Canadian Transit Thread II

[thebasketballgeek]

Originally Posted by Doady

I don't care about rail infrastructure. I'm just talking about ridership. The US cities also have more rail than Canadian cities, but ridership of US cities is 1/10 of Canadian cities. Dallas has the largest modern light rail network in North America, but their system carries as much people as Winnipeg's (approximately 70 million boardings annually in 2019). The only US systems that can match Winnipeg are New York City, San Francisco, and Washington. Winnipeg has higher transit ridership per capita than Chicago with its massive "L" and Metra systems.

There is just no "North American context" when it comes to transit. Canada and US are like two different continents. Canada is much closer to Europe than it is the US. If you compare Canada to UK, the ridership numbers are almost identical. The main difference between Canada and Europe is the rate of cycling and walking.

I see your point and I agree for the most part. Canadian cities are on a different level than American cities when it comes to transit ridership, and we should be looking at Europe for precedents instead of down south. Last I checked after NYC, Montreal, Toronto, and Vancouver take the next 3 spots for highest public transit ridership despite being smaller than Chicago and the cities in California and Texas.

Also, even though Winnipeg’s peak ridership in 2019 was “only” 50 million boardings, it still punches well above its weight in ridership per capita with roughly 62.5 trips/capita. Higher then Philadelphia and Portland while being on par with Chicago for reference. Not to mention the city is back to 90-95% pre pandemic levels in terms of ridership so hopefully they can get those BRT extensions going ASAP.

[Doady]

Originally Posted by thebasketballgeek

I see your point and I agree for the most part. Canadian cities are on a different level than American cities when it comes to transit ridership, and we should be looking at Europe for precedents instead of down south. Last I checked after NYC, Montreal, Toronto, and Vancouver take the next 3 spots for highest public transit ridership despite being smaller than Chicago and the cities in California and Texas.

Also, even though Winnipeg’s peak ridership in 2019 was “only” 50 million boardings, it still punches well above its weight in ridership per capita with roughly 62.5 trips/capita. Higher then Philadelphia and Portland while being on par with Chicago for reference. Not to mention the city is back to 90-95% pre pandemic levels in terms of ridership so hopefully they can get those BRT extensions going ASAP.

Winnipeg got close to 50 million revenue riders (linked trips) but in terms of boardings (unlinked trips), it was around 70 million, so it was closer 100 per capita if you want to compare to US cities.

I think you cannot directly compare the rail infrastructure (or lack thereof) of smaller European and Canadian cities because the streets in historic European city centres are much smaller. They lack the capacity to handle a large volume of bus riders, which is not a problem in Canadian cities because they have wider and longer roads with a clearer hierarchy.

In both Canada and Europe, we build the transit that we actually need. If system is not overcrowded, then we will continue to use what we already have. Quebec and Halifax are examples of systems that will struggle to increase ridership if they do not invest in rail. BRT would be a waste of money in both of these cities.

I am happy to hear Winnipeg Transit is close to 100% recovery. Brampton was the first last year, and Mississauga was the second earlier this year. I like Winnipeg's modest approach, BRT, mix of transitway and on-street, some grade separation at busy locations, just building what they actually need, nothing too crazy. I've become wary of ambitious transit projects with all the massive delays and cost overruns of the various LRT and subway projects in the Toronto area.

[Nouvellecosse]

Part of the issue with this topic (comparing transit in Canada, the US and Europe) is in disentangling culture and competing modes (mostly cars) from the actual transit service. Cultural differences such as whether or not transit is seen as a respectable option or solely for the poor can have a big effect on ridership as can the availability of other options. If it's cheaper and/or faster to use cars in one place than another due to massive investment in car infrastructure, then that will attract a lot more people to driving. But neither factor are the actual transit service or infrastructure. So if you want to compare the transit systems you can't do it just by comparing ridership which is affected as much or more by those other things.

So if you want to compare transit achievements such as a city having a rail line capable of carrying a certain volume of riders, mentioning that another city has just as many total riders but on buses isn't really relevant. A city that puts together the money and political will to upgrade its infrastructure to make the experience better for those riders deserves to be recognized. If anything, it deserves more credit for doing it without having more riders than a city who didn't do it since it didn't view higher order transit as something to only built when forced.

