Voltz
Senior Member
If Ford was involved, more than likely he wanted something sold for the sake of being sold to collect the revenue, I doubt that getting in the way of a transit line would have occurred to him.
|
|
|
- Thread starter M II A II R II K
- Start date
If Ford was involved, more than likely he wanted something sold for the sake of being sold to collect the revenue, I doubt that getting in the way of a transit line would have occurred to him.
Dan416
Senior Member
I agree. Ford doesn't have that much foresight.
doady
Senior Member
Even if Ford had that much foresight, it seem unlikely that he would go out of his way to sabotage the possibility of taking a transit line off the street, especially considering his staunch opposition to all forms of on-street transit.
M II A II R II K
Senior Member
Do Bus Rapid Transit Right, And It Won’t Get Killed
07/18/2012
By Annie Weinstock
Read More: http://americancity.org/daily/entry/do-bus-rapid-transit-right-and-it-wont-get-killed
The growth in popularity of bus rapid transit (BRT) in the U.S. is providing American cities with an important public transit option that has already been shown to reduce congestion and improve quality of life for urban residents around the world. As new BRT systems are planned, however, it is increasingly important that they meet the emerging industry-standard definition of what constitutes true BRT.
- Stations, placed at intersections, leave insufficient space for free left turns (the equivalent of free right turns in the U.S.), and left-turning vehicles yielding to pedestrians back up traffic. In addition, failing to eliminate turns across the busway significantly slows both bus and car traffic, and fares are collected onboard the bus, which slows boarding times. There is no off-board fare collection, a key aspect of BRT. The system also allows non-BRT buses into the bus lane, so there is no consistency in at-level boarding — which doesn’t require passengers to step up to board and is a critical element to a smooth BRT experience.
- Virginia’s Shirley Highway Busway, while once a well-functioning bus lane on a highway, lacked many of the quality-of-service features necessary to make it a world-class BRT system. There were no permanent stations and no off-board fare collection. As its conduit was a highway lane, it was never integrated with bicycling and walking infrastructure. In addition, the frequency of buses was too low, leading to the none-too-rare sight of an empty lane flanking a congested highway. The state has since reduced restrictions on cars allowed in the bus lane, and will soon even permit single-occupant vehicles to use it.
- The reality is that dismantling a BRT system only happens when the quality of the system is already too low for it to be viewed as a permanent part of the city’s infrastructure. Cleveland’s HealthLine BRT corridor, which features high-quality stations, off-board fare collection, median-aligned dedicated bus lanes and at-level boarding, is a leading example in the U.S. of a world-class BRT project. The HealthLine joins the ranks of other internationally recognized leaders such as Ahmedabad’s Janmarg in India, Johannesburg’s Rea Vaya in South Africa and the Guangzhou BRT in China.
.....
07/18/2012
By Annie Weinstock
Read More: http://americancity.org/daily/entry/do-bus-rapid-transit-right-and-it-wont-get-killed
The growth in popularity of bus rapid transit (BRT) in the U.S. is providing American cities with an important public transit option that has already been shown to reduce congestion and improve quality of life for urban residents around the world. As new BRT systems are planned, however, it is increasingly important that they meet the emerging industry-standard definition of what constitutes true BRT.
- Stations, placed at intersections, leave insufficient space for free left turns (the equivalent of free right turns in the U.S.), and left-turning vehicles yielding to pedestrians back up traffic. In addition, failing to eliminate turns across the busway significantly slows both bus and car traffic, and fares are collected onboard the bus, which slows boarding times. There is no off-board fare collection, a key aspect of BRT. The system also allows non-BRT buses into the bus lane, so there is no consistency in at-level boarding — which doesn’t require passengers to step up to board and is a critical element to a smooth BRT experience.
- Virginia’s Shirley Highway Busway, while once a well-functioning bus lane on a highway, lacked many of the quality-of-service features necessary to make it a world-class BRT system. There were no permanent stations and no off-board fare collection. As its conduit was a highway lane, it was never integrated with bicycling and walking infrastructure. In addition, the frequency of buses was too low, leading to the none-too-rare sight of an empty lane flanking a congested highway. The state has since reduced restrictions on cars allowed in the bus lane, and will soon even permit single-occupant vehicles to use it.
- The reality is that dismantling a BRT system only happens when the quality of the system is already too low for it to be viewed as a permanent part of the city’s infrastructure. Cleveland’s HealthLine BRT corridor, which features high-quality stations, off-board fare collection, median-aligned dedicated bus lanes and at-level boarding, is a leading example in the U.S. of a world-class BRT project. The HealthLine joins the ranks of other internationally recognized leaders such as Ahmedabad’s Janmarg in India, Johannesburg’s Rea Vaya in South Africa and the Guangzhou BRT in China.
