BRT vs. LRT

[W. K. Lis]

From link.

 

[ARG1]

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.

I think at that point though the benefits of BRT sort of diminish. The whole benefit of BRT in the first place is flexibility of service, vehicle reuse, and ease of implementation. The moment you start introducing bespoke vehicles or vehicles that can only be used on your BRT service, at that point you lose any advantages of BRT and you just run straight into "value engineered LRT" territory which isn't beneficial for anyone. Its for these reasons that projects like the Indianapolis IndyGO BRT where they decided to order fully electric 2 sided busses are head scratchers at best.

 

[sixrings]

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.

Thank you for clarifying. In my mind I had painted the picture of a bunch of autonomous smart cars. That sounds great but wouldn’t be too helpful.

 

[TRONto]

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.

I believe it was stated that the double articulated buses are not street legal here. I don't know if that's true.

Electric buses are vastly inferior to diesel buses so far. Checkout the TTC report on ebuses. This will of course change, but today that's the case.

Buses have a much shorter life than LRT vehicles and I believe higher maintenance costs.

"much higher frequency, interlining, avoiding accidents, making use of existing highway HOV lanes, and short-turns"
If I'm thinking about the Eglinton LRT or Finch LRT, I don't see how BRT has an advantage on any of these issues. Accidents are only matter at intersections and can be moved along. Interlining as done on VIVA can also be done with LRT.

"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."
Electric buses do require special facilities. Check out the TTC report on ebuses.

It has been established that users are more likely to switch over to transit for LRT vs BRT. Surrounding investments are greater for LRT. Both of these items indicate a general population consensus for rail vs road.

 

[TRONto]

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.

I don't think it will be as good as people imagine. I assume it would be something like UberPool: Meet me near your starting point (not your starting point), and it will drop you near your end point (not your end point). Similar to a bus, but possible a bit better depending on where you live. I do think it will become a thing but I don't expect it'll replace rapid transit due to the level of ridership. It'll be there at the margins.
In the suburbs, the people who take these AEVs are not the same market that would take transit and will replace individual car rides and I think that's where the win is.

 

[sixrings]

I don't think it will be as good as people imagine. I assume it would be something like UberPool: Meet me near your starting point (not your starting point), and it will drop you near your end point (not your end point). Similar to a bus, but possible a bit better depending on where you live. I do think it will become a thing but I don't expect it'll replace rapid transit due to the level of ridership. It'll be there at the margins.
In the suburbs, the people who take these AEVs are not the same market that would take transit and will replace individual car rides and I think that's where the win is.

I can see aevs being good in suburbs dependent on go transit. The last mile is something not many think about but it’s a possible solution for those who don’t have transit at their doorstep.

 

[afransen]

I don't think it will be as good as people imagine. I assume it would be something like UberPool: Meet me near your starting point (not your starting point), and it will drop you near your end point (not your end point). Similar to a bus, but possible a bit better depending on where you live. I do think it will become a thing but I don't expect it'll replace rapid transit due to the level of ridership. It'll be there at the margins.
In the suburbs, the people who take these AEVs are not the same market that would take transit and will replace individual car rides and I think that's where the win is.

Uberpool but 75% cheaper. People tolerate much greater inconvenience with buses. Also keep in mind that AEVs are modelled to be cheaper than private car ownership (<$0.50/km) for uber-style private usage. It's going to be very, very big. Then uberpool/minibus type service would be even cheaper, maybe $0.25/km. It could probably be profitable with TRBOT fare zone style pricing, and potentially reasonably quick and convenient.

I guess this discussion could move to the disruption of transport thread.

 

[drum118]

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.

Talk to TTC or any transit system and they will tell you that there will be sections of the line that will see little or no riders that you cannot change a schedule to deal with low numbers. There are routes that will start with very low ridership at one or both end that will see ridership increase moving to the centre. I can give a long list of routes that see very few riders at the start of it, but no plans on doing so as others should be looking at this.

Some routes may see an increase of headway off peak while other remain the same toward the end of service. You see this on TTC subway system today let alone years ago.

It is very common to have various routes drivers doing overtime due to lack of drivers or the spare board is empty and that adds to the bottom line for buses.

TTC will tell you that service level is based on the peak point and this applies to other systems.

What some systems including TTC will do is run max headway between C-T and loop vehicles at those locations with headway increasing either for the rest of the line or the next loop with headway become longer. Dufferin 29 is a good example of this and many more out there.

This can be done for buses and LRT. I have seen some systems that run 2-3 car trains cut off a car at the end station to deal with the lack of riders or stop at a station on line to be turn back with the following train continue on to the other stations.

