News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 02, 2020
 8.9K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
 40K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
 5.1K     0 

2km as a "cushy medium"? Good lord. If we did things that way on Bloor St W the only stops would be Kipling, Royal York, Jane, Keele, Dufferin, Bathurst, and Yonge.

Stop spacing should be around 650-800m generally. 1km should be the upper limit. 2km is just ridiculous. No one is going to walk that far, especially on a hilly suburban street like Finch.

Rapid transit systems around the world tend to disagree with you. Outside of the CBD, most systems stop about every 1 or 2 km. More recent systems feature even wider stop spacing comparable to commuter rail, however they are generally in cities which are much more car-centric and anything less would fail to generate ridership.

Justin10000 said:
1 - 2km is not a cushy medium. Not many riders are not willing to walk that far to a station on a daily basis. Having a station spacing of 500 - 800m will not slow service down, vehicles will still move quickly between stations, and the dwell times could be kept low. You, like many other advocates of speed, and wide station spacing ignore the issue of longer dwell times with fewer stations, and accessibilty. It's a simple fact. Not many people want to walk 10-15minutes one way to a stop. It's simply not convenient. The small time saved with fewer stations out easily lost when you 20-30 minutes walking to a station.

No. It is accessiblilty, and reliability that influences one's decision to use transit, or buy a car. If there is a rapid transit stop within a reasonable walking distance, chances are someone will give transit a shot. But if someone lives between stations that are 1km apart, they may not be enticed to make the trek to the station, especially if it means a 10 minute walk at a normal, leisurely pace on a hilly street.

I am also tired of the driving vs. transit debate. Driving will always be faster than transit. It's a fact. By the time someone gets to their stop, a driver will be well on their way to their destination.

500m, give or take, is ideal for local service. If we built a busway in the hydro corridor, stops every 500m would be in the middle of a giant field. If we rearranged all our local bus and streetcar stops to every 500m, then I'd be all for it. But investments in higher order and faster service should be at least double that distance.

For the record, from where I live in suburbia, I can walk 200m (a grueling walk to the top of the street...) to catch a local bus to take me to Yonge St. However, because this bus is so infrequent and unreliable, I end up walking or cycling 1.6km - a 20 minute walk or 10 minute bike ride - directly out to Yonge St to catch the bus. I'd love to be only a 10 minute walk away from the bus.

I have a car, so why do I take transit at all? First of all, I refuse to pay for parking when there is a transit alternative is available. Secondly, I am doing my part to reduce gridlock and traffic congestion. Finally, using transit reduces my car expenses significantly (I haven't had to fill up in over 2 months). With that said, while I save myself $15/day+ by not parking at York University, it takes up to 3 times longer to get there than by driving. Someone more financially well off or who has less of a social conscious would probably drive without a second thought.
 
Rapid transit systems around the world tend to disagree with you. Outside of the CBD, most systems stop about every 1 or 2 km. More recent systems feature even wider stop spacing comparable to commuter rail, however they are generally in cities which are much more car-centric and anything less would fail to generate ridership.

Define "most systems." I know New York's stops are rarely more than a half mile apart.
 
Define "most systems." I know New York's stops are rarely more than a half mile apart.

That's slightly unfair because New York has Local/Express on many of its lines. I think more fair examples would be London, Paris, Montreal, Berlin, Frankfurt, Tokyo, Chicago.

I'm guessing that "most systems" only includes sprawling American cities.
 
The BD station stop spacing should be the maximum without having to add additional bus service to make up for in between, and the walk is reasonable considering the service you're getting from it. Although the BD has a heavy emphasis on short range rapid transit to move massive volumes of people.

The Yonge line has more of an emphasis on long range rapid transit which would necessitate that the stations are further apart if no express services are available.
 
Last edited:
Let's not forget that even if the BRT is placed in hydro corridor, it is still surface transit that stops at traffic lights. Between Yonge and Jane, hydro corridor crosses 3 major streets, 7 minor streets, and one rail line.

Even with very wide stop spacing, it is not physically possible to make buses run much faster in hydro corridor compared to dedicated lanes on Finch. That is, unless the hydro corridor BRT is bridged over most intersections - which would make it much more expensive, and prompt opposition from residents in some areas (between Bathurst and Yonge, for sure).

