[Justin10000]

I quoted you a damn source saying that it COULD handle well over 2,000pph! How biased are you that you're ignoring the facts in black and white?! The peak Transitway ridership is 10,500pphpd, and that peak ridership occurs through the core, which is curbside lanes. Ergo, curbside lanes can handle somewhere around 8,000pphpd comfortably. The fact that you're insisting that it's only 2000pph, despite my showing you that you're wrong, well you can finish that thought yourself...

http://www.publictransit.us/ptlibrary/specialreports/sr8.1.OttawaTransitPart2.htm

Detailed studies prove otherwise. The fact that buses are parked bumper to numper on the curb lanes shows bus lanes cannot reliably handle capacity higher than 2,000pph. You assume too much, and as usual you're wrong.

 

[gweed123]

http://www.publictransit.us/ptlibrary/specialreports/sr8.1.OttawaTransitPart2.htm

Detailed studies prove otherwise. The fact that buses are parked bumper to numper on the curb lanes shows bus lanes cannot reliably handle capacity higher than 2,000pph. You assume too much, and as usual you're wrong.

Does this study say it can't handle over 2,000pphpd? Didn't see that anywhere in there... 10,500pphpd may be a false claim by OC Transpo, but I was quoting them. As the article states, the actual capacity is somewhere around 7000pphpd, still well above your stated maximum of 2000pph.

My point here is that you continually underestimate the value of BRT, due to your inherent bias towards LRT. Even when the article you posted yourself proves you wrong, you still insist that I'm wrong for refuting your false claim.

 

[urbandreamer]

Do you need a phd to understand or care what pphpd stands for?

 

[Rainforest]

Do you need a phd to understand or care what pphpd stands for?

pphpd = people per hour per direction

 

[Rainforest]

If anything attention should be focused on making sure GO provides all day service on the Stouffville line, along with fare integration, so riders have an even quicker ride downtown whose fare is on par, or least only a bit more expensive than the TTC.

For N-S trips, frequent all day service on the Stouffville line is the first thing that comes to mind. I am surprised that it is not included in the Metrolinx's list of Express services (Lakeshore E / W, Brampton, Milton, and Richmond Hill are all included at least in theory).

Some mentioned that parts of that corridor have no space for dual-tracking, and that many at-grade crossings would have to be separated or closed. I hope that those hurdles can be resolved.

How about GO bus? The GO bus travels from STC to York Mills/ Yorkdale, and You can get to York U from STC using the 407 express. This is the role of GO transit, and GO should be petitioned to improve their role in the 416, and provide better service for long distance travellers.

For E-W trips within 416, I wouldn't put much emphasis on GO buses. The problem is that the buses cannot stop on 401 (the only rapid corridor available for buses in the north of 416), they have to exit and re-enter. That dictates very wide stop spacing (otherwise the speed will be lost), like STC - Yonge - Yorkdale for Oshawa buses or Yonge - Yorkdale - Keele - Martin Grove for Brampton buses.

Using the 401 corridor for a really massive transit service can and should be considered, but it would cost many times more than just adding GO buses. It would probably involve taking two lanes, installing some form of rail transit on them, building stations under / over the highway etc.

 

[Justin10000]

Does this study say it can't handle over 2,000pphpd? Didn't see that anywhere in there... 10,500pphpd may be a false claim by OC Transpo, but I was quoting them. As the article states, the actual capacity is somewhere around 7000pphpd, still well above your stated maximum of 2000pph.

And I showed you wrong. What a shocker.
Actually, the report states the maximum observed maximum volume was 4,500 at Lees, and 4,700 at Tunney's... Both stations that are on the grade separated portion of the transitway. Lord knows how much lower the capacity really is in the core. I actually wish these guys did research on the core curbside lanes too.
The writers of the report believe that the actual maximum volume may fall between 3,000-5,000 at Lees, and Tunney's Pasture stations.

My point here is that you continually underestimate the value of BRT, due to your inherent bias towards LRT. Even when the article you posted yourself proves you wrong, you still insist that I'm wrong for refuting your false claim.

