The Great Canadian Transit Thread

[Metro-One]

Originally Posted by nname

Maybe I'm just used to the system here in Vancouver. When I was in Seattle, the elevated and underground (Beacon Hill) protion seems to go pretty fast, but when the train reaches the at-grade portion between two fast sections, it just feel like it slowed alot and seems to take forever to go through that at-grade section. Although having no station in the past 9 minutes in the elevated portion could have something to do with it.

Well, maybe I'm just spoiled from taking Expo/Millennium line daily.. When I was on Canada Line, I even feel like the train is going really slow.. and the line actually have an average speed of 36km/h...

I have a feeling much of the route is slowed artificially. I think they do this because they will be adding several more stations to the line in the near future (that have been planned since the beginning), and when they are added the average speed between stations will be increased to keep the average travel time from end to end the same.

[miketoronto]

It has nothing to do with future stations.

I don't know why people find it so hard to understand that an LRT train can't operate at fast speeds down a local road, unless the LRT tracks are completely separated from cars and pedestrians with barriers (as is done in Calgary and Edmonton). A little concrete lip (like Seattle) does not do the trick.
You can't have trains going 80 km/h down a road like that. Imagine a car ignores the signals lights at intersections (because there are no crossing arms), or a car ends up on the tracks, because they can drive over that concrete lip in a second. Disaster.

LRT has a place when done right. Calgary and Edmonton did it right. But tons of cities are spending billions building LRT like the Seattle example, in the middle of the street and slow running. And at the end of the day, it is not going to carry the loads of passengers you see on a system like Edmonton or Calgary, because at the end of the day its not rapid transit.

LRT as originally designed in the 60-70's was not to operate in streets for large lengths. It was to operate in old rail corridors, on new segregated corridors, and in streets in the downtown sections (to save money on tunnels). That is what set LRT apart from the trolley systems LRT was replacing.
The legacy systems like Calgary, Edmonton, Baltimore, San Diego, follow this type of design.

The newer systems save for Dallas tend not to, and I think we are going to be in a situation at least in the USA where these systems are not going to carry many people. Canadian cities better take a look at whats going on south of the border, because the same thing will happen here with lackluster ridership if we get away from building true LRT rapid transit.

I find it extremely concerning this blatant obsession with slow running LRT in the middle of the street which has taken over the North American LRT lovers.

Edmonton's LRT at 20 km carries almost 100,000 riders a day on a fully grade separated system.

Interesting that the planned LRT lines in Toronto, which utilize the Seattle style in street operation are going to have lines which approach 20 km length, and carry much less riders than the Edmonton LRT.

We are even seeing this with BRT to. Ottawa spent the money and did BRT the proper way, and it shows with the ridership. Other cities have dumbed down BRT to these slow running in the middle of the street operations, and we are seeing lackluster ridership on these systems.

Just something to think about.

[White Pine]

^ not saying your points are wrong, but the future stations argument would still be valid in the case of the Canada line in Van, because it's fully grade separated. it's elevated or underground the whole way.

[miketoronto]

Originally Posted by White Pine

^ not saying your points are wrong, but the future stations argument would still be valid in the case of the Canada line in Van, because it's fully grade separated. it's elevated or underground the whole way.

I thought he meant the Seattle line. Sorry about that

[Metro-One]

Yeah, I was talking about the Canada line.

trust me, I am on your side, hence I am always so happy that metro-Vancouver built true rapid transit grade separated (which actually makes a city feel larger IMO as well). And now we are building our fourth metro fully grade separated skytrain line, yeah! We are the only grade separated system in our part of North America actually.

[someone123]

Originally Posted by Metro-One

trust me, I am on your side, hence I am always so happy that metro-Vancouver built true rapid transit grade separated (which actually makes a city feel larger IMO as well). And now we are building our fourth metro fully grade separated skytrain line, yeah! We are the only grade separated system in our part of North America actually.

What's sad is that under different circumstances Seattle totally could have had an elevated system like the SkyTrain. Fundamentally they could even afford a subway system in place of the patchwork of at-grade and dedicated ROW LRT, bus tunnels, monorail, etc. Part of their problem is the voter initiative/plebiscite system, which makes zero sense for selecting specific options for a transit system. Transportation needs to be planned in a coherent way.

San Francisco transit is also pretty weak and seems worse to me than Vancouver. BART is the opposite of the Expo and Millennium lines in that it was built at exactly the wrong time (right before automation) with the wrong technology (e.g. custom gauge). Their system also feels quite old. I have a feeling the problems there are again political and are tied to caps on assessments and a lack of tax dollars since the 1970s.

