Transit City Plan

[Rainforest]

And if overcrowding becomes an issue, an option that you may not have considered is to build another BRT on a nearly parallel corridor, in order to alleviate some of the traffic.

If the first line is overcrowded because it draws passengers from a wide area, then another line will help. However if most of riders come from the area around one street, they will not move to another line.

I don't know which case applies to Finch or Sheppard.

So we shouldn't built BRT because it'll be really popular and a lot of people may use it? Wow, that's a pretty interesting argument against it...

If it is BRT or nothing, then we should build BRT.

If we have a fixed amount of money and can build 11 km of LRT or 25 km of BRT - then, BRT does not win automatically just because it is longer.

 

[Rainforest]

LRT could be rapid transit. Eglinton is, more or less, as much as Bloor-Danforth is. The TC SELRT? Definitely not. Finch West? I'm not familiar enough with the stop spacing to say.

The stop spacing on Finch West would be similar to SELRT; but the typical travel time would be shorter because Finch West has better connections to subways. Most of Finch West stops would be within 15 min or less from either Spadina subway or Yonge.

 

[doady]

LRT could be rapid transit. Eglinton is, more or less, as much as Bloor-Danforth is. The TC SELRT? Definitely not. Finch West? I'm not familiar enough with the stop spacing to say.

I'd definitely call the Hurontario LRT rapid transit because it would actually speed up transit on the Hurontario corridor. You know, actual time savings which the TTC doesn't seem to consider to be important.

Technically, the Hurontario LRT is not rapid transit, since it will not be grade-separated. So the Eglinton LRT is not rapid transit either. The Mississauga Transitway when fully built will be rapid transit but not the Hurontario LRT.

 

[nfitz]

Technically, the Hurontario LRT is not rapid transit, since it will not be grade-separated. So the Eglinton LRT is not rapid transit either. The Mississauga Transitway when fully built will be rapid transit but not the Hurontario LRT.

That logic makes no sense. If you follow that logic to it's conclusion then Bus Rapid Transit wouldn't be Rapid Transit because it will not be grade-separated.

 

[gweed123]

That logic makes no sense. If you follow that logic to it's conclusion then Bus Rapid Transit wouldn't be Rapid Transit because it will not be grade-separated.

From what I understand, the Mississauga Transitway is being built to be grade-separated, much like the Ottawa Transitway. If that is the case, yes it would be rapid transit. I'm not going to get into the debate over what is or isn't rapid transit though. There are varying degrees of rapid transit, most of which relate more to grade-separation, signal priority, etc, as opposed to the technology choice. It's operating environment that determines how rapid a line is, not the technology choice.

 

[gweed123]

If the first line is overcrowded because it draws passengers from a wide area, then another line will help. However if most of riders come from the area around one street, they will not move to another line.

I don't know which case applies to Finch or Sheppard.

I think Finch and Sheppard may be a little bit of both. They do have some density directly surrounding them, but they are also major arterials, so I'm sure a lot of their ridership comes from the nearby suburban areas.

In any case, the forecast demands (in both cases around 5000 pphpd) can easily be handled by curbside BRT. I see it work every day in Ottawa. The Woodroffe bus lanes carry around 3,000-4,000 pphpd no problem.

If it is BRT or nothing, then we should build BRT.

If we have a fixed amount of money and can build 11 km of LRT or 25 km of BRT - then, BRT does not win automatically just because it is longer.

No, but if the projected ridership can be handled by the less expensive mode, why not? Is that not the whole rationale for doing LRT over subway? It's kind of ironic that the pro-LRT crowd makes the same arguments against BRT that the pro-subway crowd makes against LRT.

 

[denfromoakvillemilton]

Just out of curiosity.... How much would all of transit city underground cost. I'm talking eglinton to the airport, Finch west to Humber, Sheppard, Jane, Don Mills, all Underground would cost?

 

[TransitPolicyChanger]

I think Finch and Sheppard may be a little bit of both. They do have some density directly surrounding them, but they are also major arterials, so I'm sure a lot of their ridership comes from the nearby suburban areas.

In any case, the forecast demands (in both cases around 5000 pphpd) can easily be handled by curbside BRT. I see it work every day in Ottawa. The Woodroffe bus lanes carry around 3,000-4,000 pphpd no problem.



No, but if the projected ridership can be handled by the less expensive mode, why not? Is that not the whole rationale for doing LRT over subway? It's kind of ironic that the pro-LRT crowd makes the same arguments against BRT that the pro-subway crowd makes against LRT.

