[OneCity]

It's because if they didn't allow cyclists in the bus lane. Cyclists would have to ride in the car lanes which would make cyclists squeeze between buses and cars, or ride on the sidewalk (which is illegal). I think eventually, there will be cycle tracks, but this will still be a fair solution for now.

Many will likely continue to use the sidewalks for their own safety until the the City becomes serious about addressing these types of details when developing a transit plan in these areas.

Hopefully this red paint stunt will raise some voices again to shed light and urgency for better planning in the future. I have little faith the collective City will work together to support better, detailed solutions when they can simply throw paint and walk away, but have little doubt this change has now created a bigger political issue for the future

 

[DKsan]

Is mixing buses and bikes in the same lane really wise? Buses generally need the whole lane and can't 'squeeze' past a cyclist in a standard lane like cars can.

This is fairly standard with curbside bus lanes in Europe.

 

[Midtown Urbanist]

I must agree with OneCity that this is not a proper BRT implementation.

 

[sixrings]

I must agree with OneCity that this is not a proper BRT implementation.

I can agree it isn't but I don't know what OneCity can expect after spending all the money on the danforth extension. That's before you add in how little the government is going to want to spend post corona bail outs. Money doesn't grow on trees. As much as people like to say the government can simply raise taxes, this is what happens when we put all our eggs in a few baskets.

 

[Northern Light]

I must agree with OneCity that this is not a proper BRT implementation.

The question isn't whether its ideal (its not), the question is whether its useful; and reasonable bang-for-the-buck.

I think that will be determined by how lane protection is installed, and how much enforcement takes place.

Both TBD.

 

[Midtown Urbanist]

The question isn't whether its ideal (its not), the question is whether its useful; and reasonable bang-for-the-buck.

I think that will be determined by how lane protection is installed, and how much enforcement takes place.

Both TBD.

BRT works on a scale. All enhancements that improve service and customer experience are welcomed, and in some circumstances the BRT implementation that falls under the less intensive side of the spectrum might be the most appropriate method of implementation for the specified route and ridership profile.

But creating something that barely even classifies as "BRT-Lite" and calling it a "BRT" is a disservice to the capability of the transportation mode. The equivalent of creating a streetcar with no ROW, no transit priority and mixed traffic conditions, and putting stops every 120 metres and calling that route an "LRT".

Given that this route was planned as an LRT with 5,000 pphd ridership estimates, I am going to guess that the appropriate form of BRT implementation here should be something more towards the more intensive end of the BRT spectrum rather than a priority bus lane (which isn't even classifiable as "BRT-Lite").

 

[Northern Light]

But creating something that barely even classifies as "BRT-Lite" and calling it a "BRT" is a disservice to the capability of the transportation mode. The equivalent of creating a streetcar with no ROW, no transit priority and mixed traffic conditions, and putting stops every 120 metres and calling that route an "LRT".

Remember, that part is changing, there is a major stop rationalization at part of the change.

 

[afransen]

Yes, this is more appropriately described as bus priority, not BRT.

 

[Rainforest]

BRT works on a scale. All enhancements that improve service and customer experience are welcomed, and in some circumstances the BRT implementation that falls under the less intensive side of the spectrum might be the most appropriate method of implementation for the specified route and ridership profile.

But creating something that barely even classifies as "BRT-Lite" and calling it a "BRT" is a disservice to the capability of the transportation mode. The equivalent of creating a streetcar with no ROW, no transit priority and mixed traffic conditions, and putting stops every 120 metres and calling that route an "LRT".

Given that this route was planned as an LRT with 5,000 pphd ridership estimates, I am going to guess that the appropriate form of BRT implementation here should be something more towards the more intensive end of the BRT spectrum rather than a priority bus lane (which isn't even classifiable as "BRT-Lite").

Indeed. The complains aren't about the fact they are doing something (which is little but better than nothing). The problem is that they are classifying it as BRT, which implies a set of features they aren't actually providing.

 

[OneCity]

Indeed. The complains aren't about the fact they are doing something (which is little but better than nothing). The problem is that they are classifying it as BRT, which implies a set of features they aren't actually providing.

Is it better?

Again I ride much of the entire route weekly and can assure you this is all a poltical sham.

The issue along this corridor with frequency is signal priority and Kennedy station Crosstown construction. The previous HOV style lane was no even an issue. It truly wasn't.

So we are reducing a vehicle lane slightly increasing congestion, making turning more challenging,for what? Not even providing a more effecient public transit option for those impacted or current riders. The optical power of red paint and photo opps is real.

This is beyond irresponsible in terms of planning.

And i have little doubt like all plans the data will be presented in a better light then reality with a narrow lens not looking at all impacts.