.....
k10ery
Senior Member
But they don't want it off the street, they want it underground. Selling Richview makes underground pretty much the only option, as I read the maps.
The affected councillors are Nunziata, Doug Ford, Lindsay Luby, Doug Holyday. The only one to vote for Transit City II was Lindsay Luby. But she is actively lobbying for underground all the way to Pearson, and against surface LRT.
Let's face it: Etobicoke voters hate transit development.
BurlOak
Senior Member
So who is more to blame, a half dozen Ford loyalists, who may not know or understand the long term implications of their decisions, OR
a half dozen or so on the TTC board who should understand the importance of the Richview corridor for leaving the options open to another option for Eglinton and said nothing, OR
the 30 or so other Councillors who also sat quietly by and did and said nothing.
I doubt Ford is smart enough to realize what he is doing on Eglinton. I do think it is probably the other councillors who are in favour of removing this land since they see the only two options being underground or in-median, and median would win in the case (but may well just lose when compared to side-of-road and they do not want any part of Transit City defeated)..
royalrivers
Active Member
A BRT between Kitchener and Guelph would be cheaper and slightly better then spending $400 million (and ruin prime farm land and wetlands) on a new Hwy 7.
nfitz
Superstar
Surely both are necessary, given the amount of development planned between the two regions in the coming decades.
W. K. Lis
Superstar
The Town of Caledon, in the northern tier of Peel Region, does not have a public transit agency to serve localities like Bolton. Both Brampton and Mississauga have their own independent transit agencies. As development comes to Caledon with new subdivisions, shouldn't they be planning for some or any kind of bus rapid transit as a start to get public transit in their town? They should be building it now, while there is no NIMBYs around to put obstacles in the way
M II A II R II K
Senior Member
Using BRT as a Transit Band-Aid
Sep 03, 2012
By Eric Jaffe
Read More: http://www.theatlanticcities.com/commute/2012/09/using-brt-transit-band-aid/3147/
When a new metro line opened up in Istanbul a couple weeks ago, it mostly served as a reminder of something the city has been awaiting for the better part of a decade. That would be the massive Marmaray project, a rail tunnel beneath the Bosphorous strait that will link the European and Asian sides of the intercontinental city. The delays have been reasonable — crews have had to deal with tricky geography, safety precautions required by a nearby fault line, and archeological discoveries made during the digging — but the initial phase is still a year from opening, and the full deal several more.
- The city wisely recognized that the immediacy of its traffic problem demanded some sort of short-term solution. Its response was to lay down, within a couple of years, a bus-rapid transit system known as the Metrobus. The 26-mile line operates in dedicated lanes along the D-100 expressway and connects both sides of the city across the Bosphorous Bridge. By most measures it's been a great success, according to a recent profile of the system in the Journal of Transport Geography.
- For starters, it's pretty fast. Except on the bridge, where it enters mixed traffic, Metrobus nears speeds of 50 miles an hour and completes its entire route in about 60 minutes. That's at least twice as fast as cars travel in the corridor, and also considerably faster than the previous bus and ferry system. It's also convenient: an estimated 10 percent of the entire metro population lives within a 10-minute walk of the nearest station.
- The frequency is almost ceaseless. High-capacity Mercedes buses, which can fit up to 200 passengers at a time, arrive every 30 seconds during rush hour on the European side (and every 45 seconds at the bridge crossing). During morning peak, ridership tops 30,000 each way, and the system as a whole serves more than 620,000 passengers a day. EMBARQ puts the total figure much higher. Still the bus is crowded; it's not unusual for waiting passengers to board the third bus they see.
- Istanbul isn't the first city to try BRT as a transit band-aid and realize what it really needed was a suture. Ottawa recently went through a similar experience with its own BRT system. The city proposed a (Canadian) $2.1 billion light rail to increase capacity — a project so expensive that transit writer Yonah Freemark wondered if it wouldn't have been more fiscally prudent to choose light rail from the start. "For other cities considering investing in reserved-bus corridors before light rail, Ottawa’s may be a cautionary tale," he wrote.
- Still, if Istanbul dismissed such a caution, it would be hard to fault the city. For starters, it didn't need BRT to prove the value of mass transit. Ottawa's BRT showed that transit could capture a quarter of the city's transportation share, but in Istanbul, that figure is now 50 percent, and was high even under the old system of slower buses. Meanwhile the city had already decided to invest heavily in the Marmaray project, which is estimated to cost up to (American) $3 billion.