BRT is always going to be considered an option that Toronto will look down upon as some cheap poor quality service that we shouldn't invest in. I've mentioned my concerns with curbside BRT, but I think public perception is what really will drive using BRT vs LRT. People hate buses and the idea of a bus being my new rapid transit choice isn't all that appealing.

Buses have the worst most uncomfortable ride possible, I mean you almost get sick riding the new TTC buses. Buses do not allow for rapid loading and unloading of passengers (the current fleet at least). Buses are not electric, and as much as most people may not care, this is a concern. Curbside BRT is not "infrastructure", by which I mean people will not see curbside BRT as anything more than a HOV lane which people will abuse. Curbside BRT will get blocked daily either with long queues to make right turns, people driving into driveways or strip malls, broken down cars, etc.

My choice (strictly in a discussion of LRT vs BRT) is to start building the LRT for full lines and expand curbside HOV lanes and BRT Lite system until we can expand further.

The one thing someone mentioned on some thread somewhere, we still don't have an example of either operating in Toronto. We need to get over all that and just build one line.

 

[sixrings]

Completely Agree with transit policy changer... Busses are viewed as for "poor" people... I know people who are actually poor and can barely afford to drive and they think of transit and the bus especially for "poor" people. The fact that they can afford to drive a 1990 NEON is better then driving the BUS because that would be admitting you were poor.. It really is psycological. However if a LRT was the option although they might prefer subway they would deffinately consider LRT.... Gweed you suggested that if BRT shaved 5 mins off of peoples commute time on sheppard east they would consider driving the bus.. I completely disagree. People in TORONTO view busses again for "lower class" people. It could take longer to drive home from downtown in the luxury of the NEON but at least you arent on the bus. The time does matter no doubt but the mentality that public transit is for the lower class makes certain people avoid it like the plague... Now I know Gweed will point to Ottawa which has been succesfull at implimenting it... But Toronto is alot more fashion conscious then Ottawa.. Although we all dont live at Bay and Bloor and most of us dont actually go to the film festival and many of us our just spectators not buyers at the autoshow WE (as a city) like to pretend to ourselves and our friends that our lives are altogether like Malibu Barbie... Guess what doesnt fit in that equation? A dirty, smelly, roughly driven BUS.

 

[gweed123]

Completely Agree with transit policy changer... Busses are viewed as for "poor" people... I know people who are actually poor and can barely afford to drive and they think of transit and the bus especially for "poor" people. The fact that they can afford to drive a 1990 NEON is better then driving the BUS because that would be admitting you were poor.. It really is psycological. However if a LRT was the option although they might prefer subway they would deffinately consider LRT.... Gweed you suggested that if BRT shaved 5 mins off of peoples commute time on sheppard east they would consider driving the bus.. I completely disagree. People in TORONTO view busses again for "lower class" people. It could take longer to drive home from downtown in the luxury of the NEON but at least you arent on the bus. The time does matter no doubt but the mentality that public transit is for the lower class makes certain people avoid it like the plague... Now I know Gweed will point to Ottawa which has been succesfull at implimenting it... But Toronto is alot more fashion conscious then Ottawa.. Although we all dont live at Bay and Bloor and most of us dont actually go to the film festival and many of us our just spectators not buyers at the autoshow WE (as a city) like to pretend to ourselves and our friends that our lives are altogether like Malibu Barbie... Guess what doesnt fit in that equation? A dirty, smelly, roughly driven BUS.

So the fact that people have prejudices justifies spending over twice as much per km? I thought the whole idea around transit expansion was to change people's perceptions of transit, not to just cater to their misconceptions...

And PS: Civil servants are the biggest group of pampered princesses in the country. If they can ride the bus, so can Torontonians.

 

[Rainforest]

^ I think that perception could potentially be changed. Looking at York Region's VIVA, basically all they did was buying comfy buses and painting them a distinct color (plus, stations with ticket machines and POP / all-door loading). They have almost no dedicated lanes as of now, yet VIVA is perceived by many riders as an upscale transit mode compared to the regular YRT buses.

Potentially the TTC could build median BRT on Finch or Sheppard, give the buses that serve it a distinct color, add some marketing effort - and it is not transit-for-the-poor any more.