[Nouvellecosse]

Originally Posted by Doady

I don't care about rail infrastructure. I'm just talking about ridership. The US cities also have more rail than Canadian cities, but ridership of US cities is 1/10 of Canadian cities. Dallas has the largest modern light rail network in North America, but their system carries as much people as Winnipeg's (approximately 70 million boardings annually in 2019). The only US systems that can match Winnipeg are New York City, San Francisco, and Washington. Winnipeg has higher transit ridership per capita than Chicago with its massive "L" and Metra systems.

There is just no "North American context" when it comes to transit. Canada and US are like two different continents. Canada is much closer to Europe than it is the US. If you compare Canada to UK, the ridership numbers are almost identical. The main difference between Canada and Europe is the rate of cycling and walking.

Originally Posted by Doady

Winnipeg got close to 50 million revenue riders (linked trips) but in terms of boardings (unlinked trips), it was around 70 million, so it was closer 100 per capita if you want to compare to US cities.

I think you cannot directly compare the rail infrastructure (or lack thereof) of smaller European and Canadian cities because the streets in historic European city centres are much smaller. They lack the capacity to handle a large volume of bus riders, which is not a problem in Canadian cities because they have wider and longer roads with a clearer hierarchy.

In both Canada and Europe, we build the transit that we actually need. If system is not overcrowded, then we will continue to use what we already have. Quebec and Halifax are examples of systems that will struggle to increase ridership if they do not invest in rail. BRT would be a waste of money in both of these cities.

I am happy to hear Winnipeg Transit is close to 100% recovery. Brampton was the first last year, and Mississauga was the second earlier this year. I like Winnipeg's modest approach, BRT, mix of transitway and on-street, some grade separation at busy locations, just building what they actually need, nothing too crazy. I've become wary of ambitious transit projects with all the massive delays and cost overruns of the various LRT and subway projects in the Toronto area.

You say there's no North American context. But then you immediately follow that with a post which correctly explains one of the significant differences between the European and North American contexts which is the competing road capacity.

Also, talking just about ridership without addressing the infrastructure is missing a pretty important point which is that transit riders who have access to better infrastructure have a very different experience compared to those who don't. It's like talking about two families who both have a car they use at similar rates with one driving a year old Lucid Air and the other driving a 2010 Chevy Cobalt. Then saying you don't care about the cars - just how much they're used. Well that's kind of an important detail that the rest of us are discussing.

[someone123]

Originally Posted by Nouvellecosse

Part of the issue with this topic (comparing transit in Canada, the US and Europe) is in disentangling culture and competing modes (mostly cars) from the actual transit service.

These days Canadian cities are so far behind on different types of transport investment anyway. The roads suck, the transit is inadequate. There's tons of latent demand for services that don't exist. There's tons of demand for any kind of housing. The limiting factors seem to relate to efficiency in infrastructure development and ability to plan and mobilize capital. Quebec City being a good example where the primary transit plan in the metro area kicks around for over a decade then balloons to an unrealistic budget and is killed off.

It does seem like the medium-sized cities are getting hit somewhat hard by this. The big cities can still manage some projects in this environment. The medium cities get pushed over the margin by the infrastructure development woes.

[Doady]

Originally Posted by Nouvellecosse

You say there's no North American context. But then you immediately follow that with a post which correctly explains one of the significant differences between the European and North American contexts which is the competing road capacity.

Also, talking just about ridership without addressing the infrastructure is missing a pretty important point which is that transit riders who have access to better infrastructure have a very different experience compared to those who don't. It's like talking about two families who both have a car they use at similar rates with one driving a year old Lucid Air and the other driving a 2010 Chevy Cobalt. Then saying you don't care about the cars - just how much they're used. Well that's kind of an important detail that the rest of us are discussing.

Rail has higher capacity than bus. US cities have the road capacity, they don't take advantage of it to build a high capacity bus system. The capacity of Canadian bus systems is far higher than US bus systems. The overall capacity of transit in Canada is similar to European systems. It's all about capacity, nothing to do with "different experience".

