[Epi]

The problem is... even ignoring all the tangental advantages of LRT over the bus, LRT provides something the bus does not... greatly expanded capacity. More capacity = more ridership growth opportunity = better for transit usage.

It's not great policy to go from bus->subway all in one swoop, even if that was forced for Sheppard. Both the Yonge line and the Bloor line were successful LRT lines before they were subways.

If we waited for ridership to truly justify having a subway, we'd be waiting until the bus was absolutely, completely saturated and unridable. Furthermore, considering the fact that the TTC has so much trouble hiring more bus drivers, it seems like we'll be forever starved for more buses, while a LRT has 3-4x the capcity for 1 driver.

LRT is a very good inbetween measure which has much more capacity than a bus ever will in places where we simply cannot justify building a subway, nor would having stations every 1-2km in the suburbs (as we seem to build our suburban subways in Toronto) be a good replacement for the current routes.

 

[kettal]

That's BS. When my friends and I go to the Ex, we don't choose the Bathurst streetcar over the Dufferin bus because it's a streetcar -- instead, we take Dufferin because the route is faster and much more direct.

Only the railfans and the Steve Munros of this world give a crap as to whether the wheels are rubber or steel -- the average joe doesn't care as long at it gets him (or her) from point A to point B.

All of this railfan nostalgia for light rail stems from childhood. Take Steve Munro -- his dad took him out on streetcars all the time as a kid. For the life of me, I cannot understand why anyone would prefer riding a streetcar over a subway, even as a kid, and why the tides have shifted towards streetcars over subways.

Even when I was a kid (and that was a LONG time ago), I remember the subway was exciting ... underground, fast, seemed like a real train (and what kid doesn't like a train?) ... but streetcars, BLEEAH !! The PCCs were earthquake rattle boxes -- how can anyone be nostalgic for those things?

I wasn't raised on streetcars at all. But one thing I can tell you, I cannot do anything on a bus such as reading without getting motion sickness. I have no idea how prevalent that is in the population, but it's one of the reasons for my bias.

If you want to know why the tides have changed from subways, you only have to look at what kind of city we have been building for the past 40 years. Mostly low-density suburbs with detached homes. It doesn't take a genius to see why subways everywhere doesn't make sense in such an environment.

 

[Rainforest]

Note that many TTC's bus routes, including Finch East and Jane, already have express / rocket branches. Although further expansion of rocket services is possible, I would not expect that to result in dramatic improvements of service. On routes where delays are caused by the general traffic congestion, express buses running in mixed traffic will suffer as well.

Once we opt for reserved transit lanes, only 6-lane streets allow to install BRT much cheaper than LRT. If road widening / property acquisition is needed, BRT lanes will cost quite a bit; in that case, if the ridership projections warrant LRT service, it might be a good idea to go for LRT.

One more advantage of adding a significant number of LRT services to TTC's mode mix, is that it will mitigate the effect of potential spikes of the diesel fuel price.

Point being that fixed rail systems are typically more susceptible to route disturbances than non-rail systems, assuming an equal degree of segregation.

Although this is true technically, I would expect that a fixed rail system benefits from a right-of-way more than a bus route does. In mixed traffic, buses are much more flexible than trams, as they can change lanes and even divert to another street. But once a right-of-way is created, fixed-rail vehicles should be as reliable as buses, except in cases of a major accident or construction.

 

[Rainforest]

However, one poorly planned part of the LRT network is the "Finch East Stubway Bypass". Metrolinx and TTC are bent on running a continuous Finch W - Sheppard E service, despite the fact that this relatively slow route will be of limited value for long crosstown trips.

About 400 million are slated for the LRT tracks on Finch E to Don Mills and Don Mills to Sheppard. IMO it would be better to use those funds to extend the Sheppard subway to Victoria Park, and build a surface terminus for Sheppard East LRT there. Finch West LRT would then terminate at Yonge. Advantages:

1) Direct connection between Victoria Park and the subway.

2) No overly complex design at Don Mills Stn.

3) Finch East bus service won't be messed up. One branch could operate off the Sheppard / Vic Park subway to Finch and all the way to Malvern, another branch would run from Yonge / Finch subway up to Kennedy or McCowan.

