The Great Canadian Transit Thread - Page 202

logan5 · #**4021** Posted **Mar 21, 2014, 10:55 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by GreaterMontréal

In Montréal, the LRT will move 30 000 pph at rush hour. It's like a metro.

Which light rail. I googled and found some vague plan for the Cnamplain Bridge. 30 000 pph is a lot for a light rail line in N.A.

kwoldtimer · #**4022** Posted **Mar 21, 2014, 11:00 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Innsertnamehere

Really? People are complaining that Sheppard will have really low ridership for it, and it will be closer to 40,000 daily users. I'm fully supportive of the LRT don't get me wrong, but 25,000 daily users on a 17km LRT is fairly low no matter how to put it. It'll no doubt be a huge success and have skyrocketing ridership, but still.

Ion will be 19km. The goal of 25,000 daily users is upon completion in 2017. The goal for 2031 is 56,000 daily users.

GreaterMontréal · #**4023** Posted **Mar 21, 2014, 11:07 PM**

Quote:

Which light rail. I googled and found some vague plan for the Cnamplain Bridge. 30 000 pph is a lot for a light rail line in N.A.

The new LRT on Champlain.

'The SLR, fully electric, would transport 32,000 passengers per hour in both directions''

http://www.ledevoir.com/politique/montre...me-son-choix-d-un-systeme-leger-sur-rail

sorry it's in french.

GlassCity · #**4024** Posted **Mar 21, 2014, 11:18 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by GreaterMontréal

In Montréal, the LRT will move 30 000 pph at rush hour. It's like a metro.

Well it all really depends project to project. I'm not familiar with Montreal at all really, so I can't really say anything about this one. But I mean generally in an urban setting such as city streets, I really don't see the point of LRT as it will be no doubt slower than a grade-separated metro, even if it might reach capacity goals. But going down a highway median for example it would be stupid to build it underground.

Quote:

Originally Posted by kwoldtimer

Ion will be 19km. The goal of 25,000 daily users is upon completion in 2017. The goal for 2031 is 56,000 daily users.

Yeah, with ridership like that I think a bus would be more than enough for now.

logan5 · #**4025** Posted **Mar 21, 2014, 11:35 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by GreaterMontréal

The new LRT on Champlain.

'The SLR, fully electric, would transport 32,000 passengers per hour in both directions''

http://www.ledevoir.com/politique/montre...me-son-choix-d-un-systeme-leger-sur-rail

sorry it's in french.

Thanx for the link. No problem with google translate.

The article says "would transport", that suggests a peak load of 32 000 pph.But I'm presuming that would be the capacity?

GreaterMontréal · #**4026** Posted **Mar 21, 2014, 11:59 PM**

Quote:

that suggests a peak load of 32 000 pph.But I'm presuming that would be the capacity?

yes, the maximum speed suggests 32 000 pph max. 100kmh

capacity : 665
5 car trains of 131

rush hour 3min

Innsertnamehere · #**4027** Posted **Mar 22, 2014, 12:22 AM**

that seems really high.. that is more than the Yonge subway currently..

edit: PPHD is 13,000, much more reasonable. could 32,000 be daily riders?

Innsertnamehere · #**4028** Posted **Mar 22, 2014, 12:30 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by caltrane74

That's true. The Dufferin Bus has 50 000 daily riders or more..

Just ridiculous....

Other Bus routes with ridiculous ridership? Bathurst? And Finch?

Combined the Eglinton buses get over 80,000 daily users. Eglinton is by far the busiest bus corridor in the city, especially considering that the Lawrence bus parallels it for a large distance siphoning ridership as people simply get on whatever one comes first. The Eglinton corridor probably gets close to 100,000 daily users.

Dufferin also has 40,000. 34 Eglinton West is the busiest single bus route, handling ~50,000 daily users. the busiest surface route is 510 spadina which while being the newest streetcar route, it handles over 55,000 daily trips.

