CyrusKafaiWu

Baseline BRT

49 posts in this topic

21 hours ago, 8792 said:

BRT = ridership decrease (see the original transitway).

LRT = ridership increase (see the original O-Train Trillium line which now carries double the original projection of weekday passengers).

 

"Optimizations" killed our ridership. BRT/LRT is just a reason for them to "optimize"

"optimize" - reducing the budget or resources along a bunch of corridors because an LRT corridor or transitway corridor was built within 2.5km.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, CyrusKafaiWu said:

"Optimizations" killed our ridership. BRT/LRT is just a reason for them to "optimize"

"optimize" - reducing the budget or resources along a bunch of corridors because an LRT corridor or transitway corridor was built within 2.5km.

I can't say who said this for confidentiality , but according to him they screwed up and are now going to be short drivers for 2018 since the buses will have a hard time keeping with the trains arriving every few minutes and more routes will run from the suburbs to Blair / Tunneys then currently .... 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, 1overcosc said:

Electric engines will replace the internal combustion engine. It's not a matter of "if" anymore, it's a matter of "when".

Especially hydrogen electric buses. See: http://ballard.com/about-ballard/newsroom/news-releases/news09291601.aspx

 

Quote

First Ballard-Powered Buses Hitting the Road in China’s Largest Fuel Cell Bus Deployment

Either way building any new BRT in Ottawa is just plain nonsensical.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2016-10-11 at 4:49 PM, chimo said:

Actually Dan it should be me asking for a report on BRT. But perhaps it's my fault for not specifying what I meant. I believed that this being a forum on transit that I would be understood. I apologize I never intended to obfuscate nor to raise anyone's blood pressure. Am approaching this from a user and citizen's point of view.

The Confederation Line is not an LRT but a metro. That it is a low floor one doesn't distract from what it is. 

I am not talking about sending 48 meter long trains down Baseline, am thinking the type of operations that can be seen in Europe where 18-30 meter LRT or streetcars if you prefer run in both mixed sections and separate sections. 

A 60 foot bus is now in excess of 680 000$ whereas if you buy a 24 meter streetcar from anyone but Bombardier you can indeed pay a lot less while still getting a bigger vehicle than the 60 foot one.

Again the Transitway right here in Ottawa costed more to build than the worse case scenario for the equivalent LRT as costed by the Regional Municipality of Ottawa-Carleton which made sure that the LRT cost in that study would be as high as possible. Why is it so difficult to accept? 

My original point is that we have yet to see a BRT being built for less than an equivalent LRT line. Because that's the supposed advantage, reduced capital cost over an LRT. Operation cost there's no debate as even BRT supporters now admit that LRT/streetcars cost less to operate. Since the capital cost advantage has never happened, why go the BRT route? 

That goes to the heart of what the city proposes to build. So instead of hoping that phase 1 gets built sometime by 2031, either make the case to Queen's Park that to reduce carbon emissions they need to cough up and pay for an LRT or put some paint on the ground and have transit priority signals within months. We will have enough buses by 2018 and can replace them in small batches.

But to spend all that money on a quasi LRT but to run buses is not a good use of public funds. Also lets not forget that the under road (or the base strata) costs a lot more than for a streetcar road. For I wouldn't pave the road under the streetcar but put tracks over ballasts costs less to build and maintain.

 

The Transitway is a very, very extreme case (and one where I agree that from almost every vantage point, rail would be cheaper). The Baseline corridor will be nothing close to it in any sense of the word. The passenger loads will never come close to what the Transitway sees, but that's due to its virtue of being a "suburb-to-suburb" corridor, and not a major trunk line leading to a set of major destinations. The line will be built as a set of dedicated lanes in the middle of an existing roadway right-of-way, not a completely grade-separated ROW on a greenfield alignment designed and built for highway-type speeds.

 

Remember that caveat in my last post about a lot of variables at play in terms of costing these things out? This is one of them. What's the passenger loading on the corridor now? What will it be in 15 years? 30 years? Running a single LRT every 10 minutes (versus a bus every 7-and-a-half) will likely not result in the system "paying off" the difference in cost between rail and buses in any of our lifetimes several times over. In which case, why not build it as a bus and then rebuild it in the future when the ridership warrants it? That kind of idea has worked in other cities.

