saveoursubways (SOS)

[kettal]

light rail costs 2-3 times more to operate and maintain than the local buses TC aims to replace

Citation needed. I'm pretty sure the operating expense is lower. Fewer drivers per passenger, no diesel fuel, lower maintenance vehicles.

It only costs a couple million per kilometre to create dedicated bus lanes down suburban corridors that are in excess of 30 metres width and with ample room in most places to expand roadways widths.

Please, show us one example of a road widening for bus lanes costing "only a couple million" in a Canadian city. IIRC, widening Dufferin street for an HOV lane was over $20m per km.

 

[Fresh Start]

Do you have a reference for that? Does that include equipment and yards?

As for BRT costing $2-million per kilometer ... well perhaps if you are building BRT though a hydro easement ...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eglinton_Crosstown_LRT_(TTC)
http://www.toronto.ca/involved/projects/etobicoke_finch_w_lrt/pdf/2009-12_09_display_boards.pdf

The original total costs for the whole line have now been attributed to the central tunneled section only, to my unerstanding. The pdf linked supports this claim as the TTC readily admits that underground rapid transit costs $220 million per kilometre. And I wasn't aware that billions of dollars would be magically tacked onto every last new TC line project for yards and vehicles, when the whole point of adopting a brand new mode technology to span the city, as opposed to sustaining ICTS in parts, was so that corridors would mutually share vehicles and storage facilities. See this is one of many fundamental flaws of Transit City that my compatriots were trying to point out to you. Introducing a brand new fleet, technology, etc. limits its ability to co-opt itself to the preexisting infrastructure. There's no chance for cost savings because everything is being factory-ordered to work on these specific lines and nowhere else in the system. Quite a pickle should SELRT prove to be a fiscal failure and the rest of the project(s) is scraped as a result, making it a white elephant mode same as MarkII. A Eglinton HRT subway meanwhile could at be somewhat accomodated for by the YUS and DRL lines.

As for Bus Rapid Transit ROW construction; the average construction cost per square foot in Toronto is $150. Vancouver managed to build 2.8kms of dedicated busway for only $4.7 million in 2008 dollars or roughly $1.6 million/km. The Pie-Ix busway through eastern Montreal to be completed by 2012 averages $15 million per kilometre. So obviously there's room for fluctuation here ($10M/km sounds more than reasonable given that the York U busway costs at $40M in entirity factored in building entirely new roadways whereas I'm speaking of using the centre lanes of preexisting arteries). But nowhere on earth do I see BRT cost estimates in the range of $60-80 million per kilometre for at-grade, mixed traffic operations alone. I implore you to find the forum an example. And lastly a bi-articulated or double-stacked buses can carry in excess of 175 passengers, in essence replacing 3 manned buses driving on the roads. Latin American BRT systems are renown for carrying greater than 250 passengers per trip. But in addition to BRT vehicles; local buses can route along the same right-of-ways as well for various functions (short-turns, loops, ease of transfer) making rapid transit even more distributive than what Transit City aims to accomplish because once off the busway these buses can pentrate the off-corridor local neighbourhoods and employment zones where density actually resides.

 

[nfitz]

I see nothing in either reference (even after fixing the broken first one) to support the claim that the underground section is $220-million per kilometre.

Presumably underground LRT tunnel construction (without the stations) is more expensive than subway construction, given the larger tunnel.

 

[gweed123]

I must point out that this BRT cost vs LRT cost debate isn't even fully relevant to Move Toronto, because a lot of the BRT lines proposed in it will only be using cue-jump lanes, curbside cut-outs, and signal priority. So they aren't even full BRT. They're just measures to increase the speed and reliability of certain bus routes. If the average amount of time spent on the bus will only be 10 minutes before a subway station is reached anyway, does spending the extra millions really make sense to shave maybe 30 seconds off that ride?

A lot of these proposed lines are on suburban arteries, so what slows them down is not the trip between stops, but the time waiting at the stops themselves, the red lights, etc. If these lines were being built downtown, where congestion occurs mid-block (with smaller blocks too) and not around intersections, then yes dedicated lanes would be required along the entire length.

