News   Dec 02, 2024
HBSMCCNEC.JPG
 119     0 
News   Nov 29, 2024
Feds Match $758 Million Investments for New Line 2 Subway Trains
 2.7K     4 
News   Nov 29, 2024
Looking Back on a Year of Construction at Amexon's Central Park
 901     0 

TTC: Scarborough Busway Construction (portion of the former Scarborough RT route)

www.thestar.com

Scarborough pays the price of transit ‘foot-dragging’ a year after the TTC shuttered the SRT

More than a year after Scarborough’s decrepit light-rail train derailed, commuters are waiting for its replacement—if it even gets built.
www.thestar.com www.thestar.com

“The foot dragging on that project is typical of everything that’s gone on with Scarborough planning,” said Munro. “I’m fully expecting someone to come along and say, ‘Well, you know, this thing’s going to cost us $60 million and the subway is going to be open within X number of years of when we’re finally going to get this thing finished,’” he said. “Do we really need it?”

Myers himself has shown some doubt on the "business case" (why is one even needed?) for the busway.

I really hope this project doesn't face any more delays or even an outright cancellation.
 
Northern Light said:
That's a potentially reasonable perspective; though it would work better with a bit more supporting evidence as to impacts on travel times for GO riders, costs of an infill station vs the busway , etc.
Click to expand...
The decision not to proceed with a Lawrence East SmartTrack station notwithstanding Centennial gives a good sense of what that evidence, if tested, would show?
 
Bojaxs said:
No! Stop adding stops on GO lines. Just have people get off at Kennedy and take the busway if this is your suggestion.

No where on the proposed busway warrants a GO station. It's all low density, industrial zones better served by a busway.
Click to expand...
yurt2022 said:
Those 1-3 kilometer spacings are way too short for a GO train to operate efficiently over. You're forgetting a GO train isn't a subway and takes much longer to accelerate/brake, with a typical set needing up to 2KMs to brake and stop safely within a station. If we add stop density within that corridor we're going to be seeing the trains move at a snails pace essentially, increasing travel times and defeating the purpose of the GO rail network as a whole which is to be a rapid interurban rail service, not a subway replacement.

This might be solved with electrification of trains as you said but that is at least 7-10 years away from happening.

A busway would be much more appropriate, and I don't think people would be wanting to hop on a GO train for local travel anyhow, with headways after electrification proposed to be at most every 15 mins during rush hour in the peak direction only.
Click to expand...
Bojaxs said:
My argument is about "stop spacing", and how Toronto residents want to hijack the GO train and turn it into a quasi subway and have stations less than 1km apart. Negatively impacting the people who live further away and extending their trips, making the GO train less viable compared to driving.

People in Toronto don't want to take a bus to a GO station and insist on having a station built right across the street from their home.
Click to expand...
I'm not going to rehash arguments made by @Northern Light since he did an excellent job arguing the main points, and instead I want to point out the fact that when factoring in the possibility of using the SRT/Busway ROW, as well as a bid of extra space available on parts of the Uxbridge Sub until Unionville (basically in sections outside of the corridor through the Agincourt neighbourhoods) to add a 3rd or even 4th track through much of the lower Uxbridge Sub. Obviously I'm not advocating for stations closer than every 2km, but in a hypothetical future (many decades from now, I'm not saying this is even a 10-20 year project) we could extend the Stouffville Line to places like Uxbridge or even (Hopium) Lindsay, and with such services it would make a lot of sense to have skip stop services that would skip stations like Danforth, Lawrence, or even Ellesmere (plus maybe some Markham Stations). Like there's no reason why all trains have to service these stations, and this type of operating style is how virtually ever mayor Regional Rail system in the world operates (See: Paris, Sydney, Melbourne, like literally pick almost any).
 
dowlingm said:
The decision not to proceed with a Lawrence East SmartTrack station notwithstanding Centennial gives a good sense of what that evidence, if tested, would show?
Click to expand...
The reason why SmartTrack for Lawrence East was cancelled is because Lawrence East was added as a stop for Line 2, at which point the notion of a Lawrence East infill was seen as superfluous, or at the very least not seen as being an immediate priority. With the City's extremely limited budget, and factoring the fact that even without Lawrence East many Smarttrack Stations were cancelled, it makes sense why the station was scoped out from a project focusing on "short term" additions to the network.

