The Great Canadian Transit Thread

[travis3000]

Toronto is about to embark on a huge transit expansion over the next 10 years.

[ssiguy]

That doesn't change the fact that both Toronto and Montreal have basically done squat in terms of mass/rapid transit expansion in the last 30 years especially when compared to Calgary and Vancouver.

Most of the blame can be laid right at the doorstep of the citizens themselves. Both Montrealers and Torontonians seem to think that a subway/Metro is only that if it runs underground regardless of the density of the area or if there are affordable rail corridors that could be used. Their old school and close minded mentalities towards alternative systems , designs, applications, and technology have brought their expansions {and the cities themselves} to a screeching halt

Toronto may be building again but they are still decades behind schedule and their system is mickey mouse compared to other world cities of similar size.

[caltrane74]

The current plans including those for Regional Express Rail and the Eglinton Crosstown will expand our rapid transit system to 10 times whatever Calgary and Vancouver have done in 20 years combined. So basically, no worries we'll have made up the ground we lost and gotten even and then taken it to the next level. Very few "World Cities" will have the same length and breath of systems as Toronto even with the stagnation of the past 30 years. And yes, I understand with 100's of kilometres of rapid transit added to our network, we'll still not be where we need to be but, side projects like the Viva Rapid Transit network, the Mississauga Bus Rapid Transit system and the Finch and Sheppard rapid transit systems (complete in the next 5 years) will help to pick up the slack.

[GlassCity]

Originally Posted by ssiguy

That doesn't change the fact that both Toronto and Montreal have basically done squat in terms of mass/rapid transit expansion in the last 30 years especially when compared to Calgary and Vancouver.

Most of the blame can be laid right at the doorstep of the citizens themselves. Both Montrealers and Torontonians seem to think that a subway/Metro is only that if it runs underground regardless of the density of the area or if there are affordable rail corridors that could be used. Their old school and close minded mentalities towards alternative systems , designs, applications, and technology have brought their expansions {and the cities themselves} to a screeching halt

Toronto may be building again but they are still decades behind schedule and their system is mickey mouse compared to other world cities of similar size.

Good for them for refusing to settle for second rate systems.

[caltrane74]

I don't consider LRT or BRT second rate, they are certainly more cost effective than subways.

You build what you can afford to build. And build what's needed for specific areas. For instance downtown Calgary could certainly use a subway, just like Ottawa and Edmonton, and I believe it will be built shortly, because capacity and need is such as it has become required and it can not run effectively above ground. The Yonge Line in Toronto was built when it was the same size as Ottawa, Calgary or Edmonton.

[logan5]

Originally Posted by caltrane74

I don't consider LRT or BRT second rate, they are certainly more cost effective than subways.

BRT is about to get a whole lot better (imo). A year and a half ago, Volvo successfully tested a road train, where a succession of driverless vehicles followed a lead vehicle with a driver. Each vehicle follow one another very closely, forming a virtual train. Capacity (or higher labour cost) issues with BRT would be solved. Volvo buses is also the worlds largest bus manufacturer so there would be an obvious marriage of this technology to their buses and BRT systems around the world. This technology seems very close as compared to Google Cars, expensive LRT plans at this point are foolish.

Test track trials of SARTRE platooning took place at the Volvo Proving Ground near Gothenburg, Sweden and in a public road in Spain.[7] In January 2011 the first successful trial took place at Volvo's test track in Sweden, in which a single car followed behind a rigid truck. With control being taken by the truck, the driver of the slaved car was able to take his hands off the wheel, read a newspaper, and sip coffee.[5]
In January 2012 SARTRE carried out a second demonstration in a public road in Barcelona, Spain, this time with of a multiple vehicle platoon, a lead truck followed by three cars driven entirely autonomously at speeds of up to 90 km/h (56 mph) with a gap between the vehicles of no more than 6 m (20 ft). Volvo Car Corporation was the only participating car manufacturer.[7]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Safe_Road_Trains_for_the_Environment

[RyLucky]

It's all about ROW. Really there should never be a time when 60 people on a bus have to wait behind a car. I think a few bus-only lanes at key choke points would go a long way, then as demand increases, create a full BRT route, and keep the option open to one day lay a track.

[Aylmer]

It will be rather spectacular for Ottawa to go from 0 to 35km of grade-A, completely grade-separated rail rapid transit in about 5 years (Phase 1 2013-2018, Phase 2 2018-2023).

[Innsertnamehere]

Incredible that Hamilton manages to do bike lanes better than Toronto. Ugh, I get seriously frustrated at how horrible Toronto is at bike lanes.

and yes, while Vancouver and Calgary led construction of transit in the last decade, Toronto will pretty clearly lead the next decade. There are stupid amounts of transit projects and money flowing into the GTA right

Finch is 6 years out and Sheppard 7, BTW. They finally seem to be out of hot water however, I don't see them getting cancelled.

BRT isn't a capacity issue, its a ride quality issue. Riding diesel buses that have to deal with asphalt deficiencies is never as nice as riding an electric train on smooth rails.

