More of a realist. These new subdivisions tends not to have bus stops in the first place.So, if someone is moving there, thinking about transit, it is most definitely an after thought. They won;t even know where a nearest bus stop will be.
You're a realist based off baseless assumptions
Or, they are seeing the waste in doing the work twice.
They are really stupid. The design of the Eglinton Crosstown should tell you this much. LRT wasn't chosen because it was the best option, it was chosen because Urban Planners at the time fetishised them (and still do today). The mode was chosen first, and then justifications to use the mode were made later. Now the Finch West LRT makes sense to be an LRT because the corridor is already so busy that the capacity of an LRT makes sense. London does not have that privilege.
Explain better please.
Not if there is no way to get onto the tracks. When was the last time a car stopped a subway?
Not applicable to London. The LRT in London would be at grade and street running.
What is the savings of not spending taxpayer money twice? You do know today is cheaper than tomorrow for all projects? Yesterday was even cheaper.
The savings is actually getting something built, and having something that is far more useful for the short-medium term.
There are ways to mitigate it. One is completely grade separated.
Does not apply to London
Didn't happen in York Region.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA ARE YOU KIDDING ME?
The entire point of the VIVA Rapidway was to use them as a development tool. Look at Warden and Enterprise:
Pre-Rapidway
Post Rapidway:
Pre Rapidway:
Post Rapidway:
The way Transit Oriented Development works is that when you build transit like a BRT, LRT, or Streetcar, you're telling developers that "this part of the city is getting attention, and thus its worth investing here". The mode doesn't actually really matter as a result, whether its BRT, or LRT, having dedicated infrastructure for things like transit is enough to attract development in droves.
The ENTIRE POINT of Viva was to be a development tool first and foremost. BRT is genuinely no worse than LRT in this regard. That's why headways are so bad in many of the routes, the folks over at YRT prioritized having nice infrastructure first and foremost, rather than running actual service along the corridors. Again Yonge Street remains the only decently used Viva Route before and after the Rapidway simply because by chance they started running frequent services on that route which in turn developed ridership. The idiots over at YRT still don't understand that frequencies attract ridership.
It will only lead to more sprawl. That is one reasons sprawl jumped Ottawa's Greenbelt.
BRT and LRT are no better at this. In fact all transit leads to sprawl. Did you know that in London, the reason why the greenbelt was implemented in the 50s wasn't because of highway related sprawl, but transit related sprawl? Suburbs like Edgeware only exist because they built the Northern Line in what was complete greenfield, and this result in a massive suburban core being built. BRTs are no better or worse at inducing sprawl than LRTs.
Most good transit systems don't seem to have 1 seat ride to downtown. They do tend to have good connected RT to bring them to the downtown core.
This is only true for developed transit systems. Once you have a vast transit network with many people using it, maintaining 1 seat rides becomes impossible. But if you're a growing transit network like London, or formerly Ottawa, 1 seat rides make a lot of sense and work really well.
Interlining lowers frequencies outside of the part that is interlined. That can equal worse service.
That's of course assuming that you have the fleet and manpower to maintain high frequencies outside the interlined sections. If you don't, then what difference does it make.
Then give something that could bring TOD to it more successfully. That isn't BRT.
Read above
Snowstorms? Ottawa proved they were horrible in snow.
Better than the LRT
That is why I have in other places posted that I feel that we should bury all RT. Problem is, it can be very expensive.
What if it was buried the whole way, or in a trench?
Then its no longer effectively LRT. Now you have a metro that is gutted due to using LRVs for no good reason which only results in lower capacity. The most effective use in LRT technology is either as a light S-Bahn, or as an enhanced Streetcar. In both of these cases cars can get on the tracks no problem. The moment its entirely grade separated (which again there is no way in hell this will apply to London) its just a worse light metro.
How would it make things worse for those along the corridors that will be BRT?
More expensive which leads to worse frequencies and a smaller network. All to get capacity that London doesn't need.
No, it is to move a lot of people.
Where do you get a lot of people? Dense areas.
Density does not bring the ridership you think it does. Look at the TTC Subway. Compare Subway Stations that are in extremely dense areas with no bus connections like NYC and Wellesley, vs stations that have nothing around them but with major bus connections like York Mills. The latter get WAY more ridership than the former, because again, let me reiterate,
DENSITY IS NOT THE BIGGEST CONTRIBUTOR OF RIDERSHIP. Hopefully I made that clear enough.
When building a new RT system,if your goal from the get go is to service those at the far reaches of the existing transit lines, your forcus is very wrong and you should get out of the planning business.
That's literally the whole point. The whole point of building transit is to get people from point A to point B as quickly as possible.If you're building transit for the sake of density, you're not serving anyone.
A tale of 2 cities. Edmonton and Calgary. One built their line underground in their downtown when they first constructed it. One built it on the surface. One of them has issues on their downtown section, and one does not.
Spending taxpayer money need to not just be about solving a problem today, but for preventing problems tomorrow. Brampton is spending money twice to solve the same problem. We should not be proud of that. We should be disgusted with that.
Brampton is spending money taxpayer money 1.5x to solve the problem both today and tomorrow.
The thing you're missing is converting a BRT to LRT is extremely easy. Once you have a dedicated Rapidway like York Region, the hard part is over. Utilities were relocated, the ROW was created, if they ever need to upgrade to LRT, you just shutdown the rapidway for a few months, lay down tracks, and build an MSF along the route. Not that expensive. The reason why its not LRT is because A) There isn't capacity to justify it, and B) The rapidways don't go far enough. Imagine if instead of building a BRT, they built an LRT on Yonge Street. If you're riding Viva Blue south, now everyone has to transfer at 19th gamble from a bus to an LRT, just to continue on their journey thus requiring a linear transfer. This will discourage ridership, and makes using the transit far less convenient. In the future when ridership is high enough to the point where the capacity brought by LRT is worth it, then we can begin discussing converting it to LRT, and extending the ROW north to newmarket.
The thing you fail to understand, and let me reiterate this,
THERE IS NO PRACTICAL DIFFERENCE BETWEEN LRT AND BRT. The
ONLY difference is that LRTs have more capacity, meanwhile BRTs have more flexibility.
EVERY NEGATIVE YOU HIGHLIGHTED ABOUT BRTs APPLY TO LRTs, AND EVERY REASON YOU GAVE THAT MADE IT SEEM LIKE THOSE ISSUES DIDN'T APPLY TO LRT ALSO APPLY TO BRT. Nothing more, nothing less.
If you continue to argue the same points over and over again, then god help you. If you cannot understand what I just outlined in bold, then good luck out there, you're going to need it.