- Rather, Istanbul's major concern moving forward should be getting people off its enormously congested roads. Public transit has half the city's transportation share, yes, but only 4 percent of that share belongs to rail. The completion of Marmaray, and its connection to the existing metro, light rail, and Metrobus lines, is expected to boost rail ridership closer to a quarter of all transit — that's a big cultural change. To date, only 9 percent of Metrobus riders have shifted to the mode from car use, as many as shifted there from trains.
.....
Sep 03, 2012
By Eric Jaffe
Read More: http://www.theatlanticcities.com/commute/2012/09/using-brt-transit-band-aid/3147/
When a new metro line opened up in Istanbul a couple weeks ago, it mostly served as a reminder of something the city has been awaiting for the better part of a decade. That would be the massive Marmaray project, a rail tunnel beneath the Bosphorous strait that will link the European and Asian sides of the intercontinental city. The delays have been reasonable — crews have had to deal with tricky geography, safety precautions required by a nearby fault line, and archeological discoveries made during the digging — but the initial phase is still a year from opening, and the full deal several more.
- The city wisely recognized that the immediacy of its traffic problem demanded some sort of short-term solution. Its response was to lay down, within a couple of years, a bus-rapid transit system known as the Metrobus. The 26-mile line operates in dedicated lanes along the D-100 expressway and connects both sides of the city across the Bosphorous Bridge. By most measures it's been a great success, according to a recent profile of the system in the Journal of Transport Geography.
- For starters, it's pretty fast. Except on the bridge, where it enters mixed traffic, Metrobus nears speeds of 50 miles an hour and completes its entire route in about 60 minutes. That's at least twice as fast as cars travel in the corridor, and also considerably faster than the previous bus and ferry system. It's also convenient: an estimated 10 percent of the entire metro population lives within a 10-minute walk of the nearest station.
- The frequency is almost ceaseless. High-capacity Mercedes buses, which can fit up to 200 passengers at a time, arrive every 30 seconds during rush hour on the European side (and every 45 seconds at the bridge crossing). During morning peak, ridership tops 30,000 each way, and the system as a whole serves more than 620,000 passengers a day. EMBARQ puts the total figure much higher. Still the bus is crowded; it's not unusual for waiting passengers to board the third bus they see.
- Istanbul isn't the first city to try BRT as a transit band-aid and realize what it really needed was a suture. Ottawa recently went through a similar experience with its own BRT system. The city proposed a (Canadian) $2.1 billion light rail to increase capacity — a project so expensive that transit writer Yonah Freemark wondered if it wouldn't have been more fiscally prudent to choose light rail from the start. "For other cities considering investing in reserved-bus corridors before light rail, Ottawa’s may be a cautionary tale," he wrote.
- Still, if Istanbul dismissed such a caution, it would be hard to fault the city. For starters, it didn't need BRT to prove the value of mass transit. Ottawa's BRT showed that transit could capture a quarter of the city's transportation share, but in Istanbul, that figure is now 50 percent, and was high even under the old system of slower buses. Meanwhile the city had already decided to invest heavily in the Marmaray project, which is estimated to cost up to (American) $3 billion.
- Rather, Istanbul's major concern moving forward should be getting people off its enormously congested roads. Public transit has half the city's transportation share, yes, but only 4 percent of that share belongs to rail. The completion of Marmaray, and its connection to the existing metro, light rail, and Metrobus lines, is expected to boost rail ridership closer to a quarter of all transit — that's a big cultural change. To date, only 9 percent of Metrobus riders have shifted to the mode from car use, as many as shifted there from trains.
.....
Ottawa is set to debate building 2 new BRT extensions. 1 to serve the high tech cluster in Kanata, the other to connect Barrhaven and Riverside South along what was supposed to be the original LRT route.
http://www.ottawacitizen.com/news/C...tway+extensions+worth+575M/7484279/story.html
http://www.ottawacitizen.com/news/C...tway+extensions+worth+575M/7484279/story.html
ssiguy2
Senior Member
BRT can work incredibly well and is more versatile than LRT.
Certainly Istanbul needed a Metro but for most cities and routes with capacity of 10k pphpd, BRT is often a better choice due to interlining and ease of expansion. MiWay seems to be building an excellent route across the north end of the city and will be tru Rapid transit unlike the much more expensive and slower TC system.
A lot of US cities that have built LRT recently would have been far better off building Ottawa style BRT as the systems would have been far more extensive due to much lower construction costs. BRT also has the advantage of being able to take advantage of current road infrastructure using HOV and bus priority on/off ramps. Vancouver does this well with it's BRT systems that connect to the Canada Line from the southern suburbs and the new Rapid Bus network over the new Portmann Bridge which will have bus transfer points right off the freeways with bus-only on/off ramps to get them back onto the freeway easily with no concern for traffic where they would travel on the HOV.
