[Whoaccio]

Artics have been tried by TTC in the past. Double deckers won't handle many of our bridges, or bus terminals.

Quickly, I don't consider buying lemon buses from Communist Hungary an accurate trial of articulated buses. Hundreds of cities all over the world, including such far away and mystical lands as Mississauga and York Region, use articulated buses (some even in TTC stations, no less!).

Double decker buses clearly wouldn't work everywhere, but most suburban arterial roads are built to accommodate tractor trailers and coach buses which are of similar height. Also, what about those double decker tour buses you see every now and then? They are Enviro500s like the ones used by GO, they seem to get around.

Neither of these two options really qualifies as rocket science, both are fairly ubiquitous all over the world as a matter of fact. If capacity really is SO important, then one would imagine upgrading to one of those two would be highly prudent. An Enviro500 has about 100 seats vs. 40-50 on an Orion, so thats about 100% more capacity. I refuse to believe that, with 10billion dollars to spend, we couldn't run a double decker bus on a road like Don Mills or Lawrence East, both of which look like highways compared to the places London & Hong Kong squeeze their Enviros.

 

[golodhendil]

The Inner Northern Busway has a bus tunnel and underground stations... try and do that with LRT and you'll get $4.6 billion streetcars

It would be even more than $4.6 billion if the LRT was triple or quadruple tracked.

At least with $4.6 billion (whereever that number is pulled out of) we will get an actual LRT subway that can have an inherently higher capacity, higher speed (30-80 kph for light rail subway vs 20-60 for underground busway), and the option of ATC, etc, and not need to spend another few billions to upgrade the tunnel to rail standards when the need arises.

And you want a billion dollar bus tunnel? You've got one in the works for you - Boston's Silver Line phase III, $2 billion for a 1.1 mile tunnel. Compare that to the $1.5 billion 1.7 mile Central Subway for SF's Muni (both projects are bound to go into cost overruns eventually so that needn't be taken into account).

This is pretty much exactly why people shouldn't quote crap from "LightRailNow!."

Lets look at where the two LRT examples run. First up, Historic Folsom outside of Sacramento (of Folsom Blues fame):

If the photos don't make it quite clear, the extension isn't even double tracked outside of the stations and it runs through a podunk town. I'm pretty sure the Forest Hill bus route is busier. Headways, min. 30mins during peak hours and not even running after dark. All bow to the mythical LRT cost saving!

I would also recommend people actually go to live maps and take a bird's eye view of the CATS LYNX system. Outside of a km or two running downtown, the entire route is either in a highway ROW or going through vacant industrial land. The average stop spacing is over 1km. That's not an exaggeration. For an American transit system, it's headways aren't actually that bad at 10 minutes during the day. 20m when dark. I actually like the LYNX system it is a neat case study. Point being, you only get the cost savings with LRT when you operate it with a.) limited stops (~1km apart), b.)fairly long headways outside of rush hour c.) routes that run through empty right of ways to minimize stopping/land acquisition. Basically they are just miniaturized GO trains.

The first thing to note with the Brisbane busways is that they aren't actually rapid transit routes per se, but short (>5km) bypasses into the CBD. If nothing else, the shorter route distances automatically entail relatively higher p/km costs. The one busway LRNow! listed (the S.E. Busway) which runs any significant distance is cheaper than the comparable LRT systems to start with. There is really no comparison, whatsoever, between a 5km underground busway through a CBD which, at it's peak, carries 32 bus routes and integrates with a 10 platform commuter rail station and some dinky single tracked toy train in Folsom. I might as well bring in the Space Shuttle.

Of course, you fail to mention that the SE Busway is also almost entirely along highway or rail corridors and going through forests, with stations more than 1.5 km apart.

And no, the cost savings for an LRT system come when it is well-used and run through busy corridors, which can maximize rail's advantage of higher capacity per train. I would say the Sacramento and Charlotte examples are actually rather bad ones as they are.

And I guess the thing with the capacity argument is that, all else being equal (either BRT or LRT, with comparable levels of grade separation, running through a busy corridor or one with anticipated high ridership), making the investment in the get-go for a system with higher capacity will save later cost, trouble and inertia of upgrading the line. Which is also the reason why many people feel that lines with very high anticipated ridership (potentially Eglinton) justify more than LRT but a MCS or HRT.

