[howl]

To get back to the original thread topic - I wonder why the Globe & Mail and The Wall Street Journal would both publish such articles the same week.

It's fairly obvious to most educated people that both types of system have their benefits, and both types of systems are currently being built or planned across the GTA. It's not an either/or proposition, but whether or not a certain route is more efficient or effective with one or the other depending on the context and needs.

There is obviously some political gamesmanship afoot. The question is: Who is behind it, and why?

 

[gweed123]

I would say the "pull" effect would depend entirely on fare integration and the ease of the switch.

Most people are not right beside these locations and would be en route with the TTC in some form. If I'm on the TTC, at say Victoria Park station, and I could get off at Main cross a tunnel (would probably have to make the connection really straight forward) and hop on the next GO Train straight to Union without paying more (maybe only slightly more) then I could see that freeing up capacity on BD from Main to Yonge and then easing some of the load on the Yonge line.

Same thing could be said at Dundas West, it all come down to cost and access (mainly cost). Even if it would save people 20 mins and prevent them from being jammed in a sweaty subway, if it meant more money, 90% of people wouldn't do it (imo).

I dont think the DRL would ever be redundant however, as much as I see the DRL pulling passengers from the BD line at Dundas West and Pape, the entire length of the line will have ridership. If anything the DRL would serve to relieve the King/Queen/Dundas streetcar lines. Additionally, and off topic, I dont think the DRL should go to Union. In and around Queen and King would be the more valuable location, especially to really see this line put to use outside of rush hour.

I think gweed you are right that a change in GO operations would change the travel patterns within the Toronto, if promoted properly

The system that I am planning is based on a full fare integration that uses a tap on, tap off system. The way I see it working is a zoned fare, which charges you the full fare when you tap on, but deducts from your fare when you tap off at a point within the same zone. It's always easier (and more encouraging) to add money back on afterwards than it is to take more money off. But that's a whole other debate. The point is that I'm assuming that the transfer between E trains and S trains is as easy as between the S-Bahn and the U-Bahn.

As for the "pull effect", in this case I'm actually considering doing an LRT tunnel under Queen, which would branch at Roncesvalles, with 1 branch going north to Bloor, and the other continuing at-grade west to become the WWLRT. On the east side it would do the same thing, going up Pape to Bloor, and continuing east at-grade along the current route. With the express element largely being taken care of by the E trains, this leaves the LRT on Queen to serve a more local function, especially since the E trains are serving the Union-bound crowd.

 

[howl]

The major factor is deciding between BRT vs. LRT is capacity. A typical articulated BRT can carry about 180 people. A typical double-car LRT can handle about 400.

If you are trying to move less than 4,000 people per hour at peak times then a BRT can handle the flow and provides better flexibility at off-peak times than an LRT.

As you move up from 4,000 people per hour LRT starts to becomes more attractive for reasons I will mention below, but at 7000 people an hour at peak times in a centre-of-street configuration the BRT runs into a problem.You need 39 BRTs running every 1.5 minutes to move that many people (with jammed packed vehicles). Traffic lights generally change on a 1.5 minute cycle so a BRT would need to pass through an intersection on every light. They could very easily get backlogged if one bus missed the light cycle. Therefore it is at this point that BRT's stop being feasible in a centre-of-street configuration and you have to go to an LRT. You would only need 18 LRTs running every 3.4 minutes to handle the same volume.

If you are trying to move 10,000 people an hour at peak times you need 56 BRTs running one every minute or 25 LRTs running every 2.4 minutes. In a dedicated right-of-way configuration like Ottawa's this is the limit of the BRTs (which is about where Ottawa is at). At this point BRTs sometimes don't have time to unload before the next vehicle pulls in.

A double-car LRT can provide service for up to 16,000 people in a centre-of-street configuration or up to 20,000 people in a dedicated right-of-way. Beyond that you need to go with three or four car LRTs.

The other factor is operating costs, particularly drivers costs. To go back to the 7,000 people numbers you would need 39 BRT drivers at that level of service. Now I realize there are scheduling variables and so on but drivers need to work regular six to eight hour shifts so lets say 39 drivers needed to be paid from 7am to 7pm. Unionized transit drivers make about $20 an hour, so that's $9360 per day. If you had LRTs you would only need to pay 18 drivers, so that's $4320 per day - a savings of about $5000 a day. Multiply that by 260 work days a year and you get a savings of 1.3 million dollars a year just in drivers wages on week days. The more people you try to move the more savings you realize by going with LRT.

