When is Bus Rapid Transit just a an express bus route? When TransLink claims an express bus route is BRT
Real BRT operates on a fully dedicated Rights-of-Ways, with priority signalling at intersections, offering headway’s in the 2 minute to 5 minute ranges.
BRT operating on dedicated R-o-W. Not happening in Vancouver.
What TransLink is palming off onto the public is a tarted up bus service like the Broadway B-99, with some HOV lanes to create the illusion and with our extremely gullible media, will be an easy sell to the public.
Here is the core issue, TransLink just cannot tell the truth; it cannot be straight with the public.
But what would one expect when the CEO is an American spin doctor selling snake oil to the rubes!
The real insult to both the transit customer and the taxpayer is that the real cost of real BRT, is only slightly less s than at-grade light rail, which has a far bigger bang for the taxpayers buck.
The following graph from Ontario’s MetroLink tells the tale of the real costs involved.
Sad to say, TransLink and the Mayors council on Transit are again deceiving the public with fake news about the regional transit system and it seems the premier and the provincial NDP government are in full agreement with this.
Shame on TransLink. Shame on The Mayors Council. Shame on Premier Eby!
TransLink unveils three new bus rapid transit routes in Metro Vancouver
Transit services in Vancouver. (Allan Chek, CityNews Image)
TransLink has identified the first three bus rapid transit routes coming to Metro Vancouver.
According to the Mayors’ Council on Regional Transportation, the three new “priority corridors” will be King George Boulevard from Surrey Centre to White Rock, Langley Centre to Haney Place, and Metrotown to the North Shore.
Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) “is a high-frequency rapid transit service with dedicated bus lanes and rail-like stations.”
Mayors’ Council Chair Brad West says the three new corridors are part of the first phase of the 10-year Access for Everyone Plan.
“The three new corridors being announced today had been selected to maximize people’s access to rapid transit based on ridership potential, future housing and population growth projections, as well as strong support from mayors to bring these projects to their communities. Simply put, these rapid transit projects … will help us unlock housing potential and keep up with record-setting population growth,” he said Thursday.
West says the B.C. government’s plan to densify housing near transit hubs across the province “underscores the urgency to expand our transit system.”
“From a regional standpoint, each of these corridors will provide major improvements to residents in need of better transit,” West said.
BRT corridor timeline
The Mayors’ Council says it will now be “stepping up” engagement with municipalities to “nail down a concept design.”
“From there, we’ll start to do engagement with the public in the spring, summer of 2024. As we get into 2024, we’ll start to engage the public as we have that alignment, to really discuss and get their feedback. It’s so important to us to get public feedback to understand how this will impact people’s lives, right? This transit expansion is going to be such a game changer for the region, I think it’s going to help a lot of people,” explained TransLink CEO Kevin Quinn.
“From there, we’ll in 2025 likely move, once we have an agreement on that pending funding, we’d moved to procurement stage and then likely construction, potential service rolling out in 2027.”
Transportation and Infrastructure Minister Rob Fleming says the BRT plan comes “at an incredibly good time for TransLink,” adding these BRT corridors and other future plans will help the province deliver on its housing goals.
“We also want to anchor the BRT plan that is under discussion today to new legislation that we passed as a government around transit-oriented development. We have to make smart investments in our transportation network that also meets the goals of providing more affordable housing choices for people in this region and that’s what we aim to do,” he said.
səlilwətaɬ (Tsleil-Waututh Nation) Chief Jen Thomas says “safe, quick, and reliable transit” is critical to the Tsleil-Waututh community, “to keep us connected to the wider community and to transport us to and from work and school.”
Squamish Nation Chairperson Khelsilem echoed the importance of transit, noting BRT through the North Shore “presents a unique chance to enhance the quality of life for all residents, including the Squamish People, who have been an integral part of this region for nearly 400 generations.”
“Establishing a dedicated Bus Rapid Transit link from Park Royal to Metrotown promises improved accessibility to essential services, job opportunities, and community resources while alleviating congestion,” Khelsilem said. “The long-awaited prioritization of the North Shore is a welcome development, and the Squamish Nation looks forward to collaborating with local, regional, provincial, and federal governments to work together to create shared benefits for all our communities.”
On our side of the pond, BRT was a big fad in the 80’s and 90’s, which lead to the guided bus/GLT craze twenty some years ago.
There is a fatal flaw with BRT or guided bus, both are expensive to operate.
In the past, Canadian politicians as well our local elected officials, cite South American BRT as some sort of philosophers stone for transit. That was, until the bills started coming in. Wages were much cheaper in Brazil, than in Frankfurt as operational standards much higher at home than abroad. added to the mix, studies showed that the only way a bus could be competitive with a tram, it had to be guided.
I think your politicians will find out in short order that despite the choir of angels, guided bus, BRT, are poor in attracting new ridership. In our local, tram ridership is increasing, while BRT stagnates.
We find quite absurd, that your politicians want good public transport, yet completely ignore the tram as it is one of the few transit modes that has a proven record in attracting ridership.
We are also hearing rumors that Quebec City’s proposed tram is no more and instead they want to build a REM light metro. We just shudder at this if true.
High frequency
Rush hour bus lanes
Selective Signal priority(Equivalency was vehicles emergency extensions of green lights)
Regular bus stop
Bus D60,D60lf,D60lfr
2020 BRT light.
Peak Frequency up to 3 min
Partial bus lanes in select sections
Selected signal priority(Q jumping)
Bus stop wayfinding and information.
