The display panels from the SRT Extension Open House are available on the project website. My comments below follow the sequence of the presentation.
First up, we have a chart purporting to explain why we must use RT technology for this corridor. The chart on page 7 shows the following future projected demands on the line:
- North of Kennedy Station 10,000/hour
- West of McCowan Station about 4,000/hour
- North of Sheppard about 2,000/hour
As a point of reference, the current line capacity at Kennedy is about 3,800/hour.
Even though the target capacity of 10,000/hour (about which more below) is well within LRT capabilities, the presentation states:
The peak demand on the line dictates that the SRT must be in an exclusive right-of-way over the entire length of the line. A switch to a semi-exclusive right-of-way would include a transfer to a new line.
This puts all of the mixed RT/LRT options behind the eight-ball because it imposes a transfer that should not be part of the design. The one option that is not even studied is LRT all the way to Kennedy because, of course, that has already been rejected in a separate process that is outside of this EA.
If the demand north of Sheppard is only 2,000 per hour, this translates to 7.7 2-car LRV trains/hour or a headway of just under 8 minutes (the design capacity for the new LRVs is 130/car). South of Sheppard, the line will be entirely on private right-of-way where much closer headways are reasonable. One could even conceive of three blended services:
- Kennedy to Malvern
- Kennedy to Meadowvale via Sheppard
- Kennedy to Sheppard
This would provide a full capacity as far as Sheppard, with 1/3 of the total running through to the two terminals via on-street rights-of-way, and all trains would run through to Kennedy eliminating all of the transfers enroute from northeastern Scarborough.
There remains the question of that 10,000/hour projected demand. By the time, if ever, that Scarborough is built out to a level where that demand would be generated, there will be considerably improved regional services in the same catchment area on the Seaton GO service. Two decades from now, will we still be pretending that GO trains only exist to carry people originating in the 905?
If, as population in northeastern Scarborough builds, those who wish to travel to the core area choose to use the regional services, then that 10K/hour demand may never be reached.
But that outlook wasn’t on the table. Even though the presentation states:
All four network alternatives meet the project objectives.
the comparative evaluation is strongly coloured by the assumptions about an RT/LRT mixed implementation and its requirement to transfer. It’s no surprise that the LRT options are not carried forward.
Next come the various alignment alternatives. At this point, there are no recommendations on that score (come back for the next round of consultation later this summer). One new alternative, much different from those shown in the first round, is a route via Neilson Road north from Highway 401.
One alignment uses the abandoned rail corridor north of Sheppard, and design panels show how this would impact on the back yards of the neighbourhood through which it passes. I’m amused to see this design debate because the original Scarborough line was going to follow the same right-of-way further south, and there were substantial objections from the local residents. That’s why the line runs parallel to the CN Uxbridge Sub rather than diagonally from Kennedy to STC.
I have no illusions that the RT rebuild and extension won’t go forward, and probably the only thing that might replace it would be a scheme to extend the BD subway further north. The sad part in all of this is that we could have had an LRT network in Scarborough 30 years ago.
Where does the myth that LRT has lower capacity originate from anyways?
In 20 years time when this generation of SRT technology is again outdated, with compatible cars no longer in production, we will be having this same debate again. I wish the TTC would wake up.
Steve: It was originated by the Government of Ontario with the able assistance of the TTC back in the early 1970s. At that point, the search for the missing link, the mode that fell between subways and buses, led to the GO-Urban scheme and the creation of the Ontario Transportation Development Corporation. The TTC, then still in anti-streetcar mode, didn’t make a big fuss even though many of the schemes were utterly unworkable.
It has taken decades to reach the point where the TTC has a capacity chart (one version of it is in the SRT open house materials) showing that LRT capacity overlaps the range of the SRT technology. The constraints on matching it are (a) train length for on street operation and (b) the headway possible with automatic control and completely private right-of-way.
8,000/hour is possible with two-car trains (260 passengers/train times 30 trains/hour gives 7,800), and until recently, 8,000/hour was the projected demand on the SRT. However, the riding estinate for the SRT has recently inflated from 8K to 10K/hour a few decades from now, and this is being used to justify retention and extension of the RT.
Steve said: “Two decades from now, will we still be pretending that GO trains only exist to carry people originating in the 905?”
You’re dead on. Just to point out to those who may not know; there are more station stops on GO’s Lakeshore East line that are inside Toronto (Danforth, and the following in Scarborough –> Scarborough, Eglinton, Guildwood, and Rouge Hill) then there are outside of it (Pickering, Ajax, Whitby, and Oshawa)
Steve, you ride the SRT right?
