The Great Canadian Transit Thread - Page 143

Chadillaccc · #**2841** Posted **Sep 20, 2013, 5:06 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Innsertnamehere

That's not metro rail though, and GOs stations on 5 of the 7 lines are nothing more than ashphalt platforms, a small station building to sell tickets, and a parking lot. Lakeshore stations involve large buildings, parking garages, and multiple platforms however, and deserve higher praise.

Lol, that's exactly what most transit elitists think about the Ctrain too

However, our only bare-bones station is being demolished and rebuilt into a new more inviting station more appropriate for this day and age. 39th Avenue is one of the original stations from the first line. All it has are 4 unprotected bus shelters on the platforms. Terrible!

Aylmer · #**2842** Posted **Sep 20, 2013, 1:07 PM**

Tramway proposal in Gatineau - it's been picked up by one of the major players in the municipal election: Action Gatineau souhaite un Tramway à Aylmer

The article is in French, but project's website is bilingual: PlanAylmer

Chadillaccc · #**2843** Posted **Sep 20, 2013, 1:33 PM**

That is awesome! Ottawa could be our 2nd metro with a multi-modal rail transit network (Toronto is currently the only one, with subway and streetcar, soon to add LRT). Maybe Ottawa-Gatineau could even beat Vancouver's downtown streetcar to fruition!

Aylmer · #**2844** Posted **Sep 20, 2013, 2:02 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chadillaccc

That is awesome! Ottawa could be our 2nd metro with a multi-modal rail transit network (Toronto is currently the only one, with subway and streetcar, soon to add LRT). Maybe Ottawa-Gatineau could even beat Vancouver's downtown streetcar to fruition!

What's proposed is actually ROW, but not as elaborate as LRT (grade-separated, big stations, etc.), analogous to systems in Montpellier, Barcelona, Le Mans, Le Havre, Besancon, etc.

Acajack · #**2845** Posted **Sep 20, 2013, 2:05 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chadillaccc

That is awesome! Ottawa could be our 2nd metro with a multi-modal rail transit network (Toronto is currently the only one, with subway and streetcar, soon to add LRT). Maybe Ottawa-Gatineau could even beat Vancouver's downtown streetcar to fruition!

What can I say, that Aylmer guy is a really good salesman!

Chadillaccc · #**2846** Posted **Sep 20, 2013, 2:14 PM**

You mean the system will be analogous to systems in Montpellier, Barcelona, Le Mans, Le Havre, Besancon, etc, or do you mean that those systems are analogous with larger systems with larger stations such as Ctrain and Edmonton LRT?

Aylmer · #**2847** Posted **Sep 20, 2013, 2:23 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chadillaccc

You mean the system will be analogous to systems in Montpellier, Barcelona, Le Mans, Le Havre, Besancon, etc, or do you mean that those systems are analogous with larger systems with larger stations such as Ctrain and Edmonton LRT?

The first option

Acajack · #**2848** Posted **Sep 20, 2013, 2:42 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chadillaccc

That is awesome! Ottawa could be our 2nd metro with a multi-modal rail transit network (Toronto is currently the only one, with subway and streetcar, soon to add LRT). Maybe Ottawa-Gatineau could even beat Vancouver's downtown streetcar to fruition!

Is having different modes of rail in a transit system really a good thing? Not saying it's bad - just wondering, other than the fact that rail and transit buffs find it cool, what's the advantage?

Chadillaccc · #**2849** Posted **Sep 20, 2013, 3:02 PM**

Well in Toronto, for instance, the positive effects are pretty obvious I think. The subway has long distance, reliable, rapid service, while connecting streecars can pick people up right outside the station, and take them to their short to mid distance destinations.

For Vancouver, the streetcar would connect the entire area around False Creek with the skytrain, tons of stations uniting popular destinations such as Granville Island, Science World, Olympic Village, BC Place, Rogers Arena, Yaletown, and the Davie Village.

Streetcars are great for the short distances with reliable and sometimes preferential ROW service. That is the benefit, similar to busses, but with more prestige and reliability.

Once Calgary has the 201 and 203 subways through downtown, it won't be multi-modal but it will appear as such. While the 202 will still be a free fare tram service through the core, the two other lines will be separated subways through downtown, offering quicker access to a more diverse range of areas, with longer distance between stations. I believe the 203 line will go underground as far as 12th Avenue, while the 201 subway will be under 8th ave, and the 202 on surface on 7h ave. A massive portion of the downtown will be covered by a seemingly muli-modal service with the surface LRT having much shorter distance between stations in the core.

