Miller will not be running for Mayor, How will this affect Public Transit?

[gweed123]

^^ I've said a couple times that I'd rather have an Eglinton subway that goes to Jane and Don Mills, which could be easily extended in the future, than the current LRT proposal. Doing that would free up some money for projects like Sheppard or extending the B-D to STC, which should be happening in Transit City.

I haven't seen the actual data, but I would venture a guess that the passenger loads between Don Mills and Kennedy, and Jane and Martin Grove are well within the limits of BRT. Transfers seem to be acceptable everywhere else on TC *cough* Sheppard East *cough*, so why not where it somewhat makes sense? An Eglinton subway from Jane to Don Mills would bisect 4 rapid transit lines (5 if the western leg of the DRL is extended up to or past Eglinton). I'd say that's a pretty sufficient "crosstown".

 

[Dan416]

I'd be fine with just replacing the portion of Eglinton that is being tunnelled with subway, and BRT on the ends. I'd also be fine with the Sheppard East LRT if the Sheppard Subway were to continue to STC. But if that's the case, then that's how it should be planned. No point in building an LRT along a subway route. Just have the SELRT go up to where the Sheppard Subway leaves Sheppard to head south for STC.

 

[gweed123]

I'd be fine with just replacing the portion of Eglinton that is being tunnelled with subway, and BRT on the ends. I'd also be fine with the Sheppard East LRT if the Sheppard Subway were to continue to STC. But if that's the case, then that's how it should be planned. No point in building an LRT along a subway route. Just have the SELRT go up to where the Sheppard Subway leaves Sheppard to head south for STC.

It's also much cheaper to build BRT, all you need to do is widen the road, repave, and paint some solid lines, MUCH less infrastructure than LRT. Also, it is much easier to upgrade BRT than it is to upgrade LRT. As a result, it would be easier to make the case 10-15 years after the subway opens to have it extended.

The versatility of BRT is why I believe dedicated bus lanes should be included in the plans of all suburban major arterial roads. They already leave very large ROWs for these roads, why not include dedicated bus lanes when the roads are first being widened? Plan for them in advance instead of taking the more expensive route of adding them in later (also, if you do want to upgrade to LRT in the future, the ROW does not need to be widened).

 

[GenerationW]

This is the same city that just authorized the pre-design of the Yonge subway assessment

Done so when it looked like a sure thing, so they had no choice. Giambrone doesn't want it to happen. ("The extension has been received with only lukewarm support from the TTC and city staff")

$5-million of their own money on the environmental assessment for the downtown relief line

No choice after Metrolinx moved it up in priority. Let's see if anything comes out of it. ("a Downtown Relief Line (DRL) Subway [which would cost, by Metrolinx’s estimates about $2 Billion for a route from Pape to downtown via Queen Street] was downplayed and seen as only a “last resort” option by TTC staffers")

is going ahead with the Spadina subway extension

This one they wanted. The price is right with the cost shared between the city, York, the province and Ottawa; it satisfies their desire to take pressure off Yonge; it also lets them say they're not anti-subway.

and the subway down Eglinton?

You mean a tunnel for an LRT across Eglinton which they first said will clearly be subway compatible but wasn't as clear according to the literature given out at the recent Eglinton open houses?

 

[Juan_Lennon416]

The versatility of BRT is why I believe dedicated bus lanes should be included in the plans of all suburban major arterial roads. They already leave very large ROWs for these roads, why not include dedicated bus lanes when the roads are first being widened? Plan for them in advance instead of taking the more expensive route of adding them in later (also, if you do want to upgrade to LRT in the future, the ROW does not need to be widened).

With Miller's Transit City's plan changing many people's mindset about transit, the City of Toronto and the TTC have said to me at a meeting last year that they are not interested in building BRTs on suburban roadways and LRTs have become the preference. BRTs are indeed cheaper but they rather build LRTs from now rather than build BRT's and upgrade them later.

 

[rbt]

With Miller's Transit City's plan changing many people's mindset about transit, the City of Toronto and the TTC have said to me at a meeting last year that they are not interested in building BRTs on suburban roadways and LRTs have become the preference. BRTs are indeed cheaper but they rather build LRTs from now rather than build BRT's and upgrade them later.

Cheaper in capital. BRTs running standard buses are more expensive in terms of operating costs and if high capacity, land required (4 lanes, not 2).

The Transit City Bus Plan has a number of things to generally enhance bus service including jump lanes. Nobody in the city will give up 4 lanes on say Steeles for 60' buses to run express/local service in.

 

[gweed123]

With Miller's Transit City's plan changing many people's mindset about transit, the City of Toronto and the TTC have said to me at a meeting last year that they are not interested in building BRTs on suburban roadways and LRTs have become the preference. BRTs are indeed cheaper but they rather build LRTs from now rather than build BRT's and upgrade them later.

This is my problem with bureaucracy. Pre-determine what mode you want, instead of actually looking at the numbers and seeing what you should build. The central portion of Eglinton is in the crossover range between LRT and HRT, with the outer portions being in the crossover range between LRT and BRT.

