Canadian Transit Thread II

[Coldrsx]

This was the last version of the Edmonton-Calgary rail connection. May I present 'The Dayliner'.
---

In 1955 the Budd 'Dayliner' was introduced to the service, the journey time was reduced to 3 1/2 hours, with 3 trains per day carrying 80,000 passengers in 1969.
By 1982 the service was reduced to 1 train a day, and in 1985 the service was terminated.

---

https://www.abrailway.com/home

[Nouvellecosse]

Seems like the Cal-Ed CP track is still in good condition based on a few spots I viewed in streetview and aerial, but is almost all single track except for a few sidings. I counted over 140 level crossings in rail atlas and those would need to be removed for a high or higher speed rail service. Although not all the crossings would be expensive to remove since many could just be closed rather than replaced. Often you'll see a lot of what i call "crossings of convenience" if a track doesn't have terribly frequent or fast-moving services. A lot of such crossings aren't really necessary since people could just travel further to cross if there was enough safety risk to warrant it. But many crossings would need to be replaced or at least upgraded with enhanced safety equipment. And even without higher speeds, some crossings would still need to be removed or replaced if there was a significant increase in rail traffic. That's because the total risk is best described as a combination of how bad an event would be were it to happen along with how likely it is to happen. So even if the potential severity of an accident didn't increase, the likelihood would.

I also can't see a passenger service being very successful without double tracking so that might be the biggest cost (at least for conventional speed service). Unlike with freight which is often most efficient with fewer, longer trains, passenger rail need greater frequency to allow flexible travel options. The ideal service would be hourly or even half-hourly, while every 2-3 hours would be the absolute minimum. Not that frequent service would guarantee ridership success, but it would be one of several mandatory check boxes along with competitive pricing, reliability, decent travel time, and last mile connections. Fortunately the corridor does seem to be wide enough to make double-tracking fairly easy (perhaps it used to be double at one time?) And both airports are close enough to the route to make UPE-style elevated connections possible. Still expensive but as long as it pays off. So that core route has a lot of potential at least for efficient, conventional-speed rail which could still have travel times that are competitive with driving.

[ssiguy]

I agree that twinning the track would definitely be a good long-term investment, it doesn't have to be done all at once to introduce the service.

Certain sections can be twinned and still allow for high frequency when properly timed. This could be, as an example, Calgary to Airdrie, Lacombe to Innisfail, and Leduc to Edmonton. We are seeing this with the new Brightline West project in Cal/NV where less than half the line will actually be double tracked.

Obviously some overpasses will need to be built but only thru towns of , for example, more than a thousand people and many crossings, as you stated could be permanently closed. Althought the entire ED/RD/Cal is quite populated there are HUGE gaps between some of the urban areas. Ponoka to Leduc is basically barren.

[kwoldtimer]

Originally Posted by Coldrsx

This was the last version of the Edmonton-Calgary rail connection. May I present 'The Dayliner'.
---

In 1955 the Budd 'Dayliner' was introduced to the service, the journey time was reduced to 3 1/2 hours, with 3 trains per day carrying 80,000 passengers in 1969.
By 1982 the service was reduced to 1 train a day, and in 1985 the service was terminated.

---

https://www.abrailway.com/home

Wasn't VIA experimenting with bringing a few of those back in SOntario?

[cranes]

2023 Region Of Waterloo Yearbook - GRT Ridership: https://www.row2023yearbook.ca/grt-ridership

https://pub-regionofwaterloo.escribe...ab=attachments
6.1.2 TSD-TRS-24-005, Grand River Transit - Ridership Update - 2023 Year End

