefore even at the minimum stop distance for rapid transit, these lines could still achieve their planning goals while providing much faster speed than what is proposed.

Another transit planner, Jarrett Walker (2010), recommends that rapid transit stops should be about 1000m apart for similar reasons set out by MacKechnie. In fact, he goes as far as to suggest that 400m – the same stop spacing proposed for Toronto’s LRT lines – should be used for local transit operations rather than rapid transit lines.

In fact in Walker’s book (2012, pp.67-71), he asks the reader to imagine if all main transit routes had stops spaced every 800m, arguing that we may be overestimating the need for local service. Local service could operate infrequently along these lines to provide service to those unable to walk longer distances. However he does question that perhaps having stops every 400m with improved operating measures, which is very comparable to Toronto’s LRT lines, could provide a compromise all-in-one solution.

Research studies have also concluded similar results in terms of walking distance to rapid transit. One qualitative survey which looked at west coast cities found that rapid rail passengers walked approximately a half mile to their local station (Agrawal, et al., 2008). A similar study conducted in Calgary found that the average walking distance to suburban LRT stations was 649m, with the 75th percentile at 840m (O'Sullivan & Morrall, 1996).

A comprehensive study was also conducted for the World Symposium on Transport and Land Use Reseach examined walking distances to local bus and regional rapid rail stops. In the end, they found the average walk to a local bus stop was 461m and to the train station was 805m (Daniels & Mulley, 2011).

Other scholars have taken these numbers as a basis for their articles as well. Rodrigo Fernandez (2010) did an article based on simulating transit stop traffic, and listed LRT stops to be 600-800m, with local trams being between 400-600m. Therefore according to this definition, most of Toronto’s LRT lines would qualify as streetcars.

In terms of appropriate commute times, Marchetti’s Constant (1994) has become the defacto standard in understanding our tolerance to commuting. He argues that for all of human history, we have endured an average of a 30 minute commute time. But as transportation technologies improved, so too did the size of our cities. However despite being held up as the standard, I believe there is much room for criticism to his findings. For example, those who endured 30 minute walks to work before and during the Industrial Revolution, was this because they wanted to walk this distance or because they could not afford to live closer to their place of work? And seeing as most guidelines suggest humans have a walking distance of 400-800m, or 5-10 minutes, does this mean that we have reduced our comfortable walking range, established by thousands of years of evolution, to a third of what it was in a little less than 200 years thanks to passenger trains and the automobile?

Finally, it is important to look at what actual transit authority guidelines are for walking access to higher order transit. Some examples include Calgary at 600m (Calgary Transit, 1995), at least 800m for Minneapolis (Metropolitan Council (Minneapolis), 2010), and 800m in San Francisco (Bay Area Rapid Transit, 2003).

The point being illustrated here is that it is questionable to construct a light rail line with stops every 400m, and have it qualify as “rapid transitâ€. As previous case studies, expert opinions, and official plans have demonstrated, light rail stop spacing at about a half mile can provide quick transportation while remaining accessible, thus adding to the line’s attractiveness.

Continued in next post

 

[Electrify]

Continued.

Method

While in reality everyone is different and has different tolerances to various commute rhythms, this research project was completed through the lens that there are ideal commute times that people will accept and can be defined and quantified. Therefore it is objectivist ontology and positivist epistemology.

The research question lends this to be an inductive project. While previous data on the matter could suggest that this project is simply confirming what is already known, the fact is that I was unsure how people would react to this survey. Perhaps the TTC knew something I did not, and the sample would not wish to walk further to catch a faster service.

The methodology used to complete this project was through a multiple choice survey. This was the most suitable solution to achieve the quantitative goals of this project. Simply put, I was able to quantify both actual data and personal feelings efficiently through this methodology.

The method was non-random, essentially consisted of me asking passengers to complete the survey while waiting for or getting off of the bus. The stops were chosen based on the current and future service. The stops were midblock and local in nature, and are to receive LRT stations at their intersections but would likely not receive a stop if wider spacing strategy was implemented. On Sheppard Ave, Bay Mills Blvd/Aragon Ave (Figure 3) was chosen because not only did it meet this criterion, but also because the current express route on Sheppard does not stop here. It is located 300m east of Warden Ave and 500m west of Birchmount, both of which are serviced by an express bus stop.

