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

You like this number a lot. Let's compare it to how much it's costing to put in BRT in York Region. York Region has very wide roads, so property acquisition requirements are minimal.

Funding for Phase 1 of VivaNext Rapidways = $1.4 billion

Highway 7 Phase 1 is ~27.5 kilometres
Yonge Phase 1 is ~8.4 kilometres
Newmarket Phase 1 is ~6.4 kilometres

BRT = $33 million/km

Please correct me if I'm wrong, but that's without fleet acquisition, garage construction, or underground stations. If you factor those in, BRT costs exactly the same as LRT.

It would be slightly cheaper to run BRT down the hydro corridor rather than the street, but then it would also be slightly cheaper to run LRT there. Whether we use LRT or BRT and whether the route follows Finch or FHC are entirely different questions. LRT and BRT cost exactly the same.

The price per/km includes making Phase 1 10 lanes wide up from the current 4-6 lanes.

To go to LRT, it will be an extra $7m/km as that will cover the cost of the rail and base since it thicker than the BRT.

It will be cheaper in the long run as you only need to remove the top coat holding the rail in place and removing the rail if it is done the same way as TTC is doing. The rail anchor and base should last 75-100 years.

Again, what lives along the FHC that will support the BRT as well how long will it take a rider to get to where they want to on Hwy 7 vs. staying on 7??

If you are talking going from one region to another, yes it will be faster using the FHC, but is there enough ridership to do it??

The 407 is to replace the FHC in the first place.
 
Logically, LRT would cost significantly less if built in the hydro corridor as well. For one, we could use ballasted tie construction, instead of concrete. I am also not entirely sure why building LRT in the hydro corridor is any more expensive than building BRT in the Hydro corridor. The only difference that I'm aware of is that one involves paving a road, and the other involves laying rails and ties.

It might be harder to satisfy Hydro One's requirements with LRT than with BRT, because of rails and wires -> risk of a zap, plus the electromagnetic induction that can cause some Hydro energy loss.
 
If people are willing to walk up to a kilometre in order to access a subway stop, I see no harm in walking 3 minutes north of Finch proper to a F.H.C. station.

Yes - if it was possible to walk from the Finch proper to F.H.C on a straight line. But in many parts of Finch West, this is not the case - backyards and fences are on the way.

From the south side of Finch, you would have to walk to the closest signalled intersection, cross Finch, walk along Finch to another street heading north, and then walk to F.H.C.

Also, walking 500 m or 800 m to a subway station may be a nuisance, but at least you get something in exchange: protection from the elements at the station, retail outlets, and a smoother ride. No such luck with F.H.C. BRT.

Those who continue to rely on the local mixed-traffic bus service instead of BRT, will have to deal with a 15-min or 20-min frequency, but still suffer from congestion caused by general traffic.
 
Either the ridership projection numbers are flawed and cannot be used to properly determine what mode of services make sense, or they are accurate and can be used to properly determine what mode is used. There is a logical disconnect to assume the numbers are correct and say a route should be BRT while dismissing the numbers and saying another route should be subway. My point is that people need to decide to either dismiss the numbers completely because the methodology used to create them is flawed or accept them... otherwise any of their arguments mentioning the numbers hold no weight.

Of course perhaps the TTC tweaked each individual report to favour the desired outcome. IIRC someone mentioned that they (the TTC) stated that subway costs ~$300mil/km in the Eglinton study, now in the Finch study it's down to $220mill/km? Only us transit geeks would really ever pay enough attention to the studies to notice these discrepancies.
 
Did I ever say that it would replace local service on Finch? I said that it would probably alleviate Finch enough for a LRT to be redundant for now. Anyone coming from between Jane and Highway 27, heading for the YUS (mind you, that's a lot of people,) would be taking this.

Note that many people would be heading for the "US" rather than for "Y". For that group, F.H.C. is of little use, as it runs along Finch west of Keele Stn for just 3 km, and then turns south-west.

Maybe a Finch LRT would make sense if the local service is still needed, but I'm guessing that'll be at least 10 years after the corridor's relieved by an express FHC route.

