dowlingm
Senior Member
if you've never lived anywhere else, maybe. Compared to some places I have, Toronto has a great bus service (which isn't to say it couldn't be better)Agreed, that was far too kind of them
|
|
|
T3G
Senior Member
I'd say Toronto has great bus service (and transit) compared to other cities in North America (New York excepted). But when compared to various European cities, our bus service looks great only when viewed on a map. There's loads of routes in the suburbs with wildly unattractive frequencies*, the line management and schedule adherence is abysmal, and the bus models that we run are also terrible.
* Sure, one could argue, frequencies are set according to extant passenger demand. But it's kind of a chicken and egg type of situation: if you run unattractive frequencies, people will opt to drive instead, and the service will never get any better.
* Sure, one could argue, frequencies are set according to extant passenger demand. But it's kind of a chicken and egg type of situation: if you run unattractive frequencies, people will opt to drive instead, and the service will never get any better.
felix123
Active Member
Yep, lived in multiple cities in four countries. Toronto's surface transit is a painful experience for those of us who use it frequently. The problem with Toronto's bus network more specifically is that it's forced to too much heavy lifting from a lack of rapid transit, leading to all the bunching, overcrowding, delays and sluggish pace we experience here, which yes, is worse than in London or Berlin or Sydney. It won't improve until we build more RT.
On the bright side, the Line 5 opening should improve things a bit. It can't come soon enough.
nfitz
Superstar
If rapid transit was to mean transit that is rapid, the average speed on the 900 Airport Express ranges from 39 km/hr to 52 km/hr exceeding any subway line we have. If we were to have a traditional subway line, it would have additional stops and perhaps a lower peak velocity and be slower. I believe the next fastest bus is the 927 Highway 27 Express that ranges from 25 to 34 km/hr an hour.
The 900 service is excellent - the only reason the UP train has an advantage from Line 2 is that it's diagonal, and thus shorter, avoiding the relatively slow subway segment from Dundas West to Kipling.
I see no reason for it not to be on the subway map, given how unique it is, and communication of this service to the public.
Jago88
Active Member
Last week I was on the 32 heading east on Eglinton from Jane to Eglinton West Station at around 3.45pm on a Thursday. We got as far as Oakwood Ave. (which Google tells me is 550m from Eglinton West Station) and we stopped moving for a few mins. I eventually stood up to see what was happening ahead and it was just traffic as far as I could see so I hopped out of the bus and started walking. I immediately noticed how many buses were there so I started counting as I walked the 550m to the station and counted 14 buses! Insane, it REALLY can't come soon enough.
Last edited:
Amare
Senior Member
Indeed it's a beautiful mess around Eglinton and Allen Rd.
Which leads to not just issues east-west with the 32, it leads to north-south routes getting tied up and delayed because of idiots who decide to block the intersection. For instance, the Bathurst bus often times gets held up and cant go through the intersection at Bathurst and Eglinton due to the drivers blocking the box; resulting in the bus being held for several light changes.
Jago88
Active Member
yeah, that was evident on this occasion along with at least 2 cars pulled over in the right lane with their hazard lights on making a 'quick' stop
The other thing is cars 'zooming' (relatively) up the right lane and then decide they actually want to make a left turn onto Allen Road at the last minute and end up blocking the people behind wanting to go straight. As you said, a beautiful mess.
Monarch Butterfly
Superstar
Caledonia Station is not a problem... yet. But will be once Line 5 opens. See https://urbantoronto.ca/forum/threads/toronto-eglinton-line-5-go-caledonia-station-11-72m-2s-metrolinx-mccallum-sather.19735/post-2194695
Under MTO, Toronto MUST have farside traffic signals, not nearside traffic signals like in Europe.
crs1026
Superstar
The congestion and bad driver decisions in the Oakwood-Allen stretch of the road warrant full time presence of traffic wardens as have been deployed downtown. It's just stupid how often deliveries and construction happens during rush hours (which for the past decade runs from 06:00 to 19:00 or later). Deliveries, taxis, and Uber parking in and blocking no stopping lanes etc.
I can't see congestion ever going away in that area, but it's problemmatic just how little is done to at least get this street flowing better.
- Paul
I can't see congestion ever going away in that area, but it's problemmatic just how little is done to at least get this street flowing better.
- Paul
micheal_can
Senior Member
If you were a betting person, given that they need 30 days of testing, what would you say the chances are of it entering revenue service by November?
gregosh
New Member
IMO the only way to help alleviate the congestion on Eglinton, specifically around the intersection of Eglinton and Allen is to create a way for both surface level pedestrians and transit users to navigate through this intersection underground or above ground not impeding the flow of traffic wanting to go Northbound on the Allen. This would increase the amount of cars that can get onto the Allen and ease the gridlock in this area. I know EglintoTOday is looking at options on how to ease congestion in this area but honestly a lot of it might be band aid solutions.
Northern Light
Superstar
I continue to be of the opinion that the long term solution is the remove of the Allen. But due to cost, that's not on the table in the near term.
