TransitBart
Senior Member
How true.Toronto already does great at slow local transit. What we lack is rapid transit to get people across large distances fast.
How true.Toronto already does great at slow local transit. What we lack is rapid transit to get people across large distances fast.
EELRT - an LRT sold as rapid transit, (to be) built as a tram line. However, they will tell you it is rapid transit by calling it line 5, and putting the line and labelling every stops of it on the rail network map.Yes that is true but the LRT is sold as rapid transit. The problem is that with too many stops it won’t be. It needs to be. Toronto already does great at slow local transit. What we lack is rapid transit to get people across large distances fast.
What about rolling stock shortage emergencies?True, but the way that the TTC is going, it won't be long before that happens here too.
Yes that is true but the LRT is sold as rapid transit. The problem is that with too many stops it won’t be. It needs to be. Toronto already does great at slow local transit. What we lack is rapid transit to get people across large distances fast.
That’s all fine and good. I’m all for solid rail based transit. However, I would disagree that we could call this LRT rapid transit. I think the general population would consider subways and GO rail transit as rapid. Buses and streetcars are not considered rapid. I believe that rapid in most people’s mind is semi-express service to cross long distances. This is how the LRTs are sold. The politicians sell this as a rapid transit for Scarborough. This is why the subway proponents disparage LRT as a glorified streetcar service - because realistically that’s what Toronto is building. It’s a glorified version of St Clair ROW. St. Clair has good service but rapid it is not.
I’m not saying it’s not worth the investment but what I’m saying is that we should be realistic with the intent of this service - provide good and reliable local transit for Scarborough.
I would consider Ottawa BRT as rapid as the stops are far enough apart and it runs on a dedicated ROW and not in the middle of the street for the most part. The problem in Toronto is that the LRTs we are building will be more or less just like what Torontians see on Spadina, St. Clair and Queens Quay. They will he bogged down by traffic lights and will have the same operational problems as the other lines mentioned - that being frequent stops and the problem of stopping before a red light and then after for the stop.Is the busway in Ottawa not "rapid transit"? They sell it as such, and yet it uses nothing but lowly buses....
There are a lot of other cities around the world that have no issues using LRTs in very similar contexts to how Toronto is planning on using them and calling it rapid transit. And they've been selling the various LRT projects in Toronto as "rapid transit" not in comparison to what other modes are out there in a general sense, but how the lines will be better than what the residents currently are used to. And I think that's the important factor here. At any of the meetings for the Transit City lines, very, very seldom did people from the community state that they categorically wanted a "faster line" than what was being offered. What they wanted was a faster and more reliable method of getting around than what was and is being offered - and using this "brand" of LRT is one way of doing that.
Dan
I would consider Ottawa BRT as rapid as the stops are far enough apart and it runs on a dedicated ROW and not in the middle of the street for the most part. The problem in Toronto is that the LRTs we are building will be more or less just like what Torontians see on Spadina, St. Clair and Queens Quay. They will he bogged down by traffic lights and will have the same operational problems as the other lines mentioned - that being frequent stops and the problem of stopping before a red light and then after for the stop.
I attended the FWLRT sessions, most people there were seniors. They of course want closer stops because it would be convenient for them. However, we need to consider that most riders on that route are lower income folks and students. Most of whom have long trips across the top part of the city. FW is an interesting project because it was one of the few lines in Transit City that had fairly reasonable stop spacing for the most part. Part of that was due to the nature of the area being serviced which had big blocks between streets.
Most of it is wider than Line 2. Coxwell station lines up with Science Centre station. There are only four stops between Science Centre and Yonge on Line 5 compared with seven stops on Line 2. In the west, Mount Dennis lines up with High Park. There are eight stops on Line 5 between Yonge and Mount Dennis compared to ten on Line 2! That's five less stops!The Crosstown LRT will have station spacing similar to Line 2.
I would consider Ottawa BRT as rapid as the stops are far enough apart and it runs on a dedicated ROW and not in the middle of the street for the most part. The problem in Toronto is that the LRTs we are building will be more or less just like what Torontians see on Spadina, St. Clair and Queens Quay. They will he bogged down by traffic lights and will have the same operational problems as the other lines mentioned - that being frequent stops and the problem of stopping before a red light and then after for the stop.
I attended the FWLRT sessions, most people there were seniors. They of course want closer stops because it would be convenient for them.
The TTC is trying to remove the frequent stops for both streetcars and buses, if it wasn't for the NIMBYs and Councillors interfering with improving the outcome. We saw the NIMBY interference with both Spadina and St. Clair.
Where are you getting 400 metres from? 200 metres is more common.Are you sure about that? For years, 400m spacing or less ( at one point, a stop on 501 downtown was less than 100m apart! ) for stops on the surface network was common.
Where are you getting 400 metres from? 200 metres is more common.