Toronto Ontario Line 3 | ?m | ?s

[WislaHD]

I've always been skeptical of that approach of free travel before peak hours.

I agree that it works to some extent but wouldn't their also be lost revenue? (Or is that lost revenue inconsequential enough to be overlooked?) Also it is just delaying dealing with the problem of congestion.

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

I wouldn't go so far as to say congestion pricing eliminates the need for a new transit line downtown, but I think any new transit should be targeted at inducing new riders, not simply redirecting Bloor-Danforth riders. That was one of the big issues with the DRTES; most of the DRL riders were just BD riders saving 2-5 minutes, which doesn't do much for generating rider travel time savings.

DRL really shouldn't be above saving BD riders time - it should be about replacing the saturated/unreliable streetcar line(s), relieving the Yonge line and connecting undeserved nodes in the core/shoulder area. Besides, what proportion of the population are currently not using the subways/streetcars because the system is overloaded and unreliable in the core area? Those are your new riders.

AoD

 

[diminutive]

I've always been skeptical of that approach of free travel before peak hours.

I agree that it works to some extent but wouldn't their also be lost revenue? (Or is that lost revenue inconsequential enough to be overlooked?) Also it is just delaying dealing with the problem of congestion.

Yes, there's most definitely lost revenue. The question of how that loss of revenue compares to the cost of adding more capacity. Ideally, we'd see a combination of elevated peak-hour fares and free fares immediately before and after it, to maximize the delta between peak and near-peak travel costs. For instance, someone getting off south of Bloor between 8-9AM would pay 5$, but people getting off between 7-8 and 9-10 would ride for free.

Congestion is entirely a product of the lack of demand management, and proper demand management can permanently prevent congestion.

DRL really shouldn't be above saving BD riders time - it should be about replacing the saturated/unreliable streetcar line(s), relieving the Yonge line and connecting undeserved nodes in the core/shoulder area. Besides, what proportion of the population are currently not using the subways/streetcars because the system is overloaded and unreliable in the core area? Those are your new riders.

Right, ok. The problem is the DRTES showed that those "shoulder" stations don't actually generate much ridership in their reference network, and the bulk of ridership was BD transfers.

It's actually kind of unclear how you'd even build a subway which would do a good job of replacing routes like the 501/504. The trend in subway construction has been deeper and bigger stations (with big costs and high access times), when what we'd really want is more very shallow and cheap stations.

Lot's of mid-size Euro cities build these kinds of mini-metros with frequent station spacing, usually using Siemens' or Ansaldobreda's system. Cities like Turin, Rennes (pop. 200k!), Brescia, Palma and Seville. These seem like good models.

 

[innsertnamehere]

Ridership on the stations in the downtown area is in fact quite strong, Dufferin - Queen would have almost the same amount of peak hour boardings as Dundas West for the DRL. Pape would obviously be the major transfer point, but the non transfer points contribute the majority of the peak boardings, and that is with the wide stop spacing used in the DRTES.

Queen Dufferin and Spadina according to the DTRES would actually be extremely busy stations, likely in the 50k daily use areas.

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

Right, ok. The problem is the DRTES showed that those "shoulder" stations don't actually generate much ridership in their reference network, and the bulk of ridership was BD transfers.

It's actually kind of unclear how you'd even build a subway which would do a good job of replacing routes like the 501/504. The trend in subway construction has been deeper and bigger stations (with big costs and high access times), when what we'd really want is more very shallow and cheap stations.

Lot's of mid-size Euro cities build these kinds of mini-metros with frequent station spacing, usually using Siemens' or Ansaldobreda's system. Cities like Turin, Rennes (pop. 200k!), Brescia, Palma and Seville. These seem like good models.

The reference outlook is rather odd considering the existing ridership of 501 and 504 - and it presumes that both will continue to be in service in the central section. I am not sure if that's a realistic expectation. And depending on what alignment you chose, shallower stations may be a possibility outside the immediate YUS loop. Personally I think one is overestimating the importance of trip time vs. general convenience and service reliability.

