Hwy 27 BRT: not sure what high-density, or even medium-density, nodes are (or will be) located around it, to justify such BRT.
I'll address your last point first, then work backwards. Highway 4/27 is perhaps the single most important, busiest bus transit corridor in the GTA. 18 TTC/MT bus routes utilize it daily. Another 7 routes would have their total mileage per day reduced if they could use the highway as a connector. The ability to create fewer transfers needed to make a one-way trip is enhanced via creation of a ROW which wouldn't see buses just turn back at some random point but actually transport customers on-board all the way to the nearest subway (in reference to 36 Finch West whereby customers need to transfer onto the 191 or other routes to get to the subway). Instead of enforcing the changing of buses, services more readily can just enter onto the ROW and run express down to Sherway Gardens. Interregionally the Highway 4/27 corridor gives us the oppurtunity for multiple transit operators (Brampton Transit, Oakville Transit, YRT, MT, TTC, GO Transit) to share ROW, reduce headways and avoids time wasted leaving the highway via congested collector lanes onto Dundas St which can get hopefully clogged during rush hour. Think about it: a BRT ROW down the highway, not unlike the Spadina Subway could have stations between Dundas and Bloor Sts (Cloverdale Mall) and between Bloor and Burnhamthrope (Etobicoke Civic Ctr/Vahallah Executive Business Park). Versus taking the 111/112 and then walking inwards, many workers/clientele destined for these two trip-generators most likely may opt to take a surface bus subway to these locations (with built-in stations boasting fare collection turnstiles and underground pedestrian linkages to both sides of the highway that can run into the buildings themselves). Under a BRT fleet scheme targeted at catering to major trip genrators, there'd be designated routes for Eglinton through Mississauaga, for Derry, for Steeles, for Finch, for Rexdale and Woodbridge, for the Airport region, for Burnhamthrope, for Dixie, for the Queensway and along Lakeshore both inside and beyond the 416. It'd be a seriously missed opportunity not to upgrade the level of service the corridor can provide, when it'd be relatively easy to do so and cost-effective given its on public lands most of the journey.
As for the high-, medium-density nodes you ponder. Too many to count. Most obviously Rexdale and Malton; but there's also the West Mall/Rathburn high-rise community, Woodbine Live and Centre, Humber College and Etobicoke Hospital, the infrequently served Lakeview/Long Branch area, the growing residential-commercial areas of Sherway, Alderwood and Applewood, basically eastern Mississauga in general plus the 80,000+ workers bound by the area from Martin Grove to Dixie, Eglinton to Dixon/Airport. Never underestimate the potential for north-south dmand through this entire stretch which not even a Eglinton subway alone can head off. It takes both HRT (subway plus improved GO Transit) and a dedicated bus-only ROW to make things work sustainably.
Finch BRT: looks like a straight line, but we know that the hydro corridor tilts south-west between Hwy 400 and Weston Rd, and leaves Finch. Do the buses switch to dedicated lanes on the street at that point? [And, I will not resume the HC-versus-Finch-proper debate here.]
Assume that the transition from the Hydro Corridor right-of-way to Finch proper would be in a grade-separated underpass that spans the crossing of both the rail corridor and Signet, then continues in an open-trench til east of the 400. That's the flexibility of busways at work, the capability to transition from at-grade to below-grade to above-grade without much obstacle.
Jane BRT is particularly questionable. South of Wilson, Jane is, mostly, not wide enough for 6 lanes. It might be able to host a few queue jump lanes - but not necessarily where the queues actually occur. So, is that BRT just a mixed-traffic express bus in reality? Or, are you going to build an underground BRT tunnel? - that alone would cost more than $450 million.
The continuation of Jane BRT south of Bloor is even worse. As I remember, the street (South Kingsway) is 4-lanes wide with no space for even left-turn lanes. And, there is no demonstrable current demand on that route. So, why even bother investing there?
Jane only restricts down to four lanes between Trethewey and Highway 400. This roughly two kilometre stretch can either be grade separated or enforce the multi-purpose lanes be cut down to one lane in each direction, which again is only for a short section. Looking at aerial maps of the Jane-Lawrence neighbourhood, the land use developments, I can see where it'd be possible to run an elevated guideway along the east-hand side of the street that could be a continuance of a bus-only bridge crossing of the Weston Galt. And a BRT tunnel more likely would cost around $20 million/km, still remarkably less expensive than attempting the same with LRT.
