Dan416
Senior Member
And if you can't understand how braindead amputating the Sheppard subway with an LRT attached to it is, then just....wow.
|
|
|
Transit City Plan
- Thread starter 299 bloor call control.
- Start date
And if you can't understand how braindead amputating the Sheppard subway with an LRT attached to it is, then just....wow.
jeffreym
Active Member
All I was saying was that we need not waste $ on the Sheppard Subway. We could build a Finch East LRT instead of a Sheppard East LRT for all I care (especially since the 39E is one of the busiest bus routes) - but that doesn't legitimize extending the Sheppard Subway
Or we could build BRT on both for the same cost. Why is it always a choice between LRT and subway? BRT can handle 70% of the ridership that at-grade in-median LRT can, for half the cost.
jeffreym
Active Member
If it'd meet the demand for less $ then sure.
For what it's worth though, the study said "There is not sufficient space for a 3.5m by-pass lane in the Sheppard Avenue transit ROW while providing a 'comfortable' walking environment, bicycle lanes, four through lanes and left turn lanes for traffic". So obviously something has to give if we're moving enough people to need a bypass lane (the study claims 2000, but I'm wondering if that might be a tad low with artics?)
Regardless, building the exclusive lanes for BRT now would allow for a lower delta cost to LRT should demand ever justify it.
Electrify
Senior Member
A few more brainstormed ideas I've come up with:
1. Create a rail corridor about 500m north of Sheppard, where the line could be elevated or trenched. Many cities have done this, including Toronto (Rosedale and Davisville), to fit in their subways. However, the cost to expropriate the properties could offset any cost savings from tunneling.
2. Trench it along Sheppard. Someone mentioned this in another forum, basically think of it being tunneled, without the ceiling. It would probably go underground at stations and dense areas, but it could save on construction costs in less dense areas. Look at this GSV image of Montreal, only replace the expressway with a subway:
http://goo.gl/maps/0Qyt
3. Elevate it over the 401 between Victoria Park and Scarborough Town Center. I'm sure those who feel subways and highways don't mix will hate this, but it is a practice which is done around the world, and since the ROW is already there it would have minimal impact on properties and traffic flows during construction.
1. Create a rail corridor about 500m north of Sheppard, where the line could be elevated or trenched. Many cities have done this, including Toronto (Rosedale and Davisville), to fit in their subways. However, the cost to expropriate the properties could offset any cost savings from tunneling.
2. Trench it along Sheppard. Someone mentioned this in another forum, basically think of it being tunneled, without the ceiling. It would probably go underground at stations and dense areas, but it could save on construction costs in less dense areas. Look at this GSV image of Montreal, only replace the expressway with a subway:
http://goo.gl/maps/0Qyt
3. Elevate it over the 401 between Victoria Park and Scarborough Town Center. I'm sure those who feel subways and highways don't mix will hate this, but it is a practice which is done around the world, and since the ROW is already there it would have minimal impact on properties and traffic flows during construction.
I find it quite funny that they claim that there is not sufficient space for a by-pass lane (I'm assuming you mean queue jump lane), yet there's enough room for an in-median LRT ROW. The difference between an LRT ROW lane and a curbside BRT lane is a foot, if that. Just look at how much asphalt there is on streetcar routes between the edge of the concrete streetcar trackbed, and the painted lane line on the road. Frankly I find that excuse to be ridiculous.
And yes, widening the roadway now will certainly make upgrading to LRT in the future a much easier undertaking. But right now, let's face it, the demand on Sheppard East really only justifies BRT at this point.
Good thinking outside the box. Some comments:
1) I think 500m is a bit too far north. I think the ideal distance north would be only a bit further than the B-D subway is north of the street. Just far enough north that you can fit a row of condos in between the elevated guideway and Sheppard. North of the guideway, place mid-rise residential so that it not only provides a buffer for the existing community, but also a transition from higher densities to lower densities.
2) I don't think a trench is really something that should be down the middle of the street. An LRT ROW down the middle cuts the street up enough. If you're going to do trench, do similar to what I proposed in #1, only do it 6m below ground instead of 10m above ground.
3) I think it should definitely be elevated from Agincourt to STC, especially over the 401. There's nothing around there that needs to be buffered from any elevated railway, and I don't think a case can really be made that a 6m wide rail guideway is more of an obstacle than a 14 lane freeway.
Voltz
Senior Member
No, they were referring to a centre median ROW with by-pass lanes at intersections, the by-pass lanes would make the ROW five lanes wide at intersections and according to them would be required to handle the projected demand with buses.
jje1000
Senior Member
It wouldn't be much of a difference if if were HRT, would it? The track would just be wider.
Then again, a wider track might ruin the treatment seen in the pictures above.
lafard
Active Member
Actuallly, the width difference is quite a bit more than a foot. Shuttle buses and the night bus don't use the St Clair RoW, and even the buses that do run on the RoW for a distance, mostly the inbound Vaughan and Christie buses, barely fit (outbound ones use the ramp under the Loblaws and avoid it completely). Emergency vehicles were supposed to be able to use it but generally don't unless traffic's really bad.
