News   Apr 18, 2024
Long Term Care Facility to be Built at Hennick Bridgepoint Hospital
 671     0 
News   Apr 18, 2024
Canada's Tallest Tower to be Taller, Again
 5.9K     1 
News   Apr 18, 2024
Originate Developments Achieves Zoning Approval for Two Ambitious Residential Projects
 2.4K     4 

Curitiba's bus system as model for TO

A

afransen TO

Guest
Given that Toronto has sprawled out of all sense of proportion, it would seem that the cost of providing fast, efficient, high volume transit would be prohibitive if we relied on Toronto's traditional subway/bus feeder system. While it's true that BRT cannot handle the passenger loads that subway can, in the suburbs this isn't really necessary.

So, saying that the GTTA is established and isn't a resounding failure, what would be a better course of action; business as usual occasional subway expansion, or diverting a few billion to creating a region-wide BRT system with the eventual goal that any new greenfield development would have BRT service as a prerequisite service like sewers and roads? This doesn't preclude subway expansion, but it would help defuse the political motivations behind it, by requiring that any new subway would be built as a response to overloaded BRT lines. Hopefully then we would no longer have subways built to enrich the friends and family of certain Ontario finance ministers.

I've been doing some reading on Curitiba and how they've responded to challenges facing that city in light of the fact that there wasn't an abundance of wealth to address their problems. While Toronto is by comparison incredibly wealthy, we still have the same problem of having very little resources dedicated or realistically available to solve our problems.

I think this is an interesting topic, and while I'm sure the planning types have already beaten this horse to death in their experience, I think it might be time to talk about it again for the benefit of those who might be less familiar with it.
 
I agree that a BRT as a prerequisite for a subway is a good idea. It might help take the politics out of subway expansion, so its only done when and where it's needed. Building a subway to the field in Vaughan they call a corporate centre is inappropriate, as was choosing the Sheppard line over the Eglinton line because it was in North York. BRTs are much cheaper and more cost effective than subways. Unfortunately Toronto seems to have a mindset that blocks BRTs and LRTs from their minds when it comes to rapid transit. Subways make sense where there is high density. Until that level of density is reached, a BRT or LRT is more cost effective, especially for a cash-strapped city like Toronto.
 
The biggest problem with BRT is that while in the shortcome it may be a reasonable solution it can very quickly become a victim of its own success. Take the case of Ottawa where the Transitway has done a great job improving transit in the city, but stand on Albert or Slater Street during rush hour and you see lines of buses that often stretch for much of the length of the downtown area. The system is now at the point where only LRT expansion and construction is the only way to deal with it.

In a city like Toronto (and its surrounding suburbs) which is growing at moderately rapid rate the problem of reaching peak capacity on BRT systems does seem to be one that is of concern. I do think the idea of more dedicated bus lanes along existing arterials along with signal priority and other time saving measures is worthwhile.

If an agency is going to make the investment in ROW's, stations, fleet and labour, LRT (or some form or rail transit) still seems like a better long term investment for Toronto. I think the biggest challenge is making sure that new rail transit is tied closely with high density, sustainable development. This seems like a more amiable solution in a region where intensification in existing suburban areas has become a stated goal.

Instead of exploring lesser options such as BRT, Toronto and company should be focusing on more innovative solutions. Partnerships with developers is one idea that really has not been given a chance. Much in the way that 'cash in lieu of parking' allows developers to reduce construction costs and often increase the footprint the can build on, a system where developers are afforded density increases that benefit their bottom line and increase the sustainability of the developments may be one way to raise additional funds. The Vaughan extension is a good case in point for its failures and potential. As it stands, its a ridiculous idea. But if the extension where given on the condition that all development within say a 2 or 3 km radius meet standards that are appropriate for an area being served by high order transit, than it could be an rather effective method of increasing transit service and meeting specific growth goals.

I also think that the GTTA and the need for a more regional organization of transit is another aspect that could (will) make a large difference in being able to deliver effective transit. Even if a BRT is cheap, how effective would it be in todays transit climate with each city and municipality going head to head over every little issue. Once transit actually functions in a regional context then services such as GO can actually be exploited to their full potential as well as making municipal boundries irrelevant and more effectively delivering services.