Besides, I would be very, very curious to know what densification scenarios the modelling assumed, vis-a-vis the current trends.

AoD

 

[doady]

The DRL proposal seem to be missing the point. Relieving Yonge from the East, that's the priority. Union to Sheppard-Don Mills should be the first phase(s). We can think about DRL west of Union after. Let's concentrate on Relief of Yonge first, then Bloor after.

Looking at the current proposal, you'd think Bloor-Danforth was the most crowded, not Yonge. That's just crazy.

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

doady:

It's about relieving the chokepoint of Y+B. In the long run, Yonge will have to be relieved through some kind of extension northward, say beyond Eglinton. The downtown to Pape scenario is a Phase I.

AoD

 

[diminutive]

Ridership on the stations in the downtown area is in fact quite strong, Dufferin - Queen would have almost the same amount of peak hour boardings as Dundas West for the DRL. Pape would obviously be the major transfer point, but the non transfer points contribute the majority of the peak boardings, and that is with the wide stop spacing used in the DRTES.

Queen Dufferin and Spadina according to the DTRES would actually be extremely busy stations, likely in the 50k daily use areas.

Queen and Dufferin's use, in the DRTES model, is largely a function of GO transfers. Ditto for Roncesvalles, Gerrard and Bayview/River and even Dundas West. Cumulatively, those stations are supposed to see 10k peak hour transfers from GO. The total peak hour boardings of those stations is 18,400. Without GO transfers then, those stations are only drawing 8,400 peak hour boardings. And that's with BD transfers @ Dundas West.

So, in terms of 'local' non-tranfer riders, these stations really aren't drawing huge numbers of riders.

 

[diminutive]

The DRL proposal seem to be missing the point. Relieving Yonge from the East, that's the priority. Union to Sheppard-Don Mills should be the first phase(s). We can think about DRL west of Union after. Let's concentrate on Relief of Yonge first, then Bloor after.

Looking at the current proposal, you'd think Bloor-Danforth was the most crowded, not Yonge. That's just crazy.

The 'relief' impact of an Eglinton-St.Andrew DRL is almost the same as a Pape-Dundas West DRL. The difference is negligible.

There's no need to fetishize 'relief' this much. The TTC is begining to sound like it's selling arthritis medication.

 

[diminutive]

The reference outlook is rather odd considering the existing ridership of 501 and 504 - and it presumes that both will continue to be in service in the central section. I am not sure if that's a realistic expectation. And depending on what alignment you chose, shallower stations may be a possibility outside the immediate YUS loop. Personally I think one is overestimating the importance of trip time vs. general convenience and service reliability.

Besides, I would be very, very curious to know what densification scenarios the modelling assumed, vis-a-vis the current trends. Looking at some of the brouhahas around (modest) condo projects in the Beaches, I could imagine some stiff resistance to la

AoD

How the DRL interacts with the 501/504 is beyond my ability to answer. I do feel confident in saying that upgrading these routes to transit malls would achieve ~80% of the transit time savings as building a fully underground system for ~80% of riders, though the politics of actually implementing transit malls would be ugly.

The 'densification' scenario is another tricky assumption. A lot of the areas currently seeing large scale redevelopment (the entertainment district) would probably see most of their residents walking to work, and could produce surprisingly little actual transit demand. On other parts of the route, you'd likely see some pretty stiff resistance to densification (e.g. Leslieville, Queen/Dufferin, Roncesvalles, High Park).

 

[innsertnamehere]

Queen dufferin is already very quickly densifiying, with liberty village to the south.

How would there even be transfers at queen dufferin from GO? Metrolinx has specifically stated that a station is not possible there, and what is more the DTRES didn't (from memory) account for one or for large amounts of trips making transfers from GO. The large ridership figures likely originate from the dufferin bus connection, which would essentially be the only intersecting bus route on the entire line.