 

[Epi]

It's true that some services in the GTA use double decker buses and articulated buses. But without even partial grade separation even bigger buses don't solve all the problems. Try riding VIVA north from Finch station up Yonge at anytime not in the middle of the night, and you'll see how slow it is. Actually try DRIVING down certain routes during peak times, and you'll see that it's pretty slow all around. Nothing like taking 15 minutes to go the 4km from Highway 7 to Major Mac on Yonge anytime within 3 hours of rush hour.

While partial grade separation using ROW isn't a cure-all, it's a hell of a lot better then being stuck on a street traveling at the pace of traffic. ROW also allows much faster stop times, as you don't have to pull in and out of stops which definitely adds 10-15 seconds to each stop as cars will ALWAYS jostle with buses for position. As well, the higher capacity of LRT allows more credible implementation of POP (as it's much easier to hire just a few ticket checkers to walk the length of a train, then to check 2-4 different buses to cover the same amount of people) thus faster load/unloading times. All this should allow for much smoother operation with LRT even if it's not fully grade separated.

Also considering we're adding lanes to roads, regular traffic should also benefit greatly from this as well. Not to mention the added benefits of not screwing around with right turns at every major intersection.

Some of the comments about downtown streetcar bunching applying to Transit City style LRT are a bit misplaced. Transit City (and downtown streetcars once they get the new cars) would need 1/2-1/3 as many trains to cover the same capacity, so bunching should be much less of a problem. Since bunching slows down service dramatically even if the time inbetween trains is shorter (i.e. you wait less, but you sit around inside - not moving - less too), having longer wait times at stops but no bunching shouldn't slow down service.

I guess in the end, the point is even buses will need partial grade separation to run smoothly past a certain point. Even in York Region, we're spending billions to make VIVA grade-separated. If you're going to pay for that anyway, it doesn't cost that much more to install LRT, which has many other benefits (as pointed out already ad infinitum in this thread) especially if you need less drivers, have more capacity, are cheaper to fuel, and need to replace vehicles much less which evens out the cost in the long-term.

Still, I am a interested in why the TTC isn't actually using articulated buses anymore, or why they won't try out double deckers in the first place. I wonder if there's a policy/safety reason (i.e. avoiding those awful crashes they had in Ottawa, avoiding lawsuits from people tumbling down double decker stairs) or if it's more just aversion to that type of technology that prevents the TTC from using these vehicles. I can see with double deckers how that would lead to vastly increased dwell times at stops as people slowly queue in and out of the bus. Still, without knowing the real reason, it's all speculation on our part. They could be really narrow-minded or there could be a really good reason why they don't use those vehicles. If anyone knows the real answer that would be interesting to find out.

 

[golodhendil]

Just to make a comparison regarding double-deckers, an Enviro500 (12 m x 2.5 m cross section) carries 124 passengers, while a double-decker tram used in HK (8.8 m x 1.9 m, thus almost only 50% in size) carries 115 passengers.

 

[GenerationW]

Also considering we're adding lanes to roads

We are? Where?

 

[kettal]

We are? Where?

Finch, Sheppard, and parts of Eglinton are being widened. Vehicular traffic will be a lot smoother with no more buses in the lane.

 

[APTA-2048]

Still, I am a interested in why the TTC isn't actually using articulated buses anymore, or why they won't try out double deckers in the first place. I wonder if there's a policy/safety reason (i.e. avoiding those awful crashes they had in Ottawa, avoiding lawsuits from people tumbling down double decker stairs) or if it's more just aversion to that type of technology that prevents the TTC from using these vehicles. I can see with double deckers how that would lead to vastly increased dwell times at stops as people slowly queue in and out of the bus. Still, without knowing the real reason, it's all speculation on our part. They could be really narrow-minded or there could be a really good reason why they don't use those vehicles. If anyone knows the real answer that would be interesting to find out.

The TTC has looked into getting articulated buses, but they haven't found one meeting their requirements.

http://www3.ttc.ca/About_the_TTC/Co.../Aug_27_2008/Reports/Option_to_Purchase_1.pdf

 

[MisterF]

This is a somewhat unchallenged view. I can't help but ask what is so great about capacity? That sounds dumb at first glance, and its not like I don't get why serving high demand routes with high capacity systems is a good idea. Capacity in and of itself though just seems a bit myopic. Taking the same argument ad infinitum, shouldn't we all travel via some kind of quadruple decked, 20m wide, 12 car trains carrying many thousands of passengers?

