The Great Canadian Transit Thread

[davidivivid]

$400M will be invested on 118 worksites of the road network in Quebec City this year, though the bulk of the money will be spent on few specific projects. On the following map, projects 3 and 5 consist of the widening of two main overpasses. Next year, the highway stretch situated between these two overpasses will be widened to 3 lanes in each direction and security features will be added.

Number 7 represents the largest worksite in the city since Quebec's major interchange is being completely overhauled. Other overpasses on the same highway will be widened and most importantly, a long stretch of said highway (dotted blue line) will be upgraded to accomodate a bus only lane.


Most of the work done this year is in fact preparatory work of larger projects which will begin in the next couple of years.



http://www.cyberpresse.ca/le-soleil/actu...presse_B4_en-manchette_2238_section_POS1

[Nouvellecosse]

Originally Posted by Rico Rommheim

The Montreal metro is great, but we have a lot to learn from Vancouver's sky train. I rode it again today just for kicks a d it is thoroughly enjoyable experience, especially if you get a chance to sit in the front seat of the first car.

Plus, you missed your train? No problem
The next one is in 2 minutes...in the middle of the afternoon...


My view of an ideal Montreal metro system would be to combine our existing system of underground tunnels with a Vancouver style elevated train that shoots you deep into the suburbs.

I partially agree with that. I agree it would be good for there to be Vancouver Skytrain-style service in MTL suburbs, particularly a line to service the west-island and airport, and a south shore line running from Boucherville to Brossard and feeding the yellow line. And I also would not oppose switching the current metro stock to steel wheels using Mark II Skytrain cars. The rubber tyred system is noisy, less smooth, and less energy efficient.

But I disagree that the change would allow the metro to be extended much farther into the suburbs. Maybe a few stops, but as an urban focused system, the metro has fairly close stop spacing compared to commuter style systems like SF's BART or Washington's Metrorail that reach far into the suburbs. Extending the metro much farther would make for tedious journeys due to the high number of stops.

[someone123]

Originally Posted by Nouvellecosse

But I disagree that the change would allow the metro to be extended much farther into the suburbs. Maybe a few stops, but as an urban focused system, the metro has fairly close stop spacing compared to commuter style systems like SF's BART or Washington's Metrorail that reach far into the suburbs. Extending the metro much farther would make for tedious journeys due to the high number of stops.

BART has stops that are close together in urban areas and farther apart in suburbs. That's pretty standard. Sometimes they'll even start a line with sparse stations and then add new ones over time.

I think SkyTrain service is ideal for most situations. Elevated trains are cheaper than tunnels, don't take up much space, and can be fully-automated (so you can affordably run at a great 2 minute frequency even in the afternoon). Vancouver has a great transit system considering how much money has been invested in it.

In the future I think we will see automated LRT lines that share some street-level crossings. Those will again represent a technological advancement and will be great for certain situations. Automation would be great for smaller cities and corridors where it is not otherwise feasible to operate at high frequencies.

[Wharn]

Originally Posted by Andrewjm3D

Good continue to ignore the facts and live in your fantasy world where a subway is the only form of transit that should be invested in. It really must be upsetting for the two of you, four of you if you include Rob Ford that Millers Transit City is back in motion.

If you've even bothered reading our posts you'll notice that I argue in favour of grade-separation, not subways. Having LRT on its own right-of-way or underground is fine by me, but the minute a "rapid" transit system has to interact with at-grade intersections, it is not truly "rapid". End of story. I just don't think it's worth our time to be spending billions on what are essentially upgraded surface routes.

Using your logic, the VMP in London or the Harbour Expressway in Thunder Bay must both be freeways, because they're clearly better and faster than arterials, and there's less interference from pesky sidestreets.

I've also addressed those other points in previous posts, so I'm not going to bother with it again. I will say, however, that I've never claimed LRT was more expensive to run or build, EVER.

Originally Posted by Andrewjm3D

Winner


Big Fat Loser (2 years 9 months until he's gone)

The way you childishly framed those two pictures pretty much sums up why I ignored you.

It's basically the same kind of crap I'd expect to see on Reddit or 4Chan, but not here.

[Wharn]

Originally Posted by Troll

most of the streetcar system is over 100 years old

That's a good point, actually. But then again, so is the automobile.

Originally Posted by Nouvellecosse

The difference of course being that Montreal already has a metro system as large as Toronto's despite being a much smaller city. It is not in desperate need of metro expansion at this point. It could use it, but that's also the case for most cities.

Couldn't have said it better myself. Toronto's problem is that it has a system that's much too small for the overall size of the city. The aim ought to be to bring metro-style transit as close as possible to as many people as possible.