Surely this won't end well seeing as we are tunnelling an LRT in the West end. Shameful

 

[crs1026]

Surely this won't end well seeing as we are tunnelling an LRT in the West end. Shameful

I wondered how long it would take before this inequity (and it is, I agree) would be pointed out.

To be fair.... the City has stood firmly behind the Etobicoke line as a surface line. Until the Province entered the picture and overrode City planning, the City was not even willing to consider duckunders at major intersections, where grade separation may indeed have a case.

It would be quite incorrect to point to this decision as a City agenda towards short-changing the east end.

It's all about a certain car-loving west-end Provincial politician giving his "nation" a freebie. Turns out his "nation" wasn't hard working average people after all..... it's influential high income people in nicer neighbourhoods.

- Paul

 

[OneCity]

I wondered how long it would take before this inequity (and it is, I agree) would be pointed out.

To be fair.... the City has stood firmly behind the Etobicoke line as a surface line. Until the Province entered the picture and overrode City planning, the City was not even willing to consider duckunders at major intersections, where grade separation may indeed have a case.

It would be quite incorrect to point to this decision as a City agenda towards short-changing the east end.

It's all about a certain car-loving west-end Provincial politician giving his "nation" a freebie. Turns out his "nation" wasn't hard working average people after all..... it's influential high income people in nicer neighbourhoods.

- Paul

This decsion is all on the City as far as East Scarborough is concerned.

The Province paid for the subway opening up the transit levy. The City then deliberately choose to bait and switch and implement a painted red lane and market it as something it's not.

Worse the City planned this knowing what is being built elsewhere and really EWLRT may not need to be tunneled but I see grade seperation as very important along this corridor.

Neither here nor there, as the City seemd content on planning seeds of divisions in Scarborough as it did during the Transit City years.

This type of planning like won't end well. Nor should it.

 

[Steve X]

I wondered how long it would take before this inequity (and it is, I agree) would be pointed out.

To be fair.... the City has stood firmly behind the Etobicoke line as a surface line. Until the Province entered the picture and overrode City planning, the City was not even willing to consider duckunders at major intersections, where grade separation may indeed have a case.

It would be quite incorrect to point to this decision as a City agenda towards short-changing the east end.

It's all about a certain car-loving west-end Provincial politician giving his "nation" a freebie. Turns out his "nation" wasn't hard working average people after all..... it's influential high income people in nicer neighbourhoods.

- Paul

Ford's plan is simple, one subway in each area. East (Scarborough), west (Eg west), south (OL) and north (Yonge North). Why does it make sense for Scarborough to get two subways at the same time? At least it doesn't in a political announcement.

Maybe if the people weren't too busy screaming subway for the SRT replacement, they could have converted the SRT to a LRT and built the subway on Eg East instead. Now Eg East would have to wait another decade and sit with this as an interim solution. Not all hope is lost, TYSSE is still built after the York U busway was approved and constructed.

 

[sixrings]

This decsion is all on the City as far as East Scarborough is concerned.

The Province paid for the subway opening up the transit levy. The City then deliberately choose to bait and switch and implement a painted red lane and market it as something it's not.

Worse the City planned this knowing what is being built elsewhere and really EWLRT may not need to be tunneled but I see grade seperation as very important along this corridor.

Neither here nor there, as the City seemd content on planning seeds of divisions in Scarborough as it did during the Transit City years.

This type of planning like won't end well. Nor should it.

Scarborough tunneled one project they didn't need to wasting billions. The West is about to tunnel one project it doesn't need to wasting billions. I call that even.

 

[OneCity]

Ford's plan is simple, one subway in each area. East (Scarborough), west (Eg west), south (OL) and north (Yonge North). Why does it make sense for Scarborough to get two subways at the same time? At least it doesn't in a political announcement.

Maybe if the people weren't too busy screaming subway for the SRT replacement, they could have converted the SRT to a LRT and built the subway on Eg East instead. Now Eg East would have to wait another decade and sit with this as an interim solution. Not all hope is lost, TYSSE is still built after the York U busway was approved and constructed.

People here were screaming subway because we had a disconnected LRT design to replace the RT along with an added transfer being placed on Sheppard LRT extension which disconnected the Centre at both ends. Absurd planning. Further there was no subway proposed for Eglinton East at that time or any time, so that wonderful scenario you speak of was never tabled to the residents, ever.

Comparing the politics of supporting detailed transit for anything to or near York region to the corner cutting politics in the City of Toronto as it relates to Scarborough is also beyond disingenuous. Anyhow this current paint job were seeing on Kingston rd. & Eglinton ave. east today is yet again another planning joke, but just like the other piss poor plans of the past I can already see residents who live here are expected to not question it. Cant wait for the media to get involved again to tell us the paint is 'expert' driven and 'evidence-based'.