Quote:
Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut
In Vancouver, the above statement is almost entirely correct. Both the Broadway and Surrey-Langley tram proposals offered the same service as the B-Line express buses they aimed to replace, in exchange for capital costs that were closer to the alternative SkyTrain options.
Your argument seems to be more light metro (which Eglinton is close to but isn't) over heavy metro; street-running trains do fine as a rich man's bus, but often fail as a poor man's rapid transit without proper separation.
|
My argument is that providing additional capacity and reduced operating costs is an upgrade that can be worthwhile as long as it has a better cost-benefit ratio than the alternatives. Even when it's more expensive than it should be. It sounds like you're referring to is a case where there's an alternative that has a better cost-benefit ratio. I 100% agree that it's a different situation in BC due to the cost differences so I'm not suggesting that BC should have LRT instead of Skytrain in any of those cases.
FWIW, I've always wished Eglinton had been light metro. Unlike with Finch, I do think the wrong technology was chosen in that case, mainly due to so much of it being underground. I don't think light metro would have been much more - or maybe even any more - expensive since the extra cost to elevate what are now street-running sections may have been offset by not needing such large stations. The trains could have been shorter with light metro due to the high service frequency it enables, while not needing drivers would have greatly reduced the long term operating expenses.
Threaded Mode