[Sunnyside]

I for one would much rather see these corridors start with BRT and then be upgraded later on as needed, than start with LRT and throw out the idea of upgrades forever. Eg east, Jane, and Finch all come to mind. Some of these corridors may eventually become redundant with GO expansion, like Dufferin, but I am not really convinced of that. BRT is a nice middle ground where we can gauge how much demand there is on all these corridors over the next decade and then upgrade accordingly to LRT or light metro depending on the route.

I agree with others that the Sheppard BRT is likely to be replaced shortly and may be the only one not worth implementing. It would make Line 4 even more redundant if the lanes continue over the subway. Maybe focus on it in one direction, ie sending it further east to meet at Malvern and cut the western segment. We can prioritize Sheppard West's subway extension instead, answering the question of which to do first.

Bathurst is interesting. Obviously the demand is there, but I would have suspected a goal would be to shift most travel e/w to Line 1 instead. Putting a BRT would likely drive current ridership even higher and enforce this pattern, but I see it hard to justify upgrading Bathurst to rail north of Bloor and south of Sheppard given its proximity to the University-Spadina Line.

I too wish this were expanded to other corridors; primarily Steeles, Kingston rd, Victoria Park/Warden, and Kipling. Tertiary options would include Bayview (if we're doing Bathurst, may as well), Lawrence, and Lawrence East.

 

[innsertnamehere]

“The Province will build a subway here” is not a valid criticism. Most subway extensions are around a decade away, and the Sheppard extension is little more than a whisper. Prioritizing buses is something we can do very quickly and cost-effectively. Regardless of how perfect this plan is, it’s leagues ahead of Sleepy Tory’s record

the proposal here isn't to repaint existing lanes - it's full street reconstructions and widenings to accommodate centre median bus lanes a la York Region on Yonge and Highway 7.

That works for corridors with no active subway plans, but I wouldn't want to be doing that on corridors that have any chance of new rapid transit replacing it within several decades. There is a reason YRT cut back it's BRT lanes from Finch to Highway 7 when they did their BRT network.

Sheppard really needs a rapid transit solution more than the other corridors listed anyway.

Ideally I'd have the existing Sheppard subway converted to Ontario Line tech to allow a more affordable extension of the system with a long term goal of getting the line extended to UTSC in addition to an extensive BRT network to support the lines.

 

[innsertnamehere]

I for one would much rather see these corridors start with BRT and then be upgraded later on as needed, than start with LRT and throw out the idea of upgrades forever. Eg east, Jane, and Finch all come to mind. Some of these corridors may eventually become redundant with GO expansion, like Dufferin, but I am not really convinced of that. BRT is a nice middle ground where we can gauge how much demand there is on all these corridors over the next decade and then upgrade accordingly to LRT or light metro depending on the route.

I agree with others that the Sheppard BRT is likely to be replaced shortly and may be the only one not worth implementing. It would make Line 4 even more redundant if the lanes continue over the subway. Maybe focus on it in one direction, ie sending it further east to meet at Malvern and cut the western segment. We can prioritize Sheppard West's subway extension instead, answering the question of which to do first.

Bathurst is interesting. Obviously the demand is there, but I would have suspected a goal would be to shift most travel e/w to Line 1 instead. Putting a BRT would likely drive current ridership even higher and enforce this pattern, but I see it hard to justify upgrading Bathurst to rail north of Bloor and south of Sheppard given its proximity to the University-Spadina Line.

I too wish this were expanded to other corridors; primarily Steeles, Kingston rd, Victoria Park/Warden, and Kipling. Tertiary options would include Bayview (if we're doing Bathurst, may as well), Lawrence, and Lawrence East.

Most BRT lines are more for high-quality local service connecting to rapid transit, not longer distance travel. That's what the subway / GO is for.

Bathurst is a very busy local bus servicing high density communities along it's route. BRT would be helpful servicing those areas, and wouldn't siphon ridership from Line 1 at all.

