Quote:
Originally Posted by Nouvellecosse
^ I should probably clarify a bit. It probably sounds like we completely disagree on everything but I think it's more a case of the fairly minor disagreements taking the entire focus. For instance, I do agree that investments in higher order transit should be justified by high usage. Otherwise, you'd have absurdities like a 1/2 hourly bus route being made into a new rail line or something. The only things I disagree on in that regard is that the passenger experience shouldn't be considered in the decision at all, and that an improved passenger experience has no effect on ridership. Perhaps that isn't even what you meant to say.
It sounded to me as if you were saying that investing in transit infrastructure like BRT, LRT, or metro should only be done if it's the only possible way to handle the demand. I strongly believe in using a minimum/lower threshold for what the mode you're moving to rather than an upper/maximum threshold for the mode you're moving from. Well, if - and this is a big if - there also are other important factors one can achieve with the investment. For instance, if the minimum ridership to justify an LRT is say, 20k average weekday riders while the maximum theoretical capacity for the bus route(s) it replaces is 60k average weekday riders, then you'd build the LRT at 20k if, a) there's no other unfunded transportation project that's more pressing b) there are other major benefits beyond capacity such as significantly reducing trip time, improving reliability, reducing noise/pollution, beautifying the city, helping to manage operating costs, etc. And doing so would definitely induce ridership depending on the degree of the improvement.
But I 100% agree that it's unlikely to single handedly turn a low ridership route into a high ridership route. You're not going to suddenly go from 20k daily riders on the bus to say, 60k once the LRT opens. But it could very well increase from 20k when it was buses to 30k after a few years. But yes there would definitely need to be at least a minimum level of ridership to justify it and I agree with your criticism of some US LRT and streetcar systems that seem to get that wrong.
|
I think ultimately we are not different, and I should clarify too that I support new rail like Waterloo LRT even if it is only 25k riders per day. They just need to take full advantage of rail as Rennes did, and so not ignore what is the main direct benefit of BRT, LRT, and heavy rail (increased capacity), and the indirect benefits from that (increased density, improved bus service), a mistake many other cities have made. Too much emphasis on a "different experience" has been part of that problem.
Ottawa in the 1970s had the same ridership that Rennes had in 2019, increasing from 35 million linked trips in 1970 to 69 million in 1977, but how much credit does Canada and Ottawa and buses get for that? And at the same time I've seen
people try to discredit BRT by blaming the opening of the Transitway for causing the ridership to decline to 67 million in 1978. Ottawa in 1977, Rennes in 2019, same ridership, but people don't talk about Ottawa, they talk about Rennes.
Why does Canada need to build rail in its cities? Because we are not like the USA, we are more like Europe. If we build rail it is to build upon our success, not to rectify our failure. The former is what Europe does, and the latter is what USA does. We should be building rail transit in Quebec, Halifax, Victoria, Winnipeg, Brampton, London... but let us not forget the real reason why.