 

Vehicle cost: A Siemens S70 is going to cost you over $4mil each if you buy a bunch of them. Inkeon charged about $4.75mil per streetcar, Brookville's are just a shade over that before you start factoring any off-wire capability. These are That is many, many, many times more expensive than a 60 foot bus, even one with all of the bells and whistles.

 

Dan

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, CyrusKafaiWu said:

"Optimizations" killed our ridership. BRT/LRT is just a reason for them to "optimize"

"optimize" - reducing the budget or resources along a bunch of corridors because an LRT corridor or transitway corridor was built within 2.5km.

Indeed. While I made clear my issues with BRT, you make an important point. 

LRT or BRT is about carrying large numbers of passengers quickly over long distances, not an excuse to cut local proximity service and am afraid that with the Confederation Line we will get just that. It's not inherent with the tech but is used as en excuse by politicians.

Theres no justification for cutting jobs as has been announced not when we need to improve our local network. 

Am afraid we will see a repeat of the opening of the Transitway when ridership dropped because it took more time, which it will ironically because the detour/replacement service especially in the east is now faster than when the Transitway was opened. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, chimo said:

Indeed. While I made clear my issues with BRT, you make an important point. 

LRT or BRT is about carrying large numbers of passengers quickly over long distances, not an excuse to cut local proximity service and am afraid that with the Confederation Line we will get just that. It's not inherent with the tech but is used as en excuse by politicians.

Theres no justification for cutting jobs as has been announced not when we need to improve our local network. 

Am afraid we will see a repeat of the opening of the Transitway when ridership dropped because it took more time, which it will ironically because the detour/replacement service especially in the east is now faster than when the Transitway was opened. 

Ridership didn't just drop it fell like a stone in the first decade of the Transitway...all the while the city's population grew by 100,000 in that era.

If the new connection hubs are properly set up, this won't happen. Trip times for most will decrease and service will improve. I agree though, I don't understand the job cuts given the Phase II detours that will start not long after Phase I's opening.

I also agree that if it's not light rail, then a new centre median busway along Baseline à la Brampton's Zum is the way to go. LRT is still obviously the first choice as that's what attracts the new real estate investments near train stations (or train stops if we're talking streetcar-style). This type of LRT's costs could be kept lower if it were to be built as a single rail line with passing tracks at some stations vs. a double line.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, smallspy said:

 

The Transitway is a very, very extreme case (and one where I agree that from almost every vantage point, rail would be cheaper). The Baseline corridor will be nothing close to it in any sense of the word. The passenger loads will never come close to what the Transitway sees, but that's due to its virtue of being a "suburb-to-suburb" corridor, and not a major trunk line leading to a set of major destinations. The line will be built as a set of dedicated lanes in the middle of an existing roadway right-of-way, not a completely grade-separated ROW on a greenfield alignment designed and built for highway-type speeds.

 

Remember that caveat in my last post about a lot of variables at play in terms of costing these things out? This is one of them. What's the passenger loading on the corridor now? What will it be in 15 years? 30 years? Running a single LRT every 10 minutes (versus a bus every 7-and-a-half) will likely not result in the system "paying off" the difference in cost between rail and buses in any of our lifetimes several times over. In which case, why not build it as a bus and then rebuild it in the future when the ridership warrants it? That kind of idea has worked in other cities.

 

Vehicle cost: A Siemens S70 is going to cost you over $4mil each if you buy a bunch of them. Inkeon charged about $4.75mil per streetcar, Brookville's are just a shade over that before you start factoring any off-wire capability. These are That is many, many, many times more expensive than a 60 foot bus, even one with all of the bells and whistles.

 

Dan

I guess we simply don't understand each other when I say LRT. Use streetcars instead if it helps and a 30 meter streetcar from Stadler will be in the 500000$ range. Am not talking about Confederation Line trains here.