Transit in hydro corridors might be a good idea in many cases; but in this particular case, the (small) gain in speed will not compensate for worse accessibility.
 
Last edited:
I'm going to list some RT systems with at least 1km interstations based on crude numbers. I'm using the term 'crude' because my method of calculation will be (length of line/(number of stations - 1)), so this does not factor interlining, transfer stops, etc. which can skew the numbers slightly. I may provide a line-by-line analysis at a later time. Still, it should prove the reality that it is not uncommon for RT systems to have wide stop spacings.

London - 1.5km
Chicago - 1.2km
Washington - 2.0km
Vancouver - 1.5km
Boston - 1.2km
Moscow - 1.7km
Osaka - 1.4km
Mexico - 1.0km
Seoul - 1.1km
Miami - 1.7km

Don't forget, most rapid transit lines aren't bound to streets as much as they are in Toronto, so there isn't the same "controversy" about running parallel bus/subway along the same corridor since the people understand that they are two different services providing two different needs.
 
Let's not forget that even if the BRT is placed in hydro corridor, it is still surface transit that stops at traffic lights. Between Yonge and Jane, hydro corridor crosses 3 major streets, 7 minor streets, and one rail line.

Even with very wide stop spacing, it is not physically possible to make buses run much faster in hydro corridor compared to dedicated lanes on Finch. That is, unless the hydro corridor BRT is bridged over most intersections - which would make it much more expensive, and prompt opposition from residents in some areas (between Bathurst and Yonge, for sure).

Transit in hydro corridors might be a good idea in many cases; but in this particular case, the (small) gain in speed will not compensate for worse accessibility.

Assuming that they don't provide signal priority, this compares to the 21 stop lights and 31 bus stops (not including Yonge or Jane) along this stretch! I'm pretty confident it would run much, much faster than if it had its own lanes in the middle of Finch.
 
Which is why the 97 Yonge actually exists as it overlaps the subway since the Yonge North extension stations were 2km apart to save money. Efficiency loses as stop distance increases and the higher the need of an overlapping, redundant route goes.

iirc, I had a reply somewhere that it would be illegal from the MTO to have road passenger vehicles with higher passenger capacity than regular artics

Except that the 97 Yonge headway can be 15± minutes apart vs. the 1 Yonge-University-Spadina headway of 5± minutes in the non-rush hours.
 
500m, give or take, is ideal for local service. If we built a busway in the hydro corridor, stops every 500m would be in the middle of a giant field. If we rearranged all our local bus and streetcar stops to every 500m, then I'd be all for it. But investments in higher order and faster service should be at least double that distance.

I do not advocate building a busway, or rail line in hydro corridors. The corridors are usually not located near residential areas, and major trip generators. It's like putting a line in the middle of a highway. It's not that accessible for riders.

Investments in higher order transit should be built to attract and move the highest number of riders possible. A line with fewer stations is not going to attract many riders. A great example is the Seattle Central Link line. A 19km line with 13 stations, and really high speed has a ridership of 21,000. That is really low for a 2 Billion investment.
 
<snipping>
But don't stop at Finch West. McCowan Road could use this badly. Parts of Lawrence West.

Hear, hear. This is not a Finch West issue -- it's a city-wide consideration for every route at or near its practical carrying capacity.

-Ed D.
 
I do not advocate building a busway, or rail line in hydro corridors. The corridors are usually not located near residential areas, and major trip generators. It's like putting a line in the middle of a highway. It's not that accessible for riders.

Investments in higher order transit should be built to attract and move the highest number of riders possible. A line with fewer stations is not going to attract many riders. A great example is the Seattle Central Link line. A 19km line with 13 stations, and really high speed has a ridership of 21,000. That is really low for a 2 Billion investment.

In an ideal world, I'd say go for bus/light rail lanes in the middle of Finch with full signal priority. In reality we have Mayor Rob "war on the car" Ford running things, and NIMBYism which gets all butt-hurt at the thought of loss of any lanes or turn restrictions. This is why many recent transit projects are built along open corridors, because there is less hassle and it is far more affordable to do so. And as I said, local bus service would still continue along Finch for local trips, so no one would lose their bus service or stop. And if one couldn't manage the 400m walk up to the hydro corridor (fun fact: the regional bus terminal at Finch is located in the hydro corridor - thus thousands of people everyday walk from there down to the Finch subway), local north-south buses would carry them there. And being a whole new bus route, it would mean that those north of the hydro corridor would be even closer to a frequent and fast bus, therefore accessibility to transit would increase rather than decrease.