 

[MisterF]

That's BS. When my friends and I go to the Ex, we don't choose the Bathurst streetcar over the Dufferin bus because it's a streetcar -- instead, we take Dufferin because the route is faster and much more direct.

Only the railfans and the Steve Munros of this world give a crap as to whether the wheels are rubber or steel -- the average joe doesn't care as long at it gets him (or her) from point A to point B.

The average joe certainly does give a crap. There's a well researched preference for light rail over buses.

http://www.dft.gov.uk/pgr/regional/policy/transportchoicesofcarusersin3737

"Of all the alternatives to the car, the most ubiquitous and accessible to motorists is the bus. However, the bus was perceived as falling substantially short of meeting the needs of respondents. Buses were seen as undesirable and low status; an opinion based both on hearsay and past experience."

"Of the public transport options appraised in the survey, light rail was regarded as an acceptable and convenient alternative to the car and generally considered to be frequent, quick, clean and safe."

http://www.heritagetrolley.org/articleTennyson.htm

"When these service conditions are equal, it is evident that rail transit is likely to attract from 34 percent to 43 percent more riders than will equivalent bus service."

Closer to home, the Spadina line is the perfect example of how even a slow, unreliable streetcar is more attractive than bus service.

The anti-bus argument might make sense in the US, but it doesn't make sense in Canada. After all, Ottawa has higher transit ridership per capita than any light rail-based system in US or Canada. Winnipeg has higher ridership per capita than all US light rail-based systems except San Francisco.

Your example of Ottawa is puzzlling since that city is converting the busiest parts of its transitway to light rail.

 

[golodhendil]

The anti-bus argument might make sense in the US, but it doesn't make sense in Canada. After all, Ottawa has higher transit ridership per capita than any light rail-based system in US or Canada. Winnipeg has higher ridership per capita than all US light rail-based systems except San Francisco.

Canada has higher transit ridership than the US, period, so intersystem comparison is difficult if not pointless. The TTC bus network has a higher absolute ridership than the entire Chicago L, let alone "per capita" ridership, so does that mean people prefer buses to subways?
Besides, how exactly are you calculating "ridership per capita"? When you compared Winnipeg to the Muni, how do you take into account all the buses and the BART that run parallel to the Muni metro which compete for ridership? And when you compare the ridership of a small city like Winnipeg and bigger metro areas like SF and Boston, what population is your denominator? The city? The metro? How do you take into account the narrower geographic coverage of a light rail system compared to a bus network, and at the same time the funnelling effect of higher-order transit like the light rail?

That's BS. When my friends and I go to the Ex, we don't choose the Bathurst streetcar over the Dufferin bus because it's a streetcar -- instead, we take Dufferin because the route is faster and much more direct.

Only the railfans and the Steve Munros of this world give a crap as to whether the wheels are rubber or steel -- the average joe doesn't care as long at it gets him (or her) from point A to point B.

All of this railfan nostalgia for light rail stems from childhood. Take Steve Munro -- his dad took him out on streetcars all the time as a kid. For the life of me, I cannot understand why anyone would prefer riding a streetcar over a subway, even as a kid, and why the tides have shifted towards streetcars over subways.

Even when I was a kid (and that was a LONG time ago), I remember the subway was exciting ... underground, fast, seemed like a real train (and what kid doesn't like a train?) ... but streetcars, BLEEAH !! The PCCs were earthquake rattle boxes -- how can anyone be nostalgic for those things?

So your anecdotes trump others'? When you feel like it, ask me to give you anecdotes of people who prefer trams/streetcars over not just buses, but subways. And to be fair, kettal was referring to preference for rail over bus, so your rant about prefering streetcar over subway, other than giving you an opportunity to spew your LRT-hatred, is unwarranted.

Back to the topic of rail vs bus preference, the only reasonable comparison that can really be made is to compare passenger preference for LRT routes that have parallel bus services (since myriad factors render intersystem comparisons difficult, as I said; and comparing LRT and buses running on different routes is also imperfect because different routes/corridors obviously have different factors).

