BRT vs. LRT

[TRONto]

In our lifetime, I suspect transit will be turned on its head with AEVs. This whole BRT vs LRT discussion will seem very quaint. I'd say definitely within 15 years.

MIT task force predicts fully autonomous vehicles won’t arrive for ‘at least’ 10 years

An MIT report predicts that truly autonomous cars won't arrive for at least a decade -- even on the most optimistic timeline.

venturebeat.com

 

[afransen]

Oh, if some dudes at MIT have an opinion I guess we should defer to them.

 

[sixrings]

Oh, if some dudes at MIT have an opinion I guess we should defer to them.

I don’t know how on one thread you can post the image of how many cars it takes to move people and how many lanes it takes versus a bus which seems to advocate for transit. While on another thread you’re arguing the whole of transit will be different post autonomous vehicles. I’m genuinely confused.

 

[ARG1]

Regardless if this is 11 years old and various changes to technology have taken place over that timeframe as well what coming down the road, BRT will still loose to LRT for moving riders at the end of the day.

The real question is how necessary the capacity is, and when you're in a growing city, does the capacity that necessitate an LRT already means that you already have a justification for a Light Metro. Remember that the Canada Line in Vancouver has the same ultimate carrying capacity as the Eglinton Crosstown while also being extremely cheap.

As for elevated lines, it will still be too costly to built and operate compare to BRT or LRT, but most of all some need to be full blown Metro to the point of being DD trains.

Automated Light Metros have practically no operating costs due to the lack of drivers, and typically have vehicles that are much cheaper to maintain than LFLRVs so that's difficult to quantify. The only area where it might be more expensive is maintaining viaducts after 30 year gaps which, fair point.

Speed only effect ppl going long distance compare to local where we are try to move to an work/live/play/shop/entertain area than the current 4 areas by themselves. PPL can see what exist along the route they travel on the surface that may cause them to stop and visit a place at a later date they saw going by compare to elevated on the subway.

The problem is that most people that live in suburbs (where the LRTs are being built today) commute long distances. In Brampton (which I know isn't Toronto, but is quite similar to many parts of Toronto like Scarborough), the average commute is 10km, so people are travelling longer distances where speed is absolutely an important factor. People who live in suburbs are also far more likely to own a car so if you want to reinforce the idea that public transport is poor people transport, building LRTs that take an hour to travel 20km is the perfect way to do so.

Bottom line, elevated line will only happen if the road is wide enough to do so and that rules out most of Toronto streets.

Depends on the area. Downton Toronto? Yes. Suburban Toronto where most of the LRTs were planned? No. Eglinton Avenue is absolutely wide enough to support elevated rail, so is Sheppard Avenue, Ellesmere, you name it.

 

[ARG1]

I don’t know how on one thread you can post the image of how many cars it takes to move people and how many lanes it takes versus a bus which seems to advocate for transit. While on another thread you’re arguing the whole of transit will be different post autonomous vehicles. I’m genuinely confused.

In other words you believe your opinions and worldview are correct, and you're confused that someone else shares some of your opinions and not others, despite the fact that this is a very gray world where there isn't a concrete yes or no answer to every question, where people will agree with each other on some issues while disagree on others.

 

[sixrings]

In other words you believe your opinions and worldview are correct, and you're confused that someone else shares some of your opinions and not others, despite the fact that this is a very gray world where there isn't a concrete yes or no answer to every question, where people will agree with each other on some issues while disagree on others.

You dismiss people like drum whom obviously took the time to do the research and share the research so casually. Then you managed to warp what I said when asking a genuine question. Troll elsewhere.

 

[ARG1]

You dismiss people like drum whom obviously took the time to do the research and share the research so casually. Then you managed to warp what I said when asking a genuine question. Troll elsewhere.

When did I dismiss drum? I'm trying to expand on his points, asking "what about this" style questions. Drum is claiming that Toronto's streets are too narrow for elevated, and I point out how while that's true for downtown cores, most of the discussion around elevated rails revolve around suburban corridors - corridors that were built and made for massive car oriented suburban sprawl and should be more than wide enough to handle elevated rail. If cities like Vancouver are standards to go by when it comes to how wide a street should be for elevated rail, most of Toronto's suburban corridors more than fit the bill.