[/quote]

And you continually overstate the value of BRT, due to you inherent bias against (ignorance of?) LRT. The article proved me right, you just read it wrong. Or do not want to admit your wrong. The fact your SOS group's "Move Toronto" contains only subways, and bus lanes shows you cannot grasp the role surface LRT can play in providing the intermediate capacity role needed in a transit network.

 

[gweed123]

And I showed you wrong. What a shocker.
Actually, the report states the maximum observed maximum volume was 4,500 at Lees, and 4,700 at Tunney's... Both stations that are on the grade separated portion of the transitway. Lord knows how much lower the capacity really is in the core. I actually wish these guys did research on the core curbside lanes too.
The writers of the report believe that the actual maximum volume may fall between 3,000-5,000 at Lees, and Tunney's Pasture stations.

As you are so fond of showing in your pictures (I'm referring to the backups of buses leading into downtown), the capacity of the sections on the edges of downtown (Lees and Tunney's are perfect examples) is determined by the capacity through downtown. If there's a backup going into downtown, those stations theoretically can't do any more than what the downtown stations are doing. And regardless, THEY'RE STILL ABOVE 2000PPH, as you have continually claimed. You seem to be completely ignoring this fact.

And you continually overstate the value of BRT, due to you inherent bias against (ignorance of?) LRT. The article proved me right, you just read it wrong. Or do not want to admit your wrong. The fact your SOS group's "Move Toronto" contains only subways, and bus lanes shows you cannot grasp the role surface LRT can play in providing the intermediate capacity role needed in a transit network.

I do not overstate the value of BRT. I know that it has it's limits. It's just when the ridership forecasts fall into that area of overlap between BRT and LRT (Sheppard East for the majority of its length is certainly in that range), I favour BRT because it is cheaper. Same reason as you favour LRT over subway, because it's cheaper.

I am not ignorant of LRT. I am a firm supporter of the Ottawa LRT plan. In fact, I wrote Jim Watson an email today saying that it was a mistake to rethink the tunnel project. If that isn't supporting an LRT project, I don't know what is.

And saying that I do not grasp the role that LRT has to play is not true either. I do grasp the role of LRT. I just feel that running LRT in median is not using LRT to it's full advantage. If the TC lines had grade separation, ran in ROWs parallel to the road, etc, I would be more inclined to support them. I have said this over and over again, but you LRTistas insist on painting me as "anti-LRT": I am not opposed to LRT. I am opposed to LRT as it is implemented in Transit City. Saying that makes me anti-LRT is like saying because I don't like Nickelback, that means I don't like rock.

So in the future, I would appreciate it if you didn't paint me as being anti-LRT, anti-transit, what-have-you, because I do not support a series of projects that are being implemented. I am opposed to the projects, not the technology behind them.

 

[Justin10000]

As you are so fond of showing in your pictures (I'm referring to the backups of buses leading into downtown), the capacity of the sections on the edges of downtown (Lees and Tunney's are perfect examples) is determined by the capacity through downtown. If there's a backup going into downtown, those stations theoretically can't do any more than what the downtown stations are doing. And regardless, THEY'RE STILL ABOVE 2000PPH, as you have continually claimed. You seem to be completely ignoring this fact.

I never showed any pictures of buses backed up on the Transitway. W. K. Lis showed those pictures. How do you expect believe people to believe you, when you make up these accusations? Ok, the bus lanes are handling at least 4,000pph: Buses bumper to bumper, crawling through the downtown, long dwell times. Which goes back to my previous statement: Bus lanes above 2,000pph REQUIRE PASSING LANES. Thanks for coming out, and proving why bus lanes will not work for demand above 2,000pph.

I am only going to reply to your comment about me favouring LRT "because it's cheaper" I favour LRT because it's a viable intermediate capacity transit mode that can fill the role where grade separated high capacity transit is not viable due to costs, or operating environment. I believe in the role that surface rail can provide. You do not. That's fact, no matter how much you try to claim otherwise.

 

[gweed123]

I never showed any pictures of buses backed up on the Transitway. W. K. Lis showed those pictures. How do you expect believe people to believe you, when you make up these accusations? Ok, the bus lanes are handling at least 4,000pph: Buses bumper to bumper, crawling through the downtown, long dwell times. Which goes back to my previous statement: Bus lanes above 2,000pph REQUIRE PASSING LANES. Thanks for coming out, and proving why bus lanes will not work for demand above 2,000pph.

