[Rainforest]

U2 - great analysis!

Back to TC2 / TC3 fantasies ...

In many cases, routes well suited for LRT ridership-wise do not have room for ROW, whereas wide streets do not have density that warrants LRT. Two cases at hand are Dufferin and Bathurst.

The "southern" Dufferin (from Wilson to King) would be a great LRT route, but the street is not wide enough to accomodate two dedicated transit lanes. Tunneling would, obviously, cost a fortune.

In contrast, the "northern" Dufferin (Allen Rd from Sheppard to Finch, plus Dufferin north of Finch) is very wide (except under the CN bridge north of Steeles). But, there is not much density around it. Unless major developments happen there, dedicated BRT or HOV lanes are probably sufficient. The Sheppard - Finch section will have BRT lanes installed as a part of York U busway, whereas York Region is currently building HOV lanes north of Steeles. So, BRT lanes from Finch to Steeles is all that needed.

Likewise, a Bathurst LRT all the way from the south to Steeles (or even Promenade) would be very successful. The 7 Bathurst bus is well-used any time of the day, and this is an indication of a strong local ridership. However, the street is too narrow south of Wilson, and even a few hundred meters north of it.

An LRT line that services only a portion of Bathurst may be considered: most likely, that would be Wilson to Promenade and operating off the Wilson subway station. However, the effect of splitting the route should be studied before committing the funds, as well as the effect of Yonge subway extension. The latter will bring the subway closer to both the Bathurst / Steeles high-density cluster and to the Promenade centre, and hence divert some riders.

 

[BMO]

U2 - great analysis!

Back to TC2 / TC3 fantasies ...

In many cases, routes well suited for LRT ridership-wise do not have room for ROW, whereas wide streets do not have density that warrants LRT. Two cases at hand are Dufferin and Bathurst.

The "southern" Dufferin (from Wilson to King) would be a great LRT route, but the street is not wide enough to accomodate two dedicated transit lanes. Tunneling would, obviously, cost a fortune.

In contrast, the "northern" Dufferin (Allen Rd from Sheppard to Finch, plus Dufferin north of Finch) is very wide (except under the CN bridge north of Steeles). But, there is not much density around it. Unless major developments happen there, dedicated BRT or HOV lanes are probably sufficient. The Sheppard - Finch section will have BRT lanes installed as a part of York U busway, whereas York Region is currently building HOV lanes north of Steeles. So, BRT lanes from Finch to Steeles is all that needed.

Likewise, a Bathurst LRT all the way from the south to Steeles (or even Promenade) would be very successful. The 7 Bathurst bus is well-used any time of the day, and this is an indication of a strong local ridership. However, the street is too narrow south of Wilson, and even a few hundred meters north of it.

An LRT line that services only a portion of Bathurst may be considered: most likely, that would be Wilson to Promenade and operating off the Wilson subway station. However, the effect of splitting the route should be studied before committing the funds, as well as the effect of Yonge subway extension. The latter will bring the subway closer to both the Bathurst / Steeles high-density cluster and to the Promenade centre, and hence divert some riders.

I think if anything all of bathurst should have tracks up to proemande, and implement ROW's where possible, if the shepaprd line is extended to Downsview it would provide a perfect connection right there for many residents both just norht of sheppar dand just south of sheppard. Also BRT is being put on Bathurst from centre st to highway 7. there could be some interesting interlining if viva purple were LRT as well being able to provide people at rhc with a seamless ride to N-W Toronto. Dufferin has alot of potential, there are some developments being built up now aronud steels and dufferein, but in general I don't think Dufferin even deserves BRT past steeles I think if anything build BRT from downsview up dufferin and then make it go east towards promenade on centre effectively using the soon to be built ROW for viva purple, but this route isn't really needed if the bathurst lrt is built up to promenade.

 

[kEiThZ]

U2,

Great post and analysis. I would hope that a lot of the fare integration issues would be sorted out in the current plans by Metrolinx. Perhaps after payment integration (presto) we'll see some fare integration. But for that to happen, I think service integration has to happen simultaneously and this would be a difficult and mammoth task. It has always struck me as strange for example that a lot of our transit network in the 416 is designed around funnelling riders to the subway for trips to the core when it makes far more sense to most commuters on GO and leave the subway network for shorter trips. If we had this in place, we might not even have to spend on ATC on the Yonge line as most riders would use the parallel GO line.

