Ontario Line North of Eglinton (was Relief Line North) (Speculation)

[44 North]

Well, I also don't understand why we aren't using BRTs on basically every major arterial road in the city outside of the downtown core.

The capacity of our bus routes can be greatly expanded by not having them muck around in mixed traffic. General traffic circulation throughout the City would greatly improve too, with bunched buses not weaving in and out of the traffic lanes.

It's not like we didn't consider this. We did and settled on using a system of LRTs (i.e much of Transit City). Which is pretty logical considering the large volumes of the routes chosen and permanence of infrastructure (whether we could've settled on BRT or built subways are fair enough arguments however). But I don't think you should blindly simplify the issue as if we literally can make major arterials into BRT when we largely can't. Toronto has Major Arterials with maxed out ROWs that are 4-lanes. That's it. So give two lanes for buses, then what? A major arterial that is one lane in each direction? That doesn't work. A vehicle will need to stop, or make a delivery, or move, or an accident...the whole road would be gridlock and neighbourhoods couldn't function.

Yes there are locations where we can expand the road and add BRT or LRT, or maybe reduce traffic lanes from 6 to 4. But stating that we can convert all our arterials (major or minor) for transit-only when we logically can't isn't really fair.

 

[WislaHD]

It's not like we didn't consider this. We did and settled on using a system of LRTs (i.e much of Transit City). Which is pretty logical considering the large volumes of the routes chosen and permanence of infrastructure (whether we could've settled on BRT or built subways are fair enough arguments however). But I don't think you should blindly simplify the issue as if we literally can make major arterials into BRT when we largely can't. Toronto has Major Arterials with maxed out ROWs that are 4-lanes. That's it. So give two lanes for buses, then what? A major arterial that is one lane in each direction? That doesn't work. A vehicle will need to stop, or make a delivery, or move, or an accident...the whole road would be gridlock and neighbourhoods couldn't function.

Yes there are locations where we can expand the road and add BRT or LRT, or maybe reduce traffic lanes from 6 to 4. But stating that we can convert all our arterials (major or minor) for transit-only when we logically can't isn't really fair.

Each route will need to be looked at individually.

Some should be able to support full BRT. Others would need to eat into the road medians or shoulder medians within the municipally owned right-of-way for either parts or the whole corridor. This should be feasible for most of our major east-west arterials, which are the most important ones as they feed the Spadina, Yonge and (in the future) Relief Lines.

Others, such as most of our north-south arterials, might only be able to support a BRT-Lite variation. However, even employing simple measures such as signal priority, queue-lane jumping and all door boarding, could greatly improve service reliability, speed and capacity on all of these bus routes. And let's get some legit bus shelters (with off-bus fare payment) while we are at it, we are a winter city after all.

So yes, full BRT on every arterial road in Toronto is hyperbolic. But bringing significant upgrades to bus routes on most arterial roads that basically mimic BRT minus the right-of-way, is not. Just a matter of municipal willingness.

 

[Streety McCarface]

Each route will need to be looked at individually.

Some should be able to support full BRT. Others would need to eat into the road medians or shoulder medians within the municipally owned right-of-way for either parts or the whole corridor. This should be feasible for most of our major east-west arterials, which are the most important ones as they feed the Spadina, Yonge and (in the future) Relief Lines.

Others, such as most of our north-south arterials, might only be able to support a BRT-Lite variation. However, even employing simple measures such as signal priority, queue-lane jumping and all door boarding, could greatly improve service reliability, speed and capacity on all of these bus routes. And let's get some legit bus shelters (with off-bus fare payment) while we are at it, we are a winter city after all.

So yes, full BRT on every arterial road in Toronto is hyperbolic. But bringing significant upgrades to bus routes on most arterial roads that basically mimic BRT minus the right-of-way, is not. Just a matter of municipal willingness.

We can also compensate for those corridors that cannot support BRT by building LRT on some corridors while leaving others unchanged. It should displace enough riders that enhanced bus service becomes redundant open some corridors. For instance, Royal York may not be able to support anything but both Kipling and Islington can support LRT, so instead of building BRT on all routes, build it on some routes where possible, and LRT when BRT on nearby streets cannot be provided.

We also cannot dismiss the value of streetcars, especially on corridors like Lansdowne, Ossington/Oakwood, and Coxwell. All these routes already have fairly significant ridership or existing streetcar connections to potentially warrant streetcar service in the future. We also have to look at the prospects of Relief Line West and eventually Relief Line Northwest. Maybe dufferin will see a subway in a few decades time, and the surrounding streets can have optimized bus networks.

