ION Phase 2 - Cambridge's Light Rail Transit

[bravado]

“Sorry, we can’t go forward now that the budget is too high…”

How much of that budget overrun is from pointless costs and delays?

“Sorry, the budget is too high…”

[Bytor]

The people think that 7 years before Stage construction starts is too long, could you please tell me what you know about what the ridership on the 302 and the 206 are and how fast they are increasing, and what the threshold is for where an LRT becomes cheaper to operate on a cost per ride basis than a bus route of the same numbers?

Also, what is your opinion on spending $24M a year to move on average 5,000 passengers every weekday via LRT versus spending $10,000,000 per year on a bus route to move the exact same number of passengers with a bus route? (That's based on the Region's past GRT and ION budgets).

My somewhat snarky and sarcastic point is that people seem to blindly attach themselves to "build it ASAP!" without even a surface understanding of the costs involved in providing either LRT or bus services at a given level.

If you chose the LRT option above, you are essentially wasting $14,000,000 a year that could instead be spent on increasing service to other bus routes that link to the eventual LRT and drive ridership on them to higher levels.

Reference point: in 2018 the 7 Mainline was 80,853 hours of service for the entire year, or $11.3M dollars in operations costs based on past GRT average hourly operating costs adjusted to account forinflation. Rughly $140/hour.

If construction time is estimated at N years, and ridership trending on relevant routes indicates the cost effectiveness threshold will probably be reached by year Y, then the time to start construction is Y-N. Doing it too long before that just means more wasted money that could be better spent on other parts of the transit system.

[taylortbb]

The people think that 7 years before Stage construction starts is too long, could you please tell me what you know about what the ridership on the 302 and the 206 are and how fast they are increasing, and what the threshold is for where an LRT becomes cheaper to operate on a cost per ride basis than a bus route of the same numbers?

You're approaching this logically, for a subject where there isn't a lot of logic. The ION extension is purely politics, the costs of operating a bus service couldn't matter less to the politics.

This is actually true of phase 1 too. The cost of operating 7/200 were not remotely a factor in a decision to proceed with stage 1. Redirecting development to the core, and protecting the countryside line, were the driving factors. The fact it moved people was just the mechanism of action, but was in no way the root cause.

If you really want to focus on ridership, I'd suggest re-framing your arguments in terms of whether ION phase 2 would deliver the same urban growth benefits due to low ridership. See if you can find data on the connection between ridership and denser built form.

[danbrotherston]

The people think that 7 years before Stage construction starts is too long, could you please tell me what you know about what the ridership on the 302 and the 206 are and how fast they are increasing, and what the threshold is for where an LRT becomes cheaper to operate on a cost per ride basis than a bus route of the same numbers?

You're approaching this logically, for a subject where there isn't a lot of logic. The ION extension is purely politics, the costs of operating a bus service couldn't matter less to the politics.

This is actually true of phase 1 too. The cost of operating 7/200 were not remotely a factor in a decision to proceed with stage 1. Redirecting development to the core, and protecting the countryside line, were the driving factors. The fact it moved people was just the mechanism of action, but was in no way the root cause.

If you really want to focus on ridership, I'd suggest re-framing your arguments in terms of whether ION phase 2 would deliver the same urban growth benefits due to low ridership. See if you can find data on the connection between ridership and denser built form.

This last part is getting close to the point, but isn't quite there.

Basically Bytor's assumption, which could be true or false depending on other factors, is that an LRT would have exactly the same ridership as a bus.

The problem in the region is that this assumption SHOULD be false. In addition to building the LRT we should be rezoning and redeveloping the city to make transit a focus over driving, to make stations accessible by bike and walking, to build high density developments near stations, etc. etc.

The problem is that we are generally bad at this. We have done some station area planning and a few station areas are growing very fast, but I don't really believe that'll happen broadly for many of the stations in Cambridge which are more like the suburban stations on the line that aren't seeing such major rethinking than the existing urban areas which are. (I know there are some planned developments, but not at most suburban stations, and the ones who do have developments planned are...at best...lagging severely on still mostly car oriented developments.)

I've said it many times before...it isn't just transit, it's land use, transit, and streets which all work together. We won't succeed if we only do one of these--it doesn't matter which we do...if we just build transit, it'll fail, if we just build a dense urban form with no transit, also fail...we have to do them together.