 

[Disparishun]

I don't know if this is really Transit City 2 ish, but at some point I'd really like to see -- okay, I've said this elsewhere but still -- exploration of rejigging the GO RH line as a frequently-running north-south express line.

In particular, running every 5 minutes in rush hour, and:
- adding a Steeles stop collocated with a small bus terminal, to pick up Steeles buses;
- moving Old Cummer to be closer to a major street and collocating it with as small bus terminal to pick up Finch and Bayview buses;
- moving the Sheppard station to collocate it with subway stops;
- adding a stop collocated with the Eglinton LRT; and
- adding another stop in downtown Toronto prior to Union. (Bloor doesn't seem so feasible.)

Hence: RH - RHC - Steeles - Finch - Sheppard - Eglinton - Downtown - Union. Three advantage:

1) I think this would really relieve the Yonge line by absorbing a lot of the Scarborough/Willowdale traffic going west to Finch then south.

2) By taking advantage of existing rights of way and infrastructure, it would be about the cheapest North South Express line we are likely to build.

3) It would decentre things a little bit by providing an alternative north south axis, moving a little bit of traffic off the Yonge corridor.

Likewise, a Bathurst LRT all the way from the south to Steeles (or even Promenade) would be very successful. The 7 Bathurst bus is well-used any time of the day, and this is an indication of a strong local ridership. However, the street is too narrow south of Wilson, and even a few hundred meters north of it.

An LRT line that services only a portion of Bathurst may be considered: most likely, that would be Wilson to Promenade and operating off the Wilson subway station. However, the effect of splitting the route should be studied before committing the funds, as well as the effect of Yonge subway extension. The latter will bring the subway closer to both the Bathurst / Steeles high-density cluster and to the Promenade centre, and hence divert some riders.

Ooh. I would love to see the 511 streetcar and the 7 and 160 buses combine into a continuous LRT. I have no doubt it would be well-used. That corridor is very dense in many places, and only getting denser, particularly as Bathurst Manor gets redeveloped and as the Promenade at the north end turns into a bit of a development hub.

Would it be a minus for taking traffic away from the University-Spadina, a plus for relieving the Yonge line, or have no effect on subway traffic, though? Myself, I think it's parts of all three.

 

[W. K. Lis]

People are forgetting that we need to get to and from transit stops. We need to walk. So there must be sidewalks. Sidewalks should be the very first infrastructure to be built. Walking on the roads in winter is not safe.
Of course, there will be those who oppose sidewalks. It would mean losing the landscaping you put on out front, but it was on city property.

All streets in every city should have sidewalks, whether it be residential, commercial, or industrial (or mixed).

 

[EnviroTO]

That second picture is a winner. A walk signal and button but a guardrail to prevent you from crossing. Nice job.

 

[Hipster Duck]

That's my rather long rant about some future moves for transit beyond Transit City.

That's okay because yours was pretty much the only substantive, clear and workable plan that was thrown around in this 5 page thread.

 

[Eug]

People are forgetting that we need to get to and from transit stops. We need to walk. So there must be sidewalks. Sidewalks should be the very first infrastructure to be built. Walking on the roads in winter is not safe.
Of course, there will be those who oppose sidewalks. It would mean losing the landscaping you put on out front, but it was on city property.

I moved into my neighbourhood after this issue was already discussed, but the bottom line was that everyone opposed it, although to be quite honest I don't know why. No, scratch that. The reason probably is the yards were already comparatively shallow (for the neighbourhood), so many people didn't want them shortened again with sidewalks.

Whether that is a valid justification I don't know, but whatever the case, the idea of sidewalks was scrapped. FWIW, while I would prefer to walk on sidewalks, everyone here walks on the road here and thinks nothing of it. In fact, my sidewalk-less street is a very popular dog-walking and jogging street. This is even true in the winter. Traffic is relatively low though, as it is not a main thoroughfare. I agree large roads need more sidewalks.

