The Great Canadian Transit Thread

[caltrane74]

Packed Streetcar is far more bearable than packed bus.

Aisles are wider.

[lrt's friend]

Packed transit vehicles, no matter what type they are unpleasant. Packed transit vehicles that operate in traffic are horribly slow, whether a bus or streetcar. There is simply too much dwell time at each stop, because it takes too long to get people off and on with crush loads. In order to maintain service, crush loads need to be avoided as much as possible.

On the subject of BRT and LRT. Depending on system design, BRT can have an advantage since you can potentially avoid the last mile problem, getting people to their final destination. Of course, we can screw that up royally by pretending that it is the same as LRT and make all people transfer off the BRT route, like the fiasco called Rapibus in Gatineau. The other advantage of BRT is the ability to skip stops on commuter runs to speed up service. That is something you cannot do with LRT unless you build extra sets of tracks. With LRT, you get a smoother ride but I don't buy this as means of generating significant ridership. And the other critical part of making LRT a success is to address the last mile issue. This means that your bus system must be designed efficiently around LRT so that people have confidence that they will get to their destination quickly. This is the failure of many US LRT systems that traditionally have had bad bus systems that have little confidence with the public. But you need a good bus system to complement LRT or you are always going to limit ridership potential.

The key to high ridership is good service, whether by LRT or bus or a combination of the two.

[MalcolmTucker]

BRT fails at last mile when it becomes too busy though, and then when you need to change the system to line-haul and transfer it pisses everyone off. Plus in the mean time, it actually provides worse service, even if people perceive it as better due to perceived transfer penalty.

[Nouvellecosse]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

On the subject of BRT and LRT. Depending on system design, BRT can have an advantage since you can potentially avoid the last mile problem, getting people to their final destination. Of course, we can screw that up royally by pretending that it is the same as LRT and make all people transfer off the BRT route, like the fiasco called Rapibus in Gatineau. The other advantage of BRT is the ability to skip stops on commuter runs to speed up service. That is something you cannot do with LRT unless you build extra sets of tracks. With LRT, you get a smoother ride but I don't buy this as means of generating significant ridership. And the other critical part of making LRT a success is to address the last mile issue. This means that your bus system must be designed efficiently around LRT so that people have confidence that they will get to their destination quickly. This is the failure of many US LRT systems that traditionally have had bad bus systems that have little confidence with the public. But you need a good bus system to complement LRT or you are always going to limit ridership potential.

The key to high ridership is good service, whether by LRT or bus or a combination of the two.

I'm not sure about BRT solving the last mile problem because if you allow the buses to leave the dedicated ROW, they risk getting caught by delays and having it affect the reliability and punctuality of the entire system. Often it's better to have a very high frequency operating within the ROW and simply make the transfers to feeder service as convenient as possible. If we're just talking about regular bus service and some bus lanes and maybe signal priority and not talking about actual BRT, then that's different.

And as far as having local/express services I don't see how BRT is any different than LRT. If the BRT has its own ROW such as a dedicated transit way, unless you spend extra to have a passing lane (and have the space available in the corridor) then it's not any different because buses couldn't pass one another. At the same time, if you have the space and money you can easily have a passing siding on an LRT system to allow express service if so desired. You wound't need to build a whole extra set of tracks any more than you'd need to have double lanes for the BRT transit way.

[lrt's friend]

Originally Posted by Nouvellecosse

I'm not sure about BRT solving the last mile problem because if you allow the buses to leave the dedicated ROW, they risk getting caught by delays and having it affect the reliability and punctuality of the entire system. Often it's better to have a very high frequency operating within the ROW and simply make the transfers to feeder service as convenient as possible. If we're just talking about regular bus service and some bus lanes and maybe signal priority and not talking about actual BRT, then that's different.

And as far as having local/express services I don't see how BRT is any different than LRT. If the BRT has its own ROW such as a dedicated transit way, unless you spend extra to have a passing lane (and have the space available in the corridor) then it's not any different because buses couldn't pass one another. At the same time, if you have the space and money you can easily have a passing siding on an LRT system to allow express service if so desired. You wound't need to build a whole extra set of tracks any more than you'd need to have double lanes for the BRT transit way.

