News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 02, 2020
A Message to Our Readers
 11K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
EarthCam Time-Lapse Documents Rafael Viñoly-Designed New Stanford Hospital Construction
 43K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
Resort Town
 6.9K     0 
drum118 said:
BRT vs LRT will always see BRT coming out cheaper than LRT on capital cost, but loose that advantage in operation cost and life cycle. It also loose on the quality of ride.

If BRT is running in mixed traffic or a traffic lane, it doesn't have to cover the cost to maintain the road as well being subject to rough road ride compare to an LRT that does the same thing, but pay full cost for that lane.

Do the math as to how many riders will be on the line per hour and divided that number by an articulated bus carrying capacity to see how many buses you will need. Then multiply that bus number by 3.5 that will represent the number of drivers. You need to see how many buses will be needed for a 30 year life cycle along with the cost to buy them.

As to doing the math for LRT, you need to do the same thing, but decide the length of the LRV to see how many you will need as step 1 to compare apples to apples. Step 2 will see if you can run one LRV or up to 3 as it mean a reduction in the number of drivers which happens to be the most expensive item for operation cost.

In a true comparison of apples to apples using a true ROW for both systems, LRT will be the winner over a 30 year life cycle that includes the construction cost. In a mixed cycle, the LRT still come out ahead, but not much.
Click to expand...

For a long time, I was convinced that LRT is cheaper to operate than BRT on high-flow routes.

But then the city requested an additional funding from the province, to begin operating ECLRT and Finch LRT. I get Eglinton, it has many underground stations and those are expensive to run.

But Finch? The route is almost entirely on surface, and the LRT is replacing a very busy bus. If the LRT is cheaper to operate, then why does the city need an extra funding. I'm not sure any more.

Eager to see Finch LRT in operation. Hopefully that will answer a lot of questions, on the speed / reliability / traffic priority, and on the operating costs as well.
 
CapitalSeven said:
Yes, she is hands on. I lived in the Annex in the 90s and recall that she was personally responsible for adding back in some of the stops on the Spadina car the TTC wanted to eliminate.
Click to expand...
But the Spadina streetcar is probably the best example of an “LRT” having way too many stops and being super slow.
 
nfitz said:
Ottawa uses a different type of car as this line.

As we've discussed frequently, Waterloo uses the same cars, and they've been in service there for years.
Click to expand...
Ah I see. My point was that not that the cars wouldn't operate at 80 - but that they would operate at 80 over the majority of their duty cycle which I saw as different from operating at that speed more slowly over much of it. One of the frequently heard complaints about ION is that the nature of the alignment doesn't allow the cars to operate at design speed over much of its length.
 
eglinton1661 said:
Lots of new detail on the Eglinton East LRT here:

https://twitter.com/x/status/1791094302434611486

www.toronto.ca

Eglinton East LRT: Public Consultation

Phase One and Two of consultations for the Eglinton East LRT are now complete. Please subscribe to the Project Email to learn about upcoming engagement opportunities
www.toronto.ca www.toronto.ca
Click to expand...
There is a thread for this, but Anyhow,...

27 stops...? No wonder the thing is gonna be slower than the bus. There is no way that many stops are necessary today or in any realistic future. I would not be shocked if an elevated line would be cheaper since It'd have only a third of these.
 
Sunnyside said:
There is a thread for this, but Anyhow,...

27 stops...? No wonder the thing is gonna be slower than the bus. There is no way that many stops are necessary today or in any realistic future. I would not be shocked if an elevated line would be cheaper since It'd have only a third of these.
Click to expand...
Are you joking? 27 stops over 18 km is about a 700 m stop spacing. Finch West is 600 m, and Line 1 and 2 downtown are even shorter.

It's not like anyone will ever ride the whole thing in one shot, other than a few fanatics.
 
nfitz said:
Are you joking? 27 stops over 18 km is about a 700 m stop spacing. Finch West is 600 m, and Line 1 and 2 downtown are even shorter.