If we don't have enough volume for LRT then we don't for BRT. It's that simple as there's not that much difference. Take the roadbed and instead put ballast and tracks (which is cheaper) and that's what am talking about. 

And no, converting a BRT to LRT is not cheaper nor effective.

as for the difference in operational cost Paris it took 3 years. London 4 years. Streetcars are really effective. If we don't have the volume then it's simple paint on the ground and transit priority signals. 

The debacle on St.Clair in Toronto which was not because of LRT but of a long litany of issues with the multiple players involved ended up costing 108 million for 6,8 km. 

We are planning to spend 161 million for 14 km for a BRT. Am sure we can do better than what happened on St.Clair but even if we had the same range on price there's not that much difference. And considering we shouldn't be using diesel anymore those buses are going to be electric one or another which will affect the cost differential. 

The original Transitway was supposed to be closer to what they want to do on Baseline but then politicians got involved and it costed a lot more. Can we keep our politicians on scope creep and costs? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, chimo said:

I guess we simply don't understand each other when I say LRT. Use streetcars instead if it helps and a 30 meter streetcar from Stadler will be in the 500000$ range. Am not talking about Confederation Line trains here.

If we don't have enough volume for LRT then we don't for BRT. It's that simple as there's not that much difference. Take the roadbed and instead put ballast and tracks (which is cheaper) and that's what am talking about. 

And no, converting a BRT to LRT is not cheaper nor effective.

as for the difference in operational cost Paris it took 3 years. London 4 years. Streetcars are really effective. If we don't have the volume then it's simple paint on the ground and transit priority signals. 

The debacle on St.Clair in Toronto which was not because of LRT but of a long litany of issues with the multiple players involved ended up costing 108 million for 6,8 km. 

We are planning to spend 161 million for 14 km for a BRT. Am sure we can do better than what happened on St.Clair but even if we had the same range on price there's not that much difference. And considering we shouldn't be using diesel anymore those buses are going to be electric one or another which will affect the cost differential. 

The original Transitway was supposed to be closer to what they want to do on Baseline but then politicians got involved and it costed a lot more. Can we keep our politicians on scope creep and costs? 

Where does Stadler offer a car for a half-million dollars? All of those vehicles that I quoted were for streetcar-type vehicles in the range of 65 to 75 feet in length, and all are all available in known quantities in the North American market. While Stadler does produce a good product that seems to be well liked, can they do it for a half-million dollars? No f'n way, no how.

 

You know, you talk about "cheaper" and "effective", and yet you quote no accurate costs. You talk about some report that claims that LRT is cheaper than BRT, but no one has ever seen it and you have yet to actually produce it. I honestly think that you really don't understand the scale of these things and how they work. There are are a multitude of costs that get incurred if the line is built with rail that aren't if it is built as a busway.

 

Again: the costs of a BRT are going to be paving, stations, maybe the incremental costs of changes to the street signals, any additional vehicles, and the maintenance of all of the same. With an LRT, you also have roadbed, rails, overhead power installation and distribution, and quite possibly a separate signalling system that needs to be purchased. Oh, and not only do you have to maintain them, but you may need to purchase specialized maintenance equipment to handle maintaining them. This is not an inconsequential increase in costs.

 

If you want an LRT because its "better", and you feel that it will do better at generating ridership, that's fine - I'm not generally one to argue with emotion and gut feelings. But if you are going to try and argue on logic, you're going to have to do better than what you've done so far.

 

Dan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, smallspy said:

Where does Stadler offer a car for a half-million dollars? All of those vehicles that I quoted were for streetcar-type vehicles in the range of 65 to 75 feet in length, and all are all available in known quantities in the North American market. While Stadler does produce a good product that seems to be well liked, can they do it for a half-million dollars? No f'n way, no how.

 

You know, you talk about "cheaper" and "effective", and yet you quote no accurate costs. You talk about some report that claims that LRT is cheaper than BRT, but no one has ever seen it and you have yet to actually produce it. I honestly think that you really don't understand the scale of these things and how they work. There are are a multitude of costs that get incurred if the line is built with rail that aren't if it is built as a busway.

