When we're talking about an over $5.2 million cost disprenpancy per vehicle, it is critical to stress the greater affordability of buses. Look at how much time's been wasted negotiating for more LRVs and initial costing projections have ballooned. That enough money's ($1.25 B) being spent on purchasing new light-rail trams to build 5 kilometres of new subways where existing T1s could be routed or enough for 80 kilometres of new high calibre BRT busways; is something I wish for the public to know about.
Yo cannot just compare the cost of vehicles on a 1:1 basis. The new LRV's are proposed to carry 260 passengers. A TTC Orion VII hyrbrid has a max capacity of 60 riders(we know that true capacity is lower, due to crowding at the front of the bus). So you would need 4 buses for the capacity of one new LRV. An LRV can last minimum 30 years. A bus may be pushed to 18 years(I doubt these years will last more than 15, with an extensive rebuild). So 4 buses at $750,000 x 2(You will have to buy 4 more in 18 years), means it will cost more in the long run to purchases buses to replace one LRV. The rest of your post is nonsense, so I ignored it.
Considering that 74% of the TTC's annual budget goes into workers wages alone, I do not think it's the cost of buying diesel that needs to be downsized.
4 buses to replace one LRV means 4 drivers. And gas costs WILL go up.
As far as i know the busses are still under warranty (which is what allowed the batteries to be replaced at no cost). The fuel saving issues were quickly resolved and speaks to the emissions benefits. The lead-acid battery pack used in NYCT's Orion VII buses has an initial cost of $25,000, but replacement costs are less than half, since only the batteries are replaced and not the packaging and componentry. NiMH battery packs like those used in GM Allison buses cost between $35,000 and $45,000. The cost of NiMH batteries will drop as more are produced. Good thing for Sudbury.
There IS no fuel savings. Not the way the TTC runs the buses. Toronto is not a good environment for hybrid buses, except maybe in the downtown core. Hybrids are a farce, and agencies only buy them because it's a great way to say "we're environmentally friendly!" Orion Bus industries uses the BAE hybrid systems, so find some figures for BAE, and not the NFI system. It's highly unlikely the TTC will buy NFI anytime soon, since NFI will not meet their requirements.
And batteries used by Daimler, for instance, have a shelf life of 9 years on average and its not like we're stuck with Orion indefinitely. All I'm saying is give it a chance. Given that a large part of the funding for buses comes from other levels of government that "encourage" hybrid purchases means that IF they are lemons, the TTC is not the only one to blame. Yes, the system needs fixing, but this is hardly an issue with the technology itself.
It IS an issue with the technology. It did not live up to the manufacturers claim. It's clear the technology is not ready, and the manufacturer should not have lied to get agencies to those lemons. You have a lot of nerve telling people to gve a technology that is clearly not ready "a chance", while trashing a proven technology. No one really knows that true cost of replacing batteries yet. The 9 year life span is not true. There is concern the Lead Acid batteries will last only 3 years, and NiMH batteries will last only 5-7 years. That means an agency is going to have to change the batteries 2 or 3 times in a bus life span. That's an extra $100,000-$150,000 per bus if your cost claims are used, and possibly even up to $250,000 depending how the batteries have to be replaced.
The only web source that matters to this deabte is the TTC:
http://www.toronto.ca/involved/projects/etobicoke_finch_w_lrt/pdf/2008-08-07_open_house.pdf. They themselves claim BRT is suitable for PPHPD up to 6000-8000. LRT is required for routes exceeding 8000 PPHPD. That equates more people hourly travelling by bus than will use the TYSSE by the year 2031, which is forecasted at a dismal 2300 PPHPD. Finch West, Sheppard East, Jane, Morningside all fall below this minimum threshold; with the highest used Finch W carrying closer to 1313 PPHPD today and is forecasted (after years of on-road construction drives away potential users) to be around 2300-2800 PPHPD... at the densest point en route!
The same source that says significant BRT structure is required for capacity above 2,000. It's well known true BRT can cost just as much as LRT. 2,800pph would require around 43 buses. That is one bus around every 1.5 minute assuming the headway can be maintained , and experience shows it's not easy to maintain that sort of headway, even with passing lanes, which woud definitely be required. LRT for the win. And for the record, I used the crush capacity of 66 for a bus.
My experience with the 36 bus is that it's crowded, and uncomfortable to ride. These people deserve decent transit, and not be forced to continiue to ride buses.
People like to point to the 510 Spadina as exemplar of what light-rail in Toronto can acheieve, however ridership has actually DECLINED from the heydays of the 77 Spadina bus and has only recently rebounded back to pre-LRT 1992 levels of use (those images I posted in the other forum should indicate why). Why are we throwing good money after bad?
No one uses Spadina as an example because Spadina is essentailly streetcar in a ROW with little signal priority, only people who little knowledge of LRT, or with an agenda use Spadina as an example. You're dead-wrong(Not surprised) about Spadina ridership declining. Ridership actually increased 7-15% overall since the streetcars replaced the bus. Stop lying.
When buses are routed on exclusive reserved lanes, the life span of BRT standard hot mix asphalt is about 16 years.
http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/Projects/QuieterPavement/CommonQuestions.htm
HA!!!
That's funny! You really are full of it, aren't you? I lived in Ottawa for 4 years, and I have seen the stretch of transitway between Campus, and Lees stations replaced
2 times! The Orange Line busway is already experiencing significant ruts at intersections. You really are something, you know that? You seem to enjoy destroying your credibility on this board. You just skimmed through the article, picked a line that sounded good, and assumes the article is talking about BRT pavement,which it is not! The article is about testing pavement to reduce noise on highways, and residential areas. In no way does it state BRT use. Why are you even using Washington States stats anyways? The climate on the West Coast is different to what we experience here.
We're quick to judge our public institutions without giving them a chance to explain - all I'm asking is that we the citizens are given an opportunity to add to the conversation as well. Elitists love to tell us what's good for us without realizing how just basic solutions from the world over applied to our own situation could result in getting more done for less expense, in less time.
Says the guy who wants to cancel Transit City, and preaches only subways and buses will attract riders. There is word for people like you. Starts with Hypo...
Citizens have been adding to the conversation. What do oyu think the open house are for? Citizens are demanding more stops in the tunneled section of the ECLRT, working to save Transit City funding. I would argue it's you, and a few others who are acting elitists acting like you know what the citziens want.
Who's twisting others' words now? I myself have talked with Steve Munro on his blog about the Queen car, and you know what, he happened to agree with me.
Over your head. Citzines were willing to use some of their own time to discuss ways to improve the quality of the service. That is the point I was making before you went on some tangent about Steve Munro agreeing with you about something. The streetcar is beloved in Toronto, regardless of what fringe auto-loving suburbanite claim.