All this isnt to say that BRT's dont have a place, and in some cases they may a desireable answer to a transit problem. But in most cases the scale of the GTA and the scale of its transit needs really demand something a little more substantial than BRT in addition to non infrastructure related solutions.
 
I agree that a BRT as a prerequisite for a subway is a good idea.
Click to expand...

Or LRT. I'd like to see pre-Metro LRTs (in tunnels where needed) along streets like Queen and Eglinton), which could later be upgraded to full subways when needed. BRT is largely a fad. Curitiba closed down one of its main streets and made it bus and pedestrian only with the tubes for fare collection. Could you imagine that in Toronto along Queen or somewhere like that?
 
I was suggesting it more for the suburbs, which are currently only served by bus routes, and that only poorly (travel times can be ridiculous).

The problem with LRT is that it is still too expensive to deploy a large network spanning the entire GTA. Perhaps it would be preferable in the long run, but realistically, Toronto does not and will not have vast sums available to create an region-wide LRT system.

I don't agree that BRT is a fad. It's been used to great effect for decades. It isn't a miracle cure for all transit ails, but it is nonetheless a useful tool.
 
Bus lanes are all well and good, but in my experience, they don't tend to improve travel times very much in Toronto. They're poorly enforced and get stopped repeatedly at traffic lights anyway. The biggest problem with bus routes in our city seems to be the frequency of stops. They're at least twice as frequent as any bus route in Europe.
 
I mean the Curitiba model, where there are fare-paid zones at not overly frequent stations, with buses on dedicated (and sometimes separated) lanes, with priority signal control at intersections. We have to abandon the half-assed bus lane approach.... There's an easy way to prevent people from using bus lanes. Set up a sensor in the roadbed, and every time something passes over it, take a snapshot of the vehicle. If it's not a bus (computer recognition could easily do this), read the license plate and mail a ticket. Simple...
 
"The biggest problem with bus routes in our city seems to be the frequency of stops. They're at least twice as frequent as any bus route in Europe."

Which is exactly why we need some the kind of express/rocket bus routes that miketoronto has suggested (edit - not to downtown, but across and around the suburbs). This would do so much for suburban travel in many cases that we wouldn't need to worry about any other BRT-type measures.
 
"The problem with LRT is that it is still too expensive to deploy a large network spanning the entire GTA. Perhaps it would be preferable in the long run, but realistically, Toronto does not and will not have vast sums available to create an region-wide LRT system."

Except how much could actually be saved in the short term constructing BRTs as opposed to LRTs? Regardless of which everone you build there will still be overpasses, underpasses, ROW and lands aquisition costs (which in a region such as the GTA are going to be a substantial). The main difference will be the cost of a roadway vs. tracks (and electrification if such a route is taken), and the cost of the fleet. Even when it comes to the cost of the fleet, if you were to compare how much it would cost to move 350 people on an LRT vs. a couple buses (don't forget labour costs too) there would probably not be much of a difference between the two. While some money would likely be saved constructing a BRT, how much could greatly vary depending on where its built and its service levels.

It is also true that Toronto does not have extensive resources at the momment. But this is largely dependant on political will and citizen demand. Give the suburbs 5 or 10 years, let them choke under increasing smog, congestion, and rising fuel prices and this could change very quickly.

Having said all that, there is one idea for regional BRT that I do think is worth exploring and that is using the freeway system and constructing ROWs. Two examples close to Toronto come to mind. The first in Ottawa and the use of the Queensway west of the 416. This a rather cheap method that uses the outer shoulders for buses and places stops at interchange intersections.

A much better example is Autoroute 10 in Longueuil from Pont Champlain just past Boul. Taschereau. A two lane, bus only roadway was constructed in the center median instead of along the shoulder and is completely seperated from Autoroute traffic. What also makes this a very effective arrangement is that buses have direct access to park and ride and local terminuses via there own roadways on and off the busway. If you look at the two diagrams below you can see a simple 3 way stop leads right into Terminus Panama avoiding any local traffic. This is also the case (save a single 4 way stop) for Terminus Brossard located just north of the A-10/A-30 interchange.

taschereau2.gif


taschereau_phase5.jpg


I can say from personal experience having used both RTL and CIT buses using this ROW that it is incredibley efficient and effective. In Toronto, this could be accomplished by removing the center median from freeways, constructing two new medians along the existing shoulder line and easily creating two center, bus only lanes (plus private connections to park and rides and local access to neighborhoods). Another benefit is because the freeways are in most cases owned by the province, the cost of aquiring new land for ROWs will be minimal, being needed only for new access roads and park and rides (which deals could be worked out with the various municipalities in all likeliness).