 

Again: the costs of a BRT are going to be paving, stations, maybe the incremental costs of changes to the street signals, any additional vehicles, and the maintenance of all of the same. With an LRT, you also have roadbed, rails, overhead power installation and distribution, and quite possibly a separate signalling system that needs to be purchased. Oh, and not only do you have to maintain them, but you may need to purchase specialized maintenance equipment to handle maintaining them. This is not an inconsequential increase in costs.

 

If you want an LRT because its "better", and you feel that it will do better at generating ridership, that's fine - I'm not generally one to argue with emotion and gut feelings. But if you are going to try and argue on logic, you're going to have to do better than what you've done so far.

 

Dan

I have given you the Transitway right here in Ottawa. And frankly that's all I should require. It was supposed to be like Baseline and yet we ended up with this monster. 

I have given you the numbers of what we plan to pay for Baseline versus St.Clair which includes lots of unrelated stuff and was a disaster, meaning that a well coordinated project should cost less. Am talking numbers. And all it took was a little googling to find stadtler. Generally if you buy streetcars versus a whole turnkey project it tends to cost less. 

In Europe there are no LRT costing more than a million per vehicle. Minneapolis paid about 300 000USD per vehicle and while that was many years ago the inflation was low so the price should not have reached a million. We are overpaying for the Confederation although LRT of that is the automation system.

Its not about emotion, it's really about having the right tool and avoid to keep burning money. Money we could use for a proper 10 min or less network which would include weekends, for example.

Its also about the near future as in the next few years where we will have to buy electric anyway. And that changes the cost structure. 

I like buses, but prefer to use them appropriately. The 118 is an example of a misuse of buses. 

But there's one thing I might have forgotten where it might skew the cost. We don't have a breakdown of the 161 million. It's possible that under the guise of a transit project it includes lots of things not strictly transit in which cast it might cost less. 

You are concerned about the catenary and sub-stations but really these things require only minimal maintenance. The cost of repaving is substantial. It really cost less to maintain track and ballast and catenary. There's no debate. 

I don't understand where you are coming from, why do you insist that BRT is cheaper when it's not? 

I rarely if ever go on Baseline so am not involved personally or emotionally, I just want proper transit and I engage in this forum in the hope that we are all likely better informed than the average citizens about such issues and that we will make our voices known. 

I live in Orleans and would never suggest we need higher order transit on Innes. Better frequency is all that is required. Once the Confederation Line is opened we might not even need artics on the 94 (25). Baseline however is a corridor that clearly requires higher order transit.

161 million is a lot for what is proposed, it doesn't add up. For BRT to make sense it needs to come down a lot. Especially since that number doesn't include buses which is pretty much the only thing we know. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Regardless of what's better or not, BRT is what is being planned for and what the EA is all about. Throwing all of that out and starting fresh with an LRT/streetcar perspective is likely to do nothing but delay phase 1 completion well beyond 2031 and possibly even drive the cost up further. What kind of politician would ever allow that to happen? Look at the mess already caused by the 2006 LRT cancellation and Confederation Line. Phase 1 of that LRT could already be running, with phase 2 not too far away if not already here...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, HB_1024 said:

Regardless of what's better or not, BRT is what is being planned for and what the EA is all about. Throwing all of that out and starting fresh with an LRT/streetcar perspective is likely to do nothing but delay phase 1 completion well beyond 2031 and possibly even drive the cost up further. What kind of politician would ever allow that to happen? Look at the mess already caused by the 2006 LRT cancellation and Confederation Line. Phase 1 of that LRT could already be running, with phase 2 not too far away if not already here...

We are not at the same stage. The EA can easily be redone if need be. What derailed and stalled the LRT project is that we scrapped signed contracts with Siemens which took us to court plus by saying we wanted a different line we lost the funding from senior governments. 

Right now there's no funding attached to this, now is the time to tell our city council what we want. Once we sign a contract then it will be too late. 

11,5 million a km for this project is really on the high side of things. What are buying? This is why I think we need to really think hard about this and not jump on the bone that's been thrown our way. 