Originally Posted by Nouvellecosse

Besides, when Montreal does decide to expand the metro, it is not as important for it to emerge above ground to save money considering the underground system costs only 1/2 as much per KM as Toronto's underground system. At $300-$350 million per km, building underground subway in Toronto is toxic and can only be justified in the densest and busiest of areas. At a comparatively paltry $150 million per km, building MTL metro underground seems like a bargain.

What exactly makes it so expensive again? Underground streams? Glacial till? Concrete that doesn't collapse?

(I jest with the last one, of course, please don't kill me)

[Tony]

Originally Posted by Wharn

If you've even bothered reading our posts you'll notice that I argue in favour of grade-separation, not subways. Having LRT on its own right-of-way or underground is fine by me, but the minute a "rapid" transit system has to interact with at-grade intersections, it is not truly "rapid". End of story. I just don't think it's worth our time to be spending billions on what are essentially upgraded surface routes.

Right... too bad LRT in the TTC case stands for Light RAIL Transit. Not "rapid". Seriously, look it up.

[1331Massi]

Originally Posted by Nouvellecosse

The rubber tyred system is noisy, less smooth, and less energy efficient.

The system is noisy and bumpy because of the poor suspension. I think the cars have the right to be less energy-efficient, considering that they were brought into service in 1966 and 1976.

Originally Posted by Nouvellecosse

It is not in desperate need of metro expansion at this point.

the underground system costs only 1/2 as much per KM as Toronto's underground system.

The 300,000 people in the east end NOT SERVED BY METRO would beg to differ. The AMT wants to put a BRT where it was already proven that subway was a necessity. Also, you showed the bullshit numbers the province used to get the Laval extension built.

Originally Posted by Alexcaban

Actually the plan by 2020 is to have the Blue Line extend east towards Anjou, a northern extension of the Orange Line to Bois-Franc and Laval, and a South Shore extension of the Yellow Line to Longueil.

The key word is plan. I am very aware of these expansion that were given the green light 3 years ago, but we haven't heard anything about since. Is it a plan? Yes. Will it happen anytime soon? No chance in hell.

Originally Posted by Rico Rommheim

The tragedy with greater Montreal's transit system, Is that there is no system. Greater Vancouver had trans link, we have a dozen and more transit orgs.

In sum, greater Montreal's transit system is obsessed with getting workers from suburbs to downtown offices and back. And nothing more.

That's exactly right. But I would prefer Sapporo-style covered tracks to a el exposed to our winters.

[The_Architect]

Looks like Oakville received a visit from Lyle Lanley...

Mayor eyes big picture on future of transit system

Budget and job market promising in Oakville

Will Oakville’s transit system one day feature automated trains?

Oakville Mayor Rob Burton opened the door to that possibility Tuesday during his presentation before the Oakville Chamber of Commerce where he played a video featuring the Siemens Canada project titled Cityval.

“It presents opportunities for communities all over the world to solve the problem of getting around,” said Burton.

The computer-generated video advertised a fully-automated metro system called Cityval, which the narrator said has the ability to instantaneously match train capacity with passenger demand by either adding or reducing trains.

The video showed that with the click of a mouse, the Cityval operational centre could run trains at shorter intervals or longer trains at rush hour and shorter, fewer trains during off-peak periods.

Cityval, the video said, has been designed to smoothly integrate into a city and can adapt to any configuration with its concrete platform running along viaducts, at ground level or in tunnels.

This adaptability is possible because the Cityval runs on tires.

...

Following the video, Burton praised Siemens Canada, that announced in August it would be moving its corporate head office to Oakville where it will employ approximately 800 people.

...

• Video Link

http://www.insidehalton.com/community/oakvillebeaver/article/1326088

Though I must say I do like that future image of Oakville.. Looks like they'll have to lose that town status though.

[Wharn]

Originally Posted by Tony

Right... too bad LRT in the TTC case stands for Light RAIL Transit. Not "rapid". Seriously, look it up.

Yes, I know this, but far too often people try to sell it as true rapid transit, which it isn't.

Originally Posted by 1331Massi

The 300,000 people in the east end NOT SERVED BY METRO would beg to differ. The AMT wants to put a BRT where it was already proven that subway was a necessity. Also, you showed the bullshit numbers the province used to get the Laval extension built.

This sounds strangely familiar. Why is the AMT trying to impose a BRT system on the East End, while working to extend a subway into nowhere? Realistically BRT isn't even an acceptable solution for a city of 500,000, let alone one of several million.

Originally Posted by 1331Massi

That's exactly right. But I would prefer Sapporo-style covered tracks to a el exposed to our winters.

I have to agree with this. I'm not sure how the rubber tires would do trudging through the snow (unless Montreal wants to install winter tires on the metro ), and regardless adding a little tube-like steel roof would greatly improve reliability in inclement weather.

Originally Posted by The_Architect

http://www.insidehalton.com/community/oakvillebeaver/article/1326088

Off-topic, but that video... is pretty much what Sim City 5 should look like.

