The Great Canadian Transit Thread

[ssiguy]

London doesn't sprawl for 20km in all directions. From the downtown to the edge of the city is at max 10km in any direction.

Also Calgary and Edmonton had large swaths of undeveloped land in the inner cities and London has none. London has a very constant and continual urban form and unlike those other cities London doesn't have an abandoned rail corridors to take advantage of.

[MalcolmTucker]

^Calgary and Edmonton's rail corridors weren't/aren't abandoned. They may have had wider ROWs as they were all post confederation however.

[TorontoDrew]

Originally Posted by manny_santos

I'm not sure how exactly London plans to separate the LRT from the other lanes, but if it's like what I've seen in Toronto with Spadina Ave or The Queensway, I don't think an ambulance or fire truck could easily move into the LRT lane.

I see emergency vehicles use the dedicated streetcar lane all the time on Spadina. Doesn't seem to be an issue at all.

[DizzyEdge]

Originally Posted by GlassCity

I think Calgary's (and Edmonton's for that matter) LRTs are a bad example when discussing LRT because it's so different from what most people have in mind. Most of the system is in large medians or rail right of ways, which allows for higher speed but is pretty atypical of most LRT systems. The sort of LRT that is all the rage to build right now–street-running with dedicated lanes serving dense neighbourhoods–can really not be compared to the systems in Alberta, which when I rode them seemed to almost have more of a commuter rail feel.

Yes most of the Calgary LRT system is more of a commuter train, only the last few stops before downtown are more of a neighbourhood scale, and then downtown it acts like a street car stopping every couple of blocks, for example stops are around 350m apart downtown, whereas out in the burbs there's one section where stops are 4.5 km apart.

[haljackey]

Blurry, but interesting graph



https://twitter.com/ShiftLdnOnt/status/662261110737760257

[Beedok]

Did Toronto lose a million people?

[Nouvellecosse]

They simply cut the y axis off because having the scale necessary to accurately reflect the one largest entry would have diminished the details for the couple dozen smaller entries.

[miketoronto]

Originally Posted by GlassCity

I think Calgary's (and Edmonton's for that matter) LRTs are a bad example when discussing LRT because it's so different from what most people have in mind. Most of the system is in large medians or rail right of ways, which allows for higher speed but is pretty atypical of most LRT systems. The sort of LRT that is all the rage to build right now–street-running with dedicated lanes serving dense neighbourhoods–can really not be compared to the systems in Alberta, which when I rode them seemed to almost have more of a commuter rail feel.

It may be the rage, but it is not attracting people. Calgary and Edmonton's LRT's still attract way more people, because they do something most people want in transit, and that is offer a competitive ride to the automobile.

Calgary and Edmonton are actually what LRT was originally planned to operate as. True LRT is supposed to utilize railway corridors, and other fast moving sections, to provide a metro style service.

[WhipperSnapper]

Originally Posted by Nouvellecosse

They simply cut the y axis off because having the scale necessary to accurately reflect the one largest entry would have diminished the details for the couple dozen smaller entries.

Strange to list Toronto at whatever million and also Mississauga and Brampton.

[Nouvellecosse]

Originally Posted by miketoronto

It may be the rage, but it is not attracting people. Calgary and Edmonton's LRT's still attract way more people, because they do something most people want in transit, and that is offer a competitive ride to the automobile.

Calgary and Edmonton are actually what LRT was originally planned to operate as. True LRT is supposed to utilize railway corridors, and other fast moving sections, to provide a metro style service.

Actually, the original LRT were the stadbahn and premetro services of Europe which use a variety of ROWs including both centre median of streets and rail corridors.

I just don't think it's healthy to generalize about LRT (or any other form of transit really). It should be based on the need (passenger volume and distances involved) and the available ROW. Not every city has super wide streets or railway corridors available and when they are available, they aren't necessarily in the most useful place to serve the needs of the ridership. Just because a specific format seems to have worked in the local conditions a specific region such as Alberta, that doesn't mean the same conditions exist elsewhere.

[Chadillaccc]

Originally Posted by DizzyEdge

Yes most of the Calgary LRT system is more of a commuter train, only the last few stops before downtown are more of a neighbourhood scale, and then downtown it acts like a street car stopping every couple of blocks, for example stops are around 350m apart downtown, whereas out in the burbs there's one section where stops are 4.5 km apart.

True, but the average station spacing of the C-train is only 1.3 km. This is pretty comparable to Toronto's 0.9 km spacing, Montreal's 1 km spacing, and Vancouver's 1.4 km spacing. However, by the mid-2020s, Calgary will be adding another 40 km of track in the Green Line, plus another 3 to 4 km in the Red Line Subway to our current 60 km network. Only around 32 stations will be added in these expansions though, so with that in mind, Calgary is set to eventually have a station spacing of a whopping... edit: okay it'll still be 1.3 km spacing Nevermind! 77 stations along 103 km of track.