Grade separated bus lanes can make sense in some circumstances but Baseline is not one of them and certainly not at that price 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, chimo said:

I have given you the Transitway right here in Ottawa. And frankly that's all I should require. It was supposed to be like Baseline and yet we ended up with this monster. 

I have given you the numbers of what we plan to pay for Baseline versus St.Clair which includes lots of unrelated stuff and was a disaster, meaning that a well coordinated project should cost less. Am talking numbers. And all it took was a little googling to find stadtler. Generally if you buy streetcars versus a whole turnkey project it tends to cost less. 

In Europe there are no LRT costing more than a million per vehicle. Minneapolis paid about 300 000USD per vehicle and while that was many years ago the inflation was low so the price should not have reached a million. We are overpaying for the Confederation although LRT of that is the automation system.

Its not about emotion, it's really about having the right tool and avoid to keep burning money. Money we could use for a proper 10 min or less network which would include weekends, for example.

Its also about the near future as in the next few years where we will have to buy electric anyway. And that changes the cost structure. 

I like buses, but prefer to use them appropriately. The 118 is an example of a misuse of buses. 

But there's one thing I might have forgotten where it might skew the cost. We don't have a breakdown of the 161 million. It's possible that under the guise of a transit project it includes lots of things not strictly transit in which cast it might cost less. 

You are concerned about the catenary and sub-stations but really these things require only minimal maintenance. The cost of repaving is substantial. It really cost less to maintain track and ballast and catenary. There's no debate. 

I don't understand where you are coming from, why do you insist that BRT is cheaper when it's not? 

I rarely if ever go on Baseline so am not involved personally or emotionally, I just want proper transit and I engage in this forum in the hope that we are all likely better informed than the average citizens about such issues and that we will make our voices known. 

I live in Orleans and would never suggest we need higher order transit on Innes. Better frequency is all that is required. Once the Confederation Line is opened we might not even need artics on the 94 (25). Baseline however is a corridor that clearly requires higher order transit.

161 million is a lot for what is proposed, it doesn't add up. For BRT to make sense it needs to come down a lot. Especially since that number doesn't include buses which is pretty much the only thing we know. 

"The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again, but expecting different results" - said by someone else far smarter than I am.

 

I'm done here.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 14/10/2016 at 8:23 AM, chimo said:

In Europe there are no LRT costing more than a million per vehicle. Minneapolis paid about 300 000USD per vehicle and while that was many years ago the inflation was low so the price should not have reached a million.

Show me your source on $300,000 US per vehicle.

The reality is about $3.1 million per vehicle. 

And my sources:
http://www.lrta.org/news/00/news0032.html
http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/bombardier-to-build-light-rail-cars-for-hiawatha-line-72664332.html

I appreciate people having opinions, but, those opinions are hopefully backed up by correct facts.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, M. Parsons said:

Show me your source on $300,000 US per vehicle.

The reality is about $3.1 million per vehicle. 

And my sources:
http://www.lrta.org/news/00/news0032.html
http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/bombardier-to-build-light-rail-cars-for-hiawatha-line-72664332.html

I appreciate people having opinions, but, those opinions are hopefully backed up by correct facts.

I'll have to dig my old copies of Modern Railways. Am not at home right now.

I was thinking of Eastern Europe mostly. Croydon (London) i have seen costs between 1,2 to 2,8 million Pounds. TFL has a different cost than the department for transport. But for the argument you are making the exact cost is not relevant we are talking millions which is your point. 

I agree with you about using facts to base opinions. Which is why you should compare the planned cost for this BRT with the cost of St.Clair and you have to ask yourself why isn't it much lower (it is lower but not by much). When I made my point and quoted the cost of St. Clair I was thinking we could get cheap LRT. But with the cost you are quoting it makes BRT even worse not better. With such high prices for LRT why is this BRT so high? We need to ask questions we know from past experiences (not a fact I know but relevant I think) that costs will go up. 

I quoted the cost of St.Clair which included all kind of things which are not related to the LRT project. Is this the case here? 