[sober2ndthought]

Originally Posted by miketoronto

It has nothing to do with future stations.

I don't know why people find it so hard to understand that an LRT train can't operate at fast speeds down a local road, unless the LRT tracks are completely separated from cars and pedestrians with barriers (as is done in Calgary and Edmonton). A little concrete lip (like Seattle) does not do the trick.

You can't have trains going 80 km/h down a road like that. Imagine a car ignores the signals lights at intersections (because there are no crossing arms), or a car ends up on the tracks, because they can drive over that concrete lip in a second. Disaster.

Calgary's LRT does not travel 80 KM/H for the entire stretch. If you pay attention to those videos the posted speed is 60 km/h on those stretches. That includes both the railroad corridor and the mixed street environment. Other parts of the city it can reach up to 80 km/h that is the 36th Ave section, the Metis Trial Section, southern portion of the southline and the Chrowchild Trial section.

For the record, people and cars do get hit by the CTrain all the time. It is not that uncommon for someone to run the crossing arms or try to out run the LRV.

Originally Posted by miketoronto

LRT has a place when done right. Calgary and Edmonton did it right. But tons of cities are spending billions building LRT like the Seattle example, in the middle of the street and slow running. And at the end of the day, it is not going to carry the loads of passengers you see on a system like Edmonton or Calgary, because at the end of the day its not rapid transit.

Calgary LRT was not immediately successful it took a long time to build up the current ridership numbers to the level which they are today. Give Seattle time, that system will eventually reach high ridership as well. Once the new lines are built and the frequency increases I can imagine those trains being packed. In fact ridership has nearly doubled since opening day.

Originally Posted by miketoronto

Edmonton's LRT at 20 km carries almost 100,000 riders a day on a fully grade separated system.

Once again you are making up facts. Edmonton's LRT is NOT fully grade separated. Even the original line is not fully grade separated. It runs underground in the downtown core, underground at the university. The rest of the system runs at-grade along the railway corridor in the NE. The new lines are also at-grade.

One more thing, by no means do I think that what is being purposed in Toronto is perfect (such as the stop spacing). But when you pause and realize the real purpose of the LRT plan in Toronto is to shuttle people to and from the GO-Train and Subway Lines then it makes sense. That is different from Calgary's CTrain where it serves the same purpose which the GO-Train and Subway serve in Toronto.

[miketoronto]

Originally Posted by sober2ndthought

Once again you are making up facts. Edmonton's LRT is NOT fully grade separated. Even the original line is not fully grade separated. It runs underground in the downtown core, underground at the university. The rest of the system runs at-grade along the railway corridor in the NE. The new lines are also at-grade.

Yes it is grade separated. It does not matter if it is in an old railroad right of way. That is grade separated and trains don't have to to wait for cars ever.

[sober2ndthought]

Originally Posted by miketoronto

Yes it is grade separated. It does not matter if it is in an old railroad right of way. That is grade separated and trains don't have to to wait for cars ever.

Grade separated means it runs either above the road or below the road. Edmonton's LRT runs entirely at grade that means it does intersect with the road.

[sober2ndthought]

Mike,

You should read the following article from Wikipedia which really explains why the CTrain is successful. It does agree with you to a degree on the speed, but look at all of the other factors which likely play at the minimum and equally important role.


The C-Train's high ridership rate and cost effectiveness is attributed to a number of factors. The nature of Calgary itself has encouraged C-Train use. Calgary has a dense downtown business district, with the second most corporate head offices in Canada after Toronto, most of them crowded into about one square kilometre of land. In recent decades the population has grown dramatically, outpacing the ability of roads to transport people into the city.[42]

Costs were controlled during construction and operation of the system by using relatively cheap, existing technology. A grade separated system was passed over in preference of a system without significant elevated or buried elements and the trains and stations selected were of the tried and tested, utilitarian variety (for example, vehicles are not air conditioned, storage yards are not automated and stations are in general concrete platforms with a modest shelter overhead). This allowed more track to be laid with the available funds and contrasts with the Edmonton Light Rail Transit which buried the portion of the system in downtown and under the University of Alberta, increasing costs. The C-Train uses a self service model of payment, reducing fare collection costs.