Ok, yes it was him, I appologize for that. However, you did comment extensively on the pictures and used them as a reason to trash BRT. To quote you directly: "Sorry, but I do not consider curb-lanes to be "BRT"". And I still do not believe that it is only 4,000pph going through downtown. It's 7,000pphpd at least, let's be realistic here. And as I stated earlier (which you conveniently ignored), the section on Woodroffe between Algonquin and Hunt Club carries well over 2000pph, works just fine, and does not require passing lanes. In a suburban context, capacity is increased because of wider intersection spacing, higher travel speeds, etc.

If in-median LRT can handle around 10,000, and the vehicles can carry roughly 3x as many people as an articulated bus, that should give 3,300ish pph. The capacity of the lane is the same regardless of what is travelling in it. The only difference is the capacities of the vehicles occupying the lane space.

I am only going to reply to your comment about me favouring LRT "because it's cheaper" I favour LRT because it's a viable intermediate capacity transit mode that can fill the role where grade separated high capacity transit is not viable due to costs, or operating environment. I believe in the role that surface rail can provide. You do not. That's fact, no matter how much you try to claim otherwise.

As I have stated numerous times, I believe that in-median LRT is well suited for secondary corridors, as a SUPPLEMENT to a primary transit network. In a city the size of Toronto however, they are NOT a substitute for grade-separated rapid transit along primary corridors. Those corridors need high capacity, high speed options. In-median LRT is neither. Grade-separated LRT may work on some corridors (downtown Ottawa for instance).

 

[Hipster Duck]

I am only going to reply to your comment about me favouring LRT "because it's cheaper" I favour LRT because it's a viable intermediate capacity transit mode that can fill the role where grade separated high capacity transit is not viable due to costs, or operating environment. I believe in the role that surface rail can provide. You do not. That's fact, no matter how much you try to claim otherwise.

I am not so sure that that's a fact. There are very few verifiable facts out there, let alone in the world of transit debates.

 

[Justin10000]

For N-S trips, frequent all day service on the Stouffville line is the first thing that comes to mind. I am surprised that it is not included in the Metrolinx's list of Express services (Lakeshore E / W, Brampton, Milton, and Richmond Hill are all included at least in theory).
Some mentioned that parts of that corridor have no space for dual-tracking, and that many at-grade crossings would have to be separated or closed. I hope that those hurdles can be resolved.

The Stouffville line could be a viable alternative for service to Scarborough. If the line was electrified, and utilized EMU's you could add a stop at Finch Ave, and provided a excellent service. If double tracking, and grade separating was possible, the Stouffville line could be a great showcase for Regional Express Rail in Toronto.

For E-W trips within 416, I wouldn't put much emphasis on GO buses. The problem is that the buses cannot stop on 401 (the only rapid corridor available for buses in the north of 416), they have to exit and re-enter. That dictates very wide stop spacing (otherwise the speed will be lost), like STC - Yonge - Yorkdale for Oshawa buses or Yonge - Yorkdale - Keele - Martin Grove for Brampton buses.

Using the 401 corridor for a really massive transit service can and should be considered, but it would cost many times more than just adding GO buses. It would probably involve taking two lanes, installing some form of rail transit on them, building stations under / over the highway etc.

I do agree bulding rail infrastructure on the 401 would be prohibitivel expensive, and I do not think it will attract many riders anyways. Taking away lanes from traffic on the 401 is never going to happen. This is why GO bus is perfect. People like to talk about serving "nodes." Well, STC, York Mills, Yorkdale, and York U can be served by GO running on the 401, and 407. The buses are obviously going to be better quality than transit buses. The long distance 407 express service is a good model to follow for long distance regional travel, in my opinion.

 

[nfitz]

So what evidence do we have that Ford was pro-subway historically? I was looking back at City Council votes, and in January 2009, when the TTC voted to approve the EA for the Yonge Extension (which Ford did vote for), Ford voted against the amendment to start and EA on the DRL. Doesn't seem very pro-subway in Toronto to me if he doesn't even support the DRL

 

[Electrify]

Keep in mind that the Transitway in Ottawa does not offer off-board payment. This means the driver must check and accept all payments from each passenger. If passengers paid their fare before boarding, the already impressive capacity numbers could be even higher.