Bus D60lfr or XDE60
2027? Real BRT or Full BRT
Own dedicated lanes Full length
Off bored payment
High frequency 2min or 3 min
Signal priority(Proximity Detection)
BRT station with wayfinding and information.(Semi enclosed structure)
Bus XDE60, European Articulating bus 1 or 2 bands.
Translink ask City councilors to Announce and commitment to meet New BRT standard for the region. It was a race to getting these projects approve as soon as possible. Extensions are 2 existing R-bus and 1 new R-bus(New branding In the future?) Funds approved for studying. A additional funding federal level Later date for construction.(Relying on Permanent transit fund Start 2026)
Rapid Bus routes next will be upgrading them to be a SkyTrain. Excluding the R2 that has already been announced Upgraded to future:
A. The most overcrowding.
B. The most Daily boardings.
C. The most annual bordings.
D. Please City No Skytrain.
I see TransLink’s cheerleaders are back, trying to make silk purse out of a sows ear. You should know by now, that what TransLink says and claims, seldom ever materialize in practice.
There is no budget for real BRT and headway’s will be 15 minute in the peak hour. The buses will travel in HOV lanes and there will be no priority signalling.
There is no such thing as “light” BRT as this is just TransLink speak for an express bus.
Repeating TransLink’s bumf is just what our mainstream media does and I can see you as well.
If you want to know what that actually looks like in a Canadian context, below is a short list of Canadian examples. There are also Canadian examples of what Vancouver has, sometimes known as BRT Lite! Or express buses with nice bus stops and occasionally, painted bus lanes. I won’t list those.
You see the more transit agencies try and pass off BRT Lite or express buses as real Bus Rapid Transit, the harder the job is for people like me because I constantly have to spend time explaining the difference. It also becomes harder to get these improvements because of the confusion and ire it creates with the public. I’m not saying BRT Lite systems don’t improve transit, they do but at a much lower level of service improvement than true BRT often does.
Brampton’s ZUUM Network is labeled as BRT but what it really is, is a good system of express buses, that has had a dramatic effect on Brampton Transit’s passenger numbers. However, just to the east of Brampton Transit is York Region Transit (YRT) with its VIVA BRT system. A Regional Municipality wide based transit system that did invest in Busways called by the marketing name, Rapidways. It’s effect was truly transformational for York Region but it did require over a billion dollars to build 38 km worth of Rapidways.
This forces YRT planners at every single public meeting to explain to irate tax payers why Brampton’s much cheaper ZUUM BRT system really is nowhere near as good as VIVA Rapidways. Then having to explain that Rapidways have and will continue to, build ridership at levels several orders of magnitude more than Brampton Transit’s ZUUM BRT Network ever could, as long as Brampton’s system is just express buses operating in mixed traffic and a few km’s of painted bus lanes.
Essentially having to explain constantly that the guy on the talk radio show you heard either doesn’t truly understand the difference between the two systems or is purposely trying to confuse you to build anger and radio ratings. This happens at every YRT planning meeting regarding new Rapidway routes. It’s more than annoying, it can in some cases, get dangerous for the planners.
@Legoman0320 in North America you are never going to see fully enclosed BRT stations anymore, they are just too expensive unless you have winters like Ottawa. The same for off bored fare payment, this means expensive fare gate devices in each station, most likely unmanned stations (absolute waste of time). You do that in China, or South America with their truly gigantic passenger numbers. In a European or North American context, that’s just too much like a light metro (Skytrain) or a heavy metro (Toronto subway, Montreal Metro). Remember, politicians build real BRT to try and save capital and operating costs, compared to rail based operating technologies.
Lastly Bi-articulated buses still aren’t road legal in North America (Canada,USA). Ottawa tried in the 1990’s and Transport Canada & MTO (Ministry of Transportation Ontario) were forcing O.C.Transpo to jump through multiple hoops to allow them. This is a transit agency with the most extensive heavy BRT system in North America and by far the most experience in running BRT and still they were forcing limitations on them that would have made even basic operations with Bi-articulated buses difficult.
Bi-articulated buses are difficult to maneuver in anything but absolutely clear roads, Ottawa’s Transitways were very busy making maneuvering difficult. Like standard articulated buses, they are easily humbled by moderate amounts of snow or ice. Most models still have hill climbing issues on wet or icy roads.
Bi-articulated buses are twice as expensive as standard articulated buses, currently no North American companies produce a model, this means foreign suppliers with wickedly expensive part packages. Even Nova Bus, the Quebec based but mostly Volvo owned company, uses GM parts for its North American vehicles, due to the fact that even their own European Volvo parts are far more expensive than GM and GM look alike parts. Bi-articulated buses have far more non standard parts and components, like their entire engine and drive train system, braking systems and transmission. Non standard systems and components means higher maintenance and training costs. They also don’t last any longer than standard articulated buses, sometimes appreciably less than standard buses, although that is design dependant.
Even Ottawa is moving away from articulated buses and switching to the newer North American friendly double decked buses. They hold more passengers, more stable on hills, they are not humbled by just 10-12 cm of snow, their easier to maintain and most important, they won’t spontaneously fish tail like articulated buses can.
Although double-deckers have their own serious issues it seems the industry has turned away from articulated buses in general lately, we will see. Ultimately though, the main issue with BRT is still its perceived savings in operations vs. actual savings in operations. BRT works as long as passenger numbers are below a certain level. That level changes with each new system and it’s own operating and physical characteristics. Generally, at what level does adding another bus to carry more passengers stops saving money and starts costing extra money to operate. BRT has some interesting issues:
1. At some level of passenger demand the BRT infrastructure needed to handle greater passenger demand, more and larger buses, forces said infrastructure to be more robust and or physically larger, thus more expensive, than the infrastructure needed to move the same number of passengers with rail based technology. At their core, buses don’t always make great rapid transit vehicles compared to rail based ones.