It's not like anyone will ever ride the whole thing in one shot, other than a few fanatics.
Click to expand...
I'm not going to address the comparison to Line 1 downtown because it's self-evidently apples and steak. We are in the burbs. Still, for Finch, the case is much clearer; demand exists, and the trip generators are in place (straight along Finch). This is all conjecture though; further unlike Finch, most of the connections for this line don't exist yet. We have no idea what demand will be like to or from them.

here's my angle, it's nothing new. While on the one hand, I understand that this is meant for local trips, on the other we aren't exactly building a cheap Parisian tramway. This is going to cost a lot, and its worth asking if this is the best use of the money for rail transit specifically. As for determining the best mode... if this is to be for local travel, I'm not convinced there is enough demand to justify LRT over BRT. But if alot of demand is coming from connections, then both might fail at moving people quickly enough. The mode choice seems to be a recognition of that, but completely compromises the network utility that could exist for most subway riders. GO riders have a better prospect here I'll admit.

Rapid Transit here is a good idea, don't get me wrong; this simply doesn't seem the best way to do it for those nearby or city-wide. For instance, I am not sold on this being a great deal for connecting Malvern, but admittedly I am not from the area so I can't say for certain.

In brief... you/we need to look at the tradeoffs here. The province certainly has...
 
Last edited:
Sunnyside said:
I'm not going to address the comparison to Line 1 downtown because it's self-evidently apples and steak. We are in the burbs. Still, for Finch, the case is much clearer; demand exists, and the trip generators are in place (straight along Finch). This is all conjecture though; further unlike Finch, most of the connections for this line don't exist yet. We have no idea what demand will be like to or from them.

here's my angle, it's nothing new. While on the one hand, I understand that this is meant for local trips, on the other we aren't exactly building a cheap Parisian tramway. This is going to cost a lot, and its worth asking if this is the best use of the money for rail transit specifically. As for determining the best mode... if this is to be for local travel, I'm not convinced there is enough demand to justify LRT over BRT. But if alot of demand is coming from connections, then both might fail at moving people quickly enough. The mode choice seems to be a recognition of that, but completely compromises the network utility that could exist for most subway riders. GO riders have a better prospect here I'll admit.

Rapid Transit here is a good idea, don't get me wrong; this simply doesn't seem the best way to do it for those nearby or city-wide. For instance, I am not sold on this being a great deal for connecting Malvern, but admittedly I am not from the area so I can't say for certain.

In brief... you/we need to look at the tradeoffs here. The province certainly has...
Click to expand...
Streetcars built Toronto, LRT can do the same thing for areas that need to grow while buses will not. PPL prefer steel rail over rubber wheels for a smoother ride. Then there is the operation cost for both systems with LRT winning so long it not underground.

With an LRT system, you can say headway is every 5 minutes using one LRV and ridership grows, you add a 2nd or 3rd car using one driver. A BRT cannot maintain a 5 minute headway as ridership increase, that you need to reduce the headway by adding more buses and drivers to the point headway could be less than a minute like the Ottawa BRT that where it is bumper to bumper at peak time and have seen it first hand..

Seen a number of systems in the US and you have to shake your head why an LRT was built in the first place when just a local bus was good enough in the first place. Ridership was non existing at all hours. Even a BRT would have been better.

One has to look at the orange line in LA that should be an LRT, but strong opposition kill the LRT plan.
 
Sunnyside said:
I'm not going to address the comparison to Line 1 downtown because it's self-evidently apples and steak. We are in the burbs. Still, for Finch, the case is much clearer; demand exists, and the trip generators are in place (straight along Finch). This is all conjecture though; further unlike Finch, most of the connections for this line don't exist yet. We have no idea what demand will be like to or from them.

here's my angle, it's nothing new. While on the one hand, I understand that this is meant for local trips, on the other we aren't exactly building a cheap Parisian tramway. This is going to cost a lot, and its worth asking if this is the best use of the money for rail transit specifically. As for determining the best mode... if this is to be for local travel, I'm not convinced there is enough demand to justify LRT over BRT. But if alot of demand is coming from connections, then both might fail at moving people quickly enough. The mode choice seems to be a recognition of that, but completely compromises the network utility that could exist for most subway riders. GO riders have a better prospect here I'll admit.

Rapid Transit here is a good idea, don't get me wrong; this simply doesn't seem the best way to do it for those nearby or city-wide. For instance, I am not sold on this being a great deal for connecting Malvern, but admittedly I am not from the area so I can't say for certain.

