Transit City Plan

[scarberiankhatru]

Capacity above what moderate frequency buses - let alone frequent Rocket buses - can easily do will never be needed at Morningside & Sheppard, an area where the LRT is proposed to stop every 400 or so metres because it'll be hitting all the red lights, anyway.

 

[Hipster Duck]

Voltz,

Why is it that you downplay a BRT because of the space needed for passing lanes when an LRT doesn't even have the ability to pass another one (ie: run express) in the first place?

 

[W. K. Lis]

Voltz,

Why is it that you downplay a BRT because of the space needed for passing lanes when an LRT doesn't even have the ability to pass another one (ie: run express) in the first place?

Actually, a bypass track (similiar to the CNE streetcar loop tracks or St. Clair West station loop) or layby could allow LRV's to pass waiting or disabled vehicles. Could even create an express system where the express vehicles could pass the local vehicles. Wouldn't need separate express and local tracks, just laybys at the local stops or stations. Both local and express would share the same tracks between the stops or stations.

 

[Voltz]

Voltz,

Why is it that you downplay a BRT because of the space needed for passing lanes when an LRT doesn't even have the ability to pass another one (ie: run express) in the first place?

I don't care how wide it is, the problem is there would not be enough room for passing lanes. The reason LRT would not need to run express vehicles is because the capacity is already high enough, and BRT would need express vehicles due to lower vehicle capacity, not for increased speed.

And yes, I know that Morningside and Sheppard does not need that high capacity, but that does not mean anything about the rest of the system

 

[kettal]

Has anyone in the LRT evangelist camp ever considered that if LRT's primary time savings are to come from placing stops "every 400m apart surface, 850m apart subsurface and allow all-door POP boarding", all of those same exact features could be replicated more or less as well for more or less no cost with buses?

Subsurface buses are low-to-no cost now? Do they have a boring machine attached at the nose so they dig a tunnel when needed, like ants?

 

[Amphibius]

^^ And don't forget the health concerns posed by entrapped fume exhaust.

Literally half the people in the areas you mentioned as being along Finch actually live along Sheppard, and then you neglected to include about 50,000 residents and jobs along Sheppard between the 404 and Kennedy. So, no, you're not obviously aware, even after being told.

It could be 8000 south of Sheppard...we won't know for sure have been added in recent residential construction until the next census. But what we do know for sure is that people live between McLevin and Sheppard and these people (including Malvern Town Centre and the high schools) are closer to Sheppard. That's another 20,000 people who won't use a Finch LRT.

Oh, enough with the posturing already. I can appreciate your bias towards Sheppard subway expansion; but all I'm doing here is simply trying to state what the existing bus demand levels, trip generators, population density and travel patterns are indicating. The CPA's southernmost cut-off point for the Finch-oriented neighbourhoods west of Malvern is around Huntington Avenue/CPR, literally the mid-block. Sheppard would barely factor in at all, except for the Don Valley Village CPA which I've already explained its inclusion. SOURCE: http://www.toronto.ca/demographics/cns_profiles/2006/pdf1/cpa117.pdf and http://www.toronto.ca/demographics/cns_profiles/2006/pdf1/cpa129.pdf

As for Malvern, it could be circumnavigated by LRTs, one approaching from the northwest (Finch East) and the other southwest (Scarborough RT, soon to be LRT). Obviously if the technologies were compatible, then trainsets could go around Malvern in a continuous loop configuration; meaning that passengers could board from wherever best suits them. And again, none of this would necessarily prevent a rapid transit NYCC-SCC link down Sheppard. It's just another possibility.

 

[golodhendil]

This is Vancouver's long-term plan.

Canada Line still isn't interlined with anything; the "YVR line" was, is and will continue to be considered a branch of the Canada Line. As for Evergreen Line, I concede, as I forgot about the funding announcement in Feb (before that I would have considered the status/substance of the line to still be in limbo).

I also believe Eglinton should be either a grade-separated premetro or metro subway line, as it would link up more nodal areas than the other Transit City lines proposed. If Sheppard must continue eastwards as a LRT line due to the expense of HRT construction though, I don't understand why customers should be forced to endure a transfer between vehicles at Don Mills (or Consumers) when a one-seat ride is of more convenience?

See my post in the Sheppard thread. This was more for addressing the assertion that LRT is the wave of the future.

Yes based on the 501 car, I would tend to agree with you. However TC LRT is alledgedly nothing like the existing infrastructure. I've attended some of the public meetings where they explained how they'd maintain transit signal priority and queue-jumping at busy intersections. Stops will be every 400m apart surface, 850m apart subsurface and allow all-door POP boarding. So travel times should assuredly be an improvement over the existing bus network along the select corridors.

501 wasn't what I had in mind, but 510. Of course, I know about all the planned differences, but "alledgedly" is the keyword here.

Actually, a bypass track (similiar to the CNE streetcar loop tracks or St. Clair West station loop) or layby could allow LRV's to pass waiting or disabled vehicles. Could even create an express system where the express vehicles could pass the local vehicles. Wouldn't need separate express and local tracks, just laybys at the local stops or stations. Both local and express would share the same tracks between the stops or stations.