Canadian cities invest a lot of money into transit, bus or otherwise. What is the most bang for the buck, lower per rider, that is the real question.

Even with LRT, Kitchener-Waterloo-Cambridge is not going to match ridership of Halifax or Victoria, at least anytime soon. They are building to increase the overall capacity of their system. Whether they will fully take advantage of that increased capacity is another story.

You look at the other sprawl hellholes of Canada and the USA there are many systems have not taken advantage of the higher capacity that rail affords them. Ottawa has always had better ridership than Vancouver, Seattle has better ridership than Portland, San Antonio and Austin have better ridership than Dallas, Las Vegas has better ridership than Phoenix and Salt Lake City, the list goes on.

So if you build rail in Quebec and Halifax, it's because of too many riders, not because of lack of ridership. Even with rail, these cities can only achieve the ridership of Renne (88.4 million annually in 2019) only if they take full advantage of that extra capacity.

Let's look closer at Renne. 88.4 million riders for 2019, which 193 per capita. They break it down to 43% on their metro, so I am assuming the numbers represent boardings (unlinked trips), and most of the ridership is still on their bus network. Halifax got 30.4 million boardings annually in 2019, so around 1/3 the ridership of Rennes per capita. This is quite different from UK where most cities have half the ridership of Halifax.

Rennes got 33.6 million riders in 2001, before the metro. That means that the bus ridership in Rennes increased by 50% from 2001 to 2019. It's clearly not that the ridership increased because rail is more attractive than bus, but because Rennes took advantage of the extra capacity of rail. Their bus ridership saw a huge increase in ridership after they built their metro, and bus remains the main mode of transit in Rennes. With people in Rennes taking the bus more than ever before, it is clearly not a "different experience".

When cities build rail based on the notion that people hate buses and so cities should give people a "different experience", these cities are not going to achieve the same transit ridership as Rennes. Again, you can see plenty of examples of such failures all across the US.

[Nouvellecosse]

Originally Posted by Doady

Rail has higher capacity than bus. US cities have the road capacity, they don't take advantage of it to build a high capacity bus system. The capacity of Canadian bus systems is far higher than US bus systems. The overall capacity of transit in Canada is similar to European systems. It's all about capacity, nothing to do with "different experience".

The experience is extremely important because if you have better infrastructure you can get around faster and more comfortably which is a huge quality of life and productivity issue. Capacity may be the only important thing with some kinds of cargo, but not with sentient beings.

Originally Posted by Doady

Canadian cities invest a lot of money into transit, bus or otherwise. What is the most bang for the buck, lower per rider, that is the real question.

The bang for the buck isn't just in terms of initial construction costs but also long term operation and maintenance costs. To ignore that is being penny wise and pound foolish.

Originally Posted by Doady

Even with LRT, Kitchener-Waterloo-Cambridge is not going to match ridership of Halifax or Victoria, at least anytime soon. They are building to increase the overall capacity of their system. Whether they will fully take advantage of that increased capacity is another story.

You look at the other sprawl hellholes of Canada and the USA there are many systems have not taken advantage of the higher capacity that rail affords them. Ottawa has always had better ridership than Vancouver, Seattle has better ridership than Portland, San Antonio and Austin have better ridership than Dallas, Las Vegas has better ridership than Phoenix and Salt Lake City, the list goes on.

So if you build rail in Quebec and Halifax, it's because of too many riders, not because of lack of ridership. Even with rail, these cities can only achieve the ridership of Renne (88.4 million annually in 2019) only if they take full advantage of that extra capacity.

Let's look closer at Renne. 88.4 million riders for 2019, which 193 per capita. They break it down to 43% on their metro, so I am assuming the numbers represent boardings (unlinked trips), and most of the ridership is still on their bus network. Halifax got 30.4 million boardings annually in 2019, so around 1/3 the ridership of Rennes per capita. This is quite different from UK where most cities have half the ridership of Halifax.

