|
|
|
- Thread starter rfid
- Start date
nfitz
Superstar
Uh - I'd assumed that it was pretty obvious it was a joke ...
Asterix
Active Member
Must be a Monday morning and my Sarcasm2000 joke-o-meter isn't up to full power yet.
MisterF
Senior Member
Interesting comparison but it doesn’t really hold up. La Defense is connected to the centre of Paris by a metro line and to other outlying districts by tramway and RER. La Defense Station is a major transfer hub and the terminus of metro Line 1. The T2 tramway is rapid transit in every sense of the term and mostly (but not fully) grade separated.
If Scarborough were planned like La Defense, the Danforth line would continue all the way to SCC and terminate there. The Sheppard line would have been built as LRT instead of subway, but it would have been true rapid transit instead of running in the street and stopping at red lights. And it would connect directly to SCC instead of bypassing it completely as is proposed. Even the Stouffville GO line would connect directly to SCC. Or better yet, they would have built SCC right on the rail line instead of two concessions east.
The way LRT is done at La Defense makes perfect sense. Transit City has some good points but the way it handles Scarborough isn't one of them.
Last edited:
CDL.TO
Moderator
My goodness! That tram line isn't in the median of a street nor directly underneath one! Clearly Paris will never develop European-style avenues!
Tewder
Senior Member
Yes, and most of them are beyond the périphérique, non?... which is to say not within the city.
MisterF
Senior Member
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.
Ed Drass
Active Member
416+905+subways
Anyone feel like locating and posting the report that Chong writes of:
http://www.thestar.com/opinion/letters/article/932394--good-bus-plan-gathering-dust
snip
An integral piece of the transit puzzle was solved by the Bus Rapid Transit Proposal, which was approved by the GTSB and later at GO Transit. It was a comprehensive plan linking Oakville to Pickering with “transition†pieces that would run as busways while subways were being built.
>>
-ed d
Oh, and foam alert: http://www.alanhopainting.com/gallery_page/2009_1.html
Anyone feel like locating and posting the report that Chong writes of:
http://www.thestar.com/opinion/letters/article/932394--good-bus-plan-gathering-dust
snip
An integral piece of the transit puzzle was solved by the Bus Rapid Transit Proposal, which was approved by the GTSB and later at GO Transit. It was a comprehensive plan linking Oakville to Pickering with “transition†pieces that would run as busways while subways were being built.
>>
-ed d
Oh, and foam alert: http://www.alanhopainting.com/gallery_page/2009_1.html
CDL.TO
Moderator
I believe he's simply referring to the GO Transit busway plan. The one that follows the 403 through Mississauga and the 407 through York region.
Ed Drass
Active Member
regional BRT network
I don't think so -- look at the snip: "a comprehensive plan linking Oakville to Pickering" -- so, not just the bits we know well. Chong has clout with Ford, IIRC, and I know him to be fairly clear in expressing himself. Except I can't find the report under the name Bus Rapid Transit Proposal .
What would a BRT build-up to future subways look like? It could mean BRT-type upgrades ahead of (and during) underground construction for the Sheppard corridor, the Yonge North corridor, etc.
Alas, there is another minus for 'temporary' BRT -- the fear that exclusive bus lanes would pre-empt or undermine the business case for subways (hello, York University!) instead of potentially bolstering the case for such.
Another bonus for pre-subway BRT is that exclusive lanes could protect bus riders from hellish traffic while construction is underway.
Now can we find some common ground on the general concept that potential subway corridors could be preceded by BRT, or would we get caught up in disagreeing over which specific routes deserve what? I know it's tricky, cuz we'd have to find a generally agreed niche for LRT too, such as those routes that can't justify subway for ages or the community won't support BRT.
ed d.
I don't think so -- look at the snip: "a comprehensive plan linking Oakville to Pickering" -- so, not just the bits we know well. Chong has clout with Ford, IIRC, and I know him to be fairly clear in expressing himself. Except I can't find the report under the name Bus Rapid Transit Proposal .
What would a BRT build-up to future subways look like? It could mean BRT-type upgrades ahead of (and during) underground construction for the Sheppard corridor, the Yonge North corridor, etc.
