Transit City Plan

[M II A II R II K]

They should have added a Queen LRT with underground sections, even with a DRL it would still get heavily used.

 

[Second_in_pie]

Those buses appear to be stopped. Capacity isn't all that high. I'd be willing to bet that 4 car trains, surface ROW with signalized intersections, one train every ~2 minutes would be able to do the equivalent job of that photograph. Possibly much better as the travel speed, which many on this forum care about to excess, would be higher.

Umm no, there would have to be almost as many LRT cars as there are busses. If there's that many busses, we might as build subway! Not that there are that many busses, but there would be.

Busses in their own ROW would also sort out that problem. If there are busses stocked up that far, there would have to be LRTs stocked that far, it's a simple question of geometry. I'm not saying that LRTs are useless, but LRTs aren't magically going to reduce that line of busses to a single train. Also, hasn't MTO forbidden the TTC from running LRTs past 5 minute frequencies?

 

[Tdot_one]

^ I don't think the line's primary purpose is providing speed, but capacity. That applies for most (especially Eglinton) of the TC lines, in fact. It'll be interesting to see how the LRT or MkII perform in the capacity front.

 

[Fresh Start]

You ranted for so long here without explaining how a BRT requires any less road width than an LRT. Am I missing something?

And are you proposing an elevated busway on Jane street? Seriously?

The post wasn't to dispel the fact that BRT requires wider lanes, obvously it does. My point being is that partioned road-median BRT can still be designed down Jane Street without much interference from or to other motorists. The "rant" as you describe it, is to illustrate that BRT built to optimal standards can preform even better than LRT down the same corridor because trip times will be faster and more passengers can be carried by the hour. Oh and 2 kms of above-grade BRT out of the entire ROW isn't much, although sidewalk reduction just as well could resolve any at-grade roadway width restrictions.

 

[Fresh Start]

^ I don't think the line's primary purpose is providing speed, but capacity. That applies for most (especially Eglinton) of the TC lines, in fact. It'll be interesting to see how the LRT or MkII perform in the capacity front.

Try riding the Scarborough RT or 510 Spadina car during rush hour then come back and tell us just how much fabled capacity LRT/MkII is supposed to have. And note: these run at far greater frequencies than what's expected of TC. If speed's not the primary objective than no one will flock to use the service. You may even lose some patronage over time after several minor local bus stops are removed from corridors, coercing many to start driving/carpooling.

 

[Fresh Start]

I was talking about Jane and it's needs. If you've ever taken a look at it, you can say due to its importance in the west end, it deserves some sort of higher order transit: thus LRT. However there are people here who are saying that it should be BRT, since for whatever reason, they say that it doesn't have the same cons as LRT. That's just bull.

What precisely is bull? That BRT upfront has lesser construction costs? Can be built and ready for public use faster (512 St Clair on an existing trackbed by contrast has taken 5 yrs)? That BRT vehicles cost less to manufacture than LRVs? That newer buses are built to last, with service life cycles upwards of 30 years? That BRT can run on environmentally friendly CNG or hydrogen fuel-cell technology as such to only emit water? That CNG is less expensive to operate than electricity? That biarticulated buses have greater carrying capacity than TC LRTs (275 vs. 260)? That BRT can have the exact same number of local stops as Jane LRT? That BRT is more easy to integrate with the surround transit network/communities as any bus/bus route can freely enter and exit the ROW at any point necessary (tyres can't run on raised tracks)? That TOD and landscaping are part and parcel of BRT ROWs same as LRT?

So in summary: BRT costs less to build and operate, is up and running sooner, has a similar shelf life to LRVs, leaves a smaller ecological footprint, equals LRT in number of drivers needed when considering that some drivers would be using the ROW for interlining, carries more passengers, enhances communties and brings mass transit closer to where people actually work and live since many people don't reside right along Jane but came from some distance in order to access it.

and about the 'more busses' solution... you can have as many busses as you want but if it looks like this:

Than it really doesn't matter the capasity, transit still sucks. A ROW is needed. For example, there are about a bus every 5 seconds on Eglinton but they constantly get stuck in traffic - one after another.

If you're going to admonish something, at least be truthful in your depiction of what BRT bus-only lanes down a corridor would really look like:

If I may, I think that Second-in-Pie meant that not as in terms of quantity but in quality. That a biartic can replace three regular sized buses and hence two of their drivers, is the kind of transit service improvement people such as myself are striving for. TC LRT offers no real solution that cannot be matched and even surpassed by BRT if for no other reason than that buses are not restricted by where the tracks physically end as a determinant as to the total number of nodes/neighbourhoods/employment centres higher-order transit can penetrate and serve. Busways can route virtually anywhere demand warrants it, LRT and subways-in-subrubia encourages commuter travelling and park'n'ride scenarios. So if I had to choose between rapid transit that's only walking distance of my house or rapid transit that I have to commute several kms to (via bus or private car) just in order to access it likely needing to transfer again and again afterwards, I'd pick the former.