From Ottawa's experiences, there is a great advantages from interlining bus routes on busways and offering more than trunk line service. From a passenger perspective, there is value in limiting transfers on popular routes.

Of course, there is always limits and Ottawa has reached the limit, which is forcing a move to LRT.

Ottawa also has geographic challenges because of the various rivers that run through the central city and how the federal government eliminated all railway lines from the downtown area. It seemed like a good idea at the time but has left us with a lack of corridors that could now be used for rapid transit.

When rapid transit reaches a limit, you can make modifications to increase capacity, but I would not use Ottawa as a poster child in converting busways to LRT. What we are doing is very expensive and very disruptive to the whole transit network. Really, beyond improving signalling, or extending platforms as other cities have done, your next step should be to build new competing rapid transit lines that spread the passenger load out. That is why so many want the DRL in Toronto.

With Ottawa's busways, passing lanes were included at all stations, so that facilitates skipping stops or passing slower, more crowded buses. This is an important feature of the design and has been very useful. Trying to do this with LRT is not as practical and complicates the design enormously. Think about the signalling challenges of having sidings at some stops being used by some trains and not others. The only practical alternative is to build additional track for significant portions of the line with the extra cost of that track and the need of local and express stations at various locations. I believe these additional costs would be a game breaker in all but the biggest cities and you see very few examples of this. I know New York has done this but where else?

It does point out that BRT in its own right of way can have major advantages both in terms of usefulness and cost if the system stays below its maximum capacity.

[Nouvellecosse]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

With Ottawa's busways, passing lanes were included at all stations, so that facilitates skipping stops or passing slower, more crowded buses. This is an important feature of the design and has been very useful. Trying to this with LRT is not as practical and complicates the design enormously. Think about the signalling challenges of having sidings at stops. I can just imagine the challenges that would present. The only practical alternative is to build additional tracks for significant portions of the line with the extra cost of that track and the need of local and express stations at various locations. I believe these additional costs would be a game breaker in all but the biggest cities.

It does point out the BRT in its own right of way can have major advantages if the system stays below its maximum capacity.

One of the great things about LRT and streetcars compared to heavy rail is that it can be operated either by signalling like a train or on sight like a road vehicle. Or different segments with different methods.

[lrt's friend]

Originally Posted by MalcolmTucker

BRT fails at last mile when it becomes too busy though, and then when you need to change the system to line-haul and transfer it pisses everyone off. Plus in the mean time, it actually provides worse service, even if people perceive it as better due to perceived transfer penalty.

Other than Ottawa's downtown core, where else does BRT get too busy? Most cities which would consider BRT over LRT would never experience a capacity crunch like Ottawa. Ottawa's failing was to not complete the downtown section as planned years ago. If it had, Ottawa may (or may not) be doing something different today. I know that Ottawa would have had a capacity crunch at some point but there could have been other choices on how to deal with it.

[lrt's friend]

Originally Posted by Nouvellecosse

One of the great things about LRT and streetcars compared to heavy rail is that it can be operated either by signalling like a train or on sight like a road vehicle. Or different segments with different methods.

True, but you are then talking more of a streetcar setup with the trains operating at a very limited speed. If you are operating in an exclusive right of way, you are really compromising your investment by operating by sight.

[MalcolmTucker]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

Other than Ottawa's downtown core, where else does BRT get too busy? Most cities which would consider BRT over LRT would never experience a capacity crunch like Ottawa. Ottawa's failing was to not complete the downtown section as planned years ago. If it had, Ottawa may (or may not) be doing something different today. I know that Ottawa would have had a capacity crunch at some point but there could have been other choices on how to deal with it.

Sorry, I should have qualified too busy as not purely in the spacial sense, but also in the number of vehicles per hour becoming impractical in an operating efficiency sense.

As Ottawa is able to reduce operating costs as the transitway is converted, hopefully we see a real benefit of this transition by redeploying operating subsidy to feeder routes, leading to better service for neighbourhoods.

[Nouvellecosse]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

True, but you are then talking more of a streetcar setup with the trains operating at a very limited speed. If you are operating in an exclusive right of way, you are really compromising your investment by operating by sight.