Having both local and express might be useful, eventually. However, in the short term, it is preferable to build the local (Finch LRT) that is already funded and the scope is defined, rather than try to build express when issues with Hydro one are not resolved, and no ridership modeling has been done.

Note that F.H.C. BRT project has been on TTC books for 20 years if not longer. If that BRT was so effective, so cheap, and so easy to build, it would be built long before Transit City.
 
Note that many people would be heading for the "US" rather than for "Y". For that group, F.H.C. is of little use, as it runs along Finch west of Keele Stn for just 3 km, and then turns south-west.
Really? Even those people that are headed for NYCC and Y-E, as well as other employment centres east of Yonge?

Even if everyone got off at the Spadina line, that's a huge improvement. All riders on Finch west of Weston would be transfered to the BRT for their final journey to the mystical Spadina line. That's basically cutting the line's peak ridership densities in half. Busses would empty at Weston, ready for a new set of riders from Weston to Keele, and then another new set of riders from Keele to Yonge. It'd certainly solve many, many problems on Finch, and would be useful in the East and West as extensions too.

Having both local and express might be useful, eventually. However, in the short term, it is preferable to build the local (Finch LRT) that is already funded and the scope is defined, rather than try to build express when issues with Hydro one are not resolved, and no ridership modeling has been done.
Perhaps, but a FHC route should be done as soon as possible. It would be relatively inexpensive, but could have a huge benefit to many parts of the city.
 
Busses would empty at Weston, ready for a new set of riders from Weston to Keele, and then another new set of riders from Keele to Yonge. It'd certainly solve many, many problems on Finch, and would be useful in the East and West as extensions too.

Perhaps, but a FHC route should be done as soon as possible. It would be relatively inexpensive, but could have a huge benefit to many parts of the city.

How inexpensive would it be to get over G. Ross Lord Reservoir?

West of Weston Rd, doesn't the hydro corridor run over the Humber ravine? Looks like there are some sections there where it wouldn't get approval to just bulldoze through.
 
Really? Even those people that are headed for NYCC and Y-E, as well as other employment centres east of Yonge?

Even if everyone got off at the Spadina line, that's a huge improvement. All riders on Finch west of Weston would be transfered to the BRT for their final journey to the mystical Spadina line. That's basically cutting the line's peak ridership densities in half. Busses would empty at Weston, ready for a new set of riders from Weston to Keele, and then another new set of riders from Keele to Yonge. It'd certainly solve many, many problems on Finch, and would be useful in the East and West as extensions too.

It won't make much difference to travel times. There are just as many streets crossing the hydro corridor as there are intersecting with Finch between Weston & Keele. The only time advantage is that it might skip Jane Street station. In other words, negligible. And it's not even possible to accelerate beyond 60 k/h in such a short distance and comfortably stop in time.

Maybe if the Finch LRT is one day overflowing, the hydro-express branch will be some relief, but until that happens, it doesn't really serve any purpose.
 
Yes - if it was possible to walk from the Finch proper to F.H.C on a straight line. But in many parts of Finch West, this is not the case - backyards and fences are on the way. signalled intersection, cross Finch, walk along Finch to another street heading north, and then walk to F.H.C.

The straight lines come in the form of the actual N-S arterials used to connect the two points. Those living far-between intersections and unable to easily connect to the F.H.C. can still utilize the 36 bus. F.H.C. BRT seeks in no way to eliminate the local service along Finch proper, but rather to provide long-distance commuters with a faster alternative. Locals can opt to laywait the 36 bus or figure out that a short walk north can save them 10 minutes travel time, even after factoring in the walking time. The beauty of a BRT corridor in stark contrast to LRT is that any old bus can operate along the exact same ROW, so rapid and continuous service isn't limited to just when the infrequent LRT shows up. Local routes can complete part of their journey via a bus-only guideway that's not impeded by mitigating traffic and signals.

Also, walking 500 m or 800 m to a subway station may be a nuisance, but at least you get something in exchange: protection from the elements at the station, retail outlets, and a smoother ride. No such luck with F.H.C. BRT.