The point of me entertaining the idea of an infill is as a response to @yurt2022 's assertion that the busway was a necessity to serve the locals that lived near the line, that even if there was a critical mass of residents, an infill station was probably a better idea in the longer term (By like 2035-2040 range), especially if these areas will be significantly upzoned.

Bojaxs said:
My argument is about "stop spacing", and how Toronto residents want to hijack the GO train and turn it into a quasi subway and have stations less than 1km apart. Negatively impacting the people who live further away and extending their trips, making the GO train less viable compared to driving.

People in Toronto don't want to take a bus to a GO station and insist on having a station built right across the street from their home.
Click to expand...
I don't recall ever mentioning living in Toronto. That's an interesting bit of strawmanning if I've ever seen one.

I also find it strange how you frame this as "People in Toronto don't want to take a bus to a GO station and insist on having a station built right across the street from their home" when its about adding an infill station on an existing railway alignment at the intersection of a major east-west street with a very well used bus route. Like if anything, what these stations would do is literally make it easier for people to get to the GO station by bus.
 
Last edited:
yurt2022 said:
Those 1-3 kilometer spacings are way too short for a GO train to operate efficiently over. You're forgetting a GO train isn't a subway and takes much longer to accelerate/brake, with a typical set needing up to 2KMs to brake and stop safely within a station. If we add stop density within that corridor we're going to be seeing the trains move at a snails pace essentially, increasing travel times and defeating the purpose of the GO rail network as a whole which is to be a rapid interurban rail service, not a subway replacement.

This might be solved with electrification of trains as you said but that is at least 7-10 years away from happening.

A busway would be much more appropriate, and I don't think people would be wanting to hop on a GO train for local travel anyhow, with headways after electrification proposed to be at most every 15 mins during rush hour in the peak direction only.
Click to expand...
Trains will get faster, be it by shorter trains hauled by more powerful electric locomotives or by EMUs. Increased volumes of service and new infrastructure will allow for more express services. Reference post-electrification headways on the Stouffville line were every 7.5 minutes, too, as of the FBC, and I think the present plans involve greater volume. The stations on the Kitchener line within Toronto are going to be less than 2.5km apart; that kind of spacing won't kill the Stouffville corridor either.
 

Agenda Item History 2024.MM23.26

Agenda Item History 2024.MM23.26
secure.toronto.ca

Screenshot_2024-11-14_182110.jpg
 
It does see an odd move, given the lack of density there, and that express buses often go the distance between Eglinton and Lawrence without stopping. The plus side may be that the ridership will be so miniscule that it will barely impact the average run-time.

At the same time - Thompson back at council? yucky ...
 
I'm looking to potentially buy a condo along the busway, formally near the RT. The condo prices have dropped along this area, probably because of the lack of rapid transit now nearby. (and interest rates etc as well)

Is the busway a permanent thing? Or will they shut it down once the subway opens. I'm ok with a busway to Kennedy, but if they shut it down the subway will be a bit of a walk from where i'm looking to buy.
 
smallspy said:
It will be a request stop, so only buses that are picking up or dropping off passengers will stop there.

Dan
Click to expand...
Being a request stop makes it problematic because the likelihood of a passenger waiting to get on the bus is a function of the time since the previous bus. So it increases bunching by making late vehicles even later.
 
reaperexpress said:
Being a request stop makes it problematic because the likelihood of a passenger waiting to get on the bus is a function of the time since the previous bus. So it increases bunching by making late vehicles even later.
Click to expand...
What's the stop time at a bus stop? 35 seconds?

That's within the realm of time lost at a single signaled intersection. In other words, not noticeable to those on the bus.

And yet, absolutely noticeable to those who will have a stop far, far closer to them.

Dan
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top