Eglinton-Crosstown Corridor Debate

[gweed123]

But with BRT the capital costs are low enough that a corridor project can be justified even without additional development, right? Don't the numbers on the York BRT project show this?

Again, to add more examples to my point, another 'path of least resistance' project between Point A and Point B. That type of BRT is great when you're shuttling people quickly between points spaced pretty far apart, and serving riders between the points isn't a primary goal.

However, even if that is the case, there is nothing stopping you from keeping minor cross-street intersections within the hydro corridor at-grade, and then putting in a curbside cut-out on the far side of the intersection. This would be no more than your average bus shelter, but you could run a local route in parallel with an express route along the corridor. The Finch Hydro Corridor has between 2 and 4 minor roads passing through it between each major arterial. You could have an express route stopping at only the major arterials (where they build an actual station, along with an under/overpass), and a local route that stops at every street that crosses the corridor, mainly to cater to existing local traffic. Another advantage with this type of configuration is that bus routes can hop on and off the corridor as they please.

 

[Rainforest]

But with BRT the capital costs are low enough that a corridor project can be justified even without additional development, right? Don't the numbers on the York BRT project show this?

York BRT project is a special case. 3 km of it are built on the Hydro or York U land (no acquisition costs), and the other 2 km are existing Allen Rd lanes repainted as BRT.

Most of other BRT projects in Toronto will cost more per km. In particular, an extended Finch West Hydro corridor busway would have to deal with the Ross Reservoir east of Dufferin. If a larger speed / capacity is desired, then level crossings with minor streets and with the CN Barrie sub have to be dealt with as well (currently, the busway crosses Alness Street and CN Barrie sub at level).

 

[gweed123]

This is all correct; but we should also take into account that Finch Hydro corridor does not run all the way into Northern Etobicoke; it turns south-west between Jane and Weston.

Therefore, IMO, the goal of FWLRT is serving Finch West residents plus Northern Etobicoke / Rexdale. The Hydro corridor busway, if built, should target fast access to the Airport and Mississauga Transitway (for this task it will beat any existing surface route by a large margin).

Eventually, both the FWLRT and the Hydro corridor busway can be built and co-exist.

Good point. One thing I had envisioned is the Kipling Hydro corridor BRT going up to Eglinton, and then splitting. One branch would continue along the hydro corridor and become the Finch Hydro Corridor BRT, while the other branch would continue up Highway 27 via curbside lanes, ending at Humber College (and bringing rapid transit to Woodbine Racetrack). While this doesn't necessarily link the FHCBRT with Humber College, I'm sure a route could be arranged that it travelled via the FHCBRT until Finch or Albion, and then become a local bus after that. You can have non-BRT routes use the BRT corridor as well.

 

[gweed123]

York BRT project is a special case. 3 km of it are built on the Hydro or York U land (no acquisition costs), and the other 2 km are existing Allen Rd lanes repainted as BRT.

Most of other BRT projects in Toronto will cost more per km. In particular, an extended Finch West Hydro corridor busway would have to deal with the Ross Reservoir east of Dufferin. If a larger speed / capacity is desired, then level crossings with minor streets and with the CN Barrie sub have to be dealt with as well (currently, the busway crosses Alness Street and CN Barrie sub at level).

Keep minor streets at-grade (just have timed signals at these intersections so that whenever a bus approaches, it turns red, this works very well in Ottawa), while grade-separating the major intersections, either via under or overpass (my personal preference would be for under, that way the roadway bridge naturally forms a bit of a shelter during the winter). This would drive up costs, however, with one bridge every 2km or so, it's not the end of the world.

 

[reaperexpress]

Keep minor streets at-grade (just have timed signals at these intersections so that whenever a bus approaches, it turns red, this works very well in Ottawa), while grade-separating the major intersections, either via under or overpass (my personal preference would be for under, that way the roadway bridge naturally forms a bit of a shelter during the winter).

Not to mention that transit signal timing already works well at Alness and the York U Busway.

The cost of a bus shelter is so small that the shelter provided by the bridge is not relevant to the decision between bridge or underpass.

 

[k10ery]

York BRT project is a special case. 3 km of it are built on the Hydro or York U land (no acquisition costs), and the other 2 km are existing Allen Rd lanes repainted as BRT.

Most of other BRT projects in Toronto will cost more per km. In particular, an extended Finch West Hydro corridor busway would have to deal with the Ross Reservoir east of Dufferin. If a larger speed / capacity is desired, then level crossings with minor streets and with the CN Barrie sub have to be dealt with as well (currently, the busway crosses Alness Street and CN Barrie sub at level).

Would it cost $344M/km?

 

[gweed123]

Would it cost $344M/km?

Drop one of those digits, then you'll be in the right ballpark .

 

[Ed Drass]

I didn't intend to suggest development was the most important consideration -- I thought it was clearly stated as a consideration. It's not a deal-breaker for me -- I think the busway should have been built as soon as it was conceived (and before I left York, even better). My concern is whether TTC subsequently reduced the number of vehicles in such a way that 196 crowding did not decrease, and that (as yet unconfirmed) wider frequencies ate into the trip time savings for riders. Also of note is how the 196 is shifted to local streets near York outside of peak.

However we agree that transit boosts development, especially in close proximity to stops or stations, no?

The question is how to balance the competing desires to boost 'city-building' (see York Region's diagrams of Avenues along Viva routes) and the need to increase speeds. If Ford responds to the criticism of attacking TC with a funded plan for off-street surface transit, then that could be very useful. But I don't recall such in his transport "plan".

