Quote:
Originally Posted by O-Town Hockey
I don't get what your point is here. Let's say (modestly) that the train/tunnel/tracks/stations lasts for 20 years, then we are actually looking at approximately $200 per rider not to mention the fact that there would be substantial money spent no matter what; whether we build option #4 or go with double-deck hybrid buses.
|
? That first one said that for every Billion dollars saved, it's the equivalent of 50 million dollars per year. This doesn't even include depreciation of assets or operating costs.
If we spend 1 billion on hybrid buses instead of 4 billion on LRT, it's like getting 150 million per year.
Quote:
Originally Posted by O-Town Hockey
This is about making an investment in the city's future and $4B is not all that much if you look at some other transit projects around the world. For example, Amsterdam's new North/South Metro line is only 9.8 km long and the cost is currently 1.8 million Euros (still not complete). Or what about Vancouver's Skytrain with a $3.1B, 6km extension of the Expo line? Even closer to home is the expansion of the Montreal Metro into laval which will cost $1.5B for 6 or 7 new stations. The reason I quote all of this is to show that with Ottawa's already dedicated BRT ROW, it will be relatively cheap to convert to LRT compared to what it is costing other cities to produce much shorter distances of LRT or metro transit.
|
Metro carries 50,000 people per hour where LRT carries 15,000 - this is a big difference. The Vancouver extravaganza is related to the Olympics. Remember how Montreal's Olympic stadium left the city in debt for decades?
Quote:
Originally Posted by O-Town Hockey
You ask how LRT will improve the frequency of local bus routes and I don't see how they are connected at all. The frequency of those routes will increase when the city decides it is reasonable (or even profitable) to do so.
|
That was my point, LRT still requires buses and doesn't fix the weakest part of the system. It only replaces the Transitway which works pretty well already.
Quote:
Originally Posted by O-Town Hockey
I think having a transit backbone with a technology which is reliable, on time, and not affected by traffic conditions in the core will open the door to a new form of local bus which will all feed into this rail system.
|
Converting our existing system to a line-haul/feeder combo will achieve the same results without the hassle of rail. Exclusive lanes and priority/synchronized traffic lights can also achieve this. The fact is that LRT capacity isn't much better than BRT capacity given the same operating conditions. That is stations/stops far apart and les frequent service.
Quote:
Originally Posted by O-Town Hockey
For example, in Kanata, there could be 5 or 6 local bus routes which do their local run (including a stop at the Terry Fox and/or Eagleson park-and-rides) before shuttling down the Queensway (in dedicated lanes) to drop passengers off at Lincoln Fields or Queensway station, depending on what is the closest LRT station. All they would need is long enough trains with enough frequency to handle this influx of riders....also taking into account that gas briefly touched $120 per barrel today and transit ridership is sure to continue to climb at its current rate.
|
This is the line-haul/feeder comparison. It means more transfers which rail can't avoid, but buses could run peak hours as line-haul and off-peak with direct service.
Hybrid buses and later plug-in capability address the fuel cost issue. Trolley buses were never investigated either for the Transitway - possibly the best of both worlds.