Says who? People really ought to do their own research on BRT before challenging my position. BRT stations can be as state of the art as any metro station. But don't take my word for it. Watch and weep at what average Torontonians will miss out on because our leaders and their followers lack vision.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UA4IR7PvO6I
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3LEtf32Bu3Y&NR=1

"How did this happen? Because we decided to be realistic and have the courage to begin. There's no miracle here, anyone can do it and they can do it even better."

It is a common misperception that a light rail system would attract more riders than BRT. The concept of bus rapid transit is not well understood in North America, as there are only a few systems currently in operation. In reality, BRT would be designed more like a light rail than a standard bus system, with features like dedicated lanes, signal priority, pre-pay boarding, elevated station platforms, and efficient and comfortable vehicles that make it much more efficient and appealing than a traditional bus service. BRT would also offer travel times that are competitive with light rail. With a well-designed, well-operated, and well-advertised BRT in place, there is good reason to believe that many people would use and appreciate the system.

And it is precisely what Finch needs. Not just for the sake of interregional travel but for Scarborough to Etobicoke trips as well. 80 minutes on the FWLRT just to get part of the way across is transwack.

Those who continue to rely on the local mixed-traffic bus service instead of BRT, will have to deal with a 15-min or 20-min frequency, but still suffer from congestion caused by general traffic.

After F.H.C. BRT provided by GO, 407 Transitway, Jane BRT, TYSSE, Georgetown/Bolton GO frequent service, Eglinton subway and dedicated busways down the 4/27 suddenly the 42,600 that rely on Finch West alone will have a lot more options ar their disposal. That, to me anyway, signals a drop-off in overall demand not an increase. Short-distance commutes along Finch don't require a streetcar when only 78 people per hour per kilometre are to be moved.

Note that many people would be heading for the "US" rather than for "Y". For that group, F.H.C. is of little use, as it runs along Finch west of Keele Stn for just 3 km, and then turns south-west.

Both the 36 bus and the BRT west of Weston Rd, along with the 191 bus can all share the same dedicated bus lanes down the median of Finch to Martin Grove, reducing commute times for all. The TTC's scare tactics of there not being enough room to accomodate passing lanes along Finch itself is non-applicable in Etobicoke's case. Curbside buildings are virtually non-existent there and roadside parklands and parking lots can be expropriated to widen the roadway. So for a Rexdale resident bound for YUS they now have the option of choosing which service to board.

Having both local and express might be useful, eventually. However, in the short term, it is preferable to build the local (Finch LRT) that is already funded and the scope is defined, rather than try to build express when issues with Hydro one are not resolved, and no ridership modeling has been done.

Note that F.H.C. BRT project has been on TTC books for 20 years if not longer. If that BRT was so effective, so cheap, and so easy to build, it would be built long before Transit City.

So once again, the planners of generations past prove to be the smarter ones. There's no basis for local rapid transit for a line like Finch. It is not a bustling urban strip and will never be. Density is concentrated around a few select intersections en route, which will soon recieve a parallel BRT and subway stop all their own. Bringing in GO ALRT as was planned out might have triggered and intensified some development that would today bolstered the case for better transit along Finch, but that outcome would still be unlikely. Short-distance E-W travel is a small niche in contrast to successfully crossing from Malvern to Rexdale in one hour. That's where demand actually lies and if not for the TTC artificially drumming up demand levels for transit terminals (Finch, Don Mills, Kennedy) via enforcing unnecessary transfers, a truer picture of where the majority of intra-416 commuters are starting and ending their trips would be reflected in the numbers.

If you want a concise, well-defined scope, think of F.H.C. busway corridor as a grand trunk line, capable of giving several transit services (MT, BT, GO, YRT, DT, TTC) the oppurtunity of operating both local and express routes more efficiency with less layover, stalling and other issues associated with running through mixed traffic. Running two parallel rapid transit lines capable of targeting all of the same nodes within 3 minutes/300 metres distance of eachother is beyond ridiculous. And GO Transit will 100% use the F.H.C. for its MCC to York U trips, despite what HONE thinks. I have it on good authority that the York U BRT will also remain even after the TYSSE is completed. A road bridge spanning the G Ross Lord reservoir would cost no more than $1.5-$3.15 million. And Torresdale to Yonge sees the lowest offloads/onloads of any section of the 36 bus today, with 7 Bathurst a highly attractive connector smack in the middle. Sorry if 100people daily inconvenienced by a longer walk pales in comparison to tens of thousands bogged down by a slower ROW.
 