One of the biggest complaint TTC had to handle was short turning of vehicles to get drivers back on schedule or the fill the large gap caused by X. Look at any CEO report in the last 3 years and you will see short turning is very small these days regardless of COVID-19.

Riders themselves play a large part in bunching or gaps caused by many things and they are the first to bitch.

You need look route by route that carries 35,000 plus riders to see which is the best technology to use not only for today 20-50 years down the road.

There are roads in the city that can handle an elevated line, but there is no ridership now or down the road to justify building it or even an LRT.

People are so hung up that speed is needed to get a few riders to the downtown when it not where they are going in the first place.

I have said time after time one needs to walk, cycle, ride transit as well drive to understand what is on the street now and try to vision what could be on the street 20-50 years from now to say X should be built. There are roads I have done this on and other that I may have driven on it without paid no attention to it as it wasn't on my radar at the time.

At this time, its illegal to operate a triple articulated bus in NA or even a DD articulated. Only rode a triple articulated bus in 2 places in Europe and they were the only place I saw of them out of 26 cities I visited. Saw one DD articulated bus in Amsterdam as a tour bus and the only one I every saw.

System are made up of many networks on will only work base on the weakest ones.

 

[afransen]

There are roads in the city that can handle an elevated line, but there is no ridership now or down the road to justify building it or even an LRT.

Isn't this an argument for no new subways outside the core? Yonge North?

 

[ssiguy2]

"much higher frequency, interlining, avoiding accidents, making use of existing highway HOV lanes, and short-turns"
If I'm thinking about the Eglinton LRT or Finch LRT, I don't see how BRT has an advantage on any of these issues. Accidents are only matter at intersections and can be moved along. Interlining as done on VIVA can also be done with LRT.

"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."
Electric buses do require special facilities. Check out the TTC report on ebuses.

It has been established that users are more likely to switch over to transit for LRT vs BRT. Surrounding investments are greater for LRT. Both of these items indicate a general population consensus for rail vs road.

Accidents along the route being "moved along" takes a minimum of half an hour bringing the entire system to a screeching halt. Buses of course can just go around the accident in one minute. I also don't see how you can say that LRT can use existing HOV lanes. When talking about interlining, that's only possible for LRT where the tracks exist as opposed to buses which can leave the ROW to service other areas greatly reducing annoying transfers and hence time.

I should have been more specific when it comes to separate facilities. What I meant is that each LRT line has to have a separate maintenance and storage yard unless they are completely connected and that's not going to happen in Toronto for a VERY long time. E-buses of course can just use existing facilities no matter where they are in the city.

When looking at ridership potential one must also look at overall costs. Is it better to have one 15 km LRT line {which is no faster and less reliable than BRT} or 40 km of BRT serving hundreds of more destinations and bringing service to tens of thousands more rider for the same amount of money?

 

[sixrings]

Isn't this an argument for no new subways outside the core? Yonge North?

I think drum advocated for sheppard to get extended to Victoria park.

I can’t speak for him directly but I do think he supported the DRL long. If my memory was correct.

 

[drum118]

I think drum advocated for sheppard to get extended to Victoria park.

I can’t speak for him directly but I do think he supported the DRL long. If my memory was correct.

You are correct. I have no objections to a point of that the Sheppard subway going to Victoria Park and then LRT east of it though making it 100% an LRT removes the need for transferring at VP.

I have always seen the DRL as part of the U line I came up with in 2006 before knowing of all the plans that have come and gone since 1908. The east DRL went to Steeles as a subway as it will see the same ridership as the Yonge Line around 2050 that would follow Queen St west and loop back up Jane St. I would build the line for 8 car trains that would have an express track as well.

 

[afransen]

I have to wonder with high levels of congestion, and expected growth in population density, wouldn't we expect transit trips to have to absorb most of the incremental trips?

 

[sixrings]

I have to wonder with high levels of congestion, and expected growth in population density, wouldn't we expect transit trips to have to absorb most of the incremental trips?

I think between more and more people living downtown and up zoning around stations which we are seeing now at Yorkdale Wilson sheppard and the development around eglinton crosstown that this is how we’re going to move the majority of people.

Encourage as much walking and biking. Encourage density around transit stations. More people working from home but ultimately the suburbs will always be a bit of a transit let down. This is where brt and lrt should come in to make things bearable.

It is at least helpful that places like Yonge and sheppard, the six points area, stc, vcc, mcc are becoming more and more their own spaces which didn’t exist when I lived in the suburbs.

 

[superelevation]

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.

Lots of great points here, maybe most important of which is that there is already a subway on Sheppard that is decently long . . .