In 2001, the US General Accounting Office released a study of the cost-effectiveness of American light rail systems.[43] Although not included in the report, Calgary had a capital cost of US$24.5 million per mile (year 2000 dollars), which would be the sixth lowest (Edmonton was given as US$41.7 million per mile). Because of its high ridership (then 188,000 boardings per weekday) the capital cost per passenger was $2,400 per daily passenger, by far the lowest of the 14 systems compared (had Edmonton been included it would have been the next most cost effective at $8,900 per weekday passenger, while the closest American system was Sacramento at $9,100 per weekday passenger). Operating costs are also low, in 2005, the C-Train cost CDN$163 per operating hour to operate. With an average of 600 boardings per hour, cost per LRT passenger is CDN$0.27, compared to $1.50 for bus passengers in Calgary.[44]

Planning for the C-Train also played an important role. Although the light rail system was not chosen until 1976, the city had reserved transit corridors for some form of high capacity transport in the 1960s, and planning for the system was done when Calgary's population was less than 500,000. The city reached an agreement with CP Rail to build most of the south line along their existing right-of-way. The lines and stations were placed to serve large residential areas and business districts and to serve existing and predicted travel patterns. Feeder bus stations were established.

The city chose not to build major freeways into the city centre, forcing commuters to use the train as their numbers increased but downtown street capacity did not. Similarly, the city limited the number of parking spaces in the downtown core, making it prohibitively expensive for many people to drive to downtown jobs, particularly as surface lots gave way to development. Downtown unreserved monthly parking is amongst the most expensive in North America, behind only Midtown and Downtown Manhattan for business districts.[45][46] As a result, in 2007 45% of Calgary's 120,000 downtown workers used Calgary Transit to get to work, with a long term goal of reaching that mark to 60% of downtown workers in the future.

Although not generally grade separated, the C-Train is able to operate at high speeds on much of its track by separating it from pedestrians with fences and concrete bollards. Trains are also given right of way at most road crossings outside of downtown. As a result, trains are able to operate at 80 km/h (50 mph) outside of downtown, and 40 km/h (25 mph) along the 7th Avenue corridor. 7th Avenue is a free fare zone, encouraging use for short hops through the city. The city achieves high capacity on the 7th Avenue transit corridor by staging the traffic lights, so that all the trains move forward in unison to the next station on the synchronized green lights, and load and unload passengers on the intervening red lights.[44]

[nname]

Originally Posted by sober2ndthought

Operating costs are also low, in 2005, the C-Train cost CDN$163 per operating hour to operate. With an average of 600 boardings per hour, cost per LRT passenger is CDN$0.27, compared to $1.50 for bus passengers in Calgary.[44]

I just find it interesting that Calgary always strip down the cost to the bare minimum and make everything look so cheap... Like how the $700 millions west LRT line is calculated without trains, land acquisition, grade separation with interchange, etc. When you add everything together, the project cost nearly twice as much...

Now for the operating cost, about half of the CT passenger is from the LRT, so averaging the two cost to give an estimated system-wide average of $0.88 per passenger. According to CT, the average fare is $1.40 per passenger. This gives a fare recovery of 159% system-wide, much much higher from the actual recovery of 53%... I wonder what items are not included in that cost figure....

[sober2ndthought]

Originally Posted by nname

I just find it interesting that Calgary always strip down the cost to the bare minimum and make everything look so cheap... Like how the $700 millions west LRT line is calculated without trains, land acquisition, grade separation with interchange, etc. When you add everything together, the project cost nearly twice as much...

The WestLRT was built very different from the other lines. For starters it has way more grader separation than the other lines including an below grade station and above-grade station. Plus land expropriation cost city a lot of money on this route. They had to demolish a number of houses, as well as a high-school and the city's science centre.

At the same time trains were going to be purchased none the less, the Old U2s need to be phased out, the city is increasing the frequency of trains, the city is upgrading the system to accommodate 4 car trains and finally the city is growing and that is putting pressures on the existing system.

Originally Posted by nname

Now for the operating cost, about half of the CT passenger is from the LRT, so averaging the two cost to give an estimated system-wide average of $0.88 per passenger. According to CT, the average fare is $1.40 per passenger. This gives a fare recovery of 159% system-wide, much much higher from the actual recovery of 53%... I wonder what items are not included in that cost figure....

The buses cost a lot more to operate. The CTrain costs very little due to lower maintenance costs and lower operating costs (fuel etc), plus a much higher ridership. Nothing there suggested that the buses also cost 88 cents per passenger. Btw the fare per passenger is now 2.75.