 

[urbanboom]

What precisely is bull?

So in summary: BRT costs less to build and operate, is up and running sooner, has a similar shelf life to LRVs, leaves a smaller ecological footprint, equals LRT in number of drivers needed when considering that some drivers would be using the ROW for interlining, carries more passengers, enhances communties and brings mass transit closer to where people actually work and live since many people don't reside right along Jane but came from some distance in order to access it.



If you're going to admonish something, at least be truthful in your depiction of what BRT bus-only lanes down a corridor would really look like:

If I may, I think that Second-in-Pie meant that not as in terms of quantity but in quality. That a biartic can replace three regular sized buses and hence two of their drivers, is the kind of transit service improvement people such as myself are striving for. TC LRT offers no real solution that cannot be matched and even surpassed by BRT if for no other reason than that buses are not restricted by where the tracks physically end as a determinant as to the total number of nodes/neighbourhoods/employment centres higher-order transit can penetrate and serve. Busways can route virtually anywhere demand warrants it, LRT and subways-in-subrubia encourages commuter travelling and park'n'ride scenarios. So if I had to choose between rapid transit that's only walking distance of my house or rapid transit that I have to commute several kms to (via bus or private car) just in order to access it likely needing to transfer again and again afterwards, I'd pick the former.

First of all, I wasn't referring to you OR or BRT. I was responding to Corusanti's flawed notion that the increased quantity of buses on Jane would be better than the TC model. (Not a BRT vs. LRT debate as you seemed all too ready to spring into.) Having a bus every five seconds doesn't really improve transit as buses too can be a major part of the traffic itself. The picture that I posted was intended to illustrate that point, not show 'flaws' of BRT. Honestly, if you're going to spend 45 minutes writing up a post to argue against something, next time you should probably know what the hell you're arguing against.

I'm not even going to bother with the rest of the post that somehow shows that BRT is miles above LRT. I'd rather not take transit tips from L.A., thanks.

And good luck fitting that picture on Jane.

 

[kettal]

Fresh Start is always good for a laugh.

Maybe you need to go to Ottawa, which has one of the biggest and highest capacity BRT systems in the world. If BRT is such a miracle solution, why are turning to LRT now?

 

[Second_in_pie]

Fresh Start is always good for a laugh.

Maybe you need to go to Ottawa, which has one of the biggest and highest capacity BRT systems in the world. If BRT is such a miracle solution, why are turning to LRT now?

Ottawa's model is reaching it's limits. If you want a perfect city and model to build BRT on, look to Curitiba (it's in Brazil, kind of close to Rio.) Curitiba, which has about 1 million people, has built a true BRT network. Think the London Undergound, except using busses in full ROWs. This allows a seemingly simple bus network to carry an astounding number of people. If 50k people each use the over 20 BRT lines that are in place in the city, that's over 1 million people served by bus lines, and it all works fine, because they're spread out against so many lines.

The network crisscrosses the city, and there is absolutely no bottleneck in the system. Each route takes it's own path, so you don't have the mess of the Ottawa Transitway when every single bus in town is trying to get to the core. By using a lower capacity system, they were able to broaden their service. Since the city is relatively small, it's easy to provide a good service by just flooding the area with BRTs.
Again, we can already see the flaw with the Ottawa system. In Ottawa, there is an obvious central portion on which the rest of the network relies. In Curitiba, there is no such section. Because this section in Ottawa sees a significantly higher load from the rest of the system, it needs to evolve into some sort of heavier system, probably HRT Subway, to fulfill demand and continue providing the same service. (The LRT is a good start but I honestly think that come 10 years from now, they'll start to see the limits of such a service as well. Not to mention, it might actually be less expensive to do that and let busses run on the peripheries instead of LRT-izing the entire transitway.)

Unfortunately, such a system as Curitiba's could never work in Toronto, for several reasons. The first is the obvious, Toronto is much too big. In a metro pop vs. metro pop, Toronto is about twice the size of Curitiba, three if you count the entire Golden Horseshoe, and Curitiba does not have a lake to double CBD-edge development distances. Second, Toronto has already been built on the Ottawa-style obvious higher order mode form. The B-D and YUS are obvious backbones to the network, and the only way to make a network of equalizing BRT lanes pillaging the city would really to be shutting down those lines. And considering that Toronto proper could grow by another million people in 25 years, and the GTA/GGH god knows how many, BRT just won't be sustainable. Curitiba's growth has been quite steady in recent years, enough for simple BRT upgrades to be enough.