The short-term solution is to begin to phase down the volume of cars. This would be best achieved by removing SB access from Lawrence (do you really need the Allen to get from Lawrence to Eglinton? ) and for the same reason, the NB exit to Lawrence should also removed. This would benefit Lawrence far more than Eglinton, but it would reduce total traffic volume by maybe 10% and also smooth it a bit which would have some secondary benefit at Eglinton.
That, along with the opening of Crosstown (one day) should actually achieve a fair bit of positives. The opening will see a sharp reduction in buses on Eglinton, that will reduce traffic and complexity, in combination with the changes to the Allen I propose, I think we can probably get a 15% improvement in operational efficiency and a modest reduction in conflicts.
****
I would then propose to change the configuration of the two Allen/Eglinton interchanges slightly.
First the west one.
The width for the road here isn't totally unreasonable, though I'd be tempted to pinch it just a bit. But, the bus roadway is to too wide. It seems to be predicated on a bus turning from the east and the west at the same time. Which just doesn't happen much as there's too much risk with the wide right turns required.
The roadway is over 8M wide, I would cut this to 4.5M and add 3.5M to the island, which I would also bring forward into the crosswalk. the result would be to make left turning vehicles take a slower, more predictable turning movement and also to allow pedestrians have safe refuge between the bus access and the ramp, which would be over 5M wide.
Over on the east side:
The combined 2-lane on ramp is over 13M wide, when there is no real need for it exceed 8M. Narrowing the lanes and the crossing distance would make turning movements more predictable, reduce pedestrian crossing time and associated conflicts, actually making turns easier/smoother for motorists.
Some engineers would make a face at the turning radii I'm allowing for trucks.....but I think its perfectly workable. At the very least its certainly possible to narrow this opening. The more narrow, the greater the benefit.
Last edited:
innsertnamehere
Superstar
narrowing it reduces capacity so it depends how you view it.
I like the idea of closing the Lawrence to Eglinton ramps - it simplifies movements at Lawrence and allows you to put a double-left turn lane over the Allen for Lawrence EB> Allen NB, and simplifies signal cycles to improve throughput for the critical movements.
Eglinton and the Allen is a tougher nut to crack. They did reconfigure the intersection a bit with the Crosstown work to improve it's operations a bit, but it's highly limited in how it can operate by space restrictions.
Personally I would like to see a slight widening of Eglinton just immediately around the Allen to improve capacity - something like this:
Add a second through lane EB across the interchange - this enables the construction of a second left turn lane for SB Allen to EB Eglinton.
Also add a third NB receiving lane on the Allen to receive the double-left off Eglinton to enable right turn movements at the same time as the advanced left from Eglinton.
This combined with northern light's suggestions would probably result in some fairly substantial improvements.
Another fix would be to close the subway station access in the middle of the interchange - this would minimize pedestrian crossings.
I like the idea of closing the Lawrence to Eglinton ramps - it simplifies movements at Lawrence and allows you to put a double-left turn lane over the Allen for Lawrence EB> Allen NB, and simplifies signal cycles to improve throughput for the critical movements.
Eglinton and the Allen is a tougher nut to crack. They did reconfigure the intersection a bit with the Crosstown work to improve it's operations a bit, but it's highly limited in how it can operate by space restrictions.
Personally I would like to see a slight widening of Eglinton just immediately around the Allen to improve capacity - something like this:
Add a second through lane EB across the interchange - this enables the construction of a second left turn lane for SB Allen to EB Eglinton.
Also add a third NB receiving lane on the Allen to receive the double-left off Eglinton to enable right turn movements at the same time as the advanced left from Eglinton.
This combined with northern light's suggestions would probably result in some fairly substantial improvements.
Another fix would be to close the subway station access in the middle of the interchange - this would minimize pedestrian crossings.
Northern Light
Superstar
I can't agree w/your Eglinton changes for the following reasons:
Additional turns lanes result in more unpredictable movements for both cars and people, thus increasing the risk of conflict.
They would also serve to increase the crossing distances involved which actually delays cars and puts pedestrians at greater risk by lengthening crossing times.
innsertnamehere
Superstar
The extra lane on Eglinton would really be to enable the second left turn lane off the Allen - which would be a 50% capacity increase for SB Allen - really substantial. It's worth a marginally longer crossing distance.
if you want, you could do this instead:
this really isn't changing crossing distances for any pedestrians other than a small change on the east side crossing.
Most vehicles on this part of Eglinton are going to and from the Allen - Eglinton doesn't need a lot of "cross capacity" - it should be highly focused on maximizing throughput to and from the Allen.
Everden and Strathearn should also have their intersections removed from Eglinton, IMO, to reduce conflicts. Either put a frontage road through Ben Nobleman park (offsetting park loss with a few expropriations to the south) or just dead-end them.
if you want, you could do this instead:
this really isn't changing crossing distances for any pedestrians other than a small change on the east side crossing.
Most vehicles on this part of Eglinton are going to and from the Allen - Eglinton doesn't need a lot of "cross capacity" - it should be highly focused on maximizing throughput to and from the Allen.
Everden and Strathearn should also have their intersections removed from Eglinton, IMO, to reduce conflicts. Either put a frontage road through Ben Nobleman park (offsetting park loss with a few expropriations to the south) or just dead-end them.