Such coordination of transportation systems would be impossible in Toronto due to transit systems that run like fiefdoms and how the GTA sees transit and highways as different dimensions as opposed to coordinating them as transportation routes.
Certainly Istanbul needed a Metro but for most cities and routes with capacity of 10k pphpd, BRT is often a better choice due to interlining and ease of expansion. MiWay seems to be building an excellent route across the north end of the city and will be tru Rapid transit unlike the much more expensive and slower TC system.
A lot of US cities that have built LRT recently would have been far better off building Ottawa style BRT as the systems would have been far more extensive due to much lower construction costs. BRT also has the advantage of being able to take advantage of current road infrastructure using HOV and bus priority on/off ramps. Vancouver does this well with it's BRT systems that connect to the Canada Line from the southern suburbs and the new Rapid Bus network over the new Portmann Bridge which will have bus transfer points right off the freeways with bus-only on/off ramps to get them back onto the freeway easily with no concern for traffic where they would travel on the HOV.
Such coordination of transportation systems would be impossible in Toronto due to transit systems that run like fiefdoms and how the GTA sees transit and highways as different dimensions as opposed to coordinating them as transportation routes.
drum118
Superstar
If one sits down and do a full cost comparison between BRT/LRT/Metro, you will see BRT will win hands down on capital cost as well getting it up and running sooner.
Where BRT dies is on the operation cost as well capital cost over a 30 year life cycle.
The big killer for BRT is the cost of fuel to run the buses as no one knows what the cost will be 6 months from now let alone 30 years.
The other killer for BRT is labour cost. If a Driver earn $60,000 a year today, they will earn About $125,000 yearly in 30 years if they keep getting a 3% yearly increase.
Based on haft completed review of LRT vs. BRT and depending on numbers per hour for ridership, LRT will save between $95 to $310 million on straight labour cost and capital cost over a 30 year life cycle without touching fuel cost saving.
This is based on both systems running in their own ROW.
At max headway for X riders, you have either 60' or double deck buses coming every 30 seconds, while a 3 car LRT is coming every 3 minutes that has more free room for more riders.
A BRT generates about $1-$2 in new development for every $1 invested in it at construction stage while LRT will Generate $7-$12 for every $1 it see. There is no magic that development will take place for either system depending on where you place the line. One only has to look at the BD line to see lack of development alone it while Yonge is off the scale now, let alone 20 years down the road.
There will be places where BRT make sense since there is no real growth for it from day one to support LRT.
I run in opposition to various transit planers in the USA where they are building LRT lines in place of BRT for 5-6,000 riders a day. That requires a long headway unless some deep pockets are around to off set the extra cost to maintain a short headway.
As the picture above show how close buses are, it will only take 1 bus to screw the whole lane and service for riders. LRT/Metro can do the same on the same headway, but since they don't, they could move to bi-directional tracks to get around that dead train depending how the line is built to allow this in the first place.
Lots of things have to be looked at before saying the line should BRT or LRT and based on the long term, not the short term.
I can say Hurontario only requires a short section of LRT as both ends will see low ridership, but it would force riders to make 2 extra transfer if buses where use at both end. Make it one line period as one end will see the need 30 years from now. Dundas only can support BRT at this time as the ridership is not there nor 20 years from now. Even if LRT was used, it would only run east from Hurontario St as the west is real poor for density even for a BRT 15-25 years from now.
Where BRT dies is on the operation cost as well capital cost over a 30 year life cycle.
The big killer for BRT is the cost of fuel to run the buses as no one knows what the cost will be 6 months from now let alone 30 years.
The other killer for BRT is labour cost. If a Driver earn $60,000 a year today, they will earn About $125,000 yearly in 30 years if they keep getting a 3% yearly increase.
Based on haft completed review of LRT vs. BRT and depending on numbers per hour for ridership, LRT will save between $95 to $310 million on straight labour cost and capital cost over a 30 year life cycle without touching fuel cost saving.
This is based on both systems running in their own ROW.
At max headway for X riders, you have either 60' or double deck buses coming every 30 seconds, while a 3 car LRT is coming every 3 minutes that has more free room for more riders.
A BRT generates about $1-$2 in new development for every $1 invested in it at construction stage while LRT will Generate $7-$12 for every $1 it see. There is no magic that development will take place for either system depending on where you place the line. One only has to look at the BD line to see lack of development alone it while Yonge is off the scale now, let alone 20 years down the road.
There will be places where BRT make sense since there is no real growth for it from day one to support LRT.
