News   Dec 20, 2024
UrbanToronto Year-End Poll: Vote on the Best Buildings of 2024, presented by Sapphire Balconies
 3.1K     11 
News   Dec 20, 2024
UrbanToronto's Social Media Presence Skyrocketed in 2024
 1.1K     3 
News   Dec 20, 2024
Mattamy Homes Records A Year of Accomplishments
 2K     0 

407 Transitway

salsa said:
There was no mention of the freight bypass line that is also supposed to be built in the same corridor. This should not be ignored in the planning process.
Click to expand...
It's not being ignored and did verbally come up in conversations with staff. Someone I know was there and they may post here what they were told. I'm not sure why it wasn't noted on the display boards.
 
Allandale25 said:
It's not being ignored and did verbally come up in conversations with staff. Someone I know was there and they may post here what they were told. I'm not sure why it wasn't noted on the display boards.
Click to expand...

Thanks for the details. So do staff believe that both the freight bypass and 407 transitway can co-exist in the same corridor?
 
The only part of this I read were the station selection items in the area near me.

I totally get (and agree) that there is no need for a station at 410 (it would be a wasteland)....but eliminating it creates a bit of a gap between Hurontario and Dixie....wonder if they ever considered a station at Kennedy.....the 7 bus in Brampton is well used and could deliver passengers and the area is a pretty significant employment zone for people around the GTHA to get to.

Also, I get that the lay of the land around Bramalea is tough and a bit inhospitable....but this major transitway is going to get close to the Bramalea GO station (a station that will be an RER terminus as well as a significant bus link/station but will bypass it. Are they avoiding it because it is difficult or is it impossible. If it is the former I think they would be wise to overcome the difficulties and get some sort of link to that station...if it is impossible, then so be it.
 
salsa said:
Thanks for the details. So do staff believe that both the freight bypass and 407 transitway can co-exist in the same corridor?
Click to expand...

My understanding from the person who was at the meeting, but also based on the post I made in the Bypass/Missing Link Thread is "yes" but it's going to be a challenging and complex engineering situation. Apparently the 407 was never designed to accommodate a BRT transitway or a new rail freight corridor, or both, so some re-engineering, modifications are needed. I know there are others here with more experience in the engineering field than me so I'm trying to be careful not to jump to conclusions or speculate too much.
 
I don't know if a 407 Transitway is necessary or desirable, given that Highway 407 is able to control traffic through tolls; it's hardly as congested as Highway 401. I'd rather see bus connections improved between the existing 407 and major locations, such as Airport Road and Bramalea GO.
 
I think the idea is that the transitway will get built once the 407 starts to congest - a lot of the highway is now built to its ultimate width and can no longer simply widen ad infinitum, unless 407 ETR decides to essentially entirely rebuild the highway in a collector-distributor setup. You are probably looking at 10-15 years before significant congestion begins to occur, but it will occur. The stretch between Bathurst and the 400 is already relatively busy during rush hours, it will probably be the first part to actually start to congest significantly.
 
innsertnamehere said:
I think the idea is that the transitway will get built once the 407 starts to congest - a lot of the highway is now built to its ultimate width and can no longer simply widen ad infinitum, unless 407 ETR decides to essentially entirely rebuild the highway in a collector-distributor setup.
Click to expand...
Interesting....I never thought of the 407 transitway as being thought of to relieve congestion (now or future) on 407.....just thought that there was a desire to have an East-West transit "line" across the top of the city to allow those that wanted to move between cities/towns/regions to make a choice between driving and taking transit.....and since the 407 is a corridor that exists already...that is where it was being designed.
 
the idea is that a northern "line" can use the existing 407 infrastructure perfectly fine until it starts to congest, and use park and rides along the 407 as station stops in the mean time. (I believe York Region is planning to build a few park and rides along the 407 in the next couple of years). The transitway would be constructed when traffic starts to inhibit buses from speedy operation, and as demand grows for the transit service. I don't believe that the transitway would actually improve travel times at all over the existing transit service offered on the corridor.
 
ShonTron said:
Wouldn't building bus bypass lanes be more cost-effective?
Click to expand...
Bus bypass lanes (BBL) wouldn't be all that effective if the rules regarding their us are followed that is.

Buses using a BBL in Ontario can travel no more than 20 KM/h faster than the rate of adjacent traffic and no faster than 60 KM/h.

If traffic is moving at 30 KM/h a bus could travel at 50 KM/h in the BBL.
If traffic is moving at 55 KM/h a bus could travel no faster than 60 KM/h in the BBL.

Also the BBL can only by entered from the start where the dashed line is present. If the lane is obstructed and a bus has to exit it then it can not re-enter it.

In Mississauga these rules aren't followed to a tee, but all MiWay operators have been trained on them and should be aware of the law. I would imagine in the unfortunate event of an accident occuring on one of them, enforcement of their proper use will step up.

As for the Transitway, I think we're looking at it the wrong way. As far as traffic flow is concerned there may not be a huge difference between using the 407 or the transitway. However, in order to have reasonable connections with neighbouring transit services it is desirable to have one consolidated station for both directions of the corridor's travel. For at least one direction of travel that would likely add 3-5 minutes of travel time per stop thanks to traffic signals and exposure to street traffic. Over 5 stops at 3 additional minutes per stop, that is 15 minutes of travel time lost. Factor that wiith thickening rush hour traffic and suddenly the transitway doesn't seem like all that bad of an idea.
 
innsertnamehere said:
I think the idea is that the transitway will get built once the 407 starts to congest - a lot of the highway is now built to its ultimate width and can no longer simply widen ad infinitum, unless 407 ETR decides to essentially entirely rebuild the highway in a collector-distributor setup. You are probably looking at 10-15 years before significant congestion begins to occur, but it will occur. The stretch between Bathurst and the 400 is already relatively busy during rush hours, it will probably be the first part to actually start to congest significantly.
Click to expand...

Isn't the 407's mandate not to congest? Basically keep the cost high enough to ensure those paying don't sit in traffic.
 
they could if they want, but I believe the tolls remove less traffic than you may expect. Maybe 15-20% of traffic is deterred by the tolls.. The highway is about as busy as one would expect for a road like that if you compare it globally to other second belt freeways. The big difference is that the 407 is far wider than most second belt freeways.. there are very few 12 lane roads globally, especially not as the second road around a city. If the 407 were free and untolled, that 12 lane section would probably be 6 lanes today. Toll Roads can afford to be wider as they are financed by the users. Its the same thing with the New Jersey Turnpike, which recently took the title from the 401 as the longest collector-distributor highway on the planet when they widened the entire thing from Philadelphia to New York to 12 lanes.

Tolls may increase, but I think you will inevitably see increases in congestion. It'll never reach the point of the 401 of total backups, but I wouldn't be surprised if traffic starts to slow down a bit from the typical 130km/h rush hour traffic flow you see today.
 
mdrejhon said:
‪
Wow! "Protecting" for LRT upgrade past year 2051.

First time I've seen a 2051 time horizon being used in this context, in a transit planning doc in GTHA.
Click to expand...

It helps when you're doing an EA for a project that probably won't even be built before 2031 :)
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top