Drum clearly has many years of experience in this industry, and I'm no one to take that away from him, and I absolutely have respect for him as a member of this forum. However, just because he's proven himself to be a reliable source doesn't mean I cannot ask questions or provide reasonable opposition to his claims, and this applies to anyone with any level of authority. No matter how many PHDs you have, or years of experience you have an industry, you're still going to be affected by biases or a narrow way of thinking, and no amount of previous clout should make you immune to being questioned or having your claims critiqued. Best case scenario for him, he can disprove what I'm saying with facts and evidence, and it makes his case for what he believes to be the ideal solution even more air tight. Worst case scenerio he can't, my ideas get stronger, and we can move forward to coming towards a center ground. This is what we call a "civil discussion". At no point did I talk down to drum, claim that he said something when he didn't, or completely ignore some point he brought up. If having the gall to bring up some points against what someone else said is considered "dismissive" and "trolling" to you, then feel free to head back to whatever echo chamber you came from.

 

[sixrings]

When did I dismiss drum? I'm trying to expand on his points, asking "what about this" style questions. Drum is claiming that Toronto's streets are too narrow for elevated, and I point out how while that's true for downtown cores, most of the discussion around elevated rails revolve around suburban corridors - corridors that were built and made for massive car oriented suburban sprawl and should be more than wide enough to handle elevated rail. If cities like Vancouver are standards to go by when it comes to how wide a street should be for elevated rail, most of Toronto's suburban corridors more than fit the bill.

Drum clearly has many years of experience in this industry, and I'm no one to take that away from him, and I absolutely have respect for him as a member of this forum. However, just because he's proven himself to be a reliable source doesn't mean I cannot ask questions or provide reasonable opposition to his claims, and this applies to anyone with any level of authority. No matter how many PHDs you have, or years of experience you have an industry, you're still going to be affected by biases or a narrow way of thinking, and no amount of previous clout should make you immune to being questioned or having your claims critiqued. Best case scenario for him, he can disprove what I'm saying with facts and evidence, and it makes his case for what he believes to be the ideal solution even more air tight. Worst case scenerio he can't, my ideas get stronger, and we can move forward to coming towards a center ground. This is what we call a "civil discussion". At no point did I talk down to drum, claim that he said something when he didn't, or completely ignore some point he brought up. If having the gall to bring up some points against what someone else said is considered "dismissive" and "trolling" to you, then feel free to head back to whatever echo chamber you came from.

I’ll go back to ignoring. You continue asking your questions. Thanks for helping move this forum along.

 

[Rainforest]

Number of vehicles require​

Since we know the load factor is 3,000 as well the carrying capacity of each vehicle, we can determine the number of vehicles require base on their size. The number of vehicles will also tell us the number of driver that will be require to move these vehicles. The number say we will need 43 articulated buses or 58 40 foot buses and 24 single LRT or 12 2 car unites.

Headway between vehicles​

Now we know the type of vehicles as well the number of them, we can now determine the headway between vehicles. The headway for 43 articulated bus is 84 seconds or 1.84 minutes. 58 40 buses will be 62 seconds or 1.05 minutes. For 24 single LRT, headway is 150 seconds or 2.5 minutes. If we run these single LRT as a pair, headway becomes 300 seconds or 5 minutes.

One thing we have to look at when it comes to headway is the amount of dwell time to off load and load these vehicles. The more you have off loading and loading, the longer the dwell time will be and how long it will take for that vehicle to move so the next one can get into the spot. The shorter the headway becomes, the greater the changes you will start to see vehicles bunch up at stop and create the convoy effect.

Riders themselves play a large part in this backup by not having their fare ready to board the vehicle. This cause a backup for riders trying to get on the vehicle and increase the dwell time. Going to a POP (Proof of Payment) system will allow faster loading time as you can use all the doors of the vehicle.

Cost of vehicles​

I am using this year 2010 order of vehicles by Mississauga Transit as my base cost factor starting point and will use 1% yearly increase to arrive at the final cost for a 30 year life cycle for them. This can only be a guide as the cost of the vehicles over the 30 year cycle depend on many thing as to who the system is, how many been order, what the market is like at the time of order and etc.

