a brt network will always deliver less ridership than an lrt network. Rail bias is a real thing. Whether it matters enough to justify trade-offs regarding cost & expandability is another matter.
rail bias, and it's actually true that lrt has a much higher capacity than brt, and also is a lot less expensive to operate. I agree that lrt has it's place; finch, queen and islington are great routes for lrt, but it's just not a one-size fits all solution. Neither is brt, and subway definitely isn't. If we want to build a good network, we need to figure out the right routes for each mode, and how each line will contribute to the network.
It is a common misconception that a light rail system would attract more riders than BRT. The concept of bus rapid transit is not well understood in North America, as there are only a few systems currently in operation. In reality, BRT would be designed more like a light rail than a standard bus system, with features like dedicated lanes, signal priority, pre-pay boarding, elevated station platforms, and efficient and comfortable vehicles that make it much more efficient and appealing than a traditional bus service. BRT would also offer travel times that are competitive with light rail. With a well-designed, well-operated, and well-advertised BRT in place, there is good reason to believe that many people would use and appreciate the system.
One cannot assume that transit-oriented development would be sparked by light rail but not BRT. For example, a recent study by the American Public Transportation Association looking at this issue considers that both rail and BRT can lead to significant positive land use changes. Moreover, developers can benefit from the shorter implementation time that BRT projects bring as compared to LRT. Also, regarding permanence, this is a somewhat relative concept. For example, there were thousands of miles of tram networks in North America by 1940; much of this system was dismantled before 1970 with the rise of the automobile and suburbia. The forces behind development are not limited to the technology of transit vehicles, but also depend on factors such as accessibility, enabling policies, and background economics.
Finally, I critically challenge the notion that LRT has that much higher carrying capacity and less operating costs than BRT. In the case of Transit City it is not at all certain that there would be a large enough increase in ridership to justify the significantly higher cost of light rail. For example, if we take just TTC’s
ridership estimates for the SRT corridor, “Medium Investment†LRT and BRT alternatives would see a projection of 160,000 and 128,000 riders per day, respectively. That’s only about 20% more riders for light rail, yet the projected capital cost of the light rail system is several times more than that of BRT ($1.2 billion vs. $208 million), and also includes higher annual operation and maintenance costs. Coupled vehicles and innovations in clean energy would mean fewer drivers per route and less fuel consumption, same criteria being used to prop up LRTs.