You don't have to build a grand ROW down the middle of the avenue to get good a reliable secondary transit network, you just need to figure out where the points are along the route where time is being squandered (waiting at a red light for example), and figure out ways to reduce that time. Widen the intersections to accomodate a cue jump lane, and if the demand does justify it later on, widen the rest of the roadway for a full dedicated lane (building cue jump lanes in no way excludes building dedicated lanes later on, rather it would substantially reduce the cost down the road, as some of the work has already been done).

 

[kettal]

Vancouver managed to build 2.8kms of dedicated busway for only $4.7 million in 2008 dollars or roughly $1.6 million/km.

Dare I ask what stretch of road this refers to? If it actually involved widening an urban road by two lanes, I'll be very impressed.

 

[kettal]

A lot of these proposed lines are on suburban arteries, so what slows them down is not the trip between stops, but the time waiting at the stops themselves, the red lights, etc. If these lines were being built downtown, where congestion occurs mid-block (with smaller blocks too) and not around intersections, then yes dedicated lanes would be required along the entire length.

Which of these suburban arteries move so well during rush hour?

 

[gweed123]

Where did I ever say they moved "so well"? All I said was that the majority of the idle time is spent at red lights and loading/unloading passengers. But it is true, the majority of congestion on suburban arterial roads is because of traffic signals, not the actual volume of the road. If you could jump to the front of the line of people waiting at a red light at every light, you would be pretty well off. I'm not saying that this type of BRT is better than BRT with dedicated lanes along the entire corridor, I'm just saying that, for the way it will be deployed in Move Toronto, it is more cost effective. That is to say, it will provide the greatest increase in secondary network efficiency for the least amount of cost.

 

[kEiThZ]

Do you have a reference for that? Does that include equipment and yards?

As for BRT costing $2-million per kilometer ... well perhaps if you are building BRT though a hydro easement ...

Hardly. Check out Sheppard past McCowan. It's as good as a hydro easement.

 

[gweed123]

I would just like to say that the recent comment post that was made by Andrew on Steve Munro's website was NOT me. Just wanted to clear the air on that one.

 

[Juan_Lennon416]

I would just like to say that the recent comment post that was made by Andrew on Steve Munro's website was NOT me. Just wanted to clear the air on that one.

We know it is not you. Anyway, that guy went nuts on Steve and would probably challenge Steve to a fight on the street (or a streetcar)...lol

 

[kettal]

Where did I ever say they moved "so well"? All I said was that the majority of the idle time is spent at red lights and loading/unloading passengers. But it is true, the majority of congestion on suburban arterial roads is because of traffic signals, not the actual volume of the road. If you could jump to the front of the line of people waiting at a red light at every light, you would be pretty well off. I'm not saying that this type of BRT is better than BRT with dedicated lanes along the entire corridor, I'm just saying that, for the way it will be deployed in Move Toronto, it is more cost effective. That is to say, it will provide the greatest increase in secondary network efficiency for the least amount of cost.

I guess you use a different set of streets than what I've experienced. Getting through the traffic light is one thing, but on the other side of the intersection is just more standstill gridlock.

 

[Fresh Start]

Citation needed. I'm pretty sure the operating expense is lower. Fewer drivers per passenger, no diesel fuel, lower maintenance vehicles.

Okay, time for some good old-fashioned side-by-side comparisons; gents take out your calculators.
http://www3.ttc.ca/PDF/Transit_Planning/service_improvements_2008.pdf

• Route
• Mode/note
• Customers per day, Mon-Fri
• Vehicles in morning peak period
• Vehicles in afternoon peak period
• Hours per day, Mon-Fri
• Kms per day, Mon-Fri
• Cost per day, Mon-Fri

Streetcar: 501 QUEEN SC 43,500 31 31 530 8,500 $87,500
Bus: 29 DUFFERIN 43,600 32 28 450 7,400 $49,300

As you can see, this bus route carries slightly more people; one more bus trip in the morning peak but 3 less in the afternoon peak than the streetcar conserving the needed manpower required to operate those buses. The 29 runs along a denser corridor throughout (it matters not that the 501 covers 1100 more kms overall with long low-density stretches like High Park-Humber Bay included). But where they really differ dramatically is in their operational costs per day. I see a whooping $38,200 discrepancy, making diesel-chugging buses by far the least expensive to operate and maintain (and enviro-safe CNG or fuel-cell ran buses are always an option and several modern bus makes have life-spans in excess of 30 years). When was the last time a bus corridor needed to be partially shut down for a whole summer or years on end for maintenance and repairs? I rest my case.

