Quote:
Originally Posted by thistleclub
From May to August, it seems safe to assume that ridership among the postsecondary cohort would also dip. Unfortunately, the HSR’s limited operational budget makes it impossible to know how much latent demand they are failing to capture even now through the disincentive of mediocre service levels.
Metrolinx’s 2010 Benefits Case Analysis uses reference capacities of 90 passengers per articulated bus and 1,950 riders per operating hour of a single-car train on a four-minute headway. In other words, 15 single-car trains gives you the approximate ridership capacity of 21 articulated buses. (Coincidentally, this is the current average hourly service frequency from Monday to Friday during the school year, though obviously not all 1/5/10/51 buses are artics.) |
There is an assumption being made that LRT ridership will capture all 1/5/10/51 ridership. I would like to point out once again that this is not a correct assumption. While ridership on 10 and 51 would obviously transfer to an LRT, the same assumption cannot be made for people who ride the 1 and 5. These routes serve people making short trips specifically along these routes that LRT will not serve. The King bus makes frequent stops over short distances on King that the LRT in its current configuration would bypass, and it won't serve any of the route along Main that the King bus currently provides. Most of the route the Delaware bus covers is considerably further south than the planned LRT line, so its ridership is even less likely to migrate from it to LRT.
This leaves LRT capturing practically all the current ridership for routes 10 and 51 and probably 60-70% of the current routes 1 and 5, plus any new ridership attracted by the shiny new trains. Considering that the demographic currently riding routes 10 and 51 are primarily a subsidized student fare, the potential for operational cost recovery is somewhat compromised by this demographic, making independent operational viability not very likely.
The challenge here is clearly demonstrating that perceived gains from capital reinvestment along the LRT route will more than compensate for its operational cost. This would be a much easier sell if the route was planned along Main Street, where arguably there is a greater potential for intensification, as Main has a more significantly underdeveloped street wall than King. A route along Main would also capture more of the current ridership of the current Delaware and King bus route. Main also offers enough space for LRT and car traffic to co-exist with significantly less impact on current traffic patterns.
Exactly why are we insisting on the LRT being routed on King when Main is a much better fit? No one seems to want to answer that question. It seems everyone is more content to keep it on King and have a rather unnecessarily inflamed and protracted "car vs. transit" debate left to fester.
Threaded Mode