[bravado]

The Hespeler Road Secondary Plan has been created by the City, but otherwise it’s a bit of a chicken and egg phenomenon when the timelines are so long and fuzzy, local leadership changes their minds monthly, and the Region has about 1 employee working on Phase 2.

Either way, this is veering pretty dangerously close into “Cambridge just doesn’t deserve an LRT” from people who got theirs without a similar use case.

[Bytor]

This last part is getting close to the point, but isn't quite there.

Basically Bytor's assumption, which could be true or false depending on other factors, is that an LRT would have exactly the same ridership as a bus.

The problem in the region is that this assumption SHOULD be false. In addition to building the LRT we should be rezoning and redeveloping the city to make transit a focus over driving, to make stations accessible by bike and walking, to build high density developments near stations, etc. etc.

Not only am I not assuming that an "LRT would have exactly the same ridership as a bus", I'm also not assuming very much at all.

To think that I said that would be a fundamental misunderstanding of my point.

I'm pointing out what happens in the scenario where you put in an LRT too long before ridership has grown enough to make it cost-effective.

Ain't nothin' gonna turn a 4,000 riders a day bus route into a 7,000 riders a day LRT that first year after switch-over so that it's more cost effective than a bus route when it starts. Not zoning, not redevelopment, not any of that stuff you mentioned. Maybe you'll get 4,400 riders (1+10%) instead of the 4,160 (+4%) you would have expected without the LRT, but not a 59% increase in one year. Even to be at 7,000/day by the third year would still be an incredible (and highly unlikely) +17% for three years in a row. None of those policies you mention, even if adhered to most strenuously, would have that much of an effect that quickly.

Ridership on an LRT in the first year will not be dramatically higher, even with the bump that higher order service typically brings, as the data for the 200, 7 and 301 shows us. Fall 2019 ridership was only 6.5% over that of Fall 2018, and around that time GRT was averaging about 4% growth per year.

At 4% average growth it will take you about 12 years to growth from 4,400 riders to 7,000 riders. That's 12 years of wasting money that could have better been spent elsewhere on other routes.

It would be another fundamental misunderstanding to think that I said that the growth rate would never change.

Even if transit growth were accelerated to 7% (what GRT's average growth rate was prior to 2013) you're still talking about 7 years of wasting money.

The bigger that gap is between average weekday ridership and the threshold for an LRT to be more cost-effective than a bus route when an LRT starts service, the more money you'll be wasting each year and the more years it will take to get to and exceed that threshold.

THAT is my point.

The stuff you want to get done, all of which I agree with BTW, will at best only shorten how long you are wasting money if you put an LRT in too early.

[ac3r]

and the Region has about 1 employee working on Phase 2.

Peak WR right there.

[dtkvictim]

The bigger that gap is between average weekday ridership and the threshold for an LRT to be more cost-effective than a bus route when an LRT starts service, the more money you'll be wasting each year and the more years it will take to get to and exceed that threshold.

You're viewing the cost as directly pertaining to running transit exclusively, rather than the cost of new or accelerated improvements elsewhere in civic life in addition to running transit. I'm not saying if that cost is worth it or not, but you're missing what the people arguing with you are saying.

[bravado]

I think it's pretty clear that the LRT is more of a city-building project than it is a people-moving project. Even moreso in Cambridge.

[ac3r]

That has always been the driving force, though. It was transit-oriented development on a budget. It's done wonderful things for the region and the best thing we've ever managed to do, but yeah it was always an investment tool first, rapid transit second. If the main goal was to become an efficient, long term rapid transit system that could grow and evolve over the next century we would have engineered it as such and it would have been more comparable to a light metro system, such as was done in Edmonton, Stuttgart, Ottawa, Tyne and Wear and so on. Since the goal was more to act as a catalyst for economic development, the way we designed and constructed it made sense. The system was handicapped the moment they broke ground.

Just ask property developers how much money they've made. :'P

[danbrotherston]

I think it's pretty clear that the LRT is more of a city-building project than it is a people-moving project. Even moreso in Cambridge.

And I think this is a good thing.

Building transit is part of building a city...we shouldn't (and can't) build the city first, and then build transit. They can only come together.