One good example is Boston's Green Line E branch and the bus route #39 that run on the same street for much of their lengths. Both the E train and the #39 bus operate at 5-15 min headways, so service level is comparable. On an average weekday, the E train carries close to 19000, while the #39 bus carries 14500. While the E train continues deeper in to downtown through the Central Subway, the bus goes farther out to the 'hoods, so even taking that difference into account, the light rail would still carry more passengers than the bus. The other corridor where the trolley and bus shares the same route, the B train and the #57 bus, is even more dismal for the bus, with the train running a couple min less frequently than the bus but having almost twice the ridership. Another potentially good comparison would be the north shore trunk arterial of HK Island, which has a tram, an underground, and tens of bus/jitney routes running in the same corridor/street.

(Before you make assumptions, from my previous posts you can clearly see I am no LRT fanatic. I support a full Sheppard HRT subway and a fully grade-separated Eglinton route.)

As for other advantages of LRT over BRT, I am under the impression that buses generally have shorter useful lifespan than trains (haven't looked up the data though), and so together with their lower capacity, it will be necessary to take into account the potentially higher procurement cost for bus than train.

 

[GenerationW]

Finch East doesn't need over a billion dollars worth of LRT - it's the only major bus route that works and should not be messed with for reasons I've gone into detail about several times before.

I agree with that. With the changes instituted last fall, service on this route has gone from average to excellent. There is a case for an LRT on Finch west of Yonge, but an LRT east of Yonge would be a complete waste of time and money.

 

[doady]

Your example of Ottawa is puzzlling since that city is converting the busiest parts of its transitway to light rail.

How is it puzzling?

Ottawa is currently a BRT-based system, and it already has higher ridership than any LRT-based system in the US or Canada. How anyone can argue that LRT is more attractive than bus is beyond me. It seems to me that there are more important ways to encourage more transit use than simply building light rail.

Ottawa is converting its BRT to LRT purely for capacity reasons, not to attract riders. And capacity is exactly the reason that subway should be built in Toronto instead of LRT. And when I say capacity, I am not referring to capacity of the bus system or any particular bus route. After all, the TTC doesn't use a single articulated bus.

 

[LowerBay]

The average joe certainly does give a crap. There's a well researched preference for light rail over buses.

http://www.dft.gov.uk/pgr/regional/policy/transportchoicesofcarusersin3737

"Of all the alternatives to the car, the most ubiquitous and accessible to motorists is the bus. However, the bus was perceived as falling substantially short of meeting the needs of respondents. Buses were seen as undesirable and low status; an opinion based both on hearsay and past experience."

"Of the public transport options appraised in the survey, light rail was regarded as an acceptable and convenient alternative to the car and generally considered to be frequent, quick, clean and safe."

http://www.heritagetrolley.org/articleTennyson.htm

"When these service conditions are equal, it is evident that rail transit is likely to attract from 34 percent to 43 percent more riders than will equivalent bus service."

Closer to home, the Spadina line is the perfect example of how even a slow, unreliable streetcar is more attractive than bus service.


Your example of Ottawa is puzzlling since that city is converting the busiest parts of its transitway to light rail.

This may be true in the US, but not here. Our history of subways, streetcars, and buses makes us different. I've asked many Torontonians this exact same question, and the majority simply do not care. I'm a railfan myself, so I know what bias is.

 

[doady]

Canada has higher transit ridership than the US, period, so intersystem comparison is difficult if not pointless. The TTC bus network has a higher absolute ridership than the entire Chicago L, let alone "per capita" ridership, so does that mean people prefer buses to subways?
Besides, how exactly are you calculating "ridership per capita"? When you compared Winnipeg to the Muni, how do you take into account all the buses and the BART that run parallel to the Muni metro which compete for ridership? And when you compare the ridership of a small city like Winnipeg and bigger metro areas like SF and Boston, what population is your denominator? The city? The metro?

The urban area. Cities are arbitrary and metros don't make sense because rural population should not be included since they are not served by transit.

