Good thing your not in charge of anything related to transit. Why would a bus be faster than a train even with no signal priority. The bus has to stop at the same red light as well. We need to get this Rapid priority out of our heads. It's up to the individual to make it to their destination on time. Leave your location with ample amount of time to make it to your destination. Your employer doesn't give a crap about transit delays or traffic delays. Transit is supposed to help the masses get from one point or another safely and efficiently.
I'll take transit city with poor signaling over subways that don't help the masses.
3 things — Acceleration, stopping time, and Stop requirements. Stop placement will also likely play a role.
Buses accelerate faster than LRVs, and are at stops for about half the time as a typical train. Based on my experience with the iON, stopped time for an LRV is 17-20 seconds, compared to a bus' 7-12. This is mainly due to door speeds but also due to passenger loading characteristics.
Not all buses have to wait for left turns. Modern signaling often shortens the left turn cycle or eliminates it when traffic isn't high enough to justify cycling through it, but it generally only occurs in one direction.
If you want people to use transit, it has to be fast, frequent, and reliable. Surface LRT in the way the city is building it only partially solves the reliability aspect (in the event of a blockage/derailment, the bus is more reliable). It reduces the frequency and probably won't increase the train speed. Look at the 509 before and after the redoing of Queen's Quay — trip times increased by like 10%, and that's downtown. You could make the argument that stop spacing didn't change, but the 905 express only stopped at the same stops as the crosstown for those that live near the bus stops. For those that will have to walk an additional half kilometer to their stop, that adds 10 minutes to their commute, and it's not made up while taking the LRT (on the on-street section).
Do the vast majority of people choose to take the 506 over Line 2? No...why not? Because Line 2 is twice as fast as the 506. I'm not saying we should get rid of the 506 (in fact I think there's a fair case for an extension in the west). Speed is that much more important in the suburbs because the alternative is driving. If you can't make transit faster than driving, then most people will just drive. The TTC isn't particularly cheap anyways. I want LRT to succeed in this city, but if the city keeps dragging its feet on actually making it work, then you're going to doom the technology. If they want on-street LRT, it needs signal priority.
Subways that don't help the masses?
A DRL Short (~300K) would help more people than all of transit city less Eglinton (Finch (50K), Sheppard (30K), Eglinton East (30K), Scarborough Malvern (60K), Jane (30K), Waterfront (30K), Don Mills (40K)) combined, and the former would be cheaper.
Yonge north would help > 150K people (probably more), and cost the same as Jane, Eglinton East, Sheppard, and Don Mills combined (~130K PPD).
The TYSSE cost 3.2 billion, helps at least 100K people, and cost the same as Sheppard, Eglintonton East, and Don Mills, and that line was considered wasteful.
And if you want to rule out all subway extensions, then invest that 8 billion dollars in expanding the streetcar and bus fleets, fixing & resignaling the subways, adding cars to Line 1 and replacing the T1s, make all stations accessible, improving bus and streetcar frequencies throughout the system, and other SOGR measures. Investing money in a technology that is barely improving things doesn't help our SOGR backlog.
That's true. Metrolinx is pure evil. As incompetent as they are they probably invented covid-19 just to not build a subway to Scarborough. Bastards.
You don't think Metrolinx wasn't politically motivated to decrease the success of the surface portion of the crosstown? It sure would make their plans for the SSE, EWLRT, and Ontario line look good by comparison.