 

[LNahid2000]

What I like bout Gil's plans is that he's purposefully aimed for things he believes he can deliver, at relatively low incremental cost to existing budgets and plans, so that we don't end up discussing fantasies for 10 years that go nowhere.

Sadly this doesn't win elections, but fantasies like SmartTrack do. Remember Olivia Chow's realistic bus plan?

 

[Sunnyside]

Most BRT lines are more for high-quality local service connecting to rapid transit, not longer distance travel. That's what the subway / GO is for.

Bathurst is a very busy local bus servicing high density communities along it's route. BRT would be helpful servicing those areas, and wouldn't siphon ridership from Line 1 at all.

I'm not really worried about siphoning ridership off Line 1 with BRT, that is mostly a good thing if it does occur. Imo, Bathurst is one of those corridors that is so well located that we could easily alter ridership patterns dramatically if we enable it to. I think we would realize rather quickly that BRT won't be enough for this, and we'll have to upgrade further or deal with a very high volume BRT. I've assumed Bathurst has the potential to become a very desirable route to travel on opposed to Yonge/Line 1, so my initial thought was we shouldn't incentivize it as a new rapid transit corridor when we can perhaps better leverage University-Spadina for that. Or, we do commit to it becoming a future RT corridor and plan accordingly, which has not been made clear yet. Of course, not putting bus lanes out of fear of new ridership is admittedly silly. Ideally Bathurst' bus lanes (and other routes) are implemented with a stated goal (and provisions) to be upgraded, ideally to at-grade LRT. This is mostly me spitballing about how a Bathurst BRT would alter ridership patterns; as you've said, as long as we cater Bathurst to distinctly local traffic, it's an irrelevent concern on my part.

 

[Sunnyside]

Sadly this doesn't win elections, but fantasies like SmartTrack do. Remember Olivia Chow's realistic bus plan?

From what I can gather, its lines on a map that gain votes.

SmartTrack is not reinventing the wheel and neither is FastLane. They are both low-cost, high coverage transit plans that leverage existing assets well. It taps into a component of the TTC everyone who rides can appreciate. I am not personally familiar with the election environment in Toronto, but almost all TTC users interact with buses, which is a sizable portion of Torontonians at large, and everyone else understands their importance. Its not as pretty as rail, sure. But this city and the communities served recognize the value and practicality of a much faster bus ride moreso than perhaps any other city in the world. This is exactly as ambitious as a mayoral transit plan should be; tangible, achievable, and leaves room for improvement when it is complete. Theres also lots of lines instead of 1

 

[DirectionNorth]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1575125164391636994

Mods please delete if this discussion already exists. As far as I am aware, Gil Penalosa, a planner running for mayor in Toronto has just announced his transit plan for the first time. Seems to constitute primarily BRT. Link to his plan is here: https://www.gilformayor.ca/fastlane_transit_plan

The plan seems to hinge on bus lanes for a variety of corridors, some replacing LRT. See below:

View attachment 429425

This plan strikes me as very similar to Transit City. It's a mode that hasn't been substantially used before (at least in the City of Toronto), run on the corridors that are next in line for rapid transit upgrades. Here's my take on each corridor:
- Eglinton East: I'm mixed on this one. It's already planned for LRT, and if I know anything about the way we do things, a more full version of the current RapidTO program would push LRT back by a decade. $4 billion is a lot of money though ...
- Sheppard East: This will be a Scarborough RT situation, where we will complain about the forced transfer at Don Mills from day one. Better to build this as a full subway extension.
- Sheppard West: Ditto.
- Finch: Eeeeh, this could be LRT. But that will be when I'm retired (so the 2060s, or something), so we might as well have some bus lanes now.
- Jane 'n' Dufferin: This is another corridor which arguably should be some form of rail transit. Building *both* Dufferin and Jane as BRT will leave not many options for the Ontario Line to go west (if it can handle the crowds - Queensway I feel is more suited for an extension of Lakeshore West LRT. Different conversation.). However, building one as BRT and the other as LRT/metro is a promising idea.
- Bathurst: Go nuts, Penalosa.