[B]ANNUAL TRANSIT RIDERSHIP PER CAPITA - US AND CANADA[/B]

[B]								Boardings
Rank	Urban Area		Boardings	Population	per capita[/B]
1	Montreal		743,000,000	3,316,615	224
2	New York-Newark		3,453,093,200	17,773,000	194
3	Toronto			858,000,000	4,753,120	181
4	Ottawa-Kanata		152,000,000	946,050		161
5	Vancouver		284,132,400	1,953,252	145
6	Calgary			129,997,400	988,079		132
7	Washington		461,502,800	4,251,000	109
8	San Francisco-Oakland	427,764,500	4,170,000	103
	-Concord-Antioch
9	Boston			401,542,300	4,077,000	98
10	Winnipeg		58,100,000	641,483		91
11	Honolulu-Kailua-Kaneohe 64,976,200	744,000		87
12	Victoria		25,586,100	304,683		84
13	Chicago			603,966,200	7,702,000	78
14	Champaign		8,910,500	116,000		77
15	Philadelphia		352,923,000	5,296,000	67
16	Portland		110,634,100	1,729,000	64
17	Halifax			18,074,400	282,924		64
18	London			20,950,800	353,069		59
19	LA-Long Beach-Santa Ana	666,952,400	12,149,000	55
20	Seattle			159,698,800	3,002,000	53
21	Baltimore		105,151,300	2,149,000	49
22	North Bay		2,574,547	53,100		48
23	Hamilton		29,898,663	647,643		46
24	Guelph			5,679,575	127,270		45
25	Kitchener-Waterloo	18,718,811	422,514		44
26	Las Vegas		53,571,400	1,256,000	43
27	Pittsburgh		70,268,700	1,769,000	40
28	Milwaulkee		53,096,400	1,399,000	38
29	Cleveland		66,610,200	1,767,000	38
30	Denver-Aurora-Boulder	86,260,600	2,311,000	37
	-Longmont-Lafayette-Louisville
31	Atlanta			150,252,400	4,172,000	36
32	Peterborough		2,711,100	76,925		35
33	Thunder Bay		3,570,825	103,247		35
34	Minneapolis-St Paul	81,021,800	2,519,000	32
35	San Diego		89,924,400	2,903,000	31
36	Kingston		3,272,328	109,431		30
37	Miami			158,502,100	5,331,000	30
38	Sault Ste Marie (CAN)	1,882,773	68,084		28	
39	San Jose		39,132,500	1,649,000	24
40	St. Louis		48,902,300	2,106,000	23
41	Dallas-Ft. Worth-Arl.	82,019,800	3,746,000	22
42	Salt Lake City-Ogden	36,649,900	1,889,000	19
	-Provo-Orem
43	Sacramento		32,862,800	1,767,000	19
44	Orlando			24,807,600	1,335,000	19
45	Phoenix-Mesa		60,477,100	3,270,000	18
46	Providence		20,175,200	1,242,000	16
47	Virginia Beach		24,241,500	1,521,000	16
48	Riverside-S.Bernardino	23,322,400	1,828,000	13
49	Columbus		14,789,500	1,197,000	12
50	Detroit			47,558,500	3,931,000	12
51	Jacksonville		11,296,900	992,000		11
52	Tampa-St. Petersburg	22,992,900	2,251,000	10
53	Kansas City		14,506,200	1,454,000	10
54	Indianapolis		8,810,200	915,000		10
55	Nashville		7,465,300	984,000		8

Canadian data from 2006 and American data from 2005. 		
Some Canadian ridership and all American population totals are estimated.

How do you take into account the narrower geographic coverage of a light rail system compared to a bus network, and at the same time the funnelling effect of higher-order transit like the light rail?

Light rail can have "funneling effect" in other cities and along 905 corridors such as Hurontario. But in Toronto, light rail would not be the highest order transit because there is an existing subway network that dominates transit in the GTA and even Transit City recognises this and that is why it is comprised entirely of feeder lines. Transit City does not take advantage of the funneling effect of LRT at all, and it would probably be a futile effort even if it did.

The funneling effect is exactly why subway expansion is better for Toronto than LRT. If there was a complete Sheppard subway (alongside the University extension), would there be any point at all in a Finch LRT, let alone a Sheppard LRT?