2.BRT works best in environments where people costs are low and infrastructure costs are high. This limits their effectiveness in first world countries. At higher passenger levels, the operating costs of BRT get higher than rail because you can’t connect the vehicles together into a train, all with one operator. Buses also require more mechanical equipment and staff for maintenance, than rail based vehicles.
3. BRT is not like a rail line with buses. If your so called experts spout this more than once, run for the hills. BRT and Rail operations are fundamentally different. Good BRT design can do things that rail just can’t or more precisely, shouldn’t do and or even attempt to do. Many things that BRT supporters claim that BRT can do as well as rail technology end up as spoiled opportunities because buses can’t generally operate in the same way, especially economically efficiently, as a train.
I could go for days on this last point, entire volumes of books have been written on this issue. You will just have to trust me on this. 30 years of working in this industry and 30 years as a BRT passenger in Ottawa teaches you a few things. I would suspect that, many long time Ottawa transit passengers know and understand a lot more about the advantages and disadvantages of BRT operations than many of your B.C. based experts do.
What I find interesting, that despite the hype and hoopla about a subway to UBC is necessary, yet none of the announcements has shown any of the BRT servicing SFU or BCIT. Also, Valley politicians are scratching their heads over the Maple Ridge to Langley service as there is no demand for such a service, The big transit problem is East West, not North South.
Also, what is not well known, because TransLink doesn’t want it to be known is that South Delta and South Surrey customers want the return of direct bus service to Vancouver as they greatly dislike the forced transfer at Bridgeport. I am aware of a study that in south Delta many former transit customers have invested in electric cars for the commute and by judging from visual observations on South Delta express buses (602, 603, 604) ridership (empty seats) has dramatically declined.
I would like to add this; I ma not anti bus or anti BRT, but with over 40 years talking to real experts on the subject, I have a fair grounding on the issue.
Back around 2014, when the Broadway subway was first floated, I was asked about LRT and i said something like this; : there isn’t the ridership on Broadway to justify a subway, hell there isn’t the ridership on Broadway to justify anything other than the most basic of streetcar system.”
Currently the peak hour service on the Broadway 99-B is 180 seconds or 3 minutes why not a 150 second or 2 `1/2 minute service?
Evidently the CoV claimed that such a service was impossible.European electric bus styl service with stops every 400 to 500 metres apart from UBC to BCIT would be the best option, with peak hour 2 minute headway’s. One could even put express wires on Broadway as was done on Hastings St., for a through express service from Cambie St to Arbutus.
A bus Planner wants to get double articulated buses in Canada. The feeling on gap in between Skytrain in BRT plan.
SFU Gondola
BCIT BRT Upgraded to skytrain in the future.
North shore and Burnaby residents will be having BRT Upgrade it to the skytrain.
Langley to Maple Ridge BRT Speedier, Reliable and frequent option to connect the town centers.
R1 Extension Connect to another town center. That hasn’t been connected by a fast and reliable service.
Only 2 that won’t be connected for some time Lynn Valley and Deep cove.
Once town centers are linked up, then it will be a race Capacity and upgrades.
Peak only bus In decline across the lower mainland. Not knowing that they exist or All day bus is frequent.
CMBC 99 B-Line
Temporarily tested 2 minute frequencies. Outcomes of the test: Too many buses Stuck in intersections. The increase to operational funding was not worth it. Travel time was slower with a 2 minute frequency. Bunching of the buses Left caps in the schedule Waiting longer. Peak only bus Lane. Vancouver city councils can make simple change to dedicated bus lines all day?
Zwei replies: Double articulated buses will never run in BC, too expensive, too complicated. SFU gondola is a vanity project for the CoB because they supported the Broadway subway and the flip flop from LRT to SkyTrain in Surrey. Other than the extension to UBC and that would be in doubt, there will be no more SkyTrain built in metro Vancouver as Alstom will have ceased production and no other company produces compatible cars. The current fleet replacement has sealed that deal.
The CoV could run at 2 minute headway’s for the 99-B, but then if they did, no subway. The technology is available to preempt traffic lights at intersections as most emegancy vehicles in metro Vancouver are equipped with such. 2 minute headway’s are quite possible but when politicians want a subway, they instruct the engineering department to make it so.
The amount of dishonest transit planning in Vancouver is staggering, but with only about 14% of regional population using transit, no one really cares.
1. Double or Bi articulated buses aren’t road legal, yet. To make them legal, will require the first operator to do some kind forced and expensive, combined Transport Canada/ BC’s Transportation Ministry’s vehicle test program. A massive pain in the ass operationally for that first operator.
2. No one in North America makes them, yet. Foreign buses come with expensive and non competitive parts packages, thus adding more cost to the vehicle purchase. There is no North American training packages for drivers or maintenance staff, this kind of background stuff gets really pricey and adds to the purchase price. Once your maintenance staff does get that training expect them to be lured away (stolen) by other transit agencies by over the top, incredibly high paid positions, who will want them for their unique set of skills.
3. Bi-articulated buses are twice the cost of a standard articulated bus, which are 40% – 50% more expensive than standard 40 ft. or 12 metre bus. On top of which, these enormous vehicles are filled with non standard (expensive) systems and parts. Plus you need to build a new or severely upgrade an existing bus garage, which again, is really expensive. Battery electric buses have similar issues and costs compared to standard diesel buses as well.