If the layovers are at stops, how do trains bypass a disabled car in between stops? I suppose you can get a tow truck to head over and tow the train to the bypass track, but disruption has already occurred for an extended period of time. (This is a general problem with all railway so this isn't really a TC-specific question)

OT just out of curiosity, W.K.Lis where do you get all the old pictures?

 

[Whoaccio]

Subsurface buses are low-to-no cost now? Do they have a boring machine attached at the nose so they dig a tunnel when needed, like ants?

Are you lampooning the LRT fanatic position here? I honestly can't tell anymore. If not, and I actually need to clarify this, then no I am not suggesting that. I have elsewhere referred to underground busways as the "pinnacle of dumb," so genuine it doesn't even make grammar. My point was that you can make bus spacing whatever the hell you want it to be at practically no cost. If LRTs extract a speed benefit from wider stop spacing, so do bus routes. If one of the main reason an "LRT" is faster than the bus route it replaces is stop spacing (+ POP boarding) it doesn't take an MBA to figure out that you can probably get 90% of the benefit with 10% of the cost.

 

[scarberiankhatru]

And yes, I know that Morningside and Sheppard does not need that high capacity, but that does not mean anything about the rest of the system

Well, that still affects one third of the proposed lines (the waterfront west line is more of an extension of an existing line). Or a full half of them when you consider Jane doesn't and won't have peak load issues. And Eglinton needs to be in a tunnel no matter what happens, so the argument doesn't apply to much of that line, either.

Oh, enough with the posturing already. I can appreciate your bias towards Sheppard subway expansion; but all I'm doing here is simply trying to state what the existing bus demand levels, trip generators, population density and travel patterns are indicating.

Actually, I have a bias towards using correct numbers in context, which you're not doing. Misusing random population figures doesn't support your argument...it doesn't support any argument.

 

[kettal]

Are you lampooning the LRT fanatic position here? I honestly can't tell anymore. If not, and I actually need to clarify this, then no I am not suggesting that. I have elsewhere referred to underground busways as the "pinnacle of dumb," so genuine it doesn't even make grammar. My point was that you can make bus spacing whatever the hell you want it to be at practically no cost. If LRTs extract a speed benefit from wider stop spacing, so do bus routes. If one of the main reason an "LRT" is faster than the bus route it replaces is stop spacing (+ POP boarding) it doesn't take an MBA to figure out that you can probably get 90% of the benefit with 10% of the cost.

This is called BRT, or Bus Rapid Transit. You will soon see such a thing constructed along Highway 7 in York Region, with most of these features. It's not free but the startup costs are lower, and tunneled portions are obviously out of the question with BRT.

Of course, Highway 7 has a ridership much lower than that of the TC corridors, so there is no short-term risk of exceeding the capacity of the bus. Bus lanes also require more road space than LRT, which quite suits the monolithic Hwy 7 in York.

 

[Whoaccio]

This is called BRT, or Bus Rapid Transit. You will soon see such a thing constructed along Highway 7 in York Region, with most of these features. It's not free but the startup costs are lower, and tunneled portions are obviously out of the question with BRT.

Its good you told me. I was about to go on about how my idea for Super Happy Positronic Petroleum Induced Motivators -SHPPIM or "ship'em" for short- were about to revolutionize transportation.

 

[scarberiankhatru]

This is called BRT, or Bus Rapid Transit. You will soon see such a thing constructed along Highway 7 in York Region, with most of these features. It's not free but the startup costs are lower, and tunneled portions are obviously out of the question with BRT.

Of course, Highway 7 has a ridership much lower than that of the TC corridors, so there is no short-term risk of exceeding the capacity of the bus. Bus lanes also require more road space than LRT, which quite suits the monolithic Hwy 7 in York.

Or we can slash costs by like 90% while keeping 90% of the benefits and 'build' regular Rocket, limited stop/express bus routes instead of BRT. They cost almost nothing but offer speed and capacity (by being faster) improvements over existing bus service. If building a transit city actually meant improving transit where it can and should be improved, instead of just doling out LRT lines regardless of local conditions or cost, Rocket service would be an integral part of the plans.

 

[Voltz]

Well, that still affects one third of the proposed lines (the waterfront west line is more of an extension of an existing line). Or a full half of them when you consider Jane doesn't and won't have peak load issues. And Eglinton needs to be in a tunnel no matter what happens, so the argument doesn't apply to much of that line, either.

I don't mean all of sheppard east, most of which does need more than buses.

 

[scarberiankhatru]

I don't mean all of sheppard east, most of which does need more than buses.

I don't mean all, either...buses are ideal for Sheppard east of Agincourt. Unfortunately, the LRT is proposed to run far beyond its best before date, all the way to the Rouge where the only potential riders are raccoons.

 

[kettal]

Its good you told me. I was about to go on about how my idea for Super Happy Positronic Petroleum Induced Motivators -SHPPIM or "ship'em" for short- were about to revolutionize transportation.

It sucks when you learn your great ideas have already been invented, it's happened to me many times