[Alexcaban]

Originally Posted by Nouvellecosse

The rubber tyred system is noisy, less smooth, and less energy efficient.

Everything about this sentence is wrong!! The new trains will prove that.

[Rico Rommheim]

Originally Posted by 1331Massi

That's exactly right. But I would prefer Sapporo-style covered tracks to a el exposed to our winters.

My idea of a Montreal "Sky train" would be to have a different rolling stock used for the "L" line altogether. Basically it would be the same skytrain technology: the light automated cars with high frequency. The Montreal metro technology was chosen out of cultural values, not so much necessity.

[Nouvellecosse]

Originally Posted by 1331Massi

The system is noisy and bumpy because of the poor suspension. I think the cars have the right to be less energy-efficient, considering that they were brought into service in 1966 and 1976.

I don't mean less energy efficient due to being old, but rather due to rubber tires having a much higher co-efficient of rolling fiction than steel wheels have.

Originally Posted by 1331Massi

The 300,000 people in the east end NOT SERVED BY METRO would beg to differ. The AMT wants to put a BRT where it was already proven that subway was a necessity. Also, you showed the bullshit numbers the province used to get the Laval extension built.

I personally want to see a whole new line serving the east, one that will not only service Montreal north, but that will pass through the dense eastern inner city neighbourhoods to provide additional service there.

But still, you can't compare Montreal's need for transit expansion to that of Toronto. The suburb of Mississauga for example is Canada's 6th largest municipality with a population of over 700,000 and it has no rapid transit connection. It only has a couple of GO train lines with infrequent service (hourly) with one line not even running all day. The suburb of Brampton has 500,000 and only has one GO line, and the city of Toronto itself has 2,700,000 with a subway the size of Montreal's who has 1,650,000.

[Nouvellecosse]

Originally Posted by Alexcaban

Everything about this sentence is wrong!! The new trains will prove that.

I'm sure they'll be an improvement but you can't ignore the fact that there are fundamental differences between rubber tyre and steel wheel technology.

[sober2ndthought]

Originally Posted by Andrewjm3D

That's a really good question. I'm not sure if they are tall enough but it would be a great idea if they could remove the subway trains and just put the LRT's down there. The platforms are much shorter on that line then on the other two main lines but I bet they could still support a three car LRT. As for the amount of transfers. A DRL would fix that. Also anybody leaving STC to go to the Yonge line is going well out of there way to get downtown. Even when they get to the Yonge line, good luck getting on a train during rush hour.

There is an interesting solution from Oslo called the Kolsås Line. In that case the line is a hybrid between LRT and Subway but he tunnels cannot accommodate cantary so the tunnels use third rail and the above around sections use cantary. The way they make it work is the train can operate using either third rail or cantary wiring. The trains are high-floor trains and resemble the U2s in Calgary.

I have always said something like that work well on Sheppard it would allow the city to implement one continuous flowing line from Young to STC. The only major change would need to make is make the underground tunnel use standard gauge as opposed to the TTC gauge.

[Alexcaban]

Originally Posted by Nouvellecosse

I'm sure they'll be an improvement but you can't ignore the fact that there are fundamental differences between rubber tyre and steel wheel technology.

I personally hate steel wheel subways, I find them annoying and worse then rubber tire noise (the big difference is that I don't go deaf when the metro turns corners) and I feel like the metro moves faster.

[vegeta_skyline]

Originally Posted by Nouvellecosse

It only has a couple of GO train lines with infrequent service (hourly)

That's still a higher frequency of passenger rail service than any where else in the country

[Andrewjm3D]

Originally Posted by Wharn

The way you childishly framed those two pictures pretty much sums up why I ignored you.

Bravo, good job on ignoring me.

Too easy.

[Andrewjm3D]

Originally Posted by sober2ndthought

There is an interesting solution from Oslo called the Kolsås Line. In that case the line is a hybrid between LRT and Subway but he tunnels cannot accommodate cantary so the tunnels use third rail and the above around sections use cantary. The way they make it work is the train can operate using either third rail or cantary wiring. The trains are high-floor trains and resemble the U2s in Calgary.

I have always said something like that work well on Sheppard it would allow the city to implement one continuous flowing line from Young to STC. The only major change would need to make is make the underground tunnel use standard gauge as opposed to the TTC gauge.

I just took a look, that's a great solution. Thanks for providing the example to look at.

[Troll]

Originally Posted by Alexcaban

I personally hate steel wheel subways, I find them annoying and worse then rubber tire noise (the big difference is that I don't go deaf when the metro turns corners) and I feel like the metro moves faster.

you're not being very objective here

[whiteford]

the advantages of a Calgary type lrt system vs expensive heavy or light rail, underground subways systems for the Toronto area would be enormous. dollar for dollar, you would move and reach many times more people. you would think that the choice would be obvious to any transportation planers.