I got ‘Major Hopple’s’ shudders (and two albums by the Mott)—Quebec jumping on the REM/Skytrain bandwagon is BAD news!!! The Hoople’s most enticing suggestions, “Streetcar|LRT attracts ridership.” You bet, specially with GAHP tramtowns built at the stations.
We have a housing crisis in Toronto and Vancovuer. Montreal is stepping up to the plate, so is Calgary. Now Quebec wants in????
I’d like to add something to Legoman’s analysis: transit stations and the new Provincially mandated ‘MAD Framework’ (Minimum Allowable Density Framework). This one is just looney tunes. However… let’s ask the ‘politically correct’ question:
How are we going to give non-Skytrain municipalities a place at the ‘Skytrian-and-Towers’ troth? Where governments extract revenues by selling density?
BRT stations (even when the system is done on the cheap) will qualify for Towers! I mean… Christmas is coming folks!!
I get Havacow’s numbers on bi-articulated buses. But I am surprised to hear that the BRT-to-Streetcar|LRT upgrade path is not seen as a success in Ottawa. I guess 30 years was too long of a wait?
Of course, I agree with Zwei that we have seen ‘The Last Skytrain Extension.’ But I am also more than ready to see another one built. Will my Genie grant all of my three wishes? Langley never happens. UBC never happens… Streetcar|LRT from North shore to Chilliwack.
But you are all missing the key political ‘object of desire’ here.
It is building ‘towers.’ Extracting revenue from developers by selling density. Broadway subway has nothing to do with transit (save for Translink’s dream that they are going to take riders past Commercial to transfer downtown at City Hall station).
Transportation in Canada is now all about ‘building towers’ to extract government revenues. Full stop. Quebec is switching because of that, and because of Montreal envy (I guess).
BRT stations are going to be sold as towers sites. That’s the real story. If the MAD Framework gives you 20-12-and-8 storeys by right, you can go in and deal for 32-20-12 with a fair level of confidence that you will get it. Luxury towers sell internationally; home-grown products sell locally.
Until we hard-wire GAHP tramtowns to Streetcar|LRT, it’s all Skytrain-and-Towers driving the decisions. Maple Ridge to Langley? Sure, more towers! Etc…
Zwei replies: Not too hasty if you please. A quiet word in my ear has that Premier Eby and Simm are talking subway extension to UBC, much sooner, than later. The same lil birdie also told me that this may come at the expense of the Expo Line extension to Langley and the Expo Line will be extended 7km to 164th, with a promise to extend to Langley sometime in the 2030’s. This will coincide with the Broadway subway to UBC, both being built roughly at the same time. It is the the Serpentine Valley that seems to be the holdup as the foundations needed to support the guideway being vast and would create environmental headaches.
I cannot verify this but my informant is with the NDP (and that is all I will say) and went further to say the feds are on-board if the remaining monies (around $2.5 billion) went for subway construction, which means only an additional $2.5 billion would need to be sourced.
My view is that I think this would make sense as the non talked about OMC#5 would not have to be built, thus making sourcing only $2 billion or so in new money. From a different source I have been told that not one of the mayors have a clue about Skytrain or light metro or about anything to do with transit and are stuck to Translink like glue. Translink is again spinning the tale that LRT is slow and lacks capacity and almost no one builds with it anymore. Evidently not one mayor on the mayor’s Council has question that!
It wasn’t the case in Ottawa that BRT doesn’t work, its the effect on the operating cost of maintaining an ever increasing bus fleet. During our 2008-2009 bus strike, O.C. Transpo management had the time to truly crunch some numbers, for the first time. The calculations about how big our bus fleet would need to be and how many would be needed to move, more passengers and how large and grand the associated Transitway infrastructure, including the rights of way, stations as well as the potential maintenance costs would need to be, versus anything else including the conversion to LRT.
Ultimately it was the high operating costs and the need for a truly gigantic bus fleet that would be similar in size or possibly larger than Vancouver, Toronto or Montreal, the 5th, 4th and 7th respectfully, largest bus fleets in North America. Ottawa already had the 12th biggest bus fleet in North America and we were only a city of 900,000 to 1 million with an area population 1.3 Million. Something had to change. The time to go away from BRT to rail had arrived.
You see, the Transitway was designed from the beginning so that it could be converted to rail in the future. That future date was never set in stone. But the Transitway was designed so most curves and grades were done to rail standard not road. Station spacing had rail in mind and ample space for passing or express tracks were there in the right of way. As much as possible grade separation was done on the Transitway so that both the buses and eventually, the rail vehicles wouldn’t have to worry about it later. This made really high capacity busways but they were expensive, almost expensive as rail.
Now there were stretches of Transitway were this wasn’t followed and big changes had to be made when the conversion to LRT happened. Ironically, in front of our VIA Rail station the Transitway had a curve that was so tight, the new rail right of way actually had to be moved 75 m to the north of the original Transitway right of way, to make it rail friendly. The bridge across the Rideau River and curve south of it leading to the completely new LRT Hurdman Station sill has issues.
In terms of development BRT or the Transitway Network was terrible. As an example, for 40+ years we had an empty piece of crown land (.84 km2 or 84 hectares/ 207.5 acres) just west of downtown known as Lebreton Flats, formerly industrial land made up of rail yards, lumber yards (Ottawa’s former major industry), pulp and paper (Scott Paper is still across the way in old downtown Hull) and breweries, Ottawa was the home of both Carling’s and Okeefs main breweries, which formed Brewers Row.