50,000 is also very low for a subway. you typically want closer to 100,000+, and an LRT can typically take you to 200,000 quite easily. It also depends on the length of the route or dozens of other factors. When deciding whether you need LRT or subway you need to more look at peak demand, or PPHD and ensure the technology you are using matches the demand. Buses can handle up to around 3,000 PPHD, BRT up to between 5,000-10,000 PPHD (depending on construction type), LRTs 10,000 - 20,000 PPHD and subways 20,000 - 40,000 PPHD.

nname · #**4029** Posted **Mar 22, 2014, 12:38 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Innsertnamehere

that seems really high.. that is more than the Yonge subway currently..

edit: PPHD is 13,000, much more reasonable. could 32,000 be daily riders?

It could mean a peak boarding of 32,000 per hour for all stations combined.

GreaterMontréal · #**4030** Posted **Mar 22, 2014, 12:39 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Innsertnamehere

that seems really high.. that is more than the Yonge subway currently..

edit: PPHD is 13,000, much more reasonable. could 32,000 be daily riders?

It's not daily riders, but more like 32 000 for the entire rush hour. 13,300 pph .

so maybe 100,000 total per day.

Nouvellecosse · #**4031** Posted **Mar 22, 2014, 4:47 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by GlassCity

99 B-Line gets 55,000 as of 2011.

This is why I don't believe in LRT, I don't think there's a middle ground: Once a bus gets to 50,000 people a day, you might as well put in a subway.

I have to partially agree. I think Canada tends to have rather conservative in terms of ridership requirements for new metro lines. But there's also several degrees of subway or metro. For a heavy duty, mainly underground, 100m + platform systems, this has higher ridership requirements than a metro that can use cost-saving measures like short trains (like skytrain) or significant surface sections along a railway or highway corridor. If the conditions allow a metro line to be constructed using cost saving measures by having convenient access to surface or elevated corridors, then much lower ridership is needed to justify it. If not, an intermediate step such as LRT which can have street running sections and at-grade crossings can be useful.

I'd personally rather see the Champlain bridge line use automated light metro stock rather than LRT because there is already going to be a dedicated corridor on the bridge itself and up the central station, and once on the south shore, it's very suburban with wide streets which makes elevated sections a no-brainer.

ssiguy · #**4032** Posted **Mar 22, 2014, 5:47 AM**

When spending big bucks on Metros it is essential to plan ahead which is the downfall of the Canada line with it's tiny 40 meter stations only expandable to 50 meters. The system is already over capacity all thanks to Gordo who was not interested in transit for the future but just making sure something go built by the Olympics and Vancouverites are paying the price.

nname · #**4033** Posted **Mar 22, 2014, 7:10 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by ssiguy

When spending big bucks on Metros it is essential to plan ahead which is the downfall of the Canada line with it's tiny 40 meter stations only expandable to 50 meters. The system is already over capacity all thanks to Gordo who was not interested in transit for the future but just making sure something go built by the Olympics and Vancouverites are paying the price.

The Canada Line during peak hours is not even as crowded as the Expo Line - the Richmond train is crowded but the Airport train always have room. The whole "over capacity" thing is just because they do not run enough train - they were thinking about adding two more trains on top of the current 16 during peak hours, but ultimately decided not to because it is not needed. With 2 cars 3min 10sec headway, the system is only at 42% of its ultimate capacity.

SFUVancouver · #**4034** Posted **Mar 22, 2014, 7:57 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by ssiguy

When spending big bucks on Metros it is essential to plan ahead which is the downfall of the Canada line with it's tiny 40 meter stations only expandable to 50 meters. The system is already over capacity all thanks to Gordo who was not interested in transit for the future but just making sure something go built by the Olympics and Vancouverites are paying the price.