It won't make much difference to travel times. There are just as many streets crossing the hydro corridor as there are intersecting with Finch between Weston & Keele. The only time advantage is that it might skip Jane Street station. In other words, negligible. And it's not even possible to accelerate beyond 60 k/h in such a short distance and comfortably stop in time.

Maybe if the Finch LRT is one day overflowing, the hydro-express branch will be some relief, but until that happens, it doesn't really serve any purpose.

What now? It's on-street rapid transit for Finch that serves no purpose, because the leftover demand for such speeds will be too low to justify the expense after parallel rapid transit lines (with less minor stops and private ROW prove to be so much after as crosstown connectors). FWLRT could only "overflow" if it delivered on speed. Most ridership will stems from spread out clusters, not a continuous concentration of transit users originating along Finch itself. Multiple high-rise clusters and commercial properties affront the F.H.C. in some cases better than they do Finch itself. It's closer to York U for branched service, cause you know, why enforce a one-stop transfer on the subway when the bus can be more direct? Lots of people live, work and shop in these adjoining buildings, a local justification for supporting F.H.C. vs. FWLRT. And its presence will only further building integration and development intensification.

As for the intersections and stops, F.H.C. realistically could have from Weston to Keele:

  • Weston Stn/Emery GO - at-grade road median with overhead pedestrian bridge to GO Stn
  • Signet (optional) - underpass
  • Norfinch - at-grade
  • Jane Stn - elevated to get clearance over York Gate, Driftwood and area density, as well provide direct barrier free access one-level down to the Jane Line and 108 bus.
  • Tobermory - stop within level section of underpass crossing
  • Sentinel - same as above
  • Keele/Finch West Stn - at grade, separate bus terminal within fare-paid zone.
 
The straight lines come in the form of the actual N-S arterials used to connect the two points. Those living far-between intersections and unable to easily connect to the F.H.C. can still utilize the 36 bus. F.H.C. BRT seeks in no way to eliminate the local service along Finch proper, but rather to provide long-distance commuters with a faster alternative. Locals can opt to laywait the 36 bus or figure out that a short walk north can save them 10 minutes travel time, even after factoring in the walking time.

The length of Hydro corridor parallel to Finch West is 9 km (from Yonge to half-way between Jane and Weston). Using your own numbers for speed (22 kph for LRT, 35 kph for busway), LRT trip would take 25.5 min, busway trip 15.5 min - difference is 10 min.

For locals that use less than the full 9 km, the difference will, obviously, be less than 10 min - and likely be overweight by the longer walk.

Local routes can complete part of their journey via a bus-only guideway that's not impeded by mitigating traffic and signals.

True; but there aren't many local routes in that area (west of Yonge) that would benefit from that particular busway. Most of routes will connect to the two subway lines.

Says who? People really ought to do their own research on BRT before challenging my position. BRT stations can be as state of the art as any metro station. But don't take my word for it. Watch and weep at what average Torontonians will miss out on because our leaders and their followers lack vision.

Potentially, BRT stations can be quite elaborate - like in Ottawa, or even better than that.

But in Ottawa, the busway is the backbone of transit. Who will bother to build such stations in the hydro corridor along Finch West, with little local density around, and limited transfer activity (since most of transfers will occur at subway stations).

It is a common misperception that a light rail system would attract more riders than BRT. The concept of bus rapid transit is not well understood in North America, as there are only a few systems currently in operation. In reality, BRT would be designed more like a light rail than a standard bus system, with features like dedicated lanes, signal priority, pre-pay boarding, elevated station platforms, and efficient and comfortable vehicles that make it much more efficient and appealing than a traditional bus service. BRT would also offer travel times that are competitive with light rail. With a well-designed, well-operated, and well-advertised BRT in place, there is good reason to believe that many people would use and appreciate the system.

LRT runs smoother, is easier to design for higher capacity, and is less dependent on oil prices. BRT is cheaper, and more flexible. Beyond that, there is no much difference: the speed of either mode will depend on implementation.