 

[WislaHD]

We can also compensate for those corridors that cannot support BRT by building LRT on some corridors while leaving others unchanged. It should displace enough riders that enhanced bus service becomes redundant open some corridors. For instance, Royal York may not be able to support anything but both Kipling and Islington can support LRT, so instead of building BRT on all routes, build it on some routes where possible, and LRT when BRT on nearby streets cannot be provided.

In theory. However, I am more skeptical in practice. Would people walk the 1km from Royal York to Islington for the LRT? Why not just wait the 5-10 minutes for the (presently un-upgraded) Royal York bus to show up, or time your exit from home with the transit app on your phone?

Displacing riders works when you are changing commuting patterns (e.g. using Crosstown over Bloor-Danforth line), works less so when you live 260 metres from the nearest Royal York bus stop, but 1.3km from the nearest Islington LRT stop (I measured a random house on GMaps) for example.

 

[gweed123]

Option C: DRL up Don Mills to Seneca (and maybe highway 7) and improvements to Richmond Hill GO.

$$$. The Option A that I propose would at least be relatively cost neutral with the proposals that are on the table now (DRL & North Yonge).

How are you going to convince CN to give up their access from the west to their second largest yard? If you have no idea what I am talking about, then you do not know what you are talking about and should investigate it further.

Why the snark? I'm aware of the issues.

The only overlap that would really be of concern for CN would be between the Doncaster Diamond and Richmond Hill Centre (where the subway would end). They have running rights south of Doncaster, but it's not a mainline for them. The corridor seems to be wide enough north of Doncaster that they can maintain the current tracks and add 2 subway tracks (appears to be a 30m ROW), and south of Doncaster they can maintain 1 track and have 2 subway tracks. A subway underpass would need to be built at Doncaster however.

 

[micheal_can]

$$$. The Option A that I propose would at least be relatively cost neutral with the proposals that are on the table now (DRL & North Yonge).



Why the snark? I'm aware of the issues.

The only overlap that would really be of concern for CN would be between the Doncaster Diamond and Richmond Hill Centre (where the subway would end). They have running rights south of Doncaster, but it's not a mainline for them. The corridor seems to be wide enough north of Doncaster that they can maintain the current tracks and add 2 subway tracks (appears to be a 30m ROW), and south of Doncaster they can maintain 1 track and have 2 subway tracks. A subway underpass would need to be built at Doncaster however.

Do you think CN wants to give up that real estate? The snark was because it really sounded like you did not know what that rail line was for.

In a decade or so, GO RER may want to run 2 new tracks for RH. Do you think GO wants to give up that real estate?

In short, there are many players each with their own stake in the area. They all want some of the pie, so, t ask them to let a subway exist there is crazy.

 

[gweed123]

Do you think CN wants to give up that real estate? The snark was because it really sounded like you did not know what that rail line was for.

In a decade or so, GO RER may want to run 2 new tracks for RH. Do you think GO wants to give up that real estate?

In short, there are many players each with their own stake in the area. They all want some of the pie, so, t ask them to let a subway exist there is crazy.

What real estate would CN be giving up though? They would have the same number of tracks as they do today. Yes it may limit expandability on CN's part, but how many freight-only rail corridors in the GTA have more than 2 tracks? I can't think of any off the top of my head. The Milton Line through Toronto and eastern Mississauga has 3 for some stretches, but that may also be because of parallel GO service.

As for GO, the RLN is a Metrolinx project, so all that is under the same roof. If the RLN goes with this alignment, RER on the Richmond Hill corridor is redundant.

 

[Streety McCarface]

In theory. However, I am more skeptical in practice. Would people walk the 1km from Royal York to Islington for the LRT? Why not just wait the 5-10 minutes for the (presently un-upgraded) Royal York bus to show up, or time your exit from home with the transit app on your phone?

Displacing riders works when you are changing commuting patterns (e.g. using Crosstown over Bloor-Danforth line), works less so when you live 260 metres from the nearest Royal York bus stop, but 1.3km from the nearest Islington LRT stop (I measured a random house on GMaps) for example.

But the thing is that not everyone lives along Royal York for example, many live in between islington and Royal York, and for many, an extra 5-15 minute walk to save 5 minutes of waiting outside, 10-15 minutes on the bus, as well as having ease of transferability benefits, a more comfortable ride, and a better chance at getting a seat is a huge incentive to switch their commute and walk/bike more.