I would hope that a lot of the fare integration issues would be sorted out in the current plans by Metrolinx.

The almost completely separate nature of GO makes it unpalatable for many of us who normally don't use GO. It's basically off the radar. I think I've used GO twice in my lifetime. It's subway, tram, and bus or else I drive (or ride my bike).

Sad how LRT proponents are anti-subway and anti-bus. Instead of just promoting one form of transit, why not realize they are all important and that different corridors require different solutions.

Heh. That's precisely what I was getting at. To paraphrase:

Sad how some subway proponents are anti-LRT and anti-bus. Instead of just promoting one form of transit, why not realize they are all important and that different corridors require different solutions?

 

[scarberiankhatru]

There's literally hundreds of posts by all kinds of forumers about which arterials are well-suited for [properly implemented] LRT and which might not be.

The good news is that since Transfer City managed to select almost no appropriate corridors for LRT with the first $10B of spending, pretty much every major 'concession-type' arterial road left in the city is a decent place for LRT...it's like playing 3 Strikes on The Price Is Right but not having to put the strike chip back into the bag - every thing you pull out after that point is great.

 

[scarberiankhatru]

Heh. That's precisely what I was getting at. To paraphrase:

Sad how some subway proponents are anti-LRT and anti-bus. Instead of just promoting one form of transit, why not realize they are all important and that different corridors require different solutions?

You couldn't point out one post earlier, and I bet you can't point out one such subway proponent here.

 

[Eug]

The good news is that since Transfer City managed to select almost no appropriate corridors for LRT with the first $10B of spending, pretty much every major 'concession-type' arterial road left in the city is a decent place for LRT...it's like playing 3 Strikes on The Price Is Right but not having to put the strike chip back into the bag - every thing you pull out after that point is great.

Heh. I think this post is pretty great example actually.

Translated: "Almost all Transit City LRT routes to be implemented are stupid."

 

[Second_in_pie]

There's literally hundreds of posts by all kinds of forumers about which arterials are well-suited for [properly implemented] LRT and which might not be.

The good news is that since Transfer City managed to select almost no appropriate corridors for LRT with the first $10B of spending, pretty much every major 'concession-type' arterial road left in the city is a decent place for LRT...it's like playing 3 Strikes on The Price Is Right but not having to put the strike chip back into the bag - every thing you pull out after that point is great.

It's so sad how this is true.

Well to be honest, Waterfront West will be a pretty good corridor once it's finished. The low cost and basically no interference with traffic will make it a good corridor for running a future Fully LRT downtown line. Without a DRL, it'll be the fastest way to get Downtown from south of Queen.

Other than that and Don Mills, the Transit City lines are pretty much the worst choice for LRT. Eglinton should be Subway, Jane should be BRT, Sheppard should arguably be Subway, or at least be fully grade separated LRT to be connected with the Sheppard Subway. Finch will be okay, but it would be better if Go made a Crosstown rail line along the Hydro Corridor.

 

[scarberiankhatru]

Heh. I think this post is pretty great example actually.

Translated: "Almost all Transit City LRT routes to be implemented are stupid."

And somewhere between your eyes and the back of your head, this has been translated into "LRT is stupid," right? What chance do the words of other people have when up against your translation prowess?

Again, you might want to find either posts or posters to back up your generalizations. We'll wait.

 

[Eug]

And somewhere between your eyes and the back of your head, this has been translated into "LRT is stupid," right? What chance do the words of other people have when up against your translation prowess?

Again, you might want to find either posts or posters to back up your generalizations. We'll wait.

Err... you're now trying to defend that post by splitting hairs. To reiterate, you have unilaterally declared nearly all of the Transit City LRT routes to be implemented as inappropriate.

This is exactly the type of sentiment I was parodying.

 

[CDL.TO]

Err... you're now trying to defend that post by splitting hairs. To reiterate, you have unilaterally declared nearly all of the Transit City LRT routes to be implemented as inappropriate.

This is exactly the type of sentiment I was parodying.

So, in your opinion 'The routes selected for the original phase of Transit City are not optimal', said by one member on this forum, has the same meaning as 'I hate all LRT', which is apparently a common sentiment on this forum.