News   Nov 22, 2024
National Housing Day: City of Toronto and Riverdale Co-op Open Affordable Homes
 278     1 
News   Nov 22, 2024
Bauhaus Condos Rising in Toronto's Old Town
 673     4 
News   Nov 22, 2024
49-Storey Waterfront Tower Proposed at Spadina and Queens Quay
 1.7K     5 

407 Transitway

robmausser said:
Considering the Markham councillors want an LRT for the 407 transitway,

https://www.yorkregion.com/news-sto...ready-missed-the-bus-markham-councillors-say/

and Metrolinx wants a BRT until 2051, perhaps these would be a good compromise
Click to expand...
Could work for 407.

Curbita (Brazil) sort of did this in 1980s already with their RIT, and now today, has almost LRT-like buses.

Tram-style BRT buses that have subway-style boarding.

All-door, level-boarding, fares paid platform......for buses.

1920px-Curitiba_BRT_RIT_550PINHEIRINHOCARLOSGOMES_B12M.JPG


1920px-Linha_Verde_Curitiba_BRT_02_2013_Est_Marechal_Floriano_5970.JPG


Source: Wikipedia

Built in 1974, it was the world's first true BRT, and they added the fare-paid tubes with wheelchair-accessible level boarding in the 1980s -- long before low-floor buses became popular!

It remained almost the only real BRT system in the world, until Ottawa built their Transitway.

These LRT-style buses have a ridership of 2.3 million people per day.
 
Last edited:
407 Transitway should get built as a simple BRT to start. Until there is sufficiently good transit in the suburbs there is no need to overbuild an LRT. LRT is good for mid-density areas not for sprawling suburbs. The Viva BRT is overbuilt and grossly under-utilized and that likely won’t change. The Mississauga BRT is the same way. Politicians want things but don’t understand the concept of building something useful for the money spent. The rally cry to build something for the future is asburd. You build to the capacity you need based on data projections and proposed growth. I doubt these areas will grow to support LRT for the next 50-100 years. Why over build now. Build small with capability to expand later if and when needed.
 
the point of bus rapid transit is that it works on its own ROW and on regular roads, for me at least it makes no sense to have such high doors because regular curbside stops would need to be adapted. low floor busses with slightly higher platforms at the stations are the best
 
Yes, low floor is better now.

The point being, this was sort of the world's first "LRT-style" bus (the "massive-number-of-doors-on-one-side" formula, on a multi-articulated bus)

In the past, LRT and streetcars primarly were high-floor systems, but now are in low-floor formats.

So technically, any future BRT could copy parts of the Curbita formula (but without turnstiles, AND with those new low-floor "tram-like" buses with 4 or 5 door level-boarding against a rubber curb precisely adjusted to match floor height). It's still a very interesting formula that has worked for Curbita. I say skip the turnstiles, because farepaid areas make less sense now with Presto readers at doors.

Maybe overkill for the 407, though, but people think the LRT-style bus concept is new -- when it is not. It's old hat in Curbita. They started simpler in the 1970s, and upgraded to those tram-style buses in the 1980s. So any BRT can progress to that (before an LRT) when ridership warrants.
 
Last edited:
BRT for the 407 corridor is certainly best. I can see a lot of local bus routes being redesigned to run local in a neighbourhood, and then hop on the Transitway at the closest access point for an express or semi-express trip to a transit hub. That pattern with LRT would require a transfer.
 
mdrejhon said:
Yes, low floor is better now.

The point being, this was sort of the world's first "LRT-style" bus (the "massive-number-of-doors-on-one-side" formula, on a multi-articulated bus)

In the past, LRT and streetcars primarly were high-floor systems, but now are in low-floor formats.

So technically, any future BRT could copy parts of the Curbita formula (but without turnstiles, AND with those new low-floor "tram-like" buses with 4 or 5 door level-boarding against a rubber curb precisely adjusted to match floor height). It's still a very interesting formula that has worked for Curbita. I say skip the turnstiles, because farepaid areas make less sense now with Presto readers at doors.

Maybe overkill for the 407, though, but people think the LRT-style bus concept is new -- when it is not. It's old hat in Curbita. They started simpler in the 1970s, and upgraded to those tram-style buses in the 1980s. So any BRT can progress to that (before an LRT) when ridership warrants.
Click to expand...