[miketoronto]

Originally Posted by Nouvellecosse

I just don't think it's healthy to generalize about LRT (or any other form of transit really). It should be based on the need (passenger volume and distances involved) and the available ROW. Not every city has super wide streets or railway corridors available and when they are available, they aren't necessarily in the most useful place to serve the needs of the ridership. Just because a specific format seems to have worked in the local conditions a specific region such as Alberta, that doesn't mean the same conditions exist elsewhere.

True. Which means you go underground or elevated, when there is no fast surface route available.

I want to hear statistics on what the planned LRT and BRT lines in London are going to accomplish. How much time savings over the current bus option? Mode share? Number of car drivers attracted?
The results are not that great, then why spend billions on a plan that is really no better than the buses it replaces? If we are going to spend a billion or two, lets spend in a way that brings true rapid transit.
Again, lets see the stats, and then decide if this is a good project or not. But sadly, all these new LRT projects never tell us any of the stats.

[Nouvellecosse]

I agree that it's important to see the stats and look at a detailed cost/benefit analysis that takes into account not only how much service and projected ridership improved based on each level of investment, but also how much transit improvement you could get elsewhere for that doubled or tripled price. The cost of putting a transit line underground is a good 3 times the cost of having it on the surface in street median. One must think long and hard about whether having one underground line is really worth three on the surface given the ridership.

I think the main thing that I'd be concerned about is whether there is traffic signal priority. If it's in its own dedicated lane, which with LRT is possible in narrower corridors than with BRT, and has signal priority then it will be plenty fast enough.

[Aylmer]

And also how many intersections there are:
If there's a whole mess of them like you'll usually find in inner cities (think Toronto's King Street or any Montréal east-west Streets), the number of potential conflicts is enormous and will slow down transit even if it has its own lane. Coordinating signals also becomes very tricky.
If, however, there are very few vehicular intersections, you can more easily insure speed and priority. This is why surface LRT is a very attractive option in postwar suburbs: the dendritic street pattern is meant to reduce intersections on arterials to a minimum, meaning that you don't need much grade separation to reduce conflicts.

I maintain that transportation technologies are tools, not ends. And just like you wouldn't use a screwdriver to hammer a nail, different contexts and goals require different types of transit.

[Metro-One]

Originally Posted by Beedok

Did Toronto lose a million people?

Metro-Van is also missing about 500 000 people being posted at 2 million.

I wouldn't worry too much about the accuracy of the population on this graph.

[begratto]

Originally Posted by Metro-One

Metro-Van is also missing about 500 000 people being posted at 2 million.

So is Montreal, which should be at 4.1M

[Beedok]

Originally Posted by Metro-One

Metro-Van is also missing about 500 000 people being posted at 2 million.

I wouldn't worry too much about the accuracy of the population on this graph.

Originally Posted by begratto

So is Montreal, which should be at 4.1M

Those two line up with 2011 urban area populations fairly well. I think they took a bunch of different rankings and slopped them together.

[MalcolmTucker]

Originally Posted by miketoronto

True. Which means you go underground or elevated, when there is no fast surface route available.

I want to hear statistics on what the planned LRT and BRT lines in London are going to accomplish. How much time savings over the current bus option? Mode share? Number of car drivers attracted?
The results are not that great, then why spend billions on a plan that is really no better than the buses it replaces? If we are going to spend a billion or two, lets spend in a way that brings true rapid transit.
Again, lets see the stats, and then decide if this is a good project or not. But sadly, all these new LRT projects never tell us any of the stats.

Here is London's:


It is better than Waterloo's which was neutral for travel time iirc, but not that great compared to an all BRT system that is way cheaper. The transit user benefit gains do not justify the higher capital costs.

[1overcosc]

It's not just travel time improvements here and now.

Say the LRT will only be 4 minutes faster than today's regular buses.

In 20 years once the city grows and congestion gets worse, the LRT travel time will remain the same. But the travel time by regular bus will increase. So that 4 minutes will become 10 minutes or more over time.

[1overcosc]

Congestion is a big factor. London has bad congestion so rapid transit to separate transit from auto traffic is huge.

By contrast, in a city like Kingston where congestion is minimal, there's not much point to separating transit. If Kingston ever grows to the point where it is required, we're pretty fucked, actually. The roads even in the suburbs are all too narrow to accommodate LRT without tunneling and the city is too full of continuous urban form for rail to be punched through surface corridors. We'd basically have to go straight to tunneling once bus lanes aren't good enough.