BRT vs. LRT

[ARG1]

The ones I see as failures start with the lack of ridership that doesn't even come close to any standards for LRT in the first place. A few have no place to expand to increase ridership over time. Some where built too short due to lack of funds and no sign of any funds to do an extension.

One of the BRT should been an LRT from day one and that is in the work to do so at great cost and inconvenient to riders. Ottawa is finally seeing part of its BRT converted to LRT and it has been the poster child for BRT since day one when part of it should been an LRT on day one.

Don't forget the cost increase for Hurontario covers interest to that has to be paid by the government at the end of the 30 years at a higher rate going the P3 route than carrying it on the government books as an on going cost.

I was expecting Hurontario to be every 10 minutes starting with one car and remain that way until the 2/3 car is added for a 300' train. Once ridership reach X point, then headway will decease until it gets to be every 3 minutes and this will only apply to various section of the line. Going south of Dundas will be at a higher headway due to lack of ridership like it is today and why 103 was kill south of the Queensway and a higher headway for 2.

It is also part of a failure due to the fact it will waste riders 15 minutes going off route like it has been since becoming 2000 as well cancelling of 103 once service start for the LRT. If buses that will still operate on Hurontario after the LRT start like the 103 route making all stops at existing stops, it will help folks in the Eglinton area to get to/from the Cooksville GO station faster than the LRT. Since The Hurontario Line will see 42 m cars only, only one car will be needed on opening day and going to 2 is over kill.

First I don't think Ottawa is a good example, like at all. For a BRT Ottawa got full mileage out of it allowing for a lot of complex service patterns that allowed for a lot of one seat rides throughout the network, and they only upgraded to LRT when the capacity was required, and they did so along a ton of infrastructure upgrades and full grade separation... which leads to the second problem that it is now a LFLRT line that is fully grade separated, has absolutely no business being low floor, being stuck with high maintenance cost and reduced capacities because... reasons. I guess you can argue that this is more of a problem of it being Low Floor rather than it being an LRT but that goes to the problem of what is defined as an LRT as its a huge umbrella term for a lot of unrelated service types, and I think for this discussion we should stick to services that spend most of their time on streets.

Second for those that have low ridership, I have a feeling you're referring to Viva, which that is its own can of worms, but in that case it seems like the lack of ridership seems to be a cause of a lack of service, so in a way its a self perpetuating cycle.

Finally, the main argument for BRT ( at least from me) is that they don't have to last long at all. Their purpose is to build up ridership on a corridor over a short period of time before they're replaced by something higher order (hopefully Light Metros). This is something Vancouver has been doing, and something that the aforementioned Ottawa did. First you run a BRT or BRT-lite along a route, use that to generate ridership as well as coax developers into creating density around the corridor, then finally 10-15 years later when the ridership is there and everyone is ready for an upgrade, you create an elevated light metro or whatever is needed on that corridor (by this point you will probably have the ridership to justify one, just like Hurontario is predicted to have in 10-15 years). Heck we see this even in Toronto with RapidTO, cheap enhanced bus corridors that were built as a stop gap until something greater is built on the corridor. BRT shouldn't be treated as a long term solution to transit, unless you're making a large funnel based network where the core design benefits from the flexibility of BRT (which isn't the case in Toronto).

 

[OCCheetos]

I am starting to wonder about the relevancy of reduced maintenance savings costs that LRT has over buses.

On the topic of the operational savings of LRT, some numbers from Ottawa might be interesting:

The 2011 business case for the Confederation Line (Stage 1) estimated $9.6 million/year in transit operation savings.
In practice, I believe the opening of the line only resulted in around $5 million/year in savings (which went into the introduction of a new route).

The Stage 2 business case estimated only $5.5 million/year in operational savings.


For what it's worth, I personally don't think these are insignificant savings. Especially with how expensive transit operations are, and the fact that this is only one of many metrics to measure the benefits of LRT by, any saving in the millions is worth something.

 

[ssiguy2]

Check out the TTC electric bus review. The ebuses don't compare well to diesel yet. Those ebus savings are theoretical at this point. You could also check out Consumer Reports review of BEV cars and they aren't quite there yet on quality issues.
I do think BEV will get there. The industry is new so it'll take a little bit more time .

I agree that the technology is still in it's infancy and there are some bugs that still have to be worked out. That said, the rate of battery technology development is truly dizzying and within even 10 years, batteries will be exponentially smaller, more powerful, have far longer range, require far shorter recharge times and infrastructure, and be vastly cheaper to boot. There will also be far more suppliers and in 15 years it maybe impossible to even buy a diesel bus.

 

[ssiguy2]

On the topic of the operational savings of LRT, some numbers from Ottawa might be interesting:

The 2011 business case for the Confederation Line (Stage 1) estimated $9.6 million/year in transit operation savings.
In practice, I believe the opening of the line only resulted in around $5 million/year in savings (which went into the introduction of a new route).

