TTC: Jane (LRT) RapidTO

[W. K. Lis]

They should redesignate all the routes for the TTC to reflect the "priority" they have or should have.

A prefix maybe of some help. The subways (Lines 1, 2, & 4) should have the same prefix, or maybe letters instead of numbers. The LRTs (Lines 5 & 6) should have a different prefix. The streetcars should have leave the 5nn designation behind and get a different prefix. The express buses (9nn) should be go on their own way prefix. The local buses could continue without any special prefix, to show that they are "ordinary".

The Jane RapidTO designation for its buses depend upon which option the politicians go with. See link for more information.

1. Keep Existing Conditions with Minor Road & Public Transit Change
2. Priority Bus Lanes
3. Priority Bus Lanes on Key Segments
4. High Occupancy Vehicle Lanes (3+)
5. Queue Jump Lanes at Key Intersections

Option 2 is more of a BRT. Other cities make do with a single traffic lane and a reserved bus lane, IF they make transit a priority and don't surrender to the automobile. If they go with option 2, a BRT, then have a prefix with the Jane 35 similar to the LRTs. The same prefix should apply to the other RapidTO routes, IF they are BRTs. See link.

 

[DSC]

They should redesignate all the routes for the TTC to reflect the "priority" they have or should have.

A suffix maybe of some help. The subways (Lines 1, 2, & 4) should have the same suffix, or maybe letters instead of numbers. The LRTs (Lines 5 & 6) should have a different suffix. The streetcars should have leave the 5nn designation behind and get a different suffix. The express buses (9nn) should be go on their own way suffix. The local buses could continue without any special suffix, to show that they are "ordinary".

The Jane RapidTO designation for its buses depend upon which option the politicians go with. See link for more information.

Option 2 is more of a BRT. Other cities make do with a single traffic lane and a reserved bus lane, IF they make transit a priority and don't surrender to the automobile. If they go with option 2, a BRT, then have a suffix with the Jane 35 similar to the LRTs. The same suffix should apply to the other RapidTO routes, IF they are BRTs. See link.

There seems very little point to this and hardly something the TTC should waste time on. You suggest a letter suffix or prefix based on "the "priority" they have or should have" - if a route HAS (real!) priority it MIGHT be useful if these have the same prefix/suffix as routes which SHOULD have priority it is, frankly stupid.
The TTC clearly has problems doing basic things like managing departures from terminals, best they work on that!

 

[Sunnyside]

I always thought LRT was supposed to be for corridors that won’t need subway capacity, but would need more than what buses can offer. We could run into a paradox where the LRTs end up inducing subway-level demand, but the actual effects will have to be seen. If LRT was a good choice, it will stand on its own. I am not sure if LRT is going to be much good on very long corridors where demand could mount rapidly, so in the long term if the government transitions to a corridor model of BRT first, elevated/light metro later, I’d be happy to see it.

 

[duty free]

There seems very little point to this and hardly something the TTC should waste time on. You suggest a letter suffix or prefix based on "the "priority" they have or should have" - if a route HAS (real!) priority it MIGHT be useful if these have the same prefix/suffix as routes which SHOULD have priority it is, frankly stupid.
The TTC clearly has problems doing basic things like managing departures from terminals, best they work on that!

ok, but why is it going to be called Line 6 Finch West LRT? what's the reasoning behind that naming convention when that doesn't really exist elsewhere?

it just seems confusing to anyone who isn't familiar with the TTC.

 

[T3G]

Why would it be confusing to, of all people, those who are not familiar with the TTC?

People don't follow naming or numbering conventions. They research where they need to go, and find the route that takes them where they need to. It numbers very little what the actual number of the route is.

To that end, the suggestion above of renumbering everything would achieve nothing even remotely useful but would waste a great deal of money.

 

[Rainforest]

Why would it be confusing to, of all people, those who are not familiar with the TTC?

People don't follow naming or numbering conventions. They research where they need to go, and find the route that takes them where they need to. It numbers very little what the actual number of the route is.

To that end, the suggestion above of renumbering everything would achieve nothing even remotely useful but would waste a great deal of money.

100%. I am yet to see a renaming that actually brought any benefit.