This land sat empty waiting for some level of government or private company to build upgraded modern sewers and water lines. Lebreton Flats was the last area in Ottawa to need public wells and out-houses, even in the late 1950’s and early 1960’s when the government raised the entire area, what few sewer and water lines existed in the area were severely outdated and in need of immediate replacement.
From the early 1960’s until early 2000’s nothing happened. We had a Transitway with a station, Lebreton Station from 1985, nothing happened. The Bayview O-Train Station, which is the extreme west end of this area, formerly part of the CPR ‘s Ottawa West Yard (known as the City owned Bayview Lands) had some surviving railway bulk cargo transfer, industrial buildings converted to commercial property know as the City Centre Development and Vimy House (a former streetcar barn, which used to store the armored vehicle collection for the Canadian National War Museum before its massive upgrade), but that’s it. Brewers Row was converted to public housing in the 1970’s.
It was the conversion to LRT which really spawned development in the area and the need for upgraded development plan. The old plan with the Transitway attracted only 1 developer, who wouldn’t build anything until someone else built infrastructure. It had to be the city and province that built the new trunk sewer and water-mains for them.
Upon hearing of the conversion to LRT another developer built 2 new water mains and there own trunk sewer that functioned independently of the government built infrastructure, no questions asked. Busways or Transitways were terrible at attracting development in the Ottawa case.
Sad to say, TransLink and the Mayors council on Transit are again deceiving the public with fake news about the regional transit system and it seems the premier and the provincial NDP government are in full agreement with this.
Much ado about nothing.
On our side of the pond, BRT was a big fad in the 80’s and 90’s, which lead to the guided bus/GLT craze twenty some years ago.
There is a fatal flaw with BRT or guided bus, both are expensive to operate.
In the past, Canadian politicians as well our local elected officials, cite South American BRT as some sort of philosophers stone for transit. That was, until the bills started coming in. Wages were much cheaper in Brazil, than in Frankfurt as operational standards much higher at home than abroad. added to the mix, studies showed that the only way a bus could be competitive with a tram, it had to be guided.
I think your politicians will find out in short order that despite the choir of angels, guided bus, BRT, are poor in attracting new ridership. In our local, tram ridership is increasing, while BRT stagnates.
We find quite absurd, that your politicians want good public transport, yet completely ignore the tram as it is one of the few transit modes that has a proven record in attracting ridership.
We are also hearing rumors that Quebec City’s proposed tram is no more and instead they want to build a REM light metro. We just shudder at this if true.
Translink bus Express service
1996 The B- Line Service
High frequency
Rush hour bus lanes
Selective Signal priority(Equivalency was vehicles emergency extensions of green lights)
Regular bus stop
Bus D60,D60lf,D60lfr
2020 BRT light.
Peak Frequency up to 3 min
Partial bus lanes in select sections
Selected signal priority(Q jumping)
Bus stop wayfinding and information.
Bus D60lfr or XDE60
2027? Real BRT or Full BRT
Own dedicated lanes Full length
Off bored payment
High frequency 2min or 3 min
Signal priority(Proximity Detection)
BRT station with wayfinding and information.(Semi enclosed structure)
Bus XDE60, European Articulating bus 1 or 2 bands.
Translink ask City councilors to Announce and commitment to meet New BRT standard for the region. It was a race to getting these projects approve as soon as possible. Extensions are 2 existing R-bus and 1 new R-bus(New branding In the future?) Funds approved for studying. A additional funding federal level Later date for construction.(Relying on Permanent transit fund Start 2026)
Rapid Bus routes next will be upgrading them to be a SkyTrain. Excluding the R2 that has already been announced Upgraded to future:
A. The most overcrowding.
B. The most Daily boardings.
C. The most annual bordings.
D. Please City No Skytrain.
I see TransLink’s cheerleaders are back, trying to make silk purse out of a sows ear. You should know by now, that what TransLink says and claims, seldom ever materialize in practice.
There is no budget for real BRT and headway’s will be 15 minute in the peak hour. The buses will travel in HOV lanes and there will be no priority signalling.
There is no such thing as “light” BRT as this is just TransLink speak for an express bus.
Repeating TransLink’s bumf is just what our mainstream media does and I can see you as well.
If you want to know what that actually looks like in a Canadian context, below is a short list of Canadian examples. There are also Canadian examples of what Vancouver has, sometimes known as BRT Lite! Or express buses with nice bus stops and occasionally, painted bus lanes. I won’t list those.
You see the more transit agencies try and pass off BRT Lite or express buses as real Bus Rapid Transit, the harder the job is for people like me because I constantly have to spend time explaining the difference. It also becomes harder to get these improvements because of the confusion and ire it creates with the public. I’m not saying BRT Lite systems don’t improve transit, they do but at a much lower level of service improvement than true BRT often does.
Brampton’s ZUUM Network is labeled as BRT but what it really is, is a good system of express buses, that has had a dramatic effect on Brampton Transit’s passenger numbers. However, just to the east of Brampton Transit is York Region Transit (YRT) with its VIVA BRT system. A Regional Municipality wide based transit system that did invest in Busways called by the marketing name, Rapidways. It’s effect was truly transformational for York Region but it did require over a billion dollars to build 38 km worth of Rapidways.
This forces YRT planners at every single public meeting to explain to irate tax payers why Brampton’s much cheaper ZUUM BRT system really is nowhere near as good as VIVA Rapidways. Then having to explain that Rapidways have and will continue to, build ridership at levels several orders of magnitude more than Brampton Transit’s ZUUM BRT Network ever could, as long as Brampton’s system is just express buses operating in mixed traffic and a few km’s of painted bus lanes.