1.TSD-TRS-24-005, Grand River Transit - Ridership Update - 2023 Year End.pdf

4. Report Highlights: GRT has its busiest year ever with annual ridership of 26.4 million, an increase of 48.3% over 2022. This is also an increase of 20.1% over the previous high ridership of 22.0 million in 2019. ION LRT ridership increased to 4.4 millions riders for the year, an increase of 49.4% over 2022. Meanwhile bus ridership increased by 48.1% to 22.1 million. Daily boardings, which measure every time a person boards a transit vehicle including their transfers, of 132,000 also exceeds previous levels in 2022 of 76,000 by 49.5% and 2019 of 102,000 by 11.2%. Service hours increased by 5400 hours (0.7%) since 2019 and 10,700 (1.3%) since 2022. Appendix A, Performance Dashboard, illustrates the current ridership and the year-todate information. The highest and lowest performing routes are noted. The ION LRT continues to be the highest performing route while the other high performers (110 & 12) serve the post-secondary market as well as a diverse corridor with significant numbers of workers and families using the Route 12. The lowest performing routes are BusPlus routes which serve areas where ridership is still developing, including a new pilot on-demand transit service.

5. Background: The previous ridership update report was presented at the November 7, 2023 Planning & Works Committee (Report TSD-TRS-23-011) and illustrated the significant growth in transit ridership as we moved out of the pandemic era. It indicated September as the busiest month that GRT has ever had. In September, there was a significant service improvement, particularly in Cambridge with roughly 18,000 hours of new annual service added. The network redesign in Cambridge was the last phase of a network redesign as part of the restructuring over several years leading to the implementation of the ION service. As is normal with transit service changes, the ridership impact takes a while to be felt as people adapt to improved service and get an opportunity to try an improved journey. That ridership impact began to be felt during the last quarter of 2023 and will continue to see growth over the next year.

7. Financial Implications: The growth in ridership has resulted in GRT revenue that exceeded the 2023 budget estimate by $8.5 million. Staff have reflected the increased ridership and revenue in the 2024 budget accordingly. All other things being equal, the additional ridership could result in a higher Provincial Gas Tax Fund allocation in future years.

2.Appendix A - Performance Dashboard - GRT.pdf


https://www.grt.ca/en/about-grt/perf...-measures.aspx
GRT Performance Dashboard updated as of 2024 February


https://kitchener.ctvnews.ca/kitchen...ions-1.6813859
Kitchener approves 'transformative' new policies for growth around LRT stations March 19, 2024

Kitchener is introducing new rules to guide development around major transit stations and mandate the inclusion of affordable housing units in some new builds. At Monday night’s meeting, council approved a new planning framework that removes density and parking requirements around LRT stations from Grand River Hospital to Mill, among other measures. “We think this is the most permissive and flexible zoning bylaw in Canada,” Adam Clark, senior urban designer for the City of Kitchener, said Tuesday. “It really is a transformative project… the idea is that Growing Together really enables that full spectrum of housing, from single-detached, all the way through to high-rise residential apartments and everything in between. So if you want to live in one of Kitchener’s major transit station areas, there’s an option for you, no matter what your needs are.” The city estimates the new planning framework will enable the creation of 100,000 new homes, including 20,000 units in low and mid-rise apartment buildings, sometimes called the “missing middle.” Inclusionary zoning bylaw: Also on Monday night, council approved an inclusionary zoning bylaw, which by 2031, will require developments with more than 50 units near an LRT station to make five per cent of them affordable...

A map shows areas covered by the Growing Together plan. (Submitted/City of Kitchener)


https://twitter.com/GRT_ROW/status/1782417507476766882
Grand River Transit @GRT_ROW Apr 22, 2024

More than 1,600 solar panels have been installed on the roof of our Northfield Transit Maintenance Facility! By the numbers:
• The latest (and largest!) of 18 solar arrays at Region of Waterloo facilities. (Our Chandler Drive Maintenance Facility also has solar panels.)
• The Northfield array will generate around 1,000 megawatt-hours of electricity every year.
• 1,000 megawatt-hours is enough to power 100 homes for a year.
• It will offset 27 tonnes of emissions, equivalent to not using 12,000 litres of gasoline.
• The power generated will be fed back into the facility for use, with any excess sent into the electrical grid.
• Our electric bus pilot program, with 11 electric buses, operates out of the Northfield garage.
Now we’ll be able to charge the buses with renewable energy, taking another step toward a greener future.
Happy Earth Day! ☀️������������ #EarthDay2024

[Taeolas]

A video take on the Alberta plans:

• Video Link

The algorithm suggested it to me. I've watched a few of his videos before. He's very pro transit in general so his take on the Alberta plans are rather obvious.