BRT/LRT style bus is not new, but a driverless automated and battery powered one is. There are other "driverless" BRTS, but they rely on some kind of rail infrastructure, and a driver to press gas/brake.

The system I posted is the first one to use similar technology as driverless cars, and battery systems like Tesla.
 
I have seen other cities (LA and Chicago comes to mind) that have rail running the centre median of a highway. Could that be done here and have stops at each cross street?
 
As I stated on the Miss Transitway thread, these "guided buses" are nothing new but have proved themselves to be both expensive and very unreliable. The monitor system in the pavement doesn't work thru snow, ice, or extreme heat when the asphalt slightly melts and warps. The asphalt also warps after a few years by having the heavy buses run on the exact same spot. Cities in France and the Netherlands have had this problem and have had to tear up KMs of pavement to be replaced with concrete. This is the exact same problem rubber-tyred trams have.

Buses using physical tracks on the other hand have proven to be more comfortable, have less swing radius with articulates, can have exact station alignment, have no problem with heat, snow, or ice, and no pavement grooving due to using concrete. The bridges are also much easier and cheaper to build as they do not require a full road bridge but just track ones like a railway bridge. Adelaide's O-Bahn and Cambridge's new system are the best examples and have been very popular and reliable.
 
ssiguy2 said:
As I stated on the Miss Transitway thread, these "guided buses" are nothing new but have proved themselves to be both expensive and very unreliable. The monitor system in the pavement doesn't work thru snow, ice, or extreme heat when the asphalt slightly melts and warps. The asphalt also warps after a few years by having the heavy buses run on the exact same spot. Cities in France and the Netherlands have had this problem and have had to tear up KMs of pavement to be replaced with concrete. This is the exact same problem rubber-tyred trams have.

Buses using physical tracks on the other hand have proven to be more comfortable, have less swing radius with articulates, can have exact station alignment, have no problem with heat, snow, or ice, and no pavement grooving due to using concrete. The bridges are also much easier and cheaper to build as they do not require a full road bridge but just track ones like a railway bridge. Adelaide's O-Bahn and Cambridge's new system are the best examples and have been very popular and reliable.
Click to expand...

Not an engineer I suppose.

There are simple solutions to these issues. Using magnetic paint for the strips is one, so the system can read it through snow and ice.

Any transitway should be concrete paved anyways, buses will inevitably wear down the asphalt no matter what kind.
 
robmausser said:
Not an engineer I suppose.

There are simple solutions to these issues. Using magnetic paint for the strips is one, so the system can read it through snow and ice.

Any transitway should be concrete paved anyways, buses will inevitably wear down the asphalt no matter what kind.
Click to expand...

What is wrong with trains? Why must it be rubber tires?
 
micheal_can said:
What is wrong with trains? Why must it be rubber tires?
Click to expand...

Ridership and cost, as well as an ability to use the transitway as a bus bypass.

The cost of installing rail and overhead must be worth it in terms of ridership. The ridership up north simply isnt there.

Also, with rail, you lose one key advantage: being able to detour off the transitway to areas of density.

The 407 doesn't parallel many areas of densification, so a bus is better suited as it can leave the transitway and go where the ridership is.
 
robmausser said:
Ridership and cost, as well as an ability to use the transitway as a bus bypass.

The cost of installing rail and overhead must be worth it in terms of ridership. The ridership up north simply isnt there.

Also, with rail, you lose one key advantage: being able to detour off the transitway to areas of density.

The 407 doesn't parallel many areas of densification, so a bus is better suited as it can leave the transitway and go where the ridership is.
Click to expand...

I see a route along the 407 much like any other GO route.

The other challenge is if it is built simply as a transitway, and the ridership gets to be such that conversion to a form of rail is needed, there will be that period of time where neither will be usable.
 
micheal_can said:
I see a route along the 407 much like any other GO route.

The other challenge is if it is built simply as a transitway, and the ridership gets to be such that conversion to a form of rail is needed, there will be that period of time where neither will be usable.
Click to expand...

Ridership projections for needing LRT are abnout 2051 from Metrolinx's report.

By that time, an LRT built now would need significant maintenance in the form of vehicle and track replacement, causing similar downtime to conversion to LRT.

It does not always pay to overbuild in advance, you have to consider the technology you are overbuilding with will not last forever.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top