On Friday, May 10, Mississauga City Councillor and mayoral candidate Dipika Damerla posted a message and video on Twitter/X, stating that “it will be up to the residents to decide on who best represents the vision of the Mississauga they want.” She followed that by saying that she “will not be silenced in my opposition to remove two lanes from Bloor Street and create more gridlock in Mississauga.”
It will be up to the residents to decide on who best represents the vision of the Mississauga they want.
In the video, she is standing on Bloor Street West at Yonge Street in the heart of Toronto’s Bloor-Yorkville business district, 16 kilometres east of the Mississauga border at Etobicoke Creek. Needless to say, this is a very different built environment than anywhere in Mississauga.
Toronto’s Bloor-Danforth bike route, which stretches from Danforth Avenue and Dawes Road on the east to Bloor Street West at Aberfoyle Crescent (near Islington Avenue) is very well used by cyclists, including commuters, couriers, and casual riders. There is also a subway paralleling the entire corridor. Behind Councillor Damerla, there is heavy traffic, but it is unfair to blame the bike lanes for this congestion. The vehicles are stopped at a red light at Yonge Street, one of the busiest intersections for pedestrians and cyclists in the city. There’s a dedicated scramble crossing at the intersection, which does reduce the green light time for traffic on Bloor, though it makes it safer for pedestrians, who outnumber all other road users there.
There is also considerable construction in and around the intersection. Work continues on the troubled “The One” condominium tower, blocking off some of the southwest Yonge-Bloor corner. Just east of Yonge, pedestrians, cyclists, and motorists are squeezed as the TTC works to expand the Bloor-Yonge Subway Station below.
Furthermore, before the bike lanes were installed, the curb lanes were used by stopped cars and delivery trucks; Bloor Street was never a traffic clearway, and it is a ridiculous argument that the bike lanes have caused congestion.
Construction on Bloor Street is the cause of some of the congestion in the area
In Mississauga, Bloor Street is a minor arterial road that extends as far west as Central Parkway. Between Etobicoke Creek and Royal Orchard Drive (just west of Dixie Road), Bloor is lined with rental and condominium apartment buildings and townhouse complexes. From Royal Orchard to Cawthra, the street is lined with low-density dwellings, a shopping plaza, and a high school. The western-most section is lined with fences as the houses back onto Bloor, more typical of major suburban arterial roads.
Bloor Street in MississaugaLooking west towards Central Parkway and the Mississauga City Centre skyline
The City of Mississauga was already planning to resurface Bloor Street, but took advantage of the timing to completely study the corridor with the goal of promoting active transportation and improving road safety while maintaining traffic flow.
After extensive community consultation, Mississauga city staff recommended Alternative 6 for Bloor Street which widens the sidewalks, adds new separated cycle tracks, and a boulevard for trees and street lighting between the roadway and cycle tracks and the sidewalks and property lines. A continuous two-way left turn lane would allow motor vehicles to turn in and out of side streets and private driveways without conflicting with through traffic. This was approved by City Council in June 2023. Construction is scheduled to begin in October 2024.
This plan balances the needs of all road users, particularly students and seniors. It is great to see suburbs like Mississauga and Brampton rethink their streets to better serve all of their residents.
Bloor Street, looking east from Havenwood Drive. Note the “school route” sign and the cyclist using the sidewalk in the distance.Yellow lawn signs with the slogan “Save Bloor Street.” Note the SUV parked in a way that partially blocks the narrow sidewalk.
Bloor Street, whether it be a residential roadway in Mississauga, or a commercial street in Downtown Toronto, is not a place where drivers should expect nor be given ultimate priority over pedestrians, cyclists, or public transit riders.
Luckily, many Mississauga politicians already get it. Reporting for the Mississauga News, Steve Cornwell noted that fellow councillor and mayoral candidate Alvin Tedjo “stands by the approved Bloor project”, while Carolyn Parrish, another city councillor running for mayor declared that a reversal of last year’s council vote would not pass, saying that the “issue’s dead” at one mayoral debate. Ward 3 Councillor Chris Fonseca — whose ward covers most of Bloor Street — championed the changes.
Though Parrish has led several polls (with Damerla and Tedjo in second and third place), it is unfortunate to see a top-three candidate and sitting councillor using the Bloor Street redesign as a wedge issue. Mississauga is growing up. Some of its politicians should too.
On Monday, February 26, the new Ontario One Fare Program will take effect. Transit riders who previously had to pay a second fare when transferring from GO Transit or suburban transit agencies (York Region Transit, MiWay, etc.) to the TTC, will now benefit from a free transfer. Passengers will also be able to transfer free from the TTC to suburban buses or get the TTC fare discounted if transferring to GO Transit.
The new fare program, subsidized by the provincial government, is only available to customers who pay using a Presto card or other contactless payment options (credit card, debit card, mobile app). It is also not applicable to and from UP Express.
This is good news for many transit users, and it fixes several flaws in the existing fare structure. For example, when GO Transit moved its Highway 407 buses — originally designed to ferry commuters to York University — to Highway 407 Station in Vaughan, students and staff had to pay the TTC fare just to go two stops or endure an unfriendly walk. For a short time, there was a $1.50 discount for GO-TTC transfers, but that was allowed to expire under the Ontario PC government.
The elimination of the double fare will also benefit transit passengers who live or work near the border of Toronto and York, Peel, and Durham Regions. On the boundary between Markham and Toronto, it is common to see lots of bicycles locked up at bus stops along or near Steeles Avenue at TTC stops. These bicycles are owned by York Region residents who ride south to avoid the double fare and benefit from one less transfer. Once the new free transfer comes into effect, it will be interesting to see if there is a bump in YRT ridership.
Bicycles parked on the south side of Steeles Avenue, February 2024
Though the new free TTC transfer should — at least in theory — eliminate a barrier to integrating GO Transit with local transit, the TTC really isn’t set up to feed the GO Transit rail network, nor are many GO stations set up to serve TTC riders. There are historical reasons for these poor connections, but they will need to be fixed.
GO Transit started off in 1967 as a commuter rail pilot project, with the Government of Ontario (the “GO” in GO Transit) looking to keep costs down in case the three-year experiment was unsuccessful. Many station sites were selected for their proximity to major roads and highways and parking access. As the service was intended to attract suburban commuters from their cars and mitigate the need for expensive highway widenings, transit access was only a secondary consideration. The initial Lakeshore Line exceeded expectations and so GO added new lines to Georgetown (1974), Richmond Hill (1978), Milton (1981) and took over CN commuter operations to Bradford/Barrie and Stouffville.
An example of this era of GO Transit station placement is Old Cummer Station, which opened in 1978. It was built where the Richmond Hill Line crossed the Finch hydro corridor, with land underneath the transmission lines easily paved over for parking. A walkway leads south to Finch Avenue, where one can connect to TTC buses, but the station building and the platform are oriented towards the parking.