To date, both Mississauga Transit and OC Transpo in Ottawa, Ontario, the 2 largest system of articulated buses in Canada have not been getting the 12 years of service with their low floor models. They are only getting 10 years of service out of them and this has an effect on the final out come cost wise based on when they are order.

$717,525.13 is the current cost of an articulated bus and at 1% yearly increase of cost, it will cost $967,115 by 2040. Using the 10 year life cycle, buses will have to be replace in 2020 and 2030. Therefore, it will cost $101,903,235 for the 30 year life cycle or $104,447,868 if the buses make their 12 year cycle for the years of 2022 and 2034.

Using a straight 40' bus starting at $525,425.15 today and replace every 12 years, it will cost $708,904 come 2040. Since we need 58, we are looking at a total cost of $152,784,185 for the 30 year life cycle.

If we go with 40' hybrid buses in place of standard buses, we are looking at today cost of $779,688.70 each and will cost $1,050,903 by 2040. The cost of 58 hybrid for the 30 year life cycle is $141,871,029. We now must add the cost of the battery that have to be replace every 5 years. Using a cost of $65,000 for today pack, it will cost $87,610 come 2040. It will cost $371,449.07 per bus to replace the battery over the 30 year cycle for a total cost of $19,899,057. This make the total cost of the hybrid bus at $174,213,939.

Base on a today price of $4,000,000, an LRT will cost $5,391,396 by 2040 at 1% yearly increase in price. It will cost $96,000,000 for 24 LRT plus an extra $4,2000,000 for mid life overhaul for a total price of $100,200,000. for a 30 year life cycle

Driver cost to drive the various type of vehicles​

We know it cost $3,000,161 for a driver over the 30 year life cycle using a 3% yearly increase. The driver cost is based on peak time only service for a 40 hour week and 52 weeks for the year.

Again, various systems have different hours that drivers work a week and you may need more than one driver for that peak service and I have taken that into consideration using the 40 hour week.

At the same time, various systems have different length of peak service time and decided to use 4 hours in the morning and afternoon for this analyze.

It will cost $383,420,707.19 to cover the cost of drivers to drive 43 articulated buses.

It will cost $479,275,877.73 to cover the cost of drivers to drive 58 buses.

It will cost $292,793,990.76 to cover the cost of drivers to drive 24 LRT.

It will cost $146,396,995.38 to cover the cost of drivers to drive 12 pair of LRT.

Total Cost​

BRT Articulated bus​

43 Driver cost: $383,420,707.19

43 buses: $104,447,868

Final cost $487,868,575.19

BRT 40' bus​

58 Driver cost: $479,275,877.73

58 buses: $102,959,878

Final cost $582,235,755.73

BRT 40' Hybrid bus​

58 Driver cost: $479,275,877.73

58 buses: $174,213,939

Final cost $773,489,816.73

Single LRT​

24 Driver cost: $292,793,990.76

24 LRT: $100,200,000

Final cost $392,993,990.76

12 Double LRT​

12 Driver cost: $146,396,995.38

24 LRT: $100,200,000

Final cost $246,596,995.38

Summary​

If we look at using 24 single LRT vs. 43 Articulated BRT, there is a cost saving of $487,868,575.19 minus $392,993,990.76 for a total saving of $94,874,584.43 going LRT.

If we look at using 12 double LRT vs. 43 Articulated BRT, there is a cost saving of $487,868,575.19 minus $246,596,995.38 for a total saving of $241,271,579.81 going LRT.

If we look at using 24 single LRT vs. 58 BRT, there is a cost saving of $582,235,755.73 minus $392,993,990.76 for a total saving of $189,241,764.97 going LRT.

If we look at using 12 double LRT vs. 58 BRT, there is a cost saving of $582,235,755.73 minus $246,596,995.38 for a total saving of $335,638,760.35 going LRT.

If we look at using 24 single LRT vs. 58 Hybrid BRT, there is a cost saving of $773,489,816.73 minus $392,993,990.76 for a total saving of $380,495,825.97 going LRT.

If we look at using 12 double LRT vs. 58 Hybrid BRT, there is a cost saving of $773,489,816.73 minus $246,596,995.38 for a total saving of $526,892,821.35 going LRT.