Normally, either noone pays attention and then it is just pointless. Or, renaming causes confusion, then people get used to the new way and it is back to where it was, but not distinclty better.

 

[duty free]

Why would it be confusing to, of all people, those who are not familiar with the TTC?

People don't follow naming or numbering conventions. They research where they need to go, and find the route that takes them where they need to. It numbers very little what the actual number of the route is.

To that end, the suggestion above of renumbering everything would achieve nothing even remotely useful but would waste a great deal of money.

yeah it's just not really a metro line. maybe confusing was the wrong word. disappointing if anything.

 

[Rainforest]

I always thought LRT was supposed to be for corridors that won’t need subway capacity, but would need more than what buses can offer. We could run into a paradox where the LRTs end up inducing subway-level demand, but the actual effects will have to be seen. If LRT was a good choice, it will stand on its own. I am not sure if LRT is going to be much good on very long corridors where demand could mount rapidly, so in the long term if the government transitions to a corridor model of BRT first, elevated/light metro later, I’d be happy to see it.

Finch is safe from ever exceeding the LRT capacity. No corridor in GTA generates a subway level demand on its own, with the exception of the Yonge - Union - University Ave in downtown that has a huge employment density. In all other cases, subway level demand is supported by the feeder routes.

Finch is not going to get much transfers from the feeder routes. The biggest rider flow is to/from downtown, and for that kind of trip, it will rarely make sense to take Finch LRT unless your origin is near Finch. If you are on Steeles or on Sheppard, it will be faster to take an eastbound bus to the Spadina subway. To serve the Finch own demand, at most the TTC might have to hike the LRT frequency from every 5-6 min to every 3 min, that will surely be enough.

Eglinton is another matter though. That line ended up being designed as an odd duck, fast and going across the whole city, but with the capacity limited to 13-15k per hour per direction. It might get quite a few transfers from the numerous north-south routes crossing Eglinton. Let's wait and see, but I will not be very surprised if capacity becomes an issue for Eglinton at some point.

 

[duty free]

Finch is safe from ever exceeding the LRT capacity. No corridor in GTA generates a subway level demand on its own, with the exception of the Yonge - Union - University Ave in downtown that has a huge employment density. In all other cases, subway level demand is supported by the feeder routes.

Finch is not going to get much transfers from the feeder routes. The biggest rider flow is to/from downtown, and for that kind of trip, it will rarely make sense to take Finch LRT unless your origin is near Finch. If you are on Steeles or on Sheppard, it will be faster to take an eastbound bus to the Spadina subway. To serve the Finch own demand, at most the TTC might have to hike the LRT frequency from every 5-6 min to every 3 min, that will surely be enough.

Eglinton is another matter though. That line ended up being designed as an odd duck, fast and going across the whole city, but with the capacity limited to 13-15k per hour per direction. It might get quite a few transfers from the numerous north-south routes crossing Eglinton. Let's wait and see, but I will not be very surprised if capacity becomes an issue for Eglinton at some point.

so we should build more subway lines downtown?

 

[Rainforest]

so we should build more subway lines downtown?

We can't build them in large quantities

So, will have to choose where and when. Probably, OL North (north of Eglinton) should be the top priority. OL west (north or northwest of the Exhibition) in the longer term. At some point, extending the Sheppard subway both east and west may be desirable.

The problem with Eglinton is that it combines two conflicting visions. The original Transit City vision that promised a crosstown line for a reasonable cost, but with a lower capacity limit. But then, enter Doug Ford's desire to give every part of the city some kind of subway. So, the West end gets an LRT subway for the price of a subway, but with the lower capacity limit determined by the central and eastern sections.

It would be better to follow a single design paradigm. Either Transit City and save some money, or full-scale subway and make it more future-proof.

Not the end of the world, it won't be overloaded on the opening day, and there are ways to deal with excess demand in the future. But, what we are getting is not the optimal solution.

 

[duty free]

We can't build them in large quantities

why not? so many other cities do.

why not put them where the demand/population/job density already exists?

there are ways to deal with excess demand in the future.

beyond scaling it to the 15k pphpd? if so how?

 

[Rainforest]

why not? so many other cities do.

why not put them where the demand/population/job density already exists?

High cost of the North American construction, plus the governments have a limited appetite for funding such projects.

beyond scaling it to the 15k pphpd? if so how?