I run in opposition to various transit planers in the USA where they are building LRT lines in place of BRT for 5-6,000 riders a day. That requires a long headway unless some deep pockets are around to off set the extra cost to maintain a short headway.
As the picture above show how close buses are, it will only take 1 bus to screw the whole lane and service for riders. LRT/Metro can do the same on the same headway, but since they don't, they could move to bi-directional tracks to get around that dead train depending how the line is built to allow this in the first place.
Lots of things have to be looked at before saying the line should BRT or LRT and based on the long term, not the short term.
I can say Hurontario only requires a short section of LRT as both ends will see low ridership, but it would force riders to make 2 extra transfer if buses where use at both end. Make it one line period as one end will see the need 30 years from now. Dundas only can support BRT at this time as the ridership is not there nor 20 years from now. Even if LRT was used, it would only run east from Hurontario St as the west is real poor for density even for a BRT 15-25 years from now.
Bang on. With regards to the freeway comment specifically, a lot of Ottawa's suburban system is in fact designed that way. Take a look at the 174 out towards Orleans for example. The Transitway runs in shoulder lanes along the highway, and the interchanges have been designed in such a way that buses pull off, pass through an intersection, unload/load passengers, and then hop right back on the highway. Off the top of my head I can think of 4 stations like that in Ottawa, and another couple where they actually have request stop buttons at the stations, so that if someone is at the station and wants to be picked up, the next bus will get off the highway for them. If no one presses the button, the bus will continue on its way (this was implemented most recently at Scotiabank Place, where they have turned 1 of the parking lots into a Park N Ride, using the existing SBP bus loop for all-day service).
And yes, it does seem kind of strange to me spending all that money to build 1 or 2 LRT lines, when you have a massive suburban area to serve. It's not like the ridership along the central trunk is going to be so demanding that LRT is absolutely required, at least not in the short to medium term. Instead of serving the central core and a couple suburban nodes with LRT, why not serve the central core and 5 or 6 suburban nodes with BRT? Yes, comparing options along the same corridor BRT may pull in only 75% of the riders that LRT does (just a rough number), but if you can serve 3 or 4 more major suburban locations, the net total ridership will be higher for BRT.
ssiguy2
Senior Member
Much of the debate has little to do with transit planning and everything to do with politics. Miller exemplifies this as Sheppard and Finch could easily be BRT and the huge funds saved could go to other routes that need total grade separation like Eglinton. The trouble is that BRT isn't as flashy as LRT and doesn't make for great ribbon cutting ceremonies.
The difference in capacity between the two is beginning to also shrink as buses can now be double-articulated but can run at higher frequencies and are more reliable. One little fender bender at an intersection can cause an entire LRT line to shut down unlike BRT which simply reroutes or goes around the accident. Buses are also not effected by power outages.
Another interesting thing is that BRT are ussually more welcomed by businesses along the route as they do not as greatly inhibit access to current businesses which LRT definately can. Buses also are less unsightly due to no overhead wires and no wires to maintain as well. Cleveland's Healthline is an excellent example of how BRt down a main road can bring large development and bring a corridor back to life creating TOD. Due to BRT much easier and faster construction, it also greatly decreases the disruption to current traffic and businesses unlike LRT which often results in lost businesses, jobs, and lower support for the line along the route.
L.A.'s Orange Line BRT is a true rapid BRT which has been an incredible success carrying 32,000 a day along it's 14 mile route at a fraction the cost of LRT yet is just as fast and has created large areas of TOD around the stations. Bikelanes and street beautification have greatly improved the neighbourhoods but without the overhead electrical wires.
The difference in capacity between the two is beginning to also shrink as buses can now be double-articulated but can run at higher frequencies and are more reliable. One little fender bender at an intersection can cause an entire LRT line to shut down unlike BRT which simply reroutes or goes around the accident. Buses are also not effected by power outages.
Another interesting thing is that BRT are ussually more welcomed by businesses along the route as they do not as greatly inhibit access to current businesses which LRT definately can. Buses also are less unsightly due to no overhead wires and no wires to maintain as well. Cleveland's Healthline is an excellent example of how BRt down a main road can bring large development and bring a corridor back to life creating TOD. Due to BRT much easier and faster construction, it also greatly decreases the disruption to current traffic and businesses unlike LRT which often results in lost businesses, jobs, and lower support for the line along the route.
L.A.'s Orange Line BRT is a true rapid BRT which has been an incredible success carrying 32,000 a day along it's 14 mile route at a fraction the cost of LRT yet is just as fast and has created large areas of TOD around the stations. Bikelanes and street beautification have greatly improved the neighbourhoods but without the overhead electrical wires.