Quote:
Originally Posted by Dado
I had started writing a message last week, but then the browser crashed and got rid of everything. When that kind of thing happens, I tend not to return to what I was doing until the annoyance at it all has worn off.
|
It has happened to me as well. I try to protect myself by writing my messages (if they are long) in Word, saving them often and pasting them once I’m finished.
Quote:
A rapid transit study was done by Winnipeg (I had the link before but laziness has now set in...) citing work from a consultant who mainly does BRT that put 1500 pphpd as the threshold at which LRT was more cost effective to operate than BRT. The N-S LRT was premised on a corridor getting no more than 2500 pphpd when it started service (now downgraded to 1900 in 2031...) and it pegged the cost of operating an LRT system at 88% of the cost of the equivalent BRT system using one-car trains and at 83% using two-car trains. The data was based on Ottawa for BRT and Denver and Pittsburgh for LRT (so not even low-cost Calgary).
http://ottawa.ca/calendar/ottawa/citycouncil/trc/2005/07-06/Document%202%20-%20Bus%20vs%20Rail.pdf
|
Thanks for the study comparing the Ottawa N-S LRT versus a busway along the same corridor, as I had not seen it before.
It was an interesting read. However, I was unable to find the NPV of the total cost (infrastructure, vehicles, O&M and refurbishment) of both options, even though it is the most appropriate basis for comparison. Using the information available, I did do a “quick and dirty” NPV of both options. The outcome was basically a tie with a very slight edge to the busway option.
I was a bit surprised that the infrastructure costs of the busway option were not far off from those of the LRT option. The study also made the dubious assumption in my opinion that expensive Civis buses would be used under the busway option, as opposed to the same buses as the rest of the fleet.
More importantly, I was really struck at how unimaginative the busway option was in the study. In particular, it completely failed to take advantage of the operational flexibility of buses and the synergies with the rest of the transit network. For example:
• It is hard to believe that, like the LRT, the bus routes using the N-S busway would have terminated at the Rideau Centre. Under a more realistic scenario, they would have continued to Hurdman and beyond (i.e., interlining where appropriate, which saves on operating costs). Perhaps, the main route would have been merged with the 94 and/or some other main routes. As well, the study assumed that there would be no skipping of low-use stations by some bus routes. Given the pattern of demand along the corridor and current practice in other corridors, I'm also unsure whether all bus routes would have started/terminated at Barrhaven (i.e., some could have started/terminated closer to downtown thereby reducing the length of the roundtrip).
• New bus routes could have been established that would take advantage of portions of the new N-S busway. Examples of potential routes include South Keys to Tunney’s Pasture via Carleton University, South Keys to Hull via Carleton University, Barrhaven to Hurdman, Hurdman to Carleton University via Confederation Heights, etc.
• The busway option could easily have incorporated a ramp at Carling to provide the 85 or, better yet, a new BRT line on Carling with fast, congestion-free access to downtown (i.e., a bypass of Bronson). This would have allowed the City to “kill two birds with one stone”: significantly improve transit not only along the North-South corridor but also along the Carling Corridor. The ramp could also have been used by a new bus route linking Carling (with Lincoln Fields or Bayshore as its terminus) with Carleton University and perhaps South Keys.
• OC Transpo would have gained the flexibility to transfer N-S routes between the new busway and the SE Transitway in order to better balance demand in the Central portion (i.e., better equalize bus flows from the East and West).
The above would have generated significant ridership gains and allowed OC Transpo to better manage its system.
I sincerely hope that the City did not decide to pursue the LRT option based on this study.
Quote:
|
As I wrote earlier, Calgary seems to have used something that worked out to about 3000 pphpd peak hour when the lines were established, though where along the line that would be is not clear. My admittedly not-great understanding is that they use annual boardings/km and since 1990 until the end of the data in 2005 that number has been at or above 1M boardings/km. It should be noted that the boardings/km goes up and down above 1M because every time an extension opens it lowers boardings/km initially and then it trends back up as ridership increases due to the extension. Blair to Place d'Orleans would add about 10 km and nominally require that there be 10M annual boardings from east of Blair - except you're allowed to average out all boardings over the entire length of the line, which lowers the threshold somewhat. Either way, I don't think we'd have any trouble meeting that threshold: already (2006) at the Green's Creek screenline it's above 5300 pphpd during the peak hour. Using the formula* for estimating daily ridership from peak hour, we get a number just shy of 53000. Annualize that over 300 average service days and ridership from Orleans is approaching 16M, or 1.6M/km. In other words, just the section of Blair-Place d'Orleans is already above the historic Calgary average, Greenbelt penalty and all; indeed, it could go all the way to Trim and still be within the Calgary norm. By any measure of a threshold for LRT, we're well above it. Lincoln Fields to Terry Fox is also close today; we're above 3800 at Lincoln Fields, or 11.38M annually. Spread that across the 12 km to Terry Fox and it works out to 950k boardings/km so by the time we'd be in a position to build it there'll be over 1M boardings/km on that corridor as well. What becomes apparent is that it's shocking we haven't already converted the Transitway and shocking that we're not looking at suburban extensions for another generation.
|
I hope we can agree that LRT extensions need to be evaluated on a case-by-case basis.
In the case of Blair to Place d’Orleans, such an extension would be quite costly to build due to its length, the presence of some interchange and the need for trenching and an extensive transfer station at Place d’Orleans. I would guess something like $200M would be reasonable, but you no doubt have a better estimate than I.
The question becomes whether the benefits, essentially savings in operating costs, would be sufficient to fully offset this large capital investment.
kyle_olsen’s numbers for Calgary (
http://209.160.24.7/showpost.php?p=3970947&postcount=1017 ) suggest that a 4-car LRT train would cost $306 per hour to operate. Whether a 4-car LRT in Ottawa could be operated at that cost is an open question. In other words, I’m not sure if Ottawa right now is as cost-conscious as Calgary. $306 per hour is slightly less than three times higher than Ottawa bus costs ($105 per hour for standard bus and $115 per hour for a high capacity bus, at least according to the MRC/Delcan study).
I would expect that there would be savings during the peak periods due to the heavy volumes. How big they would be on an annual basis, I don’t know. During the off-peak periods, I doubt there would be any meaningful savings due to the need to have decent headways like the one you suggested below.
By way of comparison, the last estimate that I saw of the annual savings in bus operating costs generated by the Canada Line in Vancouver was $6.6M for 2010 and $12.9M for 2021. These are the savings generated by replacing a large number of buses (e.g., the 98 B-Line) that currently use congested streets like Granville with a 19.5km rapid transit line, a much more favourable situation than an LRT extension between Blair and Place d’Orleans, which would replace buses that speed along using bus lanes in a 10km stretch of highway with at most two stops. Since the Canada Line itself was estimated at the time to have operating costs of $25M per year, the project was expected to lead to an overall increase in operating costs. I suspect that this reflects TransLink’s emphasis on improving overall service, rather than reducing bus service/costs to the bare minimum.
I want to be clear that I am not a proponent of building busways everywhere and in every situation. Although not as good, bus lanes or HOV lanes are much less expensive and should be used where appropriate. For example, I would not favour building a busway between Blair and Place d’Orleans, since it would be very costly to build yet provide marginal improvement over the current arrangement. Any upgrades to busway need to be justified by a solid business case.
Quote:
|
That would depend somewhat on the length of train used in off-peak periods, but somewhere in the 5-10 min range seems likely.
|
Such frequencies would be fine for the suburbs. As I noted in an earlier post, system operating costs will need to be calculated on that basis.
Prev
How ghetto the BRT descriptions look in the paper. Unbelievable.
Linear Mode
