nfitz
Superstar
Only when you support subway where there is no need for it. I just don't see justifying subway when the long-term peak-hourly load is only 4,000.
|
|
|
Smitherman's Transit plan
- Thread starter SimonP
- Start date
I've stated this many times already: I think that number is BS. The assumptions that were used to come up with that model were likely not the same set of assumptions that would be used if subway was implemented instead. In fact, none of the ridership projections for TC hold true for subways, because one of the assumptions at the start of the modelling process is that the technology of choice is LRT. That assumption alone alters the desirability of the line, and how people will transfer on and off of it. 4,000 is the demand for an LRT line, not for the corridor itself. That's a very important distinction to make.
The demand modelling for GO buses to Brampton is different from the demand modelling for GO trains to Brampton. Why? Because more people are attracted by the idea of taking the train than they are taking the bus. The ridership levels right now don't really justify all day GO train service, but if it was implemented, it would be reasonable to assume that the POTENTIAL ridership is there to justify it, should it be implemented. There are plenty of people who would like to take GO in from Brampton, who currently don't because they don't want to take the bus. Implement all day train service, or even a just a higher degree of off-peak train service, and they would be likely to switch over to GO.
The same line of logic holds true for LRT vs subway. Yes, the corridor may only be 4,000pph for LRT, but how many more potential riders will a subway draw, just because it's a subway? If people don't see the LRT as a significant time saving or comfort increasing method of transport over their current means, they won't switch. And a 3 minute time savings on Sheppard East compared to the current bus system, for a lot of people, will not be significant enough to warrant a change in commuting method. In fact, for people who don't live directly along the Sheppard corridor, it may actually result in an increase in travel time, as the bus that currently went directly to Don Mills now dumps passengers off at an LRT stop instead, adding in an extra transfer. Do you really want to stand out in the cold TWICE in the middle of February, just to get to work? Yes, I know the whole "just sit in Tim Horton's and wait" argument, but that doesn't change the fact that it's still an inconvenience for a number of people.
My overall point here: just because the number is low for an LRT ridership forecast, doesn't mean it would be just as low for an HRT ridership forecast. The very nature of the change in technology will not only increase the number of people who alter their current travel routes to utilize the new subway, or the city alters the bus routes to use the new subway, or in the Brampton scenario, creates new riders.
nfitz
Superstar
Eglinton is only 5,000 in the tunnelled, grade-separated section; it drops to about 4,000 east of Don Mills Road. Seems pretty reasonable to me ... would you think ridership would go up in this segment? The upper bound is probably only 5,000 if it was grade-separated.
GraphicMatt
Looking forward to a FRESH START for Toronto
I'm not making any kind of generalized accusation here - I'm just saying that lots of anti-LRT("anti-streetcar") types will claim to be pro-subway when really all they really want is surface transit to move out of the way so they can get places in their car. This is the Rob Ford-type of being 'pro-subway.'
I wouldn't say "lots", but there is a small minority, yes. And I was referring to the specific accusations on here in the past that I'm "anti-transit" because I support grade-separated transit over at-grade LRT.
ssiguy2
Senior Member
What I don't understand is why Smitherman would want an Eglinton LRT 12km underground. His entire transit proposal is Politics 101 and if there is one thing that people like is someone who will build subways. A tunneled LRT will cost the same as a tunneled subway but LRT still has the "next best thing" stigma. Why would he not propose a subway knowing that people would far prefer it?
fanoftoronto
Active Member
Gweed, I was searching for a long time and I found a document that accepts the fact that the ridership figures are for LRT and WILL go up for subway along the same route. The link: http://www.toronto.ca/involved/projects/sheppard_east_lrt/pdf/2008-06_display_panels_1.pdf
If you check page 9 it says that the demand for a Sheppard Subway would be 5000 as opposed to 3000 for a Sheppard LRT. Doing the same math for Eglinton then the ridership for an Eglinton subway would be 8333. Let's see how LRT seems to be a better idea now!
If you check page 9 it says that the demand for a Sheppard Subway would be 5000 as opposed to 3000 for a Sheppard LRT. Doing the same math for Eglinton then the ridership for an Eglinton subway would be 8333. Let's see how LRT seems to be a better idea now!
Voltz
Senior Member
You can't do the same math for Eglinton as they do for Sheppard, much of it will already provide subway level service. (please spare me the capacity rebuttals, it is irrelevant in determining demand)
Interesting, considering the RTES uses the exact same alignment and projected 8,400 for the Sheppard Subway to STC. I must have missed all the condos being knocked down along Sheppard in order to create that much of a drop in ridership... Or maybe the TC numbers are a crock of crap, either or. Thank you for digging that up though.
Much of it, but not all of it. The TTC thus far has not indicated any kind of a short-turn configuration where some trains will stay exclusively in the tunnel. Therefore, the capacity and frequency of the line will be determined by the surface sections, not the tunneled section. The line is only as efficient as its weakest point. This is the problem they're having in Ottawa now: the central portion of the line is bursting at the seams, the rest is fine, because the central portion has both the highest ridership and the lowest capacity on the entire system. I fear having Eglinton in a similar scenario will eventually result in the same thing, where the tunnel won't be able to keep up with demand because the surface sections are operating at or very near capacity.
rbt
Senior Member
Actually, we learned RTES overshot. Actual ridership for Sheppard was well below what was anticipated and only now, 7 years later, is it reaching the "launch" estimates.
nfitz
Superstar
That's a poor application of logic.
On the Sheppard LRT, if you go from LRT to subway, you'd increase the velocity of the vehicle from about 22 to 30 km/hr. On Eglinton the tunnelled section of Eglinton, you would not see an increase in the velocity of the vehicle, and would also see a decrease in the frequency. There is very little to drive an increase in frequency. There may even be a decrease in frequency, as a subway would require a transfer to another vehicle at Don Mills and Jane, which combined with the reduced frequency would tend to decrease ridership.
Last edited:
ssiguy2
Senior Member
I completely agree. If a line is not completely own it's own ROW then the entire system can be brought to a total stop with takes the word 'rapid" out of the equation. Just one small car accident near any of the cross street and the streetcars start to back up. To be rapid transit the vehicles not only have to be fast but dependably fast as well.
Your assumption being of course that the line would be permenantly truncated at Jane and Don Mills. And no, for a lot of routes it wouldn't require an extra transfer, and those routes would be rerouted into Mt. Dennis station, much the way routes in and around Sheppard are routed into Don Mills.