Anyways, seeing as we should stop holding our breath for either of these projects to be completed, why not reintroduce the Finch bus which goes down Dufferin to meet the Spadina line? Would be even more efficient now that the subway goes up to Sheppard, and that there are bus lanes on Dufferin as well.
 
Let's not forget that even if the BRT is placed in hydro corridor, it is still surface transit that stops at traffic lights. Between Yonge and Jane, hydro corridor crosses 3 major streets, 7 minor streets, and one rail line.

Even with very wide stop spacing, it is not physically possible to make buses run much faster in hydro corridor compared to dedicated lanes on Finch. That is, unless the hydro corridor BRT is bridged over most intersections - which would make it much more expensive, and prompt opposition from residents in some areas (between Bathurst and Yonge, for sure).

Transit in hydro corridors might be a good idea in many cases; but in this particular case, the (small) gain in speed will not compensate for worse accessibility.

There is a huge difference between the speed of at-grade transit in a street median and that of at-grade transit in a separate corridor. It comes down to the effectiveness of transit signaling. I'm guessing that your assumption that "at-grade means red lights" is based on experience with the poorly executed ROWs for TTC streetcars. I live further north where I witness first-hand that the TTC is perfectly capable of operating a highly effective transit priority system on a road quite relevant to this discussion: the Finch Hydro Corridor Busway.

In a street median, it is nearly impossible to guarantee a green for transit, because it takes a very long time for signals to react once a vehicle is detected. Much of this has to do with the size of the street. Wider streets need longer pedestrian countdowns, which slows down signals' reaction time.

Let's examine a hypothetical street with median transit. (If anyone has actual numbers from St. Clair, The Queensway or Spadina, let me know). Assuming an 8 lane wide street (2 traffic lanes/direction + left turn lane + platform + 1 transit lane/direction) the pedestrian countdown is roughly 30 seconds (based on Dufferin Street near my house). On top of that, there are many light phases, which delay the green for transit, and make signaling more unpredictable.

Here are the fixed-length phases.
~30 seconds: Pedestrian countdown
5 seconds: Yellow light
3 seconds: All-way red
~15 seconds: Left turn phase

The current transit signalling system on St. Clair is flawed because it never skips phases. That means that if a transit vehicle is detected as the cross-street is just starting its left turn phase, transit has to wait not only for that, but also for the cross-traffic phase and the left turn phase on the street in question. In the hope that the city changes this impediment to transit, my numbers will assume that all non-essential phases are skipped when a transit vehicle is detected, unlike on St. Clair.

In that case, the longest possible reaction time would be if the transit vehicles is detected while during the cross-traffic phase. The reaction time would be 38 seconds (Pedestrian + Yellow + red). A transit vehicle travelling at 50km/h would have to be detected 528m in advance, which means we can't have 400m stop spacing if we want complete transit priority in a median ROW.

The shortest reaction time is obviously when the light is already green for transit and the light just needs to be held. If transit is detected 528m in advance, the light will be held for at least 38 seconds while the vehicle gets to the intersection. That would annoy many motorists, which makes it unlikely that we will see median-transit signals fixed under the Ford regime.

With a separate ROW on the other hand, signals are very simple. There are two phases: cars and transit. The light is always green for cars, until a transit vehicle is detected. Since transit ROWs are only 2 lanes wide, the pedestrian countdown is very short, making it practical to guarantee a green for transit. The reaction time is roughly 18 seconds, so if vehicles are detected 250m ahead of the intersection, they will get a green light.

The existing Finch Hydro Corridor busway does this correctly, but buses do occasionally get a red light. This occurs when one bus arrives just after another bus has gone through. This could be easily fixed by holding the green light if another transit vehicle is detected during the transit phase. Buses also get red lights before crossing Dufferin and Keele. The red at Keele is due to the complexity of the 5 sided intersection, and the red light at Dufferin happens because there isn't enough room to detect buses far enough in advance (due to the Dufferin/Finch stop).