Looking at a more real world example, lets use LightRailNow's Folsom extension of the Sacramento LRT. I have no doubt that the system has a higher capacity than a bus route running along the same path. By itself that is probably a good thing, but it doesn't really help the transit system much. The end result is that the vehicles end up moving in 30minute headway's so as to have a decent utilization rate. If the transit operator had operated a lower capacity platform, headways could be shrunk thereby speeding up the system. Its not even a one off type of phenomenon. The US is full of LRT systems which, despite slashing neighboring bus routes to funnel ridership, end up with totally normal bus-range ridership, but with 15-20 minute headways. Scarberian has offered pretty convincing arguments that the higher capacity Sheppard East LRT will end up increasing average travel times for most of the route's riders through higher headways negating potential speed hikes.

Just to make sure no one interprets this as "capacity isn't important," I think capacity is important, just not the only thing that matters. Certainly less important than the both the cost and speed of a system. If we opt for higher capacity, implicitly raising headways, it could very well have the perverse effect of in some cases raising trip times (the single biggest determinant of transit utilization). In most cases buses aren't quite at this stage and we have yet to try any number of low cost capacity boosters (artics, double deckers, so on and so on) anyways.

None of this really has anything to do with my post. When ridership is high enough that cities start talking about building tunnels, chances are that ridership is high enough to justify rail. This is the case in Ottawa, for example.

 

[Hipster Duck]

The TTC has looked into getting articulated buses, but they haven't found one meeting their requirements.

Ha ha. Has the TTC ever found anything that met their requirements? I'm always reminded of Chuck's stories about doing engineering work for the TTC; how their in-house "experts" think that they can do everything better themselves and how you deliberately inflate the costs because dealing with the TTC is a hassle and it will be lost in their bureaucracy, anyway.

 

[Whoaccio]

Of course, you fail to mention that the SE Busway is also almost entirely along highway or rail corridors and going through forests, with stations more than 1.5 km apart.

No, fair enough I didn't. Maybe I was misleading but I don't think running through empty corridors is a bad thing. It lowers costs and generally ups speed. That busway for instance, at a cost/km lower than a single tracked LRT to nowhere probably incapable of headways greater than 15m, increased corridor ridership by 60% in its first two years. What I wanted to point out was using a 4km underground bus bypass through Brisbane's CBD as proof that BRTs cost 130+ m/km, and then using a single track LRT running through the countryside as a cost reference for LRT goes beyond dishonesty.

 

[kettal]

What I wanted to point out was using a 4km underground bus bypass through Melbourne's CBD as proof that BRTs cost 130+ m/km, and then using a single track LRT running through the countryside as a cost reference for LRT goes beyond dishonesty.

I presume you meant Brisbane, not Melbourne. Melbourne's CBD is to LRT what Brisbane is to Bus. If you want to compare the technologies, these are the two cities to use.

But it should be a surprise to nobody that articles from sites like LRT-NOW write the conclusion first, and then find numbers to prove it after. Finding inconsistencies is like shooting fish in a barrel.

 

[doady]

None of this really has anything to do with my post. When ridership is high enough that cities start talking about building tunnels, chances are that ridership is high enough to justify rail. This is the case in Ottawa, for example.

Well, that's the key isn't it? How can anyone make a blanket statement that streetcars are better than buses? It is not true for all situations. All cities are different and cities themselves are not uniform. Not all problems require the same solution.

 

[MisterF]

Well, that's the key isn't it? How can anyone make a blanket statement that streetcars are better than buses? It is not true for all situations. All cities are different and cities themselves are not uniform. Not all problems require the same solution.

Nobody's disagreeing with that and nobody's saying that streetcars are better in all situations. Why do people keep trying to make this argument?

 

[Towered]

I have to admit, I greatly miss those massive artics that used to rumble up and down Islington all the time. I get jealous seeing entire convoys of Mississauga Transit artics pulling into Islington station on a daily basis and wish the TTC would buy a new fleet of their own.

 

[GenerationW]

Finch, Sheppard, and parts of Eglinton are being widened. Vehicular traffic will be a lot smoother with no more buses in the lane.

Whether traffic will be smoother is a different issue, but will those streets be widened just to accomodate LRT ROWs or will vehicle lanes actually be added to what is there now?