Rennes got 33.6 million riders in 2001, before the metro. That means that the bus ridership in Rennes increased by 50% from 2001 to 2019. It's clearly not that the ridership increased because rail is more attractive than bus, but because Rennes took advantage of the extra capacity of rail. Their bus ridership saw a huge increase in ridership after they built their metro, and bus remains the main mode of transit in Rennes. With people in Rennes taking the bus more than ever before, it is clearly not a "different experience".

When cities build rail based on the notion that people hate buses and so cities should give people a "different experience", these cities are not going to achieve the same transit ridership as Rennes. Again, you can see plenty of examples of such failures all across the US.

It most certainly is a very different experience. Just because cities with strong higher order transit also often have strong bus ridership doesn't change that because the bus feeds the higher order systems. Traveling an entire trip by bus including long distances or through very congested areas is very different than traveling by bus to the closest transfer point to a higher order service. I've done both so I can personally confirm. That's why bus ridership would increase in a place like Rennes in response to the metro opening. Because over overall transit experience is more positive since many people are no longer taking their entire trip by bus. So you have people who are attracted to transit because a big part of the trip is on a more pleasant mode combined with the people who already took the bus, some of whom make trips that don't involve the metro.

You're only focusing on the motivation behind (some cities') transit plans while ignoring important aspects of the result of those plans. No one is saying the experience is the only thing that's important, but you seem to be implying that capacity is the only thing that's important. In reality, this is a complex topic with many important aspects so ignoring any of them results in an incomplete picture. People want to get where they're going and also want to enjoy their lives. Both are true at the same time. If you read the materials from the most prominent and successful transit planners and commentators including Jarrett Walker, Steve Munro, Taras Grescoe, and Reece Martin, you won't find any who ignore user experience any more than you'll find any who ignore capacity and efficiency.

[Nouvellecosse]

^ I should probably clarify a bit. It probably sounds like we completely disagree on everything but I think it's more a case of the fairly minor disagreements taking the entire focus. For instance, I do agree that investments in higher order transit should be justified by high usage. Otherwise, you'd have absurdities like a 1/2 hourly bus route being made into a new rail line or something. The only things I disagree on in that regard is that the passenger experience shouldn't be considered in the decision at all, and that an improved passenger experience has no effect on ridership. Perhaps that isn't even what you meant to say.

It sounded to me as if you were saying that investing in transit infrastructure like BRT, LRT, or metro should only be done if it's the only possible way to handle the demand. I strongly believe in using a minimum/lower threshold for what the mode you're moving to rather than an upper/maximum threshold for the mode you're moving from. Well, if - and this is a big if - there also are other important factors one can achieve with the investment. For instance, if the minimum ridership to justify an LRT is say, 20k average weekday riders while the maximum theoretical capacity for the bus route(s) it replaces is 60k average weekday riders, then you'd build the LRT at 20k if, a) there's no other unfunded transportation project that's more pressing b) there are other major benefits beyond capacity such as significantly reducing trip time, improving reliability, reducing noise/pollution, beautifying the city, helping to manage operating costs, etc. And doing so would definitely induce ridership depending on the degree of the improvement.

But I 100% agree that it's unlikely to single handedly turn a low ridership route into a high ridership route. You're not going to suddenly go from 20k daily riders on the bus to say, 60k once the LRT opens. But it could very well increase from 20k when it was buses to 30k after a few years. But yes there would definitely need to be at least a minimum level of ridership to justify it and I agree with your criticism of some US LRT and streetcar systems that seem to get that wrong.

[Xelebes]

Edmonton's Valley Line opens today.

[Xelebes]

First trip on the new Valley Line.

• Video Link

I have written my comments on the train in the Edmonton Transit thread.

[Innsertnamehere]

Originally Posted by someone123

These days Canadian cities are so far behind on different types of transport investment anyway. The roads suck, the transit is inadequate. There's tons of latent demand for services that don't exist. There's tons of demand for any kind of housing. The limiting factors seem to relate to efficiency in infrastructure development and ability to plan and mobilize capital. Quebec City being a good example where the primary transit plan in the metro area kicks around for over a decade then balloons to an unrealistic budget and is killed off.