Still, I do find I agree with most of his points in general (and the Alberta plan in general). Setting out a long term roadmap and doing some preparation while the land is 'cheap' isn't a bad idea.

He does seem to focus a bit too much on the Cal-Ed corridor, but that's obvious low hanging fruit that should have been done decades ago.

[phone]

I believe Reece is active on this forum.

[cranes]

https://www.grt.ca/Modules/News/inde...e-5537cb4c997b
GRT fares changing on July 1 - June 03, 2024

Effective July 1, 2024, Grand River Transit (GRT) fares are changing to balance value and affordability with the rising cost of operating transit.

During the 2024 Plan and Budget process, an increase in fare prices was approved, in addition to new products and increased transfer times for all customers.

There will be no changes to cash fares. Overall, fares will increase by an average of 2 per cent.

To balance the increases, GRT has increased the transfer time from 90 minutes to 120 minutes, increased the discount under the Affordable Transit Program to 50 per cent and launched a new Group pass.

The new Group pass is being introduced for $12, allowing unlimited trips for up to five people, of any age, travelling together on any one day. We’ve also reduced our Day pass to $8.

For more information about fares, including a full list of fare products and prices, visit grt.ca.

Fare Type Fares as of July 1, 2023
Cash fare $3.75
Single ticket/transfer (from the fare vending machine) $3.75
Children (age 4 and under) Free
EasyGO stored value payment $3
Stored value payment, Affordable Transit Program $1.50
Corporate stored value $2.55
Monthly pass $96
Monthly pass, Affordable Transit Program $48
Day Pass $8
Group Pass $12

https://www.grt.ca/en/about-grt/rout...k-changes.aspx
Route 72 and Cambridge Business Park changes

GRT is proposing changes to Route 72 and service to the Cambridge Business Park and surrounding area. These changes will provide better service to the growing residential area and business park, and increase connections to the Region of Waterloo International Airport. Changes would start Sept. 2, 2024.

Route 72 would become Route 62, a conventional bus route operating on Cherry Blossom Rd., Speedsville Rd., Maple Grove Rd., Boxwood Dr. and Vondrau Dr. The route would run every 30 minutes between 6 a.m. and 11:30 p.m.

Route 78 BusPlus would be introduced, providing service approximately every 30 minutes on Fountain Street and connecting to Region of Waterloo International Airport. The proposed hours of service are Monday to Friday, 6-10 a.m., 2-7 p.m. and 10:30-11:30 p.m.

Share your feedback To share your feedback on the proposed changes, fill out the feedback form.

[yaletown_fella]

If the TTC strikes, it should automatically forfeit its monopoly status. You can't have it both ways.

That would be a reasonable alternative to the province forcing them back to work which will just get shot down by courts.

I wouldnt mind paying $200-250/month for a private mass transit alternative. Expess bus services that run every 20-30 minutes down major arterials. It wouldnt have the excruciatingly slow local service and disruptions by homeless drug addicts etc

[casper]

Originally Posted by yaletown_fella

If the TTC strikes, it should automatically forfeit its monopoly status. You can't have it both ways.

That would be a reasonable alternative to the province forcing them back to work which will just get shot down by courts.

I wouldnt mind paying $200-250/month for a private mass transit alternative. Expess bus services that run every 20-30 minutes down major arterials. It wouldnt have the excruciatingly slow local service and disruptions by homeless drug addicts etc

Obvious solution to making the system more resilient is to split rail and bus.

For example in Vancouver the Export and Millenium line are operated by one government owned company. The Canada line is operated by SNC Lavalin. The buses are operated by another publicly owned company.

[Taeolas]

Or just declare that Public Transit is an essential service, similar to Police and Fire. Because it really is, especially for major cities.

Splitting rail and bus isn't really an option, especially for a well integrated city like Toronto, because you generally want people to be able to smoothly transfer from one node to another, and cutting one mode out without planning isn't really a viable option.