It's not over capacity. At peak times at peak stations it is full. Additional trains can be run to increase capacity. With that said, the system was under-built.

miketoronto · #**4035** Posted **Mar 22, 2014, 1:06 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Innsertnamehere

Really? People are complaining that Sheppard will have really low ridership for it, and it will be closer to 40,000 daily users. I'm fully supportive of the LRT don't get me wrong, but 25,000 daily users on a 17km LRT is fairly low no matter how to put it. It'll no doubt be a huge success and have skyrocketing ridership, but still.

It is not always about just today's need. You need to plan for the future, and you need to understand this is not 1950 anymore.

Today, you have to build higher order transit to offer a real alternative to the auto, because people have a choice. And they are not going to wait for a bus line to magically carry 60,000 riders a day before converting to a metro system.

You also have to take the context of the area into account. And when doing that, the Waterloo LRT is an outstanding building block to better transit in Waterloo Region.

Seriously, there are metro systems in European cities which don't carry much more than the planned Waterloo LRT ridership.

I am glad Canada runs efficient transit networks. But sometimes we take it a little far, and don't understand that every train needs to be packed.

Further to this fact, I guess Edmonton should not have built LRT? Because their initial line did not have much better ridership. And the KM difference was not that big.

GlassCity · #**4036** Posted **Mar 22, 2014, 5:07 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by miketoronto

It is not always about just today's need. You need to plan for the future, and you need to understand this is not 1950 anymore.

Today, you have to build higher order transit to offer a real alternative to the auto, because people have a choice. And they are not going to wait for a bus line to magically carry 60,000 riders a day before converting to a metro system.

You also have to take the context of the area into account. And when doing that, the Waterloo LRT is an outstanding building block to better transit in Waterloo Region.

Seriously, there are metro systems in European cities which don't carry much more than the planned Waterloo LRT ridership.

I am glad Canada runs efficient transit networks. But sometimes we take it a little far, and don't understand that every train needs to be packed.

Further to this fact, I guess Edmonton should not have built LRT? Because their initial line did not have much better ridership. And the KM difference was not that big.

It depends case to case, but Montreal, Vancouver and Toronto all started their rapid transit systems well past a population of 1,000,000 and they seem to have done okay.

By building rapid transit in corridors that may not need them, you're spending money which could have gone to cheaper things like improving bus service all over the city. If bus service is able to meet demand, I really don't see the point of anything more. Too many cities (I'm looking at the US) build rapid transit just to say they have it and show everybody how committed they are to transit.

I just don't believe in building rail transit just because people like it more. A transit system can be very effective without any rapid transit at all. Building to attract ridership doesn't make sense because transit is a service, not a business. With high quality bus service and NATURAL development on some corridors eventually a rapid transit system will be needed.

But it all really depends on a person's opinion on the chicken or the egg question of "development or transit first?" This applies to cities too. There is always more than one way to look at things.

caltrane74 · #**4037** Posted **Mar 23, 2014, 3:25 AM**

Work is beginning on the Easternmost insertion point (Brencliff/Laird/Don Mills Area) for the Eglinton Crosstown LRT. The two tunnel boring machines will be assembled on sight and then work their way west to Yonge Street which will be the extraction point for all four Tunnel Boring Machines. Expect Yonge Street to basically shut down when that time comes.

This is a rendering of Yonge/Eglinton after the work has been completed. Giving you an idea of how the Crosstown LRT (underground) here will intersect with the Yonge Subway Line (also underground)

Innsertnamehere · #**4038** Posted **Mar 23, 2014, 3:34 AM**

The TTC platform will also be moved north 70 meters to better align with the LRT, meaning there will be 50 weekend shutdowns of the yonge line between Davisville and Lawrence for that construction.. that'll be fun. Its still 2 or 3 years off yet though at least.

TownGuy · #**4039** Posted **Mar 23, 2014, 3:26 PM**

50 weekend shut downs. Geez.

DrJoe · #**4040** Posted **Mar 23, 2014, 3:28 PM**

That really does seem like a lot.