[tsm1072]

I don’t know why every major road wouldn’t have brt if it’s cheap to implement. It might seem excessive but it’s the luxury of having so much road space which a place like Toronto doesn’t.

When switching to BRT, in this case, dedicated lane BRT, you have to convert all non-signalized intersections and driveways to right-in, right-out. So you need arterials that have a lower number of driveways and total intersections to be able to properly implement. BRT also doesn't make sense on roads that aren't congested during rush hour, as regular frequent service would serve the same purpose if there is no congestion.

 

[sixrings]

When switching to BRT, in this case, dedicated lane BRT, you have to convert all non-signalized intersections and driveways to right-in, right-out. So you need arterials that have a lower number of driveways and total intersections to be able to properly implement. BRT also doesn't make sense on roads that aren't congested during rush hour, as regular frequent service would serve the same purpose if there is no congestion.

Yes but which is why I said major roads. Mavis, burnamthorpe, Dundas sort of thing.

 

[gibsonm]

I still don't see much advantage to BRTs that have to stop at traffic lights over regular busses. It's a very minor improvement.

 

[jys]

I don’t know why every major road wouldn’t have brt if it’s cheap to implement. It might seem excessive but it’s the luxury of having so much road space which a place like Toronto doesn’t.

As a resident, I think it would be very helpful for Mississauga to have a grid of BRTs connecting the city together and feeding into what limited regional rail exists in the city. Combine that with decent cycling facilities and parking at BRT stations, and we actually have a hope of getting choice riders out of cars.

Agreed. But let's make sure we have good frequency (cheap to implement) before we even think about investing in expensive infrastructure changes.

 

[jys]

I still don't see much advantage to BRTs that have to stop at traffic lights over regular busses. It's a very minor improvement.

Its disappointing that VIVA set a poor example of what a BRT line could be. We'll just have to agree to disagree on this one.

 

[ARG1]

I still don't see much advantage to BRTs that have to stop at traffic lights over regular busses. It's a very minor improvement.

2 things. 1) Since its permanent infrastructure, they're a useful tool in pushing for redevelopment. A bus route can be removed as easily as its put in. BRT Infrastructure has a sense of permanence that makes developers feel like its a part of the city that's actively looked at and cared for which means more stuff can be built around it. 2) Because BRTs are cheap, they are a really useful tool as an interim solution to build up ridership along a corridor, and once you have enough ridership to justify an upgrade, you can replace it with a light metro. LRT does to some extent do all of these things, but LRTs are also far more expensive with the only real benefit compared to BRT being the increased capacity.

 

[afransen]

When switching to BRT, in this case, dedicated lane BRT, you have to convert all non-signalized intersections and driveways to right-in, right-out. So you need arterials that have a lower number of driveways and total intersections to be able to properly implement. BRT also doesn't make sense on roads that aren't congested during rush hour, as regular frequent service would serve the same purpose if there is no congestion.

You can get away with curb-side HOV lanes and queue jumps if there isn't much congestion.

 

[afransen]

I still don't see much advantage to BRTs that have to stop at traffic lights over regular busses. It's a very minor improvement.

Whether the buses stop at lights is a matter of policy (signal prioritization).

 

[afransen]

Agreed. But let's make sure we have good frequency (cheap to implement) before we even think about investing in expensive infrastructure changes.

We can plan for BRT, and start the higher frequency service now. Or start with 'BRT-lite', in curbside HOV lanes. It can be very cheap.

 

[ARG1]

Whether the buses stop at lights is a matter of policy (signal prioritization).

Signal Prioritization is something that reduces the chance of stopping behind a red light, but its not a fool proof. Even with Signal Priority you're still going to be stuck behind red lights every so often.

 

[lrt's friend]

BRT in exclusive lanes can be a major improvement over buses in mixed traffic, even if BRT has to stop for signals.

 

[afransen]

Signal Prioritization is something that reduces the chance of stopping behind a red light, but its not a fool proof. Even with Signal Priority you're still going to be stuck behind red lights every so often.

You can significantly reduce the probability, when combining signal priority with far-side stations.

There are alternate ways to design arterials so they are less reliant on traffic signals, but that is a different discussion.

 

[sixrings]

I still don't see much advantage to BRTs that have to stop at traffic lights over regular busses. It's a very minor improvement.

If the bus has its own lane it’s a major improvement during rush hour.

 

[drum118]

Signal Prioritization is plan for Dundas as well for Hurontario unlike Toronto who will not turn them on for the lines that already have them like 510 & 512

 

[H4F33Z]

Signal Prioritization is plan for Dundas as well for Hurontario unlike Toronto who will not turn them on for the lines that already have them like 510 & 512

What's the plan exactly?