Essentially having to explain constantly that the guy on the talk radio show you heard either doesn’t truly understand the difference between the two systems or is purposely trying to confuse you to build anger and radio ratings. This happens at every YRT planning meeting regarding new Rapidway routes. It’s more than annoying, it can in some cases, get dangerous for the planners.
Yonge Street Viva BRT Rapidway
https://www.vivanext.com/news_releases/2022-08-19-yonge-rapid-transit-project-of-the-year
Ottawa’s Greenboro Transitway and TrilliumLine interchange Station in 2014
https://railfanguides.us/on/otrain/index.htm
Ottawa’s South Keys Transitway and Trillium Line interchange Station
https://www.octranspo.com/uploads/news/TNSB_LRT_Sub-Committee_Meeting_Sept-29_Picture4.jpg
Billings Bridge Transitway Station
https://cptdb.ca/wiki/index.php/File:Ottawa_Carleton_Regional_Transit_Commission_Billings_Bridge_Station-a.JPG
Mississauga Transitway
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Mississauga_Transitway_Central_Parkway_Station_2021.upgrades
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Mississauga_Transitway_Etobicoke_Creek_Station_2021.jpg
Gatineau Rapibus
https://www.noovo.info/nouvelle/gatineau-consultation-quant-au-prolongement-du-rapibus.html
Montreal Pie IX Busway
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/montreal/pieix-rapid-bus-transit-inaugurated-1.6639291
From what I can see, the so called BRT is just a tarted up Broadway B-Line Express bus, using existing HOV lanes.
@Legoman0320 in North America you are never going to see fully enclosed BRT stations anymore, they are just too expensive unless you have winters like Ottawa. The same for off bored fare payment, this means expensive fare gate devices in each station, most likely unmanned stations (absolute waste of time). You do that in China, or South America with their truly gigantic passenger numbers. In a European or North American context, that’s just too much like a light metro (Skytrain) or a heavy metro (Toronto subway, Montreal Metro). Remember, politicians build real BRT to try and save capital and operating costs, compared to rail based operating technologies.
Lastly Bi-articulated buses still aren’t road legal in North America (Canada,USA). Ottawa tried in the 1990’s and Transport Canada & MTO (Ministry of Transportation Ontario) were forcing O.C.Transpo to jump through multiple hoops to allow them. This is a transit agency with the most extensive heavy BRT system in North America and by far the most experience in running BRT and still they were forcing limitations on them that would have made even basic operations with Bi-articulated buses difficult.
Bi-articulated buses are difficult to maneuver in anything but absolutely clear roads, Ottawa’s Transitways were very busy making maneuvering difficult. Like standard articulated buses, they are easily humbled by moderate amounts of snow or ice. Most models still have hill climbing issues on wet or icy roads.
Bi-articulated buses are twice as expensive as standard articulated buses, currently no North American companies produce a model, this means foreign suppliers with wickedly expensive part packages. Even Nova Bus, the Quebec based but mostly Volvo owned company, uses GM parts for its North American vehicles, due to the fact that even their own European Volvo parts are far more expensive than GM and GM look alike parts. Bi-articulated buses have far more non standard parts and components, like their entire engine and drive train system, braking systems and transmission. Non standard systems and components means higher maintenance and training costs. They also don’t last any longer than standard articulated buses, sometimes appreciably less than standard buses, although that is design dependant.
Even Ottawa is moving away from articulated buses and switching to the newer North American friendly double decked buses. They hold more passengers, more stable on hills, they are not humbled by just 10-12 cm of snow, their easier to maintain and most important, they won’t spontaneously fish tail like articulated buses can.
Although double-deckers have their own serious issues it seems the industry has turned away from articulated buses in general lately, we will see. Ultimately though, the main issue with BRT is still its perceived savings in operations vs. actual savings in operations. BRT works as long as passenger numbers are below a certain level. That level changes with each new system and it’s own operating and physical characteristics. Generally, at what level does adding another bus to carry more passengers stops saving money and starts costing extra money to operate. BRT has some interesting issues:
1. At some level of passenger demand the BRT infrastructure needed to handle greater passenger demand, more and larger buses, forces said infrastructure to be more robust and or physically larger, thus more expensive, than the infrastructure needed to move the same number of passengers with rail based technology. At their core, buses don’t always make great rapid transit vehicles compared to rail based ones.
2.BRT works best in environments where people costs are low and infrastructure costs are high. This limits their effectiveness in first world countries. At higher passenger levels, the operating costs of BRT get higher than rail because you can’t connect the vehicles together into a train, all with one operator. Buses also require more mechanical equipment and staff for maintenance, than rail based vehicles.
3. BRT is not like a rail line with buses. If your so called experts spout this more than once, run for the hills. BRT and Rail operations are fundamentally different. Good BRT design can do things that rail just can’t or more precisely, shouldn’t do and or even attempt to do. Many things that BRT supporters claim that BRT can do as well as rail technology end up as spoiled opportunities because buses can’t generally operate in the same way, especially economically efficiently, as a train.
I could go for days on this last point, entire volumes of books have been written on this issue. You will just have to trust me on this. 30 years of working in this industry and 30 years as a BRT passenger in Ottawa teaches you a few things. I would suspect that, many long time Ottawa transit passengers know and understand a lot more about the advantages and disadvantages of BRT operations than many of your B.C. based experts do.