Even if new LRT and commuter rail lines where constructed, freeway ROWs might not be a bad investment regardless because they do offer a flexible network that can be effective for places where densities cannot support higher order transit, but where demand exists for faster commuter services.
 
Actually, though the interchange at Boul. Taschereau was modified, the buses do not use a separated roadway. Intead, they use contraflow lanes on the Champlain Bridge, in the opposite direction of the peak flow. Before the contraflow starts, red flashing Xs direct cars out of the left most lane, then RTL employees put down pylons to separate the left lane.
 
On the bridge, your right, they still use pylons. The seperate lanes start/end at the former toll plaza on the south shore. There are also plans to construct a series of bus only lanes that will start again on the northern side of Pont Champlain and end close to Place Bonaventure (this is in conjunction with a new alignment for the Bonaventure expressway as well). There is little that can be done to create seperate lanes on the bridge.
 
Oh, I get it now (re: the bus only lanes). It's not that bad an idea, given that the buses go direct between Panama and Bonaventure without intermediate stops, though I don't see it so practical in Toronto, where a bottleneck like the St. Lawrence River doesn't quite exist where all sorts of buses funnel in to the downtown.

I'd like to see more 190 type routes along more of the east-west routes (limited stop, all day service), like the Broadway B-Line in Vancouver, which would at least cut the number of stops for through travel along Finch, Eglinton (until the pre-metro is built), etc. And that isn't BRT (which is a fad, IMHO) - that's just an express bus, or quality bus service. In my view, Viva is more of a quality bus along the same lines than true BRT.
 
I don't think it is strictly necessary to have dedicated roadways. Even just the outside two lanes of many avenues/throughfares could work, either by blocking off automobile traffic (like Spadina) or limiting it to bus-only traffic enforced with cameras (which would be very effective). So I think BRT could be installed much more cheaply than you suggest.

Also, labour costs associated with buses can be reduced by using articulated and bi-articulated buses (or double deckers), which would only require a driver as fare would be paid at stations prior to the bus arriving.

See:
Image:Bus_Stops_2_curitiba_brasil.jpg

link

So, a BRT system could be assembled by plopping down some stations like pictured above, installing signal priority systems, a means of enforcing bus-only traffic in the BRT lanes and rolling stock (and its support systems). This could be much, much cheaper than laying track and purchasing LRT, not to mention faster to install.
 
"And that isn't BRT (which is a fad, IMHO) - that's just an express bus, or quality bus service. In my view, Viva is more of a quality bus along the same lines than true BRT."

I agree that BRT, that is when it is trying to be a direct replacement for LRT, is a fad. Not that there are not some cases where it could be applied (in medium sized sprawling cities such as London or Kingston this might be a desireable option) or in some other form in larger cities. For the most part though, especially in cities with healthy growth rates, it is not the best option by any means.

I see no reason why quality bus service such as express or limited stop routes should not be experimented with. At the same time, I dont like the idea of these kinds of services being subsidised routes for priviliged suburbanites. They should also have a certain amount of self sufficiency (that being not running too much of a defecit).

"I don't think it is strictly necessary to have dedicated roadways. Even just the outside two lanes of many avenues/throughfares could work, either by blocking off automobile traffic (like Spadina) or limiting it to bus-only traffic enforced with cameras (which would be very effective). So I think BRT could be installed much more cheaply than you suggest."

I suppose that depends on what you would view BRT as. I think its a great idea to increase the efficiency of surface routes with signal priority, dedicated lanes, or whatever other ideas might be possible. Im sure the cost of the technology has declined enough in recent years that installing it would not require some huge capital expenditure.

Obviously buses are going to continue to play a huge role in public transit in Canadian cities because so much of our cities are designed around the automobile. For intrasuburban travel it could prove to be a very effective tool. For intercity or suburban to downtown commuting, I see it as being rather limited.
 
" For intercity or suburban to downtown commuting, I see it as being rather limited."

On that, at least, I agree completely.

It would be rather impractical to attempt to create a BRT like Ottawa's in Toronto. Any BRTs in Toronto will likely be somewhat separated but still on existing roadways.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top