Therefore below 4,000 people per hour at peak times BRT is best. Between 4,000 and 7,000 both will work and operating costs vs. capital costs must be considered. Above 7,000 only LRT will work in a center-of-street configuration and above 10,000 only LRT will work in a dedicated right-of-way.

 

[gweed123]

Therefore below 4,000 people per hour at peak times BRT is best. Between 4,000 and 7,000 both will work and operating costs vs. capital costs must be considered. Above 7,000 only LRT will work in a center-of-street configuration and above 10,000 only LRT will work in a dedicated right-of-way.

Very good analysis. I agree with this 100%.

 

[nfitz]

The major factor is deciding between BRT vs. LRT is capacity. A typical articulated BRT can carry about 180 people. A typical double-car LRT can handle about 400.

The TTC peak capacity for the current 12-m long buses is 50 people (perhaps 65 crush). There's been some talk of using 18-m long articulated buses ... but surely the capacity is about 75. Even you managed to find a 24-m long articulated bus, and really crushed them in (which doesn't work for planning, as it increases dwell times, and reduces route capacity) you'd only have 130 in BRT. I'm not sure about your numbers.

 

[Justin10000]

1 18m bus can carry as many people as 1 27m LRV? I think Howl needs to recheck his numbers.

 

[howl]

The TTC peak capacity for the current 12-m long buses is 50 people (perhaps 65 crush). There's been some talk of using 18-m long articulated buses ... but surely the capacity is about 75. Even you managed to find a 24-m long articulated bus, and really crushed them in (which doesn't work for planning, as it increases dwell times, and reduces route capacity) you'd only have 130 in BRT. I'm not sure about your numbers.

In some parts of Europe, Asia and Latin America they have articulated buses rated for 160 to 200 people. For example the Volvo B19SLA is rated for 165 passengers. In North America the typical standard is about 120. I was assuming that Toronto would move to a more urban level of BRT.

 

[MisterF]

Sure, there is "rail bias", but if you build BRT right, people won't shun it simply because it's a bus. Conversely, the United States is littered with cities where they built expensive rail projects - heavy rail projects, even - that nobody cares about or uses. Some of the worst examples: Miami, Buffalo, Cleveland...in these places living next to a rail station doesn't raise your property values or entice businesses to set up shop.

When it comes down to it, there are simply "transit-friendly cities" and "transit un-friendly cities" - places where people will consider taking transit, and places where people won't. The mode you supply will have little bearing on how people travel. Toronto is a transit-friendly city, so I'm pretty certain a BRT would be successful.

Rail bias results in higher ridership, all things being equal, but in places like Cleveland or Miami it could be argued that BRT would have been better because the demand just isn't there for LRT. In transit friendly cities like Toronto BRT tends to be not as good an option just because it would be so successful - it should be built in areas where the demand isn't high enough for rail. Or as a stopgap like to York U.

Seeing as this is faster than any Subay lines, this should be an option looked at seriously.

Any subway line that has the same station spacing as that one section of BRT would be just as fast. BRT isn't inherently faster.

 

[Northern Magus]

The major factor is deciding between BRT vs. LRT is capacity. A typical articulated BRT can carry about 180 people. A typical double-car LRT can handle about 400.

The other factor is operating costs, particularly drivers costs.

Spot-on for both, but I think you've left out another important factor: fuel prices. We're not into the era of carbon taxes yet, but that's certainly the way the world seems headed -- meaning that diesel is going to be very expensive in the future. Until all the problems with hybrid buses get ironed out -- which doesn't look like it'll happen anytime soon -- I'd suggest that the practical threshold is probably somewhat lower.

I think BRT works best servicing long routes in low density areas such as Oshawa, Pickering, Brampton, and Oakville. Ottawa, at least to me, is still small and decentralized enough that BRT can work well there in the short to medium term.

 

[nfitz]

I was assuming that Toronto would move to a more urban level of BRT.

And you said to a "typical articulated BRT can carry about 180 people". Sounds very atypical to me. You'd need 36-metre long buses to achieve this.I

For example the Volvo B19SLA is rated for 165 passengers.

I'm not aware of any such Volvo bus as a B19SLA. Can you provide a link? And is that maximum capacity or operating capacity? To maximize capacity on a route, you can't operate at crush loads, as this significantly increases dwell times, except perhaps on extremely far station spacings (and on such routes, like GO operates, one normally strives to have no standing passengers because of the long travel times).

