jje1000
Senior Member
The same should go for you too.
|
|
|
- Thread starter 299 bloor call control.
- Start date
leopetr
Active Member
BRT costs the same as LRT. If it costs less, you are skimping on something.
Jane might be an ok place to skimp, though, since it looks like they won't get anything better than plain buses otherwise. You could do BRT north of Wilson and ineffective diamond lanes between Wilson and Bloor.
It's called rails, concrete beds to support the rails, overhead wiring, and longer stations. So no, BRT should NOT cost the same as LRT....
spider
Senior Member
630,000, 61,000 Torontonians served. Aren't all of these people already served? What's the point here?
leopetr
Active Member
You are probably right about rails and wiring. There are economies of scale for asphalt.
Hoever, if the stations are shorter, then the capacity is lower. I suppose the point of this thread is that some of the routes might not require as high a capacity, but it's still a cost savings that due not to mode but to skimping on capacity -- not using double-articulated buses or not allowing more than 1 bus to unload at a time.
lead82
Senior Member
Terrible map and unfair comparison. We ask know that most of the lines on the Transit City map atre a pipe dream. The map on the right is also misleading. For 8b, will we only see sheppard and the srt built?
jje1000
Senior Member
The point is about serving these people better. Moving them faster to where they want to go inherently boosts productivity, leading to higher economic returns. LRT and subways generate development along their corridors, leading to better neighbourhoods and a more beautiful city.
nfitz
Superstar
The only thing I see misleading in the poster is the calculation that LRT costs $111-million per kilometre. This number comes about because they include the underground section of the Eglinton Crosstown that costs closer to $300-million per kilometre.
EnviroTO
Senior Member
The rails provide the LRT vehicles greater energy efficiency due to less rolling resistance which delivers long term savings and those same rails last longer than the asphalt or concrete that requires more frequent replacement. When the rails are actually at the end of their lifespan the are sold because metal holds value that asphalt and concrete doesn't. The overhead wiring allows the use of electricity which can be made using numerous power sources protecting it from the gas price fluctuations, a trolley-bus BRT would have the same cost and a diesel LRT wouldn't require it. Longer stations are only required with longer vehicles. If the BRT was running double articulated buses it would also require longer stations and if the LRT was bus length it would be no longer than a bus stop.
drum118
Superstar
What is misleading betwwen both plans??
The facts speaks for themselves.
The residents of Toronto which you are not, will vote Ford Plan down out of a blink of an eye based on the cost as well the amount of area it server if they were allow to vote on these plans.
As for rationalish debate, give me a break as you have never answers my questions from day one and total blind fold/blind devotion on subways. Cost means nothing to you since you are not paying a cent for them.
Subways have their place, but lets put them in where they make the most sense and will move more riders than your plan.
You cannot take the SRT subway along the path shown on this map without rebuilding Kennedy station and the tunnel to it 100% at over a BILLION Dollar in cost alone.
I can live with the SRT being converted to a subway, but it will have to run in an another direction to get to STC and have been on the record from day one, many years ago.
Last edited:
drum118
Superstar
Take a walk along all the subway lines in person which will take you a few months to do and see what is on the surface that support these subway lines today.
You cannot take a walking tour of the Spadina Line as it in the middle of a highway, but take a walking tour of the area around the stations to see what there and it not nice.
Danforth has never recover since the streetcars were removed in 1966 for the subway. Parts of Bloor has seen recovery.
North York Centre which never had a station built for it in the first place when the line was built, sees close to 25,000 riders daily while other stations on all the lines see less than 10,000.
Ok, what??? All he was referring to is the capital cost of BUILDING LRT vs BRT. BRT is less expensive to build than LRT. Period.
But if you don't need the capacity, what is the point of building for it? If it takes a full bus 20 seconds to load an unload passengers, theoretically you could have another bus pull in right afterwards. At 5,000 pphpd (the projected maximum of the SELRT), you would need to run articulated buses every 1 min 20 secs in order to meet that demand. You wouldn't need a longer station platform in order to handle that. Off-peak would be somewhere around 2,000 pphpd, if that. That's an articulated bus every 3.6 minutes. Given that the headway goal for these LRT lines is 5 minute headways, that's not too far off. PS: I was assuming the standard 120 person load for artics in those calculations.
So I think that for a lot of these proposed LRT lines, BRT could do the job just fine. And for a lot less capital cost.
W. K. Lis
Superstar
With a daily weekday ridership of 241,100 or 7,693 per mile (approximately 4,808 per kilometer), the MBTA Green Line in Boston is the most heavily-used light rail line in the United States. One, two, or three-car trains of light rail vehicles (21 m car length) run on them. The low-floor light rail vehicles for Transit City are to be 30 m in length each, so that capacity can be exceeded with Eglinton.
Dan416
Senior Member
It's misleading because it isn't an apples-to-apples comparison. It shows unfunded LRT lines like WWLRT and FWLRT and the portions of the Eglinton LRT that were already cut. Ooh, look, I can draw lines on a map too!