It does seem like the medium-sized cities are getting hit somewhat hard by this. The big cities can still manage some projects in this environment. The medium cities get pushed over the margin by the infrastructure development woes.

Quebec City's road infrastructure is generally extremely robust for a city of it's size -it's total infrastructure need is lower than a lot of people seem to think.

Alberta's infrastructure is generally excellent as well, with strong transit and road networks for the level of demand. Same with the Maritimes with their large road networks.

The infrastructure deficits are most acute in Ontario, BC, and Manitoba, IMO. All 3 are short on road infrastructure, though Ontario has a decent network its very undersized for it's population, and BC / Manitoba roads are just very substandard for a developed nation. Transit in Vancouver is better, but basically non-existent in Winnipeg and again woefully undersized in Ontario for the population.

Quebec sits more in the middle - Montreal is in a large infrastructure deficit but projects like REM are going to completely transform that and the rest of the province is generally in a pretty decent place.

the Lower Mainland and GTHA can be incredibly difficult and frustrating places to get around compared to the rest of the country.

[someone123]

Originally Posted by Innsertnamehere

Alberta's infrastructure is generally excellent as well, with strong transit and road networks for the level of demand. Same with the Maritimes with their large road networks.

The infrastructure deficits are most acute in Ontario, BC, and Manitoba, IMO. All 3 are short on road infrastructure, though Ontario has a decent network its very undersized for it's population, and BC / Manitoba roads are just very substandard for a developed nation. Transit in Vancouver is better, but basically non-existent in Winnipeg and again woefully undersized in Ontario for the population.

I will leave it to the Quebec City people to comment on utilization and priorities in their own town but if they don't need anything there why did they go through the many years of planning exercises? It seems unhealthy to me to generate plan after plan with elaborate materials and public consultation only to end up with an unrealistically high budget.

One thing that stands out to me about Canada is rare it is to get beyond utilitarian terms in discussions. The older parts of Quebec City are one of the gems in Canada and in many other developed countries those areas would have some kind of premium infrastructure like an underground metro-like service to get traffic off the narrow and winding streets. It's not just about bus capacity being maxed out or economies of scale and saving dollars.

I don't know about all of the Maritimes but if you are in metro Halifax which has about 1/4 of the total population there it doesn't really help that there are large twinned highways out in the rural areas of NS. Halifax often shows up near the top of the some of the worst traffic lists and has some traffic apocalypse days with gridlock around most of the core of the city. It along with Moncton is the fastest-growing city in the country right now, and due to the older road network and topography the options for things like BRT are limited. It's impossible to know what future migration patterns will look like but the current trajectory if it continues will require a major transit overhaul.

Another one I find odd is the idea that you need to triage different parts of the country and move down the list. The construction and planning capacity between regions is separate and a lot of the funding is separate. The feds meanwhile overspend on all kinds of areas; if we had priorities in order I don't think there would be some dilemma between investing in different regions that would require heavy triage. In some cases the feds do show up with the transit funding and it gets bogged down at the provincial or municipal level.

[Doady]

Originally Posted by Nouvellecosse

^ I should probably clarify a bit. It probably sounds like we completely disagree on everything but I think it's more a case of the fairly minor disagreements taking the entire focus. For instance, I do agree that investments in higher order transit should be justified by high usage. Otherwise, you'd have absurdities like a 1/2 hourly bus route being made into a new rail line or something. The only things I disagree on in that regard is that the passenger experience shouldn't be considered in the decision at all, and that an improved passenger experience has no effect on ridership. Perhaps that isn't even what you meant to say.

It sounded to me as if you were saying that investing in transit infrastructure like BRT, LRT, or metro should only be done if it's the only possible way to handle the demand. I strongly believe in using a minimum/lower threshold for what the mode you're moving to rather than an upper/maximum threshold for the mode you're moving from. Well, if - and this is a big if - there also are other important factors one can achieve with the investment. For instance, if the minimum ridership to justify an LRT is say, 20k average weekday riders while the maximum theoretical capacity for the bus route(s) it replaces is 60k average weekday riders, then you'd build the LRT at 20k if, a) there's no other unfunded transportation project that's more pressing b) there are other major benefits beyond capacity such as significantly reducing trip time, improving reliability, reducing noise/pollution, beautifying the city, helping to manage operating costs, etc. And doing so would definitely induce ridership depending on the degree of the improvement.