As the Richmond Hill Line only operates during the peak periods, and is the only GO train service not destined for service expansion, this is not a major problem.
In the 905 suburbs, such as Mississauga, Brampton, Oakville, and Whitby, local transit connections are often quite good. For decades, commuters in those cities have benefitted from discounted or free fares on local transit when heading to or from GO rail stations (with Presto, connections to and from GO buses are now also free). Many transit agencies, particularly Durham Region, Oakville, and Burlington along the Lakeshore Line, centre their bus systems around the GO stations. Brampton built its downtown bus terminal adjacent to the GO station in 1989, and in 2023, Metrolinx opened a new bus terminal at Bramalea Station, allowing for easy transfers between buses and trains.
Bramalea GO Stationbus loop
On the other hand, the TTC bus network was designed around the subway network, with nearly every route serving at least one rapid transit station. Though TTC buses would pass by GO stations, transfers between the two were limited because of the extra fare and the infrequent GO services compared to the subway. The only TTC loop on GO station property is at Rouge Hill Station, though Exhibition Loop and Long Branch Loop are short walks to GO station entrances.
Entrance to Guildwood GO Station at Kingston Road. TTC passengers looking to connect with GO trains must cross a busy intersection than then walk through a parking lot to reach the station building.
As GO Transit continues to expand, and fare integration finally becomes a reality, there is both an opportunity and a need to change. Though there are plenty of examples of poor GO-TTC connections, there are also some promising moves towards physical integration between the two systems.
The worst GO-TTC connection: Etobicoke North
Red path shows walking route between northbound 45 Kipling bus stop and Etobicoke North GO platform
Etobicoke North station opened in 1974 as part of the Georgetown (now Kitchener) GO Line. The station and parking lot were built on Ministry of Transportation property and in a hydro corridor. Though the frequent 45 Kipling bus passes under the rail corridor, the transfer between bus and train requires crossing two sides of the busy Kipling/Belfield/Highway 409 off-ramp intersection, continuing on a narrow sidewalk, and climbing a flight of stairs before reaching the main walkway to the station platform. Though a passenger could save a lot of time by transferring to the train (especially as it now runs seven days a week), the long and uncomfortable transfer makes this very uninviting.
A new station at Woodbine Racetrack is proposed, but work has yet to begin. The station at Etobicoke North will eventually have to be closed and demolished to make way for track expansion required for 15-minute GO service. There’s an opportunity to build a great transit hub at Woodbine, especially with an extension of the Finch West LRT.
Metrolinx map of the potential Highway 27-Woodbine Station
An accessibility failure: Scarborough GO
Scarborough GO Station, from St. Clair Avenue East
Scarborough GO Station, near St. Clair Avenue East and Kennedy Road, is located where the GO Stouffville Line splits off from the Lakeshore Line; the station was originally known as Scarborough Junction, as it was the point where the Midland Railway of Canada met the Grand Trunk Railway. (This is where Midland Avenue gets its name from.) The station building and parking lot is located on the south side of the tracks, accessible from Midland and Reeve Avenues. A walkway on the north side of the station leads to St. Clair Avenue East, but it involves several staircases and is not fully accessible to the street, where the 9 Bellamy and 102 Markham Road buses stop.
The Scarborough Junction Masterplan development proposal includes a new connection to St. Clair Avenue as part of a transit-oriented mixed-use community. It promises to better integrate GO and TTC services but will likely be several years before construction begins and even longer until a fully accessible connection is possible.
A more typical transfer: Agincourt GO
Agincourt GO Station, looking northeast from the south side of Sheppard Avenue East
Agincourt Station, in service since 1871, was taken over by GO Transit in 1982. The station building was always located several hundred metres north of Sheppard Avenue, and even in CN commuter rail days, featured a small parking lot. In 2012, an overpass was built separating Sheppard Avenue from the tracks; this allowed for a future Sheppard East LRT as well as train service expansion (a grassy median marks where the light rail line was planned to go). The TTC bus stops are located where the parking lot driveway exits onto Sheppard at a signalized intersection.
Unfortunately, the station platforms were not moved south on the overpass, reducing the walking distance between the train and bus stops and sidewalks on Sheppard Avenue. Though there’s a proper walkway between the TTC stops and the station itself, the station remains oriented mainly to the surface parking lot. Transfers are definitely possible, but not particularly easy.
The nearest eastbound TTC bus stop to Weston GO/UPX Station, located a five-minute walk to the east
Similar situations exist at Weston GO/UP Express station, where the TTC stops are several hundred metres away from the GO platforms at Weston Road and Lawrence Avenue, and at Oriole Station, where the walk from the GO platform to Leslie subway station is still unnecessarily lengthy and also requires crossing a busy intersection.
Milliken GO: A promising direction
A Steeles East TTC bus stops at Milliken GO Station
As part of the Stouffville Line corridor upgrades (which includes double-tracking the line between Scarborough Junction and Unionville) Milliken GO Station was recently rebuilt. It now features a new grade separation over Steeles Avenue, along with two new pedestrian overpasses on either side of the tracks. Though the station building is still oriented to the parking lot south of Steeles Avenue, the new layout provides excellent connections to buses on Steeles Avenue, including TTC routes 53/953 Steeles East, 43A Kennedy, and 57 Midland. Entrances on both sides of Steeles Avenue offer stairs and elevators to platform level.
TTC bus stop, separated bike lane, and access to GO trains
The one issue at Milliken Station — as with many GO stations — is that the wayfinding from platform level to TTC buses is completely missing. Ideally, signage should indicate not only the route to TTC buses, but the connecting bus routes as well.
Unfortunately, signage at Milliken Station does not indicate TTC bus connections
A new GO Station, nearly three kilometres to the south, will feature a similar layout. As platforms will extend over Finch Avenue, transfers between train and bus will be even more convenient at Finch-Kennedy as they are at Milliken. With minimal parking and optimized transit connections, this should be the norm as GO Transit transforms into a frequent, regional rail network. As of February 2024, preliminary work has started on the grade separation.
Rendering of the future Finch-Kennedy GO Station
Concluding thoughts
The new Ontario One Fare Program is a long-overdue step towards integrating the Greater Toronto and Hamilton Area’s disparate transit agencies and addressing unfair tariff boundaries at Steeles Avenue and elsewhere. It also recognizes GO Transit’s future as a regional rapid transit network that not only connects the suburbs to Toronto, but a solution to providing better transit within the city as well.
Most importantly, TTC-GO transfers should be simple, easy, and direct. Happily, there is some momentum to making this happen — Downsview Park Station, opened in December 2017, is a great example of physical integration between GO and TTC — but as shown above, there is much work to be done.