If a bus can do it, I see no reason why it isn't feasible for LRT to do it. As long as there is decent visibility and not coming out of a curve or something. If anything, it would be easier with LRT as you can have longer consists with fewer trips, so there's be less traffic on the corridor. An express LRT what was 100m long could run every 5 minutes whereas for an articulated bus to carry the same number of people would have to run less than once a minute. So the express run would have to slow down for a local train that was pulling away and picking up speed far less often than would occur with buses.

Besides, with an LRT, their stopping distances are shorter than heavy rail trains so even if it did use signalling, the size of the rolling block can be very small.

[lrt's friend]

Originally Posted by MalcolmTucker

Sorry, I should have qualified too busy as not purely in the spacial sense, but also in the number of vehicles per hour becoming impractical in an operating efficiency sense.

As Ottawa is able to reduce operating costs as the transitway is converted, hopefully we see a real benefit of this transition by redeploying operating subsidy to feeder routes, leading to better service for neighbourhoods.

I am not confident that this will happen, at least not in a meaningful way. A previous proposal tied in with LRT would have reduced service in neighbourhoods and the current civic attitude since optimization is that half hour service in neighbourhoods is the 'gold standard'. When demand exceeds that, just thrown on an articulated bus or double decker bus but heaven forbid going to 15 or 20 minute frequency.

[MalcolmTucker]

St. Albert LRT Concept Video 2015

• Video Link

[Coldrsx]

^fund it and do it now... so we can push the NWLRT!

[Beedok]

That's ambitious.

[1overcosc]

Originally Posted by MalcolmTucker

As Ottawa is able to reduce operating costs as the transitway is converted, hopefully we see a real benefit of this transition by redeploying operating subsidy to feeder routes, leading to better service for neighbourhoods.

This is the critical point that will basically determine whether Ottawa's LRT will be a great success or just a meh.

The operating savings from transitway->LRT conversion, in just phase 1 alone, is pegged at $18 million a year (that's not including any numbers associated with reorganizing local buses--that's solely comparing the LRT operating costs to current transitway operating costs). I have yet to see a figure for phase 2 but I would expect by extrapolation for it to be in the $30 million to $40 million range. That's some pretty serious coin available for local service enhancements.

Ontario regulation requires municipalities to maintain municipal transit subsidies at a level equal to or greater than what they were spending in 2001-2003, adjusted for inflation to the present year. If they cut spending to below that level they auto-disqualify from all provincial transit funding. As Ottawa already cut transit spending considerably in 2011 I would imagine the city is probably not much above that legal minimum right now.

There will probably be some who would want those operating savings redirected to tax cuts, but given the Ontario regulation, Ottawa may have no choice but to ensure the money is shifted to local bus service. They may, however, be allowed to redirect those operating savings to transit capital instead and get away with it.

[lrt's friend]

Originally Posted by 1overcosc

This is the critical point that will basically determine whether Ottawa's LRT will be a great success or just a meh.

The operating savings from transitway->LRT conversion, in just phase 1 alone, is pegged at $18 million a year (that's not including any numbers associated with reorganizing local buses--that's solely comparing the LRT operating costs to current transitway operating costs). I have yet to see a figure for phase 2 but I would expect by extrapolation for it to be in the $30 million to $40 million range. That's some pretty serious coin available for local service enhancements.

Ontario regulation requires municipalities to maintain municipal transit subsidies at a level equal to or greater than what they were spending in 2001-2003, adjusted for inflation to the present year. If they cut spending to below that level they auto-disqualify from all provincial transit funding. As Ottawa already cut transit spending considerably in 2011 I would imagine the city is probably not much above that legal minimum right now.

There will probably be some who would want those operating savings redirected to tax cuts, but given the Ontario regulation, Ottawa may have no choice but to ensure the money is shifted to local bus service. They may, however, be allowed to redirect those operating savings to transit capital instead and get away with it.

When you consider a $2.1 billion investment, an $18 million return is pretty dismal. And if we reinvest the saving, we better generate real ridership growth. As you know, I have been very sceptical whether we can achieve that. I hope they prove me wrong.