What I find interesting, that despite the hype and hoopla about a subway to UBC is necessary, yet none of the announcements has shown any of the BRT servicing SFU or BCIT. Also, Valley politicians are scratching their heads over the Maple Ridge to Langley service as there is no demand for such a service, The big transit problem is East West, not North South.
Also, what is not well known, because TransLink doesn’t want it to be known is that South Delta and South Surrey customers want the return of direct bus service to Vancouver as they greatly dislike the forced transfer at Bridgeport. I am aware of a study that in south Delta many former transit customers have invested in electric cars for the commute and by judging from visual observations on South Delta express buses (602, 603, 604) ridership (empty seats) has dramatically declined.
I would like to add this; I ma not anti bus or anti BRT, but with over 40 years talking to real experts on the subject, I have a fair grounding on the issue.
Back around 2014, when the Broadway subway was first floated, I was asked about LRT and i said something like this; : there isn’t the ridership on Broadway to justify a subway, hell there isn’t the ridership on Broadway to justify anything other than the most basic of streetcar system.”
Currently the peak hour service on the Broadway 99-B is 180 seconds or 3 minutes why not a 150 second or 2 `1/2 minute service?
Evidently the CoV claimed that such a service was impossible.European electric bus styl service with stops every 400 to 500 metres apart from UBC to BCIT would be the best option, with peak hour 2 minute headway’s. One could even put express wires on Broadway as was done on Hastings St., for a through express service from Cambie St to Arbutus.
Subways not buses wins elections.
A bus Planner wants to get double articulated buses in Canada. The feeling on gap in between Skytrain in BRT plan.
SFU Gondola
BCIT BRT Upgraded to skytrain in the future.
North shore and Burnaby residents will be having BRT Upgrade it to the skytrain.
Langley to Maple Ridge BRT Speedier, Reliable and frequent option to connect the town centers.
R1 Extension Connect to another town center. That hasn’t been connected by a fast and reliable service.
Only 2 that won’t be connected for some time Lynn Valley and Deep cove.
Once town centers are linked up, then it will be a race Capacity and upgrades.
Peak only bus In decline across the lower mainland. Not knowing that they exist or All day bus is frequent.
CMBC 99 B-Line
Temporarily tested 2 minute frequencies. Outcomes of the test: Too many buses Stuck in intersections. The increase to operational funding was not worth it. Travel time was slower with a 2 minute frequency. Bunching of the buses Left caps in the schedule Waiting longer. Peak only bus Lane. Vancouver city councils can make simple change to dedicated bus lines all day?
Zwei replies: Double articulated buses will never run in BC, too expensive, too complicated. SFU gondola is a vanity project for the CoB because they supported the Broadway subway and the flip flop from LRT to SkyTrain in Surrey. Other than the extension to UBC and that would be in doubt, there will be no more SkyTrain built in metro Vancouver as Alstom will have ceased production and no other company produces compatible cars. The current fleet replacement has sealed that deal.
The CoV could run at 2 minute headway’s for the 99-B, but then if they did, no subway. The technology is available to preempt traffic lights at intersections as most emegancy vehicles in metro Vancouver are equipped with such. 2 minute headway’s are quite possible but when politicians want a subway, they instruct the engineering department to make it so.
The amount of dishonest transit planning in Vancouver is staggering, but with only about 14% of regional population using transit, no one really cares.
1. Double or Bi articulated buses aren’t road legal, yet. To make them legal, will require the first operator to do some kind forced and expensive, combined Transport Canada/ BC’s Transportation Ministry’s vehicle test program. A massive pain in the ass operationally for that first operator.
2. No one in North America makes them, yet. Foreign buses come with expensive and non competitive parts packages, thus adding more cost to the vehicle purchase. There is no North American training packages for drivers or maintenance staff, this kind of background stuff gets really pricey and adds to the purchase price. Once your maintenance staff does get that training expect them to be lured away (stolen) by other transit agencies by over the top, incredibly high paid positions, who will want them for their unique set of skills.
3. Bi-articulated buses are twice the cost of a standard articulated bus, which are 40% – 50% more expensive than standard 40 ft. or 12 metre bus. On top of which, these enormous vehicles are filled with non standard (expensive) systems and parts. Plus you need to build a new or severely upgrade an existing bus garage, which again, is really expensive. Battery electric buses have similar issues and costs compared to standard diesel buses as well.
I got ‘Major Hopple’s’ shudders (and two albums by the Mott)—Quebec jumping on the REM/Skytrain bandwagon is BAD news!!! The Hoople’s most enticing suggestions, “Streetcar|LRT attracts ridership.” You bet, specially with GAHP tramtowns built at the stations.
We have a housing crisis in Toronto and Vancovuer. Montreal is stepping up to the plate, so is Calgary. Now Quebec wants in????
I’d like to add something to Legoman’s analysis: transit stations and the new Provincially mandated ‘MAD Framework’ (Minimum Allowable Density Framework). This one is just looney tunes. However… let’s ask the ‘politically correct’ question:
How are we going to give non-Skytrain municipalities a place at the ‘Skytrian-and-Towers’ troth? Where governments extract revenues by selling density?
BRT stations (even when the system is done on the cheap) will qualify for Towers! I mean… Christmas is coming folks!!
I get Havacow’s numbers on bi-articulated buses. But I am surprised to hear that the BRT-to-Streetcar|LRT upgrade path is not seen as a success in Ottawa. I guess 30 years was too long of a wait?
Of course, I agree with Zwei that we have seen ‘The Last Skytrain Extension.’ But I am also more than ready to see another one built. Will my Genie grant all of my three wishes? Langley never happens. UBC never happens… Streetcar|LRT from North shore to Chilliwack.