Good analysis, but some adjustments may be needed:

1. The demand level varies along the route. For example, the Sheppard corridor might see 3,000 at peak between Don Mills and Victoria Park, but a lot less at Conlins or Meadowvale. That will result in a lesser total number of buses needed. You might need 40-45 buses per hour between the Don Mills and McCowan subway termini, but the majority of them will turn back at McCowan, and only 12-15 per hour will be needed east of McCowan. While the double LRTs will run the whole length of the route, even though they will be 3/4 empty in the eastern section, but short-turning them would result in longer than desired headways.

That factor reduces both the vehicle cost and the drivers wages cost for the bus options.

2. The demand level varies per day of the week, and time of the day. If the demand drops to the 1,500 - 1,000 range off-peak and on weekends, you can reduce the number of buses and still maintain comfortable headways. Instead of a bus every 80 seconds, there will be a bus every 2.5 min or 3 min. While the double LRTs cannot reduce the frequencies that much, or the gaps would become too long.

That factor does not change the total number of buses needed (they are still needed for the peak period), but reduces the drivers wages.

So, the long-term cost advantage of LRT is not a given. It might still exists, dependent on both the peak demand and the distribution of demand, but we can't say that LRT = lower long-term cost at all times.

 

[Rainforest]

And speaking of the effect on the land value, it should be broken down by the size of the city, the location of line in question, and presence of other transit lines. Phoenix LRT is one situation, the line goes right through the downtown, and it is the best transit line in town. Naturally, businesses will want to be located nearby, and the residents will want to live within a walking distance.

Sheppard LRT, on the other hand, would be a peripheral line in a large city with a large existing subway network. Will the businesses or the residents be particularly eager to settle nearby? Maybe some will, if they want to be in the northern Scarborough anyway. But if they just want any transit-friendly location, they have a large choice of slots near the existing subway stations, much closer to the centre of the city. Even if we exclude residential areas due to the zoning bylaws, there are plenty of slots occupied by low-rise industrial / commercial / warehouses, within walking distances or short bus rides from the subway stations.

From that standpoint, there is a stronger case for LRT in KW, Hamilton, and on Hurontario in Mississauga, than for peripheral lines in 416.

Finch LRT looks like a good idea, the demand there may be a bit too much for a BRT, but not enough for a subway even in the long term. So, LRT is chosen as the middle option.

But for Sheppard East, there is nothing wrong with building a BRT and keeping it for a while till a future upgrade.

 

[TRONto]

And speaking of the effect on the land value, it should be broken down by the size of the city, the location of line in question, and presence of other transit lines. Phoenix LRT is one situation, the line goes right through the downtown, and it is the best transit line in town. Naturally, businesses will want to be located nearby, and the residents will want to live within a walking distance.

Sheppard LRT, on the other hand, would be a peripheral line in a large city with a large existing subway network. Will the businesses or the residents be particularly eager to settle nearby? Maybe some will, if they want to be in the northern Scarborough anyway. But if they just want any transit-friendly location, they have a large choice of slots near the existing subway stations, much closer to the centre of the city. Even if we exclude residential areas due to the zoning bylaws, there are plenty of slots occupied by low-rise industrial / commercial / warehouses, within walking distances or short bus rides from the subway stations.

From that standpoint, there is a stronger case for LRT in KW, Hamilton, and on Hurontario in Mississauga, than for peripheral lines in 416.

Finch LRT looks like a good idea, the demand there may be a bit too much for a BRT, but not enough for a subway even in the long term. So, LRT is chosen as the middle option.

But for Sheppard East, there is nothing wrong with building a BRT and keeping it for a while till a future upgrade.

Drum did say BRT might be more appropriate for Sheppard. So all mostly in agreement.

 

[ssiguy2]

LRT use to have a gaping lead over BRT at least in terms of capacity, ride quality, noise, and acceleration but this gap has narrowed considerable in the last decade.