Vienna low-floor tram in the Leopoldstadt district
Back in October, my spouse and I had the opportunity to visit several countries in Central Europe: Austria, Slovakia, Hungary, and the Czech Republic, though we spent the majority of our time in and around Vienna, as that is where my spouse attended business meetings for several days; we also took time to explore the city and surrounding areas together.
While there, I experienced how serious cities operate trams seriously. In Bratislava, I saw how a streetcar priority corridor can work in a busy downtown core. In Prague, trams made it through watermain construction zones without detours or unreliable bus shuttles. In Budapest, I rode the world’s longest trams that move more people per hour than many metro lines. In Vienna, where I spent the most time, I experienced a city where transit passengers are treated with respect, and where the trams are reliable, despite no discernable signal priority and plenty of mixed-traffic operations.
Vienna is an amazing city to visit. It’s been described to me as “what people think Paris is.” That’s pretty much true. It’s a very walkable city with a fantastic café culture full of independent konditorei cafés (which offer sit-down service), with an assortment of rich, tasty cakes and great coffee. It has great art galleries and grand imperial palaces, but without the crushing crowds of Paris and Versailles. As the original Music City, it’s easy to find shows and performances to suit your tastes. (We attended the famous Wiener Staatsoper, where I took in my first live opera, ever, at a surprisingly reasonable price). It’s also a compact city, easy to walk, though the transport system is excellent. Vienna is also a great base for visiting other cities in Central Europe, where Salzburg, Bratislava, Budapest, and Prague are only a few hours away by (frequent and relatively speedy) train.
We noticed several pedestrian signs showing loving couples, rather than the standard, like this one in front of the Wiener Staatsoper (Opera House)
Vienna has one of the largest tram systems in Europe, with 30 lines over 176.9 kilometres, and a fleet of 525 cars, including modern articulated LRVs and older trams and trailers. In Vienna, trams alone carry approximately 300 million passengers a year. They run in many different environments: on-street in mixed traffic, reserved lanes, dedicated median and side-of-street rights-of-way; there is also a tram tunnel south of the city centre. Until the 1980s, Straßenbahnen (the German name for trams) were the backbone of Vienna’s transport network, with a small Stadtbahn system (now incorporated into the modern U-Bahn) and regional and suburban (S-Bahn) trains providing limited rapid transit services. Though there are now five U-Bahn lines (two of which evolved from the Stadtbahn), the tram system remains robust and very useful for getting around.
Like all four cities mentioned in this post, Vienna operates a mix of low-floor trams built in the last 25 years, as well as older high-floor trams, many of which are accompanied by an unstaffed trailer. Vienna’s entire network — trams, buses, U-Bahn, and S-Bahn — is a proof-of-payment system. Fare inspections appeared to be infrequent; neither my spouse nor I were checked during our eight days in Vienna. Tickets and passes can be purchased from a machine (found at every U-Bahn entrance and at many tram stops) or on the WienMobil app.
An older Type E2 high-floor tram and trailer at Gumpendorfer Straße. Behind is the old Stadtbahn viaduct, which is now part of Line U6. Note the large red “Strassenbahn Haltestelle” sign to the left, a classic Viennese icon that indicates a tram stop.
There is also a separate interurban tram service called Badner Bahn, which extends to the historic spa town of Baden bei Wien, an hour south of Vienna’s city centre.
Badner Bahn tram, laying over at Josefsplatz in Baden bei Wien
The modernized interurban originates in the heart of Vienna — across the street from the Wiener Staatsoper (Opera House) — then along local tram tracks and through the tunnel before entering its own right-of-way through the southern suburbs, and onwards through small towns, farms, and vineyards before arriving in Baden. There are several spurs leading to local industries; the regular passenger service shares the tracks with local freight trains.
View of the vineyards from Badner Bahn
A sample of the journey aboard Badner Bahn. Arriving southbound at Guntramsdorf, heading towards Baden bei Wien.
Bratislava, just over one hour away from Vienna by train (or by catamaran), is served by a network of metre-gauge trams, trolley buses, and diesel buses, though trams predominate in the city centre. On Obchodná, several tram lines, pedestrians, cyclists, and the occasional delivery or emergency services vehicle share a narrow, but busy shopping street. It just works.
Obchodná, Bratislava
Outside the congested urban core, trams are afforded reserved lanes, sometimes separated from general traffic with curbs (and even grass medians), sometimes just painted lines. Bratislava’s tram system is smaller than Toronto’s, with 211 cars and 42 kilometres of revenue track, carrying around 70 million riders a year in 2019 (Toronto’s streetcars carried 108 million that year). It is also a much smaller city, with a population of around 660,000. I only visited Bratislava for a day, but I got to ride much of the tram network; I found it an easy and convenient way to get around.
Reserved, painted tram lanes just outside Bratislava’s city centre
Budapest, Hungary has the largest street railway system in the world by ridership, with Route 4/6 on Budapest’s Grand Boulevard (Hungarian: Nagykörút), often cited as the world’s busiest tram line. Route 4/6 also operates 53.99 metre long Combino Plus trams, which, when introduced in 2006, were the world’s longest. The Combinos are almost twice the length of Toronto’s new Bombardier Flexity cars, which are 28 metres long. Even with the huge capacity these trams have (they require two pantographs to draw enough power to operate), they operate on Line 4/6 every few minutes, all day long, every day.
A Combino Plus tram on Line 4 traverses Budapest’s Nagykörút (Grand Boulevard)
Through the 1970s and 1980s, Budapest’s tram network was slowly cut back in favour of buses, trolley buses, and metro construction. By the 1990s, however, there was a street railway renaissance in Hungary’s capital because of the capacity and economy trams offered. With high frequencies, a private median, and high-capacity low-floor vehicles, Line 4/6 easily matches the capacity of a metro, at comparable speeds. Elsewhere, dedicated lanes and private rights-of-way make it clear that transit riders come first.
Older trams running along the Danube dip under road bridges on a private right-of-way
Though Budapest has a large metro network, most of it was not constructed until the l970s and 1980s. However, Line M1 was opened in 1896 as a shallow subway under Andrássy Avenue, the first electric underground metro in the world, and only the second subway, after London’s initial Underground line. Uniquely among urban transit routes, it it is listed as part of an UNESCO World Heritage Site.
Budapest Line M1 stations, restored to their original appearance, look like miniature New York stations, only cleaner
Finally, in Prague, we took several trams to take shelter from the rains that greeted us after arriving from Budapest, but also to see the city outside the crowded tourist spots. We took Line 1 from the city centre to the suburban district of Hrdlořezy, and returned via Line 9, taking a slightly different route back. Like Budapest, a metro system was planned and built in the 1970s and 1980s, but trams remained important, often providing local services parallel to deep underground metro lines.