1. The cheapest, but with a limited effect: design of the surface network. If we got a second subway on Eglinton, equal to BD in capacity, then the north-south bus routes could be reshuffled so that most of them terminate at Eglinton. Say, Kipling North from Eglinton to Steeles, and Kipling South from Eglinton to Lakeshore.

But with the Eglinton capacity being a concern, will probably keep the existing model, the north-south buses will still terminate at BD subway. Those operating north of BD just cross Eglinton, and those operating south of BD do not directly connect to Eglinton at all. That will make BD preferred over Eglinton for some origin-destination pairs.

2. Dependend on where the demand is greater, could try running more frequent trains on Eglinton between Bayview and the west end, where the line is fully grade-separated. Say, a train every 1.5 min west of Bayview, and only every 2-nd train goes east of Bayview to Kennedy. Although, the train capacity is not the only bottleneck. If the key stations such as Yonge/Eglinton and Allen Rd / Eglinton are designed for lesser transfer volumes, then they might become bottlenecks.

3. Sheppard subway, if extended far enough, may divert some riders from Eglinton.

4. The ultimate solution is a Lawrence LRT, that doubles the capacity. But, it will not be cheap or easy to build, Lawrence Ave has a discontinuity between Bayview and Leslie, and is narrow in the middle of the city, thus a lot of tunneling will probably be required.

 

[TRONto]

Finch is safe from ever exceeding the LRT capacity. No corridor in GTA generates a subway level demand on its own, with the exception of the Yonge - Union - University Ave in downtown that has a huge employment density. In all other cases, subway level demand is supported by the feeder routes.

Finch is not going to get much transfers from the feeder routes. The biggest rider flow is to/from downtown, and for that kind of trip, it will rarely make sense to take Finch LRT unless your origin is near Finch. If you are on Steeles or on Sheppard, it will be faster to take an eastbound bus to the Spadina subway. To serve the Finch own demand, at most the TTC might have to hike the LRT frequency from every 5-6 min to every 3 min, that will surely be enough.

Eglinton is another matter though. That line ended up being designed as an odd duck, fast and going across the whole city, but with the capacity limited to 13-15k per hour per direction. It might get quite a few transfers from the numerous north-south routes crossing Eglinton. Let's wait and see, but I will not be very surprised if capacity becomes an issue for Eglinton at some point.

Eglinton doesn't have the highest ridership east of Don Mills. The TTC is handling higher ridership volumes than are found on Eglinton with buses. Once all those condos on the Golden Mile are occupied, the Ontario Line will be running. I don't see the case for the Eglinton to be at capacity.

 

[jmi22]

I always thought LRT was supposed to be for corridors that won’t need subway capacity, but would need more than what buses can offer. We could run into a paradox where the LRTs end up inducing subway-level demand, but the actual effects will have to be seen. If LRT was a good choice, it will stand on its own. I am not sure if LRT is going to be much good on very long corridors where demand could mount rapidly, so in the long term if the government transitions to a corridor model of BRT first, elevated/light metro later, I’d be happy to see it.

yep, we have so little subway built currently that any corridor upgrade to just better than a bus will induce subway level ridership

 

[Sunnyside]

yep, we have so little subway built currently that any corridor upgrade to just better than a bus will induce subway level ridership

This is what I was trying to get at more or less. LRT’s uncompetitiveness on speed is acceptable so long as it does a single job well, as a significant upgrade to a bus corridor. Not by taking on multiple roles of higher/lower capacity modes too.

We can solve the issue however. As long as LRTs have coverage, no one line needs to be burdened as a trunk route. So that means building parallel lines or a trunk subway fit for purpose when looking at a single LRT. Unfortunately, locking in a trunk corridor to LRT means you can’t improve speeds, and capacity upgrading entails 1-2 more lines nearby. So with the way we are growing, BRT is much better going forward; it can provide the brass tax service levels needed sooner, preceding an upgrade to a more appropriate mode, be it LRT or light metro when the time comes. Think BRT->LRT on Steeles and BRT->light metro on Jane or Hwy 7-Queen. We could never do it all as LRT in any reasonable amount of time, and some probably shouldn’t be LRT at any point.