On that token, how would a Finch West Hydro routing deal with the G. Ross Lord reservoir? BRT onstreet for a few blocks? But that's another thread.

ed

 

[reaperexpress]

I think the busway should have been built as soon as it was conceived (and before I left York, even better). My concern is whether TTC subsequently reduced the number of vehicles in such a way that 196 crowding did not decrease, and that (as yet unconfirmed) wider frequencies ate into the trip time savings for riders. Also of note is how the 196 is shifted to local streets near York outside of peak.

Because the busway significantly cut travel times, fewer buses were required to keep the same frequency. Although the TTC removed 4 buses from the route, the frequency and therefore the capacity of the route actually increased. You can check out the wikipedia article for more specifics.

I agree that it's annoying how the 196 uses the local streets near York on some runs.

On that token, how would a Finch West Hydro routing deal with the G. Ross Lord reservoir? BRT onstreet for a few blocks? But that's another thread.

ed

From personal experience (on the fantasy maps thread), I have discovered that people are offended by the concept of building a bridge over the reservoir.

 

[gweed123]

From personal experience (on the fantasy maps thread), I have discovered that people are offended by the concept of building a bridge over the reservoir.

What I would do is curve the roadway south on the east side of the resevoir (directly behind the houses there), put a small bridge over the river that leads into the dam, then curve the road west until it runs directly beside Finch Ave. Once it's crossed the river running N-S bisecting Finch, curve it back north again running parallel with Dufferin, and then have it cut underneath Dufferin on a 45 degree angle, and then continue along in the hydro corridor. I would also place the station in the stretch that's parallel with Dufferin, and then right after exiting the station, have the roadway dip under Dufferin.

PS: Is there already a thread discussing this, or should we maybe create a new one? I think this is a topic worth discussing, especially if Metrolinx revives this option instead of the FWLRT (which is a bit more likely).

 

[Ed Drass]

Because the busway significantly cut travel times, fewer buses were required to keep the same frequency. Although the TTC removed 4 buses from the route, the frequency and therefore the capacity of the route actually increased. You can check out the wikipedia article for more specifics.

--Yes, this may belong in another thread. Perhaps existing threads on BRT, Ford's "plan", etc.

That Wikipedia page is useful: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/York_University_Busway There is also http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richview_Expressway

I didn't confirm when the 196 frequency increase took effect (immediately?) -- it sure beats an effective claw-back in service, as has happened before with TTC. I wonder how crowding is....
FYI: Reaper, I may be able to locate the City of Toronto environmental goals document from 2000 that IIRC cites both Yonge North BRT and York U busway. Sooner than the Wikipedia page states.

ed

 

[reaperexpress]

That Wikipedia page is useful: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/York_University_Busway

Thank you. It's nice to know my work is appreciated.

I didn't confirm when the 196 frequency increase took effect (immediately?) -- it sure beats an effective claw-back in service, as has happened before with TTC. I wonder how crowding is....
FYI: Reaper, I may be able to locate the City of Toronto environmental goals document from 2000 that IIRC cites both Yonge North BRT and York U busway. Sooner than the Wikipedia page states.

ed

I assume the service frequency increase happened immediately because it is a side effect of the busway itself.
This report suggests that's what they planned to do, although the busway did not open on the day they mention.

The only mention I can find about the report in 2000 was from an article written by you, and I don't remember what source I used for the 2004 date. I can't believe I didn't put a reference in the article.

EDIT: I found the source: it was this article from the Toronto Sun.

 

[officedweller]

The SRT needs to be virtually pulled down anyways. Newer cars can't handle the alignment, TTCs ART implementation is non-standard, the above ground connection to Kennedy is disliked, there is only one manufacturer, and the technology offers no benefit over LRT. LRT can run on elevated guideways and there is nothing preventing LRTs from using a third rail if that is what excites you. Who cares about the current SkyTrain... the question is why would SkyTrain be worse if run using ATC LRT?

The advantage to LIM motors is the smaller tunnel profile versus motors with undercarriage gearboxes and overhead caternary systems. Third rail gets you partially there.
The issue is moot if the tunnel boring machines have been ordered and the diameter is already established.

If that's the case, there really isn't much difference between Bombardier MKII and LRVs using third rail (i.e. Canada Line).
Bombardier MKIIs are available in narrow (Vancouver) 2.65 m width or wider (JFK Airtrain) 3.0 m width.
LIMs are supposed to provide more accurate stopping distances in slippery conditions for ATC operated systems (i.e. icy conditions or leaves on the tracks) but with LIMs you've got the 1cm clearance issue to the reaction rail in winter.

The real issues are whether you want a non-exclusive RoW or an exclusive RoW, and whether you want drivers or ATC (regardless of technology or supplier).

Changing the system to Bombardier MKIIs gets you there in an "easy" step without having to address all of the "changes" that could be each individually challenged (i.e. surface -> elevated; overhead ->third rail; drivers -> ATC; long stations -> short statons; long headways -> short headways) (plus it stays with Bombardier and eliminates the lawsuit for a cancelled contract).

 

[reaperexpress]

If that's the case, there really isn't much difference between Bombardier MKII and LRVs using third rail (i.e. Canada Line).

The Canada line uses regular metro trains. Some examples of LRVs using third rail are the London Docklands system and the SEPTA Norristown High Speed Line.

 

[lafard]

Call me cynical but the advantage to LIM motors is that the company that makes vehicles containing them happens to have Ontario voters in it.