Old two-car tram train on Line 9, passing a newer low-floor tram on Line 1, Sokolovská, Prague. Most trams run on reserved rights-of-way.
What interested me was seeing major watermain work along the line. Through trams slowed where work was adjacent, there were no diversions or shuttle buses. The trams ran through.
Watermain replacement in Prague, with trams still running(taken on a rainy morning)
Like Vienna, Bratislava, and Budapest, Prague operates a mixed fleet of older high-floor trams and modern low-floor light rail vehicles, similar to Toronto’s new fleet. But in Prague, heritage trams could often be spotted in service, especially on the west bank of the Vltava near Prague Castle.
Heritage tram #2272 in Prague
Lessons for Toronto
After travelling, it can be easy to spot one’s hometown flaws and faults. But I spent a lot of time riding Vienna’s metros, trams, and buses, and mindfully experiencing the transport networks in Bratislava, Budapest, Prague, and Salzburg (which does not run trams, but has a large trolleybus network), I was left with some key takeaways on how to do transit here.
First and foremost, transit riders were respected. Not necessarily in terms of personable customer service, but the feeling that the next tram or bus was going to arrive on time, and a reliable interval. If there was a delay, it was very well communicated.
For instance, while waiting for a tram in Vienna, we experienced an unusually long wait. The next tram display kept showing the next two arrivals at 3 and 4 minutes. Not long after, a voice came on a loudspeaker posted above the tram stop sign announcing (in German, translated in English to us by one of my spouse’s colleagues) a delay because of a collision along the route. The blockage cleared after a few minutes, and we boarded a crowded tram. I appreciated the audio announcement, especially as it was a basic tram stop.
The classic Vienna tram stop. Note the loudspeakers atop the blue bus stop sign (at night, buses take over, hence the Strassenbahn and Autobus stop signs).
Next vehicle displays were common in every city we visited. They would list — in real time — the next several buses or trams, as well as if the vehicle was low-floor accessible or not with a wheelchair symbol. All buses are now fully accessible, but the information is useful for the tram lines, where there are still many older high-floor vehicles.
Next vehicle display at a bus stop in Bratislava
I also noted that in Vienna, and for the most part elsewhere, vinyl advertisement wraps did not cover passenger windows on trams and buses. Bratislava’s wrapped trams had some ads that used window areas, but these were kept to a minimum.
In Vienna, advertisement wraps kept windows completely free of obstructionsAdvertisement wraps in Bratislava had minimal window coverage
It was also clear that trams had dedicated signals on their routes, if not necessarily signal priority. But with smaller intersections and relatively short signal timings, the waits at each signalized intersection were generally minimal.
Note the white tram signals next to the overhead traffic signal. The “A” indicates that a proceed signal will soon appear, and the operator can cancel the door release, so that no more passengers can enter or exit.
Tram signaling in Vienna and other Central European cites also includes remotely operated electric switches. Overhead signals indicate which direction the switch is set to; operators can pass through junctions at speed. While this is how trams operate in most places around the world, in Toronto, streetcar operators are required to stop before each switch and then crawl.
Trams pass through a track junction, along with an ambulance and a transit maintenance van. The overhead horizontal signal indicates the switch direction.
Though many tram stops are in private rights-of-way, in-street tram stops are designed for passenger safety and accessibility. These stops, depicted by the photograph below, have the curb lane raised to the level of the low-floor trams. This increases the visibility of passengers boarding and egressing, and also simplifies ramp deployment. Operators need not exit the cab and manually deploy the accessibility ramp, a timesaver versus the TTC’s ramp deployment on major streets. In the winter, this also helps keep the slush away from the tram stops.
The raised on-street curb lane at an on-street tram stop in Vienna.
Though Toronto is a very different city than Vienna, Budapest, or Prague, there are some clear takeaways. Keep the tram windows free of advertisements. Improve communications. Fix the track switches and signalize them. Raise the curb lanes at streetcar stops for safety, convenience, and accessibility. Fix the King Street Transit Priority corridor with a permanent streetscape and tighter vehicle restrictions. If it can be done on a narrow commercial street in Bratislava’s historic centre, there’s no reason why it can’t be done in a world financial capital.
These can even be done incrementally, but they need to be done if transit riders are deserving of respect and reliable surface transit.
On Monday, October 30, the new Old Elm GO Station opened in the town of Whitchurch-Stouffville, northeast of Toronto. Located two kilometres away from Stouffville’s small downtown core, Old Elm is focused on park-and-ride passengers arriving from nearby communities such as Goodwood, Uxbridge, Port Perry, Beaverton, and from within Stouffville itself.
The new station is relatively simple, with a covered platform, a bus loop with several bays directly adjacent to the single platform, heated shelters, and a 673-spot parking lot. As a relatively quiet station with limited train service, there is no indoor waiting room or ticket office.
The bus loop is directly adjacent to the train platform
Though train service is limited to weekday rush hours and a few evening and weekend departures, there is regular GO Transit bus service connecting Uxbridge and Goodwood to Old Elm Station, and onwards to midday and weekend train connections at Mount Joy or continuing to Toronto Union Station. There are no York Region Transit connections at Old Elm.
The Lincolnville layover yard, which was also the Lincolnville/Old Elm station location until October 2023
Previously, Old Elm Station was located a few hundred metres away, northeast of the Tenth Line/Bethesda Side Road intersection at the Lincolnville layover yard, where Stouffville Line trains continue to be stored overnight and weekends. That station, originally named Lincolnville for a nearby hamlet, was opened in 2008 to accommodate service expansion and relieve the small station at Stouffville, which had no room for a bus loop or additional parking. Since Lincolnville was a yard terminus, passengers had to walk across tracks to reach the next departing train, and each departing and arriving train had to crawl through the yard before reaching the mainline. (As Georgetown GO Station is also within a layover yard, trains passing through on their way to and from Kitchener must also crawl through. A new layover yard near Heritage Road in Brampton will allow for a rebuilt Georgetown Station with faster arrivals and departures.)
Lincolnville Station was confusingly renamed Old Elm in 2021, even though that new name referred to a tree on the new station site that didn’t open for two more years. Had the new name taken effect with the location change, it would have made more sense.
The new station site, located outside of the Lincolnville yard, allows for smoother and faster arrivals and departures, shaving several minutes off the trip for passengers to and from Lincolnville.
The station’s namesake, an old elm tree on the south end of the GO Transit property
Though Lincolnville/Old Elm is located in the Greenbelt, and the station is unable to support transit-oriented urban development, there was a need for the layover yard. Adding a small, auto-focused station was quite sensible. This is no Garage Mahal.
The one unfortunate feature is the complete lack of active transportation access beyond the station property. Though Metrolinx built a wide concrete walkway from Tenth Line to the station platforms, there are no sidewalks, no crosswalks, and no pedestrian signals at either the main entrance or the bus loop entrance, which are both signalized intersections. Instead, there are “no pedestrians” signs facing all directions.