In brief... you/we need to look at the tradeoffs here. The province certainly has...
Click to expand...
At $250 million/km ($4.6 billion), I'm not convinced there aren't other routes that don't also need some kind of relief. If the cost came down, to say, $100 million/km ($1.8 billion), it would be worth the money.

Maybe we need a thread for construction costs (do we have one?) - EWLRT, YNSE, SSE, OL ...

drum118 said:
Streetcars built Toronto, LRT can do the same thing for areas that need to grow while buses will not. PPL prefer steel rail over rubber wheels for a smoother ride. Then there is the operation cost for both systems with LRT winning so long it not underground.

With an LRT system, you can say headway is every 5 minutes using one LRV and ridership grows, you add a 2nd or 3rd car using one driver. A BRT cannot maintain a 5 minute headway as ridership increase, that you need to reduce the headway by adding more buses and drivers to the point headway could be less than a minute like the Ottawa BRT that where it is bumper to bumper at peak time and have seen it first hand..

Seen a number of systems in the US and you have to shake your head why an LRT was built in the first place when just a local bus was good enough in the first place. Ridership was non existing at all hours. Even a BRT would have been better.

One has to look at the orange line in LA that should be an LRT, but strong opposition kill the LRT plan.
Click to expand...
The business case says 3,700 PPHD. Which is high enough to probably justify rail, but it's never going to be Ottawa - this is about 60-70 TPH, which is mostly just expensive.

GO RER may also change the calculus on this; the business case assumes 15 mins headways on Lakeshore East, but I'm almost certain it will be better than that, as will Sheppard East. This may decrease or increase demand, I'm not entirely sure.

Tangentially, this is why we need long-term planning that gives us a better set of assumptions to build transit cases off of and leaves space in design (see: Kennedy station)
 
DirectionNorth said:
At $250 million/km ($4.6 billion), I'm not convinced there aren't other routes that don't also need some kind of relief. If the cost came down, to say, $100 million/km ($1.8 billion), it would be worth the money.

Maybe we need a thread for construction costs (do we have one?) - EWLRT, YNSE, SSE, OL ...


The business case says 3,700 PPHD. Which is high enough to probably justify rail, but it's never going to be Ottawa - this is about 60-70 TPH, which is mostly just expensive.

GO RER may also change the calculus on this; the business case assumes 15 mins headways on Lakeshore East, but I'm almost certain it will be better than that, as will Sheppard East. This may decrease or increase demand, I'm not entirely sure.

Tangentially, this is why we need long-term planning that gives us a better set of assumptions to build transit cases off of and leaves space in design (see: Kennedy station)
Click to expand...
With the amount development on the books today, under construction as well what could happen, the business case is out of date and will be a lot higher. There was a vision what may happen to the corridor with what coming down the road exceeding it.

Between the RER and the OL, travel pattern will change to something different than what existed today. If we can built some sort of a 15 minute city, travel will change even more. Regardless of a 15 minute city, people will be traveling outside it for numerous reasons where ridership will exceed the business case.
 
innsertnamehere said:
It's not necessarily a big deal. Could just be a slight misalignment of track - as far as I know the trains have consistently been running end to end for a while now.

Part of the last bits of works before opening will be making small deficiency corrections like that.
Click to expand...
well.. if a full replacement has to occur that would mean more tearing up brand new concrete once more...
still waiting for that 3 month notice...
 
evandyk said:
This can't be true, can it?

https://twitter.com/x/status/1791500090273652942
Click to expand...
It's not true.

What the crews have been doing of late is LIDAR scanning every single point of the ROW. They do this to ensure clearances around the dynamic envelope of the trains, locations of platform edges and signals, catenary, etc. Once they have this, they will be able to hand that information over to Metrolinx (and the TTC) as one of the final steps required prior to the actual final sign-off on the line.

The crews doing that scanning do not have the technology to discern how far out the rails might be, if they were out. The LIDAR equipment is accurate, but not as accurate for the rail profile, crosslevel, etc. as the specialized equipment that is used for that task. That equipment has already been used and to the best of my knowledge has verified the rails' alignment.

If somehow the rails where so far out of whack as to require immediate replacement, they would not be running trains at the frequencies and speeds that they have been.

Dan
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top