Toronto Crosstown LRT | ?m | ?s | Metrolinx | Arcadis

[Rainforest]

Actually, both Lawrence and Ellesmere are good candidates for dedicated surface transit lanes, going from the eastern edge to SSE and then to Relief Line East. No major route hurdles, as far as I know. Ellesmere comes as BRT naturally, to be compatible with Durham Pulse. Lawrence East may be either BRT or light rail, either should work.

However if we want full Crosstown lines, things get tricky further west. Lawrence isn't continuous between Leslie and Bayview, and has a number of tight sections west of Yonge where adding 2 more lines would be difficult. In view of that, light rail may be more desirable for Lawrence E + W, as it will be easier to run through tunnels.

Ellesmere / York Mills / Wilson is continuous, but takes a very winding route over the hilly area around Yonge. Adding 2 more surface lanes seems out of question there, and even building a tunneled transit wouldn't be easy since the tunnel would need to clear both West Don river and the Yonge subway line that runs under the river. I recon, sections near Yonge will never get anything more advanced than mixed-traffic express bus service. Those express buses may use BRT lanes east of Bayview and west of Allen Rd, but will not form a full BRT.

 

[TheTigerMaster]

Tiger suggested lrt on eglinton, brt on lawrence, something on sheppard and ill assume lrt on finch. That would mean ellesmere / Wilson would be the lone major east west corridor without fancy transit.

I 100% support something on Ellesmere too

 

[TheTigerMaster]

However if we want full Crosstown lines, things get tricky further west. Lawrence isn't continuous between Leslie and Bayview, and has a number of tight sections west of Yonge where adding 2 more lines would be difficult. In view of that, light rail may be more desirable for Lawrence E + W, as it will be easier to run through tunnels.

I presume any Lawrence BRT would terminate at Don Mills, where it will interchange with DRL

 

[Rainforest]

I presume any Lawrence BRT would terminate at Don Mills, where it will interchange with DRL

Not a bad idea, as it will improve many downtown-bound trips.

However, at some point we might want to provide a direct E-W route along Lawrence.

I guess, it would be acceptable to have BRT east of Don Mills, and LRT west of Don Mills going to Dixon Rd and Pearson.

 

[JSF-1]

The problem with BRT west of Don Mills on Lawrence is that after Leslie, Lawrence East shrinks down to only 2 lanes (one in each direction) and this area also happens to be in the Bridle Path soe expect not only NIMBY's but Rich NIMBY's. As well after Don Mills there is very little demand for bus service. The 162 runs from Lawrence station to Lawrence and Don Mills but only operates at 30 minute intervals (and only uses 2 buses). There is almost no demand for frequent service past Don Mills and Lawrence and if there was the 54 and 162 would have been unified.

 

[Rainforest]

I suppose 54 and 162 aren't unified because running frequent 54 through the narrow Bridle Path streets would both disturb the neighbourhoud and slow the 54 down. It is faster for 54 to get down to Eglinton in order to reach Yonge.

So, I think if a through Lawrence route will ever be created at all, it will be light rail and it will be underground in the Bridle Path area. The goal of such line would be to help serving crosstown trips, rather than serve Bridle Path residents. If the line goes deep enough, it will not disturb them and there won't be many NIMBYs.

Note we are talking very long-term here; a Lawrence West light rail line isn't in the 1st, 2nd, or 3rd bundle of priorities.

 

[JSF-1]

The problem with tunneling though is you would need to tunnel under the Don Valley branch by Bayview which is an excessive expense. As you can see in the picture Lawrence is far below Bayview Avenue and whats left of Lawrence east on the other side. This ravine extends all the way down to Eglinton where it becomes Sunnybrooke Park. Tunneling under the Don Valley (and/or its branches) is a non starter and shouldn't even be entertained as an idea regardless of whether its for a hypothetical Lawrence LRT or the DRL north.

 

[am29]

Make it elevated?

 

[nfitz]

Make it elevated?

No. Construction has already started. Not sure why discussions like this aren't in a fantasy thread.

 

[am29]

No. Construction has already started. Not sure why discussions like this aren't in a fantasy thread.

I meant that for the discussion on Lawrence, my bad still should be fantasy thread.

 

[BurlOak]

I meant that for the discussion on Lawrence, my bad still should be fantasy thread.

It was obvious to me - and by elevated, I assume you mean under the Bayview bridge but over the river and join back up to Lawrence just east of Bayview.
Possibly it would be in the 50 year floodplain - so that the line would become submerged once every 50 years - which can could tolerate to save the 100's of millions in construction costs.

 

[TransitBart]

The problem with BRT...

Is that it’s BRT or Bus Rapid Transit. Namely a bus, masquerading as rapid transit.

I admit it. I am a rail snob.

 

[sixrings]

It's ok. I think you are consciously saying what most people subconsciously think.

Is that it’s BRT or Bus Rapid Transit. Namely a bus, masquerading as rapid transit.

I admit it. I am a rail snob.

 

[Rainforest]

Is that it’s BRT or Bus Rapid Transit. Namely a bus, masquerading as rapid transit.

I admit it. I am a rail snob.

Speed and vehicle type aren't related. Both bus and rail car are rapid if they run fast.

And, either of them may be masquerading as rapid transit if the route design doesn't let them run fast.

 

[sixrings]

Rail is smoother with nicer vehicles. BRT or not I feel poorer on a bus and flashes of Rosa Parks come to mind. Rail on the other hand feels like the better way. At best it's subway fast and efficient. At worst it's a decent street car ride. I hate the bus and I assume many others do by how many people are picked up at kiss and rides.