On the surface it may seem like LRT is the best choice, especially if the central portion is tunnelled. But consider this: the station platform lengths and heights are designed for LRT, and therefore will be difficult to upgrade. Also, uprading the at-grade portion to a tunnelled LRT or HRT would also be difficult due to the necessary re-routing of the line.

If it were built using HRT and BRT combo (as I previously explained), the line could begin with a 4 car trainset (like Sheppard), and then have cars added on when capacity expands. The cost difference between building an LRT tunnel and an HRT tunnel is minimal in the grand scheme of things. The BRT on the ends could easily accomodate the passenger demand, and if demand does increase, it is easy to upgrade to a subway and reroute the bus routes and/or temporarily take the "RT" out of BRT, but still keep the service running with only minimal distruption during construction and no relocation costs (ie no tracks to re-lay).

 

[GraphicMatt]

One of the less-obvious problems with BRT is that, when it comes time to 'save money' by cutting back on services, bus lanes can feel very expendable. I think part of the push for rail over buses is because rail can't be removed with mere political whim.

 

[kEiThZ]

One of the less-obvious problems with BRT is that, when it comes time to 'save money' by cutting back on services, bus lanes can feel very expendable. I think part of the push for rail over buses is because rail can't be removed with mere political whim.

That shouldn't happen with Metrolinx there. And if the TTC is committed to a solid plan. If they had laid out a solid plan for bus lanes throughout the city and sold it with the same fervour as they did Transit City can you imagine what would have been? We could have probably built the entire network, excepting the technically limited bits (areas that need tunnels for example) within 2-3 years. It would have improved transit immediately while letting us work away at the more complex improvements.

 

[kEiThZ]

Cheaper in capital. BRTs running standard buses are more expensive in terms of operating costs and if high capacity, land required (4 lanes, not 2).

The Transit City Bus Plan has a number of things to generally enhance bus service including jump lanes. Nobody in the city will give up 4 lanes on say Steeles for 60' buses to run express/local service in.

4 lanes are really only required at/approaching the stops and even that's optional. If we are willing to compromise on travel times a tad, the queue jump lane would not be required. It's not an absolute requirement for BRT. Simply add bus lanes would dramatically improve travel times in the suburbs by taking the buses out of traffic.

There might some increase in operating costs, as you noted. However, the increased speed would mean that the number of buses required would not necessarily increase or would be a relatively small increase.

 

[kEiThZ]

This is my problem with bureaucracy. Pre-determine what mode you want, instead of actually looking at the numbers and seeing what you should build.

Agreed. What bothers me is that the idea was not studied at all. I am certain there are corridors where bus lanes and full blown BRT would work well. Why was it not studied? Instead, we get the classic Soviet 'one size fits none' solution.

They keep saying they want European style transit, except they aren't willing to actually employ Euro style planning when it comes to transit.

 

[kEiThZ]

You mean a tunnel for an LRT across Eglinton which they first said will clearly be subway compatible but wasn't as clear according to the literature given out at the recent Eglinton open houses?

Can you elaborate on this?

 

[Second_in_pie]

It's also much cheaper to build BRT, all you need to do is widen the road, repave, and paint some solid lines, MUCH less infrastructure than LRT. Also, it is much easier to upgrade BRT than it is to upgrade LRT. As a result, it would be easier to make the case 10-15 years after the subway opens to have it extended.

The versatility of BRT is why I believe dedicated bus lanes should be included in the plans of all suburban major arterial roads. They already leave very large ROWs for these roads, why not include dedicated bus lanes when the roads are first being widened? Plan for them in advance instead of taking the more expensive route of adding them in later (also, if you do want to upgrade to LRT in the future, the ROW does not need to be widened).

I was gonna say that you don't even have to widen the road

Yeah, I've mentioned in the Eglinton thread that Jane-Don Mills subway then BRT along the ends appeals to me so much more than Eglinton LRT. Much more room to expand real RT service of subway to the Airport and Kennedy.

And I agree that all arterials should have bus lanes at least. Each route needs different things though, and there's no easy solution to the entire thing. That's the big thing that I think is absolutely Transit City's greatest flaw.

 

[Hipster Duck]

One of the less-obvious problems with BRT is that, when it comes time to 'save money' by cutting back on services, bus lanes can feel very expendable. I think part of the push for rail over buses is because rail can't be removed with mere political whim.

There are very few (maybe no) examples of bus lanes ever being given over to private cars. Even in car-mad cities like Houston and Charlotte, they're treated as sacrosanct.

Saying that streetcar lines are permanent fixtures is just a little ironic considering that everyone knows that virtually every city on the continent eliminated their streetcar service, and every city eliminated at least a few lines. This is not a phenomenon of the distant past, either: Philadelphia replaced streetcar lines with buses as recently as 1992.

 

[Paleo]

This is my problem with bureaucracy. Pre-determine what mode you want, instead of actually looking at the numbers and seeing what you should build. The central portion of Eglinton is in the crossover range between LRT and HRT, with the outer portions being in the crossover range between LRT and BRT.

But hey, that got us Sheppard and TYSSE! According to some, any subway is better than none because we haven't got enough!