Are the trains as horribly noisy from the outside as from the inside? Because in the few times I’ve ridden it I’ve wished I wore earplugs. If the residents of nearby houses were subjected to that I understand why they’d be upset.
Steve: The noise outside depends on the condition of the wheels and the track. The TTC has to grind the rails from time to time to smooth out the corrugations, and the cars can have bad wheel roar caused by wheels that need to be replaced or smoothed.
In the early days of the SRT, its proponents actually claimed that rail wear and noise would be a thing of the past because all of the propulsive effort was through the linear induction motor, and there would be nothing to induce wheel and track wear. This ignored the basic fact about rail technology that wheels bounce.
I read the paragraph that you quote, about “exclusive right-of-way over the entire length of the line”, as the official dismissal of an all-LRT line. After all, ICTS doesn’t do semi-exclusive, and no one was suggesting an all-exclusive LRT line.
That thinking may fit the agenda for Scarborough, but isn’t the plan on Eglinton to mix an exclusive and semi-exclusive ROW, without a transfer and with high demand in the centre section?
Steve: You’re not supposed to notice that sort of contradiction. The biggest problem on Eglinton will be keeping the Metrolinx folks, who want a subway end-to-end from foisting a technology we don’t need on us in that corridor.
Steve: 8,000/hour is possible with two-car trains (260 passengers/train times 30 trains/hour gives 7,800),
Isn’t 3-car trains the maximum length that can safely be used in street ops? Wouldn’t that mean 390 times 30/hr? Meaning 11,700 ppdph?
Steve: I am being conservative. A 60m long train is quite a big bigger than what we’re used to on street in Toronto, roughly the equivalent of a 4-car train of CLRVs. One thing I learned a long time ago (unlike a lot of “professional” proponents of various technologies) is that it’s better to understate rather than overstate my case.
With the SRT, I personally believe that the demand figures are artificially inflated, and that even if they were credible, we wouldn’t see that level of demand for decades. Meanwhile, alternatives such as GO service and additions to the network could change the trip distribution. However, the fix is in to retain and extend the RT. This would not be the first time that the TTC has misrepresented the impact of LRT in this corridor.
I have ridden the latest installment of the SRT technology (JFK AirTrain), and it is a quiet, and smooth ride. And the Automatic Train Operation maintained a steady 3 minute interval. Since there is no chance of a LRT conversion, maybe we can hope the TTC will actually upgrade the RT with the latest technology, and run it properly?
Steve: We are getting Mark II cars, eventually, and the new computer control system will be commissioned sometime this year, but the trains will still be driven manually. I suspect the TTC would find a way to foul up even an automated operation.
The original SRT replacement proposal estimates that 7-8000 per hour were estimated to ride the line in the peak direction out of and in Kennedy.
This proposal shows that we are going to break 10,000 per hour. In the early proposals 10,000 per hour was only possible with a Sheppard Subway to STC. Proves many points for LRT.
Steve: As I have said, I believe that the ridership figures are adjusted to support whatever argument the TTC wants to make, as long as they can claim LRT can’t possibly be used.
Next up is the options and objectives. Option 1 with a full blown SRT to the Malvern Community gets their objectives met except for the environmental and achieves reasonable costs. I personally don’t care for the environmental issues, but I would use it as political tool for full conversion for LRT. Steve, didn’t you say in an earlier post that with the extension the LRT option would be cheaper?
Steve: Yes, and that is shown by the highest ranking for the extension on a cost basis to be the all LRT version. It’s the cheapest. Keeping the existing line as RT is only cheaper if you never extend it.
Then they attack LRT on page 10 “Best supports population and employment growth by providing the most reliable transit service to Malvern.” Last I checked when Jack Frost visits Scarborough the SRT gets sick. Common knowledge for even people who don’t take transit.
Steve: It is claimed that the new, improved RT technology and its associated computer system are snow-proof. Fortunately, I am retiring next year and have only one more winter of commuting on that line.
The alignments I would like to see S1 and N2. S1 has a station very close to some condos that are already there and can achieve an even higher ridership number then the other options. Of course the west condo will be dead centre between McCowan and Progress stations. I would propose covered walkways between the condos and two stations to encourage walk in traffic, it might not be much but it is a start. I would rezone the surrounding areas to high density and build covered walkways.