80 minutes on the FWLRT just to get part of the way across is transwack.

There is no way a trip on FinchWest LRT will take 80 min, the street is not long enough for that. Length 16 km, speed 22 kph: travel time 44 min.

After F.H.C. BRT provided by GO, 407 Transitway, Jane BRT, TYSSE, Georgetown/Bolton GO frequent service, Eglinton subway and dedicated busways down the 4/27 suddenly the 42,600 that rely on Finch West alone will have a lot more options ar their disposal. That, to me anyway, signals a drop-off in overall demand not an increase.

Finch West + TYSSE will still be the fastest route to downtown, York U, and other places of interest for many residents.

Eglinton subway and Georgetown GO are relevant, but located further apart. Jane BRT and 4/27 BRT (if ever) go other way; 407 Transitway is far from the area; Bolton GO frequent service is not even in agenda, they are still talking about limited commuter service.

Short-distance E-W travel is a small niche in contrast to successfully crossing from Malvern to Rexdale in one hour.

On the contrary: Finch West bus route handles a lot of short trips, otherwise it would never be able to handle its 42,000+ passengers per day.

How many people travel between Malvern and Rexdale? and those few who do, probably prefer cars anyway.

If you want a concise, well-defined scope, think of F.H.C. busway corridor as a grand trunk line, capable of giving several transit services (MT, BT, GO, YRT, DT, TTC) the oppurtunity of operating both local and express routes more efficiency with less layover, stalling and other issues associated with running through mixed traffic.

F.H.C. busway corridor would be relevant for TTC, and to some extent MT and GO (Mississauga / West to York U and North York).

YRT will not be interested in the western section (routes will connect to subway lines), but might be interested in the eastern section - which is not prevented by FWLRT.

BT would use 407 Transitway. DT is way too far from the corridor, even its eastern section.

Running two parallel rapid transit lines capable of targeting all of the same nodes within 3 minutes/300 metres distance of eachother is beyond ridiculous.

Why not, if they serve different markets, and run in parallel for only a few km?

F.H.C. route, if materializes at all, is more suitable for long-haul connections - then build it that way, and do not necessarily follow Finch (or F.H.C.) Crosstown pattern.

Just one option: from the Airport / Mississauga border, run it express through the diagonal section of Hydro Corridor (stopping at Etobicoke North Stn only). Enter Finch near Signet, serve the Jane / Finch cluster on-street, then go up Jane and turn to the Hydro Corridor again. Run express there, stopping at major intersections only: Keele / Finch West Stn, Dufferin, Bathurst, Yonge, Bayview, Leslie, Don Mills, Seneca College, Vic Park, Warden. With such design, grade separation with local roads is not mandatory: if the bus does not have to stop for passengers, effective transit signals are easier to implement. (But grade separation with Newmarket and RH subs will be needed.) At Warden, turn north (bus lanes are planned there anyway) and connect to downtown Markham and Enterprise area.

Finch West still benefits from LRT. Buses from Malvern and the eastern part of Finch East can join the busway; but if Sheppard subway is extended, they can connect to it instead of the busway.
 
Part 1 of 2

The length of Hydro corridor parallel to Finch West is 9 km (from Yonge to half-way between Jane and Weston). Using your own numbers for speed (22 kph for LRT, 35 kph for busway), LRT trip would take 25.5 min, busway trip 15.5 min - difference is 10 min.

For locals that use less than the full 9 km, the difference will, obviously, be less than 10 min - and likely be overweight by the longer walk.

What longer walk? Since the words aren't sufficing as an explanation, I'll use visuals.

Humber College to Martin Grove:
HumberCollegetoMartinGrove.jpg

Martin Grove to Islington:
MartinGrovetoIslington.jpg

Islington to Weston Road:
IslingtontoWestonRoad.jpg

Weston Road to Tobermory:
WestonRoadtoTobermory.jpg

Tobermory to Alness:
TobermorytoAlness.jpg

Alness to Bathurst:
AlnesstoBathurst.jpg

Bathurst to Yonge:
BathursttoYonge.jpg

See all the buildings, houses, offices, stores immediately flanking the F.H.C. and many more within 3-7 minutes walk of a BRT station?