Capacity has been vastly improved due to the introduction of DOUBLE-articulated buses. They use to be the purview of only large Latin America BRT systems and their ride quality was questionable. Today the buses are bigger, widespread, and with far higher ride quality. The Autotram Extra Grand buses employed in Dresden are a whopping 31 meters and are almost exactly the same dimensions as the new Toronto streetcars. With electric power they are much have much faster acceleration than the standard diesel bus. New electric-only Double-articulates have high acceleration backed by a MUCH quieter engine has greatly reduced the noise levels both inside and outside the bus and now offer the same zero-emissions of LRT. They have 4 doors of which 3 are double and they are 100% low-floor giving them the speed of entry/exit the same as a standard low-floor LRT. They are surprisingly highly maneuverable and actually ply the roads of inner city Dresden and Dresden is a very old city with Toronto-like winters. Such large vehicles greatly increase capacity and hence reduce labour costs per person carried. Volvo has a similar bus with the same dimensions.

BRT offers the flexibility of standard buses meaning changing routes, expansion, lower maintenance and acquisition cost, much higher frequency, interlining, avoiding accidents, making use of existing highway HOV lanes, and short-turns are easily applied which are impossible for any LRT system. These large buses also do not require special maintenance facilities like LRT and due to being electric they can also go underground at the subway station interchanges like LRT.

LRT will always offer somewhat higher acceleration due to riding on steel and a smoother ride but it's advantages are shrinking fast. Except for Eglinton which will definitely require conjoined trains which is an advantage over buses, I think all the LRT lines planned/under construction in the GTA should be BRT.

The massive costs and time consuming investment of LRT is quickly becoming an investment of diminishing returns.

 

[afransen]

I don’t know how on one thread you can post the image of how many cars it takes to move people and how many lanes it takes versus a bus which seems to advocate for transit. While on another thread you’re arguing the whole of transit will be different post autonomous vehicles. I’m genuinely confused.

Sorry, I guess I didn't get my media training. Do you think I need to be 100% pro car or 100% pro transit? I am trying to be pragmatic about how I see technology advancing. Liking transit should not cloud your mind as to what is going to happen with autonomous vehicles.

 

[sixrings]

Sorry, I guess I didn't get my media training. Do you think I need to be 100% pro car or 100% pro transit? I am trying to be pragmatic about how I see technology advancing. Liking transit should not cloud your mind as to what is going to happen with autonomous vehicles.

I really am trying to engage with you because I don’t believe you are pro car and I believe you are a transit advocate. There are some people Who post questions or comments not in good faith but in order to not concede a debate. Look we’re talking in circles. You haven’t convinced me so clearly there are still things to talk about and clearly I have rational thoughts. That isn’t what you are doing.

That said I believe you believe in all sorts of transit. Including autonomous vehicles. but I am confused as how on one thread you can show the benefits of how many people one transit vehicle can move people in regards to road congestion then at the same time argue that transit as we know it won’t be the same because of autonomous vehicles. Wouldn’t countless autonomous vehicles which would be needed to move the large amount of people busses or other transit move be needed in order to move the same amount of people. Essentially ending up on gridlock? Again I do believe you honestly have good intentions but I am confused by how you can advocate for both things. Maybe I am missing something.

you are pro toll to help congestion so clearly I don’t believe you are for the status quo.

perhaps this question derails the thread since I know there is a autonomous vehicle disruption thread.

 

[afransen]

That said I believe you believe in all sorts of transit. Including autonomous vehicles. but I am confused as how on one thread you can show the benefits of how many people one transit vehicle can move people in regards to road congestion then at the same time argue that transit as we know it won’t be the same because of autonomous vehicles. Wouldn’t countless autonomous vehicles which would be needed to move the large amount of people busses or other transit move be needed in order to move the same amount of people. Essentially ending up on gridlock? Again I do believe you honestly have good intentions but I am confused by how you can advocate for both things. Maybe I am missing something.

Single occupant vehicles are not ideal/efficient use of road space. AEVs are not necessarily single occupant. I have described the advent of AEVs as the "robotaxi hellscape". We will see epic congestion if we don't do something to manage demand for road use through road pricing. Many AEVs would be needed to move the same people are a BRT or LRT, but nothing says those AEVs can't be 16 passenger minibuses, that take riders much more directly from point to point. I suspect from a value proposition standpoint it will be very competitive with both personal cars and transit. That will be very disruptive. I am not 'advocating' for AEVs per se. But the economic imperative to use them will be strong and it will disrupt existing transportation patterns. Banning them like dockless scooters isn't going to be an option.