And here comes the Transit City attack, we should be modeling our city on what it has. BRT has worked in Curitiba, but they have quite a unique set of circumstances that allowed it to be successful. Not to mention, Curitiba does not have three downtowns, and dozens of high-density growth nodes which could be connected and high density corridor-ized through a more rapid form of transit than BRT. All that TC will do is contribute to the Ottawa-esque bottleneck on the B-D and YUS. All the "RTs" will funnel into two lines that'll take the entire load, giving little choice for other possible trips and ways to get there.
What Toronto needs to do is build it's RT network full and proper. What this means is a DRL, going all the way up Don Mills to Finch, a Sheppard subway, and Eglinton subway. With those 3, there will be a solid network for all routes to run on. From there, we can try to branch out avenuizing LRT services. It won't happen magically, but with the proper planning and a bit of civic and developmental magic, LRT can actually make a nice companion to outer suburbs, if connected to a RT network that can get people around quickly and efficiently. We can also look at other real RT routes, like Highway 27, maybe Jane, maybe Dufferin, heck maybe even Jarvis. TC should have been getting the bare minimum RT network out, so that the city could build on that as we bask in the next 100 years when Canada will finally emerge as the awesome nation that we could be, with Toronto as the main financial centre. Ok, maybe it won't be that great, but you have no idea how stupid I think Miller is for proposing this idea in the first place

Please tell me how relevant that was, I'm trying to keep my input as on topic/relevant as possible

 

[Fresh Start]

@kettal: which will actually worsen the overall quality of service, not improve it. The coverage level of the underground LRT through Ottawa's downtown core will be very limited. A surface on-street tram is of far better benefit to the citizens of Ottawa. That I'd endorse:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_jhIawdxxWo
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vln_fxNK798
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=alKrRIHAZAk

See, I'm not anti-LRT; I'm just anti-stupidity and wasting the taxpayer's dime and ripping up streetscapes for years on end for no real commuting time advantage thereafter and ignorantly blasting a technology mode that's being adopted by cities around the globe as we speak.

First of all, I wasn't referring to you OR or BRT. I was responding to Corusanti's flawed notion that the increased quantity of buses on Jane would be better than the TC model. (Not a BRT vs. LRT debate as you seemed all too ready to spring into.) Having a bus every five seconds doesn't really improve transit as buses too can be a major part of the traffic itself. The picture that I posted was intended to illustrate that point, not show 'flaws' of BRT. Honestly, if you're going to spend 45 minutes writing up a post to argue against something, next time you should probably know what the hell you're arguing against.

I'm not even going to bother with the rest of the post that somehow shows that BRT is miles above LRT. I'd rather not take transit tips from L.A., thanks.

And good luck fitting that picture on Jane.

Um, you said:

Than it really doesn't matter the capasity, transit still sucks. A ROW is needed. For example, there are about a bus every 5 seconds on Eglinton but they constantly get stuck in traffic - one after another.

A bus operating in its own right-of-way separated from other traffic lanes is bus rapid transit or BRT since in the absence of following other vehicles buses can run much faster. So my critique of your post is sound. Furthermore, showing a fleet of parked buses at the side of the roadway is not an example of a service busway. It is falsifying evidence, which unwitting people may come across this page, see that and presume is reality. I'm showing the forum what a busway down the median of a corridor truly looks like. Quite similar in size and scope to Transit City LRT right-of-ways, no? And I also explained that Jane would not require more buses per the introduction of articulates or biarticulates to the TTC bus fleet, for they'll have the passenger capacity of 2-3 light rail trams. If that's what you meant to dispel with the image then I have assisted your argument and therefore you can thank me.

Where you and kettal are getting your transit service cues from is irrelevant. Last I checked transit grows modally starting from local bus service through to high-speed commuter rail. The next step up from local buses is BRT and BRT corridors are simple to convert to LRT ROWs should demand warrant it in the future. But in the grand meantime the difference in construction costs can be utilized to put subways in where they are actually needed. All these modes have their place in the network, but for a street like Jane you're really stretching convention to cite LRT and only LRT is suitable for it.

 

[rbt]

Umm no, there would have to be almost as many LRT cars as there are busses. If there's that many busses, we might as build subway! Not that there are that many busses, but there would be.

Fewer drivers and much lower dwell times at stations with a single long vehicle compared to several shorter vehicles.

Yes, if you converted the buses into units which could carry 500 to 600 people per rubber tired train (bus train) then you could get the same thing.