I don’t agree with his choice of corridors, but I do agree with expanding the suburban BRT network.

BRTs and BRT-lite is a great way to improve the quality of service in the suburbs. Given political will, we could speed up the bus network on the cheap, and extremely quickly, with much more coverage than rail. However, our tendency of putting the same mode over the corridors that we've planned for rapid transit, rather than thinking about ways that BRT can be used, will lead to a repeat of 2007, except this time it's "Stop the Gravy Bus!" LOL.

Anyways, I'd support a proposal to implement true TSP, along with queue jump lanes and painted bus lanes on the 10-minute network, if anyone proposed it.

 

[T3G]

BRT would be helpful servicing those areas, and wouldn't siphon ridership from Line 1 at all.

Line 1 is one of the most overcrowded transit lines on the continent, any ridership that could be removed from it would be a very good thing.

 

[toaster29]

Not a single lane for Etobicoke. lol

 

[gweed123]

I don't think that any of these BRT plans necessarily preclude LRT in the future, especially if what is built is more pre-BRT. If anything, it may actually make LRT easier to implement. It could be very wise to take a piecemeal approach to these BRTs, with curbside BRT lanes.

Step 1: Rebuild intersections to include queue jump lanes, enhanced bus stops, etc.
Step 2: Connect these queue jump lanes with dedicated lanes through midblock sections that are prone to traffic congestion, where a dedicated bus lane would improve running times
Step 3: Connect these pieces together with more dedicated lane segments to improve reliability

Once these are done, if the route is chosen to upgrade to LRT, the road should already be wide enough to accommodate the LRT guideway, and it should be a matter of shuffling lanes around between the curb lines.

 

[picard102]

So we're taking money from the SSE to pay for this? I assume the levey is at an amount that fully covers the cities cost and expected overruns, and has an extra billion on top?

Sadly this doesn't win elections, but fantasies like SmartTrack do. Remember Olivia Chow's realistic bus plan?

Ya, the public doesn't get excited about riding a bus.

 

[Towered]

Not a single lane for Etobicoke. lol

Very frustrating. Get some real BRT going on Kipling, Islington, Lawrence-Scarlett-Dixon-Airport Rd, Wilson-Albion, and Steeles. Perhaps a line on Highway 27-427-East or West Mall-Brown's Line (not sure of ideal alignment). Queensway should be an extension of the streetcar ROW from Humber Loop to Sherway.

 

[Northern Light]

Not a single lane for Etobicoke. lol

Very frustrating. Get some real BRT going on Kipling, Islington, Lawrence-Scarlett-Dixon-Airport Rd, Wilson-Albion, and Steeles. Perhaps a line on Highway 27-427-East or West Mall-Brown's Line (not sure of ideal alignment). Queensway should be an extension of the streetcar ROW from Humber Loop to Sherway.

There is an odd 'Everyone gets a subway' vibe to these.

Politicians are rightly drubbed for promising and then failing to deliver on fantasies.

But when one comes along who promises something do-able and affordable, there's derision because it doesn't involve a project for every single neighbourhood.

The object of this plan was to work largely within existing budgets but get more mileage out of the money. The object was not to pretend that there's a money tree and that we (the City) can carry out a dozen projects of scale simultaneously.

 

[TRONto]

There is an odd 'Everyone gets a subway' vibe to these.

Politicians are rightly drubbed for promising and then failing to deliver on fantasies.

But when one comes along who promises something do-able and affordable, there's derision because it doesn't involve a project for every single neighbourhood.

The object of this plan was to work largely within existing budgets but get more mileage out of the money. The object was not to pretend that there's a money tree and that we (the City) can carry out a dozen projects of scale simultaneously.

I had the question around the Gardner East money though. I thought that project was under way?

Gil's budget didn't include new buses and a maintenance garage/infrastructure

 

[picard102]

I had the question around the Gardner East money though. I thought that project was under way?

Gil's budget didn't include new buses and a maintenance garage/infrastructure

It also bases it's costs on comparables plus consumer inflation rates, but infrastructure inflation is often higher than CPI.