On Eglinton, the stop at Ionview Ave (Figure 4) was chosen primarily due to the assumption that it would be used more than the stop on Sheppard, due to its density and mixed use. It is located about 600m east of Birchmount and west of the turnstiles at Kennedy station. It is important to note that I was surveying eastbound passengers, and currently light rail on Eglinton beyond this subway station is not funded or a priority, therefore they would not receive the same benefit if their stop was eliminated and they had to walk further. That said, one aspect of this project was gauging opinions on potential service design, and it is possible that LRT or express buses could be implemented on this stretch of Eglinton in the future.

The first day I went out, my method was to ask people as they were getting off the bus to do the survey. My target were riders coming from the west during the afternoon and evening rush hour, from approximately 2:00PM to 7:00PM. The results were terrible, people wanted to get home and were not interested in a survey. While I managed to get a few surveys completed, it was far less than I anticipated. Also it was a rain-snow mix, which did not help my case. I also observed that very few people were waiting for the bus at this stop, and most buses simply passed the stop because of this.

The second day I went out I changed my method from asking people as they left the bus to asking people while they waited. The people were waiting for westbound buses during the morning and early afternoon, from approximately 6:00AM to 2:00PM, therefore attempting to capture a similar sample. While I did get more surveys completed, I was still short and nowhere near as many completed as I would have liked. Once again, I was astonished by how few people used this stop, and also noticed a number of potential passengers opting to walk west to Warden to potentially catch an express bus and enjoy the benefit of increased frequency of two routes servicing that stop.

The third day at this stop, I opted to catch riders heading east between 6:00AM and 2:00PM instead of heading to/coming from the west. Unfortunately since this was an outbound direction, even fewer people were waiting for the bus and my results were similar to the first day.

Due to the poor results despite the many hours I had invested, it had become clear that a new stop was in order. Ionview was selected due to mixed uses and high densities, which proved to be a winning combination as this was a far more active stop, with people who seemed far more engaged in transit policy as well. I spent two days at this stop, the first between 6:00AM and 12:00PM and the second between 10:00AM and 12:00PM.

Finally, a note on positionality. Though I have a car, I try to take transit as much as possible. I also believe that transit should be fast and competitive against the private automobile in terms of performance. During the course of my life I have lived between 2 to 20 minutes away from local and rapid transit stops, and have found personally that 5 minutes is ideal with 10 being the most I feel comfortable walking. That said, I do not feel that this affected the results of the survey, as I genuinely did want to gauge opinions on the matter.

Analysis

Sheppard

To begin with, I found that relatively few people used the Bay Mills/Aragon stop. The stop was never overcrowded, and a local bus was more than capable of meeting the demands of passengers – more so since many buses skipped this stop since so few used it. In fact, I saw several people opt to walk towards Warden Ave, since the stop there is serviced by an express route as well.

It appears that the majority of people who use this stop are heavy transit users. 64% of participants said that they used transit all the time in the last month, and 71% use this stop all the time when using transit. It also appears that most users of this stop originate from nearby, with an average walking time of about 4 minutes. I observed most passengers coming from nearby high rise apartment buildings, which may explain the short access time.

As for commute times, the median and mode was option 4, about 45 minutes. Meanwhile the average commute time was about 42 minutes, which is well less than the GTA average transit commute time. Likewise, the attitudes towards the commute had a median and mode of option 2, somewhat satisfied, with the mean rounded to this as well. This suggests that while people are generally satisfied with their commutes, there is room for improvements.

As for how familiar participants were with the concept of light rail, this ranged significantly. Out of 3 options (very familiar, somewhat familiar, not familiar), the mean was 2.24 with a deviation of 0.83. It appears that communication as to what is proposed needs significant clarification. Despite this, the average participant selected 2.41 regarding stop spacing, meaning that they would take transit about as often as they do now while falling between enjoying the extra transit speed despite the extended walk, and not caring either way. This is very telling since so many passengers have the stop virtually at their front door, less than 5 minutes away.