 

[golodhendil]

Ottawa is currently a BRT-based system, and it already has higher ridership than any LRT-based system in the US or Canada. How anyone can argue that LRT is more attractive than bus is beyond me. It seems to me that there are more important ways to encourage more transit use than simply building light rail.

First, the Ottawa Transitway runs almost entirely on completely grade-separated ROW. Except for the missing rails, the system's implementation is basically the same as a railway, and being (until the recent addition of the pitiful O-train) the only higher-order transit system of a metro of a million, having high ridership is nothing surprising. Besides, that the Ottawa BRT has high ridership does not disprove LRT attracts more ridership than buses; have you been to an alternate universe where Ottawa built an LRT network, and have seen how their ridership compares?

 

[golodhendil]

Here is an article written about the Ottawa Transitway. It's kind of old, and it's by an LRT-advocacy group, but that doesn't change the historical facts and numbers:

http://www.lightrailnow.org/myths/m_otw001.htm
Ottawa's BRT "Transitway": Modern Miracle or Mega-Mirage?

Since the retirement of the General Manager of OC Transpo (The Ottawa-Carleton Regional Transit Commission ) and his metamorphosis into a worldwide busway consultant, T-2000 Canada has had requests for information from Charlotte, North Carolina; Auckland, New Zealand; Bristol, U.K.; and Brisbane, Queensland. Each time, the plaint is the same: "We thought we had a chance of advancing on a light rail project, but a consultant from Ottawa (John Bonsall) has come here and enchanted our decision-makers with tales of major economies and booming ridership on the Ottawa 'Transitway'. is this system a modern miracle or are there flaws?" What follows is offered in the hope that, after reading it, light rail specialists and advocates, armed with the truth, will not be caught off guard and will have relevant facts and figures on the Ottawa case from the start.

First, a little history. For nearly a century, Ottawa, Canada's capital from 1867, had an efficient and innovative tramway [streetcar] system – from horsecars to postwar modern electric trams, though, exceptionally, the Ottawa Electric Railway and the successor Ottawa Transportation Commission owned no PCCs [streamlined streetcars], even in the post-World War II era. The track was for the most part well-maintained, as were all the cars, right to the ignominious end, when the cars were mostly sold for scrap to pay for a fleet of 1959 standee-window GM buses. This writer helped a number of museums acquire cars and parts despite the mayor trying to ensure that all the cars went to a scrap merchant. The mayor, soundly defeated in an ensuing election, did get the trams off the streets, making these "safe" for the automobile, preferred by his merchant supporters and the [Canadian] federal planners.

Twenty years later, the Transit Commission and the regional government announced public consultations to determine the shape of future transit: should it be metros, light rail, or busways? it soon became apparent that the dice were loaded: The consulting firm hired was the same outfit that had pulled up the tracks on the lengthy reserved-track Britannia tram line, and the Transit Commission management had little time for the proponents of rail-based systems, calling even professional transport experts "railfans".

In such a context, it was no surprise that the latters' arguments were swept under the magic carpet of dazzling promises of an integrated , speedy, inexpensive far-flung system. Of course, to mollify residual objectors, it was promised that when ridership boomed to new heights, conversion to light rail or metro would be examined. The region, for the moment, had "too small a population" for a revival of rail. (The region, in 1981, had a population of about half-a-million – the Québec Outaouais included – and this has grown to nearly a million since).

An eight-volume set of "Rapid Transit" studies was produced for the Region in the late 1970s; this led to a 1981 study which proposed a busway system costing C$ 97.1 million, providing 26 kilometers of exclusive right-of-way and 5 km. of street running. Ridership, it was projected, would reach 95 million/year by 1991. (in fact, ridership was 71 million trips in 1995, and had declined by ten per cent on the central busway line since the opening). The number of buses needed would supposedly decline to 610 buses from the then-current fleet of 660 because of promised efficiencies of running local collector buses on through downtown. (in fact, over the next decade-and-a half, even as ridership went down, more buses had to be bought.)