We better have more than just the BRT for such a high cost. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, chimo said:

I'll have to dig my old copies of Modern Railways. Am not at home right now.

I was thinking of Eastern Europe mostly. Croydon (London) i have seen costs between 1,2 to 2,8 million Pounds. TFL has a different cost than the department for transport. But for the argument you are making the exact cost is not relevant we are talking millions which is your point. 

I agree with you about using facts to base opinions. Which is why you should compare the planned cost for this BRT with the cost of St.Clair and you have to ask yourself why isn't it much lower (it is lower but not by much). When I made my point and quoted the cost of St. Clair I was thinking we could get cheap LRT. But with the cost you are quoting it makes BRT even worse not better. With such high prices for LRT why is this BRT so high? We need to ask questions we know from past experiences (not a fact I know but relevant I think) that costs will go up. 

I quoted the cost of St.Clair which included all kind of things which are not related to the LRT project. Is this the case here? 

We better have more than just the BRT for such a high cost. 

sorry man the cost was not $300,000 but $3,297,714 per vehicle http://councilmeetings.metc.state.mn.us/Transportation/2010/0809/0809_2010_275.pdf

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

$3 Million/train is I think too high to pay for it. I can see $1-$1.5 Million/train, but I think there over priced for what your getting.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, MCIBUS said:

$3 Million/train is I think too high to pay for it. I can see $1-$1.5 Million/train, but I think there over priced for what your getting.

Edinburgh, Scotland paid close to $3m per tram in 2009 when the order was placed for their new tram system which commenced in 2014.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, MCIBUS said:

$3 Million/train is I think too high to pay for it. I can see $1-$1.5 Million/train, but I think there over priced for what your getting.

And what are you basing that on, exactly? Your vast knowledge of transit vehicle manufacturing?

 

Dan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I watched the CBC report tonight on this project and I don't understand some of the opposition. Weird considering my comments on this thread perhaps. 

I don't understand why some seniors are concerned about crossing the street. As if they get picked and dropped on the same side of the street. It is inevitable that at one point you have to cross the street to get to the bus or from the bus. But you never get picked on the same side at the curb for both directions. Being in the median will diminish that crossing one way (I will concede that it introduces a crossing they don't have to do at the moment). I have mobility issues so am sympathetic usually but in this case I don't get it.

Expropriation that I get most people don't like that. It's normal,

But that street crossing of all the things to complain about. 

If that's the opposition the project should go ahead. The Confederation Line will require lot more walking than this project  at least on Baseline it's all flat no going up or down.

Am disappointed that the city is considering allowing left turns, that could diminish the benefits of the project. I hope but won't hold my breath that traffic lights and buses will have the equipment for transit priority which would alleviate the left turn issue. 

7 minutes time saving is not that much considering the planned costs and we know that costs will go up. I wish the city would come up and fess up that the cost is not all about transit. It's about redoing a major thoroughfare. Only then does the cost begin to be acceptable. And by redoing I don't mean the surface rearranging that this project entails which is minor.

If it's truly only about the transit project then the project must be opposed, the 118 needs a higher frequency, 160 million buys a lot of buses and pays a lot of salary. 

Most passengers would rather have a comfortable ride than being squished and would rather have a bus that respects the schedule (or better switch to headway) than maybe saving 7 minutes. The project by itself doesn't provide that. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't thin it crossing the street, I think its they'll have to walk further as there will be less bus stop IE 3 stops converted into one stop.I've seen it and think a waste of money. They could easily build buis lanes on curb side. The agreement that carsdwould need to turn intio there driveways or side is BS as there areother busnly laneshat have either homes or biz  where cars need to cross the Bus lane to get access IE downtown Albert & Sllater. Woodroffe Ave, these are perfect wexapmles. Also theestimate they've quoted are in 2016/2017 dollars and not 2035 when this is set to be built which by that time the cost will have gone even higher.