The longer vehicle (fewer human drivers actually, ATO on the buses would have similar impact) greatly increases the group velocity which would eliminate a huge amount of congestion. This impact would be most obvious at stations, assuming those buses all stop at each station (single line, why wouldn't they?).


Group velocity issues are the same reason our highways tend to be congested. They're perfectly capable of carrying the traffic they have provided the reaction times of the drivers are perfect. Putting vehicles into trains (coupling together) helps significantly by ensuring that the reaction times are perfect for a large percentage.

 

[Tdot_one]

Try riding the Scarborough RT or 510 Spadina car during rush hour then come back and tell us just how much fabled capacity LRT/MkII is supposed to have. And note: these run at far greater frequencies than what's expected of TC. If speed's not the primary objective than no one will flock to use the service. You may even lose some patronage over time after several minor local bus stops are removed from corridors, coercing many to start driving/carpooling.

I would never suggest that the Scarborough RT would work better as an LRT. It is true average ridership from Kennedy and McCowan may be low, but STC station sees well over 30,000 ppd on a very shot stretch. That would suggest that the stretch to STC needs a subway, unless several light rails around the Kennedy corridor to town center.

The same goes for Queen St, which is either approaching or over the 40,000 mark on a much longer line. Sooner or later, some sort of subway line will have to built on the corridor, that is, once the DRL is built. I don't think many in the neighborhood would want to see a subway line either, so it'll likely have to go through Dundas instead.

On the other hand, Jane St is a pretty suitable corridor for an LRT. The corridor especially around the northern portions are pretty high density. The Spadina station would address dense communities around JnF (which goes to Sheppard), but I am sure the LRT will be well utilized.

 

[drum118]

I would never suggest that the Scarborough RT would work better as an LRT. It is true average ridership from Kennedy and McCowan may be low, but STC station sees well over 30,000 ppd on a very shot stretch. That would suggest that the stretch to STC needs a subway, unless several light rails around the Kennedy corridor to town center.

The same goes for Queen St, which is either approaching or over the 40,000 mark on a much longer line. Sooner or later, some sort of subway line will have to built on the corridor, that is, once the DRL is built. I don't think many in the neighborhood would want to see a subway line either, so it'll likely have to go through Dundas instead.

On the other hand, Jane St is a pretty suitable corridor for an LRT. The corridor especially around the northern portions are pretty high density. The Spadina station would address dense communities around JnF (which goes to Sheppard), but I am sure the LRT will be well utilized.

The SRT has a max ridership because of lack of equipment. Putting LRT on it will almost double the ridership as to more room and equipment that can be added as needed.

The Queen line is haft the ridership it had in the 70's and 80's and met the need for a subway back in the 60's, but lost to the BD line. The only problem with a Queen Subway is, station will be 2 to 4 times further apart because of lack density and very low ridership. One reason to keep the Queen car after the subway is built to deal with the low ridership between stations.

If you build stations as BD, some stations will be lucky to see 500 riders a day, well below what Chester see today.

Jane can support an LRT for years to come, but the width is a big issue and more so if BRT. Now if you use the curb lanes, you solve a lot of problems as well create some more. No extra land is needed.

 

[AnnetteMeetsJane]

Jane can support an LRT for years to come, but the width is a big issue and more so if BRT. Now if you use the curb lanes, you solve a lot of problems as well create some more. No extra land is needed.

The centre two lanes of Jane were closed south of Eglington (for resurfacing) for the whole summer a couple of years ago - people managed... I am sure that some drivers chose to use an alternative (suboptimal for them?) route, but the sky didn't fall down and there was no peasants revolt.
Banning parking on Jane and devoting the centre lanes to public transit seems like a very doable compromise given that we really need a service (capacity) upgrade so badly... The tough bit is coping with public transit and traffic on just a single lane each direction while the transit lanes are being built.
AmJ

 

[tkip]

One has to wonder...

About the insistance on using streetcars over buses and subways as an expansion model for transit in this city. Subway aversion I can understand. It costs a lot and governments don't want to foot the bill. Streetcars are another matter.

The sheer opposition to them on the streets, and I know a lot of people who would love to see them gone, makes me question why the higer-ups want them on our streets. I'm thinking it has something to do with what powers them.

Electricity.

I know we have a looming power supply problem growing in Ontario but I also keep coming across articles talking about the impending Peak Oil situation and the impact with regards to sustaining our current system of how civilization works. And somewhere in there is transportation.

Maybe someone out there thinks there is going to be real oil crisis in the coming decades and the switch to electricity over gas powered vechicles is part of the solution. Conspiracy talk I know but the more I think about this.

Na....