For N2 I always liked Midland station for sitting on top of Midland with a good direct transfer. For Markham station I would like to see the station sit right on top of the intersection with stairs and escalators from LRT level and a link to the 102 via walking across the
street to the regular bus stops. It would require paper transfers but I think this is the right way and can be efficient.
I still think the SRT is a mistake as standard LRT would be cheaper more flexible and more reliable … I should become a politican …
Steve: Ah, but politicians are vulnerable to that oft-heard claim that Ontario’s technology will put us on the map. This must be why so many LRT vehicle plants are still in business.
As Ontarians, we should be happy that there are still manufacturing jobs here. Bombardier just celebrated their 600th order for ICTS vehicles. In other words, over the past 2 decades, over 600 ICTS vehicles have been ordered. ICTS systems now run in places like Beijing, Kaula Lumpur, Seoul, Vancouver, Toronto and New York. They are all produced right here in Ontario. In light of all the layoffs at Oshawa, we should not be in bashing mode.
Steve, we should always be future looking when making transit decisions. What happen if the TTC is wrong? Maybe a decade from now,we need something that can move 12000 people per direction per hour? People in Tokyo suffer now because their politicians are not forward looking enough. Even though every line is used beyond capacity, there are simply no more room to build tunnels, viaducts or guideways. We have a corridor, so let’s use it.
The Bridlewood mall site is being developed into high density residential area. This is in an area that will not be served by rail technology for a long time. If we put an ICTS line at Malvern, what is stopping developers from building high density. If we build it, they will come. Just look at the development around Bayview and Bessarion Station. Try finding a seat on the Sheppard metro at rush hour. Capacity takes time to fill, but it will come.
Steve: I refuse to be convinced that we should buy an inappropriate technology as a matter of loyalty. Bombardier is perfectly capable of making LRVs in Ontario.
As we have seen with GM, if you have a plant making a technology for which there is a limited market, that plant has a limited future. 600 ICTS vehicles is a paltry number beside the number of rail cars of other technologies world wide.
I never thought about the one option that would have the SRT follow the 401 from Centenial College to Neilson then go north to Malvern Town Center area. I think I still prefer the option of running the SRT in a trench in the abandoned railroad corridor I think. I think a station in the Markham/Progress/Sheppard area would be a lot more useful then a station in the Neilson/Sheppard area. A lot more pedestrian traffic and bus routes would be served by the first option. The Malvern Town Center is a no brainer as their would be at least 4 routes (and maybe some more) feeding this station and lots of pedestrian traffic as well.
One advantage of going up the Neilson Rd. corridor is that a lot of bumper to bumper traffic on the 401 would see the SRT pass them by, where the tracks are parralel to the highway between Neilson and Markham. While they are stuck in traffic it may help convince more people to leave their cars at home and start using transit if they witness it as being a convenient option.
You know Steve, you’re beginning to sound like a broken record when it comes to the SRT.
It makes sense to convert the Sheppard subway to light rail for a transfer-free ride, but it makes absolutely no sense at all to convert the RT to light rail UNLESS the TTC intends to create interlined routes with the Sheppard LRT via a Y-junction.
Seeing as how the TTC is against interlining in principle, those routes will always be run separately … so really, who cares what the technology is! If the RT stays as RT, it doesn’t stop the TTC from building other light rail routes in Scarborough.
Honestly, your bias against anything without an overhead wire is so transparent it’s not funny.
Steve: My “bias” is based on the fact that the modes in question (subway and RT) require a completely dedicated right-of-way regardless of whether the demand justifies it or not. This constrains placement of new routes and extensions and almost always raises the capital and operating costs of any route.
The effect, over my decades of transit advocacy, has been to limit the growth of transit in general because we couldn’t afford it.
In case SRT goes up the Neilson Rd. corridor, can it have a station under Centennial campus?
Steve: If you look at the maps in the presentation materials, you will see that all of the SRT extension alignments include a station at Centennial.
What I want to know is, why do they want to extend SRT technology. I am not sure if I heard this from your posts, from Giambrone, from Moscoe, or even the ttc subway operators…that the company who made the trains for the SRT, does not make them anymore…even subway drivers (front and middle) say that the SRT is a joke. I even was told same thing from SRT operators. There is a point where you can’t just repair it.
Steve: The line will be re-equipped with the newer “Mark II” cars such as those used in Vancouver.
