What? doesn't that exactly prove my point. The entire underground section is at 30 km/hr ... or 32. Same as subway. We've been discussing the piece of the LRT that has the 5,000 predicted usage, which is the underground subway section of the LRT. It's the same speed as the subway. Why are you deceiving us?
We cannot talk about the underground section in isolation when conditions along the surface can easily affect headways and running times. I'd love for a major snowstorm to plow through Toronto then have you explain to me that these idealized standards will always be the operational norms.
What? How? You're the one who has been maintaining that the LRT isn't as fast as subway.
Because it isn't. There's stretches of the YUS line that clock 40 kiliometres per hour in-between stops. I saw that ode to the 501 car YouTube video in the other thread which chronciled an 8 minute voyage from Humber Loop to Ronci. And it only took 8 mins becuase several of the stops were skipped. That means to travel 2.75 kilometres it was going at a mere 20.6 km/h. And this was the Queensway ROW the LRTistas were extolling as "rapid" transit. By contrast a subway only stopping at Windermere en route going at 35 kmph would get one there in 4 minutes 40 seconds.
There has never been a serious proposal to build a subway west of Weston Road, or east of Don Mills Road. Predicted ridership on these legs is very small - far below 5,000. What has that got to do with anything?
Wait, Network 2011 wasn't a serious proposal? Why are you trying to deceive us?
Let me tell you who doesn't get it. You don't get it. You can't even form a basic argument and follow it through. Every time you are proven wrong, you just ignore it and change directions.
There isn't a shred of evidence that supports a travel demand in the foreseeable future in the range required for subway. Stop pulling it out of your imagination!
Haha, this is priceless. Eglinton at 5400pphpd would already have higher usage than the Sheppard Line. 10,000 pphpd is such an arbitrary useless round number conjured up for the purposes of setting back the subway movement another decade or two. The TTC never concerned itself with it when they were talking building the the TYSSE which is projected to be undercapacity til the year 2031 or later. They sure as hell aren't bringing up the fact that demand will be so low along Yonge North extension that only every second train will head all the way up to Highway 7. Your hypocrisy holds no bounds. It's only when something is proposed primarily for the benefit of inner 416 (a politically safe Liberal stronghold) that there's no real incentive by politicians for fight for the city's long-term interests.
Preamalgamation talk of extending Eglinton subway to the airport was pretty heavy. Obviously it was a viable route back then, when the population was significantly smaller. Now that Richview's beginning to be lined by condos (not unlike Sheppard East), the same benefits to expand subway to that area is there tenfold. So central Eglinton (which has to be tunneled no matter what) and west-end Eglinton both have the numbers and future propensity for urban growth which can more than support subways. Eglinton East could support light-rail, I readily admit that, but if the long-term goal is to stretch subway right across the corridor, it'll be in the way. If you can give a private ROW to trams, you can do it for buses. I have yet to encounter an overcrowded bus thru the Golden Mile. We can't for the sake of those 4 kilometres jeopardize transit across the only through street in the central 416.
Fear not. FreshStart has fudged his numbers. He has tried to deceive us again, because it's not 10 km from Kennedy to Brentcliffe. It's almost exactly 8 km. if the bus does run on schedule and does it in 26 minutes, then it is only doing 18.5 km/hr. Though when I checked the schedule I got 27 minutes in the AM peak from Kennedy to Brentcliffe ... which would make it 17.8 km/hr.
Um, what? It's almost 9 and a half kilometres since Kennedy Stn is a ways in from the Kennedy intersection requiring a circuitous loop into the #34's bus bay. Even if I embellished it's not by much. The bus without a dedicated ROW and with several more intermediate stops and stop lights to contend with is virtually on par with the 12-stop road-median LRT line. That's hardly saying much in favor of light-rail trams to be on par with an "inferior" mode. Put articulated buses down a side-of-roadway ROW with all-door boarding and fewer stops and it wouldn't surprise me if that whole trip couldn't be done in 15 minutes.
) for the Eglinton LRT.