It has always been my view that the Jane Line, be it BRT or LRT, should terminate at Mount Dennis Stn to provide simplified access to the GO Train and a future DRL extension. I do not even believe in spending $100+ million on a station in middle of Eglinton Flats Park, because so obviously the transfer from bus-to-train and vice versa should occur in the densest areas. Splitting the Jane service into two separate routes at Eglinton is logical for many reasons, most notably it encourages people to transfer at Eglinton, alleviating B-D in the process. Secondary the abridged 35 Jane South bus can cover more ground than LRT, perhaps taking over the 32D runs along Emmett and could be extended south along S Kingsway to perhaps overlap with the Swansea bus, improving transit access to that community.
2) Altough your subway lines are not unreasonable, the overall network looks very much core-oriented, to the detriment of rail transit (whether subway or LRT) to the north-western and north-eastern "inner suburbs". [And yes, Scarborough Centre is getting 2 subway lines - but Scarborough does not end there.] In that light, how essential is DRL West (from Spadina to Eglinton)? Sure it is nice to have, and may be even slightly cheaper per km than average - but it runs in parallel with the Brampton GO Express service.
I fail to understand this criticism. Northwest Toronto is already receiving subway expansion (TYSSE) which extends almost to Jane and Steeles. Backtracking from any of Finch West or Steeles West to the dense Jane-Finch community should be relatively easy. To Rexdale would be marginally longer, perhaps 15 minutes from the nearest subway, but to be honest, given the miles of low density sprawl a subway would have to navigate through in order to reach Rexdale, it is both politically and fiscally impossible to even suggest this. Northeast Scarborough is also relatively close to Scarborough Town Centre and has been on a radar for decades, unlike Rexdale or Finch West in general, to receive mass transit upgrades. You cite the Weston-Galt there, but may have forgotten that Malvern/Mornigside Hts has a rail corridor running right through it, in the backlot of its desnest area (Neilson/McLevin). It wouldn't take much to improve service to the area, and SOS has in mind to send multiple BRT routes to navigate Scarborough, Rexdale and into other neglected pockets of the city which Transit City has failed to address.
Lastly, I actually feel DRL West to be even more important than the east, as it'd be more than just a commuter line but truly cater to local demand levels. People want fast commutes, yes, but the GO Train doesn't stop often enough or run often enough to be of use to the 20/24 hr transit using crowd. It doesn't serve the Junction, only skims by it, as well other major neighbourhoods downtown it couldn't possibly serve. We're only going by the rail-corridor alignment on our proposal because it'll be an easier sell, more politically feasible than proposing a route that'd lead to mass expropriations through downtown. But were deep channel excavations a possibility, the alignment ultimately built may differ drastically from the Weston-Galt corridor, south of Keele/St Clair.
The report is to the point and easy to read. Now, some critisizm:
1). No LRT lines at all. In the Introduction, you critisized (and rightly so) Transit City for the one-size-fits-all approach. But then you are proposing $30 billion worth of subway projects, and have not found a single route where LRT would be appropriate (except a vague reference that some of BRT corridors might be upgraded to LRT in future).
First of all, what is the scope of your BRT?
There's nothing vague about it. Once a transit-only ROW is built, the City/operators are free at any time to lay tracks over the asphalt, and viola, instanteaneous light-rail built on the cheap. Upfront costs for road-median LRT run in the $60-$80 million bracket, the 6 kms of the York U BRT line cost $38 million total, or well under $10 million/km. We don't have to falsify our numbers to convince the public of anything, the evidence demonstrates time and again that BRT is the most cost-effective and time-effective method to upgrade a transit corridor. Of the seven Transit City routes only two stand out as necessarily having to be LRT: Waterfront West and Don Mills. But like I said, BRT ROWs are readily convertible to light rail. You can't downgrade a service level if ridership is too low to justify the high operation and maintenance costs, Sheppard Subway demonstrates this. You must build in accordance to current demand levels and moderate growth and not from far-off projections because its uncertain whether areas might depopulate over time, meaning fewer riders. The subway however in about every case we've identified is warranted.
Scarborough Centre is the major transit hub of that borough and jump-off point for several Markham/Durham bound trips; and is a major center of commercial activity, employment and housing. This is all happening in spite of no subway. Ditto the Eglinton corridor which some 150, 000 daily riders utilize and some 20 N-S bus routes heading to the Bloor-Danforth would intercept. The SRT is overcrowded and requires switching trains and elapsed wait/dwell times. We could experiment with LRT across Eglinton, but given the corridor's significance to the region, can we really afford to risk messing it up with a mixed traffic stopped by stop lights ROW part of the time, subway for less than a third of its length the other? Combined headways on the 190/85 section of Sheppard suggest there's demand, and SELRT fails to intercept a single major transit terminal/trip generator east of Agincourt (not Malvern Town Ctr, Centennial College nor STC). The difficulties one faces in getting east-west across the downtown core speaks for itself. So you see, we're not biased against LRT, we just don't see how it is applicable to many of the problems in the network metro subways are more suited to address.