The leadership skills of the former General Manager were critical in getting Regional Council to adopt the plan. This civil engineer, formerly a highways specialist with the Ontario Ministry of Transport, assured the politicians that "Buses are cheaper than trains and they can get you where you where you want to go" – or words to that effect.

The project went ahead, paid for much more by grants from the provincial government than by the region; these were the heady days of post-energy crisis concern for alternatives to the automobile, and the Province was disposed to write the cheques for seventy-five per cent of capital costs sans trop regarder. At first, managers could point to some measure of apparent "success". in rush-hour, sixty-five percent of downtown workers came into Centretown by bus, the best ratio for a bus-only system in North America. This is often made to sound like the "absolute best" in North America. (By comparison, it's reported that about 65 per cent of commuters to central San Francisco come by public transit, and more than 80 per cent of rush-hour commuters come into Manhattan by public transit, mostly on rails.)

What was left unsaid was that ridership on OC Transpo had already increased from 36 million trips to 82 million trips before the busway was built; transit priority had been implemented on city streets; the federal government had implemented strict rules governing centre-core parking for civil servants – only one parking spot for ten employees – and hefty fees were charged for nearly all. Ottawa has ca. 300 parking spots per 1000 downtown jobs compared to a typical North American rate of 500 to 600 per 1000 jobs.

The City of Ottawa's strictly-enforced ban on (weekday) all-day parking and other car-curtailment policies and a northern civic ethos among the people targetted helped, too. In fair weather and foul, many will walk or bicycle to work! in the severe Ottawa winter, others have always left their cars at home to take transit to work. The writer's fellow-citizens on the Québec side of the Ottawa River have traditionally had no such scruples: until recently, sixty-five per cent of them going to the downtown core have done so by car (although this pattern appears to be changing, as described further in this article).

Urban sprawl, the early demise of their tramways and commuter trains and a slow "spaghetti" bus system help explain this, but cultural values may play a role: compare this to Genève where roads in from France are clogged with the single-occupant vehicles of the travailleurs transfrontaliers. (it should be noted that since this article was originally written, Outaouais ridership has been rising; transit priority measures, road congestion, and but one modest fare increase have changed the pattern).

The final price for the system described (see map) was C$ 440 million as of 1996. The provincial taxpayers had bought an east-west line from Blair Road Station in the east to Baseline Station in the west with four kilometers of reserved lanes in Centretown and 6 km. of shoulder-lanes reserved along the Queensway, an urban motorway built mostly on former steam railway alignments – and named for the Queen, who inaugurated it. (No, the subsequent pollution and congestion aren't her fault!). Of the money spent, C$ 180 million went to the South-East Transitway, which exactly duplicates parallel active railway lines, from Hurdman to South Keys, with onward running in traffic to the nearby airport.

 

[golodhendil]

(cont'd)

In 1986, following an editorial on already-escalating costs of the Ottawa Transitway in The Ottawa Citizen newspaper, this writer was stimulated to write a critical opinion piece for the paper on the subject. This led in turn to the Ontario Auditor's Report (Queen's Printer 1986) which contained, inter alia, the following information:

The Ottawa Rapid Transitway Project was approved by the Ministry in 1981 at an estimated cost of 97.5 million dollars [for 31 kilometers]. The Ministry [of Transport] committed itself to funding 75 per cent of this Transitway's costs. As the project proceeded, it was apparent that not all costs had been identified [emphasis added] and revisions had to be made to the estimates. Total costs escalated as follows:

Budget year Estimated total costs (million C$)
1981 97.5
1982 160.6
1983 174.2
1984 226.2
1985 270.1
1986 389.2

The main reasons for the cost increases were underestimation of original costs, exclusion of inflation, incomplete details [in] plans and changes in standards of transitway stations. By 1986, the estimated cost had increased 400 percent from that anticipated at the start of the project.

The reference to stations is important: From the relatively simple shelters we expected, these grew to Taj Mahals worthy of a gold-plated metro system such as BART, outclassing Vancouver's 'Skytrain' stations. The Ottawa stations are vast enough to be intimidating; in the 1990's the Bronfman Foundation sponsored Transport 2000's Transit Advocacy Project which proposed and got humanisation of these inhospitable palaces: newspaper and coffee kiosks, better signage, safety features, and better integration into the streetscape.