 

Also they said homes would need to be exporated, Being forced out your home is not that good.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, MCIBUS said:

I don't thin it crossing the street, I think its they'll have to walk further as there will be less bus stop IE 3 stops converted into one stop.I've seen it and think a waste of money. They could easily build buis lanes on curb side. The agreement that carsdwould need to turn intio there driveways or side is BS as there areother busnly laneshat have either homes or biz  where cars need to cross the Bus lane to get access IE downtown Albert & Sllater. Woodroffe Ave, these are perfect wexapmles. Also theestimate they've quoted are in 2016/2017 dollars and not 2035 when this is set to be built which by that time the cost will have gone even higher.

 

Also they said homes would need to be exporated, Being forced out your home is not that good.

I focused on the street crossing as the CBC report made it clear that it was a major problem for some. Which I disagreed it was a problem but that's what was discussed.

But didn't think about stop consolidation. Depending on how it goes you could have put your finger on something. However the first phase talks about what 23 stations? With that many it shouldn't be too bad? 

Phase 1 is supposed to be built by 2031 it's phase 2 from Baseline Station to Bayshore Station that's post 2031. But you are quite right that inflation will matter into the costing. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/5/2017 at 1:53 PM, MCIBUS said:

Also they said homes would need to be exporated, Being forced out your home is not that good.

I don't think any homes have to expropriated in their entirety. Many properties along Baselines are having portions of the lots expropriated.

Being expropriated isn't a bad thing. You get compensated for the market value of your property plus 20% extra, and in many cases cities give out even more than that. It's basically a free house upgrade.

Many of the homeowners along Baseline are being given insane sums of money for a tiny part of their lot. One guy at the meeting was offered $50,000 from the City in exchange for giving up a tiny corner of his front yard, only about 5% of his total property. The vast majority of people out there would be thrilled to get that deal!

On 1/5/2017 at 2:23 PM, chimo said:

I focused on the street crossing as the CBC report made it clear that it was a major problem for some. Which I disagreed it was a problem but that's what was discussed.

But didn't think about stop consolidation. Depending on how it goes you could have put your finger on something. However the first phase talks about what 23 stations? With that many it shouldn't be too bad? 

Phase 1 is supposed to be built by 2031 it's phase 2 from Baseline Station to Bayshore Station that's post 2031. But you are quite right that inflation will matter into the costing. 

 

The costing of the project already accounts for inflation to the planned construction dates.

Stops on the BRT will be fairly close together--about 400m for most of the route compared to 200m for the current bus service. Even if you're one of the unlucky ones who lives right next to a stop that's being removed and has to walk 200m... well, that takes maybe 3 minutes, but you're saving 7 minutes on the travel time, so you still win.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2017-01-07 at 2:58 AM, 1overcosc said:

I don't think any homes have to expropriated in their entirety. Many properties along Baselines are having portions of the lots expropriated.

Being expropriated isn't a bad thing. You get compensated for the market value of your property plus 20% extra, and in many cases cities give out even more than that. It's basically a free house upgrade.

Many of the homeowners along Baseline are being given insane sums of money for a tiny part of their lot. One guy at the meeting was offered $50,000 from the City in exchange for giving up a tiny corner of his front yard, only about 5% of his total property. The vast majority of people out there would be thrilled to get that deal!

The costing of the project already accounts for inflation to the planned construction dates.

Stops on the BRT will be fairly close together--about 400m for most of the route compared to 200m for the current bus service. Even if you're one of the unlucky ones who lives right next to a stop that's being removed and has to walk 200m... well, that takes maybe 3 minutes, but you're saving 7 minutes on the travel time, so you still win.

Planned construction? By 2031 is all we have right now. Shouldn't be too bad though regarding inflation but we never know. This project is still in early stages and the costings are more rough estimates. But it shouldn't balloon out of control either. The final number will be much higher that's the way things work on projects like those, it's more a question of refining the costings than inflation . Let's not forget that the plan it's part of is an aspirational plan. More approvals are required. 

However if both federal and provincial governments cough up, and it looks like they might, phase 1 is almost in the bag. I would say nothing more than a formality, although I wished they would have waited for final approval before making offers to homeowners.

400m that's great spacing and will provide good service, that's encouraging. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now