[LowerBay]

During the TTC's express bus trial along Finch East, serviced stops saw their ridership increase by 35% over pre-existing vanilla buses, at no additional operating or capital costs. Maybe its true to say that rapid buses wont fix everything, but to say that they "wouldn't fix anything", and to use Finch as an example, is perplexing and not supported by evidence. I think proponents of greater rocket service have been quite clear that it is a "75% solution" that, while not perfect, clearly represents better value. Not a kind of mythical wundertranzit in the manner LRT is typically presented as.

Also, as doady pointed out, most of the issues you described could be easily remedied at low cost with basic solutions like larger buses and more efficient boarding regimes. Its also worth pointing out that bunching is a far more terminal issue along the City's tram routes, despite much attention to remedy the situation. Point being that fixed rail systems are typically more susceptible to route disturbances than non-rail systems, assuming an equal degree of segregation.

I couldn't agree more.

 

[MisterF]

People prefer rail over buses and all things being equal, light rail attracts more riders than busways. Ottawa has realized this. Anyway, my priorities:

1) DRL. In any form it takes, it's by far the most important transportation project that Toronto could build. Everything else is just details.

2) Upgrade as many GO lines as possible to electrified, frequent express rail. Fare integration with local transit is a must. Express rail along the Weston sub is the ideal connection to Pearson.

3) Eglinton LRT, with surface sections built like the Calgary or Edmonton LRTs to make it true rapid transit. A DRL connecting to Eglinton in the east and west would relieve a lot of pressure so a full subway isn't needed.

 

[Hipster Duck]

People prefer rail over buses and all things being equal, light rail attracts more riders than busways. Ottawa has realized this. Anyway, my priorities

That argument about people choosing rail over buses comes from the United States, where buses suffer from far more stigma than they do here. Over here (and even down there), I think that the net benefit to a transit system's desirability is far better served by investing the same amount in buses rather than light rail. For example, Transit City costs $10B, and it will have about the same beneficial impact as investing $2B in a RapidBus system....and I think I'm highballing the cost of a Rapidbus system of the same coverage.

 

[kettal]

Those problems are not unique to Finch, and they can be easily solved with bus lanes, signal priority, honour fare, limited stops, and articulated buses.

And after all that, you've spent about the same amount you would on LRT.

 

[kettal]

That argument about people choosing rail over buses comes from the United States, where buses suffer from far more stigma than they do here. Over here (and even down there), I think that the net benefit to a transit system's desirability is far better served by investing the same amount in buses rather than light rail. For example, Transit City costs $10B, and it will have about the same beneficial impact as investing $2B in a RapidBus system....and I think I'm highballing the cost of a Rapidbus system of the same coverage.

Rail has a higher customer preference worldwide. There's nothing American about it.

 

[ShonTron]

And after all that, you've spent about the same amount you would on LRT.

Care to back that up? The cost of infrastructure is cheaper, it can be implemented faster, and buses are cheaper.

There's certainly a case for LRT on corridors like Finch, but there's too much statements like this being spouted without the stats, or even reasonable assumptions, to back them up.

 

[kettal]

Road widening, new vehicles, new fare system, exclusive lanes. The only thing missing is the rails and the wires.

 

[ShonTron]

The big difference, though is that you don't even need exclusive lanes, particuarly if the road is already 6 lanes (just ban through-traffic cars and have decent enforcement). Queue jumps and lanes in pinch-points might be a possibility or necessity, but not median ROWs, especially with a "BRT-lite" system. I think Hipster speaks more about a Viva, Acceleride, or LA-type rapidbus system across the city.

 

[scarberiankhatru]

You also wouldn't need bus lanes and signal priority and honour fare and limited stops and articulated buses...serious improvements can be had by implementing even one of them (in little time and for a true pittance, not the billion+ dollars it's costing to get any of the Transfer City lines up and running). A basic example is the 190 Rocket, which has been a great success and all it is is a 'designated' limited stop route - and a quite short one at that, so its benefits would be magnified over a longer route like Finch East or Jane.

If anyone is actually concerned with improving transit and not just with reaching some endgame state with a 'finished' transit map with lots of pretty coloured lines, buses need to be improved, not replaced on a multi-billion dollar whim. There's some spots where a massive infrastructure solution is needed, like the central stretch of Eglinton, but there's other places where anything more than buses is laughably ridiculous.