The cost could have been even greater: to replace street running downtown, OC Transpo proposed twin downtown bus tunnels at a cost of C$ 1 billion. Luckily, in the early 1990s the then newly-elected New Democratic Party (Labour) government had some doubts: At an award ceremony for the Minister of Transport, the writer tipped him off as to the excessive cost of the project, and he in turn confided that the Minister of Housing, Evelyn Gigantes, M.P.P. for Gloucester, was also opposed.

The project was cancelled shortly after. it was already apparent that the busway was not attracting development along its line a la Toronto subway, and throwing "good money after bad" might not have improved matters, according to satisfied opponents.

The Transitway has absorbed an increasing portion of the resources that used to serve the streetcar neighbourhoods and commercial streets, as well as the night and weekend services, even in the suburbs. Riders are still jostled and jounced on buses that ride little better on a road for buses than on roads for cars. Ottawans introduced to Calgary and Edmonton light rail by the writer are unanimously amazed by the smooth, silent ride! North Americans, used to car comfort, still flock to commuter trains and light rail, but Transitway ridership remains below expectations. The special Orion/ikarus articulated buses are deteriorating, and a large number are sidelined, inoperable. These were supposedly the answer to LRT high-capacity cars. Sic transit gloria mundi! (Note: Ottawa is preparing in 2001 for a large order for new buses to replace the Orion/ikarus busses after only a dozen years of use).

The province is now removing its 75 per cent busway construction subsidy. This has resulted in deferral of about C$ 500 million in additional busway plans. Regional Council has just approved C$ 9 million (with 50% interim funding by the province – the last) for pre-construction work on a 3 km. extension of the West Transitway from Pinecrest to Acres Road. For the period 2021, other extensions have been downgraded from grade separated Transitways [busways] to "at grade" (surface) bus lanes, and a regional councillor is pressing to have car pools allowed on these. This may mean the end of bus priority, as many single-occupant vehicles sneak onto bus lanes here once vehicles with three persons are admitted.

As part of a wider review of the Regional Plan, Council asked in 1995 for a review of OC Transpo, and had it carried out by M.M. Dillon Ltd., consultants not previously involved in OC Transpo. The resulting 1997 report recommended a change in emphasis away from busway construction to bus priority at intersections. it also recommends a 40-km. diesel light rail transit (DLRT) system using underused heavy railway tracks. The Canadian Pacific Railway (CP) DLRT line (7 km.) will cost C$ 16 million (plus lease/purchase of three Bombardier Talent diesel three-section articulated railcars now delivered) compared to at-grade bus lanes at 37 million and a full busway at 263 million! The Canadian National Railway (CN) DLRT line would cost C$ 100 million for a double-track system compared to C$ 150 million for at-grade bus lanes and one billion dollars for a full busway. The rail corridors, now on the draft transport master plan and the draft official plan, will be livened up with an initial DLRT three-year test service on the CP line following a unanimous vote by councillors to accept it. The new council chairman, Bob Chiarelli, elected in November 1997, is now talking of converting the transitway to electric LRT.

Electric light rail has not so far fared as well as DLRT in the study process: consultants were apparently prevented from comparing ELRT trains of two or three cars with buses for operating costs. Nonetheless, the clear findings in favour of DLRT point the way.

Clearly the rolling stock costs are not significant (in modal choice). The guideway costs are significantly in favour of the rail transit option. Given the much lower capital cost, it is recommended that the preferred technology for the CNR corridor be rail transit service. (Repeated for the CPR corridor).