Eglinton

Unlike the Sheppard stop, the stop at Eglinton and Ionview was far more active. Going by passenger counts alone, there is an argument to keep this stop regardless of the results of this survey.

Like Sheppard, the vast majority of users of this stop are heavy transit users, with 73% saying that they took transit all the time in the last month. While only 53% said they used this stop all of the time, an additional 33% said they used the stop most of the time. The average walk was about 2.5 minutes, which suggests those who use this stop are even closer than on Sheppard. This may be because most people using this stop came from nearby mid-rise apartment buildings, which meant they had a far shorter access time than those coming from high rise apartment buildings along Sheppard since it was quicker to leave the building. Understandably, 79% were very satisfied with the time required to access the stop.

The average commute time was about 29 minutes, with a median at about 30 minutes. However, the mode was about 45 minutes, thus causing a far larger standard deviation than what was found on Sheppard Ave. In terms of satisfaction towards the transit portion of the commute, 64% of participants selected somewhat satisfied.

In terms of familiarity and understanding of light rail, like Sheppard, options were all across the board. The mean was 1.86 with a standard deviation of 0.86. While some were confident in their familiarity, others were vague.

As mentioned in the Methods section, this was arguably not the best stop to propose this question. Since if the Ionview stop was removed, transit users would likely have to walk to catch existing rapid services rather than new ones. Regardless the question still has merit from a theoretical standpoint.

Despite this fact, to my surprise these eastbound passengers overwhelmingly selected options 1 and 2 exclusively, meaning they would take transit much more often or about the same but appreciate the extra speed. Concerned that some may have misunderstood, on the second day out I made a note next to the question that they would have to walk to Kennedy station or Birchmount Rd. This did not have an effect on the results for this question, as participants still chose between these two options. After completing the survey, I asked participants how they would feel about having to walk to the station about 600m away, and they said they were more than able to.

One theory could be that if the service was faster, they would be more apt to explore destinations further west for non-commute trips, rather than not making these trips or dreading the experience. Essentially this means that these people may benefit from improved mobility in the city.

Total

While the last two subsections explained the gist of the results, it is important to examine the findings as a whole.

To begin with, the majority of those surveyed are very regular of transit. 68% said they used transit all of the time, and an additional 23% said they use it most of the time. In addition to this, 64% said they used the surveyed stop all of the time when using transit. The average time to walk to the stop was 3.5 minutes, and 64% were very satisfied with this walk.

In terms of commute times, the average was 37 minutes, however the median and mode were 45 minutes. Thus the standard deviation was fairly spread out, though it does provide an idea of what one can expect from a commute from this part of the city. The mean, median, and mode for satisfaction of the transit portion of their commute were somewhat satisfied, with 56% selecting this option.

There was a wide understanding of what light rail is, and how it compares to streetcars. While the average was somewhat familiar, the deviation spread well over the available options. In addition, some people had clear misunderstandings as to what light rail actually is, as some mentioned they had been on LRT systems in cities which do not have LRTs by any definition of the term.

Finally, to conclude it appears the average rider would in fact not mind walking the extra distance to faster light rail transit while appreciating the extra speed, and they certainly would not take transit any less than they do now. With a standard deviation of 0.95, the worst which could happen is that some would walk the extra distance without caring too much about it, nor caring too much about the extra speed as well.

Continued on the next post.

 

[Electrify]

Continued.

Conclusion

One thing which was not mentioned in the Analysis which is most telling is that the majority of those surveyed mentioned that they had limited or no access to their own vehicle. While this question was not asked, it does provide a case for further research. First how much would those surveyed continue to take transit if they owned their own vehicle, as well as understanding what needs are not being met by transit from those who do own a vehicle.

When determining the stop spacing for the new lines, a simple passenger count could have determined the best strategy for implementing stops. If such a basic task was done by the TTC, there is no way the Bay Mills stop along Sheppard would have remained. That said, the stop at Eglinton and Ionview could have some merit, based on passenger counts alone.

However, if taking attitudes into account, it is clear that wider stop spacing would not have a negative impact on ridership, and would likely improve it along with customer satisfaction. More importantly, it could play a significant role in controlling commute times while greatly improving mobility in the Toronto area.

