jje1000
Senior Member
The same should go for you too.
While the Sheppard and Eglinton lines have a requirement by capacity to be at least a grade LRT line, have the considered having the Jane, Don Mills, Finch, and Malvern lines be BRT (if they are within the capacity constraints, which IIRC Jane and Finch is)?
Like how at-grade LRTs cost 1/3 of grade separated Rapid Transit, BRT comes in 1/3 of the cost of at-grade LRT.
BRT costs the same as LRT. If it costs less, you are skimping on something.
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....
630,000, 61,000 Torontonians served. Aren't all of these people already served? What's the point here?
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.Could we please stop spreading misleading untruthful propaganda? I thought this site was for rationalish debate, not Tea Party blind devotion.
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....
Could we please stop spreading misleading untruthful propaganda? I thought this site was for rationalish debate, not Tea Party blind devotion.
630,000, 61,000 Torontonians served. Aren't all of these people already served? What's the point here?
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.
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.
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.