Steve, I just noticed the following comment in the TTC presentation file you linked to:
“As the current fleet (Mark I vehicles) must be replaced, all alignments proposed support a range of vehicle replacement types”.
This is an odd comment, given the only replacement that is even remotely compatible with existing infrastructure are Mark II vehicles, and even that will require work to be done.
Does this comment mean that LRT conversion is still a possibility? If not, do you have any sense of what this could mean?
Steve: The fix is in for Mark II’s on the existing line, and I don’t expect they would go out of their way to provide for LRT beyond that point.
You’re rewriting history.
The extra expense of the RT did not kill light rail expansion plans in Scarborough in the 80s because it gobbled up all this imaginary funding you say was earmarked for LRT (or would have been forthcoming had the line been built for less as a streetcar).
The truth is there simply were no concrete plans for light rail expansion beyond the original Scarborough streetcar line connecting STC with the BD subway — or anywhere in the suburbs for that matter. RT technology did not push LRT off the table. If it did, the TTC woudn’t have gone ahead with the Harbourfront LRT in the fall of 1987 — just two years after the RT opened.
What I see on this board is a kind of fanatical LRT fundamentalism where LRT = good and everything else (subway, RT, BRT) = bad, even when the circumstances don’t particularly favor LRT.
Steve: The TTC had a plan for LRT back in the 1960s (I have a copy and it explicitly talks about a new generation of streetcar-like vehicles). This was pushed off the table first by the GO Urban maglev folly, and then by the RT. The loss of that first suburban line doomed all other studies to looking only at subway or RT technology.
Even Spadina and Harbourfront were very hard sells, and as we all know, they are very low end “LRT” given their stop spacing and frequent cross-streets with little or no transit priority.
There has been a huge amount of gerrymandering of transit “options” in Toronto over the past four decades to the great detriment of the network we might have had. The TTC colluded in this process by misunderstanding and/or misrepresenting what each technology could do. Queen’s Park did its own damage on many fronts including Bob Rae’s ill-advised embrace of the Liberal subway-in-every-borough plan as a stimulus to the construction industry. Mike Harris, reacting to that excuse for a policy, simply killed transit funding, a predictable response to an industry that would spend money like water on lines we didn’t need.
In a way, I am a fiscal conservative. Knowing that governments will change, we cannot bank on megabucks raining down forever, and we need plans that can be achieved with less than $100-billion. That’s why I insist on talking about LRT.
If you don’t like my opinions, then go post somewhere else.
@Miroslav; The SRT is being upgraded from “joke” to “running gag”. 🙂
Steve said: “If you look at the maps in the presentation materials, you will see that all of the SRT extension alignments include a station at Centennial.”
Not exactly – looks like the station is always at Progress Ave., an edge of the campus. That makes sence if the line continues north along Progress, or tilts north-west back to Markham Rd.
However, if the line continues east to Neilson anyway, then perhaps the Centennial station should be in the middle of the campus (underground), and another station at the Markham Rd and Progress intersection.
M. Briganti said: “RT technology did not push LRT off the table.”
It probably did, in Scarborough. Had the Kennedy – STC line been a plain LRT, it could serve as a trunk to which branches could be added easily. But since ITCS technology requires full grade separation, branches became too expensive.
The problem with RT/ICTS is not the lack of overhead wires of course :). The problem is that the technology costs more than LRT, is more restrictive for the choice of route, and does not offer any tangible benefits to make for that.
Even if the TTC is determined not to interline the fully grade-separate Kennedy – STC line with any on-street ROW line, it would be beneficial to use same technology / gauge / rolling stock for all lines in Scarborough. Maintenance would be cheaper and procurement of new vehicles would be easier.
No LRT fundamentalism here, actually I’d like to see DRL built as a full-fledged subway, and think BRT can be useful in many communities not as dense as Toronto. Regarding ICTS though, I just do not see any task in Toronto’s context for which ICTS would be superior to all other modes.
I know the report you’re referring to — I’d take that with a grain of salt, because the TTC issued another report in ’68 that called for the abandonment of all streetcar lines by 1980. Or, how about the other report (circa ’65) that said the Spadina subway would be operated with PCC trains. Those reports were all very speculative.
To rainforest’s points, ICTS has numerous advantages over subway and LRT — subway-like service at a fraction of the cost, automated operation, etc.
If you look at the Harbourfront LRT, talk of branching it eastward didn’t start until just recently, and that line is almost 20 years old now. I’m not convinced that a Scarborough streetcar line would have been branched and extended all over the place in the 80s/90s. If it didn’t happen downtown, what makes you think it would have happened in Scarborough?