Bibliography
Agrawal, A. W., Schlossberg, M. & Irvin, K., 2008. How Far, by Which Route and Why? A Spatial Analysis of Pedestrian Preference. Journal of Urban Design, pp. 81-98.
American Public Transit Association, 1994. Glossary of Transit Terminology. [Online]
Available at: http://www.apta.com/resources/reportsandpublications/Documents/Transit_Glossary_1994.pdf
[Accessed 4 April 2013].
American Public Transit Association, n.d. APTA Streetcar and Heritage Trolley Site - Definition: Light Rail. [Online]
Available at: http://www.heritagetrolley.org/defLightRail.htm
[Accessed 3 April 2013].
Bay Area Rapid Transit, 2003. BART Station Access Guidelines. [Online]
Available at: http://www.bart.gov/docs/planning/access_guidelines.pdf
[Accessed 29 November 2012].
Calgary Transit, 1995. Transit Friendly Design Guide. [Online]
Available at: http://www.calgarytransit.com/pdf/transit_friendly.pdf
[Accessed 29 November 2012].
City of Toronto, 2008. Frequently Asked Questions: Sheppard Avenue East LRT. [Online]
Available at: http://www.toronto.ca/involved/projects/sheppard_east_lrt/pdf/2008-06_faq.pdf
[Accessed 28 November 2012].
Daniels, R. & Mulley, C., 2011. Explaining walking distance to public transport: the dominance of public transport supply. [Online]
Available at: http://sydney.edu.au/business/__data/assets/pdf_file/0013/106501/Daniels-Mulley-Explaining.pdf
[Accessed 29 November 2012].
MacKechnie, C., n.d. The Proper Stop Spacing of Rapid Transit Lines. [Online]
Available at: http://publictransport.about.com/od...roper-Stop-Spacing-Of-Rapid-Transit-Lines.htm
[Accessed 28 November 2012].
Marchetti, C., 1994. Anthropological Invariants in Travel Behavior. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Volume 47, pp. 75-88.
Metrolinx, 2008. Costs of Road Congestion in the Greater Toronto and Hamilton Area: Impact and Cost Benefit Analysis of the Metrolinx Draft Regional Transportation Plan. [Online]
Available at: http://www.metrolinx.com/en/regiona..._08-015_Cost_of_Congestion_report_1128081.pdf
[Accessed 27 November 2012].
Metrolinx, 2008. The Big Move: Transforming Transportation in the Greater Toronto and Hamilton Areas. [Online]
Available at: http://www.metrolinx.com/thebigmove/Docs/big_move/TheBigMove_020109.pdf
[Accessed 27 November 2012].
Metropolitan Council (Minneapolis), 2010. Regional Transit Standards: Transit Market Areas. [Online]
Available at: http://www.metrocouncil.org/planning/transportation/tpp/2010/Oct21/Appendix/G_TransitStandards.pdf
[Accessed 29 November 2012].
O'Sullivan, S. & Morrall, J., 1996. Walking Distances to and from Light Rail Transit Stations. Transportation Research Board, Volume 1538, pp. 19-26.
Parsons, M., 2000. Light Rail Central. [Online]
Available at: http://www.lightrail.com/photos/edmonton/edmonton15.JPG
[Accessed 4 April 2013].
Smith, B., 2013. Google Maps Engine - Eglinton Ave. [Online]
Available at: http://goo.gl/y4pZ3
[Accessed 3 April 2013].
Smith, B., 2013. Google Maps Engine - Sheppard Ave. [Online]
Available at: http://goo.gl/rSJix
[Accessed 3 April 2013].
Testagrose, J., 1970. Chicago "L".org. [Online]
Available at: http://www.chicago-l.org/trains/gallery/images/1-50/cta38.jpg
[Accessed 3 April 2013].
Toronto Board of Trade, 2012. Toronto as a Global City: Scorecard on Prosperity - 2012. [Online]
Available at: http://www.bot.com/Content/NavigationMenu/Policy/Scorecard/Scorecard2012/Scorecard2012.pdf
[Accessed 27 November 2012].
Turcotte, M., 2011. Commuting to work: Results of the 2010 General Social Survey. [Online]
Available at: http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/11-008-x/2011002/article/11531-eng.pdf
[Accessed 27 November 2012].
Walker, J., 2012. Human Transit: How Clearer Thinking about Public Transit Can Enrich Our Communities and Our Lives. Washington: Island Press.