Finch/F.H.C. BRT: Humber College to Yonge subway
= 22 stations
= 33 minutes
= carrying capacity of 275 passengers per trip (biartics)
= continuous uninterrupted exclusive ROW

Finch West LRT: Humber College to Yonge subway
= 30 stations
= 46 minutes
= carrying capacity of 260 passengers per trip (2-car trainsets)
= and this me quoting Metrolinx's BCA report on the Finch-Sheppard LRT line, so that there's no accusation of bias here:

"The operational reliability of the route will vary. Even with significant signal priority there will be delays in road intersections from cross-traffic, congestion and accidents. Experience from similar tram/LRT systems shows that this delay may be in the order of 10%, which on the proposed route
could provide a variation in runtime of about 4-5 minutes for each segment. This potential variability in journey time may result in differential headways, which at peak times can increase the dwell times of vehicles at busy stops and further increase travel time."

Gee, thanks for the fair warning Metrolinx, not that I think City Hall and Giambrone are listening.

Also from the same BCA report:

"The capacity along the corridor could be increased through the use of higher capacity articulated buses which could increase the capacity from approximately 1,200 passengers per direction per hour to 1,800 passengers per direction per hour (90 passenger capacity for an articulated bus)."

A-ha! So again folks, 36 Finch West could be substantially improved in service quality just by the mere introduction of longer buses. No overcrowding, no periodic bunching/stalling, just faster, more reliable transit. And reducing the number of stops west of Hwy 400 would further enhance the efficiency of the route.
 
Part 2 of 2

True; but there aren't many local routes in that area (west of Yonge) that would benefit from that particular busway. Most of routes will connect to the two subway lines.

I illustrated above how precisely 104 Faywood, for instance, could utilize the right-of-way to improve its service quality.

Potentially, BRT stations can be quite elaborate - like in Ottawa, or even better than that.

But in Ottawa, the busway is the backbone of transit. Who will bother to build such stations in the hydro corridor along Finch West, with little local density around, and limited transfer activity (since most of transfers will occur at subway stations).

The stops at Humber College, Albion, Islington, Weston Rd, Jane, Keele, Bathurst and Yonge- will all be major interchanges where the passenger turnover ratio is expected to be very high. Those stops at least are worthy of some expense. All stations should at least have passenger amenities such as shelters, benches, lighting, ticket vending machines, security features and next vehicle arrival information.

LRT runs smoother, is easier to design for higher capacity, and is less dependent on oil prices. BRT is cheaper, and more flexible. Beyond that, there is no much difference: the speed of either mode will depend on implementation.

Smoothness, lol. Methinks Drum's 512 ROW photos have illustrated just how smooth a LRT ride will be when trying to navigate unevenly laid trackbeds at top optimal speeds. Sure it may not be the case for FWLRT, but such issues aren't even a factor when designing busways.

True, the only physical difference between an articulated bus and LRT is the presence of rails in the roadway and intrusive overhead wires. The Greater Toronto Services Board, in its document, "The BRT business case," finds that buses and LRT have equal capacity. However, South America's BRTs have capacities over three times greater than what the City of Toronto says is impossible. And, according to the Canadian Transit Fact Book, the cost of running bus rapid transit is $90 per hour compared to $250 per hour for LRT. Because it is so much less expensive, for the same budget BRT can cover about ten times the area and support ten times as much Transit Oriented Development ("walkable" neighborhoods) as LRT.

And there seems to be a rationale that the cost of diesel is the pervading factor in choosing LRT over BRT. What seems to have been ignored is that the other sources of energy will follow in close step. There is little question that the future of energy in Ontario must be nuclear, if the obnoxious coal-fired generating plants are to be phased out. The cost of electricity will then rise exponentially. In the short term, the cost of electricity in the peak hours will be at a premium just when people are going to and from work. The city has made no provision for this cost.

There is no way a trip on FinchWest LRT will take 80 min, the street is not long enough for that. Length 16 km, speed 22 kph: travel time 44 min.

Metrolinx claims Humber College to Don Mills Stn will be 65 minutes, 46 mins to Yonge only. But they also warn of likely delays and with its 42 stations total, at roughly 2 mins interval between stops when factoring in dwell times at stops, 80 minutes sounds about accurate.