Urban Public Transit should be considered Infrastructure, and funded and managed similarly, and all efforts should be made to keep it going as reliably as possible. (Just like a watermain breaking or a road getting blocked are high priority things to fix as soon as possible)

[IRT_BMT_IND]

I just hope everyone at these negotiations realizes what's at stake. A protracted strike will likely mean the end of Olivia Chow's career, and a backlash election in 2026. It also could very well lead to a permanent loss in ridership. If a strike drags on I could very well see something akin to the dollar van system in New York emerging in the inner suburbs out of necessity, and these services have really eaten into bus ridership in New York especially in Brooklyn and Queens. Metrolinx taking over the subways would probably also be on the table again.

[ScreamingViking]

Originally Posted by Taeolas

Because it really is, especially for major cities.

Imagine the mass pandemonium and anger if roads were shut down for a similar reason.

[hipster duck]

Originally Posted by yaletown_fella

If the TTC strikes, it should automatically forfeit its monopoly status. You can't have it both ways.

That would be a reasonable alternative to the province forcing them back to work which will just get shot down by courts.

I wouldnt mind paying $200-250/month for a private mass transit alternative. Expess bus services that run every 20-30 minutes down major arterials. It wouldnt have the excruciatingly slow local service and disruptions by homeless drug addicts etc

We're getting there. If you know the GO system - including buses - and you're physically able to ride a bike share bike, then you can navigate around a good chunk of the city without the TTC.

GO is only improving and will be a second rapid transit backbone soon and there is, of course, Uber which you can hail just about anywhere in the city, unlike the taxis of yore.

This, plus WFH, and I'd say that a TTC strike won't be as crippling as it would have been a decade or more ago.

[yaletown_fella]

Originally Posted by hipster duck

We're getting there. If you know the GO system - including buses - and you're physically able to ride a bike share bike, then you can navigate around a good chunk of the city without the TTC.

GO is only improving and will be a second rapid transit backbone soon and there is, of course, Uber which you can hail just about anywhere in the city, unlike the taxis of yore.

This, plus WFH, and I'd say that a TTC strike won't be as crippling as it would have been a decade or more ago.

Regularly taking Uber to and from work only really makes sense if you earn six figures (assuming you havent inherited a home) if you are making 40-60k per year and taking Uber you're living out of your means unless you come from wealth or struck it rich

Im talking private MASS transit to cater to working people earning less than six figures.

Biking on most roads is also extremely unsafe. Driving has gotten a lot worse during and after covid.

[yaletown_fella]

Originally Posted by IRT_BMT_IND

I just hope everyone at these negotiations realizes what's at stake. A protracted strike will likely mean the end of Olivia Chow's career, and a backlash election in 2026. It also could
very well lead to a permanent loss in ridership. If a strike drags on I could very well see something akin to the dollar van system in New York emerging in the inner suburbs out of necessity, and these services have really eaten into bus ridership in New York especially in Brooklyn and Queens. Metrolinx taking over the subways would probably also be on the table again.

Id gladly pay a $250 metropass for a reliable shuttle and van system that only stops at major intersections like the Subway.

Its criminal that the TTC thinks it has the right to monopolize transit in Toronto. What an entitled & archaic mindset.

[theman23]

Originally Posted by Taeolas

Or just declare that Public Transit is an essential service, similar to Police and Fire. Because it really is, especially for major cities.

Splitting rail and bus isn't really an option, especially for a well integrated city like Toronto, because you generally want people to be able to smoothly transfer from one node to another, and cutting one mode out without planning isn't really a viable option.

Urban Public Transit should be considered Infrastructure, and funded and managed similarly, and all efforts should be made to keep it going as reliably as possible. (Just like a watermain breaking or a road getting blocked are high priority things to fix as soon as possible)

Metrolinx would still be the overarching planning body, and I’m not sure how having a single operator ensures smoother transfers. They don’t hold the subway in Toronto because they’re expecting a feeder bus to come in late. Regardless, just having better and more service would do a more more to facilitate transfers than any benefit that comes from the current system. Melbourne’s metro, tram, and regional rail are operated by three separate companies and they have 50 or so bus operators. Yet they still manage to pull of a unified fare system that allows seamless transfers and have a transit network that is at least a century ahead of Toronto.