But you are all missing the key political ‘object of desire’ here.
It is building ‘towers.’ Extracting revenue from developers by selling density. Broadway subway has nothing to do with transit (save for Translink’s dream that they are going to take riders past Commercial to transfer downtown at City Hall station).
Transportation in Canada is now all about ‘building towers’ to extract government revenues. Full stop. Quebec is switching because of that, and because of Montreal envy (I guess).
BRT stations are going to be sold as towers sites. That’s the real story. If the MAD Framework gives you 20-12-and-8 storeys by right, you can go in and deal for 32-20-12 with a fair level of confidence that you will get it. Luxury towers sell internationally; home-grown products sell locally.
Until we hard-wire GAHP tramtowns to Streetcar|LRT, it’s all Skytrain-and-Towers driving the decisions. Maple Ridge to Langley? Sure, more towers! Etc…
Zwei replies: Not too hasty if you please. A quiet word in my ear has that Premier Eby and Simm are talking subway extension to UBC, much sooner, than later. The same lil birdie also told me that this may come at the expense of the Expo Line extension to Langley and the Expo Line will be extended 7km to 164th, with a promise to extend to Langley sometime in the 2030’s. This will coincide with the Broadway subway to UBC, both being built roughly at the same time. It is the the Serpentine Valley that seems to be the holdup as the foundations needed to support the guideway being vast and would create environmental headaches.
I cannot verify this but my informant is with the NDP (and that is all I will say) and went further to say the feds are on-board if the remaining monies (around $2.5 billion) went for subway construction, which means only an additional $2.5 billion would need to be sourced.
My view is that I think this would make sense as the non talked about OMC#5 would not have to be built, thus making sourcing only $2 billion or so in new money. From a different source I have been told that not one of the mayors have a clue about Skytrain or light metro or about anything to do with transit and are stuck to Translink like glue. Translink is again spinning the tale that LRT is slow and lacks capacity and almost no one builds with it anymore. Evidently not one mayor on the mayor’s Council has question that!
It wasn’t the case in Ottawa that BRT doesn’t work, its the effect on the operating cost of maintaining an ever increasing bus fleet. During our 2008-2009 bus strike, O.C. Transpo management had the time to truly crunch some numbers, for the first time. The calculations about how big our bus fleet would need to be and how many would be needed to move, more passengers and how large and grand the associated Transitway infrastructure, including the rights of way, stations as well as the potential maintenance costs would need to be, versus anything else including the conversion to LRT.
Ultimately it was the high operating costs and the need for a truly gigantic bus fleet that would be similar in size or possibly larger than Vancouver, Toronto or Montreal, the 5th, 4th and 7th respectfully, largest bus fleets in North America. Ottawa already had the 12th biggest bus fleet in North America and we were only a city of 900,000 to 1 million with an area population 1.3 Million. Something had to change. The time to go away from BRT to rail had arrived.
You see, the Transitway was designed from the beginning so that it could be converted to rail in the future. That future date was never set in stone. But the Transitway was designed so most curves and grades were done to rail standard not road. Station spacing had rail in mind and ample space for passing or express tracks were there in the right of way. As much as possible grade separation was done on the Transitway so that both the buses and eventually, the rail vehicles wouldn’t have to worry about it later. This made really high capacity busways but they were expensive, almost expensive as rail.
Now there were stretches of Transitway were this wasn’t followed and big changes had to be made when the conversion to LRT happened. Ironically, in front of our VIA Rail station the Transitway had a curve that was so tight, the new rail right of way actually had to be moved 75 m to the north of the original Transitway right of way, to make it rail friendly. The bridge across the Rideau River and curve south of it leading to the completely new LRT Hurdman Station sill has issues.
In terms of development BRT or the Transitway Network was terrible. As an example, for 40+ years we had an empty piece of crown land (.84 km2 or 84 hectares/ 207.5 acres) just west of downtown known as Lebreton Flats, formerly industrial land made up of rail yards, lumber yards (Ottawa’s former major industry), pulp and paper (Scott Paper is still across the way in old downtown Hull) and breweries, Ottawa was the home of both Carling’s and Okeefs main breweries, which formed Brewers Row.
This land sat empty waiting for some level of government or private company to build upgraded modern sewers and water lines. Lebreton Flats was the last area in Ottawa to need public wells and out-houses, even in the late 1950’s and early 1960’s when the government raised the entire area, what few sewer and water lines existed in the area were severely outdated and in need of immediate replacement.
From the early 1960’s until early 2000’s nothing happened. We had a Transitway with a station, Lebreton Station from 1985, nothing happened. The Bayview O-Train Station, which is the extreme west end of this area, formerly part of the CPR ‘s Ottawa West Yard (known as the City owned Bayview Lands) had some surviving railway bulk cargo transfer, industrial buildings converted to commercial property know as the City Centre Development and Vimy House (a former streetcar barn, which used to store the armored vehicle collection for the Canadian National War Museum before its massive upgrade), but that’s it. Brewers Row was converted to public housing in the 1970’s.
It was the conversion to LRT which really spawned development in the area and the need for upgraded development plan. The old plan with the Transitway attracted only 1 developer, who wouldn’t build anything until someone else built infrastructure. It had to be the city and province that built the new trunk sewer and water-mains for them.
Upon hearing of the conversion to LRT another developer built 2 new water mains and there own trunk sewer that functioned independently of the government built infrastructure, no questions asked. Busways or Transitways were terrible at attracting development in the Ottawa case.