“No pedestrians” sign placed in front of the new concrete pathway into Old Elm Station
Once on Metrolinx property, though, there is a wide pathway, presumably for cyclists and pedestrians. Interestingly, the sign below shows that cyclists should keep to the left, on the wide pathway, while pedestrians are directed into the grass to the right.
Beyond the “no pedestrians” sign at the intersection, another sign instructs cyclists to keep to the left and pedestrians to the right – into the grass
I doubt Metrolinx intended for the hostile intersections to forbid any pedestrian activity. I note too that despite the rural locale, there are several neighbouring homes and businesses along Tenth Line and Bethesda Side Road. The nearest subdivision is less than a 15-minute walk away, a healthy stroll’s distance. A new residential development, Elm Villa, is planned for the site immediately to the south of the bus loop. Tenth Line is maintained by the Town of Whitchurch-Stouffville, so it is likely they are responsible for the oversight. Still, it is not a great look.
North America’s newest rapid transit service, the Réseau express métropolitain (REM), opened on Monday, July 31, 2023 after a weekend of free public rides. I took my first ride several weeks later, on August 22, 2023. The five stop, 16.6-kilometre line between Central Station and Autoroute 30 in Brossard, is the first of four phases of the initial REM network, with branches north and west of Downtown Montreal to open in the next few years.
Built by the CDPQ Infra, a division of Caisse de dépôt et placement du Québec (a provincial public pension fund), REM is a light metro network connecting suburban communities with Montreal’s urban core. With limited stops, a downtown-suburban focus, and frequent service, REM has similarities to Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) in the San Francisco metro region, to S-Bahn systems in Germany and Austria, or RER in metropolitan Paris. Like Vancouver’s SkyTrain or the future Ontario Line here in Toronto, the trains are short, and operate fully automatically, running every 3.5 minutes during weekday peak periods, and every 7.5 minutes at all other times, from 5:30 AM until after midnight.
As REM is being built by a pension fund — which seeks to make an 8% return on building and operating the service — financing the line is a bit different. Though it received financing from the Canada Infrastructure Bank and support from the provincial government, much of the funding comes from other sources, such as development levees. It is also guaranteed a share of fare revenue from the provincial government.
Rail car interior. All seats face inwards, there are 64 seats per car, with standing room for up to 300.
Though several notable transport enthusiasts have already documented the new REM during its opening weekend, I wanted to wait for some of the excitement to wane; I also wanted to experience the service from a regular passenger’s point of view, including checking out the stations and transfers to other transit operators.
For the most part, I came away satisfied. However, I encountered several shortcomings, particularly with service integration and transfers between modes.
Earlier this year, I had the opportunity to travel to the US Midwest. My spouse had a business meeting to attend in Chicago, so we made the most of our trip. I spent time in a few interesting cities, including Milwaukee, Madison, and Minneapolis-St. Paul.
Having been to Chicago many times now, I sought out new and interesting places to visit off the tourists’ beaten paths. One of these places was The 606/Bloomingdale Trail, located a few miles northwest of Chicago’s downtown Loop.
Though Chicago is famous for its elevated railway transit system (known as the “L”) it is also crisscrossed by hundreds of miles of mainline and spur railways, most of which is grade-separated from the local street network. These rail corridors were built by over a dozen railroad companies, whose vast networks converged on Chicago, bringing in, among many other things, grain, cattle, metals, and sending out cereals, meat products, industrial goods, and merchandise purchased from Sears, Roebuck and Montgomery Ward. Chicago’s dominance as a rail centre allowed it to grow into America’s second-largest city (it is now the third-largest).
There are still many railways and yards throughout the city, along with an expansive commuter rail network, but many of the industrial spurs and branch lines became redundant with the decline of heavy industry and the shift to trucking. The Bloomingdale line, once a busy freight corridor owned by the Chicago, Milwaukee, St. Paul and Pacific Railroad (known as the Milwaukee Road, later part of Canadian Pacific’s network) was just one of these routes.
Some local industries still stand on Bloomingdale Avenue next to the abandoned rail corridor
The trail, built as a partnership between the local Friends of Bloomingdale Trail group, the federal non-profit Trust for Public Land, and the City of Chicago, opened in June 2013. Ten years later, the corridor is kept in excellent shape, and still looks fresh. The 4.3 kilometre (2.7 mile) trail is the longest elevated greenway in North America, longer even than New York’s High Line.
On the day I visited, I rode the entire length of the trail in one direction on a Divvy bikeshare bike and walked most of the distance on the way back.
The Bloomingdale Trail crosses Central Park Avenue, near the western terminus of the public corridor
Unlike the High Line, the Bloomingdale Trail is open to cyclists, and is much less programmed, catering more to the surrounding neighbourhoods than tourists. The pathway is quite wide, making it quite suited to multiple uses. On each side of the pathway is a rubberized track, providing an incentive to walkers and runners to keep to the right. The trees are well maintained, providing plenty of shade. Benches and working water fountains are found throughout.
Rubberized edges on both sides of the pathwayOne of many water fountains along the routeA stand of poplars and a walking path at a wider part of the elevated right-of-way
As the path follows an elevated rail corridor, not every intersecting street has an entrance to The 606/Bloomingdale Trail. However, fully accessible ramps are offered every 3-4 blocks, with stairwells installed at other locations. Wayfinding signage is good too, indicating the distances to local highlights and the nearest exits.
Wayfinding sign, indicating trail highlights, connecting parks, and the next exits
One thing I really appreciated about the Bloomingdale Trail are the unique vantage points. Milwaukee Avenue offers a lovely view towards Wicker Park and the Loop, while other parts of the trail pass by neighbourhood parks, backyards, and old warehouses.
Looking southeast down Milwaukee Avenue towards Wicker ParkView looking northwest to the Blue Line L and the alley behind Milwaukee Avenue
At several intersecting streets, benches have been strategically placed to provide gathering places called “overlooks.” Where it crosses Humboldt Boulevard, part of the parkway ring surrounding central Chicago, over hundred people could sit and watch the traffic below. at once
Lookout to Humboldt Boulevard
Though the circumstances that allowed for the great elevated parks like Chicago’s 606 or New York’s High Line are unique to their locations, there are lessons that can be learned for other projects, as in Toronto.
The presence of shade helps to make Chicago’s Bloomingdale Trail a success, as does the very wide pathway that accommodates all active transport users. (On a pleasant Thursday afternoon, the trail was about as busy as the Lower Don Trail here in Toronto, but the wide spaces reduced conflict between walkers, runners, and cyclists.) There need not be a lot of special features to animate the space, though thoughtful places to sit, hydrate, and connect to intersecting public spaces and streets are important.