And to be fair, the St Clair RoW is quite a bit wider than it needs to be, thanks to the centre poles. I guess it would have to be that wide anyways because buses DO use itl. It could be 18 inches narrower with little effect on streetcar operations.
If you actually want to build up any sort of speed then the bus lanes need to be even wider, whereas LRT/streetcars only drift apart a little bit to reduce buffeting when they pass each other.
You could run St Clair at 60 km/h with its current layout. Fast operators and lucky light timing seem to get pretty close to that now anyways. To run a BRT at 60 you need 14 foot lanes, and at minimimum Jersey barriers in the middle, and possibly on the sides of the RoW too. LRT needs a 21 foot RoW, BRT needs well over 30.
Even in generous suburban road allowances, fitting in that ten extra feet is difficult, at best. It is quite possible that the added costs of having to widen the road that much more is actually more expensive than putting in the rails and overhead in the first place. That may well be why BRT was rejected.
And this is just for 2 lanes - as has been noted elsewhere once intervals creep below a couple of minutes you need bypass lanes. This is simply not feasible in our system. Further, this breakdown point is not actually too far off from the current ridership levels. You might gain 30-50% with articulated buses but I suspect that the system would be strained pretty quickly. If the criticism of LRT is you're not building for the future (which cam carry 3-5x current capacity no problem) then this is doubly true for BRT, which is barely building for today. 75% of the cost, 25% of the capacity, and no operational benefits over LRT (though several disadvantages) at all.
The simple answer is, that BRT is not the optimal solution here. It never was and never will be, and even our limited implementations are only meant as stopgaps.
kd86
New Member
I'm not sure they would go with an elevated option past Agincourt considering it would run right into the Metrogate develeopment. They already completed the two taller towers and work has started on the smaller ones. In addition I read a report a long time ago stating that a rapid tansit line would run below grade and the current Agincourt Go station would be moved south to connect to the future Agincourt Subway Station. I think it was secondary plan .........not sure.........I'll try and find the document. Anywas I think the city was looking at making the area just north of the 401 between Kennedy and Midland high density development, this was back when Transit City wasn't on the map.
kd86
New Member
Oh it was a secondary Plan Gweed123 heres the link below
http://www.toronto.ca/planning/official_plan/pdf_secondary/1_agincourt_oct2009.pdf
http://www.toronto.ca/planning/official_plan/pdf_secondary/1_agincourt_oct2009.pdf
Ah gotcha. So they wanted the ability to run express buses down the corridor as well. Interesting. Although if they want to run express buses, I don't see why the need to have a dedicated passing lane. The bus can use the regular traffic lane to get around the stopped bus, and then merge back into the buses-only lane. And I still don't get why the insist on in-median instead of curbside. For buses, curbside makes a lot more sense. Passengers don't have to cross half the street to get to their bus, and it's a lot easier to build a right turn lane on the outside of a bus-only lane than it is a left turn lane (mainly because cars don't sit for very long in a right turn lane).
I wasn't aware that BRT needed that much more room to operate. However, you're also assuming an in-median BRT, which I do not prefer. If you're going to do BRT, curbside is by far the best option.
And I think you're understating BRT. I see it work in Ottawa on a daily basis. I've referenced on this site before the Ottawa Supplementary Transit Network Expansion Plan, which basically shows that Ottawa's BRT projects are coming in at 1/3 the cost per km of the equivalent LRT projects (specifically the Carling Ave LRT, which will be in-median, pretty much identical to Transit City). Certainly not "75% the cost" as you stated. And I've said it once and I'll say it again. Curbside BRT can easily handle the 5,000 pphpd projected for the Sheppard corridor. The curbside lanes along Woodroffe carry around 3,000 pphpd no problem, and I mean literally no problem. No bunching, no delays. You could double the number of buses on that corridor and it would still flow smoothly.
The system may not have operational benefits during peak hour, but consider this: outside of peak hour, Sheppard is likely to see how many passengers per hour, 1000 pphpd? That's one artic every 5 minutes could easily handle that load. LRT for that would be complete overkill.
If BRT is such a waste of money, and is so inefficient, why is Ottawa planning on literally doubling the number of BRT corridors (either full Transitway or curbside lanes) in the next 25 years? Nearly every major arterial with decent transit ridership is getting some sort of transit enhancement (queue jump lanes or peak hour bus lanes at the low end, and full curbside BRT lanes at the high end). It works for Ottawa. It'll work for suburban Toronto.
Ed Drass
Active Member
Curbside exclusive BRT lane, or just a diamond lane?
Curbside BRT? How do private cars access curbside driveways and make right turns? If they use the curb lane then that's not the same as an exclusive ROW.
Politically, centre ROWs upset drivers enough.
Very useful discussion about BRT and LRT here, though.
-ed d.
Curbside BRT? How do private cars access curbside driveways and make right turns? If they use the curb lane then that's not the same as an exclusive ROW.
Politically, centre ROWs upset drivers enough.
Very useful discussion about BRT and LRT here, though.
-ed d.