WislaHD
Superstar
Minus for South Etobicoke however, one of the densest parts of the city.Thanks. I know, if only it were real. That way someone could live anywhere in the city proper and be within a couple kilometres of a mass transit stop.
Minus for South Etobicoke however, one of the densest parts of the city.Thanks. I know, if only it were real. That way someone could live anywhere in the city proper and be within a couple kilometres of a mass transit stop.
Minus for South Etobicoke however, one of the densest parts of the city.
SE will have the grade separated Waterfront LRT AND the GO RER system, Including a station at Park Lawn. You guys will get plenty.
Dont be bitter just because its not a Subway, Rob Ford. This city has a subway fetish and we need to ween people off it. A combination of LRT and express electric trains is excellent, and perfect for the area of SE.
And a 30 minute frequency GO Transit stop is not high order transit.
Waterfront West LRT will be a failure unless they can figure out the Bathurst St intersection (bury it) and create signal priority on QQW (there are no major road crossing...how can they be so inept?)
And a 30 minute frequency GO Transit stop is not high order transit.
I just realized that almost all GO Stations outside Toronto have bus terminals, while almost all GO Stations in Toronto don't. Is this a operational, political, and/or budget choice, or is it just that there's not space? This also is the main difference between current GO stations in Toronto and the new SmartTrack stations.While that's the at-launch off-peak plan I don't think it'll last more than a few years in that format.
GO has actually gotten pretty good at responding to increased ridership levels when there isn't a large capital project preventing it. If South Etobicoke puts an average of 50 passengers on those off-peak trains (while Mimico has 5), GO will pretty quickly modify the other runs to also stop at there. Even the Niagara Express stops at Exhibition for a couple dozen people.
Politically, it's challenging for GO to reduce service so they seem to purposefully under-commit to ensure they don't get bad press from the reductions. At least, I assume that's why they do it; I find it quite frustrating.
TTC refusing to commit to bus service at RER stations and GO using low ridership numbers for planning RER (due to lack of TTC feeder service) is incredibly annoying. Both are doing it because they can't count on the other to follow through and don't want to be stuck with either the operating budget or the political hit to reverse those promises.
I just realized that almost all GO Stations outside Toronto have bus terminals, while almost all GO Stations in Toronto don't. Is this a operational, political, and/or budget choice, or is it just that there's not space?
This also is the main difference between current GO stations in Toronto and the new SmartTrack stations.
Since the whole Toronto GO system will be at $4.50 fares (GO+TTC), which will definitely relieve the subway system (not the 50 people example provided), would it be worth it to divert the routes now? Some people may believe that if it's not a fare-paid bus terminal in the TTC subway network, then it is not worth it. But I think it doesn't really matter since complete fare integration of fares is still a bit away.Some of it is space (TTC stations were also some of the earliest ones) but it's mostly cost.
When those GO stations were built, for a 905 transit agency 50 riders at a GO station per day made it a very busy stop. Some agencies, like Barrie, didn't have hubs outside of downtown and GO stations were a natural location to make them.
For TTC, 50 riders per day is barely worth installing a pole definitely not worth modifying the route. TTC already centralized bus service around subway stations and customer demand for trips to GO stations is comparatively very low.
Indeed. One of the more important parts to improving GO service is to make it just as useful (or more-so) as the subway for long trips; that means similar fares, connectivity options, etc.
Since the whole Toronto GO system will be at $4.50 fares (GO+TTC), which will definitely relieve the subway system (not the 50 people example provided), would it be worth it to divert the routes now?
Nope, not a Torontarian.Can your councillor
GO-RER, which what I was referring to, will be every 5 minutes to 15 minutes at the least.
So the Park Lawn will be every 10 minutes at peak service.
People keep getting caught up on what are the minimum service levels of GO-RER.
Every 30 minutes will be like 10pm on a sunday.
I don't think just having 2 longs lines downtown will be enough. Is there any evidence that shorter lines (only in downtown, requiring a transfer to go to suburb) perform better or worse than lines that go Suburb > Downtown > Suburb?
Is this partially the reason why the Relief Line U (Dundas West-King-Pape) had very small increase in ridership projection compared the Relief Line Short (South)People take transit because it takes them to where they want to go and they value their time. That means that, as long as there is room for them, they tend to take the route with the shortest travel time. Downtown circulators generally perform very poorly, because once you account for the waiting time, transfer time, etc., since they only travel a short distance (and they likely still have to walk from their final station) they don't end up saving that much time. Generally, people don't like travelling in circles.
Lines that go a longer distance in a direction are more useful because they accumulate more time savings. They also allow for more order/destination pairs to be served through a grid system. Transit that is fast (large travel times savings) is what we want, because it is in a non-overlapping and therefore complimentary role with walking and biking. Slow or short transit (e.g. ~2 km) just ends up cannibalizing trips from walking or biking, since those short trips aren't ideal for driving to begin with.
This shows up in ridership studies. For instance, Montreal was looking at a downtown circulator line. They created a bus route to mimic the route, and it performed very poorly. Sydney created a downtown circulator, and they eventually decommissioned it because ridership was so poor.
The goal of a new subway isn't just to "service" an area with a station, it is to expedite travel in a way that is useful for people.
Is this partially the reason why the Relief Line U (Dundas West-King-Pape) had very small increase in ridership projection compared the Relief Line Short (South)