There are opportunities for Toronto to expand and improve upon its off-street greenways like the West Toronto Rail Path, the ravine trails, the Greenway, and possibilities for the Green Line and East Toronto; this is just one example of the concept done well.
Islington Station, opened in 1968 as part of a major expansion of the Toronto subway system into Etobicoke and Scarborough, is now literally falling apart.
At platform level, Islington looks little different than most stations on the Bloor-Danforth Line with the faded wall tile, coated with a layer of brake dust. Upstairs, on the concourse level and the old bus terminal, the station is in far worse shape. Wear and tear from hundreds of buses entering and exiting the station every day, along with water seepage from an underground stream, has caused the station to look much older than it actually is.
From 1968 to 1980, Islington Station was the Bloor-Danforth Line’s western terminus, with buses branching out to points all over Etobicoke. The bus terminal boasted six bus bays, each with its own driveway. One of the six platforms was dedicated for Gray Coach services, which included an express bus to Pearson Airport.
An arriving bus would first pull into the east side of the terminal, with all passengers descending a set of stairs to the subway concourse, either to transfer to the subway, exit the station, or transfer to another bus route. The bus, once the operator took their break, would then pull forward to the boarding area, where a second set of stairs emerged from a waiting area. Below, on the concourse level, a flashing light would alert waiting passengers that their bus was boarding. The terminal design was similar to the original bus terminal at Eglinton Station; at Warden Station, the levels are reversed, with the bus bays below the passenger concourse.
Aerial view of Islington Station’s bus terminal in 1975, City of Toronto Archives, Series 836, Subseries 4, File 46. Note the Mississauga Transit bus passing by on Bloor Street. Looking northwest toward the sealed-off bus terminal, May 2023
In 1980, the subway was extended one stop westward to Kipling. The extension allowed the TTC to reroute most of its Etobicoke routes from Islington, which provided new space for Mississauga Transit, whose buses now loaded inside the bus terminal. (As the bus bays are inside the station’s fare-paid area, Mississauga Transit buses off-loaded passengers outside the station’s main entrance on Islington Avenue.) A seventh bay, located to the south of the original structure, was added to provide additional capacity for Mississauga Transit, however, only simple bus shelters provided protection from the rain and snow.
But by 2016, the bus terminal area was starting to crumble, and bus bays 1 and 2 (the bus bays closest to the subway platforms) were closed permanently to prevent further structural damage. Mississauga and GO Transit planned for a new terminal adjacent to Kipling Station, but it was delayed by several years. Part of the delay was caused by Hydro One — owner of the transmission lines that parallel the subway and adjacent Canadian Pacific Railway corridor — who refused to allow a terminal building under its wires.
The opening of the new Kipling terminal for GO and Mississauga Transit buses in May 2021 (repositioned to avoid the hydro corridor) allowed the TTC to permanently close the crumbling bus terminal bays. All remaining buses — 37/937 Islington, 50 Burnhamthorpe, and 110 Islington South — began only using the outer bus loading area in late 2021.
Bus passage, Islington Station. Stairways to the old bus bays are sealed off, with the signs above the old stairways blacked out. Passengers transferring to TTC buses must walk to the far end of this corridor and then up a stairway to access the outer bus bay.
With little room remaining for buses to load, offload, and layover, passengers on TTC buses arriving at Islington are now let off on the street and must walk to the main entrance and show their transfer or tap their Presto card to enter the subway or transfer to another bus. Though Route 37/937 and 50 buses stop right in front of the station entrance on Islington Avenue, Route 110 buses off load on Bloor Street, a two-minute walk to the subway entrance.
A Route 110A Islington South bus off loads on Bloor Street; passengers must walk north to the subway entrance on Islington Avenue, to the right of this photograph
Since the bus terminal closure, the decay at Islington Station has extended beyond the bus area. On the mezzanine level, ceiling tiles were removed, while black netting catches chunks of broken concrete. Removed wall tiles reveal crumbling concrete and exposed rebar. Water leaks cover the mezzanine floor. There are no signs advising passengers of work underway or future construction, though there have been several plans to rebuild the station and promote new development on the site.
Fare gates partially obscured by temporary columns
Not only is reconstruction needed to rectify the deteriorating state of the station, Islington is also one of 15 subway stations that still do not have barrier-free access for passengers using wheelchairs or other mobility devices. Islington and Warden were left at the bottom of the list for station retrofits largely due to the difficulty of providing barrier-free access. The outdated bus terminal layouts at those stations require complete redesigns, and both stations are good candidates for urban development.
Netting keeps chunks of concrete from falling onto passengers’ headsCrumbling terrazzo floor in the passageway underneath Islington AvenueWater leak on the concourse level
There have been several proposals for redevelopment at Islington, taking advantage of its large bus terminal area and parking lot. The city first looked at redevelopment in 2006. At that time, there was a proposal from engineering firm SNC-Lavalin for a new office building that would incorporate a rebuilt station. However, that proposal deal fell through.
In 2021, a new plan to rebuild the station was presented to the public. It would include a new six-bay bus terminal in the commuter parking lot north of the existing terminal. Upon completion, the old bus area would be redeveloped under the city’s CreateTO housing program. Aberfoyle Crescent, which connects Islington Avenue and Bloor Street, would be extended through the station property to provide bus access and allow for development of the rest of the station property. The site is constrained by the same Hydro One corridor that stymied construction of the new Kipling terminal (much of the parking lot is under hydro wires), but this is a much smaller bus terminal, and hopefully lessons were learned this time.
Work on station construction was scheduled to begin in Spring 2023.
Rendering of new bus terminal and station entranceSchematic of the TTC station redevelopmentCreateTO development blocks at Bloor and Islington, from 2021 presentationCreate TO conceptual plan for Islington Station site
It is now mid-June 2023, and for now, there is no sign of work. Inside the station, there are no signs informing customers of impending construction, even if only to reassure passengers that the decrepit conditions are being addressed.
The many delays at Islington Station are also indictive of the difficulties of redeveloping even city-owned properties for new, much needed housing. It won’t be until 2026 — at the earliest — that new development can take place.
Until then, TTC customers must put up with a rapidly deteriorating station.
This section of the LRT, planned last decade, was narrowly rejected by Brampton City Council in a 6-5 vote, with then-mayor Linda Jeffrey supporting the transit line’s construction. Unfortunately, six city councillors sided with several downtown merchants and affluent Main Street South residents (including former premier Bill Davis), who did not support a surface tram on Main Street, back in October 2015.
In 2019, a newly elected council, led by a new mayor, Patrick Brown, was willing to revisit the LRT decision, again backing a direct Main Street alignment. City staff were directed to update the original, approved 2014 Transit Project Assessment Process (TPAP). In 2021, staff narrowed the alternatives to just two options: an all-surface alignment from Steeles Avenue to the GO station in Downtown Brampton, and an underground option between Nanwood Avenue and the rail corridor. Meanwhile, Brampton staff and elected officials tried, without success, to restore the north-side LRT terminal at Steeles Avenue/Gateway Terminal.