The Stage 2 business case estimated only $5.5 million/year in operational savings.


For what it's worth, I personally don't think these are insignificant savings. Especially with how expensive transit operations are, and the fact that this is only one of many metrics to measure the benefits of LRT by, any saving in the millions is worth something.

I agree that these are no inconsequential amounts but was that a comparison of electric buses to LRT or standard diesel?

Also remember that Ottawa never employed the full benefits of BRT including total POP, double articulated buses, electric buses, and most of all the underground tunnel.

 

[ARG1]

I agree that these are no inconsequential amounts but was that a comparison of electric buses to LRT or standard diesel?

Also remember that Ottawa never employed the full benefits of BRT including total POP, double articulated buses, electric buses, and most of all the underground tunnel.

By the time you're building expensive infrastructure like an underground tunnel, you might as well just go with an LRT. Plus with how many sections were in the streets, double articulated busses would've been practically impossible (plus I'm pretty sure they're banned in this country except for isolated circumstances). Ottawa transitioned to LRT at the right time (except for the fact that it was the wrong type of LRT), and they seemed to have pushed forwards towards fare gates and controlled fares, and far away from any form of POP... thankfully.

 

[OCCheetos]

I agree that these are no inconsequential amounts but was that a comparison of electric buses to LRT or standard diesel?

Also remember that Ottawa never employed the full benefits of BRT including total POP, double articulated buses, electric buses, and most of all the underground tunnel.

It would have been diesel.

I'm not sure double articulated buses would have been feasible in Ottawa given the amount of snow that falls regularly (even simple articulated buses have trouble with that), and a tunnel was considered but wouldn't have provided the necessary capacity boost to make it worthwhile.

In fact, considering the massive cost of constructing a tunnel, it makes absolutely no sense to put BRT in a bored tunnel like that. Seattle has certainly regretted that. If you're boring tunnel, just build rail...

 

[ssiguy2]

I can understand those reasons but for a place like Hamilton, what exactly is the advantage of LRT?

 

[dad pad]

I think the advantage of LRT for a place like Hamilton is the confidence it gives developers to invest in the area and thus spur increased density and economic activity.

 

[WislaHD]

Hamilton should be looking at what sort of investment is taking place in the Kitchener-Waterloo region for inspiration.

A trunk east-west and north-south LRT route in Hamilton makes sense to me, but that is no reason to discourage building a network of BRT routes in the Hamilton Mountain, Stoney Creek, and on Barton. Hamilton requires a network solution, not just one or two standalone pieces of transit investment.

 

[ARG1]

I think the advantage of LRT for a place like Hamilton is the confidence it gives developers to invest in the area and thus spur increased density and economic activity.

I don't really think developers is much of an advantage. As shown by York Region, BRT with barely any frequency is already enough to spur a ton of development (its the sole reason Downtown Markham exists). What spurs development is permanency, anything that would be difficult to destroy afterwards. Stuff like painted lanes don't fit this bill,. but dedicated blocked off lanes with massive shelters in the middle of the road does.

 

[Rainforest]

I think the advantage of LRT for a place like Hamilton is the confidence it gives developers to invest in the area and thus spur increased density and economic activity.

Plus, LRT has a higher capacity limit. Not an issue for the next 10 years, but eventually, the most central line in the city that has 500K+ and growing will probably exceed the BRT capacity. And when that happens, the ability to simply add more trains instead of rebuilding the route is certainly a good thing.

 

[W. K. Lis]

Plus, LRT has a higher capacity limit. Not an issue for the next 10 years, but eventually, the most central line in the city that has 500K+ and growing will probably exceed the BRT capacity. And when that happens, the ability to simply add more trains instead of rebuilding the route is certainly a good thing.

Or more light rapid transit lines to create a network, east-west, north-south, all across the city.

 

[afransen]

Plus, LRT has a higher capacity limit. Not an issue for the next 10 years, but eventually, the most central line in the city that has 500K+ and growing will probably exceed the BRT capacity. And when that happens, the ability to simply add more trains instead of rebuilding the route is certainly a good thing.

Ideally, Hamilton would actual justify a proper metro system and not a street running LRT.

 

[ssiguy2]

No, Hamilton should not get a Metro. Hamilton's transit ridership is low comparing to it's major contemporaries of Kitchener and London.

 

[innsertnamehere]

To me the B line makes sense as an LRT as travel patterns in the lower city are generally very linear and it hits most major destinations on a single line.

The A line going up to the Mountain is better off as a BRT as demand is lower and it allows for spur lines to run in mixed traffic to service various more dispersed destinations. If Lime Ridge was located on Upper James, it might make a bit more sense as an LRT.. but it's not, including a fair bit of employment that is dispersed as well as high density nodes scattered across the upper mountain.

As the Airport Employment district really starts to take off in the next decade, employment destinations will also continue to be fairly dispersed and difficult to service with a single bus line.

The Amazon warehouse currently completing construction should be a good boost to A-line ridership in the interim at least.