Actually no, here's some more examples of how the bus is king and if placed into their own dedicated ROWs would always run at averages of 35kmph NOT a lousy 22kmph:

Highest daily used streetcar route 504 KING and 508 LAKE SHORE
53,100 51 38 540 7,400 $96,000

Highest daily used bus route 39 FINCH EAST and 139 FINCH-DON MILLS
44,600 52 41 620 14,000 $74,000

= 39/139 has double the daily total mileage, has around the same number of daily drivers required but costs $22,000 less to operate.

506 CARLTON SC 41,200 34 29 440 6,500 $75,400
25 DON MILLS (1) 40,600 31 27 410 8,100 $47,000

= 25 Don Mills costs $28,400 less to operate daily with even less drivers required to operate vehicles.

If the TTC took a page from York Region and Mississauga and started to incoporate articulated buses into its fleet then the issue of total number of manned buses dissipates. If the TTC found other ways to cut costs like I dunno, stop building underground mausoleums in locations where less than 5000 walk-ins per day will actually see them, then having to pay drivers would be the least of their worries.

 

[Fresh Start]

Please, show us one example of a road widening for bus lanes costing "only a couple million" in a Canadian city. IIRC, widening Dufferin street for an HOV lane was over $20m per km.

I did: Vancouver (Richmond), British Columbia.

NEWS RELEASE
For Immediate Release
2008TRAN0097-001880
Dec. 11, 2008
Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure
BUS LANE WILL SPEED TRANSIT COMMUTE ALONG HIGHWAY 99
RICHMOND – Transportation and Infrastructure Minister Kevin Falcon, along with Richmond East MLA Linda Reid, officially broke ground today on the shoulder bus lane project along Highway 99 in Richmond, which will eventually carry transit commuters from White Rock to the Canada Line.
“This dedicated bus lane will move transit riders past rush-hour congestion on one of the busiest stretches of Highway 99 northbound,†said Falcon. “When we provide transit options like this that are quicker and more convenient than the single-occupant vehicle, we’ll get people out of their cars and reduce greenhouse gas emissions.â€

“Transportation infrastructure projects like this bus-only lane will give commuters more reasons to take transit,†said Reid. “With this new bus lane, and the Canada Line’s estimated 100,000 riders daily, improved transit connections to and through Richmond will provide tremendous benefits to our local economy.â€

The shoulder of Highway 99 northbound from Westminster Highway to Bridgeport Road, a distance of 2.8 km, will be widened to create a bus-only lane. Warning signals at on-ramps along the route will be automatically activated to provide priority for bus transit. The lane will be used by current northbound transit service, and will also be used by RapidBus BC service, once in operation, to carry commuters to the Canada Line’s Bridgeport Station.
“The new bus lane will offer superior travel time reliability for south of Fraser commuters connecting to the Canada Line and we appreciate the province's initiative to move quickly on this project,†said Tom Prendergast, CEO of TransLink. “There's no doubt that motorists will notice how well the bus-only lanes help our highway coaches avoid the heavy traffic line-ups and we expect this is going to entice quite a few more Vancouver-bound commuters onto transit."
RapidBus BC is a key pillar of the Provincial Transit Plan. Commuters riding RapidBus BC will get high quality, point-to-point service with minimal stops along a number of high-profile corridors in the Lower Mainland, including Highway 99 in both directions between White Rock and Richmond.
Jacob Bros. Construction Ltd. of Surrey was awarded a $4.7-million contract to build the four-metre-wide shoulder bus lane, which will be complete in summer 2009

Media contact:
Jeff Knight, Public Affairs Bureau
Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure
250 356-7707
--
Impressed?

Dufferin north of Sheppard is semi-highway so its a fair comparison. Arterials such as Lakeshore, Queensway, Eglinton, Wilson-Albion, Sheppard, Finch, and Steeles for east-to-west lines and Markham, McCowan, Victoria Park-Warden, Don Mills-Overlea, Keele Jane, Kipling-Islington and Highway 27 for north-to-south lines. If we're to believe it when Adam Giambrone states that this city cannot afford new subways, how on earth can we afford light-rail corridors that in several circumstances match the pricetag of that mode yet have demonstarted time and again that they perform poorer in many cases than bus transit.