Because I promised those who took part in the survey anonymity, I don't feel comfortable posting the spreadsheets I used to develop these conclusions, despite no real way to identify those who took part. At least not until I have received my degree... Later I will produce some charts based on the results, since some of my analysis may be confusing to comprehend verbally.

 

[M II A II R II K]

There's also the difference between a suburban arterial where there's nothing on the sidewalk between stops, and inner city routes where there's a subway servicing those streets that actually have destinations to go to on those streets and between the stops as well.

BD stop spacing where there's at least 2 stops in between the 2km. seems the maximum you could go without needing a supplementary bus route, and people are willing to walk to the nearest stop, especially since they're walking to a reliable and fast method of transit.

 

[W. K. Lis]

The stops would be placed at intersections where there is access to the side-streets. The difference between the suburbs and more older urban areas is that in the suburbs there is usually no access to any side-streets between where the stops would be. The cul-de-sac designs of the suburban road systems lead to more car use, not very friendly to walking (if there are sidewalks). In addition, the strip malls are cut off from the side-streets as well, walking to and between the stores is discouraged (one's car can be towed if you park in one parking lot, but walk over to some other store or office across the street).

 

[gweed123]

There's also the difference between a suburban arterial where there's nothing on the sidewalk between stops, and inner city routes where there's a subway servicing those streets that actually have destinations to go to on those streets and between the stops as well.

BD stop spacing where there's at least 2 stops in between the 2km. seems the maximum you could go without needing a supplementary bus route, and people are willing to walk to the nearest stop, especially since they're walking to a reliable and fast method of transit.

I agree, B-D stop spacing is perfect for the area. Although, I would also point out that the street pattern was also laid out for exactly that (walkability to the streetcar). Suburban arterials were laid out to be ideal for farming, and later for being carved up into subdivisions. In both cases, walkability was never really factored into the equation. That's why it's so hard to overlay any type of a sensible stop spacing pattern along those routes, because the location and importance of mid-block streets varies so significantly from block to block.

 

[car4041]

Electrify, could you post the actual survey questions that you asked?

 

[M II A II R II K]

And plus the Eglinton underground only has walkable stop spacing between Yonge and Bathurst. The rest will have to be supplemented by a local bus.

 

[Electrify]

Electrify, could you post the actual survey questions that you asked?

Will do tonight. Also looking to add in some graphs and images as well.

 

[Electrify]

Survey questions:

1. How often did you take public transit last month? Circle only one response.
1. All the time
2. Most of the time
3. Sometimes
4. Not very often
5. Very rarely/not at all

2. List your top 3 reasons for taking transit over other modes of transportation, starting with your top reason.
1. – _________________________________________________________________________
2. – _________________________________________________________________________
3. – _________________________________________________________________________

3. Of the times that you take public transit, how often do you use this stop?
1. All the time
2. Most of the time
3. Sometimes
4. Not very often
5. Very rarely/not at all

4. Approximately how many minutes does it take for you to walk to this bus stop?
1. Much less than 5 minutes
2. About 5 minutes
3. About 10 minutes
4. About 15 minutes
5. About 20 minutes
6. Much more than 20 minutes

5. Overall, what is your attitude towards this walk?
1. Enjoy it, pleasant, brisk, and relaxing
2. Alright, not too bad but wish it was shorter
3. Tolerate it, manageable but really begins to wear on after awhile
4. Hate it, tedious, long, and never ending

6. In the space below, please write down the closest LOCAL intersection to where your trip originated from. The exact address is NOT needed.
__________________________________________________________
 
7. From point of origin to your destination, door to door, how long does your commute normally take? Choose the most appropriate answer.
1. Much less than 15 minutes
2. About 15 minutes
3. About 30 minutes
4. About 45 minutes
5. About 60 minutes
6. Much more than 60 minutes