So to sum up, a busway in the median of Finch would stop at red lights, but a busway in the hydro corridor would not, because transit signaling can be 100% effective. That's why the hydro corridor busway is projected to average a much higher speed, even if it uses the same stop spacing.
 
Last edited:
I'm going to list some RT systems with at least 1km interstations based on crude numbers. I'm using the term 'crude' because my method of calculation will be (length of line/(number of stations - 1)), so this does not factor interlining, transfer stops, etc. which can skew the numbers slightly. I may provide a line-by-line analysis at a later time. Still, it should prove the reality that it is not uncommon for RT systems to have wide stop spacings.

London - 1.5km
Chicago - 1.2km
Washington - 2.0km
Vancouver - 1.5km
Boston - 1.2km
Moscow - 1.7km
Osaka - 1.4km
Mexico - 1.0km
Seoul - 1.1km
Miami - 1.7km

Don't forget, most rapid transit lines aren't bound to streets as much as they are in Toronto, so there isn't the same "controversy" about running parallel bus/subway along the same corridor since the people understand that they are two different services providing two different needs.

New York - 800m
Paris - 700m
Berlin - 850m
Philadelphia - 750m
Milan - 900m
Barcelona - 750m
Brussels - 650m
Vienna - 750m
Frankfurt - 700m
Rome - 800m
Lisbon - 850m
Oslo - 850m
Buenos Aires - 750m

(your same calculation, rounded to the nearest 50m)
 
...

So to sum up, a busway in the median of Finch would stop at red lights, but a busway in the hydro corridor would not, because transit signaling can be 100% effective. That's why the hydro corridor busway is projected to average a much higher speed, even if it uses the same stop spacing.

Interesting analysis. But … first of all, 100% transit priority will become problematic once the service frequency reaches certain level. At 2 min headways (1 min on average counting buses going either direction), 100% transit priority will seriously impede all N-S streets; therefore, it is unlikely to stay at 100%.

Perhaps even more importantly: what kind of travel time reduction can you expect for that 8-km stretch between Yonge and Jane? I assume a speed of 23 kph for street-median (similar to SELRT projections), versus 30 kph (lower end of the subway range) for hydro corridor. That leads to estimated travel times of 21 min (for street median) vs 16 min (for hydro corridor). Add 1 or 2 min for turning to / from Jane to reach the hydro corridor from the Finch proper, and the real difference in travel time is down to 3-4 min.
 
Interesting analysis. But … first of all, 100% transit priority will become problematic once the service frequency reaches certain level. At 2 min headways (1 min on average counting buses going either direction), 100% transit priority will seriously impede all N-S streets; therefore, it is unlikely to stay at 100%.

Perhaps even more importantly: what kind of travel time reduction can you expect for that 8-km stretch between Yonge and Jane? I assume a speed of 23 kph for street-median (similar to SELRT projections), versus 30 kph (lower end of the subway range) for hydro corridor. That leads to estimated travel times of 21 min (for street median) vs 16 min (for hydro corridor). Add 1 or 2 min for turning to / from Jane to reach the hydro corridor from the Finch proper, and the real difference in travel time is down to 3-4 min.

At Alness, the Finch busway currently sees 22bph/d (18 TTC, 4 Viva) through the intersection plus 5 bph (117 Alness) turning onto it. That's an average of 49 buses per hour, yet since the delay is so short it doesn't really hold up traffic.

When you have 49 buses per hour crossing a street, the issue is the number of buses, not the transit signaling. It doesn't make any difference to traffic whether there is 100% priority or not. The amount of time traffic is held up is roughly the same either way, and is less than that of a typical cross street. If there were no busway, there would be exactly the same amount of car capacity on Alness because it is limited by the green time at intersections such as Steeles and Finch (<40%), not the green time at the busway (>90%). It doesn't slow down traffic either. Even when traffic is held up by the busway, it catches up to the place it would have been as soon as the light turns green. The amount of car traffic is likely less with the busway, because the bus has become a much more viable alternative.

30 kph is on the low end of the speed. Route 196 averages 33km/h, and the busway is probably the fastest part of the trip.
 
Last edited:

Back
Top