[Tewder]

I'm not sure I get your point. The area in the peripherique is barely 10 km across - basically the equivalent of the old City of Toronto. La Defense is a lot closer to central Paris than SCC is to downtown Toronto.

... I'm agreeing with you, I think: metro within the city, connecting to trams outside of it. La Defense makes for a logical hub where lines meet, where density increases towards and into the city and where density decreases without. So to draw the analagy with Toronto I would suggest subways within the city and to the outer hubs, connecting to trams beyond.

 

[Dan416]

... I'm agreeing with you, I think: metro within the city, connecting to trams outside of it. La Defense makes for a logical hub where lines meet, where density increases towards and into the city and where density decreases without. So to draw the analagy with Toronto I would suggest subways within the city and to the outer hubs, connecting to trams beyond.

Outer hubs being....SCC, MCC and RHC?

 

[MisterF]

... I'm agreeing with you, I think: metro within the city, connecting to trams outside of it. La Defense makes for a logical hub where lines meet, where density increases towards and into the city and where density decreases without. So to draw the analagy with Toronto I would suggest subways within the city and to the outer hubs, connecting to trams beyond.

Gotcha.

Outer hubs being....SCC, MCC and RHC?

SCC is the logical end of the Danforth line, IMO. You could make the argument for extending Yonge to downtown Richmond Hill but it could be just as well served by upgrading the GO line to frequent, electrified service and fully integrating GO and local transit fares. It would be far easier and cheaper to do the same for MCC than building a subway all the way out there (it's farther from downtown than RH and SCC). Faster ride downtown too.

I think we have to start thinking in terms of seriously upgraded GO and subway being the same thing. There's no point in building all new infrastructure when you can upgrade an existing rail line. I think that's why the Metrolinx maps show the DRL going down Queen instead of to Union. Building a subway under Queen makes perfect sense because there aren't any rail lines there - no duplcation. But for Union, building a subway line is pointless when you can electrify the Georgetown and Lakeshore lines and provide 5 minute service....essentially turning them into subways. With integrated fares, we're going to see the divide between subway and GO become increasingly blurred.

 

[Ed Drass]

Basically, you seem to be asking if the Ottawa model is a good one.

Perhaps -- was the busway ever intended to eventually become an east-west rail route? I got the impression in recent years that city planners for the most part opposed upgrade to LRT ... or any rail.

The proposal from Chong (whether or not there is a bonafide GO plan to extend BRT region-wide -- it would help if someone could confirm with a link or report) suggests to me that any GTA corridor that is planned for regionally-significant rail would have, as a precursor, a limited stop bus route. This route would presumably be regionally-significant too (i.e. branded like Zum or Viva or GO), and upgraded with more and more BRT elements as demand requires.

I.e., if a Yonge extension is on the books, then BRT should be in place as soon as it can be justified (which is yesterday) instead of putting off exclusive bus lanes because the subway is coming ... some day.

ed d.

 

[nfitz]

The only two knocks I have about it are the over-built stations (which would be fine if they were upgradable to LRT without a complete rebuild, but they aren't)

Why aren't they? That's the justification of why they were built like that in the first place. I confess though I haven't used the transitway in Ottawa since the 1980s.

 

[W. K. Lis]

Why aren't they? That's the justification of why they were built like that in the first place. I confess though I haven't used the transitway in Ottawa since the 1980s.

Because other cities overbuilt their subway/metro stations:

From this link.

I remember the complaints when comparing the Bloor-Danforth subways stations with Montréal's metro stations. I heard how unitarian the Toronto stations were and boring, and how fresh and exciting the Montreal stations were.

 

[GraphicMatt]

When you're talking about one-time capital costs, sometimes it's justified to spend a bit more than you would to get a purely utilitarian station. It's the same reason you might spring for nicer street lights or benches or whatever when doing a street reconstruction. Aesthetics matter.

 

[gweed123]

Why aren't they? That's the justification of why they were built like that in the first place. I confess though I haven't used the transitway in Ottawa since the 1980s.

They would have been fine if they were using 2-3 car trainsets, but the entire LRT system is being designed to have 4-car trainsets at launch, and eventually accomodate 6-car trainsets. They were built to accommodate LRT, they just weren't built to accommodate that much of a heavy-duty LRT.

So, with that in mind, it's better to not overbuild the BRT stations at launch, because you never know what design specs of the LRT will be 20+ years from now. Might as well build a smaller station now, and then rebuild the station when it comes time for LRT, instead of guessing what the LRT may be like 20+ years from now.

 

[nfitz]

So, with that in mind, it's better to not overbuild the BRT stations at launch, because you never know what design specs of the LRT will be 20+ years from now. Might as well build a smaller station now, and then rebuild the station when it comes time for LRT, instead of guessing what the LRT may be like 20+ years from now.

Good point ... though I don't think anyone thought it would be almost 35 years after the Transitway opened before they started running LRT.

Though applying the same philosophy, we wouldn't be building the Eglinton line for future conversion to subway, or building subway anywhere near Sheppard.

 

[gweed123]

Good point ... though I don't think anyone thought it would be almost 35 years after the Transitway opened before they started running LRT.

Though applying the same philosophy, we wouldn't be building the Eglinton line for future conversion to subway, or building subway anywhere near Sheppard.

I think LRT to subway conversion is a bit different than BRT to LRT conversion though. With BRT to LRT, the stations are usually smaller to begin with, and usually not underground. Therefore, rebuilding a station is a lot easier. BRT also has the advantage of being rerouted onto a parallel route while the upgrade is being made. With the case of the Ottawa LRT upgrade, the buses will be run on Scott St while the upgrade to the Transitway ROW is taking place. This sort of parallel diversion can't happen with an LRT, at least not very easily (in most cases, it would be replaced with a bus route while the upgrade takes place).

But yes, I don't think anyone thought it would take this long for the BRT to LRT conversion to happen. In a lot of cases though (and I think this is the route a lot of 905 municipalities are taking) is that they're building a lot of BRT for relatively little money, and using it to grow ridership. In places where transit ridership is low to non-existant, building 2 BRT lines in a lot of cases is better than building 1 LRT line, even though they would end up costing the same. Blanket the area with BRT service, and then when ridership on certain routes grows to the point where LRT is justified, the upgrade can be made with only some disruption to the existing BRT service.

With your mention of Eglinton and Sheppard, you know that I do not favour LRT on Sheppard, nor do I think that a subway extension on Sheppard (short of a minor extension to Vic Park) should be anywhere close to the top of the priority list. On the contrary, I believe that using the model that I described above would be the best medium-term strategy for Sheppard. Put in dedicated BRT lanes now, and grow the ridership to the point where LRT or subway could actually be viable. For most of Sheppard, especially east of Agincourt, the ridership barely justifies BRT, let along LRT or subway. Starting off with BRT would be an inexpensive way to get reliable transit to that area, without breaking the bank. Use that extra money and spend it on areas that are in urgent need (like Eglinton, where the ridership to justify higher order transit already exists).

For Eglinton, I'd be more concerned with station expandability (ie going from 4 car to 6 car trainsets) than what technology is used. If the stations can't be expanded easily, then there's problem with the design. But from everything that I've read, station expandability won't be an issue.