Rico Rommheim · #**2850** Posted **Sep 20, 2013, 3:18 PM**

One thing I don't understand: why is subway-streetcar considered multi-modal and subway-commuter train (GO, AMT) not?

Chadillaccc · #**2851** Posted **Sep 20, 2013, 3:20 PM**

I think some people do consider it multi modal. But commuter rail is intercity rail, I was more referring to intracity rail transit.

Coldrsx · #**2852** Posted **Sep 20, 2013, 3:32 PM**

SE-LRT images from Edmonton

(http://www.edmontonjournal.com/news/edmonton/cms/binary/8935364.jpg?size=620x400s)

(http://www.edmontonjournal.com/news/edmonton/cms/binary/8935448.jpg?size=620x400s)

(http://www.edmontonjournal.com/news/edmonton/cms/binary/8935447.jpg?size=620x400s)

(http://www.edmontonjournal.com/news/edmonton/cms/binary/8935446.jpg?size=620x400s)

(http://www.edmontonjournal.com/news/edmonton/cms/binary/8935445.jpg?size=620x400s)

(http://www.edmontonjournal.com/news/edmonton/cms/binary/8935444.jpg?size=620x400s)

(http://www.edmontonjournal.com/news/edmonton/cms/binary/8935420.jpg?size=620x400s)

(http://www.edmontonjournal.com/news/edmonton/cms/binary/8935363.jpg?size=620x400s)

(http://www.edmontonjournal.com/news/edmonton/cms/binary/8935365.jpg?size=620x400s)

(http://www.edmontonjournal.com/news/edmonton/cms/binary/8935366.jpg?size=620x400s)

(http://www.edmontonjournal.com/news/edmonton/cms/binary/8935367.jpg?size=620x400s)

(http://www.edmontonjournal.com/news/edmonton/cms/binary/8935368.jpg?size=620x400s)

(http://www.edmontonjournal.com/news/edmonton/cms/binary/8935369.jpg?size=620x400s)

http://www.edmontonjournal.com/news/edmonton/Photos+Southeast+taking+shape/8935382/story.html

Chadillaccc · #**2853** Posted **Sep 20, 2013, 3:45 PM**

What was everyone talking about that it would be fully inegrated into the street, basically as a streetcar? That doesn't look like a streetcar at all. Looks amazing!

Coldrsx · #**2854** Posted **Sep 20, 2013, 3:46 PM**

A bit of both, downtown it will be built into the street and much more like a streetcar, outside of the downtown going SE it will be a bit of a hybrid.

Nouvellecosse · #**2855** Posted **Sep 20, 2013, 4:46 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rico Rommheim

One thing I don't understand: why is subway-streetcar considered multi-modal and subway-commuter train (GO, AMT) not?

Firstly because they're also operated by different transport agencies. But also because the different modes aren't serving the same areas. Most subways are used as urban transport and with a few exceptions don't reach very into the suburbs, whereas commuter trains serve outer suburban areas and even reach satellite towns and cities beyond. Commuter trains do often provide a few stops in the urban area but a low enough percentage with a low enough frequency that they usually don't play much of an "urban" transport role. If there was higher frequency suburban rail (like London Overground) that predominantly served the urban and suburban area then that could be called multi-modal.

Quite fitting seeing as TfL operates both services, whereas most Commuter rail services are operated by separate organizations.

Acajack · #**2856** Posted **Sep 20, 2013, 4:56 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chadillaccc

Well in Toronto, for instance, the positive effects are pretty obvious I think. The subway has long distance, reliable, rapid service, while connecting streecars can pick people up right outside the station, and take them to their short to mid distance destinations.

For Vancouver, the streetcar would connect the entire area around False Creek with the skytrain, tons of stations uniting popular destinations such as Granville Island, Science World, Olympic Village, BC Place, Rogers Arena, Yaletown, and the Davie Village.

Streetcars are great for the short distances with reliable and sometimes preferential ROW service. That is the benefit, similar to busses, but with more prestige and reliability.

Once Calgary has the 201 and 203 subways through downtown, it won't be multi-modal but it will appear as such. While the 202 will still be a free fare tram service through the core, the two other lines will be separated subways through downtown, offering quicker access to a more diverse range of areas, with longer distance between stations. I believe the 203 line will go underground as far as 12th Avenue, while the 201 subway will be under 8th ave, and the 202 on surface on 7h ave. A massive portion of the downtown will be covered by a seemingly muli-modal service with the surface LRT having much shorter distance between stations in the core.

You are talking about complementary services for different needs.

