[gweed123]

Everyone in Toronto should take note that that Viva got the money for these rapidways at the exact same time Toronto got its Transit City money. Toronto's lack of progress to this point is almost entirely political.

That's amazing to hear the rapidway is opening already. One of the great things about BRT (at least how Viva has done it) is that it can be opened as sections are completed, piecemeal. I drove down there the other day and indeed the streetscaping etc. looks great. I suppose they could have narrowed the street in the process but it's still such a major thoroughfare (heck, this stretch is adjacent to a major intersection with the 404) it would have been a real challenge. I knew the opening was getting close when I saw the construction people were down to raking the dirt and other minor landscaping but, still didn't know it was that close.

The idea all along (with Viva and with the Big Move, generally) is that people will get it when they can see something on the ground. Hopefully that'll happen here.

Oh, and, man I'll be happy when the construction is done. It was just nasty the other week when they were paving!

Yup, exactly. The ROW can be opened up in phases, starting with the most urgent locations that will provide the greatest increase in service speed and reliability. I would expect that the further 'down the phase list' we go, the less of an impact on overall travel time and efficiency the new segments are going to have. They'll be for continuity more than anything else.

The priority phasing approach is definitely the way to go with these types of projects. Even if you can only get a couple segments open in the 1st go-round, it gives people a taste of how well they can operate, and then they start asking for more. Given VIVA's medium to long term expansion plans, having this section open ASAP, and having an overall positive reaction about it, will only serve to increase the likelihood of future expansions gaining more public support and being green lit.

 

[gweed123]

I totally agree that widening the road to maintain 6 car lanes rather than saving boatloads of money does show their true priority. It also undermines the potential of the BRT by allowing more car trips and making the transit stops further from the edge of the road.

However, it's quite a stretch to say this is not a transit project or that the whole thing is pointless. It's a transit project where they spend incredibly large amounts of money to placate car drivers.

Did they really have to do that much expropriation though? Given the extensive redevelopment along the corridor, they probably had an enlargement of the Highway 7 ROW as a condition of Site Plan approval. I'd imagine that there were very limited areas where they had to expropriate to make room for the BRT ROW.

Yes, having 6 lanes + a ROW is more expensive than 4 lanes + a ROW, but expropriations were probably pretty minimal. Given the fact that this is still a major crosstown corridor, 6 lanes is probably a better long-term bet.

 

[doady]

Yea I don't think this is a big deal ... cuts on other routes though ...

The key will be ridership in the next 5 years.

Ridership (and growth) on purple and viva are actually very disappointing to date !

With transitway and increased bus speeds, if they keep the same amount of buses they use now, Purple and Pink would have higher frequency. Instead, they will take buses away to save money. It's not a huge deal or anything, but 16 minute frequency will hardly be impressive for a BRT service, especially considering there's this transitway with extravagent stations that they probably spent hundreds of millions dollars to build and that's taking up 1/4 of the road space.

Will taxpayers in the 905 continue to support the building of these transitways when they see them hardly being used? 15 minute frequency is already mediocre for this type of service, but if they can't manage even that crappy frequency, so I don't see why they even bothered to build this transitway. VIVA Purple, with it's transitway and stations that is costing hundreds of millions to build, will have a lower frequency than most TTC buses; 1 Dundas, 3 Bloor, 19 Hurontario, 26 Burnhamthorpe in Mississauga; and probably lower frequency than a bunch of Brampton routes too.

I just think these rapidways are a waste of money. And VIVA was a waste of money to begin with: poorly thought out and its introduction actually coincides with the slowing down of ridership growth in York Region. They built a transitway along Enterprise Dr and now they are thinking of taking VIVA buses off Enterprise??? Stop giving money to these idiots, please.

 

[cplchanb]

well to play devils advocate, a bad decision is still a decision. at least they built something that in the long term may serve them purpose when the city grows/ look at toronto...they failed to decide on anything over the last 40 years and now they are trying to catch up but failing miserably because of high costs, empty coffers and a screwed up government body who cant stick to their decisions...
as for the effectiveness for the transitways, only time will tell but it does lay the groundwork for an efficient LRT ROW should they come to that in the future. I guess the major flaw is the management of YRT/VIVA in general

 

[JayBeeGooner]

Just to stir the pot that is exactly why Toronto has been stuck in the 60s, too much partisan games and politics. At least the viva lanes are actually progressing unlike the spiraling remnants of Transit city. Take note to that had it not been for the budget cut by Ontario on transit a few years back virtually the whole vivanext program wouldve been finished in 2015

Your claim that Toronto is 'stuck in the 60's' makes no sense, the 60's were inarguably the greatest decade for Rapid Transit expansion in Toronto. I kind of wish Toronto still had thats 60's mentality. Until Ford came along and expended much of his political trying to derail Transit City (with help from the Province), Transit City was well on its way.

Politics at the provincial, and federal have done more to de-rail expansion in Toronto, but not at the local level, pre Ford.

 

[ShonTron]

With transitway and increased bus speeds, if they keep the same amount of buses they use now, Purple and Pink would have higher frequency. Instead, they will take buses away to save money. It's not a huge deal or anything, but 16 minute frequency will hardly be impressive for a BRT service, especially considering there's this transitway with extravagent stations that they probably spent hundreds of millions dollars to build and that's taking up 1/4 of the road space.

Will taxpayers in the 905 continue to support the building of these transitways when they see them hardly being used? 15 minute frequency is already mediocre for this type of service, but if they can't manage even that crappy frequency, so I don't see why they even bothered to build this transitway. VIVA Purple, with it's transitway and stations that is costing hundreds of millions to build, will have a lower frequency than most TTC buses; 1 Dundas, 3 Bloor, 19 Hurontario, 26 Burnhamthorpe in Mississauga; and probably lower frequency than a bunch of Brampton routes too.

I just think these rapidways are a waste of money. And VIVA was a waste of money to begin with: poorly thought out and its introduction actually coincides with the slowing down of ridership growth in York Region. They built a transitway along Enterprise Dr and now they are thinking of taking VIVA buses off Enterprise??? Stop giving money to these idiots, please.

Both VIVA and Zum were funded with large amounts of federal and provincial money to cover all the capital expenses: road works/shelters, fancy new buses. For example, the Zum buses were diesel-electric hybrids (even though the make less sense for semi-express operation) to qualify for the Federal funds. The Rapidways are funded with Provincial and Federal money as well, so of course York Region will spend it.

But yeah, I can think of 15 BT routes that as of July 2013 will have better peak headways than Viva Purple's 16 minute service: 501/A, 502, 511, 1/A, 3, 4/A, 5/A, 7/A, 11, 14, 15/A, 18/A, 23/A, 29, 51/A. Of those, 4 (501/A, 511, 7/A, 18/A) will have better service than the combined Purple/Pink service that will be using the Rapidway in July.

 

[Adjei]

I live in the area, there are a lot of positives in the new transitways (I refuse to call them rapidways). The way they did the streetscape plantings is very urban, instead of the usual suburban grass boulevards. That said, wider sidewalks would have made the area much nicer to walk on. You can do a pedestrian-oriented wide boulevard. Streets like Michigan Avenue, Gran Via, and Champs Elysees show that. They tend to have much wider sidewalks, shorter blocks and better building design. Richmond Hill is still approving high rise buildings with parking in front along this stretch, so it looks like they still don't really get it. And the hydro poles stand out so much more now than they used to. All that trouble to completely rebuild the street, it's just such a waste that they didn't bury the power lines. It's like getting plastic surgery but leaving the big hairy mole.

Apparently we can't afford to bury our hydro lines, I mean other cities and regions are able to do it but here same story with most things, we can't afford things so we have to live with the ugly blight.

 

[JayBeeGooner]

I'm glad my street still has all those ugly poles and wire above ground. It make my street so much better. Buryng hydro in urban areas is such a waste of money.

 

[cplchanb]

Your claim that Toronto is 'stuck in the 60's' makes no sense, the 60's were inarguably the greatest decade for Rapid Transit expansion in Toronto. I kind of wish Toronto still had thats 60's mentality. Until Ford came along and expended much of his political trying to derail Transit City (with help from the Province), Transit City was well on its way.

Politics at the provincial, and federal have done more to de-rail expansion in Toronto, but not at the local level, pre Ford.

I guess to clear things up my argument is not about the building programs in the 60s but rather the overall state of the system is of the 60s era in terms of service levels. regardless of the 60s 70s or 80s, the fact is the rapid transit network or the lack thereof in Toronto is damaging the city financially as we try to catch up and also from a tourist perspective too because its just disjointed in many areas ie no rapid transit to/from the airport until now

 

[Adjei]

I'm glad my street still has all those ugly poles and wire above ground. It make my street so much better. Buryng hydro in urban areas is such a waste of money.

This must be sarcasm..I mean I wonder why so many cities around the world bury their wires in urban areas..

 

[JayBeeGooner]

This must be sarcasm..I mean I wonder why so many cities around the world bury their wires in urban areas..

York Region is a sprawling suburb. Urban, it is not. There's so much space in York, burying wires is a waste of money.

Here is a Tokyo street:

https://maps.google.com/maps?q=Toky...noid=KY_eg1H3K0yuKnj7L2gltA&cbp=12,51.96,,0,0

 

[reaperexpress]

Did they really have to do that much expropriation though? Given the extensive redevelopment along the corridor, they probably had an enlargement of the Highway 7 ROW as a condition of Site Plan approval. I'd imagine that there were very limited areas where they had to expropriate to make room for the BRT ROW.

Yes, having 6 lanes + a ROW is more expensive than 4 lanes + a ROW, but expropriations were probably pretty minimal. Given the fact that this is still a major crosstown corridor, 6 lanes is probably a better long-term bet.

No they did not have to do much expropriation. However, if they had gone with 4 car lanes, they wouldn't have needed to widen the travelled roadway by much, if at all. The street was already effectively 9 lanes wide, since they had nearly continuous left and right turn lanes. The costs of widening the pavement includes things such as widening embankments, and relocating utilities.

As for whether they needed 6 lanes due to long-term needs, it really depends on what they plan the long term to entail. Highway 7 will be gridlocked whether there are 4 lanes or 6. I'd rather that there be 4 lanes of stopped cars because the remainder of those people would be on the bus, providing demand to maintain higher frequencies. If they never take a leap and totally commit to transit, we'll never get out of the declining service feedback loop we're in now (reduced ridership, reduced frequency, repeat).

 

[Rainforest]

York Region is a sprawling suburb. Urban, it is not.

For the most part, but not everywhere. Sections of Yonge have very urban look.

 

[doady]

York Region is a sprawling suburb. Urban, it is not. There's so much space in York, burying wires is a waste of money.

Here is a Tokyo street:

https://maps.google.com/maps?q=Toky...noid=KY_eg1H3K0yuKnj7L2gltA&cbp=12,51.96,,0,0

A word "urban area" refers to any built up area, including the suburbs in York Region. By definition, suburbs are a mix of urban and rural characteristics, hence sub+urban. Therefore, any suburban place is by definition urban, otherwise it wouldn't have the world "urban" in it. Urban is not absolute, it's relative. That's why the term suburban even exists. It would be correct to describe York Region as being less urban than Tokyo, but to say York Region is completely not urban is obviously wrong.

Btw, Toronto is less urban than Tokyo too.

 

[gweed123]

No they did not have to do much expropriation. However, if they had gone with 4 car lanes, they wouldn't have needed to widen the travelled roadway by much, if at all. The street was already effectively 9 lanes wide, since they had nearly continuous left and right turn lanes. The costs of widening the pavement includes things such as widening embankments, and relocating utilities.

As for whether they needed 6 lanes due to long-term needs, it really depends on what they plan the long term to entail. Highway 7 will be gridlocked whether there are 4 lanes or 6. I'd rather that there be 4 lanes of stopped cars because the remainder of those people would be on the bus, providing demand to maintain higher frequencies. If they never take a leap and totally commit to transit, we'll never get out of the declining service feedback loop we're in now (reduced ridership, reduced frequency, repeat).

They would have likely needed to redo the sewers (or at least the location of the surface connections) regardless of if it was 4 lanes or 6 lanes, because the ROW requires it's own drainage, because it's separated from the main roadway by a curb. That would have meant a pretty substantial rip-up of the roadway anyway.

I definitely see where you're coming from, I'm just saying the added cost of putting in the extra lane in each direction was probably pretty minuscule in the grand scheme of things, especially when you factor in that most of what was required with the widening would have happened anyway when they put the ROW in (reconfiguration of intersections, moving of manholes, etc). The % of the total project cost that can be directly attributed to the extra lane in each direction is probably very low.