Larger reasons for concern are the capacity, and the fact that BRT does not reduce the consumption of diesel fuel - hence the TTC's dependence on the future diesel cost is not mitigated.

 

[Rainforest]

It's kind of ironic that the pro-LRT crowd makes the same arguments against BRT that the pro-subway crowd makes against LRT.

It is not ironic; rather, it is indicative of a real dilemma in each case: build more and sooner, or build less but more suitable for the demands of the future.

The Woodroffe bus lanes carry around 3,000-4,000 pphpd no problem.

I wonder how it works. 4,000 pphpd requires about 70 regular buses for hour, or about 40 artics per hour. Thus, the headways must be less than 1 min for regular buses, or 1.5 min for artics.

Of course, the legal driving interval in Ontario is 2 s, that allows for 1,800 vehicles per hour in a single lane. But the stop service time is quite a bit longer than 2 s. At busy stops where a lot of people disembark and board, it can reach 1 min or more. So, how do those buses serve such stops?

 

[leopetr]

BRT is always going to be considered an option that Toronto will look down upon as some cheap poor quality service that we shouldn't invest in.

I think the construction of Viva BRT on Highway 7 will legitimize BRT in Toronto. It's always good to have a nearby flagship line to point to. They are doing utility relocation for it right now.

(The Mississauga Transitway stuff, OTOH, does not sound appealing to me at all. I dislike things that can't get walk-in traffic by design.)

 

[gweed123]

It is not ironic; rather, it is indicative of a real dilemma in each case: build more and sooner, or build less but more suitable for the demands of the future.

I guess the main question that must be raised when considering that dilemma is "will the infrastructure that we're building now be useful in a future configuration?". For BRT being upgraded to LRT, the answer is usually yes. For LRT being upgraded to HRT, the answer is usually no. I think that's where that distinction comes into play.

I wonder how it works. 4,000 pphpd requires about 70 regular buses for hour, or about 40 artics per hour. Thus, the headways must be less than 1 min for regular buses, or 1.5 min for artics.

Of course, the legal driving interval in Ontario is 2 s, that allows for 1,800 vehicles per hour in a single lane. But the stop service time is quite a bit longer than 2 s. At busy stops where a lot of people disembark and board, it can reach 1 min or more. So, how do those buses serve such stops?

During peak periods, the 95 (articulated bus) runs every 3 minutes. In addition, that section of Woodroffe carries the 174, and 172 regular buses (average rush hour frequency of about 15 mins), the 157, 186, 188, and 195 peak period buses (average rush hour frequency of about 30 mins), and the 70, 71, 73, 76, and 77 express buses (average rush hour frequency of about 15 mins).

So one transitway bus every 3 minutes, one regular route bus every 7.5 mins, one peak period bus every 7.5 minutes, and one express bus every 3 minutes. I'd say that about gives you the right frequency for a bus every 1 to 1.5 minutes. And like I said before, I've seen this section of roadway in operation, and the buses don't really slow eachother down. The biggest slowdown is waiting to turn left into Baseline station, which is restricted because of the advanced left arrow.

 

[TransitPolicyChanger]

So the fact that people have prejudices justifies spending over twice as much per km? I thought the whole idea around transit expansion was to change people's perceptions of transit, not to just cater to their misconceptions...

And PS: Civil servants are the biggest group of pampered princesses in the country. If they can ride the bus, so can Torontonians.

A agree we should not design transit expansion around people's perceptions, but if people wont ride it (at least not in the numbers we want) then we haven't really gained anything. As Rainforest said, VIVA has tried to change the perception of the bus. Not sure how successful it has been as I have never been on a VIVA bus (only seen the random ones here and there) but there are some things you just cant change about a bus:
- no matter what hybrids are out there, they will be diesel operated
- capacity will be fixed, we cannot expand vehicles and LRT vehicles can carry more people (per vehicle)
- comfort of the ride (and this one i don't think anyone can argue, anyone know how smooth the VIVA ride is? do they accelerate and break like the new TTC buses? Does everything in the bus rattle over every crack in the pavement?)

Some things can't be overcome to say BRT is equal to LRT, but gweed is right that some things need to be overcome. I just think on one of the busiest bus routes we will need more than BRT. Sheppard East is the ideal spot for BRT: extending the Sheppard Line will not happen and going from subway to LRT makes no sense, so lets build BRT out as far as we can on Sheppard.

The reality is the way the money appears to be going for the new transit plan, there wont be the funding to do either (nor the political will).