And if it takes a decade after building the LRT for the city to be built, that's fine, again the assumption that the same city would be built without the LRT is wrong...it isn't a waste of money to build the LRT as part of building the city, just because one part might be finished (or finished is a bad word, citybuilding is never "finished", "justified" is probably closer to the meaning) before the other...they justify each other. Also worth noting, roads are never held to this standard, just look at Ira Needles.

But also...if we aren't willing to build the city, then building the LRT won't change that either.

[taylortbb]

The stuff you want to get done, all of which I agree with BTW, will at best only shorten how long you are wasting money if you put an LRT in too early.

And I think my point is that, none of the people involved in this decision (e.g. politicians) care about that even a little. The people opposed to it will claim it's a waste of money no matter how many people use it (just like they did for phase 1). Those that support it do so because of the urbanization, not because of the costs. They wouldn't care if zero people rode it, as long as it delivered all the development/urbanization/countryside line benefits.

[ijmorlan]

The stuff you want to get done, all of which I agree with BTW, will at best only shorten how long you are wasting money if you put an LRT in too early.

And I think my point is that, none of the people involved in this decision (e.g. politicians) care about that even a little. The people opposed to it will claim it's a waste of money no matter how many people use it (just like they did for phase 1). Those that support it do so because of the urbanization, not because of the costs. They wouldn't care if zero people rode it, as long as it delivered all the development/urbanization/countryside line benefits.

It wouldn’t deliver the benefits if nobody rode it.

The purpose of the LRT is to move people, end of story. But which people? Not necessarily existing demand. The same is well-understood for roads: when a major new subdivision goes in, nearby roads are often built, upgraded, or expanded, not in response to existing traffic but in knowledge that the subdivision is going in and with it more people wanting to drive places.

In the limiting case, projects like new bridges across the river are built based entirely on foresight. Typically the traffic level across the river at the bridge site is zero before construction.

[taylortbb]

It wouldn’t deliver the benefits if nobody rode it.

I suspect most condo/apartment developers in KW that are choosing to build near the LRT are doing so without any real understanding of its ridership. As long as there's enough ridership that the project is perceived as a success, and a amenity that's desirable to be near, the specific ridership numbers probably aren't that important.

But in any case, I don't actually disagree with you. Ridership is definitely an important part of the system. I'm just disagreeing with Cory, who appears very focused on costs vs a bus. The politics of the project are completely unrelated to the costs of bus operations.

The purpose of the LRT is to move people, end of story. But which people? Not necessarily existing demand. The same is well-understood for roads: when a major new subdivision goes in, nearby roads are often built, upgraded, or expanded, not in response to existing traffic but in knowledge that the subdivision is going in and with it more people wanting to drive places.

In the limiting case, projects like new bridges across the river are built based entirely on foresight. Typically the traffic level across the river at the bridge site is zero before construction.

I don't disagree with any of this conceptually, but in the Cambridge context transit ridership is so low that we're many years away from justifying an LRT on the basis of ridership. Even potential ridership with an LRT is incredibly low in Cambridge.

[Acitta]

It wouldn’t deliver the benefits if nobody rode it.

I suspect most condo/apartment developers in KW that are choosing to build near the LRT are doing so without any real understanding of its ridership. As long as there's enough ridership that the project is perceived as a success, and a amenity that's desirable to be near, the specific ridership numbers probably aren't that important.

But in any case, I don't actually disagree with you. Ridership is definitely an important part of the system. I'm just disagreeing with Cory, who appears very focused on costs vs a bus. The politics of the project are completely unrelated to the costs of bus operations.

The purpose of the LRT is to move people, end of story. But which people? Not necessarily existing demand. The same is well-understood for roads: when a major new subdivision goes in, nearby roads are often built, upgraded, or expanded, not in response to existing traffic but in knowledge that the subdivision is going in and with it more people wanting to drive places.

In the limiting case, projects like new bridges across the river are built based entirely on foresight. Typically the traffic level across the river at the bridge site is zero before construction.

I don't disagree with any of this conceptually, but in the Cambridge context transit ridership is so low that we're many years away from justifying an LRT on the basis of ridership. Even potential ridership with an LRT is incredibly low in Cambridge.

I would visit Cambridge more often if the ION already went to Cambridge. By the time it is actually built, though, there is a non-zero possibility that I will be dead.