Steve: Harbourfront didn’t branch because the eastern waterfront has been an industrial district, and its conversion to something else is coming slowly and painfully. Scarborough, on the other hand, was a booming residential suburb.
This SRT extension and upgrade along with Sheppard has become more political as the process goes along. I’ve been on the SRT just recently. I find that it has been neglected to the point where it is a joke. The Mark II are no better because in 20 years we will be back discussing this line again when these vehicles expire. Let’s wipe the slate clean and convert the SRT to an extension or separated subway.
Not one person has even brought this idea to the table which I believe is the political influences focused on these two lines. Converting the SRT to subway would take probably 2 years, using the existing corridor with a rebuilt underground Kennedy Stn.
Steve: Actually, a Scarborough subway has already been discussed. It would not follow the RT corridor, but would continue northeast from Kennedy Station with an intermediate stop at Lawrence. It would take considerably longer than two years to build, but the RT could remain in operation through much of this period. There are major issues at STC threading a subway through the existing developments.
You can run 4 car T1’s and expand the line to Markham and Sheppard for the same cost as the SRT expansion and reconfiguration. LRT was estimated at 490 million so the subway would cost a tad more because of station platform expansions etc… The subway uses the same gauge as LRT so track costs would be equal and vehicle costs would be cheaper as we can rebuild our fleet of H5 and H6’s to use on this line if we convert it to HRT.
We would then be able to have same fleet for all our rapid transit lines in Toronto. Cost comparison I think this would be better and it would solve our future needs for this line because in 20-30 years it will be part of Bloor/Danforth whether we like it or not.
Steve: If you are going to run 4-car trains, this means that the Scarborough line will not be an integrated part of the BD subway line. There is no point in spending all that money if people will still need to transfer at Kennedy. If the line were to go out to STC, there would probably be a short-turn so that every second train went all the way. However, the flip side is that with the cost of subway construction, it would never go further north.
From a fleet planning point of view, the H5 and H6 cars are soon to be retired. The H5 fleet has serious reliability problems, and the H6s are not much better.
Mimmo’s speech inspired me to think this one out and I am sticking to it. Conversion to subway using the existing corridor and then going in a trench from just before Midland stn, to Brimley, then dip underground to STC. It would then re-emerge past McCowan in a trench to the 401 and run alongside it to Markham where it would then turn underground to Sheppard. It’s feasible and comparible to the cost of the SRT.
As for Malvern, it does not have the ridership to sustain any rapid transit expansion, for now, but it won’t be far from this station either. A BRT route from Markham/Sheppard to Morningside and Finch or Staines/Steeles would complement the Malvernites quite well.
Steve: I think your cost estimates are wildly off, but am not going to belabour this discussion further.
M. Briganti said: “ICTS has numerous advantages over subway and LRT — subway-like service at a fraction of the cost, automated operation, etc.”
“Subway-like service at a fraction of the cost” does not cut it. The requested funding for SRT has been 1.15 billion, of which 400 million are for the upgrade of the existing line.
Hence, 750 million are for the extention just from SRT to Sheppard and Markham Rd. This is in the subway cost territory. An LRT extention would likely cost somewhat less even if tunneled, and much less if it uses a surface ROW.
For the SRT’s extention further to Malvern Town Centre (a good plan per se), the cost is certain to grow even higher.
Automated operation is a potential advantage of ICTS over plain LRT, but it would be essential in case of very tight headways only. The projected demand of 10,000 pphpd could be met by the new LRVs (130 ppl per car, half of trains are 4-car and stay on the grade-separate section, the other half are 2-car and go beyond that section) on headways of about 2′ 20”. This can be done with manual operation.
Same goes for speed: ICTS vehicles may be potentially faster than the LRVs about to be ordered, but those speeds are not used anywhere on SRT.
ICTS infrustructure will have at least a 25% cost advantage over a metro. We are comparing apples to oranges here. Tram construction cost is low because the stations cost very little to build. According to the Transit Toronto website, the future Sheppard E – Markham station will have a parking lot and a bus terminal. Tram lines as proposed in Tranit City do not have these facilities.
There is no question that even without the station supporting infrustructure, ICTS will cost more. What does this extra cost buy us?
Automated operation is a big plus. With inflation ticking up, it is to the TTC’s interest to have less employees. ATO allows for that.
