[W. K. Lis]

The problem with using a hydro right-of-way corridor is the density around them, and whether or not people would be okay living or working near them. They are generally low or very low density. Generally, people don't want to live near hydro lines.

You need a medium to high density at each stop on the LRT line to get an adequate supply of ridership, not just from transfers. Clustering at each road that crosses the hydro corridor may not be enough.

We want to get rid of the asphalt deserts that now border the roadways, and replace them with medium, mixed-use, low-rise buildings with a LRT down between them. It can't see them doing that using a hydro right-of-way corridor, except as a short-cut connection. Using a hydro right-of-way corridor would not generally alter a roadway.

BTW. Ridership have a preference with LRT than with BRT, and ridership numbers in the States prove that. The only people who seem to like it are the single occupant motorists, not ridership

 

[scarberiankhatru]

The problem with using a hydro right-of-way corridor is the density around them, and whether or not people would be okay living or working near them. They are generally low or very low density. Generally, people don't want to live near hydro lines.

You need a medium to high density at each stop on the LRT line to get an adequate supply of ridership, not just from transfers. Clustering at each road that crosses the hydro corridor may not be enough.

We want to get rid of the asphalt deserts that now border the roadways, and replace them with medium, mixed-use, low-rise buildings with a LRT down between them. It can't see them doing that using a hydro right-of-way corridor, except as a short-cut connection. Using a hydro right-of-way corridor would not generally alter a roadway.

BTW. Ridership have a preference with LRT than with BRT, and ridership numbers in the States prove that. The only people who seem to like it are the single occupant motorists, not ridership

We're not talking about generally, we're talking about Finch West. You do not need density at every stop...Finch currently runs through several km of industrial wasteland, so why can't it run through a hydro corridor next to industrial wastelands like Keele to Dufferin? Just because stretches of Finch were marked 'Avenues' in the plans doesn't mean they'll ever materialize. But it would happen around and east of Bathurst, which is one reason why I think it should run in-street there.

I don't think it's that useful to compare bus-based ridership potential on a bus route already used 37,000 times a day with figures from a land where many think 'the bus' is only for black people or the destitute and where LRT is often built to link places frequented by a different demographic, like airports, hospitals, office parks, tourist sites, and downtown. Rail supporters think everyone despises buses but it's just not true. Yes, there's lot of people in the outer suburbs who wouldn't consider 'the bus' but that's largely because their local bus comes every half hour and their commute by transit would take 90 minutes and 4 fares a day.

 

[waterloowarrior]

But the hydro corridor isn't necessaily that far away. 300m, similar to the distance of the transitway in Ottawa from Richmond Road (in Westboro), which has been seeing tons of new development over the last 5-10 years and has good transit use.

 

[scarberiankhatru]

But the hydro corridor isn't necessaily that far away. 300m, similar to the distance of the transitway in Ottawa from Richmond Road (in Westboro), which has been seeing tons of new development over the last 5-10 years and has good transit use.

It's farther away between Bathurst and Yonge. Remember, too, that someone south of Finch would go from 200m to 500m away from the line. 300m isn't too far for the huge majority of people or too far to trigger development (not that it will on its own, but it'll trigger Council to trigger rezoning/amendments) but there's absolutely no east/west roads for a supplemental bus route (like Drewry) to take. This city is worried about bringing transit to your doorstep, not travel times, so I'd be shocked if it Finch West ran in the hydro corridor for even a block or two, even for the Finch station approach or crossing the 400.

 

[W. K. Lis]

Three Open Houses will be held during the first round of consultation for the Etobicoke—Finch West LRT. See this PDF for more information.

• Tuesday, July 29, 2008
  6:30pm - 9:00pm
  North York Memorial Community Hall
  5110 Yonge Street
  (adjacent to Mel Lastman Square)
  
  
• Wednesday, August 6, 2008
  6:30pm to 9:00pm
  Jane-Finch Mall
  1911 Finch Avenue West
  (SE corner of Finch Ave and Jane St)
  
  
• Thursday, August 7, 2008
  6:30pm to 9:00pm
  Elmbank Community Centre
  10 Rampart Rd
  (off Martingrove Rd, south of Finch Ave)

 

[doady]

I actually think Finch West is better as BRT, especially consdiering that there is already a transitway planned in part of the Finch hydro corridor to connect the Mississauga and 407 Transitways. All the TTC would have to build is the portion east of York University to connect to Finch station.

The Finch West LRT, if built down the middle of Finch Ave, would be just as bad as the Sheppard LRT, imo.

 

[Hipster Duck]

Totally agree, doady.

If it was up to me, every Transit City line would be a BRT with the exception of Sheppard and the central segment of Eglinton which would both be subway.

BTW. Ridership have a preference with LRT than with BRT, and ridership numbers in the States prove that. The only people who seem to like it are the single occupant motorists, not ridership

What I find funny is that BRT detractors are often light rail fanatics who ironically use the same arguments to champion LRT over BRT (namely, upfront capital costs) that they do to dump on subways (again, the upfront capital cost).

