Quote:
Originally Posted by jeremy_haak
I'm sure you've read the original Rapid Transit Expansion Study report to the Transportation and Transit Committee. It is very clear about its methodology: how corridors were selected, how different factors were weighted in making decisions, what every step was along the way, etc. By all appearances, it seems to be built on a fairly sound knowledge-base.
*steps down from pedestal*
|
Again, I'm a researcher, this is how you do things, but it's not as simple and easy as you make it out to be, if it would, everyone would finish their degrees in 2 weeks. I'm asking for help, and you people say good luck, this is not what I need. You oversimply the process by a whole lots. It reminds me of the simpsons episode, where Bart is in France. It's so short an easy to make wine, just take a raisin... then do it a million times.
If you guys when to meet, and we could be asigned tasks, I could go for it. In the meantime, I'm working as fast as I could for what I can put. At least, if we meet, things could clearer, and I could answer questions without losing 15 minutes to type the answer.
I'll accept that your ideas are not accepted easily, and neither is the plan correctly referenced. I'll take the interlining example, it is good when your line split is mostly equal for destinations, for example, A goes to B, and A goes to C at a 60/40 ridership. But lets say if at line A, people needs to go to B, to C, to D, to E, and to F (which corresponds to the MTF lines), and the ridership is 80% B, 5% for C,D,E,F. You have one line, the minimum headway is 3 minutes (which is usually the standard, see Montréal Métro, Toronto, Vancouver achieves a 2 minutes headway because it's automated). This means, for equal trains, that you will have only one that goes to your destination every 18 minutes. This is not high service frequency. Let's say you have 3 trains for B, and 1 train for each C,D,E,F. The service frequency will be higher for B, but will be 21 minutes for the other lines.
If you have two lines, A, and A', with trains to B, C on the first one, and D,E,F on the second one. With the same headways, you can achieve a service frequency of 6 minutes for the line A, and 9 minutes on line B. Even if you transfer, from line A to A', the maximum waiting time is 15 minutes. This gives a better service overall on two lines, rather than interlining. If the stations are parallele to each other, and only about 10' to walk, you don't lose your clients, but with destination to B offering much better service, you will keep and improve your service for them, which results in a happier client.
Was that written somewhere? No, because it's simple math. To explain it properly takes 2 pages, and that's only one issue you people brought forward. Try adding the 1000s more, and see that you reached a 10 year study.
But but but, d_jeffrey, do we really need 3 minutes headways? No for now we don't, that's why I mentionned that interlining for to types of trains is possible, this way service is for every 6 minutes. LRT has a maximum capacity of 11000 pph (average) for 3 minutes headways, for trains of about 550 passengers each (4 cars train, platforms of 80m). You then need to split that, which is 6500 passengers per destination per hour. The Origin Destination survey for 2005 was 29 700 transit passengers daily trips for Ottawa Centre peak times, from 6:30 to 9. That makes on average 11880 pph, which is our 4-car trains at 11000pph at a 3 minutes headway. Just there, your line is nearly full (that's why opting for automatic LRT greatly increases your pph, because of the 2 minutes headway). Of course, it's assuming that all buses are gone from the core, which will depend on the length of the LRT lines.
If you look at the entry points for other regions, it's all about minute percentages, it comes back to the interlining question, since we would have about 25%, 10%, and many many 5%, is that a good solution? No, because it will remove services for the remote suburbs. Well, why your metrO line goes to Kanata and not Orleans then??? Because, my friends, the Origin Destination reports travels for the morning, at 9500 for merivale, 6500 for ottawa west, and 2500 for Kanata. This will give us one line, that has great ridership both ways.
For the Orleans line to Hull metrO line, we have one big chunk of people going from Orleans to DT, and one big chunk of people, that goes to Hull (7500), but much less from Hull to Ottawa. (this is where I said that it makes more sense for Ottawa to invest in a loop for Hull than vice-versa). And the Orleans people are the ones that go to Hull the most.
But d_jeffrey, since the projected ridership is much higher than your 11000pph? How dare you use LRT? Well like jeremy mentionned, the projected pph is 30000 at peak times, of course. But there's not only one line that will go DT, but two. The Bank St. one adds to the E-W one. Assuming we can achieve headways of 1.5 minutes, which is feasible with correct technology. This will give us a system capacity at the core of 44200 for 4-car trains. 50% more than the planned ridership, and that's without buses or streetcars.
And for those who will ask, I doubt the Toronto Subway has a 3 minutes headway minimum turn around, well the turn around at Finch is 140 seconds, and that's at perfect operation.