[Nouvellecosse]

Well $18 million equates to $360 million over 20 years and the savings would keep adding up indefinitely as long as the city is using the LRT instead of buses. And in addition to the operating costs, there's also savings from reduced maintenance costs and other efficiencies. It isn't enough to justify the project based solely on the economics, but considering the city needs to capacity upgrade anyway it all factors in.

[lrt's friend]

Originally Posted by Nouvellecosse

Well $18 million equates to $360 million over 20 years and the savings would keep adding up indefinitely as long as the city is using the LRT instead of buses. And in addition to the operating costs, there's also savings from reduced maintenance costs and other efficiencies. It isn't enough to justify the project based solely on the economics, but considering the city needs to capacity upgrade anyway it all factors in.

I have not seen whether those savings extend beyond operating costs, which is mainly derived from eliminating bus driver positions. It is an interesting question whether their are savings elsewhere but I don't remember any discussion on that point.

My comment related to a less than 1% return, which would take over a century to repay your investment, not even considering interest payments. That is why we better get a ridership boost, which will not only generate additional revenue but also prove that something is actually being accomplished. If you don't get a ridership boost, then you have to question whether the right project was chosen or whether the project was implemented properly. This is a very shaky situation given the 2006 project abandonment that was guaranteed to generate new ridership because it was on a new route that lacked rapid transit.

The real risks for Ottawa is that the resulting LRT line does not improve frequency over the current system and the potential speed improvement will be nullified for most passengers because of added transfers. The latter particularly depends on the efficiency of transfers and alternate routes into and across the city. Rapibus across the river (although BRT but used a trunk line model similar to LRT) demonstrated how badly this can be botched.

[WhipperSnapper]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

Packed transit vehicles, no matter what type they are unpleasant. Packed transit vehicles that operate in traffic are horribly slow, whether a bus or streetcar. There is simply too much dwell time at each stop, because it takes too long to get people off and on with crush loads. In order to maintain service, crush loads need to be avoided as much as possible.

On the subject of BRT and LRT. Depending on system design, BRT can have an advantage since you can potentially avoid the last mile problem, getting people to their final destination. Of course, we can screw that up royally by pretending that it is the same as LRT and make all people transfer off the BRT route, like the fiasco called Rapibus in Gatineau. The other advantage of BRT is the ability to skip stops on commuter runs to speed up service. That is something you cannot do with LRT unless you build extra sets of tracks. With LRT, you get a smoother ride but I don't buy this as means of generating significant ridership. And the other critical part of making LRT a success is to address the last mile issue. This means that your bus system must be designed efficiently around LRT so that people have confidence that they will get to their destination quickly. This is the failure of many US LRT systems that traditionally have had bad bus systems that have little confidence with the public. But you need a good bus system to complement LRT or you are always going to limit ridership potential.

The key to high ridership is good service, whether by LRT or bus or a combination of the two.

The easiest way to avoid crush loads is to operate higher capacity vehicles, namely lrt. Frequency only takes you so far. Definitely the sheer number of stops is the largest impedment to rapid transit having taken eastbound streetcar routes everyday over the course of 2 to 3 years.

[lrt's friend]

Originally Posted by WhipperSnapper

The easiest way to avoid crush loads is to operate higher capacity vehicles, namely lrt. Frequency only takes you so far. Definitely the sheer number of stops is the largest impedment to rapid transit having taken eastbound streetcar routes everyday over the course of 2 to 3 years.

If crush loads can be avoided by larger vehicles, then that is the way to go. But you need to avoid crush loading. Of course, what you describe can never be rapid transit, as the streetcars are operating in mixed traffic and stopping at countless traffic signals as well as the stops themselves.

But larger vehicles are not always the answer if they result in reduced frequency. We have seen it here in Ottawa that the implementation of articulated buses or double decker buses has been matched with reduced frequency. That also means that vehicles containing more passengers have to stop more frequently, especially when providing local service and in the case of double deckers, dwell times at each stop is longer. That all means that not only are getting worse frequency but slower travel times. And surprise, surprise, I recently read that the city knew that this would be the case.