[logan5]

Originally Posted by Innsertnamehere

BRT isn't a capacity issue, its a ride quality issue. Riding diesel buses that have to deal with asphalt deficiencies is never as nice as riding an electric train on smooth rails.

You would pay 3 times the price for a smoother ride? When we're talking about implementing a 10 km system, that's 700 million for lrt vs 225 million for brt (using translinks estimates for lrt/brt). That's half a billion more for a smoother ride.

[Nouvellecosse]

Originally Posted by logan5

BRT is about to get a whole lot better (imo). A year and a half ago, Volvo successfully tested a road train, where a succession of driverless vehicles followed a lead vehicle with a driver. Each vehicle follow one another very closely, forming a virtual train. Capacity (or higher labour cost) issues with BRT would be solved. Volvo buses is also the worlds largest bus manufacturer so there would be an obvious marriage of this technology to their buses and BRT systems around the world. This technology seems very close as compared to Google Cars, expensive LRT plans at this point are foolish.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Safe_Road_Trains_for_the_Environment

Electrification is still more efficient in terms of energy use, quieter operation and rails are still more efficient and lower maintennce than tires. The technology will reduce some of the advantage bof LRT over BRT, expecially for lower ridership systems, but higher ridership systems LRT is still better. One must look at not only initial startup cost but also long term cost and long term benefits incuding the quality of the service.

[RyLucky]

Originally Posted by Innsertnamehere

Incredible that Hamilton manages to do bike lanes better than Toronto. Ugh, I get seriously frustrated at how horrible Toronto is at bike lanes.

I was surprised to learn how good bike lanes are in some smaller cities in the US, which I had always assumed to be too conservative for such investments. Boy was I wrong. We all know Portland has a cyclist reputation, and NYC has recently revolutionized their network, but even Madison WI and Tucson AZ for example put some Canadian cities many times their size to shame.

That said, there are probably more cyclists in Toronto than Madison or Tucson, they just have nowhere safe to ride, and only have a visible presence in a very small part of the GTA. Toronto deserves a world class bike network. Maybe while we're spending $100 B on subways, we can spend $50 M on a real city-wide bike lane network.

[RyLucky]

Originally Posted by logan5

You would pay 3 times the price for a smoother ride? When we're talking about implementing a 10 km system, that's 700 million for lrt vs 225 million for brt (using translinks estimates for lrt/brt). That's half a billion more for a smoother ride.

You're right about BRT being good bang for buck - and yes, it has an underrated reputation - but there comes a limit where LRT/metro can succeed better.

A prime example of this is the 99-B line in Vancouver. 50-60k people ride it every day with 1-3 minute headways! No, it's not totally separated, but it has back-door boarding, rush hour bus-only lanes, que jumpers, and signal priority.

Short of building an entirely separated route, there is almost no way to implement better service, ... so guess what we're doing...

In this case, total separation is the bulk of the cost, but rail can ultimately offer higher capacity.

[jigglysquishy]

If BRT is designed so that it can be upgraded to an LRT it is a fantastic idea.

People need to start looking at subways/LRT/BRT/normal bus as four ways of serving different densities.

While Old Toronto may need a subway, the amalgamated city may need LRT (Scarborough, Etobicoke, York). Further out (Oshawa) may need a BRT while a bus can help connect all these routes.

A city the size of Toronto needs a subway, LRT, BRT, and regular buses to be effective and to realistically serve the whole population.

[logan5]

Originally Posted by RyLucky

In this case, total separation is the bulk of the cost, but rail can ultimately offer higher capacity.

That was my original point. There is technology being tested right now by Volvo and others that allow buses to be run in platoons, much like a train. Just like LRT, there would be only 1 driver for multiple BRT vehicles. BRT will be able to match LRT's capacity, and operating costs, whereas before it could not.

Right now a city could implement BRT at 1/3 the cost and never have to upgrade to LRT o increase capacity.

[GlassCity]

Originally Posted by jigglysquishy

If BRT is designed so that it can be upgraded to an LRT it is a fantastic idea.

People need to start looking at subways/LRT/BRT/normal bus as four ways of serving different densities.

While Old Toronto may need a subway, the amalgamated city may need LRT (Scarborough, Etobicoke, York). Further out (Oshawa) may need a BRT while a bus can help connect all these routes.

A city the size of Toronto needs a subway, LRT, BRT, and regular buses to be effective and to realistically serve the whole population.

I still don't understand this argument. While at first glance it might seem logical, the problem I see is that densities aren't static. I mean, at one point in history Yonge Street in Toronto would have been served just fine by LRT. But it has since densified to a point where the idea of LRT being there instead of the subway is laughable. So if like you say we put LRT in York it will eventually densify and outgrow it. And once you put LRT somewhere, that's probably all that's ever going to be there. Imagine a Canadian city council approving a subway on a corridor where LRT already exists, even if it's warranted. It won't happen. So you're stuck with something slower, taking up valuable real estate and of lower capacity.