But I 100% agree that it's unlikely to single handedly turn a low ridership route into a high ridership route. You're not going to suddenly go from 20k daily riders on the bus to say, 60k once the LRT opens. But it could very well increase from 20k when it was buses to 30k after a few years. But yes there would definitely need to be at least a minimum level of ridership to justify it and I agree with your criticism of some US LRT and streetcar systems that seem to get that wrong.

I think ultimately we are not different, and I should clarify too that I support new rail like Waterloo LRT even if it is only 25k riders per day. They just need to take full advantage of rail as Rennes did, and so not ignore what is the main direct benefit of BRT, LRT, and heavy rail (increased capacity), and the indirect benefits from that (increased density, improved bus service), a mistake many other cities have made. Too much emphasis on a "different experience" has been part of that problem.

Ottawa in the 1970s had the same ridership that Rennes had in 2019, increasing from 35 million linked trips in 1970 to 69 million in 1977, but how much credit does Canada and Ottawa and buses get for that? And at the same time I've seen people try to discredit BRT by blaming the opening of the Transitway for causing the ridership to decline to 67 million in 1978. Ottawa in 1977, Rennes in 2019, same ridership, but people don't talk about Ottawa, they talk about Rennes.

Why does Canada need to build rail in its cities? Because we are not like the USA, we are more like Europe. If we build rail it is to build upon our success, not to rectify our failure. The former is what Europe does, and the latter is what USA does. We should be building rail transit in Quebec, Halifax, Victoria, Winnipeg, Brampton, London... but let us not forget the real reason why.

[Nouvellecosse]

^ Yes I'd agree with that. We have enough transit riders that they deserve greater investment in serving them better. And I also agree we're more like Europe in some ways such as how we view transit culturally and how much we're willing to invest in basic service.

Although the idea that our transit situation is more like Europe overall... well I suppose that depends on the part of the US and the part of Europe we're comparing. If we're comparing Warsaw, Montreal, and San Diego, then Montreal would be more similar to Warsaw wrt transit. But if we're comparing Toronto, Philadelphia, and Berlin, I'd definitely consider Toronto to be closer to Philadelphia. But regardless I do see you point about the differences between Canada and the US.

[Innsertnamehere]

Of course more infrastructure never hurts - and transit is good to invest in.

My point more so was that it’s generally pretty easy for the median Quebec City resident to get around their city. The LRT would make it even easier, for sure, but it’s not exactly difficult for residents to move as it is.

Halifax is indeed a tough nut to crack as there is a ton of growth in the lower city where it’s very challenging to add new transportation capacity - but the wider metro as a whole is relatively easy to get around, even if not perfect.

Most of Canada has room to improve infrastructure for sure, but my general point was that some parts of the country are at the point where transport infrastructure is actively extremely poor and has significant impacts on the economy and quality of life. Getting around the lower mainland or southern Ontario is generally very challenging for a western nation. Places like Alberta and Quebec City and Halifax could make changes to be better - but generally speaking it’s not overly challenging to get around those places like it is in other parts of the country. It’s not a problem like it is in Vancouver or Toronto where something as simple as going to get groceries, getting across downtown, or a 10km commute to work can take a good chunk of your day.

Toronto is at the point in the downtown where most trips are fastest on a bicycle, and by a significant, significant margin, for example. It’s good to encourage cycling, but there aren’t a lot of places in the developed world where cycling 5+kms is consistently the fastest transport mode by a factor of 2. Things like the Ontario Line will address this - but there will be other issues by the time that’s done, and it’s still about a decade out from opening.

[someone123]

Originally Posted by Innsertnamehere

Halifax is indeed a tough nut to crack as there is a ton of growth in the lower city where it’s very challenging to add new transportation capacity - but the wider metro as a whole is relatively easy to get around, even if not perfect.