A lot of people like to focus on the Skytrain as Vancouver's only form of rapid transit but it also has a very comprehensive Bus Rapid Transit network that'd put Toronto to shame. They realize that demand for a corridor needs to be built up first, organic ridership growth over time, before talk of upgrading to light-rail or heavy-rail ought to be entertained. Here's some food for thought: http://www.fta.dot.gov/printer_friendly/research_4374.html

 

[Fresh Start]

I see nothing in either reference (even after fixing the broken first one) to support the claim that the underground section is $220-million per kilometre.

Presumably underground LRT tunnel construction (without the stations) is more expensive than subway construction, given the larger tunnel.

Must I spoonfeed you? Page 15 of the pdf:
" • Cost – Recent estimates of LRT technology are in the order of $40 million per kilometre, while subways cost approximately $220 million per kilometre (capital costs and vehicles included, but not property, yards or streetscaping)."

 

[kettal]

Okay, time for some good old-fashioned side-by-side comparisons; gents take out your calculators.
http://www3.ttc.ca/PDF/Transit_Planning/service_improvements_2008.pdf

• Route
• Mode/note
• Customers per day, Mon-Fri
• Vehicles in morning peak period
• Vehicles in afternoon peak period
• Hours per day, Mon-Fri
• Kms per day, Mon-Fri
• Cost per day, Mon-Fri

Streetcar: 501 QUEEN SC 43,500 31 31 530 8,500 $87,500
Bus: 29 DUFFERIN 43,600 32 28 450 7,400 $49,300

As you can see, this bus route carries slightly more people; one more bus trip in the morning peak but 3 less in the afternoon peak than the streetcar conserving the needed manpower required to operate those buses. The 29 runs along a denser corridor throughout (it matters not that the 501 covers 1100 more kms overall with long low-density stretches like High Park-Humber Bay included). But where they really differ dramatically is in their operational costs per day. I see a whooping $38,200 discrepancy, making diesel-chugging buses by far the least expensive to operate and maintain (and enviro-safe CNG or fuel-cell ran buses are always an option and several modern bus makes have life-spans in excess of 30 years). When was the last time a bus corridor needed to be partially shut down for a whole summer or years on end for maintenance and repairs? I rest my case.

Actually no, here's some more examples of how the bus is king and if placed into their own dedicated ROWs would always run at averages of 35kmph NOT a lousy 22kmph:

Highest daily used streetcar route 504 KING and 508 LAKE SHORE
53,100 51 38 540 7,400 $96,000

Highest daily used bus route 39 FINCH EAST and 139 FINCH-DON MILLS
44,600 52 41 620 14,000 $74,000

= 39/139 has double the daily total mileage, has around the same number of daily drivers required but costs $22,000 less to operate.

506 CARLTON SC 41,200 34 29 440 6,500 $75,400
25 DON MILLS (1) 40,600 31 27 410 8,100 $47,000

= 25 Don Mills costs $28,400 less to operate daily with even less drivers required to operate vehicles.

If the TTC took a page from York Region and Mississauga and started to incoporate articulated buses into its fleet then the issue of total number of manned buses dissipates. If the TTC found other ways to cut costs like I dunno, stop building underground mausoleums in locations where less than 5000 walk-ins per day will actually see them, then having to pay drivers would be the least of their worries.

Are you serious? You can't tell the difference between King Street and Finch Avenue? King street has effectively one travel lane in each direction, while finch has 2-3. Finch's stops are further apart, there are fewer stoplights per km, and traffic tends to move faster. These are what effects service and operating costs, not the vehicle. If you put double-decker articulated bus on King Street, and that came up as more efficient, you would have a point, but comparing vastly different services like this is not a fair comparison.

And I shouldn't even have to dignify the absurdity of comparing Carlton streetcar with Don Mills. Don Mills has a reserved HOV lane for most of it's route, Carlton has mixed traffic, parked cars, and a lower speed limit. You're either being dishonest or just plain ignorant here.

When was the last time a bus corridor needed to be partially shut down for a whole summer or years on end for maintenance and repairs?

Finch West, about 3 years ago.