 

[Fresh Start]

And I showed you wrong. What a shocker.
Actually, the report states the maximum observed maximum volume was 4,500 at Lees, and 4,700 at Tunney's... Both stations that are on the grade separated portion of the transitway. Lord knows how much lower the capacity really is in the core. I actually wish these guys did research on the core curbside lanes too.
The writers of the report believe that the actual maximum volume may fall between 3,000-5,000 at Lees, and Tunney's Pasture stations.

I understand your incredulity, but BRT is a superior mode to LRT for longer disance trips, in all aspects except for the number of required drivers (which is almost a negligible point in this context). I was amazed when I first visited Bogota, Colombia and my jaw dropped when I read about the capacities - the most recent figure is *45,000 ppdpd.* The experience shaped my life and why I'm a self-professed transit advocate:

2007 figures (completed phase II) used in the BRT Planning guide - see Annex 1 system comparisons. If you have time, the whole guide is very interesting. Bogota is for now pretty much international best-practices in BRT.
http://www.itdp.org/index.php/micros...lanning_guide/

2006 figures (nearly complete phase II): page ix of http://www.trb.org/news/blurb_detail.asp?id=6340

2005 figures - see the ppt 1.2 "Introduction to BRT", see the 6th to last slide.
http://www.uncrd.or.jp/env/est/news-BRT-nov05.htm

The system is also earning the city an estimated 25 million USD dollars in Carbon credits for reducing carbon emissions. http://www.c40cities.org/bestpractic...bogota_bus.jsp And this has even garnered mention along with Curitiba in the IPCC third report on Climate Change Mitigation Ch. 5 page 332) http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-re...g3-chapter5.pd

How it Works

1) they run *2* lanes in each direction, with inside lane is routes that stop at every station, and the outside lane is used for routes that skip most stations and only stop at some stations (the most popular & crowded)

2) Ridiculously high frequencies - the busiest stations have a bus arriving every 13 seconds during peak hours. Note that the stations are quite compact too - they are all fit in the median.

3) Fast boarding/offboarding - the average duration of a bus at a station from door open to door close is 24 seconds

4) Bogota is very dense - at 270 ppl per hectare, has city-wide density slightly higher than *central* Paris (or the fabled west end of Vancouver). That puts a lot people walking distance to lines. Imagine Finch West, Sheppard East, Jane or Don Mills with one of these. It's all in one's optics whether bus transit is inferior to rails when initial and O&M costs for the former can be remarkably more affordable.

And you continually overstate the value of BRT, due to you inherent bias against (ignorance of?) LRT. The article proved me right, you just read it wrong. Or do not want to admit your wrong. The fact your SOS group's "Move Toronto" contains only subways, and bus lanes shows you cannot grasp the role surface LRT can play in providing the intermediate capacity role needed in a transit network.

The largest light rail vehicles are about 10-15% larger in capacity than the largest buses, with a much lower percentage seated. By the time you actually do get to the scale where LRT requires less drivers, you enter the realm of heavy rail, and you require much much greater densities in order to support it. I think a system that offers services that are 10 - 15 mins frequency is useless here (it will lose out to people who will just drive every time). That's why the 190 isn't as heavily utilized as it should be, because of the prolonged waittimes.

By all means if you can consider a system like BART light rail than it starts to show some of the advantages of light rail. Most people when they mention light rail tend to think of much lighter systems that are generally pretty crap, while at the same time also thinking of some pretty bad BRT examples (there are quite a few that are indeed a joke and give it a bad name, or are simply only suitable for very low densities).

 

[Fresh Start]

Keep in mind that the Transitway in Ottawa does not offer off-board payment. This means the driver must check and accept all payments from each passenger. If passengers paid their fare before boarding, the already impressive capacity numbers could be even higher.

+1

If OC Transpo took a page from VIVA and allowed all-door boarding with the occasional fare inspector patrolling on and off, the ridership would indeed be higher. And this is Ottawa, where half the city is well-to-do bureaucrats and the winters are brutal. Buses appeal to all rider classes and can tolerate the cold just as good as light-rail. Too bad about the boondoogle they're about to build there though.