Eglinton subway and Georgetown GO are relevant, but located further apart. Jane BRT and 4/27 BRT (if ever) go other way; 407 Transitway is far from the area; Bolton GO frequent service is not even in agenda, they are still talking about limited commuter service.

All I'm saying is everyone whom doesn't necessarily have to commute to Finch Ave to ride the FWLRT into NYCC, or any other point of interest, won't. You'll attract less new riders because the travel time is still too long to be of value to long-haulers. You'll lose riders over time as regular users of the existing 36 bus find more and more rapid alternatives at their disposal.

How many people travel between Malvern and Rexdale? and those few who do, probably prefer cars anyway.

How can you accurately measure such things when today it takes like 4-5 buses to complete a one-way journey straight across or worse get across by first heading all the way south to the Bloor-Danforth then north again? Thanks for acknowledging though that even intra-416 travel post-Transit City will still be remarkably faster via car. TC as planned offers little incentive to switch. Building massively long rapid feeder lines just to dump large volumes of people off onto the subway is ill-conceived. Ongoing transfer-free RT speeds are needed and the mileage and funds available for tracks/rails can only go so far.

F.H.C. busway corridor would be relevant for TTC, and to some extent MT and GO (Mississauga / West to York U and North York).YRT will not be interested in the western section (routes will connect to subway lines), but might be interested in the eastern section - which is not prevented by FWLRT.

Every YRT route that feeds into Yonge-Finch Stn from Bathurst to Warden would utilize the BRT right-of-way eliminating hundreds of vehicles from the Yonge St corridor daily. Why do we need a separate FWLRT, running so closeby? Convince me that 42,600 daily users would still ride the 36 bus let alone a LRT line and we'll talk. Ahead of extending the subway, which will only worsen the congestion piling onto the existing YUS line, why not explore less expensive alternatives, not only F.H.C. Crosstown BRT but REX rail along the Bala and York Subs? Using what's readily available and not being a leech seeking gov't handouts and becoming snotty brats when our exuberant requests are denied.

Why not, if they serve different markets, and run in parallel for only a few km?

16 kms is not a few (Weston to Warden). East of Warden some trips could continue along the F.H.C. to directly serve Morningside Hts and Malvern Town Centre. Some busway lanes would extend down to Bridletowne, serve the density to McCowan then run into SCC.

F.H.C. route, if materializes at all, is more suitable for long-haul connections - then build it that way, and do not necessarily follow Finch (or F.H.C.) Crosstown pattern.

Why not? Finch/F.H.C. so easily connects Pearson > Dixon > Woodbine Live > Humber College > Albion Ctr > Islington -OR- Erin Mills > MCC > Dixie > ACC > Etobicoke North GO > Elmhurst; then, Weston > Jane/Finch > York U > Bathurst > Yonge > Bayview > Old Cummer > Seneca College > Bridletowne > Woodside > SCC -OR via Belleville Sub & Progress- M Heights > Malvern TC > Markham-Sheppard > Centennial > SCC. Such connectivity is not possible using another right-of-way.

Finch West still benefits from LRT.

To carry whom exactly, or is it not apparent that residents living in those apartment buildings and townhouse cul-de-sacs blocks north of Finch are just as inconvenienced by walking south and then crossing through busy, pedestrian unfriendly traffic to go stand on a narrow exposed platform and laywait the streetcar? Why am I being made out as the villain here, I want to improve area residents quality of life. Reexamine the above images. Observe the walking distance radius rings. If this was about serving the most densely populated transit usage corridors they'd be putting a LRT on Dufferin, on Finch East, on Lawrence East, on Kingston Road, on McCowan- all these corridors each carry more overall riders. No, this is shortsighted transit planning 101 that'll eat up $1.2 billion dollars in a time when 4-5 kilometres of new subways are desperately needed to alleviate congestion. That it'd benefit another part of the city is irrelevant, what Finch West is posed to get in exchange is a far-superior busway, a surface subway line at a fraction of the cost or elapsed duration of a streetcar ride end-to-end.
 

Back
Top