Now that the 30% design work for the two options is complete, city officials must decide how to proceed, especially if they expect senior levels of government to cover the costs of this major transit project.
The alignments
The all-surface alignment three stops in each direction between the Gateway Terminal at Steeles Avenue and the Brampton GO Station: at Charolais Boulevard, Nanwood Drive, and split northbound and southbound stops between Wellington and Queen Streets. These stop locations match the existing 502 Züm Main stops on this section of Main Street.
Between Nanwood Drive and Wellington Street, the LRT would operate in dedicated lanes, with general traffic in the outer two lanes. There would not be room for bicycle lanes, and left turns would be prohibited at non-signalized intersections. North of Wellington, the LRT would run in mixed traffic, with cycle tracks and widened sidewalks on both sides of the street.
The preferred surface alignment
The northern terminus would be on the GO Station property, on the west side of Main Street, in a below-grade trench. Stairs and elevators would connect the platform with the GO Station, while the historic 1907 station building would be moved to support GO train service expansion on the busy CN freight corridor. The street surface would need to be lowered by one metre for the light rail vehicles and the overhead wire to clear the railway underpass.
Alignment of off-street surface LRT alignment on the GO Station property Design concept for the GO and LRT terminal
The tunnel alignment – which was not part of the approved 2014 TPAP – includes the same surface stops at Brampton Gateway Terminal and Charolais Boulevard, and two underground stations, at Nanwood Drive and the terminal, just south of the GO Station. Between Elgin and Nanwood, the tunnel would be dug in the traditional cut-and-cover method while the portion under Etobicoke Creek and the downtown core would be constructed using the sequential excavation method.
The tunnel portal would be located at Elgin Drive, several hundred metres south of Nanwood. The longer tunnel section is required to avoid the Etobicoke Creek floodplains. Though Nanwood Drive has no intersecting transit routes and relatively low density, the rundown Brampton Mall property would be an ideal urban development site, as would the commercial properties immediately to the south.
The preferred tunnel alignment
The downtown terminal station would include a primary access at the corner of Main and Nelson Streets, to provide access to the GO Station and the proposed new transportation hub, as well as a secondary entrance closer to Queen Street and Garden Square.
The two options were compared, putting the tunnel alignment ahead in all categories apart from cost and schedule. The tunnel would allow for continuous cycling infrastructure on Main Street, minimize traffic impacts, while having slightly higher ridership and somewhat faster transit. The tunnel would also better satisfy homeowners and businesses along the corridor. Staff also note that the tunnel alignment, without the bend into the GO station property, would be easier to extend farther north.
As with other transit projects, the costs of delaying this segment of the LRT are subject to inflation. The surface alignment would cost $933 million, while the tunnel route would cost $2.8 billion. The surface option would take one to two fewer years to complete, an important consideration given Brampton’s fast-growing transit ridership and delays on other complex LRT projects, such as the Eglinton-Crosstown line.
Cost comparisons for the tunnel and surface alignments
The Pitch
Towards the end of the staff report is a section called “Funding Advocacy.” Staff rightfully point out the need for the LRT extension, given the city’s and the province’s goals of directing high density development to the downtown core and other transit station areas, as well as the city’s record of continuous ridership growth and transit improvements.
They also point out that the funding that Brampton is seeking (for the Queen Street BRT project and the LRT, specifically the tunnel option) is comparable to other transit projects in the Greater Toronto and Hamilton Area. The table below compares the costs and funding sought for Brampton’s proposed projects to those funded and underway in Toronto and Hamilton.
Table comparing costs, funding and system ridership for Toronto, Hamilton, and Brampton
An appendix to the staff report compares the cost of the tunnel option with other tunnelled Ontario projects (the Scarborough Subway Extension, the Ontario Line, the Eglinton-Crosstown), and the surface alignment with other surface projects (Finch West LRT, Hamilton LRT, Ion LRT extension in Cambridge).
Concluding thoughts
It is still a shame that Brampton City Council put the interests of a small, but affluent, minority of voters first back in 2015-2016. Had they not prevailed, the LRT into Downtown Brampton would have been under construction right now – at the same time that critical water infrastructure is being replaced in Downtown Brampton, and we would be looking forward to it being open in just two years. However, just three of the eleven council members that voted on the LRT in 2015-2016 remain at Brampton City Hall, and two of those three councillors supported the original project.
The arguments in favour of the tunnel are enticing: a faster transit ride though a congested part of the city, an appeal to provincial and federal governments that have historically short-changed Brampton on its infrastructure needs, in a city that will have six seats up for grabs in the next elections.
However, a surface LRT will be quicker and much cheaper to build. I also do not see the need for further extensions northward, at least via Main Street, and even then, it would require a second tunnel portal somewhere near Vodden Street, adding at least $1 billion to future costs. The GO station terminal points towards the abandoned Orangeville-Brampton Railway, which could provide a good alignment northward from Downtown Brampton, even with a parallel cycling path.
More than anything, I want to see the Hurontario-Main LRT completed to Downtown Brampton as soon as possible, especially as work progresses on all-day hourly train service between Toronto and Kitchener and revitalization and intensification of Downtown Brampton accelerates.
The provincial government has signaled that they prefer the surface alignment for cost reasons (notwithstanding it spending billions of dollars on an unnecessary tunnel on Eglinton West in Etobicoke), as does the Brampton Board of Trade. It is also worth noting that this study is only at the 30% design phase, detailed engineering work may find further costs.
The surface option was the right choice in 2015, and it remains the right choice today. This time, maybe, Brampton will get it right.
Across Canada, our biggest cities are building new transit. Here in Toronto, the Crosstown and Finch West LRTs are well underway (though the first phase of the Eglinton-Crosstown is already three years late), as well as the Scarborough subway expansion, the Ontario Line, and GO Transit corridor improvements. Vancouver is building a major expansion to its Skytrain network, the Broadway Subway. Ottawa, Calgary, and Edmonton are all expanding their LRT networks. And in Montreal, the first phase of the Réseau express métropolitain (REM) will open for service, while major work on the Blue Line Métro extension has just begun.
While Greater Montreal has been busy with rail transit projects, it has also opened two new busways: on Boulevard Le Corbusier in Laval, and on Boulevard Pie-IX on Montreal’s east side. The Laval busway was completed in late 2017. The SRB Pie-IX corridor was mostly completed by the end of 2022, though a section near Boulevard Jean-Talon remains under construction for the Blue Line Métro extension.