BRT (When referring to BRT I mean just bus lanes and all door boarding, nothing fancy like Ottawa's system) can accomplish everything LRT can but it's much easier to upgrade. Just pave over the bus lanes, and there you have it: a regular street again. Obviously it's not as sexy or comfortable, but it doesn't have to be as the middle step between conventional bus and grade-separated rapid transit.

[Aylmer]

Originally Posted by jigglysquishy

If BRT is designed so that it can be upgraded to an LRT it is a fantastic idea.

Well... Ottawa's BRT advocates swore up and down that the conversion to LRT would be a simple matter of laying down track, but so far, it doesn't seem like it will be any cheaper, easier or faster than if we had to go with LRT on day one. If anything, the much higher operating costs of decades of buses and the inconvenience of having to displace all of the BRT riders off the BRT route for years while the conversion is disadvantageous.

Perhaps the only advantage is the political expedience.

Look, LRT is modular and can serve 1 000 pphpd just as well as it can serve 18 000 pphpd. If you think that you might need to convert sometime in the next 20-30 years, just build LRT now and upgrade as you go along with very little fuss all while benefiting from lower operating costs, higher ridership and more development concentrated along the line. I'd wager that you'd end up saving money.

That's not to say that all BRT should be LRT - it shouldn't - but I think Ottawa is the first real-world example of a full BRT-to-LRT conversion and I think it's becoming pretty clear that the 'we-can-convert-it-eventually' argument doesn't hold much water when we're talking about essential transit links.

People need to start looking at subways/LRT/BRT/normal bus as four ways of serving different densities.

While Old Toronto may need a subway, the amalgamated city may need LRT (Scarborough, Etobicoke, York). Further out (Oshawa) may need a BRT while a bus can help connect all these routes.

A city the size of Toronto needs a subway, LRT, BRT, and regular buses to be effective and to realistically serve the whole population.

Very much agreed. Costs should always be calculated on a per-passenger basis over the long run to give us an accurate picture of the costs; for example, a reserved bus lane on Yonge might seem a lot cheaper than a subway line, but when we actually calculate the cost of transporting 750 000 people every day on buses over 40 years, a very different picture emerges.

[Aylmer]

Originally Posted by GlassCity

I still don't understand this argument. While at first glance it might seem logical, the problem I see is that densities aren't static. I mean, at one point in history Yonge Street in Toronto would have been served just fine by LRT. But it has since densified to a point where the idea of LRT being there instead of the subway is laughable. So if like you say we put LRT in York it will eventually densify and outgrow it. And once you put LRT somewhere, that's probably all that's ever going to be there. Imagine a Canadian city council approving a subway on a corridor where LRT already exists, even if it's warranted. It won't happen. So you're stuck with something slower, taking up valuable real estate and of lower capacity.

Well, that is how the first subway lines began: An underground portion of the streetcar in areas where it had become too crowded and slow. Think Boston's Green Line. With full grade-separation, LRT can attain a similar to subways, though definitely not as high (27 000 pphpd vs. 35 000 pphpd). Yonge currently maxes out at 40 000 pphpd at its most crowded spots, so even underground LRT wouldn't have sufficed but it's worth pointing out that the subway is also woefully overcapacity at this point. But then we also need to take into account the fact that the substantially lower cost of LRT would have allowed for the construction of many lines as opposed to just one, potentially relieving Yonge since most of its trips don't originate from areas directly adjacent to the line, but rather along its feeder routes.

Overall, I think we can all agree that the subway was the right decision for Yonge, but I think a LRT scenario would also have also worked, albeit in different ways.

Just pave over the bus lanes, and there you have it: a regular street again.

I think that's more of a problem than anything...

[RyLucky]

Originally Posted by logan5

That was my original point. There is technology being tested right now by Volvo and others that allow buses to be run in platoons, much like a train. Just like LRT, there would be only 1 driver for multiple BRT vehicles. BRT will be able to match LRT's capacity, and operating costs, whereas before it could not.

Right now a city could implement BRT at 1/3 the cost and never have to upgrade to LRT o increase capacity.

If it can match LRT capacity, speed, and accessibility, I'm on board. Pun intended.

[RyLucky]

Re: Toronto subways/LRT/BRT, I agree that the entire GTA/horseshoe is dynamic and need not utilize only one technology. However, all of these technologies require ROW. If I was supreme leader of TO, I'd implement BRT city wide ASAP and then upgrade routes to LRT and Subway as BRT breached max capacity.

The mindset that only subways will suffice I understand - BUT it overlooks a key factor in congestion. Most of the cars clogging Toronto streets, even in areas well served by transit, are coming from areas of the metropolis where driving is the only realistic alternative. It reminds me of the HSR debate: yes, there may be demand, but so much of our country is terribly underserved even to get to potential HSR stops. We morally and logically cannot commit to high capacity rapid transit without first providing reliable access to relatively cheaply-served corridors.