Personally, I believe in the hub and spoke system for the transit network, where the subway acts as the main transit route along major corridors to major destinations, the bus acts as the last mile option from the station to your destination (if it's a minor destination), and where LRT fills the gap where that doesn't work efficiently due to geography or the state of the corridor (ie Finch West, Jane, Lawrence, Kipling, are all limited by their location, their proximity to other corridors, or don't have the density to warrant subway/elevated Rapid Transit service).

With a change in the system, the way we integrate the bus network and the LRT network needs to be reconsidered significantly. Maybe grade separated stops on LRT lines at major streets will have barrier-free bus terminals that allow for even more incentives to take the LRT over another bus route. If I were to give an example of this, if we look at the Jane LRT and assume there's a bus terminal at Jane & Lawrence, one could run a bus along Maple Leaf Drive to encourage riders along that street to take the Jane Line over the Keele bus despite the Keele bus being a shorter walk away.

 

[W. K. Lis]

One problem with the suburban streets are the cul-de-sacs. The suburban cul-de-sac makes walking to any kind of transit stop a l-o-n-g walk. Especially, if the streets were originally built without sidewalks. Pedestrians could be forced to walk away from a transit stop and take longer to get there.

From link.

 

[innsertnamehere]

Toronto has never really built anything but the second image from the left in it's suburbs in large numbers.

 

[nfitz]

Toronto has never really built anything but the second image from the left in it's suburbs in large numbers.

I've never spent much time in Toronto suburbia, but growing up in Kingston suburbia, there were walkways everywhere from ends of cul-de-sacs and between streets that made walking in suburbia very direct, and sometimes even quicker than driving.

 

[lenaitch]

What real estate would CN be giving up though? They would have the same number of tracks as they do today. Yes it may limit expandability on CN's part, but how many freight-only rail corridors in the GTA have more than 2 tracks? I can't think of any off the top of my head. The Milton Line through Toronto and eastern Mississauga has 3 for some stretches, but that may also be because of parallel GO service.

As for GO, the RLN is a Metrolinx project, so all that is under the same roof. If the RLN goes with this alignment, RER on the Richmond Hill corridor is redundant.

The CN ROW is theirs to sell, lease or giveaway. Both CN and CP have a corporate need to future-proof their infrastructure.

The CP North Toronto subdivision is double track mainline.

 

[WislaHD]

But the thing is that not everyone lives along Royal York for example, many live in between islington and Royal York, and for many, an extra 5-15 minute walk to save 5 minutes of waiting outside, 10-15 minutes on the bus, as well as having ease of transferability benefits, a more comfortable ride, and a better chance at getting a seat is a huge incentive to switch their commute and walk/bike more.

I think you are overestimating how frequent and rapid the LRT would be, and underestimating how fast and effective a bus on the route is. I don't think the benefits of LRT are enough to make it worth that extra 5-15 minute walk. (Plus there is the accessibility concern, some people can't walk that extra 5-15 minutes)

Buses work pretty well overall presently. A bus on Royal York takes me to my destination and is fairly frequent so shows up when I need it to, which is all that I require as a transit user.

This isn't to discourage building LRTs, just that I think LRTs shouldn't come with the context of seeing lower levels of service or ignoring potential for service improvements on adjacent bus routes.

 

[Streety McCarface]

I think you are overestimating how frequent and rapid the LRT would be, and underestimating how fast and effective a bus on the route is. I don't think the benefits of LRT are enough to make it worth that extra 5-15 minute walk. (Plus there is the accessibility concern, some people can't walk that extra 5-15 minutes)

Buses work pretty well overall presently. A bus on Royal York takes me to my destination and is fairly frequent so shows up when I need it to, which is all that I require as a transit user.

This isn't to discourage building LRTs, just that I think LRTs shouldn't come with the context of seeing lower levels of service or ignoring potential for service improvements on adjacent bus routes.

Regardless, any surface route with ridership about or above 30K passengers per day, in some section, should see a Light Rail conversion within the foreseeable future. The current system of bus usage is not working well, and line management is something the TTC isn't very keen on doing.

 

[WislaHD]

Regardless, any surface route with ridership about or above 30K passengers per day, in some section, should see a Light Rail conversion within the foreseeable future. The current system of bus usage is not working well, and line management is something the TTC isn't very keen on doing.

What do you do about corridors that are too narrow to accommodate anything but below-grade rapid transit?

I am thinking of Dufferin primarily, but Jane as well (which is compounded with drastic changes to grade along the corridor).