[logan5]

Looking at the West LRT costs from Wikipedia, it shows 8.4 km at 1.46 billion for a per km cost of 174million/km. I was wondering what percentage of the line is elevated, underground, trenched and at grade. And also what the capacity of this line will be. If anybody has this information it would be greatly appreciated.

[nname]

Originally Posted by sober2ndthought

The WestLRT was built very different from the other lines. For starters it has way more grader separation than the other lines including an below grade station and above-grade station. Plus land expropriation cost city a lot of money on this route. They had to demolish a number of houses, as well as a high-school and the city's science centre.

At the same time trains were going to be purchased none the less, the Old U2s need to be phased out, the city is increasing the frequency of trains, the city is upgrading the system to accommodate 4 car trains and finally the city is growing and that is putting pressures on the existing system.



The buses cost a lot more to operate. The CTrain costs very little due to lower maintenance costs and lower operating costs (fuel etc), plus a much higher ridership. Nothing there suggested that the buses also cost 88 cents per passenger. Btw the fare per passenger is now 2.75.

The average fare is always lower than the cash fare due to day/monthly passes, senior passes, youth passes, u-pass, fare cheaters, etc... $1.40 average fare is the most current number reported by Calgary Transit.

There is no way to deny that operating train is cheaper than buses (which is true almost everywhere in the world), but I just found that the "operating" cost reported by that report doesn't seems to be the same "operating" cost we normally use. Per rider cost of $0.27 for C-Train and $1.50 for bus passenger with average fare of $1.40 just doesn't add up to a cost recovery of 53% reported by Calgary Transit... I think most likely those number just include the operator and power/fuel cost on the vehicle only...

[sober2ndthought]

Originally Posted by logan5

Looking at the West LRT costs from Wikipedia, it shows 8.4 km at 1.46 billion for a per km cost of 174million/km. I was wondering what percentage of the line is elevated, underground, trenched and at grade. And also what the capacity of this line will be. If anybody has this information it would be greatly appreciated.

I am not sure if those numbers were posted but here is the original plan. The only change made is that area two is grade level.

[nname]

Originally Posted by logan5

Looking at the West LRT costs from Wikipedia, it shows 8.4 km at 1.46 billion for a per km cost of 174million/km. I was wondering what percentage of the line is elevated, underground, trenched and at grade. And also what the capacity of this line will be. If anybody has this information it would be greatly appreciated.

Based on my estimate, its:

44% at-grade
22% elevated
22% trenched
12% underground

[logan5]

Originally Posted by nname

Based on my estimate, its:

44% at-grade
22% elevated
22% trenched
12% underground

I trust your estimates, thanx.

[logan5]

Originally Posted by sober2ndthought

I am not sure if those numbers were posted but here is the original plan. The only change made is that area two is grade level.

Thanks for the link.

[logan5]

Without being a C Train critic or a Skytrain booster, I find an interesting comparison between West LRT in Calgary and the Evergreen Line in Vancouver which are being built at about the same time.

The Evergreen Line is 11 km long and will cost 127 million/km, which is substantially less than the 174 million/km cost of the West LRT. The Evergreen Line is mostly elevated with a 2 km bored tunnel section and, I believe, about 3 km of at grade sections, which would actually give the Evergreen Line the more expensive alignment. Maximum capacity is 25 000 - 30 000 pph, which is similar to the C Train.

Maybe because of the elevated characteristic of Skytrain, it avoids property acquisition, but can that explain the huge discrepancy in cost?

[nname]

These are the reasons I can think of:

1. Platform length: SkyTrain uses 80m platform and C-Train uses 120m.
2. Station alignment: The West LRT have one expensive underground station, 1 elevated, 2 trenched, and only 2 at-grade stations. That along with longer station platform make the station much more expensive. Compare this to Evergreen Line, which have 2.5 elevated stations, 1 at-grade station, 1 partial at-grade and trenched station, and 1 partial at-grade and elevated station.
3. Land acquisition: Seems like it is a major issue for West LRT that dramatically increase the cost. They even have to relocate a high school to make way for the track.
4. Train cost: I think 26 of the recent order of 38 LRVs are to be allocated to WLRT, while Evergreen Line requires only 28 cars. The lower train requirement on Evergreen is due to shorter trains (2-cars for Evergreen vs 3-cars for WLRT), faster operating speed (so train can do more trips per day), and lower spare ratio (3~6% for MkII SkyTrain compared to 16~20% for C-Train).
5. Construction cost is higher in Calgary compared to Vancouver, I suppose.