Quote:
Originally Posted by milomilo
It doesn't matter, trying to find a strict definition that everyone agrees on achieves nothing practically.
|
It makes it easier to speak to everyone and use the proper terminology.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nouvellecosse
I think the issue is that there's a big difference when looking at transit from the perspective of the rider experience which tends to be very simplistic (how do I get where I'm going as quickly and effortlessly as possible?) compared to the planner perspective of how to achieve a wider set of goals. The planner needs to consider which technology, implementation and combination thereof to use to move people relative to the upfront and long term cost rather than just end user experience (which is still important of course).
If a rider wants to get 15km across town and finds out there's a rail line that will take them where they want to go, leaves when they want to leave and will take 25 min which they consider an acceptable duration, what difference does it make if it's LRT, commuter rail, or metro? But for the planner trying to decide which technology (or combination thereof) to use to provide such a trip, the differences are VERY important. The difference could mean millions or billions of dollars in cost, vastly different construction times, levels of disruption, reliability and operating/maintenance cost. Ultimately the decision could determine whether or not the project is successful or is even constructed.
So it really comes down to which perspective we want to speak from.
|
I'll use my city as an example....
Greater Sudbury is a municipality that covers more area than the GTA. From the downtown, its about 100km each way. Population is around 170k. So, what would be the best RT for it, if the city was flush with cash?
BRT would work well, but would it really drive people to ride transit if they currently don't? Not likely.
Subway/Metro would be great, but very costly and not worth it for the ridership that it might gain.
Replacing the busy routes with an LRT would work well.
But there is something that likely could be done cheaper, and would be able to draw more people to it. The city is criss crossed by railways. CN and CP go through the city and connect to most of the outlying areas. HCR and OVR connect other areas to the downtown core as well. For the cost of a few DMUs or coaches and engines you could have an RT system that would be rivaling the GO train for length, and it would be within the city limits.
Not suggesting any of these ever get done, but you see how they all look and how they all have different, but important uses. If the city announced a BRT, the locals would be happy about it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Doady
Commuter rail like GO Train is fast, faster than TTC subway, but what does GO's rail and bus system sacrifice to achieve such speeds? How many people can actually benefit from those higher speeds? How many people can use that service at all? When can they use it?
Likewise, the upcoming Hurontario LRT will be as fast as Yonge subway, maybe even faster, but it will be sacrificing capacity to achieve such speeds (smaller trains, lower frequencies, wider stop spacing). If Hurontario LRT had to carry the same amount of people as Yonge, would the speed still be as high?
I remember in 2004, buses on Hurontario were every 10 minutes all day, all articulated buses, but the buses often said "Sorry... bus full" and so would not let anyone on and they had to skip the stop and leave me and so many others to continue waiting. Often that year I saw 2 or 3 or even 4 buses travelling together in a line, approaching the bus stop together all at once. That's why they finally introduced express buses in 2005. And that's why LRT is under construction now. Buses were becoming ridiculously overcrowded, and they were getting slower and slower and constantly falling behind schedule as a result of the crowding conditions on the buses and at the bus stops.
That's the reason we build rapid transit or implement features of rapid transit in Canada. 19 Hurontario got too overcrowded so they introduce 102/103/202/502 Hurontario Express/Intercity Express/Main Zum, and soon Hurontario LRT. Ottawa BRT too overcrowded so it needs conversion to LRT and downtown tunnel. Yonge Line too overcrowded so they are building Ontario Line. That's what makes rapid transit in Canada different from the US. They build it to try to encourage people to use transit, we build it because too many people use transit, and I think that is what rapid transit is really all about.
|
There is no one perfect system. Each system will have drawbacks. It depends on what you are trying to achieve. The Confederation Line might end up like Yonge Line due to the shortsightedness of the planners. A second downtown line through Ottawa may be needed in the next 20 years as a relief. Governments tend to want something nice and shiny and not focus on the future. Ottawa should have gone with something like what is in Montreal or Toronto.
Prev
Linear Mode