Steve: To be fair, the drivers would be replaced with roving security staff who, likely, would cost more than the drivers.
ATO is also better for customers. ATO accelerates and brakes smoother. Human drivers can never compete with that.
Linear induction motors also reduce maintenance cost. Wheels do not have to be ground as often since they are not used for propulsion. It also simplies maintenance versus rotary motors. Any extra money we spend now will be saved in the future.
Steve: Actually, wheels do have to be ground because flats arise in a variety of ways including skids at stops after the transition from dynamic to mechanical braking. Those flats also cause rail corrugations and drive the need to grind the RT’s rails a few times annually.
Linear induction motors may have maintenance cost advantages, but in the original days of the RT, the comparison was with rotary DC motors rather than rotary induction motors such as those used on the newest subway cars. I am not sure that the relative savings are as great any more, and there is the extra cost of installing and maintaining the reaction rail. Notably, the Canada/RAV line in Vancouver opted for cars with conventional rotary propulsion.
At the end of the day, politicians will either shut up or stand up on transit. Transit will cost money, but so does widening a highway. I measure a politician’s committment to their voting districts by the tons of concrete poured. Every ton of concrete poured will reduce our dependence on foreign oil and enhance our competitiveness. It costs $750 million to extend the ICTS line at $135 barrel oil. Try building that line after peak oil when it is $200 a barrel.
Benny Cheung said: “Transit will cost money, but so does widening a highway. … It costs $750 million to extend the ICTS line at $135 barrel oil. Try building that line after peak oil when it is $200 a barrel.”
Widening of highways isn’t in the agenda in 416. The real question is how to use the available transit funding. You can upgrade and extend the ICTS line for 1150 million. Or, you can convert and extend as LRT for perhaps 300 million less, and apply the savings towards another line. If the LRT can do the job, then you just get more transit infrastructure with the given funding.
Yes, construction will become much more expensive when oil reaches $200, but that applies to all modes: subways, ICTS, LRT. We’ll be better off if we have a city-wide rail network (and that means largerly LRT) by then, rather than a few premium services for some areas but none for others.
‘Widening of highways isn’t in the agenda in 416.’
The new rapid-bus route to York University is currently widening Dufferin and other streets. When Moscoe was asked what would be done with the widened roads once they were no longer needed for buses due to the York subway, he chuckled, saying they’d be road improvements. Given that Dufferin will be widened to 6 lanes south of Finch and to 6 lanes in York Region north of Steeles, expect pressure to widen what will become a pinch point in between.
SRT: The move to incompatible (with SRT) Mark ll and subsequent high cost of purchasing potential replacement vehicles (Mark lla) equipment from Bombardier is pushing TTC to replace track system at great cost after just 28 years in use.
What is the risk TTC could be forced to purchase expensive replacement cars in the future especially if a non-compatible Mark lll is invented, the company is sold, technology spun off, not expanded etc. Are there any off the shelf linear induction or other off-the-shelf vehicles that can operate on proposed new ART track (assuming they’ll be available at re-order time)?
Sky-Train CEO Doug Kelsey describes why Vancouver’s Bombardier Mark ll re-order already somewhat costly. ‘Sky-Trains to be built in Mexico’
The whole people per hour way of measuring things I don’t think works well when planning rapid transit lines.
First of all, even with improved GO service, Scarborough riders are not going to use it, because the TTC/GO fares are not one. People are not going to pay two fares.
And second these people per hour measures do not tell what the expected people per hour would be, if the line was true subway.
It is well known that if the BD subway ran all the way to STC, that the daily ridership on the SRT portion would be well over 80,000 a day, instead of the curren 45,000.
With 80,000 a day, you can be sure, it would be well over 10,000 people an hour per direction.
But that is the basic problem with these reports. They only show stats for the technology that is there. Of course the PPH is going to be slow with the current set up, because people refuse to ride transit when they have to transfer four times to get somewhere.
Steve: In the context of transit planning, we need to look at the network and fare structure as it will be, not as it is today. Many problems of TTC network design arise from the artificial effects of the separate fare zones. People want subways (and with them, zone 1 TTC fares) pushed well beyond the 416 boundary so that they don’t have to pay higher GO fares or a double fare for the 905 and 416 transit systems. Others talk regularly of the need to move to fare by distance. If this happens, TTC fares to the outer part of the 416, let alone the 905, will be much higher, and this will change decisions about whether to use the regional or the local service.