[Nouvellecosse]

Originally Posted by yaletown_fella

Id gladly pay a $250 metropass for a reliable shuttle and van system that only stops at major intersections like the Subway.

Its criminal that the TTC thinks it has the right to monopolize transit in Toronto. What an entitled & archaic mindset.

I don't think the decision has anything to do with the TTC or it's mindset. The reason that agencies like the TTC even exist is that governments decided to consolidate public transport into such agencies when the feasibility of such agencies started to wane in the post-automobile era. Services were originally fully or partially private, but public transport was no longer profitable overall so if it remained private you'd only have service on the few busiest (aka profitable) routes. So governments had to step in and either force private operators to serve unprofitable routes as a necessary service (and provide them with subsidies) or operate such services themselves.

But if a government operates the entire service itself, the overall cost is lower to taxpayers since the profitable routes such as a subway line can subsidize less profitable routes. Otherwise, the government would be paying the subsidies on less used routes and the private operators would keep the profit on the busy routes. And the less profitable routes would be feeding into the profitable ones making them even more profitable, so in essence the taxpayer would be paying to enrich the private operators without any real benefit to the service. Well, beyond making the occasional strike easier to manage. So having a public operator monopoly makes the most sense which is why it's the norm not only across the country but in most cities in the developed world.

[DirectionNorth]

Originally Posted by theman23

Metrolinx would still be the overarching planning body, and I’m not sure how having a single operator ensures smoother transfers. They don’t hold the subway in Toronto because they’re expecting a feeder bus to come in late. Regardless, just having better and more service would do a more more to facilitate transfers than any benefit that comes from the current system. Melbourne’s metro, tram, and regional rail are operated by three separate companies and they have 50 or so bus operators. Yet they still manage to pull of a unified fare system that allows seamless transfers and have a transit network that is at least a century ahead of Toronto.

Melbourne? You mean the city whose transit network had a third less use than the TTC* alone, not including suburban services like BT, DRT, GO, etc.? If that's "a century ahead," I don't want to go there.

They (finally!) unified fares earlier this year, so that barrier's gone, but I would rather keep service planning in the hands of the city. I don't see where you think this "better and more" service would come from with privatisation, which certainly hasn't led to any benefits in the UK, unless you (mistakenly) believe that the city's hoarding a pile of non-existent TTC profits in a Orangeville cave.

*with a larger service area, though the GTA is somewhat larger than the Melbourne metro area

[yaletown_fella]

Originally Posted by Nouvellecosse

I don't think the decision has anything to do with the TTC or it's mindset. The reason that agencies like the TTC even exist is that governments decided to consolidate public transport into such agencies when the feasibility of such agencies started to wane in the post-automobile era. Services were originally fully or partially private, but public transport was no longer profitable overall so if it remained private you'd only have service on the few busiest (aka profitable) routes. So governments had to step in and either force private operators to serve unprofitable routes as a necessary service (and provide them with subsidies) or operate such services themselves.

But if a government operates the entire service itself, the overall cost is lower to taxpayers since the profitable routes such as a subway line can subsidize less profitable routes. Otherwise, the government would be paying the subsidies on less used routes and the

The taxpayer is currently subsidizing the TTC's high wages and pensions and unrealistically low fares. Im not saying the TTC shouldnt exist but I am opposed to it being the only option and holding working people hostage .

The fares are artificially low and fare evasion is rampant.

Im not proposing a private subway system. But a private shuttle or bus with fares for $5-6 and $250 passes would be quite profitable if its only operating in the 416. It would also act as a check and balance for the TTC union demands. Im all for wages being fixed to inflation but the riders (majority of whom working in the private sector ) should also have their wages indexed to inflation. A government should not be catering to agencies like the TTC without raising minimum wage to match.