 

[howl]

And you said to a "typical articulated BRT can carry about 180 people". Sounds very atypical to me. You'd need 36-metre long buses to achieve this.II'm not aware of any such Volvo bus as a B19SLA. Can you provide a link? And is that maximum capacity or operating capacity? To maximize capacity on a route, you can't operate at crush loads, as this significantly increases dwell times, except perhaps on extremely far station spacings (and on such routes, like GO operates, one normally strives to have no standing passengers because of the long travel times).

Dude . . . seriously. What is your argument? Are you vehimently for or against BRT? . . . because I can't tell. Or do you just have OCPD and must have every single specification and statistic ever posted on the internet verified and referenced.

The Volvo B9SLA is an 18.5m long low-floor articulated bus chassis which can be configured for up to 165 passengers (42 seated and 123 standing). Shanghai uses them in a 160 person configuration as does Santiago, Chile. You can do the research and find the details yourself.

 

[Justin10000]

Even though Howl's "analysis" is flawed, there is a Volvo B19SLA, and the configuration Howl talks about would never be accepted in North America. Too few seats. It's essentially a bus designed for maximum crush.

 

[nfitz]

Dude . . . seriously. What is your argument?

My argument is against people posting data that makes no sense to justify their case.

Are you vehimently for or against BRT? . . . because I can't tell.

Does it matter? Does one need an agenda to take part in the discussion? I'm vehemently opposed to BRT where it is not appropriate, and for it when it is.

Or do you just have OCPD and must have every single specification and statistic ever posted on the internet verified and referenced.

I'm only digging into what you wrote, because it makes little sense. If you'd posted a reasonable number, I wouldn't have even checked it. The number you posted makes no sense. What's wrong with you that when someone questions your numbers you start making accusations of mental illness? You should apologize for such extreme rudeness!

The Volvo B9SLA is an 18.5m long low-floor articulated bus chassis which can be configured for up to 165 passengers (42 seated and 123 standing).

This article says 115 people - http://www.vaultmeter.com/volvo-delivers-buses-for-the-soccer-world-cup/331/

It should be obvious that if there are documents stating 160 people in an 18.5 metre bus, that this is not reasonable, and well beyond crush loading. Even 115 would be pushing it.

And since when does one use crush loading for transport planning?

 

[Root]

BRT should be only one thing that does not pollute the streets: Trolley Buses.
LRT can cover the rest. Lastly, diesel transit can cover the outskirts of the city.

 

[howl]

My argument is against people posting data that makes no sense to justify their case.

Does it matter? Does one need an agenda to take part in the discussion? I'm vehemently opposed to BRT where it is not appropriate, and for it when it is.


I'm only digging into what you wrote, because it makes little sense. If you'd posted a reasonable number, I wouldn't have even checked it. The number you posted makes no sense. What's wrong with you that when someone questions your numbers you start making accusations of mental illness? You should apologize for such extreme rudeness!

This article says 115 people - http://www.vaultmeter.com/volvo-delivers-buses-for-the-soccer-world-cup/331/

It should be obvious that if there are documents stating 160 people in an 18.5 metre bus, that this is not reasonable, and well beyond crush loading. Even 115 would be pushing it.

And since when does one use crush loading for transport planning?

Five minutes on Google:

http://www.bhls.eu/IMG/pdf/3-1-Peter-Danielsson-Volvo.pdf - See page 5

http://www.volvobuses.com/bus/india...em.aspx?News.ItemId=39025&News.Language=en-gb

Volvo Buses launched the Volvo 7800 articulated bus at the large bus exhibition Busworld in Shanghai, which recently concluded. It is an 18-meter-long low-floor bus with a 9-liter engine mounted on the side at the front of the bus. The chassis Volvo B9SLA, with a different body, is being used with great success in the BRT system Transantiago in Chile, where Volvo delivered more than 1,500 such buses.

Increasingly more BRT systems are being built in China and Volvo’s new bus is suited for such traffic. It can carry 160 passengers, has four wide entries and a low floor through the entire bus to facilitate on and off loading.

http://www.calgarytransit.com/pdf/brt_report.pdf

BRT Capacity
The passenger capacity of BRT depends on the frequency of service, speed of travel, number of stops, and vehicle capacity. BRT services using standard buses operating with headways of less than one minute, and limited stops, can carry upwards of 7,000 passengers in the peak hour / direction. By using higher capacity buses (120 to 200 per vehicle) a BRT service could accommodate from 10,000 to 15,000 peak hour passengers in the peak direction. A more likely scenario would involve a BRT service using high capacity buses operating every 3 to 5 minutes on a limited stop route supplemented by express buses serving communities that are outside of walking distance or a short feeder bus ride.