Alas, there is another minus for 'temporary' BRT -- the fear that exclusive bus lanes would pre-empt or undermine the business case for subways (hello, York University!) instead of potentially bolstering the case for such.
Another bonus for pre-subway BRT is that exclusive lanes could protect bus riders from hellish traffic while construction is underway.
Now can we find some common ground on the general concept that potential subway corridors could be preceded by BRT, or would we get caught up in disagreeing over which specific routes deserve what? I know it's tricky, cuz we'd have to find a generally agreed niche for LRT too, such as those routes that can't justify subway for ages or the community won't support BRT.
ed d.
CDL.TO
Moderator
The GO Busway (BRT) plan runs from Oakville to Pickering, exactly like he describes. It's a "comprehensive plan" (in the mind of someone like Chong) because it features multiple phases and branches.
Saying something like "Subways are expensive. When I was head of GO, we proposed a BRT which is much cheaper than a rail line. Toronto should build BRT." while having no understanding of the different contexts is pretty typical for a politician and, frankly, exactly what I would expect from Gordon Chong,
Look, Chong claims states there was a "Bus Rapid Transit Proposal, which was approved by ... GO Transit. It was a comprehensive plan linking Oakville to Pickering with “transition†pieces that would run as busways while subways were being built.". Why on earth would GO Transit be building subways? Building subways "linking Oakville to Pickering", none-the-less. That has NEVER been in their mandate.
Ed Drass
Active Member
I think the who would build is less interesting than ... whether to build. That's the discussion I am suggesting.
What about Metrolinx planning a major E-W rail link (oh, like GO ALRT) and setting up a limited-stop, uniquely branded BRT as precursor to this rail line?
Or BRT preceding subways, regardless of what agency will eventually run the subway? Is it smart, in general, is it needed? Or is a regular-branded "E" branch enough?
ed
What about Metrolinx planning a major E-W rail link (oh, like GO ALRT) and setting up a limited-stop, uniquely branded BRT as precursor to this rail line?
Or BRT preceding subways, regardless of what agency will eventually run the subway? Is it smart, in general, is it needed? Or is a regular-branded "E" branch enough?
ed
CDL.TO
Moderator
Whether it is a good idea is a very different question from whether such a plan exists, which was your original question which I was answering.
Basically, you seem to be asking if the Ottawa model is a good one.
Basically, you seem to be asking if the Ottawa model is a good one.
Having lived in both Ottawa and Toronto, I can say that the Ottawa BRT model is definitely a good one. 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), and the at-grade through downtown section. The first one is simple to fix: build smaller stations (something Ottawa seems to have done with more recent stations, see the Fallowfield Station redevelopment). The second one is also simple: the BRT will not be going through any urban areas with the density of Ottawa's downtown core.
Aside from that, the BRT model is definitely a good way of getting more transit infrastructure built for the same amount of money as building an LRT line. Building BRT also allows non-BRT routes to use the transitway for segments of their route, or to operate express routes along the corridor (something that can't be done with LRT unless the stations are 4-tracked, equipped with switches and everything). All Transitway stations in Ottawa are 4 lanes wide, to allow for a passing lane. And seeing as how a lot of this transitway is going to be built through hydro corridors, express will be a pretty important part of it. The ability for local transit services as well as GO to run on the same corridor I think is a major plus to the BRT model. And since the corridor will pass through several regional centres (where GO buses normally stop anyway), it will substantially increase reliability of the GO bus routes.
howl
Active Member
I think the bickering about what to build and where is destracting people from the real issue. Whether we have a robust subway system that links major nodes fed by buses or a less robust subway system and an LRT system that plays an intermediate role between buses and subway is not all that important. What is important is Toronto needs a vastly improved rapid transit system and it needs it now. The longer things get delayed the longer Toronto will stagnate.
JUST BUILD SOMETHING DAMMIT!!!
The only reason I support Transit City is because all the preliminary work is done and construction can start ASAP. Going to any other plan will put off completion for another five years at least.
JUST BUILD SOMETHING DAMMIT!!!
The only reason I support Transit City is because all the preliminary work is done and construction can start ASAP. Going to any other plan will put off completion for another five years at least.
Last edited: