I would say: Yes! If successful enough, in time, it may pave the way to subway. Some may say it's a waste of money, and that funds should be allocated better (ie saving money for a subway, or fixing up existing infrastructure), just a band-aid. What does everyone else think?

TTC outlines plans for dedicated bus lanes
Cheaper to build than subways
Miller says ideas are achievable
KEVIN MCGRAN
TRANSPORTATION REPORTER

The TTC unveiled a groundbreaking plan yesterday that takes the emphasis off subways and would put buses and streetcars in their own lanes in outlying areas of the city within five years.

Mayor David Miller called the study both "achievable and realistic," and TTC commissioners ordered staff to return with specific costs for the streets identified for "higher order" transit.

"This plan gives people the ability to get around this city without having to use a car," said Miller. "What this plan does in a frugal way is give us a chance to enhance our transit network."

The study, called "Building A Transit City," didn't come with a price tag, but it was believed the 16 projects recommended would cost less than $1 billion, comparatively cheap to the cost of building a subway to York University, estimated at $1.5 billion. Ten of the projects had been costed previously in the city's official plan, estimated at $500 million.

"It's the right plan," said Miller. "We can actually deliver a rapid transit network that every Torontonian can access. Compared to the cost of building subways, it's a frugal cost."

Some of the work is already under way, including plans to build busways to York University from Downsview subway station and up Yonge St. from Finch station to connect with York Region at Steeles Ave. And the city awaits word next month from the province to start building streetcar-only lanes down the centre of St. Clair Ave. W.

The study — co-written by TTC and city staff — also envisions "higher order" transit projects rolling out between now and 2008 on Eglinton Ave., Lawrence Ave., Sheppard Ave., Kingston Rd., King St., Queen St., Dundas Ave. W., Bremner Blvd., Don Mills Rd., Lake Shore Blvd. and Jane St.

The study also calls for developing waterfront streetcar lines, investigating use of hydro corridors for rapid transit, and deciding the future of the dilapidated, but popular, Scarborough Rapid Transit.

The York University subway and the completion of the Sheppard subway remain TTC longer-term priorities, but this network of "higher order" transit — which could be buses or streetcars or light rail — represents a shift away from a bus network feeding subways to a network feeding high-density, mixed-use neighbourhoods.

"There is a shift in this city," said Rick Ducharme, chief general manager of the TTC. "We're looking at avenues and see that the avenues are properly served by transit. We're trying to shift to dedicated rights of way, shift roads to transit."

Ducharme said he presented the proposal to get transit on the city's agenda. "What I need is a plan in my budget that we can move on, otherwise we won't move anywhere," he said.

Most of the outlying roads identified are at least 36 metres wide, meaning they can support dedicated transit lanes down the centre while keeping at least four lanes for cars.

Some downtown roads, like King and Queen, are much narrower and would prove a difficult sell politically to have car restrictions.

While the study didn't define "higher order" transit, some TTC officials want to start building light rail.

Staff will return with feasibility studies comparing the cost and efficiency of various transit modes on each of the roads, including buses, streetcars and light rail.

"The answer is not subways, it has to be some kind of rapid transit in dedicated rights of way," said TTC vice-chair Joe Mihevc.

"This is the pattern that is emerging globally. We're looking at something that's not going to cost in the billions of dollars but in the hundreds of millions of dollars. It's an intermediate strategy called `rights of way.'"

The study showed the TTC is losing ground to the car in terms of market share because cars are more convenient. It's not known whether the TTC has the money for any of this. It meets Monday to discuss ways to slash about $150 million from this year's capital budget because the city simply can't afford it. Miller was hopeful that this year's budget could be met and the future properly planned for.

"This year's TTC budget is tough, but we still have to plan for the future," said Miller. "We're working with the federal and provincial governments. Rapid transit doesn't exist in this city for many commuters. We have to fix that."

Each proposal would require one to two years of environmental study and two to three years to construct.

They'd cost between $30 million and $90 million each, depending on length.
*
*
*
Rapid-transit lanes core of TTC plan
Proposal offers faster service at a fraction of cost of expanding subway, officials say
By*JEFF GRAY

UPDATED AT 1:01 PM EST
Thursday, Jan 13, 2005

The Toronto Transit Commission unveiled an ambitious proposal to crisscross the city over the next decade with Spadina-style dedicated lanes for buses or streetcars, in the hopes of delivering rapid transit at a fraction of the cost of expanding the subway system.

The plans include a long list of streets on which the TTC wants to set off its vehicles from traffic in order to make public transit more efficient and attractive -- the very move that has created such controversy along St. Clair Avenue West.

But the idea of offering faster service without having to build billion-dollar subway lines will likely appeal to senior levels of government, TTC vice-chairman Joe Mihevc says.

"My bet is . . . we're looking at something that is doable," Mr. Mihevc said yesterday, adding that a network of rapid-transit lines would cost hundreds of millions of dollars instead of billions.

Mayor David Miller, who is a member of the commission, praised the proposals as a way to give more Torontonians a real alternative to their cars.

Drawn up with the city's planning department to link improved public transit to parts of Toronto expected to grow, the plans are still in the very early stages, with no firm costs attached. The TTC approved the ideas in principle yesterday.

In a presentation to the commission, Mitch Stambler, manager of services planning, listed streets on which the TTC hoped to put rapid-transit lanes one day.

They include Don Mills Road, Pape Avenue, McCowan Road, Sheppard Avenue, Lawrence Avenue, Eglinton Avenue, Dundas Street West, Queen Street, King Street and Lake Shore Boulevard.

These plans come on top of projects already in the works, such as the bus lanes on Keele Street to York University, bus lanes up Yonge Street from Finch station to Steeles Avenue, and the St. Clair streetcar project. The plans also call for looking at dedicated bus lanes or light-rail lines in hydro corridors that cut across suburban areas.

Each line could cost $30-million to $90-million. Streetcars or light rail would cost more. Each line would require an environmental assessment that would take a year or two. Construction would take another two or three years, the TTC says.

But that compares favourably to the Sheppard subway line, which, at 5.3-kilometres, cost $994-million and took eight years to build.

The proposal includes a timetable, which assumes that the TTC finds the money, for many of the projects, calling for environmental studies and construction to begin over the next four years.

Commissioner David Shiner called the plans unrealistic, given the TTC's funding constraints. The city is asking the commission to slash more than $100-million from its capital budget this year, he said.

Most of those busways will pay for themselves in well under a decade through reduced employment costs (less vehicles required, thus less drivers).

None of those routes have high enough volume today to make a subway worth while. Most have less than Sheppard did (per km if you include adjacent routes).

This is a smart move. For every 6km of subway built (once a decade hopefully) we should be building 60km of rapid transit to go along with it. Rapid feeders....

Most of those busways will pay for themselves in well under a decade through reduced employment costs (less vehicles required, thus less drivers).

None of those routes have high enough volume today to make a subway worth while. Most have less than Sheppard did (per km if you include adjacent routes).

This is a smart move. For every 6km of subway built (once a decade hopefully) we should be building 60km of rapid transit to go along with it. Rapid feeders....
But mmmm... Doesn't Eglinton have far too much traffic jams to get just a BUS LANE? I mean, sometimes I took more than 10 minutes to go to Avenue Road from Eglinton Station by bus, and that's just a couple of blocks!

But mmmm... Doesn't Eglinton have far too much traffic jams to get just a BUS LANE? I mean, sometimes I took more than 10 minutes to go to Avenue Road from Eglinton Station by bus, and that's just a couple of blocks!

Eglinton Ave west of Keele has enough space, not only for bus only lanes, but even a fully grade separated busway. The TTC might be considering this because it would connect to Mississauga's busway, which ends at Eglinton and Renforth. East of Keele... probably should be a subway. I agree with you, I've been though there many times, and don't see how there is anough space for dedicated lanes for buses. I hope the TTC didn't abandon the Eglinton subway completely.

It's a band-aid solution. Ottawa went the bus transitway route to alleviate traffic, and it did somewhat. Now with a mature transitway system, they are looking at converting it to subway/LRT which would involve additional cost. I say, bite the bullet, and build subway NOW. In the long run it would be cheaper. I wonder whether it would be any cheaper to build an above ground system like the Skytrain in Vancouver - the support pylons could along the centre of the avenues and have above the street stations. This would take less room, affect street traffic much less, and be considerably faster and convenient compared to a busway or dedicated streetcar lane.

This would work well along Eglinton or Lawrence... but Any plans to build above-ground systems on Queen and King are seriously misguided. Back to the Ottawa example, with so many busway busses converging downtown, the streets get completely backed up. This is a problem recognized by OC Transpo and the City, thus the move towards an LRT or Subway.

^ Same in Curitiba, over here in Brazil.

Curitiba used to have a gorgeous and ultra efficient busway system (it was even a model for Bogota and some Korean cities), but in the last years the traffic system has grown and the guys who live there are saying that now the streets are all traffic jammed and I've been there a couple of times and I can tell you that it's true.

I think subways will always be more efficient, even though it's freakingly expensive.

IMO subways are easier to deal with (in Buenos Aires I never had the courage of taking a bus, in Toronto I only took 61N everyday cuz they told me to ehhe) for tourists. Also it's faster and doesn't pollute so much.

Canada is rich and can afford that, I'm sure! :)

Let me just say, if we continue invest in the poorly designed buses the TTC is currently buying, bus routes will never work. I am 5' 11"-6' tall, I can't fit into ANY of the back rows on the new wheelchair access buses.

These types of problems will not encourage people to take the bus, if they have to sit with their knees painfully pressed into the isle.

Invest in some quality design (in terms of comfort), and I think busways are a great alternative to subways for as long as the government continues to ignore transit funding.

^ I agree. If you're gonna do busways, the buses are going to have to come up to snuff. Seriously, though, I dislike buses. I don't like the idea of bus 'dedicated anything.' There's serious problems, and if they are not at grade I still don't see who is going to stop the drivers from slipping in and out. If they are at grade, it becomes seriously questionable -- why not build a LRT instead and save $$$ on maintenance?

Overall, this is pretty disappointing. I'm all for more LRT -- we need more. Busways in a few places are not a horrible idea. But this seems to me like we are not going to see more of a subway for a loooooooong time. Not cool. Potentially good news would be the buying of new trams, because they'd be needed for more LRT. Hmmmmmmm.

I'm sure a lot of the blame lies on the Feds and the Province. This will get approved a lot easier.

Streetcars strung together and 'next generation' streetcars' on the Right Friggun There, aleady paid for railway, hydro, and highway rights of way, just like those screwball Euroepans would do!

The plans also call for looking at dedicated bus lanes or light-rail lines in hydro corridors that cut across suburban areas.

Each line could cost $30-million to $90-million. Streetcars or light rail would cost more. Each line would require an environmental assessment that would take a year or two. Construction would take another two or three years, the TTC says.

But that compares favourably to the Sheppard subway line, which, at 5.3-kilometres, cost $994-million and took eight years to build. - Globe and Mail

Hey- on Eglinton, simply take the Scarboroguh LRT and takeit esatbound! You only have to go underground between Yonge to Eglinton West! Then above ground again!

I'm anti-busways because my fear is politicians will simply use them as an excuse to claim that they've done something for public transit - and will leave it at that.

It's complacency on the highest order.

Are Be, that's a good idea, but I don't think they have enough trains as it is, and they'd need to get more than two trains looped up too. I think they'd need to upgrade the technology on the RT before that could happen. I think the RT should curve upwards to Malvern via Centennial College too.

Are they going to add the rapid lines to their tranport map? It doesn't make any sense to me that the Spadina LRT, for example, isn't on the map.

[QUOTE=deltaomicron]It's a band-aid solution. Ottawa went the bus transitway route to alleviate traffic, and it did somewhat. Now with a mature transitway system, they are looking at converting it to subway/LRT which would involve additional cost. I say, bite the bullet, and build subway NOW. In the long run it would be cheaper. QUOTE]

Agree.
1. Sheppard subway would never be worth without extension east to Scarborough City Centre and west to revitalize Downsview - existing line does not serve many. Since we cannot abandon this line let's make it work - somehow invest and build subway - or at least NOT to build its ugly substitute along Sheppard - just for few years (hope) - spending much more money.

2. Bus routes are not as recognizable on the transit map - people from other areas tend to use cars to places where there is no subway.

3. In populated areas right-a-way bus lines are unrealistic - the whole idea of underground transportation is to keep roads free of heavy trasnportation.

Busways suck! I lived in Ottawa most of my life, and all the transitway ever did was slow donw the development of our subway system. They are now building it again but with mixed LRT and Subway (under downtown) via a transit tunnel. And yes its true, the busway in Ottawa was built in a huge trench all through the city so it could be converted to subway.

BUSWAY = SHITWAY! !
TTC LRT ON THE RFT (RIGHT FRIGGUN THERE) GO TRACKS!!! -
TOO SCREWBALL EUROPEAN !!!

Jan. 14, 2005. 01:00 AM
EDITORIAL: A great Toronto needs bold vision


Great cities are nothing more than the fulfillment of dreams.

Imagine London without Westminster, St. Paul's, the British museum, Hyde Park, Pall Mall and the 408 km of tracks that make up the Tube.

Imagine Paris without the Eiffel Tower, Notre Dame, the Louvre, the Champs Élysées or the 211-km Metro with its 14 lines and 380 stations.

Toronto was once a dreamers' city, too.

But today it is a bean counter's refuge of greatly diminished dreams. Instead of imagining the possibilities for our city, we now look for reasons not to think big. Our waterfront remains an eyesore. Accountants wrangle over Union Station. The promise for Downsview is still unfulfilled.

And now it is the TTC. On Wednesday, TTC officials told us to forget the dreams of extending subway lines that were built when Toronto was far less prosperous than it is today. Why is it that Canada's largest city can no longer do what it could back in 1951?

No one should blame TTC Chief General Manager Rick Ducharme for shattering this long-held dream. His job is to work with what he is given by politicians who no longer have grand and bold visions. As Ducharme puts it, "What I need is a plan in my budget that we can move on, otherwise we won't move anywhere."

So he is proposing to create dedicated bus and streetcar lanes on our already overcrowded thoroughfares.

But his plan also calls for "higher-order" transit, or some kind of rapid transit — possibly light-rail — along dedicated rights of way.

Clearly, this more modest plan to keep this city moving is better than a glorious dream that no one is prepared to fulfill. And many people argue it is better to focus money and effort on realistic plans that ensure the city runs right, rather than on "big visions" that never come to fruition.

However, what is most disturbing about this watered-down transit plan is that the best part of it is, itself, little more than a glimmer in a city planner's eye. The TTC cannot say when, or if, it will have the money to proceed with the higher-order transit. In effect, all it has done is replace one dream with a much more modest one that may or may not become reality.

With such diminished dreams, Toronto cannot even cling to the hope of one day counting itself among the truly great cities of the world.

More disappointing is that with the loss of big-picture vision, politicians seem unwilling to take any bold actions. So overwhelmed do they seem to be by the problems and challenges confronting all big urban centres — the homelessness, congestion and pollution, decaying infrastructure, urban sprawl — that they focus on band-aids instead of solutions.

While it is wrong to underestimate the full magnitude of many of these problems, politicians should not lose sight of the way in which some of the great thinkers of the world saw the challenges.

Anatole France, the 1921 Nobel Prize winner in literature, summed it up: "To accomplish great things, we must dream as well as act."

› Save 50%! Subscribe Now!
FAQs| Site Map| Privacy Policy| Webmaster| Subscribe| My Subscription
Home| GTA| Business| Waymoresports| A&E| Life
Legal Notice: Copyright Toronto Star Newspapers Limited. All rights reserved. Distribution, transmission or republication of any material from www.thestar.com is strictly prohibited without the prior written permission of Toronto Star Newspapers Limited. For information please contact us using our webmaster form. www.thestar.com online since 1996.

Jan. 14, 2005. 01:00 AM...
Cash-poor Toronto in transit limbo

ROYSON JAMES

Traffic counts show Toronto is losing the battle to stave off gridlock. But city roads are not congested enough to drive people out of their cars. And the problem isn't acute enough to push city hall to impose car-stifling measures or spend additional massive amounts of money on transit.

The result is a transportation purgatory where the commuting future is uncertain and confusing.

Case in point is this week's TTC meeting. Minutes after transit commissioners heard that city officials want TTC staff to cut nearly $200 million from this year's maintenance budget — an impossible feat, without gutting the system — the commissioners embraced a staff report, "Building a Transit City," that calls on Toronto to spend up to $1 billion on dedicated bus and streetcar lanes.

This new strategy is attractive because it is much cheaper than building subways. Still, the city says it can't afford to maintain what it has, much less expand.

"This year's TTC budget is tough, but we still have to plan for the future," says Mayor David Miller. "You have to maintain the system. We also have to grow."

How to do both? He doesn't know. His only answer so far has been to beg for more money from Queen's Park and Ottawa.

Further clouding the picture is this: The federal and provincial governments have joined the city in announcing billions of dollars for transit. So, why is the transit system perennially short of cash, citizens ask?

And there is this: Toronto has for years pursued a policy of favouring transit over roads, with mixed results. Compared to a decade ago, there are now more cars on the road, each carrying fewer people.

Transit is losing its share of commuters as workers opt for more convenient travel. In 1986, a third of rush-hour travellers used transit. By 2001, the number had dropped to one in four.

A majority of car commuters tell the TTC, via surveys, they would shift to transit if service improved, though one in five say "nothing" would get them out of the car. Transit is either too slow (27 per cent), has poor connections (19 per cent), infrequent service (16 per cent) or it's too expensive (11 per cent) and the car is faster (25 per cent).

Throw it all together and you have a mess.

On Monday, the TTC is to respond to the request to cut its budget. They'll tell the city that they can't, that city council should have been setting aside money to pay its transit costs because council set and approved the price tag long ago.

"It's big. It's real. And it's headed our way," screamed transit ads a few years back as the TTC pleaded with governments to finance a 10-year building program. The campaign warned that a wave of transit costs would wash over the city, starting in 2005 and lasting past 2010. And that the $3.8 billion needed would only pay to maintain the system, not build new subways or rapid transit lines.

Well, "it's big, it's real, and it's here," said TTC Chief General Manager Rick Ducharme yesterday. The timing, magnitude and impact were all predicted in reports. City council debated and approved the documents and the funding plan.

City finance staff say city council knew that even as it approved the transit budget — essentially, money to buy buses, streetcars and subway cars and fix tracks and switches and other maintenance — the city had no money and was looking to Ottawa and Queen's Park for help.

Yes, both governments have announced gas tax money and other funds, but it is only now starting to flow, and even when it fully kicks in it won't be enough to cover maintenance.

Much of the money received for transit this year and last had to be used just to balance the city's overall budget.

To cover the TTC's $444 million transit capital costs this year, Toronto would have to borrow $295 million. That's way too much, treasurer Joe Pennachetti says. The TTC should report on the impact of cutting the debt to $200 million. And it should also consider a further $50 million chop, which would leave the city's debt for TTC projects at $150 million.

Pennachetti said such a level, plus another $150 million in debt for other city services, pushes the city's debt load "in excess of $300 million in 2005, which is unsustainable."

So Ducharme is in a fix.

Fifteen years ago the TTC carried 465 million passengers. Last year it carried only 418 million. There are hundreds fewer buses on the road. Service is less frequent and slower as buses labour in traffic.

Ducharme wants to embark on a less-costly transit-building program that would involve buses and streetcars running down the middle of the road, on reserved lanes. Though less costly than subways, this costs more money than the city has. And it is controversial because it may inconvenience the car.

"None of this is new," says Ducharme. "(Council) has to look at priority in the city. Are we going to do the things listed in 2005 or not. Tell me now. And we can't debate this each year."

He says he can't cut the maintenance budget without chopping service. He can't delay bus purchases and other maintenance and spread out the costs to future years because projections show costs for those years are higher than 2005.

The capital budget for next year is $634 million; it's $711 million in 2007 and $608 million in 2008. In other words, the fiscal outlook gets worse so you can't shift costs to the future, looking for relief.

Welcome to David Miller's nightmare, playing out on the streets near you.

Royson James usually appears Monday, Wednesday and Friday. Email: rjames@thestar.ca

Additional articles by Royson James

› Save 50%! Subscribe Now!
FAQs| Site Map| Privacy Policy| Webmaster| Subscribe| My Subscription
Home| GTA| Business| Waymoresports| A&E| Life
Legal Notice: Copyright Toronto Star Newspapers Limited. All rights reserved. Distribution, transmission or republication of any material from www.thestar.com is strictly prohibited without the prior written permission of Toronto Star Newspapers Limited. For information please contact us using our webmaster form. www.thestar.com online since 1996.

Salvius: I think Spadina LRT and the Waterfront LRT should both be on the maps (I remember when the Ride Guide had the Waterfront LRT in orange)

WZ1: No, the transitway isn't in a trench for most of it. Only from Bayview to Lincoln Fields, and a bit around Lees, and Train to St. Laurent are not on street level. It'd cost lots to build a subway. Most of the expanded LRT (except for downtown) will be above ground anyway.

How does this Royson James blame all of the TTC's troubles on David Miller? The provincial Tories are the real reason for the TTC troubles, not David Miller. The Toronto Star is now right-wing newspaper, just like the Toronto Sun, constantly bashing David Miller. David Miller is the reason we are getting gas tax money, so Royson James should shut the hell up.

David Miller had made some lofty promises -- well, he didn't actually promise them, but hinted that he would be capable of achieving certain goals. To date, those goals have not yet been achieved (hardly to his fault, he hasn't been there that long).

I'm fairly confident that he will start to show significant 'actual' progress towards the end of this year -- but I think most folks expected Toronto's issues to disappear overnight.

Gas tax issue is all but sewn up but bigger payments need to show up before we believe them.

Waterfront isn't looking great.

2005 budget doesn't look very good at this point.

TTC isn't looking so great, although I would actually encourage a $3 cash fare, $2 token, and reduced metropass price and I say that as someone who nearly always pays cash.

New Deal is still in progress, bug if good headway can be made here I imagine much of the above will solve itself although I strongly suspect that one of Mr. Tory's bigger campaign promises will be to finish off what McGuinty started.

You expect Mr. Tory finish what McGuinty started? The same guy that was bitching about how unfair the distribution of the provincial gas tax money was? Someone who complains about cities getting too much money for public transit is not going to get my vote. He'll probably follow in Mike Harris' footsteps and eliminate public transit funding, though I don't think he would also go on a crusade against women (teachers, nurses, single mothers on welfare).

You expect Mr. Tory...

I expect he will have some surprising campaign promises, more akin to the conservatives of old rather than the ones recently experienced. Opposition member are there to oppose. Irregardless of whether they think the legislation is good or not, they're supposed to bring up the opposing opinion. NDP also brought up issues with the way the gas tax was being setup.

I'd still say that David Miller is the exact type of person that Toronto needs most right now. He's shown that he is fighting, but like his predecessors, his hands are tied, but he's finally managed to convince McGuinty to give the city what it genuinely needs: some power and autonomy.

Tory is scary shit.

As for busways, no. ROW streetcars, LRTs, yeah, sure, I'll support that, but no fancy bus schtuff, period. Buses suck even if you doll them up. GO Highway buses are not that bad, comfort wise (just barely, at 2m tall here), but they still don't move. TTC buses are uncomfortable and don't move either.

Are they going to add the rapid lines to their tranport map? It doesn't make any sense to me that the Spadina LRT, for example, isn't on the map.

The spadina streetcar isn't rapid so why should it be on the map? I can bike faster than that damn thing. And thats without trying.

I have always been against busways and have no intention of chaning my mind on them. Some one has already called them a band aid solution in this thread and another talked about how buses are already to small to deal with above average sized people. I am not tall but I am stocky and generally perfer the space of a subway car to that of a bus

The mire fact that many transit systems are beginning to replace busways around the world just goes to show that it is a poor solution.

^ they're not completely useless and can work in a few, if limited, situations. Trust me, many a York students are dying to see a busway up to the school.

^I don't know man, I think they are dying to see a subway to York U but are willing to settle for a busway because it is simply better that what exists today.

^ yep :yes:

Most students know a subway won't be there by the end of their school life, if not their life period...

I think BRT is suitable for suburban areas. GO's 407 bus route shows the potential of BRT in the suburbs. Toronto has the density to support LRT/subway, it's sad that the TTC has resort to BRT, when much smaller cities like Vancouver and Calgary are building rail systems. But that's what happens when the rest of the country hates you.

People here are complain that buses are too small for them to sit in, but that depends on the bus and the design of the buses. Not all buses are the same. Certain buses are just poorly designed. I'm only 5 foot 9 and I can't fit well into the back seats of the Orion 7 either.

Heres my 2 cents.

Busways if done correctly, should work. However, they need to be seperated from the other traffic. If you put a buslane down pape or don mills, you need to seperate by a curb or put it above/below grade. Like anyone actually pays attention to the bus/taxi/carpool lane signs currently. These bus routes should be the foundation (like Doady states) of the surburban routes where LRT/HRT don't have the projected riderships. They should be implemented on all major roads (in addition bus only lanes to be created to York/and as the article states).

In addition, this was a MikeToronto idea (from a little back - one of the few of his I agree with), is that bus routes should have better looking bustops, with at major hub points, actually TTC manned stations. The idea should be to actually make buses an actual better option (in terms of traveling style and improved trip times) as well as a physcological difference as well (like it is to be near a subway or LRT line). Kinda similar to that of a subway line - with real dedicated buslanes + busstations. But with all this grade/curb seperation, it would probably make more cost sence to build a better streetcar network.

Ismaller cities like Vancouver ..... are building rail systems. But that's what happens when the rest of the country hates you.

.

I don't really think that this is comparable. Vancouver really is building a rapid transit/commuter train hybrid - its like the GO extensions. We are not really talking about them improving inner city transit as theres is more regional in nature (though greater vancouver is smaller, its kinda I think a hybrid).

^I agree that hub bus points should be spruced up. If they are made more comfortable for cold weather, more people would casualy use buses during the coldest part of winter.

Excluding branch services of the same route number, aren't almost all bus hubs outside of York U train stations? The buses work like the street layout of a Toronto - it's a grid, more or less. One bus serves mostly one street except the portion that connects it to the nearest train station at the end. The are exeptions for some special express routes and limited service branch routes. Thus there are no serious hubs outside of subway stations, making this a rather moot suggestion for Toronto's bus network. There is money currently being spent, and better spent IMO, on upgrading a streetcar line to an ROW, rather than buses.
The TTC is going to be forced into doing a massive, as in hundreds of buses, overhaul real soon. They NEED to get buses that are actually bearable to ride. This means a bus that is not noisier than a subway train coming around that turn just east of Broadview Station (you know the one I mean, it squeaks so loud you could go deaf), have seats that include legroom, a usable aisle (hello, I have shoulders, buses don't understand this), and stairs that have a rise less than 300mm per step (not for my sake, but older people's).

Thus there are no serious hubs outside of subway stations, making this a rather moot suggestion for Toronto's bus network. ).

What we are saying is that hubs should be created at specific areas where bus transfers are significant, and where bus loadings are high. These can be done for example at Eglington and Don Mills, where these hubs could be used as future stations for subway lines (ie. the DRL). Ridership + use of these hubs could increase through bus only lanes in which ride times are significantly increased. Right now, subways are the only serious hubs as the transit system is signifcanlty geared towards the backbone subway lines, which is one reason why the TTC network is still only meeting needs of 1988 commutting flows. This is why the TTC is slowly losing out to the car. Employment growth is signifcant away from the subway lines.

Or, simply use existing GO stations as transfer points, and, if we are as advanced as the Europeans are in our thinking, we'd put a streetcar LRT along the GO right of way.

^ Yes. And then we can get rid of the GO Trains. Is that why Europeans are so screwball in your opinion?

:lol:!
:lol!
OK, like they can't - as they do in Europe - have above ground 'subways', commuter "GO" trains and freight trains share the same right of way! :lol!

I know! Let's have a "416 only' transit improvement project, that costs a billion a mile and cannot be built between elections, and wonder why it takes 20 years for Toronto get a new subway line.

^pretty much.

Which is why maybe an above ground ROW bus route network maybe in order.

Busway= shitway.
LRT is much, much better!
And, we're going to be getting new streetcars (and, hopefully, have the wisdom not to get rid of our current ones) so LRT's might be quite practical.
built in half the time, between elections, at 1/10th, if not 1/100th of the cost! Heck, if it comes to exsiting rights-of -way, the hard part is done before you even start! (With subways, building the right - of - way, the tunnel, is the loopy expensive part!)

LRT's : Not a 'monster machine' to be found! As far from the "Fontiers of construction' as one can get! Use technology that is at least 100 years old - perhaps some as old at 150 to 200 years old: say, using telegraph - cable poles to support wires, etc. Use pre- fab, garden shed transit stations, just like those buffoons in Tokyo do!

Excluding branch services of the same route number, aren't almost all bus hubs outside of York U train stations? The buses work like the street layout of a Toronto - it's a grid, more or less. One bus serves mostly one street except the portion that connects it to the nearest train station at the end. The are exeptions for some special express routes and limited service branch routes. Thus there are no serious hubs outside of subway stations, making this a rather moot suggestion for Toronto's bus network. There is money currently being spent, and better spent IMO, on upgrading a streetcar line to an ROW, rather than buses.

If there aren't enough bus hubs, then there should be more. I don't know why people don't think any improvements to the bus system are worthwhile.

Guess what happened when Mississauga opened it's new ALL BUS transit terminal at Square One? Between 1996 and 1997, MT ridership increased by 7%, a total of 1.6 million new riders.

Toronto's Sheppard subway opened in 2002, yet between 2002 and 2003 the TTC's ridership decreased by 10 million.

Of course, if Sheppard subway was built to Scarborough then it might be a different story. But still something to think about.

And of course, there are places where rail transit should be built, like Eglinton or Finch, but you can't have LRT and subways everywhere, so I don't see why people would dismiss all improvements to bus service when there are places that can't support something better. It is possible to increase ridership if bus service is improved enough, as the example of Mississauga shows, and, as Roch5220 says, you might be laying down the foundation for an even higher level of service.

Busway= shitway.
LRT is much, much better! !

The only current busline in the GTA that could support LRT upgrade is the Finch Ave. Yet it doesn't make cost sence to built streetcar up there as there are no facilities (it wouldn't be connect to the existing system due to distance). Hence, a ROW busway in my opinion makes sence if a subway can't be built due to cost.

Toronto's Sheppard subway opened in 2002, yet between 2002 and 2003 the TTC's ridership decreased by 10 million.

Of course, if Sheppard subway was built to Scarborough then it might be a different story. But still something to think about.

And of course, there are places where rail transit should be built, like Eglinton or Finch, but you can't have LRT and subways everywhere, so I don't see why people would dismiss all improvements to bus service when there are places that can't support something better. It is possible to increase ridership if bus service is improved enough, as the example of Mississauga shows, and, as Roch5220 says, you might be laying down the foundation for an even higher level of service.


I think that the ridership decrease can be attributed to SARS more than anything.

But you are right about creating a foundation for better servise. Especially along Finch Ave. E. Many students going to Seneca Newnham Campus suffer through a transfer from Finch stn to the Finch East bus every day. It spends most of its time stuck in traffic. Ditto with Eglington Ave. W.

Simply take the Scarboroguh LRT west along....what street? ... EGLINTON !!!! Too sensible, I know.

^The RT fleet is maxed out already and the TTC would need more. Besides that route would eventually take it through Leaside which is a very wealthy area. The people there would not allow an above ground LRT with out a very ugly fight.

^ I don't think a streetcar along Eglinton that passes through leaside would cause an issue with the residents. You would get a fight though by the merchants as a ROW line would wipe out the parking.

^That is sort of the general point I was making. ;)

Even though, except for a couple of pubs and a golden griddle, there isn't too much of everything else. The side streets and public parking lots should be adequate enough around yonge & egg. The strip malls have their own parking as you go more east, but then you hit another snag around future shop with the streetfront retail there.

I've never understood though why anyone was able to park on eglington anyways. Its way too busy as it is.

Where you'd have a problem is with the lefty NIMBYS of Forrest Hill, you'd have to take the line undergound between Mount Pleasent and a street or 2 past Eglinton West -- which is OK, as you will need to hook up with the subway stations in any event.

Still the savings viz. a subway are termendous, and the construction time could well be within an electoral cycle.

There are really to things that the TTC needs to solve problems like the ones on Eglington and Finch and that is some sort of cheap intermediate capacity system of transport and the money to build it.

Beleive me, I have study and thought about this for long and hard and the only solution that I have found is that it is simply easier to avoid those streets both as a PT user or a driver.

The only current busline in the GTA that could support LRT upgrade is the Finch Ave. Yet it doesn't make cost sence to built streetcar up there as there are no facilities (it wouldn't be connect to the existing system due to distance). Hence, a ROW busway in my opinion makes sence if a subway can't be built due to cost.

What if they used that hydro corridor along Finch for an LRT? Would that work?

For Eglinton west of Jane, there is plently space of along the road an LRT as well. East of Jane it would have to tunnel underground. This LRT could connect the airport to the Spadina or Yonge subway.

The only current busline in the GTA that could support LRT upgrade is the Finch Ave. Yet it doesn't make cost sence to built streetcar up there as there are no facilities (it wouldn't be connect to the existing system due to distance). Hence, a ROW busway in my opinion makes sence if a subway can't be built due to cost.

I thought the Bathurst tracks went all the way to Steeles? I could of course be mistaken, but I thought that was the only set of streetcar tracks to go north St. Clair.

No. The TTC in one of their reports clearly state that they would have to build stand alone facilities to service Finch.

I live in Brisbane and we have a busway system in our city, and they cause mixed opinions but i tihnk ultimately they're good, reliable and fast for areas that can't support heavy rail but are not likely to be growth areas in the future. Personally I thik they are better than streetcars because they can run at faster and higher frequencies and are able to pass each other.

I wrote a 100+ page thesis that covered this topic in detail.
My findings conclude that bus rapid transit is much more effecient, cost less and has several advantages over light rail transit.

Ottawa's BRT system is evidence of this
http://www.lightrailnow.org/images/otw-bus-leaving-lincoln-fields-stn_d-williams.jpg

Interesting. Did you thesis cover at what threshold capcity that it makes sence to switch from BRT to LRT/HRT. Newer LRT tech these days have capacity at peak hours at 25K an hour.

Interesting. Did you thesis cover at what threshold capcity that it makes sence to switch from BRT to LRT/HRT. Newer LRT tech these days have capacity at peak hours at 25K an hour.

My findings were as such:

LRT had over-estimated riderships and underestimated cost in 20 out of 20 lines in NA studied...

While some BRT systems had slightly under-estimated costs, they usually has underestimated riderships...

My thesis focused on converting existing corridors (such as hydro fields, and old rail lines) into trainst corridors.

BRT development is always less expensive and the fleet can be used and combined with the existing bus fleet.

Also, since most NA cities are very spread out and have extemely high (and growing) automobile usage, it make little sense to have higher-capacity transit especially in suburbs!

Don't get me wrong, I love trains, like most of us probably do, but they are not justifiable in most sprawling urban areas.

What does a KM of LRT cost viz. a subway?
My gues is that an LRT can be built for 10 million /km, when using existing track bed, but needing to pay new track and build above ground, pre- fab, barn type stations- is this the case?

My findings were as such:

LRT had over-estimated riderships and underestimated cost in 20 out of 20 lines in NA studied...

While some BRT systems had slightly under-estimated costs, they usually has underestimated riderships...

My thesis focused on converting existing corridors (such as hydro fields, and old rail lines) into trainst corridors.

BRT development is always less expensive and the fleet can be used and combined with the existing bus fleet.

Also, since most NA cities are very spread out and have extemely high (and growing) automobile usage, it make little sense to have higher-capacity transit especially in suburbs!

Don't get me wrong, I love trains, like most of us probably do, but they are not justifiable in most sprawling urban areas.
I'm interested in some more details on this study. If I may ask a few Qs?

Were you studying only existing examples and practices or were you also looking at the newer technologies and techniques now being considered in modern and yet-to-come systems?
Also, did you look outside of North America for making the same comparison in Bus vs. LR? I'd be interested to see how other cultures (mainly Eurasian regions) contrast the NA conclusions, because the practices are applied with different mindsets and rules there.
NA's transportation planning has a history of being largely garbage since they focus on too much on accomodating the automobile at great costs without giving the same considerations or leeway for transit/rail projects. As such, the findings you have as far as cost is concerned are a given, but do they have the long term sustainability and growth incentive/drive that better systems would provide? Not likely.
Do you have any opinions about the technology of a vehicle developed in the UK called a "blade-runner" which is a bus that can run on both road and railway tracks? Do you think it has any application in NA (personally I think GO would be wise to consider that technology for their existing "train-bus" system (which I think is a poor term for that system's current form) )?

Hey TRZ all my answers to your questions are after the :toilet: in red

I'm interested in some more details on this study. If I may ask a few Qs?
:toilet: Sure

Were you studying only existing examples and practices or were you also looking at the newer technologies and techniques now being considered in modern and yet-to-come systems?
:toilet: I looked at some of the future technologies and had a chapter on future consideration, but naturally all my data came from existing systems

Also, did you look outside of North America for making the same comparison in Bus vs. LR? I'd be interested to see how other cultures (mainly Eurasian regions) contrast the NA conclusions, because the practices are applied with different mindsets and rules there.
:toilet: Unfortunately, due to time contrainst, accessability/availability of data and the scope of the assignment, NA was predominately the focus

NA's transportation planning has a history of being largely garbage since they focus on too much on accomodating the automobile at great costs without giving the same considerations or leeway for transit/rail projects. As such, the findings you have as far as cost is concerned are a given, but do they have the long term sustainability and growth incentive/drive that better systems would provide? Not likely.
:toilet: Agreed! There is no doubt that heavy rail brings growth and large growth requires some form of rapid transit, in a cause and effect type of way. My recommendation were for most mid-size and growing NA cities that are sprawling, should not under-estimated the effectiveness of BRT, specifically on hydro corridors (such as the finch-hydro corridor in Toronto), where the land is cheap, the route is already laid out and there is hardly any disturbance during construction... Large Megopolis like NY, TO, CHI, have areas with etremely high density and route usage, thus justifying rail in most instants, this is not the case for the rest of NA.

Do you have any opinions about the technology of a vehicle developed in the UK called a "blade-runner" which is a bus that can run on both road and railway tracks? Do you think it has any application in NA (personally I think GO would be wise to consider that technology for their existing "train-bus" system (which I think is a poor term for that system's current form) )?
:toilet: These type of hybrids have been tampered with in the past. They work well, however, they usually become primarily one or the other. GO could have used this system, however, they have too many rail-lines in place and trains to replace the fleet. Many of the GO lines are underutilized, so it is possible to have some of the hybrid vehicles use the rail for a certain stretch and then join mixed traffic for other stretched. I don't know if they can handle the speeds of regulare commuter rail trains, such as the one's GO uses

What does a KM of LRT cost viz. a subway?
My gues is that an LRT can be built for 10 million /km, when using existing track bed, but needing to pay new track and build above ground, pre- fab, barn type stations- is this the case?

I will get you these figure soon

What types of LRT tech did you look at (ie. trams, more convential LRT, or upgraded tech like the skytrain that operates on a 3rd rail - like a hybrid HRT).

Also what cities?? Some american cities boost ridership of tens of thousands WEEKLY which means that they should have stuck to buses.

Its probably better if you could post your thesis (if you can??) for us transit buffs. Especially not-wanting-to-believe (but have known for the last couple of years that it probably is better). I saw a CBC report on a mexican city maybe 5 years back researching the benefits of BRT, even though I hated the findings.

Another point: the TTC has already paid for subway cars and already paid for streetcars. Instead of retiring them if the TTC were to choose to keep on using them would this not dramatically cut costs-- as there would not be any acquisition cost? Too sensible?

What does a KM of LRT cost viz. a subway?
My gues is that an LRT can be built for 10 million /km, when using existing track bed, but needing to pay new track and build above ground, pre- fab, barn type stations- is this the case?


That all depends on whether it is ROW, what type of tech, etc. etc. Obviously skytrain tech cost more than the CLRV and ALRV that TO uses. My guess that TO trams cost more do to our stupid 'unique' system specs.

What types of LRT tech did you look at (ie. trams, more convential LRT, or upgraded tech like the skytrain that operates on a 3rd rail - like a hybrid HRT).

Also what cities?? Some american cities boost ridership of tens of thousands WEEKLY which means that they should have stuck to buses.

Its probably better if you could post your thesis (if you can??) for us transit buffs. Especially not-wanting-to-believe (but have known for the last couple of years that it probably is better). I saw a CBC report on a mexican city maybe 5 years back researching the benefits of BRT, even though I hated the findings.

I don't have my thesis in a digital format that I can't post right now, but I will certainly get that going to convert and post that ASAP. I will let you know when

I love rail/trains. Always have. But in my thesis I had to post my findings (in order to actually get a decent mark). So it was an eye-opening experience for me.

I think the interesting thing about my paper is that the focus was NOT to compare BRT to LRT, but rather to find the best form of transit for exisitng corridors and most of the evidence pointed towards busway. My advisor, who is a leading authority on transit route planning in NA was also pushing me to lean toward modern bus technology.

HOWEVER, much of my study focused on Ottawa's new O-Train, which was a rapid rail system, building on abandonned frieght train tracks and although it was early to predict the effectiveness of this system, there is strong evidence to suggest converted old rail routes into tranist corridors with trolleys or small trains is still a good options for many urban areas...