8. Overall, what is your attitude towards the time taken for the transit portion of your commute?
1. Enjoy it, smooth and efficient
2. Alright, decent but could be better
3. Tolerate it, manageable but does wear on after awhile
4. Hate it, tedious, long, and never ending

9. In the space below, please write down the closest LOCAL intersection to your trip origin. Exact street address is NOT needed.
_________________________________________________________

10. How familiar are you with the concept of light rail transit, and how it compares to streetcars?
1. Very familiar
2. Somewhat familiar
3. Not familiar at all

11. In the space below, please list any cities where you have been a passenger on their light rail transit systems (do not list Toronto).
_________________________________________________________

12. If the Sheppard transit vehicle had its own lane separated from other vehicles, received all green lights and fare payment was done prior to boarding to allow for speeds similar to a subway, BUT stopped only at cross-streets, how would this affect your transit usage? Please select the most appropriate option.
1. I would take transit much more often than I do now, the extra vehicle speed would make it more appealing
2. I would take transit about as often as I do now, and would appreciate the extra vehicle speed over the extended walk
3. I would take transit about as often as I do now, and have no opinion whatsoever on this new arrangement
4. I would take transit about as often as I do now, but would prefer having the local stop over walking out to the next major road, even if the ride is faster
5. I would take transit much less than I do now or stop using it altogether, as this local stop is an important factor for choosing transit

13. Is there anything else you would like to add? ____________________________________________

I also created a presentation in Google Drive which you can view here: https://docs.google.com/presentatio...W6Rys/pub?start=false&loop=false&delayms=3000

 

[cereal]

I've never understood 500m spacing. 800-1000m spacing means that you are at most 4-500m from a stop, and that's only a ~3-5min walk.

 

[smallspy]

I've never understood 500m spacing. 800-1000m spacing means that you are at most 4-500m from a stop, and that's only a ~3-5min walk.

That's only if you live right on the street that the route is on.

What if you live in the neighbourhoods, 400m in from that street? That could put your walk at almost a kilometre from the stop.

Dan
Toronto, Ont.

 

[rbt]

That's only if you live right on the street that the route is on.

What if you live in the neighbourhoods, 400m in from that street? That could put your walk at almost a kilometre from the stop.

Well, no, is stop spacing was every 1000m in all directions (east/west and north/south) lines then it's true.

That's essentially the Madrid approach in the suburban areas. Stops are fairly far apart but there are a dozen lines giving you effectively one stop within 600m of any location.

In short, I'm fine with 1000m station spacing but Cereal had better be prepared to pay for 2 lines instead of 1 for the coverage.

 

[diminutive]

That's only if you live right on the street that the route is on.

What if you live in the neighbourhoods, 400m in from that street? That could put your walk at almost a kilometre from the stop.

Tighter station spacing wouldn't help that too much. Unless they happened to live both directly midblock and >400m away from the corridor, they'd still fall within that catchement area. A typical corridor walking catchment area would be 800m wide (400m on either side) and however long. 800m stop spacing, assuming 400m walkable, covers about just shy of 80% of the corridor area.

Obviously if the catchement corridor is widened beyond 400m coverage drops, but adding stops along the corridor wouldn't improve coverage hugely since more and more of each additional stop would just be overlap with existing stops.

If many riders are located far from a given corridor the most sensible thing to do is add more corridors, not more stops. That's admittedly challenging in somre parts of the city though where major routes like Finch and Sheppard are 2km apart.

 

[bleu]

the distance is one thing, how many residential units are available close to the stations is another.
If you walk by the Bloor Danforth line, most residential units within walking distance are still low rise with too few highrise and dense neighbourhoods. Probably the same for the Spadina line outside downtown. It is such a waste of opportunity.

I'd rather have 20 stations with 2,000 people within 5 minutes distance to each station, than 40 stations with 300 people in their two story houses within the same distance.

but then people want to keep their two storey houses, without realizing how expensive and ridiculous it is to build subways for low density areas, and they complain walking 800m is too much.

Aura being 78 storey high has close to 1000 units, and probably accommodate 1500 people. The same land probably is only good enough for 5 house with 12-20 people?