If people would look at BRT more closely, they would see a mode that has a lot of the advantages of LRT with few of the disadvantages. Namely:

a) buses can be short-turned, deployed or taken out of service easily anywhere along the line
b) buses can bypass stalled vehicles, or take detours on local streets in the event of an emergency
c) buses offer the option of introducing various levels of express service which are not possible with 2-track LRT. This is because buses can simply pass other buses parked at stations and stops. I personally think this is one of the principal advantages of BRT.
d) local bus routes can take advantage of the busway; interlining is extremely easy
e) buses can operate during a power failure

Finally, the capacity advantages of LRT over BRT - that last leg for LRT supporters to stand on - is largely illusory. The Ottawa transitway posts similar ridership levels (>200,000/day) as the much vaunted Calgary C-train; the Metro Orange line (a BRT) in LA's San Fernando Valley has more riders than the Metro Gold line (an LRT), even though the LRT goes directly from downtown LA to downtown Pasadena, and the BRT winds its way through the suburban detritus of "the Valley". And, let's not forget Bogota, which carries as many people on its 4 BRT lines as the entire TTC system.

 

[W. K. Lis]

I guess that, using Hipster Duck's points, we should change the Yonge-University-Spadina and the Bloor-Danforth subways to BRT, since they both have fail in all those points.

 

[scarberiankhatru]

Or we can skip the LRT and the BRT and run a GO train (or Euro substitute) in the hydro corridor, combined with regular Rocket bus service on Finch West.

 

[Hipster Duck]

I guess that, using Hipster Duck's points, we should change the Yonge-University-Spadina and the Bloor-Danforth subways to BRT, since they both have fail in all those points.

Uh, I really don't see how my points about BRT vs. LRT would lead me to consider downgrading two existing, highly successful subway lines that each carry up to 400,000 people a day to bus rapid transit.

If you'll read my post you would see that I even advocate subway expansion along Sheppard and Eglinton. A combination of ridership growth potential and offering two major east-west trunk routes sort of makes this apparent there. BRT is more useful for the lesser TC lines: Jane, Don Mills, Finch West and especially Malvern where the raison d'etre should be to provide existing users with faster, more efficient service (which will not be provided by glorified streetcars).

If I need to elaborate further, things such as avoiding stalled vehicles aren't issues on subways because the only block a subway train would run into would be another blocked train ahead of it. On streetcars/LRTs, blockages could involve everything from emergency vehicles (fire trucks, ambulances), cars and trucks having accidents, downed trees, and, yes, other disabled light rail vehicles.

 

[Rainforest]

Rainforest

Or we can build Finch W LRT now on-street for local service, and evetually, in Phase II or III, build GO train line in the hydro corridor.

There might be opposition from the residents though ... but that applieas to LRT or BRT as well.

 

[Rainforest]

... If people would look at BRT more closely, they would see a mode that has a lot of the advantages of LRT with few of the disadvantages. Namely:

a) buses can be short-turned, deployed or taken out of service easily anywhere along the line
b) buses can bypass stalled vehicles, or take detours on local streets in the event of an emergency
c) buses offer the option of introducing various levels of express service which are not possible with 2-track LRT. This is because buses can simply pass other buses parked at stations and stops. I personally think this is one of the principal advantages of BRT.
d) local bus routes can take advantage of the busway; interlining is extremely easy
e) buses can operate during a power failure

Finally, the capacity advantages of LRT over BRT - that last leg for LRT supporters to stand on - is largely illusory. The Ottawa transitway posts similar ridership levels (>200,000/day) as the much vaunted Calgary C-train; the Metro Orange line (a BRT) in LA's San Fernando Valley has more riders than the Metro Gold line (an LRT), even though the LRT goes directly from downtown LA to downtown Pasadena, and the BRT winds its way through the suburban detritus of "the Valley". And, let's not forget Bogota, which carries as many people on its 4 BRT lines as the entire TTC system.

This is all correct, but LRT have their advantages as well:

a) Easier to establish large capacity in a limited ROW space (on-street operation). If each LRT train has a capacity of 3 buses, there are 3 times fewer headways to observe.
b) Lower operating costs for high ridership values.
c) Much less pollution at the point of service.
d) Partial hedge against the growth of gas prices. Electricity prices will be affected, too, but to a lesser degree since it can be generated from multiple sources.

 

[Hipster Duck]

a) Easier to establish large capacity in a limited ROW space (on-street operation). If each LRT train has a capacity of 3 buses, there are 3 times fewer headways to observe.
b) Lower operating costs for high ridership values.
c) Much less pollution at the point of service.
d) Partial hedge against the growth of gas prices. Electricity prices will be affected, too, but to a lesser degree since it can be generated from multiple sources.

Certainly agree with you about points c) and d), certainly in Toronto where ridership levels are high and where more than half of our electrical generation is nuclear and hydro.

As for a) and b), I'm not so sure. A three-link articulated Volvo bus, like those found in Curitiba, can probably be bought from Brazil for much less than a Bombardier LRV, and they do have a capacity of 160 people - which is comparable to an ALRV.

 

[rbt]

A three-link articulated Volvo bus, like those found in Curitiba, can probably be bought from Brazil for much less than a Bombardier LRV, and they do have a capacity of 160 people - which is comparable to an ALRV.

Given the frequent snow issues single joint artics experience on Ontario roads, I'm not sure a double joint would be feasible. It works on rails because the back will follow the front.

 

[doady]

Finch is not dense enough for capacity to be an issue if service is split between two lines (the hydro corridor and street itself).

IMO, it is not an issue of what is better, BRT or LRT, but what is better for Finch? Considering the current GO busway plans, and especially considering the lack of potential "avenues" development along Finch, the LRT option, even in the hydro corridor, doesn't make much sense to me.

If the city is so adamant about building LRT, why not build a line along Wilson (a true "avenue")? Or upgrade the east-west downtown streetcar lines? There is no need for an LRT line along Finch, let alone Sheppard and Morningside (don't me started on those).