In the case of the Aylmer project in Gatineau, it's really a different mode that would be used to serve a very similar purpose. I don't see why the western part of Gatineau (Aylmer) is innately more suited to a tramway than it is to BRT (Rapibus - opening in a month in eastern Gatineau), or how Rapibus BRT is somehow more innately suitable for the eastern part of the city (other than the fact that it is now there) than a tramway would have been...

I would have been fine with a tramway-type system (provided it was fast and not 15-20 kmh like many of them of are) but in the end we ended up with BRT - at least for the foreseeable future.

I am willing to be convinced but somehow I can't see the logic of operating a different technology for a similarly laid out area and purpose, with all of the additional requirements it would entail when it comes to procurement, maintenance, training, operations, etc.

I believe Toronto sort of admits that the Scarborough RT was maybe a mistake (different tech from the subway) and is now planning to convert it to a subway-type system like the rest of the network.

Aylmer · #**2857** Posted **Sep 20, 2013, 5:21 PM**

In the case of Aylmer, it isn't a choice of technology, but rather a choice of corridor: BRT, needing maneuvering space and passing lanes at stations, would have to pass along the highway, north of the city whereas tramway RoW takes a small enough space that it could fit on the central corridors to join up with the centre of Aylmer and the Plateau, serving people and connecting services within a walkable radius and concentrating development along the main street instead of the highway.

Scarborough was a different story altogether - the technology was the goal, not a means and basically all of its riders have to transfer rather needlessly to another line whereas only 1% of trips from Aylmer are to Gatineau, according to the Origin-Destination survey of 2011.

I don't think that choosing something based on the technology (either to be different or the same) is wise - it is not a end in itself but rather a tool. And just as I wouldn't use a hammer to screw a screw just because I hammered a nail beforehand, I wouldn't recommend BRT in Aylmer just because it was used in Gatineau because that particular solution (literally) doesn't fit.

Chadillaccc · #**2858** Posted **Sep 20, 2013, 5:32 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Acajack

You are talking about complementary services for different needs.

Yes, Multi-modal!

Acajack · #**2859** Posted **Sep 20, 2013, 5:51 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Aylmer

In the case of Aylmer, it isn't a choice of technology, but rather a choice of corridor: BRT, needing maneuvering space and passing lanes at stations, would have to pass along the highway, north of the city whereas tramway RoW takes a small enough space that it could fit on the central corridors to join up with the centre of Aylmer and the Plateau, serving people and connecting services within a walkable radius and concentrating development along the main street instead of the highway.

Scarborough was a different story altogether - the technology was the goal, not a means and basically all of its riders have to transfer rather needlessly to another line whereas only 1% of trips from Aylmer are to Gatineau, according to the Origin-Destination survey of 2011.

I don't think that choosing something based on the technology (either to be different or the same) is wise - it is not a end in itself but rather a tool. And just as I wouldn't use a hammer to screw a screw just because I hammered a nail beforehand, I wouldn't recommend BRT in Aylmer just because it was used in Gatineau because that particular solution (literally) doesn't fit.

You could most definitely fit BRT into Aylmer along that southern route to the town centre. You make it sound like this area is super-dense - it is not densely built-up at all and BRT could definitely work there as well.

Look, I personally prefer rail-based transit to buses, but I think given the investments we have made, it would foolish to spend all that money on setting up an entirely new operational unit for our transit operator.

I don't want to sound too harsh, but I was thinking of voting for Action Gatineau but now if they want to go this route just because some people think a tram would be more "chic" than buses, then I think I may have found my "ballot question" for the upcoming elections.

Aylmer · #**2860** Posted **Sep 20, 2013, 6:36 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Acajack

You could most definitely fit BRT into Aylmer along that southern route to the town centre. You make it sound like this area is super-dense - it is not densely built-up at all and BRT could definitely work there as well.

I'm afraid that the question of whether BRT could fit there is fact: according to the APTA's minimums, BRT requires 4.5m of space per direction, plus passing lanes at stations. At a rather narrow 14m, the Chemin d'Aylmer would only have 5m of space for automobile traffic and expropriations would be necessary to accommodate stations. If we did go through with that, we could expect the cost to increase, on top of facing strong opposition from heritage groups and provincial regulation which, because of the corridor's heritage status, makes intrusive changes to it hell on a good day.

We definitely could go through all this trouble if we really do insist on having a certain kind of technology, but wasn't imposing a technology the problem of Scarborough's RT or the myriad of "modern streetcar" systems being built around the US? How is choosing a technology because it's more "serious" any more logical than choosing because it's more "chic"?

There are arguments against the project, but this simply isn't one of them.