Laval’s Boulevard Le Corbusier
Looking south on Le Corbusier at Boul. Saint-Martin
Laval, a sprawling suburban municipality immediately north of Montreal Island, has a population of over 400,000. Though the large island has several historical town and village centres, the municipality is mostly made up of suburban subdivisions, shopping centres, low-rise apartment buildings, crisscrossed by several autoroute highways, including the A-13, A-15, A-19, A-25, and A-440. Despite the post-war sprawl and auto infrastructure, the far eastern end of the island remains largely agricultural.
After the extension of the Orange Line Métro into Laval in 2007, the city of Laval has worked towards urbanizing its geographical centre into “Centre-Ville Laval.” Laval’s new downtown core would consist of new and expanded educational institutions, new cultural and entertainment venues, office and high-tech employment, along with new higher-density, urban-scaled residential development. The new city centre would be focused on Boulevard Le Corbusier northward from Montmorency Métro Station, in an area lined with aging commercial properties.
During my March visit to Laval, some of the progress on Centre-Ville Laval was evident. A new sports and concert venue, Place Bell, opened in 2017, luring the Montreal Canadiens’ AHL affliate from St. John’s. (Place Bell should not be confused with Centre Bell, the home of the Canadiens, also located on the Orange Line). The Université de Montréal also opened a suburban campus next to the Métro station. Slowly, mid-ride condo buildings were built on the south end of Le Corbusier, within walking distance from the campuses and transit links.
New residential development on the south end of Boul. Le Corbusier, in the near distance
To support the planned growth of Laval’s city centre, a new busway was built northward, towards the massive Carrefour Laval shopping centre, a Cadillac Fairview-owned mall that dominates Montreal’s north suburbs. The busway passes between older, smaller shopping malls, such as Centre Laval and Galleries Laval, which will one day get redeveloped. Building the new busway, along with semi-protected cycling lanes, was clearly a way of indicating the municipality’s urban planning goals.
Unfortunately, the Laval busway reminded me of the things I disliked most about York Region’s Viva Rapidways. For one, the Laval busway doesn’t speed up bus service. It is only one kilometre long, and does not properly connect with either the bus terminal at Montmorency Métro or the bus terminal across the street from Carrefour Laval. Buses must re-enter mixed traffic at both ends of the route. As in Toronto and York Region, left-turning cars are prioritized at each traffic light, and there was no apparent transit priority.
The median bus stops are also difficult to get to. Despite many days since Montreal’s last significant snowfall, and bone-dry sidewalks and roadways, the curbs and crosswalks were left uncleared. This forces pedestrians to either mount the piles of old, packed, crusty snow, or divert into the roadways to cross the street. The bike lanes were merely a convenient snow storage space.
Laval should be embarrassed by its inaccessible crosswalks and bus infrastructure
For a Saturday morning, transit service on the busway was adequate, but not especially impressive. The Société de transport de Laval, the municipal transit agency, operates a free shuttle bus on weekends, holidays, and summer weekdays between Montmorency Métro and Carrefour Laval every 20 minutes. Otherwise, bus service was sporadic despite multiple routes using the busway: two or three buses would come at once, followed by a gap of 10 or 15 minutes.
Quebec’s unique traffic signals were both interesting for out-of-province visitors and frustrating for pedestrians. In Ontario and most other jurisdictions, a right green arrow indicates absolute right-of-way for right-turning motorists. In Quebec, it merely indicates that motorists have a green signal to turn right, regardless of conflicting movements. Outside of Montreal, motorists are permitted to turn right on a red light, unless signed otherwise. This is not great signalization, especially on high-speed suburban roadways.
Right-turning motorists have the green arrow to turn right, conflicting with pedestrians (which have the walk signal) and cyclists
However, bus signals are unmistakable from general traffic signals, with white bar aspects (and a white triangle instead of an amber light). That’s one thing that is done better than here in Ontario.
Montreal’s SRB Pie-IX
Looking south on Boul. Pie-IX from Rue Bélanger
The SRB (BRT) corridor on Montreal’s Boulevard Pie-IX, which I visited later the same day, was a welcome contrast to Laval’s implementation. Boulevard Pie-IX (named for Pope Pius IX, the founder of the dogma of papal infallibility), is a wide north-south boulevard on Montreal’s east side, passing through Hochalaga, past Olympic Stadium and the Botanical Gardens, all the way into Laval. It’s a busy bus corridor, feeding into the Métro Green Line as well as the future extension of the Blue Line to Anjou.
The intersection of Pie-IX and Jean-Talon, where a new Métro station is under construction
The 439 SRB route parallels the local 139 Pie-IX bus, and like other median busways, passengers board and exit at stops at the far side of the intersection. Though there is no fare pre-payment, passengers are permitted to board at rear doors with a valid Opus card or ticket. Shelters are simple, but the stained green glass lines up nicely with the gaps where the bus doors open.
Inside a SRB shelter
Unlike median busways elsewhere in Ontario or Quebec, buses are not slowed down by left-turning motorists as left turns are prohibited along the entire SRB corridor. This simplifies operations, allows for easier transit priority, and reduces the space required at intersections for dedicated left turn lanes. Unlike Laval, the crosswalks in Montreal were cleared and easy to traverse in winter.
Left turns are banned along the entire SRB corridor. Note the triangle light on the bus signal.
The current bus rapid transit alignment replaces an older, more dangerous set up where there was a central median where the inner lane was dedicated to buses in the opposite peak (contraflow) direction during weekday rush hours. Buses assigned to Pie-IX were equipped with special flashing arrows to warn oncoming motorists, along with overhead lights indicating the lane restriction. After several serious collisions, the arrangement was abandoned.
2009 Google Streetview image of the old Pie-IX express bus arrangement, where buses in the AM peak used the leftmost northbound lane to travel south, stopping at the median shelter. In the PM peak, northbound buses used the rightmost southbound lane.
Once again, Montreal shows how buses can be sped up without compromising safety or road space. Restricting left turns along the entire corridor was the right choice, and a solution that should be considered along some of Toronto’s busiest bus corridors as well.
Finally, rapid transit corridors on arterial roads are reliant on walk-up traffic, and should therefore be as easy and safe as possible to walk up to the transit service. This means effective and quick snow removal at crosswalks, pedestrian priority (there should be no beg buttons to push to access BRT/LRT stops), and proper pedestrian infrastructure and a walkable realm. The Viva Rapidways and the Laval Boul. Le Corbusier fail this basic criteria, while Montreal does a better job.
As Greater Toronto area plans more arterial LRT and BRT corridors, such as on Dundas Street in Mississauga/Oakville, and on Queen Street in Brampton, it would be wise to put transit and active transportation first, even if it means sacrificing a few left turn lanes.
But in January 2023, I returned to Bramalea GO Station and came away feeling satisfied. Metrolinx has finally built a Bramalea GO Station that works. Now it is time to use the rebuilt station to its full potential.