People going across town have to go via the bridges or Bedford with all of those routes being congested. Due to geography there are only a few major arteries with no other connecting roads over long distances, and all of those would require expensive blasting of bedrock and/or expropriation to expand so they've tended to stay underdeveloped and are relatively expensive to expand relative to building transit.

[giallo]

A look at where the eight new stations will be located along the Surrey/Langley Skytrain expansion.

• Video Link

[ssiguy]

The advantages of LRT over buses is greatly diminishing with the advent of articulated battery buses. They are much quieter, smoother, faster accelerating, more reliable, are cheaper to run, and have much lower maintenance costs than their diesel counterparts. Unlike LRT they also don't require separate maintenance facilities, track and overhead wire replacement/repair, are more reliable when a accident along the rail route occurs, can be interlined including with commuter buses, are much more easily expandable, and don't have the overhead wire visual pollution of LRT catenary.

Rail based transit will always offer a smoother and quieter ride but battery buses help reduce the difference and especially with BRT due to having their own ROW which is very well maintained. It's often not the bus that's uncomfortable but rather the roads they travel on. This is why travelling on highways is always more comfortable than only regular urban streets even when using the same type of bus.

If spending a King's Ransome on transit expansion {especially for more mid-size cities} is it better to build just one line serving a limited number of passengers and destinations or using that same amount to serve huge quadrants of the city and tens of thousands more people and hundreds of more destinations? LRT can be great and is often the best choice but so is BRT, it all depends on the situation which has huge variables. However, cities shouldn't be spending a fortune on LRT just for the penis envy idea of "look Mom we have LRT too!". One only has to look to the US to see how such a mentality can work out. When this happens, the transit expansion proposals are being presented by politicians for the developers who bribe them and not on the needs of the travelling public.

[Rollerstud98]

Originally Posted by ssiguy

The advantages of LRT over buses is greatly diminishing with the advent of articulated battery buses. They are much quieter, smoother, faster accelerating, more reliable, are cheaper to run, and have much lower maintenance costs than their diesel counterparts. Unlike LRT they also don't require separate maintenance facilities, track and overhead wire replacement/repair, are more reliable when a accident along the rail route occurs, can be interlined including with commuter buses, are much more easily expandable, and don't have the overhead wire visual pollution of LRT catenary.

Rail based transit will always offer a smoother and quieter ride but battery buses help reduce the difference and especially with BRT due to having their own ROW which is very well maintained. It's often not the bus that's uncomfortable but rather the roads they travel on. This is why travelling on highways is always more comfortable than only regular urban streets even when using the same type of bus.

If spending a King's Ransome on transit expansion {especially for more mid-size cities} is it better to build just one line serving a limited number of passengers and destinations or using that same amount to serve huge quadrants of the city and tens of thousands more people and hundreds of more destinations? LRT can be great and is often the best choice but so is BRT, it all depends on the situation which has huge variables. However, cities shouldn't be spending a fortune on LRT just for the penis envy idea of "look Mom we have LRT too!". One only has to look to the US to see how such a mentality can work out. When this happens, the transit expansion proposals are being presented by politicians for the developers who bribe them and not on the needs of the travelling public.

Do you have stats to back up your claim with the electric buses? Just read an article the other day out of Edmonton about how terrible they are! Have to have a midday charge and that’s when they’re actually running. Even worse in winter.

[Innsertnamehere]

Originally Posted by Rollerstud98

Do you have stats to back up your claim with the electric buses? Just read an article the other day out of Edmonton about how terrible they are! Have to have a midday charge and that’s when they’re actually running. Even worse in winter.

The TTCs experiences with them have been fine.

Edmonton's problem is that they bought a bunch of proterra buses, which is a startup bus company which has since gone bankrupt.. it's a bad product.

The TTC has been buying new flyer EV buses - and they have had very positive experiences with them. Such a positive experience, that they have ordered over 600 of them.

The TTC bought 4-5 different brands of EV buses first and tested them out for a year or so.. the proterras ranked at the bottom on their evaluation from what I recall.