 

[kettal]

The big difference, though is that you don't even need exclusive lanes, particuarly if the road is already 6 lanes (just ban through-traffic cars and have decent enforcement). Queue jumps and lanes in pinch-points might be a possibility or necessity, but not median ROWs, especially with a "BRT-lite" system. I think Hipster speaks more about a Viva, Acceleride, or LA-type rapidbus system across the city.

I can't speak for Hipster Duck, but my post was in reply to doady, who said to install bus lanes, signal priority, articulated buses, etc.

There's no question that improvements can be made to all the bus routes. personally I would like to see less frequent stops.

 

[Second_in_pie]

^^ (Am talking about Scarberian's post) Even better point than the argument that BRT can do. If you ask me, Jane doesn't even need BRT. Just some articulated busses and signal priority would do great.

Finch, however does need the LRT. I thought that would be pretty obvious. I think Finch and Don Mills are perfect examples of where LRT is absolutely perfect.

 

[scarberiankhatru]

^^ (Am talking about Scarberian's post) Even better point than the argument that BRT can do. If you ask me, Jane doesn't even need BRT. Just some articulated busses and signal priority would do great.

Finch, however does need the LRT. I thought that would be pretty obvious. I think Finch and Don Mills are perfect examples of where LRT is absolutely perfect.

Finch East doesn't need over a billion dollars worth of LRT - it's the only major bus route that works and should not be messed with for reasons I've gone into detail about several times before.

Don Mills is also far from a perfect example when you have the DRL threatening to run up it.

LRT - any transit project - should be the best solution to an identified problem, not a "wouldn't it be cool if we built this and spent these billions" whim.

 

[doady]

The anti-bus argument might make sense in the US, but it doesn't make sense in Canada. After all, Ottawa has higher transit ridership per capita than any light rail-based system in US or Canada. Winnipeg has higher ridership per capita than all US light rail-based systems except San Francisco.

I think improvements would have been more beneficial to the city, at lower cost. Use the leftover money to build subway instead and fix the real problems with transit in Toronto: subway overcrowding, underserviced downtown, and pointless transfers.

 

[LowerBay]

Rail has a higher customer preference worldwide. There's nothing American about it.

That's BS. When my friends and I go to the Ex, we don't choose the Bathurst streetcar over the Dufferin bus because it's a streetcar -- instead, we take Dufferin because the route is faster and much more direct.

Only the railfans and the Steve Munros of this world give a crap as to whether the wheels are rubber or steel -- the average joe doesn't care as long at it gets him (or her) from point A to point B.

All of this railfan nostalgia for light rail stems from childhood. Take Steve Munro -- his dad took him out on streetcars all the time as a kid. For the life of me, I cannot understand why anyone would prefer riding a streetcar over a subway, even as a kid, and why the tides have shifted towards streetcars over subways.

Even when I was a kid (and that was a LONG time ago), I remember the subway was exciting ... underground, fast, seemed like a real train (and what kid doesn't like a train?) ... but streetcars, BLEEAH !! The PCCs were earthquake rattle boxes -- how can anyone be nostalgic for those things?

 

[Hipster Duck]

The big difference, though is that you don't even need exclusive lanes, particuarly if the road is already 6 lanes (just ban through-traffic cars and have decent enforcement). Queue jumps and lanes in pinch-points might be a possibility or necessity, but not median ROWs, especially with a "BRT-lite" system. I think Hipster speaks more about a Viva, Acceleride, or LA-type rapidbus system across the city.

Yeah, that's exactly what I'm talking about. Like Viva but with better frequency and, of course, not compromising on local bus services/frequency.

Most of the cost would go toward new fleet acquisition and upgrading intersections for signal priorities. Full BRT with a median-ROW wouldn't really be necessary, since I don't think it has many advantages along a suburban arterial. This is actually true for both light rail and BRT - they're both much better on their own, separate ROW than in the middle of some existing road.

The anti-bus argument might make sense in the US, but it doesn't make sense in Canada. After all, Ottawa has higher transit ridership per capita than any light rail-based system in US or Canada. Winnipeg has higher ridership per capita than all US light rail-based systems except San Francisco.

Agreed. The history of light rail planning actually shows that in cities where it really wasn't needed, it took considerable money away from building a proper bus network. Many cities in the US have a 12-mile starter LRT but a skeleton of a bus service to back it up - often cut back in size to support the high costs of light rail operation. Light rail fanboys then use these statistics to show that the light rail line serves more people than the entire bus system. This is, of course, completely disingenuous.