In fact, Calgary Transit (CT) operates both buses and electric LRT, and has hands-on experience with diesel LRT. CT reports operating costs for all three:

item Diesel Bus Regiosprinter DLRT* Electric LRT**
C$ per vehicle hour 42.58 66.79 92.87
Seats/vehicle (train) 45 75 160
C$ per seat per hour 0.95 0.89 0.58

* One-car train, preliminary maintenance costs during 6-month trial, can be operated in MU
** Average of 2.5 cars per train

Not enough can be said about the role of the neutral outside consultants M.M. Dillon and subcontractor Transport Concepts, both of Ottawa, in taking a fresh look at the Transitway conundrum. One individual involved in the work (who has asked not to be identified) says key elements in the Region's change of vision included the involvement of the business community, including rail "champion" Barbara Ramsey, a pharmacist, and the Board of Trade. Cost concerns fueled their involvement, as did the elimination in two stages of the Provincial grant for busways, which had seemed attractive as long as someone else was paying. The charismatic leader had left the system, which, with declining ridership, could no longer ride on the image of success; and the business community no longer believed what the bus lobby and bureaucrats had been saying.

A controversy over building new bridges or expanding an old one for Québec-based car commuters into Ottawa helped too. Although the Outaouais (Qué.) Regional Council adopted a busway mega-project (en principe) and road-bridge expansion in preference to a rail commuter service as proposed by the CPR , lack of funds will make busways there "as likely as a snowball in hell" in the words of one well-known social activist. Bus lanes and an expanded parkway bridge will have to suffice. The Ontarians oppose the bridge expansion, and like to hold up their commitment to rail as the alternative. This may win out in the end, as the media have quoted the Mayor of Hull, Yves Ducharme, as saying that if the DLRT trial is successful, "the Outaouais will have to take a second look at rail service".

(As previously noted, in 2001 Outaouais travel habits appear to be changing rapidly: The installation of transit-preference lanes has sped up bus service, and transit growth rate on the Société de Transport de l'Outaouais (STO) has been around 5% per annum for a few years. in the first quarter of 2001 it was 11%, so the modal share must be improving in favour of transit. Now the challenge will be to get sceptical STO transit officials to adopt a DLRT extension to the Québec side of the Ottawa River!)

 

[Glen]

Closer to home, the Spadina line is the perfect example of how even a slow, unreliable streetcar is more attractive than bus service.

I call bull.

The TTC has a bad habit of comparing pre-construction Spadina 77 ridership to today's. It did not compare all time peak ridership. By doing this they can claim, like you, that LRTs attract more riders. Though, if one was to re-weight the increase of Spadina ridership to that of overall TTC ridership increases during the time in question a more accurate picture emerges.

Hundreds of millions of dollars to save 2 minutes max, wile attracting no, real, additional riders. A money making bus route is now a money losing LRT. At least kettal won't get motion sickness while reading though, that must be worth something.

 

[golodhendil]

The urban area. Cities are arbitrary and metros don't make sense because rural population should not be included since they are not served by transit.

Thank you for posting data that nullifies your point. Clearly, rural population not served (or barely served) by transit is included in those stats.

Using Boston as an example, the population it gave is for the entire Greater Boston, which includes swaths of suburb, exurbs and even more sparsely populated areas that takes up almost the eastern half of Massachusetts and the southern part of New Hampshire -- areas served by the far-flung commuter rail and thus part of the "transit catchment" area considered in those numbers. Same thing with the pop given for San Francisco Bay Area: that's the stat given for the entire SF Peninsula and East Bay, sparsely-populated sprawl that is served by the BART but mostly by buses (if at all). It has also clearly done the same thing for metros like Portland, Sacremento, San Diego, etc, as far down the list as I can see, so there's no reason to believe it has done otherwise with any of the other "light rail cities". To compare the tiny and compact city of Winnipeg to these sprawling metros where the light rail covers only a small portion and where there is barely any transit service in much of the rest of the area is utterly disingenuous and says nothing about the relative "attractiveness" of light rail vs buses.

A much fairer comparison would be to only look at the actual cities in those metros where the light rail runs. To again take Boston as an example (which is in large part also a "light rail based" system). The Green Line's total boarding in 2007 is ~80M. The Green Line serves half of Boston, the town of Brookline, and a small corridor in Newton. With a population of ~400000, the "per capita" ridership for Green Line is close to 200, and that's not even taking the buses into account yet. That's significantly higher than even Ottawa with it vaunted BRT system, let alone Winnipeg, if you're still into intersystem comparisons. To compare systems based on such different metrics for population, area, etc, as that report did, is sloppy statistics in action.