What's more it still doesn't explain the ridership projected for spadina, or the relatively regular ridership stops with no possible GO connections such as parliament, which has ridership projections around 2,000 peak hour boardings which would work out to be a station with roughly 20,000 daily trips made from it, right around the average busyness of a subway stop.

 

[denfromoakvillemilton]

The DRL proposal seem to be missing the point. Relieving Yonge from the East, that's the priority. Union to Sheppard-Don Mills should be the first phase(s). We can think about DRL west of Union after. Let's concentrate on Relief of Yonge first, then Bloor after.

Looking at the current proposal, you'd think Bloor-Danforth was the most crowded, not Yonge. That's just crazy.

doady:

It's about relieving the chokepoint of Y+B. In the long run, Yonge will have to be relieved through some kind of extension northward, say beyond Eglinton. The downtown to Pape scenario is a Phase I.

AoD

It should be about both. Right now we have a chance to get people completely off the YUS. We're only talking about building a stub.

 

[diminutive]

How would there even be transfers at queen dufferin from GO? Metrolinx has specifically stated that a station is not possible there, and what is more the DTRES didn't (from memory) account for one or for large amounts of trips making transfers from GO. The large ridership figures likely originate from the dufferin bus connection, which would essentially be the only intersecting bus route on the entire line.

Why are you guessing? The study is pretty clear that the ridership is coming from GO and BD, not local demand or even transfers from busy routes like Spadina or Dufferin.

What's more it still doesn't explain the ridership projected for spadina, or the relatively regular ridership stops with no possible GO connections such as parliament, which has ridership projections around 2,000 peak hour boardings which would work out to be a station with roughly 20,000 daily trips made from it, right around the average busyness of a subway stop.

Spadina does well because there are lots of businesses around there, so it (and Sherbourne) attract a fair number of alightings.

I don't know what you're talking about in terms of a Parliament station. As far as I can see, no such stop is included in the study's reference design. West of the River you have Bayview/River (w/GO interchange) and Sherbourne.

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

How the DRL interacts with the 501/504 is beyond my ability to answer. I do feel confident in saying that upgrading these routes to transit malls would achieve ~80% of the transit time savings as building a fully underground system for ~80% of riders, though the politics of actually implementing transit malls would be ugly.

But that's exactly the point - why should a study of such nature not study how the DRL interacts with said streetcar lines, particularly when the line is going to overlap with the function of said lines. And implementing not one, but two routes in the core as transit malls? That's pretty much a no right from the get go.

The 'densification' scenario is another tricky assumption. A lot of the areas currently seeing large scale redevelopment (the entertainment district) would probably see most of their residents walking to work, and could produce surprisingly little actual transit demand. On other parts of the route, you'd likely see some pretty stiff resistance to densification (e.g. Leslieville, Queen/Dufferin, Roncesvalles, High Park).

Of course it is a tricky assumption, and not to discourage anyone from walking to work - but really, at the end of the day are people doing it because it is their first choice, or is it so unreliable and crowded that it's a big why bother? Again, that's your new riders right there, especially when the network is connected to other nodes of high demand.

re: resistance to densification - yes to (esp.) High Park and maybe Ronces - but Queen/Dufferin and Leslieville? It's already happening.

AoD

 

[ksun]

Of course it is a tricky assumption, and not to discourage anyone from walking to work - but really, at the end of the day are people doing it because it is their first choice, or is it so unreliable and crowded that it's a big why bother? Again, that's your new riders right there, especially when the network is connected to other nodes of high demand.

AoD

I am one of those downtown dwellers who hardly take the TTC mostly because 1) most of my trips are relatively short (< 2km) and spending $3 is simply not worth it. 2) streetcars are so unreliable that you may end up waiting a longer time than if you simply walk.

I agree with diminutive that all those highrise condos will probably general not much demand during rush hours. Downtowners normally use transit during evenings/weekends to other parts of the city, not for commuting between 7 and 9. And we all know that even the Yonge line downtown section is hardly half full during off peak hours.